The Funniest Math Joke

Because you know it has to be when you write 400 words explaining it

The face of a woman who is laughing

Number base jokes are the funniest jokes!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


No disrespect to "why was six afraid of seven," but "base 10" is the funniest math joke. 

I have made the mistake of unironically writing the phrase "base 10" before, and I recently cringed and also laughed at an old post of mine that used the phrase “base 60” over and over again. I almost caught myself writing “base 8” the other day. In the unfortunately unfindable-on-YouTube words of Mitch Hedberg (who was talking about Ritz crackers, but it works for numeral bases too) if you write “base 60” or “base 8,” you have no faith in the product itself. 

Every base is base 10. That’s the whole point of the positional numeral system! In the base ten system, the farthest right place is the ones place, the place one to the left is the tens place, one to the left of that is the hundreds (ten squared) place, and so on. In base two, the farthest right place is for ones, the next one to the left is for the twos, the one to the left of that is for fours (two squared), and so on. In base two, the number two is 10. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


That’s how bases work in general. In base sixteen, the number sixteen is 10. In base twenty, the number twenty is 10. In base sixty, the number sixty is 10. So “base 10” means absolutely nothing, and I find that hilarious.

On shows like Star Trek where some kind of universal translator is a given, I always wonder how the translation programs deal with the fact that every species of alien would probably refer to themselves and their planet with words that would most naturally translate to the English words “humans” or “people” and “Earth” or “world.” (I recognize this is definitely not the least believable thing about universal translators.) The way modern mathematicians have defined a positional numeral system means that if the base we are using is not already understood, there is no way to communicate it using digits.

Base 10 is a very funny joke, but in order to facilitate communication, I am hereby dedicating myself to the cause of always spelling out numbers when I need to explain what base I am using. The English language also has base ten built into the way we form numbers—sixty seven is six tens and seven, for example—but at least the written forms of numbers avoid ambiguity because there is no different way to speak or write numbers to communicate that they are in a base other than ten. (I almost typed 10. Gah!)

We are so used to 10 representing the number ten that we don’t even recognize “base 10” as a joke, but it is. To me, that is what makes it the funniest math joke.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe