You're viewing a single thread.
Can we all use base 12?
It will be a shower of shit for like 50 years but then it will be marginally better for pretty much everyone.
42* years. Centuries are now 84 years. We are living in the 19th century! I rate this idea 12/12.
5/7 movie
shut the f*k up rob
I rate it A/10, it's a really efficient numbering system but I personally will have a really hard time adjusting
50 years? I bet we couldn't even agree on how to write "11" & "12" on such short notice. (See: date format, encoding, etc)
Well we write 12 like this: 10
It's easy
oops I mean "10" & "11"
we could just go with the hexidecimal way and go with A,B,C for 10,11 and 12
No, 12 in base 12 is 10, not C. But yes, 10 can be A and 11 can be B
Dude's out here trying to get us to use base 13.
Why not?
Why not use a large prime as the base?
Honnest answer, 1/2 in DEC is 0.5 easy. 1/2 in base 13 is .6666666666.... Easy but ugly. You want a base that has comon fractions easily represented by decimals. People like dozenal since many fractions are easily represented. 1/2 = 0.6, 1/3 = 0.4, 1/4 = 0.3
I'm personally a fan of hexidecimal partly because I'm a programmer and partially because it can be halved several times
it's almost like you'd have to use a different notation system to express a different base...
Is 1/2 in base 13 not 0.65?
No, because the 5 in your answer is thinking in decimal. 0.05 is not the half of 0.1 in base 13.
Ahh yes, let’s introduce floating point rounding errors for one half. Sounds fun.
Why use a fixed base? Or why not use an irrational number like e, the most efficient base
I still think some largish prime, like 37 hits the perfect spot of being usable enough for people to use, but still useless enough to stop almost everybody from learning any advanced math.
But yeah, making integers non-representable is a serious trade-off that deserves consideration.
Lets use base Pi and put an end to that infinite digit bullshit.
ah right, thanks
That's pretty confusing in algebra, maybe normal sentences too
Over my dead body.
The current standard seems to be an upside down 2 and 3
An upsidedown 3 is just a 3...?
Rotated, not flipped.
Some people argue that it would be harder to count on your fingers but we could just surgically give everyone more?
There are 12 sections on your fingers (excluding your thumb) you then use your thumb to count to 12 on one hand.
Two hands can allow you to count to 24. Which is way higher than 10. Base 12 is better!
Binary’s the way. 1023 with 10 fingers
I like the idea of some numbers being popular hand gestures.
4 - Fuck you; 17 - Shaka (hang loose); 18 - Metal horns; 19 - "I love you"; 132 - Double fuck you
With 2 hands you can count to 144.
- 12*12 on one hand + 12 on the other one
Bold of you to assume I'd ever remember this counting technique. Hell I'm shocked I remember counting my fingers for base 10..
Use the other hand to count twelves! Each time you fill up one hand, add one to the other. That way you can get all the way to 156, which is probably more than you'd ever want to count one by one anyway
To be fair, you should be comparing 2 hands in base 12 to 2 hands in base 10, I. E. 20:24. Still a real difference, but not the 10:24 difference you pointed out.
Binary is very good for counting with your fingers. With both hands you can count to 1023. One hand is 31, which is still usually more than you typically need to count. It's also trivial to do once you know how binary works. It takes very little thought, though potentially the decoding could take a bit depending on your proficiency.
I made it to 27 on my first attempt, so def messed up somewhere. Also, my fingers don't want to work that way.
Doable.
I agree it can feel weird, but first this isn't how we are used to doing it so it hard to compare, and also normally we want our fingers in very precise positions (probably because it's easier to show other people). When doing binary I feel it's easier to ignore precise positions. I just use the half of my finger after the middle knuckle and let my fingers move as they please. We only need to track up or down, so it doesn't need to be precise.
Practice helps. I'm not good at it, but I can manage it fine at this point. For sure it'd doable, but I rarely have to count, and when I do I can generally do it in my head fine. I could see myself using it maybe if tracking a large number over a long time, but I don't see that case ever coming up organically.
Also 4 might insult people, and some conservatives may take issues with 18.
When was the last time you've actually needed to count something on your fingers?
✌🏻 days ago
Edit: 👌🏻 days ago
I find it useful if I'm counting only specific instances of something that meet some criteria. That way my brain can focus on picking out the right things and not have to worry about keeping the current count in mind. I use the method with your thumb on each segment of your fingers though, so you can get up to twelve with one hand and 156 with both
Billions of years ago, our collective great-great-great-[several million more]-grandparent evolved a fin with a five bone structure. That idiot didn't know anything about common denominators, and now we're stuck with this numeric system that can't divide things into thirds without causing issues.
Vertebrates appeared less than a billion years ago.
This would be great. I was researching why we don't have 10 based clocks and then I saw a video about why a 12 and 60 based system is actually much more convenient and now I would love a 'dozen based metric system'
50 years? We can't even switch to metric.
Every civilised country on earth uses metric.
Only the really shitty ones use imperial. Imperial is just stupid (unless you count in base 12 ironically)
Why base 12 though? Base 16 is even better. And base 60 is even better than that!
Common denominators. You can divide base 12 into half, thirds, fourths, and sixths and still use integers. I find thirds to be particularly useful, so base 16 is out. Base 60 can do it, but that's getting unweildly.
There are no common denominators in base 12 that you can't use in base 84, and the latter also has 7 as a common denominator.
I, for one, vote for changing our base to 84.
Can't do base 12 on fingers. I prefer base 8.
You can do base 12 on fingers! You count each of the 3 segments on each finger and ignore the thumb (you can use it to keep your place), so you can count up to 12 on just one hand! :)
This is why I'm not totally sold on the idea that we use base 10 because we have 10 fingers. There are a lot of ways to count with your fingers. Plus, there are many cultures throughout human history that use something else. Base 10 in modern times might just be a historical quirk.
Some societies used base 27 from counting body parts. Sumeria famously used base 60. It’s why minutes and hours are divided by 60
iirc, the reason that time is base 60 is because some ancient peoples figured out how to count to 60 on their fingers.
I can count to 1023 using both hands but only to 31 using one.
Use the other hand to count twelves! Each time you fill up one hand, add one to the other. That way you can get all the way to 156, which is probably more than you'd ever want to count one by one anyway
8 fingered Johnny...
Base 6. One hand and a arm. Let's me get all the way to 41.
Just add left arm, right arm to it or, if you're a guy nose and dick.
Certainly, especially the male version, it would make the visual act of counting far more funny to watch.
I think I'm starting to warm up to the whole base 12 idea...
Base 69?
Nice
so, 60 years in base 10
Or better yet, base 6?
nah we should use binary, anything else is cringe.
That's Acadian, right? It was originally based on the number of easy to count bones in your fingers (12-24)