• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    107
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      864 months ago

      42* years. Centuries are now 84 years. We are living in the 19th century! I rate this idea 12/12.

    • @lowleveldata
      link
      English
      304 months ago

      50 years? I bet we couldn’t even agree on how to write “11” & “12” on such short notice. (See: date format, encoding, etc)

          • @drcobaltjedi
            link
            English
            244 months ago

            Dude’s out here trying to get us to use base 13.

              • @drcobaltjedi
                link
                English
                84 months ago

                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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                24 months ago

                Why use a fixed base? Or why not use an irrational number like e, the most efficient base

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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.

    • Khrux
      link
      fedilink
      English
      264 months ago

      Some people argue that it would be harder to count on your fingers but we could just surgically give everyone more?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        274 months ago

        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!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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

        • Khrux
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          Bold of you to assume I’d ever remember this counting technique. Hell I’m shocked I remember counting my fingers for base 10…

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -14 months ago

          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.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          54 months ago

          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.

          • Cethin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            34 months ago

            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.

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          4 months 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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        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.

    • Nafeon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      214 months 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’

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        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)

    • FreeFacts
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 months ago

      Why base 12 though? Base 16 is even better. And base 60 is even better than that!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        264 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          94 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            174 months ago

            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! :)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              64 months ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                iirc, the reason that time is base 60 is because some ancient peoples figured out how to count to 60 on their fingers.

              • teft
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                Some societies used base 27 from counting body parts. Sumeria famously used base 60. It’s why minutes and hours are divided by 60

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            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…

    • Xanthrax
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14 months ago

      That’s Acadian, right? It was originally based on the number of easy to count bones in your fingers (12-24)