you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago* (23 children)

10 isn't the best base and I'm sick of pretending it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Depends for what. Still better than random scales like 3, 12, 1760 and units that don't mean anything like hundredweight, which isn't even one hundred anything, unless it is because you live in another part of the world where the same word means a totally different thing.

    Fancy a pint?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    12 is much better than 10 and I will die on this hill.

    If there was a vote to change everything to base 12 counting I would.

    How is 12 not better than 10?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    I don't agree. It might sometimes be cool, but with a numerical system in base 10, having a unit system in base 12 becomes really hard to manage. Let's take meters:

    1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm VS 1m = 12dm = 144cm = 1728mm

    How many mm is 15 dm in each system?

    To make a base 12 system work, you'd need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you'd have ...8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.

    Anyway, good luck trying to pass that, I've seen people who can barely count on their fingers, let alone understand a new base 12 numerical system. And for what?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm VS 1m = 12dm = 144cm = 1728mm

    That's obviously not what I'm talking about.

    To make a base 12 system work, you'd need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you'd have ...8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.

    Yes exactly. It's equally as easy to do both. Counting to base 10 isn't easier than doing it to base 12 or base 6. But 10 is just a kind of shitty number. That's why imperial tends to use 12 because its better. They just changed the wrong thing. Metric should use base 12.

    Changing it would be a ball ache. 12 is better than 10 though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    That's obviously not what I'm talking about.

    Not really that obvious. The imperial system is not used in base 12. It's used in base 10 like everything else, therefore, if it were consistent with its units (which it isn't) it would be more like 12 -> 144 -> 1728.

    Since changing how we count is honestly not realistic, the prospect of having to deal with a system that's not based on 10 is kinda scary.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    I would pick base 12. Which would you prefer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    base 60 Babylonian gang where you at

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    Base 60 has too many symbols for the digits

    Base 12 you only need two more symbols to follow 9

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah but it doesn't have the same schwag as base 60

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean base 60 would be cool and all, but it would be unwieldy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Granted, but it divides by two multiple times. Take a good, round number like 1024 and you can halve it 10 times in a row.

    The metric system handles thirds by just using multiples. Like, you buy a 1200 wide benchtop and then you can fit a three 400 drawers under it.

    You could technically do the same in hex and the base numbers are all (x^y + x^(y+1)) which represent well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    12 would have been a better base.

    The only thing going for 10 is that's how many fingers you have if you can only count in ones

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments