this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
1183 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

11189 readers
3115 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 107 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (10 children)

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] 87 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

shut the f*k up rob

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lowleveldata 30 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Well we write 12 like this: 10

It's easy

[–] lowleveldata 6 points 6 months ago

oops I mean "10" & "11"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

we could just go with the hexidecimal way and go with A,B,C for 10,11 and 12

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

No, 12 in base 12 is 10, not C. But yes, 10 can be A and 11 can be B

[–] drcobaltjedi 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Why not?

Why not use a large prime as the base?

[–] drcobaltjedi 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Ahh yes, let’s introduce floating point rounding errors for one half. Sounds fun.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Lets use base Pi and put an end to that infinite digit bullshit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

That's pretty confusing in algebra, maybe normal sentences too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The current standard seems to be an upside down 2 and 3

[–] lowleveldata 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

An upsidedown 3 is just a 3...?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Rotated, not flipped.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (5 children)

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] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Binary’s the way. 1023 with 10 fingers

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

With 2 hands you can count to 144.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago
  1. 12*12 on one hand + 12 on the other one
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 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..

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

When was the last time you've actually needed to count something on your fingers?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

✌🏻 days ago

Edit: 👌🏻 days ago

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 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] 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

50 years? We can't even switch to metric.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 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)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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] 9 points 6 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] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Can't do base 12 on fingers. I prefer base 8.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

8 fingered Johnny...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Base 6. One hand and a arm. Let's me get all the way to 41.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

nah we should use binary, anything else is cringe.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Or better yet, base 6?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

so, 60 years in base 10

load more comments (1 replies)