this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
1186 points (97.6% liked)

Science Memes

11217 readers
2673 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
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 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.

[–] ted@sh.itjust.works 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.

[–] CareHare@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago

shut the f*k up rob

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 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)

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Well we write 12 like this: 10

It's easy

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 6 points 6 months ago

oops I mean "10" & "11"

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 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

[–] chellomere@lemmy.world 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@programming.dev 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Why not?

Why not use a large prime as the base?

[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 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)
[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

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

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 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

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 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.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MBM@lemmings.world 4 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

An upsidedown 3 is just a 3...?

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Rotated, not flipped.

[–] Khrux@ttrpg.network 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?

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 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!

[–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Binary’s the way. 1023 with 10 fingers

[–] techt@lemmy.world 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

[–] venoft@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

With 2 hands you can count to 144.

[–] lenuup@reddthat.com 2 points 6 months ago
  1. 12*12 on one hand + 12 on the other one
[–] Khrux@ttrpg.network 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)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 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.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 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)
[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] GiveOver 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

✌🏻 days ago

Edit: 👌🏻 days ago

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 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)
[–] NafiTheBear@pawb.social 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'

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 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)

[–] FreeFacts@sopuli.xyz 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] frezik@midwest.social 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.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 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.

[–] DaneGerous@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] reiseno_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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! :)

[–] frezik@midwest.social 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)
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 4 points 6 months ago

8 fingered Johnny...

[–] wewbull 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)
[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

so, 60 years in base 10

[–] JackRiddle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Or better yet, base 6?

nah we should use binary, anything else is cringe.

load more comments (1 replies)