The French should of switched to base12 instead of bringing Metric to base10

unhandled

#1

…then, basically, two of the best features of both Metric and Imperial would work on the same tape


each tick on the proposed sale acts the same way as an easy decimal (.1, .2, .3, etc)… each tick also is a common fraction… (it has thirds and fourths)


(Pascal Golay) #2

12 is way better… so much more divisible.
Also works ok with 60, which is another convenient number…

-Pascal


#3

But then we would also need to count in base 12 and grow two extra fingers…


(Pascal Golay) #4

Shoulda-coulda-woulda…

-Pascal


(Wim Dekeyser) #5

Man… I’m wondering what all you guys are drinking during the holidays…


(Pascal Golay) #6

Wim, there’s more in the fridge.

-Pascal


(Wim Dekeyser) #7

I’ll be right over!


(Pascal Golay) #8

No, I mean @jeff_hammond 's fridge.

-Pascal


#9

oh, that’s what i meant.
they should of standardized base12 as our counting system which could of then been (somewhat) applied to imperial system instead of using base10 as the counting system then building a new measuring system around that.

so, yes… we’d be counting everything in base 12.

—-
we just got a little unlucky by being born with 10 fingers (instead of 12) because other than that, there’s simply no benefit to counting in tens when compared to other bases.

that said, you can count base 12 on your fingers… arguably better than tens…

put your palms facing you… use your thumb on one hand to count the finger divisions (there are 12 of them)… on your other hand, you can keep track of how many 12s you’ve done…

so, you can count to 100 on your fingers (which is the equivalent amount as 144 in base10)…

with base 10 on our fingers, you can only count to 10

you see it?


#10

:maple_leaf:
:slight_smile:


(Pascal Golay) #11

Ah

Have another!

-Pascal


#12

this is worth the 9 minutes you’ll spend watching it:


bonus = the extra fingers graphic :wink: (@Helvetosaur)


(Pascal Golay) #13

Thanks, pretty cool.

-Pascal


(Giulio Piacentino) #14

There are two problem with this video… he missed the part of even attempting computing 1/5 in duodecimal and; if factorizing to 2 and 3 is more important (arguably more than 2 and 5, although I don’t see my third eye), then why learn 144 multiplication table combinations if you can just learn 36 - so why not base 6?


#15

Well, the Sumerians actually had base 60. It seems that that allowed them to discover trigonometric relations much earlier than Pythagoras - although there does seem to be some debate on that…

http://www.storyofmathematics.com/sumerian.html


#16

base 6 doesn’t have quarters… just halves and thirds.
which, although leaves you with the same amount of divisors as base 10 (4), is arguably more practical than base 10…
in every day life, a person is more likely to encounter needing to use thirds instead of fifths… so yes, base 6 would probably be better than base 10.
however, base 12 also has quarters… it has 6 divisors which include 2,3, & 4…

you are much more likely to encounter the need to divide by one of these numbers than you are with 5…


#17

base 60 is arguably the best one to use in many every day calculations.
i suppose the argument against it is that the benefits may be outweighed by the fact that you’d need 60 unique numbers to use it. (so, more than twice as many numbers/characters than we have in our alphabet)…

other than that, i would be into adopting base 60… or at least give it further consideration.

although i’m not sure how the tape measure might look.
(which was what i originally intended to talk about when starting this thread… i still haven’t got around to making the points i meant to make about the original image posted as the thread has become more of a base-X thread)

that said, i’m pretty sure i know how our clocks would look if we used base 60 :wink:


(Giulio Piacentino) #18

1/4 _{base 6} = 0.13_{base 6} exactly, so it does not repeat. Which was the point of the video.


#19

i think that was a point made in the video… but not the point of the video.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯


(Giulio Piacentino) #20

It was the point I was seeing problematic above.

image