• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12623 days ago

    I like the detail that there alien has 4(10) fingers as opposed to the 10(22) that the human has.

    • @AtariDump
      link
      English
      3423 days ago

      Now I get the joke.

      Thanks!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    106
    edit-2
    24 days 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
      8423 days ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2923 days 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)

      • @problematicPanther
        link
        English
        823 days ago

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

        • @chellomere
          link
          English
          1523 days ago

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

            • @marcos
              link
              English
              423 days ago

              Why not?

              Why not use a large prime as the base?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                723 days 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

                • @bisby
                  link
                  English
                  123 days ago

                  Is 1/2 in base 13 not 0.65?

                • @unreasonabro
                  link
                  English
                  123 days ago

                  it’s almost like you’d have to use a different notation system to express a different base…

              • @SmoothLiquidation
                cake
                link
                English
                323 days ago

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

              • @whotookkarl
                link
                English
                223 days ago

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

                • @marcos
                  link
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  23 days 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.

      • @AdrianTheFrog
        link
        English
        223 days ago

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

    • Khrux
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2624 days 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
        2524 days 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!

          • @techt
            link
            English
            8
            edit-2
            23 days 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
          323 days 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
          123 days 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
          -123 days 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
        23 days 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.

        • @Daft_ish
          link
          English
          523 days 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
            323 days 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.

          • @chellomere
            link
            English
            123 days ago

            Also 4 might insult people, and some conservatives may take issues with 18.

        • Skua
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          23 days 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
        323 days 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
      2124 days 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
      link
      English
      1523 days ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        223 days 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
      1124 days ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2523 days 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.

        • @Aceticon
          link
          English
          923 days 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
          link
          English
          423 days ago

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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1623 days 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
              623 days 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.

              • teft
                link
                English
                123 days 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

              • @problematicPanther
                link
                English
                123 days ago

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

          • @Aceticon
            link
            English
            123 days 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
      English
      123 days ago

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

      • BlueKey
        link
        fedilink
        1023 days ago

        You forgot the ones who expected it to be in base 4.

          • BlueKey
            link
            fedilink
            321 days ago

            In any Base-x system, one digit goes up to x - 1 (with base > 10 we use alphabet letters), then the next digit (to the left) is incremented.
            So in our normal Base-10 system, you count up from 0 to 9 and then add a digit in the front and reset the other digits to get 10.

            This means, that in every Base-x system ‘10’ equals x.
            So you can make the “There 10 types of people …” with every base as ‘10’ in Base-2 means 2, 3 in Base-3 and so on.

  • @Aceticon
    link
    English
    5223 days ago

    There are only 10 ways of doing things: the right way and the wrong way. (Programming joke)

  • Ech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    40
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    Huh, that’s a good point. A better universal naming system would be something like “Base x+1”, with x being one integer lower than 10. So humans would use Base 9+1, and the alien would use Base 3+1.

    *This has been on my mind all day and the more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes how fundamentally terrible the name “Base-10” is. How did this never occur to the people who coined the term? Even the system I suggested is flawed as it’s still trying to incorporate the same bad logic.

    A better system would be something like Base 9, stopping shy of the respective 10 in each system, or if it needs to be clarified, Base 9+0, as 0 is the extra digit in the first place, not 10.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      we’d only be able to represent bases for numbers with one digit though because what does base 15+1 mean? the 15 could be in any base higher than 5. the clearest way would probably be to just represent it with lines or something “base ||||||||||”

      • @harmsy
        link
        English
        1423 days ago

        Base 16 is typically represented with letters being used as the extra numerals, so it would end up being F+1. Problem solved.

      • Ech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        It’s only 15 to us because we use base 10 (or 9+1). Like how we have 4 through 9, but that aliens in the picture only count up to 3.

        In the case of a mismatch, the culture using the higher base would just translate down (Base 21+1 in the given scenario).

        Single units would probably be the simplest method, but also wildly impractical as the base gets higher. You really want to count each digit just to figure out someone uses Base 100?

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        wait until you find out about hexadecimal systems. It turns out we already have words for referring to numbers lol.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          323 days ago

          i know about hexadecimal, but what if you need to refer to a base larger than 16? i’m not saying it isn’t possible to create symbols for every number, i’m saying if you have to describe your base with more than one digit, you encounter a problem of not knowing what base that multi-digit number is in.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            123 days ago

            well no, i know, i’m just saying that’s it’s not really that big of a problem, unless you’re using octal, and you skill issue.

            You should design base systems to be independent of each other, and hex does a really good job at this, because often times it’s prepended with 0x to imply hex.

    • @gex
      link
      English
      223 days ago

      What about Roman numerals?

      • Ech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        I think that would confuse things more than it would help. It’s base 5, unless it’s base 10, unless it’s base 50, etc. And then there’s the rules designating numbers 1 below certain other numbers, or 2 below, depending on the system being used. That’s a whole web of complications when communication is already murky.

        One glyph to one integer communicates the number system being used more clearly.

    • @Mango
      link
      English
      123 days ago

      I use base 8+1. What is 9?

  • @kelargo
    link
    English
    2923 days ago

    All your base belong to us

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    29
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    Wow I never thought about that.

    But it is always like this:

    let there be any base "b"
    That can represent a number by the sum of their positional digits:
    
    number = sum(d_i * b ^ i)
       where i is the position index and d_i is the digit at this position. (note: index starts with 0, from the least digit farthest to the right)
    

    So the (decimal) number 4 in base 4 is then

    1×4¹ + 0×4^0 = 10
    

    And (decimal) number 8 in base 8 is

    1×8¹ + 0×8^0 = 10
    

    And 10 in base 10:

    1×10¹ + 0×10^0 = 10
    
    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3523 days ago

      Jesus Christ.

      I just realized that we call binary base2 and there’s no 2 in that numbering system. We call hexadecimal base16 but there’s no 16 (at least not like we know it). But then why is base10 base10? We have a 10…but it’s not a single digit number.

      Why is this reminding me of Project Hail Mary?

      • @psud
        link
        English
        2123 days ago

        Every base has ten, but it’s made of two digits

        Binary 0, 1, 10 Ternary 0, 1, 2, 10 … Decimal 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Hex 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10

        Each has the right count of digits for its base before you go two-digit - binary has two (0, 1), etc

        • @Randelung
          link
          English
          323 days ago

          more precisely, every base has 10, but it’s usually not equal to ten. ten is a fixed value, while 10 depends on the base. you still count normally (one two three four five), even in a base two system. you just write it differently.

          • @psud
            link
            English
            17 days ago

            I don’t see the need to bring values into this, this is about the naming of number systems. We really have no more claim to ten being this many (…) than hexadecimal people have to claim ten has this many (…)

            • @Randelung
              link
              English
              17 days ago

              10 as the first overflow of digits is not a clear vlaue, it depends on the notation because its base is unclear.

              Ten as the English word is 100% defined. The issue is we translate seamlessly between the word and number, but there really is no confusion when writing ten. 10 in hex has a different english word: sixteen.

              English number names are mostly decimal-based, but their values are still fixed. Ten isn’t the word for “the first time our number system overflows”, it’s an amount.

              So I disagree. Ten will always be (…) this many, because it’s an English word.

      • @efstajas
        link
        English
        1023 days ago

        It’s because we count the 0… no? 0 and 1, base 2. 0123456789, base 10.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          122 days ago

          The same is true for all bases. What we call base-4 in base-10 is 0123. In base-16 it’s 0123456789abcdef, where f is what we would call 15

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        222 days ago

        because then every base would be ‘base 10’

        That or the decriarchy has been normalizing the decimal counting system as the default one for far too long!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1523 days ago

      What is this “8” you refer to? Here in the land of people without thumbs, 10 comes after 7.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        223 days ago

        If there’s no agreed symbol for digit 37, you can call it Base 37A (or express it in another base of your choosing).

        In case the formatting doesn’t work, that A is supposed to be subscript

  • @DarkCloud
    link
    English
    2823 days ago

    I get this comic which is about translation errors.

    Comments are wildly off …

    …BASE!

      • @DarkCloud
        link
        English
        122 days ago

        That’s very clever. Maths checks out.

  • @Randelung
    link
    English
    2323 days ago

    Only when written, which is the whole point of notation. “Ten” is still a fixed amount, and so is four.

    • @Dicska
      link
      English
      13
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      “ten” is a fixed amount in base 10. A base 4 user may have an entirely different naming system for numbers above 3, so “ten” (which is written as 22 in base 4) could be twenty two, twoty two, dbgluqboq, or Janet. But similarly to how we don’t have a single syllable, dedicated number name for decimal 22 (as in, it’s composed of the number names ‘twenty’ and ‘two’), they may not have a single syllable, dedicated number name for decimal 10 (which is ‘22’ in base 4).

      • @Randelung
        link
        English
        123 days ago

        No, ten is a fixed amount in English. It has roots in base ten, but we also have eleven and twelve from other bases. (also dozen, gross, score.) In English there is no ambiguity when it comes to what number the word ten represents.

        • @Dicska
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          I never argued that. I wasn’t even talking about the word ‘ten’ in English but the usefulness of the word ‘ten’ in base 4.

          EDIT: I see where you’re coming from: base 10 English also has a unique name for something that is not 0-9 or a power of 10 - however, the only reason to this is that they are from base 12. Obviously base 12 has unique words for numbers below the base. But not numbers above it (apart from maybe powers of 12). Which further proves the point.

          • @Randelung
            link
            English
            122 days ago

            My point is the difference between number system and language. We’re seamlessly converting back and forth while writing this, but there’s a specific amount in our heads that we’re trying to communicate, either by word or by number. The number is ambiguous only if you don’t know the base, while the word is ambiguous only if you don’t know the language. The meme is - presumably - in English, and they’re talking (in speech bubble form), so the misunderstanding doesn’t really happen. it’s only when a secondary ‘language’ is introduced - the numbers - that it is possible.

            Ten in particular, which we usually write as a two digit number because of historical and biological context, still uniquely describes a certain amount without any relation to it being written as the first two digit number. In any language, you wouldn’t translate to one two three ten just because they usually write in base four, you’d translate to whatever their word for the number is that you’re trying to translate.

    • KillingTimeItself
      link
      fedilink
      English
      323 days ago

      even when written out non base ten systems, are still possible to be non base ten.

      It’s only base ten when you convert from one base system to another. We are merely referencing between two base systems when we say that 4 bits is “16” because there are 16 possible options there. 16 is just our conceptualized version and conversion of that base system, in ours. You can read binary as if it’s just powers of 2, it’s incredibly trivial.

      octal and hex are the best example of this, because octal skips numbers while counting. Hex introduces letters. Neither of which fly even remotely sanely through base ten. Unless you’re converting.

    • مهما طال الليل
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      That’s not 64 rocks

      Edit: In C any number that starts with 0 is implicitly interpreted as an octal.

      int i = 0100; // this is octal 100 i.e. 64
      

      I can tell from the upovotes vs. downvotes that I’m too old

      • @Dusktracer
        link
        English
        323 days ago

        00 = 0 01 = 1 10 = 2 11 = 3 100 = 4 …

        • مهما طال الليل
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          In C any number that starts with 0 is implicitly interpreted as an octal

          int i = 0100; // this is octal 100 i.e. 64