(no subject)

[chess]

passage (and anyone else who occasionally rants about the decimal system): http://www.dsgb.orbix.co.uk/

Everyone else: http://pixelscapes.com/sailornothing/index.html ((Well, you can go there if you're in the abovenamed group if you like...))

I should write a real entry sometime, but for some reason I really don't have the energy. There are a whole bunch of things I really ought to have written up, and I've put it off for so long I've forgotten about them, which makes me rather demoralised and unlikely to write anything else up. Plus, I keep thinking that I desperately need to write some stories again, but I keep getting busy and uncoordinated. Never mind.

Comments

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

Twelve? How's that better than sixteen? Sixteen has the added benefit of mapping straight through to binary quads. Besides, it's not only theoretical: many of us have been counting in hex for years. (And to think it's five whole years before I'll be 21 again.)

[chess]

Ask passage.

Also, it's more traditional.

[senji.livejournal.com]

12 has more divisors than 16 (2,3,4,6 against 2,4,8), and they're more useful ones.

Also, many of us have been counting in 12s, 14s, 16s and 20s for years, so...

[naath.livejournal.com]

Counting stuff in silly bases is fun (especially when you count the same thing twice and do it in different bases and *then* check if you got the same...) but not 'rithmatic... thing is, I only got 10 fingers.

Cool web comic thing.

[dr-vannacutt.livejournal.com]

Was funny have read a few of them.

Counting in binary and doing boolian algebra at college was hard enough. But just counting in some different randome number base seems to just overly coplicate things. but then im not doing complicated maths on a regular basis. (sorry someof thats isnt spelt right Chess but you know what i meen)

There is an epsode of the simpsons where lisa gets into mensa and they end up running springfield and they change all the clocks to Decimal time? Is that just rubbish or do people really do that?

[passage.livejournal.com]

When you learnt multiplication and division at school I wonder if you noticed that multiplying and dividing by 2,5 and 10 were easier than say 3 or 7.

The reason is that 2,5 and 10 are factors of our base: 10. (The base if of course always easy to multiply in).

What does base 16 give us then? Well only one prime factor actually, 2, so multiplication by 2,4 and 8 is easy. But then it wasn't exactly hard before. So it may work nicely for a computer but for mental arithmetic, it sucks even more direly than base 10.
12 is nice in that it gives us a lot of factors (and handily gives us 3, which is where the base 10 system really falls down -dividing by 3 is hard, but its small and so oughtent to be), 2,3,4,6,12. Nice.

Sadly God in his wisdom only gave man 10 fingers (thumbs inc).

It is one of my long term (and unlikely to be realised) ambitions to write a maths paper in base 12. Of course since it would all be hiding in algebra it's entirely likely that no-one would notice.