You must log in or register to comment.
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.
50 years? We can’t even switch to metric.
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)
Why base 12 though? Base 16 is even better. And base 60 is even better than that!
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.
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.
Can’t do base 12 on fingers. I prefer base 8.
Base 6. One hand and a arm. Let’s me get all the way to 41.
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…
so, 60 years in base 10
That’s Acadian, right? It was originally based on the number of easy to count bones in your fingers (12-24)
I like that the alien has 4 fingers. Fitting!
It’s 10 fingers. Just keep your freaky 11 finger hands of this serious discussion
There are only 10 ways of doing things: the right way and the wrong way. (Programming joke)
There are actually 00000000000000000000000000000010 ways of doing things (in most languages)
Will only if your language is 1-index based, yuck. Otherwise there is just 0 and 1 way
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.
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 ||||||||||”
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?
that’s fair, translating down is a good idea
Base 16 is typically represented with letters being used as the extra numerals, so it would end up being F+1. Problem solved.
what about numbers larger than 16?
There are still 20 more letters that can be used as stand-ins. Things will get interesting if you try to go past Base 36, though.
this is exactly what i was trying to get at
Make up a new symbol?
Or use ancient scripts like Phoenician or Glagolitic.
We’ve got base 64, though it doesn’t quite follow the convention of starting with digits and following up with letters:
what about numbers after 64? comment OP and i were trying to come up with a universal rule which we did in his response to my first comment
What about Roman numerals?
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.
I use base 8+1. What is 9?
All your base belong to us
I get this comic which is about translation errors.
Comments are wildly off …
…BASE!
Octal is base 8. Decimal is base A. Hexadecimal is base G. Any questions?
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?
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
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.
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 (…)
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.
It’s because we count the 0… no? 0 and 1, base 2. 0123456789, base 10.
Love that book!
What is this “8” you refer to? Here in the land of people without thumbs, 10 comes after 7.
If you have a problem with that you must also have a problem with the other two
What about unniftimal? (Base 37)
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
every unsigned system is base -1 …or maybe -1+1
Only when written, which is the whole point of notation. “Ten” is still a fixed amount, and so is four.
“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).
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.
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.
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.
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 = 10And (decimal) number 8 in base 8 is
1×8¹ + 0×8^0 = 10And 10 in base 10:
1×10¹ + 0×10^0 = 10All your bases belong to 10
All your base are belong to 10
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Someone set us up the base!
10 is actually only 2. The number of people misunderstanding binary here is mind blowing xD.
Not sure of you’re trolling or not…
Took me a moment
“2.5, 5, 7.5, TEN! See?”
Fuck I am so lost
Same here. I read all the comments and still don’t understand the joke.
From the aliens perspective 4 is 10 and it’s represented that way so, while having a different meaning, to the alien it is base 10.
I see that but why is it 10 from his perspective? Is it just the fact that the alien would write the number 4 with symbols for 10?
Yes, https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/bases.html has a bunch more examples to show why the base of the number system is always represented by 10, because 10 is a short hand we use for d1*b^1 + d2*b^0 where d is a digit between 0 and base-1, and b is the base. b^0 is always one and represents the first digit at the first position. b^1 is the base, so 1*b^1 = the base. And since 10 is 1*b^1 + 0*b^0 it represents the base in any number base system.
Another way to show the same thing with counting:
Base 10: 0, 1, 2, …, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12…
Base 4: 0, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, …
Any base: d1*b^0 , d2*b^0 , …, d(b-1)*b^0 , d1*b^1 + d1*b^0 , d1*b^1 + d2*b^0 , …
We assume a 1 in the 10’s place and a 0 in the 1’s represents 1,2,3,…,10 of something instead of 0,1,2,3,10 of something because from our perspective we learned numbers in base 10 with 9 digits, but the alien learned 10 means 4 of something in base 4.
And the same that 3 in base 3 is also 10, 2 in base 2 is also 10. Thus if you use the relevant base to refer to themselves, every base is base 10.
These people are explaining it well, but the things that helps the most to me is consciously de-coupling your internalized knowledge of human Numbers from what they actually represent abstractly. The numbers represent an absolute quantity.
0 =
1 = .
2 = . .
3 = . . .
That’s 4 unique characters representing incremental quantities.
If you notice on the comic, the alien has 4 digits on it’s “hands”. That’s the root cause for their base number system. Ours is that way because we we have 10 digits on our hands (most of the time, some cultures do it different, but for simplicity, that’s what the comic is implying).
Abstractly, adding another digit represents starting over and keeping track of how many times you’ve done that. So the 1 in ten says you’ve counted through all the digits 1 time. And the 0 means you’re on the first digit of the new sequence. So all they are doing is applying that logic to a base 4 system. So a collection of 4 things is therefore represented by “one zero,” 10, in base 4 because they have to, there are no more characters in that system that could do that by itself.
The weird part about it that can trip people up is that they are applying some human conventions to the comic like our script for writing numbers, which obviously an alien wouldn’t do, but we have so much inherent ingrained knowledge about what a number means that it’s hard to remember that.
Yes
🤯
