/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5615554]

Make your case for a replacement for the base 10 numeral system.

I vote base 6.

[Anonymous No.5615557]

Base 12

[Anonymous No.5615566]

I'm already fairly comfortable with base 16.

[Anonymous No.5615572]

All bases are base 10, faggots.

[Anonymous No.5615575]

base e

[Anonymous No.5615576]

Base 9000

[Anonymous No.5615578]

Base 5, because it's easier.

[Anonymous No.5615585]

>>5615554
base 10 with exactly 10 symbols:

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
10

[Anonymous No.5615587]

>>5615572
what about every base larger than base 10

[Anonymous No.5615591]

>>5615587
see
>>5615585

[Anonymous No.5615597]

>>5615557
Base 12 FTW.

Simpler divisions, and heads up to the babylonians: http://base12.org/basic_arithmetic.html

Plus: we use 12 for a lot of stuff: Music notes per octave, months, eggs, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.5615593]

Base 60, do you even post-human.

[Anonymous No.5615594]

Base 1 will do.

[Anonymous No.5615611]

base 11
its 1 better than base 10

[Anonymous No.5615618]

Base 1 thank you very much

[Anonymous No.5615630]

Octal makes the most sense for STE(M omitted)

Plus we could still teach it to proles the same we do decimal on our fingers (just omit thumbs)

[Anonymous No.5615635]

the bigger the better, to help give as many small numbers their own personality. dont you hate thinking about 23 as 2 tens and a 3? it should get its own damn symbol

[Anonymous No.5615637]

Who gives a shit. Calculations are for computers.

[DUCKTAPE !2GOXVEhqL2 No.5615638]

Base 12, simple, easy to compute fractions 1/3 = 0.4 No stupid decimals, there are 12 notes in a chromatic scale, 12 bones in the 4 main fingers of each hand, 12 inches in a foot, 12x2 hours in a day.

Base 16 is okay, but really just an extension of base 2 (2^4).

Base 30 is used in measuring degrees of a circle, 30x2 seconds in a minute and minutes in an hour.

Base 2, computers use it, 0 and 1 no muss no fuss.

Personally I think base 12 would be best, but really it does not matter what base just that it's clear what's being used in the calculations.

[Anonymous No.5615668]

for displaying numbers, I like 16.

for working with numbers, I like 2.

[Anonymous No.5615721]

>>5615638
I vote for base 30 so that we can count to potatoe

[Anonymous No.5615725]

base 8

[Anonymous No.5615728]

Anything that isn't a power of 2 is retarded.

[Anonymous No.5615781]

i suggest BASEDGOD

[Anonymous No.5615796]

>>5615728
yep

[Anonymous No.5615797]

>>5615554
I suggest we do everything over the p-adic numbers. I vote the 2-adics.

[Anonymous No.5615799]

[Anonymous No.5615810]

>>5615799
<span class="math"> d^2=0 [/spoiler] with dual number <span class="math"> \epsilon^2=0 [/spoiler] implies <span class="math"> d=\epsilon=0 <span class="math">
FUMBLE!
This is only true if d, \epsilon are not elements of some ring (module) that are not nilpotent of nilpotency index 2[/spoiler][/spoiler]

[Minimal No.5615811]

>>5615799

[Anonymous No.5615814]

>>5615799

[Anonymous No.5615993]

can you have an irrational number base?

base pi?

[Anonymous No.5616002]

>>5615799

>using alphabet to pick out letters
>only using 'Murrican english

>mfw Francais and Russian and chinks have more letters
>no face

[Anonymous No.5616009]

>not using base 47
Step up, plebs.

[Anonymous No.5616014]

>>5616002
>Murrican english
>implying that British English has more letters?

Fuck I hate when people say Murrica. It's not a patriotism thing it's just an annoying word.

And in any case a base 12 dozenal system would be the best. Twelve (do) has twice as many factors as ten (dek)

[Anonymous No.5616016]

>>5616002
Also the French alphabet has 26 letters. I should know.

I do.

[Anonymous No.5616017]

>>5615635
Synesthesiafag detected

[Anonymous No.5616018]

>>5615993
no.

[Anonymous No.5616033]

>>5615554
almost this >>5615638
except anybody who agrees with 12 are 'Muricans with their retarded arbitrary rollercoaster of measuring things

1/3 =/= 0.4 === (12/36)/10 i don't think so
(12/3)/12= 4/12 = 1/3 = .33 still nice try though, actually i'm even conflicted with 1/4 aswell

My vote would be base 2, with that fibonacci sequence of roman numerals used for larger numbers

[Anonymous No.5616043]

>>5616016
all the accent aigu, grave, circonflexe and all that jazz for the french aswell

Moi je sais, je suis francais un petit peu

[Anonymous No.5616040]

Base NIGGER
N
I
G
G
E
R
NN
NI
etc

[Anonymous No.5616046]

base pi

[Anonymous No.5616048]

>>5615799
Why does he discount imaginary roots?

[Anonymous No.5616054]

>ITT Amerifat's don't realise how important 10 is to the rest of the world

[Anonymous No.5616055]

>>5616054
Captain obvious to the rescue

[Anonymous No.5616059]

>>5615993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation

[Anonymous No.5616095]

>come to /sci/ for the first time
>click on this thread
>sitting here drooling with a dazed look because i dont understand any of the shit you're talking about

why can't we talk about spaceships

[DUCKTAPE !2GOXVEhqL2 No.5616163]

>>5616033

1/3 =.33 repeating in a base 10 system, in base 12 1/3=0.4, also 1/4=0.3, 1/2=0.6, etc. In base 12. (What is 1/3 of a year?)

And I'm annoyed too by the inconsistency in base numerology of the SAE measurement system. Base 2^n inches, base 12 feet, base 3 yards, base 5280 miles, absolutely no consistency. Metric system is more convenient because it sticks with base 10 throughout, but fractioning with base 10 is less intuitive.

[Anonymous No.5616182]

>make your case
>just votes

No case given, vote rejected.
Base 10 is convenient and its continued usage would not require reworking of mathematical and scientific concepts/constants.

[Anonymous No.5616184]

>>5616095
Ignoring 0, how far can you count using unique symbols?

Go on. Try it.

[Anonymous No.5616186]

>>5616163
>fractioning with base 10 is less intuitive
How so?

[Anonymous No.5616190]

>>5615554

Base 100!

Simply because it's just as retarded as replacing base 10. Lots of numbers and 100 factors, that must bee good, right?

Or alternatively we could use whichever number system is right for the job; like we do now.

[Anonymous No.5616194]

base 60, like time, doesnt seem bad

[Anonymous No.5616196]

Base 6 or 15.
Because it makes factorizing easier.

[Talimar No.5616233]

I still want Pi to be magical though... and e. and phi....

[Anonymous No.5616264]

>>5616190
base 9.332621544394... × 10^157
srsly?

[Anonymous No.5616321]

unary

fuck the haters

[Anonymous No.5616882]

>>5616321
ternary
hate the fuckers

[Anonymous No.5616946]

>>5615554
>says make a case
>doesn't make a case
>no one else makes a case
>implying all numbers should be in one base system
>implying that changing the base changes how much a lb is, or a kilogram, or what have you.
>implying going to a base other than 10 would be useful for anyone other than autistfags
>implying base10 isn't working
>implying base 10 isn't binary
>implying base 10 is binary
>implying base 10 can't be 1,2,3,4,10
Yeah. Take this shit to /b/ or something.

[Anonymous No.5617737]

Base .1 so we don't have to write as many decimals.

[Anonymous No.5617760]

base 2 you plebs

[Anonymous No.5617809]

Base 2.

We will all be raised to think like programmers.

[Anonymous No.5617823]

7, obviously.

I V X L C D M

[Anonymous No.5617862]

>>5616946
chill out nigga

[Anonymous No.5617936]

Base 2 is justified by the simplicity of the digits, how logical operations work with them, how the Galois field {0,1} has so many nice properties.

Base 2^n for various integer values of n makes sense because it benefits from the properties of base-2 by mapping the digits in base 2^n to n bits.

Base e is the base in which 1, 10, 100, 1000 grows with the best rate. For instance, consider a normal distribution. The average number of digits you need to represent a number drawn on a normal distribution is minimized in base e (roughly, I'm skipping some normalizations here).

Base 6 makes sense because it's a multiple of 2 and 3, so division by 2 and 3 are easy. However, dividing by 5 sucks. In base 3, 1/5 is 0.0121012101210121... It's worse than our decimal 1/3=0.333333...

Base 10 is decent.

Base 12 has 2, 3, 4 and 6 has divisors, which is cool but is still missing 5.

Base 30 is pretty good. It has 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15 as divisors. The important part here is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Dividing by anything less than 7 is trivial in base 30. The downside is you are starting to need quite a few symbols for your digits. Then again, we have 26 letters in our alphabet, and we could just use some pairs of symbols, or accents, for instance 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0', 1', 2', 3', 4', 5', 6', 7', 8', 9', 0", 1", 2", 3", 4", 5", 6", 7", 8", 9", 10, 11, 12, 13...

Base 60 was used by the Egyptians. It's not better than base 30 since it still doesn't have 7. Having 7 would mean jump to 210, which is bad.

My vote goes for base 2, base 16, base 30 or base e, which all have good justifications. Anything else is crap.

[Anonymous No.5618021]

>>5616040
i'm putting my vote in for this

[Anonymous No.5618079]

>>5616194
>mfw 60 different numbers
123456789∆DABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZœ∑´®†¥¨ˆoπ“åß∂ƒ©˙∆˚¬…æ≈ç√∫˜µ≤≥

[Anonymous No.5618109]

>>5618079
Or you could write digits as pairs of decimal digits, separated by commas every 4 or 6 decimal digit.

[Anonymous No.5618113]

Base 6 here too. Makes counting with fingers easy.

[Anonymous No.5618115]

>>5616043
Those are accents. They aren't individual letters in the same way that "Th" isn't a unique letter. (It used to be. Hundreds of years ago there was a letter in the English alphabet called "Thorne". It was written like a lowecase p with the stroke continuing to the top, like there was a b superimposed on top. When German printing presses started to take over, that symbol was replaced with a look-alike: Y.)