20200812, 17:50  #78 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10001000101011_{2} Posts 
I get to use feet and inches at work as well as decimal feet.
Some people tend to have problems dealing with decimal feet and want inches. It is easy to get a quick approximation of feet and inches from decimal feet. 1 foot = 100 (hundredths of a foot, 0.01 foot) 1 foot = 12 inches = 96 (1/8ths of an inch) ∴ 0.01 foot ≈ 1/8th of an inch And it is easy to correct for the difference. 
20200812, 22:44  #79 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9286_{10} Posts 
I used to be a firm believer that Metric was always the best space (even though it was invented by the French...).
And I still do believe Metric Makes Sense ^{(TM)} for most measurement spaces. But, for the smaller spaces interacted with by human tradespersons, being devisable by 2 (and 3, etc) makes a lot of sense. For someone who's worked in this space for a long time, being able to add 1/64 to 1/4 (then divide by two, then multiply by four) is trivial. I call it "folding". Map the numbers into different dividers as required, and then unfold as the last step. Now, why a Mile contains 5280 Feet completely escapes me... 
20200813, 05:51  #80  
Jan 2020
2^{3}×3×5 Posts 
Quote:
Foot and Inch are way different than the dozenal metric system as 1 yard ≠ 1 dozen feet. Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 20200813 at 06:03 

20200813, 06:05  #81 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
13270_{8} Posts 
log2/log10 ~= 0.3 means that a simple approximation for 2^{10} ~= 10^{3}. Useful for estimating binary computer values.
But log2/log12 ~= 0.2789429.... gives us no usefully close conversion ratios. There fore base12 is inferior to base10. Right? 
20200813, 06:23  #82  
Jan 2020
2^{3}×3×5 Posts 
Quote:
Petabyte and Quadrillion are already not so close. Hexadecimal is the best for any computerrelated math, but not divisions of 3 or 6. Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 20200813 at 06:40 

20200813, 10:33  #83 
Jan 2020
2^{3}×3×5 Posts 
Unless 2^5 * 2^5 = exact [decimal] 1,000, it's not that superior as you think, otherwise we would already have a zettahertz CPU.
Multiply the first 4 composite numbers together > 4 * 6 * 8 * 9 = [decimal]1,728 Time to pack up lots of toilet paper rolls for the Coronavirus pandemic, dozenal is way more efficient than decimal for this job. Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 20200813 at 10:38 
20200813, 12:28  #84 
Feb 2017
Nowhere
2^{2}·5·179 Posts 
What notation one uses for numerals has nothing to do with the physical problem of packing . Just as it has nothing to do with composing or playing music. Musical notation (clefs, notes, rests, etc) is not primarily numerical. The only numerals in music scores that spring immediately to mind are "time signatures," which specify the numbber of "counts" or "beats" to the measure, and which note gets one "count". Thus, in 3/4 or "waltz time," there are three beats to the measure, and the quarter note gets one beat. There are time signatures in which at least one of the numbers is large enough that its base ten and base twelve notations would differ, but I have never seen them expressed in any other than decimal notation.
Musical notation has a binary feature. A "whole note" is an oval with a void. Adding a stem makes it a "half note." Filling in the void makes it a "quarter note." Adding a "flag" to the stem on a note divides the length of the note by 2. One flag, an eighth note. Two flags, a sixteenth note. Three flags, a thirtysecond note. Four flags, a sixtyfouth note, AKA a hemidemisemiquaver. Another "binary" feature to music is the fact that two notes differing by one octave have frequencies that differ by a factor of two. I also note that there is a standard notation for basesixteen, or hexadecimal numbers. It uses the decimal digits with their customary values, and A = ten, B = eleven, C = twelve, D = thirteen, E = fourteen, and F = fifteen. It therefore seems entirely appropriate to use A = ten and B = eleven for base twelve notation. Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 20200813 at 12:29 Reason: Rephrasing 
20200813, 12:37  #85 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2^{3}×727 Posts 
I use hex numbers far more than any other base (except for base ten) in my normal daily activities.
I rarely care about exactly dividing anything into 3 parts, or even 5 parts, so a base that has many "interesting" divisors makes no difference to me.I would not object to changing to base16 (2^{2²}). It has many more advantages than base 12 IMO. 
20200813, 13:35  #86  
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
2·7·113 Posts 
Quote:
Jacob 

20200813, 13:40  #87  
Jan 2020
2^{3}·3·5 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 20200813 at 13:49 

20200813, 13:48  #88 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
8,747 Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Dozenal near and quasi repunit primes  sweety439  And now for something completely different  30  20200930 04:50 
Smallest multiple of n satisfying given condition in dozenal  sweety439  sweety439  0  20200611 06:36 
Mersenne numbers in Dozenal base  tuckerkao  Lounge  7  20200211 04:44 
Jason's sieved ranges(for the prp and llr addicts with Intels)  jasong  Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5  8  20050429 05:13 