Timeline for How will base-10 work in a world where duodecimals have never been thought of?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2016 at 17:07 | comment | added | Angelos | @IfreeContractors Take one fist, and observe. Count the sections separated by joints, and you get twelve. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 16:32 | comment | added | Ifree Contractors | @ Erik I don't understand what you mean about nothing natural about base 10. We have 10 fingers, don't we? While some would argue that it's actually base 5 or base 20, it's natural. People can count using it. Where would one find 12 in nature? Granted, I'm not a mathematician, so I don't understand the 'beauty' of numbers. However, the ability to count with fingers is the most basic of math and would likely be the most easy to understand and evolve. Where would 12 even come into being from if not not invented by some math-philia? | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 13:49 | comment | added | JDługosz | Maybe it was the other way around: they named 12 gods because it was a nice round number, and fit beautifully with the archetecture of a temple. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 13:21 | comment | added | Erik | There's nothing natural about base 10 either (although you probably know this, right?) | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 11:54 | history | edited | Ifree Contractors | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 93 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 9:46 | answer | added | clem steredenn | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 8:28 | comment | added | Ifree Contractors | I'm not denying that base 12 is convenient or useful. My point is that there is nothing natural about base 12. I've heard some claim base 12 originated from 12 sumerian gods. I don't know where this belief come from, but I'll just accept it. What if this world's belief system has nothing to do with gods or their star system is totally different? What if their belief system is reincarnation? Since base 12 does not occur naturally, it will have to be invented. Why would anyone complicate matters by inventing a different system that is not intuitive at all? | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 18:05 | comment | added | JDługosz | Maybe so, but one could read deeper into it. How would things be such that 12 and 60 were not found to be useful and efficient for portioning? | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 18:01 | answer | added | JDługosz | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 17:25 | comment | added | abcdefg | I believe you may be confusing "number" with "numeral". The numerals we choose to represent numbers is, in a sense, arbitrary. | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 16:47 | history | edited | HDE 226868♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body; edited title
|
| Aug 2, 2015 at 16:30 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | You may be trying to reach deeper than necessary. Base 12 makes for some convenient easy division by 3 and 4, but it is not a fundamentally earth shattering concept. I would expect base 10 to work exactly the same as it does in the current world, except for a handful of places where we have historical connections to 12, and they'd be replaced with the nearest 10. What sort of implications are you looking for? (consider that 99.99% of all data is now in base-2, and it hasn't changed us all that much!) | |
| Aug 2, 2015 at 15:35 | history | asked | Ifree Contractors | CC BY-SA 3.0 |