|
On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
Man! Forums are funny. What has the speed of light got to do with whether you use imperial or metric?
The speed of light can be measured in both. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year. On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:42 strongandbig wrote:On December 10 2011 07:15 semantics wrote:On December 10 2011 07:12 XsebT wrote:
[quote]
I use metric 100% and I hate our time system.
I would like it: 365 days/year 10 hours/day 100 minutes/hour 100 seconds/minute etc... 12 is so much more divisible though you can divide 12 by 1 2 3 4 6 and 12 you can only divide 10 by 1 2 5 and 10 12 is sexy compared to your 10 If only we had 12 fingers. Unfortunately, it's base 10 for us. That's not the only reason why 10 is superior to 12 for a counting scale. 10 is also the sum of the first four natural numbers. What are the other reasons and how does 10 being the sum of the first 4 natural numbers help? Just curious It's doesn't. What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect. I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA.
In the USA engineers do not use metric outside of school, at least it is not standard on drawings. We typically use it for calculations when needed, but all drawings I have ever seen in engineering are in Standard, which is why it is so difficult to change from it, without a huge amount of rework. Metric works better for most things, as the STI units are put together well, but inertia is expensive to overcome.
|
As an American I view your "Metric" system with suspicion and skepticism. This witchcraft doesn't belong in our schools and I for one believe that protecting our nations youth from the occult is of the utmost importance.
|
I live in the States, so standard
Though it's a retarded ass measurement system if you ask me; it's probably why we use metric in science classes.
Sucks being raised on standard, because if someone throws out some random metric measurements (Ex. 30cm) I have a really hard time guessing approximately how long that is--where as with standard I can usually get a good approximate.
|
On December 10 2011 08:47 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:45 scorch- wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
Man! Forums are funny. What has the speed of light got to do with whether you use imperial or metric?
The speed of light can be measured in both. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year. On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:42 strongandbig wrote:On December 10 2011 07:15 semantics wrote:
[quote]
12 is so much more divisible though
you can divide 12 by 1 2 3 4 6 and 12
you can only divide 10 by 1 2 5 and 10
12 is sexy compared to your 10 If only we had 12 fingers. Unfortunately, it's base 10 for us. That's not the only reason why 10 is superior to 12 for a counting scale. 10 is also the sum of the first four natural numbers. What are the other reasons and how does 10 being the sum of the first 4 natural numbers help? Just curious It's doesn't. What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect. I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. We should clearly be using a base 8.53973422 system with units e incremented in radians. That would be irrational as fuck, not going to lie Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:46 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:42 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:32 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:26 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:
[quote]
I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year.
[quote]
It's doesn't.
What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect. I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA. Ok, I think we are talking about different things now. Ok, I think you just gave up.  Give me one reason I should start measuring lengths by the size of somebody's foot and tempertures by the heat of my body (unless I'm ill). Btw, I'm not discussion this like a language barrier. I'm only talking about what makes more sense for someone who doesn't know either. You are really just not talking about the same thing as me lol All I was discussing was the validity of the base 12 system, without even relating it to units of measurement. For someone who was completely cut off from any sort of culture, the base 12 and base 10 systems of counting should be equally valid. This is when you argue why the size of somebody's foot and cutting it into 12 parts is a valid measurement. Go right ahead. I have no idea what you are talking about!
1 foot = 12 inches = 1/3 yard = the size of a "standard" foot of a human being.
|
On December 10 2011 08:20 XsebT wrote:
It's just a matter of rewriting it... 86.4 kilo(kilo=1000)seconds = 1 day on earth. Minutes and hours didn't disappear all of a sudden.
The metric system replaced the inch, foot, yard, mile with the meter. For a metric user those units did disappear. To metricize time a similar thing would have to occur to the minute, hour, day, month, year.
|
On December 10 2011 08:47 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:45 scorch- wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
Man! Forums are funny. What has the speed of light got to do with whether you use imperial or metric?
The speed of light can be measured in both. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year. On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:42 strongandbig wrote:On December 10 2011 07:15 semantics wrote:
[quote]
12 is so much more divisible though
you can divide 12 by 1 2 3 4 6 and 12
you can only divide 10 by 1 2 5 and 10
12 is sexy compared to your 10 If only we had 12 fingers. Unfortunately, it's base 10 for us. That's not the only reason why 10 is superior to 12 for a counting scale. 10 is also the sum of the first four natural numbers. What are the other reasons and how does 10 being the sum of the first 4 natural numbers help? Just curious It's doesn't. What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect. I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. We should clearly be using a base 8.53973422 system with units e incremented in radians. That would be irrational as fuck, not going to lie
Clever play on words!
|
I think whats better about the metric system is that internally, the system is more universal that the imperial system. You have 1000g in a kg, 1000ml in a litre, and even the different systems can easily be converte dwith 1cm^3 = 1ml which makes it very easy to do calculations with.
The imperial system has lots of inconsistancies, eg 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and then 1760 yards in a mile. Its just not very consistant and requires the memory of lots of different numbers.
However, both of these are based on rather arbritary numbers. It could easily be possible that the metre was say a few cm longer, and everything else would be adjusted accordingly. The definition of a cm would changf, thus changing a ml and also 1 celcius. But what makes it good is the consistancy inside the system which makes math with it easier. Having a slightly longer metre would not break the world (it would if we cahnged now, but I mean if it started off slightly longer).
The way time works also makes sense in this way, but rather than everything being based on multiples of 10, it is based on multiples of 12, which does admittedly make it easier to do some fractional calculations as 12 has a lot of factors. But it is also harder because everything else is base 10. But we are entering a different debate between base 10 and 12, which doesn't matter in the argument between metric and imperial, as imperial is so inconsistant in the way it works.
Just my opinion on things
|
On December 10 2011 08:49 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote:
I live in the States, so standard
Though it's a retarded ass measurement system if you ask me; it's probably why we use metric in science classes.
Sucks being raised on standard, because if someone throws out some random metric measurements (Ex. 30cm) I have a really hard time guessing approximately how long that is--where as with standard I can usually get a good approximate.
I good way to convert in your head while you are getting used to it, is 1 Yard~=1 Meter(its .91 to be exact, but close enough for order of magnitude head sizing).
|
On December 10 2011 08:53 Sausafeg wrote:I think whats better about the metric system is that internally, the system is more universal that the imperial system. You have 1000g in a kg, 1000ml in a litre, and even the different systems can easily be converte dwith 1cm^3 = 1ml which makes it very easy to do calculations with. The imperial system has lots of inconsistancies, eg 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and then 1760 yards in a mile. Its just not very consistant and requires the memory of lots of different numbers. However, both of these are based on rather arbritary numbers. It could easily be possible that the metre was say a few cm longer, and everything else would be adjusted accordingly. The definition of a cm would changf, thus changing a ml and also 1 celcius. But what makes it good is the consistancy inside the system which makes math with it easier. Having a slightly longer metre would not break the world (it would if we cahnged now, but I mean if it started off slightly longer). The way time works also makes sense in this way, but rather than everything being based on multiples of 10, it is based on multiples of 12, which does admittedly make it easier to do some fractional calculations as 12 has a lot of factors. But it is also harder because everything else is base 10. But we are entering a different debate between base 10 and 12, which doesn't matter in the argument between metric and imperial, as imperial is so inconsistant in the way it works. Just my opinion on things
Time is base 60, not 12. It has a pretty big advantage in that 60 is dividable by a lot of numbers, so it's pretty optimal for it's usage, and we can thank the babylonians for this!
|
On December 10 2011 08:54 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:49 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote:
I live in the States, so standard
Though it's a retarded ass measurement system if you ask me; it's probably why we use metric in science classes.
Sucks being raised on standard, because if someone throws out some random metric measurements (Ex. 30cm) I have a really hard time guessing approximately how long that is--where as with standard I can usually get a good approximate.
I good way to convert in your head while you are getting used to it, is 1 Yard~=1 Meter(its .91 to be exact, but close enough for order of magnitude head sizing).
I've always found it much easier to think of a meter as ~3.3 feet than to compare to a yard.
|
On December 09 2011 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces. No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet.
i do, and its completely normal.
as a metric user i think its much better because of how easy conversion is. ^^
|
In anything mathematically complex/needs frequent conversions I use metric, in everything practical I use standard.
|
On December 10 2011 09:00 hifriend wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:53 Sausafeg wrote:I think whats better about the metric system is that internally, the system is more universal that the imperial system. You have 1000g in a kg, 1000ml in a litre, and even the different systems can easily be converte dwith 1cm^3 = 1ml which makes it very easy to do calculations with. The imperial system has lots of inconsistancies, eg 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and then 1760 yards in a mile. Its just not very consistant and requires the memory of lots of different numbers. However, both of these are based on rather arbritary numbers. It could easily be possible that the metre was say a few cm longer, and everything else would be adjusted accordingly. The definition of a cm would changf, thus changing a ml and also 1 celcius. But what makes it good is the consistancy inside the system which makes math with it easier. Having a slightly longer metre would not break the world (it would if we cahnged now, but I mean if it started off slightly longer). The way time works also makes sense in this way, but rather than everything being based on multiples of 10, it is based on multiples of 12, which does admittedly make it easier to do some fractional calculations as 12 has a lot of factors. But it is also harder because everything else is base 10. But we are entering a different debate between base 10 and 12, which doesn't matter in the argument between metric and imperial, as imperial is so inconsistant in the way it works. Just my opinion on things Time is base 60, not 12. It has a pretty big advantage in that 60 is dividable by a lot of numbers, so it's pretty optimal for it's usage, and we can thank the babylonians for this!
Ah yes I was thinking more in terms of how the hours work, but I agree that having it based on 12/60 is very helpful in terms of the amount of factors that they both have.
|
On December 10 2011 08:51 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:20 XsebT wrote:
It's just a matter of rewriting it... 86.4 kilo(kilo=1000)seconds = 1 day on earth. Minutes and hours didn't disappear all of a sudden. The metric system replaced the inch, foot, yard, mile with the meter. For a metric user those units did disappear. To metricize time a similar thing would have to occur to the minute, hour, day, month, year.
One day is "universal" for us on planet earth. It is the time it take the earth to rotate once around its own axis. We then cut this day into chucks to measure smaller amounts of time: 24 hours/day 1.440 minutes/day 86.400 seconds/day.
The reason we are discussing these other measurements is because those "universal" things aren't really the universal for us humans of earth. The basis for the imperial system is the size of a foot. The basis of fahrenheit is the heat of a body without illness.
A meter is an arbitrary unit (afaik), but it's is cut up and expanded in a very logical fashion.
Celsius is based off the state of water under standard atmospheric pressure (a bit over 1000 hectopascal): 0> = solid 100> =liquid 100< = gaseous
|
Base 12 isn't better than Base 10. The best way to determine the bases is not just by the factors, but also by the factors of base-1. It makes a lot of divisibility calculation easy. For instance, 3 | 9 which is 10-1, so checking if n is divisible by 3 or 9 in base can be checked easily by hand (adding up the digits and check that number). So rather than 12, which only has 2 and 3 prime factors, and 11 which has one prime factor, a better base would be 16. 16 is 2^4, and 15 is divisible by 3 and 5, so divisibility of 2,3,4,5,6 are all very easy and quick to check, similar to base 10.
We need to come up with a new metric system that's in hexadecimal. It's clearly the way of the future!
|
any scientist will use metric system, you cant calculate efficiently with the "standard" system. as for practical/convenience, this is only what you're customed to. so all with all metric is better
|
I use the metric system for almost everything. I still know my height and weight under the imperial system, but that's about it. The metric system makes a lot more sense and I don't see any advantage to the imperial system.
|
|
|
Standard, right..
![[image loading]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jH0VpS9ZUUo/TrkM9ZE2CqI/AAAAAAAAFgA/QlwGoYCnIok/Screen%2BShot%2B2011-11-08%2Bat%2B1.03.59%2BPM.png)
|
On December 10 2011 08:50 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:47 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:45 scorch- wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
Man! Forums are funny. What has the speed of light got to do with whether you use imperial or metric?
The speed of light can be measured in both. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year. On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:42 strongandbig wrote:
[quote]
If only we had 12 fingers.
Unfortunately, it's base 10 for us. That's not the only reason why 10 is superior to 12 for a counting scale. 10 is also the sum of the first four natural numbers. What are the other reasons and how does 10 being the sum of the first 4 natural numbers help? Just curious It's doesn't. What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect. I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. We should clearly be using a base 8.53973422 system with units e incremented in radians. That would be irrational as fuck, not going to lie On December 10 2011 08:46 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:42 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:32 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:26 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:
[quote]
I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA. Ok, I think we are talking about different things now. Ok, I think you just gave up. Give me one reason I should start measuring lengths by the size of somebody's foot and tempertures by the heat of my body (unless I'm ill). Btw, I'm not discussion this like a language barrier. I'm only talking about what makes more sense for someone who doesn't know either. You are really just not talking about the same thing as me lol All I was discussing was the validity of the base 12 system, without even relating it to units of measurement. For someone who was completely cut off from any sort of culture, the base 12 and base 10 systems of counting should be equally valid. This is when you argue why the size of somebody's foot and cutting it into 12 parts is a valid measurement. Go right ahead. I have no idea what you are talking about! 1 foot = 12 inches = 1/3 yard = the size of a "standard" foot of a human being.
The imperial system is not even in base 12. Im only discussing base 10 and base 12 for counting. They are both independent from the metric and imperial systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
