Depends for what. Still better than random scales like 3, 12, 1760 and units that don’t mean anything like hundredweight, which isn’t even one hundred anything, unless it is because you live in another part of the world where the same word means a totally different thing.
I don’t agree. It might sometimes be cool, but with a numerical system in base 10, having a unit system in base 12 becomes really hard to manage. Let’s take meters:
To make a base 12 system work, you’d need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you’d have …8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.
Anyway, good luck trying to pass that, I’ve seen people who can barely count on their fingers, let alone understand a new base 12 numerical system. And for what?
To make a base 12 system work, you’d need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you’d have …8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.
Yes exactly. It’s equally as easy to do both. Counting to base 10 isn’t easier than doing it to base 12 or base 6. But 10 is just a kind of shitty number. That’s why imperial tends to use 12 because its better. They just changed the wrong thing. Metric should use base 12.
Changing it would be a ball ache. 12 is better than 10 though.
Not really that obvious. The imperial system is not used in base 12. It’s used in base 10 like everything else, therefore, if it were consistent with its units (which it isn’t) it would be more like 12 -> 144 -> 1728.
Since changing how we count is honestly not realistic, the prospect of having to deal with a system that’s not based on 10 is kinda scary.
Depends for what. Still better than random scales like 3, 12, 1760 and units that don’t mean anything like hundredweight, which isn’t even one hundred anything, unless it is because you live in another part of the world where the same word means a totally different thing.
Fancy a pint?
12 is much better than 10 and I will die on this hill.
If there was a vote to change everything to base 12 counting I would.
How is 12 not better than 10?
I don’t agree. It might sometimes be cool, but with a numerical system in base 10, having a unit system in base 12 becomes really hard to manage. Let’s take meters:
1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm VS 1m = 12dm = 144cm = 1728mm
How many mm is 15 dm in each system?
To make a base 12 system work, you’d need to change the numerical system also, by adding two new digits, like we do for hexadecimal numbers, so you’d have …8-9-A-B-10, where A = 10 and B = 11 (in 10 base), so that 1m = 10dm = 100cm but in base 12.
Anyway, good luck trying to pass that, I’ve seen people who can barely count on their fingers, let alone understand a new base 12 numerical system. And for what?
That’s obviously not what I’m talking about.
Yes exactly. It’s equally as easy to do both. Counting to base 10 isn’t easier than doing it to base 12 or base 6. But 10 is just a kind of shitty number. That’s why imperial tends to use 12 because its better. They just changed the wrong thing. Metric should use base 12.
Changing it would be a ball ache. 12 is better than 10 though.
Not really that obvious. The imperial system is not used in base 12. It’s used in base 10 like everything else, therefore, if it were consistent with its units (which it isn’t) it would be more like 12 -> 144 -> 1728.
Since changing how we count is honestly not realistic, the prospect of having to deal with a system that’s not based on 10 is kinda scary.