Wow we are so brain washed. Base 10 is so engrained in our heads even though it really doesn't relate to any part of every day life. Base 12 is supperior and way easier to use and 12 is all around us.
I have to point out that it's also a fallacy to say that something is wrong just because it's old. "Newer" does not automatically equal "better". Another thing we could do to move humanity forward would be to adopt the Holocene calendar. This puts the start of history at the start of civilization, roughly the founding of Gobekli Tepe. It puts the BC/AD divide in a logical place, between where we have historical data and where we don't. Which means we could also get rid of the brain-dead CE/BCE affectation. My favorite part of the Holocene calendar is that it puts human progress in perspective. This is the year 12,023 in the Holocene calendar. Twelve thousand years since humanity started building cities and becoming what we are today. Rome was founded in 9,247. The first pyramid in Egypt was built around 7,350. See how that changes the perspective?
@@johnterpack3940 glance at how long ago something was? What does that even mean? People already know the BC/AD system. And most people don't use it in their day to day lives. Only historians and such would use it, and even then, they also already know the BC/AD system, since they're historians.
It's kinda weird that older Civilizations *did* use base-12, in some form or another. But it doesn't seem Base-12 was every *purely* what they used, and they seemed to mix it up with base 10 or base 60 in one way or another. Even Babylonians which had a base-60 positional system, counted up in base-10. English has 11 and 12, which don't have that -teen (10) ending, which seems to indicate some kind of proto-base 12 system, but we still counted in base-10 otherwise. It seems like older civilizations wanted to make use of the math implications of using Highly Composite Numbers (numbers with tons of factors like 12 or 60) for the core of their numbering system, but settled with also making use of Base 10 because people have 10 fingers and it's easy to count with. The French eventually came along and *fell in love* with 10, and started making *everything* decimal for no good reason; metric is commonly divided and multiplied by powers of 10 for greater and lesser precision, but they also wanted to make years have 10 months, weeks be 10 days long, days have 10 hours, and so on. However, the funny thing about it, is that French number still seem to have signs of base-60/20 counting. Wonder if they ever tried "fixing" that, during their base-10 craze? lol. Edit: Just found that, yes, the French *did* try to regularize all the numbers into base-10, but like with Calendars, that didn't work out because regular people were already use to their old system that has "quatre-vingt" (four twenty) for 80. Though, it seems this attempt did stick around in some places.
myuzik iz in base twelve az wel. an vokalz have twelve basik vowelz. 1 fUn Up wOne 2 fAt Ap 3 fEd End 4 fIt In 5 fEEt EAzY 6 fURtile lEARn 7 fOOd yUnit lOOp 8 fOOt kOUd 9 fOlklOre Open *Q kwUIsAnt pOIynt modEl #X fOnt On Al 0 fIynAl ArIyvAl AlIyve
Regarding base 12 digits, you would need electronic weighing scales with LCD displays that use more than seven segments per digit in order to display all of the traditional base 12 digits (0123456789XE) while avoiding confusion with actual letters, unless your base 12 system uses unique symbols that have nothing to do with Arab or Roman numerals. Imagine if there were tourists visiting the fictional country you might create along with your conlang and you decided to include real world countries on your map. You would need a common digit system in order for them to buy groceries with ease and not be confused about the numbers on the scales. As for spoken language, there would be the need for a common language, just like in our actual world
The world outside the US is on the ultimate Base 10 methodology in that the Metric system embeds Base 10 into every measurement for everything. I see the advantages of Base 12, but I think we’re stuck with Base 10.
An interesting comparison favoring switching is when Europe converted from Roman Numerals to the system we now use. It completely threw off counting, it was easy to take advantage of because the merchants couldn't use it, and it took a while to master... But it ultimately worked out. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j9WV2T7Y_E4.html But currently this would be more akin to how Americans always talk about switching from the English to the Metric system. Something that makes a lot of sense, but we've just never gotten around to it.
MIND BLOWN !!! I LOVE THIS !!! I GOT AN IMPORTANT QUESTION !! Is there any better base than 12 ?? And is there anything else to change in the way we count ? So that if we change our way of counting, we change it for the best right away...
good kwestcion. myuzik iz in base twelve az wel. an vokalz have twelve basik vowelz. 1 fUn Up wOne 2 fAt Ap 3 fEd End 4 fIt In 5 fEEt EAzY 6 fURtile lEARn 7 fOOd yUnit lOOp 8 fOOt kOUd 9 fOlklOre Open *Q kwUIsAnt pOIynt modEl #X fOnt On Al 0 fIynAl ArIyvAl AlIyve
Base 6 is my personal choice for the best base since it handles the numbers 5 and 7 much better than Base 12 while still maintaining most of its benefits. I mean, have you seen Dozenal fifths and sevenths?
What about base 6? Here's a video explaining it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qID2B4MK7Y0.html Summary for base 6: - smaller multiplication table - neater fractions 1/5 and 1/7 than dozenal - easy divisibility test for the first 4 primes
Yes, i like it! The only part I dont understand is: Why use new names? New symbols are necessary, but we already have names, dont we? Nine, ten, eleven, twelve, twelve(and)one, twelve(and)two ... twelve(and)eleven, twotwelve, twotwelve(and)one and so on and so forth... Would take away a little bit of new confusing stuff to learn
+gradpigodemosviedaff I totaly agree, the reason why 'do' was created was because twelve has a strong connection with the number 12, and not 10, so for some people re naming might be easier but i totally agree. also twelve just sounds better, 'do' can be sorta cheesy haha
+Aeolian Theory Or you could just use the existing word "dozen", which already stands for a group anyway, and just say "In the year ten gross, four dozen and four, Columbus hit a Caribbean shore."
+Aeolian Theory Of course, that assumes that we are retaining the current Christian way of counting years. I mean, if we’re going to adopt a new number system, we might as well reform the calendar and the measurement system while we’re at it. I’m more of a senary advocate anyway. I appreciate the clarity of dozenal, but I’m reasonably sure that you could memorise the senary multiplication table in a couple of minutes. (0*x = 0, 1*x = x, 2*2 = 4, 2*3 = 10, 2*4 = 12, 2*5 = 14, 3*3 = 13, 3*4 = 20, 3*5 = 23, 4*4 = 24, 4*5 = 32, 5*5 = 41). Multiplication could be a one or two-week lesson in first grade and it’ll be over before decimalist or dozenalist first-graders are still wrapping their minds around 13 - 8. You really can’t see ten objects at a glance, let alone a dozen, without grouping them first, since seven is about the limit at which the human capacity for subitizing drops off, but six is still well inside that scale. When you talk about 74 being processed in the mind as 7 groups of ten and 4 more, I can’t even do that in a single step, because I can’t be sure that the groups I’m imagining are actually ten without breaking them apart into 2 groups of five. To me, a senary "hundred", or decimal 36, is probably the largest number imaginable in a single step. Quarters are still 2 senary places (1/4 = 0.13, 3/4 = 0.43), but that’s probably fine because they’re still integer subdivisions of 100. You can actually see nine objects resulting from cutting a six-by-six square into quarters, but keeping a ten-by-ten square in mind to quarter it, resulting in a pretty large foursen-one* is probably a bit too much. Senary even has nice fifths and sevenths, if you truly happen to need them. The decimal fifths are a single place, since five is a factor of the base, but the importance of five seems to be overinflated. The dozenal fifths are the horrible "0.249724972497...". Senary recognises that fifths are uncommon, but they are the most common fraction that senary doesn’t handle cleanly, so they get recurring single digits (1/5 = 0.1111...). Sevenths are second in line, so they get recurring double digits: (1/11 = 0.050505...) The day can be divided into 1 0000 0000 parts (each one about a nineteenth of a second). Squaring that and multiplying it by gravity gives an inch of 25.95(decimal) millimeters. Six inches to a shaftment, six shaftments to a yard. A cubic inch of water has a mass of about 17.47(decimal) grams, which would be the base mass unit, and thirty-six of those make something between a pound and a kilogram, about 629(decimal) grams. It feels like having thirty-six and six both be your bases: six when you’re actually calculating numbers, since it’s so simple to use, and thirty-six when you’re using it for practical things, like division and measurement, since thirty-six has so many factors. * I use the current English names for numbers up to eleven (15), then "twensen, thirsen, foursen, fifsen" for the sixes, "exent" for 100 (stolen from Michael DeVlieger) and "syriad" for 10000.
One day I was thinking about this issue and came up with zod, (direct replacement for twelve in a count), zoden (for dozen) and zodenal (for dozenal and duodecimal). Basically think "zodiac" but there's also a handy similarity between "dozen" and "zoden". A number like "four zoden three" is easier to say than "four dozen three". "Zoden" also sounds like "zod and" which is kind of the idea. To my ear anyway, "zod" and "zoden" don't sound nearly as cheesy as "do". It also removes, fwiw, the last vestige of "decimal"/"duodecimal" since "dozen" comes from French "douzaine" which has a connection back to "duodecimal". Indeed, it even works in French: une zodaine. For larger numbers I see no reason not to use one hundred, one thousand and one myriad (10000) because these quantities are beyond the ability to easily visualize and our names are now taken to mean 100, 1000 etc and not the actual quantity that they represent (8 dozen four for a decimal hundred, for instance). It wouldn't even be the first time 'hundred' and 'thousand' have changed value: long ago hundred used to mean ten dozen (120) and thousand meant ten of those hundreds, or what we'd call a hundred dozen or twelve hundred (1200). As an aside, I'd also move to grouping large numbers in powers of four (i.e. myriads) rather than three (thousands), such as 1,0000,0000 rather than 100,000,000. That gives us two squarings in the first grouping, makes it visually different than decimal and allows for much bigger numbers to have readable names. I'd call 1,0000,0000 a zillion (a myriad myriad), 1,0000,0000,0000 a bizillion (a myriad zillion), etc.
The interesting fact about old cell phones is they used 12 keys for dialling. One for the asterisk and one for the pound sign in addition to base 10 digits
The reason people start saying thirteen after twelve, is a remnant from when we had base 12 and thirteen to nineteen is a remnant from when we had base 20. Now Can we please go back to base 60, so we can have a decent counting system. I mean There are 6*60 degrees to a circle, there are 12 ways to divide it, and it's prime factorization is 2*2*3*5
Another feature of 12 is how it can partition into 1 2 3 3 2 1. Other numbers will partition similarly, 20 into 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1, and 6 into 1 2 2 1, but 12 is exactly twice the number of the 6 digits in that partition sequence, which makes it especially convenient for representing rise-fall cycles such as tides. This could be why it got onto clocks. 10 partitions into 1 2 3 4, each of which can be represented by an object like a small pebble in the spaces between fingers of a rock hand print, or quadrants in a cross hair grid (still with us as the + sign). All the numbers 1 - 10 can be represented this way. (Not trying to argue that makes it superior).
Good video. When I try to explain the superiority of a base 12 system, most people don't get it. I feel like Galileo explaining that the earth is round.
100% with you Both on dozanol (or however it’s spelt) being the best. And on saying “fuck you” to the “but that’s the way we’ve always done it argument”.
The argument in favor of switching bases is silly. It's much easier to accept same sex marriage or to abolish slavery than it is to change to base 12 when base 10 is already firmly established. The logistics would be horrific and there would be very little to be gained.
We count in base 10 right? No, not me, sure I count in base 10 if I'm asked a question about numbers ''because that's what people know'', but when I do math it's often not in base 10 not even a normal base 12 but rather a base 120 with a sub-base of 12.
Then you cant high five (this is but a joke, as you could obviously six five, though it doesn't sound as good) and you can't stick up your middle finger (and think about keeping track of numbers on hands with 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, as in that you could forget easier).
What about base 6? Here's a video explaining it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qID2B4MK7Y0.html Summary for base 6: - smaller multiplication table - neater fractions 1/5 and 1/7 than dozenal - easy divisibility test for the first 4 primes
Interesting bit of trivia-- they made a choice back then. There was debate over whether to switch to base twelve, which would simplify the math, or to switch the measurements to base ten, which simplified counting on fingers for stupid people. They decided to switch to finger-counting.
This is not a good idea, at least not until the way we teach mathematics to kids in schools is updated. Children learn math in school as computation and calculation, and not as abstractions of the real world. Addition is teach as a meaningless and mechanic set of rules for computation and calculation, switching to base twelve solves nothing. In reality, addition is the answer to the question "if we know how many objects are in a collection, and how many are in other collection, and we put together both collections, is it possible that we can know how many objects the final collection will have without counting the individual objects?" Math is taking explicit quantitative descriptions to derive from them implicit quantitative descriptions and then explicitly describing them, that concept is what we should teach to kids. Then, we can teach them the pros and cons of different number bases.
No, dozenal isn’t better. Firstly, why are people who make these arguments writing multiple 3’s for decimal 1/3? For crying out loud, YOU ONLY NEED ONE 3! It’s a single-period repetition. It’s not that hard. Decimal is NOT bad with 3’s. It may not be the best, but 10 is adjacent to 9, which gives 3 and 9 special tools in base ten. 3’s are not even that hard to begin with. Thirds can only ever be a two-period recurring fraction (making decimal above average with its single-period), and multiplying by 3 can be done with only two addition operations, while multiplying by 5 takes three additions. It absolutely doesn’t pay to throw an entire prime number, five, in the trash just to slightly increment the power of 3, 4, and 6. Finally, and most importantly, dozenal has a significantly larger single-digit times table. Leaving off x0 problems, x1 problems, and commuted duplications, decimal has 36 entries from 2x2 to 9x9. Dozenal has 55 (fifty-five). “Hey, kids! We’re gonna make things easier by giving you 50% more crap to brute force memorize!” Yes, you DO need brute force memorization for your times tables if you expect to do math quickly. If your accountant is using their fingers to count by 5’s or 6’s, fire them immediately (or help them learn better if you’re more compassionate). The point is: we don’t need MORE digits. We need LESS. Decimal has LESS digits than dozenal, and that, along with the other things I mentioned, makes it the better of the two. It might not be as good as seximal or quaternary, but it isn’t as bad as dozenal.
But 12 is such a random number for taking fractions of things or multiplying it by things! In my opinion base 16 is the best, it has a good amount of symbols, it is clean, it’s 2^4 which is based off doubling numbers, 12 is so random! The metric system would look clean since it is based on (2^4)^n where n is an integer. You might be asking, “why not go binary then”, we’ll binary has only 2 symbols which makes numbers have too many digits, so 16 is the best!! Ok ok I can agree that 12 has so many divisors, but 16 wins. Anyone’s thoughts on this??
wikipedia can be very useful as a dictionary; search for base 12 in the english version, then switch to german and you get: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodezimalsystem
The advantages to dozenal are trivial. You still cannot allot 5 things to 3 people. I will never understood why people come up with this sort of nonsense.
It would only make sense in contries using imperial measurements. In scandinavia (metric) for instance, we can get wares like beer, soda or eggs (like in your example) in 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20, 24 or 30 packs. Same goes for food cans and so forth. It is not really an issue in any other kind of produce but even in stuff like veggies we still follow same concept as with eggs and soda. As for the counting technique, you can do roughly the same with metric, but then again (as you said yourslef) lets, be real - when was the last time you counted on your hand instead of just calculating on your phone anyway? And even then, when was the last time you needed more than what you can do with your fingertips? That is the point where it doesnt make sense anyway, not to use a calculator The factor-issue is true though, and no argument against - that said, it seems to be only noticable for kids learning maths, and as soon as they learn to use calculators, this becomes a non-issue It is a much much more combersome thing to change the entire worlds counting format, than to just change the 3 countries who still use imperial (these being USA, Lybia and Myanmar and literally nobody else).
This is about the counting system, not the measuring system, so it makes sense regardless of whether a country is on Imperial or metric. A dozenal counting system, would, however, effectively require the creation of a dozenal metric system where units related to each other in dozens written as 10, 100, 1000, etc. Such a system could take an existing unit from either system, such as the foot or the yard from the Imperial system or the metre from the metric system, and then build a new measuring system around that single unit (this time, let's avoid the lack of direct equivalency between metre, gram and litre...). Or a whole new system from an entirely new base unit could be created, such as a "light foot", the distance light travels in 1/(10^8) seconds [1/(12^8) decimal], which is about 0.242 m. Of course if we fully dozenalized time, we'd have a new base unit of time to work from as well.
What about base 6? Here's a video explaining it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qID2B4MK7Y0.html Summary for base 6: - smaller multiplication table - neater fractions 1/5 and 1/7 than dozenal - easy divisibility test for the first 4 primes
+Aeolian Theory Ok you convinced me *BUT* Can we keep the names the same? What the fuck is a doehe (I don't even know how to fucking spell it) :P and why is this Gross? Does it stink? With names like these you will never make humanity change how they call stuff DOH! ;)
I like the system so much, but I hate the names for the extra numbers. Too much complexity for no reason that I can think of. When I count in base 12, I use A and B and Ten. So it goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, 10. Makes it easier to write on computers and smart phones too.
In ancient times when people were still giants, they used base 12, probably because they had 12 fingers, and because like explained in this video, base 12 is obviously better than base 10. But like mythology tells us, humans become more degenerate and stupid as time goes forward. Same with the metric system. Stones can be equally divided into pounds, but people had to screw it up by inventing the metric system and now we have all these decimals and uneven numbers.
Giants... people are becoming more stupid? Well, you certainly have a knack for self-fulfilling prophecies... Also, the metric has its perks. Contrary to what the guy in the video states, base 10 is more intuitive to humans. Children have been tested on their educational aptitudes using several bases and base 10 was the easiest one to learn, that's why we use it, and mathematically, it literally makes no difference. 3.333 is messy? Well shit, that's why you can round it as 3.3, or 3.33, or even 3, depending in what sense you want to use it or how much accuracy the thing you are making needs until the remainder becomes negligible. Bases are simply a different way to express the exact same thing. And by the way, all bases result in decimals if you put them through the same circumstances. If you can manage to find a base that makes natural constants whole numbers I'd be up to switch to it, until you can do that fuck off with your autistic rants.
You've convinced me, this is not only useless, it's not even accurate unless you want to change the value of digits we already use. 10/3 is 0.3333 because it is. If that bothers you then use 1/3 as a fraction. 10/3 = .4 only if you change the value of 10 which means this isn't any easier, it's just people wanting to feel smart. Stop this nonsense.
Base 12 system is great for small simple numbers but there is a reason why the large numbers use base 10 for simplicity. Example: 13 in base 10 is 13 In base 12 is 11 so that second 1 is now a 3 not a 1 145 in base 10 is 140 + that 5 In base 12 that is 101 so that last 1 is now a 5 not a 1 or a 3 1729 is 1720 + 9 in base 10 In base 12 is 1001 so that 1 is a 9 not a 5 or a 3 or what you are writing a ONE lol Also nice and simple for small numbers but large ones get terribly complicated What number is this 12345 in the base 12? in base ten every number stay the same value just add zeros behind it In base 12 start to do hard math lol Is 7189 where the 9 stand for a 5 the 8 stand for a 4 the 1 stand for a 3 and the 7 stand for the 12. Yup base 12 make counting so much easier 🤣
base 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 base 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B 10 in base 12 is 12 in base 10 12 is not 10 you divide 2 different numbers!!!! 10 sticks divide for 3 person in base 10 10/3 = |123| |456| |789| this is 3, but we have 0... 3 and 1/3 = 3.333333333.... in base 12 A/3 = |123| |456| |789| this is 3, but we have A.... 3 and 1/3 = 3.333333333..... Also marriage is religon "invention", goal of marriage is procreation... Thats why normal countries, dont have marriages between man and man or woman and woman (they cant have baby).
