5 ms·

It didn’t work in 1793 when it was mandated by the Convention despite the rest of the metric system taking roots. It was unlikely that a rebrand by a greedy Sw

It didn’t work in 1793 when it was mandated by the Convention despite the rest of the metric system taking roots. It was unlikely that a rebrand by a greedy Swiss corporation would make it more popular. Plus, current time keeping already use superior base systems. 12 and 60 are both highly composite numbers. Using a decimal system would be a step back. I wish we had symbols for 10 and 11 however.

cyborgx7 4y ago
Having your unit system in the same base as your number system infinitely outweighs any advantages derived from the having a higher number of factors or whatever. If you want to switch out number system, and then change the unit system alongside that, I'll hear you out. But skipping the number system and doing it at the unit level is always dead on arrival as an argument.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  If it were the case, people would have switched massively to a decimal time keeping system. The fact they did not is proof enough for me that using the same base than our number system isn't relevant. It makes sense intuitively because it's extremely rare that we have to go above 24 for hours and sixty for minutes while we divide these time periods fairly often. I would gladly switch to base 12 just to have simpler multiplication tables (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are really simple, 9 and A are fine while 5, 7 and B are annoying) but I am no fool and realise it's never going to happen.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    Ah, the classic argument for why Amurican Measurements(tm) must also be superior, conveniently ignoring the rest of the world being very metric. My personal observation is that nobody divides hours into more than halves or quarters, and .5, .25, .75 are pretty simple. Consider this: 1 USD is 100 cents, and people are just fine with its common fractions.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      Well, no, it’s not this argument because as you rightfully pointed everyone did switch to the metric system while absolutely no one switched to decimal time. I’m French by the way. People do divide hours in twelfth, sixth and third all the time. Thinking in blocks of 5 and 10 minutes is very common.
      - yencabulator 4y ago
        Thinking in blocks of 5 and 10 units is very common in metric systems too. The fact that 10 minutes is 1/6th of an hour is not very relevant; that it's a good size unit for pragmatic use is.
eru 4y ago
In decimal, in general in decimal to write a fractions you need an infinite number of digits (with repetition). We have convenient notation for that repetition. A few special fractions can be written with finitely many digits. Using base 12 or 60 you are in the same situation. If you want elegance, you should cut down on the number of special cases. Hence I would suggest to use a base like 11 or 59. That way more fractions will be covered by the general case. Base 11 also works well for counting on your fingers. (Though base 6 works for that one as well.)
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  12 and 60 are both optimal cases for what you are describing. That's what highly composite numbers are: the set of natural numbers having more divisors than all smaller ones. 12 is the smallest number having 6 divisors and 60 the smallest one having 12. Both 11 and 59 would be inconvenient bases. They are primes.
  - eru 4y ago
    12 and 60 just introduce more special cases, exactly because they have so many divisors. Prime numbers have no non-trivial divisors. So more fractions get handled by the general case, the case of infinitely repeated digits. > 12 and 60 are both optimal cases for what you are describing. Optimal in what sense? They are certainly more convenient. I was describing mathematical elegance.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      > Prime numbers have no non-trivial divisors. So more fractions get handled by the general case, the case of infinitely repeated digits. I don’t understand what you mean by special cases and general cases. R\Q is dense in R so most numbers can’t be written as repeating digits at all whatever the base you are using and in every bases all numbers which have a finite representation also have a repeating one by subtracting 1 to the last digit and adding an infinity of the biggest available digit after (decimal representations are not unique). Generally you want more divisors for your base. The more divisors you have the nicer the fractional part is likely to look like for common operations.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
I still have a Decimal time app on my phone, though. My Mac, too, thanks for Catalyst.

cyborgx7 4y ago

Having your unit system in the same base as your number system infinitely outweighs any advantages derived from the having a higher number of factors or whatever. If you want to switch out number system, and then change the unit system alongside that, I'll hear you out. But skipping the number system and doing it at the unit level is always dead on arrival as an argument.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
If it were the case, people would have switched massively to a decimal time keeping system. The fact they did not is proof enough for me that using the same base than our number system isn't relevant. It makes sense intuitively because it's extremely rare that we have to go above 24 for hours and sixty for minutes while we divide these time periods fairly often. I would gladly switch to base 12 just to have simpler multiplication tables (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are really simple, 9 and A are fine while 5, 7 and B are annoying) but I am no fool and realise it's never going to happen.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  Ah, the classic argument for why Amurican Measurements(tm) must also be superior, conveniently ignoring the rest of the world being very metric. My personal observation is that nobody divides hours into more than halves or quarters, and .5, .25, .75 are pretty simple. Consider this: 1 USD is 100 cents, and people are just fine with its common fractions.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Well, no, it’s not this argument because as you rightfully pointed everyone did switch to the metric system while absolutely no one switched to decimal time. I’m French by the way. People do divide hours in twelfth, sixth and third all the time. Thinking in blocks of 5 and 10 minutes is very common.
    - yencabulator 4y ago
      Thinking in blocks of 5 and 10 units is very common in metric systems too. The fact that 10 minutes is 1/6th of an hour is not very relevant; that it's a good size unit for pragmatic use is.

eru 4y ago

In decimal, in general in decimal to write a fractions you need an infinite number of digits (with repetition). We have convenient notation for that repetition. A few special fractions can be written with finitely many digits. Using base 12 or 60 you are in the same situation. If you want elegance, you should cut down on the number of special cases. Hence I would suggest to use a base like 11 or 59. That way more fractions will be covered by the general case. Base 11 also works well for counting on your fingers. (Though base 6 works for that one as well.)

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
12 and 60 are both optimal cases for what you are describing. That's what highly composite numbers are: the set of natural numbers having more divisors than all smaller ones. 12 is the smallest number having 6 divisors and 60 the smallest one having 12. Both 11 and 59 would be inconvenient bases. They are primes.
- eru 4y ago
  12 and 60 just introduce more special cases, exactly because they have so many divisors. Prime numbers have no non-trivial divisors. So more fractions get handled by the general case, the case of infinitely repeated digits. > 12 and 60 are both optimal cases for what you are describing. Optimal in what sense? They are certainly more convenient. I was describing mathematical elegance.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    > Prime numbers have no non-trivial divisors. So more fractions get handled by the general case, the case of infinitely repeated digits. I don’t understand what you mean by special cases and general cases. R\Q is dense in R so most numbers can’t be written as repeating digits at all whatever the base you are using and in every bases all numbers which have a finite representation also have a repeating one by subtracting 1 to the last digit and adding an infinity of the biggest available digit after (decimal representations are not unique). Generally you want more divisors for your base. The more divisors you have the nicer the fractional part is likely to look like for common operations.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

I still have a Decimal time app on my phone, though. My Mac, too, thanks for Catalyst.