4 ms·
> Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do. The measuring stick follows the numeral system, not the other way around. And while base 2 h
by masklinn 3y ago
> Marking a measuring stick out to 32nds is relatively easy to do.
The measuring stick follows the numeral system, not the other way around. And while base 2 has had some historical success, it wasn't much compared to 10, 20, 60, or 12.
> Marking it down to tenths or hundredths is surprisingly hard.
There's decimal rulers from the indus valley civilisation, it clearly was not sufficiently hard.
> Is why I picked that example, and nothing more.
From what you're saying you apparently pick that example every time and it goes wrong every time, for completely obvious reasons. Maybe you should consider changing example?
> I am curious on what the argument for 10 is in scientific notation that isn't path dependent on us using decimal?
Why would there be? We use base 10 numerals, our notation is base 10, therefore a convenient, natural, and uniform system of units would be in base 10.
Base 2 is of little help outside of length, and it's hardly critical there either.
> Or are folks just reading a criticism of metric in my post?
Well yes, 2 out of 3 paragraphs are about imperial and metric and your comment is at best tangential to the one it replies to.
- taeric 3y agoI mean... no? The number system we used is clearly path dependent on the ways that we measured things. Moving measured things to a single number is precisely why metric works so well. And is why many people in the world know their height not as a single number, but as a combination of two units. This seems the case for all measurements. Used to, you wouldn't necessarily combine two units that often. Evidence of the indus valley seems an odd choice? The images I'm finding online about them did exactly as I said, subdivide by half until happy with precision. Indeed, their "lower units of measure" were binary?