2 ms·
But we do have 10 fingers. And apart from that, base 10 is just about right. Not too small to be hard to comprehend, not too big to force your memory. Would it
by DeathArrow 3y ago
But we do have 10 fingers. And apart from that, base 10 is just about right. Not too small to be hard to comprehend, not too big to force your memory.
Would it be easier for you if you are using base 2 or base 16?
- Eisenstein 3y agoI think having 1/4 and 1/3 be whole numbers would be more useful than being able to count on my fingers.
- DeathArrow 3y agoAre 3 and 4 magical? Why not 1/2 and 1/5?
- willis936 3y agoThey're all magical because they are small. 12 is a highly factorable number and 10 is not. Ancient Greece was not ignorant of this fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number https://youtu.be/2JM2oImb9Qg https://youtu.be/2JM2oImb9Qg
- Cockbrand 3y agoWell, 10 is only divisible by 2 and 5, while you can divide 12 by 2, 3, 4 and 6 (in the integer space, of course). So you can express more basic divisions without remainder.
- jcranmer 3y agoIt is easy to eyeball divisions of 2 and 3 by hand, and get results with high degrees of accuracy. A division of 4 can be accomplished by dividing by 2 twice. It is not easy to eyeball divisions of 5 by hand; you pretty much need to use a ruler for that to get results of tolerable accuracy.
- chriswarbo 3y agoThere are finger-counting methods for pretty much any base. Most are more efficient (capable of counting higher) than the base 10 approach of associating each finger with a digit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger-counting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger-counting