@Gork@lemm.ee to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 7 months agoOr we could do metric timefiles.catbox.moeimagemessage-square203fedilinkarrow-up1983arrow-down140
arrow-up1943arrow-down1imageOr we could do metric timefiles.catbox.moe@Gork@lemm.ee to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 7 months agomessage-square203fedilink
minus-square@OozingPositron@feddit.cllinkfedilinkEnglish6•7 months agoWith base 12 you can actually get a result for 1/3
minus-squareKaityylinkfedilinkEnglish12•7 months agoBig Decimal has brainwashed the population into thinking that 5 is a good number instead of the terrible prime number that it is. It should be clumped in with 7 and 11 as Bad Numbers when you’re dealing with anything except for 10s.
minus-square@Moobythegoldensock@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglish11•7 months agoYes, but having 2, 3, 4, 6 as factors is way better than having only 2 and 5. We’d be giving up one factor to add three.
With base 12 you can actually get a result for 1/3
But not for 1/5
Big Decimal has brainwashed the population into thinking that 5 is a good number instead of the terrible prime number that it is. It should be clumped in with 7 and 11 as Bad Numbers when you’re dealing with anything except for 10s.
Yes, but having 2, 3, 4, 6 as factors is way better than having only 2 and 5. We’d be giving up one factor to add three.