Gork@lemm.ee to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agoOr we could do metric timefiles.catbox.moeimagemessage-square203linkfedilinkarrow-up1984arrow-down140
arrow-up1944arrow-down1imageOr we could do metric timefiles.catbox.moeGork@lemm.ee to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square203linkfedilink
minus-squareOozingPositron@feddit.cllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·1 year agoWith base 12 you can actually get a result for 1/3
minus-squareKaityy@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·1 year 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-squareMoobythegoldensock@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down1·1 year 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.