Gork@lemm.ee to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 3 年前Or we could do metric timefiles.catbox.moeimagemessage-square202fedilinkarrow-up1974arrow-down139
arrow-up1935arrow-down1imageOr we could do metric timefiles.catbox.moeGork@lemm.ee to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 3 年前message-square202fedilink
minus-squareOozingPositron@feddit.cllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·3 年前With base 12 you can actually get a result for 1/3
minus-squareKaityy@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·3 年前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.
minus-squareMoobythegoldensock@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down1·3 年前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.
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.