Seximal is objectively the best way to represent numbers(seximal.net)
seximal.net
Seximal is objectively the best way to represent numbers
https://www.seximal.net
26 comments
I notice target voltages that engineers often pick similarly highly composite integers
3, 9, 12, 24, 48, 56, 72, 96, 480, 600 etc
There are many other factors which result in these as well though
3, 9, 12, 24, 48, 56, 72, 96, 480, 600 etc
There are many other factors which result in these as well though
I did some research on this for my CSS framework, I didn't want to have a max-h-1rem type value for every single number, just a small subset that is easy to remember.
5-smooth numbers and practical numbers overlap with the highly composite, but include more of the common "Numbers you see everywhere that people seem to like".
5-smooth numbers and practical numbers overlap with the highly composite, but include more of the common "Numbers you see everywhere that people seem to like".
Except 5V which is the standard USB voltage (together with 3.3V)
In Europe we are obsessed with anything divisible by 5, so if you made something 48cm long, it would be annoying
We are obsessed with anything divisible by 10, which is our counting base. So a decimal system is most logical.
It is highly unfortunate, though, that we used the number of our fingers for that base. Have we gone for the phalanges (sans content then with a thumb) we would end up with 12, divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6.
Since we would just use one hand for counting, we would easily end up with 12x12=144 without any effort.
It is highly unfortunate, though, that we used the number of our fingers for that base. Have we gone for the phalanges (sans content then with a thumb) we would end up with 12, divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6.
Since we would just use one hand for counting, we would easily end up with 12x12=144 without any effort.
"objectively" and "best" are almost opposites. Best depends on the chosen criteria, and how you weight them. And that selection is subjective.
Maybe it works for an alien civilization, or a lost tribe that never had contact with our culture. But for us our culture count, and it is not just how today we represent numbers.
And we are closer for a cultural shift for going to hexadecimal than going to seximal. But in any case, if we would go to seximal, I would use a different set of symbols for digits, or at least way to present them.
Maybe it works for an alien civilization, or a lost tribe that never had contact with our culture. But for us our culture count, and it is not just how today we represent numbers.
And we are closer for a cultural shift for going to hexadecimal than going to seximal. But in any case, if we would go to seximal, I would use a different set of symbols for digits, or at least way to present them.
I am partial to balanced ternary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary
It once made an appearance in a computer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary
It once made an appearance in a computer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun
Sorry, lost any interest at "dozen one".
Ancient Sumerians and Babylonians used base-60.
If we were all polydactyl it would be easier to use base-6.
If we were all polydactyl it would be easier to use base-6.
part of the objectively best criteria is having the funniest name
The older I get, the more I prefer hex. Using hexadecimal, I don't turn 40 until The Beatles start singing about me.
Heh, I hit that next year. This last birthday, it occurred to me that the Hamming weight (popcount) of my age in years was the largest it would ever get, barring me living to a really unlikely age.
My granddad just likely had his last [square of unit][unit] birthday
This made a pretty good case for finger counting using base 6.
If you use binary, you can count on your fingers up to 1023.
If you give your thumb an absolute value of 5 (or 50, depending on the hand) you can finger count in base 10 all the way to 99!
It's like conlanging but for math!
I completely agree, finger counting makes much more sense, smaller times-tables, etc, but I don't like the naming, using existing numbers, or 1000 groupings.
One problem with all these alternative base number systems is they reuse our base-10 digits. To me '10' instinctively means 'ten', '13' is automatically read as thriteen, and so on. They need to use a completely different set of digits (and names) so that you 'feel' the new base, and avoid confusion.
There are already proposed names for exponents; "nil", "un", "bi", "tri", "quad", and "pent" - those should be the names of the numbers too, and the exponents should be direct rather than x3, ie "unex" is sixes, bi-ex is 6x6s, tri-ex is 6x6x6s, etc.
One problem with all these alternative base number systems is they reuse our base-10 digits. To me '10' instinctively means 'ten', '13' is automatically read as thriteen, and so on. They need to use a completely different set of digits (and names) so that you 'feel' the new base, and avoid confusion.
There are already proposed names for exponents; "nil", "un", "bi", "tri", "quad", and "pent" - those should be the names of the numbers too, and the exponents should be direct rather than x3, ie "unex" is sixes, bi-ex is 6x6s, tri-ex is 6x6x6s, etc.
4ft = 48" which is evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24. This makes math easy and significantly minimizes cutting and waste.