Hofmaimaier@feddit.org to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 day agoFictionalfeddit.orgimagemessage-square201fedilinkarrow-up11.04Karrow-down119
arrow-up11.02Karrow-down1imageFictionalfeddit.orgHofmaimaier@feddit.org to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square201fedilink
minus-squareVoterFrog@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16arrow-down1·1 day agoHopefully they’d come up with a better numbering system than base 10. Base 10 is the worst part of metric tbh.
minus-squareUruanna@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21arrow-down1·edit-223 hours agoEvery base is base 10 dumdum 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21…
minus-squareTheDoozer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·edit-218 hours agoThat’s true. It should really be referenced by the number before 10 (e.g. Base 9 for 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10).
minus-squarescrollo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·16 hours agoWoah, I had never considered that. To think, all these years I was on the side of “initial index is 1.” I’ve unknowingly been using “initial index is 0,” since I started using numbers. oh-my-god-i-get-it-now.jpeg
Hopefully they’d come up with a better numbering system than base 10. Base 10 is the worst part of metric tbh.
Every base is base 10 dumdum
1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21…
That’s true. It should really be referenced by the number before 10 (e.g. Base 9 for 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10).
Woah, I had never considered that. To think, all these years I was on the side of “initial index is 1.” I’ve unknowingly been using “initial index is 0,” since I started using numbers.
oh-my-god-i-get-it-now.jpeg