• Khrux@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Some people argue that it would be harder to count on your fingers but we could just surgically give everyone more?

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are 12 sections on your fingers (excluding your thumb) you then use your thumb to count to 12 on one hand.

      Two hands can allow you to count to 24. Which is way higher than 10. Base 12 is better!

        • techt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I like the idea of some numbers being popular hand gestures.

          4 - Fuck you; 17 - Shaka (hang loose); 18 - Metal horns; 19 - “I love you”; 132 - Double fuck you

      • Khrux@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Bold of you to assume I’d ever remember this counting technique. Hell I’m shocked I remember counting my fingers for base 10…

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Use the other hand to count twelves! Each time you fill up one hand, add one to the other. That way you can get all the way to 156, which is probably more than you’d ever want to count one by one anyway

      • Kuragi2@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        To be fair, you should be comparing 2 hands in base 12 to 2 hands in base 10, I. E. 20:24. Still a real difference, but not the 10:24 difference you pointed out.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Binary is very good for counting with your fingers. With both hands you can count to 1023. One hand is 31, which is still usually more than you typically need to count. It’s also trivial to do once you know how binary works. It takes very little thought, though potentially the decoding could take a bit depending on your proficiency.

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        I made it to 27 on my first attempt, so def messed up somewhere. Also, my fingers don’t want to work that way.

        Doable.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I agree it can feel weird, but first this isn’t how we are used to doing it so it hard to compare, and also normally we want our fingers in very precise positions (probably because it’s easier to show other people). When doing binary I feel it’s easier to ignore precise positions. I just use the half of my finger after the middle knuckle and let my fingers move as they please. We only need to track up or down, so it doesn’t need to be precise.

          Practice helps. I’m not good at it, but I can manage it fine at this point. For sure it’d doable, but I rarely have to count, and when I do I can generally do it in my head fine. I could see myself using it maybe if tracking a large number over a long time, but I don’t see that case ever coming up organically.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I find it useful if I’m counting only specific instances of something that meet some criteria. That way my brain can focus on picking out the right things and not have to worry about keeping the current count in mind. I use the method with your thumb on each segment of your fingers though, so you can get up to twelve with one hand and 156 with both

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Billions of years ago, our collective great-great-great-[several million more]-grandparent evolved a fin with a five bone structure. That idiot didn’t know anything about common denominators, and now we’re stuck with this numeric system that can’t divide things into thirds without causing issues.

      • Danquebec
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Vertebrates appeared less than a billion years ago.