and that makes you sad?I'm aware that the US would never switch to base 12But US is not base 12. And I see no utility in base 12 anyway. I can just say 1/3 of a meter or 1/5 of a meter
or 0.2 meters.
But base 12 is not better than base 10.if it won't even completely adopt a metric system. The reason I brought this up was to remind the metric advocates not to pat themselves too much on the back for their preferred system. It's not the best we can do.
Of course it is and I given a few reasons why in thread. You can search Dozenal society if you want more information.But base 12 is not better than base 10.
Of course it is and I given a few reasons why in thread. You can search Dozenal society if you want more information.But base 12 is not better than base 10.

Is there any particular reason you're not backing up your assertions?No, it's not better
Is there any particular reason you're not backing up your assertions?No, it's not better
You have never articulated why binary is a better system for people to use. The fact its convenient for machines is irrelevant since machines don't have preferences.
How high can you comfortably count on your fingers?
1023 in binary.<snip>
How high can you comfortably count on your fingers?
1023 in binary.<snip>
I don't know about you, but I can't, certainly not comfortably, extend the ring finger without also extending the little one (unless I hold the latter back with the thumb).
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-anatomically_impossible-10-anatomically_impossible-12-anatomically_impossible-14-15...
You should try a remedial course in logic and argumentation and you would learn that assertions without reasoning is invalid. Its possible you're both trolling and if you feel that's a productive use of your time feel free to continue but remember it doesn't add merit to your position.Because he is right.
Day is not part of the metric system, second is.If base 10 is so great, why not change our clocks to it? Those minutes and seconds are just way too confusing, let's just split the day into decimal fractions like Microsoft Excel. Yet another pointless conversion problem resolved!![]()
Yes, best system is metric.(Or maybe, the best system is whatever we happen to use for given purpose because learning new arbitrary way of doing things is a waste of resources.)
You should try a remedial course in logic and argumentation and you would learn that assertions without reasoning is invalid. Its possible you're both trolling and if you feel that's a productive use of your time feel free to continue but remember it doesn't add merit to your position.Because he is right.
But you can extend the little one without extending the ring finger - at least, I have no trouble with that .How high can you comfortably count on your fingers?
1023 in binary.<snip>
I don't know about you, but I can't, certainly not comfortably, extend the ring finger without also extending the little one (unless I hold the latter back with the thumb).
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-anatomically_impossible-10-anatomically_impossible-12-anatomically_impossible-14-15...
But you can extend the little one without extending the ring finger - at least, I have no trouble with that .I don't know about you, but I can't, certainly not comfortably, extend the ring finger without also extending the little one (unless I hold the latter back with the thumb).
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-anatomically_impossible-10-anatomically_impossible-12-anatomically_impossible-14-15...
I'm not particularly interested in learning how to play the piano, and I doubt I could even if I tried. But I'm not sure what your point is. Could you elaborate, please?But you can extend the little one without extending the ring finger - at least, I have no trouble with that .
Learn to play the piano.
You mean, with training one can extend the ring finger without extending the little one, or that I can learn to play the piano?Finger, toe dexterity for that matter, are subject to the benefits of training. You can do it. Just exercise them a bit.
But you can extend the little one without extending the ring finger - at least, I have no trouble with that .I don't know about you, but I can't, certainly not comfortably, extend the ring finger without also extending the little one (unless I hold the latter back with the thumb).
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-anatomically_impossible-10-anatomically_impossible-12-anatomically_impossible-14-15...
I see. You can change that convention, but you're still stuck with a problem. Still, it's not a big problem. How about you just don't count the ring finger at all, and you count with the others?But you can extend the little one without extending the ring finger - at least, I have no trouble with that .
Yes, I can, but in binary, an extended ring has a different meaning (8) from an extended little finger (16).
You mean, with training one can extend the ring finger without extending the little one, or that I can learn to play the piano?Finger, toe dexterity for that matter, are subject to the benefits of training. You can do it. Just exercise them a bit.
If it's the former, maybe so, but even then, it wouldn't be easy, so it would still be a difficulty for most people if they want to count with their fingers extending them like that. But the variant I suggested avoids the matter, and needs no training.
If it's the latter, I'm not going to argue the point.