Link: Copy link
What I found annoying about "ian misali's" video is the implied criticisms and subtle lampooning of dozenal and its usage by all the past generations of dozenalists. Lots of strawman and reductio ad absurdum arguments, nested in satirical snark. I hear echoes of that from you here. I'd prefer it if you and he would lay off the indirectness and just lay out the critique forthrightly. Then see what parts those of us present here, and now actually defend or disavow. I personally don't think every past idea of the DSA necessarily has merit, but somehow the critics seem to think we now have to answer for all of them.SenaryThe12th wrote: *chuckle* I confess, one of my favorite aspects of dozenalism is that we need two new cool symbols!! Which opens up all kinds of neat things to think about: which two symbols should we pick? Or should we just chuck them all and come up with 12 new ones!! Endless opportunities for fun.
Kodegadulo wrote: I hear echoes of that from you here. I'd prefer it if you and he would lay off the indirectness and just lay out the critique forthrightly.
Well that's just the thing; I haven't critiqued anything, *except* senary. My request was explicitly for a list of critiques of senary.I'd prefer it if you and he would lay off the indirectness and just lay out the critique forthrightly.
Well, if anybody has call to complain about being strawmaned, I think that would be me. And I didn't do any reductio's, ad absurdum or ad anywhere else :-) BTW, what *is* your beef with reductio ad absurdum? Its a valid form of argument.Lots of strawman and reductio ad absurdum arguments
Indeed, you helped me out with nomenclature in this very thread. And I religiously read all your stuff on the Hexican thread. You're a good egg man. Can't wait to see what you and the rest of the folks on this forum come up with next.Kodegadulo wrote: Like I said, I'm generally supportive of thought experiments like senary.
I didn't mean that 5 ought to be a top priority; it's just the treatment of 1/5 in senary is not that much better than its treatment in dozenal. It still doesn't terminate. Yes, it certainly looks nicer, and you get a nicer divisibility test for it, but you're only getting half of the possible improvement - and not the half that lets you use fifths in contexts with a limited number of significant figures to play with, such as measurement.SenaryThe12th wrote:Well of course, if 5's are particularly important to you, a base which has a factor of 5 will beat anything. Kind of like how my tribe (which finds powers of 2 important) uses binary, octal, and hexidecimal.
But really, this isn't really an objection against senary per se, as a generally used base, is it? I mean, senary *is* better at 5's than dozenal. And your original point, that 2 is waaaaay more important than 3 is, and 3 is waaaay more important than 5 is--that was a good point, IMHO.
Double sharp wrote:Compounded on that, there is still no good way to use an auxiliary base containing 5 in senary, because the fifths always get absorbed into the mantissa instead of the trailing zeroes and end up outshining the more important fractions.
We use numbers like 60 or 360 in decimal as common groupings instead of 10, 100, and 1000: on the forum, we've been calling such things auxiliary bases. The mantissa of a number is the significant part, before the trailing zeroes start.SenaryThe12th wrote:I don't understand this; can you unpack it a bit for me?