Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM

Dec 19 2011, 11:25 PM #97

dgoodmaniii @ Dec 19 2011, 09:58 PM wrote: That is, though, the problem with alphabetic prefixes for what's essentially a numeric issue, as you also pointed out:  it's introducing a new complication where none is necessary.  Why do we need "milli-" and friends when we're doing mathematics and not talking about it?  What's wrong with just using the exponent, which is what we're talking about anyway, and which bears no potential for ambiguity?  The raised and lowered exponents aren't just adequate; they're far superior.
Agreed. Although with a caveat: The capability to superscript/subscript may not be available in every environment. This should be accommodated with some workaround (just as you accommodate 7-bit ASCII environments by substituting "u" for "µ"), but I'm not entirely satisfied with the notations I've seen for that. I don't think it will work for instance to substitute 1^Gf for 1Gf (unquaGrafut), since the caret ^ is usually interpreted as a power operator with the term on the right as the exponent, not the term on the left. Perhaps the letter "q" should be used instead, as an abbreviation for SDN's positive power marker "-qua". This would yield unquaGrafut = 1Gf = 1qGf. And "c" could stand for SDN's negative power marker "-cia". This would yield unciaGrafut = 1Gf = 1cGf.

Getting back to UUS: Takashi, please reconsider the requirements you have selected for a dozenal counting and/or prefix system. You seem to be under the impression that dozenal counting and/or prefixes must immitate the structure of native-language decimal counting and/or the decimal-metric prefix system. But I see no a priori reason for this.

Decimal counting and decimal metric prefixes embody a number of unnecessary flaws and complexities, that they acquired simply because of the fact that they were not constructed rationally (or constructed based on flawed rationales). Why should we slavishly mimic these flaws and complexities in devising a dozenal-metric prefix system? We have to create something new anyway, why not start fresh?

Why not, as dgiii points out, make dozenal-metric prefixes more directly represent what we are trying to express with them: that they are powers of 12· raised to specific exponents? Why not directly represent those exponents as words? (Those words can be derived from Latin and Greek.) And why not distinguish the whole prefix as being a power of twelve, by giving it a distinctive marking syllable? This is the rationale behind SDN. This rationale yields a powerful and extensible yet simple system that makes it easier to express and comprehend orders of magnitude.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)
Quote
Like
Share

m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Feb 20 2011, 10:15 AM

Dec 20 2011, 12:02 PM #98

Kodegadulo @ Dec 20 2011, 12:25 AM wrote: Perhaps the letter "q" should be used instead, as an abbreviation for SDN's positive power marker "-qua". This would yield unquaGrafut = 1Gf = 1qGf. And "c" could stand for SDN's negative power marker "-cia". This would yield unciaGrafut = 1Gf = 1cGf.
That's a good idea, put it on the SDN thread.
A few little conventions:
- Dozenal integers suffixed with prime (′). This is the uncial point.
- Decimal integers suffixed with middle dot (·). This is the decimal point.

You may see me use * prefix for messages before 11Ɛ7-03-1X, and a whole range of similar radix points. I will often use X and Ɛ for :A and :B.

Sometimes, I will imply that an integer is in dozenal, so I won't add any marks to it. You should be able to tell that "10 = 22 * 3" is in dozenal.
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Dec 23 2011, 12:00 AM #99

It seems that people in this forum don't discuss about system for common people but discuss about intellectual game.

Let's write it once again:

How we do not change system is more important than how we change system.
- Strong limitation results unique solution.
- Learn from the optimization of the present system.
- Easy to be accepted (for common people).
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Dec 23 2011, 12:01 AM #100

The ratio 8:9 corresponds to the major tone of the just intonation. This is the origin of the name of the Harmonic Universal Unit System. 4:9 = (2:3)[sup]2[/sup]. The ratio 2:3 corresponds to the perfect five of the just intonation. ----- [Edit] nautical league is added.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Feb 20 2011, 10:15 AM

Dec 23 2011, 12:51 AM #101

Takashi @ Dec 23 2011, 01:00 AM wrote: It seems that people in this forum don't discuss about system for common people but discuss about intellectual game.

Let's write it once again:

How we do not change system is more important than how we change system.
- Strong limitation results unique solution.
- Learn from the optimization of the present system.
- Easy to be accepted (for common people).
I'm starting to see good sense in using the UUS for quite a lot of scientific purposes. It can be defined consistently and well. The TGM suffers from the silly "ten times the polar diameter of the Earth" definition for the Grafut. However, incorporating G can make TGM very helpful in terrestrial situations. I shall think more about it.
A few little conventions:
- Dozenal integers suffixed with prime (′). This is the uncial point.
- Decimal integers suffixed with middle dot (·). This is the decimal point.

You may see me use * prefix for messages before 11Ɛ7-03-1X, and a whole range of similar radix points. I will often use X and Ɛ for :A and :B.

Sometimes, I will imply that an integer is in dozenal, so I won't add any marks to it. You should be able to tell that "10 = 22 * 3" is in dozenal.
Quote
Like
Share

icarus
Dozens Demigod
icarus
Dozens Demigod
Joined: Apr 11 2006, 12:29 PM

Dec 23 2011, 01:30 AM #102

Takashi & m1n1f1g, the very existence of UUS is the only reason I haven't invented a system of my own, and why any other system proposal (to me) is nearly trivial. Now my problem is the profusion of flavors of UUS (or what seems to be a profusion of flavors). The profusion of flavors is confusing, and I am not comfortable with overmuch change in a system I think is well conceived in the first place.

If I were to invent a system (and I think I did using codata in the 90s) it would be based on fundamental constants just as UUS). The great thing about Takashi's work is how it situates the selection of duodecimal numeration based on the near coincidences of fundamental and mathematical constants with simple powers and multiples of the dozen. Having read this, I fell in love. What powerful rationale!

I think kode's SDN is likewise well thought out, and should UUS use SDN, it would be an even stronger concept. This is a case of "do indeed cross the streams" (sorry takashi, Ghostbusters reference!)

Now the obstacle is using the system. My daily work has me laying out digital models of the built environment. I am working in two locations. I use the following modules: 4 inches (8 inches / 2) horizontal and 8/3 inches (8 inches / 3) vertical. These are American common masonry modules. My work is rapid and effective, based on the modules that the world (where I work) uses. So how do I rectify this with a system based on fundamental constants? Note that I'd have this problem with grafeet.

Now, back to my 4" x 8/3" virtual world...One project due 4, the other 6 January...gotta step on the gas...
Quote
Like
Share

dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
Joined: May 21 2009, 01:45 PM

Dec 23 2011, 01:17 PM #103

Takashi @ Dec 23 2011, 01:00 AM wrote: It seems that people in this forum don't discuss about system for common people but discuss about intellectual game.
Takashi, you really should be able to defend your opinions without insulting those of others. Just because Kode doesn't agree with your criteria doesn't mean that he's an elitist playing intellectual games.
I'm starting to see good sense in using the UUS for quite a lot of scientific purposes. It can be defined consistently and well. The TGM suffers from the silly "ten times the polar diameter of the Earth" definition for the Grafut.
That's not the definition of the Grafut; the Grafut is the distance gained by an object accelerating by a standard gravity per Tim squared. The ten times the polar diameter of the Earth is just how we select what the standard gravity will be, within the narrow limits permitted by the variation of gravity on the Earth's surface. Really, this refinement is moot, because the Grafut's been standardized by the speed of light anyway.

I've always liked UUS for the way it reveals the dozenal harmonies of the fundamental constants. I've never liked it like TGM, though, for actual use in the majority of situations.
All numbers in my posts are dozenal unless stated otherwise.
For ten, I use :A or X; for elv, I use :B or E. For the digital/fractional/radix point, I use the Humphrey point, ";".
TGM for the win!
Dozenal Adventures
Quote
Like
Share

bluzarro
Casual Member
bluzarro
Casual Member
Joined: Dec 1 2011, 05:53 AM

Dec 23 2011, 02:13 PM #104

dgoodmaniii @ Dec 23 2011, 01:17 PM wrote:I've always liked UUS for the way it reveals the dozenal harmonies of the fundamental constants. I've never liked it like TGM, though, for actual use in the majority of situations.
I agree with you on the beauty of dozenal relations in UUS.

It sounds to me like you might have some anecdotal experience to share? If so, I would like to hear your comparisons between the two majority metrics on this board. Perhaps a new post.

There has got to be a more dozenal name for "metrics"... must ponder.
Quote
Like
Share

Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM

Dec 23 2011, 06:35 PM #105

[quote="dgoodmaniii @ Dec 23 2011, 01:17 PM"] [quote="Takashi @ Dec 23 2011, 01:00 AM"] It seems that people in this forum don't discuss about system for common people but discuss about intellectual game.[/quote] Takashi, you really should be able to defend your opinions without insulting those of others. Just because Kode doesn't agree with your criteria doesn't mean that he's an elitist playing intellectual games. [/quote] I am new to UUS, and honestly haven't digested it enough to be able to form a fair opinion about it one way or another. I [i]think[/i] I understand the principles Takashi is [i]attempting[/i] to satisfy. The question is whether his work [i]actually[/i] satisfies those principles. Thus I have asked [i]questions[/i] of Takashi, to see if he can elaborate on it in depth. But he has been at it a long time (30 years?), so perhaps he is just tired of defending his ideas. The table of dozenal coincidences certainly are intriguing. However, given the factorability of the number twelve it's not hard to find useful coincidences, no matter what basis you start with. Indeed, TGM exploits such useful coincidences: For instance, the [url=http://z13.invisionfree.com/DozensOnline/index.php?showtopic=463&view=findpost&p=4135674]auxiliary volume units[/url] are remarkably close to Imperial and US volume units. At this point, my reaction to UUS is much like my reaction has been to TGM at times: I am not compelled by the [i]surface[/i] aspect it presents. The "myriad" system leaves me non-plussed. Examples such as "decy" meaning 12[sup]1[/sup] and "septi" meaning 2[sup]7[/sup] just strike me as ridiculous, especially if these are supposed to appeal to the "common man" as somehow "familiar" and "intuitive". A "universal meter" and "harmonic meter" that are both closer to a customary [i]foot[/i] than to an SI meter, seem misplaced. But I recognize that these are [i]superficial[/i] considerations. UUS's foundation on universal constants is what's essential. It may be possible to clothe UUS with a different surface without disturbing the essence. But Takashi appears to have rejected this suggestion out of hand.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)
Quote
Like
Share

dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
Joined: May 21 2009, 01:45 PM

Dec 24 2011, 04:21 PM #106

Kodegadulo @ Dec 23 2011, 06:35 PM wrote:But I recognize that these are superficial considerations. UUS's foundation on universal constants is what's essential. It may be possible to clothe UUS with a different surface without disturbing the essence. But Takashi appears to have rejected this suggestion out of hand.
Anecdotally, I've found TGM to be incredibly convenient and useful in actual use, and I think the fact that the original TGM booklet, along with my updated version, are littered with useful coincidences and near-correspondences to both imperial/customary and SI metric measures shows this.

As for UUS, I've expressed my concerns about it on this board many times, most of which have been met with insistence that I've never read the UUS booklet. However, mostly my objections are thus:

1.) It's too abstract. It's great to be based on universal constants, but it's not something that people can really get behind. I don't know about you, but I just don't have any visceral, everyday relation to the gravitational constant. I do, on the other hand, have a very intimate relation to the actual, normal pull of gravity. I think that this basis in everyday, human-scaled realities makes TGM more intuitively useful, and more related to the experience of everyday, common people, than UUS.

That, in my opinion, is what's wrong with all the "abstract" metric systems, including SI. A datum like the circumference of the earth is an abstract concept that doesn't relate much, if at all, to the daily experiences of mankind. Things like the mass and density of our most common and important liquid, the pressure of the atmosphere around us, the pull of gravity at the earth's surface, are quite contrarily constantly present and felt phenomena that every human being experiences and closely knows.

2.) The universal constants probably aren't. CODATA has updated their values of these constants many times since UUS was first derived, and most likely will again. TGM has most of these constants as auxiliary units, and thus can absorb the changes in these things without any change in its core units. Not so with UUS, where changing the value of a constant changes the whole basis of the system. Also, Dirac's "changing constants" theory is starting to look more and more like it's probably true, at least in part. The LHC has been challenging so many of our fundamental assumptions about the nature of the universe---including whether constants like the fine structure constant and the speed of light are really the hard-and-fast values that we've thought they were---that basing a metric system on those constants seems premature to me. Rather like the original French metric system, trying to base itself on the circumference of the earth when it really wasn't possible to accurately measure that circumference.

In sum, while UUS has the potential to be quite useful scientifically, I think it's much too abstract to be useful otherwise; while TGM is concrete enough to be useful to the average man, but still consistent and rigorous enough to be useful scientifically. The best of both worlds.

I think, and have always thought, that UUS is a fascinating exploration of the coincidences of dozenalism in the relations of the universal constants. The fact that I don't like it as a metric system doesn't detract from that.
All numbers in my posts are dozenal unless stated otherwise.
For ten, I use :A or X; for elv, I use :B or E. For the digital/fractional/radix point, I use the Humphrey point, ";".
TGM for the win!
Dozenal Adventures
Quote
Like
Share

Dan
Dozens Disciple
Dan
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Aug 8 2005, 02:45 PM

Dec 24 2011, 05:53 PM #107

dgoodmaniii @ Dec 24 2011, 10:21 AM wrote: A datum like the circumference of the earth is an abstract concept that doesn't relate much, if at all, to the daily experiences of mankind.
I think the intent of the metric system was to have a decimalized nautical mile. Instead of 1 nautical mile = 1/60 of a degree, you'd have 1 km = 1/100 of a gradian.

But the gradian never gained the popularity that the degree did.
Quote
Like
Share

m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Feb 20 2011, 10:15 AM

Dec 24 2011, 10:41 PM #108

Not that I'm arguing one way or another, but TGM is not exempt from constant changes. It still has a "speed of light" definition, as do most systems. But of course the UUS uses more constants, so is more likely to change.
A few little conventions:
- Dozenal integers suffixed with prime (′). This is the uncial point.
- Decimal integers suffixed with middle dot (·). This is the decimal point.

You may see me use * prefix for messages before 11Ɛ7-03-1X, and a whole range of similar radix points. I will often use X and Ɛ for :A and :B.

Sometimes, I will imply that an integer is in dozenal, so I won't add any marks to it. You should be able to tell that "10 = 22 * 3" is in dozenal.
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Dec 24 2011, 11:28 PM #109

Because I do not catch up with an English argument, it seems to be made late comments.
I upload what I wrote first of all.

------------------------
There are four indications that comment need.

<-y- is silly as English.>
It seems to remain in stupidity of the degree that a famous scholar can suggest the system.

<Only English is considered.>
It is only U.K. and U.S. that Dozenal Socity exists.
The most important point is success in English language.
Other languages can handle new words as words of foreign origin.

<We design a system for all people.>
probably, it differs from the purpose and becomes the system designed for nobody.

For example, (to have been already pointed out;) such as follows have problems.

'5 gross trina meters' is 126 times of '5 gross trini meters'.
The system producing such a difference by one vowel is very inconvenient in practical use.

We can express '5 gross trina meters' with '5 dozen quedra meters'.
This flexibility causes confusion of the communication.
The interval of big prefixes must be sparse.
(I think that the use of the prefixes in the range of 12-3..123 should be limited.)

The convenience of the sender of the information is made much of,
and the convenience of the addressee of the information is considered to be contempt adversely.

The mertic system designers considered the balance of the convenience of addressees and senders,
and designed the metric system so that problems such as the above do not happen.
It is important to learn experience of the metric system.
(The metric system is designed for all people, too.)

<It is convenient when we make acceleration of gravity of the earth a unit.>

The experience of my trial and error shows the following simple fact:

The acceleration of gravity of the earth is too big for the unit system of the human scale.

Please see also error column of http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~dd6t-sg/uni ... rmonic.pdf.

----------------------
I do not think that my suggestion is the best.

It is an alternative suggestion that I want.
(Especialy to 12-1 prefix)
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Dec 24 2011, 11:32 PM #110

Because I do not catch up with an English argument, it seems to be made late comments.
I upload what I wrote first of all.

------------------------
There are four indications that comment need.

<-y- is silly as English.>
It seems to remain in stupidity of the degree that a famous scholar can suggest the system.

<Only English is considered.>
It is only U.K. and U.S. that Dozenal Socity exists.
The most important point is success in English language.
Other languages can handle new words as words of foreign origin.

<We design a system for all people.>
Probably, it differs from the purpose and becomes the system designed for nobody.

For example, (to have been already pointed out;) such as follows have problems.

'5 gross trina meters' is 126 times of '5 gross trini meters'.
The system producing such a difference by one vowel is very inconvenient in practical use.

We can express '5 gross trina meters' with '5 dozen quedra meters'.
This flexibility causes confusion of the communication.
The interval of big prefixes must be sparse.
(I think that the use of the prefixes in the range of 12-3..123 should be limited.)

The convenience of the sender of the information is made much of,
and the convenience of the addressee of the information is considered to be contempt adversely.

The mertic system designers considered the balance of the convenience of addressees and senders,
and designed the metric system so that problems such as the above do not happen.
It is important to learn experience of the metric system.
(The metric system is designed for all people, too.)

<It is convenient when we make acceleration of gravity of the earth a unit.>

The experience of my trial and error shows the following simple fact:

The acceleration of gravity of the earth is too big for the unit system of the human scale.

Please see also error column of http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~dd6t-sg/uni ... rmonic.pdf.

----------------------
I do not think that my suggestion is the best.

It is an alternative suggestion that I want.
(Especialy to 12-1 prefix)
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM

Dec 25 2011, 02:52 AM #111

[quote="Takashi @ Dec 24 2011, 11:28 PM"]<-y- is silly as English.> It seems to remain in stupidity of the degree that a famous scholar can suggest the system.[/quote] This kind of argument is a well-known rhetorical fallacy called "appeal to authority." "Scholar" is too broad a term. Donald Knuth is a brilliant scholar of [i]computer science.[/i] But that does not guarantee he is a brilliant scholar of [i]linguistics[/i]. The "myllion" system is a very lame idea. In English, the letter "y" is often pronounced exactly like "i" in the same contexts. When an English-speaker sees "myllion" for the first time, the natural tendency is to assume it is pronounced exactly like "million", just with an odd, non-standard spelling. One must be told to violate one's natural tendency, and force oneself to pronounce it with the long "i" sound instead. The result is awkward, and frankly sounds silly (at least, to me). [quote]<Only English is considered.> It is only U.K. and U.S. that Dozenal Socity exists.[/quote] Haven't we heard from someone in Latin America talking about Spanish-language dozenalism? I myself am an advocate for dozenalism in [i]Esperanto[/i], of all things! ;-) [quote]The most important point is success in English language. Other languages can handle new words as words of foreign origin.[/quote] A better solution would be to create a system of prefixes derived from Latin/Greek, achieving the same level of "seriousness" as the metric prefixes (but not necessarily exactly imitating them!) This is the intent of SDN. Even if we initially focus on creating English versions of these prefixes, the assumption is that any other language could derive its own versions from the same Latin/Greek roots, adapting them to its own morphology. [quote]<We design a system for all people.> probably, it differs from the purpose and becomes the system designed for nobody. For example, (to have been already pointed out;) such as follows have problems. '5 gross [b]trina[/b] meters' is 12[sup]6[/sup] times of '5 gross [b]trini[/b] meters'. The system producing such a difference by one vowel is very inconvenient in practical use. [/quote] I agree with this -- but you are talking about [i]Pendlebury's[/i] prefix system. I (and others) have made this criticism even stronger than you have made it: Not only does Pendlebury make the only difference between the positive and negative powers a single vowel, but that vowel appears in a non-stressed syllable, which in English tends to be pronounced as a schwa sound (//) no matter what the vowel is. You must exert an unnatural effort to force one of the prefixes to have a different pronunciation. SDN was designed so that it would not suffer this deficiency. In fact, this problem with Pendlebury's prefixes was the initial motivation for developing SDN! In SDN, the equivalent example would be: 5 gross [b]triqua[/b]meters is 10[sup]6[/sup] times 5 gross [b]tricia[/b]meters These prefixes bear quite distinct differences in consonant sounds, not affected by whether the syllables are stressed or not. [quote]We can express '5 gross trina meters' with '5 dozen quedra meters'. This flexibility causes confusion of the communication. The interval of big prefixes must be sparse. (I think that the use of the prefixes in the range of 12[sup]-3[/sup]..12[sup]3[/sup] should be limited.)[/quote] You appear to adhere to the philosophy: "Anything that is not mandatory must be forbidden." And the converse: "Anything not forbidden is mandatory." :) Just because we are given the [i]ability[/i] to do something does not mean that we are [i]required[/i] to do it! If, in the interest of clarity of communication, you wish to limit yourself to use only every third power prefix, and to advocate that others limit themselves to those as well, that is perfectly acceptable. But even if we limit ourselves to every third power, what is wrong with naming those powers by their exponents? Why not give those powers names that essentially mean "third-power", "sixth-power", "ninth-power", "twelfth-power", etc.? (I.e. "triqua", "hexqua", "ennqua", "unnilqua", etc.). What is the purpose behind exponents (or rather, logarithms) in mathematics? Isn't it that they make it easier to deal with orders of magnitude, by transforming them into simple integers? Wouldn't it be easier for someone to produce the name for a large order of magnitude, if all they need to know is the number of zeroes following the one, and simply express that number as part of the name? How does something like the "myriad/myllion" system make it easier to deal with large orders of magnitude? Doesn't it, in fact, make large orders of magnitude very complex and unwieldy, because of all the levels of nesting? Now, suppose someone disagreed that 3 is the best number to use for grouping dozenal digits. What if they had a strong preference for 4 instead? SDN allows for this. Such people can limit their communications to using every fourth power of twelve: e.g. "quadqua", "octua", "unnilqua", "unquadqua", etc.) But it is easy to translate between the 4-digit convention and the 3-digit convention: Almost as easy as saying 4 = 3+1. "quadqua" = "triqua" * 10 [quote]The convenience of the sender of the information is made much of, and the convenience of the addressee of the information is considered to be contempt adversely.[/quote] None of the arguments that I've been presenting in this thread are intended to disparage or show contempt to anyone. I don't think I've expressed them in a way that even [i]implies[/i] any disrespect to anyone. [quote]The mertic system designers considered the balance of the convenience of addressees and senders, and designed the metric system so that problems such as the above do not happen. It is important to learn experience of the metric system. (The metric system is designed for all people, too.)[/quote] I totally disagree with this! Right now, I [i]will[/i] express my utter contempt and disrespect for certain people: the designers of the metric system! And I'm not even going to [i]imply[/i] my contempt, I'm going to state it directly: They were radical over-intellectual French-revolutionary paper-pushers and bureaucrats without a shred of common sense, who completely disregarded every practical experience with actual day-to-day measurement during their era. The system they constructed was not designed to be useful and convenient for the common man, but to be useful and convenient for paper-pushers and bureaucrats like themselves! And, in order to shove their system down the throats of the common man, they needed to exert the full force of [i]law[/i], with the threat of the guillotine to back them up! I mean, they're the same "geniuses" who tried to foist [i]decimal clocks[/i] on the world! That being said, I do not wish you to think that I mean [i]you[/i] any disrespect because you have a higher opinion of the metric founders than I do. But I believe you are mistaken about them, and should reconsider. [quote]<It is convenient when we make acceleration of gravity of the earth a unit.> The experience of my trial and error shows the following simple fact: The acceleration of gravity of the earth is too big for the unit system of the human scale.[/quote] What do you judge this on? The use of the TGM Gee unit for acceleration leads to a Vlos unit for velocity that fits most human-scale speeds within 1 or 2 digits. It also leads to a Gravfoot unit for length that is quite close to a customary foot. The cubic Gravfoot, or Volm, is somewhat large compared to a gallon or a liter, but within 1 to 3 digits to the right of the dozenal point we get quite convenient units: The unciaVolm is right between an Imperial and U.S. half-gallon. The triciaVolm is almost exactly a tablespoon. The use of the density of water and the Volm leads to a Maz unit for mass that is somewhat large compared to a pound or a kilogram. However, masses humans encounter day-to-day fit within 1 to 3 digits to the left or right of the dozenal point. A quarter Maz is very close to a British stone. A stone is also a largish unit yet the British don't seem to have any trouble using it. Most importantly, the use of the Gee for unit acceleration makes it trivial to convert between mass and weight (at least, within the Earth-local environment). [quote]I do not think that my suggestion is the best. It is an alternative suggestion that I want. (Especialy to 12[sup]-1[/sup] prefix)[/quote] So, why not take a look at SDN, where the exponent is expressed directly with a Latin or Greek root? For example, 10[sup]-1[/sup] = uncia-, where un = one, -cia- = negative power.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)
Quote
Like
Share

dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
Joined: May 21 2009, 01:45 PM

Dec 25 2011, 05:56 AM #112

Kodegadulo @ Dec 25 2011, 02:52 AM wrote:The acceleration of gravity of the earth is too big for the unit system of the human scale.
I must admit this threw me, as well. The only unit that seems a bit large is the Maz, and even there its dozenal subdivisions are quite convenient humanly speaking. Others are well-documented enough that they need not be repeated here.
All numbers in my posts are dozenal unless stated otherwise.
For ten, I use :A or X; for elv, I use :B or E. For the digital/fractional/radix point, I use the Humphrey point, ";".
TGM for the win!
Dozenal Adventures
Quote
Like
Share

icarus
Dozens Demigod
icarus
Dozens Demigod
Joined: Apr 11 2006, 12:29 PM

Dec 25 2011, 09:04 PM #113

Dan @ Dec 24 2011, 05:53 PM wrote:Instead of 1 nautical mile = 1/60 of a degree, you'd have 1 km = 1/100 of a gradian.

But the gradian never gained the popularity that the degree did.
Ah the gradian, where 30 degrees, one half of the equilateral angle, is 33.3333333333333…. here the metric wonks weren't simply fighting tradition, as metric is a modernist idea; they were at odds with geometry! Here decimal extremists (as my buddy kode and I both take the French revolutionary thinkers that produced the systeme internationale, like many forms of modernism a harsh abstraction of the world based on limited human knowledge at a small instant of history) slammed into the wall, along with decimal time. Dividing the day into ten hours is just silly.

Now before we go too darn far, I used to punch in and get decimal hours to the nearest tenth: "8.1 hours" at my teenage job. I always thought about that weird way of recording time. Turns out that the original system neatly accommodates silly overdecimalism: 8.1 hours is exactly 8:06 minutes. So the elder system, "flawed" because it isn't entirely decimal, can represent anything the new system presents to the nearest tenth as an integral number of minutes. But the new shiny modernist system can't precisely and succinctly render 8:20 or 8:10. We're stuck with 8.3 or 8.2 instead. Of course at &#036;3.35 an hour, it doesn't much matter now does it?

All this said, I think those involved at crafting the Jules Vernian attempt at a metric system did their best. It's just that there was a better way, and they even knew it! I blame LaGrange. Where they truly presented plans that were truly cumbersome, those plans never made it. That is why they had to eat the second as a unit of time, and why gradians succumbed, and radians are used. But the average bloke in the field doesn't care about the relationship of angle to circumference (unless involved with circles); so we have degrees as a strong, non canonical unit. "Park at a 45 degree angle" the sign says at the local park, not "park at a quarter-pi radian angle". What do you suppose we'd get if the sign said the latter? The aluminum curtain wall catalog I looked at on Thursday says "135-degree extrusion" and not "3/4-pi radian extrusion", though here if they used tau and said "3/8-round extrusion" architects may more intuitively picture the item. So clearly implementation of the metric system has a scientific and a common use. Science uses radians and steradians; the average person uses degrees and doesn't know and normally won't understand what a steradian is or why one would ever need to use it.

I think there can be a scientific UUS with the CODATA-based units, and a common-use system with units for everyday use. (same is true with TGM, though many of these units are already human-scale). So now I am going to make the equivalent of 8 inches my basis, have it cover an average size worksite, and use ;6 unit horizontally, ;4 vertically.
Quote
Like
Share

m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
m1n1f1g
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Feb 20 2011, 10:15 AM

Dec 26 2011, 03:17 PM #114

Takashi @ Dec 25 2011, 12:32 AM wrote: The acceleration of gravity of the earth is too big for the unit system of the human scale.
I sort of see what you mean, that the Tim is rather short, but for us down here on Earth, it is very useful. Water is also rather dense, but it should help us to realise how much so if we have it in our unit system. Most liquids are roughly the same density as water, so it makes it really easy to convert volume into mass. Their inconvenient sizes happen to give great benefits to the common man.
A few little conventions:
- Dozenal integers suffixed with prime (&#8242;). This is the uncial point.
- Decimal integers suffixed with middle dot (·). This is the decimal point.

You may see me use * prefix for messages before 11&#400;7-03-1X, and a whole range of similar radix points. I will often use X and &#400; for :A and :B.

Sometimes, I will imply that an integer is in dozenal, so I won't add any marks to it. You should be able to tell that "10 = 22 * 3" is in dozenal.
Quote
Like
Share

dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
Joined: May 21 2009, 01:45 PM

Dec 26 2011, 04:22 PM #115

m1n1f1g @ Dec 26 2011, 03:17 PM wrote:
Takashi @ Dec 25 2011, 12:32 AM wrote: The acceleration of gravity of the earth is too big for the unit system of the human scale.
I sort of see what you mean, that the Tim is rather short, but for us down here on Earth, it is very useful. Water is also rather dense, but it should help us to realise how much so if we have it in our unit system. Most liquids are roughly the same density as water, so it makes it really easy to convert volume into mass. Their inconvenient sizes happen to give great benefits to the common man.
The Tim's a bit short, but since the five-minute block is an exact multiple, and we wind up with interim multiples at very convenient sizes, I don't think this is a problem; indeed, as m1n1f1g notes, it's very useful, particularly since it makes other units, like the Grafut, the Vlos, and the Gee such convenient sizes.

The only real inconvenience from this I can see is the Maz; but again, it's not *that* big, and its twelfth is quite convenient for daily purposes, only about twice the size of a kilogram, and about four and a quarter the size of a pound. E.g., a fifth of an unciaMaz is about a pound, and half an unciaMaz is about a kilogram. Personally, buying a fifth of an unciaMaz of apples doesn't seem any more inconvenient to me than buying a pound of apples; though I'd expect them to be sold in sixths, rather than fifths, making a bit over a 3/4 of a pound each. (I suppose metric people, used to buying in kilograms, would prefer half unciaMaz to sixths; or do you all buy in half-kilograms?) Either way, there are plenty of easy and convenient human-scaled sizes from the Maz.

I'm not sure why you'd say density was a bit high; the Denz is virtually identical to the g/cm3, after all. (Or kg/dm3.) It's certainly high when compared to that of the gases, but not when compared to liquid and solid elements. In any case, water being the most common liquid in our lives by far, it seems like the only reasonable choice for a basis for density anyway.
All numbers in my posts are dozenal unless stated otherwise.
For ten, I use :A or X; for elv, I use :B or E. For the digital/fractional/radix point, I use the Humphrey point, ";".
TGM for the win!
Dozenal Adventures
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Dec 29 2011, 02:26 AM #116

< -y- >
I intend that the Latin and Greek numeral last vowel of which is changed into 'y' shows duodecimal system context.
I feel this rule same kind of operation as making 'unqua' from 'uncia'.

Originally the prefix consonant of 'quinque' was 'p-' as well as Greek. It was dragged in 'q' behind.
However, nobody will say Romans to be silly.

Do you feel the nuance of the dialect? like..
- The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.
- I go to the lake today. (to die?!...)

< metric system founders >
I don't have a higher opinion to metric system founders.
Their porposal includes both the success and the failure.
As icarus pointed it out, the decimal time unit system was refused.
But the other system was accepted widely. It is this fact that is important.
The maintenance policy of current metric system is rational policy
supported by the experience of over 200 years.

Please read the definition document of the International System of Units,
the Universal Unit System Appendix A and a book which I introduced before.

< the decimal time unit system >
The reason why the decimal time unit system was refused is not a problem only for its articulacy.
Calendar time units are the most conservative units.
Easiness of the conversion between both is necessary for the shifts from the old system to the new system.
- What time of the new system is 5 o'clock of the old system?
- What time of the old system is 3 o'clock of the new system?
Without computers, nobody can answer these questions.

Probably I think that the system shift that any (equal or greater than ten minutes order) conversion needs is impossible.

There is difference in the degree, but the TGM has the same problem, too.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Dec 29 2011, 02:28 AM #117

In current proposal, 'milly' means that:
(adjective) : 12-3
(noun) : 50 seconds # Abbreviation of 'milly day'

Thus, the follows are natural, too. 'dour' means that:
(adjective) : 12-1
(noun) : 2 hours # Abbreviation of 'dour day'

1. The initial character of the candidate is 'd'.
2. The meaning of the candidate has 12-1-ness.
3. The DSA uses 'dour' as a double-hour meaning.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Jan 2 2012, 12:34 AM #118

The TGM system seems to be suitable for scientific and technological use rather than for daily use.
Takashi @ Sep 19 2011, 06:12 AM wrote:The human being can grasp numbers only countable in a work day or a night intuitively.
<snip>
We cannot but grasp the further numbers logarithmically.
It is necessary that the unit system to use by daily life expresses amount to grasp intuitionally.
On the other hand, we do not mind the unit system to use in science and technology if we can express amount logarithmically.

I take up follows as an example of daily expression.

[A] A soccer game consists of two halves of forty five minutes. (decimal expression)
A soccer game consists of two halves of four dozen six millies. (the Universal Unit System)
[C] A soccer game consists of two halves of nine trinaTim. (the TGM system)

'nine trina' means 9&#215;123. This is an exponential notation.
Because the TGM uses the same words for number counting and unit prefix,
we are forced to logarithmically grasp a number which is in the range recognizable intuitively.
-----------------

The difference between expression of [A](45.) and (46;) is up to less than two minutes at degree of additinal time.
In contrast, [C] is the expression that is totally different in the order of ten minutes.

Calendar time units are the most conservative units.
I think it is impossible that the daily use system shift between calendar time systems whose expresion for the order of ten minutes is totally different.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

Takashi
Regular
Takashi
Regular
Joined: Apr 12 2010, 02:24 PM

Jan 2 2012, 01:41 AM #119

To give a concept a name is to hide the structure of the concept in a black box.

When we want to prevent us from being conscious of the structure of a concept by communication, we name the concept.
Unit prefixes are this example.

On the contrary, we must not name a concept when we use the structure of the concept by communication.
The naming policy for derived units is this example.
Decimal figures are indicated by a period “.” as the radix point, and duodecimal figures are indicated by a semicolon“;” as the radix point. Both notations may use a comma “,” and “_” as the digit group separator. ‘X’ expresses ten, ‘E’ expresses eleven and ‘M’ expresses 1_0000,0000;(=12.^8). Octal figures are indicated by an at sign “@” as the radix point.
Quote
Like
Share

dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
dgoodmaniii
Dozens Demigod
Joined: May 21 2009, 01:45 PM

Jan 2 2012, 02:12 AM #120

Takashi @ Jan 2 2012, 12:34 AM wrote:[C] A soccer game consists of two halves of nine trinaTim. (the TGM system)
[D] A soccer game consists of two halves of 0;9 hours. (TGM)
[E] A soccer game consists of two halves of nine blocks (nine unciaHour). (TGM)
[F] A soccer game consists of two halves of nine dozen tocks (nine dozen biciaHour). (TGM)

That's the thing about TGM; it's easily adaptable, do the rational procession of prefixes and the convenient sizes of its primary units, to use in this way. Whatever multiple of the base unit, or indeed of auxiliary units (as here, with its use of hours, unciaHours (which we've nicknamed "blocks"), and biciaHours (which we've nicknamed "tocks")), is most convenient can be easily used.
All numbers in my posts are dozenal unless stated otherwise.
For ten, I use :A or X; for elv, I use :B or E. For the digital/fractional/radix point, I use the Humphrey point, ";".
TGM for the win!
Dozenal Adventures
Quote
Like
Share