Link: Copy link
And constantly reminding myself to think in a different dialect slows me down. It's faster to just think in the dialect that I'm used to. I could train my brain to use the other dialect as the default, but that takes time.Paul Rapoport wrote: "it takes time to train my brain to instantly associate something like "fifsen-three" with the digit pair '53'."
Not sure what the issue there is. Seems to be like a slightly different dialect.
Yes, and for the purpose of doing arithmetic in my head as quickly as possible, I don't want to mentally attach subscripts to everything in my mind's eye, and yet having a two-digit nomenclature is valuable. The most efficient way to fill that need is by way of the typical nomenclature my brain is used to from every real-world context other than this specific forum.Kodegadulo wrote: Given the context of this forum, and given the ethic of base-ecumenism I've adopted and advocated since joining here, whenever I am here, I can no longer see the digit-pair "53" as anything more than ... the digit-pair "five, three". I find I need that subscript to know whether it is supposed to mean:
53d = "fifty-three",
53z = "fivzy-three" or "five-dozen-three",
536 = "fifsen-three",
538 = "fivoctave-three",
53x = "fiftess-three",
53v = "fivescore-three",
or some other based numeral.
Hey, you've related -- and asserted -- your personal experience and inclinations. One can hardly argue with another's personal experience and inclinations. But by the same token I've related my own persinal experience and inclinations. They are as valid for me as yours are for you. I simply happen to value certain goals and am willing to at least experiment with conditioning my brain to meet them, rather than rely only on the conditioning I inherited. But hey, that's just me.arbiteroftruth wrote: Has it become controversial now to acknowledge that the real world equips us with more familiarity with decimal than with other bases?
I tend to think any mental vocalization is itself going to be boat anchor slowing down the efficiency of mental arithmetic, be it "native" decimal nomenclature or some "adopted" alternate-base nomenclature. Isn't one of the tenets of speed math to eschew any such linguistic crutches and just train your brain to visualize the symbols? In fact, I'm not even sure how much I actually vocalize numbers at all when I'm doing calculations, it seems to be much more a visual thing for me, personally.Double sharp wrote: I think arbiteroftruth makes sense here. To a hypothetical native senary user, the reading of 53 as "fifsen-three" is as automatic as the reading of it as "fifty-three" is for us. As a result, even though it's literally wrong, it makes sense to read it as "fifty-three" if you are testing the speed of senary in mental calculation, because then you are ensuring that you're not attaching weights to senary's feet by a loss of efficiency in interpreting how to read two-digit numbers.
5310?? Now, would that mean 53106 = 536, or 5310d = 53d?Double sharp wrote:Of course, I agree that when speaking about numbers in different bases, it is a bad idea to read 536 as "fifty-three" or "fifty-three base six" (is that 536 or is it 5310 = 1256?); but that is a different matter.
When you are calculating, vocalizations are indeed unnecessary and just slow you down. (Although it takes some discipline not to do it....)Kodegadulo wrote:
I tend to think any mental vocalization is itself going to be boat anchor slowing down the efficiency of mental arithmetic, be it "native" decimal nomenclature or some "adopted" alternate-base nomenclature. Isn't one of the tenets of speed math to eschew any such linguistic crutches and just train your brain to visualize the symbols? In fact, I'm not even sure how much I actually vocalize numbers at all when I'm doing calculations, it seems to be much more a visual thing for me, personally.