|
Don't know about you, but they are not equivalent systems to me. 
|
|
|
|
|
No, octal would be more natural, since we actually have 8 fingers.Ayt least I do!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: Btw: I'm Aware, it took a longer time to recognize that "Zero" also exists.
I've recently been watching some YouTube videos late at night about the Sumerian Sexagesimal (base 60)[^] system. It's extremely interesting. The Sumerians absolutely knew about zero.. but they did not have a symbol for it. In all of the clay tablets with calculations requiring a zero... there is a blank space where the number zero should be. That makes perfect sense to me... with zero being NULL.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
There is some very interesting speculation about west-to-east (from Egypt) cultural transmission of iconography and the mathematical basis for weights and measures in this book on the weights of Burma (now Myanmar):
Note: CP editor is not displaying pasted in links as expected ...
https://www.amazon.com/Earth-Heaven-Animal-Shaped-Weights-Burmese/dp/9747551209
It's an out-of print book for a specialist, and ridiculously expensive, now. And, frustrating to read because some very grandiose theories are proposed, but sources are not annotated satisfactorily.
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a known bug with link paste currently being reported on the Buggs%Suggs forum.
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, If you really want this book, let me know ... while I don't think it has ever been digitized, once in a while I find a copy in a Chiang Mai used book store for cheap.
I disagree with both the reviews currently on Amazon 
cheers, Bill
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How would you represent number 16dec in hexadecimal system? 8dec in octal? 2dec in binary?
Base of any numerical system is represented as 10 in it's own base.
|
|
|
|
|
You just ran over a math's train over my head. It truly is mathematically indistinguishable :p
|
|
|
|
|
I have nothing to add, just wanted to say that this is a great example of why I like this place.
i. Interesting questions
ii. Lot's of really smart people here with intelligent or humorous (both entertaining) answers
..even on a weekend!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
So have a nice Weekend
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I second this. I learn a lot in these discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
I can think that Zero does not offer much trade use?
You either trade or not.
If i give you 10 for somthing of 5 value, you give me 5 back.
but if i give you 10 for something of 10 value, you don't give me anything back.
Nothing/Zero is similar.
- yes its zero, but for the purpose of the trade, nothing.
contrast with mathematics, 2x0 - not sure what trade situation except the trader turns up with nothing to trade. I'm not going to work out some maths to know he aint got anything to trade.
|
|
|
|
|
11 is far from logical. Afterall, using an 11-based system would exclude roughly half of the population from counting.
|
|
|
|
|
It's hard to see the past with future knowledge.
There were 2 concepts. COUNTING, which everyone had to learn how to do.
And NOBODY bothered COUNTING ZERO of something. Does a cow farmer record ZERO Sheep, ZERO Goats, etc... Nope, he counts cows... And if the count is ZERO... I am certain he is in PANIC mode. LOL
The other concept was MATH. And that is where ZERO is a strict requirement.
And we learn numbers first, then math to this day, but we learn more math sooner.
Also, I have a daughter, I remember teaching her to count. I can't remember teaching her to start at ZERO.
==
Here is something interesting about the NAMES for our numbers. Which are NOT good names in English. Because we USED to use BASE 12. The repetition parallel naming starts at 21 (21, 31, 41).
But not 11 (which should be tenny-one, or ten-1 or One-teen [best]... Indicating 10 Plus one)
But because we used to be base 12 (12 inches in a foot, 12 in dozen, etc)... the TEENS start at 13.
Also, implied... Many people were counting much passed this.
And mathematically speaking... Base 12 was superior. It divides by 2,3 and 4. Something 10 cannot do without decimals.
And don't get me started with decimals. try that in ROMAN Numerals. In fact, division of Roman Numerals (without converting to decimal in your head), takes YEARS to master.
So, now we realize we have COUNTING, MATH, and REPRESENTATION...
The last one becomes important. How many times have you seen someone open and close their hands to tell you a bigger number like 20, or 30... Do that using Hexadecimal Representation. LOL...
|
|
|
|
|
Impressive, thanks for this
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Got an ASP.NET MVC Core app with a SQL Server database.
I have a decimal field in the database, gets correctly converted to decimal in .NET, and then it gets send to the front-end as-is (1.2).
The input (type="number") shows 1,2 (one comma two), but when I send it to the back-end it's converted to 12.
Even 1.2 (one dot two) is saved as 12.
Even when I do absolutely nothing my number is converted to 12.
I'm sure there's a good explanation, like Vue.js messing up my numeric fields or whatever.
Googling the problem gives me all kinds of libraries for working with numbers.
I'm so happy that after about 30 years of web development we can finally handle numbers without hassle 
Guess I'll just be happy I'm not working with dates.
Or worse, CSS.
|
|
|
|
|
Your database sounds like it is storing everything in an English Culture. The UI sounds like it uses the Dutch culture.
Do you convert your value to the correct culture before saving?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
As a decimal, culture should be irrelevant, and I can't see Sander storing numbers as strings in his DB - that's a rookie mistake.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a decimal going out the db. It's not when it is displayed, or when it is sent back to the database.
Sander Rossel wrote: The input (type="number") shows 1,2 (one comma two), but when I send it to the back-end it's converted to 12.
Even 1.2 (one dot two) is saved as 12.
"Number" might be referring to "ints", not decimals at all.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: "Number" might be referring to "ints", not decimals at all.
Because HTML input only knows "number" and not "decimal" 
Maybe I should just use an input type="text" and work with a mask.
HTML is as useful as a pair of scissors while running down the stairs.
I'm not even sure which I hate more anymore[^], HTML or CSS.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
