|
|
|
|
|
by quesera
777 days ago
|
|
Of course it would be different. I'm well aware of historical numbering systems, and their applications. My point is that if base-12 was biologically natural, instead of more effortfully useful, there would be many differences in the way we do things -- although of course we would be mostly unaware of them, as a fish in water. There would be no metric-vs-imperial units dichotomy, for example. (EDIT: Or at least the conflict would be different and likely lesser, ergo easier to switch) NASA probably wouldn't have lost the $327MM Mars Climate Orbiter. And it wouldn't have cost $327MM in the first place. In some cases, unit sizes would be different. That's the easy case. But in counting systems, 100 of some atomic thing would be 44% more than it is today. 1000 would be 73% more. 1MM would be almost triple. Given the attachment people have to round numbers, this would have implications. Some things would be bigger. Other things would be considered in different increments. It's interesting. Not profound. |
|
No, they wouldn't. This would be a very minor effect, because the primary determinant of sizes and amounts is how big you need something to be, or how much of it you need.
Instead, you'd see the same thing we already do see: contexts in which an existing unit was difficult to work with would be given their own units of a more convenient size. Consider how horses are measured in increments of four inches, or how soft drinks are sold in unit sizes of 12 ounces, 20 ounces, and 67.6 ounces.
The units aren't called that, of course; those sizes are "one can", "one bottle", and "two liters".