We should count in base four
We have basic words for the numbers zero to three, so why not use them to count?
- None (0)
- Single (1)
- pair (2)
- Multiple (3+ but we'll use it as three)
So with those "digits" we can construct some numbers:
- Single
- pair
- Multiple
- Single nothing
- Single single
- Single pair
- Single multiple
- Pair of nothing
- Pair of singels
- Pair of pairs
And of course we can construct bigger numbers like:
42 = 4²×2+4¹×2+4⁰×2 = pair of pairs of pairs
128 = 4³×2 = pair of absolute complete nothinges
For this last one I just use some adjectives to repeat the "nothing" as it looks really weird with multiple nothing in a row.
The distance between Stockholm and Gothenburg is a single multiple of none multiple multiples
Could I have a single multiple of bananas please?
One of us is high as fuck and I don't think it's me.
I am high actually, genuinely thought it made perfect sense lmao
I bet a lot of things make sense to you when you’re high, sharkfucker420
I might be weird for this but one of my favorite things while high is to watch videos about scientific and political theory way beyond my level of understanding. It makes perfect fucking sense until I actually try and think about it. Fantastic time 10/10
OP is clearly a troll:
Yes, I'm indeed a traditional Swedish troll. Here I am, I'm the one to the right with red hair on this image:
No idea why but this reminds me of
Probably because black dudes make you think of Swedish stuff
But everyone knows camels are the better mathematicians, having always used base infinity.
But why? And if we would change the base, why to 4 and not something much more useful like 12?
Base 12 gang
Base 12 being the best is probably why AI keeps trying to give people six digits per hand.
Base 6 is the most useful.
But THIS one goes to 11.
Are we trying to outmath the Danes or what is going on?
Mathematically this works just like our number system, your just not used to it
Lemmings really do be built different. You would never see this kind of raw mathematical genius on reddit
Why not use “triple” for three, which actually does mean three.
Because we also have words like quadruple, quintuple, etc which would break his theory. lol
How about treble?
If you ask someone for "multiple" of something their almost always going to give you three of that thing (or nothing). In that context multiple is just three and as @CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world pointed out, if I use triple I could as well keep going with higher numbers (quadrupole etc)
If someone asks me for "a few" I'll give them three or four. If someone asks for "multiple" I'll give them a handful and ask if that's enough.
I don't know where in the world this theory is coming from, but here, two would be "a couple" and three+ would be "a few." Not that "a pair" (never just pair) and multiple aren't used in other contexts, but you wouldn't use pair and multiple in the same context. A pair is specific, multiple is an estimate.
Maybe it's just me: had to double back on that literal use of "where in the world".
😉
It's just me thinking of what I ordered people near me would do. But I'm not a native English speaker so my feel for the language might be wrong; I'm from Sweden (and my mother tongue is Swedish).
Huh? I've lived a long time and that's not something that feels familiar to me. On the other hand I do have multiple dollars in my bank account and that equation checks out.
I'm not a native English speaker so you (and everyone else here) are probably right. I thought it meant the same thing as the Swedish word "flera" whilst the proper translation seems to be "ett flertal"
I think it differs. To me, "flera" is like 3-5 maybe? Perhaps 4-10 in some cases. And I sometimes hear people use "par" to mean 3, probably short for "ett par tre stycken", so a poorly defined 2-3 that sometimes is 3.
The victim was shot multiple times. I don't see this as 3. I'd see this as 5 or 6 times
Yeah, your probably right; my English ain't perfect. A few would probably have been better to use as @RainfallSonata@lemmy.world pointed out
Lower bases like base-2 and base-4 are more efficient in some ways because they use fewer symbols, but with the tradeoff that the numbers get longer. e.g. 13033 vs 499. Most computers count in base-2, but ssds actually count in base-8, as it's the most efficient way to store data on the kind of flash storage that they use. Honestly, for humans it probably matters more to have easy division, like with base-12, base-60, and base-360, than it does to have writing efficiency. Bases using square numbers, like base-4, base-8, and base-16 are convenient for computer scientists though, since they convert easily into base-2.
I think you meant "powers of two" not "square numbers" near the end there
Not all of them and not always
SSDs aren't just that simple. All of them have at least some SLC area, usually as cache, that's in base 2. But the rest of the SSD can be SLC base 2, MLC base 4, TLC base 8 or even QLC base 16.
And overall it's still base 2 because each SSDs pretend one block of base 4 is just two blocks of base 2, and accordingly they pretend a block of base 16 is just 8 blocks of base 2 storage.
Sure, I was simplifying a bit. But on the hardware level, TLC SSDs (the vast majority of SSDs in 2024) will physically address flash memory outside of the SLC cache as base-8. Each cell that gets written is written with a base-8 digit. But yeah, what gets exposed to the computer is all base-2. I just wanted an example of modern computers using higher bases.
I guess another example would be busses that use PAM, such as Wifi, modern 100mbit+ ethernet over copper, 100gbit+ ethernet over fiber, PCIe 6.0+, and GDDR6X. These all send symbols that count in higher bases than the traditional base-2 NRZ/PE/BPSK signalling. Often these are base-4, but they can go up to insanely large numbering systems, like base-4096 with Wifi 7.
You're absolutely right on that count. If you switch fast enough, everything has a capacitance. That's why with CMOS designs once you go above a few kHz you start worrying about fan out.
It's also why, once the ceiling is reached, everything starts using modulation tricks previously used in RF. Ethernet started with 1GbE, USB with 3.0, DSL did it from the start, with PCIe even gamers have probably seen eye diagrams in riser tests, and coax is the very definition of pushing RF over a wire.
Wait. Too many acronyms. Why do SSDs count in non binary? I thought they were banks of transistors.
Modern flash-based SSDs are banks of capacitors, and recent ones will usually store 8 different voltage levels per capacitor, allowing it to count in base-8 and saving physical size over counting in base-2. This is called "TLC", or "Tri-level cell", meaning it can store the equivalent of 3 binary bits of data in a single capacitor.
Is there any sort of error correction for this? Don’t capacitors lose charge over time?
Yes, of course there is error correction. Also, while the SSD is on power, it'll constantly go through all data and fix the areas that are starting to deteriorate.
But this does mean an SSD left without power will slowly lose data over months and years.
This also means that writing data is much slower and the SSD can handle far fewer writes. But the tradeoff is that TLC and QLC SSDs can handle 2× and 4× more data than MLC SSDs for the same price.
That's why MLC SSDs are primarily used for professional use and TLC and QLC is primarily used for gamers.
Some TLC and QLC SSDs even allow you to choose how much of the SSD should be used as SLC/MLC space (4× less data, 4× faster writes, 4× more endurance) and which part should be used as TLC/QLC (4× more data, 4× slower changes, 4× less endurance).
Should be single syllables to speak. Nil, bit, pair, few.
15 is a few few. 12 is few nil.
But for more than 2 digits, I think we need something better than just spewing digits. I would propose a vowel suffix for the higher digits. Y, O, and A. So 63 becomes few-y few few, and 64 is Bit-Y or “bitty”. Don’t need to say the nils after. 65 is Bitty bit. 255 is FewO FewY few few, followed by 256 which is Bitta.
Alright, you have had enough. Pass me the blunt.
Smart, I like the shorter words. And for the suffixes your basically picking based on the digits position from the left? So you suggest the suffixes:
I believe we'd have to continue a bit longer and maybe also have a suffix for 4th place? I would suggest using both prefixes and suffixes, maybe in this order:
... And so on, you can probably see how you could keep going in order to express any number up to 16777216. After that we might have to start using two letter prefixes/suffixes like "la", "ro" or whatever
Hey how many fingers were you born with? 10 probably. And now you know why we use base 10.
Although to be fair the Babylonias loved them some base 60. See also time keeping and degrees in a circle.
Dumb.