So, when you see 10 in base-4, you’d say “Quad”?
Ok then. In english, what would you call 4 in a base-4 system?
I think that would confuse things more than it would help. It’s base 5, unless it’s base 10, unless it’s base 50, etc. And then there’s the rules designating numbers 1 below certain other numbers, or 2 below, depending on the system being used. That’s a whole web of complications when communication is already murky.
One glyph to one integer communicates the number system being used more clearly.
It’s only 15 to us because we use base 10 (or 9+1). Like how we have 4 through 9, but that aliens in the picture only count up to 3.
In the case of a mismatch, the culture using the higher base would just translate down (Base 21+1 in the given scenario).
Single units would probably be the simplest method, but also wildly impractical as the base gets higher. You really want to count each digit just to figure out someone uses Base 100?
Huh, that’s a good point. A better universal naming system would be something like “Base x+1”, with x being one integer lower than 10. So humans would use Base 9+1, and the alien would use Base 3+1.
*This has been on my mind all day and the more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes how fundamentally terrible the name “Base-10” is. How did this never occur to the people who coined the term? Even the system I suggested is flawed as it’s still trying to incorporate the same bad logic.
A better system would be something like Base 9, stopping shy of the respective 10 in each system, or if it needs to be clarified, Base 9+0, as 0 is the extra digit in the first place, not 10.
When I was younger, palmpilots and blackberrys were the coolest things to me. Something that was basically a computer you could carry in your pocket? I wanted one so bad! And now basically everyone has something even better. Funny how things change.
Dude, it’s technology from 500+ years ago. Give 'em a break
Eh, not really. It’s been a while, but I’m pretty sure the rule in algebra when solving for a squared variable like this is to use ± for exactly that reason.
I wasn’t paying attention to that at all, hah. “William Wallace University”? Very on the nose. Had to search up “Cazique of Poyais”, but that’s a good ref too. Now I’m wondering what this is from.
*A quick search suggests it’s from this book of satirical research papers.
I hate embedded images, so no thanks.
First, this scientific paper is throwing shade left and right. Did a Scot wrong them in some way?
Second, does this mean a healthy variety of Scottish dialects will be our secret weapon against AI surveillance?
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!
I mean, the glasses one just sounds like they tried to do the right thing but trusted a shitty manufacturer. No freaking clue what the “eyes of NASA” is, though.
IANAP, but as I understand it, local clusters will remain close together due to the stronger forces of attraction they have on each other. As these clusters constitute several galaxies, I assume groupings of atoms would also stick together.
No idea where this meme template came from, but I love it. Not because I think it’s laughable that someone like Sydney Sweeney could be a nerd, but the idea of a pigeon-holed celebrity busting out facts like that out of nowhere would be awesome.
“Knows” is a strong word, though they do have a sort of language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYPFenJQciw
Np!