Its 2012 so????

Originally posted by Digi
I'm surprised nobody flipped sh*t at the flying car link. They exist, people.

Ha. Oh no, I get that completely. I just prefer base 9. If I'm grouping things on a 10 point scale, the range of 4-7 on the scale, for example, means nothing to me. But in base 9, you have:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9

Low, middle, high, and "low, middle, high" sub-groups within each of those main groupings. Extrapolate that to much larger systems and I think it has powerful use as a descriptive number system.

So, to use a mundane example, a girl is a "7" in looks (guys like doing this, so meh). But what does 7 mean?? No clue. But on a 9-point scale, that 7 means she is above average in attractiveness, but on the lower end of that above average group. 9 would be the most beautiful people I know, 5 would be average, 4 would be slightly below average but still in the same vicinity, etc.

Silly example, but it gets my point across.

I think a better case can be made for a Fibonacci based system.

That sequence occurs quite frequently in "nature". Meaning, we don't have to apply human (anthropic) designation for a numbering system simply because our hands have 10 digits.

It could work, symbolically, similar to the Roman Numeral system: IV is 4.

1, 5 is also 4 using the Fibonacci sequence because...

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5

The first number in the Fibonacci sequence (I do not count zero as the first number but I count it as the 0th number) could be thought of as our first value. The second iteration is our number 1. The third, our number two, the forth, our number three. The fifth, our number five.

What's beautiful about the Fibonacci sequence is we can always arrive at any (base-10 or otherwise) number by using the numbers that created that value in the sequence.

This is why 1 (second iteration, not first) next to 5 (fifth iteration) could mean "5th iteration minus the second iteration" to get to an exact integer value of "4".

Now why would we need an exact integer value? Set theory: we would still have sequential values that would not be perfectly captures by the Fibonacci sequence so we would have to increment and decrement based on the iteration of the sequence we are using.

So...for example...

To "say" the number 100, you'd write it out like this using the fibonacci numbers:

3 and 6 and 10, 144

Why 3 and 6 and 10?

We have to add up and subtract all of those iterations from the 12th iteration after the comma (12th iteration is 144).

Since we would be using those numbers to symbolically represent a different numbering/math based system, we'd have to designate another symbol to represent the iteration value rather than the actual integer value.

Our decimal #2 is iteration # 3 in the sequence.

Our decimal #8 is iteration #6 in the sequence.

In a universal math language, we'd have a unique symbol for each iteration of the Fibonacci sequence all the way up to omega: the theoretical maximum value a number can be without being infinity (silly concept...but roll with it). This also means that the "numbers" in that type of number system would be much much fewer in total than our current base-10 system because it is a geometric growth. For instance, to get any value in the Fibonacci based numbering system up to 100, you'd only have exactly 12 symbols required to represent all of them. Whereas, in our arabic numeral system, we'd have exactly 100 of them: [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 100]. Each number is technically a symbol. Now, we may use multiple symbols for each system to represent each indivual value in both systems, but the fibonacci sequence has the luxury of fewer actual unit representations. Some could argue that the base-10 system only uses 10 symbols, peroid. That's true but that's thinking off it like art rather than math. Each number value in base ten is technically a symbol representing that value. One hundred represents one hundred elements in some sort of set or measure. It is the symbol for that representation. The 1, the 0, and the 0 are individual symbols, sure, but together they symbolize another thing.

So if we were to use a truly universal system of international units, we'd use the most commonly occurring number set in the universe which is possibly the set of Fibonacci numbers (or golden ratio). I know that seems anthropic but it really isn't: that sequence/ratio occurs in so many places it is ridiculous...such as atomic crystalline structures, how light scatters through materials, matter arrangements in space, leaves, etc.

I hope all of that makes sense.

When does that system ever offer an advantage?

Yeah, I kinda just want to rank girls on a more definable scale.

😛

I see your point, but that's also a lot more work to rethink how we structure our numbering patterns. It's the same reason I'd be down with, say, phonetic spelling (which would be an incomprehensible boon to education in the country, but I digress), but not switching to a different language. Your idea may have more applications in scientific fields. Us common folk wouldn't really have use for the more high-minded aspects of your theory, dudemon.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I don't know, the decimal system works just fine for me. 10 - the best of the best, 5 - average, 1 or 0 - dogshit.

Well yes, we have generalities, but nothing approaching standardization. Can you really tell me that a base-10 system has more descriptive power for simple comparisons like this, than the base-9 one I outlined? If so, how?

Originally posted by Digi
I'm surprised nobody flipped sh*t at the flying car link. They exist, people.

Ha. Oh no, I get that completely. I just prefer base 9. If I'm grouping things on a 10 point scale, the range of 4-7 on the scale, for example, means nothing to me. But in base 9, you have:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9

Low, middle, high, and "low, middle, high" sub-groups within each of those main groupings. Extrapolate that to much larger systems and I think it has powerful use as a descriptive number system.

So, to use a mundane example, a girl is a "7" in looks (guys like doing this, so meh). But what does 7 mean?? No clue. But on a 9-point scale, that 7 means she is above average in attractiveness, but on the lower end of that above average group. 9 would be the most beautiful people I know, 5 would be average, 4 would be slightly below average but still in the same vicinity, etc.

Silly example, but it gets my point across.

You realize you were using base 10 to make your point? Seems to work just fine.

What you want is to rate out of 9, rather than out of 10, you already discount 0 for some reason so I think you'll be alright.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You realize you were using base 10 to make your point? Seems to work just fine.

What you want is to rate out of 9, rather than out of 10, you already discount 0 for some reason so I think you'll be alright.

Well, sure, I referenced base 10, but showed some advantages to base 9.

Zero is a non-value, in most senses an absence of a number instead of a number itself. It's not used for a lot of practical purposes.

Does the potential convenience of base 9 escape you?

Originally posted by Digi
Well, sure, I referenced base 10, but showed some advantages to base 9.

Zero is a non-value, in most senses an absence of a number instead of a number itself. It's not used for a lot of practical purposes.

Does the potential convenience of base 9 escape you?

Originally posted by Digi
Well, sure, I referenced base 10, but showed some advantages to base 9.

Zero is a non-value, in most senses an absence of a number instead of a number itself. It's not used for a lot of practical purposes.

Does the potential convenience of base 9 escape you?

Yes, completely.

I don't see the advantage of

1 - 2 - 3
4 - 5 - 6
7 - 8 - 10

at all. I suppose I can see the slight advantage of rating something on 9 points rather than 10, but like I said that seems perfectly possible in base 10, in fact you did it.

Maybe you have a better example to explain it to me though?

Although the mere fact that 9 is not divisible by 2 for a whole number seems like a major draw back. I could see some advantages of base 8 or base 12 perhaps.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t560273.html
^In many ways this is much more impressive than a flying car

Edit: I think the Hutts from Star Wars use Base-8. nerd

Originally posted by Digi
I'm surprised nobody flipped sh*t at the flying car link. They exist, people.

Yeah, but come on, that is more of a plane than an actual car. It's kind like a modern/expensive version of Scaramanga's plane/car that also was neither one or the other.

I'd also imagine any damage sustained on the road would be a flight risk to when you wanted to fly it so not very ideal if it's a specialist piece of equipment.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t560273.html
^In many ways this is much more impressive than a flying car

Edit: I think the Hutts from Star Wars use Base-8. nerd

We're so entrenched in 10 that we don't realize ANY system would be about as good once we got used to it. I just like 9 because I can find happy little mundane uses for it in my life.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, completely.

I don't see the advantage of

1 - 2 - 3
4 - 5 - 6
7 - 8 - 10

at all. I suppose I can see the slight advantage of rating something on 9 points rather than 10, but like I said that seems perfectly possible in base 10, in fact you did it.

Maybe you have a better example to explain it to me though?

Although the mere fact that 9 is not divisible by 2 for a whole number seems like a major draw back. I could see some advantages of base 8 or base 12 perhaps.

Sure it is. It's 4.5. There's no reason we should fear decimals. Whole numbers are just ones where we decided not to write the decimal in.

I'm confused about the 10 at the end. It's:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9
Not 10.

It breaks it into 3 groups of 3 each, giving us a "low/middle/high" category and a "low/middle/high" subgroup within each category. In a base 10 scale, you only have two easily subdivded categories:
1-2-3-4-5
6-7-8-9-10
Or five sub categories I suppose. But the point is, for an example, what is "7" on a 10-point scale? High-ish?? What is 7 on a 9-point scale? It's the low end of the upper third. That distinction could then be applied to all sorts of variables where we need to determine a position in relation to others.

I don't know what the difference is between a 7 and an 8 on a 10-point scale if I'm ranking a girl's hotness (again, a crude example, but an effective one). There's no criteria I can apply to say "this one's closer to 70% but this one's closer to 80%." But on a 9-point scale, I can tell you exactly what the line is between categories and begin to standardize a ranking system in my mind.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Yeah, but come on, that is more of a plane than an actual car. It's kind like a modern/expensive version of Scaramanga's plane/car that also was neither one or the other.

I'd also imagine any damage sustained on the road would be a flight risk to when you wanted to fly it so not very ideal if it's a specialist piece of equipment.

wtf did you expect it to look like? Of course it needs to kinda look like a plane. But it does both. Ergo, flying car.

But you can make a nine point scale in base 10, nothing about it prevents you from doing it or even makes it more difficult.

Oh, well sure. But it would just shift peoples' thinking to base 9, much like we're completely locked into base 10 right now, so that I could say "that restaurant is a 7" without having to explain my ranking process.

Again, I'm just looking for convenience in my life. My cool system gets me nowhere if I'm the only one that knows it and uses it.

Why are you confused about the 10 at the end? You brought up base 9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20

No?

Again it seems like the convenience of base 10 with it's easy way of telling odd from even numbers, and doing certain multiplications far outweigh what little advantage having everyone use base 9 might have (the little advantage at most being that you don't have to say "out of 9" after rating something)

Originally posted by Digi

wtf did you expect it to look like? Of course it needs to kinda look like a plane. But it does both. Ergo, flying car.

Well, like a flying car, without the wings and other elements which are synonymous with planes. Otherwise you would just call a small plane a car or an airliner a flying bus/train.

I'm not saying it's possible or that I would have been expecting that from the link but the idea of a combined plane/car is not that hard to imagine as a cruder version of that is in a 1974 James Bond movie; thus my reaction to your comment.

That flying car thing you posted, Digi, do you know if it can take off from a road or if you'd need a runway?

I'm sure they'd advise you use a runway, but the only way I could see that as a flying car would be if you could just take off from a straight road right after converting to plane mode.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That flying car thing you posted, Digi, do you know if it can take off from a road or if you'd need a runway?

I'm sure they'd advise you use a runway, but the only way I could see that as a flying car would be if you could just take off from a straight road right after converting to plane mode.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That flying car thing you posted, Digi, do you know if it can take off from a road or if you'd need a runway?

I'm sure they'd advise you use a runway, but the only way I could see that as a flying car would be if you could just take off from a straight road right after converting to plane mode.

I don't really know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why are you confused about the 10 at the end? You brought up base 9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20

No?

Again it seems like the convenience of base 10 with it's easy way of telling odd from even numbers, and doing certain multiplications far outweigh what little advantage having everyone use base 9 might have (the little advantage at most being that you don't have to say "out of 9" after rating something)

Ah ok. But here's the thing. 9x9, 10x10, anything really, are all going to equal the same totals in a Base-anything system. It wouldn't rearrange math or prevent us from seeing odds or evens. It would just take us time to ingratiate ourselves to the new system. And in the process, we'd start thinking of things in terms of their relation to 9 instead of 10, which I think would be cool.

I mean, really, my statement wasn't "the world would be a better place in base 9." No, math would be the friggin same, as would just about anything else. My statement was just that I liked it better, and I do.

Alright, I think you are wrong, for the reasons I stated. But it's alright if you prefer it.

This has been a wonderful example of internet vs. RL discussion.

RL:
"Hey, check it, if you rank things out of 9 it makes more sense sometimes and gives you more descriptive power."
"Oh, you're right, nifty."
"Yeah, cool right?"
"I'll have to try that some time for fun."
...and we go on to forget about it and continue on with our lives.

Interwebz:
"Hey guys, check it...."
"Here are the 5 reasons you are wrong, and some mathematical principles that suggest your proposed changes aren't even needed."
"But guys....it helps me rank girls in a way that makes more sense to me."
"But if you use a Fibonacci sequence..."
"Sigh. Yes yes, valid points. Forget I mentioned it."