tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post7965285481663544113..comments2020-11-24T09:46:09.481-06:00Comments on Computational Complexity: If we had 12 fingers on our hands then Obama would be the nomineeLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-38805844222330825132008-04-28T16:36:00.000-05:002008-04-28T16:36:00.000-05:00@anon 5: care to explain why your remark is funny?...@anon 5: care to explain why your remark is funny?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-3148812341423201372008-04-28T07:04:00.000-05:002008-04-28T07:04:00.000-05:00Ease depends on the application. I remember readi...Ease depends on the application. I remember reading that ancient Babylonian book keepers did everything in base 60 because it had so many prime divisors and allowed a lot of calculation tricks. <BR/><BR/>Then again, I've read that the fall of the Roman empire can be partly attributed to their nonsensical counting system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-4510720068272731222008-04-26T18:17:00.000-05:002008-04-26T18:17:00.000-05:00This sort of deviates from the Clinton vs Obama de...This sort of deviates from the Clinton vs Obama debate, but this discussion reminds me that pre-Christian Germanic cultures used to use a base 12 system. That is the reason why we have the numbers eleven and twelve rather than oneteen and twoteen. However, their number system had one hundred being 12x10. Historical records around 1000 AD are ambiguous when they say something like "the king sailed with a hundred ships", because both number systems were in use at that time so it is unclear if 100 is meant or 120.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-36833756630071544022008-04-26T14:36:00.000-05:002008-04-26T14:36:00.000-05:00.092(base 10) ~= .112(base 12) so if we had 12 fin....092(base 10) ~= .112(base 12) so if we had 12 fingers, Clinton would have won by 11.2%, much <B>more</B> than the 2 digits she needed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-62638023168578672772008-04-25T18:03:00.000-05:002008-04-25T18:03:00.000-05:00>base 10 is much more natural than >anything menti...>base 10 is much more natural than >anything mentioned here.. at >least for humans.. and its not >because we are used to it, its >just easier to manipulate<BR/><BR/>We are used to be humans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-11237404253209712552008-04-25T13:44:00.000-05:002008-04-25T13:44:00.000-05:00A double digit lead could also be like a self-fulf...A double digit lead could also be like a self-fulfilling prophecy where you know that there are people out there who will somehow behave differently because of this, which is why you may postulate there's a bigger difference between 9.4 and 10.2 than numerically implied. The problem then reduces to why those people think that way, ab infinitum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-24735864123240627022008-04-25T13:21:00.000-05:002008-04-25T13:21:00.000-05:00base 10 is much more natural than anything mention...base 10 is much more natural than anything mentioned here.. at least for humans.. and its not because we are used to it, its just easier to manipulateAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-91688259049271524482008-04-25T12:12:00.000-05:002008-04-25T12:12:00.000-05:00Except if we worked in base 12, then we wouldn't r...Except if we worked in base 12, then we wouldn't reckon percentages out of 100, but rather out of 144. So Clinton would need to lead by more than 1/12 in order to feel that she should stay in the race.<BR/><BR/>However, if we had <I>eight</I> fingers, then a "double-digit" lead would be a lead of more than what we call 12.5%.Michael Lugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671307315028242949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-8580611917230769412008-04-25T11:36:00.000-05:002008-04-25T11:36:00.000-05:00Mathematically it may be insignificant, but I'm no...Mathematically it may be insignificant, but I'm not sure you can say politically. I would be surprised if there weren't some tie between the perceived significance of the results and the number of digits. If not, why do so many items cost 9.95 and 99.95?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com