this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1381 points (99.9% liked)

196

16504 readers
2035 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

212 and 100 are both equally random numbers. There's nothing special about either. Besides, water boils about 205/95 on my hill.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, 212 and 100 are not equally random. Unless you're trying to say that literally all numbers are equally random, 100 in the decimal system is much less random that 212.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets. At least Farenheit numbers were based on a chemical concoction that exhibits the same temperature output regardless of elevation or pressure that they used to calibrate.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets.

No, it's literally not. 212 is much more random. Any number like 10, 100, 1000 etc. is less random than any other number, simply by virtue of our decimal system. Just like 2,4, 8 etc. are less random in a binary system.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This isn't kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It's temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn't really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for...well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guy, I'm not arguing whether the boiling temperature of water is a random point (because it isn't random in any way, and I'm not interested in arguing that). I'm arguing one simple thing: assigning something on a scale to 100 is much less random than assigning it to 212.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't think you have a very clear grasp on what random means.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have no understanding of randomness if you think that 100 is equally random as 212 in our decimal system. No, not every number is equally random, no matter how often you repeat it.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I understand you have a fetish for numbers that are multiples of ten, but that doesn't make them special. Picking a number out of a hat is as likely to be a 9 as a 100.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Acknowledging that powers of a number systems base are special in that system isn't something I ever thought people would disagree with.

Why do you think we have concepts like "percentages"?

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because you people have ten fingers and use them to count.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're so close to getting it - why is it not a fraction of 10, but a fraction of 100?

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because base 60 was too useful for a bunch of French fuckwits couple hundred years ago

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10 because base 60 was too useful? How does that make any sense? The question wasn't why we use base 100 instead of base 60.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really knowledgeable bout history either, are you?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really able to lead a conversation without non-sequiturs, are you?

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a non sequitur. You'd know that if you ever read a book.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it's a full-on non-sequitur. As I said, the question wasn't why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 60, but why we use fractions of 100 instead of fractions of 10. What you're saying doesn't relate at all to my question.

But I'm done here, you're either arguing in incredibly bad faith, or you're not capable of understanding my questions. Either isn't something I'll spend more time on.

[–] Sagifurius@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Just cause you don't understand doesn't make it a non-sequitur