1388
measuring rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1388 points (100.0% liked)
196
16800 readers
1440 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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"?
You're so close to getting it - why is it not a fraction of 10, but a fraction of 100?
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.
Not really able to lead a conversation without non-sequiturs, are you?
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.