Talk:Duodecimal

Whitespace characters

@Spitzak: Hello, again! Regarding this revert: Best I can tell, the ensp characters are not needed because the text in question is aligned-right. Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, thinsp characters are not used for spaces in HTML equations. I generally convert both types of whitespace to regular spaces to make the markup easier to read, per the "keep markup simple" guideline at MOS:MARKUP. -- Beland (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Variation in spacing is definitely part of proper mathematical typography, as would be obtained by using LaTeX-style markup. It is normally provided automatically as part of the system that formats the mathematics. I see no guidance in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics about avoiding variation in spacing for HTML-formatted mathematics. All I can see is some guidance to avoid using explicit spacing commands as a trick to force LaTeX formulas to be displayed as images. It doesn't even say not to use explicit spacing in LaTeX, only not to use them for that one weird purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The note re ensp is correct: right-alighed so useless (also, in general and here too margins, padding &tc in table cells preferable not done by space characters). -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:MATH gives one clue for proper rendering in HTML: use {{math}}. And doing so stimulates having same formatting throughout, so no blanket reason to adjust whitespace case by case. I note that it is not a good idea trying to emulate exact Latex formatting. -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

{{math}} is not proper mathematics rendering. It is a hack that sort of looks like LaTeX but is not as good. That does not mean that we have to make it even worse by sticking with uniform spacing when better spacing options are available. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As always, you are invited to point out the "not proper" and propose improvements for those unspecified "worse" effects. Until that effectuates, {{math}} a good inline one to use. -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

For me removal of the nbsp from the table results in the left column being centered, not right-justified. That was why I reverted the edit. I don't have any opinion on putting thinsp in the math expressions, except I have rarely seen this in other articles.Spitzak (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the ! directive apparently overrides the table-wide align-right CSS. I fixed that by adding align-right to the needed cells and it should be behaving now. Sorry for not catching that the first time. -- Beland (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Great catch, Beland! (the table is in § Comparison to other number systems). The "!" is the wikitable marker for "row/column header" (giving those styling effects, together with semantics). -DePiep (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Notations table

I have added the notation options in table form (by characters, by base indicators); § Notations and pronunciations. They are derived from the existing text. We could reduce the overlap, but I am not sure about removing (redundant) text boldly. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Year 2022 in duodecimal

The current year represented in duodecimal (base 12) notation is written as 1206. Can anyone guess what the '6' at the end of the duodecimal representation of the current year stands for? 23.150.224.60 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It does not "stand for" anything. -- 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 22:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

it stands for "six" Brawlio (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

… which is the remainder of 2022/12. —Tamfang (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Divisibility Tests from Duodecimal

27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 22:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"The importance of 12 has been attributed to the number of lunar cycles in a year..."

Ironically, 12 lunar cycles at 29.5 days apiece total only 354 days, just a dozen days short of a Leap Year. This is why we occasionally get 13 Full Moons in a year... including this year, 2023. (August gets a 2nd Full Moon, aka "Blue Moon".) – .Raven  ^.talk 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

However, splitting the ecliptic into 12 equal parts (the signs of the zodiac) is a basic part of ancient Mesopotamian astronomy (cf. MUL.APIN), which was then incorporated into Greek astronomy and persists today. –jacobolus (t) 22:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Fractions comparison

> "... in the duodecimal system, 1/8 is exact; 1/20 and 1/500 recur because they include 5 as a factor...."
However, this comparison loads the dice, because 20_d and 500_d end in zeroes only in decimal. (In duodecimal, they are respectively 18_z and 358_z, not exactly obvious breakpoints.) Conversely, 20_z and 500_z are 24_d and 720_d. Decimal 1/24 and 1/720 are recurring numbers: respectively 0.041666... recurring (rounded to 0.0417), and 0.0013888... recurring (rounded to 0.00139). That's a wash between systems, if fairly measured. – .Raven  ^.talk 21:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncial

I've removed the references to "Uncial" (one mention in the lede, and a single sentence in 'Advocacy and "dozenalism"') with the following justification:

• "Uncial" seems to chiefly refer to a script system, or else relations to an ounce.
• Other than the single listed source, I wasn't able to find a single source using "Uncial" to mean "duodecimal"
• The listed source is highly dated (from 1945) and furthermore, the part that discusses the word "Uncial" is submitted not by an expert, but by an infantryman. One layperson using a word once 80 years ago in a letter to a niche publication does not a current WP:RS make.

If others disagree with this change, feel free to discuss and revert, but this seemed to me to be an oversight. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Duodecimal Conversion Table

I've revertedI had intended to revert an edit adding in a list of the numbers one through one hundred in base 12 and base 10, but someone seems to have beat me to it. I've done this for three reasons:

1. Having duodecimal notation in a section prefaced by saying it's all in decimal notation is confusing. Note that this also means we may want to move the duodecimal addition and multiplication tables to a different section.
2. It's of limited utility. There are many free calculators, apps, and sites which can convert arbitrary numbers between decimal and duodecimal. A table dealing only with the first hundred integers doesn't add much.
3. It's redundant. In the very next section there are two tables that convert integers of several orders of magnitude, and also details how to convert from one system to the other.

I figured I'd open the discussion here so if anyone disagrees, we can hash it out and keep improving the article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jacobolus I concur with your edit summary re: the tables being too wide. Do you think there's any value in keeping them at all? Given the abundance of conversion apps, is a table informative? The only thing it adds, in my opinion, is an at-a-glance notion of scale. (E.g., "Oh, so 100,000 base 10 is 49,A54 base 12.") I'm not sure that's worth the extensive real estate it takes up on the page. Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think they could be removed or radically shrunk, but I don't care enough to do it myself. Maybe skim back through the history to figure out who added them, and that person can explain their reasoning? –jacobolus (t) 16:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about the misaimed ping. And a quick dig shows that they've been around since at least 2013, and was worked on by a bunch of folks. I'll try boldly removing it, and if anyone objects, they can revert and discuss here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I chopped some columns out. The narrower one seems okay enough to me. –jacobolus (t) 16:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! I managed to edit conflict and destroy your work. I've self-reverted; agreed that the new tables are better. I still don't see much point in having them, but that doesn't mean no other readers will find a use. Thanks for your work! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Changing examples of Germanic 11 and 12 words

There has been a slight edit war on whether the example language used for special Germanic 11 and 12 words should be English (eleven, twelve) or German (elf, zwölf). How could we possibly resolve this? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:CC47:CFD0:245D:7739 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the first step is what you already did; go to the talk page. Thank you! My first thought is to use both, such as the following:

...such as elf (eleven) and zwölf (twelve)...

Also note the {{lang}} template to show it's a foreign language. Is there a way to apply that to the Proto-Germanic as well? If possible, it'd be good to comply with WP:!EN. EducatedRedneck (talk) EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the goal of the change. This is an English encyclopedia and readers are going to be familiar with the English words "eleven" and "twelve", which makes it accessible and interesting for them to see how they relate to original Proto-Germanic words. By comparison, most will not be familiar with the German equivalents. In my opinion switching English to German makes this passage less relevant, harder to read, and less memorable. –jacobolus (t) 16:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, why not use both English and German? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:D1E2:5217:CBA8:FB34 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobolus I think that, given that we're talking about another language, it is prudent to include it. After all, the words we're discussing are "elf" and "zwolf", not "eleven" and "twelve". If we use the English words, I could see some readers being confused about whether it's German or English which has ties with duodecimal. Put another way, Without the German words, we're asserting the existence but not providing any supporting data for non German speakers to verify. (I do not have the sources on that sentence, but they seem to be associated with the old German, not modern German.)

IP, I appreciate the attempt to add English as well. I'm not thrilled with that exact construction; while a reasonable reader would infer the association, a particularly slow (or, more likely, tired) reader might not. I'd be more comfortable if we added "respectively" (so it reads: ...English equivalents eleven and twelve, respectively ). I'd still prefer the parenthetical to save space, but we can hash out the details if we establish a consensus for inclusion at all. :)

Also, thank you both for having this discussion; I've seen enough bad editing that it makes me happy when editors show up and talk things out, like colleagues over tea. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about "Germanic languages", of which the most obvious and familiar example for an English encyclopedia is.... English (English language starts with "English is a West Germanic language ..."). The English examples also have the advantage that (a) they are a bit closer to their proto-Germanic origins, and (b) they can be more obviously related to "one left" and "two left" mentioned in the article. Throwing in the German words just seems like gratuitous and largely irrelevant trivia here. If we insist on including German, why not also Dutch, Afrikaans, Yiddish, Swedish, Norwegian, or Faroese? I don't think there is a consensus (or any good reason) for adding the German words, and I intend to take them back out when I get a chance. –jacobolus (t) 02:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)