On page ↋: "Did you ever wonder just what the number system would be like if man had been created with 12 fingers?" (and an illustration).<p>With the advent of modern AI tools, this question has never been more important.
I'm more of a seximal man myself: <a href="https://www.seximal.net/" rel="nofollow">https://www.seximal.net/</a>
There better be some deep, decades-long feud between the Duodecimal and the Seximal Society, or I'm very disappointed.<p>(Of course any squabbling is instantly forgotten the moment they have to act against their common arch enemy, the Hexadecimal Society)
Base 16 (or base 10, as they would call it) is the perfect base: <a href="http://www.intuitor.com/hex/" rel="nofollow">http://www.intuitor.com/hex/</a>
12 is, in many ways, a better base than 10 (divisible by 2,3,4 and 6 vs 2 and 5). And it was used in many British/Imperial units. But the chance of the world moving existing systems from base 10 to base 12 is surely so close to 0 as makes no difference?
In premodern engineering they used twelfths. The foot <i>'</i>, inch <i>''</i>, line <i>'''</i>, and point <i>''''</i> were each 1/12th of the previous unit. (Yes, they used quad prime marks.) European typographic points were 1/144th of an inch. <a href="https://dozenal.org/" rel="nofollow">https://dozenal.org/</a>
Yes, but hexadecimal eight-bit computing introduces the octet as specifying information protocol (255.255.255.255) addresses.
What's the deal with that upside-down 2 on the title page? I first thought it would be one of the two additional digits, but those are visible on the "clock face" circle on the first page and look nothing like it.<p>(or are upside-down digits their way to mark icky base-10 numbers if they have to write them?)<p>Edit: ah, they explain it on page 23.
1209 is 2025, to answer the first question I had.