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)

Huh. I always thought of English as a bastard language. I've learned something today. You make good points; I now support using English only. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support using German only, however. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The words we use most, including counting-numbers (and about half the words of this sentence), are nearly all Germanic; since 1066 we have added a big load of words from French and Latin – not counting the trickle of loanwords that every language gets. —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the German examples better because:

1. I don’t like using English as an example of a particular thing at all.
2. I like examples in foreign languages better.

Can we change the examples to be German only and keep it at that? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

English first, others in a footnote. The English words show the roots most transparently, and the roots are the relevant thing in context. —Tamfang (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The article currently uses German first and puts others (including English) in a footnote. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:8083:AAB1:FA58:1588 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted back to the English version. I'm not sure how to footnote, so have not risked breaking things by trying. Good catch, IP! EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think it's quite dumb to use the Wikipedia language as an example for any given topic, and I think we need to emphasize other languages with the examples, which is why I keep reverting to the German version. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you give us a hint of why you think it dumb? Does “language” imply “foreign language”? —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop trying to replace the English words with German. It is worse for readers and you haven't given a good reason, let alone established consensus, for the change. –jacobolus (t) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Tell this persistent editor to read Germanic languages. They seem to be confusing that term with German language. Spitzak (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

How about we compromise and just use no examples at all? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A4ED:D8FB:CD17:1710 (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm hesitate to accept this, just because an example clears up what we mean by "special words". Without an example, it sounds like they have special meaning, but the example illustrates that it's just a different form for the word. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Using no examples also seems worse to me. The point here is to connect something readers know (the English words "eleven" and "twelve") with something they didn't know (these are Germanic-origin words which come from "one left" and "two left"), in the service of briefly giving an example of language(s) that have non-standard words for 11 and 12.

Your insistence against using English as an example in the English language Wikipedia seems arbitrary and unreasonable to me. –jacobolus (t) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's try to stick with using the German examples only. Sounds good? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Let's stick with English examples only. Please don't make that change again until and unless you get consensus for it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

How would you think about compromising and using both? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be against it. See the discussion in this section for reasoning. Why do you insist on including German? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I think we need to pay more attention to foreign languages with the examples. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:C0CC:BB36:D4CA:9991 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, it's up to you to demonstrate and convince other editors that, 1) English alone is insufficient, and 2) that attention to a foreign language (as opposed to merely a Germanic language) is appropriate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In many Wikipedia articles, I agree it would be helpful to aim for a more international and cross-cultural set of examples and topics.

But in any specific case, you have to think about the purpose of the example in context, and how it connects readers to the topic. You haven't yet given any reason why a German example would do a better job illuminating duodecimal number systems than an English example, nor have you addressed the several reasons why other editors claim it would do a worse job. You haven't explained why having multiple examples or no examples (your supposed "compromise" solutions) would be an improvement.

If you want to make meaningful contributions to this or other Wikipedia articles I would urge you to give up on this dispute and go do some book research. –jacobolus (t) 17:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not exactly a language article. —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You have already been told no on that. —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you have an ever-changing IP address, you may find it helpful to create an account. (See Wikipedia:Why create an account?) –jacobolus (t) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now changed the examples into a table, as well as adding Dutch and Swedish. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is unhelpful and distracting to readers. We're not here to give a detailed analysis of number words or an exhaustive cross-linguistic comparison. We're talking about the mathematics of duodecimal number system(s) here, and mentioning Germanic languages merits no more than a brief aside. –jacobolus (t) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As a compromise, I think it's unhelpful but I won't complain if you put a couple of other examples in a footnote. Skip the table though. –jacobolus (t) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want you can write a new article called Germanic number words or similar, where a suitably expanded version of this table would be appropriate. –jacobolus (t) 01:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I imagine that such an article would be absorbed into Indo-European number words, either as a table or in a format like that of Buck's Synonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now added a page with a larger version of the table, as a subpage of my user page: Germanic duodecimal number words TheCool1Z (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Symbols for Ten and Eleven

@Kwamikagami recently replaced the transformation template with the unicode version. @Jacobolus reverted, citing that the characters don't display. I feel that, because the infobox references the unicode, the unicode should be used. Copying and pasting the rotated 2 or 3 only yields the standard 2 or 3, which could cause some confusion. I also see Jacobolus' point that it may not display properly. (It displays fine on my desktop, but not on my mobile.) If we do keep the unicode versions, it may be worth adding the same warning as on List of numeral systems that it uses uncommon unicode. If consensus is instead to stick to the transformation template, I suggest we remove the displayed unicode in the infobox. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The unicode is directly included in the infobox (and again separately in the article body!), as "U+218A ↊ TURNED DIGIT TWO" etc., which is fine. What we shouldn't do is put giant missing glyph symbols in the middle of our pages, since the goal is to communicate the appearance of these symbols to readers. If the infobox isn't going to have legible symbols it should be removed altogether. –jacobolus (t) 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed that. I could see that; Leave the unicode in the body (in the description you cited), and have the rotated version at the top to ensure it displays. It's a shame <math> doesn't seem to recognize these symbols; that would be an easier and more standardized solution. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Aside: 1/3 is not a "precomposed fraction". MOS:FRAC is talking about Unicode symbols such as ⅓, which are discouraged whenever on a page also involving a wider variety of fractions because these will look inconsistent. (Even though they are better looking and more appropriately sized than the results of the {{frac}} or {{sfrac}} templates, 1⁄3, ⁠1/3⁠, consistency was considered more important than good typography.) The MOS has no problem with inline fractions using full-height numerals and an ordinary / separator. –jacobolus (t) 02:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)