Dozenalism (Base 12) number system

Did we go horribly wrong when we settled on the Base 10 numeral system back in the Middle Ages?

A Base 12 system has many advantages and is the reason we have:
12 inches in a foot
12 ounces in a pound (troy)
12 pence in a shilling
12 items in a dozen
12 dozen in a gross
12 hours in a day

Twelve has twice as many non trivial divisors as does ten.
10: 2, 5
12: 2, 3, 4, 6

Twice the factors means twice as easy.

There would more repeating patterns in the multiplication table. Multiplying by 2, 3, 4, or 6 would be as easy as multiplying by 2 or 5 in decimal.

The five most elementary fractions (1⁄4, 1/3, 1/2, 2⁄3, 3⁄4 would all have short terminating representations: 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 0.9 respectively.

Many more arguments (along with some interesting history) here:
http://www.dozenalsociety.org.uk/pdfs/aitken.pdf">The case against the system of decimalization

how do we get the old-fashioned people to get with the program?

where would we get them?

That recent circle in the UK that encoded the first few digits of pi... I would have been really impressed had the "aliens" used Base 12 or some other system.

they also use the ellipsis to represent omitted digits. :)

No argument for the eleven. The rotated three is as different from 3 as 6 is from 9.

Using the Roman symbol X for ten is problematic as it's an operator for multiplication in arithmetic and a common variable in algebra.

I favor the rotated 2 as it sorta looks like a script T, T for ten.

I generally strike my handwritten sevens with a single line already: 7.

Aside from that, there are some interesting arguments as far as pattern recognition goes. My mind can grasp six objects better than five, simply because the third object is not really sitting with the first grouping of objects or the last grouping but is simply in the middle. With six objects, I can simply visualize two groups of three objects together.

My mind, as well. I have often wondered why 10 has such great power. And math is not my greatest talent.

I passed Trigonometry, College Algebra 2, and Graduate Statistics. My only point in saying that, is to let people know that I'm not a random crackpot.

Edit to say I passed these classes.

The math wasn't the problem with me because at that level, I was already using a graphing calculator to do the raw math, while my mind was concentrating on applying the rules. It becomes more of an issue at the more basic levels of calculations, though, when you are not allowed a calculator at all. As far as things like chemistry or physics went, I tended to agree more with the Metric system as opposed to the Imperial System that the US uses, although I can imagine base 12 being as effective if not more so to mentally picture.

The only problem would be inventing the other two symbols to represent the 11th and 12th number and incorporating it mentally into a new number line in my head.

Everything would change, if the 10s suddenly became 12s.

Edit to say, I hope you know what I meant.

Back in the fifteenth century, they switched from Roman numerals to a positional system that they got from the Arabs who had gotten it from the Hindus. That was a huge improvement and helped lead us to the Renaissance. But it would have been a great time to adopt Base 12. I suppose Ten was just too ingrained, ten fingers, etc. And since we are made in G-d's image... To that I say to the Church: what about the twelve apostles?

There are/were other systems out there. The Sumerians (Zuul, Gozer :)) used Base 60 four thousand years ago. Sixty has the same factors as Twelve as well as 5, 10, 15, 20, 30. The minute and second hand on our clocks are base 60. The downside to a Base 60 number system would be memorizing a multiplication table with 3600 squares!

To the rest of us, modular arithmetic is modular arithmetic.

It's handy having a positional number system with lots of small factors.

Back in the prehistoric era, I took courses in programming -- Fortran IV with Watfor. We had a little exposure to "machine language," and were told that computers use binary, but that the binary is aggregated in "hexidecimal," ie a base 12 number system.

Any computer heads know if this is still true?

On edit: Never mind, I see it's base 16. I must remember to wiki before writing.

:-)

No, I forget when I first learned about base 23, but that recent crop circle in the UK got me thinking about it. Next stop, wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal

He had an entire system worked out based on the local lord's "yard", the measure from his fingertip to his turned-away nose.

That's where I first heard about it! :-)

Since I was maybe 8 I've thought it a shame we didn't have one more digit on each hand if it would have meant a base 12 number system..

You have three phalanges on each of your four fingers for a total of twelve. You can even count them using the thumb of the same hand.

Personally, though, I would favor hexidecimal, or base 16.

Non trivial factors:
Base 10: 2, 5
Base 16: 2, 4, 8
Base 12: 2, 3, 4, 6

than vice versa. There's really no essential advantage to binary, octal or hex. Its only divisor is two and its multiples.

All fractions with 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 in the denominator also terminate quickly!

would the 60x60 multiplication table.