Why These Are The Best Numbers!

[@1293ST]

I'd be lying if this felt as simple as portrayed here.

[@NerveClasp]

Yeah, it's hard at first (and at n-times after watching n times the video) to think in base 20 :)

[@HeraldoS2]

I am skeptical of the generality of the rules...

[@JeroenDoes]

@First I found it to be way more complex than standert 1,2,3,4 ect.

[@Bladavia]

It's true that he nit picked easy examples in this video, and there are probably other examples which would be easier in base 10 with our standard notation. But overall this system still is way more elegant and better represents a physical reality, our symbols are much more abstract. So I bet it'd be easier to learn for kids, and they'd have a deeper understanding of what's actually happening mathematically, instead of us who just learn our times tables by rote.

[@tosterm]

666th like

[@bevansyura6927]

Teacher : "are you cheating the test?" Kid : "just doodling around"

[@silversapphirev1772]

Zig good Rikka profile pic

[@the_allucinator]

Good luck converting Base-20 to Base-10

[@SCH3M1]

@@the_allucinator dividing by 2 isn't that hard

[@the_allucinator]

@@SCH3M1 Guess I was just lazy. LOL

[@martindouge1947]

@@SCH3M1 It's not really dividing by 2. In a base-20 system, the units go from 0-19, which means the second symbol goes from 20-399, and the turn counts for 400-7999, whereas in base-10 it'd be 0-9, 10-99, and 100-999. As an example, 592 in base-20 is 5*400+9*20+2=2182 in base-10. You need one whole more symbol in base-10 than in base-20, and 2182/2 is not equal to 592.

[@TheDIrtyHobo]

I think anyone who's really had to learn to use an abacus would recognize this system immediately. It even mirrors the top strokes counting by 5s and bottom by 1s. Interesting to see a group of Inupiat high schoolers independently (I assume) invent it, though.

[@duffahtolla]

I think they were Middle schoolers

[@Raveler1]

Just to point out: Inuit are a specific group of Alaska Natives (and Canadian First People). The Inupiat are a separate group of people entirely.

[@TheDIrtyHobo]

@@Raveler1 thanks. I've edited accordingly.

[@Raveler1]

@AndrewWithEase11 11 Wow, there's so much wrong with that statement. First, viking was a job, not a people - people would go "a-viking," meaning something like adventuring - raiding and trading. That said, Norse settlers did come to Greenland and to the tip of what is today Nova Scotia. They do deserve recognition as the first Europeans to settle the "new world", but they were not the first people there. Ballads that have made their way to us today tell of "Skraelings" - their term for indigenous people, now known in Canada as First Nations / First Peoples. In the US, the term used is Alaska Native, though that obviously only applies to those in Alaska. As to your last statement, no - "whites" were not first everywhere. Lighter skin tones offer resilience to frostbite - which is why the natural genetic drift of humans tend toward lighter skin in colder climates. Similarly, darker skin tones offer resilience towards intense sunlight and heat. Over time, humans have found our skin tone adapting to our environment. The racial concept of "whites" that you are using is an antiquated notion, that categorized and divided one species into subgroups based on phenotypical data. But humans are humans - whatever skin color evolved for our ancestors, to protect us from our environment.

[@willianalee6336]

@AndrewWithEase11 11 please cite some sources because there are no genetic differences between “races” of people since race is subjective. This argument is also idiotic because there is more genetic diversity between different parts of Africa than in all of the rest of the world yet we still consider Africans to be the same race.

[@Photon210]

Math Professor: "Divide this by thi-Why are you drawing lines?" Me: "You won't understand..."

[@walrusbane1010]

Opportunity to use "you wouldn't get it" wasted

[@helium-379]

@@walrusbane1010 no

[@jibrish4802]

@@helium-379 No

[@walrusbane1010]

@@helium-379 i stand denied

[@hellboy19991]

@@walrusbane1010 i second your statement

[@SamiTheAnxiousBean]

this video: *learn to count enchanting table numbers*

[@vancecarter341]

This legitimately made me laugh

[@shanewshal]

This

[@bananamuncher741]

ha

[@jaddi.]

This legitimately made me *blow out of my nose*

[@crocogile2352]

Lol

[@nef36]

This is amazing. My only criticism would be the readability of the numerals, they all look the same and it might be hard to tell which numbers are which at a quick glance. Edit: a lot of you seem to be taking the Arabic numerals' readability for.granted. there are similarities between certain arabic numerals, but under this system, there are groups of numbers where the only difference between them is a single space between strokes, or an extra slash in the fives above. 42 and 4, for instance, could be very difficult to distinguish depending upon a person's handwriting. Or 9, 14, and 19:, depending how visible someone's 5 markings are. Now imagine having these difficulties in larger numbers where the markings might be tightly packed together. I understand that a lifelong user would have little trouble distinguishing numbers for themselves, but they would have more trouble than a native user of arabic numbers using arabic numbers. if this system is actually used for a really long time moving forward, it'll probable evolve through peoples handwriting to have more distinguishable glyphs. Some strokes might be shortened or curved, there are actually a ton of things you could do to improve readability without sacrificing the abilities described in the video above. EDIT 2: not to mention the nightmare that would be writing the 5 marks in an exponent or something.

[@benjaminwahl8059]

Unfourtnitly, that's probably impossible to fix. if they don't look alike you cant do the really easy math with it.

[@kgpz100]

How different is 2 from 5? Or 6 from 9? Or 1 from 7? Or 3 from 8? Our numbers are all extremely similar, but with years of education, you adjust

[@general_drakon773]

I mean not really? Given that 2-5 and 6-9 are flipped but always flipped the same way, and that our numbers utilize straight lines, angled lines, and curves, it ends up being a lot more visually distinct than a system of top angles and bottom angles The 1-7 doesn't make sense to me tho why do you think they're similar

[@goldnguardian5]

And the fact that you have to learn how to multiply any number by 20, 400, 8000, etc. off the top of your head to actually read it. Unless I’m missing something? For example, they way you write 61 is the 3 symbol followed by the 1 symbol, and you have to multiply the 3 by 20 to get the actual number. So for bigger numbers like 3528, you have to learn how to translate it into 8 16 8 and how to translate that back into 3528 via multiplying (8x400 + 16x20 + 8x0 = 3528) which to me seems like way too much effort to go through just to have slightly simpler long division. TLDR: big numbers are hard when using a base 20 system (unless somehow I missed something that makes it simpler)

[@Gnarwhals]

@@goldnguardian5 Inupiaq (the indigenous language the students speak) uses a base-20 counting system, so powers of 20 are as natural to them as powers of 10 are to us English-speakers. Within their communities, they wouldn't think "3528(decimal)" and have to convert it back and forth, they would just use 8/16/8(vigesimal), and understand that quantity as is.

[@UnitaryV]

This would be perfect for base 16. Instead of a sub base of 5, you could use a sub base of 4. Then, there'd be up to three strokes on both the bottom and the top. Just imagine how much easier this would make working in hexidecimal for coding.

[@dragonstar373]

I’ve actually made an alphabet that’s more efficient than the one we have (letters only make the sound they make, there’s a letter for every sound, etc.) and I made the number system base 16

[@ItsKierancraft]

@@dragonstar373 IPA

[@flyingdoggo316]

@@dragonstar373 can I have the alphabet? Would love to use it for my Minecraft city (:

[@Rudxain]

I'm a programmer, and I hate the fact that hex has a mix of arabic digits and latin letters. I would rather use it with a different character set, so that concept is something I would love. We have Unicode so maybe there are similar symbols available, or we can propose allocating those new symbols to an unused section of the codepoint range

[@whose2299]

God I love how I understand this (i don’t)

[@atomic_wait]

A bunch of kids came up with this? “Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.”

[@artemisspawnofzeus7732]

The kids were representing a counting system that already existed. But yeah.

[@12DAMDO]

ofcourse a bunch of kids came up with this... autistic kids around the age of 6 do stuff like this all the time simply out of boredom!

[@HelamanGile]

Ok Yoda

[@FireChronos]

@@HelamanGile There's a large part of me that thinks you think he wasn't literally quoting Yoda...

[@HelamanGile]

@@FireChronos it was a joke... I was being ironic or whatever

[@nemesis666first]

Problem of "5" and "10" is that if it's alone (And turned), you could missmatch & read them as "1" and "2" respectively. I'm used to the japanese system, and, in their system, they cant make any mistake, like in our arabo-indian system. EDIT : I remembered that 6 & 9 could be also missmatched in our system, reason why we used to put a point or a line underthem when they are alone.

[@polska9762]

69 haaha

[@robertnett9793]

Well you could use a period to indicate direction - as it's done sometimes with th 6 and the 9 in Arabic numerals.

[@ezrachen8976]

are japanese numerals any different than chinese numerals?

[@eteren0]

​@@ezrachen8976 I don't know any chinese but I don't think they differ. Japanese: 一 ニ 三 四 五 六 七 八 九 十　百　千　万 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 100 1000 10000 If you're interested you could also compare here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_numerals#Basic_numbering_in_Japanese

[@ezrachen8976]

@@eteren0 interesting that japanese would use the simplified version of wan for 10000

[@chrisedwards3866]

Fascinating - though I'd like to see some more division examples that include remainders and carried digits, just to cover the full range. I could try those by hand myself, but I may miss features of the number system that would be obvious to someone who knows it well enough to make the video. Multiplication would be good too, just for the sake of completeness.

[@gernottiefenbrunner172]

it doesn't work. or rather, it works exactly like normal numerals, except you have to memorize your multiplication tables up to 20*20, rather than 10*10. Not to mention, you have to convert the numbers before and after calculating with them. and you have to count lines rather than read symbols.

[@etho7351]

@@gernottiefenbrunner172 if you memorized all this which you would if it was taught from a young age, the you wouldn't need to do any of that. You'd just know, probably the same way you know any other multiplication set.

[@gernottiefenbrunner172]

@@etho7351 no matter how well you memorized your 20*20 multiplication tables and the same-y lines, you still need to convert, because english is still base 10

[@etho7351]

@@gernottiefenbrunner172 I wasn't talking about it like that. I was referring to a hypothetical if that was our number system, or rather that's what I was thinking when I wrote it. However it's a valid point.

[@tfan2222]

@@gernottiefenbrunner172 Late reply but I don’t if you noticed, this wasn’t built for English.

[@HoneydewBeach]

Conlang Critic when he realizes the numbers arent base 6: *Impossible*

[@gnikola2013]

The archives must be incomplete

[@shadowsfromolliesgraveyard6577]

If you half the number of bottom zig, and top zags, you've got a perfectly good base 6 system.

[@ganaraminukshuk0]

1. I personally consider base 20 to be the next best thing to base 12 and base 16. B. I see no reason why it couldn't be adapted to any other base.

[@elliottsampson1454]

o \ V - Γ 🔽

[@ferencgazdag1406]

@@ganaraminukshuk0 It lacks 3 tho... Base 12 can't handle 5, what is quite a small number. Base 16 can't handle 3, the second smallest prime. A better base would be 6, as it can handle 2, 3, 5, and 7. In base 6: 1/2=0,3 1/3=0,2 1/5=0,11111... 1/11=0,010101... Note, that 11 in base 6 is 7 in higher bases. Base 16 being able to handle 17 is not a great deal, because you don't use 17 all that often as you use 3. Same with base 20 and 12.

[@Straigo]

Reminds me of the D’ni Numeral System. A 25 base system, that has a 5 sub-base. It rotated the first 5 symbols 90° to represent five times their value. I had always assumed a number Base system need to be a perfect square in order to have a sub-base. This is really cool to see. I’ve always want to compose a 36 Base system, with a sub-base of 6, as 36 is both a perfect square and a highly composite number (sort of the opposite of a prime).

[@ItsAsparageese]

6 is my favorite number, specifically because I love the perfect-number concept and the versatile divisibility of 6 and 12 in music rhythm. I love your concept of a base-36 system that plays on that ... What's the right word? Not symmetry exactly but something with visual vibes like that word. Fractalness? Idk lol but you/we should definitely create this

[@259]

Yeah this definitely reminded me of the time I learned how to decipher Dni numerals in Riven. Good to see someone else had the same thought

[@djwarlock2873]

I actually came up with a base 36/sub-base 6 system several years ago for a project I'm working on. For the notation, I simplified the Cistertian cyphers so that the right side of the vertical represented ones and the left side was sixes. This (much to my surprise) made all graphically symmetrical numbers (even if multiple digits) divisible by seven. I picked 36 because of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the proportions of the monolith were the first three perfect squares: 1:4:9. Multiplying them gives 36, the perfect square of the first perfect number. It works pretty slick, even though you can't calculate just by counting strokes...

[@ItsAsparageese]

@@djwarlock2873 Ooh. That's pretty.

[@ericsmith1517]

younger people are more visual when learning. i'm not surprised a group of young people made something like this. it's the simplicity of it that i find amazing.

[@glupshitto5019]

source? sounds like you just made that up

[@sicroto]

@@glupshitto5019 there is no such thing as a visual learner and I hate the stupid concept.

[@jacobarmour6325]

*Middle schoolers did this*

[@Fluxus_Lux]

People don’t suddenly become smart when they turn 18.

[@MuzikBike]

Lucas Bevins With 3 and 23 the only prime factors? Sounds like absolute hell and I love it.

[@A.K2.718]

i digress, i am in year 8, i still can't make a proper number system

[@itisALWAYSR.A.]

This is the take-home message here for me. My early teens were comparatively wasted.

[@animationspace8550]

Grown ups... always underestimating us kids... And then we do something dumb and "it's that damn phone!"

[@pentelegomenon1175]

I was testing this thing out, and one thing I started doing when I was adding numbers together, I just smushed all the lines together into incorrect configurations and sorted them into correct configurations afterwards (for example, 17 is two vertical and three horizontal, so for 17 + 17 I would draw four vertical and six horizontal, then I would sort the six horizontal into a two horizontal and make a new digit).

[@kennyholmes5196]

This is pretty much how Cuneiform did their base 60.

[@shovelofwalnuts]

except they did it without 0

[@mathiasmaranhao]

@@shovelofwalnuts indeed. And I wonder how

[@109Rage]

Or the Mayan numerals… which are also Base 20.

[@kennyholmes5196]

@@109Rage I was more referring to how the Cuneiform numerals have a sub-base.

[@109Rage]

@@kennyholmes5196 Yeah, so do Mayan numerals… in the exact same way described in the video.

[@malcolmdarke5299]

This is almost exactly the same as the Mayan system, except that the Mayan system uses dots (fingers and toes) and lines (whole hands and feet), and places lines underneath dots. The Mayan system also has a zero symbol, which looks like a clenched fist. Convergent evolution in writing systems!

[@angelsantana7739]

*awebo, cabron tu si sabes amigo* :)

[@oskarramsen3325]

Well, isn't human migration to South America from Asia through Alaska, and then South America? So its a migrating maths system....

[@Zed-Corps]

looks like some form of ancient coding lol.

[@IONATVS]

Also the original cuneiform numeral system, base 60 with a sub-base of 10. 1s were small downward triangles (since they used a stylus in clay, basically the same as a dot), 10s were tall leftwards triangles, plus a unique symbol for 0 to allow for positional numbering.

[@lexacutable]

@@oskarramsen3325 ..except that migration happened many thousands of years ago, and these characters were invented in 1994.

[@maragazh9993]

This is nice in a modern world where we aren't writing out every character, the number of lines you need to write some of these numbers gets a little large, 7 strokes for 19. However, even for digital things, 20 numbers on a keyboard gets a wee bit big.

[@matthewryan4844]

You could easily use a normal keyboard if you assign ctrl+number to 10-19 (shift+number being still used for special characters)

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@Malkolm Monomoy That gives punctuation marks

[@anthonywestbrook2155]

You could get away with 8 keys, if pressing two at a time can combo them. Within reach of the left hand you have the 0, 5, 10, and 15 keys. Within reach of the right hand you have the 1, 2, 3, and 4 keys. Press the 10 and 3 keys at the same time (like we do with shift keys), and it types 13. And since the Iñupaic (sp?) numbers are said like "ten and three" this wouldn't be confusing for them.

[@jipsels]

This must be how americans feel about the metric system.

[@rickybizzaro3966]

Jips Yeah, it is

[@autumn4442]

I would be pretty glad if we finally switched.

[@dothewindything5604]

metric is for science, imperial is for the people

[@arandomzoomer4837]

@@dothewindything5604 I dunno, I grew up with feet but meters are so much easier. It's about half of a tall person. That makes things pretty easy to wrap your head around.

[@arandomzoomer4837]

As an American, I am speaking from my heart, yes. You are very much right. I wish I was taught this at a younger age so it would be more intuitive.

[@skiram21]

This is insane. I just tested it for a random division (1546/61), got the quotient (25) using the method shown in the video and even got the reminder (22) by couting the symbols I had not use for the quotient.

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

if you didnt want to be left with a remainder, you could calculate the decimal too

[@-ElysianEcho-]

Wow that’s actually so well made, clearly a lot of thought went into it, while also keeping it super simple, sure it’s a bit disorienting to try to learn a new number system, but still

[@donaldhobson8873]

This is misleading, you chose numbers that made it easy. If you pick random numbers, your divisions will usually be messier.

[@the-bruh.cum5]

Really

[@the33rdguy]

Still better for children

[@MouseGoat]

Um, those numbers did not look easy to me, at least not the old format.

[@illesizs]

Even something as simple as 6/2=3 breaks it.

[@Johnof1000Suns]

illesizs 6/2=3

[@nazamroth8427]

*sees video* .... *proceeds to burn notebook with failed number system ideas*

[@lief9100]

Nooooooooooo, every failed number system is just a baby number system ready to grow! Or something that can be used for some ancient civilization that's not quite as advanced as those super smart guys over there with the snazzy base 20 system. There's always demand for systems that archaeologists have to really work at to comprehend.

[@nazamroth8427]

@@lief9100 Some things are better left forgotten.

[@want-diversecontent3887]

I have a base 20 system of my own, but it’s not as good as that one!

[@pencrows]

Yeah my base-12 systems pale in comparison. f

[@mononix5224]

@@pencrows but it's base-12, so who cares that the notation may be a bit less AWESOME... IT IS BASE-12! :P

[@HypernovaBolts11]

I feel an under-appreciated part of this visual simplicity is that you could reasonably show someone who's never worked with these numerals before a middle-schooler's math homework, and that person would have a VERY easy time at, if not totally reverse-engineering which numerals mean what numbers, at least developing a functional capacity to work with them.

[@joshfitzpatrick1834]

How many middle schoolers could there even be in northern Alaska? 7?

[@yeetyeet-jb6nc]

First u are

[@ikschrijflangenamen]

In fact the entire school got involved in making the numerals. All nine of them. Yes, 9.

[@A.K2.718]

10 maybe

[@belstar1128]

3

[@WilliamAndrea]

Wikipedia says it was a class of 9 that made it up, along with their teacher

[@artyoz]

Me: "Wait, there are such things as SUB-bases?" Edgar: "Oh we're just getting started, son."

[@EIBrown]

I've been playing with the idea of sub bases and complex bases for a few years now. There are some nifty higher bases I've found useful, but to make them practical to work with requires notations with complex bases so you don't have to have tons of symbols to memorize. Base 120 is the best number base I have found so far - but base 2520, base 840, base 256, and even base 1000 are pretty good as well.

[@MrFreakHeavy]

Maya had exactly the same counting system. Dots = 1, Line = 5, Shell = 0. You can write up to four dots horizontally on top of three stacked lines to count to 19, and 20 is a dot on top of a shell; 21 is one dot on top of another dot. Base 20 with sub-base 5.

[@artyoz]

Are there any instances of... this is probably the wrong term, but I guess "exponential bases" ? Like, if you had a base of 3 (horrible, I know, but stay with me) that was a "|", then you wrote 9 as a "_" then 81 as a "O" ? So I suppose this would be a base 81, with a sub base of 9, and a sub... sub base of 3. Is this bonkers and foolhardy?

[@arandomguest0089]

The Babylonians did sub-bases with their base-60 (i believe) system.

[@TheRavenLilian]

@@EIBrown By complex bases are you talking about complex numbers? Or something else?

[@Mikey-jv5fv]

Oh my good if numbers in English were like this math would be a completely different ball game for me! The way you explained division was so intuitive and I remember struggling so hard with that when I was first learning it. Really cool!

[@k0lpA]

The video picks examples where it works, it really isnt as simple if you try 6 divided by 2

[@LevelUp76]

If a good teacher explain you this on our standard numbers, it would be intuitive as well. All is the matter of explanation.

[@brauljo]

​@@k0lpA That's a trivially easy example.

[@milesrout]

The problem with this system is the same as the problem with most systems like this that are suggested: the symbols are a pain to tell apart at a glance. This turns anyone with dyslexia into someone that also has dyscalculia. The advantage seems to be that it makes doing very simple arithmetic almost syntactic, but that's not actually a useful property. Simple arithmetic is *already* simple. Long division is already easy. Nobody finds 2 + 2 hard "because the symbol for 4 isn't based on two '2's smushed together". Someone that finds 2+2 hard isn't going to suddenly find it easy because of them being written differently, and someone that doesn't find it hard would prefer a system where you can easily tell the glyphs apart. It's a system invented by schoolchildren, and it's pretty cool, no doubt. No criticism intended to them! But presenting it uncritically while ignoring all the things you talked about in your recent number system videos seems.. weird. Base 20 isn't a good base and the symbols all look the same.

[@DoomRater]

Now you're making me want to show this to an actual dyslexic and see if they actually say that. Because I do not recall actual dyslexics explaining their inability to capture meaning between letters that way, rather the differences between letters lacks any sort of meaning. Here, the strokes themselves have intuitive meaning.

[@mariopalenciagutierrez4318]

This isn't even a system invented by middle schoolers. It is an exact replica of the Mayan system. All the did was change dots for lines

[@DaMoniable]

@@DoomRater You dont need to. Im dyslexic XD. I also have an issue where all number strings have the same meaning or.. something like that.. You might look at a number and be like 'Ah yes.. this is one thousand six hundred and eighty four..' but ill see it as the individual numbers, one, six, eight, four, without the full meaning behind them. For some reason my brain loses track on the importance behind the numbers and just sees them as the numbers themselves.. it makes remembering phone numbers, bill numbers etc, all very difficult to me, unless its a nice even 500 or something like that. Tack that on to dyslexia and im sure you can imagine how much of a pain it can be XD Back to the point though, i have to agree. This does make shorthand maths even shorter, but i was entirely lost throughout the entire video. They all just looked like lines and squiggles to me. Maybe if this was a regular thing that i grew up with it wouldnt be too difficult but at the same time, id probably have different issues of just telling what the hell certain numbers are. The biggest reason why our current day numbers are so drastically different from each other is so that you can tell them all apart at a glance. This is a 9. We know it has nine 1s in this. This is a 6. its made of two 3s or a 4 and a 2, etc. Id prefer to look at these numbers than squiggles and lines tbh XD I struggle enough as it is.

[@MK-ex4pb]

Sad tuba

[@MK-ex4pb]

@@mariopalenciagutierrez4318 ouch

[@MrRyanroberson1]

consider that most of your presented divisions are special cases of no carrying. You never had more than 10 in any digit of the quotient, which is about as likely as never seeing a number above 5 in a division problem

[@jeremydavis3631]

Yep. The simplest case that breaks the system as presented is 20 ÷ 2. But thinking about it some more, it could be done by temporarily putting 4 extra 5s on the top of the second digit and removing a 1 from the first. Definitely not as simple as he said, but workable. It's actually pretty much exactly like using an abacus.

[@copperboltwire320]

@@jeremydavis3631 How does that make sense? Are you talking about the process to get to 10? Cause yeah, that can be a bit confusing. I did some tests in this system with both large and small numbers... Though, how would you convert from B10 to B20 or vice versa? So 523,490 from B10 to B20... Would that be Div by 2? And Mult by 2 from B20 to B10??? Or am i just confusing things up big time?

[@jeremydavis3631]

@@copperboltwire320 I don't think there's a simple way to convert between base 10 and base 20 (unlike between, say, binary and hexadecimal, which is easy because 16 is an integer power of 2). What I was talking about was dividing twenty (twenties digit is 1, units digit is 0) by two (units digit is 2). According to the video, you'd look for two strokes in the twenty, but there's only one. So we actually have to borrow twenty and put that in the units digit. That would make the units digit twenty, which doesn't technically exist as a single digit, but it can be easily formed from four fives. Then we can apply the method in the video by counting how many groups of two fives are in that digit. There are two such groups, so the answer is made of two fives in the units place--that is, ten. My point was that the video made division seem simpler than it is in this system by ignoring the need for borrowing, although it does work with this slight modification. Whenever you need to borrow, you can just put four extra fives on the top of the next digit.

[@Soul-ex8gb]

​@@copperboltwire320 Emm you are confusing big time, 132 in base 10 would mean 2 * 10⁰ + 3 * 10¹ + 1 * 10² so 2 * 1 + 3 * 10 + 1 * 100 = 132₁₀ 66₂₀ would mean 6 * 20¹ + 6 * 20⁰ so in base 10 it would be: 6 * 1 + 6 * 20 = 126₁₀ In order to go from base 10 to base 20 you would have to use exponents of 20 20 400 8000 160000 so let's divide 523 490 by 160 000 it gives us 3 and the remainder is 43 490 now let's divide the remainder by 8000 it gives us 5 remainder 3490 now by 400 it gives us 8 remainder 290 by 20 it gives us 14 remainder 10 So the final number is 358EA₂₀ (A = 10, E = 14) and of course to go back to base 10 10 * 1 + 14 * 20 + 8 * 400 + 5 * 8000 + 3 * 160000 = 523490

[@DoomRater]

@@copperboltwire320 All Jeremy is proposing is an "improper" symbol that means 20 for carry purposes. That's not a bad solution at all, since it follows the same notation and intuitive meaning as the other numerals.

[@ethanpayne9256]

This is very similar to the way D'ni numerals work in the Myst series- they also use shapes that break down easily into lower counts of numbers, just base 25.

[@felipevasconcelos6736]

Fun fact: the OBL (Brazilian Linguistics Olympiad) used this in it’s first ever edition. Here’s a link (in Portuguese): obling.org/files/kyta/Prova_1_Kyta.pdf

[@franciscoguinledebarros4429]

Eu não sabia disso, gostei

[@isaac-yt3er]

I'm Brazilian and I didn't know that! So cool!

[@antimatter_nvf]

Wow, there is Polish and Cyrillic involved in that edition?! That's really interesting for a Brazilian Linguistics Olympiad! I'd love to try it for myself

[@395leandro]

@@antimatter_nvf and Latin, but that isn't that hard considering we speak a Latin language already. I'd go really well on this test since I'm a Brazilian that speaks Russian (I used to live in Ukraine) and has a grasp in Polish and Latin. I wish I took this test.

[@antimatter_nvf]

@@395leandro Yeah I understood all the sentences in Polish. Besides, if you have some knowledge of Ukrainian then that must be a total breeze for you

[@Awave3]

Writes test answers using these symbols.... Math is math.

[@floris9572]

Meth

[@shreyassingh3236]

@@floris9572 you absolute legend

[@badmood88]

Incredibly brilliant, especially for children, but... it makes it so much easier to change values of writen numbers. Have not yet moved past forging a check or a receipt.

[@Lopsidationy]

“Arithmetic is so easy with this system” *cherry-picks examples specifically where it’s easy* This system might actually be easier but the examples in the video don’t demonstrate that.

[@phyl568]

I was trying to work this system out and that's exactly what I realized the video cherry-picks round integers that are of perfect size. I tried some stuff out the moment you get decimals answers or less than 10, it's pretty much useless giving you unrelated answers.

[@NightClawprower]

@@phyl568 I was wondering exactly that, good to know some people did some digging so I don't have to

[@pranavdeshpande4538]

It's as useful as Roman numerals

[@bendover2684]

Maybe, because this is a KZbin Channel, that graps funny, but ultimately useless concept, Hypes them Up so you watch them and then generate Traffic by commenting and Sharing? Its Profit orientated

[@vinade2100]

I think if we would have used this system, we wouldn't have gotten so far in math because here we are not "doing" any math, less thinking. Also nowadays algorithms or vectors or other "higher" grade math won't work, well we would have to find other ways. It is still interesting and worth digging it might help is some calculations, by that I mean all other systems other than decimal system.

[@loganl3746]

For a hot second, I was almost angry at that long division section, I was *that* surprised. It felt like you genuinely tricked me.

[@biblebot3947]

He did Cherry picked examples Try two random numbers and go

[@loganl3746]

@@biblebot3947 no shit? he wanted to display a specific property of something. He used numbers that wholly divide with no remainder or decimals to show off something cool that happens under those specific circumstances. 5 divided by 3 is still 1r2 in base10 or base20 even though it doesn't follow the shape puzzle he showed in the video. I don't call it cherry picking when a scientist doesn't talk about how a fish takes a piss in a video about spawning migration

[@biblebot3947]

Logan L he didn’t specify it was under specific examples and made it seem that it was under every instance

[@loganl3746]

@@biblebot3947 yeah, that was kinda unclear, I'll give you that

[@Fangirl.x]

@@loganl3746 and even if youre lucky and the method works, translating the numbers from and to this system takes more work than doing a tail division. It's a cool idea/concept, but it's worthless in our system

[@mycelium9629]

For division, it has to fit PERFECTLY. If there is a single line in the dividend unaccounted for, or if the devisor fits nowhere, you'll run in to some problems. It is not _that_ easy. You simply chose problems where the each line of the dividend was accounted for, ONCE. You chose convenient problems.

[@melody_florum]

I’ve tried my hand at featural counting systems before. One was a base 16 with a sub base of 2? Basically each glyph was made up of only 4 lines. | = 1, _ = 2, / = 4, and \ = 8. Since this is basically binary, you can represent the numbers up to 15 with just the presence of absence of these 4 lines, and count base 16 normally after

[@lfb6087]

this method of dividing works only in specific situations. Sometimes simple decimal dividing is much faster. I think that happens becouse way you divide numbers is similiar to usual one but with sticks as symbols.

[@woud3404]

Using these exact notations for base 12 or base 16 would probably be intresting. Just remove the "W" for 4, and make what was 5 now have the meaning of 4. Base 12 would go up to a sideways "V" on top, the base 16 would go to a sideways "N" on top, similar to how the base 20 system is written now.

[@dirus3142]

The only way I would be able to understand this, is if I was a child again and grew up with it as the numerical system.

[@valshaped]

Like with anything, the first step in learning is wanting to learn. Don't let your creams be dreams.

[@MouseGoat]

no, thats bullshit, you just coming up with a lame ecsuse, this system is clearly better than the 340 so and im gonna shit to this one. in fact im sure you not done living, so dont stop learning.

[@geeteevee7667]

the only way i would understand if it was base10

[@hypenheimer]

@@valshaped "Don't let your creams be dreams"

[@valshaped]

@@hypenheimer 👈👈 ayy

[@oddlang687]

Wow, you really convinced me when you showed how easy long division is. So elegant!

[@Otome_chan311]

Arabic numerals in base 10 do this as well for the right numbers. For example: 20,612,061/2061 = 10,001.

[@oddlang687]

@@Otome_chan311 yeah but that's only sometimes. In this number system, it happens consistently

[@ajuc005]

@@oddlang687 no it doesn't. They cherrypicked easy examples for the video. Try 444 / 111 :) Or 4096 / 1024. Or any 2 random numbers really.

[@mamba1507]

If you know both systems, you could probably make use of both depending on the situation The Inuit system would work better than our base 10 system in some cases, and vice versa

[@ajuc005]

@@tuna5618 yeah in our system it's trivial try it in their system :)

[@coldplus1]

at the start of this video i was like "wtf it's incredibly complicated for no reason" but when you showed that long division i was like "OH MY THIS IS REVOLUTIONARY IN SOLD"

[@Vermilion360]

The examples for division are cherrypicked though. Something as simple as 21/7 breaks the "match the pattern" system.

[@chri-k]

Something as simple as 6/2 breaks it

[@SylvesterAshcroft88]

This feels like something from science fiction, yet it's real...i don't know whether to be amazed, or simply astounded that this hasn't been adapted more commonly.

[@ZNotFound]

The reason it isn't adapted is simply because we already have an existing system. The transition will be extremely difficult, you'll probably need a nationwide revolution to do it.

[@ZNotFound]

@Armathyx G Care to explain why you think so? I can definitely see some problems with this system, but I'm not sure if the pros outweigh the cons or vice-versa.

[@irrevenant3]

@Armathyx G How is it like Roman numerals? Roman numerals don't have any of the advantages described in this video. You can't see what a number is just by counting the number of strokes in it, you can't do long division without math(!), etc. Honestly not seeing the similarity here beyond a vaguely similar aesthetic.

[@kroneexe]

@@ZNotFound "nationwide" Well, we know which country you're from.

[@ZNotFound]

@@kroneexe I don't think you do. My comment was a reference to the Metric system and the French Revolution.

[@josephschubert6561]

Dude, this is amazing. I wonder how well it translates to base 10.

[@davidegaruti2582]

You can just not use the number for 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 and 20 The hard part is converting decimal to this

[@MrRhombus]

Easy divide by 2

[@FlameRat_YehLon]

Chinese number. Which is probably used more than a thousand years and even though niche, probably still being used nowadays. As for the usefulness, Chinese number is representing abacus, and China made used of it to calculate data for atomic bomb and succeeded before, which means it's probably pretty efficient for being a manual calculation tool.

[@FlameRat_YehLon]

@@davidegaruti2582 or use the number for 10~15 as temporary overflow indication to make things more efficient, which can easily be converted to normal base 10 number once the calculation is done. The whole thing would still be base 10 (so that 2A5 would mean 305 rather than 1005 or 677 in base 10) but mid-calculation digit shifting would occur less often.

[@rubenlarochelle1881]

Very poorly, sadly. Even if powers of 20 are pretty easy in base 10 (1, 20, 400, 8000, 160000... just a power of 2 followed by the 0s of a power of 10), this is only useful during a "normal" conversion, but doesn't help giving some "shortcut". For example, [1,4,12,7,17,19] = 3.2mln + 640k + 96k + 2.8k + 340 + 19 = 3'939'159. It wasn't really hard, but I just can't see any "trick" hidden anywhere in this.

[@flamingpi2245]

Imagine if we could take that system using a base 12 system, then split it up into four sub bases of three.

[@red5_skywalker]

Perfect for Yoda with his three-fingered claw hands/feet

[@lord__lee9838]

Personally, I like the 16 base system because 1+1=2 2+2=4 4+4=8 8+8=16 ect and 2X2 = 4 4X4 = 16 ect

[@mrcat1043]

@@lord__lee9838 but the thing is that it only works well for halves and powers of two, any other fraction is really hard to write

[@aeaeeaoiauea]

@@lord__lee9838 try dividing by 3 or 5

[@_lime.]

@@lord__lee9838 Welcome to the world of Hexadecimals, something that has existed in the computing for decades. The reason we use hex is because of bits and bytes. Computers can natively only understand binary, just 1 and 0, on or off etc... but we group these binary bits into what is called a byte, which is just 8 bits. So 00000000 is a byte for 0 in decimal, and 00000010 is 2 in decimal. The issue is that while this is great for computers, it's pretty hard for a human to read, so we make it shorter using hex. Hex goes from 0 to 15 but since we don't have 16 numbers we use letters instead, so it goes from 0 to 9 and then from A to F. So 0 is still 0, 9 is still 9, but 10 is now A, and 15 is F. Doing this we can take that long string of 8 characters that makes up a byte and turn it into 2 characters. So 0 in decimal is 00000000 when put into a binary byte form, or 00 in hex. 255 in decimal is 11111111 in binary byte form, and FF in hex. Basically hex natively compliments the use of binary, which is arguably the fundamental counting system.

[@Raidho_Sketch]

I officially approve that the same thing works for base 16 too, you just have to group them by four. It's even easier than with base 20.

[@kayleighlehrman9566]

"The best way to count," dont let conlangcritic hear you say that!

[@markenangel1813]

*uses the base 6 equivalent of this*

[@4snekwolfire813]

ew a ternary subbase

[@markenangel1813]

@@4snekwolfire813 or, alternately, i could do niftimal with a seximal sub.

[@k0lpA]

I tried 100 divided by 11 couldnt figure out how to do it.. unless I got something wrong.. the symbols for 11 just never appear in the symbols for a hundred.. heres what I did: so the symbols for a hundred is 2 symbols. the symbol for 5 (one line on top) followed by the symbol for 0 because we are in base 20 so 5x20 + 0x1 = 100 the symbols for 11 is 1 symbol, 2 on top to make 10 and 1 now trying to fit the symbols for 11 into 100 and counting how many times it appears give you 0, it never matches.. it seems to me the examples in the video are cherry picked so they work.. or I messed up pretty badly.. heres another one: 6 divided by 3 6 is one on top + 1 on bottom (5+1) 3 is 3 on bottom they also never match.. theres only 2 lines in 6 so you can never match 3 line in it. you would have to break the 5 (top line) of 6 into bottom lines to make a match, something like: \/\/\/ divided by \/\ to make it work visually it's like if someone showed you how easy it is to divide in base 10 saying you just remove zeros ! and they show you example : 20 / 10 = 2, 300 / 100 = 3, 36 000 / 100 = 360 like that's cool but it really only works for specific cases, again unless I messed up somewhere... (please point it out to me if I did)

[@matulopez5347]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaktovik_numerals

[@wilhelmseleorningcniht9410]

this is essentially the problem I've been having, as more or less I can't figure out long division in this system

[@johansmifthelry9307]

yeah, honestly the system seems pretty flawed. KZbinr seemingly picked numbers that fit each other really well, and just coincidentally work perfectly. Also, for the first example, 17/5, the real answer is 3.4, but by using this system I got 3.2 ... Might be me, but idk

[@CosmicFlux]

@@johansmifthelry9307 The answer is 3 with a remainder of 2 not the decimal value 3.2. You did the calculation correctly but interpreted it incorrectly

[@nlight8769]

Right ? And when 0 are involved this becomes a mess, try 400 / 21

[@pencrows]

This system of numbers is extremely intuitive but the discovery of the numeral system characters having a visual advantage in arithmetic was mostly luck. The students started on a base-20 system because of their native number system also being base-20. The characters in their system were clunky and too complex so they sought to find a new system. The system having basic geometry increased the chance of the the numbers being extremely intuitive. The rest was discovery because the number system was integrated into education.

[@gaopinghu7332]

Life is always a combination of luck and skill

[@SuperLol]

that's why sometimes we should appreciate what kids observe and create cuz they see stuff we adults sometimes just gloss over cuz they're simple and not sophisticated "enough" for us to spend our valuable time on. Intuition sometimes can have equal weight to logic in finding the most natural answers.

[@54g7]

dont care didnt ask go cry about it

[@bruhdabones]

What’s your point.

[@noiJadisCailleach]

So basing from everything that you've gathered here, it's not luck. It's emergence.

[@rubenlarochelle1881]

During the first part I was like "Yeah okay it's nice and cool, but why is he so euphorical about this?" Then at 2:19 I was like "Wtf is he doing" for a moment until 2:24 when I genuinely had visible a "shook" reaction! :0

[@onetwo9500]

Then you actually try to do it yourself and give up

[@skyemorningstar166]

I feel like if we'd learned this system I'd have had a LOT easier time with math

[@antimatter_nvf]

Oh I wish so much that they'd also use a version of Inuktitut Syllabics for Iñupiaq

[@sidian4257]

And then you realize you need a calculator and quite a lot of time to simply write the number 46,349,226 since it's made of the symbols for 14, 9, 13, 13, 1 and 6 and you have to calculate 14 times 20^5 + 9 times 20^4 and so own just to write down a single number! And i don't think it'll be any easier to use if you learn it. You can't even multiply certain numbers with that system, and dividing small numbers also doesn't work. 6 divided by 3 would be 0 according to that system.

[@holdthatlforluigi]

Sidian42 to be fair, the the whole conversion problem would be gone if you just used this in the first place.

[@GrahamLikeTheCrackers]

Thank you! One thing surprising about this system is how easy it is to "borrow" from the next position for subtraction, like doing 83-15 where you turn it into 70 + 13 to make it easier. You just tag on 4 more "5"dashes. Or you x or at dash and tag on 5 more "1" strokes. I found that out by accident, that it makes perfect sense to to make one position in the base 20 system new way above 20 and still legible. There was a 39 or something in one spot, with 7 5s and 9 1s and my brain was like "this is fine".

[@kirstenc6221]

Yooooo. That’s hot. I actually was making my own numeric system for fun and it was actually kinda a little like this. Man, now I wanna properly learn these, haha.

[@borg286]

You missed the connection with the abacus. A group of 5 is a toggle of the unit in the upper section.

[@KneeCapThief]

the problem with this is that when you have to look at numbers you can easely mistake them. And in more complex calculations things can get pretty wierd to look at i would think

[@AliceYobby]

I would say Arabic numerals aren’t much better and you’re just used to them. 1 and 7? 3, 8, 0, 6? 2, 5? You know, just a few lines in different configurations.

[@irrevenant3]

Personally I'd say the opposite. These numerals have clear, sharp angles so even if they're drawn sloppily you can immediately tell what they're supposed to be. Compare to Arabic numerals where a sloppy 6 can easily look like a 5, a sloppily-drawn 0 could look like a 6, etc. It's pretty hard to misdraw an I, a V, an N or a W - and that's basically what these are. And it's only weird-looking because it's novel. You'd very quickly get used to how they look. Especially since there are effectively half as many symbols as in Arabic.

[@T11235]

Depends, counting is just a part of math, these numerals are better just in that, in other fields they become a chore

[@tuluppampam]

​@@AliceYobbylots of people add an extra horizontal line to 7 to distinguish it well from 1, so that is a non issue. Then 3s are very open, making them impossible to confuse with 8. If you have trouble distinguishing between 6 and 0 that is on you, because they look nothing alike. As for the 2 and 5, once again, they are very different from eachother. In handwriting there is no problem in distinguishing between digits if the handwriting of the person is clear (illegible handwriting will be illegible regardless of digits). These new numbers are even worse in this regard. They will look very similar to eachother even with careful handwriting, unlike Arabic numerals. That is because they tried to be too simple, but there are too many digits to make it work with just 4 kinds of strokes used that way. Arabic numerals, instead, have been handwritten for a good while, so they evolved to be easy to write while being very recognisable. In conclusion, your examples do not work with handwriting, and the only dubious may, at times, be 7 with 1. This is the opposite of these new numerals. They have to redraw them to make them more legible.

[@GoofballPaul]

I almost shed a tear and I'm not even crying.

[@sarahshirts5772]

me: *doing division in class like this* my friend: are you... summoning a demon?

[@martinxy1291]

"I still could, but it's not sunday"

[@outerspaceisalie]

I literally invented a similar number system as this when i was 18. It was base-12 with overlapping subsets on quarters, thirds, and halves. The hardest part was getting stroke count down on the higher numbers.

[@elkinmontoya9640]

Is there any chance you have a copy? I have been trying a similar idea for base 60, based on circles, can't seem to find the right one though

[@davidegaruti2582]

It's like dotsies for numbers... It'll make a fine addition to my collection

[@revspikejonez]

Thanks for giving me a name to put to that! I've seen dotsies before, but never in context

[@DTux5249]

Dotsies? Please enlighten me

[@davidegaruti2582]

@@DTux5249 it's a font meant to save space :each letter is composed by five pixels one on top of the other , each one is either white or black, they have no spaces and they make words look like simbols boingboing.net/2018/12/18/dotsies-a-dot-based-font-for.html

[@yorha-unit-13e77]

This... changes everything. I'm probably gonna force myself to learn this, just to make math so much easier

[@ajuc005]

It's not, they cherrypicked examples where division is easy for the video. Try 2 random numbers for yourself to see it's not an improvement in the general case. This video is basically like people discovering division by 5 is easy in base 10 :)

[@mamba1507]

Like any other language it is difficult to initially learn. There are indeed advantages conspired to our base 10 system, and our system has its advantages.

[@deon6045]

@@ajuc005 I tried playing with it a bit because the visual part seemed like it could be very useful for people who are bad at math, but this is pretty much what I found. You can't do something as simple as 21/7 without having to screw with it, so one may as well just stick with memorizing the decimal system. >.>

[@Yokoji_1227]

Same

[@DoomRater]

So I tried 21/7. There's carrying involved to match the symbols, but you know how carry works in the system intuitively, right? A stroke from the right is 4 strokes above, and one stroke above is 5 strokes to the right. I just need a way to cross out strokes and I can write in this fluently.

[@sl1_674]

Can’t wait to see this in Unicode 15. I will most definitely be using them

[@ChrisPrantza]

Trying to understand this just made realize how confusing it’s going to be for aliens when they try to understand our Math and Number. Tbh if this was like a scientific method of showing mathematics it will be easier since it’s based on counting lines.

[@robertnett9793]

Yes. But to be fair, if those hypothetical aliens would have contact with living humans - then it would be very easy to provide them a simple translation table for numerals in points or dashes to indicate the number.

[@Nihil2407]

I think it would start off very oddly, but the numbers wouldn't be the issue. They'd get positional number systems and you can just show them "three fingers = 3" for all numbers from 1 to 10, then tell them that the number after 9 is 10 and... Well, fractions will be a little harder, but we manage to explain those to kids.

[@ilhamrizki4011]

Imagine Using Hangeul for Writing and This for Counting Simple Life

[@travcollier]

Wouldn't make life simple, but would make learning to write and do basic arithmetic a bit easier. After all, Hangul doesn't make learning vocabulary easier. I can read Hangul, I just have no clue what it means -_-

[@helldronez]

@@travcollier because the complexcity of korean language, the hangeul is easy to read indeed

[@rhinobird]

Teaching the kids to read, write and 'rithmatic all on the first day of school? Unpossible

[@rowanjoy419]

@@helldronez hangul was create by a king, with that purpose, that everyone can read it. because back in time they use chinese symbols, but not everyone have education. sadly

[@cactusowo1835]

@@rowanjoy419 sejong made the coolest writing system, to bad it's only used in a single language

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

[@Eclipsed_Archon]

I was only mildly interested, then he started dividing...

[@smartart6841]

Then i tried it... and nothing worked

[@truevoidchaos5980]

I’m curious enough about this to actually implement this into my studies!

[@Arexiys]

i'm going to use this in all my dnd games!

[@thenethersheep5963]

Hmm, I would love to see something like this done in a base 12, as in my biased opinion I think base 12 just rolls smoothly being divisible by 1,2,3 and 4

[@RaimoHöft]

... and 6. Base 12 is the best!

[@allliquid6320]

What I find interesting we have unique names for the numbers one to twelve with no repeting prefix sufex. Where thirteen, fourteen etc have repeate prefex and use reference to previous numbers. As if one point in time it was a base 12 system. (Probably wasn't but it dose stand out as an oddity)

[@rvnx1564]

Where do you think the dozen originated from? Exactly, a base 12 system

[@allliquid6320]

@@rvnx1564 indeed

[@allliquid6320]

@@rvnx1564 tho this I believe was not for mathematical reasons but specifically for testing and batch controll in the baking field.as 10 was thr typical size but to extra for control. I may be wrong but from what iv herd it's like so. *can't trust everything thought in school. * especially from the lower grades, standards, or what ever level system u use in ur country

[@Magnymbus]

This was exactly my numerals, except way easier to understand. Mine was based on tree structures rather than zigzags, so it was confusing.

[@smg680]

I watched this video yesterday and I got so confused. But then I watched it again today and I completely understood it and it was a ton of fun actually figuring out what the english numbers were before you showed them at the end

[@mal2ksc]

You keep saying "no maths required," but abstract symbol manipulation is also mathematical. You meant no arithmetic as we know it.

[@arandomzoomer4837]

No arithmetic required.

[@robenkhoury7079]

@@arandomzoomer4837 👌

[@arandomzoomer4837]

@@robenkhoury7079 Sometimes it's better to shrink stuff and make it more concise. You know?

[@Brooke-rw8rc]

Arithmetic sucks. Years of teaching only arithmetic and calling it "math" is the #1 reason we have people who "hate math". Arithmetic is a computer's job. REAL math is a human's job. Ban arithmetic.

[@0xCAFEF00D]

@@Brooke-rw8rc Agree wholeheartedly. I also think it hits talent the most because of how little thinking there is. But we can't know because either they put up with arithmetic and carried on. Or they quit and we don't know them as mathematically gifted.

[@shybound7571]

imagine if he said see you in ten years instead of next decade

[@stevethecatcouch6532]

It would have been unambiguous.

[@shybound7571]

Steve the Cat Couch no, if he said see you in ten years, the next time he’d see us would be in 2029. but saying see you next decade means he’d see us at 2020.

[@stevethecatcouch6532]

@@shybound7571 Only if he's one of those people who think zero is an ordinal.

[@horadetodososlegos]

@@stevethecatcouch6532 when talking about decades it kinda is, like we say "the 2010s" it would be weird if 2010 wasn't a part of it, it's weird but that's how it is

[@jerichosamurai]

Wow I can't believe this video is already \/\ years old.

[@dragonrykr]

Well I made the script for my conlang when I was bored on music class in middle school... so nothing's impossible

[@krangighwan]

When he was 13, my uncle had created something similar, and i'm planning to use his system in my conlang.

[@theoriginaldrdust]

holy crap, imma use this to heck n back

[@neonmaple5259]

Everyone else: This is quite interesting and intelligent. We should incorporate this into our system Me: *Predator bomb count down*

[@kuppih4933]

Typical capitalists, always talking about incorporating *joke*

[@hellboy19991]

Exactly my thought Neon!

[@vishwaksenan5035]

Omg omg omg !!!

[@idlewildwind]

"No maths involved"? Well, I still had to do a bunch of binary-style reverse multiplication to even know what any of those multi-digit numbers mean...

[@beluwuga2573]

Well yeah but only because we are all just so used to thr base 10 system. If you're used to the base 20 system then you won't need to convert it to base 10.

[@NathanielJordan85]

At least you can derive their meaning intuitively. Imagine you've never seen a 7 before; what does that even mean? VII at least makes MORE sense, and this is just another step beyond that intuitiveness. Familiarity is the only reason our number system SEEMS easier.

[@idlewildwind]

@@NathanielJordan85 That is VERY true! :))

[@noodles1595]

Arent the numerals we use based off a similar idea (but been changed over time)? Using the amount of angles etc? 1 has one angle, two was like a Z, 3, + etc (draw them out your self using straight lines, to get the extra angles use a little line up of the 5 for example)

[@flamendless]

That long division is really fascinating. It defeats mental thinking and increases the use of visuals

[@DTux5249]

God... I might just scrap the 10-19 symbols and use this in advanced arithmetic

[@MouseGoat]

im with you there, math is about fiding the simpilst most elgant awnser, so why would we keep with something like this 1 2 3 when \ V V\ is clear visible better. :D

[@atlas7309]

It’s base 20... You might still need the 10-19 symbols. Unless you are just talking about using these symbols in a base 10 system without the visual aspect. (Divisions like shown in the video do not work if you just use base 10)

[@bigombrello]

@@atlas7309 You're right, but it's still a good way to encrypt numbers

[@DTux5249]

@@atlas7309 why not specifically? I don't see why the visual Division wouldn't work

[@davidmauchly4689]

Dear Artifexian, can you create a video or videos on “Converbs,” “clauses,” and “conjunctions.” Please I desperately need to learn more about this and it is very difficult for me to find much.

[@forcedcomicrelief3012]

Could you elaborate on how it shows thousands or hundreds? I think i might have missed something.

[@crestfallensunbro6001]

0:55 you can string the nurmals together just like normal but it goes up in powers of 20 instead of powers of 10

[@forcedcomicrelief3012]

@@crestfallensunbro6001 oh thanks

[@naboost9485]

@@crestfallensunbro6001 could you give an exemple pls i don't get it

[@crestfallensunbro6001]

@@naboost9485basically when you get your right most digit to its highest value, if you need to keep counting you add one to the digit to its left. Or in another way of putting it, the right most (before the ".") Is counting individual numbers, and the other digits count how many times the one to its right got to its highest value. (Google "lexicographic ordering" for a better explanation or search KZbin for "computer program that learns to play classic NES games") Edit: wish I could remember the name of the video right. 5th times the charm

[@naboost9485]

@@crestfallensunbro6001 thanks

[@Techtastisch]

Isn`t this exactly whats going on inside the head of this mathematic genius? (Sadly I forgot his name)

[@squintword]

Edgar!

[@TheBoringEdward]

How the hell did I find you here?

[@RandomHandle-fun2rhymes]

Your verified symbol goes in to the time you made this comment

[@technology_support8297]

@Fiskrood ich auch nicht

[@frypanini]

I need to adopt this to make my calculations easier!

[@paxon57]

When You play No Man's Sky and find an alien artefact

[@GregFRDT]

The true way to count is by using minecraft hexadecimal redstone signal strenght and comparators. This post was made by the Minecraft Redstone Engineers Gang.

[@filipefera4097]

Up

[@statelyelms]

I audibly gasped at that first long division example, when you revealed we were dividing by thousands..

[@landonkryger]

2:40, that example is a bit contrived. I'd argue that it looks like you're doing 3311301 / 301 = 11001, which I think most people could do in decimal no problem. Even your 2nd example is super simple. If you do 241423230111 / 120111 in decimal, you'll find it quite easy because you never have to borrow during the subtraction step of the division, or carry if you're trying to figure out what 2*120111 is. The fact that I can even write your numbers in decimal and have the division make sense without a proper base conversion shows that your numbers for division are especially contrived. 110011 / 11 = 10001 regardless if we're in base 2, 10, or a million, but we can all do that math in our heads. I challenge you to pick 2 random two-digit numbers (in that number system) multiply them together, then try the division. I doubt you'll find it as simple as you claim.

[@Dahtamnay]

Thank you, my thoughts exactly. The initial learning curve for understanding the symbols may be gentler, but in the end the most effective algorithms for arithmetic will still be similar in difficulty compared to other positional systems.

[@upuat]

@@Dahtamnay @Landon Kryger I think the point is that you could get the answer of something just with the drawings. like "I dont know how much is this but the answer is *draws something*" instead of numbers 15 665 16516 that cant be overlapped to answer something

[@redjack2629]

Thank you for this knowledge. Considering the plain phonetic nature of the language I'm working on building for some literature, this actyually seems like the narural way they would do numbers. Now to convert the concept back to base 10, and alter the symbols. :v

[@sharpnetic]

This is my new favorite video on KZbin!

[@TheRavenLilian]

Oh my goodness! As a math nerd, I am enthralled!

[@evanbarnes9984]

I'm a math teacher, and I think this system might actually work really well for some of my students who have learning differences. They still need to do a lot of finger counting and skip counting for multiplication and division, but this system shares some of that ease while moving it off the hands and into writing. Could be a great intermediate step. I'm going to try it out! Also for my own uses honestly, I like how efficient long division is with it

[@karelvelicka3353]

Honestly, if they can't do basic algebra in the base 10, why teach it in the base 20? Granted, the method is very intuitive, but if they are students who have learning differences, converting from base to base could be much more challenging for them than the actual equation.

[@djdickey]

The video deeply misrepresents the ease of doing math "visually". Try something simple: 9 ÷ 36 = 4(base 10) or W̅ ÷ \₹ = W (base 20 Kaktovik digit close as I could get to 9 & 20+16=36). You'll see that W̅ does not appear in \₹ four times visually. As a matter of fact the examples in the video only result in 1s or 0s or exactly 5 when something visually appears. So using the visual reference we'd have 0 + a remainder of 36. Not very useful.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@djdickey It's still sufficient to reduce the multiplication table size!

[@tuluppampam]

​@@Anonymous-df8itthe multiplication table should be used so often that the number of possible values shouldn't matter. And just 14 numbers of difference sounds like not enough to have someone move from base 10 to base 20.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@tuluppampam Surely you could make a decimal version?!

[@miguelblanco5572]

Piyali! I've been learning nahuatl, who also counted in base 20 with a sub base of 5, and I know iñupiyak fits it but its CRAZY how perfectly nahuatl fits too! The numbers literally translate to 1-5, 5, 10, 15, and 20. For all other numbers they're 5 and 1, 5 and 2, 10 and 1, 10 and 2, 15 and 1, and so on. This. Is. Perfect.

[@remor698]

This is jawdroppingly amazing! Are there ANY flaws to this numerical system or does it just make every mathmetical thing more accesible?

[@felipevasconcelos6736]

I was able to identify two flaws. 1. There doesn’t seem to be a radix point, so no fractions, which, considering this was made by middle schoolers, is understandable. 2. It’s not supported by Unicode. I tried to use this a few months ago, but I only found one font that supports it, and it was very expensive. You have to create your own font if you want to use it.

[@tpotshax8703]

@@iykury yeah, the usa gets a lot of shit for not using metric due to conversions. I imagine constantly converting from base 20 too base 10 OR 12 and back would be exhausting.

[@ddevil768]

Felipe Vasconcelos No, you can use decimal points, decimal points aren’t related to the numbering system, it’s a mathematical property, you can definitely use decimals in any base, check out how they do decimal numbers in binary, it’s exactly the same premise. There is no “flaw” in this number system that sets it apart from our base 10 system, just that some calculations done in base 10 are easier then those done in base 20, and some calculations done in base 20 are easier than those done in base 10. Math is math, all the math is exactly the same, we’re just representing the numbers differently, the biggest “flaw” for this number system would be the fact that base 10 is so widely used by us that changing our system to base 20 would take a lot of getting used to, try subtracting the base 20 numbers 52 and 8 without using base 10 in your head and you’ll see that borrowing numbers from the next place is quite a bit tougher than in base 10 simply because we’re too used to it. It would take a long time before you start getting used to this number system.

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

The only flaw is base 20 (But that is easily fixable)

[@recurvestickerdragon]

Damn, I wish I could like the vid multiple times

[@markenangel1813]

make more google accounts, they're free

[@robenkhoury7079]

@@markenangel1813 :)

[@memegumin]

*You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like*

[@Masterge77]

I never knew there was such a thing as a Base 20 numerical system, because most languages use Base 10 such as English. Most of the languages that do use Base 20 are indigenous people such as the Mayans and Aztecs, as well as the Ainu people of Japan, whose language is not related to Japanese, which uses Base 10.

[@Nihil2407]

Oi! Please google for French number names and *you will* find, that someone was a fan of base twenty. Examples: 79 - soixante-dix-neuf (which is literally 60 + 19) 80 - quatre-vingts (literally 4 * 20) Now, they don't have it anymore, buuuuuut it definitely isn't something, that no modern nation ever considered

[@tuluppampam]

There are 3 very common bases in languages' numerical systems: 10, 12, and 20. Those are just very intuitive bases, and they aren't too big for our brains to use, nor too small to make them cumbersome. Amongst mathematician there have been lots of uses of base 2 (binary) because it makes calculating certain operations much easier (like division), but there really aren't other bases used. There are also definitely examples of other stranger bases (Sumerian base 60, for example), but they are generally outliers and not at all common bases.

[@alexjenkins1079]

How do they write decimals, like how we might write "3,59" or something like that in a base 10 system?

[@DTux5249]

Well, for a lot of it, double what it is in base ten because by those numbers it would be bigger But just to be safe, take a look at this (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j = 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) 1/20 = 0.1 1/14 = 0.18b8b4 1/10 = 0.2 1/7 = 0.2h2h28 1/5 = 0.4 1/4 = 0.5 1/2 = 0.a 3/4 = 0.f 3/5 = 0.c Etc. It doesn't get too much more yucky than base 10

[@lief9100]

The standard positional notation mentioned around 0:54 means each decimal place is just a reduction of the exponents shown in the table at the same point. I will agree that decimals can feel extra difficult to communicate across different bases, largely because which base you're in can change whether a decimal expansion is infinite or not. 1/3 in base 10 is 0.3333 repeating, but in base 12 it's just 0.4 So it's probably easier to think of your example in fractions instead of decimals. The left side of the decimal point, the 3, would behave normally, you'd have the symbol for three and then the point. The right side is 59/100 and we want it in base 20 so we need in a fractional form that has a number in the denominator in the form of 20 to some power, 400 is the easiest. 59/100 = 236/400 Now convert to base 20, the bottom turns into 100-symbol. And the top, using the symbols A-J for the symbols of 10-19, would turn into BG, (11)(16). So (3).(11)(16) I would like to have been able to check my work with a calculator, but none of them that I found quickly allow for fractional inputs.

[@oddmerlin9797]

these are so cool, and super easy to understand. i was able to figure out the meaning before even watching the video and thats pretty awesome

[@paualamar]

Just from the thumbnail: o is 0, I is 1, V is 2, - is 5, > is 10 and combine... ok you convinced me. While writing this: wait... teach me 100 and 1000 and in set. Lol.

[@MouseGoat]

Ok: 100 = / 0 1000 = / 0 0

[@paualamar]

Nekogami-Crystal i don’t think so. In the video it is said that it’s base 20 instead of our familiar base 10 making it not as easy as it looks.

[@MouseGoat]

​@@paualamar ?? Dude 100/20 is 5 So when you have base 20 system you have 20x5 = 100 = / 0 ints on different than going form 9 to 10 or 9 to 50 in this case. So it really is just that simple, thats why its awesome.

[@paualamar]

Nekogami-Crystal I think its more like \ o is 20, \ \ is 21, V o is 40 (then V\ o 60 VV 80) - o would be 100 not \ o... then \ o o would be 400, -oo 2000 and our familiar 1000 somewhere in between ... V < o. i think. Edit: i corrected the orientation of the vertical strokes.

[@MCjossic]

I’m sure I’d understand it if I was raised on it