fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 年前AAAAtomsmander.xyzimagemessage-square124fedilinkarrow-up1998arrow-down157
arrow-up1941arrow-down1imageAAAAtomsmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 年前message-square124fedilink
minus-squareiturnedintoanewt@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16arrow-down1·2 年前…96? How is 96 a point of reference when you are making a scale from scratch?
minus-squareMargot Robbie@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·2 年前I think it’s because 96 is divisible by 3.
minus-squareJolteon@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·2 年前96 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8
minus-squareAlaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·2 年前ah 7 and 9 are missing because 7 ate 9 and is on the run from the law
minus-squarephotonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·2 年前100 is divisible by 5, so what’s your point?
minus-squareℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·2 年前Easier to subdivide a physically measured scale when the reverence is divisible by multiple values to choose from…
…96? How is 96 a point of reference when you are making a scale from scratch?
I think it’s because 96 is divisible by 3.
96 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8
ah 7 and 9 are missing because 7 ate 9 and is on the run from the law
100 is divisible by 5, so what’s your point?
Easier to subdivide a physically measured scale when the reverence is divisible by multiple values to choose from…