We have basic words for the numbers zero to three, so why not use them to count?

  • None (0)
  • Single (1)
  • pair (2)
  • Multiple (3+ but we’ll use it as three)

So with those “digits” we can construct some numbers:

  1. Single
  2. pair
  3. Multiple
  4. Single nothing
  5. Single single
  6. Single pair
  7. Single multiple
  8. Pair of nothing
  9. Pair of singels
  10. Pair of pairs

And of course we can construct bigger numbers like:
42 = 4²×2+4¹×2+4⁰×2 = pair of pairs of pairs
128 = 4³×2 = pair of absolute complete nothinges For this last one I just use some adjectives to repeat the “nothing” as it looks really weird with multiple nothing in a row.

The distance between Stockholm and Gothenburg is a single multiple of none multiple multiples

Could I have a single multiple of bananas please?

        • ComradeSharkfucker
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I might be weird for this but one of my favorite things while high is to watch videos about scientific and political theory way beyond my level of understanding. It makes perfect fucking sense until I actually try and think about it. Fantastic time 10/10

  • IggyTheSmidge@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    OP is clearly a troll:

    In fact, trolls traditionally count like this: one, two, three . . . many, and people assume this means they can have no grasp of higher numbers.
    They don’t realize that many can be a number. As in: one, two,three, many, many-one, many-two, many-three, many many, many-many-one, many-many-two, many-many-three, many many many, many-many-many-one, many-many-many-two, many-many-many-three, LOTS.
    Terry Pratchett - Men at Arms

    • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes, I’m indeed a traditional Swedish troll. Here I am, I’m the one to the right with red hair on this image:

      Me

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      But everyone knows camels are the better mathematicians, having always used base infinity.

      Lack of fingers was another big spur to the development of camel intellect. Human mathematical development had always been held back by everyone’s instinctive tendency, when faced with something really complex in the way of triform polynomials or parametric differentials, to count fingers. Camels started from the word go by counting numbers.

      Terry Pratchett - Pyramids

    • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Mathematically this works just like our number system, your just not used to it

    • CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because we also have words like quadruple, quintuple, etc which would break his theory. lol

    • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you ask someone for “multiple” of something their almost always going to give you three of that thing (or nothing). In that context multiple is just three and as @CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world pointed out, if I use triple I could as well keep going with higher numbers (quadrupole etc)

      • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        If someone asks me for “a few” I’ll give them three or four. If someone asks for “multiple” I’ll give them a handful and ask if that’s enough.

        I don’t know where in the world this theory is coming from, but here, two would be “a couple” and three+ would be “a few.” Not that “a pair” (never just pair) and multiple aren’t used in other contexts, but you wouldn’t use pair and multiple in the same context. A pair is specific, multiple is an estimate.

        • person@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Maybe it’s just me: had to double back on that literal use of “where in the world”.

        • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s just me thinking of what I ordered people near me would do. But I’m not a native English speaker so my feel for the language might be wrong; I’m from Sweden (and my mother tongue is Swedish).

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you ask someone for “multiple” of something their almost always going to give you three of that thing (or nothing).

        Huh? I’ve lived a long time and that’s not something that feels familiar to me. On the other hand I do have multiple dollars in my bank account and that equation checks out.

        • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m not a native English speaker so you (and everyone else here) are probably right. I thought it meant the same thing as the Swedish word “flera” whilst the proper translation seems to be “ett flertal”

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I think it differs. To me, “flera” is like 3-5 maybe? Perhaps 4-10 in some cases. And I sometimes hear people use “par” to mean 3, probably short for “ett par tre stycken”, so a poorly defined 2-3 that sometimes is 3.

        • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, your probably right; my English ain’t perfect. A few would probably have been better to use as @RainfallSonata@lemmy.world pointed out

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    Should be single syllables to speak. Nil, bit, pair, few.

    15 is a few few. 12 is few nil.

    But for more than 2 digits, I think we need something better than just spewing digits. I would propose a vowel suffix for the higher digits. Y, O, and A. So 63 becomes few-y few few, and 64 is Bit-Y or “bitty”. Don’t need to say the nils after. 65 is Bitty bit. 255 is FewO FewY few few, followed by 256 which is Bitta.

    • Hjalmar@feddit.nuOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Smart, I like the shorter words. And for the suffixes your basically picking based on the digits position from the left? So you suggest the suffixes:

      Place suffix
      1 place
      4 place
      16 place Y
      64 place O
      256 place A

      I believe we’d have to continue a bit longer and maybe also have a suffix for 4th place? I would suggest using both prefixes and suffixes, maybe in this order:

      Place suffix prefix
      1 place
      4 place A
      16 place A A
      64 place O A
      256 place Y A
      1024th place O
      4096th place A O

      … And so on, you can probably see how you could keep going in order to express any number up to 16777216. After that we might have to start using two letter prefixes/suffixes like “la”, “ro” or whatever

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hey how many fingers were you born with? 10 probably. And now you know why we use base 10.

    Although to be fair the Babylonias loved them some base 60. See also time keeping and degrees in a circle.