Why is it 16:10 and not 8:5?

Why is it 16:10 and not 8:5?

Because 8:5 is smaller than 16:10 retard

You know, I thought the same at first but it turns out it isn't.

are you dumb? 16 is bigger than 8

It's a ratio, so 8:5 is actually bigger

because it's easier to compare it with 16:9 obviously

True that.

That doesn't make any sense.

Why are you dumb?

yfw 4:3 is actually 16:12

how doesnt it?

Weak bait.
16:10 divided through 2 is 8:5
Try calculating that, it'll give you exactly 1.6 in both cases
so this means
16:10 |:2
=8:5
=1.6
This user got it right!
If you compare 16:9 with 8:5, yoi'd have a problem, right? It'd be a lot easier to compare them if one of the numbers was the same, hence 16:10. 4:3 is an exception as it is the same as 16:12 and not widescreen (like 16:10 and 16:9), so comparing something almost square-like to something rectangle-like makes no sense which is why 4:3 is used over 16:12. Also, 4:3 was existant (or rather more widely avaiable) before widescreen soo

The answer is marketing

Pretty much.
You'd only need to compare them if you're choosing one over the other, it only makes sense from a marketing standpoint.

>weak bait
>still bites down on it hard
wtf

For dumb ass cunts, like most tech description s

He means from a marketing point of view. Everyone here knows 8/5 is the same as 16/10. But humans have irrational decision-making when doing purchases. Even if they know 8/5 is the same as 16/10 it still feels like it's a bit bigger and fuller. 8/5 looks like a little ratiolet next to the full 16/10. Just that big 16 on a 10. That 16 is so big that it needs two digits to hold it up. So must be a better monitor than the 8/5 monitor that looks similar. Especially when people don't really know so much about specs and they otherwise look like completely fine monitors.

Common Core math

That's what's weird, aspect ratios are barely mentioned on monitor/TV packages.

That's why I use 32:20, 16:10 is a ratiolet

why not 40:1

why not 40:1

It is 8:5. People just use 16:10 for comparison to 16:9 because that's the defacto standard.

>the absolute state of Sup Forums
Holy shit. It's for easy comparison with 16:9.

Because a rational number is defined to be an equivalence class of elements of Z^2 (mind the zero) with the equivalence relation (a,b) ~ (c,d) iff ad = bc. It is a fairly trivial exercise to see that (8,5) and (16,10) are equivalent.

why is it 4:3 and not 16:12??? the jews don't want you to realize you're losing pixels

almost said this, but isn't 16:10 older, and thus 16:9 is named to compare to it? Doesn't explain why they didn't go with 4:x then.

why isn't it 1.6?

Actually, 16^23:10^23 is the true patricians ratio

Because that's not a ratio, fucktard.

You either took it too far or you are very stupid and think you are smart.
>multiplying both sides of a ratio with x gives the same ratio.
>power of x for both sides of a ratio is not the same ratio.

Don't you get it ? The jews get their power out of 2 digits ALWAYS. 21:9 , 16:9,16:10. The list goes on. If there isn't a number with two digits , they lose power, and the goyim wins. It's written on the user's guide for every single monitor in the market , read it will you ?

8:5 compared to 16:9 doesn't sound right

this right here

>16:10 divided through 2 is 8:5
Yeah, well the square root of 16:9 is 4:3 but no one calls 16:9 4:3.

Because it's not 40 to 1

1.6:1

Shut the fuck up, retard.

>weak bait sempai, now watch me take it

Because 16:9 is 16:9, not 8:4.5

This.

This, it is a standardized ratio where 1 is the standard everything is compared against.

But that's wrong.

Define “wrong”

No, sqrt(16/9) = 4/3

We're not talking about roots and squares, we're talking about ratios. 4:3 isn't the same as 16:9. It isn't wrong mathmatically but it's wrong in this specific situation