Thread history

From User:Brxbrx/Bodega
Viewing a history listing
Jump to: navigation, search
descTime User Activity Comment
07:09, 4 June 2012Blue (Talk | contribs)Undeleted 
07:05, 4 June 2012PeterL (Talk | contribs)Undeleted (Violating the letter and the spirit of the rules/guidelines)
06:19, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)Deleted (it's not a talk page, and it's in my user space)
06:18, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)Deleted (it's not a talk page, and it's in my user space)
05:51, 4 June 2012Miekal (Talk | contribs)Undeleted (bythat logic i get to restore this, unless you want to argue answering the )
05:47, 4 June 2012PeterL (Talk | contribs)Undeleted (RW:CS#Talk pages: This is not 'obviously vile trolling,' and WfG is not evading a ban)
04:53, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)Deleted (that reminds me: you're on the list.not on the list)
04:47, 4 June 2012ListenerX (Talk | contribs)Deleted (Since the post this was in response to has been deleted, it now makes me look insane.)
04:40, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)Deleted (not on the list/on the list)
04:12, 4 June 2012ListenerX (Talk | contribs)[[|New reply]] created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
04:07, 4 June 2012WaitingforGodot (Talk | contribs)[[|New reply]] created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
03:19, 4 June 2012Pimobile (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
03:07, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
02:50, 4 June 2012Pimobile (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
02:38, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
02:25, 4 June 2012Pimobile (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
02:12, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
02:02, 4 June 2012ListenerX (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
01:54, 4 June 2012Pimobile (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
01:44, 4 June 2012Miekal (Talk | contribs)Comment text [ edited] 
01:38, 4 June 2012Miekal (Talk | contribs)Comment text [ edited] (god damnit every time)
01:37, 4 June 2012Miekal (Talk | contribs)[[|New reply]] created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
01:31, 4 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
00:42, 4 June 2012ListenerX (Talk | contribs)New reply created (Reply to Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?)
23:38, 3 June 2012Brxbrx (Talk | contribs)New thread created 

I mean, who thought it'd be good to organize things according to dozens?

Supposedly, Sumerians had their number system based off of the number sixty. I asked my father about it once and he said sixty was divisible by more numbers than ten, so it did sort of make sense. But why would having more multiples be easier?

"Shut up, Brx."23:38, 3 June 2012

Do you mean more factors?

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX00:42, 4 June 2012

That is what I meant. I think. Been a while since grade school math (although you remember and you're older than me... I are stupids)

"Shut up, Brx."01:31, 4 June 2012
 

to the first question, not really; many things have more then one word. According to the dictionary; its mid english, old french and then Latin for 12; though a cursory glance looking at some online site revealed only 1 to also have synonym English word in the first 16 numbers.

to the second point; stop pushing that 10 centric worldview!

il'Dictator Mikal01:37, 4 June 2012
 

The Romans. There was 12 ounces in a Roman pound and 12 pounds in a Roman stone. A carat of diamond is 1/144 Roman ounces. There was 12 lines in an inch and 12 inches in a foot. I could go on if you like. The old myth that you can't multiply in Roman numerals disappears if you know to work in 12s instead of 10s like you were taught.

Pi 3:14 (talk)01:54, 4 June 2012

I thought the problem with multiplying in Roman numerals was their lack of positional notation?

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX02:02, 4 June 2012

Again that is limiting the problem to our way of thinking. CXII = C + X + II so if you wish to multiply it by XIV you multiply (C+X+II).(X+IV) = C.X + C.IV + X.X + X.IV + II.X + II.IV = M + CD + C + XL + XX + IIX = MDLXIIX. You can make your life even easier thinking of IV as V - I.

Pi 3:14 (talk)02:25, 4 June 2012

trippin'

Still, Roman numerals take up all kinds of space

"Shut up, Brx."02:38, 4 June 2012
 
 

Thanks, Pi, good stuff. Can you illuminate me on the Sumerians?

"Shut up, Brx."02:12, 4 June 2012

The Sumerians had a weird system that could have been base 10 if they had wanted. They got to 59 by writting 5 ten symbols and 9 one symbols, but instead of writing 6 ten symbol, they put 1 one symbol in the next position. 60 has the nontrivial factors, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30, where as 10 only has 2 and 5. My guess that it is because 60 is divisble by 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, they liked it for dividing circles.

Pi 3:14 (talk)02:50, 4 June 2012

Dividing circles?

"Shut up, Brx."03:07, 4 June 2012

You can learn a lot from circles, for example you can use a sequence of circles to construct an approximation of the squareroot of 2.

Pi 3:14 (talk)03:19, 4 June 2012
 
 
 
 
 
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support