Is it a stupid idea to have another word for twelve?

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 4 June 2012 at 02:50.
The [/w/index.php?title=User:Brxbrx/Bodega&offset=20120604025045&lqt_mustshow=11609 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

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
         

        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
                     
                     
                     
                    Personal tools
                    Namespaces

                    Variants
                    Actions
                    Navigation
                    Community
                    Tools
                    support