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

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 4 June 2012 at 04:47.
[/w/index.php?title=User:Brxbrx/Bodega&offset=20120604044724&lqt_mustshow=11618 This thread] or its parent was deleted

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

                    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
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thread:User:Brxbrx/Bodega/Is_it_a_stupid_idea_to_have_another_word_for_twelve%3F"
                        Personal tools
                        Namespaces

                        Variants
                        Actions
                        Navigation
                        Community
                        Tools
                        support