Degrees of a circle?

Degrees of a circle?

Posers and Puzzles

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

n

Joined
24 Sep 06
Moves
3736
07 Jul 08

A degree is defined as one three hundred and sixtieth of a circle. So that doesn't say much about the origin of degrees. Why are there three hundred and sixty of them?

G

Joined
13 Dec 06
Moves
792
07 Jul 08

Wikipedia is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_(angle)

n

Joined
24 Sep 06
Moves
3736
08 Jul 08

Originally posted by GregM
Wikipedia is your friend.
Not my friend, sorry.

I was asking because I found the question to be intellectually stimulating.

The garbage dispensing network of obtuse obscurities that is wikipedia didn't seem worth while.

Already mated

Omaha, Nebraska, USA

Joined
04 Jul 06
Moves
1115070
08 Jul 08

Originally posted by nihilismor
Not my friend, sorry.

I was asking because I found the question to be intellectually stimulating.

The garbage dispensing network of obtuse obscurities that is wikipedia didn't seem worth while.
Actually, the wikipedia speculation about the historical derivation seemed to be on point. Your response to a helpful suggestion was inappropriate.

Joined
13 May 08
Moves
97790
08 Jul 08

I believe there are 360 degrees in a circle because the ancient people tried to relate it to the number of days it took the sun to go around the earth. Later they found that they where off by a bit and adjsuted their calenders appropriately.

hklee

Already mated

Omaha, Nebraska, USA

Joined
04 Jul 06
Moves
1115070
08 Jul 08

Originally posted by hklee
I believe there are 360 degrees in a circle because the ancient people tried to relate it to the number of days it took the sun to go around the earth. Later they found that they where off by a bit and adjsuted their calenders appropriately.

hklee
yeah, what he said.

t

Joined
17 Feb 08
Moves
6797
08 Jul 08

Isn't 360 an adoption from the babylonian Base-12 system. Not to mention that so many numbers go into 360.

The history on the babylonian base-12 is related to counting with the segments on each finger (4*3) So you could count to 156 on your two hands instead of our minuscule 10.

a

Joined
11 May 07
Moves
14366
08 Jul 08

that sounds clever lets go with that.

G5

Joined
19 Dec 07
Moves
2482
08 Jul 08

i don't under stand. be much much lesss specific if you can
also the theroy abut the year round long make sense

n

Joined
24 Sep 06
Moves
3736
08 Jul 08

Originally posted by tamuzi
Isn't 360 an adoption from the babylonian Base-12 system. Not to mention that so many numbers go into 360.

The history on the babylonian base-12 is related to counting with the segments on each finger (4*3) So you could count to 156 on your two hands instead of our minuscule 10.
This is coincides with what I've turned up. However, I have read that they worked with a base 30 system (not 12) which contradicts the website cited earlier in this thread.

T
Kupikupopo!

Out of my mind

Joined
25 Oct 02
Moves
20443
09 Jul 08

Originally posted by nihilismor
This is coincides with what I've turned up. However, I have read that they worked with a base 30 system (not 12) which contradicts the website cited earlier in this thread.
I believe they used base 12. Your reluctance to use wikipedia is based on rumours and probably opinions of others.

I find it a useful source of knowledge. Moderated regularly so that the information presented is correct. I have contributed my share of information and corrections on that site as well.

T

ALG

Joined
16 Dec 07
Moves
6190
09 Jul 08

they used both 12 and 30, 12x30=360, so a circle has 360 degrees

Insanity at Masada

tinyurl.com/mw7txe34

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26660
10 Jul 08

Originally posted by tamuzi
Isn't 360 an adoption from the babylonian Base-12 system. Not to mention that so many numbers go into 360.

The history on the babylonian base-12 is related to counting with the segments on each finger (4*3) So you could count to 156 on your two hands instead of our minuscule 10.
3x4 + 2x2 (thumbs) is 16, not 156.

n

Joined
24 Sep 06
Moves
3736
10 Jul 08

Originally posted by TheMaster37
...Your reluctance to use wikipedia is based on rumours and probably opinions of others...
You are correct. I also do not go on "myspace" or get chemicals from starbucks or wear clothing with brand names visible for the same reasons I do not use wikipedia without reluctance. I do use it and respect it though in most cases . . . Just not for this forum.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
11 Jul 08

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
3x4 + 2x2 (thumbs) is 16, not 156.
3x4 on EACH hand using fingers,
use one hand for units
use other hand for '12's
that gives a possible 12x12 = 144.

I guess 156 includes using the thumb on the '12's hand??