Originally posted by nihilismorActually, the wikipedia speculation about the historical derivation seemed to be on point. Your response to a helpful suggestion was inappropriate.
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.
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.
Originally posted by tamuziThis 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.
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.
Originally posted by nihilismorI believe they used base 12. Your reluctance to use wikipedia is based on rumours and probably opinions of others.
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 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.
Originally posted by tamuzi3x4 + 2x2 (thumbs) is 16, not 156.
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.
Originally posted by TheMaster37You 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.
...Your reluctance to use wikipedia is based on rumours and probably opinions of others...
