3 ms·
It's often claimed, but I'm not aware of any strong evidence for it. In particular, since our hands can show "10" the natural base this would imply is base _11
by nullc 10y ago
It's often claimed, but I'm not aware of any strong evidence for it.
In particular, since our hands can show "10" the natural base this would imply is base _11_ and not 10.
Another argument I've heard presented is that since 10 is divisible by 2 and 5 this simplifies many common calculations. There were groups in the past advocating use of other bases (in particular 12 but also 16).
The mayan's number system is base 20 (though the digits are are drawn out of sub digits in base-5).
- saghm 10y ago> Another argument I've heard presented is that since 10 is divisible by 2 and 5 this simplifies many common calculations. To me, it always seemed like 5 was only a common number because of its place in base 10, not the other way around. There doesn't seem to be any reason that 2 and 5 would have been chosen as more significant than 2 and 3 or 2 and 7.
- jon_richards 10y ago>In particular, since our hands can show "10" the natural base this would imply is base _11_ and not 10. I'd disagree. Having base 10 allows us to easily imagine 60 as 6 people worth of fingers.
- saghm 10y ago> The mayan's number system is base 20 (though the digits are are drawn out of sub digits in base-5). I think I remember learning in school that one of the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations (Sumerian, I think, but I could be wrong) used 60 as the basis for their system because it was divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
- andrepd 10y ago11? How so? If I have 10 fingers I can count from 1 to 10. When I start again I count from 11 to 20. Again from 21 to 30. In base 11 it would go 1 to A, 10 to 19, 1A to 28, etc. It doesn't make sense.