3 ms·
Most of your argument seems to stand for 30 instead of 60: 2 x 3 x 5 = 30, which is a smaller number with mostly the same properties as 60. If you want more di
by necovek 3y ago
Most of your argument seems to stand for 30 instead of 60: 2 x 3 x 5 = 30, which is a smaller number with mostly the same properties as 60.
If you want more divisibility (into quarters, eigths, ninths...), you can continue multiplying further, but 60 is as much a "historical accident" as 10 is an "accident of evolution".
- jameshart 3y ago60 is a 'highly composite' number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number) - it is the lowest number with 12 divisors. 30 has divisors 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 30 - eight divisors. But 24 is lower and also has eight (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24), making 30 less 'special'. 60 is the lowest highly composite number with 5 (and therefore 10) as a factor, which makes it a strong attractor when choosing bases for measuring systems.
- necovek 3y agoSure, but caring about 5 (and 10) is not what the GP comment stressed (actually, quite the opposite). If we do care about 10, then 60 is indeed appealing, but also an argument for base 10 too — which they argued against. "Highly composite" number being used as a base for a numbering system does not really strike me as non-arbitrary either. Choosing 60 and saying it makes more sense than, say, 2520 (which is also highly composite, but divisible by 1-10 too) is pretty arbitrary imho. Yes, my "criteria" is similarly arbitrary but focused on "10 does matter" ("I want to easily divide this into 2-10 groups"): both are too large to have individual names for each digit in a supposed number system with base 60 or 2520.