3 ms·

> Although it is unknown why 60 was chosen Oh come on. This is not rocket science. There is an easy way to count to 12 with just one hand: place your thumb on

> Although it is unknown why 60 was chosen Oh come on. This is not rocket science. There is an easy way to count to 12 with just one hand: place your thumb on one of your phalanxes. There are three for each of the remaining fingers: hence, 4*3=12 possibilities. Babylonians counted this way, hence the duodecimal system. You can use your second hand to count to five, as usual. 5x12 = 60. If you show one of the fingers on your left hand, and one of the phalanxes of your right hand, it really clearly communicates a number from 1 to 60. This is why the base 60 was chosen.

tjradcliffe 12y ago
To treat this as "obvious" rather than "interesting" is an epistemic error. In particular, any ancient counting system could be given a similar anatomical analysis. Base 30? Well, it's only the first two knuckles that are easy to bend. Base 14? Clearly the major joints were being used for counting (because counting, not communication was the issue: people had words for communication and didn't need hand gestures). Base 8? Again, the first two knuckles, multiply both hands to get 64... so maybe that would be base 64? Simply because you can give an account of what people actually used is no proof of explanation: you also have to given an account of why what was not used was not used. Claiming it was because it was somehow less convenient than the system you suggest is not an explanation, but a classic example of begging the question (assuming the consequent.)
brute 12y ago
This would mean that on one hand (literally) you count the phalanxes (12), while on the other hand you use a completly different system and count your fingers (5). Why would you ever use 2 different counting systems? It seems that your argument is more in favor of base 25(=5 * 5) or base 144(=12 * 12).

3 ms·

> Although it is unknown why 60 was chosen Oh come on. This is not rocket science. There is an easy way to count to 12 with just one hand: place your thumb on

by atemerev 12y ago

tjradcliffe 12y ago
To treat this as "obvious" rather than "interesting" is an epistemic error. In particular, any ancient counting system could be given a similar anatomical analysis. Base 30? Well, it's only the first two knuckles that are easy to bend. Base 14? Clearly the major joints were being used for counting (because counting, not communication was the issue: people had words for communication and didn't need hand gestures). Base 8? Again, the first two knuckles, multiply both hands to get 64... so maybe that would be base 64? Simply because you can give an account of what people actually used is no proof of explanation: you also have to given an account of why what was not used was not used. Claiming it was because it was somehow less convenient than the system you suggest is not an explanation, but a classic example of begging the question (assuming the consequent.)
brute 12y ago
This would mean that on one hand (literally) you count the phalanxes (12), while on the other hand you use a completly different system and count your fingers (5). Why would you ever use 2 different counting systems? It seems that your argument is more in favor of base 25(=5 * 5) or base 144(=12 * 12).