Stamets to [email protected] • 1 year agoLiterally no one knowslemmy.worldimagemessage-square135fedilinkarrow-up1822
arrow-up1822imageLiterally no one knowslemmy.worldStamets to [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square135fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink9•1 year agoThese numbers all come from people who preferred 12 and 60 as their working base numbers, not 10. A lot of it becomes really elegant once you understand that.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink5•edit-21 year agoDid they use duodecimal or sexagesimal numeral systems? 66 feet does not match that, also its 1 chain * 10 chains.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•1 year agoYa if you know that, you know what I’m talking about and just want to argue.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•edit-21 year agoI do think a duodecimal system is elegant, I don’t see it being used with these numbers. edit: ok, 660/12=55
These numbers all come from people who preferred 12 and 60 as their working base numbers, not 10. A lot of it becomes really elegant once you understand that.
Did they use duodecimal or sexagesimal numeral systems?
66 feet does not match that, also its 1 chain * 10 chains.
deleted by creator
Ya if you know that, you know what I’m talking about and just want to argue.
I do think a duodecimal system is elegant, I don’t see it being used with these numbers.
edit: ok, 660/12=55
and 10 chains = 1 furlong = 1/8 mile