Posted on 08/25/2017 9:41:11 AM PDT by Red Badger
Did you read the article? They may have been reading things into this tablet. These kinds of blockbuster claims in science often don’t hold up.
f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb
It makes division into fractions: 1/2;1/3;1/4;1/5;1/6;1/12;1/15;1/30 etc. very easy/
On your graph, what does “m” and “n” stand for?
And those aren’t nearly as technically advanced as some of the other things. The inside cut of these could only recently be created with precision machine tools. There perfectly straight uniform incisions in extremely hard stone over long distances never produced by any civilization of which we are aware.
Parts of the site has huge blocks with sockets cut out of them like they held some kind of huge machine in place. It is one of my new obsessions.
You guys are riots, I tell you, riots!
Here I sit broken hearted...
Pythagorus was an initiate into the Mystery Religion which passed on the wisdom of the past and he was from what is now Turkey. He easily could have learned about Right triangles from them and he studied in Egypt as well.
Who knows the knowledge that was destroyed by those who burned the Library of Alexandrian destroying priceless materials from centuries past?
LOL!............................
Makes a lot of math easier.
—
If you are already sophisticated mathematically ...
Of course if that was the mathematical system you were raised with you’d be that sophisticated.
interesting response
That sounds like a circular argument, not an explanation as to why, where, and what for.
It’s not a circular argument, it’s a fact of how we learn things. If you’d been brought up in a world that considered base 60 to be the norm you’d be as good with that as you are with base 10 in our world, and you’d consider base 10 to be as foreign a concept as you now consider base 60.
The why, where and what for is very simple. They based their number system on being able to divide up objects more easily. Pick an object, any object, doesn’t matter, it’s easier to divide that object into equal portions if it is measured as 60 whatevers than if it is measured as 10, even if it’s the same actual quantity. 60 NewMeasurements of land is mathematically easier to divide equally among 3, or 4, or 6 or 8 people than 10 acres of land. They built that thinking right into the society with their numbering. They built their numbering system on usability during calculation, as opposed to base 10 which is built on usability during counting.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Ok you win.
I wonder if they were any better at internalizing large numbers. That’s something we really stink at, one of the reason our government gets to get away with so much crap, those budget numbers don’t really mean much to us. Once you get past about 20 of something the human brain just kind of writes it off as “a lot” and moves on. For then “20” was 120 for us, wonder if that helped them, or if they were in a fog long before they got to “10”.
>I wonder if they were any better at internalizing large numbers. That’s something we really stink at, one of the reason our government gets to get away with so much crap, those budget numbers don’t really mean much to us. Once you get past about 20 of something the human brain just kind of writes it off as “a lot” and moves on. For then “20” was 120 for us, wonder if that helped them, or if they were in a fog long before they got to “10”.
Summer invented compounding interest and usury yes I’d say they were very good with numbers.
bkmk for when power comes back
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.