On 13 Sep 2007, at 11:12, Mike Stevens wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:32 AM [GMT+1=CET], > Ian Cardinal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I do have some sympathy for Dorothy on some aspects of metric >> systems. When I was in Lincolnshire I remember having an argument >> with a farmer who was trying to tell me that 10 was an imperfect >> number: you could put a dozen eggs in a box, divided by 3 etc. I >> pointed out that we have 10 digits (most of us) on our hands and >> feet: that we count in a system of base 10 etc. he was speechless > > Arithmetic would have been a much more convenient thing if the Lord > had > provided us with twelve digits instead of ten so that mankind whoud > have > developed a number notation based on twelve rather than ten.
Remarkably, every other deity also did the same. That's a first... ;-) Actually the most convenient thing in this modern day would have been a number system based on a multiple of two, like eight or sixteen. -- Andy Greener n.b. Whisper Pangbourne, UK http://www.nb-whisper.com "Standards are an endurance sport."
