It makes sense to me -- and it's reet interestin' an' all. ROTLF -- dunno. ROFL or ROTFL is rolling on the floor laughing. Mebbe it's rollin' on t'loor faffin'.
Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of ewc >Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 02:54 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:32220] Re: Homer Simpson's Big Book of Facts -- OFF >TOPIC: No SI stuff at all > > >Ay up Bill (Potts) > >I ant got foggiest what Tom is lakin abart at > >Whats ROTLF when its at ome? > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >(right out of left field would be different anyhow) > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Tom: > >Both Indian and Egyptian weight systems were basically decimal above >the unit and binary below the unit prior to 2000 BC - because that was >appropriate to their technology (ie 2-pan scales) (Hindu Unit = 128 >ratti seeds ca 13.71 grams = the 'suvarna'. Egyptian unit - 256 wheat >grains - two or three 'absolute' standards between about 12.2g to >13.8 grams = the 'beqa'). If you peel back a few layers of deceipt >then imperial is at bottom much the same - 16 oz to the pound, 100 >pounds to the cwt. > >Why the Babylonians went for a sexagesimal system (with a sub base 10) >is unknown - it defies the technology of the times - but it likely has >a lot to do with the nice set of fractions base 60 maths throws up. >And the fact that bankers prefer 1/12's or 1/60's 'cause its easier to >mentally divvy up, calculate interest etc. > >When the Athenians adopted their drachm from the Persian/Babylonian >half shekel (date unknown but late pre-history) they made it 100 >rather than 120 to a pound (ie mina). Best to skip the Romans - they >maybe got their numerical system from the neandertals and skipped >cro-magnon developements (joke) > >The Chinese Tang dynasty reset the calendar to year 1 back in 622 AD >(as best I recall) - like the French revolutionaries. And they made >10 cash to the ounce, 1000 copper ounces to the gold ounce as best I >understand it. So they are the first 'fully' decimal currency system >I know about. > >Pat raises some stuff re decimal fractions which seems to me a >slightly different matter but is very interesting. I do not know the >way they got popularised. I guess they are vital to compiling log >tables, and sensible on slide rules, but I do not know how things >developed. Certainly they were the big vogue about 1720 when >Berkeley was a young guy. > >Our decimal notation system for the numbers above 0 'the sindhind' >developed in India prior to 450 AD (as is well known) - but when the >Arab Alberuni investigated Hindu estimates of Pi around about 1000 >AD he found their most sophisticated guess to be 3 + 177/1250. >(actually thats Alberuni - the Hindu guy wrote >1,256,640,000/400,000,000). It looks to me like these guys were not >too dumb with numbers? But they not using decimal fractions - and its >not obvious to me that in 1000 AD there would be any advantage to a >mathematician in using them - quite the reverse. Maybe I'm missing >something here? > >Best > >rob (a tyke by birth) > >PS All: the pope is a catholic > > >
