Wikipedia:Wikifun/Round 5/Answers/Question 1

Binary numeral system#History — binary was first described by Pingala in connexion with Vedic metres in ancient India. Gareth Hughes 13:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The mathematicians of ancient Babylonia used a base 60 numbering system. FreplySpang 13:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Maya numerals are also quite strange - they're base 20 and base 18. Grue 14:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Using base 18 is a very strange thing to do, so I'd say the maya Dmn / Դմն 15:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Mayan numeral system (base-20 for the first place and base-18 for the second, to create a count of 360, then base-20 again) is quite sensible if you are fixated on the solar calendar, and the Babylonian base-60 is divisible by lots of things and so also sensible. The Yuki tribe of northern California used base-8 system, counting the spaces between their fingers, and there is evidence of base-7 being used by the proto-Magyar culture (from lexical remnants in Uralic languages). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Depends. Do we seek a numeral system or a mere base? or maybe a way of writing it? In the first case, the D'ni base 25 numbering system fits. In the second case, the hypothetical base 7 number of the ancient proto-magyars is probably unique (see base 7). Overall, the maya's vigesimal numbering system would be the answer, so I say Maya numerals.

In each case, I started from numeral system, and browsed through the linksCirceus 15:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note: hypothetical. One of the reasons I can't really give credit. We know for a fact that the base-60 numbering system existed. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Er, D'ni numerals is fictional :) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This question was answered correctly by FreplySpang. Base-60 is likely to be one of the most oddest base numbering systems ever used. 20 you can understand: You have 10 fingers and 10 toes. But why 60? -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because 60 = 2×2×3×5 and so is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30. But why would anyone choose base-7? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Some thought on base-7: The Lord did create the Earth in 7 days. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - So Genesis tells us, but did the ancient proto-magyars know that? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That would assume you'd had a multiplication system in the first place. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Multiplication is just repeated addition, and numbers are not much use without addition. Anyway, we know from clay tablets that the Mesopotamian civilisations could multiply numbers. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the Sumerian base-60 system? I found that in numeral system. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 18:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Babylonia. We're pretty sure that they invented it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, thank you! I thought that Grue would take it with the Maya numerals — switching from one base to another is a different kind of unusual than having a large base — but 60 is certainly an inconvenient base for a numeral system. FreplySpang 06:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - As I said above: 20 you can understand: You have 10 fingers and 10 toes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Mixed radix seems very odd, but, as I said above, it is sensible in the context of a calendrical fixation. There is some interesting discussion of the origin of the base-60 system (12×5) here. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

base 20 used by the mayansgeorge 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading a Scientific American article some years ago that described the very mixed system the Mesopotamians used before their base 60 system. Unfortunately, the question wasn't about the weirdest system. That would clearly be our calendar, which counts like

12-31-2004, 1-1-2005, 1-2-2005 ... 1-31-2005, 2-1-2005 ... 2-28-2005, sometimes 2-29-2005, 3-1-2005 ... and so on.

Sebastian 06:03, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)