MarkMas
Member
- Messages
- 2,626
Actually, I have thought about it some more and I'm going to go with 785 (I did have to use a calculator)
Actually, I have thought about it some more and I'm going to go with 785 (I did have to use a calculator)
Happy to have a clue, but I am not guessing!!!Hmmm - seems like people are lost, and there is a degree of guesswork going on. Time for a clue?
Very good... I apologise profusely!Happy to have a clue, but I am not guessing!!!
30 was based on - "Count to five on one hand, and then, save the five on one finger of the other hand, then count to five again, and save, until you have 5+5+5+5+5 on one hand and 5 on the other = 30.
And then I thought, wait, you could just do the whole thing in base 5 - so 11111 (on one hand) in base 5 is 781 plus 5 (on the other hand), which is, um 786 (sorry, I had 785, before)
I considered that as an answer as well, with exactly the same logic. Problem here is how do we define counting. As previous using Binary you can count up to a lot. Many different ways of using fingers to countHappy to have a clue, but I am not guessing!!!
30 was based on - "Count to five on one hand, and then, save the five on one finger of the other hand, then count to five again, and save, until you have 5+5+5+5+5 on one hand and 5 on the other = 30.
And then I thought, wait, you could just do the whole thing in base 5 - so 11111 (on one hand) in base 5 is 781 plus 5 (on the other hand), which is, um 786 (sorry, I had 785, before)
Well, that sounds like225, they counted on their finger joints...
Erm - is this not what I said?So what you mean is 'How high did Babylonians count on their fingers'
C
Finger joints is correct... 225 is not225, they counted on their finger joints...
Getting closer....Well, that sounds like
3 joints x 5 fingers x 2 hands = 30
or
3 joints x 5 fingers x 6 (five other fingers to keep track plus one final hand) = 90
Erm - noErm - is this not what I said?
COk - I learnt this yesterday.
What is the highest number a Babylonian could count to using just their hands?
OK so:Well, that sounds like
3 joints x 5 fingers x 2 hands = 30
or
3 joints x 5 fingers x 6 (five other fingers to keep track plus one final hand) = 90
Why? 1023 is just as plausible!But given the ORIGINAL question, I'm still claiming the prize at 786![]()
Please explain?Why? 1023 is just as plausible!
C