I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

New Home · 23-05-2021 10:14AM

I also hope he never attemped it again....

23-05-2021 11:36AM

Why 4?!

How could you observe all 4 at once? Why not start with one?

mikhail · 23-05-2021 03:59PM

https://web.archive.org/web/20000815202738/http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_190.html

Maybe the discussion in the past page or so of this thread was inspired by some earlier post along the same lines. If so, and I'm repeating an earlier discussion, apologies. There's evidence that cats often survive (perhaps with serious injuries) ridiculously high falls unaided by parachute. The article linked above discusses a report of survival stats of cats falling from skyscrapers. Pretty much anything over around 7 stories seemed to survive because their terminal velocity is around half of ours and they're able to right themselves.

Also, here's an utterly bizarre video of cats being dropped under weightless conditions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/a/a1/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv.480p.vp9.webm#t=00:03:37,00:04:09

Adyx · 23-05-2021 08:35PM

mikhail wrote: »

https://web.archive.org/web/20000815202738/http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_190.html

Maybe the discussion in the past page or so of this thread was inspired by some earlier post along the same lines. If so, and I'm repeating an earlier discussion, apologies. There's evidence that cats often survive (perhaps with serious injuries) ridiculously high falls unaided by parachute. The article linked above discusses a report of survival stats of cats falling from skyscrapers. Pretty much anything over around 7 stories seemed to survive because their terminal velocity is around half of ours and they're able to right themselves.

Also, here's an utterly bizarre video of cats being dropped under weightless conditions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/a/a1/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv/BIOASTRONAUTICS_RESEARCH_Gov.archives.arc.68700.ogv.480p.vp9.webm#t=00:03:37,00:04:09

Bizarre or hilarious...

cdeb · 23-05-2021 11:06PM

Fred Davis first played the World Snooker Championships in 1937. He lost a qualifying round to a guy called Bill Withers, and his brother Joe - who had won every title to that point - considered this a family embarrassment and duly beat Withers 30-1 in the first round proper.

Fred was still playing professionally in 1993 at the age of 79, and lost 5-1 to a teenage Ronnie O'Sullivan in qualifying for the Grand Prix event.

seagull · 24-05-2021 12:37PM

Candie wrote: »

Friday night saw the 21st hour
of the 21st day
of the 21st week
of the 21st year
of the 21st century.

21st day of the week?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 12:43PM

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 12:49PM

Candie wrote: »

We're leaving out the month. It's the 21st week. And if that's not good enough for you I just don't know what to say.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY!

/flounce

Yeah, mea culpa. I just can't help myself.

At least I didn't erroneously suggest it's the 22nd year of the 21st century. To keep the the thread on track, there was no Year 0. Our year numbering system was "invented" in Europe in the 6th century. The number zero didn't "arrive" in Europe until a few hundred years later.

fergiesfolly · 24-05-2021 12:51PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also works with Guinness and curries.
Don't ask me how I know, I just do.

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 01:07PM

And on the subject of zero. While as a number, zero is a useful concept it's as a digit it comes into its own. Without it we couldn't use our numbering system as you would not be able to differentiate between 12,102 and 120, say.

Our numbering system is amazingly efficient. 45 + 54 = 99. Relatively easy! Would have been a nightmare in a Roman primary school. XLV + LIV = XCIX

I can't even begin to put my head around how they did simple addiction.

jasonb · 24-05-2021 01:08PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Scuba divers kinda* do that too. If you get yourself neutrally buoyant while scuba diving, so that you're neither sinking or ascending, then breathing out can help you descend and breathing in can help you ascend. Basically you should be gently bobbing up and down as you breathe in and out.

*ok, so it's not the same really, but I still think it's interesting...

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2021 01:47PM

LarryGraham wrote: »

And on the subject of zero. While as a number, zero is a useful concept it's as a digit it comes into its own. Without it we couldn't use our numbering system as you would not be able to differentiate between 12,102 and 120, say.

Our numbering system is amazingly efficient. 45 + 54 = 99. Relatively easy! Would have been a nightmare in a Roman primary school. XLV + LIV = XCIX I can't even begin to put my head around how they did simple addiction.

they didn't use roman numerals that way. If they wanted to do addition they did it on an abacus. they only used roman numerals for recording the result.

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2021 01:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Why 4?!

How could you observe all 4 at once? Why not start with one?

Not the first problem with the experiment that occurred to me.

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 02:38PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they didn't use roman numerals that way. If they wanted to do addition they did it on an abacus. they only used roman numerals for recording the result.

From my understanding, it is believed that they converted the Roman numerals into the abacus did the sum and converted back to the numerals. The Indo-Arabic numbering systems does this without the converting.

Despite their impressive engineering feats the Romans didn't contribute much to mathematics.

silliussoddius · 24-05-2021 02:49PM

LarryGraham wrote: »

And on the subject of zero. While as a number, zero is a useful concept it's as a digit it comes into its own. Without it we couldn't use our numbering system as you would not be able to differentiate between 12,102 and 120, say.

Our numbering system is amazingly efficient. 45 + 54 = 99. Relatively easy! Would have been a nightmare in a Roman primary school. XLV + LIV = XCIX I can't even begin to put my head around how they did simple addiction.

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

New Home · 24-05-2021 02:54PM

Because in some countries they don't use whole digits to count, but every phalanx of each finger and other parts of their hands, too.

Evade · 24-05-2021 03:25PM

I saw a video a while ago, I'm pretty sure it was on Numberphile, and part of it was about a tribe of people that counted using finger and thumb joints including knuckles on one hand > wrist > elbow > shoulder > neck then back down the other arm finishing on the finger joints. That comes to 35 but if I remember correctly their count came to 37 so I've left out something they counted on.

So, for example, if they caught 17 fish one day they'd say something like "I caught a left shoulder of fish."

Professor Moriarty · 24-05-2021 03:28PM

Evade wrote: »

I saw a video a while ago, I'm pretty sure it was on Numberphile, and part of it was about a tribe of people that counted using finger and thumb joints including knuckles on one hand > wrist > elbow > shoulder > neck then back down the other arm finishing on the finger joints. That comes to 35 but if I remember correctly their count came to 37 so I've left out something they counted on.

So, for example, if they caught 17 fish one day they'd say something like "I caught a left shoulder of fish."

Women could count to 37 and men to 38.

cdeb · 24-05-2021 03:35PM

silliussoddius wrote: »

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

More flexible I think?

6 is a perfect number. 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. 10 is harder to work with in terms of dividing things out.

(That's in addition to the counting your knuckles rather than fingers bit)

ohnonotgmail · 24-05-2021 03:43PM

LarryGraham wrote: »

From my understanding, it is believed that they converted the Roman numerals into the abacus did the sum and converted back to the numerals. The Indo-Arabic numbering systems does this without the converting.

Is that not what I said?

Oink · 24-05-2021 03:46PM

cdeb wrote: »

More flexible I think?

6 is a perfect number. 12 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. 10 is harder to work with in terms of dividing things out.

(That's in addition to the counting your knuckles rather than fingers bit)

I normally blame the Brits as a reflex, but it works out wonderfully in this scenario.

LarryGraham · 24-05-2021 04:09PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is that not what I said?

Apologies if that's a misinterpretation from me.

Anyway my point is about the efficiency of the Indo-Arabic numbering system when it comes mathematical operations. This system only works because someone came up with the simple idea to use zero as a positional digit. The clunkiness of using Roman numerals is just something I'm using an an example to explain good the Indo-Arabic system is (and we're only talking addition here, forget about long division using Roman numerals without the abacus).

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 08:19PM

silliussoddius wrote: »

Does anyone know why a species with ten fingers and thumbs ended using 12 times tables in maths class instead of something more base 10 orientated?

Imperial measures use lots of prime numbers. 12 is one of the saner measures.

there are NOT 12
pints in a gallon
ounces in a pound
pound in a stone
stone in a hundredweight
feet in a yard or fathom or furlong

BTW 1 rod is 16.5 feet.

Base 60 has the advantage that it can be easily be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30

cdeb · 24-05-2021 08:34PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Imperial measures use lots of prime numbers.

Does it? I don't think it does. None of the examples you gave are prime for example except for feet in a yard, and 3 is a fairly small number and not that hard to work with.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 08:55PM

cdeb wrote: »

Does it? I don't think it does. None of the examples you gave are prime for example except for feet in a yard, and 3 is a fairly small number and not that hard to work with.

11 is in the 22 yards in a chain

cdeb · 24-05-2021 09:25PM

Well in that case 5 is in the 100cm in a metre?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 10:40PM

When the Romans left Britain there were 5,000 feet in a mile. 1,000 five foot long paces.

A mine is now 5280 feet = 2x2x2x2x2 x 3 x 5 x 11 because of how good oxen are at ploughing.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 10:41PM

cdeb wrote: »

Well in that case 5 is in the 100cm in a metre?

How many digits do most people have at the end of each limb ?

silliussoddius · 24-05-2021 10:48PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many digits do most people have at the end of each limb ?

Holds up two fingers to give Roman response.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-05-2021 11:32PM

silliussoddius wrote: »

Holds up two fingers to give Roman response.

Fingers crossed eh ?

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

Comments