I have never accepted this explanation. Yes, using base 12 is logical and well documented. But that means you’ve got 12 on the other hand as well. 144 would’ve made more sense.
It was defined around making trade easy, which very frequently relied on simple division of things measured to fixed units (because you had fixed sets of weights)
Yeah, what that user is describing is a mixed base system, which is pretty uncommon-- but then again, not for the people who invented time, since we have either 24|60|60 or 2|12|60|60 divisions for that. 5|12 would not be that weird.
If you use your thumb to count the sections of 4 fingers you get 12.
Then you hold up a finger on your other hand. When all 5 are up you have 60.
I have never accepted this explanation. Yes, using base 12 is logical and well documented. But that means you’ve got 12 on the other hand as well. 144 would’ve made more sense.
It was defined around making trade easy, which very frequently relied on simple division of things measured to fixed units (because you had fixed sets of weights)
Yeah, what that user is describing is a mixed base system, which is pretty uncommon-- but then again, not for the people who invented time, since we have either 24|60|60 or 2|12|60|60 divisions for that. 5|12 would not be that weird.