Numerology, has it ever been tested?

[Cuddles]

Why would base 12 and 16 be better now and why would they be better for early civilizations? I understand that grouping things into dozens allows easier division by 3 and 4, but 12 things are 12 things in any base system.

The numbers are the same whatever base you use, but manipulating them can be made a lot easier. When I say 12 or 16 would be better, it doesn't really make that much difference, as long as the base is big enough (binary is fine for computers, but you wouldn't want to write it down much). They're just generally neater from a mathematical point of view.

But base-10 and 10 fingers makes so much sense. Now I have to look this up to verify that you are right. Though your example of angle measurement is a good one. I have never heard of other civilizations using different counting systems, though that is nothing I would particularly research or remember.

I can't remember too many details, but many different counting systems and bases have been used. As I already mentioned, the Romans didn't even have a base system, which made even simple things like division rather complicated. The Babylonians certainly used base 60, which carried over to our time and angel systems. The Mayans used base 20 for counting, but used several different ones, based on surprisingly accurate astronomy, all mixed up for calendars and time, which is why their calendars are so complex.

This probably neither here nor there, but I've read that the names of numbers in a language indicates the original numbering system used by that culture. In English, the first 12 numbers have unique names before the numbers take on ten-base names: thirteen (3+10), fourteen (4+10), so ancient speakers of English probably used a base 12 numbering system.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence of a base 12 system in Britain. Not only are the first 12 numbers named, we also have the words "dozen" for 12 and "gross" for 144 (12*12). In addition, there are 12 inches to a foot and used to be 12 pennies in a shilling. It's also interesting that there are 16 ounces in a pound and, in the US, 16 fluid ounces in a pint. Similarly, France has linguistic evidence of a base 20 system in their numbers, as does Britain to a certain extent with "score" meaning 20. According to Wiki, base 5 was very common in early cultures, and base 8 has seen use as well. Wiki does mention fingers with respect to many bases, but as far as I am aware this is pure speculation and there is no evidence that any of them were based on our hands.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I know it is complete bunk, but when I looked up my name on the kabalarians name analysis site (which uses a form of numerology) it was uncanily accurate (much more so than a load of other names I looked up and applied to myself. So I printed off the names of my coworkers and challenged them to guess who was who - amazingly most people assigned most of the descriptions correctly. I'm sure it was a total fluke, but it freaked everyone out at the time.

 

[Ladewig]

Yes, there is plenty of evidence of a base 12 system in Britain. Not only are the first 12 numbers named, we also have the words "dozen" for 12 and "gross" for 144 (12*12). In addition, there are 12 inches to a foot and used to be 12 pennies in a shilling.

I am not convinced that this evidence is strong enough to conclude a base 12 system. A society could have a base ten system and merchants might find multiples of 12 more popular because customers could then more easily divide them among 2, 3, 4, or 6 people. The same with small linear measurements such as the foot.

If early Britons were using base 12, when did they change and why did they change?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am not convinced that this evidence is strong enough to conclude a base 12 system. A society could have a base ten system and merchants might find multiples of 12 more popular because customers could then more easily divide them among 2, 3, 4, or 6 people. The same with small linear measurements such as the foot.

If early Britons were using base 12, when did they change and why did they change?

Surely in early societies nobody was imposing a number system? Therefore if merchants & traders found multiples of 12 easier, they would simply use them and, at least for those purposes, the base would be 12?

It was only in the seventies that the UK went decimal in terms of currency - up to then there were 12 pence to the shilling and 20 shilling to the pound. Financial ledgers would therefore be prepared using a number system with a combination of three bases - 12 for the pennies, 20 for the shillings and 10 for the pounds.

 

[Cuddles]

I am not convinced that this evidence is strong enough to conclude a base 12 system. A society could have a base ten system and merchants might find multiples of 12 more popular because customers could then more easily divide them among 2, 3, 4, or 6 people. The same with small linear measurements such as the foot.

As Jaggy Bunnet says, that's pretty much the definition of a base 12 system, and is exactly why I say that base 12 is better than base 10.

If early Britons were using base 12, when did they change and why did they change?

15th February 1971. For money at least. Measurement didn't become decimal until 1995 or 2000. And most things are still labeled in imperial units, the recent laws simply mean they have to be labeld in decimal as well. Scientifically and mathematically, decimal has been the norm for a lot longer, but even that was only made official in the 1960s.

When it comes down to it, the question really doesn't have a simple answer. Hindu-Arabic numerals evolved over hundreds of years through several different cultures, and then took hundreds more years to spread across Euorope, evolving all the time. Even when Arabic numerals became the norm, different bases were used for different things, in spite of the written system. If you refer to an amount of money as "Two pounds, three shillings and sixpence", it doesn't matter how many symbols you have available to write it down, you're not actually counting in base 10.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.

True, but 60 or 360 is better. 360 symbols, however, not so fun.

 

[Diagoras]

I am not convinced that this evidence is strong enough to conclude a base 12 system. A society could have a base ten system and merchants might find multiples of 12 more popular because customers could then more easily divide them among 2, 3, 4, or 6 people. The same with small linear measurements such as the foot.

If early Britons were using base 12, when did they change and why did they change?

True, the Britons do not and never have used base 12 for general mathematics. Well, most of them anyways.

 

[Tumblehome]

[numerology] is similar to astrology in that an individual's personality can fall into one of nine basic numerological types, numbered 1 through 9...

So, using a different numbering system, say base 12, numerologists would have to invent two more personality types. I'd like to see what they'd come up with.

 

[Ladewig]

Surely in early societies nobody was imposing a number system? Therefore if merchants & traders found multiples of 12 easier, they would simply use them and, at least for those purposes, the base would be 12?
It was only in the seventies that the UK went decimal in terms of currency - up to then there were 12 pence to the shilling and 20 shilling to the pound. Financial ledgers would therefore be prepared using a number system with a combination of three bases - 12 for the pennies, 20 for the shillings and 10 for the pounds.

I disagree. They were using a 1 followed by a 2 to represent a dozen; they weren't using a 1 followed by a 0 to represent a dozen, therefore it was base 10 and not base 12. To put it another way: it is not really base 12 until ten and eleven can each be represented by a single digit. Without that requirement (which was met in other ancient civilizations) the Britons were not representing their written numbers in base 12.

 

[Fnord]

Personality Template (LONG POST)

So, using a different numbering system, say base 12, numerologists would have to invent two more personality types. I'd like to see what they'd come up with.

Here's a template that you could use to fill in the remaining two personality types. choose one of the phrases and words in brackets, and use or not use words in parentheses.

---------------------------

People of this type, engaged in their customary productive work, (do not) think about its "higher sense", and proceed from [ altruistic | pragmatic | selfish ] needs - for themselves and their families. Characteristically, they are [ insert profession here ], owners of [ insert status symbol here ], and enjoy [ insert hobby or recreational form here ].

Their claims are [ grandiose | modest | realistic ], they (do not) expect great riches through their career, or greatness or glory. They [ are indifferent to | reject | want ] a reliable basis for their current material and social status, and hope that they will [ maintain the status-quo | gradually move up the social and financial ladder | achieve overnight success ]. Success in the lives of such people is conditioned on [ deception | hard work | luck ] as well as on individual ability. The more able ones can succeed better in their chosen career if [ circumstances | environmental factors | genetic predispositions ] are favorable, but they can easily lose their position when competing with [ handicapped | more psychologically motivated ] persons.

This type of person is (not) politically ambitious, and is (un)concerned with politics in general. He needs to be able to rely on the government [ only to preserve the current order | control every aspect of personal life | stay out of the way ]. In all other things he wants to be (in)dependent of the state while at the same time remaining [ a part | independent ] of it. During elections he tends to vote [ like the majority | like the minority | without rhyme or reason ], leaning towards [ conservative | liberal | moderate | esoteric ] leaders. Even if he has his own point of view on any issue, he dares (not) oppose it to the "general opinion", being [ afraid to lose a feeling of solidarity with | indifferent to the consenus of | openly willing to challenge ] the majority. During great social upheavals he tends to [ congregate with crowds of like-minded people | strike out on his own | hole-up in a sequestered environment ] which makes him feel [ part of a large strong body | safe from all harm | empowered to act ] and [ relieves him of the burden of responsibility for | enables him to express ] his opinions. In general this type of person is [ an individualist | a collectivist | a pragmatist ] in his personal life and [ an individualist | a collectivist | a pragmatist ] in his social life. He is [ for | against | indifferent to ] any radical changes in the state and in society and reacts [ positively | negatively | indifferently ] to all those who like changes in their country. He is (not) interested in foreign affairs [ especially | except ] in the catastrophes and natural calamities happening there.

For this type of person, [ everything except | everything including | only ] the present time and the place where he lives are real. To him the future seems [ the same as | different from ] the present and he wants to make it as [ secure | challenging | chaotic ] as the present. In his mind, the past is [ always | sometimes | never ] tinted in rosy idyllic tones and is (not) important. This type of person prefers [ a traditionally rhythmic | a wildly variant ] way of life. However, psychologically and physiologically, his needs for [ the occasional thrill and sense of danger | constant predictability and dull conformity ] is satisfied during the [ inevitable difficulties | daily drudgery ] of living and also in [ sports competitions while rooting for his favorite team | televised entertainment while ignoring familial relationships | superficial relationships while surfing the Internet for porn ]. This type of person looks upon sudden and significant changes for the [ best | profit and personal gain | worse ] in his life as [ joy-filled challenges | irreparable catastrophes ] to which he adapts [ badly | quickly ], and which may even cause him to [ become ill | grow in spirit | renew his love of life ].

This type of person usually has a [ limited | narrow | wide circle ] of [ acquaintances | enemies | friends | lovers ], formed [ recently | on the spur of the moment | long ago ], to whom he is tied by [ special occasions enjoyed together | catastrophic events survived together ] and by mutual [ help | interests | lust | support ]. He tends to spend his free time [ quietly - working in his garden, or taking his family on vacations to holiday hotels or on well-organized tours | loudly - working on his drum solos, or taking his posse to rave parties or sporting events ]. When he watches TV he chooses [ light entertainment | sports competitions | PBS pledge drives | cartoons ]. Some persons of this type like to attend [ broadway shows | sports events in stadiums | college lectures ] where, together with [ a significant other | a few close friends | a large crowd ], they find an outlet for their emotions. He spends his leisure time in various ways. He may have a serious hobby or he may be a "Jack of all trades" who enjoys making home and garden improvements.

His attitude towards the opposite sex is [ hostile | indifferent | appropriate to the different stages of his life ], and in the majority of cases he will have [ bad | good | indifferent ] partner relations in all aspects with his significant other - sexual, family and economic. Food preferences are [ strictly limited | limited by availability or cost | not limited ] but (not) sophisticated, and [ outside | within ] the framework of customary meals.

Persons of this type will, in general, live [ at | outside | within ] the bounds of their abilities and powers. If they succeed, they will [ cautiously | calmly | boldly ] [ decrease | increase | maintain ] the level of their expectations. If they fail, they [ must learn to face adversity with more courage | give up and try something else | try the same thing in exactly the same way ], planning their future better and remembering that it often brings changes for the better. Generally, such people are [ conservative | esoteric | liberal | moderate ] and [ conforming | avant-gardé ]. Though each single one [ does not have much | has a great ] chance to stand out from the common mass of the population, together they form the body of the nation, making for [ change | stability ].

 

[SusanB-M1]

Once upon a time I had a book called 'Numerology' by Cheiro. This was when I was reading books on palmistry etc and even then numerology really stretched credulity.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

This is actually a common misconception. Our number system (probably) has nothing to do with the number of digits we have, that's just a coincidence. We actually use base 10 because of nothing more than pure chance. Early civilisations used a wide variety of different bases. Base 12 and base 16 were fairly common, base 60 was used by the Babylonians and has carried to today in time and angles (it really was base 60 and not just an extended base 12). Some civilisations, like the Romans, didn't really have a base at all, while others used mixes of several different ones.

The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.

I'm willing to bet, though, that the reason base 10 prevailed over the others had a lot to do with the number of fingers. This would also explain the existence of base 20 and base 5 systems you mention in a later post.

Once upon a time I had a book called 'Numerology' by Cheiro. This was when I was reading books on palmistry etc and even then numerology really stretched credulity.

You should add up the number of times the word "number" appears in the book, divide by the number of pages, multiply by the year of publication, add the resulting digits, and see what it has to say about the author.

 

[Tumblehome]

Here's a template that you could use to fill in the remaining two personality types. choose one of the phrases and words in brackets, and use or not use words in parentheses...

Wow! You could use that for a base 1,000 system and still have options left over.

Thanks for that, although I was thinking more along the lines of "gullible" and "self-deluded". I'd make a lousy numerologist/psychic/wooster.

 

[Fnord]

I'd make a lousy numerologist / psychic / wooster.

Actually, if you can make things up as you go along while faking sincerity, then you have what it takes to handle over 90% of the people looking for "spiritual" help. As for the rest ... uh ... er ... the spirits are unclear on this matter, but we could come back to it during our next session.

That'll be fifty dollars.

Next?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

All futile arguments......so far.

My Birthday is 12-30-63 (december 30th 1963) for you anti-americans......

123.....the Alpha, 0......the Omega, 1963? it's all ********

Therefore, I am the New Christ!

Please send your checks and Pay-Pals to my PM Box.......

I will await your arrival in "my heaven".

p.s. We have 72 HOT, HOT,HOT, virgin like ladies awaiting your arrival!

 

[Fnord]

My Birthday is 12-30-63 (december 30th 1963)

(1+9+6+3)+(1+2)+(3+0) = 19+3+3 = 25
(2+5) = 7

By your birthday, your number is seven. This is the number of completion. In its better aspect, you have evolved thorough all your previous incarnations into the best that you will ever be.

Unfortunately, this is also a curse. You can evolve no further. The only way left for you is down. Welcome to devolution.

That'll be 50 Imperial Credits. Hail Strephon!

Next?

 

[UserGoogol]

This is actually a common misconception. Our number system (probably) has nothing to do with the number of digits we have, that's just a coincidence. We actually use base 10 because of nothing more than pure chance. Early civilisations used a wide variety of different bases. Base 12 and base 16 were fairly common, base 60 was used by the Babylonians and has carried to today in time and angles (it really was base 60 and not just an extended base 12). Some civilisations, like the Romans, didn't really have a base at all, while others used mixes of several different ones.

The fact that we, mostly, use base 10 now means nothing except that that happened to be the one that caught on. Which is a shame really, since base 12 and base 16 would be much better.

My impression is that such civilizations used different bases because they had different ways of counting. Base-10 people used their fingers, Base-12 people used the individual finger bones in one hand (using the thumb to point to them) and Base-60 people combined Base-12 with Base-5 using the other hand. I'm not familiar with people using Base-16 until computers came around (Wikipedia doesn't mention anything), although Base-20 did pop up in some areas.

 

[SusanB-M1]

You should add up the number of times the word "number" appears in the book, divide by the number of pages, multiply by the year of publication, add the resulting digits, and see what it has to say about the author.

Having read that, I googled 'Amazon Cheiro Numerology' ..and it seems the book is still available!

 

[Ravenwood]

(1+9+6+3)+(1+2)+(3+0) = 19+3+3 = 25
(2+5) = 7

By your birthday, your number is seven. This is the number of completion. In its better aspect, you have evolved thorough all your previous incarnations into the best that you will ever be.

Unfortunately, this is also a curse. You can evolve no further. The only way left for you is down. Welcome to devolution.

That'll be 50 Imperial Credits. Hail Strephon!

Next?

I knew I shoulda joined the Zhodahni...at least their Psykers can actually do something useful...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I disagree. They were using a 1 followed by a 2 to represent a dozen; they weren't using a 1 followed by a 0 to represent a dozen, therefore it was base 10 and not base 12. To put it another way: it is not really base 12 until ten and eleven can each be represented by a single digit. Without that requirement (which was met in other ancient civilizations) the Britons were not representing their written numbers in base 12.

You misunderstand. When you wrote out an amount of cash it would consist of three numbers, pounds, shilling & pence (e.g. £5 9s 6d would be five pounds 9 shillings and sixpence). Why does it matter that they chose to represent 10 and 11 by a composite of other symbols as opposed to a completely different symbol? Had they used a for 10 and b for 11 but kept their records in exactly the same way, how would this in any way have changed the base?

If you think that is incorrect, then can you explain what happens if I add five pence to the above? £5 9s 11d

And when I add a further two pence? £5 10s 1d.

Explain how those calculations work under a base 10 system!