Talk:Degree (angle): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:16, 5 January 2007 editGriba2010 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,895 edits →360 derives from the sexagesimal base ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:03, 9 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,334,045 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Remove 2 deprecated parameters: field, frequentlyviewed.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(114 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	==Contradiction in the article==
			{{WikiProject Measurement \|importance=Top \|VA=yes \|b1 <!--Referencing & citations-->=no \|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy -->=no \|b3 <!-- Structure -->=<yes/no> y\|b4 <!-- Grammar and style -->=<yes/no> y\|b5 <!-- Supporting materials -->=<yes/no>n \|b6 <!-- Accessible -->=<yes/no>}}
	The history section is using circular logic. It claims that 360 was chosen because of the number of days in a year, and then goes on to claim that there were 360 days in a year because there were 360 degrees in a circle. ] 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Astronomy \|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Geographical coordinates}}
			}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(365d)
			\| archive = Talk:Degree (angle)/Archive %(counter)d
			\| counter = 1
			\| maxarchivesize = 150K
			\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 10
			}}
			{{Archive box \|search=yes \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=12 \|units=months \|auto=yes }}

	==Whooo==		==Whooo==
			Who did come up with the invention? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:43, 7 April 2005 (UTC)</small>

			:As well as who, what time was the system invented/adopted. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)</small>
	Who did come up with the invention? As well as who, what time was the system invented/adopted.

	:My little tidbit about the calendar may provide some clues. - ]		::My little tidbit about the calendar may provide some clues. - ] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:33, 21 June 2005 (UTC)</small>

	::I doubt there were too many peoples who literally thought the year consisted of 360 days. Rather, 360 was a conveniently round number (especially in terms of a sexagesimal numbering system) which was CLOSE to the number of days in a year...] 01:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)		:::I doubt there were too many peoples who literally thought the year consisted of 360 days. Rather, 360 was a conveniently round number (especially in terms of a sexagesimal numbering system) which was CLOSE to the number of days in a year...] 01:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

			::::According to my old maths teacher they calculated the number of days in a year by lighting a candle everyday at dusk and putting it out at sunrise then saving up the bits that were left over a few years and comparing the lengths. Obviously this method wasnt very accurate hence 360 instead of 365(point whatever). Probably an ] but maybe someone can confirm/refute ? ] (]) 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
	==Scientific Calculators and decimal degree==

			:::::This is so overwrought to be patently absurd... it would have been rather easier to just, you know; count the number of days. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Do calculators seriously support this? i've never seen it. It would be very useful to place an approximate year on that peice of information, such as "Whilst this idea did not gain much momentum, most scientific calculators '''made after 1934''' still support it. (Note: I made up that year)
	:I certainly don't ever remember seeing a scientific calculator (e.g. a calculator that actually supports trig) that didn't offer the grad as an option for its trig functions. but then i'm only 20. ] 01:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

			::::::They wouldn't be able to count the number of days because they wouldn't know when to stop counting. If this is true, then I'd imagine they use the candles to determine the length of days. Lining up the candles in the order burned, they would be able to see a sinusoidal wave of sorts. One wavelengh would then equal one year and the number of candles in a wavelenth would be the number of days in a year. Of course, this wouldn't be exactly accurate because it would be near impossible to light and put out the candles exactly at dusk and dawn each day. It's really not so absurd as you might think. I have never heard of this theory before so I don't really have anything substantial to back up this hypothesis. It's an interesting idea though. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:27, 28 September 2011</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:Here's a phrase from ]: ''In the '70s and '80s most ]s offered the grad as well as radians and degrees for their ], but in recent years some offered degrees and radians only.'' -- ] 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			:::::::Per the wiki articles on candles and the history of trig, candles did not appear in Europe or the middle east until a few hundred years after the 360 degree circle was known to be established at the latest. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==Degrees in SI system==

	I'm pretty sure that Degrees don't exist in the SI system... not even as a derived unit. I'll remove references to that unless someone protests. ] 09:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
	:They were an ] (and were listed under "Other units from ISO 1000" in ISO 2955 / ]), but that's not part of the ] anymore. -- ] 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== whyyy ==		== whyyy ==
			why is each degree divided into 60 parts and each minute into sixty seconds??? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)</small>

			:This is pure speculation, but these subdivisions may also go back to the Babylonian base-60 system. If so, they defined minutes and seconds as naturally as we would define tenths and hundredths of a degree. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)</small>

			::i would also like to know why they chose the terms "minutes" and "seconds" - the history section on this page or the sexigesimal page does not address this... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:::I heard that a minute was the first minute (mahy-noot) division of a degree (or hour) and a second is the 2nd. I haven't looked for a source for this, but someone else can if they like. ] (]) 09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

			::::Minute comes from Latin, minure, that means decrease, and minus has the same origin. Second also comes from Latin, secundus, that means 2nd. It would be interesting to know how old the division of degrees into minutes and seconds is.] (]) 10:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
			:::::Older textbooks also talk about thirds and some even fourths ] (]) 21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

			== Other Units II ==
			Besides degrees of sixtywise, and the metric grade and radian, the following divisions are noted.

			1. The division of the circle into signs and degrees to match the months and days, is ancient, and separately in Egypt, in the Chaldea, and in China, (in the far east). Such measures are used to record the movements of the sun and the moon and the stars (planets), against the fixed stars. Although 12 signs are usual, 15 or even 36 signs are recorded too.

			2. The egyptian zodiac contains 36 decans. The origin of the 24-hour day comes from the count of 24 hours in the 'decimal day', ten hours of sunlight, and hour each of twilights of dawn and dusk, and twelve hours being the rising of twelve decans at night. It was the greeks that made the hours of equal lengths, and divided them against the chaldean fractions.

			2. According to Sir Thomas L Heath (A manual of greek mathematics, p384), the Chaldeans used the division of circles into 360 degrees only for astronomy. Circles in general are rendered as a diameter of 60 ells, with pi=3, gives a circle of 180 ells of 24 digits each. It is Hipparchus who advamced the elliptic division for general use.

			3. Angles based on the mil (such as the Swedish and NATO scales), suppose pi is somewhere near 3, and the circle is 1000 units. The use of such says that at 1000 yards, two points separated by a mill is separated by a yard. Pi variously equals 3.15 in Sweden, 3.2 in the NATO countries. In the NATO case, a division with pi=3.2, divides the circle to 6400 mills, which makes the compass points come at 200 mills.
	why is each degree divided into 60 parts and each minute into sixty seconds???
	:This is pure speculation, but these subdivisions may also go back to the Babylonian base-60 system. If so, they defined minutes and seconds as naturally as we would define tenths and hundredths of a degree.

			4. An angle-system one encounters on astronomy chards is HMS of right ascession. Here, the circle is divided into 24 hours, of 60 minutes of 60 seconds, rather than 360 degrees. It kind of replicates the standard siderial clock (zenith pointer points to siderial time against RA).
	== Radians and Gradians ==

			5. Common angles include the use of clock-face units, eg '4-oclock', where up, forward, or north is 12-oclock.
	Surely this is a bit pointless, having two subsections on the two major alternative units? I will edit it into one section with a slight introduction to each and then following through by suggesting the user click the links, because surely they have their own pages? ] 15:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

			] (]) 09:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
	:Edited it, it's rough, but imo more on topic, your thoughts? ] 16:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

			==It is all in the hands==
			Before all the instruments and theorems listed in this article were available the most used tool for measurement were an individuals hands. Astronomy was no different. There are 9 hands from the horizon to zenith if held at arms length, palms facing so they can be seen and stacked on top of one another during the count. This makes 36 hands in a circle and when each hand is divided into tens then there are 360 divisions. Thus 360 degrees in a circle, 90 in a right angle and so on and so forth.
			Michael Edwards (Michaelmwe3wm) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Not a protractor ==
	==Does the Babylonian material belong here?==
			A protractor is a simple instrument used to measure angles, typically on a map. A dial sight or aiming circle is an artillery instrument used to lay a gun in azimuth by means of an aiming point other than the target. It is copiously covered in the relevant professional literature, mostly published by Governments who tend to the be users of artillery. Ugloma is the transliteration of the Russian name.] (]) 08:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

			:First of all, a word of explanation for the benefit of anyone reading this who does not know the history which led to the above comment being posted. It refers to the fact that, in connection with the Russian army's use of a unit of 1⁄6000 of a circle, until a few days ago the article said ''"this may be seen on a protractor, circa 1900, in the St Petersberg Museum of Artillery"'', which has been changed to ''"this may be seen on an 'ugloma' (dial sight or aiming cirle in English) , circa 1900, in the St Petersberg Museum of Artillery"''.
	Hi, I edited the Babyloninan history additions, which are cool. I can't help but wonder, though, whether some of that belongs under ] instead of here. It's probably more relevant to just say that the sixty-fold divisions of the degree relate to the Babylonian numeral system, and that the Babylonians were the pioneers in careful astronomical measurements; everyone later built on or generalized their work.
			:I have just spent a considerable amount of time searching for confirmation that this word exists in Russian, and has the meaning you attribute to it. I have looked in two Russian dictionaries that I have, and several online dictionaries. I have searched on Google for "углома" (ugloma) and for various forms that would be expected to be case forms of that word, if it exists, such as "угломах" (uglomakh), "угломой" (uglomoy), "угломов" (uglomov), "угломе" (uglome). The conclusion is perfectly clear: "углома" (ugloma) exists only as the genitive of "углом" (uglom), which means "angle" or "corner", and does not have the meaning you attribute to it at all. Apart from dictionaries saying so, I found numerous actual uses of the word (in various case forms) where the context made it abundantly clear that "angle" or "corner" was the meaning, and not a single one where it could possibly be taken as meaning a measuring instrument. Here are a few examples: , , , and there are many more. The most relevant Russian word I can find is "угломер" (uglomer), which usually means "protractor", but which has a broader range of uses than the usual English meanings of "protractor", and can be used to refer to inclinometers, alidades, and goniometers. Instruments developed from the ] are used in the sort of application you refer to, and have been variously referred to in English as "goniometric sights", "aiming circle goniometers", "dial sights", "aiming circles" and "panoramic telescope", so it seems very probable that the Russia "угломер" includes the dial sights and aiming circles that you have given as English equivalents in the article, and I have little doubt that the instrument referred to in the article is some form of goniometer or dial sight.

			:Having said all that, it is really an academic question what the correct Russian word is, because this is the English language Misplaced Pages, and in the absence of very good reasons for doing otherwise, we should use English. (The article ] refers to the French troops' horses, not to their chevaux; we don't use a French word just because the particular horses happened to be French ones.) Another point is that the present wording of the article is not likely to be very helpful, because most readers will never have heard even of a dial sight or aiming circle, let alone either the mythical "ugloma" or the real "uglomer". I therefore intend to replace the present wording with one which uses the English expressions for the device, and gives a brief explanation of the term. If you disagree with my changes for any reason, please let me know. ] (]) 12:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
	The tablet picture does not correspond to what's in the text. Can we find a picture of the ''real'' tablet or at least a reference number?

			:Incidentally, I have also replaced "aiming cirle" with "aiming circle", which I trust is OK. {{;)}} ] (]) 13:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
	As an aside, the Egyptians certainly knew that the year had >360 days; they even had a cute myth about the discrepancy. ] 10:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	:I agree; I don't see how the pi information has anything to do with the number of degrees in a circle, except for the fact that Babylonians used a base-60 numbering system. At the least, I think the bit about the "number of days in the year" should lead the history section, with the pi business moved later in the article (if not removed). I started making the change myself, but I have no idea how to segue into the pi stuff, so I'll leave it alone lest I drift into Speculation. I'm guessing that people stuck with 360, rather than 365, because of the Babylonian base-60 numbering system; again, I would rather not add that without any proof, which I do not have.
			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:(Oh, and do tell about that cute myth; sounds like it would be a good addition to the page.) --] 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	== Astronomical explanation ==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001100650/http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	I revised the wording somewhat. If this is too OR-ish then some suitable source should be found. ] 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	== Removing the Pi approximation ==

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
	I agree with the above discussion that the entire Pi related section does not belong in the history of the degree, or to the degree in general. I plan to remove it wholesale unless someone objects and can explain why it should remain here. ] 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	There is also a serious lack of ] for virtually everything in this article and apparently over-abundance of ] till proven otherwise. That really needs to be fixed ASAP. ] 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	I found reference in an online forum from 1995, which seems to be the source (copyright issues?) for the PI-derivation explanation for the degree that was included in the article. But at this point, I just don't see it more than speculation and I don't see a good quality source, and to me it's really not very convincing. I think the astronomical derivation, from the amount the stars seem to advance in the sky every night in their annual trek around the celestial pole (about 1 degree per evening, with an error of less than 1.4%), and the fact that some old calendars actually counted the year as 360 days is very convincing and logical. We do need better sources, though. And I would accept the PI-derivation method (copyright addressed) if someone could explain better how it derives the degree (the 1995 message doesn't do for me) and provide a better source. ] 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903201341/http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c04119981.pdf to http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c04119981.pdf

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	== 360 derives from the sexagesimal base ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	My opinion is that the angle of the ''Equilateral Triangle'' tool was a reference angle because however you handle the tool you get the same angle so it makes it a handy tool.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
	So the reference angle was accorded a number of degrees of 60<sub>decimal</sub> = 10<sub>sexagesimal</sub>, as it is today, equal to the base of the ] numeration system in use by the ancient Mesopotamian Civilisations and that still today pattern the minute and second arc divisions.

			== HP user manual as a reference? ==
	The advantatge of this base is the large number of divisors, facilitating calculations as stated in the wikipedia article ].

			Really? Are the HP calculators' user manuals the best reference for the symbols and conversion factors? And I didn't find the symbol "deg" defined anywhere, it looks more like an abbreviation (which should be "deg." then). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	How many times an equilateral triangle angle fits in a circle ? Exactly six (since the sum of the triangle angles totals half a circle), which multiplied by the reference angle gives you 360 ! ] 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
			== "Bogengrad" listed at ] ==
	:Sounds good, except WP is based on published ]. We need a published source that says that, or else it's all ]. ] 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
			]
	::It is published: >>one theory is that an equilateral triangle was considered the fundamental geometrical building block by the Sumerians. Now an angle of an equilateral triangle is 60 degrees so if this were divided into 10, an angle of 6 degrees would become the basic angular unit. ] 11:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] ] 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
			== "Altgrad" listed at ] ==
			]
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] ] 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:03, 9 March 2024

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Astronomy High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Geographical coordinates

Degree (angle) is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Geographical coordinatesWikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesTemplate:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesGeographical coordinates

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Whooo

Who did come up with the invention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.246.129 (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

As well as who, what time was the system invented/adopted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayDee (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

My little tidbit about the calendar may provide some clues. - Nolan Eakins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.249.151 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

I doubt there were too many peoples who literally thought the year consisted of 360 days. Rather, 360 was a conveniently round number (especially in terms of a sexagesimal numbering system) which was CLOSE to the number of days in a year...AnonMoos 01:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

According to my old maths teacher they calculated the number of days in a year by lighting a candle everyday at dusk and putting it out at sunrise then saving up the bits that were left over a few years and comparing the lengths. Obviously this method wasnt very accurate hence 360 instead of 365(point whatever). Probably an urban myth but maybe someone can confirm/refute ? 213.40.112.230 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is so overwrought to be patently absurd... it would have been rather easier to just, you know; count the number of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.44.14 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't be able to count the number of days because they wouldn't know when to stop counting. If this is true, then I'd imagine they use the candles to determine the length of days. Lining up the candles in the order burned, they would be able to see a sinusoidal wave of sorts. One wavelengh would then equal one year and the number of candles in a wavelenth would be the number of days in a year. Of course, this wouldn't be exactly accurate because it would be near impossible to light and put out the candles exactly at dusk and dawn each day. It's really not so absurd as you might think. I have never heard of this theory before so I don't really have anything substantial to back up this hypothesis. It's an interesting idea though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.89.231 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 September 2011

Per the wiki articles on candles and the history of trig, candles did not appear in Europe or the middle east until a few hundred years after the 360 degree circle was known to be established at the latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.69.193 (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

whyyy

why is each degree divided into 60 parts and each minute into sixty seconds??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.52.68 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, but these subdivisions may also go back to the Babylonian base-60 system. If so, they defined minutes and seconds as naturally as we would define tenths and hundredths of a degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyparadigm (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i would also like to know why they chose the terms "minutes" and "seconds" - the history section on this page or the sexigesimal page does not address this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.145.61 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard that a minute was the first minute (mahy-noot) division of a degree (or hour) and a second is the 2nd. I haven't looked for a source for this, but someone else can if they like. 75.85.51.140 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Minute comes from Latin, minure, that means decrease, and minus has the same origin. Second also comes from Latin, secundus, that means 2nd. It would be interesting to know how old the division of degrees into minutes and seconds is.Entropeter (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Older textbooks also talk about thirds and some even fourths Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Other Units II

Besides degrees of sixtywise, and the metric grade and radian, the following divisions are noted.

1. The division of the circle into signs and degrees to match the months and days, is ancient, and separately in Egypt, in the Chaldea, and in China, (in the far east). Such measures are used to record the movements of the sun and the moon and the stars (planets), against the fixed stars. Although 12 signs are usual, 15 or even 36 signs are recorded too.

2. The egyptian zodiac contains 36 decans. The origin of the 24-hour day comes from the count of 24 hours in the 'decimal day', ten hours of sunlight, and hour each of twilights of dawn and dusk, and twelve hours being the rising of twelve decans at night. It was the greeks that made the hours of equal lengths, and divided them against the chaldean fractions.

2. According to Sir Thomas L Heath (A manual of greek mathematics, p384), the Chaldeans used the division of circles into 360 degrees only for astronomy. Circles in general are rendered as a diameter of 60 ells, with pi=3, gives a circle of 180 ells of 24 digits each. It is Hipparchus who advamced the elliptic division for general use.

3. Angles based on the mil (such as the Swedish and NATO scales), suppose pi is somewhere near 3, and the circle is 1000 units. The use of such says that at 1000 yards, two points separated by a mill is separated by a yard. Pi variously equals 3.15 in Sweden, 3.2 in the NATO countries. In the NATO case, a division with pi=3.2, divides the circle to 6400 mills, which makes the compass points come at 200 mills.

4. An angle-system one encounters on astronomy chards is HMS of right ascession. Here, the circle is divided into 24 hours, of 60 minutes of 60 seconds, rather than 360 degrees. It kind of replicates the standard siderial clock (zenith pointer points to siderial time against RA).

5. Common angles include the use of clock-face units, eg '4-oclock', where up, forward, or north is 12-oclock.

Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is all in the hands

Before all the instruments and theorems listed in this article were available the most used tool for measurement were an individuals hands. Astronomy was no different. There are 9 hands from the horizon to zenith if held at arms length, palms facing so they can be seen and stacked on top of one another during the count. This makes 36 hands in a circle and when each hand is divided into tens then there are 360 divisions. Thus 360 degrees in a circle, 90 in a right angle and so on and so forth. Michael Edwards (Michaelmwe3wm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmwe3wm (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a protractor

A protractor is a simple instrument used to measure angles, typically on a map. A dial sight or aiming circle is an artillery instrument used to lay a gun in azimuth by means of an aiming point other than the target. It is copiously covered in the relevant professional literature, mostly published by Governments who tend to the be users of artillery. Ugloma is the transliteration of the Russian name.Nfe (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, a word of explanation for the benefit of anyone reading this who does not know the history which led to the above comment being posted. It refers to the fact that, in connection with the Russian army's use of a unit of 1⁄6000 of a circle, until a few days ago the article said "this may be seen on a protractor, circa 1900, in the St Petersberg Museum of Artillery", which has been changed to "this may be seen on an 'ugloma' (dial sight or aiming cirle in English) , circa 1900, in the St Petersberg Museum of Artillery".

I have just spent a considerable amount of time searching for confirmation that this word exists in Russian, and has the meaning you attribute to it. I have looked in two Russian dictionaries that I have, and several online dictionaries. I have searched on Google for "углома" (ugloma) and for various forms that would be expected to be case forms of that word, if it exists, such as "угломах" (uglomakh), "угломой" (uglomoy), "угломов" (uglomov), "угломе" (uglome). The conclusion is perfectly clear: "углома" (ugloma) exists only as the genitive of "углом" (uglom), which means "angle" or "corner", and does not have the meaning you attribute to it at all. Apart from dictionaries saying so, I found numerous actual uses of the word (in various case forms) where the context made it abundantly clear that "angle" or "corner" was the meaning, and not a single one where it could possibly be taken as meaning a measuring instrument. Here are a few examples: , , , and there are many more. The most relevant Russian word I can find is "угломер" (uglomer), which usually means "protractor", but which has a broader range of uses than the usual English meanings of "protractor", and can be used to refer to inclinometers, alidades, and goniometers. Instruments developed from the goniometer are used in the sort of application you refer to, and have been variously referred to in English as "goniometric sights", "aiming circle goniometers", "dial sights", "aiming circles" and "panoramic telescope", so it seems very probable that the Russia "угломер" includes the dial sights and aiming circles that you have given as English equivalents in the article, and I have little doubt that the instrument referred to in the article is some form of goniometer or dial sight.

Having said all that, it is really an academic question what the correct Russian word is, because this is the English language Misplaced Pages, and in the absence of very good reasons for doing otherwise, we should use English. (The article Napoleon refers to the French troops' horses, not to their chevaux; we don't use a French word just because the particular horses happened to be French ones.) Another point is that the present wording of the article is not likely to be very helpful, because most readers will never have heard even of a dial sight or aiming circle, let alone either the mythical "ugloma" or the real "uglomer". I therefore intend to replace the present wording with one which uses the English expressions for the device, and gives a brief explanation of the term. If you disagree with my changes for any reason, please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have also replaced "aiming cirle" with "aiming circle", which I trust is OK.

JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Degree (angle). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001100650/http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903201341/http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c04119981.pdf to http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c04119981.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

HP user manual as a reference?

Really? Are the HP calculators' user manuals the best reference for the symbols and conversion factors? And I didn't find the symbol "deg" defined anywhere, it looks more like an abbreviation (which should be "deg." then). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellby (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Bogengrad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bogengrad and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Bogengrad until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Altgrad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Altgrad and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Altgrad until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories: