Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 5 January 2007

Contradiction in the article

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. 63.228.4.70 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whooo

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. - Nolan Eakins

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)

Scientific Calculators and decimal degree

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. Plugwash 01:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a phrase from Grad (angle): In the '70s and '80s most scientific calculators offered the grad as well as radians and degrees for their trigonometric functions, but in recent years some offered degrees and radians only. -- Jokes Free4Me 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Fresheneesz 09:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

They were an acceptable unit (and were listed under "Other units from ISO 1000" in ISO 2955 / 1983), but that's not part of the SI anymore. -- Jokes Free4Me 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

whyyy

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.

Radians and Gradians

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? Help plz 15:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited it, it's rough, but imo more on topic, your thoughts? Help plz 16:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the Babylonian material belong here?

Hi, I edited the Babyloninan history additions, which are cool. I can't help but wonder, though, whether some of that belongs under Pi 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.

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?

As an aside, the Egyptians certainly knew that the year had >360 days; they even had a cute myth about the discrepancy. WillowW 10:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

(Oh, and do tell about that cute myth; sounds like it would be a good addition to the page.) --ScottAlanHill 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical explanation

I revised the wording somewhat. If this is too OR-ish then some suitable source should be found. Crum375 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing the Pi approximation

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. Crum375 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a serious lack of reliable sources for virtually everything in this article and apparently over-abundance of original research till proven otherwise. That really needs to be fixed ASAP. Crum375 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this 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. Crum375 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

360 derives from the sexagesimal base

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.

So the reference angle was accorded a number of degrees of 60_decimal = 10_sexagesimal, as it is today, equal to the base of the Sexagesimal numeration system in use by the ancient Mesopotamian Civilisations and that still today pattern the minute and second arc divisions.

The advantatge of this base is the large number of divisors, facilitating calculations as stated in the wikipedia article Sexagesimal.

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 ! Griba2010 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, except WP is based on published reliable sources. We need a published source that says that, or else it's all original research. Crum375 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is published: st-andrews.ac.uk - Babylonian_numerals >>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. Griba2010 11:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I read through your reference (both 'numerals' and 'math'), all I find is speculations (no archeological or historical references for Babylonian geometry), and it doesn't tell us anything (that I can find) about the origin of one degree, which is the subject of this article. Crum375 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)