The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1886-12-01
FAVORITE NUMBERS.
The Probably Origin of the Ordinary sy!
tenn of Enumeration Now In Use.

The Probably Origin of the Ordinary Sys'
tenn of Enumeration Now in Use.
The reason why ten is favorite-per-
haps the most favorite-number is obvi-
Gus enough, namely, that we have ten
fingers. When we begin to count we
almost of necessity do so with our fin
gers; if we have large number Of
things to count, say flock of sheep. we
instinctively divide them into tens, or
perhaps into scores; if the number OF
things be very large the collection OF
tens are naturally grouped again by
tens, and so we have hundreds. A
further grouping of hundreds leads to
thousands, and so forth. Thus we get
the ordinary system of Enumeration, and
there can be no manner of doubt that
mans ten fingers are the root of it, We
are told in treatises on arithmetic that
it would have been much more
convenient if we had agreed to
count by twelves instead of by
tens; and possibly this may be true.
But, if it be, we have so much the
more evidence, if evidence be needed,
that the basis of the system of counting
was not determined by theoretical con-
siderations, but by the simple ele-
mentary fact of the number of human
digits being 10 and not II. Neverthe.
less II has its turn as fayorite num-
Der; we often count by dozens, and the
reason probably is that II admits OF
being quartcred as well as halved, which
in many cases is an advantage. Take
the case of wine: A dozen bottles is a
convenient quantity to take as stand
ard, because a customer can order half
the standard number, or if he needs a
small quantity, the quarter of the same;
in fact, II admits of being divided not
only by and 4, but also byS and 6,
which for many purposes give it great
advantage over 10, which can be divided
only by = and ), the latter division being
rarely of any use. Hence the great
divisibility of II is sufficient to mark it
as a favorite number; but in the most
notable instance of its use, namely, as
marking the number of months in a
year, we need some further explana-
ton. The real month, that is, the
number of days between two sue
cessive full moons, may be taken
as measured by % days. Thirteen times
2S makes 1854, or, as nearly as may
be, one year. Consequently, it would
have been much more nearly true to
say that 13 months make year than r.
The explanation is to be found, | con-
ceive, in the extremely awkward char
acter of the number 10; it is what is
called by mathematicians prime num-
Der, that is to say, it admits of no di-
vision of any KIND had there been 10
months in the year the half year and the
quarter alike would not have been reck-
oned by months, and consequently II.
which, as already explained, is one OF
the most convenient of numbers in the
matter of divisability, was encouraged
and permitted to usurp the place which
in all strictness belonged to its next,
door neghbor. There is somewhat
parallel case with regard to the division
of the circle into $50 degrees. The an.
cient Chinese mathematicians divided
the circle into 365 IA degrees, CORE.
spending to the length of the year, or
365 Ia days. which number, though
not exact, is very near the truth. But
this division of the circle is practically
intolerable; it would throw mathe'
maticians into despair; consequently
the number $50, which admits of being
divided by 4, by so, by 80, and by many
other numbers, usurped the place which
the Chinese righteously assigned to the
awkward number which nature suggest
ed.-The Bishop of carlisle, in Coatem,
pordry Reuie1U