Why there are 360 degress in a circle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harmony360
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circle
AI Thread Summary
The division of a circle into 360 degrees is largely arbitrary and rooted in historical practices, particularly those of the Babylonians, who used a base-60 number system. This choice may have been influenced by the approximation of the year having 360 days, leading to convenient fractions for calculations. While there is no fundamental reason for this division, it has persisted in various aspects of mathematics and timekeeping. The historical context includes early philosophical beliefs about cosmic order, which have influenced modern concepts. Ultimately, the arbitrary nature of this division continues to complicate geometry education today.
Harmony360
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Mentor comment: Harmony360 original post violated our rules. The new wording is mine. D H[/color]

So, why there are 360 degress in a circle?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It was arbitrarily chosen.

Well, of course, there was historic reasons as to why it was done, but there is no fundamental reason to use 360 degrees.
 
There are 360 degrees in a circle for historical reasons. It's entirely arbitrary. You could use any number at all. You could say there are 2pi radians in a circle and everything would work out the same. Perhaps 360 was chosen because it's more or less the number of days in the year, and 360 has a lot of divisors.

I didn't follow the details of your chart, but it looks like some kind of cranky mysticism. There is no fundamental reason for dividing a circle into 360 parts, any more than there's anything meaningful about there being 12 inches in a foot.
 
Last edited:
SteveL27 said:
There are 360 degrees in a circle for historical reasons. It's entirely arbitrary. You could use any number at all. You could say there are 2pi radians in a circle and everything would work out the same. Perhaps 360 was chosen because it's more or less the number of days in the year, and 360 has a lot of divisors.

I didn't follow the details of your chart, but it looks like some kind of cranky mysticism. There is no fundamental reason for dividing a circle into 360 parts, any more than there's anything meaningful than saying there are 12 inches in a foot.

Doesn't it have something to do with Base 60? Much like themetric system is based on decimals?
 
Hey Harmony360 and welcome to the forums.

You might get hints by studying the Babylonians. They used a base 60 number system by default and this might be a connection to the use of 360 degrees for use with time.

They certainly used it for time (this is where we get minutes and seconds from), so its possible that they used it in an extended way for geometry as well.
 
yes, blame the babylonians (i always do).

for a time, it was thought that the year had 360 days in it, which would make 12 months of 30 days each. note that 12 is 1/5 of 60, and 30 is 1/2 of 60, so these are "convenient" fractions in a base-60 number system.

alas, it took astronomers some time to realize that this estimation of a solar year was incorrect. we have been paying for it with various calendrical "corrections" ever since (with bizarre conventions of leap years, and mis-matched month lengths, not to mention the whole gregorian/julian snafu).

apparently, early philosophy literally thought that life was circles within circles, with everything lining up like some grand cosmic clock. the gods themselves created this order, and although such a notion may seem on the surface ludicrous, it persists in many of the common elements of language and thought (including, ironically, a great deal of relatively "modern" science).

early astronomers also thought that the lunar cycle and the solar cycle were synchronized (a quaint reminder of this is still evident on many old clock dials, and even some wrist-watches), which is how subdivisions of solar years came to be called "moons" (months).

which goes to show that an idea, even if totally wrong, may well outlive its usefulness, causing hair-pulling for young geometry students everywhere.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
14K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top