Imagine you've just made yourself a thermometer by marking off the 0° and 100° points. Now delineate the 2° intervals, using only the tools you would have had available in the early 18th century.
Now imagine making a thermometer by marking off the 32° and 96° points (64° apart). Now delineate the 2° intervals.
Considering those two tasks, 64 seems a much better number to me (only have to divide unit lengths in half) than 100 (have to divide something by 5).
Comments
Why did they come up with 96 instead of 100, a nice round number?
Imagine you've just made yourself a thermometer by marking off the 0° and 100° points. Now delineate the 2° intervals, using only the tools you would have had available in the early 18th century.
Now imagine making a thermometer by marking off the 32° and 96° points (64° apart). Now delineate the 2° intervals.
Considering those two tasks, 64 seems a much better number to me (only have to divide unit lengths in half) than 100 (have to divide something by 5).
Great explanation, thanks.
Sounds like the motivation was powers of 2, not 10.