Thoughts on Scripture, interpretation, and what Scripture might have to say about contemporary issues.
I can count to 46 on one hand.
Actually, I can do that 5X times better--230!
By hand they mean fingers.I presume you can count to 46 on different parts of your palm and do that for each finger?Can you count to 31?If one considers a finger 3 parts (and 2 for thumb) then you can count to 16383
The 31 was nice and straight forward: five fingers, six rounds, the first a straight hand, the rest with each finger signifying a round, plus one more (or for the whole).The 230 and 46 were using the joints and a plus one for the whole between each round of joints. With that many locations the multipliers would mean greatly larger numbers, such as you suggested, and two hands would greatly extend the range.That was fun to think about, thanks for the post!
Counting on the knuckles was common practice not all that long ago. Can count to 100 using the knuckles and tips of a single hand. Obviously, you were using binary to get 31. Counting from the thumb as 0/1 I have to say that number 4 is my favorite. Since I work with a bunch of geeks I sometimes give them a binary four.
Yes, I had thought about adding that as clue 2: avoid signing the numbers 4, 128, and especially 132.
Binary is not really a reasonable thing to count with fingers.
SLW, probably not. Though if you know binary well thru other means, counting with it on your fingers would be very obvious and straightforward. Fingers even look like one's.It is not that it is sensible, but knowing the answer is geekish. I suppose they should have given 1 point for knowing how to count to 31 and 5 points if one does this regularly! :)You get the 4 gag?
I think you are more geeky than the test credits you with judging from this conversation :-)