Yeah fuck that upworthy spam. Here’s the original article from The Guardian.
Not significantly better:
“which scientists claim are more accurate than any available today.”
No they obviously do not. Yeah the fractions are easier in base 60, but they are not more accurate than just using rational numbers or radicals in any other base.I’m partial to base 36
-
“10” is a square that’s also the product of two squares, 4 and 9
-
highly divisible, being able to simply express halves, thirds, quarters, sixths, and ninths, also twelfths and eighteenths but those are less common portions in daily use
-
you can represent it as [0 - Z], as in “…8, 9, A, B, C…”, it’s literally achieved by just adding the alphabet to the numeral system.
-
It is significantly better, it’s not spam reposting crap.
Thank you. I wasn’t going to click on that trash.
deleted by creator
It was already known that the Sumerians were calculating ratios of triangles and applying knowledge of degrees to circle calculations thousands of years before Hipparchus’ work. Whether or not this small stone tablet indicates that the Babylonians had a rigorous system in the same manner the Greeks developed, remains to be seen.
This is cool and all, but it’s a 6 year old story.
Maybe I’m an idiot but how would a base 60 system with “Cleaner fractions means fewer approximations and more accurate maths, and the researchers suggest we can learn from it today.” make any difference when computers are powerful enough to generate solutions to answer with more accuracy than is ever needed in real world applications?
Move I’ve Pythagoras, it’s Nebuchadnezzar’s show now!
Article originally appeared 07/22/21. Any follow up?
Older even - 2017: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-solved-a-maths-problem-on-this-3-700-year-old-clay-tablet
The news articles seem a bit off though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322?wprov=sfla1
They give a bit more context in this video. (from 2017)
By the way, I got that link from an article in The Guardian, and I can’t find anything in either of those two articles that really adds on top of what was known in 2017. It could just be hard for a layperson to understand, and so was oversimplified?
TLDW is that researchers have known for decades that this tablet showed the Babylonians knew the Pythagorean Theorem for 1000 years before Pythagoras was born. So, that part isn’t new.
They seem to be saying that what’s new is that they understand each line of this tablet describes a different right triangle, and that due to the Babylonians counting in base 60, they can describe many more right triangles for a unit length than we can in base 10.
They feel like this can have many uses in things like surveying, computing, and in understanding trigonometry.
My take is that this was a very interesting discovery, but that they probably felt pressure to figure out a way to describe it as useful in the modern world. But we’ve known about the useful parts of this discovery for forever. Our clocks are all base 60. And our computers are binary, not base 10, just to start with.
We overvalue trying to make every advance in knowledge immediately useful. Knowledge can be good for its own sake.
Base 60 is based.
Base 12 is a good compromise between math and meat imo
