• logicbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • I_Comment_On_EVERYTHING@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • LeberechtReinhold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      None, in modern context we can work in any base we desire, all that basic stuff got generalized ages ago. No one is going to change computing systems to use babylonian-style. And the trigonometry stuff is the same thing we knew, but discovered earlier than the greeks.

      It’s a important discovery for sure, especially for our understanding of ancient Mesopotamian cultures, but everything else is the authors and the article going bananas with conclusions.

    • IonAddis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, I’m a writer, not a researcher, but I’ve found the more tools I have stuffed into my brain, the more likely it is that two different things clank against each other and create something interesting.

      I don’t think this is something unique to writing fiction–from my understanding of history, there’s quite a few moments in science where two somewhat unrelated things bash against each other and spark a new idea.

      Sure, computers can do things we already know how to do, but actual inventors/scientists/people making stuff still need to think up things first before you can computerize it.

      It’s possible that this WON’T do anything new in the realm of math, but it might create a string a researcher in a different domain–history, linguistics, whatever–can pull on to unravel something else. A diverse tool set leads to multiple ways to solve a given problem, and sometimes edge cases come up where one solution actually is better in some niche application because of something unique to the way it is shaped.

      • IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong that people can take inspiration from many different fields, but wild speculation about what could happen can be done for any new development, which makes it pointless and tiring when overused.

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Cthulu_but_gay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love history and discoveries like this fascinate me, but do they serve any functional purpose? Does knowing that Babylonians understood angles change anything in my daily or long term life?

    Not trying to be critical, just a question I often pose myself but have yet to think of a reassuring answer for.

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It might give you new respect for the Babylonians, and act as a corrective to the modern tendency to assume superiority. It might enhance your sense of how similar we all are and how connected, and your kinship with people who lived millennia before you. If little discoveries like this make us just a little more sensitive to the transience of even the most sophisticated societies, the kinship of all people and the sheer length of human history compared to the shortness of our individual lives, it might make us just a little more considerate and respectful in how we treat our world and our peers. The value of such discoveries is their cumulative influence on our understanding of ourselves and how we fit into the world. It makes us wiser.

    • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well we knew that trig and angles and algebra existed long before the Greeks. Pythagoras took his theorems from Persia.

      In terms of perfume together human history finds like this are pretty important though because it helps us fill in gaps in our knowledge

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Delusional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Actually, history didn’t change it’s still the same as it always was. It can’t change anymore since it happened in the past.

    • SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s fair to say that our understanding of history, something which can change because it’s always in the context of the present, has changed.

    • Kalash@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The events that actually happened in the past didn’t change. But history is not what happened. History is what we think we know happened.

      If there is new information about events we didn’t know about before, history changes.