5 ms·

Mathematical secrets of ancient tablet unlocked after nearly a century of study

24 points by miraj 9y ago

jaclaz 9y ago
It seems that each and every news outlet has this, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15097301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15097301
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pmoriarty 9y ago
"With Plimpton 322 we see a simpler, more accurate trigonometry that has clear advantages over our own." I wonder if there's anywhere one could learn this simpler, more accurate trigonometry.
- abecedarius 9y ago
  Apparently "rational trigonometry" is related? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Wait, so this fellow came up with "rational trigonometry" more than a decade ago and just happened to find a Babylonian tablet suggesting that the Babylonians used his technique? That's... awfully convenient, isn't it?
    - jhayward 9y ago
      Without commenting on the article itself I see nothing suspicious. Indeed, he may have come up with the idea while studying some forms of ancient computation then gone looking for more evidence. I wouldn't cast aspersions as lightly as this.
    - tzs 9y ago
      If "rational trigonometry" was something completely weird and totally out of left field, then yeah, then that would be a little unbelievable. But really, if you think about it, measuring angles by ratios of sides of right triangles is not weird if your primary interest in measuring angles is for practical applications rather than abstract theory. Accurate rulers are easier to make than accurate protractors, and are easier to work with on the construction site. So it would not at all be surprising if some ancient peoples worked with sides instead of angles. Since Wildberger advocates that kind of approach to trigonometry, it makes sense that he'd recognize when someone else might be using such a system.
empath75 9y ago
> Norman Wildberger This throws up warning flags to me. He's a somewhat notorious crank. http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2007/10/15/dirty-rotten-infinite-sets-and-the-foundations-of-math/ http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2007/10/15/dirty-rotten-infin...
- tpeo 9y ago
  Is it just me, or do cranks in mathematics seem more coherent than those of other fields?
  - tzs 9y ago
    There are two kinds of "cranks" in math and science: 1. People who are flat out nuts. Their understanding of the field is broadly wrong on many different levels. 2. People who have a good understanding of the field, but disagree with specific things that are widely accepted by mainstream practitioners. In all but that area where they disagree, they often are accomplished respected practitioners with perfectly "normal" books and papers to their credit. These areas of disagreement are often down in the foundations of mathematics, such as over what axioms to accept, or how to construct mathematical systems. There are often multiple ways you can axiomatize and construct mathematical systems that provide everything we normally need for most or all applications of mathematics, so often both sides in these disagreements end up with mathematical systems that are equally useful from the point of view of everyone who is not working in the foundations of mathematics. You could have type 2 cranks in science fields outside mathematics, but I think it is much less likely than in mathematics. Those fields tend to deal with things that objectively be proven or disproven. You usually only get "coherent cranks" in those fields when a major change in how we understand something is happening.
nste832oen 9y ago
Ugh. The writing is so bad. > a series of trigonometry tables which scientists claim are more accurate than any available today. Given that we are able to calculate the exact value of any trigonometric function, the above sentence is pretty meaningless. Not to mention, if we wanted to calculate any trig function to some given arbitrary precision, we can do that pretty much instantly these days. I'm sure this is a really cool find. I just wish they'd be a little more careful with their wording.

24 points by miraj 9y ago

It seems that each and every news outlet has this, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15097301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15097301

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pmoriarty 9y ago

"With Plimpton 322 we see a simpler, more accurate trigonometry that has clear advantages over our own." I wonder if there's anywhere one could learn this simpler, more accurate trigonometry.

abecedarius 9y ago
Apparently "rational trigonometry" is related? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry
- roywiggins 9y ago
  Wait, so this fellow came up with "rational trigonometry" more than a decade ago and just happened to find a Babylonian tablet suggesting that the Babylonians used his technique? That's... awfully convenient, isn't it?
  - jhayward 9y ago
    Without commenting on the article itself I see nothing suspicious. Indeed, he may have come up with the idea while studying some forms of ancient computation then gone looking for more evidence. I wouldn't cast aspersions as lightly as this.
  - tzs 9y ago
    If "rational trigonometry" was something completely weird and totally out of left field, then yeah, then that would be a little unbelievable. But really, if you think about it, measuring angles by ratios of sides of right triangles is not weird if your primary interest in measuring angles is for practical applications rather than abstract theory. Accurate rulers are easier to make than accurate protractors, and are easier to work with on the construction site. So it would not at all be surprising if some ancient peoples worked with sides instead of angles. Since Wildberger advocates that kind of approach to trigonometry, it makes sense that he'd recognize when someone else might be using such a system.

empath75 9y ago

> Norman Wildberger This throws up warning flags to me. He's a somewhat notorious crank. http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2007/10/15/dirty-rotten-infinite-sets-and-the-foundations-of-math/ http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2007/10/15/dirty-rotten-infin...

tpeo 9y ago
Is it just me, or do cranks in mathematics seem more coherent than those of other fields?
- tzs 9y ago
  There are two kinds of "cranks" in math and science: 1. People who are flat out nuts. Their understanding of the field is broadly wrong on many different levels. 2. People who have a good understanding of the field, but disagree with specific things that are widely accepted by mainstream practitioners. In all but that area where they disagree, they often are accomplished respected practitioners with perfectly "normal" books and papers to their credit. These areas of disagreement are often down in the foundations of mathematics, such as over what axioms to accept, or how to construct mathematical systems. There are often multiple ways you can axiomatize and construct mathematical systems that provide everything we normally need for most or all applications of mathematics, so often both sides in these disagreements end up with mathematical systems that are equally useful from the point of view of everyone who is not working in the foundations of mathematics. You could have type 2 cranks in science fields outside mathematics, but I think it is much less likely than in mathematics. Those fields tend to deal with things that objectively be proven or disproven. You usually only get "coherent cranks" in those fields when a major change in how we understand something is happening.

nste832oen 9y ago

Ugh. The writing is so bad. > a series of trigonometry tables which scientists claim are more accurate than any available today. Given that we are able to calculate the exact value of any trigonometric function, the above sentence is pretty meaningless. Not to mention, if we wanted to calculate any trig function to some given arbitrary precision, we can do that pretty much instantly these days. I'm sure this is a really cool find. I just wish they'd be a little more careful with their wording.