
Mathematical secrets of ancient tablet unlocked after nearly a century of study - miraj
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/24/mathematical-secrets-of-ancient-tablet-unlocked-after-nearly-a-century-of-study
======
nste832oen
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.

------
empath75
> Norman Wildberger

This throws up warning flags to me. He's a somewhat notorious crank.

[http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2007/10/15/dirty-rotten-
infin...](http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2007/10/15/dirty-rotten-infinite-
sets-and-the-foundations-of-math/)

~~~
tpeo
Is it just me, or do cranks in mathematics seem more coherent than those of
other fields?

~~~
tzs
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.

------
pmoriarty
_" 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
Apparently "rational trigonometry" is related?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_trigonometry)

~~~
roywiggins
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?

~~~
tzs
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.

------
jaclaz
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)

