The part of the article that says, "Daniel Mansfield, of the university’s school of mathematics and statistics, described the tablet which may unlock some of their methods as 'a fascinating mathematical work that demonstrates undoubted genius' – with potential modern application because the base 60 used in calculations by the Babylonians permitted many more accurate fractions than the contemporary base 10" seems to be the basis for that subheadline. But that's ridiculous and shows that the editors of the article (not the quoted scholar, necessarily) are innumerate. (Common, whether proper or improper) fractions written in any numerical base are equally accurate--fractions are exact real numbers. Approximations of a fraction in a place-value notation can be made as accurate as needed with sufficient expressed place values, and since 500 years ago, the Western world has been able to write decimal numerals for rational numbers to any desired degree of accuracy.
I was confused as well. I don't recall seeing this the first time I read the article, but on the second time through, they include this:
"Our research reveals that Plimpton 322 describes the shapes of right-angle triangles using a novel kind of trigonometry based on ratios, not angles and circles. It is a fascinating mathematical work that demonstrates undoubted genius."
Which is probably where the "more accurate" statement comes from.
3 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 19.1 ms ] threadThis doesn't seem like it could be true as written and the article doesn't satisfactorily explain it IMO.