• captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    61 would be 𒁹 𒁹. Essentially the same way we write 11. It can be compared to 𒁹𒁹 meaning 2, which would appear bunched up as opposed to separated. Plenty of room for very large errors and I suspect if it’d stuck around you’d probably see something like a distinct 1, 9, 10, and 50 tallies to indicate “hey this is where this place begins” as well as a zero. For 21 it would be 𒌋𒌋𒁹, and for 3 it’s 𒁹𒁹𒁹.

    Cuneiform is a writing system highly constrained by its medium. It’s just pressing triangular reeds into clay. Any shape you can’t get out of that isn’t in the writing system. Using conjoined tallies makes sense for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_cuneiform_numerals

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It seems to me that with a reed you could also underline something or draw a slash between items, so you could do 𒁹 / 𒁹 for 61 vs 𒁹 𒁹 for 2.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If anything I would use the slash for zero. Maybe a dot in the middle for place differentiation, though that could make a slash irrelevant.

        Ultimately Babylon was really really good at logistics and administration, and they did a great job with stuff like tracking the sky. But it was a very early civilization. It’s easy for us to give notes 4000 years later, but our modern mathematical notation is a product of international collaboration over a millennium by different civilizations that all produced great mathematicians. When we compare them to their contemporaries we can see that they were surprisingly forward thinking, being the only ones using place value in their geographical and temporal region.