I found both of these articles to be interesting reads about the sociological aspects of choosing a base for a number system. The first article, I found, had more of a focus on the practical applications of using certain numbers to divide up time in different ways. I found the section about how sundials could only be used to track time in the day to be quite thought-provoking. I hadn't given much thought to this issue, so it makes sense in this context why day and night were considered "two opposing realms" rather than part of the same day. It's also interesting how this lead to hours being longer on days with more sunlight, since an hour was just a 12th of the sunlight on a given day. Getting around the issue of sundials not working at night by tracking stars in the sky I thought was very clever, and reminded of how many early cultures had remarkable understandings of the movements of celestial objects while only having very limited tools.
The second article seemed to be more interested in the question of why the Babylonians chose to use base 60 over another base, and had some interesting remarks about how they may have gotten there. I agree that it was unlikely that the Babylonians collectively "chose" to use base 60, and rather that it slowly became common practice over time with repeated use (like a how a new language develops). I found the theory that it may have arisen as a combination of a base 12 and base 5 to be quite interesting, but I am skeptical that this is true because of the more natural combination of 6 and 10 seen in the tally marks of the numbering system. I did find the mixed method of counting 12s on one hand and 5s on another to be neat, though. The article also claimed that no major civilizations used base 12, which seems to contradict the first article's claim that the Egyptians used duodecimal. Perhaps Egyptians really only used base 12 for time-keeping? Either way, the article provided some interesting questions to think about regarding how a culture would decide on a numbering system.
This is a well-balanced comparison of the two articles. You clearly explained how each one emphasized different aspects—practical applications versus historical reasoning—and you engaged thoughtfully with both. I especially like how you noticed the possible contradiction between the two sources about Egypt’s use of base 12, showing critical reading. To make your reflection even stronger, you might add a short personal insight about which explanation you find most convincing, so your voice comes through even more clearly.
ReplyDelete