Egyptian Fractions (2006)

(blog.plover.com)

94 points | by luu 4 days ago

7 comments

  • chrismorgan 6 hours ago
    We’ve grown used to a full-decimal system, but all kinds of weird stuff has existed in the past.

    Telugu (a language of southern India) has an interesting traditional numeric system: base ten for integers, and base four for fractions.

       U+0C78 "౸" TELUGU FRACTION DIGIT ZERO FOR ODD POWERS OF FOUR
       U+0C79 "౹" TELUGU FRACTION DIGIT ONE FOR ODD POWERS OF FOUR
       U+0C7A "౺" TELUGU FRACTION DIGIT TWO FOR ODD POWERS OF FOUR
       U+0C7B "౻" TELUGU FRACTION DIGIT THREE FOR ODD POWERS OF FOUR
      (U+0C66 "౦" TELUGU DIGIT ZERO is used for even powers of four too)
       U+0C7C "౼" TELUGU FRACTION DIGIT ONE FOR EVEN POWERS OF FOUR
       U+0C7D "౽" TELUGU FRACTION DIGIT TWO FOR EVEN POWERS OF FOUR
       U+0C7E "౾" TELUGU FRACTION DIGIT THREE FOR EVEN POWERS OF FOUR
    
    Seems complicated at first, but in practice it’s roughly just: circle for zero, and tally marks for one, two and three, alternating vertical and horizontal.

    Few Telugu speakers even know about this any more—no one can read even the traditional integers (౦౧౨౩౪౫౬౭౮౯), because 0123456789 have replaced them. (This is the case in most but not all Indian languages. Bengali’s traditional digits are still common, so you can enjoy ৪ being four and ৭ seven.)

    A couple of articles and discussions about it:

    https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n3156.pdf is the best public resource I know of (Unicode proposals and related papers are often delightful for information on obscure written stuff, because they had to write down and publish the details to get the characters encoded). One tid-bit: NYSE used a similar decimal/quaternary system until early 2001.

    https://blog.plover.com/math/telugu.html from the same site as the current article, discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14683767 nine years ago.

    • toast0 6 hours ago
      > One tid-bit: NYSE used a similar decimal/quaternary system until early 2001.

      Prior to decimal pricing, us exchanges priced in eighths. An article [1] I found from a source I don't recognize says that there was briefly trading in sixteenths, but I guess I wasn't following the stock markets that closely then and I missed it.

      https://tontinecoffeehouse.com/2018/11/05/pricing-in-eighths...

  • Someone 2 hours ago
    Small error in the last sentence of the 20260617 addendum: in “To do 21×23 they would expand 19=16+4+1” that 19 should be 21.
  • hilsdev 8 hours ago
    Cool, and something I’ve been curious about (the civil engineering and math involved from earlier representations). I want the logic behind the notation, though. I assume there’s a background system of folding a rope into equilateral pieces that led to this system of fractional math that I would love any YouTube or other recommendations on
  • pests 3 hours ago
    Thought this said Factions at first but still all the interesting.
  • etamponi 2 hours ago
    Very interesting! One thing I don't understand is: doesn't this assume that they could do the calculations to get the coefficients... Using decimal notation? How could they for example know that 18/20 = 9/10? This is straightforward in decimal, but in their notation... Not really? So I am not super convinced this is the actual algorithm they used. Or am I missing something?
    • pillmillipedes 30 minutes ago
      they did count in tens, as most civilizations did, though not exactly in "decimal". so 2345 would be either written out as MMCCCXXXXIIIII (but replace the letters with hieroglyphs), or sometimes spelled out phonetically. they had words for twenty, thirty and so on.

      so obviously they can factor numbers and they know eighteen is 2*9 and twenty is 2*10 and that they can simplify when dividing 18 by 20, it's just that they don't consider 9/10 a finished result.

  • jojobas 4 hours ago
    We take so much of modern math notation for granted, for centuries people were encumbered by various inefficiencies of what was agreed before them and couldn't be easily broken.