Talk:Babylonian mathematics

message: How do we know that the Babylonians used
:ab = \frac{(a + b)^2 - a^2 - b^2}{2}
:ab = \frac{(a + b)^2 - (a - b)^2}{4}
rather than
:ab = \frac{a^2 + b^2 - (a-b)^2}{2}?
If one is calculating from a table of squares of the numbers from 1 to N, the last formula works for the product of any a and b that are both in the table, i.e. in the range 1..N.  The two earlier formulae require that the sum, a + b, also be in the range 1..N.  What evidence do we have that the Babylonians used the first two formulae, but not the third?
Alma Teao Wilson (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Babylonian multiplication formulae

message: Using algebra to explain how babylonians did math suggests they set up
equalities and derived new equations from old using an algebraic system
This seems unlikely; the likely truth is that they assembled formula
that were useful for solving particular problems either by insight or 
experiment.  You need to include actual text or literal translations of their method.Mrdthree 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique on the use of algebra for explanations

message: I've removed some text some of which seems to have been copied from , as a potential copyright violation. Paul August ☎ 15:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the text on the Chaldeans, most of which came from the Hipparchus article (although I'm not sure about the original sources). The Old Babylonian section however would need to be re-written without directly copying from the History of Mathematics archive. Jagged 18:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trimmed, re-written, wikified and re-ordered the Old Babylonian Mathematics section. I think it is now sufficiently different from the source to be no longer copyvio, so I have put the re-written version back into the article. Gandalf61 13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. Paul August ☎ 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation. 

message: The current name (Assyro-Babylonian mathematics) was changed to without discussion, let ous establish the articles name based on WP:NAME. 
* hits:7 ; books: 32; scholar: 2
* hits:12,500 ;books: 742; scholar: 642
Clearly the most recognizable name is Babylonian mathematics and not Assyro-Babylonian matematics. So what's the reason for the name change on the article? The TriZ (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the article

message: In the opening paragraph: "...accurate to nearly six decimal places." Does this mean it was 'accurate to five decimal places'?--FimusTauri (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoddy wording 

message: In the text, the divisors of 60 are given, but with 1 and 60 left out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisors 

message: The Babylonians are said to be pioneers in using the base 60. The article on 
Babylonian numerals correctly points out that it was inherited from the Sumerians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneers 

message: The article starts out by crediting Babylonian use of base 60 with such things as dividing a circle into 360 degrees, and then later states that ancient Babylonian mathematicians had no concept of the measures of angles, but only used computations related to the sides of triangles, which seems to be a contradiction. Did they use triangle measure in their astronomy too? Or was it simply that they found computations based upon triangle sides easier for terrestrial use?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.15.233 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angles 

message: Looks like they knew Calculus too: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/ancient-babylonian-text-earliest-use-of-calculus-for-astronomy/7121548 Yadojado (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculus 

message: An editor has reverted the following edit with reason UNDUE:
According to Dr.Daniel Mansfield, a researcher at UNSW Sydney, speaking about the "surveyor's tablet" Si.427 and its relationship with Plimpton 322, "The rectangles are perfect". The surveyor achieved this by using Pythagorean triples. {{reftalk}
This seems like overkill for two sentences in a section of the article body directly related to the edit, anyone care to comment? Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert