Question 1 (24)
1.1. Compare the Egyptian and the Babylonian numeration systems in terms of the
number of symbols, functionality, and possible uses.
Number of Symbols:
Egyptian System: The Egyptian numeration system utilized a variety of symbols, each
representing different powers of 10. For example, they had distinct symbols for 1, 10,
100, 1000, and so on, up to very large numbers. This resulted in a relatively large
number of symbols needed to represent numbers.
Babylonian System: The Babylonian numeration system, on the other hand, employed
only two symbols for basic numerals, one for tens and one for ones. This simplicity
allowed them to represent a wide range of numbers with just two symbols.
Functionality:
Egyptian System: The Egyptian system was not positional, meaning the value of a
symbol depended on its placement rather than its inherent value. This made arithmetic
operations more complex and limited the system's versatility.
Babylonian System: The Babylonian system, while also not positional, had more
flexibility due to its use of a base-60 system. This allowed for easier manipulation of
numbers and facilitated calculations involving fractions, squares, and cubes.
Possible Uses:
Egyptian System: The Egyptian numeration system was suitable for representing large
quantities, as evidenced by their use of symbols for very large numbers. However, its
lack of positional notation made complex calculations more challenging.
Babylonian System: The Babylonian numeration system was well-suited for practical
applications such as trade, measurement, and astronomy. Its base-60 system allowed
for convenient representation of fractions and facilitated calculations involving time,
angles, and other measurements.
1.1. Compare the Egyptian and the Babylonian numeration systems in terms of the
number of symbols, functionality, and possible uses.
Number of Symbols:
Egyptian System: The Egyptian numeration system utilized a variety of symbols, each
representing different powers of 10. For example, they had distinct symbols for 1, 10,
100, 1000, and so on, up to very large numbers. This resulted in a relatively large
number of symbols needed to represent numbers.
Babylonian System: The Babylonian numeration system, on the other hand, employed
only two symbols for basic numerals, one for tens and one for ones. This simplicity
allowed them to represent a wide range of numbers with just two symbols.
Functionality:
Egyptian System: The Egyptian system was not positional, meaning the value of a
symbol depended on its placement rather than its inherent value. This made arithmetic
operations more complex and limited the system's versatility.
Babylonian System: The Babylonian system, while also not positional, had more
flexibility due to its use of a base-60 system. This allowed for easier manipulation of
numbers and facilitated calculations involving fractions, squares, and cubes.
Possible Uses:
Egyptian System: The Egyptian numeration system was suitable for representing large
quantities, as evidenced by their use of symbols for very large numbers. However, its
lack of positional notation made complex calculations more challenging.
Babylonian System: The Babylonian numeration system was well-suited for practical
applications such as trade, measurement, and astronomy. Its base-60 system allowed
for convenient representation of fractions and facilitated calculations involving time,
angles, and other measurements.
