PrepShorts · Study sheet · Class 8 Mathematics · Chapter 3, A Story of NumbersPrepShorts

Chapter 3 · A Story of Numbers

Mesopotamian base-60: place value in a sexagesimal system

यह वीडियो हिंदी में भी · Watch in Hindi

Place value10 min

This video could not be loaded. Reload the page to try again.

Sign in with Google

10 min.

Also recorded in Hindi.Englishहिन्दी

Stop drawing the landmark numbers and let position say which one you mean. Mesopotamia got there more than three thousand years ago.

The idea

The last structural idea in the chapter is a subtraction. Stop writing the signs for the landmark numbers at all, and let a sign's position say which landmark it belongs to — and suddenly a fixed, finite set of marks writes every number there is. Mesopotamia got there with two marks and base 60. What it did not get is the other half of the same idea: if position carries meaning, then an empty position must be as visible as a full one, and a blank space is not. Every ambiguity in the system traces back to that single missing mark.

What you should be able to do

  • State the two marks the Mesopotamians used, and build any number from 1 to 59 from them
  • Report the theories the chapter offers for the choice of 60, without ranking them
  • Write a number as a sum of multiples of powers of 60, and then in positional form
  • Explain why no place can hold 60 or more, and regroup an expression that does
  • State the defining property of a positional or place value system in your own words
  • Show, with the chapter's own examples, how uneven spacing lets one numeral be read as several numbers
  • Explain what a placeholder does, and name the case it still fails to handle

Words to know

TermDefinition in one lineFirst introduced
sexagesimal systema base-60 systemprinted in bold in this chapter (Part I, §3.4, p.70)
Babylonian number systemthe other name the chapter gives the Mesopotamian systemprinted in bold in this chapter (Part I, §3.4, p.70)
positional number systema system in which a sign's position fixes which landmark it countsprinted in bold in this chapter (Part I, §3.4, p.73)
place value systemthe chapter's second name for the same thingprinted in bold in this chapter (Part I, §3.4, p.73)
placeholderthe mark put where a power is missing, so the blank becomes visibleprinted in this chapter (Part I, §3.4, p.74)
landmark numbersthe numbers a system groups by — here the powers of 60printed in bold in this chapter (Part I, §3.2, p.58)
ambiguitythe state the chapter blames on inconsistent spacing: one numeral, several readingsprinted in this chapter (Part I, §3.4, pp.73–74)
Mesopotamiathe region, in western Asia, covering much of present-day Iraqprinted in this chapter (Part I, §3.1, p.48)
wedgethe explanation's name for the single-stroke mark this system writes 1 withan added label; not printed in this chapter, which draws the mark and never names it
unwritten placea position in a numeral where a power of 60 does not occuran added phrasing; not printed in this chapter

Where people slip up

  • "Base 60 means sixty different symbols." Two. Everything from 1 to 59 is built additively from those two inside a single place, which is why the table on Part I p.71 exists.
  • "Place value was invented in India." The chapter is explicit that Mesopotamia, the Maya, China and India all used place value representations. What India added is the subject of a later topic, and overstating it here spoils that one.
  • "Their system was base 60, so it was completely unlike ours." The structure is identical; only the base and the marks differ. Reading a Mesopotamian numeral from the right, place by place, is exactly what a student already does.
  • "A blank space is as good as a zero." It is not, and the six-column table proves it: a gap has no fixed width, so a reader cannot count gaps. That is the whole failure.
  • "The placeholder fixed it." It fixed the middle of a numeral. A number ending in an empty place was still ambiguous, because the mark was not used there.
  • "Sixty was chosen for a known reason." Three named theories, an open end, and no verdict. The chapter says outright that the choice has puzzled many.
  • "The chapter's diamond symbols are Mesopotamian." They are the book's own teaching notation, borrowed from Indian numerals, and the book says so on the page where it introduces them.
Transcript1,375 words

Every system so far has bundled by ten. This one bundles by sixty. Nobody knows why, and the guesses are worth hearing. One: sixty sits close to the periods people were already counting — a month of about thirty days, a year of about three hundred and sixty. Two: sixty divides easily, which makes fractions comfortable. Three: an older list of landmark numbers — one, ten, sixty, six hundred, three thousand six hundred, thirty-six thousand — settled into the powers of sixty.

Look at that older list for a second. It climbs by ten, then six, then ten, then six, then ten: two different steps, so it was never a base system at all. But take every second rung of it and you get one, sixty, three thousand six hundred. The base was already hiding inside it. And before this feels remote, look at a clock. One hour is sixty minutes. One minute is sixty seconds.

Which means an hour is three thousand six hundred seconds — sixty sixties, the second landmark of this system, still being counted today. A day is eighty-six thousand four hundred seconds, and the only reason those numbers look odd is that we write them in ten. So the system did not die. Part of it is on your wrist. What it did with those landmarks, though, is the interesting part.

It stopped drawing them. Start with what it had to draw. Two marks. An upright mark, worth one. A corner mark, worth ten. One, two, three are one, two and three uprights. Ten is a single corner mark. Eleven is a corner mark and an upright beside it. Fifty-nine — the largest it ever needs inside one place — is five corner marks and nine uprights. Fourteen marks, which is the most any single place will ever ask for.

Two marks, and every number from one to fifty-nine, each one built additively: tens first, then units. Now go past fifty-nine. Six hundred and forty is ten sixties and a forty left over. Seven thousand five hundred and thirty is two of three thousand six hundred, five sixties, and a thirty. Written that way, six hundred and forty needs a sign for sixty, ten copies of it, and four corner marks. Fourteen marks in all.

But look at what the grouping produced. A ten, and a forty. Two numbers, each of them below sixty, each of them writable with the two marks you already have. The seven thousand five hundred and thirty came out as three: a two, a five, and a thirty. One rule governs those groups, and it is the same rule as before. No place may hold sixty or more. Suppose you had written one of three thousand six hundred, seventy sixties, and a two.

That is a perfectly good number — seven thousand eight hundred and two — but it is not a numeral, because seventy sixties includes sixty sixties. And sixty sixties is one of three thousand six hundred. Trade it: two of three thousand six hundred, ten sixties, and a two. Same number, and now every place is under sixty. That is exactly what the writer does anyway — group largest first, and no place ever comes out holding sixty.

Every number below a hundred thousand, checked one at a time: not one place over. Here is the move everything so far has been walking towards, and it is a subtraction. Stop writing the landmark signs. Six hundred and forty was a ten, a sign for sixty, and a forty. Take the sign away and write just the ten and the forty, in that order. Nothing has been lost, because the ORDER now says what the sign used to say: the group on the right counts ones, the group to its left counts sixties.

Fourteen marks became five. And the saving is not the point — the sign set is. The landmark signs were the thing that had to keep being invented. Positions do not have to be invented. There are always more of them. So reading one is a procedure, and it starts from the right. The rightmost group counts ones. The next one left counts sixties. The next counts three thousand six hundreds.

Take two, five, thirty. From the right: thirty ones, five sixties, two of three thousand six hundred. Seven thousand five hundred and thirty, read straight off the board. You already do this. In ten, the rightmost digit counts ones and the next counts tens. The structure is identical. Only the base and the marks are different. A system that works this way has a name — two of them, in fact.

Positional. Or place value. Both names say the same thing: a mark's position fixes which landmark it counts. And that is what makes the sign set finite. Two marks here; ten digits in the system you grew up with. The number can be as large as you like. The set of things you have to draw does not grow with it. This is the idea, and several places arrived at it independently — Mesopotamia, the Maya, China, India.

It is also probably not how the Mesopotamians got there. Their signs for one and for sixty looked alike, and an accident of writing may have led them into it. Either way, they had it. What they did not have is the other half. Because if position carries meaning, then an empty position has to be visible. Theirs was a blank space. Write one: a single upright. Write sixty: a single upright, in the sixties place, with nothing in the ones.

Write three thousand six hundred: a single upright, two places along, with nothing after it. Three different numbers, and on the clay all three are one upright mark and some empty air. Do it again with a corner mark and two uprights: twelve, six hundred and two, thirty-six thousand and two. Six numbers. Two shapes. That is one example. The question is how bad it is. So take every number below four thousand, write each one the way the blank leaves it — marks run together, nothing recording an empty place — and count.

One thousand six hundred and thirteen of those numbers share their marks with some other number. Three thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine numbers produce two thousand eight hundred and sixty-three distinct written forms. The numbers are all different. The writing is not. And notice where the fault is. It is not in the base, and it is not in the two marks. It is that a gap has no width you can count. One gap and two gaps look the same, so a reader cannot tell them apart.

Later on, they did something about it. A mark for the blank. Not a number — a placeholder, put where a landmark is missing, so the empty place becomes something you can see. And it works, exactly as far as it is used. Below four thousand there are fifty-nine numbers with an empty place INSIDE them, with something after it. With a blank, every single one of those fifty-nine is ambiguous. With the placeholder, none of them is.

But it was used inside a numeral, and not at the end. So the sixty-six numbers whose empty places are all at the end are exactly where they were, and three thousand six hundred still reads as one. Put the mark everywhere, then. Every empty place, end or middle. Now one, sixty and three thousand six hundred are three different numerals, and that particular failure is gone. But run the count again and it is still not clean: one thousand four hundred and forty-eight of them still collide.

Because there is one more thing a reader needs, and it is easy to miss. Fifty-nine takes fourteen marks. A place is a heap, and nothing says where one heap ends and the next begins. Two uprights might be two, or it might be one sixty and one. Give every place exactly one symbol — a single sign for each of the counts a place can hold — and the collisions go to zero.

That is the last thing this story needs, and it is the thing the next system did.

Where this fits

Taken from the notes each video was made from, not from the reading order — these are the ideas this one rests on and the ones that later rest on it.

Builds on

Comes up again in

The book

Open in a new tab