Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
iquilezles.org
Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#2I stumbled upon this old post from Iñigo Quilez, and this made my day. Especially because I did not know about the Babylonian multiplication, let alone its proof. The absence of explanation in the post made it into a nice puzzle, I had to figure things out by myself. Maths teaching should more often be like this kickstarted discovery...
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#3I stumbled upon this old post from Iñigo Quilez, and this made my day. Especially because I did not know about the Babylonian multiplication, let alone its proof. The absence of explanation in the post made it into a nice puzzle, I had to figure things out by myself. Maths teaching should more often be like this kickstarted discovery...
I spent some time looking at the geometric 'proof' in the photo. Was still wondering why this method would have any advantage over our conventional way of multiplying numbers because squaring would need multiplication too. Then I realized that with a table of squares one could do the calculation quite easily. To calculate the product of any 2 numbers from 1 to 100 one would need the squares of the numbers from 1 to 200. Armed with this one can calculate the product of any two numbers from 1 to 100 (there are 10'000 such combinations) with the formula. Sweet!
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#4Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words
Unfortunately the metamathematics of wordless proofs still needs words, maybe someone can make a proof theory without words?
https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/proofs-wit...
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#5I stumbled upon this old post from Iñigo Quilez, and this made my day. Especially because I did not know about the Babylonian multiplication, let alone its proof. The absence of explanation in the post made it into a nice puzzle, I had to figure things out by myself. Maths teaching should more often be like this kickstarted discovery...
I spent some time looking at the geometric 'proof' in the photo. Was still wondering why this method would have any advantage over our conventional way of multiplying numbers because squaring would need multiplication too. Then I realized that with a table of squares one could do the calculation quite easily. To calculate the product of any 2 numbers from 1 to 100 one would need the squares of the numbers from 1 to 2…
And by the sum-of-odd-numbers theorem (sum of 2n-1 = n^2), you don't even need to multiply to generate that table.
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent some time looking at the geometric 'proof' in the photo. Was still wondering why this method would have any advantage over our conventional way of multiplying numbers because squaring would need multiplication too. Then I realized that with a table of squares one could do the calculation quite easily. To calculate the product of any 2 numbers from 1 to 100 one would need the squares of the numbers from 1 to 2…
And by the sum-of-odd-numbers theorem (sum of 2n-1 = n^2), you don't even need to multiply to generate that table.
sum of odd numbers, in shower tiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words#/media/Fil...
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent some time looking at the geometric 'proof' in the photo. Was still wondering why this method would have any advantage over our conventional way of multiplying numbers because squaring would need multiplication too. Then I realized that with a table of squares one could do the calculation quite easily. To calculate the product of any 2 numbers from 1 to 100 one would need the squares of the numbers from 1 to 2…
And by the sum-of-odd-numbers theorem (sum of 2n-1 = n^2), you don't even need to multiply to generate that table.
True, that does remove the necessity of the table. However, I was checking how the Babylonians did it and the article that I read seems to indicate that they used base-60 tables. On a different note, does anyone know if this method has been exploited on CPUs without multiplication circuitry in the ALU?
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
And by the sum-of-odd-numbers theorem (sum of 2n-1 = n^2), you don't even need to multiply to generate that table.
True, that does remove the necessity of the table. However, I was checking how the Babylonians did it and the article that I read seems to indicate that they used base-60 tables. On a different note, does anyone know if this method has been exploited on CPUs without multiplication circuitry in the ALU?
According to Wikipedia ([1]), Charles Putney implemented the quarter-square method for the 6502.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm#Quart...
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#9I stumbled upon this old post from Iñigo Quilez, and this made my day. Especially because I did not know about the Babylonian multiplication, let alone its proof. The absence of explanation in the post made it into a nice puzzle, I had to figure things out by myself. Maths teaching should more often be like this kickstarted discovery...
I spent some time looking at the geometric 'proof' in the photo. Was still wondering why this method would have any advantage over our conventional way of multiplying numbers because squaring would need multiplication too. Then I realized that with a table of squares one could do the calculation quite easily. To calculate the product of any 2 numbers from 1 to 100 one would need the squares of the numbers from 1 to 2…
It is also useful for other things. For example it shows that the product of two normally distributed random variables has the same distribution as the difference between two independent chi square variables.
Re: Babylonian Multiplication in the shower (2016)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, that does remove the necessity of the table. However, I was checking how the Babylonians did it and the article that I read seems to indicate that they used base-60 tables. On a different note, does anyone know if this method has been exploited on CPUs without multiplication circuitry in the ALU?
According to Wikipedia ([1]), Charles Putney implemented the quarter-square method for the 6502. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm#Quart...
Thanks for that pointer! Fascinating to see the multiplication method invented by the Babylonians being used on a microprocessor.