[Aztlan] FAQ re 2012 & 20 Baktuns vs. 13

[Sid Hollander]

First, I must say that I am enjoying this thread very much and that I hope
that the moderators do not put it to 'bed' too early.  I believe much can
come from it.  I'd like to see both of the principals in a stand up debate.

Something that I feel needs to be said about this section of text from
Lloyd.............

<In our system, it is like saying that if our system really were 10-based,
but we used base units at each multiple of 10 rather than a place-notation
system, as the Maya did,  then we would never see a number expressed as "10"
units of a hundred,  we would only see that number expressed as "1" unit of
a thousand.

As all readers of this message know, we have only ten numerals,  0, 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.  We do not have a numeral digit "10".  So if the Mayan
system were really Base-13 at this point,  we would never see a "13" in that
position.  (The Maya system of long counts is base-18 at the  transition of
Winals to Tuuns, since 360  18 x 20, so similarly  we do not normally
(ever?) see the digit "18" in the Winal  position  of a date or distance
number.   We only see 0 to 17 there. >

I don't think it is correct to use the argument  "So if the Mayan system
were really Base-13..."  They would do this or that but not that.  This is a
question that is best answered in a modern math class (i.e. Contrast the
Maya 'numeration' system with our definition of a numeration system. Be sure
to include examples  of similarity and dissimilarity)  and  to use as a
reason for or against why the Maya did or didn't write a number one way or
another.  Using the statement: "if they were following the 'rules' of our
way of defining 'numeration system' is faulty.  The fact that the Maya did
what they did in the Winals position speaks to the fact that they did not
follow OUR rules so we must give them the latitude of being 'different' in
other positions as well.



-- 
Sid Hollander
AP 117
Admin. Siglo XXI
Merida, Yucatan
Mexico CP 97310
52-999-941.00.21