# When a Number System Loses Uniqueness: The Case of the Maya - Conclusion and About the Authors

Author(s):
Pedro J. Freitas (Universidade de Lisboa) and Amy Shell-Gellasch (Beloit College)

Conclusion

The natural question that Amy asked, being a math historian, is “Did the Maya have a preference for one encoding over the other? In fact, were they even aware of this duality of their number system?'' Given the limited number of Mayan texts remaining, this question may never be answered. A by no means exhaustive survey, as well as conversations with Dr. Ed Barnhart of the Maya Exploration Center (see [8]), indicate that no Mayan numbers with an $$18$$ or $$19$$ in the second place appear on known monuments or documents. This makes sense when you think again of the world view of the Mayans. As noted at the beginning, these numbers are Long Count dates used on stelae and in codices to record significant events. It would make sense to record dates using the largest units of time possible. For example, it would seem natural to record a date as one Haab (rounded to 360 days) as opposed to 18 months of 20 days.

Finally, Amy is happy to conclude that Isabel's birthday, written as a Mayan number, is $$1.15.0.10.6,$$ which is a unique expression! Could you imagine the hassles with the IRS if the expressions of our birth dates were not unique?

In conclusion, we would just like to say: regardless of the number system you use,

All Your Base Are Belong to Us.*