Karen Dee's point is well taken. Reading any ancient text by modern
ideas is hazardous, at best. Babylonian texts are no different.
Inverse tables prepared in the pre-1500 BC period show that multiples
of 2,3 and 5 patterns dominated. Inverses takes form multiple of
7, 11, 13, ... were always approximated by Babylonians, even after
1500 BC, be the table base 60 or base 10.
However, in nearby Egypt base 10 inverses for multiples of 2, 3, 5,
7, 11, 13, 17, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, ..., 101 were NOT approximated,
a point that modern number theorists have not been able to duplicate!
The best that I have seen is David Eppstein's web page that lists
20 or more algorithms that generally convert any rational number into
a short and small last term series.
That is to say, because modern number theorists have not been able to
duplicate Egyptian inverse tables by modern algorithms, maybe other
ancient methods should be attempted. I suggest the 1/p, 1/pq algebraic
identities listed in the EMLR; aw well as the 2/p and 2/pq series
found in the RMP 2/nth table. This foundation builds on the Greek
300 BC Hibeh P., and its n/45 table, as well as the 500 AD Akhmim P.,
that lists many tables of exact series, up to around n/45.
Seen in this manner, the context of ancient ANE should be considered,
as well as the contents of specific ancient documents, such as the
Plimpton tablet.
Regards to all,
Milo Gardner