Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

fermatslibrary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 153 posts

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#51

Post by ue_ »

jernfrost wrote: post #50

From what I understand, the Chinese had often recorded many facts about nature and mathematics very early and accurately. However they never really created much laws. Laws of nature was a western invention. E.g. they observed accurately planetary movements, but never attempted to formulate the laws governing those movements. That sort of thinking was crucial for scientific thinking.

This is an interesting idea, even if it does play into the "exotic Oriental thinking" meme. I've seen this line of thinking usually attached with rubbish like "The Westerner wants to control the world, the Eastener only wants to explain it."

However I think that first making observations and then the crucial step of extrapolating and making predictions based on those is as good as any formally named 'law'.

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#52

Post by johncolanduoni »

mariodiana wrote: post #39

My understanding is that the 3-4-5 relationship was known for a long, long time before Pythagorus. I think the ancient Egyptians knew of the relationship. But that's not the same thing as a proof: meaning, the fact has been integrated with the fundamentals of a wider body of knowledge. I see the illustration, but I don't understand how that's a "proof."

The 3-4-5 relationship is also merely a special case of the Pythagorean theorem, even if they had a proof that all such triangles are right triangles.

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#53

Post by lacampbell »

skinstudio wrote: post #36
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the PRC's claim on Taiwan boil down to a combination of right-of-conquest ("Taiwan belonged to the Republic of China, we beat up the Republic of China, therefore Taiwan is ours") and Just Because? ("The PRC is the only legitimate Chinese government because the PRC says so") I'm very skeptical of purely historical claims of sovereignty. If the people of Taiwan legitimately vote to join the PRC, that's their ri…

It must be clarified that mainland of China is also part of ROC according to ROC government[1]. In fact, the mainland and taiwan are in war, just like the Union and Confederacy in American civil war, even if there is not military conflicts right now. More interestingly, ROC actually claims larger territory than PRC (for example, part of Mongolia). It is ROC's constitution, not PRC's government, demands taiwan is part…

There's a lot of political will in Taiwan to change the constitution, but China has threatened war if that occurs, and the US is very lukewarm on it.

So it's not as if the ROC is free to amend their own constitution - as doing so would negatively affect their national security. It's safer for them to keep up the ridiculous notion that they have sovereignty over Mongolia and parts of the Russian far east.

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#54

Post by gnipgnip »

Much of modern history is a throwback of the colonial times when the "barbarians" from the West were trying to search for some great past of their people. Thus much of what is attributed to the Greeks and Romans today should belong to the civilizations of Asia (India, China, and Iran).

Pythagorean theorem has nothing to do with Pythagoras or the Greeks even [3] ! There is nice interview of Manjul Bhargava (surrounding a dredged up controversy in India) that delves into the actual history (rather than mindlessly parroting the liberal propaganda).

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/did-india-discover-pythog...

I'm glad to hear the Chinese school system does not brainwash people as does the Indian one.

Then again, India is a country created by pedophiles [1] and drug-runners [2].

[1] Gandhi is well-known for giving women enemas and sleeping naked with under aged girls. This more than qualifies for the contemporary semantic definitions. There are many other rumors that one can find on the intertubes.

[2] Tagores, Tatas, Birlas... all of them made their fortunes in the British opium trade... ironically to China (this is well-documented; even on Wiki).

Interestingly, two of India's Nobels come from this coterie... and we're forced to sing a poorly written poem by one of them, day in day out, by the "Indian nationalists".

The banking overlords have also made sure Gandhi remains in our pockets. Eesh! what a tragic state of affairs.

Also guess who called Gandhi a "Mahatma" ? Interestingly neither of them particularly cared for India becoming independent (if you look at their writing).

Amusingly there is some controversy about India's anthem being written to commemorate George V's coronation. There are counterarguments for this, but the anthem is referring to a person like a King or a deva - the latter possibility would be very very weird to be honest [4]. Not surprising he got a Knighthood and a Nobel.

All said, calling India a nation of idiots at this point would be a compliment.

[3] From the horse's mouth,

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27923256

[4] "Bhagya Vidhata" is very very Abrahamic (whose view of God is that of a ill-tempered King). In canonical circles, a deva is mostly for support "उपदि", not someone who decides the outcomes or luck of people - this is completely antithetical to Indian thought. Even if we circulate in non-scholarly circles, the semantics implied by Jana Gana Mana would still not fit well to any one deva.

P.S: What are you blue-pill muchers downvoting me for ? Can't you read? These things are referenced!

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#55

Post by crimsonalucard »

jernfrost wrote: post #48
chrishowlin wrote: post #7

I worry that China is outcompeting us.

Who gives a shit? It is almost always Americans making such statements, obsessed as they are about being number one. If Chine gets richer and more technologically advance that would be good for them and good for us westerners. It is not a zero sum game. Although to be realistic I don't think China will ever outcompete the US. Not because I don't want them to, but simply because so many fundamentals count in Americas…

Nothing wrong with worrying and wanting your home country to be the best either. Worrying leads to motivation which leads to competition which benefits everyone.

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#56

Post by quakeguy »

gnipgnip wrote: post #54

Much of modern history is a throwback of the colonial times when the "barbarians" from the West were trying to search for some great past of their people. Thus much of what is attributed to the Greeks and Romans today should belong to the civilizations of Asia (India, China, and Iran). Pythagorean theorem has nothing to do with Pythagoras or the Greeks even [3] ! There is nice interview of Manjul Bhargava (surroundin…

Could you expand on the brainwashing claims a bit more, i'd be excited to hear them. Not meant in a negative way, just curios.

I was always under the impression Ghandhi is seen in positive light, even in China.

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#57

Post by komali2 »

StavrosK wrote: post #46
komali2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've ended dates over this with Chinese girls. Inevitably they condescend to me about how "I'm just an American" that "can't understand the complicated situation," but that I should rest assured that "Taiwan is not a country, it is a Chinese province." Never mind the fact that I lived there, documented the sunflower protests, speak the language... As opposed to these girls that hadn't even visited the nation. Because…

Did you say "prove it, take the plane there", and how did they respond to the fact that you need a special visa?

"it's complicated" usually. At that point I'm usually already done though.

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#58

Post by sn41 »

jernfrost wrote: post #50

From what I understand, the Chinese had often recorded many facts about nature and mathematics very early and accurately. However they never really created much laws. Laws of nature was a western invention. E.g. they observed accurately planetary movements, but never attempted to formulate the laws governing those movements. That sort of thinking was crucial for scientific thinking.

Maybe true. The emphasis was on calculations. For example, there was a heliocentric model in India [1], which was too complicated to come from a "simple" mechanical model, but was quite accurate.

But I think we should not be too eager to jump on to "science is only from laws" bandwagon. Courses on the philosophy of science take this dogma to absurd extremes, ignoring how current science is often done. There is enough science done today where the laws are only vague, but we do predict useful stuff from simulations - climate models and earthquake modelling being the most prominent - despite not having "simple" laws behind them. As Freeman Dyson often observes, physicists still don't have a good explanation of why a bicycle doesn't topple when in motion - but we've been riding them for a century and half [2].

I think trial-and-error, and simulations also count as sophisticated science.

It's more than a tad racist to insist that Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese and Indians, as well as medieval Arab scientists were all child races incapable of truly knowing what they were doing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilakantha_Somayaji

[2] https://www.wired.com/1998/02/dyson/

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#59

Post by gnipgnip »

quakeguy wrote: post #56
gnipgnip wrote: post #54

Much of modern history is a throwback of the colonial times when the "barbarians" from the West were trying to search for some great past of their people. Thus much of what is attributed to the Greeks and Romans today should belong to the civilizations of Asia (India, China, and Iran). Pythagorean theorem has nothing to do with Pythagoras or the Greeks even [3] ! There is nice interview of Manjul Bhargava (surroundin…

Could you expand on the brainwashing claims a bit more, i'd be excited to hear them. Not meant in a negative way, just curios. I was always under the impression Ghandhi is seen in positive light, even in China.

Don't you think that's a bit strange ? The dude was helping the massacre the Bantus in Africa and suddenly becomes a "messiah" in a few years after returning to India ? I mean that is a miracle [1]. I wish historical figures were reassessed every few years in light of contemporary ethics, but this never happens with those the establishment wants you to see in positive light.

His antics are well-documented (with lots of references here).

https://sringeribelur.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/gandhi-articl...

He probably single-handedly delayed India's independence by ~20-30 years (was't that convenient).

[1] Okay that was a bit of an exaggeration since the Liberal movement essentially believed that it was the burden of the white race to civilize the barbarians (to paraphrase John Locke). Indians were I guess A-san (3rd class ? Or may be 2nd back in those days)... which is what Gandhi too believed.

Re: Pythagorean Theorem proof in a 2100 year old Chinese book

#60

Post by gravypod »

Houshalter wrote: post #49
mariodiana wrote: post #39

My understanding is that the 3-4-5 relationship was known for a long, long time before Pythagorus. I think the ancient Egyptians knew of the relationship. But that's not the same thing as a proof: meaning, the fact has been integrated with the fundamentals of a wider body of knowledge. I see the illustration, but I don't understand how that's a "proof."

>I see the illustration, but I don't understand how that's a "proof." That's an illustration of the proof. Here is a more modern, animated example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Pythagor... The Chinese proof looks more like this one though: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ylzhg.gif There is also explanation in the annotations.

It's mind blowing when I see a new image like that and it completely changes how I understand the topic. I wish I could find more of those.
Post reply on HN