Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#91

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:37 AM UTC

oneepic wrote: post #3

O/T: One real answer, and multiple bot posts, including one about removing another real person's comment. As a person who doesn't read much Reddit, it leaves a really strange impression. Anyway, the top answer was still a cool read.

As others have noted: AskHistorians is one of the most aggressively- and well-moderated forums on Reddit.

Answers must be accurate, researched, supported, and factual. Generally, "scholarly". It's not uncommon to find posts with a thousand or more votes, and 100s of comments, all removed. The mods are looking for good answers. As are most of the readers.

The result may be frustrating for commenters, but that's really not the point.

I actually had an opportunity to answer on a subject which I've some familiarity last week, and got mention in the weekly wrap-up for it, which was kind of nice. A bit more than I deserved, really.

(I was talking trash ... but at least that was the topic.)

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#92

Post by asveikau » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:39 AM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #81

asveikau wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that particular super-famous German who lived in Princeton, NJ is also recognized as a German physicist. To say he was already quite accomplished when he left Europe would be an understatement. Personally, I think if an immigrant of descendant of immigrants invents something prominent, it is fair for both countries to be proud of the accomplishment, and share that enthusiasm. It doesn't, or shouldn't hurt anyone.…

> it is fair for both countries to be proud of the accomplishment Depending on the reasons for emigration, it might be fair to replace most of that pride with "dann, could have been 'ours'".

Right, well, Germany for thankfully temporary reasons wasn't exactly kind to that particular guy when he needed to flee to Princeton.

But other than not repeating those horrible conditions, the next step is to simply be proud of the accomplishment. In this case of algebra, Baghdad isn't the Baghdad of back then, nor Persia the Persia of then, all the people of the era are no longer with us, so what does it matter really? But hey, algebra is pretty cool. And Arabs/Persians happen to feel good about it. Good for them.

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#93

Post by geniium » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:40 AM UTC

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #19

HarryHirsch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are selling ads and moving money from one desk onto another instead of addressing antibiotic resistance and climate change.

You lack serious historical context. We went fromom electricity to flight to nuclear to space flight to the internet in less than 150 years. Its been less than 100 years since antibiotics were invented, so, sorry we aren't addressing antibiotic resistance at a fast enough pace for you. Hope you don't mind all those vaccines that are keeping you healthy and providing here immunity: they've only been around for about 1…

Antibiotic resistance has been marked as top #1 priority for WHO [1]. It's a huge problem not much people realise.

[1] https://www.who.int/en

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#94

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:43 AM UTC

jbay808 wrote: post #67

HarryHirsch wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first powered aircraft flew in the 1900s, and by the 1940s we had jet aircraft. The Boeing 747 was introduced in the 1960s, and in the 1970s we had supersonic flight. The pace of innovation has stalled since.

"and in the 1970s we had supersonic flight" 1947?

I suspect commercial supersonic flight was meant.

Concorde was testing by 1969, but didn't carry passengers until 1976.

The USSR's Tu-144 actually beat Concorde on both dates -- 1968 and 1975. Though it also beat Concorde, by 25 years, on retirement from passenger service: 1978.

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#95

Post by chrisco255 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:45 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #89

fiblye wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did geography have an effect here? I don't see what you mean. And China hasn't really had too much stability. It's always been full of revolutions, competing empires, dynastic changes, warring states, shifts in power, changes in ethnic ruling class, and so on. Go through a list of deadliest wars and revolutions and a good chunk of them are in what is today China.

China has been a largely continuous political entity for about 8,000 years. It's been invaded at least in part a few times (Mongols, 13th c., English, 18th c., and Japanese, 20th c., most especially), but retained its overall identity and either assimilated (Mongols) or repelled (English, Japanese) the invaders, eventually. Contrast Europe which has seen vast shifts in control, and utter replacements or eradication o…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#/media/File:T...

Watch that graphic to see the evolution of the extent of "China" since the Zhou Dynasty in 1000 BC. It occupies a fraction of the current extent of China. So there were lots of wars, and lots of revolutions before modern Chinese borders were established.

I get that Chinese have had more cultural and language cohesion, but that's at least partially because certain dynasties and regions won over these other regions in large swaths and history is written by the winners.

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#96

Post by sk5t » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:46 AM UTC

novacole wrote: post #84

steve19 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the Dark Age specifically refers to Western Europe, in much the same way the disastrous impact of the Mongol Empire on Islamic scholarship, for example the burning of libraries during or after the Siege of Baghdad, barely touched Western Europe. Chances are the Mongols destroyed some advanced mathematics that took centuries to rediscover.

Yes, but Rome isn’t Western Europe. So western Europe’s entire history is a “dark age” before the Age of Enlightenment. (Edit: incorrectly said renaissance instead of Age of Enlightenment... the renaissance wasn’t Western European either)

What's this about "Rome isn’t Western Europe"--have you consulted a map of the Roman empire?

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#97

Post by fsloth » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:49 AM UTC

novacole wrote: post #84

steve19 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the Dark Age specifically refers to Western Europe, in much the same way the disastrous impact of the Mongol Empire on Islamic scholarship, for example the burning of libraries during or after the Siege of Baghdad, barely touched Western Europe. Chances are the Mongols destroyed some advanced mathematics that took centuries to rediscover.

Yes, but Rome isn’t Western Europe. So western Europe’s entire history is a “dark age” before the Age of Enlightenment. (Edit: incorrectly said renaissance instead of Age of Enlightenment... the renaissance wasn’t Western European either)

I don't know what you mean, but:

1. Roman empire dominion included, but did not limit to what we now refer to as Western Europe...

2... of whose languages are either mostly descended from, or heavily influenced by Latin...

3. ... And where the dominant religion is still the Roman state religion. Which was lorded over by the Roman state church for a thousand years before an angry German monk suggested that this was really weird and could we keep the book and get rid of the pope.

So, when you say Western Europe is not Rome, you need to say how it isn't, since there are quite a few things that link this geographic area culturally very strongly to that ancient empire.

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#98

Post by sk5t » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 5:58 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #89

fiblye wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did geography have an effect here? I don't see what you mean. And China hasn't really had too much stability. It's always been full of revolutions, competing empires, dynastic changes, warring states, shifts in power, changes in ethnic ruling class, and so on. Go through a list of deadliest wars and revolutions and a good chunk of them are in what is today China.

China has been a largely continuous political entity for about 8,000 years. It's been invaded at least in part a few times (Mongols, 13th c., English, 18th c., and Japanese, 20th c., most especially), but retained its overall identity and either assimilated (Mongols) or repelled (English, Japanese) the invaders, eventually. Contrast Europe which has seen vast shifts in control, and utter replacements or eradication o…

> English, more than about 400 years ago is almost wholly foreign

Are you suggesting this text is from the 17th century? I'm no expert but this much Germanic influence seems much older.

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#99

Post by yongjik » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 6:11 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #89

fiblye wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did geography have an effect here? I don't see what you mean. And China hasn't really had too much stability. It's always been full of revolutions, competing empires, dynastic changes, warring states, shifts in power, changes in ethnic ruling class, and so on. Go through a list of deadliest wars and revolutions and a good chunk of them are in what is today China.

China has been a largely continuous political entity for about 8,000 years. It's been invaded at least in part a few times (Mongols, 13th c., English, 18th c., and Japanese, 20th c., most especially), but retained its overall identity and either assimilated (Mongols) or repelled (English, Japanese) the invaders, eventually. Contrast Europe which has seen vast shifts in control, and utter replacements or eradication o…

> Even written language in China is still largely intelligible to moderns ....

That's largely because Chinese characters themselves didn't change, even though the underlying sound and grammar changed. In your English example, imagine "ic" is written as "I", "nihte" as "night", and so on, so that every word is written as the modern spelling of its descendant word. It will be much easier to guess its meaning.

Re: Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

#100

Post by riffraff » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 6:12 AM UTC

w8rbt wrote: post #22

I was under the impression that the Romans were more applied/practical and less theoretical, but I may be wrong. I got that notion from a professor I had years ago who was fond of saying, "The Romans built roads. The Greeks talked about building roads." Has anyone else ever heard that saying?

I've heard "Greeks were mathematicians, Romans were engineers", which conveys the same concept.