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

Why didn't the Romans contribute much to mathematics?

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

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

#121

Post by strainer »

sumitviii wrote: post #83
strainer wrote: post #49

Consider the title of this famous Great work wrote later : "The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing" It has a graceful theme which is perhaps not accidental for mathematical inspiration. The same symbolic methods, being symbolic could have been painted as "domination and sacrificing" but that might not temper a mindset as mathematically conducive as notions of "completion and balancing". A cul…

>but that might not temper a mindset as mathematically conducive as notions of "completion and balancing". Or maybe what would be considered a mathematically conducive mindset is determined by whose mathematical tradition we are following? Maybe there exists a mathematical mindset out there where "domination and sacrificing" are the requirement for conductivity of ideas?

It would seem to be a well kept secret branch if so

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

#122

Post by ralfd »

crooked-v wrote: post #9
olooney wrote: post #2

Romans aren't the outlier here. Most ancient civilizations had a similar level of accomplishment; a one or two outstanding mathematicians every century, a few practical applications, some new rules of thumb. We did have a dark age, after the Romans after all, which likewise produced little (not none) new math. The question should rather be, what made the Greeks (and, later, others who adopted their deductive, axiomat…

> We did have a dark age, after the Romans after all, which likewise produced little (not none) new math. Use of the term "dark age" is both dramatically inaccurate in many ways [1] and totally elides everything that happened outside of Europe, such as the establishment of algebra as an independent field of mathematical study (AD 800 in Baghdad), the creation of algebraic geometry (AD 1070 in Persia), and the discove…

Slatestarcodex has a good roundup of different arguments and metrics (world lead production):

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages/

> Although I sympathize with the feelings behind both positions, I say the Dark Ages happened. I think the best evidence we have suggests the fall of Rome (and the period just before) was associated with several centuries of economic and demographic decline, only reaching back to their classical level around 1000 AD. I think it was also associated with a broader intellectual and infrastructure decline, which in some specific ways and some specific fields didn’t reach back up to its Roman level until the Renaissance. I think that common sense – the sense you get when you treat the question of the Dark Age the same as any other question, and try to avoid isolated demands for rigor – says that qualifies for the phrase “Dark Age”.

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

#123

Post by m_mueller »

Keysh wrote: post #113
m_mueller wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reasoning is actually an argument for why Japan developed like Europe, and that's indeed largely what happened. Have a read on sengoku- and meiji period. Japan's trajectory was very different from China's. What you probably mean is the 250ish year stable edo period under the Tokugawa warlord control when the emperor was stripped of power.

The Emperors were stripped of power back in the 12th Century, after the Genpei War and the formation of the Kamakura Shogunate. They remained stripped of power for almost the next seven hundred years; the power struggles were about who would get to be Shogun. (The logic of the Meiji "Restoration" was essentially "Let's get rid of the archaic Shogunate system that has dominated Japan in one way or another for the last…

yes. what I wanted to say is that the emperor in Japan had a minor role for the longest time, i.e. it had a middle age that was not unlike Europe, with a steady development of warfare techniques and other parts of culture, as well as a constant trickle of foreign influences. Until edo period, where Tokugawa Shogunate was able to grab all power and basically freeze development and shut down borders. In Meiji, Japan industrialized rapidly under a US-backed emperor and with Germany as an ideal. There's a deeper reason why Japan wanted to become a European-style colonial power - because it was already on that path before the 250y stasis anyways, almost taking on Imperial China during Sengoku-jidai.

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

#124

Post by gingabriska »

olooney wrote: post #2

Romans aren't the outlier here. Most ancient civilizations had a similar level of accomplishment; a one or two outstanding mathematicians every century, a few practical applications, some new rules of thumb. We did have a dark age, after the Romans after all, which likewise produced little (not none) new math. The question should rather be, what made the Greeks (and, later, others who adopted their deductive, axiomat…

>Romans after all, which likewise produced little (not none) new math.

They had Archimedes of Syracuse

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

#126

Post by Fickry »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #108
juanbyrge wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair I think the severity of climate change has only come into mainstream focus in the past 5-10 years. Just as one data point, when I was shopping for a car in 2012, I did not even consider CO2 emissions. Now, climate change is top of mind for me. I now own an electric car, stopped eating beef, mostly eliminated travel, etc... I'm not saying this will make a difference overall, but I imagine others feel simila…

Thanks to fossil fuel companies like Exxon spending billions to confuse the general public, bribe politicians and do everything else needed to spread lies so they could keep their profits up. Exxons own research already confirmed climate change was caused by fossil fuels in the 1970s, yet they sat on it doing nothing. The Kyoto Protocol was in 1997, but the US didn’t ratify it because the API managed to influence US…

Imagine without oil, arab country must be poor

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

#127

Post by theworld572 »

ominous wrote: post #109
crooked-v wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We did have a dark age, after the Romans after all, which likewise produced little (not none) new math. Use of the term "dark age" is both dramatically inaccurate in many ways [1] and totally elides everything that happened outside of Europe, such as the establishment of algebra as an independent field of mathematical study (AD 800 in Baghdad), the creation of algebraic geometry (AD 1070 in Persia), and the discove…

In what way does the characterization of an European period dismiss historical periods elsewhere?

It doesn't, some people just like to get offended by things.

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

#128

Post by roboys »

Chathamization wrote: post #55
kennywinker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dark ages simply refers to the loss of texts. There are few surviving texts from that period, so it is “dark”. Later the term was re-branded to mean “bad time when no new science was done” but that’s a viewpoint that doesn’t fit the facts. Source (a very enjoyable read at that!): https://going-medieval.com/2017/05/26/theres-no-such-thing-a...

I mean, there definitely seems to have been a large decline in population, economic output, political cohesion, urbanization, record keeping, trade, etc., in much of the former Roman world following the fifth/sixth century. I suppose it's a value judgement on whether one considers that a "bad time."

The dark ages also saw a huge disparity in education between the East and the West.

Until the 15th century less than 5 people in Europe could do long division. For comparison, Aryabhatta discovered calculus in 5th century India and Madhava made large contributions in the 13th century (Newton/Leibniz were wrongly credited for similar work many years later).

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

#129

Post by tempguy9999 »

gingabriska wrote: post #120
fsloth wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Romans culturally ate less meat and frowned upon their Northern Germanic Tribes who almost always ate meat. They were more frugal in their way of life. The Germanic Tribes were also taller and were acknowledged by Romans as formidable warrior. Culturally tho, Romans were South Europeans and assimilated what we call South Italy and Greece now. They also captured parts of middle east but culturally they never became Ro…

> people born in Roman Empire got Roman citizenship on Birth

I assume 'people' excluded slaves?

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

#130

Post by boomboomsubban »

fsloth wrote: post #97
novacole wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

For the period being described, the Roman Empire did not include Western Europe, they did not speak Latin nor did they view the Papacy as the head of their religion. Yet they were still the Roman Empire. That's why Western Europe is not Rome.
Post reply on HN