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

191–200 of 201 posts

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

#191

Post by dredmorbius »

chrisco255 wrote: post #187
dredmorbius wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a nearly comparable (and orchestrated!) time-lapse evolutionary map of Europe, though extending back to only 400 BCE: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI Note that China was under a largely single and unified set of linguistic, cultural, and political organisation throughout the entire 3,000 year period you depict. The "modern" map of Europe has changed dramatically just in the past 30 years, let alone the…

Oh, sure, I'm not arguing that Europe was less tumultuous than China. There were many, many schisms, and wars however. Had some of these civil wars or invasions from Mongolia, Japan, etc within China had gone a different way, they could have ended up as fractured as ancient Rome. Here's a few hundred wars that occurred during the past couple millennia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battl...

Quantitative assessment's a poor qualitative metric at best, and I've not done a tally, but conflict's not been unknown in Europe either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

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

#192

Post by cptskippy »

aisofteng wrote: post #160
cptskippy wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is that most Western history lessons completely ignore everything but Western Europe during that time frame and present a view of history that nothing was happening globally of any importance. That really was my experience growing up in Western education. My understanding was that history focused on the important things and it wasn't until much later in life that I learned there was a lot happening globally…

>most Western history lessons completely ignore everything but Western Europe That’s because they’re Western history lessons. I had world history as a separate class in high school.

I had History, American History and World History but never Western History.

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

#193

Post by windoze »

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…

I would say the south eastern part of china has been relatively recognizable borders for a long time. Modern china is the result of Qing expansion around the 1650s. Take a look at the historical map by year - it's really amazing how quickly things changed at the turn of the century. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWqVzZnwnOk

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

#194

Post by nwallin »

gingabriska wrote: post #151
emiliobumachar wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Archimedes was Greek, the Romans killed him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes

He was killed in an error tho but lived in Roman Empire. Many Greeks were part of Roman empire, what difference does it make?

The Roman empire was, as you say, an empire. Archimedes spoke, read, wrote, and taught in Greek. He wore a beard, which was unfashionable in Rome. His neighbors, friends, and family all considered themselves Greek. There was a myriad of other cultures within Rome's borders with completely different societies.

If a Puerto Rican living in Puerto Rico invented something, we'd call it a Puerto Rican invention. If a European immigrated to the US, integrated themselves into the culture by learning English, adopting American cultural norms, and taking the oath of citizenship, we'd call that an American invention, despite the fact that both of them carry a passport that says "United States of America" on it.

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

#195

Post by chrisco255 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #191
chrisco255 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, sure, I'm not arguing that Europe was less tumultuous than China. There were many, many schisms, and wars however. Had some of these civil wars or invasions from Mongolia, Japan, etc within China had gone a different way, they could have ended up as fractured as ancient Rome. Here's a few hundred wars that occurred during the past couple millennia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battl...

Quantitative assessment's a poor qualitative metric at best, and I've not done a tally, but conflict's not been unknown in Europe either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

I'm not disputing that. I'm arguing that China's history hasn't been some "straight line" since 4000 B.C. It's been a very rocky road.

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

#196

Post by boomboomsubban »

kgwgk wrote: post #189
boomboomsubban wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but saying Middle Age's Western Europe doesn't include large regions that were previously part of the Roman Empire seems strange to me. No one said that. The Roman Empire isn't Western Europe, and calling the period the "Dark Ages" is inaccurate.

Novacole said “Rome isn’t Western Europe. So western Europe’s entire history is a “dark age” before the Age of Enlightenment.” That seems to imply that Rome isn’t part of the history of Western Europe at all (and neither did the Renaissance happen in Western Europe, apparently).

Though I can't make out Novacole's exact point, I would assume it was more about how it is incorrect to say "there was a dark age after Rome" as the dark age only impacted a part of the still existing Roman Empire.

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

#197

Post by kgwgk »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #196
kgwgk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Novacole said “Rome isn’t Western Europe. So western Europe’s entire history is a “dark age” before the Age of Enlightenment.” That seems to imply that Rome isn’t part of the history of Western Europe at all (and neither did the Renaissance happen in Western Europe, apparently).

Though I can't make out Novacole's exact point, I would assume it was more about how it is incorrect to say "there was a dark age after Rome" as the dark age only impacted a part of the still existing Roman Empire.

I agree. The part affected was “Western Europe”, as opposed to the part of Europe that remained in the sphere of the Eastern Roman Empire.

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

#198

Post by dredmorbius »

chrisco255 wrote: post #195
dredmorbius wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantitative assessment's a poor qualitative metric at best, and I've not done a tally, but conflict's not been unknown in Europe either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

I'm not disputing that. I'm arguing that China's history hasn't been some "straight line" since 4000 B.C. It's been a very rocky road.

And I'm saying it's been a continuous curve, straight or not.

The language, culture, identity, philosophical and religious beliefs, government, urban centres, technologies, currency, writing systems, etc., have persisted in a largely unbroken continuum or chain. There are points at which one or the other makes some jump from one form to another, but there's never been a wholesale wipe of one system to another. Over a period of 4,000 years of recorded history and arguably going back even further.

The West has nothing comparable to offer. Not in Egypt, not in Mesopotamia, not in Rome, not in England, not in France, not in Germany, not in Scandinavia. Maybe in Persia or India. Vietnam may have an older continuous civilisation. Japan does not, though it comes close.

The opening sentence of an arbitrarily selected webpage on ancient China makes this case: "Ancient China produced what has become the oldest extant culture in the world."

https://www.ancient.eu/china/

To be clear: I'm not some defender of the present regime in China. I'm only casually aware of its general history, geography, and culture. But as I study it the vastness of the culture, in both time and space, has impressed the hell out of me. And it seems that this isn't as widly known or appreciated as it could be.

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

#199

Post by tripzilch »

roboys wrote: post #181
Retric wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until the 15th century less than 5 people in Europe could do long division. That’s wildly inaccurate. Arithmetic was very much a subject at several schools with the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division all being taught. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium Long division being difficult in Roman numerals is one of the reasons for the switch.

>That’s wildly inaccurate. Arithmetic was very much a subject at several schools... I'm talking specifically about "long division" in Europe... and have heard this factoid from multiple mathematicians including Nasim Taleb. So I expect there is a basis for the claim...

Well, especially Taleb's claims are worth it to source check. Especially if they are these really juicy stories (like only 5 people in Europe knowing long division).

He has bit of a habit exaggerating and elaborating on stories for the sake of making tasty reading. There was a story in Black Swan about two hospitals and a simple statistical riddle that he claimed professional statisticians would get wrong. It wasn't even a trick question, most people would get it right. I found this hard to believe but I was still sort of surprised when the source spoke of a much harder statistics question that was surveyed at a psychologists convention, not statisticians. That was the first (and the last) source I checked on him. I'd have checked a few more but I don't have the book any more.

But now I guess I can add this one to the list of examples.

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

#200

Post by mixmastamyk »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #137
gingabriska wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's right. *I mean the Germanic tribes in North ate meat everyday. Why the Downvotes? Anyone wants to challenge these facts, please post rebuttal. I'd love to educate myself more.

Heh, I know the feeling! But then again, you say stuff about how romans vs germanic meat eating, but I don't see any citations for that. They'd be helpful.

Generally folks living closer to the poles eat more meat.
Post reply on HN