5 ms·

"Polynesian people used binary numbers 600 years ago" Disgrace to Nature for click bait. The number system might be clever but as described is not binary numbe

"Polynesian people used binary numbers 600 years ago" Disgrace to Nature for click bait. The number system might be clever but as described is not binary numbers. Especially the claim in the introduction "Binary arithmetic, the basis of all virtually digital computation today, is usually said to have been invented at the start of the eighteenth century by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz." implying Leibnitz didn't invent binary and equate the existence of 4 numbers (10,20,40,80) which lack the simplicity of 2 states by representing it with KTPV with the invention of the binary number system is sensationalist. Interesting the quote “It’s puzzling that anybody would come up with such a solution, especially on a tiny island with a small population,” Bender and Beller say. It's only puzzling to scientists from "Department of Psychosocial Science" but would not be puzzling to scientists from the "Department of Mathematics".

mrslave 9y ago
And relevant to a classic contradiction in the startup community: idea vs (execution and capital). What you (say or think) matters a lot less than what you do.
bobwaycott 9y ago
Thank you. This needed to be said.
iamcurious 9y ago
>implying Leibniz didn't invent binary Humanity is really old. At most, we can say that Leibniz was the last to invent it.
- protonfish 9y ago
  Leibniz recognized the concept of binary in the hexagrams of the I Ching and even published a paper on it. http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=454 http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=454
siosonel 9y ago
The Polynesian people used binary numbers, but not only binary numbers. The article's title is correct. What's sensationalist about that? Is it an important finding? I think so. It helps shed light on the scientific and technical originality of other cultures. It matters a lot to acknowledge that knowledge does not always flow from west to east or north to south. It helps to rid of the notion of there being 'advanced' and 'primitive' cultures. Are the scientists from the "Department of Psychosocial Science" trying too hard to make that case? I don't think so. Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery. Apparently mathematicians would not agree but even so, should they dictate that I should be dismissive of this article as well? The way I see it, the article does not make outrageous or unfounded claims. I'm free to appreciate that numbers have a certain universality as an abstract concept or language that isolated people from different era and backgrounds naturally converge to.
- indolering 9y ago
  > Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery. Because you don't understand math. Binary arithmetic is a painfully obvious development. A bored high-schooler predisposed to mathematics would figure it out in an afternoon. And we've documented cultures using mixed base systems in the past. All this would have taken is a single person to say, "Hey, some things are easier if you do it this way" and taught all of their kids to use that system.
  - siosonel 9y ago
    How do you know I don't understand math? And if a high schooler could figure this out, then Leibnitz own discussion or contribution to this topic is then meaningless? The main point is that the finding in the article has cultural significance, rather than purely in terms of mathematics. I think you either don't understand that or are not willing to see that. The article is not trying to elevate a Polynesian people's contribution to mathematics. There is little mathematical significance there as these people from 600 years did not celebrate or promote their number system. Rather, the article explores how mathematical knowledge arises and how it was used. Could there an underlying commonality in the way humans learn and organize knowledge? That's an interesting question to ask and is not diminished - but is in fact supported - by the fact that the same knowledge gets rediscovered in multiple isolated instances.
aaron_m04 9y ago
> ...which lack the simplicity of 2 states... If you're not working with computers, does this matter?
- cr0sh 9y ago
  Also, in terms of computers, binary is only "simple" when you have the ability to create, assemble, and "warehouse" the "mechanics" necessary to represent them. Babbage arguably didn't use base-10 for his Analytical Engine because it was more complex, but rather that it lended itself to gearing mechanisms (both in being more compact, and somewhat efficient (at least in how Babbage implemented it). On the other hand, Zuse came up with an ingenious method of representing binary states using simple and efficient (and somewhat compact) sliding rod-like mechanisms in his first computer, the Z1. Prior to the application of electrical and electronic circuits to computation, coming up with a mechanical system to represent binary (and be able to calculate with useful numbers, given friction and such) wasn't a trivial task. That said, it took a while once potential circuitry came into existence; I've always found it strange (to a certain point) that Babbage didn't use relays and binary (as he was contemporary with Boole, and had to know about his work, as well as relays as used in telegraphy - the only explanation I've been able to surmise is that they were still too early in their development for them to be reliable for calculation, but that's just my reasoned opinion). Hollerith used electricity for his calculating machines, but they weren't binary-based (being essentially tallying machines they didn't have to be). Strangely enough, the ENIAC was also a base-10 machine (it's ring counters consisted of 10 flip-flops more or less); again, this might be a reliability issue with the vacuum tubes of the period...

mrslave 9y ago

And relevant to a classic contradiction in the startup community: idea vs (execution and capital). What you (say or think) matters a lot less than what you do.

bobwaycott 9y ago

Thank you. This needed to be said.

iamcurious 9y ago

>implying Leibniz didn't invent binary Humanity is really old. At most, we can say that Leibniz was the last to invent it.

protonfish 9y ago
Leibniz recognized the concept of binary in the hexagrams of the I Ching and even published a paper on it. http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=454 http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=454

siosonel 9y ago

The Polynesian people used binary numbers, but not only binary numbers. The article's title is correct. What's sensationalist about that? Is it an important finding? I think so. It helps shed light on the scientific and technical originality of other cultures. It matters a lot to acknowledge that knowledge does not always flow from west to east or north to south. It helps to rid of the notion of there being 'advanced' and 'primitive' cultures. Are the scientists from the "Department of Psychosocial Science" trying too hard to make that case? I don't think so. Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery. Apparently mathematicians would not agree but even so, should they dictate that I should be dismissive of this article as well? The way I see it, the article does not make outrageous or unfounded claims. I'm free to appreciate that numbers have a certain universality as an abstract concept or language that isolated people from different era and backgrounds naturally converge to.

indolering 9y ago
> Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery. Because you don't understand math. Binary arithmetic is a painfully obvious development. A bored high-schooler predisposed to mathematics would figure it out in an afternoon. And we've documented cultures using mixed base systems in the past. All this would have taken is a single person to say, "Hey, some things are easier if you do it this way" and taught all of their kids to use that system.
- siosonel 9y ago
  How do you know I don't understand math? And if a high schooler could figure this out, then Leibnitz own discussion or contribution to this topic is then meaningless? The main point is that the finding in the article has cultural significance, rather than purely in terms of mathematics. I think you either don't understand that or are not willing to see that. The article is not trying to elevate a Polynesian people's contribution to mathematics. There is little mathematical significance there as these people from 600 years did not celebrate or promote their number system. Rather, the article explores how mathematical knowledge arises and how it was used. Could there an underlying commonality in the way humans learn and organize knowledge? That's an interesting question to ask and is not diminished - but is in fact supported - by the fact that the same knowledge gets rediscovered in multiple isolated instances.

aaron_m04 9y ago

> ...which lack the simplicity of 2 states... If you're not working with computers, does this matter?

cr0sh 9y ago
Also, in terms of computers, binary is only "simple" when you have the ability to create, assemble, and "warehouse" the "mechanics" necessary to represent them. Babbage arguably didn't use base-10 for his Analytical Engine because it was more complex, but rather that it lended itself to gearing mechanisms (both in being more compact, and somewhat efficient (at least in how Babbage implemented it). On the other hand, Zuse came up with an ingenious method of representing binary states using simple and efficient (and somewhat compact) sliding rod-like mechanisms in his first computer, the Z1. Prior to the application of electrical and electronic circuits to computation, coming up with a mechanical system to represent binary (and be able to calculate with useful numbers, given friction and such) wasn't a trivial task. That said, it took a while once potential circuitry came into existence; I've always found it strange (to a certain point) that Babbage didn't use relays and binary (as he was contemporary with Boole, and had to know about his work, as well as relays as used in telegraphy - the only explanation I've been able to surmise is that they were still too early in their development for them to be reliable for calculation, but that's just my reasoned opinion). Hollerith used electricity for his calculating machines, but they weren't binary-based (being essentially tallying machines they didn't have to be). Strangely enough, the ENIAC was also a base-10 machine (it's ring counters consisted of 10 flip-flops more or less); again, this might be a reliability issue with the vacuum tubes of the period...