5 ms·

I always find it fascinating things like subroutines that are obvious to us now had to be invented by someone. You can easily imagine an alternate history where

I always find it fascinating things like subroutines that are obvious to us now had to be invented by someone. You can easily imagine an alternate history where computing would look totally differently.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> I always find it fascinating things like subroutines that are obvious to us now had to be invented by someone. This is just the anthropic principle. The fact that somebody was first doesn't mean something wasn't obvious. I like to complain about De Morgan's Laws, which state that: (1) If neither of two things is true, then they're both false. (And vice versa.) (2) If two things aren't both true, then one or both of them are false. (And vice versa.) Augustus De Morgan lived in the 1800s, but obviously these laws were well known for many millennia before him. Having these laws named after you is the honorable-mention-in-the-Special-Olympics of making discoveries. It's an insult to the concept of naming things after people.
- spectramax 7y ago
  That's a brilliant way to argue about it, makes total sense. What would you say is invented by total happenstance and the world would be totally different if the person had not?
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I would say alphabets, languages, religions, fashions. Numbering systems? Is there an advantage in going base 10 vs base 11? Now that I think about it base 8 may be better.
    - patrec 7y ago
      > Is there an advantage in going base 10 vs base 11? Yes, you can divide by powers of two and five and exactly represent the result. When did you last feel an urge to divide something into 11 parts? > Now that I think about it base 8 may be better. Well, that would have given us nicer shutter-times and screw sizes, "Megabytes", max_ints and better floats for money calculations as well as slightly better numerical properties. But personally I think 6 or 30 would have been the way to go. Being able to divide nicely by the first two primes seems pretty practically useful to me.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        > When did you last feel an urge to divide something into 11 parts? When did you last feel an urge to divide something into 5 parts?
        patrec 7y ago
        I feel this urge a lot more often than you seem to think :)
        cpach 7y ago
        I have a wife and three kids, so for me that doesn’t feel very far-fetched :)
    - spectramax 7y ago
      Arguably, Duodecimal would have been better. 12 is divisble by a large number of factors and it has some more interesting aspects outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal
      - _bxg1 7y ago
        Came here to say this. We got 10 instead because we have 10 fingers to count on.
        abjKT26nO8 7y ago
        And when was the last time you counted something on your fingers that was more than 3? Also, quoting parent's link: > It is possible to count to 12 with the thumb acting as a pointer, touching each finger bone in turn. A traditional finger counting system still in use in many regions of Asia works in this way, and could help to explain the occurrence of numeral systems based on 12 and 60 besides those based on 10, 20 and 5. In this system, the one (usually right) hand counts repeatedly to 12, displaying the number of iterations on the other (usually left), until five dozens, i. e. the 60, are full.
        _bxg1 7y ago
        > And when was the last time you counted something on your fingers that was more than 3? ??? I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the thousands of years of human history that got us here?
        thaumasiotes 7y ago
        > We got 10 instead because we have 10 fingers to count on. People have counted in 12s by reference to the knuckles on each finger. Even more commonly, people have counted in 20s by reference to fingers and toes. You can point to fingers as the reason for a base 10 system instead of a base 11 system, but you can't really point to them as the reason for a base 10 system uniquely.
      - patrec 7y ago
- jsinai 7y ago
  I once asked a mathematics professor why so many obvious or natural results (“Cauchy-Swchartz” being the most contentious) are named after people, when something more descriptive would do. His response: “It makes it easier to refer to those theorems by some memorable name.” Not very satisfying but utilitarian.
- tobr 7y ago
  I’d like to propose Thaumasiotes’ Law: > The fact that somebody was first doesn't mean something wasn't obvious.
- freeflight 7y ago
  That reminds me of the argument of whether math is invented or discovered.
DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
Lots a things are invented multiple times. It's more common that one might presume. I'm generally wary of claim that someone was first to invent fairly obvious things.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  In physics people will eventually find stuff because they are law of nature. There is no law of nature that subroutines should exist so it’s very possible they would never be invented and people would do things in a different way.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> I always find it fascinating things like subroutines that are obvious to us now had to be invented by someone. This is just the anthropic principle. The fact that somebody was first doesn't mean something wasn't obvious. I like to complain about De Morgan's Laws, which state that: (1) If neither of two things is true, then they're both false. (And vice versa.) (2) If two things aren't both true, then one or both of them are false. (And vice versa.) Augustus De Morgan lived in the 1800s, but obviously these laws were well known for many millennia before him. Having these laws named after you is the honorable-mention-in-the-Special-Olympics of making discoveries. It's an insult to the concept of naming things after people.

spectramax 7y ago
That's a brilliant way to argue about it, makes total sense. What would you say is invented by total happenstance and the world would be totally different if the person had not?
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I would say alphabets, languages, religions, fashions. Numbering systems? Is there an advantage in going base 10 vs base 11? Now that I think about it base 8 may be better.
  - patrec 7y ago
    > Is there an advantage in going base 10 vs base 11? Yes, you can divide by powers of two and five and exactly represent the result. When did you last feel an urge to divide something into 11 parts? > Now that I think about it base 8 may be better. Well, that would have given us nicer shutter-times and screw sizes, "Megabytes", max_ints and better floats for money calculations as well as slightly better numerical properties. But personally I think 6 or 30 would have been the way to go. Being able to divide nicely by the first two primes seems pretty practically useful to me.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > When did you last feel an urge to divide something into 11 parts? When did you last feel an urge to divide something into 5 parts?
      - patrec 7y ago
        I feel this urge a lot more often than you seem to think :)
      - cpach 7y ago
        I have a wife and three kids, so for me that doesn’t feel very far-fetched :)
  - spectramax 7y ago
    Arguably, Duodecimal would have been better. 12 is divisble by a large number of factors and it has some more interesting aspects outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      Came here to say this. We got 10 instead because we have 10 fingers to count on.
      - abjKT26nO8 7y ago
        And when was the last time you counted something on your fingers that was more than 3? Also, quoting parent's link: > It is possible to count to 12 with the thumb acting as a pointer, touching each finger bone in turn. A traditional finger counting system still in use in many regions of Asia works in this way, and could help to explain the occurrence of numeral systems based on 12 and 60 besides those based on 10, 20 and 5. In this system, the one (usually right) hand counts repeatedly to 12, displaying the number of iterations on the other (usually left), until five dozens, i. e. the 60, are full.
        _bxg1 7y ago
        > And when was the last time you counted something on your fingers that was more than 3? ??? I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the thousands of years of human history that got us here?
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        > We got 10 instead because we have 10 fingers to count on. People have counted in 12s by reference to the knuckles on each finger. Even more commonly, people have counted in 20s by reference to fingers and toes. You can point to fingers as the reason for a base 10 system instead of a base 11 system, but you can't really point to them as the reason for a base 10 system uniquely.
    - patrec 7y ago
jsinai 7y ago
I once asked a mathematics professor why so many obvious or natural results (“Cauchy-Swchartz” being the most contentious) are named after people, when something more descriptive would do. His response: “It makes it easier to refer to those theorems by some memorable name.” Not very satisfying but utilitarian.
tobr 7y ago
I’d like to propose Thaumasiotes’ Law: > The fact that somebody was first doesn't mean something wasn't obvious.
freeflight 7y ago
That reminds me of the argument of whether math is invented or discovered.

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago

Lots a things are invented multiple times. It's more common that one might presume. I'm generally wary of claim that someone was first to invent fairly obvious things.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
In physics people will eventually find stuff because they are law of nature. There is no law of nature that subroutines should exist so it’s very possible they would never be invented and people would do things in a different way.