5 ms·
You are comparing a later development of mathematics to an ancient one and then calling the ancient one stupid.It is basically like studying string theory now
by ekm2 13y ago
You are comparing a later development of mathematics to an ancient one and then calling the ancient one stupid.It is basically like studying string theory now and then calling Galileo's speculations idiotic because he used his pulse to measure time instead of a quantum-logic clock.
- jlgreco 13y agoNo, he is comparing an ancient system (ethiopian multiplication) with an even more ancient one (just fucking counting) and calling it stupid. As far as I can tell, he's got a point.
- anextio 13y agoThat's a fine argument with 7 times 34, because you only need 7 holes of 34 stones. But it breaks down when multiplying much larger numbers, because the number of holes you need increases by N. With this addition system, you only need log(N) holes. The system exists to remove cumbersome aspects of multiplying large numbers by counting. Consider 34x34. While one fellow is out digging 34 holes, making sure not to make a mistake, or finding a piece of wood that has 34 holes marked in it, the other guy never needs more than 10 holes if his numbers are less than 1024. This keeps his working area small, and he can see all of it at the same time. It's less cumbersome this way.
- jlgreco 13y agoI'm not sure how you think "counting" works... As described, the Ethiopian Method would take far more stones and far more time. The larger the numbers you are working with, the larger the discrepancy.
- ekm2 13y agoThe last time I checked Combinatorics was all "just fucking counting" and I am sure you will agree that it is not stupid.
- mistercow 13y agoThere's simply no way that multiplication by iterated addition is a newer development than the shamanistic stones and holes ritual.