The Greeks really knew how to count!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by danshawen, Jul 11, 2015.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Herr Schmidt, my college German teacher would go on and on about how much more logical it was for us to count (in German):

    'ein und Zwanzig' as opposed to the English:
    'Twenty one', which most Germans consider to be backward.

    But it gets worse:



    Bet you didn't even know that you didn't know the best way to count large numbers. The Germans (and we) could actually learn a lot from the Greeks on that score! Carl Sagan's definition of a googolplex, for example, is several orders of magnitude beyond flawed and ignorant.

    Still think the Greeks should be chastised for not making their interest payment deadline to the IMF? Perhaps they simply can't agree on the amount they owe by a few orders of magnitude. An innocent economic mistake, by Zeus.

    Science owes a lot to the Greeks, and with compounded interest, which according to Einstein, is the most powerful force in the universe. Einstein was always right. Modern Germans would do well to remember that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It would be most logical if the words matched the numerals. Why is 614 read as "six hundred four-teen" instead of "six hundred ten four"?

    That's the way the Chinese do it. 4392 is read si-wan san-bai jiu-shi er -- four-thousand three-hundred nine-ten two.

    The French have the worst pattern, the obvious remnants of an old vigesimal (base-20) system. 92 is quatre-vingts douze -- four-twenties twelve.

    There's a tribe somewhere in the East Indies whose language has remnants of their first discovery of counting. The word for "eleven" is "Now I have to use one of my toes."

    The Basques, who are not an Indo-European people and may be the last living remnants of the Cro-Magnon, borrowed the Spanish word for "six."
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    As long as they don't date the cheque 2014.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    four score and seven...
    (it's a republican thing?)
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Things would be much better if we counted in base-16, I think.
     
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    cbs news:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/compound-interest-the-most-powerful-force-in-the-universe


    Yes, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was also wrong for the eight lost years during WWI during which Eddington's expedition failed to measure the perihelion of Mercury and had to wait until they were no longer prisoners of war, but eventually Einstein was the one who fixed the math.

    It is also true he was only an average student. This means he made many mistakes on tests including math, or at least some of his instructors believed that he did.
     
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Einstein died in 1955. A 2011 news story which doesn't even cite a source beyond rumor for the claim cannot be construed as a factual basis.

    Nor does it lend support to the idea that you read my links.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  12. Secret Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299

    si-wan san-bai jiu-shi er is actually 40392 since wan is 10000, or ten thousand in english
    so
    4392 is si-qian san-bai jiu-shi er

    Chinese's approach to large numbers is quite similar to English (the convention I knew of back in the 1999s, which turns out to be the modern system currently in usage)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals

    consider

    Chinese
    1 10 100 1000 |10000 100000 1000000 10000000| 100000000 1000000000 10000000000 100000000000 etc.
    yi, shi, bai, qian | wan, shi-wan,bai-wan,qian-wan | yi, shi-yi, bai-yi, qian-yi etc.

    Chinese don't really have names for numbers beyond 100 trillion (zai), but their ancient names are kinda funny

    English
    1 10 100| 1000 10000 10000|1000000 10000000 100000000 etc.
    one, ten, hundred| thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand| million, ten million, hundred million etc.

    For me, I tend to stick to the scientific notation, at least I won't accidentally forget a zero!
     
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I have myself tracked down the sources of Einstein misquotes, rpenner. A quote about the kind of thinking that led to the null result of the Michaelson Moreley experiment, I finally tracked to a book published in 2002. The quote had been so mangled, they made Einstein out to be some sort of Yoga guru. "kind of thinking" got inexplicably changed to "level of consciousness".

    The first time I read the misquote was as part of an email signature from one of my Mensa friends. Some Einstein misquotes are more subtle and pervasive than others.

    I apologize if anyone here was offended by any further misquotes of Einstein. You wouldn't believe the indignation of many Yoga oriented folks when I pointed out the source of the misquote I found, like it undermined their entire belief systems.

    I'm certain that there are many patent and even bank clerks aspiring to be accountants who likewise would feel left out if it turned out that Einstein's attributed remark about compound interest was a misquote.

    I understand that he is often misquoted, and I do not wish to be a part of that, but once someone has done this, it becomes difficult to impossible to reverse. My Mensa friend was completely clueless about why an Einstein misquote had upset me, so naturally, I try not to get so upset about it these days.

    Compound interest is a powerful force. You may all quote me if you like, but the risk in doing this would be that I might open myself up to charges of plagiarism. So please check anything you might say here or elsewhere that might mean this is not an original thought. Otherwise, you could end up making some copyright lawyer that much richer. No offense intended, rpenner.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Absolutely! One point indicating man was not well designed is fact we have five, not four or six, fingers. The ease with which one can divide a number in your head, is related to the number of factors the base of your numbers system has. (only Two: 2 & 5 for our stupid base 10 system) and 16 has four (all are 2) A really smart creator would have given us 6 fingers (24 with toes) The factors of 24 are: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, & 12 (six factors).
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  15. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    As a musician I'm naturally going to oppose less fingers. Up 'em to 8 (per hand) and I might be ok with it.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes. Six is definitely what an intelligent designer would have given man.
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    just a curiousity:

    Did you non-United Statsians get the 4 score and 7 reference?
     
  18. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    A score is 20? Never really bothered to check it.
     
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    From Fraggle Rocker Post #2
    We say 6 hundred fourteen because we say fourteen for 14.

    BTW: I might say six one four for 614, I would never say six hundred ten four.
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Origin of "score":

    The original meaning of Proto-Indo-European sker- was "to cut" -- the same root from which "shear" is derived. It's hypothesized that Proto-Germanic skura was appropriated as a means for counting things that come in large numbers. Each score ("cut" or "slash") on a stick represented, for example, twenty sheep. It's rather easy to count to twenty without losing track, and in the Bronze Age it's unlikely that anybody had so many sheep that they couldn't represent groups of twenty by slashes on a stick without running off the end.

    The Bronze Age Celtic people seem to have developed a vigesimal (base 20) counting system. Remnants abound in their languages. Perhaps it arose from the convenient word for 20, or it may have been the other way around, and they hung onto the word skura because it came in handy in the vigesimal counting system that they had already developed for sheep.

    Base-20 systems are not uncommon in northwestern Europe. The French have strong vestiges of it, such as quatre-vingts ("four twenties") for "eighty" and quatre-vingts dix ("four twenties [and] ten") for "ninety." Some of the Basque dialects also have echoes of counting by twenties.

    All of the other uses of "score" are derived from the same meanings of either "cut" or "tally": scoring a game, to even the score, to score (win, succeed) with a sexy woman, etc.

    We anglophones have a relic of a duodecimal (base 12) counting system. Bakers and members of a few other professions count in dozens, from the French word for twelve, douze. We also package some products by the gross, a dozen dozens, or 144--from French grosse douzaine, "large dozen."

    Fraggle Rocker
    Moderator, Linguistics
     
    danshawen likes this.
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    "Four score and seven years ago..."
    Is the start of president Lincoln's Gettysburg address.
     

Share This Page