http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_abacus
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&rl ... 00&bih=426
But like I said Min, not exactly a pocket calculator. Just imagine adding or subtracting fractions.
Roy.
Maths.
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Re: Maths.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Re: Maths.
The Romans developed the Roman hand abacus, a portable, but less capable, base-10 version of the previous Babylonian abacus. It was the first portable calculating device for engineers, merchants and presumably tax collectors. It greatly reduced the time needed to perform the basic operations of Roman arithmetic using Roman numerals.
Later on he calls it a "Late Roman" development which brings up the question of exactly when is "Late Roman" in his view? Roman contact with the Ancient Near East really begins with the defeat of Antiochus of Syria at Thermopylae in 191 BC. From that small beginning the Romans gradually extended their grasp until Actium in 31 when the whole ball of wax was in their hands. As already acknowledged, the Romans were never shy about adopting technology.
Still, aqueducts, roads, and all sorts of buildings far pre-date 191. I am still stumped by your original question.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Re: Maths.
This is bit like RS's problem with boats OOA Min, we know they did it but God knows how!
There was a programme on TV here sometime ago showing the use of Roman technology, how they lined up to cut tunnels from both ends, how they used a machine to measure miles etc but the answers I was, and am seeking, were ignored!Damn it!
It's such an obvious problem but the answer certainly isn't!
Did you know they even developed a harvesting machine that cut wheat and stripped the grain like a combine?
Roy.
There was a programme on TV here sometime ago showing the use of Roman technology, how they lined up to cut tunnels from both ends, how they used a machine to measure miles etc but the answers I was, and am seeking, were ignored!Damn it!
It's such an obvious problem but the answer certainly isn't!
Did you know they even developed a harvesting machine that cut wheat and stripped the grain like a combine?
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Re: Maths.
They had water powered factories, too.
None of which makes their lack of math any more comprehensible.
None of which makes their lack of math any more comprehensible.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Re: Maths.
Min, i also remember reading about the discovery of zero as a mathematical concept. Probably from a math text.
i suspect that they often used Greek slaves as their architects and engineers. Perhaps some Romans just used the Greek methods, but i can't seem to find a site that explains how the Greeks went about doing their math problems.
i suspect that they often used Greek slaves as their architects and engineers. Perhaps some Romans just used the Greek methods, but i can't seem to find a site that explains how the Greeks went about doing their math problems.
Re: Maths.
When I asked this question I thought that it was just me that was puzzled, I'm now amazed that the experts haven't addressed this earlier, perhaps they need some engineers! 
Thinking about the abacus, if I am correct, mulriplication is by continous addition. Fair enough, but when the numbers grow they would appear to becom unwieldy.
Take 948, CMXLVIII and multiply it by 8, VIII, you simply add 948 to itself 8 times. None of the short cuts thay we might make seem open to use in their system.
Now multiply it by 432, you would need some form of tally to keep a check on how many additions you had made.
'Hey Bert, coffee up!'
'Thanks! Blast! I, II, III!!!'
Roy.
Thinking about the abacus, if I am correct, mulriplication is by continous addition. Fair enough, but when the numbers grow they would appear to becom unwieldy.
Take 948, CMXLVIII and multiply it by 8, VIII, you simply add 948 to itself 8 times. None of the short cuts thay we might make seem open to use in their system.
Now multiply it by 432, you would need some form of tally to keep a check on how many additions you had made.
'Hey Bert, coffee up!'
'Thanks! Blast! I, II, III!!!'
Roy.
Last edited by Digit on Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Re: Maths.
I don't see the problem ,even without the concepts of zero or negative numbers they still had the abacus which would have been sufficient for their needs . Unnecessary and long winded but they could have also reverted to older methods like decomposition .
george
george
Re: Maths.
The main problem for me is the apparent lack of mental arithmetic that seems to be a consequence of their numerology. Also it seems to me that higher forms of maths are impossible,
The surface area of a cone for example.
Roy.
The surface area of a cone for example.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Re: Maths.
Post Archimedes they would have had had the formula ,then it's a case of using abacus or decomposition .Digit wrote:The main problem for me is the apparent lack of mental arithmetic that seems to be a consequence of their numerology. Also it seems to me that higher forms of maths are impossible,
The surface area of a cone for example.
Roy.
George
Re: Maths.
Post Arch yes, but to work out the slant height requires a knowledge and method of producing a square root, which as you point out could be obtained by decomposition, but cumbersome. How they never came up with a more practical numerology I can't understand.
Archimedes principle works for right angles but calculating angles for other than RA must have been murder.
I can't help wondering if the had a class of pro computers, like pro scribes.
Roy.
Archimedes principle works for right angles but calculating angles for other than RA must have been murder.
I can't help wondering if the had a class of pro computers, like pro scribes.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Re: Maths.
Yes, if we could read it!
Roy.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Re: Maths.
Most Uni libraries should have it ,and there is always Copac.
George
George
-
uniface
Re: Maths.
Instead of bothering yourselves over how the Romans did the impossible, Dr. Ockham would suggest you turn your attention to whether the chronology (your embedded assumption) that creates such a dilemma might be buggered.
This is far from the only case. They had cavalry troops, and moved them long distances over paved roads. This before the first appearance of iron forging documented in the history of technology (historical fairytales notwithstanding). Without horseshoes, their hoofs crack and splinter on hard surfaces, laming them.
It isn't that the history itself is wrong -- it's that it's been chopped up into bits and arbitrarily moved around in time in accordance with a numerological scheme, necessitating fictitious "dark ages" in which everybody forgot everything they previously knew and had to start over again.
You're enjoying yourselves scoffing at the club's sorry record in fields like medicine. But there's a better than odds-on liklihood that you're doing the same thing yourselves.
Diorite amphorae, for instance, cannot be made even today as they are supposed to have been made in antiquity (and in huge quantities) -- by carving them from diorite. But it turns out that it is possible to create diorite, just as cement is made.
Then there's the business of "ancient Egyptian" mummies testing positive for cocaine.
And nicotene . . .
When you have to turn somersaults to keep the data congruent with the model, it's the model that wants some attention.
This is far from the only case. They had cavalry troops, and moved them long distances over paved roads. This before the first appearance of iron forging documented in the history of technology (historical fairytales notwithstanding). Without horseshoes, their hoofs crack and splinter on hard surfaces, laming them.
It isn't that the history itself is wrong -- it's that it's been chopped up into bits and arbitrarily moved around in time in accordance with a numerological scheme, necessitating fictitious "dark ages" in which everybody forgot everything they previously knew and had to start over again.
You're enjoying yourselves scoffing at the club's sorry record in fields like medicine. But there's a better than odds-on liklihood that you're doing the same thing yourselves.
Diorite amphorae, for instance, cannot be made even today as they are supposed to have been made in antiquity (and in huge quantities) -- by carving them from diorite. But it turns out that it is possible to create diorite, just as cement is made.
Then there's the business of "ancient Egyptian" mummies testing positive for cocaine.
And nicotene . . .
When you have to turn somersaults to keep the data congruent with the model, it's the model that wants some attention.
Re: Maths.
First of all Uni the fact that they did acheive these things would seem to suggest that 'impossible' they most certainly were not, would you not agree?
Secondly what dates are you suggesting for iron working and Roman cavalry?
Also has it not registered in your conspiracy forums that iron is not the only material for the manufacture of horse shoes?
Sorry to burst your bubble but perhaps more thought and less time buried in conspiracy theories would help you answer your own questions.
Roy.
Secondly what dates are you suggesting for iron working and Roman cavalry?
Also has it not registered in your conspiracy forums that iron is not the only material for the manufacture of horse shoes?
Sorry to burst your bubble but perhaps more thought and less time buried in conspiracy theories would help you answer your own questions.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt