Talk:History of measurement/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about History of measurement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

All Cubits Great & Ordinary

I've just moved the following from the article page.

--

 *My editor asks
 *Is one the ordinary cubit à 30 shusi (500 mm)
 *and one the great cubit à 30 uban (600 mm)
 * short answer: No.

 *Both were split into 15 digits (shusi not uban) and hands qat 
 *The Gudea rule is divided into two parts of 15 pieces each, with two ends 
 that extend beyond the division marks. Until the early 20th century the ends 
 were erroneously counted as digits.

--

69.164.70.243,

The normal thing to do is to keep such comments here in the talk page. Also note that Crissov is hardly your editor. He's editing this page but it's not your page ... unless you own Wikipedia.

Jimp 19Jul05

I have rewritten the introduction and removed the disputed tags

removing the references to pyramids, irrationals, remains to be proven

uncited conjecture. As per instructions I am commenting here.

I propose that before we change the main page again we discuss

some of the issues and attempt to identify what items are

questionable and why.

69.164.70.243 20Jul05

69.164.70.243,

Please sign & date your comments otherwise this talk page gets very hard to read.

For example, who wrote what in the section above? It's also helpful to use indentation

(I've taken the liberty to add some to your comments above).

69.164.70.243, you continue to delete the "disputed" and "cleanup" templates

on this article. Thank you for putting a comment here this time. However more

in the way of a discussion or explanation was what I'd had in mind.

What's going on? Just look at this talk page and tell me that there is no dispute

as to the accuracy of the article (particluarly your contributions). Look at the article:

it's a jumble. It badly needs a clean up. Being split into several articles (Roman units,

Greek units, etc.) might not be a bad idea either.

Jimp 20Jul05

7/19/05 rktect (pardon: I thought ID and date was kept on the history page)

 I am posting most of my material to this page in an 
 attempt to ask and answer. Scroll up, pick a measure 
 you disagree with copy it down here and tell me why.

 As soon as I can I will respond with a cite and as much 
 backup as possible.

 I don't like to see people making statements that have   
 no leg to stand on. If you want to edit something I wrote 
 by inserting a paragraph that makes it sound like I want  
 to base the history of measures on unproven assumptions  
 and speculations, I would prefer that you do bring it  
 here for discussion first.

Rktect,

ID and date is kept on the history page, yes. However, it's

helpful to include it here as well so that readers don't have to

sift through these history pages just to tell who's writing what.

Perhaps you're perfectly right about Crissov's references to the

pyramids and irrational numbers. Perhaps this does remain to be

proven and perhaps it is uncited conjecture. There seems to be

quite a bit of this flying about on this article (most of which

coming not from Crissov).

I have noticed, however, that gone are claims that the same system

has been used throughout history. Gone also are claims that they

can all be traced back to a single system. Yes, I'd like to see

some discussion, citation and/or evidence before such claims reappear.

Discussion, it seems you agree, is the best way to resolve the dispute.

Edit wars are just a waste of time for both/all parties. Discussion,

however, is a two-way street. It's best not to expect that others

discuss their edits with you whilst you make no effort to yours with them.

"If you want to edit something I wrote ..." you write "... that makes it

sound like I want to ..." This comment has intrigued me to no end.

Edits to this page are not about making you sound like anything.

It's not as if you are credited as the author.

Jimp 20Jul05

I agree with the last. rktect 7/19/05, but would support by cite and by identity proof, that the same system has been used throughout history and traced back to a sngle system.

I don't have a lot of problems with pyramids as evidence for Egyptian standards of measure as long as you include ordinary buildings, inscription grids, all known rulers and rods, fields, nileometers, the volume of h3kts, generally do your homework.

Irrational numbers are irrational, using measures to make them rational along with the classic problems of greek antiquity would be interesting to discuss.

Irrational numbers are irrational. You can't make them rational by using measures.

Not even a god could make an irrational number rational.

Jimp 20Jul05

One way to rationalize an irrational number is to construct a geometric ratio using two units related as the sides of a square to its diagonal or the diameter of a circle to its circumference. Its a somewhat subtle, very Egyptian concept where numbers are not thought of as iterations but rather as individuals as in the seked or ratio of unit rise to unit run so also foot to remen or remen to cubit. ie the ratio is 1x:1y

Look, I can see where you're coming from with this "rationalising

the irrational" but, you surely realise, it's a play on words. In

the mathematical sense of the word there is no rationalising

irrational numbers: a number is either rational or irrational.

There is, of course, the other sense of "rationalise" meaning "to

make sense of". Yes, it would be interesting to look at how

people used measures to do this.

Jimp 23Jul05

One good example might be the slide rule. There are a lot of variations

on it but essentially its a spread sheet, it allows you to set 1x:1y

where x and y can be any two formulas. When you combine that with the Egyptians

use of unit fractions you have continued fractions, fluxions, anything you like.

Another good example would be the tables on a framing square