The Polynesian people used binary numbers, but not only binary numbers. The article's title is correct. What's sensationalist about that?
Is it an important finding? I think so. It helps shed light on the scientific and technical originality of other cultures. It matters a lot to acknowledge that knowledge does not always flow from west to east or north to south. It helps to rid of the notion of there being 'advanced' and 'primitive' cultures.
Are the scientists from the "Department of Psychosocial Science" trying too hard to make that case? I don't think so. Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery. Apparently mathematicians would not agree but even so, should they dictate that I should be dismissive of this article as well? The way I see it, the article does not make outrageous or unfounded claims. I'm free to appreciate that numbers have a certain universality as an abstract concept or language that isolated people from different era and backgrounds naturally converge to.
> Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery.
Because you don't understand math. Binary arithmetic is a painfully obvious development. A bored high-schooler predisposed to mathematics would figure it out in an afternoon.
And we've documented cultures using mixed base systems in the past. All this would have taken is a single person to say, "Hey, some things are easier if you do it this way" and taught all of their kids to use that system.
How do you know I don't understand math? And if a high schooler could figure this out, then Leibnitz own discussion or contribution to this topic is then meaningless?
The main point is that the finding in the article has cultural significance, rather than purely in terms of mathematics. I think you either don't understand that or are not willing to see that. The article is not trying to elevate a Polynesian people's contribution to mathematics. There is little mathematical significance there as these people from 600 years did not celebrate or promote their number system. Rather, the article explores how mathematical knowledge arises and how it was used. Could there an underlying commonality in the way humans learn and organize knowledge? That's an interesting question to ask and is not diminished - but is in fact supported - by the fact that the same knowledge gets rediscovered in multiple isolated instances.
Because if you had a deep appreciation for mathematical structures you wouldn't be surprised by this development.
> And if a high schooler could figure this out, then Leibnitz own discussion or contribution to this topic is then meaningless?
Mostly, yes. Binary is useful for computers, but it's not like we use binary algebra in our daily lives. FWIW, Leibnitz did a much better job at calculus than Newton ... mathematical construct that has been "discovered" at least 3 times.
> The main point is that the finding in the article has cultural significance, rather than purely in terms of mathematics. I think you either don't understand that or are not willing to see that.
The OP was complaining about Nature screwing up the understanding of the mathematics and chiding the social scientists for ignorant remarks about the mathematics involved. I am also tired of seeing silly pop-science articles being posted HN.
> Could there an underlying commonality in the way humans learn and organize knowledge?
Yes, it does and this finding does not contribute to what we already know about mathematics and its relation to cognition [0]. I'm frankly a bit embarrassed by my social science colleagues and Nature for not doing a better job framing their findings more appropriately.
I am not surprised by the mathematical development described in the article. Rather, I appreciate that there is yet new evidence for what I believe about human capacity and potential across cultures. I felt a small level vindication and inspiration, not surprise.
I'm not sure why you insist on finding fault with what I understand or not, or what you wrongly imagine my reaction is to this article. It's possible to appreciate stories like that without being shallow or sensationalist. At the same time, it is possible to be unnecessarily dismissive about something when the focus is solely on technical aspects and lose the bigger picture of what a story is about.
I think we agree that truly unique discoveries or inventions are extremely rare. I did not get the sense that the article framed the islander's number system as such. It's okay to disagree if you see the framing differently.
> I'm not sure why you insist on finding fault with what I understand or not
Again, I am just trying to validate the OP's points about social scientists screwing up basic mathematics on Nature's website.
> At the same time, it is possible to be unnecessarily dismissive about something when the focus is solely on technical aspects and lose the bigger picture of what a story is about.
Agreed! I spend all my time on this stuff and it's the coolest thing ever ... and I'm really sad that Nature doesn't come right out and say what you are saying.
Again, sorry for being curt. I didn't mean to insult you, we really don't have time to understand everything.
Is it an important finding? I think so. It helps shed light on the scientific and technical originality of other cultures. It matters a lot to acknowledge that knowledge does not always flow from west to east or north to south. It helps to rid of the notion of there being 'advanced' and 'primitive' cultures.
Are the scientists from the "Department of Psychosocial Science" trying too hard to make that case? I don't think so. Some people like me thinks this is a newsworthy discovery. Apparently mathematicians would not agree but even so, should they dictate that I should be dismissive of this article as well? The way I see it, the article does not make outrageous or unfounded claims. I'm free to appreciate that numbers have a certain universality as an abstract concept or language that isolated people from different era and backgrounds naturally converge to.