John H. Lienhard is Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History, getting his PhD from UC Berkeley.
> I fail to see the ingenuity,
You can't see something ingenious with probably illiterate people using a different base to multiply numbers? As per the Wikipedia link posted by vilhem_s "The method as interpreted by conversion to binary is therefore still in wide use today as implemented by binary multiplier circuits in modern computer processors."
You can't see something ingenious with probably illiterate people using a different base to multiply numbers?
While it's a nice trick, it's a circuitous route to get to the answer, and requires considerably more stones than the number you're trying to count to. Simply laying out X stones per Y items and counting them uses no methods that the shaman's system doesn't already use, requires less stones, and doesn't require any 'good' or 'evil' silliness.
Besides, if a trick works, but it isn't understood why it works, then the users of it lose the 'ingenious' tag, methinks.
Given that they speak of "evil numbers", I think it is reasonable to assume that the Shamans did not understand how the algorithm works. The inventor may have, but it seems likely that the users did not.
I see ingenuity in the creation of the technique, but if it was handed down over generations without the understanding of why it works, then that isn't a display of ingenuity. Contrast that to a typical student in who is given the same task of multiplying 7 x 34. They can get the same result and are also taught why multiplication works.
> I see ingenuity in the creation of the technique, but if it was handed down over generations without the understanding of why it works, then that isn't a display of ingenuity.
Sure. Me laying in bed listening to radio 4 is not ingenious, even though there's some ingenuity in creating radio (and the industrial infrastructure to get a radio to me).
Of course, no-one is yelling about ZOMG PC CONSPIRACY when I say how amazing it is that I can buy a radio for a few dollars.
> John H. Lienhard is Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History, getting his PhD from UC Berkeley.
Close enough for me. Frankly I doubt that he honestly believed every word he wrote. People in high places have to routinely perform public worship of the PC god, "all cultures are equal", etc.
You're taking a cute fictional story and running wild with it to somehow fit your weird anti-PC agenda. No one here, including the original article's author, is claiming that this is evidence of cultural equality. Way to waste your energy.
> So how do we and that Ethiopian shaman differ? Very little, I reckon.
> Very little indeed. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if he makes fewer mistakes than we do.
The article clearly dumbs down (or misunderstands)the algortihm, insulting the audience's intelligence to make a feel-good claim about the arithmetic talent of "uncivilized" Ethiopians, and is accidentally racist in the process.
Good grief. Lienhard's "Engines of Our Ingenuity" is a series of short (<5 min) radio monologues that are played every weekday morning and afternoon on KUHF public radio in Houston, (and other places I'm told). I would imagine that Lienhard simplified the bit to get it in the allotted time, and to make it understandable and interesting to a radio audience. I've met Lienhard several times and I can tell you that he is a quite personable guy for an old engineer. It is pretty funny to imagine Lienhard, or much else of KUHF as if it were some enclave of PC progressive liberal influence. And, if you'd ever been to the UH campus, especially the College of Engineering buildings, you probably wouldn't be stricken by the grandeur of the place.
John H. Lienhard is Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History, getting his PhD from UC Berkeley.
> I fail to see the ingenuity,
You can't see something ingenious with probably illiterate people using a different base to multiply numbers? As per the Wikipedia link posted by vilhem_s "The method as interpreted by conversion to binary is therefore still in wide use today as implemented by binary multiplier circuits in modern computer processors."