Ancient Astronaut Theory Plausible?

[Hamata]

The theroy is that the gods were misinterpeted aliens and came to earth giving knowlodge and tech now lost to us and all that stuff. so what's your opinion on the theroy?

I think it might be plasusible


Yes.. i admit i have been watching ancient aliens :P

[Greyblades]

Methinks we would have noticed some evidence of that sort of thing, having the gods Physically walking around the people handing out technology isnt exactly a common part of any mythology I know of.

Wait... GAH! now I'm getting flashbacks to BSG's horrendous ending!

[Tuuvi]

https://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2152/img044x.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/442/img044x.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)

Ancient rock carvings say yes.


I joke. I don't really think so. I watched part of the first episode of ancient aliens and it seemed to me like they were making a lot of baseless assumptions. But, I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

[Papewaio]

Meh ancients we're quite capable of creating their own solutions and technology.

[ajaxfetish]

My opinion? I think it's dumb. :shrug:

Ajax

[ICantSpellDawg]

You used the word plausible. This word means reasonable or probable. The hypothesis is posible in the same realm that nearly everything is, but it is not plausible by any sensible understanding of the word.

[HoreTore]

I'd rate it about the same as the theory that the world was created from the skin, bones and hair of the gods or the theory that one god created the world in 7 days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems unlikely - mostly because we don't seem to have progressed in leaps and bounds, unless they did something like give China the wheel but not America...

Even then - it looks increasingly likely that interseteller travel might not be possible, or so far away that any civilisation that had it would have better things to do.

You also can't really explain why they left - whcih seems odd because as our Gods they would presumably think like us (or rather us like them).

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm on the same line...

I think the theory sound wacky, but most of the world religions have as much or less going for it.

At the end of the day it will boil down to how many followers the theory gets. If enough people start believing in it, it will in a few years be seen as rude to criticize it. And the most avid followers will be interviewed whenever moral questions pop up on TV.

[gaelic cowboy]

What sort of stupid Aliens whould come down and bother handing out stone age tech when they arrived here in a spaceship.

[Greyblades]

What sort of stupid aliens would come down and hand out space tech to cavemen?

[gaelic cowboy]

What sort of stupid aliens would come down and hand out space tech to cavemen?

Why not sure the whole theory is about spacemen handing out tech to a more primitive races, any race that has decided to distribute tech obviously has no qualms about given them something more than stone axes or animal domestication.

If you gonna uplift people as it were why dont you just give em cure for some killer diseases and give them higher education.

later you can throw em the keys to the spare spaceship.

[Greyblades]

Why not sure the whole theory is about spacemen handing out tech to a more primitive races, any race that has decided to distribute tech obviously has no qualms about given them something more than stone axes or animal domestication.

If you gonna uplift people as it were why dont you just give em cure for some killer diseases and give them higher education.

later you can throw em the keys to the spare spaceship.

Hmm... I agree, I cant think anyone would think it would be a good idea to give cavemen tech all at once but that wouldnt really matter much when it comes to things like cures, education and farming advances. Still anyone would have huge qualms handing out fusion/fission power to guys who havent had the experience and wisdom generations of development brings, stick em on the path to industrial reveloution but dont just hand the flying cars and jetpacks to people who havent even figured out so much as the theories for atmospheric flight or fusion power to guys who dont know its a bad idea to stick forks in power sockets.
Though if the aliens were to be too obvious about holding back the best stuff, all sorts of resentment could crop up.

[gaelic cowboy]

I agree, I cant think anyone would think it would be a good idea to give cavemen tech all at once, give em the cures to diseases sure, education and farming advances definitely, but anyone would have huge qualms handing out fusion/fission power to guys who havent had the experience and wisdom generations of development brings, stick em on the path to industrial reveloution but dont just hand the flying cars and jetpacks to people who havent even figured out so much as the theories for atmospheric flight or fusion power to guys who dont know its a bad idea to stick forks in power sockets.
Though if the aliens were to be too obvious about holding back the best stuff, all sorts of resentment could crop up.

The thing that makes me laugh about all these ideas is that Aliens have some kind of Start Trek morality about non-interference in other cultures.


But if your a spacefaring race then you have a kind of defense against extinction for yourself therefore the motivations of this race are different to ours.

Also every single Alien in existence would have to agree to follow such a policy despite the monetary rewards being massive.

I can easy see a dodgy car salesman type handing out plans for steelmaking and blast furnaces no bother.

[Kadagar_AV]

"For giggles and laughs" would explain a lot.

HHGTTG, has a fair point, a fair number of fair points to be honest... But yeah, I can see a Ford Prefect type of character swooping by, throwing out some tech for giggles before taking off. Why not?

[Greyblades]

Yeah, the only real concern for aliens would probably be: "will this come back to bite us?" giving the puny cavemen thier very own death ray would probably count. Still I think that any alien culture would have to struggle with one point: "Is the enrichment of this culture worth giving up the entertainment value of watching cavemen crash space cars in the side of mountains."

[gaelic cowboy]

Maybe there is like a reality show on Nebulon 5 where they hand out all sorts of tech to various planets for hilarious consequences.

The judges select a planet from public vote then the audience votes on which planet of the last two should be saved from orbital bombardment.

brought to you by Hypnotoad inc

[Greyblades]

ALL HAIL THE HYPNO TOAD.

http://gifs.gifbin.com/1232904062_hypno%20toad.gif

[Hax]

Your link doesn't even wo --

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

[Kadagar_AV]

Your link doesn't even wo --

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

The HYPNOTOAD decided that trying to picture him in any way, sort or shape is a crime. You would not want to make his followers angry, would you?

[Ronin]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/ancient-aliens-guy-im-not-saying-it.jpg

[Fragony]

The Sumerians have some drawings that look suspiciously like airships, and the Zodiac shouldn't theoratically be possible without arab numbers because of the lack of the number zero. Why wouldn't it be possible, we don't even know what swis in our oceans. And it's just cool.

[ajaxfetish]

The [insert desired ancient culture here] have some drawings that look suspiciously like [insert whatever you want here]

This is good evidence for what modern cultures find interesting. It's not good evidence for what ancient cultures experienced.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is what the BR has come to...

[gaelic cowboy]

This is what the BR has come to...


Aliens done it

[Fragony]

This is good evidence for what modern cultures find interesting. It's not good evidence for what ancient cultures experienced.

Ajax

But it's great fun no?

The Zodiac is more fun, not talking about serial killer but about the Assyrian astronomical map. They could predict a solar eclipse, you need knowledge of algorithims for that and that is impossible without the number zero.

[classical_hero]

https://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q485/classical_hero/f73.jpg

https://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q485/classical_hero/9644463.jpg
https://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q485/classical_hero/167863_482414572269_147897627269_55.jpg
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/155/594/yesitis2.gif

This is really frontroom material, I think.

[Kadagar_AV]

Uh, your post is frontroom material.

Where are the mods? And who let the kids in?

[Hax]

Damn, and just as I was ready to start comparing people to Hitler.

[HoreTore]

But it's great fun no?

The Zodiac is more fun, not talking about serial killer but about the Assyrian astronomical map. They could predict a solar eclipse, you need knowledge of algorithims for that and that is impossible without the number zero.

Uhm...... What? What are you talking about frags? You will have algorithms in any numerical system, wether decimal, roman, sticks and dots, etc etc. No need for a zero, though it is an important number.

[Kadagar_AV]

Damn, and just as I was ready to start comparing people to Hitler.

HUH?

That made no sense what so ever.

[Kadagar_AV]

Uhm...... What? What are you talking about frags? You will have algorithms in any numerical system, wether decimal, roman, sticks and dots, etc etc. No need for a zero, though it is an important number.

He's not wrong from his perspective. The best super computer of today could quite possibly not do it based on the mathematical knowledge they had back then.

But then, it wasn't based on super computers but the human mind, which is way more powerful, and they have had more than one, or ten, or a hundred generations to work from.

When you two talk about algorithms, I am not sure you are talking about the same thing either...

[HoreTore]

He's not wrong from his perspective. The best super computer of today could quite possibly not do it based on the mathematical knowledge they had back then.

But then, it wasn't based on super computers but the human mind, which is way more powerful, and they have had more than one, or ten, or a hundred generations to work from.

When you two talk about algorithms, I am not sure you are talking about the same thing either...

And I'm not sure either of you two are completely sure what an algorithm is...

Definition: an algorithm is a finite list of steps which when taken will solve a problem.

And it is of course perfectly possible to solve problem x without knowledge of any algorithms which will solve x.

[Kralizec]

I remember reading something years ago about how the concept of "zero" was revolutionary. Too bad I didn't remember anything about the why. My best guess would be that it allows you to view positive and negative quantities as a continuum, which would otherwise not be possible. Anyway, 2 + 2 = 5.

[HoreTore]

I remember reading something years ago about how the concept of "zero" was revolutionary. Too bad I didn't remember anything about the why. My best guess would be that it allows you to view positive and negative quantities as a continuum, which would otherwise not be possible. Anyway, 2 + 2 = 5.

Counting days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Counting days.

Sorry?

If I recall, the story is that Zero was invented by a blind Arab - but in any case it isn't a real number, it's a place holder, and that's the revolutionary part that allows you to do complex algebra, as previously you just left a space.

[The Stranger]

Uhm...... What? What are you talking about frags? You will have algorithms in any numerical system, wether decimal, roman, sticks and dots, etc etc. No need for a zero, though it is an important number.

dont try to understand frag, posting in the backroom does something to his brains...

[HoreTore]

Sorry?

If I recall, the story is that Zero was invented by a blind Arab - but in any case it isn't a real number, it's a place holder, and that's the revolutionary part that allows you to do complex algebra, as previously you just left a space.

No to everything.

The invention of the zero was revolutionary as it allowed for more precise calendars, that was its main benefit. I won't tell you why it made counting days more precise though, that would spoil the fun you'll have figuring it out ~;)

Zero as a placeholder is something completely different to zero as a concept. Zero as a placeholder has been around basically the whole time, so when someone talks about inventing zero, it must refer to zero as a concept.

And zero is both a real and a rational number - heck, it's even an even number!

As for "complex algebra", well... In the past, algebra was done with geometry(no idea why we stopped, it's far superior). And nothing quite says "NO VALUE" like a missing rectangle...

[a completely inoffensive name]

The ancient alien guy has a degree you guys.....in sports information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_A._Tsoukalos

[Beskar]

Isn't there an ancient religion, where they believe the gods came down and mated with early humanoids, thus creating hybrids and humans are the said hybrids of these aliens and primitive apes?

Then there are also the wacky hieroglyphics that look like helicopters and jets

[Fragony]

Uhm...... What? What are you talking about frags? You will have algorithms in any numerical system, wether decimal, roman, sticks and dots, etc etc. No need for a zero, though it is an important number.

ffs Horetore and you teach math, it can also be negative and it doesn't stop at 1

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No to everything.

The invention of the zero was revolutionary as it allowed for more precise calendars, that was its main benefit. I won't tell you why it made counting days more precise though, that would spoil the fun you'll have figuring it out ~;)

Zero as a placeholder is something completely different to zero as a concept. Zero as a placeholder has been around basically the whole time, so when someone talks about inventing zero, it must refer to zero as a concept.

And zero is both a real and a rational number - heck, it's even an even number!

As for "complex algebra", well... In the past, algebra was done with geometry(no idea why we stopped, it's far superior). And nothing quite says "NO VALUE" like a missing rectangle...

No.... don't get it.

Sorry.

This is why I became a mixed-theologian and literary scholar. Now please send my mother a letter explaining that I am too stupid to do physics.

Please, enlighten me.

(go, on you know this is the only time I'll ask and mean it).

[rickinator9]

The ancient alien guy has a degree you guys.....in sports information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_A._Tsoukalos

The only thing alien here is the guys hair.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't there an ancient religion, where they believe the gods came down and mated with early humanoids, thus creating hybrids and humans are the said hybrids of these aliens and primitive apes?

Then there are also the wacky hieroglyphics that look like helicopters and jets

What?

You mean Judaism/Christianity/Islam?

[Ibrahim]

The only thing alien here is the guys hair.

even that has an earthly explanation possible: he has not taste, and uses too much hair gel.

[Fragony]

The only thing alien here is the guys hair.

Close encounter of the worst kind

[HoreTore]

No.... don't get it.

Sorry.

This is why I became a mixed-theologian and literary scholar. Now please send my mother a letter explaining that I am too stupid to do physics.

Please, enlighten me.

(go, on you know this is the only time I'll ask and mean it).

Hmmmm....

Well, try counting the days of the week. Start at monday at 00:00, marking that time "day 1". Fast forwards 24 hours, now you're at day 2, and the clock is 00:00 on tuesday. Do that all the way to Sunday at 23:59, and you'll notice our week consists of 8 days. If one was to start at Day 0, however, you'd end up on the correct number of days, 7.

That was an over-simplified explanation, of course, the problems the ancients had with calendars waren't that simple. They had figured out various methods of making calendars(ie. counting days and time) more accurate even without a zero, but the concept of zero made things even more accurate.

Our way of counting sounds really obvious, and it is quite hard to wrap our minds around it, think like they did before and see the problem. That really isn't because it's so obvious, but rather because we see zero as so obvious a concept, we can't understand how one cannot understand zero.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, reading history, I always wondered about the Teosinte.

Basically, some 7000 years ago, the south american tribes suddenly became experts at manipulating weeds. They took a pretty much inedible weed and must have spent GENERATIONS transforming it into maize, or "corn" by today's vocabulary. Now, why they spent countless generations trying to make a weed a main staple of food we don't know. There must have been so many more easily accessible routs to food sources.

As science have it today, there really is no logical explanation as to how this happened.

However, what we know, is that a simple weed was transformed into what became the basis for the whole civilization down there. It wasn't only the main food, but was also used for trade and so on. The society obviously put great weight on it.


You smart people out there, look into this, it's actually quite fascinating.

I am not saying that Aliens swooped down and helped us out by taking one of our weeds and with their advanced tech easily made a food source that could sustain us... I am saying that that explanation seem at LEAST as logical, if not more, compared to the alternative that science offer as of today, that we would have had spent countless generations turning something inedible into a main staple.

I stumbled upon the whole maize discussion way earlier, and I have always been fascinated by it... Either the south Americans of 7000 years ago would have almost modern knowledge of cultivation and an extremely wide time span for a people with an expected life length of about twenty years, or...

[Kadagar_AV]

Maize is the result of human propagation of a series of random genetic mutations that transformed it from a simple grass into a bizarre, gigantic mutant that can no longer survive in the wild

The two plants look very different. But just a few genetic mutations, it turns out, were sufficient to transform one into the other.

Teosinte has a highly branched architecture with multiple stalks, each of which has one male inflorescence (the tassel) and several female inflorescences (the ears). Maize, however, has a single stalk with no branches, a single tassel at the top, and far fewer but much larger ears halfway up the stalk, enclosed in a leafy husk.

But maize could only become a dietary mainstay with the help of a further technological twist, since it is deficient in the amino acids lysine and tryptophan, and the vitamin niacin, which are essential elements of a healthy human diet.

A maize heavy diet results in pellagra, a nutritional disease characterized by nausea, rough skin, sensitivity to light, and dementia

Fortunately, maize can be rendered safe by treating it with calcium hydroxide, in the form of ash from burnt wood or crushed shells, which is either added directly to the cooking pot, or mixed with water to create an alkaline solution in which the maize is left to soak overnight.

All of this demonstrates that maize is not a naturally occurring food at all. Its development has been described by one modern scientist as the most impressive feat of domestication and genetic modification ever undertaken. It is a complex technology, developed by humans over successive generations to the point where maize was ultimately incapable of surviving on its own in the wild, but could deliver enough food to sustain entire civilizations.

[Kadagar_AV]

Could be down to human ingenuity...

Could be down to Aliens.

Could be down to a burning bush telling us what to do...

But regardless - I don't want south American farmers to have a sway in my moral, or daily, decisions.





EDIT: I forgot to add: Teosinte literary means "God's Corn"... Go ponder.

[spankythehippo]

This theory sounds very much like The First Civilisation in Assassin's Creed...

[Strike For The South]

As science have it today, there really is no logical explanation as to how this happened.

...


ಠ_ಠ

[Kadagar_AV]

ಠ_ಠ


Oh come on, you are a big boy now, use your words... What part did you dispute and why?

[The Stranger]

there are many more of such interesting stories.

there is one about a tribe in africa which knew about all the 9 planets in our solar system before many of them were "discovered" by western austronomers and they also "know" about a 10th planet.

[Sigurd]

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/Giorgio2.jpg

[johnhughthom]

there are many more of such interesting stories.

there is one about a tribe in africa which knew about all the 9 planets in our solar system before many of them were "discovered" by western austronomers and they also "know" about a 10th planet.

But there are only eight planets...

[Fragony]

Hmmmm....

Well, try counting the days of the week. Start at monday at 00:00, marking that time "day 1". Fast forwards 24 hours, now you're at day 2, and the clock is 00:00 on tuesday. Do that all the way to Sunday at 23:59, and you'll notice our week consists of 8 days. If one was to start at Day 0, however, you'd end up on the correct number of days, 7.

That was an over-simplified explanation, of course, the problems the ancients had with calendars waren't that simple. They had figured out various methods of making calendars(ie. counting days and time) more accurate even without a zero, but the concept of zero made things even more accurate.

Our way of counting sounds really obvious, and it is quite hard to wrap our minds around it, think like they did before and see the problem. That really isn't because it's so obvious, but rather because we see zero as so obvious a concept, we can't understand how one cannot understand zero.


Gimme 0.1 x 0.1 in roman numbers, or sticks and stones as you said was possible. You are going to need a lot of them so you better start collecting them

Oh and while you are at it I also want a perfect circle without using pi

[HoreTore]

Gimme 0.1 x 0.1 in roman numbers, or sticks and stones as you said was possible. You are going to need a lot of them so you better start collecting them

Oh and while you are at it I also want a perfect circle without using pi

You want 0.1 in roman numbers? Think back to your childhood, frags. What's the name for decimals you used in elementary school? Decimalfractions. A decimal is another method of writing fractions.

So, 0.1 in roman numbers would be I/X(one-tenth). 0.1x0.1 would be I/X x I/X. I x I is I, X x X is C, giving I/C as the answer, or 0.01.

That was just an example, the romans used a more complex system for fractions based on 12(since it's easier to divide by 12 than by 10), as well as having their own set of symbols for fractions.

Pi was known by a ton of ancient civilizations, like the egyptians, greeks, babylonians and chinese. The earliest recorded method of finding pi is by Archimedes, who found it using approximations by geometric figures.

[HoreTore]

there are many more of such interesting stories.

there is one about a tribe in africa which knew about all the 9 planets in our solar system before many of them were "discovered" by western austronomers and they also "know" about a 10th planet.

If they had 10 planets in their system, they weren't so great after all, seeing as they were wrong?

[HoreTore]

Oh come on, you are a big boy now, use your words... What part did you dispute and why?

I'll dispute all of it.

While I do not know about maize in particular, I do know about evolution. And the story you told is simple evolution in progress, although with humans as a driving force this time.

You have a problem explaining what happened between the starting point and the end point. That is only because you only see the end point, and you only see the uses one has for the end point. The solution, however, is that each step of the modified plant served some purpose, although obviously not the same purpose as the final stage of the plant has today.

And of course, the people who sat down with the first version of the plant probably did not mean to turn it into food. It probably ended up as food due to being a by-product of some other purpose, or some experiment who failed in its initial purpose.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'll dispute all of it.

While I do not know about maize in particular, I do know about evolution. And the story you told is simple evolution in progress, although with humans as a driving force this time.

You have a problem explaining what happened between the starting point and the end point. That is only because you only see the end point, and you only see the uses one has for the end point. The solution, however, is that each step of the modified plant served some purpose, although obviously not the same purpose as the final stage of the plant has today.

And of course, the people who sat down with the first version of the plant probably did not mean to turn it into food. It probably ended up as food due to being a by-product of some other purpose, or some experiment who failed in its initial purpose.

Maybe...

I'm not signed on to this theory much.

Some might say it's natural evolution. Some might claim that it's hard to understand why people put all the work in without having anything for it (you still haven't explained what that would be HoreTore).

I say I have absolutely no clue.

I rate this line of thinking as more plausible than the biblical reality for sure, but as I said, I won't sign up on it.

[HoreTore]

Maybe...

I'm not signed on to this theory much.

Some might say it's natural evolution. Some might claim that it's hard to understand why people put all the work in without having anything for it (you still haven't explained what that would be HoreTore).

I say I have absolutely no clue.

I rate this line of thinking as more plausible than the biblical reality for sure, but as I said, I won't sign up on it.

I did explain it.

Each change in the plant had a distinct purpose, thus they recieved benefits after each change. They wanted the plant to do X, so they changed it so that the plant did X. Then they wanted Y, so they changed it so it gave Y. And so on and so on until it ended up as food.

What the actual X's might have been, I haven't the foggiest, since I'm neither a botanist nor an expert on the problems and challenges faced by ancient south-american humans...

[Kadagar_AV]

I did explain it.

Each change in the plant had a distinct purpose, thus they recieved benefits after each change. They wanted the plant to do X, so they changed it so that the plant did X. Then they wanted Y, so they changed it so it gave Y. And so on and so on until it ended up as food.

What the actual X's might have been, I haven't the foggiest, since I'm neither a botanist nor an expert on the problems and challenges faced by ancient south-american humans...

That's the thing though, isn't it.

The botanists and experts can't explain it. So neither did you explain it.

"It's because of X, but I don't know what X is" isn't really an argument, now is it?


Again my stance is that there are signs to support this theory. But they are not conclusive enough in my eyes to sign on.

[HoreTore]

That's the thing though, isn't it.

The botanists and experts can't explain it. So neither did you explain it.

"It's because of X, but I don't know what X is" isn't really an argument, now is it?


Again my stance is that there are signs to support this theory. But they are not conclusive enough in my eyes to sign on.

I don't have to know all the various stages of the evolution of the eye, as well as what each stage did, to know that the eye evolved from a light-sensitive point to the current eye.

There is nothing remarkable about your story at all, it is a standard story of how evolution and human techological progress works. Every other development has followed the same path.

I am quite sure someone has found someing on the stages between the starting int and the current version. And even if it isn't, that's still not an argument against it, since that simply shows that the past doesn't always leave as many remains as we'd like it to.

Kinda like how the whale is such an important specie to prove evolution, as it id one of few where we have a full history of creatures from an original living on land to the current whale. The whale is then used to explain all the other species where we have holes.

[Kadagar_AV]

The eye started out as a light sensitive point to what we have now, yes.

Science has explained that.

Science has not explained how maize came to be though. And that is the remarkable bit.

Either we got help, or we wasted hard labour over countless generations for little or no gain at the current time.

[HoreTore]

The eye started out as a light sensitive point to what we have now, yes.

Science has explained that.

Science has not explained how maize came to be though. And that is the remarkable bit.

Either we got help, or we wasted hard labour over countless generations for little or no gain at the current time.

There really is no way to get you to rethink, is there?

Science has not explained every stage of evolution for most creatures. Yet, we know that it happened this waym without any alien influence.

Just like with maize. They did not get help, since aliens don't exist, and neither did they waste anything, since they had a use for each consecutive stage of breeding.

Maize was developed in the same way every other man-made thing has been developed. End of story, really. There is no mystery here.

[HoreTore]

Remember when I said I wasn't a botanist and had no knowledge of maize? Well, wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize) provides four possible theories:



1. It is a direct domestication of a Mexican annual teosinte, Zea mays ssp. parviglumis, native to the Balsas River valley in south-eastern Mexico, with up to 12% of its genetic material obtained from Zea mays ssp. mexicana through introgression.
2. It has been derived from hybridization between a small domesticated maize (a slightly changed form of a wild maize) and a teosinte of section Luxuriantes, either Z. luxurians or Z. diploperennis.
3. It has undergone two or more domestications either of a wild maize or of a teosinte. (The term "teosinte" describes all species and subspecies in the genus Zea, excluding Zea mays ssp. mays.)
4. It has evolved from a hybridization of Z. diploperennis by Tripsacum dactyloides.

[Kadagar_AV]

HoreTore, just because you don't understand a text it doesn't automatically strengthen your point.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, just because you don't understand a text it doesn't automatically strengthen your point.

Wiki has four points which can be comprized as natural evolution either in the wild or as a side-effect of domestication. Fail, where?

The bottom line, however, is this:
1. Aliens don't exist.
2. Ancient peoples did not start works that would take hundreds of years before any gains were made.
3. Thus, the remaining explanation is that it evolved in such a way that it was beneficial for humans along the way.

[Kadagar_AV]

Wiki has four points which can be comprized as natural evolution either in the wild or as a side-effect of domestication. Fail, where?

The bottom line, however, is this:
1. Aliens don't exist.
2. Ancient peoples did not start works that would take hundreds of years before any gains were made.
3. Thus, the remaining explanation is that it evolved in such a way that it was beneficial for humans along the way.

1. Aliens may exist. And if they exist, they might have visited us.
2. When did that become the bottom line?
3. That's one theory. But not a sole remaining explanation :inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

1. Aliens may exist. And if they exist, they might have visited us.

Right.

I see no point in continuing this discussion now.

[Papewaio]

I always assumed it was a grass used as feedstock at first and later for human consumption.

Plenty of plants have been used in history that aren't nutrious or worse they are poisonous ... If they aren't cooked properly.

If someone is starving they will eat tubers, roots, grass seeds, grass leaves or even dirt biscuits.

Some of these will be fatal for the individual some to prove to be an unexpected windfalls of nutrition. Enough attempts and a pattern will emerge. Patterns are something we are very good at exploiting.

So say some early farmers have herds of livestock say llamas or goats or sheep or cattle. Local climate change and all the livestock dies or is eaten. Then the farmers start eatin the grasses. Some of the seeds turn out to be quite nice.

Now they know that they have droughts and the grass seeds are an item of last resort. They also figure out they can store seeds for themselves and animals. They start encouraging the plants, fencin them off and between them
Selecting the ones that produce the most seeds.

They feed the livestock in winter with the dried grass. The seeds become more popular. Over generations the families stomachs adjust to the seed and milk diet.

Time, human pattern recognition, the ability to see seasonal change and forward thinking ie storage and sowing. It's not space rocket science it's shotgun learning ... Enough shots in the dark and you will get results.

[Kadagar_AV]

I always assumed it was a grass used as feedstock at first and later for human consumption.

Plenty of plants have been used in history that aren't nutrious or worse they are poisonous ... If they aren't cooked properly.

If someone is starving they will eat tubers, roots, grass seeds, grass leaves or even dirt biscuits.

Some of these will be fatal for the individual some to prove to be an unexpected windfalls of nutrition. Enough attempts and a pattern will emerge. Patterns are something we are very good at exploiting.

So say some early farmers have herds of livestock say llamas or goats or sheep or cattle. Local climate change and all the livestock dies or is eaten. Then the farmers start eatin the grasses. Some of the seeds turn out to be quite nice.

Now they know that they have droughts and the grass seeds are an item of last resort. They also figure out they can store seeds for themselves and animals. They start encouraging the plants, fencin them off and between them
Selecting the ones that produce the most seeds.

They feed the livestock in winter with the dried grass. The seeds become more popular. Over generations the families stomachs adjust to the seed and milk diet.

Time, human pattern recognition, the ability to see seasonal change and forward thinking ie storage and sowing. It's not space rocket science it's shotgun learning ... Enough shots in the dark and you will get results.

Agreed, that is very much the logical explanation for most of our tamed plants.

But as mentioned, the origin of maize was poisonous to begin with. So in this case it's trial and error... error.... error.... error... error... error... [repeat]

So again, the question is why they bothered with all the errors...

And again, it's not one mutation being needed, but quite some on top of the other.

I am NOT saying it's impossible to have happened naturally. I am saying that until science have a better explanation I am open for other theories.

[Sigurd]

1. Aliens may exist. And if they exist, they might have visited us.

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/Giorgio2.jpg

[Memnon]

Aliens may exist, but I don't think there is any plausible explanation for them having developed space travel and then so generously giving us, a rival species, anything of benefit. Also, are normally poisonous things not still eaten throughout the world? Just look at all the deadly deadly fish and plants that are either eaten or otherwise used to benefit humankind.

[Kadagar_AV]

Aliens may exist, but I don't think there is any plausible explanation for them having developed space travel and then so generously giving us, a rival species, anything of benefit. Also, are normally poisonous things not still eaten throughout the world? Just look at all the deadly deadly fish and plants that are either eaten or otherwise used to benefit humankind.

The blowfish comes to mind...

But again, the difference is that a blowfish CAN be eaten safely.

As to your first point, to use our mental mechanisms to make predictions of what an alien species would or wouldn't do seems...

[Ironside]

The blowfish comes to mind...

But again, the difference is that a blowfish CAN be eaten safely.

As to your first point, to use our mental mechanisms to make predictions of what an alien species would or wouldn't do seems...

Riiight.
Case A. Let's walk around and uplift these humans by teaching them to breed maize!!! It's going to take forever, but it's totally worth it!
Case B. The Spochmun (it's a god!) came to us many generations ago and said if we do this pointless breeding for ages, then it will be useful.

If you invented boiling, you're going to try it on everything. Next step is going to be to boil things together.
Seriously. Think about all the clever and obsessive people living today. The same type of people existed in the past. Food science was state of the art back in the days. So having one guy testing it by eating raw makes you sick, boiling it makes you less sick, boiling it with ash works, isn't exactly strange. The big leap is boiling stuff and to a lesser degree mixed boiling.

[LeftEyeNine]

Hmmmm....

Well, try counting the days of the week. Start at monday at 00:00, marking that time "day 1". Fast forwards 24 hours, now you're at day 2, and the clock is 00:00 on tuesday. Do that all the way to Sunday at 23:59, and you'll notice our week consists of 8 days. If one was to start at Day 0, however, you'd end up on the correct number of days, 7.

That was an over-simplified explanation, of course, the problems the ancients had with calendars waren't that simple. They had figured out various methods of making calendars(ie. counting days and time) more accurate even without a zero, but the concept of zero made things even more accurate.

Our way of counting sounds really obvious, and it is quite hard to wrap our minds around it, think like they did before and see the problem. That really isn't because it's so obvious, but rather because we see zero as so obvious a concept, we can't understand how one cannot understand zero.

My fingers show 7 days. What have I missed or is missing with your example ?

[HoreTore]

My fingers show 7 days. What have I missed or is missing with your example ?

You forgot to start on day 1. I'll show:

Monday 00:00 - day 1
Tuesday 00:00 - day 2
Wednesday 00:00 - day 3
Thursday 00:00 - day 4
Friday 00:00 - day 5
Saturday 00:00 - day 6
Sunday 00:00 - day 7
Sunday 23:59 - day 8

[Montmorency]

Sunday 23:59 - day 8

Why not Monday 0:00?

[rajpoot]

HoreTore

You're really certain that alien life does not exist?

[HoreTore]

Why not Monday 0:00?

Because that's the start of week 2.


HoreTore

You're really certain that alien life does not exist?

Yes. Just like I'm sure Peter Pan, Jesus, ghosts and Superman doesn't exist.

[rajpoot]

Yes. Just like I'm sure Peter Pan, Jesus, ghosts and Superman doesn't exist.

You're a maths teacher. Probability says that they are out there. :tongue:
Edit:
The aliens I mean. Not Jesus.

[Montmorency]

Because that's the start of week 2.

So then its still 7 days - Sunday is still Day 7. What you put up makes no sense unless Sunday is suddenly two days and days suddenly last for less than 24 hours on Sunday.

It sounds like some sort of surreal sci-fi short story...

[HoreTore]

You're a maths teacher. Probability says that they are out there. :tongue:
Edit:
The aliens I mean. Not Jesus.

Not in the way described in this thread.

[HoreTore]

So then its still 7 days - Sunday is still Day 7. What you put up makes no sense unless Sunday is suddenly two days and days suddenly last for less than 24 hours on Sunday.

It sounds like some sort of surreal sci-fi short story...

No, it's correct.

It would be even more precise if I said 23:59:59:999999999, but then I would go on forever writing 9's*, so I just stopped at 23:59. Counting this way, you reach day 7 on what we usually call "saturday night". Not the start of day 7, the end of day 7. So, there's 23 hours and 59 minutes(plus plus) left of the week, which means you have another day for a total of 8 days in a week.

If you count 2 weeks this way, you won't get 16 days though, you'll get 15.


*and as we all know, 0,9999999... = 1

[LeftEyeNine]

I don't understand why we accept "zero" while counting days but get stuck forever with neverending "9"s at the end of the week.

[Montmorency]

Yet Day 8 would be overlap with D1 in Week 2, entirely. That went unnoticed in the past?

[Greyblades]

Because that's the start of week 2.



Yes. Just like I'm sure Peter Pan, Jesus, ghosts and Superman doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure even athiests agree that Jesus existed, it's his divinity that people cant agree on.

[rajpoot]

Not in the way described in this thread.

Well I haven't gone through it all, but I'm not talking about aliens coming in and messing with the development of our species. I'm merely talking about the probability of other life forms existing in our universe.

[LeftEyeNine]

By the defying the possibility of another life form all over the universe with this level of knowledge is vanity-covered ignorance at its best.

[HoreTore]

I don't understand why we accept "zero" while counting days but get stuck forever with neverending "9"s at the end of the week.

Start with 1. Divide by 3. Then multiply that answer by 3. What do you get?


Yet Day 8 would be overlap with D1 in Week 2, entirely. That went unnoticed in the past?

If you count two weeks, then the "extra day" comes at the end of the second week. And I direct you to this part of my first post:


That was an over-simplified explanation, of course, the problems the ancients had with calendars wasn't that simple. They had figured out various methods of making calendars(ie. counting days and time) more accurate even without a zero, but the concept of zero made things even more accurate.


I'm pretty sure even athiests agree that Jesus existed, it's his divinity that people cant agree on.

He may have, but there's far from enough evidence to conclude that a person called Jesus existed. He can be completely made up(as a justification, for example), there could've been a group of people, etc etc.

What is absolutely certain, however, is that there were no miracles performed. Why? Well, because miracles aren't possible, of course. You cannot walk on water, pure and simple.

[HoreTore]

but I'm not talking about aliens coming in and messing with the development of our species.

That is the subject of this thread. In this regard, aliens do not exist.

Is it likely that other lifeforms exist in the universe? Now, that's a completely different question, and the answer is of course "yes, there's a very high likehood of that".

[LeftEyeNine]

Start with 1. Divide by 3. Then multiply that answer by 3. What do you get?



The error is in the question. Is that your point ?

[HoreTore]

The error is in the question. Is that your point ?

Error? What error?

Divide 1 by 3, and you get 0.3333... (three points ... means that the number doesn't end). Multiply by 3, and you get 0.9999... . We know that if you divide a number and then multiply the answer with the same numbrr, you get the number you started with. 1/3x3 gives 0.999..., and folloewing the law mentioned, we see that 0.9999... equals 1.

[LeftEyeNine]

The number you get by dividing 1 has countless decimals. Actually, 1, as a natural number, can not be seperated into 3 equal parts.

But the number you say to be multiplied by 3 is a number that has ended at some point, hence giving you to possibility to multiply it and eventually ending up with 0.999..

I'm not a mathematician but the difference in doing the same calculation backwards must be yielding from a loophole/deceit/error within the structure of the question or the equations concerned.

[HoreTore]

The number you get by dividing 1 has countless decimals. Actually, 1, as a natural number, can not be seperated into 3 equal parts.

But the number you say to be multiplied by 3 is a number that has ended at some point, hence giving you to possibility to multiply it and eventually ending up with 0.999..

I'm not a mathematician but the difference in doing the same calculation backwards must be yielding from a loophole/deceit/error within the structure of the question or the equations concerned.

It's a number system anomaly.

In the base ten system, the number 0,999... equals the number 1.

And of course the number 1 can be split into 3 equal parts. This can be proven by splitting 1 cake into 3 equal pieces, giving the fraction 1/3.

So, we could say that when counting the days of the week starting with day 1 at monday 00:00, we get 7 days and 23:59:59:999... . However, that equals 8 days for all intents and purposes.

[LeftEyeNine]

I said "1 as a natural number", not a cake that has, if you want to go frantically mathematically-accurate, volume which is not 1.


So, we could say that when counting the days of the week starting with day 1 at monday 00:00, we get 7 days and 23:59:59:999... . However, that equals 8 days for all intents and purposes.

I doubt so. Doing so, you're falling into a conflict over what "Day 1" is. If it's just a label you slap at 00:00, great, you have 7 "Day"s plus not only 23:59:59:9999 but 7 times of that.

However if you refer to the axis-cycle of the earth, "Day 7" only can occur with the rest 23:59:59:9999, just like the days before it.

[HoreTore]

I said "1 as a natural number", not a cake that has, if you want to go frantically mathematically-accurate, volume which is not 1.

A cake has a "mathematically-accurate" volume of 1. What the number 1 represents is the volume of one cake.

Proof that a cake has a volume of 1 is because we say so.



I doubt so. Doing so, you're falling into a conflict over what "Day 1" is. If it's just a label you slap at 00:00, great, you have 7 "Day"s plus not only 23:59:59:9999 but 7 times of that.

However if you refer to the axis-cycle of the earth, "Day 7" only can occur with the rest 23:59:59:9999, just like the days before it.

You solved it using knowledge of zero as a concept, and that is of course correct.

However, we are looking for solutions without knowledge of zero as a concept. And the point is, of course, that none of those solutions will be entirely accurate.

Take a look at what I quoted in my reply to montmorency.

[Montmorency]

So, we could say that when counting the days of the week starting with day 1 at monday 00:00, we get 7 days and 23:59:59:999... . However, that equals 8 days for all intents and purposes.

The point is that Day 8 is not a part of Week 1, so you can't possibly arrive at 8 days. As I said, Day 8 is in fact entirely Day 1 of Week 2.

Day 8 begins at the end of Sunday. In other words, it begins as soon as Week 1 ends, unless multiple individual days - e.g. 2 Sundays or 2 Mondays - are permitted.

[HoreTore]

The point is that Day 8 is not a part of Week 1, so you can't possibly arrive at 8 days. As I said, Day 8 is in fact entirely Day 1 of Week 2.

Day 8 begins at the end of Sunday. In other words, it begins as soon as Week 1 ends, unless multiple individual days - e.g. 2 Sundays or 2 Mondays - are permitted.

Counting this way would seem to require coming up with a new name for "day 8", yes.

And do keep in mind that the original point is that it is all wrong.

Which is the reason why the concept of zero revolutionized things. It set previous errors right, and made calculations more accurate than they were.

Edit: called the 23:59 after what we called "day 7" for "day 1 of week 2" does't eliminate the error, it only makes it a little smaller. The error gets smaller and smaller the longer the stretch of time gets, but it's still there, making your time-keeping calculations less accurate.

Edit2: I feel like clarifying what the "8 days in a week"-thing is about. Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla wondered why the concept of zero was important to calendars. The 8-day week was an attempt at an easier-to-understand way of understanding that.

[LeftEyeNine]

A cake has a "mathematically-accurate" volume of 1. What the number 1 represents is the volume of one cake.

Proof that a cake has a volume of 1 is because we say so.



You solved it using knowledge of zero as a concept, and that is of course correct.

However, we are looking for solutions without knowledge of zero as a concept. And the point is, of course, that none of those solutions will be entirely accurate.

Take a look at what I quoted in my reply to montmorency.

I am supposing that the error was what was needed to be figured out and we did so. So, cheers.


A cake has a "mathematically-accurate" volume of 1. What the number 1 represents is the volume of one cake.

Technically, you can NEVER have, e.g. a cake, in 3 exactly equal parts if the value thereof considered (piece, volume etc.) does not have 3 as an exact divisor of that value. Your eyes seeing slices of equal sizes would be misleading, as you would admit.

[HoreTore]

Technically, you can NEVER have, e.g. a cake, in 3 exactly equal parts if the value thereof considered (piece, volume etc.) does not have 3 as an exact divisor of that value. Your eyes seeing slices of equal sizes would be misleading, as you would admit.

Technically, we can always have a cake with a volume of 1 which we can divide into 3 completely equal parts.

How? The cake has a volume of 1, and that is simply because we say it does. That's allowed. When cutting it, we swap out the 1 and replace it with 360. 360 divided by 3 is 120, so if we cut each slice so that it is 120 degrees of the total cake, we get 3 equal slices.

Now, who can honstely say maths isn't fun??

[LeftEyeNine]

Mm-hm, that works with a cake considering that it has a homogeneous distribution of ingredients.

Yet you used swapping to complete the calculation. You can't always apply that or else 1 * 120 would have to equal 0,333... * 360.

[HoreTore]

Mm-hm, that works with a cake considering that it has a homogeneous distribution of ingredients.

Yet you used swapping to complete the calculation. You can't always apply that or else 1 * 120 would have to equal 0,333... * 360.

Swapping is always allowed.

A numerical system is never more than an attempt to represent values you find in real life. Don't get "trapped by the numbers".

It can always be applied, and 0,33... x 360 of course equals 120, since 1/3 x 360 equals 120.

Edit: and you "swapped" yourself, you got 0.33... by "swapping" the fraction 1/3 to a different system ~;)

Edit2: and it not only works on a cake, anything can be determined to have a value of 1. 1 million fleas, 3 cucumbers, half a truck, whatever. If you say that things represent 1, then it does. Plain and simple.

[LeftEyeNine]

I disagree that 0.333... could be 1/3, because there is something vague over if a value which does not represent a definite point (since it is continuously in a gradually-slowing-but-never-halting fluctuating manner as more decimals are added) is regarded as a number. And there is no point in arguing that for I am not a professional of maths. I know 0.333... is not the only one and maths is full of them.

I reckon it's just the human perception sees it unworthwhile/incalculable, there either is something missing with the current level of maths as a science -like a "zero" of our time- or that your assumption is true -everything can be divided into equal parts without the slightest deviation. Does this way of minor-approximation to the next integer create blackholes that sucks away our chocolate cakes ? No. It works. And that's it. But in theoretical essence, I disagree such equality being possible.

[HoreTore]

I disagree that 0.333... could be 1/3, because there is something vague over if a value which does not represent a definite point (since it is continuously in a gradually-slowing-but-never-halting fluctuating manner as more decimals are added) is regarded as a number. And there is no point in arguing that for I am not a professional of maths. I know 0.333... is not the only one and maths is full of them.

I reckon it's just the human perception sees it unworthwhile/incalculable, there either is something missing with the current level of maths as a science -like a "zero" of our time- or that your assumption is true -everything can be divided into equal parts without the slightest deviation. Does this way of minor-approximation to the next integer create blackholes that sucks away our chocolate cakes ? No. It works. And that's it. But in theoretical essence, I disagree such equality being possible.

0.33... is the decimal representation of the fraction 1/3. There really is nothing more to it than that. 0.33.. Does represent a definite point, the definite representation is 1/3.

Not everything is a rational number(a rational number is a number that can be represented as the ratio of two integers, ie 1/3 or the number 3(which is the fraction 3/1)), however, we do have irrational numbers. PI is the most famous of those. PI cannot be represented accurately, it can only be represented as a number that is greater than one number but smaller than another number.

A quiz at the end:

Which of the following is not a number?
1. 9
2. B
3. 3^2
4. 3+3+3
5. 27/3
6. 3*3

The answer is 2. B is not a number, while all the others are numbers representing the value 9.

[Fragony]

Wait I already asked that

[ajaxfetish]

I disagree that 0.333... could be 1/3, because there is something vague over if a value which does not represent a definite point (since it is continuously in a gradually-slowing-but-never-halting fluctuating manner as more decimals are added) is regarded as a number.

It's not continuously shifting as more decimals are added, because more decimals are never added to it. It starts out with an infinite number of 3s to begin with, and refers to a definite point (that point of course being 1/3).

Ajax

[Sigurd]

A quiz at the end:

Which of the following is not a number?
1. 9
2. B
3. 3^2
4. 3+3+3
5. 27/3
6. 3*3

The answer is 2. B is not a number, while all the others are numbers representing the value 9.

waddayamean? B is 11 in hexadecimal.

[HoreTore]

waddayamean? B is 11 in hexadecimal.

No, B16 is 11 in hexadecimal.

Smart-ass. ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...and my mother wonders why I didn't do Physics.

[drone]

0.33... is the decimal representation of the fraction 1/3. There really is nothing more to it than that. 0.33.. Does represent a definite point, the definite representation is 1/3.
No it's not. 0.3 with a vinculum over the '3' is the decimal representation of 1/3. (no idea how to make a vinculum in the Org code...). There is a difference between repeating and terminating decimals, I would assume a math teacher would know this.

0.999999 equals 1 only for people taking shortcuts and old Pentium processors. :tongue:

[Fragony]

Edit

[LeftEyeNine]

No it's not. 0.3 with a vinculum over the '3' is the decimal representation of 1/3. (no idea how to make a vinculum in the Org code...). There is a difference between repeating and terminating decimals, I would assume a math teacher would know this.

0.999999 equals 1 only for people taking shortcuts and old Pentium processors. :tongue:

This.

[Kadagar_AV]

No it's not. 0.3 with a vinculum over the '3' is the decimal representation of 1/3. (no idea how to make a vinculum in the Org code...). There is a difference between repeating and terminating decimals, I would assume a math teacher would know this.

0.999999 equals 1 only for people taking shortcuts and old Pentium processors. :tongue:

That.

[HoreTore]

No it's not. 0.3 with a vinculum over the '3' is the decimal representation of 1/3. (no idea how to make a vinculum in the Org code...). There is a difference between repeating and terminating decimals, I would assume a math teacher would know this.

0.999999 equals 1 only for people taking shortcuts and old Pentium processors. :tongue:

Math uses different symbols in different languages.

0.999... (three periods at the end) is the way we write 0.9 that continues infintely. I was not aware that English used other symbols.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Math uses different symbols in different languages.

0.999... (three periods at the end) is the way we write 0.9 that continues infintely. I was not aware that English used other symbols.

We put a little dot over the number that recurs, it allows us to account for more than one digit.

Still, if you're going to do thirds, why not just move to base 12?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Such confusion of terms and phrases, no wonder you can't agree on anything if you don't even know what you're going on about.

The vinculum is often omitted, that is you'll find 0.33... is commonly accepted as meaning 1/3 but really if you want to express 1/3 just write 1/3. Your sanity will thank you later, when you do get into physics and significance of various values becomes important ... However, omission is not an error depending on context: when we throw around constants we tend to ditch things like the base qualifiers, too.

Which brings me to the fact that "B" is not "11 in hexadecimal". 11 in hexadecimal is 17 in decimal notation; so 11 in decimal notation is expressed as B in hexadecimal, that is B16 = 1110.

As for: can you divide 1 in 3 equal parts? On the face of it, yes: namely with each part being 1/3. However: define 1. For instance one fun bit of set theory allows you to define non-negative integers as sets with the value of the number being represented by the cardinality of the set. Using ø as the empty set and + for union (since I can't be bothered with the proper symbol) we have 0 = ø, 1 = {ø}, 2= {ø, {ø}}, 3 = {ø,{ø}, {ø, {ø}}}, etc. In which case you could argue 1 may be divided into three equal parts thus: {ø}, for {ø} + {ø} + {ø} = {ø} = 1 (by definition). Hence, 1 / 3 = 1.

If you were to define real numbers as their range from 0, i.e. 1 = [0,1]; then the answer is not clear at all. For instance if the value of the number is determined by the "size" of the range, as in the cardinality of the set of real numbers in that range then obviously any real number is 'equal' to any other due to the property of continuum.

[Sigurd]

Academics ... pfff..

[HoreTore]

We put a little dot over the number that recurs, it allows us to account for more than one digit.

Still, if you're going to do thirds, why not just move to base 12?

Well, actually, what I was doing was attempting to explain how no knowledge of zero can screw up your calendars, but it seems to have spiraled out of control....

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, actually, what I was doing was attempting to explain how no knowledge of zero can screw up your calendars, but it seems to have spiraled out of control....

Well that example is also wrong. Days are ranges of time, so assuming a 1-indexed day numbering then: day 1 is the timespan between start of day 1 (inclusive) and start of day 2 (exclusive), etc. We still have exactly 7 days, for day 7 (i.e. the seventh day) will be between Sunday 00:00 (inclusive) and Monday 00:00 (exclusive), assuming we take Monday to be day 1:


Monday 00:00 (inclusive) - Tuesday 00:00 (exclusive)
Tuesday 00:00 (inclusive) - Wednesday 00:00 (exclusive)
Wednesday 00:00 (inclusive) - Thursday 00:00 (exclusive)
Thursday 00:00 (inclusive) - Friday 00:00 (exclusive)
Friday 00:00 (inclusive) - Saturday 00:00 (exclusive)
Saturday 00:00 (inclusive) - Sunday 00:00 (exclusive)
Sunday 00:00 (inclusive) - Monday 00:00 (exclusive)


As far as indexing goes, whether or not you know "0" and therefore can do 0-based indexing is irrelevant since 1-based indexing (normal counting) works just as well and does not require a 0. Of course problems arise when you want to convey the concept of nothing explicitly, rather than implicitly by absence of anything else -- but this is not very relevant for time keeping (which is mostly counting/indexing of how many days/hours etc. since the last reference point) or even measuring time (you can't really measure absolute nothing even if you tried, and anyway before you could get even close you would have figured out the idea of 0).

[Memnon]

Scary math stuff

Noooo! Not again! How was maize domesticated again?

[HoreTore]

Well that example is also wrong.

Of course it's wrong.

Try counting the number of times I've said so in this thread.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well I read this:


Hmmmm....

Well, try counting the days of the week. Start at monday at 00:00, marking that time "day 1". Fast forwards 24 hours, now you're at day 2, and the clock is 00:00 on tuesday. Do that all the way to Sunday at 23:59, and you'll notice our week consists of 8 days. If one was to start at Day 0, however, you'd end up on the correct number of days, 7.

Which is clearly wrong, as I just demonstrated. You can count the number of bullet points and see they add up to seven in total, since there are 7 days in the week, even if you start with "day 1" (1-based indexing).


That was an over-simplified explanation, of course, the problems the ancients had with calendars waren't that simple. They had figured out various methods of making calendars(ie. counting days and time) more accurate even without a zero, but the concept of zero made things even more accurate.
The problems the ancients had were nothing to do with being able to count or keep track of the time accurately. They were all to do with the fact that the Earth's orbit around the sun (and hence seasons), spin around its axis (and hence days), do not map neatly to integer numbers sane people can work with. Which means that simply counting days and assuming fixed sizes for months and so on does not work if you want your calendar to line up with the seasons, nevermind now if you made the fatal mistake of trying to use the Moon as your reference point (since it is yet another thing out of phase with the seasons). Hence leap years, leap days and leap seconds.

We keep introducing leap seconds just to make UTC line up with what we "perceive" on Earth, even though we most definitely do use 0 a lot for time systems (denoting the start of epochs) now.



Our way of counting sounds really obvious, and it is quite hard to wrap our minds around it, think like they did before and see the problem. That really isn't because it's so obvious, but rather because we see zero as so obvious a concept, we can't understand how one cannot understand zero.

It's nothing to do with counting. You just shift the "index" up/down however your please, but the count (cardinality) remains the same. Now you are quite right that introducing a zero happens to simplify a lot of things and by extension make life easier. For instance summation, multiplication. (It is hard to solve quadratic equations without the concept of zero...) But as far as counting, number systems and (by extension) calendars go? Not so much.

[HoreTore]

You're arguing a different point than I am, Tellos.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, actually, what I was doing was attempting to explain how no knowledge of zero can screw up your calendars, but it seems to have spiraled out of control....

I'm utterly lost, I expect this would work if we were using coloured blocks or something.

[HoreTore]

I'm utterly lost, I expect this would work if we were using coloured blocks or something.

Considering the length of time this thread has going on, as well as me not checking the frontroom that often(the bright lights scare me) and the number of different debates all bungled together, I'm getting a little lost myself...

[Tuuvi]

I always assumed it was a grass used as feedstock at first and later for human consumption.

Plenty of plants have been used in history that aren't nutrious or worse they are poisonous ... If they aren't cooked properly.

If someone is starving they will eat tubers, roots, grass seeds, grass leaves or even dirt biscuits.

Some of these will be fatal for the individual some to prove to be an unexpected windfalls of nutrition. Enough attempts and a pattern will emerge. Patterns are something we are very good at exploiting.

So say some early farmers have herds of livestock say llamas or goats or sheep or cattle. Local climate change and all the livestock dies or is eaten. Then the farmers start eatin the grasses. Some of the seeds turn out to be quite nice.

Now they know that they have droughts and the grass seeds are an item of last resort. They also figure out they can store seeds for themselves and animals. They start encouraging the plants, fencin them off and between them
Selecting the ones that produce the most seeds.

They feed the livestock in winter with the dried grass. The seeds become more popular. Over generations the families stomachs adjust to the seed and milk diet.

Time, human pattern recognition, the ability to see seasonal change and forward thinking ie storage and sowing. It's not space rocket science it's shotgun learning ... Enough shots in the dark and you will get results.

The only problem with this as it relates to the domestication/creation of maize is that the Indians living in the region where maize cultivation first began didn't have grazing livestock. The difference between teosinte and maize is only about 5 genes, so the domestication of maize actually didn't take that long.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/corn/

[Moros]

If they had 10 planets in their system, they weren't so great after all, seeing as they were wrong?

Do note that Prot from K-PAX says there were ten as well. :o

It must all be true!!!