| > How do you know I don't understand math? 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. Sorry for being curt. 0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From |
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.