User talk:Milogardner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello; Here is the boiler-plate welcome message, which includes some useful links:


Welcome!

Hello, Milogardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Tom Harrison Talk 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to post on my talk page, but more people will see it if you use the article talk page. Also, if you want to prepare a draft you can make a subpage in your user space, like User:Milogardner/sandtable. Tom Harrison Talk 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Created a user page for you

Hi Milo! I created a very simple user page, at your request. Edit and change it to include some information about you if you want. Look at some other people's user pages for examples. Some people include a link to their personal website. It is generally advised to not include your email address. (There is some official policy on what can go in user pages but I can't find it right now). EdJohnston 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Ed, thanks for setting up my talk pape. I'll have to find the the best spot to list my latest blog, a rough set of info - at the present time:

http://liberabaci.blogspot.com

To generally introduce myself, a short bio is found at the end of the following blog:

http://egyptianmath.blogspot.com

For now, back to updating the Liber Abaci, and Sigler's comments.

Milogardner 12:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian fraction

Two encyclopedic sources have been added. Thanks for the heads up. Milogardner 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akhmim Wooden Tablet

Someone tagged this article for speedy deletion due to lack of context. I fleshed it out a bit based on the MathWorld entry. Two comments:

  • To avoid having new articles speedy-tagged and deleted, don't create them in mainspace until they're substantive enough to stand alone. Promising to expand it in the edit summary isn't enough. You can create drafts in your userspace, eg. User:Milogardner/Ahkmim Wooden Tablet, if you want to work on the article before it's ready for mainspace.
  • I'm admittedly not knowledgeable about this topic, but having done a quick google search, I wasn't able to find any obvious reference that didn't trace back to you. Quite possibly because people don't post these things on the internet much. It would help if you would provide an academic, scholarly work that discusses this tablet and the interpretation presented at MathWorld.

Thanks! Opabinia regalis 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Milo. Some of the recent material you've posted, eg Akhmim Wooden Tablet, Reisner Papyrus, etc., is largely republication of content you've posted on your blogs. While the material is interesting, it appears to be substantially your original work, as also implied by the message you left me. You have probably seen the Wikipedia:No original research policy, which prevents us from publishing novel content, even if the scholarship itself is sound. In these articles on ancient documents, are the interpretations your own, or are you reporting and summarizing the conclusions of a published source? If the latter, you will need to include the complete biblographical information of the source you are working from. Please read up on Wikipedia formatting - see Help:Editing for basic details, or if you're already aware of this, please start using it when you create new articles.
I know some of the people Milo has worked with on this and other Egyptian math projects. Its probably best represented as research, but not entirely original research as there are people at Stanford, Buffalo and like institutions working on it also going back to Peet, Gilings and others Rktect 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As a secondary point, new messages are posted on users' talk pages. You posted your message at User:Opabinia regalis, when you wanted User talk:Opabinia regalis. Opabinia regalis 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. To answer your question, I don't know anything about this particular subject, so I'm not in a position to be complaining about anyone's inconsistencies relating to it. However, it is not our place to correct 'scholarly inconsistencies', even if we think they're obviously problematic. I'm not sure what you mean by "this linking up of documents"; could you explain? It seems likely that, if it really is "a step others have not attempted", we shouldn't be doing it either.
BTW, it's also fine to reply here rather than on my talk page; it's usually easier for others joining the conversation to catch up if the whole thread is in one place. Opabinia regalis 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly inconsistencies are common when almost any subject is allowed, without footnote or justification, to wander back 80- 120 years, at ease, as if no progress had taken place in the interium, as if scholarly books had been randomly picked off a library shelf. This random book situation sadly has existed in several Wikipedia Egyptian mathematics discussions, before linkages began to improve the outdated reporting of the Middle Kingdom math texts. Early scholarly discussions (before 1927) had stressed minimalist additive views. That is, the math texts were almost never read beyond an additive context, even when large segments of texts could not be otherwise deciphered.

A major change took place after the turn of the century. Beginning in 2002 The Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll, the Akhmim Wooden Tablet (Hana Vymazalova), and the medical text hekat subunits (over 2,000 pieces of data) began to be read. The hekat sub-units were read by Tanja Pemmerening without error, correcting 100 years of confusion. The updated AWT and medical text methods and facts were first reported in independent 2002 masters, and then two 2005 PhD thesis (Vymazova, Pemmerening). The same class of major change continues to update the scope and content of Egyptian mathematics, re-connecting the highest hekat weights and measures, from which the medical texts created dja and other subunits were connected, to the parent Akhmim Wooden Tablet and its vivid remainder arithmetic (that had been oddly unreported 1927).

In conclusion, it is time for Wikipedia Egyptian fraction and other ancient Egyptian math topics to be fairly recognized, by their post-2001 scholary papers. Yes, I see the past confusion of Wikipedia topics being corrected by being directed to the a wider range of Middle Kingdom texts.

The RMP is an excellent case in point. At least four texts 200-350 years older, and each was used to draft identifiable RMP problems, possibly 50 of Ahmes' 84 problems. The 2/nth table can now be read as many had hoped to read in 1927 (Chace et al), if only by linking EMLR, AWT, MMP and the Reisner Papyri and dryly reporting each text's contents, and so forth. Milogardner 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If these articles reflect recent scholarship, that's great (assuming these PhD theses were done under the supervision of other reliable people), and it's great that you're updating and adding to a little-edited area. But in order for readers to get anything out of them, you really should wikify them, add internal links, and add formatted references in a separate references section. Just at first glance at the current state of the AWT article, I have no idea what a 'hekat' is, besides 'an Egyptian unit of measure', or who 'Peet' is at first mention, and the comments about Daressy 'getting confused' sound POV without clearer citation. Opabinia regalis 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If you don't know who Peet and Gillings are, or what the Egyptian standards of measure are and want to look them up in Wikipedia, work with Milo he knows his stuff.Rktect 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Wikifying the various Egyptian math links is important. Easy to read reviews of confusing topic is a proper complaint. For example, the hekat volume unit is found by the squaring the circle, defined in the MMP, but not clearly defined elsewhere. Mentioning the hekat as a volume unit elsewhere is a great idea as well. This type of clear Wikifying definition, and your other linking suggestions will be followed. Thanks. Milogardner 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Its important but when you try to connect the dots to show the networking with other cultures like the Greeks who were still working with Egyptian unit fractions in medieval times for the excellent reason that they were efficient and accurate, or state why it would be important to the Egyptians to be able to square a circle when working with hekats, I'll bet you get told squaring a circle can't be done and charges of original research even if you cite Gillings because about 90% of the people editing the articles have never read the basic source material. Would it be useful to mention other examples as with architectural proportions?Rktect 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue with Akhmim Wooden Tablet

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Akhmim Wooden Tablet, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://akhmimwoodentablet.blogspot.com/. As a copyright violation, Akhmim Wooden Tablet appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Akhmim Wooden Tablet has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Akhmim Wooden Tablet. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Akhmim Wooden Tablet, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Philippe Beaudette 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This topic began as a copy of the blog, owned by myself, hence the Wikipedia information has recieved proper approval. In any case, a Wikifying of the info is taking place, introducing links and other text changes that are quickly diverging from the original blos. In a few weeks I may not even recognize my own blog writing appearing in this Wikipedia topic. Thanks for the 'heads up'. Milogardner 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the pain with that article - I know that one's been trouble for you. I'm sure you understand that Wikipedia is, perhaps, over-cautious about copyright and intellectual property. As long as you carefully credit the original author (even when it's yourself) and show how it's fair use of the information, you're usually okay. You might check out WP:Copyright for more information. Thanks for your willingness to work through this, and for the great information you're adding! Philippe Beaudette 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hekat

Hey Milo. I had wiki-linked hekat (go ahead, click it), you'll see that the "Hekat" article has nothing to do with the hekat you're talking about. So I removed the "[[ ]]" and said "wrong kind of hekat". Since there is no article about the unit of measurement "hekat", I had suggested that you consider creating one. I would help, but i'm math-retarded. -Taco325i 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hey did you read this yet? we are talking about different things. you're talking about something substantive, i'm talking about the formatting of the article. -Taco325i

I see what you mean. I'll look into the subject. Thanks, Milogardner 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You can click on this, and begin editing: hekat (volume unit). Is that what it is? a volume unit? I have no idea. But you get the idea... -Taco325i 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

you're becoming a wikipro. Ok, when you make a link for [[hekat (volume unit)]], try doing this [[hekat (volume unit)|hekat]]. the first part is the name of the article, and the second part is what shows when you're reading it. -Taco325i 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ok i fixed the hekat article. -Taco325i 21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)



Wikipedia does not mandate that unqualified editors make 'corrections' to any post. Wikipedia is open for everyone, qualified or not, to discuss a topic, hopefully separating the wheat from the chaff. Best Regards to all, Milogardner

Hi Milo, long as I have know you, (over a decade), you have been teaching me stuff; in particular unit fractions. I can remember you sending me posts to put up when I was moderating sci.arcaelogy.
And how old do you think the foundations of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic can ber found? I say 2,000 BC, when:
2/pq = (1/q + 1/pq)2/(p + 1)
was only one of several ancient algorithms that exactly calculated unit fraction conversion of p/q.
Nov 24, 1997
I entirely agree that qualifications for writing on subjects where you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who understand the subject matter is warranted. If the editor above is claiming 20 years of original research on these topics I'd be more impressed with that than the degree in history, but surely Archibald Gardener is a topic that every grade school student knows by heart.Rktect 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Egyptian Use of Mathematics in Encoding/Decoding Secret Messages

I hope this appropriate for this discussion page (can't find an email to send to), but I'm looking for cases where Egyptians used their mathematics to send coded messages, in the same way people like John Dee would do use math in Elizabethan times, and providing links to modern cryptography. Did scribes encode detailed messages between heads of state or other agents? Did they fear discovery by enemy agents? Do we have documents with Egyptian messgaes in coded and decoded form, as we do from Francis Walsingham and Dee in the sixteenth century?

I'm working on a book of historical cryptography and stenography, and many of the medieval and renaissance cases were men who had mastered ancient mathematics and symbolism, so that begs the question if ancient Egyptians were also using their symbolic systems to encode secret messages.

Hard, technical knowledge is important to me, and I have a mathematical background from electrical engineering and computer science, but I'm relatively new to the ancient variety. My guess is that would have had to do this, the secrecy is always important, and that it is probably linked to spiritual mysteries, as it was in the middle ages and renaissance, and even today.

Thanks,

Tom.

I have no idea at this time. I'll look up the topic in a couple of code breaking history books and get back to you. ~Milo

It is well known that Romans used codes, one being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_cipher? Scholars often scoff at the formal idea that Egyptians had a working alphabet. Yet, surely Egyptians hieratic script included two levels of ciphers, employing an alphabet on level one. Level one was the phonetic sound written in either many-to-one hieroglyphic symbols or one-to-one hieratic symbols. Boyer (the math historian) has written extensively on this topic. Level two, often included a second meaning, usually a pun, useful in poetry and other writings. On the numeration side, Egyptian numerals and fractions were literally ciphers, all mapped this info onto hieratic alphabet (sounds), a method followed by Greeks, at least in Ionian and Doric alphabets.

Your question really asks, did Egyptians (and Greeks using the same logic) cipher their numerals onto a second alphabet, using another order, thereby confusing readers? Greeks, and others in the ANE mapped their numerals and fractions onto any available alphabet, so reordering of the numeral or alphabet order would have been easy to do, much as noted in the Caeser cipher. But again, proof of Egyptian and Greek ciphers preceding Roman ciphers needs to be proven by written records. When such a record is found, a definite yes can be provided. Otherwise the answer is no. ~~Milogardner

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmantexas (talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom: Another way to view your question is to review Linear A, B the pre-1500 BCE and post-1500 BCE scripts contexts - used on Crete by Minoans (using an unknown language) or by the later Greeks that occupied the same islands, after 1500 BCE. A two person team cracked Linear B as Greek by using a linguist and a trained WWII code breaker over 50 years ago. Others have tried the same techniques to break Linear A, scholars have failed. Linear A remains unread today. Even using the same, or very near, the Linear B symbols, and using known hieroglyphic ways of writing numerals, the language side of the Linear A phonetic symbols have not been proven to be connected to any known language (most likely due to the small sample size of texts.) Milo

Tom: To respond to your Johnny Dee question, let me say two things. First medieval, Roman, Greek, and Egyptian arithmetics were all written in Egyptian unit fractions, using nearly the same methods. The Liber Abaci written by Leonardo Fibonacci, and fully translated in 2002, details seven conversion methods that optimally wrote short and concise unit fraction series (from vulgar fractions). Five of Leonardo's seven methods date to the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, with the oldest method (multiples) cited in the EMLR and RMP, a point that I've made in my blogs, and related Wikipedia articles. Second, Johnny Dee, and his peers, John Napier (and Napier bones multiplication and square root), Simon Stevin, and others were aware of, and used, ciphered numerals, and ciphers of various types. By 1585 AD modern decimals formally replaced the 3,600 year old Egyptian unit fraction arithmetic system, by bringing in algorithms, and zero as a place-holder within decimal arithmetic. Yes, Egyptians should be given credit for first developing ciphers related to numerals and phonetics, as used by Johnny Dee. I'll let you come up with the appropriate descriptive narrative, citing the historical credits. Milo

Tom: Thank you for for citing your background. I have worked with IEEE types from time to time. "Ahmes Code" was published by an Egyptian EE. His paper: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/844/heritage.htm offers an introduction to Egyptian codes. EE's, such as yourself, may see the modern need to understand Egyptian fractions, since the ancients did find better optimal series, compared to modern mathematicians and EE's (dense modern versions) that are created by algorithms. I have worked with the two IEEE binary 'fixed and floating point' round off standards (since the 1960's), methods that mimic and formally mention ancient Egyptian methods (without drawing upon the ancients' optimal methods). That is, modern IEEE standards oddly round off vulgar fractions when n/p, p being prime, are involved, rather than finding an exact unit fraction series, usually in 5-terms or less. You may have sensed this un-needed weakness of modern standards, while not putting the modern error issue into words. To my view, moderns EE's should never have round off when working with rational numbers. Milo