Slashdot Mirror


Old Islamic Tile Patterns Show Modern Math Insight

arbitraryaardvark writes "Reuters reports that medieval Muslims made a mega math marvel. Tile patterns on middle eastern mosques display a kind of quasicrystalline effect that was unknown in the west until rediscovered by Penrose in the 1970s. 'Quasicrystalline patterns comprise a set of interlocking units whose pattern never repeats, even when extended infinitely in all directions, and possess a special form of symmetry.' It isn't known if the mosque designers understood the math behind the patterns or not."

538 comments

  1. Why wouldn't they? by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems fairly self important to assume that they didn't understand the math behind the tiles. They generated them, didn't they? Islamic culture was well considered to be centuries ahead of Europe during that time period. They had access to some of the ancient Greek writings that Europe only rediscovered years later. My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Why wouldn't they? by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well the tiles are just.. tiles. Just because someone uses a curvy shaped dome on top of their mosque doesn't mean they knew how to calculate its surface area or volume using integration.
      Maybe they just thought it was a pretty shape?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm pretty sure either aliens or reptoids built it, just like with the pyramids.

    3. Re:Why wouldn't they? by grimdawg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most patterns are discovered before the mathematics behind them is fully understood.

      A child draws a cube without realising its rotational symmetries are S_4, and draws a circle without knowledge of its useful properties. In the case of decorations, aesthetics tend to come first. When did you first draw a spiral? Did you realise it was fractal?

      Hell, most modern mathematics comes from the investigation of an object we thought we knew all about.

      It's more than likely the pattern was designed for aesthetic reasons. I'm not trying to run down the guys, but the kind of insight we're talking about here appears at face value to require a long academic tradition. It's not the kind of thing you're likely to stumble on.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and nine other kinds of people.
    4. Re:Why wouldn't they? by wenchmagnet · · Score: 1

      What happened was what happens in most organized religion... in that era, discourse was encouraged and philosophy (and the arts and sciences) flourished. It was not taboo to ask questions and new thoughts and ideas were encouraged.

      Then the clergy took over and turned everything on its head. Now the clergy passes fatwas against anything they dont like, and since they are fine with the status quo (it gives them tremendous power and influence), the fatwas come out against anything that even hints at being progressive.

      I know I'm over-simplifying but this is it in a nutshell.

    5. Re:Why wouldn't they? by pfafrich · · Score: 4, Informative
      There are basically two forms of tilling patterns, the periodic patterns which have been known for many years, and aperiodic ones, which have only been recently been discovered. For many years it was thought that only the periodic patterns existed, and in particular there were no patterns with five fold symmetry.

      The patterns shown in the article are not true penrose patterns, it exhibits two lines of reflection, horizontal and vertical and the pattern does not repeat indefinitely.

      --
      There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
    6. Re:Why wouldn't they? by MicrosoftRepresentit · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I was three I drew the Mandelbrot set in crayons and moments later modelled part of the quaternian Julia set out of plasticine. It wasn't until I was 9 that I understood the maths behind it, which I think proves your point.

    7. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.

      The funny thing is that, approx. 1400 years after the death of Jesus we also had our period of intolerance (did you say Inquisition) and of stalling progress. The Renaissance appears to be a flourishing era because of the giant leap that has been made in paintings but in terms of sculpture, architecture or litterature, the trend was to come back to the "classic style" : an aggregation of roman and greek techniques 1000 years old and considered perfect. It is at this time also that we began to see scientists opposing Church dogmas whereas before this time scientists were often also religion scholars.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    8. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Tiro · · Score: 1

      The Islamic civilization is as much a successor to Graeco-Roman Antiquity as Western Christendom. Ayatollah Khomeini's theological doctorate was in -- guess what? -- Aristotelian logic. Where are the glorious cities of Alexandria and the second capital itself, Constantinople? In medieval times these two cities had the population close to one million each; by comparison, Paris had around forty thousand, London had ten thousand.

      But of course, being a 'brother' does not mean a twin. The crucial difference between the eastern and western parts of the greater Mediterranean realm was in the patterns of their political economy. In the West, it was serfdom (a part-time and contractual bondage) with peasants subordinated to mostly small and local lords or monasteries -- rather than to a big central government like in the formidable empires of the East. The best book on this subject matter remains to this day Marc Bloch's classic Société féodale, or Feudal society in English translation. This great book gives you a good sense of how the feudal system worked in reality and in its legal theory.

      In the more prosperous Eastern Roman Empire, in the much longer established and far longer cultivated (since before the pyramids) Egypt, Fertile Crescent (mostly Syria) and Mesopotamia a different economy endured from one civilization to another, and almost to our days (to the 1950s). It was based on village peasant communities heavily taxed by the central state and where the taxes comfortably sustained the sophisticated urban elite (think Egypt and Alexandria; or Constantinople/Istanbul drawing resources from the rest of Anatolia, the Balkans, and Syria; or Baghdad in the Mesopotamia; or Persepolis and much later the great city of Isfahan in Persia). The land is so fertile, the peasants have nowhere to run, and few resources or opportunities ever to rebel (unless somebody hit from without, like the advancing Muslim armies), and so generation after generation they keep on paying very substantial taxes. Then, the Near East is also a very active commercial zone - think the Silk Road from China to Constantinople, or the Spice and Incense road across Arabia and the Red sea leading to the great bazaars of Alexandria. The trade was predominantly in luxuries, as you see, and guess who consumed those silks, spices, perfumes - and where did they get the money? Remember the "crisis of overaccumulation" and the imperial edifices becoming top-heavy as time went by. Read in Perry Anderson's Passages from Antiquity the very last sections: "Crisis in the East" and "South of the Danube".

      Some sort of a crisis (climate catastrophe) unsettled the power arrangements and thus security in Arabia a generation before the Prophet. Any economy directly dependent on the yield from plants and animals would be vulnerable to climate fluctuations, wouldn't it? Remember the concept of "carrying capacity": how many humans could be sustained in a given ecological niche? Then, of course, politics is how people negotiate their problems, sometimes very violently. Pay attention to the special role played by Mecca once the region was engulfed in feuds and how from this role flowed the special peace-making role of the Prophet himself: his adoption of radical monotheism (one God for all humans to worship), the idea of salvation (it has to be one's own moral responsibility to behave properly in this life in order to be saved, and thus following the Law of much higher order than tribal adat or king's law), the sense of brotherhood of all believers, the obligation to defend all fellow Muslims as if they were one's family, and the idea of social justice -- the rich must share with the poor by give away and charities.

      Cavalry played a very big role in the military victories of Muslim Arab armies. I have spent a lot of time on that, and McNeill has an excellent discussion in this regard, and Perry Anderson wrote a whole section on "The Nomadic Brake". But beware! It is not cavalry alone - the Zoroastrian (flame-worship

    9. Re:Why wouldn't they? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      Sure! The invented zero, for example. Back in the day, the Arab world was something special. In fact while 'wandering' in the desert, one of the first places they came to, thinking they'd DIE in the desert, was a huge, lush compound owned by Ishmael. Now that the populace is starving, poor, and unhappy, they've gone into the bomb-making business, as if that's going to change anything. 10% of their population makes the 1% of the evangelical-wackos look like kids on a field trip. They kill at random (Like in Bali) and disturb the chances to EVER get their communal lives back to normal, like it was once before. It's a shame what the oil money did to them. ...more reason to get off the oil standard, ASAP. :(

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    10. Re:Why wouldn't they? by bheer · · Score: 1

      They invented a lot of things, but not zero. There's quite a bit of evidence that the Arabs got that from the Indians.

    11. Re:Why wouldn't they? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      Is that so? Well how cool is that? Good to know.

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    12. Re:Why wouldn't they? by grimdawg · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know the feeling. I proved the Poincare Conjecture when I was 8, using a balloon a stapler. Unfortunately, I assumed it was trivial and never went public.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and nine other kinds of people.
    13. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It's a relative thing. Medieval Islamic societies had more scientists than medieval societies in the west. But that's like saying you have more scientists than the Taliban, quite literally. It's important to note that medieval islam was by no means enlightened by todays's standards. It was still possible in those societies to get killed for blasphemy, or just for displeasing the Caliph. Then in the west the enlightenment totally reformatted society - it was suddenly possible for people to ignore religion without fear of getting killed. Nothing like that happened in the Islamic world, in fact the fundamentalists and secular dictators have managed to roll back what civilisation existed there. And the roots of the enlightenment, a powerful middle class that demands a law based society still don't exist in the Islamic world now.

      You can see in Iraq for example, that there isn't sufficient domestic pressure to sustain a liberal democracy after the US/UK leave. It will go back to being a tyranny, and most people will see that as being preferable to civil war.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:Why wouldn't they? by matlhDam · · Score: 4, Funny

      I proved the Poincare Conjecture when I was 8, using a balloon a stapler. Unfortunately, I assumed it was trivial and never went public.

      Ah, I see. Proof by explosion.
    15. Re:Why wouldn't they? by procrastinx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      May be they didnt know the terms 'integration' , 'surface area' and 'volume ' , but they might have understood the real *usefulness* behind those concepts.

    16. Re:Why wouldn't they? by David_Shultz · · Score: 1

      It seems fairly self important to assume that they didn't understand the math behind the tiles. They generated them, didn't they? Islamic culture was well considered to be centuries ahead of Europe during that time period. They had access to some of the ancient Greek writings that Europe only rediscovered years later. My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.
      Since depictions of the prophet are forbidden, Islamic art focuses of patterns and designs. It is therefore not "self important", as you describe it, to presume that perhaps their art was simply art, without mathematical justification.

      In answer to the question of "what happened" to islamic culture, the answer is "religion happened". Anti-intellectualism swept their culture clean of vile rationality.

    17. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... the kind of insight we're talking about here appears at face value to require a long academic tradition.

      Which is exactly the kind of tradition that the middle east had at that time (and still do). Well, the parts we haven't bombed back to the stone age at least.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    18. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a lot of patterns are not "natural". a child drawing a cube most probably does so, because it lives in an environment that provides cubes to its perception. anthropology showed more than once that there are, f.e., tribes in south-east asia that are not even able to draw a straight line, simply because no such thing ever occurs in their world. circles, yes, the sun does that for you.

    19. Re:Why wouldn't they? by battery111 · · Score: 1

      or the parts they themselves haven't . . .

    20. Re:Why wouldn't they? by fub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While the letters we use right now are Latin, the numbers are Arabic. What tells you that about the mathematical abilities of the middle east in those times, compared with the european insight?

    21. Re:Why wouldn't they? by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

      It does not repeat indefinitely? I thought aperiodic patterns weren't meant to repeat. The mosque pattern in TFA does have five-fold symmetry, has a pair of reflection lines which is not forbidden for a penrose lattice, and it could be extended as far as the supply of tiles reaches. This is work done by an artist, who may or may not have understood the maths behind this but he certainly had the imagination to create something beautiful and original.

    22. Re:Why wouldn't they? by ady1 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. How nice of US to step in to stop them from killing each other. The reformated society of course.

    23. Re:Why wouldn't they? by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The number system we use is actually originally derived from Hindu numerals. They were the first to use the number '0' to create a positional number system, which is what put it head and shoulders above the Roman one.. But that's besides the point.

      I'm not saying Muslim nations weren't, in many respects (especially maths and astronomy), the most advanced nations around at the time. What I am saying is that it's a bit of a leap from "they used this shape" to "they knew all the advanced mathematics that can be derived from studying this shape."

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    24. Re:Why wouldn't they? by MastaBaba · · Score: 0

      It took me two hours to come up with a quick visual proof to debunk the maths in this article.

    25. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      I drew Koch kurves, Sierpinski triangles and Cantor set's when I was ~10 - 12 years old.
      Of course not to infinity (doh), but I drew them as far as I could with a pen and eraser.
      I didn't have a clue what I was drawing, about fraktals, about the math or the therories behind it.
      They where just nice and interesting patterns to me.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    26. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      My mother fed me from a Klein bottle.

    27. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tiling a plane isn't mathematics, it's engineering. You can either do it or you can't. You might use mathematics to derive a tiling but if you get the same tiling at the end you've achieved the same thing.

      I'm not sure what's involved in deriving a Penrose tiling mathematically, but I don't see why someone shouldn't stumble on a specific Penrose tiling by messing around.

      Don't forget how many man years went into these ancient buildings. In those days maybe you could have one man working 40 years to get the perfect roof tiling pattern.

    28. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It tells me more about geography - the Arabs lived between Europe and the place they were really invented, i.e. India.

    29. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To all kin of this post: thanks for the laughs, you made my day !

    30. Re:Why wouldn't they? by God'sDuck · · Score: 5, Informative

      The interesting thing about quasicrystal (and 2d mapping thereof) tilings is that they are emphatically *not* regular -- so at any given vertex you can put in any number of available tile shapes, and all might appear to work, until you get 100 tiles further along and find you've backed yourself into a corner where nothing fits.

      there are rules (now) that Steinhardt and his colleagues (including my wife...which is why I know something here...heh) have developed which can tell you what shape should come next to prevent backing yourself into the corner, but they have taken years to develop -- not because they're mathematically complex, but just because it takes a looooong time to try all the possible combinations, and then recognize what happened at each vertex.

      my assumption is the same as the parent's -- that the Muslim artists simply "brute forced" these -- that is to say, put down random tiles, took them back up when they created bad spots, and patted themselves on the back when it all worked and looked pretty -- and then jotted down what the pattern looked like. having helped my wife do the same thing early in her thesis work -- let me tell you, it's a pain in the arse with these shapes -- but by no means impossible, and the results are always impressive.

    31. Re:Why wouldn't they? by xTantrum · · Score: 1

      Most patterns are discovered before the mathematics behind them is fully understood

      maybe, but be careful you don't start giving the arabs their due. I won't troll on this aspect but consider this: The west got its mathematics from the europeans from the greeks via the arabs via the hindus.

      When most of europe was still barberic and uncivilised, the muslims had already for sevreal hundered years been exposed to Greek mathemmatics. What was the Greeks forte? you guessed it geometry! The arabs had translated works from Aristotle, Euclid,Apollonius,Archimedes and Ptolemy into arabic.

      Its far more likely the arabs understood and implemented the greek works than they didn't. from about 800 A.D. they had settled down and built a high level civililization and contributed to mathematcs a bit as well.

      Europe was hardly mathematically or scientifically inclined till about 1100 A.D.

      People need to stop being so provencial and accept the fact that lots of ideas were thought of before the 21st century.

      --
      $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    32. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Bazer · · Score: 1

      Stewie? Is that you?

    33. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Uzik2 · · Score: 1

      I can use a spirograph without understanding anything about math. I can draw penrose tiles without too. The interview on the radio states they developed a set of stencils to do these. I doubt they knew the math behind it. You don't really need to and it's still pretty, which is the object for the artist.

      --
      -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
    34. Re:Why wouldn't they? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      If you look at the pictures of the floor tiling posted with the article, you'll see they laid out round patterns on a number of string-line intersections. Add a few measuring rods or ratios for positioning those string-lines, and patterns like that could be replicated by skilled tradesmen quite easily. You could even wrap-tie knots at the intersection points and carry the pattern around as a loose string net.

      If you teach people to lay out the patterns, and how to fill in the spaces in between with tile pieces, then you have people laying out the pattern without them having the vaguest clue about the mathematics. All it took was a mathematician with a knack for explaining things each time the pattern was written down.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    35. Re:Why wouldn't they? by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The patterns shown in the article are not true penrose patterns, it exhibits two lines of reflection, horizontal and vertical and the pattern does not repeat indefinitely.

      Even the fact of local five-fold symmetry is interesting, although I agree these are not true Penrose tiles, which typically use only two shapes (I count at least three or four in the picture) each of which have a reflection symmetry but no rotation symmetry.

      The tiling shown in the picture with the article looks quite a lot like a Kepler Tiling, with its local five-fold symmetry and use of five hexagons to fill out the pattern. I have no idea where Kepler got the idea from--he lived in the 16th century, about a hundred years after the Arab tilings the article talks about.

      In any case, the practical arts routinely outstripped scientific and mathematical understanding until very recently, and even now we do sometimes see science playing catch-up with empirical ability. It is doubtful that anyone at the time understood very much about any of these tilings in the way a modern mathematician would. But by the same token science and mathematics would have a lot less interesting stuff to work with if artisans didn't explore empirical possibilities for their own reasons.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    36. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JDevers · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, alien's built my house and it doesn't use any funky math...oh wait, you mean a different type of alien...

    37. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Skinny+Rav · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that, approx. 1400 years after the death of Jesus we also had our period of intolerance (did you say Inquisition) and of stalling progress.


      Generalisations, generalisations, generalisations. Inquisition was in fact quite just court system, compared to secular courts of the era. Intolerance had more to do with general cultural collapse after the end of Roman Empire than anything else and in fact by 15th century it was much better than earlier. The progress was also not stalled (clockwork, gothic cathedrals, water and windmills etc. - that is 13th-14th century already!).

      Also, opposite to present stereotypes, there was an exchange of ideas between Christian world and Islam: gothic architecture has obvious Arabic influences, a lot of ancient Greek scientific texts were translated from Arabic copies etc.

      The Renaissance appears to be a flourishing era because of the giant leap that has been made in paintings but in terms of sculpture, architecture or litterature, the trend was to come back to the "classic style" : an aggregation of roman and greek techniques 1000 years old and considered perfect.


      This is true. However "the progres" made in paintings was not just because of improvements in technique, but had most to do with a switch from use of paintings as symbols and allegories to representation of reality.

      It is at this time also that we began to see scientists opposing Church dogmas whereas before this time scientists were often also religion scholars


      True, the Renaissance brought enormous developments in empirical studies, physics - and mathematics necessary for physics. Again though, calling Medieval times "dark ages of science" is generalisation - empiricism and logic, optics, mathematics, scientific method - all these were studied in high medieval times at Universities, where free pursuit of scientific truth flourished. Unfortunately the Black Plague of 14th century destroyed most of this.

      So, poor state of science and engineering had more to do with political (Fall of the Roman Empire) or medical (the Black Plague) factors than with "Church dogmas".

      Cheers

      Raf
    38. Re:Why wouldn't they? by 4solarisinfo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While the letters we use right now are Latin, the numbers are Arabic

      and interestingly, the Arab world now uses indian numbers...

      -----------
      sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes it's a big black d**k
      -george carlin

    39. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes they had accsess to all the writeings, scientific findings, and information that the ancient greeks and romans had. why? because their religion basicly stated that anything that further defined and shed light on the univserse only served to further prove how great god was.
      christianity on the other hand took the exact opposite view. that anything that opposed what humans wrote in the bible was herasy, a perversion in the face of god and must be destoryed. so while the christians were burning books and whole collections of information(alexandra liberary anyone?). islamic scholler's paid people the book's weight in gold for translating the works into arabic.

    40. Re:Why wouldn't they? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.
      Religion and the evolution of religion is what has happened.

      Without going into too many details that I know someone will become offended over, religion has been a way to control the masses and justify the existance of someone's power thoughout history. When something like this happens, outside of keeping the populace safe or making something easier/efficient to some degree, it was best to keep things the way they are. Most of the world has either rebelled against that idea or taken an entirely different approach to religion. But in the middle east and with islam, It took them longer to work through it and they are still getting some resistance.

      From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.
      Thats because we have seen bad examples of progress. We have seen people displaced forkm their homes by gunpoint in the name of progress. We have seen ideas that would otherwise be insane shoved at us in the name of progress. And progress has always been challenged by some when it negetivlty effects them, hence the reasons for the above. But usualy the progress that no one really notices are the most meaning full. The internet took off into what it is today because it didn't displace anyone (very few if any) and because of younger people finding it so usefull. Most older people who have spent the last five years or so tied to it, did so by something basicly forcing them into having it at one time or another. Ie work, kids, desire to learn something, whatever.

      Many people still see progress as bad. To them, progress is little old ladies being evicted from a house bought, paid for, and lived in most of their lives so a shopping mall can create tax revenue for the city. It is not generaly a good site. And in his case, I say keep progress and shove up someone's ass.
    41. Re:Why wouldn't they? by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I solved the halting problem when I was 11 and went on to overturn the second law of thermodynamics. But my dog ate the homework assignment before I could turn it in.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    42. Re:Why wouldn't they? by silentounce · · Score: 1

      a straight line I find that very hard to believe. I don't have time to look for an example now, but cleavage of certain crystals should suffice.
      --
      There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
    43. Re:Why wouldn't they? by EatHam · · Score: 2, Funny

      That they couldn't do math, and the arabs couldn't write. They got together and made the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of math and english, which is what the SATs are based on to this day.

    44. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They may very well have understood them...You have to remember, the Dark Ages for us was the Enlightenment for them. They were doing a lot of interesting math, and building architecturally advanced structures embodying complex mathematical concepts when we were wallowing around in superstitious ignorance.

      Just because things have swung back the other way today, doesn't mean they won't swing back again tomorrow...That's the real lesson to learn from all the fundamentalist chrsitian movements...A society that doesn't appreciate some form of spirituality is pretty empty, but a society to embraces spirituality above all other things is hardly removed from barbarism.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    45. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You read the wrong FA. Typical slashdot, using Reuters or the Wall Street Journal or Fox or some such nonsense for a science or mathmatecal FA. Here's a FA that actually answers your question and explains why they had to have had advanced math to construct these things.

      The dome shape was explained in (of all places) an undergraduate art history class I took thirty years ago. Those domes are imposible to construct without advanced geometry (and other advanced disciplines as well).

    46. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... or the parts they themselves haven't . . . ...

      I suspect nothing they did to themselves could get anywhere near "Shock and Awe".

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    47. Re:Why wouldn't they? by ccarson · · Score: 0, Insightful

      That's the real lesson to learn from all the fundamentalist chrsitian movements...A society that doesn't appreciate some form of spirituality is pretty empty, but a society to embraces spirituality above all other things is hardly removed from barbarism.

      I'm not sure that's true. Religion has a way of focusing the mind. Think of it like a drug. Say religion is like coffee. You drink a cup and you can read and think a bit faster. Drink a keg and you've lost your mind. Just like many things, moderation is the key.

    48. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but what have you done for me lately?

    49. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.
      Religion happened. The takeover of the Middle East by Islamic institutions plunged it into a dark age from which it has not yet emerged. The same thing happened to western Europe when the Christian institutions took over the continent during the dark ages there. That ended when a few brave souls embraced science instead of religion as the tool for improving life.
    50. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A society that doesn't appreciate some form of spirituality is pretty empty

      What is your definition of "empty?" I'm sincerely curious. For that matter, what do you mean by "spirituality?"

      Would you describe the Star Trek society (secular, cosmopolitan, humanist) as "empty?" Humans don't believe in any sorts of spirits or other supernatural creatures in Roddenberry's vision of an ideal society.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    51. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      I think it was Neil DeGrasse Tyson during his talk during Beyond Belief 2006 who explained it like this:

      Between 1000 and 1200, the Islamic world was the seat of knowledge. People studied there from all over the globe and many new things were created because of the free flow of ideas. Algebra and alcohol were invented, many stars were named, and the best astrolabes were built in Baghdad.

      Then, in the late 12th century, a Muslim cleric rose to power who said that if science or a work of literature didn't agree with the Koran, then the Koran was correct because it was the word of Allah and therefore the final authority. So science started to decline, and the libraries were burned, and the people were driven to superstition. Thankfully, enough survived to not set us back too far, and the Renaissance picked up where the scientists in Baghdad had left off.

      And if you can't see the similarities between what happened then in Baghdad and what is happening now in the United States, you are blind.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    52. Re:Why wouldn't they? by opec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In case you didn't realize, Star Trek isn't exactly the most realistic simulation of reality.

    53. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supernatural creatures? They sure as heck have enough mystical energy fields.

    54. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was the Persians who did this - frequently under Arabic honorifics, so this stuff is always called "Islamic".

      Persian mathematicians invented Spherical Trig, etc.

      Persian architects built the Taj Mahal for Shah Jahan.

      Persian astronomers developed the systems and observations of Indians and extrapolated complete mathematical systems, that were the basis for both Newton and Leibnitz.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    55. Re:Why wouldn't they? by cp.tar · · Score: 0, Troll

      In case you didn't realize, Star Trek isn't exactly the most realistic simulation of reality.

      In Star Trek, from what I could gather, human civilisation is portrayed pretty much in the way it might look like if everyone (or at least the majority) obeyed the Ten Commandments.

      So you tell me, how different is it from religion?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    56. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the point that you are trying to make here ?

    57. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were doing a lot of interesting math, and building architecturally advanced structures embodying complex mathematical concepts when we were wallowing around in superstitious ignorance.

      My, how charitable of you. I wonder how you would characterize the pre-Columbian civilizations in North America.

    58. Re:Why wouldn't they? by spun · · Score: 1

      Spirituality simply means focus on matters of the spirit, not necessarily in the supernatural sense. Call it a focus on human inner life and personal experience if that sounds less hokey to you.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    59. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't. Both are make-believe.

    60. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Poltras · · Score: 2

      How is that different from what he said?

    61. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Most of us had spirographs when we were kids too.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    62. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In a nutshell, I think that a society that is purely physicalist in its view of living things is...problematical. By those standards stomping on an alarm clock, a flower, and a puppy are all pretty much the same thing, because living things are no different from non-living things.

      Now Star Trek is an interesting case (despite what others seem to think) because they embrace some of what I would think of as "the divinity of man"...They have very strong beliefs about not only the intrinsic value of life, but also the value of things like art, literature, science, and the uplifting of the human condition, as well as a sophisticated value system dealing with the sort of things that are ethically "desirable" in an individual.

      So, when I say, "Spirituality" I'm definitely not talking about anything supernatural per se, but more about an appreciation of the value of things beyond the actual physical substance of the world. Religion is a form of spiritualism, though not one that appeals to me personally because I feel it often misses the point, and because it tends toward anti-intellectualism.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    63. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light travels in straight lines, so what about shadows/sun rays? Or string, everybody has string.

    64. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, to nitpick, they really only obey what I'd consider to be the important commandments...Kill, Steal, Lie, Covet, Honor yer Parents, and Adultery (in the sense of not cheating on your spouse but not in the sense of extramarital hanky panky)...They skip sabbath, idols, blasphemy, and one god only.

      Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    65. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Youssef+Adnan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously.. Do you know what the source of the word "Algorithm" is?
      Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm#Etymology
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs %C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB
      And then, after you read where the source is, maybe it would be time to know where Algebra came from:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra
      Some architecture info can be found here: http://www.islamicarchitecture.org/architecture/in dex.html

      Pretty shape!!!

    66. Re:Why wouldn't they? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Huh? Many of the ten commandments are purely god-related. Star Trek doesn't follow any of those. Kirk has relations with alien babes, and countless redshirts are killed. People deceive each other, and covet things, and take what isn't theirs.

      I frankly don't know what you're talking about. Have you even read the ten commandments? They're mostly a bunch of stick-crazy bullshit about god. The couple that make any sense are too simplistic to be useful. What is murder? Isn't war murder? What is stealing? Is taxation or being a ruthless businessman stealing?

      The ten commandments are stupid and useless.

      Anyway, the difference between any rational framework and religion is that a rational framework has a mechanism for change, while religion based on dogma and made-up texts by definition does not. I think religion would implode if it had to deal with alien beings. There's a great book, Galactic Rapture, about what would happen if our religions survived alien contact. It's scary and funny, with intergalactic mormons and papal killing squads and every planet getting it's own jesus.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    67. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I proved the Poincare Conjecture when I was 8, using a balloon a stapler.

      I made mine out of paste and paper, and then ate it.

    68. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Pre-columbian civilizations in America?

      Sure, there were people, but I'd hardly dignify them as "civilizations"

    69. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Chopo · · Score: 1

      "when we were wallowing around in superstitious ignorance." don't forget to add that we're heading that way again.

    70. Re:Why wouldn't they? by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to run down the guys, but the kind of insight we're talking about here appears at face value to require a long academic tradition. It's not the kind of thing you're likely to stumble on. Well, we're talking 15th Century here. If we ignore that they had a leg up from classical culture, Islam had an academic tradition of nearly a thousand years. Long enough?
      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    71. Re:Why wouldn't they? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.

      I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard. And that, he said, is why religious people have it harder and why their sacrifice is more worthy or something like that.

      All in all, I really don't care much for the reasons someone follows their principles; I prefer to care about the nature of their principles.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    72. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Anyway, the difference between any rational framework and religion is that a rational framework has a mechanism for change,

      That's incorrect. It's also a heavily biased statement as it rests on the assumption that a religious framework cannot be rational. Revelation is not irrational by definition. If revelation has actually occurred, then it is rational to trust it. Change is irrational if you already have the truth.

    73. Re:Why wouldn't they? by mikael · · Score: 1

      There's a few Penrose Tiling applets out on the web which allow you to create such patterns manually. This applet demonstrates how easy it is to end up in a dead-end situation.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    74. Re:Why wouldn't they? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      they did. as they did invented most of what is our medicine and astronomy today.

      but, as history always shows, culture means shit if theres some angry, violent neighbor around.

    75. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link.
      I was amazed there wasn't any good picture of an actual pattern in TLA.

    76. Re:Why wouldn't they? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      I know the feeling. I proved the Poincare Conjecture when I was 8, using a balloon a stapler. Unfortunately, I assumed it was trivial and never went public.

      That's really pretty trivial, isn't it? Just blow the balloon up, squish and bend it a little bit, then let the air out. I'm pretty sure that describes an arbitrary manifold being isomorphic to a 3-sphere, especially the squishing part. I'm not sure what you used the stapler for, I thought putting rubber bands around the balloon would have been a better idea.

    77. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Cut him some slack, he was 8!

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    78. Re:Why wouldn't they? by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      A child draws a cube without realising its rotational symmetries are S_4

      And this adult too.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    79. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to comment on the swinging back aspect.

      Earlier, I think there was renaissance of sorts in the west in many areas but there weren't external forces influencing these developments.

      Now, IMO, the rich/powerful countries ensure that they keep their lead through several tools.

    80. Re:Why wouldn't they? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, I think that a society that is purely physicalist in its view of living things is...problematical. By those standards stomping on an alarm clock, a flower, and a puppy are all pretty much the same thing, because living things are no different from non-living things.

      I believe there's no intrinsic difference in smashing a puppy vs. smashing an alarm clock. But there is a very good reason why I wouldn't do the former: if I did, I would feel AWFUL.

      You can attribute that awful feeling to morality, a sense of philosophical ethics, a fear of God, or whatever. It doesn't matter. The FACT is I would never do such a thing because it would make be FEEL BAD, similar to how I avoid touching hot stoves because it HURTS. You can assign a spiritual basis to this particular trait of mine, but I don't.

    81. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.

      I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard. And that, he said, is why religious people have it harder and why their sacrifice is more worthy or something like that.

      it seems to me that taking a published list of principles and altering it to arrive at your own set of principles that seem fairest to you is hard, while following it directly just because you're commanded to is easy. it may be that looking at the list and altering it based on your viewpoint doesn't bring you to a better or more generally fair set of rules (you may be factoring in your own bias and self-interest). but if you're really putting effort into thinking of the reasons behind those rules, that's got to be more work than just following without question doesn't it?
    82. Re:Why wouldn't they? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      The article you linked to does not contain anything stating that they had to have advanced mathematics to make the pattern. It says the pattern matches a mathematical formula not discovered by the West until the 1970's, and that mathematics was thriving at the time in the area. This isn't the same thing as proving that they had to know the math to make the tiles.

    83. Re:Why wouldn't they? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      It's just the nature of human history. Empires rise and fall, cultures go through peaks and valleys. Civilizations in India had public sewer systems in major urban centers 4000 years ago, at a time when the people of England didn't even have cities. South American Indians built great urban civilizations at a time when Europeans were still in the Dark Ages. For a period of about 500 years during the Muslim Empires, there was a flourishing of Islamic civilization. In the context of its time, the Islamic Empires were quite advanced, and liberal as far as empires go. The treatment of Jews and Christians by the Muslims that conquered Spain (taxes, discrimination) would not fly in a modern society, but were a sure sight nicer than how the Spanish Christians treated the Jews and Muslims 700 years later during the Inquisition!

      Now, as for what happened in this specific case. At the point where Europe started blossoming, and the colonial powers started their rise, the civilized Islam world was already half a millennium old. It was in a period of decay, caused by the usual suspects (political infighting and fragmentation, lack of strong leadership, overextension of power and resources, etc). By the time the colonial powers came into their own, they were able to mop up the remaining Islamic powers (eg: Ottoman Empire) that hadn't already self-destructed. With the demise of civilization came poverty, and with that came all the ills of poverty (conservatism, paranoia, a general reversion to baser practices). What you see in much of the Islamic world today is the kind of "Lord of the Flies" reversion of formerly civilized people to their more basic nature when they are removed from civilized society.

      It is important to note that there are remnants here and there of civilized Islamic society. For example, the urban centers of Iran have always been highly civilized places, going back thousands of years. Iran might be highly antagonistic to the West, and there is a contingent of the society that uses religion as a tool for controlling the population, but the basic elements of civilization are undeniably strong. The balance between theocracy and democracy in their government is complex and constantly shifting, but the people exercise very real power in their governance. Assuming the current unfortunate stand-off with the West doesn't end badly, there is a very good chance that Iran will become a fully modern state in the next fifty years.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    84. Re:Why wouldn't they? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "So you tell me, how different is it from religion?"

      There's the tiny fact that there's no God coming in a thunder to tell people what to do but free people deciding by themselves how they want to appear to their own eyes and acting in consecuence.

      There's a problem with some religion fundamentalists in that they believe that no god must mean no ethics.

    85. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Amish aren't aliens.
      Or were you referring to the roofing, siding, landscaping around your house, etc...

    86. Re:Why wouldn't they? by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      They were the first to use the number '0' to create a positional number system, which is what put it head and shoulders above the Roman one.. But that's besides the point.

            Yay! I hope you meant that decimal pun.

    87. Re:Why wouldn't they? by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard."

      And he is right indeed. But he cheated you a bit. He didn't told you *why* it's more difficult.

      I'll do: it's more difficult because we are intelligent beings and irrationalism is against our highest nature. In other words: it's difficult because it's stupid, and being conciously stupid it's hard.

    88. Re:Why wouldn't they? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Revelation is not irrational by definition"

      Yes, it is.

      "If revelation has actually occurred, then it is rational to trust it"

      You forget an important issue. If you can be sure it's true it's because you can atest it. But then you don't need any entity to revelate it to you; it's revelation (in the religious sense) no more: it's old plain natural knowledge.

    89. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Not sure what's "charitable" about giving people their due; Europe sank into ignorance and superstition, and Asia Minor and North Africa entered an intellectual golden age.

      Central and South America had their periods of intellectualism (mostly fueled by religious needs, ironically, as were the muslim's) but progressive cultures in Central and South America tended to be invaded by their less progressive neighbors, and the height of their civilization never reached the same level as civilizations in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

      Whether this is because the America's were settled for a shorter period of time than the rest of the world or because of hypothesized inadequacies in available grains and herd animals, I'm not going to speculate.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    90. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Arabs lived on the Arabian Peninsula. What you have between Europe and India are Turks, Kurds, and Persians, who are about as Arab as I am Russian.

    91. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      "Revelation is not irrational by definition"

      Yes, it is.

      No it's not. Something is rational if it is reasonable or logical. Revelation has no requisite that it be unreasonable or illogical. Revealed knowledge cannot necessarily be arrived at by means of deductive reasoning, but that doesn't make it irrational.

      "If revelation has actually occurred, then it is rational to trust it"

      You forget an important issue. If you can be sure it's true it's because you can atest it. But then you don't need any entity to revelate it to you; it's revelation (in the religious sense) no more: it's old plain natural knowledge.

      Once again, you pose a false dichotomy. I can attest to the truth of revelation if I know the revealer to be both trustworthy and knowledgeable, regardless of my own ability to vary the revelation independently. Revelation can sometimes be varified independently, but it is not a pre-requisite for it.

    92. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      If there is no difference then why does one make you feel bad, and the other not?

      I say there is a difference. I say there is something that makes a real puppy more than one of those stupid robo-puppy toys from a few years back. Something that makes a beautiful painting different from a different piece of canvas with some paint sloshed on it (modern art affectionado's would disagree, of course). Something that gives living things an inherent value above non-living things, all else being equal.

      Religion explains away the value of living things by introducing the idea of an immortal soul; I'm a physicalist, so I don't buy that. It doesn't explain much anyway, because they're forever arguing about what does or does not have one.

      I simply say that there are things that have intrinsic value, above and beyond their material composition, and that recognition and appreciation of that value is something that is important in a human being.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    93. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I realize that without society, my life would be miserable. For that reason, I cherish the things that make society possible and pleasant. This includes valuing human life, science, philosophy, art, economics, law, personal liberties, and many other things.

      The reasons I cherish these things have nothing to do with spirits, magic, gods, auras, karma, superstitions, or other spiritual concepts. A society composed of people with these values would flourish and be far from "empty."

      So I really don't agree that spirituality makes society whole. I think social values make society whole. Unless you mean to say "all social values are a form of spirituality," which is an unusual definition of the term, then I just don't think your view is well supported.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    94. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It seems fairly self important to assume that they didn't understand the math behind the tiles."

      Anthropology 101: You should not romanticize a culture or put your own values onto it when seeking to understand it.

      In other words we don't know enough about this case yet to jump to such conclusions.

      For example, by applying reduction analysis you can convert all artwork into formula. That is why fractal compression works. If I can reproduce a painting via fractals does that mean the artist understood that mathematics behind fractals? Of course not.

      "Islamic culture was well considered to be centuries ahead of Europe during that time period."

      Partly true. During the Dark Ages while the Roman empire and the lands of Europe were under attack by Vikings, Vandals, Goths, and Huns many scholars escaped to Ireland. Even as Viking attacks reached Ireland The Irish managed to preserve much of the knowledge and promoted scholarship.

      Also, remember that much of the scholarship of the Middle East was derived from or borrowed from external sources like India, Greece, etc. The cultures of the Middle East went through a tidal ebb and flow as have most cultures.

      I also think it is wrong to label this as one large Islamic culture. Scholarship in the Middle East was not purely an Islamic endeavor. Sure libraries and schools were spread during the Islamic crusades into Southern Europe and Africa, but that was a byproduct of knowledge and scholarship built by and borrowed from man cultures. So you could claim Islamic expansionism spread scholarship in a way very similar to Roman expansionism.

    95. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      It took me until the bottom of your comment to figure out which religion you were talking about. All those criticisms can be leveled against any number of religions...Burning books, stealing art, murdering unbelievers.

      Thinking it's only Muslims that do that is a very bad idea.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    96. Re:Why wouldn't they? by burndive · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.
      I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard. And that, he said, is why religious people have it harder and why their sacrifice is more worthy or something like that.
      it seems to me that taking a published list of principles and altering it to arrive at your own set of principles that seem fairest to you is hard, while following it directly just because you're commanded to is easy. it may be that looking at the list and altering it based on your viewpoint doesn't bring you to a better or more generally fair set of rules (you may be factoring in your own bias and self-interest). but if you're really putting effort into thinking of the reasons behind those rules, that's got to be more work than just following without question doesn't it?

      As a Christian, I do not consider God's statements of what is and is not contrary to his nature a challenge to put myself through some sort of ordeal. No, God's commandments do not "jive" with us sinful humans. They are hard; in fact, they are impossible to live up to, especially in principle. The difficulty of following them is not what makes them good. At all. There is no sense in which "more work"=="better".

      Thrashing yourself against God's standard of morality, and then thinking that doing so somehow obligates God to recognize your effort is the height of arrogance.

      When Abraham believed God, it was credited to his account as righteousness. So, what are the promises of God? If we believe them because we trust God, we will be counted righteous.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    97. Re:Why wouldn't they? by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Given the state of the mathematical art available to that culture at the time the pattern was created, what mathematical process(es) would they have used to arrive at the mathematical solution to the pattern they created?

      Is it a feasible process? Is there any evidence that they used this process (other than the pattern itself)?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    98. Re:Why wouldn't they? by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 1

      The Persians did wonderful things, and so did the Arabs. Al-Battani, Ibn Younus and Al-Zarqali were all important and their works were translated into Latin in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, so they not only advanced science but also contributed to the recovery of the Europeans from their post-Roman hangover. Under the Ottomans, an even wider range of nationalities contributed. If you're implying that everything important came from the Persians, I've heard that tune before regarding any number of other nationalities. Persian culture is brilliant, special and unique. And y'know what? So's everyone else's. Yawn.

      There's little evidence that medieval Islamic mathematics or astronomy were the basis for the work of Leibniz or Newton, though they may have anticipated some of their work. But the same could be said (perhaps more so) of Eudoxus and Archimedes. And this minimizes the power and generality of Newton's and Leibniz's techniques compared to the less abstract methods of their precursors. There's a reason we use the calculus now instead of the method of exhaustion, and it's not Eurocentrism.

      --
      Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
    99. Re:Why wouldn't they? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      y question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened? From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now

      Does "Tamerlane" mean anything to you? How about "Timur the Lame"?

      Hint: He was the guy who ordered the destruction of the Persian Empire by the Mongols. From what I've read, it was a bit like Pol Pot, but more thorough - killed everyone but the peasants, and killed most of them. By the time the Mongols were through with the Islamic world, it was a gutted ruin, with the exception of Muslim Spain - Granada, Cordoba, and the like. Which were destroyed by the Castillian Kings, though not so thoroughly as the Mongols did it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    100. Re:Why wouldn't they? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue about semantics with you, but I'd like to point out that change is necessary. Every time religious doctrine has changed it has taken bloodshed, strife, and fragmentation of sects.

      Religion doesn't like to change, but it has and it will have to in the future. Slavery, women's rights, the heliocentric solar system, evolution, maybe someday extraterrestrial life are all huge challenges to religious doctrine. Religion has been unhelpful and downright hostile to scientific progress.

      That business about truth and unchanging god is trivially disproven.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    101. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And these aliens and reptoids answer to none other than the FREEMASONS!!!!!!!

    102. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Seems like a pretty big assumption that they did understand the math behind it. Did they document and explain it? Its not like they were illiterate and didn't write things down and there are records of other math they discovered/developed.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    103. Re:Why wouldn't they? by deepestblue · · Score: 1

      No, the glyphs are Latin. The numbers themselves (in the sense of including a decimal place-value system) are Indian.

    104. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the horizon?

    105. Re:Why wouldn't they? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Once again, you pose a false dichotomy."

      I think you are playing words. Of course "revelation" dictionary-sense, can be reasonable: I can revelate to you that I won the lotto. You knowing I'm trustworthy, and looking at my new luxury car will reasonably believe it.

      But this is not the theologal meaning for "revelation". Revelation is what God told us because a) He is in mood to tell us and b) we have no natural means to know it.

      Believing a revelated truth requires no reasonement but *faith*. Even if God came down from heaven to tell me, a poor ignorant, that apples do fall at a speed that increases 9.8 metres per second each second at ground level, that wouldn't be a revelation (theological sense), because we can see and understand that ourselves. It is when God comes to Earth to tell that His Almightyness is somehow One and Three at the same time, or that we will live beyond death that it's a revelation since there's neither no reasonement nor natural means to know that for a fact, except God Himself coming here to tell us.

      "Revelation can sometimes be varified independently, but it is not a pre-requisite for it."

      Revelation can *never* be independently verified. The nearest thing to it is prophecy, but -again theologically, a prophecy and a revelation are different beasts.

    106. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam is the topic under discussion which is why my post was specific to it.

      Had it been Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. I would have commented appropriately on those.

      However I will admit to my belief that the death cult of the pedophile prophet is much more adept at assimilating cultures (and their advances) than many others. It was only in the last century or so that imams decided culture (singing, music, flying kites, etc.) was a bad idea.

      But ask a muslim why islam has returned to the dark ages and you'll be told it's all a zionist plot. ;o)

    107. Re:Why wouldn't they? by phliar · · Score: 1

      I think that a society that is purely physicalist in its view of living things is...problematical. By those standards stomping on an alarm clock, a flower, and a puppy are all pretty much the same thing, because living things are no different from non-living things.

      Non sequitur!

      By this argument, believing that all matter is made up of the same atoms is "problematical".

      Or do you believe that "life" isn't just atoms and molecules, but requires a Special Someone to breathe life into what used to just be plain ol' matter?

      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    108. Re:Why wouldn't they? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Once again, you pose a false dichotomy. I can attest to the truth of revelation if I know the revealer to be both trustworthy and knowledgeable, regardless of my own ability to vary the revelation independently. Revelation can sometimes be varified independently, but it is not a pre-requisite for it.

      How many biblical prophets do you know well enough that you can trust their revelations to be true? Of course you need to equally trust anyone who has copied or translated their revelations on the way to the book on your nightstand. That's not the biggest problem with your argument however.

      Revealed knowledge cannot necessarily be arrived at by means of deductive reasoning, but that doesn't make it irrational.

      You'll have a hard time arguing that it is rational to believe someone when they claim to have received communication from a spiritual being which they can offer no evidence of.

      I would not trust someone who claimed to have received a spiritual revelation no matter how much I trust them. Humans are provably unreliable. The difference between what we sense as external perceptions as opposed to fabrications of our mind can at times be razor thin if that. This is not the case only for so called unreliable people, it's just a result of the way a normal mind works.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    109. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      How can an opinion be a logical fallacy? I'm a pure physicalist. I've said it a dozen times in this thread. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in souls.

      I am not challenging the physical nature of the universe, I am saying that, as a living thing, if you do not see the difference between living things and nonliving things then you're a closet sociopath, unsuited for living in a civilized society, and that a society based on those principles would be problematical, oh-so-very problematical.

      The world you're advocating is a world where you can just walk around shooting other people and it's no different than if you were shooting robots, or clay pigeons, because it's all about the atoms, right? What does it matter? Go rape a child, it's just matter...Long chain hydrocarbons feel no pain, right? Torture a baby or an old person just for fun. Just atoms, right? Nothing special about atoms, is there?

      Are you that stupid? Do you really think that?

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    110. Re:Why wouldn't they? by lordmatthias215 · · Score: 1

      well, once you've convinced yourself of the reasons behind following a certain rule or guideline, it becomes much easier to follow that rule. For instance, you don't have sex outside of marriage because you don't want to risk STDs, pregnancy, and the psychological efects sex can have. That makes avoiding sex a whole lot easier than a simple command from a book does, as even the most faithful have limits to their faith, especially when "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

    111. Re:Why wouldn't they? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Religion is a form of spiritualism, though not one that appeals to me personally because I feel it often misses the point, and because it tends toward anti-intellectualism. Only if it's done very badly. The Christian fundamentalism movement that you had mentioned before is a good example. Some of them are very intelligent individuals who adamantly push for science because they believe that they'll be proven right in time. Some, well, don't quite fall into that category. As with any large group, there will always be idiots, and idiots are much much more visable, especially from the outside than the whole.
    112. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Hate to disagree, but it is irrational by definition. You can't touch it, you can't measure it, and you can't have a third party perform an independent confirmation.

      That makes it a completely subjective experience, and while you may believe it, you can't prove that it's not just noise in the neurons.

      Religious experience has to be taken on faith. It does not have objective reality.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    113. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      From my perspective, it seems that many people almost disdain the idea of progress in culture and arts now.

      Or is it just hard for us to admit that the majority of us trace our roots back to a European civilization that in many aspects was intellectually inferior to that which was at the time far superior.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    114. Re:Why wouldn't they? by svunt · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to run down the guys, but the kind of insight we're talking about here appears at face value to require a long academic tradition. It's not the kind of thing you're likely to stumble on.

      Um....the Muslims did have a long academic tradition, silly!

    115. Re:Why wouldn't they? by RedOctober · · Score: 1
      No - aperiodic crystals aren't a just a pretty shape. They're very difficult to discover - what makes them interesting is that tilings don't repeat themselves. It's a bit like saying that the Greeks knew about the number 3.14159.. but didn't necessarily know what it stood for - it's pretty clear that if the only way they could find that number is if they knew what it represented.

      There is a universe of potential tiles, the vast majority of which always give periodic tilings - to come up with a set that makes aperiodic tilings is nothing short of astonishing.

    116. Re:Why wouldn't they? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      There is an obvious flaw in your logic. Puppies are superior to robots. Puppies, while simple beings, have (in my opinion) some natural rights, in the same way that I have some natural rights. Now they don't have all the rights I have because they are not sentient. But they have some rights because of what they can do. They can suffer and they have a right not to suffer. Now this is not to say that I'm some PETA nut, far from it (I wholly support animal testing). But I als recognise that animals are not our play thing to do with as we wish.
      It however, has nothing to do with them being alive and everything to do with what they can do.

      It is interesting you mention robots. If I create a robot that can walk and talk and play piano and feel pain, do we not give it the same rights as a human?

      Just because everything is made out of the same material does not mean that special configurations of that material do not acquire properties that I choose to protect. I believe either you are being disingenuous with your arguement, or you are making an arguement so obvious as to contribute very little. A society which allows the rape of babies is obviously bad. However, that does not mean that from a physical perspective everything isn't essentially the same stuff. What makes 'living' stuff special is what it can do. This is why killing bacteria is fine, but stomping on puppies is bad.

      I must admit I really don't get the point you are trying to make.

    117. Re:Why wouldn't they? by RedOctober · · Score: 1
      During the dark ages, most of the texts of classical antiquity had been lost. The European rediscovery of their Classical past came not directly via Latin and Greek texts - but via translations of arabic translations of classical texts.

      See, for instance, the case of Aristotle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabist

      "Early translations [into latin] included works by Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Avicebron, etc.; books on astronomy, astrology, and medicine; and the works of some of the Ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, who unlike Plato had been unknown or at least largely ignored in medieval Christendom. The latter were accompanied by the commentaries of Al-Ghazali, Avicenna, and Averroes, to the point of there being an identifiable Averroist school of philosophy in Christian Europe."

      As much as it pains Europeans, the fact is that during the middle ages Europe was a cultural backwater, a land of barbarians. At the time, Islam kept the flames of civilisation alive. One of the effects of Islamic expansion in Europe was to allow Europeans to rediscover their own classical civilisation. So, for instance, greek philosophers were rediscovered in Europe not in their original greek, but in latin translations of arabic translations of the original greek.

    118. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's been making the same point you are, you just don't realize it. What you are describing as the difference between puppies and robots *IS* spirituality in the sense that he meant it -- particularly when you speak of puppies' natural rights. After all, natural rights are not a physical property, and they could very well be described as a spiritual property of the things we describe.

      The problem is that the word spirituality is itself empty and contentless. It means nothing but what the speaker intends, and so its use is an exercise in mind-reading. I didn't get his point at first either.

    119. Re:Why wouldn't they? by RedOctober · · Score: 1
      Nonsense. You're obviously unaware how rare aperiodic tilings are. There is a vast universe of tile sets, almost all of which give periodic tilings when they tile at all. Aperiodic tilings are like the proverbial needle in a haystack, which is why it took us so long to discover them (let alone to show they even exist).

      It's not possible to "design" the pattern for aesthetic reasons without some understanding of the mathematics behind it. It's a very unique pattern. It's like solving Rubik's cube - someone can't just solve it "by accident". I'm not saying that they necessarily knew the connection Penrose Tiles have with condensed matter physics, but they must have understood what made them unique, the precise angles required, possibly the connection between the angles and the "golden ratio", etc.

      It must be hard for Europeans to accept that Persians are more than barbaric "towelheads".

    120. Re:Why wouldn't they? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      I'm only 3!

    121. Re:Why wouldn't they? by phliar · · Score: 1

      The world you're advocating is a world where you can just walk around shooting other people...

      Strawman argument.

      It seems you are using physicalist in a technical sense not equivalent to empiricism or positivism. You say you are a "pure physicalist"; what does that mean? A quick search on Wikipedia suggests that physicalists believe "that there are no kinds of things other than physical things." Is that the case? Does your physicalism include the integers? Do you believe that the mind is a specific physical thing that's not the brain?

      I'm a positivist. My world is simple: things have values that we give them. The "rightness" of stepping on or shooting something is exactly what we say it is. There is no intrinsic reason torturing puppies (or unlawful combatants) is wrong; we empathise with other living things and decide that torture is wrong. Cf the social contract and all that.

      To go back to your original statement,

      A society that doesn't appreciate some form of spirituality is pretty empty...
      What is this "spirituality"? Is it "the things we talk about that cannot be physically measured"? If so, it doesn't seem to be a very useful term. When people say "spirituality" it's been my experience that they're talking about the supernatural -- deities, ghosts, ESP, and all that other crap. My life does not have any "spirituality" and I think it's a pretty full one.

      Are you that stupid?

      Being called stupid no longer upsets me.

      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    122. Re:Why wouldn't they? by thestuckmud · · Score: 1

      Tiling a plane isn't mathematics, it's engineering.
      My, my, my. Only someone unschooled in computable theory could make such a claim. Remember that Wang tiles are equivalent to Turing machines. Of course the article also mentions Pentrose tilings. No wonder you posted as AC!
    123. Re:Why wouldn't they? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You mean like this? Yea, damn Muslims are the cause of all things evil in this world.

      --
      I hate printers.
    124. Re:Why wouldn't they? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I will admit to my belief that the death cult of the pedophile prophet is much more adept at assimilating cultures (and their advances) than many others.

      Have a look at the parasitic nature of American Pop culture if you want to see a destructive and exploitative "death cult". Cultures that value their heritage like Indian and Thai traditional families are doing their best to stem the flow of mass media trash teaching their children the sole purpose of life is to look beautiful and to buy "stuff". Have you ever traveled to a place that wasn't overwhelmingly westernized? Were I to guess, I'd guess not, as you seem to be about as informed on this subject as a retarded baboon.

      --
      I hate printers.
    125. Re:Why wouldn't they? by abionnnn · · Score: 1

      It says the pattern matches a mathematical formula not discovered by the West until the 1970's, and that mathematics was thriving at the time in the area. This isn't the same thing as proving that they had to know the math to make the tiles.

      Does a bear shit in the forest? Read this also from the article:

      The set of five girih tiles decorated, with lines that fit together to make regular patterns first appeared about 1200 AD, a time when Islamic mathematics was flowering. The designs grew increasingly complex, and by the 15th century produced near-perfect Penrose patterns found on the Darb-i Imam shrine in Isfahan, Iran.

      Anyone with a speck of logic and without prejudice against Persians would understand this as strong evidence of the claim.

    126. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it. Your mother seemed to rather enjoy this boy's surface.

    127. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue about semantics with you, but I'd like to point out that change is necessary.

      You won't debate whether or not revelation can be rational, but you will point out that change is necessary for rationality? You do realise, don't you, that you are debating the rationality of revelation by that statement?

      Every time religious doctrine has changed it has taken bloodshed, strife, and fragmentation of sects.

      That's not true and the violent reaction of some people against change is in no way a proof that change is good or necessary.

      Religion doesn't like to change, but it has and it will have to in the future.

      Religion is not a homogeneous entity and doesn't have feelings. As a Christian I'll speak for Christianity here and say that there is no imperative requiring that Christian doctrine change in the future. As a member of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, I can say with authority that our beliefs our codified in the Westminster Confession of Faith which was written int he 1600s and was itself based on the earlier creeds and the Bible itself. As a statement of faith, it is intended to reflect what was revealed thousands of years ago. The Reformation, of which the WCoF was a product, was a result of removing the tradition and human additions that had crept into the church and was therefore an undoing of changes that had occurred.

      Over time, stated beliefs on some secondary issues have changed, but the primary doctrines e.g. those relating to salvation, the nature of God, etc. have not changed and I see no reason for them to.

      Slavery

      A fact of life in the ancient world and somewhat of a necessity when you don't have a prison system.

      women's rights

      The Bible makes it very clear that women are equal with men in God's sight. Complementary roles, but not lesser or superior ones.

      the heliocentric solar system

      Not something the Bible discusses.

      evolution

      There are differing views on this.

      are all huge challenges to religious doctrine

      Not really. Certainly not to issues of salvation, which are dependent on the historicity of Christ's resurrection.

      Religion has been unhelpful and downright hostile to scientific progress.

      Some avowedly religious people have been helpful, but Christianity as a whole encourages scientific investigation as it testifies that God is a God of order who was created an ordered world, capable of being studied and that he is a God of glory, who can be glorified by studying his creation and praising him for it. Some of the greatest scientists were strongly evangelical Christians with a very literal view of the Bible, e.g. Farady, Maxwell, Kelvin. The idea that religion - or more specifically, Christianity - is opposed to science is a misconception or an attempt at deception.

      That business about truth and unchanging god is trivially disproven.

      Patently untrue, otherwise it would not be an intellectually credible position and you would have disproven it in your previous post. If you have the truth, in what way is it rational to change and instead follow and promote a falsehood? That, essentially, is what you are claiming.

    128. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I think you are playing words. Of course "revelation" dictionary-sense, can be reasonable: I can revelate to you that I won the lotto. You knowing I'm trustworthy, and looking at my new luxury car will reasonably believe it.

      But this is not the theologal meaning for "revelation". Revelation is what God told us because a) He is in mood to tell us and b) we have no natural means to know it.

      You're choosing your own definition there, rather than the definition provided by the Bible via the Greek and Hebrew words it uses.

      Believing a revelated truth requires no reasonement but *faith*.

      Assuming that by 'reasonment' you mean 'reasoning,' you are partly correct, but I would add that revelation does not require blind faith. Faith in the Biblical sense is trustworthiness based on what is known of a person's character and actions.

      Even if God came down from heaven to tell me, a poor ignorant, that apples do fall at a speed that increases 9.8 metres per second each second at ground level, that wouldn't be a revelation (theological sense), because we can see and understand that ourselves.

      If you didn't know that apple fall at that acceleration, it would indeed be a revelation.

      Revelation can *never* be independently verified. The nearest thing to it is prophecy, but -again theologically, a prophecy and a revelation are different beasts.

      Prophecy is a form of revelation. It can be a revelation about the consequences of events, which will be experienced if action is/is not taken and therefore verified.

      Beside which, if the character of God is known to be trustworthy, anything he reveals can be taken to be true and it is therefore rational to trust it and irrational to ignore or even change it.

    129. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      How many biblical prophets do you know well enough that you can trust their revelations to be true?

      Prophets? None. The Holy Spirit who inspires them? Well, I'd give him a fair bit of trust.

      Of course you need to equally trust anyone who has copied or translated their revelations on the way to the book on your nightstand. That's not the biggest problem with your argument however.

      Because it's not a problem, given the excellent quality of biblical texts. There are very few potions of the Bible over which there is any significant doubt as to how it should be translated. It was copied quite competently down the ages and modern translations work from very early sources anyway.

      You'll have a hard time arguing that it is rational to believe someone when they claim to have received communication from a spiritual being which they can offer no evidence of.

      Who said anything about having no evidence? What you say has absolutely no impact on whether or not revelation must be irrational. If a god can exist who can speak in a trustworthy manner, then it is possible for revelation to be rational. The only way to claim that revelation must be irrational is to prove that there cannot exist a god who can communicate in a trustworthy manner with us.

      I do believe that such a God exists and that therefore revelation is definitely rational when it is received from him, but that's another issue and not what was originally being discussed.

      I would not trust someone who claimed to have received a spiritual revelation no matter how much I trust them. Humans are provably unreliable. The difference between what we sense as external perceptions as opposed to fabrications of our mind can at times be razor thin if that. This is not the case only for so called unreliable people, it's just a result of the way a normal mind works.

      There is a difference between people not always being reliable and always being unreliable, not that you're claiming the latter. Your lack of trust - which again has nothing to do with the original issue I was addressing - is a poor decision as it rests on the unfounded assumption that the existence of spiritual beings cannot and will not be supported by evidence. The Christian position is that we trust the Bible to be revealed word of God because Jesus Christ declared it to be so and he himself is a trustworthy source as he rose from the dead on the third day, as he prophesied i.e. it is founded on the historicity of the resurrection, for which there is evidence. You may not agree with the conclusion that is drawn, but you cannot claim that the Christian position is founded on an absence of evidence i.e. blind faith.

    130. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Hate to disagree, but it is irrational by definition. You can't touch it, you can't measure it, and you can't have a third party perform an independent confirmation.

      That doesn't make it irrational. If there can exist a god who can communicate in a trustworthy manner, then it is possible for revelation to be rational in the sense that is logical to believe it to be true. If you are using rational in some other sense, then what you are saying is irrelevant since I am addressing the idea of whether revelation should be followed or not. In order to say that revelation is irrational in the sense that it cannot be logical to believe it to be true and to follow it, then you must proof that it is not possible for a god who can communicate in a trustworthy manner to exist.

      Trustworthiness, incidentally, is observable and is believed by Christians to be a characteristic of God, not least because of the historical evidence for the resurrection.

      That makes it a completely subjective experience, and while you may believe it, you can't prove that it's not just noise in the neurons.

      Historicity is objective.

      Religious experience has to be taken on faith. It does not have objective reality.

      Faith is not irrational. Faith is based on trustworthiness, which can be based on evidence.

    131. Re:Why wouldn't they? by eh2o · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, its a huge leap to assume that they *did* understand the math just because they had the tiles. Basically all the mathematical properties of the penrose tiling (e.g. relationship to the golden mean, group-theoretic results and so on), are completely irrelevant to the actual act of discovering and assembling the pattern, which can be done by anyone with sufficient motivation and attention to detail. Now everyone would love to jump in and say "what if"... because its fun to do so, but its just looking for the missing elephant behind the sofa. The mathematical knowledge would be documented much better elsewhere.. like, in manuscripts... about math... and stuff.

      The significance of TFA is the discovery of the method they probably used to actually make the tiling work on a large scale -- by sketching out a template of large scale "meta-tiles" to guide the placement of the smaller ones. Otherwise, even if you have the penrose tile set, small placement errors eventually accumulate and ruin the pattern -- and *that* is what has baffled people for so long about how they did it. The technique clearly shows certain sophistication and that is impressive, but its purely a feat of architectural engineering.

    132. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Did you read about this is Islam for Dhimmis?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    133. Re:Why wouldn't they? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      This is unrelated, but Fibonacci brought the Arabic numerals to Europe, if it weren't for him we'd still be using friggen Roman Numerals, and we remember him for rabbits?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    134. Re:Why wouldn't they? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about having no evidence? Me. I will continue to say it until any evidence is presented.

      If a god can exist who can speak in a trustworthy manner, then it is possible for revelation to be rational. Sure it's possible for it to be rational, but you can't actually say it is rational unless you can prove that that god exists. Would it be rational for someone to believe me if I said that the FSM has revealed to me the recipe for the best tomato sauce in the universe? If you can't prove that the FSM doesn't exist then you have to admit it's possible for that revelation to be rational, right?

      I do believe that such a God exists and that therefore revelation is definitely rational when it is received from him If you believe God exists instead of objectively knowing it, doesn't that conflict with it being a rational belief? Now not everything has to be rational, humans are emotional beings. But just don't try and say something is rational when it's not. For instance I'll be the first to admit I behave like an irrational fool when it comes to certain women. It may be far from my ideal of how I should be, but I accept it nevertheless.

      Your lack of trust...is a poor decision as it rests on the unfounded assumption that the existence of spiritual beings cannot and will not be supported by evidence. It is enough to know that people aren't always reliable to entirely discount one individuals word as the extraordinary evidence required to prove an extraordinary claim such as that a spirtual being is communicating with them. And yes, it is an extraordinary claim until you present some objective evidence that the the spiritual beings exist.

      The Christian position is that we trust the Bible to be revealed word of God because Jesus Christ declared it to be so and he himself is a trustworthy source I understand the concept of Biblical infallibility, I grew up in a fundamentalist household and practiced the faith until my early 20's. The claim of infallibility is what is know as begging the question. Let's say I claim to be infallible. Would you believe me? If not, why not? Obviously because I'm infallible it must be true. See any problems with that argument? It's the same with the Bible, sure it claims to be infallible but what if the verse that makes that claim was a mistake?
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    135. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Europe was hardly mathematically or scientifically inclined till about 1100 A.D.

      People need to stop being so provencial and accept the fact that lots of ideas were thought of before the 21st century.


      You remind me of those people who claim discrimination any time that a minority is questioned or criticised in the least. It's not provencial to suspect that the medieval Arabs didn't understand the finer points of aperiodic tilings.

      Do you think it's provencial when a modern non-western mathematician says he suspects that Fermat didn't really prove his Last Theorem?

    136. Re:Why wouldn't they? by mcmaddog · · Score: 1

      that's a bunch of bull. Doing the right thing even when it may not be personally advantageous and you think no one is watching (as an atheist believes) is more noble than someone doing the right thing because they are afraid their "final judgement" depends on it.

    137. Re:Why wouldn't they? by r.muk · · Score: 1

      So your nappies were Moebius strips?

      Simple to make - just slice the Klein botle into two with a horizontal plane.

      (Tough on your @ss no doubt, proving mother-love and topology are incompatible.)

    138. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're choosing your own definition there"

      No. I'm choosing the definition from the Roman Catholic Church. Which, by your own argument, is trustworthy, then is reasonable to concieve it's the true one. But then, we have a problem. There's about a dozen contradictory cults only within the three big monotheist religions (and lots of lost cults); they all introduce at least one point contradictory with each other (is Mary a virgin or is she not? Is it Jesus Christ both a God and a man at the same time or is he not?...), Can you offer a reasoned factical means for me (not you) to discard, say anglicanism in favor of roman catholic church? All of them say they are the only true cult. It's obvious they all cannot be the only true cult at the same time. Therefor they *all* are not trustworthy. But then, if they are not trustworthy, their assertions are not trustworthy either.

      "but I would add that revelation does not require blind faith"

      I must add there's nothing else but blind faith, then. Either your beliveness becomes from faith (the act of believing without proves) or from reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

      "Faith in the Biblical sense is trustworthiness based on what is known of a person's character and actions."

      That's not faith in any biblical sense. Trustworthiness is achieved by prior knowledge that induce it. Faith is an 'a priori' condition regarding a divine statement.

      "Beside which, if the character of God is known to be trustworthy..."

      Yes: *if*. But unless you can pose in front of me testable protocols repetible (at least in theory) by me that clearly show that God exists (no to talk about Its trustworthiness), the only means to accept that God *is* (and then we will need to see what is It), is by means of an 'a priori' act of believeness; faith, that is.

    139. Re:Why wouldn't they? by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      I am 100% physicalist and yet I value life over everything else. In fact I tend to value everything I can't fully understand. Knowledge is valuable. Even if I would fully understand life, the fact that something can have consciousness is absolutely amazing and deserve the uttermost respect.

      I don't see how anyone can see living things no different from non-living things. Absurd. That's just stupid FUD created two centuries ago.

      However, I would not have highlighted the sentence the GP did. To me the insightful sentence in your post is: A society that embraces spirituality above all other things is hardly removed from barbarism.

      Priceless.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    140. Re:Why wouldn't they? by NeoBeans · · Score: 1

      Religion has been unhelpful and downright hostile to scientific progress.

      Various scientific communities have been unhelpful and downright hostile to scientific progress throughout history. Being an obstacle to progress is not the unique province of religion.

    141. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      In terms of Philosophy, physicalism (or materialism if you prefer) represents the view in which the material universe is the universe. By throwing out integers, you are showing that you can't read carefully at all. We came up with integers to represent things found in the physical world...Are you saying that integers are of the same class of things as god and souls? Because unless you are, then they're perfectly in tune with physicalism.

      I'm not going to redefine what I mean by spirituality for the fourth time in this thread. I will say however, that the word "empathize" that you used touches the heart of the issue. We don't empathize with non-living things. We do empathize with living things. That part of us that sees things as having value aside from the value of their component parts is pretty much what I mean by spiritualism, and I see society's that fail to appreciate and develop that part of their people as empty.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    142. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      If you had concrete personal proof of the existence of a divine being, then yes it would be rational to believe in god.

      But that would be the opposite of faith. You wouldn't need faith, you'd have proof.

      I think a lot of modern evangelicals are completely lacking in faith...they refuse to ever admit that there is anything about god that they can't touch, and don't understand. Still, somehow, magically, there is no proof for the existence of god, so they ought to be taking things on faith...And yet they aren't.

      It's the worst of both worlds. A very sad existence to have neither proof nor faith, but instead only a bootless false certainty.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    143. Re:Why wouldn't they? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The AC hit it, maybe it was a poor choice of words.

      The simple fact is, that there are things in the world that have a value that is completely separate from their material components, and a truly balanced society should protect and appreciate things that have it.

      I'm not a vegetarian or anything; I don't believe in putting the value of living things up on a pedestal where we can't touch it, but have to worship it from afar. I like a good steak as much as anyone.

      By the same token, it bothers me when people just randomly do more damage than they have to...I used to jog through this walnut orchard...100 years old if it was a day....Beautiful place. So the developers move in, and level it, I mean clear cut to the ground. Here's the kicker...They only put one house in that area...part of it was on the edge of a golf course, and the first thing they did after they'd gotten everything squared away? They planted goddamn walnut trees!

      What was the reasoning behind it? Those trees had all kinds of value, both in appearance, and in raw monetary terms. But the guy who'd done the planning hadn't been able to appreciate them as anything but an obstacle, and so he'd cut 'em down. Just a kind of emptiness.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    144. Re:Why wouldn't they? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know that... but I'd thought it too impolite to simply state it that way.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    145. Re:Why wouldn't they? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Seriously? I feel just as awful smashing the alarm clock as I would smashing the puppy. It's insane, I know, but that alarm clock has feelings too, and it's just trying to do its job which is to annoy the hell out of me.

      And don't take it to mean that I wouldn't feel anything smashing the puppy, because that's not what I'm trying to imply at all.

      What if non-living things are no different than things?

      --
      SRSLY.
    146. Re:Why wouldn't they? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'll keep this real simple. Is slavery OK according to the Christian god or is it not OK? Is slavery OK sometimes and not OK sometimes? Did this change? If so, than god's ideas about right and wrong changed. You live on shifting sands, created by man, whether you think so or not.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    147. Re:Why wouldn't they? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      If there is no difference then why does one make you feel bad, and the other not?

      Because my momma taught me so. That's really all there is to it. We learn right and wrong when we're little because adults punish us when we do wrong and reward us otherwise. The definition of right and wrong is really up to the adults. If I had been encouraged to beat up other kids when I was little, I would assuredly believe that that is normal.

      I simply say that there are things that have intrinsic value, above and beyond their material composition, and that recognition and appreciation of that value is something that is important in a human being.

      I see value in things as well. I just don't delude myself that it's anything more than the way I happen to feel about it.

    148. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I realise that this is a wee bit late, but I haven't been in Slashdot for about a week.

      I believe that in the historical context of the Old Testament, slavery was ok because it was a better way to treat prisoners of war or criminals than the alternatives. You couldn't let them go, you couldn't lock them up because they'd be too expensive to guard and killing them would be a bit extreme a lot of the times, so slavery, allowing a criminal to work off their debts, or allowing a POW to live when they otherwise couldn't be trusted, was the humane solution.

      Today, we have other options.

      Slavery is not the fundamental issue; the right treatment of other creatures made in the image of God is and slavery happens to be the best way to treat people under some circumstances. The slavery of say the plantations in America or that which goes on in the world today would be wrong because people were kidnapped and not treated with the most humane option.

    149. Re:Why wouldn't they? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I happen to agree with your reasoning, but it raises some problems for the concept of an unchanging God, moral absolutes, and the relevancy and authority of the Bible. If we're going to use human compassion, the moral context and logic to determine ethics than why do we even need the bible any more?

      Part of the reason I'm no longer a Christian is this exact issue. I couldn't understand how we could use this book as an authority when it was filled with irrelevant rules like these. If it is our job to distill it down to the rules that actually apply to us than it is a meaningless book. We'll end up with people fixated on subjugating women or blacks persecuting queers using the bible to their own unchristlike ends.

      Fundamentally, learning that the bible was not the inerrant and unchanging word of God created the first cracks in my faith. Later I was interested to find out that biblical scholars have very high rates of crises of faith. It made sense to me; that would be a very difficult profession for a believer.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    150. Re:Why wouldn't they? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I happen to agree with your reasoning, but it raises some problems for the concept of an unchanging God, moral absolutes, and the relevancy and authority of the Bible. If we're going to use human compassion, the moral context and logic to determine ethics than why do we even need the bible any more?

      Well, in this situation, it's not so much a case of me deciding on ethics, but rather of taking my moral code form God and working out what its application should be in the current context. How about we look at unclean food as an illustration of this principle?

      In the books of the Law, the Jews were commanded not to eat certain foods by God. It wasn't that eating the food was in of itself wrong, rather it was the case that eating food declared to be unclean by God was wrong. When God told Peter, in a vision recorded in the book of Acts, that all foods had been declared clean it became okay to eat the foods.

      In this case, there is no change on moral absolutes: disobeying God is wrong, eating food declared to be unclean is wrong. It becomes clear in the context of the passage in Acts that the issue of clean/unclean food (along with many other laws in the OT) is actually symbolic of the divide between clean/unclean (particularly Jew/Gentile) people. God isn't deciding on a whim to make food clean; he's making a point that Gentiles can now be considered clean, along with Jews. This change isn't arbitrary either; it comes in the wake of the resurrection and is a demonstration of what it achieves and who it achieves it for.

      The relevancy of the OT prohibition against unclean foods still exists and is in fact presented now in a clearer form. The prohibition demonstrates God's concern about cleanliness (in a spiritual sense) and the cleansing power of trusting in Jesus. The passage is no less authoritative in that it still documents the context in which the Jews lived, gives us an understanding of God's concerns and has not been invalidated by the passage in Acts. It is still wrong to eat unclean foods, it just so happens that there are unclean foods now.

      I'm actually applying at the moment to enter training for the ministry, so I spend quite a bit of my time interpreting and understanding the Bible. There's various fields of study, including: textual criticism (making sure we have accurate texts), exegesis (understanding what the text is saying) and hermeneutics (working out how to apply the text today). Wrestling with how to apply stuff today is a tricky issue sometimes, but it often comes down to understanding the context of a passage in terms of the historical situation and its place within the canon of Scripture. The best interpretative rule is 'What does this passage tell me about Jesus and how, therefore, does my understanding of him relate to the situations I face today?'

      Part of the reason I'm no longer a Christian is this exact issue. I couldn't understand how we could use this book as an authority when it was filled with irrelevant rules like these. If it is our job to distill it down to the rules that actually apply to us than it is a meaningless book. We'll end up with people fixated on subjugating women or blacks persecuting queers using the bible to their own unchristlike ends.

      Well, ultimately it's not a book about rules; it's a book about a person: Jesus Christ. It isn't about a list of dos and don'ts; it's about understanding something of God, trusting in Jesus Christ and worshipping God. It's more a book about relationship. It does, however, within that context, tell us what God considers to be right or wrong and there are ways of working that out using well established rules of grammar, context, etc. just as you would with any text. People can end up misusing the Bible for their own purposes, but it is possible in those cases to point out what they're doing wrong by demonstrating how a passage should be correctly interpreted.

      Fundamentally, learning that the bible was n

  2. It's a pattern? by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't really say anything other than it's a pattern. It just looks like random dots. Maybe like the yellow circles on money?

    1. Re:It's a pattern? by Scarblac · · Score: 5, Informative

      See Penrose tiling on Wikipedia.

      They really have cool properties - you can tile an infinite plane with just two different tiles, in such a way that the pattern never repeats; the ratio of the frequencies of both types is exactly the golden ratio. There's a lot more, see the article.

      Apparently they found actual Penrose tiles, hundreds of years old.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:It's a pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article doesn't really say anything other than it's a pattern. It just looks like random dots. Maybe like the yellow circles on money?

      I guess I a weird. I see a pattern.

    3. Re:It's a pattern? by gdav · · Score: 1

      The dots on money aren't random either.

    4. Re:It's a pattern? by joh · · Score: 1

      See Penrose tiling on Wikipedia.

      They really have cool properties - you can tile an infinite plane with just two different tiles, in such a way that the pattern never repeats; the ratio of the frequencies of both types is exactly the golden ratio. There's a lot more, see the article.

      Apparently they found actual Penrose tiles, hundreds of years old.


      From the the Wikipedia arcticle: "Pentaplex Ltd., a company in Yorkshire, England controlled by Penrose, owns the licensing rights to Penrose tilings."

      This culture will go under, no doubt, and we all know why.
    5. Re:It's a pattern? by 2Bits · · Score: 1

      I can't access Wikipedia from China, you insentive clod!

    6. Re:It's a pattern? by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Penrose patented the pattern in the 1970's, but his patent should have expired now. I don't know if Pentaplex still has a business model.

    7. Re:It's a pattern? by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Pentaplex still has a business model. Dunno if they've "got a business model"* but they've still got a web site:
      http://www.pentaplex.com/aboutus/

      * I've now got an image in my head of Graham Chapman charging into a room and shouting "There's trouble wi' t'business model"...

  3. Tasty thoughts by tinkertim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since it isn't known (as TFA points out) if they fully understood the mathematics behind the designs, we could have a bit of fun speculating, yes?

    I am no expert on Islam but I really like to read and study up on various forms of encryption. I'm not a crypto genius by any means, I don't endeavour to break codes, I just like to be able to recognize them.

    If I am not mistaken (flog me if I am), the mural depicted could in effect be a key to a cipher, and one's starting point applying that mural as a key would be very important. In fact, perhaps a key with infinite grooves and landings that fits a lock with only a few tumblers.

    Now, if that structure was destoryed during war (many were), and that key easily re-created from mathematical notes, that would be something. The notes themselves would be useless to pretty much anyone else at the time.

    I don't think they understood the math behind it was we do (or better wording would be the significance of the math beyond their application of it) but I do think they understood quite a bit more about cryptography than we previously thought.

    Of course, it could just be that the design held some spiritual significance. A lot of trouble to go through, however.

    1. Re:Tasty thoughts by networkzombie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oooh, look. That looks like a watch. There must be a watchmaker.

    2. Re:Tasty thoughts by mrbobjoe · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an excerpt from some Islamic Da Vinci Code, maybe Contact, maybe even Stargate. Clearly encoded in these tiles is the plan for an interstellar transport system of some sort.

    3. Re:Tasty thoughts by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an excerpt from some Islamic Da Vinci Code, maybe Contact, maybe even Stargate. Clearly encoded in these tiles is the plan for an interstellar transport system of some sort.


      Or a way from keeping invading armies from stealing precious culture and a well developed body of knowledge. Not everything is trivial simply because it resembles contemporary fiction.

      Of course, you're welcome to ask Dan Brown what he thinks.
    4. Re:Tasty thoughts by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >Of course, it could just be that the design held some spiritual significance. A lot of trouble to go through, however.

      There are cathedrals that took centuries to build. Don't underestimate what people will invest in religious expression.

    5. Re:Tasty thoughts by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just add a harvard symbologist, a beautiful egyption female mathematician, and a one-armed assassin for the plot of a Dan Brown book.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:Tasty thoughts by Kredal · · Score: 1

      ... or a joke on Family Guy.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    7. Re:Tasty thoughts by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      There are cathedrals that took centuries to build. Don't underestimate what people will invest in religious expression.


      Church also stood for governance, still does to a degree. I am still in awe when I drive through downtown DC (or really any other capitol in the world). Its not *just* religious expression that they are investing their time and resources in building.

      Did not mean to minimize it, however :) It just seems a little too intentional to be unintentional. Someone else alluded to "I see a watch, there must be a watchmaker" .. I'm more .. "I see a watch, there could be a watchmaker".

      Not suggesting this become the foundation for the next slaughter of millions of innocent trees, just tossing it out as a possibility.
    8. Re:Tasty thoughts by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      If I am not mistaken (flog me if I am)

      You better be careful about using such phrases when it comes to Islam....

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    9. Re:Tasty thoughts by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      You better be careful about using such phrases when it comes to Islam....


      I was actually thinking cryptography, code and Islam may not have been wise to put in the same posting. So which do you fear more, the NSA or /. moderators?
    10. Re:Tasty thoughts by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Funny
      After decades of arduous archaeological work, months of supercomputer time (including hundreds of CPU years using a popular new BOINC module) and the lifetime work of more than a dozen mathematicians, cryptologists, experts in medieval Arabic and early second millenium Muslim culture (which in many ways led the world in science, math, astronomy and philosophy), the incredible Mosque mosaics were finally decoded:

      Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine.

      Youssef Abu Sufah, a British scholar of 12th century Muslim architecture and amateur mathematician summed up the almost unanimous response of the scientific, mathematical, and historical communities with the following observation:

      Son of a bitch!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    11. Re:Tasty thoughts by Jenga717 · · Score: 1

      Of course, it could just be that the design held some spiritual significance. A lot of trouble to go through, however.

      Tibetan monks go through a lot of trouble for designs that hold great spiritual significance though.

      "The Sand Mandala is a Tibetan Buddhist tradition which symbolises the transitory nature of things. As part of Buddhist canon, all things material are seen as transitory. A sand mandala is an example of this, being that once it has been built and its accompanying ceremonies and viewing are finished, it is systematically destroyed."

  4. Not Surprising by gbulmash · · Score: 1

    IIRC, the concept of zero has Arabic roots, and prior to the crusades, there were some pretty bad-ass universities (for the time) in Arabic lands. Between Mongols (let's not forget that the "white man" can't be held responsible for *all* the destruction of art and culture across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East) and European crusaders, a lot of impressive cultural development was trashed across the Islamic world.

    - Greg

    1. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate that myth; zero has a history far predating islam.

      for example, Zero is also known as 'nil' from the Latin.

    2. Re:Not Surprising by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Arabs got zero from the Indians through their trading contacts actually. See the Wikipedia entry: History of Zero.

    3. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I recall, zero as a concept originates from India,
      and yes, the Arabic world have an impressive cultural development,
      and our number system originates from there.

    4. Re:Not Surprising by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

      Both 'algebra' and 'algorithm' are derived from Arabic words. Also, we inherited out left-to-right number system from Arabian math.

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    5. Re:Not Surprising by value_added · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Arabs got zero from the Indians through their trading contacts actually. See the Wikipedia entry: History of Zero.

      Nah, that was just one of the first examples of outsourcing.

      A more interesting link.

    6. Re:Not Surprising by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Also, it's interesting to look up the etymology of "algebra" and "algorithm".

    7. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero was introduced by the Indians, not the Arab.

    8. Re:Not Surprising by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That article sucks, it doesn't even mention how Zero dies in every second game.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Not Surprising by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Also, it's interesting to look up the etymology of "algebra" and "algorithm".

      Alcohol as well, though in todays climate and Islamic political correctness, that may not go down so well...

      (IIRC the Koran refers specificaly to prohibition of date wine so theoretically other alcoholic beverages *should* be fine)

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I dont remember the complete phrase but it says more along the line "any substance that intoxicates is illegal"

    11. Re:Not Surprising by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      You can't really predate something that claims to be the truth from the beginning of the world.

    12. Re:Not Surprising by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

      Obvisouly I meant right-to-left...

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    13. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wiki:

      "Contrary to a common belief, Islamic art does include representations of humans, of animals, and even of the Prophet himself: these were banned only in religious sites and works (mosques, madrasas, and Qu'rans), and even there exceptions may be found."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art

    14. Re:Not Surprising by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Odd. A document released recently by a Muslim group in Britain said schools shouldn't force Muslims to draw pictures of humans:

      "In Islam the creation of three dimensional figurative imagery of humans is generally regarded as unacceptable because of the risk of idolatress practices and some pupils and parents may raise objections to this. The school should avoid encouraging Muslim pupils from producing three dimensional imagery of humans and focus on other forms of art, calligraphy, textile art, ceramic glass, metal/woodwork, landscape drawing, paintings, architectural representations, geometric figures, photography and mosaic art."

      Muslim Council of Britain

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    15. Re:Not Surprising by superyooser · · Score: 1

      It's also interesting to look up the etymology of "assassin."

    16. Re:Not Surprising by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You can't really predate something that claims to be the truth from the beginning of the world.

            That's why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the One and Only Supreme being...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Arabs got zero from the Indians through their trading contacts actually. And the Indians got zero from the british
    18. Re:Not Surprising by dajak · · Score: 1

      In particular we should credit the House of Wisdom in Baghdad for collecting and translating Byzantine, Persian, and Syriac scientific works and passing them on to posterity. Without it we would have for instance lost Ptolemy's Syntaxis (in Arabic the Almagest) to the Dark Age. The most prominent stars in the sky take their name from the Arabic names (Vega, Betelgeuse, Antares, Altair, Aldebaran, Deneb, Denebola, Fomalhaut, etc.) used in the Arabic translation of this work (probably popularized in the West because they were also used in navigation with the Astrolabe which was copied from the Arabs). The original House of Wisdom was destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. Ironically, without the crusades we probably wouldn't have been interested in copying these works in time. An ironic twist of history is that it's lesser successor institute was looted again in 2003, during the American invasion of Iraq.

    19. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ironic twist of history is that it's lesser successor institute was looted again in 2003, during the American invasion of Iraq.

      Fortunately, the House of Extra Apostrophes is alive and well...

    20. Re:Not Surprising by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      The quran even declares independant thinking illegal, and "a sure road to hell". See quran 33:36.

      The result, obviously, can be seen all around the world.

    21. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, the House of Extra Apostrophes is alive and well.. A free people are free to punctuate badly.
    22. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left to right system and a whole lot of other mathematical information actually comes from Hindus. During the medieval times though, India fell into a series of Islamic conquests, plus the fact that Hindus were very protective on their knowledge lead India to almost forget what it invented. Only Arabs kept it preserved, and took it forward by researching more into it, and shared it to the West later.

    23. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so was "Jihad". However, coming back to the topic at discussion, how come Arabs used a left to right system for numbers but not anything else? More "revelation" magic against Kafirs?

      The numeric system was obtained from India. So was zero.

      Arabs did come up and retain with some great concepts like 4 wives etc. (unless you are a prophet, then you can even be a holy pedophile), but they were not always as scientific minded.

    24. Re:Not Surprising by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      Odd. A document released recently by a Muslim group in Britain said schools shouldn't force Muslims to draw pictures of humans:

      "In Islam the creation of three dimensional figurative imagery of humans is generally regarded as unacceptable because of the risk of idolatress practices and some pupils and parents may raise objections to this. The school should avoid encouraging Muslim pupils from producing three dimensional imagery of humans and focus on other forms of art, calligraphy, textile art, ceramic glass, metal/woodwork, landscape drawing, paintings, architectural representations, geometric figures, photography and mosaic art."

      That sounds more like sculpture than drawing. *shrug*

      --
      -Dave
    25. Re:Not Surprising by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      That article seems to indicate that zero had its roots in the Mayan civilization, and perhaps the Olmecs before them.

      Anyway, quoting from thisi book, Babylonians used something like a placeholder zero in 600 BC, the Indians got it fully in the first few centuries AD, and Mayans used it (recorded) in 357 AD and possibly well before (no actual recorded zeros, but records of numerical systems that require zero).

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    26. Re:Not Surprising by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Yes, it looks like the Mayans may have developed it first. But, they were not the source of the development of zero on Eurasia, since the Maya had no contact with the Old World. There were a number of independent "discoveries" of the concept of zero outside of India (Babylon as you mention), although it's hard to tell which ones caught on and which did not. It appears that the first regularized use was in India, and it was from this source that the Arabs obtained the concept of zero.

  5. Close, but no cigar? by glittalogik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well it's pretty, I'll give it that. TFA's a bit light on details though, and "tantalizingly close to having the structure that Penrose discovered in the mid-70s" isn't exactly awe-inspiring; maybe a few more examples would have been in order before they published?

  6. headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    medieval Muslims made a mega math marvel
    Asinine alliterations alienate audience
    1. Re:headline by baboonlogic · · Score: 1

      medieval Muslims made a mega math marvel
      Asinine alliterations alienate audience

      Alliteration articulates an artistic and alacritous approach aimed at annotating and arranging alphabetic accoutrements as alarmingly affective alignments. Alliteration allows aspiring authors abilities above average approaches. Alliterative adroitness accentuates accomplishments (an appealing aspect appalling artistic arrangements attempt abominably).

      Users understand using Uncyclopedia ultimately!

    2. Re:headline by Black+Perl · · Score: 1

      alarmingly affective

      Gregarious Grammar Grouches grumble gravely.

      --
      bp
    3. Re:headline by iago-vL · · Score: 1

      To be picky, an alliteration is the repetition of the initial consonant sound, so that's those examples aren't completely valid.

  7. "it isn't known if" != "to assume they didn't" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe you'd be less offended by statements if you read them correctly.

  8. Re:I POST FIRST by Propagandhi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How are we supposed to join in your celebrations when you post anonymously? :(

  9. What a complete non-story by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    The article (which extends to 3 pages) is long on talk and pityfully short on actual examples. The one image shown is a nice mosaic, no doubt about that and has an obvious five-sided theme to it. However that's all we see. If they don't have any examples other than this, then the editor needs to be sacked. This looks to me like a small local story being talked up to a level of importance it simply doesn't warrant in order to make the author seem more important or insightful.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:What a complete non-story by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

      This looks to me like a small local story being talked up to a level of importance it simply doesn't warrant in order to make the author seem more important or insightful.

      This follows on the exhibition of "1001 Inventions" that toured the UK last year which claimed such 'Islamic inventions' as "flying with wings and rocket flying." It's part of a drive to show Islam as a progressive force.

    2. Re:What a complete non-story by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      It's reporting on a paper published in the journal Science, one of the top two scientific journals in the world, with something like a 5% acceptance rate for new papers. Don't blame the news editor for thinking it's newsworthy; other Science papers get similar coverage.

  10. Another Islamic math-art mystery by sky7i · · Score: 5, Informative

    The recent documentary by Oxford historian Brittany Hughes, When the Moors Ruled in Europe , revealed (among many other very surprising findings) that the strikingly gorgeous Alhambra Palace also contains a very interesting mathematical curiousity within the design of all of its walls and floor patterns. (I won't spoil it for people who want to watch the documentary, which is available in its entirety on Google Video.) Also, many more Islamic patterns from throughout the Muslim world are available on flickr's Muslim Cultures group for those intrigued by the sort of artwork mentioned in the article.

    1. Re:Another Islamic math-art mystery by oZZoZZ · · Score: 1

      "When the Moors Ruled in Europe" I think you mean "Moops"

  11. The Catholic Church happened. by Flying+pig · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The last time I suggested white Western civilisation might be less than perfect I got modded to hell, but who cares? It was no less a person than Roger Bacon who said that every educated person needed to know Arabic, but then he was interested in the science and technology of his day, unlike most of the Church. The peak of that Islamic civilisation seems to have been the Kingdom of Granada in Spain, which had an advanced society, religious tolerance (not only were Jews and Christians welcome, but a Hebrew prayer book for women has been discovered there) and advanced technology. There is some evidence that they learned more from the Hindus than the Greeks, as books on the history of numbers point out. There are writings from that society that sound almost modern in outlook.

    Unfortunately their civilisation was destroyed by a European power under the aegis of the Catholic Church. For much of recent history, Christian societies have attempted to control and dominate Islamic societies. Since the socially mobile tend to follow the ways of the dominant power, Islam has become increasingly a religion of the poor and ill educated. (I know this is a simplification, but it is a useful simplification.) We are now seeing the effects of creating a society of poor and ill-educated people with ready access to cheap weapons.

    On the broader point, I tend to disagree. It is easy to blame television, the movies and the music industry for the destruction of "high" culture, but of course we don't know what "low" culture was like in largely preliterate societies. I suspect the reality is that high culture is more disseminated and understood than ever before, but whereas in the Middle Ages it might have been available to 0.1% of the population, now it is available to, say, 2%. Because mass culture now has access to the media, this fact is concealed in the sheer noise of low culture.

    A genuine example, from the 1500s. A footnote to an edition of Rabelais reveals that at one public fair in France, the prostitutes wanting to operate their trade had to take part at the start of the fair in a naked public footrace. This operates on a number of levels. It would tend to discourage unhealthy or diseased prostitutes. It constituted a form of advertising. And it provided entertainment. But it also shows that, no matter what you think of current entertainment standards, they were just as bad in the 1500s.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately their civilisation was destroyed by a European power under the aegis of the Catholic Church.
      (Honest question, not trolling:) I am curious, where in history do you see this occurring? Enlightenment times? By the British Empire (but they weren't Catholic)? Or later during the 20th century?
    2. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by pato101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I recall correctly (I'm a mess in history and dates, please correct if I'm wrong) Granada was taken by catholics in 1492, the same year America was discovered by Cristobal Colon. The same year Jews were told to leave "Spain" - there was no concept of Spain yet-. Islamic people lived in "Spain" during 8 centuries before 1492, and left a deep footstep in art, language, tradition, diet, ...

    3. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by the_womble · · Score: 1

      The American rights demonization of Islam is ridiculus, but simply producing diametrically opposite propaganda is not any better.

      The last time I suggested white Western civilisation might be less than perfect I got modded to hell

      Ah yes, but this time you are attacking Christianity so you are right in line with the Slashdot groupthink.

      the Kingdom of Granada in Spain

      Following an imperialist invasion to found it - not any different from the European empires.

      Islam has become increasingly a religion of the poor and ill educated. (I know this is a simplification, but it is a useful simplification.) We are now seeing the effects of creating a society of poor and ill-educated people with ready access to cheap weapons.

      So how come these effects are most strongest in places like oil rich Saudi Arabia, rather than very poor countries like Bangaldesh?

      There are also plenty of historical precedents for intolerant and repressive Islamic societies - they are not just a modern reaction to some injustice. Consider what happened to Christian communities in the Middle East with the rise of Islam, for example.

    4. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by morgdx · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is no coincidence that Algebra comes from the "Al-jabr" the Arabic word for reunion, and Algorithm comes from al-Khwarizmi a Persian mathematician living in Baghdad(!). Kind of makes TFA seem a bit patronising.

      --
      http://jfin.org/jFin pure java open source financial library
    5. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam has become increasingly a religion of the poor and ill educated. (I know this is a simplification, but it is a useful simplification.) We are now seeing the effects of creating a society of poor and ill-educated people with ready access to cheap weapons.
      So how come these effects are most strongest in places like oil rich Saudi Arabia, rather than very poor countries like Bangaldesh?
      Because the house of Saud, including every second cousin of a third uncle got rich from their petro-association with the west while the rest of the country hasn't done so well, while in Bangladesh the wealth distribution is both more uniform, the extremes are less in the face of the poor and not so directly based on western money.

    6. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately their civilisation was destroyed by a European power under the aegis of the Catholic Church.
      Pray tell, when did that happen? The Crusades were ultimately unsuccessful - Christians were kicked out of the Holy Land and all the way back to Europe, with Ottomans taking all the Balkans soon after, and their advance on Europe only stopped as far back as Vienna - large parts Eastern Europe were under Muslim rule for several centures! When the Ottomans were finally crushed in a series of defeats from European powers in the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th centuries, the Islamic culture of their empire has already been stagnating for the long time (hence the defeat), which also had a chilling effect in development of the Balkans and parts of Eastern Europe under their occupation.
    7. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by pbhj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      the Koran: sura 9, verse 29 (Ahmed Ali's translation of the Koran, published in 1994 by Princeton University Press)

      "Fight those people of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians] who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not prohibit what God and His Apostle [i.e., Muhammad] have forbidden, nor accept divine law, until all of them pay protective tax in submission."

      Sounds like that would be just lovely. So tolerant. Why I'm sure that any group of people would love to live under such a tolerant regime. Oh and remember that the followers of Mohammed don't have a new testament telling them that they've misunderstood god and that in fact he rather prefers "treat your neighbours like your self" than "an eye for an eye".

    8. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is true (indeed 1492 was an eventful year for that area...). But it only relates to Islam in Spain, not in general. Are there other examples of this?

    9. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Consider what happened to Christian communities in the Middle East with the rise of Islam, for example.

      They were generally tolerated as people of the book, although not accorded the same rights as Muslims - look up Dhimmi in wikipedia; certainly no worse than, and in most cases definitely better than, the position of jews in Christian societies.

      Muslim conquerors generally gave the people of newly conquered lands three choices: to be put to the sword, convert or pay indemnity. Very few chose the second, a few chose the middle option and most chose the last option.

      By modern standards of course, these are barbarous options, but they are positively courtly compared to the behaviour of the crusaders a few centuries later.

      As far as the "Imperialist invasion of spain" theory goes. That too is nonsense. Imperialism is the correct term, but there simply was no "Spain" to be conquered. There was a Roman territory called Hispania, which had collapsed into interfamily and tribal rivalry with the decline of the empire. (Incidentally, many people who fought with the Moors were Jews, fleeing the Church's policy of forced conversion.) The Moors were simply another grouping hoping to take advantage of the chaos.

      The Reconquista is a useful national myth for the Spanish, but it doesn't have much basis in fact. The process of the unification of Spain is markedly similar to the process of the unification of England. If the Danes had stood their ground, or the mercians had held out for autonomy the English would have a different national myth, and if the Spanish had failed to retake the south they would have a different story of legitimacy, just as powerful.
    10. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by the_womble · · Score: 1

      By modern standards of course, these are barbarous options, but they are positively courtly compared to the behaviour of the crusaders a few centuries later.

      OF course you could compare the crusaders to, say, the Ottoman Turks.

    11. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by denoir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unfortunately their civilisation was destroyed by a European power under the aegis of the Catholic Church.
      Although the crusades made a deep political impact and united the Muslim world, they managed to self-destruct all by themselves. The reason was the teachings of one al-Ghazali, the most influential thinker in Islamic history. His religious views became law and are still dominant in the Islamic world.

      Briefly put, his ideology was that science is intrinsically evil because it proposes that there are natural laws and that would limit the power of God. When an object drops to the floor it doesn't do so because of gravity, but because God wills it. Every event is a singular expression of Gods will and cannot and should not be analyzed and explained.

      As you can imagine this did marvels for science in the Islamic world. From being world leader they by their own doing they removed themselves from the game completely. And we have the same view today. In the Muslim world, technology is seen as OK but science as bad. Thanks to that plainly idiotic view they have blocked their own development. There are more books translated in Spain to Spanish than there have in the Arab world translated into Arabic since the 7th century.

      Really sad given how great their contributions to early science were. They were centuries ahead of the Europeans but blew it all. It is easy to blame the crusaders but in fact they were only enablers - to kick them out, the Islamic powers all united under one ruler and a single political system.

    12. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You could, but I'm not really willing to get into the kind of "your side did this bad to mine, so when my side does double bad to you it's okay" discussion that bedevils any discussion of the Middle East.

      I think it's enough to note that standards have changed in the last thousand years: in mediaeval war it was okay to loot a captured city, for example. Now that's definitely not okay, but destroying the city from space is.

      The key point is that the common views, which you cheerfully quote, of the Muslim empire, Granada and the reconquista are wrong because they are based on a narrative that has the Muslims as the intolerant villains and nation states as somehow existing a priori (so that you can reconquer something that never existed).

      It's for that reasons like that the ignorant chaps further up there can't believe that Arabs could have come up with aperiodic tiling.

    13. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by the_womble · · Score: 1
      The wealth distribution in Bangladesh is hardly uniform.

      I would say it is more down to politics and culture.

    14. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The protective tax system actually led to a rather tolerant Arabic empire - why, there were Christians in Iraq until last year. It's a considerably better lot than say, expulsion. Which is exactly what happened to the Jews when Spanish finally took control of Granada in 1492.

    15. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "their civilisation" is refering to "Kingdom of Granada in Spain" and not the entire islamic civilisation.

    16. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by tomknight · · Score: 1

      A beautiful post. Thank you.

      --
      Oh arse
    17. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When an object drops to the floor it doesn't do so because of gravity, but because God wills it. Every event is a singular expression of Gods will and cannot and should not be analyzed and explained.

      But if every event is an expression of god's will, then wouldn't the events that are collectively known as "science" also be god's will? I smell a contradiction in those ideas.

    18. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The original claim, as I understood that, was that Western civilization was not the best choice for taking over the world, when it happened. However, by the time that began to happen (colonization and Enlightenment), the Moors were no longer relevant for a long time then (so any speculation does not make sense - we do not know what they'd be like by that time), and Ottomans were the uniting force of the Muslim world.

    19. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      The protective tax system actually led to a rather tolerant Arabic empire

      The protection payment system actually led to a rather tolerant Mafia empire

      Oh happy days, if I pay my dhimmi tax I won't be killed! I'm FREE!

    20. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Sack of Baghdad was much worse for medieval Islamic culture than anything the Europeans did.

      Baghdad was much larger and wealthier than any other city in the Middle East, in Europe, or in Africa. It was almost completely destroyed by the Mongol army.

    21. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you actually read al-Ghazali? He talks about understanding the ultimate cause (God). No where does he belittle empirical study, which is actually one of many components of his methodology. After all, the Quran does command Muslims to observe and ponder the world around them since doing creation tells about the creator. Furthermore, humans are commanded to put the creation to good use. This is how he and his students explained this.

    22. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "The same year Colonia was discovered by Cristobal Colon".

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    23. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by MollyB · · Score: 1

      It's for that reasons like that the ignorant chaps further up there can't believe that Arabs could have come up with aperiodic tiling. If we generalize this to the field of anthropology, it might explain our modern astonishment at finding more evidence of intelligence and intention in our ancestors the closer we look... The Ice-Man's tattoo of acupuncture therapy is one example.

      To use the latest vernacular, we "pwn" a lot o' hubris along with our shiny supercomputers until we cop to the fact that we are just the recentest froth to call ourselves the crown of creation. (Sorry to mix metaphors, but need more coffee)

      I see no reason to assume that medieval Arabs didn't understand what they did. It even seems churlish to suggest otherwise.
    24. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by ci4 · · Score: 1

      There are still Christians in Iraq, though - last time I looked around the thought was about 3% of the population, followers of five distinct churches - check http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/assyrian.htm for example.

    25. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Goaway · · Score: 1

      He was only talking about Islam in Spain, genius.

    26. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for mentioning the Assyrians. Most people don't know who we are, while others think we are Arabs or extinct.

    27. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by nathanh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Since the socially mobile tend to follow the ways of the dominant power, Islam has become increasingly a religion of the poor and ill educated. (I know this is a simplification, but it is a useful simplification.)

      Since the socially ignorant tend to follow the ways of the USA, Christianity has become increasingly a religion of the fat and stupid. (I know this is a simplification, but it is a useful simplification.)

      Jackass.

    28. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Weedlekin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think he was referring to Islam in Spain as the civilisation that got destroyed, because Spanish Muslims had diverged significantly from those in Africa and the Middle East (or more correctly, African and Middle Eastern Muslims had diverged from them), so they can justifiably be regarded as a distinct civilisation with a unique culture. Unfortunately for them this meant that they were basically caught between a rock and a hard place, with Catholic Europe on one side who regarded them as enemies, and a stricter, more fundamentalist Islamic culture in Africa (i.e. the other side of Spain) that had also regarded them as enemies since at least the 11th century. What's surprising therefore is not that they ended up getting destroyed, as that was obviously inevitable, but rather that they lasted as long as they did when surrounded by such powerful and fanatical opponents.

      NB: although it ended up being Christian rulers who destroyed the Spanish Muslim civilisation, the original poster's claim that this was done "under the Aegis of the Catholic Church" is unjust. As has often been the case, the Catholic Kings used religion as a political and propaganda tool very effectively, but the conquest of the Muslim kingdoms in Spain was really about territory, and their subsequent persecution of Jews and Muslims had a lot more to do with eliminating possible sources of dissent together with jealousy (jews in particular occupied important administrative positions that Spanish nobles wanted for themselves) than real religious differences. There's no better evidence of this than the fact that many Spanish Jews fled to Catholic Italy, home of The Vatican, where they not only managed to live without many problems (i.e. some people had personal prejudices against them, but there was ittle if any persecution by either the Italian political authorities or the Church), but were also able to obtain important administrative posts and teach in universities, where their translation of ancient Greek works that had been preserved by Spanish Muslims into Latin became a key factor in the subsequent European Renaissance.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    29. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by dajak · · Score: 1

      As far as the "Imperialist invasion of spain" theory goes. That too is nonsense. Imperialism is the correct term, but there simply was no "Spain" to be conquered. There was a Roman territory called Hispania, which had collapsed into interfamily and tribal rivalry with the decline of the empire. (Incidentally, many people who fought with the Moors were Jews, fleeing the Church's policy of forced conversion.) The Moors were simply another grouping hoping to take advantage of the chaos.

      The Reconquista is a useful national myth for the Spanish, but it doesn't have much basis in fact. The process of the unification of Spain is markedly similar to the process of the unification of England. If the Danes had stood their ground, or the mercians had held out for autonomy the English would have a different national myth, and if the Spanish had failed to retake the south they would have a different story of legitimacy, just as powerful.


      I think the original "Reconquista" should be interpreted in the context of a Christian culture considering the Roman Empire as its ancestor (the principle of translatio imperii). In the same sense one could talk about "reclaiming" the holy land, or Eqypt, or Morocco, etc., for Christianity. The Spanish did indeed "reconquer" parts of North Africa. The Byzantines of course also considered themselves heir of Rome, and the Russian tsars considered themselves heir of Byzantium (and copied its double headed eagle), and from that perspective could also "reclaim" former provinces of Rome. Same for Germany (Holy Roman Empire) with its Roman eagle.

      Same in the middle east: the Ottoman empire for instance adopted the double headed eagle and crescent moon as symbols from Persia and Byzantium, the two empires it considered itself heir of, and was preceded by a Seljuk sultanate of "Rum" (Rome). In short: basically all conquest in the Meditterean "reclaimed" formerly owned land, except for the Mongol invasion.

    30. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the summary. A good read.

      Returning to the original point, however, I still don't see what the GP post was referring to. Perhaps Europeans demolished Spanish Islam, but the vast majority of Islam was not in Spain. Therefore I don't see how Europe can be blamed for the decline of Islam. What I am really curious about are the reasons for that decline, and I have never really read a good explanation.

    31. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Weedlekin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If we generalize this to the field of anthropology, it might explain our modern astonishment at finding more evidence of intelligence and intention in our ancestors the closer we look... The Ice-Man's tattoo of acupuncture therapy is one example."

      It's not so much astonishment, but an ingrained prejudice that renders many people incapable of accepting the fact that ancient peoples were _not_ less intelligent than us. It's therefore easier for them to believe that Atlanteans (who are inevitably portrayed as being white!) or aliens were responsible for gigantic and impressive structures from thousands of years ago than what they think of as "a bunch of ignorant wogs who didn't have TV and cars". Furthermore, the fact that (for example) the ruins of ancient Zimbabwe were attributed to Phoenicians, Hebrews, lost tribes of white men, etc., etc., because "darkies" were incapable of such architectural feats shows that archaeologists and anthropologists haven't always been immune to cultural prejudices.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    32. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by sita · · Score: 1

      The peak of that Islamic civilisation seems to have been the Kingdom of Granada in Spain, which had an advanced society, religious tolerance (not only were Jews and Christians welcome, but a Hebrew prayer book for women has been discovered there) and advanced technology. There is some evidence that they learned more from the Hindus than the Greeks, as books on the history of numbers point out. There are writings from that society that sound almost modern in outlook.

      Oh, give me a break. Al-Andalus wasn't bad, on a historical scale, but it was a far cry from a tolerant society. In fact, tolerance as defined in western democracies today did not exist in Al-Andalus, or practically anywhere else in the islamic world. Yes, the Jews weren't butchered up as often as in the christian world, but it did happen. Conversion or death was not a method brought to Spain by Los Reyes Católicos. Jews and Christians were forced to pay a special tax, wear distinctive clothing and could not hold public office. These were the laws. Sometimes and in some places the laws were not particularly well enforced and Jews and Christians could rise to important offices, but it was not for any longer periods (on a historical scale). As I mentioned, from time to time Jews were expelled when a new kalif came to town, and had to flee to other areas. Sometimes the refugees went to neighbouring christian states.

      As for the Hebrew prayer book for women -- in what way is that significant?

    33. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you people not realise that muslims themselves had to pay their own tax (aka zakat) for the needy? the jizyah that you talk about is nothing more than a tax to balance the financial obligations of members in the society.

    34. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Iloinen+Lohikrme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Others have already posted to your comment so I will keep it short. First of all, no civilization was wiped out when Moors where removed from Spain, what happened was the removal of governing Muslim elite and replacing it with a christian king and nobles. What stayed the same were the peoples, their language and their habits and culture which in any case were there before Moor conquers. It should be noted that civilization, religion, nation, language i.e. don't mean the same thing. Civilization can be mix of many religions, nations, languages i.e. that are bond together. In Spain, the majority of people where Christians, they spoke the same language and had similar habits, which in later terms made them a nation that can be counted to western civilization.

      Also on a note Europe and western powers made a rise because of their highly organized states and armies, more evolved banking and finance sectors, appraisal for knowledge and education and on a later date ability harness finance&scientific knowledge to serve industrialization. This was which raised western civilization from the drain. You also note that christian societies have attempted to control and dominate Islamic societies, but you forget that in 19th and 20th century the focus of European imperial powers was to control and dominate the whole world, not just Muslims. And before that if you make a note about crusades, you should understand that crusades were an attempt to take back old christian lands from Muslim conquers. In the view of these, there isn't any grand christian plot to suppress Muslims as you try to suggest.

      Also on a note when you say that the socially mobile tend to follow the ways of a dominant power, you should also understand than in previous times there were no immigration. When Europe and west started to raise, that didn't succumb able part of other cultures to Europe because there still was religion, language and ethnic barriers. What we have seen in Islamic societies in middle east, in last 1000 years are the effects on what it does when the leading elite doesn't embrace trade, banking, formal organization of government, formalization of armies, science, knowledge and education of masses. What happened to Islamic civilization was not that it failed in absolute terms, it just didn't keep up with the rest and thus in 18th and 19th centuries was very much behind western world.

      Just to give you example on what I am discussing in practical terms. In example in Finland Mikael Agricola, a priest, formed the Finnish written language in 16th century which teaching was started even to the simple masses. Of course the literature rate didn't rise quickly, but in time of several centuries it made quite big part of Finnish able to read and write, which in turn made possible to further educate more and more people. Also in western Europe kings and nobles started to understand the practically of stable banking and finance sectors and in time became more tolerant and took more responsibilities to pay their debts and not just wipe out debts to bankers. The fact that western civilization got first to industrial revolution and later on became first modern and birth cradle for global civilization is nothing to do with suppressing or exploiting other civilizations, it's everything to do on using own strengths and continues building and evolution of everything in societies.

    35. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Yeah the only apparent difference between the Jihadists and the Crusaders was that the former raped the women as well as killing them along with the menfolk.

      Mind you there are tales of Crusaders that cannibalised their victims - however I suspect that's a perversion of the misunderstanding that was held against the early Christians as being cannabils (because they eat and drink Jesus "flesh" at the communion table).

    36. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately their civilisation was destroyed by a European power under the aegis of the Catholic Church. For much of recent history, Christian societies have attempted to control and dominate Islamic societies. Since the socially mobile tend to follow the ways of the dominant power, Islam has become increasingly a religion of the poor and ill educated. (I know this is a simplification, but it is a useful simplification.) We are now seeing the effects of creating a society of poor and ill-educated people with ready access to cheap weapons.

      It's probably anathema to bring up here, but something the "war in Iraq" has shown is that this does not have to be the case. There were untold riches in Saddam's palace, while his people lived in poverty. The populace of Islamic and Arabic nations do NOT have to be poor or uneducated. They are that way because it is easier for those in power to remain in power.

      If you have an educated people, it is harder to keep them misinformed and under your control. If no one has access to new and information beyond your control, they'll never know that life is different than you say it is.

      You keep your people uneducated -- or, rather, you educate (indoctrinate) them to the level that YOU need them educated, and no more. You prohibit access to media that does not paint you in a favourable light or that does not exault your dictatorship above that of anyone else. After controlling the peoples' sources of information, you can then "put down" any dissenters claiming they were blaspheming your god. Lies, yes. But if all you read is a lie, eventually you start to believe it.

      The same policies China, Russia (yes, Russia too), and other communist nations used to control their people are the same policies that many of these Middle Eastern nations use to control their people.

      -M

    37. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough Granada (city in southern spain ruled by the Arabs for years) has the best remaining examples of Arabic architecture in existance. The most beautiful example of which is the Alhambra, here are some links:

      www.andalucia.com/cities/granada/alhamhistory.htm
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra

      As to what happened to the high point of Arabic culture, thats easy, we destroyed it in The Crusades. The only reason that didnt happen to Spain was that the area was no longer under Arabic Rule. The fact is that western culture has always been better at one thing - War.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    38. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the Sura is wrong when it tells the followers of the Koran to fight, they just ignored it.

      Oh, and protective tax under submission doesn't sound like regular taxation of equal citizens to me ... but I'm sure Mr AC you'll explain for me.

    39. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you actually read al-Ghazali?

      No, but the quotes I've seen don't really support scientific inquiry very well: "...our opponent claims that the agent of the burning is the fire exclusively;' this is a natural, not a voluntary agent, and cannot abstain from what is in its nature when it is brought into contact with a receptive substratum. This we deny, saying: The agent of the burning is God, through His creating the black in the cotton and the disconnexion of its parts, and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or without intermediation. For fire is a dead body which has no action, and what is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God."

      This is called "Occasionalism".

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    40. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by RPGonAS400 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought algorithm was just a lispy way of saying "Al-Gore-ism". i.e. a global warming quote he came up with after inventing the Internets.

    41. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      You may have noticed that there are still Christians in Iraq.

      Also Iraq has been under a tyrannical dictatorship and not subject to Sharia.

    42. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by silentounce · · Score: 3, Funny

      Others have already posted to your comment so I will keep it short. THAT was short?! You must be new here.
      --
      There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
    43. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if every event is an expression of god's will, then wouldn't the events that are collectively known as "science" also be god's will? I smell a contradiction in those ideas.
      I would say "science" is considered more of a human action. It doesn't just happen on its own, you have to put effort into it.

      And many such human actions are considered against "god's will", such as eating pork, having safe sex, or killing people.
      Well, except for the last if you're muslim and the guy you're killing isn't -- that's A-OK!!!
      <sarcasm>God, I love religion.</sarcasm> FSM be praised!
    44. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by TerranFury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Algebra comes from the "Al-jabr" the Arabic word for reunion

      IIRC, algebra was like the 'Arabic numerals' (which other posters have mentioned) in that it came to the Arabs through trade with India.

      Then, thanks to the Arabs, algebra was developed and preserved, and then communicated to the West. Then, when the British colonized India, they presumably set up schools that taught the subject... (Funny, these circles).

      Algebra survived because the societies that understood it stayed in contact with one another; this was necessary in order for it to spread. Knowledge get passed around -- and each society that holds the baton for a bit tends to add something useful to it.

      Moral of the story: extroverted societies learn more; xenophobia hurts knowledge.

    45. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Others have already posted to your comment so I will keep it short. First of all, no civilization was wiped out when Moors where removed from Spain, what happened was the removal of governing Muslim elite and replacing it with a christian king and nobles. It's a fair point well made, but in the case of the Reconquista it's not entirely true: the immediate result of the Christian conquest of Granada was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, who were forbidden to be part of the elite by Islamic law.

      Also on a note when you say that the socially mobile tend to follow the ways of a dominant power, you should also understand than in previous times there were no immigration. When Europe and west started to raise, that didn't succumb able part of other cultures to Europe because there still was religion, language and ethnic barriers. Sitting as I do in London, that seems like a very strange statement. It's hard to think of a century in England's history that hasn't been marked by some major immigration or emigration.
      In eastern Europe the question is largely nonsensical: no need to emigrate, hang around long enough and the country you thought you were in will simply move.
    46. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Off-topic?

      It's not exactly about Penrose tiling but it's a response to the parent that said:

      >>> "The peak of that Islamic civilisation seems to have been the Kingdom of Granada in Spain, which had an advanced society, religious tolerance (not only were Jews and Christians welcome, but a Hebrew prayer book for women has been discovered there) and advanced technology."

    47. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Crusades? you're kidding right ????
      The Crusades never went into mainlands of arabic culture at all, they conquered the "holy land" which is basically a small strip at the coast and Jerusalem. And not for long, and they were loosing pretty badly in the later ones. They never went to Mekka, or the regions of Saudi-Arabia, Irak, etc...

      It's like claiming that the conquest of half of Florida for a limited time (if it would indeed occur) destroys the US...

    48. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by ci4 · · Score: 1

      I've been learning Assyrian Aramaic on my own for more than a year now (got to keep the gray cells busy with something...).

      (http://www.assyrianlanguage.com/ and some others)

    49. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes I have, what about you? Go and Read Incoherence of the Philosophers where he rebuts reason, and the rationalist philosophers particularly avicenna (ibn e sina). One of the gems of the books (imho) is a passage whereby he describes Fire and how it has no intrinsic property to burn and the only way the burning happens is by the 'direct' intervention of god or his agents (the angels). He goes on to prove this by quoting Abraham walking through fire and how god had not acted preventing the fire from burning him.... He also explicitly rejects all knowledge derived from non muslim sources, a polite way of casting aside the knowledge acquired through the Greek writings (as well as other cultures). The book is available online , google for it and have a read. Truly bone chilling stuff

    50. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actualy killing and murder is generaly seperated in both law and religion. It is popular to group them together when there is some agenda like stopping killing or making fun of gods but it is generaly to that extent.

      Muder is taking a life when you have no justification to do so. Killing is when you can justify it. Both are divided into homicides for law purposes to determine the intent and such. War is killing unless you kill innocent civilians then it is murder. If you stab someone who later dies because "you could", that is murder. If you did so because you were protecting yourself or someone else and that was the only way to stop you from being mudered, then it is killing.

      Death is natural and has alway been looked at in ways to justify it. Natural causes, Cancer, drug overdose, murder, suicide, killing and all have become reasons in our quest to justify death. Science is even working on ways to stop it from happening. Self preservation is usualy an over riding factor in any actions you take though.

      We have alway found discouraged murder but have found way to justify killing. However, Just because we have people claiming to be scientist who aren't in the strict sence of the word, You have religious people doing the same. Muder has been justified by these people in the past as just killing when neccesary andit will prbably be done in the future. It doesn't mean the entire religion should be judged by the actions of a few claiming rights by it. I'm sure the killing another muslum is permited under certain circumstances just the same.

    51. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by SengirV · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can also point to Al-Ghazali - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali - as the destroyer of the enlightened Islamic dynasty as it was known. 100 years before Roger Bacon's time, Al-Ghazali lead a "Cultural Revolution" in islam which forbad any and all thought that men determined their own fate. All actions were a direct act of God and free will was non-existent. Thus, any teachings of Aristotle, Plato, etc... were heresy. Islam turned from a pinnacle of intellectualism to a parasite living off the advances of the west, biding it's time until their sheer masses can subjugate the rest of the world into their way of thinking through violence and intimidation.

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

    52. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Please enlighten us "Oh so socialy smart one". How does the socialy inteligent one's behave?

      And what makes someone socialy ignorant? BTW, I don't think too many of the fat and lazy americans are praticing christians. Other wise they wouldn't be all that lazy if they got up and went to church.

    53. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by the_womble · · Score: 1

      If you looked at my comment in the context of the comment that I was rebutting you would realise that what you are saying is irrelavent.

      I quite agree with you, but if you look further up the thread you will see a comment by Flying pig which could be summarised as "Islamic civilisation was wonderfully peaceful and tolerant until they were attacked and impoverished by Christians". That is what I wanted to rebut.

    54. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      So how come these effects are most strongest in places like oil rich Saudi Arabia, rather than very poor countries like Bangaldesh?

      Because these places have the sharpest divide between rich and poor. This makes poor people angry and wanting to overthrow their dictators. Then, they get swept up into a cult whose anger is (symbolically?) directed toward western countries.

    55. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not really willing to get into the kind of "your side did this bad to mine, so when my side does double bad to you it's okay" discussion that bedevils any discussion of the Middle East.
      So why are you doing it?
    56. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      A genuine example, from the 1500s. A footnote to an edition of Rabelais reveals that at one public fair in France, the prostitutes wanting to operate their trade had to take part at the start of the fair in a naked public footrace. This operates on a number of levels. It would tend to discourage unhealthy or diseased prostitutes. It constituted a form of advertising. And it provided entertainment. But it also shows that, no matter what you think of current entertainment standards, they were just as bad in the 1500s.

      I don't know to complain about that or cheer them on. All in all, I'd want a video of someone recreating the event though. Heck, they could modernize it a bit for visitors and drop the prostitute part, but stick the label just wants some sex and gets random horny women to run naked around town with a big orgy at the end of the race. It would spread faster than St. Patrick's day.

    57. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I still don't see what the GP post was referring to. Perhaps Europeans demolished Spanish Islam, but the vast majority of Islam was not in Spain"

      I thought I'd explained the fact that he seemed to be referring to the Spanish Islamic civilisation getting destroyed by Europeans, not Islam in general, which was a set of distinct cultures with a shared religion rather than a single civilisation (as indeed is the case today: Riyadh and Jakarta are for example both the capitals of Muslim countries, but their cultures don't have many similarities beyond this).

      "I don't see how Europe can be blamed for the decline of Islam. What I am really curious about are the reasons for that decline, and I have never really read a good explanation."

      What most people mean by "the decline of Islam" is actually the stagnation and later decline in the Ottoman Empire, because Islam the religion has grown over the years rather than declined. There aren't any good explanations because so many factors contributed to it that nobody can say "well, it was because of these three things that went wrong", so historians who dedicate themselves to studying its history still debate whether its period of stagnation and later decline began with the Battle Of Lepanto, the devaluing of currency and rampant inflation caused by the massive influx of silver from Spanish South America, a loss of military technological supremacy due to growing religious and intellectual conservatism, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

      And yes, it can safely be said that Europeans played a big part in the fall of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century onwards, but this had nothing to do with culture or religion, and was instead a matter of economics and politics. Note though that there were various internal factors which also caused significant problems at various times, so nobody can really say whether it would have survived in some form to the present day without European influences, or whether the growing nationalism of various member nations that was becoming evident in the 19th century together with movements such as pan-Arabism would have made it fall apart from within.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    58. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His religious views became law and are still dominant in the Islamic world.

      So he's the reason the marrying age for girls in Iran is age nine?
    59. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The fact that western civilization got first to industrial revolution and later on became first modern and birth cradle for global civilization is nothing to do with suppressing or exploiting other civilizations, it's everything to do on using own strengths and continues building and evolution of everything in societies.

      Strongly disagree. It used its own strengths to suppress and exploit other civilizations. The history of man is the history of conflict.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Tupper · · Score: 1
      As to what happened to the high point of Arabic culture, thats easy, we destroyed it in The Crusades.

      I assume you are not counting the crusades in Palestine. These crusades were a mere pinprick in Arab power. They were largely ignored in Arab writtings at the time-- because they didn't much matter. Consider this map of Mongol Empire. At the time of this map there is a Crusader state at Jerusalem-- just west of the battle at Ain Julat. But a small country of semibarbarians--- with trade goods--- is no big deal. Real barbarians overrunning half of Islam is a big deal.

      If you mean just the Reconquista, yes there were tradgedies there. But at the same time Islam was conquering Bzyantium; Constantinople had been the most important Christian city for a thousand years.

    61. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      Interesting stuff. I think I understand what you're saying now.

      Thanks for taking the time to write it!

    62. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by spun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Please enlighten us "Oh so socialy smart one". How does the socialy inteligent one's behave?

      They don't throw in random apostrophes, for one thing. And they make sure to use the correct verb tense.

      BTW, I don't think too many of the fat and lazy americans are praticing christians. Other wise they wouldn't be all that lazy if they got up and went to church.

      Going to church doesn't take much effort. From the churches I've seen, most Christians are both fat and lazy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    63. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Michael_K_Vegfruit · · Score: 1

      Brutal and ignorant that the Christian kings of Spain were, the collapse of Moorish Al-Andalus wasn't really down to them. Rather, it was the collapse of the Cordoba caliphate in the 11th century, and its disintegration into warring states (using deals with Christian kings and mercenaries) that allowed the Christians to eventually take over.

    64. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By 1500 Europe was the richest, most techincally and most scientifically advanced part of the world. It's a shame the rest of the world didn't have Catholic faith to "hinder" it too.

    65. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is absurd to blame the decline of the Muslims on Imam al-Ghazali, if any thing, he was a reviver for us. The Muslims that came before him were well aware that God is ultimately behind all actions, as this is clearly stated in the Quran. Imam al-Ghazali brought the spiritual component of the religion back to the masses, after it had become absent. He also warned against the dangers present in philosophy. But none of this has any baring on scientific thinking, the purpose of which, by studying the creation of God, was the elevation and praise of God.

    66. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that writing a lengthy response was all that was required to be modded insightful. Regardless, this statement is rather ridiculous, "What stayed the same were the peoples, their language and their habits and culture which in any case were there before Moor conquers." The culture that existed before 711 (the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula) was Visigothic. If you honestly believe that this culture survived intact without being heavily influenced and integrated with Muslim habits, I suggest that you consult primary texts from 700-1500. The Christians in Northern Spain (the parts that weren't conquered) often didn't have any great love for Christians in the South, whom they viewed as too Arab.

    67. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      I think he was referring to Islam in Spain as the civilisation that got destroyed, because Spanish Muslims had diverged significantly from those in Africa and the Middle East (or more correctly, African and Middle Eastern Muslims had diverged from them), so they can justifiably be regarded as a distinct civilisation with a unique culture. Unfortunately for them this meant that they were basically caught between a rock and a hard place, with Catholic Europe on one side who regarded them as enemies, and a stricter, more fundamentalist Islamic culture in Africa (i.e. the other side of Spain) that had also regarded them as enemies since at least the 11th century. What's surprising therefore is not that they ended up getting destroyed, as that was obviously inevitable, but rather that they lasted as long as they did when surrounded by such powerful and fanatical opponents

      Hardly. And while we are waxing poetically for the peaceful and enlightened Muslim society built up in Spain, let's not forget how they built it up. By the imperial expansion and subjugation of Visigothic Spain (who in turn took it from the imperialistic Romans who in turn took it from the imperialistic Carthaginians). The Muslim invasion of Spain was a VERY violent and traumatic affair, that was brought about by disunity among the Visigothic nobles, and featured just as much repression and atrocities as the Reconquista did 400 years later (the Reconquista started in earnest in the 11th century).

      As far as inevitability, nothing was inevitable. The "Spanish" Christians were as disorganized (and probably more so) than the Muslims were. El Cid, that great Christian warrior, fought on the side of Muslims as often as he did against them. Christian and Muslim states in Spain allied with each other, betrayed their alliances, and attacked each other frequently.

      And as for the Reconquista, lets not forget who created "holy war". It wasn't the Christians. The polarization of the Catholics in Spain came about due to an accumulated 800 years of atrocities and subjugation at the hand of the Muslim Jihad. Sure, they built some nice mosques with some great geometric art work. Rome was built with the slave labor of millions and the plunder from hundreds of nations too.

    68. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Darby · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough Granada (city in southern spain ruled by the Arabs for years) has the best remaining examples of Arabic architecture in existance. The most beautiful example of which is the Alhambra.

      And for the musically inclined it also inspired one of the greatest (IMHO) guitar pieces in existence.
      I'm sure you can find an mp3 somewhere.

    69. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Even if al-Ghazali ideas were extremely influential in the Muslim world, he certainly can't be the only reason for what amounts to a complete collapse of one of the great scientific civilizations in world history. For example, if you look at the writings/teachings of Martin Luther and the spread of Protestant thought in Germany, the US, and the UK you would assume that we would completely reject science and reason. That is hardly the case though, as a huge proportion of major scientific breakthroughs in the last few centuries have come from those three countries. I would say that attributing it all to al-Ghazali is probably a very simplistic analysis.

      Disclaimer: I don't know anything whatsoever about al-Ghazali other than a quick look at the wikipedia page.

    70. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, this will be considered a troll, but .... why is this low standards? The nudity? Then you must not approve of the original Greek Olympics, either. Is it that the competitors were competing for purely commercial reasons? Or is it because the competitors were women?

      Please be more specific in your criticism.

    71. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by t0rkm3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting. As I remember it Muhammed required extra taxes from Christian and Jews (people of the book) when he was feeling merciful, and something less savory when he was not.

      I am an atheist, but it seems odd that a religion whose own founder required the death of unbelievers on several occasions and also had sex with a child is compared to a overall harmless pacifist. It's like comparing Hitler to Gandhi. Seems perverse to me.

      Muhammad was a warlord. A warlord who founded a religion of peace? What need would a warlord have for his people to be pacifistic to his own motivation and conversely hold nothing but mild tolerance or animus for all others?

      As a curiosity, could someone with a deeper knowledge of theology, provide a list of pacifist sects of Islam compared to pacifist sects spawned by Chistianity? Buddhism beats both of the former hands down, more than likely...

      "Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" Sura 48:29. "Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush..." Sura 9:5

    72. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      They were generally tolerated as people of the book, although not accorded the same rights as Muslims - look up Dhimmi in wikipedia; certainly no worse than, and in most cases definitely better than, the position of jews in Christian societies.

      Muslim conquerors generally gave the people of newly conquered lands three choices: to be put to the sword, convert or pay indemnity. Very few chose the second, a few chose the middle option and most chose the last option.

      By modern standards of course, these are barbarous options, but they are positively courtly compared to the behaviour of the crusaders a few centuries later.

      Are you aware of the treatment of Christians in many modern Muslim countries? Becoming a Christian in Iran, for example, is quite likely to get you severely persecuted and killed if you don't manage to get out of the country.

    73. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent rebuttal. We now know that you do not know the basic definition of the word "more." Bonus points for doing a bang-up job of focusing on one factor and ignoring the others. Totally brill my man!

    74. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by nuzak · · Score: 1

      It's not so much astonishment, but an ingrained prejudice that renders many people incapable of accepting the fact that ancient peoples were _not_ less intelligent than us.

      I wouldn't exactly call them ancient. Islam is practically brand spanking new compared to the arc of civilizations. At any rate, I feel pretty confident that they in fact did not have a deep understanding of the math, for the simple fact that despite this skill being known by many thousands, they didn't write the math down. Creating these tilings was almost demonstrably a valuable trade skill, probably a trade secret, and craftsmen aren't usually big on theoretical topology. Any idiot can see that the tiling is aperiodic by simply drawing it out, but thankfully for the craftsmen, the average mosaic wasn't infinite.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    75. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The peak of that Islamic civilisation seems to have been the Kingdom of Granada in Spain [...] Unfortunately their civilisation was destroyed by a European power under the aegis of the Catholic Church"

      Well, well... To Caesar that from Caesar. On one hand you mean to imply that it was some "Catholic Church" oscurantism that that went after muslims in Spain. While that (as always) it an explanation to the masses (and probably make the fight), it was (as always is) a fight for power, for land and sea power those days. Is not by chance that the christian king of the day was "the Catholic Fernando" which is pondered as a mirror for statemen to learn their bussiness by no less than Machiavelo.

      On the other hand, by the end of the fifteenth century (Granada was taken by the catholic kings on february the 2nd, 1492, the same year Colon -sponsored by those same kings, arrived the New Continent) all the south of Spain (till the time it went conquered by spanish christian kings) was known as "Taifas Kingdoms", short of little warlord reigns that fought against each other (even within kingdoms: Cordoba caliphate was destroyed by a civil war) no less than against the pressure from the christian principals. So, while the merit (and the history fact) came on the side of the Spanish christian kings it was muslims themselves the real makers of their own defeat (under this insight it takes a new sense the words that the Granada's king's mother told him when flying from the taken city: "cry like a woman what you weren't able to defend like a man").

      "For much of recent history, Christian societies have attempted to control and dominate Islamic societies."

      That's a wrong argument too. The truth is that "for much of recent history, powerful kingdoms, disregarding its official cult, have attemted to control and dominate their surrounding societies": the Otomanes against Bizancium first, then against italian republics; Italian republics against Aragon; then Aragon against otomanes; then French against Italian and Aragonese; then Spain against everybody; then comes again France... at the same time Spain against northern african warlords; german/polland warlords against russians; Otomanes against syrian and armenians... you name it. From more or less X century to the end of IWW the "big" Europe (including Asia Minor, North of Africa and East Europe to Caucasus) is the time when societies come from warlordships to modern states at a highest price in blood. In the big picture, religion is only one more card used to fool people to kill each other at the will of a bunch of almighty families.

      "Islam has become increasingly a religion of the poor and ill educated. (I know this is a simplification, but it is a useful simplification.)"

      It's not a useful simplification; it's a stupid one. To say that current oil arabic lords (Iran, Kuwait, United Emirates...) are poor or ill educated is stupid; to say that Salman Rushdie or Naguib Mahfuz are poor or ill educated is stupid; to say that King or Morocco is poor or ill educated is stupid.

      "But it also shows that, no matter what you think of current entertainment standards, they were just as bad in the 1500s."

      You forget that for the most part History resembles an spiral. Middle Ages were not known as Dark Ages because an specially long eclypse; Iuvenal didn't cry 'o tempora, o mores' out of bad mood nor Quevedo saw "incierto el bien y cierto el desengaño" but because where they were coming from. Today is quite fair to say that current standards are low because both their true level and where we come from (the standards that people wanted for themselves by the years following the end of IIWW) cast deep shadows of shame on us.

    76. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Hardly."

      Hardly what? You're not making any sense.

      "And while we are waxing poetically for the peaceful and enlightened Muslim society built up in Spain"

      Where precisely in "Spanish Muslims had diverged significantly from those in Africa and the Middle East (or more correctly, African and Middle Eastern Muslims had diverged from them), so they can justifiably be regarded as a distinct civilisation with a unique culture" is there anything whatsoever about them being peaceful? Your obvious bitterness and hatred is leading you to build straw men!

      "let's not forget how they built it up. By the imperial expansion and subjugation of Visigothic Spain (who in turn took it from the imperialistic Romans who in turn took it from the imperialistic Carthaginians)."

      Again, where did I say anything to the contrary? You're ranting rather than answering anything I said.

      "The Muslim invasion of Spain was a VERY violent and traumatic affair"

      Most invasions tend to be like that.

      "and featured just as much repression and atrocities as the Reconquista did 400 years later (the Reconquista started in earnest in the 11th century)"

      The Spanish Reconquista (Portugal had one as well) actually began in the 8th century, about a decade after the Moorish invasion, when Pelayo The Visigoth (not to be confused with Saint Pelagius!) re-took Asturias at the Battle of Covadonga, and established what would later be called the Kingdom Of Asturias.

      "As far as inevitability, nothing was inevitable"

      This certainly was. Christian Europe could not tolerate the idea of Islamic kingdoms so close to home, so by the early 13th century, troops and monastic warrior orders from various nations were fighting what was in all respects a crusade (i.e. popes were declaring it as such) against them. The huge Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa for example had French and Portuguese soldiers and knights fighting alongside those from Navarro, Castille, and Aragon (the latter three of which had previously been rivals), and various military orders such as the Knights Templar were present.

      "The "Spanish" Christians were as disorganized (and probably more so) than the Muslims were"

      During what historical period? The aforementioned Battle Of Las Navas De Tolosa had _at least_ 200,000 men on each side from various countries (the Islamic forces were also multi-national), which were gigantic armies by the standards of the early 1200s, and not therefore something that a bunch of disorganised bozos could have put together, commanded, or supported logistically. We're talking about a period of seven hundred years here, during which each or both was sometimes disorganised and sometimes not, so blanket statements like your are quite simply rubbish.

      "El Cid, that great Christian warrior, fought on the side of Muslims as often as he did against them."

      As did everyone at that time in Spain, because there were Muslim provinces that were vassals of Christian rulers, and Christian provinces and cities which were vassals of Muslim rulers, so it was quite common for a Muslim emir and his army to be part of a Christian force that was fighting another Christian force, or vice versa. The religious aspects of the Reconquista seem to have been important for outsiders and some of the later Spanish rulers, but most of the people involved in it for the bulk of its history were really motivated by what underlies most wars, i.e. give me all your stuff or else.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    77. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I hear that much of algebra was indeed developed by Muslims - for a reason:

      Both men and women owned property which wasn't pooled by marriage and on death a person's assets were divided among the spouse(s) and offspring in various prescribed proportions. With up to four wives (at a time) in a marriage, some of whom may have brought children from a previous marriage, figuring this out got very complicated despite the simple initial rules - until you had algebra to set up and solve the problems.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    78. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      To which I can only remark what a difference 1300 years makes to standards of civility. The modern treatment of any minority anywhere is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of standards of pre-mediaeval warfare.

    79. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      The fact that western civilization got first to industrial revolution and later on became first modern and birth cradle for global civilization is nothing to do with suppressing or exploiting other civilizations, it's everything to do on using own strengths and continues building and evolution of everything in societies.

      Your conclusion can be debunked in less than a minute with a short visit to any old museum in London. They're quite filled with spoils and plundered goods from foreign lands (Africa, China, India, etc.). And that's just the stuff that was left over and made it back to England intact!

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    80. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      "Islam has become increasingly a religion of the poor and ill educated"

      EVERY religion begins by catering to the poor and ill educated. When it becomes mainstream, the wealthy ones also start following.

      ignorance is bliss

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    81. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Iloinen+Lohikrme · · Score: 1

      Just to make an point. Does treasures have any effect on following: Rule of the law? Organization of government? Organization of army? Writing and reading skills? Education system? Science research? Development of agriculture? Development of finance and banking? Development of roads and canals? Development industrialization? No. Treasures don't have any effect on those things. Actually treasures and just treasures, they don't produce anything, they just are, they maybe viewed, they maybe wanted, but they don't do nothing. The key thing here what I'm trying to say is, that west rouse up because it's society build itself and how it continued to build and evolve it. Yes, eventually after western nations rouse, they did suppress and exploit other areas of the world, but the key thing was that these areas and civilizations where even in that time were very much behind west. So to make it clear, rise of west was not product of suppression and exploitation, but the rise of west allowed later suppression and exploitation of many areas.

      Just to give you one example what went right in the west and wrong in China and Japan. If we look Europe, China and Japan in 16th and 17h centuries, China was ahead of the previous two, Japan could be said been in equal level of development with Europe. What set China and Japan a part from Europe that in China and Japan, traders and creditors were seen as lower parts of society and their fortunes were robbed from time to time and debts to nobles and governments wiped out. The bad treatment of traders and creditors made sure that banking and finance sectors didn't form up in either of these. Instead in Europe, because of constant war ventures, kings and nobles realized that the key to win a war is your ability to finance it. In the same time as Rothschields set up Europe wide banking network there were no such development in either China or Japan. When we go on further, as the industrialization started, Europe had very advanced banking and finance sectors witch allowed efficient allocation of resources to new industrial ventures.

      Or just to give you another example. Japan was very closed society in Tokugawa reign, trade to outside world was severely limited and in example firearms i.e. muskets were banned. Later on it costed Japanese dearly for banning firearms because when Americans landed, Japanese hadn't developed muskets or organization of their armies and thus had no real force to put up to western powers.

      These both cases, banking and finance and firearms were all in these three civilizations, but only one of them, that is Europeans, continued to develop them. If Chinese had treated traders and bankers better they could have had very advanced financing system that could have allowed them to better finance ventures and war efforts. Also if in both of these places development of firearms would have kept going on, Europeans would have not had any chance to set up colonies in Asia.

      So again... rise of west happened because of it's internal reasons, not by exploitation and suppression of others. Thou rise of west allowed west later on to exploit and suppress.

    82. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much astonishment, but an ingrained prejudice that renders many people incapable of accepting the fact that ancient peoples were _not_ less intelligent than us. It's therefore easier for them to believe that Atlanteans (who are inevitably portrayed as being white!) or aliens were responsible for gigantic and impressive structures from thousands of years ago than what they think of as "a bunch of ignorant wogs who didn't have TV and cars". Furthermore, the fact that (for example) the ruins of ancient Zimbabwe were attributed to Phoenicians, Hebrews, lost tribes of white men, etc., etc., because "darkies" were incapable of such architectural feats shows that archaeologists and anthropologists haven't always been immune to cultural prejudices.


      It's not really a racial thing, though it has some racist characteristics. It's really an Enlightenment-era prejudice. The 18th-19th century Western European philosophers decided that everyone preceding them, except for maybe a few geniuses from the Renaissance, must have been a low-grade moron kept ignorant by religion and superstition. Of course, this only shows their own lack of perspective and ignorance of history. What they had constructed was their own myth about the way that scientific progress works.

      It was these 19th century bozos who, without any evidence, decided that the medieval Europeans must have thought the world to be flat. Somehow they failed to realize that the orb used by medieval kings was meant to symbolize authority over the world... and it was a pretty globular-looking world indeed. Nor did they consult any philosophical writings of the time.

      And of course these historians applied this same screwed-up prejudiced thinking to their studies of China, India, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa, the Americas, etc.
    83. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go and Read Incoherence of the Philosophers where he rebuts reason, and the rationalist philosophers particularly avicenna (ibn e sina).
      How does debunking rationalism retard science? Science is empirical. Rationalism is anti-scientific.
    84. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      To which I can only remark what a difference 1300 years makes to standards of civility. The modern treatment of any minority anywhere is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of standards of pre-mediaeval warfare.

      And yet you said 'By modern standards of course, these are barbarous options,' which is what I was replying to, indicating that by modern standards in Muslim countries, these are in no way 'barbarous'.

    85. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      The dhimmi tax is like a tax on non-citizens. Muslim nations that had this existed before the modern idea of the nation-state, and so identified "citizens" by simply saying "all Muslims". Making non-Muslims pay a tax is the same as the reduced privileges of non-citizens today. In fact, Muslim governments of those days would be horrified at the inhuman treatment non-citizens get at the hands of modern governments. Think detention centers in Australia, think INS hauling truckloads of people and dumping them just south of the border, think ignoring illegal immigrants at ER centers at hospitals.

      --
      I hate printers.
    86. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      The Crusades were 600-900 years after Christianity was officially declared state religion of Rome. Islam itself did not exist until about 200 years after said event. I don't think prejudices against early Christians had any bearing whatsoever on the Crusades.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    87. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Except for Scientology, which caters to the rich and ill-educated. Notice how few religions cater to the intelligent.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    88. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Making non-Muslims pay a tax is the same as the reduced privileges of non-citizens today.

      Which modern state has a policy of killing non-citizens for not paying their non-citizen tax?

    89. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by the_womble · · Score: 1

      We now know that you reply to comments without reading the documents they link to.

    90. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      As to what happened to the high point of Arabic culture, thats easy, we destroyed it in The Crusades.

      One minor problem; The Crusades happened before 1492. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades.

    91. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...they were basically caught between a rock and a hard place...

      Oh, please !

      --
      What?
    92. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      just a tag

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    93. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that none of the Muslim states back then didn't have that policy either. The Ottoman and Persian Empires were famous for their willingness to allow foreigners to settle, and the phrase "Arab Hospitality" wasn't borne out by centuries of killing outsiders. If you believe that there is some kind of "kill all non-Muslims" policy in Muslim countries then you are sadly mistaken, even the modern totalitarian tyrants who use Islam as a cover (pretty much all of the middle eastern governments today) are pretty welcoming to outsiders, and if you ignore the trash in the media and ask people who have lived there (as I have for a year) you will find that the general feeling is that Arabs are pretty warm and welcoming.

      --
      I hate printers.
    94. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      "Notice how few religions cater to the intelligent."

      I heard the intelligent follow the Sacred Path of Enlightnement brought by believing in the Holy Scientific Method.

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    95. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

      Is this inadequate translation perhaps? Perhaps the Ottoman and Persian Empires did not follow their religion diligently, I don't know. I am aware of the Arab reputation for hospitality though, but I have heard several reports from people who have lived in Islamic (not always Arab) societies that are in agreement with this translation of the Quran, Sura 9:29

    96. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

      Not so much inaccurate as incomplete. If you look through just about any writing and cherry pick a selected sentence, you can make it sound like more or less anything you want. Have you read the chapter you are quoting from? Forgive me for assuming, but I'll assume you haven't and shed some light for you.

      That whole chapter refers to defense. It is about fighting those who fight Muslims. The whole chapter is about who can and cannot be fought militarily. It opens with the line A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances: which indicates that non-Muslims who have an agreement to live peacefully are declared immune from war. Furthermore, non-Muslims who ask Muslims for asylum are to be granted it: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.

      Another reference to fighting in response to aggression: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?

      But don't take my word for it, you can find the whole chapter translated here.

      --
      I hate printers.
    97. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      But don't take my word for it, you can find the whole chapter translated here.

      To be honest, that doesn't reasure me.

      From verse 4 and 5 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

      It seems to be saying that if a Muslim has a treaty with an unbeliever, honor the treaty for the set time, then kill them if they won't convert. One thing for sure, there are Muslims who don't go around killing people for being non-mulsim, and there are Muslims who do. Admittedly I have not made a study of it, but it does seem to me that the ones that do are the ones that have a more literal reading of the Quran.

    98. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I am unsure what exactly "forbidden months" is a reference to. However, IAAM (I am a Muslim), and I can assure you that it is not an instruction to kit up and start shooting the day a treaty expires. There are enough references elsewhere in this chapter and in the Quran that say that there is no compulsion in religion (i.e., a man cannot force another man to become Muslim), explaining that this just creates resentful slaves and not productive members of a Muslim community. Specifically, if it says you must fight Pagans just because they are Pagans, then I don't see how in the following sentence it can say to grant them asylum and assist their passage into a safe area without forcing their conversion. If you would like I can find you many more examples of this, just let me know.

      Back to the "forbidden months" thing, I shall lend my very superficial interpretation to this: It is said in the first line that all who agree to live peacefully are declared immune from attack, therefore, all months in which non-Muslims do not invade or engage in aggressive action are the "forbidden months" for war. Remember, this is a translation of poetry, so the language won't read like modern English. I would guess that "forbidden months" means those times in which you have not been attacked. So where it says But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) it is saying fight, slay and beleaguer if the time of peace has ended. Please remember that I am far from a Quranic scholar, there are people who devote decades to this stuff, much of which cross-relates to chapters and verses in other places in the Quran so I may be missing something. I know someone who could answer this for us comprehensively, and I would be more than happy to pass this question on if you like.

      --
      I hate printers.
    99. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I wouldn't exactly call them ancient. Islam is practically brand spanking new compared to the arc of civilizations."

      I wasn't referring to Islam in particular, but rather the public's view of past peoples in general, especially when they weren't white (note that I am white, so this isn't a case of a non-white railing against "the establishment").

      "At any rate, I feel pretty confident that they in fact did not have a deep understanding of the math, for the simple fact that despite this skill being known by many thousands, they didn't write the math down."

      The fact that we don't know of any written works doesn't mean there weren't any, only that we haven't got any surviving examples. Archaeologists regularly discover artefacts and practices we didn't know existed from relatively recent and excellently documented periods such as Victorian England because nobody bothered to write about them in published works, and most of the non-published stuff tended to get thrown out. Thus, the fact that we don't know of any works describing something doesn't mean that there weren't any, especially in cultures that didn't have the printing press and therefore had to make copies by hand (the Muslim world didn't accept Caxton's printing technology for a century after it had become relatively common in Europe).

      "Creating these tilings was almost demonstrably a valuable trade skill, probably a trade secret"

      I often see this claim used to try and explain the absence of written descriptions of common trade practices from the past. However, a far simpler (and IMO better) reason is the fact that literacy wasn't particularly common in most societies until fairly recently, so craft practices weren't written down because the people who knew about them weren't capable of doing it, and those who had enough education to read and write tended to be fairly wealthy consumers of goods with no interest in how they were made. Knowledge was thus handed down from master to apprentice because that was the only way a master had of transferring it rather than due to any desire for secrecy, because secrecy wasn't necessary in a society where everything was made by specialist artisans (a mason didn't have the desire, equipment, or time to compete with a glassmaker, jeweller, or armourer).

      "and craftsmen aren't usually big on theoretical topology"

      Craftsmen aren't, but architects are a different matter, and it's far more likely that they were responsible for the design on those tiles than the artisans who made them or the builders who cemented them on to the walls. Architects from pre-industrial societies didn't make some drawings and specify which pre-fabricated construction materials should be used -- they and their apprentices were involved with the entire building process, including both internal and external decoration. And if you doubt the mathematical ability of ancient architects, than consider Hagia Sofia in Istanbul (originally a Christian church), which was recently discovered to been to have been designed to resist earthquakes that are fairly common in that area, hence the fact that it's still standing after 1500 years of shocks that regularly bring down much more modern buildings. But hey, if it floats your boat, then by all means believe that the two Greek architects who specified special flexible mortar, designed a system that transfers shocks from the dome outwards and then back into the ground, and used light construction materials with pumice mixed in with them for the upper portions were just repeating what they'd learned from centuries of trial-and-error, because people at that time can't have known enough about mathematics to have worked all that stuff out before-hand.

      "Any idiot can see that the tiling is aperiodic by simply drawing it out"

      "Any idiot" can't do anything of the sort. 99.999% of people wouldn't know that those patterns were aperiodic, hence the fact that they've been know of for at least 800 years, yet nobody noticed anything unusual about them until the 1990s.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    100. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      However, IAAM (I am a Muslim), and I can assure you that it is not an instruction to kit up and start shooting the day a treaty expires.

      I accept that this is your honest belief, but there seems to be an abundance of Muslims who think it is.

      Specifically, if it says you must fight Pagans just because they are Pagans, then I don't see how in the following sentence it can say to grant them asylum and assist their passage into a safe area without forcing their conversion.

      Perhaps it is not the consistent and truthful text you have come to believe. I'd be interested to know why you believe the Quran, and how this belief came about. Are you a convert, or a Muslim by birth? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I am actually interested.

      Please remember that I am far from a Quranic scholar, there are people who devote decades to this stuff, much of which cross-relates to chapters and verses in other places in the Quran so I may be missing something.

      Well, here's a problem I have with the Quran. It says in as many words ...

      But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
      Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.


      ... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low. I hope you can see why non-muslims would have some objection to this. For our freedom, we require to be in a society which never has more than a small minority of muslims.

      The fact that someone who has studied the Quran for decades says it doesn't really mean this doesn't help much because there are so many Muslims who think it does. If the Quran can only be understood as not promoting violence under the instruction of such teachers, then surely it should not be available outside classes held by them.

      Don't get me wrong, I've worked with Muslims, had business dealings with Muslims, worked together on charitable works with Muslims and none of them ever tried to do me harm. However, I also know a man that is under death sentence in his homeland for "blasphemy". His crime? Preaching Christ. If The legal system of whole countries purportedly under Islamic law passes death sentence on Christians who preach (a requirement of Christianity) then Islamic tolerance may as well be a sham. Maybe it's not true Islam, but it is widespread.

      http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article= 86719&d=18&m=9&y=2006: Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh ... said Muhammad had never chosen war as his first option. "He [Muhammad] gave three options: Either accept Islam or surrender or pay tax and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims,"

      Should I not accept Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti as knowledgable about Islam? He seems to say I have three options, convert, pay the dhimmi tax or be killed. The idea of a purely defensive jihad is also hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its first 100 years.

      I was told a story by a man who had visited a church in Indonesia: Some Muslims were carrying out a Jihad, and were coming to this church, where 50 families of refugees were being held (may have been 50 refugees, not 50 families) to

    101. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I think you really have misunderstood many things, your understanding of Muslims and Islam seems to be coloured more by media sensationalism rather than the reality.

      Perhaps it is not the consistent and truthful text you have come to believe. I'd be interested to know why you believe the Quran, and how this belief came about. Are you a convert, or a Muslim by birth? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I am actually interested.

      By birth, but not by default. I have had plenty of opportunity to exercise choice, my parents are not by any means concerned about my exercise of religious discretion. I have not found any inconsistencies in the Quran as yet, but as I said earlier, I am not well versed enough in it to say anything about it with any degree of authority.

      ... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low.

      I don't see why this is such an issue. Think of it this way: All Muslims are given automatic citizenship to the state. Non-citizens have to pay a tax or be expelled or jailed. This is pretty similar to any modern state, only the criteria for citizenship are different. In Australia where I live to become a citizen you need to either be born into it or bring in around $500,000 in business capital. Non-citizens who do not pay the higher taxes or work without paying any tax are rounded up, processed on Christmas Island or any of many other offshore detention centers, usually held for several months (as a deterrent) and then sent packing. I don't see much of a distinction between the modern idea of citizenship and what is described there, except that there are different ways to define those who are a part of the nation. Incidentally, the dhimmi tax more or less corresponds exactly to the zakat payable by Muslims anyway, so it's not like they are paying hugely in excess of what citizens pay anyway, it's just called something else, and the reason it is payed is as a tax instead of as a religious requirement.

      Nowhere does it say to "kill pagans" just because they are pagans, there are however many instances where it says offer help and civility to all who offer you the same. Nowhere does it say anything about other non-warring people more severe than "they are mislead". You are taking it a bit far in the your quote above.

      However, I also know a man that is under death sentence in his homeland for "blasphemy". His crime? Preaching Christ. If The legal system of whole countries purportedly under Islamic law passes death sentence on Christians who preach (a requirement of Christianity) then Islamic tolerance may as well be a sham. Maybe it's not true Islam, but it is widespread.

      All I can say about this is that it is not Islam, but political dealings of corrupt governments (if it's the middle east, most likely governments supported by the US or UK). It is not as widespread as the media would have you believe, and any Muslim you meet will tell you that the middle eastern puppet regimes do not represent Islam any more than George W. Bush represents Christianity.

      Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh ... said Muhammad had never chosen war as his first option. "He [Muhammad] gave three options: Either accept Islam or surrender or pay tax and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims,"

      See above on citizenship, and no, you are misquoting him when you say the options were "pay tax, become Muslim or be killed". The last option was "be deported", and anyone who claims that there is any directive anywhere in Islamic law to kill those who don't pay tax is plain wrong. All countries today deport immigrants who don't pay their taxes or perform whatever extra duties are required of immigrants (registering with vario

      --
      I hate printers.
    102. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      ... to kill pagans if they don't establish regular prayers, and to require tribute from non-muslims under threat of violence, specifically for the purpose of bringing them low.
      I don't see why this is such an issue.

      In that case, no further discussion is helpful or necessary.

      Think of it this way: All Muslims are given automatic citizenship to the state. Non-citizens have to pay a tax or be expelled or jailed.

      No, thinking of it that way is specifically what I refuse to do.

      The last option was "be deported"

      ...from their own land.

      anyone who claims that there is any directive anywhere in Islamic law to kill those who don't pay tax is plain wrong.

      Sura 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

      Then, according to you, the Quran is just plain wrong. Unless the fighting refered to in Sura 9:29 is really an armwrestling tournament perhaps? Tiddlywinks? Perhaps decades of studying the Quran will make it mean debating?
    103. Re:The Catholic Church happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      In that case, no further discussion is helpful or necessary.

      I suppose you ignored the fact that I pointed out that the violence and "bringing low" part was bits you made up.

      No, thinking of it that way is specifically what I refuse to do.

      Err... why? Islamic jurisprudence simply assumes that all Muslims are citizens of a Muslim nation, and that non-citizens have extra obligations. Seems quite reasonable to me.

      ...from their own land.

      Well, after land is acquired, after either treaty or conquest, the new government will change the rules. I suggest you look to Native Americans, Australian Aboriginies, South African blacks and South American civilizations at the hands of European conquerors before you get all high horse saddled about this issue. Then find me an example from history (and don't refer me to some revisionist Internet trash) where a Muslim nation (and I don't mean one of these modern day middle eastern basket cases) has done anything remotely comparable. I think you'll find that historically (i.e., prior to the 20th century) Muslim nations were looked to as the place to go if you were a people in need of shelter from tyranny. There's a reason that the phrase "Arab hospitality" has survived to this day, despite the image that modern Arabs have of being an obtuse exclusive bunch.

      Then, according to you, the Quran is just plain wrong. Unless the fighting refered to in Sura 9:29 is really an armwrestling tournament perhaps? Tiddlywinks? Perhaps decades of studying the Quran will make it mean debating?

      Please remember that I am Muslim, and while you may disagree with me I would appreciate it if you remained at least polite.

      In any case, that whole chapter refers to actions to be taken in a war against non-Muslims who are belligerent and will not live peacefully. I have had this discussion already with someone, so I will only point out the following:

      The very first line of that chapter states that it is "A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-". In other words, if you have an agreement with non-Muslims to live peacefully, be they implicit or explicit, they are immune from attack.

      With regards to non-Muslims who ask for help it says: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.". Doesn't sound all that bloodthirsty to me.

      "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." So honor agreements you make with non-Muslims.

      "Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?" Yes, I agree, them's fightin' words. But I believe that it's pretty clear from the lines immediately preceding it that the fightin' is to be done in defense, and not just 'coz you're in a bad mood.

      Feel free to read the whole thing rather than taking a single line out of context. It's pretty easy to take a single line from practically any text and make it sound like the text is saying something completely contrary to what it is actually saying.

      --
      I hate printers.
  12. Tells us almost nothing. by Ace905 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be nice if the article actually identified why these patterns have to be based on a complicated mathematical principle, and if they're not - how they could have been made and still represent that mathematical principle. According to the article, the patterns aren't even exact but quasi-crystalline-structures.

    I can do a quasi-fractal-pattern by accident if I have enough time to create random patterns, like say an entire country's worth of structures covered in patterns.

    Can some statistics-guru figure out the odds of this being a random accident, considering how few examples they have, and how the examples aren't even exact representations of the mysterious mathematical formula(s) they mention? I really don't get why this is believable based on the article.

    ---
    Pre-Roman Crystalline Structure Dance

    --

    Ace
    1. Re:Tells us almost nothing. by Napoleon+The+Pig · · Score: 2, Informative

      The whole reason these patterns are attracting so much attention is because they don't explicitly repeat themselves yet they still show a rotational symmetry. Making crystaline structures isn't very difficult mathematically. Crystals are very ordered and neat, repeating themselves ad infinitum. Quasicrystals on the other hand are very complex mathematically because of their aperiodic structure.

      The patterns found on the structures would be even more incredible if they were just random accidents. The pattern on the shrine mentioned in the article is a near perfect match to the mathematical model, the chances of that happening are very very slim. I'm not saying that this proves they knew the math behind the patterns, I'm just saying that they deliberately created the patterns in such a way that we can't rule out that they didn't.

      Check out http://intendo.net/penrose/info.html for more on the math behind the patterns.

    2. Re:Tells us almost nothing. by walter_f · · Score: 1

      the patterns aren't even exact but quasi-crystalline-structures.

      A crystalline structure is one that consists of a basic element, exactly repeated over and over.

      A quasi-crystalline structure, on the other hand, could be seen as a far more subtle and interesting phenomenon _because_ it does not contain such an element repeated over and over.

      In number theory, the set of even numbers is not quite as interesting as the set of prime numbers. ;-)

  13. Patent or Copyright Implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I seem to recall Roger Penrose has a patent or copyright on the pattern that bears his name.

    Perhaps this constitutes prior art or shows that he does not actually own a copyright to it.

  14. Not Surprising by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suppose it's not really surprising that Muslim architecture is going to uncover these sorts of complex patterns. As I recall, the Quran prohibits art depicting humans (or possibly anything created by Allah, I can't recall exactly), and as a result, Islamic art tends to the more abstract. Without the devotion to realism that characterised Western art through much of history, it makes sense that they'd develop the more abstract art to a greater complexity.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  15. Interesting definition of "rediscovered" by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Presumably in this case it actually means resdiscovered-by-western-academics since presumably these patterns have been looked at by thousands of people everyday for hundreds of years as they went to pray. I can't think of any other reason why despite millions of arabs looking at these patterns over the years they were considered "lost" to mankind until "rediscovered" by an english professor.

    1. Re:Interesting definition of "rediscovered" by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I can't think of any other reason why despite millions of arabs looking at these patterns over the years they were considered "lost" to mankind until "rediscovered" by an english professor.

      Perhpas it's refering to no-one knowing how to make the patterns, even though they had them.

  16. Thats a curious intepretation of history by Viol8 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Unfortunately their civilisation was destroyed by a European power under the aegis of the Catholic Church."

    Umm , actually their civilsation was destroyed by the spanish reclaiming THEIR OWN COUNTRY that had been conquered by the Moors. Highbrow civilisation or otherwise , the Moors were 8th century invaders who outstayed their welcome and were no less barbaric than the vikings when it came to aquiring land. I suggest you go and read some history books then get back to us.

    1. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by pato101 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Do you consider a country "own" after 8 century "invasion"?

      During those 8 centuries Moors and Christian and Jew people lived together. They had their spaces, but also had interaction, trade, ... . Christian were not obligated to convert to Islam, etc. After Christian re-conquest Moors and Jew were ejected from the territory (or obligated to convert to Christianism- nevertheless I'm not sure they had the same rights than Christians after doing that)

      I suggest you go and read some history books

      Tell me, who did write those books?
    2. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by pato101 · · Score: 1

      Are you unable to search Amazon without someone holding your hand?

      good dribbling.
    3. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Alphager · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Do you consider a country "own" after 8 century "invasion"?

      Yes. And obviously the spanish did too.
      Ah, yes. BTW, i hereby call all native americans to reclaim their country from the US-Invaders!
    4. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I suspect given a choice quite a lot of them would love to. Their life isn't exactly a bed of roses is it.

    5. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by blictrix · · Score: 5, Informative

      So you wouldn't mind if the indians decided to drive the white invaders out of America? After all, the whites have been living as invaders there for less than 5 centuries, much less than the muslims in medieval Spain.

      And saying that the spanish wanted them out is misleading, the catholic kings and the church wanted them out, what the people wanted is anybody's guess. Spain didn't exist at that point, the christian part was divided into three parts, the kingdom of Navarra, the kingdom of Castilia and the kingdom of Aragon. And although the Kingdom of Navarra came under the control of the catholic kings (Ferdinand and Isabella) it wasn't until the 19th century it became officially a part of Spain. And when the Moors came to the Iberian peninsula, it was under the control of the Visigoths and they didn't put up much of a fight, so "invasion" is maybe stretching it a bit. Besides, it was at a time when the people of Europe were wildly "invading" each other, none of the nations we know today actually existed at that time. You're obviously prejudiced against the muslims, but the truth is that Al-Andaluz was the most civilized part of Europe at that time.

    6. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >good dribbling.

      I think you'd have made yourself look less foolish if you simply hadn't bothered to reply.

      Still , some people just can't admit to themselves that they lost the argument.

    7. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      Well they had a flag didn't they? It's how we British took so much of the world...

      Please note my tongue is firmly in my my cheek, in case you missed it.

      Although I liked Gandhi's answer to what he thought of western civilisation, "I think it would be a good idea"...

    8. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >So you wouldn't mind if the indians decided to drive the white invaders out of America?

      Are there enough indians in america to do that? Unless you mean native americans (given you're being so PC yourself...)
      Anyway , wouldn't bother me , I don't live there but AFAIR they spent a long loooong time trying to do just that.

      >it was under the control of the Visigoths and they didn't put up much of a fight, so "invasion" is maybe stretching it a bit

      So because the gauls were fairly comprehensively defeated by the roman empire the romans didn't invade Gaul? Hmm , interesting bit of revisionism.

      >You're obviously prejudiced against the muslims,

      Ah yes , the standard issue "you're a racist" snipe that every right-on adherent has to include in an argument when they have little else to add and hope the other person will become all defensive and give up. Doesn't work with me pal , it just makes me think you're a sad little twat who doesn't really have his own opinions but has to just regurgitate the group-think. Shame , you were doing ok up until then.

    9. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by flickwipe · · Score: 2

      Umm, ACTUALLY their civilisation was destroyed by the Spanish reclaiming their own country that had been conquered by the Moops.

    10. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      During those 8 centuries Moors and Christian and Jew people lived together. They had their spaces, but also had interaction, trade, ... . Christian were not obligated to convert to Islam, etc.

      History disagrees with you:

      The Almohades conquered Córdoba in 1148, and threatened the Jewish community with the choice of conversion to Islam, death, or exile. Maimonides' family, along with most other Jews, chose exile.

      In fact, Ibn Rushd (a.k.a. Averroes) was exiled from Córdoba in 1195 when the local Islamic council found him guilty of heresy.

      Anyway, there were various different factions among the Muslims (and among the Christians). Some were pretty tolerant. Some weren't. Mostly they did whatever suited them at the time.
    11. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Ah yes , the standard issue "you're a racist" snipe...

      You get that a lot, then?

    12. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha I love that Seinfeld episode :)

    13. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you consider a country "own" after 8 century "invasion"?
      No. 823 years and 4 months is the absolute minimum.

      Tell me, who did write those books?
      Hopefully not you, 'tard.
    14. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their life is that way because of their own choices. Sure you can go back a hundred years or so and say this or that happened. But today, they have the same opertunities as anyone else. Even moreso then most, especialy the iner-city folks we refere to as the welfare clans. (notice, I'm not refering to blacks, hispanics or anyone because of race. You will always have poor people living next to poor people in some of the worst neighborhoods availible).

      While there has been challenges in the past, the bigest limiting factor is a culture that refuses to be part of the success around it. And this goes to the inner-city clans too. Far too many people fail to shine because it just isn't hip! Those who do succed get ignored while everyone concentrates on those losing at life (and no i didn't call anyone a "loser" I said they weren't succeeding). But thats what happens when the government "keeps" people dependent on them, too few look at taking care of themselves.

    15. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      You're obviously prejudiced against the muslims, but the truth is that Al-Andaluz was the most civilized part of Europe at that time.

      The most civilized part of Western Europe. The Byzantine Empere made much of Western Europe look like a backwater at the time. Certainly the arts were more developed there, Islam famously prohibited depictions of animals and human beings. Classical philology also survived much better in Byzantium that in the West.

    16. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      GAH!

      MUSLIM IS NOT A RACE!

      Muslim is an affiliation with the religion of Islam.

      Ugh. If we are going to throw around insults, we could at least get it right.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    17. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I've noticed this in the past and I am noticing it now. The problem doesn't apear to be who invaded who but were the line is drawn to a justified invasion. And the person originaly upset wants to forgive all their side of any wrong doings just to demonize someone else.

      Your "racist" because you don't agree with them 100%. I don't think it is as much of an attempt to shame you rather an attempt to discount your otherwise sound but dissenting opinion or view. It is a common tactic in todays internet society. Have an oposing view on global warming? Your an evil right winger. Find a study that doesn't say the world is going to end or that we need to kill all industry? It was funded by Exxon and doesn't count. Don't belive we should have open borders and all illegal aliens should be able to come and go as they want? Your anti-immegration and a racist.

      See their trend here? and your right in that it usualy comes when they know their argument has been defeated.

    18. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I suspect given a choice quite a lot of them would love to. Their life isn't exactly a bed of roses is it.

      You're just being politically correct. The reason their lives isn't a bed of roses is because they are caught in a cycle of welfare dependency but are too proud (or lazy) to escape it. Traditional aboriginal life sucked compared to modern life. The most merciful thing a modern western country could do for aboriginals would be to annex their land and end their welfare payments. They would then be forced to join the modern world.

    19. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by xappax · · Score: 1

      the bigest limiting factor is a culture that refuses to be part of the success around it

      It's clear that you have a paternalistic attitude towards poor people as a class, and although I think it's pompous and ignorant to assume that poor people just don't care as much as you and your economically secure peers, I'll try to argue based on your innocent world view, since it's likely that the only thing that will relieve you of that is actually living among and getting to know communities of poor people.

      Let's say poor people are overwhelmingly culturally deficient. They're born to parents who are fine with being poor, and never want to do more than the bare minimum to survive - oh, and also get drunk. Since they live in the ghetto, they don't have teachers or mentors who will guide them through school, inspire or interest them in academic subjects or useful trades. They have nobody to advise them on how to deal with life issues, like how to spend money responsibly, how to apply for college, how to work towards a decent job. Their entire community, their whole environment, wants nothing more than to keep them there in the ghetto, poor and maladjusted.

      Psychological factors like this are definitely one of the main influences on a young person's situation. If you're raised from birth with the understanding that you are to become a high-powered attorney like your father, your community supports that and your culture embraces that goal, it's likely that you'll end up there - or at least somewhere decent. If you're raised from birth with the understanding that you likely won't amount to much because nobody around here does, your community supports that, and your culture embraces that fate, you'll likely end up there.

      This doesn't have anything to do with the will of the actual person, mind you. The attorney-to-be may be lazy and not give a fuck about being a lawyer, and shy away from that goal but their community and culture will continually push them in that direction. Conversely a ghetto youth may want nothing more than to be a lawyer, but their community and culture will push them away from that goal every step of the way.

      These are facts that are true, but the possible interpretations of these facts are where it gets really messy, because their implications are very inconvenient for people who hold the neat, tidy philosophy that you do, i.e. "Poor people chose their plight, so they have no right to complain about it or be helped out of it".

      I suggest taking the time to develop a more nuanced understanding of the situation - what's important is not figuring out who's lazy - there are poor lazy people, sure. What's important is figuring out why this supposed culture of poverty continues, and what can be done to fix it.

    20. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we in the west could be as advanced as India... it's a shame, really, I'd like to take a religiously significant bath in what amounts to an open sewer, but we just haven't come as far as they have yet.

    21. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by spun · · Score: 1

      So, when a rich white man receives rent for doing no more than sitting on his ass and letting someone else use his land, that's a good thing, but when an aboriginal gets paid for letting someone else use his land, that's welfare?

      I say, lets annex the land of the rich and end their welfare payments. Force the fucking rich to join the modern world and do a little work. No, engaging in dick waving matches with other CEOs and board members is not work. It's a nasty little hobby.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    22. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I never said that people weren't product of their enviroment. This is true to the rawest extent. Nothing you said about the predisposition and or advantages of priviledge is wrong at all.

      Except I was addressing the fact that people _are_not_limited to being products of their enviroment. Just becuase some one grows up in the ghetto doesn't mean they HAVE TO stay there. The culture surrounding them encourages it.

      The most notible aspects of America have come from people who were not priviledged. Most self made millionairs have been flat broke at some point in their life. Most every rich family in America started with one person doing something different and getting past just doing what everyone else was doing. In the inner-cities and on reservation, We have a culture amung the youth that discourages success. It does this in several ways but most notably by demonizing people who succeed. Your probably one of them. You seem to think that because a person was born poor they always will be poor. This isn't the case at all. But unlike other comunities, the poorer ones tend to discourage anyone from getting out or doing something to succeed.

      People don't need mentors, they don't need the best education, they don't need to make it rich either. This stuff helps but often gets tossed down the drain too. What they need to do is apply themselves in a way they allows them to advance in life. And when a kid is ridiculed for attempting to study and better himself, or when they are called "sell outs" and "uncle toms" because little johny does get into colledge and gets a decent paying job, the first thing he does is move away from the ghetto. When indians (or anyones for that matter) are accused of being white as if it is a bad thing to be white, because they want to belong in the business world or not break their back lumping trucks all day, it is a matter of conflicting culture and success.

      Now, I'm not saying drop everything that makes you who you are. I'm saying give the people who want chance their ability to take the chance. Don't hold them back because you never reached for anything better. Or if your did, they seem to be reaching futher. And I'm not talking about the parrent not carring either. A lot of times they do, It is how they are treated in the comunity because they want to have something in life. And the only reasons this pertains to indians and the poor are basicly because they are pushed together by neccesity.

      In case you are still thinking things that aren't true, You need to just get out of their way so they can do whatever they want but not keep them slaved to a system that has hurt them. And belive me, I have been there. I was poor. I remeber having more food when growing up because the government gave us welfare when my dad didn't have a job but took almost everything away when he got a job even though It was for $3.35 an hour and would have had to work about 120 hours a week to support 5 kids. But after he took that job, And after we struggled and had neighbors send food over to help out, he got another job paying more. Then I was able to work and dropped out of highschool to work at $3.35 washing dishes while giving almost everything to help keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. Then Eventualy promotions came around and I was able to take classes to get my GED and Some comunity level colledge courses and eventualy we were back on our feet again. And all this had to happen because the main source of jobs in our town relocated a plant to another state to take advantage of cheaper labor and tax breaks which dumped around 2500 people total into the unemployment line. And back in the late seventies whe inflation was thru the roof, gas was skyhigh and everything else had gone to shit, the already high unemployment levels ment no jobs were to be found when it increased 15% overnight. And yes this was before the plant closing had to give notice to the city laws and probably one of the reasons it had been made.

      Don't tell me I don't understand. What I understand is th

    23. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "It is a common tactic in todays internet society"

      Indeed. I'd have hoped better of people on here since they're supposed to be above the average IQ but given two of my posts have already been modded flamebait simply for expressing an opinion about something that happened 800 years ago you have to wonder just what thought processes - if any - go on inside these peoples minds.

      Somehow I suspect if I'd said exactly the same thing about a white european power doing the same to a muslim (or any non european) nation I'd have probably been modded up for being anti-imperialist (or whatever trendy right-on concept they would pigeonhole it as).

    24. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by Prune · · Score: 1

      There's little correlation between IQ and being correct.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    25. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Sure you can go back a hundred years or so and say this or that happened. But today, they have the same opertunities as anyone else.

      You're obviously referring to the small percentage that wasn't killed, or starved to death by being driven off their land and having their villages burned to the ground. Yes, those ones do have the same rights as everyone else.

      Rights to be abused by big business, rights to have their votes nullified when politically expedient to lobby groups, rights to have their doors kicked in at 3am because the 8 year old in the house was downloading Justin Timberlake, rights to be cavity searched at airports because their aren't Caucasian...

      What they would really want would be an independent nation of their own, in which they were not silently coerced into buying into the depraved bondless culture they find themselves up to their necks in. But don't take it from me, perhaps you could turn off the TV and go ask one.

      Get your head out of your ass you dimwit.

      --
      I hate printers.
    26. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You communist dog! If they earn the right to wave their dicks around with other CEOs who are you to demand that they continue to work in order to continue earning? Requiring the rich to work to maintain their lifestyle is as ridiculous an idea as allowing other countries to sell us resources at fair prices.

      --
      I hate printers.
    27. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      I seriously don't know how you get out of bed in the morning. I mean everything is doom and gloom and the fault of the US.

      Rights to be abused by big business, rights to have their votes nullified when politically expedient to lobby groups, rights to have their doors kicked in at 3am because the 8 year old in the house was downloading Justin Timberlake, rights to be cavity searched at airports because their aren't Caucasian...
      Others live under the same conditions and manage to make something of it. There is nothing inherant or caused by the genetic makup that makes the indians less able to do something with their lives. And quite frankly I'm ashamed that you would imply that!

      Get your head out of your ass you dimwit.
      Ditto!
    28. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Don't belive we should have open borders and all illegal aliens should be able to come and go as they want?...

      :-) Heh, Open borders would preclude(?) any illegality, no? Borders exist for the benefit of pirates, not racists.

      --
      What?
    29. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inherant or caused by the genetic makup that makes the indians less able to do something with their lives.

      Whoa where do you see anything in my post that remotely indicates that I am saying anything even hinting at that? Reading comprehension is a class you apparently skipped in third grade. I was saying that a population that has been decimated in number and has an inherent disadvantage due to the immense competitive gap created by violent social dislocation will not be able to compete on a level playing field. It's arrogant and plain wrong to say "oh well, that's how it is now, get a job you lazy Indians".

      As for the doom and gloom, yes these are deeply troubling times we live in, not all of us are able to dose up on the novocaine of pop culture.

      --
      I hate printers.
    30. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      "What's important is figuring out why this supposed culture of poverty continues, and what can be done to fix it."

      A culture of poverty persists for the reasons you've already laid out: It is easy. People live life the way they were taught to by their parents and their piers. People are taught that victimhood is a way of life and embrace it. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do about these reasons. You could forcibly sterilize the poor, but that wouldn't do anything to stop poor people who come from wealthy backgrounds from just building the whole culture all over again. You could take peoples children away at birth, but that would probably end up raising even more victims, because few people would be raised with care and compassion. You can't really make being poor any harder.

      There are lesser reasons, which you haven't touched on, but about which something can be done. Higher education is a big problem. Many "skilled" jobs require college degrees. But, people from poor backgrounds have great difficulty obtaining degrees. This is because there is no "culture of poverty" to make them feel welcome in a university setting. Poor people can get there on scholarships and grants, but then become disillusioned and give up when they fail to fit in. Not to mention that poor people often try to start families and careers sooner than the college culture allows. You wouldn't believe how many of my friends have been told flat out that they can not work a job while they attend their professional program. That works fine for people whose parents pay for everything, but it doesn't work out so well for people from poor backgrounds. Curiously, the same college professors who complain about the plight of the poor do very little to fix this. Part of the problem is the lack of incentive for universities to increase admissions. These non-profit and public institutions maintain prestige by admitting few students, and have no mandate to meet the needs of the population at large. No standards exist to make coursework mobile, which commits students to relocated to another area of or school staying in that college community until their degree it completed, regardless of how a student's personal circumstances change. It it impossible to begin your four year degree in one state and finish it in another without repeating oftentimes, a great deal or previous coursework.

      Another is common misconceptions in the media. If you tell people enough that they are helpless, they will eventually believe it. For example, minorities are repeatedly told that their minority status precludes them from success, even though there are minority groups that are very successful (such as asian americans) despite general prejudice which still exists against them. The message that minorities need special help to escape poverty is insulting and ignorant.

    31. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      I just went all the way back and found I was confusing you with the other reply I had from the Grand parrent post. Sorry about the confusoin.

      But more to the point, What does all this

      ights to be abused by big business, rights to have their votes nullified when politically expedient to lobby groups, rights to have their doors kicked in at 3am because the 8 year old in the house was downloading Justin Timberlake, rights to be cavity searched at airports because their aren't Caucasian...
      have to do with the GP's post Their life isn't exactly a bed of roses is it. talking about the indians if giving a choice would like to take back the country because their life isn't a bed of roses. And I stated that it isn't much different then anyone elses except for a few datails and their life is the way it is because they made choices.

      Oh well it doesn't matter too much to me. I do want to make sure you know I was out of line on that comment. I had you confuses with another converstation. Between your post and the other, It apeared as if the statments were being made that Poor people and indians can't make anything of their lives because of the same problems everyone else has to deal with. I'm already past the entire ancestors were deprived BS, it only works for their direct decendants. In todays age, there is not reason why anyone cannot make something of their selfs if they want to. All they can do is make it harder for themselves to do so, but tey still can do it.
    32. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with you in this. While yes, there is theoretical equality and equal opportunity in north America, which is supposed to provide the same opportunities for descendants of native Americans as it does for non-native Americans, being from South Africa I am keenly aware that it takes more than a constitutional change that says "All are equal before the law" to repair the damage done to a culture ravaged by militant European colonialism.

      I shall use South Africa as my example for this, as I have never met a native American before, nor have I ever even been to North America. The black population in SA has been brutalized in an unimaginable manner. Their society was deliberately and systematically disrupted for the purposes of creating a sub-class of socially disorganized, uneducated and politically disenfranchised people. For a look into history, watch movies that were made in the 80s, my personal favorite, despite bad performances by the actors, is Cry Freedom, which is remarkably historically accurate.

      This systematic and violent social disruption has created an entire population of brutalized people, with very little sense of right and wrong in a civilized sense, next to no insight into family and social order, and who pass on this dog-eat-dog value system to their children. This endemic problem takes not years or even decades to solve. It will likely remain for many, many generations.

      Civilizations are grown organically over periods of centuries, if their values are destroyed and their structures undermined, it cannot be replaced with a piece of paper saying that all men are created equal, it takes generations of nurturing and assisted growth, before a population can regain a sense of order and morality. Rehabilitating an individual is hard and may not even be possible in that individual's lifetime. Likewise, rehabilitating a population often fails, and it is equally likely than not that the civilization will be lost, its people either dying out or losing their previous identity altogether. Countless examples of this can be found in history, and South Africa is one. It is unlikely that the Zulu or Nkhosa tribes will ever regain their original cultures or values. This is not just because of modernization, there are plenty of examples of cultures that have modernized without losing their essence such as India, Thailand and much of Latin America, but the black African kingdoms were stripped of their social order, subjugated, and brutalized, and no amount of equal opportunity legislation will assist them in forming a functional social order in which their children are born, raised and educated. The government can provide schools, but schools are not enough to counter the effects of the shattering of family ties and loss of social awareness. The best we can now hope for, is that black Africa adopts the social order and values of its old European overlords, which was perhaps the whole idea in the first place. After all, imperialism's goal is the remaking of other civilizations in the image of the imperial power. In Africa, the British and Dutch have succeeded in destroying all that makes Africa Africa, and replaced it with a dysfunctional extension of the European order.

      Applying this to our discussion earlier, what makes a native American unique is not the fact that he has a round face, olive skin and long hair. It is his ideas, his language and his culture that make him who he is and without that, he's just another American. Access to jobs won't change the fact that their parents were from a generation that barely survived, let alone passed on the knowledge how to raise a family and instill values. These things are the lifeblood of a people, and if they are lost, history shows they are rarely ever regained.

      --
      I hate printers.
    33. Re:Thats a curious intepretation of history by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I was just reading the news when I came across these:

      http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/plea-for-ac tion-to-help-the-poor/2007/02/25/1172338469211.htm l

      http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/Dropping_off_the_ Edge.pdf

      Kinda timely to help me make my point that communities that are even slightly disadvantaged are far more likely to fall further and further behind, rather than catch up. The slightest of social ills can lead to catastrophic results for communities if left unchecked. Imagine the difficulty of trying to catch up when you're a black African or a native American freshly stripped of your culture and downtrodden since the times of your grandparents.

      --
      I hate printers.
  17. Escher by Soepkip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Recently I visited the Escher museum (http://www.escherinhetpaleis.nl/) in The Hague. They have a statement of Escher on the wall in which he expresses his he expresses his sadness that Islam didnt allow depiction of anything else other than abstract patterns. Apparently Escher works of interlocking creatures were inspired by his visits to the mosques in Spain (?)... Guess Penrose wasn't the only one in "the west" to have discovered those mathematical qualities.

  18. Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by hackershandbook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have an ongoing debate with a friend who is both a philosopher of science and a mathematics teacher.

    Suffice it to say that I wish he had taugh me mathematics (and algebra, geometry, calculus) rather than the teachers I had ..

    One of the things that come up in our discussions is the idea the the Ancient Egyptians knew about PHI and PI - as can be seen from the structure of their architecture - and that the builders of Stonehenge also had working knowledge of trigonometry.

    But as a mathematician - he denies that the there was any knowledge of "mathematics" because the principles were never described "mathematically" - just used in an "intuitive way".

    "Without the maths", he said, "You can't argue that they understood the maths" and, he continued, "if they never expressed their finding in mathematical terms (i.e. in formulas with proofs) - then it isn't maths anyway - its just architecture"

    1. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there was a book Written by Al-Khawrazmi called Algab-o-wal-Muqabila. I have read the English Translation from my college lib and there this fellow
      talks about how to solve Quadratic Equations. So it's not a bad idea to assume that they knew what they were doing. And Arabs had awesome universities before Bghdad got ruined by Mongols. Why did that happen? I have been told many reason I like to believe two
      1-You cant stay on the top for ever. Romans went away... Greeks had to fall why not Muslims .........
      2-Muslim gave up all the traits that made them great in that time. so they started to decline and now they are technologically/scientifically worthless and politically as well

    2. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      2-Muslim gave up all the traits that made them great in that time.

            Tolerance of other cultures being an important one.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by xTantrum · · Score: 1
      I think there is no denying the sumerians and their offshoots - the hindus,chinese,and especially the egyptians - understood the concept of PI, PHI and trig. It would be naive and pompous to think due to the amazing structures they built and the way they charted the heavens milinieum before us.

      I do have a problem with his arguing that its not math or they didn't understand it because they produce no formula's or proof.

      since ancient times up till the renaissance in europe. Much of maths and science knowledge was held and understood only by religious leaders. Some used that info to show their superiorirty and connection to the "gods".

      Its not a stretch to think that these people were merely overseers when constructing monuments with the plans and ideas in their hands - the workers were merely artisans and slaves being told were to put blocks and construct it.

      As a worker one doesn't need to know the golden ratio or the fifth postulate to drop a block of stone somewhere. As a more recent corrobaration it was the church that taught the europeans how to read and helped ushered in the renaissance - though i suspect it didn't go exactly how they planned.

      The artisans understood basic things such as the composition and transporting of the blocks and such, but the individuals with the knowledge knew the mathematics behind it. Its also not a stretch as well to consider that wanting to keep a lot of knowledge from the public these works of maths and science were closely guarded and handed down only to a select few.

      I too am a philospher and a lover of mathematics, however i'm quick to point out that the framework of mathematics we are used to may not even be the most efficient as evidence by euclidian geometry.

      Of course in respect to the dissemenation of information its helpful to have proofs and such written down. But what if that wasn't the intention.

      Mathematics can be a rigid diescipline, accepting only axioms that are deductive.Sometimes one has to suspend their disbelief and go with induction and analogy. After all how is a hypothesis or conjecture intiated.

      --
      $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    4. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      This is the ultimate argument for any westerner regarding who did what first. "If it's not documented with jargon, it's not valid."

      What this really means is that we have a self-maintaining society of elitism in science, math, etc. whereby if you can't describe something in the standard accepted language of the elite practitioners then you can't claim understanding. This is flawed logic at it's finest and does both a disservice to our predecessors and closes the door to science/math/etc on many who simply do not have the time or resources to learn the jargon (terminology, formulaic symbology, etc) of the 'peerage'.

      I discovered this logical fallacy when looking at whether there was any real benefit to attending a University or not. What it came down to was this realization: Universities are only good for learning the prevailing jargon of your chosen field of study, networking with future peers and providing access to equipment too expensive for an individual to acquire. Then the internet came along and the first part of that realization became moot. So now all universities are good for is networking and access to cool gadgets....

      SO back to the point... just because ancient Muslims did not have the same jargon and symbology for mathematics as we have, does not mean they did not understand it and share their understanding with their peers in a way just as valid for their society. More likely they did have such a language that we could decode and compare with the current status quo BUT it was an even more closely held language which was only passed down within an even more elite group and may have simply been forgotten or lost. Such a language would have been very valuable to the people using it for their livelihood.... think of it as trade secrets.

      So more than just a discussion of Muslim geometry and mathematics... this should be a discussion of the inherent societal mistake of not sharing knowledge in an open public forum. Basically, what knowledge the public does not have full access to is in clear and present danger of being lost to society altogether.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    5. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. This is akin to claiming the first human to draw a circle consciously as a circle must have known about Pi.

    6. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, this is a Chinese room type argument. It seems to me if they're applying it, then at least some of them "understands" it - perhaps not in a formal way, but if they can reproduce it, they're fine.

      You might as well say that we don't understand language. We act like we do, but even those of us studying the language-faculty proper don't really have all the pieces down. Sure, we have convenient shorthands like phrase-structure, but we don't have all of the formalisms behind language....

      Do you understand English? Then they understood.

    7. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      "Without the maths", he said, "You can't argue that they understood the maths" and, he continued, "if they never expressed their finding in mathematical terms (i.e. in formulas with proofs) - then it isn't maths anyway - its just architecture"

      Here's a question for your math/philosopher teacher then: Do planets need formulas to obey their orbits properly? If not, what is doing the mathematics? Therefore, formulas are not necessary to perform mathematics, anything that actually *does* mathematics is sufficient. Formulas are just rules that our brains use to perform mathematics with the collection of electrons and chemicals in our brains. Somewhere in there, matter is changing state according to the rules written down as a formula, either modeling the formula itself or the objects it represents. If the same changes occur without looking at the formula, who can claim that mathematics is not taking place?

    8. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by Darby · · Score: 1


      But as a mathematician - he denies that the there was any knowledge of "mathematics" because the principles were never described "mathematically" - just used in an "intuitive way".

      "Without the maths", he said, "You can't argue that they understood the maths" and, he continued, "if they never expressed their finding in mathematical terms (i.e. in formulas with proofs) - then it isn't maths anyway - its just architecture"


      One easy possible explanation for finding pi in the lengths of the sides of the pyramid would be if they used a wheel to measure out the sides.
      Make a mark along a radius and specify that the sides should be 100 "rotations" long. Given that pi is the ratio of the circumference (length of one rotation) to the diameter (2 X radius) you've magically placed pi into the length of the side whether or not you even had a clue about anything mathematical.

    9. Re:Nice Work - but NO evidence of mathematics by hindumagic · · Score: 1

      You assume that the qualities of phi are embedded in the pyramids. If you're really interested in a detailed history and understanding of phi, I'd recommend this book .

      The author does a thorough review of popular citations for phi and it is very well researched. I think that you'll be surprised at where you can find phi, and where you can't.

  19. The math behind... by kyc · · Score: 1

    Of course they understood what they were designing. Just because they had not developped the sophicticated mathematics that we did right now does not mean that they were unaware of what they were doing.

    Math is just projecting some kind of light to nature, and wait for its reflection to understand and appreciate nature. Sometimes, the beauty or the simple truth might be equally clear to the naked eye.

    Therefore, it is really irrelevant to ask whether they could mathematically show what they did. They designed something that is visible to us by another means.

    --
    There's plenty of room at the bottom! Richard P. Feynmann
  20. These mysteries have survived millenia.. by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    People tend to believe that just because a design used by
    a certain religious group that it was created or at least
    understood by that group. There is undoubtedly depth and
    ancient knowledge _in the works_ from which for example
    islamic, christian or jewish scriptures are _edited from_,
    but you will need prior knowledge to actually point it out.

    Take Christianity for an example here for it was far from
    the exception. You will find in many of the older churches in
    Europe displays of zodiacs and other graphics depicting
    astrological concepts - even though Christians are forbidden
    to engage in astrological practices.

    Exploring this further you will find many temples throughout the
    world are chock full of fascinating mathematical artefacts. Take
    for example the Seed of Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_of_Life
    design which can be arranged into the Flower Of Life design
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life from which in turn
    Metatron's Cube is derived http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron#Metatron.27s _Cube and
    from which in turn you can finally derive the Five Platonic Solids
    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Solids.

    If you're interested in this there is a good presentation albeit
    lengthy demonstration of sacred geometry on Google Video
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8673723312 620286523&q=sacred+geometry
    (part 1) and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-621792339 066334035&q=sacred+geometry
    (part 2)

    Lastly sacred geometry not only appears in mosques or other temples but
    also in crop circles http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2004/uk2004cf. shtml
    and that makes you think doesn't it.

  21. Giving rise to the question: what don't *we* know? by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 1

    I hope that this link between the aesthetic properties (if not far more) appreciated in the 15th century, and (possibly) greater insight as described by Penrose in the 20th will lead to the consideration that these two aren't endpoints, but merely the first two points in a sequence of understanding.

    In other words, a contemplation of the question "Well, they saw the aesthetic properties in the Middle Ages, and they more formally described the mathematical properties in the 1970's. Naturally, after this connection was made, it took only a few years before people recognized the truly world-changing extension to ???."

    What might be the "???" ?

  22. Mod Parent up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think this is the first time I have ever seen the original inventor of Science and Technology, Roger Bacon, mentioned on Slashdot. I would expect him to be your Patron Saint!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

    For the record, it was not only Arabic that he wanted people to learn, but also Hebrew, so as to translate the Bible correctly. He stressed the revolutionary concept that you got knowledge from provable experiment, not from reading authoratitive books (which was why he was locked up in the March of Ancona for 14 years), and his lectures on the principles of Science (so far as we know he was the first to present these) are so modern in tone that they still bear reading today.

    It's a crying shame that, of all the early heros of science, he is probably the most forgotten.

  23. Prior art in Kleenex patent dispute?? by wwwrench · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mmmh, if this is true, maybe it counts as prior art in his patent dispute with the makers of Kleenex. They were using Penrose tiles because the quasi-periodic structure makes it less likely that the overlapping of the pattern will cause ridges to form. Math patents!!

    --

    Deconstruct the State
    1. Re:Prior art in Kleenex patent dispute?? by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Not a patent, breach of copyright. The penrose tiling cannot be patented as it is a mathematical discovery. The patterns in Penrose's books are copyrighted.

    2. Re:Prior art in Kleenex patent dispute?? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2, Informative
      From TFWikipediaA:

      Pentaplex Ltd., a company in Yorkshire, England controlled by Penrose, owns the licensing rights to Penrose tilings. Penrose and Pentaplex filed a lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark for breach of copyright. Kimberly-Clark had allegedly embossed Penrose tilings on Kleenex quilted toilet paper in the UK. SCA Hygiene Products later came to control Kleenex products and reached an agreement with Penrose and Pentaplex on the Penrose tiling issue. SCA is not involved in the copyright dispute.
      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    3. Re:Prior art in Kleenex patent dispute?? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I still don't get that then. Why can't they just say they copied it off the mosque? The mosque isn't copyrighted, is it? (that's a rhetorical question).

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:Prior art in Kleenex patent dispute?? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Not a patent, breach of copyright. The penrose tiling cannot be patented as it is a mathematical discovery. The patterns in Penrose's books are copyrighted.

      I'd like to see the book that can hold the entire penrose tiling. Why didn't the stupid tissue company just pick a different part of the plane to print on their tissue?

    5. Re:Prior art in Kleenex patent dispute?? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Here's an article on the dispute, linked to by the previously mentioned Wikipedia article: RP vs TP

  24. Strap A Bomb to That Kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allahu Akbar!

  25. Abdul Alhazred by metroplex · · Score: 1

    This must be the work of the Mad Arab Abdul Alhazred! He did this to praise the Old Ones, no doubt.

    --
    "Words of wisdom: drop that zero and get with the hero" -- Vanilla Ice
  26. Obl. Seinfeld by $pearhead · · Score: 1

    When the Moors Ruled in Europe
    Moops!
  27. If they actually did it, great for them by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    However keep in mind that muslims conquering generally let the elite of a society (ie. architects) intact.

    So most mosques were actually designed by non-muslims. E.g. the blue mosque in Istambul was constructed by a Christian architect, who was trained by another Christian architect, the "best ottoman architect ever", by the name of Sinan.

    Did muslims understand the maths necessary to construct large domes in the 11th century ? No.

    But Byzantine Christians did. As did Moroccan Jews.

    1. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Given than Sinan was born in 1493 it's doubtful he understood the mathematics required to build a large dome in the 11th century either.

    2. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aaaah come ooon... First of all it is ISTANBUL Please don't mix up "Hagia Sophia" with the "blue mosque", it's true that Hagia Sophia was constructed christians but kept intact to be used as a mosque and now it is a museum... You should read more about the life of this great architect because he was indeed born as armenian or greec christian in Anatolia. When Anatolia was conquered he became a slave of the Sultan after, when growing up he became muslim. He studied at the royal palace, at that time he changed his name to Sinan. Became an engineer and architect. well evolution and knowledge is the key to everything. So please don't sell crap to the slashdot public and read more books about history and STICK TO THE SUBJET: patterns

    3. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      But he did actually design large domes. And they're still standing today.

    4. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      No he "converted" in order to no longer be a slave. Do you think he actually changed ? He even kept the same job. It's just that before he did not get paid.

      This is what muslims do : non-muslims are slaves in islamic countries. In Saudi arabia you cannot leave (or enter) the country as a non-muslim without written permission from a muslim.

    5. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Blue Mossque built by someone else called "Sedefhar Mehmet Aa". You are mistaken.

      On the other hand Sinan was raised in Istanbul, it was not like he was brought as an architech to built mosques. He was raised in the system of islamic scholarship.

    6. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by xoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      And so he did. But he did it 500 years later.

      Your argument was that Muslim architecture was in most part due to their policy of leaving societal elites in place, including architects, during the conquest. You go on to support this argument by pointing to the careers of two Ottoman architects Sinan and Mehmet Aga, and claiming that most of the mosques in Istanbul were built therefore by Christians. From this you draw the conclusion that muslims in the 11th century did not have the mathematical skills required to build large domes in the 11th century.

      Your argument fails in a number of respects:

      * The architects you reference flourished some 700 years after the first Muslim empire
      * They were both active in a country that was not part of the Muslim Empire
      * The Ottoman empire had been established for 200 years by the time of Sinan's birth, so he was not conquered
      * Both architects were trained by the Ottoman army, so their skills were not acquired before a Muslim conquest
      * Both architects were converts to Islam, not Christian as you state.

      In addition, Islamic mathematicians were intrigued by the properties of Spheres, see, for example the work of Al Sijzi, who was active in exactly the time frame you claim Muslims were mathematically ignorant: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biogra phies/Al-Sijzi.html

    7. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that you are showing great ignorance because saudi arabia cannot be an example for every muslim nation on earth. They are not liked within muslim community as well. On the other hand i would remind you that so called peaceful nations like Denmark and Holland have soldiers in Iraq. Shall we keep the whole nation of Danes as warmongering people or shall we just keep it limited to their goverments? I will also help you to remember the fact that greatest destructions to people and earth were done mostly western nations, i cannot recall a ww started by muslims for example, would you help me to remember please?

    8. Re:If they actually did it, great for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though Sinan converted from Christianity, he was actually a Muslim.

      The later line of architects in the Ottoman empire were mainly Muslim.

      Most of the structures built during the Islamic period from east China to Spain, not to mention the ones in Malay and Indonesian isles, were built by Muslims.

      Trying to derive credit from Muslims, especially when lacking proof, is ridiculous and clearly indicates bigotry and lack of understanding.

  28. Almost needs a "patents" tag by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

    But I suppose "tantalisingly close" isn't enough to prove prior art on Penrose's U.S. Patent 4133152.

    If I recall correctly, the proof that Penrose tiling is aperiodic depends on projection of a line marked out in intervals representing an irrational number onto a line marked out in uniform intervals. According to Wikipedia (hey, this isn't an academic paper, so I can cite Wikipedia, right?) the first reference for irrational numbers was in the Indian Sulba Sutras composed between 800-500 BC, so the fundamental knowledge was available in plenty of time for these tilings. And because irrational numbers were arrived at geometrically I can imagine that the ancients could indeed have understood the math.

    There's more information about the ancient tilings here, which shows that the Islamic tilings break down into five basic tiles, and that each of those five tiles can be broken down into Penrose tiles. So it looks as if they beat the first modern aperiodic tiling, Berger's initial one, which needed 20426 tiles, but didn't get as far as cutting it down to Penrose's two.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    1. Re:Almost needs a "patents" tag by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, the proof that Penrose tiling is aperiodic depends on projection of a line marked out in intervals representing an irrational number onto a line marked out in uniform intervals
      I think it is easier than that. Based on the costruction with the "deflation" rules, you can easily estimate that the ratio of the two kind of blocks is $\phi$, and since it is an irrational number the tiling can't be periodic. (if it were, this ratio would be the ratio of the number of blocks appearing in "one period" of the tiling, hence a rational number).
      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    2. Re:Almost needs a "patents" tag by digitig · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I think you're right -- I think the projection onto a line was an earlier proof of the existence of aperiodic tilings, not the proof of the Penrose tiling in particular. Either way, $\phi$ was known to be irrational long before those tilings, and was much explored in geometry, so I think it's credible that the designers knew what was going on.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  29. News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OLD!

  30. Squint... by Browzer · · Score: 1

    and you'll see the pattern. If you squint with your left eye just a little more than with your right eye, you'll see it in 3D.

  31. Penrose was a the CO-discoverer of aperiodic tiles by notthepainter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is little know that Robert Amman co-discovered one of Penroses aperiodic tiles. Amman was am amatuer mathematician in the United States. See his wiki page.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ammann

    I knew Bob Amman. I shared an office with him in my first job out of college. He was doing minor programming work for a small network/modem company in the early 80s. His white board always had tiled diagrams on it. I graduated from MIT but he was probably the best example I knew of a prodigy.

    The curious thing about Amman was how poorly he dealt with life. A man of his genius should not have ended up at the post office.

    I never knew he was famous until years later when something must have happen to Penrose (quasicrystals?) and Amman was in the local paper. I couldn't believe the guy I worked with traveled in these circles. One of the scientists I worked with at Kodak had a book on tiles. I checked the index, Amman was all over it, using cited by other mathematicians "unpublished personal correspondence."

    It makes one wonder what other geniuses are out there sorting mail.

    Paul

  32. Uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please quit worshiping the "middle ages middle east" astronomers. I personally re-discovered these so-called tiles and spent my life up to about 30 examining the "mathematics" which gave them credit for the infinite universe or at least pi, oh and everything else too. Bullshit. Learn some physics. Then never comment, until you're 50+.

  33. Re:Giving rise to the question: what don't *we* kn by LittleBigLui · · Score: 5, Funny

    What might be the "???" ?


    Nobody knows, but the step after that will be Profit!
    --
    Free as in mason.
  34. Arabs have contributed to world knowledge! by placebo420 · · Score: 0

    Just not in the last 1000 years...

  35. And Japanese Pilots Are Short Sighted. So There. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The misunderstanding of Islam is just plain dangerous. Many old ladies proudly display pictures of their favourite grandchildren wearing Ayatollah kit - the black adab - because Moslem's started the European academic tradition. The quads and cloisters at Oxford and Cambridge recreate the Andalusian universities, where they made sense. Academic citation recreates Muslim chains of transmission - roughly the equivalent of the Christian apostolic succession. Mathematicians chase "x" because Europeans didn't recognise "shai", the Arabic for "that which is sought", but Greek "chi" sounded similar and they wrote that instead. Chi Anglicized is "x" of course. Europeans got the point of algebra and algorithms, but alchemy - the art of transforming the operator and seeing things differently - was just too epistomoligically advanced and got converted by Chinese Whispers into wrong chemistry. With the exception of rare cases like Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton, most Europeans are still unable to get the point of alchemy. Many stars have funny sounding names because they are Arabic. "Doctor Mirabilis" by James Blish is a very good intro to this stuff. All this because while the Hebrews say the material world was created as a wind-up, and the Christians say it is a trick, and the Buddhists say it doesn't exist at all, Islam says it is the work of God, and it is our spiritual duty to study it. These days some people look at the primitive state of many Moslems and imagine that they were all sitting around going "More tea Vicar?" before Mohammad came along, and then they all went mad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apart from the Arabic language, the Arabs had absolutely nothing before Mohammad. Their entire society and culture comes from the genius of one man, who they believe was divinely inspired. That is in large part why they are so sensitive about his memory - they all know exactly what he did for them. Badmouthing Mohammad is like badmouthing Jesus, Washington, Lincon, Bacon and Thomas Crapper in one go. Interestingly, the so-called militant Islam is always strongest in populations where Western values have been or have become dominant - the Taleban were created and funded by the West, also look at Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Iran's still dealing with the backlash against the Shah. Turkey actually has more crazy Creationists than the USA: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/25 65/25653701.jpg And anyone who thinks the Taleban's mockery of Islam has a monopoly on lunacy hasn't been following the news: http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699 http://www.bi-valley.com/Articles/GovernmentTerroi smAgainstPhysicians.htm http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0345,owen,48381,1 .html

  36. define understanding by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    A child draws a cube without realising its rotational symmetries are S_4


    Of course, the child probably wouldn't care that you call it S_4, so that's irrelevant. Understanding does not mean "sharing our understanding". In the case of Mosques, Islamic artists might well have understood (yes, understood) it as a beautiful spiritual pattern, without ever codifying (or caring to codify) that understanding it in what we would call the "modern" way. A number of "modern" people might even agree with them.
  37. Muslims and mIRC by itz2000 · · Score: 0, Troll

    We should give them the honor doing this, why you probably ask?
    very simple! because I've tried to remember what they have done recently and the only thing I could come up with was mIRC... so please people... give them the honor of inventing these tiles, they desperately need it!


    funny thought, lol.

    1. Re:Muslims and mIRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL you must use IRC quite a bit LOL

  38. you must be colombian by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    didn't you know there's people that speak other languages to you? clue: christopher columbus was not a WASP

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:you must be colombian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a wop. Or maybe Marco Polo was the wop. In that case, a dago.

  39. Where can I buy them by slim · · Score: 1

    I've always liked Penrose tilings - and this reminded me. There's a small patch under my washbasin that would benefit from some decorative tiling. Does anywhere sell sets of Penrose tiles, ready to lay?

    Otherwise I can tell I'm going to need to fire some myself, dammit!

  40. Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by vakibs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Al Ghazali was indeed a very influential philosopher who brought in umpteen damage to the scientific inquiry of the Islamic world. But the real damage was done by another person called Ahmed Sirhindi. In simple words, what he has said was that human brain is futile. Any effort to understand nature/God through reasoning and thought is a waste of time. The only way salvation could be obtained is through studying the Kuran (the unmorphed message from God) and the Hadith (stories about the life of Mohammed). Without the use of Mohammed, man is inherently powerless to understand Nature or God ! In his philosophy, the biggest evil were the Greek & Hindu philosophers. His philosophy sounded the death to the movement of Sufism (mysticism and philosophy) in Islam. At the same time, it put an end to the systematic enquiry of science. Ahmed Sirhindi became the Mujaddid (the equivalent of the pope in Islam) and he convinced the Ottoman empire to use his methods. He convinced the Mughal empire in India to use his methods. Consequently, India and Arabia were mired in dark ages ever since 1000 AD.His influence is strongly felt in the later and the final Mujaddid - Wahhab of Saudi Arabia. The major school of Islam in Pakistan and India is the Deoband school, which is drawn from the ideas of Wahhab & Sirhindi. These are the seeds of Islamic fundamentalism. It is no wonder that all glories of Islamic mathematics, medicine and astronomy were reached before 1000 AD.

    1. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      In simple words, what he has said was that human brain is futile. Any effort to understand nature/God through reasoning and thought is a waste of time.

      Oh, you mean kinda like trendy philosophy profs at American universities today?

    2. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by zxnos · · Score: 1

      wow, that is really fascinating. the little i know of islam comes from studying their mosques - the 'why' of the patterns and colors. anyway, the short of it was that to know god was to study the world, particularly math, the better this was understood lead to a better understanding of, and oneness with god. the study of history of mankind is saddening when you learn about all the roadblocks and false starts we have given ourselves. if we could just get our shit together we could figure some stuff out.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    3. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by spun · · Score: 1

      Is deconstructionism still trendy? In any case, it's not the philosophy profs who tend to be rabidly anti-intellectual, it's the lit-crit types. And the philosophy profs I think you are talking about aren't even American. Derrida is French, isn't he?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for posting this information.
      I followed your wikipedia links, which led me to Averroes.

      Apparently when Ghazali poured forth his bile, whose affects are deeply embedded and infect the Muslim world up to this day (about 1000 years later), this guy Ibn Rushd (Averroes) in enlightened Andalusia, published a response to the Incoherence of the Philosophers.

      For a short time he was the king's personal physician. But apparently more fanatical muslims gained power of the part of Spain where he lived.

      So it's interesting to see how when less enlightened Muslims come into power, things fall to shit, and the self-destruction starts.

      So this, guy Ibn Rushd, apparently none of his works exist (since they were considered heretical to the later muslims). Interestingly, though, since Muslim Spain was multicultural, at the time most of his works were translated into Hebrew. So when the Jews were expelled from Spain they took all their works with them, so this guy's stuff still exists in Hebrew only.

      When you look at the world now, and see who is advanced and who is mired in muck and the dark ages, it's really interesting.

      BTW, I'm a muslim, in case anyone thinks I'm being to harsh.

    5. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consequently, India and Arabia were mired in dark ages ever since 1000 AD.
      ...
      It is no wonder that all glories of Islamic mathematics, medicine and astronomy were reached before 1000 AD.
      You should have stopped before saying that.

      If you had RTFA, you'd have noted that these Penrose patterns showed up after 1000 AD and over the next several hundred years, became more and more elaborate.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      The idea is more that science does more to model our observations than it does to model reality. This has actually been a boon to science, freeing it to use contradictory models (quantum mechanics vs. relativity) when appropriate, without having to worry too much about how reality shouldn't contradict itself.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    7. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by vakibs · · Score: 1

      Hi. I do know what I am talking about. I am from Hyderabad in India which has a lot of monuments showcasing Islamic architecture. My Masters project is in computer vision to rectify images automatically when they exhibit planar symmetry. I have found these architectural patterns to be the ideal dataset for my thesis. It is a fact that the art of producing these patterns attained a stagnation at around 1000 AD. That is not to say that great monuments were not constructed after that. In fact, the Taj Mahal (the finest specimen of these patterns, from what I heard) has not been built until 1650 AD. But, what I want to clarify is that the developement of these patterns didn't extend beyond craftsmanship. Had the Indo-Arabic science not been hampered by the lack of funding (which is exactly how Ahmed-Sirhindi's philosophy got manifested as), this would have enabled the people to have discovered several new areas of mathematics and engineering.

      You can view my blogpost celebrating the finish of my master's project :)

    8. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by vakibs · · Score: 1

      Readers please pardon my laxity. I am guilty of confusing you. Ahmed-Sirhindi lived around 1550 AD. This is treated as year 1000 in the Islamic calender. Now everything that I said starts making sense.

    9. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to nitpick...but the Mughal dynasty in India did not start until the early 1500's. There had been Muslim conquests in India a few hundred years before that though, and maybe that's what you meant?

    10. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Al Ghazali was indeed a very influential philosopher who brought in umpteen damage to the scientific inquiry of the Islamic world. But the real damage was done by another person called Ahmed Sirhindi. In simple words, what he has said was that human brain is futile. Any effort to understand nature/God through reasoning and thought is a waste of time.


      Sirhindi was a mystic, actually, and you raise an important point. The pure, tolerant Mohammed-era Islam did not have these reservations against science, although the early Caliphates were preoccupied with the spread of Islam more than scientific advance. The philosophical/mystic reasons for dumping the pursuit of human knowledge are due to this strange coupling between what can be known of nature and what can be known about God. The mystics tend to unite the two under the premise of ignorance, while traditional Islam views the unity as heresy - God is God, nothing can be likened to him and knowledge about him cannot be obtained except from what he chooses to communicate about himself. This is philosophically correct if one is to believe in the monotheist God. Anything else would be logically incompatible by definition.

      Nature (that is, the cosmos/existence) is a different story. There is no prohibition in the pursuit of knowledge in ANY particular aspect of life, including the fundemental physics/mathematics that describe physical existence, because the pursuit of that knowledge is NOT futile. It is, in fact, seen as possible (and indeed history has shown this), though a complete and self-sufficient description of the universe's existence may be difficult to achive. It is a very interesting distinction, because it clashes with the claim that traditionalist Islam lead to the downfall of knowledge. Ghazali and Sirhindi were not traditionalists, although they had elements of that thought. The damage they did was their own fault entirely: they overestimated their ability to judge human knowledge, due to their own ignorance.

      This is my understanding as someone who has lived and interacted with various Muslims in almost all contemporary "groups". Religious belief is either correct at it's absolute source, or it is not. Human "addons" are utterly meaningless.
    11. Re:Al Ghazali & Ahmed Sirhindi by vakibs · · Score: 1

      What you said is interesting. But why would anybody want to know about God if that has nothing to do with oneself or with the nature ? The concept of God as an abstraction for every unknown problem in the universe. When people didn't know what makes thunder, they attributed it to God. When people didn't know what makes life, they attributed it to God. When we don't know what makes compassion, love or beauty, we now attribute it to God. When somebody claims that one can know nothing about God (such as Ahmed-Sirhindi), he essentially means that one can know nothing about every unanswered thing in the world. In India, the notion of God is very holistic which encompasses not only nature but also one's own soul. The question "what is God" is equivalent to "who am I".

  41. About some basics.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain how something can be said to be a pattern and yet never repeat? Isn't there some sort of semantic contradiction here?

    1. Re:About some basics.... by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain how something can be said to be a pattern and yet never repeat? Isn't there some sort of semantic contradiction here?


      Here's one way:

      12112111211112111112....

      It's a pattern and it will never repeat.

      It will just get more and more boring!
    2. Re:About some basics.... by feranick · · Score: 1

      That's not a pattern. A real one is: LSLLSLSLLSLLSLSLLSLSL the Fibonacci sequence. Although there is no periodicity, a local subset of tiles randomly repeat themselves (it's called self similarity). For example: LLS, LS, SLLS, etc. The best way to know this is to take the Fourier transform and see the discrete number of component (typical of a geometry with elements that repeats themselves).

  42. from the original journal by Tzinger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The newspaper article hardly tells the story. Here is the abstract from Science

    The conventional view holds that girih (geometric star-and-polygon, or strapwork) patterns in medieval Islamic architecture were conceived by their designers as a network of zigzagging lines, where the lines were drafted directly with a straightedge and a compass. We show that by 1200 C.E. a conceptual breakthrough occurred in which girih patterns were reconceived as tessellations of a special set of equilateral polygons ("girih tiles") decorated with lines. These tiles enabled the creation of increasingly complex periodic girih patterns, and by the 15th century, the tessellation approach was combined with self-similar transformations to construct nearly perfect quasi-crystalline Penrose patterns, five centuries before their discovery in the West.

    If you care to look at the article, it has some very interesting pictures and explanations in the "supplement". Peter Lu, et.al. Science 315, 1106 (2007)

    --
    "If all the American people want is security, let them live in prisons." Eisenhower
  43. What I'd like to see.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    What I'd like to see is an explanation for why the Muslim Arab cultures were at the cutting edge of technology and science until what, the 11th, 12th century? And then for some reason, they have subsequently failed to advance technologically or culturally since then.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:What I'd like to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, this is close to the time of Islam's creationg, at which point science was bluntly put aside as rubbish, to be replaced by the much, much more logic faith.

      I see a pattern here.

    2. Re:What I'd like to see.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Possibly because they ran up against a far more barbaric and violent culture at about that time.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  44. Vedic Knowledge by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    Yes, Hindus are a big part of the puzzle here, but please remember there is no such thing as Hindus. Muslim technology, mathematics and concepts was most probably derived more from India and the countries surrounding India, and more specifically from the Vedic Scriptures. India was once the greatest super-power in Asia, but then Buddha came along and taught people to have peace and tranquility. People misunderstood his message, and tore down the armies and development, so India became a back-water country.

    Before Hinduism was invented, people in India just lived the Vedic knowledge, in all its diversity. Then came Europeans and started branding this way of living for "Hinduism", and people got an identity. However, there is no general principles concerning "Hinduism", thus it is an artificial concept, and has brought alot of conflict and confusion.

    About "Hinduism" and Vedic Knowledge (Sanskrit)

    Vedic Knowledge on the other hand is a scientific knowledge, which includes western medicine and is all-encompassing. It deals with medicine, herbs, effects of sounds, way to make instruments, technology, materials and their properties, etc, etc. SO MUCH of it has been lost in time. It is said that to study it all would require life-times. So nobody has really studied all of vedic litterature (which is vast!). In its whole form, the Vedas will encompass the whole universe, but it is unknown wether this form has yet existed on our planet, but certainly you will still find many texts about different dimensions and different universes, as well as subtle energy centers in our own body, which science will have to admit are there pretty soon.

    It is in many ways more advanced than Western thought, philosphy and principles. It was Vedic Knowledge from India that spurred Greek philosophy and Chinese medicine (Ayurveda has the original form of acupuncure, acupressue, Feng Shui called Vastu etc). The Vedas are really the root of many of the advanced mathematics, medicine and science today. Its application on the psyche far surpasses todays psychology.

    The Vedas even describes how to make space-ships, has manuals for controlling space-ships, how fast they are moving, the age of the current universe-cycle, and much more. Alas, much of the originals are lost and many believe those texts are remainders of more advanced civilizations, so it is hard to study the fragmented remains.

    I can only recommend to open up your mind and study what the Vedas can do for you. It is amazing it has been forgotten by people outside India.

    1. Re:Vedic Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In studying the science and maths in the Vedas, it's important to distinguish truth from hype.

      Truth:

      The Rig Veda has geometry and elementary trigonometry , used in the construction of Vedic Altars.

      Most mathematics in the Vedas are in the Shulba Sutras (appendices to the Vedas) . The most notable mathematical achievements in the Shulba Sutras was a series expansion for calculating the square root of 2. The Sutra calculated it to 1.4142156 (accurate to the 5th place of decimal). Keep in mind that Vedic Rishis did not actually know what an irrational number was. Neither did the Greeks, papart from the fact that they existed (they did not have a way to express them).

      With the Greeks, mathematics was developed with a rigorous standard of formalism. However, they did not know how to express irrational numbers. They thought that all numbers that could be well-defined were ratios of integers and, since sqrt(2) was not one, they thought it did not exist. the Vedic rishis were more pragmatic and cared more for results than theory so they simply treated it as a sort of "approximate rational number"and managed to calculate it with a high degree of accuracy (much like computer today, which can't understand irrational numbers but express them as truncated rational numbers). The series in the Shulba Sutras was:

      sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/3 + 1/(3X4) + 1/(3X4X34) + ...

      which we can derive today using modern maths by Taylor expanding :

      sqrt(a^2 + r) with a = (4/3) & r = (2/9)

      In addition, the three Shulba Sutras have a statement of the Pythagorean theorem in terms of the sides of a rectangle

      So, the early Vedic mathematicians probably did not understand irrational numbers, an instance in which the Greek insistence on logical correctness was a hindrance. The Greek did not regard sqrt{2} as a number since they could not express it exactly as a ratio and they knew that they could not (i.e. after Euclid's proof that sqrt{2} is irrational). The Vedic Rishis needed rational expression for it but, undeterred by the incompleteness of their knowledge, they proceeded to make what use they could of this number.

      The same attitude led them to discover infinity, zero and -ve numbers as well, since their usefullnes outweighed the difficulties in understanding them within the framework of ancient mathematical models.

      Also, the Satapatha Brahmanas in the Vedas contain complex geometrical constructs that predates Greek geometry.

      The Hype:

      All that pseudoscientific nonsense about spaceships and what not. Please read the Vedas carefully. There is no mention of "spaceships" though legends do point to flying chariots in the Puranas, they are parables, not to be taken literally.

      More Indian Maths (just a small sample):

      Also, we must not let obsessions with the maths of the Vedic period cloud the much more groundbreaking discoveries in Maths in India in later periods (Aryabhatta and the Zero, Bhaskaracharya and algebra in the leelevati), and, of course the grammatical rules of Panini, which have been imbibed into the Panini-Backus form

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panini-Backus_form

      OR the mathematics of the Jains, such as the first beezganit samikaran (algebraic expressions), and other similar achievements of the classical and medeival periods such as the Bakhshali approximation for computing square roots:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_computing_ square_roots#Bakhshali_approximation
      and, of course,

      Aryabhatta:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata

      Varahamihira:
      http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathemati cians/Varahamihira.html

      Bhaskara:

    2. Re:Vedic Knowledge by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > The Vedas even describes how to make space-ships, has manuals for controlling space-ships

      From the warning-signs-that-your-medication-is-wearing-off department...

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    3. Re:Vedic Knowledge by vakibs · · Score: 1

      Buddha did nothing to prevent the intellectual curiosity of India. In fact, his religion is a continuous path of questioning about oneself. Indian science was continuing to flourish till as late as 900 AD. Several major scientific texts in sanskrit were compiled around this era - for example that of Bhaskara the 2nd. Trumpeting about vedas is a job taken by the right-wing religious nuts of India. Looks like you are dancing to some weed that's churned out by them.

    4. Re:Vedic Knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      |Buddha did nothing to prevent the intellectual curiosity of India.

      True, but people who misappropriate his valuable teachings have been preventing the intellectual curiosity of India (*cough Neo-Buddhists, Sinhala Buddhists *cough).

      Also, don't forget that Buddhism was a proselytizing religion (in it's own way, much more so than Christianity) and Buddhists frequently engaged in intellectual dishonesty to propagate their religion. Take the case of the Buddhist Ashokavandana (a fantastic piece of religious propaganda) that makes outrageous claims of Ashoka "converting to Buddhism overnight after weeping over Kalinga" (according to historian and Kluge-Chair holder Romila Thapar it took nearly a decade) and there is the Pusyamitra hoax written in the A.V. (how "Pusyamitra Sunga murdered Buddhists with brutality aftert the fall of the Mauryan Empire", a bogus claim that the same Romila Thapar, and Etienette Lamont, based on their archaeological research, dismiss completely as a Buddhist proselytizing tactic: No such "massacre" occurred) so, in a sense, the intellectual dishonesty of prosetylism was a Buddhist invention, and did compromise the intellectual curiosity of Indian society. Of course, Adi Shankara pwned them all philosophically, so it was good for a while.

      |Indian science was continuing to flourish till as late as 900 AD

      True. see my anon post above.

      |Trumpeting about vedas is a job taken by the right-wing religious nuts of India. Looks like you are dancing to some weed that's churned out by them.

      I am one of the "right-wing religious nuts", and I don't dance to anything or anyone. I am quite well-read on history and culture of India, particularly the history of Indian Science (again, see my other anon post above).Very nice and enlightened of you, painting all of us with such a broad brush. Gee whiz, how "secular" and "progressive". I am clear-headed enpugh to distinguish fact from hype, and encourage all to do the same. There was plenty of good maths in the Vedas (specifically the Shulba Sutras), but yes, all that crapola about spaceships is just that, crapola. No such thing was ever mentioned in the Vedas, although parables of a similar nature exist in Hindu scripture (the operative word being "parable" ie not to be taken literally).

      Trumpeting about "right-wing religious nuts of India" is a job taken by the anti-National, hesperophobic, and third-world mentality ridden beggars of the liberal socialist/Islamist fundies in India, obsessed with scurrilous accusations and anti-Hindu blood libels in a vain attempt to make everything about Hindus look bad, from the Vedas to the revivalist movement.

      Looks like you are dancing to some weed churned out of their politburos and madrassas. Now go and dance to the chants of SIMI.

  45. Unintentional Insult by blagooly · · Score: 1

    This is embarrasing,unintentionally condescending,patronizing,and hilarious. Sitting under the desert sun,eating dried camel dung Omar discovers Fractals,begins doing integral calculus in the sand. Perhaps the chimpanzee with his bush baby chop stick demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of aerodynmics and ancient Chinese traditions? In other news, prehistoric men taught anatomy and physiology in Cave Art Schools. Credit Reuters for mentioning "Images" were banned by God,so art/design was forced into the abstract.But, along with these idiot academics,they do not even realise they are looking down thier noses,by being amazed that the people of the time did something interesting. It is completely over the top,a pathetic effort to say merely hey people, in spite of all the evidence, Muslims once had a clue.

  46. Muslims used to be more tolerant than Christians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When Spain was in Islamic rule, Christians lived there peacefully. After the Christians took it over, however, Muslims were all killed or forced to leave the country.

  47. What Happened to Islam by mrops · · Score: 1

    "....My question is, and I don't mean to troll, what happened?..."

    Being a Muslim myself I really wanted to know "What the hell happened to Islam and Muslim?". Mulsim's were philosopher and thinkers, had scientist in all wake of life.

    I did some research and discovered what happened?

    Center of the Islamic civilization was Baghdad, when Mongols came to Baghdad, they burned all the libraries and every single book. Although they later converted to Islam, they took it back by centuries. Mongols were a race of warriors, modern day Islam is influenced by Mongols. All the thinkers and educators were lost when Mongols invaded various lands.

    So over a very short period, Islam turned into a religion of warriors instead of thinkers.

    Now, why haven't we recovered after so many years, well we can thank the present day Saudi Arabia for that (IMHO). Their flavor of Islam is that of the "word" written in Quran as opposed to the spirit of that word. Unfortunately, with their wealth and large reserve of oils, they get to influence a lot of people. Modern day al-qaeda is a direct result of "Wahabi Islam", the flavor of Islam followed by Saudi Arabia. I had the fortune of living in Saudi Arabia as my dad worked for consulting company there. The screwed up religious police you to beat kids if they were caught playing during prayer times. Its easy to see the unfortunate events of 9/11 are a direct off shoot of this thinking. Beat the damn kid if he doesn't follow Islam.

    Thats what happened to Islam.

    Mu 0.02$

  48. In other news.... by yesthatmcgurk · · Score: 0, Troll

    it was also discovered that these ancient muslims also developed something thought to be a modern invention: Beheading infidels.

  49. Mod the AC parent up! by lxt518052 · · Score: 1

    This Christian-superior-over-others argument is laughable. Such narrow-mindedness in the western societies shows exactly that no people in one country is born better human than in another, the opposite of what the GP implies.

    --
    People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
    1. Re:Mod the AC parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read it again idiot, and this time try not to let your obvious bias cloud your interpretation.

      Nowhere in any of that was a "Christian-superior-over-others argument". There was an "Islam isn't the be-all-end-all that some morons like you think it is" argument, but you let your stupidity get in the way of the facts.

      Shut up now before you put something else on the internet that will display your ignorance for years to come, like you did with your post here.

  50. Blame Whitey by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Never mind that the Arabic/Persian world completely ignored the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure and my Marxist teachers in college swear on a stack of Howard Zinn's that it's some white imperialist capitalist Zionist nation's fault. It always is.

    1. Re:Blame Whitey by UED++ · · Score: 0

      troll

  51. Geometric Analysis by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I haven't visited the Arabic world but my encounters with Moorish craftsmanship in Spain have been awe-inspiring.

    Don't miss Granada's Alhambra, a breath-taking treasure and not just for the intricate artwork.

    There are a number of books, I'll let you browse Amazon at your leisure, on the beauty of Islamic art. One I purchased explores the mathematics behind the designs, Keith Critchlow's "Islamic Patterns: An Analytical and Cosmological Approach". It explains how patterns emerge from arcs and intersections of polygons. Further, Critchlow argues that for the Muslim these patterns displayed a spiritual aspect, that the wonder experienced at looking at these patterns pales in comparison to the complex thoughts behind their creation.

    Alas, if only there were more hours in the day I'd try reproducing them via Java2D or OpenGL. Fascinating stuff.

    1. Re:Geometric Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll let you browse Amazon at your leisure, on the beauty of Islamic art ...er no thanks, but what i will do is browse my selection of fine guns, and when i've made a choice i may just bagz me a sand-nigga!

  52. nice alliteration there by xzqx · · Score: 1

    My! Medieval Muslims were mind-bendingly magnificent in their mathematical mastery! Makes many a man marvel.

  53. No, Islam happened. by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As to what happened to the high point of Arabic culture, thats easy, we destroyed it in The Crusades.


    Except for one fact: Europe LOST the crusades. Yes, they held an area of land approximately equivalent to modern day Israel for a short period of time, but most of Arabia was still dominated by Islam. Yes, "The Caliphate" as Mohammad's original empire was known was gone, but it had been in serious decline for some time due to internal strife, the slow march towards religious extremism and traditional tribalism for years by that point.

    The only real "advanced" Islam was the one destroyed years earlier in the Grenada area. The only reason they were advanced was their rejection of Fundamentalist Islam, and the creation of a more modern more egalitarian society that viewed Christians and Jews as, if not equals, valuable citizens. Most of the advances IN that society were brought to it by the Jews and Christians living within it. Not the Muslims themselves. Of course, all that was gone by the time of the crusades due to the destruction of that society by greedy Kings using Christianity as an excuse to take land.

    The point is, Islam as we know it today has brought nothing to the table to advance society. While I am all for giving people their due, Modern Islam is owed no credit for any discoveries (unless you consider suicide bombers a discovery), and trying to credit them for this smacks of Political Correctness gone awry.
    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:No, Islam happened. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 0

      Most of the advances IN that society were brought to it by the Jews and Christians living within it. Not the Muslims themselves.

      Is this based on any facts or just your own preconceptions? If it is based on any facts please post some links / references to back up your argument.

      (unless you consider suicide bombers a discovery)

      Actually even this is against the teachings of Islam. At no point in the Koran does it say killing non-believers is acceptable. The Quran has pretty much that same take on killing as Christianity and Judaism - Thou Shalt not kill.

      Actually the Quran apparently makes an exception in the case of justice but it is limited to the heir of someone murdered taking revenge.

      (http://www.submission.org/suras/sura17.htm)

      So suicide bombing and indescriminatly killing streets full of people seems a bit beyond this. But then again the bible commands us not to kill, without any such exemption yet a great many christian countries (Or states) still have the death penalty. I think this just does to show that we will always twist religion to our own ends, picking and choosing the bits we want to follow and this bits we don't.

      And let us not forget that the Catholic church invented the inquisition.

      Personally I was brought up to be a Quaker but I would have a hard time following any religion, so instead I do my best to treat others as I would like to be treated myself.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    2. Re:No, Islam happened. by corbettw · · Score: 2, Informative

      At no point in the Koran does it say killing non-believers is acceptable.

      You're either misinformed or lying. I'm going to assume you're misinformed. Here are some quotes from the Koran to help enlighten you.

      "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or to have their hands and feet chopped off on opposite sides, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)

      "When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

      "Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)

      While it's also true that you can find commands from God to kill people in the Bible, all of those quotes are in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not contain any commands to kill, though it does give warnings to people who reject God. But their punishment will be meted out by God in the next life, at no point are Christians told to exact that punishment themselves. In fact, they're specifically told not to do it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:No, Islam happened. by jcgf · · Score: 1

      The point is, Islam as we know it today has brought nothing to the table to advance society. While I am all for giving people their due, Modern Islam is owed no credit for any discoveries (unless you consider suicide bombers a discovery), and trying to credit them for this smacks of Political Correctness gone awry.

      Couldn't have said it better myself.

    4. Re:No, Islam happened. by MBHkewl · · Score: 1

      I checked the versus (in Arabic) and verified with your translation; Your translation is correct.

      BUT

      None of the mentioned verses have anything to do with killing non-believers. Allow me to explain the meaning of the verses:

      1) "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger"
      You can be a non-believer, but a peaceful one. You won't be killed.
      But for example, if a non-believer mocked God or prophet Mohammad, then those should be FOUGHT. (not killed)

      2) "then we destroy them utterly"
      By "we" God means himself, not by God's followers.

      3) This means that God helps his followers & believers during their wars and assign Angels to aid them.

      "all of those quotes are in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not contain any commands to kill"
      So someone changed the Bible to make sound less cruel???

      --
      Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
    5. Re:No, Islam happened. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 0

      The point is, Islam as we know it today has brought nothing to the table to advance society.
      And neither has Christianity as we know it today.

      It's not entire religions that bring things to the table to advance society, it is subsets of those religions that sometimes have nothing to do with the religion other than a shared background.

      You make two errors in your little diatribe:

      Modern Islam is owed no credit for any discoveries

      You conflate modern Islam with a small subset of Islamic people. Ignorant and dangerous of you -- seeing 'the enemy' in everyone is a great way to make enemies.

      (unless you consider suicide bombers a discovery)


      Hardly an Islamic discovery. The Japanese, as you will recall, used this technique to attack Allied navies in WWII. It's not new, it's a central theme of many heroic tragedies since the time of the Greeks. I suggest you read Dead for Good: Martyrdom and the Rise of the Suicide Bomber (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2007) by Hugh Barlow.

      As far as the medieval contributions of Muslims to culture and science, perhaps you need to remember that history is written by the victors. In terms of influence in the Western Hemisphere, the Christians did "win" the Crusades.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:No, Islam happened. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      So suicide bombing and indescriminatly killing streets full of people seems a bit beyond this. But then again the bible commands us not to kill, without any such exemption yet a great many christian countries (Or states) still have the death penalty. I think this just does to show that we will always twist religion to our own ends, picking and choosing the bits we want to follow and this bits we don't.

      Actually, the commandment is against murder, not killing. There are plenty of circumstances in which it is considered just and lawful to kill, such as in war. The New Testament (in Romans 13, IIRC) also contains a reference to the state not bearing the sword in vain i.e. the state has a right to punish lawlessness and execution was not ruled out.

      And let us not forget that the Catholic church invented the inquisition.

      The ideas behind the inquisition weren't exactly new. The idea of killing - or threatening with torture - people of a different religion has been around for a long time.

    7. Re:No, Islam happened. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      While it's also true that you can find commands from God to kill people in the Bible, all of those quotes are in the Old Testament.

      Still the same God though.

      The New Testament does not contain any commands to kill, though it does give warnings to people who reject God. But their punishment will be meted out by God in the next life, at no point are Christians told to exact that punishment themselves. In fact, they're specifically told not to do it.

      True on the level of the individual. According to Romans 13, however, the state has the right and in fact the responsibility, to enforce the law and mete out judgement and punishment to those who break it.

    8. Re:No, Islam happened. by darkshadow · · Score: 1

      (unless you consider suicide bombers a discovery)

      From Wikipedia, on the Japanese Red Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army/

      "May 30, 1972: The Lod Airport Massacre: A machine gun and grenade attack on Israel's Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, now Ben Gurion International Airport, killed 26 people; about 80 others were injured. Two of the three attackers then killed themselves with grenades. Some speculate that this act inspired later Palestinian suicide attacks."

      --
      -Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
    9. Re:No, Islam happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > at no point are Christians told to exact that punishment themselves. In fact, they're specifically told not to do it.

      Fat lot of good that did. The crusades aside, the inquisitions, of which the Spanish one was actually fairly mild in comparison, put whole villages to the torch. Of other Christians. Know the saying "Kill 'em all and let God sort it out"? That's a paraphrase of an Abbot who put a whole town to the sword in the quest to wipe out Cathars and/or Albigensians (the exact origin is kind of murky, so the particular target is too)

      Religion is more of a justification and a framework for violence than it is a source or inspiration for it.

    10. Re:No, Islam happened. by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > The Japanese, as you will recall, used this technique to attack Allied navies in WWII.

      The Imperial Japanese probably wouldn't have thought much of someone strapping explosives to themselves and blowing up a cafe or a market. They were busy trying to take out military targets.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    11. Re:No, Islam happened. by karmaflux · · Score: 1

      Actually even this is against the teachings of Islam. At no point in the Koran does it say killing non-believers is acceptable.

      I am sick to death of ignorant non-Muslims claiming this. The Quran explicitly instructs believers to kill non-believers.

      This is from the Quran (9:5)
      fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them:

      This pretty clearly tells you that Muhamed claims Allah wants non-believers killed -- unless, that is, they pray. And tithe. Imagine that.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    12. Re:No, Islam happened. by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1
      >Modern Islam is owed no credit for any discoveries

      We have a partial unified field theory, explaining the weak interaction and electromagnetism as part of the same thing. Its codiscover was Abdus Salam, a devout Muslim who saw his work as a form of worship. He saw it as a duty and a privilege to study the works of God, which of course includes both the Quran and the material universe.

      Abdus Salam is known to be a devout Muslim, whose religion does not occupy a separate compartment of his life; it is inseparable from his work and family life. He once wrote: "The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart."
      from Abdus Salam's Nobel Prize biography
    13. Re:No, Islam happened. by corbettw · · Score: 1

      1) "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger"
      You can be a non-believer, but a peaceful one. You won't be killed.
      But for example, if a non-believer mocked God or prophet Mohammad, then those should be FOUGHT. (not killed)


      Is the reference to non-believers being fought in a different section? Because if it's part of the one that says to wage war on them, I find it difficult to imagine a war where people aren't killed.

      By the way, Allah fucks Mohammad in the ass. Does that mean you should "fight" me, or what? (I'm using an absurd and very insulting statement to make a point, it's called "hyperbole".)

      3) This means that God helps his followers & believers during their wars and assign Angels to aid them.

      It seems to exhort Muhammadans to kill people ("smite them above their necks").
      2) "then we destroy them utterly"
      By "we" God means himself, not by God's followers.


      I find that difficult to believe. Allah is referred to in the third person in that sentence, it doesn't read like he's the one who's going to destroy anyone. Rather, it sounds like the Muhammadans are the ones who will be doing the destroying.

      So someone changed the Bible to make sound less cruel???

      I'm going to assume you don't know the difference between the Old and New Testaments, so here's a quick primer: the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible, and is a combination of the Law and the Prophets. In includes all of the books from Genesis to (at least) Malachi (some Christian churches include other books, too, hence the "at least"). The Old Testament is primarily concerned with the nation of Israel (ancient, not modern), and how it started from a group of shepherds to an full fledged nation (and pretty much again, after they were conquered a few too many times). In it, there are times when God tells the Hebrews to kill certain groups of people, and there are other times when God does it Himself. There's an active debate about how these incidents should be viewed today, but generally it's agreed that, if God commanded people to kill others, it was a special, one-time-only, kind of thing, and it doesn't give anyone license to do so today.

      The New Testament, on the other hand, is the Gospel that teaches about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ when He was on earth, and the ministry of the apostles after He returned to Heaven. Explaining the differences between the two parts of the Christian Bible would take too long in this forum, but suffice to say that Christ's message was one of love and compassion for your fellow man, and love and devotion to God. No part of the New Testament encourages, or even allows, individuals to kill others.

      So to answer your question, no, no one changed it. God just clarified His message when He was on the earth.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    14. Re:No, Islam happened. by vandan · · Score: 1

      Don't think so.

      Fundamentalist Islam is a relatively new phenomenon that's emerged in response to a hundred years of western imperialism. I would say that there's more truth to your position if you remove 'Islam' and insert 'Christianity'. The destruction that Christianity has brought to the entire world is well known. It decimates indigenous religions and cultures, and spreads 'by the sword'. Islam spreads in a different way. Historically it has been passed on by traders, and has mixed organically with indigenous culture and religion. Islam has also been far more secular than Christianity, and infinitely more secular than, say Israel.

      I really hate arseholes such as yourself that feel the need to spread racist lies to prop up their own position. If there are problems with your life, you should look at them honestly. If you feel threatened by terrorists, then you need to look much closer to home, where the world's biggest terrorist plot to seize control of the entire world via violence. Quit attacking cultures that you clearly know nothing about and learn some more about the world.

    15. Re:No, Islam happened. by vandan · · Score: 1

      Couldn't have said it better myself.

      That's because you're an inarticulate dickhead with no ideas other than those rammed down your throat by the media. What you need to do is to put a brain between your ears and your ideas.
    16. Re:No, Islam happened. by grant420 · · Score: 0

      Christians don't suicide bomb their own people (see the Sunnis vs. Shiites in Iraq for myriad recent examples), we just drop bombs on you fucking coward Muslims.

    17. Re:No, Islam happened. by vandan · · Score: 1

      Oh that's rich. Firstly, Muslims don't suicide bomb their own people either. They attack the illegal occupiers. This bullshit about sectarian violence is a myth. Sunnis and Shiites consider each other brothers. They intermarry. Look at the support that Hezbollah gave the Sunnis in Palestine when the Israelis started their latest onslaught. You need to learn some more about your world. Start by changing the channel from Fox. Then you might actually get up from your lounge and turn the TV off completely.

      Secondly, I'm not a 'fucking coward Muslim' as you so bitterly put it. I'm a Christian who has renounced his faith.

      Thirdly, I don't see how you consider Muslims cowards. They stand up to the terrorism of the Christian world against their war-torn lands. They fight the US occupiers in Iraq with incredible courage. I salute them for this. It's the US, largely Christian army, that are the cowards, hiding behind their weapons of mass destruction, apache helicopters, 'depleted' uranium weapons, etc.

      In summary, Grant, you're dead wrong, and are demonstrating your extreme arrogance that you clearly pick up from the dominant culture in your homeland. Look out for low-flying planes, won't you :)

    18. Re:No, Islam happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I'm going to assume you're just stupid, as only a stupid person would use quotes ignoring context. All of those quotes are references to actions taken in a defense. I need not point out what the so called "Civilized World" is doing at the moment in its so-called defensive war against terrorism.

      --
      I hate printers.
    19. Re:No, Islam happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I am sick to death of ignorant non-Muslims taking a single line completely out of context. Your quote refers to Pagans who violate treaties or peace accords, the line immediately before the one you quote reads: So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

      With reference to Pagans who have agreed to live peacefully without waging war, the line immediately following the one you quoted reads:

      If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure.

      In fact, the opening line of the chapter you are quoting from reads:

      A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:

      Which seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that Pagans who agree to a mutual alliance or engagement to live together without waging war are explicitly protected. The full translation of that chapter can be found here, along with a full index of the Quran in English, so when next you feel like taking something out of context you can check it up to prevent making a horse's arse of yourself.

      Context is your friend.

      --
      I hate printers.
    20. Re:No, Islam happened. by corbettw · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      All of those quotes are references to actions taken in a defense.

      Really? Prove it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    21. Re:No, Islam happened. by MrNaz · · Score: 1
      Err... OK:

      "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or to have their hands and feet chopped off on opposite sides, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)

      This one explicitly states that it is the punishment due to those who wage war against Muslim people. The line that follows it: Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. indicates that even if people did wage war against a Muslim nation, if they ask for forgiveness, they are to be spared the punishment. So, this quote is saying "if you are attacked, fight back, but forgive them if they say sorry". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

      "When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

      This is actually a reference to Allah's own administration of justice. A plague of locusts, floods or other disasters Sodom and Gomorrah style. Throughout the Quran, the regal "We" is used when (as Muslims believe) Allah is referring to himself. The line before reads: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an apostle (to give warning). which suggests that the intent of the verse is to say that if people are given a message and they ignore it, they can expect locusts, floods or sulphur raining down from the sky. Nothing like "hey guys go kill people you don't like", it's more like God saying "ignore me and I shall punish you!". Pretty standard Godly thing to say, really.

      "Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)

      A reference to what the angels will supposedly do. If you don't believe in angels, you have nothing to worry about.

      I don't see any incitement for Muslims to run around killing people, as convenient as it may be for you to believe that such incitement is to be found. Here's a full text translation for you to read, if you find anything else you think amounts to an incitement to kill infidel scum feel free to point it out. Here's a spoiler tho: Allah, just like the Christian God, commands adherence to the general principle that Thou Shalt Not Kill, hence you will not find places where it says "Kill These Guys just 'Coz".

      --
      I hate printers.
    22. Re:No, Islam happened. by grant420 · · Score: 0

      Watch some Al-Jazeera feeds of cowardly sniper attacks against US soldiers to get a better idea of what I meant.. "incredible courage" my foot. Also, you don't see Americans suicide bombing their own countrymen, do you? I like how you avoided commenting on that. All Americans aren't like George dumbfuck Bush you know, contrary to your prejudiced view of me. I hate Fox news, shmuck. And just because SOME Sunnis and Shiites intermarry doesn't mean shit. Some secretly gay men lead straight lives with wives and kids. Some muslim men drink and gamble (look at the Saudi ruling class). Your examples mean little, "actions speak louder than words".

    23. Re:No, Islam happened. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Many thanks for the links you provided and your contribution to the debate.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    24. Re:No, Islam happened. by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Hey dumbass,

      MUSLIM IS NOT A RACE

      and the rest of your post is about as intelligent and wrong.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  54. A pattern is an ordering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word ``pattern'' has analgous usages. It can mean a repeating order. It can also be used to describe something that is an ordered design. Not all ordered designs repeat.

  55. Re:Giving rise to the question: what don't *we* kn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very subtle. I think I love you.

  56. Bali Bombing by sufehmi · · Score: 1

    What do YOU know about Bali, punk ? I don't like these extremists as much as you do, but Bali bombing stinks of conspiracy like somebody farting just in front of your nose after he gulped 5 cans of baked beans.

    In indonesian media, just after the bombing, there were a LOT of news about how strange the police is handling it, and how the Australian and other foreign officials are tampering with the investigation.
    We may not be a Dutch colony anymore, but instead the Australian officials can easily kidnap a key witness, and then returned her dead - already cremated too.

    Not only that, several police officers reported detection of C4 traces in the scene. They were silenced after.
    Then even after the police failed to find conclusive proof, they still jailed Abu Bakar Ba'asyir anyway.

    Yes, there are a LOT that YOUR media did NOT report.

    And you're wondering why people from so many countries hate America, huh ?

    If your western government keep on bullying others like these, it's YOU, the people, that will suffer the retaliation. Bush? Howard? They'll have Secret Service covering and licking their asses 24x7.

    1. Re:Bali Bombing by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

      What I know about it is that the particular site in Bali is an American hangout...and a lot of people died there. Personally, I'm against it. And I've seen a *lot* of conspiracy theories that go nowhere and only cause people to kill MORE people. I was born months before the granddaddy of conspiracies- the JFK administration.

      One thing's certain: 10% of the Muslims are causing a great deal of pain, and nothing else. For 50 years they've blown people up at random and walked away from the very peace conditions they were advocating. Saudi Arabia's per-capita income has dropped from $20,000 to only $7,000, and that makes for a VERY unhappy populace...one that's about to revolt, normally. Calling the Isrealis names and sending bombers just takes away the attention from the hell in which they live.

      Anyone who loves peace knows this has to stop. It doesn't move an agenda, it just kills a lot of people.

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  57. hey nice patterns...now move along abdul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is all well and good, but any of those camel jockeys come near my property i'm still gonna give em both barrels worth

  58. Others by hakova · · Score: 1

    I think the question itself reflects the drive to categorize people as "us" and "others". We are human kind, with all the positives and negatives. We created the Giza pyramids, poetry as well as holocaust and weapons of mass desruction. To categorize people according to their race, culture or religion is a primitive motive. Therefore, we built the mosques with those tiles back in time and we rediscovered them recently. The rest is politics.

  59. Islam and Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not very surprising when you think about the roots of modern math: Islamist mathematicians during Europe's middle Ages... Europe wasn't always that mighty thing that it is now you know... In fact Europe got out of that period because of the insights and knowledge they "acquired" from Muslims during the "Crusades"...

    1. Re:Islam and Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the Indians are loving you for your insight...

      Arabs too "acquired" their knowledge.

    2. Re:Islam and Math by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      That's not very surprising when you think about the roots of modern math: Islamist mathematicians during Europe's middle Ages... Europe wasn't always that mighty thing that it is now you know... In fact Europe got out of that period because of the insights and knowledge they "acquired" from Muslims during the "Crusades"...


      Islamic not Islamist ;-)

      Anyway, the roots of modern math were planted by some amazing Hindus and Persians and carried to the West by Mohammedans.
  60. Religion happened, basically... by Garwulf · · Score: 1

    Norman Cantor covered this in his book "The Civilization of the Middle Ages," which is a very good general resource (although it does have a few inaccuracies regarding arms and armour).

    In Muslim society up to the 12th century, the scholars and scientists tended to be secular, without an attachment to the organized Muslim faith (meaning that they weren't imams). The religious leaders were either fundamentalists and religious legalists or mystics - and they had never tried to reconcile their theology and scientific thought.

    Around the end of the 12th century, as Europe was seeing the intellectual impact of the Twelfth Century Renaissance through the transmission of Greek thought via Spain and Sicily (not the Holy Land, though - that was actually considered to be an intellectual backwater even before the First Crusade), the religious section of Muslim society across the board decided that scientific thought was a threat to the traditional faith, and managed to enlist the help of the state. As Cantor put it, "after 1200 scientific thought in the Islamic world was dead."

    Frankly, it was a tragedy, and not only did it bring an end to the Muslim golden age, but I don't think Islam ever recovered.

    (I don't think the Crusades really had anything to do with this, though - as I said, the Holy Land was considered a backwater, to the point that when Jerusalem fell, some Muslims took up protesting in mosques to make authorities at least notice that it had fallen. I think this religious movement happened on its own, and we do have similar movements in Christianity in the Western World - think of the Intelligent Design controversy, for example.)

    --
    Robert B. Marks
    Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
  61. Islamic Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you see how those islamic terrorists started their plans to conquer us mathematically several hundred years ago it is obvious how important it is to bomb the crap out of all muslims !

    (Since Americans might read this it is probably best to add that this was a joke.)

  62. Re:Muslims used to be more tolerant than Christian by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Here's a small list of wars during islamic kingdoms. You may notice that there is not a single 3-year period without a major war :

    http://historymedren.about.com/library/text/bltxts pain4.htm

    Tolerance was non-existant under muslims of the caliphate, and thousands of christians and jews were brutally slaughtered. Just as the byzantine christians were slaughtered and, more recently the christian armenians fell under the ottoman turks when the ottoman empire had just lost its fight with the west.

  63. That is quite an oversimplification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Moors killed quite a few Christians during the period in which they ruled Spain, beginning with their conquest. Christians were essentially second class citizens and conversion from Islam was a capital offense. When a European Christian coalition of the willing reconquered the area, they gave resident Muslims a choice between expulsion or conversion. The difference in persecution was one of extent, not of kind. Instead of constant pressure to convert to gain full rights as a citizen, the choice was more black and white. Convert if you want to be any kind of citizen. While the Caliphate of Cordoba was more tolerant than the King Ferdinand, neither was anywhere near as tolerant as the Romans (both eastern and western) were for most of their imperial eras.

    And to be fair, most of the difference stems from political norms not religious norms. The Moors were heavily influenced by the Roman, Byzantine, and Persian style of imperial rule which took more of a conglomerate approach (local chieftains left in place subservient to the overarching monarch) while western Europe was trending towards more of an absolute monarchy. This has less to do with religion than with the struggles of the dark ages in western Europe and the sorts of political regimes that made it possible to rise out of chaos and re-establish the rule of law.

  64. do not confuse Arabs and Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think calling them Arabs would be more correct. There are Muslims in other places also.

  65. Oh, please... by Venik · · Score: 2, Funny

    We all know it's pure chance they stumbled into these mathematical patterns. What can Arabs possibly know about algebra and numbers in general? Oh, wait...

  66. And here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The last time I suggested white Western civilisation might be less than perfect I got modded to hell"

    I didn't mod you to hell, but only for lack of mod points. If I had some now you'd be getting overrated, and here's why.

    Regardless of the clear revisionist history that has been spread by "white Western" civilization, there is no reason to engage in re-revisionist history as you have.

    To simplify, the fact that so many people kissed up to "white Western" civilization is not a good justification for you and those like you kissing up to other civilizations now. Which, if you didn't realize it, is exactly what you're doing. History is a slippery thing, and many of us are tired of people like you disregarding some parts of history in an effort to raise one society over another. Islam did some good things. Islam did some bad things. Watching you slurp Islam like you did sickens me, if only for the intentional obfuscation of the bad things for no reason other than to discredit "white Western" history.

    And before you lamely try to object, you yourself admit what you did (albeit, in an understated fashion) when you say "The last time I suggested white Western civilisation might be less than perfect I got modded to hell"

    So you earned your mods. I hope you realize why (and no, it's NOT because you dared to discredit "white Western" civilization, so save that crap).

  67. Do kids know zero? by ashwinds · · Score: 1

    They cry when their stomach is empty! Does that mean they know 0? Or (shudder...) maybe they know 0- !! ... and for the math fan boys - that they cry when they start feeling hungry is greater knowledge than 0!! We tend to see history in all the perspective that time in between gives us. We wont know unless we get into their shoes (or sheep skins). But the point is we dont need to - it does not matter. As this comment does not matter - nothing really does.

  68. Re:And Japanese Pilots Are Short Sighted. So There by slack_prad · · Score: 1
    thirsty for

    --
    Sent from my desktop computer
  69. Actually the Mayans did this first. by jdb2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The first usage of zero as an actual numerical quantity occurred in the Mayan vigesimal numbering system around 36 BCE. (see the Wikipedia article on Mayan numerals ) Some people postulate, although, that this was derived from the older Olmec numbering system, which could have gone as far back as 1200 BCE. If this is true, then it means that the Olmecs discovered zero 1828 years before Brahmagupta re-discovered and formalized it in 628 CE in India. jdb2

    1. Re:Actually the Mayans did this first. by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Zero as a numerical quantity is no big deal. The Romans and Europeans understood the concept of zero. I have zero gold, you have zero apples, etc.

      What we do think first appeared first in India, and call the Hindu numeral system, used a zero positionally so that 10 means 1x ten, and 0x 1s.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Actually the Mayans did this first. by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article linked above seems to indicate that the Mayans were the first to use zero positionally, not as a mathematical quantity. Their Long Count dates included zeros as placeholders.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  70. Religeous ownership by sqldr · · Score: 1

    I am an atheist, but I live in a predominantly Christian country. If I invent something, it does NOT belong to Christianity. It belongs to me, an individual.

    --
    I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  71. Islam and independent thinking by free+space · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Quran even declares independant thinking illegal, and "a sure road to hell". See Quran 33:36.


    What drove you to that conclusion?

    Here's a translation of the verse in Question (I also read it in the original Arabic): "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path"

    It roughly means "believers are not to disobey Allah or his prophet". Why does that makes you think it prohibits independent thinking?

    There are may verses of the Quran and many quotes of the prophet that encourage thinking and reasoning (for example Quran verses 4:82, 47:24, 16:11 to 16:13).

    In fact, a complete branch of Islamic studies is called Ijtihad, which is all about independent thought.

    to quote an online Islamic site: "A scientific approach has been encouraged in the Qur'an with the objective of ascertaining its truthfulness. It provides man with a chance to verify its authenticity." so in Islam, independent thinking is in fact an essential part of the religion.
  72. Any bomb instructions in the tiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were there any bomb instructions or directions to behead infidels who don't convert to Islam, as stated in the Quran?

  73. Non-repeating Symmetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm trying to imagine symmetry that doesn't repeat. .taeper t'nseod taht yrtemmys enigami ot gniyrt m'I

  74. Where do you get India? by spun · · Score: 1

    I thought algebra was originally from Mesopotamia and Egypt. I never heard the India theory until reading this story today, you are the second person to mention it. Where did you get this idea from?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Where do you get India? by vakibs · · Score: 1

      Dude.. please study the history of ancient mathematics and the list of contributions from India.

    2. Re:Where do you get India? by spun · · Score: 1

      Dude, did I say anything about mathematics in general? I said algebra was originally developed in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Care to refute that, or were you just assuming that I was disrespecting India's contribution to mathematics because I had never heard of them inventing algebra? Because the link you give does not back up the claim that algebra started in India.

      India has made plenty of contributions to math, science, art, music and world culture in general. There is no need to claim they invented something they did not.

      Did I mention that I think Indian food is delicious and Indian people are generally quite attractive? I'm not prejudiced against India or the Indian people, I promise. I just don't think they invented algebra.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Where do you get India? by vakibs · · Score: 1

      Al-Khwarizmi (780 AD) who compiled the first major texts of algebra (and from whose name the world algorithm comes from) had a lookup of the work of the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta of 590 AD. The later guy wrote the text which explains how to solve quadratic equations, apart from several other things. The word "algebra" was created during renaissance time to refer to the work of Al-khwarizmi which got translated into Latin etc.

    4. Re:Where do you get India? by spun · · Score: 1
      Algebra was invented centuries earlier. From the wikipedia page on the history of algebra:

      The origins of algebra can be traced to the ancient Babylonians,[3] who developed an advanced arithmetical system with which they were able to do calculations in an algebraic fashion. With the use of this system they were able to apply formulas and calculate solutions for unknown values for a class of problems typically solved today by using linear equations, quadratic equations, and indeterminate linear equations.


      But hey, it's wikipedia, it could be wrong.
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  75. Re:And Japanese Pilots Are Short Sighted. So There by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    Apart from the Arabic language, the Arabs had absolutely nothing before Mohammad
    The desert Arabs had sand and camels.

    But the coastal Arabs had such an enviable setup the Romans called it "Happy Arabia."
  76. translation sources by free+space · · Score: 1

    By the way, I got the translation to the sura's mentioned from here

    It's worth noting that a translation isn't equivalent to the original Quran (considered to be Allah's literal words), but rather an interpretation that has been translated, and thus a translation may not be 100% accurate.

  77. Prior Art Is by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    This appears to be a case where Prior Art really is Prior Art. How can you copyright something that's already 500+ years old?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Prior Art Is by feranick · · Score: 1

      Luckily copyright laws do not apply to science.

  78. There is a reason by feranick · · Score: 1

    You take the tiles and you randomly try to tile your space, and I garantee you (actually you can demonstrate it) that you can't cover all the space, you will have blanks. There are specific "combining rules" to be followed to be able to form those nice and ordered patterns. Having a pretty geometry has nothing to do with it.

  79. It's a good thing on /. by lxt518052 · · Score: 1
    that an insult-throwing coward like you dares only to post in anonymity, though it's all too obvious to anyone who reads careful enough who posted it.

    Read my post carefully, what I said was in fact that human nature was not very different from country to country, religion to religion. I did not attack or praise either religion. So stop using your bias to interpret my intelligence.

    Post #18120990 quoted some bad law in contemporary Saudi Arabia in support of the poster's speculation about the converted ancient architect's intention, with which he/she would implie Christians' superiority over Muslims. Reading the post in context, I don't think I've been unfair on this. Note post #18120500 was by the same poster and expressed such a view quite explicitly.

    You know what, I think you just said enough about yourself in your post. Haha!

    --
    People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
  80. If it walks like a duck by dhc · · Score: 1

    Arabs invented the current numeric system we all use How hard would it be to believe they also understood mathamatics? If you were told that Aristotle had invented a never repeating pattern and made a building roof out of it no big deal but if Muslims or Arabs, well .... it has to be an accident. Arabs over the ages have given the world numerous concepts and technologies Check it out if you care http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=247 On a side note, the Quran (The Muslims bible) Has accurately described the early development of the fetus The Speed of light and many many more http://www.speed-light.info/ Then again, maybe the Quran was written by aliens.

  81. Re:Penrose was a the CO-discoverer of aperiodic ti by monopole · · Score: 1

    The curious thing about Amman was how poorly he dealt with life. A man of his genius should not have ended up at the post office.
    Yeah, that would be like ending up a patent clerk.

  82. The perfect example: the Fibonacci sequence by feranick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People say that it's a coincidence. What Lu and Steinhardt are demonstrating is deep knowledge of advanced math. The best example of quasiperiodic tiling (as they are called), is the Fibonacci sequence. To build it you need to differnet tiles (say a long segment "L" and a short segment "S") and two combining rules:

    1. at every S you change it with a L
    2. at every L you change it with LS

    so you build the different generations of the sequence as follow:

    S
    LS
    LSL
    LSLLS
    LSLLSLSL
    LSLLSLSLLSLLS
    LSLLSLSLLSLLSLSLLSLSL
    etc...

    You can go at infinity with this. You won't find periodicity or a pattern that repeat itself. Now to the point: does this means that you take the two segments and you put them together randomly you get the F. sequence? No, by any chance. The rules are simple (and the Fibonacci sequence is old (~1200), so I would not be surprised if the Islamic mathematicians were aware of it, so they "ported" it in 2D (the Penrose tiling is the 2D version of the F. sequence).

    By the way the story goes even back in time further: the ratio between the number of L and S for a significantly large sequence, is tau, the golden mean (again the same is true for the Penrose tiling). The golden mean was a key number (sqrt5+1)/2~1.6... in the greek world, where it was used as a proportion standard to build building and temples. It's also a key element in fractal growth, in key dimensions of our body, etc.

    So the Islamic artists (scientists?) of the time were a bit like today's scientists. they gathered previous studies and assembled together using some new insights.

    Why don't give them credits for it, instead of stupidly saying: "well they just got lucky?".

    1. Re:The perfect example: the Fibonacci sequence by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      Why don't give them credits for it, instead of stupidly saying: "well they just got lucky?".

      Because one of the ways people have adapted to dealing with their lack of control over their environment is by telling ourselves we get better at understanding and influencing it over time. Some of us do actually get better, some of us don't, but almost all of us *believe* we do. We tend to extend this belief to our cultures and humanity as a whole. It's not only an ego boost to think we're smarter than those silly people who lived centuries ago, but a prop against the inherent insecurity of existence.

      We are, of course, wrong (as you know). Humans fall and advance over time, but the ability to think about the world is still limited to what a human brain can consider, although we do use better tools to give us the results of complex data. I wish Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man was mandatory reading in high school; certainly every science major should read it.

      P.S. Thanks for the Fibonacci description. I was going to put an NKS example, but this works perfectly to express how simple rules gets complex in no time :-)

    2. Re:The perfect example: the Fibonacci sequence by feranick · · Score: 1

      There are several forms to describe the fibonacci sequence. I find this to be the most intuitive. But then again, people add complexity to things that are generally simple.

    3. Re:The perfect example: the Fibonacci sequence by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      All too true :-)

  83. I wouldn't be so sure. by feranick · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can use brute force to form pseudo quasiperiodic tilings. However they are not really quasiperiodic, they are "approximants". So if are patient enough you can get to a point where you have a large pattern, but not necessarily being quasiperiodic. So to a degree of trial and error the Islamic artists must have developed a degree of knowledge which you seem to underestimate. point in case: the Fibonacci sequence and the golden mean. Simple mathematical rules at the base, not impossible to grasp with the arabic knowledge of math of the time. The 2D mapping may just have been their "next step". There have been long speculation of the fact that Islamic art was for long considered just a coincidence. The article here present the prove that this may indeed be not true. Disclaimer: I (not my wife) did my PhD in quasicrystal tiling.

    1. Re:I wouldn't be so sure. by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      I've done some more reading since my last post, and there actually is evidence that they understood some of the math behind the properly quasiperiodic tilings -- which I see some of your other posts mention. Yay Lu and Steinhardt!

  84. Yeah, sure. Count those Arabic Nobel prizes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll only need one hand.

  85. Complete Rabelais Citation by kurthr · · Score: 1

    The Rabelais footnote is a really interesting example of culture.
    Could you provide a more complete citation?

  86. Calculations are really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    early glide path calculations for crashing a jet into a tower...

    1. Re:Calculations are really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

  87. Entire world viewed... by BrianPan · · Score: 1

    ...through modern western lens.

    News at 11.

  88. They will have to deal with us first. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Since Mexicans are reclaming what used to be ours first.

    The native population can send their representatives can negotiate with us one the US is an hispanic country (not that they will be very lucky, they should look at native people in Mexico itself for a clue about how bad they could be treated).

    And although you jest, the only fair thing to do would to give to those people at least part of their *good* land back as a very small token of compensation.

    But as your attitude points out, the legitimization of forceful removal of entire populations by force is a human trait that we may never manage to extirpate from our humanity.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  89. Islamic star patterns in absolute geometry by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1
    I remember a few years ago having seen a paper in ACM Transaction on Graphics about procedurally generating islamic tile patterns. Here's an accessible version: Islamic star patterns in absolute geometry, Craig S. Kaplan and David H. Salesin.

    Figure 17 is particularly interesting.

  90. Re:Penrose was a the CO-discoverer of aperiodic ti by steelfood · · Score: 1

    Not everyone wants fame and glory. Some people are content to live their lives out simply and in relative obscurity, doing menial jobs, without the headache of building and maintaining a reputation, only assisting when asked but rarely otherwise.

    Bruce Lee once touched hands with a waiter at a restaurant (friendly, I suppose, though I doubt anyone will ever know for sure). Afterwards, he lamented that there are many unknown kung fu masters out there waiting on tables.

    I see the same thing here.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  91. Hey white liberals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What say you on this guy's post? How long can you cling to your "they are just here to jobs Americans won't do" mantra?

    "They will have to deal with us first.

    Since Mexicans are reclaming what used to be ours first.

    The native population can send their representatives can negotiate with us one the US is an hispanic country"

  92. Obl. Nihilist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares?

  93. The Golden Age is a myth by sita · · Score: 1

    During those 8 centuries Moors and Christian and Jew people lived together. They had their spaces, but also had interaction, trade, ... . Christian were not obligated to convert to Islam, etc. After Christian re-conquest Moors and Jew were ejected from the territory (or obligated to convert to Christianism- nevertheless I'm not sure they had the same rights than Christians after doing that)

    I'm sorry to tell you that Christians and Jews were indeed forced to convert to Islam (or die or go into exile). Now, Moorish Spain was not one state, so conditions varied over time, and at times conditions were quite liveable (although Christians and Jews did have to pay special taxes, wear distinctive clothes etc). But tolerant, the Moors were not. I could list events of forced conversions and expulsions by the Moors against Jews and Christians, but you would do better actually reading some history books. Yes, really. (But consider: Where was Maimonides born? When and why did he leave that city? Just to put a human face to historical events.)

    The golden age of Al-Andalus is a European 19th century orientalism fantasy. It became popular with West European Jews who wanted to paint a contrast to the intolerant European society of the day. But it is nevertheless a fantasy. The Jewish nostalgia for Al-Andalus is of course the large cultural heritage in terms of philosophy, science and literature that was produced in Spain. This has little to do with any tolerance on the part of the Moors though, and more todo with the fact that 80% of the world Jewry lived in Spain at the time. After the dispersion of the Spanish Jewry it would take three hundred years until a similar center of Jewish learning (and demography) arised.

  94. Excellent Commercial for Islamofascism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grovel before an imaginary dictator in the sky five times a day!

    Oppress "your" women, make them dress like Darth Vader, walk 10 paces behind you, and stone them to death for "immorality."

    Fast pointlessly for a month a year!

    Amputate the limbs of suspected thieves with no anasthetic and unsterilized tools!

    Blow up innocent infidels in the name of god!

    Come to Mecca and be trampled to death in a stampede!

    Abstain from alcohol and pork but cultivate opium poppies to sell to the junkie infidel!

    Call Jews pigs and deny the Holocaust!

    Call for Israel to be wiped from the face of Allah's earth (why he can't do it himself is another matter)...

    ...and you too can be very, very good at geometry!!!

    1. Re:Excellent Commercial for Islamofascism! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Good god, I need to populize the term "Christofascism" and get people to realize what pricks your type of people are. You know Jesus fasted for a month too, right?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Excellent Commercial for Islamofascism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an athiest. Jesus was a work of fiction too. It's 2007.

  95. Uhhhh I saw repeating patterns by RalphTheWonderLlama · · Score: 1

    It sure looks like it repeats to me. I saw it!

    --
    simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
  96. Penrose Tile Trademark by Goshzilla · · Score: 1

    Apparently the Penrose tile has a trademark which prevented a generic company from printing the pattern on toilet tissue. I suppose that since the photograph of arabic medieval art looks spot on to the penrose trademark, is this an example of "prior art" and thus Penrose tile can't make a valid claim of discovery?

  97. Allah Will Kick Your Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allah and Muhamed (PBUH) is Wise and Merciful enough to give subtle clues that only he Enlightened can comprehend. Dirty Infidel Pig Scum cannot. Hence 9/11 and Penrose took hundred mores of years to figure tiles. Pray or I blow you infidel pig-brain out. You let woman face in public.

  98. 4 commandments are, 6 aren't. by billstewart · · Score: 1
    If you break up the paragraphs where the Protestants and Jews break them up, there are four commandments dealing with Gods (Don't worship other gods, don't make statues of idols, don't use God's name in vain, take Saturdays off), and six dealing with your relationships with other people (honor your parents, don't kill, don't cheat on your spouse, don't steal, don't lie about your neighbors, don't be greedy about your neighbor's stuff.)


    The Catholics like to make statues of various figures, so they split up the paragraphs so that the "graven images" bit doesn't get its own number, and coveting your neighbor's wife and you're neighbors other stuff get numbered separately. So for them it's three commandments about Gods and seven about dealing with other people.


    By the way, if you look at how the Bush Administration's doing with the 10 commandments, they're not doing very well. Putting up statues of the 10 commandments at courthouses violates the graven-images bit, using religion as a justification for rabid right-wing politics violates #3, lying about weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for a war gets #6 and #9, having a war because you want to steal peoples' oil pretty much covers #8 and #10, and Republican politicians seem to get caught cheating on their wives about as much as Democrats do, even if they don't get impeached about it. But I guess they sometimes take Sunday off, except down at Guantanamo.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  99. Re:Penrose was a the CO-discoverer of aperiodic ti by Plutonite · · Score: 1

    Do you know what drove him? Why did he do this. Why did he drop out of everything. More importantly, why did he find this branch of mathematics to be fascinating? Was there any philosophy behind it?

    Please tell us what you know about him personally, it is infuriating that little or nothing is known of such people. It is also a matter that affects me personally, so your reply is much appreciated...

  100. The Harvard Gazette, Wikipedia, and common sense by CurtMonash · · Score: 1

    The Harvard Gazette article is original, I think, rather than just being a regurgitation of Reuters and/or New Scientist.

    The core claim seems to be that the ancient Moslems discovered a set of patterns that interlocked in a very practical way.

    Now let's go to Wikipedia. Scroll down and look at the how-to pictures, and note the references to the Golden Mean. I don't see anything there that couldn't have been discovered by the Greeks or their successors.

    Finally, let's go to common sense. I don't know the history of how Penrose discovered these tilings, but two main avenues come to mind:

    1. Dumb luck/trial and error/general geometric insight.
    2. Symmetry groups (the analysis of rotational symmetries via the abstract algebra concept of "groups", something any computer science graduate is somewhat familiar with).

    Well, if it's #1, then of course somebody ancient could have done it too. And if it's #2 -- well, a lot of ruler/compass constructions were done by the ancients, long before Galois proved they were better analyzed via group theory.

    So yes -- it's easy to imagine, given the evidence, that somebody figured this out 500-1,000 years ago. True, it's almost impossible to imagine that they understood it in the same way that Penrose did -- but there's a whole lot of physical evidence that, at some level, they understood it just fine.

    --
    To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
  101. Define understand. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Did they know at least the basic equations behind it and that said equations never repeated, or at least not within the amount they could calculate? Probably. Did they know WHY the equations behaved that way or even related to real world crystals? Probably not.

  102. Re:Penrose was a the CO-discoverer of aperiodic ti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've come to the right place. Over 70 % of the slashdot demographic is composed of unappreciated geniuses. Just post the question and one of us will provide a brilliant answer that will be sadly misunderstood and languish in obscurity. Besides, we like sorting mail.

  103. Re:Not Surprising [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese translation for "code" is "ma".
    The term "luan ma" is normally used to refer to text displayed in a wrong encoding (so the viewer will see a bunch of weird characters).