Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!sdcc6!ir230
From: ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth in History
Message-ID: <5540@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 3 Dec 89 05:36:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 59


Leo Brotzman writes:
                        <a great many things including>

# The key phrase here is "at some point in history".  Man was counting for
# thousands of years before the numerals we use today became "standard".  There
# were many systems of lines, curves, and dots to describe quantities.  Each
# was sufficient to perform the job at hand.  The Roman numeral system is only
# useful for quantities numbering in the few thousands.  In Roman times, who
# needed to count farther than that?  Would it have been a good idea to freeze
# the standard at that point?

Leo raises many points, some of which must be addressed logically, some 
historically, and some subjectively. It is quite correct that, while Arabic 
numerals were first introduced to the west in the 12th century, Roman numerals 
were still in use well into the 18th century. To anyone interested in reading 
a well written account of the history of numeration, I recommend "Number the 
Language of Science" by Tobias Dantzig (Anchor Books).

Dantzig tells the story of a merchant in the 16th Century who desired the best 
possible commerical education for his son. He turned to a professor at a 
German university for advice -- and was told that if his son's mathematical
education only required addition and subtraction that he would be able to
get his education at a German university -- but that if he would need to know 
the arts of multiplication and division, he would have to go to study in Italy 
which was the only place that such advanced subjects were taught.

Dantzig points out that computations which any elementary school can now 
perform required, in those times, days worth of effort on the part of 
specialists. While this is sometimes taken as a proof of the growth in human 
intelligence, Dantzig is quick to point out that it is really the result of a 
change in numeration -- that the numeration system (i.e. Roman Numerals) in 
use during the 16th century was not able to support simple rules for 
multiplication and division. 

This is actually the subjective part of my reply:

1.  Do you really think that Forth represents the kind of advance
    over conventional languages that Arabic numerals represented 
    over Roman?
                           Yes

2.  Do you see any historical parallels?

       I can picture the proponents of Arabic numerals having annual
       conferences at Asilomar to argue over the shape of "3" while
       the rest of the world says "let's stick to Roman -- they're ugly
       but at least they're portable!"

3.  What happens in the long run for Forth?

       Good ideas don't die, they are just rediscovered (or reinvented)
       when the time is ripe (sometimes centuries later).
       
       
                                                  John J Wavrik 
             jjwavrik@ucsd.edu                    Dept of Math  C-012 
                                                  Univ of Calif - San Diego 
                                                  La Jolla, CA  92093