User talk:Rktect/

Rktect 8/5/05 This is a work in progress. Believe it or not it takes time

just to format a table let alone fill it in

user Egil who has recently finished a massive change to the format

of ancient weights and measures is apparently in such a hurry to delete it

before I can finish it that I have to question his motives

Let me put this as a question? What's wrong with letting me finish it

and just putting your comments on the discussion page

After I get the units in I will add their names and some discussion of

how they developed and for what purpose. I can also add dates, sources

pictures of surviving rulers and rods and considerable amounts of

discussion relative to their use by architects as cannons of proportion

going back to the time of the Egyptian inscription grids.

This is an attempt to discuss standards of measure derived from

the sides and areas of fields as they developed from Mesopotamian iku to

Egyptian st3t to Greek stadions and aroura to Roman arpents and actura to English yerds and :hides and Europian knights fees.

user Egil comment connections between Roman and British Miles are well documented

The British nautical mile may have been due to a want of having a sea mile in the same order of magnitude as their land mile? The relationship between the Roman and British land miles are, as you note, well documented. -- Egil 08:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paul Martin close relationships

Only this reflection now: Isn't it logical, that cultures with close relationships, commercial and cultural, wouldn't could say: "Oh, I know: One Roman pound is exactly 3/4 of a Greek mine or 600 Greek feet equal 625 Roman feet." And that since the beginning of civilisation in the "crescent fertile" about 8000 years ago?
Paul Martin 23:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

rktect 7/24/05 I know of no reason why they couldn't say that and

can point you to where the Roman Surveyor Hygenius Gromenicus did say that

• [1]

There are "connections" of various sorts all throughout history, some strong, some weak, some speculative. In particular, names were often borrowed for similar-sized units, and various attempts at reconciling different systems of measurements, often with adjustments of size in one or both systems, have taken place throughout history. ... Gene Nygaard 00:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

rktect 7/24/05

The transferences are not unadulterated but they are tracable

the metrological culture is not achieved with decimal SI. But that's an other subject.)

rktect 7/24/05 its ironic in a way because the oldest system I know of

has a hand of 100 mm and an ordinary cubit of 500 mm

Otherwise you are right, "names were often borrowed". This, because a pace is a pace (generally 5 feet), a foot is a foot (± 30 cm), a span is a span (2/3 foot) and the digit has always been 1/16 foot (< 2 cm), like the inch is 1/12 foot. Only the ell has two meanings: the "natural ell" of 3/2 foot and the the meaning of a more practical "trade cubit" (for cords, ropes, drapery etc.) The values of the trade ells changed with their different definitions: Sometimes simply two feet, sometimes: from the middle of human body to the extremity of the hand (3 feet), sometimes even 4 feet (from the haunch to the fingers of opposite side with outstretched arm). The Egyptian Cubit measured 1.75 feet or 28 digits.

But not only the names of the units were borrowed. Like we can see (Egyptians borrowing the Nippur Cubit), also the values of units are generally taken over by ancient neighbour civilisation. But, often they created their own systems of subdivisions. Centuries later, one of these subdivision-units was not seldom considered to be a main unit and overtaken by others, who still created an other system of subdivisions, and so on.

rktect 7/24/05

The problem is that they would borrow a unit, rename it,

revise the subdivisions and just keep the value so to track those changes

can take more research than most people want to invest

In the opposite to the European Middle-Ages, science was highly developped in Antiquity (See Eratosthenes, Heron and many others before) and international relationships were omnipresent. Ancient metrological scientists were preeminent. What gives you the arrogance to presume that they worked with corrupted standards?
Later more. What do you say thereto?   So long Gene,  Paul Martin 12:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard impossibly precise numbers =

a liberal sprinkling of "exactly" and impossibly precise numbers. Gene Nygaard 17:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the topo: Professor Dr. Rolf C.A. Rottländer of the University of Tübingen measured hundreds of real existing ancient archeological scales, regrouping this with the architectural values (which can still be measured) of ancient monuments, stades etc. He found values for the ancient measures with a scientific coefficent of faith less than 0.2 percent. The conventional, rounded values now used in historical metrology are within this coefficient of faith. The recent reseaches of Professor Dr.-ing Dieter Lelgemann, Director of the Berlin Geodesic Institut, accomplished with Eberhard Knobloch, Professor of History of Science and Technology at the Technical University of Berlin and Vicepresident of the French Académie Internationale d’Histoire des Sciences confirme – inter alia – the now established fact, that all the ancient measure systems are related !

Paul Martin Gene Nygaard exchange

The colleagues will be delighted to be vilified as "crackpots" by Mister Gene Nygaard (lol thrice).

Paul Martin 21:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Note that 0.2% cannot give you 6 or more significant digits. Gene Nygaard 22:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I count four digits.  52.92 centimetres (0.2%, admittedly :  ≤ 0.11cm).  But if you prefer, you can consider that the conventional foot of Carthage is defined equal (529.2 mm × 5/9 =) 294 mm. Three digits. 0.2% of 294 mm = 0.588 mm. That you satisfy?

(You seem to cleave excessively to the number of decimal digits. This have generally its sens, admittedly. But, if you take, for example, a conventional value of 1/7 of an arbitrarily unit (six recurring digits!). This will not signify that your exactitude is less then 0.0007%. It's only a practical rounding.)
Paul Martin 23:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: Dazzled by your own ignorant arrogance as well as by your repeated impoliteness paired with your pseudo-scientific airs and graces, you don't even see: Like it is clearly indicated in the article (if you ever read it attentively), it's the matter of an defined conventional value. Defined values can have the number of significant digits they want, in the opposite to values obtained by experiences or measurements. This you seem to ignore.

rktect 7/24/05

The defined value is only as good as the standard that defines it

Thus the value 294 mm ± 0.17% (=0.4998 mm) defines also the values 529.2 mm, 370.44 mm, 518.616 mm as like the values 484.0416 mm for the Salamis Cubit (14/15 of Nippur Cubit) and the Pergamon Cubit of 520.93125 mm (15/16 of Babylonian Cubit = 555.66 mm, i.e. 518.616 × 15/14) and dozens of well-known (but untasted by you) other ancient measures.

A definition can't be right or false, only be adequate or not to attain the aim, wherefore it has been formulate. Beyond a definition can be largely accepted or not. Many eminent scientists working in historical metrology do it, like me I do. But, helas!, that's not the case for Mr G.Nygaard.

Perhaps you are high-school student in science, but with your dismissive narrow-mindedness, unable to hold an argued, fair and respectful discussion, I'm not very optimistic for your scientific future.

Note that 294 mm to the nearest millimeter is not a "defined value".

No matter how precise your conversion factor is, using it cannot give you one iota more precision in your result than you had to start with. After using the conversion factor, you must round appropriately. Gene Nygaard 17:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I insist: All these values (294 as 518.616 like 529.2 and 296.352 mm) are defined values. The first Nippur Cubit found by archaeological excavations, now in a museum of Istanbul, has a measured length of 518.9 mm, 0.1% more than the value found by statistical methods [[2]] and 0.05% more that the defined value. If Rottländer gives however 294.00 for the Carthaginian foot and not 293.9 like Lelgemann, it's because Röttländer distinguish a real and a corrected Gudea foot, whereas Lelgemann [[3]] identifies directly the Pous Italikos (= 25/28 of Roman foot) to the Gudea foot. This one is in the Louvre Museum in Paris and measures 264.6 mm (or 264.55 mm like Lelgemann prefers).

The great advantage of the defined value of 518 616 mm exactly one for the Nippur Ell, that's 2³ × 3³ × 7⁴ micrometers. A defined value, a chosen value, a pitched value, but a good value. Therefore, this value is now preferred in the historical metrology. It gives generally "round" values for nearly all other units (except for the Arabic systems, where it is a very simply recurring decimal fraction). Easy, practical, without risk for error by not clearly documented decimal rounding, retaken again as new input values. Admittedly: Not "one iota more precise" than other values, but more practical. After calculations you can round appropriately as it has been done in the Roman measures table in the article (296.352 to 296.4 mm). But you don't "must". At least if it is clearly indicate that's the matter of defined values.

Rottländer specified in his article. In historical metrology, you have to give the values for the ancient digit-measures with at least four significant decimal digits. Because, if not, the values for the leagues are completely corrupted. This not means, he wrote, that ancient cultures could determinate measures in the magnitude of micrometers.

Rounding appropriately, it's obvious with measured values, not with defined values. Even if, I repeat me: Admittedly, you don't gain in precision, but only in practicability.

comment by user Egil Ole Romer

Egil 13:49 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about Goethe, but

Ole Rømer was a big player in the 4-minute geographical mile.

All Cubits Great & Ordinary

 *My editor asks
 *Is one the ordinary cubit à 30 shusi (500 mm)
 *and one the great cubit à 30 uban (600 mm)
 * short answer: No.

 *Both were split into 15 digits (shusi not uban) and hands qat 
 *The Gudea rule is divided into two parts of 15 pieces each, with two ends 
 that extend beyond the division marks. Until the early 20th century the ends 
 were erroneously counted as digits.

7/19/05 rktect (pardon: I thought ID and date was kept on the history page)

 I am posting most of my material to this page in an 
 attempt to ask and answer. Scroll up, pick a measure 
 you disagree with copy it down here and tell me why. 

 As soon as I can I will respond with a cite and as much 
 backup as possible. 

 I don't like to see people making statements that have   
 no leg to stand on. If you want to edit something I wrote 
 by inserting a paragraph that makes it sound like I want  
 to base the history of measures on unproven assumptions  
 and speculations, I would prefer that you do bring it  
 here for discussion first.

Jimp, Crissov and pyramids

Rktect,

ID and date is kept on the history page, yes. However, it's

helpful to include it here as well so that readers don't have to

sift through these history pages just to tell who's writing what.

Perhaps you're perfectly right about Crissov's references to the

pyramids and irrational numbers. Perhaps this does remain to be

proven and perhaps it is uncited conjecture. There seems to be

quite a bit of this flying about on this article (most of which

coming not from Crissov).

I have noticed, however, that gone are claims that the same system

has been used throughout history. Gone also are claims that they

can all be traced back to a single system. Yes, I'd like to see

some discussion, citation and/or evidence before such claims reappear.

Discussion, it seems you agree, is the best way to resolve the dispute.

Edit wars are just a waste of time for both/all parties. Discussion,

however, is a two-way street. It's best not to expect that others

discuss their edits with you whilst you make no effort to yours with them.

"If you want to edit something I wrote ..." you write "... that makes it

sound like I want to ..." This comment has intrigued me to no end.

Edits to this page are not about making you sound like anything.

It's not as if you are credited as the author.

Jimp 20Jul05

I agree with the last. rktect 7/19/05, but would support by cite and by identity proof, that the same system has been used throughout history and traced back to a sngle system.

I don't have a lot of problems with pyramids as evidence for Egyptian standards of measure as long as you include ordinary buildings, inscription grids, all known rulers and rods, fields, nileometers, the volume of h3kts, generally do your homework.

Jimp irrational numbers

Irrational numbers are irrational, using measures to make them rational along with the classic problems of greek antiquity would be interesting to discuss.

Irrational numbers are irrational. You can't make them rational by using measures.

Not even a god could make an irrational number rational.

Jimp 20Jul05

One way to rationalize an irrational number is to construct a geometric ratio using two units related as the sides of a square to its diagonal or the diameter of a circle to its circumference. Its a somewhat subtle, very Egyptian concept where numbers are not thought of as iterations but rather as individuals as in the seked or ratio of unit rise to unit run so also foot to remen or remen to cubit. ie the ratio is 1x:1y

Look, I can see where you're coming from with this "rationalising

the irrational" but, you surely realise, it's a play on words. In

the mathematical sense of the word there is no rationalising

irrational numbers: a number is either rational or irrational.

There is, of course, the other sense of "rationalise" meaning "to

make sense of". Yes, it would be interesting to look at how

people used measures to do this.

One good example might be the slide rule. There are a lot of variations

on it but essentially its a spread sheet, it allows you to set 1x:1y

where x and y can be any two formulas. When you combine that with the Egyptians

use of unit fractions you have continued fractions, fluxions, anything you like.

Another good example would be the tables on a framing square

Jimp 23Jul05

Jimp, Original research?

This is all very interesting, Rktect, your identity proofs, your

theses, your spreadsheets and such. However, it does sound a

little like original research. Is it not?

Rktect 07/29/05 I looked at the Wikipedia definition of original research

It says that if you are posting or citing previously published material

that isn't copywrited or that you have permission to use that's fine

My cites are to previously published non copywrited material

Here is another independant scholar saying essentially the same thing

Clandonia

If it is, posting it

here, I'm afraid, would be against Wikipedia's policy.

Jimp 23Jul05

Jimp The Imperial System

QED? I think not. Here's disproof for you. The Imperial system

and the U.S. system are different.

Not really, they are the same system with some disagreement

about how to define an accurate standard. The argument dates back

first to Elizabeth and some shrewd land speculators that had her ear,

and then to Thomas Jefferson and his redefinition of the wine gallon.

["http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/usmetric.html wine gallon]

They've both been used.

They have both been abused by people who didn't know

what they were doing, to put it bluntly

Different systems have been used in history. QED. Oh, yeah,

the metric system is not even related to either and is the most

used system today and has been for several decades.

Jimp 23Jul05

• I would replace it with a more accurate update

that looks at the Roman units of area in comparison with equivalents of its peers as well as our modern equivalents and gives some sources.

• I don't think you get the same British Imperial system

equivancy if you only look at its metric system value and so while you may be telling the truth you are not telling the whole truth.