I’m not trying to be a stick in the mud, or disrespectful to the culture of Vanuatu, but are discoveries like these really enough to “topple assumptions about mathematics” or “question their universality”?
I mean, of course lots of things that humans (or animals) do can be represented mathematically. Basket weaving, prowling for prey or whatnot. That does not mean they are practicing mathematics. To my understanding, practicing mathematics means, as one of its most central tenets, to recognize patterns and rules in whatever system, abstract them and use them in ways that are not necessarily bound to the original system.
E.g. counting sheep, realizing you can also use numbers without sheep, and count rows of coconuts and multiplying them by columns of coconuts so you get a total.
But primitive societies tend to use patterns just to reach a goal, like weave a basket or draw something and leave it at that, right?
If they had counted lunar cycles in their drawings and then counted the connections or crossings or whatever to deduce something new, like the timing of the next lunar eclipse, I would be impressed. (Hairbrained example, but you know what I mean)
But this… sure, it’s a nice and interesting cultural thing. But not mathematics. Right? Just counting sheep isn’t maths? Sure they’re discovering properties of their graphs, like these subcycles, but they don’t seem to be abstracting that knowledge.
Part of wikipedia’s definition of maths: "There is no general consensus among mathematicians about a common definition for their academic discipline.
Most mathematical activity involves the discovery of properties of abstract objects and the use of pure reason to prove them."
So is the discovery of these subcycles and other properties of the drawings enough to call it mathematics?
Sensationalized titles are everywhere these days. News outlets will write anything just to get clicks. Anytime a title asks a question, it’s safe to assume that the answer is ‘no’. Anytime a title claims that something may have disrupted an industry, chances are it didn’t. The more vague the headline, the less substance there is to an article. Everything is in the name of ad revenue.
I’m not trying to be a stick in the mud, or disrespectful to the culture of Vanuatu, but are discoveries like these really enough to “topple assumptions about mathematics” or “question their universality”?
I mean, of course lots of things that humans (or animals) do can be represented mathematically. Basket weaving, prowling for prey or whatnot. That does not mean they are practicing mathematics. To my understanding, practicing mathematics means, as one of its most central tenets, to recognize patterns and rules in whatever system, abstract them and use them in ways that are not necessarily bound to the original system.
E.g. counting sheep, realizing you can also use numbers without sheep, and count rows of coconuts and multiplying them by columns of coconuts so you get a total.
But primitive societies tend to use patterns just to reach a goal, like weave a basket or draw something and leave it at that, right?
If they had counted lunar cycles in their drawings and then counted the connections or crossings or whatever to deduce something new, like the timing of the next lunar eclipse, I would be impressed. (Hairbrained example, but you know what I mean)
But this… sure, it’s a nice and interesting cultural thing. But not mathematics. Right? Just counting sheep isn’t maths? Sure they’re discovering properties of their graphs, like these subcycles, but they don’t seem to be abstracting that knowledge.
Part of wikipedia’s definition of maths: "There is no general consensus among mathematicians about a common definition for their academic discipline.
Most mathematical activity involves the discovery of properties of abstract objects and the use of pure reason to prove them."
So is the discovery of these subcycles and other properties of the drawings enough to call it mathematics?
Sensationalized titles are everywhere these days. News outlets will write anything just to get clicks. Anytime a title asks a question, it’s safe to assume that the answer is ‘no’. Anytime a title claims that something may have disrupted an industry, chances are it didn’t. The more vague the headline, the less substance there is to an article. Everything is in the name of ad revenue.