• Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    ·
    4 months ago

    You’re telling me that Pythagoras Theorem are invented by none other than John Theorem? You want me to believe that?

  • Geobloke@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s even better when you break the name down kwarizam is where he’s from and Muhammad is a common first name. It’s like saying Johnny English (or may be Jean Francois) invented calculus in 10-diggity-dig

  • NigelFrobisher
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The only correct answer to “name every Algorithm”.

  • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    literally completely accurate

    I’m consistently saddened by the changing state of the English language 😔

    • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Do you mean that your sadness levels are consistent among all times you’re exposed to bad examples of this linguistic change?

      Should it not be “constantly saddened”, meaning that sadness is caused often upon you when seeing such examples?

      If this is the case, I can relate to that. Or should I say… it do be like that sometimes

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I might be wrong, but since “saddened” would express a change towards more sadness, “consistently saddened” would mean I get sad (or more sad?) every time I see that kind of thing. However, my intention is to say more that the saddening is consistent - every time I see something happens, consistently. I’m not permanently sad, but the way the language is changing is usually making me sad.

        I feel like “constantly” might not be appropriate here, but again, I might just not know English well enough myself. To me, constantly would mean unchangingly, meaning I never stop being saddened. In this context, I feel like that means my mood is continuously descending - but instead those are isolated instances of temporary saddening of varying intensity.

        Of course, it’s just a lighthearted comment on a meme, but I’d be happy to learn if my understanding is wrong! And, honestly, I don’t mind this kind of slang and internet speak, but it annoys me to see “literally” lose its meaning and gain the actual opposite meaning, that kind of thing.

    • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      When I was a little child I was sad German isn’t the common language (“how great would it be if everyone in the world knew this beautiful language!”). While growing up I completely shifted towards being glad it isn’t German, I wouldn’t want that to happen to my language.

  • Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I always thought that the guy who invented the Internet created the first one. That’s why they’re called Al Gore-isms, no?

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The Persians, Muslims, Arabs kept knowledge and science that would have been lost during the dark ages.

      If it wasn’t for their continued work in maths and sciences centuries would.have been lost / wasted.

      • SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        4 months ago

        Lost because they murdered and destroyed the very civilization that created said knowledge. So very nice of them.

        • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          because they murdered and destroyed the very civilization that created said knowledge

          What are you talking about?

          Are you blaming the collapse of the Roman Empire and the ensuing Dark Ages on Muslims? (A religion that didn’t even exist yet at the start of the Dark Ages.)

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          4 months ago

          Downvotes show that people here don’t know that even in 9th century a large part of the ME’s population was Christian dhimmis. Coptic, Assyrian, Armenian, Nestorian. “Dhimmi” means they couldn’t bear arms and had to pay “protection tax”, and also a “Muslim robbing a dhimmi” situation was usually resolved in favor of the Muslim.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Which is vastly different from being murdered and having their civilizations destroyed, like for instance the Crusaders did.

            The Crusaders also did not stop from slaughtering orthodox Christians either.

            When looking at the details, Persian, Arab and Mauretanian rules over people of other religions were much more tolerant and civilized than comparable European ruling situations. I guess the saddest example of these are the Spanish Jews, who flourished under the “Moors” and got genocided and ethnically cleansed by the Catholics, after they were no longer dhimmis under Muslim rule.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              Are you high or something?

              Which is vastly different from being murdered and having their civilizations destroyed, like for instance the Crusaders did.

              The Crusaders didn’t do a fraction of what Muslims did during their actual initial conquest.

              When looking at the details, Persian, Arab and Mauretanian rules over people of other religions were much more tolerant and civilized than comparable European ruling situations. I guess the saddest example of these are the Spanish Jews, who flourished under the “Moors” and got genocided and ethnically cleansed by the Catholics, after they were no longer dhimmis under Muslim rule.

              I think you should go and learn the meaning of the word “firman” in the Middle-East.

              Anyway - I may agree about late Muslim rule in Spain specifically and some periods of Arab rule in Armenia, Mesopotamia and Egypt.

              In Iran Zoroastrians were to be exterminated, they wouldn’t get that sweet dhimmi status. Which may be one of the reasons it became largely Christian after the conquest and then largely Shia.

              • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                The Crusaders didn’t do a fraction of what Muslims did during their actual initial conquest.

                The Crusaders killed every man, woman, and child in Jerusalem until the streets were flowing with blood.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Go read something on

                  what Muslims did during their actual initial conquest

                  . This was casual for them. The difference is, though, that Crusaders didn’t intentionally destroy books and art.

    • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Built off it, rather than copied it. That’s par for the course in most science.

        • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          True but then again that’s the point: he stole some fame as a scientist. Or at least as an “inventor”.

          Great businessmen always steal, they don’t have the ethics to do actual work

    • Contravariant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean Fibonacci did more or less the same thing to his work a few centuries later, so fair play I guess.

  • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wait till you learn about Al-Gebra (no, really that’s not made up either). Also the famous Catherine Calculus and Sir Georgometry.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      4 months ago

      From this dude’s wiki page:

      His popularizing treatise on algebra, compiled between 813–33 as Al-Jabr (The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing), […] The English term algebra comes from the short-hand title of his aforementioned treatise (الجبر Al-Jabr, transl. “completion” or “rejoining”).