Besides, if a trick works, but it isn't understood why it works, then the users of it lose the 'ingenious' tag, methinks.
The fact that we think it is just a trick does not mean the Ethiopians did not understand it.
Given that they speak of "evil numbers", I think it is reasonable to assume that the Shamans did not understand how the algorithm works. The inventor may have, but it seems likely that the users did not.
Re:Ethiopian Binary Math
by fnordfnordfnord on Sunday October 06, 2013 @10:01AM
(#6504107)
>Given that they speak of "evil numbers", I think it is reasonable to assume that the Shamans did not understand how the algorithm works.
Or maybe that the language translation is imprecise.
Wolfram has a definition of "evil numbers" here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EvilNumber.html which include "beastly evil numbers".
Also there are "apocalypse numbers" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ApocalypseNumber.html , "beast numbers" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BeastNumber.html , "leviathan numbers" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeviathanNumber.html , and "legion's numbers" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LegionsNumbers.html among others.
While it's a nice trick, it's a circuitous route to get to the answer, and requires considerably more stones than the number you're trying to count to. Simply laying out X stones per Y items and counting them uses no methods that the shaman's system doesn't already use, requires less stones, and doesn't require any 'good' or 'evil' silliness.
Besides, if a trick works, but it isn't understood why it works, then the users of it lose the 'ingenious' tag, methinks.