Do you know where the first link comes from? I can't tell if it's a parody or bullshit or actually about something. "the coin is a fake – “B.C.” and Arabic numerals did not exist at the time" seems to miss the much more obvious problem of why it says "BC" at all. And it seems bizarre whatever program they're using understands the question, let alone understands it a very specific percentage of the time. I'm hopeless at telling when AI/psychology stuff is meaningful :(
I read it as listing two distinct issues in a elliptic way; to paraphrase, ""BC" on an ancient coin is an absurdity. Even passing that over, Arabic numerals did not exist at the claimed date".
Oh, hm, yes, I think you're right. Not helped by the article lifting the explanation verbatim. I think I heard this joke aloud first, so it hadn't occurred to me that someone saying "a coin marked 54 BC" meant literally "54", but rather, "the number 54, represented in words, or roman numerals, or whatever was in currency[1] at the time."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-12-02 11:01 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
[1] pun :)