And I think you vastly overestimate the state of the corruption in the USSR in the late 70s and early 80s. There are lots of books that agree with me on this subject. The USSR faced vastly greater threats to its life during the 10s/20s and 40s than in the 80s and managed to survive just fine...
Yes, there were problems, but none of them should have lead to the death of the USSR. If it had survived WW2 and the famines, it should have survived the problems of the 80s. If they put another Brezhnev in place instead of Gorbachev and just let the corruption run rampant it would’ve still come...
The recovery years were 1945-1949 or so. The Soviets grew faster than the US for the rest of their existence basically. Or are you going to say that the recovery years are 1945-1985? Long ass time to recover from a war.
The only time they grew slower than the US was during Gorbachev's reign...
How? The USSR only collapsed due to Gorbachev basically giving away the economy to the black market proto-capitalists in the name of "reform".
I don't think you understand what the chart actually means.
The Tsarist regime held Russia's GDP level with the United States from 1885 until its fall...
Why would a Roman convert numbers? They would deal with LXV as LXV. Yes, it would take them a longer because the number itself is longer. But MM is easier to read than 1000. Would you say that Western Arabic was terrible for the French since they say 80 as quatre-vignts? So they have to convert...
Most of it is redundant. Truthfully we really only need 2, 3, 5, 7.
Obviously, but it’s easier with tally based systems like Roman numbers. Since you literally just write the number twice, or just half of the original symbols.
Yes, that’s the advantage to Hindu-Arabic. The saved writing...
Here's multiplication. I'll be back with division later.
12x6
XII* VI
X*V=L
I*V=V
I*V=V
X*I=X
I*I=I
I*I=I
LVVXII=LXXII
There is a times table to remember or reference. But it's vastly smaller than our 12x12 table that we make 3rd graders remember. A 7x7 table will be able to make all...
Ex. 32-18 in Roman. XXXII - XVIII.
Break up one of the Xs in to a VV.
XXVVII - XVIII
Break up one of the Vs into IIIII
XXVIIIIIII - XVIII
Cancel all shared numerals on left and right.
XIIII
Done.
Ex. 32 - 18 in Arabic.
2 is larger than 8, so now I have to borrow from the 3 in the tens...
First, IX is never used in actual arithmetic. None of the subtractives are. In fact there's not much evidence that they were ever actually used by Romans. Rather they were mostly used in the late Middle Ages.
And YES! VIIII - V = IIII is vastly easier than 9-5= 4.
Not quite, there are easy algorithms to add, subtract, multiply and divide numbers with Roman numerals. Addition is extremely simple because Roman numerals themselves are strings of addition. You just combine the numbers and collect up to the next numeral. Subtraction is an elimination process...
He didn't. He registered to vote in Wyoming. It was to avoid this issue in a tight race. If Cheney had stayed a "resident" of Texas, those 38 electors would not have been able to vote for him as Vice President. Cheney would've ended up with 239 electoral votes, and Lieberman with 266, and the VP...
Not true. The only restriction is during the election, and it's on the electors not on the candidate. So the electors from California could only vote for Nixon or Reagan, not both.
In the 1790s, the Vigenère cipher was considered unbreakable (a substitution cipher with 10 keys) and would be until Babbage cracked in in the mid-19th century. There was no need to invent a new method at the time. Let alone a method that's harder to implement and easier to crack given the...
It's just not feasible before universal computing. You'd have to invent basically the ASCII table, get everyone to agree to it. Plus you plainly state why the method would be impractical in your text. If exponents larger than 5 are impractical, then the whole system is. This would restrict the...