I did some further research and Pacioli is the only monk/mathematician who codified and formulated dual entry bookkeeping of debits and credits into two relational columns, which when compared to each other always must yield a Zero difference.
Before then there were two books listing income/assets and payments/expenses rather than a single ledger that performs the same function.
Pacioli invented modern standardized double-entry bookkeeping that is used by all international financial departments and institutions.
Invented?
Yeah sure,
and Eli Whitney “invented” the cotton gin
James Watt “invented” the steam engine
Thomas Edison “invented” the light bulb.
Oh let’s not for Henry Ford the “inventer” of the automobile and the assembly line.
My history book told me so.
So the use of two books disqualifies it as a double entry bookkeeping system.
Eh? Is that what you are saying?
I Connections is a science education television series created, written, and presented by science historian James Burke. The series was produced and directed by Mick Jackson of the BBC Science and Features Department and first aired in 1978 (UK) and 1979 (US). It took an interdisciplinary approach to the history of science and invention, and demonstrated how various discoveries, scientific achievements, and historical world events were built from one another successively in an interconnected way to bring about particular aspects of modern technology. The series was noted for Burke’s crisp and enthusiastic presentation (and dry humour), historical re-enactments, and intricate working models.
Actually, from what I gather, Whitney’s slave invented the cotton gin, but Whitney, being the owner of another human being, took credit for the invention.
Well there’s that. Still it’s not like it popped out of nowhere, and the slaves had the real need to gin cotton more efficiently, just to make their own day to day easier, never thinking about the future. Whitney, the Lord with time on his hands, was part of a long evolution, and he manage to see further and put it together a gin better than anyone had before and sold it better than anyone.
So he got his reward, but to credit him as “inventor” is a typically “Abrahamic” approach. That need for this sense of certitude, is more important than a holistic understanding of the interconnections and cascading complexities.
If you’ve never watched a James Burke, “Connections” show it’s worth it, even if it’s well dated. As far away as YouTube
“In 1906, several people got together and built the original gin,” says gin president David Harris. “As people passed away or got out of farming, they passed on their shares in the gin. It got pretty diluted; there were a lot of different owners.”
True, but to not acknowledge that a black person was behind it is to deny the contributions the black people have made. Keep in mind, black people, who were slaves at the time, built the White House.
Wow, just wow. So I suppose you don’t watch sci-fi because well heck, as far as we know there’s no way to travel at warp speed. Goodness gracious have some imagination.
No, that is not what I am saying. Anytime you list your income and expenses on the back of an envelope you have double entry bookkeeping. But it isn’t a real system.
Pacioli formalized it into a single page spreadsheet, that allows for all transactions to be recorded and revenue verified against expenditures
2 columns : Debit column on the left, Credit column on the right.
Bottom “totals” to be in balance at all times
The benefits are an instant accounting and creaton of a balance sheet, which shows the financial health of a business (or monastery).
When I was bookkeeper for a non-profit corporation, I had a single program that kept track of 7 separate coded programs, each with separate bank accounts, payroll and expense reports, and ability to generate separate reports for each program as well as a comprehensive general corporate report on a total of 4 million dollars in grant money p/yr.
I remember Occam’s attraction to puzzling, unresolved topics as my same attraction to look at topics he posted on.
Write4u posts attract me for that same reason. Whatever position wriet4u takes it is always interesting and consistently principled, not as a “united front” of anything,
My advice to you when you visit is to stop resisting to check write4u posts.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:342, topic:7931”]
and Eli Whitney “invented” the cotton gin
Yes, but he did not invent cotton. He invented the machine that processed cotton efficiently.
James Watt “invented” the steam engine
According to history the inventor of the first steam engine was credited to an Englishman. In 1698, Thomas Savery, an engineer and inventor, patented a machine that could effectively draw water from flooded mines using steam pressure.Mar 18, 2014
Thomas Edison “invented” the light bulb.
Debatable. Who invented the first bulb and when?
US inventor Thomas Edison is often credited with creating the solution in 1879: the carbon filament light bulb. Yet the British chemist Warren de La Rue had solved the scientific challenges nearly 40 years earlier.
Oh let’s not for Henry Ford the “inventor” of the automobile and the assembly line
Henry Ford invented the assembly line, but Karl Benz invented the first automobile.
My history book told me so.
It all depends on what part of the invention is addressed. All inventors stand on the shoulders of those who came before them.
God does not exist and all the pomp and circumstance is a shallow ritual designed to perpetuate the myth.
What does Pomp and Circumstance mean in the modern world?
There is also a literal meaning of the phrase. When we talk about pomp and circumstance today we are referring to a formal occasion in which all the traditional elements of that kind of occasion are observed. For example, a wedding, in a church, with white bridal dress, bridesmaids, a wedding breakfast with speeches and toasts, and so on, would bring all those traditional elements into the occasion and we would call that pomp and circumstance.
I just watched a few minutes. It’s a calmer presentation of the information than we often see. Some might say it’s too snooty, but I didn’t think he was talking down to anyone. It never hurts to have a variety of styles out there, pointing at the same thing, from different directions.
So if God only exists within our minds.
How does that jive with this simplistic notion that god does not exist at all,
What’s it actually mean?
Why have people spent infinite time and treasure discussing “God” - … arguing over “God” - … fighting and killing over “God”
None of it exists? Write it’s amazing the directions your conclusions can take a discussion.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:358, topic:7931”]
So if God only exists within our minds.
How does that jive with this simplistic notion that god does not exist at all,
What’s it actually mean?
The definition of “exist” entails more than being a figment of the imagination.
Existence
Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property of being. Wikipedia
Why have people spent infinite time and treasure discussing “God” - … arguing over “God” - … fighting and killing over “God”
Because in spite of our extraordinary brains, on the evolutionary scale we are barely out of the jungle.
This is because the human brain is not a result of a slow evolutionary process but a sudden major chromosomal mutation.
You say that I come up with these speculative ideas, but if you examine the “diverse” evidence I cite you’ll see that all of it makes perfect logical sense to the exclusion of much more complicated and lofty “flights of fancy”.
Etymology
The term existence comes from Old French existence, from Medieval Latin existentia/exsistentia, from Latin existere, to come forth, be manifest, ex + sistere, to stand.[3][4]
Context in philosophy
Materialism holds that the only things that exist are matter and energy, that all things are composed of material, that all actions require energy, and that all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of the interaction of matter. Dialectical materialism does not make a distinction between being and existence, and defines it as the objective reality of various forms of matter.[2]
Idealism holds that the only things that exist are thoughts and ideas, while the material world is secondary.[5][6] In idealism, existence is sometimes contrasted with transcendence, the ability to go beyond the limits of existence.[2]
As a form of epistemological idealism, rationalism interprets existence as cognizable and rational, that all things are composed of strings of reasoning, requiring an associated idea of the thing, and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of an understanding of the imprint from the noumenal world in which lies beyond the thing-in-itself Existence - Wikipedia
Now, who is proposing the more complicated and irreducible complexity?
I believe that my mindscape is rational from “beginning to present”.
