The history of ‘zero’ remains unsettled(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The history of ‘zero’ remains unsettled
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/opinion/sunday/who-invented-zero.html
4 comments
Indian mathematicians like Aryabhatta have never been given the same credit as western ones, it all stems from the British invading India and seeing a civilisation that was much older than what the Bible stated (4000 years). Now the hardline Christian invaders couldn't have any of that, people that are older than their own religion would have thrown doubt into their own people. So they gave India very little credit.
It's a bit odd to intermingle talk of a written symbol for zero with the use of binary by computers. If I chisel open my Xeon, I don't think I'm going to find 1 and 0 symbols, and likewise the vast majority of the source code for what's running on it won't contain binary literals either.
The "ones and zeros" way of talking about computers to a general audience is a bit of a cliche at this point IMHO.
The squirrelly nature of zero in a purely physical sense is interesting to focus on. e.g. if you use the fingers on your hand to count, then zero can be represented by either a closed fist, or by the absence of the hand altogether (unary numbers). No need to involve bleep-bloop-computers or even a sheet of paper.
I'm coining a phrase: "Unary is the native number system of the eyeball."
The "ones and zeros" way of talking about computers to a general audience is a bit of a cliche at this point IMHO.
The squirrelly nature of zero in a purely physical sense is interesting to focus on. e.g. if you use the fingers on your hand to count, then zero can be represented by either a closed fist, or by the absence of the hand altogether (unary numbers). No need to involve bleep-bloop-computers or even a sheet of paper.
I'm coining a phrase: "Unary is the native number system of the eyeball."
I expected something actually substantial, but apart from the opening gambit, the remainder of the article is somewhat in jest.
Somewhat, yes, I suppose it’s just making the point that ‘the west’ doesnt have a monopoly on foundational intellectual achievements.
Much of math's foundation isn't from the west. Even our numerals aren't from the west. They came from India by way of Arabia.
Also, I'd probably pick a different source if I were expecting deep commentary about science or math. That's not intended as a slight, it's just about the target audience.
Also, I'd probably pick a different source if I were expecting deep commentary about science or math. That's not intended as a slight, it's just about the target audience.
I would use the word “discovered” rather than invented.
Found the mathematical realist! I'm more of a formalist myself, given the uncertain nature of where mathematical objects have to live if they are not just a useful tool we came up with to understand our surroundings.
That's your personal choice, but an explanation for the choice would be useful for all of us.