
Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
"You know how he counts?" Stilgar had asked her. "I heard him counting coins as he paid his guide. It's very strange to my Fremen ears, and that's a terrible thing. He counts 'shuc, ishcai, qimsa, chuascu, picha, sucta, and so on. I've not heard counting like that since the old days in the desert."
Yek, Dui, trini, shtar, pansh, shuk. ( some say show but shuk ora means sixpence) eft, oct, enya, desh.
Wikitravel wrote:
Numbers
in Ecuadorian Quichua
1
(shuc)
2
(ishcai)
3
(quimsa)
4
(chuscu)
5
(pichca)
6
(sucta)
7
(canchis)
8
(pusac)
9
(iscun)
10
(chunca)
11
(chunca shuc)
12
(chunca ishcai)
13
(chunca quimsa)
14
(chunca chuscu)
15
(chunca pichca)
16
(chunca sucta)
17
(chunca canchis)
18
(chunca pusac)
19
('ishcai iscun)
20
(ishcai chunca)
...
Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.
Slugger wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.
It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimalbased notation.
SadisticCynic wrote:Slugger wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.
It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimalbased notation.
That seems to happen fairly often e.g irrational numbers, imaginary numbers etc.
Freakzilla wrote:SadisticCynic wrote:Slugger wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.
It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimalbased notation.
That seems to happen fairly often e.g irrational numbers, imaginary numbers etc.
What does?
And if you want to get technical, didn't the Mayans have a symbol for zero before the Hindu?
Freakzilla wrote:SadisticCynic wrote:Slugger wrote:Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.
It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimalbased notation.
That seems to happen fairly often e.g irrational numbers, imaginary numbers etc.
What does?
And if you want to get technical, didn't the Mayans have a symbol for zero before the Hindu?
Slugger wrote:(i.e. a null set)
SadisticCynic wrote:Slugger wrote:(i.e. a null set)
The empty set? Now we're getting into really fun maths.
SadisticCynic wrote:In the modern definition of naturals I think we need to start from zero, if we want to build them in a straightforward fashion. But it is certainly an interesting question, and outside set theory all my maths classes have used the naturals as starting from 1.
Slugger wrote:
...SadisticCynic wrote:In the modern definition of naturals I think we need to start from zero, if we want to build them in a straightforward fashion. But it is certainly an interesting question, and outside set theory all my maths classes have used the naturals as starting from 1.
I'm a bit ambivalent on this subject. It makes sense to include zero in the natural numbers, but when counting objects you generally don't start at 0.
As far as I know, this matter is heavily applicationdependent. The construction of natural numbers works both if you start from 0 or 1. It is sufficient to change the first Peano's axiom ("It exists a natural number, 0"; "It exists a natural number, 1"), then the recursive building with the successor function works in the same way. So, it depends upon which kind of algebraic structure you want to give to the natural numbers. For example, if you need a multiplicative monoid, starting from 1 is sufficient; if you need an additive group, the 0 is necessary.
Slugger wrote:I had the same older prof for a couple of math courses and he referred to the empty set as the null set. I should be more precise in my terminology. I wanted to take a course in discrete math but it unfortunately wouldn't fit into my schedule.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest