The Rig Vedic example of counting / numbering in 10-based or decimal system (with numbers e.g. 10, 20, 30, …, 100)

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I wonder if there is a better documented evidence than the above (from the Rig Veda) on the earliest use of decimal (10-based) system.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I wonder if there is a better documented evidence than the above (from the Rig Veda) on the earliest use of decimal (10-based) system.

Leaving aside the problem of inaccurate translations from Vedic sanskrit which often occur, the examples you give do not prove the existence of the decimal (10 based) system.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I wonder if there is a better documented evidence than the above (from the Rig Veda) on the earliest use of decimal (10-based) system.

Leaving aside the problem of inaccurate translations from Vedic sanskrit which often occur, the examples you give do not prove the existence of the decimal (10 based) system.

There is nothing about the inaccurate translations here. If you can read Sanskrit, you will find that the Sanskrit words in Rig Veda in these hymns for numbers ten (10), twenty (20), thirty (30), forty (40), fifty (50), sixty (60), seventy (70), eighty (80), ninety (90) and hundred (100) are exact and almost in present form of Sanskrit. And if you say that it is not a proof of the use of decimal (10 based) system long ago, then what do you think is the decimal system?

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:I wonder if there is a better documented evidence than the above (from the Rig Veda) on the earliest use of decimal (10-based) system.

Leaving aside the problem of inaccurate translations from Vedic sanskrit which often occur, the examples you give do not prove the existence of the decimal (10 based) system.

There is nothing about the inaccurate translations here. If you can read Sanskrit, you will find that the Sanskrit words in Rig Veda in these hymns for numbers ten (10), twenty (20), thirty (30), forty (40), fifty (50), sixty (60), seventy (70), eighty (80), ninety (90) and hundred (100) are exact and almost in present form of Sanskrit. And if you say that it is not a proof of the use of decimal (10 based) system long ago, then what do you think is the decimal system?

If you went to an ancient Roman and asked him to write 10,20,...,80,90,100 he would happily do it for you. But if you asked him to write one million he would have to write the character M (which stands for one thousand) one thousand times because the idea of zero did not exist in ancient Rome at that time.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
If you went to an ancient Roman and asked him to write 10,20,...,80,90,100 he would happily do it for you. But if you asked him to write one million he would have to write the character M (which stands for one thousand) one thousand times because the idea of zero did not exist in ancient Rome at that time.

A clarification from a wikipedia article:

Decimal notation often refers to a base-10 positional notation such as the Hindu-Arabic numeral system; however, it can also be used more generally to refer to non-positional systems such as Roman or Chinese numerals which are also based on powers of ten.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
If you went to an ancient Roman and asked him to write 10,20,...,80,90,100 he would happily do it for you. But if you asked him to write one million he would have to write the character M (which stands for one thousand) one thousand times because the idea of zero did not exist in ancient Rome at that time.

A clarification from a wikipedia article:

Decimal notation often refers to a base-10 positional notation such as the Hindu-Arabic numeral system; however, it can also be used more generally to refer to non-positional systems such as Roman or Chinese numerals which are also based on powers of ten.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal[/quote[/url]]
This example from the Rig Veda is not like asking or writing a lone, random number (e.g. Million) which might be divisible by 10. In this case, the sequence of numbers is in proper ascending order according to the base 10. In other words, as hymns continue (one following the other) the numbers increase from 10, 20, 30 ................ to finally 100.
Moreover, look at the left hand side of these numbers (10, 20,...., 100) , they already express the numbers increasing sequentially from 1, 2, 3.............. to 10. All this means that it is the example of a well-established 10-based (decimal system) and there is no issue in this case of non-positional numbers.

Rashmun wrote:
An ancient roman would have happily recited the numbers 10,20,..,100 to you but we know that that the ancient romans did not have an idea of zero.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
An ancient roman would have happily recited the numbers 10,20,..,100 to you but we know that that the ancient romans did not have an idea of zero.

You don't call the numbering system a decimal system because you know about zero. The numbering system is decimal because the basis for it is (number) ten, which may be expressed / written either without the help of zero (in the form of one, two,.....,ten) or by using zero (e.g. 1, 2, 3..... 10).

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
An ancient roman would have happily recited the numbers 10,20,..,100 to you but we know that that the ancient romans did not have an idea of zero.

You don't call the numbering system a decimal system because you know about zero. The numbering system is decimal because the basis for it is (number) ten, which may be expressed / written either without the help of zero (in the form of one, two,.....,ten) or by using zero (e.g. 1, 2, 3..... 10).

I agree. The difference is between base 10 positional notation vs a non-positional system. What i meant to say is that the Rig Vedic people did not have an idea of zero. In that sense they were like the ancient Romans.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
An ancient roman would have happily recited the numbers 10,20,..,100 to you but we know that that the ancient romans did not have an idea of zero.

You don't call the numbering system a decimal system because you know about zero. The numbering system is decimal because the basis for it is (number) ten, which may be expressed / written either without the help of zero (in the form of one, two,.....,ten) or by using zero (e.g. 1, 2, 3..... 10).

I agree. The difference is between base 10 positional notation vs a non-positional system. What i meant to say is that the Rig Vedic people did not have an idea of zero. In that sense they were like the ancient Romans.

First of all, the timeline for the Rig Veda is much older than the Roman days. Moreover, you can't say that Rig Vedic people did not have the idea of zero. There are many hymns in the Rig Veda (e.g. in Book 10: Hymn 129.1-4) which talk about void ("nothingness" or "non-existence"), the idea at the heart of zero.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
An ancient roman would have happily recited the numbers 10,20,..,100 to you but we know that that the ancient romans did not have an idea of zero.

You don't call the numbering system a decimal system because you know about zero. The numbering system is decimal because the basis for it is (number) ten, which may be expressed / written either without the help of zero (in the form of one, two,.....,ten) or by using zero (e.g. 1, 2, 3..... 10).

I agree. The difference is between base 10 positional notation vs a non-positional system. What i meant to say is that the Rig Vedic people did not have an idea of zero. In that sense they were like the ancient Romans.

First of all, the timeline for the Rig Veda is much older than the Roman days. Moreover, you can't say that Rig Vedic people did not have the idea of zero. There are many hymns in the Rig Veda (e.g. in Book 10: Hymn 129.1-4) which talk about void ("nothingness" or "non-existence"), the idea at the heart of zero.

Many ancient Greek philosophers also talked of void/nothingness/non-existence. Is it your contention that they were familiar with the idea of zero?

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
An ancient roman would have happily recited the numbers 10,20,..,100 to you but we know that that the ancient romans did not have an idea of zero.

You don't call the numbering system a decimal system because you know about zero. The numbering system is decimal because the basis for it is (number) ten, which may be expressed / written either without the help of zero (in the form of one, two,.....,ten) or by using zero (e.g. 1, 2, 3..... 10).

I agree. The difference is between base 10 positional notation vs a non-positional system. What i meant to say is that the Rig Vedic people did not have an idea of zero. In that sense they were like the ancient Romans.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
You don't call the numbering system a decimal system because you know about zero. The numbering system is decimal because the basis for it is (number) ten, which may be expressed / written either without the help of zero (in the form of one, two,.....,ten) or by using zero (e.g. 1, 2, 3..... 10).

I agree. The difference is between base 10 positional notation vs a non-positional system. What i meant to say is that the Rig Vedic people did not have an idea of zero. In that sense they were like the ancient Romans.

First of all, the timeline for the Rig Veda is much older than the Roman days. Moreover, you can't say that Rig Vedic people did not have the idea of zero. There are many hymns in the Rig Veda (e.g. in Book 10: Hymn 129.1-4) which talk about void ("nothingness" or "non-existence"), the idea at the heart of zero.

Many ancient Greek philosophers also talked of void/nothingness/non-existence. Is it your contention that they were familiar with the idea of zero?

There is a difference in these two cases (Greek and Indians).
Indians had the non-existence and existence prevail side by side and the existence even arising out of the non-existence. That could also have been the basic idea behind a number system with real numbers (digits 1, 2, 3...) along with a pseudo number (zero or 0) which represented the void (nothingness). Zero had no significance by itself, but it gave rise to real (significant) numbers (10, 20, 30....) when used in conjunction with other numbers (1, 2, 3 ..)
"Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of
Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the
existent's kinship in the non-existent." Rig Veda (Book 10: Hymn 129.4)

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

There is a difference in these two cases (Greek and Indians).
Indians had the non-existence and existence prevail side by side and the existence even arising out of the non-existence. That could also have been the basic idea behind a number system with real numbers (digits 1, 2, 3...) along with a pseudo number (zero or 0) which represented the void (nothingness). Zero had no significance by itself, but it gave rise to real (significant) numbers (10, 20, 30....) when used in conjunction with other numbers (1, 2, 3 ..)
"Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of
Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the
existent's kinship in the non-existent." Rig Veda (Book 10: Hymn 129.4)

Many ancient Greek thinkers espoused the same view. So, according to you, they were familiar with the idea of zero.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

There is a difference in these two cases (Greek and Indians).
Indians had the non-existence and existence prevail side by side and the existence even arising out of the non-existence. That could also have been the basic idea behind a number system with real numbers (digits 1, 2, 3...) along with a pseudo number (zero or 0) which represented the void (nothingness). Zero had no significance by itself, but it gave rise to real (significant) numbers (10, 20, 30....) when used in conjunction with other numbers (1, 2, 3 ..)
"Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of
Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the
existent's kinship in the non-existent." Rig Veda (Book 10: Hymn 129.4)

Many ancient Greek thinkers espoused the same view. So, according to you, they were familiar with the idea of zero.

You seem to be using the line of reasoning that anyone knowledgeable about the Third Law of Motion ("to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction") should also be a master of rocket science, but that is not true as we all know.

Similarly, just because the Indians were able to come up with the idea of zero for the number system, based perhaps on their philosophical thinking about the non-existence and existence together, the same might not have been the case with others (having a knowledge about zero) even if they held the philosophical view of simultaneity in existence and non-existence.

In any case, this discussion basically relates to the Indians developing the number system (including zero) and not about what Greeks did or knew about the number system.

Rashmun wrote:

The point is that there is no evidence of the Rig Vedic people having an idea of zero. Their philosophical viewpoints were shared by a section of ancient greek thinkers. So if you claim, based on readings of the Rig Veda, that the Rig Vedic people had an idea of zero then in all fairness you should make the same claim for the ancient greeks.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

The point is that there is no evidence of the Rig Vedic people having an idea of zero. Their philosophical viewpoints were shared by a section of ancient greek thinkers. So if you claim, based on readings of the Rig Veda, that the Rig Vedic people had an idea of zero then in all fairness you should make the same claim for the ancient greeks.

I was not giving evidence on the Vedic people having an idea of zero. I just wanted to point out that, based on a number of hymns in the Rig Veda on the simultaneity of the existent and the non-existent, these people might have been in a better position to define the number system in terms of significant digits (1, 2,..) and insignificant digit (0).

Moreover, there are many hymns in the Rig Veda where things numbering in several thousands (e.g. 20000, 40000, 90000..) are mentioned, which indicates that people at that time were quite at ease in counting and numbering (even in terms of very large numbers). Such a thing would certainly be more likely to happen if people then had discovered the zero and incorporated it in the number system (as 10, 20..., 1000, 10000..).

There is also much emphasis (in terms of use / counting) on the number 9 in many hymns in the Rig Veda. Considering 9 is the highest single digit in the decimal (10-based) system, perhaps the importance of 9 might also be due to the fact that after 9 the numbers are in the form of double digits (10, 11…). Naturally, such a great importance on number 9, as perhaps the highest single digit, would not be there if the number after 9 or nine, which is ten, had not been transformed into 10, using 2 digits (with one of them as 0). This again indicates the possibility of people making use of zero (0) in the number system at that time.

Rashmun wrote: Not just 9 but many other numbers are given special importance in Rig Veda. See this:

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs1203/ejvs1203article.pdf

Rashmun wrote:
The ancient Romans were also very comfortable writing about numbers which were in the several thousands. But they did not have an idea of zero.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote: Not just 9 but many other numbers are given special importance in Rig Veda. See this:

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs1203/ejvs1203article.pdf

This link is irrelevant on the topic of much use of number 9 in the Rig Veda as I indicated above. It simply says that many numbers were widely used or referred to in the Rig Veda, but that is not the point.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The ancient Romans were also very comfortable writing about numbers which were in the several thousands. But they did not have an idea of zero.

That's hearsay. Can you give the example of ancient Romans writing or referring to the number ninety thousand?

Rashmun wrote:
What is the difference between 'much use of number' and a number being 'widely used'?

Rashmun wrote:
http://www.legionxxiv.org/numerals/

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
What is the difference between 'much use of number' and a number being 'widely used'?

There is a discussion in this article (http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs1203/ejvs1203article.pdf ) on many numbers, but that is not a proof that those other numbers are as important or more important that the number 9.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
http://www.legionxxiv.org/numerals/

The above is just a Table containing / showing the Roman numerals and not the proof of actual use of Roman numerals for countin/ writing in thousands during ancient times. Note the following statement in the Table,
"Only seven numeral-characters were used and when a numeral was over-lined, it represented the base-value, multiplied by a thousand. This convention is really no longer used, as roman numerals are seldom utilized for values beyond 4999. It is shown here for demonstration only.
It shows that, unlike the Vedic people who used their number system in many thousands, Romans were not using their number system for very large numbers (in several thousands). And that indicates that the Vedic people probably were using zero (0) in their number system, unlike the Romans.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
http://www.legionxxiv.org/numerals/

The above is just a Table containing / showing the Roman numerals and not the proof of actual use of Roman numerals for countin/ writing in thousands during ancient times. Note the following statement in the Table,
"Only seven numeral-characters were used and when a numeral was over-lined, it represented the base-value, multiplied by a thousand. This convention is really no longer used, as roman numerals are seldom utilized for values beyond 4999. It is shown here for demonstration only.
It shows that, unlike the Vedic people who used their number system in many thousands, Romans were not using their number system for very large numbers (in several thousands). And that indicates that the Vedic people probably were using zero (0) in their number system, unlike the Romans.

The words 'roman numerals are seldom utilized for values beyond 4999' indicates that in the contemporary world they are seldom utilized for values beyond 4999. The writer would have used the words 'roman numerals were seldom utilized for values beyond 4999' if he wanted to make a statement about usage of this system by the ancient Romans. Further, the word 'seldom' rather than 'never' indicates that even in the contemporary world the system is used to occasionally represent values greater than 4999.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
The above discussion related to the Table on Roman numerals cannot prove that the ancient Romans were really using numbers or counting in thousands. Give an example (some text or written material from ancient times) showing that the ancient Roman / Latin used numbers in thousands.
Here is what the Veda says,
“The wagon-loads, the nine-and-ninety thousand, these have
been offered up to thee, O Agni.
Hero, with these increase thy many bodies, and, stimulated, send us rain from
heaven.” Rig Veda (Book 10: Hymn 98.10)

Hellsangel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
The above discussion related to the Table on Roman numerals cannot prove that the ancient Romans were really using numbers or counting in thousands. Give an example (some text or written material from ancient times) showing that the ancient Roman / Latin used numbers in thousands.
Here is what the Veda says,
“The wagon-loads, the nine-and-ninety thousand, these have
been offered up to thee, O Agni.
Hero, with these increase thy many bodies, and, stimulated, send us rain from
heaven.” Rig Veda (Book 10: Hymn 98.10)

So Sevaji, you are looking for a quote from a Latin classic?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Yes, a quote from a Roman or ancient Latin text, which can justify Rashmun's claim "The ancient Romans were also very comfortable writing about numbers which were in the several thousands."

Hellsangel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Yes, a quote from a Roman or ancient Latin text, which can justify Rashmun's claim "The ancient Romans were also very comfortable writing about numbers which were in the several thousands."

Would Cicero do?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

What do you think? Weren't the Romans and Europeans already making use of Indian discovered zero by that time (the 1st century B.C. -- time of Cicero) in counting and numbering etc.?

Hellsangel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

What do you think? Weren't the Romans and Europeans already making use of Indian discovered zero by that time (the 1st century B.C. -- time of Cicero) in counting and numbering etc.?

Oh! That is right! I forgot that all the knowledge was contained in the Vedas which are a million years old and everyone stole the knowledge discovered by the Indians and claimed it as their own.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

What do you think? Weren't the Romans and Europeans already making use of Indian discovered zero by that time (the 1st century B.C. -- time of Cicero) in counting and numbering etc.?

Oh! That is right! I forgot that all the knowledge was contained in the Vedas which are a million years old and everyone stole the knowledge discovered by the Indians and claimed it as their own.

Nobody is claiming here that Vedas are millions years old (http://creative.sulekha.com/about-the-origins-of-vedas-and-sanskrit-including-aryan-invasion-theory_591513_blog). But you can't claim that ancient Romans were using very large numbers (in thousands) in counting etc. without showing proper reference (from ancient Latin texts etc.). You also need to discount / negate the possibility that Romans had not yet acquired the knowledge of zero (0) from outside (India etc.) when they used such large numbers (in thousands) based only on their Roman numerals.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:What do you think? Weren't the Romans and Europeans already making use of Indian discovered zero by that time (the 1st century B.C. -- time of Cicero) in counting and numbering etc.?

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:What do you think? Weren't the Romans and Europeans already making use of Indian discovered zero by that time (the 1st century B.C. -- time of Cicero) in counting and numbering etc.?

Sevaji, is your latest claim that zero was invented more than 2,000 years ago?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:What do you think? Weren't the Romans and Europeans already making use of Indian discovered zero by that time (the 1st century B.C. -- time of Cicero) in counting and numbering etc.?

Sevaji, is your latest claim that zero was invented more than 2,000 years ago?

Since the ancient Indians mention extremely large numbers in Vedic hymns, it seems that people during those days (Rig Veda is more than 2000 years old) might have been using large numbers (in thousands) in real life also in calculations, counting and numbering. The cause of large numbers (thousands etc.) in counting and calculating would certainly be helped if zero was already a part of the numbering system then (as 10, 20..........., 100,.........., 1000, ..........).

"So, as a prize dear to the strong, the sixty thousand have I gained,
Bulls that resemble vigorous steeds." Rig Veda (Book 8: hymn 46.29)

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Incidentally, the Mahabharata, which is certainly more than 2000 years old, in several verses (e.g. Book 15: Ch. 15 - V. 8 and Ch. 31 - V. 3) also explicitly mentions "shunya" (meaning zero these days) in the sense of nought or nothing.