Logic Behind The Design Of Digits
Do you ever wonder how the shape of digits were designed? What is logic behind numbers?
The numbers we all use (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) are known as "arabic" numbers to distinguish them from the "Roman Numerals" (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, etc). Actually the Arabs popularized these numbers but they were originally used by the early phonecian traders to count and keep track of their trading accounts.
Have you ever thought why ........ 1 means "one", and 2 means "two"? The roman numerals are easy to understand but what was the logic behind the phonecian numbers?
It's all about angles !
It's the number of angles. If one writes the numbers down (see below) on a piece of paper in their older forms, one quickly sees why. Angle are marked with "o"s.
No 1 has one angle.
No 2 has two angles.
No 3 has three angles.
etc.
and "O" has no angles
Amazing isn't it.
After getting so many abuses in comments and double checking on google. I want to add that this might be imaginary stuff (I got this in chain mail and thought it was interesting so I added to my blog). So, please consider it as someone's great imagination with little flaws. Thanks
Labels:
logic
41 Comments:
Very interesting information. Why no body taught this in our school
Great info!
But is there any other resources about it?
Where did you find this?
Interesting concept, but it doesn't wash. Those aren't Phoenician numbers. Also consider, cultures in that part of the world was much more interested in base 6, base 12, base 20 and base 60 mathematics (depending on specific region and culture) than base 10 when writing systems were being developed.
Intersting concept except for the bastardized version of the 3, 5, 7, and 9. All of which looks to have had an angle or two added. Kinda like flipping over the Sunday paper to see an answer for the crossword. I guess you could say its not really cheating, but guess what...
Interesting.
But also completely untrue.
The numerals you posted aren't even close the way the Arabic number system began and evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
And it should also be noted that it's obviously untrue for other reasons.
You square (created angles) on every digit except 0. Although supporting your theory, none of the numerals have ever been popularly written like you listed, with the exception being 0, of course.
As posted before, you've added lines that are not part of any popular writing style of these numerals. Although I appreciate your ingenuity in trying to prove this, it's an obvious attempt to mislead.
This is how I was taught to add in school....
I was taught the placement of the "dots" where the angles are, then I'd just count up the dots on all the numbers I was adding.
It was the Indians who invented 0 and the decimal system. The system is also called Hindu Arabic numbers obviously because the Arabs borrowed them from the Indians, not American Indians
Why is it that all of the numbers are in block form except for 0?
"Why is it that all of the numbers are in block form except for 0? "
---Because 0 don't have any angle
Lame. Don't believe everything the internets tell you.
Well, if all those altercations pass, than 0 should have four angles, being drawn as a rectangle. It's only fair, if it works for 6 and 9, then why not 0?
Wait!!!
This is wrong! What's happening with seven? Why does it get 2 angles at the bottom using an imaginary line when four doesn't get one? Nice try. Doesn't work though.
I don't get why people are so bent out of shape about it. It's a neat little thing.
By the way...
Wikipedia? Are you being serious? And I'm sure Hitler was 100% correct too.
So maybe this isn't completely true. Maybe "the early phonecian traders" did this simlpy to learn the numbers themselves, as it was an adopted system. So they made them square, like shown here, and made this little system. I'm just speculating here.. :)
"Why is it that all of the numbers are in block form except for 0? "
"---Because 0 don't have any angle"
you misunderstand ..... why is the zero the only number to have curves in this "font"... because otherwise it wouldn't fit his theory. who has ever put a line across the bottom of a 7 ???? nobody except this person, to make it fit his theory.
why on earth would you decide to put an underscore on the seven and not the one?
you pulled this entire article out of your @$$, or put more politely... IT STINKS!
"--Because 0 don't have any angle"
The guy your replyin' to was talking about consistency. It's not consistent to write all the numbers in block form except for zero.
Also, zero wasn't invented by the Indians! it was the Babylonians!
7 and 9 look manufactured for the angles...
Wow, everyone's treating this post as if this person created this and jumping down their throat. Ever hear of backing off? So what? They had a hunch and they were wrong. Big bloody deal.
I totally agree with this comment: "why on earth would you decide to put an underscore on the seven and not the one ?" And neither on the four... And what about the scroll added to the nine and not to the five... This is ridiculous...
actually it is evloved from
Brahmi numerals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
srini
Good stuff. I heard about this a long time ago but have never seen it explained in detail.
TOO BAD YOU RUINED IT when you added your disclaimer at the end that discredits everything you just said!!!
It's not true at all, who writes numbers in that manner? note 7 3 etc. and it also seems to change style when writing 0 a more circley desing to prove the theory that 0 has no edges,
You've stuck extra bits on the numbers to make them add....
yeah nobody today writes numbers like that because we all know the shapes we associate with numbers, but maybe some people did back then, did you live then? no you didn't so shut up it's just something interesting someone thought they'd post geez, unless you're an anthropologist or want to say something interesting shut up cuz no one cares
Actually, I was taught this in college in a number theory course. i'm not saying that everything you learn at school is true, but it was presented to me by a certified professor at an accredited university.
"Wikipedia? Are you being serious? And I'm sure Hitler was 100% correct too."
To the above poster; what the hell are you on about? Are you equating Hitler with Wikipedia? Seriously?
Way to go, "Michael," if that IS your real name... You just godwinned the thread.
http://www.google.com/search?q=godwins+law&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
What about 11, 12, 13, etc??
Still, it's good idea, shame it doesn't work properly
1. Michael didn't Godwin the thread, he pointed out the anonymous poster on August 18, 2008 at 4:07PM who Godwinned the thread.
2. To the above post: 11, 12, and 13 are not digits. 0 through 9 are digits.
3. This is absolutely a myth. See here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7juWmvQSTvwC&printsec=frontcover#PPA64,M1
4. The Wikipedia article cited several times in the comments is well-cited, so get over yourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals
also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals
So this info is clearly a not-well-thought-through BS.
explain the number 10
Oh jesus christ why is everyone so skeptical? it was only meant to be interesting, not like we're gonna run out and be like OMFG you'll never guess. Calm the hell down and take a chillaxitive everyone!
This is how i was taught to add in 1st grade 25 years ago
I have a maths book that my father gave me 20 years ago that teaches this about numbers. It could explain why numbers look like they do and I think its cool. Can anyone explain letters???? Would I be right in saying there are X angles in the letter X?hehe :P
I saw these angles when I was in 2nd grade and used them to help with addition instead of counting my fingers. LOL
As others have noted, that blocky font does not represent the original form of the numerals. The image containing the numerals was actually one of a set of puzzles that appeared in the GAMES column at the end of an OMNI Magazine -- a sort of "try and spot the pattern" puzzle.
its stupid that people are refering to wikipedia about this. pretty sure wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources.
nyc thing btw.......its very unknown to people...its perhaps illogical, but still is intresting...\m/
I don't agree.
There is a base line drawn forcefully in number 7 to show seven total angles.
Why leave out number 1 and 4 then.
Post a Comment