History of Natural Numbers and The Status of Zero
The natural numbers had their origins in the words used to count things, beginning with the number 1.
The first major advance in abstraction was the use of numerals to represent numbers. This allowed systems to be developed for recording large numbers. The ancient Egyptians developed a powerful system of numerals with distinct hieroglyphs for 1, 10, and all the powers of 10 up to over one million. A stone carving from Karnak, dating from around 1500 BC and now at the Louvre in Paris, depicts 276 as 2 hundreds, 7 tens, and 6 ones; and similarly for the number 4,622. The Babylonians had a place-value system based essentially on the numerals for 1 and 10.
A much later advance was the development of the idea that zero can be considered as a number, with its own numeral. The use of a zero digit in place-value notation (within other numbers) dates back as early as 700 BC by the Babylonians, but they omitted such a digit when it would have been the last symbol in the number. The Olmec and Maya civilizations used zero as a separate number as early as the 1st century BC, but this usage did not spread beyond Mesoamerica. The use of a numeral zero in modern times originated with the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta in 628. However, zero had been used as a number in the medieval computus (the calculation of the date of Easter), beginning with Dionysius Exiguus in 525, without being denoted by a numeral (standard Roman numerals do not have a symbol for zero); instead nulla or nullae, genitive of nullus, the Latin word for "none", was employed to denote a zero value.
The first systematic study of numbers as abstractions (that is, as abstract entities) is usually credited to the Greek philosophers Pythagoras and Archimedes. Note that many Greek mathematicians did not consider 1 to be "a number", so to them 2 was the smallest number.
Independent studies also occurred at around the same time in India, China, and Mesoamerica.
Several set-theoretical definitions of natural numbers were developed in the 19th century. With these definitions it was convenient to include 0 (corresponding to the empty set) as a natural number. Including 0 is now the common convention among set theorists, logicians, and computer scientists. Many other mathematicians also include 0, although some have kept the older tradition and take 1 to be the first natural number. Sometimes the set of natural numbers with 0 included is called the set of whole numbers or counting numbers. On the other hand, integer being Latin for whole, the integers usually stand for the negative and positive whole numbers (and zero) altogether.
Read more about this topic: Natural Number
Famous quotes containing the words history of, history, natural, numbers and/or status:
“Only the history of free peoples is worth our attention; the history of men under a despotism is merely a collection of anecdotes.”
—Sébastien-Roch Nicolas De Chamfort (1741–1794)
“We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. However, the two sides are not to be divided off; as long as men exist the history of nature and the history of men are mutually conditioned.”
—Karl Marx (1818–1883)
“If everybody is looking for it, then nobody is finding it. If we were cultured, we would not be conscious of lacking culture. We would regard it as something natural and would not make so much fuss about it. And if we knew the real value of this word we would be cultured enough not to give it so much importance.”
—Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)
“... there are persons who seem to have overcome obstacles and by character and perseverance to have risen to the top. But we have no record of the numbers of able persons who fall by the wayside, persons who, with enough encouragement and opportunity, might make great contributions.”
—Mary Barnett Gilson (1877–?)
“Recent studies that have investigated maternal satisfaction have found this to be a better prediction of mother-child interaction than work status alone. More important for the overall quality of interaction with their children than simply whether the mother works or not, these studies suggest, is how satisfied the mother is with her role as worker or homemaker. Satisfied women are consistently more warm, involved, playful, stimulating and effective with their children than unsatisfied women.”
—Alison Clarke-Stewart (20th century)