Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merger proposal

I propose that Indian numerals and Eastern Arabic numerals be merged into Hindu–Arabic numeral system. I think that the content in the Indian numerals and Eastern Arabic numerals articles can easily be explained in the context of Hindu–Arabic numeral system, and the Hindu–Arabic numeral system article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Scientus (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Arabic numerals#Numerals and numeral systems on this and related issues. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved for lack of support. Also note the factual error in Kautilya3's statement about the linked "reliable sources on the topic", in which is it easy to find the en-dash form by looking at the linked book images. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Hindu–Arabic numeral system → Hindu-Arabic numeral system – A hyphen should be used per WP:DEFINITE, as stated by Kautilya3 in the reason for moving History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system to History of Hindu-Arabic numeral system. The page was previously moved by Michael Hardy in August 2009. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Specifically what is in WP:DEFINITE that says or implies that a hyphen should be used? Hyphens are not mentioned on that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think WP:DEFINITE is at issue here. It is just that "Hindu-Arabic" is a hyphenated term. Dashes are meant for something entirely different. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and restore the other article. It's not true that dashes are meant for "something entirely different"—the relevant guideline is MOS:NDASH, which states that an en-dash is used to join words where "the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements". In this case, the numerals were originally developed by Indian/Hindu and subsequently adopted by Arabic mathematicians, so we have two separate and independent groups associated with the numerals and not one fused "Hindu-Arabic culture". So the contention boils down to whether "Hindu" is a combining form (compare Sino-American vs. Chinese–American, or indeed on this page Perso-Arabic), and I don't believe that it is. (WP:DEFINITE is neither here nor there, as has been pointed out; it was misapplied in the move on the other page for other reasons.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  From the viewpoint of the broader civilisation, the numerals were a joint development by the Hindus and the Arabs. So, it is not an instance of "separate or independent elements." All the reliable sources on the topic hyphenate the term. It is similar to "Indo-Europeans" and quite unlike "Indo–European trade links." - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  "Indo-European" isn't relevant because "Indo-" is a combining form that always takes a hyphen—see the examples I gave above. Whether it was a joint development or not isn't relevant either, because the point about "separate or independent" is that "Hindu" and "Arab" refer to two distinct things, not a single thing. A good example is the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was certainly a joint Polish and Lithuanian endeavour but still uses the en-dash because the two groups are distinct. (On the Google link: Since different publications follow different style guidelines and it is generally very common for en-dashes to be casually replaced by hyphens, the Google Books search doesn't tell us much.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Dicklyon: I can understand that there wasn't enough participation in the RfM. However, there is no factual error in what I have said. If you are referring to the Karpinski book, the dash in page titles does look long enough to be an en-dash or even em-dash. I took it to be a feature of the font they are using for the page headers. However, if you look at the phrase in regular text, e.g., on p. 18, it is definitely a hyphen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit about where I saw the counterexample to your claim. Your search leads me to this page where the en dash in Hindu–Arabic in text is much longer than the hyphen in the same text. You can't see this in the Google Book Search snippets, since the OCR does not distinguish en dash from hyphen; you have to click through and look at the page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is this still called Arabic numberals?

Even in Arabic, they were called Indian numerals. So please correct the misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.19.133 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Already been explained ad nauseam. Plus, we already have Indian numerals, which are related but distinct from Arabic numerals. Plus^2, this is about the system, not the numerals.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Devanagari glyphs 5, 8, 9

Alternative Devanagari shapes for digits 5, 8, 9 should be mentioned. Initial discussion here. --Mykhal (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Those issues belong on the Indian numerals page. I will be removing all the glyphs from this page because they are off-topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I have created new section of the suggested article. —Mykhal (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Arguably a consensus to keep the current name, although I do note some policy-based arguments for moving back to Arabic numeral system or similar. But no prospect of consensus to move as proposed, and no alternative proposal. Andrewa (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Hindu–Arabic numeral system → Modern Numeral System – more accurately represents the History,origins,developments of the system across various cultural regions ,the present modern day number system is neither completely Indian nor completely Arabic.Therefore the name modern numeral system(along with mentions of the other names) is the most apt and fitting name for the historical facts,contributions and information in the article. Blazearon21 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. As is clear from Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system#Name, the name has been discussed for over ten years now and this is not an uncontroversial technical request, open a move discussion if you think it needs to be changed. —SpacemanSpiff 13:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Blazearon21 and SpacemanSpiff: procedural RM started. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is an entirely WP:OR proposal. The page title should be based on WP:COMMONNAME. The COMMONNAME in plain English is Arabic numerals, but mathematicians and historians over the last few decades have consciously chosen to prefix it with "Hindu–", considering the history of its development. Both the names are fine by me, but not some OR title. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• It does not qualify as WP:OR because its used as in the following ebooks [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and therefore complies with WP:COMMONNAMEand furthermore neutrality is preferred in the article title along with being the best title in line with criteria to be considered as directed in Wikipedia:Article titles Blazearon21 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Random google searches don't constitute evidene. It is not clear if you have even read the sources you mentioned. For instance, your second source says: Arabic numerals are read significantly faster...than the Roman numerals. It is common to label the numeral system under question "modern", as a descriptor, but that is not its name. And, you claim that there is a problem of "neutrality", which is seems obvious to you, but I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all, the proposed title should be Modern numeral system per WP:NCCAPS. Second, the title presupposes that it is the only system in common use, which is untrue; calling the Hindu–Arabic system "modern" implies the still commonly used Roman system is outdated, which is not a neutral point of view. Third, I disagree that this is the common name: "Hindu–Arabic" is the most common. (The Western system is most commonly (if technically incorrectly) called simply "Arabic numerals", which as you'll see is actually a different article.) Hairy Dude (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose not common. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Kautilya

Aren't google ebooks regularly used as a legitimate source for information in wikipedia My second source says: Arabic numerals are read significantly faster...than the Roman numerals Yes but how is that relevant to the following guidelines

"Wikipedia GENERALLY prefers the name that is most commonly used"

"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it GENERALLY prefers to use the name that is most frequently used"

"When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Isn't this article title one of those exceptions mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME with so many common names enough cause to name edit warring for years a fit for the guidelines.

As for neutrality I meant the regional,country specific name warring in #name to be replaced with a neutral Modern numeral system as well as because it evolved over time even though it originated in India only underlined by the presence of the articles Arabic numerals and Indian numerals that explain in much better detail about what happened when.Blazearon21 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, I see no evidence that "modern numeral system" (capitalized or not) is used as a name for the system, as opposed to a description of the system. Paul August ☎ 14:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Do the Arabs use Arabic numerals

No, they don't. Not typically anyway. Clocks similar to the one at right are proudly displayed in most if not all international airports throughout the Middle East, for example (all right, that one is from the Cairo Metro, I did say similar).

In Arabic, numerals are written according to either what we currently describe as Arabic numerals, or by what we (perhaps rather quaintly) describe as Eastern Arabic numerals. In North Africa once you get out of the major cities the Western system is often used, but in Arabia it's all the Eastern system. Or that's my OR.

So maybe the article names are OK. Arabic#Numerals says much the same thing, but it is I note completely unsourced at present. Andrewa (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting possible Chinese origins

Why is it included when its contradicted by the historical texts( Vedas 1500 BC) and edicts of ashoka(3 BC) etc? as well as historical facts and timelines against the false theory of the transmission from China.27.62.106.50 (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the section as written was WP:UNDUE, citing a primary source. Moreover, it is probably an obsolete theory now, in the light of the recent dating of the Bakhshali manuscript. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In 1954, forty-odd counting rods of the Warring States period(begins 475 BC) were found in Zuǒjiāgōngshān (左家公山) Chu Grave No.15 in Changsha, Hunan. The use of counting rods must predate it; Sunzi(544–496 BC), a military strategist at the end of Spring and Autumn, mention their use to make calculations to win the war before being in the battle[4]; Laozi (Warring states period) said "a good calculator doesn't use counting rods".[5] The Bakhshali manuscript is notable for being "the oldest extant manuscript in Indian mathematics",[2] with portions dated to AD 224–383. The Kiratas are mentioned along with Cinas (Chinese), and were different from the Nishadas.[3] It is speculated that the term is a Sanskritization of a Tibeto-Burman tribal name, like that of Kirant or Kiranti of eastern Nepal.[4]] In general they are mentioned as "gold-like", or yellow, unlike the Nishadas or the Dasas, who were dark.[9] Kiratas (of Bhutan) and Chinas were mentioned as forming the army of Pragjyotisha (Assam) king Bhagadatta (5,19). This army took part in the Kurukshetra War for the sake of Kauravas and its size was one Akshouhini (a huge army unit). A descendant of King Bhauiputahang, King Parbatak was a son of King Jeitehang and ruled Limbuwan around 317 BC. During that period, King Parbatak was the most powerful king of the Himalayan region and present-day Nepal. King Parbatak was allied with Chandra Gupta Maurya of Magadha, and also assisted him in his military campaigns in the Nanda kingdom. During his father King Jiete’s rule, Alexander the great had invaded India and established his satraps in Punjab and Sindh. King Parbatak assisted King Chandra Gupta Maurya in driving the Greek Satraps Seleucus (military governor) away from Punjab and Sindh. For King Parbatak’s assistance to Chandra Gupta, he gave lands in northern Bihar to King Parbatak and many Kiranti people migrated to northern Bihar during that period. They became known as Madhesia Kirant people, or Limbus of Kashi Gotra. King Parbatak Hang is also mentioned by Magadha historians as an ally of Maurya Emperor. -- EmpireoftheSeas (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Empireoftheseas: This is complete gibberish. What are you trying to say? You need WP:SECONDARY sources that state that the Chinese rod numerals had an influence on the Hindu-Arabic numerals before you can add this content. Lam has proposed a thesis, but it has not been accepted by the scholarly community. So, this section is WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hindu Numerals??

Article introduction suggests - "Arabic numerals were completely synthesised in India and later migrated to Arab". Please suggest how is this a correct notion and why it should not be changed. Lptx (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed to what? Please see History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Its summarisation here is not great. It could be improved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible Chinese origin section

Around 10 November 2017, a user deleted the section on "Possible Chinese origin" citing Lam Lay Yong'w work. I supported the deletion on the grounds that it was a WP:PRIMARY source not supported by the scholarly consensus.

I have now found a journal article that summarises Yong's thesis, and book review of the book itself, which confirm my suspicions that it was half-baked work. Apparently all that Yong documented were the similarities between the Hindu-Arabic numeral system and those Sun Zi suan jing (SZSJ), especially in the algorithms for the arithmetic. Her dating of the SZSJ is contested. There is also no analysis of how the system of SZSJ could have reached India. The possibility of transmission from India to China hasn't been considered. More astonishingly, the Chinese themselves seem to have given up SZSJ system and went back to the Abacus in later times, until the Hindu-Arabic numeral system was reintroduced by Islamic scholars around 1200 AD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Tally marks

§ Glyph comparison says

As in many numbering systems, the numerals 1, 2, and 3 represent simple tally marks; 1 being a single line, 2 being two lines (now connected by a diagonal) and 3 being three lines (now connected by two vertical lines).

In what set? This does not describe any numeral set shown here. It appears to be original research, a speculative explanation for the shapes of the modern (Western Arabic) numerals. --Thnidu (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly true of the European system we use. But I will delete it anyway, since this has nothing to do with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Kautilya3 I guess I could have done that boldly myself, but I probably wanted somebody more familiar with the subject matter have a look at it... As you clearly are and have done. As I said,this seems to be purely speculative because it is unsourced. --Thnidu (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Arabic mathematics

RedEye98 says in their infinite wisdom, We don't have Arabic Mathematics, It's name is Islamic Mathematics. Who is "we"? What are these:

• O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F. (1999), "Arabic mathematics: forgotten brilliance?", MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews
• Rashed, Richard (1994-06-30). The Development of Arabic Mathematics: Between Arithmetic and Algebra. Springer. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9780792325659.
• Allard, André (2002), "The influence of Arabic mathematics in the medieval West", in Roshdi Rashed (ed.), Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, Routledge, pp. 514–555, ISBN 978-1-134-97724-6
• Rashed, Roshdi (2013), Founding Figures and Commentators in Arabic Mathematics: A History of Arabic Sciences and Mathematics, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-136-62000-3

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Kautilya3 § Mathematics in medieval Islam

The name of the section on Wikipedia is: Mathematics in medieval Islam It is written here "Mathematics in medieval Arabia"? It doesn't matter how many Arabophile illiterate writters want to make everything Arabic. It must be very unwise to think that since non-Arab scholars (such as Berbers and Persians) wrote in Arabic, we should call all the achievements of the golden age of Islam Arabic. RedEye98 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

RedEye98, the title of the page you are editing is Hindu-Arabic numerals. It is not Hindu-Islamic numerals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think so, go in the Arabian horse page, write Arabic Zoology! What you are talking about is a fallacy. They call it Arabic because it was used in the Arab Caliphate. In fact, Persian Khwarizmi made it from Indian numbers. You know that RedEye98 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

RedEye98, I would appreciate if you stick to topic and refrain from WP:OR. I have provided multiple sources that call Al-Kharizmi's mathematics "Arabic mathematics". You haven't provided any sources to show that that is in any way wrong.

I am not concerned with medieval Islam. The topic of this article pertains to the developments in Baghdad, carried out by mathematicians like Al-Khwarizmi and documented in Arabic texts. Their numerals are still called "Arabic numerals" world wide. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

1-Al-khwarizmi: Father of Algebra and Trigonometry (Physicians, Scientists, and Mathematicians of the Islamic World), Authors: Bridget Lim and Corona Brezina 2-A Selective Annotated and Unannotated Bibliography of Islamic Mathematics, Author: Dr. Pradip Kumar Majumdar 3- The Muslim Contribution to Mathematics, Author: Ali Abdullah Al-Daffa'Ali

Most scholars today and all people write in English, so is everything English? Don't make fallacy for it. Maybe now you say Islam is the religion of the Arabs so it doesn't matter whether its name is Arabic or Islamic. I must say, Christianity was also the religion of the Romans, but Western scholars did not say Christian philosophy is Roman philosophy, even though many European scholars and philosophers wrote in Latin. The language written by Muslim scholars was Hejazi Arabic. But there were no scholars from Hejaz. Bye RedEye98 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The sources you give only show that some scholars choose to call it "Islamic mathematics" or by related names. It does not establish what you claimed in your edit summary, "We don't have Arabic Mathematics, It's name is Islamic Mathematics". Given that the subject has been called "Arabic mathematics" for several centuries, and it has been called so on this page for several years, and it fits the context of the page in discussing the "Arabic numerals", you should either withdraw your claim or provide sources that show that it is wrong to call it "Arabic mathematics". Your personal opinions and arguments matter little on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Glyph comparison

It's misleading to include the "Modern Greek" (A', B', etc.) and Hebrew symbols, and possibly the Chinese, for two reasons. As the article says, "The glyphs in actual use are descended from Brahmi numerals and have split into various typographical variants since the Middle Ages", but this is not true of the Greek and Hebrew symbols, nor of the Chinese. The Greek and Hebrew are also not part of the system described in the article, with positional notation values (and I don't know whather the Chinese does or doesn't).--Linguistatlunch (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Shang dynasty numerals

I do not believe that the cited sources support the assertion that:

According to various sources this number system has its origin in Chinese Shang numerals (1200 BC), which was also a decimal positional value system of base 10.

References

Here is what these cited sources say:

1. Campbell, p. 30: "an interesting hypothesis arises, namely that the numeration system commonly used in the modern world had its origins 34 centuries ago in Shang China!"
2. Lam, p. 101: "In 'The Conceptual origins of our numeral system and the symbolic form of algebra' and 'Linkages: Exploring the similarities between the Chinese rod numeral system and our numeral system', I advanced the following thesis—that China is the earliest civilization to possess the concept of our numeral system, also known as the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. In this paper, I summarize the main points that have been put forward and also examine fresh evidence to support a further claim—that our numeral system has its origins in the Chinese rod numeral system."
3. Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, p. 198: I find no mention of Shang numerals. The only mention of Shang dynasty numerals or numeral system is on p. 1371, where Andrea Eberhard-Bréard writes: "Archaeologic finds from the Shang dynasty (fourteenth to eleventh century BCE) show the earliest number symbols inscribed on bones and tortoise shells. By then, different decimal and sexagesimal systems were in use. The use of rod-numerals is also attested on coins as early as from the Wang period (9-23 AD). These are related to instruments in use. For calculations, numbers were represented on a calculation surface by counting rods. The representation follows a decimal positional notation, where nine different signs for numbers ..."

None of these sources are asserting—as a fact—that the Shang dynasty numerals were the origin of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. The most we can say, based on these sources, is that they might be.

Unless better sources are provided I'm going to delete this sentence. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The attribution (according to ...) means that we're not stating it as a fact. The third source, states among other things, "this fact together with other evidence supports the thesis that the Hindu—Arabic numeral system has its origins in the Chinese rod numeral system." M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as you correctly point out, our article does not assert it as a fact. But it does assert that "various sources" do. However none of the cited sources assert this. 1) calls it "an interesting hypothesis", 2) says it provides "evidence to support" it, while the quote you give (by the same author as 2) simply mentions "evidence" which "supports the thesis". So none of these sources are asserting this as a fact, so our article can't say that anyone does assert this. Paul August ☎ 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have taken your concerns on board and changed it accordingly. Please let me know what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The summary "According to some sources, this number system may have originated" does not accurately describe these sources. A more accurate one would be something along the lines of:

"While there is no concrete evidence linking the two systems, and there are fundamental structural and orthographic differences between them, a few Chinese scholars have speculated that the positional decimal numeral systems of ancient India might have been influenced by the Chinese rod numerals, which ultimately descend from the numerals used with the oracle bone script of the Shang Dynasty."

–jacobolus (t) 22:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternately we could be more explicit and include direct (very strong) criticism of this theory. Here is what Chisomalis says:

Lam Lay-Yong (1986, 1987, 1988) hypothesizes that the rod-numerals were ancestral to the Hindu positional numerals. Her evidence for this hypothesis is that the rod-numerals are positional and decimal, and there was considerable cultural contact between China and India in the 6th century AD, around the time when positionality developed in India. Because the rod-numerals were used in computation and commerce, she asserts that it is inconceivable that the Indians would not have learned of this system from the Chinese, and, since it is so practical, they obviously would have borrowed it (Lam 1988:104). From this, she asserts that the rod-numerals are the ultimate ancestor of the Western numerals.

While Lam's hypothesis is plausible, I am deeply skeptical of its validity. Two immediate objections are that the Indian positional numeral-signs are those of the earlier Brahmi numerals, not of the rod-numerals, and that the rod-numerals have no zero-sign (whereas the Indian system does). To the first objection, Lam responds that "since six of the nine digits in rod numeral notation were strange to them, they would naturally have preferred their own numerals" (Lam 1986: 193). The notion that the rod-numerals were so foreign to the Indian mind as to require the total abandonment of its signs is unacceptable; who cannot comprehend the use of vertical and horizontal strokes? To the question of the zero, Lam replies that the abandonment of the alternating zong and heng positions required that the Indians develop a sign to fill the blank space (Lam 1986:194). I do not think this follows; a blank space would have served just as well as a zero-sign in either system, and if the abandonment of the alternating positions created such difficulty, why would the Indian mathematicians have done it? Even more damaging to Lam's argument are two structural differences between the rod-numerals and the Indian numerals that she ignores entirely: the rod-numerals have a quinary sub-base that the Indian numerals lack, and the rod-numerals are intraexponentially cumulative whereas the Indian positional numerals are ciphered. Moreover, no Indian texts of the period mention rod-numerals or any other Chinese numeration. Indeed, as I will discuss below, the Indian positional numerals were seen as remarkable in China in the early 8th century AD, suggesting that the Chinese traders who hypothetically transmitted the rod-numerals to India were entirely unaware of the result of their transmission. Lam's theory is so weak that it is equally plausible that the Greco-Roman counting board, which was also quinary-decimal, cumulative-positional, and used in the Middle East, was an ancestor of the Indian numerals - that is, it is not very plausible at all.

–jacobolus (t) 22:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's one criticism of Lam Lay-Yong's assertion that describes it as plausible. What about the other sources that support the theory/assertion/conjecture or whatever we want to call it? M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion "fringe speculation unsupported by evidence" is a much fairer name than "conjecture". –jacobolus (t) 22:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how the RS describe it (listing another two). M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Which is to say, after one author's rank speculation, later authors have repeated the same speculation, sometimes entirely uncritically, still without any evidence. –jacobolus (t) 23:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeated means "used by others" which in this instance means other scholars. It's not our job to look for evidence or label the scholars' assertions and theories, all we can do is report what the RS say and leave it at that. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's our job to serve readers by describing factually supported scholarly consensus, not trick them by exaggerating completely speculative and logically dubious claims, even if those claims happened to appear at some point in a peer reviewed paper. –jacobolus (t) 23:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We already did that, but at the same time, we cannot hide what's out there (regardless of whether we agree with it or not). M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a review of the book Fleeting Footsteps coauthored by Lam, again criticizing the lack of evidence or serious analysis:

... In most recent times, this claim has been made most succinctly in the works of Wang Ling and Joseph Needham. In a 1958 paper delivered in Adelaide, Wang presented a detailed case for a Sino origin of the "Hindu-Arabic" numerals and pointed to the strong possibility of westward transmission to India. Wang's theory was further amplified in his collaborative work with Joseph Needham. Science and Civilization in China, vol. 3, devotes several pages (pp. 146-150) to this very issue and the phenomena of "stimulus diffusion". Needham's work clearly indicates the need for further research clarification as to the status of early Hindu mathematics and the possibility of cultural transmissions. It is exactly this research that must be undertaken to strengthen the claim for a Chinese genesis of our numeral system and, unfortunately, it is exactly this research that is lacking in Fleeting Footsteps. What was the status of ancient Indian mathematics during the Warring States period of (Chinese history? How were the numerals used in ancient India? Could the Chinese have obtained their mathematical knowledge from India? after all, Buddhism was an intellectual import from China's western neighbor. These are some of the issues and questions that must be addressed in positing a claim of a Chinese origin for the "Hindu-Arabic" numeral system and they remain missing footsteps in the path this book has taken.

Despite the inability to develop and strengthen its major premise, Fleeting Footsteps is a valuable resource for understanding early Chinese mathematics. ...

–jacobolus (t) 00:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I pulled Needham's book off the shelf, and the analysis is basically: here's a list of mathematical developments that were seen in China a few centuries before they were seen anywhere else, and we have evidence of a decimal positional numeration system in China long before any extant Indian examples (Needham judges the Chinese system independent of Mesopotamian predecessors because there was no evidence of sexagesimal), therefore "could it be that the traveling monks exchanged mathematics for Indian metaphysics?" In other words, it's almost entirely speculative. –jacobolus (t) 00:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The new language offered by M.Bitton is better than what was there before, but jacobolus's language is better still. Paul August ☎ 00:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, jacobolus' language is WP:OR. I'm not exactly sure why they think that "conjecture" is not fair, but as luck would have it, that's exactly what "Frank Swetz" (whose 1994 review they cited above) used (in 2022) when describing the different theories.

Further, and perhaps more interesting, is the conjecture by historians of mathematics such as Wang Ling, Joseph Needham, and Lam Lay Yong and Ang Tian Se that our contemporary numeral system is derived from rod placements [Xu 2005]. They suggest that, as rod numerals were recorded and copied over centuries, scribes became complacent and hastened their writing process, gradually slipping into more cursive forms as illustrated below. What do you think? Perhaps our numeral system could more correctly be designated as the ‘Sino–Hindu–Arabic’ numeral system. Such a title might be more encompassing and historically revealing. M.Bitton (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That what we are dealing with here is a "conjecture" is certainly true, but the question I take jacobolus to be raising, is just how "fringe" of a conjecture is it? (I further take his characterization of the conjecture as "fringe speculation unsupported by evidence" to be a bit of rhetorical hyperbole). I think something like what jacobolus has proposed above: "While there is no concrete evidence ..."—provided it can be adequately sourced—is a bit more nuanced and precise than what we have now. Paul August ☎ 12:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with M.Bitton. Hu741f4 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A conjecture that it put forward by various scholars and used by others is certainly not fringe. Describing as a such would solve the issue without delving into original research: something along the lines of Some historians of mathematics have conjectured that ... should do. M.Bitton (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the entire "origins" section of this article should be scrapped as largely a politically/ideologically motivated distraction from the primary focus of the page (based on edit wars between Indian vs. Arab nationalists), and the topic should be combined into the "history" section. The current scholarly consensus should be accurately described, ideally in substantially greater detail than we currently have done, prominently noting that our understanding is based on an extremely fragmentary record because few written documents survive from the times and places in question. After that, we can give room to this very weakly supported speculation about an origin in Chinese rod numerals, but only if we (a) directly state the basis for the claims [namely (1) both systems are positional and decimal, (2) various other mathematical ideas are attested in Chinese sources many centuries before they are attested in Indian sources, and (3) there was some cultural contact between India and China at the time, e.g. the spread of Buddhism.] and note that there is no direct evidence involved, and (b) mention the obvious criticisms [e.g. (1) the two systems are orthographically unrelated with the rod numeral system based, like Sumerian/Akkadian sexagesimal cuneiform numerals, on direct representation at each digit, while the Indian/Southeast Asian numerals are symbolic; (2) the Chinese system, like Roman numerals and Greek/Roman counting boards, is a bi-quinary representation, but the Indian numeral systems are not; (3) the Brahmi numerals are an obvious symbolic antecedent for the Indian numerals from which evolution is easy to imagine; (4) there is no mention of counting rods or rod numerals in any Indian source, or anything even vaguely similar] and possibly point out that they haven't really engaged seriously with them. –jacobolus (t) 14:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way, someone should also probably try to redraw the figures showing the evolution of the numerals, as a few of them are illicitly copied without credit from published books. –jacobolus (t) 14:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think these are all good suggestions. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)