• 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      In the history of mathematics, -1 was understood waaaay before 0.

      For the Greeks, doing 1-1 would be invalid, something close to dividing by zero for us.

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Fun fact, for the greeks, 1 is not a number either - they said the natural numbers started at 2 and unity is something else. This is because, they said, all numbers represent pluralities.

            • FishFace@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              30 days ago

              We know the limit of a/x as x --> 0 if a ≠ 0.

              The limit is different if a = 0.

              The limit of the division function under certain conditions is not the same as division - division has a discontinuity at 0 which is expressing the same thing.

              Defining division by zero only works if you don’t care to preserve the field axioms, which is often inconvenient and so not done. The Riemann sphere is not a field, and fairly niche in the context of mere division, so I stand by my accusation of this being misleading.

              The policy of not defining division by zero to preserve the cancellation law is the most sensible default.

    • Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I saw a video years ago where somebody was talking (with a translator) to a tribe, I forget where. He asked how do they count. They would point with one hand to the other hand. Once they’ve got to five they start pointing to other parts of the arm moving upwards. He then asked what if you need to count higher. They looked confused, why would they need to count higher.

      For them they could exist without needing to count beyond teens.

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        I’m not sure how accurate that is, calenders are pretty important for being able to survive, and surely they need to figure “do we have enough food to last the rest of this season”.

        Maybe they have different math for that or there was an issue with translation.

        • Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          These dudes lived in the tropics and lived off the fat of the land. They didn’t need to worry about seasons in the way more northern/southern hemisphere people do.

          Totally agree though. Maths, astrology, water sources, farming. All very important to sustain a civilisation.

    • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Mathematics for much of human history was discrete - it had to be connected to something tangible which you can see, touch or feel. Negative numbers first arose in China, subsequently the use numerical operations on negative numbers and the conceptualization and use of zero arose in India. Spiritual concepts within dharmic philosophies such as Buddhism helped lead to these ideas.