Talk:Arabic numerals/Archive 3

Arabic vs Hindu-Arabic numerals
Hi I undid your changes to Arabic_numerals since it makes sense to retain the name as Hindu-Arabic_numerals. Other related articles are named thus, see Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system & History_of_the_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system. Moreover, using the term "Arabic numerals" might be misleading since arabs today use numbers that are based on the Hindu Arabic numeral system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC) and copied here from User talk:Francis Schonken by Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of problems with your edits. Firstly, the proper procedure to retitle a page is as explained at Help:Moving a page. In particular, as it says there, "You should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that." Secondly, you say that other related articles are named thus, but there is a difference between Arabic numerals and the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. The "Arabic numerals" refer to the symbols 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and that is the subject of this page. The "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" refers to the positional system with zero, which may use these symbols or similar symbols from which the symbols 0, 1, 2, etc. developed. This is explained on this very talk page. Thirdly, the key point in naming an article here is which name is used in practice. Fourthly, this has been discussed many times, on this very talk page. The last time it was decided that the page should be titled "Arabic numerals", so the onus is on you to show that there is a consensus to move the page to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" by following the procedure explained at Requested moves. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic numerals can also refer to the numerals Arabs use to write numbers, but that is beside the point. The "cut and paste" move was done without consensus, so it must be reverted. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Middle East (Arabia), two sets of numerals are used. In Western Arabia (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, and Libya), the Arabic numerals (0123456789) are used exclusively.  In the Levant, glyphs known as Indian numerals (٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩) are used as well.  This is why telephones in the Levant may have two sets of numerals: http://www.trincoll.edu/~greger/Cairo%20telephone.JPG --Nmatavka (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Which name is used in practice" is a matter of POV, and if Wikipedia is to be made non-eurocentric, we need to discuss here about the inappropriate name of this article. The numerals currently in use are not even the same that were even transferred to Europe from India by the Arabs. Arabic numerals can only means numerals used in Arabian countries or in the arabian language. 86.96.226.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Middle East (Arabia), two sets of numerals are used. In Western Arabia (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, and Libya), the Arabic numerals (0123456789) are used exclusively.  In the Levant, glyphs known as Indian numerals (٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩) are used as well.  This is why telephones in the Levant may have two sets of numerals: http://www.trincoll.edu/~greger/Cairo%20telephone.JPG --Nmatavka (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The English Wikipedia is written in the English language, so the titles of the articles are in English, so we choose the titles depending on how terms are used in the English language.
 * Dictionaries disagree with your last sentence. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary says "arabic numerals: the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, etc." Languages often do not follow logic. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The OED has one illustration of "Hindu-Arabic numerals":
 * 1911 Smith & Karpinski Hindu-Arabic Numerals iii. 45 Concerning the earliest epigraphical instances of the use of the nine symbols, plus the zero, with place value, there is some question.
 * It also has only one of "Arabic numerals":
 * 1799 T. Green Diary Lover of Lit. (1810) 177 Writing, he deduces, from pictural representations, through hieroglyphics ... to arbitrary marks ... like the Chinese characters and Arabic numerals.
 * In definitions, only the latter is used:
 * cipher, v. 1. intr. To use the Arabic numerals in the processes of arithmetic; to work the elementary rules of arithmetic; now chiefly a term of elementary education.
 * †small figures: Arabic numerals
 * algorism: the Arab mathematician Abu Ja'far Mohammed Ben Musa, ... through the translation of whose work on Algebra, the Arabic numerals became generally known in Europe.
 * However, whereas "arabic numerals" are defined as "the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.", there is no definition for "Hindu-Arabic numerals". Note by this usage, "arabic" is in small case. This distinguishes them from "Arabic numerals" in upper case, though even the OED is not consistent here. (Note they are also not consistent about "Algebra", but we do not capitalize algebra in Wikipedia.) kwami (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That only covered the plural form. In the singular there are a couple more. Note under uranium:
 * Also with following (arabic) numeral, denoting the mass number of the isotope concerned; and with following (usu. Roman) numeral or capital letter denoting an isotope of uranium or one formed by the decay of uranium.
 * kwami (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm making another call for this article to be moved or renamed to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" in fitting with the standards laid out by Wikipedia. This is the most common usage for this subject in English. It is the spelling/capitalization used in most dictionaries and encyclopedias. And this title goes along with related articles better and better reflects the development of this numeral system. Rapparee71 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

capitalization
One of the arguments for choosing "Arabic numerals" over "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is that this is the form found in the OED. However, that is not quite true. Although the OED is often inconsistent in capitalization ("Algorism" vs. "algorism", for example), the definition of this phrase, listed under the capitalized "Arabic", is carefully not capitalized in the OED:
 * Arabic, a.
 * 1. Of or pertaining to Arabia or its language. arabic numerals: the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
 * 2. esp. in gum arabic, which is exuded by certain species of Acacia, and arabic acid, obtained from it.

That is, the position of the OED is that "arabic numeral" should no more be capitalized than "gum arabic".

Adopting this position, besides having the authority of the world's greatest dictionary behind it, has the added benefit of disambiguating "arabic numerals" = European/ISO numerals from "Arabic numerals" = East/West Arabic numerals. It is the conflation of these two concepts that motivates the endlessly resurrected debate over whether this article should be located here or under "Hindu-Arabic numerals". Perhaps this will help resolve the debate. kwami (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although there is a note at the end of the lead section about the capitalisation of "arabic", the varying capitalisation styles in the paragraphs preceding this -- especially in the bold terms -- still looks like random inconsistency or an oversight. The significance of capitalisation needs to be explained where the bold terms are defined. 86.134.12.220 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC).


 * And the opening sentence -- The arabic numerals, or Hindu numerals (often capitalized)... -- is also confusing since "Hindu" is already shown as capitalised. Maybe it means that "arabic" is often capitalised, but the intervening alternative name makes this unclear. 86.134.12.220 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the citation in the article, the OED says to write it lowercase, but Merriam-Webster (m-w.com), Random House (dictionary.com), New Oxford American Dictionary (the dictionary built into Mac OS X), and Encarta (the built-in dictionary in Word) all write it capitalized: Arabic numerals. Also, Word auto-corrects it to capitalized. -- tooki (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was always written as "Hindu-Arabic" when I was growing up in the 1970's and 1980s in textbooks and encyclopedias. And if you look in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, you will see it written as Hindu-Arabic. It is listed as an adjective, in use since 1925.  Could this be another case of dialectal differences?  In American English it is "Hindu-Arabic", but in British English it's written "arabic"?  Since more sources use "Hindu-Arabic", this is what we should default to. Also, since Wikipedia is an American endeavour (even though contributors come from all over the English speaking world), we should default to American English.  Rapparee71 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I always saw it as "Arabic numerals" in my education in USA and Switzerland -- until Wikipedia, I'd never heard of them referred to as anything else. (That said, my background in this regard is grade school and basic college math, and typography. I am not a math historian.) Regardless, as should be evident from the heading my note is under: I posted to discuss CAPITALIZATION, not the terminology per se. I am arguing "arabic" vs. "Arabic", NOT "arabic" (or "Arabic") vs. "Hindu-Arabic". -- tooki (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tooki is right! Arabic with a big 'a' is right; the Arabic numerals were invented by the Arabs, not the arabs.  This is a British practice as well; the OED is somewhat peculiar in that aspect, as well as the misspelling of capitalisation as capitalization. --Nmatavka (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename
Rename this article to Hindu Numerals as it originated in India and was first created by Aryabhatta. I though the whole point of Wikipedia was to make people get the right knowledge, but the correct title is not correct.

It's a good thing the second paragraph is there, else the reader may forget that they're Indian in origin, as related in the first paragraph.


 * The system, not the numerals. Here are the Indian numerals: ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩.  ARABIC numerals are: 0123456789.  See the difference?  However, both cultures count ones, tens, hundreds, and thousands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmatavka (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Arabic numerals ARE NOT: 0123456789. IT is made this way by the WEST over the centuries. The original Arabic numerals are THE SAME as the Indian. And i have seen ancient Arabic text to confirm that. Why are you people that stubborn (or are just uneducated?) 192.87.123.159 (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow.....
FIRST: YOU de-credit Indians, by renaming this to Arabic numerals, on top of that, there is ABSOLUTELY NO BLOODY MENTION OF ARYABHATTA IN THIS ARTICLE? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, dood. Take a deep breath.  Now: BOOOOOOONG HIT!  Feel better?  I knew you would. --Nmatavka (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What an display of arrogance, mr or mrs Nmatavka. You surely are an admin to do that to unprivileged users.192.87.123.159 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

solution
There is a simple solution to this problem. Any organisation aimed at dicrediting/humiliating Indian or Indians (like Wikipedia is doing with this article) should be boycotted by India and the Indians (just like China did with Google). Thank you for letting me post.Iknowthesolution (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you go make some curry for us. Of course, curry is Arab also, just like the whole world will one day be.Arabpurist (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC).


 * U are a true soldier of Islam. Even though the numbers are Indian, we should keep the name Arabic numerals.Keepconquering (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepconquering (talk • contribs)

Written Order
The section on Urdu numerals above claims that numbers are written left-to-right in Arabic script while words are written right-to-left. I think this qualifies as a common misconception. It is true that written numbers appear identically in Roman and Arabic script, but this is better understood in the terms that in computer science has come to be known as endianness. Many English speakers are familiar with an archaic way of reading numbers from right-to-left, e.g. "four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie". My understanding it that this is the norm for reading numbers in Arabic. That is, Arabic is "little-endian" and English is "big-endian" in reading and writing numbers. From the little-endian point of view, the Arabic writing style for numbers is consistently right-to-left.

The "British Raj" explanation given above for Urdu can then be understood slightly differently; (probably) some languages other than Arabic, that are written in Arabic script, adopted the western, big-endian convention for reading numbers. I do not know if users of the language also conventionally break right-to-left continuity to write numbers left-to-right, as the comment suggests. I suppose that might seem natural to someone who was primarily taught the big-endian reading.

--AJim (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, you're right (AFAIK). But are you discussing changing something in the article, or just something on this talk page? Shreevatsa (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was thinking about extending the section in the article on "common misconceptions". The misconception being that numbers written in Arabic numerals have to be, or are "naturally" only, read or written left-to-right (big-endian), with the counter example being Arabic. Perhaps this is more about positional notation than about the numerals themselves? I do think the idea is worth expounding somewhere though, because I do not think I am alone in needing to have it explained to me. --AJim (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The numeric system:
The myth that the Arabs — not necessarily Islam or the Muslims — invented the current numeric system comes from the fact that the west learned it from the Arabs — hence called Arabic numerals in Europe but they forget to remember that in Arabia these are called Hindsa — from Hind. Moreover Arabic is written from right to left — had the Arabs invented the numeric system they would have written the numerals also from right to left instead of from left to right –as the numerals are written even today in Arabia.

These are some evident signs that the so-called Arabic numerals did not have their origin in Arabia. Let us now look at some more concrete evidence as to their origin. And what better to turn to than a Muslim.

Alberuni (AD 973 – 1048), a Muslim scholar, mathematician and master of astrology, both according to the Greek and the Hindu system who wrote twenty books including translations on India, in his most famous and authentic work, “Indica” (c. 1030 AD) wrote:

“The Hindus do not use the letters of their alphabet for numerical notation, as we use Arabic letters in the order of the Hebrew alphabet. As in different parts of India the letters have different shapes, the numerical signs, too, which are called ‘anka’, differ. The numerical signs which we use are derived from the finest forms of the Hindu signs.”

He went on to write:

“The Arabs, too, stop with the thousand, which is certainly the most correct and the most natural thing to do. …. Those, however, who go beyond the thousand in their numeral system are the Hindus, at least in their arithmetical technical terms, which have been either freely invented or derived according to certain etymologies, whilst in others both methods are blended together. They extend the names of the orders of numbers until the 18th order for religious reasons, the mathematicians being assisted by the grammarians with all kinds of etymologies.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.13.179 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

terminology: "numeral" versus "digit"
My impression is that "numeral" properly refers to a written representation of any number, not just the digits 0-9. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/numeral) Unfortunately, it seems that "Arabic numeral" is interpreted by many to mean just the Arabic digits 0-9, for example as indicated by the opening sentence of this article and on the numeral page. I would reword the first sentence to read, "Arabic numerals or Hindu numerals or Hindu-Arabic numerals are numerals composed of the ten Arabic digits (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)." and remove "Numerical digit" from the numeral page. The Hindu–Arabic numeral system page gets it mostly right, using "glyph" instead of "numeral". IOLJeff (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the word "numeral" can have both meanings, i.e. it can mean "digit". See here, for instance. FilipeS (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture Problem
um...Has anybody noticed that the pictures under "Adpotion in Europe" don't have the the flow command? I tried to find the pictures and fix it, but they seem to have disappeared. Thanks!--Rubypc123 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Urdu numerals
The numerals are wrong for Urdu. Urdu doesnt use that 4. The Urdu 4 looks more like the heart symbol, chopped in half  with a line from what was the cusp extending up. It's hard to find the symbol on the net, however when I learnt Urdu numerals, we used that instead of the Persian four. This symbol, I havent been able to find even in Unicode. Other than that Urdu writes numerals left-to-right and words right-to-left, this is a holdover from British Raj.
 * This is true... Urdu uses the Persian variant of the Eastern Arabic digits... but peoples of Arabic culture (in Arabia) use another Eastern variant, that they think is the purest variant. Anyway, Mahomet apparently did not know those digits (none of the three variants), so Arabic digits have appeared only very late in the Coran, to add numbers to verses as annotations. There are no numbers in the Coranic verses.
 * In summary there are THREE variants of Arabic digits :
 * The Western Arabic set of digits (0-9 as used in Europe and now in most of the world), named "Roman digits" by Arabic speaking muslims, but preferably "Euro-Arabic" digits. These digits are normally not used within texts written in the Arabc script.
 * Two Eastern Arabic sets of digits (both named "Hindu digits" by muslims:
 * The Central Arabic digits (used in Arabia and by Sunnites) (those digits are named "Hindu" digits by muslims).
 * The Persian-Urdu Eastern Arabic digits (used in Iran, Pakistan and many South Caucasian peoples, and by shiites)
 * verdy_p (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove "hindu" from Arabic-Hindu
I have never seen this term used except here. Ok, hindu\indian origins can be achnowleged in the article but keep refering to them as "arabic-hindu" numerals is clearly a political aganda and POV. "Danish" at coffee shops did not origin in Denmark but is not called "Danish-Italian-Scandavian" whatever.


 * Me neither, since the term in use is Hindu-Arabic, not Arabic-Hindu, which I've never seen in use. deeptrivia (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen it as "Hindu-Arabic" for the past 30 years here in the United States. I call that "common usage"! Rapparee71 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the States do you live in? I've never seen "Hindu-Arabic" or "Arabic-Hindu" ever. Always just "Arabic numerals" though everyone acknowledges the Arabs got the system from Indians. And how do we even know they were Hindus and not Buddhists? Wouldn't it be Indo-Arabic to begin with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.31.144 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, the word Hindu only acquired religious connotations after the 18-19th century. It is derived from the the name the river Sindhu and meant "Indian" before that; especially used by the Persians and the Arab traders. All the three terms are in common usage, but you will be more used to one of the terms depending up on the part of the world you come from.  Arjun  codename024 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Arab numerals used in north Africa and then in the rest of the world were invented by the famous Muslim mathematician al-Khwarizmi (known as the father of computing because he invented the algorithmic system), the Arabic numerals were based on the numbers of af angles in each number while the zero is round (no angles) and then have nothing to do with India or Hindu. the Hindu-Arabic numerals are those used in the middle east and have nothing to do with what you are using in the states you may see this link for the Arabic numerals http://www.islamicbulletin.com/newsletters/issue_20/numbers.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.200.236.124 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arabic/Persian
Did Europeans get the numerals from the Arabs or the Persians? The intro makes this point unclear (and possibly conflates Arabs & Persians). Ashmoo 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From Arabs. I'll check if there's any confusion in the intro. deeptrivia (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Europeans got the numerals from al-Aldalus: the Muslim State under Arab rule(the actual Spain and Portugal). So, no confusion between Arabs Persians even the one who invented them was form the a Persian region (the actual Uzbekistan). Because at that time: there were no persian or Arabic state, there were only the Muslim state (because Islam rejects the ethnic and racial classifications).

why the word Arabic instead of Muslim numerals? this is because when the Castiles invaded al-Andalus and made the Spanish kingdom, they did their best to annihilate Islam. It was more fitting for them to call the numerals as Arabic rather than Islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.200.236.124 (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All languages have words that don't make sense. The Spanish flu didn't come from Spain, Dutch ovens aren't really Dutch, and German measles did't really come from Germany. The Wikipedia should not be used to crusade for the reform of the English language. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arabic digits and Arabic population
There are very clear indications that the populations that in effect invented and used the Arabic numerals for the first time were Indoeuropean in origin, that is, Europeans. So the name for this numeral system is misleading because it refers to a land region then by inference it is assigned to the current dominant population ethnias, not to the historical populations that were the actual inventors. It would be more accurate to call this numeric system Occidental or Modern. This is readily understood by comparing our current digit signs to the current Arabic and Hindi common language signs to see where the difference lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.6.85 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Indoeuropean and European are two completely different things. 2) All languages contains words and phrases that "don't make sense." Language reform is not the job of the Wikipedia editor. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This page overlaps with Hindu–Arabic numeral system.
(This follows from my new section just above about "numeral" versus "digit".) Much of this article is not about the graphemes themselves but rather is about the notational system and so belongs in Hindu–Arabic numeral system. IOLJeff (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is far too much overlap, not only between those two articles but also with Eastern Arabic numerals, Indian numerals, History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, and Hindu–Arabic numeral system, for instance. This has been discussed before in this page, but I don't think it has been resolved satisfactorily.
 * On the other hand, I disagree with making too sharp a distinction between the graphemes and the notational system. Surely an encyclopedic article about the (Hindu-)Arabic numerals should discuss both! Bear in mind that there are already more specilized articles on the mathematics of Positional notation. I think the tricky part is not separating the digits from their mathematical significance -- which should not be done --, but separating the history and culture of number symbols from the mathematics of their structure. All this is compounded by the ambiguity of the word Numeral. FilipeS (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Order is Wrong
I have a theorem that the left-to-right order of Arabic Numbers is wrong, it has to be corrected with Veyselic Numbers, hich are right-to-left. See http://www.VeyselicNumbers.com for more details. Veyselperu (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article regarding Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī
The article states that Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī is credited with their invention in 500CE, this is 280 years before he was born: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.109.90.74 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw that edit when it first occurred several months ago. What it replaced was even worse, the Hindu version of the same sort of nonsense. I was expecting Snowflake (or whatever his name is) to revert it back to the Hindu-nationalist version, only that never happened. The fact is, many thoughtful editors have simply given up on this article because of that sort of thing. However, if someone wants to correct it, here's a suggestion: Arabic numerals were not "invented" by at any specific time and place. Instead they evolved over many centuries. In some cases, the addition of a specific element can be narrowed down to a particular country and century.


 * From what I've read, it seems to have started with Aramaic writing, the source of both Brahmi script and (indirectl) Brahmi numerals. The numerals arrived via Saka numerals, the cursive forms of which are found on the Asoka pillars, which in turn are recognized as the archetypes of Brahmi numerals. The place system was a later development, as was the introduction of zero. Zero is actually several related concepts, represented by several different glyphs. A prime candidate for the zero glyph of Arabic numerals is the Greek omicron, which was used as the symbol for zero in the Almagest (circa 120 AD). Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Correction: that wasn't the edit I was thinking of, but an earlier similar one on the same sentence. I have just reverted the edit complained of here as it is unreferenced. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo Fibonacci / Leonardo of Pisa...1202
The article read "Fibonacci". I changed it to Leonardo Fibonacci (Leonardo of Pisa) and added "1202". - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

When did the first representation of 'Western Arabic/European numerals' - modern numerals - occur?
Am I missing something BIG? When did the first representation of Western Arabic/European numerals - modern numerals - occur? Was it in 1202 with Leonardo Fibonacci? If so, let's see the example. Or was it when the printing press was invented? - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Major merger!
What a mess! Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash, not a hyphen) are two separate articles, and Hindu-Arabic numeral system (with a hyphen) does not redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system (with an en-dash) but to Arabic numerals, and Arabic numeral system does not redirect to Hindu–Arabic numeral system but to Arabic numerals.

Welcome to the earliest days of Wikipedia. In 2002 and 2003 this would be expected. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's political. We have some Borat-type guys from India who want everything to be Glorious Nation. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'Eastern Arabic' numerals should be kept as a separate article.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Eastern Arabic numerals and Hindu–Arabic numeral system should be both merged together, and possibly also merged to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.218.141 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this mess...
...and no progress is being made on the merger, so first is to remove banners at the top. Who's with me?

Also, why is there so much history nonsense going on in the lead? No one calls them "Hindu numbers," not even Arabs. Even if Arabs did call them "Hindu numbers," why would that matter...

Cheers, &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 23:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the intro says the numbers descended from the ancient Indian system, then proceeds to contradict that by saying they were independently developed. How can that be better addressed?
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 22:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Style issue
Normally I would just fix this myself, but knowing how people will fly off the handle over trivial things like this...

In 3 places "BC" (="Before Christ") is used; in one place "CE" (="Common Era") is used. Ideally this article ought to standardize its style on either BC/AD or BCE/CE. My usual inclination is to count usages & make all instances conform to the majority, but considering the topic I suspect that might start off a new chapter for WP:LAME. Does anyone have a strong preference for one style over the other? (My own preference is simply to see one usage here, & not waste my limited time arguing over which one to use.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes consistency should be the paramount concern. From a brief look at the article history it seems that BC/AD was used first, so I'd be inclined to use that. Paul August &#9742; 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Eastern and Western
I don't understand why you changed Eastern Arabic to Western Arabic here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. According to the source at the article, Eastern Arabic numerals, "Eastern Arabic" or "Eastern Arabic-Indic numerals" refer to the eastern variant of Arabic-Indic numerals. (The Persian and Urdu one.) While the Western Arabic-Indic one or simply Arabic-Indic numerals is the variant used in the Middle East. I believe that these articles are currently under misleading titles.


 * "Arabic-Indic Digits. Forms of decimal digits used in most parts of the Arabic world (for instance, U+0660, U+0661, U+0662, U+0663). Although European digits (1, 2, 3,…) derive historically from these forms, they are visually distinct and are coded separately. (Arabic-Indic digits are sometimes called Indic numerals; however, this nomenclature leads to confusion with the digits currently used with the scripts of India.) Variant forms of Arabic-Indic digits used chiefly in Iran and Pakistan are referred to as Eastern Arabic-Indic digits. (See Section 9.2, Arabic.)" Filpro (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Karl Menninger book, which seems pretty comprehensive, says this:
 * The East Arabic numerals are used by all Arabic-writing peoples of the Orient (Egyptians, Syrians, Turks, Persians), and are known there as `Indian' (huruf hindayyah); the West Arabic numerals were the direct ancestors of our own Western numerals, which are popularly called `Arabic'. The `Western Arabs' in Morocco today still use these numerals rather than the East Arabic.
 * The Figure 239 of the book shows the family tree, where it is clear that the Western Arabic numerals are direct descendants of the Indian Brahmi numerals (probably through oceanic trade) whereas the Eastern Arabic numerals went by the overland route and got modified. I think this is satisfactory terminology. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up. Filpro (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that means that all of your edits to all of these pages need to be reverted! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please revert all your edits to the terminology, especially for the image? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did not see that! Sure thing. Filpro (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Numerals and numeral systems
We have separate articles called Arabic numerals and Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but the difference between them is specious. A "numeral" is not a digit, it is a sequence of digits that is used to represent a number. So a "numeral" doesn't exist without a numeral system. A recent edit claims that the "Hindu-Arabic numerals are distinct from the Hindu-Arabic numeral system." I am afraid the average Wiki-reading public would be lost. They know two kinds of numerals, the "Roman numerals" and "Arabic numerals," both of which refer to numeral systems. So, that is what we should be talking about. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between them is huge. We shouldn't publish misleading content for the "average public", we should educate them. If they think there are only two kinds of numerals, they are wrong. Numerals are a set of glyphs to a numeral system. There are many different numerals which use the hindu-arabic numeral system. All linux distributions use the linux kernel but none are the same. --Monochrome _ Monitor  03:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the gyphs are called digits, not numerals. The digits might be written differently in different scripts, but they are the same numerals. A Sanskrit verse written in Brahmi and Devnagari is the same verse, it doesn't become different by change of script. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the individual glyphs are called digits. The set of glyphs is called numerals. And remember WP:JERK. --Monochrome _ Monitor  08:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The set of glyphs is called numerals." Can you produce a reliable source for that? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Numerals and numeral systems, a collection of symbols used to represent small numbers, together with a system of rules for representing larger numbers. (respectively)" You're awfully stubborn, aren't you? The set of small numbers 0-9. 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 together are numerals. With the hindu-arabic numeral system these numbers can represent much larger numbers as each position from the left represents an increasing order of magnitude (base 10). --Monochrome _ Monitor  13:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please humour me. And, focus on the issues instead of talking about me.
 * It does appear that the author of the Britannica article is using the term "numeral" to mean a single digit and he is using "number" to mean combinations of digits.
 * On the other hand, if you look at dictionary meanings of "numeral," many dictionaries admit sequences of digits representing a number as a single "numeral." This is especially the meaning in Mathametics (according to Collins Dictionary). I know that mathematicians dislike using "number" in the way Britannica is using because the same number can be represented differently in different numeral systems.
 * So it is possible that "numeral" means both the meanings. I will have a think about how to balance the two. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Britannica article (and the linked article on "decimal number system") calls individual digits "numerals" and larger strings of digits "numbers", as in the phrase "...the number 543.21 represents the sum...".


 * On the contrary, the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary (and my personal experience as a mathematician) say that a numeral is a symbolic representation of a number. For example, "32", "thirty-two", "64 / 2", "XXXII", and "0x20" are five numerals representing the number 32 (in various numeral systems). For another example, "0.999..." and "1" are two numerals representing the number 1.


 * Whether or not Wikipedia takes "numeral" to mean only single digits, I don't see much point in having an article about those digits separate from the numeral system that combines them into larger symbols and assigns number meanings to those symbols. Mgnbar (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's numeral singular. I'm talking about numerals, plural. Numerals. Also, don't appeal to authority (yourself.) Sorry for being bitchy Kautilya3, I was getting defensive because I felt you had attacked me earlier, what with saying I seemed inexperienced and whatnot. --Monochrome _ Monitor  21:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Hug? --Monochrome  _ Monitor  21:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I gave you two reliable sources, albeit vaguely cited. Then I added a parenthetical remark to explain my viewpoint, not to claim any kind of authority.
 * What is the point of your distinction between the singular "numeral" and the plural "numerals"? Are you saying that Wikipedia should have an article on the symbols "0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", separate from its article on the Hindu-Arabic numeral system? Mgnbar (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It does. This is the article. --Monochrome _ Monitor  21:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does have the article. The question being discussed here is whether it should have the article. In fact, much of this article is about the system, not the ten digits themselves. And that corroborates Kautilya3's fundamental point, that the numerals have little significance outside their system. Mgnbar (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I haven't raised that question yet, though it is in the air. (What is stopping me from proposing a merger is that there are about 10 articles under Hindu-Arabic numeral system -- see the template:Numeral systems -- and I haven't made up my mind whether all of them should be merged. However, the duplication between this article and the Hindu-Arabic numeral system is still a problem and needs to be addressed.)

I looked up the OED after your mention, and it seems to me that the first meaning, which is vaguely written as "Of letters, figures, words, parts of speech, etc.: expressing or denoting a number or numbers" corresponds to Monochrome Monitor's meaning, judging from the examples given. On the other hand, another meaning "A figure or character (or a group of these) denoting a number. Also used reductively of a person" is the mathematical meaning. So, "numeral" does seem to have these two meanings in English. The best thing to do may be to expand Numeral into a short article, explaining the two meanings, and give links to the various articles. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, I mis-cited OED. Sorry. I meant to cite the New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd edition (2010), as presented in my computer's dictionary application. The definition there is "a figure, symbol, or group of these denoting a number; a word expressing a number." The definition at Merriam-Webster is "a symbol (such as 1, 2, or 3) that represents a number" and later "a symbol or group of symbols representing a number". Regards, all. Mgnbar (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea, two sections. On the numerals in the mathematical sense and in the glpyh sense, which is more linguistics than mathematics, since the glyphs follow a sort of phililogical history. I was a bit confused about this being in mathematics. It's like consonants having a different phonetic and phonological definition. --Monochrome _ Monitor  02:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Can I restore the distinction between the system and the numerals? I do think that we shouldn't merge all of them. --Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder what thinks? He didn't accept my barnstar :P And I try not to give those out to lightly... --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome  _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean I've only sent three. But I digress, this is my own angst. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I accepted your barnstar (and thanks), I just didn't accept your invitation to participate in this discussion, as so far I can't think of anything useful to add to this discussion. Paul August &#9742; 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we have established that "numeral" has two meanings, it would not be appropriate to use it as if it had only one (which is what your earlier edit did). So I do not favour your wording.
 * This article is one of the top-500 articles (by views) of the WikiProject Mathematics. So we should not mess with it lightly. I don't think all those viewers are coming to this page just to find out how the 10 digits came into being. They are interested in the numeral system itself. I still need to do more research to decide how to balance the two ideas of "numerals." - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note also that the mathematical meaning is not outside the purview of normal English. As you have seen, authoritative dictionaries give both the meanings (for normal English). - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you did Paul! Thanks. Yes I agree @Kautilya3.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Arabic numerals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151231193356/http://sciences.aum.edu/~sbrown/Hindu%20Arabic%20and%20Chinese.pdf to http://sciences.aum.edu/~sbrown/Hindu%20Arabic%20and%20Chinese.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 07:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Content forking: Arabic numerals and Hindu-Arabic numeral system
We currently have separate articles on Arabic numerals and Hindu-Arabic numeral system, as well as one on positional notation. This is more articles than there ought to be. The distinction between (Hindu–)Arabic numerals and the numeral system seems to have been something made up on Wikipedia, to avoid debates of the sort that keep occurring on the page. This is WP:OR — our "reliable sources" don't maintain a distinction between "Arabic/Hindu-Arabic numerals" and the "numeral system", often using "Hindu–Arabic numerals" or "Arabic numerals" to mean both the actual symbols and the positional system, in the sense of distinguishing this from Roman numerals (which, again, refers to both the symbols and the system).

We shouldn't separate articles and create our own compromises just to avoid debate. It would be more accurate to put everything in one article, and I hope we can undertake efforts to merge them. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article about the system should either redirect here, or to positional notation or decimal.--Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After a merge, yes. I didn't realise we also have articles on decimal and decimal representation.... Shreevatsa (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Positional representation has nothing to do with decimal system, or arabic numerals. If you use Suzhou numerals, you also use positional representation, and the article is not written in a way that indicates that other systems exist that use digits other than arabic. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose These are distinct concepts. What you're proposing is like merging alphabet with Latin alphabet. There is the system, and then there are the various instantiations of that system. Arabic numerals are just one; we also have articles on East Arabic, various Indian, Thai, and Khmer. Why should we have those, and not an article on the digits we use in English? Also, this has nothing to do with decimal notation! There are lots of decimal systems in the world, such as Roman and Chinese numerals, which have nothing to do with this article. And although India was the start of positional notation, it does now occur elsewhere, for example with modern Chinese numbers. kwami (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do most sources maintain these as distinct concepts? Roman numerals and Roman numeral system are clearly distinct concepts, but we have only one article — because it is not Wikipedia's place to observe distinctions that are not in published sources. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numerals are the characters used in the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, a decimal numerical system. These are two separate subjects, albeit related. Rapparee71 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Says who? (It might be true, but we shouldn't believe it without a source.) Shreevatsa (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but no Hindu-Arabic numerals. There are Indian numerals, which are the numerals ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩, and the Arabic numerals, which are the numerals 1234567890. --Nmatavka (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the OED, a digit is a grapheme ("figure") used for a number, which in our system is 1234567890, in Roman is IVXLCDM, etc. A numeral is (a) a word expressing a number (one, twenty, hundred, etc.) or (b) a digit. However, Arabic (Indian, Hindu-Arabic) numerals is a set phrase; *Arabic digits is not used in the OED.


 * Ifrah, p 10: "Our current number system is just such [a decimal system], using the following graphic signs, often referred to as Arabic numerals: 1234567890.


 * In other words, there is the numerical system, and then there are the figures it utilizes, just as there is the alphabetic system, and the particular letters (Greek, Roman, Armenian) that it utilizes. Ifrah also covers the history of the Indian system, starting with the figures that were used with a decimal but non-positional system, not unlike Roman numerals, and then evolving into a positional system. (Just as for example the Greek letters started out as an abjad.) That is, the Indian numerals were not always used with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Of course, it's common to not be explicit whether one is referring to numbers, numerals, digits, or positional systems, leaving the distinction to context. kwami (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of the people here supporting this should read the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "numerals and numeral systems", in particular, the section titled "Development of modern numerals and numeral systems". Both numerals and the positional system in which they are used are, of course related, but they are not dependent on one another. One could still use a positional system with different characters for example. The symbols, glyphs, characters (call them what you will) were developed with the positional system in which they are currently used.  Rapparee71 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't replied earlier — I was planning to read Ifrah, but haven't got around to it. Either way, let me clarify what my point was. I agree, and I understand, and I know, that a numeral system is different from the actual numerals used in it. I also know that the system that originated in India has used various sets of numerals, not just these Arabic numerals. My point was just this: we have only one article on the Roman numerals / numeral system, because no sources discuss them separately. Similarly, when sources speak of "(Hindu-)Arabic numerals", they are usually thinking of both the system and the numerals. It is true that, as you say, "one could still use a positional system with different characters", but if most sources discuss "Arabic numerals" and "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" together, we should have just one article. The problem with content-forking, in general, is that there will either be much duplication of content on the two articles, or they will each evolve to have an unbalanced focus on one aspect of the topic being discussed, like listening to a stereo broadcast using only the left audio channel! And you can see this happening: this article is in decent shape, but Hindu-Arabic numeral system and History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system are not, and they have much duplicated content some of which could be usefully merged into (say) this article. Anyway, I don't have much more to say on this... I don't know how to make the case that two things that I know are distinct ought to be considered together. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a fear that other people will mess up the articles is reason for our not doing a good job. We can always add dabs at the tops of the pages: This article considers the digits themselves. For the history of the number system, see XXX. Etc. kwami (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a fear that other people will mess up the articles — an expectation that readers looking for one thing are also looking for the other, that they would be best served by one article that discusses all aspects. And doing a good job is exactly the purpose of discussion; it seems we disagree on what the good job would look like. :) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We could have a separate article on Hindu-Arabic numerals, which would not cover 0123456789 specifically but the entire family of numerals. However, that might raise even more concerns about topic forking. kwami (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would we have a separate article on "Hindu-Arabic numerals"? It's the same thing! Moreover, what I've been saying is that it isn't valuable to discuss numerals separately from the system, and you seem to propose something that perpetuates that. I'm proposing merging articles, not splitting off even more new ones.
 * Here's a new question: What is the Hindu-Arabic numeral system? How is it different from positional notation or decimal or decimal representation? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Positional and decimal are two different things. Roman numerals were decimal but not positional. Mayan were close to positional but not decimal. The Indic system was both, but also historically Indian in origin. The Chinese rods numerals were both, but not Indic in origin (not directly, at least). It's like the alphabet: it doesn't make much sense to discuss the letters apart from the alphabetic system, yet we have articles on the alphabet in general, and separate articles on each major alphabetic script. We don't need to merge Bengali, Thai, Tamil, Tibetan, Persian, and Arabic numerals just because they are cognate and use the same system, any more than we need to merge the articles on the Greek, Cyrillic, Roman, Armenian, Georgian, and runic alphabets just because they are cognate and use the same system. kwami (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to make a distinction between the positional numeric notation invented by the Indians and modified by the Arabs, and the various sets of ten symbols each intended for use with that notation. There is only one set of Roman numeral symbols, so the system is treated as one article.  However, there are four (that I know of!) sets of Indo-Arabic numeral symbols, including the ones popularly known as Arabic and used the world over, and the ones popularly known as Indian, and traditionally used in the Eastern part of the Middle East.  Observe the distinction: 0123456789, ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩. --Nmatavka (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And after all of this, I still don't know what name to use for the "SCRIPT/GLYPHS" 0123456789...? I don't think this is evident in the article. I've read this a few times and what I take from it is that Arabic Numerals, as discussed above can be used for both system and character but I am under the impression that the system itself was originally written under a different set of glyphs, with no explanation (or clear one) how 0123456789 was made (the symbols). Where were these made and mapped onto the numeral system which we call arabic, or was the glyphs also made by arabs giving it is name (which I would find very odd as they don't seem to look anything like arabic writings).

I have made a small addition to the text. There is clearly a difference between the Arabic number system and Arabic digits. In many parts of the world usually the Arabic number system is used (but ocacsionally we still use Roman numbers), where the value of a digit is based on its position in a number, and a zero may be used to change the position of other digits without adding value itself. In the Arabic world they actually use different digits, but the same number system. Note that not any sequence of digits is a number. Telephone "numbers" are not actually numbers since it makes no sense to calculate with them (e.g. to add or substract telephone "numbers"). Also, leading zeros do have a meaning in telephone "numbers" but not in regular numbers. The designation "decimal" IMHO is not helpful. The binary and hexadecimal number system used by programmers share the property of the "Arabic" number system that in these systems the value of a number also depends on its position, and that they include a zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels (talk • contribs) 12:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article title complaint
So they originate in India, but on Wikipedia people think the title should be Arabic numerals? I think the title should be Indo-Arabic numerals, or Hindu-Arabic numerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA3:C300:584:4514:AD41:7B3C (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Almost every section of this talk page is this same complaint. You might want to read some of these earlier sections, to see what the arguments are, for and against. Mgnbar (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"A System for Writing Numerals"
The most recent edit, which I reverted, said "In its most generic sense the term refers to a system for writing numbers (as opposed to the Chinese or Roman numerals, for example) but not to any specific set of symbols." I don't know why the editor thinks that "Chinese numerals" aren't "a system for writing numbers", as is implied by this sentence. I suspect the author means to distinguish positional number systems from non-positional systems, such as Roman numerals. But they didn't say that. And it isn't true. There are many positional number systems (e.g. Mayan, Incan, Babylonian, that are positional but which no one would think of as being contained with "Arabic Numerals". Darrah (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I do not understand this comment or why my edit was reverted. Who says "'Chinese numerals' aren't 'a system for writing numbers'"? Chinese numerals are a numbering system like Arabic numerals, hence the comparison. And, no, I was not trying to "distinguish positional number systems from non-positional systems". The edited text did not say or imply that.
 * Again, please explain the reason for the revert.
 * -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well then, clearly your text was not well worded, since you did not communicate what you meant to. Darrah (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a reference to the Hindu-Arabic numeral system in the lead, which should be enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Darrah, if you want to reword my edit, feel free. I am not arguing that there may not be better wording. I am asking the reason for the deletion which you have not explained. You have made assertions about the text which are simply untrue (clear or not, the text did not in any way say what you claim). Again, it is generally inappropriate to delete another author's edits simply because you do not like the wording. It is always preferable to attempt to improve text rather than delete. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that is not how it works. Wikipedia editing is by consensus. It is your job, as the editor wanting a change, to convince the rest of us that you have a worthy edit.
 * So what is it that you are trying to do, and why? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Angle explanation for glyphs?
Sorry if I've missed it in the article - but when I was a kid, I read in the "how and why wonder book of mathematics" that the glyphs for "Arabic numerals" was based on the number of angles within the glyph; the following article Arabic Numerals gives an illustration of this concept.

Is this total bunkum? I'm hoping not as I've trotted it out to many people over the years. And if not - should it be in this article (and/or the numerous others that seem to touch on this topic)? Dugo 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the explanation for the "7' figure the funniest. deeptrivia (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the hook at the top, or the cross? French and German speakers cross their sevens (and often their Z's), so if the cross is the funny part - there's about 150 million people doing it every day. The germans also draw big loops on the bottom of their 9's
 * Crossed 7
 * Crossed Z
 * Dugo 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Angle # 1 and 7 in "7" are real cute attempts to fit everything in the hypothesis. 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people ought to try to understand each other's points here. There is nothing particularly "cute" or "funny" about the way Germans and others write certain numerals, but if these hooks and crosses are relatively modern (which I think they are), of course they cannot be invoked when explaining the origins of the glyphs.--Niels Ø 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, Niels Ø. Nothing serious here. Just wanted to say that I've never seen a 7 with a horizontal line at the bottom (like shown on this tripod.com homepage referred above). I completely appreciate the importance of understanding different points of view, but notability is also one of our concerns. I personally always cross my Zs and 7s, so it's not that I'm ridiculing the Germans and French for doing that (I didn't even know that crossing is believed to be more prevelant in those countries -- we do it all the time in India.) deeptrivia (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So that's basically my question; is it all hooey? This link gives a "7" and a "9" that more accurately reflects what I saw written in my childhood maths book - and are more credible than the tripod link. German handwritten 9's are extremely close to this figure, and the foot on the "7" seems more believable than the admittedly peculiar constructs on the tripod link. (When posing the question, I found the tripod link for illustrative purposes - and did not read beyond "6" as "1-6" all agreed with memory - so mea culpa there.)
 * So I'd rather know that it is indeed all crud (conveniently reverse-engineered as deeptrivia suggests) and never repeat it - or know that there is a grain of truth in it.
 * Aside/Trivia: Discussing this with someone yesterday, they said that when they grew up in Ireland/UK in the 1930s - a crossed seven were always referred to as "a French seven". Dugo 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I always learnt with this angle stuff too. Anyway, even more stupid trivia for cut sevens: When God said "7. You shall not commit adultery.", Moses wrote it with a non-crossed seven, but someone started shouting "Cut the seven! Cut the seven!" (to remove it from the list), and so he did cut it, that's why it has this cutting stroke in the middle... Lol... 200.230.213.152 04:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just checked out Ifrah's book on the history of numbers, which is a 600 page comprehensive book. It contains half a dozen theories like this (including this) under a section on "Fanciful Explanations for hte origin of "Arabic" numerals" which have long been rejected. This one comes from a Spaniard Carlos Le Maur (1778). These explanations, the book says "are flawed because they are the fruit of the pseudo-scientific imaginations of men who are fooled by appearances and who jump to conclusions which completely contradict both historical facts and the results of epigraphic and palaeographic research". It's a pity that some schools still teach this angle stuff! deeptrivia (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest explanation about the origin of the “Arab numerals”
[ http://www.alargam.com/numbers/sir/1.htm]

—The preceding unsigned image was added by Calcul (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

According to a popular tradition, still tough in Egypt and North Africa, the “Arab” figures would be the invention of a glazier geometrician originating in the Maghreb, which would have imagined to give to the nine significant figures an evocative form depending on the number of the angles contained in the drawing of each one of them: an angle for the graphics of figure 1, two angles for figure 2, three angles for the 3, and so on:

 We will have the following format:

...

This remained after nine and zero as they are. Make turn around eight, six, five, four, three and one. Reverse number two and the figure of seven. The delivery of some of these forms to each other, without change in the arrangement, we get this form:

...

This is an Arabic sentence meaning: My goal is calculation (وهدَفي حسابْ) in Kufi line (This name called on all lines, which tend to location and engineering). With that zero is the stillness.

In this ancient manuscript, we find the number two of its original form.

...

To return at Alphabetic numerals Abjad we find that seven letters of this sentence وهدَفي حسابْ is units in the table of Abjad numerals (The Abjad numerals are a decimal numeral system which was used in the Arabic-speaking world prior to the use of the Arabic numerals). This is not a coincidence. Since the Abjad numerals were often employed to record the history of the events, the value of the sentence وهدَفي حسابْ is the date of the invention of these figures. 6+5+4+80+10+8+60+1+2 is 176. 176 hijri is 792, history very appropriate to put these figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.12.207.41 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This "explanation" appears to be a) original research, b) in conflict with the information presented in the article's existing information/images showing the evolution of these symbols, and c) largely incoherent in both grammar and content. Please do not add your image again without discussing it here first.  Ruyn 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can see well that the image takes place here for a long time and proves in a scientific explanation that Arabic numerals are Arabic.--Manssour 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OMG. Just finished removing this joke from wikipedias in a dozen languages. deeptrivia (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This image was added here To complement the theme : Angle explanation for glyphs? and You(deeptrivia) are not here responsible for all wikipedia.--Manssour 08:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think that this image is a joke, what will you tell about these images? 123456789--Manssour 08:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The "number of angles" theory of origins
See recent reverts. It is already mentioned and sourced in the article that the symbols do not originate from the "number of angles" or anything like that, but this folk history keeps getting reinserted, including this this newly created silly image. It's an entertaining explanation (especially amusing how the shapes of the symbols can be stretched to fit the theory), but it ignores all that we know of the actual history. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who the hell come up with this statement "In the Arab world—until modern times—the Arabic numeral system was used only by mathematicians. Muslim scientists used the Babylonian numeral system, and merchants used the Abjad numerals. It was not until the Italian Fibonacci's early 13th century popularization that the Arabic numeral system was used by a large population outside India.can some one tell us how Babylonian numerals work? this statement should be deleted....it is smells offensiveLoor99 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Florian Cajori 1859-1930. A History of Mathematical Notations. Originally published: Chicago: Open Court Pub. Co., 1928-1929.

Fanciful hypotheses on the origin of the numeral forms. – A problem as fascinating as the puzzle of the origin of language relates to the evolution of the forms of our numerals. Page 64-66. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertolyra (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 December 2009

Use of references about the angle theory
The "angle theory" is mentioned under the Origins section; however, the two sources used at the moment for that (bigstrand4476 @ Scribd.com and O'Connor & Robertson) are inappropriate: bigstrand4476 is a slide presentation by a random person and it's not really a suitable source for Wikipedia (or anything). I understand it's used as an example of "folk" explanations, but still, I think a better source should be used (e.g., mention of this factoid in a newspaper or online publication). O'Connor & Robertson is currently used as the source for the statement that these claims are unsubstantiated; while it seems like a good source for the article in general, the specific issue of the "angle theory" is not mentioned at all. Is the lack of mention meant to be taken as support for the statement that "no evidence exists"? Again, seems inappropriate. From reading previous comments (specifically, the comment by deeptrivia at 00:06, 9 January 2007) it seems like Ifrah ("The Universal History of Numbers") might be a good replacement for both sources because it mentions this (and other) myths and then debunks it. I don't have access to the book at the moment, but I am replacing the two other sources with Ifrah based, in good faith, on deeptrivia's comment. I'll post a reply here if I manage to get a hold of the book, or if anybody has access to it and can verify, please do the same. TastyChikan (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hindu numerals?
I am not sure this edit is warranted. The term Hindu-Arabic numerals is already mentioned. What does the term Hindu numerals add to this? "Arabic numerals" is the terminology current in English today, but scholars often call them "Hindu-Arabic numerals" to give due credit to the Indians. Why aren't these two terms enough?

I think the term European digits is important in order to distinguish them from the "Arabic numerals" that the Arabs themselves use (of which there are at least two kinds). Your edit hasn't helped to bring any clarity to the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, can I know why are the characters 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 which originated in the western Arabian world called Hindu numerals in this page when they are neither Hindu in origin nor called Hindu pretty much ever? There is not even debate about this, this page is about the glyphs themselves, not the system. --HAAAHEEE (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason I reverted is your unexplained removal of this: . BTW: wp:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, so edits can go slowly. It's been there for months or years, so there is no rush to remove it immediately. Jim1138 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is about the characters, not the decimal system. The characters are purely western Arabic, and was always called Arabic numerals. The reference I removed is about the system, not the characters, it's irrelevant here. Regards --HAAAHEEE (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The reference talks about the numerals and about its Hindu origins. Fibonacci recognized that the Hindu numerals had many advantages over the Roman numerals that were then used in Europe. That seems pertinent to me.
 * Wikipedia uses wp:COMMONNAME and "Arabic numerals" is the common name. It should be distinguished from the other Arab characters. Jim1138 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC) sp. Jim1138 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem here is that Arabic numerals and Hindu-Arabic numeral system are redundant articles. For example, about half of the former is actually a history of the latter. The two articles should be combined. Or, if you disagree, then try increasing the amount of material on the glyphs themselves, to make the former article more meaningful. Then you might find other editors more receptive to your argument. Cheers. Mgnbar (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , the numerals themselves were apparently called "Hindu numerals" in the Arab world, and they were called by the same name when they were imported into Europe, but later the name was forgotten. So, the terminology is only of historical interest, and it probably doesn't help to put it in the lead. It wasn't my idea., do you care to comment? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's clear some terms here, what the reference calls "Hindu numerals" is the decimal system, aka Hindu–Arabic system, not the characters. That's why it is comparing it to the Roman system - which the reference calls "Roman numerals" - in arithmetics. It does not talk about the Arabic numerals itself which does NOT have a Hindu origin at all, unlike the decimal system itself. Calling these characters 0,1,2...9 Hindu is completely false, either in name or origin, hence my removal, and as far as I know, no one is even claiming that, so why does this article site "Hindu numerals" as a name for Arabic numerals?

Not really, they are not redundant, Arabic numerals are part of the Hindu–Arabic system, not a different name of it. It's like saying the article about the English language is redundant to the article about languages. Naturally, there will be a lot of info about language in the English article itself. Can you open a new section for this issue if you want to continue this discussion? It's not relevant to this issue.


 * I said that the articles are redundant. I agree with you that the topics are distinct. Then I offered concrete advice for how you could make the articles less redundant, so that you could more easily make your point about which material each article should cover.


 * I also think that you're taking the names of articles too seriously &mdash; the name can always be changed to match the content, if the content is good &mdash; but I don't want to derail you. Mgnbar (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The names in the article should be about what's the article subject is called, not a forgotten unused names. Regards.--HAAAHEEE (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is Arabic numerals. So I don't know what you are talking about.
 * On the other hand, you are making assertions that aren't true. See Meninger. Western Arabic numerals are more Indian than the easter Arabic numerals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This is running in circles, so let me simplify it, does anyone here claim that these symbols 0-9 should be called "Hindu numerals" like the article claims as of now? If so, why? I've already explained my part on why it shouldn't. Regards --HAAAHEEE (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "Hindu numerals" shouldn't be in the lede as Arabic numerals is what they are called. Hindu numerals is more of a historical term and definitely belongs in the article, but I don't think in the lede.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 21:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arabic numerals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706140353/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706140353/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Arabic Numerals
Obviously this has been argued about a lot, but can somebody please explain the reasoning for the current article title. As far as I know, the term "Arabic Numerals" means the symbols 123456790. The current article describes using base-10 with all kinds of different glyphs. That is NOT what "Arabic Numerals" means, that means using the explicit glyphs that everybody uses today. Base-10 positional notation may very well have been first created in India and an article saying that is a good idea, but it is NOT the meaning of the term "Arabic numerals". Some dofus changed every link that explicitly means the 1234567890 glyphs to "Hindu-Arabic numerals" which is wrong. There are no super/subscripts in Unicode for other number glyphs, for instance. This is just totally wrong and I hope somebody fixes it.Spitzak (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Arabic Numerals 2

 * It's a good custom to allow people time to respond before reverting on the grounds of "disruptive editing" . You saying it's wrong (and removing sources that state the contrary) means nothing on Wikipedia. Citing sources which support your claim is the only way anyone is going to take you seriously around here. Kleuske (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes... The issue was discussed above and the current version is (by the looks of it) the one that has consensus. Kleuske (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Where is the medivial or ancient Hindu book or treatise that says there were Hindu numerals of 10 base.
Please site one single Hindu book of medivial or pre-medivial era discussing Arabic numerals. There is no source or book or treatise from Hindu religion of medivial or even pre medivial era which mentions that Arabic Numerals are taken from India, whwn they were never even practically used in Hindus. Isn't it same like calling Taj Mahal a hindu temple? Isn't it mythology?Lptx (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Name calling Arabic Numeral system as Hindu Arabic
Usage of baised and politically motivated information based on redundant or unverified sources which do not stand any scrutiny and hence lack neutrality causing POV concerns. Discuss your own agendas here on talk page rather than creating mess on the article. Lptx (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, the f*cking irony. I've told you, multiple times, that sources are required. Please cite them. Kleuske (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are literally thousands of sources mentioning "Hindu-Arabic numerals" . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - suggest you to stop using f word!, can you please see here?Lptx (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * all those sources are based on latin book Algoritmi de numero Indorum, which is "said" to be based on the works of Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, which are lost - this is the only "alleged" link - so this is farce at best.Lptx (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your say-so and that's worth zilch, nada, niente in the context of this encyclopedia. Citing sources is. You haven't yet mentioned (let alone cited) a single source in the making of this drama/farce. Kleuske (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , first please learn how to speak to people. Second the source is mentioned in the previous comment. Third, likes of you have been calling that even Taj Mahal is a hindu temple these days. All sources have been provided and explained as well. End of the story.Lptx (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources?. Mentioning al-Khwarizmi does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * states Everybody knows or should know that our numerals which are generally called Arabic figures were called by the Arabs Indian numbers themselves. My Lord (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Arabic inventions
[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

Hi, I see you have reverted my edit in the Arabic numerals article. I think there is a misunderstanding on your part here. The Arabic numerals article talks about the decimal glyphs (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), it does not talk about the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. The system did indeed originate in India. The Glyphs, however, are a pure Arab invention and has nothing to do with India. They were first invented by the Arabs of North Africa and Spain, and the source for that is already provided in the article. So I don't see what is your point of objection exactly? Viaros17 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, If you are trying to label the numeral glyphs themselves as an invention, I am not sure if the term "invention" is appropriate. Have any other numeral glyphs have been labelled as "inventions"? You also need to keep in mind that the term "Arabic numerals" in normal English means the numeral system, just as "Roman numerals" means the corresponding numeral system. So I think this is too contentious and not worth the trouble.
 * Secondly, it is not clear if the Western Arabic numerals have been developed independently or whether they were adaptations of Indian or some other system of glyphs. Traditionally, I believe the Arabs used to use letters for numerals, just like the Romans did (as per Al Beruni's writings). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, given the fact that these glyphs are the most used numerals in the world, one could argue that the invention is somehow "worthy". And it is true that there is a debate on the origin of these numbers. Still, the leading theory trace their origin into the Arabic alphabet. And it is indisputable fact that the numerals in their current form are North African in origin, which what matters here.


 * Anyway, I will leave my claim for now until I study the matter more thoroughly. Maybe i will re-add the category in the future after consulting the admins. Viaros17 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fix this horrible mess!
The term "Arabic Numerals" means the GLYPHS that look like this: 0123456789. EVERY link to this article is attempting to distinguish these glyphs from other representations. Yet the current article immediately switches to talking about base-10 in any glyph set, the exact opposite of what the article is supposed to be about! That is WRONG!!!!

Some PC idiot has completely warped this article into a duplicate of the Hindu-Arabic Numeral system, since apparently it is an incredible insult to not say "Hindu" every single time anybody says anything about base-10. These nutcases have gone as far as suggesting the glyphs should be called "European numerals" or "Western numerals", which is decidedly the exact opposite of being politically-correct, as everybody seems to agree the glyphs did not originate in Europe or the "West". I'm sorry but in common usage the term "Arabic numerals" means the well-known glyphs for numbers. Stop saying "not every single location in the world" because this article is in English which is also not spoken in every single location in the world! Besides those other locations probably have a term that means "the glyphs 0123456789" and that term should be the title of this page translated to that location.

It is vaguely true that some people think "Arabic numerals" means base-10. Clarify this in the first sentence of the article if you want. But please change the rest of the article to talk ONLY about this set of glyphs! Spitzak (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This is about the numerals!
It is NOT about all base-10 systems.

I know some people are upset that many believe base-10 was invented in Arabia and not in India. But the previous text makes this far worse, the wording basically claims that base-10 is called "hindu-arabic" and it is valid to call it "arabic" and thus is completely backwards, implying *further* that it is arabic.

There are dozens of reeferences to this page where the whole point of reference is to refer to the digits 0-9 and *explicitly* to differentiate them from other digit representations, such as eash-arabic or indian digits. So the "hindu" edit is WRONG. Pease leave this as-is, or improve it with references but keep it CLEARLY stating this is a particular set of digits used to write base-10, not base-10 itself!!!

I thought my edits were quite good and do not appreciate blind reversion. This was considerable work to fix this thing.


 * Actually it looks like the reversion was done by a bot. I think it made a mistake, I did not remove any of the citations, just moved them around.

Spitzak (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are saying. To modify long-standing consensus text, you need to generate WP:CONSENSUS. And, I don't see you doing that.
 * So, why don't you start from the scratch and start listing your objections to the old text? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Basic complaint is about the opening sentence, which I believe is false: "Arabic numerals, also called Hindu–Arabic numerals". The term "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is a *superset* of Arabic numerals, it includes all the other symbol sets including the ones developed in India. Claiming these are the same word implies there are no other symbols used, which is false. It also implies it is valid to call stuff invented in India and still used in India "Arabic" (since it clearly states that the two terms are interchangable). A more basic problem is that there are dozens of redirects to this article explicity to differentiate Arabic numerals from other numerals, and a lot of the article talks about base-10 over and over again, rather than just this subset of glyphs, making it impossible to find the history of the glyphs themselves, and also further insulting Hindu mathematicians by claiming that only "Arabic" counts.Spitzak (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like the use of "Hindu-Arabic" is from this document: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/22599/22599-h/22599-h.htm which claims the letter forms appeared in India, not Arabia. I'm certainly no scholar but I do question the fact that all the Indian examples that look remotely like arabic numerals post-date the use of them in Europe (check the dates in the footnotes). There is considerable discussion of the developement of the zero being later than the introduction of the digits into Europe, but this can make perfect sense, the idea of zero (and the form of a circle) could have been developed in India and transmitted to Europe and Arabia after they had already started using the other digits.
 * In any case, if this is a valid argument, it should be mentioned in the history section (which right now says the popular concept that the forms of the digits was developed in Arabia). Even if this is true, it is no excuse to mangle a term that means "all sets of base-10 digits" to mean only a single set of base-10 digits.Spitzak (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The phrase "also called Hindu-Arabic numerals" simply refers to the fact that we have reliable sources that call them so. The reason they do that is that the Arabs themselves called them Hindu numerals.
 * Whether the numerals, i.e., glyphs, were taken from India and later evolved, or whether they were independently "developed", I have no idea. But my common sense would suggest that they evolved. Nobody would say, let us throw away the numerals we already have, and develop brand new ones. This source says that we don't really have any early manuscripts to know for sure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That reference seems to indicate this naming as well, though again it is extremely unclear if he means "0123456789" or alternatively *all* sets of 9 or 10 glyphs. In any case I very much feel this article needs some fixing so it talks about the set of glyphs that look like "0123456789" rather than talk about base-10 positional notation, which is covered by other articles linked here. With that reference the history probably should mention that the glyph forms may also have orignated in India, also the idea that all except 568 were derived from the Eastern Arabic forms, which themselves were derived from India. That reference is also readable and not a pay wall. I would love to see what those two references after the "Hindu-Arabic" statement actually say but they are not readable for free.Spitzak (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert?
, which version did you revert to here? It is a good idea to explain major reverts like this on the talk page, so that we are aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"Contentious" edits?
Can you please explain what is wrong with my edits? I split them very carefully with descriptions. All I am trying to do is remove redundancy and a few errors, and some very confusing wording!

Can you please revert each of the edits independently with a description of what is "contentious" about them? I will gladly leave out the contentious ones. Spitzak (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see below for the overriding issue. But if you make a series of edits, it would be wise to make simpler edits first and reserve the contentious ones to the end, so that they can be reverted/disputed easily. If you start with a contentious edit first, there is nothing much that any other editor can do other than reverting all of them wholesale. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

has made a long series of edits (interspersed by edits of introducing capitalisations in violation of WP:MOS). Spitzak has tried making similar changes before, which were all reverted. He doesn't seem to realize that these edits are contentious, and he needs to generate WP:CONSENSUS before making such edits.

The first edit changes the lead sentence to say "one of several sets of glyphs used to write numbers", which is in the first place WP:Weasel and refers to a problematic term "glyphs". Numerals (often called "numbers" in everyday English) are more than "glyphs". It goes downhill from then on. I am inviting him to discuss here what he is trying to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not get it. What word should I use? "glyph" is a *superset* of numbers and all other symbols, I don't see how it is a "weasel word". It seems really strange to say "this is one of several sets of numbers used to write numbers". What should I use? "symbol"? "scribble"? "letter-like thing?"Spitzak (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Besides fixing obvious errors, my main goal is to remove the implication that only Arabic digits are used to write "Hindu-Arabic numeral system". Base 10 is written in many sets of symbols and was developed long before the Arabic digits were. I know somebody doing these reverts thinks that they are standing up to Indian history, but they are actually doing the exact opposite by implying that base-10 does not exist independently of these digits.Spitzak (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is going to be ridiculously tedious, but I guess I can try to change the edits to only error corrections, and give you a day to explain if and why that edit is "contentious". I'll try this out now, with what I think is the least-contentious edit possible.Spitzak (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing needs explaining. The article was fine as it was. You need to explain what changes you want to make and why. The WP:ONUS rests on those who want to make changes.
 * This article is on Arabic numerals and the original lead sentence clearly explains what they are without any weasel wording. The availability of other numerals that follow the same system is not this article's concern, at least not in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Does "Arabic numerals" mean the digits or the entire number?
Long-standing wording was altered to say "Arabic numerals" are "numerals written using the digits 0-9", previously it said they are "the digits 0-9".

IMHO the older text is correct. Virtually every link to this page is talking about the glyphs. Even when obviously talking about a single number being written, "Arabic numerals" is plural, indicating that more than one is necessary to write a number.

Spitzak (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If anybody can find a link that says "the number is written as an Arabic numeral" rather than "the number is written using Arabic numerals" then I might agree that it is possible, however I cannot find any.

Also the redirection page for Numeral clearly states that the term may refer to Numerical digit.Wikitionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/numeral says "A symbol that is not a word and represents a number, such as the Arabic numerals 1, 2, 3 and the Roman numerals I, V, X, L." note the singular word "symbol".


 * , This is a page of WikiProject Mathematics. In mathematics, a numeral means an entire series of digits used to represent a number. Please see
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And this MathForum discussion which addresses the same confusion that you have raised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And this MathForum discussion which addresses the same confusion that you have raised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not convinced. I need proof that the singular "Arabic numeral" is ever used to indicate writing a number (other than 0-9). Every other indication, and virtually every link to this page, is talking about the digits and clearly using the plural even when they talk about a single number. Also this text has not been changed in a long time.Spitzak (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apices du moyen-âge.PNG

Don't Arabs today write numbers left-to-right?!
"From the point of view of the reader, numerals in Western texts are written with the highest power of the base first whereas numerals in Arabic texts are written with the lowest power of the base first." Is this true today? I don't read Arabic, but I think I've noticed in Arab newspapers and Arab TV that their numbers - like everybody else's - run left-to-right? This should be able to confirm and then correct the article. - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Arabic is written right-to-left, but, as the article says, Arabs write the digit with the lowest place value first. For example, writing "five hundred and forty-three" would be done in this order:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Step ! Western ! Arab
 * 1
 * 5
 * align="right" | 3
 * 2
 * 54
 * align="right" | 43
 * 3
 * 543
 * align="right" | 543
 * }
 * For someone reading English (left-to-right), the digit 5 comes first, but for someone reading Arabic (right-to-left), 3 comes first. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * align="right" | 543
 * }
 * For someone reading English (left-to-right), the digit 5 comes first, but for someone reading Arabic (right-to-left), 3 comes first. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let'a put it another way. When you were a little one in school, did you ever wonder why we WRITE from left to tight, but DO OUR "SUMS" from right to left? (Just picture a column of figures, and well, go figure!). I actually asked my old Mum when I was five, and being a clever old thing she gave me more or less the right answer! If we'd invented our numbers off our own bat instead of copying them off the Arabs we'd have all our account books set up to go from left to right (well, wouldn't we!!!) so its US that go "the other way" when it come to numbers! (Although to be fair the Arabs, clever things, copied them off Indian mathematicians originally). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

When you see how Arabic numerals are spoken aloud, you'll find that numbers between ten and ninety-nine are spoken with the general pattern to first say the word for the units digit, followed by the word for the tens digit (which is generally the word for the digit with -'un added). As the written words follow the ordering of spoken words, Arabic writing of digits continue in the general left-to-right direction as text. See for example: There are some irregularities to the general pattern, as the Arabic words for 10 and 20 are a little different from 1-'un and 2-'un, but the general pattern holds form. By comparison, English has special words for 11 and 12, then speaks 13 to 19 in a manner following the left-to-right Arabic pattern, but completely switches direction to right-to-left for 21 through 99, where the tens digit is spoken first, with -ty added, followed by the ones digit. So 24 is spoken right-to-left as "twenty-four," while for English to follow the left-to-right pattern, we'd be speaking 24 as "four and twenty," which I've only seen in nursery rhyme. Cafehunk (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that in Arabic the numbers are spoken lowest-digit first is excellent information and should probably be inserted into the text about use of these digits in Arabic right-to-left text, is there any kind of reference for it? I'm guessing an example would be that 25 would be spoken as 5,2-'un.Spitzak (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

move to 'digits'?
Shouldn't this be at 'digits', given that 'numeral' means either a part of speech (e.g., in English, 'twelve' is a numeral) or a written number (e.g., 2019 is a numeral, composed of 4 digits, that represents the number two thousand nineteen). A 'digit', on the other hand, is a 'figure' (i.e., a glyph) that indicates a number. 0–9 are digits is this system. — kwami (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * From a purely technical and prescriptive perspective, you have a good point, but "Arabic numerals" is a commonly used phrase in English, and "Arabic digits" is not. The average Wikipedia reader wanting to learn more about Arabic numerals is certainly going to end up here first, not on Hindu–Arabic numeral system.  And if you put the emphasis on "digits", it makes it sound like Arabic digits could appear mixed together with Roman digits in a single numeral, for instance.  (And note the awkwardness of that use of "Roman digits" rather than the oft-used "Roman numerals".)  There's been a redirect to this article from Arabic digits since 2004, so anyone thinking along the same bottom-up lines as you are is covered.  So in summary, I would say: no.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit warring
I actually thought the anecdote about rules being named wrong was interesting, but this whole thing is in need of some serious cleanup.

This article is about the digits that look like this: 0123456789. IT IS NOT ABOUT BASE-10!!!! Huge amounts of this need to be deleted. Certainly the digits were designed to represent numbers in base-10, so there should be some mention. But there appear to be some editors who are insulted if the fact that base-10 was developed in India is not mentioned as many times as physically possible, thus interrupting the story with developments that (I think, it is really unclear) were done with other forms of the digits.

This has muddled this article considerably by confusing the development and distribute of the idea of base-10 notation with the development of these digits. And even careful reading still seems to show claims that the digits were developed in North Africa, Persia, Spain, and (at least for zero) India. If there is disagreement about the origins this needs to be stated clearly, with all the origin locations together.

Article needs to clearly state that other digits were used to make base-10, and then stick to the development and distribution of glyphs that evolved into the current numerals. And you can direct people to the hindu-arabic-numeral system if they want the history of base-10.

Spitzak (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up some of the POV-pushing, and expanded the section on the origin of Arabic numeral symbols. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Thank you!!Spitzak (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Apices du moyen-âge.PNG nominated for deletion
FYI, from :


 * Metadata claims the image is from 976, which is clearly bogus, since it contains dates from after that, along with modern typography. It appears to be by the anonymous author of the now-dead website encyclopedie-universelle.com. As I pointed out in an edit comment in 2017, the rather prominent article en:Arabic numerals has been using the image for some time with text that misleadingly implies it (like the table above it) was created by Jean-Étienne Montucla in the 1700s. This is a useful image, however, and I'd like to see it changed to a lo-res version with corrected metadata (and an intro on en:Arabic numerals that makes its provenance clear), rather than outright deletion. Dan Harkless 08:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * To be clear: I expressed my opposition to the deletion request, but I also don’t think that this file adds anything worthy to this article. It should be properly vetted (I suspect it might be a 19th cent. hoax of some sort) first, and only then included in the article, but with suitable commentary and articulated with the article’s contents. As it is, simply pasted at the end of a section without any explanation for these outlandish glyphs, it should be simply removed from the article — even if not deleted from Commons. Tuvalkin (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for throwing in your opinion on this long-neglected issue. I've removed the image from the article.  I, too, am an inclusionist, and I agree there's no reason for the image to be removed from Commons, nor converted to a fair-use lo-res version as I requested, if it's really an 1800s hoax rather than an image created and copyrighted by the erstwhile webmaster of encyclopedie-universelle.com.  Just needs to have its very incorrect metadata fixed, if your guess is correct.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)