Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system/Archive 2

Merger proposal
I propose that Indian numerals and Eastern Arabic numerals be merged into Hindu–Arabic numeral system. I think that the content in the Indian numerals and Eastern Arabic numerals articles can easily be explained in the context of Hindu–Arabic numeral system, and the Hindu–Arabic numeral system article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Scientus (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Arabic numerals on this and related issues. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2016

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

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

Hindu–Arabic numeral system → Hindu-Arabic numeral system – A hyphen should be used per WP:DEFINITE, as stated by Kautilya3 in the reason for moving History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system to History of Hindu-Arabic numeral system. The page was previously moved by Michael Hardy in August 2009. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically what is in WP:DEFINITE that says or implies that a hyphen should be used? Hyphens are not mentioned on that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think WP:DEFINITE is at issue here. It is just that "Hindu-Arabic" is a hyphenated term. Dashes are meant for something entirely different. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose and restore the other article. It's not true that dashes are meant for "something entirely different"—the relevant guideline is MOS:NDASH, which states that an en-dash is used to join words where "the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements". In this case, the numerals were originally developed by Indian/Hindu and subsequently adopted by Arabic mathematicians, so we have two separate and independent groups associated with the numerals and not one fused "Hindu-Arabic culture". So the contention boils down to whether "Hindu" is a combining form (compare Sino-American vs. Chinese–American, or indeed on this page Perso-Arabic), and I don't believe that it is. (WP:DEFINITE is neither here nor there, as has been pointed out; it was misapplied in the move on the other page for other reasons.) — Nizolan  (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From the viewpoint of the broader civilisation, the numerals were a joint development by the Hindus and the Arabs. So, it is not an instance of "separate or independent elements." All the reliable sources on the topic hyphenate the term. It is similar to "Indo-Europeans" and quite unlike "Indo–European trade links." - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Indo-European" isn't relevant because "Indo-" is a combining form that always takes a hyphen—see the examples I gave above. Whether it was a joint development or not isn't relevant either, because the point about "separate or independent" is that "Hindu" and "Arab" refer to two distinct things, not a single thing. A good example is the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was certainly a joint Polish and Lithuanian endeavour but still uses the en-dash because the two groups are distinct. (On the Google link: Since different publications follow different style guidelines and it is generally very common for en-dashes to be casually replaced by hyphens, the Google Books search doesn't tell us much.) — Nizolan  (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * I can understand that there wasn't enough participation in the RfM. However, there is no factual error in what I have said. If you are referring to the Karpinski book, the dash in page titles does look long enough to be an en-dash or even em-dash. I took it to be a feature of the font they are using for the page headers. However, if you look at the phrase in regular text, e.g., on p. 18, it is definitely a hyphen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more explicit about where I saw the counterexample to your claim. Your search leads me to this page where the en dash in Hindu–Arabic in text is much longer than the hyphen in the same text.  You can't see this in the Google Book Search snippets, since the OCR does not distinguish en dash from hyphen; you have to click through and look at the page.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is this still called Arabic numberals?
Even in Arabic, they were called Indian numerals. So please correct the misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.19.133 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Already been explained ad nauseam. Plus, we already have Indian numerals, which are related but distinct from Arabic numerals. Plus^2, this is about the system, not the numerals.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 22:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Devanagari glyphs 5, 8, 9
Alternative Devanagari shapes for digits 5, 8, 9 should be mentioned. Initial discussion here. --Mykhal (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those issues belong on the Indian numerals page. I will be removing all the glyphs from this page because they are off-topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so I have created new section of the suggested article. —Mykhal (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2017

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

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

Hindu–Arabic numeral system → Modern Numeral System – more accurately represents the History,origins,developments of the system across various cultural regions ,the present modern day number system is neither completely Indian nor completely Arabic.Therefore the name modern numeral system(along with mentions of the other names) is the most apt and fitting name for the historical facts,contributions and information in the article. Blazearon21 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . As is clear from Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system, the name has been discussed for over ten years now and this is not an uncontroversial technical request, open a move discussion if you think it needs to be changed. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


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


 * It does not qualify as WP:OR because its used as in the following ebooks     and therefore complies with WP:COMMONNAMEand furthermore neutrality is preferred in the article title along with being the best title in line with criteria to be considered as directed in Article titles Blazearon21 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Random google searches don't constitute evidene. It is not clear if you have even read the sources you mentioned. For instance, your second source says: Arabic numerals are read significantly faster...than the Roman numerals. It is common to label the numeral system under question "modern", as a descriptor, but that is not its name. And, you claim that there is a problem of "neutrality", which is seems obvious to you, but I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


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

Reply to Kautilya

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

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

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

"When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Isn't this article title one of those exceptions mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME with so many common names enough cause to name edit warring for years a fit for the guidelines.

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


 * Oppose, I see no evidence that "modern numeral system" (capitalized or not) is used as a name for the system, as opposed to a description of the system. Paul August &#9742; 14:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


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

Do the Arabs use Arabic numerals


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

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

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

Deleting possible Chinese origins
Why is it included when its contradicted by the historical texts( Vedas 1500 BC) and edicts of ashoka(3 BC) etc? as well as historical facts and timelines against the false theory of the transmission from China.27.62.106.50 (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the section as written was WP:UNDUE, citing a primary source. Moreover, it is probably an obsolete theory now, in the light of the recent dating of the Bakhshali manuscript. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In 1954, forty-odd counting rods of the Warring States period(begins 475 BC) were found in Zuǒjiāgōngshān (左家公山) Chu Grave No.15 in Changsha, Hunan. The use of counting rods must predate it; Sunzi(544–496 BC), a military strategist at the end of Spring and Autumn, mention their use to make calculations to win the war before being in the battle[4]; Laozi (Warring states period) said "a good calculator doesn't use counting rods".[5] The Bakhshali manuscript is notable for being "the oldest extant manuscript in Indian mathematics",[2] with portions dated to AD 224–383. The Kiratas are mentioned along with Cinas (Chinese), and were different from the Nishadas.[3] It is speculated that the term is a Sanskritization of a Tibeto-Burman tribal name, like that of Kirant or Kiranti of eastern Nepal.[4]] In general they are mentioned as "gold-like", or yellow, unlike the Nishadas or the Dasas, who were dark.[9] Kiratas (of Bhutan) and Chinas were mentioned as forming the army of Pragjyotisha (Assam) king Bhagadatta (5,19). This army took part in the Kurukshetra War for the sake of Kauravas and its size was one Akshouhini (a huge army unit). A descendant of King Bhauiputahang, King Parbatak was a son of King Jeitehang and ruled Limbuwan around 317 BC. During that period, King Parbatak was the most powerful king of the Himalayan region and present-day Nepal. King Parbatak was allied with Chandra Gupta Maurya of Magadha, and also assisted him in his military campaigns in the Nanda kingdom. During his father King Jiete’s rule, Alexander the great had invaded India and established his satraps in Punjab and Sindh. King Parbatak assisted King Chandra Gupta Maurya in driving the Greek Satraps Seleucus (military governor) away from Punjab and Sindh. For King Parbatak’s assistance to Chandra Gupta, he gave lands in northern Bihar to King Parbatak and many Kiranti people migrated to northern Bihar during that period. They became known as Madhesia Kirant people, or Limbus of Kashi Gotra. King Parbatak Hang is also mentioned by Magadha historians as an ally of Maurya Emperor. -- EmpireoftheSeas (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is complete gibberish. What are you trying to say? You need WP:SECONDARY sources that state that the Chinese rod numerals had an influence on the Hindu-Arabic numerals before you can add this content. Lam has proposed a thesis, but it has not been accepted by the scholarly community. So, this section is WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hindu Numerals??
Article introduction suggests - "Arabic numerals were completely synthesised in India and later migrated to Arab". Please suggest how is this a correct notion and why it should not be changed. Lptx (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to what? Please see History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Its summarisation here is not great. It could be improved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

In what set? This does not describe any numeral set shown here. It appears to be original research, a speculative explanation for the shapes of the modern (Western Arabic) numerals. --Thnidu (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly true of the European system we use. But I will delete it anyway, since this has nothing to do with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess I could have done that  boldly myself, but I probably wanted somebody more familiar with the subject matter have a look at it... As you clearly are and have done. As I said,this seems to be purely speculative because it is unsourced. --Thnidu (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Arabic mathematics
says in their infinite wisdom, We don't have Arabic Mathematics, It's name is Islamic Mathematics. Who is "we"? What are these: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The name of the section on Wikipedia is: Mathematics in medieval Islam It is written here "Mathematics in medieval Arabia"? It doesn't matter how many Arabophile illiterate writters want to make everything Arabic. It must be very unwise to think that since non-Arab scholars (such as Berbers and Persians) wrote in Arabic, we should call all the achievements of the golden age of Islam Arabic. RedEye98 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the title of the page you are editing is Hindu-Arabic numerals. It is not Hindu-Islamic numerals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


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


 * , I would appreciate if you stick to topic and refrain from WP:OR. I have provided multiple sources that call Al-Kharizmi's mathematics "Arabic mathematics". You haven't provided any sources to show that that is in any way wrong.
 * I am not concerned with medieval Islam. The topic of this article pertains to the developments in Baghdad, carried out by mathematicians like Al-Khwarizmi and documented in Arabic texts. Their numerals are still called "Arabic numerals" world wide. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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


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

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