Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 September 6

= September 6 =

Arab numerals replacing Roman numerals
Why did Arab numerals replace Roman numerals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * While it's been a while since I read much on this subject, I seem to recall it have to do with the fact that Arabic numerals uses positional notation and are therefore easier to math with - see algorism for a little bit of detail. Roman numerals are also limited by how they represented fractions and lack of an easy way to represent large numbers. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also not having a zero is a pain, say if recording payments in a ledger. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See The Book of Nothing by John D. Barrow. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A reference for that . 92.8.216.51 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF KNOWING (IN) MATHEMATICS: Celebrations of Diversity of Mathematical Practices edited by Swapna Mukhopadhyay, Wolff-Michael Roth (p. 18) says that catalyst for the replacement of Roman numerals was the introduction of double entry bookkeeping to the commercial centres of Spain and Italy during the 14th to 16th centuries. As WegianWarrior says above, you need to be able to add in columns for that. Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that just strikes me as rubbish. Arabic numbers were introduced into European mathematics much earlier than that and gradually spread. They replaced Roman numerals despite Roman numerals being easier to add up on an abacus which is how any merchant would do the job. Arabic numerals were just more generally useful and are easier for big numbers. Dmcq (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , . Our article Arabic numerals agrees that they were known to certain people in Europe earlier (in particular Fibonacci), but that they only became widely used in the 15th century - which is more or less what said. --ColinFine (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did I disagree with that? I was disagreeing with the idea that they were introduced because they helped double entry bookkeeping because they were easier to add up. Perhaps you don't understand what gradually means in the context of spreading. If something doubles every hour then it was only half the size an hour before - it doesn't grow at an enormous rate and then drastically slow which is what is needed to fill half the space in half the time. Dmcq (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A little more research suggests that may have a point that the reference that I quoted above is something of a simplification; but please look at A New Perspective on the Evolution of Double Entry Bookkeeping by John J Williams of Pennsylvania State University, which looks at some length at the various arguments. However, there can be little doubt from the sources which he quotes, that the ability to add-up in columns for accounting purposes moved Arabic numerals from a small circle of mathematicians into the mainstream.  Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw an interesting bit in that reference, seemingly there were some instances where the double entry bookkeeping used Roman numerals - but they had some figures annotated with Arabic numerals. That indicates to me that in those cases Arabic numerals were probably in quite common use generally before they were used in those ledgers. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Arabic numerals were also promoted by the development of science.  See . 82.12.63.55 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)