September 20th, 2019, 10:25 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2013 From: Far far away Posts: 431 Thanks: 18  The discovery of zero
The discovery of zero is attributed to Indian mathematicians and the often cited proof is the Bakhshali document (224 AD  993 AD). I don't disagree. It's usually said that China had no concept of zero. However, the Chinese were first to use negative numbers (263 AD): nine chapters book. My question is very simple. How could Chinese mathematicians use negative numbers without knowing about zero? Simply put if you know less than zero how can it be that you didn't know zero? That's impossible. Perhaps someone will help me out. Thanks. 
September 20th, 2019, 01:34 PM  #2  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,412 Thanks: 754  Quote:
For obscure historical questions, try https://hsm.stackexchange.com/  
September 20th, 2019, 02:11 PM  #3  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: Universe 2.71828i3.14159 Posts: 132 Thanks: 49 Math Focus: Area of Circle  Quote:
Like, instead of 55=0, you can have a statement like, "take five out of five and remains nothing."  
September 21st, 2019, 01:16 AM  #4  
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 884 Thanks: 340  Quote:
This all stems from a very modern idea of the number line. An idea which is in fact more modern than you think. Let us actually look into some thing. First, you know there is no year 0, right? The years go from 2 BC, 1 BC, and then immediately to 1 AD and 2 AD. Looks strange to us (even though it kind of makes sense if you think of it), but it was entirely normal to the people inventing this. More to the point, the fact that negative numbers are smaller than positive numbers is a pretty modern invention. Even Euler had the idea that the negative numbers are in fact bigger than the positive numbers. So you'd have: 1,2,3,........ 3, 2, 1. I have actually played with this very idea for a while in order to make some intuitive sense of the entire $$1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + .... = \frac{1}{12}$$ situation. Regardless, it is an idea not without merit. In the 10adics, we have an extremely large number such as ....99999 (iinfinite digits) equaling 1, making 1 in fact the largest number in existence if we adhere to lexicographic ordering. Did you know negative temperatures exist? I mean, negative as in below 0 Kelvin, the absolute minimum. It is interesting because those temperatures are HOTTER than positive temperatures. Noting that 0 is an impossible temperature, we would have $$0<1<2<....<2<1<0$$ as in Euler's system. Temperatures exactly ARE a system where you have positive and negative temperatures, but no zero. Of course I didn't answer your question on how the chinese dealt with this, but the acceptance of negative numbers doesn't need the concept of 0.  
September 21st, 2019, 01:58 AM  #5 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2015 From: somewhere Posts: 734 Thanks: 98 
Many things works in relation with 0. Almost like complexanalysis. You can evaluate two times faster the integral of $\displaystyle e^{x}\cos(x)$ from complexanalysis. Another one is to express $\displaystyle \cos(x)$ as an infinite product, which can be done very fast ... etc. Last edited by skipjack; September 21st, 2019 at 04:49 AM. 
September 21st, 2019, 02:19 AM  #6 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2015 From: somewhere Posts: 734 Thanks: 98 
$\displaystyle {\displaystyle 1+2+3+\cdots ={\frac {1}{12}}\quad (\Re )}$.

September 21st, 2019, 08:28 AM  #7  
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 670 Thanks: 440 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics  Quote:
This is not true. Not in any context. Not even kinda sorta. Not even with caveats about analytic continuation, etc etc. This "equation" is pure rubbish and you should not write it (unless you are writing it to poke fun at numberphile in which case, carry on)  
September 21st, 2019, 08:33 AM  #8  
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2015 From: somewhere Posts: 734 Thanks: 98  Quote:
 
September 21st, 2019, 12:05 PM  #9  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2019 From: USA Posts: 310 Thanks: 162  Quote:
I am familiar with negative pressures on the quantum scale, depending on how you define the pressure. I fail to see how you can have negative kinetic energy, however.  
September 21st, 2019, 04:03 PM  #10 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,690 Thanks: 2669 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  

Tags 
discovery 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A surprising? discovery  magicterry  Number Theory  7  October 28th, 2018 07:40 AM 
An amazing discovery  mathbalarka  Algebra  7  April 4th, 2012 11:31 AM 
Interesting Discovery  icemanfan  Number Theory  2  March 8th, 2012 05:30 PM 
Big discovery!!! I'm really surprised  momo  Number Theory  5  April 7th, 2009 05:57 AM 