Return to Answer

The number zero was invented against a backdrop of numbering systems which don't have placeholders. So instead of "nothing in the tens place" they would just omit that place entirely and provide a different kind of thing instead. Roman numerals do this, they just make 10 and 100 fundamentally different by using X or C instead.

Along these lines, knots have been used as a system of accounting. The idea is that you'd have a container full of things, and tied to it would be a string. Knots on that string would tell you how many things are in there, which might be easier than cracking the lid and counting, especially if you have one kind of knot for 1, and another kind of knot for 10, and another for 100, etc.

My point is that when you're doing this kind of accounting, you physically group the objects into recognizable shapes (likely rectangles of consistent side length). But then if you're using a numbering system with 0 in it, you don't directly correspond the shapes to symbols, you have to acknowledge the absence of certain types of shapes as well. So you end up asking:

how many of that shape do I have?

So there's this implicit potential for "many", even if it might turn out that there's only one in your particular case.

  I imagine a proponent of the new system, explaining it to one of the old guard. They would have them group the objects into piles of certain shapes/sizes and at some point say:

If you don't have 1 or 2 or 3 ... or 9 tens then you put a zero here.

The number zero was invented against a backdrop of numbering systems which don't have placeholders. So instead of "nothing in the tens place" they would just omit that place entirely and provide a different kind of thing instead. Roman numerals do this, they just make 10 and 100 fundamentally different by using X or C instead.

Along these lines, knots have been used as a system of accounting. The idea is that you'd have a container full of things, and tied to it would be a string. Knots on that string would tell you how many things are in there, which might be easier than cracking the lid and counting, especially if it's something like cups of rice.

My point is that when you're doing this kind of accounting, you physically group the objects into recognizable shapes (likely rectangles of consistent side length). But then if you're using a numbering system with 0 in it, you don't directly correspond the shapes to symbols, you have to count the number of same-type shapes you have. So you end up asking:

how many of that shape do I have?

So there's this implicit potential for "many", even if it might turn out that there's only one in your particular case. I imagine a proponent of the new system, explaining it to one of the old guard. They would have them group the objects into piles of certain shapes/sizes and at some point say:

If you don't have 1 or 2 or 3 ... or 9 tens then you put a zero here.

The number zero was invented against a backdrop of numbering systems which don't have placeholders. So instead of "nothing in the tens place" they would just omit that place entirely and provide a different kind of thing instead. Roman numerals do this, they just make 10 and 100 fundamentally different by using X or C instead.

Along these lines, knots have been used as a system of accounting. The idea is that you'd have a container full of things, and tied to it would be a string. Knots on that string would tell you how many things are in there, which might be easier than cracking the lid and counting, especially if you have one kind of knot for 1, and another kind of knot for 10, and another for 100, etc.

So when zero came along it was in context with these accounting systems that it was most widely used (most people not being mathematicians, but rather merchants and such). There must've been clashes between the systems. A proponent of the new system, explaining it to one of the old guard, would have them group the objects into piles of certain shapes/sizes an to at some point say:

If you don't have 1 or 2 or 3 ... or 9 tens then you put a zero here.

...acknowledging the potential to have many such things in that place.

The number zero was invented against a backdrop of numbering systems which don't have placeholders. So instead of "nothing in the tens place" they would just omit that place entirely and provide a different kind of thing instead. Roman numerals do this, they just make 10 and 100 fundamentally different by using X or C instead.

Along these lines, knots have been used as a system of accounting. The idea is that you'd have a container full of things, and tied to it would be a string. Knots on that string would tell you how many things are in there, which might be easier than cracking the lid and counting, especially if you have one kind of knot for 1, and another kind of knot for 10, and another for 100, etc.

My point is that when you're doing this kind of accounting, you physically group the objects into recognizable shapes (likely rectangles of consistent side length). But then if you're using a numbering system with 0 in it, you don't directly correspond the shapes to symbols, you have to acknowledge the absence of certain types of shapes as well. So you end up asking:

how many of that shape do I have?

So there's this implicit potential for "many", even if it might turn out that there's only one in your particular case.

I imagine a proponent of the new system, explaining it to one of the old guard. They would have them group the objects into piles of certain shapes/sizes and at some point say:

If you don't have 1 or 2 or 3 ... or 9 tens then you put a zero here.

The number zero was invented against a backdrop of numbering systems which don't have placeholders. So instead of "nothing in the tens place" they would just omit that place entirely and provide a different kind of thing instead. Roman numerals do this, they just make 10 and 100 fundamentally different by using X or C instead.

Along these lines, knots have been used as a system of accounting. The idea is that you'd have a container full of things, and tied to it would be a string. Knots on that string would tell you how many things are in there, which might be easier than cracking the lid and counting, especially if you have one kind of knot for 1, and another kind of knot for 10, and another for 100, etc.

So when zero came along it was in context with these accounting systems that it was most widely used (most people not being mathematicians, but rather merchants and such). There must've been clashes between the systems. A proponent of the new system, explaining it to one of the old guard, would have to at some point say:

This is where you say how man tens you have, and this is where you put how many hundreds you have.

So just from a pedagogical perspective, 0 translates to "no tens" or "no hundreds" depending on its placement. If that's how you learned it--as somebody who knew the other system first--it's a quick jump from:

0 in the 1's place => no ones of biscuits

to

0 in the 1's place => no biscuits

When naming the potential for there to be a number there, we acknowledge that there could be several numbers there, hence plural.

The number zero was invented against a backdrop of numbering systems which don't have placeholders. So instead of "nothing in the tens place" they would just omit that place entirely and provide a different kind of thing instead. Roman numerals do this, they just make 10 and 100 fundamentally different by using X or C instead.

Along these lines, knots have been used as a system of accounting. The idea is that you'd have a container full of things, and tied to it would be a string. Knots on that string would tell you how many things are in there, which might be easier than cracking the lid and counting, especially if you have one kind of knot for 1, and another kind of knot for 10, and another for 100, etc.

So when zero came along it was in context with these accounting systems that it was most widely used (most people not being mathematicians, but rather merchants and such). There must've been clashes between the systems. A proponent of the new system, explaining it to one of the old guard, would have them group the objects into piles of certain shapes/sizes an to at some point say:

If you don't have 1 or 2 or 3 ... or 9 tens then you put a zero here.

...acknowledging the potential to have many such things in that place.