Fake history tells us, that the Romans did not know the number zero. That tells me, that the Romans are totally fake. They had great engineers and catapults without knowing the number 0? You can tell that to some child in Kindergarten, but hey not to a self thinker.
Anatoli Timofejewitsch Fomenko, the great Russian mathematician, debunked Roman history 30 years ago and not only that.
Latin is a new language, developed for the Roman Church, not older than 300 years. In German it writes Lateinisch = late invented in Switzerland (Monastery of St. Gall). The whole grammar of " latin" is like German ( see Robert Baldauf). In St. Gall they found many copies of the so called Roman writers.
When we say the Romans didn't have zero what we mean is that in the Roman conception of math, the set of integers and the set of natural numbers are equal. They did not recognize the set as a line that was infinite in both directions.
That is exactly what I doubt. Everyone thinking mathematically will find that out easily. The Romans supposedly took everything from the Greek. So they did not know the zero either? But they could calculate Pi?
Yes.
You don't need any concept of negative to use Achimedes inscribed polygon method.
I think, you think, that when we say they had no concept of zero, that we mean the digit. No. We mean the point on the line, zero, where the continuum of numbers continues infinitely in the opposite direction. Without zero, numbers are a "ray", not a "line".
The DIGIT zero is just an artifact of our using the same glyph to indicate null in a place. You perceive 10 as two glyphs (one, zero) but this is just how our written language depicts them. The zero in ten and zero as a number are not the same.
If it sounds dumb, it's simply because it IS dumb. The persians didn't really strike on something revolutionary, you can get by perfectly fine without it in practical engineering applications provided you adjust things accordingly. It was much more of a "if we write it like this, then it works like this" "OH, yeah that is a bit more useful."
If they'd ACTUALLY been smart they would have also pushed base 12 instead of base 10.
Off topic but I’m curious what the technical advantage of base 12 over base10 is.
Because it's cleanly divisible by almost all the numbers smaller than its half.
Twelve divides by 1,2,3,4 and 6, only 5 is the oldball out. The practical applications of this is why bakers deal in dozens and the imperial foot had twelve inches, it's just really useful as a base because it's so divisible.
You can see vestiges of its influence in construction even today in dimensional lumber sizing combined with drywall. A standard studwall with sheetrock will come out as four inches thick.
Suppose that you live in 17th century England. You don't have a tape measure. Instead, what you might have is a piece of twine with knots tied into it that you sized up by holding it up to the Imperial foot standard (posted on the wall of Greenwich Observatory today although there used to be many of them scattered around the country). Because the foot is so divisible, you can arrive at 2,3,4, and 6" by simply folding the string. It won't be perfect, but it'll work good enough for the time for rough work like sewing or construction where the tolerances are less critical.
Mind blown. Thanks fren!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_highly_composite_number
Line represents flow (from beginning towards end) which causes form (balance within flow). Flow/form represent loss/growth aka self sustenance of energy (the source of ALL information aka potentiality).
That being said...ray (radius) of form within flow represents the growth potential within the loss potentiality, and since it's set into a balance it demands choice (free will) of action for adaptation as form to flow. Choosing to adapt to "perceived" flow increases "comprehension" within form aka our potential.
aka form (limited) balancing within the momentum of flow (unlimited). Our temporary form represents the finite that defines the ongoing flow we result from as the infinite aka limited ONE within unlimited ALL aka limited momentum within unlimited motion aka limited resistance within unlimited velocity aka limited magnetic within unlimited electric.
Romans had the concept of "nil" (nihil, null). That means nothing.
Nothing is the clean slate, with nothing on it. A tablet with no numerals, or a tally stick with no tallies.
I happen to have studied both German and Latin. They are nothing like each other.
Nach 7 Jahren Latein und Muttersprache Deutsch empfehle ich, nach Robert Baldauf zu suchen. Dahinter verbirgt sich F.N. 1844 bis 1900, Professor für Philologie zu Basel.
Zero aka cipher aka "nothing" represents the suggested parasite inversion of ONE...ONEself; ONE (form) within ALL (flow) and the ONEness of ALL being ONE in energy.
The zero is used to designate value within the ignorance towards ALL (flow) value being predefined; which is why the ONEs (form) within have the free will of choice to evaluate ALL offered. Why is that important? Because choice of action within flow allows form to grow potential (comprehension) out of ALL potentiality (perception) offered.
Flow defines form; flow does not define nothing...it defines everything (ALL) for the form (ONE) within.
a) flow does not offer false information to form (nature doesn't lie), so we have to believe truth first for others to be able to contradict it (lie). Flow offer neither true nor false, but constant change aka movement; which form perceives as inspiration. Our senses perceive movement (inspiration); not proclaimed information (true or false).
b) suggested his-story always leaves out the main actor of ALL existence...ONEself.
c) "tells us" represents another ONE suggesting us to consent to believe what they're offering. Their offer was made by free will of choice and so was our consent, which represents ONE consenting; believing; having faith in; submitting to the free will of another ONE, while ignoring ONEs own free will of choice aka the sole authority over ONEself (form) within ALL (flow).
Nature (flow) does not use words to brand itself, we (form) do that; while ignoring that nature communicates itself as flow by the movement of form. Those who suggest languages gain the power to act in the name of (in nomine) them when others consent to believe in word based definitions for a system that does not use words to define itself.
Words represent spellcraft or to quote timecube "Word has no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in commerce." aka offer word by free will in exchange for consent to believe word by free will.
Also, we cannot add anything "new" to reality, for flow is offering ALL potentiality to out perception. It is our individual choice based potential (comprehension) that represents the limitations to the grow of potential. Try to have a "new" thought without using inspiration from ALL perceived...you can't create only transmute out of ALL already offered.
Lastly; use Latin to decode English (Pig-Latin) to be able to comprehend the amount of inversion the parasites implemented to corrupt us. It's stripped of all natural connotations; filled to the brim with rhetorical traps pushed by their world wide web as the one world slave language.
Ever heard of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan_Kingdom
Do a CTRL+F for "paganism" in that article.
What do you find?
Ever heard of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan_Kingdom
Do a CTRL+F for "paganism" in that article.
What do you find?
Now let's try this.
Go to Google and search "pagan".
Do you see the Pagan Kingdom article on the first page of results?
What about on the second page of results?
Curious ain't it...
You're under the impression that someone would have just figured it out because it is just so obvious, but that is not at all how humans are.
The perfect example is seen in art.
Boone had realized, or thought to even really try to produce a 3d appearing image on a 2d surface in the hundreds of thousands of years humans existed until the Renaissance.
People did not start producing 3d apart on 2D surfaces, until just a few hundred years ago.
All artistic renditions of 3Dbobjects except sculpture we're done as 2D until the Renaissance.
It never occurred to one single person to make a 3D appearing image until someone finally did and then all the artists were like "whish!!! That is awesome. I'm going to try that" and since then it is obviously the norm.
this is the dumbest shit I've ever read.