Photo credit: www.sciencenews.org
The Concept of Numbers Without Zero
Let’s consider how we typically count: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, followed by the numeral 10. Introduced into our number system, the digit zero serves a crucial role. Mathematician Tobias Dantzig emphasized its importance, describing zero as integral to modern science, industry, and commerce. However, this notion was challenged in 1947 by mathematician James Foster, who proposed a radically different number system that operates similarly to ours but omits the symbol for zero entirely.
To visualize Foster’s system, imagine our current numeric framework as a series of containers. In this system, you can have up to nine individual items without needing a box. However, upon adding a 10th item, the process requires you to tally that item by placing it in a box. The zero in our numeral system serves to indicate that there are no extra loose items. For instance, in the numeral 30, we see three boxes of ten, representing the absence of any additional objects outside of those boxes.
In Foster’s zero-less framework, there’s a different approach: we delay boxing up our items. Up to ten items can remain unboxed and be represented as T. As a result, the numeral 30 transforms into two boxed tens (2T), plus one loose additional ten. A potentially more appropriate term for this format might be “twenty-ten.” Only when an additional item (the 31st) appears would boxing those items become necessary, creating an environment with always visible loose items, thereby eliminating the requirement for zero.
This innovative system does not completely reinvent the notion of numbers as seen in other numeral systems like Roman or Maya numerals; instead, it presents a parallel numeric universe. Numbers without zeros maintain their familiar forms (for example, 1,776 remains unchanged), but any number containing zeros takes on a new identity.
In Foster’s framework, 20 changes to 1T—termed “ten-teen.” The number 106 would be represented as T6 (indicating ten tens plus six units, or “ten-ty six”). Similarly, 3,090 converts to 2T8T (also referred to as “two thousand ten hundred and eighty-ten”).
This transformation might seem peculiar or even unsettling to some, yet it holds logical validity. As Foster pointed out, this alternative system calls into question the supposed indispensable nature of zero within a manipulable numeric framework. Though we continue to utilize zero, its existence isn’t strictly essential from a mathematical standpoint.
Spending time analyzing this zero-less paradigm might foster a newfound appreciation for the concept of nothingness in our current numeric system.
What Challenges Would a World Without Zero Present?
Consider the implications of operating in a system devoid of zero. What year or century would it be today? Would a “six-figure salary” retain the same allure? How would cultural milestones change? Would cities celebrate anniversaries such as the 111th, and which mileage mark on vehicles would become noteworthy when odometers lack the traditional zero? Additionally, would the public hold significance in records like Wilt Chamberlain’s achievement of scoring 9T points in a basketball game?
Seeking Insight?
For those curious about the answers to these questions, visit sciencenews.org/puzzle-answers. We are excited to present science-themed crosswords and math puzzles every other month and invite readers to share their thoughts via email at puzzles@sciencenews.org.
Source
www.sciencenews.org