Talk:Devanagari numerals

Fish?

The article states,

It is this fish shape that became the "10" of the Indian numerals.

I'm not sure what to make of this, since the "Indian numerals" (which the article defines to mean the Devanagari numerals) did not include a "10". Perhaps the author means that the Brahmi script used a fish for "10", and that this was passed down to later local scripts? And is this a claim that it was actually a fish glyph, or just shaped something like a fish? As far as I know, we don't know the source of any of the Brahmi numeral except the first three. kwami

Arabic Numerals derived from Indian

Actually technically speaking, the term "Arabic Numerals" is simply a misnomer for Indian Numerals. In "Arabic Numerals" only symbols have modified slightly with time, which does not qualify them as a separate numerical system. There are separate symbols for numbers in all Indian scripts, which does not qualify each of them as a separate numeral system.

Tamil Numerals

Many similarities can be seen between Tamil and Arabic numerals. The arabics are said to have have learnt from trade, which was with south india, via sea routes. Also Tamil has an interesting feature there is no zero in it, it shows how old the language is usage and there is special character for number ten that is actually missing in the main article !!

This article should concentrate on Indian numerals, not Arabic

The term "Arabic Numerals" is not a misnomer. The West and much of the World uses Arabic Numerals, not Hindu numerals. Both Arabic and Hindu numerals belong to the Hindu-Arabic Numeral system. To say that "Arabic Numerals" is a misnomer is like saying that European languages are a misnomer since they belong to Indo-European languages and trace their origin to India, but Europeans speak European languages, not Indian ones. A similar example is of PHP and Perl or awk; PHP is derived from Perl, in turn derived from awk, but PHP is not a misnomer and it shouldn't be claimed that the correct term should be Perl or awk, it isn't.

This article [indian numerals] should concentrate on Indian numerals, not Arabic. All discussion of Arabic numerals should be referred to their page.

Please, more information on Indian Numerals

Please leave out Arabic Numerals in this article and instead focus on Indian Numerals. This article needs more information on Indian Numerals, in as many varieties of them as possible. csssclll 051208

My edits on 051208

I removed the Charles Seife quote, please see talk:Arabic_numerals for the reason. I also removed history of Arabic Numerals and instead linked to it. csssclll 051208

Sanskrit numerals

the names for the sanskrit numerals are wrong. i'm correcting them to the forms on the Sanskrit#Numerals page; i'm keeping the accents only for the sake of consistency. Andrew Ollett 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information to be corrected

The information written in the table under heading "Other modern Indian languages" (Malayalam numerals) is absolutely wrong. please see the site "http://www.clickeralam.org/unicode/Malayalam_ten_etc.pdf" and make necessary changes. Thanks. Nandakumarma 06:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)M A Nandakumar[reply]

Indian numbering system

Why is Indian numbering system a separate article? Is it a good/bad idea to merge them? Pawyilee (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power-of-ten names

I'm looking for mention that ten thousand and hundred thousand have their own one-word names, as does each power of ten on up some huge number. Since the names are missing (or I'm just bad looking), so are their etymologies. For instance, lakh gives stake as the root of the name for 100000 (mainly because I just added it), but I don't have references for roots of other names. Nor do I feel comfortable about adding a paragraph to either this or Indian numbering system article saying that each power of ten has its own name (and root) up to I-dunno-how-big. Especially since I think it must be here some place, but I'm just bad looking. Anybody, help me out? (And I don't mean back out the the way I came in.) Pawyilee (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I need śatá hundred.

Redirect from Indic numerals?

I was surprised when I ended up here when looking for ‘Indic numerals’. The redirect from ‘Indic numerals’ should probably lead to ‘Eastern Arabic numerals’ instead.

Kannada Numerals

Kannada language, a classical language also has numerals. Please include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.62.226 (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is really exist ancient source or usage of the indian numerals?

Here is only examples form modern usage of the indian numerals.If they are older than arabic ones why there isn't any examples or sources about them? for zero also.--194.27.240.38 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Indian numerals

An article that you have been involved in editing, Indian numerals , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Scientus (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate versions of Indian digits 5, 8, 9

There should be information on the alternate forms of the Indian (Devanagari) digits 5, 8, 9, in addition to the standard modern forms given in the article. I'd like it to show what the alternate forms look like, who uses them and where, when, and why, whether there is any significance to choosing the alternate forms over the standard modern ones, and how to print/display them on computers and other devices.

The only information I could find online is here: http://scriptsource.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=entry_detail&uid=hvzj8v9yrg

It says, "The alternates are often used in Nepal and are considered more traditional, while the standard glyphs are more modern." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.193.98 (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree cordially — one does not have to go to India, but can just watch e.g. I Origins movie and see that the mentioned numeral glyphs on building signs and school blackboards even in the capital city of India can look quite different than those you can see on the Wikipedia page in your web browser on your computer. --Mykhal (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero in the context of Khmer numerals

Kautilya3 needs to stop edit warring by reverting my edits three times in a row. Khmer is not Indian numeral system, but part of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system as clearly listed in the article. Referencing a random piece of information regarding Khmer numerals when talking about the Indian numeral history is irrelevant and lowers the quality of the article. You may as well cite what was going in China during that time frame, but it has no meaning in the context of this article. Anithinks (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All edits are subject to review. When an edit is reverted, you are expected to discuss as per WP:BRD. So, thanks for discussing!

You are right that Khmer is not "Indian" (in the modern sense of "India"), but you should also note that the section you were editing was on the History, with the History of Hindu-Arabic numeral system being the main article for the subject. Since the same numeral system was being used in India and Khmer, and the same symbol is used for zero, there is clearly a connection. Either zero went from India to Cambodia or the other way around. There is no scholarly consensus on the direction of travel, but there is consensus that it is the same symbol. So, this reference should stay.

If the Chinese numerals were related causally, they would also be mentioned. We are not parochial at Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing the discussion instead of indiscriminately reverting edits. You reverted my edits first, so the onus for discussion is on you technically. Refer to WP:BRD.

As the focus of this "History" sub-section is Indian numerals in the context of this article, and not that of zero, the reference to Khmer is irrelevant. It also breaks the tone of the article from being scholarly to self-serving, almost as if the author of that research article inserted this text to create citations. I have no agenda here on who invented zero, but the jarring break in the article's tone made me go find the edit button when I first edited the article earlier this week. One can discuss the genesis of zero as part of the over-arching history of zero [[1]] or the History of Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but that is not the focus of this article. So the reference is extraneous here.

As you noted, we are not parochial here, and therefore we need to emphasize the history of the number system here, and not focus on zero singularly.Anithinks (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Kautilya3 noted in his point of view,there is consensus that it is the same symbol.Further, it is a well-referenced sentence which merits it's staying in the article.I support the inclusion of the statement.If you wish views of more people in the article, you can follow the procedures in a WP:RFC.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be better if you stop reverting this discussed edit unless you can demonstrate other editors are supporting your views.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian numerals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220013805/http://www.lc.mahidol.ac.th/Documents/Publication/MKS/25/diller1996new.pdf to http://www.lc.mahidol.ac.th/Documents/Publication/MKS/25/diller1996new.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European

No original research, please. Quoting from the main Sanskrit article: "Sanskrit is an Old Indo-Aryan language. As one of the oldest documented members of the Indo-European family of languages, Sanskrit holds a prominent position in Indo-European studies." El_C 03:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]