Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
but which causes me to observe that I understand first, that there was no general distinction two millenia ago between "mathematicians" and "astronomers", and second, that there was generally no concept of "zero" in any numbering system then in use. I seem to remember that the first incidence of the occurence of the concept of "zero" as a number was by the Mayans, and occurred as recently as 1500 years ago, or so. The Hindu's in India developed the idea of a number "zero" at about the same time, or a little later, and it was introduced to the West by the Arabs during the height of Arab culture about 1000 years ago..
That's why I mentioned 'medieval', which has been overlooked in just about every reply.
Second, the issue of whether or not there can be a measure zero, is a no more than a matter of where one begins measuring something, and how one measures it. It is convention in the U.S. to have measuring devices six inches long with zero at one end, and six at the other. It is only convention that the rule is not numbered from -2 to 3, or from or from six to twelve.
The numer zero, and negative numbers, are a creation from earlier conventions.
the distance between
the "1" and the "2" are less likely to vary than the distance between the end of the rule and the "1" mark.
Plllllease.....have you any evidence at all, other than anecdotal carpenter say-so, that the exact milling of inch divisions was omitted for that one stage?
The one explanation I would understand would be that the 'zero' point had been so overused that it was worn down, and was no longer accurate.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
