Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Hi All.
I would ask a question for those who know more than me about the fremen numbers.
By my Extracts Data I found these numbers: «shuc [one], ishcai [two], qimsa [three], chuascu [four], picha [five], suchta [six]...(Children of Dune - chapter 16).
There are others...?
Thanks...

"You know how he counts?" Stilgar had asked her. "I heard him counting coins as he paid his guide. It's very strange to my Fremen ears, and that's a terrible thing. He counts 'shuc, ishcai, qimsa, chuascu, picha, sucta, and so on. I've not heard counting like that since the old days in the desert."

Hadn't gotten as far as numbers yet, unfortunately. They don't look like Arabic derivatives (other than qimsa). Herbert evidently used Serbian and Romany for Chakobsa, so maybe that's where they come from?

Just found this googling "Romany numbers"...

Yek, Dui, trini, shtar, pansh, shuk. ( some say show but shuk ora means sixpence) eft, oct, enya, desh.

(Note also that it appears that "RomanyJib" is how you say Romany in Romany; as in Bhotani Jib.)

(Could this be evidence of the Jacurutu dialect? )

'Jib' means 'tongue' in some Indian dialects.

Googling for "ishcai" I have found a reference in the Webster Online Dictionary where it says that in Ecuadorian Quechua the term means "two". Looking further in Google for "ishcai quechua" I've found this interesting page...

Wikitravel wrote:
Numbers
in Ecuadorian Quichua
1
(shuc)
2
(ishcai)
3
(quimsa)
4
(chuscu)
5
(pichca)
6
(sucta)
7
(canchis)
8
(pusac)
9
(iscun)
10
(chunca)
11
(chunca shuc)
12
(chunca ishcai)
13
(chunca quimsa)
14
(chunca chuscu)
15
(chunca pichca)
16
(chunca sucta)
17
(chunca canchis)
18
(chunca pusac)
19
('ishcai iscun)
20
(ishcai chunca)

...

Rymoah

Nice work!

I guess that means that Fremen have no concept of zero?

HBJ

Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.

Quechua?! WTF?!



But hey, maybe I was right about the Jacurutu dialect: the Jacurutu is a river in South America, where the Inca hung out, right?

Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.

It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimal-based notation.

Slugger wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.

It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimal-based notation.

That seems to happen fairly often e.g irrational numbers, imaginary numbers etc.

SadisticCynic wrote:

Slugger wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.

It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimal-based notation.

That seems to happen fairly often e.g irrational numbers, imaginary numbers etc.

What does?

And if you want to get technical, didn't the Mayans have a symbol for zero before the Hindu?

Freakzilla wrote:

SadisticCynic wrote:

Slugger wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.

It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimal-based notation.

That seems to happen fairly often e.g irrational numbers, imaginary numbers etc.

What does?

And if you want to get technical, didn't the Mayans have a symbol for zero before the Hindu?

I meant the bit I put in bold. I don't know much about the history of zero.

@SadisticCynic:

Yeah, it seems that the introduction of any type of number beyond the natural numbers (i.e., the counting numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4,...etc) has been met with arguments about how to define it. Heck, even today mathematicians still argue over this stuff (e.g. "Should zero be included as a natural number?").

Freakzilla wrote:

SadisticCynic wrote:

Slugger wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Didn't Arabs invent zero? Maybe "invent" is the wrong word.

It was Indian mathematicians who first asserted that zero was in fact a number and treated it as such in their calculations (other cultures knew about zero, but argued whether it was a number and had use beyond place holding or used it in obscure calculations). Indian mathematicians also gifted to us our decimal-based notation.

That seems to happen fairly often e.g irrational numbers, imaginary numbers etc.

What does?

And if you want to get technical, didn't the Mayans have a symbol for zero before the Hindu?

Well, there's a difference between having a symbol representing the concept of zero (i.e. a null set) and having a "zero" in the sense that you can perform mathematical operations with. The Romans and Greeks knew about the concept of "zero" and had a symbol for it, and I believe the Greeks used it as a placeholder. Roman mathematics didn't really require the concept of a zero-number, as mathematical functions weren't performed the same way with their Numerals (i.e. 2-2 = 0, but our method of calculating the difference is different than the method the Romans employed).

I can't really speak about the Mayan's and their math, but I believe reading somewhere that they did in fact have a symbol for zero. If you go by chronological order, then the Mayans may predate the Hindu in the use of a zero-symbol, but for use in mathematical functions the Indians were the first to employ the zero-number (because of how they wrote numbers, i.e. their decimal notation).

Not to get off-topic, but if you're interested Freak:

http://turner.faculty.swau.edu/mathemat ... ary/roman/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That succinctly explains how to perform basic arithmetic with Roman Numerals. You don't really "need" a zero.

Slugger wrote:(i.e. a null set)

The empty set? Now we're getting into really fun maths.

In the modern definition of naturals I think we need to start from zero, if we want to build them in a straightforward fashion. But it is certainly an interesting question, and outside set theory all my maths classes have used the naturals as starting from 1.

SadisticCynic wrote:

Slugger wrote:(i.e. a null set)

The empty set? Now we're getting into really fun maths.

I had the same older prof for a couple of math courses and he referred to the empty set as the null set. I should be more precise in my terminology. I wanted to take a course in discrete math but it unfortunately wouldn't fit into my schedule.

SadisticCynic wrote:In the modern definition of naturals I think we need to start from zero, if we want to build them in a straightforward fashion. But it is certainly an interesting question, and outside set theory all my maths classes have used the naturals as starting from 1.

I'm a bit ambivalent on this subject. It makes sense to include zero in the natural numbers, but when counting objects you generally don't start at 0.

Slugger wrote:
...

SadisticCynic wrote:In the modern definition of naturals I think we need to start from zero, if we want to build them in a straightforward fashion. But it is certainly an interesting question, and outside set theory all my maths classes have used the naturals as starting from 1.

I'm a bit ambivalent on this subject. It makes sense to include zero in the natural numbers, but when counting objects you generally don't start at 0.

As far as I know, this matter is heavily application-dependent. The construction of natural numbers works both if you start from 0 or 1. It is sufficient to change the first Peano's axiom ("It exists a natural number, 0"; "It exists a natural number, 1"), then the recursive building with the successor function works in the same way. So, it depends upon which kind of algebraic structure you want to give to the natural numbers. For example, if you need a multiplicative monoid, starting from 1 is sufficient; if you need an additive group, the 0 is necessary.

As for Hunchback's original question "I guess that means that Fremen have no concept of zero", I agree with Slugger... In the context of the quote reported by SandChigger, the aim was clearly typical counting, and normally you start from 1 (unless you are an engineer or a computer scientist! ) Maybe Palimbasha knew the answer ^___^

Rymoah

Having zero liters of water would be a problem.

As far as I know, this matter is heavily application-dependent. The construction of natural numbers works both if you start from 0 or 1. It is sufficient to change the first Peano's axiom ("It exists a natural number, 0"; "It exists a natural number, 1"), then the recursive building with the successor function works in the same way. So, it depends upon which kind of algebraic structure you want to give to the natural numbers. For example, if you need a multiplicative monoid, starting from 1 is sufficient; if you need an additive group, the 0 is necessary.

Hmmm, you're right of course. I was thinking of the set theoretic definition which identifies the empty set with the number zero. I suppose one could start with 1 in this way as well, but it might make the extensions to other number systems more cumbersome.

(I didn't know what a monoid was, so you've given me some extra reading to do. Thanks! )

Slugger wrote:I had the same older prof for a couple of math courses and he referred to the empty set as the null set. I should be more precise in my terminology. I wanted to take a course in discrete math but it unfortunately wouldn't fit into my schedule.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the terminology; I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I have the same problems with schedules. Want to take more Pure Maths but have no choices available.