Thread: What was the first number?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I thought I recall reading that india had the first real numbers system. too busy to look it up right now tho

I'm not talking about the symbols. I'm talking about what the symbols represent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm not talking about the symbols. I'm talking about what the symbols represent.

What do the symbols represent?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What do the symbols represent?

How many diameters worth of length a circumference is, for one thing. The symbols can represent how many fingers you have on a hand, how many times Earth has been around the sun since you were born, and how many posts are in this thread. Those realities are what they are. Humans just come up with symbols to represent those realities.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How many diameters worth of length a circumference is, for one thing. The symbols can represent how many fingers you have on a hand, how many times Earth has been around the sun since you were born, and how many posts are in this thread. Those realities are what they are. Humans just come up with symbols to represent those realities.

So the numbers come into existence as soon as we create the concept of things to count.

One and Two probably came into existence at the same time. The concept of being singular is pretty meaningless without a plurality to compare it to.

Originally Posted by Xei

Numbers are symbols.

They represent a quality of a group of objects.

The only question with any sort of meaning related to yours is 'which was the first number which could be correctly applied in the history of the universe to a group of objects'. There is no real answer to this, you could assign all sorts of numbers to different qualities of the beginning of the universe.

The groups of objects which numbers describe are real. The numbers themselves are not real (real in a physical sense, not technical mathematical sense).

Second.

ive never thought about this before, but its a good point to think about.

i reckon it would have just been a few integers, not all the real numbers, i just doubt people from that long ago would have thought that it is possible to have infinate amount of numbers.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

One and Two probably came into existence at the same time. The concept of being singular is pretty meaningless without a plurality to compare it to.

I think "that" and "those" were the first number set. Probably "that," since "those" specifies no number, and "that" specifies one (one singular or one group of other things, it;s still one). Or at least whatever translates to those words.
Maybe "gone," too.

The number 1 would have had to be the first number.
Because if the fist number to exist was, say, 2, then the only number in existance at that time to describe that number would have been 2, so it would be the 2nd number, and not the first, because "1st" didn't exist yet.

Get it?
The first number had to be one.

Then came zero, because there had to be something to signify when there wasn't one. Then came all the other numbers.

In fact, there may not be any other numbers except 0 and 1, because you can't have one "two." It's just a plural amounts of ones....

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So the numbers come into existence as soon as we create the concept of things to count.

Yes!

So UM, why ask about that which is being symbolized, when the symbols and their concepts are the only things we can create? You don't mean that, do you?