(ii) On the counting system we may consider that we have a series of objects (represented in the adjoining diagram by dots), and that we attach to these objects in succession the symbols 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, g, o, repeating this series indefinitely. There is as yet no distinction between the first object marked 1 and the second object marked 1. We can, however, attach to the 0’s the same symbols, 1, 2, . . . o in succession, in a separate column, repeating the series indefinitely; then do the same with every 0 of this new series; and so on. Any particular object is then defined completely .by the combination of the symbols last written down in each series; and this combination of symbols can equally be used to ; ; denote the number of objects up to and including the i- 5 last one (5 10). In writing down a number in excess of 1000 it is (except where the number represents a particular year) usual in England and America to group the figures in sets of three, starting from the right, and to mark off the sets by commas. On the continent of Europe the figures are taken in sets of three, but are merely spaced, the comma being used at the end of a number to denote the commencement of a decimal. The zero, called “ nought,” is of course a different thing from the letter O of the alphabet, but there may be a historical connexion between them (§ 79). It is perhaps interesting to note that the latter-day telephone Operator calls 1907 “ nineteen 0 seven ” instead of “ nineteen nought seven.” 14. Direction of the Number-Series.—There is no settled convention as to the direction in which the series of symbols denoting the successive numbers one, two, three, . . is to be written. (i) If the numbers were written doWn in succession, they would naturally proceed from left to right, thus:-~1, 2, 3, . . . This system, however, would require that in passing to “double figures ” the figure denoting tens should be written either above or below the figure denoting ones, e.g. 1 On the other hand, in writing decimals, the sequence (of negative powers) is from left to right. 1 (iii) In making out lists, schedules, mathematical tables (ag. a multiplication-table), statistical tables, &c., the numbers are written vertically downwards. In the case of lists. and schedules the numbers are only ordinals; but in the case of mathematical or statistical tables they are usually regarded as cardinals,though, when they represent values of a continuous quantity, they must be regarded as ordinals (§§ 26, 93). (iv) In graphic representation measurements are usually made upwards; the adoption of this direction resting on certain deeply rooted ideas (§ 23). This question of direction is of importance in reference to the development of useful number-forms (§ 23); and the existence of the two methods mentioned under (iii) and (iv) above produces confusion in comparing numerical tabulation with graphical representation. .' It is generally accepted that the horizontal direction of increase, where a horizontal direction is necessary, should be from left to right; but uniformity as regards vertical direction could only 'be attained either by printing mathematical tables upwards or by taking “ downwards,” instead of “ upwards,” as the “ positive ” direction for graphical purposes. ’00 The downwards direction will be taken in this article as 5° the normal one for succession of numbers (e.g. in multipli— _‘E cation), and, where the arrangement is horizontal, it is to 253 be understood that this is for convenience of printing. It = should be noticed that, in writing the components of a number 253 as 200, so and 3,each component beneath the next larger one, we are really adopting the downwards principle, since the figures which make up 2 53 will on this principle be successively 2, 5 and 3 (§ 13 (ii) ). 15. Roman Narmada—Although the Roman numerals are no longer in use for representing cardinal numbers, except in certain special cases (e.g. clock-faces, milestones and chemists’ prescriptions), they are still used for ordinals. The system differs completely from the Hindu system. There are no single symbols for two, three, &c.; but numbers are represented by combinations of symbols for one, five, ten, fifty, one hundred, five hundred, &c., the numbers which have single symbols, viz. I, V, X, L, C, D, M', proceeding by multiples of five and two alternately. Thus 1878 is MDCCCLXXVIII, Le. thousand five-hundred hundred hundred hundred fifty ten ten five one one one. The system is therefore essentially a cardinal and grouping one, Le. it represents a number as the sum of sets of other numbers. It is therefore remarkable that it should now only be used for ordinal purposes, while the Hindu system, which is ordinal in its nature, since a single series is constantly repeated, is used almost exclusively for cardinal numbers. This fact seems to illustrate the truth that the counting principle is the fundamental one, to which the interpretation of grouped numbers must ultimately be referred. The normal process of writing the larger numbers on the left is in certain cases modified in the Roman system by writing a numberin front of a larger one to denote subtraction. Thus four, originally written 1111, was later written IV. This may have been due to one or both of two causes; a primitive tendency to refer numbers, in numeration, to the nearest large number (§ 24 (iv) ), and the difficulty of perceiving the number of a group of objects beyond about three (§ 22). Similarly IX, XL and XC were written for nine, forty and ninety respectively. These, however, were later developments. ~ 16. Scale: of Notation—In the Hindu system the numbering proceeds by tens, tens of tens, &c.; thus the figure in the fifth place, counting from the right, denotes the product of the corresponding number by four tens in succession. The notation is then said to be in the scale of which ten is the base, or in the denary scale. The Roman system, except for the use of symbols for five, fifty, &c., is also in the denary scale, though expressed in a different way. The introduction of these other symbols produces a compound scale, which may be called a quinorybinary, or, less correctly, a quinary-dmary scale. The figures used in the Hindu notation might be used to express numbers in any other scale than the denary, provided new symbols were introduced if the base of the scale exceeded ten. Thus 1878 in the qm'nary-binary scale would be 1131213, and 1828 would be 1130213; the meaning of these is seen at once by comparison with MDCCCLXXVIII and MDCCCXXVIII. Similarly the number which in the denary scale is 215 would in the quaternary scale (base 4) be 3113, being equal to 3444+ 1.4-4+I-4+3-. The use of the denary scale in notation is due to its use in numeration (§ 18); this again being due (as exemplified by the use of the word digit) to the primitive use of the fingers for counting. If mankind had had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, we should be using a duodenary scale (base twelve), which would have been far more convenient. 17. Notation of Numerical Quantities.—Over a large part of the civilized world the introduction of the metric system (§ 118) has caused the notation of all numerical quantities to he in the denary. scale. In Great Britain and her colonies, however, and in the United States, other systems ofnotation still survive, though there is none which is consistently in one scale, other than the denary. The method is to form quantities into groups, and these again into larger groups; but the number of grdups making one of the next largest groups varies as we proceed along the scale. The successive groups or units thus formed are called denominations. Thus twelve pennies make a shilling, and twenty shillings a pound, while the penny is itself divided into four farthings (or two halfpennies). There are, therefore, four denominations, the bases for conversion of one denomination into the next being successively .four (or two), twelve and twenty. Within each denomination, however, the denary notation is employed exclusively, e.g. “ twelve shillings” is denoted by 12:. The diversity of scales appears to be due mainly to four causes: (i) the tendency to group into scores (§ 20); (ii) the tendency to subdivide into twelve; (iii) the tendency to subdivide into two or four, with repetitions, making subdivision into sixteen or sixty-four; and (iv) the independent adoption of diflerent units for measuring the same kind of magnitude. Where there is a division into sixteen parts, a binary scale may be formed by dividing into groups of two, four or eight. Thus the weights ordinarily in use for measuring from } oz. up to 2 lb give the basis for a binary scale up to not more than eight figures, only 0 and 1 being used. The points of the compass might similarly be expressed by numbers in a binary scale; but the numbers would be ordinal, and the expressions would be analogous to those of decimals rather than to those of whole numbers. In order to apply arithmetical processes to a quantity expressed in two or more denominations, we must first express it in terms of a single denomination by means of a varying scale) of notation. 10 II Thus £254, 135. 6d. may be written {254 I 13s. I 6d.; each of the numbers in brackets indicating the number of units in one denomination that go to form a unit in the next higher denomination. To (ex)pre(ss)the quantity in terms of £, it ought IO 12 g 73‘ 0' ), and therefore would involve a fractional to be written {254 I 13 I 6; this would mean {254 I 6 “254+Fg-l' 2012 number. A quantity expressed in two or more denominations is usually called a compound number or compound quantity. The former term is obviously incorrect, since a quantity is not a number; and the latter is not very suggestive. For agreement with the terminology of fractional numbers (§ 62) we shall describe such a quantity as a mixed quantity. The letters or symbols descriptive of each denomination are usually placed after or (in actual calculations) above the figures denoting the numbers of the corresponding units; but in a few cases, e.g. in the case of £, the symbol is placed before the figures. There would be great convenience in a general adoption of this latter method; the combination of the two methods in such an expression as £123, 165. 45d. is especially awkward. 18. Numeration.~—The names of numbers are almost wholly based on the denary scale; thus eighteen means eight and ten, and twenty-four means twice ten and four. The words eleven and twelve have been supposed to suggest etymologically a denary basis (see, however, NUMERAL). Two exceptions, however, may be noted. (i) The use of dozen, gross (=dozen dozen), and great gross I-dozen gross) indicates an attempt at a duodenary basis. But the system has never spread; and the word “dozen ” itself is based on the denary scale. (ii) The score (twenty) has been used as a basis, but to an even more limited extent. There is no essential difference, however, between this and the denary basis. As the latter is due to finger-reckoning, so the use of the fingers and the toes produced a vigesimal scale. Examples of this are given in § 20; it is worthy of notice that the vigesimal (or, rather, quinary-quaternary) system was used by the Mayas of Yucatan, and also, in a more perfect form, by the Nahuatl (Aztecs) of Mexico. The number ten having been taken as the basis of numeration, there are various methods that might consistently be adopted for naming large numbers. (i) We might merely name the figures contained in the number. This method is often adopted in practical life, even as regards mixed quantities; thus £57,503. 16s. 4d. would be read as five seven, five nine three. sixteen and four pence. (ii) The word ten might be introduced, e.g. 593 would befive ten ten ninety (= nine ten) and three. (iii) Names might be given to the successive powers of ten, up to the point to which numeration of ones is likely to go. Partial applications of this method are found in many languages. (iv) A compromise between the last two methods would be to have names for the series of numbers, beginning with ten, each of which is the “ square ” of the preceding one. This would in efl'ect be analysing numbers into components of the form a. 10‘ where a is less than re, and the index I) is expressed in the binary scale, e.g. 7,000,000 would be 7.10‘.10’, and 700,000 would be 7.10‘.10‘. The British method is a mixture of the last two, but with an index-scale which is partly ternary and partly binary. There are separate names for ten, ten times ten (=hundred), and ten times ten times ten (=thousand); but the next single name is million, representing a thousand times a thousand. The next name is billion, which in Great Britain properly means a million million, and in the United States (as in France) a thousand million. It). Discrepancies between Numeration and N otation.——Although numeration and notation are both ostensibly on the denary system, they are not always exactly parallel. The following are a few of the discrepancies. (i) A set of written symbols is sometimes read in more than one way, while on the other hand two difl'erent sets of symbols (at any rate if denoting numerical quantities) may be read in the same way. Thus 1820 might be read as one thousand eight hundred and twenty if it represented a number of men, but it would be read as eighteen hundred and twenty if it represented a year of the Christian era; while rs. 6d. and 18d. might both be read as eighteenpenee. As regards the first of these two examples, however, it would be more correct to write 1,820 for the former of the two meanings (cf. § 13). (ii) The symbols 11 and 12 are read as eleven and twelve, not (except in elementary teaching) as ten-one and ten~tu-o. (iii) The names of the numbers next following these, up to 19 inclusive, only faintly suggest a ten. This difiiculty is not always recognized by teachers, who forget that they themselves had to be told that eighteen means eight-and-ten. (iv) Even beyond twenty, up to a hundred, the word ten is not used in numeration, e.g. we say thirty-four, not three ten four. (v) The rule that the greater number comes first is not universally observed in numeration. It is not observed, for instance, in the names of numbers from 13 to 19; nor was it in the names from which eleven and twelve are derived. Beyond twenty it is usually, but not always, observed; we sometimes instead of twenty-four say four and twenty. (This latter is the universal system in German, up to 100, and for any portion of 100 in numbers beyond 100.) 20. Other Methods of Numeration and Notation—It is only possible here to make a brief mention of systems other than those now ordinarily in use. (i) Vigerirnal Scale.—The system of counting by twenties instead of by tens has existed in many countries; and, though there is no corresponding notation, it still exhibits itself in the names of numbers. This is the case, for instance, in the Celtic languages; and the Breton or Gaulish' names have afl'ected the Latin system, so that the French names for some numbers are on the vigesimal system. This system also appears in the Danish numerals. In English the use of the word score to represent twenty—cg. in “ threescore and ten ” for seventy—is superimposed on the denary system, and has never formed an essential part of the language. The word, like dozen and couple, is still in use, but rather in a vague than in a precise sense. (ii) Roman System—The Roman notation has been explained above (Q 15). Though convenient for exhibiting the composition of any particular number, it was inconvenient for purposes of calculation; and in fact calculation was entirely (or almost entirely) performed by means of the abacus (q.v.). The numeration was in the denary scale, so that it did not agree absolutely with the notation. The principle of subtraction from a higher number, which appeared in notation, also appeared in numeration, but not for exactly the same numbers or in exactly the same way; thus XVIII was two-from-twenty, and the next number was onefrorn-twenty, but it was written XIX, not IXX._ (iii) Other Systems of Antiquity—The Egyptian notation was purely denary, the only separate signs being those for r, 10, 100, &c. The ordinary notation of the Babylonians was denary, but they also used a sexagesimal scale, Le. a scale whose base was 60. The Hebrews had a notation containing separate signs (the letters of the alphabet) for numbers from I to 10, then for multiplies of 10 up to 100, and then for multiples of 100 up to 400, and later up to 1000. The earliest Greek system of notation was similar to the Roman, except that the symbols for 50, 500, &c., were more complicated. Later, asystem similar to the Hebrew was adopted, and extended by reproducing the first nine symbols of the series. preceded by accents, to denote multiplication by 1000. On the island of Ceylon there still exists, or existed till recently, a system which combines some of the characteristics of the later Greek (or Semitic) and the modern European notation; and it is conjectured that this was the original Hindu system. For a further account of the above systems see NUMERAL, and the authorities quoted at the end of the present article. 21. The N umber-Concept.—It is probable that very few people have any definite mental presentation of individual numbers (Le. numbers proceeding by differences of one) beyond 100, or at any rate beyond 144. Larger numbers are grasped by forming numbers into groups or by treating some large number as a unit. A person would appreciate the difierence between 93,000,000 m. and 94,000,000 m. as the distance of the centre of the sun from the centre of the earth at a particular moment; but he certainly would not appreciate the relative difference between 93,000,000 m.‘ and 93,000 001 m. In order to get an idea of 93,000,000, he must take a million as his unit. Similarly, in the metric system he cannot mentally compare two units, one of which is 1000 times the other. The metre and the kilometre, for instance, or the metre and the millimetre, are not directly comparable; but the metre can be conceived as containing 100 centimetres. _\ On the other hand, it would seem that, for most educated people, sixteen and seventeen or twenty-six and twenty-seven,and even eighty-six and eighty-seven, are single numbers, just as six and seven are, and are not made up of groups of tens and ones. In other words, the denary scale, though adopted in notation and in numeration, does not arise in the corresponding mental concept until we get beyond 100. Again, in the use of decimals, it is unusual to give less than two figures. Thus 3142 or 3-14 would be quite intelligible; but 3- i does not convey such a good idea to most peopleaseither 3T‘o' or 3-10, Le. as an expression denoting a fraction or a percentage. There appears therefore to be a tendency to use some larger number than ten as a basis for grouping into new units or for subdivision into parts. The Babylonians adopted 60 for both these purposes, thus giving us the sexagesimal division of angles and of time. This view is supported, not only by the intelligibility of percentages to ordinary persons, but also by the tendency, noted above (§ 19), to group years into centuries, and to avoid the use of thousands. Thus 1876 is not 1 thousand, 8 hundred, 7 tens and 6, but 18 hundred and 76, each of the numbers 18 and 76 being named as if it were a single number. It is also in accordance with what is so far known about number-forms (§ 23). If there is this tendency to adopt 100 as a basis instead of 10, the teaching of decimals might sometimes be simplified by proceeding from percentages to percentages of percentages, Le. by commencing with centesimals instead of with decimals. 22. Perception of N umber.—In using material objects as a basis for developing the number-concept, it must be remembered that it is only when there are a few objects that their number can be perceived without either counting or the performance of some arithmetical process such as addition. If four coins are laid on a table, close together, they can (by most adults) be seen to be four, without counting; but seven coins have to be separated mentally into two groups, the numbers of which are added, or one group has to be seen and the remaining objects counted, before the number is known to be seven. The actual limit of the number that can be “ seen ”—1'.e. seen without counting or adding—~depends for any individual on the shape and arrangement of the objects, but under similar conditions it is not the same for all individuals. It has been suggested that as many as six objects can be seen at once; but this is probably only the case with few people, and with them only when the objects have a certain geometrical arrangement. The limit for most adults, under favourable conditions, is about four. Under certain conditions it is less; thus 1111, the old Roman notation for four, is difficult to distinguish from 111, and this may have been the main reason for replacing it by IV (§ 15). In the case of young children the limit is probably two. That this was also the limit in the case of primitive races, and that the classification of things was into one, two and many, before any definite process of counting (e.g. by the fingers) came to be adopted, is clear from the use of the “ dual number " in language, and from the way in which the names for three and four are often based on those for one and two. With the individual, as with the race, the limit of the number that can be seen gradually increases up to four or five. The statement that a number of objects can be seen to be three or four is not to be taken as implying that there is a simultaneous perception of all the objects. The attention may be directed in succession to the different objects, so that the perception is rhythmical; the distinctive rhythm thus aiding the perception of the particular number. In consequence of this limitation of the power of perception of number, it is practically impossible to use a pure denary scale in elementary number-teaching. If a quinary-binary system (such as would naturally fit in with counting on the fingers) is not adopted, teachers unconsciously resort to a binary-quinary system. This is commonly done where cubes are used; thus seven is represented by three pairs of cubes, with a single cube at the top. 23. Visualization of the Series.—A striking fact, in reference to ideas of number, is the existence of number-forms, 11¢. of definite arrangements, on an imagined plane or in space, of the mental representations of the successive numbers from 1 onwards. The proportion of persons in whom number-forms exist has been variously estimated; but there is reason to believe that the forms arise at a very early stage of childhood, and that they did at some time exist in many individuals who have afterwards forgotten them. Those persons who possess them are also apt to make spatial arrangements of days of the week or the month, months of the year, the letters of the alphabet, &c.; and it is practically certain that only children would make such arrangements of letters of the alphabet. The forms seem to result from a general tendency to visualization as an aid to memory; the letter-forms may in the first instance be quite as frequent as the number' forms, but they vanish in early childhood, being of no practical value, while the number-forms continue as an aid to arithmetical work. The forms are varied, and have few points in common; but the following tendencies are indicated. (i) In the majority of cases the numbers lie on a continuous (but possibly zigzag) line. (ii) There is nearly always (at any rate in English cases) a break in direction at 12. From 1 to 12 the numbers sometimes lie in the circumference of a circle, an arrangement obviously suggested by a clock-face; in these cases the series usually mounts upwards from 12. In a large number of cases, however, the direction is steadily upwards from 1 to 12, then changing. In some cases the initial direction is from right to left or from left to right; but there are very few in which it is downwards. (iii) The multiples of 10 are usually strongly marked; but special stress is also laid on other important numbers, e.g. the multiples of 12. (iv) The series sometimes goes up to very high numbers, but sometimes stops at 100, or even earlier. It is not stated, in most cases, whether all the numbers within the limits of the series have definite positions, or whether there are only certain numbers which form an essential part of the figure, while others only exist potentially. Probably the latter is almost universally the case. These forms are developed spontaneously, without suggestion from outside. The possibility of replacing them by a standard form, which could be utilized for performing arithmetical operations, is worthy of consideration; some of the difficulties in the way of standardization have already been indicated (§ 14). The general tendency to prefer an upward direction is important; and our current phraseology suggests that this is the direction which increaseis naturally regardedastaking. Thus we speak of counting up to a certain number; and similarly mathematicians speak of high and ascending powers, while engineers speak of high pressure, high speed, high power, &c. This tendency is probably aided by the use of bricks or cubes in elementary number-teaching. 24. Primitive Ideas of Number.—The names of numbers give an idea of the way in which the idea of number has developed. Where civilization is at all advanced, there are usually certain names, the origin of which cannot be traced; but, as we go farther back, thme become fewer, and the names are found to be composed on certain systems. The systems are varied, and it is impossible to lay down any absolute laws, but the following seem to be the main conclusions. (i) Amongst some of the lowest tribes, as (with a few exceptions) amongst animals, the only differentiation is between one and many, or between one, two and many, or between one, two, three and many. As it becomes necessary to use higher but still small numbers, they are formed by combinations of one and two, or perhaps of three with one or two. Thus many of the Australasian and South American tribes use only one and two; seven, for instance, would be two two two one. (ii) Beyond ten, and in many cases beyond five, the names have reference to the use of the fingers, and sometimes of the toes, for counting; and the scale may be quinary, dcnary or vigesimal, according as one hand, the pair of hands, or the hands and feet, are taken as the new unit. F ive may be signified by the word for hand; and either ten or twenty by the word for man. Or the. words signifying these numbers may have reference to the completion of some act of counting. Between five and ten, or beyond ten, the names may be due to combinations, e.g. 16 may be 10+ 5+1; or they may be the actual names of the fingers last counted. (iii) There are a few, but only a few, cases in which the number 6 or 8 is named as twice 3 or twice 4; and there are also a few cases in which 7, 8 and o are named as 6+1, 6+: and 6+3. In the large majority of cases the numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 are 5+ r, 5+2, 5+3 and 5+4, being named either directly from their composition in this way or as the fingers on the second hand. (iv) There isa certain tendency to name 4, 9, t4 and rgas being one short of 5, to, r 5 and 20 respectively; the principle being thus the same as that of the Roman IV, IX, &c. It is possible that at an early stage the number of the fingers on one hand or on the two hands together was only thought of vaguely as a large number in comparison with 2 or 3, and that the number did not attain definiteness until it was linked up with the smaller by insertion of the intermediate ones; and the linking up might take place in both directions. (v) In a few cases the names of certain small numbers are the names of objects which present these numbers in some conspicuous way. Thus the word used by the Abipones to denote 5 was the name of a certain hide of five colours. It has been suggested that names of this kind may have been the origin of the numeral words of difierent races; but it is improbable that direct visual perception would lead to a name for a number unless a name based on a. process of counting had previously been given to it. 2 5. Growth of the N umber-C aneept.——-The general principle that the development of the individual follows the development of the race holds good to a certain extent in the case of the numbereoncept, but it is modified by the existence of language dealing with concepts which are beyond the reach of the child, and also, of course, by the direct attempts at instruction. One result is the formation of a number-series as a mere succession of names without any corresponding ideas of number; the series not being necessarily correct. When numbering begins, the names of the successive numbers are attached to the individual objects; thus the numbers are originally ordinal, not cardinal. The conception of number as cardinal, i.c. as something belonging to a group of objects as a whole, is a comparatively late one, and does not arise until the idea of a whole consisting of its parts has been formed. This is the quantitative aspect of number. The development from the name-series to the quantitative conception is aided by the numbering of material objects and the performance of elementary processes of comparison, addition, &c., with them. It may also be aided, to a certain extent, by the tendency to find rhythmsin sequences of sounds. This tendency is common in adults as well as in children) the strokes of a clock may, for instance, be grouped into fours, and thus eleven is represented as two fours and three. F inger-counting is of course natural to children, and leads to grouping into fives, and ultimately to an understanding of the denary system of notation. :6. Representation of Geometrical Magnitude by N umber.— The application of arithmetical methods to geometrical measurement presents some difficulty. In reality there is a transition from a cardinal to an ordinal system, but to an ordinal system which does not agree with the original ordinal system from which the cardinal system was derived. To see this, we may represent ordinal numbers by the ordinary numerals 1, z, 3, . . . and cardinal numbers by the Roman I, II, III, . . . Then in the earliest stage each object counted is indivisible; either we are counting it as a whole, or we are not i Z 2 counting it at all. The symbols r, 2, FIG I 3, . . . then refer to the individual objects, as in fig. 1; this is the primary ondinal stage. Figs. 2 and 3 represent the cardinal stage; fig. 2 showing how the I, II, III, . . . denote the successively larger groups of objects, while fig. 3 shows how the name 11 of the whole is determined by the name 2 of the last one counted. When new we pass to geometrical measurement, each “ one ” is a thing which is itself divisible, and it cannot be said that at any moment we are counting it; it is only when one is completed that we can countit. The names I, 2, 3, . . . for theindividual objects cease to have an intelligible meaning, and measurement is effected by the cardinal numbers I, II, III, . . . , as in fig. 4. These cardinal numbers have now, however, come to denote individual points in the line of measurement, i.e. the points of separation of the individual units of length. The point III in fig. 4 does not include the point II in the same way that the number III includes the number II in fig. 2, and the points must therefore be denoted by the ordinal numbers I, 2, 3, . . . as in fig. 5,the zero 0 falling into its natural place immediately before the commencement of the first unit. Thus, while arithmetical numbering refers to units, geometrical numbering does not refer to units but to the intervals between units. III. Anrrmmnc or INTEGIAL Nuusns (i.) Preliminary 27. Equality and Identity—There is a certain difl'erenee between the use of words referring to equality and identity in arithmetic and in algebra respectively; what is an equality in the former becoming an identity in the latter. Thus the statement that 4 times 3 is equal to 3 times 4, or, in abbreviated form, 4X3=3X4(§ 28), is a statement not of identity but of equality; Le. 4X3 and 3X4 mean different things, but the operations which they denote produce the same result. But in algebra aXb== bXa is called an identity, in the sense that it is true whatever a and b may be; while nXX=A is called an equation, as being true, when u and A are given, for one value only of X. Similarly the numbers represented by 191 and i are not identical, but are equaL I ' 28. Symbols of Operation.— The failure to observe the distinction between an identity and an equality often leads to loose reasoning; and in order to prevent this it is important that definite meanings should be attached to all symbols of operation, and especially to those which represent elementary operations. The symbols — and + mean respectively that the first quantity mentioned is to be reduced or divided by the second; but there is some vagueness about + and X. In the present article a+b will mean that a is taken first, and b added to it; but aXb will mean that b is taken first, and is then multiplied by a. In the case of numbers the X may be replaced by a dot; thus 4.3 means 4 times 3. When it is necessary to write the multiplicand before the multiplier, the symbol x will be used, so that b><a will mean the same as aXb. 29. Axioms.——'I'here are certain statements that are sometimes regarded as axiomatic; e.g. that if equals are added to equals the results are equal, or that if A is greater than B then A+X is greater than B+X. Such statements, however, are capableof logical proof ,and are generalizations of results obtained empirically at an elementary stage; they therefore belong more properly to the laws of arithmetic (§ 58). (ii.) Sums and Diflerenccs. 30. Addition and Subtraction.-—— Addition is the process of expressing (in numeration or notation) a whole, the parts of which have already been expressed; while, if a whole has been expressed and also a part or parts, subtraction is the process of expressing the remainder. Except with very small numbers, addition and subtraction, on the grouping system, involve analysis and rearrangement. Thus the sum of 8 and 7 cannot be expressed as ones; we can either form the whole, and regroup it as 10 and 5, or we can split up the 7 into 2 and 5, and add the 2 to the 8 to form 10, thus getting 8+7 = 8+ (2+5) = (8+2) +5= ro+5 = 15. For larger numbers the rearrangement is more extensive; thus 24+3r= (20+4)+ (30+ 1) = (20+3o)+(4+ I) = 50+ 5 = 55,the processbeing still more complicated when the ones together make more than ten. Similarly we cannot subtract 8 from 15, if 15 means 1 ten + 5 ones; we must either write 15—8= (10+5)-—8= (lo—8H—5 = 2+5 =7, or else resolve the 15 into an inexpressible number of ones, and then subtract 8 of them, leaving 7. Numerical quantities, to be added or subtracted, must be in the same denomination; we cannot, for instance, add 55 shillings and :00 pence. any more than we can add 3 yards and 2 metres. 3:. Relative Position in the Sodom—The above method of dealing with addition and subtraction is synthetic, and is appropriate to the grouping method of dealing with number. We commence with processes, and see what they lead to; and thus get an idea of sums and diflerences. If we adopted the counting method, we should proceed in a different way, our method being analytic. One number is less or greater than another, according as the symbol (or ordinal) of the former comes earlier or later than that of the latter in the number-series.v Thus (writing ordinals in light type, and cardinals in heavy type) 9 comes after 4, and therefore 9 is greater than 4. To find how much greater, we compare two series, in one of which we go up to 9, while in the other we stop at 4 and then recommence our counting. The series are shown below, the numbers being placed horizontally for convenience of printing, instead of vertically (§ 14):— I 2 s 4 s 6 7 8 9 This exhibits 9 as the sum of 4 and 6; it being understood that the sum of band 6 means that we add 5 to 4. That this giVes the same result as adding 4 to 5 may be seen by reckoning the series backwards. It is convenient to introduce the zero; thus 5 indicates that after getting to 4 we make a fresh start from 4 as our zero. To subtract, we may proceed in either of two ways. The subtraction of 4 from 9 may mean either “ What has to be added to 4 in order to make up a total of 9," or “ To what has 4 to be added in order to make up a total of 9.” For the former meaning we count forwards, till we get to 4, and then make a new count, parallel with the continuation of the old series, and see at what number we arrive when we get to 9. This corresponds to the concrete method, in which we have 9 objects, take away 4 of them, and recount the remainder. The alternative method is to retrace the steps of addition, i.e. to count backwards, treating o of one (the standard) series as corresponding with 4 of the other, and finding which number of the former corresponds with o of the latter. This is a more advanced method, which leads easily to the idea of negative quantities, if the subtraction is such that we have to go behind the o of the standard series. 32. M ixcd Quantilics.—The application of the above principles, and of similar principles with regard to multiplication and division, to numerical quantities expressed in any of the diverse British denominations, presents no theoretical difi‘iculty if the successive denominations are regarded as constituting a varying scale of notation (§r7). Thus the expression 2 ft. 3 in. implies that in counting inches we use 0 to eleven instead of o to 9 as our first repeating series, so that we put down I for the next denomination when we get to twelve instead of when we get to ten. Similarly 3 yds. 2 ft. means 33. Multiplication and Division are the names given to certain numerical processes which have to be performed in order to find the result of certain arithmetical operations. Each process may arise out of either of two distinct operations; but the terminology is based on the processes, not on the operations to which they belong, and the latter are not always clearly understood. 34. Repetition and Subdivision.—Multiplication occurs when a certain number or numerical quantity is treated as a unit (§ 1 I), and is taken a certain number of times. It therefore arises in one or other of two ways, according as the unit or the number exists first in consciousness. If pennies are arranged in groups of five, the total amounts arranged are successively once 5d., twice 5d., three times 5d., . . .; which are written rX5d., 2X5d., 3X5d., . . . (§ 28). This process is repetition, and the quantities r X 5d., 2X5d., 3X5d., . . . are the successive multiples of 5d. If, on the other hand, we have a sum of 5s., and treat a shilling as being equivalent to twelve pence, the 5s. is equivalent to 5 X 12d; here the multiplication arises out of a subdivision of the original unit is. into red. Although multiplication may arise in either of these two ways, the actual process in each case is performed by commencing with the unit and taking it the necessary number of times. In the above case of subdivision, for instance, each of the 5 shillings is separately converted into pence, so that we do in fact find in succession once 12d, twice r2d., . . . ; i.e. we find the multiples of 12d. up to 5 times. ‘ The result of the multiplication is called the product of the unit by the number of times it is taken. |