michael_nielsen

E.g., in computing 27+38 at some point in the computation we'll use 2+3 = 5; in computing 72+83 at some point we'll also use 2+3=5. That's despite the fact that the 2 and the 3 in the first sum have a very different meaning than in the second sum!

What's responsible for this astonishing fact? If you look back at the reasoning above, you see it's a consequence of associativity, commutativity, and distributivity. That's a pretty huge set of things! And it makes addition _really_ nice in this representation.

In particular, it means that although the numerals have different meanings in different locations, in many ways they continue to _behave_ as though they are in some sense "the same". They're _not_ the same. But they retain many of the same affordances, in modern interface lingo.

You can go through the same kind of thing, trying to figure out how to multiply two numbers: wx*yz = (w*10+x)*(y*10+z) = x*y*10*10 + ... I won't go through it, but you can guess what happens: you get the grade-school algorithm for multiplication.

And, again, even though the numerals have very different meanings in different positions, they have a lot of the same affordances, and so behave in some ways as the "same" object.

You can go through this with long division. Same story.

At this point this new numeral system looks vastly superior to roman numerals. It's exploiting all this structure to get compact representations, which don't require new symbols, & which exploit deep properties of numbers to simplify addition, multiplication, & division. Amazing!

I'm far from an expert on the history of mathematics or its representations. The story above is unrealistic in many ways. Still, I think it gives at least a hint of the incredible mathematical and design insight required to invent arabic numerals.