> Not if you put a zero to the right of another number.

Dear Stephen & all,

Yes, well you could be right about the direct influence of a concept
like su~n~na on mathematicians of the 2nd century. I guess I was fixating
on the earliest contributions --a bad orientalist habit! In the 600 or so
years between Panini and Nagarjuna grammar had become India's premier
"science". It's *very* likely that Nagarjuna was trained to
some degree in 'VyaakaraNa' (and in Andhra, no less!) and so it would be
hard to test whether his ideas on su~n~na were unconnected to grammatical
usages of 'zero' suffixes. My point is that what ancient Indians did with
the analysis of language was far more sophisticated in the centuries BCE
than what they did with math. This is what I mean about 'lopa' being a
'basis' for zero.

Gunnar's recent point about zero's value as a place holder provides a
good parallel. In derivational procedures a 'zero' affix is often required
to hold its place so that conditions are met for subsequent grammatical
operations. It can disappear without a trace, or by leaving a change in
accent, or by changing a vowel (guNa or vrddhi). So in one sense or
another it is 'empty'.

For a possible modern parallel it might be useful to think of how guys
good in math took to computer science / programming like ducks to water.
So too (maybe!) ancient intellectuals trained in grammar took to math in
due time. Nagarjuna, I'd guess, was more like Nietschze (who eschewed
philology) in that he disregarded these mere technical accomplishments in
favor of expanding intellectual horizons. Lesser minds could work out the
details!

best,
Tim Cahill