Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews          Free Tarot Readings           What's New           Tarot Card Meanings

1234 isn't 0123 (or is it?)

  > Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Beyond Tarot > Kabbalah & Alphabets




 
kwaw's Avatar
kwaw  kwaw is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 29 Dec 2003
Location: Nr. Ephesus, Turkey
Posts: 5,400
kwaw 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fulgour

1234_isn't_0123
1 isn't the point marked '1' on the ruler, it is the unit designated from 0 to 1, so:

1234 is 0_1_2_3_4

Alef as 'one' occupies the spatial unit 0_1.

Kwaw
Top   #1
Fulgour's Avatar
Fulgour  Fulgour is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 10 Jun 2004
Location: slumbrin in the windrows of the hours...
Posts: 7,828
Fulgour 
1234 isn't 0123 (or is it?)


1234 isn't 0123 (etc., etc., etc...)

Let's discuss...

1234 isn't 0123
Top   #2
jmd's Avatar
jmd  jmd is offline
fourhares
 
Join Date: 05 Aug 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,502
jmd 

moderating note:

apologies for the order of the posts - kwaw's post was moved from another thread to be merged in this one. As Fulgour's post which opened the thread was dated later, the merge function as placed them in order of posting...


There is a sense that one is the point marked '1' if one measures a certain distance a specific measure. This is not the whole space between zero and one.

There is another sense that the whole first space can be viewed as 'one' or 'first' - and there I agree that the number zero (if considered a number) forms part of the limit (or boundaries) that marks out the space.

If one does this, however, this is further evidence that Alef is considered first and ONE - not zero... and this is part of the point, I presume, that Fulgour is pointing to in his signature here quoted.
Top   #3
Fulgour's Avatar
Fulgour  Fulgour is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 10 Jun 2004
Location: slumbrin in the windrows of the hours...
Posts: 7,828
Fulgour 
turning over a new... leaf


ZERO does come before ONE

I started the thread but courtesy of software
the order reflects the temporal proclivities...
Top   #4
Fulgour's Avatar
Fulgour  Fulgour is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 10 Jun 2004
Location: slumbrin in the windrows of the hours...
Posts: 7,828
Fulgour 
When do we get to 1...?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kwaw
1 isn't the point marked '1' on the ruler, it is the unit designated from 0 to 1, so: 1234 is 0_1_2_3_4
Alef as 'one' occupies the spatial unit 0_1.
One is all of One, but if you want to start counting
at Zero you're going to be off the page: 0_0_0_0...
Top   #5
Rosanne's Avatar
Rosanne  Rosanne is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 08 Dec 2004
Location: North Auckland,New Zealand
Posts: 5,917
Rosanne 

Here is the sort of Maths that does my head in!
"The sum of zero and a negative number is negative, the sum of a positive number and zero is positive, the sum of zero and zero is zero...A negative number subtracted from a negative number is negative, zero subtracted from a positive number is positive, zero subtracted from zero is zero etc etc"

Now the way I see it is that we use Zero when counting as an empty space sign/mark. Zero is not a number, it is a sign/mark- a cipher from the arabic word 'sifr' We also use this sign/mark O as a concept. In Tarot I guess it is used as a concept because when the Fool got Zero it was not about counting(am I correct in Tarrochi there is not a Zero on the Fool?)- are we saying the Fool is Nothing? (or for that matter the Batleur is Nothing?) So I worked backwards for myself and gave the The Fool the 'sign/mark' Taw-which then meant he was not Aleph and therefore not one the number the first in the Abjad. Am I being obtuse? ~Rosanne
Top   #6
Fulgour's Avatar
Fulgour  Fulgour is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 10 Jun 2004
Location: slumbrin in the windrows of the hours...
Posts: 7,828
Fulgour 
Talking koo koo


I know! Let's ask "Duck-Boy" (he's a featherbrain ~ Quack! Quack!)
Hey, Duck-Boy, which came first, the Zero or the One? (Quaaaack!)
[He unbuttons his egg and checks the kit.] Eeek! ...fly fly fly away
Top   #7
Windhorse's Avatar
Windhorse  Windhorse is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: 26 Jan 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 94
Windhorse 
Wink an onion in the ointment...


I have always said this:

1=2 as signified by O.

Its a Taoist thing.....

Top   #8
Umbrae's Avatar
Umbrae  Umbrae is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 20 Mar 2002
Location: Upper Left-Coast, USA
Posts: 8,847
Umbrae 
Cool


Sounds like we are confusing cardinal with ordinal.

There is no 0 on a ruler.

There is no year 0.

They are not Zeroth Sequences.

For starters – some history of the Glyph that we refer to as Zero, and the concept of the Zero and the place holder (that we use the glyph for) are three different things.

Early Babylonians used a place holder, but ‘zero’ was not used in calculations.

The Greeks did not adapt the Babylonian number system, and had no positional number system. Greek mathematical advances were essetally based on Euclid’s “Elements”…it’s all based on geometry. BTW – there is no 0 degree angle.

Greek astronomers used the glyph that we would recognize as zero in the recording of astronomical data. There are numerous explanations, that it stood for ‘Ouden” or “Obol”. The usage did not stick around.

Ptolemy, in “Almagest” (130 AD) uses the Babylonian base sixty system and their ‘place-holder’ concept. Sorta Kinda. Ptolemy did not think of it as a number or a concept, but as a punctuation mark. Kind of like a period.

In India, the Hindu word for zero was ‘shunya’, or ‘sunya’ meaning ‘void’. This was translated into Arabic as ‘sifr’, and into English as ‘Cypher’.

Mohammad ibn Mus al-Kwarizmi (ce 780-850) was a mathimatician who introduced Hindu Arabic numerals, his book “Kitab al-jabr wa al-mugabalah” influenced these concepts when it was translated in the 12th Centruy.

In 1202, Leonardo of Pisa (or Leonardo Fibonacci – of whom I have posted about on more than one occaision) explained the concept of positional base notation, the point, negative numbers, and the zero, in his book, “Book of Abacus.”

However he speaks of the ‘sign’ zero rather than the number zero. And the ‘Fibonacci Sequence’ that kept scholars amused for hundreds of years is not (surprise surprise) a zeroth sequence – although one needs to grasp the concept of zero as a place holder and an abstract concept to fully grasp the enormity of the sequential implications. (they are still writing books on the Fibonacci Sequence, and the Golden Mean).

None of these concepts (or zero) were widely used, or accepted until the 17th Century, and even then experienced resistance.

The Glyph that we refer to as Zero, came from India and in Arabic is called ‘galgal’, or “Wheel”.

The Arabic Glyph for zero is ‘"’.

Seriously folks. A little research, a little history.

We have the following subjects on Zero.

Zero as a concept
Zero as a placeholder (4 Tarot Cards or 4 things is different then the abstract concept of ‘Four”).
Zero – the Glyph used to illustrate it.

01234 & 1234 are indeed, mathematically, conceptually, historically, very very different things.

Top   #9
kwaw's Avatar
kwaw  kwaw is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 29 Dec 2003
Location: Nr. Ephesus, Turkey
Posts: 5,400
kwaw 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbrae
Sounds like we are confusing cardinal with ordinal.

There is no 0 on a ruler.
There is on mine, what type of ruler are you using?

Quote:

Greek astronomers used the glyph that we would recognize as zero in the recording of astronomical data. There are numerous explanations, that it stood for ‘Ouden” or “Obol”. The usage did not stick around.

Ptolemy, in “Almagest” (130 AD) uses the Babylonian base sixty system and their ‘place-holder’ concept. Sorta Kinda. Ptolemy did not think of it as a number or a concept, but as a punctuation mark. Kind of like a period.
Translated a couple of times in 15th century, for example by Peurbach/Regiomantus with suppport of Bessarion [all connected at one time or other with Ferrara and other Italian city/states], and treated as a 'place holder', though not a number as such.

Quote:
In India, the Hindu word for zero was ‘shunya’, or ‘sunya’ meaning ‘void’. This was translated into Arabic as ‘sifr’, and into English as ‘Cypher’.
Via Italian 'zephirum' Italian [venetian dialect], via which, like the fool, a connection with wind and air.

Quote:
Mohammad ibn Mus al-Kwarizmi (ce 780-850) was a mathimatician who introduced Hindu Arabic numerals, his book “Kitab al-jabr wa al-mugabalah” influenced these concepts when it was translated in the 12th Century.

In 1202, Leonardo of Pisa (or Leonardo Fibonacci – of whom I have posted about on more than one occaision) explained the concept of positional base notation, the point, negative numbers, and the zero, in his book, “Book of Abacus.”

However he speaks of the ‘sign’ zero rather than the number zero. And the ‘Fibonacci Sequence’ that kept scholars amused for hundreds of years is not (surprise surprise) a zeroth sequence – although one needs to grasp the concept of zero as a place holder and an abstract concept to fully grasp the enormity of the sequential implications. (they are still writing books on the Fibonacci Sequence, and the Golden Mean).
Though as you note Liber abaci was not the first book written in Europe to describe the new numeral system. However it did much to popularise the idea in as much it was written for practical use of merchants with commercial type examples. Other books treating of the subject were for academics and mathematicians [known well for example among the mathematical astrononomers of humanist Italian universities and courtly circles of the 15th century].

Quote:
The Glyph that we refer to as Zero, came from India and in Arabic is called ‘galgal’, or “Wheel”.
Is it? It is also Hebrew and I believe the first use of the term 'Galgal' [wheel or circle] to refer to zero was in the Hebrew 'Book of Numbers' by Ibn Ezra, 12th cent. Also popular among both the learned academics and [jewish] merchants and bankers. In arabic I thought it was call 'sifr' [according to Kaplan, from the same root as 'sefirah'].

Quote:
Seriously folks. A little research, a little history.
There is nothing in this little research or history to go against a conceptual link between '0' and the 'Fool'. In fact the 15th century Sola Busca numbers the fool '0', demonstrating that such a conceptual link had been made with a certain group by late 15th century.

Kwaw
Top   #10




 

 


Tarot Cards & Reviews          Free Tarot Readings           What's New           Tarot Card Meanings
Aeclectic Tarot Forum Links
· Tarot
· Tarot Special Interest
· Beyond Tarot
· Forum Library

Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Angel Decks
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Cat Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· List All Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Tarot Books
· What's New

Copyright © 1996 - 2020 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.