Math Thesis

PATNA
UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER - I
NUMBERS & THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS
INTRODUCTION :
The
word
number
has
no
generally
agreed
upon
PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS
mathematical meaning nor does the work number system. There

is no rule to say that what is a number and what is not. Ancient
as well modern Philosophers cum Mathematicians have made
untiring efforts to find out a suitable definition of number but a
perfect definition has not been possible as yet.
The
primitive
conception
of
number
seems
to
be
fundamental with human thoughts and it is well known that

every living being has the idea of number which is expressed by
the method of counting. In the process of describing the
universe, philosophers came across numbers not in the abstract
form but in the concrete form. Use of numbers up to Parardha
has also been made in the Vedas as early as six thousand B.C.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
The religious texts of the Vedic period provide evidence for the
use of numbers and large numbers. In the classical period of
Indian
mathematics
contributions
in
(400
numbers
A.D
to
were
1200
made
A.D.)
by
important
scholars
like
Aryabhata, Brahmagupt&Bhaskar-II.
Pythagoras ( 531-510 B.C. ) profounded the Doctrine that

number is the nature of things and an essential character of the
universe. He believed that all Mathematical Sciences can be
reduced to numbers. The Pythagoreans made a remarkable
speculations on the natural number and treated unit as the first
order of things and believed that all numbers arise out of unity.
Even axiomatic characterizations of number system have not
been adequate so Leopold Kronecker, the father of modern
intuitionism, has rightly said that (natural) numbers are the
creation of God himself and rest is the creation of man. Thus, he
considered
objects,
number as primary object and rest as secondary
Accepting
natural
numbers
(80)
as
the
basic
stuff,
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
construction of various classes of numbers such as integers,

rationals, irrationals real numbers and complex numbers etc.
have been possible such that each subsequent
construction
contains an isomorphic model of the previous one, some of the

more interesting examples of abstraction that can be considered
numbers
include
the
quaternions,
the
octonions
ordinal
numbers and the transfinite numbers.

Guiseppepeano (1889), a famous Italian mathematician by
means of his famous five axioms claimed to reduce the whole
mathematics to the theory of natural numbers. He observed
that the entire theory of natural numbers can be derived from
three primitive ideas such as Zero, Successor and number.
He defined numbers and his definition has been improved by
Russell.
Again it is well known that real number system is complete
and needs no further extension in Classical mathematics. But
there are situations which carry for the use of infinitesimals and
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
infinities which are beyond the scope of the real number system
and hence an extension of real number system is essential such
system may be called ultra-real number system or hyper real
number
system
whose
arithemetic
and
analysis
can
be
eloquently developed. Similar extension of natural numbers,
complex numbers and Rn may also be possible. The calculus of

these ultra real numbers are called Nonstandard Analysis or
Infinitesimal calculus which was introduced and developed by
Abraham Robinson in 1966.
Classification of numbers:
Numbers can be classified into sets, called number
systems.
1. Natural numbers:
The most familiar numbers are the natural numbers or
counting numbers: one , two, three, and so on. Traditionally, the
sequence of nautral numbers started with 1 (0 was not even
considered as number for the Ancient Greeks). However, in the
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
19th Century, set theorists and other mathematicians started

including 0 (cardinality of the empty set, i.e. 0 elements, where 0
is
thus the smallest cardinal number) in the set of natural
number s. Today, different mathematicians use the term to

describe both sets, including zero or not. The mathematical
symbol for the set of all natural numbers is N, also written N.

In the base ten numeral system, in almost universal use
today for mathematical operations, the
symbols for natural
numbers are written using ten digits: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9.

In this base ten system, the rightmost digit of a natural number
has a place value of one, and every other digit has a place value
ten times that of the place value of the digit to its right.
In set theory, which is capable of acting as an axiomatic
foundation for modern mathematics, natural numbers can be
represented by classes of equivalent sets. For instance, the
number 3 can be represented as the class of all sets that have
exactly three elements. Alternatively, in Peano Arithmetic, the
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
number 3 is represented as sss0, where s the successor

function ( i.e.3 is the third successor of 0). Many different
representations are possible; all that is needed to formally
represent 3 is to inscribe a certain symbol or pattern of symbols
three times.
2. Integers
The negative of a positive integer is defined as a number
that produces zero when it is added to the corresponding
positive integer. Negative numbers are usually written with a
negative sign (a minus sign). As an example, the negative of 7 is
written -7, and 7+ (-7) = 0. When the set of negative numbers is
combined with the set of natural numbers (which includes zero),
the result is defined as the set of integer numbers, also called
integers, Z also written Z. Here the letter Z comes from German
Zahl, meaning number.
The set of integers forms a ring with operations addition
and multiplication.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
3. Rational Numbers
A rational number is a number that can be expressed as a
fraction with an integer numerator and a non-zero natural
number denominator. Fractions are written as two numbers, the
numerator and the denominator, with a dividing bar between
them. In the fraction written
or
m represents equal parts, where n equal parts of that size make

up one whole. Two different fractions may correspond to the
same rational number; for example 1 2 and 2 4 are equal, that is:
If the absolute value of m is greater than n, then the

absolute value of the fraction is greater than 1. Fractions can be
greater than, less than or equal to 1 and can also be positive,
negative or zero. The set of all rational numbers includes the
integers, since every integer can be written as a fraction with
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
denominator 1. For example: -7 can be written as
. The
symbol for the rational numbers is Q (for quotient), also written

.
4. Real Numbers
The real numbers include all of the measuring numbers.
Real numbers are usually written using decimal numberals, in
which a decimal point is placed to the right of the digit with
place value one. Each digit to the right of the decimal point has
a place value one-tenth of the place value of the digit to its left.
Thus,
represents 1 hundred, 2 tens, 3 ones, 4tenths, 5 hundredths,

and 6 thousandths. In the US and UK and a number of other
countries, the decimal point is represented by a period, whereas
in continental Europe and certain other countries the decimal
point is represented by a comma. Zero is often written as 0.0
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
when it must be treated as a real number rather than an

integer. In the US and UK a number between -1 and 1 is always
written with a leading zero to emphasize the decimal. Negative
real numbers are written with a preceding minus sign:
Every rational number is also a real number. It is not the

case, however, that every real number is rational. If a real
number cannot be written as a fraction of two integers, it is
called irrational. A decimal that can be written as a fraction
either ends (terminates) or forever repeats, because it is the
answer to a problem in division. Thus the real number 0.5 can
be written as
and the real number 0.333..(forever repeating
threes, otherwise written
) can be written as
(80)
. On the other
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
hand, the real number (pi), the ratio of the circumference of

any circle to its diameter, is
Since the decimal neither ends nor forever repeats, it cannot be

written as a fraction, and is an example of an irrational number.
Other irrational numbers include

(the square root of 2, that is, the positive
number whose square is 2).
Thus 1.0 and 0.999 are two different decimal numerals
representing the natural number 1. There are infinitely many
other
ways
of
representing
the
number
1,
for
example
and so on.
Every real number is either rational or irrational. Every

real number corresponds to a point on the number line. The real
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
numbers also have an important but highly technical property

called the least upper bound property. The symbol for the real
numbers is R, also written as R.
When a real number represents a measurement, there is
always a margin of error. This is often indicated by rounding or
truncating a decimal, so that digits that suggest a greater

accuracy than the measurement itself are removed. The
remaining digits are called significant digits. For example,
measurements with a ruler can seldom be made without a
margin of error of at least 0.001 meters. If the sides of a
rectangle are measured as 1.23 meters and 4.56 meters, then
multiplication gives an area for the rectangle of 5.6088 square
meters. Since only the first two digits after the decimal place are
significant, this is usually rounded to 5.61.
In abstract algebra, it can be shown that any complete
ordered field is isomorphic to the real numbers. The real
numbers are not, however, an algebraically closed field.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
5. Complex numbers.
Moving to a greater level of abstraction, the real numbers
can be extended to the complex numbers. This set of numbers
arose, historically, from trying to find closed formulas for the
roots of cubic and quartic polynomials. This led to expressions
involving the square root of negative numbers, and eventually to

the definition of a new number : the square root of negative one,
denoted by i, a symbol assigned by Leonhard Euler, and called
the imaginary unit. The complex number consists of all
numbers of the form
where a and b are real numbers. In the expression a+bi, the real
number a is called real part and b is called the imaginary part.
If the real part of a complex number is zero, then the number is
called an imaginary number or is referred to as purely
imaginary; if the imaginary part is zero, then the number is a
real number. Thus the real number are a subset of the complex
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
numbers. If the real and imaginary parts of a complex number

are both integers, then the number is called a Gaussian integer.
The symbol for the complex number is C or .
In abstract algebra, the complex numbers are an
example of an algebraically closed field, meaning that every
polynomial with complex coefficients can be factored into linear

factors. Like the real number system, the complex number is a
field and is complete, but unlike the real numbers it is not
ordered. That is, there is no meaning in saying that i is greater
than 1, nor is there any meaning in saying that i is less than 1.
In technical terms, the complex numbers lack the trichotomy
property.Complex numbers correspond to points on the complex
plane,sometimes called the Argand plane.
Each of the number systems mentioned above is a proper
subset
of
the
next
number
(80)
system.
Symbolically,
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
6. Computable numbers
Moving to problems of computation, the computable
numbers are determined in the set of the real numbers. The
computable numbers, also known as the recursive numbers or
the computable reals, are the real numbers than can be
computed to within any desired precision by a finite, terminating

algorithm. Equivalent definitions can be given using recursive
functions,
Turing
machines
or
-calculus
as
the
formal
representation of algorithms. The computable numbers form a

real closed field and can be used in the place of real numbers for
many, but not all, mathematical purposes.
7. Other types of numbers :
Algebraic numbers are those that can be expressed as the
solution to a polynomial equation with integer coefficients. The
complement of the algebraic numbers are the transcendental
numbers.
(80)
PATNA
Hyperreal
numbers
UNIVERSITY
are
used
in
the
non-standard
analysis. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals (usually denoted

as R*).denote an ordered field that is a proper extension of the
ordered field of real numbers R and satisifies the transfer
principle. This principle allows true first order statements about
R to be reinterpreted as true first order statements about R*.

Superreal and surreal numbers extend the real numbers
by adding infinitesimally small numbers and infinitely large
numbers, but still form fields.
The p-adic numbers may have infinitely long expansions to
the left of the decimal point, in the same way that real numbers
may have infinitely long expansions to the right. The number
system that results depends on what base is used for the digits:
any base is possible, but a prime number base provides the best
mathematical properties.
For dealing with infinite collections, the natural numbers
have been generalized to the ordinal numbers and to the
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
cardindal numbers. The former gives the ordering of the

collection, while the latter gives its size. For the finite set, the
ordinal and cardinal numbers are equivalent, but they differ in
the infinite case.
A relation number is defined as the class of relations
consisting of all those relations that are similar to one member

of the class.
Sets of numbers that are not subsets of the complex
numbers are sometimes called hypercomplex numbers. They
include the quaternions H, invented by Sir William Rowan
Hamilton, in which multiplication is not commutative, and the
octonions, in which multiplication is not associative. Elements of
function fields of non-zero characteristic behave in some ways
like numbers and are often regarded as numbers by number
theorists.
8. Specific use of numbers

(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
There are also other sets of numbers with specialized uses.

Some are subsets of the complex numbers. For example,
algebraic numbers are the roots of polynomials with rational
coefficients. Complex numbers that are not algebraic are called
transcendental numbers.
An even number is an integer that is evenly divisible by

2, i.e., divisible by 2 without remainder; an old number is an
integer that is not evenly divisible by 2. A formal definition of an
odd number is that it is an integer of the form
is an integer. An even number has the form
where
where is an
integer.
A perfect number is a positive integer that is the sum of
its proper positive divisors- the sum of the positive divisors not
including the number itself. Equivalently, a perfect number is a
number that is half the sum of all of its positive divisors, or
. The first perfect number is 6, because 1,2 and 3 are
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
its proper positive divisors and
. The next perfect
number is 28= 1+2+4+7+14. The next perfect numbers are 496

and 8128. These first four perfect numbers were the only ones
known to early Greek mathematics.
A figurate number is a number that can be represented as
a regular and discrete geometric pattern. If the pattern is

polytopic, the figurate is labeled a polytopic number, and may be
a polygonal number or a polyhedral number. Polytopic numbers
for r = 2, 3 and 4 are:
(triangular numbers).
(tetrahederal numbers).
(Pentatopicnumbers ).
9. Numerals
Numbers should be distinguished from numerals, the

symbols used to represent numbers. Boyer showed that
Egyptians created the first ciphered numerals system. Greeks
followed by mapping their counting numbers onto Ionian and
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
Doric alphabets. The number five can be represented by both

the base ten numeral 5, by the Roman numeral V and
ciphered letters. An important development in the history of
numerals was the development of a positional system, like
modern decimals, which can represent very large numbers. The
Roman numerals require extra symbols for larger numbers.
CHAPTER II
History of Numbers
1 First use of numbers :
Bones and other artifacts have been discovered
with marks cut into them that many believe are tally
marks. These tally marks may have been used for counting
elapsed time, such as numbers of days, lunar cycles or
keeping records of quantities, such as of animals.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
A tallying system has no concept of place value

which
limits
its
representation
of
large
numbers.
Nonetheless tallying systems are considered the first kind

of abstract numeral system.
2. Zero
The use of zero as a number should be

distinguished from its use as a placeholder numeral in
place - value systems. Many ancient texts used zero.
Babylonian (Modern Iraq) and Egyptian texts used it.
Egyptians used the word nfr to denote zero balance in
double entry accounting entries. Indian texts used a
Sanskrit word Shunye to refer to the concept of void. In
mathematics texts this word often refers to the number
zero.
Records show that the Ancient Greeks seemed
unsure about the status of zero as anumber: they
askedthemselves
how
can
nothing
be
something?
leading to interesting philosophical and, by the Medieval

(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
period, religious arguments about the nature and existence

of zero and the vacuum. The paradoxes of Zeno of Elea
depend in large part on the uncertain interpretation of
zero.
The late Olmec people of south-central Mexico
began to use a true zero in the New World possibly by the
4th century BC but certainly by 40 BC, which became an

integral part of Maya numberals and the Maya Calendar.
Mayan arithmetic used base 4 and base 5 written as base
20. Sanchez in 1961 reported a base 4, base 5 finger
abacus.
By 130 AD, Ptolemy, influenced by Hipparchus
and the Babylonians, was using a symbol for zero (a small
circle with a long overbar) within a sexagesimal numeral
system otherwise using alphabetic Greek numberals.
Because it was used alone, not as just a placeholder, this
Hellenistic zero was the first documented use of a true zero
in the Old World. In later Byzantine manuscripts of his
SyntaxisMathematica (Almagest), the Hellenistic zero had
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
morphed into the Greek letter omicron (otherwise meaning

70).
Another true zero was used in tables alongside Roman
numerals by 525 (first known use by Dionysius Exiguus),
but as a word, nulla meaning nothing, not as a symbol.
When division produced zero as a remainder, nihil, also
meaning nothing, was used. These medieval zeros were

used by all future medieval computists (calculators of
Easter). An isolated use of their initial, N, was used in a
table of Roman numerals by Bede or a colleague about
725, a true zero symbol. An early documented use of the
zero by Brahmagupta (in the Brahma-Sphuta-Siddhanta)
dates to 628. He treated zero as a number and discussed
operations involving it, including division. By this time (the
7th century) the concept had clearly reached Cambodia as
Khmer numerals, and documentation shows the idea later
spreading to China and the Islamic world.
3. Negative Numbers
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
The abstract concept of negative numbers was

recognized as early as 100 BC - 50 BC. The Chinese Nine
Chapters on the Mathematical Art (Chinese:Jiu-Zhang
Suanshu) contains methods for finding the areas of figures;
red rods were used to denote positive coefficients, black for
negative. This is the earliest known mention of negative

numbers in the East; the first reference in a Western work
was in the 3rd century in Greece. Diophantus referred to
the equation equivalent to 4x+20 = 0 (the solution is
negative) in Arithmetica, saying that the equation gave an
absurd result.
During the 6th century B.C., negative numbers
were in use in India to represent debts. Diophantus
previous reference was discussed more explicitly by Indian
mathematician
Brahmagupta,
in
Brahma-Sphuta-
Siddhanta 628, who used negative numbers to produce the

general form quadratic formula that remains in use today.
However, in the 12th century in India, Bhaskara gives
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
negative roots for quadratic equations but says the negative

value is in this case not to be taken, for it is inadequate;
people do not approve of negative roots.
European mathematicians, for the most part,
resisted the concept of negative numbers until the 17 th
century, although Fibonacci allowed negative solutions in
financial problems where they could be interpreted as

debts (chapter 13 of Liber Abaci, 1202) and later as losses
(in Flos). At the same time, the Chinese were indicating
negative numbers either by drawing a diagonal stroke
through the right most nonzero digit of the corresponding
positive numbers numerals. The first use of negative
numbers in a European work was by Chuquet during the
15th century. He used them as exponents, but referred to
them as absurd numbers.
As recently as the 18th century, it was common
practice to ignore any negative results returned by
equations on the assumption that they were meaningless,
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
just as Rene Descartes did with negative solutions in a

Cartesian coordinate system.
4. Rational numbers
It is likely that the concept of fractional numbers dates to
prehistoric times. The Ancient Egyptians used their
Egyptian
fraction
notation
for
rational
numbers
in
mathematical texts such as the Rhind Mathematical

Papyrus and the Kahun Papyrus. Classical Greek and
Indian mathematicians made studies of the theory of
rational numbers, as part of the general study of number
theory. The best known of these is Eculids Elements,
dating to roughly 300 B.C. Of the Indian texts, the most
relevant is the Sthananga Sutra, which also covers number
theory as part of a general study of mathematics.
The concept of decimal fractions is closely
linked with decimal place - value notation; the two seem to
have developed in tandem. For example, it is common for
the Jain math sutras to include calculations of decimalfraction approximations to pi or the square root of two.
(80)
PATNA
Simiarly,
UNIVERSITY
Babylonian
math
texts
had
always
used
sexagesimal (base 60) fractions with great frequency.

5. Irrational numbers
The earliest known use of irrational numbers was in the
Indian Sulba Sutras composed between 800-500 B.C. The
first existence proofs of irrational numbers is usually
attributed
to
Pythagoras,
more
specifically
to
the
Pythagorean Hippasus of Metapontum, who produced a

(most likely geometrical) proof of the irrationality of the
square root of 2. The story goes that Hippasus discovered
irrational numbers when trying to represent the square
root of 2 as a fraction. However Pythagoras believed in the
absoluteness of numbers and could not accept the
existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their
existence through logic, but he could not accept irrational
numbers,
drowning.\
so
he
sentenced
Hippasus
to
death
by
The sixteenth century brought final European
acceptance of negative integral and fractional numbers. By
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
the seventeenth century, mathematicians generally used

decimal fractions with modern notation. It was not,
however, until the nineteenth century that mathematicians
separated irrationals into algebraic and transcendental
parts, and once more undertook scientific study of
irrationals. It had remained almost dormant since Euclid.

1872
brought
publication
of
the
theories
of
Karl
Weierstrass (by his pupil Kossak), Heine, Georg Cantor and

Richard Dedekind. In 1869, Meray had taken the same
point of departure as Heine, but
the theory is generally
referred to the year 1872. Weierstrass method was

completely set forth by Salvatore Pincherle (1880), and
Dedekinds has received additional prominence through
the authors later work (1888) and endorsement by Paul
Tannery (1894). Weierstrass, Cantor, and Heine base their
theories on infinite series, while Dedekind founds his on
the idea of a cut in the system of real numbers, separating
all rational numbers into two groups having certain
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
characteristic properties. The subject has received later

contributions at the hands of Weierstrass, Kronecker and
Meray.
Continued fractions, closely related to irrational
numbers received attention at the hands of Euler, and at

the opening of the nineteenth century were brought into
prominence
through
the
writings
of
Joseph
Louis
Lagrange. Other noteworthy contributions have been made

by Druckenmuller (1837), Kunze(1857), Lemke (1870), and
Gunther (1872). Ramus (1855) first connected the subject
with
determinants,
resulting
with
the
subsequent
contributions of Heine, Mobius and Gunther, in the theory

of Kettenbruchdeterminanten. Dirichlet also added to the
general theory, as have numerous contributors to the
applications of the subject.
6. Transcendental numbers and reals
The first results concerning transcendental
numbers were Lamberts 1761 proof that
cannot be
rational, and also that en is irrational if n is rational

(80)
PATNA
(unless n = 0).
UNIVERSITY
(The constant e was first referred to in
Napiers 1618 work on logarithms). Legendre extended this

proof to show that
is not the square root of a rational
number. The search for roots of quintic and higher degree

equations was an important development, the Able-
Ruffinitheorem (Ruffini 1799, Abel 1824) showed that they

could not be solved by radicals (formula involving only
arithmetical operations and roots). Hence it was necessary
to consider the wider set of algebraic numbers (all
solutions to polynomial equations). Galois (1832) linked
polynomial equations to group theory giving rise to the
field of Galois theory.
The existence of transcendental numbers was
first established by Liouville (1844, 1851). Hermite proved
in 1873 that e is transcendental and Lindemann proved in
1882 that
is transcendental. Finally Cantor shows
that the set of all real numbers is uncountably infinite but
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
the set of all algebraic numbers is countably infinite, so

there is an uncountably infinite number of transcendental
numbers.
7. Infinity and Infinitesimals
a. History of Infinity
The earliest known conception of mathematical
infinity appears in the Yajur-Veda, an ancient Indian script,

which at one point states, If you remove a part from infinity
or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity.
Infinity was a popular topic of philosophical study among
the Jain mathematicians in.400 BC. They distinguished
between five types of infinity: infinite in one and two
directions, infinite in area, infinite everywhere, and infinite
perpetually.
Aristotle defined the traditional Western notion
of mathematical infinity. He distinguished between actual
infinity and potential infinity - the general consensus being
that only the latter had true value. Galileos Two New
Sciences discussed the idea of one-to-one correspondences
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
between infinite sets. But the next major advance in the

theory was made by Georg Cantor; in 1895 he published a
book about his new set theory, introducing, among other
things, transfinite numbers and formulating the continuum
hypothesis. This was the first mathematical model that
represented
infinity
by
numbers and
gave rules for
operating with these infinite numbers.
b.History of Infinitesimal
An infinitesimal is a number that is smaller than every
positive real number and is larger than every negative real
number, or, equivalently, in absolute value it is smaller than
for all
. Zero is the only the real number
that at the same is an infinitesimal, so that the nonzero

infinitesimals do not occur in classical mathematics. Yet,
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
they can be treated in as much the same way as can the

classical numbers. For example, each non zero infinitesimal
can be inverted and the result is the number

follows that
for all
for which reason
. It
is called
(positive or negative) hyper large (or infinitely large). Hyper

large number too do not occur in classical mathematics but
nevertheless can be treated like classical number.
The notion of infinitely small quantities was
discussed by the Eleatic School. The Greek mathematician
Archimedes (287 B.C. - 212 B.C.) in The Method of
Mechanical Theorems , was the first to propose a logically
rigorous definition of infinitesimals. His Archimedean
property defines a number x as infinite if it satisfies the
conditions
infinitesimal if
and
and a similar set of conditions hold for
and the recriprocals of the positive integers. A number
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
system is said to be Archimedian if it contains no infinite or

infinitesimal
numbers.
The
Indian
mathematician
Bhaskara II (1114-1185) described a geometric technique

for expressing the change in Sin in terms of Cos times a
change
in
Prior
to
the
invention
of
calculus
mathematicians were able to calculate tangent lines by the

method Pierre de Fermats method of adequality and Rene
Descartes method of normals. There is debate among
scholars as to whether the method was infinitesimals or
algebraice in nature. When Newton and Leibniz invented the
calculus, they made the use of infinitesimals. The use
infinitesimals was attacked as incorrect by Bishop Berkeley
in his work, The Analyst . Mathematicians, scientists and
engineers continued to use infinisitimals to produce correct
results. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the
calculus was reformulated by Augustin-Louis Cauchy,
Bernard Bolzano, Karl Weierstrass, Cantor, Dedekind, and
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
others, using the
- definition of limit and set theory.
While
eventually
infinitesimals
disappeared
from
the
calculus, their mathematical study continued through the

work of Levi-Civita and others, throughout the late
nineteenth and the twentieth centuries as documented by
Philip Ehrlich (2006). In the 20th Century, it was found that

infinitesimals could serve as a basis for calculus and
analysis.
In the 1960,Abraham Robinson showed how
infinitely large and infinitesimal numbers can be rigorously

defined and used to develop the field of nonstandard
analysis. The system of hyperreal numbers represents
rigorous method of treating the ideas about infinite and
infinitesimal numbers that had been used casually by
mathematicians, scientists, and engineers ever since the
invention of infinitesimal calculus by Newton and Leibniz.
8. Complex numbers :
The earliest fleeting reference to square roots
of
negative
numbers
occurred
(80)
in
the
work
of
the
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
mathematician and inventor Heron of Alaxendria in the 1 st

century A.D, when he considered the volume of an
impossible frustum of a pyramid. They became more
prominent when in the 16thcentury closed formulas for the
roots of third and forth degree polynomials were discovered
by
Italian mathematicians
such as Niccolo Fontana
Tartaglia and GerolamoCardano. It was soon realized that

these formulas, even if one was only interested in real
solutions, sometimes required the manipulation of square
roots of negative numbers.
This was doubly unsettling since they did not
even consider negative numbers to be on firm ground at
the
time.
When
Rene
Descartes
coined
the
term
imaginary for these quantities in 1637, he intended it as

derogatory. A further source of confusion was that the
equation
seemed
capriciously
inconsistent
identity.
(80)
with
the
algebraic
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
Which is valid for positive real numbers a and b, and was

also used in complex number calculations with one of a, b
positive and other negative. The incorrect use of this
identity, and the related identity
in the case when both a and b are negative even bedelived

Euler. This difficulty eventually led him to the convention
of using the special symboliin place of
to guard against
this mistake.
The 18th century saw the work of Abraham de Moivre and
Leonhard Euler, deMoivres formula (1730) states:
and to Euler (1748) Eulers formula of complex analysis :
The existence of complex numbers was not completely
accepted until Caspar Wessel described the geometrical
interpretation in 1799. Carl Friedrich Gauss rediscovered
and popularized it several years later, and as a result the
theory of complex numbers received a notable expansion.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
The idea of the graphic representation of complex numbers

had appeared, however, as early as 1685, in Walliss De
Algebra tractatus.
Also in 1799, Gauss provided the first generally
accepted proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra,
showing that every polynomial over the complex numbers
has a full set of solutions in that realm. The general

acceptance of the theory of complex numbers is due to the
labors of Augustin Louis Cauchy and Niels Henrik Abel,
and especially the latter, who was the first to boldly use
complex numbers with a success that is well known.
Gauss studied complex numbers of the form a+bi, where a
and b are integral, or rational (and i is one of the two roots
of x2+1=0). His student, Gotthold Eisenstein, studied the
type a b , where is a complex root of x3-1=0. Other
such
classes
(called
cyclotomatic
fields)
of
complex
numbers derive from the roots of unity xk-1=0 for higher

values of k. This generalization is largely due to Ernst
Kummer, who also invented ideal numbers, which were
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
expressed as geometrical entities by Felix Klein in 1893.

The general theory of fields was created by Evariste Galois
who studied the fields generated by the roots of any
polynomial equation f(x) = 0.
In 1850 Victor Alexandre Puiseux took the key
step of distinguishing between poles and branch points,
and introduced the concept of essential singular points.

This eventually led to the concept of the extended complex
plane.
9. Prime numbers
Prime numbers have been studied throughout
recorded history. Euclid devoted one book of the Elements
to the theory of primes; in it he proved the infinitude of the
primes and the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, and
presented the Euclidean algorathim for finding the greatest
common divisor of two numbers.
In 240 B.C, Eratoshtenes used the Sieve of
Eratosthenes to quickly isolate prime numbers. But
mostfurther development of the theory of primes in Europe
dates to the Renaissance and later eras.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
In 1796, Adrien Marie Legendre conjectured

the prime number theorem, describing the asymptotic
distribution of primes. Other results concerning the
distribution of the primes include Eulers proof that the
sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges, and the
Goldbach conjecture, which claims that any sufficiently

large even number is the sum of two primes. Yet another
conjecture related to the distribution of prime numbers is
the Riemann hypothesis, formulated by Bernhard Riemann
in 1859. The prime number theorem was finally proved by
Jacques Hadamard and Charles de la Vallee-Poussin in
1896.
Goldbach
and
Riemanns
unproven and unrefuted.
(80)
conjectures
remain
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER - III
NUMBER CONCEPTS IN GREEK AND INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
In this chapter, we discuss the concept of number in Greek
and Indian Philosophy. The Pythagoreans made
very
remarkable speculations on the nature of number. The

believed that the concept of number is fundamental and all
mathematical sciences can be reduced to number. They
treated unit as the first order of things and believed that all
numbers arise out of unity. According to Indian Philosophy
number is the root cause of the formation of other extensive
bodies. Thus just like Pythagoreans, the Indian Philosophers
too have accepted number as the world principle.
1.
Number concepts in Greek Philosophy

In Greek Philosophy, Number has been given the
topmost position in the description of the universe. Pythagoras,

(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
a renowned mathematician and philosopher of Greece during

the sixth century B.C.(531-510 B.C.) propounded the doctrine
that number is the nature of things and an essential character
of the universe; it is the world ground and the stuff of which the
universe
is
made.[53].Just
as
Thales
(6th
century
B.C.)
considered water to be the ultimate reality and the first principle

of which things are composed so also the Pythagoreans
considered number as the first principle of things. They could
not conceive of the universe without number. Proportion, order
and harmony are the dominant notes of the universe but the
ideas of all these are closely connected with number. They also
discovered that the musical harmony was founded upon
numbers. They were convinced that the universe is made up of
number but number is opposed to matter and distinguished
from it, although closely connected with it, something which
limits it and gives it a shape. They believed that the concept of
number is fundamental and all mathematical sciences can be
reduced to numbers.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
The Pythagoreans recognized the formal cause but

they reduced it to the material cause by declaring that number
is the stuff of which things are made. They abstracted from the
quality of things but were left with the quantity as the ultimate
reality. But the universe of the Pythagoreans was not our
universe, which transcends the immediate sense perception,

which manifests itself so richly, even if mysteriously in the
numerous inventions which make up the essential part of our
daily life. The universe of the Greeks was limited to things more
immediately accessible to senses.[12]
The Pythagoreans made remarkable speculations on the
nature of number. They treated unit as the first order of things
and believed that all numbers arise out of unity. They further
believed that the universe is composed of pair of opposites and
contradictions whose fundamental character is that they are
composed of the odd and the even, which they identified with
the limited and the unlimited respectively, because the odd
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
number cannot be bifurcated while the even number can be

bifurcated. The limited and the unlimited become the ultimate
principles of the universe. The limit is identified with unit; it
proceeds to draw more and more of the unlimited and to limit it,
and in this way the formation of the world proceeds.
Later on they made distinction between unity and

duality and received two further pairs of opposites whose
number was later arbitrarily made up to ten. They attached
arbitrary meanings to numbers and treated some of them as
sacred. They worshipped the Tetractys of the Decad[53] and
used to swear by this sacred number. Sorbonne introduced the
magical properties of the number three into psychology
beginning with the Trinity of Thought, Will and Felling. All
squared numbers were treated as Justice. It was argued that the
quality of justice was to return equal for equal and the squared
number was the product of two equals; hence it was justice.[49]
The Pythagoreans believed that unit was the central fire or the
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
hearth of the universe round which revolve ten bodies : counter

earth, earth, sun, moon, the five planets and the heaven of the
fixed stars.
The Pythagorean doctrine looks for the secret of
the universe in number. It is a crude philosophy and the
application of the number theory issues in a barren and a futile

arithmetical mysticism. Hegel says that the association of these
first numbers with definite thoughts must be purely external,
these numbers no doubt conceal a profound meaning and are
suggestive of various thoughts but in philosophy the point is not
what one may think but what one does think and the thought
should be thought in thought itself and not in symbols [20]. In
Hegels doctrine Reason or Unity was the source of all and it was
also theAbsolute, alias the Deity, alias the orders of the Leader
[21].
2.
Number concepts in Indian Philosophy
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
According to the Indian philosophers also, number

plays a very important role in the formation of the universe. The
minutest and the irreducible substance of this universe has
been called Parmanu i.e., atom. Two Parmanus make one
dwayanuka and three dwayanukas make one trayanuka.
Trayanuka is the minutest object whose existence can be seen;

for example, the smallest visible objects appearing through the
single ray of the Sun. Existence of dwayanuka and parmanu is
proved by inference. Dwayanuka is more extensively than
parmanu and Trayanuka is more extensive than Dwayanuka.
Other
more
extensive
bodies
are
composed
of
several
trayanukas; of course the entire universe is composed of

trayanukas and ultimately of parmanus. The philosophers tried
to find out the object which causes increase in the extension or
magnitude, i.e., pariman. Pariman (magnitude) of parmanu is
not the cause; for as the increase in wealth makes a rich man
richer and increase in the poverty of a poor man makes him
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
poorer, so also the pariman of the parmanu, the object without

any parts, would make dwayanuka anutar (minuter) still and
not extensive [50]. They came to the conclusion that it is due to
the number inherent in the parmanu that a dwayanuk has
more pariman than a parmanu. Similarly number is the root
cause of the formation of other extensive bodies also. Thus just

like the Pythagoreans the Indian philosopher too have accepted
number as the world principle. They have also tried to define
number and characterize it. We proceed to deal with the
definition of number in the next chapter.
In the process of describing the universe,
philosophers came across Number, not in the abstract form but
in
the
concrete
form
one,
two,
.....
many
when
they
distinguished between one moon, two eyes, five fingers or many

stars. Use of numbers upto parardha has been made in the
Vedas as early as six thousand B.C. In Lalitvistara, a Budhist
work of the first century B.C. numbers up to Tallakshan (1053)
(80)
PATNA
occur
in
Pali
Grammar
asamkhyeya (10140)
UNIVERSITY
of
Kaccayan
number
[2]
large
have been used [42]. Use of very large
numbers like googol (10100) and googolplex

Skewes number
as
and
has also been made by the
scientists.
Hence it is clear that number has been an essential object
for the creation of universe. Philosophers have been thinking
whether to put number in the class of individuals or of
attributes and there has not been an unanimous opinion on
this issue. But the universally accepted fact is that the concept
of number is fundamental and most important for the existence
of the universe.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER - VI
DEFINITION OF NUMBER IN ININDIAN PHILOSOPHY
Though it is very difficult to give an exact definition

of number, yet several Indian philosophers, especially Maharashi
Kanad (3rd century B.C.) and followers of his Vaisesika school of
thought, have tried to explain it to a large extent. The sanskrit
equivalent of number is samkhyan which is composed of two
words viz. samyak meaning real and khyapan meaning
knowledge. So samkhyan literally means real knowledge [4]. It
also means the cause of the real knowledge. The real knowledge
of any object is possible only after the knowledge of its
samkhyan. The Vaisesikas
believe that samkhyan is an
attribute which inheres in all substances. According to the
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
Mimansa school of thought, founded by Maharshi Jemini,

samkhyan inheres in every category of the padarthas and is
different from it.
Prasasta Pada, in his commentary of the
aphorisms of Kanad, has characterized number by the
following aphorism EkadiVyavharhetuSamkhyan. [15]

Sridharacarya in his NyayaKandali explains the
above as Number is an attribute by means of which the concept
of this is one, these are two, etc. and the use of such sentences
is possible. [15].
Shankar Misra has interpreted the above aphorism
in his KanadRahasya. According to him the aphorism means
that The basis
of the genus unity inhering in the attribute
unity which resides in the single individuality and the genus

duality or triplicity etc. inherning in the attribute which resides
in many objects and is different from individuality is Number.
[15]
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
Udayanacarya in his Kiranavali explains it as Number

may be defined to be that attribute which causes counting. [15]
As per the specific intuition of Dandi (a person carrying a
staff) results from the presence of the staff, so also the intuition
of one, two, three etc. is specific and takes place due to the
number unity, duality, triplicity, etc. But the attribute number is

different from other attributes like colour, taste, smell and touch
etc. [13], for, the intuition of number is produced without the
latter attributes.
Number cannot be a substance though it inheres in
all substances. The proof is very simple and based on logical
grounds. Suppose some person is asked to bring the number
one. Can he do so? He can bring one book or one chair but
not the number one. On the other hand if some person is asked
to bring books and he is not told how many books he has to
bring, then also he cannot be sure of the number of books he
should bring. Thus number must be different from susbtance.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
This is further supported by the following argument of

Sridharacarya : In a dense forest collection of trees is cognized
in its real from i.e. clear intuttion of substance is obtained at
once but the exact idea of the number of the trees cannot be
obtained forthwith. Hence number is different from substance.
[15].
According to the Budhist philosophy number is not
an independent attribute and the basis of the cognition of one,
two, etc. is the intuition of the attribute colour etc. But this view
is not proper since due to the principle of momentarinesss [7] of
the similarity between two attributes no attribute can produce
any other attribute and more so number. Further it is seen that
if a blue coloured door be repainted with green colour, its colour
is changed but its number unity does not change. Hence the
existence of number must be real and different from colour.
Bhushan holds that unity is nondifference from
itself and the difference from itself is duality. Udayanacarya has
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
criticized Bhushans view in the following manner [15]: Where

the self identity of a jar its unity, then there would be no
intuition of unity in case of cloth and nondifference from unity
itself being common to two, three, four etc. There would be no
difference between duality, triplicity, fourness etc. according to
Bhushan. Hence Bhushans view is not valid.

Number may reside in single substratum as well as in
many substrate. Unity is the number which resides in single
substratum; it may be eternal as well as noneternal according as
the substratum is eternal or noneternal. Other numbers duality,
triplicity etc. reside in many substances and are noneternal; for
all of them may be produced and also may be destroyed with the
production and destruction of relative understanding. The
followers of the Mimansa and the Nyaya schools of thought do
not agree with the above view held by the Vaisesikas. According
to the Mimansa school numbers are not produced by relative
understanding; all numbers unity, duality, triplicity etc. are
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
produced in each substance just after its formation in the same

way as its shape, size or colour is produced; due to difference in
relative understanding difference in these numbers inherent in
the substance is cognized. So according to them relative
understanding is not the generator but the exhibitor of
numbers. The Naiyayikas

Vaisesikas
but
they
do
mostly agree with the views of the

not
challenge
the
view
of
the
Mimansakas too .[36] According to the Budhists, who do not

accept number as an attribute, difference in the number of a
particular substance may be caused by relative understanding;
to the same person different numbers may appear to dwell in
the same substance under different circumstances and different
moments and also at the same moment different persons may
cognize different numbers in the same substance.
Though number resides in all substances, yet it cannot be
a genus like existence, for its denotation is neither less nor more
than that of existence; nor can it be a genus confined to the
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
substance only; for it is neither less nor more extensive than

substanceness.[15]
Sometimes expressions like one colour, two tastes
etc are used. From such use of numbers one may be tempted to
accept that number is inherent not only in substances but also
in attributes; so it may be an independent object which inheres

in all the seven categories of the padarthas. But this argument
is fallacious. Firstly, the use of number in such expression must
be secondary and not basic, since the cognition of numbers in
attributes and actions is erroneous, [13] and it is nondifference
from itself which constitutes the derivation. But number is not,
nothing but self identity. The above use of number may be
justified in the following manner. When one colour is used in
reference to some flower, the number unity as well as the colour
of the flower is inherent
in the substances of
the flower so
closely that its unity is cognized also with its colour; thus in the
above use of number with attribute, the latter represents the
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
substance itself. It may be argued that just as the above use of

number, its use is always secondary even when it is used with a
substance. But this argument is fallacious; for, the secondary
cannot exist without the primary.[13] Hence the real number
unity exists. Number is not universal, as it does not exist in
attributes and actions but we find the use of numbers with

both, e.g., twenty four attributes, five actions etc. Due to such
peculiar use of number one may take it for an independent
category of the padarthas. But then there would be the eight
category viz. number and the number inhering in this eight
category will be the ninth category of the padarthas. Thus there
will be no limit to the number of the categories and the whole
universe would be a mess, without a discipline [24]. So number
cannot be an independent category of the padarthas. It must be
an attributes with all the specialties mentioned above.
1. Production and Destruction of Number :
As already mentioned, the Vaisesikas hold that unity is
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
cognised absolutely and all other numbers are produced by

relative
understanding
and
are
also
destroyed
with
the
destruction of the latter. The production and destruction of

duality take place in the following way. When two homogeneous
or heterogenous substances are in contact with the eye, the
relatve understanding, i.e., this is one, this is one and these

together are two is producd and this relative understanding
produces duality. Beginning from the sensual contact and
ending with samskar or impression there are eight moments [45]
which occur in this order :
(i)
contact of the sense with the substratum of

duality in the first moment,
(ii)
cognition of the genus inherent in the attribute

unity in the second moment,
(iii)
the relative understanding
in the form of
cognizance of the many along with the attribute

unity as qualified with the generic notion or
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
characteristic of unity in the third moment,

production of the attribute duality in the fourth
(iv)
moment,
cognition of the genus inherent in duality in the
(v)
fifth moment,
cognition of the attribute duality as qualified with
(vi)
that genus in the sixth moment,

cognition of substances as qualified with the
(vii)
attribute duality in the seventh moment and then

(viii)
samskar is produced in the eight moment.
The order of destruction of duality is as follows :

(i) destruction of the characteristic of unity from relative
understanding in the first moment,
(ii) destruction of relative understanding from the
cognition of the characteristic of duality in the second moment,
(iii) destruction of the characteristic of duality from
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
cognition of the attribute duality in the third moment,

(iv) destruction of the cognition of the attributes duality
from cognition of substances as qualified with the possession of
duality in the fourth moment and
(v) destruction of the latter from samskar or from
cognition of other objects in the fifth moment [45]. In some

cases duality is destroyed also from the destruction of the
substratum instead of relative understanding and in other cases
the destruction takes place from both the destruction of the
substratum as well as the relative understanding when there is
simulateneity of action in the constituent parts of duality and
relative understanding.
Duality is produced by pure relative understanding and
trplicity by relative understanding accompanied by duality.
Similarly for the production of fourness etc. Hence numbers are
produced through the process of induction. According to
Sridharacarya multiplicity is also a number which may
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
sometimes be produced independently and without the former

production of duality as in case of army or forest etc. in
consequence of nonexistence of constant relative understanding.
2. Remarks on the Vaisesika Definition of Number :
We find that some of the ancient Indian Philsophers,
especially
the
Vaisesikas,
have
attempted
to
define
and
characterize members unity, duality, triplicity, etc. and that they

have accepted numbers as objectively real quantities inhering in
all substance. For them unity, like God, inheres in all substance
and is a basic number with which all higher numbers are
formed by means of relative understanding. Modern western
philosophers like Hilbert and Brouwer also agree with their view
that the concept of one is fundamental in mathematics. But the
Vaisesikas have not defined zero, which has its use as a number
in the Indian Mathematical literature since about 200 B.C.[14]
or even earlier in the vedic literature. It was Brahmagupta (628
A.D.), the prince of Indian mathematics, who correctly defined
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
zero. He gave a relational rather than half - scientific and halfintuitive definition of zero. Since zero is the number smaller
than any one of the numbers unity, duality, etc. which are used
for counting purposes, it is desirable and proper to define zero
first and then to define other numbers with the help of zero. The
Vaisesikas had no method to define zero first and then the

numbers unity, duality etc. (or to define zero with the knowledge
of unity ,duality etc. )by means of relative understanding. We
shall see later that it was Frege-Russell definition of number
which could enable one to define zero first and then other higher
numbers.
Further we see that we can get only finite numbers,
however large, in their system and as such the concept of
infinity cannot be congised. But Cantor (1845-1918) has shown
how to deal with the infinite, and hence it is both desirable and
possible to deal with the fundamental properties of numbers in
some way which is applicable to finite as well as infinite
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
numbers. We shall also see later how Russells definition was

capable to handle the finite as well as infinite numbers.
After the attempt of the Pythagoreans in Greece and
the Vaisesikas in India towards explaining the nature and use of
number we do not find any work in this direction unitl towards
the close of the nineteenth century when mathematician cumlogicians like Peano, Frege and Russell etc. took up the work
and tried to give a logical definition of number.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER - V
SOME REMARKS ON PEANOS DIFFINITION OF

NUMBER & FREGE-RUSSELLS DEFINITION OF
NUMBER
In this paper we discuss Peanos definition of
number and
Frege-Russells
definition of number. We have
seen that Peanos definition of number is not satisfactory and

Frege-Russells definition of number too is far from being
satisfactory. Thus we see that inspite of the valuable attempts
made by ancient
as
well as
modern thinkers a clear cut
definition of number has not been possible.
1. Peanos definition of Number

GuiseppePeano (1889), a famous mathematician
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
of Italy, believed that like Pythagoras that the whole of

mathematics could be deducted from numbers. Having
reduced all traditional pure mathematics to the theory of
natural numbers, the next step in the logical analysis was
to reduce the theory itself to the minimum number of
premises and undefined terms from which it could be

derived. Peano showed that the entire theory of natural
numbers could be derived from
the three primitive ideas
viz. zero, successor and number and the following five

propositions:
1. zero is a number
2. successor of every number is also a number
3. no two number have the same successor
4. zero is not a successor
5. If a property is possessed by zero and whenever it is
possessed by any number, it is also possessed by its
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
successor, then the property is possessed by all

numbers.
A thorough and critical study of Peanos
axioms of natural number is proposed to be made in the
next chapter. For the present we shall simply discuss how
he has defined numbers and how his definition has been

improved by Russell.
Peano gave the definition of number by
abstraction,
accepting
that
numbers
are
applicable
essentially to classes (i.e collections) he defined number as

a property of classes. Two classes have the same number
when one-one relation exists between their numbers. Two
such classes are said to be similar and the similarity
relation has three properties viz. reflexivity, symmety and
transitivity. Peano held that when similarity relation holds
between two terms, the two terms have a common property
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
called their number.[40]

But this definition is not satisfactory. For, all similar
classes have the same number as a common property, so
there is a many one relation which every class has to its
number and to nothing else. In other words, we have a set of
entities such that any class, and all other classes similar to
it, have a certain many one relation to one and only one of
the entities of the set. But there may be many such sets of
entities and hence the definition of Peano by abstraction
fails to define the number of a class. The axioms of Peano
do not enable us to know whether there exists any set of
terms verifying the axioms. We want our numbers to be
such that can be used for counting and this requires that
our numbers should have a definite meaning, not merely
that they have certain formal properties only. This definite
meaning is defined only by the logical theory of arithmetic.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
2. FREGERUSSELLS DEFINITION OF NUMBER:

It was Frege (1884) who first of all attempted to
give a logical definition of numbers but none paid any
attention to his views until Russell independently gave the
same definition of number in 1901. He did not define

number by means of relative understanding (like the
Vaisesiksa) but he used two concepts viz the similarity of
sets (which Peano also used) and the class of classes to
define all numbers including zero Russell also introduced
infinity through an axiom known as the Axiom of infinity.
One might confuse the concept of number of a
collection with its plurality. But this is not proper. Plurality
is not a number but an instance of some particular number.
For example, the trio of men, say, Ram, Shyam and Hari is
an example of the number three, but the latter is not
identical with the trio consisting of Ram, Shyam and Hari.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
According to Frege and Russell, number is an

attribute (unlike colour, taste etc. as it is according to the
Vsaisesikas) it is a defining property of a collection. There
are two ways of defining a collection. One way is by
extension. i.e.,enumeration and the other way is by
intension. i.e., characterization. According to the extension

method number of a collection is to be determined by
counting the members of the collection. But this system
suffers from two defects. The first defect is that counting is
nothing else than labelling each member of a collection with
a number and thus it suffers from the defect of circularity.
Secondly, numbers themselves form an infinite class and
hence it is not always possible to enumerate or count the
numbers of an infinite collection. Hence Frege and Russell
attempted to define number by intension. Russell defines it
in two steps. First he defines the concept of similarity of two
sets and then he formulates the concept of number in terms
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
of this similarity concept, He defines the number of a set to

be the class of all sets similar to it. [40]
Similarity can be defined as in case of Peano,
without the help of the number concept . For example, in a
country where polygamy or polyandry is prohibited, one can
say without counting that the set of husbands is similar to

the set of wives; for, every husband has a wife and every
wife has a husband uniquely. We need not count the actual
number of the husbands or the wives.
The second part of this definition describes
number as a class of classes or more clearly, a class of
similar classes . At the first sight it appears paradoxical to
accept number as class of classes and Peano never
accepted this definition. But if we treat class as a concept
and not as a collection, then a number is really defined as a
common property of a set of similar classes and nothing
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
else. This view removes the appearance of the paradox to a

great extent. Further it may be seen that this definition
allows the deduction of all the usual properties of numbers,
finite as well as infinite, and is the only one which is
possible in terms of the fundamental concepts of general
logic.[40]
3. Axiom of Infinity :
Russell further claimed that not only finite but infinite
collections also exist in this universe. For, if it be assumed
that there exists only finite number of objects, say 1000
only, in the whole universe, then there would be no class of
1001 or 1002 individuals and hence 1001 and 1002 will
each belong to the empty class and thus will be identical.
This means that two different numbers, viz .1000 and 1001,
have the same successor. But this contradicts the third
axiom of Peano. To remove this difficulty Russell introduced
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
the axiom of infinity which assumes that, there exists in

the
universe
class
consisting
of
infinitely
many
individuals. We can never verify the truth of this axiom, yet

all the scientists and philosophers have accepted this and
now it has become the foundation of the structure of
mathematical as well as other scientific systems. With the

help of this axiom the theory of natural numbers is more
deeply founded. This is an artificial device to maintain
Russells theory that numbers are constructed out of the
actual classes in the world.
As it has been already mentioned Frege-Russell
definition of number enables one to define zero first and
other higher numbers subsequently in the following way:
Property of not being identical with itself may be called the
property of empty collection and the class of classes.
similar to the empty collection is the number zero. Next we
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
may define one as the class of classes similar to the

collection whose only number is zero and similarly higher
numbers may also be defined in terms of the lower
numbers.
4. Remarks on Frege-Russells definition of Number :

We have seen that Peanos definition of
number is not satisfactory. We find that Frege-Russell
definition too is far from being satisfactory .Firstly, we find
that like Peano they too have based their definition on the
concept of similarity of sets. But it is not always easy to
establish similarity between two collections. If we have two
collections, say a collection of cups and another collection of
saucers,
we
can
verify the
similarity
between
these
collections by placing each cup on a saucer and finding that

no
saucer
is
left
without
cup.
Here
one-one
correspondence is established. But if the cups are closed in
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
one box and the saucers in another box, no such

correspondence is visualized unless the boxes are opened
and the cups are placed on saucers. The question arises
whether similarity existed between the two collections before
the cups were actually placed on the saucers. Obviously we
feel that such similarity exists from before. So we see that it

is possible to exhibit the correspondence between two sets
only when similarity exists between them from before.
Hence we conclude that correspondence simply verifies
similarity.
Let us now consider the collection of planets and
that of the muses. It is not at all possible to establish a
correspondence
between
these
collections.
Hence
the
proposed definition of similarity gives only a sufficient but

not necessary condition of similarity and restricts the
meaning of similarity too narrowly.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
Secondly, in order to determine similarity between

two classes, we have to know the proper meaning of the
word class. It has two meanings viz. list and concept. If it
means list, i.e. a collection, then correspondence can be
established between the members of two collections only if
they have equal number of members. But if class means

concept, then two concepts can be put in one-one
correspondence even if one set is an extension of the other
i.e., even if two classes are not equinumbered.
According to Frege two sets must either be similar
or not similar from a purely logical basis. But if some one is
asked to tell the number of stars twinkling in the sky in
dark night at particular moment, he has no method to
determine
the
number;
for,
while
establishing
correspondence with any other collection, say, a collection of

mustard seeds, some stars will disappear and some new
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
ones will appear without his notice. At best he can say that
there are many stars. Hence we find that sometimes we
have to indicate the number of a collection by numerals
many, very many and few. But Frege seems to pay no
attention towards this aspect.
From the second part of Freges definition and

the manner of description for the number zero, one, two etc.
it appears that number states something about the concept
and not about the counted things themselves. But do we
always remember this fact in our language or statements?
In any command, say, 3 books the command does not say
that the class of books to be asked for is an element of the
class three. Our command or language is unaware of this
interpretation. It cannot be expressed in the subject
predicate
form.
Frege-Russell
definition
unnecessarily
restricts the concept of number to the subject predicate
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
form of our proposition [51]

5. Number and Numeral
We have seen that it is not easy to handle the concept
of correspondence. Some may try to escape this difficulty
by identifying numbers with numerals, so that number one

may be identified with the number I, number two with the
numeral II and so on. But this way of representation suffers
from various defects.
Firstly, we see that though very small numerals may be
demonstrated in this way, very large numerals cannot be so
demonstrated. Hence there is a distinction between visual
numbers and counted numbers. Secondly, we know that
normally the use of numerals is associated with counting
by which process children learn the numerals. Further we
see that the numeral I may be of different forms and
different colours; it may be handwritten or typewritten or
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
printed; it may be in Davangari or Roman or Arabic script.

But the number one does not have these properties. Again
we see that a number may be odd or even, prime or
composite, squared or nonsquared but the numerals cannot
have these properties. Hence it is clear that number and
numeral cannot be identical.

We can say that the relation between a number
and a numeral is similar to that between a proposition and
a sentence [18] A sentence is the physical representation of
a proposition but is not identical with it. Various sentences
may represent the same proposition. Similarly, several forms
of numerals may represent the same number. But the
concept
of
proposition
is
equally
difficult
to
be
characterized. It is sometimes held that a proposition is

something like the mental image of a sentence which
belongs to the external world. This opinion confuses a
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
proposition with a sentence; for whatever there is in the

mind it must be some representation of the proposition and
not of sentence, since the first differs from the written or
the spoken word because it is not a communication. In the
same way, if we say that number is something not to be
defined but to be known by intuition as some image of a

numeral, then again confusion arises between number and
numeral.
6. Conclusion :
As we go deep into the analysis of the number concept,
the problem becomes more and more complicated. Just like
the definition of time, it is not possible to give the definition
of number in a formula or a sentence. But its nature can
be studied and judged by describing the uses of the words
number and numeral. The concept of
number may be
compared to that of a point which has different meanings
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
in different branches of science but the plain and simple

word point loses its precise meaning and assumes a vague
and indistinct description. Similarly the concept of number
also become vague and indistinct if it is not allowed to be
defined by a certain calculus. The individual number
concepts form a family, whose terms have a family

similarity. The word number does not designate a concept
(in the sense of logic) but a family of concepts [51]. This
means that the individual number types are related to each
other in many ways even though they may not have a
property or trait in common. As Frege holds, numbers are
already there somehow so that its discovery is like the
discovery of a continent that exists even before the actual
discovery.
Thus we see that in spite of the valuable attempts
made by ancient as well as modern thinkers a clear but
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
definition of number has not been possible.
CHAPTER - VI
CRITICAL STUDY OF PEANOS AXIOMS ON NATURAL
NUMBERS
In the present chapter we propose to study

critically the axiomatic system of Peano and to examine if these
are suitable characterizations for the natural numbers.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
1. Classical Interpretation of the Peano System :

In any attempt to give an axiomatic characterization of a
mathematical system one would like to ensure that the system is
nonempty; and besides the logical constants one would like to
use minimum number of individuals as well as predicates. One
would also like to compelte his tasks, if possible, with monadic

predicates only. But no infinite field can be characterized by
axioms which contain
predicates of one variable only [34].
Hence in order to characterize an infinite system he has to use

at least one predicate of two variables and he would be in a
happy position if his task is accomplished with only one such
predicate.
With this idea in mind Peao postulated his famous axioms
for the natural numbers in Arithmetices principia. These axioms
may be expressed in the following logical form:
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
An alternative formulation of A5 may be given by
These axioms are based on Dedekinds postulates

and by means of these axioms Peano claimed to reduce all pure
mathematics to the theory of natural numbers.
In the classical interpretation of the Peano system it
proposes to characterize the natural number system, which is
an infinite system of denumerable cardinality and may be
termed as the standrard model of the Peano system. In these
axioms Peano has used only three undefined terms viz. O, N
and S. N stands for the natural number system, O, stands
for the natural number zero and Sx stands for the immediate
successor of number x viz. x+1. o and N are the only primitive
individuals used in the system; S is used as function of one
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
variable, which may also be treated as a predicate constant of

two variables according to which the alternative formulation of
A3 may be
The last axiom A5 is usually known as the Induction
Axiom and the monadic predicate P used in this axiom is a

predicate variable. We do not know any particulars of P except
that if P belongs to O and whenever it belongs to any number x,
it also belongs to Sx, then P belongs to all numbers, or, in the
alternative formulation we have that if M be any subset of N
which contains O and if x
is
contained in M, Sx is also
contained in M then M contains all elements of N. In order to

give a clear picture of this aspect of N one may point out to a
collection of blocks standing in juxtaposition so that a forward
push on the block representing the element x of N forces it to
knock over the next block representingSx. When the block
representing
is
pushed
forward
(80)
it
knocks
the
block
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
representing SO, which again knocks the block representing

SSO and so on this, process continues without any halt. In this
unending process all the blocks are knocked over as a result of
the pushing over of the first block, so that if the first block falls,
all the blocks fall.[52].
2. Progressions as Models for the Peano System

Besides the classical interpretation of the Peano system
there are other interpretations also. The primitive terms O, N
and S occur in the system as variables in the sense that these
terms ar capable of various interpretations and so the system
does not prossess a unique model. In fact any progression
not necessarily of numbers, may be seen to verify these

axioms [5]
and in this case N represents the progresson, o
represents xo, the first element of the progression and Sx p

stands for xp+1 , the element appearing in the progression just
next to xp.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
Some authors have found fault with the system in that it

does not contain anything in itself to distinguish between its
different interpretations [40]. But it may be seen that any
progression which is a model for the system is isomorphic with
its standard model viz. the natural number system. Hence all
such models may be considered abstractly as identical models

of the Peano system and it is no fault of the system for not
containing anything in itself to distinguish one model from
another (isomorphic) model.
3. Inadequacy of the Peano System for Characterization of N
At the first sight the Peano system appears to be elegant;
for, in order to characterize the infinite system N, Peano uses
only two individuals, viz. O and N, only one monadic predicate
P and the only dyadic predicate S and he also gurantees the
nonemptiness of N by means of the first axiom. Categoricity of
this system may also be deduced from that of the Dedekinds
postulates [3] which form basis of the Peano system. Mututal
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
independence of the axioms of the system has also been

established by Peano and Padoa[40]. Moreover, the capacity of
the system to have various models confirms the potentiality and
richness of the system also.
But on close examination of the Induction axiom
and the arguments involved in the proof o the categoricity of the

system we find that much of its elegance is lost. Firstly, we find
that the categoricity of the system can be established only if our
language is very very strong so as to admit all sorts of sets and
predicates as individuals and it is not possible to establish the
categoricity in the ordinary language. Secondly, we have seen
that the predicate P
used in the Induction axiom is not well
defined and that it occurs as a predicate variable. But predicate

variables can occur only in the second order language of logic.
From this we infer that Peano proposes to characterize N in the
second order language. Also we know that there corresponds a
subset M on N for every predicate P and vice-versa and hence
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
the use of P as universally quantified predicate variable in the

Induction axiom determines the set of all subsets of N, which is
a nonenunerable set. This suggests that Peano proposes to
characterize the denumerable system N with the help of
nondenumerable system of axioms, and this can never be
considered a suitable characterization of N. Thus the system

fails to give a satisfactory characterization N.
4. Categoricity of the Peano System :
When we examine the reasons for failure of the
Peanosystem, naturally we would
blame the strong and
unrestriected language used in the axioms. And if we want to get

out of the trouble our first impulse would be to restrict ourselves
to some weaker language which admits only such predicates as
hold under certain restrictions. The question is what sort of
language we shall use and what would be the nature of the
admissible predicates.
Let us arbitrarily formulate a first order structure M,
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
nonisomorphic with N, which admits only those predicates

which hold either for a finite set of objects of M or for the
complement of a finite set of objects of M. Suppose that M
consists of all natural numbers and all fractions of the form
for all
so that
and let P be an admissible predicate. We proceeded to show that

the system M is model for the Peano system.
We see that
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Which means that the system M verifies the first four
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
axioms of the Peano system. We now proceed to prove that M

verifies the Induction axiom also. Supposing P(0) holds and
P(u+1) holds whenever P(u) holds, we get that P holds for all
elements of N. Now let P(u) hold for some u . Then P (u)
most hold for all succeeding elements in M-N. If not, let us
suppose that P(u) does not hold for u= (2x+1)/2 for a certain
m N
. Then P (u) does not hold for u = (2m-1)/2 also; for , if it
holds for the latter, it also holds for the former, which is the
successor of the latter and similarly proceeding we can show
that P(u) does not hold for any element of M-N before and upto
(2m+1)/2. This means that P does not hold for an infitie subset
of M and at the same time it holds also for an infinite subset of
M, which contradicts the admissibility of P. Hence P(u) must
hold for all u and since it holds for all natural numbers, it
must hold for all u . Thus we have proved that M verifies the
Induction axiom of Peano also. Hence the Peano system
possesses a model M which is not isomorphic with its standard
model N.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
Thus in an attempt to get out of one trouble we are again

thrown into another trouble where the very categority of the
system is destroyed.
5. Completeness of Axiomatic Systems :
We have seen that the categoricity of the Peano system
cannot be established in the ordinary language of logic. We have

also seen that none of the above system is a perfect
characterization of the natural number system. TheodolfSkolem
(1915) has established that any formalization of arithmetic fails
to characterize the number system completely and admits as
values of the number variables a class of entities of which the
natural numbers from only the initial segment[34] According to
Lowenheim and Skolem no axiomatic
system is complete
because if any infinite system is described by an axiomatic

system A, a countable model and
also a model of higher
cardinality are possible models of A. Hence we conclude that

every axiomatic system of Arithemetic is incomplete as well as
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
noncategorical.
Uptill now we have been engaged in dealing with natural
numbers only. We now propose to introduce a theory of Real and
Complex numbers with the knowledge of natural numbers in the
next two chapters.
(80)
PATNA
UNIVERSITY
(80)

Math Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Math Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PATNA

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

mathematical meaning nor does the work number system. There

fundamental with human thoughts and it is well known that

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

Pythagoras ( 531-510 B.C. ) profounded the Doctrine that

number as primary object and rest as secondary

construction of various classes of numbers such as integers,

contains an isomorphic model of the previous one, some of the

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

numbers and the transfinite numbers.

eloquently developed. Similar extension of natural numbers,

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

complex numbers and Rn may also be possible. The calculus of

19th Century, set theorists and other mathematicians started

thus the smallest cardinal number) in the set of natural

number s. Today, different mathematicians use the term to

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

symbol for the set of all natural numbers is N, also written N.

symbols for natural

numbers are written using ten digits: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9.

number 3 is represented as sss0, where s the successor

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

them. In the fraction written

m represents equal parts, where n equal parts of that size make

If the absolute value of m is greater than n, then the

denominator 1. For example: -7 can be written as

symbol for the rational numbers is Q (for quotient), also written

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

represents 1 hundred, 2 tens, 3 ones, 4tenths, 5 hundredths,

when it must be treated as a real number rather than an

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

Every rational number is also a real number. It is not the

and the real number 0.333..(forever repeating

threes, otherwise written

hand, the real number (pi), the ratio of the circumference of

Since the decimal neither ends nor forever repeats, it cannot be

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

Other irrational numbers include

Every real number is either rational or irrational. Every

numbers also have an important but highly technical property

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

truncating a decimal, so that digits that suggest a greater

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

involving the square root of negative numbers, and eventually to

numbers. If the real and imaginary parts of a complex number

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

polynomial with complex coefficients can be factored into linear

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

computed to within any desired precision by a finite, terminating

representation of algorithms. The computable numbers form a

analysis. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals (usually denoted

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

R to be reinterpreted as true first order statements about R*.

cardindal numbers. The former gives the ordering of the

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

consisting of all those relations that are similar to one member

8. Specific use of numbers

There are also other sets of numbers with specialized uses.

PATNAUNIVERSITY Ph.D. THESIS

An even number is an integer that is evenly divisible by

its proper positive divisors and

. The next perfect