Talk:Āryabhaṭa numeration

If anybody has a reasonable understanding of Mathematics and Algebra, it appears to me that these "Sanskrit numerals" are in fact Sanskrit pronumerals. Am I wrong? Gizza^Chat ^© 05:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Oops, sorry I'm wrong but while they aren't pronumerals, they don't seem to be numerals either. One, two and three in Sanskrit is eka dvau and triyam, not ka, kha, gha. Gizza^Chat ^© 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger, and what is the correct title

This article and Aryabhata cipher clearly refer to the same number representation system. But if there is some debate as to whether this is a numeral system or something slightly different, perhaps we need to work out what the correct title is before the merge! --AndyKali 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the contents of Greek numerals and Hebrew numerals, I'd say this qualifies as a numeral system. It just needs a link to Indian numerals to cover itself on both Sanskrit numeral systems. Proposing to merge to this article title. --AndyKali 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numeral table -- column 10^8 is inconsistent with the header

The numbers for the 10^8 column are inconsistent.

The header lists for the multiplier for the 10^8 column, ऌ (tranlisterated as ḷ), and in Unicode called DEVANAGARI LETTER VOCALIC L. The english transliteration for each of the rows correctly lists the character representation for the appropriate number as consonant-ḷ . However, the Devanagari for each one lists consonant and then DEVANAGARI VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC RR, which is inconsistent -- if it were to be consistent with the transliteration and the header, it should list a DEVANAGARI VOWEL SIGN VOCALIC R.

e.g, for 1*10^8, the representation is

कॄ kḷ

when it should be

कॢ kḷ

Which is correct, the Devanagari or the transliteration?

Arun (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Looking at a few sources, it seems the transliteration was correct. Whoever wrote the Devanagari may have got confused or something. I've fixed it now, and removed your tag. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11...19, 21...25 and 100

In the given example, 4*10²+2*10³ is written by two syllables: घिनि (ghi-ni). However, it is equal to 24*10² and might be written as a single syllable: भि (bhi). So what is the rule to use one form or another?

The similar question about 100, which may be written as 1*10² (ki) or 100*10⁰ (ha). — P.Y.Python (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because in large numbers, these alternative higher digits would break this base 10 radix based notation, which allow only digits up to 9, obviously. So these would be used only separately. —Mykhal (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]