1
$\begingroup$

This may be more of a historical math question.

In any old, ancient, or even modern symbolism; was there a symbol or letter that represented the value $-1$?

This goes in pair with how ancient mathematicians would commonly use a symbol for $0$ before the concept of zero was well defined.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Any other related tags would also be useful $\endgroup$ – Graviton Jul 31 '17 at 6:44
  • $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, some formattings in excel (and probably other spreadsheet software) use $\color{red}{1}$ (a $1$ coloured red) as the negative of $1$. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Jul 31 '17 at 6:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Arthur ah, that's interesting. I wonder why that is. $\endgroup$ – Graviton Jul 31 '17 at 6:47
  • $\begingroup$ I think it aligns with standard business phrases regarding the color red as signifying deficit and black signifying surplus. I don't any more than that, though. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Jul 31 '17 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Arthur It was once standard accounting practice, to use red ink to denote a negative number (i.e. a loss). Thus the common idioms "in the red" vs "in the black". $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Jul 31 '17 at 6:50
5
+50
$\begingroup$

$-1$ has not had any special symbols in widespread use. It was "minus" that has had various symbols for its representation both to negate a quantity and/or as subtraction operation (some of them are $m^\circ$, meno, $m\tilde e$, $men$, $\tilde{m}$, $\sim$, $^{\cdot}\hspace{-6pt}{-}$, $\div$, and many others). There are lots of books on this subject.

There is just one exception in what I've just said. In 1925 the mathematician J. P. Ballantine had a similar intuition as yours. In American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 32 No. 6 (Jun.-Jul. 1925) p.302 he wrote:

Mathematical historians will tell you how many years mathematics was held back for want of a digit $0$. Though not comparing in importance with that digit, there is a certain advantage in having a digit to represent negative one.

He continues proposing the adoption for $-1$ of a symbol which is $1$ rotated by $180^\circ$ around its center (in mathjax its difficult to represent; it is something like $\downharpoonright$. In Latex it is much more simple using this syntax: \rotatebox[origin=c]{180}{1}, after having imported the graphics package with \usepackage{graphicx})

Please note that Ballantine proposes such a symbol not for the number $-1$ but for $-1$ as a digit.

In this way not only it is possible to write $${\downharpoonright}\times2=-2$$ but it is also possible to write: $${\downharpoonright}.123=-1+0.123$$ $${\downharpoonright}0=-10$$ $${\downharpoonright}2=-10+2$$ with $${\downharpoonright}2={\downharpoonright}92=...={\downharpoonright}99992=...$$

In the end Ballantine's proposal as himself says it is a way to represent numbers in their tens' complement representation.


EDIT:

Ballantine does not give an example of numbers where the digit $\downharpoonright$ is not the most significant digit, probably because he does not need such sofistication in his intended application (that is, to complement a given positive number $x$ w.r.t. an integer $n$-th power of ten, where $n\ge\log_{10} x$ ). Anyway following his philosophy we could also write: $${\downharpoonright}{\downharpoonright}=-11$$ $$10.{\downharpoonright}=10-0.1$$

That said, Ballantine originality is mainly about the new symbol proposed for the digit $-1$. As to the applications it is not as much as original. Think that the periodical editor recalls in a footnote (Op. cit.) that a generalization coud be one in which digits $\bar5, \bar4, \bar3, \bar2, \bar1, 0,1,2,3,4,5$ are used instead of $0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9$ for real number encoding, where $\bar5=-5,...$ Indeed this was something very well known in past centuries. As early as 1726 John Colson in "A Short Account of Negativo-Affirmative Arithmetick" Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Vol 34 pp. 161-173 introduces such negative figures, as he calls them, as a means to ease arithmetic especially when large numbers are involved. It is no more than tens' complement encoding of numbers.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Very interesting, thanks! One question: if ${\downharpoonright}2=-10+2$, wouldn't it be more consistent if ${\downharpoonright}.123=-1+0.123=-0.877$? Which option does Ballantine prefer? $\endgroup$ – Chris Culter Sep 1 '17 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisCulter you caught me! :-) It's my error. Thanks. I'm going to edit the answer. $\endgroup$ – trying Sep 1 '17 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ Very interesting. It begs the question what other numbers would be such as $⇂⇂$ or $10.⇂$. $\endgroup$ – Graviton Sep 2 '17 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Graviton see edit $\endgroup$ – trying Sep 3 '17 at 13:48
  • $\begingroup$ If only I could upvote twice $\endgroup$ – Graviton Sep 8 '17 at 0:18
0
$\begingroup$

In balanced ternary, there is a symbol for negative one. If T is negative one, then in balanced ternary, you count 0000, 0001, 001T, 0010, 0011, 01TT, 01T0, 01T1, etc

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.