examples of errors in this version these are examples not a comprehensive list while typing it i had the very off putting feeling that i had already done this several times evidenced here it hasn't worked with you you're still unreasaonble but i do it anyway for emphasis and for the benefit of others the term arabic numerals is actually a misnomer this smacks of political revisionism of the worst kind what is known in english as the arabic numerals are the arabic western numerals not even the arabic eastern numerals yes they are derived from ancient indian numerals but nonetheless they are the arabic numerals look here the norm is that when people in english say arabic numerals they are referring to those are the arabic western numerals they are not referring to and other varities of indian numerals modern or ancient they are known in english as the arabic numerals that's a fact i will not accept a revisionist statement that counters a fact so early on in the text the article the article must start with the factual i'll accept it under a revisionism section much later on but it must be balanced there with opinions counter to it counter to the counterfactual what are known in english as arabic numerals were neither invented nor widely used by the arabs in the arab world until modern times the arabic numeral system was used only by mathematicians muslim scientists used the babylonian numeral system and merchants used a numeral system similar to the greek numeral system and the hebrew numeral system therefore it was not until fibonacci that the arabic numeral system was used by a large population what reliable sources do you have that they were not widely used by the arabs why don't you cite reliable sources here's evidence that they were the numerals though were already in wide use throughout the arab empire as avicenna who was born in tells in his autobiography that he learnt them as a child from a humble vegetable seller he also tells that when his father in bukhara was visited by scholars from egypt in including abu abdullah al natili they taught him more about them j j o'connor and e f robertson point out he also tells of being taught indian calculation and algebra by a seller of vegetables all this shows that by the beginning of the eleventh century calculation with the indian symbols was fairly widespread and quite significantly was known to a vegetable trader the first inscriptions using in india have been traced to approximately ce why don't you cite reliable sources here i'll cite some according to professor ef robertson and dr jj o'connor the first record of the indian use of zero which is dated and agreed by all to be genuine was written in on the gwalior tablet stone this is also verified by professor lam lay yong an an effective member of the international academy of the history of science the earliest appearance in india of a symbol for zero in the hindu arabic numeral system is found in an inscription at gwalior which is dated ad according to menninger p this long journey begins with the indian inscription which contains the earliest true zero known thus far fig this famous text inscribed on the wall of a small temple in the vicinity of gvalior near lashkar in central india first gives the date a d in our reckoning in words and in brahmi numerals then it goes on to list four gifts to a temple including a tract of land royal hastas long and wide for a flower garden here in the number the zero first appears as a small circle fourth line in the figure in the twentieth line of the inscription it appears once more in the expression wreaths of flowers which the gardeners promise to give in perpetuity to honor the divinity the encyclopaedia britannica says hindu literature gives evidence that the zero may have been known before the birth of christ but no inscription has been found with such a symbol before the th century i'll accept mention prior to the gwalior tablet in fact the article needs it and i'm planning on doing it once i'm no longer distracted by your nonsense but such mention must be well phrased so as not to mislead and contradict scientific consensus and the phrasing must be limited to the exact intent of verifiable and reliable sources however it is