Kia ora all,
For those of you intrigued, I stumbled upon an interesting (to me anyway) article on, Zero. I was in search of an answer to satiate my 'inquisitiveididity' about the misappropriated use of the letter 'Oh' instead of zero. As in double 'Oh' Seven. Instead of double Zero Seven. I didn't find an answer to my 'pet peeve' but I did learn something about the origins of number systems. Have a read and let me know your thoughts. If you wish, please help me to overcome my dislike of the 'oh'usage, or help me understand why people say 'oh' instead of Zero.
here it is: Zero

I think most people in the past 45 (at least) years have learned and referred to our numeric system as the "hindu-arabic" system. Zero is maybe one of the most important discoveries (or inventions, if you prefer) of all time. In the west, we became familiar with the Arabic number system via Fibonacci's "Liber Abaci" or "book of counting" (and a few other works). He had a hard time selling the idea to the educated people of his time before the book - scholars were still using roman numerals. Fibonacci's father was a merchant who had payed a "blackamoor" to tutor his son.

On a slightly different topic, but also interesting, some ancient cultures (egyptians, e.g.) used only unitary fractions; that is, fractions in which the numerator is exactly 1. So they would not write 5/6, but 1/2 + 1/3.

The idea of equations is fairly recent (I think it was like something like the 1500s or 1600s). Prior to that people would write out word sentences.

A lot of the stuff that we take for granted in math today took a very, very long time for people to figure out.

They look alike. Our good friend Context generally lets us know which is meant. 'Oh' is easier to say than 'zero.'

And Vegas has never been the same. [/channelling TEd]

To the nihilish mathematics, including the concept of zero, is an artificial concept of the mind: Nothing is entirely anything, while everything is part sf something else, and therefore there cannot be zero of anything

Way back when in computer terms, it was the letter o which was slashed and not the digit 0. I still see folks who learned to type, before it became known as keyboarding, who replace the digit 1 with lowercase l and use lowercase o for zero: e.g., 2ool, instead of 2001.

it's like Faldage (almost) said, olly: laziness. it may have well had its start in the military, but at least the earliest citation in OED is from time-telling: At oh-eight-thirty-hours..

if it's of any consolation to you, I know someone who gets extremely contravivulated* by this usage.

-joe (*bent out of shape) friday

Laziness seems to initiate many changes in our language, however, do we accept the change or do we become complacent? Are we accepting of the change or should we be correct? If not correct how do we proceed? Anyway, I think Zero should be zero and 'oh' should be 'oh'. As simple as the words themselves are is as they should remain. Thank you for your varied and knowledgeable input. Still contravivulatedly yours, Olly.

One wonders how long .30-06 has been pronounced "thirty ought six"? James Bond has always been 007, i.e., "double-oh seven" or "double-nought seven" à la Jethro Bodine. For me, the year 2007 could be "two thousand (and) seven", "twenty oh seven", "oh seven", "ought seven", but never "zero seven". It's not really complacency, but how the language is used. Zero is Zephyrus, the west wind, the void and empty.

I should view the language as an evolving entity able to bend in the gentlest of Zephyrs. Your explanation has uncontravivulated me.

Excuse me. Did I come in late? Is this the thread about nothing to do about nothing?

Huh. Yalls are funny. But can't you alls even carry a subtle thought to the abstract?

Apparently olly can't.

Ha ha, yes indeed. Well themilum you definitely see things the way they are, an enviable talent. I prefer the more refined type of abstract. Less abstruse... Perhaps.

Sorry olly.

I'll speak more direct come the occasion.

Having majored in Math and CS (Engineering Math, not "real" math), I've always been interested in the development of ideas. Where do they come from? How did the person think of that? How do we describe the recursive nature of science and culture?

Science and technology give us new words, and new uses for old words. But also language is bona fide area of scientific research - but language is just one part of that complex relationship.

Clearly that is the answer: 'Tis sloth (not sl0th) accounts for 'ohing zero'. The question of acceptance (individually) depends on whether one falls in with the apologist crowd.

I don't know if it's still the case, but last time I looked, the difference between U.S. and Euro roulette wheels was that the former has both 0 and 00 slots; and the last time I listened, the proper croupier calls were zero and double-zero.

in the category of Is Nothing Sacred, I wonder if this, too, has been corrupted..

(if you add up all the numbers on the roulette wheel (from 1 to 36), the resulting total is 666.)

-joe (hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia) friday

'Tis true about the roulette wheel design, joe. Seems the American gambling houses were not content with their 1 in 37 edge and decided to go for 2 in 38. I have read somewhere that many experienced European gamblers refuse to bet with these odds, and someone told me that there are a few private areas where sufficiently high rollers in Vegas can be found playing on a wheel with only the one green zero, but that these are never seen by hoi polloi. Don't know if it's true.