PrepShorts · Study sheet · Class 9 Mathematics · Chapter 3, The World of Numbers
Chapter 3 · The World of Numbers
One-to-one correspondence: counting without number words
This video could not be loaded. Reload the page to try again.
Sign in with Google9 min.
Keep your place in this chapter — sign in, it’s free.Sign in
A herder with no word for any number still has to know, before dark, that every animal is back. One pebble out, one pebble in — and it works.
The idea
Counting does not require number words. What settles "is the whole herd back?" is a pairing: one pebble goes into the pot as each animal leaves, one comes out as each animal returns, and the pot at dusk holds the answer without any total ever being spoken. That is why the method works for a herder with no numerals — the comparison is performed by the objects, not by the arithmetic. Notching bone is the same pairing made permanent, and permanence is what lets a record be grouped; the moment the Ishango notches fall into 11, 13, 17 and 19, a tally has stopped recording and started asserting something about numbers.
What you should be able to do
- Explain how pairing one token to one object decides whether a collection is complete, without either quantity being counted or named
- Run the pebble-and-pot procedure on a stated herd and read the verdict off what is left in the pot
- State what the procedure establishes and what it does not — in particular that it never yields the size of the herd
- Write the set of natural numbers in the chapter's notation and say where the set begins
- Report the location, approximate age and notch count recorded for the Lebombo bone, and the two purposes it is thought to have served
- Describe the column structure of the Ishango bone and identify the arithmetic the groupings are read as carrying
- Continue the sequence 11, 13, 17, 19 and justify the continuation by the property the four share
- Decide whether the natural numbers are closed under subtraction and defend the decision with counterexamples
- Count on the joints of one hand as the chapter describes, and connect the result to a base other than ten
Words to know
| Term | Definition in one line | First introduced |
|---|---|---|
| one-to-one correspondence | matching each thing in one collection to exactly one thing in another, so that neither has a leftover | printed in §3.1, p. 41 |
| Natural Numbers | the counting numbers, beginning at 1 and continuing without end | printed in bold in §3.1, p. 41, with the symbol ℕ set beside the braced set |
| tally marks | strokes or notches cut one per item, so the record grows by one each time | printed in §3.1.1, p. 41 |
| Lebombo Bone | the notched bone from the Lebombo Mountains, the chapter's oldest physical record of counting | printed in bold in §3.1.1, p. 41 |
| Ishango bone | the notched bone from near the Nile headwaters whose columns group into primes | printed in bold in §3.1.1, p. 42 |
| asymmetrical notches | notches that are not evenly matched between the columns, unlike the Lebombo bone's uniform cuts | printed in §3.1.1, p. 42 |
| lunar phase counter | a record that advances one mark per day through the moon's cycle | printed in §3.1.1, p. 41, as one of two readings offered for the notches |
| prime numbers | numbers above 1 with no divisors except 1 and themselves | printed in §3.1.1, p. 42 |
| closed under addition | the property that adding two members of a set always lands back inside the set | printed in Exercise Set 3.1, p. 43 |
| base-12 | a counting system that groups in twelves rather than tens | printed in Exercise Set 3.1, p. 43 |
| tally-and-cancel | an added label for the two-directional version of the pairing — a mark added on the way out and struck off on the way back | an added term; the chapter describes this procedure with pebbles and a pot and gives it no single name |
Where people slip up
- "Counting means saying the number names." The pebble method never names a number and still answers the question exactly. Reciting names is one way to record a pairing, not what counting is.
- "The pot tells the herder how many cows there are." It does not. It reports a difference between two acts of pairing. Students conflate "I know none are missing" with "I know how many there are" — the whole section separates these.
- "Tally marks are just primitive counting, with nothing mathematical in them." The Ishango grouping is the counter-example the chapter chooses: the notches are arranged by a property of the numbers, which is a statement about arithmetic, not a record of a quantity.
- "29 notches means someone counted to 29 and stopped." Under both readings offered, the 29 is not a total someone aimed at; it is where a cycle came round again. The bone records a period, not a sum.
- "11, 13, 17, 19 — they go up by 2 then 4 then 2, so the next is 21." 21 is 3 × 7. Odd numbers and primes part company at 21, and this is the standard trap in Q2.
- "Subtraction always works, we just have not learned the answer yet." Inside the natural numbers 3 − 7 genuinely has no answer, and admitting that is what forces the extension in §3.2 and §3.3.
- "Everyone has always counted in tens." The finger-joint count gives twelve on one hand, and the chapter points at base-12 systems built on exactly that habit. Ten is a choice with an anatomical reason, not a necessity.
Ask your teacher a person
Your teacher reads this and writes back, usually within a day. For an instant answer, use Ask the video in the sidebar.
Your class sees the question and the answer. Only your teacher sees that it was you.
No questions on this topic yet.
Worked answers to this chapter’s exercises · this video explains Exercise Set 3.1 Q2, Exercise Set 3.1 Q3, Exercise Set 3.1 Q4
Transcript1,281 words
Dusk. A herd is coming back through a gate, and somebody has to know before dark whether all of them are in. He has no word for twenty-three. He has no word for any number at all, because nobody has invented them yet. And he is going to answer the question exactly. Not roughly, not by having a look at them: exactly. The animals are not going to wait while he works something out, and in any case there is nothing to work out. He has no arithmetic either.
What he has is a pot, and a heap of pebbles. In the morning, as the animals go out, he drops one pebble into the pot for each animal that passes. One animal, one pebble. Another animal, another pebble. He never counts the pebbles. He never counts the animals. He only keeps the two of them in step. By the time the last one is through the gate, the pot holds the herd. Not a number for the herd — the herd itself, in stones.
And notice that nothing here can go wrong through miscounting, because nothing is being counted. The only mistake available is dropping two stones for one animal, and that is a slip of the hand rather than of the head. In the evening the whole thing runs backwards. As each animal comes in, he takes one pebble out of the pot. One animal, one pebble. Out, and out, and out again.
Every pebble that leaves is a promise kept. The animal that put it there has come home. And the matching is exact for a physical reason rather than a careful one. A pebble cannot half leave the pot. An animal cannot half come through a gate. The pairing is as exact as the objects are separate, which is to say completely. So at dusk he looks in the pot, and the pot has the answer ready.
If it is empty, every pebble has been claimed, and every animal is back. He can go to sleep. If two pebbles are still sitting in the bottom, two animals are still out. Not roughly two. Not around two. Exactly two, and he takes a lamp and goes looking. He does not even have to remember the morning. The pot remembered the morning for him. The question is answered, and no number was ever spoken.
Now here is the part worth slowing down for. Ask him how big his herd is, and he cannot tell you. The pot said two were missing. It never said two out of twenty-three. Two pebbles could be left from a herd of twenty-three with twenty-one back. Or from a herd of forty with thirty-eight back. Or from a herd of two with nothing back at all. Counting through every herd up to forty, thirty-nine different mornings end with two pebbles in that pot.
He knows exactly what he needed to know, and nothing whatsoever beyond it. The method answers one question and refuses the other. Which tells you something about what counting actually is. Counting is not saying the names. The names are one way of recording a pairing. They are not the only way, and they arrived very late. Look at your own hand for a second. Every finger has three joints, and the thumb can reach all of them.
Four fingers, three joints each. That is twelve on one hand. Not ten. Systems that group by twelve instead of by ten were built on exactly that habit. Ten is a choice with a reason behind it, not a law of nature. And it is not a small thing that the pairing came first. The names were invented to record something people had been doing for a very long time already.
But pebbles have a problem. A pot gets knocked over. Stones get borrowed, or lost, or used for something else entirely. The record lasts exactly as long as nobody disturbs it. So cut the marks into bone instead. One notch for each thing, exactly as before: the same pairing, made permanent. And permanence changes what a record is able to do, because a mark that survives can be looked at again. Compared. Rearranged.
A pot of stones can only ever answer today's question. A notched bone still answers it a season later, and it can be set down beside another bone. The oldest such record we have was found in the Lebombo mountains, on the border of South Africa and Eswatini. It is about thirty five thousand years old. It carries twenty nine notches. Distinct, deliberately cut, and all the same size as each other.
That total sits close to the moon's cycle, which is why it is read either as a counter for the phases of the moon or as a menstrual calendar. And here is the honest difficulty with choosing between them. Both readings add one notch a day over the same span. Two different things, followed for the same number of days, leave behind a record you cannot tell apart. The bone records a period. It does not say which one.
A second bone, found near the source of the Nile in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo, is dated to around twenty thousand years before the common era. Its notches are cut in three columns, and unevenly — none of the neat matched rows of the older bone. And one of those columns falls into groups. Eleven. Thirteen. Seventeen. Nineteen. Sit with those four for a moment. They are the primes between ten and twenty. Every single one of them, and nothing else from that range.
Which is worth testing, because there is an easy way to get it wrong. The four climb by two, then by four, then by two again. Follow those gaps and the next one after nineteen is twenty one. But twenty one is three sevens. It is not prime at all. Odd numbers and prime numbers travel together for a while and then part company — at fifteen, in fact, which is three fives.
Follow the property instead of the gaps, and the next three after nineteen are twenty three, twenty nine and thirty one. So why does that column matter so much? A plain tally is a record. It reports how many there were. It makes no claim at all about the numbers themselves. But a tally that has been grouped by a property of numbers is doing something else entirely. Somebody sorted those notches by primality — or the grouping is a coincidence, and we genuinely cannot be certain which.
Another of the columns is read as showing doubling: a total, then twice it, then twice that again. If those readings are right, the bone is not keeping track of livestock. It is saying something about arithmetic. One last thing, and it is a crack that this whole business opens up. The numbers all of it produces are the counting numbers. One, two, three, four, and onwards for ever. They begin at one, and nothing lives to the left of that.
Add any two of them and you land back inside. Seven and three make ten, and ten is there. Multiply two of them and you land back inside as well. But try taking away. Seven take away three is four, and four is there. That is fine. Three take away seven is not there. And five take away five is not there either, because there is no nought in this set.
So subtraction sometimes walks straight off the left end and finds nothing waiting. That gap is real, and filling it is the next thing that has to happen.
Where this fits
Taken from the notes each video was made from, not from the reading order — these are the ideas this one rests on and the ones that later rest on it.
Comes up again in
- Why India needed names for powers of tenClass 9 · Ch 3, The World of Numbers
- Debts and fortunes: negative numbers close subtractionClass 9 · Ch 3, The World of Numbers
Either side of this one
- What a and b do to the line: slope, y-intercept, and parallel familiesClass 9 · Ch 2, Introduction to Linear Polynomials