The History of Mathematical Symbols

By Douglas Weaver
Mathematics Coordinator, Taperoo High School
with the assistance of
Anthony D. Smith
Computing Studies teacher, Taperoo High School.

Introduction

On the topic of mathematical symbols.....

"Every meaningful mathematical statement can also be expressed in plain language.

Many plain-language statements of mathematical expressions would fill several pages,
while to express them in mathematical notation might take as little as one line. One of the
ways to achieve this remarkable compression is to use symbols to stand for statements,
instructions and so on."

Lancelot Hogben

Index
1. The factorial symbol n!
2. The symbols for similar and congruent
3. The symbols for angle and right angle
4. The symbol pi
5. The symbol for percent
6. The symbol for division
7. The symbols for inequality
8. The symbol for infinity
9. The symbols for ratio and proportion
10. The symbol for zero
11. The radical symbol
12. The symbols for plus and minus
13. The symbol for multiplication
14. The symbol for equality
15. The symbol for congruence in number theory
16. Complex numbers and the symbol i
 17. The number e
18. The calculus symbols
19. List of ancillary symbols without explanation
20. APPENDIX --- Personalities

select here to
return to the HoM home page

The factorial symbol n!

The symbol n!, called factorial n, was introduced in 1808 by Christian

Kramp of Strassbourg, who chose it so as to circumvent printing difficulties
incurred by the previously used symbol thus illustrated on the right. (Eves
p132)

The symbol n! for "factorial n", now universally used in algebra, is due to Christian
Kramp (1760-1826) of Strassburg, who used it in 1808. (Cajori p341)

EVES, HOWARD "Great Moments in Mathematics - Before 1650", Mathematical

Association of America 1983.

CAJORI, FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926.

The symbols for similar and congruent

Our familiar signs, in geometry, for similar (on the left), and for congruent (on
the right) are due to Leibniz (1646-1715.) (Eves p253)

Leibniz made important contributions to the notation of mathematics. In Leibnizian

manuscripts occurs this symbol (on the left) for “similar,” and this symbol (on the right)
for “equal and similar” or “congruent.” (Cajori p211)

EVES, HOWARD "An introduction to the History of Mathematics," fourth edition, Holt
Rinehart Winston 1976

CAJORI,FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926

The symbol for angle and right angle
In 1923, the National Committee on Mathematical Requirements, sponsored by
the Mathematical Association of America, recommended this symbol (on the
left) as standard usage for angle in the United States. Historically, Pierre Herigone,
in a French work in 1634, was apparently the first person to use a symbol for angle. He
used both the symbol above as well as this symbol on the right, which had already been
used to mean "less than." The standard symbol survived, along with other variants, as
follows.

These appeared in England circa 1750.

During the 19th century in Europe these forms were used to designate the
angle ABC, and the angle between a and b , respectively.

This symbol, representing the arc on the angle, first appeared in Germany in the
latter half of the 19th century.

The symbol for right angle

This symbol (on the left) for right angle was used as early as 1698 by
Samuel Reyher, who symbolized "angle B is a right angle" as
illustrated on the right, using the vertical line for equality.

This commonly used symbol for right angle appeared in America around
1880 in the widely used Wentworth geometry textbook. (NCTM p362,364)

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS, "Historical Topics

for the Mathematics Classroom", National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (USA)
1969

The symbol for pi

 This symbol for pi was used by the early English mathematicians William Oughtred
(1574 -1660), Isaac Barrow (1630-1677), and David Gregory (1661-1701) to
designate the circumference , or periphery, of a circle. The first to use the symbol for the
ratio of the circumference to the diameter was the English writer, William Jones, in a
publication in 1706. The symbol was not generally used in this sense, however, until
Euler (1707-1783) adopted it in 1737. (Eves p99)

Oughtred's notation was the forerunner of the relation pi = 3.14159..., first used by
William Jones in 1706 in his Synopsis palmariorum matheseos. Euler first used pi =
3.14159... in 1737. In his time, the symbol met with general adoption. (Cajori p158)

This symbol for pi was used by Oughtred in an expression to represent the ratio of the
diameter to the circumference. Isaac Barrow, from 1664, used the same symbolism.
David Gregory used pi in an expression to represent the ratio of the circumference to the
radius in 1697. The first to use pi definitely to stand for the ratio of circumference to
diameter was an English writer William Jones. He used it to symbolize the word
"periphery." Euler adopted the symbol in 1737, and since that time it has been in general
use. (Smith p312)

The number pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It is also the
ratio of the area of a circle to the area of the square on its radius. The adoption of the
symbol for pi for this ratio is essentially due to the usage given it by Leonhard Euler from
1736 on. In the 1730's, Euler first used p and c for the circumference -to-diameter ratio,
then adopted this symbol for pi. However, he is not the originator of the symbol.

An actual ratio symbol as illustrated here on the right had been used by William
Oughtred in 1647 and by Isaac Barrow in 1664 to indicate the ratio of the diameter
of a circle to it's circumference or periphery.

David Gregory, nephew of Scottish mathematician James Gregory (1638-1675),

used this symbol on the left for the ratio of circumference to radius in 1697. In
1706 the English writer William Jones, in a work that gave the 100-place approximation
of John Machin, first used the single symbol for pi. This computation of pi to a large
number of places by means of various series representations was aided by the use of such
relations as pi/4 = 4 arctan (1/5) - arctan (1/239), as given by Machin in 1706. (NCTM
p148,152)

EVES, HOWARD "An Introduction to the History of Mathematics," fourth edition, Holt
Rinehart Winston 1976.

CAJORI, FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II. Dover Publications 1958

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS, "Historical Topics
for the Mathematics Classroom". National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (USA)
1969

The symbol for percent

 Percent has been used since the end of the fifteenth century in business problems
such as computing interest, profit and loss, and taxes. However, the idea had its
origin much earlier. When the Roman emperor Augustus levied a tax on all goods
sold at auction, centesima rerum venalium, the rate was 1/100. Other Roman taxes were
1/20 on every freed slave and 1/25 on every slave sold. Without recognising percentages
as such, they used fractions easily reduced to hundredths.

In the Middle Ages, as large denominations of money came to be used, 100 became a
common base for computation. Italian manuscripts of the fifteenth century contained
such expressions as "20 p 100" and "x p cento" to indicate 20 percent and 10 percent.
When commercial arithmetics appeared near the end of that century, use of percent was
well estasblished. For example, Giorgio Chiarino (1481) used "xx. per .c." for 20 percent
and "viii in x perceto" for 8 to 10 percent. During the sixteenth and seventeenth century,
percent was used freely for computing profit and loss and interest. (NCTM p146,147}

In its primitive form the per cent sign is

found in the 15th century manuscripts on
commercial arithmetic, where it appears as
this symbol after the word "per" or after the
letter "p" as a contraction for "per cento."
The use of the per cent symbol can
be seen in this extract from an anonymous Italian manuscript of 1684 (Smith
p250)

The percent sign, %, has probably evolved from a symbol introduced in an

anonymous Italian manuscript of 1425. Instead of "per 100," "P cento," which were
common at that time, this author used the symbol shown.

By about 1650, part of this symbol had been changed to the form shown on the right.
Finally, the "per" was dropped, leaving this symbol to stand alone, and this in turn
became %. (NCTM p147)
The solidus form (%) is modern. (Smith p250)

This symbol stands for "per thousand". (Hogben p92)

It is natural to expect that percentage will develop into per millage, and indeed this has
not only begun, but it has historic sanction. Bonds are quoted in New York using this
symbol on the right, and so in other commercial lines. At present, indeed, the symbol
above (Hogben) is used in certain parts of the world, notably by German merchants, to
mean "per mill," a curious analogue to % developed without regard to the historic
meaning of the latter symbol.(Smith p250)

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS, "Historical Topics

for the Mathematics Classroom", National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (USA)
1969

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

HOGBEN, LANCELOT "The Wonderful World of Mathematics", Macdonald and

Company 1968

The symbol for division

The Anglo-American symbol for division is of 17th century origin, and has long
been used on the continent of Europe to indicate subtraction. Like most elementary
combinations of lines and points, the symbol is old. It was used as early as the 10th
century for the word est. When written after the letter "i", it symbolized "id est." When
written after the word "it", it symbolized "interest." If written after the word
"divisa", for "divisa est", this might possibly have suggested its use as a symbol of
division. Towards the close of the 15th century the Lombard merchants used it to indicate
a half, along with similar expressions such as this one on the right.

There is also a possibility that it was used by some Italian algebrists to indicate
division. In a manuscript entitled Arithmetica and Practtica by Giacomo Filippo
Biodi dal Aucisco, copied in 1684, this symbol stands for division, suggesting that
various forms of this kind were probably used.

The Anglo-American symbol (above top) first appeared in print in the Teutsche Algebra
by Johann Heinrich Rahn (1622-1676) which appeared in Zurich in 1659. This symbol
was then made known in England by the translation of Rahn's work by Dr. John Pell in
London in 1688. (Smith p406)

Around the year 1200, both the Arabic writer al-Hassar, and Fibonacci (Leonardo of
Pisa), symbolised division in fraction form with the use of a horizontal bar, but it is
thought likely that Fibonacci adopted al-Hassar's introduction of this symbolisation.

In his Arithmetica integra (1544) Michael Stifel employed the arrangement 8)24 to
mean 24 divided by 8. (NCTM p139)
Michael Stifel (1486?-1567) was regarded as the greatest German algebrist of the 16th
century. (Cajori p140)

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS, "Historical Topics

for the Mathematics Classroom", National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (USA)
1969
CAJORI, FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926

The symbol for Inequality

Thomas Harriot (1560-1621) was an English mathematician who lived the
longer part of his life in the sixteenth century but whose outstanding publication
appeared in the seventeenth century. He is of special interest to Americans, because in
1585 he was sent by Sir Walter Raleigh to the new world to survey and map what was
then Virginia but is now North Carolina. As a mathematician Harriot is usually
considered the founder of the English school of algebraists. His great work in this field,
the Artis Analyticae Praxis was published in London posthumously in 1631, and deals
largely with the theory of equations. In it he makes use of these symbols above, ">" for
"is greater than" (on the left), and "<" for "is less than" (on the right.)

They were not immediately accepted, for many writers preferred these
symbols, which another Englishman William Oughtred (1574-1660) had
suggested in the same year in the popular Clavis Mathematicae, a work on arithmetic and
algebra that did much toward spreading mathematical knowledge in that country.

Isaac Barrow (1630-1677), in a book Lectiones Opticae & Geometricae (London 1674),
used these symbols as follows:
this meant "A major est quam B"

and this meant "A minor est quam B."

These symbols to the right are modern and are not international.
The symbol on the left means "is not equal to."
The middle symbol means "is not less than."
The symbol on the right stands for "is not greater than."

In the 1647 edition of Oughtred's Clavis mathematicae these somewhat analogous

symbols appear for "non majus" (on the left) and "non minus" (on
the right) respectively.

On the Continent these symbols, or some of their variants, apparently invented

in 1734 by the French geodesist Pierre Bouguer (1698-1758), are commonly used.
Bouguer was one of the French geodesists sent to Peru to measure an arc of a meridian.
(Eves p251, Smith p413)

EVES, HOWARD "An introduction to the History of Mathematics," fourth edition, Holt
Rinehart Winston 1976

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

The symbol for infinity

John Wallis (1616-1703) was one of the most original English mathematicians of
his day. He was educated for the Church at Cambridge and entered Holy Orders,
but his genius was employed chiefly in the study of mathematics. The Arithmetica
infinitorum, published in 1655, is his greatest work. (Cajori p183)

This symbol for infinity is first found in print in his 1655 publication Arithmetica
Infinitorum. It may have been suggested by the fact that the Romans commonly used this
symbol for a thousand, just as today the word “myriad” is used for any large number,
although in the Greek it meant ten thousand. The symbol was used in expressions such as,
in 1695, "jam numerus incrementorum est (infinity)." (Smith p413)

The symbol for infinity, first chosen by John Wallis in 1655, stands for a concept which
has given mathematicians problems since the time of the ancient Greeks. A case in point
is that of Zeno of Elea (in southern Italy) who, in the 5th century BC, proposed four
paradoxes which addressed whether magnitudes (lengths or numbers) are infinitely
divisible or made up of a large number of small indivisible parts. (Brinkworth and Scott
p80)

Wallis thought of a triangle, base length B, as composed of

an infinite number of “very thin” parallelograms whose
areas (from vertex to base of the triangle) form an
arithmetic progression with 0 for the first term and ( A /
(infinity)). B for the last term - since the last parallelogram
(along the base B of the triangle) has altitude (A/(infinity))
and base B.

The area of the triangle is the sum of the arithmetic progression

O + . . . . + (A/(infinity)).B
= (number of terms/2). (first + last term)
=(infinity/2).(0+(A/(infinity)).B)
=(infinity/2).(A/(infinity)).B
=(A-B)/2
(NCTM p413)

CAJORI, FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

BRINKWORTH & SCOTT "The Making of Mathematics", The Australian Association

of Mathematics Inc. 1994

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS, "Historical Topics

for the Mathematics Classroom", National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (USA)
1969

The symbols for ratio and proportion

The symbol : to indicate ratio seems to have originated in England early in the 17th
century. It appears in a text entitled Johnson’s Arithmetick ; In two Bookes
(London.1633), but to indicate a fraction, three quarters being written 3:4. To indicate a
ratio it appears in an astronomical work, the Harmonicon Coeleste (London, 1651), by
Vincent Wing. In this work the forms A : B :: C : D and A.B :: C.D appear frequently as
being equal in meaning. (Smith p406)

William Oughtred (1547-1660) was another English mathematician who wrote as

follows:
A : B = C : D as A B :: C D.
He laid extraordinary emphasis upon the use of mathematical symbols; altogether he used
over 150 of them. Only 3 have come down to modern times, and one of these is this
symbol for proportion. His notation for ratio and proportion was later widely used in
England and on the Continent. (Cajori p157).

In his Clavis Mathematicae (1631) Oughtred used the dot to indicate either division or
ratio, but in his Canones Sinuum (1657) the colon : is used for ratio. He wrote 62496 :
34295 :: 1 : 0 / 54.9- (Smith p 407)

As this notation gained ground it freed the dot . for use as the symbol for separation in
decimal fractions. It is interesting to note the attitude of Leibniz (1646-1715) toward
some of these symbols. On July 29, 1698, he wrote in a letter to John Bernoulli thus "....
in designating ratio I use not one point but two points, which I use at the same time, for
division; thus for your dy.x :: dt.a I write dy:x = dt:a; for dy is to x as dt is to a, is indeed
the same as, dy divided by x is equal to dt divided by a. From this equation follow then
all the rules of proportion.” This conception of ratio and proportion was far in advance of
that in contemporary arithmetics. (Cajori p158)
It is possible that Leibniz, who used : as a general symbol for division, took it from these
writers, for he wrote in 1684 “x : y quod idem est ac x divis. Per y seu x/y.”

The hypothesis that the ratio symbol : came from the symbol for division by dropping the
bar has no historical basis. Since it is more international than the division symbol, it is
probable that the latter symbol will gradually disappear. Various other symbols have been
used to indicate division, but they have no particular interest at the present time. (Smith
p407)

Ratio - the quotient of two numbers or quantities indicating their relative sizes. The ratio
of a to b is written a : b or a/b. The first term is the antecedent and the second the
consequent. (Daintith and Nelson p274)

The symbol :: for the equality of ratios, now giving way to the common sign for equality,
was introduced by Oughtred circa 1628, for he later wrote "proportio, sive ratio
aequalis ::" and a Dr. Pell gave it still more standing when he issued Rahn's algebra in
English in 1668. The symbol seems to have been arbirarily chosen.

This symbol for continued proportion was used by English writers of the 17th and 18th
centuries. For example it was used by Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) in his Lectiones
Mathematicae (London, 1683), where he wrote "The character is made use of to signify
continued Proportionals." It is still commonly seen in French textbooks. (Smith p413)

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

CAJORI, FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926

DAINTITH, JOHN and NELSON,R.D. "Dictionary of Mathematics", Penguin 1989

The symbol for zero

Although the great practical invention of zero has often been attributed to the
Hindus, partial or limited developments of the zero concept are clearly evident in a
variety of other numeration systems that are at least as early as the Hindu system, if not
earlier. The actual effect of any one of these earlier steps in the full development of the
zero concept - or, indeed, whether there was any actual effect - is by no means clear,
however.

The Babylonian sexagesimal system used in the mathematical and astronomical texts was
essentially a positional system, even though the zero concept was not fully developed.
Many of the Babylonian tablets indicate only a space between groups of symbols if a
particular power of sixty was not needed, so the exact powers of sixty that were involved
must be determined partly by context. In the later Babylonian tablets (those of the last
three centuries B.C.) a symbol was used to indicate a missing power, but this was used
only inside a numerical grouping and not at the end. (NCTMp49)

Not to be overlooked is the fact that in the sexagesimal notation of integers the
"principle of position" was employed. Thus, in 1.4 (=64), the 1 is made to stand for
60, the unit of the second order, by virtue of its position with respect to the 4. The
introduction of this principle at so early a date is the more remarkable, because in the
decimal notation it was not regurlarly introduced until about the ninth century after
Christ. The principle of position, in its general and systemic application, requires a
symbol for zero. We ask, Did the Babylonians possess one? Had they already taken the
gigantic step of representing by a symbol the absence of units? Babylonian records of
many centuries later -of about 200 B.C.-give a symbol for zero which denoted the
absence of a figure, but apparently it was not used in calculation. It consisted of two
angular marks as illustrated above on the right, one above the other, roughly resembling
two dots, hastily written. About 130 A.D. Ptolemy in Alexandria used in his Almagest the
Babylonian sexagesimal fractions, and also the omicron o to represent blanks in the
sexagesimal numbers. This o was not used as a regular zero. It appears therefore that the
Babylonians had the principle of local value, and also a symbol for zero, to indicate the
absence of a figure, but did not use this zero in computation.Their sexagesimal fractions
were introduced into India and with these fractions probably passed the principle of local
value and the restricted use of the zero. (Cajori p5)

When the Greeks continued the development of astronomical tables, they explicitly
chose the Babylonian sexagesimal system to express their fractions, rather than the
unit-fraction system of the Egyptians. The repeated subdivision of a part into 60 smaller
parts necessitated that sometimes “no parts” of a given unit were involved, so Ptolemy’s
tables in the Almagest (c. A.D. 150) included both of these symbols for such a
designation.

Considerably later, in approximately 500, Greek texts used this symbol, the
omicron, the first letter of the Greek word ouden (“nothing”). Earlier usage
would have restricted the omicron to symbolizing 70, its value in the regular
alphabetic arrangement.

Perhaps the earliest systematic use of a symbol for zero in a place-value

system is found in the mathematics of the Mayas of Central and South
America. The Mayan zero symbol was used to indicate the absence of any units of the
various orders of the modified base-twenty system. This system was probably used much
more for recording calendar times than for computational purposes. (NCTM p49)

The Maya counted essentially on a scale of 20, using for their basal numerals two
elements, a dot representing one and a horizontal dash representing five. The most
important feature of their system was their zero, this character as illustrated, which also
had numerous variants. (Smith p44)
 It is possible that the earliest Hindu symbol for zero was the heavy dot that appears in
the Bakhshali manuscript, whose contents may date back to the third or fourth century
A.D., although some historians place it as late as the twelfth. Any association of the more
common small circle of the Hindus with the symbol used by the Greeks would be only a
matter of conjecture. (NCTM p50)

There is no probability that the origin will ever be known,

and there is no particular reason why it should be. We
simply know that the world felt the need of a better number system, and that the zero
appeared in India as early as the 9th century, and probably some time before that, and was
very likely a Hindu invention. In the various forms of numerals used in India, and in later
European and Oriental forms, the zero is represented by a small circle or by a dot.
Variations include these, as illustrated. (Smith p70)

Since the earliest form of the Hindu symbol was commonly used in inscriptions and
manuscripts in order to mark a blank, it was called sunya, meaning “void” or “empty.”
This word passed over into the Arabic as sifr, meaning “vacant.” This was transliterated
in about 1200 into Latin with the sound but not the sense being kept, resulting in
zephirum or zephyrum. Various progressive changes of these forms, including zeuero,
zepiro, zero, cifra, and cifre, led to the development of our words “zero” and “cipher.”
The double meaning of the word “cipher” today - referring either to the zero symbol or to
any of the digits - was not in the original Hindu. In early English and American schools
the term “ciphering” referred to doing sums or other computations in arithmetic. (NCTM
p50)

The traditional Chinese numeration system is a base-ten system employing nine numerals
and additional symbols for the place-value components of powers of ten. Before the
eighth century A.D. the place where a zero would be required was always left absent. A
circular symbol for zero is first found in a document dating from 1247, but it may have
been in use a hundred years earlier. (NCTM p43)

Interestingly enough, the forms of the modern Arabic

numerals are not the same as the Hindu-Arabic forms
of the western world. For example, their numerical
representation for five is 0 and their zero is
representated by a dot. (NCTM p49)
This can be illustrated as shown; (Smith p70)

The various forms of the numerals used in India

after the zero appeared may be judged from this
table. (Smith p70)
This table illustrates some later European and
Oriental forms. (Smith p71)

The name for zero is not settled even yet. Older names and variations include naught,
tziphra, sipos, tsiphron, rota, circulus, galgal, theca, null, and figura nihili.(Smith p71)

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS, "Historical Topics

for the Mathematics Classroom", National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (USA)
1969

CAJORI, FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

The radical symbol

 The ancient writers commonly wrote the word for root or side, as they wrote other
words of similar kind when mathematics was still in the rhetorical stage. The symbol
most commonly used by late medieval Latin writers to indicate a root was R , a
contraction of radix, and this, with numerous variations, was continued in the printed
books for more than a century. Thus it appears as such in the works of Boncompagni
(1464), Chuquet (1484), Pacioli (1494), de la Roche (1520), Cardan (1539), Tartaglia
(1556), Ghaligai (1521), and Bombelli (1572.) The symbol was also used for other
purposes, including response, res, ratio, rex and the familiar recipe in a physician's
prescription.

Meanwhile, the Arab writers had used various symbols for expressing a root,
including this sign on the right, but none of them seem to have influenced European
writers.

This symbol first appeared in print in Rudolff's Coss in 1525, but without our modern
indices. It is frequently said that Rudolff used this sign because it resembled a small "r",
for radix (root), but there is no direct evidence that this is true. The symbol may quite
have been an arbitrary invention. It is a fact , however, that in and after the 14th century
we find in manuscripts such forms as the following
for the letter "r."

It was a long time after these writers that a simple method was developed for indicating
any root, and then only as a result of many experiments. French, English, and Italian
writers of the 16th century were slow in accepting the German symbol, and indeed the
German writers themselves were not wholly favourable to it. The letter l (for latus, side;
that is, the side of a square) was often used. In the 17th century our common square-root
sign was generally adopted, of course with many variants. The different variants of the
root sign are too numerous to mention in detail in this work, particularly as they have
little significance. By the close of the 17th century the symbolism was, therefore,
becoming fairly well standardised, although there still remained some work to be done.
The 18th century saw this accomplished, and it also saw the negative and fractional
exponent come more generally into use.

Some variations on the radical sign are as follows. The illustrations are the work of many
different writers, including Stifel (1553), Gosselin (1557), Ramus-Schoner (1592), Rahn
(1659), Stevin (1585), Vlacq, Biondini (1689) and Newton (1707).

- for the square root

- for the cube root

-for the fourth root

-for the fifth root

-for the sixth root

-for the eighth root

(Smith p407 - p410)

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

The symbols for plus and minus

The symbols of elementary arithmetic are almost wholly algebraic, most of them
being transferred to the numerical field only in the 19th century, partly to aid the
printer in setting up a page and partly because of the educational fashion then
dominant of demanding a written analysis for every problem. When we study the genesis
and development of the algebraic symbols of operation, therefore, we include the study of
the symbols in arithmetic. Some idea of the status of the latter in this respect may be
obtained by looking at almost any of the textbooks of the 17th and 18th centuries. Hodder
in 1672 wrote "note that a + (plus) sign doth signifie Addition, and two lines thus =
Equality, or Equation, but a X thus, Multiplication," no other symbols being used. His
was the first English arithmetic to be reprinted in the American colonies in Boston in
1710. Even Recorde (c1510-1558), who invented the modern sign of equality, did not use
it in his arithmetic, the Ground of Artes (c1542), but only in his algebra, the Whetstone of
witte (1557). (Smith p395)

There is some symbolism in Egyptian algebra. In the Rhind papyrus we

find symbols for plus and minus. The first of these symbols represents a
pair of legs walking from right to left, the normal direction for Egyptian writing, and the
other a pair of legs walking from left to right, opposite to the direction for Egyptian
writing. [Eves 1, p42]

The earliest symbols of operation that have come down to us are Egyptian. In the Ahmes
Papyrus (c1550 B.C.) addition and subtraction are indicated by these symbols on the left
and right above respectively.

The Hindus at one time used a cross placed beside a number to indicate a negative
quantity, as in the Bakhshali manuscript of possibly the 10th century. With this
exception it was not until the 12th century that they made use of the symbols of
operation. In the manuscripts of Bhaskara (c1150) a small circle or dot is placed above a
subtrahend as illustrated for -6, or the subtrahend is enclosed in a circle to indicate 6 less
than zero.

The early European symbols for plus are listed opposite. The word plus, used in
connection with addition and with the Rule of False Position is not known before the
latter part of the 15th century.

The use of the word minus as indicating an operation occurred much earlier, as in the
works of Fibonacci (c1175-1250) in1202. The bar above the letter simply indicated
an omission. In the 15th century, this third symbol was also often used for minus, but
most writers preferred the other variations.

In the 16th century the Latin races generally followed the Italian school, using the
letters p and m, each with the bar above it, or their equivalents, for plus and minus.
However, the German school preferred these symbols, neither of which is found for
this purpose before the 15th century. In a manuscript of 1456, written in Germany, the
word "et" is used for addition and is generally written so that it closely resembles the
modern symbol for addition. There seems little doubt that the sign is merely a ligature for
"et", much in the same way that we have the ligature "&" for the word "and."

The origin of the minus sign has been more of a subject of dispute. Some have
thought that it is a survival of the bar above the three symbols for minus as listed above.
It is more probably that it comes from the habit of early scribes of using it as a shorthand
equivalent of "m." Thus Summa became Suma with the bar above the letter u, and 10
thousand became an X with ther bar above the letter. It is quite reasonable to think of the
dash (-) as a symbol for "m" (minus), just as the cross (+) is a symbol for "et." Other
forms of minus are here illustrated.

There were other various written forms for plus and minus, as in piu (Italian), mas
(Spanish), plus (French) and et (German) for plus and as in de or men (Italian), menos
(Spanish), moins (French) for minus. Examples of such usage include:

Pacioli (1494), Italian de or m for minus

Tartaglia (1556) and Catanes (1546), Italian, piu and men
Santa-Cruz (1594), Spanish, mas and menos
Peletier (1549), French, plus and moins
Gosselin (1577), P and M
Trenchant (1566), + and -

The expression "plus or minus" is very old, having been in

common use by the Romans to indicate simply "more or less".
It is often found on Roman tombstones, where the age of the deceased is given as
illustrated to indicate "94 years, more or less".

These signs first appeared in print in an arithmetic, but they were not employed as
symbols of operation. In the latter sense they appear in algebra long before they do
in arithmetic.They appeared in Johann Widman's (c1460-?) arithmetic published in
Leipzig in 1489, the author saying: "Was - ist / das ist minus...vnd das + das ist mer." He
then speaks of "4 centner + 5 pfund," and also of "4 centner - 17 pfund," thus showing the
excess or deficiency in the weight of boxes or bales. (Smith p395 to 399)

Observe that Francis Vieta (1540-1603) employed the Maltese cross

(+) as the shorthand for addition, and the (-) for subtraction. These two
characters had not been in very general use before his time. The
introduction of the + and - symbols seems to be due to the Germans,
who, although they did not enrich algebra during the Renaissance with
great inventions, as did the Italians, still cultivated it with great zeal.
The arithmetic of John Widmann, brought out in 1489 in Leipzig, is the
earliest printed book in which the + and - symbols have been found,
and the facsimile shown is from the Augsburg edition of his work,
dated 1526. The + sign is not restricted by him to ordinary addition; it
has the more general meaning "et" or "and" as in the heading, "regula
augmenti + decrementi." The - sign is used to indicate subtraction, but
not regularly so. The word "plus" does not occur in Widmann's text; the word "minus" is
used only two or three times. The symbols + and - are used regularly for addition and
subtraction, in 1521, in the arithmetic of Grammateus, the work of Heinrich Schreiber, a
teacher at the University of Vienna. His pupil Christoff Rudolff, the writer of the first text
book on algebra in the German language (printed in1525) employs these symbols. So did
Michael Stifel, who brought out an improved second edition of Rudolff's book on algebra
Die Coss in 1553. Thus, by slow degrees, the adoption of the + and - symbols became
universal. Several independant paleograhic studies of Latin manuscripts of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries make it almost certain that the + sign comes from the Latin et, as it
was cursively written in manuscripts just before the time of the invention of printing. The
origin of the sign - is still uncertain. (Cajori p139)

The first one to make use of these signs in writing an algebraic

expression was the Dutch mathematician Vander Hoecke, who
in 1514 gave this illustration (on the left) for radical three quarters minus radical three
fifths, and for radical 3 add 5 he gave the sign as shown on the right.

These symbols seem to have been employed for the first

time in arithmetic, to indicate operations, by Georg Walckl
in 1536. The illustration on the left indicates the addition of one third of
230, and the one on the right indicates the subtraction of one fifth of 460. From this time
on the two symbols were commonly used by both German and Dutch writers, the
particular signs themselves not being settled until well into the 18th century.

England adopted the Teutonic forms, and Robert Recorde (c1510-1558) wrote (c1542)
"thys fygure +, whiche betoketh to muche, as this lyn, - plaine without a cross lyne,
betokeneth to lyttle". As symbols of operation most of the English writers of this period
reserved the + and - signs for algebra. Thus Digges (1572) in his treatment of algebra:
"Then shall you ioyne them with this signe + Plus", and Hylles (1600) says: "The badg or
signe of addition is +," stating the sum of 3 and 4 as "3 more 4 are 7," and writing 10___3
for "10 lesse 3." (Smith p399-402)

SMITH, D.E. "History of Mathematics" volume II, Dover Publications 1958

EVES, HOWARD "An introduction to the History of Mathematics," fourth edition, Holt
Rinehart Winston 1976

CAJORI, FLORIAN "A History of Mathematics", The Macmillan Company 1926

The symbol for multiplication

William Oughtred (1574-1660) contributed vastly to the propagation of mathematical
knowledge in English by his treatises, the Clavis Mathematicae, 1631, published in Latin
(English edition 1647), Circles of Proportion, 1632, and Trigonometrie, 1657. Among his
most noted pupils are the mathematician John Wallis (1616-1703) and the astronomer
Seth Ward.
 Oughtred laid extraordinary emphasis upon the use of mathematical
symbols : altogether he used over 150 of them. Only three have come down
to modern times, namely the cross symbol for multiplication, :: as that of
proportion, and the symbol for "difference between." The cross symbol, on the left,
occurs in the Claris, but the letter X, seen on the right, which closely resembles it, occurs
as a sign of multiplication in the anonymous "Appendix to the Logarithmes" in Edward
Wright's translation of John Napier's Descriptio, published in 1618. This appendix was
most probably written by Oughtred.

Leibniz (1646-1715) objected to the use of Oughtred's cross symbol because of possible
confusion with the letter X. On 29 July 1698 he wrote in a letter to John Bernoulli : "I do
not like (the cross) as a symbol for multiplication, as it is easily confounded with x; ....
often I simply relate two quantities by an interposed dot and indicate multiplication by
ZC.LM."

Through the aid of Christian Wolf (1679-1754) the dot was generally adopted in the 18th
century as a symbol for multiplication. Wolf was a professor at Halle, and was ambitious
to figure as a successor of Leibniz. Presumably Leibniz had no knowledge that Harriot in
his Artis analyticae praxis, 1631, used a dot for multiplication, as in aaa__3.bba=+2.ccc.
Harriot's dot received no attention, not even from Wallis. (Cajori p157)

The common symbol as illustrated was developed in England about 1600. It was not
a new sign, having long been used in cross multiplication, in the check of nines,
where Hylles (1600) speaks of it as the "byas crosse" in connection with the
multiplication of terms in the division or addition of fractions, for the purpose of
indicating the corresponding products in proportion, and in the "multiplica in croce" of
algebra as well as in arithmetic.

The symbol was not readily adopted by arithmeticians, being of no practical value to
them. In the 18th century some use was made of it in numerical work, but it was not until
the second half of the 19th century that it became popular in elementary arithmetic. On
account of its resemblance to x it was not well adapted to use in algebra, and so the dot
came to be employed, as in 2 . 3 = 6 (Europe) as well as in America. This device seems to
have been suggested by the old Florentine multiplication tables; at any rate Adriaen Vlacq
(c1600-1667), the Dutch computer (1628), used it in some of his work, thus:

factores---- 7 . 17

faci---------119

although not as a real symbol of operation. In his text he uses a rhetorical form, thus;
"3041 per 10002 factus erit 30416082."

Christopher Clavius (1537-1612), a Jesuit of Rome, wrote in 1583 using the idea
of a dot for multiplication, as in 3/5.4/7 for 3/5 X 4/7; and Thomas Harriot (1560-
1621) in a posthumous work of 1631 actually used the symbol in a case like 2.aaa = 2a
cubed. The first writer of prominence to employ the dot in a general way for algebraic
multiplication seems to