On this page
Zero looks too simple to need rules. Yet many mistakes in school algebra, from cancelling a factor that might be zero to writing 0/0 = 1, come from not having those rules clear. One of the first people known to write them down was Brahmagupta, an astronomer in seventh-century India. This post covers what he wrote, where he slipped, and how to use both to sharpen your own working.
Who was Brahmagupta?
According to the MacTutor biography from the University of St Andrews, Brahmagupta was born in 598, possibly in Ujjain, and died around 670. In 628 he wrote the Brahmasphutasiddhanta ("Correctly Established Doctrine of Brahma"), a treatise of 25 chapters, at Bhillamala, today's Bhinmal in Rajasthan. He later headed the astronomical observatory at Ujjain, then the leading centre of mathematics in India, and in 665, aged 67, wrote a second work, the Khandakhadyaka.
Most of the Brahmasphutasiddhanta is astronomy: planetary positions, eclipses, the Moon's crescent. Its chapters on arithmetic and algebra are where zero appears.
What rules did Brahmagupta give for zero?
Henry Colebrooke's 1817 translation, Algebra, with Arithmetic and Mensuration, from the Sanscrit of Brahmegupta and Bháscara, gives the rules from chapter 18. Colebrooke translates zero as "cipher" or "nought" and positive numbers as "affirmative". In his translation, Brahmagupta says:
Addition: "The sum of cipher and negative is negative; of affirmative and nought is positive; of two ciphers is cipher."
Subtraction: "Negative, taken from cipher, becomes positive; and affirmative, becomes negative."
Multiplication: "The product of cipher and negative, or of cipher and affirmative, is nought; of two ciphers, is cipher."
Division: "Cipher, divided by cipher, is nought." A positive or negative number divided by zero "is a fraction with that for denominator".
The same passage gives the sign rules you still use: a negative times an affirmative is negative, and two negatives give a positive. MacTutor adds that he defined zero as the result of subtracting a number from itself, and phrased rules in terms of fortunes (positive numbers) and debts (negative ones).
This was a real step. Zero had already served as a placeholder, a mark for an empty position in a number such as 2106. MacTutor's history of zero calls Brahmagupta "the first person that we know who tried to extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero", treating zero as a number you calculate with.
Which rule did he get wrong, and why?
Most of the list is still correct. The division rules are where it breaks. MacTutor's verdict is that saying n divided by zero is "n/0" says very little, and that "zero divided by zero is zero" is simply wrong.
You can see why from the meaning of division. Saying 12 ÷ 3 = 4 means 4 is the one number with 4 × 3 = 12. Apply that to zero:
6 ÷ 0: we need a number q with q × 0 = 6. But q × 0 = 0 for every q, so no such q exists. The division has no answer.
0 ÷ 0: we need q with q × 0 = 0. Now every q works: 5, −2, 1000. There is no single answer, so 0 ÷ 0 is not defined either. Brahmagupta's choice of 0 is one of infinitely many candidates.
Later Indian mathematicians kept at the problem. MacTutor records that Mahavira, around 830, wrote that a number is unchanged when divided by zero, which is also wrong, and that Bhaskara II, writing about five centuries after Brahmagupta, called n/0 an "infinite quantity". Our post on Bhaskara II and the Lilavati picks up that story.
Where does this show up in your own algebra?
The classic trap is cancelling a factor that could be zero. Solve x² = 3x. Dividing both sides by x gives x = 3, and the solution x = 0 has vanished. The safe route is to factorise: x² − 3x = 0, so x(x − 3) = 0, giving x = 0 or x = 3. Before you divide by an expression, ask whether it can be zero, and deal with that case separately.
The same check matters in calculus. The expression (x² − 9)/(x − 3) looks like 0/0 at x = 3. That form does not mean the limit is 0, or 1; it means there is more work to do. Factorising gives (x + 3)(x − 3)/(x − 3) = x + 3 for x ≠ 3, so the limit as x approaches 3 is 6.
What else did Brahmagupta work on?
MacTutor lists methods for quadratic equations, an algorithm for square roots, and whole-number solutions of equations such as 8x² + 1 = y², for which he found (x, y) = (1, 3), (6, 17), (35, 99) and more. You can check them: 8 × 1 + 1 = 9 = 3², 8 × 36 + 1 = 289 = 17², and 8 × 1225 + 1 = 9801 = 99². He also gave n(n + 1)(2n + 1)/6 for the sum of the first n squares and a formula for the area of a cyclic quadrilateral.
His ideas travelled. MacTutor's history of zero notes that Indian place-value numerals with zero reached the Islamic world early, described in al-Khwarizmi's work on Hindu reckoning. Our post on al-Khwarizmi and algebra follows that thread.
What can a student take from Brahmagupta?
Write the rules down. Brahmagupta did not leave zero to intuition; he listed what happens in each operation. A one-page list of your own rules for zero, negatives and fractions settles many careless errors.
Check each rule against a definition. His division rules fail the "q × b = a" test. Testing rules against definitions catches the ones that only feel right.
Keep the good lines and mark the bad one. His list is mostly right and one line is not. Treat your own notes the same way.
If cancellations and signs keep catching you out in longer problems, the Fermi Problem Library has a step-by-step solver that explains the reasoning at each line, so you can see where a cancellation is safe and where it is not.
A short practice routine
Without looking, write Brahmagupta's rules for adding, subtracting and multiplying with zero. Mark the division rule that is wrong and explain why.
Solve x³ = 4x without losing a solution. (Answer: x = 0, 2 or −2.)
Find the limit of (x² − 16)/(x − 4) as x approaches 4. (Answer: 8.)
Check that (x, y) = (204, 577) satisfies 8x² + 1 = y².
The next time you cancel a factor, stop and ask one question first: could this be zero?
