&gt; Did you realize negative numbers were only accepted in the late 1700s?<p>I did not know that! This makes total sense. I&#x27;d like to know more about that. When you think about it, only whole positive numbers make sense from a quantitative perspective. One thing, two things, three things, and so on. What&#x27;s half-a-thing? Right? a half-a-thing is still just one thing, if you know what I mean. And how can no thing (nothing) be a number? And how can negative numbers be &quot;numbers&quot;. It has always struck me that imaginary numbers are really badly named. Zero and the negative numbers are just as &#x27;imaginary&#x27;, equally unintuitive from a certain perspective.<p>I applaud what you&#x27;re doing. I think there is a metric-tonne of dogma and bad naming schemes in the standard maths curriculum. Remember in software engineering they say that naming things is one of the hardest parts of the task? I think the same applies to maths, perhaps more so.