The original hindu-arabic system changed over the course of several millenia to include a zero, and the look of the numbers changed somewhat, too.
Hmm, I understand what you are saying but the formulation is confusing. It certainly can't be called Hindu-Arabic before it gets to the Arabs in/around AD 800, by which time it already had a 0. The system used in India prior to AD 600 or so is usually called Brahmi numerals and lacks place value - really other than some vague similarities in the signs for 1-9 the system is completely different. But again I'd avoid using the word 'base-ten system': both Brahmi and Hindu-Arabic numerals have a base of 10 - the difference (primarily) is the use of place value in the latter. In any event, this raises a further issue: if you are defining it all as one system from 300 BC to the present day then you need to ask how the system changed through the period of its use.
no subject
Hmm, I understand what you are saying but the formulation is confusing. It certainly can't be called Hindu-Arabic before it gets to the Arabs in/around AD 800, by which time it already had a 0. The system used in India prior to AD 600 or so is usually called Brahmi numerals and lacks place value - really other than some vague similarities in the signs for 1-9 the system is completely different. But again I'd avoid using the word 'base-ten system': both Brahmi and Hindu-Arabic numerals have a base of 10 - the difference (primarily) is the use of place value in the latter. In any event, this raises a further issue: if you are defining it all as one system from 300 BC to the present day then you need to ask how the system changed through the period of its use.