Would you mind sharing a brief summary of what the book says?
That's an elegant construction. It's interesting how different number sets can derived from pairs of a "smaller" set, equivalence classes, or both.
integers: equivalence classes of pairs of naturals
rationals: equivalence classes of pairs of integers
reals: equivalence classes of Cauchy series on rationals
complex numbers: pairs of reals
It's quite thought provoking to arrive at the construction of complex numbers just by counting apples.Stuff like Burke's Connections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)
FWIW, 5x5's Critical Path podcast has a few real gems. http://5by5.tv/criticalpath
Likewise we ought to refer to most of Greek philosophy, poetry, and literature as “Greek-Arabic” as without the Islamic scholars who preserved it very little would have survived.
1. Please read "Liber Abaci". It is right there in the prologue section. Hard to find a free copy of this link hence posting a link to tweet[1] with screenshot of the relevent page. You can also cross verify with Italian version on archive.org[2]
2. Same story repeat itself with Indian numbers and algorithms.[3][4]
[1] https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1198526477026807809
[2] https://archive.org/details/LiberAbaci/page/n5/mode/2up
[3] https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1180777105778307072
Every programmer should be familiar with one descendant of double-entry bookkeeping: the integer. Though its binary representation may be more familiar, the formal mathematical construction of the integers consists of an equivalence class of pairs of natural numbers. In the Chinese "Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art" they describe red and black counting rods denoting gains and losses, and the equivalence class being that taking away a red and black rod at the same time leaves the "total" or normalized form unchanged. Integers took a lot of time to be accepted in mathematical practice, but they were in use for far longer.