I get a bit annoyed on these claims of "the first zero", since it never bothers to be very explicit about defining what first "zero" they're talking about. Is

I get a bit annoyed on these claims of "the first zero", since it never bothers to be very explicit about defining what first "zero" they're talking about. Is it the first symbol for no quantity? If you're only working with positive numbers you're not missing much by just saying "nothing". Having a zero matters a lot in positional number systems, since it means something else there. The Babylonians still got by with just putting a space instead of a symbol. Lastly, when using negative numbers on top of this, being able to work with the number between -1 and 1 just as any other becomes more necessary. All these examples of "first zero" originate from the need to simplify and strengthen an already innovative system, and each individual first zero needs to be tied to that concept of number.