wrong decimal numbers are Indian and algebra is Greek

But I gave you facts not absurdity.

Nic

Your facts are wrong in both respects.

The Greeks were never that interested in number. It was geometry that floated their boat and number only really served as a tool for the exploration of shape. They had some fundamentally erroneous number assumptions and the realisation that square roots, when not whole numbers, were irrational numbers caused something of a furore and freaked Pythagoras, in particular, right out. The Greeks did edge into algebra for geometric purposes but much of what they did was forgotten and lost; it certainly had little impact on the modern world as we know it. Their work just sat there ignored for centuries.

The earliest mathematicians of any great repute were the Chinese and Indians who came to the conclusions that the Greeks did many hundreds of years earlier. I heartily recommend that you read The Crest of the Peacock (non-European roots of mathematics) as an excellent introduction (there's a free download here:

http://www.ms.uky.edu/~sohum/ma330/files/Crest_of_the_peacock.pdf)

But you are wrong. It was Sumerians (basically Iraqis in modern terms not that it existed then) who first introduced any sort of number system although it is barely regnisable to us today. The next major breakthrough was the concept of zero (probably in India) which allowed the adoption of "hundreds, tens and units" as we recognise them (the Romans, for instance had no concept of zero which made their arithmetic rather inconsistent and, arguably, eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire because it just go to be too big for the infra-structure to be supported - how they calculated things like CXV(IX x VII) + MIM is rather unfathomable even today without recourse to "modern" methods). I strongly recommend The Nothing That Is as an introduction to the introduction of zero (looks like you might need to buy this one

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/424190.The_Nothing_That_Is). It's all fascinating stuff and much more accessible than Peacock.

And then we're moving on towards Fibonnacci who robbed much of his thinking from Al Jabr (say it aloud a couple of times and you'll twig if you've not already) in the 1400s. Al Jabr actually formalised many of our familiar computational algorithms (subtraction by decomposition and so on) using the Hindu-Arabic symbols (i.e. 0, 1, 2, 3...) we are all so familiar with today.

And all of that was mostly linked and spread by Arab merchants who went east to Asia and west to Europe for trade purposes long before most Europeans gave it a moment of thought. Arab seats of learning were far more advanced than our European universities with Egypt's Library of Alexandria being established some hundreds of years "BC"; we Europeans were still banging rocks together at the time.

It wasn't until well after the Dark Ages that Europe began to catch up and it only did so by the wholesale adoption of concepts and practices long established in the Arab world as we now know it.

So your post is completely wrong at every fundamental level in terms of factual accuracy, I'm afraid. Sorry to bring you the bad news.