Read Before Writing: reply

» pseudoerasmus - reply

If you delve enough into the different SulbaSutras or Bhasyas you will see that there are many facts and figures stated in the sutras ..like giving the root of 2 to 5 correct decimal places ..how they found it and why is not question. The fact is that these "chaps" were analytical enough to even give us the circumference of the earth (Brahmagupta). You can in no way discredit them for not following the now accepted method of stating a theorem and proving it. You have to understand that their work had most of the times specific applications.

That is all very nice, but my original assertion was that the Pythagorean theorem was not proven by the ancient Indians. You counter-argued that the "Baudhayana Sulba Sutra....predates that of Pythagoras where he not only proves it but also discusses the square root. This fact is now well known in western academic circles for example....". Well, I'm sorry, but Mr Henderson whom you initially referenced apparently doesn't know about this claim of yours; and now you are now trying to wiggle out of your claim by saying that it's irrelevant that these ancient Indians did not follow the current method of stating a theorem and proving it. But that's not the point, is it. Pyathagoras and Euclid proved the theorem; and they pioneered what today we would call theorem & proof. The ancient Indians didn't. So I think my point is made.

Moreover, what the ancient Indians did was simply not extraordinary. The Babylonians were working with Pythagorean triads 1000 years before your Baudhayana.

Also kindly refrain from giving information on half-baked knowledge in bits and pieces from information gathered from the Internet.

I will provide bits and pieces of information from whatever source that bloody catches my fancy. However, my sources for information on the history of mathematics are: A History of Mathematics, by Carl B Boyer, and The Great Theorems of Mathematics by William Dunham.

point (1)..he.. he.. to start with what do you have to say of Max Mueller's - the German Linguist and one of the earliest proponents of the Aryan "Invasion" theory --- was he simple linguist ?? or
a writer of history ! Again this is just to start with.

What do I have to say about Max Müller? Absolutely nothing.

Today, Indo-European Studies are a large international academic discipline involving linguists, archaeologists, anthropologists and geneticists from all over the world. One thing is absolutely certain: the ancestor of the Indo-Aryan family of languages (to which belong Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Konkani, Panjabi, etc.) was not native to India. Today, most scholars don't necessarily believe the ancient Aryan language came to India by invasion. It could have been a peaceful settlement of Aryan tribes. But the point is that the language was not native to India. Yet there are crank Hindu fundamentalist pseudoscholars who believe that the entire Indo-European family of languages originated in India. Which is utter nonsense. I can go into extraordinary depths about this subject if you wish.

-- posted by pseudoerasmus