Read Before Writing
- rshrc
- pseudoerasmus
- rshrc
- pseudoerasmus
- rshrc
- pseudoerasmus
- pseudoerasmus
- shwin
- pseudoerasmus
- ramamag
This archived discussion is "read only".
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» rshrc - Re: Hmm. I had never seen this article before
In response to message posted by pseudoerasmus:pseudoerasmus... Please generously make use of your faculty of intelligence. I find that you have fallen prey to that where a things stated once become facts ..historical facts.
Please go out there and research for yourself !
Referring to the "crank claims by Hindu fundamentalist pseudoscholars" as stated by you especially point no. 4 about the Pythgorean theorem ..wake up kid.. see what the western world now itselfs recognises as the genesis of the theorem .. People do not claim without giving the actual source of this argument.
Do you know the source of the claim..go there and do some research and find the original "sutra" and it's period which is the equivalent of the pythagorean theorem...take this as a challenge. I have already given you a hint that it is a "sutra". FIND IT...tax your brain before making such frivolous comments.
I see your comments as you saying "the earth is flat" when one know's it not and I am here to tell you what it is really !!
Let sense prevail on you.
-- posted by rshrc
» pseudoerasmus - Re: Re: Hmm. I had never seen this article before
In response to message posted by rshrc:rshrc: In the sutra of Apastamba, there are rules for the construction of right angles by means of triples of cords whose legths would form the Pythagorean triad. Therefore, a triangle with sides 3, 4 and 5 would have a right angle.
But this rule was known to Babylonians 1000 years before we even get written records from India. And in fact Pythagoras proved the ancient rule just about the time Apastamba managed to state the rule without proving it!
So, I am sorry to say, my original verbiage was correct.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» rshrc - Re: Re: Re: Hmm. I had never seen this article before
In response to message posted by pseudoerasmus:pseudoerasmus : It's very nice to know that you indeed come out with name the Apasthamba Sutra..well almost got it. The Baudhayana Sulba Sutra i.e the Treatise on Geometry by Baudhayana 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 : David Henderson, Dept. of Mathematics, Cornell University, NY. Read his paper on the Baudhayana Sulba Sutra...also read A. Seidenberg, The Ritual Origin of Geometry.
Dr Henderson you should note is a professor of Mathematics at Cornell Univ. His paper gives a mathematical analysis of the sutras.
I hope this information would encourage you to find more about the three other points you mentioned.
Please do not make statements without going deep into the genesis of the original idea .
of course even I thought that Pythagoras was the first person in the world to prove it. In fact I even call it the Pythagoras theorem..but then never rejected the counter-claim nor accepted it at first but scanned the breadth and he length of the topic without being biased (I myself was a teacher in the Math Dept. in a Univ. in US ). I urge you to do the same.
Good Luck and take care.
- rshrc
-- posted by rshrc
» pseudoerasmus - nice try, RSHRC
As we can see in the own paper of Professor Henderson, "Square Roots in the Sulbasutra", this Baudhayana chap did nothing remotely resembling a proof of the Pythagoream Theorem. Like many other civilisations, ancient India was aware of computational methods for estimating square roots and, in the process of generating such methods, they stated Pythagorean theorem without proving it. Which puts Baudhayana on par with Apasthamba and with other mathematical gropers in a dozen other civilisations. Neither approached the proof of Pythagoras, let alone the comprehensive and systematic proof worked out by Euclid.
I hope this information would encourage you to find more about the three other points you mentioned.
Hahahaha.
This is what I said: "....other crank claims by Hindu fundamentalist pseudoscholars: (1) the Aryan invasions of India never took place and the linguistic/anthropological division between Aryans and Dravidians is a Western lie; (2) the linguistic category called Dravidian languages is a Western lie, and Tamil, Kannada, etc. are descended from Sanskrit just as much as Hindi, Gujarati and Bengali; (3) Urdu and Hindi have different roots".
These three are subjects which I know quite intimately, much more than I know about the history of the Pythagorean theorem.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» rshrc - Re: nice try, RSHRC
In response to message posted by pseudoerasmus:Pseudoerasmus ..It's good that you accepted that you do not intimately know about the genesis of Pythagorean theorem. I see that you are constantly
sticking that no proof was given. 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.
It is most frivlous of you to state that other mathematical discoveries and facts are ordinarily
accepted as being Arab and Greek in origin..
there is no point discussing this since you are as you claim ignorant in this area.
About your points (2) and (3) I have not done much
study on it...but 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 - letter to his wife in 1866 which states "...I hope I shall finish that work, and I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, yet this edition of
mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the
root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that sprung from it during the last 3000 years...." was he simple linguist ?? or
a writer of history ! Again this is just to start with.
I do not understand why you bring the so-called "Hindu fundamentalist pseudoscholars" in this field. Just cut that crap and have an unbiased/unprejudiced view. You are merely taking whatever the British/German scholars said at face value..do not forget that India was under constant brutal invasion for 800/1000 years before the power was transferred by the British who came up with this "never heard before" theory.
Also kindly refrain from giving information on half-baked knowledge in bits and pieces from information gathered from the Internet.
warm regards.
-- posted by rshrc
» 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
» pseudoerasmus - genetics & history
A genetic study of Indian castes provides powerful evidence for the Aryan invasion/settlement of India: see here.An Indian newspaper article on the above study.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» shwin - Re: genetics & history
In response to message posted by pseudoerasmus:You obviously have an outdated view of history. I personally know Dr. Subash Kak, the best in the field of Indian History, and he has told me repeateldy that the Aryan Invasion theory has been refuted, and has been for some time. Any professor of history at any prestigious university now knows this, and the idea has taken a while to trickle to the mainstream. And he also said the Ancient Hindus proved the pythogorean theorem, though i cannot quote the source he gave me as to where they proved it.
-- posted by shwin
» pseudoerasmus - Aryan invasion
In response to message posted by shwin:
the Aryan Invasion theory has been refuted, and has been for some time. Any professor of history at any prestigious university now knows this
Nonsense. Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
As I've already said, the Aryans might not have come to India for invasion and conquest -- they might have come just to settle peacefully -- but the Aryans were most assuredly not native to India. Moreover, this view is absolutely standard among academics in archaeology, history, linguistics and geneticists. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a crank or an Indian.
You can consult the following books to confirm what I just said:
J P Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans
Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, The History and Geography of Human Genes
Colin Renfew, Archaeology & Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
Mallory is a British linguist, Cavalli-Sforza an Italian geneticist at Stanford, and Renfrew a British archaeologist. All of these books will tell you that the Aryans, or the people who originally introduced the languages which are today spoken in northern India, were not native to India.
You also apparently did not even read the article cited above. http://www.indian-express.com/news/may15...
New genetic studies have revealed that the higher ranking castes in India may have come from Europe.According to a study in this month's Genome research Journal, scientists said that while India's higher ranking castes are genetically more similar to Europeans, the lower castes are more similar to Asians. The study, done by an international team led by Michael Bamshad (University of Utah), is believed to be the most comprehensive attempt so far to explore the impact of ancient western migrations on people in India.
According to the study, the origins of people living in India are under debate. Some 5000 years ago, Indo-European speaking people from West Eurasia entered India and purportedly mixed with native Proto-Asian population in the region. Historians believe these West Eurasian immigrants established the present Hindu caste system, while appointing themselves to higher rank castes.
Since inter-caste marriage was a taboo, the genetic material has been intact for quite a long some time. In this scenario, members of higher rank castes have shown closer genetic relationship to Europeans than lower rank castes.
The study compares maternally inherited DNA variations, paternally inherited variations, and bi-parentally inherited variations between 265 Indian males of different castes and 750 African, European, Asian and other Indian males.
The detailed comparison revealed that genetic similarities between Indians and Europeans tend to increase with caste rank.
The scientists found different trends when comparing maternally inherited variations and paternally inherited variations. Maternally inherited DNA in Indian populations was overall more similar to Asians than to Europeans, though similarity to Europeans increased with rank. Paternally inherited DNA, on the other hand, was overall more similar to Europeans than to Asians.
These results support the notion that the West Eurasian immigrants mixing with native populations were mostly male, and that they tended to insert themselves into high ranking positions in the developing Hindu Indian caste system. (PTI)
And here is the abstract of the actual academic genetical study:
The origins and affinities of the ~1 billion people living on the subcontinent of India have long been contested. This is owing, in part, to the many different waves of immigrants that have influenced the genetic structure of India. In the most recent of these waves, Indo-European-speaking people from West Eurasia entered India from the Northwest and diffused throughout the subcontinent. They purportedly admixed with or displaced indigenous Dravidic-speaking populations. Subsequently they may have established the Hindu caste system and placed themselves primarily in castes of higher rank. To explore the impact of West Eurasians on contemporary Indian caste populations, we compared mtDNA (400 bp of hypervariable region 1 and 14 restriction site polymorphisms) and Y-chromosome (20 biallelic polymorphisms and 5 short tandem repeats) variation in ~265 males from eight castes of different rank to ~750 Africans, Asians, Europeans, and other Indians. For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%-30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank. Nevertheless, the mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome each represents only a single haploid locus and is more susceptible to large stochastic variation, bottlenecks, and selective sweeps. Thus, to increase the power of our analysis, we assayed 40 independent, biparentally inherited autosomal loci (1 LINE-1 and 39 Alu elements) in all of the caste and continental populations (~600 individuals). Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians. We conclude that Indian castes are most likely to be of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture resulting in rank-related and sex-specific differences in the genetic affinities of castes to Asians and Europeans.
-- posted by pseudoerasmus
» ramamag - Re: Aryan invasion
In response to message posted by pseudoerasmus:I would like to refute the genetic study you have quoted in your response. This study was done on a sample of 265 males and were predominantly done from one region of India which is Andhra Pradesh. The sample is also from the people who are at present in the United States. Kindly note that a sample of 265 from 1 billion odd population is not at all representative. In one case the number of Kshatriya Caste who were sampled were only 10 out of an average of 34 for 8 castes and 265 numbers. The study concludes that these results must be used with caution and more studies need to be done in future to ascertain whether these findings are consistent with their current findings.
Regards
Rama
-- posted by ramamag
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.