From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2002 - 06:49:55 MST
Quick question, does anyone else besides Yash (and possibly Mermaid) take
more than a passing giggle when faced with "vedic math"? Sound off, it would
be interesting to hear.
OK are you paying attention yet?
Here we go, and for the benifit of all who hopefully just hit the delete key
when my remailer demon went nutzo.............I will re itterate. And for
Yash's sake I will number these so we all can determine if he is paying
attention.
1)>>>"Swami Nitwit, is the one ASSERTING BASE 50! FEWL, he used it,
catastrophically wrong!"
Okay, I will put up the URL again. If he uses the words BASE 50, you owe me
a dollar. And please, somebody else check me on this, DOES OR DOES NOT the
hapless Hindi heurist use the words "BASE 50"?
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_7.html
2)>>>"BASE, technically called a Radix, is the number of counting numbers in
a number system.
Binary - BASE 2 has 2 {0,1}
Octal - BASE 8 {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7}
Deci. - BASE 10 {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
Hex. - BASE 16 {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F}
"BASE 50"
{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...,W,X,Y,Z,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,1A,1B,1C,1D}
Mathematically, the closet OPERATION this fewl is closest to
plagiarizing is the Remainder Operation. And he isn't even performing that
correctly.
Ok, I am NOT a mathematician. NEITHER IS YASH! LEAST OF ALL THIS
COMPLETE FEWL Vishnu Tirtha Maharaja!!"
3)>>>"4 paragraghs to re invent simple multiplication............... RIGHT"
from the url above we have:
"1. First, assign as the base for our calculations the power of 10 nearest
to the numbers which are to be multiplied. For this example our base is 10.
2. Write the two numbers to be multiplied on a paper one above the other,
and to the right of each write the remainder when each number is subtracted
from the base 10. The remainders are then connected to the original numbers
with minus signs, signifying that they are less than the base 10.
6-4
8-2
3. The answer to the multiplication is given in two parts. The first digit
on the left is in multiples of 10 (i.e. the 4 of the answer 48). Although
the answer can be arrived at by four different ways, only one is presented
here. Subtract the sum of the two deficiencies (4 + 2 = 6) from the base
(10) and obtain 10 - 6 = 4 for the left digit (which in multiples of the
base 10 is 40).
6-4
8-2
4
4. Now multiply the two remainder numbers 4 and 2 to obtain the product 8.
This is the right hand portion of the answer which when added to the left
hand portion 4 (multiples of 10) produces 48.
6-4
8-2
---- 4/8" again, if any interested readers care to go there, here is the famous url one more time: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_7.html you'll have to SCROLL DOWN (YASH) to get to the BASE 50 entry. (YASH, it's the key with the arrow pointing down.) 4) I am not the first to say this, recorded history by peer reviewed societies of learned professionals put the revelation of Pi, SOMEWHERE ELSE than India. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Pi_chronology.html there are man other sources, OF PEER REVIEWED EFFICACY, but one is enough to start the ball rolling. And here is a picture of the actual document http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Diagrams/Rhind_papyrus.jpeg but to really drive the spike home http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Pi_through_the_ages.h tml Now, as to the validity of the allusions to pi being encoded in vedas, well. I can't find the sources in Herr Swami's bibliography. So much for citing sources. And the searches of EBSCO and several other PEER REVIEWED research paper warehouses yielded NO, repeat NONE, account of this. THERE IS NO HISTORICAL PRETEXT FOR ANY CLAIM TO PI BEING A PRIORI IN PETITIONS TO KRISNA! Not to mention he doesn't quote the source of the veda. As to "vedic mathematics", the ONLY sights I could find extolling the virtues of these methods required money for access. Again, "in searches of EBSCO and several other PEER REVIEWED research paper warehouses yielded NO, repeat NONE, account of this." In summary. Vedic math is horseshit! In order to see it explained, one has to pay money. "because knowledge is too precious to be bought second hand" (Mermaid, 2001) It is alongside a highly iconic belief system that has almost as many competing sects as "christianity". And the only "quotable" example of "vedic math" is laughable absurd in it's redefinition of basic functions and creative algebra. Then there is the 'poety in math'. .................AW Screw it..................................... Yash, get over yourself. get a new golden calf (scratch that) get a new sacred cow, this one is dead. -----Original Message----- From: Yash [mailto:yashk2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 8:50 PM To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: RE: virus: hi world - look what I made Where is Base 50 as opposed to Base 10 used in the text, you fool? Can't you admit clearly that you were obviously wrong in the first place about your assertion that the text was about BASE 50? Let's try that again. Where is he using Base 50 as you claim? Can you describe it in detail. Yash.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT