From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 20:49:43 MST
So Yash, your beloved Tirthaji is shown to have been a bullshitter and a
plagiarist (from, it seems Madame Blavatsky, no less, tra la) who contrary
to your assertions did not "managed to find 19 aphorisms in Sanskrit by
which all sorts of mathematical feat may be performed. And may I say, much
more efficiently than the usual occidental maths we've all been taught." but
where he invented "encoded" versions of 16 sutras himself (not even having
to do as much "work" as Michael Drosnin), but instead faking his references
- and where the "tradition" you asserted, if indeed it is a "tradition", of
making things up appears to apply four squarely on your "ancient Indian
mathematicians." Which tells us how much attention we should pay to them -
and to you.
Recall one of my earliest points, "Vedic mathematics is not in any way a
sensible topic - indeed it relies on exactly the same kind of "translation"
and "discovery" as that which is found in the babble codes, i.e. those
looking for something tend to find whatever they seek." - and that
"Necessary, because the claimed mathematical capabilities are missing in the
originals of the "Ganita Sutras" - which is what I am fairly sure you are
referring to - as all the information we have about Vedic mathematics comes
from this source. The vast majority of this "bogus science" was invented out
of wholecloth by various wannabee gurus, including Bharati Krsna, and was
popularized as a "science" by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi."
So you are shown as having about the understanding of a silly bazaar sweeper
- one of those referred to by Prof. S.G. Dani when he said, `Vedic' is one
such word, the use of which promises dividends, especially in the context of
the peculiar weakness of the popular mind in India.
Having had the entire basis for your arguments shown to be fraudulent, you
now go into wriggle mode - only you try to bite as you wriggle. I think that
it is your behavior now which shows you up to be the most despicable
creature yet to visit Virus. A chimpanzee attempting to don a don's clothing
and apparently imagining that it fools people into considering him to be
wise. Sad.
[Hermit] What an unmannerly, unlovely, unintelligent asshole you really
are...
Hermit
PS If Georges Ifrah really asserted that India was the "Origin of the
decimal positioning system" then I think you just blew his reputation as
successfully as you blew your own. The Egyptians came up with the decimal
system, the hieratic numerals used on papyrus, where they simply added
individual symbols, and replaced ten copies of a symbol by a single symbol
of the next higher value - and where Psammmetichos II introduced the first
known decimal currency (difficult without decimals), prior to the
establishment of the Harrapans... Perhaps you meant "the positional number
system" - and I'm sure that as Georges Ifrah was a famous mathematical
historian, he qualified his statement. After all, the Sumerians - precursors
and progenitors of the Harrapans, had introduced a positional notation in
around 5000 BCE. So perhaps you meant that the first positional decimal
system was described (and possibly formalized) in India by Aryabhatiya or
his predecessors in around 800CE and that this eventually replaced the
previous log numeral distribution (0.5, 1 , 2, 5, 1, 2, 5 , 10, 20, 50, etc)
and a system where numbers above nine were represented by individual named
symbols. But this is precisely the period which I described as the golden
era of Indian mathematics - and you were pleased to disagree...
["RE: virus: Weird claims about PI - Ping Yash",Yash,Sun 2001-12-30 04:29]
<quote>
[Hermit] Meanwhile, what is in the Vedas is not particularly useful except
to gain historical perspective. The "golden age" of Indian mathematics
occurred 3000 years later, between approximately 800 CE and 1500 CE and has
been extensively analyzed (by real mathematicians, as opposed to mystics
with fake or spurious credentials) in the past 25 years.
[Yash] That's a singularly telling statement. I think you're missing out.
When you say 'Real' mathematicians, are you saying that all those who have
diplomas are the real ones? What about those figures who did not have any
diplomas but made real discoveries and made science progress? For ancient
researchers, there was no boundary between science and sacred things: it's
all one to the 'mystic'.
</quote>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT