Talk:Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics article.
Article policies
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Links

I am adding two external links to this page 1) On the History of Vedic Maths and 2) Slide Shows and Video Tutorials on Vedic Maths. This is the second time I am doing it as it was previously removed by Tom Harrisson. We dicussed it on his discussion page and he asked me to post it here too.I hope the links are acceptable to all as they go about promoting the subject in detail. Also Tutorials are no where to be found and they are not promotional just cause they have the website URL there.The history gives the exact source of the vedic math sutras which has not been given earlier. I think this is pathbreaking.

IF someone is removing them please provide the valid reason here. It would be wisely appreciated. Thanks.

Slide Shows and Video Tutorials on Vedic Maths] [History of Vedic Maths-Sources of Sutras]

[edit] Incorrect equations

Some equations on this page are incorrect.

[edit] Removed commentary

I removed some commentary that had been interspersed with the article text. You can read it here: [1] Such commentary is perfectly okay, if it contributes toward the improvement of the article, but it should be placed here on the talk page. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Credit to Indian mathematics

It is strange that there is so much more doubt thrown on the progresses of the Ancient Indian Civilization then towards any other on the planet. We do not doubt that the Egyptions actually built the pyramids nor do we doubt that the Greeks came up with equations to measure the angles of a triangle.

This is so much so that there is even a Conspiracy Theory that Indians are trying to take credit for their own mathematics system. I find it shocking that a lot of the Lokayatran Science [meaning layman, non-spiritual, material] of the Vedic period is being misrepresented here on wikipedia as a Hindu Fundamentalist doctrine when these have nothing to do with either religion or politics.

We don't see every bit of Arabian culture on Wikipedia being identified with terrorism do we? We don't see every bit of English culture on Wikipedia being identified with imperialism do we? Why is this so with Indian culture?

Especially since it is a culture whose foundations have always been non-violence and tolerance. There is a lot of misrepresentation being done outside the Hindu community defining the community for them. We have seen this in Wendy Donigers books on Hindu mythology where she gives Freudian analysis to a culture that comes from an entirely different perspective to suspicians given to any Indian who writes about anything good in their own culture.

Don't fear dear math student, no one is trying to convert you into a religion. Like Judaism, there is no conversion here. A little mathematics isn't going to make you turn into an Indian, feel safe.

[edit] Origins of Vedic Science

What many have failed to notice is that mathematics played a large part in the ancient Indian culture. Panini's Sanskrit grammar texts are based on the principles of algebra and what we would today call semiotics. Aryabatta and Charvaka were examples of two ancient philosophers who emphasised that this material world is the only world and that we should only believe that which we can observe and analyze. A term given to this thought is called Lokayatra or "layman" school which is entirely materialistic.

Mathematical formulas are in the Vedas for the building of architecture and the designing of Yantras which are very complex. The verses are also mathematical based so they can be memorized. A logic system called Nyaya - literaly "not this" - encourages doubt and skeptism. It is an analyitic system based on logic, proof and observation in much the same way as the scientific method is in the west.

Vedic mathematics is quite well known many south Indians of the previous generation as they had a much more complete text of the Arthaveda in Tamil. Written Tamil carved into wood slabs is much older than written Sanskrit texts though the later is usually credited as the source. This is where much of what is called Vedic mathematics originated from.

It has been questioned if the Arthaveda - along with maybe 11 other lesser known Vedas - are actually part of the original Vedas. This is mostly due to the translations into local dialects being the only known or existing source, yet this does not question the age in which these works were made nor that they were indegous to India as they all were.

[edit] Decimal Fractions

The western method of dividing a circle is in degrees where 360 measures the full continuum. This was derived from the ancient Greeks. India had an independent method of measuring a circle which was to have the full continuum measure 1. This meant that the angles would be broken into decimal fractions as apposed to degrees. It was introduced into modern mathematics in the west as radions and is not widely used. The division of circles and angles was very important in the designing of yantras and the building of architecture for the ancient Hindus. So to say that the decimal system did not exist in Indian mathematics already discredits your article by showing that a thorough and rigorous attitude has not been done even in your elementary research that would give you the authority to write on this topic.

Repeated from my talk page where you made a similar comment. You seem to be saying that ancient Indian mathematicians measured angles as a fraction of a circle. That implies neither radians nor decimal fractions. If you look at the article on Decimal#Decimal_writers, you will see that it says
  • "c. 598–670 Brahmagupta – decimal integers, negative integers, and zero"
  • "c. 920–980 Abu'l Hasan Ahmad ibn Ibrahim Al-Uqlidisi – first direct treatment of decimal fractions"
So to be clear, this is not an attempt to put European mathematics first. Are you saying that this is wrong and that the Vedas, more than a thousand years before the latter of these dates, used decimal fractions directly? That would be news indeed and well worth clarifying. "Vedic mathematics" does deal with decimal fractions directly: see Vedic_mathematics#Method_1:_using_multiplications for an example. --Henrygb 23:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Verbose

I find the reluctance of some members of the community to accept that Vedic mathematics is a system of useful shortcuts in mental arithmetic to be quite shocking. Personally I do find the politics quite irrelevant - for whatever reason, these shortcuts in this form are labelled 'Vedic' whether or not there is historic justification for that. Just like Pythagoras' Theorem is named after Pythagoras. On that point, Vedic mathematics IS a system of useful shortcuts, but at the moment it is laid out in a completely unwieldy and useless fashion -- it was originally cobbled together from some rather verbose sources and hasn't ever been rewritten in a sensible manner. I would be interested to see more of a summary version of this article. Any objections to a rewrite? --Mysteronald 23:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you're interested in doing a rewrite, go for it — I'd like to see the information in here presented in a more approachable way. Of course, the political aspects, including the name issue, are still relevant to the article, even though they're less interesting than the mathematics of it. Factitious 06:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind listing the shortcuts and describing why they work. The neatest one I have seen is how to square a multiple of 5 by multiplying the higher digit by the next number and following the result by 25. For example
752=5625 since 7×8=56
or more verbosely
(x×10+5)2=x×(x+1)×100+25 because (a+b)2=a2+2ab+b2.
But I do mind if we remove the suggestion that critics think the shortcuts were a 20th century compilation and that the shortcuts are not a substitute for conventional mathematics teaching. --Henrygb 23:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article name change

Main article: Indian mathematics

"Vedic mathematics" exists as a section of the main article Indian mathematics, which already talks about Atharvaveda and others. Propose a name change for the article from Vedic mathematics - to something like Vedic mathematics system by Shri Bharati Krishna Tirtha or Mental calculation system of Vedic mathematics. --ΜιĿːtalk 08:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Intend to move this article to a more descriptive name (because of above) in about a weeks time. Suggestions are welcome for/in addition to the two mentioned options. --ΜιĿːtalk 11:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the name is extremely confusing. Since nobody protested, I moved it to Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics. Unfortunately, I've no idea how to call the author, but the name "Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha" (more precisely, Swami Bhārāti Kŗşņa Tīrtha) is used in Jagadguru Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja so I assume it's not too bad. I'm happy to move it again if a better name is found. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Title of this article should revert to Vedic Mathematics .Because this name is so long and confusing to a novice Wikipedian-Anoopan (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

I suggest that this article to be moved under Veda / Hinduism (Hinduism is not a religion, it is a culture - a way of life)

Gurudatt 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing Hindu or Vedic about this. It is modern arithmetic short-cuts, nothing more and nothing less --Henrygb 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article merge

I've noted that while islam portal has a 'societal section' zone, there is no such thing for hinduism portal. I propose such a thing is introduced, along with merging this article into a 'mathematics in hinduism' article which will include information pertaining to sulva sutra etc..

[edit] Confusing narrative

Am I the only one who has trouble following the narrative in this article? —Frungi 23:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not. I even printed the article and still find it hard to follow.

Part of the problem may be that all the sutras and subsutras are not covered in the narrative. The subsutra "For 7 the multiplicand is 143" sounds interesting but no mention of it is made in the narrative.

Another part of the problem for me is that I have learned many of the tricks that were discussed in the narrative during the past forty years. "All from nine and the last from ten" was obvious to me when I learned long division 50 years ago and was presented formally in my CRC Handbook of Mathmatics, 1965 edition, in the discussion of a co-logarithm of a given logarithm.

A third part of the problem is that the subject is treated as mathematics when the narrative addresses only tricks for mental arithmatic. No one I have known who is good at mental arithmatic, including people from India, have mentioned Tirthaji. JimCubb 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The narrative came before the list of sutras. As far as I am concerned the whole thing is largely a waste of time, and I would rather see the critics' views in the introduction (including the fact they don't think it is mathematics). 1/7=0.142857... implying that multiplying by 0.143 is roughly the same as dividing by 7, so my guess is that is supposed to be more mystic wisdom (143=11*13 and multiplying by 11 is another sutra so perhaps that is another short cut) - but this is just a guess. --Henrygb 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with this article is that it feels like its been written for someone who knows this math because I have no idea what a sutra is. I know, I look it up! 68.6.230.65 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I removed an advertisement that was located here.

I don't know what else (if anything) needs to be done, but I accidentally hit enter when I did it and left a blank line on the changelog. The ad removal is what happened in that blank entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roman à clef (talk • contribs) 09:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] broken wiki link in first paragraph

The first paragraph links to Jagadguru Swami Sri Bharati Krsna Tirthaji Maharaja (which appears red, and sends you to an 'edit' page). The see also section links to Jagadguru Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja which is a real page, and a very similar name. Was thinking it may be a typo, but not sure (difference is in the 5th name, first is 'Krsna' second is 'Krishna'). -opello 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Both spellings are acceptable, but 'Krishna' is more common in English than Krsna. —Aetheling 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] All of mathematics?

The article states:

Vedic mathematics is a system of mathematics consisting of a list of 16 basic sutras, or aphorisms, that allegedly encompass all mathematics.

If that's true, then why is there no discussion about how Vedic math covers anything beyond arithmetic and basic algebra, such as complex numbers, probability theory, statistics, set theory, non-euclidean geometry, topology, non-standard analysis, measure theory, and all the other areas of math? — Loadmaster 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly misleading explanations

The sutras tend to be explained by the citation of specific examples, rather than general cases. This is probably fine as long as the general cases are understood, but certain of the explanations seem to apply only to the examples given, while disregarding general cases.

For instance, in the section on 'All from nine and the last from ten,' examples illustrating the corollary regarding squares reads:

For instance, in computing the square of 9 we go through the following steps:
1. The nearest power of 10 to 9 is 10. Therefore, let us take 10 as our base.
2. Since 9 is 1 less than 10, decrease it still further to 8. This is the left side of our answer.
3. On the right hand side put the square of the deficiency, which is 1². Hence, the square of nine is 81.
Similarly, 8² = 64, 7² = 49.

... which is all well and good for 9, 8 and 7. But what about 6? Using this algorithm, we would determine the leftmost digit of our answer to be 6 − (10 − 6) = 2, and the rightmost "digit" of our answer to be 42 = 16.

Now, of course, 62 = 36, which would be 2 \times 10 + 4^2, so we might say the procedure holds for all n:0 < n < 10 provided the algorithm is altered so that we multiply the figure known as the "left side" by 10 and add it to the figure called the "right side."

The formula is really something like 10[n − (10 − n)] + (10 − n)2 = n2, \forall n \in \mathbb{N} : 0 < n < 10.

Now, I would like to honor these sutras, because I find them beautiful and useful. But I'm hesitant, because I don't want to be culturally disrespectful. Would it be OK to include stricter definitions, or at least more general algorithms? Rangergordon (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)