What's new

The number zero was invented in Ancient Pakistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
another genius Madhava

Although born in Cochin on the Keralese coast before the previous four scholars I have chosen to save my discussion of Madhava of Sangamagramma (c. 1340 - 1425) till last, as I consider him to be the greatest mathematician-astronomer of medieval India. Sadly all of his mathematical works are currently lost, although it is possible extant work may yet be 'unearthed'. It is vaguely possible that he may have written Karana Paddhati a work written sometime between 1375 and 1475, but this is only speculative. All we know of Madhava comes from works of later scholars, primarily Nilakantha and Jyesthadeva. G Joseph also mentions surviving astronomical texts, but there is no mention of them in any other text I have consulted.

His most significant contribution was in moving on from the finite procedures of ancient mathematics to 'treat their limit passage to infinity', which is considered to be the essence of modern classical analysis. Although there is not complete certainty it is thought Madhava was responsible for the discovery of all of the following results:

1) = tan - (tan3 )/3 + (tan5)/5 - ... , equivalent to Gregory series.

2) r= {r(rsin)/1(rcos)}-{r(rsin)3/3(rcos)3}+{r(rsin)5/5(rcos)5}- ...

3) sin = - 3/3! + 5/5! - ..., Madhava-Newton power series.

4) cos = 1 - 2/2! + 4/4! - ..., Madhava-Newton power series.
Remembering that Indian sin = rsin, and Indian cos = rcos. Both the above results are occasionally attributed to Maclaurin.

5) p/4 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - ... 1/n (-fi(n+1)), i = 1,2,3, and where f1 = n/2, f2 = (n/2)/(n2 + 1) and f3 = ((n/2)2 + 1)/((n/2)(n2 + 4 + 1))2 (a power series for p, attributed to Leibniz)

6) p/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ... 1/n {-f(n+1)}, Euler's series.

A particular case of the above series when t =1/3 gives the expression:
7) p = 12 (1 - {1/(3 3)} + {1/(5 32)} - {1/(7 33)} + ...}

In generalisation of the expressions for f2 and f3 as continued fractions, the scholar D Whiteside has shown that the correcting function f(n) which makes 'Euler's' series (of course it is not in fact Euler's series) exact can be represented as an infinite continued fraction. There was no European parallel of this until W Brouncker's celebrated reworking in 1645 of J Wallis's related continued product.

A further expression involving p:
8) pd 2d + 4d/(22 - 1) - 4d/(42 - 1) + ... 4d/(n2 + 1) etc, this resulted in improved approximations of p, a further term was added to the above expression, allowing Madhava to calculate p to 13 decimal places. The value p = 3.14159265359 is unique to Kerala and is not found in any other mathematical literature. A value correct to 17 decimal places (3.14155265358979324) is found in the work Sadratnamala. R Gupta attributes calculation of this value to Madhava, (so perhaps he wrote this work, although this is pure conjecture).

Of great interest is the following result:
9) tan -1x = x - x3/3 + x5/5 - ..., Madhava-Gregory series, power series for inverse tangent, still frequently attributed to Gregory and Leibniz.

It is also expressed in the following way:
10) rarctan(y/x) = ry/x - ry3/3x3 + ry5/5x5 - ..., where y/x 1

The following results are also attributed to Madhava of Sangamagramma:
11) sin(x + h) sin x + (h/r)cos x - (h2/2r2)sin x

12) cos(x + h) cos x - (h/r)sin x - (h2/2r2)cos x

Both the approximations for sine and cosine functions to the second order of small quantities, (see over page) are special cases of Taylor series, (which are attributed to B Taylor).

Finally, of significant interest is a further 'Taylor' series approximation of sine:
13) sin(x + h) sin x + (h/r)cos x - (h2/2r2)sin x + (h3/6r3)cos x.
Third order series approximation of the sine function usually attributed to Gregory.

With regards to this development R Gupta comments:

...It is interesting that a four-term approximation formula for the sine function so close to the Taylor series approximation was known in India more than two centuries before the Taylor series expansion was discovered by Gregory about 1668. [RG5, P 289]


Although these results all appear in later works, including the Tantrasangraha of Nilakantha and the Yukti-bhasa of Jyesthadeva it is generally accepted that all the above results originated from the work of Madhava. Several of the results are expressly attributed to him, for example Nilakantha quotes an alternate version of the sine series expansion as the work of Madhava. Further to these incredible contributions to mathematics, Madhava also extended some results found in earlier works, including those of Bhaskaracarya.

The work of Madhava is truly remarkable and hopefully in time full credit will be rewarded to his work, as C Rajagopal and M Rangachari note:

...Even if he be credited with only the discoveries of the series (sine and cosine expansions, see above, 3) and 4)) at so unexpectedly early a date, assuredly merits a permanent place among the great mathematicians of the world. [CR /MR1, P 101]

Similarly G Joseph states:

...We may consider Madhava to have been the founder of mathematical analysis. Some of his discoveries in this field show him to have possessed extraordinary intuition. [GJ, P 293]

With regards to Keralese contributions as a whole, M Baron writes (in D Almeida, J John and A Zadorozhnyy):

...Some of the results achieved in connection with numerical integration by means of infinite series anticipate developments in Western Europe by several centuries. [DA/JJ/AZ1, P 79]

There remains a final Kerala work worthy of a brief mention, Sadrhana-Mala an astronomical treatise written by Sankara Varman serves as a summary of most of the results of the Kerala School. What is of most interest is that it was composed in the early 19th century and the author stands as the last notable name in Keralese mathematics.

In recent histories of mathematics there is acknowledgement that some of Madhava's remarkable results were indeed first discovered in India. This is clearly a positive step in redressing the imbalance but it seems unlikely that full 'credit' will be given for some time, as that will possibly require the re-naming of various series, which seems unlikely to happen!

Still in many quarters Keralese contributions go unnoticed, D Almeida, J John and A Zadorozhnyy note that a well known historian of mathematics makes:

...No acknowledgement of the work of the Keralese school. [DA/JJ/AZ1, P 78]
(Despite several Western publications of Keralese work.)
9 III. Madhava of Sangamagramma


No offense nor am i being sarcastic but you should seriously consider teaching at some University or College as a professor or work as a scientist or something in Bharat.. Like seriously bro half of the stuff u pasted here doesnt even make sense to most of the members here...

.
 
.
Care to explain what is "racial" about the countless of languages and cultures that exist in the subcontinent? Did you know that the British had to conquer 600 different territories in South Asia? Would you say those territories were somehow united into an unspoken India? If this was the case just 60 years ago, on what basis can you claim that the subcontinent was united 1000s of years ago?


IVC was not Dravidian. The language has never been deciphered, so I dont know how you can make that assumption. Likewise the origin of Pasho is not clear. However this does not prove any mass migration theory.

Brilliant again bro, we say this not from hatred for india, but for love for our own people, who lived and were productive in this region for 5,000 years, big up the Pakistan navy :) :bunny: :pakistan:

2808601240_61b6bf09b7_o.jpg
 
.
Gandhāra (Sanskrit and Hindi: गन्धार, Pashto: ګندهارا, Urdu: گندھارا, Gandḥārā; also known as ویهیند Waihind in Persian)[1] is the name of an ancient kingdom (Mahajanapada), located in northern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. Gandhara was located mainly in the vale of Peshawar, the Potohar plateau (see Taxila) and on the Kabul River. Its main cities were Purushapura (modern Peshawar), literally meaning City of Man[2] and Takshashila (modern Taxila).[3]

No connection what so ever with india.

Did you even see the names 'Gandhara', 'Purushapura','Takshashila'? They are more native to India than modern day Pakistan. But being a muslim if you are okay with saying that ancient Hindus were more intelligent and worldly then sure claim it. But I don't think it goes down well with other extremists in your country!

Again, my question is when Pakistanis think Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, even went on to say their cultures were different, yet they have no shame in claiming ancient Hindus culture?
 
.
The fact that some indians are totally confused about their origin makes them want to appropriate other peoples heritage, is in fact very sad, for me, surely ancient india, ie bharat has something that they can be proud of and claim :(

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

Did you even see the names 'Gandhara', 'Purushapura','Takshashila'? They are more native to India than modern day Pakistan. But being a muslim if you are okay with saying that ancient Hindus were more intelligent and worldly then sure claim it. But I don't think it goes down well with other extremists in your country!

Again, my question is when Pakistanis think Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, even went on to say their cultures were different, yet they have no shame in claiming ancient Hindus culture?

We claim, everything on our land, and that has nothing to do with you, my friend. :pakistan:
 
.
The fact that some indians are totally confused about their origin makes them want to appropriate other peoples heritage, is in fact very sad, for me, surely ancient india, ie bharat has something that they can be proud of and claim :(

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------



We claim, everything on our land, and that has nothing to do with you, my friend. :pakistan:

The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

This book is recommended reading for all Pakistanis, and indians lol, it outlines the fact that the Indus based peoples and civilisations are distinct.

Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent
:pakistan::pakistan::pakistan:
 
. .
:cry::cry:....i should have born in pakistan.... such a rich culture !! dammed i got lucky

“India is as much a nation as the Equator” – Winston Chuchill"

Old Winston was totally right, the concept of india is a totally modern one, it has no basis in geography, culture, ethnicity, or in fact. :yahoo:
 
.
Care to explain what is "racial" about the countless of languages and cultures that exist in the subcontinent? Did you know that the British had to conquer 600 different territories in South Asia? Would you say those territories were somehow united into an unspoken India? If this was the case just 60 years ago, on what basis can you claim that the subcontinent was united 1000s of years ago?

The fact that he country wasn't united doesn't mean, it wasn't a country at all. It simply means there was no centralized force who ruled the whole country. It's the people who constitute a country, not having a centralized force which rules the land. Pakistan is a diverse country as well, having different linguistic and racial groups.

Please refer to the map of IVC once again.

indus-valley-civilization.jpg


So according to your logic, only punjabis, gujratis and sindhis can be called rightful heir of IVC. Well all of them are found plentiful in India.

IVC was not Dravidian. The language has never been deciphered, so I dont know how you can make that assumption. Likewise the origin of Pasho is not clear. However this does not prove any mass migration theory.

Number of scholars suggests the language most probably was proto-Dravidian and some suggests proto-Munda, offcourse it can't be ascertain what it was as it's not been deciphered as mentioned by you.

Origin of Pashto is very clear. It's an Iranian language subgroup. It has whatsoever absolutely no relation with Classical Sanskrit and other Indic languages derived from it. Considering Vedas and Upanishad composed in a span of almost 500 years, it's certain that somekinda proto-pashtuns were not the one who composed it.
 
.
The fact that some indians are totally confused about their origin makes them want to appropriate other peoples heritage, is in fact very sad, for me, surely ancient india, ie bharat has something that they can be proud of and claim :(

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------



We claim, everything on our land, and that has nothing to do with you, my friend. :pakistan:

Who cares... At least we all know Islam has nothing to do with invention of Zero..Its all ancient Hindus, the civilizations, all the discoveries were made by them.. Lets all praise our ancient Hindu ancestors..By the way, they wrote all their discoveries and their way of life in a number of Hindu literature, would you like to follow them?

Also, why not Pakistan as a country claim that Pakistanis invented Zero? Lets see how the international community reacts! Also lets see how religious leaders in your own country would react to it.
 
Last edited:
.
“India is as much a nation as the Equator” – Winston Chuchill"

Old Winston was totally right, the concept of india is a totally modern one, it has no basis in geography, culture, ethnicity, or in fact. :yahoo:
You do realize, don't you, that Mr Churchill was referring to an India that included Pakistan and Bangladesh as well.
 
.
There was no concept of indianess, People were Punjabi, Sindhi, or their religious or caste affiliation were what defined them.

No they were no punjabi, sindhi or anything else. They were all Indians. Read the history. You cannot change it.

The Indus based people had little or no contact with bharat - which was based around the ganges. People in Ancient Pakistan, began to convert to Islam, through the efforts of peace Muslim Sufi preachers, it was a gradual process, and was largely complete a few hundred years ago.
The people of Indus has no contact with pakistan they were Indians from the earliest time of history. Many converted to Islam and many remained Hindus. But that doesn't change the thousand years of history of the land. Because before they were converted for thousand years they were Hindus.

In fact bharati civilisation is something that we Pakistanis have no claim on, it is what the modern state of india is based on.

How can you do that??? pakistan was created after partition of Bharat not Bharat created after partition of pakistan!!! Modern state of India is the same history of the India of that of thousand years.

And therefore all the Indus based culture is distinct from modern india.:pakistan:

Learn the history! Some of the greatest sites of Indus valley civilization are in India and the IVC is Indian as well. If Russia, China or Japan are partitioned tomorrow doesn't mean their history of thousand of years is changed and became specific to some regions.

The guy Rafi, is a perfect example of distortion of history, he talks somethings reverse than that of contemporary knowledge.
 
.
Pakistani trolls still cannot answer the question that I asked them, so they just troll more. Regardless, I will ask it again:

Why is it that Pakistan names its missiles after Turkic and Central Asian invaders? Do you claim to be them as well? Do you claim the Mughals, even though it was based on the Ganges in 'Bharat'? Why not name your missiles after the ancient Hindu rulers in the Punjab and Sindh regions? They were your ancestors weren't they?
 
.
A few points:

- The words India, Hindu, etc. all derive from the word Indus. Strictly speaking, Pakistan has more right to the word India, and India should be called Bharat.

- The fact that Hinduism borrowed from, and refers to, ancient IVC culture is neither here nor there. Modern Pakistanis have as much right to that heritage as modern, Christian Greeks do to ancient Greece, or modern Egyptians to Pharoanic Egypt.

- Th IVC did not vanish into thin air. It faded in relevance and some people moved into the Gangetic plains, but that has absolutely no relevance to the fact that the descendents of the IVC have continuously lived in modern-day Pakistan. Some of their descendents now live in modern-day India and those people have equal right to that heritage.
 
.
Ancient Pakistani ???
very weird identity though
it sounds like at the partition era Hindus wer leaving their lands and homes in pakistan and later pakistani Muslims"turks" occupies those Hindu's Lands and homes and now they are claiming tht they are a descendents of the hindus who left pakistan just becos those hindus happen to be the inventors/great thinkers who lived once in pakistani region/home




He he he

thnx
 
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom