Talk:Indian nationalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I requested sources for this material over a week ago and somebody just rv'd it back in w/o providing sources

“ Ancient Indian town of Taxila was home to the Takshashila University, the world's oldest university. ”

This is mentioned by Megasthenes. Read ROMILA THAPAR's (ugh!) "Ashoka and the decline of the Mauryas" (for once, that vaulted old hag got something right).Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ It is now generally accepted that India was the birth place of several mathematical concepts, including zero, the decimal system,algebra, algorithm, square root and cube root. ”

Possibly he means 'vaunted'? One never knows for certain. Subhash, fewer of your unappetising attempts at humour and more citing of reputable scholars, please. Hornplease

Look at the index page of the NCERT text book on maths (tenth standard). All the shlokas that they cite from ancient texts clearly show cube-root and square-root calculations (sqrt(2) was calculated to 3rd place of decimal).Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ The concept of zero origininated in Indian philosophy's concept of "sunya", literally "void". Aryabhatta referred to Algebra (as Bijaganitam) in his treatise on mathematics named Aryabhattiya. A 12th century mathematician, Bhaskaracharya, authored several mathematical treatises; one of them, Siddantha Shiromani, has a chapter on algebra. He is known to have given the basic idea of Rolle's Theorem and was the first to conceive of differential calculus. In 1816, James Taylor translated Bhaskaracharya's Leelavati into English. ”

This is well known man.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ The Arabs and Persians internationalized these mathematical concepts. Persian mathematicianAl-Khawarizmi developed a technique of calculation that became known as "algorism." Al-Khwarizmi’s work was translated into Latin under the title Algoritmi de numero Indorum, meaning "The System of Indian Numerals." A mathematician in Arabic is called Hindsa, which means "from India."

• Ancient India’s contributions to astronomy are well known and documented. The earliest references to astronomy are found in the Rig Veda, which dates back to 1500 BC. By 500 AD, ancient Indian astronomy emerged as an important part of Indian studies and its affect is seen in several treatises of that period. In some instances, astronomical principles were borrowed to explain matters pertaining to astrology, like casting of a horoscope. Apart from this link of astronomy to astrology in ancient India, science of astronomy continued to develop independently, and culminated in original findings, like:

1. The calculation of occurrences of eclipses.
2. Calculation of Earth’s circumference.
3. Theorizing about gravity.
4. Determining that Sun is a star.

”

Fine up until here.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ Determining the number of planets in the Solar System. ”

Ancient Indians did not (could not) know abt Uranus, Neptune, Pluto. These planets can only be detected by modern telescopes or gravimetric measurements, and they didnot have the equipment back then. They knew abt the rings of satun. You can see them with the naked eye even today (on a clear night).Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ Indian philosopher, Pakudha Katyayana, a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas of atomic constitution of the material world. ”

Crudely, but correctly.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ Similarly, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theory of relativity) was available in the ancient Indian philosophical concept of "sapekshavadam" (c. 6th century BC), literally "theory of relativity" in Sanskrit. ”

Not buying this though. This assertion is dubious.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ Several ancient Indian texts speak of the relativity of time and space. The mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata (476-550) was aware of the relativity of motion, which is clear from a passage in his book: "Just as a man in a boat sees the trees on the bank move in the opposite direction, so an observer on the equator sees the stationary stars as moving precisely toward the west." ”

Also dubious.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ These theories have attracted attention of the Indologists, and veteran Australian Indologist A. L. Basham has concluded that "they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics. ”

Fact.Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be frank. I find this material very doubtful. But as a courtesy, instead of removing this material outright, I have instead moved it to this talk page to give people a chance to provide reliable sources.
CiteCop 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of these are well-known in the academic community. The only people who question them are:

White Nationalists

Fundamentalist Muslims

Marxists (Even Marxists like Romila Thapar have scholarly proof as to the veracity of most of the above claims)

Netaji 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of being something, then at least have the conviction to make an outright accusation instead of insinuations. Otherwise, keep your ad hominem innuendos to yourself.

CiteCop 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything. Do you have a guilty conscience?Netaji 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely within my rights to request citations for unsourced material without being subjected to abuse. Is this how you typically treat other people? CiteCop 07:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Square root

“ The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus is a copy of an even earlier work. It was copied by a scribe called Ahmose in 1650 B.C.....The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus shows us how the Egyptians divided, extracted square roots, and solved linear equations.
Anglin, W.S. (1994). Mathematics: A Concise History and Philosophy. New York: Springer-Verlag. ”

CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Algebra

“ The next group of cuneiform texts dates back to the first Babylonian Dynasty, when King Hammurabi reigned in Babylon (c. 1750 B.C.) and a Semitic population had subdued the original Sumerians. In these texts we find arithmetic evolved into a well-established algebra. Although the Egyptians of this period were only able to solve simple linear equations, the Babylonians of Hammurabi's days were in full possession of the technique of handling linear equations. They solved linear and quadratic equations in two variables, and even problems involving cubic and biquadratic equations.
Struik, Dirk J. (1987). A Concise History of Mathematics. New York: Dover Publications.
Professor Emeritus Dirk J. Struik of Belmont, MA, a highly respected analyst and geometer, and an internationally acclaimed historian of mathematics, was a member of the MIT mathematics faculty from 1928 until 1960, and remained intellectually active throughout his life. ”

CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero

“ Around 500 BC the placeholder zero began to appear in Babylonian writings; it naturally spread to the Greek astronomical community.
Seife, Charles. (2000). Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. New York: Penguin Books.
Charles Seife is a mathematician and a journalist of science and mathematics. He was writer for Science magazine—specializing in physics and mathematics—and had been a U.S. correspondent for New Scientist. He holds an A.B. in mathematics from Princeton University, an M.S. in mathematics from Yale University, and an M.S. in journalism from Columbia University. His research interests include science and mathematics journalism. He is also the author of Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea (2000), which won the 2000 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction. ”

“ The people of Gwalior - some 250 miles south of Delhi - wanted to give a garden to the temple of Vishnu there, from which fifty garlands of flowers could be taken each day - a lovely though. They had the details of this gift inscribed on a stone tablet, dated Samvat 933 (876 AD), which shows that the garden measured 187 by 270 hastas. This is the first indubitable appearance of the symbol in India. Documents on copper plates, with the same small o in them, dated back as far as the sixth century AD, abound - but so do forgeries, since the eleventh century seems to have been a particularly auspicious time for regaining lost endowments and acquiring fresh ones, through a little creative reburnishing of the past.
Kaplan, Robert. (2000). The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robert Kaplan has taught mathematics to people from six to sixty, most recently at Harvard University. He has also taught Philosophy, Greek, German, and Sanskrit. ”

CiteCop 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this out [1]. Indians discoved Zero some 100 years before the Babylonians Syiem 12:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That page says, among other things, that

“ In mathematics, the concept zero is used in two ways: as a number and as a value of a variable. The positional system of number notation, developed first by the Babylonians (about 500 b.c.) with the base 60, and a millennium later by the Hindus and the Chinese with the base 10, required for greater clarity a special marker of the empty, nonoccupied position. ”

“ Various punctuation marks were first used in Mesopotamia beginning about 700 BC to indicate an empty space in positional notation, but never at the end of a number-the difference between, say, 78 and 780 had to be understood from the context. ”

And even if it didn't, I trust authors with credentials published by major presses more than I do some random webpage.
CiteCop 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bháskara

The origin of the fallacy that any number divided by zero is equal to infinity goes back to the work of Bháskara, an Hindu mathematician who wrote in the 12th century that "3/0 = ∞, this fraction, of which the denominator is cipher is termed an infinite quantity". He made this false claim in connection with an attempt to correct the wrong assertion made earlier by Brahmagupta of India that A / 0 = 0.

Notice that by this fallacy one tries to define "infinity" in terms of zero.
Arsham, Hossein. Zero in Four Dimensions: Historical, Psychological, Cultural, and Logical Perspectives. Retrieved on 2006-08-21.

Bhaskara wrote over 500 years after Brahmagupta. Despite the passage of time he is still struggling to explain division by zero. He writes:-

“ A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has zero for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many may be inserted or extracted; as no change takes place in the infinite and immutable God when worlds are created or destroyed, though numerous orders of beings are absorbed or put forth. ”

So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = ∞. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 times ∞ must be equal to every number n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02 = 0, and √0 = 0.
O'Connor, J J; Robertson, E F. A history of Zero. Retrieved on 2006-08-21.

CiteCop 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just plain stupid. The laws of commutation and cancellations do not apply to infinity and Bhaskara knew this. Whoever thos Robertson guy is, his understanding of maths is worse than that of my 6 year old nephew.Netaji 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Robertson article is the "history of Zero" article that you cite repeatedly[2][3] to credit Aryabhatta with zero and trace zero's origins to "sunya" (even though the word "sunya" does not appear in the article at all).

If you think Robertson's understanding of maths is so bad, then STOP CITING HIM.

CiteCop 12:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxila

Taxila is definitely the world's oldest university (in the modern sense). This is mentioned by Megasthenes.

The gymnosophists to which Megasthenes refers are sadhus, that is, an ascetic religious community, not a university.

Megasthenes visited Taxila and mentions an organized group of teachers teaching students. The rest is your POV interpretation.Netaji 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“ Megasthenes: Indika

FRAGMENT XLV.
Of Kalanos and Mandanis.
This shows that Alexander, notwithstanding the terrible ascendancy which the passion for glory had acquired over him, was not altogether without a perception of the things that are better; for when he arrived at Taxila and saw the Indian gymnosophists, a desire seized him to have one of these men brought into his presence, because he admired their endurance. The eldest of these sophists, with whom the others lived as disciples with a master, Dandamis by name, not only refused to go himself, but prevented the others going. He is said to have returned this for answer, that he also was the son of Zeus as much as Alexander himself was, and that he wanted nothing that was Alexander's (for he was well off in his present circumstances), whereas he saw those who were with him wandering over so much sea and land for no good got by it, and without any end coming to their many wanderings. He coveted, therefore, nothing Alexander had it in his power to give, nor, on the other hand, feared aught he could do to coerce him: for if he lived, India would suffice for him, yielding him her fruits in due season, and if he died, he would be delivered from his ill-assorted companion the body. Alexander accordingly did not put forth his hand to violence, knowing the man to be of an independent spirit. He is said, however, to have won over Kalanos, one of the sophists of that place, whom Megasthenes represents as a man utterly wanting in self-control, while the sophists themselves spoke opprobriously of Kalanos, because that, having left the happiness enjoyed among them, he went to serve another master than God.

”

"Gymnosophist" (literally "naked philosopher") is a Greek expression for "ancient Indian philosophers who pursued asceticism to the point of regarding food and clothing as detrimental to purity of thought (sadhus or yogis)".

A group of sadhu masters and disciples is not a "university in the modern sense". (Maybe Brown) The POV is yours.

CiteCop 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Then read Romila Thapar's "Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas". There she explicitly states that Nalanda was a university.Netaji 11:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who said that Megasthenes mentioned that Taxila is "the world's oldest university (in the modern sense)" and accused my interpretation of being "POV".

And you are the one who said that the "history of Zero" credits Aryabhatta with zero when it does no such thing and that it says that zero comes from "sunya" when the word "sunya" does not even appear in the article!

So believe me, I will read Thapar to make sure that you are not lying about her like you did about Megasthenes.

CiteCop 11:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Who is the more credible authority on the history of mathematics:

• A prize-winning science journalist with an M.S. in mathematics from Yale[4] and a mathematician who taught at Harvard[5]

or

• magic crystal lady[6][7]

CiteCop 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{Editprotected}}

I request the removal of the following code because the references cited do not verify the text.

*The Ancient Indian town of [[Taxila]] was home to the [[Takshashila University]], is regarded by many historians as the world's oldest university.<ref> {{cite book | last = Thapar | first = Romila | authorlink = Romila Thapar | title = Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas | publisher = Oxford University Press | date = 1960 }} </ref> John Marshall explicitly mentions the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university.{{cite book | last = Marshall | first = John | authorlink = John Marshall | title = Taxila | publisher = Cambrisge University Press | date = 1951 }} </ref>

John Marshall, the second source cited, contains references to centers of learning that were not only contemporaneous with Taxila, but had characteristics of a university such as legal personality and campuses, characteristics which Taxila lacked.

“ In Greece proper higher education and research had from the time of Plato onwards been in the hands of the various Academy schools, which, by virtue of their nominally religious character, could be endowed with property of their own and enjoy the right of legal succession and other amenities attaching to religious corporations. In the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Nearer East, on the other hand, higher education, with literary and scientific resarch of every kind, was in the hands of royal universities such as those at Alexandria, Antioch, Pergamum, etc., which were housed in a single imposing group of buildings—an adjunct of the royal palace—and maintained exclusively at the expense of the State, the president and the professorial staff holding their appointments at the pleasure of the king. In putting the old type of independent academy on a royal footing Ptolemy Soter and his Seleucid and Attalid imitators no doubt had in mind the danger to the State which such an academy might constitute, unless kept under close control, as well as the very important part it could play, and had in fact already played, in supporting a monarchic form of government. Whether the Greek kings at Taxila or any other Greek kings in the Middle East followed their example there is no evidence, one way or the other, to show, but it is clearly a possibility that cannot be summarily dismissed.
Marshall, John [1951] (1975). Taxila. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ”

Appendix B of the same work is a discussion of whether Taxila ought to be considered a university at all.

“ (1) Extract from a letter of 22 October 1944, from Prof. F.W. Thomas, C.I.E., M.A., Ph.D., F.B.A.
I have never supposed that these 'Universities' were anything but organised groups of independent teachers, such as you describe, without common buildings or action....Real Universities, with colleges (sc. monasteries) and endowments were created by Buddhism. These, of course, Nālandā, Vikramaśīla, etc., were primarily religious and sectarian, and the students and teachers were monks or aspirants to monkhood. But that, as we know from Hiuen-tsang and I-tsing, did not preclude a keen interest in general studies, literary, scientific, and philosophic, including even subjects specially Brahmanic, such as the Veda. In numbers and fame and in splendid buildings and rich endowments these were, of course, great institutions, but they do not belong to the early centuries A.D. In Central Asia and China the Buddhists usually founded pairs of (real) colleges, one for religion and doctrine (dharma), the other for contemplative philosophy (dhyāna). These were about contemporaneous with Nālandā.
(2) From Education in Ancient India (1934) by Prof. Altekar, pp. 79–80.
In ancient India for several centuries the relations between the teacher and the student were direct, i.e. not through any institution. Buddhism had its own Sanghas or monasteries, which developed into education institutions in the course of a few centuries; but, as far as Hinduism is concerned, we do not so far find any regular education organisations or institutions till about the beginning of the ninth century A.D. For centuries Hindu teachers like Hindu Sanyāsins had no organised institutions. We come across several Jātaka stories about the students and teachers of Takshaśilā, but not a single episode even remotely suggests that the different 'world renowned' teachers living in that city belonged to a particular college or university of the modern type.
Marshall, John [1951] (1975). Taxila. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ”

Nowhere in Taxila does Marshall "explicitly mention the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university."

In 1965, Professor Altekar, who literally wrote the book on Education in Ancient India, writes,

“ It may be observed at the outset that Taxila did not possess any colleges or university in the modern sense of the term. It was simply a centre of education. It had many famous teachers to whom hundreds of students flocked for higher education from all parts of northern India. But these teachers were not members of any institutions like professors in a modern college, nor were they teaching any courses prescribed by any central body like a modern university. Every teacher, assisted by his advanced students, formed an institution by himself. He admitted as many students as he liked. He taught what his students were anxious to learn. Students terminated their courses according to their individual convenience. There were no degree examinations, and therefore no degrees or diplomas.
Altekar, Anant Sadashiv [1934] (1965). Education in Ancient India, Sixth Edition, Revised & Enlarged, Varanasi: Nand Kishore & Bros. ”

The word "university" does not even merit an entry in the index of Romila Thapar's Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Thapar writes merely that Taxila

“ was noted as a place of learning and was the residence of well-known teachers.
Thapar, Romila [1961] (1997). Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ”

In other words, neither of the sources cited verifies the text "The Ancient Indian town of Taxila was home to the Takshashila University, is regarded by many historians as the world's oldest university. John Marshall explicitly mentions the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university." Not only does John Marshall not "explicitly mention the possibility of Taxila being the oldest university," his work contains a discussion of whether Taxila should be considered a university at all.

Because neither of the sources cited verifies the text in question—one in fact calls it into question and a third, uncited source outright contradicts it—the text should be removed.
CiteCop 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Point made quite thoroughly. Hornplease 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

The whole section "national consciousness of india" should be removed. It should be removed because the people writing that section have yet to prove any of those facts are truth and further, they represent opinions of the one or two biased writers getting information from questionable on-line sources. Further, they have yet to prove that the vast majority of Indians believe in these suppposed "facts". There is no study or article that has shown that indians agree at all on these facts. Steelhead 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly needs a complete rewrite, if not outright removal. Hornplease 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I don't understand the nature of that one section except to present a skewed view of history... no survey has ever shown that Indian people as a majority believ in those ideas... Kennethtennyson 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there are requests for good edits supported by consensus, I'll unprotect the page. Please settle any disagreements on the talk page first! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)