Talk:Vedic mathematics (book)

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

message: 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.
: Hmm, you didn't sign or date your rant, but anyway...  It's one thing to give credit where credit is due, especially when unbiased references are supplied.  I don't see anybody denying the role that Ancient India had in the history of mathematics.  However over the last few years I've seen LOTS of the math pages on Wikipedia having been raped by somebody trying to relate every math topic back to India in some form.  Some India zealots apparently want to re-write history.  As for "Vedic Mathematics", while I suppose the topic is worthy of a Wikipedia page, there's nothing all that spectacular about it.  WillieBlues (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Credit to Indian mathematics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decimal Fractions 

message: "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. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">ΜιĿ</FONT>ː<FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 08:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">ΜιĿ</FONT>ː<FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 11:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hinduism 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  I removed an advertisement that was located here. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  broken wiki link in first paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  All of mathematics? 

message: 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 4^2 = 16.
........... well if the first digit is 2 and the second digit is 16 then surely you just carry the 1 from the 16 over to the preceding digit to get the correct answer 36?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.72.195 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly misleading explanations 

message: Shouldn't the title be "Vedic mathematics" since there's no other Vedic math it's being differentiated from?  There are other articles about historical Indian mathematics, but this is the only "Vedic" one, as the article seems to indicate that Bharati coined the term.  The current lengthy title with honorific smacks of fanboyism, and doesn't seem to add anything to the article.  I submit it be changed to simply "Vedic mathematics." MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Article name change for the history. I don't like the current title either, but I think simply calling it "Vedic mathematics" is also not good. The mathematics described in Indian mathematics#Vedic Period (1500 BCE - 400 BCE) is sometimes called "Vedic mathematics". Furthermore, I think it's iffy to call the mathematics described in this article "Vedic mathematics", because the name is rather controversial (see second paragraph of the article). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia has a guideline about  use of titles in names of articles about people, so I'll make that change right now. Note that the corresponding Wikipedia article about the person already follows the guideline. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is title not [[Vedic mathematics]]?

message: I would like to suggest removal of "Genius Vedic Mathematics:" – article by Dr. Raji Reddy Enlighten Foundation (NGO), 5 November 2008."Italic text
When I went to the website link I didnt see any article as mentioned or even a proper website. Its a website with no information pertaining to Vedic Mathematics.I don't think its useful in my opinion.Others are invited to comment on this and take a decision whether this should be there in the main article which gives a detailed view of Vedic Mathematics.
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.180.87 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 1 External Link 

message: I think it should, unless someone with at least a copy of the book and functioning brain can edit it into some sort of sensible description, rather than advocacy. I tried to edit it, and soon found it impossible. I mean, the list of "Sixteen sutras" contains 19 items, some little ditties in quotation marks, some not actually translated from Sanskrit yet; the "Editor's list"[?] also includes "13 subsutras" which comprise 14 items, variously quoted ditties, noun phrases followed by full stops, etc., and one is a prepositional phrase ("By mere observation") followed by a comma. We spot that one "subsutra", viz. "For 7 the multiplicand is 143" is simply an observation that 1000/7 is (very roughly) 143. This is a hodge-podge of calculating tricks, not anything that could be called mathematics.
Imaginatorium (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be deleted? 

message: WHAT IS VEDIC MATHEMATICS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.87.162 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  VEDIC MATHEMATICS