Talk:Shulba Sutras

message: There is mention of a source by Bryant in one of the references, but no separate citation to that source. It would be good to have the complete citation. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source not shown. 

message: Shulba Sutras that was written by Baudhayana around 800 BCE to 600 BCE.
Is it possible for a Vedic composition ?--84.222.75.165 (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: --Criticpanther (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it come under Hinduism? 

message: Galileo, Fibonacci and Archimedes used a square  root method that is hidden in the Silva-sutra
The square root of 2 in the oldest known Vedic text began with the estimate 
(1 + 5/12)(1 + 5/12) = 17/12 (17/12) = 289/144, accurate to 1/144
1/144 was divided by 2(17/12) =1/144(12/34) = 1/408 which meant a new estimate 
(17/12 - 1/408)(17/12 - 1/408) = 2 + (1/408)(1/408) meant
(17/12  - 1/408 - 1/166464)(17/12  - 1/408 - 1/166464)    = 2 + 3.608588 E - 11
Exactly as the Silva-sutra reports on unit fraction notation also used by Archimedes to improve the upper and lower limits of pi, from 22 7, by taking versions of the square root of 3. In addition Fibonacci and Galileo both computed the square root of 10 by This method, namely
(3 + 1/6)(3 + 1/6) = 10 + 1/36
And divided 1/36 by 2(19/6) such that 1/36 (6/38) = 1/228 which meant
(3 + 1/6 - 1/228) was their best answer.
Best Regards,
Milo Gardner
Ps the 2(19/6) term is required by the binomial theorem middle term Milogardner (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binomial theorem component of Silva-sutra square root of 2 

message: As of 24 May 2020 there have been reversions and re-reversions of material relating to the square root of 2 approximation.
I agree that the comparison with Mesopotamia in the section on the square root of 2 approximation may be out of place. I certainly don't see any structural similarity  between the approximation in the Sutras and the Mesopotamian one. So I wouldn't be opposed to removing that material.
But it is certainly worthwhile to include conjectures about the method used in the Sutras. Omitting them leaves only the bare numerical values, which won't be very illuminating to most readers by themselves.  If there are other conjectures, or if the conjecture mentioned in Cooke's history is out of the mainstream, then those facts can be included, assuming relevant citations are provided.
There was a further edit, citing Bryant, and attributing certain views to Plofker and Boyer.  Bryant's book is interesting, but I don't think his expertise is in history of mathematics. The article already mentions Seidenberg's views, so I don't see much value in adding Bryant's summary of those views. Where Bryant quotes Plofker (page 263), she is critical of Seidenberg. The recent edits made it sound as though Plofker (and Boyer) were aligned with Seidenberg, which certainly doesn't seem to be the case. The footnote quoting Boyer makes this very clear. Will Orrick (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the text to remove Bryant's reference. There are several conjectures  formed based on incomplete information which can be fringe theories. However, text cited by Boyer had not covered the sentence completely, I have updated the same. Thanks, Jaykul72 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit conflicts relating to Al-Hassar, Mesopotamia, Bryant, Plofker and Boyer