|Brahmagupta has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Text from Brahmagupta interpolation formula was copied or moved into Brahmagupta#interpolation formula. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Brahmagupta interpolation formula.|
User:Infrogmation changed the reference to the independent Mayan innovation of zero from Mayan civilization to Maya numerals, I suppose on the theory that the latter is a more specific reference -- except that zero is only mentioned under Maya numerals as a digit, whereas it is made clear in the "Mathematics" section of Mayan civilization that they knew zero as a number in its own right.
Also, the change makes the parenthetical clause read "...outside the Maya numerals mathematical tradition" which is awkward.
It might be good to discuss Mayan mathematics more thoroughly under Maya numerals or perhaps give Maya mathematics its own article. Until then, though, I think it would be best to change the link back.
Zack 07:48, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Brahmagupta discovered the most important concept in all of mathematics, the zero." This is biased. I don't know who was crushing on Brahmagupta when that person wrote this section of the article, but clearly someone was, since this is not anything resembling common knowledge, nor is it cited (but of course, who could be legitimately cited in such a clear cut case of bullshit). This must be unbiased, and rewritten more fluidly.
There seems to be a contradiction between this article and the article on the History of gravitational theory:
"Brahmagupta also followed the heliocentric solar system of gravitation, earlier developed by Aryabhata in 499, and hence he understood there was a force of attraction between the Sun and the Earth."
...is surely incompatible with the notion that Brahmagupta assumed the Earth was stationary?
The article on Aryabhata seems to claim that he was responsible for introducing the concept of zero, while the article on Brahmagupta seems to give him the credit. The wordings can confuse most readers. I think someone has to make corrections somewhere.
Father of arithmetic etc.
Four fundamental operations as done today first appeared in Brahmagupta's work. The book was translated by Henry Thomas Colebrooke. Modus Indorum or the method of the Indians has become our arithmetic today. Western scholars has given credit to Greeks for inventing arithmetic which is a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following sentences:
- "In mathematics, Brahmagupta is considered the father of arithmetic, algebra, and numerical analysis. The modern arithmetic used today spread from India to Arabia and then to Europe. Initially, it was known as Al Hind in Arabic and De Numero Indorum in Latin. De Numero Indorum means "method of the Indians" and has become our arithmetic and algebra replacing the earlier Roman numerals and abacus-based methods."
Brahmagupta is not generally considered the father of arithmetic, algebra, and numerical analysis. Whether modern arithmetic originates from India depends on what you mean by modern arithmetic; the sentence "Addition, subtraction, division and other fundamental operations using Hindu Arabic numerals first appear in Brahmasputha Siddhanta" which appears later in the article is more specific and thus preferable. "De Numero Indorum" does not mean "method of the Indians" but something like "on the number of the Indians". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Google finds only 11 distinct pages which contain the two word phrase "elliptic verse". Thus it is exceedingly obscure and rare. I have no idea what it means. Obviously no one else in the world does either. I therefore removed it. Before restoring it please define it.
3 a. Of or relating to extreme economy of oral or written expression. b. Marked by deliberate obscurity of style or expression.
Ranjitr303 (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)hi this is regarding the Pell's equation section where it is stated that "Unfortunately, Brahmagupta was not able to apply his solution uniformly for all possible values of N, rather he was only able to show that if x2 − Ny2 = k has an integral solution for k = \pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 4 then x2 − Ny2 = 1 has a solution." This statement is confusing, since it states that it should have solution for k = \pm 1 to have a solution for k=1. So please edit this text.
- No, he showed that if there is a solution for any of the six values ±1, ±2 and ±4 for k, then there is a solution for the value 1. (Of course, in one of the six cases, namely k=1, the statement is tautological.) Shreevatsa (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Division by 0
I have just removed the following text from the article:
- "Though his concept of 0 itself divided by 0 yield 0 in dimention is not viable with modern concept but if we convert or map a number into one-, two-, or n-th dimensional space or n-1 numbers in n-th dimensional space or n-2 numbers in n-1 dimensional space then we can follow the 0 by 0 rule (For example, take the number 16. It can be mapped as a straight line in one dimensional space or a length in a two dimention space, such as a circle of perimeter 16 or a square with all sides measuring 4. In all the cases the perimeters or each entity remains same. If we take 0 number in two dimension presenting area of a square of side 0, then it is clearly assumed.)"
It's unsourced, makes almost no sense whatever, and appears to be nothing more than an opinion of the editor who inserted it. It's nevertheless possible that the passage's incoherence is mainly attributable to the responsible editor's not being a native English speaker, and that there's some genuinely worthwhile content which it's attempting to convey. However, until someone can provide a reliable source with a comprehensible explanation of that content, I believe it doesn't belong in the article.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Typographical Error In Quadratic Equation Solution
Someone who knows how to do it should edit this as it now reads: sqrt(4ac + b^2) and should read sqrt(b^2 -4ac). Probably obvious and unnecessary for anyone who is likly to be reading this article but still shouldn't be left there. Gjames04 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for drawing attention to this. The formulae are in fact an accurate representation of the solutions given in Brahmagupta's descriptions. However, readers of the article shouldn't have to remain puzzled by what the original equation might be. I have now added it to the article.
- David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Reversion of old edits by Jagged85
I have reverted al-Biruni's India. Contrary to the assertion—made in one of the edits—that Brahmagupta believed the Earth to be moving, al-Biruni explicitly states exactly the opposite. The target of the critics' arguments cited in the first quotation was not Brahmagupta, as asserted in the added text, but Aryabhata, who did indeed assert that the Earth rotates. According to al-Biruni, Brahmagupta thought that these arguments were fallacious, for some of the reasons given in the second quotation, but also that the Earth could not be rotating for the reason given in its first sentence. In fact, the order of the first two parts of this quotation, separated by ellipses, is the reverse of that in which they appear in al-Biruni's India, and the remaining parts of the quotation do not appear anywhere near the first two. I haven't thought it worth the bother of trying to track down exactly where they do appear.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fix. Indeed it was Aryabhata who said that the earth rotates (and not the stars in the sky), and Brahmagupta (among others) who criticized it. Shreevatsa (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
seem likely to have been a hoax:
- No source is provided, and I have been unable to find a reliable source which mentions any works by Brahmagupta titled Cadamekela or Durkeamynarda. I have found no source of any kind which both mentions these supposed works and predates the edits.
- The vast majority of sources returned by a google search on the expression "cadamekela durkeamynarda" simply contain a verbatim copy of text lifted from this Wikipedia article. All of the few exceptions which I took the trouble to examine more closely seemed to me likely to be still just regurgitating their information from Wikipedia or a Wikipedia copy.
- A google scholar search on the same expression returns just two results, both Portuguese language theses from Brazil, one dated 2010 and the other dated 2014. In neither case is there evidence that there was any ultimate source for the information other than Wikipedia.
- The Encyclopedia of World Biography's article on Brahmagupta refers to Brahmasphutasiddhanta and Khandakhadyaka as "his two surviving treatises", and these are the only works of his I have been able to find mentioned in any reliable source.
- A total of 7 edits were performed from the same IP address as the ones being discussed here. Of these, 6 (i.e. all but the last), including all 3 others to the article Brahmagupta, were clear cases of vandalism.
- The supposed work "Durkeamynarda" is assigned a date of 672, which is four years later than that of Brahmagupta's death given in the lead of the article, and two years later than the latest date of c.670 given in any source I have consulted. The title of this supposed work was initially entered as the suspiciously comical sounding "Dorkeamynarda".
- They indeed look like hoaxes; thanks for catching these! Shreevatsa (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)