Talk:Aryabhata/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I tagged this article as needing cleanup. The article is factually very interesting but it just needs some help by a fluent English speaker to make it sound like an encyclopedia article. If I can get a chance I'll do it.

I cleaned it up some. MarcAurel 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Birth

See the book on “Aryabhatiya”by Shukla and Sarma (Indian National Science Academy, 1976) that is clear that the Kerala birth has no evidence to support it. MarcAurel 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First, a disclaimer: I know nothing about Āryabhaṭa that I haven't read on this page (or found very recently on the web). So, take anything I say (or edit) with a grain of salt. The only edits I've made have been attempts to clarify meaning or make something easier to read. Now, my comment about his birth: in trying to find out more about this Konwar Chandra Hari and the Institute of Reservoir Studies of Oil and Natural Gas Commission that he works for, it seems he is not notable at all. (Also, on the Institute site, his name is referenced as Hari Chandra Konwar, but perhaps this is an Indian custom that I am unfamiliar with.) Now on the talk page, I read that (at least according to MarcAurel, that he was born in Kerala is possibly speculative. The source for this claim is not sourced, making MarcAurel's comment (from over a year ago) extremely interesting in that no one has responded to it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I have replaced that fringe and speculative claim, by a published journal citation. I guess, we can add Hari Chandra's claims once he publishes it in a peer-reviewed article.

Aside: The ordering of the (so called) first-name- middle name and family-name in India is traditionally very region dependent and the people often need to adapt the sequence to fit the rigid requirements of official forms and databases. So finding the variants of Konwar Chandra Hari's names is not really surprising. Cheers. Abecedare 18:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Do you know enough about the material in the section "Pi as Irrational" to clean it up? I don't know what they're trying to say, or I'd clean it up myself. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified the second part of the section based on the refernce I previously added and fact tagged the first (unsourced) claim. Aryabhata I, His Life and His Contributions seems to be a useful and citable source for expanding and reorganizing this article; the other source which may be worth looking up is the book by K. S. Shukla - he seems to be an expert on the topic. Happy editing. Abecedare 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an important variant date for aryabhatta namely around 2765BC which wikipedia does not even seem to be considering to put on its webpage, given the claims that it is an "encyclopedia" etc. This date has been estimated by Lakshmikantham and Leela in their book 'origin of mathematics'. Do look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand v21 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- the link you were trying to add was to some non-notable website that doesn't even spell his name correctly. Also, you were trying to add it under the "See also" links, as "For the real unfabricated date of aryabhatta see [[1]]". The "See also" section is for Wikipedia-internal links (WP:SEEALSO). If you know of a source (book, etc.) that satisfies the criteria for WP:Reliable sources, by all means feel free to add it to the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Arabic translation section

The section said:

"The 8th century Arabic translation of Aryabhata's Magnum Opus, the Āryabhatīya was translated into Latin in the 13th century, before the time of Copernicus. Through this translation, European mathematicians got to know methods for calculating the areas of triangles, volumes of spheres as well as square and cube root, while it's also likely that Aryabhata's work had an influence on European astronomy."

Clearly, methods for calculating areas of triangles are at least as old as Euclid's Elements (~300 BC), probably much older. Similiarly, you can find methods for calculations of volumes of spheres and many other shapes in Archimedes work. Also, one of your sources (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Aryabhata_I.html) even states that it is widely believed that Aryabhata's expressions for the volume of spheres and pyramids was actually incorrect!

Also, while this isn't currently mentioned in this article, something I noticed in the source (http://www.dialogweb.org/Contribute/Bineesha%20project.htm), was the statement:

"According to him the period of one rotation of the earth is 23 hours 56 mn 4.1s while the modern value is 23 hours 56 mn 4.091s. His accuracy regarding this is amazing."

While I would agree that his accuracy is amazing, keep in mind that the value today is not exactly the same as what it was 1500 years ago. So, while his accuracy is very good, it is not actually correct to 1/10th of a second, as is implied by the article. Just a heads up if someone wants to add a statement about his length of the day to the article. Grokmoo 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting etymology of sinus

The article contains two cited sources (One a website, and another a book) on the (mis)translation of jya -> sinus. Shouldn't there be some consistency within this ? --D.sashikanth (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Trig Identity

The trig identity mentioned under Mathematics is not true. Can someone fix this?

I removed the offending line: "One of the trigonometric formulas Aryabhata developed was sin(n + 1)x - sin nx = sin nx - sin(n - 1)x - (1/225)sin nx." While I don't claim to know every trig identity in existance, this particular statement is patently untrue, and I am unable to find an obvious variation this is true. I also looked through quite a few tables of identites and was unable to find any statement similar to the above one. Worse still, in light of the double angle and similar formulas, I can't imagine that anything similar to this could possibly hold gjktjthjhjhjfhjfhjfor arbitrary (I assume integer, although this is not stated) n.Grokmoo 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)fjfjfhjhjhjhj

(see Etymology above)

This statement isnt very clear it appears to refer to an etymology heading that doesnt exist, I didnt want to change it tho just incase I had misundersood the meaning. --AjP 11:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Heliocentrism

I admire the dedication of many Wikipedians to expanding coverage of science in different cultures. Most encyclopedias do a terrible job of this subject area. I'm just not sure all of it is grounded in reality--in particular, the many-times-repeated statement that Aryabhata's astronomy was "heliocentric." To most people, "heliocentric" means that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but it seems like something else is meant here. Can someone who has actually read his work explain what role the Sun had in his astronomy? Is it different from what Ptolemy did with the Sun in the Almagest? Also, I wonder about the statement that he thought the planets moved on ellipses. Not that it's false, but it could mean different things. Is there someone who can explain? Maestlin 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been troubled by the same problem as Maestlin, and have recently traced down a source for this theory to a 1970 publication by B. L. van der Waerden. This book was given a lengthy critical review in Isis by the historian of astronomy, Noel Swerdlow and briefly dismissed by the late David Pingree in his "The Greek Influence on Early Islamic Mathematical Astronomy," Journal of the American Oriental Society, 93 (1973: 32-43 (at p. 32, n. 1).

Given the rejection of this view by two leading western experts on the history of Indian astronomy in two leading journals, the concept of Indian heliocentrism should be treated as a minority fringe opinion and does not deserve an important place (if any) in this and other articles on Indian astronomy. SteveMcCluskey 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of a language is that?

The article says that "Aryabhata [...] writes: chaturadhikaM shatamaShTaguNaM dvAShaShTistathA sahasrANAm AyutadvayaviShkambhasyAsanno vr^ttapariNahaH.", which is then translated into English. I'm wondering if I'm having some kind of problem with File:My computer, or is that citation supposed to look like that? Shouldn't it be written on some other alphabet than the Roman one

---

User:Riojajar|Riojajar]] 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

That is a standard manner in which Devanagari script content is represented. Devanagari transliteration is probably a good description.

jaju (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Perplexities...

I was looking for heliocentrism in wikipedia and I have found a lot of references to Indian astronomy: see heliocentrism, history of astronomy and Aryabhata. I have a deep respect for all civilizations, and I think that we have still to learn a lot on Indian astronomy, but I believe these texts are biased and with a number of errors. I limit myself to what concerns the relations with Greek astronomy, because admittedly I am not an expert in Indian astronomy. The first to propose the rotation of the Earth was Heraclides of Pontus (IV century BC); Aristarchus of Samos was the first to propose the heliocentric system (III century BC). I have not found in academic sites that Aryabhata had the idea of an heliocentric system; if I understand well he simply calculated the relative distances of the planets from the Sun. It has to be taken into account that after Alexander the Great hellenistic science had a direct influence on Indian science, a fact which is well documented. As concerning Vedic quotations, they appear quite obscure to me... I suspect they have the same value as the claim that the Genesis anticipates the Big Bang theory, but maybe I am wrong... I think that in a page on the history of science such references should not be present. --Alcap 09:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, while I appreciate your deep respect for all civilisations of known history, and I am not going to argue about Aryabhata, I have to mention that, that the earth rotates on its own axis, and that it revolves around the Sun, and EVEN the Heliocentric concept were FIRST mentioned in known history in some of the surviving Hindu texts known as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Aitareya Brahmana, which according to even the most conventional scholars and Western historians date back to at least 1000 BC. I am sure the relevant page Heliocentrism would be of great help in enlightening you on that such texts mentioned above, and scientists like Yajnavalkya said these things amongst many others several centuries before the Greeks you named. Also, the Greeks who stayed back in the then India intermarried with the local population in a part of present-day Afghanistan region giving rise to the Bactrian Kingdom. While they were a great culture they did not really influence the whole of the then India but only a part of it.

Regarding Alexander the greek, Some of the less documented facts says that India is the only place where his soldiers rebelled ... of course due to "homesickness" :)Bharatveer 10:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true! However the point here is not Alexander, but the hellenistic period which followed his death when Occidental and Oriental civilizations (Egyptian, Babylonian, and Indian) met and gave rise to an original culture. The civilizations which successively received this heritage (Indian, Arabic, and Renaissance Europe) had an extraordinary and rapid scientific progress. I stress that this is a great merit of these civilizations: think to the celebrated Romans, who never had an interest in science and had no scientist at all! But of course mathematics and astronomy existed before the Greeks, and I am sure that a lot remains to be discovered. My point is that one should try to report facts as accurate as possible and separate the history of science from a more general history of ideas which can be discussed elsewhere. For example, I am skeptical that Aryabhata could discover the ellipticity of planetary orbits, I do not think this was possible observationally (planetary orbits are nearly circular), and I agree with a previous comment suggesting that this "ellipticity" could mean something else. Anyway, I find Aryabhata a very fascinating scientist, he apparently was the most original astronomy of his time, and I hope that some expert will give us more explanations and possibly some translations of his works. --Alcap 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"He states that ... the orbits of the planets are ellipses around the Sun". This is an extraordinary claim! I didn't see it anywhere alse. I think clear references on the source of this claim must be added. Dmitri Klimushkin.

Earth measurement

The article says: "Aryabhata was the first astronomer to make an attempt at ...", but the article on Erastothenes contradicts this. It states that Posidonius used Erastothenes' method 150 years later. It seems likely that this article is wrong, and that the sentence should be changed. His secondness (first after E.) does not seem that important, anyway. It would also be good if his method could be given. --LarsMarius 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"He was not only the first to to find the radius of the earth but was the only one in ancient time including the Greeks and the Romans to find the volume of the earth."

This wording is ambiguous or wrong. Erastothenes made an early estimate for the circumference of a spherical Earth, and this figure can be used to calculate the radius and volume easily enough. Perhaps the author meant "In India"? and "used the radius to estimate the volume". The equation he had for calculating the volume of a sphere was wrong by over 10% (πr^2 x sqr(πr^2)). Further, I can only find his circumference and diameter estimates, so this talk of "radius" is confused.

121.74.227.13 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC) CGunn

Gravitation?

Amartya Sen writes in "Identity and Violence" that Aryabhata proposed a model of gravitational attraction, but the article makes no mention of this. Is this an omission? If so, it seems like a major omission. --LarsMarius 11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

value zero

aryabhatta discovered the value zero as null. he itroduced zero to the world. there is no where mention of it. can anybody with more knowledge on this subject please edit the page and add the relevant information

Use of zero predates Aryabhata. Aryabhata extensively used zeros. But He did not discover zero. This is a popular myth. Historically we have not found the inventors name yet. But there are arguments that 200 BC mathematician Pingala uses dot to mean zeros in his work Chandasutra.

70.64.7.251

relativity

See talk in Aryabhata's relativity principle for more details. MarcAurel 05:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed that from this article again. Why do you want to perpetuate such a crazy claim? I look at the article without that, and I see a genius who was way ahead of his time. With that included, I am forced to wonder what else in the article is an exagerated claim. --EMS | Talk 23:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pls take your own time for wondering.-Bharatveer 06:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought about editing the "relativity" section to present my won viewpoint, but quickly concluded doing so would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. However, the persistent reinsertion of that piece of garbage makes doing so tempting.

Will you people please get it through your heads that "relativity" means that there is no special rest frame of reference!!!? Aryabhata did not make any such claim. Instead he shifted the special rest frame from being the Earth to being the Sun and stars. I know that other writers have been claiming that Aryabhata's verses constitute a principle of relativity, but that does not make that claim true or even encyclopedic. I strongly counsel you all to let Aryabhata's words speak for themself. They show real genius, but this relativity claim makes those words look silly since thay do not at all support that claim. --EMS | Talk 06:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

the adding of A at the end

Shouldn't it be "Aryabhat"?

If you look at the word written in Hindi, there is no "A" matra at the end of the word.

129.186.51.30 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Tushar

But in whole of india this name is pronounced as Aryabhatta. And Hindi is not the only language of India. There are so many other major languages (like telugu, Gujarathi, Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Canada). In all these languages, this word is pronounced and write as Aryabhatta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.144.132 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Hindi is not the only language in India. But it originates in Sanskrit, and in Sanskrit there is no "A" sound at the end of the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tdayal (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignorant of sanskrit in which a letter is pronounced with a sound unless it has halanta. The word aryabhata is akarantha orending in a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.101.8 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be one more "t" in his name?

I was given to understand that it is AryabhatTa and not Aryabhata. I notice that both spellings are used in the article, though it appears that the single-t version is preferred. I feel this leads to awkward pronunciation. Perhaps the dot below the 't' in the first line of the article represents the extra emphasis on the 't'? In this case, it should be used everywhere. (Mindthief) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.66 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL The earliest of all LOLs in the Indian mathematicians, who used the modern arithmetic was Aryabhata. Here it will be shown that Aryabhata, the father of arithmetic could be a Sri Lankan.

Aryabhata wrote two books. After nearly 1,500 years later only one book is in existence today. This book is known as Aryabhatiyam and here I would show that Aryabhata was a Sri Lankan using internal evidence available in Aryabhatiyam.

Here I would use Aryabhatiyam translated by a Harvard University Professor Walter Eugene Clarke.

Aryabhata in lemma 19 says the following:

Lemma 19: "The circle which intersects the east and west points and the two points in the meridian which are above and below the horizon by the amount of the observer’s latitude called the horizon of Lanka, on it the increase and decrease of day and night are measured."

Here Aryabhata uses horizon of LOL-AT-DAT as his reference to measure the apogee and situate himself in the celestial sphere. Now the question is, if Aryabhata is an Indian, why would he use Lanka as the point of measurement?

In Lemma 18, he says the following?

Lemma 18: "As a Loler in a boat going forward sees a stationary object moving backward so at Lanka, a man sees the stationary asterisms moving backward in a straight line."

WTF????123.255.54.74 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the movement of the celestial sphere or in this case the rotation of the earth that causes the diurnal motion is obtained using Lanka as a reference point. Aryabhata has to be stationed in Lanka for this statement to be true.

Lemma 10: "The cause of their rising and setting is due to the fact the circle of the asterisms together with the planets driven by the provector wind, constantly moves westwards at Lanka."

This phrase was shown by some Indian scholars as non-Sri Lankan origin of Aryabhata. Here Aryabhata indicates the wind is flowing towards Lanka due to the setting and rising of asterisms. If he was stationed in Lanka why would he say the wind is moving towards Lanka? This lemma indicates non-Sri Lankan reference of Aryabhata.

Brahmagupta, the staunch critic of Aryabhata who lived nearly 200 years after Aryabhta criticices Aryabhata for using Lanka as his reference. In Panchasiddhantika Brahmagupta says the following.

"Aryabhata maintains that the beginning of the day is to be reckoned from midnight of Lanka. The same teacher says that the day begins at sunrise of Lanka."

It is not clear what Brahmagupta had in mind. But as per Brahmagupta, it is very clear that Aryabhata had two systems for the measurement of the rotation of the celestial sphere. Either way using two systems for the measurements of the celestial sphere is been criticised. Could it be that Aryabhata used one system while he was in Lanka and the other one after he came to India?

See table 1 for numbers of India dated to the 11th century based on Brahmi characters. Brahmi characters came to southern India from Sri Lanka (John Keay, India History).

It could be established that based on internal evidence in Aryabhatiyam, the foremost Indian mathematician who was responsible for developing modern arithmetic was in face a Sri Lankan.

It is established that Aryabhata lived from 476 AD to 520 AD.

King Kassapa ruled in Sri Lanka from 478 to 495 AD, Moggallana from 495 to 515 AD and Kumara Dhatusena from 515 to 523 AD.

This was an interesting time period. Bhuddhagosha arrived in 430 AD from Bodhi Gaya. Aryabhata lived in Pataliputra which was walking distance from Bodhi Gaya. The Mahavamsa says that Kalidasa, the great poet of India came to Sri Lanka and died here during King Kumara Dhatusena’s time. Kalidasa was a great friend of Kumara Dhatusena and as per the Mahavamsa, Kumara Dhatusena jumped into the funeral pyre of Kalidasa.

These events show us that there was much communication between India and Sri Lanka at the time. The above information show us that there is a very great possibility that Aryabhata was a Sri Lankan.

The fact that Aryabhata refers to Lanka tells as little about his origin as would the fact that a modern astronomer defines the longitude and time from Greenwich. We can't infer that the modern astronomer was from London, nor can we infer that Arryabhata was from Sri Lanka. --SteveMcCluskey 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And even if he was from the island of Sri Lanka, in a historical context "India" refers to the Indian subcontinent, since this was before there was even the concept of the modern Republic of India.

Other examples of this are:

• the United States of America isn't all of the continent of America
• the Republic of Guinea isn't the only country in the region of Guinea
• the European Union isn't all of Europe
• there where united arab republics before, during and after the existance of the United Arab Republic
• the Republic of Colombia isn't the only country in the continent of America, which Columbia is another word for

Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pi is irrational section needs work

The Pi is irrational section needs work, but I know nothing of the material. All I know is that it currently doesn't make sense. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It sure doesn't make sense. The irrationality of Pi was known to the classical Greek geometers who were obviously before Aryabhata's time. That it was rigorously proved in Europe only in 1761 doesn't make Aryabhata the first person to have known about the irrationality property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.142.124 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Article reorganization

I have reorganized the article sectioning into what I feel is a more logical format [2]. Please let me know if there are any objections or suggestions. I will try to expand and reference this article over the next few weeks and any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Abecedare 19:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I reorganized the article a bit more; added some meat to many claims in the legacy and astronomy sections, provided several references, etc. Sorry if I made too many changes.

Ben Hocking: Took a look at the "pi is irrational" section, I am not sure what is unclear, it seems that the meaning "Asanna" as irrational is explained adequately. The book by Balachandra Rao referred to in that section quotes the commentator Nilalkantha.

Some unsigned users made a call to change the article name to "Aryabhat". As it is written in Hindi today, one may or may not pronounce the final "a" (it's a schwa). But surely one does not place a halant to indicate that the final vowel is absent. This ambiguity arises because Devanagari, like most Indo-Aryan writing, is an abugida script. However, this was not so in the Sanskrit tradition, where the last consonant would be pronounced. In Sanskrit, the morpheme "bhaTTa", meaning teacher, is often written with a doubled T. Also, in English, Aryabhata is a far more prevalent spelling. So there seems to be little need or justification for such a change.

I have been looking for claims of heliocentricism in Aryabhata, but haven't found any; possibly the claims here are largely spurious. If someone has some concrete source on this, pls give the reference.

The zero part should be a little clearer now. He used a numeric transcription that did not explicitly call for a zero.

I don't have access to Shukla/Sharma, but it would be good if we could have some more discussion on the fog surrounding his place of birth. Marc Aurel would you like to take a stab? mukerjee (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth date calculation

Is there a source for this lengthy analysis in the article? It seems to be WP:OR and conflicts with claim here. On a related note, there is far too much quoting in sanskrit in the article for an English language mainstream encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparent copyvio

I recently reverted an apparent copyright violation added by User:Plmokn951753 which reproduces verbatim a lengthy passage from an online essay on Indian mathematics. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why he mentioned lanka

He used lanka as a reference point because its closer to the equator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.226.178 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Location

All that we know about Aryabhata is that he was born in "Asmaka-desa" which could be almost any place in India, and that he lived in "Kusumapura" which may or may not be Pataliputra.[3] We have different sources claiming that he was born in Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat etc, and each of them has some equally plausible, but unconvincing, reasons. At any rate, it is certainly wrong to misattribute what sources say! I have reverted the article to the version before edits by 195.64.23.130. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashmaka is attributed to the Andhras in Telangana region. Please do more research. Also his Keralite ancestry is well established by now. --91.130.188.40 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources to substantiate that claim? (See Wikipedia:Verifiability.) What do you mean by "well-established by now"? The current paragraph has a citation to Ansari, which does not mention Telangana. Thus you have broken the citation, replacing a referenced sentence with something that is not supported by the reference. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ansaris statement may fit to the Ashmaka article. Such minority views as stated in the source is insignifact for the real birth place of Aryabhatta. I remember Shashi Tharoor stated in a book, that he was from Kerala. This was, when i got involved in this issue. Later newspapers have also stated, that he was from Kerala. And I think nobody should question his birth place again after the newest research, which clearly explains why he was born in Kerala.--91.130.188.40 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support your view? If so, we can add them to the article too. In the meantime, do not edit-war and delete sourced information from the article. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article. You must READ the sources available there. Go ahead and check the end of the Kerala paragraph. --91.130.188.40 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying any sources disagreeing with your pet theory are "minority views" and "insignificant"? Shreevatsa (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say, it's all about a neutral view. Ansari "paper", which you are giving so much importance, is a nice introduction to Aryabhatta, but certainly not a scientific one. The paper is also 30 years old. There is no need to emphasize this paper. I'm sure, there are many better sources, saying similar things. I want to clarify, that the new research is not a product of mine or my phantasies. They are just new results by reputed people, which make him not North Indian. That hurt you and your fellow North Indians. However, the modern way of thinking is, that Arybhatta was a Keralite. Everybody should respect that.--195.64.23.130 (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith, do not assume anything else. If you have sources showing that a consensus exists — that the "modern way of thinking" is indeed unanimous — then they are most welcome, and can be added into the article. Until then, the "new research" is just another hypothesis, like the others. I have no reason at all for believing that Aryabhata was not from Kerala, but there is also no confirmation that he was. (Also, his name is Aryabhata, not 'Aryabhatta' as it is often misspelt.) Shreevatsa (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think, the Pro-Kerala source is here. You may need to find a good source, which deny these results. It doesn't help pushing or degrading ones view with no base, which was the premise of my statement about feelings as we are all humans. --91.130.188.40 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no counter arguments. The discussion has come to an end. --91.130.188.40 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Taregana

I have removed the following sentence that was recently added to the article:

He also setup another observatory at Taregana,Bihar Model.

because besides not being ungrammatical (which can be corrected) it also misrepresents the Yahoo news source, which does not say that Aryabhata set up the observatory. It does say, "Taregana already has an ancient connection with astronomy, having been one of the two places used by 6th century Indian astronomer-mathematician Aryabhatta for his celestial studies.", however a generic news article is not a strong source for Aryabhata's biography, since there are so many apocryphal tales and urban legends about the subject. If someone can find well-sourced information about where Aryabhata is supposed to have worked (beyond what is already discussed in the article), we can add that. Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Taregna and heliocentric model

I have removed the following sources

• http://www.bihartimes.com/Newsbihar/2009/July/Newsbihar20July3.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/8149149.stm
• http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090720/860/ttc-eclipse-gives-bihar-village-its-days.html
• http://www.patnadaily.com/features/solareclipse2009/solar_eclipse_2009.html

that were used to cite the statement that "He also setup a Observatory in Taregna, Bihar where he is credited to Heliocentric Model." because:

• The sources don't support the statement. At best the first two news reports can support the statement that according to legend Aryabhata studied celestial objects at Teregna. The third source is a deadlink, while the fourth is just a image slideshow with no accompanying text. None of the sources talk about heliocentrism (which as our article already explains is not necessarily the model Aryabhata proposed)
• News reports of this sort are not appropriate sources for a history of science article; for example, the BBC report says that "... Aryabhatta studied stars and planets during the Vedic age" (emphasis added), which is just nonsensical. We need to rely on more scholarly sources for such a subject.

I have not yet removed the statement about "Aryabhta setting up an observatory at Teregna", since that could be true. If we are to retain that statement, though, we'll need to find a good source for it. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right about the Link but *http://www.bihartimes.com/Newsbihar/2009/July/Newsbihar20July3.html

States that "It is believed he was the first to announce that the 'earth revolves around the sun after his marathon research in an observatory at Taregana.", And heliocentric model means -"earth revolves around the sun i.e Sun is center".

So i am restoring the deleted line.Though i am finding few more reliable citations for same. Alokprasad (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, news sources are not appropriate for the subject of this article. Further, bihartimes.com seems to be a generic news aggregator website and is unlikely to be considered a reliable source for any any subject on wikipedia. Please do not restore the disputed statements till appropriate sources are found and this discussion is concluded. Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your new source for the Targena observatory is better, and in my opinion satisfactory for this article. I'll see if I can find any further details. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Place names of the time.

Please use the names of that age. Just like Patna did not exist then, but Pataliputra did; Kerala did not exist but Tamilakam did. Kindly keep this in mind. Why? You can of course add 'modern Kerala'. What is the point of saying he came from Kerala if no such place existed in his time?--90.215.129.236 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aryabhata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JJ Harrison (talk · contribs) 00:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambig link

• Please fix dablink. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

IAST

caturadhikam śatamaṣṭaguṇam dvāṣaṣṭistathā sahasrāṇām
ayutadvayaviṣkambhasyāsanno vṛttapariṇāhaḥ.
- Please recheck IAST script here! For example त is [t̪] etc. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving comments from Talk:Aryabhata into this review page

For some reason, the reviewer's comments were placed on the article's talk page, rather than in this file where they belong. I'm adding them below, so they are included in the review's records. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

---

I will be having a go at this over the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review Comments

A first look through on my part shows that there is work to be done before a pass. There are some comments below. I'll have another look once those things have been sorted out. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fancy Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs expansion. There are some English/grammar problems. Going through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch will find quite a few sentences that need changing or citing. There lots of unsupported attributions in particular.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Easy to fix. There are a few too many uncited statements at the moment. I've templated a couple, but there are more.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Looked for other copies of the lead image with tineye - none of those can be the original - the resolution is lower.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The article is a little light on images though. See comments below.
	7. Overall assessment.

Written Comments

• I'd like to see more pictures. This might be easiest for some of the things in the "Mathematics" section. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Taregna should be wiki linked. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think there should be a small introduction after the "Mathematics" heading. I think "Triangle Area" or similar might be better than "Trigonometry" under that. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• If it was known or part of the proof, then $1^{3}+2^{3}+\cdots +n^{3}=(1+2+\cdots +n)^{2}$ should be expanded to $1^{3}+2^{3}+\cdots +n^{3}=(1+2+\cdots +n)^{2}={\frac {n^{2}(n+1)^{2}}{2}}$. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've added a few templates where I think a citation would be good or similar. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "may have come to the conclusion that $\pi$ is irrational" under Approximation of π reads like original research. Please cite it or change it. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• The first sentence in "Aryabhata's work was of great influence in the Indian astronomical tradition and influenced several neighbouring cultures through translations. The Arabic translation during the Islamic Golden Age (c. 820 CE), was particularly influenced." sounds a little POVey, and the second sentence needs rewording, and possibly information about what influence occurred in particular. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There's still many uncited statements in this article, so I'm failing the nomination. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I will be having a go at this over the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review Comments

A first look through on my part shows that there is work to be done before a pass. There are some comments below. I'll have another look once those things have been sorted out. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fancy Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs expansion. There are some English/grammar problems. Going through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch will find quite a few sentences that need changing or citing. There lots of unsupported attributions in particular.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Easy to fix. There are a few too many uncited statements at the moment. I've templated a couple, but there are more.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Looked for other copies of the lead image with tineye - none of those can be the original - the resolution is lower.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The article is a little light on images though. See comments below.
	7. Overall assessment.

Written Comments

• I'd like to see more pictures. This might be easiest for some of the things in the "Mathematics" section. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Taregna should be wiki linked. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think there should be a small introduction after the "Mathematics" heading. I think "Triangle Area" or similar might be better than "Trigonometry" under that. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• If it was known or part of the proof, then $1^{3}+2^{3}+\cdots +n^{3}=(1+2+\cdots +n)^{2}$ should be expanded to $1^{3}+2^{3}+\cdots +n^{3}=(1+2+\cdots +n)^{2}={\frac {n^{2}(n+1)^{2}}{2}}$. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've added a few templates where I think a citation would be good or similar. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "may have come to the conclusion that $\pi$ is irrational" under Approximation of π reads like original research. Please cite it or change it. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• The first sentence in "Aryabhata's work was of great influence in the Indian astronomical tradition and influenced several neighbouring cultures through translations. The Arabic translation during the Islamic Golden Age (c. 820 CE), was particularly influenced." sounds a little POVey, and the second sentence needs rewording, and possibly information about what influence occurred in particular. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

broken link to the pdf from http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Oct2002/pdf/Oct2002p6-22.pdf correct is http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Volumes/07/10/0006-0022.pdf Rszeno (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

broken link, the url http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/April2002/pdf/April2002p4-19.pdf must be replaced with http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Volumes/07/04/0004-0019.pdf Rszeno (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed the links. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014

Aryabhata was born in Pataliputra (then Kusumpura).. (source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Govt-to-develop-astro-tourism-circuit/articleshow/17012854.cms, http://aryabhatta.net/patliputra-birthplace.html etc) Please correct it! thanks 182.66.36.231 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Both the sources provided baldly state that Aryabhata was born in Pataliputra/Patna. We would like to see how this piece of historical information was obtained. Did Bhaskara or other mathematicians mention this? It appears the only person who ever talked about Aryabhata's birthplace was Bhaskara. Can we connect āśmakīya somehow with Pataliputra? Kindly provide a more academic source. Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now:

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

please accept my request

115.242.149.162 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not made a request - this post is the only edit made from that IP.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible WP:NPOV

Hello,

I have read the article and something bugs me- the first line uses the word 'great' which an editor might have used without knowing, take this to consideration, I think it is WP:NPOV! Komchi^✉_☆ 14:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "major". But I think you meant that it's not NPOV. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aryabhata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120105065022/http://isro.org/pressrelease/scripts/pressreleasein.aspx?Mar16_2009 to http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/scripts/pressreleasein.aspx?Mar16_2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aryabhata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071017002631/http://www.bartleby.com:80/65/om/OmarKhay.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/om/OmarKhay.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aryabhata/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article seems to cover a lot of ground about Aryabhata well. However, the claims contained herein need to be vetted and validated. The writer of these comments is forced to be suspiscious of this article due to other editors insisting on including an erroneous claim that Aryabhata had a princple of relativity even thought the cited text does not support that view. EMS | Talk

Substituted at 05:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

taregana

Taregana a star city Rajavi kumar (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aryabhata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721162632/http://ncsm.gov.in/docs/Get%20ready%20for%20Solar%20eclipse.pdf to http://ncsm.gov.in/docs/Get%20ready%20for%20Solar%20eclipse.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

Aryabhata did not describe a geocentric model of the solar system. He described that sun is in the centre and all the other planets revolve around it. Amolvaidya09 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be adequate sources in the article supporting the assertions made there. Paul August ☎ 14:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per Paul August. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Pi character

This is a minor edit suggestion. I would like the image references of the "Pi" character to be changed to the actual character, π. Sʀᴇᴇɴɪᴋᴇᴛʜᴀɴ I (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: They aren't images; they are generated using the math tag: <math>\pi</math>. Nihlus 20:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus and Sreenikethan Iyer: That math tag does indeed result in an image! Right click on it, and choose view image. I suppose using images bypasses font issues for some browsers. However, a disadvantage is that it spoils text searching on the page (searching for 'π' either doesn't find or fails to highlight the occurrence). Batternut (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Done: I changed the images to 'π'. Batternut (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Error in section "Sidereal periods"

There seem to be an error in the figures for the length of Aryabhata's sidereal year. It is written that: "Similarly, his value for the length of the sidereal year at 365 days, 6 hours, 12 minutes, and 30 seconds (365.25858 days) is an error of 3 minutes and 20 seconds over the length of a year (365.25636 days).". However, "6 hours, 12 minutes, and 30 seconds" is not (approximately) equal to "[0].25858" days, but to 0.25868 days. Could someone, who has permission to edit this page, correct "(365.25858 days)" to "(365.25868 days)"? /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

Hello hi how are you? 2409:4072:896:5370:2C14:A0FE:810B:FAB2 (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he just tried out the Talk feature. Sʀᴇᴇɴɪᴋᴇᴛʜᴀɴ I (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018

Aryabhata or Aryabhatta belongs to Hindu Brahman Family. As Arya word is originated from Aryabharat and bhatta belongs to types of Brahman or we can say synonym to brahman as part of giving respect according to work in ancient India. Please mention in the article. For proofs read Mahabharata, Ramayana or any related ancient books in Sanskrit language. 223.229.147.151 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

His name Arya’bhata’; ‘भट’ not ‘भट्ट’

Add caste

Namboodiri Brahmin Sxtex (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

tāṅkaḷ ārāṇāvō ? ChandlerMinh (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Family/Caste/Varna

I was watching a video discussion on a person’s [considered fringe] YouTube channel. Where the presenter mentions, Aryabhata was not a Brahmin, but later became Brahmin through Karma ( “becoming Brahmin through Karma” is a total bunkum). But still, is there a mention about his family origins from original scriptures/treatises or any of his work? ChandlerMinh (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Irrationality of pi

/* Approximation of π */ Undid edit by Sanjoydey33 /

“āsanna” means “approaching”, “almost”; “nearly” etc, eg.: 1) “āsanna mrtyu” means “near death” or “approaching death”. 2) “āsanna prasava” means a women is approaching labor This term doesn’t necessarily conclusively prove that Aryabhata knew about the irrationality of pi. Mathematicians in the past(not just Indians) has tried to turn polygons into circle (method of exhaustion).

They likely used measuring rods (or bricks) to make very large polygons that looked almost like a circle. There is limit to this method and people will get exhausted(pun intended!) doing this. So they could only get to the “approximate” ratio between circumference(perimeter in and diameter. Aryabhata was incapable to go more than 3 decimal places. How can any anyone claim that he considered pi as irrational. Aryabhata used the term āsanna because he couldn’t go any further than 3 decimal places. Not being able to go further doesn’t mean he considered pi as irrational. ChandlerMinh (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

To understand Sanskrit, you have to study Sanskrit Grammar, nirghanta and Yaksha's nirukti, since same Sanskrit word can mean different things based on their grammar and context. The word “āsanna” is used in this Shloka as Adjective with third bibhakti. Now, if you search any good sanskrit to english dictionary (which I used Monier-Williams), their are two prominent meaning of 'Asanna' (as adj.): approaching and approximate. In the context of number, I can argue that it is approximate as more appropriate. Even I assume as approaching in the context of a number, it means that I know that it is not the correct. You logic of "Aryabhata used the term āsanna because he couldn’t go any further than 3 decimal places. Not being able to go further doesn’t mean he considered pi as irrational." does not make sense. If he knew that pi has only 3 digits, then he won't be using it as 'asanna', rather would either be silent or say complete ('Purna'). In fact, he did not even compute PI on decimal digits, rather he gave approximate formula with fractions. That shows that he knew the fact that his formula is only 'approaching' the real PI, not complete. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sanjoydey33: I never said that āsanna doesn’t mean “approximate”. When I said “ “almost”, “nearly”, I said that is in a similar sense as “approximately”. Translating āsanna as “approximately” doesn’t prove that Aryabhata knew for sure about the irrationality of Pi.

The sentence preceding the one you edited says:

It is speculated that Aryabhata used the word āsanna (approaching), to mean that not only is this an approximation but that the value is incommensurable (or irrational).

so there was never a question whether he said it is “approximate”. I never argued against it. This same sentence uses “speculated”, which means that nobody and nowhere we have any evidence to prove he meant irrationality. When it is a speculation, we must proceed to the next sentence with a disclaimer. The phrase you removed (“if this is true”) is a disclaimer.

Now, I will tell you why the claim is speculative: Indians were keen about very large numbers and if Aryabhata had wished to prove that it is irrational, he would have no qualms to give the value of pi as the ratio of two very large numbers or as a ratio that is an irrational number. In this shloka he used number that are just five digit long. Why did he stop at 62832 and 20000 — two five digit numbers, when he himself was indulged in studying very large number to the range of 10^xx. There is no need to go further in the direction of very large numbers. There is one simple reason to say that he was probably not pointing at irrationality: the reason is that the result of dividing 62832 by 20000 gives you exactly 3.1416. 3.1416 is not an irrational number. Because Irrational numbers by definition are numbers that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.

There are two ways to find the value of pi: 1) geometrically and 2) using infinite series. Aryabhata lived in the pre-infinite series era. So only way he could do this is geometrically. It is impossible to geometrically find an exact value of the ratio. So it is obvious why Aryabhata resorted to “approximately”.

We still don’t what exact method he used to reach this conclusion. Until then we can only speculate. When it is only speculated, the phrase “If this is true” must stay in that sentence. ChandlerMinh(talk) 15:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

2409:4073:19:761F:4813:A54C:4174:DBA4 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Aryabhatta was born in Kerala, Asmagam, now called kodugallur in Thrissur

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Birth Date

Write the birht date 106.214.238.30 (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

The place about aryabhata is confused but as per ancestors and research it's not patna . Ita kerala Pavanacharya Golasangi (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If you go Check it again fir the history then you might find tha it is Patna, not Kerala. 103.144.114.187 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Aryabhatta was born in present day Kerala (kodungallur of Thrissur district) 2402:3A80:1E6E:B730:A9D4:8916:402C:95BF (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No. He was not ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)