This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Yes, I think it would be fine to merge. If we accumulate a large enough amount of material about the book specifically (too large for Brahmagupta article), then we can split it back again. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the greater should be subtracted the smaller; (the final result is) positive, if positive from positive, and negative, if negative, from negative. If, however, the greater is subtracted from the less, that difference is reversed (in sign), negative becomes positive and positive becomes negative. When positive is to be subtracted from negative or negative from positive, then they must be added together. (p. 201)
Thank you very much. A good example for the advantage of looking first to WP instead in a dictionary. Therefore it seems that the second translation (cited above) is incomplete.--Lefschetz (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (modern) Indians tend to treat 0 as a positive number, thus reducing the number of signs to 2. (Note that it is not claimed to be an exact translation!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Written !! Are you sure ? Perhaps we have a book in Brahmi alphabet !! Or rather oral composition written centuries later in nagari (XI century a.d.) or in devanagari (after XIII century a.d.) ?
The article totally neglects the astronomical content of the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta, which makes up the majority of the work's twenty-five chapters. Someone needs to look into the literature on Indian astronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]