 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photographbeincluded in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
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)[reply]
The well known square root of 2 in the Silva-sutra was likely first recorded in unit fraction notation 700 to 800 years before Heron developed his geometric equivalent method extended by David E. Henderson, Cornell to one additional step. Milogardner (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Milo Gardner milogardner@yahoo.com Milogardner (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) No answer so I change the sentence in this way: Shulba sutra that was attributed to Baudhayana ecc --84.222.72.234 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silva-Sutra square root of 2 method exposed in unit fraction details 500 to 800 years before Heton's geometric methodologies. . Milogardner (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An academia. edu paper is being updated to.include the Silva-sutra data. Milogardner (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--Criticpanther (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Will Orrick, Please refer the citation provided Bryant, Edwin (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195137774.
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)[reply]
