Talk:Yuktibhāṣā

Unique

The word "unique" is appropriate there. See UniqueBharatveer 10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Message

I apologize, but the phrase "considered as the first text on calculus" smacks of NPOV. All of the references for this statement either have a regional slant, such as the Caniscus College reference [1] or the reference for the Government of Kerala [2], or directly or indirectly reference the Whish work [3]. Some more information on more recent interpretations of the Whish work would be helpful to your cause. Ggugvunt 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually this text we are talking about is in Malayalam – a language spoken only by people in the small Indian state of Kerala. As such, all those who have done prime research on it, are Indians. Also to be taken to note, is the fact that only little is known even within India about the Kerala School. There are no references, whatsoever of any texts detailing about calculus prior to the Yuktibhasa. The only text in which a bit of calculus is used, is Bhaskara's Sidantha Siromani. But it doesnt go to the mathematical side, and only uses some differentials to prove a few astronomy theorems.

All in all, what I'm trying to convey, is that the article is in no way biased just because two of the four references given, are by Indians. It is indeed the first text on calculus. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}04:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the extra information. I think that the page may even benefit from some of the comments you have given to justify your views, especially the lack of previous references. Keep in mind, though, there is evidence of some of the ideas in calculus from far before this - see How_Archimedes_used_infinitesimals for example. That being said, I admit it is a stretch to consider that a "calculus text" :). --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggugvunt (talk • contribs)

Yes, I am indeed aware of Archimedes, Aryabhatta, Manjula and Bhaskara all using infinitesimal values and basic ideas of calculus. But Yuktibasha, as you now agree, was the first text that actually details them (with proof too). I spent two entire days of my wiki-time researching up stuff on this page. Its always nice to receive criticism. Thank you. :-) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sine rule not covered in respective article

Could someone document the rectangular argument at sine rule or provide them with the resources to do so? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

3 centuries before James Gregory?

The date given for this treatise (16th century CE) is not consistent with being "three centuries" before James Gregory. Rob Burbidge (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct, should be "century and a third". Now edited to give 1667 as date for Gregory. — Rgdboer (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgery?

There are other forgeries. For instance, the Keralolpahti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D182:24C1:6469:8001:AF6C:9208 (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yuktibhāṣā. 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/20060806040307/http://www.canisius.edu/topos/rajeev.asp to http://www.canisius.edu/topos/rajeev.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821195309/http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralcallsep04/p22-24.pdf to http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralcallsep04/p22-24.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806040307/http://www.canisius.edu/topos/rajeev.asp to http://www.canisius.edu/topos/rajeev.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821195309/http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralcallsep04/p22-24.pdf to http://www.kerala.gov.in/keralcallsep04/p22-24.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317202603/http://www.iias.org/p_ganita_yuktibhasa_volume-III.html to http://www.iias.org/p_ganita_yuktibhasa_volume-III.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV, etc

There are major problems with the tone and neutrality of the article. For example:

It is considered, possibly the first text, on the foundations of calculus predating those of others outside India such as European mathematicians James Gregory and Newton by many centuries.[3][4][5][6][7]

and

However, due to globalization and the wider flow of information, the wider world began to learn the history of these sciences. For example, both Oxford University (a premier University in Britain)and Royal Society of Great Britain have accepted the Indian & Asian consensus, that Calculus and many such pioneering mathematical theorems originated in India, previously having incorrectly ascribed them to others.[4][5][6][7]

Both passages are in the lead. The sources are either junk or they don't support the (weasel-worded) claims being made. The same POV-pushing has also been happening at Calculus (see the recent edit history). Perhaps an an WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE tag would be more appropriate, but whichever is being used, the same fundamental problems remain. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've copy edited this page as part of WP:GOCE and considering the amount of rewording that I did, I figured it best to leave a note regarding my feelings on the tone and neutrality of the article as well. I concur with the above, and have therefore done my best to remove bias especially when unsupported (or at worst, contradicted) by cited sources. The cited website about digits of pi, for example, showed a record from the previous century that beats the supposed "thousand year" old record. Feel free to add the information back if a proper source can be found. Verifiability is important. <RetroCraft314 /> 06:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Tangent?

Kerala school didnt discover tangent series. Their discoveries were sin,cos and arctan . So i have edited the paragraph that says they discovered tangent series Jino john1996 (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ganita yukti bhasha verse.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ganita-yukti-bhasa into Yuktibhāṣā

It is clear that the Yuktibhāṣā is the main text. Both its Sanskrit translation (Gaṇita-yukti-bhāṣā) and the modern volumes (2 volumes translating the Malayalam Yuktibhāṣā and 1 volume that is an edition of the Sanskrit text) can be more clearly discussed on the Yuktibhāṣā article. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

To reply to my own comment above: these are the works/books in question:

Malayalam Yuktibhāṣā        ---> English edition (2008, Vols 1 and 2 of series, published by Springer)
Sanskrit Ganita-yuktibhāṣā  ---> Critical edition (2004, Vol 3 of the series, published by IIAS Shimla)

To represent in diagram form:

A   ---> B
C   ---> D

Right now, we have the article Yuktibhāṣā about (A) above, and another article Ganita-yukti-bhasa that is confusingly about all three of (B), (C), and (D) above. As (B) and (D) are simply modern editions of (A) and (C), they can be discussed in the historical article. Further, as (C) is simply a rough translation of (A), it can also be discussed in the same article. Otherwise the situation is very confusing IMO. I'll wait a while and merge the articles if no one objects. We will of course continue to have a redirect from Ganita-yukti-bhasa to Yuktibhāṣā, and no information will be lost. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This merge has been done now. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Science and technology in free india

The reference "Science and technology in free India" (PDF). Government of Kerala—Kerala Call, September 2004. Prof.C.G.Ramachandran Nair. Retrieved 2006-07-09. is broken and it's cited as a source for many of the articles so I have removed it. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)