Talk:Vedic Mathematics/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Vedicmathematics.jpg

Image:Vedicmathematics.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement is biased

The opening statement says that Vedic Mathematics is a book...blah blah.

This shows that the author of the article has had a strategy to attack on a person rather than actually describing what is Vedic Mathematics. He seems to have made no attempt to study or find out why so many people in this world have liked the approach. He also does not seem to have answered the question of how people like Bhaskaracharya, Aryabhatta and Bramhagupta have made such great contributions in the field of mathematics. Author seems to have also not studied what possibly was the source of their knowledge, for the period they have lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripunjaytripathi (talk • contribs)

This is because the article is actually about the book.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing you are searching for is Indian mathematics. There are separate articles for every work of Bhaskaracharya, Aryabhatta and Bramhagupta etc. Solomon7968 04:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I believe this is nothing more than a book review, and an attempt to paint a character of the author of the book. You rather should write this information in page about the author of the book or in review section of the websites selling this book. Wikipedia is not a place to write book reviews and your opinion about author, when the author is not alive to reply on your commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.25.230.47 (talk • contribs)

Nobody is owner of this article. So I do not know who are you implying by the word author. In any case this page presents everything in a neutral point of view and presents facts instead of opinions. Solomon7968 12:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well Mr. Zorro then interpret this mantra of brihadaranyak upnishad of rigved.

    AUM pUrNamadaH pUrNamida.n
    pUrNAt.h pUrNamudachyate.
    pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya
    pUrNamevAvashiShyate...

I believe if you can properly interpret this, then you will come to know, what is the source of Brahmagupta's sutras - meaning of Shunya (zero)etc... people should not jump to the conclusion without digging into the facts. if you are saying this article is fair and state the facts then you are grossly mistaken... I can't understand why only Dani's and Williams' opinions are mentioned??? where is the opinion from the other side? When Sanskrit scholars/ seers interpret vedic mantras, their authority is rarely challenged unless there is any tangible argument or fact available... if people like Dani and William can not read between the lines and even can't pronounce sanskrit mantras properly, then people should not give any consideration to their opinions as they may have ulterior motives. Read Sanskrit, Learn Sanskrit and then debate on these topics.

this article is simply poor ... contents and direction both. Saarleya (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saarleya, this article is about the book. There are a number of historians of mathematics who are versed in Indian mathematics (not "Vedic Mathematics") who are pure Indian and also versed in Sanskrit. (for example Radha Charan Gupta). The article mentions only Dani's and Williams' opinions because they are the only secondary reliable source on the subject. Solomon7968 13:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear SL : this article is about the book, is totally clear thing to me, however, opinions made by those so called secondary "Reliable" sources tend to ridicule the seminal work done by the author of this book. My contention is about the opinions mentioned in this article, which intend to give an impression to the reader about this topic; article should be able to give "ONLY FAIR AND UNBIASED" view on the book. Indian mathematics has history because logic and methods have roots in vedic literature; if KBT tried to show the roots in his book and different approaches then why it is a matter of subjective trials. To my understanding, it has become a matter of subjective trial because it is shaking the general belief that Algebra, Calculus are "original works of west". By proposing "Vedic Mathematics" - KBT tried to establish that this is not the case.

I expect to see other opinions as well. On the side note - readers should do a bit research about the sign of multiplication (x) - you will find the roots of it here in this rule mentioned in this book - " URDHVA TIRYAKABHYAM" . derivative / integral of a polynomial has roots in this following sutra - " Ekadhiken Purven". As far as decimal system is concerned which S G Dani and V S Agarwal highlighted vigourously to refute the claims of vedic roots - I suggest the readers to understand the aphorism "Nikhilam Navtashcharmam dashtah" which has roots in the Krishna Yajurved mantra "Ek vi gung shatishcha me ...... vibhu cha me, prabhu cha me" - chanted in rudrashtadhyayi

You keep mention the things and I'll keep giving you the roots of these aphorism in vedic mantras.

Hope this clears the air. Saarleya (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Saarleya, I can assure you that this book is not shaking any general belief. However Fowler&fowler might have some wise words to share with us. Solomon7968 12:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember, the book "Vedic Mathematics" has little to do with the mathematics of the putative Vedic period, mentioned in the Vedas or early post-Vedic literature, all orally-transmitted with great accuracy. For the latter, for example, for the mathematics of the Sulbasutras, you will have to read the relevant sections of the Indian mathematics page, as Solomon and Ymblanter have suggested. This article is about a book; consequently, reviews in reliable secondary sources are grist for the mill. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/097133361202400204
• A gem of a thesis over here. Google Knowledge Panel shows (Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University) Top P.hD. University in India as title, quite obviously.

• LOL.∯WBG^converse 15:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• The sixteen aphorisms of Vedic mathematics are not related to any ritual, they have been termed Vedic because the seer who discovered them did so in the same manner in which the Vedic sages perceived the Vedic rishis. In a sense its introduction could motivate the students to think about the holistic approach of ancient Rishis and compare it with the reductionist approach of the Newtonian science. It may be recalled that the work of scientists like David Bohm, Bell, Capra and others have pointed out the limitations of the Cartesian approach and have pointed out that in many respects the eastern holistic approach provides a deeper understanding of the universe.

Useful algorithms

It would be nice to see a better explanation of useful algorithms. I've seen IEEE papers showing implementations on FPGA of Paravartya and Nikhliam for division, with regular non-recurrent division much faster than Nikhliam, while Paravartya appears to have 20% less delay and use about 70-80 LUTs on a modern FPGA. Consequentially, Paravartya is *extremely* useful here, while Nikhliam isn't. Paravartya is impossible in many cases in pen and paper because it appears to only work if the first digit of the divisor is 1; in binary, the first digit is always 1, so it works exceptionally-well on computer hardware. Nikhliam requires more operations when the divisor is smaller, I believe, so becomes quite slow; plus it requires like 175 LUTs to implement. No idea on the multiplication algorithms or any other—information about all that would be interesting. John Moser (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Outlook source

Obviously, it is trash. My edits make the concocted nature of the subject more clear. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion. Removing These statements have been since rejected in their entirety seems to weaken the statement that the subject is, as you say, concocted. I have no objection to the which were falsely claimed phrasing in itself, but I do think it needs a little more elaboration to work properly. For example, we could merge the existing two paragraphs with some language like, Mathematicians and historians have since rejected these asssertions, noting that... In your revert, you also undid a couple attempts to smooth out the grammar without changing the meaning [1][2]; I will leave those for someone else to implement if they do seem like an improvement. XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Expect increased vandalism

A screenshot of this article is currently posted on r/IndiaSpeaks, with the title "Wikipedia continues to remain the biggest source of anti-Hindu misinformation." The point of contention is the part where it says that the mathematical techniques were falsely claimed to have been retrieved from the Vedas. As of the time of writing the Reddit post has over a thousand upvotes. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 13:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is extended-confirmed protected until May. Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The source citing that 'Vedic Mathematics' falsely claimed its origins is a very questionable one.

The article by S.G. Dani is completely biased and need not be cited here, Vedas and Veda related books have deep psychological and metaphysical meanings and they are not understood by any common man, further if we don't take that into consideration then too we shouldn't make such an accusation on the very origins of the book, the article can claim controversy over the book and it's claimed origins and can say that it's debated but based on the viewpoint of a single mathematician from such a large and broad community there's no need to conclude that Swami Ji was spreading false information and propaganda.

Therefore, I am editing the article to have a more neutral viewpoint, if anyone has a dispute or thinks otherwise then they are free to reply me here. NerdyRas007 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not questionable, and "not understood by any common man" is a fallacious argument. The text is fine as written. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Well if you want, you can very well have a good talk on your claim that it is a 'fallacious argument'.

We see and form our opinions on the basis of education which has its foundation in the west, and this western lens of perspective disregards any other theory which may be a threat to the very existence of the modern rational and philosophical thought process of the scholars who are connected to it.

Another thing as I stated is that S.G. Dani seems to have a grudge against the Vedas and citing him and only him to prove Swami Ji was wrong is not a good thing, we can say that his(Swamiji's) claims were/are challenged but not completely false based on the research of just one mathematician, the article's language can only be considered as truth when there is consensus among the mathematician community on Swami Ji's claims being false. NerdyRas007 (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

seems to have a gridge against the Vedas If this were how reliable sources are handled here, we could not use any sources in fringe subjects such as this, because there is always a user who accuses everybody who disagrees with them to be biased. It is consensus that the Vedas are pre-scientific. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Where is the consensus? who decided it ? did they debated with actual Vedic experts or some non-authorised entities ? how can you prove what is science and what is not ? Does science answers every question this universe poses ?

Also again I may insist there is only one piece of document on the basis of which the text of this page has been written and therefore it is not advisable or the right thing to conclude Tirthji's claims as completely False.

NerdyRas007 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea of "non-authorised entities" is completely beside the point, as is asking "Does science answers every question this universe poses ?". XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Maths is a science, not a philosophy. If they make a claim it must be backed up. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for supporting the change of page's text to a neutral tone.

One evidence is not enough, and the evidence is not a tough one, page is good as neutral. NerdyRas007 (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Personally, I do see the OP's point. The text in the lead – "falsely claimed" – seems to be partially contradicted by the source. It says that "It has been known from the beginning that there is no evidence of the contents of the book being of Vedic origin; the Foreword to the book by the General Editor, Dr. A.S.Agrawala, and an account of the genesis of the work written by Manjula Trivedi, a disciple of the swamiji, make this clear even before one gets to the text of the book." So it appears that the "claim" charge is based only on the title, despite the disclaimers in the text, and that more claims came after the publication of the book by people other than the author, since the book was published posthumously. Given this, I'd say we need a bit more clarifiying detail about this in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The chapter in the Studies in Indian Mathematics and Astronomy book goes into more detail, quoting the Foreword at significant length and indicating that the claims came from the author himself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That only further proves my point, tell me some big names in the mathematics community who have researched properly on this topic and reached on a consensus. NerdyRas007 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that the claim is false; just that more details should be included in the lead about it. I've done so. I hope you find it satisfactory, but if not, we can continue to discuss here and develop a consensus on the exact wording. Skyerise (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I also added the positive things Dani said about the book to the lead, the omission of which was indeed a neutrality problem. The history may be fake, but the math is still real. Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure "impressive feat" really sums up Dani's take on the book. For example, Some of the tricks given in the book are quite interesting and admittedly yield quicker solutions than by standard methods (though the comparison[s] made in the book are facetious and misleading). They are of the kind that an intelligent hobbyist experimenting with numbers might be expected to come up with. The tricks are, however, based on well-understood mathematical principles and there is no mystery about them. Of course to produce such a body of tricks, even using the well-known is still a non-trivial task and there is a serious question of how this came to be accomplished. I would not say that "quite interesting" and "intelligent hobbyist" equate with "impressive feat". XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That is taken straight from the body of the article, under the heading Vedic Mathematics#Originality of methods. If the article says that, the lead should echo it. If it's inaccurate, it should be fixed in both places. Skyerise (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The body text was wrong to say "impressive feat" (that's not what "non-trivial task" means). Changed accordingly. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. But do be aware that using phrases like "mere compendium of tricks", or using "tricks" outside a quotation to mean "methods" is not neutral writing. Either the neutral words should be used, or the exact phrasing should be presented in context as an attributed and cited quotation. Skyerise (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Dani uses the term "tricks" repeatedly. Changing it to "methods" is less neutral, in the sense of reflecting the source without distortion. To a scientist or mathematician, "trick" is not disparaging; it's like saying "shortcut". (Compare Feynman calling Bethe's way of squaring numbers near 50 a "trick", while admiring Bethe for being clever!) XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I agree and disagree. Not all readers are going to be mathematicians, and will take the word "trick" as derogatory and non-neutral. When we present an apparently non-neutral description, we should use a quotation rather than use words which might be construed as non-neutral when presented in Wikipedia voice. The OP didn't complain about the facts being presented, he complained about the tone. I reviwed the article and agreed with that criticism. I think it's perfectly possible to write an article about a fringe topic without compounding complaints by being lazy about tone issues. Skyerise (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"Tricks" is widely used in works aimed at non-math people; roughly a bajillion books and websites offer "mental math tricks" to improve one's arithmetic skills. These are presented as desirable to master. So, I don't think colloquial use really goes as far as making the word "derogatory". But I'm content with giving the longer quotation to avoid potential ambiguity on this point. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced text used with false reference

@XOR'easter, you reverted my change and inserted more text later on. But can you please point me to the statement on the 2 references used on the one that I had amended that suggest/mention Nationalist Government? This is biased editing as unsustained claim is made as if the reference is suggesting so. Your revert summary states see below regarding the BJP, however where in those added references or in the original 2 references does it state "Nationalist Government"? If the reference states BJP government, why not use BJP instead of Nationalist? Dhaval^Talk 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The text in the intro is a summary of the article that follows, not just of the footnotes that happen to be placed within it. The BJP is ubiquitously regarded as a nationalist party. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Intro and reference are two different things. We cannot manufacture statement and hide it as source. The two references provided do not mention the said words. I still don't agree that references are supporting the claim made in the introduction. Dhaval^Talk 15:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We use sources for facts, not exact words. The claim made in the introduction is an entirely acceptable paraphrase of the available sources. We could say it a different way, but there's nothing wrong with how it is. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)