From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 00:56:55 MST
[Yash] Casey, I wonder how the following is representative of intelligent
discourse:
[Hermit] Pity that you don't have the intelligence to know what discourse
is... or to figure out how little intelligence you really have.
[Hermit] The only two people that have swallowed your BS so far are you and
Mermaid. Both Indian. Is Kirk Steele correct? There is something genetic or
cultural in this? Certainly looking at <em>every</em> reference to the
"Vedic PI" crap I have located on the net, the only sites referring to it
are either Indian or Hindu. There is presumably a reason for this. Can you
figure out what it might be?
[Yash] 1. Repeated quotes from unreliable third parties distorting the
source
[Hermit] Substantiate this, fuckwit. Point to a "reliable source" seeing as
every source on the Internet appears to be "unreliable" according to your
assertion.
New addition:
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_6.html
In order to illustrate how secular and spiritual life were intertwined in
Vedic India, Tirtha Maharaja has demonstrated that mathematical formulas and
laws were often taught within the context of spiritual expression (mantra).
Thus while learning spiritual lessons, one could also learn mathematical
rules.
[Hermit] Also unreliable?
[Hermit] You appear to be conflicted, seeking significance for "Ancient"
Indian practice, yet claiming that all modern sites referring to this are
"unreliable". What a fuckwit.
2. Refusal to give the source material a full read before jumping to
conclusions.
[Hermit] I've now wasted my time reading the whole thing, just to be able to
stop your whining. You owe me a couple of hours, as my opinion was
strengthened by rereading it. I am more convinced than ever that it is a
meaningless hodgepodge of basic arithmetic and spiritual crap. Now what,
fuckwit?
3. Dismissing said source material because of alleged misappropriation and
misuse of same by the third parties in 1.
[Hermit] Substantiate this assertion fuckwit. Just give the number of the
point which makes this assertion, handily appended below.
[Yash] 4. Making an incorrect assumption about Pi chronology not warranted
by the facts (no such chronology or claims to antiquity of the Pi encoding
occurs anywheere in the source material, or my posts).
[Hermit] Kindly give the date when you assert the Vedic Shulba and Ganita
Sutras were written (the sources I have give various dates between 800 and
200 BCE), and your claim was "ancient gematric traditions" ["RE: virus:
Weird claims about PI - Ping Yash", Yash, Sun 2001-12-30 04:29] and "ancient
Indian Mathematicians" [RE: virus: Weird claims about PI - Ping Yash", Yash,
Sat 2001-12-29 18:14]. You have not yet responded to how you would define
"ancient".
[Hermit] You have also not indicated where the Chronology of PI is faulty
despite repeated requests for you to substantiate your assertions. Fuckwit.
[Hermit] In particular, I would be interested in your source and date for:
gopi bhagya madhuvrata
srngiso dadhi sandhiga
khala jivita khatava
gala hala rasandara
[Hermit] Interestingly, I have now discovered the same assertions in "The
Secret Doctrine" by H.P. Blavatsky - which predates "Vedic Mathematics" as
it was first published in 1888. Of course, like "Vedic Mathematics," it is
all mixed up with spiritual crap. Here is the relevant piece:
<quote> Vol 1, Page 90, stanza 4 Theosophical University Press electronic
version ISBN 1-55700-124-3 available on-line at
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm
"The Three, the One, the Four, the One, the Five" (in their totality --
twice seven) represent 31415 -- the numerical hierarchy of the Dhyan-Chohans
of various orders, and of the inner or circumscribed world.** When placed on
the boundary of the great circle of "Pass not" (see Stanza V.), called also
the Dhyanipasa, the "rope of the Angels," the "rope" that hedges off the
phenomenal from the noumenal Kosmos, (not falling within the range of our
present objective consciousness); this number, when not enlarged by
permutation and expansion, is ever 31415 anagrammatically and
Kabalistically, being both the number of the circle and the mystic Svastica,
the twice seven once more; for whatever way the two sets of figures are
counted, when added separately, one figure after another, whether crossways,
from right or from left, they will always yield fourteen. Mathematically
they represent the well-known calculation, namely, that the ratio of the
diameter to the circumference of a circle is as 1 to 3.1415, or the value of
the (pi), as this ratio is called -- the symbol being always used in
mathematical formulae to express it. This set of figures must have the same
meaning, since the 1 : 314,159, and then again 1 : 3 : 1,415,927 are worked
out in the secret calculations to express the various cycles and ages of the
"first born," or 311,040,000,000,000 with fractions, and yield the same
13,415 by a process we are not concerned with at present. And it may be
shown that Mr. Ralston Skinner, author of The Source of Measures, reads the
Hebrew word Alhim in the same number values, by omitting, as said, the
ciphers and by permutation -- 13,514: since (a) is 1 : (l) is 3 (or 30);
(h) is 5; (i) 1 for 10; and (m) is 4 (40), and anagrammatically -- 31,415
as explained by him.
Thus, while in the metaphysical world, the circle with the one central Point
in it has no number, and is called Anupadaka (parentless and numberless) --
viz., it can fall under no calculation, -- in the manifested world the
mundane Egg or Circle is circumscribed within the groups called the Line,
the Triangle, the Pentacle, the second Line and the Cube (or 13514); and
when the Point having generated a Line, thus becomes a diameter which stands
for the androgynous Logos, then the figures become 31415, or a triangle, a
line, a cube, the second line, and a pentacle. "When the Son separates from
the Mother he becomes the Father," the diameter standing for Nature, or the
feminine principle. Therefore it is said: "In the world of being, the one
Point fructifies the Line -- the Virgin Matrix of Kosmos (the egg-shaped
zero) -- and the immaculate Mother gives birth to the form that combines all
forms." Prajapati is called the first procreating male, and "his Mother's
husband."* This gives the key-note to all the later divine sons from
immaculate mothers. It is greatly corroborated by the significant fact that
Anna (the name of the Mother of the Virgin Mary) now represented by the
Roman Catholic church as having given birth to her daughter in an immaculate
way ("Mary conceived without sin"), is derived from the Chaldean Ana,
heaven, or Astral Light, Anima Mundi; whence Anaitia, Devi-durga, the wife
of Siva, is also called Annapurna,
</quote>
[Hermit] It seems not impossible that Tirthaji was "inspired" by this or
that they had a common source.
[Yash] 5. Shifting the burden of proof of 5. onto me when he raised that
(fallacious) point.
[Hermit] Really? This is an old assertion refuted so many times that it
becomes quite stale... See the reply to 4 above, fuckwit.
[Yash] 6. Refusal to consider the works of Georges Ifrah, a world authority
in the history of mathematics, who shows beyond reasonable doubt, that
Indian mathematicians already had invented the katapayadi system of encoding
and have used it it their works.
[Hermit] You quoted him at length. I read the quotations and discovered that
none of thenm referred to the period prior to about 800 CE. We know that
"katapaya" cannot have been in use prior to 684 as it was invented at around
that time. Thus neither Ifrah nor katapaya relate to your "ancient" claim,
and are thus irrelevant to your as yet unsupported and probably
unsupportable claim. Why the fuck should I take them into account, fuckwit?
[Yash] 7. Refusal to consider the VM system as a valid system for doing fast
mathematics as well as what the author says it is: i.e. a mnemonic tool for
remembering all the techniques.
[Hermit] They are simple arithmetic techniques, not particularly significant
mathematics at any time, and which while possibly useful in an age before
calculators or even the abacus or slide rule, they are irrelevant today.
They are clumsy in the sense that many different techniques have to be
learnt, as opposed to the simple techniques used by anyone who still knows
how to perform mental arithmetic. As for mnemonics, they were used by all
the early cultures, but are recognized not only as being much less useful
than positional arithmetic, but the world (including India) had to wait for
positional arithmetic to come into general usage before any particularly
useful mathematical techniques - other than geometry and basic arithmetic -
were developed.
[Yash] 8. Continuous claims and allusions about my incapacity to think
properly when he does the following together to try to make a (fallacious)
point: 2., 6., 1.
[Hermit] Refer to the numerics below and substantiate your continuous lies,
fuckwit.
===
[Hermit] Where in the following do you see what you claim above. Just give
the numbers and your reason or as repeatedly stated (see last paragraph)
that you are misrepresenting - continually - the argument.
[Hermit] Repost [extract from "virus: 20 points, some advice and a challenge
or two to Yash. PS Ping for Casey/Walter", Hermit, Fri 2002-01-11 10:10]
<quote>
[Hermit] My justification is as follows:
1 "Vedic Maths" made exaggerated (to be kind) claims of accuracy and
significance for early Indian mathematics - claims not supported by any
non-religious affiliated source;
2 "Vedic Maths" asserted that a cited work contained PI, this is not
evident;
3 "Vedic Maths" asserted that PI was encoded in the cited text, using a
"hidden writing" method, there was no claim to this within the work in
question;
4 "Vedic Maths" asserted that a multi-variable "key" was used; there was no
evidence that this "key" was appropriate and that it was not selected
specifically to unearth PI. There was no evidence showing the vast number of
results which could be shown to appear to contain PI given this methodology
and alleged key;
5 "Vedic Maths" asserted that the key applied only to the portion of the
cited work where PI was supposedly encoded, but did not support this
assertion, or explain why the key did not unearth other "significant"
information;
6 "Vedic Maths" failed to explain why the source works in question contain
multiple values for the ratio we know as PI, demonstrating that the
essential nature of PI was unknown to the authors of those works;
7 "Vedic Maths" implied that the accuracy of the alleged hidden value of PI
proved the significant value of the culture and religion from which it
supposedly originated, not noting that the work had been rewritten over a
number of centuries by people who had greater understanding of mathematics
than the source and who undoubtedly modified the source works over that
period;
8 "Vedic Maths" failed to acknowledge that the written language was invented
centuries after the work supposedly embedding PI was first created;
9 "Vedic Maths" asserted knowledge that there was no possible way to explain
without a vast body of prior art. No evidence is found for such prior art
except to the assertions of "Vedic Maths";
10 "Vedic Maths" makes no attempt to explain why these techniques were then
"lost" until the author of "Vedic Maths" then "rediscovered" them;
11 "Vedic Maths" interpolated a number of arithmetic techniques which,
though valid, are trivial and were well known to other cultures which unlike
the Harrapans and their immediate successors had Mathematical cultures (e.g.
Sumerian, Babylonian, not so much the Egyptians who like the Harrapans and
their successors were primarily interested in practical and religious
results);
12 "Vedic Maths" asserted, that these arithmetic techniques were present,
not because they were stated, but because they could be argued to match "key
phrases" in the text. Granted that these techniques are (and were) trivial
and the majority known to other cultures including that of the author of
"Vedic Maths," the assertion that they were implied by the Sutras is tenuous
at best. Many other techniques, some which would work, some which would not
could also be implied by the same "key phrases." The author makes no attempt
to show why these "key phrases" were chosen, why others were not, or why
they <em>had</em> to imply the alleged techniques.;
13 "Vedic Maths" does not attempt to explain why, contrary to other
evidence, the people who allegedly calculated a value for PI were content to
accept measurements sufficient for construction purposes for all their other
work;
14 And most damning of all, "Vedic Mathematics" claimed a spurious antiquity
for its source works not supported by anything but assertion, presumably on
the common but never the less invalid assumption that age would prove
something to the authors readership (and it very probably did).
[Hermit] I also observed that:
15 the author was unqualified in the field;
16 occupied a less than universally respected position as priest (cf liar);
17 kept the company of charlatans and irrationals;
18 still attracts the support of irrational people today;
19 and quoted unrecognized sources (which, if you were familiar with the
field, you would realize is significant).
[Hermit] None of the above inspires me with confidence in his (or your)
assertions.
[Hermit] Particularly as:
20 Not even Hindu mathematicians (and contrary to your assertions of bias,
many Hindu Mathematicians and historians are recognized as being very
significant) recognize his claims.
[Hermit] You failed and still are failing to address a single one of the
above issues. I challenge you to respond to them numerically. If you do not
do so, the attacks which you have brought upon yourself will be shown to
have been justified and your claim not to be looking for a fight shown to be
a lie.
</quote>
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT