Talk:Baudhayana sutras

untitled

The rope which is stretched along the length of the diagonal of a rectangle produces an area which the vertical and horizontal sides make together.

Perhaps someone could clarify how this is a statement of the Pythagorean Theorem? --Twinxor 03:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem, according to the link states: The sum of the areas of the squares on the legs of a right triangle is equal to the area of the square on the hypotenuse.

The sulbasutras make exactly the same statement. A rope producing an area implies the square of the length of the rope. Area produced by a rectangle's diagonal = area produced by vertical side + area produced by horizontal side. This says, square of diagonal = square of vertical + square of horizontal. --Pranathi 05:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It may be noted that most of the Iyers follow apsatambha not baudhyana but gurukkals,namboodiris follow them.

Proof for Bodahayanar theorem

This hold for right angle triangles. a^2+b^2=c^2.

Bodhayanar did not use square root but his formula is a-(a/8)+(b/2)=c where a is the bigger number and b is smaller number Eg A=4 b=3 c=5 In Tamil""ஓடும் நீளம் தனை ஒரேஎட்டுக் கூறு ஆக்கி கூறிலே ஒன்றைத் தள்ளி குன்றத்தில் பாதியாய்ச் சேர்த்தால் வருவது கர்ணம் தானே" - போதையனார்" Translation : Cut one eigth of the length side and add half of of the breath side you will get Hypotenuse. Dinesh pandian Dineshpkm (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Error in the Pythagorean theorem

The version brought here to the Pythagorean Theorem is too general: "A rope stretched along the length of the diagonal produces an area which the vertical and horizontal sides make together."

The above sentence is true for right triangles and not for any triangle. For example, in an equilateral triangle whose sides are s1 = s2 = s3 = s then s^2 + s^2 = 2s^2 != s^2 (for s different from 0, as should be with triangles).

If you consider the vertical and horizontal not to be the sides of the triangle then the sentence is true but for a different triangle from the one we started with.

By the way, I once heard that Baudhayana proved the sentence in a diagram. Does someone know whether that is true? Does someone know whether Baudhayana gave any proof to the sentence?

Besides, how come that a mathematical sentence appears in religious text?

Pythagorean theorem is a proof about right triangles. Mrdthree 09:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the point. The Pythagorean theorem is correct for right triangles but not in general. As I wrote above, The Pythagorean theorem formula is not correct for equilateral triangle. The sentence written at the article doesn't mention that the triangle should be a right one and therefore it is wrong. It is possible that the original sentence did mention that the triangle should be a right one but that is only a guess. Maybe the problem is in the translation since the English version doesn't even mention triangles.

By the way, do you happen to know whether Baudhayana supplied a proof to the theorem?

The proof is referring to a diagonal, which means they are bisecting a square (or rectangle) into two right Triangles. The statement is correct. Paladinwannabe2 17:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Ranjitr303 (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Baudhayana's approximation of √2 = 577/408, is closely related to pell's equation for N=2, where 577 and 408 are solution for the equation. so is this that Baudhayana had used the pell's equation to approximate √2 or was it a different logic.

We don't know how this approximation was arrived at, so there's nothing we can say. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Date

how exactly are these texts dated? The only established way is to check whether they are Vedic or Classical Sanskrit. And since this is in Vedic Sanskrit, we could only tell this to be likely from pre-Paninian. That still doesn’t resolve the issue. Despite the claim of finding ‘fire altars’ in Harappan sites, none of the archaeologist ever could prove that those altars are exactly like the mentions in Kalpa texts and were never proven to be of the geometric patterns mentioned. After the decline of Harappan civilisation, it takes a huge break in time and we could find evidence of urban life only in the last centuries of BCE So then, how are we assuming that the mathematical results like Pythagorean theorem existed as early as 8th mil BCE. Why shouldn’t be it not a later addition? I am saying this because, unlike the Mesopotamian or Egyptian civilisations, material evidence for such mathematical ideas in India is almost non-existent. And even if people like Witzel would tell that Vedic recitation is like “tape-recording”, much difference can be found in the practice, rituals and chanting of Brahmins in different states. “Pythagorean” theorem may be a misnomer for this idea and let’s forget the Greeks for the time being. But how do the evidence for Indian mathematical knowledge compare with that of material evidence from Mesopotamia. ChandlerMinh (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion

This page appears to be a duplicate of Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra any objections to a merge? A.j.roberts (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose This article is about a group of scriptures; Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra being a specific text in the group.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Redtigerxyz. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Circling the square

Not only did you put the uncited part but also the whole paragraph as written in baudhyana sutras. Which is not true because the author of the cited articles are subhas kak an indocentrist nationalist historical revisionist. So what you did was outright vandalism of history Xiwxopswwjdbb (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving your remarks to a new talk page section. As it was, they were appended to a twelve year old, unrelated thread, which seemed likely to confuse future readers.

My understanding is that the indented, italicized text is a translation of what's in the Sutra and that the unindented, roman text below it is commentary. This format appears consistently throughout the article. Do you disagree?

The explanation is indeed unsourced at present, but as you are the first person to raise an objection to it it might be more appropriate to append a "citation needed" tag to give other editors time to find reliable references. The explanation is likely to be helpful to readers, so I would prefer to leave it in. To me it seem the most plausible reading of the original text and it gives a reasonable approximation of the area of the circle, which adds weight. In your most recent edit, the only part you removed is a completely uncontroversial arithmetic calculation. You, of course, have every right to ask for a reliable source, but I would be very surprised if one were not readily found.

I do strongly agree with you that Subhash Kak should not be used as a source, but more reliable scholars have been studying these works for a long time. Even restricting to modern times, there are analyses by professional historians going back to the 19th century, as well as more recent ones. We don't have to rely on Kak.

Why do you persist in deleting parts of the text, leaving behind disjointed gibberish? That does not look like good-faith editing to me. Would you please stop doing that? Will Orrick (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I added a source for the modern explanation of circling the square. I also notice that there was one reference to Subhash Kak in the footnotes. I've replaced that with a more reliable source, and also replaced the translation of the statement equivalent to the Pythagorean theorem with what I suspect is a more accurate translation. Will Orrick (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)