[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: maize and ancient numeration in ancient India

Hi Joe:

As a clarifiction, Dr. Gupta cites a recent Ph.D. thesis that discusses
interesting 'possible' diffusion evidence, zero coming to India
from the Maya. Vedic texts have been re-read, as the Dr. Gupta
brief summary indicates, in a manner that changes the previous
view that Ptolemy was referenced to a new 'possible' view that
Maya was the intended original meaning.

Sorry if I can not clarify beyond this point. That is all I know.


Milo Gardner

Dr. Gupta writes in Historia Mathematica, a history of math
journal, from time to time. The citation that I recall may have
been around Feb. 1994 or Feb. 1995.

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Joe Bernstein wrote:

> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.961228085545.26287B-100000@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>,
> Milo Gardner <gardnerm@gaia.ecs.csus.edu> wrote:
> >A broader re-titling of this thread seems appropriate, right?
> Um, well, also maybe a revision of the cross-post line?  (For now omitting
> humanities.language.sanskrit, though I'm not sure about that, and any
> hypothetical history-of-math group.)  I'm honestly unsure where to set
> followups, for which I apologise.
> >On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Milo Gardner wrote:
> >
> >> Yuri speaks of maize as the best leading indictor that he can
> >> imagine. Well, I can offer zero being given to India ,as the
> >> Vedic texts list Maya. 
> Please be more specific.  The term "maya" is pretty familiar as having
> religious meanings in Buddhist and, I presume, Vedic literature.  Do you
> mean that term?  Or do you mean that Maya words for themselves, or other
> Maya words, are to be found in the Vedic corpus?
> I don't claim the expertise to evaluate such claims, which is why I'm
> hoping someone in sci.lang can help.  But clarity is definitely necessary
> here.
> >> If the Maya reference in India is well known in other situations,
> Um, no, not so far as I've seen.
> >> I'd like to particularly cite a Historia Mathematica journal
> >> 'reviews of papers' submitted by Dr. Gupta, on or about Feb. 1994.
> >> In that article a Ph.D. candidate was researching the history of
> >> the symbol zero - not the concept that clearly goes back
> >> to 1800 BC (Egypt, the RMP and Babylon, Plimpton Tablet).
> >> 
> >> Without having the article at hand, all that I recall is that
> >> the Vedic section that cited Maya was read as Ptolemy - a
> >> gross mis-reading if I ever saw one.
> Again you're unclear.  Who was engaged in this misreading?  Dr. Gupta?  
> The Ph.D. candidate?  Somebody they cited and debunked?  Does your
> reference, in other words, argue for or against the view you're stating? 
> and if the latter, who does argue for it?
> I must admit that from what I *have* read of the Vedic works (in
> translation), I'd be flabbergasted to see a reference to Ptolemy in any of
> them.
> Or the Maya.
> Awaiting more informed views than mine...
> Joe Bernstein
> -- 
> Joe Bernstein, writer, banker, bookseller joe@sfbooks.com
> speaking for myself alone http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
> But...co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now back under
> discussion in news.groups!