[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.
Regards,
Milo Gardner
Sacramento
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!
>
>
References: