The number zero was invented in Ancient Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Flint,

Could you post summaries or the salient points of the video's along with the links - just so we know what exactly you want us to take away from them.

 

[karnivore]

One cannot just invent theories and say this is what happened. Like for example suggesting a river miraculously disappeared one day, or an entire population vanished since they decided one day to pack their bags and leave. One needs to look at evidence and piece together the facts.

The evidence from within the Bakhshali document shows that the its date could not have been later than 200-300 AD. One clinching factor of the Bakhshali is the Western Prakrit it is written in, which is a Buddhist Sanskritized hybrid known in some circles as "Gatha" - a common form of writing found in Gandhara, but not in modern day India or Bharat. This itself proves it was not Jainic (though Jainism did exist to a degree in Ancient Pakistan). However Gatha became extinct from Gandhara, as mentioned previously, but this shows it was a Gandharan document (nothing to do with modern day India).

Consider the Anavatapta gāthā which was written in exactly the same language as the Bakhshali, and on the same birch bark tree leaves. These were all common ways of recording thoughts in the real India (aka Pakistan).

Strawman argument. Irrelevant.

This has been debunked by all except for the beehives of Hindutva currently swarming the infested state of Bharat.

The language of the Bakhshali could only be understood by people who could read the Western Prakrit Gatha. This language had gone extinct from the mainstream by 300 AD. Therefore the dating of it is assured, and secondly, since the Northwestern Prakrit was not spoken in Bharat, there's no way it was written in Bharat.

Non-sequitor. First, you have ignored the fact, that this script is a possible copy of some original work. No one can say that the original work was not in some language popular in "Bharat". Second, the dating is not on the basis of language, but on the basis of content of the script with respect to our knowledge and understanding of the history of mathematics of that era. Third, even if we consider that the language was "not spoken in Bharat", it still doesn't mean that it can't be copied in "Bharat".

Once again, the presence of a script at a place only proves that it was present there at some point of time in history. It does not prove that it was written there. The language indicates the people for which it was intended, and also the fact that the person who wrote it, was at least aware of it. It still does not prevent him from writing it somewhere outside the region where this language is generally spoken. I am sure you can go to eskimoland and still write in english.

No evidence exists that it has Jain origins.

True. There is no direct evidence. The evidence is circumstantial.

The author who refers to it as possibly Ujjain is clearly not sure!!!!

The authors who refer to it him as being born in Multan and of Multan are clearly sure. Else they would not have written this.

There are solid references from universities that prove Brahmagupta was from Multan, though he did move elsewhere to work - Why else does it repeatedly crop up that Brahmagupta, the Ancient Pakistani, was born in Multan? There has to be some strong connection.

The authors, you have referred to, are historians of mathematics. So is Kim Plofker, whose work has also been cited earlier. The MSN and University of Wisconsin writers are not historians. They are simple mathematicians. They were merely referencing someone else, and unfortunately, did not cite, who they were referring to. Whether these non-historians were sure of it, is irrelevant, because their opinion on history of mathematics does not really matter. (Truth be told, they were not providing any scholarly paper on history)

The so called "solid" references do not mention any ancient text from where they arrived at their conclusion. Once again irrelevant.

Manmohan Singh's ancestors are from Pakistan. He has renounced his citizenship of Pakistan, and therefore has become an Indian.

One could ask similarly is Vitali Klitschko German or American?

Silly point.

So you agree that nationality and/or citizenship is a mere modality of modern geo-politics.

 

[roadrunner]

Strawman argument. Irrelevant.

Lol. In other words, ignore the bits that are difficult.

Non-sequitor. First, you have ignored the fact, that this script is a possible copy of some original work. No one can say that the original work was not in some language popular in "Bharat". Second, the dating is not on the basis of language, but on the basis of content of the script with respect to our knowledge and understanding of the history of mathematics of that era. Third, even if we consider that the language was "not spoken in Bharat", it still doesn't mean that it can't be copied in "Bharat".

Once again, the presence of a script at a place only proves that it was present there at some point of time in history. It does not prove that it was written there. The language indicates the people for which it was intended, and also the fact that the person who wrote it, was at least aware of it. It still does not prevent him from writing it somewhere outside the region where this language is generally spoken. I am sure you can go to eskimoland and still write in english.

But the point is you have no evidence for any of this!!!!

The evidence is a Manuscript found in Mardan, Pakistan and dated to 200 AD, in a language of Buddhist Sanskrit hybrid of the Gatha dialect. Since this dialect was not spoken in Bharat, it wasn't someone from there who wrote it!!

Extending this with your eskimo example. I go to Alaska and write in English,and my Manuscript is discovered at a later date. This would suggest someone whose first language was English had wrote the Manuscript. Similarly, the person who wrote the Bakhshali Manuscript had a first language is Gatha, which was not spoken in Bharat, it was a Ghandarian dialect.

The logic is very clear if you think about it, the evidence, even if it is a copy of an earlier work (of which no evidence exists just like none exists of rivers disappearing!) suggests that it is the earliest recorded manuscript of the number zero's usage in calculation.

The authors, you have referred to, are historians of mathematics. So is Kim Plofker, whose work has also been cited earlier. The MSN and University of Wisconsin writers are not historians. They are simple mathematicians. They were merely referencing someone else, and unfortunately, did not cite, who they were referring to. Whether these non-historians were sure of it, is irrelevant, because their opinion on history of mathematics does not really matter. (Truth be told, they were not providing any scholarly paper on history)

The so called "solid" references do not mention any ancient text from where they arrived at their conclusion. Once again irrelevant.

They look very relevant to me. I've shown at least 4 authors refer to him as a Multani. Did they all just happen to stumble across a map and throw darts at it to decide he was from Multan?

 

[karnivore]

Lol. In other words, ignore the bits that are difficult.

Vanishing river or vanishing population has got nothing to do with what we are discussing. Therfore irrelevant.

Since, I have said nothing about the language of the script, and curiously enough, neither have O'connor and Robertson, your explanation of the language in an attempt to stake your claim, was, therefore, strawman argument.

But I can see, thats how you like to debate.

But the point is you have no evidence for any of this!!!!

The evidence is a Manuscript found in Mardan, Pakistan and dated to 200 AD, in a language of Buddhist Sanskrit hybrid of the Gatha dialect. Since this dialect was not spoken in Bharat, it wasn't someone from there who wrote it!!

Extending this with your eskimo example. I go to Alaska and write in English,and my Manuscript is discovered at a later date. This would suggest someone whose first language was English had wrote the Manuscript. Similarly, the person who wrote the Bakhshali Manuscript had a first language is Gatha, which was not spoken in Bharat, it was a Ghandarian dialect.

The logic is very clear if you think about it, the evidence, even if it is a copy of an earlier work (of which no evidence exists just like none exists of rivers disappearing!) suggests that it is the earliest recorded manuscript of the number zero's usage in calculation.

You finally get my point and yet, somehow, don't. Lack of proof is one point you do get. But the fact that it cuts both ways, is something you don't get.

Your first argument was that since it was found in Pakistan, therefore, the script was written in Pakistan. (That is, if highlighting the relevant portion, that speaks of the script being found in Pakistan, can be called an argument). I argued, that a script can easily change hands and find its place anywhere in the world. Location of a script does not indicate the place of writing.

You then fell back on the language argument. (Thats why I called it a strawman argument). Your argument was that since it is in a language, not popular in "Bharat", therefore it was written in an area where the language was popular. My eskimo example was to prove that it can very well be otherwise.

Since we do not know where it was written, we should leave it at that, and not draw any conclusion on it. (O'connor and Robertson do not. In fact no historian, that i have so far been able to reference on the net, has.) Any argument on its place of writing can be successfully deconstructed, simply because there is no evidence.

Arguments that are good for ruins, are not applicable for scripts or people or any other artifacts that can move around or capable of being moved around. Getting an accurate fix on their place of origin can be extremely tricky.

They look very relevant to me. I've shown at least 4 authors refer to him as a Multani. Did they all just happen to stumble across a map and throw darts at it to decide he was from Multan?

Of course they are relevant to you. You are seeing, what you want to see. The inconvenience of the fact that they are not historians, the fact that they don't give any clue as to how they arrived at their decision, shouldn't weigh you down.

I am sure they had their own logic for calling Brahmagupta, a Multani. But unless you come up with the original source, something like Al Beruni's writing, that unequivocally establishes that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, his birthplace would continue to be at Ujjain, India.

Well, even if he was born in Multan, it still wouldn't matter though.

And you have probably missed this:

Manmohan Singh's ancestors are from Pakistan. He has renounced his citizenship of Pakistan, and therefore has become an Indian.

One could ask similarly is Vitali Klitschko German or American?

Silly point.

So you agree that nationality and/or citizenship is a mere modality of modern geo-politics.

 

[UnitedPak]

Well, even if he was born in Multan, it still wouldn't matter though.

Of course it would. He is an ancestor of the Saraiki people i.e a Pakistani ancestor.

 

[Flintlock]

 

[karnivore]

Of course it would. He is an ancestor of the Saraiki people i.e a Pakistani ancestor.

In other words, anybody born in an area, which, due to an unfortunate twist of politics, is in modern Pakistan, becomes a Pakistani by default.

Nationality, as much as I understand, is one's identity with respect to a nation, by reason of birth or naturalization (not to be confused with citizenship as one member seems to have). Nation, on the other hand, is a political identity of a group of people, residing in a specific geographical area.

So tell me, does nationality come before the beginning of existence of a nation, or only after a nation comes into existence, that nationality can be claimed.

If, Brahmagupta was indeed born in Multan, then the best that you can claim is, that modern Pakistanis (the saraiki people) are descendants of the same ethnic group to which he belonged. It still won't make HIM a national of a modern 60 odd years old state.

 

[Flintlock]

In any case, the argument is pointless because the only historical source available to us clearly states that he was born in Bhinmal, Rajasthan, between Multan and Anhilwara (Modern Patan, Gujarat)

The odd Multan reference is because of Bhinmal's relative obscurity and proximity to the ancient urban center which was Multan.

In other words, anybody born in an area, which, due to an unfortunate twist of politics, is in modern Pakistan, becomes a Pakistani by default.

Nationality, as much as I understand, is one's identity with respect to a nation, by reason of birth or naturalization (not to be confused with citizenship as one member seems to have). Nation, on the other hand, is a political identity of a group of people, residing in a specific geographical area.

So tell me, does nationality come before the beginning of existence of a nation, or only after a nation comes into existence, that nationality can be claimed.

If, Brahmagupta was indeed born in Multan, then the best that you can claim is, that modern Pakistanis (the saraiki people) are descendants of the same ethnic group to which he belonged. It still won't make HIM a national of a modern 60 odd years old state.

 

[karnivore]

^^ Correct.

 

[Flintlock]

Extract from:

A History of Sanskrit Literature
By A. Berriedale Keith
Published by Oxford University Press, 1961
Original from the University of California
Digitized 31 Aug 2007
575 pages

"...Brahmagupta, born AD 598 son of Jishu of Bhillamala near Multan..."

A History of Sanskrit Literature - Google Book Search

This is the source of the confusion.

Alberuni's work mentions Bhillamala as between Multan and Anhilwara. Later authors interpreted it as Bhillamala near Multan, and some authors simply wrote Multan for convenience sake.

Any book or paper on Brahmagupta himself (and not a mathematical work with a passing reference to Brahmagupta) refers to his birthplace as Bhillamala.

____________________________________________________


Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society
By Pakistan Historical Society
Published by Pakistan Historical Society., 1953
Item notes: v.1-2 (1953-54)
Original from the University of California
Digitized 24 Jul 2007

"...Brahmagupta, son of Jisnu from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara, 16 yojanas from the latter place..."

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...rahmagupta+multan&lr=&client=firefox-a&pgis=1

Another clear reference to Bhillamala.

______________________________________________________________

Proceedings.
edited by J.E. Parkinson, R. H. Whitehouse
Published by Printed at the Mufid-i-'Am Press, 1927
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized 18 Nov 2008
718 pages

"Brahmagupta, born in Bhillamala near Multan in in AD 598..."


http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...rahmagupta+multan&lr=&client=firefox-a&pgis=1
__________________________________________________________________

Hope this clears up the confusion. And RR, kindly admit defeat and stop clutching at Kalavas.

 

[roadrunner]

Extract from:

A History of Sanskrit Literature
By A. Berriedale Keith
Published by Oxford University Press, 1961
Original from the University of California
Digitized 31 Aug 2007
575 pages

"...Brahmagupta, born AD 598 son of Jishu of Bhillamala near Multan..."

A History of Sanskrit Literature - Google Book Search

This is the source of the confusion.

Alberuni's work mentions Bhillamala as between Multan and Anhilwara. Later authors interpreted it as Bhillamala near Multan, and some authors simply wrote Multan for convenience sake.

Any book or paper on Brahmagupta himself (and not a mathematical work with a passing reference to Brahmagupta) refers to his birthplace as Bhillamala.

____________________________________________________


Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society
By Pakistan Historical Society
Published by Pakistan Historical Society., 1953
Item notes: v.1-2 (1953-54)
Original from the University of California
Digitized 24 Jul 2007

"...Brahmagupta, son of Jisnu from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara, 16 yojanas from the latter place..."

Journal of the Pakistan Historical ... - Google Book Search

Another clear reference to Bhillamala.

______________________________________________________________

Proceedings.
edited by J.E. Parkinson, R. H. Whitehouse
Published by Printed at the Mufid-i-'Am Press, 1927
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized 18 Nov 2008
718 pages

"Brahmagupta, born in Bhillamala near Multan in in AD 598..."


Proceedings. - Google Book Search
__________________________________________________________________

Hope this clears up the confusion. And RR, kindly admit defeat and stop clutching at Kalavas.

I think this is missing the point of the previous pages.

First Brahamagupta did not invent the zero, and is a smaller part of the puzzle, but a significant one.

Second, there's a reference to Al-Beruni, the Arab, which you quote often, and these references here (which are fine, I have no problem with them), are sourced to that Al-Beruni quote.

My problem with the Al-Beruni quote is that it does not say where he was born, and the reference of yours saying that he was born in Bhillimala is based on an inaccurate translation of Al-Beruni.

Al-Beruni, the Arab whose word you live on, suggests that Brahmagupta was a teacher at Bhillamala - this is something which is not denied by any of my quotes. My quotes even suggest he worked in Bhillamala and was known as "the teacher". However, Al-Beruni does not suggest where Brahmagupta was born.

Here is another reference to it, this time from Montreal University. It's very clear about Brahmagupta's relationship to Bhillamala, Multan, and Ujjain.

"BRAHMAGUPTA, un des mathématiciens indiens les plus connus, est né dans le nord-ouest de l'Inde en 598 à Multan, aujourd’hui située au Pakistan (1). Il a passé la plupart de sa vie dans la ville de Bhillamala (actuellement Bhinmal, au Rajasthan) sous la protection du souverain Gurjara. Il dirigeait l'observatoire astronomique d'Ujjain, grand centre de recherche en mathématiques au VIIe siècle."
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~belbah...E9matiques%20indiennes%20et%20Brahmagupta.doc

"BRAHMAGUPTA, one of the most famous Indian mathematicians, was born in the northwest of India in 598 in Multan, today located in Pakistan (1). He spent the most part of his life in the city of Bhillamala (nowadays Bhinmal, in Rajasthan) under the protection of the sovereign Gurjara. He worked in the astronomic observatory of Ujjain, a big research centre in mathematics in the VIIth century."
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~belbah...E9matiques%20indiennes%20et%20Brahmagupta.doc

Now compare your quotes to this

Your quote is "Brahmagupta, son of Jisnu from the town of Bhillamala between Multan and Anhilwara, 16 yojanas from the latter place..."

When it says Brahamagupta was from the town of Bhillamala it's clearly referring to the fact that he lived there. It doesn't say he was born there. Therefore this quote and my ones are not really at odds.

I think you'll find Al-Beruni's quote to not be referring to the place where he was born, but the place where he worked.

With 5 scholarly references showing that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, spent the majority of his life in Bhillamala, and worked in Ujjain, and perhaps two academic references stating he was born in Bhillamala I'd still say the evidence points to him being born in Multan - However, I'm sure that your two academic references to him being born in Bhillamala are a mistranslation of Al-Beruni, who does not mention anything of where Brahmagupta was born - only where he lived.

 

[Flintlock]

In that case, please establish a source for the French website's claim of him being born in Multan. It should be either a published research paper that deals directly with the question of Brahmagupta's birth, OR it should be a book written on the history of mathematics.

Clearly, someone would have done research on the subject and come across a historical reference which proves his birth. If so, please produce that original document.
Until then, your source is no more acceptable than any other online academic source which describes his birthplace as Bhillamala.

tNow, regarding Alberuni's work, you cannot simply claim a mistranslation without providing an alternative translation that clearly specifies hat his birthplace was not Bhillamala.

Clearly, my sources, which are published works, hold far more authority than the sources provided by you, which are either papers dealing with subjects other than Brahmagupta's birth and only mention his name in passing, or, simply online documents that are not published or reviewed by peers in the field.

 

[roadrunner]

Vanishing river or vanishing population has got nothing to do with what we are discussing. Therfore irrelevant.

Since, I have said nothing about the language of the script, and curiously enough, neither have O'connor and Robertson, your explanation of the language in an attempt to stake your claim, was, therefore, strawman argument.

But I can see, thats how you like to debate.

It's not a strawman argument. It's a valid point which you glossed over. The language of the Manuscript is only convenient if you happen to be trying to ignore certain facts.

You finally get my point and yet, somehow, don't. Lack of proof is one point you do get. But the fact that it cuts both ways, is something you don't get.

Your first argument was that since it was found in Pakistan, therefore, the script was written in Pakistan. (That is, if highlighting the relevant portion, that speaks of the script being found in Pakistan, can be called an argument). I argued, that a script can easily change hands and find its place anywhere in the world. Location of a script does not indicate the place of writing.

This isn't the most important part of my argument.

You then fell back on the language argument. (Thats why I called it a strawman argument). Your argument was that since it is in a language, not popular in "Bharat", therefore it was written in an area where the language was popular. My eskimo example was to prove that it can very well be otherwise.

You're avoiding the language issue because you cannot understand how it fits in. The Gatha in the Manuscript was not spoke in Bharat. It was spoken in Gandhara. Therefore, the evidence points to it being written by someone from Gandhara, not Bharat - why would it have been written from somewhere in "India" aka Bharat, when this dialect was not spoken in "India" aka Bharat?

Surely this confirms my point that my English written Manuscript found in Eskimo land would suggest someone from an English speaking country had written it, just as a Gatha written Manuscript would suggest someone from the Gandaran country had written the Bakhshali Manuscript. Isn't this the point?

Since we do not know where it was written, we should leave it at that, and not draw any conclusion on it. (O'connor and Robertson do not. In fact no historian, that i have so far been able to reference on the net, has.) Any argument on its place of writing can be successfully deconstructed, simply because there is no evidence.

There's plenty of evidence. I've given it. You're in denial of it.

Gatha was not spoken in "India" aka Bharat. It was spoken in Gandara, clearly indicative that the Manuscript was written by a Gandaran and not a Bharati.

Arguments that are good for ruins, are not applicable for scripts or people or any other artifacts that can move around or capable of being moved around. Getting an accurate fix on their place of origin can be extremely tricky.

Irrelevant.

Of course they are relevant to you. You are seeing, what you want to see. The inconvenience of the fact that they are not historians, the fact that they don't give any clue as to how they arrived at their decision, shouldn't weigh you down.

Ummm. It was written in the Gatha dialect. You're in denial of this it would seem.

I am sure they had their own logic for calling Brahmagupta, a Multani. But unless you come up with the original source, something like Al Beruni's writing, that unequivocally establishes that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, his birthplace would continue to be at Ujjain, India.

Well, even if he was born in Multan, it still wouldn't matter though.

And you have probably missed this:

lol, Ujjain in India is not cited by anyone. One source says it's possibly Ujjain, India where Brahamgupta was born, but most of the other ones say Multan and some say Bhillamala.

Personally I don't know why you don't just read Al-Beruni's quote - it doesn't say anything about him being born anywhere, just about where he lived. In fact, Al Beruni didn't even live till 5 centuries after Brahmagupta.

Brahmagupta was born in Multan, lived in Bhillamala. That seems to be where most of the evidence points to.

 

[Flintlock]

With 5 scholarly references showing that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, spent the majority of his life in Bhillamala, and worked in Ujjain, and perhaps two academic references stating he was born in Bhillamala I'd still say the evidence points to him being born in Multan - However, I'm sure that your two academic references to him being born in Bhillamala are a mistranslation of Al-Beruni, who does not mention anything of where Brahmagupta was born - only where he lived.

Alright, here are more academic sources for your viewing pleasure:


History of Indian Science

Indian Mathemtics

The combinatorics of tastes and humours in classical Indian medicine and mathematics

I'll get more

 

[roadrunner]

Clearly, my sources, which are published works, hold far more authority than the sources provided by you, which are either papers dealing with subjects other than Brahmagupta's birth and only mention his name in passing, or, simply online documents that are not published or reviewed by peers in the field.

Your sources are not from peer reviewed journals.

They're from some meeting (perhaps in India) that took place in 1927.

The original of that meeting is held at the University of California.

It is not a statement by the University of California.

My articles are from peer reviewed journals of the modern day

Two examples of my articles from peer-reviewed journals of today:

“Exponentiation and Euler measure,” is reminiscent of an interesting “mistake” made by Brahmagupta of Multan in his 6th century treatise Brahmasphutasiddantha."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0203/0203289v2.pdf

As we know the concept of zero, was originated in Ancient India. It was indicated by a dot and was termed Pujyam. The word zero comes from the Arabic sifr, meaning “empty or vacant”, a literal translation of the Indian Sanskrit shunya meaning “void or empty”. Indians became adept mathematicians around 3000BC, but only the usage of zero became well known around the 6th century when Brahmagupta of Multan formulated rules of operation usig it. For 400 years from the 6th century, India was foremost in maths, and zero began its journey around the world. With the rise of trade among Arabs, Greeks and Indians, caravans carried more than goods to China, Arabia and Greece.
http://www.ooffouro.org/ita/RESEARCH/ABQ/OOFFOURO_ABQ%20- ResearchArea.pdf


The other 3 references of mine are from some of the top univerity websites around the world.

Alright, here are more academic sources for your viewing pleasure:


History of Indian Science

Indian Mathemtics

The combinatorics of tastes and humours in classical Indian medicine and mathematics

I'll get more

Do get more.

History of Indian Science

Written by "Subhash Kak"

Indian Mathemtics

Written by "V S Varadarajan" who can't even spell Mathematics in his title.

The third one is at least by someone neutral.

All my articles are written by Europeans suggesting a degree (though not always) of neutrality. You've got one neutral author who wrote an article on medicine that says Brahamgupta was born in Rajasthan. I will credit this one.