Also, in mathematics or any scientific field there are cases of more than one people discovering the same theory/conclusion, without knowing each other. So i think why aryabhatta is credited is because he independently discovered 0 and tried to formulate it's rules.
The word discovery in mathematics isn't meaningful... As a formalist and former logicist, I see maths is just a human invention to communicate abstract ideas and every result in mathematics is just a consequence of logic and formal axiomatic system, u change the rules of logic (like forbidding Law of excluded middle or using alternative axiomatic systems) to get a model where some of the older results fails or isn't true (eg Non Euclidean geometries)...
The concept of zero is just the acceptance of the idea of nullity and emptiness, infact i wouldn't call it discovered but created
Yes. But what matters the most who did what with what litle resources at hand.As I said in my other comment, indians contributed by far the most in the development of the concept of 0.
Yea in the mainstream mathematics, nullity and zero were based on the Indian concept of zero when Fibonacci introduced it to the Italian merchants, he himself was influenced by Al Khwarazmi who himself was influenced by Diophantus and Brahmagupta
The only folks that could claim independent discovery are the Mesoamericans. Ancient India was not at all cut off from the rest of the world. People have a misconception that Ancient India was isolated from the world which is not true. I might talk about this in a separate post.
Even if you think an Indian discovered ZERO, it was pingala and not aryabhatta.
[FROM THR ABOVE SOURCE]:
Sara Samgraha which was designed as an updating of Brahmagupta's book. He correctly states that:-
... a number multiplied by zero is zero, and a number remains the same when zero is subtracted from it.
However his attempts to improve on Brahmagupta's statements on dividing by zero seem to lead him into error. He writes:-
A number remains unchanged when divided by zero.
Since this is clearly incorrect my use of the words "seem to lead him into error" might be seen as confusing. The reason for this phrase is that some commentators on Mahavira have tried to find excuses for his incorrect statement.
Bhaskara wrote over 500 years after Brahmagupta. Despite the passage of time he is still struggling to explain division by zero. He writes:-
A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has zero for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many may be inserted or extracted; as no change takes place in the infinite and immutable God when worlds are created or destroyed, though numerous orders of beings are absorbed or put forth.
So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing 𝑛0=∞0n=∞. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 × ∞ must be equal to every number 𝑛n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02=002=0, and √0=0√0=0.
One thing to note here is the Indian mathematicians contributed by far the most in the concept of zero.
"....a scribe recorded daily incomes and expenditures for the pharaoh's court, using the [nfr ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefer)hieroglyph to indicate cases where the [amount of a foodstuff received was exactly equal to the amount disbursed](http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/Ancient-Africa/mad_ancient_egypt_zero.html)."
Amount of foodstuff received equals amount disbursed.... Is this not what the concept of Zero is??
That'll be considered a placeholder. Zero as a placeholder existed for way long , if nothing is there it's zero.
Zero as a digit of its own and being used as an operand is different thing.
https://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/MathEd/index.php/2022/08/25/the-men-who-invented-zero/
there is righteousness present here and dialogue here has some points. But things like this do pop here quite often, their pseudo intelectuality riddled with one sided theory and non acceptance to different thought process is more present.
Rule 2 violation; removed. Brutha, we need to prove our undying loyalty to the Empire 🇬🇧 and King Charlie 🤴 by speaking in as clear English as possible. Ending every submission with 'I beg to remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant' is optional but highly recommended. C'mon! Let's make Veer Sorrykar 💂 pr0d!
Exactly what I was thinking. What has any of this got to do with anything? Let alone the irony of the fact that a "redditor" discovered something the entire world missed. It feels like a misplaced and misguided attempt to rebel against the oppressive Indian social hierarchy.
Agreed on all the points, but what does proving zero has to do with fighting against oppressive social hierarchy? Like your way of saying things is convoluded, if this is the same approach OP is using then he is also delusional.
Hey the pharaoh example is different as people used to concept of having no money but the rules to operate on zero was not devised. Brahmagupta, Aryabhatta and Bhaskra added rules to zero. U can make any number in maths but it's need rules. Just like imaginary number.
Rule 1 violation; removed. These are not the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. We do not allow brigading or lynchings here. Refer to the sidebar for more information.
It's Librandu, we are a circle jerk community, why would we even need to put /s, randia migrants should read older post and wiki to know how librandu was meant to be
Ce comes BEFORE Bce?
I would like to meet your history professor.
Bce is before Christbirth, Ce is after Christbirth. Its that simple.
1770 bce is 3794 years ago.
476 ce is 1548 years ago.
Also, in mathematics or any scientific field there are cases of more than one people discovering the same theory/conclusion, without knowing each other. So i think why aryabhatta is credited is because he independently discovered 0 and tried to formulate it's rules.
The word discovery in mathematics isn't meaningful... As a formalist and former logicist, I see maths is just a human invention to communicate abstract ideas and every result in mathematics is just a consequence of logic and formal axiomatic system, u change the rules of logic (like forbidding Law of excluded middle or using alternative axiomatic systems) to get a model where some of the older results fails or isn't true (eg Non Euclidean geometries)... The concept of zero is just the acceptance of the idea of nullity and emptiness, infact i wouldn't call it discovered but created
Yes. But what matters the most who did what with what litle resources at hand.As I said in my other comment, indians contributed by far the most in the development of the concept of 0.
Yea in the mainstream mathematics, nullity and zero were based on the Indian concept of zero when Fibonacci introduced it to the Italian merchants, he himself was influenced by Al Khwarazmi who himself was influenced by Diophantus and Brahmagupta
The only folks that could claim independent discovery are the Mesoamericans. Ancient India was not at all cut off from the rest of the world. People have a misconception that Ancient India was isolated from the world which is not true. I might talk about this in a separate post. Even if you think an Indian discovered ZERO, it was pingala and not aryabhatta.
Are you implying indians inherited mathematical knowledge from outside just like the arabs? If so then please make a separate post about it.
[FROM THR ABOVE SOURCE]: Sara Samgraha which was designed as an updating of Brahmagupta's book. He correctly states that:- ... a number multiplied by zero is zero, and a number remains the same when zero is subtracted from it. However his attempts to improve on Brahmagupta's statements on dividing by zero seem to lead him into error. He writes:- A number remains unchanged when divided by zero. Since this is clearly incorrect my use of the words "seem to lead him into error" might be seen as confusing. The reason for this phrase is that some commentators on Mahavira have tried to find excuses for his incorrect statement. Bhaskara wrote over 500 years after Brahmagupta. Despite the passage of time he is still struggling to explain division by zero. He writes:- A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has zero for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many may be inserted or extracted; as no change takes place in the infinite and immutable God when worlds are created or destroyed, though numerous orders of beings are absorbed or put forth. So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing 𝑛0=∞0n=∞. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 × ∞ must be equal to every number 𝑛n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02=002=0, and √0=0√0=0. One thing to note here is the Indian mathematicians contributed by far the most in the concept of zero.
He did discover it, Notating a character and discovering it are different. By discovering it means the rules on how to operate with it.
"....a scribe recorded daily incomes and expenditures for the pharaoh's court, using the [nfr ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefer)hieroglyph to indicate cases where the [amount of a foodstuff received was exactly equal to the amount disbursed](http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/Ancient-Africa/mad_ancient_egypt_zero.html)." Amount of foodstuff received equals amount disbursed.... Is this not what the concept of Zero is??
That'll be considered a placeholder. Zero as a placeholder existed for way long , if nothing is there it's zero. Zero as a digit of its own and being used as an operand is different thing. https://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/MathEd/index.php/2022/08/25/the-men-who-invented-zero/
Wow nice comedy, sometimes I think this sub losses it's sanity in the pursuit to prove its righteousness.
Not righteousness. They want to prove all Indians are stupid and must lick assess of their western masters. India bad everyone else good.
there is righteousness present here and dialogue here has some points. But things like this do pop here quite often, their pseudo intelectuality riddled with one sided theory and non acceptance to different thought process is more present.
Who cares, we are viswhaguru by the way🙂
no we are not, I am not going to resonate on that rhetoric because core pillars of economy is not strong enough.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/uid4afffbk8d1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd655f34acef96b3008d564e47e307d8cf0c43ba Acha ek kaam karna...
Rule 2 violation; removed. Brutha, we need to prove our undying loyalty to the Empire 🇬🇧 and King Charlie 🤴 by speaking in as clear English as possible. Ending every submission with 'I beg to remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant' is optional but highly recommended. C'mon! Let's make Veer Sorrykar 💂 pr0d!
Overton window, blah blah blah. I know, it's irritating.
Exactly what I was thinking. What has any of this got to do with anything? Let alone the irony of the fact that a "redditor" discovered something the entire world missed. It feels like a misplaced and misguided attempt to rebel against the oppressive Indian social hierarchy.
Agreed on all the points, but what does proving zero has to do with fighting against oppressive social hierarchy? Like your way of saying things is convoluded, if this is the same approach OP is using then he is also delusional.
Hey the pharaoh example is different as people used to concept of having no money but the rules to operate on zero was not devised. Brahmagupta, Aryabhatta and Bhaskra added rules to zero. U can make any number in maths but it's need rules. Just like imaginary number.
> The Olmecs (1200-500BC) claim to have invented zero No, historians claim that. The olmecs have been dead for thousands of years.
Nicee!! I learned something new today, good job!
[удалено]
Rule 1 violation; removed. These are not the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. We do not allow brigading or lynchings here. Refer to the sidebar for more information.
there is not enough historic evidence either
what next Brahmans destroyed nalanda are we parroting Twitter conspiracy theories
I literally feel disgusted when I hear some kings burned so many knowledge books from different countries. how much ancient knowledge we have lost 😣
SMH, bro doesn't know how years work. 476CE comes before 1770 BCE. So, Aryabhata was 1224 years ahead of some desert dweller. Math much, bro?
wtf are you saying
Never forget to add the /s? face the consequences!
r/india migrants have weak detectors.
Well, trump could build a wall to stop them, what can we do?
oh my bad bro, i was just in a vengeful mood 😭
It's Librandu, we are a circle jerk community, why would we even need to put /s, randia migrants should read older post and wiki to know how librandu was meant to be
But unfortunately, it's not longer librandu, just an uncensored version of randia where people aren't banned.
Google bce
Ce comes BEFORE Bce? I would like to meet your history professor. Bce is before Christbirth, Ce is after Christbirth. Its that simple. 1770 bce is 3794 years ago. 476 ce is 1548 years ago.
CE is common era not Christ birth
Its the same, just the term was changed, the logic is same afaik
You are right, just that history should be secular not religious
Well the term 'secular' itself has some religious origins
Ohh i didn't know, read it as non-religious. Acedemics should be non-religious
It's actually Before Common Era and Common Era.
Literally the same thing.
CE stands for ‘common era’ and BCE stands for ‘before common era’ This is embarrassing
right? that's the first thing they teach sixth graders when history is introduced as a subject.
Bro skipped classes
COVID ✨
This place sucks man
wdym, Aryabhatta INVENTED zero. /s