3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem > In India, the Baudhayana Sulba Sutra, the dates of which

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem > In India, the Baudhayana Sulba Sutra, the dates of which are given variously as between the 8th and 5th century BC, contains a list of Pythagorean triples discovered algebraically, a statement of the Pythagorean theorem, and a geometrical proof of the Pythagorean theorem for an isosceles right triangle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudhayana_sutras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudhayana_sutras > A rope stretched along the length of the diagonal produces an area which the vertical and horizontal sides make together. > The lines are to be referring to a rectangle, although some interpretations consider this to refer to a square. In either case, it states that the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the sides. > If this refers to a rectangle, it is the earliest recorded statement of the Pythagorean theorem.

ajarmst 10y ago
It's generally understood that the theorem, and in particular the 1/1/2 and 3/4/5 integral triangles were known prehistorically and independently 'discovered' in several places. It's not possible to know what the earliest recorded statement was, because we only have tiny fragments (more commonly, fragments of copies of fragments of later documentation of oral traditions) of what actually was recorded that long ago. Finding such a statement only says that its the earliest we're aware of, and even then its always contingent on a variety of factors. These sorts of discussions always seem to devolve into "10,000 generations ago, someone who lived near where some of my ancestors later lived might have known more mathematics than people who lived near where your ancestors lived." [The 'That means I'm better than you.' is usually not explicit] Which is boring.

ajarmst 10y ago

It's generally understood that the theorem, and in particular the 1/1/2 and 3/4/5 integral triangles were known prehistorically and independently 'discovered' in several places. It's not possible to know what the earliest recorded statement was, because we only have tiny fragments (more commonly, fragments of copies of fragments of later documentation of oral traditions) of what actually was recorded that long ago. Finding such a statement only says that its the earliest we're aware of, and even then its always contingent on a variety of factors. These sorts of discussions always seem to devolve into "10,000 generations ago, someone who lived near where some of my ancestors later lived might have known more mathematics than people who lived near where your ancestors lived." [The 'That means I'm better than you.' is usually not explicit] Which is boring.