2 ms·

Firstly, your claim about Stillwell's "conclusion" is a misrepresentation. Stillwell makes no such conclusion about the lack of transmission. In fact, he explic

Firstly, your claim about Stillwell's "conclusion" is a misrepresentation. Stillwell makes no such conclusion about the lack of transmission. In fact, he explicitly states that the Kerala school knew these mathematical series before 1540. This selective reading and distortion of Stillwell's work is intellectually dishonest and undermines genuine historical inquiry. The Jesuits sent to India weren't not your typical bible thumpers; they were highly trained mathematicians and astronomers with a specific mission to study and acquire Indian mathematical and astronomical knowledge. The primary motivation for Europeans to import knowledge from India wasn't mere academic curiosity - it was a matter of practical necessity, particularly in navigation. By the mid-16th century, Europeans were grappling with significant errors in their calendar calculations. The true solar year was about 11.25 minutes shorter than the assumed 365.25 days, an error that had compounded over centuries, leading to serious discrepancies in timekeeping and navigation. Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit astronomer and mathematician in a letter from India to Giovanni Battista Maffei (Italian mathematician) he states that he requires the assistance of an “intelligent Brahmin or an honest Moor” to help him understand the local ways of recording and measuring time. If one wants a smoking gun—a direct admission of knowledge transfer—is either naïve or deliberately obtuse. Do you also believe that tea plants magically teleported from China to India? The British East India Company's industrial espionage in China's tea industry parallels the Jesuits' activities in India perfectly. Both were covert operations aimed at acquiring valuable "know-how" for economic and strategic gain. Do we have a signed confession from Robert Fortune or his kin admitting to tea espionage? The cumulating circumstantial evidence isn't just substantial—it's overwhelming. We have documented records of Jesuits studying Indian texts, teaching Indian concepts, and corresponding with European mathematicians (see my other comment for examples). The methodological similarities between Kerala mathematics and later European work, like the striking parallels between Wallis and the Yuktibhasa (15th century), where Wallis (in 17th Century) is using the exact expression and reasoning as given in the Yuktibhasa, aren't coincidences—they're smoking guns. Your dismissal of this substantial body of evidence goes beyond healthy skepticism. It appears to disregard the complex realities of historical knowledge transfer risks coming off as a deliberate attempt to erase non-European contributions to mathematical history.

hollerith 2y ago
>The primary motivation for Europeans to import knowledge from India wasn't mere academic curiosity - it was a matter of practical necessity, particularly in navigation. If the Europeans needed help from Indians "particularly in navigation", then why did the Indians never navigate to Europe before Europeans navigated to India? Also, in your opinion, did the Europeans continue to copy math from India after they copied calculus or did European civilization suddenly start discovering most of the world's important new math and physics (including refinements of calculus and most of the math and physics that requires calculus) while Indian civilization suddenly slowed way down in the rate at which it discovered important new math?
griffzhowl 2y ago
> Stillwell makes no such conclusion about the lack of transmission Stillwell: "It is sad that the Indian series became known in the West too late to have any influence or even to become well known until recently." (p. 184, 3rd ed.) It's quite revealing and ironic that your approach to disagreement and request for concrete evidence is to make false accusations of intellectual dishonesty, dance around the issue making irrelevant analogies to tea, and use emotional rhetoric about "erasing non-European contributions". I'm fascinated by non-European contributions to maths, science and philosophy because they're substantial and under-recognized historically, but I want actual evidence. Obviously the Jesuits were transmitting some knowledge to Europe, but if you make the stronger claim that Indian mathematicians laid crucial groundwork for calculus, then demonstrate it. That would be intellectually honest and a far better service to the history of Indian mathematics. What you mention about Wallis and the Yuktibhasa (actually 16th century) is potentially interesting, but you decline to make a concrete case for it and just make vague statements about "striking parallels". Well, let's hear it. p.s. you're wrong about tea as well: it was cultivated in Assam for centuries before the British were there - history can be complicated;

hollerith 2y ago

>The primary motivation for Europeans to import knowledge from India wasn't mere academic curiosity - it was a matter of practical necessity, particularly in navigation. If the Europeans needed help from Indians "particularly in navigation", then why did the Indians never navigate to Europe before Europeans navigated to India? Also, in your opinion, did the Europeans continue to copy math from India after they copied calculus or did European civilization suddenly start discovering most of the world's important new math and physics (including refinements of calculus and most of the math and physics that requires calculus) while Indian civilization suddenly slowed way down in the rate at which it discovered important new math?

griffzhowl 2y ago

> Stillwell makes no such conclusion about the lack of transmission Stillwell: "It is sad that the Indian series became known in the West too late to have any influence or even to become well known until recently." (p. 184, 3rd ed.) It's quite revealing and ironic that your approach to disagreement and request for concrete evidence is to make false accusations of intellectual dishonesty, dance around the issue making irrelevant analogies to tea, and use emotional rhetoric about "erasing non-European contributions". I'm fascinated by non-European contributions to maths, science and philosophy because they're substantial and under-recognized historically, but I want actual evidence. Obviously the Jesuits were transmitting some knowledge to Europe, but if you make the stronger claim that Indian mathematicians laid crucial groundwork for calculus, then demonstrate it. That would be intellectually honest and a far better service to the history of Indian mathematics. What you mention about Wallis and the Yuktibhasa (actually 16th century) is potentially interesting, but you decline to make a concrete case for it and just make vague statements about "striking parallels". Well, let's hear it. p.s. you're wrong about tea as well: it was cultivated in Assam for centuries before the British were there - history can be complicated;