> 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

> 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;