Talk:Bhāskara II

Untitled
"Proved that anything divided by zero is infinity in addition to establishing that infinity divided by anything remains infinity."

The above sentence is incorrect. Only non-negative real numbers divided by zero result in infinity. However, I don't know what Bhaskara proved. I'm tagging the article as dubious. --hdante 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are suggesting that negative real numbers divided by zero result in a distinct negative infinity, it is certainly possible that Bhaskara identified positive and negative infinities, a la the real projective line. However, I'd agree that the article needs clarification on what exactly it was that Bhaskara "proved" about division and infinity. -Chinju 21:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Let me also note right off the bat that it's difficult to see a good motivation for concluding that 0/0 is infinity or that infinity/infinity = infinity; even if Bhaskara was thinking of something like the real projective line, on these particulars it would not support him [if the statement above of his conclusions is accurate].) -Chinju 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sentence. If someone knows what he actually said then they might put that in, but as it stands, it was nonsense. Gene Ward Smith 07:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As an answer to Chinju. In the Lïlävatï, we find this text: a number divided by zero will be:  "what has zero for divisor"; multiplied by zero, it is only zero but, in case meaning of illimited with a stanza (based on a religious image): There must not be any change for it, which has been divided by zero, when quantities are added to, or removed from, it, as there is no change to the "Illimited" (ananta, another name of god Viṣṇu) when, at the time of the destruction of the world, as at the time of its creation, a multitude of beings enter in, or go out of, Viṣṇu.''
 * François Patte 13:51, 30 August 2006 (ITC)

He was born in Bijjada Bida (in present day Bijapur district, Karnataka state, South India). But I don't know how come this information has been modified to Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Bijjada Bida means the area or the places that belongs to Bijjada, also mean kingdom. Bijjada is a name of a Dynasty and also some family names of bijjada available in northern part of Karnataka. Please don't provide wrong information until you know about these. Many poets also have mentioned his names.

References ?
When I look at the math history article MacTutor History of mathematics page I find no reference to calculus under Bhaskara's article. The only references given to this seem to be slides on a physists webpage. Are their any scholarly articles on the subject? Shouldn't those be listed. Thenub314 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Bhaskara's own Bijaganita and Lilavati are a proof! Lilavati is on sale in Amazon. There are numerous books quoting his deduction differentiation of trigonometric functions at least two of which I have read. ~rAGU (talk)

This is not quite correct. In Bijaganita there are instances of cancellation of zero from numerator and denominator which has been likened to working with infinitesimals, but this comparison is far-fetched. As to differentiation it is true that it had been realized that the cosine function corresponds to the rate of change in the sine function, but there is no notion of a function, even in any rudimentary form, or the idea of derivative in general, which is at the heart of calculus. In view of this the reference to calculus and the statements are highly exaggerated and misleading[Dani: 16 September 2013] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.126.45 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Can anyone check if the claims made in Use of Calculus in Hindu Mathematics page 98 bottom, support the argument about calculus. --Sciencefanforhumanity (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Contributions
1. who were Bhaskara's patrons 2. How was his work propagated ? 3. Was his work used in india, if say during what period 4. If his work was forgotten, who "rediscovered" it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansammy (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Division by Zero
Bhaskara II conceived the modern mathematical convention that when a finite number is divided by zero, the result is infinity Firstly, this isn't a legend. Secondly, it is not true that division by zero is considered to be infinite. Surely it's more accurate to say that division by zero is undefined, or that x/n->infinity as n->0 ? Rob Burbidge (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag added
Due to the staggering amount of unsourced claims and loaded language, I've added a NPOV tag. In order to make clear that the article is not NPOV, it should cleaned up, so claims are sourced, and the most loaded languages re-written in an encyclopedic language. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur; in addition, many of the sources quoted are not considered mainstream scholarship, so that alternative views should also be included, even if the present views can be sourced. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Family
there is wrong information regarding caste that details not in chopra's book were triying to clime bhaskara is belong to Deshastha Brahmin is not

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=oIRRUszRKsq-rgeEvYCgDw&id=HAtuAAAAMAAJ&dq=Religions+and+communities+of+India&q=Bhaskaracharya+Deshastha+Brahmin#search_anchor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In general, I thank you for the effort to examine sources. However, using Google Books is not a substitute for actually getting the book (in a library say) and verifying it. There is no requirement that sources we use in Wikipedia must be available online, or that Google will accurately index and search the books. In this particular case, the book does claim what the article said it does: look at this link. On page 54, it says:
 * Deshasthas have contributed to mathematics and literature as well as to the cultural and religious heritage of India. Bhaskar II (A.D. 12th century) was one of the greatest mathematicians of medieval India. Eminent pundits and philosphers like...

So it's there in the book. I've not (yet) added it back to the article, though, because I have reservations about the book's reliability. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Major problems with article
IMO, a major issue with the article is that it's cast in the light of modern mathematics and science, and seeking to claim that Bhāskara did this or that — it's written as a list of putative "achievements". Instead, the ideal would be to present his work on its own terms, place it in context, give some background of what his aims were, and how he accomplished them. Meanwhile, it looks like some references added in the past have been randomly removed over the years, by vandals. Let's improve this article; it's a mess. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have added two tags to the lede, in hopes that this will attract some attention. We need citations to solid academic scholarship, not to claims that are merely intended to glorify Hindu and Jain mathematics. We need help from serious historians of mathematics, not patriots with a minimal understanding of (at best) college-level math. —Aetheling (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Anomalies
Grahaganita almost equal formula could get arrived if I take Secant, Cosecant anomalies. What Grahaganita says in brief for this equation explanation, just a equation in the page not suffices the relevance for it, at-least bit of clear information must've been furnished with right reference.

—Dev A nand Sadasivamt@lk 10:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
[...] I have just modified external links:
 * Added tag to http://epapervijayavani.in/Details.aspx?id=14789&boxid=142524281
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714203538/http://epapervijayavani.in/Details.aspx?id=14794&boxid=142922796
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806040307/http://www.canisius.edu/topos/rajeev.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707064659/http://www.4to40.com/legends/index.asp?p=Bhaskara

[...] Cheers. —InternetArchiveBot 17:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Related to birth and stayed place of Baskaracharya
Baskaracharya was being a recedent in Sarwad village of Vijayapur district. People believe in his recidence in this village and there is also a vrindavan of Baskaracharya as his mark of recidence in Sarwad. Prabhanjan.u (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

page protection
@Daniel Case Preventing IP editors from working on this page doesn't really seem necessary. The level of spam/etc. seems fairly low. Is there an explanation of what's going on with the pp template? Maybe some broader pattern across many articles? –jacobolus (t) 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The request, here. by, took a very different view of IP contributors. Perhaps we could have gone with pending changes instead? Daniel Case (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any significant problem here which would require page protection. We're talking about a few bad edits per year which are easily reverted, not really out of the ordinary among Wikipedia articles. Protection seems like a dramatic and uncalled for remedy. The big banner about contentious topics here also seems unnecessary. –jacobolus (t) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I originally requested protection since the past few edits by ips have all been unconstructive. Looking back at the edit summery, it’s not as frequent as I originally thought. Maybe pending changes would work. My apologies. SKAG123 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I don't think any level of protection is necessary here, unless it becomes a more significant problem than it has been so far. In general I think Wikipedia should only restrict pages when they are causing significant disruption. Mixed among the scattered spam, plenty of valuable contributions come from IP editors. –jacobolus (t) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So pending changes would be OK then? Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems unnecessary to me. This level of spam/test edits/etc. on this page (a few per year, maybe up to one per month) really doesn't seem at all unusual for a Wikipedia article. I would recommend leaving the page unprotected unless the volume of problematic edits gets significantly higher. I am not an expert in Wikipedia page protection policies though.. –jacobolus (t) 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, if you think you can handle it ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)