http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130303145228AA2KDpJ
Can western zero experts challenge the Asian Math brains?
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biog…
" Brahmagupta then tried to extend arithmetic to include division by zero:-
Positive or negative numbers when divided by zero is a fraction the zero as denominator.
Zero divided by negative or positive numbers is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator.
Zero divided by zero is zero.
Really Brahmagupta is saying very little when he suggests that n divided by zero is n/0. He is certainly wrong when he then claims that zero divided by zero is zero. However it is a brilliant attempt to extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero. "
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biog…
"He is sound in addition, subtraction and multiplication involving zero but realised that there were problems with Brahmagupta's ideas of dividing by zero. Madhukar Mallayya in [14] argues that the zero used by Bhaskaracharya in his rule (a.0)/0 = a, given in Lilavati, is equivalent to the modern concept of a non-zero "infinitesimal". Although this claim is not without foundation, perhaps it is seeing ideas beyond what Bhaskaracharya intended."
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invente…
"Bhaskara correctly that stated 02 = 0 and 01/2 = 0 but he was wrong to have supposed that n/0 = Infinity. If n/0 = Infinity were to be true there would arise results which don’t make sense. One of them was 1 = 2 = 3 …….
The reason of this was that the Indian mathematicians could not conclude that no number could be divided by zero. "
Brahmagupta and Bhaskara correctly stated division by mathematical 0. I can see that they knew what they did. But, current western mathematicians do not know the reason why they did so.
How can infants who call themselves as Mathematicians of the short-lived western civilization, challenge and alter the advanced knowledge developed over thousands of years in Asia?
This is joking at wisdom! Fortunately, when the truth is revealed in near future, the world will see the point I am making here.
" Brahmagupta then tried to extend arithmetic to include division by zero:-
Positive or negative numbers when divided by zero is a fraction the zero as denominator.
Zero divided by negative or positive numbers is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator.
Zero divided by zero is zero.
Really Brahmagupta is saying very little when he suggests that n divided by zero is n/0. He is certainly wrong when he then claims that zero divided by zero is zero. However it is a brilliant attempt to extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero. "
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biog…
"He is sound in addition, subtraction and multiplication involving zero but realised that there were problems with Brahmagupta's ideas of dividing by zero. Madhukar Mallayya in [14] argues that the zero used by Bhaskaracharya in his rule (a.0)/0 = a, given in Lilavati, is equivalent to the modern concept of a non-zero "infinitesimal". Although this claim is not without foundation, perhaps it is seeing ideas beyond what Bhaskaracharya intended."
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invente…
"Bhaskara correctly that stated 02 = 0 and 01/2 = 0 but he was wrong to have supposed that n/0 = Infinity. If n/0 = Infinity were to be true there would arise results which don’t make sense. One of them was 1 = 2 = 3 …….
The reason of this was that the Indian mathematicians could not conclude that no number could be divided by zero. "
Brahmagupta and Bhaskara correctly stated division by mathematical 0. I can see that they knew what they did. But, current western mathematicians do not know the reason why they did so.
How can infants who call themselves as Mathematicians of the short-lived western civilization, challenge and alter the advanced knowledge developed over thousands of years in Asia?
This is joking at wisdom! Fortunately, when the truth is revealed in near future, the world will see the point I am making here.
Additional Details
@Peter,
If aforesaid articles took your advice to make no attempt to alter the advanced knowledge, but work assiduously to add to it, why does it state condemning "He is certainly wrong when he then claims that ...."? Look at this question from a broader perspective and read the politics with western resources, especially the intellectual properties.
If aforesaid articles took your advice to make no attempt to alter the advanced knowledge, but work assiduously to add to it, why does it state condemning "He is certainly wrong when he then claims that ...."? Look at this question from a broader perspective and read the politics with western resources, especially the intellectual properties.
@Peter,
I am expecting good argument from you to justify your stand at the question 'division by zero' and not a personal chit-chat.
I am expecting good argument from you to justify your stand at the question 'division by zero' and not a personal chit-chat.
Answer:
No comments:
Post a Comment