Mayan mathematics

Hernán Cortés, excited by stories of the lands which Columbus had recently discovered, sailed from Spain in 1505 landing in Hispaniola which is now Santo Domingo. After farming there for some years he sailed with Velázquez to conquer Cuba in 1511. He was twice elected major of Santiago then, on 18 February 1519, he sailed for the coast of Yucatán with a force of 11 ships, 508 soldiers, 100 sailors, and 16 horses. He landed at Tabasco on the northern coast of the Yucatán peninsular. He met with little resistance from the local population and they presented him with presents including twenty girls. He married Malinche, one of these girls.

The people of the Yucatán peninsular were descendants of the ancient Mayan civilisation which had been in decline from about 900 AD. It is the mathematical achievements of this civilisation which we are concerned with in this article. However, before describing these, we should note that Cortés went on to conquer the Aztec peoples of Mexico. He captured Tenochtitlán before the end of 1519 (the city was rebuilt as Mexico City in 1521) and the Aztec empire fell to Cortés before the end of 1521. Malinche, who acted as interpreter for Cortés, played an important role in his ventures.

In order to understand how knowledge of the Mayan people has reached us we must consider another Spanish character in this story, namely Diego de Landa. He joined the Franciscan Order in 1541 when about 17 years old and requested that he be sent to the New World as a missionary. Landa helped the Mayan peoples in the Yucatán peninsular and generally tried his best to protect them from their new Spanish masters. He visited the ruins of the great cities of the Mayan civilisation and learnt from the people about their customs and history.

However, despite being sympathetic to the Mayan people, Landa abhorred their religious practices. To the devote Christian that Landa was, the Mayan religion with its icons and the Mayan texts written in hieroglyphics appeared like the work of the devil. He ordered all Mayan idols be destroyed and all Mayan books be burned. Landa seems to have been surprised at the distress this caused the Mayans.

Nobody can quite understand Landa's feelings but perhaps he regretted his actions or perhaps he tried to justify them. Certainly what he then did was to write a book Relación de las cosas de Yucatán (1566) which describes the hieroglyphics, customs, temples, religious practices and history of the Mayans which his own actions had done so much to eradicate. The book was lost for many years but rediscovered in Madrid three hundred years later in 1869.

A small number of Mayan documents survived destruction by Landa. The most important are: the Dresden Codex now kept in the Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden; the Madrid Codex now kept in the American Museum in Madrid; and the Paris Codex now in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris. The Dresden Codex is a treatise on astronomy, thought to have been copied in the eleventh century AD from an original document dating from the seventh or eighth centuries AD.



The Dresden codex:


Knowledge of the Mayan civilisation has been greatly increased in the last thirty years (see for example [Maya civilisation (New York, 1995).',3)">3] and [The new archaeology and the ancient Maya (London, 1990).',8)">8]). Modern techniques such as high resolution radar images, aerial photography and satellite images have changed conceptions of the Maya civilisation. We are interested in the Classic Period of the Maya which spans the period 250 AD to 900 AD, but this classic period was built on top of a civilisation which had lived in the region from about 2000 BC.

The Maya of the Classic Period built large cities, around fifteen have been identified in the Yucatán peninsular, with recent estimates of the population of the city of Tikal in the Southern Lowlands being around 50000 at its peak. Tikal is probably the largest of the cities and recent studies have identified about 3000 separate constructions including temples, palaces, shrines, wood and thatch houses, terraces, causeways, plazas and huge reservoirs for storing rainwater. The rulers were astronomer priests who lived in the cities who controlled the people with their religious instructions. Farming with sophisticated raised fields and irrigation systems provided the food to support the population.

A common culture, calendar, and mythology held the civilisation together and astronomy played an important part in the religion which underlay the whole life of the people. Of course astronomy and calendar calculations require mathematics and indeed the Maya constructed a very sophisticated number system. We do not know the date of these mathematical achievements but it seems certain that when the system was devised it contained features which were more advanced than any other in the world at the time.

The Maya number system was a base twenty system.


Here are the Mayan numerals.

Almost certainly the reason for base 20 arose from ancient people who counted on both their fingers and their toes. Although it was a base 20 system, called a vigesimal system, one can see how five plays a major role, again clearly relating to five fingers and toes. In fact it is worth noting that although the system is base 20 it only has three number symbols (perhaps the unit symbol arising from a pebble and the line symbol from a stick used in counting). Often people say how impossible it would be to have a number system to a large base since it would involve remembering so many special symbols. This shows how people are conditioned by the system they use and can only see variants of the number system in close analogy with the one with which they are familiar. Surprising and advanced features of the Mayan number system are the zero, denoted by a shell for reasons we cannot explain, and the positional nature of the system. However, the system was not a truly positional system as we shall now explain.

In a true base twenty system the first number would denote the number of units up to 19, the next would denote the number of 20's up to 19, the next the number of 400's up to 19, etc. However although the Maya number system starts this way with the units up to 19 and the 20's up to 19, it changes in the third place and this denotes the number of 360's up to 19 instead of the number of 400's. After this the system reverts to multiples of 20 so the fourth place is the number of 18 cross 202, the next the number of 18 cross 203 and so on. For example [ 8;14;3;1;12 ] represents

12 + 1 cross 20 + 3 cross 18 cross 20 + 14 cross 18 cross 202 + 8 cross 18 cross 203 = 1253912.

As a second example [ 9;8;9;13;0 ] represents

0 + 13 cross 20 + 9 cross 18 cross 20 + 8 cross 18 cross 202 + 9 cross 18 cross 203 =1357100.

Both these examples are found in the ruins of Mayan towns and we shall explain their significance below.

Now the system we have just described is used in the Dresden Codex and it is the only system for which we have any written evidence. In [A universal history of numbers : From prehistory to the invention of the computer (London, 1998).',4)">4] Ifrah argues that the number system we have just introduced was the system of the Mayan priests and astronomers which they used for astronomical and calendar calculations. This is undoubtedly the case and that it was used in this way explains some of the irregularities in the system as we shall see below. It was the system used for calendars. However Ifrah also argues for a second truly base 20 system which would have been used by the merchants and was the number system which would also have been used in speech. This, he claims had a circle or dot (coming from a cocoa bean currency according to some, or a pebble used for counting according to others) as its unity, a horizontal bar for 5 and special symbols for 20, 400, 8000 etc. Ifrah writes [A universal history of numbers : From prehistory to the invention of the computer (London, 1998).',4)">4]:-

Even though no trace of it remains, we can reasonably assume that the Maya had a number system of this kind, and that intermediate numbers were figured by repeating the signs as many times as was needed.

Let us say a little about the Maya calendar before returning to their number systems, for the calendar was behind the structure of the number system. Of course, there was also an influence in the other direction, and the base of the number system 20 played a major role in the structure of the calendar.

The Maya had two calendars. One of these was a ritual calendar, known as the Tzolkin, composed of 260 days. It contained 13 "months" of 20 days each, the months being named after 13 gods while the twenty days were numbered from 0 to 19. The second calendar was a 365-day civil calendar called the Haab. This calendar consisted of 18 months, named after agricultural or religious events, each with 20 days (again numbered 0 to 19) and a short "month" of only 5 days that was called the Wayeb. The Wayeb was considered an unlucky period and Landa wrote in his classic text that the Maya did not wash, comb their hair or do any hard work during these five days. Anyone born during these days would have bad luck and remain poor and unhappy all their lives.

Why then was the ritual calendar based on 260 days? This is a question to which we have no satisfactory answer. One suggestion is that since the Maya lived in the tropics the sun was directly overhead twice every year. Perhaps they measured 260 days and 105 days as the successive periods between the sun being directly overhead (the fact that this is true for the Yucatán peninsular cannot be taken to prove this theory). A second theory is that the Maya had 13 gods of the "upper world", and 20 was the number of a man, so giving each god a 20 day month gave a ritual calendar of 260 days.

At any rate having two calendars, one with 260 days and the other with 365 days, meant that the two would calendars would return to the same cycle after lcm(260, 365) = 18980 days. Now this is after 52 civil years (or 73 ritual years) and indeed the Maya had a sacred cycle consisting of 52 years. Another major player in the calendar was the planet Venus. The Mayan astronomers calculated its synodic period (after which it has returned to the same position) as 584 days. Now after only two of the 52 years cycles Venus will have made 65 revolutions and also be back to the same position. This remarkable coincidence would have meant great celebrations by the Maya every 104 years.

Now there was a third way that the Mayan people had of measuring time which was not strictly a calendar. It was an absolute timescale which was based on a creation date and time was measured forward from this. What date was the Mayan creation date? The date most often taken is 12 August 3113 BC but we should say straightaway that not all historians agree that this was the zero of this so-called "Long Count". Now one might expect that this measurement of time would either give the number of ritual calendar years since creation or the number of civil calendar years since creation. However it does neither.

The Long Count is based on a year of 360 days, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that it is just a count of days with then numbers represented in the Mayan number system. Now we see the probable reason for the departure of the number system from a true base 20 system. It was so that the system approximately represented years. Many inscriptions are found in the Mayan towns which give the date of erection in terms of this long count. Consider the two examples of Mayan numbers given above. The first

[ 8;14;3;1;12 ]

is the date given on a plate which came from the town of Tikal. It translates to

12 + 1 cross 20 + 3 cross 18 cross 20 + 14 cross 18 cross 202 + 8 cross 18 cross 203

which is 1253912 days from the creation date of 12 August 3113 BC so the plate was carved in 320 AD.

The second example

[ 9;8;9;13;0 ]

is the completion date on a building in Palenque in Tabasco, near the landing site of Cortés. It translates to

0 + 13 cross 20 + 9 cross 18 cross 20 + 8 cross 18 cross 202 + 9 cross 18 cross 203

which is 1357100 days from the creation date of 12 August 3113 BC so the building was completed in 603 AD.

We should note some properties (or more strictly non-properties) of the Mayan number system. The Mayans appear to have had no concept of a fraction but, as we shall see below, they were still able to make remarkably accurate astronomical measurements. Also since the Mayan numbers were not a true positional base 20 system, it fails to have the nice mathematical properties that we expect of a positional system. For example

[ 9;8;9;13;0 ] = 0 + 13 cross 20 + 9 cross 18 cross 20 + 8 cross 18 cross 202 + 9 cross 18 cross 203 = 1357100

yet

[ 9;8;9;13 ] = 13 + 9 cross 20 + 8 cross 18 cross 20 + 9 cross 18 cross 202 = 67873.

Moving all the numbers one place left would multiply the number by 20 in a true base 20 positional system yet 20 cross 67873 = 1357460 which is not equal to 1357100. For when we multiple [ 9;8;9;13 ] by 20 we get 9 cross 400 where in [ 9;8;9;13;0 ] we have 9 cross 360.

We should also note that the Mayans almost certainly did not have methods of multiplication for their numbers and definitely did not use division of numbers. Yet the Mayan number system is certainly capable of being used for the operations of multiplication and division as the authors of [Amer. Sci. 68 (3) (1980), 249-255.',15)">15] demonstrate.

Finally we should say a little about the Mayan advances in astronomy. Rodriguez writes in [Rev. Mexicana Astronom. Astrofis. 10 (1985), 443-453.',19)">19]:-

The Mayan concern for understanding the cycles of celestial bodies, particularly the Sun, the Moon and Venus, led them to accumulate a large set of highly accurate observations. An important aspect of their cosmology was the search for major cycles, in which the position of several objects repeated.

The Mayans carried out astronomical measurements with remarkable accuracy yet they had no instruments other than sticks. They used two sticks in the form of a cross, viewing astronomical objects through the right angle formed by the sticks. The Caracol building in Chichén Itza is thought by many to be a Mayan observatory. Many of the windows of the building are positioned to line up with significant lines of sight such as that of the setting sun on the spring equinox of 21 March and also certain lines of sight relating to the moon.



The Caracol building in Chichén Itza:


With such crude instruments the Maya were able to calculate the length of the year to be 365.242 days (the modern value is 365.242198 days). Two further remarkable calculations are of the length of the lunar month. At Copán (now on the border between Honduras and Guatemala) the Mayan astronomers found that 149 lunar months lasted 4400 days. This gives 29.5302 days as the length of the lunar month. At Palenque in Tabasco they calculated that 81 lunar months lasted 2392 days. This gives 29.5308 days as the length of the lunar month. The modern value is 29.53059 days. Was this not a remarkable achievement?

There are, however, very few other mathematical achievements of the Maya. Groemer [Maya architecture, Osterreich. Akad. Wiss. Math.-Natur. Kl. Sitzungsber. II 203 (1994), 101-116.',14)">14] describes seven types of frieze ornaments occurring on Mayan buildings from the period 600 AD to 900 AD in the Puuc region of the Yucatán. This area includes the ruins at Kabah and Labna. Groemer gives twenty-five illustrations of friezes which show Mayan inventiveness and geometric intuition in such architectural decorations.

References (26 books/articles)

Other Web sites:

  1. Rhonda Robinson (Mayan numbers)
  2. Mayan World Study Center (Mayan Mathematics)
  3. Mayan World Study Center (The Mayan calendar)
  4. Michiel Berger (Mayan Astronomy)
  5. B and V Böhm(The Dresden codex)

Ancient Indian mathematicians in our archive in chronological order

Mathematicians' birthplaces are given relative to modern-day boundaries.

Click on the name below to go to the biography.

Apastamba
Aryabhata I
Aryabhata II
Baudhayana
Bhaskara I
Bhaskara II
Bose
Brahmadeva
Brahmagupta
De Morgan
Govindasvami
Harish-Chandra
Hemchandra
Jagannatha
Jyesthadeva
Kamalakara
Katyayana
Lalla
Madhava
Mahavira
Mahendra Suri
Manava
Narayana
Nilakantha
Panini
Paramesvara
Patodi
Pillai
Prthudakasvami
Rajagopal
Ramanujam
Ramanujan
Sankara
Sommerville
Sridhara
Sripati
Varahamihira
Vijayanandi
Henry Whitehead
Yativrsabha
Yavanesvara

Indian Mathematics: Redressing the balance

Ian G Pearce

CONTENTS

  1. Abstract
  2. Introduction
  3. Early Indian culture - Indus civilisation
  4. Mathematics in the service of religion:
    I. Vedas and Vedangas

    II. Sulba Sutras
  5. Jainism
  6. The Bakhshali manuscript
  7. Decimal numeration and the place-value system
  8. The Classical period:
    I Introduction

    II. Aryabhata and his commentators
    III. Brahmagupta, and the influence on Arabia
    IV. Mathematics over the next 400 years (700AD-1100AD)
    V. Bhaskaracharya II
    VI. Pell's equation
    VII. The end of the Classic period and the state of Indian mathematics abroad by the 12th century
  9. Keralese mathematics:
    I. Introduction

    II. Mathematicians of Kerala
    III. Madhava of Sangamagramma
    IV. Possible transmission of Keralese mathematics to Europe
  10. Conclusions
References

The Bakhshali manuscript

The Bakhshali manuscript is an early mathematical manuscript which was discovered over 100 years ago. We shall discuss in a moment the problem of dating this manuscript, a topic which has aroused much controversy, but for the moment we will examine how it was discovered. The paper [Ganita Bharati 3 (3-4) (1981), 103-105.',8)">8] describes this discovery along with the early history of the manuscript. Gupta writes:-

The Bakhshali Manuscript is the name given to the mathematical work written on birch bark and found in the summer of 1881 near the village Bakhshali (or Bakhshalai) of the Yusufzai subdivision of the Peshawar district (now in Pakistan). The village is in Mardan tahsil and is situated 50 miles from the city of Peshawar.

An Inspector of Police named Mian An-Wan-Udin (whose tenant actually discovered the manuscript while digging a stone enclosure in a ruined place) took the work to the Assistant Commissioner at Mardan who intended to forward the manuscript to Lahore Museum. However, it was subsequently sent to the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab who, on the advice of General A Cunningham, directed it to be passed on to Dr Rudolf Hoernle of the Calcutta Madrasa for study and publication. Dr Hoernle presented a description of the BM before the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1882, and this was published in the Indian Antiquary in 1883. He gave a fuller account at the Seventh Oriental Conference held at Vienna in 1886 and this was published in its Proceedings. A revised version of this paper appeared in the Indian Antiquary of 1888. In 1902, he presented the Bakhshali Manuscript to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, where it is still (Shelf mark: MS. Sansk. d. 14).

A large part of the manuscript had been destroyed and only about 70 leaves of birch-bark, of which a few were only scraps, survived to the time of its discovery.

To show the arguments regarding its age we note that F R Hoernle, referred to in the quotation above, placed the Bakhshali manuscript between the third and fourth centuries AD. Many other historians of mathematics such as Moritz Cantor, F Cajori, B Datta, S N Sen, A K Bag, and R C Gupta agreed with this dating. In 1927-1933 the Bakhshali manuscript was edited by G R Kaye and published with a comprehensive introduction, an English translation, and a transliteration together with facsimiles of the text. Kaye claimed that the manuscript dated from the twelfth century AD and he even doubted that it was of Indian origin.

Channabasappa in [Indian J. History Sci. 11 (2) (1976), 112-124.',6)">6] gives the range 200 - 400 AD as the most probable date. In [Ganita Bharati 6 (1-4) (1984), 13-18.',5)">5] the same author identifies five specific mathematical terms which do not occur in the works of Aryabhata and he argues that this strongly supports a date for the Bakhshali manuscript earlier than the 5th century. Joseph in [The crest of the peacock (London, 1991).',3)">3] suggests that the evidence all points to the:-

... manuscript [being] probably a later copy of a document composed at some time in the first few centuries of the Christian era.

L V Gurjar in [1] claims that the manuscript is no later than 300 AD. On the other hand T Hayashi claims in [The Bakhshali manuscript : An ancient Indian mathematical treatise (Groningen, 1995).',2)">2] that the date of the original is probably from the seventh century, but he also claims that the manuscript itself is a later copy which was made between the eighth and the twelfth centuries AD.

I [EFR] feel that if one weighs all the evidence of these experts the most likely conclusion is that the manuscript is a later copy of a work first composed around 400 AD. Why do I believe that the actual manuscript was written later? Well our current understanding of Indian numerals and writing would date the numerals used in the manuscript as not having appeared before the ninth or tenth century. To accept that this style of numeral existed in 400 AD. would force us to change greatly our whole concept of the time-scale for the development of Indian numerals. Sometimes, of course, we are forced into major rethinks but, without supporting evidence, everything points to the manuscript being a tenth century copy of an original from around 400 AD. Despite the claims of Kaye, it is essentially certain that the manuscript is Indian.

The attraction of the date of 400 AD for the Bakhshali manuscript is that this puts it just before the "classical period" of Indian mathematics which began with the work of Aryabhata I around 500. It would then fill in knowledge we have of Indian mathematics for, prior to the discovery of this manuscript, we had little knowledge of Indian mathematics between the dates of about 200 BC. and 500 AD. This date would make it a document near the end of the period of Jaina mathematics and it can be seen as, in some sense, marking the achievements of the Jains.

What does the manuscript contain? Joseph writes in [The crest of the peacock (London, 1991).',3)">3]:-

The Bakhshali manuscript is a handbook of rules and illustrative examples together with their solutions. It is devoted mainly to arithmetic and algebra, with just a few problems on geometry and mensuration. Only parts of it have been restored, so we cannot be certain about the balance between different topics.

Now the way that the manuscript is laid out is quite unusual for an Indian document (which of course leads people like Kaye to prefer the hypothesis that it is not Indian at all - an idea in which we cannot see any merit). The Bakhshali manuscript gives the statement of a rule. There then follows an example given first in words, then using mathematical notation. The solution to the example is then given and finally a proof is set out.

The notation used is not unlike that used by Aryabhata but it does have features not found in any other document. Fractions are not dissimilar in notation to that used today, written with one number below the other. No line appears between the numbers as we would write today, however. Another unusual feature is the sign + placed after a number to indicate a negative. It is very strange for us today to see our addition symbol being used for subtraction. As an example, here is how 3/4 - 1/2 would be written.


3/4 minus 1/2

Compound fractions were written in three lines. Hence 1 plus 1/3 would be written thus


1 plus 1/3

and 1 minus 1/3 = 2/3 in the following way


1 minus 1/3 = 2/3

Sums of fractions such as 5/1 plus 2/1 are written using the symbol yu ( for yuta)


5/1 plus 2/1

Division is denoted by bha, an abbreviation for bhaga meaning "part". For example


8 divided by 2/3

Equations are given with a large dot representing the unknown. A confusing aspect of Indian mathematics is that this notation was also often used to denote zero, and sometimes this same notation for both zero and the unknown are used in the same document. Here is an example of an equation as it appears in the Bakhshali manuscript.


Equation

The method of equalisation is found in many types of problems which occur in the manuscript. Problems of this type which are found in the manuscript are examined in [Indian J. Hist. Sci. 21 (1) (1986), 51-61.',9)">9] and some of these lead to indeterminate equations. Included are problems concerning equalising wealth, the positions of two travellers, wages, and purchases by a number of merchants. These problems can all be reduced to solving a linear equation with one unknown or to a system of n linear equations in n unknowns. To illustrate we give the following indeterminate problem which, of course, does not have a unique solution:-

One person possesses seven asava horses, another nine haya horses, and another ten camels. Each gives two animals, one to each of the others. They are then equally well off. Find the price of each animal and the total value of the animals possesses by each person.

The solution, translated into modern notation, proceeds as follows. We seek integer solutions x1, x2, x3 and k (where x1 is the price of an asava, x2 is the price of a haya, and x3 is the price of a horse) satisfying

5 x1 + x2 + x3 = x1 + 7 x2+ x3 = x1 + x2 + 8 x3 = k.

Then 4 x1 = 6 x2 = 7 x3 = k - (x1 + x2 + x3).

For integer solutions k - (x1 + x2 + x3) must be a multiple of the lcm of 4, 6 and 7. This is the indeterminate nature of the problem and taking different multiples of the lcm will lead to different solutions. The Bakhshali manuscript takes k - (x1 + x2 + x3) = 168 (this is 4 cross 6 cross 7) giving x1 = 42, x2 = 28, x3 = 24. Then k = 262 is the total value of the animals possesses by each person. This is not the minimum integer solution which would be k = 131.

If we use modern methods we would solve the system of three equation for x1, x2, x3 in terms of k to obtain

x1 = 21k/131, x2 = 14k/131, x3 = 12k/131

so we obtain integer solutions by taking k = 131 which is the smallest solution. This solution is not given in the Bakhshali manuscript but the author of the manuscript would have obtained this had he taken k - (x1 + x2 + x3) = lcm(4, 6, 7) = 84.

Here is another equalisation problem taken from the manuscript which has a unique solution:-

Two page-boys are attendants of a king. For their services one gets 13/6 dinaras a day and the other 3/2. The first owes the second 10 dinaras. calculate and tell me when they have equal amounts.

Now I would solve this by saying that the first gets 13/6 - 3/2 = 2/3 dinaras more than the second each day. He needs 20 dinaras more than the second to be able to give back his 10 dinaras debt and have them with equal amounts. So 30 days are required when each has 13 cross 30/6 - 10 = 55 dinaras. This is not the method of the Bakhshali manuscript which uses the "rule of three".

The rule of three is the familiar way of solving problems of the type: if a man earns 50 dinaras in 8 days how much will he earn in 12 days. The Bakhshali manuscript describes the rule where the three numbers are written

8 50 12

The 8 is the "pramana", the 50 is the "phala" and the 12 is the "iccha". The rule, according to the Bakhshali manuscript gives the answer as

phala cross iccha/pramana

or in the case of the example 50 cross 12/8 = 75 dinaras.

Applying this to the page-boy problem we obtain equal amounts for the page-boys after n days where

13 cross n/6 = 3 cross n/2 +20

so n = 30 and each has 13 cross 30/6 - 10 = 55 dinaras.

Another interesting piece of mathematics in the manuscript concerns calculating square roots. The following formula is used

Q = √(A2 + b) = A + b/2A - (b/2A)2/(2(A + b/2A))

This is stated in the manuscript as follows:-

In the case of a non-square number, subtract the nearest square number, divide the remainder by twice this nearest square; half the square of this is divided by the sum of the approximate root and the fraction. this is subtracted and will give the corrected root.

Taking Q = 41, then A = 6, b = 5 and we obtain 6.403138528 as the approximation to √41 = 6.403124237. Hence we see that the Bakhshali formula gives the result correct to four decimal places.

The Bakhshali manuscript also uses the formula to compute √105 giving 10.24695122 as the approximation to √105 = 10.24695077. This time the Bakhshali formula gives the result correct to five decimal places.

The following examples also occur in the Bakhshali manuscript where the author applies the formula to obtain approximate square roots:

√487
Bakhshali formula gives 22.068076490965
Correct answer is 22.068076490713
Here 9 decimal places are correct

√889
Bakhshali formula gives 29.816105242176
Correct answer is 29.8161030317511
Here 5 decimal places are correct

[Note. If we took 889 = 302 - 11 instead of 292 + 48 we would get
Bakhshali formula gives 29.816103037078
Correct answer is 29.8161030317511
Here 8 decimal places are correct]

√339009
Bakhshali formula gives 582.2447938796899
Correct answer is 582.2447938796876
Here 11 decimal places are correct

It is interesting to note that Channabasappa [Indian J. History Sci. 11 (2) (1976), 112-124.',6)">6] derives from the Bakhshali square root formula an iterative scheme for approximating square roots. He finds in [Ganita Bharati 1 (3-4) (1979), 25-27.',7)">7] that it is 38% faster than Newton's method in giving √41 to ten places of decimals.

References (10 books/articles)

Jaina mathematics

It is a little hard to define Jaina mathematics. Jainism is a religion and philosophy which was founded in India around the 6th century BC. To a certain extent it began to replace the Vedic religions which, with their sacrificial procedures, had given rise to the mathematics of building altars. The mathematics of the Vedic religions is described in the article Indian Sulbasutras.

Now we could use the term Jaina mathematics to describe mathematics done by those following Jainism and indeed this would then refer to a part of mathematics done on the Indian subcontinent from the founding of Jainism up to modern times. Indeed this is fair and some of the articles in the references refer to fairly modern mathematics. For example in [Math. Ed. (Siwan) 18 (3) (1984), 98-107.',16)">16] Jha looks at the contributions of Jainas from the 5th century BC up to the 18th century AD.

This article will concentrate on the period after the founding of Jainism up to around the time of Aryabhata in around 500 AD. The reason for taking this time interval is that until recently this was thought to be a time when there was little mathematical activity in India. Aryabhata's work was seen as the beginning of a new classical period for Indian mathematics and indeed this is fair. Yet Aryabhata did not work in mathematical isolation and as well as being seen as the person who brought in a new era of mathematical investigation in India, more recent research has shown that there is a case for seeing him also as representing the end-product of a mathematical period of which relatively little is known. This is the period we shall refer to as the period of Jaina mathematics.

There were mathematical texts from this period yet they have received little attention from historians until recent times. Texts, such as the Surya Prajnapti which is thought to be around the 4th century BC and the Jambudvipa Prajnapti from around the same period, have recently received attention through the study of later commentaries. The Bhagabati Sutra dates from around 300 BC and contains interesting information on combinations. From about the second century BC is the Sthananga Sutra which is particularly interesting in that it lists the topics which made up the mathematics studied at the time. In fact this list of topics sets the scene for the areas of study for a long time to come in the Indian subcontinent. The topics are listed in [The crest of the peacock (London, 1991).',2)">2] as:-

... the theory of numbers, arithmetical operations, geometry, operations with fractions, simple equations, cubic equations, quartic equations, and permutations and combinations.

The ideas of the mathematical infinite in Jaina mathematics is very interesting indeed and they evolve largely due to the Jaina's cosmological ideas. In Jaina cosmology time is thought of as eternal and without form. The world is infinite, it was never created and has always existed. Space pervades everything and is without form. All the objects of the universe exist in space which is divided into the space of the universe and the space of the non-universe. There is a central region of the universe in which all living beings, including men, animals, gods and devils, live. Above this central region is the upper world which is itself divided into two parts. Below the central region is the lower world which is divided into seven tiers. This led to the work described in [Ganita Bharati 9 (1-4) (1987), no. 1-4, 51-53.',3)">3] on a mathematical topic in the Jaina work, Tiloyapannatti by Yativrsabha. A circle is divided by parallel lines into regions of prescribed widths. The lengths of the boundary chords and the areas of the regions are given, based on stated rules.

This cosmology has strongly influenced Jaina mathematics in many ways and has been a motivating factor in the development of mathematical ideas of the infinite which were not considered again until the time of Cantor. The Jaina cosmology contained a time period of 2588 years. Note that 2588 is a very large number!

2588 = 1013 065324 433836 171511 818326 096474 890383 898005 918563 696288 002277 756507 034036 354527 929615 978746 851512 277392 062160 962106 733983 191180 520452 956027 069051 297354 415786 421338 721071 661056.

So what are the Jaina ideas of the infinite. There was a fascination with large numbers in Indian thought over a long period and this again almost required them to consider infinitely large measures. The first point worth making is that they had different infinite measures which they did not define in a rigorous mathematical fashion, but nevertheless are quite sophisticated. The paper [Ganita Bharati 14 (1-4) (1992), 11-24.',6)">6] describes the way that the first unenumerable number was constructed using effectively a recursive construction.

The Jaina construction begins with a cylindrical container of very large radius rq (taken to be the radius of the earth) and having a fixed height h. The number nq = f(rq) is the number of very tiny white mustard seeds that can be placed in this container. Next, r1 = g(rq) is defined by a complicated recursive subprocedure, and then as before a new larger number n1 = f(r1) is defined. The text the Anuyoga Dwara Sutra then states:-

Still the highest enumerable number has not been attained.

The whole procedure is repeated, yielding a truly huge number which is called jaghanya- parita- asamkhyata meaning "unenumerable of low enhanced order". Continuing the process yields the smallest unenumerable number.

Jaina mathematics recognised five different types of infinity [The crest of the peacock (London, 1991).',2)">2]:-

... infinite in one direction, infinite in two directions, infinite in area, infinite everywhere and perpetually infinite.

The Anuyoga Dwara Sutra contains other remarkable numerical speculations by the Jainas. For example several times in the work the number of human beings that ever existed is given as 296.

By the second century AD the Jaina had produced a theory of sets. In Satkhandagama various sets are operated upon by logarithmic functions to base two, by squaring and extracting square roots, and by raising to finite or infinite powers. The operations are repeated to produce new sets.

Permutations and combinations are used in the Sthananga Sutra. In the Bhagabati Sutra rules are given for the number of permutations of 1 selected from n, 2 from n, and 3 from n. Similarly rules are given for the number of combinations of 1 from n, 2 from n, and 3 from n. Numbers are calculated in the cases where n = 2, 3 and 4. The author then says that one can compute the numbers in the same way for larger n. He writes:-

In this way, 5, 6, 7, ..., 10, etc. or an enumerable, unenumerable or infinite number of may be specified. Taking one at a time, two at a time, ... ten at a time, as the number of combinations are formed they must all be worked out.

Interestingly here too there is the suggestion that the arithmetic can be extended to various infinite numbers. In other works the relation of the number of combinations to the coefficients occurring in the binomial expansion was noted. In a commentary on this third century work in the tenth century, Pascal's triangle appears in order to give the coefficients of the binomial expansion.

Another concept which the Jainas seem to have gone at least some way towards understanding was that of the logarithm. They had begun to understand the laws of indices. For example the Anuyoga Dwara Sutra states:-

The first square root multiplied by the second square root is the cube of the second square root.

The second square root was the fourth root of a number. This therefore is the formula

(√a).(√√a) = (√√a)3.

Again the Anuyoga Dwara Sutra states:-

... the second square root multiplied by the third square root is the cube of the third square root.

The third square root was the eighth root of a number. This therefore is the formula

(√√a).(√√√a) = (√√√a)3.

Some historians studying these works believe that they see evidence for the Jainas having developed logarithms to base 2.

The value of π in Jaina mathematics has been a topic of a number of research papers, see for example [Indian J. Hist. Sci. 21 (2) (1986), 131-139.',4)">4], [Ganita Bharati 11 (1-4) (1989), 18-26.',5)">5], [Indian J. History Sci. 10 (1) (1975), 38-46.',7)">7], and [J. Bihar Math. Soc. 13 (1990), 38-44.',17)">17]. As with much research into Indian mathematics there is interest in whether the Indians took their ideas from the Greeks. The approximation π = √10 seems one which was frequently used by the Jainas.

Finally let us comment on the Jaina's astronomy. This was not very advanced. It was not until the works of Aryabhata that the Greek ideas of epicycles entered Indian astronomy. Before the Jaina period the ideas of eclipses were based on a demon called Rahu which devoured or captured the Moon or the Sun causing their eclipse. The Jaina school assumed the existence of two demons Rahu, the Dhruva Rahu which causes the phases of the Moon and the Parva Rahu which has irregular celestial motion in all directions and causes an eclipse by covering the Moon or Sun or their light. The author of [Indian J. Hist. Sci. 12 (2) (1977), 127-136.',23)">23] points out that, according to the Jaina school, the greatest possible number of eclipses in a year is four.

Despite this some of the astronomical measurements were fairly good. The data in the Surya Prajnapti implies a synodic lunar month equal to 29 plus 16/31 days; the correct value being nearly 29.5305888. There has been considerable interest in examining the data presented in these Jaina texts to see if the data originated from other sources. For example in the Surya Prajnapti data exists which implies a ratio of 3:2 for the maximum to the minimum length of daylight. Now this is not true for India but is true for Babylonia which makes some historians believe that the data in the Surya Prajnapti is not of Indian origin but is Babylonian. However, in [Centaurus 22 (3) (1978/79), 165-176.',22)">22] Sharma and Lishk present an alternative hypothesis which would allow the data to be of Indian origin. One has to say that their suggestion that 3:2 might be the ratio of the amounts of water to be poured into the water-clock on the longest and shortest days seems less than totally convincing.

References (23 books/articles)

Engineering News

Central Board of Secondary Education

Architecture News

Management News

Medical News

Journalism News

ss_blog_claim=39d0fbd9150037431cf33bbbf3c7c7ce