Indians predated Newton 'discovery' by 250 years
manchester.ac.uk
manchester.ac.uk
> The discovery is currently - and wrongly - attributed in books to Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz at the end of the seventeenth centuries.
Um, infinite series existed in the time of the ancient Greeks (even if they went out of their way to avoid using limits).
An instance of Archimedes dealing with an infinite geometric series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quadrature_of_the_Parabola
Here's the thing, though: phenomena can be rediscovered, with discoveries spaced even hundreds or thousands of years apart (e.g. Pythagorean theorem).
And, there's no strong evidence either way regarding Kerala school results 1) making their way to Europe in the 17th century or before, and 2) influencing results by Newton, Leibniz, and more.
But even if this is the case, Newton's line about standing on the shoulders of giants is apt -- there's no dispute here that he and Leibniz still had invaluable contributions that led to the development of calculus, or that they built on an existing foundation.
I agree. We call it the Pythagorean theorem and not haltingproblem's great amazing proof ;) The earliest discoverer is given the credit as long as there is some evidence of the dissemination of the discovery.
The Kerala schools shows infinite series with limits and there is transmission as the article documents to Europe. Newton/Liebniz surely formalized and greatly advanced state of the art but what is the harm in giving credit to the Kerala school for the earlier discoveries.
> there is transmission as the article documents to Europe
The article cites opportunity (Jesuit missionaries) and motive (Gregorian calendar reform), but there's no actual evidence that, say, Clavius actually brought back the full body of the Kerala school's work, or even anything that wasn't related to calendars.
"But wait," you might interject. "The article itself states: 'For some unfathomable reasons, the standard of evidence required to claim transmission of knowledge from East to West is greater than the standard of evidence required to knowledge from West to East.'"
But this is an assertion, without any evidence in itself. For instance, gunpowder and paper both spread from China to the Middle East before making their way to Europe. The concept of zero (as a digit) is also widely acknowledged to have originated from India. And even these are just anecdotes, not to be taken as proof or refutation of a broader trend.
> The earliest discoverer is given the credit as long as there is some evidence of the dissemination of the discovery.
Unfortunately, that's not always the case, especially once the associated names become ingrained. Sometimes there's co-credit even for independent discoveries, something nothing.
Some examples, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler%27... :
- Chernoff bounds were actually named because of a notable paper that used them, even though Chernoff simply failed to credit Rubin because he thought it was a minor lemma (since it's an application of Markov's inequality).
- Floyd-Warshall is named after two independent discoverers, even though there's a third independent discoverer.
- Gaussian elimination was well-known (and present in textbooks) at the time that he said he used "common elimination".
- The Ising model was given to Ising by Lenz, his doctoral advisor.
(There are plenty of other instances, e.g. Cooley-Tukey FFT, Reynolds number, Schottky diode.)
Some other examples:
- Watson and Crick get most of the credit for discovering DNA's structure, even though they leaned heavily on Rosalind Franklin's work (she died from ovarian cancer, probably due to x-ray radiation).
- "Arabic numerals" were invented by the Indians.
In South India we loved football and the meme I cherished was this, “Maradona emigrated from kerala”.
When the internet came, I was frantically searching for the list of Indians who are at the top of everything. It took me a while to realise it was my own inferiority playing with me. The truth is painful but it liberates - a confession.
It arguably goes as far back as Eudoxus and his method of exhaustion. Archimedes basically reasoned about limits using synthetic geometry only.
Ironically, the publication had to issue an erratum due to omitting credit for the Indian professor CK Raju who first published these findings.
I think it's likely that ancient (or not-so-ancient but far from the roots of European civilization) scholars invented a lot of things before the so-called inventors. Many more than we'll ever know about.
I usually say something like "It's really dumb that we recognize the inventors of things, because if not for that person, someone else would have discovered it in a year, or a decade, or a hundred years, and those potential inventors get no credit" but in this case it might sound like a Westerner trying to downplay the accomplishments of non-Western scholars.
The article also mentions the fact that "Jesuits were in the area during that time."
It is well known that in the west during that time, the church kept a vast array of knowledge closely guarded from the general population, potentially a cause for the dark ages.
It is entirely possible that the Indian innovations were actually in fact passed to them from the Jesuits, only to be published by the Indian school and then eventually making its way back to the European masses.
And before that it's most likely the same discoveries were made by the Syrians and so on and so on...