My VIF lecture (pic1) was on “Practical ganita vs religious mathematics”, I explained the difference between √2 in Indian ganita (pic2), and √2 in present-day formal mathematics (pic3).
Briefly, early Indian tradition (sulba sutra) saw √2 as something empirical (“diagonal of unit square”) but recognized that an exact value for it is impossible, hence called √2 savishesh (“with something remaining”) or anitya (“non-eternal”). Likewise, Arybhata called his value of π asanna (“near value”). This attitude is perfectly good for all practical applications. This is the understanding of √2 in practical or normal math.
2. However, as I also explained (pic3), Western mathematics since Plato is immersed in the RELIGIOUS SUPERSTITION that mathematics arouses the eternal soul, hence is eternal knowledge (on the belief in sympathetic magic that “like arouses like”), hence must be EXACT. This is the understanding of √2 in religious or formal math.
The first piece of buffoonery that Sitabhra Sinha does is to use the understanding of √2 in 1 above, confounding it with the different understanding of √2 in 2 above as if half-quoting me is the ultimate argument against me! @MohanaBasu is adept at this technique of fake news used throughout her report which says this guy is a “peer” who slammed me!
But Sinha’s confusion is genuine: this ignoramus really does not know what the current definition of a real number is, which is today taught starting class IX. His field of specialization apart from biophysics is nonlinear dynamics. The latter is about nonlinear (ordinary) differential equations to solve or even to STATE which requires a definition of real numbers is required in current formal mathematics. Probably he never took a course on elementary real analysis as I used to teach, Therefore, though he ought to know the definition a real number, he does not and makes elementary mistakes of the sort that many laypersons make.(pic4, https://twitter.com/CKRaju14/status/1703017)
This ignoramus Sinha seems never to have heard of Dedekind’s invention of axiomatic real numbers in the late 19th century which is used today by all texts in calculus and real analysis. Though a professor of physics he never asked why that invention was needed if Newton had really “discovered” calculus or understood how the Indians from whom he stole it summed infinite series. He never asked why people from Descartes through Berkeley to Marx objected to Newton’s “understanding” of calculus.
However, that seems to be a regular attitude of his to talk authoritatively about things he never learnt. I used to teach my student that an expert is one who knows what he does not know, for the first step towards knowledge is to understand what you are ignorant of. This guy will never be an expert in anything, because he is in the category of those fools “who know not, and know not that they know not”.
This is confirmed by his remarks on Euclid, that Heron cites “Euclid” hence Euclid exists! My prize of Rs 2 lakhs (https://youtu.be/sEK1FCrLHjU?t=3292) is for serious evidence of “Euclid”, and this is not in the category of serious evidence, for no primary evidence is provided or even mentioned. That is, he supports the church concoction of “Euclid” by the church technique of telling one lie to support another, which he perhaps picked up during his education in a Jesuit college.
Sinha is welcome to make an ass of himself. However, in the current context, such public pronouncements based on extreme ignorance amount to criminal negligence for they have a negative bearing on the teaching of mathematics to millions of students, which ought not to be based on such extreme ignorance.
So, Sinha will you apologize and retract or remain a laughingstock for future generations?
