Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2006.10285

K\=aty\=ayana \'Sulvasutra : Some Observations

Abstract

The K\=aty\=ayana \'Sulvasutra has been much less studied or discussed from a modern perspective, even though the first English translation of two adhy\=ayas (chapters) from it, by Thibaut, appeared as far back as 1882. Part of the reason for this seems to be that the general approach to the \'Sulvasutra studies has been focussed on "the mathematical knowledge found in them"; as the other earlier \'Sulvasutras, especially Baudh\=ayana and \=Apastamba substantially cover the ground in this respect the other two \'Sulvasutras, M\=anava and K\=aty\=ayana, received much less attention, the latter especially so. On the other hand the broader purpose of historical mathematical studies extends far beyond cataloguing what was known in various cultures, rather to understand the ethos of the respective times from a mathematical point of view, in their own setting, in order to evolve a more complete picture of the mathematical developments, ups as well as downs, over history. Viewed from this angle, a closer look at the K\=aty\=ayana \'Sulvasutra assumes significance. Coming at the tail-end of the \'Sulvasutra period, after which the \'Sulvasutra tradition died down due to various historical reasons that are really only partly understood, makes it special in certain ways. What it omits to mention from the body of knowledge found in the earlier \'Sulvasutras would also be of relevance to analyse in this context, as much as what it chooses to record. Other aspects such as the difference in language, style, would also reflect on the context. It is the purpose here to explore this direction of inquiry.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

S. G. Dani. 2020-06-18. K\=aty\=ayana \'Sulvasutra : Some Observations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10285

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Perspectives on the unit distance problem

This is a survey on an old open problem in combinatorics called the unit distance problem, and the field of mathematics around it, called incidence geometry. What do we know about the problem? Why is it difficult? How does it connect with other parts of math?

math.HO

A Categorical Approach to Euclidean Ratios and Proportions

A categorial approach to the non-metric geometry in Books V and VI of Euclid's \textit{Elements} is presented. Specifically, we introduce a diagrammatic syntax that can be overlaid immediately on his diagrams, thus bridging intuitive presentation with fidelity to Euclid's arguments. This syntax makes complicated definitions like V.5, and indeed the arguments throughout books V and VI, including arguments about similar figures, intuitively clear. We show in an appendix that this syntax can be used to solve a puzzle regarding ancient mathematics. Finally, we offer evidence that this approach to Euclidean diagrams is rooted in the Aristotelian tradition itself, and that a similar syntax was utilized, in antiquity, for related questions of numeric and proportions. Thus the syntax is plausibly faithful to Euclid's own thought-world, and not an outside-imposition.

math.HO

Some Early Results by Tutte Regarding the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture in 1948

OpenAI recently announced a proof of the Cycle Double Cover (CDC) Conjecture. Most media reports have characterized it as a 50-year-old open problem. In reality, according to a 1987 letter from Tutte to Fleischner, the Cycle Double Cover Problem has been open for at least 80 years. Two early results regarding the CDC conjecture were established in one of Tutte's 1949 publications.

math.HO