PROOFS IN INDIAN MATHEMATICS

M.D.SRINIVAS
CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES
mdsrinivas50@gmail.com
UPAPATTIS IN INDIAN MATHEMATICS
While there have been several extensive investigations on the history and
achievements of the Indian mathematics, there has not been much
discussion on its methodology, the Indian mathematicians and
philosophers understanding of the nature and validation of mathematical
results and procedures, their views on the nature of mathematical objects,
and so on.
Traditionally, such issues have been dealt with in the detailed bhyas or
commentaries, which continued to be written till recent times and played a
vital role in the traditional scheme of learning.
It is in such commentaries that we find detailed upapattis or "proofs" of
the results and procedures, apart from a discussion of methodological and
philosophical issues.


EARLY EUROPEAN SCHOLARS WERE AWARE OF UPAPATTIS
In the early stages of modern scholarship on Indian mathematics, we find
references to the methods of demonstration found in texts of Indian
mathematics. In 1817, H.T.Colebrooke referred to them in his pioneering
and widely circulated translation of Brahmagupta and Bhskara:
'On the subject of demonstrations, it is to be remarked that the Hindu
mathematicians proved propositions both algebraically and
geometrically: as is particularly noticed by Bhskara himself,
towards the close of his algebra, where he gives both modes of proof
of a remarkable method for the solution of indeterminate problems,
which involve a factum of two unknown quantities.'
Similarly Charles Whish, in his seminal article on Kerala School of
Mathematics of 1835, referred to the demonstrations in Yuktibh:
'A further account of the Yuktibh, the demonstrations of the rules
for the quadrature of the circle by infinite series, with the series for
the sines, cosines, and their demonstrations, will be given in a
separate paper: I shall therefore conclude this, by submitting a
simple and curious proof of the 47
th
proposition of Euclid [the so
called Pythagoras theorem], extracted from the Yuktibh.'
THE ALLEGED ABSENCE OF PROOFS IN INDIAN MATHEMATICS
It has been the scant attention paid, by the modern scholarship of the last
two centuries, to this extensive tradition of commentaries which has led to
a lack of comprehension of the methodology of Indian mathematics and is
reflected in the often repeated statements on the absence of logical rigour
in Indian mathematics in works on history of mathematics such as the
following:
'As our survey indicates, the Hindus were interested in and
contributed to the arithmetical and computational activities of
mathematics rather than to the deductive patterns. Their name for
mathematics was ganita, which means "the science of calculation".
There is much good procedure and technical facility, but no
evidence that they considered proof at all. They had rules, but
apparently no logical scruples. Moreover, no general methods or
new viewpoints were arrived at in any area of mathematics.'

[Morris Kline: Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford 1972, p.190]


SOME IMPORTANT COMMENTARIES AVAILABLE IN PRINT
WHICH DISCUSS UPAPATTIS
1. Bhya of Bhskara I (c.629) on ryabhaya of ryabhaa (c.499)
2. Bhya of Govindasvmin (c.800) on Mahbhskarya of Bhskara I
(c.629)
3. Vsanbhya of Caturveda Pthdakasvmin (c.860) on
Brhmasphuasiddhnta of Brahmagupta (c.628)
4. Vivaraa of Bhskarcrya II (c.1150) on iyadhvddhidtantra of
Lalla (c.748)
5. Vsan of Bhskarcrya II (c.1150) on his own Bjagaita
6. Mitkar or Vsan of Bhskarcrya II (c.1150) on his own
Siddhntairomai
7. Siddhntadpik of Paramevara (c.1431) on the Bhya of
Govindasvmin (c.800) on Mahbhskarya of Bhskara I (c.629)
8. ryabhayabhya of Nlakaha Somasutvan (c.1501) on ryabhaya
of ryabhaa
9. Yuktibh (in Malaylam) of Jyehadeva (c.1530)
10.Yuktidpik of akara Vriyar (c.1530) on Tantrasagraha of
Nlakaha Somasutvan (c.1500)
11.Kriykramakar of akara Vriyar (c.1535) on Llvat of
Bhskarcrya II (c.1150)
12.Gaitayuktaya, Tracts on Rationale in Mathematical Astronomy by
various Kerala Astronomers (c.16
th
-19
th
century)
13.Sryapraka of ryadsa) (c.1538) on Bhskarcryas Bjagaita
(c.1150)
14.Buddhivilsin of Gaea Daivaja (c.1545) on Llvat of
Bhskarcrya II (c.1150)
15.Bjanavkur or Bjapallavam of Ka Daivaja (c.1600) on
Bjagaita of Bhskarcrya II (c.1150)
16.Vsanvrttika, commentary of Nsiha Daivaja (c.1621) on
Vsanbhya of Bhskarcrya II. on his own Siddhntairomai
(c.1150).
17.Marci of Munvara (c.1630) on Siddhntairomai of Bhskarcrya
II (c.1150).
KA DAIVAJA ON THE IMPORTANCE OF UPAPATTI
The following passage from Ka Daivajas commentary on Bijaganita
brings out the general understanding of the Indian mathematicians that
citing any number of favourable instances (even an infinite number of
them) where a result seems to hold, does not amount to establishing it as a
valid result in mathematics. Only when the result is supported by an
upapatti or demonstration can the result be accepted as valid.

KA DAIVAJA ON THE IMPORTANCE OF UPAPATTI
How can we state without proof (upapatti) that twice the product of two
quantities when added or subtracted from the sum of their squares is equal
to the square of the sum or difference of those quantities? That it is seen to
be so in a few instances is indeed of no consequence. Otherwise, even the
statement that four times the product of two quantities is equal to the
square of their sum, would have to be accepted as valid. For, that is also
seen to be true in some cases. For instance take the numbers 2, 2. Their
product is 4, four times which will be 16, which is also the square of their
sum 4. Or take the numbers 3, 3. Four times their product is 36, which is
also the square of their sum 6. Or take the numbers 4, 4. Their product is
16, which when multiplied by four gives 64, which is also the square of
their sum 8. Hence the fact that a result is seen to be true in some cases is
of no consequence, as it is possible that one would come across contrary
instances also. Hence it is necessary that one would have to provide a
proof (yukti) for the rule that twice the product of two quantities when
added or subtracted from the sum of their squares results in the square of
the sum or difference of those quantities. We shall provide the proof
(upapatti) in the end of the section on ekavara-madhyamharaa.
BHSKARA I ON UPAPATTI (c.629)
In his discussion of ryabhaas approximate value of the ratio of the
circumference and diameter of a circle, Bhskara I notes that the
approximate value is given as the exact value cannot be given. He then
goes on to argue that other values proposed are without any justification:

BHSKARA I ON UPAPATTI (c.629)
'It is the view of the crya that there is no means by which the exact
circumference can be obtained. Is it not true that there is the following?
"The square root of the ten times the diameter is the circumference of a
circle."
Here also, there is only a tradition, and not a proof (upapatti), that the
circumference when the diameter is one is ten. Then it is contended that
"the circumference when diameter is unity, when measured by means of
direct perception (pratyaka), is the square-root of ten (daa-kara)". That
is incorrect, because the magnitude of the karas cannot be stated exactly.
It may be further contended that "when the circumference associated with
that diameter (one) is enclosed with the diagonal of a rectangle whose
breadth and length are one and three respectively, i.e. one whose length is
square root of ten only, it (the circumference) has that length." But that too
has to be established.'


BHSKARCRYA II ON UPAPATTI (c.1150)

In Siddhntairomai, Bhskarcrya II (1150) presents the raison dtre
of upapatti in the Indian mathematical tradition:
U U
u u
u
uU
'Without the knowledge of upapattis, by merely mastering the calculations
(gaita) described here, from the madhyamdhikra (the first chapter of
Siddhntairomai) onwards, of the [motion of the] heavenly bodies, a
mathematician will not be respected in the scholarly assemblies; without
the upapattis he himself will not be free of doubt (nisaaya). Since
upapatti is clearly perceivable in the (armillary) sphere like a berry in the
hand, I therefore begin the Goldhyya (section on spherics) to explain the
upapattis. '
GAEA DAIVAJA ON UPAPATTI (c.1540)

The same has been stated by Gaea Daivaja in the introduction to his
commentary Buddhivilsin (c. 1540) on Llvat of Bhskarcrya II.

Thus, according to the Indian mathematical texts, the purpose of upapatti
is mainly:
(i) To remove confusion and doubts regarding the validity and
interpretation of mathematical results and procedures; and,
(ii) To obtain assent in the community of mathematicians.
This is very different from the ideal of "proof" in the Greco-European
tradition which is to irrefutably establish the absolute truth of a
mathematical proposition.

BHSKARA II ON UPAPATTI
In his Bjagaita-vsan, Bhskarcrya II (c.1150) refers to the long
tradition of upapattis in Indian mathematics.
z
... +
H ;

'The demonstration follows. It is twofold in each case: One
geometrical and the other algebraic. There, the geometrical one is
stated.... Then the algebraic demonstration is stated, that is also
geometry-based. This procedure [of upapatti] has been earlier
presented in a concise instructional form by ancient teachers. For
those who cannot comprehend the geometric demonstration, to them,
this algebraic demonstration is to be presented.'
Here, Bhskara also refers to the ketragata (geometric) and rigata
(algebraic) demonstrations. To understand them, we shall consider the
two proofs given by Bhskara of the so called Theorem of Pythagoras.
UPAPATTI OF BHUJ-KOI-KARA-NYYA
In the madhyamharaa section Bhskara poses the following problem
>
'In a right angled triangle with sides 15 and 20 what is the
hypotenuse? Also give the demonstration for this traditional
method of calculation.'
Here also Bhskara gives two proofs. First the geometrical:

UPAPATTI OF BHUJ-KOI-KARA-NYYA

1520

y
y=(225/y)+
(400/y)
y
2
=625
y=25

'Let the hypotenuse (kara) be y. Take the

hypotenuse as the base. Then the perpendicular to the
hypotenuse from the opposite vertex divides the
triangle into two triangles [which are similar to the
original]. Now by the rule of proportion (trairika),
if y is the hypotenuse the bhuj is 15, then when this
bhuj 15 is the hypotenuse, the bhuj, which is now
the bdh (segment of the base) to the side of the
original bhuj will be (225/y ). Again if y is the
hypotenuse, the koi is 4, then when this koi 20 is the
hypotenuse, the koi, which is now the segment of
base to the side of the (original) koi will be (400/y).
Adding the two segments (bdhs) of y the
hypotenuse and equating the sum to (the hypotenuse)
y, we get y = 25, the square root of the sum of the
squares of bhuj and koi. The base segements are 9,
16 and the perpendicular is 12'
UPAPATTI OF BHUJ-KOI-KARA-NYYA
Now the algebraic demonstration

As Bhskara has noted, this algebraic demonstration is also geometrical
in nature.
Let the hypotenuse be y. The area of the triangle which is half the
product of the bhuj and koi is 150. Consider a square whose sides are
formed out of the hypotenuse of these triangles.

UPAPATTI OF BHUJ-KOI-KARA-NYYA
In the centre is formed a square whose side is 5, the difference of bhuj
and koi, and whose area is 25. The area of the four triangles is 600.
Thus, adding these, the area of the big square is 625. Taking y
2
= 25,
we get the hypotenuse to be 25.



KNA DAIVAJAS UPAPATTI OF KUAKA PROCESS
As an example of an upapatti which proceeds in a sequence of steps, we
may briefly consider the detailed upapatti for the kuaka procedure given
by Ka Daivaja (c.1600) in his commentary Bjapallava on Bjagaita
of Bhskara.
The kuaka procedure for solving first order indeterminate equations of
the form
(ax + c)/b = y
Here, a, b, c are given integers (called bhjya, bhjaka and kepa) and x, y
are to be solved for in integers.
Ka first shows that the solutions for x, y do not vary if we factor all
three numbers a, b, c by the same common factor.
He then shows that if a and b have a common factor then the above
equation will not have a solution unless c is also divisible by the same.
He then gives the upapatti for the process of finding the apavartka
(greatest common divisor) of a and b by mutual division (the so-called
Euclidean algorithm).
KA DAIVAJAS UPAPATTI OF KUAKA PROCESS
Ka then provides a detailed justification for the kuaka method of
finding the solution by making a vall (table) of the quotients obtained in
the above mutual division, based on a detailed analysis of the various
operations in reverse (vyasta-vidhi).
In doing the reverse computation on the vall (vallyupasahra) the
numbers obtained, at each stage, are shown to be the solutions to the
kuaka problem for the successive pairs of remainders (taken in reverse
order from the end) which arise in the mutual division of a and b.
Finally, Ka shows how the solutions thus obtained are for positive and
negative kepa depending upon whether there are odd or even number of
coefficients generated in the above mutual division. And this finally leads
to the different procedures to be adopted for solving the equation
depending on whether there are odd or even number of quotients in the
mutual division.


USE OF TARKA IN UPAPATTI
The method of "proof by" contradiction is referred to as Tarka in Indian
logic. We can see this method being employed in order to show the non-
existence of an entity.
For instance, Ka Daivajna essentially employs Tarka to show the non-
existence of the square-root of a negative number while commenting on
the statement of Bhskara that a negative number has no root.


~ ; z

z



USE OF TARKA IN UPAPATTI
Thus according to Ka
'The square-root can be obtained only for a square. A negative
number is not a square. Hence how can we consider its square-root?
It might however be argued: Why will a negative number not be a
square? Surely it is not a royal fiat... Agreed. Let it be stated by you
who claim that a negative number is a square as to whose square it is;
surely not of a positive number, for the square of a positive number is
always positive by the rule... not also of a negative number. Because
then also the square will be positive by the rule... This being the case,
we do not see any such number whose square becomes negative...'
While the method of "proof by contradiction" or reduction ad absurdum
seems to have been used to show the non-existence of entities, the
Indian mathematicians do not use this method to show the existence of
entities whose existence cannot be demonstrated by other direct means.
It is a general principle of Indian logic that Tarka is not accepted as an
independent prama, but only as an aid to other pramas.
GAITA-YUKTIBH OF JYEHADEVA
The most detailed exposition of upapattis in Indian mathematics is found
in the Malaylam text Yuktibh (1530) of Jyehadeva, a student of
Dmodara.
At the beginning of Yuktibh, Jyehadeva states that his purpose is to
present the rationale of the results and procedures as expounded in the
Tantrasagraha. Many of these rationales have also been presented
(mostly in the form of Sanskrit verses) by akara Vriyar (c.1500-1556)
in his commentaries Kriykramakar (on Lilavati) and Yuktidpik (on
Tantrasagraha)
Yuktibh has 15 chapters and is naturally divided into two parts,
Mathematics and Astronomy. In the Mathematics part, the first five
chapters deal with logistics, arithmetic of fractions, the rule of three and
the solution of linear indeterminate equations. Chapter VI presents a
detailed derivation of the Mdhava series for , his estimate of the end-
correction terms and their use in transforming the series to ensure faster
convergence. Chapter VII discusses the derivation of the Mdhava series
for Rsine and Rversine. This is followed by derivation of various results
on cyclic quadrilaterals and the surface area and volume of a sphere.
YUKTIBH PROOF OF BHUJ-KOI-KARA-NYYA

ABCD, a square with its side equal to the bhuj, is placed on the north.
The square BPQR, with its side equal to the koi, is placed on the South. It
is assumed that the bhuj is smaller than the koi. Mark M on AP such that
AM = BP = koi. Hence MP = AB = bhuj and MD = MQ = kara. Cut
along MD and MQ, such that the triangles AMD and PMQ just cling at D,
Q respectively. Turn them around to coincide with DCT and QRT. Thus is
formed the square DTQM, with its side equal to the kara. It is thus seen
that
kara-square MDTQ = bhuj-square ABCD + koi-square BPQR
YUKTIBH ESTIMATION SAMAGHTA-SAKALITA
The derivation of the Mdhava series for crucially involves the
estimation, for large n, of the so called sama-ghta-sakalita
S
n
(k)
=1
k
+ 2
k
+ ... n
k

Firstly, it is noted that the mla-sakalita
S
n
(1)
=1+2+...n

=n(n+1)/2 n
2
/2forlarge n.
Then, we are asked to write the varga- sakalita as
S
n
(2)
= n
2
+ (n-1)
2
+. + 1
2

and subtract it from
n S
n
(1)
= n [n + (n-1) + +1]
and get
n S
n
(1)
- S
n
(2)
= 1.(n-1) + 2.(n-2) + 3.(n-3)+.. +(n-1) .1
= (n-1) + (n-2) + (n-3) +. +1
+ (n-2) + (n-3) + + 1
+ (n-3) + . +1 +...
YUKTIBH ESTIMATION SAMAGHTA-SAKALITA
Thus,
nS
n
(1)
S
n
(2)
=S
n1
(1)
+S
n2
(1)
+S
n3
(1)
+.
Since we have already estimated S
n
(1)
n
2
/2,weget
nS
n
(1)
S
n
(2)
(n1)
2
/2+(n2)
2
/2+(n3)
2
/2+..
nS
n
(1)
S
n
(2
S
n
(2)
/2
Therefore
S
n
(2)
n
3
/3forlargen.
Essentially the same procedure is to be followed in the case of a
general sama-ghta-sakalita (summation of equal powers), given
by

S
n
(k)
= n
k
+ (n-1)
k
+. + 1
k

.

YUKTIBH ESTIMATION SAMAGHTA-SAKALITA
We first compute the excess of n S
n
(k-1)
over S
n
(k)
in the form
n S
n
(k-1)
- S
n
(k)
= S
n-1
(k-1)
+ S
n-2
(k-1)
+ S
n-3
(k-1)
+ .
If the lower order sakalita S
n
(k-1)
has already been estimated to be,
S
n
(k-1)
n
k
/k
then the above relation leads to
n S
n
(k-1)
- S
n
(k)
(n-1)
k
/k + (n-2)
k
/k + (n-3)
k
/k +
(1/k) S
n
(k)

Thus we get the estimate

S
n
(k)
n
k+1
/(k+1)forlargen.



YUKTIBH ESTIMATE OF VRASAKALITA
The general repeated sumV
n
(r)
(sakalitaikya or vra-sakalita) of natural
numbers is given by
V
n
(1)
=1+2+3+...+n=n(n+1)/2

V
n
(r)
=V
1
(r1)
+V
2
(r1)
++V
n
(r1)
In Gaita-kaumud(c.1356) of Nryaa Paita, we find the formula
V
n
(r)
=n(n+1)(n+r)/(r+1)!
The above result is also known to the Kerala Astronomers, but they prefer
to derive the estimate for V
n
(r)
for large n as follows. Firstly,
V
n
(1)
=n(n+1)/2n
2
/2forlargen.
We can express V
n
(2)
in the form
V
n
(2)
=V
n
(1)
+V
n1
(1)
++V
1
(1)

n
2
/2+(n1)
2
/2+
S
n
(2)
/2
YUKTIBH ESTIMATE OF VRASAKALITA
Thus we get,
V
n
(2)
n
3
/6
Similarly, if we write the general repeated sum as
V
n
(r)
=V
n
(r1)
+V
n1
(r1)
++V
1
(r1)

And, if we have already obtained

V
n
(r1)
n
r
/(1.2.r),
then we get,
V
n
(r)
n
r
/(1.2.r)+(n1)
r
/(1.2.r)+
S
n
(r)
/(1.2.r)
n
r+1
/(1.2.r(r+1))forlargen.


YUKTIBH DERIVATION OF MDHAVA SERIES FOR
Yuktibh has outlined derivation of the Mdhava series for the ratio of
the circumference of a circle to its diameter. For this purpose consider the
quadrant OEAS of the square which circumscribes the circle of radius r.
The eastern side of the quadrant is divided in to a large number n of equal
parts A
i
A
i+1
= r/n.

Join the hypotenuses (kara) O A
1
, O A
2
, ... which meet the circle at C
1
,
C
2
, .... Drop the perpendiculars, A
i
P
i
and C
i
Q
i
onto OA
i+1
. We shall
approximate the arc-bits C
i
C
i+1
, by the corresponding Rsines, C
i
Q
i
. It is
noted that larger the n the more accurate will be the result.
YUKTIBH DERIVATION OF MDHAVA SERIES FOR

If we note that the triangles A
i
P
i
A
i+1
and OEA
i+1
are similar and that the
triangles OC
i
Q
i
and OA
i
P
i
are similar, then we get
C
i
Q
i
= A
i
P
i
(OC
i
/OA
i
) = A
i
A
i+1
(OE /OA
i+1
) (OC
i
/OA
i
)
If we denote the hypotenuse OA
i
as k
i
, then we get
C/8 (r/n)[(r
2
/k
0
k
1
)+(r
2
/k
1
k
2
)+.+(r
2
/k
n1
k
n
)]
YUKTIBH DERIVATION OF MDHAVA SERIES FOR
It is noted that when n is large,
1/k
i
k
i+1
()[1/k
i
2
+1/k
i+1
2
]

and that the earlier sum for the circumference can be replaced by
C/8 (r/n)[(r
2
/k
1
2
)+(r
2
/k
2
2
)+.+(r
2
/k
n
2
)]
If we note that
k
i
2
=r
2
+(ir/n)
2
then we get
C/8 (r/n)[(r
2
/(r
2
+(r/n)
2
))+(r
2
/(r
2
+(2r/n)
2
))
+.+(r
2
/r
2
+(nr/n)
2
)]

Note: The above expression is essentially the integral of the arc-tan
function from 0 to /4.
YUKTIBH DERIVATION OF MDHAVA SERIES FOR
Each of the terms in the above sum for the circumference can be expanded
as a binomial series (which has been derived earlier in Yuktibh) and we
get, on regrouping the terms,
C/8 = (r/n) [1 + 1 + .. + 1]

- (r/n) (1/r
2
) [(r/n)
2
+ (2r/n)
2
+ . + (nr/n)
2
]

+ (r/n) (1/r
4
)[(r/n)
4
+ (2r/n)
4
+ + (nr/n)
4
]

- (r/n) (1/r
6
) [(r/n)
6
+ (2r/n)
6
+ . + (nr/n)
6
]

+.
Now, each of the sama-ghta-sakalita or sums of powers of integers can
be estimated (when n is large) in the manner explained earlier and we
obtain the Mdhava series
C/4d=11/3+1/5....+(1)
n
1/(2n+1)+.
YUKTIBH DERIVATION OF THE MDHAVA SINE SERIES
Given an arc EC = s = Rx, divide it into n equal parts and let the pia-
jys B
j
, koi-jys K
j
and aras S
j
, with j = 0, 1..., be given by
B
j
=Rsin(jx/n) K
j
=Rcos(jx/n) S
j
=Rvers(jx/n)=R[1cos(jx/n)]

Let C
j
C
j+1
is the (j+1)-th arc-bit. Let M
j+1
be the mid-point of the arc-bit
C
j
C
j+1
and similarly M
j
the mid-point of the previous (j-th) arc-bit. Let
full-chord of the equal arc-bits s/n be denoted . Then, from the similar
triangles C
j+1
FC
j
and OQ
j+1
M
j+1
and similarly M
j+1
GM
j
and OP
j
C
j
we get
B
j+1
B
j
=(/R)K
j+1/2
andK
j1/2
K
j+1/2
=S
j+1/2
S
j1/2
=(/R)B
j

YUKTIBH DERIVATION OF THE MDHAVA SINE SERIES

Thus, the second order Rsine differences (jy-khantara) are given by
(B
j
B
j1
)(B
j+1
B
j
)=(/R)(S
j+1/2
S
j1/2
)=(/R)
2
B
j

Hence
S
n1/2
S
1/2
=(/R)(B
1
+B
2
+.+B
n1
)
B
n
nB
1
=(/R)
2
[B
1
+(B
1
+B
2
)++(B
1
+B
2
+.+B
n1
)]
=(/R)(S
1/2
+S
3/2
+.+S
n1/2
nS
1/2
)
The above relations are exact. Now, if B and S are the jy and ara of the
arc s, in the limit of very large n, we have
B
n
B,S
n1/2
S,S
1/2
0,s/n
and hence
S(s/nR)(B
1
+B
2
+.+B
n1
)
BnB
1
(s/nR)
2
[B
1
+(B
1
+B
2
)++(B
1
+B
2
+.+B
n1
)]

YUKTIBH DERIVATION OF THE MDHAVA SINE SERIES

In the above relations, we first approximate the jy-khaas by the cpas
B
j
js/n, and make use of the estimates (derived earlier) for sums and
repeated sums of natural numbers for large n, to get
S(1/R)(s/n)
2
(1+2+.+n1)s
2
/2R
Bn(s/n)(1/R)
2
(s/n)
3
[1+(1+2)++(1+2++n1)]ss
3
/6R
2

We now substitute the above second approximation for jy-cpntara

B
j
js/n(js/n)
3
/6R
2

we get the next approximation

Ss
2
/2Rs
4
/24R
2
Bss
3
/6R
2
+s
5
/120R
4

The above more refined approximation for jy-cpntara is again fed back
into our original equations for B and S and so on. In this way we are led to
the series given by Mdhava for Sine and Versine
Rsin(s/R)=B=R[(s/R)(s/R)
3
/3!+(s/R)
5
/5!]
RRcos(s/R)=S=R[(s/R)
2
(s/R)
4
/4!+(s/R)
6
/6!]
YUKTIBH PROOF OF AREA OF A CYCLIC QUADRILATERAL
The Brahmagupta formula for the area of a cyclic quadrilateral is
A=[(sa)(sb)(sc)(sd)]
1/2
withs=(a+b+c+d)/2

AE and CF are perpendiculars drawn to the diagonal BD. Then,

A
2
=[()BDx(AE+CF)]
2

=()BD
2
xAP
2
=()[BD
2
x(AC
2
EF
2
)]
It is then shown that the lamba-niptntara, EF, is given by
EF=ME+MF=()(BEDE)+()(DFBF)=()[(AB
2
+CD
2
)(BC
2
+DA
2
)]/BD
YUKTIBH PROOF OF AREA OF A CYCLIC QUADRILATERAL
Therefore
A
2
=[BDxAC/2]
2
[{(AB/2)
2
+(CD/2)
2
}{(BC/2)
2
+DA/2)
2
}]
2

Now, use is made of the Brahmagupta formulae for the diagonals of the
cyclic quadrilateral (derived earlier), which leads to the expression
A
2
=[(ac+bd)/2+{(a/2)
2
+(c/2)
2
}{(b/2)
2
+(d/2)
2
}]
x[(ac+bd)/2{(a/2)
2
+(c/2)
2
}+{(b/2)
2
+(d/2)
2
}]
This is simplified in successive steps to obtain
A
2
=[{(a/2)

+(c/2)}
2
{(b/2)

(d/2)}
2
]
x[{(b/2)

+(d/2)

}
2
{(a/2)

(c/2)

}
2
]
=(a/2+c/2+b/2d/2)(a/2+c/2+d/2b/2)
x(b/2+d/2+a/2c/2)(b/2+d/2+c/2a/2)
=(sa)(sb)(sc)(sd)

UPAPATTI AND "PROOF"

The following are some of the important features of upapattis in Indian
mathematics:
1. The Indian mathematicians are clear that results in mathematics, even
those enunciated in authoritative texts, cannot be accepted as valid
unless they are supported by yukti or upapatti. It is not enough that
one has merely observed the validity of a result in a large number of
instances.
2. Several commentaries written on major texts of Indian mathematics
and astronomy present upapattis for the results and procedures
enunciated in the text.
3. The upapattis are presented in a sequence proceeding systematically
from known or established results to finally arrive at the result to be
established.
4. In the Indian mathematical tradition the upapattis mainly serve to
remove doubts and obtain consent for the result among the
community of mathematicians.
5. The upapattis may involve observation or experimentation. They also
depend on the prevailing understanding of the nature of the
mathematical objects involved.
UPAPATTI AND PROOF
6. The method of tarka or "proof by contradiction" is used occasionally.
But there are no upapattis which purport to establish existence of any
mathematical object merely on the basis of tarka alone. In this sense
the Indian mathematical tradition takes a "constructivist" approach to
the existence of mathematical objects.
7. The Indian mathematical tradition did not subscribe to the ideal that
upapattis should seek to provide irrefutable demonstrations
establishing the absolute truth of mathematical results.
8. There was no attempt made in Indian mathematical tradition to
present the upapattis in an axiomatic framework based on a set of
self-evident (or arbitrarily postulated) axioms which are fixed at the
outset.
9. While Indian mathematics made great strides in the invention and
manipulation of symbols in representing mathematical results and in
facilitating mathematical processes, there was no attempt at
formalization of mathematics.



LESSONS FROM HISTORY

However vagaries of the external world were not by themselves
responsible for the failure of Greek mathematics to advance
materially beyond Archimedes. There were also internal factors
that suffice to explain this failure. These impeding factors centred
on the rigid separation in Greek mathematics between geometry
and arithmetic (or algebra), and a one-sided emphasis on the
former. Their analysis dealt solely with geometrical
magnitudeslengths, areas, volumesrather than numerical ones,
and their manipulation of these magnitudes was exclusively verbal
or rhetorical, rather than analytic (or algebraic as we would say
today). ...




LESSONS FROM HISTORY

It is somewhat paradoxical that this principal shortcoming of
Greek mathematics stemmed directly from its principal virtue
the insistence on absolute logical rigour. The Greeks imposed on
themselves standards of exact thought that prevented them from
using and working with concepts that they could not completely
and precisely formulate. For this reason they rejected irrationals as
numbers, and excluded all traces of the infinite, such as explicit
limit concepts, from their mathematics. Although the Greek
bequest of deductive rigour is the distinguishing feature of modern
mathematics, it is arguable that, had all succeeding generations
also refused to use real numbers and limits until they fully
understood them, the calculus might never have been developed,
and mathematics might now be a dead and forgotten science.

[C.H. Edwards, The Historical Development of the Calculus,
Springer, 1979, p.78-79]
LESSONS FROM HISTORY

David Mumford, Review of Kim Plofkers
Mathematics in India, Notices of AMS 2010, p.390
LESSONS FROM HISTORY
Japanese have been looking to the West ever since the middle of the Edo
period [1603-1868]. This not only holds true with the Western culture in
general, but in particular in the fields of science and technology. Certainly
the discipline of modern science originated in the seventeenth century in
Western countries. Before that, however, perspectives of nature, as well as
approaches to it, differed considerably according to place, nationality and
time. This fact suggests that the modern-scientific view of, and approach
to, nature is neither unique nor absolutely correct, and that there are
alternatives as to the direction modern science should take.
We hope that the study of the history of sciences in India, China, and
Korea, which have all had a great influence upon the Japanese culture
including the indigenous science, will make us consider the past, present,
and future of our own culture [and] science and enhance our
understanding of neighbouring countries. It is with this view in mind that
we are studying the history of exact science such as mathematics and
astronomy from East-Asian and South-Asian countries.
[Prof. Takao Hayashi,
Science and Engineering Research Institute,, Doshisha University
http://engineering.doshisha.ac.jp/english/kenkyu/labo/scie/sc_01/index.html]