From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 14:17:45 MST
[Yash] Most of your ramblings would not have been necessary if you read the
book I mentioned.
[Hermit] As repeatedly said, "I read enough to know it was nonsense".
[Yash] Instead you saw a website from which you decided to scream
"Maharishi!"(the site is not by the author of the book, but by somebody else
presenting the same type of info from the book, and to whatever personal
motivation).
[Hermit] As repeatedly replied to by me before, this assertion, like almost
everything else you assert, is bullshit. My primary argument is that the
claims made are nonsensical from an historical and mathematical sense. The
fact that the PI content allegedly comes from a pre-CE document makes this
clear - despite your assertions that no claim was made to antiquity. As far
as Maharishi et al are concerned, I simply mentioned this to demonstrate the
fact that the perspective is advocated by nutcases, cranks and idiots (like
you). Please note the repost of 20 points below. Please identify the point
which claims that your assertion is invalid <em>because</em> of its
religious source. Fuckwit.
[Yash] If you did read the book, you'd see there was no claim as to what you
are seeking. Rather, the author simply marvels at how the ancient
astronomers used codes to make their numerical values easily assimilable and
recallable (using verse forms). That unassuming fellow does not make any
holier-than-thou claim. He doesn't explicit any "I'll convert you to my
religion" agenda.
[Hermit] The "ancient astronomers" who were not "astronomers" but
astrologers, did nothing of the sort. They could not. They did not have the
capabilities ascribed to them. People following on assigned "codes" to the
text to allow them to extract whatever results they wanted from the text
(just like the babble codes). These attributed values were then used to
claim a great deal more significance for the works than they deserved. This
would not be done unless those doing it had had an agenda, to aggrandize a
culture, to advocate a religious persuasion or whatever. As demonstrated by
the PI from Moby Dick example, it is possible to engage in this kind of post
hoc attribution in any work and thus it has no significance whatever
(irrespective of motivation).
[Yash] It's too bad you band together people who are bent on using this kind
of info to further their own agendas with that author.
[Hermit] WTF?
[Yash] Hermit, try not to be blinded by anger, and see my posts when some
obviously bigot people (godsfiend, etc...) tried to raise some silly things
on the list and how I responded.
[Hermit] Despite your (as usual, invalid) assertion, I am never "blinded by
anger." You cannot support you assertion above any more than you have
supported any other of your assertions and it is exactly this kind of stupid
and excessive statements that lead me to brand you a fuckwit - and your
continuation on this path simply confirms it. Fuckwit.
[Hermit] The facts above more than invalidate everything else that you are
attempting to say. The fact that you simply repeat your assertions ad
nauseam and persistently attempt to substantiate them by posting further
assertions and unsubstantiated opinions (not proofs) from sources which are
poisoned in exactly the way that I asserted e.g. "These were taken from the
Unserstanding [sic] Hinduism booklet available from the magnificent Shri
Swaminarayan Mandir in Neasden, London, UK" substantiates my case. The
further fact that you are trying to defend your madness du jour by
selectively pointing to others who allegedly discovered things through
religious motivation when I have already repeatedly stated that it is the
allegedly discoveries that must be investigated, not the motivation - an
argument you have chosen to ignore, which demonstrates that your reasoning
capabilities are entirely absent and leads me to dismiss the balance of your
reply and your assertions into the ignominy that they deserve.
[Hermit] Repost [extract from "virus: 20 points, some advice and a challenge
or two to Yash. PS Ping for Casey/Walter", Hermit, Fri 2002-01-11 10:10]
[Hermit] My justification is as follows:
1 "Vedic Maths" made exaggerated (to be kind) claims of accuracy and
significance for early Indian mathematics - claims not supported by any
non-religious affiliated source;
2 "Vedic Maths" asserted that a cited work contained PI, this is not
evident;
3 "Vedic Maths" asserted that PI was encoded in the cited text, using a
"hidden writing" method, there was no claim to this within the work in
question;
4 "Vedic Maths" asserted that a multi-variable "key" was used; there was no
evidence that this "key" was appropriate and that it was not selected
specifically to unearth PI. There was no evidence showing the vast number of
results which could be shown to appear to contain PI given this methodology
and alleged key;
5 "Vedic Maths" asserted that the key applied only to the portion of the
cited work where PI was supposedly encoded, but did not support this
assertion, or explain why the key did not unearth other "significant"
information;
6 "Vedic Maths" failed to explain why the source works in question contain
multiple values for the ratio we know as PI, demonstrating that the
essential nature of PI was unknown to the authors of those works;
7 "Vedic Maths" implied that the accuracy of the alleged hidden value of PI
proved the significant value of the culture and religion from which it
supposedly originated, not noting that the work had been rewritten over a
number of centuries by people who had greater understanding of mathematics
than the source and who undoubtedly modified the source works over that
period;
8 "Vedic Maths" failed to acknowledge that the written language was invented
centuries after the work supposedly embedding PI was first created;
9 "Vedic Maths" asserted knowledge that there was no possible way to explain
without a vast body of prior art. No evidence is found for such prior art
except to the assertions of "Vedic Maths";
10 "Vedic Maths" makes no attempt to explain why these techniques were then
"lost" until the author of "Vedic Maths" then "rediscovered" them;
11 "Vedic Maths" interpolated a number of arithmetic techniques which,
though valid, are trivial and were well known to other cultures which unlike
the Harrapans and their immediate successors had Mathematical cultures (e.g.
Sumerian, Babylonian, not so much the Egyptians who like the Harrapans and
their successors were primarily interested in practical and religious
results);
12 "Vedic Maths" asserted, that these arithmetic techniques were present,
not because they were stated, but because they could be argued to match "key
phrases" in the text. Granted that these techniques are (and were) trivial
and the majority known to other cultures including that of the author of
"Vedic Maths," the assertion that they were implied by the Sutras is tenuous
at best. Many other techniques, some which would work, some which would not
could also be implied by the same "key phrases." The author makes no attempt
to show why these "key phrases" were chosen, why others were not, or why
they <em>had</em> to imply the alleged techniques.;
13 "Vedic Maths" does not attempt to explain why, contrary to other
evidence, the people who allegedly calculated a value for PI were content to
accept measurements sufficient for construction purposes for all their other
work;
14 And most damning of all, "Vedic Mathematics" claimed a spurious antiquity
for its source works not supported by anything but assertion, presumably on
the common but never the less invalid assumption that age would prove
something to the authors readership (and it very probably did).
[Hermit] I also observed that:
15 the author was unqualified in the field;
16 occupied a less than universally respected position as priest (cf liar);
17 kept the company of charlatans and irrationals;
18 still attracts the support of irrational people today;
19 and quoted unrecognized sources (which, if you were familiar with the
field, you would realize is significant).
[Hermit] None of the above inspires me with confidence in his (or your)
assertions.
[Hermit] Particularly as:
20 Not even Hindu mathematicians (and contrary to your assertions of bias,
many Hindu Mathematicians and historians are recognized as being very
significant) recognize his claims.
[Hermit] You failed and still are failing to address a single one of the
above issues. I challenge you to respond to them numerically. If you do not
do so, the attacks which you have brought upon yourself will be shown to
have been justified and your claim not to be looking for a fight shown to be
a lie. I await your response with interest.
</quote>
[Hermit] All the above bar the last sentence remains true.
[Hermit] I retract the last sentence as you have demonstrated that you
cannot support your assertions, have nothing whatsoever of interest to say,
yet persist in repeating it very volubly.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT