Listen to a discussion on INDIAN MATHEMATICS : http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0038xb0

One of the reasons why mathematics did not flourish in India or its development was discontinuous could be that we did not develop an independent language for mathematical discourse. Another reason could be that "proof" was not considered to be necessary and one was expected to accept results given by authority. The Arabs and subsequently Europeans tremendously benefited from mathematical results they carried from India and developed them further. It seems our mathematical wisdom was circumscribed by the "vedis" we constructed for our yadnyas.

The concepts of zero and infinity are not necessarily mathematical. They are primarily philosophical or metaphysical. While zero can be considered some kind of a "number", infinity is definitely not a "number". It is only natural that mathematicians would wonder about zero and infinity because mathematics itself is (perhaps the greatest) abstraction made by the human mind.

agree with the above comment.

That's it.The problem with Ancient Indian Math was the lack of proof procedures and the formalism that is necessary for the integrated development of Math

Some of the comments here are unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. Are these people for real.

Yes...truly unbeliveable ! And these commentors are such wonderful and brilliant individuals !

' Do you think our Rishis were such idiots that they taught about VaimanikaShastram without practicals?' Well, I did not.I personally have the highest regard for the Rishis[People who know me in this site will vouch for it; in fact my position on Rishis is that they were the Original Thinkers that India had whether it was Science, Technology or Philosophy to just name a few of the varied subjects in which they have produced copious works ] But sometime back on this very RBSI this book Vaimanika Shastram was published- translated into English by one Aeronautical Engineer(?) from Mysore. It might still be available in the archivesof RBSI. You could defdinitely take a look. If one reads the translation, it is essentially a list of materials used for construction and certain designs of vehicles that could be airborne. If one goes by the "Theory of Flight" and other such Aeronautical Texts one would doubt such a contraption as has been drawn in thae text mentioned would get off ground. Yet, let us take it that we as trained in the Western Science do not yet know of other ways of accomplish a task such as Designing a Vimana in the way of the Rishi Bharadwaja - whose Vaimanika Shastram, it is that has been published. I waould just one thing, Sir, that the proof of the pudding is in the making and eating of it. In Science and Technology if no one is able to replicate something it is not likely to be taken as a real possibility.IOW we must be able to build ONE working Vimana to take that even tha way out designs will work.

...Contd... "lack of proof procedures and the formalism that is necessary for the integrated development of Math!" Absolutely laughable. Sir, When I said "Proof Procedure" I was alluding to the use of Principles of Logic and laying out of Mathematically valid statements in an order as to reach the conclusion that is the General Enunciation of a Theorem. There is a formal way of proving matghematical statement beginning with the Axioms of the Science to the statement in question as the concluding step. This kind of Formalism is not available in our Mathematical Works. One best example is Euclid's Formalization of Elementary School Geometry. Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaj HH Shankaracharya of Puri has in his now famous work called Vedic Mathematics has provided 5 different proofs of the Pythagoras Theorem all of them finishing in jusyt 5 Lines! Now from BKTM we learn that this so called Pythgoras Theorem better named as Bodhayana's Theorem is available in the Sulba Sutras, but the question are the 5 line proofs that BKTM had appended a part of Sulba Sutras?

....Contd In the AP Government Math Text for the VIII/IX Class one of the 5-line proofs[as against the 2-page standard proof for the Pythagoras Theorem is given stating the authorship of the proof to Bhaskaracharya. But Bhaskaracharya even considering the earlier one was in 2nd Century AD. Giving the benefit of doubt to BKTM that the proofs were all worked out by Bhaskaracharya still the fact remains that "formal proofs" were supplied much later Bodhayana Acharya- the earliest Pravachankara?

" It's a WRONG propaganda that we Bharatiyas do not question authority.' To question the authority of a Guru is forbidden in our culture. What happened to Bhagawan Ramanuja when he contradicted his Guru on the Interpretation of Brahma Sutras according to Yadava Prakasha? He was evicted from the school. It is a different thing that, later in life Sri Ramanujacharya won over Yadava Prakasha to his own fold. We tend to take things by authority. It is not that there haven't been people who didn't question. But they either had to branch off independently thus creating chasms in our society or would be silenced. The only saving grace in the Indian Scene we did not put out the eyes of such people as it was done in the West in Medieval times by the church like Galileo Galelei was. Socrates was given the hemlock. It is to our pride that such oppression was not a part of the Indian Ethos. ' Do not fall prey to the propaganda that our Rishis were some kinds if intellectual tyrants who didn't tolerate being questioned. Please stop insulting the achievements of our ancestors this way.' I hold quite the contrary view Sir. If there were any intelectuals who accepted difference of opinion with grace it was our Rishis. The Six Schools of Philosophy which looked at The Vedas in different ways is in itself the best testimony to our Rishis being open. But several generations down we has lost that "flexibility" and had become hidebound and authority driven. If we refuse to admit this then we are like ostriches burying our eyes in sand.

On the practice of Yajnas I am on the same page as you. I do find it equally appalling that we need certification by the Weserners to accept the maot foresighted gift of our Rishis. I lament this too.

Thank you Mahadeva S Sarma ! Compelling and enlightening...

Thank you, RBSI, for providing me the opportunity to speak my mind. But the likes of people like Sh.Sudarshan Pathak are also required to frequently remind that we are blind to our own very good achievements. Even if formal proofs are not given one take them as Applied Sciences where rigorous proofs are not insisted as much as in a theoretical subject. It is not that our ancients did not know how to take to great detail. In Linguistics trough Panini, Katyayana & Patanjali's works we see that they could go to great lengths.