تاريخ الرياضيات
الاعداد و نظريتها
تاريخ التحليل
تار يخ الجبر
الهندسة و التبلوجي
الرياضيات في الحضارات المختلفة
العربية
اليونانية
البابلية
الصينية
المايا
المصرية
الهندية
الرياضيات المتقطعة
المنطق
اسس الرياضيات
فلسفة الرياضيات
مواضيع عامة في المنطق
الجبر
الجبر الخطي
الجبر المجرد
الجبر البولياني
مواضيع عامة في الجبر
الضبابية
نظرية المجموعات
نظرية الزمر
نظرية الحلقات والحقول
نظرية الاعداد
نظرية الفئات
حساب المتجهات
المتتاليات-المتسلسلات
المصفوفات و نظريتها
المثلثات
الهندسة
الهندسة المستوية
الهندسة غير المستوية
مواضيع عامة في الهندسة
التفاضل و التكامل
المعادلات التفاضلية و التكاملية
معادلات تفاضلية
معادلات تكاملية
مواضيع عامة في المعادلات
التحليل
التحليل العددي
التحليل العقدي
التحليل الدالي
مواضيع عامة في التحليل
التحليل الحقيقي
التبلوجيا
نظرية الالعاب
الاحتمالات و الاحصاء
نظرية التحكم
بحوث العمليات
نظرية الكم
الشفرات
الرياضيات التطبيقية
نظريات ومبرهنات
علماء الرياضيات
500AD
500-1499
1000to1499
1500to1599
1600to1649
1650to1699
1700to1749
1750to1779
1780to1799
1800to1819
1820to1829
1830to1839
1840to1849
1850to1859
1860to1864
1865to1869
1870to1874
1875to1879
1880to1884
1885to1889
1890to1894
1895to1899
1900to1904
1905to1909
1910to1914
1915to1919
1920to1924
1925to1929
1930to1939
1940to the present
علماء الرياضيات
الرياضيات في العلوم الاخرى
بحوث و اطاريح جامعية
هل تعلم
طرائق التدريس
الرياضيات العامة
نظرية البيان
Baudhayana
المؤلف: G G Joseph
المصدر: The crest of the peacock
الجزء والصفحة: ...
18-10-2015
950
Born: about 800 BC in India
Died: about 800 BC in India
To write a biography of Baudhayana is essentially impossible since nothing is known of him except that he was the author of one of the earliest Sulbasutras. We do not know his dates accurately enough to even guess at a life span for him, which is why we have given the same approximate birth year as death year.
He was neither a mathematician in the sense that we would understand it today, nor a scribe who simply copied manuscripts like Ahmes. He would certainly have been a man of very considerable learning but probably not interested in mathematics for its own sake, merely interested in using it for religious purposes. Undoubtedly he wrote the Sulbasutra to provide rules for religious rites and it would appear an almost certainty that Baudhayana himself would be a Vedic priest.
The mathematics given in the Sulbasutras is there to enable the accurate construction of altars needed for sacrifices. It is clear from the writing that Baudhayana, as well as being a priest, must have been a skilled craftsman. He must have been himself skilled in the practical use of the mathematics he described as a craftsman who himself constructed sacrificial altars of the highest quality.
The Sulbasutras are discussed in detail in the article Indian Sulbasutras. Below we give one or two details of Baudhayana's Sulbasutra, which contained three chapters, which is the oldest which we possess and, it would be fair to say, one of the two most important.
The Sulbasutra of Baudhayana contains geometric solutions (but not algebraic ones) of a linear equation in a single unknown. Quadratic equations of the forms ax2 = c and ax2 + bx = c appear.
Several values of π occur in Baudhayana's Sulbasutra since when giving different constructions Baudhayana uses different approximations for constructing circular shapes. Constructions are given which are equivalent to taking π equal to 676/225 (where 676/225 = 3.004), 900/289 (where 900/289 = 3.114) and to 1156/361(where 1156/361 = 3.202). None of these is particularly accurate but, in the context of constructing altars they would not lead to noticeable errors.
An interesting, and quite accurate, approximate value for √2 is given in Chapter 1 verse 61 of Baudhayana's Sulbasutra. The Sanskrit text gives in words what we would write in symbols as
√2 = 1 + 1/3 + 1/(3×4) - 1/(3×4×34)= 577/408
which is, to nine places, 1.414215686. This gives √2 correct to five decimal places. This is surprising since, as we mentioned above, great mathematical accuracy did not seem necessary for the building work described. If the approximation was given as
√2 = 1 + 1/3 + 1/(3×4)
then the error is of the order of 0.002 which is still more accurate than any of the values of π. Why then did Baudhayana feel that he had to go for a better approximation?
See the article Indian Sulbasutras for more information
Books:
Articles: