His book"Gaṇita-sāra-saṅgraha"is earliest text devoted entirely to Mathematics
He has described the currently used method of calculating(LCM)of given numbers.The same method was used in Europe later in1500CE
Some 1300 years ago in Karnataka there lived a genius who wrote "Gaṇitasārasan̄graha" (which is earliest text devoted entirely to mathematics)
The man who's work later borrowed by Arabs & Europeans
Thread on "Mahāvīracharya" astounding but forgotten legacy
His book"Gaṇita-sāra-saṅgraha"is earliest text devoted entirely to Mathematics
He has described the currently used method of calculating(LCM)of given numbers.The same method was used in Europe later in1500CE
A sheer mathematical genius
His magnum opus "Ganit sara sangraha " start with a sloka bowing to the glory of the jinas
"संख्याज्ञानप्रदिपेन जैनेंद्रन महत्वेशा,
प्रकाशितम जगतसर्व येन तम प्रणमाम्यहम"
He also praised his predecessor aryabhata , brahmagupta & other greats in his works
A large no of manuscript copies of
"Gaṇita-sāra-saṅgraha"whr discovered in Kerala shows it's popularity
Further he was one of the first mathematician to have given an approximate expression for the circumference of an ellipse(aayata vritta)
He clearly mentioned in his work that a "negative number cannot have a square root" . This is the first remark on clear recognition of the imaginary quantities in mathematics .
More from Science
I think we have to expand our thinking about the toroidal sphere even more. When looking at maps, I noticed the da Vinci map, from 1514, which uses the Reuleaux Triangle. This triangle is formed from 3 intersecting circles, and is in the center of a trefoil.
The trefoil is the focal point in many gothic structures, repeatedly and prominently shown. It is represented in many ways. ‘Going down the rabbit hole’ now makes sense, if you understand the center point of the ears is the center of the torus, with the rabbit trefoil.
The trefoil can be found within the toroidal field. Here is a fun site, where you can manipulate it yourself. https://t.co/FCMcybuuFC
The wiki page makes it seem like there isn’t much of importance with the Reuleaux Triangle, besides being used for coinage, or some stupid bike. But the Wankel engine is an interesting engine, using this geometric design https://t.co/ayPOgkAqGN
https://t.co/m9EaWwF796
The trefoil is the focal point in many gothic structures, repeatedly and prominently shown. It is represented in many ways. ‘Going down the rabbit hole’ now makes sense, if you understand the center point of the ears is the center of the torus, with the rabbit trefoil.
The trefoil can be found within the toroidal field. Here is a fun site, where you can manipulate it yourself. https://t.co/FCMcybuuFC
The wiki page makes it seem like there isn’t much of importance with the Reuleaux Triangle, besides being used for coinage, or some stupid bike. But the Wankel engine is an interesting engine, using this geometric design https://t.co/ayPOgkAqGN
https://t.co/m9EaWwF796
Hard agree. And if this is useful, let me share something that often gets omitted (not by @kakape).
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
Feels like the next thing we're going to need is a ranking system for how concerning "variants of concern\u201d actually are.
— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) January 15, 2021
A lot of constellations of mutations are concerning, but people are lumping together variants with vastly different levels of evidence that we need to worry.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
