>As to someone who compared reading gita with a sanskrit dictionary with
>reading the principia with an English Dictionary, I might add that I did just
>that. And, I had no problems following it.
>> Is that so? That certainly shows your remarkable mathematical ability, but
>>nothing could be farther from Truth than saying that Principia of Mathematica
>>could be understood with the aid of dictionary with no background in Analytic
>>Geometry first, particularly when even its style is so different. Famous
>>philosophers John Locke, Voltaire acknowledged the difficulty. Newton himself
>>told Rev. Dr. Derham:
>>"To avoid being baited by little smatterers in mathematics, I designedly made
>>the Principia abstruse; but yet so as to be understood by able mathematicians,
>>who, I imagine, by comprehending my demonstrations would concur with my theory"
I did NOT say that Newton's book was flaw-less (indeed I said I appreciated
knowing the flaws), but I did say that I had no problem UNDERSTANDING it.
If that is a point of contention, please post a few pages from the Principia,
and I will be glad to follow up with the explanation.
Remember, the so-called analytic geometry was in its infancy at the time
of Newton. So, understanding it was rather trivial and N. gives enough stuff
to follow it. Any one with basic intermediate knowledge (i.e., Xii class ofAP)
should have no problem following it. Of course, also should have no problem
understanding its flaws and limitations. BTW John Locke had no mathematical
contribution worth its salt. He was mor of a political philosopher or
social philosopher.
Not a mathematician. I will be surprised if he had NO problem understanding
it. Second, after 3 centuries, the great discoveries of N. are everyday
stuff now. So, we have much better advantage than J.Locke had.
It is well known that analysis was not Newton's forte; even Euler made several
mistakes in relationship with infinite series. Analysis was developed
for over a hundread years.
An excellent commentary on this was given by "E.T. Bell" in hiw "history of
Calculus" (not his other well known works: men of mathematics and history of
mathematics).
To those who somehow attribute abstruse profunditity that can't be explained
in simple English or telugu to Bhagavadgita: if you can't explain, the proof
of burden is still on you, not on me.
>> If accepting something blindly is illogical, having contempt blindly for
>>something as "insanity" is equally illogical.
Of course!!!! it is obvious!
What's the point of this vacuous truism? What's the use of this rhetoric?
Did you somehow read otherwise in my mail?
If so,
for the record: B.G. has enough inconsistencies and
enough nuggets of wisdom. I take what I like. For those who claim that
it has only one kind (i.e., only nuggets of wisdom or only
inconsistencies), I can provide counter-examples of the other kind. Pl.
stick to this stand of mine in your reply. No point in vacuous generalites
and vague statements. Thanks.
Hope I am clear.
Thank you!
Kumar.