## Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

### Formal math: based on church myths and superstitions

Monday, May 27th, 2019

Many smart alecs ask: what difference would it make if “Euclid” did not exist? They believe the lie about Euclid was told for no reason, and that it persists for no reason in our school texts today which mention “Euclid” 63 times, apart from giving children an image of “Euclid” (all of which makes them believe “Euclid” was real).

It is simple commonsense, however, that a lie is always told for a reason. But the reason in this case is beyond the understanding of our smart alecs. They miss the connection of the “Euclid” myth to church theology.

Our current school texts teach children the false history that “Greeks” did mathematics in some superior way which they must imitate. The myth goes that “Euclid” gave “irrefragrable proofs”, by using the axiomatic method. For this purpose, he supposedly arranged the theorems in a particular order.

Cambridge University, a church institution, subscribed to this myth. As pointed out in this exhibit, it initially adhered to the practice of blind imitation of “Euclid’s” Elements. Then the Cambridge Special Board for Mathematics in its Report on Geometrical Teaching dated 10 May 1887 declared the proofs in “Euclid” need not be blindly imitated but the order of theorems in the Elements must be followed. On 8 March 1888 this was adopted by the Cambridge Senate as part of the amended regulations for the Previous examination.

This move by Cambridge University to “reform” mathematics teaching was excessively foolish. Thus,   while the book Elements has axioms and proofs, the simple fact is that it has no axiomatic proofs, as today understood in formal mathematics. Specifically, the first and fourth (SAS) proposition of the Elements have empirical proofs, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. (See, the detailed grievance against the NCERT.) If empirical proofs are admitted in one place, the order of the theorems becomes irrelevant, because the “Pythagorean theorem”, for example, can be proved in one empirical step, as was done in India. But the dons of Cambridge University failed to understand this, and made exam regulations based on their botched understanding.

Axioms but no axiomatic proofs in the Elements

The belief in axiomatic proofs in the Elements comes only from the “Euclid” myth not from a reading of the actual book, which our smart alecs never read. Even the dons of Cambridge University had not read it carefully from 1125 (when the book first came to Europe) until 1887. This Cambridge foolishness in mathematics, driven by the Euclid myth, easily exceeds  the foolishness of Sir John Lightfoot, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, who, in the 17th c., refined Bishop Ussher’s absurd date of creation, to fix the time of creation at exactly 9 am according to the gospel.

Eventually, Bertrand Russell, among others, pointed out the foolishness of the belief in axiomatic proofs in the Elements, calling the proofs in the Elements a “tissue of nonsense”. But, because of his Cambridge indoctrination, he kept believing in the Euclid myth that, the mythical “Euclid” intended axiomatic proofs. Hence, Russell along with David Hilbert invented formal math on that equally foolish belief in the intentions of a non-existent person, and in the church superstition about the superiority of deductive proofs (more details on that superstition in the next blog post).

Actual Greeks tied math to religion

Actual “Greeks” (Pythagoreans, Plato, Proclus) were NOT interested in axiomatic proofs, and interested only in the religious aspects of geometry, in arousing the soul and making it recollect its past lives (mathesis). This required turning the mind inwards. I have described this in great detail in various places, including my book Euclid and Jesus.

But the church adopted the method of proof based on axioms (i.e., assumptions about the unreal), as in Aquinas’ proof about the number of angels that fit on the head of pin, based on certain axiomatic beliefs about the amount of space occupied by unreal angels. The church found the axiomatic method convenient, as part of its theology of reason (advocated by Aquinas and the schoolmen as the best way to convert Muslims). Obviously, basing reasoning on facts, as in universal normal math (including Indian gaṇita), would go contrary to all church dogmas (about angels etc.). As a loyal handmaiden of the church, Cambridge University, promoted the superstition that the axiomatic (or faith-based) method is “superior” to the empirical method, and that authoritatively laid down axioms (like Aquinas’ axioms about angels) are “superior” to facts.

We started imitating this way of doing mathematics as part of colonial education (which imitated Cambridge).

“Euclid” myth teaches us to imitate the church

So, when millions of students are taught the “Euclid” myth, and told that this way of doing math (formal math) is “superior”, they are being taught a church myth about “Greeks”, to teach them to imitate a foolish church practice. Neither they, nor our smart alecs,  understand this tricky way of indoctrinating children to teach them to imitate a church practice though a myth about the only “friends of the church” — the early Greeks. So, the Euclid myth is just a simple innocent lie, is it?

### Second grievance against NCERT

Thursday, May 16th, 2019

Since the NCERT tried to evade all issues in the first grievance, a second grievance has been filed, asking NCERT to produce primary evidence for “Euclid” or delete all 63 mentions and image of Euclid from its 9th standard text. Further falsehoods will be taken up subsequently.

The new grievance is given below.

DOSEL/E/2019/01645

This grievance is raised as a response to the response received to grievance DOSEL/E/2019/01152 (signed Smt. Tulika Verma, Under Secretary).
The response received from Smt. Tulika Verma, unfortunately, does not address all the five points (falsehoods) DOSEL/E/2019/01152 contained, and at best, can be seen as a partial (and unsatisfactory) response to FALSEHOOD 2.

Vide this grievance, we request clarity on FALSEHOOD 1 in DOSEL/E/2019/01152:

1) Does NCERT consider Euclid a historical person who lived in the past (Yes / No / Not sure)
(There are 63 references to Euclid, and one image, in just the 9th standard NCERT math text)

2) If the answer to question 1 above is a yes, what is the serious evidence NCERT can furnish to support the claim that Euclid is historical

Serious evidence means evidence from PRIMARY sources. Tertiary sources like Wikipedia are unacceptable, as are secondary sources. The related point also being made is that Euclid is part of church propaganda. Therefore, merely producing some Western secondary text in support of the propaganda is NOT acceptable. (Or if NCERT regards it as acceptable, it must also agree to put a bold warning at the beginning of the school text that it has no serious evidence for the story stated about Euclid, and that its policy is that all Indian children are obliged to accept whatever nonsense is stated in Western secondary texts, and have no right to challenge those texts by demanding primary evidence).

### NCERT unable to produce evidence for “Euclid”

Monday, April 29th, 2019

The NCERT class IX textbook on mathematics has its chapter 5 entitled “Euclid’s geometry”. A public grievance was lodged with the government pointing out numerous other falsehoods in the book. The grievance in the 4000 character text format specified for grievances is posted at http://ckraju.net/geometry/NCERT-grievance-note.txt. There is also a detailed version, posted at http://ckraju.net/geometry/NCERT-grievance-detailed-note.pdf.

The NCERT in its response failed to supply any evidence for Euclid. This laughable response is further proof of the total irresponsibility of the NCERT. Its implicit policy is that students dare not ask questions, for if NCERT cannot answer, obviously the teachers would be unable to answer similar questions in class.

### George Gheverghese Joseph serial plagiarist and mathematical ignoramus, invited for conference on math education by Hyderabad University. Part III The false claim of social justice

Sunday, January 27th, 2019

This is part 3 of a three part series of posts. It is better if you first read part 1, which pointed out the long-term plagiarism by Joseph violating all academic and editorial norms, and part 2 which explained its ill effects on math education.

I know the defence that will be offered for the Hyderabad conference, on mathematics education and society. That the participants do not care about plagiarism and lack of editorial and academic ethics, because they are campaigners for social justice in relation to math. This is false.

Colonialism, or invasion of the mind through colonial education, is the most pernicious and oppressive form of social injustice today, affecting the largest number of people. For social justice in relation to math we need to decolonise math. To decolonise math we need to critically re-examine its false history and bad philosophy, as I pointed out in my censored article, now in Journal of Black Studies, and Rhodes Must Fall. But critical re-examination of the West (except the lightweight criticism pre-approved by the West) is taboo for the indoctrinated and superstitious colonised mind.

Let me take a simple example. The fake church-story of Euclid is used today to teach formal mathematics by glorifying metaphysical reasoning in the manner of the church theology, and contrary to common sense. The story is fake and NCERT or anyone else in the world is unable to provide serious evidence for Euclid despite my Rs 2 lakh prize for such evidence. There are five lies in that false claim about “Euclid” (see the related section on five lies in my IIT-BHU talk). These multiple lies aim to indoctrinate young children into church dogmas. Why do we still have these false church stories in our school texts? Did our social-justice-mongers ever object. No way! They cannot because they have to show their loyalty and submissiveness to the Western master. They think that keeping silent is a great way to support not only plagiarism but also all kinds of Christian chauvinism packaged with colonial education.

Millions of students fail to understand the resulting metaphysics of invisible points, as in current Indian class VI math texts. This “education” forces them into a state of ignorance about math, hence, science, to force them to accept Western authority as the sole index of truth about both. It enables continued colonial exploitation, even after the supposed end of colonialism. When our social justice-mongers peddle inclusiveness in education (without any critical check on its nature): all they are peddling is inclusiveness into church propaganda to keep people colonised! Note, incidentally, that the related myth of :”Euclid” was invented, like Christian rational theology, during the Crusades, long before capitalism!

Note, also, that this Christian chauvinism in history relates to the genocidal “doctrine of Christian discovery” on which Vasco “discovered” India, or Columbus “discovered” America. How many times did our social-justice seekers condemn this genocide, the largest human genocide known to the world? (On my principle of proportionate condemnation, they should condemn inustices proportionately.) This evil doctrine of Christian discovery is still part of “ideal” British and US law, and states that any land or knowledge is “owned” by the first Christian to “discover it”, i.e. they are at liberty to steal it.

Joseph and Dennis Almeida know that plagiarism by Christians from a non-Christian was regarded as a high act of Christian morality, as was the genocide in three continents. Joseph, a trained lawyer, knows this evil Christian doctrine is part of US and British law. Hence, also, Joseph et al., have been serially and shamelessly plagiarising my work: they believe as Christians they have a right and duty to steal from non-Christians. And our purveyors of social justice concur by keeping quiet not only about the genocide, but also about the present-day plagiarism! Ha, some social justice this!

Finally, no doubt, people like Guru will say they are fighting for dalits even if they know nothing about math education. But is even that really true? Joseph is peddling nothing but a dirty mix of Kerala and British chauvinism, as already shown in part 2. Hence, Guru is doing a a great disservice not only to academic and editorial standards of integrity but also to the dalit cause by tacitly supporting Joseph.

The truth will eventually out, and ignorance is no excuse for scholars. Therefore, this is how they will be remembered, Joseph and Almeida as academic thieves of the worst kind, and those who tacitly support them as staunch supporters of academic and editorial dis-integrity and social injustice.

### George Gheverghese Joseph serial plagiarist and mathematical ignoramus, invited for conference on math education by Hyderabad University. Part II: the ill effects of cheater-teachers on mathematics education

Saturday, January 26th, 2019

Plagiarism, or the theft of knowledge, whether of the calculus, or of the calculus transmission thesis, has ill effects on mathematics education. This is not just about cheating in exams. When cheaters turn teachers it will naturally create a problem for the students.

As explained in part 1 of this blog post, in my Hawai’i paper of 2000 I had proposed a tough new standard of evidence for the history of transmission of calculus, as “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal law. This paper involved the very thesis that Joseph and Almeida have serially plagiarised over the last 18 years in the most shameless way imaginable.

However, later on, in my book Cultural Foundations of Mathematics: the nature of mathematical proof and the transmission of calculus from India to Europe in the 16th c. CE (Pearson Longman 2007) I introduced a further test for transmission: the epistemic test. Those who cheat and copy, like students in an exam, do not fully understand what they copy. Hence, lack of understanding is positive proof of copying in a suspicious context. (I used to apply this test to my students,) Therefore, imitating the plagiarists spreads a wrong understanding of mathematics. Let us first take the case of calculus.

Though Europeans stole the Indian calculus (for their navigational needs) and understood some of its practical value, they did not fully understand it, exactly in the way they had earlier failed to fully understand imported Indian arithmetic for centuries.

Two simple examples are as follows. Precise trigonometric values were a key motive for the theft of the calculus. The Indian calculus was used to calculate the most precise trigonometric values then known (accurate to 9 decimal places). Arithmetically challenged Europeans desperately needed those values for a solution of their navigational problems (to determine loxodromes, latitude, and longitude at sea), as acknowledged in the huge prizes instituted by various European governments from the 16th to the 18th c.

The Jesuit general Clavius published exactly those Indian trigonometric values (to exactly the same precision) in his own name in 1607. Clavius cheated, but though he claimed to have calculated trigonometric values to such high precision, he did not understand how to apply elementary trigonometry to calculate the radius of the earth, a critical parameter for navigation. Ha! Indians accurately calculated the size of the earth, from at least a thousand years before Clavius (as confirmed by al Biruni who cross-checked also Khalifa Mamun’s physical measurement of one degree of the arc).

Likewise Clavius authored the Gregorian reform of 1582 based on Indian calendrical texts (as his favourite student Matteo Ricci confessed; see Ricci’s handwritten letter in my MIT video or presentation “Calculus the real story”.) But arithmetically backward Europeans even then did not know the correct duration of the tropical year, hence Protestant Europe did not accept the Gregorian reform for the next 170 years, until 1752, long after Newton’s death, leading to many more European deaths at sea.

Likewise, George Joseph and his accomplice Dennis Almeida reveal their utter lack of understanding of basic concepts (taught in 9th standard math texts) and have made terrible mathematical blunders, on the record, which show that they are complete mathematical ignoramuses. Some of these have been discussed in my book, in the section on the transmission of the transmission thesis: for example, they foolishly and repeatedly say that solar declination can be measured at sea (how?), thereby also completely failing to understand my point that the Gregorian reform was needed to be able to measure latitude at sea in daytime.

Again in their Race and Class 45(4) 2004 article, written even as the Exeter ethics committee was going on, Joseph and Almedia copied from my Hawai’i paper of 2000, shamelessly failing to acknowledge it, though they had access to it since 1999, which they themselves acknowledged only in 2007 (but not in 2003, or 2004 when they copied from the Hawai’i paper). While some of my points about Indian pramana vs deductive proof are copied with only a few inaccuracies (but copied without acknowledgement, even while an ethics committee was on in which both participated)Joseph and Almeida some interesting statements which expose their mathematical illiteracy. Thus, my Hawai’i paper mentioned floating point numbers, and used a computer program which I then used to teach as part of my C programming course, to make a philosophical point about the failure of the associative law with floating point numbers. I pointed out that present-day practical computations with calculus are all done on a computer which uses floating point numbers.

Not understanding this mathematical subtlety, Joseph and Almeida blundered that (p. 46) “the use of irrationals…was accepted in Indian mathematics by the use of floating point number approximations“. How foolish! This was no typo, for they repeat , even more amazingly (p. 51), “the Kerala mathematicians employed…floating point numbers to understand the notion of the infinitesimal and derive infinite series.” My foot! Floating point numbers are a recent  IEEE technical standard (No. 754 of 1985) specifically adapted to digital computation. Nothing to do with the Kerala school. And there is absolutely no way in which floating point numbers can be used to derive infinite series. Utter balderdash. Possibly neither Gopal Guru nor Rochelle Gutierrez understands the huge mathematical blunder involved here. But they are all ready to address a conference on math education!

As a matter of fact (see e.g. IIT-BHU presentation for the reference and sloka) Nilakantha states the EXACT sum of an INFINITE geometric series. (Finite geometric series were known from several thousand years earlier since the Eye of Horus fractions, and the Yajurveda.) So Joseph also proved he is a historical ignoramus. He lacks knowledge of the original sources or even the related language (but is ever ready to bluff and cover up one crude lie with another, as he did about rajju ganit in my presence in Berlin in the year 1999). Rajju Ganit, by the way, is a major alternative decolonised course on mathematics that I am proposing at school, as preparation for my decolonised course on calculus without limits, as clear from the linked articles in the IIT-BHU workshop. Obviously, these ignoramuses don’t understand any of its concepts. That damages mathematics education.

Why because a valid history is important to arrive at the correct philosophy with which the calculus originated, and the way it ought to be taught today. (more…)

### George Gheverghese Joseph serial plagiarist and mathematical ignoramus, invited for conference on math education by Hyderabad University. Gopal Guru and Rochelle Gutierrez concur

Saturday, January 26th, 2019

After my book Cultural Foundations of Mathematics: the nature of mathematical proof and the transmission of calculus from India to Europe in the 16th c. CE (Pearson Longman, 2007) it is well known today that calculus developed in India a thousand years before Newton and Leibniz. Cochin based Jesuits stole it and took it to Europe where it was later falsely attributed to Newton and Leibniz.

History, they say, repeats itself. In 1998, I officially started my research project on the origin of Indian calculus and its transmission, on a grant from the Indian National Science Academy, and publicly advertised for a post-doctoral position, outlining my project objectives. Ever since then, George Joseph, author of the Crest of the Peacock, and his accomplices have been systematically stalking my work and serially plagiarising it. I trusted an utterly dishonest Joseph who got hold of my unpublished papers from 1998, and used them without acknowledgement since the 2000 edition of Joseph’s Crest of the Peacock. (The earlier edition had no mention of calculus transmission, the 2nd edition mentions copied various passages in my works, copying at least 3 of my mistakes.) But it is still little known that not only was calculus stolen from India, but my thesis that the calculus was transmitted, was similarly stolen.

This despite the fact that George Joseph and his accomplice Dennis Almeida have twice been indicted by ethics committees of Exeter and Manchester universities. Exeter University later sacked Dennis Almeida who apologised twice, once in 2005, then again in 2007. The second apology was a total deceit, since shortly after that he teamed up with George Joseph to plagiarise a full paper of mine, almost verbatim.

The plagiarised paper was one submitted to George Joseph who organized a conference in Trivandrum in the year 2000. As conference organizer Joseph had privileged access to the paper, which privilege he violated by copying the papers verbatim. It is so sad that editors of respected journals like EPW indirectly support this kind of editorial fraud by sharing a platform with Joseph.

The proof of verbatim copying is easy. There are three very similar papers involved: (1) my paper (part 1 and 2) of 2000, submitted to Joseph’s Trivandrum conference and called Trivandrum 2000 paper, (2) a slightly modified version of that same paper published ANONYMOUSLY and in violation of copyright law and ethics in the proceedings of the Trivandrum conference edited by Joesph, called Trivandrum 2003, and (3) the same paper (Manchester 2007) but with Joseph included as author, by the artifice of changing the affiliation of the anonymous author to include Manchester university, put on the Manchester university website in 2007, and accompanied by a fake news release which clearly identified Joseph and Almeida as the authors, and led to media blitz in India. The news was clearly fake, since the relevant “research paper” was never published, not even as of now.

After the resulting media blitz only the Hindustan Times was decent enough to publish a retraction.

It is very easy to check that the Manchester news release was fake news. Just compare the papers Trivandrum 2003 (in the proceedings edited by Joseph) with the Manchester 2007 paper which accompanied the fake news from Manchester. How did a paper published in 2003 turn into a new research paper in 2007 just because it acquired a new author? The news release also said that the publication was funded by the British Arts and Humanities Council (AHRC). How could that be when the paper was already published by the beginning of the grant? Incidentally, that also shows that Joseph and Almeida are financially corrupt.

This already shows that Joseph is a brazen liar who can tell any kind of lie, which normal academic plagiarists will not conceive of. But Joseph’s plagiarism can be proved through the internal contradictions in his own claims, and without reference to my Trivandrum 2000 paper.

I could not attend Joseph’s Trivandrum conference of  2000 because I was invited to deliver a keynote address at an overlapping major international conference (8th East West Conference) in Jan 2000 in Hawai’i. The related paper was published in Philosophy East and West 51(3) pp. 325–62 in 2001. In that paper, I introduced a new standard of evidence for the history of calculus transmission: the standard of proof beyond doubt used in criminal law. Here is the relevant extract on the history of calculus from that published 2001 paper (and here is the whole Hawai’i paper). The Hawai’i paper was the first to be published in 2001, and the first to state this standard. That is the essence of the paper plagiarised by Joseph. Just compare it with the Trivandrum 2003 paper, and the Manchester 2007 paper. Some more details of cut paste copying from the Hawai’i 2001 paper, in the later papers, are posted online.

Another oddity, the UNPUBLISHED version of the Hawai’i paper from 2000 is acknowledged in the Manchester 2007 paper, but not in the Trivandrum 2003 paper. Obviously, if Joseph and Almeida knew about my paper for the Jan 2000 Hawai’i conference, but not of the published version, they knew it from 2000. So, why is it not acknowledged in the earlier (Trivandrum 2003) paper, but acknowledged in the later (Manchester 2007) paper. And once my Hawai’i paper is acknowledged, what exactly is original in either of those plagiarised papers?

This is not the sole attempt to fudge references. In the 2000 edition of his Crest of the Peacock., Joseph copied a key passage with mistakes, but without acknowledgement from my 1999 Agra paper on the Yuktibahsa. The Trivandrum 2003 paper acknowledges this Agra paper in notes 3 and 48. But because of the Exeter indiction, in which he participated as a “disinterested party” feeding all sorts of lies to the ethics committee, by 2007 Joseph was aware that I was on to his tricks. Hence, the Manchester 2007 paper makes a clumsy attempt to cover up, by deleting this Agra reference. The attempt is clumsy since a reference to the Agra paper as “cited earlier” is still present in note 53. What clumsy crooks Joseph and Almeida are! Is this what Hyderabad university wants its students and faculty to imitate?

The Manchester University ethics committee in 2010 asked its media office to apologise for its fake news of 2007, about Joseph and Almeida, which grabbed media headlines in India because Indian journalists still believe the prime formula of colonial education “trust the West, mistrust the non-West”. Only the Hindustan Times actually investigated the matter and then put up a retraction to its earlier front page news item. As for Manchester university it first said the ethics committee was not authorised to ask the media office to apologise. Later, it took down its fake news of 2007, for even in 2010 that fake news from Manchester university was still unsupported by any published paper. But then it slyly put the fake news right back, after some time, with just an acknowledgement of my work (falsely implying that the the verbatim plagiarist Joseph had contributed even an iota). No sir, neither Joseph nor Almeida did any serious work on calculus transmission; they just stole the thesis, like Jesuits earlier stole the calculus .

By inviting a serial and verbatim plagiarist Hyderabad University is doing a grave disservice to the academic community. Is it sending a message to its own academics to plagiarise in this way? Or does it till subscribe to the colonial ethical standard for history that it is OK for Britishers to plagiarise from Indians, but not the other way around. That is the colonial standard isn’t it: loyalty and submission to the Western master?

I even put up a blog some time back giving some details “George Joseph: serial plagiarist”. Upon hearing of the Hyderabad conference, I wrote to Gopal Guru and Rochelle Guttiriez who are other plenary speakers at the conference. But neither responded back. I am sure Gopal Guru understand the ethics and politics of silence, and I had hoped that he would refuse to participate. If he does still participate, he surely knows that by doing so he is asserting his and EPW’s tacit academic support for such plagiarism and awfully dishonest editorial standards by sharing a platform with a serial plagiarist, and a dishonest editor. On the Jain ethic, actions speak louder than any purported intentions, so this precedent sets the unwritten policy of EPW as regards plagiarism. Double standards are anyway to be expected from Western academics. Not like #MeToo is it? What does it matter if the minds of millions of colonised are damaged?

The second part of this post will deal with the issue of how condoning plagiarism results in bad math education.

### Neither meaning nor truth (nor practical value) in formal mathematics

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2019

At my IIT (BHU) lecture (see also previous post), I emphasized Bertrand Russell’s remark that there is neither meaning nor truth in (formal) mathematics. Hence, any nonsense proposition one desires (such as “All rabbits have two horns”) can be proved as a formal mathematical theorem from appropriate postulates: Russell’s sole criterion being that the postulates should be “amusing”.

To drive the point home, I pointed out how, long ago, when I still believed in formal math, I used to teach a course (A) on Real Analysis while also teaching a more advanced course (B) on Advanced Functional Analysis, in the math department of Pune University. In the elementary course (A) I taught

Theorem: A differentiable function must be continuous. (Therefore, a discontinuous function cannot be differentiated.).

In the more advanced course (B) I taught

Theorem: Any (Lebesgue) integrable function can be differentiated infinitely often. (Therefore, a function with simple discontinuities can be differentiated infinitely often.)

I have made exactly this point earlier in this blog.

“Now, for several years I taught real analysis to students and mathematically proved in class that a discontinuous function cannot be differentiated. I also taught advanced functional analysis (and topological vector spaces and the Schwartz theory according to which every Lebesgue integrable function can be differentiated). In the advanced class, I mathematically proved the exact opposite that a function with a simple discontinuity can be differentiated infinitely often (and the first derivative is the Dirac δ).”

The question is which definition of the derivative should one use for the differential equations of physics? As pointed out in Cultural Foundations of Mathematics (or see this paper) the issue can only be decided empirically, unless the aim, like that of Stephen Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, is to spread Christian superstitions about creation using bad mathematics.

Superstitions go naturally with ignorance. One such ignorant professor from the IIT mathematics department was present during my lecture. His knowledge was limited to the first of the theorems above, and he ignorantly believed that it was some kind of absolute truth, which everyone was obliged to believe. He objected to my claim that a discontinuous function can, of course, be differentiated, and walked out to show his contempt of my claim.

Even the students had heard of the Dirac δ, and agreed with me. The next day during the workshop, I explained that I had engaged with this question since my PhD thesis. But the professor remained absent, though his ignorance was exposed before the students. He is welcome to respond by email; I will post it publicly since it is sure to further expose his ignorance.

Oliver Heaviside applied first applied this to problems of electrical engineering over a century ago, and Dirac, formerly an electrical engineer, then applied the Dirac δ to physics. It remains very useful because it is the Fourier transform of white noise (flat spectrum or the unit function), and used even in the formal mathematical theory of Brownian motion.

Earlier in the lecture, the same professor, contested my claim that probability was invented in ancient India, and taken from India in the 16th c., where credit for it was later falsely given to people like Pascal and Poisson. (more…)

### Institute lecture and workshop at IIT (BHU)

Wednesday, January 9th, 2019

Will be giving the institute lecture at IIT (BHU), the century old first engineering college in India, on the 18th of Jan, followed by a workshop on “Alternative math” on 19th of Jan.

(The Workshop is from 10 am to 5 pm with tea breaks and a lunch break.)

Core question: Indians are proud of our ganita tradition, but today we teach Western formal math believing it to be superior; but what if Indian ganita were superior?

Outline answer: (1) The West was backward in math. It imported most basic math from India, including arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry (via Arabs) and calculus and probability (directly from Cochin). (2) This import created a crisis because practical ganita differed philosophically from religious Western math. To fit it into their framework, the West changed ganita to mathematics by adding religiously-loaded metaphysics. (3) During colonialism, our own ganita wrapped in religiously biased metaphysics and packaged with a false history was returned to us and declared superior. We never cross-checked either that fraud history against evidence or that superstitious Western claim of superiority against commonsense by critically comparing formal math with ganita (normal math) to decide which is really superior. (4) Eliminating the religious/metaphysical elements (a metaphysics of eternity/infinity) in formal math  does NOT affect practical value which all comes from normal math. (5) Instead it makes math easy hence enables students to solve harder problems. It also results in better science.

Further details about the lecture and workshop are posted at http://ckraju.net/IIT-BHU/. Explicit links below.

Abstract of Lecture

Extended abstract of lecture

Workshop details

Alternative math 1: Rajju Ganit

Alternative math 2: Calculus without limits.

Detailed schedule

Jan 18, 2019
5.30 pm Welcoming the gathering
5.32-5.40 pm Slide Show on Ramanujan
5.40 pm Introduction of the speaker
5.45 pm Address by the Speaker
6.45 pm Q and A and Vote of Thanks
7.00 pm High tea
Jan 19, 2019
10.00 am Very brief Intro to the workshop followed by Session 1
11.30 am Tea break
11.45 am Session 2
1.00 pm Lunch break
2.00 pm Session 3
3.00 pm Tea break
3.15 pm Session 4
4.30 pm Open house (interactive session)
5.00 pm Conclusion and Vote of Thanks

### Decolonising humanities in Beirut

Monday, December 24th, 2018

A conference on decolonisation of humanities was organized at Al Maaref University, Beirut.

The big concern was how colonial education has altered human values. But Western education did not come for humanities, therefore my point was that merely changing humanities education won’t result in the desired change.  The facts are (1) Western education came to the colonised as church education. (2) It was and is justified  on the grounds that the colonised need science. The net effect of (2) is that the colonised foolishly trust the authority of church institutions like Cambridge, Oxford, and Paris. This way the church is able to mix all sorts of subtle poison in university education, even through math and science.

Though Western education ostensibly came for science it ensures that the mass of educated are ignorant of math and science, so they are forced to trust authority (of the West, obviously). It further anti-educates them by planting myths, and teaching them to think in terms of stories. For example, due to such indoctrination, the colonised are trapped in the myth that science and church are at war. They failed to notice the obvious fact, contrary to this myth, that colonial education came as 100% church education, and that, for example, the best science colleges, even in India, are still church institutions.

Mind control of the colonised was the work of the church, in  collusion with the colonial state. This persists, like Western education, even after direct political control of the colonised ended. Once the colonised are rendered ignorant, and taught to trust Western authority and myths, as Western education teaches, there is no solution for them.

### The racist nitwits of Cape Town

Thursday, December 13th, 2018

A reporter from Africa met me recently in India to find out about the events concerning the panel discussion on decolonisation in Cape Town, a year ago. Someone here asked: could he be a church agent, who may again present a biased picture? I don’t know. But he does not seem to know any math, and may not have understood my critique of formal math. So, to make sure that others (especially the ill-informed) do not “control the narrative”, and totally misrepresent it, it is time I put up my side of things.

An important background, to the debate last year in the University of Cape Town, which has not been adequately mentioned, is my book The Eleven Pictures of  Time (Sage 2003). In it I extensively criticised the book Large Scale Structure of Space-Time by Stephen Hawking, and G. F. R. Ellis, of the University of Cape Town. (Note, in passing, that Hawking unethically collaborated with Ellis at a time when there was an academic boycott of apartheid.) My key issue with the Hawking and Ellis book was that their conclusions about a “singularity” involved bad mathematics, and a bad understanding of calculus (even from within  formal mathematics).

But let us go one step at a time. First, their conclusion that the cosmos began with a  “singularity” was not science (since not refutable on Popper’s criterion). Second, their conclusion was of great political significance to the church, through the claim that science supports the church’s religious dogmas of creation. The  mathematical conclusion of a singularity is explicitly connected by Hawking and  Ellis to religious beliefs about creation and other dogmas. The key takeaway of their book (p. 364) is that “the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside  the presently known laws of physics.”

The belief that God rules the world with eternal “laws” of nature is itself a religious church dogma first articulated by Aquinas, not a scientific (refutable) belief. Simply put, the church supports it, but Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam deny it.  (See this minuted discussion for example, which explains that Hinduism accepts rta, but not immutable laws, for Buddhism, see the video “Buddhism and science”, for Islam see the keynote and article on Islam and science.) Further, other religions accept continuous creation, or the creativity of living organisms (not continuous creation in the mechanistic sense of the theory of Bondi, Gold, Hoyle and Narlikar). The big bang theory alone is NOT the opposite of continuous creation. The “singularity”, interpreted as a beginning of time, relates to creation  more clearly than the big bang, which need not be a true beginning of time, but could be just the other side of a big crunch in an oscillating cosmos.

There is no doubt about the religiosity of the book by Hawking and Ellis. Ellis got  the million dollar Templeton award, for putting together science and religion, and Hawking never got the Nobel prize! The church greatly glorified Stephen Hawking, and that church propagandist support helped sell millions of copies of his book  Brief History of Time which restated the conclusions of singularity theory for a lay audience.  But singularities and creationism are simply not physics. Therefore, much as Hawking desired the Nobel prize, and much as the Nobel prize committee may have wanted to give it to him, they simply could not do so.

The physicist F. J. Tipler (Physics of Immortality) pushed this connection of science and religion via singularity theory. He explicitly claimed that singularity theory proves the truth of Judeo-Christian theology. In the opening paragraphs, Tipler said his book aimed

“to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics…the area of global general relativity…created…by the great British physicists Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking.”

The colonised mind may talk against creationism, in support of Darwinism, but it never dared contest this kind of religious claim of creationism backed by Western authority. Despite the millions who read Stephen Hawking’s book, Brief History of Time, I have not heard a SINGLE other dissenting voice in the last thirty years. (more…)