The author, a facebook expert, is unable to separate the *myth* of Einstein from the *theory* of (special) relativity (this intellectual sloppiness is critical to his argument). I had made this distinction (between the person Einstein and relativity theory) very clear, even for layperson, in my TGA acceptance speech, on Einstein’s mistake. Einstein plagiarised the special theory of relativity from Poincare, without fully understanding it, and *consequently* made a mistake.

Decades earlier, I had pointed out Einstein’s mathematical mistake (about functional differential equations) in my book *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory*, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1994 (Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol. 65). Before pontificating on “poor Einstein”, Srivastava should have bothered to inform himself. He should have read at least the reviews of that book say the one by J. F. Woodward in “An Essay Review of C. K. Raju’s *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory *(Kluwer Academic:, Dordrecht)”,* Foundations of Physics ***26** (1996) 1725-1730, or by **G. J. Klir**, Review of *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory * (*International J. General Systems* **27** (1999) 427-8). Perhaps Srivastava reads so many registered letters, he has no time to read scientific books.

Third, because the physics involved is so elementary (special relativity is a first-year under-graduate subject), my point about relativity was published even earlier as a series of articles in *Physics Education* (India). (Ironically, one of the referees for those articles was from TIFR.) My argument *was* debated internationally, and my claim (of a paradigm shift) was attacked by H. D. Zeh. But the debate was effectively settled after I actually published the first solution of the functional differential equations of electrodynamics (in a journal edited by Zeh). This debate is described and explained in my more recent series of six expository articles on functional differential equations in the same journal. (References to all articles can be found in the 6th article.)

Sadly, Srivastava, is unfamiliar with all this elementary physics. He is a scientist by virtue of his job, not knowledge. He would have done better to avoid this public exhibition of his ignorance.

The fact is that no one refuted any of my arguments, either mathematical or historical, about Einstein, in the past 25 years, since my first book was internationally published. To the contrary, on the centenary of Einstein’s special relativity paper, in 2005, the supposedly great mathematician Michael Atiyah, a former President of the Royal Society, in his Einstein lecture, *endorsed* my argument, against Einstein, for it is an argument readily understood by a mathematician. Actually, Atiyah plagiarised my thesis (about Einstein’s mistake) from my above book. (Imitation is the best form of flattery!) So keen was he to falsely grab credit for my argument, that even after he was personally informed, he kept plagiarising it until he was eventually exposed and forced to admit it, and later indicted for plagiarism. Ironically, again, two former directors of TIFR, including the late M. G. K. Menon, supported my efforts (”Petition against celebrity justice”) to bring Atiyah to book, against the Western ethics of always defending cheating by Westerners.

**Colonial attitudes**

However, people like Srivastava exemplify the colonial trick of using science to deprecate Indians by putting them down to establish mental authority over them. This results in the widespread but wrong impression about “inferior Indians”. To correct it, I recently wrote a series of article on “Scientific temper in ancient and modern India”. My point was that the experimental method was used in India long before it was used in the West.

My other point was that Western science is not real science because it is inextricably mixed with myth and authority. The truth of Western science is too often decided by prestige: by *reputability*, not *refutability*, because that (reliance on authority, e.g. of the gospel) was the traditional Western way for centuries.

Elsewhere, I have given detailed examples of the resulting bad science from Stephen Hawking, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, etc. and the related false myths.

Particularly important is my Euclid challenge prize of Rs 2 lakh against the current NCERT text which corrupts the minds of our children. Far be it from people like Srivastava to academically answer any of these objections.

But the colonised mind is angered by any suggestion of pre-colonial or anti-colonial science, for that threatens the false myths of the colonial master, the falsehoods which were the real source of colonial power.

Therefore, the main response of our “scientists” (and other academics) is to howl “Hindu fanatic”. This shows what third-rate academics they are, for they always attack the person (without even checking whether I am a Hindu), never the argument. This personal attack is intended as a “clever” way to hide their inability to respond to my arguments. This is the mob mentality of the colonised/racist mind, which was the result of “colonial education” (i.e., church indoctrination). This is also an easy way to indirectly defend the genocide by Christian fanatics in three continents, on which Western wealth is based. The objective of the colonial mob is to kill the truth in favour of church myths implanted from childhood. They hope to use the authority (not knowledge) of science for that purpose, the way the church did.

The full form of the above article on scientific temper (to be brought out as a book) included the total lack of scientific temper in modern India, especially among scientists and those others (of our elite) who rely on the authority (not knowledge) of science.

Clearly, for the colonised, “science = authority”, and Einstein etc. are symbols of Western scientific authority which no one is permitted to challenge because it threatens the authority of the colonial master. But that authority is being challenged, and it will fall—soon.

]]>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.

]]>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 16*^{th}* 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 16^{th} to the 18^{th} 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 9^{th} 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.

Indeed, Europeans particularly failed to understand the epistemic issue of the Indian method of summing the infinite series from which precise trigonometric values were derived. Descartes blundered saying the circumference-diameter ratio was “beyond the human mind”, alluding to the related Indian infinite series today fraudulently called Leibniz series. Leibniz himself did not understand it, and sought help, as pointed out by Newton who called him the “second discoverer”. But Newton’s own absurdly confused doctrine of fluxions, had to be abandoned despite the foolish responses of Jurin to defend it against Berkeley’s objections to Newton and Leibniz. (Detailed references in my book *Cultural Foundations of Mathematics.*)

The fact is that Newton’s physics failed just because he made time metaphysical (as explained in my book *Time: Towards a Consistent Theory*, Kluwer, 1994), and Newton made time metaphysical (“fluxions”, “absolute, true, and mathematical time flows equably without regard to anything external”) just because he failed to understand the Indian calculus.

But, of course, Joseph, an economist, knows nothing of physics either. He only understands chauvinistic politics and lies of a low variety. Since Joseph is constantly trying to balance his claims of Kerala origins with his British citizenship, in his handcrafted fake-news release for the Manchester university website, he tried to balance both. He said the Indian discovery of the calculus did not affect Newton’s greatness!

<”The brilliance of Newton’s work at the end of the seventeenth century stands undiminished - especially when it came to the algorithms of calculus.”

Ha! What algorithms of calculus?

Eventually, because the purported originators of the calculus (“Newton and Leibniz”) failed to understand it, in the 19^{th} c., the West developed a different metaphysics of infinity (formal real numbers), aligned to church dogmas of eternity, and in the 20^{th} c., the West developed the metaphysics of infinity called formal set theory to make sense of formal real numbers, while avoiding the multiple paradoxes of Cantor’s naive set theory. And that is how we teach calculus today (using real numbers; I regret to say I too taught calculus and real analysis that way for several years); because colonial education means blind imitation of the West and denouncing every Indian critique of the West as Hindu chauvinist, is an easy way to preserve bad philosophy related to church dogma and contrary to elementary common sense (e.g. see my IIT-BHU presentation).

But this Western misunderstanding is an INFERIOR way to teach calculus, it is better to teach calculus the way it originally developed, as in my course on calculus without limits. But how can serial plagiarists and mathematical ignoramuses like Joseph ever understand that?

The problem is there is no way to actually teach a calculus course if one starts believing in wild remarks like those of Joseph and Almeida that floating point numbers can be used to derive infinite series. Nor can one understand how the calculus developed in India if one keeps wrongly imagining like Joseph and Almeida that it was purely the work of the Kerala school.

But Hyderabad university has invited such mathematical ignoramuses to speak on mathematics education at its conference which aims to influence our math education. How shameful, and how damaging to the interests of millions of students.

This is already enough social injustice, for the purported champions of social justice to commit. But the next part of the blog will have more.

]]>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 2^{nd} 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 (8^{th} 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.

]]>

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

cannotbe 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 discontinuitycanbe 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 16^{th} c., where credit for it was later falsely given to people like Pascal and Poisson. I pointed to the aksa sukta in the Rgveda, and to the use of “the theory of dice” for sampling (to count the number of fruits in a tree) in the Mahabharata story of Nala and Damayanti, as explained in the above paper, a copy of which is also posted online. As every entrant to IIT: JEE is expected to know, probabilities in games of chance (such as dice, or cards) are calculated using the theory of permutations and combinations, and the above paper also pointed out (and I repeated during the lecture) how the relevant theory of permutations and combinations developed in India.

The ignorant professor completely missed my point that our own mathematics was returned to us along with some foolish added metaphysics (of nil value) and a false Western history, that all significant mathematics was done by “Christians and friends” (church) or white men (racist) or the West (colonialists).

He implied that probability was NOT about its practical value for sampling theory or games of chance but only about slavishly obeying Western axioms related to probability. In fact, in the above paper, I also pointed out that the Kolmogorov axioms for probability as measure fail for quantum probability (of course the related theory was unknown to our ignorant professor who did not even know about the Dirac δ).

My point all along has been that (normal) mathematics is about practical value from calculations (e.g. of discrete probability, sampling theory etc.), and not about any silly metaphysics of infinity proposed by formal mathematicians to prove some theorems of little value.

To drive home the uselessness of theorem-proving, I pointed out long ago, in my Hawai’i paper, that formal mathematics cannot even use probability to deliver practical value in the financial market. This was reiterated in my very recent response to some equally ignorant comments in Undark magazine as follows.

“(b) Regarding the Black-Scholes model, it is obviously defective in assuming the normal distribution. Stock-market distributions are fat tailed (e.g. Levy distribution). As I pointed out long ago, with regard to this very example, in “Computers, mathematics education, and the alternative epistemology of the calculus in the Yuktibhasa” (Philosophy East and West

51:3 (2001) pp. 325–362), formalists are restricted to the normal distribution and Wiener process, since there is no formal existence and uniqueness proof of solutions of stochastic differential equations driven by Levy motion. (That is still true.) But the solutions can be easily computed within normal math, e.g. using my computer program as described in my article on “Supercomputing in finance” (Pranjana, 3 (1&2) 2000, 11–36). As regards the complete failure of statistical inference on the belief that probability is measure, and the prime superstition of formal mathematical proof that logic is two-valued, see e.g. the section on quantum probabilities and quantum logic of my article on “Probability in Ancient India”, in Handbook of Philosophy of Science, vol 7. Philosophy of Statistics, Elsevier 2011, pp. 1175-1195. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978044451862050037X.”

But, of course, an ignorant professor of mathematics who has not even heard of the Dirac δ, cannot possibly have any understanding of even the Wiener process, which involves the Dirac δ, leave alone follow the above quote.

What a pity that our elite institutions have such ignorant professors of mathematics! They are just enslaved colonial minds, relaying the demand that the Western master be blindly imitated. Curiously, the ignorant professor’s name is Das!

]]>

(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.

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

]]>The award was conferred by Karnataka MP Shri Basavraj Patil, and the Vice Chancellor of the Central University Karnataka. Kalaburagi, Prof. H. M. Maheshwaraiah.

Below is a picture of the audience.

For more honors earlier this year see http://ckraju.net/blog/?p=150.

]]>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.

Therefore, to decolonise, one must first get rid of the false history and bad philosophy of science: understand and reject not only church chauvinist history of science, but also how church dogma gets into mathematics and through that into science. And change our teaching of math and science. Let us hope that the world at large, and the Islamic world in particular, understands this idea that it is not enough to change humanities; one must also change math and science education too. A “pragmatic” compromise such as non-Western humanities + Western science is not possible. One must decolonise math and science.

A nice touch was the post-conference visit to the Mleeta museum which commemorates the Hezbollah victory over the invading Israeli army.

The visit also game us a chance to see the natural beauty of Lebanon. Below are some photos.

]]>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. In particular, those who will dismiss Tipler as a crank should note his boast of having published several papers in the authoritative journal *Nature*, including at least one paper in it on singularity theory and its relation to the church curse on “cyclic” time. Indeed, the publishers of *Nature *published his book.

Hawking and Ellis arrived at their religious conclusions about their singularity-God through bad mathematics, and specifically a bad understanding of calculus. (To reiterate, my initial critique of their claims was from WITHIN formal mathematics, and was first presented long ago at a 1987 conference on general relativity; the inability to differentiate a function does not imply the end of the world or its beginning, that is just a bad understanding of calculus.) That is, my point was that the singularity-God of Hawking and Ellis was a “god of the gaps” who would vanish with a better understanding of calculus (even from within formal mathematics).

No one answered my critique of how Hawking and Ellis used bad mathematics to advocate church dogmas. Hawking and Ellis probably lacked the mathematical background to do so. The mathematician Roger Penrose (who started singularity theory) had no answer either during the two-day public debate I had with him in Delhi in 1997, before my book on *Eleven Pictures of Time* was published. From my personal interactions with Tipler, and the way he fumbled and could not answer a simple question about the delta function at a general relativity conference in Stockholm, in 1986, it is clear he too is ignorant of the necessary formal mathematics (Schwartz distributions, non-standard analysis etc.).

That is why, in the advance summary of my talk for the UCT panel discussion last year (http://ckraju.net/papers/uct-panel-decolonising-science-ckr-summary.pdf) I offered to debate these technical issues in the math department of UCT. During the panel discussion I gave a preview, making fun of Tipler and his claim that Judeo-Christian theology is part of physics. Quotes and extracts from Tipler’s book were reproduced also in my Durban keynote. (See the presentation at http://ckraju.net/papers/presentations/ckr-Durban-keynote.pdf, or the video.)

Of course, I now also have a simpler explanation of how such religious considerations can be slipped into science through the religiously-biased metaphysics of formal math. On my proposal to decolonise math, that metaphysics should be junked. At the simplest level, because formal math begins with postulates, not facts, it can begin with bad, but postulates designed to arrive at pre-meditated politically convenient bad conclusions. As explained in my book, Hawking and Ellis postulated the chronology condition, which they supported using bad arguments closely allied to the bad arguments of Augustine against “cyclic” time, at the core of post-Nicene church theology.

Clearly, G. F. R. Ellis panicked that a public debate on his bad theories would expose his fraud on his home turf: the UCT math department. For Ellis, maintaining his fraud conclusion that modern cosmology somehow supports Christian dogmas about creation is very profitable, and indeed his life work. He was afraid I would expose his trick of using bad mathematics to support the church. And, he didn’t know enough even of the technical formal mathematics to defend himself.

So he resorted to the usual church propagandist tricks. Attacking the criticism may be tough, but any ignoramus can attack the critic. Therefore, when foolish church dogmas are critiqued, the dishonest church always personally attacks its opponents, declaring them as “heretics” and defaming them while carefully avoiding any engagement with a detailed argument. This is exactly what Ellis did.

He refused to engage with detailed critiques published long ago and

instead attacked me through the racist press. These are the very same people who are constantly telling the student protestors of UCT to engage! The hypocrites!

Now, obviously enough racism is a foolish doctrine, and anyone who believes in racism and white supremacy is a nitwit because not only is racism a lie, it is a dim-witted lie. That is, those who believed in apartheid are mentally INFERIOR people, and there are still a lot of them in the well-off areas of Cape Town. Today they may all deny being racists, but their actions speak louder: they never fought against apartheid or made any post-apartheid reparation for the ill-gotten wealth they amassed during and because of apartheid. And, of course, the church long supported racism, declaring blacks as inferior due to “the curse of Kam” or “the curse of Ham” in the Bible, as in the book “Bible defence of slavery”.

The mental level of racist South Africans, and their church-loyalist gang in the UCT, is quite obvious from the idiotic news reports they produced in their desperation to avoid the debate in the UCT math department over the fraud science used by Ellis to reach religious conclusions. The nitwit reporter claimed that I was a “conspiracy theorist”, but neglected to specify which conspiracy theory I was accused of! After all, he was writing for other nitwits who too never raised that question, nor even did the other news portals which reproduced that report. Obviously, for nitwit racists, abuse is the primary argument, and an abuse is gospel truth, more powerful than a hundred facts and logical arguments.

The reporter was offended that during my presentation at the panel discussion I laughed at the foolish metaphysics of invisible geometric points. The reporter stated mathematicians “routinely” handle invisible points. How exactly? He did not explain: for him the authority of a nitwit UCT mathematician prevailed over commonsense. I am still laughing (see this cartoon, or this blog) not only at the foolishness of the belief in invisible geometric points but also at the foolishness of the South African racists who believe in them on the strength of mathematical authority.

Another fellow called Judge was quoted as saying I was like a “flat earth” theorist. The fact is that Indians rejected the flat earth theory long ago, as I have repeatedly explained, even in my undergrad lectures. (Aryabhata [Ganita 13] likened the earth to a round Kadamba flower.) But the Bible does accept the belief in the flat earth. Extracts are posted along with my lecture notes from 2013, at http://ckraju.net/hps-aiu/flat-earth-in-Bible.txt. Is this Judge fellow advocating that the department of theology in UCT be shut down because of the flat-earth theories in the Bible? He should, but does not. As I said, racists are laughably foolish nitwits.

Then, Ellis said that people must accept authority: obviously, there is no logical basis for his bad claim that physics supports church dogmas. And he wants people to accept authority so he can continue fooling them that science supports church doctrines of creation. He didn’t dare to respond to my critique all these years. If he had any serious response he would first have given that response publicly in the math department, in my presence, before planting dishonest reports in the racist press. Obviously he strongly believes that not only authority but stark dishonesty is needed for his purpose.

Finally, Ellis’ student Murugan said that my calculus course was about Bantuization. Dishonest Murugan tacitly advocates the Christianisation of mathematics and science, which his patron and master Ellis pursues, and which decolonisation rejects. Murugan never earlier directly condemned those mathematicians from his university, like Ellis, who supported Bantuization and implemented it. Clearly, also, the man is not only dishonest, but is incompetent as a mathematician, for he does not understand the elementary thing even my students do: that **my decolonised calculus course enables students to solve harder problems**, not taught in usual calculus courses, such as the correct motion of the simple pendulum, or ballistics with air resistance. Such incompetent house slaves and utterly dishonest church chauvinists who got jobs during apartheid for the wrong reasons should all be sacked.

The point of decolonisation is that we will no longer be fooled by Western authority, and their lies. Those who lie and deceive people into mental slavery are as evil as the slavers who physically trapped slaves. Don’t trust the West, or what African would call the Whites, don’t trust the church. By all means let them debate publicly, if they can, but only on an equal platform where the other side can respond and talk back. We are offering equal opportunity in return for slavery (declared moral by their church) for they tell so many lies that they cannot function outside the cocoon of their own authority.

]]>Click for a related article on dalit scientific achievements, in *Jansatta*.

Earlier I had received the Bharatiya Dharohar Award from the current Union deputy education minister

Click for a related article on Indian mathematics.

Still earlier, this year, I received the MP Ratna award from the MP Chief Minister.

Click for a related interview on math education in *Dainik Bhaskar*.