Indian Mathematics c5.3

c5.3

Such a division into periods does not, of course, perfectly represent the facts, but it is a useful division and serves the purposes of exposition with sufficient accuracy. We might have prefixed an earlier, or Vedic, period but the literature of the Vedic age does not exhibit anything of a mathematical nature beyond a few measures and numbers used quite informally. It is a remarkable fact that the second and third of our periods have no connection whatever with the first or *Śulvasūtra* period. The later Indian mathematicians completely ignored the mathematical contents of the *Śulvasūtras*. They not only never refer to them but do not even utilise the results given therein. We can go even further and state that no Indian writer earlier than the nineteenth century is known to have referred to the *Śulvasūtras* as containing anything of mathematical value. This disconnection will be illustrated as we proceed and it will be seen that the works of the third period may be considered as a direct development from those of the second.