Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Square root" in English language version.
Last modified:
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help), Section 3.7.27, p. 17 Archived 2009-09-10 at the Wayback Machine
Seidenberg (pp. 501-505) proposes: "It is the distinction between use and origin." [By analogy] "KEPLER needed the ellipse to describe the paths of the planets around the sun; he did not, however invent the ellipse, but made use of a curve that had been lying around for nearly 2000 years". In this manner Seidenberg argues: "Although the date of a manuscript or text cannot give us the age of the practices it discloses, nonetheless the evidence is contained in manuscripts." Seidenberg quotes Thibaut from 1875: "Regarding the time in which the Sulvasutras may have been composed, it is impossible to give more accurate information than we are able to give about the date of the Kalpasutras. But whatever the period may have been during which Kalpasutras and Sulvasutras were composed in the form now before us, we must keep in view that they only give a systematically arranged description of sacrificial rites, which had been practiced during long preceding ages." Lastly, Seidenberg summarizes: "In 1899, THIBAUT ventured to assign the fourth or the third centuries B.C. as the latest possible date for the composition of the Sulvasutras (it being understood that this refers to a codification of far older material)."
Seidenberg (pp. 501-505) proposes: "It is the distinction between use and origin." [By analogy] "KEPLER needed the ellipse to describe the paths of the planets around the sun; he did not, however invent the ellipse, but made use of a curve that had been lying around for nearly 2000 years". In this manner Seidenberg argues: "Although the date of a manuscript or text cannot give us the age of the practices it discloses, nonetheless the evidence is contained in manuscripts." Seidenberg quotes Thibaut from 1875: "Regarding the time in which the Sulvasutras may have been composed, it is impossible to give more accurate information than we are able to give about the date of the Kalpasutras. But whatever the period may have been during which Kalpasutras and Sulvasutras were composed in the form now before us, we must keep in view that they only give a systematically arranged description of sacrificial rites, which had been practiced during long preceding ages." Lastly, Seidenberg summarizes: "In 1899, THIBAUT ventured to assign the fourth or the third centuries B.C. as the latest possible date for the composition of the Sulvasutras (it being understood that this refers to a codification of far older material)."
Increase the measure by its third and this third by its own fourth, less the thirty-fourth part of that fourth. This is the value with a special quantity in excess.
Seidenberg (pp. 501-505) proposes: "It is the distinction between use and origin." [By analogy] "KEPLER needed the ellipse to describe the paths of the planets around the sun; he did not, however invent the ellipse, but made use of a curve that had been lying around for nearly 2000 years". In this manner Seidenberg argues: "Although the date of a manuscript or text cannot give us the age of the practices it discloses, nonetheless the evidence is contained in manuscripts." Seidenberg quotes Thibaut from 1875: "Regarding the time in which the Sulvasutras may have been composed, it is impossible to give more accurate information than we are able to give about the date of the Kalpasutras. But whatever the period may have been during which Kalpasutras and Sulvasutras were composed in the form now before us, we must keep in view that they only give a systematically arranged description of sacrificial rites, which had been practiced during long preceding ages." Lastly, Seidenberg summarizes: "In 1899, THIBAUT ventured to assign the fourth or the third centuries B.C. as the latest possible date for the composition of the Sulvasutras (it being understood that this refers to a codification of far older material)."
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help), Section 3.7.27, p. 17 Archived 2009-09-10 at the Wayback Machine
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help), Section 3.7.27, p. 17 Archived 2009-09-10 at the Wayback Machine
Seidenberg (pp. 501-505) proposes: "It is the distinction between use and origin." [By analogy] "KEPLER needed the ellipse to describe the paths of the planets around the sun; he did not, however invent the ellipse, but made use of a curve that had been lying around for nearly 2000 years". In this manner Seidenberg argues: "Although the date of a manuscript or text cannot give us the age of the practices it discloses, nonetheless the evidence is contained in manuscripts." Seidenberg quotes Thibaut from 1875: "Regarding the time in which the Sulvasutras may have been composed, it is impossible to give more accurate information than we are able to give about the date of the Kalpasutras. But whatever the period may have been during which Kalpasutras and Sulvasutras were composed in the form now before us, we must keep in view that they only give a systematically arranged description of sacrificial rites, which had been practiced during long preceding ages." Lastly, Seidenberg summarizes: "In 1899, THIBAUT ventured to assign the fourth or the third centuries B.C. as the latest possible date for the composition of the Sulvasutras (it being understood that this refers to a codification of far older material)."