Ramanujan's lost notebook

Sure is. Doesnt invalidate my argument that western atheism lacks depth

Although "Hinduism" is vast and covers quite a few disparate beliefs and philosophies, none of them (to my knowledge) even approximately equate God with an emotion.

Bhakti does.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti

covers quite a few

Tons.

Hinduism

There is no such thing.

The term is a Western invention, by complacent sneering so-called scholars about India.

Its a bit of a psychedelic experience. If someone was on LSD and seeing stuff i would compare it an emotional experience. Of course it goes deeper but just explaining the reasoning behind the word emotion

I had a similar experience while in college, although not as dramatic! While studying CS I was working on problems every night late into the night. I came a across a issue I could not figure out, and went to sleep frustrated. That night I had a dream where a very specific solution was told to me(a voice with text) and it was in a way I had never thought of. I tried it out the next day when I woke up and it worked. It always freaked me out as I don't know how that solution was given to me, my assumption is maybe the subconscious is more powerful than we thought in terms of reasoning.

True. I was just commenting on the lack of depth in some modern discussions in the west

I would suggest that the answer to that is "yes" in that the Spinozan God is... for lack of a better word the Universe.

(Kaizō in 1923 https://books.google.com/books?id=vLm4oojTPnkC&pg=PA262#v=on... )

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order.

This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm

(Ethics was one of the hardest reads I had back in modern philosophy class)

And while it is a gross simplification of Ethics, from news://rec.humor.funny ( https://everything2.com/title/Existence+of+the+System+Admini... )

    1. The System Administrator is defined as the most perfect user possible.
    2. The property of necessary existence means that anything which possesses it must necessarily exist.
    3. If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological proof), then necessary existence is better still.
    4. Any perfect user must possess the property of necessary existence.
    5. Therefore the System Administrator must necessarily exist.

    However:

    6. Being perfect, the System Administrator cannot make mistakes, delete the wrong account, trash the root directory, mess up a tape load, etc.
    7. Being perfect, the System Administrator can not be capable of goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the network is somehow less than perfect in its current state.
    8. Therefore, the System Administrator is really more of a force of nature within the system.
    9. Arguably, then the System Administrator *is* the system itself.

    Counter-argument:

    1. None, since the System Administrator has been defined to the point where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in arguing.

    At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument proves that *if* the System Administrator does exist, it cannot be intelligent.

The God of Spinoza and Einstein is the magnificence of the universe as it reveals itself to us. The universe is real as is its majesty.

Why would you have to believe in these things as "real" to still keep a fast? Why would you not answer a simple "no" instead of the answer you give?

I would wonder what the truth of the matter is, but each to their own, the unknown is not popular/pleasant.

Just enter a page number; it works fine. Or if you wish, here are the direct links:

http://ramanujan.sirinudi.org/Volumes/01/01.pdf

http://ramanujan.sirinudi.org/Volumes/02/02.pdf

http://ramanujan.sirinudi.org/Volumes/03/03.pdf

http://ramanujan.sirinudi.org/Volumes/04/04.pdf

Ramanujan's total known/preserved output today is 37 published papers and these four notebooks; all of it is available on the site. The notebooks have been transcribed and published in several volumes with explanation (as mentioned above); those are the only thing not included on this site (and arguably, not "by" Ramanujan).

The page number selector appears to link to working PDFs.

I guess you're right, negating an inequality is likely the same as affirming an equality? I am not a native speaker.

I think the parent commenter was using the word 'equation' in its colloquial sense to refer to any mathematical expression or statement, despite their statement containing a 'not equals to' symbol, rather than actually equating them (which would have an equals sign).

By his own admission he saw visions of math/theorem god, which is a BS claim since god doesn't exist

Shit reasoning like this from atheists like you is why I cringe to admit I'm an atheist when people ask me about my religious beliefs. It is entirely conceivable that he saw visions of math, produced by his own subconscious, and attributed these visions to a god. It would not be terribly dissimilar from any artist who attributes their creative visions to a muse. Do you accuse any such artist of plagiarism too?

You seem so sure of yourself. How did you end up like that?

... is just proxy for "I coped it from someone".

How can you be so confident in this claim?

"we don't know anything about his math generation process" My man just look at the notebooks. He did not use formal proofs but he was very organized and most of his equations had quite a logical buildup from equations that he wrote before. And even the ones that came out of nowhere are obviously worthy discoveries.