A treatise on proportion in the tradition of Thomas Bradwardine: The De proportionibus libri duo (1528) of Jean Fernel

The famous French physician Jean Fernel published in 1528 in Paris the De proportionibus libri duo. This treatise belongs to the tradition of texts on proportion that follow Bradwardine?s Tractatus de proportionibus seu de proportionibus velocitatum in motibus (1328). In the first book, Fernel presented a theory of ratios that is traditional but contains some distinctive features, on denominating ratios, on fractions, on irrational ratios. The second book is devoted to a theory of ratio of ratios of which I give an account in this paper.     

The difficult birth of stochastics: Jacob Bernoulli's Ars Conjectandi (1713)

Jacob Bernoulli (1654–1705) did most of his research on the mathematics of uncertainty – or stochastics, as he came to call it – between 1684 and 1690. However, the Ars Conjectandi, in which he presented his insights (including the fundamental “Law of Large Numbers”), was printed only in 1713, eight years after his death. The paper studies the sources and the development of Bernoulli's ideas on probability, the reasons behind the delay in publishing and the circumstances under which his masterpiece eventually reached the public.     

On the uniform density of C(X) ⊗ C(Y) in C(X × Y)

We prove that if X and Y are compact Hausdorff spaces, then every f ∈ C(X × Y)₊, i.e. f(x, y) ≥ 0 for all (x, y) ∈ X × Y, can be approximated uniformly from below and above by elements of the form , where f_i ∈ C(X)₊ and g_i ∈ C(Y)₊ for i = 1, 2, …, n. The proof uses only elementary topology. We use this result, in conjuction with Kakutani's M-spaces representation theorem, to obtain an alternative proof for a known property of Fremlin's Riesz space tensor product of Archimedean Riesz spaces.     

Mathematical tables in Ptolemy's Almagest

This paper is a discussion of Ptolemy's use of mathematical tables in the Almagest. By focusing on Ptolemy's mathematical practice and terminology, I argue that Ptolemy used tables as part of an organized group of units of text, which I call the table nexus. In the context of this deductive structure, tables function in the Almagest in much the same way as theorems in a canonical work, such as the Elements, both as means of presenting acquired knowledge and as tools for producing further knowledge.     

The ovals in the Excerpta Mathematica and the origins of Descartes’ method of normals

The only occurrence of Descartes’ method of normals before La Géométrie (1637) is to be found in the Excerpta Mathematica. These mathematical fragments, published posthumously among others works in 1701, and dated by Tannery before 1629, deal with curves used in dioptrics which Descartes called ovals. I study in detail two of the texts on ovals together with the related texts in La Géométrie in order to shed light on the geometrical origins of Descartes’ method of normals.     

False position in Leonardo of Pisa's Liber Abbaci

We examine the rhetorical methods of Leonardo of Pisa in his exposition of single false position in Liber Abbaci. For example, Leonardo makes extensive use of formulaic phrases in his solutions. Some of these formulas also seem to indicate whether a particular solution needs further justification. Although he prefers proofs in terms of the pseudo-Euclidean canon of al-Khwārizmī, sometimes such proof eludes Leonardo and he resorts instead to justification by experiment. We also look at the extent to which using symbolic representations might distort our view of Leonardo's thinking.     

Some remarks on the meaning of equality in Diophantos’s Arithmetica

Diophantos in Arithmetica, without having defined previously any concept of “equality” or “equation,” employs a concept of the unknown number as a tool for solving problems and finds its value from an equality ad hoc created. In this paper we analyze Diophantos’s practices in the creation and simplification of such equalities, aiming to adduce more evidence on certain issues arising in recent historical research on the meaning of the “equation” in Diophantos’s work.     

Force,deflection, and time: Proposition VI of Newton's Principia

In this extended study of Proposition VI, and its first corollary, in Book I of Newton's Principia, we clarify both the statements and the demonstrations of these fundamental results. We begin by tracing the evolution of this proposition and its corollary, to see how their texts may have changed from their initial versions. To prepare ourselves for some of the difficulties our study confronts, we then examine certain confusions which arise in two recent commentaries on Proposition VI. We go on to note other confusions, not in any particular commentary, but in Newton's demonstration and, especially, in his statement of the proposition. What, exactly, does Newton mean by a “body [that] revolves … about an immobile center”? By a “just-nascent arc”? By the “sagitta of the arc”? By the “centripetal force”? By “will be as”? We search for the mathematical meanings that Newton has in mind for these fragments of the Proposition VI statement, a search that takes us to earlier sections of the Principia and to discussions of the “method of first and last ratios,” centripetal force, and the second law of motion. The intended meaning of Proposition VI then emerges from the combined meanings of these fragments. Next we turn to the demonstration of Proposition VI, noting first that Newton's own argument could be more persuasive, before we construct a modern, more rigorous proof. This proof, however, is not as simple as one might expect, and the blame for this lies with the “sagitta of the arc,” Newton's measure of deflection in Proposition VI. Replacing the sagitta with a more natural measure of deflection, we obtain what we call Platonic Proposition VI, whose demonstration has a Platonic simplicity. Before ending our study, we examine the fundamental first corollary of Proposition VI. In his statement of this Corollary 1, Newton replaces the sagitta of Proposition VI by a not quite equal deflection from the tangent and the area swept out (which represents the time by Proposition I) by a not quite equal area of a triangle. These two approximations create small errors, but are these errors small enough? Do the errors introduced by these approximations tend to zero fast enough to justify these replacements? Newton must believe so, but he leaves this question unasked and unanswered, as have subsequent commentators on this crucial corollary. We end our study by asking and answering this basic question, which then allows us to give Corollary 1 a convincing demonstration.     

Renaissance notions of number and magnitude

In the 16th and 17th centuries the classical Greek notions of (discrete) number and (continuous) magnitude (preserved in medieval Latin translations of Euclid's Elements) underwent a major transformation that turned them into continuous but measurable magnitudes. This article studies the changes introduced in the classical notions of number and magnitude by three influential Renaissance editions of Euclid's Elements. Besides providing evidence of earlier discussions preparing notions and arguments eventually introduced in Simon Stevin's Arithmétique of 1585, these editions document the role abacus algebra and Renaissance views on the history of mathematics played in bridging the gulf between discrete numbers and continuous magnitudes.     

Convergence and formal manipulation in the theory of series from 1730 to 1815

In the early calculus mathematicians used convergent series to represent geometrical quantities and solve geometrical problems. However, series were also manipulated formally using procedures that were the infinitary extension of finite procedures. By the 1720s results were being published that could not be reduced to the original conceptions of convergence and geometrical representation. This situation led Euler to develop explicitly a more formal approach which generalized the early theory. Formal analysis, which was predominant during the second half of the 18th century despite criticisms of it by some researchers, contributed to the enlargement of mathematics and even led to a new branch of analysis: the calculus of operations. However, formal methods could not give an adequate treatment of trigonometric series and series that were not the expansions of elementary functions. The need to use trigonometric series and introduce nonelementary functions led Fourier and Gauss to reject the formal concept of series and adopt a different, purely quantitative notion of series.     

Spaces co-absolute with βN-N

We give a characterization of co-absolutes of βN-N analogous to Parovi?enko's characterization of homeomorphs of βN-N. We show that this characterization is in general independent of the usual axioms of set theory, but in the case of the ?ech-Stone remainder of the discrete space of cardinality ?₁ it is absolute.     

Calculations of faith: mathematics, philosophy, and sanctity in 18th-century Italy (new work on Maria Gaetana Agnesi)

The recent publication of three books on Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718-1799) offers an opportunity to reflect on how we have understood and misunderstood her legacy to the history of mathematics, as the author of an important vernacular textbook, Instituzioni analitiche ad uso della gioventú italiana (Milan, 1748), and one of the best-known women natural philosophers and mathematicians of her generation. This article discusses the work of Antonella Cupillari, Franco Minonzio, and Massimo Mazzotti in relation to earlier studies of Agnesi and reflects on the current state of this subject in light of the author’s own research on Agnesi.     

A dialogue on the use of arithmetic in geometry: Van Ceulen’s and Snellius’s Fundamenta Arithmetica et Geometrica

Snellius’s Fundamenta Arithmetica et Geometrica (1615) is much more than a Latin translation of Ludolph van Ceulen’s Arithmetische en Geometrische Fondamenten. Willebrord Snellius both adapted and commented on the Dutch original in his Fundamenta, and thus his Latin version can be read as a dialogue between representatives of two different approaches to mathematics in the early modern period: Snellius’s humanist approach and Van Ceulen’s practitioner’s approach. This article considers the relationship between the Dutch and Latin versions of the text and, in particular, puts some of their statements on the use of numbers in geometry under the microscope. In addition, Snellius’s use of the Fundamenta as an instrument to further his career is explained.     

A “lacuna” in Proposition 9 of Archimedes’ On the Sphere and the Cylinder, Book I

The proof of Proposition 9 in Archimedes’ On the Sphere and the Cylinder, Book i, contains an unproved statement that has been referred to as a “lacuna.” Most editors and experts in Archimedean texts have agreed on the existence of this gap and have offered different proofs for the statement, some of them with incomplete or even incorrect arguments. In this paper, I offer arguments of a mathematical, historical, and textual nature that show that it is not necessary to assume the presence of any gap in the text.     

Star partial order on B(H)

Let H be an infinite-dimensional complex Hilbert space and let B(H) be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on (H). In the paper the equivalent definition of the star partial order on B(H), using selfadjoint idempotent operators, is introduced. Also some properties of the generalized concept of order relations on B(H), defined with the help of idempotent operators, are investigated.     

Cube roots of integers. A conjecture about Heron's method in Metrika III. 20

Did Heron (or his teachers) use sequences of differences to find an approximate value of the cube root of an integer? I venture a conjecture of his heuristics and a couple of possible mathematical proofs of his method.     

Inequalities between ∥f(A + B)∥ and ∥f(A) + f(B)∥

The conjecture posed by Aujla and Silva [J.S. Aujla, F.C. Silva, Weak majorization inequalities and convex functions, Linear Algebra Appl. 369 (2003) 217-233] is proved. It is shown that for any m-tuple of positive-semidefinite n × n complex matrices A_j and for any non-negative convex function f on [0, ∞) with f(0) = 0 the inequality ?f(A₁) + f(A₂) + ? + f(A_m)? ? ? f(A₁ + A₂ + ? + A_m)? holds for any unitarily invariant norm ? · ?. It is also proved that ?f(A₁) + f(A₂) + ? + f(A_m)? ? f(?A₁ + A₂ + ? + A_m?), where f is a non-negative concave function on [0, ∞) and ? · ? is normalized.