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.     

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.     

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.     

The way of Diophantus: Some clarifications on Diophantus' method of solution

In the introduction of the Arithmetica Diophantus says that in order to solve arithmetical problems one has to “follow the way he (Diophantus) will show.” The present paper has a threefold objective. Firstly, the meaning of this sentence is discussed, the conclusion being that Diophantus had elaborated a program for handling various arithmetical problems. Secondly, it is claimed that what is analyzed in the introduction is definitions of several terms, the exhibition of their symbolism, the way one may operate with them, but, most significantly, the main stages of the program itself. And thirdly, it is argued that Diophantus' intention in the Arithmetica is to show the way the stages of his program should be practically applied in various arithmetical problems.     

Some remarks on lengths of propositional proofs

We survey the best known lower bounds on symbols and lines in Frege and extended Frege proofs. We prove that in minimum length sequent calculus proofs, no formula is generated twice or used twice on any single branch of the proof. We prove that the number of distinct subformulas in a minimum length Frege proof is linearly bounded by the number of lines. Depthd Frege proofs ofm lines can be transformed into depthd proofs ofO(m ^d+1) symbols. We show that renaming Frege proof systems are p-equivalent to extended Frege systems. Some open problems in propositional proof length and in logical flow graphs are discussed. Supported in part by NSF grant DMS-9205181     

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.     

One of Berkeley’s arguments on compensating errors in the calculus

This paper addresses three questions related to George Berkeley’s theory of compensating errors in the calculus published in 1734. The first is how did Berkeley conceive of Leibnizian differentials? The second and most central question concerns Berkeley’s procedure which consisted in identifying two quantities as errors and proving that they are equal. The question is how was this possible? The answer is that this was not possible, because in his calculations Berkeley misguided himself by employing a result equivalent to what he wished to prove. In 1797 Lazare Carnot published the expression “a compensation of errors” in an attempt to explain why the calculus functions. The third question is: did Carnot by this expression mean the same as Berkeley?     

Some remarks on the semi-local extension of Nash maps

The paper deals with the extension of Nash maps off Nash subvarieties on a neighborhood of a compact set. Partially supported by M.U.R.S.T.     

Mathematical recreations of Dénes König and his work on graph theory

Dénes König (1884–1944) is a Hungarian mathematician well known for his treatise on graph theory (König, 1936). When he was a student, he published two books on mathematical recreations ( and ). Does his work on mathematical recreations have any relation to his work on graph theory? If yes, how are they connected? To answer these questions, we will examine his books of 1902, 1905 and 1936, and compare them with each other. We will see that the books of 1905 and 1936 include many common topics, and that the treatment of these topics is different between 1905 and 1936.     

Some remarks on the Clebsch's system

The almost Hamilton-Poisson realization, the stability problem, the existence of periodic solutions and the numerical integration via the Lie-Trotter integrator for the Clebsch system are discussed and some of their properties are pointed out.     

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.     

Practicing algebra in late antiquity: The problem-solving of Diophantus of Alexandria

Medieval algebra is distinguished from other arithmetical problem-solving techniques by its structure and technical vocabulary. In an algebraic solution one or several unknowns are named, and via operations on the unknowns the problem is transferred to the artificial setting of an equation expressed in terms of the named powers, which is then simplified and solved. In this article we examine Diophantus? Arithmetica from this perspective. We find that indeed Diophantus? method matches medieval algebra in both vocabulary and structure. Just as we see in medieval Arabic and Italian algebra, Diophantus worked out the operations expressed in the enunciation of a problem prior to setting up a polynomial equation. Further, his polynomials were regarded as aggregations with no operations present.     

The function of diorism in ancient Greek analysis

This paper is a contribution to our knowledge of Greek geometric analysis. In particular, we investigate the aspect of analysis know as diorism, which treats the conditions, arrangement, and totality of solutions to a given geometric problem, and we claim that diorism must be understood in a broader sense than historians of mathematics have generally admitted. In particular, we show that diorism was a type of mathematical investigation, not only of the limitation of a geometric solution, but also of the total number of solutions and of their arrangement. Because of the logical assumptions made in the analysis, the diorism was necessarily a separate investigation which could only be carried out after the analysis was complete.     

Meta-mathematical rhetoric: Hero and Ptolemy against the philosophers

Bringing the meta-mathematics of Hero of Alexandria and Claudius Ptolemy into conversation for the first time, I argue that they employ identical rhetorical strategies in the introductions to Hero's Belopoeica, Pneumatica, Metrica and Ptolemy's Almagest. They each adopt a paradigmatic argument, in which they criticize the discourses of philosophers and declare epistemological supremacy for mathematics by asserting that geometrical demonstration is indisputable. The rarity of this claim—in conjunction with the paradigmatic argument—indicates that Hero and Ptolemy participated in a single meta-mathematical tradition, which made available to them rhetoric designed to introduce, justify, and bolster the value of mathematics.     

Some remarks on isologic extensions of groups

In this paper we study the concept of -isologisms among the -marginal extensions of groups, with respect to a given variety of groups . We also give some equivalent conditions under which two extensions are -isologic. Received: 9 January 2002     

Comparative analysis in Greek geometry

This article is a contribution to our knowledge of ancient Greek geometric analysis. We investigate a type of theoretic analysis, not previously recognized by scholars, in which the mathematician uses the techniques of ancient analysis to determine whether an assumed relation is greater than, equal to, or less than. In the course of this investigation, we argue that theoretic analysis has a different logical structure than problematic analysis, and hence should not be divided into Hankel’s four-part structure. We then make clear how a comparative analysis is related to, and different from, a standard theoretic analysis. We conclude with some arguments that the theoretic analyses in our texts, both comparative and standard, should be regarded as evidence for a body of heuristic techniques.     

Euler’s fixed point theorem: The axis of a rotation

We give an elementary proof of what is perhaps the earliest fixed point theorem; namely Leonhard Euler’s theorem of 1775 on the existence of an axis v for any three-dimensional rotation R. The proof is constructive and shows that no multiplications are required to compute v. Dedicated to the memory of Leonhard Euler, “The Master of us all”, on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of his birth