• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

ALMOST EQUAL: THE METHOD OF ADEQUALITY FROM DIOPHANTUS TO FERMAT AND BEYOND MIKHAIL G. KATZ, DAVID M. SCHAPS, AND STEVEN SHNIDER Abstract. We analyze some of the main approaches in the liter- ature to the method of ‘adequality’ with which Fermat approached the problems of the calculus, as well as its source in the παρισoτης´ of Diophantus, and propose a novel reading thereof. Adequality is a crucial step in Fermat’s method of finding max- ima, minima, tangents, and solving other problems that a mod- ern mathematician would solve using infinitesimal calculus. The method is presented in a series of short articles in Fermat’s col- lected works [66, p. 133-172]. We show that at least some of the manifestations of adequality amount to variational techniques ex- ploiting a small, or infinitesimal, variation e. Fermat’s treatment of geometric and physical applications sug- gests that an aspect of approximation is inherent in adequality, as well as an aspect of smallness on the part of e. We question the rel- evance to understanding Fermat of 19th century dictionary defini- tions of παρισoτης´ and adaequare, cited by Breger, and take issue with his interpretation of adequality, including his novel reading of Diophantus, and his hypothesis concerning alleged tampering with Fermat’s texts by Carcavy. We argue that Fermat relied on Bachet’s reading of Diophantus. Diophantus coined the term παρισoτης´ for mathematical pur- poses and used it to refer to the way in which 1321/711 is ap- proximately equal to 11/6. Bachet performed a semantic calque in passing from pariso¯o to adaequo. We note the similar role of, respectively, adequality and the Transcendental Law of Homogeneity in the work of, respectively, Fermat [19] and Leibniz [39] on the problem of maxima and min- arXiv:1210.7750v1 [math.HO] 29 Oct 2012 ima. Contents 1. The debate over adequality 3 1.1. Summary of Fermat’s algorithm 3 1.2. Etymology of παρισoτης´ 4 1.3. Modern interpretations 5 Key words and phrases. adequality; Bachet; cycloid; Diophantus; Fermat; infin- itesimal; method of maxima and minima; refraction; Snell’s law. 1 2 MIKHAIL G. KATZ, DAVID M. SCHAPS, AND STEVEN SHNIDER 1.4. Wieleitner, Strømholm, and Giusti 6 1.5. Three approaches to the nature of E 8 2. Methodological issues in 17th century historiography 9 2.1. Fermat’s letter to Digby 10 2.2. Huygens and Rolle 11 2.3. Whig history 12 2.4. Clear concepts? 13 3. Did Fermat make a mistake? 14 4. Comparing the first and second problems in M´ethode 16 4.1. Tangent line and convexity of parabola 16 4.2. Two interpretations of the geometric ingredient 18 5. Fermat’s treatment of the cycloid 20 5.1. Fermat’s description 20 5.2. Breger’s interpretation 22 5.3. Who erred: Fermat or Barner? 24 6. Bachet’s semantic calque 25 7. Breger on mysteries of adaequare 26 7.1. The philology of παρισoτης´ 27 7.2. Greek dictionary 28 8. The mathematics of παρισoτης´ 29 8.1. The παρισoτης´ ofDiophantus 29 8.2. Lines 5-8 in Diophantus 29 8.3. Lines 14-16 in Diophantus 30 8.4. Lines 20-21 in Diophantus 30 8.5. Line 25 in Diophantus 30 8.6. παρισoς´ as approximate equality 31 8.7. The method of Diophantus 31 8.8.BregeronDiophantus 32 8.9. The Diophantus–Fermat connection 33 9. Refraction, adequality, and Snell’s law 34 10. Conclusion 36 Acknowledgments 39 References 39 ADEQUALITY FROM DIOPHANTUS TO FERMAT 3 1. The debate over adequality Adequality, or παρισoτης´ (parisot¯es) in the original Greek of Dio- phantus,1 is a crucial step in Fermat’s method of finding maxima, min- ima, tangents, and solving other problems that a modern mathemati- cian would solve using infinitesimal calculus. The method is presented in a series of short articles in Fermat’s collected works [66, pp. 133-172]. The first article, Methodus ad Disquirendam Maximam et Minimam,2 opens with a summary of an algorithm for finding the maximum or minimum value of an algebraic expression in a variable A. For conve- nience, we will write such an expression in modern functional notation as f(a).3 1.1. Summary of Fermat’s algorithm. The algorithm can be bro- ken up into six steps in the following way: (1) Introduce an auxiliary symbol e, and form f(a + e); 4 (2) Set adequal the two expressions f(a + e)=AD f(a); (3) Cancel the common terms on the two sides of the adequality. The remaining terms all contain a factor of e; (4) Divide by e (see also next step); (5) In a parenthetical comment, Fermat adds: “or by the highest common factor of e”; (6) Among the remaining terms, suppress5 all terms which still con- tain a factor of e.6 Solving the resulting equation for a yields the extremum of f. In modern mathematical language, the algorithm entails expanding the difference quotient f(a + e) f(a) − e 1adaequalitas or adaequare in Latin. See Section 1.2 for a more detailed etymo- logical discussion. 2In French translation, M´ethode pour la Recherche du Maximum et du Minimum. Further quotations will be taken from the French text [19]. 3Following the conventions established by Vi`ete, Fermat uses capital letters of vowel, A, E, I, O, U for variables, and capital letters of consonants for constants. 4 The notation “=AD” for adequality is ours, not Fermat’s. There is a variety of differing notations in the literature; see Barner [7] for a summary. 5The use of the term “suppress” in reference to the remaining terms, rather than “setting them equal to zero”, is crucial; see footnote 36. 6Note that division by e in Step 4 necessarily precedes the suppression of remain- ing terms that contain e in Step 6. Suppressing all terms containing e, or setting e equal to zero, at stage 3 would be meaningless; see footnote 22. 4 MIKHAIL G. KATZ, DAVID M. SCHAPS, AND STEVEN SHNIDER in powers of e and taking the constant term.7 The method (leaving aside step (5) for the moment) is immediately understandable to a modern reader as the elementary calculus exercise of finding the ex- tremum by solving the equation f ′(a) = 0. But the real question is how Fermat understood this algorithm in his own terms, in the math- ematical language of his time, prior to the invention of calculus by Barrow, Leibniz, Newton, et al. There are two crucial points in trying to understand Fermat’s rea- soning: first, the meaning of “adequality” in step (2), and second, the justification for suppressing the terms involving positive powers of e in step (6). The two issues are closely related because interpretation of adequality depends on the conditions on e. One condition which Fermat always assumes is that e is positive. He did not use negative numbers in his calculations. Fermat introduces the term adequality in Methodus with a reference to Diophantus of Alexandria. In the third article of the series, Ad Eamdem Methodum (Sur la Mˆeme M´ethode), he quotes Diophantus’ Greek term παρισoτης´ , which he translates following Xylander and Bachet, as adaequatio or adaequalitas [19, p. 126] (see A. Weil [72, p. 28]). 1.2. Etymology of παρισoτης´ . The Greek word παρισoτης´ consists of the prepositional prefix para and the root isot¯es, “equality”. The prefix para, like all “regular” prefixes in Greek, also functions as a preposition indicating position; its basic meaning is that of proxim- ity, but depending upon the construction in which it appears, it can indicate location (“beside”), direction (“to”), or source (“from”) (see Luraghi [46, p. 20-22, 131-145]). Compounds with all three meanings are found. Most familiar to mathematicians will be parall¯elos (παραλληλoς´ ), used of lines that are “next to” one another; the Greek for “nearly resembling” is parapl¯esios (παραπλησιoς´ ); but we also find direction in words like paradosis (παραδoσις´ ), “transmitting, handing over” (from para and dosis, “giv- ing”), and source in words like paral¯epsis (παραληψις´ ), “receiving” (from para and l¯epsis, “taking”); there are other meanings for this prefix that do not concern us. The combination of para and isos (“equal”) can refer either to a simple equality (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1410a 23: παρ´ισωσις δ’’εαν` ισα’´ τα` κωλα˜ , “It is paris¯osis if the members of the sentence are equal”) or an approximate equality (Strabo 11.7.1,ως ‘´ ϕησι Πατρoκλης˜ , ‘`oς κα`ι 7Fermat also envisions a division by a higher power of e as in step (5) (see Section 3). ADEQUALITY FROM DIOPHANTUS TO FERMAT 5 ω ω παρισoν´ ηγε‘ ˜ιται τo` πελαγoς´ τoυτo˜ τ ˜′ Πoντικ˜′ “As Patrocles says, who also considers this sea [the Caspian] to be approximately equal [parison] to the Black Sea”). We know of no passage other than those of Diophantus in which a term involving para and isos refers to mathe- matical equality, whether approximate or otherwise. Diophantus him- self used the term parisos to describe terms that are approximately equal, as we shall demonstrate below (Subsection 8.1). The term isot¯es denotes a relationship (“equality”), not an action (“setting equal”); the normal term for the action of equalizing would be a form in -¯osis, and in fact the words is¯osis (’´ισωσις) and paris¯osis (παρ´ισωσις) are attested with the meaning “making equal” or “equal- ization”; the latter is a common term in rhetoric for using the same (or nearly the same) number of words or syllables in parallel clauses. The word παρισoτης´ , which occurs only in the two Diophantus passages, is on the face of it more appropriate to the meaning “near equality”.

Load more

  45

Copy Link