DOCSLIB.ORG

Allen Chai Math 4388 Simon Stevin: Better Mental Representations of Math Reality Lead to Better Understanding of Math Reality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Allen Chai Math 4388 Simon Stevin: Better Mental Representations of Math Reality Lead to Better Understanding of Math Reality Allen Chai Math 4388 Simon Stevin: Better mental representations of math reality lead to better understanding of math reality Dutch mathematician Simon Stevin (1548-1620) is known primarily for two mathematical achievements. With his book De Thiende (“The Art of Tenths”), published in 1585, he became the primary contributor to modern decimal notation (Katz, 2012). This is because modern decimal notation developed from his notation, which historians refer to as “Stevin numbers”. In fact, Stevin numbers can simply be seen as an unwieldly form of modern decimal notation. For example, here is a random number in modern decimal notation: 18.347. Here is the same number in Stevin numbers: 18⓪3①4②7③. Each circled number represents that exponent of 1 1 1 1 1 . In other words, 18⓪3①4②7③ = (18 × ) + (3 × ) + (4 × ) + (7 × ). 10 100 101 102 103 Modern decimal notation simply takes Stevin numbers, introduces the decimal point, and does away with the circled numbers as superfluous. [It is likely Bartholomaeus Pitiscus who invented the decimal point, and John Napier who popularized its use (“Simon Stevin”, n.d.).] Stevin’s second claim to mathematical fame was through the same book. He became the primary contributor to the concept of real numbers (Katz, 2012). He wrote passages such as: “there are no absurd, irrational, irregular, inexplicable or surd numbers” (Katz, 2012, p. 110), as well as, “It is a very common thing amongst authors of arithmetics to treat numbers like √8 and similar ones, which they call absurd, irrational, irregular, inexplicable or surds etc. and which we deny to be the case for number [sic] which turns up” (Katz, 2012, p. 110-111). Katz further quotes D. Fearnley-Sander with writing: “the modern concept of real number [...] was essentially achieved by Simon Stevin, around 1600, and was thoroughly assimilated into mathematics in the following two centuries” (2012, p. 111), and van der Waerden with writing: “[Stevin’s] general notion of a real number was accepted, tacitly or explicitly, by all later scientists” (2012, p. 111). I believe it is no coincidence that the progenitor of modern decimal notation and the progenitor of the concept of real numbers is the same person. Before Stevin, European mathematicians were fully reliant on various forms of fraction notation to represent fractions, such as Egyptian fractions (Wildberger, 2015). This weakness in notation—in representation of reality— negatively affected our understanding of reality. Fraction notation could only represent rational and irrational numbers as segregated and irreconcilable with one another, as fraction notation could not represent irrational numbers. Hence, our understanding of reality was that rational and irrational numbers are segregated and irreconcilable with one another. Simon Stevin’s notation of Stevin numbers was an important innovation because it was an improved representation of reality (certainly improving our representation of irrational numbers). Finally, there was a notation that represented rational and irrational numbers as unified and harmonious. Hence, our understanding of reality changed, and now we understand rational and irrational numbers as equal citizens of the continuum of numbers that has come to be called the real numbers. The story of Simon Stevin inventing the precursor form of modern decimal notation and forming the concept of real numbers in the late sixteenth century is one of how a better mental representation of reality (here, a better system of symbols, i.e., notation), resulted in a better understanding of reality (that rational and irrational numbers are unified and harmonious in their relationship, together forming the real numbers). Therefore, I would like to spend the rest of my paper introducing a better representation of reality (here, a taxonomic system), which I hope will bring me a better understanding of reality (how various mathematical objects and their properties relate to one another). I am organizing these objects and their properties under the common categories of math: for example, “geometry” is the grouping of “geometric objects” such as circles and triangles, and their “properties”. The creator of this taxonomic system is David Tall, Emeritus Professor in Mathematical Thinking at the University of Warwick, and he has named it the “Three Worlds of Mathematics”. I offer a succinct introduction based on his book How Humans Learn to Think Mathematically: Exploring the Three Worlds of Mathematics. Tall’s taxonomic system is structured on the premise that there are three broad categories of mathematical objects and associated properties. He uses the word embodiment to refer to the family of concrete mathematical objects. These are objects such as geometric shapes and space— anything that intrinsically has a physical referent(s). For example, a line segment, whether drawn on a board and consisting of atoms of chalk, or imagined in the mind and consisting of mental images, still has the intrinsic physical referent of length. Tall uses the word symbolism to refer to the family of abstract mathematical objects—those objects with no intrinsic physical referent. For example, the object “three” has no length, color, position in space-time; it is devoid of any physical referent. With abstract mathematical objects, Tall is careful to note that he uses the word “object” broadly. Objects may be what we conceptualize as “things”, as “nouns”, to be acted upon, such as a “number” or “sum”. However, what we conceptualize as “actions”, as “verbs”, performed on objects—mathematical operations/procedures/processes (choose your preferred vocabulary) such as “addition” or “integration”—can also be thought of as objects, subject to other operations/procedures/processes. Because objects so easily and flexibly switch between being objects and processes, Hall often uses the term “procept” (Tall, 2013, p. 13). Tall uses the word formalism to refer to a third category of mathematical objects: mathematical proofs. These are based on the objects and properties found in the embodiment and symbolism areas of his taxonomic system. Tall is very strict about what constitutes a formal mathematical proof: All objects and properties from the embodiment and symbolism areas must be defined in terms of sets (i.e., set theory). Axioms must also be defined in terms of sets. The proof must then explicitly show relationships between objects and objects, properties and properties, or objects and properties (all defined in terms of sets), via deduction. Tall’s complete taxonomic system, in my own words, looks like the following (meant to be read from the bottom up): Three Worlds of Mathematics Taxonomy Formal math Proofs of all the below objects and properties relying on axioms, set theory, and deduction. Blended (embodied and Blended (symbolic and formal) formal) Geometric proofs of the Algebraic proofs of the below below objects and properties objects and properties that that rely solely on compass rely solely on algebra and and straightedge. arithmetic. Embodied math Blended (embodied and Symbolic math Geometry symbolic) Calculus (calculus can be (Objects and their properties) The invention of the seen as algebra concerned Cartesian coordinate system with procepts found beyond This is the geometry of for Euclidean space was a traditional algebra, such as Euclid, devoid of algebra. revolutionary innovation that limits, differentiation, and married geometry and algebra integration) (“Cartesian coordinate Algebra system”, n.d.). Arithmetic (For all three above, objects This section is for all the and their properties) graphs possible when you marry the objects of geometry with the objects of algebra. Figure 1: Graphic depicting Professor David Tall’s taxonomic system for organizing mathematical objects and their properties In conclusion, I want to remark that History of Mathematics has been somewhat stressful for me. Every time we move forward in the historical record toward the present, we are introduced to another field of math (another field of mathematical objects and properties): arithmetic, geometry, calculus, formal mathematics concerned with deductive proof. I never learned their relationships in the actual courses bearing those titles, and I know I have to place them into some mental organizational framework to remove the stress of not being sure of their connections. Simon Stevin altering his mental representation of reality to better understand reality is what I am attempting to do by studying Tall’s taxonomy of all mathematical objects and properties. Katz remarked on Tall’s taxonomy, and I looked Tall up. I intend to use this taxonomy to see the relationships amongst math fields (associated objects and properties), unless/until I discover a better one. References Cartesian coordinate system. (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system Katz, K.U., & Katz, M.G. (2012). Stevin numbers and reality. Foundations of Science, 17(2), 109-123. Simon Stevin. (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Stevin Tall, D.O. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wildberger, N.J. [njwildberger]. (2015, March 8). MathHistory24: Number systems and Stevin's decimals. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erFVGPqpRxQ. List of Figures Figure 1: Graphic depicting Professor David Tall’s taxonomic system for organizing mathematical objects and their properties .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SIMON STEVIN (1548 – 1620) by HEINZ KLAUS STRICK, Germany
    SIMON STEVIN (1548 – 1620) by HEINZ KLAUS STRICK, Germany The Flemish mathematician, physicist and engineer SIMON STEVIN is one of the lesser-known personalities in the history of science. However, his work has left many traces. We do not even know his exact date of birth and death; his birthplace was Bruges; where he died is uncertain: either Leiden or the Hague. Raised in the Calvinist tradition, he grew up in Flanders, became an accountant and cashier for a trading firm in Antwerp, travelled for several years through Poland, Prussia and Norway until he took a job at the tax office in Bruges in 1577. Around this time, the 17 provinces of the Netherlands, which also include the area of present-day Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of northern France, belong to the Spanish dominion. Large parts of the population, especially in the northern provinces, converted to the Calvinist faith. In 1567 King PHILIP II OF SPAIN appointed the DUKE OF ALBA as governor. When ALBA carried out a punitive expedition against the Protestants, a war began which only ended in 1648 with the Peace Treaty of Münster (partial treaty of the Peace of Westphalia). In 1579 the Protestant provinces in the north of the Netherlands united to form the Union of Utrecht and declared their independence as the Republic of the United Netherlands; they elected WILLIAM THE SILENT or WILLIAM OF ORANGE as regent. As the political situation came to a head, SIMON STEVIN's life situation also changed: although he was already 33 years old, he still attended a Latin school and then took up studies at the newly founded University of Leiden.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Stevin
    II THE PRINCIPAL WORKS OF SIMON STEVIN E D IT E D BY ERNST CRONE, E. J. DIJKSTERHUIS, R. J. FORBES M. G. J. MINNAERT, A. PANNEKOEK A M ST E R D A M C. V. SW ETS & Z E IT L IN G E R J m THE PRINCIPAL WORKS OF SIMON STEVIN VOLUME II MATHEMATICS E D IT E D BY D. J. STRUIK PROFESSOR AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE (MASS.) A M S T E R D A M C. V. SW ETS & Z E IT L IN G E R 1958 The edition of this volume II of the principal works of SIMON STEVIN devoted to his mathematical publications, has been rendered possible through the financial aid of the Koninklijke. Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Royal Netherlands Academy of Science) Printed by Jan de Lange, Deventer, Holland The following edition of the Principal Works of SIMON STEVIN has been brought about at the initiative of the Physics Section of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Weten­ schappen (Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences) by a committee consisting of the following members: ERNST CRONE, Chairman of the Netherlands Maritime Museum, Amsterdam E. J. DIJKSTERHUIS, Professor of the History of Science at the Universities of Leiden and Utrecht R. J. FORBES, Professor of the History of Science at the Municipal University of Amsterdam M. G. J. M INNAERT, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Utrecht A. PANNEKOEK, Former Professor of Astronomy at the Municipal University of Amsterdam The Dutch texts of STEVIN as well as the introductions and notes have been translated into English or revised by Miss C.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometry and Mathematical Symbolism of the 16Th Century Viewed Through a Construction Problem
    THE TEACHING OF MATHEMATICS 2016, Vol. XIX, 1, pp. 32–40 GEOMETRY AND MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLISM OF THE 16TH CENTURY VIEWED THROUGH A CONSTRUCTION PROBLEM Milana Dabi´c Abstract. This paper represents a construction problem from Problematum geometricorum IV written by Simon Stevin from Bruges in 1583. The problem is used for illustrating the geometry practice and mathematical language in the 16th century. The large impact of Euclid and Archimedes can be noted. In one part of the construction, Stevin expressed the need for using numbers for greater clarity. Hence, the link with the work of Descartes and the further geometry development is pointed out. MathEduc Subject Classification: A35 MSC Subject Classification: 97A30 Key words and phrases: 16th century mathematics; mathematical symbolism; Simon Stevin; construction problems 1. Introduction From the times of Ancient Greece until the 16th century there was no signif- icant geometrical contribution that would expand the existing geometrical knowl- edge. Only in the second half of the 16th century we can find geometry works of Simon Stevin from Bruges (1548–1620). It is believed that his influence was neglected in the history of mathematics and that his name should be mentioned together with the name of his contemporary Galileo Galilei, from whom Stevin was a whole generation older (16 years) [8]. It is considered that Stevin, as a predecessor of Descartes, prepared a path for introducing correspondence between numbers and points on the line by studying the 10th book of Euclid’s Elements and translating it to numbers [9]. Besides his work on the Problematum geometricorum libri V, he wrote Tomus secundus de geometriae praxi (in 1605) which is: ::: different from the Problemata geometrica and inferior to it; it is also a collection of geometrical problems but it is not arranged as logically as the former; it was chiefly made to complete the Prince’s geometrical training [6, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Stevin, Polymaths and Polymathy in the Early Modern Period
    introduction Simon Stevin, Polymaths and Polymathy in the Early Modern Period Karel Davids, Fokko Jan Dijksterhuis, Rienk Vermij and Ida Stamhuis Simon Stevin (1548– 1620) was a slightly older contemporary of Galileo, and can in many respects be considered his Dutch counterpart: a scholar who opened up new, mathematical, ways of studying the world. As such, he has rightly tak- en his place in the annals of early modern science. But Stevin was more than a clever theoretician; he was also an exponent of a new approach to knowledge in the early modern period, when established ways of understanding the world had been thrown into doubt. Ignoring these broader aspects, as has commonly been done, risks failing to grasp his full significance. Stevin remains badly un- derstood, in many respects, and this volume is thus an attempt to understand him better by placing his work in this broader context. In his approach to a wide range of topics, Stevin presents a case – and a very interesting one – of a more general trend in early modern learning, when knowledge was often produced by ‘polymaths’ rather than specialists. Ana- lyzing his situation is therefore not only important as a means of assessing his aims and motives, but also leads to a better understanding of European intellectual history in general. Such a study will shed light on changes in mathematics and natural philosophy in the early modern period, and it will also contribute to a better understanding of the transformation of European learning. Starting with Stevin, this collective volume aims to analyze the transforma- tion of the European ideal of knowledge in the early modern period by com- paring Stevin with similar multi- talented individuals (‘polymaths’) in the Low Countries and other European countries, and by examining the relations be- tween the multiple strands of Stevin’s thinking, writing and other activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Stevin - Wikipedia
    Simon Stevin - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Stevin Simon Stevin Simon Stevin (Dutch: [ˈsimɔn ˈsteːvɪn]; 1548–1620), Simon Stevin sometimes called Stevinus, was a Flemish mathematician, physicist and military engineer. He made various contributions in many areas of science and engineering, both theoretical and practical. He also translated various mathematical terms into Dutch, making it one of the few European languages in which the word for mathematics, wiskunde (wis and kunde, i.e., "the knowledge of what is certain"), was not a loanword from Greek but a calque via Latin. Contents Biography Simon Stevin's travels Simon Stevin in the Netherlands Born c. 1548 Discoveries and inventions Bruges, Belgium Hydraulic engineering — management of Died 1620 waterways (aged 71–72) Philosophy of science Alma mater Leiden University Geometry, physics and trigonometry Music theory Occupation Mathematician, Bookkeeping engineer Decimal fractions Known for Decimal Mathematics fractions[a] Neologisms Trivia Publications References Further reading External links Biography Very little is known with certainty about Stevin's life and what we know is mostly inferred from other recorded facts.[1] The exact birth date and the date and place of his death are uncertain. It is assumed he was born in Bruges since he enrolled at Leiden University under 1 von 11 16.09.19, 20:45 Simon Stevin - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Stevin the name Simon Stevinus Brugensis (meaning "Simon Stevin from Bruges"). His name is usually written as Stevin, but some documents regarding his father use the spelling Stevijn (pronunciation [ˈsti:vaɪn]). This is a normal spelling shift in 16th-century Dutch.[2] He was born around the year 1548 to unmarried parents, Anthonis (Anton) Stevin and Catelyne van der Poort.
    [Show full text]
  • The Engineer and the Philosopher Reflections on the Culture and Economy of Mechanics in Court Society
    chapter 1 The Engineer and the Philosopher Reflections on the Culture and Economy of Mechanics in Court Society Pietro Daniel Omodeo Throughout his life, Simon Stevin was proud of his status as an ‘ingenieur’.1 By contrast, his Italian contemporary, Giovanni Battista Benedetti, would have considered the title ‘ingegnere’ to be a denigration of his status as a ‘patri- cian’ and ‘court philosopher’.2 Yet, the work, interests and methods of these two men were so close that such a divergence of identities presents the social historian of science with a curious puzzle. What accounts for the remarkable difference in the intellectual positioning of these two protagonists of Renais- sance science? An inquiry into the social and epistemological intersections and interrelationships between the activities of the early modern engineer and the philosopher, who worked on similar mathematical, physical and techno- logical problems, promises to be a fruitful means of pinpointing the individual and contextual differences between this Dutch proto- scientist and his Italian counterpart. In addition, it may also help to highlight the processes underlying the hierarchization of knowledge and division of intellectual labor that char- acterized the emergence of modern science. Above all else, the problem in question relates to a practical-theoretical form of polymathy – the technical versatility (or polytechny) typical of so- called ‘scientist- engineers’ – and its relation to higher forms of legitimate scholarship, especially the literary and artistic culture of the Renaissance courts. In the case of practical mathematics, a new class of practitioners, proud of their professional skills, emerged out of the context of competing republics and small states troubled by constant political and economic turmoil, rival- ry and conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Idealization and Galileo's Proto-Inertial Principle
    Idealization and Galileo’s Proto-Inertial Principle Maarten Van Dyck* Galileo proposed what has been called a proto-inertial principle, according to which a body in horizontal motion will conserve its motion. This statement is only true in coun- terfactual circumstances where no impediments are present. This article analyzes how Galileo could have been justified in ascribing definite properties to this idealized motion. This analysis is then used to better understand the relation of Galileo’s proto-inertial principle to the classical inertial principle. 1. Introduction. Galileo Galilei assumed that a body in horizontal motion will conserve its motion indefinitely. He used this idea to explain the para- bolic shape of a body projected from a horizontal table, and it is crucially related to his use of relativity arguments to defuse objections to the possi- bility of a moving earth. In both roles it functions similarly to an inertial prin- ciple, but there are also some crucial factors that put it at a distance (for some earlier discussions and further references, see Coffa [1968], Chalmers [1993], Hooper [1998], and esp. Roux [2006]). Most importantly, because the notion of the “horizontal” is underspecified if not related to a broader spatial frame- work, Galileo’s own writings seem to use the idea in a way in which the rel- evant motion is both rectilinear and circular (for a recent discussion, see Miller [2014], 110–46). Even if interpreted as rectilinear, the restriction to horizontal motion is highly significant— Galileo never came to terms with the case of a body projected along an oblique direction, such as a typical cannon ball (see Damerow et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Enigma of the Inclined Plane from Hero to Galileo Sophie Roux, Egidio Festa
    The Enigma of the Inclined Plane from Hero to Galileo Sophie Roux, Egidio Festa To cite this version: Sophie Roux, Egidio Festa. The Enigma of the Inclined Plane from Hero to Galileo. Mechanics and Natural Philosophy before the Scientific Revolution, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.195-221, 2008. halshs-00806464 HAL Id: halshs-00806464 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00806464 Submitted on 2 Apr 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THE ENIGMA OF THE INCLINED PLANE FROM HERON TO GALILEO 1 Sophie Roux and Egidio Festa The law of the inclined plane states that the ratio between a weight and the force needed to balance this weight on a given inclined plane is equal to the ratio between the length and the height of this plane. With the peremptory tone for which he is known, Descartes affirmed that this law was 2 known to “all those who write about mechanics”. Yet the problem of the inclined plane appears neither in Aristotle nor in Archimedes, and while writers such as Heron of Alexandria, Pappus of Alexandria, Leonardo da Vinci, Girolamo Cardano, and Colantonio Stigliola do indeed formulate it, they do not find the solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Copernicus' First Friends: Physical Copernicanism
    Filozofski vestnik Volume/Letnik XXV • Number/Številka 2 • 2004 • 143–166 COPERNICUS’ FIRST FRIENDS: PHYSICAL COPERNICANISM FROM 1543 TO 1610 Katherine A. Tredwell and Peter Barker Early assessments of the Copernican Revolution were hampered by the failure to understand the nature of astronomy in the sixteenth century, as scholars took statements made in praise of Copernicus to be implicit endorsements of his heliocentric cosmology. Gradually this view has been supplanted by the ac- knowledgement that many supposed partisans of Copernicus only endorsed the use of his astronomical models for the calculation of apparent planetary positions, while rejecting or remaining silent on the reality of heliocentrism. A classic example of this shift in historiography concerns Erasmus Reinhold (1511–1553), a professor of mathematics at the University of Wittenberg. Re- inhold’s use of Copernican models in his Prutenic Tables (Tabulae prutenicae, 1551) has led to the mistaken belief that he sanctioned a Sun-centered cos- mology as well. Careful reassessment of his published writings has revealed that he commended certain aspects of Copernicus’ work, such as the elimi- nation of the equant, but showed no interest in heliocentrism (Westman, 1975: pp. 174–178). Other supposed Copernicans, such as Robert Recorde (c. 1510–1558), expressed some openness to the Earth’s motion but left no clear indication of what they thought to be the true system of the world (Rus- sell, 1972: pp. 189–191). Between the publication of Copernicus’ epoch-making book On the Revo- lutions of the Celestial Orbs (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) in 1543 and the year 1610, only a handful of individuals can be identified with certainty as Copernicans, in the sense that they considered heliocentrism to be physically real and not merely a calculational convenience.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Stevin
    ‘Magic is No Magic’ The Wonderful World of Simon Stevin WITPRESS WIT Press publishes leading books in Science and Technology. Visit our website for the current list of titles. www.witpress.com WITeLibrary Home of the Transactions of the Wessex Institute, the WIT electronic-library provides the international scientific community with immediate and permanent access to individual papers presented at WIT conferences. Visit the WIT eLibrary at http://library.witpress.com The only portrait of Stevin was probably painted shortly after he died. In the top left and right corners are the dates and places of his birth and death. Leiden, University Library, Special Collections ‘Magic is No Magic’ The Wonderful World of Simon Stevin Authors: Jozef T. Devreese University of Antwerp, Belgium Guido Vanden Berghe Ghent University, Belgium Jozef T. Devreese University of Antwerp, Belgium Guido Vanden Berghe Ghent University, Belgium Translated by Lee Preedy Cover concept: Sara Van Gucht Graphics: Vladimir Gladilin Design: Keith Godwin Cover photo: © Davidsfonds Publishers (Daniël Geeraerts). Published by WIT Press Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK Tel: 44 (0) 238 029 3223; Fax: 44 (0) 238 029 2853 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.witpress.com For USA, Canada and Mexico WIT Press 25 Bridge Street, Billerica, MA 01821, USA Tel: 978 667 5841; Fax: 978 667 7582 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.witpress.com British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A Catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN-10: 1-84564-092-6 ISBN-13: 978-1-84564-092-6 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2006934780 No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher, the Editors and Authors for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Equilibrium and Forces: from Aristotle to Lagrange
    Equilibrium and Forces: from Aristotle to Lagrange 1 In brief The historical path to LAGRANGE’s statement of the Principle of virtual velocities has been two-millennium long, a facet of what BENVENUTO calls “The Enigma of Force and the Foundations of Mechanics” and could “be regarded as vague meandering, impotent struggles, foolish attempts at reduction, and justified doubt about the nature of force” 1 (TRUESDELL ). Many authors, after LAGRANGE (1788) himself, have tracked the history and avatars of the concepts of virtual velocities and virtual work: a very comprehensive analysis appears in (Duhem, 1905, 1906) and we must also quote, among others, (Dugas, 1950), (Truesdell, 1968), (Benvenuto, 1981, 1991), (Capecchi, 2012)… The purpose of this contribution is just to present some milestones along the historical path up to LAGRANGE’s contribution. 2 The “simple machines” When looking for the very roots of Mechanics one inescapably encounters the study of the “simple machines” that provide mechanical advantage, or leverage, when applying a single active force to do work against a single load force, such as the weight of a body: “Early theoretical thinking about statics and mechanics took as its references particular 2 objects, things like the lever, used since ancient times as necessary tools.” . ARISTOTLE’s (384-322 BC) Quaestionae Mechanicae (Mechanical Problems)3, as quoted by 4 BENVENUTO , defines Mechanics as an Art: “Miraculously some facts occur in physics whose causes are unknown; that is, those artifices that appear to transgress Nature in favour of man…Thus, when it is necessary to do something that goes beyond Nature, the difficulties can be overcome with the assistance of art.
    [Show full text]
  • M3hw5.Tex Week 5. 8-13.2.18 from the ARABS to GALILEO Edward
    m3hw5.tex Week 5. 8-13.2.18 FROM THE ARABS TO GALILEO Edward GIBBON, Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, 1776 Boyer Ch. 14; Dreyer Ch. X, Mediaeval cosmology Al-Kwarizmi's Algebra (concluded). Its strengths include logical exposition and proof (shared by the Greeks but not the Mesopotamian and Hindu in- fluences), and facility in passing between geometric (Greek) and numeric (Hindu) algebra. Its weaknesses include that only positive rots of equations were permitted, and that everything, even numerals, is written out in words. Astronomy The Caliph al-Mamun founded an observatory in Baghdad in 829, `where continuous observations were made and tables of planetary motions con- structed, while an important attempt was made to determine the size of the Earth' (Dreyer, 246). One of the leading astronomers here was al-Fargani (= Alfragamus), `whose Elements of Astronomy were translated into Latin in the 12th C., and contributed greatly to the revival of science in Europe.' Hindu astronomy was derived from the Greek through the conquest of Alexander the Great (B 12.12). Hindu astronomical texts, the Siddhanthas, reached Baghdad during the reign of Caliph al-Mansur `in 773) (Dreyer, 244), or `by 766' (B, 254). These were translated into Arabic as the Sindhind. Note. One of the main spurs behind Arab interest in astronomy derives from the Muslim religious year. Omar Khayyam (c. 1050-1123) (B 13.15). Kayyam wrote a text Algebra. Like al-Khwarizmi, he restricted himself to positive roots, but went beyond degree 2. He gave algebraic and geometric solutions for quadratics, and geometric solutions (involving intersecting con- ics) for cubics.
    [Show full text]