In the mid-first century BC Geminus of Rhodes, a scientist and philosopher close to Posidonius, composed a comprehensive Theory of Mathematical Sciences, in the surviving fragments of which the numerous characters are referred to plainly by name, with some of them being namesakes of other, more well-known mathematicians and philosophers. This paper tries to set apart the namesakes of Geminus, of which there are four in his fragments: Theodorus, Hippias, Oenopides, and Menaechmus.

The “unknown heritage” is the name usually given to a problem type in whose archetype a father leaves to his first son 1 monetary unit and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\frac{1}{n}}$$\end{document} (n usually being 7 or 10) of what remains, to the second 2 units and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\frac{1}{n}}$$\end{document} of what remains, and so on. In the end, all sons get the same, and nothing remains. The earliest known (...) occurrence is in Fibonacci’s Liber abbaci, which also contains a number of much more sophisticated versions, together with a partial algebraic solution for one of these and rules for all which do not follow from his algebraic calculation. The next time the problem turns up is in Planudes’s late thirteenth century Calculus according to the Indians, Called the Great. After that the simple problem type turns up regularly in Provençal, Italian and Byzantine sources. It seems never to appear in Arabic or Indian writings, although two Arabic texts (one from c. 1190) contain more regular problems where the number of shares is given; they are clearly derived from the type known from European and Byzantine works, not its source. The sophisticated versions turn up again in Barthélemy de Romans’ Compendy de la praticque des nombres (c. 1467) and, apparently inspired from there, in the appendix to Nicolas Chuquet’s Triparty (1484). Apart from a single trace in Cardano’s Practica arithmetice et mensurandi singularis, the sophisticated versions never surface again, but the simple version spreads for a while to German practical arithmetic and, more persistently, to French polite recreational mathematics. Close examination of the texts shows that Barthélemy cannot have drawn his familiarity with the sophisticated rules from Fibonacci. It also suggests that the simple version is originally either a classical, strictly Greek or Hellenistic, or a medieval Byzantine invention; and that the sophisticated versions must have been developed before Fibonacci within an environment (located in Byzantium, Provence, or possibly in Sicily?) of which all direct traces has been lost, but whose mathematical level must have been quite advanced. (shrink)

Pierre Duhem can be looked upon as one of the heirs of a tradition of historical and philosophical researches that flourished in the second half of the nineteenth century. This tradition opposed the naïve historiography and epistemology of the positivist school. Beside the positivists of different leanings such as Littré, Laffitte, Wyrouboff, and Berthelot, we find Cournot, Naville, and Tannery, who developed sophisticated histories and philosophies of science focusing on the real scientific practice and its history. They unfolded elements of (...) continuity and discontinuity in the history of science, and enlightened the complex relationship among experimental, mathematical, logical and philosophical components in scientific practice. In Pierre Duhem we find a systematic and vivid interpretation of these meta-theoretical issues, and a meaningful development of a cultural tradition that re-emerged in the second half of the twentieth century. (shrink)

A pergunta, “Tudo é número?” no título do famoso artigo de 1989 de Zhmud, deixa aberto um desafio para o extremamente importante testemunho aristotélico de que “tudo é número” era a definição fundamental da filosofia pitagórica. Tal desafio não é nada simples, especialmente quando se considera que, até então, as histórias tanto da filosofia quanto da matemática antiga parecem não ter dúvidas de que esta afirmação é correta. Este artigo pretende submeter à avaliação crítica a alegação de Aristóteles de que (...) os pitagóricos acreditavam que “tudo é número”. Nossa análise dos muitos modos nos quais Aristóteles enuncia a tese de que “tudo é número” revelará, para além de variações meramente semânticas, uma contradição teórica fundamental que o próprio Aristóteles parece incapaz de resolver. De fato, três versões diferentes da doutrina estão presentes na doxografia aristotélica: uma identificação dos números com objetos sensíveis; uma identificação dos princípios dos números com os princípios das coisas que existem; uma imitação dos objetos pelos números. Enquanto as versões e parecem identificar, em termos que lembram Platão, os números com a causa material da realidade, a versão, a saber, números como causas formais da realidade, é uma reconstrução aristotélica da teoria pitagórica. Aristóteles teria sido levado a tal reconstrução pela dificuldade que encontrou para aceitar a noção pitagórica material de número, e por considerá-la, para seu gosto, fortemente marcada pela recepção da mesma teoria no ambiente da Academia. (shrink)