This article offers an analysis of the cognitive role of diagrammatic movements in the theater. Based on the recognition of a theatrical work’s inherent ability to provide new insights concerning reality, the article concentrates on the way by which actors’ movements on stage create spatial diagrams that can provide new insights into the spectators’ world. The suggested model of theater’s epistemology results from a combination of Charles S. Peirce’s doctrine of diagrammatic reasoning and David Lewis’s theoretical account of the (...) truth value of counterfactual conditionals. I argue that in several theatrical works – in particular those whose central image is dominated by movements – the relation of what Lewis names “comparative overall similarity” between the fictional and the actual world is based on diagrammatic homology. The cognitive process involved in deciphering them is, hence, based on diagrammatic reasoning. The main emphasis of the analysis is on the previously unnoticed but important cognitive role of observation in the theater: the idea that observation takes an active role in the reasoning process that enables the spectators to form new knowledge about their actual world. Samuel Beckett’s plays Quad and Come and Go serve here as case studies. (shrink)

This chapter provides a survey of issues about diagrams in traditional geometrical reasoning. After briefly refuting several common philosophical objections, and giving a sketch of diagram-based reasoning practice in Euclidean plane geometry, discussion focuses first on problems of diagram sensitivity, and then on the relationship between uniform treatment and geometrical generality. Here, one finds a balance between representationally enforced unresponsiveness (to differences among diagrams) and the intellectual agent's contribution to such unresponsiveness that is somewhat different from what one (...) has come to expect in modern logic. Finally, challenges and opportunities for further work are indicated. (shrink)

Topological relations such as inside, outside, or intersection are ubiquitous to our spatial thinking. Here, we examined how people reason deductively with topological relations between points, lines, and circles in geometric diagrams. We hypothesized in particular that a counterexample search generally underlies this type of reasoning. We first verified that educated adults without specific math training were able to produce correct diagrammatic representations contained in the premisses of an inference. Our first experiment then revealed that subjects who correctly (...) judged an inference as invalid almost always produced a counterexample to support their answer. Noticeably, even if the counterexample always bore a certain level of similarity to the initial diagram, we observed that an object was more likely to be varied between the two drawings if it was present in the conclusion of the inference. Experiments 2 and 3 then directly probed counterexample search. While participants were asked to evaluate a conclusion on the basis of a given diagram and some premisses, we modulated the difficulty of reaching a counterexample from the diagram. Our results indicate that both decreasing the counterexample density and increasing the counterexample distance impaired reasoning performance. Taken together, our results suggest that a search procedure for counterexamples, which proceeds object‐wise, could underlie diagram‐based geometric reasoning. Transposing points, lines, and circles to our spatial environment, the present study may ultimately provide insights on how humans reason about topological relations between positions, paths, and regions. (shrink)

Modern formal accounts of the constructive nature of elementary geometry do not aim to capture the intuitive or concrete character of geometrical construction. In line with the general abstract approach of modern axiomatics, nothing is presumed of the objects that a geometric construction produces. This study explores the possibility of a formal account of geometric construction where the basic geometric objects are understood from the outset to possess certain spatial properties. The discussion is centered around Eu , (...) a recently developed formal system of proof (presented in Mumma (Synthese 175:255–287, 2010 )) within which Euclid’s diagrammatic proofs can be represented. (shrink)

© 2018, Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature. Aristotelian diagrams are used extensively in contemporary research in artificial intelligence. The present paper investigates the geometric and cognitive differences between two types of Aristotelian diagrams for the Boolean algebra B4. Within the class of 3D visualizations, the main geometric distinction is that between the cube-based diagrams and the tetrahedron-based diagrams. Geometric properties such as collinearity, central symmetry and distance are examined from a (...) cognitive perspective, focusing on diagram design principles such as congruence/isomorphism and apprehension. The cognitive effectiveness of the different visualizations is compared for the representation of implication versus opposition relations, and for subdiagram embeddings. (shrink)

We argue against the claim that the employment of diagrams in Euclidean geometry gives rise to gaps in the proofs. First, we argue that it is a mistake to evaluate its merits through the lenses of Hilbert’s formal reconstruction. Second, we elucidate the abilities employed in diagram-based inferences in the Elements and show that diagrams are mathematically reputable tools. Finally, we complement our analysis with a review of recent experimental results purporting to show that, not only is the (...) Euclidean diagram-based practice strictly regimented, it is rooted in cognitive abilities that are universally shared. (shrink)

© 2017 by the authors. Aristotelian diagrams visualize the logical relations among a finite set of objects. These diagrams originated in philosophy, but recently, they have also been used extensively in artificial intelligence, in order to study various knowledge representation formalisms. In this paper, we develop the idea that Aristotelian diagrams can be fruitfully studied as geometrical entities. In particular, we focus on four polyhedral Aristotelian diagrams for the Boolean algebra B4, viz. the rhombic dodecahedron, the (...) tetrakis hexahedron, the tetraicosahedron and the nested tetrahedron. After an in-depth investigation of the geometrical properties and interrelationships of these polyhedral diagrams, we analyze the correlation between logical and geometrical distance in each of these diagrams. The outcome of this analysis is that the Aristotelian rhombic dodecahedron and tetrakis hexahedron exhibit the strongest degree of correlation between logical and geometrical distance; the tetraicosahedron performs worse; and the nested tetrahedron has the lowest degree of correlation. Finally, these results are used to shed new light on the relative strengths and weaknesses of these polyhedral Aristotelian diagrams, by appealing to the congruence principle from cognitive research on diagram design. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore general features of the “architecture” (relations of white space, diagram, and text on the page) of medieval manuscripts and early printed editions of Euclidean geometry. My focus is primarily on diagrams in the Arabic transmission, although I use some examples from both Byzantine Greek and medieval Latin manuscripts as a foil to throw light on distinctive features of the Arabic transmission. My investigations suggest that the “architecture” often takes shape against the backdrop of an (...) educational landscape. The constraints of the economic marketplace and cultural aesthetic ideals also appear to play a role in determining the “architecture” of both manuscripts and early printed editions. (shrink)

Diagrams have played an important role throughout the entire history of differential equations. Geometrical intuition, visual thinking, experimentation on diagrams, conceptions of algorithms and instruments to construct these diagrams, heuristic proofs based on diagrams, have interacted with the development of analytical abstract theories. We aim to analyze these interactions during the two centuries the classical theory of differential equations was developed. They are intimately connected to the difficulties faced in defining what the solution of a differential (...) equation is and in describing the global behavior of such a solution. (shrink)

This article analyzes Galileo's mathematization of motion, focusing in particular on his use of geometrical diagrams. It argues that Galileo regarded his diagrams of acceleration not just as a complement to his mathematical demonstrations, but as a powerful heuristic tool. Galileo probably abandoned the wrong assumption of the proportionality between the degree of velocity and the space traversed in accelerated motion when he realized that it was impossible, on the basis of that hypothesis, to build a diagram of (...) the law of fall. The article also shows how Galileo's discussion of the paradoxes of infinity in the First Day of the Two New Sciences is meant to provide a visual solution to problems linked to the theory of acceleration presented in Day Three of the work. Finally, it explores the reasons why Cavalieri and Gassendi, although endorsing Galileo's law of free fall, replaced Galileo's diagrams of acceleration with alternative ones. (shrink)

From the mid-1600s to the beginning of the eighteenth century, there were two main circles of German scholars which focused extensively on diagrammatic reasoning and representation in logic. The first circle was formed around Erhard Weigel in Jena and consists primarily of Johann Christoph Sturm and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; the second circle developed around Christian Weise in Zittau, with the support of his students, particularly Samuel Grosser and Johann Christian Lange. Each of these scholars developed an original form of using (...) geometric diagrams in logic. In this paper, I will trace the historical notes of John Venn and other modern logicians back to the original works published in the Weigel and Weise circles and describe the development of using geometric figures for logical reasoning and representation in that period of time. (shrink)

Although traditionally neglected, mathematical diagrams have recently begun to attract attention from philosophers of mathematics. By now, the literature includes several case studies investigating the role of diagrams both in discovery and justification. Certain preliminary questions have, however, been mostly bypassed. What are diagrams exactly? Are there different types of diagrams? In the scholarly literature, the term “mathematical diagram” is used in diverse ways. I propose a working definition that carves out the phenomena that are of (...) most importance for a taxonomy of diagrams in the context of a practice-based philosophy of mathematics, privileging examples from contemporary mathematics. In doing so, I move away from vague, ordinary notions. I define mathematical diagrams as forming notational systems and as being geometric/topological representations or two-dimensional representations. I also examine the relationship between mathematical diagrams and spatiotemporal intuition. By proposing an explication of diagrams, I explain certain controversies in the existing literature. Moreover, I shed light on why mathematical diagrams are so effective in certain instances, and, at other times, dangerously misleading. (shrink)

Not simply set out in accompaniment of the Greek geometrical text, the diagram also is coaxed into existence manually (using straightedge and compasses) by commands in the text. The marks that a diligent reader thus sequentially produces typically sum, however, to a figure more complex than the provided one and also not (as it is) artful for being synoptically instructive. To provide a figure artfully is to balance multiple desiderata, interlocking the timelessness of insight with the temporality of construction. Our (...) account of the diagram complements those of Manders and Macbeth by more strongly emphasizing practical synthesis. (shrink)

This paper discusses four diagrams in the Archimedes Palimpsest, a manuscript that provides among other texts the only extant witness to Archimedes’ Method. My study of the two diagrams for Method 12 aims to open up discussions about the following two questions. First, I want to question the assumed relationship between diagram and geometric configuration. Rather than a representation-represented relation, I argue that the two diagrams for Method 12 have a stronger independence from the geometric (...) configuration they are related to. Their connection with the theorem rather lies in their role in shaping the way in which the proof is written. Secondly, I want to examine the connection between geometric intuition and figure. Geometric intuition is the recognition of certain properties or relations in a geometric configuration not through deduction and is held to be parallel to, if not dependent on, the empirical observation of a physical figure. Method 12 provides a curious case where an intuitive fact is not only unrepresented, but even hindered by the diagrams, and the proof assumes that the reader has come to realise that fact, which is most easily achieved when the diagrams are ignored. (shrink)

The “origins” of (geometric) space is examined from the perspective of the so-called “conceptual space” or “semantic space”. Semantic space is characterized by its fundamental “locality” that generates an “implicit” mode of geometrizing. This view is examined from within three perspectives. First, the role that various diagrammatic entities play in the everyday life and pragmatic activities of selected ethnic groups is illustrated. Secondly, it is shown how conceptual spaces are fundamentally linked to the meaning effects of particular natural languages (...) and these are very different from the global and universal aspects of Euclidean spaces. Thirdly, it is contended that these modes of creating body and culture-based spatial frameworks and related cosmogonies and cosmologies can be described as forms of “latent geometry” that initially appear unexplainable in any rational way. Nonetheless, and thanks to the deep mathematical reflections provided by René Thom, it is illustrated how the various ways of generating space can be further analyzed as distortions of mainstream spatialization furnished by Euclidean geometry that established the dominant universality of the ideas of space (and time). (shrink)

In early modernity, one can find many spatial logic diagrams whose geometric forms share a family resemblance with religious art and symbols. The family resemblance these diagrams bear in form is often based on a vesica piscis or on a cross: Both logic diagrams and spiritual symbols focus on the intersection or conjunction of two or more entities, e.g. subject and predicate, on the one hand, or god and man, on the other. This paper deals with (...) the development and function of logic diagrams, their analogy to religious art and symbols, and their modern application in artificial intelligence. (shrink)

This chapter gives a detailed study of diagram-based reasoning in Euclidean plane geometry (Books I, III), as well as an exploration how to characterise a geometric practice. First, an account is given of diagram attribution: basic geometrical claims are classified as exact (equalities, proportionalities) or co-exact (containments, contiguities); exact claims may only be inferred from prior entries in the demonstration text, but co-exact claims may be asserted based on what is seen in the diagram. Diagram control by constructions is (...) necessary for this to work. Case-branching occurs when a construction renders a diagram un-representative. The roles of diagrams in reductio arguments, and of objection in probing a demonstration, are discussed. (shrink)

Proposition I.1 is, by far, the most popular example used to justify the thesis that many of Euclid’s geometric arguments are diagram-based. Many scholars have recently articulated this thesis in different ways and argued for it. My purpose is to reformulate it in a quite general way, by describing what I take to be the twofold role that diagrams play in Euclid’s plane geometry (EPG). Euclid’s arguments are object-dependent. They are about geometric objects. Hence, they cannot be (...) diagram-based unless diagrams are supposed to have an appropriate relation with these objects. I take this relation to be a quite peculiar sort of representation. Its peculiarity depends on the two following claims that I shall argue for: ( i ) The identity conditions of EPG objects are provided by the identity conditions of the diagrams that represent them; ( ii ) EPG objects inherit some properties and relations from these diagrams. (shrink)

Recent accounts of the role of diagrams in mathematical reasoning take a Platonic line, according to which the proof depends on the similarity between the perceived shape of the diagram and the shape of the abstract object. This approach is unable to explain proofs which share the same diagram in spite of drawing conclusions about different figures. Saccheri’s use of the bi-rectangular isosceles quadrilateral in Euclides Vindicatus provides three such proofs. By forsaking abstract objects it is possible to give (...) a natural explanation of Saccheri’s proofs as well as standard geometric proofs and even number-theoretic proofs. (shrink)

In this paper we would like to attempt to shed some light on the way in which diagrams enter into the practice of ancient Greek geometrical analysis. To this end, we will first distinguish two main forms of this practice, i.e., trans-configurational and intra-configurational. We will then argue that, while in the former diagrams enter in the proof essentially in the same way they enter in canonical synthetic demonstrations, in the latter, they take part in the analytic argument (...) in a specific way, which has no correlation in other aspects of classical geometry. In intra-configurational analysis, diagrams represent in fact the result of a purely material gesture, which is not codified by any construction canon, but permitted only by the practice of the method of analysis and synthesis. (shrink)

In this paper, we will make explicit the relationship that exists between geometric objects and geometric figures in planar Euclidean geometry. That will enable us to determine basic features regarding the role of geometric figures and diagrams when used in the context of pure and applied planar Euclidean geometry, arising due to this relationship. By taking into account pure geometry, as developed in Euclid’s Elements, and practical geometry, we will establish a relation between geometric objects (...) and figures. Geometric objects are defined in terms of idealizations of the corresponding figures of practical geometry. We name the relationship between them as a relation of idealization. This relation, existing between objects and figures, is what enables figures to have a role in pure and applied geometry. That is, we can use a figure or diagram as a representation of geometric objects or composite geometric objects because the relation of idealization corresponds to a resemblance-like relationship between objects and figures. Moving beyond pure geometry, we will defend that there are two other ‘layers’ of representation at play in applied geometry. To show that, we will consider Euclid’s Optics. (shrink)

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016. We develop a systematic approach for dealing with informationally equivalent Aristotelian diagrams, based on the interaction between the logical properties of the visualized information and the geometrical properties of the concrete polygon/polyhedron. To illustrate the account’s fruitfulness, we apply it to all Aristotelian families of 4-formula fragments that are closed under negation and to all Aristotelian families of 6-formula fragments that are closed under negation.

The discussion of mathematical knowledge and its relation to the construction of an appropriate diagram in Aristotle's Metaphysics Θ 9. 1051 a21—33 is an important, if compressed, account of Aristotle's most mature thoughts on mathematical knowledge. The discussion of what sort of previous knowledge one must have for understanding a theorem recalls the discussion at An. Post. A 1. 71 a 17–21, where the epistemological point is similar and the examples the same. The first example, that the interior angles of (...) a triangle equal two right angles, appears no less than thirty times in the corpus . The example of the angle inscribed in a semicircle being a right angle also occurs at An. Post. B 11. 94a 27–34, but in a very different context from its two companions. Illustrations of both theorems provided clear stock examples for Aristotle. (shrink)

In this paper, we focus on the development of geometric cognition. We argue that to understand how geometric cognition has been constituted, one must appreciate not only individual cognitive factors, such as phylogenetically ancient and ontogenetically early core cognitive systems, but also the social history of the spread and use of cognitive artifacts. In particular, we show that the development of Greek mathematics, enshrined in Euclid’s Elements, was driven by the use of two tightly intertwined cognitive artifacts: the (...) use of lettered diagrams; and the creation of linguistic formulae. Together, these artifacts formed the professional language of geometry. In this respect, the case of Greek geometry clearly shows that explanations of geometric reasoning have to go beyond the confines of methodological individualism to account for how the distributed practice of artifact use has stabilized over time. This practice, as we suggest, has also contributed heavily to the understanding of what mathematical proof is; classically, it has been assumed that proofs are not merely deductively correct but also remain invariant over various individuals sharing the same cognitive practice. Cognitive artifacts in Greek geometry constrained the repertoire of admissible inferential operations, which made these proofs inter-subjectively testable and compelling. By focusing on the cognitive operations on artifacts, we also stress that mental mechanisms that contribute to these operations are still poorly understood, in contrast to those mechanisms which drive symbolic logical inference. (shrink)

The cognitive foundations of geometry have puzzled academics for a long time, and even today are mostly unknown to many scholars, including mathematical cognition researchers. -/- Foundations of Geometric Cognition shows that basic geometric skills are deeply hardwired in the visuospatial cognitive capacities of our brains, namely spatial navigation and object recognition. These capacities, shared with non-human animals and appearing in early stages of the human ontogeny, cannot, however, fully explain a uniquely human form of geometric cognition. (...) In the book, Hohol argues that Euclidean geometry would not be possible without the human capacity to create and use abstract concepts, demonstrating how language and diagrams provide cognitive scaffolding for abstract geometric thinking, within a context of a Euclidean system of thought. -/- Taking an interdisciplinary approach and drawing on research from diverse fields including psychology, cognitive science, and mathematics, this book is a must-read for cognitive psychologists and cognitive scientists of mathematics, alongside anyone interested in mathematical education or the philosophical and historical aspects of geometry. (shrink)

This paper is a contribution to our understanding of the constructive nature of Greek geometry. By studying the role of constructive processes in Theodoius’s Spherics, we uncover a difference in the function of constructions and problems in the deductive framework of Greek mathematics. In particular, we show that geometric problems originated in the practical issues involved in actually making diagrams, whereas constructions are abstractions of these processes that are used to introduce objects not given at the outset, so (...) that their properties can be used in the argument. We conclude by discussing, more generally, ancient Greek interests in the practical methods of producing diagrams. (shrink)

The article examines the relevance of Aristotle’s analysis that concerns the syllogistic figures. On the assumption that Aristotle’s analytics was inspired by the method of geometric analysis, we show how Aristotle used the three terms, when he formulated the three syllogistic figures. So far it has not been appropriately recognized that the three terms — the major, the middle and the minor one — were viewed by Aristotle syntactically and predicatively in the form of diagrams. Many scholars have (...) misunderstood Aristotle in that in the second and third figure the middle term is outside and that in the second figure the major term is next to the middle one, whereas in the third figure it is further from it. By means of diagrams, we have elucidated how this perfectly accords with Aristotle's planar and graphic arrangement. In the light of these diagrams, one can appropriately capture the definition of syllogism as a predicative set of terms. Irrespective of the tricky question concerning the abbreviations that Aristotle himself used with reference to these types of predication, the reconstructed figures allow us better to comprehend the reductions of syllogism to the first figure. We assume that the figures of syllogism are analogous to the figures of categorical predication, i.e., they are specific syntactic and semantic models. Aristotle demanded certain logical and methodological competence within analytics, which reflects his great commitment and contribution to the field. (shrink)

Greek ancient and early modern geometry necessarily uses diagrams. Among other things, these enter geometrical analysis. The paper distinguishes two sorts of geometrical analysis and shows that in one of them, dubbed “intra-confgurational” analysis, some diagrams necessarily enter as outcomes of a purely material gesture, namely not as result of a codifed constructive procedure, but as result of a free-hand drawing.

It is commonplace to view the rigor of the mathematics in Euclid's Elements in the way an experienced teacher views the work of an earnest beginner: respectable relative to an early stage of development, but ultimately flawed. Given the close connection in content between Euclid's Elements and high-school geometry classes, this is understandable. Euclid, it seems, never realized what everyone who moves beyond elementary geometry into more advanced mathematics is now customarily taught: a fully rigorous proof cannot rely on (...) class='Hi'>geometric intuition. In his arguments he seems to call illicitly upon our understanding of how objects like triangles and circles behave rather than grounding everything rigorously in axioms.Though widespread, the attitude is in a historical sense puzzling. For over two millenia, mathematicians of all levels studied the arguments in Elements and found nothing substantial missing. The book, on the contrary, represented the limit of mathematical explicitness. It served as the paradigm for careful and exact reasoning. How it could enjoy this reputation for so long is mysterious if careful and exact reasoning demands that all inferences be grounded in a modern axiomatic theory in the way Hilbert did in his famous Foundations of Geometry. By these standards, Euclid's work is deeply flawed. The holes in his arguments are not minor and excusable, but massive and cryptic.With his book Euclid and His Twentieth Century Rivals, Nathaniel Miller makes substantial progress in clearing this mystery up. The book is an explication of FG , a formal system of proof developed by Miller which reconstructs Euclid's deductions as essentially diagrammatic. The holes in Euclid's arguments are taken to appear precisely at those steps which are unintelligible without an accompanying geometric diagram. Interpreting the reasoning in the Elements in terms of a modern axiomatization , …. (shrink)

SummaryIn 1693, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz published in the Acta Eruditorum a geometrical proof of the fundamental theorem of the calculus. It is shown that this proof closely resembles Isaac Barrow's proof in Proposition 11, Lecture 10, of his Lectiones Geometricae, published in 1670. This comparison provides evidence that Leibniz gained substantial help from Barrow's book in formulating and presenting his geometrical formulation of this theorem. The analysis herein also supports the work of J. M. Child, who in 1920 studied the (...) early manuscripts of Leibniz and concluded that he had frequently copied his diagrams from Barrow's book, but without acknowledgement. It is also shown that the diagram of Leibniz associated with his 1693 proof has often been reproduced with errors that make some aspects of his text difficult to comprehend. (shrink)

Spherical geometry studies the sphere not simply as a solid object in itself, but chiefly as the spatial context of the elements which interact on it in a complex three-dimensional arrangement. This compels to establish graphical conventions appropriate for rendering on the same plane—the plane of the diagram itself—the spatial arrangement of the objects under consideration. We will investigate such “graphical choices” made in the Theodosius’ Spherics from antiquity to the Renaissance. Rather than undertaking a minute analysis of every particular (...) element or single variant, we will try to uncover the more general message each author attempted to convey through his particular graphical choices. From this analysis, it emerges that the different kinds of representation are not the result of merely formal requirements but mirror substantial geometrical requirements expressing different ways of interpreting the sphere and testify to different ways of reasoning about the elements that interact on it. (shrink)

The cognitive processing of spatial relations in Euclidean diagrams is central to the diagram-based geometric practice of Euclid's Elements. In this study, we investigate this processing through two dichotomies among spatial relations—metric vs topological and exact vs co-exact—introduced by Manders in his seminal epistemological analysis of Euclid's geometric practice. To this end, we carried out a two-part experiment where participants were asked to judge spatial relations in Euclidean diagrams in a visual half field task design. In (...) the first part, we tested whether the processing of metric vs topological relations yielded the same hemispheric specialization as the processing of coordinate vs categorical relations. In the second part, we investigated the specific performance patterns for the processing of five pairs of exact/co-exact relations, where stimuli for the co-exact relations were divided into three categories depending on their distance from the exact case. Regarding the processing of metric vs topological relations, hemispheric differences were found for only a few of the stimuli used, which may indicate that other processing mechanisms might be at play. Regarding the processing of exact vs co-exact relations, results show that the level of agreement among participants in judging co-exact relations decreases with the distance from the exact case, and this for the five pairs of exact/co-exact relations tested. The philosophical implications of these empirical findings for the epistemological analysis of Euclid's diagram-based geometric practice are spelled out and discussed. (shrink)

Students of geometry do not prove Euclid's first theorem by examining an accompanying diagram, or by visualizing the construction of a figure. The original proof of Euclid's first theorem is incomplete, and this gap in logic is undetected by visual imagination. While cognition involves truth values, vision does not: the notions of inference and proof are foreign to vision.

This paper investigates the following question: when can one reliably infer the existence of an intersection point from a diagram presenting crossing curves or lines? Two cases are considered, one from Euclid's geometry and the other from basic real analysis. I argue for the acceptability of such an inference in the geometric case but against in the analytic case. Though this question is somewhat specific, the investigation is intended to contribute to the more general question of the extent and (...) limits of reliable diagrammatic reasoning in mathematics. (shrink)

While claiming that diagrams can only be admitted as a method of strict proof if the underlying axioms are precisely known and explicitly spelled out, Hilbert praised Minkowski’s Geometry of Numbers and his diagram-based reasoning as a specimen of an arithmetical theory operating “rigorously” with geometrical concepts and signs. In this connection, in the first phase of his foundational views on the axiomatic method, Hilbert also held that diagrams are to be thought of as “drawn formulas”, and formulas (...) as “written diagrams”, thus suggesting that the former encapsulate propositional information which can be extracted and translated into formulas. In the case of Minkowski diagrams, local geometrical axioms were actually being produced, starting with the diagrams, by a process that was both constrained and fostered by the requirement, brought about by the axiomatic method itself, that geometry ought to be made independent of analysis. This paper aims at making a twofold point. On the one hand, it shows that Minkowski’s diagrammatic methods in number theory prompted Hilbert’s axiomatic investigations into the notion of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points, which start from his earlier work focused on the role of the triangle inequality property in the foundations of geometry, and lead up to his formulation of the 1900 Fourth Problem. On the other hand, it purports to make clear how Hilbert’s assessment of Minkowski’s diagram-based reasoning in number theory both raises and illuminates conceptual compatibility concerns that were crucial to his philosophy of mathematics. (shrink)

Every linear perspective image has a center of the perspective construction. Only when observed from that location does a 2D image provide the same stimulus as the original 3D scene. Geometric analyses indicate that observing the image from other vantage points should affect the perceived spatial structure of the scene conveyed by the image, involving transformations such as shear, compression, and dilation. Based on previous research, this paper presents a detailed account of these transformations. The analyses are presented in (...) a uniform manner, illustrated with special 3D diagrams, and embedded in a wider framework of related perspective paradigms. Such analyses provide the potential theoretical basis for empirical work on the effects of changes of observer vantage points on the perception of spatial structure in perspective images. (shrink)

When the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski first introduced the space-time diagrams that came to be associated with his name, the idea of picturing motion by geometric means, holding time as a fourth dimension of space, was hardly new. But the pictorial device invented by Minkowski was tailor-made for a peculiar variety of space-time: the one imposed by the kinematics of Einstein’s special theory of relativity, with its unified, non-Euclidean underlying geometric structure. By plo tting two or more (...) reference frames in relative motion on the same picture, Minkowski managed to exhibit the geometric basis of such relativistic phenomena as time dilation, length contraction or the dislocation of simultaneity. These disconcerting effects were shown to result from arbitrary projections within four-dimensional space-time. In that respect, Minkowski diagrams are fundamentally different from ordinary space-time graphs. The best way to understand their specificity is to realize how productively ambiguous they are. (shrink)

In Posterior Analytics 1.13, Aristotle introduced a distinction between two kinds of demonstrations: of the fact (quia), and of the reasoned fact (propter quid). Both demonstrations take a syllogistic form, in which the middle term links either two facts (in the case of quia demonstrations) or a proximate cause and a fact (in the case of propter quid demonstrations). While Aristotle stated that all the terms of one demonstration must be taken from within the same subject matter, he admitted some (...) exceptions in which the fact and the reasoned fact are instantiated by terms from different sciences, as when mathematics provides the reason and another science the empirical fact. This was the methodological foundation of the “mixed sciences”, a subject of varying interpretations in the thirteenth century. Roger Bacon (C. 1220–1292), adhering to Robert Grosseteste’s (C. 1168–1563) commentary on Posterior Analytics, presented a unique interpretation of this exception. He replaced propositional demonstrations with geometrical considerations and diagrams, thus producing geometrical arguments for theorems in natural philosophy. I focus on Bacon’s propter quid arguments, as applied in three case studies: (1) the heat caused by a body moving to its natural place; (2) the motion of the scale; (3) and the contraction of water. Based on an analysis of these demonstrations, I argue that Bacon’s interpretation of propter quid demonstration reflects his application of a scientific methodology that imbues geometrical objects with causal power over material bodies. (shrink)

Charlotte Angas Scott (1858–1932) was an internationally renowned geometer, the first British woman to earn a doctorate in mathematics, and the chair of the Bryn Mawr mathematics department for forty years. There she helped shape the burgeoning mathematics community in the United States. Scott often motivated her research as providing a “geometric treatment” of results that had previously been derived algebraically. The adjective “geometric” likely entailed many things for Scott, from her careful illustration of diagrams to her (...) choice of references and citations. This article will focus on Scott’s striking and consistent use of geometric to describe a reality of dynamic points, lines, planes, and spaces that could be manipulated analogously to physical objects. By providing geometric interpretations of algebraic derivations, Scott committed to an early-nineteenth-century aesthetic vision of a “whole” analytical geometry that she adapted to modern research areas. (shrink)

Aristotle’s way of conceiving the relationship between mathematics and other branches of scientific knowledge is completely different from the way a contemporary scientist conceives it. This is one of the causes of the fact that we look at the mathematical passage we find in Aristotle’s works with the wrong expectation. We expect to find more or less stringent proofs, while for the most part Aristotle employs mere analogies. Indeed, this is the primary function of mathematics when employed in a philosophical (...) context: not a demonstrative tool, but a purely analogical model. In the case of the geometrical examples discussed in this paper, the diagrams are not conceived as part of a formalized proof, but as a work in progress. Aristotle is not interested in the final diagram but in the construction viewed in its process of development; namely in the figure a geometer draws, and gradually modifies, when he tries to solve a problem. The way in which the geometer makes use of the elements of his diagram, and the relation between these elements and his inner state of knowledge is the real feature which interests Aristotle. His goal is to use analogy in order to give the reader an idea of the states of mind involved in a more general process of knowing. (shrink)

ArgumentThe study of algebra in China has often focused on the algebraic “procedure of the Celestial Source.” Its geometrical ancestors are less known. TheYigu yanduan, authored by Li Ye (1192-1279), presents the procedure alongside its two geometrical counterparts, the “Section of Pieces [of Areas]” and the “Old Procedure.” The three procedures are known to represent three generations of algorithms used to set up quadratic equations. A similar geometrical procedure appears in a treatise written by Yang Hui (second half of thirteenth (...) century). Although the procedures look alike at first glance, the two treatises reveal different moments in their work on the relation between counting materials and geometrical representation. This study challenges their chronology trying to identify the meander of the geometrical roots of the Celestial Source. The construction of negative coefficients plays a pivotal role in this mutation and shows several layers of composition. (shrink)

Con la ayuda de un diagrama y aplicando la formula del agrimensor, los matemáticos de la Antigua Babilonia descubrieron un método sencillo y elegante de bisecar figuras trapezoidales. En este trabajo intentaremos demostrar, únicamente como conjetura, que en el “Problema de los Seis hermanos” - Tablilla AO 17264 - se pudo haber manejado este mismo procedimiento, aunque ampliado y generalizado.The Mathematicians of the Old Babylonian Period, with the aid of a diagram and applying the surveyor formula, discovered a simple and (...) smart method to bisect trapezoidal figures. In this paper, we will try to demonstrate, only as a conjecture, that in the Problem of Six Brothers, Tablet AO 17264, it could be used the same procedure, although extended and generalized. (shrink)

Con la ayuda de un diagrama y aplicando la formula del agrimensor, los matemáticos de la Antigua Babilonia descubrieron un método sencillo y elegante de bisecar figuras trapezoidales. En este trabajo intentaremos demostrar, únicamente como conjetura, que en el “Problema de los Seis hermanos” - Tablilla AO 17264 - se pudo haber manejado este mismo procedimiento, aunque ampliado y generalizado.The Mathematicians of the Old Babylonian Period, with the aid of a diagram and applying the surveyor formula, discovered a simple and (...) smart method to bisect trapezoidal figures. In this paper, we will try to demonstrate, only as a conjecture, that in the Problem of Six Brothers, Tablet AO 17264, it could be used the same procedure, although extended and generalized. (shrink)