(Translation of Frege's Grundgesetze II, §§ 86-137).

First published in 1908 as the second edition of a 1900 original, this book explains the content of the fifth and sixth books of Euclid's Elements, which are primarily concerned with ratio and magnitudes. Hill furnishes the text with copious diagrams to illustrate key points of Euclidian reasoning. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in the history of education.

Plato believed that behind everything in the universe lie mathematical principles. Plato was inspired by Pythagoras (571 BCE), who developed a school of mathematics at Crotona that studied sacred geometry as a form of religion. The school’s motto was “God is number,” or “All is Number”. Pythagoras believed that numbers represented God in pattern, symmetry, and infinity. When one of its students, Hippasus told the world the secret of the existence of irrational numbers, Greek geometry was born (...) and Pythagoras’ idea of divinity in numbers died because how could God not be perfect and symmetrical? In Plato’s Republic he discusses something called The Divided Line, which is a map, of sorts, for reaching what he calls the highest Good, which is the ultimate truth where one realizes the true state of the universe and can see the world for what it really is. Many mathematicians have attempted to plot Plato’s Divided Line only to come across a litany of problems and conundrums. Some have said that it the Divided Line cannot be plotted and is merely an allegory not meant to be plotted. This paper discusses some of the conundrums preventing the plotting of Plato’s Divided Line (not an exhaustive list), including Whole ‘vs’ Separate, Equality ‘vs’ Ontological Dissimilarity, Linear ‘vs’ Non-linear, and Infinity ‘vs’ Finite. This paper also explores a new understanding of the Allegory of the Cave in light of ‘the problem of the irrational.’ In exploring the link between the Divided Line and the ‘the problem of the irrational,’ I was able to plot it. It was found that the Divided Line is not a line in the linear sense, but a spiral, the Golden Ratio! This paper is an example of a new category of scholarly inquiry I call “Math Theory” based on scholarly mathematical axioms in theory, rather than including actual maths. In my papers I use existing mathematical equations and place them in an encompassing theory, rather than finding new formulae to fit an existing theory. Keywords: Pythagoras, divided line, math theory, highest good, all is number. (shrink)

In his early philosophy as well as in his middle period, Wittgenstein holds a purely syntactic view of logic and mathematics. However, his syntactic foundation of logic and mathematics is opposed to the axiomatic approach of modern mathematical logic. The object of Wittgenstein’s approach is not the representation of mathematical properties within a logical axiomatic system, but their representation by a symbolism that identifies the properties in question by its syntactic features. It rests on his distinction of descriptions and operations; (...) its aim is to reduce mathematics to operations. This paper illustrates Wittgenstein’s approach by examining his discussion of irrational numbers. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Because the modern concept of number emerged within a quadrivium that included music alongside arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, musical considerations affected mathematical developments. Michael Stifel embedded the then‐paradoxical term “irrational numbers” (numerici irrationales) in a musical context (1544), though his philosophical aversion to the “cloud of infinity” surrounding such numbers finally outweighed his musical arguments in their favor. Girolamo Cardano gave the same status to irrational and rational quantities in his algebra (1545), for which his contemporaneous (...) work on music suggested parallels and empirical examples. Nicola Vicentino's attempt to revive ancient “enharmonic” music (1555) required and hence defended the use of “irrational proportions” (proportiones inrationales) as if they were numbers. These developments emerged in richly interactive social and cultural milieus whose participants interwove musical and mathematical interests so closely that their intense controversies about ancient Greek music had repercussions for mathematics as well. The musical interests of Stifel, Cardano, and Vicentino influenced their respective treatments of “irrational numbers.” Practical as well as theoretical music both invited and opened the way for the recognition of a radically new concept of number, even in the teeth of paradox. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Because the modern concept of number emerged within a quadrivium that included music alongside arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, musical considerations affected mathematical developments. Michael Stifel embedded the then‐paradoxical term “irrational numbers” (numerici irrationales) in a musical context (1544), though his philosophical aversion to the “cloud of infinity” surrounding such numbers finally outweighed his musical arguments in their favor. Girolamo Cardano gave the same status to irrational and rational quantities in his algebra (1545), for which his contemporaneous (...) work on music suggested parallels and empirical examples. Nicola Vicentino's attempt to revive ancient “enharmonic” music (1555) required and hence defended the use of “irrational proportions” (proportiones inrationales) as if they were numbers. These developments emerged in richly interactive social and cultural milieus whose participants interwove musical and mathematical interests so closely that their intense controversies about ancient Greek music had repercussions for mathematics as well. The musical interests of Stifel, Cardano, and Vicentino influenced their respective treatments of “irrational numbers.” Practical as well as theoretical music both invited and opened the way for the recognition of a radically new concept of number, even in the teeth of paradox. (shrink)

A moderately risk averse person may turn down a 50/50 gamble that either results in her winning $200 or losing $100. Such behaviour seems rational if, for instance, the pain of losing $100 is felt more strongly than the joy of winning $200. The aim of this paper is to examine an influential argument that some have interpreted as showing that such moderate risk aversion is irrational. After presenting an axiomatic argument that I take to be the strongest case (...) for the claim that moderate risk aversion is irrational, I show that it essentially depends on an assumption that those who think that risk aversion can be rational should be skeptical of. Hence, I conclude that risk aversion need not be irrational. (shrink)

On a now orthodox view, humans and many other animals possess a “number sense,” or approximate number system, that represents number. Recently, this orthodox view has been subject to numerous critiques that question whether the ANS genuinely represents number. We distinguish three lines of critique – the arguments from congruency, confounds, and imprecision – and show that none succeed. We then provide positive reasons to think that the ANS genuinely represents numbers, and not just non-numerical confounds (...) or exotic substitutes for number, such as “numerosities” or “quanticals,” as critics propose. In so doing, we raise a neglected question: numbers of what kind? Proponents of the orthodox view have been remarkably coy on this issue. But this is unsatisfactory since the predictions of the orthodox view, including the situations in which the ANS is expected to succeed or fail, turn on the kind of number being represented. In response, we propose that the ANS represents not only natural numbers, but also non-natural rational numbers. It does not represent irrational numbers, however, and thereby fails to represent the real numbers more generally. This distances our proposal from existing conjectures, refines our understanding of the ANS, and paves the way for future research. (shrink)

ArgumentFrom the time of al-Khwārizmī in the ninth century to the beginning of the sixteenth century algebraists did not allow irrational numbers to serve as coefficients. To multiply$\sqrt {18} $byx, for instance, the result was expressed as the rhetorical equivalent of$\sqrt {18{x^2}} $. The reason for this practice has to do with the premodern concept of a monomial. The coefficient, or “number,” of a term was thought of as how many of that term are present, and not as (...) the scalar multiple that we work with today. Then, in sixteenth-century Europe, a few algebraists began to allow for irrational coefficients in their notation. Christoff Rudolff was the first to admit them in special cases, and subsequently they appear more liberally in Cardano, Scheubel, Bombelli, and others, though most algebraists continued to ban them. We survey this development by examining the texts that show irrational coefficients and those that argue against them. We show that the debate took place entirely in the conceptual context of premodern, “cossic” algebra, and persisted in the sixteenth century independent of the development of the new algebra of Viète, Decartes, and Fermat. This was a formal innovation violating prevailing concepts that we propose could only be introduced because of the growing autonomy of notation from rhetorical text. (shrink)

First published in 1997, this volume originated from an article published in Ratio and reapproaches Aristotle in an attempt to define what counts as an irrational action, along with a general account of irrationality based on a large number of specific examples. It begins with Aristotle, and never leaves him far behind. Contemplating akrasia, will, self-knowledge and commensurability, the author demonstrates that we must allow for the possibility of breakdown in cases where someone may fail to do the (...) rational action through weakness of will and that to make sense of akrasia we must be ready to allow for distinct cases. (shrink)

A popular view is that the great discovery of Pythagoras was that there are irrational numbers, e.g., the positive square root of two. Against this it is argued that mathematics and geometry, together with their applications, do not show that there are irrational numbers or compel assent to that proposition.

Most deontologists find bedrock in the Pauline doctrine that it is morally objectionable to do evil in order that good will come of it. Uncontroversially, this doctrine condemns the killing of an innocent person simply in order to maximize the sum total of happiness. It rules out the conscription of a worker to his or her certain death in order to repair a fault that is interfering with the live broadcast of a World Cup match that a billion spectators have (...) been enjoying. It rules out such sacrifice even if it would maximize the sum total of everyone's happiness. An act utilitarian, by contrast, would require the sacrifice of the one whenever this latter condition obtains, since such a utilitarian is committed to the view that one ought always to act so as to bring about the greatest sum total of happiness. An act utilitarian might, however, consistently hold that a large number of rather insignificant pleasures, such as that which a spectator derives from witnessing men in shorts running around and kicking a ball, is never sufficient to justify the infliction of a great harm on a single individual. 4 He might take such a position without abandoning utilitarianism by denying that the sum total of such minor pleasures could ever be sufficiently great to outweigh the harm of death to the one. Under the inspiration of John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian might draw a more general distinction between serious and trivial harms and pleasures and maintain that no amount of a trivial pleasure could ever amount to a sum of happiness that is greater than the disutility of a serious harm. (shrink)

Since independence, at least 28 African countries have legalized some form of gambling. Yet a range of informal gambling activities have also flourished, often provoking widespread public concern about the negative social and economic impact of unregulated gambling on poor communities. This article addresses an illegal South African numbers game called fahfee. Drawing on interviews with players, operators, and regulatory officials, this article explores two aspects of this game. First, it explores the lives of both players and runners, as well (...) as the clandestine world of the Chinese operators who control the game. Second, the article examines the subjective motivations and aspirations of players, and asks why they continue to play, despite the fact that their aggregate losses easily outstrip their aggregate gains. In contrast with those who reduce its appeal simply to the pursuit of wealth, I conclude that, for the (mostly) black, elderly, working class women who play fahfee several times a week, the associated trade-off—regular, small losses, versus the social enjoyment of playing and the prospect of occasional but realistic windfalls—takes on a whole new meaning, and preferences for relatively lumpy rather than steady consumption streams help explain the continued attraction of fahfee. This reinforces the need to understand players’ own accounts of gambling utility rather than simply to moralistically condemn gambling or to dismiss gamblers behaviour as irrational. (shrink)

Utilitarian deliberation has a number of weak or open points where the agent's judgements tend to be influenced by psychological and sociological factors, e.g., by his prejudices, anxieties, insecurities or group-identifications. The most vulnerable points are: the formulation of the problem, the selection of alternatives, the calculation of consequences, the weighing of evidence, the selection of ultimate values and the comparison of different values towards each other.— The utilitarian vocabulary provides the chooser with misleading expressions such as "The action (...) A1 produces more value on the whole than A2" backing up his cpnviction of acting rationally. — In order to improve the situation, we must become aware of the delusiveness of such expressions and of society's and our own irrationality and try to develop more rational feelings and attitudes. (shrink)

Utilitarian deliberation has a number of weak or open points where the agent's judgements tend to be influenced by psychological and sociological factors, e.g., by his prejudices, anxieties, insecurities or group-identifications. The most vulnerable points are: the formulation of the problem, the selection of alternatives, the calculation of consequences, the weighing of evidence, the selection of ultimate values and the comparison of different values towards each other.— The utilitarian vocabulary provides the chooser with misleading expressions such as "The action (...) A1 produces more value on the whole than A2" backing up his cpnviction of acting rationally. — In order to improve the situation, we must become aware of the delusiveness of such expressions and of society's and our own irrationality and try to develop more rational feelings and attitudes. (shrink)

Numbers. Natural numbers -- Integers -- Real numbers -- Irrational and transcendental numbers -- Funny numbers. Zero -- e : the unnatural natural number -- [Phi] : the golden ratio -- i : the imaginary number -- Writing numbers. Roman numerals -- Egyptian fractions -- Continued fractions -- Logic. Mr. Spock is not logical -- Proofs, truth, and trees : oh my! -- Programming with logic -- Temporal reasoning -- Sets. Cantor's diagonalization : infinity isn't just infinity (...) -- Axiomatic set theory : keep the good, dump the bad -- Models : using sets as the LEGOs of the math world -- Transfinite numbers : counting and ordering infinite sets -- Group theory : finding symmetries with sets -- Mechanical math. Finite state machines : simplicity goes far -- The turing machine -- Pathology and the heart of computing -- Calculus : no, not that calculus- [lambda] calculus -- Numbers, booleans, and recursion -- Types, types, types : modeling [lambda] calculus -- The halting problem. (shrink)

We show that if is not in the field generated by α1,…,αn, then no restriction of the function xβ to an interval is definable in . We also prove that if the real and imaginary parts of a complex analytic function are definable in Rexp or in the expansion of by functions xα, for irrational α, then they are already definable in . We conclude with some conjectures and open questions.

As the crusade to outlaw the teaching of evolution changed to a battle for equal time for creationism, the ideological defenses of that doctrine also shifted from primarily biblical to more scientific grounds. This essay describes the historical development of “scientific creationism” from a variety of late–nineteenth– and early–twentieth–century creationist reactions to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, through the Scopes trial and the 1960s revival of creationism, to the current spread of strict creationism around the world.

Belief in the divine origin of the universe began to wane most markedly in the nineteenth century, when scientific accounts of creation by natural law arose to challenge traditional religious doctrines. Most of the credit - or blame - for the victory of naturalism has generally gone to Charles Darwin and the biologists who formulated theories of organic evolution. Darwinism undoubtedly played the major role, but the supporting parts played by naturalistic cosmogonies should also be acknowledged. Chief among these was (...) the nebular hypothesis proposed by Pierre Simon Laplace in 1796, which explained the origin of the solar system as a natural development over extended periods of time. Ronald Numbers focuses on Laplace's theory as it affected American scientific thought. he first traces the history of Laplace's cosmogony chronologically, from its European inception to its demise about 1900. the last three chapters explore some of the theological and scientific consequences resulting from the acceptance of this cosmogony. Most significant was the change in the status of supernatural doctrine. When the nebular hypothesis lost credence at the end of the nineteenth century, those who had before tried to accommodate natural theory with supernatural doctrine no longer felt compelled to do so when faced with succeeding theories. The nebular hypothesis, it seems, had established natural law in the heavens. (shrink)

Over the course of human history, the sciences, and biology in particular, have often been manipulated to cause immense human suffering. For example, biology has been used to justify eugenic programs, forced sterilization, human experimentation, and death camps—all in an attempt to support notions of racial superiority. By investigating the past, the contributors to _Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins_ hope to better prepare us to discern ideological abuse of science when it occurs in the future. Denis R. Alexander (...) and Ronald L. Numbers bring together fourteen experts to examine the varied ways science has been used and abused for nonscientific purposes from the fifteenth century to the present day. Featuring an essay on eugenics from Edward J. Larson and an examination of the progress of evolution by Michael J. Ruse, _Biology and Ideology_ examines uses both benign and sinister, ultimately reminding us that ideological extrapolation continues today. An accessible survey, this collection will enlighten historians of science, their students, practicing scientists, and anyone interested in the relationship between science and culture. (shrink)

As past president of both the History of Science Society and the American Society of Church History, Ronald L. Numbers is uniquely qualified to assess the historical relations between science and Christianity. In this collection of his most recent essays, he moves beyond the clichés of conflict and harmony to explore the tangled web of historical interactions involving scientific and religious beliefs. In his lead essay he offers an unprecedented overview of the history of science and Christianity from the perspective (...) of the ordinary people who filled the pews of churchesor loitered around outside. Unlike the elite scientists and theologians on whom most historians have focused, these vulgar Christians cared little about the discoveries of Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein. Instead, they worried about the causes of the diseases and disasters that directly affected their lives and about scientists preposterous attempts to trace human ancestry back to apes. Far from dismissing opinion-makers in the pulpit, Numbers closely looks at two the most influential Protestant theologians in nineteenth-century America: Charles Hodge and William Henry Green. Hodge, after decades of struggling to harmonize Gods two revelationsin nature and in the Biblein the end famously described Darwinism as atheism. Green, on the basis of his careful biblical studies, concluded that Ussher's chronology was unreliable, thus opening the door for Christian anthropologists to accommodate the subsequent discovery of human antiquity. In Science without God Numbers traces the millennia-long history of so-called methodological naturalism, the commitment to explaining the natural world without appeals to the supernatural. By the early nineteenth century this practice was becoming the defining characteristic of science; in the late twentieth century it became the central point of attack in the audacious attempt of intelligent designers to redefine science. Numbers ends his reassessment by arguing that although science has markedly changed the world we live in, it has contributed less to secularizing it than many have claimed. Taken together, these accessible and authoritative essays form a perfect introduction to Christian attitudes towards science since the 17th century. (shrink)

Like other English-speaking peoples around the world, New Zealanders began debating Darwinism in the early 1860s, shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Despite the opposition of some religious and political leaders – and even the odd scientist – biological evolution made deep inroads in a culture that increasingly identified itself as secular. The introduction of pro-evolution curricula and radio broadcasts provoked occasional antievolution outbursts, but creationism remained more an object of ridicule than a threat until the (...) last decades of the twentieth century, when first American and then Australian creationists began fomenting antievolutionism among New Zealanders. Although Stephen Jay Gould assured them in 1986 that they had little to fear from so-called scientific creationism, because it was a ‘peculiarly American’ phenomenon, scientific creationism by the mid-1990s had captured the allegiance of an estimated five per cent of the country and proved especially attractive to Maori and Pacific Islanders. In 1992 New Zealand creationists formed their own antievolution society, Creation Science. (shrink)