Advertisement

The Story of the Discovery of Incommensurability, Revisited

  • David H. Fowler
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 151)

Abstract

I take as my opening text the kind of thing my colleagues — certainly the mathematicians and often the historians of mathematics — might say about the beginnings of Greek mathematics. Something like this:

The early Pythagoreans based their theory of proportion on commensurable magnitudes (or on the rational numbers, or on common fractions m/n), but their discovery of the phenomenon of incommensurability (or the irrationality of √2) showed that this was inadequate. This provoked problems in the foundation of mathematics that were not resolved before the discovery of the proportion theory that we find in Elements V.

Keywords

Common Fraction Decimal Fraction Late Antiquity Greek Mathematic Explicit Evidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. W. Burkert, 1972, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, Cambridge, Massachusets; translation by E. L. Minar of Weisheit und Wissenschaft, Nurenberg, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. R. Dedekind, 1872, Stetigkeit und die irrationale Zahlen, and 1888, Was Sind und was sollen die Zahlen, translated by W. W. Beman in Essays on the Theory of Numbers, Chicago, 1901.Google Scholar
  3. D. H. Fowler, 1985, `400 years of decimal fractions’, Mathematics Teaching 110, pp. 20–21, and `400.25 years of decimal fractions’, ibid., 111, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
  4. D. H. Fowler, 1987, The Mathematics of Plato’s Academy: A New Reconstruction,Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. D. H. Fowler, 1992a, `Logistic and fractions in Greek mathematics: a new interpretation’, pp. 133–47 in P. Benoit, K. Chemla, and J. Ritter, Histoire de Fractions, Fraction d’Histoire, Basel.Google Scholar
  6. D. H. Fowler, 1992b, `Dedekind’s theorem: 1/2 x1/3 = 1/6’, The American Mathematical Monthly 99, pp. 725–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D. H. Fowler, 1992c, `An invitation to read Book X of Euclid’s Elements’, Historia Mathematica 19, pp. 233–64.Google Scholar
  8. H. Freudenthal, 1966, `Y avait-il une crise de fondements des mathématiques dans l’antiquité’, Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de Belgique 18, pp. 43–55.Google Scholar
  9. T. L. Heath, 1926, The Thirteen Books of Euclid’S Elements,2nd. ed., Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. W. R. Knorr, 1975, The Evolution of the Euclidean Elements: A Study of the Theory Incommensurable Magnitudes and Its Significance for Early Greek Geometry,Dordrecht. F. Lasserre, Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos,Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. D. J. O-Meara, 1989, Pythagoras Revived, Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity,Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. C. M. Taisbak, 1982, Coloured Quadrangles: A Guide to the Tenth Book of Euclid’s Elements,Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  13. H. Thesleff, 1989, `Platonic chronology’, Phonesis 34, pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. I. Thomas [=Bulmer-Thomas, 1939, Selections Illustrating the History of Greek Mathematics,vol. i, London/New York.Google Scholar
  15. B. L. van der Waerden, 1954, Science Awakening,Groningen; translation by A. Dresden of Ontwakende Wetenschap,1950, Groningen.Google Scholar
  16. L. Y. Zhmud, 1989, “`All is number”? “Basic doctrine” of Pythagoreanism reconsidered’, Phronesis 34, pp. 270–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David H. Fowler
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WarwickUK

Personalised recommendations