 The Exact Sciences in Antiquity Books In Print, Audio Books. |
| Home » All Books |
|
|
The Exact Sciences in Antiquity
buy bestselling books in print, audio books
|
 |
List Price: $12.95
Our Price:
$12.95
You Save: $0
|
| [ + Zoom ] [ Buy Now ] |
Book : Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
The Exact Sciences in Antiquity Customer Reviews
|
|
|
|
♥♥♥♥♥
|
Quick guide to pre-Greek mathematics and astronomy
|
| The Babylonians were good guys. They had a sophisticated, table-based system of arithmetic, they could solve quadratic equations, etc. For all this we respect them, but for Plimpton 322 we love them--surely only true connoisseurs of numbers would produce a table of Pythagorean triples. The Egyptians on the other hand disappoint us. Their arithmetic "is probably best described as a retarding force" and their astronomy "remained through all its history on an exceedingly crude level" (p. 80). To be fair, their simple-mindedness did lead them to one great creation, namely "the only intelligent calendar which ever existed in human history", to be contrasted with e.g. "the chaotic Greek calendars, depending not only on the moon but also on local politics for its intercalations" (p. 81). Neugebauer's favourite topic is Babylonian astronomy. "The very backbone of Babylonian mathematical astronomy" (p. 102) is period relations, like 235 lunar months = 19 solar years. From here they build up a quite sophisticated, purely arithmetical system "excellently adapted to practical computation and to predicting new moons, eclipses, etc." (p. 114). "At no point of this theory are the traces of a specific geometrical model visible" (p. 110), so the Babylonian theory is completely different from the Ptolemaic theory. "Nevertheless, Babylonian influence is visible in two different ways in Greek astronomy: first, in contributing the basic empirical material ... second, in a direct continuation of arithmetical methods which were used simultaneously with and independently of the geometrical methods" (p. 156); apparently even the Greeks didn't want to pull out their trig tables for every little thing. Throughout the book there are also notes on various aspects of historical scholarship, including delightfully subjective remarks like "The much publicized 'progress' in the study of the history of science is difficult to reconcile with the shocking neglect of a great wealth of source material ... What we really need is not bibliographies and summaries, but competent publications of Islamic, Greek, and Latin treatises" (p. 55). |
|