Most historians and philosophers of philosophy and history of mathematics hold one interpretation or the other of the nature of method of analysis and synthesis in itself and in its historical development. In this paper, I am trying to prove – through three points – that, in fact, there were two understandings of that method in Greek mathematics and philosophy, and which were reflected in Arabic mathematical science and philosophy; this reflection is considered as proof also of this double nature (...) of that method. Thus, we have to rethink the nature of Arabic philosophy systems. (shrink)

Over the past few decades, the question regarding the proper understanding of Diophantus’s method has attracted much scholarly attention. “Modern algebra”, “algebraic geometry”, “arithmetic”, “analysis and synthesis”, have been suggested by historians as suitable contexts for describing Diophantus’s resolutory procedures, while the category of “premodern algebra” has recently been proposed by other historians to this end. The aim of this paper is to provide arguments against the idea of contextualizing Diophantus’s modus operandi within the conceptual framework of the ancient analysis (...) and to examine the few instances, in the preserved books of the Arithmetica, which might be regarded as linked to practices belonging to the field of analysis. (shrink)

I present a systematic interpretation of the foundational purpose of constructions in ancient Greek geometry. I argue that Greek geometers were committed to an operationalist foundational program, according to which all of mathematics—including its entire ontology and epistemology—is based entirely on concrete physical constructions. On this reading, key foundational aspects of Greek geometry are analogous to core tenets of 20th-century operationalist/positivist/constructivist/intuitionist philosophy of science and mathematics. Operationalism provides coherent answers to a range of traditional philosophical problems regarding classical mathematics, such (...) as the epistemic warrant and generality of diagrammatic reasoning, superposition, and the relation between constructivism and proof by contradiction. Alleged logical flaws in Euclid can be interpreted as sound operationalist reasoning. Operationalism also provides a compelling philosophical motivation for the otherwise inexplicable Greek obsession with cube duplication, angle trisection, and circle quadrature. Operationalism makes coherent sense of numerous specific choices made in this tradition, and suggests new interpretations of several solutions to these problems. In particular, I argue that: Archytas’s cube duplication was originally a single-motion machine; Diocles’s cissoid was originally traced by a linkage device; Greek conic section theory was thoroughly constructive, based on the conic compass; in a few cases, string-based constructions of conic sections were used instead; pointwise constructions of curves were rejected in foundational contexts by Greek mathematicians, with good reason. Operationalism enables us to view the classical geometrical tradition as a more unified and philosophically aware enterprise than has hitherto been recognised. (shrink)

Relying upon a very close reading of all of the definitions given in Euclid’s Elements, I argue that this mathematical treatise contains a philosophical treatment of mathematical objects. Specifically, I show that Euclid draws elaborate metaphysical distinctions between substances and non-substantial attributes of substances, different kinds of substance, and different kinds of non-substance. While the general metaphysical theory adopted in the Elements resembles that of Aristotle in many respects, Euclid does not employ Aristotle’s terminology, or indeed, any philosophical terminology at (...) all. Instead, Euclid systematically uses different types of definition to distinguish between metaphysically different kinds of mathematical object. (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)

Analyses in Greek geometry are traditionally seen as heuristic devices. However, many occurrences of analysis in formal treatises are difficult to justify in such terms. I show that Greek analysies of geometrics can also serve formal mathematical purposes, which are arguably incomplete without which their associated syntheses are arguably incomplete. Firstly, when the solution of a problem is preceded by an analysis, the analysis latter proves rigorously that there are no other solutions to the problem than those offered in the (...) synthesis. Secondly, whenever some construction assumption beyond ruler and compass is made, the problem is not only solvable by that assumption but is in fact equivalent to that assumption in a rigorous sense. (shrink)