Archive for History of Exact Sciences最新文献

We report on an unpublished and previously unknown manuscript of John von Neumann and contextualize it within the development of the theory of shock waves and detonations during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Von Neumann studies bombs comprising a primary explosive charge along with explosive booster material. His goal is to calculate the minimal amount of booster needed to create a sustainable detonation, presumably because booster material is often more expensive and more volatile. In service of this goal, he formulates and analyzes a partial differential equation-based model describing a moving shock wave at the interface of detonated and undetonated material. We provide a complete transcription of von Neumann’s work and give our own accompanying explanations and analyses, including the correction of two small errors in his calculations. Today, detonations are typically modeled using a combination of experimental results and numerical simulations particular to the shape and materials of the explosive, as the complex three dimensional dynamics of detonations are analytically intractable. Although von Neumann’s manuscript will not revolutionize our modern understanding of detonations, the document is a valuable historical record of the state of hydrodynamics research during and after World War II.

This article describes the emergence of formal methods in theory of partial differential equations (PDE) in the French school of mathematics through Janet’s work in the period 1913–1930. In his thesis and in a series of articles published during this period, Janet introduced an original formal approach to deal with the solvability of the problem of initial conditions for finite linear PDE systems. His constructions implicitly used an interpretation of a monomial PDE system as a generating family of a multiplicative set of monomials. He introduced an algorithmic method on multiplicative sets to compute compatibility conditions, and to study the problem of the existence and the uniqueness of a solution to a linear PDE system with given initial conditions. The compatibility conditions are formulated using a refinement of the division operation on monomials defined with respect to a partition of the set of variables into multiplicative and non-multiplicative variables. Janet was a pioneer in the development of these algorithmic methods, and the completion procedure that he introduced on polynomials was the first one in a long and rich series of works on completion methods which appeared independently throughout the twentieth-century in various algebraic contexts.

The most discussed and mysterious column within the Babylonian astronomy is column Φ. It is closely connected to the lunar velocity and to the duration of the Saros. This paper presents new ideas for the development and interpretation of column Φ. It combines the excellent Goal-Year method (for the prediction of Lunar Six time intervals) with old ideas and practices from the “schematic astronomy”. Inspired by the old “TU11” rule for prediction of times of lunar eclipses, it proposes that column Φ, in a similar way, used the sum of the Lunar Four to predict times of lunar eclipses as well as the duration of one, 6, and 12 months by means of what usually is called “R–S” schemes. It also explains fully the structure and development of such schemes, a fact that strongly supports the new interpretation of column Φ.

The assumption that Ptolemy adopted star coordinates from a star catalog by Hipparchus is investigated based on Hipparchus’ equatorial star coordinates in his Commentary on the phenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus. Since Hipparchus’ catalog was presumably based on an equatorial coordinate system, his star positions must have been converted into the ecliptical system of Ptolemy’s catalog in his Almagest. By means of a statistical analysis method, data groups consistent with this conversion of coordinates are identified. The found groups show a high degree of agreement between Hipparchus’ and Ptolemy’s data. The value of the obliquity of the ecliptic underlying the conversion is estimated by adjustment and statistically agrees with Ptolemy’s value of this parameter. The results allow the assumption that Ptolemy’s coordinates were determined from Hipparchus’ coordinates by an accurate star globe or even by calculation. For a calculative derivation of ecliptical coordinates from equatorial ones, possible calculation methods are discussed considering the mathematics of the Almagest.

Tycho Brahe was not just an observer; he was a skilled theoretical astronomer, as his lunar and solar models show. Still, even if he is recognized for proposing the Geoheliocentric system, little do we know of the technical details of his planetary models, probably because he died before publishing the last two volumes of his Astronomiae Instaurandae Progymnasmata, which he planned to devote to the planets. As it happens, however, there are some extant drafts of his calculations in Dreyer’s edition of Tycho’s Opera Omnia under the name Calculi ad Corrigenda Elementa orbitae Saturni, which, to the best of my knowledge, have not yet been analyzed before. In these manuscripts, Tycho starts with calculations based on the Prutenic Tables and makes a series of adjustments to the mean longitude, the longitude of the apogee, and the eccentricity to fit a series of observations of oppositions. In doing that, Tycho (1) describes and applies a new method for obtaining accurate values for the parameters of the superior planets, he (2) develops a divided eccentricity (not bisected) model of Saturn, similar to the one we know Longomontanus and Kepler applied to Mars, and finally (3) he realizes that the true position of the Sun somehow affects the motion of Saturn around the zodiac and develops a method to correct the position of Saturn as a function of solar equation of anomaly. So, a close analysis of the calculations reveals details of the Tychonic planetary models unknown until now. The present study analyzes these drafts.

In this paper, we discuss Babylonian observations of a “massing of the planets” reported in two Astronomical Diaries, BM 32562 and BM 46051. This extremely rare astronomical phenomenon was observed in Babylon between 20 and 30 March 185 BC shortly before sunrise when all five planets were simultaneously visible for about 10 to 15 min close to the horizon in the eastern morning sky. These two observational texts are not only interesting as records of an extremely rare planetary configuration, but also because (1) the observers appear to be confused by the presence of all planets simultaneously and mix them up in their reports, and (2) the two reports of the same observations are so different that we are forced to conclude that they were carried out by two different observers. There is an additional astronomical event which makes this planetary configuration even more unique: the exact conjunction of the planets Mars and Jupiter in the afternoon of 25 March 185 BC. An exact conjunction, where two planets are so close together that they appear as one object in the sky, is also extremely rare. Although this exact conjunction between Mars and Jupiter occurred during the day so that it was not observable, it was correctly predicted by the Babylonian scholars: a remarkable achievement and a nice illustration of their astronomical craftsmanship. Finally, our study clearly exposes one of the limitations of Babylonian naked-eye astronomy. When first appearances of the planets Mercury, Mars and Saturn are expected around the same date, it is nearly impossible to correctly identify them because their expected positions are only approximately known while they have about the same visual magnitude so that they become visible at about the same altitude above the horizon.

Charles Sanders Peirce wrote the article ‘The probability of induction’ in 1878. It was the fourth article of the series ‘Illustrations of the Logic of Science’ which comprised a total of six articles. According to Peirce, to get a clear idea of the conception of probability, one has ‘to consider what real and sensible difference there is between one degree of probability and another.’ He endorsed what John Venn had called the ‘materialistic view’ of the subject, namely that probability is the proportion of times in which an occurrence of one kind is accompanied by an occurrence of another kind. On the other hand, Peirce recognized the existence of a different interpretation of probability, which was termed by Venn the ‘conceptualistic view,’ namely the degree of belief that ought to be attached to a proposition. Peirce’s intent on writing this article seems to be to inquire about the claims of the conceptualists concerning the problem of induction. After reasoning on some examples, he concluded on the impossibility of assigning probability for induction. We show here that the arguments advanced in his article are not sufficient to support such conclusion. Peirce’s thoughts on the probability of induction surely may have influenced statisticians and research scientists of the twentieth century in shaping data analysis.

Through an in-depth analysis of the notes that Leibniz made while reading Pascal’s manuscript treatise on conic sections, we aim to show the real extension of what he called “hexagrammum mysticum”, and to highlight the main results he achieved in this field, as well as proposing plausible proofs of them according to the methods he seems to have developed.

In this paper, we study the genesis and evolution of geometric ideas and techniques in investigations of movable singularities of algebraic ordinary differential equations. This leads us to the work of Mihailo Petrović on algebraic differential equations (ODEs) and in particular the geometric ideas expressed in his polygon method from the final years of the nineteenth century, which have been left completely unnoticed by the experts. This concept, also developed independently and in a somewhat different direction by Henry Fine, generalizes the famous Newton–Puiseux polygonal method and applies to algebraic ODEs rather than algebraic equations. Although remarkable, the Petrović legacy has been practically neglected in the modern literature, although the situation is less severe in the case of results of Fine. Therefore, we study the development of the ideas of Petrović and Fine and their places in contemporary mathematics.