Timeline for On Einstein's proof of the so-called Pythagorean theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2024 at 16:33 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 79 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2021 at 19:22 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 29, 2019 at 15:15 | comment | added | Will Orrick | ...a neo-Pythagorean philosopher writing about eight centuries after Pythagoras, as the source. Burkert argues that Proclus was forced into this switch because mention of Pythagoras was absent from the ancient source. You can read about this, and about other points of view, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article "Pythagoras". | |
| Jul 29, 2019 at 15:15 | comment | added | Will Orrick | In the last several decades, attitudes towards this have shifted, primarily due to the work of Walter Burkert. For example, the commentary of Proclus (written about nine centuries after Pythagoras) has been regarded as our most reliable source of information about ancient Greek mathematics, in particular because it incorporates material from a now-lost history of Eudemus (who lived about two centuries after Pythagoras). Burkert, however, found that, at the point in Proclus's history where Pythagoras enters the story, Proclus switches from using Eudemus as the source to using Iamblichus, ... | |
| Jul 29, 2019 at 15:14 | comment | added | Will Orrick | About Pythagoras, the short answer is yes: there is a great deal of contention. It has long been recognized that no early evidence survives linking Pythagoras or his immediate followers to the theorem or to mathematics more generally, but until recently it was accepted that the late evidence that does connect Pythagoras with the theorem must have been based on earlier material which has been lost to us. | |
| Jul 28, 2019 at 4:21 | comment | added | Albert Heisenberg | I still don't get the so-called part? Is there that much historical contention over the priority of the PT? Also, Einstein was not known for lying about his work. He was also very deferential in this regard. Straus was close to Einstein and I find it very conceivable that he was able to related the proof to Strogatz. | |
| Jul 28, 2019 at 4:18 | answer | added | Albert Heisenberg | timeline score: -1 | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 18:36 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated links
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 1:51 | comment | added | José Hdz. Stgo. | @skan: "the ratio of the areas of two similar triangles is equal to the square of the ratio of any two corresponding sides..." | |
| Dec 18, 2016 at 1:50 | comment | added | skan | How do you get $\mathrm{area}(\triangle ACD) = \left(\frac{b}{a}\right)^{2}\mathcal{A}$ ? | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 15:45 | history | edited | Danu♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| S Aug 12, 2016 at 15:45 | history | suggested | wythagoras |
removing (pythagoras), since name-tags are discouraged, adding (mathematics)
|
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 7:28 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 12, 2016 at 15:45 | |||||
| Jan 7, 2016 at 18:33 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting
|
| Dec 22, 2015 at 17:13 | answer | added | Brian Hopkins | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 4:07 | comment | added | pjs36 | If you're going to append "so-called" to misattributed objects, you're going to be using a long list of so-called objects! Probably best to edit that portion of the title away, or else that's all we'll talk about. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 19:13 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | It is not attributed to him. It is attributed to Pythagoreans. The proof in full generality was known to the Greeks (Euclid) and Greek mathematicians attributed it to Pythagoeans. So the name is completely justified. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 19:10 | comment | added | José Hdz. Stgo. | Yes, I understand that... My point is this one: if we can't tell for sure if Pythagoras proved it IN ALL ITS GENERALITY, then the theorem shouldn't be unreservedly ascribed to him either (A theorem, by definition, is a statement that is proved); what is more, I'm not sure that having proved it for the case of right isosceles triangles would give him much of an edge on the Babylonians in a priority dispute over the first legit demonstration of Euc. I-47. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 4:28 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | Speculations of the sort "perhaps they had a proof" are fruitless: there is no evidence whatsoever that any civilization before the Greeks had a notion of mathematical proof. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 4:22 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | Babylonians/Egyptians were familiar with several EXAMPLES. Before the Greeks, there was no notion of PROOF, and thus no theorems. (A theorem, by definition is a statement that is proved). | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 2:30 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 22:01 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 21:58 | comment | added | José Hdz. Stgo. | Because, if I understand things correctly, the Babylonians were already familiar with it several centuries before the flourishing of Pythagoras and because nobody knows if Pythagoras established the theorem in all its generality (yet, some authors accept that he could have been in possession of a demonstration of his "theorem" for the case of right isosceles triangles). | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 21:33 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 21:07 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 20:56 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 18:08 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | Why "so-called"? | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 4:44 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 251 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 4:23 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 4:13 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 3:47 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 153 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 3:33 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 153 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 3:19 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 41 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 3:13 | history | edited | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 41 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 3:07 | history | asked | José Hdz. Stgo. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |