The Stomachion: motivating the discussion in .NET Access 3 of 9 barcode in .NET The Stomachion: motivating the discussion

The Stomachion: motivating the discussion using barcode writer for visual .net control to generate, create barcode 39 image in visual .net applications. Microsoft SQL Server though the ex ANSI/AIM Code 39 for .NET ample of Spiral Lines above (and we shall see many more such examples in the next chapter) may lead us to suspect that the treatise had a surprising mosaic structure, so that following a few propositions dealing with, say, the angles of the gures, came several other propositions of a totally different kind, and so on. If anything, as in a Shakespearean play, Archimedes tendency was to postpone the entrance of the main gures.

Not much can be learned then from these fragments of preliminary proofs. And indeed Archimedes words, when attended to, are quite clear. The treatise did not foreground geometry.

It foregrounded a certain number. Here in fact was the most important new reading: there is not a small multitude of gures . .

. The word multitude was not read by Heiberg who consequently did not quite see what Archimedes was saying about those gures. But what he was saying was that there were many of them.

How come This Archimedes explained in the second paragraph of the introduction: gures might be internally exchanged and in this way new gures are created. The meaning is clear once it is considered that the task of the Stomachion game was probably, in the standard case, to form a square. Once a single solution ( gure ) is found, another can be obtained by exchanging some of the segments in the square with others, congruent with them (or by internally rotating a group of segments).

It appears then that Archimedes pointed out in his introduction that the square of the Stomachion game can be formed in many ways, which can be found by considering the internal rotations and congruences of the segments, in turn dependent upon area and angle properties of the gure. One can immediately see how the treatise could have displayed the variegated theoria promised by Archimedes in the rst words of the introduction, in a rich mosaic leading via surprising routes to a conclusion. The nature of the conclusion is also clear: it would have to be a number stating how many such solutions exist.

So this must have been a treatise in geometrical combinatorics. Combinatorics! Before , I would never even have considered this interpretation putting this treatise so far outside the mainstream of geometrical study that we have always associated with Hellenistic mathematics. But I was fortunate to attend Fabio Acerbi s talk at Delphi in that year, where Hipparchus combinatoric study was nally recovered for the history of Greek mathematics.

The evidence, once again, is slim, yet in retrospect clear. In a couple of passages, Plutarch reports a calculation by Hipparchus (the great mathematician and astronomer of the second century bc), determining the number of conjunctions Stoic logic allows with. The carnival of calculation ten assertibl Code 3 of 9 for .NET es, without negation ( , ) or with it ( , ). Assuming that Greek mathematicians did not care for such calculations, one tended to ignore this passage, seeing in it, perhaps, some obscure joke.

Probably Hipparchus did mean this to be, among other things, funny, but it is now clear that his mathematics was very seriously done. Two recent mathematical publications have shown that the numbers carry precise combinatoric meaning these are not mere abracadabra numbers and so must represent a correct, precise solution to a combinatoric number. Subsequent to this mathematical analysis, the philosophical and mathematical context for Hipparchus work has been worked out in detail by Acerbi.

The existence of sophisticated Greek combinatorics is therefore no longer in question. And the role of calculation is surprising, as there is no short-cut that allows one to get the numbers out of a single, simple formula. The numbers can be found only by an iterated sequence of complicated calculations.

So much for one dif culty with my interpretation of the Stomachion: it could be a piece of combinatorics. But was it Is there an interesting story to tell about the geometrical combinatorics of the Stomachion square For this I asked my colleague at Stanford Persi Diaconis, a noted combinatorist, to help me solve what I assumed to be a simple question: how many ways are there to put together the square (I was rather embarrassed that I could not nd the answer myself.) It took Diaconis a couple of months and collaborative work with three colleagues to come up with the number of solutions , independently found at the same time by Bill Cutler (who relied on a computer analysis of the same problem).

The calculation is inherently complicated: once again, there is no single formula providing us with the number, but instead a set of varied considerations concerning various parts of the gure, each contributing in complex ways to the nal result. We nd that there were at least two ancient treatises in combinatorics, both leading via complex calculations to a big, unwieldy number. Not quite what one associates, perhaps, with Greek mathematics.

Yet once you begin looking for them, they are everywhere: treatises leading up, via a complex, thick structure of calculation, to unwieldy numbers. This is what I refer to as the carnival of calculation. In this chapter I show.

See Plutarch, On the Contradictions of the Stoics c e and Convival Talks viii f. The manuscripts of the Table Talk carry the gure , , this is corrected from the parallel passage in the text of On the Contradictions of the Stoics. The second gure is given in Plutarch s manuscript as , this was emended by Habsieger et al.

. Stanley , followed by Habsieger et al. .

Published in Acerbi ..
Copyright © . All rights reserved.