Hybrids and mosaics in .NET Generator Code39 in .NET Hybrids and mosaics

Hybrids and mosaics generate, create code 3/9 none for .net projects Platform SDK It is typical that A visual .net bar code 39 ratus, in context (lines ) does not explicitly call the circle in question the Summer Tropic (though Hipparchus identi cation is of course correct). The statement by Hipparchus that lines refer to the Summer Tropic creates a hybrid text, where Aratus elusive language coexists with precise astronomical nomenclature.

More than this: Aratus text contained an inherent poetic and nonmathematical component, as follows. The Tropic of Cancer does not have an inherent division of parts into visible and invisible. It has different segments visible, from different parts of the earth.

The poem by Aratus assumes an implicit localization: it is a piece not of descriptive mathematical astronomy (from which perspective, in principle, all locales are indifferently surveyed), but of a poetic description of the sky as experienced from a certain location upon earth (which Hipparchus identi es as Mainland Greece). This is because Hipparchus assumes that Aratus did indeed follow Eudoxus, who explicitly quali ed some statements by as seen from Mainland Greece. The assumption is certainly correct, but notice that, by omitting the perspectival clause, with Aratus, or by re-inserting it, with Hipparchus, one enters and leaves a poetic domain.

Eudoxus and Hipparchus impersonally survey the sky; Aratus experiences it personally, from a well-de ned, single vantage point. Hipparchus intentional misreading of that attens the poetry of Aratus, turning it into a piece of descriptive astronomy. So much, then, for the hybrid language and intentional misreading created by the setting of Hipparchus scrutiny of Aratus.

Let us consider the scrutiny itself. For, you see, ve to three is in fact the wrong ratio. In a set of further (correct) equivalences, Hipparchus transforms Aratus ratio of the circle into a ratio between the longest and shortest day, as well as into a latitude measurement and a measurement of the longest day.

He then produces a quick calculation by which the actual latitude of Mainland Greece is , so that the longest day is hours and three- fths of an hour. On the other hand, where Aratus calculation holds so Hipparchus the longest day is hours and the latitude is . What Hipparchus does not do is to note that the ratio for the correct latitude of Mainland Greece should be (in modern notation): .

: . or : . So that Aratus poem should have read:.

This then precise as it might be through one hundred and nineteen parts is measured Seventy three of which daylong rotate and are up above earth, Forty six are beneath it.. Mathematics turns to literature As I just said, Hipp archus does not draw those conclusions explicitly. By avoiding such obviously absurd statements, Hipparchus manages to maintain throughout his sober, effective polemic tone. And yet the acute reader would notice that Hipparchus, in all seriousness, criticizes Aratus for using the : ratio instead of : .

This Hipparchus can do, reasonably, because he goes on immediately to show the origins of the error in Eudoxus himself (a prose treatise where a precise measurement was feasible), and criticizing Attalus for not noting it himself (as he should have done). But we can immediately sense the way in which a judgment such as Aratus could make sense, as it did even after Hipparchus scrutiny became widely known (Aratus remained a classic, and was later to be translated into both Latin and Arabic). Given the constraints of poetry, Aratus admirably manages to combine fact of course, as available to him and poetic style.

Hipparchus basic device, of pretending poetic style away from Aratus poem, endows his text with a certain arti cial texture: it keeps shadow-boxing the straw gure of Aratus, the prose author. To some extent this is justi ed by Aratus own claims and reception, but this fact in itself is a mark of the breaking of genre-boundaries in the Hellenistic world as I shall return to discuss in the following chapter. Perhaps, so as to contextualize Hipparchus treatment of Aratus astronomy, one may consider Eratosthenes treatment of Homer s geography.

It is especially unfortunate that Eratosthenes Geography is not extant, as this treatise seems to have formed an important moment in the formation of the Hellenistic scienti c attitude towards poetry. As it is, we rely mostly on Strabo s critical reading of Eratosthenes (it is through such indirect testimony that we learn, for instance, of Eratosthenes measurement of the size of the earth, mentioned in chapter above). In his own geography of the rst century ad, Strabo uses Eratosthenes Geography (in some sense, apparently, the major work available at his time), as his main critical foil.

His primary positive anchor, however the author to whom Strabo turns for corroboration is Homer. This would appear to be a clear example of the turning of science towards poetry, but the situation in fact differs markedly from that of the Alexandrian attitude. Strabo s basic criticism of Eratosthenes is revealing (i.

. , Jones translation):. Notice that I concen barcode 39 for .NET trate on the scienti c attitude towards poetry i.e.

the way in which scienti c texts appropriate statements made in a poetic setting. A separate problem (and one which is much more widely discussed) is that of the philosophical attitude towards poetry, i.e.

, the way in which philosophers think about the role of poetry as a vehicle of truth and education. Since this question is at the heart of Platonic philosophy, the literature on it is truly enormous, but for the much more speci c question of the philosophical theories concerning poetry in the Hellenistic period, a good starting point is Obbink (whose focus is Philodemus, a late author who is perhaps best understood inside the Roman, rather than the Hellenistic context)..

Copyright © . All rights reserved.