The Other Mathematics: Language and Logic in Egyptian and in General
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its title, The Other Mathematics: Language and Logic in Egyptian and in General, this book by Leo Depuydt addresses the field of Egyptian grammar more directly than the topic of Egyptian mathematics.Yet, although Depuydt addresses grammarians more directly than historians of science, The Other Mathematics takes the work of George Boole as an unexpected point of departure for an analysis of conditional sentences in Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian as well as Coptic-but not Demotic: although Depuydt has published Demotic texts, The Other Mathematics omits this phase of the Egyptian language.Historians of science and mathematics will not find presentations of familiar texts from Egyptian mathematics, or new editions of previously unpublished texts, or even a reinterpretation of various enumerations, lists, and tables as a type of mathematical structure.Rather, the title refers to 'attribute mathematics' in which 'all things sharing an attribute together form a class or set' [16].By definition, then, The Other Mathematics excludes numbers and focuses on symbolic logic, 'nothing more or less than. . .a kind of mathematics' [40].However, because this approach applies modern logic only to ancient grammar, The Other Mathematics has next to no relevance to the idea and practice of science within an Egyptian context and only a limited bearing on the idea and practice of science outside of Egypt.Depuydt provides a clear key to the reader when he summarizes the contents of his book [11--13] and identifies the first five chapters as a logical unit which establishes the differences between two sentence types, conventionally translated as conditional sentences.Chapter 1 establishes the grammatical structure of these two sentence types.Chapter 2 reviews the development of symbolic logic,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".