The Development of Mathematics in Medieval Europe: The Arabs, Euclid, Regiomontanus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is Menso Folkerts' second Variorum volume.The first was published in 2003 [see Høyrup 2007b for a review]; it contained papers dealing with the properly Latin tradition in European mathematics, that is, the kind of mathematics which developed (mainly on the basis of agrimensor mathematics and the surviving fragments of Boethius' translation of the Elements) before the 12th-century Arabo-Latin and Greco-Latin translations.This second volume deals with aspects of the development which took place after this decisive divide, from ca 1100 to ca 1500.Few scholars, if any, know more than Folkerts about medieval Latin mathematical manuscripts.It is, therefore, natural that the perspective on mathematics applied in the papers of this volume is on mathematics as a body of knowledge, in particular, as it is transmitted in and between manuscripts.To the extent that mathematics as an activity is an independent topic, it mostly remains peripheral, being dealt with through references to the existing literature-exceptions are the investigations of what Regiomontanus and Pacioli do with their Euclid [in articles VII and XI]-or it is undocumented, as when it is said that Jordanus de Nemore's De numeris datis was 'probably used as a university textbook for algebra' [VIII.413].There should be no need to argue, however, that familiarity with the body of mathematical knowledge is fundamental for the study of mathematics from any perspective: whoever is interested in medieval Latin mathematics can therefore learn from this book.It is more questionable that Folkerts tends to describe the mathematics which he refers to through their modern interpretation.To say, for instance, that the Liber augmentis et diminutionis shows
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".