Talk:Eudoxus of Cnidus

message: SO much more can be said about Eudoxus. He was extremely important in both astronomy and math. The math is explained fairly well, but the explanation of his influence in astronomy could be much larger than it is now JerDW
:It's better now. Maestlin 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think more can be said about the math too. Maestlin 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Can someone look further into MUL.APIN and Eudoxus possible use of it? Cwolfsheep 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUL.APIN 

message: Please, do not replace the whole article with new text that does not contain any wiki markup! Instead, discuss the changes here, or add them within the MoS guidelines, all new text well referenced, to improve this article. Awolf002 11:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To 59.101.x.x 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Was Newton really more rigorous than Archimedes or Eudoxus?  It is well know that Newton and Leibnitz's Calculus was not really that rigorous at all.  In fact, Euler and virtually everyone up to Gauss and his students were often caught making what are probably now considered classic amateur mistakes on all variety of topics of calculus.  And yet, the Archimedean Property of the real numbers is one of the first things taught in the any rigorous and correctly done version of calculus nowadays (in a first course in real analysis, for instance).  And, actually given the rigor, it is not even clear to me that Eudoxus and Archimedes were truly exceeded in sophistication, either.  It seems to me, their work was more like just relatively crudely extended until those extensions were actually put on the same rigorous basis as the original material.  
To get more rigorous than the Greeks you have to come all the way to the modern era of around the 19th century with the efforts to put math (and particularly calculus) on a rigorous basis.
Adrian
66.100.227.250 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dispute the rigor of later mathematicians 

message: The picture on this page is not a picture of Eudoxus, but an image of Claudius Ptolemaeus! Pier Slump (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture of Eudoxus? 

message: :* The third also completes its revolution in a month, but its axis is tilted at a slightly different angle, explaining motion in latitude (deviation from the ecliptic), and the motion of the lunar nodes.
Is this correct? My understanding of Eudoxus' lunar model is that the innermost sphere rotates westward (same as the outer sphere but opposite to the middle sphere), taking a Saros period (about 18.6 years) to do so. [Correction: a draconitic period, I should say!]
The inclination of the inner sphere does indeed explain why the Moon does not follow the ecliptic exactly (otherwise there would be solar and lunar eclipses every month).
The rotation of the inner sphere explains why the Draconic month is shorter than the Sidereal or Zodiacal month (i.e. it explains the motion of the lunar modes, as the article says), but it cannot do this if it too takes only a month to rotate.Eroica (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is it the middle sphere which rotates eastward in a Saros [Correction again: a draconitic period, I should have said!], while the inner sphere rotates in a Draconic month? This seems to be the description in Jean-Claude Pecker's Understanding the Heavens. - Eroica (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innermost lunar sphere in Eudoxian model 

message: The contents of at least the "Mathematics" section seem oddly certain, given the intro states that all his work is lost William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for the Mathematics section of the article is Morris Kline's Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times.  Not only does it fail to mention the (dubious) fact that all of Eudoxus' works are lost, but discusses the events of his life and his mathematical works in very specific detail.  Whether Eudoxus' original works are lost or not, it seems like Kline relies on secondary sources like Proclus.  Kline does at some point say that the astronomical works of Eudoxus are lost, with only fragments surviving, but also that there are other authors that refer to Eudoxus' original works so that today we know at least the essence of the theory.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eudoxus of Cnidus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516145329/http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Ancient%20Mathematics/Eudoxus/Astronomy/EudoxusHomocentricSpheres.htm to http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/hmendel/Ancient%20Mathematics/Eudoxus/Astronomy/EudoxusHomocentricSpheres.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eudoxus of Cnidus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121231659/http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/images/applets/hippopede.html to http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/images/applets/hippopede.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The latter portion of the mathematics section appears to be confused about the difference between quantities and magnitudes. Quantities are treated in book VII of Euclid's Elements, and magnitudes are treated in book V. This allegedly astounding definition, that, if you pretend quantities are magnitudes, then things that are true about magnitudes are true about quantities, isn't an insight, but rather a chimaera of geometry, calculus, and arithmetic. The missing insight on the part of whoever wrote this sentence-paragraph by sentence-paragraph is that there is no necessity for there to exist equimultiples such that the first and third equal the second and fourth magnitudes. Irrationality is certainly a divine mystery right up there with the problem of Evil, but to conflate this definition to anything related to the Infinitesimal Calculus is to miss the beauty of it entirely. The magnitudes can be in the same ratio, i.e. there can be proportionality, without commensurability of the pairs of magnitudes! The magnitudes of the sides and diagonals of any two squares are always proportional, i.e. the ratio of the side to the diagonal is always the same ratio, even if we can't find a common measure between side and diagonal.
I was tempted by Descartes (i.e. the devil) to delete most of that part of the mathematics section, since it displays a complete disregard for Ancient Greek mathematics, and is mostly concerned with what turned out to be appealing to people convincing themselves that there is such a thing as a number line, i.e. continuous numbers. That's just labeling magnitudes with numbers and pretending you're counting something. But since it was clearly a source of wonder to some deranged child of modernity once, it could be to someone else again later. At the end of the day, I'm the insane one, since I'm putting forth the radical notion that numbers are something different, and that number theory is the modern realization that integers are what numbers actually are. Maybe someday I'll get out my copy of Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra by Jacob Klein and actually try to get this nonsense cancelled. DonaldLflr (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  mathematics projections 

message: Citation No. 7: Ball 1908 p.54 is incorrect. In both the 1908 and 2005 published versions of this book this information occurs on page 44. - Mathematicallysound (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations