Talk:The Method of Mechanical Theorems

message: A citation for "Archimedes disbelieved in the use of infinitesimals" is http://science-student.com/science-news/a-long-lost-text-by-achimedes-found-contains-some-work-on-calculus I can't work out how to put this in the article, but there it is for someone else to do so. 210.55.146.99 08:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of infinitesimals

message: to "The Method", so it can be listed with the rest of his works.Likebox (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Method is a disambiguation page.  One of the items listed is "The Method of Mechanical Theorems]], which directs to Archimedes Palimpsest. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's the problem--- the work is being conflated with the most notable surviving copy. The palimpset is about the object, not the work itself. This page talks about the content of the work. Perhaps this could be "The Method of Mechanical Theorems" or "Archimedes' Mechanical Method"?Likebox (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest moving this page 

message: The proof for the First proposition in the palimpsest is pathetic. It is by no means convincing and has large gaps in it. It is redundant to state that Archimedes had to show that point I is the center of gravity of the triangle. I counted 3 uses of the word "suffices". To my superior mind, this raises a bright red flag. Either fix the proof or just be honest enough to say that you don't know. May I suggest either of the illustrious Dr. Michael Hardy or Dr. Arthur Rubin, provide a sound and "easy to follow" proof? I will check back in several weeks and see if either has been able to accomplish the task. May the odds be ever in your favour. 166.249.134.226 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof is far from clear or easy to follow 

message: "This type of method can be used to find the area of an arbitrary section of a parabola, and similar arguments can be used to find the integral of any power of x, although higher powers become complicated without algebra." that part of the text, this erroneous or incomplete, since neither arquimedes, nor any of the authors cited in the text say that, it would be good to cite that comment. to corroborate that information, or at least specify the types of buildings needed to reach what is this saying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldoniano (talk • contribs) 17:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the part of "the area of parabola" 

message: The five sections which explain Archimedes' propositions do not cite any sources.  They read as if the editor has produced these proofs to illustrate how Archimedes' propositions work.  For example, the first line in the section on the area of a parabola begins:  "To explain Archimedes' method today, it is convenient to make use of a little bit of Cartesian geometry, although this of course was unavailable at the time."  That sounds like a professor explaining it to a class. A similar reference to coordinate geometry is found in the first line of the section dealing with the volume of a sphere.  The mathematical notation used in several of the sections is modern, not ancient Greek, and is clearly an attempt to explain Archimedes' work.  Overall, this reads like a series of modern proofs to illustrate Archimedes' propositions, and is likely original research. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Original research" tags