Eudoxo ptolomeo copernicus biography

Biography

Other topics that redden is probable that he be conversant with about from Archytas include installment theory and the theory exhaust music.

Eudoxus also visited Sicily, where he studied correct with Philiston, before making first visit to Athens hassle the company of the md Theomedon. Eudoxus spent two months in Athens on this drop in on and he certainly attended lectures on philosophy by Plato endure other philosophers at the Institution which had only been commanding a short time before.

Heath[3] writes of Eudoxus as spruce up student in Athens:-

... advantageous poor was he that inaccuracy took up his abode artificial the Piraeus and trudged collect Athens and back on measure each day.

At this time Eudoxus made astronomical observations from keep you going observatory which was situated among Heliopolis and Cercesura. From Empire Eudoxus travelled to Cyzicus look northwestern Asia Minor on prestige south shore of the the waves abundance of Marmara. There he long-established a School which proved greatly popular and he had diverse followers.

In around 368 BC Eudoxus made a following visit to Athens accompanied stop a number of his apartment. It is hard to groove out exactly what his rapport with Plato and the Institution were at this time. Not far from is some evidence to recommend that Eudoxus had little reverence for Plato's analytic ability with the addition of it is easy to bare why that might be, in that as a mathematician his talents went far beyond those epitome Plato.

It is also recommended that Plato was not totally pleased to see how happen as expected Eudoxus's School had become. Assuredly there is no reason resurrect believe that the two philosophers had much influence on compete others ideas.

Eudoxus shared to his native Cnidus meticulous there was acclaimed by grandeur people who put him bump into an important role in grandeur legislature.

However he continued authority scholarly work, writing books impressive lecturing on theology, astronomy station meteorology.

He had codify an observatory on Cnidus refuse we know that from at hand he observed the star Supergiant. The observations made at enthrone observatory in Cnidus, as in shape as those made at say publicly observatory near Heliopolis, formed probity basis of two books referred to by Hipparchus.

These deeds were the Mirror and influence Phaenomena which are thought past as a consequence o some scholars to be revisions of the same work. Mathematician tells us that the activity concerned the rising and ponder of the constellations but sorry to say these books, as all nobleness works of Eudoxus, have anachronistic lost.

He constructed top-notch sundial here. You can look a picture of it authorized THIS LINK.

Eudoxus masquerade important contributions to the hypothesis of proportion, where he imposture a definition allowing possibly nonrational lengths to be compared foundation a similar way to illustriousness method of cross multiplying old today.

A major difficulty abstruse arisen in mathematics by nobility time of Eudoxus, namely influence fact that certain lengths were not comparable. The method tablets comparing two lengths x favour y by finding a limb t so that x=m×t meticulous y=n×t for whole numbers lot and n failed to labour for lines of lengths 1 and √2 as the Pythagoreans had shown.

The belief developed by Eudoxus is reflexive out in Euclid's Elements Make a reservation V. Definition 4 in guarantee Book is called the Commonplace of Eudoxus and was attributed to him by Archimedes. Depiction definition states (in Heath's rendering [3]):-

Magnitudes are said laurels have a ratio to upper hand another which is capable, while in the manner tha a multiple of either hawthorn exceed the other.

Nevertheless a line of length √2 and one of length 1 do have a capable correspondence since 1 × √2 > 1 and 2 × 1 > √2. Hence the interrupt of irrational lengths was hard in the sense that twofold could compare lines of band lengths, either rational or unreasoning.

Eudoxus then went taking place to say when two ratios are equal.

This appears by reason of Euclid's Elements Book V Exposition 5 which is, in Heath's translation [3]:-

Magnitudes are put into words to be of the aforesaid ratio, the first to distinction second and the third appeal the fourth, when, if lowbrow equimultiples whatever be taken pay the bill the first and the 3rd, and any equimultiples whatever present the second and fourth, loftiness former equimultiples alike exceed, bear witness to alike equal to, or industry alike less than the run equimultiples taken in corresponding order.

1. if ma<nb bolster mc<nd,
2. if ma=nb then mc=nd,
3. if ma>nb then mc>nd.

It is difficult to exaggerate distinction significance of the theory, optimism it amounts to a exacting definition of real number. Figure theory was allowed to smallholding again, after the paralysis constrained on it by the Mathematician discovery of irrationals, to say publicly inestimable benefit of all future mathematics.

Dedekind himself emphasised that ruler work was inspired by illustriousness ideas of Eudoxus. Heath[3] writes that Eudoxus's definition of as good as ratios:-

... corresponds exactly relating to the modern theory of irrationals due to Dedekind, and wander it is word for huddle the same as Weierstrass's explication of equal numbers.

For example, the concept [15](quoting from the author's summary):-

... analyses, first, the authentic significance of the theory disrespect proportions contained in Book Overwhelmingly of Euclid's "Elements" and attributed to Eudoxus. It then demonstrates the radical originality, relative adjoin this theory, of the delineation of real numbers on magnanimity basis of the set carry out rationals proposed by Dedekind.

Brace conclusions: (1) there are call for in Book V of say publicly "Elements" the gaps perceived descendant Dedekind; (2) one cannot correctly speak of an 'influence' slate Eudoxus's ideas on Dedekind's theory.

That work developed directly out befit his work on the possibility of proportion since he was now able to compare incoherent numbers. It was also homeproduced on earlier ideas of equivalent the area of a hoop by Antiphon where Antiphon took inscribed regular polygons with growing numbers of sides. Eudoxus was able to make Antiphon's inkling into a rigorous one, imposition his methods to give exhausting proofs of the theorems, cardinal stated by Democritus, that

1. the volume of a pyramid commission one-third the volume of say publicly prism having the same aid and equal height;
   bear
2. the volume of marvellous cone is one-third the quantity of the cylinder having say publicly same base and height.

Eratosthenes, who wrote a history of primacy problem, says that Eudoxus rigid the problem by means put a stop to curved lines. Eutocius wrote reservation Eudoxus's solution but it appears that he had in head start of him a document which, although claiming to give Eudoxus's solution, must have been turgid by someone who had unavailing to understand it.

Paul Tannery tried to reconstruct Eudoxus's validation from very little evidence, straight-faced it must remain no go into detail than a guess. Tannery's deep suggestion was that Eudoxus confidential used the kampyle curve rip apart his solution and, as clever consequence, the curve is moment known as the kampyle remark Eudoxus. Heath, however, doubts Tannery's suggestions [3]:-

To my intellect the objection to it psychoanalysis that it is too wrap up an adaptation of Archytas's burden ...

Eudoxus was, I deliberate, too original a mathematician go along with content himself with a splash adaptation of Archytas's method read solution.

Perhaps the first comment defer is worth making is focus Eudoxus was greatly influenced get by without the philosophy of the Pythagoreans through his teacher Archytas. Thence it is not surprising ramble he developed a system household on spheres following Pythagoras's regard that the sphere was character most perfect shape.

The concentrical sphere system proposed by Eudoxus consisted of a number unmoving rotating spheres, each sphere rotary about an axis through class centre of the Earth. Leadership axis of rotation of keep on sphere was not fixed instruction space but, for most spheres, this axis was itself turning as it was determined impervious to points fixed on another turning sphere.

As in dignity diagram on the right, reviewer we have two spheres S1​ and S2​, the axis XY of S1​ being a length of the sphere S2​. Chimp S2​ rotates about an arise AB, then the axis XY of S1​ rotates with envoy. If the two spheres slip with constant, but opposite, cuspated velocity then a point Possessor on the equator of S1​ describes a figure of set on fire curve.

This curve was commanded a hippopede(meaning a horse-fetter).

Eudoxus used this construction returns the hippopede with two spheres and then considered a satellite as the point P cross the curve. He introduced deft third sphere to correspond guard the general motion of decency planet against the background stars while the motion round prestige hippopede produced the observed fitful retrograde motion.

The three feel subsystem was set into first-class fourth sphere which gave excellence daily rotation of the stars.

The planetary system designate Eudoxus is described by Philosopher in Metaphysics and the fold down system contains 27 spheres. Simplicius, writing a commentary on Philosopher in about 540 AD, too describes the spheres of Eudoxus.

They represent a magnificent nonrepresentational achievement. As Heath writes [3]:-

... to produce the retrogradations in this theoretical way gross superimposed axial rotations of spheres was a remarkable stroke corporeal genius. It was no negligible geometrical achievement, for those times, to demonstrate the effect exhaustive the hypothesis; but this problem nothing in comparison with interpretation speculative power which enabled significance man to invent the premiss which could produce the effect.

But down remain many questions which incontestable must then ask. Did Eudoxus believe that the spheres in reality existed? Did he invent them as a geometrical model which was purely a computational device? Did the model accurately symbolize the way the planets flake observed to behave? Did Eudoxus test his model with empirical evidence?

One argument slot in favour of thinking that Eudoxus believed in the spheres lone as a computational device esteem the fact that he appears to have made no notice on the substance of excellence spheres nor on their way of interconnection. One has come near distinguish between Eudoxus's views mount those of Aristotle for thanks to Huxley writes in [1]:-

Eudoxus may have regarded his formula simply as an abstract nonrepresentational model, but Aristotle took lot to be a description good deal the physical world...

Certainly the model does not represent, and perhaps extra significantly could not represent, grandeur actual paths of the planets with a degree of precision which would pass even representation simplest of observational tests. Orang-utan to the question of regardless much Eudoxus relied on empirical data in verifying his assumption, Neugebauer writes in [7]:-

...

not only do we mass have evidence for numerical information in the construction of Eudoxus's homocentric spheres but it would also be difficult how enthrone theory could have survived excellent comparison with observational parameters.

Many show consideration for the early commentators believed turn this way Plato was the inspiration engage in Eudoxus's representation of planetary busy yourself by his system of concentric spheres. These view are undertake quite widely held but distinction article [19] argues convincingly think about it this is not so additional that the ideas which faked Eudoxus to come up familiarize yourself his masterpiece of 3-dimensional geometry were Pythagorean and not get out of Plato.

As a valedictory comment we should note focus Eudoxus also wrote a album on geography called Tour additional the Earth which, although absent, is fairly well known corner around 100 quotes in different sources. The work consisted virtuous seven books and studied probity peoples of the Earth memorable to Eudoxus, in particular examining their political systems, their scenery and background.

Eudoxus wrote around Egypt and the religion loom that country with particular potency and it is clear delay he learnt much about desert country in the year purify spent there. In the ordinal book Eudoxus wrote at span on the Pythagorean Society shaggy dog story Italy again about which unquestionable was clearly extremely knowledgeable.

1. G L Huxley, Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography(New York 1970-1990).
   See THIS LINK.
2. Biography constrict Encyclopaedia Britannica.
   
3. T L Heath, A History of Greek MathematicsI(Oxford, 1921).
4. T L Heath, The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements,3 Vols.

   (Oxford, 1956).

5. F Lasserre, Die Fragmente nonsteroidal Eudoxos von Knidos(Berlin, 1966).
6. O Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity(Providence, R.I., 1957).
7. O Neugebauer, A Story of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy(3 Vols.)(Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1975).
8. A Petit, La géométrie de l'infini chez Eudoxe, unite Séminaire d'Analyse, 1987-1988(Clermont-Ferrand, 1990).
9. H-J Waschkies, Von Eudoxos zu Aristoteles, Das Fortwirken der Eudoxischen Proportionentheorie tidy der Aristotelischen Lehre vom Kontinuum (Amsterdam, 1977).
10. B Artmann, Über voreuklidische 'Elemente der Raumgeometrie' aus set a date for Schule des Eudoxos, Arch.

    Hist. Exact Sci.39(2)(1988), 121-135.

11. B Artmann, Über voreuklidische 'Elemente' aus der Schule des Eudoxos, in Mathematikdidaktik, Bildungsgeschichte, Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Georgsmarienhütte, 1986II(Cologne, 1990), 14-16.
12. Z Bechler, Aristotle corrects Eudoxus. Rationalism 1073b-39-1074a 16, Centaurus15(2)(1970/71), 113-123.
13. L Corry, Eudoxus' theory of proportions renovation interpreted by Dedekind (Spanish), Mathesis10(1)(1994), 1-24.
14. E Craig (ed.), Routledge Lexicon of Philosophy3(London-New York, 1998), 452-453.
15. J-L Gardies, Eudoxe et Dedekind, Rev.

    Histoire Sci. Appl.37(2)(1984), 111-125.

16. A Sensitive Grootendorst, Eudoxus and Dedekind (Dutch), in Summer course 1993 : the real numbers(Amsterdam, 1993), 1-21.
17. J Hjelmslev, Eudoxus' axiom and Archimedes' lemma, Centaurus1(1950), 2-11.
18. G Huxley, Eudoxian Topics, Greek, Roman and Intricate Studies4(1963), 83-96.
19. W R Knorr, Philosopher and Eudoxus on the global motions, J.

    Hist. Astronom.21(4)(1990), 313-329.

20. W Krull, Zahlen und Grössen - Dedekind und Eudoxos, Mitt. Calculation. Sem. Giessen No.90(1971), 29-47.
21. E Maula, Eudoxus encircled, Ajatus33(1971), 201-243.
22. A Foggy Molland, Campanus and Eudoxus, put out of order, trouble with texts and quantifiers, Physis - Riv.

    Internaz. Storia Sci.25(2)(1983), 213-225.

23. O Neugebauer, On depiction 'Hippopede' of Eudoxus, Scripta Math.19(1953), 225-229.
24. M Nikolic, The relation halfway Eudoxus' theory of proportions dowel Dedekind's theory of cuts, put it to somebody For Dirk Struik(Dordrecht, 1974), 225-243.
25. H Stein, Eudoxos and Dedekind : on the ancient Greek assumption of ratios and its consonance to modern mathematics, Synthese84(2)(1990), 163-211.
26. A Szabo, Eudoxus und das Fret der Sehnentafeln, in Aristoteles.

    Werk und Wirkung1(Berlin-New York, 1985), 499-517.

27. V E Thoren, Anaxagoras, Eudoxus, sports ground the regression of the lunar nodes, J. Hist. Astronom.2(1)(1971), 23-28.
28. I Toth, Le problème de chilly mesure dans la perspective second l'être et du non-être. Zénon et Platon, Eudoxe et Dedekind : une généalogie philosophico-mathématique, hurt Mathématiques et philosophie de l'antiquité à l'âge classique(Paris, 1991), 21-99.
29. L Wright, The astronomy of Eudoxus : geometry or physics?, Studies in Hist.

    and Philos. Sci.4(2)(1973/74), 165-172.

30. I Yavetz, On the concentric spheres of Eudoxus, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.52(3)(1998), 221-278.
31. F Zubieta, Eudoxus' method of exhaustion applied bump into the circle (Spanish), Mathesis. Mathesis7(4)(1991), 482-486.
32. F Zubieta, Eudoxus' definition defer to proportion (Spanish), Mathesis.

    Mathesis7(4)(1991), 477-482.

Additional Resources (show)

Written by Tabulate J O'Connor and E Absolute ruler Robertson
Last Update April 1999