Talk:Archimedes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

Add "Archimedes loved math so much that he would often forget to eat because he was busy problem solving." after the last sentence in the first paragraph. 40.133.59.10 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done no source provided, and does not belong in the lede section anyway. NiciVampireHeart 13:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is a quote over at Wikiquote which says "According to legend, nothing could get between him [Archimedes] and his work, and sometimes he would even forget to eat. Ideas would come to him at any moment, and he would scribble them on any available surface." It's another example of a dubious anecdote being told about Archimedes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The quote seems to be based on a passage in Plutarch's Parallel Lives which says "And thus it ceases to be incredible that (as is commonly told of him), the charm of his familiar and domestic Siren made him forget his food and neglect his person, to that degree that when he was occasionally carried by absolute violence to bathe, or have his body anointed, he used to trace geometrical figures in the ashes of the fire, and diagrams in the oil on his body, being in a state of entire preoccupation, and, in the truest sense, divine possession with his love and delight in science." This was written around 100 AD and it is one of the many doubtful "legend has it" type of stories that the people in Roman times liked to tell about Archimedes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Categories text

Recent views converge on Porphyry rather than Alexander of Aphrodisias as the author of the commentary on Aristotle's Categories. See first R. Chiaradonna, M. Rashed, D. Sedley and N. Tchernetska, A rediscovered Categories commentary, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44:129-194 (2013); (for Porphyry as the preferred attribution see p. 134, 137) and later refs to this study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.32.26 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This is tricky, because the article Alexander of Aphrodisias gives him as the "most likely author" of the commentary.[1] Since I don't have access to the academic text that you mentioned, this source also suggests Porphyry as the author. So who to believe? Without clear cut evidence about the authorship, which seems to be lacking, I'm tempted to remove the attribution of authorship from this article, since it would be an educated guess either way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Description of device in The Sand Reckoner

Re this edit: The cite here doesn't work, while this cite doesn't say anything about "a straight rod with colored pegs", unless you can point out a specific page. Since this is a Featured Article, the text has to be supported clearly by the cites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Guillermind81 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Guillermind81 I will fix the link and make a reference to the page number.

Quote on the Fields Medal

Re this edit: the website of the Fields Medal does not say that the quote Transire suum pectus mundoque potiri is attributed to Archimedes. There are some sources, eg here which say that it is taken or adapted from a quote by Marcus Manilius, but this is unclear and needs better sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Archimedes and Indivisibles

Re this edit: it uses a cite with a WP:PAYWALL. It costs GBP 79.50 ($109 USD) to buy the entire book, and GBP 19.95 ($27 USD) to buy the chapter. Although Wikipedia policy does not rule out cites with a paywall, this is rather expensive and it would be better to find a cite that is free to use. Otherwise, it prevents people from reading the cite. The cite added here also has a paywall, but I'm mainly worried about Archimedes and Indivisibles because it is unlikely that many people are ever going to read it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments regarding Archimedes' indivisibles; I've added an additional reference that is freely available in pdf. I share your concern for accessible information; unfortunately, the more reputable or accurate the information about Archimedes, the more likely that is found in specialized journals or books only available to scholars. Conversely, what is more freely available is often more unreliable. I err on the side of accuracy but will make an effort to find sources that are free whenever possible --Guillermind81 (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Major edits to Archimedes' life and works

I propose streamlining the Biography and the Discovery and Inventions sections of Archimedes. I think the latter contains much information that is too speculative and that occupies too much space that could be put to better use. For the biography section, I plan to reorder the accounts of his life from most to least reliable, starting with Polybius and ending with Plutarch. However, I wanted to submit these changes for feedback first. -73.48.81.145 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the biographical sources about the life of Archimedes count as reliable in the modern sense of the word, as they were all written many years after his death by Roman historians. As for being speculative, this goes with the territory when dealing with Archimedes. Did he really jump out of the bath and shout "Eureka!", or build a device that could set ships on fire? Maybe not, but some Roman writers said that he did, and they are part of the popular folklore surrounding Archimedes. I don't think that it would be profitable to introduce a certain amount of personal preference about the reliability of the sourcing, as it would amount to original research not present in the sources themselves. We can't do a Snopes fact check on the reliability of the sourcing from the Roman historians, because none of them ever met Archimedes or had first-hand knowledge of his life and works. Why, for instance, is Polybius more reliable than Plutarch? is there a reliable source saying this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, are you User:Guillermind81? There seems to be a considerable overlap with your edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there are levels of reliability, even if nothing can be completely 100% certain. Polybius lived and wrote closer to the events that transpired during the siege of Syracuse, and much of his account elsewhere regarding Rome and the Hellenistic kingdoms have been corroborated in other sources which I will happy to provide but not sure if it should belong to the entry of Archimedes. Cicero and Livy are perhaps less reliable but are often deemed serious enough for historians of Ancient Rome. Plutarch, on the other hand, lived too far removed and had a different philosophical agenda. I think we do a better service to the reader if we present the information as best can be reconstructed from the sources, with all the caveats that it entails. And yes, it was me but forgot to sign in before editing. My apologies. Guillermind81 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Polybius was the first person to write a major and surviving account of the life and works of Archimedes, but he lived circa 200-118 BC which is still some time after his death. Plutarch lived much later, around 100 AD, and was probably relying on earlier accounts that he had read elsewhere. However, I still think that the best option is to quote the Roman writers without getting into a great deal of judgement about who has the best account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking that into consideration (and leaving aside the Discovery and Inventions section for now), would it be too much to just reorder the presentation, so that Polybius' account comes first, then Cicero, etc.? I do not mean to change the actual content, just the order is presented to the reader (a more modest proposal).Guillermind81 (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The article currently says "The standard versions of the life of Archimedes were written long after his death by the historians of Ancient Rome. The account of the siege of Syracuse given by Polybius in his The Histories was written around seventy years after Archimedes' death, and was used subsequently as a source by Plutarch and Livy. It sheds little light on Archimedes as a person, and focuses on the war machines that he is said to have built in order to defend the city." We don't really have any biographical detail about Archimedes as a person. He was apparently related to King Hiero and his father was an astronomer called Phidias, but that is all. By Roman times, historians had become fascinated with the fabulous war machines that he is said to have built. As for the Eureka story told by Vitruvius, everyone knows it even though it is considered to be apocryphal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that disclaimer is there, but again, it appears at the very end rather than at the beginning. My suggestion is only to re-arrange the content so as to make the biography easier to read and the aforementioned disclaimer (i.e., take all biographical information with a grain of salt) more clear. I posted a draft (without citations) of what I've in mind here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillermind81/sandbox Guillermind81 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is broadly OK. I didn't like the phrase "likewise late" at the end, and the "Do not disturb my circles" quote is considered apocryphal, along with the other quotes that do not appear in his work. Archimedes may have travelled to Alexandria, studied there as a younger man and met Eratosthenes and Conon of Samos while there, because he seems to know them well, but we cannot prove this due to the lack of direct evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Polymath

Re this edit: I'm not sure that describing Archimedes as a polymath in the opening sentence is worthwhile. He is not usually described in this way in reliable sources, and the article has gone out on a limb by doing this. There is a risk of original research here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Okay. I thought that it'd have been a good addition, but it's alright, I agree. Holloman123 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

influence of euclid

i disagree that euclid deserves to be in the infobox as an influence for archimedes.

i am not disputing archimedes read his work, best evidenced by his "author of the Elements" quote.

however, i just don't see it. i consider euclid and archimedes to be exact opposites.

for a long time the influences and influenced portions of his infobox were blank, and recently there have been some introductions.

i call upon the community to argue and discuss the appropriateness of these insertions, given the scarcity of verified information we have on this figure.

if anyone influenced archimedes, i would argue it's Thales or Pythagoras. obviously no evidence for that either, nor am i asking for comment on that.

this is merely an off-the-cuff comment when i assess archimedes' work in the context of the two individuals i've named above. it fits better. but again i am not asking for comment or approval on that.

should we keep the influences and influenced fields for archimedes infobox? 198.53.108.48 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - on the basis they're unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up for discussion. I'll put together something shortly to address your concerns Guillermind81 (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry, i don't mean to attack the edit. it's just that i would love to have some sort of evidence for the addition.

to help you out a little, i did start doing some of my own digging. i found this (doi: j.mechmachtheory.2010.05.009) where it says:

"Gears were discussed in Aristotle and were well-known to Archimedes and the Alexandrian engineers. Almost concurrentlywith the decline of Alexandria, the differential gear was known to the Chinese[27,28]. Cicero (106–43 BC) writes that the Romanconsul Marcellus brought two devices back to Rome from the sacked city of Syracuse. One device mapped the sky on a sphere andthe other predicted the motions of the sun and the moon and the planets. He credits Thales of Miletus (624–546) and Eudoxus ofCnidus (408–355) for constructing these devices. For some time this was assumed to be a legend of doubtful nature, but thediscovery of theAntikythera mechanism[16,27,28]has changed the view of this issue, and it is indeed probable that Archimedes possessed and constructed such devices. "

this seems to support your insertion of Eudoxus and my own for Thales (not intentional). i still think euclid will be quite a stretch. i don't know anything about eudoxus but this source seems to be a very good one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm also a bit worried by the "influenced by" field in the infobox as it is unsourced. While it is clear that Archimedes would have likely have heard of Euclid and Eudoxus, it is less clear why they are given as influences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that, unless sources are provided, Euclid should be removed from the "influenced by" field. I'm not very familiar with the topic, but after a cursory search I didn't find any sources making that claim. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

On the assumption that the RfC question here is Should the 'influenced by' field that contains 'Euclid' be removed as it is unsourced?: Delete – on the basis that the assertion is unsourced. Aside: (Not an attack or in any way to be interpreted as hostile) @Guillermind81 @198.53.108.48: Can this RfC please be reworded/restructured so the exact main question be more explicitly stated, as exampled by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. The additional requests for "the community to argue and discuss" – little evidence to support any content in the 'influenced by' field. If I missed the boat on this one please assist me with further information (ping me) so I can contribute better to the conversation. waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Waddie96: you are free to reword the RfC if you'd like waddie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources needed Simbioz (talk)

I admit the evidence for Euclid's influence on Archimedes is weak and indirect, by which I meant only that Archimedes was clearly aware of Euclid's work (whether directly via the Elements, or through Alexandrian intermediaries) as many of Archimedes' results rely on theorems proved by Euclid. If this is not enough to account for an influence, I'm ok with removing Euclid altogether.

The case for Eudoxus is different. In addition to Eudoxus' possible influence in the construction of astronomical devices, Archimedes himself refers to Eudoxus' work in the Sand-Reckoner, in the Sphere and Cylinder, and in the Method (Netz, 2014, pp. 169-170) not to mention that by all accounts the "method of exhaustion," which Archimedes uses everywhere, is due to Eudoxus (Dijksterhuis, 1987, pp. 130-133) and appears in Euclid's Elements Book XII. In fact, these references by Archimedes indicate firsthand access to Eudoxus' work (rather than intermediaries) and serves as valuable testimony for the latter (Knorr, 2000, p.546). For these reasons, Eudoxus should remain as an influence on Archimedes.

I hope this clarifies the reasoning behind the "Influences" category. I'll be happy to provide similar arguments for the "Influenced" category, which basically boils down to these people quoting and using Archimedes' results in their own work.

References

Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1987). Archimedes (trans. by C. Dikshoorn). Princeton University Press.

Knorr, W. (2000). Archimedes. In J. Brunschwig & G. E. R. Lloyd (Eds.) Greek thought: A guide to classical knowledge (pp. 544-553). Harvard University Press.

Netz, R. (2014). The problem of Pythagorean mathematics. In C. A. Huffman (Ed.) A history of Pythagoreanism (pp. 167-184). Cambridge University Press. Guillermind81 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guillermind81:, i won't dispute eudoxus, but i think if you want to make your infobox additions meaningful, i recommend you scour and see who else. my own hunch is some combination of thales, anaximander, parmenides and pythagoras (in addition to eudoxus) will also come up.

i commend your research and i should also state: for archimedes this is the bar. many did not know he is, in essence, the father of neuseis constructions until a source was provided. similarly, any infobox modification will have a similar and significant influence on the knowledge of the public-at-large. it seems you are aware of that and your effort is laudable.

there's no question he knew of euclid's work, but i think you're mistaken in saying he used it. i find euclid's work very, very dry compared to archimedes. both had their way of proving things, where it seems euclid's approach continues to dominate mathematics (nothing wrong with that). i am a fan of archimedes' approach to proofs, but it's much more narrow in terms of applicability (especially when considering the body of mathematics that has developed in the past two millennia). archimedes had no use for euclid's proofs (in my view). much of euclidean geometry is intuitive, but proving the axioms may not be as easy. he could have easily used euclidean geometry without having to rely on the innumerable proofs in elements. again, just my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-9485-9_5 says

Euclid’s Elements, written about 300 BC, a comprehensive treatise on geometry, proportions, and the theory of numbers, is the most long-lived of all mathematical works. This elegant logical structure, formulated by Euclid based on a small num-ber of self-evident axioms of the utmost simplicity, undoubtedly influenced the work of Archimedes ([36], Proclus). Archimedes introduced step-by-step logic combined with analysis and experiments in solving mechanical problems and the design of machines and mechanisms.

the fact he says 'see proclus' tells me this guy definitely knows what he's talking about. so i guess both of those influences can stand. but i recommend adding the sources in proper { {cite|} } format. nice job. i think you fluked out on euclid though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@198.53.108.48: I've removed Euclid and Apollonius from the infobox as the evidence for these two regarding Archimedes is indirect. I do believe Euclid and Archimedes represent two different traditions in Greek mathematics: one focused on formal, logical structure (Euclid), the other focused on geometric measurements of plane and solid figures (Christianidis & Demis, 2010, pp. 57-58). That being said, to say that Archimedes had no use of Euclid's proofs is a stretch...after all, the reason Euclid's work was called the Elements (by the ancients no less) is a clear indication that what it covered was a prerequisite for more advance work which Archimedes expected his readers to be familiar with.

There is, conversely, no evidence that Archimedes was influenced by Thales, Anaximander, Parmenides, or Pythagoras. The only philosopher that Archimedes quotes is Democritus in the Method, for stating (without proof) that the cone is one-third the volume of the cylinder and the pyramid one-third the volume of the prism having the same base and equal height (Dijksterhuis, 1987, p.321). One could speculate that Archimedes may have been familiar with Democritus' work, but if we do not admit Euclid as an influence, we should not admit Democritus either, as the evidence is equally weak and indirect.

References

Christianidis, J., & Demis, A. (2010). Archimedes' quadratures. In S. A. Paipetis & M. Ceccarelli (Eds.) The genius of Archimedes: 23 centuries of influence on mathematics, science, and engineering (pp. 57-68). Springer

Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1987). Archimedes (trans. by C. Dikshoorn). Princeton University Press. Guillermind81 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

whatever works for you @Guillermind81:, but i think the source i gave above may support your argument for euclid. yes, my claim is a "stretch" if we consider euclid is the father of the proof (i think? i didn't think about it that way). and if that's the case then archimedes would have had no notion of rigorous proof without euclid. that being said, their styles are very different.

i found some things about anaximander and archimedes, but it concerns the celestial spheres and measurement of earth and also symmetry. i am still looking into this. aristarchus has come up as well. are you a history major or something? you know your stuff, and of course your additions are welcome. i am impressed. most math-oriented people really don't care about things this much and i find myself being the only one who does stuff like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. this is a good way of summing up what i was saying about euclid's influence on archimedes

Of all the famous problems of mathematics, that of squaring the circle has exerted the greatest fascination through the ages4• This problem also eluded solution with Euclidean tools, but, again, Greek mathematicians produced "solutions" which, although not Euclidean, possessed great ingenuity and elegance. One such solution is due to Archimedes (287-212 B.C.), regarded as the greatest mathematician of antiquity, and one of the greatest of all time. His solution of the problem was achieved by means of a special curve known as the spiral of Archimedes

The Mathematics of Ancient Greece, John L Bell (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-4209-0_2)

it was euclid's axiomatic approach to proving the "obvious", in my opinion, that would have been the greatest influence on archimedes (giving him ideas on how to prove what he may see as obvious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guillermind81: you should include apollonius (maybe i'm thinking of pappus who has the 'obvious' sources?) as well. this one is pretty easy to source and support (in my view). if you can't find the sources, let me know i'll find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

what about aristarchus? i'm not too sure what to make of him. he did have an influence, but i think it's more than the anecdote they use from the sand reckoner anecdote. maybe i'll look into this tomorrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Influenced" field in the infobox says that Archimedes influenced Hero, Pappus and Eutocius. While this may well be true, it runs into the same problem of being unsourced. This also needs to be looked at.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Addressing changes to the Infobox

Regarding Aristarchus:

Archimedes refers to Aristarchus’ work in the same way that he refers to Democritus’: to make a point regarding his own research. In the case of Democritus, the point is that finding the solution to a problem is not the same as providing a proof of the same. Archimedes says in the Method that Democritus should be given credit for the first and Eudoxus for the second (Knorr, 2000, pp. 545-546). Of course, that makes Archimedes twice greater than either of them since he is showing in the Method how he found his solutions in addition to their proofs.

Similarly, Archimedes’ goal in the Sand-Reckoner is to name the number of grains of sand that can fill a universe. To make the problem more interesting, he wants the biggest universe that is currently available. Aristarchus’ heliocentric model enters the picture here (and only here) because it presupposes a much larger size for the universe than the geocentric one (Shapiro, 1975, p.75). Note that Archimedes does not argue in favor or against Aristarchus’ heliocentric idea in the same way Ptolemy was to do in the Almagest. For him, the point of introducing Aristarchus’ universe is that it makes finding the number of grains of sand that much more challenging.

So again, if we do not admit Euclid or Democritus, we should not admit Aristarchus either, as the evidence for his influence on Archimedes is minor or indirect.

Regarding names in the “Influenced” category:

The case of Archimedes’ influence on Apollonius is likewise indirect. Apollonius was a younger contemporary of Archimedes and dealt with many of the same topics familiar to him: astronomy, measurement, conic sections. On the latter, Archimedes uses a nomenclature for curves that antedates Apollonius’ own “parabola,” “hyperbola,” and “ellipse,” and there is some evidence that Archimedes wrote part of On Floating Bodies II in response to Apollonius’ new labeling (Netz, 2017). Apollonius, in turn, may have edited the Conics in light of certain Archimedean results (Dijksterhuis, 1987, pp. 85-86). However, neither Archimedes or Apollonius referred to the other by name, and so this evidence (although plausible) is no stronger than that for Euclid, Democritus, or Aristarchus.

On the other hand, the case for Archimedes’ influence on Hero, Pappus, and Eutocius is more secure as all three explicitly took an interest in, and further expanded on, Archimedes’ work. Hero in the Metrica, for instance, speaks of the need to continue Archimedes’ work on solid figures and places his own work as an extension of it (Høyrup, 1996). There are 19 references to Archimedes in the Metrica alone, mainly to Archimedes’ demonstrations in On the Sphere and Cylinder, Measurement of the Circle, and the Method. In addition, Hero refers to Archimedes six times in the Mechanics, and at least once in the Pneumatics (Tybjerg, 2004). In all these instances, Archimedes’ work is introduced to solve a new set of problems on a more practical and numerical basis.

Likewise, Pappus refers to Archimedes in several places in the Collection. For example, Pappus mentions Archimedes as the founder of theoretical mechanics and to his work On Floating Bodies in Book VIII (Tybjerg, 2003). Pappus also elaborates many of Archimedes’ results, such as the neusis construction from On Spirals in Book IV, and the treatment of solids from On the Sphere and Cylinder in Book V (Jones, 1986; Rideout, 2008). In addition, Pappus is our best testimony for works ascribed to Archimedes that are no longer extant, including On Polyhedra, On Sphere-Making, and the “Arbelos” mini-treatise found in Book IV of the Collection (Netz, 2004, p. 13; Sefrin-Weis, 2010, pp. xvi-xxi).

Finally, Eutocius wrote a number of competent commentaries on some of Archimedes’ work, in many cases the only ones to survive from antiquity (Netz, 2004, p. 4). These include On Sphere and Cylinder I-II, Measurement of the Circle, and Planes in Equilibrium I-II. In many places, for the sake of the reader, Eutocius supplies steps that were absent in Archimedes’ proofs or adds explanations that were implied by Archimedes (Mansfeld, 1998, pp. 44-48). Eutocius’ admiration of Archimedes is clear in his report of a long search for one of Archimedes’ promised proofs, which he found written in Doric in an old book (Wilson, 1996, pp. 45-46).

For these reasons, I submit that these three people should be counted as influenced by Archimedes and their names retained in the infobox.

References

Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1987). Archimedes (trans. by C. Dikshoorn). Princeton University Press.

Høyrup, J. (1996). Hero, Ps-Hero, and Near Eastern practical geometry. Faggruppen for filosofi og videnskabsteori, 3(5), 1-30.

Jones, A. (1986). Pappus of Alexandria Book 7 of the Collection, Part 1: Introduction, text, and translation. Springer.

Knorr, W. (2000). Archimedes. In J. Brunschwig & G. E. R. Lloyd (Eds.) Greek thought: A guide to classical knowledge (pp. 544-553). Harvard University Press.

Mansfeld, J. (1998). Prolegomena mathematica. Brill.

Netz, R. (2004). The works of Archimedes, Volume 1: The two books On the Sphere and the Cylinder. Cambridge University Press.

— (2017). Nothing to do with Apollonius? Concerning the style and chronology of late-Archimedean mathematics. Philologus, 161(1), 47-76.

Tybjerg, K. (2003). Wonder-making and philosophical wonder in Hero of Alexandria. Studies in the History of Philosophy and Science, 34, 443-466.

— (2004). Hero of Alexandria’s mechanical geometry. Apeiron, 37(4), 29-56.

Rideout, B. (2008). Pappus reborn: Pappus of Alexandria and the changing face of analysis and synthesis in late antiquity [Master’s thesis]. University of Canterbury.

Shapiro, A. E. (1975). Archimedes’ measurement of the Sun’s apparent diameter. Journal for the History of Astronomy, 6(2), 75-83.

Sefrin-Weis, H. (2010). Pappus of Alexandria Book 4 of the Collection. Springer.

Wilson, N. G. (1996). Scholars of Byzantium (revised ed.). Gerald Duckworth & Co.

Guillermind81 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guillermind81: (i see you just posted a large response, nice) @Ianmacm: first i want to apologise to everyone reading this section as i've made a mess (surprise! ;) ) however i think hero is correct, as is pappus. problem is, they don't say "this guy's the bomb", but it's obvious they're relying heavily on his work...

• for pappus, i think the influence is general but we should use the proofs of the arbelos as a good example.

Some of the properties of the figure which, on account of itsshape, the Greeks named the Shoemaker's Knife (ip/S^Xos) are givenin the Lemmas attributed to Archimedes; others occur in the fourthbook of Pappus's Mathematical Collection. The Lemmas (which arenot extant in Greek, but have been translated from the Arabic) aregenerally considered to be spurious; it is, however, regarded as pos-sible, if not probable, that the theorems among them relating to theArbelos may be due to Archimedes. Whether they are or not, thefigure and the principal proposition respecting it which Pappus givesare said by him to be " ancient."

— J.S. MacKay

here is an additional source from the Bulletin of the american mathematical society generally speaking about how Pappus is using archimedes' work

in my view, these sources are more than sufficient to establish pappus being influenced by archimedes. it's really obvious.

• for hero i feel it's a little similar, but here you are

Most notably, he makes frequent referencesto Archimedean treatises throughout his work.

— Karin Tybjerg

note that, this scholar has focused on hero for some time and provides a source for their claim. i think this singular source is more than ample to justify hero.

• i am in the midst of finding a solid source for apollonius right now. in my view it's kind of easy to use Heath's book as a singular source because he says apollonius uses archimedes' unpublished work as a foundation for his own:

(4) The differences between the two modes of presenting the fundamental properties are so slight that we may regard Apollonius as in reality the typical representative of the Greek theory of conics and as giving indications in his proofs of the train of thought which had led his predecessors no less than himself to the formulation of these propositions.
Thus, where Archimedes chooses to use proportions in investigations for which Apollonius prefers the method of application of areas which is more akin to our algebra, Zeuthen is most inclined to think that it is Archimedes who is showing individual peculiarities than Apollonius, who kept closer to his Alexandrine predecessors: a view which (he thinks) is supported by the circumstance that the system of applying areas as found in Euclid Book II is decidedly older than the Euclidean doctrine of proportions.

— Sir Thomas Little Heath

really, this source has so many references to archimedes and thoroughly analyses his influence on apollonius that it is impossible to ignore. i've included another page range on top of the page for the quote above so you can read it for yourself.

• i just want to say it seems guillermind81 and i are on the same page for the most part. aristarchus may be weak, i agree. i just thought the use of the model was interesting. apparently he used a combination of both anaximander and aristarchus' model for his own.

• we may be able to add diophantus as well, but i haven't looked? i agree hero and pappus are easy peasy. i think apollonius is easy too if you use heath as a source, which i think is hard to overlook. i'll wait to hear from you on that.

oh yeah, before i forget: for ol' redrose74 "198.53.108.48 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)"

influenced/influences infobox addition

archimedes is a significant figure in the history of many fields, including mathematics, physics and general science. are the influence{s,d} infobox attributes appropriate for a figure of his stature?

sorry for the new rfc, but this has been bugging me. i would ask readers to consider the fact i spent at least 5 hours investigating and contributing to these additions, and i ended up concluding they're not necessary.

i would like to have a discussion with the larger audience about whether we need the influence{s,d} infobox attributes for archimedes, given how many people he influenced and how his work shaped multiple fields.

indeed, the lead of the article suggests he could be seen as the forefather of a entire field(s), which suggests the worthy additions to the infobox could far exceed a handful when including popular and important contributors from the 'teen' centuries.

i think it would be better to leave the infobox as it was before, which did not have the influence{s,d} fields. it is known how important he was, and i think making any list of figures just dilutes or potentially erodes from that.

thoughts? "198.53.108.48 (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)" (freakin redrose74)

Comment: Dunno: Not confident that I spotted the entry in question. All the recent versions seem identical. I accept that the 6 items that I could see in the s/d entry were not particularly inspiring, but I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Sorry to be so unhelpful. JonRichfield (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think I made a strong case for the names posted in both Influences/Influenced categories. The infobox is (quoting Wikipedia) "a summary of information about the subject of an article in Wikipedia". You are assuming readers know how important Archimedes was, including those who were an influence for him and who he influenced. I think that is a very strong assumption to make, and I prefer to take the opposite view and assume a reader knows next to nothing about Archimedes (and thus visits Wikipedia for guidance). To be clear, I do not mean we should add everyone and their mother to the infobox. I think only those names that are supported by evidence and that are closer in time to Archimedes should be included. The "Legacy" section already mentions those figures from the 17th century onwards that were influenced by Archimedes. Guillermind81 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete you make fair points Guillermind81; i don't disagree with what you're saying, nor is it my intention to undo the (for the lack of a better term) herculean effort you provided above in support of them.

the only reason i vote for removal is because, while i may asSEWme he is important, i just don't think it's necessary. i hope children are still taught about archimedes in grade school.

indeed i recall chapters in grade 4 MathQuest textbook illustrating archimedes' infamous "eureka" moment for very elementary concepts. kids know who he is.

in your defence this is probably an optimal account (and privileged, to say the least) of how a child learns of archimedes.

i still i think it speaks volumes (ha ha) for an influential figure of this stature to not have any entries, as it should (at least) be obvious they had some influence.

it implies a sort-of "who didn't he influence?" or "what discipline didn't use his work as a starting point?" "198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC) (i hate redrose74, i hate redrose74, i hate redrose74 ... i hate redrose74...)"

Why should redrose74 (talk · contribs) (who has made just four edits (none to this page) and who was blocked four years ago) incur so much hate from you? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

hahaha you creep! i'm just kidding. after being told to "sign things" i just think of your vandalism on my talk page. that's all. no harm, no foul. it's all good baby "198.53.108.48 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)"

What vandalism would that be? I have made exactly one edit on your talk page, which was a standard message drawing your attention to our advice in signing your posts, advice which the Wikipedia community has agreed to. I do not consider that it fell foul of WP:VAND, but if you feel that it did, have you tried reporting me to WP:AIV? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should have a better name not implying that it is a random collection of potpourri trivia facts, but are items of less importance than those in the Legacy section. Archimedes and his concepts were important in the earlier era of mechanical engineering without computers. Items suitable for the infobox would be one to two sentence summaries of existing Wikipedia articles with Archimedes-based content. If it's significant enough to have an article, then it would be significant enough to be in the infobox even if it is something like the 2021 pandemic streaming release of the movie The Great War of Archimedes. AnimeJanai (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

One of the takeouts of this discussion is that the influenced/influenced by fields in infobox scientist are a bit of a disaster area. The infobox is best suited to simple statements that are uncontroversial, not statements that require some sort of qualification. Carl Friedrich Gauss was influenced by Archimedes, whom he rated more highly than Euclid, but it is difficult to give a long list in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: i totally agree and this is the reason why i feel we need to remove the fields for archimedes. he is a highly influential figure. the net is as-deep as it is wide. i just don't think enumerating all these people is worth it. like i said, people know who he is. newton was a big fan of archimedes as well. i mean, it is no stretch to say that the influence of archimedes is comparable to a well-known figure (in a different 'area') who followed a couple hundred years later. why not cast a vote? ;) "198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)"

I'm sorry but it feels like you are associating names with Archimedes without much thought. How exactly did Archimedes influence Gauss? Did Gauss make use of Archimedean methods in his research? Did he extend Archimedes' results to other areas? That he read and admired Archimedes is one thing, but Gauss' work and manner of doing mathematics are completely different from Archimedes and in that sense Archimedes is hardly an influence. You could arguably say the same about Newton. My point was not to include everybody (does saying that one knows about Jesus makes one a Christian?). Instead, I proposed criteria for including names in the infobox: (1) that the influence of Archimedes is substantiated with evidence, and (2) that the person in question lived closer to the time of Archimedes than our own. If the community feels these criteria are unreasonable, then by all means go ahead and delete those categories since I hate beating on a dead horse.Guillermind81 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

it's kind of unfair to compare archimedes' work to those influenced by him. it's an impossible standard...

He who understands Archimedes and Apollonius will admire less the achievements of the foremost men of later times.

— Leibniz

i respect your position, but the way i look at it is this: if one can engineer a way to build a brick wall in a short period by some ingenious method, where many hundreds each lay one brick to build the same wall over a much larger period of time, what makes the contributions of the latter "different"? is it because their individual contributions are insignificant when compared with the single (esteemed) engineer? what if the totality of their effort actually reveals the method of the single person when looking back at their hundreds of years of effort? it is really unfair. that's just my view on it "198.53.108.48 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)"

Legacy section

I was influenced by Leonardo Da Vinci's legacy section and wanted to add an image on the left. It seems amazing when you're seeing it from Desktop, and this article was the same for YEARS anyway. Da Vinci also has the List of things named after him in further information, so why shouldn't Archimedes do? I'll delete it from the See Also section (full bottom), and keep it as it was yesterday, with the "Eureka" thing too. (if you find it good) (-> List of things named after Archimedes and Eureka). Let me know! I repeat, this article has been the same for years, and I don't think that these small changes bypass any WP. Thanks Holloman123 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH is definitely something to avoid, and there isn't much room in the Legacy section for images. Left placement of images should also be avoided as far as possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but the image at the left fits perfectly in my opinion, (especially if you are from Desktop). Should this be avoided in this specific article because it is a featured one? (I repeat I was influenced by Da Vinci's Legacy section) -> Leonardo Da Vinci. What do you think? There is no other image placed on the left. Holloman123 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I was seeing a lot of sandwiching on my laptop, and it didn't look very good at at all. Placing left and right images right directly next to each other is pretty much a no-no. I'm also worried about whether the relief carving here really is Archimedes, or whether later people have said that is meant to be Archimedes without knowing this as a fact. The question marks (?) in the image caption suggest that we don't know whether it is Archimedes or whether other people have assumed this. As for adding a link to Eureka, this isn't a great idea because pretty much none of this is linked to Archimedes or even mathematics. For example, Eureka! Tent Company and Eureka (Mother Mother album) are just random facts, leading to problems with WP:TRIVIA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

They really are random facts, but they are named after the most famous phrase of Archimedes, which is Eureka. It is also a disambiguation page. The Archimedes Group has also nothing to do with mathematics and science, but it is named after his honor and it is included on the disambiguation. And alright, I won't add the image. Thanks for your time and opinion! Have a nice day. You can delete this section if you like. Holloman123 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Re this edit: the clock is attributed to Archimedes by Apuleius, who was writing much later in Roman times. This also leads to problems because it does not appear in the known works of Archimedes. See this cite, which says "In the final analysis, the testimonies regarding Archimedes should be taken with a grain of salt, and are certainly more useful for extracting factual information that for deriving psychological information. The little that we really know about Archimedes’ personality we can deduce from his works and from the facts documented."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Because there's only one source, and that's Vitruvius, I can't add it anywhere else, or analyze it further, that's why I added it on the lead section. Also, I added a reference about the elevator, (I can add dozens of others too). Of course it wasn't a modern-day elevator, but I didn't mention the epithet modern nowhere anyway. I just mentioned that it is the first-known. (You can also check the elevator article). Let me know if you agree or disagree and why. Thanks. Holloman123 (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm:Yeah, I agree completely with your mention about the clock, but when it comes to the elevator, I thing that it's worth mentioning, since Vitruvius is an amazing and extremely reliable source. (Keep in mind that he's the guy who gave us the story of the Eureka). The elevator-thing is also semi-famous (for example https://www.history.com/news/who-invented-the-elevator) Holloman123 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Vitruvius and the Eureka story aren't considered to be reliable, because he was writing much later in Roman times. The clock also appears to have been attributed to Archimedes by other writers and does not appear in his known works. I've tried to stick to blue chip academic sources, not history.com etc as they are not really the same as academic sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Mitsubishi: https://www.mitsubishielectric.com/elevator/overview/elevators/history.html , Samsung: http://news.samsungcnt.com/building-skies-elevator-changed-history/, https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/who-invented-the-elevator.htm, https://www.euro-lifts.co.uk/2019/10/21/history-lift-elevator/, https://www.livescience.com/57282-elevator-history.html, https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/03/the-eccentric-engineer-how-the-elevator-shaft-came-before-the-elevator/, BBC: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140819-how-the-lift-changed-everything (They had existed for at least 2000 years – Vitruvius, the first century Roman architect, noted a design for one by Archimedes dating from around 235BC – but Otis proved they were safe for everyday use). Will "Furthermore, according to Vitruvius, Archimedes invented the first-known elevator" be ok or it isn't worth-mentioning anyway? Thanks in advance. Holloman123 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the things about Archimedes is that non-academic sources don't get it quite right, or give enough detail. The lead already says "He is credited with designing innovative machines, such as his screw pump, compound pulleys, and defensive war machines to protect his native Syracuse from invasion." This is a lot more accurate than "Archimedes invented the elevator." Vitruvius and Plutarch may simply be quoting sources from Roman times that attribute the block and tackle to Archimedes, something that does not appear in his known works. "Archimedes invented the elevator" is nowhere near nuanced enough when you look at the actual sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. I'll keep it like this. Thanks. Have a nice day! Holloman123 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Reversion

@Guillermind81: "Two things: (1) We do not know if Archimedes introduced the idea of center of gravity, that is what the citation is for. (2) Archimedes only spoke of 1 law of buoyancy, not laws (plural). I'll bundle the references in a footnote if that helps."

First of all, the reason that I reverted your changes sir are already pointed, (->rv good faith edit: "use of the concept of centers of gravity" doesn't seem "nice", plus there is no need to add references since the articles of what we're talking about (for example the laws of buoyancy) are already pointed) Of course we do know that Archimedes introduced the idea of the center of gravity, that's why I pointed the article, and there's no need for a reference. Secondly, the laws of buoyancy are discovered by Archimedes (there's no thing such as law or laws of buoyancy, it's just the so-called Archimedes principle). Finally, when I was talking for the excessive citations I meant the citations in the legacy section, ive added a template of there, you can go check it. Let me know if we can keep it as I had it, with no references since there is need to have, because, as I repeat, the articles are already pointed, and people can go and see there. I hope that you have a nice day, I'd like to hear your opinion! Holloman123 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Holloman123: First off, I do appreciate the work you have done cleaning up the clutter, particularly in the Legacy section. As for the citations regarding Archimedes' contributions to physics at the beginning: although Graf's (2004) article "Just what did Archimedes say about buoyancy?" is cited once in the entire entry, neither Goe's (1972) "Archimedes' theory of the lever and Mach's critique," nor Berggren's (1976) "Spurious Theorems in Archimedes' Equilibrium of Planes: Book I" are cited anywhere else. These are new citations that I added to corroborate my edits. This last one, in particular, makes the case that it is uncertain if Archimedes was the first to introduce the center of gravity given that: (1) Archimedes never provides a definition anywhere but assumes the reader knows what a center of gravity means, and (2) there are traces of other, non-Archimedean definitions of center of gravity that may predate Archimedes himself. So when I say we don't know it is because we really don't know, even if saying so isn't nice. I prefer to be accurate than polite on these matters.

As for whether to call it the law of buoyancy or Archimedes' principle: if by law we mean of course law of nature, that is, a statement regarding some principle that is true of the natural world, then the two terms are essentially equivalent. Honestly, I'm fine with either and I rather not split hairs on this. Guillermind81 (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that he's the one who introduced/invented the center of gravity. Check Center_of_mass#History (I pointed it on the article too). Your changes were the same thing anyway. The only difference is that imo, if we keep it as it was, it'd be much better. If anything, ill keep your references there too. Let me know if you agree. Holloman123 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Holloman123: Again, two things: (1) Shore, though a fine author (and the main reference provided in the Center_of_mass#History section), is a physicist, not a historian, so caveat lector and (2) He doesn't say Archimedes introduced the ideas of center of gravity or of the lever, but that he developed them (Shore (2008), p. 10). I have changed the wording in that other article too, so thanks for pointing out that error. Guillermind81 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section redux

I did not partake in the earlier discussion regarding the Legacy section, but I felt the need to revisit this topic from a broader perspective. As much as I admire Archimedes, I begin to fear the Legacy section may devolve into an Archimedes fan page. Should we have some parameters as to what should be admissible and what not? Should we move some content to a different Wikipedia entry? Thoughts? Guillermind81 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Archimedes fan page? Why? The legacy section is about his legacy, honors and appraisals. There is E.T Bell's phrase from his famous book "Men of Mathematics" which describes Gauss, Archimedes and Newton as the greatest mathematicians of all time. Then it's Whitehead, who is one of the most famous philosophers of the previous century, and then the historian of mathematics Reviel Netz who also wrote the book "Archimedes' Palimpset". I really can't see how the section was turned into a fan page. If you could sir, please elaborate. Have a nice day. Holloman123 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

My intention here is proactive. I am not saying the Legacy section is a fan page, only that it may turn into one if we do not have some sort of criteria for inclusion. Perhaps there is already one but I am not aware of it. Perhaps there isn't, and so this could be an opportunity to put together one for future reference. Having a list of endorsements is fine and all, but how long should it be? Are modern authors to be preferred over older ones? Should it be ordered chronologically? etc. Guillermind81 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the author is modern or not. And no they shouldn't be ordered chronologically as far as im aware. The section was literally empty and has been the same for years, that's why I made some small changes these days. It it also extremely small when compared with other articles. There wasn't even a preface before going into Galileo's words etc, that's why I added the appraisal of the famous book by ET Bell and the other 2 mathematicians. It is also widely known anyway, that Gauss, Archimedes and Newton (then Euler) are the greatest mathematicians of all time (Here E.T Bell makes a comment on how Archimedes might be the best in terms of how far ahead of his time he was). Have a nice day sir. Holloman123 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've come around and agree with you that Archimedes' legacy section is rather anemic. I made a handful of format changes but otherwise kept your contributions as is. Thanks for taking care of this. -Guillermind81 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"Leading Scientist" ANACHRONISM

The original wording of this sentence originally stated "He is considered to be... one of the greatest mathematicians in antiquity" this wording existed ca. 2001-2007

The current wording is anachronistic, since Science (AKA the scientific method) was not developed in Archimedes time (and neither could he be a "leading" scientist as science was not an established field), he was a natural philosopher, not a "scientist".

This language is wrong and lends currency to false conclusions, so I strongly propose reverting back to the original statement in use until February 2007, that he was considered one of the greatest mathematicians in antiquity. Or otherwise using the term natural philosopher in place of "scientist"

So in closing the following change should be made:
OLD: he is regarded as one of the leading scientists in classical antiquity
NEW: he is regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians in classical antiquity
ALT: he is regarded as one of the greatest natural philosophers in classical antiquity

Notes:

TY for reading

Etesiaa (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Natural philosophy is quite a broad term, and it is used to describe science before the European Renaissance when figures like Galileo and Newton came along. It is not strictly true to say that Archimedes was not a scientist, as his work would be regarded in this way today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC) ^{[Annotations by Etesiaa]}

No, Natural philosophy is a very specific term which refers to natural philosophy. "Natural philosophy" is NOT descriptive of science. Science refers to Science. Archimedes was NOT a SCIENTIST.

ARCHIMEDES WORK IS NOT A PRODUCT OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY AS LAID OUT IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD.

I'll say it once more, mathematician, and/or natural philosopher, they are each very specific things, and they are each not science. You have no further argument, so I recommend that the article be changed immediately.

TY for reading

Etesiaa (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Britannica uses the word scientist to describe Archimedes.[2] as does this BBC article.[3] This is probably because the word scientist is understood more easily than natural philosopher. The experimental and engineering work of Archimedes would be classified as science today, although the term is largely a product of the European renaissance. As the article Scientist says, "In classical antiquity, there was no real ancient analog of a modern scientist. Instead, philosophers engaged in the philosophical study of nature called natural philosophy, a precursor of natural science. It was not until the 19th century that the term scientist came into regular use after it was coined by the theologian, philosopher, and historian of science William Whewell in 1833."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You just showed me that Britannica uses the term Mathematician. It literally says it under his name. Twice. It only used the term "ancient scientist" in the history section, where 1. it doesn't even refer to him accusatively. 2. it proceeds to cause technical confusion due to its anachronicity. A BBC kids show for the science curriculum? Is that your source? Do you understand the difference between using the term 'science' as a general term, and directly accusing someone of being a "leading scientist" in a technical article? What is your motive? What is the reason for your insistence on using a misappropriated anachronistic label? Answer me. What is your point? Who is paying you? Just change the term in the article, I don't have permission since it's protected. Just change the term, it's misleading and anachronistic. I will not ask again.

TY for reading

Etesiaa (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Input from other editors is needed as we have both had our two cents' worth on this issue. By the way, see WP:SHOUT.--16:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:SHOUT doesn't apply when you're continually ignoring my point and being diffusive. The emphasis is needed to keep on topic, but nice try at rule-trolling.

BTW I just checked your profile, it looks like you're a chronic complainer and rule-troll. No wonder you refuse to mount a proper response or participate in this discussion without complaining, deflecting and ignoring. And to whom it may concern ianmacm was the one who made the original edit replacing "mathematician" with "scientist" obviously there is some vested interest in this.

TY for reading

Etesiaa (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is just getting silly, and I'm walking away rather than listening to this uncivil rant. I do agree that the term scientist is a modern invention, I've already said this. However, I'm not saying or doing anything more related to this thread until others have had their say. Alternatively, create a request for comment on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Archimedean property

The method he used must have been the only way available to him at that time, literally exhaustion.

By taking two number in division and multiplying them both to see if they would add up to 3. So mathmatically a^2/b^2 ≈ 3. Since they had no calculators or computers in those days, yes this must have been exhaustive indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:F6D:8484:0:A557:1966:C549:C306 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nationality of Archimedes

Dear All,

I think it is not correct write that Archimede was an Ancient Greek and a Greek mathematician beecause even if Syracuse was founded by Greeks (from Corinthians) Syracuse was an Indipendent City State and was not under the control of any Greek Cities. It was a Siceliotes man, an Sicilian man with greeks roots. As it is written now, it is look like he was greek, that he was born in Greece and that after he moved in Syracuse. Thanks for anwering to my doubt.

https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/sicelioti/ encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siceliotes. wikipedia page KrisVVVCaesar (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Greece is not a country. The article defines it as "a northeastern Mediterranean civilization, existing from the Greek Dark Ages of the 12th–9th centuries BC to the end of classical antiquity (c. AD 600), that comprised a loose collection of culturally and linguistically related city-states and other territories." Archimedes was ethnically and culturally Greek, and Magna Graecia was a collection of city states (poleis) under Greek influence. Συράκουσαι (Syrakousai) was one of these.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Any Greek, from the second generation onwards, born at these times, in Sicily, is by definition a Siceliot. It would be like saying that anyone born in the Thirteen Colonies at the time of British rule was not American but English, except that Syracuse was totally independent IlPoncio (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Siceliot is not a common English language word. Virtually all reliable sources describe Archimedes as an ancient Greek mathematician, eg Britannica says that he was "the most famous mathematician and inventor in ancient Greece".[4] It's also repetitive to say that he was a Siceliot from Sicily. At the time that Archimedes lived and worked, Sicily was part of Magna Graecia (Greater Greece). Modern concepts of nationality do not apply in ancient times, and Syracuse was an independent city state until it fell to the Romans in 212 BC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Audio file

Out of curiosity, has anyone thought about whether we should keep the audio file from 2009? It is heavily outdated IMO and either we should upload a new one or not have one at all. Open to hear what others think --Guillermind81 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Many of the audio versions of articles are way out of date. At one stage it was fashionable to create spoken versions of articles, but you can see at WP:SPAR that some of them (in fact most of them) are now very old. For people with visual impairment a better option is to use Microsoft Narrator or similar screen reading software. I'm tempted to remove the spoken version here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That was my feeling too. People who need that option already have the tools to screen read from elsewhere; I don't see what can be gain in duplicating a feature that others have access to and which is very outdated. I vote to remove it. Guillermind81 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Archimedes' Heat Ray

Although there's speculation on how this heat ray or rather destruction by fire worked, it can and did happen that ships were burned. It was stated by a non-friendly historian, and usually when history is written it's never written in favor of the loser but in favor of the victor, which then can only mean that Archimedes inventions did a whole lot more damage and that amongst these fire was used.

For as far as I can tell back in those days, there's two methods of delivering heat or fire at a distance where it could set ships ablaze, either direct fire delivery or heat projection by parabolic mirror. The man re-invented the lever and fulcrum up to a point that would easily have facilitated a crude trebuchet filled with an oil amphora set alight, for direct fire delivery.

I wrote this to consider, nothing else.

The burning glasses may have been crude magnifying lenses, which were never involved with warfare, but rather astronomy.

Also the Claw of Archimedes is a much similar design to a trebuchet, with re-arrangement of the pulley's and weights, both using a large arm to swing around an object and a heavy weight on the other.

Also, this very day there's a conjunction of 5 planets, which Archimedes may actually have spotted through his crude 'burning lenses', which is impossible with the mere naked eye. 5 planets. I tried yesterday to see them, not possible with naked eye which in turn measn he did use crude magnifying lenses, which are then the 'burning' lenses (convex, required to enlarge.)

I don't know if the above contributor added the lengthy sections about various "Mythbuster" attempts at re-creating the "heat ray". I have renamed the section to "Attempts at reconstruction" to "Attempts at heat ray reconstruction" because that dominates the section. It seems a bit out of place to include such lengthy descriptions of a TV show to dominate "Legacy", but I tried to work with it 'as is'. Mentions of "Mappae clavicula" and Latin poem "Carmen de ponderibus et mensuris" seem also very out of place in "Legacy", it should either be moved to "Writings" section, or elsewhere. After moving mentions of the Latin writings (that are questionably attributed?) I changed the heading of "Mathematics and physics" to "Praise in mathematics and physics", because, clearly, it is all quotations of praise, I'm not sure why it wasn't labelled as such from the start. Cuvtixo (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said regarding the "heat ray," which is mostly click bait. I also did minor changes to the other two references that were moved to the Apocryphal section. "Praise in the fields of mathematics and physics" seemed like a mouthful, so I reverted back to the other title for brevity. However, I think this could be an opportunity to reconsider the section; perhaps integrating the quotes into a more general assessment of Archimedes' legacy based on scholarship-- Guillermind81 (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Modern heat ray experiments

Re this edit: it is quite a lot of sourced material to remove in one go. Guillermind81 previously removed this in October 2022, so there is now only a very brief mention of modern recreations with no mentions of Sakkas etc. One way round this would be to create a separate article for Archimedes' heat ray where this could be looked at in more detail. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That will be my suggestion also--if people really feel the need to read about modern heat ray tests, they should go elsewhere. As Cuvtixo said previously, it seems a bit out of place to include such lengthy discussions on an allegedly feat of Archimedes that was not mentioned explicitly anywhere until the 6th century AD, that has the ring of myth rather than fact, and which otherwise distract from his actual achievements.--- Guillermind81 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2023

Change "Archimedes was a Greek mathematician" to "Archimedes was a Greek-trained Sicilian mathematician" ... Michaelsgroi (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: Archimedes was ethnically Greek, and Sicily was a part of Magna Graecia at the time. Archimedes is usually described in reliable sources as an Ancient Greek mathematician.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Archimede wasn't Greek

Archimede wasn't Greek but Siceliot (ancient Sicilian). 62.18.148.209 (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've changed this to Ancient Greek mathematician. Ancient Greece is more of a culture and a civilisation than a country. Archimedes is usually described as being from Ancient Greece [5] and Siceliot is not a common word.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a recurring complain from some quarters and strike me as pedantry. Why insist in calling him a siceliot? Or, even more obtusely, "Greek-trained Sicilian"? That confuses more than clarifies. Siceliot might be fine for scholars, who can tell the difference between ancient Greek-speaking people in what is now Sicily and the ancient native Sicilian population, but to the rest it is meaningless. These requests are misguided and editorial energy is better spend elsewhere. And I don't see anyone requesting for Jonathan Edwards to be called "British" rather than "American" because he was a subject of the British Empire. Just my two cents. - Guillermind81 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)