Timeline for Why did the ancient Greek count 1 in case of perfect numbers but not otherwise
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 30, 2016 at 12:40 | comment | added | Michael E2 | We seem to agree. Euclid's definitions rest on a common understanding of some terms, like "measures." It could be that a number being a multitude of units, the unit is understood to be part of a number. Defs. 3/4 would extend the notion to the relation of "a number of/to a number" being either part or parts. My understanding is that there is scant evidence to decide such issues, but I'm not familiar with what there is. | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 10:30 | comment | added | fdb | @MichaelE2. I see your point. I think in Def. 3 he is defining what it means if "a number is part of a number". Apparently it is not meant as a exhaustive definition of "meros". | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 1:51 | comment | added | Michael E2 | In VII, Def. 3, Euclid defines "part" only in terms of numbers: "μέρος ἐστὶν ἀριθμὸς ἀριθμοῦ...." But clearly one is considered a part in the text. | |
| Oct 29, 2016 at 21:00 | history | edited | fdb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 29, 2016 at 20:33 | vote | accept | Franz Kurz | ||
| Oct 29, 2016 at 20:34 | |||||
| Oct 29, 2016 at 18:30 | history | edited | fdb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 105 characters in body
|
| Oct 29, 2016 at 18:25 | history | answered | fdb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |