Conceptual Divergence - Canons and Taboos - and Critique

Reflections on Explanatory Categories

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    Resumé

    Since the late 19th century it has been regularly discussed whether, e.g., the ancient Egyptian way to deal with fractions or the Greek exclusion of fractions and unity from the realm of numbers was a mere matter of imperfect notations or due to genuine “conceptual divergence,” that is, to a mathematical mode of thought that differed from ours. After a discussion of how the notion of a “mode of thought” can be made operational through the linking of concepts to mathematical operations and practices it is argued (1) that cases of conceptual divergence exist, but (2) that the discussion of notational imperfection versus conceptual divergence is none the less too simplistic, since differences may also be due to deliberate choices and exclusions on the part of the authors of the ancient texts—for instance because such a choice helps to fence off a profession, because it expresses appurtenance to a real or imagined tradition, or as a result of a critique in the Kantian sense, an elimination of expressions and forms of reasoning that are found theoretically incoherent. The argument is based throughout on historical examples.
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftHistoria Mathematica
    Vol/bind31
    Udgave nummer2
    Sider (fra-til)129-147
    ISSN0315-0860
    StatusUdgivet - 2004

    Bibliografisk note

    Elsevier har netop givet fri adgang for bidrag til dette tidsskrift efter 48 måneder

    Citer dette

    @article{cfdec8f0a49811db86e9000ea68e967b,
    title = "Conceptual Divergence - Canons and Taboos - and Critique: Reflections on Explanatory Categories",
    abstract = "Since the late 19th century it has been regularly discussed whether, e.g., the ancient Egyptian way to deal with fractions or the Greek exclusion of fractions and unity from the realm of numbers was a mere matter of imperfect notations or due to genuine “conceptual divergence,” that is, to a mathematical mode of thought that differed from ours. After a discussion of how the notion of a “mode of thought” can be made operational through the linking of concepts to mathematical operations and practices it is argued (1) that cases of conceptual divergence exist, but (2) that the discussion of notational imperfection versus conceptual divergence is none the less too simplistic, since differences may also be due to deliberate choices and exclusions on the part of the authors of the ancient texts—for instance because such a choice helps to fence off a profession, because it expresses appurtenance to a real or imagined tradition, or as a result of a critique in the Kantian sense, an elimination of expressions and forms of reasoning that are found theoretically incoherent. The argument is based throughout on historical examples.",
    keywords = "mathematical concepts, Babylonian mathematics, Egyptian mathematics, ancient Greek mathematics",
    author = "Jens H{\o}yrup",
    note = "Elsevier har netop givet fri adgang for bidrag til dette tidsskrift efter 48 m{\aa}neder",
    year = "2004",
    language = "English",
    volume = "31",
    pages = "129--147",
    journal = "Historia Mathematica",
    issn = "0315-0860",
    publisher = "Academic Press",
    number = "2",

    }

    Conceptual Divergence - Canons and Taboos - and Critique : Reflections on Explanatory Categories. / Høyrup, Jens.

    I: Historia Mathematica, Bind 31, Nr. 2, 2004, s. 129-147.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Conceptual Divergence - Canons and Taboos - and Critique

    T2 - Reflections on Explanatory Categories

    AU - Høyrup, Jens

    N1 - Elsevier har netop givet fri adgang for bidrag til dette tidsskrift efter 48 måneder

    PY - 2004

    Y1 - 2004

    N2 - Since the late 19th century it has been regularly discussed whether, e.g., the ancient Egyptian way to deal with fractions or the Greek exclusion of fractions and unity from the realm of numbers was a mere matter of imperfect notations or due to genuine “conceptual divergence,” that is, to a mathematical mode of thought that differed from ours. After a discussion of how the notion of a “mode of thought” can be made operational through the linking of concepts to mathematical operations and practices it is argued (1) that cases of conceptual divergence exist, but (2) that the discussion of notational imperfection versus conceptual divergence is none the less too simplistic, since differences may also be due to deliberate choices and exclusions on the part of the authors of the ancient texts—for instance because such a choice helps to fence off a profession, because it expresses appurtenance to a real or imagined tradition, or as a result of a critique in the Kantian sense, an elimination of expressions and forms of reasoning that are found theoretically incoherent. The argument is based throughout on historical examples.

    AB - Since the late 19th century it has been regularly discussed whether, e.g., the ancient Egyptian way to deal with fractions or the Greek exclusion of fractions and unity from the realm of numbers was a mere matter of imperfect notations or due to genuine “conceptual divergence,” that is, to a mathematical mode of thought that differed from ours. After a discussion of how the notion of a “mode of thought” can be made operational through the linking of concepts to mathematical operations and practices it is argued (1) that cases of conceptual divergence exist, but (2) that the discussion of notational imperfection versus conceptual divergence is none the less too simplistic, since differences may also be due to deliberate choices and exclusions on the part of the authors of the ancient texts—for instance because such a choice helps to fence off a profession, because it expresses appurtenance to a real or imagined tradition, or as a result of a critique in the Kantian sense, an elimination of expressions and forms of reasoning that are found theoretically incoherent. The argument is based throughout on historical examples.

    KW - mathematical concepts

    KW - Babylonian mathematics

    KW - Egyptian mathematics

    KW - ancient Greek mathematics

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 31

    SP - 129

    EP - 147

    JO - Historia Mathematica

    JF - Historia Mathematica

    SN - 0315-0860

    IS - 2

    ER -