nautical
发表于 2025-3-27 00:01:14
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8659/865832/865832_31.png
Mindfulness
发表于 2025-3-27 03:27:28
,Cavalieri’s Indivisibles,here he met Benedetto Castelli, lecturer in Mathematics at the University. He arrived in Pisa, completely lacking in mathematical preparation. Cavalieri went to Florence and remained in this town for more than 1 year (1617–1618) until he was asked to come back to Pisa to substitute for Castelli in h
胰脏
发表于 2025-3-27 08:17:06
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8659/865832/865832_33.png
buoyant
发表于 2025-3-27 12:54:26
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8659/865832/865832_34.png
PARA
发表于 2025-3-27 17:12:29
,Could or Should Gregory of Saint-Vincent Use Cavalieri’s Indivisibles to Present His Own Quadratureess of in-laws in a family. But this corresponds to an analogous situation in the prehistory of Calculus concerning the historiography on the “Geometry by indivisibles”. A part of Calculus is indeed manifested in Gregory of Saint-Vincent’s works by an old curve leading to two new functions, the loga
反叛者
发表于 2025-3-27 18:51:58
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8659/865832/865832_36.png
epicardium
发表于 2025-3-28 00:29:04
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8659/865832/865832_37.png
pantomime
发表于 2025-3-28 03:29:14
Two Jesuits Against the Indivisibles,what different on the subject which interests us: while Father Antoine de Lalouvère (1600–1664) was firmly hostile to indivisibles, Father André Tacquet (1612–1160) accepted their use, but under serious restrictive conditions meant to prevent the risks of paralogisms. The question of knowing whether
–吃
发表于 2025-3-28 06:28:43
,The Role of Indivisibles in Mengoli’s Quadratures,nd ultimately succeeded him in the chair of mechanics. He graduated in philosophy in 1650 and 3 years later in canon and civil law. In his first period, he wrote three mathematical books, . (Bologna, 1650), . (Bologna, 1655) and . (Bologna, 1659). He took holy orders in 1660 and was prior at the chu
confederacy
发表于 2025-3-28 14:19:18
Wallis on Indivisibles,(Wallis 1656). Next we will revise Wallis’s views on indivisibles as articulated in his answer to Hobbes’s criticism in the early 1670s. Finally, we will turn to his discussion of the proper way to understand the angle of contingence in the first half of the 1680s. As we shall see, there are marked