Der Eigenartige Einfluß Witelos auf die Entwicklung der Dioptrik

Summary Witelo's Perspectiva, which was printed three times in the sixteenth century, profoundly influenced the science of dioptrics until the Age of Newton. Above all, the optical authors were interested in the so-called Vitellian tables, which Witelo must have copied from the nearly forgotten optical Sermones of Claudius Ptolemy. Research work was often based on these tables. Thus Kepler relied on the Vitellian tables when he invented his law of refraction. Several later authors adopted Kepler's law, not always because they believed it to be true, but because they did not know of any better law. Also Harriot used the Vitellian tables until his own experiments convinced him that Witelo's angles were grossly inaccurate. Unfortunately Harriot kept his results and his sine law for himself and for a few friends. The sine law was not published until 1637, by Descartes, who gave an indirect proof of it. Although this proof consisted in the first correct calculation of both rainbows, accomplished by means of the sine law, the Jesuits Kircher (Ars Magna, 1646) and Schott (Magia Optica, 1656) did not mention the sine law. Marci (Thaumantias, 1648) did not know of it, and Fabri (Synopsis Opticæ, 1667) rejected it. It is true that the sine law was accepted by authors like Maignan (Perspectiva Horaria, 1648) and Grimaldi (Physico-Mathesis, 1665), but since they used the erroneous Vitellian angles for computing the refractive index, they discredited the sine law by inaccurate and even ludicrous results.That even experimental determinations might be unduly biased by the Vitellian angles is evident from the author's graphs of seventeenth century refractive angles. These graphs also show how difficult it was to measure such angles accurately, and how the Jesuit authors of the 1640's adapted their experimental angles to the traditional Vitellian ones. Witelo's famous angles, instead of furthering the progress of dioptrics, delayed it. Their disastrous influence may be traced for nearly thirty years after Descartes had published the correct law of refraction.

---

---

Vorgelegt von C. Truesdell     

The meaning of πλασμαтιкό<Emphasis Type="Italic">ν</Emphasis> in Diophantus’ <Emphasis Type="Italic">Arithmetica</Emphasis>

Three problems in book I of Diophantus’ Arithmetica contain the adjective plasmatikon, that appears to qualify an implicit reference to some theorems in Elements, book II. The translation and meaning of the adjective sparked a long-lasting controversy that has become a nonnegligible aspect of the debate about the possibility of interpreting Diophantus’ approach and, more generally, Greek mathematics in algebraic terms. The correct interpretation of the word, a technical term in the Greek rhetorical tradition that perfectly fits the context in which it is inserted in the Arithmetica, entails that Diophantus’ text contained no (implicit) reference to Euclid’s Elements. The clause containing the adjective turns out to be a later interpolation, that cannot be used to support any algebraic interpretation of the Arithmetica.     

Gauss's geodesy and the axiom of parallels

It is a myth that Gauss measured a certain large triangle specifically to determine its angle sum; he did so in order to link his triangulation of Hanover with contiguous ones. The sum of the angles differed from 180° by less than two thirds of a second; he is known to have mentioned in conversation that this constituted an approximate verification of the axiom of parallels (which he regarded as an empirical matter because his studies of hyperbolic trigonometry had led him to recognize the possibility of logical alternatives to Kant and Euclid). However, he never doubted Euclidean geometry in his geodetic work. On the contrary, he continually used 180° angle sums as a powerful check for observational errors, which helped him to achieve standards of precision equivalent to today's. Nor did he ever plan an empirical investigation of the geometrical structure of space.     

Thomas Harriot’s optics,between experiment and imagination: the case of Mr Bulkeley’s glass

Some time in the late 1590s, the Welsh amateur mathematician John Bulkeley wrote to Thomas Harriot asking his opinion about the properties of a truly gargantuan (but totally imaginary) plano-spherical convex lens, 48 feet in diameter. While Bulkeley’s original letter is lost, Harriot devoted several pages to the optical properties of “Mr Bulkeley his Glasse” in his optical papers (now in British Library MS Add. 6789), paying particular attention to the place of its burning point. Harriot’s calculational methods in these papers are almost unique in Harriot’s optical remains, in that he uses both the sine law of refraction and interpolation from Witelo’s refraction tables in order to analyze the passage of light through the glass. For this and other reasons, it is very likely that Harriot wrote his papers on Bulkeley’s glass very shortly after his discovery of the law and while still working closely with Witelo’s great Optics; the papers represent, perhaps, his very first application of the law. His and Bulkeley’s interest in this giant glass conform to a long English tradition of curiosity about the optical and burning properties of large glasses, which grew more intense in late sixteenth-century England. In particular, Thomas Digges’s bold and widely known assertions about his father’s glasses that could see things several miles distant and could burn objects a half-mile or further away may have attracted Harriot and Bulkeley’s skeptical attention; for Harriot’s analysis of the burning distance and the intensity of Bulkeley’s fantastic lens, it shows that Digges’s claims could never have been true about any real lens (and this, I propose, was what Bulkeley had asked about in his original letter to Harriot). There was also a deeper, mathematical relevance to the problem that may have caught Harriot’s attention. His most recent source on refraction—Giambattista della Porta’s De refractione of 1593—identified a mathematical flaw in Witelo’s cursory suggestion about the optics of a lens (the only place that lenses appear, however fleetingly, in the writings of the thirteenth-century Perspectivist authors). In his early notes on optics, in a copy of Witelo’s optics, Harriot highlighted Witelo’s remarks on the lens and della Porta’s criticism (which he found unsatisfactory). The most significant problem with Witelo’s theorem would disappear as the radius of curvature of the lens approached infinity. Bulkeley’s gigantic glass, then, may have provided Harriot an opportunity to test out Witelo’s claims about a plano-spherical glass, at a time when he was still intensely concerned with the problems and methods of the Perspectivist school.     

Maligned for mathematics: Sir Thomas Urquhart and his Trissotetras

Thomas Urquhart (1611–1660), celebrated for his English translation of Rabelais’ Gargantua et Pantagruel, has earned some notoriety for his eccentric, putatively incomprehensible early book on trigonometry The Trissotetras (1645). The Trissotetras was too impractical to succeed in its own day as a textbook, since it lacked both trigonometric tables and sample calculations. But its current bad reputation is based on literary authors’ amplifications of the verdict prefaced to its 19th century reprinting by one mathematician, William Wallace, who lacked the background to appreciate the book’s historical context. Considering that context (including seventeenth century ‘copious’ prose, and medieval logic and ‘art of memory’), the bad reputation is undeserved: the book is mathematically clear, clever (e.g. in superimposing 16 problems into one diagram), and complete. The Trissotetras may thus be viewed as simply one more of Urquhart’s polymathic projects and involvements – which included education, rise of the middle class, religious and class conflicts, development of science and mathematics, search for patronage, universal language construction, and development of English prose – which serve to make him a lively and instructive intellectual Everyman for his time.     

Ligand recognition by the I domain-containing integrins

Seven of the integrin α subunits described to date, α ₁ , α ₂ , α _L , α _X , α _d , α _M and α _E , contain a highly conserved I (or A) domain of approximately 200 amino acid residues inserted near the amino-terminus of the subunit. As the result of a variety of independent experimental approaches, a large body of data has recently accumulated that indicates that the I domains are independent, autonomously folding domains capable of directly binding ligands that play a necessary and important role in ligand binding by the intact integrins. Recent crystallographic studies have elucidated the structures of recombinant α _M and α _L I domains and also delineated a novel divalent cation-binding motif within the I domains (metal ion-dependent adhesion site, MIDAS) that appears to mediate the divalent cation binding of the I domains and the I domain-containing integrins to their ligands.     

The power of images: mathematics and metaphysics in Hobbes's optics

This paper deals with Hobbes's theory of optical images, developed in his optical magnum opus, ‘A Minute or First Draught of the Optiques’ (1646), and published in abridged version in De homine (1658). The paper suggests that Hobbes's theory of vision and images serves him to ground his philosophy of man on his philosophy of body. Furthermore, since this part of Hobbes's work on optics is the most thoroughly geometrical, it reveals a good deal about the role of mathematics in Hobbes's philosophy. The paper points to some difficulties in the thesis of Shapin and Schaffer, who presented geometry as a ‘paradigm’ for Hobbes's natural philosophy. It will be argued here that Hobbes's application of geometry to optics was dictated by his metaphysical and epistemological principles, not by a blind belief in the power of geometry. Geometry supported causal explanation, and assisted reason in making sense of appearances by helping the philosopher understand the relationships between the world outside us and the images it produces in us. Finally the paper broadly suggests how Hobbes's theory of images may have triggered, by negative example, the flourishing of geometrical optics in Restoration England.     

Proposition 10, Book 2, in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Principia</Emphasis>, revisited

In Proposition 10, Book 2 of the Principia, Newton applied his geometrical calculus and power series expansion to calculate motion in a resistive medium under the action of gravity. In the first edition of the Principia, however, he made an error in his treatment which lead to a faulty solution that was noticed by Johann Bernoulli and communicated to him while the second edition was already at the printer. This episode has been discussed in the past, and the source of Newton’s initial error, which Bernoulli was unable to find, has been clarified by Lagrange and is reviewed here. But there are also problems in Newton’s corrected version in the second edition of the Principia that have been ignored in the past, which are discussed in detail here.     

Newton's Easy Quadratures ``Omitted for the Sake of Brevity'

In the 1687 Principia, Newton gave a solution to the direct problem (given the orbit and center of force, find the central force) for a conic-section with a focal center of force (answer: a reciprocal square force) and for a spiral orbit with a polar center of force (answer: a reciprocal cube force). He did not, however, give solutions for the two corresponding inverse problems (given the force and center of force, find the orbit). He gave a cryptic solution to the inverse problem of a reciprocal cube force, but offered no solution for the reciprocal square force. Some take this omission as an indication that Newton could not solve the reciprocal square, for, they ask, why else would he not select this important problem? Others claim that ``it is child's play' for him, as evidenced by his 1671 catalogue of quadratures (tables of integrals). The answer to that question is obscured for all who attempt to work through Newton's published solution of the reciprocal cube force because it is done in the synthetic geometric style of the 1687 Principia rather than in the analytic algebraic style that Newton employed until 1671. In response to a request from David Gregory in 1694, however, Newton produced an analytic version of the body of the proof, but one which still had a geometric conclusion. Newton's charge is to find both ``the orbit' and ``the time in orbit.' In the determination of the dependence of the time on orbital position, t(r), Newton evaluated an integral of the form ∫dx/x <sup>n</sup> to calculate a finite algebraic equation for the area swept out as a function of the radius, but he did not write out the analytic expression for time t = t(r), even though he knew that the time t is proportional to that area. In the determination of the orbit, θ (r), Newton obtained an integral of the form ∫dx/√(1−x<sup>2</sup>) for the area that is proportional to the angle θ, an integral he had shown in his 1669 On Analysis by Infinite Equations to be equal to the arcsin(x). Since the solution must therefore contain a transcendental function, he knew that a finite algebraic solution for θ=θ(r) did not exist for ``the orbit' as it had for ``the time in orbit.' In contrast to these two solutions for the inverse cube force, however, it is not possible in the inverse square solution to generate a finite algebraic expression for either ``the orbit' or ``the time in orbit.' In fact, in Lemma 28, Newton offers a demonstration that the area of an ellipse cannot be given by a finite equation. I claim that the limitation of Lemma 28 forces Newton to reject the inverse square force as an example and to choose instead the reciprocal cube force as his example in Proposition 41. (Received August 14, 2002) Published online March 26, 2003 Communicated by G. Smith     

Euler’s beta integral in Pietro Mengoli’s works

Beta integrals for several non-integer values of the exponents were calculated by Leonhard Euler in 1730, when he was trying to find the general term for the factorial function by means of an algebraic expression. Nevertheless, 70 years before, Pietro Mengoli (1626–1686) had computed such integrals for natural and half-integer exponents in his Geometriae Speciosae Elementa (1659) and Circolo(1672) and displayed the results in triangular tables. In particular, his new arithmetic–algebraic method allowed him to compute the quadrature of the circle. The aim of this article is to show how Mengoli calculated the values of these integrals as well as how he analysed the relation between these values and the exponents inside the integrals. This analysis provides new insights into Mengoli’s view of his algorithmic computation of quadratures.     

Extracellular Mg2+ regulates intracellular Mg2+ and its subcellular compartmentation in fission yeast, Schizosaccharomyces pombe

Effects of extracellular magnesium ions ([Mg²⁺]_o ) on intracellular free Mg²⁺ ([Mg²⁺]_i ) and its subcellular distribution in single fission yeast cells, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, were studied with digital-imaging microscopy and an Mg²⁺ fluorescent probe (mag-fura-2). Using 0.44 mM [Mg²⁺]_o , [Mg²⁺]_i in yeast cells was 0.91±0.08 mM. Elevation of [Mg²⁺]_o to 1.97 mM induced rapid (within 5 min) increments in [Mg²⁺]_i (2.18±0.11 mM). Lowering [Mg²⁺]_o to 0.06 mM, however, exerted no significant effects on [Mg²⁺]_i (0.93±0.14 mM), at least for periods of up to 30 min. Irrespective of the [Mg²⁺]_o used, the subcellular distribution of [Mg²⁺]_i remained hetero geneous, i.e. where the sub-plasma membrane region >cytoplasm >nucleus. [Mg²⁺] in all three subcellular compartments increased significantly, two- to threefold, concomitant with [Mg²⁺]_i when placed in 1.97 mM [Mg²⁺]_o . We conclude that [Mg²⁺]_i in fission yeast is maintained at a physiologic level when [Mg²⁺]_o is low, but intracellular free Mg²⁺ rapidly rises when [Mg²⁺]_o is elevated. Like most eukaryotic cells, yeast may have a Mg²⁺ transport system(s) which functions to maintain gradients of Mg²⁺ from the outside to inside the cell and among its subcellular compartments. Received 18 April 1996; received after revision 4 July 1996; accepted 26 July 1996     

Between Viète and Descartes: Adriaan van Roomen and the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Mathesis Universalis</Emphasis>

Adriaan van Roomen published an outline of what he called a Mathesis Universalis in 1597. This earned him a well-deserved place in the history of early modern ideas about a universal mathematics which was intended to encompass both geometry and arithmetic and to provide general rules valid for operations involving numbers, geometrical magnitudes, and all other quantities amenable to measurement and calculation. ‘Mathesis Universalis’ (MU) became the most common (though not the only) term for mathematical theories developed with that aim. At some time around 1600 van Roomen composed a new version of his MU, considerably different from the earlier one. This second version was never effectively published and it has not been discussed in detail in the secondary literature before. The text has, however, survived and the two versions are presented and compared in the present article. Sections 1–6 are about the first version of van Roomen’s MU the occasion of its publication (a controversy about Archimedes’ treatise on the circle, Sect. 2), its conceptual context (Sect. 3), its structure (with an overview of its definitions, axioms, and theorems) and its dependence on Clavius’ use of numbers in dealing with both rational and irrational ratios (Sect. 4), the geometrical interpretation of arithmetical operations multiplication and division (Sect. 5), and an analysis of its content in modern terms. In his second version of a MU van Roomen took algebra into account, inspired by Viète’s early treatises; he planned to publish it as part of a new edition of Al-Khwarizmi’s treatise on algebra (Sect. 7). Section 8 describes the conceptual background and the difficulties involved in the merging of algebra and geometry; Sect. 9 summarizes and analyzes the definitions, axioms and theorems of the second version, noting the differences with the first version and tracing the influence of Viète. Section 10 deals with the influence of van Roomen on later discussions of MU, and briefly sketches Descartes’ ideas about MU as expressed in the latter’s Regulae.     

Isolation and structure of amplexoside A. A new glycoside fromAsclepias amplexicaulis

Résumé A partir de la racine d'Asclepias amplexicaulis on a isolé un nouveau glycoside de la série prégnane, avec une potentialité d'action anti-cancer. Il possède l'aglycone: 12-cinnamoyl-20-O-acétylsarcostine. Les sucres asclépobiose et digitoxose se trouvent á C-3.

---

---

Part V of Plant Investigations. Part IV, seeD. M. Piatak andK. A. Reimann, Tetrahedron Lett.,1972, 4525; b) This work was supported by grants from the American Cancer Society (IC-26) and its Illinois Division (Seiffert Trust Fund).

---

We gratefully acknowledge samples of asclepobiose and sarcostin from Prof.T. Reichstein and his workers.     

Recombination among UV-induced adenine-1 mutants ofSchizosaccharomyces pombe

Zusammenfassung Zehn der vonLeupold isolierten UV-induzierten Mutanten beim Adenin-1-Gen vonSchizosaccharomyces pombe sind in zehn verschiedenen Stellen im Gen lokalisiert.

---

---

I am extremely grateful to ProfessorU. Leupold for his help and hospitality in his laboratory, and to Dr.Charlotte Auerbach for her encouragement and interest.     

A Companion to the History of Science

Snell's law of refraction did not affect the study of optics until twenty‐five years after its publication in 1637 and by then its universality threatened to break down already. Two optical phenomena—colour dispersion and strange refraction—were discovered that did not conform to the sine law. In the early 1670s, Isaac Newton and Christiaan Huygens respectively investigated these phenomena. They tried to describe the irregular behaviour of light rays mathematically and to reconcile it with ordinary refraction. This paper discusses their investigations and aims at throwing new light on the history of seventeenth‐century optics. Both initially approached the problem in a mathematical way in which they built on Descartes' analysis of refraction. This is surprising because it contradicts their earlier dismissal of Descartes' account and it does not fit our picture of them as mathematical physicists. By looking more closely at their early investigations it becomes clear that Newton and Huygens first had to develop the approach to optics of their later writings. After Descartes placed the issue of the physical nature of light rays on the scientific agenda in 1637, they recognized its purport in their struggles with colour dispersion and strange refraction. It was at this point that their physical optics evolved from the traditional geometrical optics with which they had started.