Isaac Newton and the problem of the earth's shape

In this article I discuss the theory of the earth's shape presented by Isaac Newton in Book III of his Principia. I show that the theory struck even the most reputable continental mathematicians of the day as incomprehensible. I examine the many obstacles to understanding the theory which the reader faced — the gaps, the underived equations, the unproven assertions, the dependence upon corollaries to practically incomprehensible theorems in Book I of the Principia and the ambiguities of these corollaries, the conjectures without explanations of their bases, the inconsistencies, and so forth. I explain why these apparent drawbacks are, historically considered, strengths of Newton's theory of the earth's shape, not weaknesses.     

Ein nomogramm zur Kombination mehrerer Ergebniswahrscheinlichkeiten

Summary A nomograph is presented, which gives (according toFisher's formula) the pooled probabilities for the combination of two, three, and four independent experiments respectively.      

The early application of the calculus to the inverse square force problem

The translation of Newton’s geometrical Propositions in the Principia into the language of the differential calculus in the form developed by Leibniz and his followers has been the subject of many scholarly articles and books. One of the most vexing problems in this translation concerns the transition from the discrete polygonal orbits and force impulses in Prop. 1 to the continuous orbits and forces in Prop. 6. Newton justified this transition by lemma 1 on prime and ultimate ratios which was a concrete formulation of a limit, but it took another century before this concept was established on a rigorous mathematical basis. This difficulty was mirrored in the newly developed calculus which dealt with differentials that vanish in this limit, and therefore were considered to be fictional quantities by some mathematicians. Despite these problems, early practitioners of the differential calculus like Jacob Hermann, Pierre Varignon, and Johann Bernoulli succeeded without apparent difficulties in applying the differential calculus to the solution of the fundamental problem of orbital motion under the action of inverse square central forces. By following their calculations and describing some essential details that have been ignored in the past, I clarify the reason why the lack of rigor in establishing the continuum limit was not a practical problem.     

Boltzmann's ergodic hypothesis

Summary Boltzmann's ergodic hypothesis is usually understood as the assumption that the trajectory of an isolated mechanical system runs through all states compatible with the total energy of the system. This understanding of Boltzmann stems from the Ehrenfests' review of the foundations of statistical mechanics in 1911. If Boltzmann's work is read with any attention, it becomes impossible to ascribe to him the claim that one single trajectory would fill the whole of state space. He admitted a continuous number of different possible mechanical trajectories. Ergodicity was formulated as the condition that only one integral of motion, the total energy, is preserved in time. The two reasons for this are external disturbing forces and collisions within the system. Boltzmann found it difficult to ascribe ergodic behavior to a single system where the theoretical dependence on initial conditions, though never observed, has to be admitted as possible. To circumvent the dependence, he invented the concept of a microcanonical ensemble.     

J. Zaragosa's centrum minimum,an early version of barycentric geometry

Summary Using the properties of the Centre of Gravity to obtain geometrical results goes back to Archimedes, but the idea of associating weights to points in calculating ratios was introduced by Giovanni Ceva in De lineis rectis se invicem secantibus: statica constructio (Milan, 1678). Four years prior to the publication of Ceva's work, however, another publication, entitled Geometria Magna in Minimis (Toledo, 1674), 2 appeared stating a method similar to Ceva's, but using isomorphic procedures of a geometric nature. The author was a Spanish Jesuit by the name of Joseph Zaragoza.Endeavouring to demonstrate an Apollonius' geometrical locus, Zaragoza conceived his idea of centrum minimum — a point strictly defined in traditional geometrical terms — the properties of which are characteristic of the Centre of Gravity. From this new concept, Zaragoza developed a theory that can be considered an early draft of the barycentric theory that F. Mobius was to establish 150 years later in Der barycentrische Calcul (Leipzig, 1827).Now then, whereas Ceva's work was rediscovered and due credit was given him, to this day Zaragoza's work has remained virtually unnoticed.     

A probabilistic “New Principle” of the 19th century

We discuss the evolution of an idea which contains, within the setting of an urn model, the notion of a martingale. The idea is to be found inPoisson (1837) but its main proponent isCatalan in a series of papers beginning in 1841, in partial ignorance ofPoisson's work. The usualBayesian coloration is present. A letter fromBienaymé of 1878, possibly his last, toCatalan elucidates the origin of the idea, and illustrates the personal relations of French probabilists at the time.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Newton's Argument for Proposition 1 of the</Emphasis> Principia

The first proposition of the Principia records two fundamental properties of an orbital motion: the Fixed Plane Property (that the orbit lies in a fixed plane) and the Area Property (that the radius sweeps out equal areas in equal times). Taking at the start the traditional view, that by an orbital motion Newton means a centripetal motion – this is a motion ``continually deflected from the tangent toward a fixed center' – we describe two serious flaws in the Principia's argument for Proposition 1, an argument based on a polygonal impulse approximation. First, the persuasiveness of the argument depends crucially on the validity of the Impulse Assumption: that every centripetal motion can be represented as a limit of polygonal impulse motions. Yet Newton tacitly takes the Impulse Assumption for granted. The resulting gap in the argument for Proposition 1 is serious, for only a nontrivial analysis, involving the careful estimation of accumulating local errors, verifies the Impulse Assumption. Second, Newton's polygonal approximation scheme has an inherent and ultimately fatal disability: it does not establish nor can it be adapted to establish the Fixed Plane Property. Taking then a different view of what Newton means by an orbital motion – namely that an orbital motion is by definition a limit of polygonal impulse motions – we show in this case that polygonal approximation can be used to establish both the fixed plane and area properties without too much trouble, but that Newton's own argument still has flaws. Moreover, a crucial question, haunted by error accumulation and planarity problems, now arises: How plentiful are these differently defined orbital motions? Returning to the traditional view, that Newton's orbital motions are by definition centripetal motions, we go on to give three proofs of the Area Property which Newton ``could have given' – two using polygonal approximation and a third using curvature – as well as a proof of the Fixed Plane Property which he ``almost could have given.' (Received August 14, 2002) Published online March 26, 2003 Communicated by G. Smith     

The Kepler Problem from Newton to Johann Bernoulli

Summary Newton solved what was called afterwards for a short time the directKepler problem (le problème direct): given a curve (e.g. an ellipse) and the center of attraction (e.g. the focus), what is the law of this attraction ifKepler's second law holds?The problème inverse (today: the problème direct) was attacked system-atically only later, first byJacob Hermann, then solved completely byJohann Bernoulli in 1710 and followingBernoulli byPierre Varignon. How didBernoulli solve the problem? What method did he use for this purpose and which of his accomplishments do we still follow today?In the second part various questions connected to the first part are dealt with from the point of view, Conflict and Cooperation, suggested byJ. van Maanen to the participants of the Groningen conference.     

Le lettere di Eugenio Beltrami nella corrispondenza di Ernesto Cesàro

Summary We publish seventeen letters by Eugenio Beltrami to Ernesto Cesàro, which are dated from 1883 until 1900. They are about academic and scientific questions. Beltrami communicated many of Cesàro's memoirs to the Accademia dei Lincei or the Istituto Lombarde di Scienze e Lettere, and often gave him suggestions for his books and papers in these letters. When Cesàro looked for a professorship in the United States, Beltrami gave him information.In some letters Beltrami discussed questions on geometry and mathematical physics. In particular, the third letter (dated December 1st, 1888) is devoted to the mechanical interpretation of Maxwell's equations. Here, Beltrami shows a new proof of the conditions when six given functions are the components of an elastic deformation.

---

---

Memoria presentata da U. Bottazzini     

Der qualitative und quantitative Nachweis der «fixen Luft» (1756), ein Wendepunkt in der Geschichte der Chemie und Biologie

Summary Reference is made to a treatise published in 1756 byJoseph Black (1728–1799), which was the first work to contain conclusive evidence of a gas bound to solid bodies; and in this connection the historical significance of the earliest studies on carbon dioxide is emphasised. Attention is drawn in particular to a subject about which little has hitherto been known,i.e., the use whichBlack and his contemporaries (notablyDavid Macbride) made of this discovery by applying it to animal and human physiology.

---

---

Eine ausführlichere Würdigung dieses geschichtlichen Sachverhalts erscheint in Gesnerus (Schweiz)1956, Heft 3/4.     

Geometrical constructions equivalent to non-linear algebraic transformations of the plane in Newton's early papers

Summary The theory of constructive formation of plane algebraic curves in Newton's writings is discussed in § 1: the apparatus by which Newton forms the curves, Newton's theorems on forming unicursal curves, his theory of conics, and his theory of (m, n) correspondence. Special Cremona plane and space transformations obtained by Newton's organic method are dealt with in § 2. The article ends with § 3, which shows two different directions in the theory of the constructive formation of plane algebraic curves in the XVIII-XIXth centuries. A synopsis is appended.Abbreviations MPN The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, edited by D. T. Whiteside, Vols. 1–3, Cambridge, 1967–1969 - Hudson H. Hudson, Cremona Transformations in Plane and Space, Cambridge, 1927 - PT (abridged) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1665–1800 (abridged), London, 1809 - Andreev ₁ K. A. Andreev, On geometrical correspondences ... (in Russian), Moscow, 1879 - Andreev ₂ K. A. Andreev, On the Geometrical Formation of Plane Curves (in Russian), Kharkov, 1875     

Reconstruction of a Greek table of chords

Summary R. R. Newton has shown that Ptolemy's table of solar declinations (Almagest I, 15) was not computed from Ptolemy's own table of chords. Newton explains this by assuming that Ptolemy copied his table of declinations from an earlier source, and that originally the table has been computed by means of a less accurate table of chords.In the present paper I shall venture a tentative reconstruction of the method of computation of this ancient table of chords. The clue to this reconstruction is a recursion formula which allows a rapid calculation of the chords belonging to arcs of 1°, 2°, ... in a circle. This recursion formula, which was suggested to me by a verse in the ryabhtya of ryabhata, can be deduced from a theorem of Archimedes concerning a certain sum of chords in a circle. I suppose that this recursion formula was used by Apollonius of Perga in order to obtain a table of chords, and that this table of chords was used by a Greek author (possibly Apollonios himself or Hipparchos) to calculate the table of solar declinations used by Ptolemy. If this hypothesis is adopted, the errors in Ptolemy's table can be explained.     

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     

Comparison of the effects of illumination on the melanophores of intact and eyestalkless fiddler crabs,Uca pugilator,and inhibition of the primary response by cytochalasin B

Summary Approximately 100 times more illumination is required to produce pigment dispersion in the melanophores of eyestalkless fiddler crabs (Uca pugilator) than in the melanophores of intact crabs. The pigment in melanophores of isolated legs will normally disperse in response to irradiation, but this response is inhibited by cytochalasin B.This investigation was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from Western Kentucky University toT. P. Coohill and by Grant No. GB-27497 toM. Fingerman from the National Science Foundation.     

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     

Visiting Newton's atelier before the Principia, 1679–1684

The worksheets that presumably contained Newton's early development of the fundamental concepts in his Principia have been lost. A plausible reconstruction of this development is presented based on Newton's exchange of letters with Robert Hooke in 1679, with Edmund Halley in 1686, and on some clues in the diagram associated with Proposition 1 in Book 1 of the Principia that have been ignored in the past. A graphical construction associated with this proposition leads to a rapidly convergent method to obtain orbits for central forces, which elucidates how Newton may have have been led to formulate some of his most fundamental propositions in the Principia.     

R?le du ganglion frontal sur le rythme cardiaque chezLocusta migratoria L.

Summary Removal of the frontal ganglion results in a decrease of the cardiac rhythm which is more important than the one following starvation in the adults of both sexes ofLocusta migratoria. This decrease may be due in part to the reduction of protein metabolism but also, according toStrong ⁸ andClarke andAnstee ^7,9, to interruption of the normal activity of the CA brought on by frontalectomy.     

“Will someone say exactly what the H-theorem proves?” A study of Burbury's Condition A and Maxwell's Proposition II

Summary Many historians of science recognize that the outcome of the celebrated debate on Boltzmann's H-Theorem, which took place in the weekly scientific journal Nature, beginning at the end of 1894 and continuing throughout most of 1895, was the recognition of the statistical hypothesis in the proof of the theorem. This hypothesis is the Stosszahlansatz or hypothesis about the number of collisions. During the debate, the Stosszahlansatz was identified with another statistical hypothesis, which appeared in Proposition II of Maxwell's 1860 paper; Burbury called it Condition A. Later in the debate, Bryan gave a clear formulation of the Stosszahlansatz. However, the two hypotheses are prima facie different. Burbury interchanged them without justification or even warning his readers. This point deserves clarification, since it touches upon subtle questions related to the foundation of the theory of heat. A careful reading of the arguments presented by Burbury and Bryan in their various invocations of both hypotheses can clarify this technical point. The Stosszahlansatz can be understood in terms of geometrical invariances of the problem of a collision between two spheres. A byproduct of my analysis is a clarification of the debate itself, which is apparently obscure.