De Groot Jean
School of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA.
Ann Sci. 2024 May 13:1-29. doi: 10.1080/00033790.2024.2349878.
Modern commentators have doubts about the authenticity and cogency of the early propositions of Archimedes' Book 1. Ernst Mach famously said that the proof of Prop. 6, the so-called law of the lever, assumes what is to be proven. Comparing the initial text in Heiberg's modern edition (1881, 1913) to the first propositions in Eutocius' commentary on 1, J. L. Berggren ([1976]. 'Spurious Theorems in Archimedes' Equilibrium of Planes: Book I', 16.2 (1976), 87-103.) claimed that the propositions up through Proposition 3 of the standard modern edition are schoolbook additions written by an ancient author inferior to Archimedes. The present paper argues for the logical connectedness of Postulates 1-5 to Props. 1-6, by means of a detailed examination of the course of the argument and a re-examination of Eutocius' remarks. The paper reinterprets the role of the empirical in the early propositions and offers a reading of the contribution of Archimedes' mechanics to the method of 1.
现代评论家对阿基米德《平面平衡》第一卷早期命题的真实性和说服力存疑。恩斯特·马赫曾著名地指出,命题6(即所谓的杠杆定律)的证明假定了有待证明的内容。将海伯格1881年和1913年现代版的初始文本与尤托基乌斯对第一卷的评注中的最初命题相比较,J. L. 伯格伦([1976],《阿基米德〈平面平衡〉中的伪定理:第一卷》,《精确科学史档案》16.2 (1976),87 - 103)声称,标准现代版中直至命题3的那些命题是一位比阿基米德逊色的古代作者所写的教科书补充内容。本文通过对论证过程的详细考察以及对尤托基乌斯评论的重新审视,论证了公设1 - 5与命题1 - 6之间的逻辑关联性。本文重新诠释了早期命题中经验的作用,并解读了阿基米德力学对《平面平衡》第一卷方法的贡献。