Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Scholars have been puzzled by the central argument of MP 1 where the author addresses the basic principle behind the balance and lever. It is not clear what is intended to provide the explanation—the dynamic concepts of force and constraint or the geometrical demonstration. Nor is it clear whether the geometrical part of the argument carries any logical force or has value as a proof. This paper makes a case for the cogency of the argument as a kinematic, not dynamic, account. MP 1 proceeds systematically as it extends the explanatory power of the parallelogram of movements from rectilinear motion to circular motion. Euclid's Elements I.43 provides insight on the author's procedure. His general method is demonstrative, as described in Posterior Analytics I.1.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Early Science and Medicine – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2009
Keywords: FRANCOIS DE GANDT; CIRCLE; APODEIXIS; EUCLID; LEVER; CONCENTRIC CIRCLES; KINEMATICS; ANCIENT SCIENCE; CONSTRAINT; FORCE; MECHANICAL PROBLEMS; ISCHUS; MECHANICS; BALANCE; MOVING RADIUS; DEMONSTRATION; EKKROUSIS; DYNAMICS; ARISTOTLE'S PHYSICS
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.