MHB Sq. FD + sq. DB = sq. BF Almagest Ch 10 Book I Ptolemy

  • Thread starter Thread starter moohah
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Db
AI Thread Summary
In Book I Chapter 10 of Ptolemy's Almagest, the relationship sq. FD + sq. DB = sq. BF is established using a semicircle and right triangles. The calculations for sq. FD, sq. DB, and sq. BF were performed using the sexagesimal system, revealing a discrepancy of approximately 0.2% in the results. The specific error was identified as 7/60^2 + 2/60^3 + 16/60^4. The calculations for each segment were detailed, showing the conversion from improper fractions to proper sexagesimal notation. The discussion seeks assistance in improving the precision of these calculations.
moohah
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello, everyone I am reading through the Almagest by Ptolemy and I have a question I hope someone can resolve for me. In Book I Chapter 10 of the Almagest, Ptolemy sets up a semicircle ABC with two right triangles on the diameter AC. To view the text just click the link below:

Claudius Ptolemy: The Almagest

In this text Ptolemy proves sq. FD + sq. BD = sq. BF but when I try to do the math my calculations are off by 7/60^2 + 2/60^3 + 16/60^4 (or about 0.2%). If anyone can help me to improve the precision of my calculations it would be very much appreciated!

Thanks in advance for any answers!

Below you can find my calculations of the squares on FD, DB and BF using the sexagesimal (base-60) system employed by Ptolemy:

We shall attempt to prove sq. FD + sq. DB = sq. BF with the values given in Ch 10 Book I of the Almagest. The line FD subtends an arc of 36 degrees and is equal to 37 parts 4 minutes and 55 seconds of the 120 parts of the diameter of the circle ABC. (Found by using the Table of Chords in Ch 11 Book I of the Almagest).60^0 60^-1 60^-2
FD = 37 04 55
a b c

= (a + b+ c) (a + b + c)
= a^2 + ab + ac + ba + b^2 + bc + ca + cb + c^2
= a^2 + 2ab + 2ac + b^2 + 2bc + c^2
= 37^2 + 2(37 * 4/60) + 2(37 * 55/60^2) + (4/60)^2 + 2(4/60 * 55/60^2) + (55/60^2)^2
= 1369 + 296/60 + 4070/60^2 + 16/60^2 + 440/60^3 + 3025/60^4
= 1369 + 296/60 + 4086/60^2 + 440/60^3 + 3025/60^4

Now, since the above number is an improper fraction, we shall use a table to obtain the proper sexagesimal number.

In the following table
a = Initial Units of 60
b = Previous Multiple of 60
c = Units of 60 + Previous Multiple of 60
d = Multiples of 60 (The integer obtained from c/60)
e = Units of 60 (The remainder obtained from c/60)
f = Base of Sixty

a b c d e f
3025 00 3025 50 25 60^-4
0440 50 0490 08 10 60^-3
4086 08 4094 68 14 60^-2
0296 68 0364 06 04 60^-1
1369 06 1375 22 55 60^ 0
0000 22 0022 00 22 60^ 1Therefore sq. FD = 00, 22, 55; 04, 14, 10, 25
or = 1375 + 4/60 + 14/60^2 + 10/60^3 + 25/60^4

Now we shall find the square of DB. The line DB which subtends an arc of 60 degrees is equal to 60 parts of the 120 parts of the diameter of the circle ABC.

DB = 60
sq. DB = 3600

Therefore the sq. DB is equal to 3600 or 01, 00, 00; 00, 00, 00, 00 in sexagesimal notation

Now we shall find the square of BF. The line BF which subtends an arc of 72 degrees is equal to 70 parts 32 minutes and 3 seconds of the 120 parts of the diameter of the circle ABC.

BF= 70^2 + 2(70 * 32/60) + 2(70 * 3/60^2) + (32/60)^2 + 2(32/60 * 3/60^2) + (3/60^2)^2
= 4900 + 4480/60 + 420/60^2 + 1024/10^2 + 192/60^3 + 9/60^4
= 4900 + 4480/60 + 1444/60^2 + 192/60^3 + 9/60^4

Now, since the above number is an improper fraction, we shall use a table to obtain the proper sexagesimal number.

In the following table
a = Initial Units of 60
b = Previous Multiple of 60
c = Units of 60 + Previous Multiple of 60
d = Multiples of 60 (The integer obtained from c/60)
e = Units of 60 (The remainder obtained from c/60)
f = Base of Sixty

a b c d e f
0009 00 0009 00 09 60^-4
0192 00 0192 03 12 60^-3
1444 03 1447 24 07 60^-2
4480 24 4504 75 04 60^-1
4900 75 4975 82 55 60^ 0
0000 82 0082 01 22 60^ 1
0000 01 0001 00 01 60^ 2

Therefore sq. BF = 01, 22, 55; 04, 07, 12, 09
or = 4975 + 4/60 + 7/60^2 + 12/60^3 + 9/ 60^4

Now sq. FD + sq. DB = sq. BF

And we shall construct another table similar to our previous tables

In the following table

Bases of 60: 60^2 60^1 60^0 60^-1 60^-2 60^-3 60^-4
sq. FD: 00 22 55 04 14 10 25
sq. DB: 01 00 00 00 00 00 00
sq. BF: 01 22 55 04 07 12 09
Error: 00 00 00 00 07 02 16

Thus, our calculations are off by 7/60^2 + 2/60^3 + 16/60^4

07/60^2 = 0.00194444444
02/60^3 = 0.00000925925
16/60^4 = 0.00001234567
Total = 0.00196604937

Or, our calculations are off by 0.196604937% (about 0.2%)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top