Talk:Archimedes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archimedes' Stomachion

Several unstated presumptions to obtain the number 17,152, the most troubling being that we reach for a Stomachion board proposed in a questionable translation of another text which does not match the Archimedes Codex. It is unclear where Dr. Netz ever comes to grips with this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.217.37.24 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is based on research that has been published in reliable sources. The research by modern scholars has indicated 17,152 solutions[1] and this is the figure given by the article. Wikipedia articles should avoid original research and stick to what is available from reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Archimedes|b00773bv}}. Rich Farmbrough, 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

•  Done This was in the EL section already, and the new version has been added. Since this was broadcast in 2007, the BBC has changed its system and now uses Flash for its online audio rather than RealPlayer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

School Mathematician

For school, we had to choose a famous mathematician and I chose Archimedes. But the information is quite hard to understand and I want WikiPedia to create something like 'WikiPedia Kidzone' Or 'WikiKids' etc.! Spud-dectomy (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is already under consideration. See Proposal for Wikipedia Junior. Mindmatrix 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 38.98.155.114, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Under "The Archimedes Heat Ray – myth or reality?" section, please change:

In order to catch fire, wood needs to reach its flash point, which is around 300 degrees Celsius (570 °F).

to

In order to catch fire, wood needs to reach its autoignition temperature, which is around 300 degrees Celsius (572 °F).

The original source (http://science.howstuffworks.com/wildfire.htm) confuses flash point and autoignition temperature. A correct source (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-ignition-temperatures-d_171.html) can be pointed to. 38.98.155.114 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mirrors

The lead introduces the invention of the mirror array as fact but this is, at best, a popular story that has marginal acceptance among historians. There is an article in MSNBC today (see [2]) that claims this story has been debunked. This should be changed.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has gone to great lengths not to present the Heat Ray story as a fact. Regardless of its truth, it has been discussed by sources since ancient times, so it is dealt with per WP:NPOV in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A new paper titled 'The Math Behind Burning Mirrors' by Christopher Jordan shows that spherical mirrored surfaces can concentrate light by 100,000s of orders. The devices are almost flat and have focal lengths of 50 meters or more. This is more than adequate to perform the burning feat of Syracuse reported by so many ancient scholars. The methods of construction were also within the capabilities of the ancient Greeks.

see [3]

Beyond this the devices have hundreds of other applications in antiquity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will2learn2010 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - sphere vs cylinder

Hi there.

Could somebody please clarify the following?

"Archimedes had proven that the sphere has two thirds of the volume and surface area of the cylinder (including the bases of the latter)"

The wording is fairly ambiguous within the parentheses, and it is not immediately clear in which dimension the sphere and cylinder must be related in order for this relationship to hold water.

Thanks!

Aetherflux (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to explain - there is a picture and explanation in "biography". 2/3 refers both to the volume and to the surface area. Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The wording here seems reasonably clear. This was discussed previously in Talk:Archimedes/Archive_2#Error_in_the_Sphere.2FCylinder_relationship_discussed_in_the_figure. Could you suggest an alternative wording?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Archimedes Crown

In reading the article about Archimedes measuring the density of the crown, I believe that the explanation given creates a much more complicated scenario than Archimedes needed to deal with.

1) To effectively perform the operation prescribed, Archimedes would have needed a sample of gold which was the same weight as the crown...presumably this is a lot of gold...likely very hard to come by.

2) To get around this...There is no need to submerge both halves of the balance. That just complicates the problem. Without doing that, you are simply measuring the difference of wight of the crown in water and out of water (i.e. the difference in tension on a string holding up the crown in and out of the water). The difference in tension of the string is equal to the buoyant force of the water acting on the crown:

(change in weight) = (buoyant force) = (density of water) x (volume of water displaced)

This is all that is necessary to solve the problem. Now, he knows the volume of water displaced, because the density of water is easy to measure (if not already known at the time). Once he knows the volume of water displaced, of course, he knows the volume of the crown, and thus he knows the density of the crown...problem solved. If he submerged both halves, the problems is more complicated...unless the other half is gold.

I am not a historian, but this solution seems to make far more sense than the diagram on the website.

Oskampj (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Jeff

The article stresses that the crown story does not appear in the known works of Archimedes, and is due to Vitruvius writing in Roman times. The balance experiment is due to Galileo Galilei, and is based on his Bilancetta (little balance). The question of whether both sides of the balance need to be immersed in water is an interesting one. In Chris Rorres' account here, both sides are submerged, but in this version only one half of the balance is submerged. Both versions would work, although in this illustration for Galileo's 1586 treatise, only one half of the balance is submerged. The balance method is more accurate than the bath story, which would have led to a rough answer at best.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm no expert, but this doesn't sound right. In fact obtaining use of the same weight of gold would have been no problem as he was working for the king. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • He wouldn't have needed a balance; he only would have needed to know the density of pure gold, which was probably known already. Even if it wasn't, he would have found it easy to calculate even if he only had a small amount of it (make a cube or sphere of pure gold, then divide its weight by its volume, and Archimedes knew how to calculate the volume of spheres and cubes). Knowing the density of pure gold, all you need to do is weigh the crown, submerge the crown, measure the volume of water displaced, divide the crown's weight by the displaced volume, then voila; you have the density of the crown. So there's no reason to doubt the veracity of the crown story. As an aside, a mixture of equal parts copper, silver, and gold would have a very similar color to pure gold (see [4]) but would have less than 70% the density of pure gold, so it's possible that's what the goldsmith used. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The "easy" method of measuring the volume of water displaced by the crown is mathematically correct, but Chris Rorres argues that it would not have been very accurate.[5] The balance method is, strictly speaking, nothing to do with Archimedes because it was suggested by Galileo in a paper published in 1586. The golden crown story, like other anecdotes about Archimedes, can be questioned for its reliability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The explanation of Archimedes' crown test, the one supported by Chris Rorres, does not make sense as explained. For the buoyancy experiment to work, the crown and the reference mass would have to be of the same volume. To do that, Archimedes' would have needed an accurate measurement system at his disposal already - thus the more famous explanation of his experiment would have worked. But, let us say that he decided to do the second test that used buoyancy. If they were of the same volume, for the crown to not sink as far down as the reference gold, the crown couldn't be of pure gold. That I do not dispute. What I do dispute is the explanation for why it wouldn't sink as far. Currently the explanation of the volume of the crown being greater, thus displacing more water, thus creating a greater buoyancy force doesn't make sense. The crown of course wouldn't have been of greater volume, it is of a lesser density. Because of it's lesser density the crown is of less mass than the equal volume of gold reference. The crown thus has less weight than the gold reference. Which means that the crown is experiencing less gravitational force against the force of buoyancy than the gold reference mass is. That is why the crown would be higher in the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euler1138 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mythbusters and Barack Obama

This was first reported back in October.[6] It was aired on 8 December [7] and is still being shown on the Discovery Channel. Apart from a 30 second trailer [8] I could not find the whole thing uploaded on YouTube (which would violate WP:YOUTUBE but would be interesting to watch). There has been criticism in the past that the article gives too much weight to the Mythbusters experiments, but the episode with Barack Obama is notable enough for a mention--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in animation

The water level should go up. Minor thing, but still I thought it would be good to point out... Laura Nielsen (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but unfortunately animations are not at all easy to edit. The main issue here is that this animation is not an illustration of the water displacement method said to have been used by Archimedes, but of the bilancetta (little balance) principle described by Galileo in 1586.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Snub dodecahedron

The image was removed because Archimedean solid is given as one of the "see also" links and there are images of all of the solids there. The link between Archimedes and the Archimedean solids is a matter of debate, as there is no firm evidence that he invented/ discovered them beyond conjecture and a mention in the work of Pappus of Alexandria in the 4th century AD.[10].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is Archimedes' tomb?

I read this article for the first time while I was searching to see if Archimedes' tomb still exists. Although I can understand from the article that the answer is unknown, it is better to mention it explicitly. e009821 20:30, 15 March 2011.

There is a famous 1797 painting by Benjamin West depicting the discovery of the tomb by Cicero.[11] Back in the early 1960s, a tomb in a hotel courtyard in Sicily was claimed to be that of Archimedes, although this was controversial.[12] A tourist in Syracuse may also be shown the "Tomb of Archimedes" [13] in the Necropolis of Grotticelli, but this is of Roman origin. Nobody really knows where the tomb is today, perhaps the article should point this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Dont disturb my circles"

One thing that i found interesting about Archimedes is when he began to make size estimates of the moon, the sun, and sand grain on earth. The estimate of the earth's circumference in his day, as he reported, had been given as 300,000 stades, in modern notation meaning 30,000 miles. A stade generally used was roughly a tenth of a mile. Archimedes allowed for an underestimate and assumed a circumference of 3,000,000 stades. It has been reported that Aristarchus had estimated the diameter of the sun as 18 to 20 times that of the moon. Archimedes took the diameter of the sun to be not more than 30 times that of the moon. Then, he assumed that the apparent sice of the sun was greater than a thousandth part of a circle and was confirmed by observation. From this Archimedes showed that not more than 10^63 grains of sand are required to cover the whole earth's sphere. 67.168.190.140 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Brian H., student of Saint Martin's University. History of Mathematics

The Palimpsest-The Stomachion

In The Archimedes Codex, authors Netz and Noel (2007) offers a possible interpretation of the The Stomachion as being a 14-piece puzzle in the first application of combinatorics (p.55). The puzzle took four combinatorics six weeks to do, finally producing the answer as 17,152 (The New York Times, December 14, 2003, In Archimedes' Puzzle, a New Eureka Moment).MstoneMTH314 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Traps for fellow mathematicians

It should also be noted that Archimedes sent out "poisoned" or false discoveries in letters to trap fellow mathematicians 'so that those who claim to discover everything, producing no proof themselves, will be confuted, in their assenting to prove the impossible' (The Archimedes Codex, Netz, R. and Noel, W., 2007, p. 37-38).MstoneMTH314 (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty ingenious when you think about it. There were charletons in that time, like today, who want others to believe they know something, especially if they can make money off of it. This would have made the fakers easy to spot for the true mathematicians, although those wanting to learn might still be led astray. Wetzelt (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)TWetzel

It looks like this method carried on through Cardano's time, perhaps Archimedes was the first (recorded) to do this? These days technology has made "credit where credit is due" easier to track. I can see how Archimedes made it work for him in antiquity, he was very clever and ahead of his time.MstoneMTH314 (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Archimedes Heat Ray in Fiction/Popular Culture

The James Bond film Die Another Day features an orbital mirror satellite which is more or less based on the Archimedes Heat Ray concept. --Arima (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In Mobile Suit Gundam, The Earth Federation uses a superweapon called the Solar Flare System. Because it uses mirrors to project a solar laser onto a target, it is undoubtedly based on the Archimedes Heat Ray concept.--Arima (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Shields as Mirrors

The article states: "It has been suggested that a large array of highly polished bronze or copper shields acting as mirrors could have been employed to focus sunlight onto a ship. This would have used the principle of the parabolic reflector in a manner similar to a solar furnace."

While it is true that this has been 'suggested', it is so obviously impossible (if not absurd) that it needs to be addressed in the text. Greek shields of the day were made of wood or wicker cores, with only a thin layer of bronze applied to the outer - convex - surface. Convex shapes do not - cannot - perform as parabolic reflectors. The inside of the shields - the side that was indeed concave - was made of wood or wicker. Suffice it to say that these substances have very poor reflective qualities. 67.187.136.140 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Every detail related to the "heat ray", including whether it happened at all, is the work of writers long after the death of Archimedes. It is possible to use an array of flat mirrors to simulate a parabolic reflector if the mirrors are held at different angles, focusing light on to a point. This is what the diagram in the article shows. There is a photograph of the 1973 Sakkas experiment here, and the mirrors are flat and not very much like shields.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate commentary.

1. BIOGRAPHY (third paragraph) “Archimedes had proven that the volume and surface area of the sphere are two thirds that of the cylinder including its bases.”

Should read: Archimedes had proven that, given radius R, a sphere has two thirds the volume and the same surface area of a cylinder of the same radius and a length of 2R (both ends excluded).

2. BIOGRAPHY (Caption: RHS Sphere Image) “A sphere has 2/3 the volume and surface area of its circumscribing cylinder.”

Should Read: A sphere has 2/3 the volume of and same surface area as, a circumscribing cylinder (both ends excluded).

Dyalnik (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see Talk:Archimedes/Archive_2#Error_in_the_Sphere.2FCylinder_relationship_discussed_in_the_figure. The 2/3 ratio is valid only when the bases (ends) of the cylinder are included, and this is what Archimedes says in the Thomas Little Heath translation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please add at the end of section "2.5 Other discoveries and inventions" after "[...] were known to the ancient Greeks." the following two sentences:

---start--- In September 2011 a research paper was published which claims that a marble fragment of a celestial globe in the Neues Museum Berlin was part of the original sphere of Archimedes. The fragment maps an area of the sky from the constellation of Hercules to Cepheus and bears markings which could be the remains of a water clock that propelled a mechanical model of planetary motions. ---end---

Thanks!

2.212.208.125 (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear where this result was published and whether it was peer-reviewed or/and accepted by the science community. We need reliable sources. Materialscientist (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The link is here and it looks like original research at the moment. Ideally, a mainstream source would say something about this, but Google News brought up nothing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite requested

The below statement is misleading / incorrect:

---

If the crown was less dense than gold, it would displace more water due to its larger volume, and thus experience a greater buoyant force than the reference sample.

---

The buoyant force is dependent upon the volume of water displaced - and the displacement is the SAME irrespective of what material the crown is made of (assuming of course that the objects do not float). A silver crown of will displace exactly the same amount as a gold crown, if the volume of the items is the same. The tell of impure material would be that this SAME buoyant force would have a different reaction to a material that wasn't pure gold, when tested along a known pure gold standard, and tilt the scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.89.5 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Done. The animation shows what would happen on a balance with arms of equal length. A refinement to the experiment would involve balancing the gold/silver crown with the gold reference sample underwater, allowing a calculation to be performed regarding the amount of silver in the crown.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tar coating on ancient ships

This edit was reverted, because it is unclear how or where the citation given at [14] supports it. This is a long section from Google Books, and something more specific would be better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This was expanded into note d, which is clearer about how the sourcing works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Method of Vitruvius

This was removed, because it is insufficiently clear: "The story of the golden crown does not appear in the known works of Archimedes. Moreover, while a recent re-enactment seems to imply that the method described in the story is viable (K. Hidetaka, What Did Archimedes Find at “Eureka” Moment?, published in "The Genius of Archimedes -- 23 Centuries of Influence on Mathematics, Science and Engineering", 978-90-481-9091-1, page 265-276, 2010). This does not explain what "seems to imply" and "viable" mean, and the source is a book. There needs to be some more detail here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Modern Experiments"

Is it really necessary to sneak a Myth Busters reference into the first paragraph of this article? That show's hosts had training in pyrotechnics, not science - to describe their methonds as "modern experiments" is a HUGE stretch. Do we really need to associate a renowned scientist and historical figure like Archimedes with a basic cable show that blew stuff up in search of ratings? It certainly merits mention in here somewhere, but not at the top of the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The October 2005 experiment shown on Mythbusters was devised by MIT and was a serious piece of research. It is unfair to be dismissive about it simply because it was shown on Mythbusters. It is also important to mention it as a counterbalance to the Sakkas experiment in November 1973, which came up with a more supportive conclusion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Subject of the painting by Domenico Fetti

File:Archimedes naples statue.jpg

This bust is often wrongly said to be Archimedes, it is actually Archidamus III.

I have seen the same painting (now located in the Dresden Gallery) always described as "Aristarchus of Samos" rather than Archimedes. Years ago I wrote a poem about Aristarchus (http://www.ebyte.it/logcabin/belletryen/IslandOfSamos.html) and, to illustrate it, not trusting totally a Dresden Gallery postcard in my possession, I did quite a bit of research on the topic. The subject of the painting was to be, admittedly, a generic old Greek philosopher, but the choice of Aristarchus apparently goes back to Domenico Fetti himself. See, for example, http://www.atlantedellarteitaliana.it/index.php?artwork=11815&lang=english. I do not wish to meddle in the article myself, just wanted to let you know. Stan Sykora (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Archimedes is often illustrated with the bust shown here, but it is actually Archidamus III. These errors can creep in sometimes, and the 1620 Fetti portait of Archimedes/Aristarchus is at the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. If the museum does regard this as a portrait of Aristarchus of Samos, it would lead to problems for the article, as it should be pointed out that there is a controversy over the attribution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"is still used today"

Archimedes shows that the value of pi (π) is greater than 223⁄71 and less than 22⁄7. The latter figure was used as an approximation of pi throughout the Middle Ages and is still used today when only a rough figure is required.

Please delete the clause "and is still used today etc.". Since digital calculators are available, no one uses 22/7 any more. Obviously this was taken over from an old history of mathematics before 1975. If you do not want to delete, please add at least "reference missing".

46.116.170.177 (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The value of π given by 22/7 is 99.96% accurate. For a rough pencil and paper calculation this is sufficient accuracy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I do not doubt that it is 99,96% accurate. I simply doubt that "and is still used today". Today, people use calculators, not "pencil and paper" for calculation. If you know differently, please add a reference.

46.116.170.177 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

When students are first taught the value of pi, they are first taught that pi=22/7, or 3.14... Therefore, it is important to not skip over Archimedes' discovery, as it is "still used today." Reffotniop (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)reffotniop

Legend has it

Legend has it that Archimedes was killed when a Roman soldier asked him to go with that soldier. Archimedes at the time was in the middle of a math problem and did not want to leave it (he was rather blunt about it). Annoyed by his attitude, the soldier drew his sword and ran archimedes through (I will provide citation when I find it, however I know this was in an encyclopedia)that guy 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)that guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reffotniop (talk • contribs)

Value for square root 3

With regard to the following

"In Measurement of a Circle, Archimedes gives the value of the square root of 3 as lying between 265⁄153 (approximately 1.7320261) and 1351⁄780 (approximately 1.7320512). The actual value is approximately 1.7320508, making this a very accurate estimate. He introduced this result without offering any explanation of the method used to obtain it. This aspect of the work of Archimedes caused John Wallis to remark that he was: "as it were of set purpose to have covered up the traces of his investigation as if he had grudged posterity the secret of his method of inquiry while he wished to extort from them assent to his results."[45]"

How do we know that Archimedes calculated these values himself. He may have taken them from elsewhere. It wouldn't have been at all difficult for anyone to calculate these. Please see [15] Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure how Archimedes did this, although unlike Euclid his works are considered to be original research rather than collections of existing theories. The puzzlement of Wallis and Rouse Ball is less relevant today, as modern discoveries strongly suggest that Archimedes would have used an iterative method of approximation. Versions of this idea were known as far back as the Babylonians, but it is only in recent years that historians have confirmed this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what I thought. I'd be interested in references to these modern discoveries. If the puzzlement of Wallis is not so relevant wouldn't it be better omitted from the article? Also if Archimedes used an iterative method, versions of which had been known long before, would this come under Archimedes' 'original research'? In any event shouldn't this method be mentioned in the article? Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re alteration on Talk page, how can we be sure that Archimedes didn't obtain his values from another source? My rewording allows for this possibility. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to say whether Archimedes did all of the calculations for the square root of 3 himself, although the assumption would be that he did. This online article offers a range of ways in which it could have been done through approximation, although the exact method will never be known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence seems a little contradictory - why assume something to be the case when it is hard to be sure whether this was so? "The way in which he makes these assumptions, without explanation of any kind, shows that they were common in his day, and much ingenuity has been spent in devising the processes by which they may have been reached" Thomas, Greek Mathematical Works 1, 323 Loeb.

The assumption is that Archimedes wrote his major works himself, unlike Euclid's Elements and Heron of Alexandria's Metrica, which are considered to be compendiums of existing ideas. Euclid was not, for instance, the first person to give a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Methods of approximation by iteration were probably known to Archimedes, but since he gives the answer to $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {3}}$ without any further explanation, the method used has understandably baffled some writers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem as long as you accept my rewording. Thank you for the link on methods used. When you say 'understandably baffled some' my problem is understanding why it has baffled people as it's so simple, even I was able to work it out for myself. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Calculation of Pi

This currently reads

"He did this by drawing a larger polygon outside a circle and a smaller polygon inside the circle. As the number of sides of the polygon increases, it becomes a more accurate approximation of a circle. When the polygons had 96 sides each, he calculated the lengths of their sides and showed that the value of π lay between 31⁄7 (approximately 3.1429) and 310⁄71 (approximately 3.1408), consistent with its actual value of approximately 3.1416"

Shouldn't this make clear that he used regular hexagons and at each step doubled the number of sides making new regular polygons and at each step calculated the length of the side of the new polygon, so something like

(new words in bold, words to be deleted in square brackets.)

"He did this by drawing a larger regular hexagon [polygon] outside a circle and a smaller regular hexagon [polygon] inside the circle. He successively doubled the number of sides of each regular hexagon, making new regular polygons and calculating the length of the sides at each step As the number of sides of the polygon increases, it becomes a more accurate approximation of a circle. When the polygons had 96 sides each, he calculated [the lengths of their sides] and showed that the value of π lay between 31⁄7 (approximately 3.1429) and 310⁄71 (approximately 3.1408), consistent with its actual value of approximately 3.1416"

I can't change it without gettng authority, perhaps just as well, but I'd like to know what authorised editors think.Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I found I could alter it and have, I am sure that my wording can be improved. I'm afraid the diagram illustrating the process is redundant but don't know how either how to remove it, or, still less, how to make another.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've spent about 20 minutes trying to dominate the image for deletion but can't work out how to do it, if anyone else knows how to do it I'd be grateful... It's a very beautiful image but it doesn't show the method - how it's been up here for so long I don't know!Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say on the image 'nominated for deletion' as I would expect but it's listed on 'files for deletion' so I'm not sure what's happening.Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My request to have this image deleted was rejected on the grounds that it was 'widely used' The administrator who made the decision seems since to have retired. Can anyone here support me that the image is not appropriate as it doesn't show the doubling of sides of a hexagon. This is surely worth a bot of trouble as the page has many viewers per day.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This image would be fine but when I put it into the article it is very large. Can someone advise how to make it the right size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an illustration of Liu Hui's π algorithm, so it is not related to Archimedes and it would be misleading to use it here. Also, it is intended to go with an explanation of the letters shown in the diagram, otherwise it will make little sense to the reader. There are other images on Commons which are closer to illustrating Archimedes' method, such as this one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The image I used is a lot closer to Archimedes method than the image currently in place or any of those you recommend. In fact it does set out his method of calculating the perimeter of the 12 gon from the hexagon. As set out in On the Measurement of the Circle it involved taking a hexagon and doubling the number of sides. It did not involve taking a polygon and sucessively increasing the number of sides by one or two. Please can you give a source for Archimedes using the method set out either in the illustration currently in the text or the one you recommend? Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Liu Hui image is specialist without an explanation of the algorithm and what the letters are used for. There are several images of Archimedes and Pi on Commons, with the search results here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless I think it shows most graphically the process of doubling the side of the Hexagon and for that purpose is better than any of the hexagon-related images with the name Archimedes attached. Would it be acceptable to you with an extended caption? Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can see that the Liu Hui image is about areas rather than sides and have found a better image which I will upload. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• • My comment about the sentence

"he was able to determine that the value of π lay between 31⁄7 (approximately 3.1429) and 310⁄71 (approximately 3.1408), consistent with its actual value of approximately 3.1416.[44] "

The first part "he was able to determine that the value of π lay between 31⁄7 (approximately 3.1429) and 310⁄71 (approximately 3.1408), is supported by the supplied reference.

The second part is NOT supported by the supplied reference "consistent with its actual value of approximately 3.1416";Because that value of 3.1416 was first obtained by Liu Hui. Archimedes had no idea of 3.1416, he was close, but not there yet. We must adhere to hard fact, otherwise you might as well write :his result is consistant with 3.1415926 .--Gisling (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Sceptic1954 wrote: "I've spent about 20 minutes trying to dominate the image for deletion but can't work out how to do it, if anyone else knows how to do it I'd be grateful... It's a very beautiful image but it doesn't show the method - how it's been up here for so long I don't know!"

You don't need to delete the image from Commons to remove it from the article. Also, that image has encyclopedic value and may be used in many articles, such as area, infinity, method of exhaustion, etc. The case was to rename the file and change its descriptions. Please have more consideration to the work of others. Pedro Listel (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth

I think would be more correct to specify that Syracuse and Magna Graecia are placed in the italian Country. We should write: Place of birth, Syracuse, Magna Graecia, Italy. It should be the same like when we write Galieo Galilei born Duchy of Florence, Italy, even if Italy was not yet a Country then. 9 Jenuary 2013 Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.234 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The modern state of Italy did not exist until 1861. Archimedes was born at a time when Sicily was part of Magna Graecia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern state of Grece did not exist until may 1832.Syracuse was a city state during Magna Grecia period, but was not Grece. Magna Grecia was not Grece like Occident is not America. Italian State doesn't born in 1861, ...like French State doesn't born in 1789. In 1861 born the unitary Italian State. I think it's a little bit different!! :-)))--93.45.123.22 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Archimedes nationality

Hello WP I am reading here that Archimedes was Greek. Isn't it true he was Italian instead? He was born in Sicily, 5 centuries after the first Greek colonisers arrived in Southern Italy. If today someone is born in New York, would you define him American or British?

Regards, Claves

80.169.123.20 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The modern states of Italy and Greece would have been unknown to Archimedes. He was a part of Magna Graecia, which included Sicily at the time when he lived. Archimedes died during the Second Punic War, in which Rome was attempting to control the Mediterranean area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You must be stupid! There was no Italian nationality at that time nor Italians in the modern sense. He was a Greek, speaking Greek. As for Magna Graecia is nothing more than the latin translation of Megali Hellas, meaning Great Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.20.132 (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

PBS Nova documentary

Re this edit: I did think about adding this to the external links section, because the video is online here It is the PBS Nova documentary "Ancient Computer" aired April 3, 2013. When I tried to watch it, it said "We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region due to right restrictions". This means that the only way for many people to watch it would be to buy the DVD or on iTunes, which is linked at the right hand side of the page. This makes it a less than ideal citation or external link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you like. But I can get it through my local library also. Sometimes there are easy offline ways. Having the reference somewhere means anyone can see that it related to a topic, and can go look for it. Seems useful enough to me. Evensteven (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What does the documentary say specifically about Archimedes? This is something that I wanted to check, but could not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, it suggests that he built it (strongly enough). But it also presents the case for that, and makes it clear that it's a deduction for which there is no direct evidence, hence speculative. It does not explore alternate explanations so much as to simply mention a few things. I'd need to see it again to verify how well I've really described it. If you like, I'll order it from the library again and see it when I can, but I know there's a waiting list for it; don't know how long. Evensteven (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh. It also tells how he died at Syracuse, and suggests it was put on the Roman galley that sank and was found again in 1901, a part of the loot from the sack of Syracuse. It also tries to suggest a rationale for how the galley ended up where it did. Presents evidence that is suggestive of dating. Again not conclusive. Evensteven (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern experts believe that the Antikythera mechanism was built around 100 BC, which makes it virtually impossible for Archimedes to have built it himself. The historical material linking Archimedes to calendar or planetary motion devices is somewhat garbled, and like many claims about him, appears much later in accounts written during Roman times. The article should not give the impression that Archimedes built the Antikythera mechanism himself, since he lived around 100 years earlier than the 150-100 BC range in which experts believe that it was built. As this New York Times article points out, it may have been influenced by earlier designs with which Archimedes was familiar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this whole scenario is the weakest portion of the program. It is simply popularized science after all, and I suppose they wanted to have a story to tell about all the mysteries surrounded with the fascinating device. I certainly understand if it needs to be challenged as an unreliable source. I confess I was not focused on that aspect when I entered it into Wikipedia. Evensteven (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Mathematics

Currently the equation under mathematics says "E 4^-N = 1 ... This I feel in incorrect as officially It would just start with 4^-1. This would also change the answer to 1/3... Is there a better way to put this so that it is not incorrect?

Popey Gilbert - 13 - England

The introduction and the section are ambiguous/wrong about the ratio of the volumes and surface areas of a sphere and a cylinder enclosing it: the volume of the sphere is two thirds of that of the cylinder, and their areas are equal if the ends of the cylinder are open. If the ends of the cylinder are closed, the ratio of areas is two thirds.

HuPi (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously at Talk:Archimedes/Archive_2#Error_in_the_Sphere.2FCylinder_relationship_discussed_in_the_figure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirection. Why hasn't someone with editing access to the article corrected the thrice-repeated fault? HuPi (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When Archimedes wrote about this himself, he said "From what has been proved it follows that every cylinder whose base is the greatest circle in a sphere and whose height is equal to the diameter of the sphere is 3/2 of the sphere, and its surface together with its bases is 3/2 of the surface of the sphere." The 2/3 ratio occurs when the bases are included. He does not describe what would happen if the bases were excluded, so there is no real need for the article to mention it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass revert for the contextual images

Hello. I certainly understand that Commons is the best place to browse images but those that I added were best matches I found for the text paragraphs in the article. To me A picture is worth a thousand words is a very important principle to be used in Wikipedia articles. Maybe I added a bit too many but still the article looked better then it does now. For example, the bronze statue of Archimedes at the Archenhold Observatory in Berlin is completely out of context in the Biography paragraph. At list one of the three paintings I added covered nicely Archimedes' life. As a general thought, I would have appreciated an attempt to dialog, compromise and WP:Consensus before mass reverting all my changes. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This was reverted due to issues with WP:MOSIMAGES, specifically:

• Images of Archimedes in the article; nobody knows what Archimedes looked like and all of the paintings and drawings of him are from much later in history. In this version of the article, there are four paintings and drawings, which is excessive. Two of the paintings are primarily of Hiero and Cicero, so they are not really portraits of Archimedes. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE says "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Also, using three images in the Biography section staggered left and right led to sandwiched text, against MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
• Claw of Archimedes; this is a short section of text, and again its positioning produced sandwiched text.
• Antikythera mechanism; as discussed at Talk:Archimedes#PBS_Nova_documentary, Archimedes did not build the Antikythera mechanism and it was not built until around 100 years after he died. There is no real need to illustrate it here, and doing so could be misleading about its origins.
• Archimedes Palimpsest; there are two images and one would be enough as they are similar. The left hand placement at the start of the section Archimedes Palimpsest is against MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which says "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." Again, this produced sandwiched text with the Fields Medal image.

Since Archimedes is a Featured Article, it needs to comply carefully with WP:MOSIMAGES. It is hard to add so many new images without sandwiching the text in a way which goes against MOS:IMAGELOCATION, while some of the images were repetitive or off topic. Comments from other editors welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write this detailed response. I can certainly see most of the points after re-reading some of the MOS articles. A few notes:

• While Archimedes was in two of the mentioned paintings, I didn't put them there as portraits but since they were next to very relevant contextual text which was talking exactly about his relationship with Hiero and the discovery of the tomb by Cicero. They would fit perfectly, if not for the space issues which I understand.
• I agree that we don't know how he looked like, in which case, the statue from Berlin makes far less sense as it is completely out of context with the text next to it. I would rather vote for one of the three paintings I put there earlier: with Hiero, his death or his tomb. These items are covered by the text.
• I certainly see the points related to the Claw of Archimedes, Archimedes Palimpsest and Antikythera mechanism. I had similar thoughts about the real estate or possible confusions, before I put them. Yet, I favor pictures when available as it makes the article more colorful and enjoyable to read. Plain text articles are boring after a few paragraphs, especially in today's age with busy people and ADHD. My 2 cents.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The images were adjusted in line with the suggestions above. The range of images at Category:Archimedes has increased in the past few years. The Gerhard Thieme bronze statue was dropped and replaced with Cicero Discovering the Tomb of Archimedes by Benjamin West, as this is more on topic with the text in the section. Archimedes lever was dropped because it was an old black and white engraving by an unnamed artist and is not all that good. An image of the Archimedes_Palimpsest was added as this is more useful. The sphere and cylinder image was replaced with one that has markings showing the measurements involved.

In order to comply with MOS:IMAGELOCATION and give the best layout at a range of screen resolutions, most of the images in the article are on the right hand side of the page. This places a natural limit on the number of images that the article will hold. Too many images on the right will lead to excessive whitespace, while images on the left will lead to MOS:SANDWICH of the text. There is only one image per section unless the amount of text is large enough to take it without causing these problems. As with many articles, there are now more images related to Archimedes on Commons than would fit comfortably into the article text. This means that there has to be some thought given to which ones to include. The new images are all reasonably modern and of good quality, as well as being referenced in the text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

68.192.58.143 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kap 7 (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Re this edit: Archimedes lived at a time when the modern European states did not exist, and this has been discussed before. He is described a mathematician of ancient Greece in Britannica [16] and this is fairly uncontroversial. The description in the lead was changed to ancient Greek because this is more in line with the period when he lived.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's eulogy for Archimedes

Isaac Asimov's praise for Archimedes, "One man, it might be said, once fought an army. Ancient historians tell us that the man was old, over seventy. The army was that of the strongest power in the world —Rome itself. But the old man, a Greek, fought the Roman army to a standstill for nearly three years —and almost won. The old man was Archimedes of Syracuse, the greatest scientist of the ancient world" was reverted. This praise relies on the assumption that Archimedes actually did build devices such as the Heat Ray and the Claw during the Siege of Syracuse, and the reliability of these claims has long been disputed by historians. The ancient Romans built up a mythology around Archimedes long after his death and attributed to him things that he may or may not have done. The only known authentic works of Archimedes are his mathematical writings, and the mechanical devices attributed to him are all apocryphal to various degrees.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

At the end of this page there is mention of the Oregon Healthcare system, which they call Archimedes. I think inclusion of this note is marketing and shouldn't be on this page. I don't see the need to list all things named after Archimedes, rather the page should be about Archimedes and his work. I request the mention at the end be deleted. 192.149.244.9 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This was added in 2008. Personally, I've never been convinced that this was notable, and the website says that the name has been changed to "We Can Do Better". Since the name no longer involves Archimedes, it is not worth a name check here, so it has been removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

In the "Legacy" section, I suggest that there provide information that in the video game Team Fortress 2, as of June 23, 2011, one of Medic's pets, a dove named after the inventor and astronomer, Archimedes, makes its first appearance in Valve's promotional video, Meet the Medic. 2601:E:100:A00:FCB7:CF31:E79D:A93F (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a piece of WP:POPCULTURE trivia, and it has nothing to do with Archimedes and his work. The owl called Archimedes in The Sword in the Stone is not mentioned for the same reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How about this: we can form a new section called "In popular culture" and then add that information in it. Forget the legacy area.

2601:E:100:A00:A0C5:D711:70C0:A765 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"In popular culture" sections are often magnets for irrelevant trivia (satirical cartoon of this problem here). Since this is a featured article, it would be best not to encourage people to add every mention of Archimedes that they find, particularly if it has nothing to do with the man or his work.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Animated gif of balance

Archimedes may have used his principle of buoyancy to determine whether the golden crown was less dense than solid gold.

the diagram is wrong because the counter wieght should not go in the water 80.229.216.245 (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a fair point as in the version of a hydrostatic balance (bilancetta) described by Galileo in 1586, only one side is intended to go into the water.Here in the original text by Galileo, only the metal ball on the right goes into the water, while the pan is adjusted until it is in counterpoise with the ball. Galileo intended this to be a more accurate method than the one described by Vitruvius and attributed to Archimedes. Strictly speaking, the bilancetta principle is nothing to do with Archimedes as it was devised by Galileo in the 16th century. The inclusion of the animation in this article is therefore somewhat misleading. A previous complaint about the GIF animation is that the water level does not rise when the objects are inserted. I've removed the animation, because it is not an ideal illustration of the subject matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. I don't see how Galileo's method is relevant, considering this is an article on Archimedes and his hypothesised method, not Galileo's. In Archimedes' supposed method the entire apparatus was submerged, and for this reason the original complaint is simply false. The static water level is nitpicking because it's not relevant to what is being illustrated; furthermore, if the tub (which is only seen in cross-section) is sufficiently large, the change in water level would not be notable anyway. Crucially, I found that this animation was very helpful for understanding the article. Therefore its removal should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.31.113 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What do others think? I've never been convinced that this animation is accurate or on topic for this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

Death of Archimedes, Archimedes died in Rome from stabbing, because when Cartage attacked Rome, the Romans found out that Archimedes is there with the Carthaginians, designing catapults for them and designing more based on some geometrical figures.

Sources: World Geographic Channel Visualserge (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done there are several reliable sources that confirm he was killed, and buried, in Syracuse - Arjayay (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

World Geographic Channel does not qualify as a reliable source if it says this. The Roman historians (who were admittedly writing some years after the event) are clear that he died during the Second Punic War and was killed when the troops of Marcus Claudius Marcellus captured Syracuse c 212 BC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Name

Although we commonly translate Red Indian names such as Sitting Bull into English we don't seem to do that for Ancient Greek names for some reason. Several websites however report that the name Archimedes is derived from the Greek elements αρχος (archos) "master" and μηδομαι (medomai) "to think, to plan". Perhaps 'Master of thought' would be a fair translation. That does however imply that this might not have been his birth name but one applied later. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.189.32 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There are various online sources that say this, eg here, but they would not meet WP:RS. It is not something that mainstream historical accounts of the life of Archimedes have said. If a person is called Dick, they are not necessarily named after a penis. It is hard to say whether the claim about Archimedes is accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Eureka" story not backed by citation

Citation 18 (an academic physics page) does not mention the "Eureka" story specifically, and is the only source cited for it here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.218.157 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation 18 is Archimedes' Principle from HyperPhysics. This doesn't mention the Eureka story, which comes from Vitruvius and is in cite 16. I've adjusted the cites to make this clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

what about the academy that he founded???? --Jesushoneybee1 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

.I have now seen, pitagoras was the one that did that; sorry i was getting confused. Enough wikipedia for today...--Jesushoneybee1 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

add Neusis construction to "known for". pretty important in my opinion, given that only a handful of people who dared to take the trail blazed by archimedes (Newton likely being the most recent prominent mathematician to do so). 174.3.155.181 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem here, because the Neusis construction comes from the Book of Lemmas which isn't generally agreed to be the work of Archimedes. The Neusis construction is Proposition 8 in the Book of Lemmas.[17] Angle trisection of an arbitrary angle isn't soluble within the rules of classical Greek geometry, although it can be solved with a Neusis construction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add the construction based on "who did it first". I added the construction because he is most famous for its usage. I do understand what you're saying wrt the that Book of Lemmas, but Archimedes could not have performed the derivations in, say, On the Sphere and Cylinder without using a neusis construction. I am therefore proposing the addition because of his frequent usage, which resulted in some of the most fruitful math known to this day. For example, The Method of Mechanical Theorems is useless without the neusis construction; with the neusis, it would provide the geometric bearings (if you will) that facilitate pencil-and-paper (two dimensional) derivations. Is that a bit better of an explanation? I think it should still be added. Thoughts? 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To prevent original research, a reliable source is needed. I'm not sure if Archimedes is "most famous" for this, which would also need a source. Euclid helped to create the idea that a Compass-and-straightedge construction is the correct way to do things, although a neusis construction with marks on the ruler was known before Archimedes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

yea i guess you're right on the 'original research' bit. but what about Pappus of Alexandria attributing his use of neusis prior to the aforementioned book of lemmas? One link I found through a quick google is here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=ue_wtk_Gx0QC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303 since Pappus' (290-350AD) work is much earlier than the muslim (thabit whatever) who translated the book of lemmas, could one not find even more robust sources that show Pappus making reference to Archimedes' neusis, which would thereby decouple any relation to the book of lemmas, and justify the addition to the "known for"?174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

yea, found a way more robust article that elaborates on the 'Pappus got it from Archimedes, thus we don't need the Book of Lemmas which was translated by the muslim' idea:

In his work, The Method, Archimedes displays the heuristic technique by which he discovered many of his geometric theorems, but he offers there no examples of results from Spiral Lines. The present study argues that a number of theorems on spirals in Pappus' Collectio are based on early Archimedean treatments. It thus emerges that Archimedes' discoveries on the areas bound by spirals and on the properties of the tangents drawn to the spirals were based on ingenious constructions involving solid figures and curves. A comparison of Pappus' treatments with the Archimedean proofs reveals how a formal stricture against the use of solids in problems relating exclusively to plane figures induced radical modifications in the character of the early treatments.

thoughts? edit: In the meanwhile, i'm going to add the last reference as a justification as the abstract suggests it's a very strong paper providing confirmation that Pappus' use of the neusis was influenced by Archimedes, thus removing any relation to the Book of Lemmas. Of course, if you feel it's still insufficient (for some reason), feel free to revert and provide rationale. thanks 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My main concern here was giving the impression that the Book of Lemmas is one of Archimedes' works when it may not be. It may be a collection of other writings that are attributed to him. There is more about Archimedes influencing Pappus here and here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Asteroid

Re this edit: Asteroid 3600 Archimedes is named after Archimedes and has appeared on a 2008 stamp from Guinea-Bissau.[18][19] Given that there are thousands of asteroids with names, it may not be his most notable achievement, but I don't think it is pop culture trivia as suggested in the edit summary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I could be persuaded either way, but I think this asteroid is a pretty minor footnote, not really worthy of documenting here. It does not have its own article, which seems to be as good an objective test as any for whether it's worth linking to. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I am tempted to put it back with the sourcing mentioned above because the WP:POPCULTURE rationale given is incorrect. Names of asteroids are given by the IAU. Two of the things that have been removed on WP:POPCULTURE grounds are:

• Archimedes is the name of the owl in The Sword in the Stone (film).
• Archimedes appears in the Monty Python sketch The Philosophers' Football Match.

Both of these fail pop culture guidelines, but the asteroid is more worthwhile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's true that the letter of POPCULTURE does not apply here, but we don't have a WP:SCIENTIFICTRIVIA guideline. These are uncharted waters, so we need to decide whether it's worth including or not under WP:NOT, perhaps informed (although not dictated) by the underlying principles of WP:TRIVIA, as well as our other core policies. Generally speaking, we should have secondary sources showing significance. I don't get the sense that this is the case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

Reference 7 is a dead link.

60.231.179.112 (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Added an archived copy. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Analytical approach

Have you seen this analytical approach to solved Archimedes ' approximation of irrational number

https://www.academia.edu/10608644/Archimedes_Square_Root_of_3_5_6_7_and_29

Can it be added to Archimedes' Wikipedia page?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milogardner (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you may be the author of this paper. Academia.edu isn't an ideal source, and it is unclear why this is directly related to Archimedes other than quoting his method of approximation. Can you find a secondary source that has mentioned this? Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Archimedes' principle

I think the legend to the film with the scale under Archimedes' principle is wrong: the mass of the water does not increase. 85.218.11.47 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly unclear wording. The mass of the water obviously stays constant, but the object placed in the water weighs down the scale.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Heat ray

Re this edit: nobody really knows what the heat ray looked like or did, so it is modern conjecture that it operated in a manner similar to a heliostat or solar furnace. People in ancient times may have known how to use a lens or mirror to focus light on to a point, but the contemporary sourcing available today is unclear about the specifics involved. The phrase burning glass refers to a lens rather than a mirror. The academic source here points out that there is no contemporary sourcing that links Archimedes to burning mirrors. It is modern researchers such as Dr. Ioannis Sakkas and Mythbusters who have popularized the idea that the ships were set on fire with an array of mirrors. The source here does not mention a heliostat. The main thing that I have tried to do here is to avoid presenting speculation as fact. As is common with Archimedes, the story about the ships being set on fire comes from much later authors such as Lucian who would not have been able to write first hand accounts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Cattle of Helios

Under "Archimedes' cattle problem" it says Archimedes challenges them to count the numbers of cattle in the Herd of the Sun.

I believe it should say something like the herd of the sun god, or the herd of helios. It could also link to The Cattle of Helios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noverflow (talk • contribs) 06:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done The original wording in the problem says "If thou art diligent and wise, O stranger, compute the number of cattle of the Sun, who once upon a time grazed on the fields of the Thrinacian isle of Sicily."[20]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Naked statue of Archimedes "may cause a distraction"

Archimedes is in the news, thanks to a naked statue of him in Ellisfield, Hampshire, England.[21] The statue has been described as potentially offensive because Archimedes is naked, and at risk of causing an accident by distracting motorists. It depicts Archimedes using a lever to move the Earth, as in the quote attributed to him by Pappus of Alexandria, "Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth." This controversy is worth watching, but it isn't notable enough for the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Archimedes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718031943/http://www.swe.org/iac/LP/pulley_03.html to http://www.swe.org/iac/lp/pulley_03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012123245/http://capitolmuseum.ca.gov/VirtualTour.aspx?content1=1278&Content2=1374&Content3=1294 to http://www.capitolmuseum.ca.gov/VirtualTour.aspx?content1=1278&Content2=1374&Content3=1294

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archimedes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928102802/http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/palimpsest_making1.html to http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/palimpsest_making1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mathdb.org/articles/archimedes/e_archimedes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archimedes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20070905125400/http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/5/55.html with https://archive.is/20070905125400/http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/5/55.html on http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/5/55.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Error in side bar

The side bar says: "By placing a metal bar in a container with water on a scale, the bar displaces as much water as its own volume, increasing its mass and weighing down the scale."

This isn't actually true. The mass of the container with water is not increased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.226.13.29 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The caption is a bit vague on what happens here. In the original version of the story given by Vitruvius, the king gave Archimedes a crown with an irregular shape, so it would be difficult to measure its volume accurately. Eventually, Archimedes realized that placing the crown in water would make the water level rise by the corresponding amount of volume, allowing its density to be calculated. The gold, being denser than silver, displaced less water than the equivalent weight of silver.[22] Gold is almost twice as dense as silver, so the equivalent weight will be nearly half of the volume.[23] Later authors such as Galileo argued that this method was not very accurate, and said that it would be better to put the desired object on a balance, particularly if the metal was an alloy, which the crown was.[24] The caption is playing mix and match with both of these methods and may confuse the reader. Obviously the mass of the crown and the water remain constant, and the method of immersion described by Vitruvius is about measuring the volume and nothing else. I'll have a think about how the caption could be reworded, and would welcome suggestions here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Archimedes and the bust that isn't him

Re this edit: at some stage in the dim and distant past, a person with dyslexia or poor eyesight may have decided that this bust of Archidamus III is Archimedes. It isn't, and the error has been perpetuated many times since. For example, here on a 1983 postage stamp, where someone has correctly pointed out the error.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I had a vague impression that the bust probably was not him because I imagined that, if there was an extant bust of Archimedes, it would have certainly been used as the infobox image, rather than the painting by Fetti. Thank you for pointing this out. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Getty Images also makes this mistake.[25] It would take too long to list all of the places where this bust has turned up with a caption saying that it is Archimedes. Of course, even if it was supposed to be Archimedes, there would be no guarantee that it looked anything like him if it was produced years after his death by someone who never met him--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The bust in question is from the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, which is the source of several other notorious misattributions. On page 774 of their book The Classical Tradition, Anthony Grafton, Glenn W. Most, and Salvatore Settis state that "Many of the approximately 40 unknown bronze and marble portraits tunneled out of the Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum in 1750-1761 were given spurious names of this kind. Two busts, for example, though neither laughs or cries, were named Democritus, the laughing philosopher, and Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher. Though entirely baseless, the Democritus remained an accepted identification until recently." Recently, during a lengthy discussion about another bust, the identification of a bust from the Villa of the Papyri as "Sappho" was identified as "highly speculative". It seems probable to me that the identification of the bust as Archimedes is probably the result of wishful thinking on the behalf of its original discoverers. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, adding that bust, was an error, sorry. prokaryotes (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

MythBusters

While I find the mention of the MythBusters tests generally interesting, it appears to be way to lengthy, when compared to the rest of the article. Supporting trimming of that segment. prokaryotes (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Mythbusters is junk science. Not even close to WP:RS. I'd be fine with wholesale removal. Khirurg (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would not call them "junk science"; they are science popularizers, not academic scientists, so you cannot really hold them to the same standards of methodological rigorousness. I think that the show has enough popularity to warrant a brief mention. Three long paragraphs, though, is probably excessive. One paragraph would probably suffice. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The only place it would belong would in an in "In popular culture" section. Mythbusters is nowhere close to meeting WP:RS. Khirurg (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The basic conclusions reached by MythBusters are correct. It is unlikely that any contraption with mirrors would have been powerful enough to set a ship on fire at a distance, as other researchers have pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

Hazem Federer (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)