mathematicians-from-belgium

113 quotes
0 likes
0Verified
6Authors

Timeline

First Quote Added

April 10, 2026

Latest Quote Added

April 10, 2026

All Quotes

"The idea of extending the decimal place-value system to include fractions was discovered by several mathematicians. The most influential... was Simon Stevin... who popularized the system in a booklet called De Thiende (“The tenth”), first published in 1585. By extending place value to tenths, hundredths, and so on, Stevin created the system... More importantly, he explained how it simplified calculations... Stevin was aware that his system provided a way to attach a "number" (...decimal expansion) to every... length. ...In his Arithmetic he declared that... roots were just numbers. ...that "there are no absurd, irrational, irregular, inexplicable, or surd numbers" ...all terms for irrational numbers ...Stevin was proposing ...to flatten the incredible diversity of "quantities" or "magnitudes" into one expansive notion of number, defined by decimal expansions. ...this amounted to a fairly clear notion of... the positive real numbers. Stevin's proposal was made immensely more influential by the invention of logarithms. Like the sine and the cosine, these were practical computational tools. ...they needed to be tabulated, and the tables were given in decimal form. Very soon, everyone was using decimal representation. ...The positive real numbers are... an immensely larger number system, whose internal complexity we still do not fully understand."

- Simon Stevin

• 0 likes• engineers• physicists-from-belgium• mathematicians-from-belgium• people-from-bruges•
"Sailing carriages are said to have been used in very remote times in China, and as far back as 1617, in the collection of travels by ... But before that date sailing chariots had actually been constructed in Holland by the celebrated mathematician Simon Stevin (born at Bruges, 1548, died 1620), a much-esteemed friend of the Stadtholder, Prince Maurice of Nassau. These vehicles attracted consider able attention from the men of science of the seventeenth century. Our own Bishop Wilkins is loud in their praise, and Grotius wrote several poems on the carriages and on their constructor. Fortunately, too, there is an engraving, now extremely rare, by Swanenburch, after a design by Jacques de Gheyn, which brings out the arrangement very clearly. It is dated 1612... Another issue of the plates, supposed to be the third, is dated 1652, and a reduced and reversed reproduction is stated by MĂĽller, De Nederlandsche Geschiedenis in Platen, to be found in Bleau's Tooneel der Steden, 1649. A reduced copy of the central plate, showing the carriage only, is given in Le Magazin Pittoresque for 1844, and it is from that copy that the accompanying illustration (Fig. 1) has been produced. ... In a pamphlet, possibly issued with the engraving, bearing the title Windt-Wagens: Les Artificiels Chariots Ă  Voiles du Compte Maurice... is given an account of a journey made apparently in the year 1600 along the beach from the now fashionable Dutch watering-place Scheveningen to Petten, a distance of forty-two miles to the north, which was covered in two hours, a speed which seems almost incredible. The passengers included Prince Maurice himself, who steered; Grotius, then a lad of fifteen; the Spanish Admiral, Francis Mendoza, at that time a prisoner in the hands of Prince Maurice after the battle of Nieuport; and others to the number of twenty-eight. The trial appears to have been a great success, but in spite of this, unless, indeed, the trip performed by De Peiresc in 1606 was made in it, there appears to be absolutely no record of its having been afterwards used, and, stranger still, it is quite unknown what became of the carriage in the end. It is referred to in Howell's Letters as being one of two wonderful things to be seen near the Hague: "A waggon, or ship, or a monster mixed of both, like the Hippocentaur, who was half man and half horse; this engine that hath wheels and sails, will hold above twenty people, and goes with the wind, being drawn or mov'd by nothing else, and will run, the wind being good, and the sails hois'd up, above fifteen miles an hour upon the even hard sands: they say this invention was found out to entertain Spinola when he came hither to treat of the last truce." The anonymous author of The Present State of Holland, 1765, says of Scheveningen: " This village is famous also for a sailing chariot belonging to Prince Maurice, and kept here." He adds: "The last time it made its appearance on the strand was about 17 years ago, when through the unskilfulness of the steersman it had like to have run into the sea, and put the passengers into no small fright." This in all probability refers to the smaller carriage mentioned above as represented in the drawing of Jacques de Gheyn, which was to be seen at Scheveningen as late as 1802; its fate since that date is unknown. There is an account of another, but partially successful trial, with this carriage in 1790 upon the occasion of a royal marriage, and it is known that it was sold by auction in 1795. Stevin's contrivances appear to have set the anonymous author referred to above at work upon his own account, on what must be regarded as the forerunner of the motor perambulators, with which we shall no doubt become familiar ere long."

- Simon Stevin

• 0 likes• engineers• physicists-from-belgium• mathematicians-from-belgium• people-from-bruges•
"We find also the Famous ', Mathematician to the Prince of Orange, having defined Number to be, That by which is explained the quantity of every Thing, he becomes so highly inflamed against those that will not have the Unit to be a Number, as to exclaim against Rhetoric, as if he were upon some solid Argument. True it is that he intermixes in his Discourses a question of some Importance, that is, whether a Unit be to Number, as a Point is to a Line. But here he should have made a distinction, to avoid the confusing together of two different things. To which end these two questions were to have been treated apart; whether a Unit be Number, and whether a Unit be to Number, as a Point is to a Line; and then to the first he should have said, that it was only a Dispute about a Word, and that an Unit was, or was not a Number, according to the Definition, which a Man would give to Number. That according to Euclid's Definition of Number; Number is a Multitude of Units assembled together: it was visible, that a Unit was no Number. But in regard this Definition of Euclid was arbitrary, and that it was lawful to give another Definition of Number, Number might be defined as Stevin defines it, according to which Definition a Unit is a Number; so that by what has been said, the first question is resolved, and there is nothing farther to be alleged against those that denied the Unit to be a Number, without a manifest begging of the question, as we may see by examining the pretended Demonstrations of Stevin. The first is, The Part is of the same Nature with the whole, The Unit is a Part of a Multitude of Units, Therefore the Unit is of the same Nature with a MuItitude of Units, and consequently of Number. This Argument is of no validity. For though the part were always of the same nature with the whole, it does not follow that it ought to have always the same name with the whole; nay it often... has not the same Name. A Soldier is part of an Army, and yet is no Army... a Half-Circle is no Circle... if we would we could not... give to Unit more than its name of Unit or part of Number. The Second Argument which Stevin produces is of no more force. If then the Unit were not a Number, Subtracting one out of three, the Number given would remain, which is absurd. But... to make it another Number than what was given, there needs no more than to subtract a Number from it, or a part of a Number, which is the Unit. Besides, if this Argument were good, we might prove in the same manner, that by taking a half Circle from a Circle given, the Circle given would remain, because no Circle is taken away. ... But the second Question, Whether an Unit be to Number, as a Point is to a Line, is a dispute concerning the thing? For it is absolutely false, that an Unit is to number as a point is to a Line. Since an Unit added to number makes it bigger, but a Line is not made bigger by the addition of a point. The Unit is a part of Number, but a Point is no part of a Line. An Unit being subtracted from a Number, the Number given does not remain; but a point being taken from a Line, the Line given remains. Thus doth Stevin frequently wrangle about the Definition of words, as when he perplexes himself to prove that Number is not a quantity discreet, that Proportion of Number is always Arithmetical, and not Geometrical, that the Root of what Number soever, is a Number, which shews us that he did not properly understand the definition of words, and that he mistook the definition of words, which were disputable, for the definition of things that were beyond all Controversy."

- Simon Stevin

• 0 likes• engineers• physicists-from-belgium• mathematicians-from-belgium• people-from-bruges•