Defence of a "Shocking" Point of View

B. L. VAN DER WAERDEN

Communicated by W. HARTNER

1. Introduction
In his paper " O n the Need to Rewrite the History of Greek Mathematics"
SABETAIUNGURU severely criticizes the views of TANNERY, ZEUTHEN, NEUGEBAUER
and myself on the "Geometrical Algebra" of the Greeks. UNGURU summarizes
our position in one sentence: " G r e e k 'geometric algebra' is nothing but 'Babylo-
nian algebra' in geometrical attire", and he starts to prove that this position is
historically unacceptable. UNGURU states his objections very clearly. The object of
the present paper is to defend our position against this emphatic attack.

2. Algebraic Thinking
After having summarized our views, UNGURU starts his discussion by summing
up the characteristic features of geometric and algebraic thinking. According to
UNGURU (quoting MAHONEY), the main features of algebraic thinking are:
1. Operational symbolism,
2. The preoccupation with mathematical relations rather than with mathematical objects,
which relations determine the structures constituting the subject-matter of modern algebra ...,
3. Freedom from any ontological questions and commitments and, connected with this, ab-
stractness rather than intuitiveness 1

If this definition of "algebraic thinking" is accepted, then indeed UNGURU is

right in concluding that "there has never been an algebra in the pre-Christian
era", and that Babylonian algebra never existed, and that all assertions of
TANNERY, ZEUTHEN, NEUGEBAUER and myself concerning " G e o m e t r i c algebra"
are complete nonsense.
Of course, this was not our definition of algebraic thinking. When I speak of
Babylonian or Greek or Arab algebra, I mean algebra in the sense of AL-
KHWT~RIZMI, or in the sense of CARDANO'S "Ars magna", or in the sense of our
school algebra. Algebra, then, is:
the art of handling algebraic expressions like (a + b) 2 and of solving equations
like x 2 + a x = b.
1 This definition was taken from M.S. MAHONEY:Die Anf~ingeder algebraischen Denkweise im
17. Jahrhundert, Rete 1 (1971), pp. 15-31. However, I don't think MAHONBYmeant to give a general
definition of "Algebraic Thinking'~ He was concerned with modern tendencies in algebra, which first
manifested themselves in the 17th century. He certainly did not include the algebraic thinking of
AL-KHwXRIZM~and CAP,DANO,to which the characteristic features 1.2.3. do not apply.
200 B.L. VAN DER WAERDEN

If this definition is applied to any Babylonian or Arab text it is unimportant

what symbolism the text uses. Our relation
(a+b) 2 = a 2+b 2 + 2 a b

can be stated in words thus:

"The square of a sum is the sum of the squares of the terms and twice their
product."
The statement in words says exactly the same thing as the formula. Instead
of "product" one may also say "area" (of a rectangle), as the Babylonians did,
or just "rectangle", as the Greeks did.
Let us now look into history, and see where we find Algebra in the sense of
our definition.

3. Arab Algebra and Cardano's "Ars magna"

The word "al-jabr" in the title of AL-KI4WXRIZMFS Algebra is a part of the
full expression al-jabr wa'l-muq~bala, which ROSEN translates as Completion and
Reduction. The Arab words denote two simple operations necessary for solving
equations. AL-KnWXRIZMFStreatise deals mainly with the art of solving equations.
Similarly, CARDANO'S " A r s magna" (Great Art) is mainly concerned with the
art of solving linear, quadratic, cubic and biquadratic equations.
At school we learn how to handle expressions like (a + b)2 and how to solve
linear and quadratic equations. This subject is called "Algebra". So the definition
of Algebra just given is in full accordance with standard usage from 800 A.D.
up to the present day.
In what follows, the word Algebra will be used only in this sense.

4. Babylonian Algebra
UNGURU denies the existence of Babylonian algebra. Instead he speaks,
quoting ABEL REY, of
an arithmetical stage (Egyptian and Babylonian mathematics), in which the reasoning is largely that
of elementary arithmetic or based on empirically paradigmatic rules derived from successful trials
taken as a prototype.

I have no idea on what kind of texts this statement is based. For me, this is
history-writing in its worst form: quoting opinions of other authors and treating
them as if they were established facts, without quoting texts.
Let us stick to facts and quote a cuneiform text BM 13901 dealing with the
solution of quadratic equations. Problem 2 of this text reads: 2
I have subtracted the (side) of the square from the area, and 14,30 is it.

The statement of the problem is completely clear: It is not necessary to trans-

late ft into modern symbolism. If we do translate it, we obtain the equation
X 2 -- X = 870.
The solution given in the text reads:
2 0. NEUGEBAUER: Mathematische Keilschrifttexte III, p. 6.
 Defence of a "Shocking" Point of View 201

Take 1, the coefficient (of the unknown side). Divide 1 into two equal parts: 0;30 times 0;30 is
0;15. Add this to 14,30, and (the result) 14,30;15 has 29;30 as a square root. Add the 0;30 which
you have multiplied by itself to 29 ; 30, and 30 is the (side of the) square.

This is the same method of solution we learn at school. According to our definition,
this is algebra.

4. AI-Khw~rizmi
AL-KHW~RIZMTteaches the same method as the Babylonians. Let me give an
example from page (5) of KHWT~RIZMFStreatise (p. 8 of ROSEN'S translation).
Roots and Squares are equal to numbers; for instan<~ "one square, and ten roots of the same
amount to thirty-nine dirhems"; that is to say, what must be the square which, when increased by
ten of its own roots, amounts to thirty-nine? The solution is this: you halve the number of the roots,
which in the present instance yields five. This you multipty by itself; the product is twenty-five. Add
this to thirty-nine; the sum is sixty-four. Now take the root of this, which is eight, and subtract from
it half the number of the roots, which is five; the remainder is three. This is the root of the square
which you sought for; the square itself is nine.

There is a striking similarity between the Babylonian way of treating quadratic

equations and KHWXRIZM~'S,a similarity not only in content but also in form.
Unlike the Babylonians, KRWXRIZM[also gives proofs. For solving quadratic
equations of the form
x2+ax=b
he needs the rule of computation
(x +½a) z = x 2 + a x +(½a) 2

and he proves it by means of drawings. First he gives a complicated proof by

means of a square surrounded by four rectangles and four small squares, but
later on he presents a simplified diagram (see' Fig. 1), which looks just like the
diagram accompanying EUCLID'S proposition II 4.

Fig. i. Diagram from the Algebra of AL-KHwT~HZMT, p. 16 in ROSEN'S translation

5. Geometry and Algebra

The diagram in KHWNRIZMFS Algebra is typical of a general tendency we
can observe in Greek arithmetics as well as :in Babylonian and Arab algebra,
namely the tendency to illustrate algebraic notions and methods by means of
diagrams.
Let us first consider Babylonian algebra. In problems with two unknowns,
these are often called length and width, and their product area. The product of a
202 B.L. VANDER WAERDEN

number by itself is always called its square. In problems with three unknowns,
these are sometimes called length, width and height, and their product volume.
In Greek arithmetics, the product of a number by itself is always called its
square. This term is found in all texts from PLATONto DIOPHANTOS.Numbers of
the form mn with m4:n were called oblong numbers, and two products mn and pq
were called similar, ifm is to n as p is to q. This means that products mn were visual-
ized as rectangles. Just so, numbers of the form n2(n_l) were interpreted as
volumes of rectangular parallelepipeda and called "Arithmoi paramekepipedoi" 3.
In passing we may note that there are Babylonian tables of these numbers
n z (n +_1), and that these tables were used to solve cubic equations of the form
x2(x +_a)=b.

Thus we see that the tendency to translate algebraic or arithmetical notions

into geometric terminology was common to the Babylonians, Greeks and Arabs.

6. Side- and Diagonal-Numbers

A good example of how the Greeks used to translate arithmetical operations

and theorems into the language of geometry and conversely is offered by the
Pythagorean theory of Side-Numbers and Diagonal-Numbers 4. They were
pairs of numbers s, and d, satisfying the relation
(1) d~ = s~ + 1.
Starting with s 1 =d 1 ---1, these numbers were defined recursively by the relations

(2) s,+ =s~+dR, dR+ =2s~+dR,

or, if one prefers a definition in words:

"If a side-number is added to the corresponding diagonal-number, the next
side-number is obtained. If the side-number is added twice to the diagonal-
number, the next diagonal-number is obtained".
This sentence in words is completely equivalent to the formulae (2), so there
is no danger in using the formulae, contrary to MAHONEY'S opinion quoted by
UNGURU at the beginning of his paper.
PROKLOSinforms us that the Pythagoreans proved (1) by means of Proposition
I110 of EUCLID. This means: they transformed the purely arithmetical statements
(1) and (2) into the language of geometry, representing the numbers s. and dR
by line segments and their squares by geometrical squares. To these segments
and squares they applied I110, thus obtaining the desired relation (1). This example
shows that the Pythagoreans were able to translate arithmetical statements like
(1) and (2) into the language of geometry, and conversely.
3 O i BECKER: APleMOI IIAPAMHKEIIII-IEAOI, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Math.,
B 4, p. 181 (1938).
'~ See PROKLOS: Commentary on Platon's Republic II, Chapters 23 and 27, or VANDER WAERDEN:
Science Awakening I, p. 126.
 Defenceof a "Shocking" Point of View 203

7. Geometrical Algebra
Now we are sufficiently prepared to discuss Greek "Geometrical Algebra".
Algebra, as we had defined it, is an art which can be applied to numbers as well as
to line segments and areas, and in fact the Babylonians already applied it to num-
bers as well as to line segments. Now if algebra is restricted to line segments and
their products (i.e. rectangles and squares), one obtains a restricted algebra which
may be formulated in purely geometric terms, and which may well be called
"geometric algebra". Thus, if the formula
(3) (a+b) 2 = a z+b z+2ab

is restated in words and restricted to line segments a and b, one obtains just the
theorem II4 of EUCLID'S elements.
Thus, "geometric algebra" is by no means a contradictio in terminis, as UNGURU
claims, but it is a reality. It is algebra restricted to line segments and areas, and
hence a part of algebra, but it is also a part of geometry, namely a set of geometrical
theorems and solutions of problems, in which only line segments, rectangles and
orthogonal parallelepipeda are considered. Examples of geometrical algebra
are the propositions II 1-6 and II9-10 of EUCLID.

8. Two Roads to Geometrical Algebra

As we have seen, geometrical algebra is a part of algebra as well as a part of
geometry. It follows that one can arrive at geometrical algebra by two different
roads: One can either start with geometrical problems concerning rectangles and
squares, and solve these problems by means of theorems, or one can start with
algebraic problems such as the solution of quadratic equations and reformulate
them in geometrical language, writing "rectangle" instead of "product".
The Greeks, and in particular the Pythagoreans, were perfectly able to follow
either road. They called the product of a number by itself "square", and they
solved a purely arithmetical problem concerning Side-Numbers and Diagonal-
Numbers by means of the geometrical theorem I110. The question is now: What
road did the Greeks actually follow? Did they start with algebraieal (or arithmeti-
cal) or with geometrical problems ?
We (ZEUTHEN and his followers) feel that the Greeks started with algebraic
problems and translated them into geometric language. UNGURU thinks that we
argued like this: We found that the theorems of EUCLID II can be translated into
modem algebraic formalism, and that they are easier to understand if thus trans-
lated, and this we took as "the proof that this is what the ancient mathematician
had in mind'. Of course, this is nonsense. We are not so weak in logical thinking !
The fact that a theorem can be translated into another notation does not prove a
thing about what the author of the theorem had in mind.
No, our line of thought was quite different. We studied the wording of the
theorems and tried to reconstruct the original ideas of the author. We found it
evident that these theorems did not arise out of geometrical problems. We were
not able to find any interesting geometrical problem that would give rise to
theorems like II 1-4. On the other hand, we found that the explanation of these
204 B.L. VANDERWAERDEN

theorems as arising from algebra worked well. Therefore we adopted the latter
explanation.
N o w it turns out, to my great surprise, that what we, working mathematicians,
found evident, is not evident to UNGURU. Therefore I shall state more clearly
the reasons why I feel that theorems like EUCLID II 1-4 did not arise from geome-
trical considerations.

9. The Origin of Euclid II, Propositions 1-4

Proposition I reads in the translation of HEATH :
If there be two straight lines, and one of them be cut into any number of segments, the rectangle
contained by the two straight lines is equal to the rectangles contained by the uncut straight line and
each of the segments.

Fig. 2. Diagram to EUCLID'SProp. II, 1

Geometrically, this theorem just means that every rectangle can be cut into
rectangles by lines parallel to one of the sides. This is evident: everyone sees it by
just looking at the diagram. Within the framework of geometry there is no need
for such a t h e o r e m : EUCLID never makes use of it in his first four books.
However, if one starts with the algebraic operations of addition and multi-
plication of numbers and asks: H o w does one multiply a sum by a quantity a?
the answer is: Multiply the terms of the sum by a and add the results. In elemen-
tary arithmetics, this rule is needed all the time. If this rule of c o m p u t a t i o n is
translated into the language of geometry, Proposition II 1 results. In other words:
Proposition II 1 furnishes a geometrical p r o o f of an algebraic rule of computation.
II 2 and II 3 are just special cases of II 1. Once more, from the point of view
of geometry there is no reason to formulate these trivialities as theorems.
II 4 says:
If a straight line be cut at random, the square on the whole is equal to the squares on the seg-
ments and twice the rectangle contained by the segments.
Geometrically, this means: If we take a point Z on the diagonal of a square
and draw lines through Z parallel to the sides of the square, the square will be
divided into two squares and two rectangles. This is trivial.

II 4 reads:

J
z

Fig. 3. Diagram to Euclid, Prop. II 4

 Defence of a "Shocking" Point of View 205

As we have seen, the same diagram of a square divided into two squares and
two rectangles (without the diagonal, which is not necessary) also appears in
AL-KHWXRIZMFS treatise. Here it occurs in its natural place: The author needs
it to justify his method of solving quadratic equations. In this case we can see
why AL-KHwT~RIZMi inserted the diagram. If we assume that the author of
Book II also started with an algebraic tradition, to which a rule for squaring a
sum belonged, we can understand why he formulated the theorems 1M just as
he did, but if he came from geometry, we cannot understand his line of thought.

10. A Treatise of Th~bit ibn Qurra

TH.KBITIBN QURRA, a contemporary of A L - K H W A R I Z M I , w a s an excellent
geometer and astronomer, fully conversant with the work of EUCLID. In a little
known treatise 5, THKBIT pointed out that the solution of the three types of
quadratic equations according to "the Algebra people" is equivalent to the
"Application of areas with excess or defect" as presented by EUCLID.
The example of THT~BITshows that UNGURU is completely wrong in thinking
that mathematicians like ZUUTHENcame to their opinions about Greek geometric
algebra only because they translated EUCLID'S propositions into modern algebraic
symbolism. It is true that ZEUTHEN was able to use modern symbolism, but
THXBrr was not, and yet he arrived at t h e s a m e conclusion a s ZEUTHEN, namely
that AL-KHWS.RIZMr'S solution of quadratic equations is equivalent to EUCLID'S
procedure.
UNGURU, like many non-mathematicians, grossly overestimates the im-
portance of symbolism in mathematics. These people see our papers full of
formulae, and they think that these formulae are an essential part of mathe-
matical thinking. We, working mathematicians, know that in many cases the
formulae are not at all essential, only convenient. The treatise of THABIT offers a
good illustration of this thesis.

11. The Application of Areas

In his Commentary to EUCLID I, Prop. 44, PROKLOS informs us:
These things, says Eudemos, are ancient and are discoveries of the Muse of the Pythagoreans,
I mean the application (~c~pc~fio2~)of areas, their exceeding (bnepfio2/1) and their falling short (g,:o2~tOlq).
It was from the Pythagoreans that later geometers took the names, which they again transferred to
the so-called conic lines.., whereas those godlike men of old (the Pythagoreans) saw the things
signified by these names in the construction, in a plane, of areas upon a finite straight line. For, when
you have a straight line set out and lay the given line exactly alongside the whole of the straight line,
then they say that you apply the said area; when however you make the length of the area greater than
the straight line itself, it is said to exceed, and when you make it less, in which case, after the area has
been drawn, there is some part of the straight line extending beyond it, it is said to fall short. (Trans-
lation by HEATH, The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements I, p. 343).

The same terms application, exceeding and falling short are used in EUCLID
VI 28-29 :
5 See P. LUCKEY: Tdbit b. Qurra fiber den geometrischen Richtigkeitsnachweis der AuflSsung
der quadratischen Gleichungen. Sitzungsberichte S/ichsische Gesellschaft der Wiss. Leipzig 1941,
pp. 93-114.
206 B.L. vAN DERWAERDEN

28. To a given straight line to apply a parallelogram equal to a given rectilinear figure and de-
ficient by a parallelogram similar to a given one.
29. To a given straight line to apply a parallelogram equal to a 'given rectilinear figure and
exceeding by a parallelogram similar to a given one.

E. NEVENSCHWANDER6 has shown that the term "parallelogram" was intro-

duced into geometry at the time of EUDOXOS, long after the time of the Pytha-
goreans. In book 2, which is due to the Pythagoreans, only squares and rectangles
occur, and the notions " P r o p o r t i o n " and "Similarity" do not occur. So, when
the Pythagoreans invented their application of areas with defect or excess, the
defect or excess was probably required to be just a square, not a parallelogram
similar to a given one. Now if EUCLID'S diagrams to V128 and V129 are simplified
by assuming a square excess or defect, the resulting diagrams are essentially the
same as EUCLID'S diagrams to II 5 and II 6. Also, the single steps in the proofs
of VI 28 and VI 29 are just generalizations of the single steps in the proofs of
II 5 and II 6. Thus, one sees:
II 5 and II 6 werejust the theorems the Pythagoreans needed for the solution
of their problems of application of areas with defect or excess.
The application of a given area C to a line segment AB with a square defect
or excess may be illustrated by Figures 4 and 5 below. In both cases, the rectangle
AQ is required to be equal to a given area C, and the defect or excess BQ is required
to be a square.
In modern notation, the two problems may either be written as pairs of
equations with two unknowns

(I) ~x+y=a (II) ~ x - y = a

( xy=C ( xy=C
(compare EucLID, Data 85 and 86), or as single equations with one unknown x
or y
(4) x ( a - x ) = C or x2+C=ax,
(5) x(a+x)=C or xZ+ax=C,
(6) y(y-a)=C or y2=ay+C.

Q CI

y x 1:: --1 Y x Y

A ca p B A a 13 Y P
Fig. 4. Application of an area C to a line segment Fig. 5. Application of an area C to a line segment
AB with square defect AB with square excess

6 E. NEUENSCHWANDER: Die ersten vier Biicher der Elemente Euklids. Archive for History of
Exact Sciences 9 (1973), pp. 325-380.
 Defence of a " S h o c k i n g " P o i n t of View 207

The equations (4), (5), (6) are just the three types of mixed quadratic equations
treated by KHwXR~z~aT, as THXBIx rightly noted.

12. The Application of II 6 to the Problem II 11

I n the preceding section we have seen that one of the purposes of the pair
of propositions II 5 - 6 was to justify the solution of the problems of application
of areas with defect or excess. A confirmation of this view is obtained by considering
the application of the theorem II 6 to the solution of the problem II 11.
SZA~6 and UNGU~U have noted that II 6 was used in the solution of the
problem II 11. For once, I fully agree with them. Let us now examine how it was
used.
The problem II 11 reads:
To cut a given straight line so that the rectangle contained by the whole and one of its segments is
equal to the square of the remaining segment.
If the given straight line is called a and the "remaining segment" x, the problem
can be formulated as an equation
(7) a ( a - x)= x 2

or, which is equivalent,

(8) X2 + a X = a 2.

This is an equation of type (5), and indeed it is solved by applying an area a 2

to the line segment a with a square excess. In Fig. 6 I have reproduced EUcLID's
diagram. The perpendicular lines A B and A C are made equal to the given line
segment a. The additional segment x = A F is constructed in such a way that the
rectangle F K is equal to the square A D . The text first describes the construction
of the segment A F and next proves, by means of II 6, that the rectangle F K is
indeed equal to the square A D . Thus, equation (8) is solved.
Now the text proceeds to show that the segment x just constructed also
satisfies the original condition (7). In modern notation one would say: Subtract
a x from both sides of (8), and you obtain (7). The text proceeds just so:
... F K is equal to AD. Let A K be subtracted from each; therefore FH which remains is equal to HD.

F G
X

A x H B

I
c Ct
D
Fig. 6. Diagram to EUCLIDII 11. From HEAT~I,The 13 Books of Euclid's Elements, p. 402
208 B.L. VANDERWAERDEN

The operation here applied is just what KIJWXR~ZM/ calls "reduction"

(muqdbala): one and the same term is subtracted from both sides of an equation.
Quite apart from terminology, our analysis shows that II 6 was in fact used
by EUCLID in order to solve a problem of application of an area with a square
excess. This is what I wanted to prove.

13. Euclid's Method of Solution

EUCLID'S method of solving a pair of equations like
~x + y-----a
(I) ( xy=C
is exactly the same as the Babylonian method. EUCLID halves the line segment a
and erects a square on ½a. The given area C is taken away from this square, and
the remainder is converted into a square of equal area. The side of this square is
the geometrical equivalent of the Babylonian square root. Added to ±a 2 , it yields
the line segment x, and subtracted, it yields y.
I claim that this is a cumbersome method, and that from the geometrical point
of view other methods would be easier and more natural.
For instance: The Greeks knew how to convert a given polygon C into a
square of equal area h 2. They also knew: If a line segment h = CD is drawn in a
semicircle, perpendicular to the diameter AB, and if the segments A C and CB
are called x and y, then xy is equal to h 2 (Prop. II 14). Now if AB=a and h are
given, one can draw a line parallel to AB in a distance h, and take one of the two
points of intersection, say D. Dropping a perpendicular from D, one obtains the
required line segments x and y.
There are other, still simpler geometrical solutions. "Simpler" means: Re-
quiring fewer circles and straight lines in the construction. I shall give an example
of a simple solution of Problem II:
#x-y=a
(H) ( c.

B C B
Fig. 7. Solution of (I) by means of a semicircle

c ' b-c C

, a D ~ E Y

Fig. 8. Solution of Problem (II) by chords in a circle

 Defence of a "Shocking" Point of View 209

Let b c be the given area C, and let b be larger than c. In a sufficiently large
circle one can construct a chord A B equal to b - c . On the production of A B a
segment B C can be made equal to c; then A C is equal to b. Construct another
chord DE equal to a. Draw a concentric circle through C, which intersects the
prolongation of DE in F. Making use of EUCLID III 35, one sees easily that D F = x
and E F = y satisfy the conditions
x-y=a,
xy=bc.

If b happens to be equal to c, one can draw a tangent instead of the chord A B

and apply lII 36 instead of III 35. The same method of construction can also be
applied to solve Problem I.
Note that III 35-36 were known to the Pythagoreans, as NEVENSCHWANDER6
has shown. It follows that the construction just given was well within the reach
of the Pythagoreans.
Why did the Pythagoreans (or why did EUCLIO) leave aside these simple solu-
tions, which were well within their reach? My explanation is: Their starting point
was not geometry but algebra, and they translated the algebraic solution, step
by step, into the language of geometry.
If this hypothesis is accepted, the question arises: How did the Pythagoreans
learn algebra? Did they invent it anew or did they learn it from the Babylonians?
To answer this question, it will be best not to restrict ourselves to algebra.

14. The Relations between Babylonian and Greek Mathematics

As I have shown in my book, Science Awakening I, there are several points
of contact between Babylonian and Greek mathematics. I shall now, once more,
enumerate these points, referring to my book for further details.
1. The Babylonians as well as the Pythagoreans knew the "Theorem of
PYTHAGORAS".
2. They had methods of constructing "Pythagorean Triples", i.e. integer
solution of the equation
x 2 + y2 = z2.

3. Both were interested in solving systems of linear equations in several

unknowns.
4. Both were interested in numbers of the form n2(n + 1) or n 2 ( n - 1), which
the Greeks called Arithmoi paramekepipedoi.
5. Both knew how to solve quadratic equations. The Greek method of solution
is the same as the Babylonian one, but in geometric attire.
6. The Babylonians had four standard types of linear and quadratic equations
with two unknowns:
x+y=a (II) { x - y = a
(I) x y = C, x y = C,

x+y=a (IV) ~ x - y = a
(III) i x 2 + y2 = S, I x 2 + y2 = S.
210 B.L. VANDERWA~RDEN

The Greeks formulated four theorems II 5-6 and II 9-10, by means of which
these types can be solved. The solutions thus obtained are the same as the Baby-
lonian solutions, but in geometric language. They differ from all simpler geometri-
cal solutions.
7. S. GANDZ 7 has indicated a remarkable similarity between methods of
DIOPHANTOS and Babylonian methods. When DIOPHANTOS wants to find two
numbers x and y whose sum a is given, he often puts
x=½a+s and y=½a-s,
and when the difference x - y = d is given, he sometimes puts
x=s+½d and y=s-½d,
s being a new unknown. The Babylonians applied the same "plus-and-minus
method" in a number of cases, including the standard cases (I)-(IV).
8. The Babylonians solved equations of type x 3 = V by means of tables of
cube roots. The Greeks solved the same equations by geometric constructions.
I feel the evidence is overwhelming, even if one leaves aside the Pythagorean
traditions about the instruction in the science of numbers and the other mathe-
matical sciences which PYTHAGORASis said to have received in Babylon (IAMBLI-
CHOS, Vita Pyth. 19, and PORPHYRIOS, Vita Pyth. 11).
7 S. GANDZ,Osiris 3 (1938),p. 405.

Mathematisches Institut
Universit~itZiirich

(ReceivedJanuaryI0, 1976)