Talk:François Viète

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

François Viète seems to be the most common spelling, according to Google. Iorsh 21:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I recently posted an article on my blog that details Van Roomen's Problem and Viete's solution. I have not been able to find a detailed solution anywhere else on the web so perhaps, this will be interesting to the reader's of the article. Here is the link: http://fermatslasttheorem.blogspot.com/2007/02/van-roomens-problem-solution-explained.html

If it looks good, feel free to add it to this article. If you have any questions or comments feel free to e-mail me at: larry.freeman@gmail.com

Cheers, -Larry 216.103.214.64 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any great significance or notability in it. It is an example of a complicated looking algebraic problem which can be solved relatively straightforwardly if you think of the right trick. If there is anything more significant about it than that I will be pleased if someone will indicate what it is, but I can't see it. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a problem...[edit]

Moved the RFC template into the document section that it specified. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The original article in Viete's history on wikipedia is pretty much taken verbaitum from www.1911encyclopedia.org. It seems like it was cut-and-pasted without any mention that it was copied directly from the original source. The wikipedia rule on general sources says you can include them, but it's sort of a grey area, where you should change the formatting and include wikilinks, but there is is no organic growth to the body of knowledge, only an adding-on to the copied text. I don't know, maybe we should scrap the article and start over, with someone (me, maybe) beginning a more original, organic understanding of the topic to at least start a skeleton of a biography that gives the reader a better understanding of the person? Rhetth 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This would account for the woolly, arm-waving circumlocutions and almost total lack of mathematical detail. It is a frustrating read and it would greatly benefit from a mathematical historian making it much more specific and concrete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.83.238 (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Oh dear, the prose is awful. I thought it had been translated from the French or something. Is it really from Britannica! "Vieta had neither much time, nor students able to brilliantly illustrate his method." - I don't know what either half of this is trying to say. A lot of it is vague cliché, reads like a magazine article, i.e. like someone who didn't know what they were talking about, so waffled in smooth-sounding nothingisms. (Well, I guess it is marginally more useful than the all-too-common other extreme, the article understandable only by mathematicians.) 110.20.168.169 (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that parts of the text are badly garbled. The likely cause is attempts at translation by people who either do not properly understand what a translation is supposed to be, or lack understanding of one or other of the two languages involved. Terry0051 (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to RfC[edit]

It is quite normal for articles to begin with the 1911 Britannica text where it is available and to develop from there. The article is tagged appropriately. If you have enough materials (i.e. reliable sources to write the article from scratch, then why not Be Bold and go ahead. Otherwise, improve the article piecemeal. You could also tag it for an expert in a particular subject or ask for help at one of the Wikiprojects that the article has been added to. Itsmejudith 07:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)He was also called the father of algebra of the 16th century[reply]

When Did Viète Die?[edit]

Currently, there are two months shown: one on the first line "(1540 - February 13, 1603)", the other under his picture "Died December, 1603 Paris, France" Which of the two was it? (20-March-09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.127.80 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC) He died 23 as De Thou said.Jean de Parthenay (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall answer[edit]

Vieta's death : we have 23 februaly or 26 (in de thou and ritter). I prefer de Thou. (26 is probably the day when he was laid in earht...) 13 is wrong...

i have translated my 'owm' page of WP fr in english. you can see it here : User:Jean_de_Parthenay/Viete2/wikipedia

As my english is not native, i am scattered with the idea to publish it. if you are not agree, say it ! If you want to make change, do it ! If you don't says any thing, i shall publish it in a week. Thanks.

And please, after that, it will be a first class article, with great importance ! isn't he ?Jean de Parthenay (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problems[edit]

i am not agree with the last changes  : here is better than here[1]<reference/> in bibliographie. Because, if you forget the reference/, as robot does, you are wrong, and if you put it, tou have a second list of refrencies, which is very ugly. so, i "ll remove theses last changes.... And I hope that the robot won't do it again. I try to find new sources for the point in debate and I come back after a while.Jean de Parthenay (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

translation of Jean Dhombres[edit]

François Viète and Reform, by Jean Dhombres. from here We have no profession of faith of protestantism (...) François Viète was baptized catholic because his family was still catholic in 1540. But his father and other relatives of Viète adopted Protestantism. He probably meet followers of Calvin during his studies at Poitiers... How to imagine that Antoinette d'Aubeterre invited him to stay at Parc Soubise if he hadn't at least some protestant leanings. Indeed, the story that Viète wrote about Lyon where Jean V de Parthenay illustrated his armies against the catholic league of France was incorporated without any doubt by Theodore de Beze his in ecclesiastical history of Reformed Churches. His pupil at Parc Soubise, Catherine de Parthenay, was an ardent protestant whose grandmother, Michelle de Saubonne had protected the first calvinists in Bas-Poitou. Françoise de Rohan, Lady of the Garnache, sister of the second husband of Catherine, opened her house to Viète in Beauvoir-sur-Mer because, apparently, he could not stay at the castle of Blain, owned by Catherine, as this castle was depending of the catholic Parliament of (...) On another side, on 6 April 1574, Viète had read a solemn profession of catholic faith for his installation in the Parliament of Rennes. This is the only certificate. Did he lie ? (...) Therefore, historians "protestants" enroled him. Otherwise, we can't talk about him of atheism  : Lucien Febvre well explained the anachronism of the term for the seventeenth century - Can we talk of an indifference in religious matters ? In a first movement, he refused the presence of a priest at his deathbed. But this indifference was conveniant for the historians of the last century... At least, nothing in the mathematical works of Viète deals with religious matters, and perhaps this rupture is the way he choosed to enter in the history.

I don't know if my translation is ok. If it seems good, you can insert it in the chapyer 'convictions" because the lonely refence is in french.

The translation has problems. But any attempt to improve it faces the difficulty that the source, as given, is a bare hyperlink, which is now dead, with no sign left about what it tried to refer to. Does anyone know what source was used? Terry0051 (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Flags[edit]

I've removed the three unnecessary adjectives in the opening section. Those descriptions do not belong in a neutral biography. I am a fan of Vieta and I greatly respect his work, however I don't think it is necessary to say that he was "honest, faithful, and competent". Dragoneye776 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic defense documents?[edit]

In 1564, Vieta entered the service of Antoinette d’Aubeterre, Lady Soubise, wife of Jean V de Parthenay-Soubise... and accompanied him to Lyon to collect documents about his heroic defence of that city...

What kind of documents? Who wrote these documents? What did Jean need them for?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Documents about the way Soubise ruled Lyon in 1563. Vieta wanted to prove Soubise had no responsability in the murder of de Guise... In purpose to prove it, Vieta made a very clever recension of all the good actions of Soubise at Lyon. Hencefore, he wanted to collect the official documents in Lyon before they fall down in the hands of the Duke Jacques de Nemour (Catholic league). Sorry for my english. Jean de Parthenay (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt of the Notaries[edit]

Henry IV... charged him [Vieta] to end the revolt of the Notaries, whom the King had ordered to pay back their fees

Why did Henry order them to pay back their fees? How did he expect Vieta to end the revolt? Did Vieta succeed?

Top.Squark (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

woaou ! See the french Wp... I'have not translate all the details : The supervisor was the royal secretary "Audoin de Montherbu". Viète worked as others state's secratary, nor good nor worse : In a first time the notaries refused to pay, in a second time, their received some garanties and payed.

Gold was necessary to pay "swiss wariors" who helped Henri IV against "La ligue". Jean de Parthenay (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbari ans?[edit]

The following quote of Vieta appears in the article:

...so spoiled and defiled by the barbari ans...

Is this a typo? Was "barbarians" intended?

Top.Squark (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarians, indeed. In Viète's mind, it was probably all his predecessors, abacists and calculators, like Cardan. Perhaps Clavius and others contemporaries ? Not arabians, or indians, i think. All the European mathematicians writing algebra with numbers, and without symbols ... If you have any question, ask me on my french Discussion page, please. Jean de Parthenay (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd that Vieta refers to the mathematicians before him has barbarians. Why would he say this? It seems a little hostile considering they contributed to the very foundations of mathematical knowledge that he builds upon. Sure they may not have been perfect, but Vieta seemed smart enough to realize that without his predecessors he would have no system to improve! 199.245.238.2 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Jake O'Donnell, Saint Martin's University[reply]

Vieta was smart most of time... But, he was very cruel with Scaliger, Clavius, and all the mathematicians he suspected to be wrong or "weak" (in a mathematical way). Jean de Parthenay (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

In 1576, Henri, duc de Rohan took him under his special protection, recommending him in 1580 as "maître des requêtes". In 1579, Vieta printed his canonem mathematicum (Metayer publisher). A year later, he was appointed maître des requêtes to the parliament of Paris, committed to serving the king. That same year, his success in the trial between the Duke of Nemours and Françoise de Rohan, to the benefit of the latter, earned him the resentment of the tenacious Catholic League.

According to the link Henri was not born until 1579 Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on François Viète. 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:

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) 21:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vieta vs. Viète[edit]

Hi. The current version has the name Vieta 63 times, or close to that, a search shows 77 occurences of 'Vieta', removing 14 of 'Vietae', we get 63. I have not checked if there is a few more to remove from the count. The name Viète appears 44 times. Viète is more common in the first section, Vieta is more common on the second, but it is hardly a rule, only a rough tendency. Question: should it be normalized? If so, how? - Nabla (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any good purpose to this variation, which appears haphazard and sometimes happens within the same sentence. I would be in favor of changing all occurrences to Viète to match the article title, except for (1) the parenthetical Latin version of his name in the lead, (2) the Latin versions of his name in the titles of his works, and (3) occurrences of his name in reference and link titles and direct quotes. Unfortunately, I think that means that someone should go through them by hand, as there are too many exceptions for a global search-and-replace to work well. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—if more than three years later—with David Eppstein. The seemingly random bouncing back and forth between the name's two versions can only be expected to baffle those readers who are blissfully unaware (or innocently forgetful) of the longtime use of Latin in scholarly writing.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the New Notation? And what was it like before?[edit]

There is a whole section in this article entitled "New Notation", but no explanation of what it is, or what it looked like, how it differed from the old notation, or what new concepts were introduced. This is a glaring omission. It would be much improved if someone with the appropriate knowledge & sources could add the missing information. Thanks contributors. FreeFlow99 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German school of Coss[edit]

The article discusses the "German school of Coss" but gives no citation. Is this personal research? And coss needs disambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.110.20 (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it refers to the followers of Christoph Rudolff and his book on arithmetic, Behend und hübsch Rechnung durch die kunstreichen regeln Algebre so gemeinicklich die Coss genent werden, called for short Die Coss. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is the relation between the "Canonem mathematicum" vs. the "Canon mathematicus, seu ad triangula"?[edit]

The latter doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article, but it is discussed in Van Brummelen (2021) The Doctrine of Triangles, and there is an internet archive scan (of a 1589 reprint) here https://archive.org/details/franciscivietai00viey/page/n6 –jacobolus (t) 01:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look more closely at that scan you will see that it has three parts:
  1. Canon mathematicus, seu ad triangula, a big table of trigonometric function values;
  2. Canonion triangulorum laterum rationalium, another big table of trigonometric function values; and
  3. Universalium inspectionum ad Canonem mathematicum liber singularis, an actual mathematics text.
The title page has
  • (huge letters) mathematical works
  • (big letters) in which is treated
  • (medium-size letters, first title) Canon mathematicus, seu ad triangula
  • (tiny letters) also Canonion triangulorum laterum rationalium with Universalium inspectionum ad Canonem mathematicum liber singularis
It's like a Hollywood blockbuster movie poster where they play up the star they think you want to see and give scant mention to anyone else.
So anyway, the answer appears to be: one of the two works you ask about is a table, the other is a text, and the relation is that they were printed together. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the second question is: is there a reason that Canon mathematicus, seu ad triangula is not mentioned in the article? It looks kind of like Canon mathematicus... is the table and then Canonem mathematicum is the explanatory text? So maybe just different secondary sources have different ways of referring to the whole group together? Or maybe different printings were labeled differently? Or ....? –jacobolus (t) 06:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion here: https://locomat.loria.fr/viete1579/viete1579doc1.pdf –jacobolus (t) 07:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That link only discusses the first of the two tables. Incidentally, abbreviating Universalium inspectionum... as canonem is a mistake. For one thing, the main noun in the title is "inspectionum", "observations". More specifically, "universal observations toward a mathematical table". You're taking the word "table" out of the middle of a prepositional phrase and treating it as the title. For another, the word doesn't stand alone as "canonem"; that form can only be used with a preposition. The nominative is "canon". I think the "liber singularis" part just means that the observations were compiled into a single book rather than split over multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia article abbreviates the book as 'Canonem mathematicum'. If that is an incorrect abbreviation perhaps it should be fixed. :-) –jacobolus (t) 08:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I get it now: the 1579 original didn’t actually have a combined title page, but just bound the works together, with Canon mathematicus, seu ad triangula coming first. This 1589 reprint tacked a combined title page at the front. I tried to clarify in the article, and provided links to scans of the 1579 and 1589 versions. –jacobolus (t) 18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. the Canonion triangulorum laterum rationalium is quite an interesting and unusual table. It's clear Viète spent inordinate effort making it. I wonder if anyone ever used it for anything. –jacobolus (t) 18:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

confusing section about Descartes[edit]

Can someone rewrite this whole section to make it comprehensible even to somewhat dense readers like myself?

Thirty-four years after the death of Viète, the philosopher René Descartes published his method and a book of geometry that changed the landscape of algebra and built on Viète's work, applying it to the geometry by removing its requirements of homogeneity. Descartes, accused by Jean Baptiste Chauveau, a former classmate of La Flèche, explained in a letter to Mersenne (1639 February) that he never read those works. Descartes accepted the Viète's view of mathematics for which the study shall stress the self-evidence of the results that Descartes implemented translating the symbolic algebra in geometric reasoning. The locution mathesis universalis was derived from van Roomen's works.
"I have no knowledge of this surveyor and I wonder what he said, that we studied Viète's work together in Paris, because it is a book which I cannot remember having seen the cover, while I was in France."

"Accused " of what? Never read which works? I do not understand what "view of mathematics for which the study shall stress the self-evidence of the results that Descartes implemented translating the symbolic algebra in geometric reasoning" means. Who is the "surveyor"? Which book are we talking about?

Elsewhere, Descartes said that Viète's notations were confusing and used unnecessary geometric justifications. In some letters, he showed he understands the program of the Artem Analyticem Isagoge; in others, he shamelessly caricatured Viète's proposals. One of his biographers, Charles Adam, noted this contradiction:
"These words are surprising, by the way, for he (Descartes) had just said a few lines earlier that he had tried to put in his geometry only what he believed "was known neither by Vieta nor by anyone else". So he was informed of what Viète knew; and he must have read his works previously."

Why is it a caricature and who says it's shameless? Why is caricature contrasted to "understands"? (Presumably most caricatures are based on some understanding.)

Current research has not shown the extent of the direct influence of the works of Viète on Descartes. This influence could have been formed through the works of Adriaan van Roomen or Jacques Aleaume at the Hague, or through the book by Jean de Beaugrand.

What does "... not shown the extent of the direct influence" mean here, specifically? Are current researchers just incompetent? Is the true influence unknowable? What are we trying to say here? Does Descartes mention reading these other books / can we reliably infer he read them?

In his letters to Mersenne, Descartes consciously minimized the originality and depth of the work of his predecessors. "I began," he says, "where Vieta finished". His views emerged in the 17th century and mathematicians won a clear algebraic language without the requirements of homogeneity. Many contemporary studies have restored the work of Parthenay's mathematician, showing he had the double merit of introducing the first elements of literal calculation and building a first axiomatic for algebra.

"Won" seems like a weird verb here. What does the 17th century have to do with the rest? Can we just say "Viète" instead of "Parthenay's mathematician"? What does it mean to introduce "literal calculation", and what is an "axiomatic for algebra"?

Although Viète was not the first to propose notation of unknown quantities by letters - Jordanus Nemorarius had done this in the past - we can reasonably estimate that it would be simplistic to summarize his innovations for that discovery and place him at the junction of algebraic transformations made during the late sixteenth – early 17th century.

This whole sentence seems extremely complicated, confusing, and overqualified. Can we cut like half of it, or split it in 3? –jacobolus (t) 16:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:François_Viète&oldid=1212667640"