🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:17:30 UTC No. 16488563
There is language in Kepler's Astronomia Novae, in Chapter 59, Protheorem XII, that posits that KT, TI is equal to κα, μα. This is interesting because KT, TI are not mentioned at all in the previous protheorem, XI, which is referenced and because it doesn't really follow. But taking it for granted, one could conceive those as being equal, until one remembers from Protheorem IX that KT, TI = KH, HI, which are both equal to αγ, so he is positing that κα, μα = 2αγ, which cannot follow.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 16:09:30 UTC No. 16489277
bump
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 16:13:16 UTC No. 16489282
>>16488563
Read the errata, OP.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:09:06 UTC No. 16489545
>>16489282
I thought about mentioning that in the OP. My edition, St. John's, is simply just the translator mentioning how this Protheorem shows a lack of development of Kepler's second Law. It doesn't state that the Protheorem is incorrect. I think that I have found a mistake that may be material in the reading of the literature.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:20:11 UTC No. 16489573
>>16489545
Have you discussed these ideas with any popular AI chatbots?
How did they respond?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:30:47 UTC No. 16489752
>>16489573
ChatGPT says it's likely that I found an error within Chapters 45 - 50 of the book, which I did. I found two errors in this book, this one in Chapter 59 and another in Chapter 48
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:49:13 UTC No. 16489785
>>16489545
Also regarding of the materiality of the mistake, it's no lie that Protheorem XII is used up until the very end of Chapter 59. The whole chapter's synthetical geometrical climax is XI, however. Regarding the materiality of the mistake, it is a material mistake because it pokes a whole in the entire logical chain, which is a large deal being that the entirety of the system is derivable from it, however on the other hand, the two lines he is talking about, are at least always approximately commensurate in length, even at the moment of the greatest divergence, which would be 45 degrees, which he intimates he is aware of in that very chapter.
I find the mistake is material, but it's also somewhat immaterial in that it must be approximately true.
As someone that was always fond of reading Euclid, Archimedes, and other astronomers like Copernicus and Ptolemey though, this is a little bit of a shock. In those other authors we typically do not find any large errors like this.
This book was also largely, through the advanced development of technology available, based on observations. For instance, he repeatedly references chapter 40, which is basically just him asserting something's validity based SOLELY on observations, not synthetic geometry. This was the first astronomical book I've read like it, but I'm glad I read the whole thing and not the abridged version.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 02:21:48 UTC No. 16490083
>>16489752
You should inform the publisher ASAP.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 02:44:40 UTC No. 16491176
>>16490083
They are errors I found, I don't feel like going and telling the publisher this. I intend one day to send books like this in, but I have no need right now.
After this book, I will read Kepler's Harmonices Mundi, which has Kepler's Third Law within it.