No description available.

L'histoire standard de la géométrie projective souligne l'opposition au 19e siècle entre méthodes analytiques et synthétiques. Nous nous interrogeons sur la manière dont les géomètres du 19e siècle ont vraiment opéré ou non des distinctions entre leurs méthodes et dans quelle mesure cette géométrie était "moderne'' comme le clamaient ses praticiens, et plus tard leurs historiens. Poncelet insistait sur le rôle central de la figure, qui selon lui pourrait être obscurci par les calculs de l'algèbre. Nous étudions son argument en action dans des problèmes de construction résolus par plusieurs auteurs différents -comme la construction d'une courbe du second ordre ayant un contact d'ordre trois avec une courbe plane donnée, dont cinq solutions paraissent entre 1817 et 1826. Nous montrons que l'attention visuelle est au coeur de la résolution, indépendamment de la méthode suivie, qu'elle n'est pas réservée aux figures, et que les débats sont aussi un moyen de signaler de nouvelles zones de recherche à un public en formation. Nous approfondissons ensuite la réception des techniques nouvelles et l'usage des figures dans les travaux de deux mathématiciens décrits d'ordinaire comme opposés, l'un algébriste, Plücker, et l'autre défendant l'approche synthétique, Steiner. Nous examinons enfin les affirmations de modernité dans les manuels français de géométrie publiés pendant le premier tiers du dix-neuvième siècle. Tant Gergonne et Plücker que Steiner ont développé des formes de géométrie qui ne se pliaient pas en fait à une caractérisation dichotomique, mais répondaient de manière spécifique aux pratiques mathématiques et aux modes d'interaction de leur temps. / The standard history of nineteenth century geometry began with Jean Victor Poncelet's contributions which then spread to Germany alongside an opposition between Julius Plücker, an analytic geometer, and Jakob Steiner, a synthetic geometer. Our questions centre on how geometers distinguished methods, when opposition arose, in what ways geometry disseminated from Poncelet to Plücker and Steiner, and whether this geometry was "modern'' as claimed.We first examine Poncelet's argument that within pure geometry the figure was never lost from view, while it could be obscured by the calculations of algebra. Our case study reveals visual attention within constructive problem solving, regardless of method. Further, geometers manipulated and represented figures through textual descriptions and coordinate equations. We also consider the debates involved as a medium for communicating geometry in which Poncelet and Gergonne in particular developed strategies for introducing new geometry to a conservative audience. We then turn to Plücker and Steiner. Through comparing their common research, we find that Plücker practiced a "pure analytic geometry'' that avoided calculation, while Steiner admired "synthetic geometry'' because of its organic unity. These qualities contradict usual descriptions of analytic geometry as computational or synthetic geometry as ad-hoc.Finally, we study contemporary French books on geometry and show that their methodological divide was grounded in student prerequisites, where "modern'' implied the use of algebra. By contrast, research publications exhibited evolving forms of geometry that evaded dichotomous categorization.The standard history of nineteenth century geometry began with Jean Victor Poncelet's contributions which then spread to Germany alongside an opposition between Julius Plücker, an analytic geometer, and Jakob Steiner, a synthetic geometer. Our questions centre on how geometers distinguished methods, when opposition arose, in what ways geometry disseminated from Poncelet to Plücker and Steiner, and whether this geometry was "modern'' as claimed.We first examine Poncelet's argument that within pure geometry the figure was never lost from view, while it could be obscured by the calculations of algebra. Our case study reveals visual attention within constructive problem solving, regardless of method. Further, geometers manipulated and represented figures through textual descriptions and coordinate equations. We also consider the debates involved as a medium for communicating geometry in which Poncelet and Gergonne in particular developed strategies for introducing new geometry to a conservative audience. We then turn to Plücker and Steiner. Through comparing their common research, we find that Plücker practiced a "pure analytic geometry'' that avoided calculation, while Steiner admired "synthetic geometry'' because of its organic unity. These qualities contradict usual descriptions of analytic geometry as computational or synthetic geometry as ad-hoc.Finally, we study contemporary French books on geometry and show that their methodological divide was grounded in student prerequisites, where "modern'' implied the use of algebra. By contrast, research publications exhibited evolving forms of geometry that evaded dichotomous categorization.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:05:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 AnnaKSN_DISSERT.pdf: 2228892 bytes, checksum: fc6b8553824d405981f02c90c321636a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-07-25 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior / This present research the aim to show to the reader the Geometry non-Euclidean while anomaly indicating the pedagogical implications and then propose a sequence of activities, divided into three blocks which show the relationship of Euclidean geometry with non-Euclidean, taking the Euclidean with respect to analysis of the anomaly in non-Euclidean. PPGECNM is tied to the line of research of History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science in the Teaching of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Treat so on Euclid of Alexandria, his most famous work The Elements and moreover, emphasize the Fifth Postulate of Euclid, particularly the difficulties (which lasted several centuries) that mathematicians have to understand him. Until the eighteenth century, three mathematicians: Lobachevsky (1793 - 1856), Bolyai (1775 - 1856) and Gauss (1777-1855) was convinced that this axiom was correct and that there was another geometry (anomalous) as consistent as the Euclid, but that did not adapt into their parameters. It is attributed to the emergence of these three non-Euclidean geometry. For the course methodology we started with some bibliographical definitions about anomalies, after we ve featured so that our definition are better understood by the readers and then only deal geometries non-Euclidean (Hyperbolic Geometry, Spherical Geometry and Taxicab Geometry) confronting them with the Euclidean to analyze the anomalies existing in non-Euclidean geometries and observe its importance to the teaching. After this characterization follows the empirical part of the proposal which consisted the application of three blocks of activities in search of pedagogical implications of anomaly. The first on parallel lines, the second on study of triangles and the third on the shortest distance between two points. These blocks offer a work with basic elements of geometry from a historical and investigative study of geometries non-Euclidean while anomaly so the concept is understood along with it s properties without necessarily be linked to the image of the geometric elements and thus expanding or adapting to other references. For example, the block applied on the second day of activities that provides extend the result of the sum of the internal angles of any triangle, to realize that is not always 180? (only when Euclid is a reference that this conclusion can be drawn) / A presente pesquisa tem como objetivo mostrar ao leitor a Geometria n?o-euclidiana enquanto anomalia indicando as implica??es pedag?gicas e em seguida propor uma sequ?ncia de atividades distribu?das em tr?s blocos, as quais mostram a rela??o da geometria euclidiana com a n?o-euclidiana, tomando a euclidiana com refer?ncia para an?lise da anomalia na n?o-euclidiana. Est? vinculada ao Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Ensino de Ci?ncias Naturais e Matem?tica da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte na linha de pesquisa de Hist?ria, Filosofia e Sociologia da Ci?ncia no Ensino de Ci?ncias Naturais e da Matem?tica. Aborda aspectos relativos a Euclides de Alexandria, bem como sobre a sua obra mais famosa Os Elementos e, al?m disso, enfatiza o Quinto Postulado de Euclides, sobretudo ?s dificuldades (que perduraram v?rios s?culos) que os matem?ticos tinham em compreend?-lo. At? que, no s?culo XVIII, tr?s matem?ticos: Lobachevsky (1793 1856), Bolyai (1775 1856) e Gauss (1777-1855) foram convencidos que tal axioma era correto e que existia uma outra geometria (an?mala) t?o consistente quanto a de Euclides, mas que n?o se enquadrava em seus par?metros. ? atribu?da a esses tr?s o advento da geometria n?o-euclidiana. Para o percurso metodol?gico s?o pontuadas algumas defini??es de car?ter bibliogr?fico sobre as anomalias, depois elas s?o caracterizadas, para que a defini??o seja melhor compreendida pelo leitor e, em seguida,s?o destacadas as geometrias n?o-euclidianas (Geometria Hiperb?lica, Geometria Esf?rica e a Geometria do Motorista de T?xi) confrontando-as com a euclidiana para que sejam analisadas as anomalias existentes nas geometrias n?o-euclidianas e observemos sua import?ncia ao ensino. Ap?s tal caracteriza??o segue-se a parte emp?rica da proposta que consistiu na aplica??o de tr?s blocos de atividades em busca de implica??es pedag?gicas de anomalia. O primeiro sobre as retas paralelas, o segundo sobre o estudo dos tri?ngulos e o terceiro sobre a menor dist?ncia entre dois pontos. Esses blocos oferecem um trabalho com elementos b?sicos da geometria a partir de um estudo hist?rico e investigativo das geometrias n?o-euclidianas enquanto anomalia de modo que o conceito seja compreendido juntamente com suas propriedades sem necessariamente estar vinculada a imagem dos elementos geom?tricos e, consequentemente, ampliando ou adaptando para outros referenciais. Por exemplo, o bloco aplicado no segundo dia de atividades proporciona que se amplie o resultado de soma dos ?ngulos internos de um tri?ngulo qualquer, passando a constatar que n?o ? sempre 180? (somente quando Euclides ? refer?ncia que esta conclus?o pode ser tirada)

The first International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) was held in Zurich in 1897, setting the standards for all future ICMs. Whilst giving an overview of the congress itself, this thesis focuses on the Swiss organisers, who were predominantly university professors and secondary school teachers. As this thesis aims to offer some insight into their lives, it includes their biographies, highlighting their individual contributions to the congress. Furthermore, it explains why Zurich was chosen as the first host city and how the committee proceeded with the congress organisation. Two of the main organisers were the Swiss geometers Carl Friedrich Geiser (1843-1934) and Ferdinand Rudio (1856-1929). In addition to the congress, they also made valuable contributions to mathematical education, and in Rudio's case, the history of mathematics. Therefore, this thesis focuses primarily on these two mathematicians. As for Geiser, the relationship to his great-uncle Jakob Steiner is explained in more detail. Furthermore, his contributions to the administration of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology are summarised. Due to the overarching theme of mathematical education and collaborations in this thesis, Geiser's schoolbook "Einleitung in die synthetische Geometrie" is considered in more detail and Geiser's methods are highlighted. A selection of Rudio's contributions to the history of mathematics is studied as well. His book "Archimedes, Huygens, Lambert, Legendre" is analysed and compared to E W Hobson's treatise "Squaring the Circle". Furthermore, Rudio's papers relating to the commentary of Simplicius on quadratures by Antiphon and Hippocrates are considered, focusing on Rudio's translation of the commentary and on "Die Möndchen des Hippokrates". The thesis concludes with an analysis of Rudio's popular lectures "Leonhard Euler" and "Über den Antheil der mathematischen Wissenschaften an der Kultur der Renaissance", which are prime examples of his approach to the history of mathematics.