Diss. Ph. D.--History--Ithaca (NY)--Cornell University, 1992. / Bibliogr. p. 273-290.

The thesis undertakes a comparative analysis of some of the stone buildings within the forts of the completed concept of Hadrian's Wall. The buildings included are the principia, granaries, gates and barracks. Each building type has been measured and inspected on site, or the data obtained from archival or documentary sources. As a background to the study the forts are set in the context of the Wall, examining its structure, garrisons and taking an overview of the archaeological record, additionally general Roman building techniques are reviewed. The selected buildings within each fort are then discussed and compared with other buildings on the Wall, or on other military sites. In this way then- form, dimensional analysis, construction sequence and building techniques are considered and discussed. Common features and major differences are highlighted in the forts and the buildings, and comparisons drawn. Some tentative links are made as to the builders of the forts and the probable use of standard units of measure. Reconstructions of the buildings are put forward, taking into account the archaeological evidence and architectural considerations. Supporting information supplied in the appendices includes data relating to each fort as well as schedules of dimensions of the buildings, together with comparative tables. A catalogue of the decorated and moulded stonework sets out and discusses the stonework from the various buildings.

Submitted by Andrea Hayashi (deachan@gmail.com) on 2016-06-22T14:03:06Z No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao-mohamad-nagashima-de-oliveira.pdf: 2215743 bytes, checksum: 112ebd6cf914950bfdf80ed3727aa750 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Andrea Hayashi (deachan@gmail.com) on 2016-06-22T14:03:38Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao-mohamad-nagashima-de-oliveira.pdf: 2215743 bytes, checksum: 112ebd6cf914950bfdf80ed3727aa750 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-22T14:03:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao-mohamad-nagashima-de-oliveira.pdf: 2215743 bytes, checksum: 112ebd6cf914950bfdf80ed3727aa750 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-07-15 / A presente dissertação versa sobre como podemos identificar os Principia, escrito por Newton na sua versão final em 1726, como uma obra estritamente matemática e como podemos identificar a Óptica, 1703, como um livro que parte de experimentos para que fosse formulado. Para tanto apresento primeiramente uma contextualização de época de Newton, para que se apresente as preocupações de Newton na divulgação de suas teorias e então uma leitura estruturada dos Principia que visa explicar como ele é um livro matematicamente estruturado. Após isso apresento a leitura de algumas questões da Óptica visando apresentar como que os experimentos ajudam a compor o livro. Ao final, apresento uma conclusão dividida em três partes, a primeira uma conclusão sobre o método científico de Newton, a segunda uma conclusão que visa dar os últimos argumentos para uma leitura puramente matemática dos Principia e uma terceira que trata por fim sobre os experimentos com a Óptica. / This text is about how We can identify the Principia, writed by Newton in your final version in 1726, as a book strictly math and how We can identify the Optics, 1703, as a book which start from experiments to build on. To do it I show firstly a contextualization of Newton’s time, to show the concerns of Newton about the disclosure of his theories and then a structural read of the Principia to explain how it is mathematically structured. After it, I show a read of few questions from Optics to show how the experiments help to compose the book. In the end, I show a conclusion divided in three parts, the first is a conclusion about scientific method, and the second is to give final arguments to a read of pure math of Principia and, at least, the third that show last arguments to experiments in Optics.

I here defend logical atomism. This defense rests on reinterpreting logical atomism as a search for logical forms. This reinterpretation has two parts comprising six chapters. In the first part, I do some historically-driven recovery. In the introduction, I review the literature on Russell's logical atomism. In Chapter 1, I argue that the dominant interpretation of logical atomism is wrong on historical grounds: it accounts for neither the history of logical atomism nor for crucial elements of the logical atomist texts. In Chapter 2, I then use Russell's writings to recover what I argue is the core of logical atomism. I explicate the critical notions and essential ingredients of logical atomism using "Principia Mathematica" as the archetype of logical atomism. I argue that logical atomsts are term busters. The essential ingredient of a logical atomist's term busting practice is a higher-order logic with the power of impredicative comprehension. In Chapter 3, I discuss the widespread view that Wittgenstein held a version of logical atomism. Focusing on his pre-"Tractatus" writings and changes in his earlier views, I argue that Wittgenstein embraced a philosophy of logic incompatible with emulating impredicative comprehension in April 1914. As such, Wittgenstein was a logical atomist, if ever, in October 1913, possibly through April 1914. In the second part, having clarified what logical atomism is, I present a modern logical atomism. In Chapter 4, I develop a philosophy of logic for logical atomism based on the notion of a pure logic. I critically discuss normativity in logic, the epistemology of pure logic, and logical pluralism. In Chapter 5, I propose a formal logic for logical atomism. I argue for the logic of logical atomism being an infinitely-descending and infinitely-ascending simple type theory with impredicative comprehension compatible with a domain empty of particulars. In Chapter 6, I critically discuss what the ontology of logical atomism should be, that is, what the ontology of the logical atomist's logic must be. This includes an ontology of logical concepts and of logical forms as completely-general, necessarily-existing logical facts with no constituents. I conclude by indicating avenues for new work on logical atomism.

Le livre : Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis (1687) de Isaac Newton constitue pour la science moderne un texte fondateur. Le corps de cet ouvrage est constitué de trois parties principales appelées livres. Parmi ces trois livres, les livres I et III consacrés principalement à l'étude du cosmos ont fait l'objet de nombreuses études. Le livre II consacré à l'étude de la résistance au mouvement des milieux fluides a été quelque peu délaissé et même dévalorisé par l'historiographie. Dans le livre II Newton détourne son regard du ciel et le porte sur terre. L'étude de cette partie des Principia nous permet de : revisiter et d'approfondir le concept newtonien de force, de découvrir l'usage de la notion de pression, de préciser le rôle de la géométrie euclidienne. Pour la géométrie nous avons été particulièrement attentif aux différentes fonctions des figures. Nous avons travaillé à partir de plusieurs traductions, principalement celle de la marquise du Châtelet de 1759 et de celle plus récente de Cohen et Whitman. Nos référents essentiels sont : Blay, Cohen, De Gand, Janiak, Koyré, McMullin, Smith et Westfall. / Book : Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis (1687) represents a fundamental text for modern science. The body of that work is in three major parts called books. Among these three books, I and III are primarily dedicated to the study of the cosmos and have been the objects of numerous studies. Book II is dedicated to the study of resistance to movement of fluid environments and has been somewhat ignored and even devalued by historiography. In book II Newton turns away from the sky and looks down at earth. The study of that part of Principia allows us to revisit and deepen our knowledge of the newtonian concept of force, to discover and learn how to use the concept of pressure, and to clarify the role of euclidean geometry. As for geometry, we have paid special attention to the different functions of figures. We have worked with several translations, primarily Marquise du Chatelet 1759's translation, and the more recent one by Cohen and Whitman. Our essential references are Blay, Cohen, De Gand, Janiak, Koyre, McMullin, Smith and Westfall.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This is the study of Engelbert of Admont's unique and practical take on Aristotelian political theory post-rediscovery of Aristotle's ethico-political works. Through the methods of reception theory and a comparative analysis of his first major political treatise, De regimine principum, with those of his contemporaries similar political treatises (i.e., St. Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, and Marsilius of Padua) and their use of Aristotelian sources and concepts--e.g. lex animata--I have shown not only Engelbert's more original, unique, and practical approach to political philosophy within the Aristotelian political tradition of the later Middle Ages, but also a more comprehensively eclectic nature of this tradition. Engelbert's political philosophy as espoused in his De regimine principum is thus a watershed in the development of the use of practical political science.