Talk:Abu Kamil

---

Problem: invention of algebra

The article says:

Abu Kamil made important contributions to the field of algebra, and was the first to recognize Al-Khwarizmi as its "inventor"

While there may be texts that assert that Al-K invented algebra, he didn't (see algebra) so the wording here is unacceptable. Replacing "recognise" with "assert" would do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of what you're saying (notice the "scare quotes"). Also, please look at the cited source, which clearly states that Abu Kamil was one of the earliest mathematicians to recognize al-Khawarizmi as the inventor of algebra. Whether his assertion is true or not is not the point. It's a very important piece of information to let us know where this claim originally came form. Also, no Blanket reverts please. Wiqixtalk 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it would be necessary to put scare quotes around "recognise", since that is the word that is incorrect. Reading Katz, it would seem that Kamil did indeed have this opinion. I've no objection to the article including it, providing it is phrased so as to make clear that the claim itself is questionable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at the cited sources before making edits. You should also stop removing referenced material with no explanation. Wiqixtalk 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How about you try WP:AGF? I did indeed look at the cited material. It says stuff like Abu Kamil himself stresses al-Khwarizmi's role as the "inventor of algebra".... There is an important difference between *stresses* and *recognises*. The former is his opinion; the latter is him recognising a truth, which is what I originally said was unacceptable. You seem to be adopting the Aam method of conversation, please don't William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The real problem of course is not that Abu Kamil considered Khwarizmi the inventor of algebra, he couldn't have thought otherwise, but that:

1. we now know this to be false,
2. this statement is not particularly relevant in the article on Abu Kamil,
3. and that the second point will lead reader to infer that Khwarizmi was the inventor of algebra, instead of this merely being a falsely held belief by Abu Kamil.

—Ruud 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

MacTutor thinks it's relevant to Abu Kamil. It even merited a detailed discussion with a couple of quotes in their article on him. So it is relevant. It also expresses some of the contemporary notions and attitudes towards scientific innovation, which is why I think it's worth mentioning. Perhaps we should just qualify it so that readers would not think it was implying that Al-Khawarizmi did invent algebra (I used scare quotes to imply the opposite, following MacTutor). What about the other material removed? Wiqixtalk 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this praise needs to be quoted from the "popular literature" instead of the "academic literature" is often a good sign that something is not quite right. Encyclopedic articles preferably should discuss the actual mathematics done by these people in an accurate and concise fashion. It should be more than a hollow list of X was the first to do Y, X is the father of Y, X was praised by Y for Z, ... —Ruud 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you actually. But if a major claim (i.e., first to do X) is mentioned in the popular literature then it needs to be discussed and refuted, not silently removed. Wiqixtalk 23:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The problem is that I've yet to read a popular science book that doesn't tell a few "little lies" the keep the reader exited. If you read something in the context of such a book you know you should take it with a grain of salt. This is not true for an encyclopedia, however, which people expect to be completely factual. There are more than enough articles in peer review journals we can base these articles on so we should strive to use just those. —Ruud 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I'm more or less convinced by your answer. But I would still think it best to comment on the merit of each sentence removed, perhaps even noting that a source is not reliable to make such an exceptional claim, in this case, I assume, it's the quote taken from the Mario Livio book. In any case, the quote in full is: "Abu Kamil may have been the first mathematician who instead of simply finding a solution to a problem was interested in finding all the possible solutions." (p.89-90) It does seem credible, but perhaps more than one source should support it first. Wiqixtalk 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-linear equations

I removed:

Another achievement of Abu Kamil is solving three non-linear simultaneous equations with three unknown variables using false position.<ref>Berggren, J. Lennart (2007). "Mathematics in Medieval Islam". The Mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and Islam: A Sourcebook. Princeton University Press. p. 518. ISBN 978-0-691-11485-9.[1]</ref>

because I don't believe it. It looks like more Jaggedese; possibly he has garbled something more plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I kept it after reading pp.518,550 in the source cited. Seems plausible. Wiqi55 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What does the source actually say? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That Abu Kamil solved three non-linear equations with three unknowns (p.518). And also used "false position" for a problem involving three equations with three unknowns (p.550). I think this is the closest reading of the source cited. Wiqi55 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems very brief. Was there really no discussion around the nature of the equations? Does the source give its source? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is available through Google books. So just click on the link above (where it says [1]) and read pages 518, and 550. Wiqi55 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But p 550 gives 3 equations, only two of which are non-linear William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. Considering this ambiguity, I have qualified that sentence a bit compared to the previous version. Wiqi55 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reworked it rather more than that. The source makes a number of errors: that the 3 equs are non-linear, we've already noticed. He also says all 3 are homogeneous; obviously they aren't, and needn't be, only the last 2 are. And lastly this isn't a solution by false position William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is speaking of two different equations (which is why I have qualified the previous version). So the first error isn't really an error. Note also that the source clearly states that it is solved using "false position". Also your claim of homogeneous error (assuming you're right) is a very minor and irrelevant point. Wiqi55 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "I have qualified the previous version"? Your last version says solving three non-linear simultaneous equations. That is wrong. I don't know what you mean by "The source is speaking of two different equations" - there are 3 equations. Your statement about 3-non-linear is only following the book, but the book is clearly wrong. It is also wrong about the homogeneous bit (think about it for a moment, I'm sure you'll agree), which is just a bit slapdash of it. As for the false position stuff: that is an iterative technique. He isn't using it. Again, pause to think about it for a moment and you'll see this is so. As for "the source clearly states": but it clearly states the 3 eqs are non-linear, and they aren't. So we're already agree, that the book has errors William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

pp.518,550 are referring to two different problems. There is no indication that the source is referring to the same problem (i.e., the same three equations). So there is no error here. And I'm not sure why should I assume a reliable source by a well-known author is full of errors. Wiqi55 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And what makes you think the two pages are referring to different problems? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are 30 pages apart. To assume that they are referring to the same problem, without any indications, then using this assumptoin to claim that a reliable source is full of errors doesn't seem wise to me. Wiqi55 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet it was you who originally justified the text on the basis of this citation, using these pages. It was only when I pointed out the obvious disparities that you suddenly decided there must be two equations sets involved. Occams razor would suggest only one equation set. p518 is an overview; subsequent pages return to each author; p550 is merely giving more detail on the same equations. Why does everything in the Jagged cleanup have to be so long slow and protracted, with J proponents defending each point with such dogged determination, even when clearly wrong? Is it because the evidence you've put on the arbcomm page will look a bit silly if you admit you're wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong preference for mentioning "three non-linear". So I'm willing to compromise, and gladly so. But I'm still not convinced that the RS is full of errors. I have also found another source for Abu Kamil's use of "double false position". I'll use that instead. My last edit is the best compromise on this issue, I think. Wiqi55 (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your version throws away useful information; I've reverted it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, this [2] just makes no sense. We don't need an entire subsection for a book about which nothing at all is known. This is just puffery William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My version didn't throw away anything. Just better structuring. Ideally, we have to figure out where that famous problem of Abu Kamil is mentioned (in which book). Also we do need separate sections for books that we know something about their content. I'm sure there is also more information about commentaries and influence about each book, especially ones that are notable, regardless of whether it is now extant or not. Wiqi55 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Err, yes it did. It threw away the actual equations, for example [3]. Good grief, why is it soooo hard to work with you folks/ You drag your feet every step of the way defending the indefensible William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look again at that diff. Otherwise, why don't you just quote the part that I've "thrown away". Wiqi55 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh, I didn't see the green addition at the bottom. Sorry. I've struck the wrong bits and partly restored your text (I think its a bit pointless to repeat this stuff, but never mind).

"partly": because I dislike this "another achievement of" stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Short section

This article has far too many short sections William M. Connolley (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Square Square Root

The last line of the lead talks about the lack of notation used. It then stats that he used square square root for x^5. But x^5 is the opposite of a 5th root. It is somewhat confusing.--Adam in MO Talk 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"root" means "x", so to speak, ie the first order term. It reads oddly, but if you consider it, it is correct. As in Root (disambiguation)#Mathematics, In equation solving, a solution to a mathematical equation William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abū Kāmil Shujāʿ ibn Aslam. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140516012137/http://www.ub.edu/islamsci/Schwartz.pdf to http://www.ub.edu/islamsci/Schwartz.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lost (or not) works

An editor has twice added a link to this Masters thesis, along with some text to the effect that Book of Estate Sharing using Algebra (Kitāb al-waṣāyā bi al-jabr wa al-muqābala) is no longer considered lost. These additions were definitely not ok as written, but possibly the underlying point is sound. I would welcome input from other editors on this point. --JBL (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say the book is lost after it has been found in 2019. Harvard University with all due respect is a reputable source as they have the book on their dash. I understand the limitations of the edit as written and would like to have a feedback on the proper way to correct this piece of information.

I am putting the source of info here again:[4]https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37365387

Thanks for reading. Wamilola (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

would this be acceptable:

However, a Harvard university researcher claimed to have found the book in 2019 as it appears on Harvard dash. Wamilola (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wamilola,

Thanks for responding here. Sentences like the ones you've written would need secondary sources that support them. That is, the statement that a certain researcher claimed a certain thing should be sourced to someone writing about that fact, not supported by a primary source (the researcher making that claim in the primary research literature). Do any sources exist that comment on this discovery? --JBL (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)