Skip to content

Tag: Introduction to Arithmetic

Root.

Nicomachus seems to divide his exposition on Arithmetic into three parts: viz. its natural superiority, ontological priority, and the posteriority of foregoing Mathematical sciences that are subject to it.

Firstly, he describes Arithmetic as being the origin, root, and mother science of all and any mathematical conception that has or could ever exist. Indeed, he says: “… it existed before all the others in the mind of the creating God like some universal and exemplary plan”. He goes on to assert that – because of this – it served as the archetypal design for the ordering of material creations to attaining their proper ends. 

Next, he transitions into examining the ontological priority of Arithmetic. We learn that it abolishes other sciences but is itself not abolished by them. He demonstrates, with appeals to natural philosophy: “For example, ‘animal’ is naturally antecedent to ‘man’, for abolish ‘animal’ and ‘man is abolished; but if ‘man’ be abolished, it no longer follows that ‘animal’ is abolished at the same time…. Hence arithmetic abolishes geometry along with itself, but is not abolished by it”.

Finally, he concludes that the ontological posteriority of the rest of the Quadrivium implies the older with themselves but are not implied by the older. Nicomachus affirms this by saying: “Conversely, that is called younger and posterior which implies the other thing with itself, but is not implied by it”. He goes on to give different examples: how musician implies man, but man is not implied by it, how horse implies animal, but animal is not implied by it, etc. He ties all this together conclusively by teaching: “For how can ‘triple’ exist, or be spoken of, unless the number 3 exists beforehand, or ‘eightfold’ without 8? But on the contrary 3, 4, and the rest might be without the figures existing to which they give names”.

EAR

Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic. Book 1, Chapter 4.

FOV.

I had the prior understanding from my brief study with Euler that magnitude was any kind of quantity. However, Nicomachus makes it extremely clear that magnitude is what can be measured, and multitude is what can be counted. Learning that distinction, has done something to my mind that I am struggling to explain. When I see a tree, I am contemplating its wholeness, its completeness, and its size. Yet, when my field of view takes in the forest, my mind switches from this lens to one concerned with multitude. Then I find myself dumbfounded by the number of trees that are actually in this forest, and if the quantity could ever be known by a single man. This is fascinating, and I’m really curious to know if both these will be covered in this treatise or one of them.

EAR

Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic. Book 1, Chapter 2.

Sub-division.

I did not know that the Quadrivium is sub-divided into two groups for quantity and size. I had never made that connection before. At first glance, with the modern callouses over the eye of my soul, it seemed to me, prior to this lesson, that these sciences were all exclusive from one another. As I think about it now, I think this is a result of looking at these only through the temporal things which subsist in these sciences, just as the interlocutor does from the Republic. If we were to assume materiality as our first principle, then what does transactional flow, configurative partitioning, beautiful entertainment, and shipping cadences have in common essential? Nothing, I would say at first, because all of these bodily things are very different from one another; therefore, these must not be related essentially, but superficially. On the contrary, this must be a flawed misconception, and just coming to know that they are related immaterially by means of quantity and size is mind-blowing to be frank.

EAR

Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic. Book 1, Chapter 3.

Quality.

Quality also does not seem to be subject to bodily things. Rather, just like quantity, ‘what is’ seems to assume the quality that is apparent, or rather inherent in the thing that ‘is’. The question qualities answer does not seem to be a numeric one, but a kind of unique distinction, or similarity between the subjects being talked about. Assuming the same terms in the prior passage: e.g. 3 red blocks, 3 red sticks, 3 red stars, etc. Quality seems to address the accidental range of inherent shades, and hues, that can be seen by rational men.

Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic. Book 1, Chapter 1.

Quantity.

Quantity does not seem to be subject to any material body, rather, the material body must is assumed by the quantity itself, if there is an instantiation of the thing or things themselves. E.g. 3 balls, 3 sticks, 3 stars, etc. Quantity, being inherently true to rational men, seems to simply affirm how many there was, is, or could be, with anything that may be known. 

EAR

Nicomachus, Introduction to Arithmetic. Book 1, Chapter 1.