English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the celebrated Theaetetus 147d3-e1 passage Theodorus is giving a lesson toTheaetetus and his companion, proving certain quadratic incommensurabilities.The dominant view on this passage, expressed independently by H. Cherniss andM. Burnyeat, is that Plato has no interest to, and does not, inform the readerabout Theodorus' method of incommensurability proofs employed in his lesson,and that, therefore, there is no way to decide from the Platonic text, our soleinformation on the lesson, whether the method is anthyphairetic as Zeuthen,Becker, van der Waerden suggest, or not anthyphairetic as Hardy-Wright, Knorrmaintain.  The main part of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the evidence for adistributive rendering of the plural 'hai dunameis' in the crucial statement,'because the powers ('hai dunameis') were shown to be infinite in multitude' in147d7-8 (contrary to the Burnyeat collective, set-theoretic rendering),necessarily resulting in an anthyphairetic method for Theodorus' proofs ofincommensurability (contrary to the Cherniss-Burnyeat neutrality thesis).

On Theodorus' lesson in the Theaetetus 147d-e