2 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



papers for 1916, 191 7, and some of those for 191 8 have now been 

 published, and are, like the ones spoken of before, extracts from 

 the Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society and 

 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh of original con- 

 tributions to mathematics made by Prof. E. T. Whittaker and 

 his pupils. Accounts of the papers will be given in their 

 proper places, but here it is necessary to mention the extremely 

 valuable work which, it would seem alone in British univer- 

 sities, is being done at Edinburgh, chiefly by the Professor 

 there, in encouraging and systematising original work. 



History. — George Sarton {Science, 1919, 49, 170-1) an- 

 nounces that the publication of Isis, his Belgian quarterly 

 devoted to the history of science, which was interrupted in 

 1914, will shortly be resumed with collaboration — principally 

 of Charles Singer (cf. also Amer. Math. Monthly, 1 9 1 9, 26, 1 1 8-19). 

 Cf. also Science Progress, 191 7, 11, 452, and 1919, 13, 364. 



Philip E. B. Jourdain (Mind, 191 9, 28, 123-4) adds some 

 remarks in explanation of his previous article (cf. Science 

 Progress, 191 6, 11, 92) on Zeno's arguments. F. Cajori (Science, 



191 8, 48, 577-8) draws attention to H. H. Joachim's transla- 

 tion of the tract on indivisible lines attributed to Aristotle. It 

 contains five arguments in favour of the existence of indi- 

 visibles, twenty-six arguments supporting the contrary view, 

 and twenty-four arguments intended to establish the impossi- 

 bility of composing a line out of points. When Cajori says 

 that he has not seen the tract used in any history of Greek 

 mathematics, he overlooks the Geschiihte of Hankel and various 

 recent discussions on Zeno and continuity in Mind and else- 

 where. 



G. R. Kaye (Scientia, 191 9, 25, 3—16 ; cf. Science Progress, 



1 91 9, 13, 345) shows that it is veiy probable that India 

 was indebted to Greece for perhaps all of its mathematical 

 knowledge. 



R. B. McClenon (Amer. Math. Monthly, 1919, 26, 1-8) con- 

 siders in some detail the work of Leonardo of Pisa and his 

 Liber Quadratorum. 



Cajori (ibid. 15-20) maintains, against J. M. Child (The 

 Geometrical Lectures of Isaac Barrow, Chicago and London, 1916), 

 that Barrow cannot be credited with inventing a calculus, al- 

 though " he worked out a set of geometric theorems suggest- 

 ing to us constructions by which we can find lines, areas, and 



