Talk:Alhazen's problem

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

"Islamic mathematics"

[edit]

I don't think there is such a thing as "Islamic Mathematics"; mathematics is a science that's it. I never heard the term "Christian Mathematics” for instance. So, why this page should use the term "Islamic"? People could say is an Arab mathematician, or German etc, whatever is the case. But what religion has to do with this.217.55.172.180 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased it, while keeping the link to Mathematics in medieval Islam. I think that the idea is that although there is only one universal field of mathematics, it was developed at different times in different parts of the world, and so it is convenient to break up the history of mathematics and mathematicians into different articles for different cultures. Richard75 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

[edit]

This would be much easier to understand if there was a diagram. Richard75 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alhazen's problem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alhazen's problem. 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:

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) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Alhazen's solution

[edit]

Sorry but I don't speak fluent english'

I think there is a misunderstanding with reference:

Victor J. Katz (1995), "Ideas of Calculus in Islam and India", Mathematics Magazine.

Katz presents the Alhazen's method to compute volumes, first attempt after Archimedes and before Cavalieri in calculus. There is nothing to do with Alhazen's problem. See A.I. Sabra, Ibn al-Haytham' lemas for solving Alhazen's Problem for the Alhazen's problem proof. HB (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alhazen's problem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MathKeduor7 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


It is the first time I review for GA status. I've read and understood WP:GACR6. Now I'll immediately begin reading the entire article very carefully. I'll keep you informed. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've read and understood the other criteria at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. This will take some time. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started reading the article's current revision. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I've read the very beginning: "Alhazen's problem is a mathematical problem in optics concerning reflection in a spherical mirror. It asks for the point in the mirror where one given point reflects to another."

I think it is a clear presentation, and I've understood it easily by looking at "File:Alhazen-pb.svg" (the image of a reflection in a circular mirror in the plane) illustrating the problem. I haven't checked the references yet, because I plan to first check if the article is well-written and understandable. So, for this little part I've read:  Done MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I've read the following: "The special case of a concave spherical mirror is also known as Alhazen's billiard problem, as it can be formulated equivalently as constructing a reflected path from one billiard ball to another on a circular billiard table. Other equivalent formulations ask for the shortest path from one point to the other that touches the circle, or for an ellipse that is tangent to the circle and has the given points as its foci."

I think this is also straightforward clear, the layman will probably only need to click to know what is a concave spherical mirror, and imagining a circular billiard table and billiard balls is easy. The equivalent formulations are interesting and not obvious. So, for this little part I've read:  Done MathKeduor7 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Quote: "Although special cases of this problem were studied by Ptolemy, it is named for the 11th-century Arab mathematician Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham), who formulated it more generally and presented a solution in his Book of Optics. It has no straightedge and compass construction; instead, al-Haytham and others including Christiaan Huygens found solutions involving the intersection of conic sections. According to Roberto Marcolongo, Leonardo da Vinci invented a mechanical device to solve the problem. Later mathematicians, starting with Jack M. Elkin [de] in 1965, solved the problem algebraically as the solution to a quartic equation, and used this equation to prove the impossibility of solving the problem with straightedge and compass."

Historical remarks, reference to notable solutions of some mathematicians (and Leonardo). Not much to comment here, it's obviously clear. Personally, I've got very curious about Leonardo's mechanical device! But let's keep reading in the order. I think it would be a good idea to mention from when is Ptolemy, so that the reader doesn't need to click to know how much time it took for the 1965 algebraic solution. I mean, like not everyone knows Alhazen is from the 11th-century (as it says), and not everyone knows approximate Ptolemy's epoch. @David Eppstein: What do you think of telling (as context) something like "Ptolemy (XXX – YYY AD)"? (or something like that) Just my two cents of course! It's fine as it is:  Done MathKeduor7 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue later. I have some commitments now. MathKeduor7 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I would only change "Researchers have extended this problem and the methods used to solve it to mirrors of other shapes and to non-Euclidean geometry." to "In the ??th century, researchers have [...]." To better inform and make emphasis on the long timeline and evolution (not to mention it's still attracting interest!) of this old problem. Just my two cents of course! It's fine as it is:  Done MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, dates for Ptolemy and later researchers added. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis so far:

  • The lead is really good and meets all requirements of MOS:LEAD.

 Comment: I'll now download all the references used in this article. It will take some time. MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, I will comment on criteria 1 and 2 of WP:GACR6 for each part of the text. Let's begin! MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Quote: "The problem comprises drawing lines from two points, meeting at a third point on the circumference (boundary) of a circle and making equal angles with the normal at that point (specular reflection). It belongs to geometrical optics (in which light is modeled using rays rather than waves or particles), and catoptrics, the use of mirrors to control light: it can be used to find the path of a ray of light that starts at one point of space, is reflected from a spherical mirror, and passes through a second point. Although this is a three-dimensional problem, it can immediately be reduced to the two-dimensional problem of reflection in a circular mirror in the plane, because its solution lies entirely within the plane formed by the two points and the center of the sphere." P.S. Reference given was downloaded from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2589403

Yes, it's well-written and summarizes the cited reference content with his own words (as far as I can tell, everything is in accordance with the given reference information). So:  Done MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The second paragraph of the "Formulation" section cites six different references. It will take some time to read them all, so: that's it for today! MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just noticed some references are to books, not to downloadable journal papers, so I'll use Google Books preview feature! Cya, MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There are used thirty-nine references in total in this article. Later I will make a list of the ones I have access to and the ones I don't have. Then we will have to think about what to do to for me to check the ones I do not have access yet. I'll probably make this list tomorrow. MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I never tried https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ . Maybe it can help. MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, many are freely accessible, and so I managed to get access to all of the first six ones very easily (the only exception: it was a hard one... the book of 100 great problems). This is enough for the next part of the review! Cya, MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to see much of the relevant part of 100 Great Problems through Google Books: [1]. I have a pdf but I didn't record where I found it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I ask for one week to read and understand thoughtly the first six references (so that I can perhaps give good suggestions to the main author of the article). So: GA review is frozen for likely a week (not more than this, and I may be able to get it sooner!). In addition: I have some commitments next week, and Professor David Eppstein informed me on his user talk page that he will be traveling. That's it for now. Btw, this problem is interesting, and I want to understand it better, I am having fun reading about it. :) MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]