On mathematical problems as historically determined artifacts: Reflections inspired by sources from ancient China (Q833305)

By stating at the very beginning of her article that historians of mathematics have generally taken anachronism for granted (``historians have often worked under the assumption that the main components of scientific texts are essentially a historical object'') the author thrusts forward a severe counter truth and misrepresentation of what has been accomplished in the field up to now. Moreover, the outlook is particularly narrow in the sequel, limited as it is to certain arithmetical and geometrical aspects of a single commentary of the Jiuzhang suanshu without even analyzing the notion of shu (anachronistically translated by the term ``procedures'' and not related as it should to non-mathematical domain in order to appreciate its real value) in a wider historical context and without taking account in the least of the mention in the commentary of Liu Hui of the Yijjing (The book of Change), or of the Lunyu (Discourses or Analects of Confucius). Hence, despite the initial claim, it remains essentially anachronistic, if only by using the notions of ``mathematical objects'' or of ``scientific texts'' (and even of ``scientists'' in some of her other articles). For all this, some of its conclusions can be accepted even though they are trivial and have now become obvious (for example, the paradigmatic character of problems).