Descartes and the cylindrical helix (Q990263)

The authors focus on correspondence of Descartes with Mersenne of October 8 and November 13 of 1629, where Descartes uses the term ``helice'' while discussing a construction (Gaudey's ``invention'') involving a cylinder. Some authors, such as the editors of Mersenne's correspondence [\textit{M. Mersenne}, Correspondance, edited and annotated by Cornelis de Waard with the collaboration of and René Pintard, vol. II (1628-1630), Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, (1945)] and [\textit{H.J.M. Bos}, Redefining Geometrical Exactness. Sources in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences. New York, NY: Springer. (2001; Zbl 0972.01020)] have independently argued that Descartes means the Archimedean spiral when he talks about ``helice.'' The authors here present two arguments (they believe to be more plausible than explanations of their predecessors) that by ``helice,'' Descartes meant the cylindrical helix. They also argue that Descartes considers this curve to be mechanical rather than geometrical, and that this fact can be used in support of views of Mancosu's concerning the geometrical/mechanical distinction offered elsewhere. In their first argument that by ``helice,'' Descartes meant the cylindrical helix, the authors make the case that in the correspondence in question Descartes is simply justifying his view that the cylindrical helix is not a geometrical curve. To do this, they survey constructions of the cylindrical helix available to Descartes through the mathematical and mechanical literature of his time. These include Heron's and Simplicius' constructions through the simultaneous circular and vertical uniform motions, Pappus' construction by projection (through the main construction of a quadratrix, using an Archimedean spiral), Heron's triangle wrapping construction, the string construction of Theon of Smyrna and Vitruvius' construction of water screw (cochlea), but also Dürer's similar construction in the context of tracing of helices on columns (an important task in architecture). The authors argue that these constructions were well-known in the modern era and thus that it is highly likely that Descartes knew them. They then show that Descartes would have objected to each of these constructions of the helix as mechanical rather than geometrical, and that these objections mirror the objections in the correspondence. The authors' second argument that by ``helice,'' Descartes meant the cylindrical helix, is a more speculative explanation why Gaudey might have found a way to solve the multi-section of angles directly without going through the quadratrix. The paper ends with a section of questions and rejoinders and a 53 unit bibliography.