Andrew Arana

In correspondence with Mersenne in 1629, Descartes discusses a construction involving a cylinder and what Descartes calls a “helice.” Mancosu has argued that by “helice” Descartes was referring to a cylindrical helix. The editors of Mersenne’s correspondence (Vol. II), and Henk Bos, have independently argued that, on the con- trary, by “helice” Descartes was referring to the Archimedean spiral. We argue that identifying the helice with the cylindrical helix makes better sense of the text. In the process we take a careful look at constructions of the cylindrical helix available to Descartes and relate them to his criteria for excluding mechanical curves from geometry. Résumé Dans sa correspondance avec Mersenne en 1629, Descartes discute d’une construction qui fait intervenir un cylindre et ce que Descartes appelle une “hélice”. Mancosu a argumenté que Descartes faisait référence à une hélice cylindrique. Les éditeurs de la Correspondance de Mersenne (vol. 2), et Henk Bos, ont indépendamment affirmé que, au contraire, par “hélice” Descartes faisait référence à la spirale d’Archimède. Nous affirmons qu’identifier l’hélice avec l’hélice cylindrique est plus cohérent avec le texte. Dans le même temps nous examinons soigneusement les constructions de l’hélice cylindrique que Descartes avait à disposition et nous les mettons en relation avec son critère d’exclusion des courbes mécaniques de la géométrie.

When mathematicians think of the philosophy of mathematics, they probably think of endless debates about what numbers are and whether they exist. Since plenty of mathematical progress continues to be made without taking a stance on either of these questions, mathematicians feel confident they can work without much regard for philosophical reflections. In his sharp–toned, sprawling book, David Corfield acknowledges the irrelevance of much contemporary philosophy of mathematics to current mathematical practice, and proposes reforming the subject accordingly.