How to use the Schickard calculator

Kistermann, F.W.

doi:10.1109/85.929917

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Large numbers had to be multiplied by splitting them into smaller portions, treating them separately, and adding up the partial sums. Such a system could have worked well in practice with the precision required by Kepler (Kistermann 2001). But judging from the letters, nothing indicates that the calculator was used in realistic astronomical calculations and work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early Numerical Analysis in Kepler's New Astronomy

Thorvaldsen

2010

Sci Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ArgumentJohannes Kepler published his Astronomia nova in 1609, based upon a huge amount of computations. The aim of this paper is to show that Kepler's new astronomy was grounded on methods from numerical analysis. In his research he applied and improved methods that required iterative calculations, and he developed precompiled mathematical tables to solve the problems, including a transcendental equation. Kepler was aware of the shortcomings of his novel methods, and called for a new Apollonius to offer a formal mathematical deduction. He was also in great need of computational power, and his friend and colleague, Wilhelm Schickard, constructed the first prototype of a true mechanical calculator, although it never came into regular use. The article concludes that Kepler's new astronomy was clearly backed up by numerical methods and embedded concepts and challenges of great importance for the future development of numerical analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It turned out to be a dead end, although to our knowledge, it was the first invention of such a device. From Schickard's diagrams it has been possible to reconstruct a complete and functional calculating machine (Freytag-Löringhoff 1978; Kistermann 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%