Abstract:The “unknown heritage” is the name usually given to a problem type in whose archetype a father leaves to his first son 1 monetary unit and \({\frac{1}{n}}\) (n usually being 7 or 10) of what remains, to the second 2 units and \({\frac{1}{n}}\) of what remains, and so on. In the end, all sons get the same, and nothing remains. The earliest known occurrence is in Fibonacci’s Liber abbaci, which also contains a number of much more sophisticated versions, together with a partial algebraic solution for one of these and rules for all which do not follow from his algebraic calculation. The next time the problem turns up is in Planudes’s late thirteenth century Calculus according to the Indians, Called the Great. After that the simple problem type turns up regularly in Provençal, Italian and Byzantine sources. It seems never to appear in Arabic or Indian writings, although two Arabic texts (one from c. 1190) contain more regular problems where the number of shares is given; they are clearly derived from the type known from European and Byzantine works, not its source. The sophisticated versions turn up again in Barthélemy de Romans’ Compendy de la praticque des nombres (c. 1467) and, apparently inspired from there, in the appendix to Nicolas Chuquet’s Triparty (1484). Apart from a single trace in Cardano’s Practica arithmetice et mensurandi singularis, the sophisticated versions never surface again, but the simple version spreads for a while to German practical arithmetic and, more persistently, to French polite recreational mathematics. Close examination of the texts shows that Barthélemy cannot have drawn his familiarity with the sophisticated rules from Fibonacci. It also suggests that the simple version is originally either a classical, strictly Greek or Hellenistic, or a medieval Byzantine invention; and that the sophisticated versions must have been developed before Fibonacci within an environment (located in Byzantium, Provence, or possibly in Sicily?) of which all direct traces has been lost, but whose mathematical level must have been quite advanced.

Dýnamis, the Babylonians, and Theaetetus 147C7–148d7

Mesopotamian Mathematics, Seen “from the Inside” (by Assyriologists) and “from the Outside” (by Historians of Mathematics)

Which Kind of Mathematics Was Known and Referred to by Those Who Wanted to Integrate Mathematics in «wisdom» –neopythagoreans and Others?

Dia tōn grammōn: Euclidean geometry to solve trigonometric problems

Algebra and Naive Geometry. an Investigation of Some Basic Aspects of Old Babylonian Mathematical Thought I

Theodorus' lesson in Plato's Theaetetus (147d1-d6) Revisited-A New Perspective

Existence, Substantiality, and Counterfactuality Observations on the Status of Mathematics According to Aristotle, Euclid, and Others

Comprendre les mathématiques pour comprendre Platon - théétète (147d-148b)

Truth and Knowledge: the Incorrect Definition of `Powers' by Theaetetus-A New Interpretation of Theaetetus (147d7-148b2)

Theodorus mathematical Lesson (Theaetetus, 147c7-d6) I What are Theodorus' drawings? II Theodorus' demonstrations of irrationality

The "unknown Heritage": Trace of A Forgotten Locus of Mathematical Sophistication

Computational Techniques and Computational Aids in Ancient Mesopotamia

It is not "Bézout's identity"

From the Practice of Explanation to the Ideology of Demonstration: an Informal Essay

Remarkable Numbers in Old Babylonian Mathematical Texts - A Note on the Psychology of Numbers

The Axiomatic-Deductive Ideal in Early Modern Thinking: A Cognitive History of Human Rationality

The Roles of Mesopotamian Bronze Age Mathematics Tool for State Formation and Administration – Carrier of Teachers’ Professional Intellectual Autonomy

An Old Babylonian Algorithm and Its Modern Applications

When I use a word . . . Purely academic

Mathematical Susa Texts VII and VIII. A Reinterpretation

EXPLICIT AND LESS EXPLICIT ALGORITHMIC THINKING, 1200-1500. JORDANUS DE NEMORE, AND THE CONTRAST BETWEEN BARTHELEMY DE ROMANS ET CHUQUET