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.

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

When is the Algorithm Concept Pertinent – and when Not? Thoughts about Algorithms and Paradigmatic Examples, and about Algorithmic and Non-Algorithmic Mathematical Cultures1

The Algorithm Concept --- Tool for Historiographic Interpretation or Red Herring?

In Accordance with a “More Majestic Order”: The New Math and the Nature of Mathematics at Midcentury

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

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

Reinventing or Borrowing Hot Water? Early Latin and Tuscan Algebraic Operations with Two Unknowns

Epistemological Notes on Mathematics

Gregory's sixth operation

What did the abbacus teachers really do when they (sometimes) ended up doing mathematics?

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

Mathematicians ’ : The Divisions of Pre-Modern Mathematics and Its Actors Summary

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

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

On a Collection of Geometrical Riddles and Their Role in the Shaping of Four to Six “Algebras”

Modernist Literature and Modernist Mathematics I: Mathematics and Composition, with Mallarmé, Heisenberg, and Derrida

Algebraic generality vs arithmetic generality in the controversy between C. Jordan and L. Kronecker (1874)

Historical Changes in the Concepts of Number, Mathematics and Number Theory

La controverse de 1874 entre Camille Jordan et Leopold Kronecker

Mathematical conquerors, Unguru polarity, and the task of history

AlephZero and Mathematical Experience