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.

Where and how did Archimedes get in? Oblique and labyrinthine reflections

The place of Archimedes in world history

The variety of readings of Archimedes in the scientific revolution: Leibniz vs. Newton

Archimedes and the elements: Proposal for a revised chronological ordering of the Archimedean corpus

Archimedes' calculations of square roots

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

Archimedes' famous-theorem

Technology Tips: An Archimedean Walk

Archimedes and the spirals: The heuristic background

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

Reconsidering Archimedes' Principle

If Archimedes would have known functions

Dia tōn grammōn: Euclidean geometry to solve trigonometric problems

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

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

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

A translation of L. Euler's " Examination of an artifice for propelling a ship by the principle of internal motion"

Interpreting the infinitesimal mathematics of Leibniz and Euler

Intuitive, didactically useful, and historically possible proofs for the two Egyptian pyramid volume formulas (1850 BCE). Thoughts on the border between history and didactics of mathematics

Early theories on fluid resistance and translation of Euler's "Dilucidationes de resistentia fluidorum"

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