Is the Fuxi liushisi gua fangwei () diagram attributed to Shao Yong binary? Clarifying a consequence of its analogy with the binary arithmetic of Leibniz.
{"title":"Is the <i>Fuxi liushisi gua fangwei</i> () diagram attributed to Shao Yong binary? Clarifying a consequence of its analogy with the binary arithmetic of Leibniz.","authors":"Marie-Julie Maitre","doi":"10.1017/S0269889725100665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Jesuit Joachim Bouvet established an analogy between the binary arithmetic developed by Leibniz and the diagram <i>Fuxi liushisi gua fangwei</i> (or FX64), attributed to Shao Yong, which organizes the sixty-four hexagrams according to the Fuxi/<i>Xiantian</i> order. Consequently, this diagram could be considered as binary. Some scholars argue that the diagram is not binary because of the different construction of the two systems and the \"wrong\" reading direction used by Bouvet and Leibniz-opposite to the one used in China. Nevertheless, by a superimposition of Leibniz's binary table and of the derivation table used to construct the diagram, this article shows that the diagram <i>is</i> binary, since it is constituted of two elements and the binary system can use other symbols than 0 and 1. The reverse methodology used in constructing the two systems because of their different purpose-division for the FX64 diagram and multiplication for Leibniz's dyad-allows their reading from either one direction or the reverse. This does not affect the fact that they are both binary, since it leads to the same form and structure.</p>","PeriodicalId":49562,"journal":{"name":"Science in Context","volume":"36 1","pages":"38-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science in Context","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889725100665","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Jesuit Joachim Bouvet established an analogy between the binary arithmetic developed by Leibniz and the diagram Fuxi liushisi gua fangwei (or FX64), attributed to Shao Yong, which organizes the sixty-four hexagrams according to the Fuxi/Xiantian order. Consequently, this diagram could be considered as binary. Some scholars argue that the diagram is not binary because of the different construction of the two systems and the "wrong" reading direction used by Bouvet and Leibniz-opposite to the one used in China. Nevertheless, by a superimposition of Leibniz's binary table and of the derivation table used to construct the diagram, this article shows that the diagram is binary, since it is constituted of two elements and the binary system can use other symbols than 0 and 1. The reverse methodology used in constructing the two systems because of their different purpose-division for the FX64 diagram and multiplication for Leibniz's dyad-allows their reading from either one direction or the reverse. This does not affect the fact that they are both binary, since it leads to the same form and structure.
期刊介绍:
Science in Context is an international journal edited at The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University, with the support of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. It is devoted to the study of the sciences from the points of view of comparative epistemology and historical sociology of scientific knowledge. The journal is committed to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of science and its cultural development - it does not segregate considerations drawn from history, philosophy and sociology. Controversies within scientific knowledge and debates about methodology are presented in their contexts.