caa a22 4500 46790183X CHVBK 20180406152820.0 cr unu---uuuuu 170328e20060301xx s 000 0 eng 10.1007/s10699-004-5915-0 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10699-004-5915-0 Otte Michael aut Proof-analysis and Continuity [Elektronische Daten] [Michael Otte] During the first phase of Greek mathematics a proof consisted in showing or making visible the truth of a statement. This was the epagogic method. This first phase was followed by an apagogic or deductive phase. During this phase visual evidence was rejected and Greek mathematics became a deductive system. Now epagoge and apagoge, apart from being distinguished, roughly according to the modern distinction between inductive and deductive procedures, were also identified on account of the conception of generality as continuity. Epistemology of mathematics today only remembers the distinction, forgetting where they agreed, in this manner not only destroying the unity of the perceptual and conceptual but also forgetting what could be gained from Aristotelian demonstrative science. Springer, 2006 Foundations of Science Kluwer Academic Publishers 11/1-2(2006-03-01), 121-155 1233-1821 11:1-2<121 2006 11 10699 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-004-5915-0 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-004-5915-0 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Otte Michael aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Foundations of Science Kluwer Academic Publishers 11/1-2(2006-03-01), 121-155 1233-1821 11:1-2<121 2006 11 10699 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer