Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

The most influential philosophers in Wikipedia: a multicultural analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Wikipedia treats philosophers as reference hubs rather than foundational sources, and hidden network structure exposes unstated links among Presocratics.

desk verdict Solid application of reduced Google matrix to philosophers, but the Western-dominance and reference-hub claims rest on a biased sample and need re-analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06034 v1 pith:DY7MOETC submitted 2025-07-08 cs.SI

Guillaume Rollin , José Lages This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords WikipediaPageRankCheireducedGooglematrixPresocraticphilosophyknowledgenetworksculturalanalysisphilosopherrankings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper follows 237 philosophers, each with an article in all nine Wikipedia language editions, and ranks them with PageRank and CheiRank. It finds that these articles are cited more often than they cite other articles: philosophers function as reference hubs inside Wikipedia's knowledge network rather than as the foundational seed articles from which the network grows. Rankings differ across editions in culturally telling ways, and the first 38 positions of the combined nine-edition ranking are all Western thinkers. Compared with two specialized philosophy encyclopedias, the Wikipedia rankings are only weakly correlated, which the paper reads as the difference between a figure's societal presence and their scholarly canonization. On the English edition, a reduced Google matrix over 21 Presocratics uncovers hidden links, such as Melissus of Samos to Xenophanes and Leucippus to Parmenides, that do not exist as direct hyperlinks but are historically interpretable.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Google matrix $G = \alpha S + (1-\alpha)/N$ of a directed Wikipedia edition, with $\alpha = 0.85$, together with its PageRank eigenvector $P$ and the CheiRank eigenvector $P^*$ computed on the reversed link network. PageRank measures how much an article is pointed to by influential pages; CheiRank measures how much an article points toward influential pages. For the 21 Presocratics, the paper uses the reduced Google matrix $G_R = G_{rr} + G_{pr} + G_{qr}$, where $G_{rr}$ contains direct transitions among the selected nodes, $G_{pr}$ reproduces the already-known reduced PageRank distribution, and $G_{qr}$ collects transitions that travel through the rest of Wikipedia before returning to the selected set. The $G_{qr}$ component is the instrument that exposes hidden links, and the $\Theta$-score aggregates per-edition PageRank ranks into one cross-cultural list.

What would settle it

Rebuild the rankings from seed lists drawn independently for each language edition and check whether the all-Western top 38 of the $\Theta$-score survives; if it dissolves, that result is a selection artifact. Separately, recompute the $G_{qr}$ hidden links for the Presocratics using $\alpha = 0.5$ and using a later English Wikipedia snapshot; the Leucippus–Parmenides and Melissus–Xenophanes links should persist if they reflect stable structural relationships rather than one snapshot's particular hyperlink choices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Wikipedia's philosopher subnetwork is a landscape of influential reference points rather than a genealogy of foundational sources. In the PageRank–CheiRank plane, the 237 philosopher articles sit mostly above the diagonal, the region of nodes that receive many links from the rest of the encyclopedia while sending few links outward. Aristotle and Plato lead almost every edition, but each language inserts its own local figures, and the aggregated $\Theta$-score places only Western philosophers in the top 38 positions. Rankings from two specialized philosophical encyclopedias differ by Kendall distances of about 0.36 to 0.41 from the Wikipedia rankings, and the paper attributes this gap to Wikipedia encoding broad societal influence while specialized encyclopedias encode academic standing. For the 21 Presocratics in the English edition, the reduced Google matrix is split into direct transitions, a trivial PageRank term, and a hidden-transition part $G_{qr}$, and the largest elements of $G_{qr}$ identify relationships absent from the adjacency matrix, including one pair that later became a direct hyperlink after the snapshot date.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings assume that the 237 philosophers chosen from a French Wikipedia list, and then filtered to those with articles in all nine editions, fairly represent philosophical importance in each language; if that selection favors Western figures, the Western dominance and several cross-edition comparisons are artifacts of selection rather than properties of Wikipedia's knowledge network.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, Wikipedia's philosophical knowledge is organized around thinkers as citation targets, not around doctrines as starting points.
  • Language-specific top-ten lists imply that each Wikipedia edition encodes a distinct cultural memory of philosophy, with figures like Marx in Russian, Confucius in Chinese, and Avicenna in Arabic rising locally.
  • The weak correlation with specialized encyclopedias means that societal influence and scholarly canon are genuinely different ranking principles, not noisy versions of one another.
  • Reduced Google matrix analysis can surface candidate missing links in knowledge networks, as in the Melissus–Xenophanes and Leucippus–Parmenides cases in the English edition.
  • The later appearance of a direct Pythagoras-to-Empedocles hyperlink suggests such hidden links can anticipate connections that editors subsequently add.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One step beyond the paper: the Western-only top 38 should be tested against language-specific seed lists before being read as a fact about philosophical importance, because the all-nine-editions filter may itself select for Western canonization.
  • The hidden links are network facts, not historical proofs; they become historical claims only when paired with external evidence such as the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise or teacher–student traditions.
  • The same $G_{qr}$ pipeline could be applied to non-Western philosophical traditions or to scientists and artists, with the existing results providing a baseline for whether hidden links reproduce known intellectual lineages.
  • A natural robustness test is to recompute $G_{qr}$ with a different damping factor or a later Wikipedia dump; stable hidden links would strengthen the case that they reflect structure rather than one snapshot's accidents.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Wikipedia's knowledge network by computing PageRank and CheiRank for 237 philosopher articles across nine language editions (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish) using May 2017 snapshots, aggregates the rankings with a Theta-score, compares the results with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and applies the reduced Google matrix to a subnetwork of 21 Presocratic philosophers in the English edition to uncover hidden links. The main findings are that Aristotle and Plato occupy the top positions in most editions, that Western philosophers dominate the top of the combined ranking, that philosopher articles act more as reference hubs than as foundational seeds, and that hidden links such as [Melissus of Samos → Xenophanes] and [Leucippus → Parmenides] can be interpreted as intellectual relationships. The paper also reports an out-of-sample validation in which a predicted hidden link [Pythagoras → Empedocles] later became a direct hyperlink.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a scalable method for quantifying cultural influence in Wikipedia across languages and demonstrates that the reduced Google matrix can reveal latent historical connections in a knowledge network. The strengths include the use of standard Google matrix methods, an explicit definition of the Theta-score, a clear presentation of the PageRank-CheiRank plane, and a concrete out-of-sample validation of one hidden link. The novelty lies in applying these techniques to philosophers and the Presocratic subnetwork, and the work connects network analysis with the history of philosophy. However, the significance is currently limited by concerns about sample selection and reproducibility, which need to be addressed before the conclusions can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 / Section 4 (Table 2)] The construction of the 237-philosopher sample from a single French Wikipedia list intersected with the requirement of dedicated articles in all nine editions introduces a selection bias that is not addressed. This filter enriches for figures already prominent in a Western/French encyclopedic tradition, so the claims that only Western philosophers occupy the first 38 Theta-score positions and that philosophers are "reference hubs" rather than "foundational seeds" may reflect sample construction rather than properties of the Wikipedia knowledge network. The paper should demonstrate robustness by using an independent source list or by testing the sensitivity of the Western-dominance and hub-versus-foundation conclusions to the inclusion criterion.
  2. [Declarations (Availability of data and material)] The data availability statement promises a DOI and a repository but provides no actual dataset, selection script, or reduced Google matrix code. Because the central results depend on the exact list of 237 philosophers and the 2017 Wikipedia dumps, the absence of these materials prevents independent replication and verification of the selection procedure. The paper should either provide the data and scripts or clearly state where they will be made available before publication.
  3. [Section 4 (The Presocratics in Wikipedia)] The interpretation of Gqr hidden links relies on an unvalidated assumption that a direct link present in one similar subnetwork but absent in another should appear as a short indirect path in the latter. The two supporting examples ([Leucippus → Parmenides] and [Pythagoras → Empedocles]) are anecdotal; the paper does not systematically test this assumption by comparing Gqr values across the nine editions or against a null model. Without such a test, the claim that hidden links correspond to intellectual relationships remains speculative. A systematic validation would strengthen the paper considerably.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The analysis uses the standard damping factor alpha = 0.85, but no sensitivity test is reported. Since the reduced Google matrix decomposition and the rank positions may depend on alpha, the paper should show that the main conclusions (e.g., the top 10 lists and the dominant hidden links) are stable for other reasonable values of alpha, such as alpha = 0.5 or alpha = 0.9.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] Table 2 contains repeated rank numbers (e.g., two entries at rank 86 and two at rank 126) with no explicit tie-breaking rule; please state whether ties are allowed and how they affect the "first 38 positions" count.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (7)] The text says the sum is performed over the N(N-1)/2 pairs of items, but the formula's normalization and the statement that each term equals 2 on disagreement imply a sum over unordered pairs; the description should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 4, first paragraph] The sentence "Aristotle ranks first, followed by Plato, with the exceptions of the Russian and Chinese editions" is imprecise; Aristotle is first in all editions, and it is Plato's second-place position that varies. Please rephrase for clarity.
  4. [Section 2] The SEP and IEP data were accessed in November 2019, while the Wikipedia snapshots are from May 2017; please state whether this temporal mismatch could affect the comparisons and whether the lists of philosophers were adjusted accordingly.
  5. [Figure 3] The legend for the Presocratic philosophers uses colored markers that may be difficult to distinguish in grayscale; consider using distinct symbols instead of colors alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rankings and hidden links are computed directly from Wikipedia link structure via explicit formulas; the main substantive concern is sample representativeness, not circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results are all computed from the Wikipedia adjacency matrices through explicit formulas: PageRank/CheiRank via Eq. (1), the Θ-score via Eq. (6), Kendall distances via Eq. (7), and the reduced Google matrix hidden-link weights via Eqs. (4)-(5). No parameter is fitted from the conclusion it is used to support; α=0.85 is the standard PageRank damping value, and the 21-Presocratic set is fixed before the Gqr calculation. The Θ-score is an explicit average of the nine edition ranks, and the paper itself notes that it naturally correlates with those rankings ('Of course'), so it is an aggregation rather than a prediction. The reduced Google matrix formalism is cited to refs. [27,28]; although one coauthor (Lages) appears on [28], the formalism is a mathematical identity with independent applications (including biological networks in [28]), and the paper's own out-of-sample check—the [Pythagoras→Empedocles] hidden link that later became a direct hyperlink—supports the method's ability to identify missing links. The main substantive weakness is sample representativeness: the 237 philosophers come from a French Wikipedia list and an all-nine-editions filter, so the Western-dominance observation in Section 4 may be partly an artifact of selection. That is a selection-bias/external-validity concern, not circular reasoning, because the rankings are not constructed to enforce that outcome. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted numerical parameters beyond the standard damping factor; the paper's main choices are dataset construction and school grouping, which are documented but not validated. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated; hidden links are derived matrix elements, not invented objects.

free parameters (1)
  • Damping factor alpha = 0.85
    Chosen from standard PageRank practice (refs [8,9]), not fitted to the philosopher data. Rankings could shift if alpha changed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The damping factor alpha = 0.85 is fixed as in refs [8,9].
    Stated in Section 3, Eq. (1); rankings are not tested for sensitivity to this choice.
  • standard math PageRank and CheiRank steady states exist and are unique.
    Standard Perron-Frobenius property of the Google matrix; used without proof.
  • standard math The decomposition GR = Grr + Gpr + Gqr separates direct, already-known, and hidden transitions.
    Mathematical result of the reduced Google matrix formalism from refs [27,28]; taken as given.
  • ad hoc to paper A missing direct link in one subnetwork should manifest as a short indirect path in another similar subnetwork.
    Stated explicitly in Section 4 before interpreting Leucippus to Parmenides; unproven and load-bearing for the hidden-link narrative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The most influential philosophers in Wikipedia: a multicultural analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DY7MOETC

@misc{pith2026250706034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The most influential philosophers in Wikipedia: a multicultural analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DY7MOETC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06034}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the influence and interconnectivity of philosophical thinkers within the Wikipedia knowledge network. Using a dataset of 237 articles dedicated to philosophers across nine different language editions (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish), we apply the PageRank and CheiRank algorithms to analyze their relative ranking and influence in each linguistic context. Furthermore, we compare our results with entries from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, providing insight into the differences between general knowledge networks like Wikipedia and specialized philosophical databases. A key focus of our analysis is the sub-network of 21 presocratic philosophers, grouped into four traditional schools: Italic (Pythagorean + Eleatic), Ionian, Abderian (Atomist), and Sophist. Using the reduced Google matrix method, we uncover both direct and hidden links between these early thinkers, offering new perspectives on their intellectual relationships and influence within the Western philosophical tradition.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Memory Studies 2(2), 255–272 (2009) https://doi.org/10

    Pentzold, C.: Fixing the floating gap: The online encyclopaedia wikipedia as a global memory place. Memory Studies 2(2), 255–272 (2009) https://doi.org/10. 1177/1750698008102055

    work page 2009

  2. [3]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration

    Aragon, P., Laniado, D., Kaltenbrunner, A., Volkovich, Y.: Biographical social networks on wikipedia: a cross-cultural study of links that made history. In: Pro- ceedings of the Eighth Annual International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration. WikiSym ’12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2462932....

    work page arXiv 2012

  3. [4]

    PLOS ONE 8(10), 1–10 (2013) https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074554

    Eom, Y.-H., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Highlighting entanglement of cultures via rank- ing of multilingual wikipedia articles. PLOS ONE 8(10), 1–10 (2013) https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074554

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074554 2013

  4. [5]

    PLOS ONE 10(3), 1–27 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0114825

    Eom, Y.-H., Arag´ on, P., Laniado, D., Kaltenbrunner, A., Vigna, S., Shepelyan- sky, D.L.: Interactions of cultures and top people of wikipedia from ranking of 24 language editions. PLOS ONE 10(3), 1–27 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0114825

    work page 2015

  5. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration

    Athenikos, S.J., Lin, X.: Visualizing intellectual connections among philoso- phers using the hyperlink & semantic data from wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration. WikiSym ’09. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2009). https: //doi.org/10.1145/1641309.1641342 . https://doi.org/10...

    work page arXiv 2009

  6. [7]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)

    Dorogovtsev, S.N., Mendes, J.F.F.: Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003). https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198515906.001.0001 . https://doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780198515906.001.0001

    arXiv 2003

  7. [8]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford (2012)

    Langville, A.N., Meyer, C.D.: Google’s PageRank and Beyond: The Science of Search Engine Rankings. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [9]

    Computer Networks and ISDN Systems30(1), 107–117 (1998) https://doi.org/10

    Brin, S., Page, L.: The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems30(1), 107–117 (1998) https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X . Proceedings of the Seventh International World Wide Web Conference

    work page 1998

Show all 34 references
  1. [10]

    The European Physical Journal B89(3), 69 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/ e2016-60922-0

    Lages, J., Patt, A., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Wikipedia ranking of world universities. The European Physical Journal B89(3), 69 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/ e2016-60922-0

    2016 doi

  2. [11]

    The European Physical Journal B 89(12), 269 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2016-70526-3 21

    Frahm, K.M., Jaffr` es-Runser, K., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Wikipedia mining of hidden links between political leaders. The European Physical Journal B 89(12), 269 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2016-70526-3 21

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    The European Physical Journal B 92(1), 3 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2018-90532-7

    Coquid´ e, C., Lages, J., Shepelyansky, D.L.: World influence and interactions of universities from wikipedia networks. The European Physical Journal B 92(1), 3 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2018-90532-7

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    IEEE Access 7, 26073–26087 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899339

    Rollin, G., Lages, J., Shepelyansky, D.L.: World influence of infectious diseases from wikipedia network analysis. IEEE Access 7, 26073–26087 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899339

    2019

  5. [14]

    PLOS ONE 14(9), 0222508 (2019) https://doi

    Rollin, G., Lages, J., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Wikipedia network analysis of cancer interactions and world influence. PLOS ONE 14(9), 0222508 (2019) https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222508

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    PLOS ONE 14(12), 0225500 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0225500

    Rollin, G., Lages, J., Serebriyskaya, T.S., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Interactions of pharmaceutical companies with world countries, cancers and rare diseases from wikipedia network analysis. PLOS ONE 14(12), 0225500 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0225500

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    In: Wikip´ edia, Objet Scientifique Non Identifi´ e, pp

    Willaime, P.: Une analyse ´ epist´ emologique de l’expertise dans Wikip´ edia. In: Wikip´ edia, Objet Scientifique Non Identifi´ e, pp. 105–120. Presses universitaires de Paris Ouest, Paris (2015). https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pupo.4110

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    Cahiers philosophiques141(2), 68–86 (2015) https://doi.org/ 10.3917/caph.141.0068

    Willaime, P., Hocquet, A.: Wikip´ edia au prisme de l’´ epist´ emologie sociale et des ´ etudes des sciences. Cahiers philosophiques141(2), 68–86 (2015) https://doi.org/ 10.3917/caph.141.0068

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    (Accessed in Nov

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Accessed in Nov. 2019). https://plato. stanford.edu/

    2019

  10. [19]

    (Accessed in Nov

    Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Accessed in Nov. 2019). https://www.iep. utm.edu/

    2019

  11. [20]

    [En ligne; Page disponible le 21-d´ ecembre-2018] (2018)

    Wikip´ edia: Liste de philosophes par ann´ ee de naissance — Wikip´ edia, l’encyclop´ edie libre. [En ligne; Page disponible le 21-d´ ecembre-2018] (2018). http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liste de philosophes par ann%C3% A9e de naissance&oldid=155003262

    2018

  12. [21]

    Gallimard, Paris (1988)

    Dumont, J.-P.: Les Pr´ esocratiques. Gallimard, Paris (1988)

    1988

  13. [22]

    Gallimard, Paris (1991)

    Dumont, J.-P.: Les Ecoles Pr´ esocratiques. Gallimard, Paris (1991)

    1991

  14. [23]

    Ermann, L., Frahm, K.M., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Google matrix analysis of directed networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1261–1310 (2015) https://doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.87.1261

    2015

  15. [24]

    Scholarpe- dia 11(11), 30944 (2016) https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.30944

    Ermann, L., Frahm, K.M., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Google matrix. Scholarpe- dia 11(11), 30944 (2016) https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.30944 . revision #187113 22

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    https: //arxiv.org/abs/1003.5455

    Chepelianskii, A.D.: Towards physical laws for software architecture (2010). https: //arxiv.org/abs/1003.5455

    2010 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Zhirov, A., Zhirov, O., Shepelyansky, D.: Two-dimensional ranking of wikipedia articles. Eur. Phys. J. B 77, 523–531 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1140.epjb. e2010-10500-7

    2010

  18. [27]

    https://arxiv

    Frahm, K.M., Shepelyansky, D.L.: Reduced Google matrix (2016). https://arxiv. org/abs/1602.02394

    2016 arXiv

  19. [28]

    PloS one 13(1) (2018) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190812

    Lages, J., Shepelyansky, D.L., Zinovyev, A.: Inferring hidden causal relations between pathway members using reduced google matrix of directed biological networks. PloS one 13(1) (2018) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190812

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    (eds.): Encyclop´ edie, Ou Dictionnaire Raisonn´ e des Sciences, des Arts et Des m´ etiers, (1765)

    Diderot, D., d’Alembert, J.l.R. (eds.): Encyclop´ edie, Ou Dictionnaire Raisonn´ e des Sciences, des Arts et Des m´ etiers, (1765)

  21. [30]

    (eds.): Encyclop´ edie, Ou Dictionnaire Raisonn´ e des Sciences, des Arts et Des m´ etiers

    Diderot, D., d’Alembert, J.l.R. (eds.): Encyclop´ edie, Ou Dictionnaire Raisonn´ e des Sciences, des Arts et Des m´ etiers. ARTFL Encyclop´ edie Project, University of Chicago (2021). http://encyclopedie.uchicago.edu

    2021

  22. [31]

    (eds.): Encyclop´ edie, Ou Dictionnaire Raisonn´ e des Sciences, des Arts et Des m´ etiers

    Diderot, D., d’Alembert, J.l.R. (eds.): Encyclop´ edie, Ou Dictionnaire Raisonn´ e des Sciences, des Arts et Des m´ etiers. Acad´ emie des Sciences, Paris (2017). http: //enccre.academie-sciences.fr/encyclopedie/

    2017

  23. [32]

    https://en

    Wikipedia contributors: Lsjbot — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en. wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lsjbot&oldid=1255237808. [Online; accessed 26-January-2025] (2025)

    2025

  24. [33]

    In: Zalta, E.N

    Curd, P.: Presocratic Philosophy. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclope- dia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, US (2020). (Accessed in Nov. 2019). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/ presocratics/

    2020

  25. [34]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias&oldid=1260066213

    Wikipedia contributors: On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias&oldid=1260066213. [Online; accessed 26-January-2025] (2025)

    2025

  26. [35]

    [Online; accessed 11-May-2022] (2017)

    Wikipedia contributors: Pythagoras — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. [Online; accessed 11-May-2022] (2017). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Pythagoras&oldid=810208417 23

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.