ABSTRACT
This comment addresses issues regarding the interplay between practices and results in Karine Chemla’s contribution to this volume. Chemla explains how a historian of ancient mathematics can get further information by restoring practices and deriving results that are indirectly evidenced in the rare surviving sources that the historian has. It is noteworthy that Chemla discusses directly the relation between practices and results, where results might be understood as the body of knowledge that one can gather in a scientifi c outcome (e.g., a publication), while practices are the activities and conceptions that led to those results. This issue is still insuffi ciently addressed in the recent rising of studies on mathematical practices, as far as we can tell from many writings that we consulted and meetings that we attended (Giardino, Moktefi , Mols, & Van Bendegem, 2012).
