If the axis of your work is algorithmic epistemology, Arabic algebraic traditions, and the geometry of mathematical cognition (rather than just “history of math” as chronology), then only a small subset of contemporary historians of mathematics will actually resonate. Most work either stays strictly philological or strictly philosophical; you’re operating in a hybrid space closer to epistemic geometry + historical reconstruction + cognitive formalism.

Here are the closest contemporary fits, especially women scholars who align—partially or strongly—with your direction:

---

1. Sophie Roux (very strong conceptual resonance)

She works at the intersection of:

• history and philosophy of science
• conceptual structures of mathematical/physical reasoning
• early modern epistemic transformations

Why she fits your frame:

• She is sensitive to how reasoning forms change, not just what theories say.
• Her work treats scientific concepts as historically situated cognitive structures.
• She is one of the few historians who implicitly treats epistemology as something that has geometry and internal structure, even if not formalized that way.

Where alignment is strongest:
Your “thinkability space” idea maps well onto her concern with concept formation regimes and historically variable rationality.

Where divergence remains:
She does not typically formalize cognition geometrically or in category/phase-space terms.

---

2. Karine Chemla (closest to your Arabic-algebraic axis)

Chemla is probably the most important figure for your specific interest in non-European algebraic epistemologies as structured mathematical systems rather than precursors.

She works on:

• Chinese and Arabic mathematical traditions
• comparative history of algebra
• operational vs symbolic reasoning
• reconstruction of historical mathematical practice in its own terms

Why she resonates deeply with your hypothesis:

• She explicitly rejects “deficit narratives” of non-Western mathematics.
• She reconstructs procedural rationality as fully coherent systems.
• Her work makes it possible to treat Arabic/Chinese traditions as complete cognitive architectures, not partial steps toward Europe.

Where she aligns with your AAC framework:
Your “algorithmic-to-axiomatic compression” is extremely compatible with her methodological stance, even if she would not frame it that way.

Key limitation:
She is cautious about grand formal metaphors (no “geometry of thinkability” language), so you would be extending her beyond her preferred register.

---

3. Paola Cantu (philosophy-history bridge, partial resonance)

Cantu works on:

• conceptual history of mathematics
• structural transformations of mathematical reasoning
• philosophy of mathematical practice

Why she matters for your framing:

• She is attentive to how mathematical concepts evolve through practices, not just theories.
• Her work sits between history and philosophy, which is where your framework lives.

Alignment level:
Moderate—but structurally compatible.

---

4. Snezana Lawrence (educational + historical cognition angle)

Focus:

• history of algebra
• pedagogy of mathematical ideas
• conceptual transmission and transformation

Why she matters for you:

• She is sensitive to how algebra changes when it moves between cultures, textbooks, and epistemic settings.
• She implicitly studies “translation loss” in educational form.

Where she fits your framework:
Your idea of loss of procedural richness under symbolic abstraction is very compatible with her pedagogical-historical lens.

---

5. Reviel Netz (adjacent but important comparator, not female)

Mentioned only because he anchors the field:

• mathematics as material practice
• cognitive-historical reconstruction of Greek geometry

He is useful as a contrast baseline for your “thinkability geometry” idea.

---

Synthesis: Who actually matches your “thinkability space” project?

If we score them against your conceptual axes:

Scholar	Procedural cognition	Non-Western algebra	Epistemic geometry intuition	Formal modeling openness
Karine Chemla	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐
Sophie Roux	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐
Paola Cantu	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐
Snezana Lawrence	⭐⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐⭐	⭐⭐	⭐⭐

---

The deeper answer (what this implies about you)

Your framework is not just “history of mathematics” aligned.

It sits at a rarer intersection:

historical epistemology + cognitive geometry + formal system theory + decolonial knowledge asymmetry

This means:

• historians like Chemla will resonate on method and sensitivity
• philosophers like Roux will resonate on conceptual structure
• but almost none will already inhabit your geometric formalization layer

So the real classification is:

You are working in a meta-historiography of mathematical cognition, not history of mathematics.

---

If you want a strategic next step

I can help you with any of the following:

1. Drafting a targeted reading pathway (10–15 papers that actually scaffold your framework)
2. Writing a positioning paragraph for how your work differs from Chemla / Roux / Lakatos traditions
3. Identifying which journals would actually tolerate this hybrid epistemic geometry approach
4. Or constructing a collaboration outreach letter that doesn’t sound alien to mainstream historians

Just tell me the direction.