-
Bridging Classical and Modern Approaches to Thales' Theorem
Authors:
Piotr Błaszczyk,
Anna Petiurenko
Abstract:
In this paper, we reconstruct Euclid's theory of similar triangles, as developed in Book VI of the \textit{Elements}, along with its 20th-century counterparts, formulated within the systems of Hilbert, Birkhoff, Borsuk and Szmielew, Millman and Parker, as well as Hartshorne. In the final sections, we present recent developments concerning non-Archimedean fields and mechanized proofs. Thales' theor…
▽ More
In this paper, we reconstruct Euclid's theory of similar triangles, as developed in Book VI of the \textit{Elements}, along with its 20th-century counterparts, formulated within the systems of Hilbert, Birkhoff, Borsuk and Szmielew, Millman and Parker, as well as Hartshorne. In the final sections, we present recent developments concerning non-Archimedean fields and mechanized proofs. Thales' theorem (VI.2) serves as the reference point in our comparisons. It forms the basis of Euclid's system and follows from VI.1 the only proposition within the theory of similar triangles that explicitly applies the definition of proportion. Instead of the ancient proportion, modern systems adopt the arithmetic of line segments or real numbers. Accordingly, they adopt other propositions from Euclid's Book VI, such as VI.4, VI.6, or VI.9, as a basis. In §\,10, we present a system that, while meeting modern criteria of rigor, reconstructs Euclid's theory and mimics its deductive structure, beginning with VI.1. This system extends to automated proofs of Euclid's propositions from Book VI. Systems relying on real numbers provide the foundation for trigonometry as applied in modern mathematics. In §\,9, we prove Thales' theorem in geometry over the hyperreal numbers. Just as Hilbert managed to prove Thales' theorem without referencing the Archimedean axiom, so do we by applying the arithmetic of the non-Archimedean field of hyperreal numbers.
△ Less
Submitted 20 March, 2025;
originally announced March 2025.
-
Euler's Series for Sine and Cosine. An Interpretation in Nonstandard Analysis
Authors:
Piotr Błaszczyk,
Anna Petiurenko
Abstract:
In chapter VIII of Introductio in analysin infinitorum, Euler derives a series for sine, cosine, and the formula $e^{iv}=\cos v+i\sin v$ His arguments employ infinitesimal and infinitely large numbers and some strange equalities. We interpret these seemingly inconsistent objects within the field of hyperreal numbers. We show that any non-Archimedean field provides a framework for such an interpret…
▽ More
In chapter VIII of Introductio in analysin infinitorum, Euler derives a series for sine, cosine, and the formula $e^{iv}=\cos v+i\sin v$ His arguments employ infinitesimal and infinitely large numbers and some strange equalities. We interpret these seemingly inconsistent objects within the field of hyperreal numbers. We show that any non-Archimedean field provides a framework for such an interpretation. Yet, there is one implicit lemma underlying Euler's proof, which requires specific techniques of non-standard analysis. Analyzing chapter III of Institutiones calculi differentialis reveals Euler's appeal to the rules of an ordered field which includes infinitesimals -- the same ones he applies deriving series for $\sin v$, $\cos v$, and $e^{v}$.
△ Less
Submitted 8 September, 2022;
originally announced April 2023.
-
New model of non-Euclidean plane
Authors:
Piotr Błaszczyk,
Anna Petiurenko
Abstract:
We present a new model of a non-Euclidean plane, in which angles in a triangle sum up to $π$. It is a subspace of the Cartesian plane over the field of hyperreal numbers $\mathbb{R}^*$. The model enables one to represent the negation of equivalent versions of the parallel axiom, such as the existence of the circumcircle of a triangle, and Wallis' or Lagendre's axioms, as well as the difference bet…
▽ More
We present a new model of a non-Euclidean plane, in which angles in a triangle sum up to $π$. It is a subspace of the Cartesian plane over the field of hyperreal numbers $\mathbb{R}^*$. The model enables one to represent the negation of equivalent versions of the parallel axiom, such as the existence of the circumcircle of a triangle, and Wallis' or Lagendre's axioms, as well as the difference between non-Euclidean and hyperbolic planes. The model has unique educational advantages as expounding its crucial ideas requires only the basics of Cartesian geometry and non-Archimedean fields.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
On diagrams accompanying reductio ad absurdum proofs in Euclid's Elements book I. Reviewing Hartshorne and Manders
Authors:
Piotr Błaszczyk,
Anna Petiurenko
Abstract:
Exploring selected reductio ad absurdum proofs in Book 1 of the Elements, we show they include figures that are not constructed. It is squarely at odds with Hartshorne's claim that "in Euclid's geometry, only those geometrical figures exist that can be constructed with ruler and compass". We also present diagrams questioning Manders' distinction between exact and co-exact attributes of a diagram,…
▽ More
Exploring selected reductio ad absurdum proofs in Book 1 of the Elements, we show they include figures that are not constructed. It is squarely at odds with Hartshorne's claim that "in Euclid's geometry, only those geometrical figures exist that can be constructed with ruler and compass". We also present diagrams questioning Manders' distinction between exact and co-exact attributes of a diagram, specifically, a model of semi-Euclidean geometry which satisfies straightness of lines and equality of angles and does not satisfy the parallel postulate.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Procedures of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus: An account in three modern frameworks
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Robert Ely,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Karl Kuhlemann
Abstract:
Recent Leibniz scholarship has sought to gauge which foundational framework provides the most successful account of the procedures of the Leibnizian calculus (LC). While many scholars (e.g., Ishiguro, Levey) opt for a default Weierstrassian framework, Arthur compares LC to a non-Archimedean framework SIA (Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis) of Lawvere-Kock-Bell. We analyze Arthur's comparison and find…
▽ More
Recent Leibniz scholarship has sought to gauge which foundational framework provides the most successful account of the procedures of the Leibnizian calculus (LC). While many scholars (e.g., Ishiguro, Levey) opt for a default Weierstrassian framework, Arthur compares LC to a non-Archimedean framework SIA (Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis) of Lawvere-Kock-Bell. We analyze Arthur's comparison and find it rife with equivocations and misunderstandings on issues including the non-punctiform nature of the continuum, infinite-sided polygons, and the fictionality of infinitesimals. Rabouin and Arthur claim that Leibniz considers infinities as contradictory, and that Leibniz' definition of incomparables should be understood as nominal rather than as semantic. However, such claims hinge upon a conflation of Leibnizian notions of bounded infinity and unbounded infinity, a distinction emphasized by early Knobloch.
The most faithful account of LC is arguably provided by Robinson's framework. We exploit an axiomatic framework for infinitesimal analysis called SPOT (conservative over ZF) to provide a formalisation of LC, including the bounded/unbounded dichotomy, the assignable/inassignable dichotomy, the generalized relation of equality up to negligible terms, and the law of continuity.
△ Less
Submitted 25 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
Phenomenology of diagrams in Book II of the Elements
Authors:
Piotr Błaszczyk
Abstract:
In this paper, we provide an interpretation of Book II of the Elements from the perspective of figures which are represented and not represented on the diagrams. We show that Euclid's reliance on figures not represented on the diagram is a proof technique which enables to turn his diagrams II.11--14 into ideograms of a kind. We also discuss interpretations of Book II developed by J. Baldwin and A.…
▽ More
In this paper, we provide an interpretation of Book II of the Elements from the perspective of figures which are represented and not represented on the diagrams. We show that Euclid's reliance on figures not represented on the diagram is a proof technique which enables to turn his diagrams II.11--14 into ideograms of a kind. We also discuss interpretations of Book II developed by J. Baldwin and A. Mueller, L. Corry, D. Fowler, R. Hartshorne, I. Mueller, K. Saito, and the so-called geometric algebraic interpretation in B. van der Waerden's version.
△ Less
Submitted 16 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
-
Continuity between Cauchy and Bolzano: Issues of antecedents and priority
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Elias Fuentes Guillen,
Peter Heinig,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Mikhail G. Katz
Abstract:
In a paper published in 1970, Grattan-Guinness argued that Cauchy, in his 1821 book Cours d'Analyse, may have plagiarized Bolzano's book Rein analytischer Beweis (RB), first published in 1817. That paper was subsequently discredited in several works, but some of its assumptions still prevail today. In particular, it is usually considered that Cauchy did not develop his notion of the continuity of…
▽ More
In a paper published in 1970, Grattan-Guinness argued that Cauchy, in his 1821 book Cours d'Analyse, may have plagiarized Bolzano's book Rein analytischer Beweis (RB), first published in 1817. That paper was subsequently discredited in several works, but some of its assumptions still prevail today. In particular, it is usually considered that Cauchy did not develop his notion of the continuity of a function before Bolzano developed his in RB, and that both notions are essentially the same. We argue that both assumptions are incorrect, and that it is implausible that Cauchy's initial insight into that notion, which eventually evolved to an approach using infinitesimals, could have been borrowed from Bolzano's work. Furthermore, we account for Bolzano's interest in that notion and focus on his discussion of a definition by Kästner (in Section 183 of his 1766 book), which the former seems to have misrepresented at least partially.
Cauchy's treatment of continuity goes back at least to his 1817 course summaries, refuting a key component of Grattan-Guinness' plagiarism hypothesis (that Cauchy may have lifted continuity from RB after reading it in a Paris library in 1818). We explore antecedents of Cauchy and Bolzano continuity in the writings of Kästner and earlier authors.
△ Less
Submitted 27 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Cauchy's work on integral geometry, centers of curvature, and other applications of infinitesimals
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Peter Heinig,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Thomas McGaffey
Abstract:
Like his colleagues de Prony, Petit, and Poisson at the Ecole Polytechnique, Cauchy used infinitesimals in the Leibniz-Euler tradition both in his research and teaching. Cauchy applied infinitesimals in an 1826 work in differential geometry where infinitesimals are used neither as variable quantities nor as sequences but rather as numbers. He also applied infinitesimals in an 1832 article on integ…
▽ More
Like his colleagues de Prony, Petit, and Poisson at the Ecole Polytechnique, Cauchy used infinitesimals in the Leibniz-Euler tradition both in his research and teaching. Cauchy applied infinitesimals in an 1826 work in differential geometry where infinitesimals are used neither as variable quantities nor as sequences but rather as numbers. He also applied infinitesimals in an 1832 article on integral geometry, similarly as numbers. We explore these and other applications of Cauchy's infinitesimals as used in his textbooks and research articles.
An attentive reading of Cauchy's work challenges received views on Cauchy's role in the history of analysis and geometry. We demonstrate the viability of Cauchy's infinitesimal techniques in fields as diverse as geometric probability, differential geometry, elasticity, Dirac delta functions, continuity and convergence.
Keywords: Cauchy--Crofton formula; center of curvature; continuity; infinitesimals; integral geometry; limite; standard part; de Prony; Poisson
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
-
19th century real analysis, forward and backward
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Peter Heinig,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Mikhail G. Katz
Abstract:
19th century real analysis received a major impetus from Cauchy's work. Cauchy mentions variable quantities, limits, and infinitesimals, but the meaning he attached to these terms is not identical to their modern meaning.
Some Cauchy historians work in a conceptual scheme dominated by an assumption of a teleological nature of the evolution of real analysis toward a preordained outcome. Thus, Gil…
▽ More
19th century real analysis received a major impetus from Cauchy's work. Cauchy mentions variable quantities, limits, and infinitesimals, but the meaning he attached to these terms is not identical to their modern meaning.
Some Cauchy historians work in a conceptual scheme dominated by an assumption of a teleological nature of the evolution of real analysis toward a preordained outcome. Thus, Gilain and Siegmund-Schultze assume that references to limite in Cauchy's work necessarily imply that Cauchy was working with an Archi-medean continuum, whereas infinitesimals were merely a convenient figure of speech, for which Cauchy had in mind a complete justification in terms of Archimedean limits. However, there is another formalisation of Cauchy's procedures exploiting his limite, more consistent with Cauchy's ubiquitous use of infinitesimals, in terms of the standard part principle of modern infinitesimal analysis.
We challenge a misconception according to which Cauchy was allegedly forced to teach infinitesimals at the Ecole Polytechnique. We show that the debate there concerned mainly the issue of rigor, a separate one from infinitesimals. A critique of Cauchy's approach by his contemporary de Prony sheds light on the meaning of rigor to Cauchy and his contemporaries. An attentive reading of Cauchy's work challenges received views on Cauchy's role in the history of analysis, and indicates that he was a pioneer of infinitesimal techniques as much as a harbinger of the Epsilontik.
△ Less
Submitted 17 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
-
Leibniz's well-founded fictions and their interpretations
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Robert Ely,
Peter Heinig,
Mikhail G. Katz
Abstract:
Leibniz used the term fiction in conjunction with infinitesimals. What kind of fictions they were exactly is a subject of scholarly dispute. The position of Bos and Mancosu contrasts with that of Ishiguro and Arthur. Leibniz's own views, expressed in his published articles and correspondence, led Bos to distinguish between two methods in Leibniz's work: (A) one exploiting classical `exhaustion' ar…
▽ More
Leibniz used the term fiction in conjunction with infinitesimals. What kind of fictions they were exactly is a subject of scholarly dispute. The position of Bos and Mancosu contrasts with that of Ishiguro and Arthur. Leibniz's own views, expressed in his published articles and correspondence, led Bos to distinguish between two methods in Leibniz's work: (A) one exploiting classical `exhaustion' arguments, and (B) one exploiting inassignable infinitesimals together with a law of continuity. Of particular interest is evidence stemming from Leibniz's work Nouveaux Essais sur l'Entendement Humain as well as from his correspondence with Arnauld, Bignon, Dagincourt, Des Bosses, and Varignon. A careful examination of the evidence leads us to the opposite conclusion from Arthur's. We analyze a hitherto unnoticed objection of Rolle's concerning the lack of justification for extending axioms and operations in geometry and analysis from the ordinary domain to that of infinitesimal calculus, and reactions to it by Saurin and Leibniz. A newly released 1705 manuscript by Leibniz (Puisque des personnes...) currently in the process of digitalisation, sheds light on the nature of Leibnizian inassignable infinitesimals. In a pair of 1695 texts Leibniz made it clear that his incomparable magnitudes violate Euclid's Definition V.4, a.k.a. the Archimedean property, corroborating the non-Archimedean construal of the Leibnizian calculus.
Keywords: Archimedean property; assignable vs inassignable quantity; Euclid's Definition V.4; infinitesimal; law of continuity; law of homogeneity; logical fiction; Nouveaux Essais; pure fiction; quantifier-assisted paraphrase; syncategorematic; transfer principle; Arnauld; Bignon; Des Bosses; Rolle; Saurin; Varignon
△ Less
Submitted 11 February, 2019; v1 submitted 1 December, 2018;
originally announced December 2018.
-
Klein vs Mehrtens: restoring the reputation of a great modern
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Błaszczyk,
Peter Heinig,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Jan Peter Schäfermeyer,
David Sherry
Abstract:
Historian Herbert Mehrtens sought to portray the history of turn-of-the-century mathematics as a struggle of modern vs countermodern, led respectively by David Hilbert and Felix Klein. Some of Mehrtens' conclusions have been picked up by both historians (Jeremy Gray) and mathematicians (Frank Quinn).
We argue that Klein and Hilbert, both at Goettingen, were not adversaries but rather modernist a…
▽ More
Historian Herbert Mehrtens sought to portray the history of turn-of-the-century mathematics as a struggle of modern vs countermodern, led respectively by David Hilbert and Felix Klein. Some of Mehrtens' conclusions have been picked up by both historians (Jeremy Gray) and mathematicians (Frank Quinn).
We argue that Klein and Hilbert, both at Goettingen, were not adversaries but rather modernist allies in a bid to broaden the scope of mathematics beyond a narrow focus on arithmetized analysis as practiced by the Berlin school.
Klein's Goettingen lecture and other texts shed light on Klein's modernism. Hilbert's views on intuition are closer to Klein's views than Mehrtens is willing to allow. Klein and Hilbert were equally interested in the axiomatisation of physics. Among Klein's credits is helping launch the career of Abraham Fraenkel, and advancing the careers of Sophus Lie, Emmy Noether, and Ernst Zermelo, all four surely of impeccable modernist credentials.
Mehrtens' unsourced claim that Hilbert was interested in production rather than meaning appears to stem from Mehrtens' marxist leanings. Mehrtens' claim that [the future SS-Brigadefuehrer] "Theodor Vahlen ... cited Klein's racist distinctions within mathematics, and sharpened them into open antisemitism" fabricates a spurious continuity between the two figures mentioned and is thus an odious misrepresentation of Klein's position.
Keywords: arithmetized analysis; axiomatisation of geometry; axiomatisation of physics; formalism; intuition; mathematical realism; modernism; Felix Klein; David Hilbert; Karl Weierstrass
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2018;
originally announced March 2018.
-
Monotone subsequence via ultrapower
Authors:
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Tahl Nowik
Abstract:
An ultraproduct can be a helpful organizing principle in presenting solutions of problems at many levels, as argued by Terence Tao. We apply it here to the solution of a calculus problem: every infinite sequence has a monotone infinite subsequence, and give other applications.
Keywords: ordered structures; monotone subsequence; ultrapower; saturation; compactness
An ultraproduct can be a helpful organizing principle in presenting solutions of problems at many levels, as argued by Terence Tao. We apply it here to the solution of a calculus problem: every infinite sequence has a monotone infinite subsequence, and give other applications.
Keywords: ordered structures; monotone subsequence; ultrapower; saturation; compactness
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2018;
originally announced March 2018.
-
Cauchy, infinitesimals and ghosts of departed quantifiers
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Robert Ely,
Valerie Henry,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Taras Kudryk,
Semen S. Kutateladze,
Thomas McGaffey,
Thomas Mormann,
David M. Schaps,
David Sherry
Abstract:
Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson's frameworks. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus, Leibniz's distinction between assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robinson's framework, while Lei…
▽ More
Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson's frameworks. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus, Leibniz's distinction between assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robinson's framework, while Leibniz's law of homogeneity with the implied notion of equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of standard part. It is hard to provide parallel formalisations in a Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for Leibniz's infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and arithmetic. Euler routinely used product decompositions into a specific infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infinite exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite analogues in Robinson's framework, while in a Weierstrassian framework they can only be reinterpreted by means of paraphrases departing significantly from Euler's own presentation. Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that find ready formalisations in Robinson's framework but scholars working in a Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers in his work. Cauchy's procedures in the context of his 1853 sum theorem (for series of continuous functions) are more readily understood from the viewpoint of Robinson's framework, where one can exploit tools such as the pointwise definition of the concept of uniform convergence.
Keywords: historiography; infinitesimal; Latin model; butterfly model
△ Less
Submitted 1 December, 2017;
originally announced December 2017.
-
Analyzing Benardete's comment on decimal notation
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Taras Kudryk,
David Sherry
Abstract:
Philosopher Benardete challenged both the conventional wisdom and the received mathematical treatment of zero, dot, nine recurring. An initially puzzling passage in Benardete on the intelligibility of the continuum reveals challenging insights into number systems, the foundations of modern analysis, and mathematics education. A key concept here is, in Terry Tao's terminology, that of an ultralimit…
▽ More
Philosopher Benardete challenged both the conventional wisdom and the received mathematical treatment of zero, dot, nine recurring. An initially puzzling passage in Benardete on the intelligibility of the continuum reveals challenging insights into number systems, the foundations of modern analysis, and mathematics education. A key concept here is, in Terry Tao's terminology, that of an ultralimit.
Keywords: real analysis; infinitesimals; decimal notation; procedures vs ontology
△ Less
Submitted 1 June, 2017;
originally announced June 2017.
-
Cauchy's infinitesimals, his sum theorem, and foundational paradigms
Authors:
Tiziana Bascelli,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Alexandre Borovik,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Semen S. Kutateladze,
Thomas McGaffey,
David M. Schaps,
David Sherry
Abstract:
Cauchy's sum theorem is a prototype of what is today a basic result on the convergence of a series of functions in undergraduate analysis. We seek to interpret Cauchy's proof, and discuss the related epistemological questions involved in comparing distinct interpretive paradigms. Cauchy's proof is often interpreted in the modern framework of a Weierstrassian paradigm. We analyze Cauchy's proof clo…
▽ More
Cauchy's sum theorem is a prototype of what is today a basic result on the convergence of a series of functions in undergraduate analysis. We seek to interpret Cauchy's proof, and discuss the related epistemological questions involved in comparing distinct interpretive paradigms. Cauchy's proof is often interpreted in the modern framework of a Weierstrassian paradigm. We analyze Cauchy's proof closely and show that it finds closer proxies in a different modern framework.
Keywords: Cauchy's infinitesimal; sum theorem; quantifier alternation; uniform convergence; foundational paradigms.
△ Less
Submitted 9 May, 2017; v1 submitted 25 April, 2017;
originally announced April 2017.
-
Gregory's sixth operation
Authors:
Tiziana Bascelli,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Semen S. Kutateladze,
Tahl Nowik,
David M. Schaps,
David Sherry
Abstract:
In relation to a thesis put forward by Marx Wartofsky, we seek to show that a historiography of mathematics requires an analysis of the ontology of the part of mathematics under scrutiny. Following Ian Hacking, we point out that in the history of mathematics the amount of contingency is larger than is usually thought. As a case study, we analyze the historians' approach to interpreting James Grego…
▽ More
In relation to a thesis put forward by Marx Wartofsky, we seek to show that a historiography of mathematics requires an analysis of the ontology of the part of mathematics under scrutiny. Following Ian Hacking, we point out that in the history of mathematics the amount of contingency is larger than is usually thought. As a case study, we analyze the historians' approach to interpreting James Gregory's expression ultimate terms in his paper attempting to prove the irrationality of pi. Here Gregory referred to the last or ultimate terms of a series. More broadly, we analyze the following questions: which modern framework is more appropriate for interpreting the procedures at work in texts from the early history of infinitesimal analysis? as well as the related question: what is a logical theory that is close to something early modern mathematicians could have used when studying infinite series and quadrature problems? We argue that what has been routinely viewed from the viewpoint of classical analysis as an example of an "unrigorous" practice, in fact finds close procedural proxies in modern infinitesimal theories. We analyze a mix of social and religious reasons that had led to the suppression of both the religious order of Gregory's teacher degli Angeli, and Gregory's books at Venice, in the late 1660s.
△ Less
Submitted 18 December, 2016;
originally announced December 2016.
-
Toward a history of mathematics focused on procedures
Authors:
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Semen S. Kutateladze,
David Sherry
Abstract:
Abraham Robinson's framework for modern infinitesimals was developed half a century ago. It enables a re-evaluation of the procedures of the pioneers of mathematical analysis. Their procedures have been often viewed through the lens of the success of the Weierstrassian foundations. We propose a view without passing through the lens, by means of proxies for such procedures in the modern theory of i…
▽ More
Abraham Robinson's framework for modern infinitesimals was developed half a century ago. It enables a re-evaluation of the procedures of the pioneers of mathematical analysis. Their procedures have been often viewed through the lens of the success of the Weierstrassian foundations. We propose a view without passing through the lens, by means of proxies for such procedures in the modern theory of infinitesimals. The real accomplishments of calculus and analysis had been based primarily on the elaboration of novel techniques for solving problems rather than a quest for ultimate foundations. It may be hopeless to interpret historical foundations in terms of a punctiform continuum, but arguably it is possible to interpret historical techniques and procedures in terms of modern ones. Our proposed formalisations do not mean that Fermat, Gregory, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy were pre-Robinsonians, but rather indicate that Robinson's framework is more helpful in understanding their procedures than a Weierstrassian framework.
△ Less
Submitted 15 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
-
A non-standard analysis of a cultural icon: The case of Paul Halmos
Authors:
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Alexandre Borovik,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Taras Kudryk,
Semen S. Kutateladze,
David Sherry
Abstract:
We examine Paul Halmos' comments on category theory, Dedekind cuts, devil worship, logic, and Robinson's infinitesimals. Halmos' scepticism about category theory derives from his philosophical position of naive set-theoretic realism. In the words of an MAA biography, Halmos thought that mathematics is "certainty" and "architecture" yet 20th century logic teaches us is that mathematics is full of u…
▽ More
We examine Paul Halmos' comments on category theory, Dedekind cuts, devil worship, logic, and Robinson's infinitesimals. Halmos' scepticism about category theory derives from his philosophical position of naive set-theoretic realism. In the words of an MAA biography, Halmos thought that mathematics is "certainty" and "architecture" yet 20th century logic teaches us is that mathematics is full of uncertainty or more precisely incompleteness. If the term architecture meant to imply that mathematics is one great solid castle, then modern logic tends to teach us the opposite lession, namely that the castle is floating in midair. Halmos' realism tends to color his judgment of purely scientific aspects of logic and the way it is practiced and applied. He often expressed distaste for nonstandard models, and made a sustained effort to eliminate first-order logic, the logicians' concept of interpretation, and the syntactic vs semantic distinction. He felt that these were vague, and sought to replace them all by his polyadic algebra. Halmos claimed that Robinson's framework is "unnecessary" but Henson and Keisler argue that Robinson's framework allows one to dig deeper into set-theoretic resources than is common in Archimedean mathematics. This can potentially prove theorems not accessible by standard methods, undermining Halmos' criticisms.
Keywords: Archimedean axiom; bridge between discrete and continuous mathematics; hyperreals; incomparable quantities; indispensability; infinity; mathematical realism; Robinson.
△ Less
Submitted 1 July, 2016;
originally announced July 2016.
-
Is Leibnizian calculus embeddable in first order logic?
Authors:
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Taras Kudryk,
Thomas Mormann,
David Sherry
Abstract:
To explore the extent of embeddability of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus in first-order logic (FOL) and modern frameworks, we propose to set aside ontological issues and focus on procedural questions. This would enable an account of Leibnizian procedures in a framework limited to FOL with a small number of additional ingredients such as the relation of infinite proximity. If, as we argue here,…
▽ More
To explore the extent of embeddability of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus in first-order logic (FOL) and modern frameworks, we propose to set aside ontological issues and focus on procedural questions. This would enable an account of Leibnizian procedures in a framework limited to FOL with a small number of additional ingredients such as the relation of infinite proximity. If, as we argue here, first order logic is indeed suitable for developing modern proxies for the inferential moves found in Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus, then modern infinitesimal frameworks are more appropriate to interpreting Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus than modern Weierstrassian ones.
Keywords: First order logic; infinitesimal calculus; ontology; procedures; Leibniz; Weierstrass; Abraham Robinson
△ Less
Submitted 11 May, 2016;
originally announced May 2016.
-
Interpreting the infinitesimal mathematics of Leibniz and Euler
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Robert Ely,
Valerie Henry,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Semen S. Kutateladze,
Thomas McGaffey,
Patrick Reeder,
David M. Schaps,
David Sherry,
Steven Shnider
Abstract:
We apply Benacerraf's distinction between mathematical ontology and mathematical practice (or the structures mathematicians use in practice) to examine contrasting interpretations of infinitesimal mathematics of the 17th and 18th century, in the work of Bos, Ferraro, Laugwitz, and others. We detect Weierstrass's ghost behind some of the received historiography on Euler's infinitesimal mathematics,…
▽ More
We apply Benacerraf's distinction between mathematical ontology and mathematical practice (or the structures mathematicians use in practice) to examine contrasting interpretations of infinitesimal mathematics of the 17th and 18th century, in the work of Bos, Ferraro, Laugwitz, and others. We detect Weierstrass's ghost behind some of the received historiography on Euler's infinitesimal mathematics, as when Ferraro proposes to understand Euler in terms of a Weierstrassian notion of limit and Fraser declares classical analysis to be a "primary point of reference for understanding the eighteenth-century theories." Meanwhile, scholars like Bos and Laugwitz seek to explore Eulerian methodology, practice, and procedures in a way more faithful to Euler's own.
Euler's use of infinite integers and the associated infinite products is analyzed in the context of his infinite product decomposition for the sine function. Euler's principle of cancellation is compared to the Leibnizian transcendental law of homogeneity. The Leibnizian law of continuity similarly finds echoes in Euler.
We argue that Ferraro's assumption that Euler worked with a classical notion of quantity is symptomatic of a post-Weierstrassian placement of Euler in the Archimedean track for the development of analysis, as well as a blurring of the distinction between the dual tracks noted by Bos. Interpreting Euler in an Archimedean conceptual framework obscures important aspects of Euler's work. Such a framework is profitably replaced by a syntactically more versatile modern infinitesimal framework that provides better proxies for his inferential moves.
Keywords: Archimedean axiom; infinite product; infinitesimal; law of continuity; law of homogeneity; principle of cancellation; procedure; standard part principle; ontology; mathematical practice; Euler; Leibniz
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2016;
originally announced May 2016.
-
Leibniz vs Ishiguro: Closing a quarter-century of syncategoremania
Authors:
Tiziana Bascelli,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
David M. Schaps,
David Sherry
Abstract:
Did Leibniz exploit infinitesimals and infinities `a la rigueur, or only as shorthand for quantified propositions that refer to ordinary Archimedean magnitudes? Chapter 5 in (Ishiguro 1990) is a defense of the latter position, which she reformulates in terms of Russellian logical fictions. Ishiguro does not explain how to reconcile this interpretation with Leibniz's repeated assertions that infini…
▽ More
Did Leibniz exploit infinitesimals and infinities `a la rigueur, or only as shorthand for quantified propositions that refer to ordinary Archimedean magnitudes? Chapter 5 in (Ishiguro 1990) is a defense of the latter position, which she reformulates in terms of Russellian logical fictions. Ishiguro does not explain how to reconcile this interpretation with Leibniz's repeated assertions that infinitesimals violate the Archimedean property, viz., Euclid's Elements, V.4. We present textual evidence from Leibniz, as well as historical evidence from the early decades of the calculus, to undermine Ishiguro's interpretation. Leibniz frequently writes that his infinitesimals are useful fictions, and we agree; but we shall show that it is best not to understand them as logical fictions; instead, they are better understood as pure fictions.
Keywords: Archimedean property; infinitesimal; logical fiction; pure fiction; quantified paraphrase; law of homogeneity
△ Less
Submitted 23 March, 2016;
originally announced March 2016.
-
Controversies in the foundations of analysis: Comments on Schubring's Conflicts
Authors:
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Mikhail Katz,
David Sherry
Abstract:
Foundations of Science recently published a rebuttal to a portion of our essay it published two years ago. The author, G. Schubring, argues that our 2013 text treated unfairly his 2005 book, Conflicts between generalization, rigor, and intuition. He further argues that our attempt to show that Cauchy is part of a long infinitesimalist tradition confuses text with context and thereby misunderstands…
▽ More
Foundations of Science recently published a rebuttal to a portion of our essay it published two years ago. The author, G. Schubring, argues that our 2013 text treated unfairly his 2005 book, Conflicts between generalization, rigor, and intuition. He further argues that our attempt to show that Cauchy is part of a long infinitesimalist tradition confuses text with context and thereby misunderstands the significance of Cauchy's use of infinitesimals. Here we defend our original analysis of variousmisconceptions and misinterpretations concerning the history of infinitesimals and, in particular, the role of infinitesimals in Cauchy's mathematics. We show that Schubring misinterprets Proclus, Leibniz, and Klein on non-Archimedean issues, ignores the Jesuit context of Moigno's flawed critique of infinitesimals, and misrepresents, to the point of caricature, the pioneering Cauchy scholarship of D. Laugwitz. Keywords: Archimedean axiom, Cauchy, Felix Klein, hornangle, infinitesimal, Leibniz, ontology, procedure
△ Less
Submitted 31 January, 2016; v1 submitted 1 January, 2016;
originally announced January 2016.
-
A Purely Algebraic Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
Authors:
Piotr Błaszczyk
Abstract:
Proofs of the fundamental theorem of algebra can be divided up into three groups according to the techniques involved: proofs that rely on real or complex analysis, algebraic proofs, and topological proofs. Algebraic proofs make use of the fact that odd-degree real polynomials have real roots. This assumption, however, requires analytic methods, namely, the intermediate value theorem for real cont…
▽ More
Proofs of the fundamental theorem of algebra can be divided up into three groups according to the techniques involved: proofs that rely on real or complex analysis, algebraic proofs, and topological proofs. Algebraic proofs make use of the fact that odd-degree real polynomials have real roots. This assumption, however, requires analytic methods, namely, the intermediate value theorem for real continuous functions. In this paper, we develop the idea of algebraic proof further towards a purely algebraic proof of the intermediate value theorem for real polynomials. In our proof, we neither use the notion of continuous function nor refer to any theorem of real and complex analysis. Instead, we apply techniques of modern algebra: we extend the field of real numbers to the non-Archimedean field of hyperreals via an ultraproduct construction and explore some relationships between the subring of limited hyperreals, its maximal ideal of infinitesimals, and real numbers.
△ Less
Submitted 21 April, 2015;
originally announced April 2015.
-
Is mathematical history written by the victors?
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Robert Ely,
Valerie Henry,
Vladimir Kanovei,
Karin U. Katz,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Semen S. Kutateladze,
Thomas Mcgaffey,
David M. Schaps,
David Sherry,
Steven Shnider
Abstract:
We examine prevailing philosophical and historical views about the origin of infinitesimal mathematics in light of modern infinitesimal theories, and show the works of Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, Cauchy and other giants of infinitesimal mathematics in a new light. We also detail several procedures of the historical infinitesimal calculus that were only clarified and formalized with the advent of moder…
▽ More
We examine prevailing philosophical and historical views about the origin of infinitesimal mathematics in light of modern infinitesimal theories, and show the works of Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, Cauchy and other giants of infinitesimal mathematics in a new light. We also detail several procedures of the historical infinitesimal calculus that were only clarified and formalized with the advent of modern infinitesimals. These procedures include Fermat's adequality; Leibniz's law of continuity and the transcendental law of homogeneity; Euler's principle of cancellation and infinite integers with the associated infinite products; Cauchy's infinitesimal-based definition of continuity and "Dirac" delta function. Such procedures were interpreted and formalized in Robinson's framework in terms of concepts like microcontinuity (S-continuity), the standard part principle, the transfer principle, and hyperfinite products. We evaluate the critiques of historical and modern infinitesimals by their foes from Berkeley and Cantor to Bishop and Connes. We analyze the issue of the consistency, as distinct from the issue of the rigor, of historical infinitesimals, and contrast the methodologies of Leibniz and Nieuwentijt in this connection.
△ Less
Submitted 25 June, 2013;
originally announced June 2013.
-
Ten Misconceptions from the History of Analysis and Their Debunking
Authors:
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Mikhail G. Katz,
David Sherry
Abstract:
The widespread idea that infinitesimals were "eliminated" by the "great triumvirate" of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass is refuted by an uninterrupted chain of work on infinitesimal-enriched number systems. The elimination claim is an oversimplification created by triumvirate followers, who tend to view the history of analysis as a pre-ordained march toward the radiant future of Weierstrassian e…
▽ More
The widespread idea that infinitesimals were "eliminated" by the "great triumvirate" of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass is refuted by an uninterrupted chain of work on infinitesimal-enriched number systems. The elimination claim is an oversimplification created by triumvirate followers, who tend to view the history of analysis as a pre-ordained march toward the radiant future of Weierstrassian epsilontics. In the present text, we document distortions of the history of analysis stemming from the triumvirate ideology of ontological minimalism, which identified the continuum with a single number system. Such anachronistic distortions characterize the received interpretation of Stevin, Leibniz, d'Alembert, Cauchy, and others.
△ Less
Submitted 19 February, 2012;
originally announced February 2012.
