SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 0712.2566

Algebraic generality vs arithmetic generality in the controversy between C. Jordan and L. Kronecker (1874)

Abstract

Throughout the whole year of 1874, C. Jordan and L. Kronecker were quarrelling over two theorems. On the one hand, Jordan had stated in 1870 a canonical form theorem for substitutions of linear groups; on the other hand, Karl Weierstrass had introduced in 1868 the elementary divisors of non singular pairs of bilinear forms (P,Q) in stating a key theorem of the theory of bilinear and quadratic forms. Although they would be considered equivalent as regard to modern mathematics, not only had these two theorems been stated independently and for different purposes, they had also been lying within the distinct frameworks of two theories until some connections came to light in 1872-1873, breeding the 1874 quarrel and hence revealing an opposition over two practices relating to distinctive cultural features. As we will be looking into the 1874 quarrel, our purpose will be to show how the complex identities of practices such as Jordan s canonical reduction and Kronecker s invariant computation highlight some cultural issues such as tacit knowledge and perceptions of history peculiar to individuals or communities as well as some local ways of thinking such as disciplinary ideals and internal philosophies of generality and simplicity.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Frederic Brechenmacher. 2007-12-16. Algebraic generality vs arithmetic generality in the controversy between C. Jordan and L. Kronecker (1874). https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2566

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Perspectives on the unit distance problem

This is a survey on an old open problem in combinatorics called the unit distance problem, and the field of mathematics around it, called incidence geometry. What do we know about the problem? Why is it difficult? How does it connect with other parts of math?

math.HO

A Categorical Approach to Euclidean Ratios and Proportions

A categorial approach to the non-metric geometry in Books V and VI of Euclid's \textit{Elements} is presented. Specifically, we introduce a diagrammatic syntax that can be overlaid immediately on his diagrams, thus bridging intuitive presentation with fidelity to Euclid's arguments. This syntax makes complicated definitions like V.5, and indeed the arguments throughout books V and VI, including arguments about similar figures, intuitively clear. We show in an appendix that this syntax can be used to solve a puzzle regarding ancient mathematics. Finally, we offer evidence that this approach to Euclidean diagrams is rooted in the Aristotelian tradition itself, and that a similar syntax was utilized, in antiquity, for related questions of numeric and proportions. Thus the syntax is plausibly faithful to Euclid's own thought-world, and not an outside-imposition.

math.HO

Some Early Results by Tutte Regarding the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture in 1948

OpenAI recently announced a proof of the Cycle Double Cover (CDC) Conjecture. Most media reports have characterized it as a 50-year-old open problem. In reality, according to a 1987 letter from Tutte to Fleischner, the Cycle Double Cover Problem has been open for at least 80 years. Two early results regarding the CDC conjecture were established in one of Tutte's 1949 publications.

math.HO