SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2606.01739

Marx versus Engels on infinitesimals: Chimera or triumph?

Abstract

We document the evolution of Karl Marx's take on infinitesimals. We contrast his initial favorable stance with later criticisms, and examine the differing perspectives of Marx and Engels on the subject. Marx's favorable assessment was based on his study of Sauri's textbook. Later, influenced by Boucharlat's textbook, Marx reversed his position to an unfavorable stance, describing belief in infinitesimals as a `chimera'. Marxist scholar Guglielmo Carchedi claims that ``Marx differentiates with the eyes of the social scientist, of the dialectician'' but fails to note dialectician Engels' endorsement of infinitesimals. Struik linked Marx to Abraham Robinson, but missed the fact that the link passes via ... Fermat. Namely, there may be an affinity, as per Struik, between Marx's comments on the calculus and Robinson's nonstandard analysis, but the kernel of such an affinity resides in the techniques already found in the context of Fermat's adequality. To adapt Carchedi's metaphor, we could say that Marx may have differentiated with the eyes of adaequo of Pierre de Fermat. The first editor who worked on some of Marx's mathematical manuscripts in the mid-1920s was Emil J. Gumbel, though he is not mentioned in either the 1933 or the 1968 Soviet edition of Marx's mathematical manuscripts.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mikhail G. Katz, Karl Kuhlemann, Semen S. Kutateladze. 2026-06-01. Marx versus Engels on infinitesimals: Chimera or triumph?. https://doi.org/10.1086/739306

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