arXiv subjects

Piotr Blaszczyk

Publications and source records attributed to Piotr Blaszczyk.

18 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2020

Procedures of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus: An account in three modern frameworks

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2020

Continuity between Cauchy and Bolzano: Issues of antecedents and priority

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2020

Cauchy's work on integral geometry, centers of curvature, and other applications of infinitesimals

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

math.HO↗

arXiv2019

19th century real analysis, forward and backward

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2019

Leibniz's well-founded fictions and their interpretations

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

math.HO↗

arXiv2018

Monotone subsequence via ultrapower

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

math.CA↗

arXiv2017

Cauchy, infinitesimals and ghosts of departed quantifiers

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

math.HO↗

arXiv2017

Analyzing Benardete's comment on decimal notation

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

math.CA↗

arXiv2017

Cauchy's infinitesimals, his sum theorem, and foundational paradigms

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2016

Gregory's sixth operation

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2016

Toward a history of mathematics focused on procedures

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2016

A non-standard analysis of a cultural icon: The case of Paul Halmos

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2016

Is Leibnizian calculus embeddable in first order logic?

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

math.LO↗

arXiv2016

Interpreting the infinitesimal mathematics of Leibniz and Euler

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

math.HO↗

arXiv2016

Leibniz vs Ishiguro: Closing a quarter-century of syncategoremania

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

math.HO↗

arXiv2016

Controversies in the foundations of analysis: Comments on Schubring's Conflicts

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

math.HO↗

arXiv2013

Is mathematical history written by the victors?

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.

math.HO↗

arXiv2012

Ten Misconceptions from the History of Analysis and Their Debunking

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.

math.HO↗