5/15/2023 0 Comments Fermat infinitesimals![]() ![]() The algebraic theory of smooth functions 6. Models for epsilon-stable geometric theories 3. Differential forms in terms of simplices 19. Functional analysis - Jacobi identity 12. Tangent vectors and the tangent bundle 8. read more read lessĪbstract: Preface to the second edition (2005) Preface to the first edition (1981) Part I. Keywords: historiography infinitesimal Latin model butterfly model. 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. 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. 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. Euler routinely used product decompositions into a specific infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infinite exponent. ![]() Euler similarly had notions of equality up to negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and arithmetic. 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. 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. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. read more read lessĪbstract: Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson's frameworks. 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. the Archimedean property, corroborating the non-Archimedean construal of the Leibnizian calculus. In a pair of 1695 texts Leibniz made it clear that his incomparable magnitudes violate Euclid's Definition V.4, a.k.a. 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. 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 careful examination of the evidence leads us to the opposite conclusion from Arthur's. ![]() 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. 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. The position of Bos and Mancosu contrasts with that of Ishiguro and Arthur. What kind of fictions they were exactly is a subject of scholarly dispute. Abstract: Leibniz used the term fiction in conjunction with infinitesimals. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |