The book offers a collection of essays on various aspects of Leibniz’s scientific thought, written by historians of science and world-leading experts on Leibniz. The essays deal with a vast array of topics on the exact sciences: Leibniz’s logic, mereology, the notion of infinity and cardinality, the foundations of geometry, the theory of curves and differential geometry, and finally dynamics and general epistemology. Several chapters attempt a reading of Leibniz’s scientific works through modern mathematical tools, and compare Leibniz’s results in (...) these fields with 19th- and 20th-Century conceptions of them. All of them have special care in framing Leibniz’s work in historical context, and sometimes offer wider historical perspectives that go much beyond Leibniz’s researches. A special emphasis is given to effective mathematical practice rather than purely epistemological thought. The book is addressed to all scholars of the exact sciences who have an interest in historical research and Leibniz in particular, and may be useful to historians of mathematics, physics, and epistemology, mathematicians with historical interests, and philosophers of science at large. (shrink)

This book reconstructs, both from the historical and theoretical points of view, Leibniz's geometrical studies, focusing in particular on the research Leibniz ...

The paper lists several editions of Euclid’s Elements in the Early Modern Age, giving for each of them the axioms and postulates employed to ground elementary mathematics.

In this paper, I attempt a reconstruction of the theory of intersections in the geometry of Euclid. It has been well known, at least since the time of Pasch onward, that in the Elements there are no explicit principles governing the existence of the points of intersections between lines, so that in several propositions of Euclid the simple crossing of two lines (two circles, for instance) is regarded as the actual meeting of such lines, it being simply assumed that the (...) point of their intersection exists. Such assumptions are labelled, today, as implicit claims about the continuity of the lines, or about the continuity of the underlying space. Euclid’s proofs, therefore, would seem to have some demonstrative gaps that need to be filled by a set of continuity axioms (as we do, in fact, find in modern axiomatizations).I show that Euclid’s theory of intersections was not in fact based on any notion of continuity at all. This is not only because Greek concepts of continuity (such as the Aristotelian ones) were largely insufficient to ground a geometrical theory of intersections, but also, at a deeper level, because continuity was simply not regarded as a notion that had any role to play in the latter theory. Had Euclid been asked to explain why the points of intersections of lines and circles should exist, it would have never occurred to him to mention continuity in this connection. Ancient geometry was very different from ours, and it is only our modern views on continuity that tend to give rise to the expectation that this latter must be included in the foundations of elementary mathematics.We may hope to reconstruct Euclid’s views on intersections if we undertake a critical examination both of the extension and of the limits of ancient diagrammatic practices. This is tantamount to attempting to understand to what extent the existence of an intersection point may be inferred just from the inspection of a diagram, and in which cases we need rather to supplement such inference by propositional rules. This leads us to discuss Euclid’s definition of a point, and to work out the details of the complex interaction between diagrams and text in ancient geometry. We will see, then, that Euclid may have possessed a theory of intersections that was sufficiently rigorous to dispel the main objections that could be advanced in antiquity. (shrink)

This book offers a general introduction to the geometrical studies of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and his mathematical epistemology. In particular, it focuses on his theory of parallel lines and his attempts to prove the famous Parallel Postulate. Furthermore it explains the role that Leibniz’s work played in the development of non-Euclidean geometry. The first part is an overview of his epistemology of geometry and a few of his geometrical findings, which puts them in the context of the 17th-century studies on (...) the foundations of geometry. It also provides a detailed mathematical and philosophical commentary on his writings on the theory of parallels, and discusses how they were received in the 18th century as well as their relevance for the non-Euclidean revolution in mathematics. The second part offers a collection of Leibniz’s essays on the theory of parallels and an English translation of them. While a few of these papers have already been published (in Latin) in the standard Leibniz editions, most of them are transcribed from Leibniz’s manuscripts written in Hannover, and published here for the first time. The book provides new material on the history of non-Euclidean geometry, stressing the previously neglected role of Leibniz in these developments. (shrink)

The “common notions” prefacing the Elements of Euclid are a very peculiar set of axioms, and their authenticity, as well as their actual role in the demonstrations, have been object of debate. In the first part of this essay, I offer a survey of the evidence for the authenticity of the common notions, and conclude that only three of them are likely to have been in place at the times of Euclid, whereas others were added in Late Antiquity. In the (...) second part of the essay, I consider the meaning and uses of the common notions in Greek mathematics, and argue that they were originally conceived in order to axiomatize a theory of equivalence in geometry. I also claim that two interpolated common notions responded to different epistemic needs and regulated diagrammatic inferences. (shrink)

This book brings together papers of the conference on 'Space, Geometry and the Imagination from Antiquity to the Modern Age' held in Berlin, Germany, 27-29 August 2012. Focusing on the interconnections between the history of geometry and the philosophy of space in the pre-Modern and Early Modern Age, the essays in this volume are particularly directed toward elucidating the complex epistemological revolution that transformed the classical geometry of figures into the modern geometry of space. Contributors: Graciela De Pierris Franco Farinelli (...) Michael Friedman Daniel Garber Jeremy Gray Gary Hatfield Andrew Janiak Douglas Jesseph Alexander Jones Henry Mendell David Rabouin. (shrink)

ArgumentThe Fourth Postulate of Euclid’s Elements states that all right angles are equal. This principle has always been considered problematic in the deductive economy of the treatise, and even the ancient interpreters were confused about its mathematical role and its epistemological status. The present essay reconsiders the ancient testimonies on the Fourth Postulate, showing that there is no certain evidence for its authenticity, nor for its spuriousness. The paper also considers modern mathematical interpretations of this postulate, pointing out various anachronisms. (...) It further discusses the validity of the ancient proof by superposition of the Fourth Postulate. Finally, the article proposes an interpretation of the history of the concept of angle in Greek geometry between Euclid and Apollonius, and puts forward a conjecture on the interpolation of the Fourth Postulate in the Hellenistic age. The essay contributes to a general reassessment of the axiomatic foundations of ancient mathematics. (shrink)

Leibniz pursued the study of his new geometry, the analysis situs, throughout his lifetime. The following essays, the Ars Representatoria and the text Uniformis locus…, both go back to the early nineties of the seventeenth century. Although most of the analysis situs texts are still unpublished—which makes it very hard to see how this discipline might have evolved during the years—there seems to be no doubt that the beginning of 1690s marked a breakthrough in Leibniz’s studies.

Leibniz pursued the study of his new geometry, the analysis situs, throughout his lifetime. The following essays, the Ars Representatoria and the text Uniformis locus…, both go back to the early nineties of the seventeenth century. Although most of the analysis situs texts are still unpublished—which makes it very hard to see how this discipline might have evolved during the years—there seems to be no doubt that the beginning of 1690s marked a breakthrough in Leibniz’s studies.

The book offers a collection of essays on various aspects of Leibniz’s scientific thought, written by historians of science and world-leading experts on Leibniz. The essays deal with a vast array of topics on the exact sciences: Leibniz’s logic, mereology, the notion of infinity and cardinality, the foundations of geometry, the theory of curves and differential geometry, and finally dynamics and general epistemology. Several chapters attempt a reading of Leibniz’s scientific works through modern mathematical tools, and compare Leibniz’s results in (...) these fields with 19th- and 20th-Century conceptions of them. All of them have special care in framing Leibniz’s work in historical context, and sometimes offer wider historical perspectives that go much beyond Leibniz’s researches. A special emphasis is given to effective mathematical practice rather than purely epistemological thought. The book is addressed to all scholars of the exact sciences who have an interest in historical research and Leibniz in particular, and may be useful to historians of mathematics, physics, and epistemology, mathematicians with historical interests, and philosophers of science at large. (shrink)

(No abstract is available for this citation).

The paper lists several editions of Euclid’s Elements in the Early Modern Age, giving for each of them the axioms and postulates employed to ground elementary mathematics.

Die Absicht des vorliegenden Buches ist es, das Geflecht der unterschiedlichen Fragestellungen, die mit dem Stichwort „Fichte und seine Zeit“ verbunden sind, in Betracht zu ziehen und ihre internen Zusammenhänge und ihre Geschlossenheit deutlich zu machen. The intention of this book is to take the network of different issues that are associated with the main theme " Fichte and his time" into consideration and make their internal relationships and their closeness significantly.

Efforts to improve patients’ understanding of their own medical treatments or research in which they are involved are progressing, especially with regard to informed consent procedures. We aimed to design a multisource informed consent procedure that is easily adaptable to both clinical and research applications, and to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of understanding and awareness, even in less educated patients.

In this paper, we argue that Williamson’s arguments against luminosity and the KK principle do not work, at least in a scientific context. Both of these arguments are based on the presence of a so-called “buffer zone” between situations in which one is in a position to know p and situations in which one is in a position to know ¬p. In those positions belonging to the buffer zone ¬p holds, but one is not in a position to know ¬p. (...) The presence of this buffer zone triggers two types of sorites arguments. We show that this kind of argument does not hold in a scientific context, where the buffer zone is controlled by a quantitative measurement of the experimental error. (shrink)