|Abstract||In contrast with some recent theories of infinitesimals as non-Archimedean entities, Leibniz’s mature interpretation was fully in accord with the Archimedean Axiom: infinitesimals are fictions, whose treatment as entities incomparably smaller than finite quantities is justifiable wholly in terms of variable finite quantities that can be taken as small as desired, i.e. syncategorematically. In this paper I explain this syncategorematic interpretation, and how Leibniz used it to justify the calculus. I then compare it with the approach of Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis (SIA), as propounded by John Bell. Despite many parallels between SIA and Leibniz’s approach —the non-punctiform nature of infinitesimals, their acting as parts of the continuum, the dependence on variables (as opposed to the static quantities of both Standard and Non-standard Analysis), the resolution of curves into infinitesided polygons, and the finessing of a commitment to the existence of infinitesimals— I find some salient differences, especially with regard to higher-order infinitesimals. These differences are illustrated by a consideration of how each approach might be applied to Newton’s Proposition 6 of the Principia, and the derivation from it of the v2/r law for the centripetal force on a body orbiting around a centre of force. It is found that while Leibniz’s syncategorematic approach is adequate to ground a Leibnizian version of the v2/r law for the “solicitation” ddr experienced by the orbiting body, there is no corresponding possibility for a derivation of the law by nilsquare infinitesimals; and while SIA can allow for second order differentials if nilcube infinitesimals are assumed, difficulties remain concerning the compatibility of nilcube infinitesimals with the principles of SIA, and in any case render the type of infinitesimal analysis adopted dependent on its applicability to the problem at hand.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Carl Hausman (1998). Infinitesimals as Origins of Evolution: Comments Prompted by Timothy Herron and Hilary Putnam on Peirce's Synechism and Infinitesimals. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34 (3):627 - 640.
Robert Lutz & Luis Gonzaga Luis Gonzaga (2003). Modern Infinitesimals as a Tool to Match Intuitive and Formal Reasoning in Analysis. Synthese 134 (1-2):325 - 351.
Manuel A. SeIlés (1999). Isaac Newton Y El Infinitesimal (Isaac Newton's Infinitesimals). Theoria 14 (3):431-460.
Yaroslav Sergeyev (2010). Lagrange Lecture: Methodology of Numerical Computations with Infinities and Infinitesimals. Rendiconti Del Seminario Matematico dell'Università E Del Politecnico di Torino 68 (2):95–113.
Femando Joven (1997). Los Infinitesimales Como Ficciones Útiles Para Leibniz: La Polémica En la Academia de París (the Infinitesimals as Useful Fictions for Leibniz: The Controversy in the Paris Academy of Sciences). Theoria 12 (2):257-279.
Geoffrey Hellman (2006). Mathematical Pluralism: The Case of Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (6):621 - 651.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads63 ( #17,811 of 722,861 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,861 )
How can I increase my downloads?