David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 75 (3):285 - 315 (1988)
The infinitesimal methods commonly used in the 17th and 18th centuries to solve analytical problems had a great deal of elegance and intuitive appeal. But the notion of infinitesimal itself was flawed by contradictions. These arose as a result of attempting to representchange in terms ofstatic conceptions. Now, one may regard infinitesimals as the residual traces of change after the process of change has been terminated. The difficulty was that these residual traces could not logically coexist with the static quantities traditionally employed by mathematics. The solution to this difficulty, as it turns out, is to regard these quantities asalso being subject to (a form of) change, for then they will have the same nature as the infinitesimals representing the residual traces of change, and will become,ipso facto, compatible with these latter.In fact, the category-theoretic models which realize the Principle of Infinitesimal Linearity may themselves be regarded as representations of a general concept of variation (cf. Bell (1986)). While the static set-theoretical models represent change or motion by making a detour through the actual (but static) infinite, the varying category-theoretic models enable such change to be representeddirectly, thus permitting the introduction of geometric infinitesimals and, as we have attempted to demonstrate in this paper, the virtually complete incorporation of the methods of the early calculus.It is surely a remarkable — even an ironic — fact that the contradiction between the flux of the objective world and the stasis of mathematical entities has found its resolution in category theory, a branch of mathematics commonly, and, as one now sees, mistakenly, regarded as the summit of gratuitous abstraction
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
J. L. Bell (1986). From Absolute to Local Mathematics. Synthese 69 (3):409 - 426.
Goldblatt (2006). Topoi: The Catergorical Analysis of Logic. Dover Publications.
Martha Kneale & Nicholas Rescher (1967). The Philosophy of Leibniz. Philosophical Quarterly 17 (69):359.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
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.
Mikhail G. Katz & Thomas Mormann, Infinitesimals and Other Idealizing Completions in Neo-Kantian Philosophy of Mathematics.
Matthew E. Moore (2002). A Cantorian Argument Against Infinitesimals. Synthese 133 (3):305 - 330.
Javier de Lorenzo (1985). Pascal Y Los Indivisibles. Theoria 1 (1):87-120.
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.
Richard Arthur, Leibniz's Syncategorematic Infinitesimals, Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis, and Newton's Proposition.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #60,272 of 1,101,764 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #81,958 of 1,101,764 )
How can I increase my downloads?