10 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
Karin U. Katz [8]Karin Katz [2]
  1.  29
    Karin Katz & Mikhail Katz (2012). A Burgessian Critique of Nominalistic Tendencies in Contemporary Mathematics and its Historiography. Foundations of Science 17 (1):51-89.
    We analyze the developments in mathematical rigor from the viewpoint of a Burgessian critique of nominalistic reconstructions. We apply such a critique to the reconstruction of infinitesimal analysis accomplished through the efforts of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass; to the reconstruction of Cauchy’s foundational work associated with the work of Boyer and Grabiner; and to Bishop’s constructivist reconstruction of classical analysis. We examine the effects of a nominalist disposition on historiography, teaching, and research.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  2.  13
    Karin U. Katz & Mikhail G. Katz (2011). Cauchy's Continuum. Perspectives on Science 19 (4):426-452.
    One of the most influential scientific treatises in Cauchy's era was J.-L. Lagrange's Mécanique Analytique, the second edition of which came out in 1811, when Cauchy was barely out of his teens. Lagrange opens his treatise with an unequivocal endorsement of infinitesimals. Referring to the system of infinitesimal calculus, Lagrange writes:Lorsqu'on a bien conçu l'esprit de ce système, et qu'on s'est convaincu de l'exactitude de ses résultats par la méthode géométrique des premières et dernières raisons, ou par la méthode analytique (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  3.  15
    Karin Katz & Mikhail Katz (2012). Stevin Numbers and Reality. Foundations of Science 17 (2):109-123.
    We explore the potential of Simon Stevin’s numbers, obscured by shifting foundational biases and by 19th century developments in the arithmetisation of analysis.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  4.  3
    Jacques Bair, Piotr Błaszczyk, Robert Ely, Valérie Henry, Vladimir Kanovei, Karin U. Katz, Mikhail G. Katz, Semen S. Kutateladze, Thomas McGaffey, Patrick Reeder, David M. Schaps, David Sherry & Steven Shnider (forthcoming). Interpreting the Infinitesimal Mathematics of Leibniz and Euler. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie:1-44.
    We apply Benacerraf’s distinction between mathematical ontology and mathematical practice to examine contrasting interpretations of infinitesimal mathematics of the seventeenth and eighteenth 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  10
    Karin U. Katz, Mikhail G. Katz & Taras Kudryk (2014). Toward a Clarity of the Extreme Value Theorem. Logica Universalis 8 (2):193-214.
    We apply a framework developed by C. S. Peirce to analyze the concept of clarity, so as to examine a pair of rival mathematical approaches to a typical result in analysis. Namely, we compare an intuitionist and an infinitesimal approaches to the extreme value theorem. We argue that a given pre-mathematical phenomenon may have several aspects that are not necessarily captured by a single formalisation, pointing to a complementarity rather than a rivalry of the approaches.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  6.  4
    Piotr BLaszczyk, Vladimir Kanovei, Karin U. Katz, Mikhail G. Katz, Taras Kudryk, Thomas Mormann & David Sherry (2016). Is Leibnizian Calculus Embeddable in First Order Logic? Foundations of Science 22.
    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 pro- cedural 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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  2
    Piotr Błaszczyk, Vladimir Kanovei, Karin U. Katz, Mikhail G. Katz, Taras Kudryk, Thomas Mormann & David Sherry (forthcoming). Is Leibnizian Calculus Embeddable in First Order Logic? Foundations of Science:1-15.
    To explore the extent of embeddability of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus in first-order logic 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  1
    Tiziana Bascelli, Piotr Błaszczyk, Vladimir Kanovei, Karin U. Katz, Mikhail G. Katz, David M. Schaps & David Sherry (2016). Leibniz Versus Ishiguro: Closing a Quarter Century of Syncategoremania. Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 6 (1):117-147.
    Did Leibniz exploit infinitesimals and infinities à la rigueur or only as shorthand for quantified propositions that refer to ordinary Archimedean magnitudes? Hidé Ishiguro defends 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 (i.e., 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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  8
    Vladimir Kanovei, Karin U. Katz, Mikhail G. Katz & Mary Schaps (2015). Proofs and Retributions, Or: Why Sarah Can’T Take Limits. Foundations of Science 20 (1):1-25.
    The small, the tiny, and the infinitesimal have been the object of both fascination and vilification for millenia. One of the most vitriolic reviews in mathematics was that written by Errett Bishop about Keisler’s book Elementary Calculus: an Infinitesimal Approach. In this skit we investigate both the argument itself, and some of its roots in Bishop George Berkeley’s criticism of Leibnizian and Newtonian Calculus. We also explore some of the consequences to students for whom the infinitesimal approach is congenial. The (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Piotr Błaszczyk, Vladimir Kanovei, Karin U. Katz, Mikhail G. Katz, Semen S. Kutateladze & David Sherry (forthcoming). Toward a History of Mathematics Focused on Procedures. Foundations of Science:1-21.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography