Interpreting the Infinitesimal Mathematics of Leibniz and Euler


Authors
Patrick Reeder
Ohio State University
Abstract
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 Bos and Laugwitz seek to explore Eulerian methodology, practice, and procedures in a way more faithful to Euler’s own. Euler’s use of infinite integers and the associated infinite products are analyzed in the context of his infinite product decomposition for the sine function. Euler’s principle of cancellation is compared to the Leibnizian transcendental law of homogeneity. The Leibnizian law of continuity similarly finds echoes in Euler. We argue that Ferraro’s assumption that Euler worked with a classical notion of quantity is symptomatic of a post-Weierstrassian placement of Euler in the Archimedean track for the development of analysis, as well as a blurring of the distinction between the dual tracks noted by Bos. Interpreting Euler in an Archimedean conceptual framework obscures important aspects of Euler’s work. Such a framework is profitably replaced by a syntactically more versatile modern infinitesimal framework that provides better proxies for his inferential moves.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10838-016-9334-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,182
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - University of Chicago Press.
What Numbers Could Not Be.Paul Benacerraf - 1965 - Philosophical Review 74 (1):47-73.
Ontological Relativity.W. V. Quine - 1968 - Journal of Philosophy 65 (7):185-212.

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Euler’s Visual Logic.Eric Hammer & Sun-Joo Shin - 1998 - History and Philosophy of Logic 19 (1):1-29.
Leonhard Euler's ‘Anti-Newtonian’ Theory of Light.R. W. Home - 1988 - Annals of Science 45 (5):521-533.
Euler, Newton, and Foundations for Mechanics.Marius Stan - 2017 - In Chris Smeenk & Eric Schliesser (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Newton. Oxford University Press. pp. 1-22.
Euler'sϕ-Function in the Context of IΔ 0.Marc Jumelet - 1995 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 34 (3):197-209.
How Diagrams Can Support Syllogistic Reasoning: An Experimental Study.Yuri Sato & Koji Mineshima - 2015 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 24 (4):409-455.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-07-20

Total views
36 ( #255,647 of 2,289,512 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #74,990 of 2,289,512 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature