Was the early calculus an inconsistent theory?

Abstract

The ubiquitous assertion that the early calculus of Newton and Leibniz was an inconsistent theory is examined. Two different objects of a possible inconsistency claim are distinguished: (i) the calculus as an algorithm; (ii) proposed explanations of the moves made within the algorithm. In the first case the calculus can be interpreted as a theory in something like the logician’s sense, whereas in the second case it acts more like a scientific theory. I find no inconsistency in the first case, and an inconsistency in the second case which can only be imputed to a small minority of the relevant community.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,346

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
68 (#178,299)

6 months
1 (#450,993)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Vickers
Durham University

Citations of this work

Mathematical pluralism.G. Priest - 2013 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 21 (1):4-13.

Add more citations