arXiv 1111.61452011-11-26math.HO

Barrow and Leibniz on the fundamental theorem of the calculus

Michael Nauenberg

英文摘要：

In 1693, Gottfried Whilhelm Leibniz published in the Acta Eruditorum a geometrical proof of the fundamental theorem of the calculus. During his notorious dispute with Isaac Newton on the development of the calculus, Leibniz denied any indebtedness to the work of Isaac Barrow. But it is shown here, that his geometrical proof of this theorem closely resembles Barrow's proof in Proposition 11, Lecture 10, of his Lectiones Geometricae, published in 1670.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。

阅读原文

阅读 PDF ↗

arXiv 页面 ↗HTML 原文 ↗

本文内容

英文摘要相关论文

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。

继续探索

相关论文

The Birth of Calculus: Towards a More Leibnizian View

We re-evaluate the great Leibniz-Newton calculus debate, exactly three hundred years after it culminated, in 1712. We reflect upon the concept of invention, and to what extent there were indeed two independent inventors of this new mathematical method. We are to a considerable extent agreeing with the mathematics historians Tom Whiteside in the 20th century and Augustus de Morgan in the 19th. By way of introduction we recall two apposite quotations: "After two and a half centuries the Newton-Leibniz disputes continue to inflame the passions. Only the very learned (or the very foolish) dare to …

2012-12-11math.HO

Three case studies in current Leibniz scholarship

We examine some recent scholarship on Leibniz's philosophy of the infinitesimal calculus. We indicate difficulties that arise in articles by Bassler, Knobloch, and Arthur, due to a denial to Leibniz's infinitesimals of the status of mathematical entities violating Euclid V Definition 4.

2022-01-06math.HO

Leibniz's Laws of Continuity and Homogeneity

We explore Leibniz's understanding of the differential calculus, and argue that his methods were more coherent than is generally recognized. The foundations of the historical infinitesimal calculus of Newton and Leibniz have been a target of numerous criticisms. Some of the critics believed to have found logical fallacies in its foundations. We present a detailed textual analysis of Leibniz's seminal text Cum Prodiisset, and argue that Leibniz's system for differential calculus was free of contradictions.

2012-11-30math.CAmath.HOmath.LO

Completeness of the Leibniz Field and Rigorousness of Infinitesimal Calculus

We present a characterization of the completeness of the field of real numbers in the form of a \emph{collection of ten equivalent statements} borrowed from algebra, real analysis, general topology and non-standard analysis. We also discuss the completeness of non-Archimedean fields and present several examples of such fields. As an application we exploit one of our results to argue that the Leibniz infinitesimal calculus in the $18^\textrm{th}$ century was already a rigorous branch of mathematics -- at least much more rigorous than most contemporary mathematicians prefer to believe. By advoca…

2011-08-22math.CAmath.HO

Procedures of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus: An account in three modern frameworks

Recent Leibniz scholarship has sought to gauge which foundational framework provides the most successful account of the procedures of the Leibnizian calculus (LC). While many scholars (e.g., Ishiguro, Levey) opt for a default Weierstrassian framework, Arthur compares LC to a non-Archimedean framework SIA (Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis) of Lawvere-Kock-Bell. We analyze Arthur's comparison and find it rife with equivocations and misunderstandings on issues including the non-punctiform nature of the continuum, infinite-sided polygons, and the fictionality of infinitesimals. Rabouin and Arthur cla…

2020-11-25math.CAmath.HOmath.LO

Leibniz's Infinitesimals: Their Fictionality, Their Modern Implementations, And Their Foes From Berkeley To Russell And Beyond

Many historians of the calculus deny significant continuity between infinitesimal calculus of the 17th century and 20th century developments such as Robinson's theory. Robinson's hyperreals, while providing a consistent theory of infinitesimals, require the resources of modern logic; thus many commentators are comfortable denying a historical continuity. A notable exception is Robinson himself, whose identification with the Leibnizian tradition inspired Lakatos, Laugwitz, and others to consider the history of the infinitesimal in a more favorable light. Inspite of his Leibnizian sympathies, Ro…

2012-05-01math.CAmath.HOmath.LO

更多相关论文收起更多论文

积分-微分学

Integral-Differential Calculus

本文阐述了牛顿-莱布尼茨微积分，通过定义积分、验证标准函数积分、证明替换引理并跨过微积分基本定理，展示微分学的核心方法与贡献。

2026-04-21math.HO

Reductionism and the Universal Calculus

In the seminal essay, "On the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences," physicist Eugene Wigner poses a fundamental philosophical question concerning the relationship between a physical system and our capacity to model its behavior with the symbolic language of mathematics. In this essay, I examine an ambitious 16th and 17th-century intellectual agenda from the perspective of Wigner's question, namely, what historian Paolo Rossi calls "the quest to create a universal language." While many elite thinkers pursued related ideas, the most inspiring and forceful was Gottf…

2016-07-22math.HOphysics.hist-ph

Leibniz's well-founded fictions and their interpretations

Leibniz used the term fiction in conjunction with infinitesimals. What kind of fictions they were exactly is a subject of scholarly dispute. The position of Bos and Mancosu contrasts with that of Ishiguro and Arthur. Leibniz's own views, expressed in his published articles and correspondence, led Bos to distinguish between two methods in Leibniz's work: (A) one exploiting classical `exhaustion' arguments, and (B) one exploiting inassignable infinitesimals together with a law of continuity. Of particular interest is evidence stemming from Leibniz's work Nouveaux Essais sur l'Entendement Humain …

2019-02-11math.CAmath.HOmath.LO

马德瓦的π级数在现代语境中的应用

Madhava's Pi-Series in the Modern Context

本文通过现代符号和定义重新诠释马德瓦的π级数证明，强调其简洁性和基于弧长的原始性，对比传统基于莱布尼茨的证明，突出马德瓦方法的先进性。

2026-02-16math.HO

Historical infinitesimalists and modern historiography of infinitesimals

In the history of infinitesimal calculus, we trace innovation from Leibniz to Cauchy and reaction from Berkeley to Mansion and beyond. We explore 19th century infinitesimal lores, including the approaches of Simeon-Denis Poisson, Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, and Jean-Nicolas Noel. We examine contrasting historiographic approaches to such lores, in the work of Laugwitz, Schubring, Spalt, and others, and address a recent critique by Archibald et al. We argue that the element of contingency in this history is more prominent than many modern historians seem willing to acknowledge.

2023-03-14math.HO

《莱布尼茨先生之意见》的奇特命运（1705年5月—1706年3月）

The Peculiar Destiny of Sentiment de Monsieur Leibnitz (May 1705 -- March 1706)

本文考证莱布尼茨为微分学辩护的《莱布尼茨先生之意见》一文的奇特出版命运，揭示其印本被皇家科学院院长禁止并没收的史实，并分析其中的认识论与制度问题。

2024-03-29math.HO