数学征服者，Unguru极性，以及历史的任务
Mathematical conquerors, Unguru polarity, and the task of history
摘要：
我们比较几种方法的数学史最近提出的Blasjo，弗雷泽-施罗德，弗里德，和其他人。我们认为，从数学和历史的工具是必不可少的一个有意义的历史学科。在昂古鲁-韦伊关于几何代数概念的争论的延伸中，迈克尔·弗里德提出了一个反对安德烈·韦伊（Andre Weil）的“特权观察者”和皮埃尔·德·费马（Pierre de Fermat）的“数学征服者”的案例。“我们分析了弗里德关于昂古鲁所谓的历史学家和数学家历史之间的极性的版本。我们识别出了弗里德曼史学思想的一些公理，并提出了一个思想实验来衡量其相关性。Unguru和他的门徒Corry，Fried和Rowe将Freudenthal，van der Waerden和Weil描述为柏拉图主义者，但没有提供任何证据;我们提供相反的证据。我们分析了各种史学方法如何发挥自己的研究中的先驱数学分析，包括费马，莱布尼茨，欧拉和柯西。
英文摘要：
We compare several approaches to the history of mathematics recently proposed by Blasjo, Fraser--Schroter, Fried, and others. We argue that tools from both mathematics and history are essential for a meaningful history of the discipline. In an extension of the Unguru-Weil controversy over the concept of geometric algebra, Michael Fried presents a case against both Andre Weil the "privileged observer" and Pierre de Fermat the "mathematical conqueror." We analyze Fried's version of Unguru's alleged polarity between a historian's and a mathematician's history. We identify some axioms of Friedian historiographic ideology, and propose a thought experiment to gauge its pertinence. Unguru and his disciples Corry, Fried, and Rowe have described Freudenthal, van der Waerden, and Weil as Platonists but provided no evidence; we provide evidence to the contrary. We analyze how the various historiographic approaches play themselves out in the study of the pioneers of mathematical analysis including Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy.
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。
