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 claim that Leibniz considers infinities as contradictory, and that Leibniz' definition of incomparables should be understood as nominal rather than as semantic. However, such claims hinge upon a conflation of Leibnizian notions of bounded infinity and unbounded infinity, a distinction emphasized by early Knobloch.
The most faithful account of LC is arguably provided by Robinson's framework. We exploit an axiomatic framework for infinitesimal analysis called SPOT (conservative over ZF) to provide a formalisation of LC, including the bounded/unbounded dichotomy, the assignable/inassignable dichotomy, the generalized relation of equality up to negligible terms, and the law of continuity.
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 …
The way Leibniz applied his philosophy to mathematics has been the subject of longstanding debates. A key piece of evidence is his letter to Masson on bodies. We offer an interpretation of this often misunderstood text, dealing with the status of infinite divisibility in nature, rather than in mathematics. In line with this distinction, we offer a reading of the fictionality of infinitesimals. The letter has been claimed to support a reading of infinitesimals according to which they are logical fictions, contradictory in their definition, and thus absolutely impossible. The advocates of such a…
Completeness of the Leibniz Field and Rigorousness of Infinitesimal Calculus
从代数、实分析、一般拓扑学和非标准分析中借用了\emph{collection of ten equivalent statements}的形式给出了实数域完备性的一个刻画.我们还讨论了非阿基米德领域的完备性，并提出了几个这样的领域的例子。作为一个应用程序，我们利用我们的结果之一，认为莱布尼茨微积分在$18^\textrm{th}$世纪已经是一个严格的数学分支-至少比大多数当代数学家更愿意相信严格得多。通过提倡我们特定的历史观点，我们希望引发一场关于数学严谨性在数学和科学中的重要性的讨论。我们相信，我们的文章将感兴趣的那些读者谁教课程抽象代数，实分析，一般拓扑，逻辑和数学史。
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.
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.
