God, king, and geometry: revisiting the introduction to Cauchy’s Cours d’analyse

This article offers a systematic reading of the introduction to Augustin-Louis Cauchy’s landmark 1821 mathematical textbook, the Cours d’analyse. Despite its emblematic status in the history of mathematical analysis and, indeed, of modern mathematics as a whole, Cauchy’s introduction has been more a source for suggestive quotations than an object of study in its own right. Cauchy’s short mathematical metatext offers a rich snapshot of a scholarly paradigm in transition. A close reading of Cauchy’s writing reveals the complex modalities of the author’s epistemic positioning, particularly with respect to the geometric study of quantities in space, as he struggles to refound the discipline on which he has staked his young career.     

How ordinary elimination became Gaussian elimination

Newton, in notes that he would rather not have seen published, described a process for solving simultaneous equations that later authors applied specifically to linear equations. This method — which Euler did not recommend, which Legendre called “ordinary,” and which Gauss called “common” — is now named after Gauss: “Gaussian” elimination. Gauss’s name became associated with elimination through the adoption, by professional computers, of a specialized notation that Gauss devised for his own least-squares calculations. The notation allowed elimination to be viewed as a sequence of arithmetic operations that were repeatedly optimized for hand computing and eventually were described by matrices.     

From anomaly to fundament: Louis Poinsot's theories of the couple in mechanics

In 1803 Louis Poinsot published a textbook on statics, in which he made clear that the subject dealt not only with forces but also with ‘couples’ (his word), pairs of coplanar non-collinear forces equal in magnitude and direction but opposite in sense. His innovation was not understood or even welcomed by some contemporary mathematicians. Later he adapted his theory to put forward a new relationship between rectilinear and rotational motion in dynamics; its reception was more positive, although not always appreciative of the generality. After summarising the creation of these two theories and noting their respective receptions, this paper considers his advocacy of spatial and geometrical thinking in mechanics and the fact that, despite its importance, historians of statics who cover his period usually ignore his theory of couples.     

Why was Wantzel overlooked for a century? The changing importance of an impossibility result

The duplication of a cube and the trisection of an angle are two of the most famous geometric construction problems formulated in ancient Greece. In 1837 Pierre Wantzel (1814–1848) proved that the problems cannot be constructed by ruler and compass. Today he is credited for this contribution in all general treatises of the history of mathematics. However, his proof was hardly noticed by his contemporaries and during the following century his name was almost completely forgotten. In this paper I shall analyze the reasons for this neglect and argue that it was primarily due to the lack of importance attributed to such impossibility results at the time.     

The difficult birth of stochastics: Jacob Bernoulli's Ars Conjectandi (1713)

Jacob Bernoulli (1654–1705) did most of his research on the mathematics of uncertainty – or stochastics, as he came to call it – between 1684 and 1690. However, the Ars Conjectandi, in which he presented his insights (including the fundamental “Law of Large Numbers”), was printed only in 1713, eight years after his death. The paper studies the sources and the development of Bernoulli's ideas on probability, the reasons behind the delay in publishing and the circumstances under which his masterpiece eventually reached the public.     

Cristoforo Borri and the epistemological status of mathematics in seventeenth-century Portugal

This paper argues that the epistemological promotion of mathematics by the Jesuit Cristoforo Borri, while he was teaching at the Coimbra Jesuit College in the late 1620s, played a decisive role in the updating of cosmological ideas in 17th-century Portugal. The paper focuses on Borri's position on the celebrated quaestio de certitudine mathematicarum and on his understanding of the classification of sciences. It argues that by conferring on mathematics the status of Aristotelian causal science, Borri made it possible to integrate mathematical data into the philosophical debate, particularly with regard to the new cosmology.     

The dramatic episode of Sundman

In 1912 the Finnish mathematical astronomer Karl Sundman published a remarkable solution to the three-body problem, of a type that mathematicians such as Poincaré had believed impossible to achieve. Although lauded at the time, the result dimmed from view as the 20th century progressed and its significance was often overlooked. This article traces Sundman’s career and the path to his achievement, bringing to light the involvement of Ernst Lindelöf and Gösta Mittag-Leffler in Sundman’s research and professional development, and including an examination of the reception over time of Sundman’s result. A broader perspective on Sundman’s research is provided by short discussions of two of Sundman’s later papers: his contribution to Klein’s Encyklopädie and his design for a calculating machine for astronomy.     

Polylogarithms,functional equations and more: The elusive essays of William Spence (1777–1815)

The little-known Scottish mathematician William Spence was an able analyst, one of the first in Britain to be conversant with recent continental advances, and having original views. His major work on “logarithmic transcendents” gives the first detailed account of polylogarithms and related functions. A theory of algebraic equations was published just after his early death; and further essays, edited by John Herschel, were published posthumously. The most substantial of these concern an extension of his work on “logarithmic transcendents”, and the general solution of linear differential and difference equations. But awareness of Spence?s works was long delayed by their supposed unavailability. Spence?s life, the story of his “lost” publications, and a summary of all his essays are here described.     

Die Habilitation von John von Neumann an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin: Urteile über einen ungarisch-jüdischen Mathematiker in Deutschland im Jahr 1927

The mathematician John von Neumann was born in Hungary but principally received his scientific education and socialization in the German science system. He received his Habilitation from the Friedrich-Wilhelms–Universität in Berlin in 1927, where he lectured as a Privatdozent until his emigration to the USA. This article aims at making a contribution to this early part of Neumann’s scientific biography by analyzing in detail the procedure that led to his Habilitation as well as the beginnings of Neumann’s research on functional analysis. An analysis of the relevant sources shows that in Berlin in the year 1927 Neumann was not yet regarded as the outstanding mathematical genius of the 20th century. Furthermore it will be seen that Neumann had great difficulties in developing the fundamental concepts for his path breaking work in spectral theory and only managed to do so with the support of the Berlin mathematician Erhard Schmidt.     

A dialogue on the use of arithmetic in geometry: Van Ceulen’s and Snellius’s Fundamenta Arithmetica et Geometrica

Snellius’s Fundamenta Arithmetica et Geometrica (1615) is much more than a Latin translation of Ludolph van Ceulen’s Arithmetische en Geometrische Fondamenten. Willebrord Snellius both adapted and commented on the Dutch original in his Fundamenta, and thus his Latin version can be read as a dialogue between representatives of two different approaches to mathematics in the early modern period: Snellius’s humanist approach and Van Ceulen’s practitioner’s approach. This article considers the relationship between the Dutch and Latin versions of the text and, in particular, puts some of their statements on the use of numbers in geometry under the microscope. In addition, Snellius’s use of the Fundamenta as an instrument to further his career is explained.     

The emergence of open sets,closed sets,and limit points in analysis and topology

General topology has its roots in real and complex analysis, which made important uses of the interrelated concepts of open set, of closed set, and of a limit point of a set. This article examines how those three concepts emerged and evolved during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thanks especially to Weierstrass, Cantor, and Lebesgue. Particular attention is paid to the different forms of the Bolzano–Weierstrass Theorem found in the latter's unpublished lectures. An abortive early, unpublished introduction of open sets by Dedekind is examined, as well as how Peano and Jordan almost introduced that concept. At the same time we study the interplay of those three concepts (together with those of the closure of a set and of the derived set of a set) in the struggle to determine the ultimate foundations on which general topology was built, during the first half of the 20th century.     

Mehmet Nadir: An amateur mathematician in Ottoman Turkey

This note summarizes the results of a recent survey of all the mathematical work of Mehmet Nadir, a Turkish amateur mathematician and professional educator who lived from 1856 to 1927 during the last years of the Ottoman Empire and the first years of the Turkish Republic. It is shown that, although working in isolated and adverse conditions, Nadir was able to establish a continuous correspondence with mathematicians in western Europe and, through his studies in number theory, obtained some results of lasting value.     

Sets versus trial sequences,Hausdorff versus von Mises: “Pure” mathematics prevails in the foundations of probability around 1920

The paper discusses the tension which occurred between the notions of set (with measure) and (trial-) sequence (or—to a certain degree—between nondenumerable and denumerable sets) when used in the foundations of probability theory around 1920. The main mathematical point was the logical need for measures in order to describe general nondiscrete distributions, which had been tentatively introduced before (1919) based on von Mises’s notion of the “Kollektiv.” In the background there was a tension between the standpoints of pure mathematics and “real world probability” (in the words of J.L. Doob) at the time. The discussion and publication in English translation (in Appendix) of two critical letters of November 1919 by the “pure” mathematician Felix Hausdorff to the engineer and applied mathematician Richard von Mises compose about one third of the paper. The article also investigates von Mises’s ill-conceived effort to adopt measures and his misinterpretation of an influential book of Constantin Carathéodory. A short and sketchy look at the subsequent development of the standpoints of the pure and the applied mathematician—here represented by Hausdorff and von Mises—in the probability theory of the 1920s and 1930s concludes the paper.     

Perspective in Leibnizʼs invention of Characteristica Geometrica: The problem of Desarguesʼ influence

During his whole life, Leibniz attempted to elaborate a new kind of geometry devoted to relations and not to magnitudes, based on space and situation, independent of shapes and quantities, and endowed with a symbolic calculus. Such a “geometric characteristic” shares some elements with the perspective geometry: they both are geometries of situational relations, founded in a transformation preserving some invariants, using infinity, and constituting a general method of knowledge. Hence, the aim of this paper is to determine the nature of the relation between Leibniz?s new geometry and the works on perspective, namely Desargues? ones.     

The spiral of Theodorus, numerical analysis, and special functions

Theodorus of Cyrene (ca. 460-399 B.C.), teacher of Plato und Theaetetus, is known for his proof of the irrationality of , n=2,3,5,…,17. He may have known also of a discrete spiral, today named after him, whose construction is based on the square roots of the numbers n=1,2,3,…. The subject of this lecture is the problem of interpolating this discrete, angular spiral by a smooth, if possible analytic, spiral. An interesting solution was proposed in 1993 by P.J. Davis, which is based on an infinite product. The computation of this product gives rise to problems of numerical analysis, in particular the summation of slowly convergent series, and the identification of the product raises questions regarding special functions. The former are solved by a method of integration, in particular Gaussian integration, the latter by means of Dawson’s integral und the Bose-Einstein distribution. Number-theoretic questions also loom behind this work.     

Non-Classical Stems from Classical: N. A. Vasiliev’s Approach to Logic and his Reassessment of the Square of Opposition

In the XIXth century there was a persistent opposition to Aristotelian logic. Nicolai A. Vasiliev (1880–1940) noted this opposition and stressed that the way for the novel – non-Aristotelian – logic was already paved. He made an attempt to construct non-Aristotelian logic (1910) within, so to speak, the form (but not in the spirit) of the Aristotelian paradigm (mode of reasoning). What reasons forced him to reassess the status of particular propositions and to replace the square of opposition by the triangle of opposition? What arguments did Vasiliev use for the introduction of new classes of propositions and statement of existence of various levels in logic? What was the meaning and role of the “method of Lobachevsky” which was implemented in construction of imaginary logic? Why did psychologism in the case of Vasiliev happen to be an important factor in the composition of the new ‘imaginary’ logic, as he called it?      

Algebra in Roth,Faulhaber, and Descartes

Descartes' “multiplicative” theory of equations in the Géométrie (1637) systematically treats equations as polynomials set equal to zero, bringing out relations between equations, roots, and polynomial factors. We here consider this theory as a response to Peter Roth's suggestions in Arithmetica Philosophica (1608), notably in his “seventh-degree” problem set. These specimens of arithmetic-masterly problem design develop skills with multiplicative and other degree-independent techniques. The challenges were fine-tuned by introducing errors disguised as printing errors. During Descartes' visit to Germany in 1619–1622, he probably worked with Johann Faulhaber (1580–1635) on these problems; they are discussed in Faulhaber's Miracula Arithmetica (1622), which also looks forward to fuller publication, probably by Descartes.     

What did Gauss read in the Appendix?

In a clear analogy with spherical geometry, Lambert states that in an “imaginary sphere” the sum of the angles of a triangle would be less than π$\pi$. In this paper we analyze the role played by this imaginary sphere in the development of non-Euclidean geometry, and how it served Gauss as a guide. More precisely, we analyze Gauss’s reading of Bolyai’s Appendix in 1832, five years after the publication of Disquisitiones generales circa superficies curvas, on the assumption that his investigations into the foundations of geometry were aimed at finding, among the surfaces in space, Lambert’s hypothetical imaginary sphere. We also wish to show that the close relation between differential geometry and non-Euclidean geometry is already present in János Bolyai’s Appendix, that is, well before its appearance in Beltrami’s Saggio. From this point of view, one is able to answer certain natural questions about the history of non-Euclidean geometry; for instance, why Gauss decided not to write further on the subject after reading the Appendix.