The evolution of the concept of homeomorphism

Topology, or analysis situs, has often been regarded as the study of those properties of point sets (in Euclidean space or in abstract spaces) that are invariant under “homeomorphisms.” Besides the modern concept of homeomorphism, at least three other concepts were used in this context during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and regarded (by various mathematicians) as characterizing topology: deformations, diffeomorphisms, and continuous bijections. Poincaré, in particular, characterized analysis situs in terms of deformations in 1892 but in terms of diffeomorphisms in 1895. Eventually Kuratowski showed in 1921 that in the plane there can be a continuous bijection of P onto Q, and of Q onto P, without P and Q being homeomorphic.     

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.     

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.     

Lindeberg's central limit theorem à la Hausdorff

We give a self-contained proof of Lindeberg's central limit theorem based on a presentation due to Hausdorff. Various historical remarks are also appended.     

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.     

Geometry at Cambridge, 1863–1940

This paper traces the ebbs and flows of the history of geometry at Cambridge from the time of Cayley to 1940, and therefore the arrival of a branch of modern mathematics in Great Britain. Cayley had little immediate influence, but projective geometry blossomed and then declined during the reign of H.F. Baker, and was revived by Hodge at the end of the period. We also consider the implications these developments have for the concept of a school in the history of mathematics.     

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?      

The Luigi Cremona Archive of the Mazzini Institute of Genoa

Luigi Cremona (1830-1903) is unanimously considered to be the man who laid the foundations of the prestigious Italian school of Algebraic Geometry. In this paper we draw attention to the “Legato Itala Cremona Cozzolino”, which was given to the library of the Mazzini Institute, Genoa, Italy, by Cremona’s daughter, Itala, probably in 1939. This legacy, which contains over 6000 documents, mainly consisting of Cremona’s correspondence with scientific and institutional Italian interlocutors, can help us to understand the connections between the development of Italian mathematics in the second half of the XIX century and the main political issues of Italian history.     

E.W. Chittenden and the early history of general topology

E.W. Chittenden's work and its influence on the early history of general topology are examined. Particular attention is given to his work in metrization theory and its role in the background of the Aleksandrov-Uryson Metrization Theorem. A recounting of Professor Chittenden's career, a list of his students and his publications and a chronology in the early history of General Topology are also included.     

The evolution of transformation media in spherical trigonometry in 17th- and 18th-century China,and its relation to “Western learning”

Problems of spherical trigonometry in 17th- and 18th-century China were often reduced to problems in plane trigonometry and then solved by means of the proportionality of corresponding sides of similar right triangles. Nevertheless, in the literature on the history of Chinese mathematics, there is not much discussion on the transformation and reduction of spherical problems to the plane, and how the techniques utilized for such transformations evolved over time. In this article, I investigate the evolution of the transformation media involved. I will show that in the trigonometric treatises by Mei Wending (1633–1721) and Dai Zhen (1724–1777), the authors’ views on Western learning shaped their choices of transformation media, and conversely their choices of transformation media offered support to their views on trigonometry in the debate of Chinese versus Western methods. Based on my analysis, I also propose a reassessment of Dai’s treatise of trigonometry, which was controversial ever since its publication in the 18th century.     

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.     

Convergence and formal manipulation in the theory of series from 1730 to 1815

In the early calculus mathematicians used convergent series to represent geometrical quantities and solve geometrical problems. However, series were also manipulated formally using procedures that were the infinitary extension of finite procedures. By the 1720s results were being published that could not be reduced to the original conceptions of convergence and geometrical representation. This situation led Euler to develop explicitly a more formal approach which generalized the early theory. Formal analysis, which was predominant during the second half of the 18th century despite criticisms of it by some researchers, contributed to the enlargement of mathematics and even led to a new branch of analysis: the calculus of operations. However, formal methods could not give an adequate treatment of trigonometric series and series that were not the expansions of elementary functions. The need to use trigonometric series and introduce nonelementary functions led Fourier and Gauss to reject the formal concept of series and adopt a different, purely quantitative notion of series.     

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.     

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 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.     

The Mittag-Leffler Theorem: The origin,evolution, and reception of a mathematical result, 1876–1884

The Swedish mathematician Gösta Mittag-Leffler (1846–1927) is well-known for founding Acta Mathematica, often touted as the first international journal of mathematics. A “post-doctoral” student in Paris and Berlin between 1873 and 1876, Mittag-Leffler built on Karl Weierstrass? work by proving the Mittag-Leffler Theorem, which states that a function of rational character (i.e. a meromorphic function) is specified by its poles, their multiplicities, and the coefficients in the principal part of its Laurent expansion.     

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.