Rethinking geometrical exactness

A crucial concern of early modern geometry was fixing appropriate norms for deciding whether some objects, procedures, or arguments should or should not be allowed into it. According to Bos, this is the exactness concern. I argue that Descartes’s way of responding to this concern was to suggest an appropriate conservative extension of Euclid’s plane geometry (EPG). In Section 2, I outline the exactness concern as, I think, it appeared to Descartes. In Section 3, I account for Descartes’s views on exactness and for his attitude towards the most common sorts of constructions in classical geometry. I also explain in which sense his geometry can be conceived as a conservative extension of EPG. I conclude by briefly discussing some structural similarities and differences between Descartes’s geometry and EPG.     

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.     

John Wallis and the French: his quarrels with Fermat,Pascal, Dulaurens,and Descartes

John Wallis, Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford from 1649 to 1703, engaged in a number of disputes with French mathematicians: with Fermat (in 1657–1658), with Pascal (in 1658–1659), with Dulaurens (in 1667–1668), and against Descartes (in the early 1670s). This paper examines not only the mathematical content of the arguments but also Wallis’s various strategies of response. Wallis’s opinion of French mathematicians became increasingly bitter, but at the same time he was able to use the confrontations to promote his own reputation.     

What Descartes knew of mathematics in 1628

The aim of this paper is to give an account of Descartes’ mathematical achievements in 1628–1629 using, as far as is possible, only contemporary documents, and in particular Beeckman’s Journal for October 1628. In the first part of the paper, I study the content of these documents, bringing to light the mathematical weaknesses they display. In the second part, I argue for the significance of these documents by comparing them with other independent sources, such as Descartes’ Regulae ad directionem ingenii. Finally, I outline the main consequences of this study for understanding the mathematical development of Descartes before and after 1629.     

The story of majorizability as Karamata’s condition of convergence for Abel summable series

The greatest Serbian mathematician, Jovan Karamata (1902–1967), gained worldwide fame working on problems related to theorems of a Tauberian nature. His simple and elegant 1930 proof of the Hardy–Littlewood theorem found its place in the well-known monographs by Titchmarsh, Knopp, Doetsch, Widder, Hardy and Favard. It is less known that the method used in this proof was mentioned for the first time at a conference of the Academy of Natural Sciences of the Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences in Belgrade in 1929, where Karamata introduced the notion of majorizability as a new condition of convergence for Abel summable series. This fact holds the key to a historical insight into Karamata’s famous proof of the Hardy–Littlewood theorem.     

The Kujang sulhae 九章術解: Nam Pyoˇng-Gil’s reinterpretation of the mathematical methods of the Jiuzhang suanshu

In this article, a discussion and analysis is presented of the Kujang sulhae by Nam Pyoˇng-Gil (1820-1869), a 19th-century Korean commentary on the Jiuzhang suanshu. Nam copied the problems and procedures from the ancient Chinese classic, but replaced Liu Hui’s and Li Chunfeng’s commentaries with his own. In his postface Nam expressed his dissatisfaction with the earlier commentaries, because the approaches of Liu and Li did not match those of his contemporary readers well. This can be seen from the most important features of Nam’s commentary: the use of a synthesis of European and Chinese mathematical methods, easy explanations appealing to intuition, and disuse of the methods of infinitesimals and limits in Liu’s and Li’s commentaries. Based on his own postface and these features of his commentary, I believe that Nam Pyoˇng-Gil treated the Jiuzhang suanshu as a very important historical document, which he intended to explain according to the new mathematical canon in both Qing China and Chosoˇn Korea, the Shuli jingyun. Thus the Kujang sulhae is an example of the endeavor of 19th-century Korean mathematicians to reinterpret ancient Chinese mathematical texts with their contemporary knowledge.     

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.     

Some remarks on the meaning of equality in Diophantos’s Arithmetica

Diophantos in Arithmetica, without having defined previously any concept of “equality” or “equation,” employs a concept of the unknown number as a tool for solving problems and finds its value from an equality ad hoc created. In this paper we analyze Diophantos’s practices in the creation and simplification of such equalities, aiming to adduce more evidence on certain issues arising in recent historical research on the meaning of the “equation” in Diophantos’s work.     

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.     

A “lacuna” in Proposition 9 of Archimedes’ On the Sphere and the Cylinder, Book I

The proof of Proposition 9 in Archimedes’ On the Sphere and the Cylinder, Book i, contains an unproved statement that has been referred to as a “lacuna.” Most editors and experts in Archimedean texts have agreed on the existence of this gap and have offered different proofs for the statement, some of them with incomplete or even incorrect arguments. In this paper, I offer arguments of a mathematical, historical, and textual nature that show that it is not necessary to assume the presence of any gap in the text.     

Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia and Descartes’ letters (1650–1665)

After Descartes’ death in 1650, Princess Elizabeth generously shared with others several letters she had received from the philosopher, which contained philosophically as well as mathematically exciting material. In this article I place the transmission of these copies in context, revealing that Elizabeth steadily became an intellectually inspiring figure, attracting international attention. In the 1650s she stayed at Heidelberg where she discussed Cartesian philosophy with professors and students alike, including the professor of philosophy and mathematics Johann von Leuneschlos. In the mid-1660s, an initiative was taken from the English side of the Channel (Pell, More) to obtain Descartes’ mathematical letters to Elizabeth that had not yet been published. One letter of Elizabeth herself on this very subject has been preserved. The letter, addressed to Theodore Haak, will be published here for the first time. It is of special interest, because the princess supplies a general outline of her solution to the mathematical problem Descartes gave her to solve in 1643. It substantiates the hypothesis regarding Elizabeth’s solution earlier proposed by Henk Bos.     

The ovals in the Excerpta Mathematica and the origins of Descartes’ method of normals

The only occurrence of Descartes’ method of normals before La Géométrie (1637) is to be found in the Excerpta Mathematica. These mathematical fragments, published posthumously among others works in 1701, and dated by Tannery before 1629, deal with curves used in dioptrics which Descartes called ovals. I study in detail two of the texts on ovals together with the related texts in La Géométrie in order to shed light on the geometrical origins of Descartes’ method of normals.     

Beyond Cartesian limits: Leibniz's passage from algebraic to “transcendental” mathematics

This article deals with Leibniz's reception of Descartes' “geometry.” Leibnizian mathematics was based on five fundamental notions: calculus, characteristic, art of invention, method, and freedom. On the basis of methodological considerations Leibniz criticized Descartes' restriction of geometry to objects that could be given in terms of algebraic (i.e., finite) equations: “Descartes's mind was the limit of science.” The failure of algebra to solve equations of higher degree led Leibniz to develop linear algebra, and the failure of algebra to deal with transcendental problems led him to conceive of a science of the infinite. Hence Leibniz reconstructed the mathematical corpus, created new (transcendental) notions, and redefined known notions (equality, exactness, construction), thus establishing “a veritable complement of algebra for the transcendentals”: infinite equations, i.e., infinite series, became inestimable tools of mathematical research.     

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.     

Mathematical recreations of Dénes König and his work on graph theory

Dénes König (1884–1944) is a Hungarian mathematician well known for his treatise on graph theory (König, 1936). When he was a student, he published two books on mathematical recreations ( and ). Does his work on mathematical recreations have any relation to his work on graph theory? If yes, how are they connected? To answer these questions, we will examine his books of 1902, 1905 and 1936, and compare them with each other. We will see that the books of 1905 and 1936 include many common topics, and that the treatment of these topics is different between 1905 and 1936.     

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 Grand Astrologerʼs platform and ramp: Four problems in solid geometry from Wang Xiaotongʼs ‘Continuation of ancient mathematics’ (7th century AD)

Wang Xiaotong?s Jigu suanjing is primarily concerned with problems in solid and plane geometry leading to cubic equations which are to be solved numerically by the Chinese variant of Horner?s method. The problems in solid geometry give the volume of a solid and certain constraints on its dimensions, and the dimensions are required; we translate and analyze four of these. Three are solved using dissections, while one is solved using reasoning about calculations with very little recourse to geometrical considerations. The problems in Wang Xiaotong?s text cannot be seen as practical problems in themselves, but they introduce mathematical methods which would have been useful to administrators in organizing labor forces for public works.     

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.