-
Exploring Felix Klein's contested modernism
Authors:
Peter Heinig,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Karl Kuhlemann,
Jan Peter Schaefermeyer,
David Sherry
Abstract:
An alleged opposition between David Hilbert and Felix Klein as modern vs countermodern has been pursued by marxist historian Herbert Mehrtens and others. Scholars such as Epple, Grattan-Guinness, Gray, Quinn, Rowe, and recently Siegmund-Schultze and Mazzotti have voiced a range of opinions concerning Mehrtens' dialectical methodology. We explore contrasting perspectives on Klein's contested modern…
▽ More
An alleged opposition between David Hilbert and Felix Klein as modern vs countermodern has been pursued by marxist historian Herbert Mehrtens and others. Scholars such as Epple, Grattan-Guinness, Gray, Quinn, Rowe, and recently Siegmund-Schultze and Mazzotti have voiced a range of opinions concerning Mehrtens' dialectical methodology. We explore contrasting perspectives on Klein's contested modernism, as well as Hilbert's and Klein's views on intuition, logic, and physics. We analyze Jeremy Gray's comment on Klein's ethnographic speculations concerning Jewish mathematicians and find it to be untenable. We argue that Mehrtens was looking for countermoderns at the wrong address.
△ Less
Submitted 31 January, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Three case studies in current Leibniz scholarship
Authors:
Mikhail G. Katz,
Karl Kuhlemann,
David Sherry,
Monica Ugaglia
Abstract:
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.
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.
△ Less
Submitted 6 January, 2022;
originally announced January 2022.
-
Leibniz on bodies and infinities: rerum natura and mathematical fictions
Authors:
Mikhail G. Katz,
Karl Kuhlemann,
David Sherry,
Monica Ugaglia
Abstract:
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…
▽ More
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 reading have lumped infinitesimals with infinite wholes, which are rejected by Leibniz as contradicting the part-whole principle. Far from supporting this reading, the letter is arguably consistent with the view that infinitesimals, as inassignable quantities, are mentis fictiones, i.e., (well-founded) fictions usable in mathematics, but possibly contrary to the Leibnizian principle of the harmony of things and not necessarily idealizing anything in rerum natura. Unlike infinite wholes, infinitesimals - as well as imaginary roots and other well-founded fictions - may involve accidental (as opposed to absolute) impossibilities, in accordance with the Leibnizian theories of knowledge and modality.
△ Less
Submitted 15 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
Two-track depictions of Leibniz's fictions
Authors:
Mikhail G. Katz,
Karl Kuhlemann,
David Sherry,
Monica Ugaglia,
Mark van Atten
Abstract:
Leibniz described imaginary roots, negatives, and infinitesimals as useful fictions. But did he view such 'impossible' numbers as mathematical entities? Alice and Bob take on the labyrinth of the current Leibniz scholarship.
Leibniz described imaginary roots, negatives, and infinitesimals as useful fictions. But did he view such 'impossible' numbers as mathematical entities? Alice and Bob take on the labyrinth of the current Leibniz scholarship.
△ Less
Submitted 1 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
Procedures of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus: An account in three modern frameworks
Authors:
Jacques Bair,
Piotr Blaszczyk,
Robert Ely,
Mikhail G. Katz,
Karl Kuhlemann
Abstract:
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…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 25 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
