Leibniz never tired of stressing the fundamental importance of the concept of continuity for philosophy, nor was he shy of attributing major importance to his own struggle through “the labyrinth of the continuum” for the subsequent development of his whole system of thought. Unfortunately, however, his own thought on the subject is something of a labyrinth itself, and from a modern point of view many of his pronouncements are apt to seem blatantly contradictory.Certain quotations seem to commit him unambiguously to (...) atomism. Thus to de Voider he writes: “Matter is not continuous, but discrete…. The same holds for changes, which are not truly continuous.” (To de Voider, 11th October 1705: G.II.279).2. (shrink)

In the context of nonstandard analysis, the somewhat vague equality relation of near-equality allows us to relate objects that are indistinguishable but not necessarily equal. This relation appears to enable us to better understand certain paradoxes, such as the paradox of Theseus’s ship, by identifying identity at a time with identity over a short period of time. With this view in mind, I propose and discuss two mathematical models for this paradox.

Does V = L? Is the Axiom of Constructibility true? Most people with an opinion would answer no. But on what grounds? Despite the near unanimity with which V = L is declared false, the literature reveals no clear consensus on what counts as evidence against the hypothesis and no detailed analysis of why the facts of the sort cited constitute evidence one way or another. Unable to produce a well-developed argument one way or the other, some observers despair, retreating (...) to unattractive fall-back positions, e.g., that the decision on whether or not V = L is a matter of personal aesthetics. I would prefer to avoid such conclusions, if possible. If we are to believe that L is not V, as so many would urge, then there ought to be good reasons for this belief, reasons that can be stated clearly and subjected to rational evaluation. Though no complete argument has been presented, the literature does contain a number of varied argument fragments, and it is worth asking whether some of these might be developed into a persuasive case.One particularly simple approach would be to note that the existence of a measurable cardinal implies that V ≠ L,1and to argue that there is a measurable cardinal. The drawback to this approach is that its implying V ≠ L cannot then be counted as evidence in favor of MC, as it often is. Indeed, there seems to have been considerable sentiment against V = L even before the proof of its negation from MC,2and this sentiment must either be accounted for as reasonable or explained away as an aberration of some kind. (shrink)

The translation of Newton’s geometrical Propositions in the Principia into the language of the differential calculus in the form developed by Leibniz and his followers has been the subject of many scholarly articles and books. One of the most vexing problems in this translation concerns the transition from the discrete polygonal orbits and force impulses in Prop. 1 to the continuous orbits and forces in Prop. 6. Newton justified this transition by lemma 1 on prime and ultimate ratios which was (...) a concrete formulation of a limit, but it took another century before this concept was established on a rigorous mathematical basis. This difficulty was mirrored in the newly developed calculus which dealt with differentials that vanish in this limit, and therefore were considered to be fictional quantities by some mathematicians. Despite these problems, early practitioners of the differential calculus like Jacob Hermann, Pierre Varignon, and Johann Bernoulli succeeded without apparent difficulties in applying the differential calculus to the solution of the fundamental problem of orbital motion under the action of inverse square central forces. By following their calculations and describing some essential details that have been ignored in the past, I clarify the reason why the lack of rigor in establishing the continuum limit was not a practical problem. (shrink)

SummaryIn 1693, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz published in the Acta Eruditorum a geometrical proof of the fundamental theorem of the calculus. It is shown that this proof closely resembles Isaac Barrow's proof in Proposition 11, Lecture 10, of his Lectiones Geometricae, published in 1670. This comparison provides evidence that Leibniz gained substantial help from Barrow's book in formulating and presenting his geometrical formulation of this theorem. The analysis herein also supports the work of J. M. Child, who in 1920 studied the (...) early manuscripts of Leibniz and concluded that he had frequently copied his diagrams from Barrow's book, but without acknowledgement. It is also shown that the diagram of Leibniz associated with his 1693 proof has often been reproduced with errors that make some aspects of his text difficult to comprehend. (shrink)

(1981). Alexis Fontaine's ‘Fluxio-differential method’ and the origins of the calculus of several variables. Annals of Science: Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 251-290.

In this paper I illustrate the evolution of series theory from Leibniz and Newton to the first decades of the eighteenth century. Although mathematicians used convergent series to solve geometric problems, they manipulated series by a mere extension of the rules valid for finite series, without considering convergence as a preliminary condition. Further, they conceived of a power series as a result of a process of the expansion of a finite analytical expression and thought that the link between series and (...) analytical expression was not restricted to the interval of convergence. This gave rise to formal aspects that became progressively more evident while the complexity of the theory increased. Asymptotic and recurrence series emerged as the result of the natural evolution of theory, without the difference between these infinite processes with respect to ordinary series being highlighted. The various aspects of dealing with series can be viewed today as derived from different definitions of the sum. However, mathematicians of that time always considered them as different approaches to a single theory that was based on a unique notion of the sum (even though, later in the eighteenth century, they disagree about what this notion was). (shrink)