In his testamentary letter to Auguste Chevalier, Évariste Galois states that, in modern terminology, the smallest simple group has order 60. No proof of this statement survives in his papers, and it has been suggested that a proof would have been impossible using the methods available at the time. We argue that this assertion is unduly pessimistic. Moreover, one fragmentary document, dismissed as a triviality and misunderstood, looks suspiciously like cryptic notes related to this result. We give an elementary proof (...) of Galois’s statement, explain why it is likely that he would have been aware of the methods involved, and discuss the potential relevance of the fragment. (shrink)

One of the distinguishing features of mathematics is the exceptional level of consensus among mathematicians. However, an analysis of what mathematicians agree on, how they achieve this agreement, and the relevant historical conditions is lacking. This paper is a programmatic intervention providing a preliminary analysis and outlining a research program in this direction.First, I review the process of ‘negotiation’ that yields agreement about the validity of proofs. This process most often does generate consensus, however, it may give rise to another (...) kind of disagreement: whether the original and new proof are effectively the same, leading to potential disagreement about the validity of the original proof.Second, I historicize the phenomenon of consensus. I show that in earlier European mathematics and other mathematical cultures, consensus about the validity of arguments was substantially weaker or conceived differently than it is today. This means that contemporary consensus about the validity of mathematical proofs should be explained by historical changes in mathematical practice.Finally, I conjecture what brought about the contemporary form of mathematical consensus. Since a sharp rise in consensus occurs around the turn of the 20th century, it makes sense to explain this consensus by the concurrent formalization of mathematics. However, this explanation has a major flaw: it explains a really existing phenomenon (consensus) by something that hardly ever happens (writing proofs in formal languages). I will therefore explain the ways in which formalization does enter mathematical practice so as to account for contemporary forms of mathematical consensus. (shrink)

This article interprets Józef Maria Hoëné Wronski’s (1776–1853) use of actual infinities in his mathematical work. The interpretation places this usage, which undermined Wronski’s acceptance as a mathematician, in his contemporary mathematical and philosophical context and in the context of his own sociopolitical-philosophical project.