Leibnizian-Newtonian calculus was a theory that dealt with geometrical objects; the figure continued to play one of the fundamental roles it had played in Greek geometry: it susbstituted a part of reasoning. During the eighteenth century a process of de-geometrization of calculus took place, which consisted in the rejection of the use of diagrams and in considering calculus as an 'intellectual' system where deduction was merely linguistic and mediated. This was achieved by interpreting variables as universal quantities and introducing the (...) notion of function, which replaced the study of curves. However, the emancipation of calculus from its basis in geometry was not comprehensive. In fact, the geometrical properties of curves were attributed de facto to functions and thus eighteenth-century calculus continued implicitly to use principles borrowed from geometry. There was therefore no transition to a purely syntactical theory based on axiomatically introduced terms, a shift which only took place subsequently in modern times. (shrink)

More than any other aspect of the Second Scientific Revolution, the remarkable revitalization or British mathematics and mathematical physics during the first half of the nineteenth century is perhaps the most deserving of the name. While the newly constituted sciences of biology and geology were undergoing their first revolution, as it were, the reform of British mathematics was truly and self-consciously the story of a second coming of age. ‘Discovered by Fermat, cocinnated and rendered analytical by Newton, and enriched by (...) Leibniz with a powerful and comprehensive notation’, wrote the young John Herschel and Charles Babbage of the calculus in 1813, ‘as if the soil of this country [was] unfavourable to its cultivation, it soon drooped and almost faded into neglect; and we now have to re-import the exotic, with nearly a century of foreign improvement, and to render it once more indigenous among us’. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis paper provides a detailed account of the period of the complex history of British algebra and geometry between the publication of George Peacock's Treatise on Algebra in 1830 and William Rowan Hamilton's paper on quaternions of 1843. During these years, Duncan Farquharson Gregory and William Walton published several contributions on ‘algebraical geometry’ and ‘geometrical algebra’ in the Cambridge Mathematical Journal. These contributions enabled them not only to generalize Peacock's symbolical algebra on the basis of geometrical considerations, but also to (...) initiate the attempts to question the status of Euclidean space as the arbiter of valid geometrical interpretations. At the same time, Gregory and Walton were bound by the limits of symbolical algebra that they themselves made explicit; their work was not and could not be the ‘abstract algebra’ and ‘abstract geometry’ of figures such as Hamilton and Cayley. The central argument of the paper is that an understanding of the contributions to ‘algebraical geometry’ and ‘geometrical algebra’ of the second generation of ‘scientific’ symbolical algebraists is essential for a satisfactory explanation of the radical transition from symbolical to abstract algebra that took place in British mathematics in the 1830s–1840s. (shrink)

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)

Beta integrals for several non-integer values of the exponents were calculated by Leonhard Euler in 1730, when he was trying to find the general term for the factorial function by means of an algebraic expression. Nevertheless, 70 years before, Pietro Mengoli (1626–1686) had computed such integrals for natural and half-integer exponents in his Geometriae Speciosae Elementa (1659) and Circolo(1672) and displayed the results in triangular tables. In particular, his new arithmetic–algebraic method allowed him to compute the quadrature of the circle. (...) The aim of this article is to show how Mengoli calculated the values of these integrals as well as how he analysed the relation between these values and the exponents inside the integrals. This analysis provides new insights into Mengoli’s view of his algorithmic computation of quadratures. (shrink)

We reconstruct essential features of Lagrange’s theory of analytical functions by exhibiting its structure and basic assumptions, as well as its main shortcomings. We explain Lagrange’s notions of function and algebraic quantity, and we concentrate on power-series expansions, on the algorithm for derivative functions, and the remainder theorem—especially on the role this theorem has in solving geometric and mechanical problems. We thus aim to provide a better understanding of Enlightenment mathematics and to show that the foundations of mathematics did not, (...) for Lagrange, concern the solidity of its ultimate bases, but rather purity of method—the generality and internal organization of the discipline. (shrink)

In the 18th and 19th centuries two transitions took place in the development of mathematical analysis: a shift from the geometric approach to the formula-centered approach, followed by a shift from the formula-centered approach to the concept-centered approach. We identify, on the basis of Bolzano's Purely Analytic Proof [Bolzano 1817], the ways in which Bolzano's approach can be said to be concept-centered. Moreover, we conclude that Bolzano's attitude towards the geometric approach on the one hand and the formula-centered approach on (...) the other were of a different nature; the for­mer being one of rejection, the latter of non-participation. Bolzano supports his concept-centered methodology by philosophical views, which were partially shared by mathematicians with a formula-centered approach to analysis. (shrink)

In his writings about hypergeometric functions Gauss succeeded in moving beyond the restricted domain of eighteenth-century functions by changing several basic notions of analysis. He rejected formal methodology and the traditional notions of functions, complex numbers, infinite numbers, integration, and the sum of a series. Indeed, he thought that analysis derived from a few, intuitively given notions by means of other well-defined concepts which were reducible to intuitive ones. Gauss considered functions to be relations between continuous variable quantities while he (...) regarded integration and summation as appropriate operations with limits. He also regarded infinite and infinitesimal numbers as a façon de parler and used inequalities in order to prove the existence of certain limits. He took complex numbers to have the same legitimacy as real quantities. However, Gauss’s continuum was linked to a revised form of the eighteenth-century notion of continuous quantity: it was not reducible to a set of numbers but was immediately given. (shrink)

Según la concepción heredada, los matemáticos británicos del siglo XVIII fueron responsables de una decadencia de las matemáticas en el país de Newton; una decadencia atribuida al chovinismo y a una preferencia por el pensamiento geométrico. Este artículo debate este punto de vista describiendo, primero, la complejidad de la herencia matemática de Newton y su recepción durante las primeras décadas del siglo XVIII. Una sección dedicada al monumental Treatise of Fluxions (1742) de Maclaurin describe el intento de lograr una síntesis (...) de las diferentes corrientes de pensamiento del legado matemático de Newton, y lo compara con el trabajo contemporáneo continental. Se demuestra que a mediados del siglo XVIII los matemáticos académicos continentales tales como Euler y Lagrange estaban inspirados por suposiciones culturales locales en direcciones que divergían sensiblemente de las seguidas por Maclaurin y sus seguidores conterráneos. (shrink)

It is well known that over the eighteenth century the calculus moved away from its geometric origins; Euler, and later Lagrange, aspired to transform it into a “purely analytical” discipline. In the 1780 s, the Portuguese mathematician José Anastácio da Cunha developed an original version of the calculus whose interpretation in view of that process presents challenges. Cunha was a strong admirer of Newton (who famously favoured geometry over algebra) and criticized Euler’s faith in analysis. However, the fundamental propositions of (...) his calculus follow the analytical trend. This appears to have been possible due to a nominalistic conception of variable that allowed him to deal with expressions as names, rather than abstract quantities. Still, Cunha tried to keep the definition of fluxion directly applicable to geometrical magnitudes. According to a friend of Cunha’s, his calculus had an algebraic (analytical) branch and a geometrical branch, and it was because of this that his definition of fluxion appeared too complex to some contemporaries. (shrink)

Euler developed a program which aimed to transform analysis into an autonomous discipline and reorganize the whole of mathematics around it. The implementation of this program presented many difficulties, and the result was not entirely satisfactory. Many of these difficulties concerned the integral calculus. In this paper, we deal with some topics relevant to understand Euler’s conception of analysis and how he developed and implemented his program. In particular, we examine Euler’s contribution to the construction of differential equations and his (...) notion of indefinite integrals and general integrals. We also deal with two remarkable difficulties of Euler’s program. The first concerns singular integrals, which were considered as paradoxical by Euler since they seemed to violate the generality of certain results. The second regards the explicitly use of the geometric representation and meaning of definite integrals, which was gone against his program. We clarify the nature of these difficulties and show that Euler never thought that they undermined his conception of mathematics and that a different foundation was necessary for analysis. (shrink)