Jacques Bair, A. Borovik, V. Kanovei, M. Katz, Semen Samsonovich Kutateladze, Sam Sanders, David Sherry, Monica Ugaglia
{"title":"Historical Infinitesimalists and modern historiography of infinitesimals","authors":"Jacques Bair, A. Borovik, V. Kanovei, M. Katz, Semen Samsonovich Kutateladze, Sam Sanders, David Sherry, Monica Ugaglia","doi":"10.14708/am.v16i1.7169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the history of infinitesimal calculus, we trace innovation from Leibniz to Cauchy and reaction from Berkeley to Mansion and beyond. We explore 19th century infinitesimal lores, including the approaches of Simeon-Denis Poisson, Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, and Jean-Nicolas Noel. We examine contrasting historiographic approaches to such lores, in the work of Laugwitz, Schubring, Spalt, and others, and address a recent critique by Archibald et al. We argue that the element of contingency in this history is more prominent than many modern historians seem willing to acknowledge.","PeriodicalId":165989,"journal":{"name":"Antiquitates Mathematicae","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antiquitates Mathematicae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14708/am.v16i1.7169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
In the history of infinitesimal calculus, we trace innovation from Leibniz to Cauchy and reaction from Berkeley to Mansion and beyond. We explore 19th century infinitesimal lores, including the approaches of Simeon-Denis Poisson, Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, and Jean-Nicolas Noel. We examine contrasting historiographic approaches to such lores, in the work of Laugwitz, Schubring, Spalt, and others, and address a recent critique by Archibald et al. We argue that the element of contingency in this history is more prominent than many modern historians seem willing to acknowledge.