Ten Misconceptions from the History of Analysis and Their Debunking

Piotr Błaszczyk, Mikhail G. Katz, David Sherry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Scopus citations

Abstract

The widespread idea that infinitesimals were "eliminated" by the "great triumvirate" of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass is refuted by an uninterrupted chain of work on infinitesimal-enriched number systems. The elimination claim is an oversimplification created by triumvirate followers, who tend to view the history of analysis as a pre-ordained march toward the radiant future of Weierstrassian epsilontics. In the present text, we document distortions of the history of analysis stemming from the triumvirate ideology of ontological minimalism, which identified the continuum with a single number system. Such anachronistic distortions characterize the received interpretation of Stevin, Leibniz, d'Alembert, Cauchy, and others.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)43-74
Number of pages32
JournalFoundations of Science
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2013

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Piotr Błaszczyk supported by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education grant N N101 287639.

Funding

Piotr Błaszczyk supported by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education grant N N101 287639.

FundersFunder number
Polish Ministry of Science and Higher EducationN N101 287639

    Keywords

    • Abraham Robinson
    • Adequality
    • Archimedean continuum
    • Bernoullian continuum
    • Cantor
    • Cauchy
    • Cognitive bias
    • Completeness
    • Constructivism
    • Continuity
    • Continuum
    • Epsilontics
    • Felix Klein
    • Fermat-Robinson standard part
    • Infinitesimal
    • Leibniz-Łoś transfer principle
    • Limit
    • Mathematical rigor
    • Nominalism
    • Non-Archimedean
    • Simon Stevin
    • Stolz
    • Sum theorem
    • Weierstrass
    • du Bois-Reymond

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Ten Misconceptions from the History of Analysis and Their Debunking'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this