Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-2 of 2
Mikhail G. Katz
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Perspectives on Science (2013) 21 (3): 283–324.
Published: 01 September 2013
Abstract
View article
PDF
We analyze some of the main approaches in the literature to the method of ‘adequality’ with which Fermat approached the problems of the calculus, as well as its source in the παρισότης of Diophantus, and propose a novel reading thereof. Adequality is a crucial step in Fermat's method of finding maxima, minima, tangents, and solving other problems that a modern mathematician would solve using infinitesimal calculus. The method is presented in a series of short articles in Fermat's collected works (62, pp. 133–172). We show that at least some of the manifestations of adequality amount to variational techniques exploiting a small, or infinitesimal, variation e. Fermat's treatment of geometric and physical applications suggests that an aspect of approximation is inherent in adequality, as well as an aspect of smallness on the part of e. We question the relevance to understanding Fermat of 19th century dictionary definitions of παρισότης and adaequare, cited by Breger, and take issue with his interpretation of adequality, including his novel reading of Diophantus, and his hypothesis concerning alleged tampering with Fermat's texts by Carcavy. We argue that Fermat relied on Bachet's reading of Diophantus. Diophantus coined the term παρισότης for mathematical purposes and used it to refer to the way in which 1321/711 is approximately equal to 11/6. Bachet performed a semantic calque in passing from parisoo to adaequo. We note the similar role of, respectively, adequality and the Transcendental Law of Homogeneity in the work of, respectively, Fermat (1896) and Leibniz (1858) on the problem of maxima and minima.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Perspectives on Science (2011) 19 (4): 426–452.
Published: 01 December 2011
Abstract
View article
PDF
Cauchy's sum theorem of 1821 has been the subject of rival interpretations ever since Robinson proposed a novel reading in the 1960s. Some claim that Cauchy modified the hypothesis of his theorem in 1853 by introducing uniform convergence, whose traditional formulation requires a pair of independent variables. Meanwhile, Cauchy's hypothesis is formulated in terms of a single variable x, rather than a pair of variables, and requires the error term r n = r n (x) to go to zero at all values of x, including the infinitesimal value generated by explicitly specified by Cauchy. If one wishes to understand Cauchy's modification/clarification of the hypothesis of the sum theorem in 1853, one has to jettison the automatic translation-to-limits.