Controversies in the Foundations of Analysis

Comments on Schubring’s Conflicts

Piotr Błaszczyk, Vladimir Kanovei, Mikhail G. Katz, David M Sherry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Foundations of Science recently published a rebuttal to a portion of our essay it published 2 years ago. The author, G. Schubring, argues that our 2013 text treated unfairly his 2005 book, Conflicts between generalization, rigor, and intuition. He further argues that our attempt to show that Cauchy is part of a long infinitesimalist tradition confuses text with context and thereby misunderstands the significance of Cauchy’s use of infinitesimals. Here we defend our original analysis of various misconceptions and misinterpretations concerning the history of infinitesimals and, in particular, the role of infinitesimals in Cauchy’s mathematics. We show that Schubring misinterprets Proclus, Leibniz, and Klein on non-Archimedean issues, ignores the Jesuit context of Moigno’s flawed critique of infinitesimals, and misrepresents, to the point of caricature, the pioneering Cauchy scholarship of D. Laugwitz.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-16
Number of pages16
JournalFoundations of Science
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Dec 24 2015

Fingerprint

Mathematics
Misinterpretation
Caricature
Misconceptions
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Jesuits
Rebuttal
History
Intuition

Keywords

  • Archimedean axiom
  • Cauchy
  • Felix Klein
  • Horn-angle
  • Infinitesimal
  • Leibniz
  • Ontology
  • Procedure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

Controversies in the Foundations of Analysis : Comments on Schubring’s Conflicts. / Błaszczyk, Piotr; Kanovei, Vladimir; Katz, Mikhail G.; Sherry, David M.

In: Foundations of Science, 24.12.2015, p. 1-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Błaszczyk, Piotr ; Kanovei, Vladimir ; Katz, Mikhail G. ; Sherry, David M. / Controversies in the Foundations of Analysis : Comments on Schubring’s Conflicts. In: Foundations of Science. 2015 ; pp. 1-16.
@article{31c20227eb6748bbaeae24ad485f806d,
title = "Controversies in the Foundations of Analysis: Comments on Schubring’s Conflicts",
abstract = "Foundations of Science recently published a rebuttal to a portion of our essay it published 2 years ago. The author, G. Schubring, argues that our 2013 text treated unfairly his 2005 book, Conflicts between generalization, rigor, and intuition. He further argues that our attempt to show that Cauchy is part of a long infinitesimalist tradition confuses text with context and thereby misunderstands the significance of Cauchy’s use of infinitesimals. Here we defend our original analysis of various misconceptions and misinterpretations concerning the history of infinitesimals and, in particular, the role of infinitesimals in Cauchy’s mathematics. We show that Schubring misinterprets Proclus, Leibniz, and Klein on non-Archimedean issues, ignores the Jesuit context of Moigno’s flawed critique of infinitesimals, and misrepresents, to the point of caricature, the pioneering Cauchy scholarship of D. Laugwitz.",
keywords = "Archimedean axiom, Cauchy, Felix Klein, Horn-angle, Infinitesimal, Leibniz, Ontology, Procedure",
author = "Piotr Błaszczyk and Vladimir Kanovei and Katz, {Mikhail G.} and Sherry, {David M}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1007/s10699-015-9473-4",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--16",
journal = "Foundations of Science",
issn = "1233-1821",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Controversies in the Foundations of Analysis

T2 - Comments on Schubring’s Conflicts

AU - Błaszczyk, Piotr

AU - Kanovei, Vladimir

AU - Katz, Mikhail G.

AU - Sherry, David M

PY - 2015/12/24

Y1 - 2015/12/24

N2 - Foundations of Science recently published a rebuttal to a portion of our essay it published 2 years ago. The author, G. Schubring, argues that our 2013 text treated unfairly his 2005 book, Conflicts between generalization, rigor, and intuition. He further argues that our attempt to show that Cauchy is part of a long infinitesimalist tradition confuses text with context and thereby misunderstands the significance of Cauchy’s use of infinitesimals. Here we defend our original analysis of various misconceptions and misinterpretations concerning the history of infinitesimals and, in particular, the role of infinitesimals in Cauchy’s mathematics. We show that Schubring misinterprets Proclus, Leibniz, and Klein on non-Archimedean issues, ignores the Jesuit context of Moigno’s flawed critique of infinitesimals, and misrepresents, to the point of caricature, the pioneering Cauchy scholarship of D. Laugwitz.

AB - Foundations of Science recently published a rebuttal to a portion of our essay it published 2 years ago. The author, G. Schubring, argues that our 2013 text treated unfairly his 2005 book, Conflicts between generalization, rigor, and intuition. He further argues that our attempt to show that Cauchy is part of a long infinitesimalist tradition confuses text with context and thereby misunderstands the significance of Cauchy’s use of infinitesimals. Here we defend our original analysis of various misconceptions and misinterpretations concerning the history of infinitesimals and, in particular, the role of infinitesimals in Cauchy’s mathematics. We show that Schubring misinterprets Proclus, Leibniz, and Klein on non-Archimedean issues, ignores the Jesuit context of Moigno’s flawed critique of infinitesimals, and misrepresents, to the point of caricature, the pioneering Cauchy scholarship of D. Laugwitz.

KW - Archimedean axiom

KW - Cauchy

KW - Felix Klein

KW - Horn-angle

KW - Infinitesimal

KW - Leibniz

KW - Ontology

KW - Procedure

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84951766324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84951766324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10699-015-9473-4

DO - 10.1007/s10699-015-9473-4

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 16

JO - Foundations of Science

JF - Foundations of Science

SN - 1233-1821

ER -