DOCSLIB.ORG

The Method of Adequality from Diophantus to Fermat and Beyond

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Method of Adequality from Diophantus to Fermat and Beyond Almost Equal: the Method of Adequality from Diophantus to Fermat and Beyond Mikhail G. Katz, David M. Schaps, and Steven Shnider Bar Ilan University 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 parisâth§ of Diophantus, and propose a novel read- ing thereof. Adequality is a crucial step in Fermat’s method of ªnding max- ima, minima, tangents, and solving other problems that a modern mathema- tician would solve using inªnitesimal calculus. The method is presented in a series of short articles in Fermat’s collected works (Tannery and Henry 1981, pp. 133–172). We show that at least some of the manifestations of adequality amount to variational techniques exploiting a small, or inªn- itesimal, variation e. Fermat’s treatment of geometric and physical applica- tions 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 deªnitions of parisâth§ 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 parisâth§ for mathematical purposes and used it to refer to the way in which 1321/711 is approximately equal to 11/6. Bachet performed a se- mantic 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. We are grateful to Enrico Giusti, Alexander Jones, and David Sherry for helpful com- ments. The inºuence of Hilton Kramer (1928–2012) is obvious. Perspectives on Science 2013, vol. 21, no. 3 ©2013 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology doi:10.1162/POSC_a_00101 283 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00101 by guest on 01 October 2021 284 The Method of Adequality 1. The Debate over Adequality Adequality, or â (parisotes) in the original Greek of Diophantus1,is a crucial step in Fermat’s method of ªnding maxima, minima, tangents, and solving other problems that a modern mathematician would solve using inªnitesimal calculus. The method is presented in a series of short articles in Fermat’s collected works (1891, pp. 133–172). The ªrst article, Methodus ad Disquirendam Maximam et Minimam2, opens with a summary of an algorithm for ªnding the maximum or minimum value of an algebraic expression in a variable A. For convenience, we will write such an expres- sion in modern functional notation as f(a).3 1.1. Summary of Fermat’s Algorithm The algorithm can be broken up into six steps in the following way: 1. Introduce an auxiliary symbol e, and form f(a ϩ e); 4 2. Set adequal the two expressions f(a ϩ e) ϭAD f(a); 3. Cancel the common terms on the two sides of the adequality. The remaining terms all contain a factor of e; 4. Divide by e (see also next step); 5. In a parenthetical comment, Fermat adds: “or by the highest com- mon factor of e”; 6. Among the remaining terms, suppress5 all terms which still con- tain a factor of e.6 Solving the resulting equation for a yields the extremum of f. In modern mathematical language, the algorithm entails expanding the difference quotient fa()()+− e fa e 1. adaequalitas or adaequare in Latin. See Section 1.2 for a more detailed etymological discussion. 2. In French translation, Méthode pour la Recherche du Maximum et du Minimum. Further quotations will be taken from the French text (1896). 3. Following the conventions established by Viète, Fermat uses capital letters of vowels A, E, I, O, U for variables, and capital letters of consonants for constants. 4. The notation “ϭAD” for adequality is ours, not Fermat’s. There is a variety of differ- ing notations in the literature; see Barner 2011 for a summary. 5. The use of the term “suppress” in reference to the remaining terms, rather than “set- ting them equal to zero,” is crucial; see n.33. 6. Note that division by e in Step 4 necessarily precedes the suppression of remaining terms that contain e in Step 6. Suppressing all terms containing e, or setting e equal to zero, at stage 3 would be meaningless; see n.22. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00101 by guest on 01 October 2021 Perspectives on Science 285 in powers of e and taking the constant term.7 The method (leaving aside step (5) for the moment) is immediately understandable to a modern reader as the elementary calculus exercise of ªnding the extremum by solving the equation fЈ(a) ϭ 0. But the real question is how Fermat un- derstood this algorithm in his own terms, in the mathematical language of his time, prior to the invention of calculus by Barrow, Leibniz, Newton, et al. There are two crucial points in trying to understand Fermat’s reason- ing: ªrst, the meaning of “adequality” in step (2), and second, the justi- ªcation for suppressing the terms involving positive powers of e in step (6). The two issues are closely related because interpretation of adequality depends on the conditions on e. One condition which Fermat always as- sumes is that e is positive. He did not use negative numbers in his calcula- tions. Fermat introduces the term adequality in Methodus with a reference to Diophantus of Alexandria. In the third article of the series, Ad Eamdem Methodum (Sur la Même Méthode), he quotes Diophantus’ Greek term â , which he translates following Xylander and Bachet, as adae- quatio or adaequalitas (1896, p. 126; see A. Weil 1984, p. 28). 1.2. Etymology of â . The Greek word â consists of the prepositional preªx para and the root isotes, “equality.” The preªx para, like all “regular” preªxes in Greek, also functions as a preposition indicating position; its basic meaning is that of proximity, but depending upon the construction in which it ap- pears, it can indicate location (“beside”), direction (“to”), or source (“from”) (see Luraghi 2003, pp. 20–22, 131–145). Compounds with all three meanings are found. Most familiar to mathematicians will be parallelos ( © ), used of lines that are “next to” one another; the Greek for “nearly resembling” is paraplesios ( Ô ); but we also ªnd direction in words like paradosis ( © ), “transmitting, handing over” (from para and dosis, “giving”), and source in words like paralepsis ( © ), “receiving” (from para and lepsis, “taking”); there are other meanings for this preªx that do not con- cern us. The combination of para and isos (“equal”) can refer either to a simple ~ equality (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1410a 23: parÉ ‰Ãª Ñ ª w , “It is parisosis if the members of the sentence are equal”) or an approximate equality (Strabo 11.7.1, ý ~h , Ò Ê © Ø ~i ã Á u~ Ú~ Ú~, “As Patrocles says, who also considers this sea [the Caspian] to be approximately equal [parison] to the Black Sea”). We know of no pas- 7. Fermat also envisions a division by a higher power of e as in step (5) (see Section 3). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00101 by guest on 01 October 2021 286 The Method of Adequality sage other than those of Diophantus in which a term involving para and isos refers to mathematical equality, whether approximate or otherwise. Diophantus himself used the term parisos to describe terms that are ap- proximately equal, as we shall demonstrate below (Subsection 8.1). The term isotes denotes a relationship (“equality”), not an action (“set- ting equal”); the normal term for the action of equalizing would be a form in -osis, and in fact the words isosis (Ñ ) and parisosis ( É ) are at- tested with the meaning “making equal” or “equalization”; the latter is a common term in rhetoric for using the same (or nearly the same) number of words or syllables in parallel clauses. The word â , which occurs only in the two Diophantus passages, is on the face of it more appropriate to the meaning “near equality.” Fermat himself may not have gotten this far into Greek etymology. On the other hand, Fermat viewed Diophantus through the lens of Bachet’s analysis. Bachet does interpret it as approximate equality. If Fermat follows Bachet, seeking to interpret Fermat’s method of adequality/ â on the basis of the Latin term adaequare misses the point (see Subsection 7.1). 1.3. Modern Interpretations There are differing interpretations of Fermat’s method in the literature. A. Weil notes that Diophantus uses the Greek term to designate his way of approximating a given number by a rational solution to a given problem. (cf. e.g. Dioph.V.11 and 14; Weil 1984, p. 28) According to Weil’s interpretation, approximation is implicit in the meaning of the original Greek term. H. Breger rejects Weil’s interpreta- tion of Diophantus, and proposes his own interpretation of the mathemat- ics of Diophantus’ â . He argues that â means equality to Diophantus (Breger 1994, p. 201). Thus, the question of whether there is an element of approximation in the Greek source of the term is itself sub- ject to dispute. There is also a purely algebraic aspect to adequality, based on the ideas of Pappus of Alexandria, and Fermat’s predecessor Viète.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Differential Calculus and by Era Integral Calculus, Which Are Related by in Early Cultures in Classical Antiquity the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
    History of calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 1/1/10 5:02 PM History of calculus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia History of science This is a sub-article to Calculus and History of mathematics. History of Calculus is part of the history of mathematics focused on limits, functions, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series. The subject, known Background historically as infinitesimal calculus, Theories/sociology constitutes a major part of modern Historiography mathematics education. It has two major Pseudoscience branches, differential calculus and By era integral calculus, which are related by In early cultures in Classical Antiquity the fundamental theorem of calculus. In the Middle Ages Calculus is the study of change, in the In the Renaissance same way that geometry is the study of Scientific Revolution shape and algebra is the study of By topic operations and their application to Natural sciences solving equations. A course in calculus Astronomy is a gateway to other, more advanced Biology courses in mathematics devoted to the Botany study of functions and limits, broadly Chemistry Ecology called mathematical analysis. Calculus Geography has widespread applications in science, Geology economics, and engineering and can Paleontology solve many problems for which algebra Physics alone is insufficient. Mathematics Algebra Calculus Combinatorics Contents Geometry Logic Statistics 1 Development of calculus Trigonometry 1.1 Integral calculus Social sciences 1.2 Differential calculus Anthropology 1.3 Mathematical analysis
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis 11
    AN INTRODUCTION TO NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS ISAAC DAVIS Abstract. In this paper we give an introduction to nonstandard analysis, starting with an ultrapower construction of the hyperreals. We then demon- strate how theorems in standard analysis \transfer over" to nonstandard anal- ysis, and how theorems in standard analysis can be proven using theorems in nonstandard analysis. 1. Introduction For many centuries, early mathematicians and physicists would solve problems by considering infinitesimally small pieces of a shape, or movement along a path by an infinitesimal amount. Archimedes derived the formula for the area of a circle by thinking of a circle as a polygon with infinitely many infinitesimal sides [1]. In particular, the construction of calculus was first motivated by this intuitive notion of infinitesimal change. G.W. Leibniz's derivation of calculus made extensive use of “infinitesimal” numbers, which were both nonzero but small enough to add to any real number without changing it noticeably. Although intuitively clear, infinitesi- mals were ultimately rejected as mathematically unsound, and were replaced with the common -δ method of computing limits and derivatives. However, in 1960 Abraham Robinson developed nonstandard analysis, in which the reals are rigor- ously extended to include infinitesimal numbers and infinite numbers; this new extended field is called the field of hyperreal numbers. The goal was to create a system of analysis that was more intuitively appealing than standard analysis but without losing any of the rigor of standard analysis. In this paper, we will explore the construction and various uses of nonstandard analysis. In section 2 we will introduce the notion of an ultrafilter, which will allow us to do a typical ultrapower construction of the hyperreal numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculus? Can You Think of a Problem Calculus Could Be Used to Solve?
    Mathematics Before you read Discuss these questions with your partner. What do you know about calculus? Can you think of a problem calculus could be used to solve? В A Vocabulary Complete the definitions below with words from the box. slope approximation embrace acceleration diverse indispensable sphere cube rectangle 1 If something is a(n) it В Reading 1 isn't exact. 2 An increase in speed is called Calculus 3 If something is you can't Calculus is the branch of mathematics that deals manage without it. with the rates of change of quantities as well as the length, area and volume of objects. It grew 4 If you an idea, you accept it. out of geometry and algebra. There are two 5 A is a three-dimensional, divisions of calculus - differential calculus and square shape. integral calculus. Differential calculus is the form 6 Something which is is concerned with the rate of change of quantities. different or of many kinds. This can be illustrated by slopes of curves. Integral calculus is used to study length, area 7 If you place two squares side by side, you and volume. form a(n) The earliest examples of a form of calculus date 8 A is a three-dimensional back to the ancient Greeks, with Eudoxus surface, all the points of which are the same developing a mathematical method to work out distance from a fixed point. area and volume. Other important contributions 9 A is also known as a fall. were made by the famous scientist and mathematician, Archimedes. In India, over the 98 Macmillan Guide to Science Unit 21 Mathematics 4 course of many years - from 500 AD to the 14th Pronunciation guide century - calculus was studied by a number of mathematicians.
    [Show full text]
  • Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz's Early Thought
    Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz’s Early Thought By RICHARD T. W. ARTHUR (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) Abstract Before establishing his mature interpretation of infinitesimals as fictions, Gottfried Leibniz had advocated their existence as actually existing entities in the continuum. In this paper I trace the development of these early attempts, distinguishing three distinct phases in his interpretation of infinitesimals prior to his adopting a fictionalist interpretation: (i) (1669) the continuum consists of assignable points separated by unassignable gaps; (ii) (1670-71) the continuum is composed of an infinity of indivisible points, or parts smaller than any assignable, with no gaps between them; (iii) (1672- 75) a continuous line is composed not of points but of infinitely many infinitesimal lines, each of which is divisible and proportional to a generating motion at an instant (conatus). In 1676, finally, Leibniz ceased to regard infinitesimals as actual, opting instead for an interpretation of them as fictitious entities which may be used as compendia loquendi to abbreviate mathematical reasonings. Introduction Gottfried Leibniz’s views on the status of infinitesimals are very subtle, and have led commentators to a variety of different interpretations. There is no proper common consensus, although the following may serve as a summary of received opinion: Leibniz developed the infinitesimal calculus in 1675-76, but during the ensuing twenty years was content to refine its techniques and explore the richness of its applications in co-operation with Johann and Jakob Bernoulli, Pierre Varignon, de l’Hospital and others, without worrying about the ontic status of infinitesimals. Only after the criticisms of Bernard Nieuwentijt and Michel Rolle did he turn himself to the question of the foundations of the calculus and 2 Richard T.
    [Show full text]
  • Cauchy, Infinitesimals and Ghosts of Departed Quantifiers 3
    CAUCHY, INFINITESIMALS AND GHOSTS OF DEPARTED QUANTIFIERS JACQUES BAIR, PIOTR BLASZCZYK, ROBERT ELY, VALERIE´ HENRY, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TARAS KUDRYK, SEMEN S. KUTATELADZE, THOMAS MCGAFFEY, THOMAS MORMANN, DAVID M. SCHAPS, AND DAVID SHERRY Abstract. Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson’s frameworks. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus, Leibniz’s distinction be- tween assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robin- son’s framework, while Leibniz’s law of homogeneity with the im- plied notion of equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of standard part. It is hard to provide paral- lel formalisations in a Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for Leibniz’s infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and arithmetic. Eu- ler routinely used product decompositions into a specific infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infi- nite exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite ana- logues in Robinson’s framework, while in a Weierstrassian frame- work they can only be reinterpreted by means of paraphrases de- parting significantly from Euler’s own presentation. Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that find ready formalisations in Robinson’s framework but scholars working in a Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of de- arXiv:1712.00226v1 [math.HO] 1 Dec 2017 parted quantifiers in his work.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Notes on Calculus
    Historical notes on calculus Dr. Vladimir Dotsenko Dr. Vladimir Dotsenko Historical notes on calculus 1/9 Descartes: Describing geometric figures by algebraic formulas 1637: Ren´eDescartes publishes “La G´eom´etrie”, that is “Geometry”, a book which did not itself address calculus, but however changed once and forever the way we relate geometric shapes to algebraic equations. Later works of creators of calculus definitely relied on Descartes’ methodology and revolutionary system of notation in the most fundamental way. Ren´eDescartes (1596–1660), courtesy of Wikipedia Dr. Vladimir Dotsenko Historical notes on calculus 2/9 Fermat: “Pre-calculus” 1638: In a letter to Mersenne, Pierre de Fermat explains what later becomes the key point of his works “Methodus ad disquirendam maximam et minima” and “De tangentibus linearum curvarum”, that is “Method of discovery of maximums and minimums” and “Tangents of curved lines” (published posthumously in 1679). This is not differential calculus per se, but something equivalent. Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665), courtesy of Wikipedia Dr. Vladimir Dotsenko Historical notes on calculus 3/9 Pascal and Huygens: Implicit calculus In 1650s, slightly younger scientists like Blaise Pascal and Christiaan Huygens also used methods similar to those of Fermat to study maximal and minimal values of functions. They did not talk about anything like limits, but in fact were doing exactly the things we do in modern calculus for purposes of geometry and optics. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), courtesy of Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695), Wikipedia courtesy of Wikipedia Dr. Vladimir Dotsenko Historical notes on calculus 4/9 Barrow: Tangents vs areas 1669-70: Isaac Barrow publishes “Lectiones Opticae” and “Lectiones Geometricae” (“Lectures on Optics” and “Lectures on Geometry”), based on his lectures in Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Mathematics: a Brief Sketch
    Open Access Journal of Mathematical and Theoretical Physics Mini Review Open Access Evolution of mathematics: a brief sketch Ancient beginnings: numbers and figures Volume 1 Issue 6 - 2018 It is no exaggeration that Mathematics is ubiquitously Sujit K Bose present in our everyday life, be it in our school, play ground, SN Bose National Center for Basic Sciences, Kolkata mobile number and so on. But was that the case in prehistoric times, before the dawn of civilization? Necessity is the mother Correspondence: Sujit K Bose, Professor of Mathematics (retired), SN Bose National Center for Basic Sciences, Kolkata, of invenp tion or discovery and evolution in this case. So India, Email mathematical concepts must have been seen through or created by those who could, and use that to derive benefit from the Received: October 12, 2018 | Published: December 18, 2018 discovery. The creative process of discovery and later putting that to use must have been arduous and slow. I try to look back from my limited Indian perspective, and reflect up on what might have been the course taken up by mathematics during 10, 11, 12, 13, etc., giving place value to each digit. The barrier the long journey, since ancient times. of writing very large numbers was thus broken. For instance, the numbers mentioned in Yajur Veda could easily be represented A very early method necessitated for counting of objects as Dasha 10, Shata (102), Sahsra (103), Ayuta (104), Niuta (enumeration) was the Tally Marks used in the late Stone Age. In (105), Prayuta (106), ArA bud (107), Nyarbud (108), Samudra some parts of Europe, Africa and Australia the system consisted (109), Madhya (1010), Anta (1011) and Parartha (1012).
    [Show full text]
  • Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and the Gang: the True History of the Concepts Of
    FERMAT, LEIBNIZ, EULER, AND THE GANG: THE TRUE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTS OF LIMIT AND SHADOW TIZIANA BASCELLI, EMANUELE BOTTAZZI, FREDERIK HERZBERG, VLADIMIR KANOVEI, KARIN U. KATZ, MIKHAIL G. KATZ, TAHL NOWIK, DAVID SHERRY, AND STEVEN SHNIDER Abstract. Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy all used one or another form of approximate equality, or the idea of discarding “negligible” terms, so as to obtain a correct analytic answer. Their inferential moves find suitable proxies in the context of modern the- ories of infinitesimals, and specifically the concept of shadow. We give an application to decreasing rearrangements of real functions. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Methodological remarks 4 2.1. A-track and B-track 5 2.2. Formal epistemology: Easwaran on hyperreals 6 2.3. Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms and the Feferman–Levy model 8 2.4. Skolem integers and Robinson integers 9 2.5. Williamson, complexity, and other arguments 10 2.6. Infinity and infinitesimal: let both pretty severely alone 13 3. Fermat’s adequality 13 3.1. Summary of Fermat’s algorithm 14 arXiv:1407.0233v1 [math.HO] 1 Jul 2014 3.2. Tangent line and convexity of parabola 15 3.3. Fermat, Galileo, and Wallis 17 4. Leibniz’s Transcendental law of homogeneity 18 4.1. When are quantities equal? 19 4.2. Product rule 20 5. Euler’s Principle of Cancellation 20 6. What did Cauchy mean by “limit”? 22 6.1. Cauchy on Leibniz 23 6.2. Cauchy on continuity 23 7. Modern formalisations: a case study 25 8. A combinatorial approach to decreasing rearrangements 26 9.
    [Show full text]
  • 0.999… = 1 an Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson
    0 1 2 0.9999999999999999 0.999… = 1 An Infinitesimal Explanation Bryan Dawson know the proofs, but I still don’t What exactly does that mean? Just as real num- believe it.” Those words were uttered bers have decimal expansions, with one digit for each to me by a very good undergraduate integer power of 10, so do hyperreal numbers. But the mathematics major regarding hyperreals contain “infinite integers,” so there are digits This fact is possibly the most-argued- representing not just (the 237th digit past “Iabout result of arithmetic, one that can evoke great the decimal point) and (the 12,598th digit), passion. But why? but also (the Yth digit past the decimal point), According to Robert Ely [2] (see also Tall and where is a negative infinite hyperreal integer. Vinner [4]), the answer for some students lies in their We have four 0s followed by a 1 in intuition about the infinitely small: While they may the fifth decimal place, and also where understand that the difference between and 1 is represents zeros, followed by a 1 in the Yth less than any positive real number, they still perceive a decimal place. (Since we’ll see later that not all infinite nonzero but infinitely small difference—an infinitesimal hyperreal integers are equal, a more precise, but also difference—between the two. And it’s not just uglier, notation would be students; most professional mathematicians have not or formally studied infinitesimals and their larger setting, the hyperreal numbers, and as a result sometimes Confused? Perhaps a little background information wonder .
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • Isomorphism Property in Nonstandard Extensions of the ZFC Universe'
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector ANNALS OF PURE AND APPLIED LOGIC Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 88 (1997) l-25 Isomorphism property in nonstandard extensions of the ZFC universe’ Vladimir Kanoveia, *,2, Michael Reekenb aDepartment of Mathematics, Moscow Transport Engineering Institute, Obraztsova 15, Moscow 101475, Russia b Fachbereich Mathematik. Bergische Universitiit GHS Wuppertal, Gauss Strasse 20, Wuppertal 42097, Germany Received 27 April 1996; received in revised form 5 February 1997; accepted 6 February 1997 Communicated by T. Jech Abstract We study models of HST (a nonstandard set theory which includes, in particular, the Re- placement and Separation schemata of ZFC in the language containing the membership and standardness predicates, and Saturation for well-orderable families of internal sets). This theory admits an adequate formulation of the isomorphism property IP, which postulates that any two elementarily equivalent internally presented structures of a well-orderable language are isomor- phic. We prove that IP is independent of HST (using the class of all sets constructible from internal sets) and consistent with HST (using generic extensions of a constructible model of HST by a sufficient number of generic isomorphisms). Keywords: Isomorphism property; Nonstandard set theory; Constructibility; Generic extensions 0. Introduction This article is a continuation of the authors’ series of papers [12-151 devoted to set theoretic foundations of nonstandard mathematics. Our aim is to accomodate an * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. ’ Expanded version of a talk presented at the Edinburg Meeting on Nonstandard Analysis (Edinburg, August 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Abraham Robinson, 1918 - 1974
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 83, Number 4, July 1977 ABRAHAM ROBINSON, 1918 - 1974 BY ANGUS J. MACINTYRE 1. Abraham Robinson died in New Haven on April 11, 1974, some six months after the diagnosis of an incurable cancer of the pancreas. In the fall of 1973 he was vigorously and enthusiastically involved at Yale in joint work with Peter Roquette on a new model-theoretic approach to diophantine problems. He finished a draft of this in November, shortly before he underwent surgery. He spoke of his satisfaction in having finished this work, and he bore with unforgettable dignity the loss of his strength and the fading of his bright plans. He was supported until the end by Reneé Robinson, who had shared with him since 1944 a life given to science and art. There is common consent that Robinson was one of the greatest of mathematical logicians, and Gödel has stressed that Robinson more than any other brought logic closer to mathematics as traditionally understood. His early work on metamathematics of algebra undoubtedly guided Ax and Kochen to the solution of the Artin Conjecture. One can reasonably hope that his memory will be further honored by future applications of his penetrating ideas. Robinson was a gentleman, unfailingly courteous, with inexhaustible enthu­ siasm. He took modest pleasure in his many honors. He was much respected for his willingness to listen, and for the sincerity of his advice. As far as I know, nothing in mathematics was alien to him. Certainly his work in logic reveals an amazing store of general mathematical knowledge.
    [Show full text]