Continuity between Cauchy and Bolzano: issues of antecedents and priority

J. Bair, Piotr Błaszczyk, Elías Fuentes Guillén, P. Heinig, V. Kanovei, M. Katz
{"title":"Continuity between Cauchy and Bolzano: issues of antecedents and priority","authors":"J. Bair, Piotr Błaszczyk, Elías Fuentes Guillén, P. Heinig, V. Kanovei, M. Katz","doi":"10.1080/26375451.2020.1770015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a paper published in 1970, Grattan-Guinness argued that Cauchy, in his 1821 Cours d'Analyse, may have plagiarized Bolzano's Rein analytischer Beweis (RB), first published in 1817. That paper was subsequently discredited in several works, but some of its assumptions still prevail today. In particular, it is usually considered that Cauchy did not develop his notion of the continuity of a function before Bolzano developed his in RB and that both notions are essentially the same. We argue that both assumptions are incorrect, and that it is implausible that Cauchy's initial insight into that notion, which eventually evolved to an approach using infinitesimals, could have been borrowed from Bolzano's work. Furthermore, we account for Bolzano's interest in that notion and focus on his discussion of a definition by Kästner (in Section 183 of his 1766 book), which the former seems to have misrepresented at least partially.","PeriodicalId":36683,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the History of Mathematics","volume":"35 1","pages":"207 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26375451.2020.1770015","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the History of Mathematics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26375451.2020.1770015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

In a paper published in 1970, Grattan-Guinness argued that Cauchy, in his 1821 Cours d'Analyse, may have plagiarized Bolzano's Rein analytischer Beweis (RB), first published in 1817. That paper was subsequently discredited in several works, but some of its assumptions still prevail today. In particular, it is usually considered that Cauchy did not develop his notion of the continuity of a function before Bolzano developed his in RB and that both notions are essentially the same. We argue that both assumptions are incorrect, and that it is implausible that Cauchy's initial insight into that notion, which eventually evolved to an approach using infinitesimals, could have been borrowed from Bolzano's work. Furthermore, we account for Bolzano's interest in that notion and focus on his discussion of a definition by Kästner (in Section 183 of his 1766 book), which the former seems to have misrepresented at least partially.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
柯西和博尔扎诺之间的连续性:先例和优先事项问题
Grattan Guinness在1970年发表的一篇论文中认为,Cauchy在1821年的《分析报》中可能抄袭了Bolzano于1817年首次发表的Rein analysitischer Beweis(RB)。该论文随后在几部作品中遭到质疑,但其中一些假设至今仍占上风。特别是,人们通常认为,在波尔扎诺在RB中发展出函数的连续性之前,柯西并没有发展出函数连续性的概念,而且这两个概念本质上是相同的。我们认为,这两种假设都是不正确的,柯西对这一概念的最初见解,最终演变成了一种使用无穷小的方法,可能是从博尔扎诺的工作中借鉴的,这是不可信的。此外,我们解释了博尔扎诺对这一概念的兴趣,并重点讨论了他对Kästner定义的讨论(在他1766年出版的书的第183节中),前者似乎至少部分歪曲了这一定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal for the History of Mathematics
British Journal for the History of Mathematics Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
The Loterias Lisbonenses of Francisco Giraldes Barba Thomas Simpson and Dido’s problem Graph theory in America: the first hundred years Mesopotamian square root approximation by a sequence of rectangles Through the looking glass, and what algebra found there: historically informed conceptual metaphors of algebraic substitution and Gaussian elimination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1