Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 527–532 | Cite as

Comments on a Paper on Alleged Misconceptions Regarding the History of Analysis: Who Has Misconceptions?

  • Gert Schubring
Commentary

Abstract

This comment is analysing the last section of a paper by Piotr Blaszczyk, Mikhail G. Katz, and David Sherry on alleged misconceptions committed by historians of mathematics regarding the history of analysis, published in this journal in the first issue of 2013. Since this section abounds of wrong attributions and denouncing statements regarding my research and a key publication, the comment serves to rectify them and to recall some minimal methodological requirements for historical research.

Keywords

Counter-statement Cauchy Infinitesimals Non-standard analysis Hermeneutics Scientific ethic 

References

  1. Blaszczyk, P., Katz, M. G., & Sherry, D. (2013). Ten misconceptions from the history of analysis and their debunking. Foundations of Science, 18(1), 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Lakatos, I. (1978). Cauchy and the continuum: The significance of non-standard analysis for the history and philosophy of mathematics. In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), Imre Lakatos: Mathematics, science and epistemology. Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 43–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Schubring, G. (2004). Le Retour du Refoulé. Der Wiederaufstieg der synthetischen Methode an der École Polytechnique. Reihe Algorismus, No. 46. Augsburg: Erwin Rauner.Google Scholar
  4. Schubring, G. (2005). Conflicts between generalization, rigor and intuition. Number concepts underlying the development of analysis in 17th19th century France and Germany. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für MathematikUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations