Advertisement

Hamilton and Peacock on the Essence of Algebra

  • David Bloor

Abstract

In the London Review of 1829 the mathematician Baden Powell observed

that the most violent controversies have arisen out of the speculations of mathematicians; and that even at the present day, and among the greatest mathematical luminaries of the age, considerable difference of ideas prevails as to the relative value, importance, and even validity and correctness of different methods of investigation. (1)

Keywords

German Idealism Analytical Society Annual General Meeting Subordinate Status Real Essence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baden Powell, London Review, vol. 1, no.2, 1830, p.467.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibid., p.467.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    George Peacock, A treatise on algebra, 1830, p.1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Using these labels may be anachronistic, but it is not without point or precedent. For example, M.R. Cohen called De Morgan a formalist — M.R. Cohen, Reason and Nature. An essay on the meaning of the scientific method, Free Press, Collier-Macmillan, London, 1964, p.184; and the Dutch intuitionist Brouwer says that mathematics is ‘inner architecture’ which is grounded in consciousness whose ‘initial phenomena is a move in time’, see L.E.J. Brouwer, ‘Consciousness, philosophy and mathematics’, Proc. of Xth Ann. Cong. in Phil., Amsterdam, p.1235 and p.1249.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For a general assessment of Hamilton’s place in the history of mathematics see, for example: F. Cajori, A history of mathematics, New York, Macmillan, 1894, esp. pp.318–319;MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 5a.
    and M.J. Crowe, A history of vector analysis: the evolution of the idea of a vectorial system, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1967.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    Robert Graves, Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, London Longmans, 1832, 3 vols. e.g. vol. II, p.146.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Robert Graves, Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, London Longmans, 1832, 3 vols. e.g. vol. II, p.147.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Thomas Hankins, ‘Triplets and triads: Sir William Rowan Hamilton on the metaphysics of mathe matics’, Isis, vol. 68, no.242, June 1977, pp.175–193, p.176 (from an unpublished letter of 1855).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Thomas Hankins, ‘Triplets and triads: Sir William Rowan Hamilton on the metaphysics of mathe matics’, Isis, vol. 68, no.242, June 1977, pp.175–193, p.176 (from an unpublished letter of 1855).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    E.T. Bell, Men of mathematics, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1965, p.358 (quoted in Hankins, 1977, p.191).Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    E.T. Whittacker, ‘The sequence of ideas in the discovery of quaternions’, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., vol. 50, 1944–5, pp.93–98.Google Scholar
  13. 11a.
    The geometrical representation of complex numbers usually known as the Argand diagramme was introduced into Britain by Warren. J. Warren, A treatise on the geometrical representation of the square root of negative quantities, Cambridge, 1828.Google Scholar
  14. 11b.
    Hamilton was aware of this book and registers his debt, see W.R. Hamilton, Philosophical magazine, vol. XXV, 1844, pp.489–95.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    M.J. Crowe, A history of vector analysis: the evolution of the idea of a vectorial system, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1967 p.95; Hankins, 1977, p.176;MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 12a.
    and also Thomas Hankins, ‘Algebra as pure time: William Rowan Hamilton and the foundations of algebra’, in P.K. Machamer and R.G. Turnbull (eds), Motion and time, space and matter, Ohio State Univ. Press, 1976, pp.327–59, p.328, p.332, and p.335. I am heavily indebted to these valuable papers and some, though by no means all, of the material I quote was first encountered in Hankins’ discussion. The main exception concerns Hamilton’s politics, a subject which falls totally outside the scope of Hankins’ papers. The justification for going over some of the same ground is that I want to show how the pieces of the jig-saw can be fitted together to form a different picture.Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    There is some reason to think that general commitments of the kind I shall consider can have very technical ramifications. The twentieth-century debate between formalists and intuitionists is a case in point. Even in the present instance there are some indications of this kind. Thus, the formalists’ rejection of the doctrine of limits was a technical stance within mathematics proper, and certainly seems to have been connected with their desire for algebraic and symbolical ‘purity’. Hamilton was more sympathetic to older fluxional ideas (which used limiting processes) as well as to geometry generally.Google Scholar
  18. 14.
    Hankins, 1976, p.332.Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    Hankins, 1977, p.186.Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Graves, vol. 1, p.439.Google Scholar
  21. 17.
    Thomas Carlyle, Art.V, The foreign review and continental miscellany, vol. IV, 1829, pp.97–141.Google Scholar
  22. 18.
    Thomas Carlyle, Art.V, The foreign review and continental miscellany, vol. IV, 1829, p. 116.Google Scholar
  23. 19.
    Thomas Carlyle, Art.V, The foreign review and continental miscellany, vol. IV, 1829, p. 117.Google Scholar
  24. 20.
    Thomas Carlyle, Art.V, The foreign review and continental miscellany, vol. IV, 1829, p. 117.Google Scholar
  25. 21.
    Thomas Carlyle, Art.V, The foreign review and continental miscellany, vol. IV, 1829, p. 118.Google Scholar
  26. 22.
    C. Brinton, The political ideas of the English romanticists, Oxford University Press, 1926;Google Scholar
  27. 22a.
    A. Cobbam, Edmund Burke and the revolt against the eighteenth centry: a study of the political thinking of Burke, Wordsworth, Coleridge and Southey, London, Allan and Unwin, 1929, esp. Ch. VI;Google Scholar
  28. 22b.
    C.R. Sanders, Coleridge and the broad church movement, Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press, 1942;Google Scholar
  29. 22c.
    R.W. Harris, Romanticism and the social order, 1780–1830, London, Blandford, 1969;Google Scholar
  30. 22d.
    B. Knights, The idea of the clerisy in the nineteenth century, Cambridge, University Press, 1978, esp. Ch.II.Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    On Wordsworth see G. Dodd, ‘Wordsworth and Hamilton’, Nature, vol. 208, 1970, pp. 1261–63. On Southey and Hamilton see, for example Graves, vol. I, p.270, p.283, p.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 24.
    S.T. Coleridge, Statesman’s manual, quoted Cobbam, p.167.Google Scholar
  33. 25.
    Coleridge, Statesman’s manual, quoted Knights, p.49.Google Scholar
  34. 26.
    Ibid., p.49.Google Scholar
  35. 27.
    Coleridge, 2nd Lay Sermon, quoted Knights, p.66.Google Scholar
  36. 28.
    From Coleridge’s table talk, quoted by Harris, p.227.Google Scholar
  37. 29.
    Graves, vol. III, p.238.Google Scholar
  38. 30.
    Pantheism has a long association with political radicalism. For instance, the belief that God is the soul of the world was adopted, and imputed to, the radical sectaries of the civil war period. It was a target of attack by Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, and seems to have been one of the main reasons why the corpuscular philosophers adopted the thesis that matter is passive and cannot move itself. See, for example J.R. Jacob, ‘Boyle’s atomism and the Restoration assault on pagan naturalism’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 8, 1978, pp.211–33;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 30a.
    M.C. Jacob, The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689–1720, Ithaca, Cornel Univ. Press, 1976. For a valuable account of this work which brings out its theoretical significance for sociological theories of knowledge see S. Shapin, ‘The social uses of science, 1660–1800’, in R.S. Porter and G.S. Rousseau (eds) The ferment of knowledge: changing perspectives in eighteenth century science, Cambridge, C.U.P. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  40. 31.
    S.T. Coleridge, ‘On the constitution of the church and state according to the idea of each’, 1830.Google Scholar
  41. 32.
    Quoted by Knights, p.41 from a letter of Coleridge’s to Lord Liverpool.Google Scholar
  42. 33.
    Quoted by Knights, p.37, from ‘On the constitution......’Google Scholar
  43. 34.
    Graves, vol. I, p.618.Google Scholar
  44. 35.
    Graves, vol. I, p.551.Google Scholar
  45. 36.
    Graves, vol. I, p.553.Google Scholar
  46. 37.
    Graves, vol. I, p.444.Google Scholar
  47. 38.
    Graves, vol. I, p.444Google Scholar
  48. 39.
    Graves, vol. I, p.593.Google Scholar
  49. 40.
    Graves, vol. II, p.96.Google Scholar
  50. 41.
    Graves, vol. I, p.413, (from a memorandum of 1831).Google Scholar
  51. 42.
    Graves, vol. I, p.413.Google Scholar
  52. 43.
    quoted by Hankins, 1976, p.342.Google Scholar
  53. 44.
    quoted by Hankins, 1976, p.350.Google Scholar
  54. 45.
    Graves, vol. II, p.528.Google Scholar
  55. 46.
    Graves vol. III, p.634.Google Scholar
  56. 47.
    Graves, vol. II, p.556. (The point about Hamilton not being partisan is on p.100 of the same volume.)Google Scholar
  57. 48.
    TCDMS 1492/127.5.Google Scholar
  58. 49.
    Graves, vol. II, p.101.Google Scholar
  59. 50.
    Graves, vol. III, p.392.Google Scholar
  60. 51.
    Graves, vol. III, p.27. ‘It was English history not Irish, which I was taught, and my head still throbs with sympathy for the great British Empire.... I was almost literally sick with sorrow at hearing of the disasters in Cabool and the Khyber Pass several years ago’.Google Scholar
  61. 52.
    Graves, vol. I, p.647. ‘I have always been a loyalist, and was enrolled in the spring of 1848 among those who where ready to take up arms...’.Google Scholar
  62. 53.
    Graves, vol. I, p.612. ‘some people were pleased to call me a Puseyite, some years ago. However, I never pleaded guilty to the charge, though I had certainly leanings to high churchism’.Google Scholar
  63. 54.
    Graves, vol. I, p.465.Google Scholar
  64. 55.
    Graves, vol. I, p.451.Google Scholar
  65. 56.
    Hankins, 1976, p.340.Google Scholar
  66. 57.
    G. Peacock, ‘Report on the recent progress and present state of certain branches of analysis’, Report of the third meeting of the British association for the advancement of science held at Cambridge in 1833, London, Murray, 1834, pp.185–352.Google Scholar
  67. 58.
    Peacock, 1833, p.229.Google Scholar
  68. 59.
    Ibid., p.305.Google Scholar
  69. 60.
    Quoted by Baden Powell, 1830, p.478 from Newton’s treatise on fluxions.Google Scholar
  70. 61.
    W. Rouse Ball, A history of the study of mathematics at Cambridge, Cambridge, C.U.P. 1889.MATHGoogle Scholar
  71. 61a.
    J. Dubbey, The mathematical work of Charles Bab bage Cambridge, C.U.P. 1978, Ch.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 61b.
    P. Enros, The Analytical Society: mathematics at Cambridge university in the early nineteenth century, (unpublished PhD thesis for the University of Toronto), 1979.Google Scholar
  73. 62.
    Enros argues that the Analytical Society was not founded with the aim of reform as such, but rather with the aim of allowing its members to contribute to ‘professional’ mathematics, that is, mathematics produced by an internationally based group of specialists devoted to abstract, disciplinary criteria. It was the perceived failure of this venture that translated itself into reforming zeal.Google Scholar
  74. 63.
    Letter from Babbage to Herschel, 1st Aug. 1814.Google Scholar
  75. 64.
    See Enros, p.234.Google Scholar
  76. 65.
    Ford Brown, Fathers of the Victorians: the age of Wilberforce, Cambridge, C.U.P. 1961, p.299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 66.
    C. Babbage, Passages from the life of a philosopher, London, Longman, 1864, p.28. (When Lacroix was finally translated as part of the reform programme it is interesting to note that it did have a commentary. This explained that Lacroix was wrong to use the method of limits but should have developed the calculus on the basis of infinite series after the fashion of Lagrange.)Google Scholar
  78. 67.
    C. Babbage, Passages from the life of a philosopher, London, Longman, 1864, p.391.Google Scholar
  79. 68.
    C. Babbage, Passages from the life of a philosopher, London, Longman, 1864, p.391, Ch.XXIX.Google Scholar
  80. 69.
    C. Babbage, Passages from the life of a philosopher, London, Longman, 1864, p.29.Google Scholar
  81. 70.
    Leslie M. Crossley, The professionalisation of science in Victorian Britain, unpublished PhD thesis, Univ. of New South Wales, 1979, p.95,Google Scholar
  82. 70a.
    and H.H. Bellet, University College London 1826–1926, London, Univ. of London Press, 1929, Chapters I and II. For Coleridge, University College was just a ‘lecture bazaar’, Ibid., p.80.Google Scholar
  83. 71.
    Sophia De Morgan, Memoir of Augustus De Morgan, London, Longmans, 1882, sections II and XI.Google Scholar
  84. 72.
    The memoir gives a list, over six pages long, of articles written by De Morgan for the Penny Cyclopaedia. The list begins on p.407.Google Scholar
  85. 73.
    For John Graves’ attachment to the symbolical school see Graves, vol. II, p.143; for his contributions to the S.D.U.K. see vol. II, p.378; for Hamilton’s refusal see vol. II, p.127.Google Scholar
  86. 74.
    Coleridge as an undergraduate attended Frend’s trial at the University, Frend being a fellow and tutor at Jesus. See John Colmer, Coleridge, critic of society, Oxford, Clarendon, 1959, p.4.Google Scholar
  87. 75.
    A. De Morgan, ‘Report of the council of the society to the Twenty-Second annual general meeting’, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 5, 1842, p. 150.Google Scholar
  88. 76.
    A. De Morgan, ‘Report of the council of the society to the Twenty-Second annual general meeting’, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 5, 1842, p.146.Google Scholar
  89. 77.
    A. De Morgan, ‘Report of the council of the society to the Twenty-Second annual general meeting’, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 5, 1842, p.146.Google Scholar
  90. 78.
    Todhunter, 1876, vol. I, p.413.Google Scholar
  91. 79.
    Ibid., vol. I, p.356.Google Scholar
  92. 80.
    Graves, vol. I, p.428.Google Scholar
  93. 81.
    Graves, vol. I, p.478.Google Scholar
  94. 82.
    Graves, vol. I, p.537.Google Scholar
  95. 83.
    Graves, vol. II, p.527.Google Scholar
  96. 84.
    Graves, vol. II, p.653.Google Scholar
  97. 85.
    For a valuable discussion of the changes in Whewell’s position see Enros, pp. 247–255.Google Scholar
  98. 86.
    The potential importance of this distinction was pointed out to me by Gordon Herries-Davies of Trinity College, Dublin.Google Scholar
  99. 87.
    The point has been stressed by Mary Douglas. See esp. Mary Douglas, Purity and danger: an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966, Ch.5;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 87a.
    Mary Douglas, Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1973;Google Scholar
  101. 87b.
    Mary Douglas, Implicit meanings: essays in anthropology, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975, Part 3.Google Scholar
  102. 88.
    See the references to the work of J.R. Jacob and M.C. Jacob in footnote (30).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Bloor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations