This paper provides a definitive answer, based on considerations derived from first-order logic, to the question regarding the status of elementary geometry, whether elementary geometry can be reduced to algebra. The answer we arrive at is negative, and is based on a series of structural questions that can be asked only inside the geometric formal theory, as well as the consideration of reverse geometry, which is the art of finding minimal axiom systems strong enough to prove certain geometrical theorems, given (...) that there are no algebraic structures that one could associate with those minimal axiom systems. (shrink)

Mathematical texts raise particular dilemmas for the translator. With its arm’s-length relation to verbal expression and long-standing “mathematics is written for mathematicians” ethos, mathematics lends itself awkwardly to textually centered analysis. Otherwise sound standards of historical scholarship can backfire when rigidly upheld in a mathematical context. Mathematically inclined historians have had more faith in a purported empathic sixth sense—and there is a case to be made that this is how mathematical authors have generally expected their works to be read—but it (...) is difficult to pin down exact evidentiary standards for this supposed instinct. This essay urges that both of these points of view, for all the tension between them, be kept in the historian’s toolbox. It illustrates these considerations with a case study from the Ptolemaic astronomical tradition on computing lunar model parameters from eclipse data. (shrink)

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. (shrink)