Cauchy’s contribution to the foundations of analysis is often viewed through the lens of developments that occurred some decades later, namely the formalisation of analysis on the basis of the epsilon-delta doctrine in the context of an Archimedean continuum. What does one see if one refrains from viewing Cauchy as if he had read Weierstrass already? One sees, with Felix Klein, a parallel thread for the development of analysis, in the context of an infinitesimal-enriched continuum. One sees, with Emile Borel, (...) the seeds of the theory of rates of growth of functions as developed by Paul du Bois-Reymond. One sees, with E. G. Björling, an infinitesimal definition of the criterion of uniform convergence. Cauchy’s foundational stance is hereby reconsidered. (shrink)

A construction of the real number system based on almost homomorphisms of the integers $\mathbb {Z}$ was proposed by Schanuel, Arthan, and others. We combine such a construction with the ultrapower or limit ultrapower construction to construct the hyperreals out of integers. In fact, any hyperreal field, whose universe is a set, can be obtained by such a one-step construction directly out of integers. Even the maximal (i.e., On -saturated) hyperreal number system described by Kanovei and Reeken (2004) and independently (...) by Ehrlich (2012) can be obtained in this fashion, albeit not in NBG . In NBG , it can be obtained via a one-step construction by means of a definable ultrapower (modulo a suitable definable class ultrafilter). (shrink)

We examine Paul Halmos’ comments on category theory, Dedekind cuts, devil worship, logic, and Robinson’s infinitesimals. Halmos’ scepticism about category theory derives from his philosophical position of naive set-theoretic realism. In the words of an MAA biography, Halmos thought that mathematics is “certainty” and “architecture” yet 20th century logic teaches us is that mathematics is full of uncertainty or more precisely incompleteness. If the term architecture meant to imply that mathematics is one great solid castle, then modern logic tends to (...) teach us the opposite lesson, namely that the castle is floating in midair. Halmos’ realism tends to color his judgment of purely scientific aspects of logic and the way it is practiced and applied. He often expressed distaste for nonstandard models, and made a sustained effort to eliminate first-order logic, the logicians’ concept of interpretation, and the syntactic vs semantic distinction. He felt that these were vague, and sought to replace them all by his polyadic algebra. Halmos claimed that Robinson’s framework is “unnecessary” but Henson and Keisler argue that Robinson’s framework allows one to dig deeper into set-theoretic resources than is common in Archimedean mathematics. This can potentially prove theorems not accessible by standard methods, undermining Halmos’ criticisms. (shrink)

Cauchy's sum theorem is a prototype of what is today a basic result on the convergence of a series of functions in undergraduate analysis. We seek to interpret Cauchy’s proof, and discuss the related epistemological questions involved in comparing distinct interpretive paradigms. Cauchy’s proof is often interpreted in the modern framework of a Weierstrassian paradigm. We analyze Cauchy’s proof closely and show that it finds closer proxies in a different modern framework.

The Schur-Zassenhaus Theorem is one of the fundamental theorems of finite group theory. Here is its statement:Fact1.1 (Schur-Zassenhaus Theorem). Let G be a finite group and let N be a normal subgroup of G. Assume that the order ∣N∣ is relatively prime to the index [G:N]. Then N has a complement in G and any two complements of N are conjugate in G.The proof can be found in most standard books in group theory, e.g., in [S, Chapter 2, Theorem 8.10]. (...) The original statement stipulated one ofNorG/Nto be solvable. Since then, the Feit-Thompson theorem [FT] has been proved and it forces eitherNorG/Nto be solvable. (The analogous Feit-Thompson theorem for groups of finite Morley rank is a long standing open problem).The literal translation of the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem to the finite Morley rank context would state that in a groupGof finite Morley rank a normal π-Hall subgroup (if it exists at all) has a complement and all the complements are conjugate to each other. (Recall that a groupHis called aπ-group, where π is a set of prime numbers, if elements ofHhave finite orders whose prime divisors are from π. Maximal π-subgroups of a groupGare called π-Hall subgroups. They exist by Zorn's lemma. Since a normal π-subgroup ofGis in all the π-Hall subgroups, if a group has a normal π-Hall subgroup then this subgroup is unique.)The second assertion of the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem about the conjugacy of complements is false in general. As a counterexample, consider the multiplicative group ℂ* of the complex number field ℂ and consider thep-Sylow for any primep, or even the torsion part of ℂ*. LetHbe this subgroup.Hhas a complement, but this complement is found by Zorn's Lemma (consider a maximal subgroup that intersectsHtrivially) and the use of Zorn's Lemma is essential. In fact, by Zorn's Lemma, any subgroup that has a trivial intersection withHcan be extended to a complement ofH. Since ℂ* is abelian, these complements cannot be conjugated to each other. (shrink)

One of the purposes of this paper is to prove a partial Schur-Zassenhaus Theorem for groups of finite Morley rank.Theorem 2.Let G be a solvable group of finite Morley rank. Let π be a set of primes, and let H ⊲ G a normal π-Hall subgroup. Then H has a complement in G.This result has been proved in [1] with the additional assumption thatGis connected, and thought to be generalized in [2] by the authors of the present article. Unfortunately in (...) the last section of the latter paper there is an irrepairable mistake. Here we give a new proof of the Schur-Zassenhaus Theorem using the results of [2] up to the last section and a new result that we are going to state below.The second author has shown in [11] that a nilpotentω-stable group is the central product of a divisible subgroup and a subgroup of bounded exponent, generalizing a well-known result of Angus Macintyre about abelian groups [8]. One could ask a similar question for solvable groups: are they a product of two subgroups, one divisible, one of bounded exponent? One is allowed to be hopeful because of the well-known decomposition of the connected solvable algebraic groups over algebraically closed fields as the product of the unipotent radical and a torus. (shrink)

We classify irreducible actions of connected groups of finite Morley rank on abelian groups of Morley rank 3.