Timeline for In what ways did Leibniz's philosophy foresee modern mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @YemonChoi, my point was precisely to note that traditional historians tend to read the Weierstrassian present in the Leibniz/Euler/Cauchy past as if accepting a principle that Weierstrass (and infinitesimal calculus minus infinitesimals) was the inevitable result of progress. In a way consonant with Francois' comment, our published research tends to steer clear of such assumptions. | |
| Mar 20, 2016 at 16:11 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 258 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2016 at 16:10 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 684 characters in body
|
| Apr 22, 2013 at 13:22 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added example from Levey
|
| Apr 18, 2013 at 9:36 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I think you know this already, but what Francois refers to is common to many if not most historians of anything - one should avoid reading the present into the past, and beware telological narratives. In my view, that general philosophy is completely separate from any supposed Desire To Preserve The Orthodoxy of Epsilontics Against The Heresy of Infinitesimals | |
| Apr 18, 2013 at 8:38 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
sp
|
| Apr 18, 2013 at 8:03 | history | answered | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |