What Are Infinitesimals – Simple Version

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the concept of infinitesimals in mathematics, particularly their historical significance and transition to modern approaches like epsilontic definitions. Participants highlight the use of infinitesimals by mathematicians such as Leibniz and Newton, and their decline in favor of more formal methods like ZFC set theory. The conversation also touches on hyperrationals and the implications of logical model theory on the understanding of infinitesimals. The need for both simple and advanced articles on the topic is emphasized to cater to different audience levels.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic calculus concepts
  • Familiarity with ZFC set theory
  • Knowledge of logical model theory
  • Awareness of the historical context of mathematical concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical development of infinitesimals in calculus
  • Explore ZFC set theory and its implications for modern mathematics
  • Study the concept of hyperrationals and their applications
  • Learn about logical model theory and its relation to infinitesimals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, students of calculus, and anyone interested in the historical evolution of mathematical concepts and their applications in modern theory.

Messages
10,970
Reaction score
3,839
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Slimy0233, fresh_42 and Greg Bernhardt
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm still no friend of the hyper (att: <-- link is a joke) concept, but I'm happy that someone explained it. I am in principle very interested in the history of mathematics and physics, and in that respect, the article is very helpful. People tend to forget that the epsilontic is actually a rather new concept. Infinitesimals as independent quantities were in use from Leibniz and Newton until Lie and Noether at the beginning of the 20th century.

Here is Noether's article from 1918:
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Invariante_Variationsprobleme (German transcription)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0503066.pdf (English transcription)
and I'm sorry that I didn't find the facsimile on the server of the University of Göttingen right now. Anyway, it shows - and the facsimile shows it even more - that the entire Lie theory was developed along the concept of infinitesimals.

Btw., I didn't know that there were also hyperrationals (TIL).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
fresh_42 said:
Btw., I didn't know that there were also hyperrationals (TIL).

Hi Fresh

I can see why it looks like a joke. The idea is to use the concept of infinitesimals; the reader can make it less of a joke.

I am a bit concerned about having two articles - a simple version and an advanced version. Also, the advanced version has a link to how natural numbers, integers, rationals and reals are constructed. It is a bit advanced for the audience I had in mind, so am working on an article at a more basic level. You may be interested in that.

It also goes into a bit of the history of why these more formal approaches were devised, and ZFC set theory (or the ZFCA version I use with Urelements). As you would know the axiom of infinity is basically Von Neumann's construction of the naturals.

You may find it interesting. For me, it may allow the combining of the more advanced article and simplified version by separating out the more advanced material.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
Hi Fresh

I can see why it looks like a joke.
I think this is a serious misunderstanding. My link to the youtube techno song titled "Hyper, hyper" was the joke, not your article. The article is fine. Maybe I should stop to make fun of everything. :sorry:

I would be interested in the transition process. Infinitesimals were so common that all physicists and mathematicians used them as we use ordinary numbers today. However, modern textbooks switched to epsilontic. Did it come before, with, or because of Bourbaki? Or was it parallel to the rise of topology? What triggered the transition?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
bhobba said:
Sorry for the confusion.

This all grew out of studies in logical model theory (see the section on Ultraproducts):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

Thanks
Bill
One would expect that the emphasis on semantics over syntax favored the classical model with infinitesimals instead of the rather syntactic epsilontic. Infinitesimals were common, and epsilontic is an obstacle till today. Even I have to ensure myself each time I use it that the order of quantifiers is correct: ##\forall\;\exists\;\forall## - not very intuitive.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • Sticky
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K