Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Arithmetization of analysis

From Encyclopedia of Mathematics
Revision as of 20:24, 1 May 2014 by Whayes43 (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

The phrase "arithmetization of analysis" refers to 19th century efforts to create a "theory of real numbers ... using set-theoretic constructions, starting from the natural numbers." [1] These efforts took place over a period of about 50 years, with the following results:

  1. the establishment of fundamental concepts related to limits
  2. the derivation of the main theorems concerning those concepts
  3. the creation of the theory of real numbers.

It is interesting, and has been noted elsewhere, that although the theory of real numbers is today the logical starting point (foundation) of analysis in the real domain, the creation of the theory was not achieved historically until the end of the period (program or movement) of arithmetization.[2]

Non-mathematical issues

The history of the arithmetization of analysis was complicated by non-mathematical issues. Some authors were very slow to publish and some important results were not published at all during their authors' lifetimes. The work of other authors was, for unknown reasons, completely ignored. As a consequence, some results were achieved multiple times, albeit in slightly different forms or using somewhat different methods, by different authors.

As a first example, consider the work of Bozano. Only two of his papers dealing with the foundations of analysis were published during his lifetime. Both of these papers remained virtually unknown until after his death. A third work of his, based on a manuscript that dates from 1831-34, but that remained undiscovered until after WWI, was finally published in 1930. This work contains some results fundamental to the foundations of analysis that were re-discovered in the 19th century by others decades after Bolzano completed his manuscript. "We may ask how much Bolzano's work could have changed the way analysis followed, had it been published at the time."[3]

As a second example, consider the work of W.R. Hamilton, in particular his 1837 essay on the foundations of mathematics, in which he attempted to show that analysis (which for Hamilton included algebra) alike with geometry, can be "a Science properly so called; strict, pure, and independent; deduced by valid reasonings from its own intuitive principles." Hamilton's essay contained the following:

  • the notion that analysis "can be constructively inferred from a few intuitively based axioms"
  • ideas used much later by others (Peano, Dedekind, others) "including a notion related to the concept of a cut in the rationals"

Even so, Hamilton's essay was ignored by other English mathematicians and had no apparent influence on the work of German mathematicians who completed the process of arithmetization later in the century.[4]

Early steps towards arithmetization

Martin Ohm

In 1822, Martin Ohm published the first two volumes of a work that has been described as "the first attempt since Euclid to write down a logical exposition of everything that was more or less basic in contemporary mathematics, starting from scratch ... a completely formalist conception."[5]

Years later, while still in the midst of this project, Ohm noted as follows, quite retrospectively, several types of "complaints of the want of clearness and rigour in that part of Mathematics" that led him to pursue his decades-long efforts:

-- contradictions of the theory of "opposed magnitudes" -- disquiet by "imaginary quantities" -- difficulties in either divergence or convergence of "infinite series"

Ohm described the motivation for his work as a desire to answer this question: "How may the paradoxes of calculation be most securely avoided?" His answer was "to submit to a very exact examination of the subject of mathematical analysis, its first and simplest ideas, as also the methods of reasoning which are applied to it."[6]

After his two volumes of 1822, Ohm continued for 30 more years and produced ultimately nine volumes. He himself believed that his work had put mathematics on a firm basis.[7]

The arithmetization program

Two pillars of mathematics

The state of mathematics prior to 19th century efforts at arithmetization has been described by modern authors in various ways:

  • analysis rested more or less comfortably on two pilars: the discrete side on arithmetic, the continuous side on geometry.[8]
  • the source domain of analysis was geometry; that of number theory was arithmetic.[9]

"The analytic work of L. Euler, K. Gauss, A. Cauchy, B. Riemann, and others led to a shift towards the predominance of algebraic and arithmetic ideas. In the late nineteenth century, this tendency culminated in the so-called arithmetization of analysis, due principally to K. Weierstrass, G. Cantor, and R. Dedekind."[10]

The fundamental theorem of algebra

Proofs of "The fundamental theorem of algebra" have a long history, with dates (currently) ranging from 1608 (Peter Rothe) to 1998 (Fred Richman).[11]

Gauss offered two proofs of the theorem. All proofs offered before his assumed the existence of roots. Gauss' proofs were the first that did not make this assumption:[12]

  • In 1799, he offered a proof of the theorem that was largely geometric. This first proof assumed as obvious a geometric result that was actually harder to prove than the theorem itself!
  • In 1816, he offered a second proof that was not geometric. This proof assumed as obvious a result known today as the intermediate value theorem.

The significance of Gauss' proofs for the arithmetization of analysis has been explained in various ways:

  • the theorem itself involved a discrete result, while his proofs used continuous methods, calling into question the comfortable two-pillar foundation of mathematics.[13]
  • using analysis to prove the fundamental theorem of number theory raised a problem about the boundary between number theory and analysis.[14]

The intermediate value theorem

As noted above, Gauss' 1816 proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra relied on the intermediate value theorem:

if f(x) is a continuous function of a real variable x and if f(a) < 0 and f(b) > 0, then there is a c between a and b such that f(c) = 0.

It was Bolzano's insight that this theorem, though very plausible, needed to be proved. In 1817, he offered a proof of the theorem, which he stated in a "rather (unnecessarily) complicated" form:[15]

If f,g are two functions, both continuous in a closed interval [a, b], and if f(a) < g(a), f(b) > g(b), then there is at least one number x inside this interval, such that f(x) = g(x).

Balzano's proof relied, in turn, on an assumption, namely, the existence of a greatest lower bound:[16]

if a certain property M holds only for values greater than some quantity l, then there is a greatest quantity u such that M holds only for values greater than or equal to u.

A proof of the greatest lower bound theorem needed to await the building of the theory of real numbers. However, Bolzano demonstrated the plausibility of the theorem, introducing the condition for the convergence of a sequence known today as the Bozano-Cauchy condition and attempting actually to prove the sufficiency of this condition.

The condition for continuity of a function

Bolzano saw that the intermediate value theorem needed to be proved "as a consequence of the definition of continuity." In his 1817 proof, he introduced essentially the modern condition for continuity of a function f at a point x:[17]

f(x + h) − f(x) can be made smaller than any given quantity, provided h can be made arbitrarily close to zero

The caveat essentially is needed because of his complicated statement of the theorem, as noted above. In effect, the condition for continuity as stated by Bolzano actually applies not at a point x, but within an interval. In his 1831-34 manuscript, Bolzano provided a definition of continuity at a point (including one-sided continuity). However, as noted above, this manuscript remained unpublished until eighty years after Bolzano's death and, consequently, it had no influence on the efforts of Weierstrass and others, who completed the arithmetization program.[18]

Bolzano and Cauchy gave similar defnitions of limits, derivatives, continuity, and convergence. They were contemporaries, "both chronologically and mathematically."[19] In 1821, Cauchy added to Bolzano's definition of continuity at a point "the final touch of precision":[20]

for each ε > 0 there is a δ > 0 such that |f(x + h) − f(x)| < ε for all |h| < δ

Here it's important to note that, as he stated it, Cauchy's condition for continuity, alike with Bolzano's, actually applies not at a point x, but within an interval.[21]

Weierstrass, working very long after both Bozano and Cauchy, formulated "the precise (ε,δ) definition of continuity at a point."[22]

Theory of irrational numbers

Early contributions to a theory of irrational numbers were made by several authors:

  • 1829 -- Ohm
  • 1833 -- Hamilton
  • 1835 -- Bolzano

All of their efforts, however, were either incomplete or lacking in rigor or both. It was not until 1869 that Charles Méray published "the earliest coherent and rigorous theory of irational numbers."[23]

Méray's contemporaries in France, however, failed to appreciate the significance of his work, while others in Germany and elsewhere were unaware of it. As a result, his great achievement, though the equivalent of Cantor's which followed shortly after, went unacknowledged and had no influence of the direction of mathematics.[24]

In 1872, Cantor published his own theory of irrational numbers, defining them in terms of convergent sequences of rational numbers. It was his accomplishment that became known, that influenced the work of others, especially Dedekind, and consequently that became celebrated as a significant step in the arithmetization of analysis.

Continuous nowhere differentiable functions

"The discovery of continuous nowhere differentiable functions shocked the mathematical community. It also accentuated the need for analytic rigour in mathematics."[25]

Notes

  1. ↑ Arithmetization
  2. ↑ Jarník et. al.
  3. ↑ Jarník et. al.
  4. ↑ Hamilton cited in Mathews, Introduction
  5. ↑ Zerner cited in O'Connor and Robertson
  6. ↑ Ohm 1843 cited in O'Connor and Robertson
  7. ↑ O'Connor and Robertson
  8. ↑ Stillwell
  9. ↑ Ueno p. 73
  10. ↑ Hatcher
  11. ↑ "Fundamental Theorem of Algebra," Wikipedia
  12. ↑ "Fundamental Theorem of Algebra," Wikipedia
  13. ↑ Stillman
  14. ↑ Ueno p. 72
  15. ↑ Jarník et. al., p. 36
  16. ↑ Stillman
  17. ↑ Stillman
  18. ↑ Jarník et. al., p. 38
  19. ↑ Grabiner, cited in Pinkus, p. 3
  20. ↑ Stillman
  21. ↑ Jarník et. al., p. 38
  22. ↑ Pinkus, p. 2
  23. ↑ O'Connor and Robertson, Charles Méray
  24. ↑ Robinson
  25. ↑ Pinkus p. 4

Primary sources

  • Bolzano, Bernard (1817), ("Analytic Proof").
  • Bolzano, Bernard (1930), Functionenlehre, Royal Bohemian Learned Society, based on a manuscript dating from 1831-34.
  • Hamilton, W. R. (1837), "Algebra as the Science of Pure Time."
  • Kronecker, Leopold (1901), "Vorlesungen Uber Zahlentheorie" ("Lecture Notes on Number Theory"), Leipzig, Druck und Verlag von B.G.Teubner.
  • Méray, Charles (1869) Remarques sur la nature des quantités définies par la condition de servir de limites à des variables données.
  • Ohm, Martin (1822), Versuch eines vollkommen consequenten Systems der Mathematik ("Attempt at a completely consequential system of mathematics").
  • Ohm, Martin (1843 [German original 1842]), The Spirit of Mathematical Analysis and its Relation to a Logical System.

References

How to Cite This Entry:
Arithmetization of analysis. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Arithmetization_of_analysis&oldid=32118
Retrieved from "https://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Arithmetization_of_analysis&oldid=32117"