The rise of non-Archimedean mathematics and the roots of a misconception. I: The emergence of non-Archimedean systems of magnitudes (Q813283): Difference between revisions

In the present paper the attention is focused on the emergence of the theory of non-Archimedean Grössensysteme (Systems of magnitudes) in the years prior to the development of non-Archi\-medean geometry. By the early 1880s, Otto Stolz had already introduced a pair of number systems and a fledgling theory thereof which Abraham Robinson in 1967 aptly described as ``a modest, but rigorous theory of non-Archimedean systems''. The two number systems were given large audiences through their incorporation into \textit{O. Stolz}'s widely used textbook ``Vorlesungen über allgemeine Arithmetik (Teubner, Leipzig)(1885; JFM 17.0116.01, JFM 18.0130.02)]. It was with these and related discoveries that Stolz laid the groundwork for the modern theory of magnitudes. In the author's opinion, there is sufficient reason for regarding Stolz as the father of the modern theory of extensive magnitudes, an honor usually conferred on Helmholtz (1887) or Hölder (1901). This is part I: ``Setting the stage''. In part II: ``Du Bois-Reymond's orders of infinity of functions and Stolz's ordered algebraic system thereof'' first the groundwork is considered which \textit{P. Du Bois-Reymond} laid in his paper [Sur la grandeur relative des infinis des fonctions, Brioschi Ann. (2) IV, 338--353 (1870; JFM 03.0309.01)] and developed it in more than a dozen other works culminating in his mathematico-philosophical treatise [Die Allgemeine Functiontheorie (Tübingen, Laupp)(1882; JFM 14.0309.01)]. Otto Stolz was persuaded that there are families of du Bois-Reymond's infinities that are richer than the ordered set of real numbers. Having exhibited an instance of a non-Archimedean system of absolute magnitudes, Stolz turns his attention to proving that systems of absolute magnitudes that are continuous are Archimedean, but the proposed proof is flawed. The proof of Hölder (1901) was then incorporated into \textit{Theoretische Arithmetik}, Teubner, Leipzig (1902; JFM 42.0184.01, JFM 33.0177.01) by \textit{O. Stolz} and \textit{J. A. Gmeiner}. The ``Stolz's moments of functions'' from this book are discussed in part III of the present paper. Moreover, Killing's ``proof'' of the impossibility of such systems (in his ``Die Nicht-Euklidischen Raumformen\dots'', 1885) and Veronese's critique of his ``proof'' (in his ``Fondamenti di Geometria'', 1891) are considered, like Cantor's early antipathy to infinitesimals. Cantor's ``proof'' of the impossibility of infinitesimals, together with its prelude, is analyzed in detail, and then Stolz's response (1888) to Cantor. In the parts IV, V, and VI the works of Thomae in 1870s, and Bettazzi and Veronese in 1890s are discussed, like Stolz's rethinkings in 1891. In the final part of his paper the author describes the Bettazzi-Vivanti debate in 1890s on the problem: Does the actual infinitesimal exist? The various non-Archimedean geometrical spaces would soon be developed by writers such as Veronese (1891), Levi-Civita, (1892-93), Hilbert (1899), Dehn (1900), Schur (1899 to 1909), Hessenberg (1905) and Hjelmslev (1907). The paper is equipped with extensive references.