Synthetic and analytic geometries in the publications of Jakob Steiner and Julius Plücker (1827--1829) (Q308993)

The author presents a comprehensive study about the geometries of Jakob Steiner and Julius Plücker. She compares in detail the methods they used to solve nearly the same geometric problems. Julius Plücker mostly used ``analytic'' methods. On the contrary, Jakob Steiner was convinced that ``synthetic'' methods were more appropriate. The conflict increased to the point that Plücker resigned and directed his interests to other mathematical fields. In the early nineteenth century, analytic geometry meant to use coordinate equations, synthetic geometry by definition was figure-based. But some geometers were not simply analytics or synthetics. Later, \textit{F. Klein} [Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen. Erlangen: A. Deichert (1872; JFM 04.0229.01)] claimed that ``The distinction between modern synthetic and modern analytic geometry must no longer be regarded as essential, in as much as both subject matter and methods of reasoning have gradually taken a similar form in both.'' Up to the twenteeth century, geometers differed in their nomenclature of their methods. (A) The Apollonius problem. The Apollonius problem is to find a circle tangent to three given coplanar circles. First, the author outlines the solution of Joseph D. Gergonne. Gergonne published three articles about this problem in different detailedness (1810, 1814, 1817). Jean Victor Poncelet dealt with this subject as well. He knew of Gergonne's research but, in 1822, he gave another solution to show off his own new applications. Subsequently, the author examines \textit{J. Steiner}'s research about tangent circles [J. Reine Angew. Math. 1, 38--52 (1826; ERAM 001.0006cj); ibid. 1, 161--184 (1826; ERAM 001.0020cj); ibid. 1, 252--288 (1826; ERAM 001.0027cj); ibid. 1, 349--364 (1826; ERAM 001.0033cj); ibid. 1, 364--367 (1826; ERAM 001.0034cj); ibid. 2, 268--275 (1827; ERAM 002.0065cj)]. His research was independent from the French scientists. By means of his methods he also solved Malfatti's problem and Pappus's theorem. The details of his solution of the Appolonius problem appeared posthumously [Allgemeine Theorie über das Berühren und Schneiden der Kreise und der Kugeln, worunter eine große Anzahl neuer Untersuchungen und Sätze vorkommen, in einem systematischen Entwicklungsgange dargestellt. Zürich: Orell Füßli (1931; JFM 57.1305.01)]. In 1827, Gergonne and some other reviewers (Karl Friedrich von Klöden, Friedlich Wilhelm Bessel) came to know Steiner's articles, and interpreted and discussed his methods. Plücker began publishing and corresponding with contemporary French geometers in 1826. His work was based rather on Poncelet's methods than on Gergonne's methods. He used coordinate equations, but also synthetic methods. His solutions were more rapid and more simple in several respects. Crelle wrote a letter of recommendation about Plücker's research to the Prussian culture minister, Karl vom Stein, in which he explained the differences between analytic and synthetic geometries at great length. He asserts that Plücker used both methods. (B) Conic sections with four common points (1828). In 1817, Lamé published a theorem about conic sections, later called Lamé's theorem. In 1828, Steiner began to study the relationship between conic sections in the plane as well. He now published his findings in the `Annales de mathématiques pures et appliquées' in French. Steiner's results were not made for easy reading. Often, his figures were complicated, and one figure illustrates sometimes several constructions. Plücker's research on algebraic curves appeared in the same issue of the `Annales' (XIX) as Steiner's articles. His research was more succinct and driven toward a clearly enunciated goal. His entire article remained within the system of rectangular coordinate equations without figures and avoiding calculations. The results of his research was not new, however, the form of analytic geometry he used was new. Similar to Steiner and Plücker, Gergonne had given a proof of Lamé's theorem. His proof relied upon calculation with coordinate equations, thus his method also could be named ``analytic''. But his version was more special and did not include general second-order curves. The author concludes that both geometers used the opportunity to show off their particular methods, and gave a number of other coherent theorems. Steiner began with what he wanted to show and worked backward to initial conditions. Sometimes, he stated his findings without proof. Plücker remained up to the end of his research in geometry in using algebraic equations. He began with general initial theorems pertaining to curves of any degree. He then proceeded to the more particular case of second-degree curves. Both translated their findings in figures to show the geometric solutions. The author summarizes that Steiner and Plücker redefined synthetic and analytic methods to solve elementary problems in Euclidean geometries but in distinct personal practices.