Leibniz's laws of continuity and homogeneity

By Mikhail G. Katz, David Sherry. 2012

50 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We explore Leibniz's understanding of the differential calculus, and argue that his methods were more coherent than is generally recognized. The foundations of the historical infinitesimal calculus of Newton and Leibniz have been a target of numerous criticisms. Some of the critics believed to have found logical fallacies in its foundations. We present a detailed textual analysis of Leibniz's seminal text Cum Prodiisset, and argue that Leibniz's system for differential calculus was free of contradictions.

Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Mathematical Physics, Theoretical Computer Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/46a688b1719aa270b64c8c0d82506e19ea4368b8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In History and Philosophy of Science

1. David Sherry
2. Mikhail G. Katz
3. Piotr Błaszczyk
4. J. McGrane

In Mathematical Physics

1. Mikhail G. Katz
2. David Sherry
3. Piotr Błaszczyk

In Theoretical Computer Science

1. Mikhail G. Katz
2. David Sherry
3. Piotr Błaszczyk
4. R. Ely

Citations in the corpus

• Is mathematical history written by the victors (2013, background): “The articles (Katz & Sherry 2012 [72]; 2013 [73]; Sherry & Katz [107]) building on the earlier work (Sherry 1987 [105]), argued that Leibniz’s system was in fact consistent (in the sense of level (2) of entry 4.5),18 and featured resilient heuristic principles such as the law of continuity (entry…”