Leibniz vs Ishiguro: Closing a quarter-century of syncategoremania

Abstract

Did Leibniz exploit infinitesimals and infinities `a la rigueur, or only as shorthand for quantified propositions that refer to ordinary Archimedean magnitudes? Chapter 5 in (Ishiguro 1990) is a defense of the latter position, which she reformulates in terms of Russellian logical fictions. Ishiguro does not explain how to reconcile this interpretation with Leibniz's repeated assertions that infinitesimals violate the Archimedean property, viz., Euclid's Elements, V.4. We present textual evidence from Leibniz, as well as historical evidence from the early decades of the calculus, to undermine Ishiguro's interpretation. Leibniz frequently writes that his infinitesimals are useful fictions, and we agree; but we shall show that it is best not to understand them as logical fictions; instead, they are better understood as pure fictions. Keywords: Archimedean property; infinitesimal; logical fiction; pure fiction; quantified paraphrase; law of homogeneity

37 pages. Published in HOPOS (Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science) online

References in corpus (2)

• Leibniz's Infinitesimals: Their Fictionality, Their Modern Implementations, And Their Foes From Berkeley To Russell And Beyond
• Edward Nelson (1932-2014)

Cited by in corpus (10)

• Interpreting the infinitesimal mathematics of Leibniz and Euler
• Procedures of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus: An account in three modern frameworks
• Toward a history of mathematics focused on procedures
• Cauchy's infinitesimals, his sum theorem, and foundational paradigms
• Gregory's sixth operation
• Continuity between Cauchy and Bolzano: Issues of antecedents and priority
• Fermat's dilemma: Why did he keep mum on infinitesimals? and the European theological context
• Small oscillations of the pendulum, Euler's method, and adequality
• Edward Nelson (1932-2014)
• Is Leibnizian calculus embeddable in first order logic?