Re:‘Infinitesimal,’ a Look at a 16th-Century Math Battle
by igravious on Tuesday January 19, 2016 @08:40AM
(#10930616)
Should have checked sooner for replies to my post, sorry!
I actually posted the above review/link in the hope that somebody would mention nilpotent infinitesimals and smooth infinitesimal analysis.
Interesting, in my opinion, is that homotopy type theory (HoTT)[0] has taken Conway's surreal numbers[1] approach. Given that I think HoTT is the correct _foundational_ tack and at the same time I also think that smooth infinitesimal analysis is the correct _calculus_ tack I'd very much like to see the two methods combined.
Re:‘Infinitesimal,’ a Look at a 16th-Century Math Battle
by twangist on Monday January 18, 2016 @05:50PM
(#10927601)
This review proves a very counterintuitive result: It's possible to review a book about the history of infinitesimals without once mentioning either Leibniz or Newton.
I actually posted the above review/link in the hope that somebody would mention nilpotent infinitesimals and smooth infinitesimal analysis.
Interesting, in my opinion, is that homotopy type theory (HoTT)[0] has taken Conway's surreal numbers[1] approach. Given that I think HoTT is the correct _foundational_ tack and at the same time I also think that smooth infinitesimal analysis is the correct _calculus_ tack I'd very much like to see the two methods combined.
[0] http://homotopytypetheory.org/book/ Part II Mathematics, 11 Real numbers, 11.6 The surreal numbers
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number