Ten Misconceptions from the History of Analysis and Their Debunking

The widespread idea that infinitesimals were "eliminated" by the "great triumvirate" of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass is refuted by an uninterrupted chain of work on infinitesimal-enriched number systems. The elimination claim is an oversimplification created by triumvirate followers, who tend to view the history of analysis as a pre-ordained march toward the radiant future of Weierstrassian epsilontics. In the present text, we document distortions of the history of analysis stemming from the triumvirate ideology of ontological minimalism, which identified the continuum with a single number system. Such anachronistic distortions characterize the received interpretation of Stevin, Leibniz, d'Alembert, Cauchy, and others.Comment: 46 pages, 4 figures; Foundations of Science (2012). arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1108.2885 and arXiv:1110.545

Testing of random matrices

Let $n$ be a positive integer and $X = [x_{ij}]_{1 \leq i, j \leq n}$ be an $n \times n$\linebreak \noindent sized matrix of independent random variables having joint uniform distribution \hbox{Pr} {x_{ij} = k \hbox{for} 1 \leq k \leq n} = \frac{1}{n} \quad (1 \leq i, j \leq n) \koz. A realization $\mathcal{M} = [m_{ij}]$ of $X$ is called \textit{good}, if its each row and each column contains a permutation of the numbers $1, 2,..., n$. We present and analyse four typical algorithms which decide whether a given realization is good