Relative systoles of relative-essential 2-complexes

We prove a systolic inequality for the phi-relative 1-systole of a phi-essential 2-complex, where phi is a homomorphism from the fundamental group of the complex, to a finitely presented group G. Indeed we show that universally for any phi-essential Riemannian 2-complex, and any G, the area of X is bounded below by 1/8 of sys(X,phi)^2. Combining our results with a method of Larry Guth, we obtain new quantitative results for certain 3-manifolds: in particular for Sigma the Poincare homology sphere, we have sys(Sigma)^3 < 24 vol(Sigma).Comment: 20 pages, to appear in Algebraic and Geometric Topolog

Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and the gang: The true history of the concepts of limit and shadow

Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy all used one or another form of approximate equality, or the idea of discarding "negligible" terms, so as to obtain a correct analytic answer. Their inferential moves find suitable proxies in the context of modern theories of infinitesimals, and specifically the concept of shadow. We give an application to decreasing rearrangements of real functions.Comment: 35 pages, 2 figures, to appear in Notices of the American Mathematical Society 61 (2014), no.

Is Leibnizian calculus embeddable in first order logic?

To explore the extent of embeddability of Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus in first-order logic (FOL) and modern frameworks, we propose to set aside ontological issues and focus on pro- cedural questions. This would enable an account of Leibnizian procedures in a framework limited to FOL with a small number of additional ingredients such as the relation of infinite proximity. If, as we argue here, first order logic is indeed suitable for developing modern proxies for the inferential moves found in Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus, then modern infinitesimal frameworks are more appropriate to interpreting Leibnizian infinitesimal calculus than modern Weierstrassian ones

Cauchy, infinitesimals and ghosts of departed quantifiers

Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson's frameworks. The latter provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus, Leibniz's distinction between assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robinson's framework, while Leibniz's law of homogeneity with the implied notion of equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of standard part. It is hard to provide parallel formalisations in a Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for Leibniz's infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and arithmetic. Euler routinely used product decompositions into a specific infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infinite exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite analogues in Robinson's framework, while in a Weierstrassian framework they can only be reinterpreted by means of paraphrases departing significantly from Euler's own presentation. Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that find ready formalisations in Robinson's framework but scholars working in a Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers in his work. Cauchy's procedures in the context of his 1853 sum theorem (for series of continuous functions) are more readily understood from the viewpoint of Robinson's framework, where one can exploit tools such as the pointwise definition of the concept of uniform convergence. Keywords: historiography; infinitesimal; Latin model; butterfly modelComment: 45 pages, published in Mat. Stu