76 research outputs found
Level Eulerian Posets
The notion of level posets is introduced. This class of infinite posets has
the property that between every two adjacent ranks the same bipartite graph
occurs. When the adjacency matrix is indecomposable, we determine the length of
the longest interval one needs to check to verify Eulerianness. Furthermore, we
show that every level Eulerian poset associated to an indecomposable matrix has
even order. A condition for verifying shellability is introduced and is
automated using the algebra of walks. Applying the Skolem--Mahler--Lech
theorem, the -series of a level poset is shown to be a rational
generating function in the non-commutative variables and .
In the case the poset is also Eulerian, the analogous result holds for the
-series. Using coalgebraic techniques a method is developed to
recognize the -series matrix of a level Eulerian poset
A Cauchy-Dirac delta function
The Dirac delta function has solid roots in 19th century work in Fourier
analysis and singular integrals by Cauchy and others, anticipating Dirac's
discovery by over a century, and illuminating the nature of Cauchy's
infinitesimals and his infinitesimal definition of delta.Comment: 24 pages, 2 figures; Foundations of Science, 201
Leibniz's Infinitesimals: Their Fictionality, Their Modern Implementations, And Their Foes From Berkeley To Russell And Beyond
Many historians of the calculus deny significant continuity between
infinitesimal calculus of the 17th century and 20th century developments such
as Robinson's theory. Robinson's hyperreals, while providing a consistent
theory of infinitesimals, require the resources of modern logic; thus many
commentators are comfortable denying a historical continuity. A notable
exception is Robinson himself, whose identification with the Leibnizian
tradition inspired Lakatos, Laugwitz, and others to consider the history of the
infinitesimal in a more favorable light. Inspite of his Leibnizian sympathies,
Robinson regards Berkeley's criticisms of the infinitesimal calculus as aptly
demonstrating the inconsistency of reasoning with historical infinitesimal
magnitudes. We argue that Robinson, among others, overestimates the force of
Berkeley's criticisms, by underestimating the mathematical and philosophical
resources available to Leibniz. Leibniz's infinitesimals are fictions, not
logical fictions, as Ishiguro proposed, but rather pure fictions, like
imaginaries, which are not eliminable by some syncategorematic paraphrase. We
argue that Leibniz's defense of infinitesimals is more firmly grounded than
Berkeley's criticism thereof. We show, moreover, that Leibniz's system for
differential calculus was free of logical fallacies. Our argument strengthens
the conception of modern infinitesimals as a development of Leibniz's strategy
of relating inassignable to assignable quantities by means of his
transcendental law of homogeneity.Comment: 69 pages, 3 figure
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
Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
We examine some of Connes' criticisms of Robinson's infinitesimals starting
in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against
non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes'
own earlier work in functional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as
both a "virtual theory" and a "chimera", yet acknowledged that his argument
relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes' "dart-throwing" thought
experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals
are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being
"virtual" if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes'
claim that a theory of the hyperreals is "virtual" is refuted by the existence
of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free
ultrafilters aren't definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in
his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and
in his Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not
be vulnerable to Connes' criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical
underpinnings of Connes' argument based on Goedel's incompleteness theorem, and
detect an apparent circularity in Connes' logic. We document the reliance on
non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace
(featured on the front cover of Connes' magnum opus) and the Hahn-Banach
theorem, in Connes' own framework. We also note an inaccuracy in Machover's
critique of infinitesimal-based pedagogy.Comment: 52 pages, 1 figur
Titanium uptake and incorporation into silica nanostructures by the diatom Pinnularia sp. (Bacillariophyceae)
- …