We analyze the developments in mathematical rigor from the viewpoint of a
Burgessian critique of nominalistic reconstructions. We apply such a critique
to the reconstruction of infinitesimal analysis accomplished through the
efforts of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass; to the reconstruction of Cauchy's
foundational work associated with the work of Boyer and Grabiner; and to
Bishop's constructivist reconstruction of classical analysis. We examine the
effects of a nominalist disposition on historiography, teaching, and research.Comment: 57 pages; 3 figures. Corrected misprint
