Analytical Observations: Chapter - Vi

Analytical Observations 133
CHAPTER - VI
ANALYTICAL OBSERVATIONS
From the above discussions, the following facts are observed:
6.1: FOUR FASCINATING PROBLEMS
The development of calculus is fairly recent in comparison to its history of

the ideas and concepts. We begin with what we have observed from a very close
angle in connection with our study. Our observation reveals that four main
problems seem to be very important in our study-specifically which may be
called the study of origin and journey of calculus. We observe these four
problems before coming into existence of calculus as fundamental problems.
Those are
• Finding the tangent line to a curve at a point

• Rectification of an arc of a curve
• Finding maximum or minimum of a function for a specified domain
• Finding area between the x-axis and the curve over a certain domain
Mathematicians of 17th century discussed all those problems from a

geometrical point of view where the graphs of curves were known.
6.2: ON THE FAILURE OF THE GREEKS
The Greeks were keen in putting any mathematical concept on the frying
pan of logic. Pythagoras invented the word philosophy, which means “love of
wisdom”. He searched wisdom by studying numbers. The philosophy of
Pythagoras (569-500 B.C) that “everything is number” reigned Greek
mathematics for a long time. But it became obsolete after the discovery of
incommensurable numbers. Incommensurable numbers arose with
incommensurable line segments. The appearance of a number like 2 had

changed the whole scenario of Greek mathematics. As the irrationals have
decimal expansions that neither terminate nor become periodic, they suffered
from ‘horror to the infinite’ and allowed arithmetic not to enter into their
geometric investigations. They took shelter in the “safe” framework of geometry.
Geometry was regarded by them as present throughout in nature and the idealized
concepts of geometry appeared to them to be realized in the material world.
The remarkable fact of the works of Archimedes (287-212 BC) is that

these were based on geometrical ratios of areas rather than algebraic. The Greeks
did not have the concept of a real number other than fractions. So their statements
about area were demonstrated as the comparison of two areas. For example, they
said that the areas of two parallelograms of equal height and base are same, rather
than the area of a parallelogram is the product of base and height. Archimedes
approximated the areas of otherwise immeasurable shapes with the help of
measurable shapes by method of exhaustion or compression. To calculate the
area of a circle, he used the area of inscribed polygons by continually increasing
the sides of the Polygon to exhaust the circle. Greek mathematics did not speak of
the area of one figure, but of the ratio of two.
To measure the Archimedes used Archimedes expressed as

area of a circle inscribed and area of a triangle with base equal
circumscribed polygons to the circumference and height
equal to the radius
area of segment inscribed triangles four-thirds the area of a triangle
of a parabola with same base and height
area of an ellipse inscribed polygons ratio to the area of the auxiliary

circle is (semi-minor axis/semi-
major axis)
area of a inscribed circular one-third of the area of the circle
Archimedean spiral sector centered at the initial point and
by one turn passing through the final point
volume of a inscribed pyramids two-thirds of the volume of the

sphere circumscribed cylinder
volume of a inscribed and one-half of the volume of the

paraboloid of circumscribed cylinder circumscribed cylinder
revolution
volume of an inscribed and two-thirds of the volume of
ellipsoid of circumscribed cylinder circumscribed cylinder
revolution
Archimedes compared the area of a circle with the area of a triangle of

base equal to the circumference and height equal to the radius also. This is
essentially the first reference to the length of a curve in Greek mathematics.
Many scholars credited Archimedes as the originator of calculus.
But we have observed that despite his magnificent contributions, his

mathematics lacked some important components of calculus. For, no area or
volume can be computed precisely by method of exhaustion. It only provides a
technique for performing approximate calculations for finite quantities that
approximate continuous magnitudes.
It is worth mentioning that there is a similarity between the method of

exhaustion that the Greeks used to compute the area of a circle and the method
for determining the slope of a tangent line of a curve by using secant method
described by Fermat. As the area of a polygon inscribed in a circle goes on
exhausting the area of the circle with the increase of number of sides
(consequently the length of sides go on diminishing), the secant can also be made
to approach to the tangent at a point by diminishing the chord joining the point
and a point nearby to it. Both inherited the idea of limit which was introduced by
Cauchy (1789-1857) and Weirstrass (1815-1897). The Greeks were unable to
invent the limit process due to their “horror to the infinite”. Aristotle dismissed
the process of exhaustion by saying that it was against the geometrical principle.
He rejected the Infinite as an actual existing reality and also the actual existence
of the continuum. By this way, Aristotle totally rejected the foundation of
geometry. Zeno’s paradoxes remained as paradoxes as the space was infinitely
divided in demonstrating them. Influenced by these theories, the Greeks banished

infinity from their geometry and remained far from inventing calculus
Incommensurability of the rectilinear and curvilinear, idea of indivisibles

and infinitesimals, discrete and continuum are some of the vital points which
played important role in the development of calculus. It has been noticed that the
theory of indivisibles and the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers bear some sort of
similarity. Indivisible, the basic building block (the fundamental unit that cannot
be divided) and the number that has magnitude is a multiple of a basic unit bear
resemblance. Pythagoras considered a line to be composed of an integral number
of units which later could not be applied to measure the diagonal of a square. The
main argument against the theory of indivisibles was produced by Zeno of Elea
(around 450 BC) by his famous paradoxes where he used the idea of infinity and
indivisibles. These paradoxes illustrate the inappropriateness between discrete
and continuous.
6.3: KEY-BRIDGE
The early Greek geometers confined their attention to the comparison of

the areas of rectilinear figures. They were able to determine the area of any
rectilinear figure by reducing it to that of a rectangle, or a square. The process of
finding areas was termed as “method of quadrature”.
This method, however, failed to determine the areas of curvilinear figures

or of the surfaces of the elementary solids such as the right circular cone and the
sphere. In those cases, the ancient geometers found it necessary to introduce new
notions and modes of demonstration into geometry. The difficulties arising out of
comparing the areas of curvilinear with those of rectilinear figures gave rise to
the “method of exhaustion”.
During nearly two thousand years, no new method was invented to enable
mathematicians to rise to a higher generality than those of Archimedes, Eudoxus
etc.
In the techniques developed by Cavalieri (1635), the indivisibles of two or

more configurations are associated together in the form of ratios from which the
relation between the areas (volumes) of the figures are derived. The foundations
of Cavalierie’s indivisible techniques rest upon two complementary but distinct
approaches viz. collective and distributive approaches. It is observed that
distributive approach was necessary to develop to meet the objections that might
be raised against the comparison of infinite number of indivisibles (lines and
planes). The method of Cavalieri was severely criticized by some of his
contemporaries like Guldin.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was greatly influenced by the doctrine of

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), a German philosopher and theologian. Nicholas
introduced a mathematical analogy that our finite mind is not competent to know
the infinite just as the definite polygon cannot measure the continuous circle.
Because, in the infinite, the circle coincides with straight line. Kepler’s work
crossed the hurdles such as the reconciliation of the rectilinear and the curvilinear
shapes and a method to measure their volumes. He was the first who introduced
the concepts of infinitely large and infinitely small quantities. Kepler mixed them
together accepting that a circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides, a
sphere is composed of infinite number of infinitesimal cones, a wine barrel is
composed of infinite number of cylinders of infinitesimally small thickness.
Kepler believed that the creator had made the universe in harmony where
all things are commensurable leading to the reconciliation of the curvilinear and
the rectilinear figures. In his treatise entitled Nova Stereontetria lioltorunt;
accessit stereonzetrix Archimedes supplementunt (1615), he discussed a number
of solids of revolution formed by conic section about any ordinate, or a tangent at
the vertex, or any line within or without the curve. When he applied this concept
in his work on wine-barrels, he found that when the volume of wine barrel
became maximum, the difference in the volume changes less and less. Thus, the
practical problem of measuring the volume of wine barrel inspired him to make
important contributions to the development of both integral and differential
calculus. Such observations influenced Fermat in developing his method of
finding maxima and minima of functions.
In this treatise, Kepler introduced for the first time the name and notion of
“infinity” into the language of geometry. He considered a circle as composed of
an “infinite” number of triangles, having their common vertex at the centre and
forming the circumference by their bases.
Taking these considerations into account, Johannes Kepler may be

considered as the key-bridge in the development of calculus.
Nichole Oresme’s (1320-1382) contributions to mathematics are

contained in his book Treatise on the Configurations of Qualities and Motions
written in 1350 where he discussed qualities (hotness, whiteness, sweetness etc).
The intensity of the quality was represented by a length perpendicular to the
base at a given point of it. The length of the base was called longitudo and the
perpendicular length was called latitudo. This representation connects a
phenomenon of physical world with geometry and contributed to the invention
of ordinate geometry by Fermat and coordinate geometry by Descartes . It is
worth mentioning that in 1300, there was no symbolic algebra, no minus sign and
no variables. Oresme’s graphical representation played significant role to the
formation of velocity-time graph of Galileo. The velocity-time graph gave an
indication to the beginning of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
The medieval scholastic speculations paved the way for introducing

infinitesimal techniques to the solution of the area and the volume problems and
thereby constituted a gradual arithmetic approach of problems rather than
geometric approach. The Greek horror to infinite refrained them from inventing a
usable theory of limits. Cumbersome ‘double reductio ad absurdum’ proofs
reigned everywhere.
By the first half of 17th century, a radically different approach to the area
problem was made. The area of a region was thought to be made up of small
slices that are infinitely narrow. The slices do not have width measured by an
ordinary number. In this regard, Cavalieri’s principle i.e method of indivisibles
can be pointed to. The area of the region was thought of as a kind of “sum” of the
areas of the infinitely narrow slices. Of course, it was not possible to add the
infinite number of infinitely small areas at that time. Although this approach
yielded some impressive results of infinite series which was calculated by some
extraordinary methods by the medieval scholars. These methods may be viewed
as a bridge between method of exhaustion and integral calculus.
Later, these approaches led to a controversy and confusion. The area of a

figure seems to be the integration of indivisibles (line segments) of area zero each
(since line segment has no width). Thus infinitely many ‘zeros’ integrate into a
non-zero area! This paradoxical nature of Cavalieri’s principle was first observed
by Leibniz. We observe that the Greeks probably lacked proper symbolism to
eliminate ‘zero’ in above. Cavalieri’s indivisibles and the calculus of finite
differences developed in Europe at around same time were brought together by
the formal study of calculus.
During the medieval period, the exchange of learning among scholars,

learned visitors of different places of the world took place. As a consequence, the
translations of the famous mathematical works of one language to another were
done in a vigorous manner that made possible for bringing calculus to its modern
shape.
Christian scholars of Western Europe travelled to Muslim centers of

learning and came in touch with the translations done by the Muslim scholars.
Al-Battani Gherado of Cremona (1114-1187AD) did the herculean task of
translating over 90 Arabian works into Latin. This includes Almagest, Elements,
and Al-Khwarzmi’s Algebra. Thus, this period may be termed as the period of
translation rather than creation.
6.4: CALCULUS OF THE HINDUS
Of course, in India, it was a period of creation as well as renovation.

Madhava, Neelkantha, Jyesthadeva etc. of Kerala School of Astronomy and
th th
Mathematics during 14 to 16 century, made some remarkable contributions to
calculus like differentiation, integration by infinitesimals, Rolle’s theorem, series
expansions, prior to the inventions by the mathematicians of Europe. Jesuit
missionaries and also traders came in touch of the Hindu mathematicians during
this period. Some historians are of the opinion that somehow the European
scholars borrowed some of the concepts of Kerala School of Astronomy and

Mathematics and made remarkable inventions.
6.5: INFLUENCE OF ARCHIMEDES AND AL-HAYTHAM
Archimedes deduced the following results

n2 n
1 + 2 + 3 + ............... + n = +
2 2
n3 n2 n
12 + 2 2 + 3 2 + .............................. + n 2 = + +
3 2 4
to find the volume of solids of revolution of a segment of a parabola if rotated

about its axis and area of Archimedean spiral.
Ibn Al-Haytham was very much influenced by the Arabic translations of

Euclid’s Elements as well as many works of Archimedes. Al-Haytham proved
that if a segment of a parabola is rotated about its base, then the volume of the
solid equals to eight fifth of the volume of the circumscribed cylinder. To find
this, he required the sums of n-cubes and fourth powers.
Al-Haitham deduced the following formulae
n4 n3 n2
13 + 2 3 + 33 + .......... ..... + n 3 = + +
4 2 4
n5 n 4 n3 n
14 + 2 4 + 34 + ..................... + n 4 = + + −
5 2 3 30
in the 11th century.
Though, Al-Haitham’s deductions were the extension works of

Archimedes, yet the proofs were different in nature. These four formulas played a
key role for estimating the area of different geometrical figures and generalizing
the area under the parabola y = x k .
The area beneath y = x k immensely helped in making a notion between

tangent and area problems in the hands of Galileo (kinematic problem), Neil
(rectification problem), Toricelli, Issac Barrow.
Neil’s rectification of a curve y = f(x) was done with the help of the area
beneath an auxiliary curve. In case of rectification of a semicubical parabola
y 2 = x 3 , the parabola z= g(x) = x 2 was taken as the auxiliary curve. Choosing

g(x) = f ′( x ) , a manifestation of the interplay between the area and the tangent
(derivative) may be realized.
The calculation of areas and volumes that involve only the summation
(integration) of polynomials were known by the Arabic mathematician Al-
Haytham. In the 17th century this work has been extensively elaborated by
Cavalieri, Fermat and Wallis.
In Europe, the foundational work was a treatise due to Cavalieri. To him,

the volumes and areas can be computed as the sums of the volumes and areas of
infinitesimally thin cross–sections. This idea was similar to that of Archimedes’
described in The Method.
The concept of differentiation and integration was also explored by the

Hindus in connection with the variable motion of planets and the determination
of arc of a circle, surface area and volume of a sphere. The pioneering effort was
made by Bhaskara II, Brahmagupta and Madhava of KSAM who used numerical
methods to calculate the apparent motion of planets. These results are equivalent
to the determination of the rates of change of trigonometric functions. It is
unfortunate to mention that these discoveries were not given due importance by
the western scholars and remained unknown or little known. Indian discoverers
were kept away from crediting their original discoveries.
Infinitesimal techniques or indivisibles, motivated to relax the rigor of

method of exhaustion were used to establish the basic quadrature results of the
middle decades of 17th century mathematicians. Old methods became obsolete

and new methods based on the interconnection between quadrature and tangent
problems became popular. Neil’s rectification was perhaps the first example
connecting these two aspects of calculus.
Roberval’s kinematic methods of determining tangents relied on geometry

and was not algorithmic. Methods of Descartes involve complicated algebra.
Hudde and Sluse used algorithm to determine tangents and these algorithms were
modified later by Newton.
6.6: INFLUENCE OF DESCARTES AND FERMAT
Descartes’ analytical geometry made possible to connect geometric

questions about curves with algebraic questions about equations. Some questions
had its origin in the ancient Greek methods (Tangent and Area problems) and
some arose from the re-emergence of science starting with Renaissance (Non-
uniform motion problem etc.). After the analytic geometry came into being, it
opened up a vast area of different types of curves in which the motion of
variables and infinitesimal techniques could be applied to find tangent lines and
thereby derivatives. Also, analytic geometry paved the way of introducing
infinitesimal techniques in the solution of area and volume problems.
Descartes (1596-1650) found a method of determining tangent to curves

known as Descartes’ circle method. It was found necessary to depart from the
definition of tangent given by the ancient Greek geometers and to consider
tangent from other point of view:
• As a secant of which the points of intersection became coincident

• As the continuation of the curve, regarded as a polygon of an infinite
number of sides
• As the direction of the resultant motion by which the curve may be
described.
Avoiding the use of infinitesimals, he developed purely algebraic method.

His method of drawing a tangent consisted in supposing a circle (whose centre
lies on the x-axis) to cut the curve in two points; then letting the radius of the
circle to decrease keeping the centre fixed, the points of intersection approach
nearer and nearer and finally coincide. Then the circle will touch the curve. This
way, he reduced the problem of finding the condition of equal roots in an
equation.
Many years later, John Bernoulli (1691) extended Descartes’ method to

find the centre of curvature and the equation of the evolute of an algebraic curve.
Bernoulli supposed the centre of a circle to lie on the normal to a curve and the
centre to vary until three of the points of intersection of the circle with the curve
became coincident. Thus, the problem reduced to finding three equal roots.
Applying this method, he showed that the evolute of a parabola was a
semicubical parabola.
This method is remarkable as it consists of the general process of

applying analysis to the problem of tangents. Fermat and other mathematicians
showed that finding tangent to a given curve is often possible. But the inverse
problem i.e. finding a curve, given its law of tangency, is generally much harder
and is not always possible. Laplace, Lagrange and Fourier, the great 18th century
mathematicians believed Fermat to be the real inventor of calculus. Later, it was
hotly debated on this issue. As he could not show the inverse relationship
between the tangent and the area problems, Fermat failed to be credited with the
real inventor of calculus.
Instead, Fermat gave a definition which clarified the idea of a tangent

line to curve by using infinitesimals. He was greatly influenced by Kepler and
used his concept in finding a method for maximum and minimum of functions.
Newton would later write that his early ideas about calculus came directly from
“Fermat’s way of drawing tangents” [64]. It has been observed that Fermat
(1601-1665) inherited the sophisticated symbolic approach of Francois Viete
( France, born in 1540). Before Viete, mathematical expositions depended on
verbal description of the subject. For many centuries, mathematicians held that
curves were created by the intersection of geometric objects. For example, a
parabola is created by the intersection of a cone by a plane etc. Influenced by
Viete, Fermat gave an augmented version of Viete that a curve may be created
whenever two unknown quantities bear some relationship as expressed by an
equation.
The method of maxima and minima given by Fermat later became the
algorithm for obtaining first derivative of an algebraic polynomial. Viete, in his
Introduction to the Analytic Art of 1591, a distinction between parameters
(known) and variables (unknown) was introduced. In order to set up equations, he
introduced vowels A,E,I,O,U for variables and consonants for parameters. The
term ‘adequality’ used by Fermat comes from the Latin adequatio which is again
a translation of the Greek term parisotes used by Diophantus in describing the
approximation of a number as closely as possible.
6.7: AMALGAMATION OF PROBLEMS AND TECHNIQUES
The method of exhaustion inherited the idea of limit which was

introduced by Cauchy and Weirstrass later on. For computing area and volume
problems before Newton and Leibniz, amalgamation of some problems and
techniques played a crucial role. They were
• Archimedean problems
• Algebraic computational techniques of finding tangent by
Descartes
• Introduction and use of infinitesimals by Fermat and Barrow
• Problems and processes leading to the infinite.
• Problems of area and antiderivativative
All these made problems arithmetical instead geometrical of the Greeks

and led to the origin and application of infinitesimal methods.
Barrow’s method of tangent differs from that of differential calculus

chiefly in notations. He simplified Fermat’s tangent construction method by
introducing two infinitesimals, instead one and approximated to the course of
reasoning as Newton did afterwards in his doctrine of ultimate ratios.
The works of mathematicians and philosophers of the golden age of

Greek mathematics inherently carried the seeds of integral calculus.
The number of curves known to the ancient mathematicians was few.

Only known curves were circle, conic sections, and Archimedean spiral. This
limitation prevented them from inventing general algorithmic methods of
calculus. The analytic geometry paved the way of introducing infinitesimal
techniques in the solution of area and volume problems of many geometrical
shapes. Central idea of their analytic geometry was to make correspondence

between points and their coordinates, between a curve and its algebraic equation.
The introduction of continuous variables opened up a broad area of new

curves by simply writing an equation consequently helping invention of
algorithmic techniques for their systematic investigations by the use of
infinitesimals.
Descartes (1596-1650) started a geometrical problem by taking its curve

and then derived its algebraic equation. In contrast, Fermat (1601-1665) began
with an algebraic equation of 2nd degree such as
ax 2 + bxy + cy 2 + dx + ey + f = 0
Application of translation and rotation techniques led to conversion of

conic sections. From the conic sections, Fermat derived geometric properties of
different cases viz. ellipse, hyperbola and parabola.
Despite remarkable successes of calculus, it inherited some paradoxes and

contradictions. The fundamental problem remained at the basis of both analytic
geometry and calculus yet to be solved. As the irrational numbers cannot be
expressed in finite form, how can we justify irrational numbers? Dedekind (1831-
1916) devised a technique for filling the gap between rational and irrational
numbers by defining ‘infinite set’ of rational numbers. By this way, the notion of
the infinite was explicitly confirmed in mathematics and provided a foundation
for the numbers that were used in both analytic geometry and calculus. Calculus
gives license to use irrational numbers which may not be represented in any finite
way and to use mathematical manipulations of infinite sum of infinitesimal
quantities.
6.8: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF NEWTON AND LEIBNIZ’ CALCULUS
During the time of Newton and Leibniz, European mathematics

maintained Hellenistic mathematics as their starting point. Newton, Leibniz and
their contemporaries such as Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Wallis, Pascal looked
towards the works of modern thinkers
Newton and Leibniz did not invent the same calculus. They invented quite
different versions of the infinitesimal calculus each to fulfill their own interests
and purposes. There were sufficient differences between Newton and Leibniz in
respect of how they conceived of the subject. One significant aspect of their
works was the generality of their methods. Both of them were involved in the
process of inventing mathematical systems to deal with variable quantities. They
did not invent the subject from nothing. Many ideas of the foundations required
to invent calculus were already known in the past century.
Newton recognized three types of calculus:
His Principia (1689) includes the first type of calculus. Here, he made use
of infinitely small quantities; but apparently recognized that this was not
scientific.
The second type was that of fluxions. In his Methods of Fluxions (1671) he
stated that the moment of flowing quantities are as the velocities of their flowing
dy dy dx
which may be expressed in Leibniz’ notation as = :
dx dt dt
In the third type, the concept of limit appeared in his Tractus de

Quadratura Curvarum (1704). As an example, to find fluxion of x n , he wrote
x + o for x and ( x + o) n for x n . By the method of infinite series ( x + o) n
becomes
nn − n
x n + nox n −1 + oox n − 2 + .......... .........
2
and ultimately the increment o was allowed to vanish.
Since the Euclidean view of number was on the ratio of geometrical

magnitudes, so Newton emphasized the ratio of two velocities, rather than the
single limiting value of a function as brought out in the definition of derivative in
the 19th century.
Leibniz’ inventions of calculus arose from three interests:

• As basically he was a philosopher, he was engaged in finding

symbolic language by which all processes of reason and argument
can be written in symbols and formulas under certain rules.
• The relation between the differences of consecutive terms of a
sequence of numbers and their sum made him to think of an
infinitesimal version of calculus. In case of harmonic triangle, he
found that the sum of the differences of consecutive terms of a
sequence equals the difference of the first term and the last term of
the original sequence.
• Leibniz imagined a curve to be a polygon consisting of an infinite
number of infinitesimal straight sides. He made an analogy to the
problems of area as a summation of infinitesimal differences and the
problem of finding tangent at a point whose slope involves the ratio
of infinitesimal differences of the coordinates of the points.
• Influenced by the works of Pascal, the conception of a ‘characteristic
triangle’ with infinitesimal sides at each point along a curve settled in
his calculus in 1673 and played a role of eminent importance for
further results including the method of transmutation and the
mathematical quadrature of the circle found in autumn 1673. The
‘infinitesimal sides’ of the ‘characteristic triangle’ were formed by the
successive differences in the horizontal and vertical coordinates
between the chosen point and a point infinitely nearby to the chosen
point along the curve. The very first definition of the derivative of
Leibniz (1684) did not mention infinitesimals. In place of
infinitesimals, he started with the notion of tangent and defined the
derivative as dy/dx where dx and dy represent horizontal and vertical
components of the tangent at a point and wrote dy to be given by
y
dy = dx × where BX is the subtangent.
BX
In 1665, Newton attacked the problem of finding tangent line to a curve

defining the slope of the tangent to a curve at a point as the ratio of the vertical
and horizontal components of the speed (instantaneous) x& and y& respectively of
a moving point along the curve. Before writing dot notation till early 1690, he
used p and q in place of x& and y& . Parallelogram law for the addition of constant
velocity vectors was well known before Newton. He applied it only for
instantaneous velocity vectors. The strength of this approach is that it has a
logical basis based on an imaginable physical phenomenon. This method
provides the basic for his method of fluxions. Here a function is regarded as the
intersection of two moving lines, one vertical and other horizontal, both varying
with respect to time.
Since Leibniz' approach was geometrical, the notation of the differential

calculus and many of the general rules for calculating derivatives are still used
today. Newton invented calculus primarily in regards to its applications to
physics. He considered curves to be traced by the motion of points. On the
contrary, Newton's approach fallen by the wayside.
The approaches of both Newton and Leibniz have certain strange and
fantastical qualities. While studying motion, which was Newton’s focal idea, the
derivative of an expression which defines the position of a moving point in time t
represents the velocity of the moving point. Because of the power and generality
of the rules of both men, the attention from a particular tangent line shifted to the
derivatives and their rules.
The area and tangent seem to be of different concepts. It is natural for one
to imagine how could knowledge of one provide a means for getting knowledge
of the other? Issac Barrow(1630-1677) in his Lectiones Geometrica of 1670 gave
an indication that if the quadrature of a curve y = f(x) is known, with the area up
to x given by F(x), then subtangent to the curve y = F(x) is measured by the ratio
of its ordinate to the ordinate of the original curve.
On getting a clue, Newton gave a basic idea that the area problem could
be related to a tangent problem. In other words the area problem may be
converted to problem of derivative or rate of change. This insight of Newton was
so much creative and vital to calculus that it brought a deep issue to the surface
and lead to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Newton was the first to
establish algorithm and to state the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Although,
his predecessor Torricelli and Issac Barrow had an intuitive ideas of the inverse
relationship between tangent and quadrature problems while studying the time
and motion concepts in regard to curves.
With the help of antiderivative, one can easily find the area beneath a
curve. Archimedes had no idea of antiderivative, yet he could find areas by
Eudoxus’ method of exhaustion coupled with his own awesome techniques. Thus
antiderivative connects the area problem to the derivative.
For a point moving with velocity v = t n from time t = 0 to t = t, the

t n+1
distance travelled y = will be equal to the area beneath the curve v = t n .
n +1
But the deficiency of this approach is that it can provide little information about
the numerical value of the slope of the tangent line.
In case of Tangent problem, Leibniz based on the relationship between

the tangent line at a given point and a secant line joining the given point and a
point neighboring to it. But Newton began with a secant line and brought the
point ever closer to the given point. In Newton’s approach, the distance between
the points is ordinary distance getting smaller and smaller. In Leibniz’ concept,
the two points are already infinitely close i.e the distance between them is in
terms of infinitesimal number dx and corresponding infinitesimal number dy
which depend on the shape of the curve.
Newton always tried to express a function in infinite or in power series.

The works of de Sarasa done from 1650 to 1660 on the computation of
logarithms as hyperbolic areas inspired Newton in 1660 to enter into the field of
infinite series. He viewed infinite series not only as approximate devices, but also
as alternative forms of expressing a term.
In contrast, Leibniz was not interested in infinite series or power series

expansion of a function, rather he preferred a ‘closed form’ solution of a
differential equation or an integral. This type of studies contributed gradually to
banish the “horror to the infinite” from mathematics and played a vital role to the
development and applications of calculus. Although the question of convergence
of these series were not discussed then.
Leibniz was more interested in solving differential equations than finding

areas. Among them, he derived and solved the familiar differential equations for
sine function. He developed the method of separation of variables.
It has been observed that Newton’s formula for derivative is a

reformulation of Sluse’s Rule. He denoted the antiderivative of f(x) as f(x).
Both Newton and Leibniz are regarded as the inventors of calculus, rather
than Fermat and Barrow because of power and flexibility of their calculus.
Newton’s vision on calculus mainly based on the works of Barrow and Fermat.
The evolutionary process of calculus is based on the following events:
(i) Kepler’s use of infinitesimal in his planetary theory
(ii) Combination of geometry and algebra by Descartes
(iii) Method of maxima and minima of Fermat
(iv) Finding a tangent to a curve by Fermat and Barrow
(v) Finding area by antiderivatives.
Leibniz thought of variables x , y changing over sequences of infinitely

close values. Discrete infinitesimal differences of geometric variables play the
central role in Leibniz’ calculus. As a result, Leibniz’ notation and terminology
dy
covered the limit concept. He knew that the derivative of a function y of the
dx
variable x gives the tangent of the curve of the function; but he never used it as
dy
a defining property. For him the differentials dx and dy are fundamental and
dx
is merely a quotient of geometrical importance. His construction of the calculus
was based on the classical atomist view where all objects in the universe are
made up of very small indestructible building blocks. He described infinitesimal
as “a grain of sand with respect to the earth” [47].
Leibniz used the symbol ∫ f ( x)dx for the integral of y for the first time
on Nov.21,1675 and appeared in his paper De Geometria, in Acta Eruditorium of
June, 1686. The basis of the symbol ∫ was the Latin word summa (sum), which
he wrote ⌠umma with elongated S commonly used in Germany at that time.

Leibniz rederived many results like Cavalieri’s quadrature of the higher parabolas
etc. with these new symbols.
Leibniz believed that much of human reasoning could be reduced to

calculations of a sort. So he thought that symbols were important for human
understanding. His idea of reasoning through a universal language of symbols
and calculations became important for 20th century development of calculus.
Leibniz stressed the need of proper application of his rules so that they
lead to correct and meaningful results .He stressed the need of general techniques
that can be applied to specific problems. But Newton gave importance to the
concrete results that can be generalized.
Newton and Leibniz’ ideas on infinitesimals were bitterly criticized by

several mathematicians viz. Bernard Nieuwenijdt, Rolle, Berkeley etc. Berkeley’s
criticism rested on the nature of dealing with the infinitesimals. Nieuwenijdt’s
criticism rested on the formation and properties of infinitesimals. The significant
differences between Leibniz and Nieuwenijdt’s calculi are
• Leibniz’ infinitesimals are variables whereas Nieuwenijdt’s infinitesimals

are constants
• Higher order infinitesimals exist in Leibniz’ calculus. Product of
infinitesimals are not zeros. But higher order infinitesimals don’t exist
and products are absolutely zero in Nieuwenijdt.
• In Leibniz’ consideration, infinitesimals can be neglected when it is
infinitely small with respect to other quantities. But in Nieuwenijdt’s
consideration, first order infinitesimals cannot be neglected.
In this context, question may be raised that if dx is different from zero,

how can be (dx) 2 = 0 in Nieuwenijdt’s consideration?
Whereas Newton considered variables changing with time and the

objective was possibly limited to the creation of geometric technique to express
and interpret his own physical discoveries. Fluxion or time-rate of change based
on intuitive ideas of continuous motion plays the central role of Newton’s
y&
calculus. He introduced , the ratio of fluxions to find tangent. For him, second
x&
derivative is the fluxion of a fluxion. In Newton’s calculus, higher order
infinitesimals that arose in Leibniz’ calculus, deserves no importance.
Both of them thought in terms of graphs rather than the functions.

Newton’s approach to calculus was geometrical whereas Leibniz’ approach lead
calculus towards analysis.
In Newton’s calculus, integral is an indefinite integral. For Newton,

integration consisted of finding fluents for a given fluxion so the fact that
integration and differentiation were inverses to each other. He solved the area
and volume problems viewing them as the inverse rate of change problems. In
Leibniz’ approach , integral is the infinite sum of differentials. The similarity lies
in both Newton and Leibniz’ calculus is the computation of integrals by the
process of antidifferentiation. During 1664-1666, Newton did his creative works
on calculus. But Leibniz’ creative period was 1672-1676.
Newton introduced the product rule and chain rule, the quotient rule of
differentiation, Taylor’s series in a notation of individual importance. By this
particular notation, he used calculus in solving the problems of planetary
motions, the shape of the surface of a rotating fluid, the oblateness of the earth,
the motion of a weight sliding on a cycloid. These were discussed in his Principia
Mathematica (1687).
Since its invention in the 1670’s, presentation of calculus has been

changed tremendously due to the invention of function notation, a uniform co-
ordinate system, a symbol for pi and Leibniz’ notation for derivatives and
integrals. Our modern calculus resembles that of Leibniz far more than Newton.
Leibniz’ calculus was somewhat easier to understand and apply.
The approach of the mathematicians of 17th century to calculus was

discrete. Leibniz thought the derivative was the actual quotient of the differentials
dx and dy which leads to the discovery of the chain rule.
Leibniz’ ideas and notations were suitable for generalizing calculus from
single variable to multiple variables. Also the operator aspect of both derivative
and integral was highlighted by Leibniz.
The following specialties of Leibniz calculus have been observed
• The infinitesimal differences (differentials) and their sums (integrals)

plays the central role of recognizing two separate branches viz.
differentia (differential calculus) and summa (integral calculus).
• The role of ‘characteristic triangle’ as a link between tangent problem
and quadrature problem is notable. The characteristic triangle is a
standard geometric approach to conceptualize differentiation
graphically. Leibniz’ concept on characteristic triangle generalizes its
applications to many more curves and aspects (rectification and
quadrature problems and transmutation theorem).
• By method of substitution, transformation of integrals becomes
possible
In the notation battle, the “d-ism” of Leibniz’ calculus won against the
“dotage” of Newton’s fluxion notation.
The differentiation of any fractional powers of x was due to Leibniz. His

first publication on calculus appeared in 1684 in Acta Eruditorium . The concept
of integral and the sign ∫ first appeared in Acta Eruditorium in 1686.But
Newton published nothing on calculus until the publication of his Principia of

1687 and Optiks of 1704.When Newton and Leibniz first published their results,
a great controversy arose over which mathematician deserved credit. Though
Newton derived his works on calculus first, but Leibniz works came to light first
in 1684, twenty years prior to the publication of Newton’s De Quadratura. This
controversy continued for a long time between English-speaking mathematicians
and continental mathematicians. The difference between their writings on
calculus are considerable. Neither of them wrote a complete presentation of their

ideas. Newton started first with differentiation as part of his investigation on
physics and geometry. But Leibniz started first with integration. After careful
examination of papers of both by the members of the British Royal Society came
to the conclusion that both of them developed calculus independently and both
should be credited as the inventors of calculus. The core of Leibniz’ presentation
of the differential calculus was a set of rules for manipulation of differentials.
Leibniz emphasized on formulation of general methods and algorithms,
independent of geometry for its power to unify the treatment of different
problems. Discrete infinitesimal differences of geometric variables were
important in Leibniz’ approach. Whereas in Newton’s work, general methods are
implicit. Leibniz made notation and concept inseparable. In contrast, Newton
paid more attention to the concept than the notation.
Both of them were unable to place their ideas on a firm footing. We think
of mathematical ideas through a strictly logical procession of theorems based on
some basic definitions and axioms. But in case of the versions of pre-calculus, it
is not at all.
6.9: ON ‘GHOSTS OF DEPARTED QUANTITIES’
A recent study analyses the expression ‘ghosts of departed quantities’

made by Bishop Berkeley as follows in the context of a typical computation for
the derivative of y = x2.
dy ( x + dx) 2 − x 2 ( x + dx + x)( x + dx − x)
= = = 2 x + dx
dx dx dx
To obtain the derivative 2x, one needs to neglect the infinitesimal term dx.
George Berkeley criticized the role of infinitesimal increments. The fact that the
increment dx was considered to be non-zero at the start of calculation (hence the
‘ghost’) and set to be zero at the end of the calculation (hence ‘departed
quantity’) i.e the former supposition that the increments were something and later
supposition that there be no increments. This is a false way of reasoning.
Berkeley admitted that the calculus may produce correct results, but for no solid
reason. The logic and method were severely criticized by him.
6.10: LIMIT AS A FOUNDATION OF CALCULUS
In calculus, foundations refer to the rigorous development of the subject

from precise axioms and definitions. The infinitesimal quantity was thought to be
not rigorous and was bitterly criticized by Michel Rolle and Bishop Berkeley in
his book The Analyst in 1734. For any integer multiple of an infinitesimal is still
an infinitesimal i.e the infinitesimals do not satisfy Archimedean property. From
this point of view, calculus may be considered as the collection of techniques for
manipulating infinitesimals. In spite of that Maclaurin tried to prove the
soundness of considering infinitesimals.
The modern definition of limit is less than 150 years old. Limits were
used for the first time for resolution of Paradoxes of Zeno (450 BC). Archimedes
(287-212 BC) encountered infinite series in his rigorous proofs of formulae for
some area and volume problems. Due to the absence of concept of limit, he
devised cumbersome but ingenious arguments called ‘reductio ad absurdum’ that
included the idea of limit. The word limit has nearly the same meaning as bound.
In calculus, however, it has a different meaning. The limit of a function at a point
is what the function is on the threshold of doing at that point. The word limit is
close to the Latin word limen, which means ‘threshold’.
In Fermat’s adequality method for tangent construction to a curve, he

considered a small number e to the abscissa and after computation finally
assumed e =0, thereby vanishing all terms containing e. Considering e as
infinitesimally small, Fermat, really avoided the limit.
Finding exact values of areas in quadrature problems lead to integrals.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) , Gegory st. Vincent (1584-1669), Bonaventura
Cavalieri (1598-1647), Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647), Gilles personne de
Roberval (1602-1675) , John Wallis (1616-1707) devised different quadrature
techniques. But none of them used limits. The need for limit was just not
recognized.
Issac Newton also failed to identify the fundamental role of limit in the
beginning. He calculated the fluxion to curves, not quite derivative but very close
to it. On the other hand, in his Principia Mathematica (1689), he recognized that
the limit must be the starting point to tangent, quadrature and related problems.
To Leibniz’, differentials dx and dy were fundamental. dy is an infinitely

small change in y corresponding to infinitely small change dx in the argument x.
The derivative of the function i.e the quotient dy ÷ dx is not infinitely small,
rather it is a real number. His calculus rested on the concept of infinitesimals and
infinitesimals of many orders.
In his famous book Encyclopedie (1751-1756), Jean Le Rond d’ Alembert

(1717-1783) explicitly recognized the role of limit in calculus and gave the
explicit definition. To him, “the theory of limits was the true metaphysics of
calculus”. He was the first to suggest the use of concept of limit as a foundation
for calculus. At the beginning of 18th century, the ideas about limits were
confusing.
Mathematicians like Cauchy, Weirstrass and others ceased to use

Leibniz’s notations of derivative and integral literally because of the
contradiction inherited by infinitesimals. They found logically rigorous ways to
handle derivatives and integrals by using limits instead of infinitesimals. Despite
severe criticisms of Newton’s notion of fluxions and Leibniz’ infinitesimals,
calculus continued to be developed using non- rigorous methods until around
1830.
Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) in 1821 introduced the ε -method in

his “ Cours d’ analyse de l’ Ecole Royal Polytechnique”. In 1823, he introduced
the δ − method in his “Resume des lecons donness a l’ Ecole Royal
Polytechnique sur le calcul infinitesimal”. In this way he converted limit process
into manipulations of inequalities and thus arithmetisation of limit process
started. He used the limit principle as the basis for discussing continuity and
convergence of series and sequences, derivatives and integrals. But he missed
some technical details in applying limit in continuous functions and convergence

of some infinite series.
During 1840 -1850, Karl Weirstrass (1815-1897) while serving as a high

school teacher realized that Cauchy’s original definition of limit required to be
redefined in strict mathematical terms using ε and δ together which gave our
modern ε - δ definition of limit. only absolute value and inequalities. Thus,
derivatives and integrals were redefined using rigorous definition of limit. In the
end of 18th century, Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) was able to reformulate
all of mechanics in terms of calculus.
In response to the suggestions by D’Alembert, Cauchy replaced the

atomist view of Leibniz’ infinitesimals by inverting the logical order of Leibniz.
To Cauchy, derivative is the fundamental object and defined to be the limit of
difference quotient and the differentials were defined in terms of it as dy = f ′( x )
dx for y = f(x). Here, dy and dx are simply variables assuming finite real values
and can be handled exactly in the same manner as any other real numbers.
Cauchy was the first who gave a definition of the integral of a continuous
function. It was stated in his "Resume des lecons donnees a l' Ecole Royale
Polytechnique sur le calcul infinitesimal": Let f (x) be a continuous function on
[a,b]. Take arbitrary points a = x0 < ... < xn = b in the interval [a,b] and partition
the interval into n subintervals [xi-1,xi] (i = 1, 2, ..., n). If
the "limit" of the sum
n
S= ∑ f ( xi −1 )( xi − xi −1 )
i =1
exists as the length of the longest subinterval tends to zero, then the limit is
known as the integral of f (x) on [a,b]. This is consistent with the modern
definition of the integral of a continuous function.
Later, Riemann generalized the definition of Cauchy. The difference

between Riemann's definition and Cauchy's definition is that Riemann used an
arbitrary point ξi in the interval [xi-1,xi], while Cauchy always chose the left
end point xi-1 in his definition of S. For Riemann,
n
S= ∑ f (ξ )( x
i =1
i i − xi −1 )
We say that Riemann's definition generalized Cauchy's definition,

because the limit of S not only exists and agrees with Cauchy's definition for all
continuous functions on [a,b], but also exists for some functions f (x) which are
not continuous on [a,b]. This is our modern definition of the Riemann integral,
and the whole logical basis of the theory of calculus was then almost fully
established.
In the 19th century, calculus was put on rigorous footing .Moreover, during
this period the calculus were generalized to Euclidean space and Complex plane.
The notion of integral was later generalized by Lebesgue. Calculus provides tools
like the limit and the infinite series which resolves the paradoxes of Zeno and
others.
The first proof of Rolle’s theorem was given by Michel Rolle in 1691 by
using the methods developed by the Dutch mathematician Johan Van Wavern
Hudde [38].
The Mean value theorem in its modern form was stated by Bernard
Bolzano and Augustine –Louis Cauchy (1789-1857)
Standard calculus is based on the approach of limits introduced by

Weirstrass replacing infinitesimals. Limits describe the value of a function at a
certain point in terms of its values at nearby input. Limits capture small scale
behavior, just like infinitesimals, but use the ordinary real numbers. Thus
infinitesimals criticized as ‘ghosts of departed quantities’ by Berkeley got
replaced by very small real number and infinitely small behavior of the function
is found from taking the limiting behavior for smaller and smaller numbers.
Limits provide easiest way for rigorous foundations for calculus.
6.11: ANALYSIS ON CALCULUS OF THE HINDUS
The study of the history of mathematics reveals that mathematics,

astronomy and Jyotisa (time keeping) were paid due importance in Indian culture
and civilization. Many mathematical truths were known to the Indians when the
Greeks and the western world were ignorant of these. The Greeks were keen in
putting any mathematical concept on the frying pan of logic; whereas the Hindus
were mostly fond of giving the siddhaantic treatment (only the results to the
masses and the logical approach to the elite) to mathematics. “proof was
distasteful to Indian temperament as it was congenial to the Greek, the Hindus
were as apt on calculations as the Greeks were inapt” [6] .
The theorem which we know as Pythagoras theorem was known to the

Indians much before Pythagoras was born. Boudhayana discovered it at least
1000 years before Pythagoras. The theorem was listed in Boudhayana Sulbasutra
(800 BC) as
“dirghasyaksanaya rajjutt parsvamani triya dam mani,

cha yatprthagbhute kurutastadubhayan karoti”
It can be translated as – “A rope stretched along the length of the diagonal

produces an area which the vertical and horizontal sides together”.
Boudhayana discovered it mainly for the religious purposes. Some

historians find clues that Pythagoras travelled to Egypt and then to India to
acquire mathematical knowledge.
The Kerala School of Astronomy and Mathematics contributions can be

summarized as (i) Taylor series
(ii) Infinite series approximations
(iii) Integral test for convergence
(iv) Early form of differentiation
(v) Term by term integration
(vi) Theory that the area under a curve is its integral
Of course, Madhava and Neelkantha did not take a formalistic approach

which we are taking now following Euclid’s method. Euclid’s method is a formal
approach. But the significant fundamental question arises whether the formal
approach is the ‘only’ approach or ‘correct’ approach?
George Gheverghese Joseph of University of Manchester and Dennis

Almeida of University of Exiter spent three years in India to study Indian texts,
commentaries and Vatican archives, came to the conclusion that calculus was
developed in medieval India in 14th century, about 250 years before Newton.
They reported that one of the most important concept of calculus, the infinite
series was first developed by Madhava (1350-1425), Neelkantha ( 1500-1610 )
of Kerala Schoolof Astronomy and Mathematics. They are of the opinion that
Jesuit priest who resided in present Kerala state brought the scientific and
mathematical knowledge of South India to Western Europe [68].
The study of Dr. George Gheverghese Joseph reveals the fact that there is
strong circumstantial evidence of transmission of Indian discovery of calculus to
Western Europe via Jesuit missionaries from Kerala during 2nd half of 16th
century and “that knowledge , the team argues, may have eventually been passed
on to Newton himself” [20]. The question arises as to why the Jesuits were
interested to Indian mathematics? To this question there are several answers:
‘Taylor’s series’ expansion is one of the most important part of calculus

discovered in India preceding Newton and Leibniz. The infinite series –one of the
basic component of calculus was discovered in about 1350. According to David
Bressoud “ there is no evidence that the Indian works of series was known
beyond India or even outside Kerala until the 19th century. ”
Taylor’s series expansion of sine, cosine and arctangent functions were

found in Indian texts of mathematics, astronomy and jyotisa (time-keeping) and
particularly in the works of Madhava, Nilakantha (Tantrasangraha ,1501CE )
and Jyesthadeva (Yuktibhasa, 1530 CE) . Series expansion of sine was useful for
determination of longitude. Loxodromes were calculated by using sine tables.
Madhava’s sine tables, using series expansion of sine function
x3 x5 x7
i.e sin x = x − + − + ................................
3! 5! 7!
gave the most accurate values.

In the 16th and 17th century, prior to the discovery of clock technology of
18th century, some mathematicians and navigational theorist like Stevin,
Mersenne were aware of this fact. Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary who was
trained in mathematics and astronomy under the guidance of Clavius, was sent to
Coimbra (Kerala) to learn local methods of time-keeping (jyotisa) from the
Brahmins and Moors of Cochin in about 1581. Capt. Ajit Vadakayil in his book
“Issac Newton, The Calculus Thief”(2011) states that Matteo Ricci borrowed
calculus Malayalam text from Calicut King and never returned it. He also states
that Wish and Hyne stole calculus texts from Trichur Temple Library a few years
later.
These were needed for reforming the Julian calendar, to modernize

Gregorian calendar and consequently leading to the solution of latitude, longitude
and loxodrome problems of European navigation. Navigation was both
economically important for the prosperity of Europe and so the British Royal
Society was very much concerned about it. Madhava’s sine table was most
accurate way to calculate sine values for this purpose. To modernize Julian
calendar, Pope Gregory XIII founded a committee comprising Clavius, a German
mathematician, astronomer. Clavius planned to collect information about the
methods of time-keeping prevailing in other parts of the world. In this respect, the
Kerala school was a leading torch in the study of Jyotisa (time-keeping). The
importance of Indian knowledge was required for
(i) better time-keeping methods leading to better navigation

(ii) many prizes for specialized knowledge of astronomy were announced.
(iii) Aryabhatta-Siddhant’s (499AD) discovery that the Moon and planets
reflect light coming from the Sun and move in elliptical paths.
6.12: CONCLUSION
The period from 500 BC to 500 AD may be viewed as the dawn of

renaissance in Indian Mathematics. But, it is a matter of grave concern that the
contribution of Kerala School has not been acknowledged widely by the
European mathematicians. The scientific ideas of Non-European world were not
given due importance and credit for many reasons. One reason may be that the
western world was ignorant of ancient Indian works for sufficiently long period,
because of language and communication problems. Other reason may be the
sense of negligence to the scientific communities of Non-European world which
was a legacy of European colonialism.

Analytical Observations: Chapter - Vi

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Analytical Observations: Chapter - Vi

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Analytical Observations 133

From the above discussions, the following facts are observed:

6.1: FOUR FASCINATING PROBLEMS

The development of calculus is fairly recent in comparison to its history of

• Finding the tangent line to a curve at a point

Mathematicians of 17th century discussed all those problems from a

6.2: ON THE FAILURE OF THE GREEKS

incommensurable line segments. The appearance of a number like 2 had

The remarkable fact of the works of Archimedes (287-212 BC) is that

To measure the Archimedes used Archimedes expressed as

area of an ellipse inscribed polygons ratio to the area of the auxiliary

by one turn passing through the final point

volume of a inscribed pyramids two-thirds of the volume of the

volume of a inscribed and one-half of the volume of the

Archimedes compared the area of a circle with the area of a triangle of

Many scholars credited Archimedes as the originator of calculus.

But we have observed that despite his magnificent contributions, his

It is worth mentioning that there is a similarity between the method of

divided in demonstrating them. Influenced by these theories, the Greeks banished

Incommensurability of the rectilinear and curvilinear, idea of indivisibles

The early Greek geometers confined their attention to the comparison of

This method, however, failed to determine the areas of curvilinear figures

In the techniques developed by Cavalieri (1635), the indivisibles of two or

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was greatly influenced by the doctrine of

Taking these considerations into account, Johannes Kepler may be

Nichole Oresme’s (1320-1382) contributions to mathematics are

The medieval scholastic speculations paved the way for introducing

Later, these approaches led to a controversy and confusion. The area of a

During the medieval period, the exchange of learning among scholars,

Christian scholars of Western Europe travelled to Muslim centers of

6.4: CALCULUS OF THE HINDUS

Of course, in India, it was a period of creation as well as renovation.

scholars borrowed some of the concepts of Kerala School of Astronomy and

6.5: INFLUENCE OF ARCHIMEDES AND AL-HAYTHAM

Archimedes deduced the following results

to find the volume of solids of revolution of a segment of a parabola if rotated

Ibn Al-Haytham was very much influenced by the Arabic translations of

Al-Haitham deduced the following formulae

Though, Al-Haitham’s deductions were the extension works of

The area beneath y = x k immensely helped in making a notion between

y 2 = x 3 , the parabola z= g(x) = x 2 was taken as the auxiliary curve. Choosing

In Europe, the foundational work was a treatise due to Cavalieri. To him,

The concept of differentiation and integration was also explored by the

Infinitesimal techniques or indivisibles, motivated to relax the rigor of

middle decades of 17th century mathematicians. Old methods became obsolete

Roberval’s kinematic methods of determining tangents relied on geometry

6.6: INFLUENCE OF DESCARTES AND FERMAT

Descartes’ analytical geometry made possible to connect geometric

Descartes (1596-1650) found a method of determining tangent to curves

• As a secant of which the points of intersection became coincident

Avoiding the use of infinitesimals, he developed purely algebraic method.

Many years later, John Bernoulli (1691) extended Descartes’ method to

This method is remarkable as it consists of the general process of

Instead, Fermat gave a definition which clarified the idea of a tangent

6.7: AMALGAMATION OF PROBLEMS AND TECHNIQUES

The method of exhaustion inherited the idea of limit which was

All these made problems arithmetical instead geometrical of the Greeks

Barrow’s method of tangent differs from that of differential calculus

The works of mathematicians and philosophers of the golden age of

The number of curves known to the ancient mathematicians was few.

shapes. Central idea of their analytic geometry was to make correspondence

The introduction of continuous variables opened up a broad area of new

Descartes (1596-1650) started a geometrical problem by taking its curve