Nature, Development and History of Mathematics

R. P. Maurya
Department of Education in Science and Mathematics,
National Council of Educational Research and Training,
New Delhi-110016

Introduction
We find that at school the children like the teacher and not the subjects. The subject goes like
something – “Mathematics is a dull and truly boring science where all you do is count”; oh, it is
like book-keeping. Where does anyone find use for problems in pouring water from one pool
into another? Time spent on things like that could be used more profitably. Why seek a
complicated method for determining the third side of the triangle via the other two sides and the
angle between them? First, it is simpler to use a protractor for the angle and then measure the
other side by ruler, and second, it is another instance something that is never needed in life. And
so on in the same vein.
The other view point is one of awe, “Mathematics? Oh good heavens, that is very difficult,
that is complicated, that is way out beyond the reach of the ordinary person. Only the talented
and men of genius can understand what mathematics is all about. Mathematicians pose fantastic
problems and even find solutions to them”.
But both camps firmly believe that mathematics consists of algebra, geometry and
trigonometry, and also something called higher mathematics, which is pictured as a
conglomeration of such intricate formulas so as to be a complete mystery to both parties.
The sciences taught at school constantly undergo change. At school my parents never heard
of Marx or Lenin, Rutherford or Einstein, Gorky or Mayakovski, Darwin or Popov. But the
geometry of Euclid, the Pythagorean theorem; the formulas for solving quadratic equations, and
the representation of the sine of the sum of two angles have all been taught to numerous
generations of children, and will continue to be taught. This creates the impression of
mathematics as of a fixed and finished edifice.
Can a person picture for a moment the physics and astronomy of the 17th century prior to
Newton, discovery of the law of gravitation and famous three Newtonian laws of motion? Prior
to the discovery of electricity and electromagnetic induction, prior to Coulomb, Volta, Ampere,
and Faraday?
It is easier for the biologist or chemist to visualise the chemistry of the 17th century, just
before Lomonosov and Lavoisier, or biology and medicine prior to the microscope of Anton Von
Leuwenhoek.
But the scholars of the 17th century actually knew everything that is covered by present
school geometries and algebras and even much more, while a good deal of the information in the
textbooks was common knowledge to Euclid himself – the third century B.C.
1 

 
 During the past 300 years, especially in the past century, mathematics has made tremendous
developments. But our try is that mathematics is quite different from the boring aspects that are
frequently handed to school children.
Our first question is: “What is mathematics”? We might start with the philosophical
definition of mathematics given by Engels: Mathematics is a science whose subject matter is
spatial forms and quantitative relationships of the world; and a German mathematician David
Hilbert, who said that “mathematics is what competent people understand the word to mean”.
Mathematics is so widely spread throughout our culture that its presents different faces to
different people. Virtually all the mathematics with which we are familiar had its roots
somewhere in nature. Arithmetic and algebra grew out of men’s need for counting, financial
management, and other simple operations of daily life; geometry and trigonometry developed
from problems of land measurement, surveying and astronomy; and calculus was invention to
assist in the solution of certain basic problems in Physics. In recent years new forms of
mathematics have been invented to help us cope with problems in social sciences, business,
biology and warfare; and new mathematical subjects are sure to arise from other portions of
human endeavour.
Nature of Mathematics
At first our approach to nature is descriptive, but as we learn more about it and perceive
relationship between its parts, we begin to construct a Mathematical Model of nature. This is
highly creative step towards insight and inspiration. In doing this we settle on the meanings of
the words and develop axioms which form the foundation of mathematical theory.
The next step in the process is to deduce the consequences of our collection of axioms. By
applying logical methods of deduction we then arrive at theorems. These theorems are nothing
more than logical conclusions from our axioms and must not be assumed to be firm statements
about relationships which are necessarily true in nature. In order to prove these theorems we
must know the rules of logic and the methods by which mathematical proofs are constructed.
Definition Logical Theorems/
& Axioms deductions rules
Mathematical Application
Model
Nature Nature

After the theorems are proved, the mathematician there looks for applications of them to
nature. He/she solves problems and obtains numerical answers to questions raised in his/her
investigation. We recognize this structure of mathematics when we look back at nature as
mathematical subject, but most people do not learn mathematics in this precise way. They are
more likely to begin with the descriptive aspects of nature and proceed to theorems and rules by
intuition rather than by proof. Having obtained these rules then they apply them to nature and
convince themselves that “mathematics is good for something”.
After these intuitive theorems and rules have been invented, the investigator will often be
faced with a confusing and disorganized set of statements which are hard to remember and apply.

2 

 
In his/her attempt to organise simplify these, he will go back and establish the necessary axioms
and derive his theorems from them. In this way he will build the structure given before.
The above account of the nature of mathematics is over simplified in one important way.
There are numerous branches of modern mathematics that do not appear to be rooted in natural
system of axioms have been developed which seem valid and meaningful to mathematicians
which are in no way descriptions of anything in man’s experience. The theorems developed from
these axioms are often of great interest to mathematicians and frequently have unexpected
applications.
Definition & Axioms Logical deductions

Organization
re
Nat u Nature  

Development of Mathematics
In the remote past the development of mathematics began in the form of Arithmetic which grew
out of people’s need for counting the items in relation to the trades and their day-to-day
transactions. This development altogether was followed by Geometry which is the product of
human’s urge for measuring land. However, about two and half thousand years ago, the works of
Greece Geometer laid solid foundation of Geometry based on a set of axioms. In the later course
of time these axioms through the deductive process emerged into important theorems that are
still in practice spanning over diverse fields of Science. They are so faultless and so perfect that
no alteration has been made in the foundations.
The more complicated problems of trade and industry called for the solution of equation that
motivated the introduction of number theory and theory of equation so these all together
amounted to algebra.
Enormous efforts were put into solving equations of degree higher than the second, and only
in 16th century were such solutions forthcoming for equations of the third and fourth degrees.
Another three centuries were spent in vein efforts to get the solution of equations of degree
higher than the fourth. Later on we will return in more detail to this exciting problem and the
dramatic events that accompanied it.
In the middle of the 17th century the demands of mathematics itself led the celebrated
philosopher, natural scientist and mathematician, Reni Descartes (1637) to a union of algebra
and geometry, to utilisation of algebraic methods in geometry. Thus arose analytic geometry in
which straight lines, planes, circles and other curves and surfaces were specified by means of
equations in a rectangular or, as it is sometimes called, Cartesian system of coordinates. In the
figure given below we see a straight line and a circle of radius r with centre at the coordinate
origin and their equations in the Cartesian system of coordinates.

3 

 
 y

ax + by + c = 0
r

x
O

2 2 2
x + y =r

At the end of the 17th century with its upsurge of astronomy, geodesy, mechanics and Physics
led the English genius Newton and independently, the great German scholar Leibnitz to the
setting up of the basic mathematical apparatus of classical physics – the differential and integral
calculus, which in turn led to the development of the differential and integral equations of
mathematical physics. These new chapters of mathematics, united into a single section termed
“Mathematical Analysis” or simply calculus, carried physics and chemistry and their cognate
fields to numberless victories, including the motion of machines, mechanisms, automobiles,
aircraft, and rocket, the development of electricity and radio, spectral analysis and weather
forecasting. In a way, almost everything around us is indebted to calculus.
At the beginning of the 19th century, after the triumph of analytical and differential geometry,
it became possible to make a careful examination of the very foundations of geometry – its
postulates. This was undertaken by N. Ivanovich Lobachevski, the great Russian mathematician.
He made a critical survey of the geometrical system of Euclid and excluded from Euclidean
geometry the fifth postulates on parallel lines. In this postulate, Lobachevski replaced the
assertion of one line being parallel to a given line by the supposition that at least two parallel
lines may be drawn through such point no lying on the given line.
Although such a supposition runs counter to our intuition, one must bear in mind that
intuition rests on our observations, and what we observe is parallel to an extremely small portion
of a plane.
What will occur if we assume the straight lines to be extended to infinity in both directions is
therefore not at all obvious.
This theory, which became known as ‘non-Euclidean’ geometry, our Lobachevskian
geometry, was rejected by Lobachevski’s contemporaries. Later, however, it gave rise to other
“non-Euclidean geometries” and this is most important as it served as mathematical basis for
investigations, at the beginning of the 20th century, of actual physical space. These investigations
culminated in Albert Einstein’s celebrated theory of relativity.
At about the same time that Lobachevski was working on his new theory, the Hungarian,
Janos Boyai was demonstrating the improvability of Euclid’s postulate of parallel lines and was
constructing geometry on a new basis. Incidentally, the great Gauss, in a letter to Jano’s father,
wrote that he had already given thought to these problems and had laid the foundations of a non-

4 

 
Euclidian geometry but had not wanted to publish the results because of their extremely
revolutionary and sensational nature.
Many mathematical disciplines developed out of the requirements of mathematics itself but
eventually proved to be extremely useful in Physics, Engineering and the Natural Sciences. An
illustration is logic which grew out of the necessity of constructing mathematics on a firm and
consistent logical basis. Today mathematical logic serves as the foundation for constructing the
theory of digital computers and, generally, is one of the most fundamental parts of the
mathematical apparatus of Cybernetics.
Further developments in algebraic theories and the establishment of profound relationship
between algebra and mathematical analysis during the past few decades led to tremendous
advances in what is known as functional analysis, which one of its founders the Soviet
mathematician, I. Gelfand, described as the mathematical machinery of present day Physics.
Many more mathematical theories could be mentioned but there is no space, so let us take
only a few and attempt to show their process of development in some detail.
Solutions to equations have been classified into two parts viz. Algebraic solutions of
Equations and Numerical solutions of Equations.
The solution of the first degree and for quadratic equations was known to Indians and
Arabian Mathematicians. Enormous efforts were put into solving equations of degree higher than
the second, and only in the 16th century were such solutions forth coming for equations of the
third and fourth degrees. The solution for the equation x3 + mx = n was started by Scepo Ferreo
which was carried by his pupil Florido in the year 1505. The attention of Tartaglia was directed
by Colla to the problem of solving cubic equation x3 + px2 = q. Flando learning that Tartaglia had
obtained a solution of this equation, proclaimed his solution of the equation x3 + mx = n.
Tartaglia discovered rules for the solution of various forms of cubics. There rules were exploited
extensively by Carbon in his work styled Ars Magna.
The solution of Fourth degree equation can also be attributed to the problem posed by Cella
who proposed the solution of the equation x4 + 6x2 + 36 = 60x. This problem was solved by
Ferrari. This solution is sometimes credited in favour of Bombelli who published it in his treatise
on Algebra in 1579. Further vital impetus was imparted to these discoveries by Descartes in the
year 1637. His work, besides containing several improvements upon the earlier results
propounded imaginary roots of equations and the rules of signs. His work was further continued
by Euler. The methods of Descartes and Euler were the result of attempts made to obtain a
general algebraic solution of the equations. Throughout the eighteenth century many
mathematicians occupied themselves with this problem; but their labours were unsuccessful in
the case of equations of a degree higher than the fourth.
Lagrange undertook a review of the labours of his predecessors in the direction of the general
solution of equations, and traced all their results to one uniform principle. This principle consists
in reducing the solution of the given equation to that of an equation of lower degree, whose roots
are linear functions of the roots of the given equation and of the roots of unity. He shows also
that the reduction of a quintic cannot be effected in this way, the equation which its solution
depends being of the sixth degree.

5 

 
 Among other contributions to the discussion of quintic since the researchers of Lagrange, one
of leading importance is its expression in a trinomial form by means of the Tschirnhausen
transformation. Tschirnhausen himself had succeeded in the year 1683, by means of the
assumption y = p + 80x + x2, in the reduction of the cubic and quartic and had imagined that a
similar process might be applied to the general equation. The reduction of the quintic to the
trinomial form was published by Jerrand in his Mathematical researches, 1832-1835 and has
been pronounced by Hermite to the most important advance in the discussion of this quintic
since Abels demonstration of the impossibility of its solution by radicals. Further reduction of
quintic has been discussed by Robert Harley and Swedish mathematician named Bring. Of equal
importance to Bring’s reduction is Sylvester’s transformation, by means of which the quintic is
expressed as the sum of three fifth powers- a form which gives great facility to the treatment of
this quintic. Other contributions which have been made in recent years towards the discussion of
quinties of fifth and higher degrees have reference chiefly to the invariants and covariants of
these forms.
The first attempt at a general solution by approximation of the numerical equations was
published in the year 1660, by Vieta. Cardan also applied the method of approximation to give
the numerical solution of the equations but he reached at the false position. It occurred that a
particular numerical root of a given equation might be obtained by a process analoguing to the
ordinary process of extraction of square and cube roots; and he enquired in what way those
known processes should be modified in order to afford a root of an equation whose coefficients
are given numbers. Taking an equation f (x) = p, where p is a given number, and f (x) is a given
polynomial containing different powers of x, with numerical coefficients, Vieta showed that, by
substitution in f (x) a known approximate value of x, another figure of the root (expressed as
decimal) might be obtained by division. It will be observed that the principle of this method is
identical with the main principle involved in the methods of approximation of Newton and
Horner. All these all solutions may be judged by an observation in Montuela’s Histoire des
Mathematiques, Vol. I, p. 603, where, speaking of Vieto’s mode of approximation.
Newton’s method of approximation was published in 1969, but before this period the method
of Viete had been employed and amplified by Harriot, Oughtred, Pell, and others. After the
period of Newton, Simpson and the Bernoullis occupied themselves with the same problem.
Daniel Bernoulli expressed a root of an equation in the form of a recurring series, and a similar
expression was given by Euler, but both these methods of solution have been shown by Lagrange
to be in no respect essentially different from Newton’s solution (Traite de la Resolutiondes
numeriques). After the period of Lagrange, the best method so far is Horner,s method for the
purpose of numerical solution of the Cubic Equations.
Before giving an account of his attempted solution of this problem, it is necessary to review
what had been already done in this direction, in addition to the method of approximation above
described. Harriot discovered in 1631 the composition of an equation as a product of factors, and
the relations between the roots and coefficients. Vieta had already observed this relation in the
case of a Cubic; but he failed to draw the conclusion in its generality, as Harriot did. This
discovery was important for it led to the observation that any integer root must be a factor of the
absolute terms of an equation, and Newton’s method of divisors for the determination of such
roots was a natural result. The next talk was to find the limits of the roots. Deseartes’ as already
remarked, was the first to recognize the negative and imaginary roots of equations, and the
6 

 
inquiry commended by him as to the determination of the number of real and imaginary roots of
any given equation was continued by Newton, Stirling, De Gua, and others.
Lagrange observed that, in order to arrive at a solution to the problem above stated, it was
first necessary to determine the number of real roots of the given equation, and to separate them
one from another. For this purpose he proposed to employ the equation whose roots are the
squares of the differences of the roots of the given equation. Lagrange gave the methods also of
obtaining the imaginary roots of equations and observed that if the equation had equal roots, they
could be obtained in the first instance by methods already in existence.
Since the period of Lagrange, the most important contribution to the analysis of numerical
equations, in addition to Horner’s improvement of the methods of approximation of Vieta and
Newton, are those of Fourier, Budan and Sturm. The researches of Budan were published in
1807, and those of Fourier in 1831, after his death. Before Budan, Fourier had discovered the
solution of equations numerically. The research of Sturm were published in 1835.
History of Some Branches of Mathematics
Search for solution of the equations affected to a great extent, the evolution of number theory
summarized as under:
Beginning with the natural numbers, we proceed to the integers, then to the rational numbers,
then to the real numbers, then to the complex numbers. Each stage is motivated by the desire to
solve a certain kind of equations. Arithmetic can be regarded as the natural consequence of the
simplest arithmetic act, that of counting, and counting itself as nothing else than the successive
creation of the infinite series of positive integers in which each individual is defined by the one
immediately preceding; the simplest act is the passing from an already formed individual to the
consecutive new one to be formed. The chain of these numbers forms in itself an exceedingly
useful instrument for the human mind; it presents an inexhaustible wealth of remarkable laws
obtained by the introduction of the four fundamental operations of arithmetic. Addition is the
combination of any arbitrary repetitions of the above mentioned simplest act into a single act;
from it in a similar way arises multiplicative while the performance of these two operations is
always possible, that of inverse operations, subtraction and division proves to be limited. It is
certainly true that just as this limitation has been the real motive for a new creation; thus negative
and fractional numbers have been created by the human mind.
Richard Dedekind elaborated upon the theory of real numbers motivated by the presentation
of rational numbers on line. In regard to this the following laws hold:
(i) If p lies to the right of q, and q to the right or r then p lies to the right of r; and we say
that q lies between the points p and r.
(ii) If p, r are two different points, then there always exist infinitely many points that lie
between p and r.
(iii) If p is a definite point in t, the all points in L fall into two classes P1, P2 each of which
contains infinitely many individuals; the first class P1 contains all the points P1, that
lie to the left of p, and the second class P2 contains all the points P2 that lie to the right
of p; the point p itself may be assigned at pleasure to the first or second class.

7 

 
 Of the great importance, however, is the fact that in the straight line L there are infinitely
many points which correspond to no rational number. There are infinitely many lengths which
are incommensurable with the unit of length, thus Dedikind concluded that the straight line L is
infinitely rich in point individuals than the domain R of rational numbers in number individuals.
Ultimately this led Dedikind to improve, upon the domain R of rational number by adding to it
irrational numbers to obtain the same continuity as the straight line.
The problem of solving such an equation as x2 + 1 = 0 motivates the theory of complex
numbers, which include not only the real numbers but also such “imaginary” numbers as the
square root of –1 so named by Gauss. Complex numbers are defined as ordered pairs of real
numbers with suitable rules for their addition and multiplication. Geometrical presentation of
complex numbers owes to Casper Wessel (1797) and J.R. Argand (1806). Geometrical
interpretation of imaginary number as the quarter-turn about origin was given by Hardy.
Works done by Euler and Demoivre in this direction deserve mention. Demoivre discovered
the result that (cosnθ + i sin)n = cosnθ + i sinθ which is widely used to find the complex roots of
the equation. From the discovery of Demoivre, Euler developed a famous formulae which
appeals equally to mystic, the scientist, the philosopher and the mathematician. Importance of his
formula lies in the fact that involves the relationship between four fundamental quantities 0, 1, π
and i.
There are four fundamental operations in mathematics viz addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division but there was no other operation in mathematics which deals with the
rate of change between varying quantities.
Graphs: The method of representing the relation between varying quantities by graphs dates
from the 14th century, when it was employed by a Paris Professor in 1350. What we now denote
by abscissa and ordinate he called ‘longtitude’ and latitude. The same method was used later by
many writers. The most important problems which arose in connection with the curves thus
obtained were the problems of drawing a tangent to a curve at a given point, of finding where the
curve had a maximum or a minimum ordinate, and of determining its area. The differential
calculus owes its origin really to the problem of tangents, and the integral calculus (which deals
with the process which is the inverse of differentiation) to the problem of areas.
Early History: The student learns the differential calculus first, but historically the integral
calculus (in a crude form, of course) was the first to be invented. The vintage of the year 1612
was extraordinarily abundant, and the question of the volume of wine casks was referred to the
astronomer Kepler. He had already evaluated the area of an ellipse, and successfully applied his
method to the new problem by dividing up the given volume into ‘infinitely many’ thin discs,
each ‘infinitely small’. Before these methods were invented by Kepler, there was no other
method for evaluating areas or volumes except the method of Euclid and the other Greek
mathematicians.
Kepler’s methods were taken up by Cavalieri who wrote in 1635 a geometry of ‘indivisibles’,
as he called the ‘infinitely small’ elements and in another book published twelve years later he
even succeeded in determining the centres of gravity of solids of variable density.
Many mathematicians solved particular problems of what we now call the integral calculus,
and Fermat gave some important generalizations. He came very near to discovering the
8 

 
differential calculus also, because he gave (in 1629) methods for drawing tangents, and
discovering maxima and minima which are essentially the same as used today.
Methods similar to Fermat began to be used by other mathematicians also. Isaac Barrow
published in 1669 his Lectiones opticae et geometricae, in which the increments QR, PR of the
ordinate and abscissa were denoted by a and e. Then the ratio of a to e was found by substituting
x + e and y + a for x and y respectively in the equation of the curve, rejecting second order terms,
and omitting terms independent of a and e. The process, it is apparent, is equivalent to
differentiation. Barrow also noticed the reciprocal relation between the problem of tangents and
that of areas.
Barrow thus came nearer even than Fermat to discovering the calculus. But it was reserved
for his pupil, the great Newton and another mathematician Leibnitz, to discover the principles of
calculus.
Y

P R

O T M N X

Isolated theorems of the differential calculus had been discovered in India by the Hindu
mathematicians much earlier. Thus Manjula (932 A.D.) knew what we would now write as
δ(sinθ) = cosθδθ, where δθ is small
Bhaskaracharya (1150 A.D.) used the word tatkalikagati (literally instantaneous motion) for
the small increment which accrues in a given small interval of time. He was acquainted with the
proposition that δ f (x) = 0, if f (x) is a maximum. Some of the later writers had a knowledge of a
few other theorems also, but the calculus as such was not studied in India.
Newton: Issac Newton (1642 – 1727), as stated above, was Barrow’s pupil, and he knew all that
Barrow knew to begin with. His original contributions to the subject were contained in three
tracts, the first of which was written in 1666. None of these tracts was published till long
afterwards.
Newton regarded variable quantities to be generated by the motion of a point. The rate of
generation was called a ‘fluxion’. In fact his method comes to this that he regarded x and y as
functions of time. He used x to denote what we would denote by dx/dt and he called it the fluxion
of x. It was really the velocity of x. By comparing y and x he could find what we now call the
differential coefficient. The method was to denote the ‘infinitely small’ increments of x and y in
an ‘infinitely short’ time by x0 and y0, and use these in place of the e and the a of Barrow.
Newton gave the rules for what we would now call differentiating a sum of two functions and
a function of a function. He proved also the result which we now write as
9 

 
 dx n
= nx n −1  (n integral)
dx
It is not known why the publication of Newton’s tracts was so inordinately delayed (the first
tract was published 45 years after it was written), but perhaps Newton saw that his arguments
about infinitesimals were not sound. There is reason to think so, for in the Principia (1687) he
tried to find the calculus of fluxions by the method of limits. Moreover, he used to give rigorous
geometrical proofs of theorems in astronomy and mechanics which undoubtedly he discovered
first by the method of fluxions.
Leibnitz: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1616-1716) was an independent inventor of the calculus.
Unlike Newton, he was practically a self-taught mathematician. On the occasion of his first visit
to London (1673) he purchased a copy of Barrow’s Lectiones. In 1674 he sent an account of the
method he had discovered for drawing tangents to curves to Huygens, who sent it to the Royal
Society, London.
The Foundation of the calculus as we know it today was really laid by Leibnitz by writing dy
and dx for the differentials of y and x and writing ydx for the integral of y. Even in 1675 he wrote
1 2
∫ ydx = 2 y , just as we write today.
Several letters passed between Leibnitz and Newton from July 1676 to June 1677, when
Leibnitz gave Newton a candid account of his differential calculus. Newton did not reply to this
and in his previous letters also he had never disclosed his own methods to Leibnitz. The letters
were sent to each other through Oldenberg, the Secretary of Royal Society.
In 1684 Leibnitz published his results in the Acta eruditorum in the form of a memoir, and
gave methods for finding the differential of a sum (or difference), a product, a quotient and a
power, and also the differential of xm. The rule for the differential of a function was merely
illustrated by examples. The rule for maxima and minima was correctly given utilizing the sign
of ddy to distinguish between maxima and minima. The method of finding tangents was also
given.
Soon the differential calculus (as also the integral calculus) was rapidly developed by
Leibnitz and the Bernoullis.
Dispute Regarding Priority: In 1699 one N.C. de Duillier published a tract in which he stated
that Leibnitz had stolen the calculus from Newton. Leibnitz replied to it in the Acta eruditorum
(1700), citing Newton’s letters and the passage in Newton’s Principia wherein he had
acknowledged Leibnitz to be an independent inventor of the calculus. The dispute was settled at
time. But in 1705, in an anonymous review of a tract of Newton, a disparaging remark was made
against Newton. The insinuation, in fact, was that Newton had stolen the calculus from Leibnitz
and had merely changed the notation. Great indignation was aroused, and much was written by
the supporters of Newton and Leibnitz which, as Moritz Cantor put it, ‘redounded to the discredit
of all concerned’. The dispute continued till several years after the death of Leibnitz.
Later Developments: The result of this controversy was that to the British mathematicians it
became a point of honour not to use the methods of Leibnitz. They stuck to the method and
notation of fluxions, which was not powerful enough. The only advances made by them in 18th
10 

 
century were the discoveries by Brook Taylor and Colin Maclaurin of the theorems that go by
their names.
On the continent, on the other hand, rapid development took place, and partial differentiation
was soon introduced (1734) by Euler.
Criticism of the Calculus
Several mathematicians, including Huygens, had opposed the method of calculus from the very
beginning. A Dutch physician (B. Nieuwentijt) attacked the method on account of the use of
quantities which are at one stage of the process treated as something and at a later stage as
nothings. In England Bishop Berkeley attacked (in 1734) the vague conception of quantities
which were neither zero, nor different from zero, but in some intermediate stage. He alleged that
religion was no worse than mathematics, seeing that things like these had to be accepted on mere
faith. The controversy which ensued made it plain that infinitesimals must be discarded. But
progress was slow. It was not until 1823, when Cauchy published his treatise on the differential
calculus, that the whole thing was put on a satisfactory basis. But even after this much remained
to be done. The trend of modern developments has been to show that many theorems break down
in exceptional circumstances, and much of the research work of the last fifty years or more has
been devoted to the discovery of forms in which the theorems have no exception and yet are as
general as possible. 

11