What triggered jesuits' ban on infinitesimals in 1632?Origin of the concept of dimension?When/How were the product and chain rules first proved?What is the modern understanding of the chronology of Newton's mathematical work?Current ways of thinking in the History of MathematicsHow was the Möbius strip discovered?Who discovered the power rule for derivatives?Where did John Wallis get the idea for $infty$?Euler's first proof of $e^ix=cos(x)+isin(x)$Did Eudoxus really set out to partition irrationals (Dedekind cuts) with rationals or was that a mere side effect we perceive through our modern POV?Using paper of known density to calculate area under a curve
What shortcut does ⌦ symbol in Camunda macOS app indicate and how to invoke it?
Is there any set of 2-6 notes that doesn't have a chord name?
Compute unstable integral with high precision
ArcGIS Intersect Tool not splitting lines as expected?
When to apply Lorentz transformations and laws of time dilations and length contractions: explanations
Why does the numerical solution of an ODE move away from an unstable equilibrium?
Why won't the ground take my seed?
What is the line crossing the Pacific Ocean that is shown on maps?
How to convert object fill in to fine lines?
What's the point of DHS warning passengers about Manila airport?
What are good ways to spray paint a QR code on a footpath?
If a high rpm motor is run at lower rpm, will it produce more torque?
Was touching your nose a greeting in second millenium Mesopotamia?
Golf the smallest circle!
Are there any vegetarian astronauts?
Row to remove the dotted white border around focused button text
Procedurally generate regions on island
Is it bad to describe a character long after their introduction?
Was "I have the farts, again" broadcast from the Moon to the whole world?
“Faire” being used to mean “avoir l’air”?
Do 3D printers really reach 50 micron (0.050mm) accuracy?
In native German words, is Q always followed by U, as in English?
How can I convince my reader that I will not use a certain trope?
Why is Madam Hooch not a professor?
What triggered jesuits' ban on infinitesimals in 1632?
Origin of the concept of dimension?When/How were the product and chain rules first proved?What is the modern understanding of the chronology of Newton's mathematical work?Current ways of thinking in the History of MathematicsHow was the Möbius strip discovered?Who discovered the power rule for derivatives?Where did John Wallis get the idea for $infty$?Euler's first proof of $e^ix=cos(x)+isin(x)$Did Eudoxus really set out to partition irrationals (Dedekind cuts) with rationals or was that a mere side effect we perceive through our modern POV?Using paper of known density to calculate area under a curve
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
... since the very idea of infinitesimal was foreshadowed by Cavalieri ( "limit") in 1635, then put forward in an indirect way by John Wallis ($1/infty$) in 1655, and then formalized by Newton ( "$o$" ) in 1666, and by Leibniz still a few years later?
mathematics
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
... since the very idea of infinitesimal was foreshadowed by Cavalieri ( "limit") in 1635, then put forward in an indirect way by John Wallis ($1/infty$) in 1655, and then formalized by Newton ( "$o$" ) in 1666, and by Leibniz still a few years later?
mathematics
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
What "ban" ? Are you referring to Amir Alexander's novel ? If so, see the post Are infinitesimals Dangerous ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:36
$begingroup$
On this complex issue, you can see : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser).
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@MauroALLEGRANZA, that post caused my question, the answers there are not satisfactory.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 11:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
... since the very idea of infinitesimal was foreshadowed by Cavalieri ( "limit") in 1635, then put forward in an indirect way by John Wallis ($1/infty$) in 1655, and then formalized by Newton ( "$o$" ) in 1666, and by Leibniz still a few years later?
mathematics
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
$endgroup$
... since the very idea of infinitesimal was foreshadowed by Cavalieri ( "limit") in 1635, then put forward in an indirect way by John Wallis ($1/infty$) in 1655, and then formalized by Newton ( "$o$" ) in 1666, and by Leibniz still a few years later?
mathematics
mathematics
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
edited Jun 19 at 13:53
user157860
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
asked Jun 17 at 10:46
user157860user157860
1468 bronze badges
1468 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
What "ban" ? Are you referring to Amir Alexander's novel ? If so, see the post Are infinitesimals Dangerous ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:36
$begingroup$
On this complex issue, you can see : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser).
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@MauroALLEGRANZA, that post caused my question, the answers there are not satisfactory.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 11:54
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
What "ban" ? Are you referring to Amir Alexander's novel ? If so, see the post Are infinitesimals Dangerous ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:36
$begingroup$
On this complex issue, you can see : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser).
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@MauroALLEGRANZA, that post caused my question, the answers there are not satisfactory.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 11:54
3
3
$begingroup$
What "ban" ? Are you referring to Amir Alexander's novel ? If so, see the post Are infinitesimals Dangerous ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:36
$begingroup$
What "ban" ? Are you referring to Amir Alexander's novel ? If so, see the post Are infinitesimals Dangerous ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:36
$begingroup$
On this complex issue, you can see : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser).
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:47
$begingroup$
On this complex issue, you can see : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser).
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@MauroALLEGRANZA, that post caused my question, the answers there are not satisfactory.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 11:54
$begingroup$
@MauroALLEGRANZA, that post caused my question, the answers there are not satisfactory.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 11:54
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
See this question at math.se
The "infinitesimals" we are talking about (actually more correctly called "indivisibles") is the assertion that a plane area is made up of parallel line segments; or that a solid region is made up of parallel plane sections.
The Amir book is not a novel, it is historical research. (And it is very interesting!) The short answer (see my answer there): Jesuits prohibited indivisibles for use in their education system because indivisibles were viewed as contrary to Aristotle.
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I read the answers there, you all are implying that Alexander made a glaring mistake. The ban was on indivisibles , not on infinitesimals.The latter are not indivisible and compatible with Aristotle's and the Church's idea of continuum.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 11:56
$begingroup$
@user157860 ... good point. I will rearrange my answer. Your question here, and all the discussion, would be more correct if it used the therm "indivisibles". Any mathematical theory of infinitesimals occurred after 1632, so of course infinitesimals were not banned in 1632. Then why did Alexander use "Infinitesimals" as the title of his book? You will have to see the book to find out.
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jun 19 at 12:27
$begingroup$
I read an excerpt and there is no ambiguity, Alexander is really convinced the ban was on infinitesimals: You might email him and check, my English and expertise on the issue is limited. Yet, Cavalieri's principle was not known in 1632, he discussed it with Galileo but it is highly unlikely that he spilled the beans to the jesuits
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I rearranged my answer here. The other answer was already about "indivisibles" .
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The issue regards more indivisibles than infinitesimals and must be located in the context of the Early Modern European debate about the "revamping" of atomism.
See : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser) for details about the works of Kepler (1609), Cavalieri (1635) and Guldin (1640).
Cavalieri developed his theory of geometry during the years 1620–1622.
According to Vincent Jullien's chapter dedicated to Indivisibles in the Work of Galileo :
on 7 May 1610, Galileo wrote, in a letter to the secretary of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, that he was planning a piece of work on the De Compositione continui. In February and March 1626, Cavalieri reminded him of the project: “do you remember the work on indivisibles that you had decided to write?”
Indivisibles are implicitly mentioned in part of the second day of the Dialogo (1632), at
the beginning of the demonstration of the law of falling bodies.
And see : Galileo's Saggiatore (1623) and the reply by the jesuit Orazio Grassi (Libra, published under the name : Lotario Grassi)
asserting that Galileo's book advanced an atomic theory of matter, and that this conflicted with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, because atomism would make transubstantiation impossible.
Grassi's second response to Il Saggiatore, the Ratio ponderum librae et simbellae (1626), focused mainly on doctrinal issues.
unlike The Assayer, which had recourse to the lethal polemical weapons of satire and the new philosophy, the Ratio used those no-less-lethal weapons of doctrinal and dialectical retort based on religious and philosophical orthodoxy.[Pietro Redondi, Galileo Heretic, Princeton University Press, 1987. p.191]
The jesuit mathematician Paul Guldin was an harsh critic of Cavalieri's method of indivisibles into his De centro gravitatis (or Centrobaryca, three volumes, 1635-41), on mathematical grounds.
See also Mordechai Feingold (editor), Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (MIT Press, 2002), page 28-29, for details about jesuit Rodrogo de Arriaga's Cursus philosophicus (Anversa, 1632) condemnation of 1632, concerning "mathematical atomism" and "the opinion on quantity made up of indivisibles".
I think that the modern source is Egidio Festa, La querelle de l'atomisme: Galilee, Cavalieri et les jesuites (1990).
The easily available sources (Wiki,etc.) about the condemnation of indivisibles of Galileo and Cavalieri (dated August 10, 1632), led the Revisors General of the Jesuits Jacob Bidermann all ref to Amir Alexander's book.
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As I stated in my question the method of indivisibles was not circulated before 1640-
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 14:07
$begingroup$
As to Galileo, his "Saggiatore" got the imprimatur of the Church, moreover he never shared Cavalieri's ideas.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 17:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "587"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhsm.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9742%2fwhat-triggered-jesuits-ban-on-infinitesimals-in-1632%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
See this question at math.se
The "infinitesimals" we are talking about (actually more correctly called "indivisibles") is the assertion that a plane area is made up of parallel line segments; or that a solid region is made up of parallel plane sections.
The Amir book is not a novel, it is historical research. (And it is very interesting!) The short answer (see my answer there): Jesuits prohibited indivisibles for use in their education system because indivisibles were viewed as contrary to Aristotle.
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I read the answers there, you all are implying that Alexander made a glaring mistake. The ban was on indivisibles , not on infinitesimals.The latter are not indivisible and compatible with Aristotle's and the Church's idea of continuum.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 11:56
$begingroup$
@user157860 ... good point. I will rearrange my answer. Your question here, and all the discussion, would be more correct if it used the therm "indivisibles". Any mathematical theory of infinitesimals occurred after 1632, so of course infinitesimals were not banned in 1632. Then why did Alexander use "Infinitesimals" as the title of his book? You will have to see the book to find out.
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jun 19 at 12:27
$begingroup$
I read an excerpt and there is no ambiguity, Alexander is really convinced the ban was on infinitesimals: You might email him and check, my English and expertise on the issue is limited. Yet, Cavalieri's principle was not known in 1632, he discussed it with Galileo but it is highly unlikely that he spilled the beans to the jesuits
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I rearranged my answer here. The other answer was already about "indivisibles" .
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
See this question at math.se
The "infinitesimals" we are talking about (actually more correctly called "indivisibles") is the assertion that a plane area is made up of parallel line segments; or that a solid region is made up of parallel plane sections.
The Amir book is not a novel, it is historical research. (And it is very interesting!) The short answer (see my answer there): Jesuits prohibited indivisibles for use in their education system because indivisibles were viewed as contrary to Aristotle.
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I read the answers there, you all are implying that Alexander made a glaring mistake. The ban was on indivisibles , not on infinitesimals.The latter are not indivisible and compatible with Aristotle's and the Church's idea of continuum.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 11:56
$begingroup$
@user157860 ... good point. I will rearrange my answer. Your question here, and all the discussion, would be more correct if it used the therm "indivisibles". Any mathematical theory of infinitesimals occurred after 1632, so of course infinitesimals were not banned in 1632. Then why did Alexander use "Infinitesimals" as the title of his book? You will have to see the book to find out.
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jun 19 at 12:27
$begingroup$
I read an excerpt and there is no ambiguity, Alexander is really convinced the ban was on infinitesimals: You might email him and check, my English and expertise on the issue is limited. Yet, Cavalieri's principle was not known in 1632, he discussed it with Galileo but it is highly unlikely that he spilled the beans to the jesuits
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I rearranged my answer here. The other answer was already about "indivisibles" .
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
See this question at math.se
The "infinitesimals" we are talking about (actually more correctly called "indivisibles") is the assertion that a plane area is made up of parallel line segments; or that a solid region is made up of parallel plane sections.
The Amir book is not a novel, it is historical research. (And it is very interesting!) The short answer (see my answer there): Jesuits prohibited indivisibles for use in their education system because indivisibles were viewed as contrary to Aristotle.
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
$endgroup$
See this question at math.se
The "infinitesimals" we are talking about (actually more correctly called "indivisibles") is the assertion that a plane area is made up of parallel line segments; or that a solid region is made up of parallel plane sections.
The Amir book is not a novel, it is historical research. (And it is very interesting!) The short answer (see my answer there): Jesuits prohibited indivisibles for use in their education system because indivisibles were viewed as contrary to Aristotle.
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
edited Jun 19 at 12:28
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
answered Jun 17 at 12:19
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
4,8041 gold badge8 silver badges19 bronze badges
$begingroup$
I read the answers there, you all are implying that Alexander made a glaring mistake. The ban was on indivisibles , not on infinitesimals.The latter are not indivisible and compatible with Aristotle's and the Church's idea of continuum.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 11:56
$begingroup$
@user157860 ... good point. I will rearrange my answer. Your question here, and all the discussion, would be more correct if it used the therm "indivisibles". Any mathematical theory of infinitesimals occurred after 1632, so of course infinitesimals were not banned in 1632. Then why did Alexander use "Infinitesimals" as the title of his book? You will have to see the book to find out.
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jun 19 at 12:27
$begingroup$
I read an excerpt and there is no ambiguity, Alexander is really convinced the ban was on infinitesimals: You might email him and check, my English and expertise on the issue is limited. Yet, Cavalieri's principle was not known in 1632, he discussed it with Galileo but it is highly unlikely that he spilled the beans to the jesuits
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I rearranged my answer here. The other answer was already about "indivisibles" .
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I read the answers there, you all are implying that Alexander made a glaring mistake. The ban was on indivisibles , not on infinitesimals.The latter are not indivisible and compatible with Aristotle's and the Church's idea of continuum.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 11:56
$begingroup$
@user157860 ... good point. I will rearrange my answer. Your question here, and all the discussion, would be more correct if it used the therm "indivisibles". Any mathematical theory of infinitesimals occurred after 1632, so of course infinitesimals were not banned in 1632. Then why did Alexander use "Infinitesimals" as the title of his book? You will have to see the book to find out.
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jun 19 at 12:27
$begingroup$
I read an excerpt and there is no ambiguity, Alexander is really convinced the ban was on infinitesimals: You might email him and check, my English and expertise on the issue is limited. Yet, Cavalieri's principle was not known in 1632, he discussed it with Galileo but it is highly unlikely that he spilled the beans to the jesuits
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I rearranged my answer here. The other answer was already about "indivisibles" .
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I read the answers there, you all are implying that Alexander made a glaring mistake. The ban was on indivisibles , not on infinitesimals.The latter are not indivisible and compatible with Aristotle's and the Church's idea of continuum.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 11:56
$begingroup$
I read the answers there, you all are implying that Alexander made a glaring mistake. The ban was on indivisibles , not on infinitesimals.The latter are not indivisible and compatible with Aristotle's and the Church's idea of continuum.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 11:56
$begingroup$
@user157860 ... good point. I will rearrange my answer. Your question here, and all the discussion, would be more correct if it used the therm "indivisibles". Any mathematical theory of infinitesimals occurred after 1632, so of course infinitesimals were not banned in 1632. Then why did Alexander use "Infinitesimals" as the title of his book? You will have to see the book to find out.
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jun 19 at 12:27
$begingroup$
@user157860 ... good point. I will rearrange my answer. Your question here, and all the discussion, would be more correct if it used the therm "indivisibles". Any mathematical theory of infinitesimals occurred after 1632, so of course infinitesimals were not banned in 1632. Then why did Alexander use "Infinitesimals" as the title of his book? You will have to see the book to find out.
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jun 19 at 12:27
$begingroup$
I read an excerpt and there is no ambiguity, Alexander is really convinced the ban was on infinitesimals: You might email him and check, my English and expertise on the issue is limited. Yet, Cavalieri's principle was not known in 1632, he discussed it with Galileo but it is highly unlikely that he spilled the beans to the jesuits
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I read an excerpt and there is no ambiguity, Alexander is really convinced the ban was on infinitesimals: You might email him and check, my English and expertise on the issue is limited. Yet, Cavalieri's principle was not known in 1632, he discussed it with Galileo but it is highly unlikely that he spilled the beans to the jesuits
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 19 at 13:57
$begingroup$
I rearranged my answer here. The other answer was already about "indivisibles" .
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
2 days ago
$begingroup$
I rearranged my answer here. The other answer was already about "indivisibles" .
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The issue regards more indivisibles than infinitesimals and must be located in the context of the Early Modern European debate about the "revamping" of atomism.
See : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser) for details about the works of Kepler (1609), Cavalieri (1635) and Guldin (1640).
Cavalieri developed his theory of geometry during the years 1620–1622.
According to Vincent Jullien's chapter dedicated to Indivisibles in the Work of Galileo :
on 7 May 1610, Galileo wrote, in a letter to the secretary of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, that he was planning a piece of work on the De Compositione continui. In February and March 1626, Cavalieri reminded him of the project: “do you remember the work on indivisibles that you had decided to write?”
Indivisibles are implicitly mentioned in part of the second day of the Dialogo (1632), at
the beginning of the demonstration of the law of falling bodies.
And see : Galileo's Saggiatore (1623) and the reply by the jesuit Orazio Grassi (Libra, published under the name : Lotario Grassi)
asserting that Galileo's book advanced an atomic theory of matter, and that this conflicted with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, because atomism would make transubstantiation impossible.
Grassi's second response to Il Saggiatore, the Ratio ponderum librae et simbellae (1626), focused mainly on doctrinal issues.
unlike The Assayer, which had recourse to the lethal polemical weapons of satire and the new philosophy, the Ratio used those no-less-lethal weapons of doctrinal and dialectical retort based on religious and philosophical orthodoxy.[Pietro Redondi, Galileo Heretic, Princeton University Press, 1987. p.191]
The jesuit mathematician Paul Guldin was an harsh critic of Cavalieri's method of indivisibles into his De centro gravitatis (or Centrobaryca, three volumes, 1635-41), on mathematical grounds.
See also Mordechai Feingold (editor), Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (MIT Press, 2002), page 28-29, for details about jesuit Rodrogo de Arriaga's Cursus philosophicus (Anversa, 1632) condemnation of 1632, concerning "mathematical atomism" and "the opinion on quantity made up of indivisibles".
I think that the modern source is Egidio Festa, La querelle de l'atomisme: Galilee, Cavalieri et les jesuites (1990).
The easily available sources (Wiki,etc.) about the condemnation of indivisibles of Galileo and Cavalieri (dated August 10, 1632), led the Revisors General of the Jesuits Jacob Bidermann all ref to Amir Alexander's book.
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As I stated in my question the method of indivisibles was not circulated before 1640-
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 14:07
$begingroup$
As to Galileo, his "Saggiatore" got the imprimatur of the Church, moreover he never shared Cavalieri's ideas.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 17:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The issue regards more indivisibles than infinitesimals and must be located in the context of the Early Modern European debate about the "revamping" of atomism.
See : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser) for details about the works of Kepler (1609), Cavalieri (1635) and Guldin (1640).
Cavalieri developed his theory of geometry during the years 1620–1622.
According to Vincent Jullien's chapter dedicated to Indivisibles in the Work of Galileo :
on 7 May 1610, Galileo wrote, in a letter to the secretary of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, that he was planning a piece of work on the De Compositione continui. In February and March 1626, Cavalieri reminded him of the project: “do you remember the work on indivisibles that you had decided to write?”
Indivisibles are implicitly mentioned in part of the second day of the Dialogo (1632), at
the beginning of the demonstration of the law of falling bodies.
And see : Galileo's Saggiatore (1623) and the reply by the jesuit Orazio Grassi (Libra, published under the name : Lotario Grassi)
asserting that Galileo's book advanced an atomic theory of matter, and that this conflicted with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, because atomism would make transubstantiation impossible.
Grassi's second response to Il Saggiatore, the Ratio ponderum librae et simbellae (1626), focused mainly on doctrinal issues.
unlike The Assayer, which had recourse to the lethal polemical weapons of satire and the new philosophy, the Ratio used those no-less-lethal weapons of doctrinal and dialectical retort based on religious and philosophical orthodoxy.[Pietro Redondi, Galileo Heretic, Princeton University Press, 1987. p.191]
The jesuit mathematician Paul Guldin was an harsh critic of Cavalieri's method of indivisibles into his De centro gravitatis (or Centrobaryca, three volumes, 1635-41), on mathematical grounds.
See also Mordechai Feingold (editor), Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (MIT Press, 2002), page 28-29, for details about jesuit Rodrogo de Arriaga's Cursus philosophicus (Anversa, 1632) condemnation of 1632, concerning "mathematical atomism" and "the opinion on quantity made up of indivisibles".
I think that the modern source is Egidio Festa, La querelle de l'atomisme: Galilee, Cavalieri et les jesuites (1990).
The easily available sources (Wiki,etc.) about the condemnation of indivisibles of Galileo and Cavalieri (dated August 10, 1632), led the Revisors General of the Jesuits Jacob Bidermann all ref to Amir Alexander's book.
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As I stated in my question the method of indivisibles was not circulated before 1640-
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 14:07
$begingroup$
As to Galileo, his "Saggiatore" got the imprimatur of the Church, moreover he never shared Cavalieri's ideas.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 17:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The issue regards more indivisibles than infinitesimals and must be located in the context of the Early Modern European debate about the "revamping" of atomism.
See : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser) for details about the works of Kepler (1609), Cavalieri (1635) and Guldin (1640).
Cavalieri developed his theory of geometry during the years 1620–1622.
According to Vincent Jullien's chapter dedicated to Indivisibles in the Work of Galileo :
on 7 May 1610, Galileo wrote, in a letter to the secretary of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, that he was planning a piece of work on the De Compositione continui. In February and March 1626, Cavalieri reminded him of the project: “do you remember the work on indivisibles that you had decided to write?”
Indivisibles are implicitly mentioned in part of the second day of the Dialogo (1632), at
the beginning of the demonstration of the law of falling bodies.
And see : Galileo's Saggiatore (1623) and the reply by the jesuit Orazio Grassi (Libra, published under the name : Lotario Grassi)
asserting that Galileo's book advanced an atomic theory of matter, and that this conflicted with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, because atomism would make transubstantiation impossible.
Grassi's second response to Il Saggiatore, the Ratio ponderum librae et simbellae (1626), focused mainly on doctrinal issues.
unlike The Assayer, which had recourse to the lethal polemical weapons of satire and the new philosophy, the Ratio used those no-less-lethal weapons of doctrinal and dialectical retort based on religious and philosophical orthodoxy.[Pietro Redondi, Galileo Heretic, Princeton University Press, 1987. p.191]
The jesuit mathematician Paul Guldin was an harsh critic of Cavalieri's method of indivisibles into his De centro gravitatis (or Centrobaryca, three volumes, 1635-41), on mathematical grounds.
See also Mordechai Feingold (editor), Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (MIT Press, 2002), page 28-29, for details about jesuit Rodrogo de Arriaga's Cursus philosophicus (Anversa, 1632) condemnation of 1632, concerning "mathematical atomism" and "the opinion on quantity made up of indivisibles".
I think that the modern source is Egidio Festa, La querelle de l'atomisme: Galilee, Cavalieri et les jesuites (1990).
The easily available sources (Wiki,etc.) about the condemnation of indivisibles of Galileo and Cavalieri (dated August 10, 1632), led the Revisors General of the Jesuits Jacob Bidermann all ref to Amir Alexander's book.
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
$endgroup$
The issue regards more indivisibles than infinitesimals and must be located in the context of the Early Modern European debate about the "revamping" of atomism.
See : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser) for details about the works of Kepler (1609), Cavalieri (1635) and Guldin (1640).
Cavalieri developed his theory of geometry during the years 1620–1622.
According to Vincent Jullien's chapter dedicated to Indivisibles in the Work of Galileo :
on 7 May 1610, Galileo wrote, in a letter to the secretary of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, that he was planning a piece of work on the De Compositione continui. In February and March 1626, Cavalieri reminded him of the project: “do you remember the work on indivisibles that you had decided to write?”
Indivisibles are implicitly mentioned in part of the second day of the Dialogo (1632), at
the beginning of the demonstration of the law of falling bodies.
And see : Galileo's Saggiatore (1623) and the reply by the jesuit Orazio Grassi (Libra, published under the name : Lotario Grassi)
asserting that Galileo's book advanced an atomic theory of matter, and that this conflicted with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, because atomism would make transubstantiation impossible.
Grassi's second response to Il Saggiatore, the Ratio ponderum librae et simbellae (1626), focused mainly on doctrinal issues.
unlike The Assayer, which had recourse to the lethal polemical weapons of satire and the new philosophy, the Ratio used those no-less-lethal weapons of doctrinal and dialectical retort based on religious and philosophical orthodoxy.[Pietro Redondi, Galileo Heretic, Princeton University Press, 1987. p.191]
The jesuit mathematician Paul Guldin was an harsh critic of Cavalieri's method of indivisibles into his De centro gravitatis (or Centrobaryca, three volumes, 1635-41), on mathematical grounds.
See also Mordechai Feingold (editor), Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (MIT Press, 2002), page 28-29, for details about jesuit Rodrogo de Arriaga's Cursus philosophicus (Anversa, 1632) condemnation of 1632, concerning "mathematical atomism" and "the opinion on quantity made up of indivisibles".
I think that the modern source is Egidio Festa, La querelle de l'atomisme: Galilee, Cavalieri et les jesuites (1990).
The easily available sources (Wiki,etc.) about the condemnation of indivisibles of Galileo and Cavalieri (dated August 10, 1632), led the Revisors General of the Jesuits Jacob Bidermann all ref to Amir Alexander's book.
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
edited Jun 17 at 18:34
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
answered Jun 17 at 12:15
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
12k1 gold badge21 silver badges40 bronze badges
$begingroup$
As I stated in my question the method of indivisibles was not circulated before 1640-
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 14:07
$begingroup$
As to Galileo, his "Saggiatore" got the imprimatur of the Church, moreover he never shared Cavalieri's ideas.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 17:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As I stated in my question the method of indivisibles was not circulated before 1640-
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 14:07
$begingroup$
As to Galileo, his "Saggiatore" got the imprimatur of the Church, moreover he never shared Cavalieri's ideas.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
As I stated in my question the method of indivisibles was not circulated before 1640-
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 14:07
$begingroup$
As I stated in my question the method of indivisibles was not circulated before 1640-
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 14:07
$begingroup$
As to Galileo, his "Saggiatore" got the imprimatur of the Church, moreover he never shared Cavalieri's ideas.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
As to Galileo, his "Saggiatore" got the imprimatur of the Church, moreover he never shared Cavalieri's ideas.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 17:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History of Science and Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhsm.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9742%2fwhat-triggered-jesuits-ban-on-infinitesimals-in-1632%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
What "ban" ? Are you referring to Amir Alexander's novel ? If so, see the post Are infinitesimals Dangerous ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:36
$begingroup$
On this complex issue, you can see : Vincent Jullien (editor), Seventeenth-Century Indivisibles Revisited (2015, Birkhauser).
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jun 17 at 11:47
$begingroup$
@MauroALLEGRANZA, that post caused my question, the answers there are not satisfactory.
$endgroup$
– user157860
Jun 17 at 11:54