Fluxions, Limits, and Infinite Littlenesse.

A Study of Newton's Presentation of the Calculus

Author(s): Philip Kitcher
Source: Isis, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Mar., 1973), pp. 33-49
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229868 .
Accessed: 06/01/2014 15:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fluxions,
Infinite

Limits,

and

Littlenesse

A Studyof Newton'sPresentation
of the Calculus
By Philip Kitcher*1
I. INTRODUCTION

THE

WORK OF ISAAC NEWTON has received a great deal of attention from

historians of mathematics. Why then should there be any need for another paper on
Newton's calculus? My aim is not to rehearse the familiar account of how Newton
developed his theory but rather to cast light on the relations among the concepts that
he employed, relations which have not previously been sufficientlyexplicated.
The data from which we begin are straightforward enough. In his early papers
Newton followed the style of his day and cast his methods in algebraic terms. When
pressed for geometric interpretation of his algebraic maneuvers, he resorted, as did
many of his contemporaries, to talk of infinitesimals. Later he abandoned this reference in favor of the theory of fluxions, and still later that theory in turn came to rest
on the doctrine of ultimate ratios. Many historians have amply filled in the details of
this crude outline. But they have not asked whether the progression was anything
other than a succession of frameworks each of which Newton regarded for a time as
the basis of his theory.2
Instead of seeing each set of concepts as a candidate for the true foundation of the
calculus, I shall contend that we should recognize that each occupied a special place in
Newton's total scheme. Putting the matter briefly, the theory of fluxions yielded the
ReceivedJan. 1972:revised/acceptedAug. 1972.
*Program in the History of Science,Princeton
University,Princeton,N. J. 08540.
1 I am very gratefulto two anonymousreaders
for Isis who helped me to improve substantially
an earlier version of this paper, which received
the 1971 Henry SchumanPrize in the History of
Science. My chief acknowledgementsmust however be to Patricia Kitcher and to Professor
Michael S. Mahoney. I am indebted to them
for considerable help, kindly criticism, and
muchpatientencouragement.
2 Both Carl B. Boyer and D. T. Whitesidein
their studies of Newton's mathematicsseem to
accept the idea that Newton devised his concept
of a fluxion as a substitute for the use of infinitesimalsand that the method of ratios was

also intended to perform an equivalent task.

Boyer, for example, refers to the "fact that
Newton could thus present all three views as
essentially equivalent . . ." (The History of the

Calculusand Its ConceptualDevelopment,New

York:Dover, 1949, p. 201). Whiteside makes a
similar assumption when he writes: "In the
summerand earlyautumnof that year(1665). ...
he recast the theoreticalbasis of his new-found
calculus techniques,rejecting as his foundation
the concept of the indefinitelysmall discrete increment in favour of the 'fluxion' of a variable
. . ." (The MathematicalWorksof Isaac Newton,
Vol. I, New York: Johnson, 1964, p. x). The
approach to Newton's work elaborated below,
which contends that the functions of Newton's
three sets of basic concepts are quite distinct,
seemsincompatiblewith theseviews.

33

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34

PHILIP KITCHER

heuristicmethodsof the calculus.Thosemethodswereto bejustifiedrigorouslyby the

theoryof ultimateratios.3The theoryof infinitesimalswas to abbreviatethe rigorous
proof, and Newton thoughtthat he had shown the abbreviationto be permissible.
Ratherthan competingfor the same position, the three theorieswere designedfor
quitedistincttasks.
Like the naturalscientist,the mathematicianworksin the contextof discoveryas
well as the contextof justification,makinguseof differentmethodsto suit thedemands
of each. One obviouspart of his task is to providesolutionsto those problemswhich
seem importantto the communityin which he works and to developtechniquesfor
community
copingwith classesof such problemswholesale.The seventeenth-century
not onlyprovidedmanyclassesof problemsbut also challengedits membersto tackle
particularlystubborninstances.As an example,problemsof findingthe quadratureof
"specialcurves"-such as the conchoid,cissoid,cycloid,andhyperbola4-occupiedthe
and vigorousresearchon these recalcitrantcases led to
attentionof mathematicians,
new techniquesapplicableto the generalclass of quadratureproblems.The ultimate
aim was a fullygeneralmethod,and certainlythe centurysaw the generationof many
partialalgorithmstowardthis end.Pierrede Fermat'smethodof maximaand minima
powers
and Rene-Francoisde Sluse'srule,familiarto us as the rulefor differentiating
of a variable,are primeexamples.Both were successesfor the new analyticmathematics.In SectionsII and III below I shall defendthe claimthat Newton'stheoryof
fluxionswas an advanceat thislevel.
Quite differentare those parts of a mathematician'swork which connect with
questionsof proof. Rigormaybe sacrificedin the tussle with obstinateproblems,and
the solution to a puzzle may be achievedby meanswhich come short of accepted
canonsof clarityandexactness.Butif thosetechniquesareultimatelyto be acceptedas
legitimateparts of the discipline,mathematicianswill demandthat they be justified
accordingto the standardswhichthe communityaccepts.If the techniquesprovetheir
power but also resist attemptsto fit them into recognizedpractice,conflictensues.
Fromthat conflicta redefinitionof whatcountsas mathematicsmayemerge.5Partof
this studywill be concentratedon the effortto makea new piece of powerfulmathematics-the calculus-fit a mathematicalparadigmwhich had the authority of
AristotleandEuclid.
The heuristictriumphsof the "methodof analysis"6deriveddirectlyfromthe use of
the new algebrain reformulatinggeometricalproblems.Unfortunatelysome of the
3 Newton's creation and use of the method of
first and last ratios approachesa theoryof limits.
The methodwill be examinedin Sec. V.
4 See, e.g., Oeuvres de Fermat, ed. Paul
Tannery and Charles Henry, Vol. III (Paris:
Gauthier-Villars,1896),pp. 238-240.
5 Perhapsthe most dramaticexampleof this is
the change in attitude toward set theory. One
need only comparethe highlynegativeremarksof
Leopold Kronecker-committed to an ideal of
pure mathematics as essentially arithmeticwith David Hilbert's battle cry forty years later
that mathematiciansshould not be drivenout of
Cantor'sparadise.The staggeringreappraisalof
the nature of mathematicswhich followed the
recognition,fosteredby Kronecker,of problems

in the foundationsof analysishas yet to be fully

appreciated.
6 The seventeenth-century
method of analysis
was in essence a combination of what was regarded as a Greek method (assuming the unknown as known and proceedingby deductionto
known truths) and the use of the algebra fashioned by FrancoisVi6teto reformulateproblems.
So, for example, to find the maximum and
minimum points of a curve, Fermat supposed
that the value of the abscissa had been found
and proceededto set up the algebraicconditions
that it must meet. His derivation was open to
question, because he used a hypothesis that the
formula for the sum of the roots of an equation
will continue to hold when two roots are equal,

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS, LIMITS, INFINITE LITTLENESSE

35

algebraic manipulations performed lacked intuitive validity, and derivations involving

such manipulations ranked poorly when viewed as proofs. As it was attempted to cast
them into the synthetic form of reasoning favored by Aristotle and Euclid, the absurdities of certain operations (e.g., dividing by zero) only appeared more blatantly. The
tradition of allowing the use of algebra to thrive on the existence of a geometric model7
left little room for dismissing the calculations as "formal and meaningless."8Hence a
temporary method of justification became popular as mathematicians came to appeal
to infinitesimals or indivisibles to support their algebraic steps. Yet the question naturally arose as to whether this was enough to meet the demand for synthetic proof in
the manner of Euclid.
Newton's achievement consisted in solving problems in both contexts. His method of
infinite series expansion, with which we shall not be concerned here, showed how the
number of curves accessible to analytic methods could be increased. Also within the
context of discovery his development of the theory of fluxions reduced the number of
problem classes to just two problems inversely related. By means of the doctrine of
ultimate ratios he hoped to show that his fluxional calculus could be grounded in the
geometry of "the Ancients"9 and also to demonstrate the validity of the quicker
methods of justification which he used throughout his career. Although he insisted
that this was the aim of his theory of ultimate ratios, his presentation of it was not
clear enough to satisfy George Berkeley and later critics. Yet Newton's emphasis on
the point illuminates his views on proof and rigor. Writing to John Keill at the time of
the priority dispute with Leibniz, he stated his view quite plainly:
In demonstratingpropositionsI always write down the letter o and proceed by the
Geometryof Euclideand Apolloniuswithoutany approximation.In resolvingQuestions
or investigatingtruthsI use all sorts of approximationswhichI thinkwill createno error
in the conclusionandneglectto writedownthe lettero, andthis do for makingdispatch.10

CambridgeUniversity Press, 1967, p. 10). This

passage and many others indicatethat geometry
was seen as a model or concrete instantiationof
the algebra.Such an idea helped to raise algebra
from the ranks of the "barbarousarts."
8 Perhaps the most sophisticatedpresentation
of this line occurs in Bernard Bolzano's Paradoxien des Unendlichen(Prague, 1854), Sec. 37.
Of course, in the heyday of algebraic analysis,
when geometryhad been displacedas the central
mathematicaldisciplineand algebrahad become
recognized as the format of mathematics, this
kind of formalismwas muchmore acceptable.
9 I have made no attempt to sort out the considerations which would favor the geometrical
paradigmof proof. It is temptingto viewNewton
as guidedby a differenttraditionof foundational
studies from that currently in vogue, and the
investigationof that traditionis a task with some
significancefor the philosophy of mathematics.
In this paper it is only possible for the task
to be defined.
10Letter to John Keill, May 15, 1714, The
and Geometry . . . give us an instance of this
[algebra]. . ." (Descartes, Works,trans. and ed. Correspondenceof Sir Isaac Newton and ProE. Haldaneand G. R.T. Ross, Vol. I, Cambridge: fessor Cotes(Cambridge,1850),p. 176.

and that the geometric interpretation of the

equal roots situation gives the case of the extremevalues.This renderedhis whole reformulation of the problemsomewhatsuspect.The use of
the derivations of solutions provided by the
method could thus be opposed on a number of
grounds. We shall examnineIsaac Barrow's
(negative)responseto the idea behindthe method
in Sec. IV. Yet the majority of mathematicians
felt that allowing the analytic derivation to
stand as proxy for a proof was betterthan giving
no demonstrationat all. The rationale for this
will be given below. A clear account of the
Greek sources of the method has been given by
Michael S. Mahoney, "Another Look at Greek
Geometrical Analysis," Archive for History
of Exact Sciences,1968,5:318-348.
7 As with both Descartesand Vi6te.Descartes'
attitudeemergesquite clearlyin the fourth of his
Regule.Here he links the true science of algebra
to the supposedly secret methods of Pappus
and Diophantus and remarks that "Arithmetic

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36

PHILIP KITCHER

Newton failed to convince his contemporaries that he had solved the problems of
justification. In the eighteenth century the conflict between geometry and algebra for
the place of basic discipline of mathematics resolved in favor of algebra, and Newton's faithful successors became the proponents of an outworn way of pursuing their
subject.
II. THE NEED FOR GENERALIZATIONAND SIMLIFICATION

The seventeenth-centurymethod of analysis directed its attention toward a domain

of well-defined classes of problems, such as the construction of tangents to curves, the
finding of maxima and minima, and the computation of quadrature. It aimed to treat
those problems by means of symbolic algebra. The analytic geometry of Fermat and
Descartes enhanced the possibility of treating the questions, not as individual problems
for each curve, but by means of a general method which would apply to all curves of a
certain type. Classification into types would be undertaken by considering the algebraic form of the equation of the curve. It might then be hoped that by a process of
refinementthese algorithms could be combined to form an even more general solution.
Descartes, Fermat, Roberval, and others had used algorithmic methods to handle
these problems before Newton was born. Yet no one had provided the fully general
method which had been hoped for, and there was little indication of any awareness of
relations between the various problems classes.1' In the wake of the French, mathematicians in the Low Countries endeavored to simplify the methods which had been
proposed, and by the time of Newton's arrival at Cambridge they had made some progress toward avoiding the tedious computations of the traditional techniques.'2
This outline of the background against which Newton's work was set presents three
important considerations relevant to understanding his work. First, we note the existence of a tradition of mathematical work aimed at the provision of algorithms for the
solution of clearly defined classes of problems. Secondly, at the time of Newton's
arrival at Cambridge the problems to which mathematicians applied the general
approach which they called "the method of analysis" were still lying loose and
separate, and it would have been impossible to speak of a fully demarcated field of the
calculus. Finally, the existing methods were reckoned unsatisfactory either on grounds
of inconvenience or lack of generality-in most cases on both counts-and, aside
from questions of justification, there was evident need at the algorithmic level for
extension and simplification of the methods used.
Newton began by accepting the algorithmic challenge. His early papers on the
computation of the Cartesian subnormal13set out to investigate individual recalcitrant
11 Fermat'sreductionof problemsof rectification to problems of quadratureis an honorable
exception to this charge. Nonetheless what one
expects to see is an awarenessof an inverse relation between the problem of constructing a
tangent and the problem of computing quadrature. Fermat comes tantalizinglyclose to this at
times, but the relationship always eludes him
just as it does everyoneelse beforeBarrow.
12 The most importantsimplificationswere the
rules of Johann Hudde and Ren&-Fran9ois

de Sluse. De Sluse'srule is effectivelyequivalent

to the standardrulefor differentiatingpowersof a
variableand is thus a highly convenienttool for
tacklingtangentproblems.
13 This work is collected in TheMathematical
Papers of Isaac Newton, ed. D. T. Whiteside,
Vol. 1:1664-1666 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1967),pp. 216 f. I shall henceforth
referto thisvolumeas MPN; thevolumeofMathematical Works,also edited by Whiteside(n. 2),
will be referredto as MWN.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS, LIMITS, INFINITE LITTLENESSE

37

cases, a natural preliminaryto the extension of analytic techniques. From this point on
(late 1664) his writings showed a clear structurein which the provision of an algorithm
was a fundamental component. The work which is considered central to the development of the calculus was structuredin the following way:
1. An algorithm or method for solving the problem being considered was given.
2. The validity of the algorithm was "demonstrated" by justifying the method for
particular cases. Newton asserted that the method of "proof" revealed how the
algorithm worked for any problem selected from the original problem class.
Newton typically expressed his algorithms in the form of a set of instructions to the
reader. The mechanical application of his rules to the problems at hand would then
yield their solutions. For example, in the early paper on "The General Problem of
Tangents and CurvatureResolved for Algebraic Curves" Newton offered a number of
what he called "Universall theorems." Typical in style is the following method for
finding the tangent to an algebraic curve via the computation of the subnormal v.
Havingye natureof a crookedline expressedin Algebraicalltermeswch are not put one
pte equallto anotherbut all of ym equallto nothing,if each of the termesbe multiplied
by soe many units as x hath dimensionsin them. & then multipliedby y & dividedby x
they shall be a numerator:Also if the signes be changed& each termebe multipliedby
soe many units as y hath dimensionsin yt terme & yn divided by y they shall bee a
denominatorin ye valorof v.14
In order to give an algorithm for the computation of curvaturelater in the same paper,
Newton was forced to introduce expressions of even greater complexity.'5 Consideration of the algorithm quoted above reveals a problem confronting mathematicians
working in the algorithmic tradition: there is no indication of where the rule of thumb
has come from, nor is any connection made between the problem to which this algorithm is directed and other analytic problems. Furthermore, the basis on which the
methods rest consists of several examples in which the result given by the algorithm is
yielded as the solution to the problem when it is set up in terms of infinitesimals.'6 An
example of this type of justification will be given in Section IV. Here it is enough to
note that Newton's resolution of the general problems of tangents and curvature poses
two questions:
1. How are the methods to be reduced to their simplest and most convenient form?
2. How are they to be justified?
We shall first see how Newton's theory of fluxions answers the first question.
IH. THE SIMPLIFYINGPOWER OF FLUXIONS

A search for the way in which Newton's algorithms developed reveals a twofold
progression. In the first place he extended the available techniques to make it possible
to solve more problems from each class, accomplishing this by the device of expanding
"1 See MPN, p. 276. The algorithm is clearly
relatedto the earlierrule of de Sluse.
15Ibid., pp. 289-290. The relative complexity
of the curvaturealgorithmscompared with the
tangentalgorithmis much the same as that of the

modern formula for curvaturewhen compared

with the simplederivative.
16In ibid.,pp. 272-276, thereis givena seriesof
examples by means of which the algorithm is
justified.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38

PHILIP KITCHER

obstinate functions into infinite series.'7 More significant for our study is the way in
which the algorithms are structured in those papers where Newton presented his
method in terms of the fluxion concept. Here he achieved a quite different advance by
reducing the number of classes of problems. Newton replaced the straightforwardbut
cumbersome rules (such as that quoted above) by two fundamental algorithms giving
solutions to two general classes of problems. The solutions to these problems-which
are inversely related-can then be applied to solve any of the old problems. The
method of fluxions enhanced analysis by drawing all the traditional questions together
in a neat and satisfying way.
In Newton's "Method of Fluxions" we find a classic statement of the effectiveness of
the fluxion concept at the algorithmic level.
Now in order to this, I shall observe that all the difficultieshereof (the problems
traditionallyassociatedwiththe analyticart]maybe reducedto thesetwo problemsonly,
which I shall propose,concerninga Space describ'dby local Motion, any how acceleratedor retarded.
I. The length of the space describ'dbeingcontinually(that is, at all times)given;to find
the velocityof the motion at anytimepropos'd.
II. The velocity of the motion being continuallygiven; to find the length of the Space
describ'dat anytimepropos'd.18
Newton went on to offer algorithmic solutions to the first of these problems and, insofar as he could, to the second.19We then see how the problems confronting the method
of analysis are systematically reducible to the fundamental problems. Tangent and
curvatureproblems can be formulated in terms of the first problem, that of finding the
"fluxions." The task of computing quadraturereduces to the second problem.
To appreciate the way in which the reduction takes place we need to understand
Newton's employment of a kinematic conception of curves. The strangeness for us of
Newton's relation of motion to geometry lies in its clash with our view of curves as
given by sets of points in Cartesian space. Ironically, Descartes himself would have
found Newton's viewpoint more sympathetic than ours, since he, like Fermat, constructed geometry on a uniaxial approach.20That is, a curve would be seen as generated
by the motion of an ordinate segment as its foot moved along a base line. This conception loomed large in Isaac Barrow's GeometricalLectures21-especially in the second17 See De Analysi and "Method of Fluxions"
(both in MWN). It is quite clear that Newton's
use of infinite series belongs to analytic mathematics. These series had no meaning in traditional terms until Newton's developmentof the
methodof ratios.
18 "Methodof Fluxions,"MWN, pp. 48-49.
19 The first statement of these problems is in
the work which Whitesideentitles "The Calculus
becomes an Algorithm." Whiteside dates this
tentativelyas having been written in the middle
of 1665. For the statement of the problems see
MPN, p. 344:
1. If two bodys c,d describeye streight lines
ac, bd in ye same time, (callingac = x & bd =

y, p = motion of c, q = motion of d) & if I

have an equation expressing ye relation of

ac = x & bd = y whose termes are all put

equall to nothing. I multiplyeach terme of ye

equationby soe many timespy or p/x as x hath

dimensionsin it & also by soe many times qx
or qly as y hath dimensionsin it. The sume of
these products is an equation expresing ye
relationof ye motions of c & d....
It is notable that this algorithm can be stated
quite neatly, and it recurs throughout all the
fluxionalwork.
20 See Ren6 Descartes, Geometrie,facsim. ed.
(Chicago:Open Court, 1925), esp. p. 42: "on
n'en doit pas plutost exclureles lignes les plus
compos6es que les plus simples, pourvX qu'on
les puisse imaginerestredescritespar un mouvement continu, ou par plusieurs qui s'entrefuient
...." See also Oeuvresde Fermat,Vol. III, pp.
86 ff.
21Isaac Barrow, The GeometricalLectures,
trans.and ed. J. M. Child (Chicago:Open Court,
1916),esp. pp. 42-46.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS,LIMITS,INFINITELITTLENESSE

39

and was perhaps one point on which Barrow influenced Newton. Like Barrow, Newton used both the kinematic approach and the static view of a curve as a set of points
in certain geometrical or algebraic relations. Barrow's seeming lack of concern with
comparing the two viewpoints is also similar to the pragmatic approach of Newton's
early work, suggesting that neither man saw any reason except convenience to prefer
one or the other. Later, however, the kinematic emphasis on continuity led Newton to
adopt this conception in his attempt to provide a synthetic foundation for the calculus.
We can now see more easily how Newton reduced the traditional problems to the
fundamental motion problems. The following statement links the tangent problem to
the first motion problem while also making a more general connection:
In ye descriptionof any Mechanicallline what ever, there may bee found two such
motionswch compoundor make up ye motion of ye point describeingit, whose motion
beingby themfoundby ye Lemma,its determinaconshall bee in a tangentto ye mechanicallline.22
The reduction works as follows. Suppose that we wish to find the tangent to the curve
f(x,y) -0 at the point (X, Y).23 Consider the curve as swept out by the motion of a
point, and resolve the motion along the axes. Let the component of velocity along the
x-axis be p(t), that along the y-axis q(t), and let the components when the point is at
(X, Y) be P, Q respectively. Applying the algorithm for the first fundamental problem,
we derive from the general relation f(x,y) 0 a general relation g(x,y,p,q) = 0. In
particular, we have g(X, Y,P,Q) = 0, giving us a relation between P and Q. Let a be the
angle which the tangent at (X, Y) makes with the x-axis. Since the instantaneous
velocity of the moving point at (X, Y) is in the direction of the tangent, we know that
tan a = Q/P. We calculate this ratio from the equation g(X, Y,P,Q) - 0, thus solving
our problem.24
This example is typical of the way in which the kinematic conception of curves
enabled Newton to break down such traditional problems as curvature and quadrature into two stages. In the first stage he showed how the problem could be reduced to
one of the fundamental problems, and the solution to the latter then gave what was
required. The first part of the process represented a natural and direct resolution of
the problem in kinematic terms. Only at the second stage was there need for algorithmic work to be done. A unified domain of study emerged as the connections which
Newton forged with the fundamental problems revealed that the traditional analytic
questions could be seen as naturally related.
The algorithmic reformulation in terms of fluxions thus solved our problem 1 which
we posed for Newton above. Yet it in no way helped with question 2, for nothing had
been done to eliminate the crudeness of the infinitesimal justifications for the algorithms. Indeed, Newton continued to justify his solution of the fundamental problems in terms of infinitesimals. The fluxional approach thus depended on more tradi22 MPN, p. 377. The lemma referredto is the
parallelogramof velocitieslenmna.
23 We considerthe curve as given in Cartesian
coordinates.Problemsfor the method arisewhen
othersystemsareused.
24 So far there is no guaranteethat the ratio
Q:P can be found from the equationg(X, Y,P,Q)
=0. The fact that it can, only emergeswhen we

see how the infinitesimal justification of the

algorithmfor derivingg from f works (see n. 37
below).
Gilles Personne de Roberval had used the
kinematic conception of curves to the same
effect. For the relation of his method to earlier
techniques,notablythat of EvangelistaTorricelli,
see Boyer, Ilistory of the Calculus, p. 146.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40

PHILIP KITCHER

tional considerations. The new algorithms needed vindication: infinitesimals provided

it. Yet, although the new justifications of the fluxional algorithms parallel those which
Newton gave when he presented his results in the old form,25 someone might still
object that the infinitesimal element is an element of time and no longer part of a line.
True enough-but nothing hangs on this. For to affirmthe thesis that Newton repudiated infinitesimal linelets when he espoused the method of fluxions it would have to be
shown that the infinitesimallinelet was not definablein the later system ofjustification.
The objection collapses when we recognize that the infinitesimal linelet is just Newton's
"moment" of a fluxion.26Fluxions and infinitesimals coexist in the same papers. The
methods involving fluxions are supported by infinitesimal justifications. We can only
conclude that fluxions and infinitesimals are not competitors but play two different
mathematical roles.
Any account which does not make this distinction seems to be faced with the
dilemma of either regarding the coexistence as anomalous or else of supposing that
Newton was colossally confused. The placing of the function of fluxions at the algorithmic level does more than just resolve this puzzle. For the general structure of
Newton's papers in terms of problems posed, rules for solution, and infinitesimal
vindication is perfectly logical if we give due place to the importance of work in the
context of discovery. The apparently repetitive nature of these papers can then be
seen as a search for the best way of presenting the analysis so that it is at the same time
as fully general as possible and yet also concise in its offering of technique. We may also
note that the dependence of the fluxional calculus on the notion of instantaneous
velocity probably gave Newton's readersthe "feel" of what was going on, thus making
the algorithms easy to work with when cast in fiuxional terms.
Yet does not this reading of Newton's development of the method of fluxions overlook the element of vacillation which previous views have stressed? Why, if Newton
had already fashioned this powerful tool, did he not use it in the De Analysi which
postdates much of the fluxional work? The answer explains away the apparent anomaly of the De Analysi. The simplifying power of fluxions is to effect a reduction in
the number of problem classes. Hence fluxions are most useful where several analytic
problems are being considered together. Plainly, if Newton were writing a treatise
confined solely to the problem of quadrature, this would not be an issue at all; for
dealing with one problem in isolation the use of fluxions would only have complicated
matters. The point can be reinforced if we accept Whiteside's suggestion of Newton's motives in writing the paper.27 For, if it is right that Newton, piqued by Gerhardus
Mercator's publication of results which were already known to him, decided to show
how he could deal with the same problem in greater generality, then a concise treatment of the particular problem of quadrature in a way which was fully sanctioned by
tradition would constitute a more effective reply than a lengthier treatise embodying a
25 One need only comparethe demonstrations
givenin the De Analysiwith those of the "Method
of Fluxions"; see, e.g., MWN, pp. 23-25 and
32-33.
28 Newton himselfrecognizedthis. Ibid.,p. 52:
"Whereforeif the moment of any one, as x be
representedby the product of its celerity x into
an indefinitelysmall quantity o ...."
Also,

of
Letterto Keill, May 15, 1714 (Correspondence
Newtonand Cotes,p. 176): "ffluxions& moments
are quantities of a differentkind. ffluxions are
finitemotions, momentsare infinitelylittle parts.
I put letters with pricks for fluxions, & multiply
fluxions by the letter o to make them become
infinitelylittle...."
27 See MWN, p. xii.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS, LIMITS, INFINITE LITTLENESSE

41

unified-but radically different-approach to the whole problem complex of analysis,

with respect to which comparisons with Mercator's work would have been harder to
make. The placing of the fluxional concept as operative at the algorithmic level enables us to make good sense of the forsaking of fluxional methods in the De Analysi,
where there is no work for them to do. We no longer have to suppose that this was a
temporary and inexplicable rejection of a foundational concept.
We have seen how Newton resolved question 1-the problem of simplification. We
now turn to his attack on questions of proof.
IV. ANALYSIS,SYNTHESIS, AND INFINITESIMALJUSTIFICATION

In investigating problems of maxima and minima and tangents by means of the

method of analysis, Fermat, for one, believed that he was employing methods used by
the ancient geometers. The method of analysis had complemented the more familiar
synthetic presentation; that is, the method was applied to a problem to yield the solution, and the reversal of the analysis gave synthetic proof of the validity of that solution. Unfortunately, some new seventeeth-century techniques did not have this convenient property, and the basic principles to which analyses of the problems led did
not command an unequivocal status. Descartes' method of handling analytic questions
led to algebraic results (such as the fundamental theorem of algebra) which could not
be justified in the traditional manner.28 The problems were never reduced to pure
geometrical considerations nor seen to depend only on well-grounded results. Similarly, David Gregory and John Wallis could fit their algebraic analysis to such problems as quadrature only by invoking the hypothesis of infinitesimals. The elusive
synthesis was not provided, and the justifications offered showed little similarity to the
derivations from uncontroversialpremises which Euclid had exhibited.
During their sharp controversy over priority of method for the determination of
maxima and minima, Descartes accused Fermat of proceeding par hasard. The charge
was unjust, for Fermat could vindicate his results as well as Descartes could his own.
In the absence of fully cogent proof, the solutions of both authors could be construed
as the favors of luck. A stopgap method became appropriate: the derivation of the
solution to a problem-even if it involved dubious algebraic manipulations which
were not susceptible of full geometric interpretation-was permitted to stand as substitute for a full proof of the validity of the solution.
Justification of this kind could not count as proof under the Euclidean paradigm.
Two options were thus open to the mathematician: he might relax the standards
which a proof must meet, effectively dethroning Euclid, Aristotle, and Archimedes, or
he could refuse to accept the results and methods of analysis as fully mathematical.
Some mathematicians, such as Wallis, turned away from the Euclidean norm, castigating it as too restrictive. But on the whole, although Euclid's influence waned, neither
of the extreme choices found many devotees. The ideal of science as deductive and
infallible, stemming from Aristotle and Archimedes and seemingly finding its expression in geometry, was not to be lightly forsaken. Yet the success of the new methods
militated against their outright rejection as far as most mathematicians were concerned. An exception to this attitude was Isaac Barrow.
28

See, e.g., Descartes, Geometrie, p. 101 (facsim., p. 345).

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

42

PHILIP KITCHER

Barrow had no doubt about the viability of our second alternative. Yet, although
the methods of analysis might not be mathematical, Barrow allowed that the problems to which they were addressed had a clear mathematical pedigree. Archimedes had
shown how to find the quadrature of the parabola in a way which was truly geometrical. Barrow attempted to follow directly in the synthetic tradition, solving the
problems of tangents and quadrature by purely geometrical means. His approach led
not to an impressive battery of methods for the working mathematician but to the
perception of relationships among the various classes of problems which his analytically minded predecessors had missed. Barrow's geometrical formulation prevented the
relations from standing out as perspicuously as they do in Newton's work,29but despite this, J. M. Child's eulogy of Barrow is not altogether inappropriate.30For the
combination of the analytic approach with Barrow's drive toward geometrical synthesis and relation of problems created the calculus. This combination was Newton's.3'
The disrespect which Barrow felt for the method of analysis must be opposed, not to
a feeling of confidence on the part of the analysts, but rather to a vague unease. Even
in the work of the foremost practitioners of the analytic art we find genuine consciousness of the ultimate need for a synthetic foundation. The provision of algorithms, the
justification of those algorithms by means of infinitesimals, even the relating of the
problems-all this still left analysis short of the Euclidean ideal. In order to bring the
discipline into line with mathematics, geometrical proof had to be given.32 Newton
took the job of providing such proof seriously.33
The analyst, like the physicist, is interested in methods which are as general and
powerful as possible. Qua analyst or qua physicist, Newton was concerned with
our problem 1-simplification-and he resolved it as we have described. Qua synthesist, however, he wanted to give those methods a firm mathematical underpinning. That
is not to say that he was sensitive to the kind of foundational studies which a twentiethcentury philosopher might favor. It is unclear whether there is any evidence of Newton
29 Thus, although Barrow formulatedwhat is
known as the fundamental theorem of the
calculus, his geometricalversion cannot be seen
as having anything to do with the calculus as
developedby his contemporariesand by Newton.
30 Geometrical Lectures, ed. Child,pp. vii ff.
31 I do not want to suggestanythingmore than
the possibilitythat Newton knew about some of
the very general featuresof Barrow'sapproach.
He may have learned that Barrowregardedthe
problems of the calculus as being related. The
differencein the modes of exhibitionof those relations favored by the two men belies a stronger
connection.In any event, it now seems clear that
Barrow'sinfluenceon Newton was nowherenear
as greatas was once believed.
32 In equating the synthetic method of proof
with reduction to geometry I am following a
conflationwhichNewton seemsto make.Newton
may have been impervious to the distinction
between the form of a proof and the content of
that proof, a distinction which we make with
ease, and it may thus be that his foundational

drive was just a desire to reduce the proofs to

geometry without any consideration of the
supposedcertaintyofferedby traditionalsynthesis. In other words "syntheticproof" may have
been equated with "geometrical proof" and,
referredto in eitherway, upheld as paradigmatic
of cogent proof. This speculation trespasses
on ground already defined as beyond the scope
of this paper.
33Although ChristiaanHuygens and Barrow
had both undertakengeometricalconstructions
of parts of the calculus before Newton, their
attitudes must be differentiatedfrom Newton's.
Huygensand Barrowwishedto extend geometry
by building a geometricalcalculus from square
one. Newton's goal was the quite differentone of
wishing to bring algebraic analysis within the
scope of orthodox, respectable geometry.
To the best of my knowledge he is the only
seventeenth-centuryfigure to have devoted himself to this particulartask. Newton seems to be
the genuine compromise between the analysts
and the synthesists,a man who is able to see the
meritsand demandsof both positions.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS, LIMITS, INFINITE LITTLENESSE

43

asking himself what o denotes (i.e., what an infinitesimal is). Indeed, in the light of his
De Quadraturawith its instrumentalist attitude toward infinitesimals, the question
would seem to be meaningless for him. In pursuing his own brand of foundational
work Newton shows instead the respect for geometry which had traditionally been
common but which in his lifetime was beginning to be questioned.
The extension of the analytic art was necessarily Newton's first concern. Once the
method had been elegantly formulated, Newton turned to the problem of providing
rigorous proof. The need for intermediatejustification emerges from an understanding
of the temper of the times: the Descartes/Fermat controversy is symptomatic of the
fact that jealous rivals had to be convinced. Newton was not required to invent this
temporary substitute for himself, however, for there was already a flourishing tradition
of justifying results using infinitesimals. By such means certain algebraic manipulations could be renderedmore comprehensible and perhaps a little less implausible. The
status of such justification is that of a warranty offered by a company we do not quite
trust-it provides an extra safeguard against trouble, but it fails to give complete
assurance.
At an early stage of his career Newton gave several hints that he was not satisfied to
let justification rest with the method of infinitesimals. It was obviously natural for him
to ignore these worries until analysis had reached its goal. Unlike Barrow, Newton was
able to see what could and should be done with analysis; for him the synthetic pull was
not as urgent. That pull did not drag him into the puristic complexities of Barrow's
work, but, as we shall see, neither did it leave him unmoved, even while analysis and
the development of algorithms were his main concerns.
To show the way in which the method of infinitesimaljustification falls short of the
geometric paradigm of proof, and thus how our question 2 (How are the methods to
be justified?) arises, we must examine a case in which Newton used this method. The
following example, taken from the "Method of Fluxions," was intended to vindicate
Newton's algorithm for finding the relation between velocities from the relation between distances by deriving the result yielded by the algorithm in a particularcase.34
Now sincethe moments,as xo and yo are the indefinitelylittle accessionsof the flowing
quantitiesx andy, by whichthose quantitiesareincreasedthroughthe severalindefinitely
smallintervalsof time; it follows that those quantitiesx and y afterany indefinitelysmall
interval of time become x +ko and y +
yo, as between x and y; so that x +Jo and
y + 'o maybe substitutedin the sameequationfor those quantities,insteadof x andy.
Thereforelet any equationx3 -ax2 + axy - y5 zr0 be given,35and substitutex +*o
for x andy +y'o for y, and therewill arise
X3+ 3Rox2+ 3R2oox +303
- ax2 - 2a*ox - a*2oo
+ axy + axoy + ayox + ayxoo
-y3

- 3yoy2

- 320ooy

-303

?O

34 As also in "The General Problem of

85 Presumablythe fifth power was mistakenly
Tangentsand CurvatureResolved for Algebraic writteninsteadof the cube in this equation.
Curves,"MPN, pp. 272-276.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PHILIP KITCHER

44

Now by suppositionx3 - ax2 + axy - y3=0; which thereforebeing expung'd,and the

remainingtermsdividedby o, therewill remain
3XX2 + 3k2ox ?x3oo

2axk -a*2o

+ axy + aSx + axy'o- 3~'y2- 3~2oy -3oo=00

But whereaso is supposedto be indefinitelylittle, that it may representthe momentsof
quantities,consequentlythe termsthat are multipliedby it will be nothingin respectof
the rest;thereforeI rejectthem,andthereremains
3xx2- 2akx+ axy + ayx - 3yy2=0
as abovein ExampleI.36
Hereit maybe observed,thatthe termswhichare not multipliedby o will alwaysvanish;
as also thosetermswhicharemultipliedby morethanone dimensionsof o ;37andthat the
restof the termsbeingdividedby o, will alwayshavethe formthat they oughtto have by
the foregoingrule.38
This method of justification clearly thrives on an algebraic assumption and an algebraic manipulation, both of which are dubious and are defended only through the invocation of infinitesimals. The assumption is contained in the statement that x +?xo
and y + 'o will stand in the same relation as x and y. Its plausibility derives from the
idea that if a particle moves along the curve, we may regard its velocity as remaining
constant through an infinitesimal interval of time of length o. At the beginning of the
interval the particle is at a point (x,y) of the curve. At the end of the interval it has
?o) (by the assumption that the velocity
moved along the curve to the point (x +xo, y +
remains constant throughout the interval). Thus (x +xo, y+ jo) is a point of the curve.
Yet strictly the constancy assumption holds only if o = 0. Otherwise there will be an
error involved. To point out that this error can be made insignificant is to forsake the
method of infinitesimalsfor something like the method of first and last ratios.39At this
stage of his career, as the passage shows, Newton was still working with the presuppositions of the analytic use of infinitesimals; later he was to declare that errors are not
to be neglected in mathematics.40 For purposes of algorithmic vindication in this paper
he not only neglected them but explicitly "rejected" them. As well as tolerating the
inexactitude of the constancy assumption, Newton summarily dropped all terms still
containing o once he had allowed himself to divide through. Yet o cannot be treated as
zero, for that would render the division illegitimate. But if o is allowed to differ from
zero, it may be questioned whether the sum of the supplementary terms is really insignificant. The appeal to infinitesimals glosses over the algebraic difficulties and by
sketchinga geometric picture of what is going on-the minute details being left
shadowy-helps to block the charge that the algebra is absurd.
The criticism of the last paragraph is not however answered, and it was brought
forward forcefully by Berkeley and later critics of Newton.4' Newton himself was not
36This is the result given by Newton's algoadvance consists in treating the in.
39This
rithm;see MWN, p. 50.
finitesimalo as a variable.
37 Perhaps Newton realized that the fiuxions
40 In the 1693 "Treatise on Quadrature,"
will alwaysbe of the samepoweras the powersof
o, and thus that the resultingequationwill be of MWN,p. 141.
41 The Analyst, in The Works of George
the first degree in * and y. This ensuresthat the
importantratioy':x can alwaysbe found.
Berkeley,ed. A. A. Luce and T. E. Jessop, Vol.
38 MWN,p. 52.
IV (London:Nelson, 1950).

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS,LIMITS,INFINITELITITLENESSE

45

blind to defects in the method which he used. In the remainder of this section we shall
see how his toleration of the method of infinitesimals could coexist with a realization
of its limitations.
The opening remarks of the "Method of Fluxions" make it clear that Newton was
aware of the distinction between what was permissible in the context of discovery and
what was requiredfor proof. He also showed that he regarded his fluxional calculus to
belong to the former context, to analytic rather than to synthetic mathematics. There
is an implicit value judgment in the way in which he drew the distinction:
Having observ'd that most of our modern Geometriciansneglecting the synthetical
method of the Ancients,havingappliedthemselveschieflyto the analyticalArt, and by
the help of it haveovercomeso manyand so greatDifficulties,that all the Speculationsof
Geometryseemto be exhausted,exceptthe Quadratureof Curves,and some otherthings
of a like Nature which are not yet broughtto Perfection;To this end I thought it not
amiss,for the sake of young studentsin this Science,to drawup the followingTreatise;
wherinI have endeavouredto enlargethe Boundariesof Analyticks,and to make some
Improvementsin the Doctrineof CurveLines.42
Like Barrow, Newton recognized the ancestry of the problems of the calculus and
noted also the distinction between two ways of approaching them. Here he distinguished his aim: he proposed to present an extension of the new analytic methods.43
With his acknowledgement of a difference between his own enterprise and that of
"the Ancients" we begin to see that Newton could work in the analytic tradition,
using its methods and obeying its code, while allowing the question of how those
methods were to be justified to await completion of his analytic work. His careful
description of his chosen task certainly suggests this.
To find a clear connection between Newton's recognition of the pedigree of the
calculus and the method of infinitesimals we must go back to his work on the resolution of the general problems of tangents and curvature for algebraic curves. In a passage featuring the use of infinitesimals Newton commented, "wch operacon cannot in
this case bee understood to be good unless infinite littlenesses may bee considered
geometrically."44This illustrates the synthetic pull on Newton's thought. Recognizing
the shortcomings of his algebra, he saw the need for a clear interpretation in geometric
terms and saw that this was only partially accomplished by the invocation of the infinitesimal. The method relied upon this interpretation-the analytic methods were
dependent on the geometry-and Newton concluded, even in 1665, that if his justifications were to have the status of full proofs, "infinite littlenesse" must be construed in
geometrical terms.
For further evidence of his view of "Analyticks" as growing out of geometry, we
may turn to passages in Newton's early work where he introduced the concept of the
indefinite integral and where he hinted darkly at the difficulty of integrating differential equations.
That a line may be squaredGeometricallytis requiredyt its area may be expressedin
generallby someequationin wchthereis an unknownequantity....45
p. 36.
He achieved this, as we have remarked,in
two ways. First, with the method of series he
opened up new problemsin each problemclass.
Secondly, with the method of fluxions he pre42 MWN,

43

sented a convenient method for solving the

problems altogether.
44MPN, p. 282.
4Ibid.,

p. 344.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46

PHILIP KITCHER

If an equation expressingye relation of their motions bee given, tis more difficult&
sometimesGeometricallyimpossible,therebyto findye relationof ye spacesdescribedby
thesemotions.46
The only way to account for the seemingly irrelevant occurrence of references to
geometry in these passages is to construe them as further indications that Newton
considered analysis to be parasitic upon geometry for its problems and ultimately to
be justified in geometrical terms.
Newton was further conscious of using the method of infinitesimals within a definite
tradition. The De Analysi provides an example of this: "Neither am I afraid to speak of
Unity in points, or Lines infinitely small, since Geometers are wont now to consider
Proportions even in such a case, when they make use of the Methods of Indivisibles."47
The first clause of the sentence indicates that Newton was aware of criticisms of and
perhaps defects in the method of infinitesimals. He did not undercut objections by
careful statement and counterargument; instead he dismissed them on pragmatic
grounds, since there was a recent tradition-the fashion of the geometers of the daywhich used such methods, and Newton regarded his work as falling therein. In the De
Analysi, as in the "Method of Fluxions," since the work was intended for circulation,
Newton sagaciously guarded himself by defining his aims in the sphere of the analytic
art. His doubt about the geometric construal of "infinite littlenesse" was confided to
his notebook. Indeeed, Newton's synthetic worries only became public once he had
appeased them.
As we have seen, Newton was quite conscious of the distinction between "Analyticks" and the old synthetic mathematics. Carefully distinguishing his own work, he
remained aware that the method of infinitesimals was only appropriate as a temporary
backing for algebraic maneuvers in the context of discovery. In writing about "infinite
littlenesse" he pointed the way in which to answer criticism and correct defects. Once
the analytic program was accomplished he was to bring the new results within the old
paradigm. Newton's synthetic conscience went on view in the Principia. It seems that it
was developing twenty years earlier.
V. FIRST AND LAST RATIOS AND RIGOROUS JUSTIFICATION

In the Principia and in the 1693 "Treatise on Quadrature" Newton proposed to

found the calculus on a firm geometrical basis. He advanced the method of first and
last ratios with this in mind. That method will be the final object of our study. Conclusions drawn earlier can only be reinforced as we see the culmination of the synthetic
strain in Newton's thought.
Book I ofthePrincipia opens with a discussion of the method of first and last ratios.48
Lemma I carries the essence of the new approach: "Quantities and the ratios of
quantities, which in any finite time converge continually to equality, and, before the
end of that time approach nearer to one another by any given difference become ulti-

46 Ibid.,p. 302.

Motte's translationof the 3rd Latin ed. of 1726

(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1934),
48 Sir Isaac Newton'sMathematicalPrinciples Vol. I, p. 29. All further references to the
of Natural Philosophy and his System of the Principiawill be to this translation and to this
World, Florian Cajori, ed., based on Andrew volume.
47Ibid.,p. 18.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS, LIMITS, INFINITE LITTLENESSE

47

mately equal."49Using more modern terminology, we might rephrase this as "If as

time goes on, X is continually closer to Y, and X is eventually closer to Y than by any
given difference, then, in the limit, X- Y."'0 In Lemma XII Newton utilized an instance of this (Lemma VI) to prove the important result that the ultimate ratios of
chord, arc, and tangent to one another are ratios of equality.I1
In the 1693 "Treatise on Quadrature" Newton was more informative about how
this gives a geometric grounding for the method of fluxions. His justification begins
with a new emphasis on the kinematic conception of curves: "I don't here consider
Mathematical Quantities as composed of Parts extreamly small, but as generated by a
continualmotion."52The new stress is on continuity. Newton characterizedthe distinction between the use of discrete elements and the new kinematic considerations by
direct referenceto the theory of fluxions.
Fluxions are very nearly as the Augmentsof the Fluents, generatedin equal, but infinitelysmall partsof Time; and to speakexactly,are in the PrimeRatio of the nascent
Augments:
Tis the samethingif the Fluxionsbe takenin the ultimateRatioof the EvanescentParts.58
Combining the latter characterization of the fluxion concept with Lemma I of Book
I of the Principia, we obtain a result which may be used to give a synthetic grounding for the method of fluxions.
If dx(t)and dy(t) are small incrementsin x and y, and x and y are the
fluxions of x andy, then the difference between the ratios dy(t): dx(t)
(N)
and y':x can be made as small aswe like bychoosing t sufficientlysmall.
In effect it is this result, to which he had supplied a firm geometrical underpinning,that
Newton used to justify his analytic theorems. His proof of de Sluse's rule runs thus:
Let the Quantityof x flow uniformly,and let the Fluxionof xn to be found. In the same
time that the Quantityx by flowing becomes x + o, the Quantity of xn will become
(x + O)n, that is, by the methodof InfiniteSeries'sx + noxP-' + nn -n/2 ooxP-2 + &c. and
the Augmentso and noxn- + nn - n/2 oX0:2 + &c. areto one anotheras 1 andnxn-l + nn
-n/2 ox"-2+ &c. Now let those Augmentsvanish and their ultimate Ratio will be the
Ratio of 1 to nxn-l; thereforethe Fluxion of the Quantityx is to the Fluxion of the
Quantityxnas 1 to nx1-1 54
It is now clear how the method of first and last ratios enables the method of fluxions
to be brought into line with the geometrical paradigm of mathematics. Lemma I has
been given proof which accords with traditional standards. Newton's elucidation of
the notion of a fluxion was motivated by the kinematic intuition that instantaneous
velocities stand to one another in the limiting ratios of small increments. These were
combined to form the result (N). The proof then proceeded bytreating the "Augment"
as a variable dependent upon time and applying (N). By doing this, Newton showed
that it was possible to give synthetic proofs for analytic theorems. 5
49Ibid.
60

The logicalform of this is:

Lim X(t) = Lim Y(t)if and only if
t-* oo
t-* oo

(t)(t') (t > t'(z)(Et')(t)((z>

IX(t) - Y(t) I< IX(t') Y(t') 1)&

0 &t> t')-*IX(t)-Y(t)I<z).

51Principia, p. 32.
52MWN, p. 141.
53Ibid.
54 Ibid., p. 142.

65 The use of infinite series is sanctioned by

This has obvious affinities with the Cauchy the same kinds of considerationsas lead to (N).
definition, but a full account of the relations Cf. Newton's generalizationof the method of
between Newton and Augustin Cauchy would exhaustion in Lemma II of Book I of the
takeus too far afield.
Principia.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

48

PHILIP KITCHER

He was quite aware of what he had achieved. Immediately after his proof of de
Sluse's rule he pointed out that his method "is agreeable to the Geometry of the Ancients."56In the same way, in the second Scholium to Book I of the Principia he emphasized the geometrical essence of the calculus.57His purpose in the Principia was
however slightly different from that in the later Treatise. In the earlier work he used
the method of first and last ratios to give a geometrical vindication of the method of
infinitesimals. Newton showed in a series of lemmas that all justifications using infinitesimals could be replaced by exact geometrical proofs in terms of ultimate ratios.
The method of ratios acts here as a meta-level principle which supports the fluxional
calculus by demonstrating that the traditional analytic means of vindication is a shorthand for a true mathematical proof. The same theme appears in the Treatise, where we
have the direct demonstration as well.
Two quotations from Newton make clear the motives for his vindication of analysis.
First,
These Lemmasare premisedto avoid the tediousnessof deducinginvolveddemonstraaccordingto the mannerof the ancientgeometers.For demonstrations
tions adabsurdum,
are shorter by the method of indivisibles;but because the hypothesis of indivisibles
seemssomewhatharsh,and thereforethat methodis reckonedless geometrical,I chose to
reducethe demonstrationsof the following Propositionsto the first and last sums and
ratiosof nascentand evanescentquantities,thatis, to the limitsof those sumsand ratios,
and so to premise,as short as I could, the demonstrationsof those limits. For herebythe
samethingis performedas by the methodof indivisibles;and now those principlesbeing
demonstrated,we may use them with greatersafety. Thereforeif hereafterI should
happento considerquantitiesas madeup of particles,or shoulduse little curvedlines for
right ones, I would not be understoodto mean indivisibles,but evanescentdivisible
quantities;not the sums and ratios of determinateparts, but alwaysthe limits of those
sums and ratios; and that the force of such demonstrationsalways depends on the
methodlaid downin the foregoingLemmas.58
The lemmas of Book I-especially Lemma VII-do indeed vindicate the analytic
approach. They show how the method of infinitesimals may be used to justify algorithms so long as it is recognized as a substitute for geometrical proof. Infinitesimals
flout the important considerations of continuity; yet, because they are sanctioned by
the method of limits, they may be used instead of the laborious geometrical proofs. A
parallel with modern mathematics presents itself: in doing formal logic or arithmetic
we extend our vocabulary by means of definitions and our methods of inference by
derived rules. These procedures are theoretically eliminable, but they are legitimized
by our system and are used for simplification.59Infinitesimals ultimately find an analogous function in Newton's theory of the calculus.
5sMWN, p. 143.
57Principia,pp. 37-39. Note esp. p. 39: "And
since such limits are certain and definite, to
determine the same is a problem strictly geometrical." The equation of certainty with geometry gives an interestingfurtherelaborationof
Newton's attitude toward the geometrical
paradigmof mathematics.
58 Ibid.,p. 38.
69See, e.g., Alonzo Church, Introductionto
MathematicalLogic (Princeton:PrincetonUniv-

ersityPress,1956), pp. 75-76: "As we have said,

these abbreviationsand othersto follow are not
part of the logistic systemP, but are meredevices
for the presentationof it. They are concessions
to the shortnessof human life and patiencesuch
as in theory we disdain to make. The readeris
asked, wheneverwe write an abbreviationof a
wif. to pretendthat the wif. has been written in
full and to understand us accordingly." The
readeris asked to comparethis with the passage
quoted from the Scholiunmto Book I of the
Principia.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FLUXIONS, LIMITS, INFINITE LITTLENESSE

49

The Treatise of 1693 reflects similar views:

By like ways of arguing,and by the method of Prime and Ultimate Ratio's, may be
gatheredthe Fluxions of Lines, whetherRight or Crookedin all Cases whatsoever,as
also the Fluxions of Surfaces,Angles and other quantities.In Finite Quantitiesso to
framea Calculus,and thus to investigatethe Primeand UltimateRatio's of Nascentand
EvanescentQuantities,is agreeableto the Geometryof the Ancients;and I was willingto
show, that in the Method of Fluxionsthere'sno need of introducingFiguresinfinitely
small into Geometry.For this analysismay be performedin any Figures whatsoever,
whetherfinite or infinitelysmall, so they are imaginedto be similarto the Evanescent
Figures;as also in Figureswhichmay be reckonedas infinitelysmall, if you do but proceed cautiously.60
Newton's aim in the later Treatise was thus twofold. The direct proofs of the filuxional
algorithms were to show how "infinite littlenesse" was to be interpreted geometrically.
In doing this, Newton pointed out the role of infinitesimal justifications. Although
these could not be allowed as full mathematicaljustifications-for errors cannot be
ignored when we are doing mathematics-they might be used with confidence and convenience, so long as we "do but proceed cautiously."
In this way we see how fiuxions, limits, and "infinite littlenesse" all have a part to
play in Newton's presentation of the calculus. Perhaps the substance of his achievement appears more clearly in Newton's use of the three sets of concepts to meet
different and important demands. Once we have unearthed his problems, Newton's
solutions seem more impressivethan his eighteenth-centurycritics took them to be.
60 MWN, pp. 142-143.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:48:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions