株式会社極東書店トップ商品一覧The Rise and Development of the Theory of Series up to the Early 1820s. 2008 ed..

商品詳細

The Rise and Development of the Theory of Series up to the Early 1820s.

The Rise and Development of the Theory of Series up to the Early 1820s. 2008 ed..

・ISBN 978-0-387-73467-5 hard EUR 99.99

¥26,726.- (税込) (※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。

お気に入り
著者・編者Ferraro, Giovanni,
シリーズSources and Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences
出版社(Springer-Verlag New York Inc., US)
出版年月2007
ページ数392 pp.
言語ENG
ニュース番号<M25-18650>

解説

The theory of series in the 17th and 18th centuries poses several interesting problems to historians. Indeed, mathematicians of the time derived num- ous results that range from the binomial theorem to the Taylor formula, from the power series expansions of elementary functions to trigonometric series, from Stirling's series to series solution of di?erential equations, from theEuler-MaclaurinsummationformulatotheLagrangeinversiontheorem, from Laplace's theory of generating functions to the calculus of operations, etc. Most of these results were, however, derived using methods that would be found unacceptable today, thus, if we look back to the theory of series priortoCauchywithoutreconstructinginternalmotivationsandtheconc- tual background, it appears as a corpus of manipulative techniques lacking in rigor whose results seem to be the puzzling fruit of the mind of a - gician or diviner rather than the penetrating and complex work of great mathematicians. For this reason, in this monograph, not only do I describe the entire complex of 17th- and 18th-century procedures and results concerning series, but also I reconstruct the implicit and explicit principles upon which they are based, draw attention to the underlying philosophy, highlight competing approaches, and investigate the mathematical context where the series t- ory originated. My aim is to improve the understanding of the framework of 17th- and 18th-century mathematics and avoid trivializing the complexity of historical development by bringing it into line with modern concepts and views and by tacitly assuming that certain results belong, in some unpr- lematic sense, to a uni?ed theory that has come down to us today.