KARLMARX

MATHEMATICAL
MANUSCRIPTS
. TOGETHER WITH A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

VISWAKOS PARISAD
CALCUTTA
PUBLISHED IN INDIA
BY VISWAKOS PARISAD.
73A, AMI-IERST ROW.
CALCUlTA - 700009.

Cl VISWAKOS PARISAD 1994.

COMPOSED AT NEO COMPACT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,

161.B.K.PI\UL AVENUE,
CALCUlTA - 700 005.

DATA ENTRY BY MR1TYUNJOY DAS.

PAGE MAKE UP AND CORREcnON BY B1PASA ClI AUD HUR t AND PRADIP CHATERlEE.
PROOF R"EADERS: SABYASACHJ CHAKRABARTI AND Dr. S. KUMAR.

PR INTED AT SONA PRINTERS.

6711n, NIMTALLA Gl-IAT STREET, .
CALCUlTA - 700 006.

CA TALOG I NG IN PUBLIC ATIO N DA T A :

MARX, KARL.
MATHEMATfCAL MANUSCR fPTS.
TRANSLATfON OF, K.MARKS, MATEMATfCHESKIE RUKOPISI ("NAU KA", M ..
1968) EDITED BY SOFYA ALEKSAN DROVNA YANOVSKAYA, TOGETHER
WfTH A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT: M ARX AND MATHEMATICS.
T RANS LATOR OF MARX'S M ATHEMATICA L MANUSCRIPTS (M., 1968) AND
EDITOR OF TH E SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT, PRADIP BAKS!.

I. MARXISM . 2. MATHEMA TICS ( DfFFERENTIAL CALCULUS, ALGEBRA).

3. MATHEMATfCS, HISTORY OF. 4. MATHEMATICS, PH fLOSOPHY OF.

ISBN 81-86210-00-8
PRICE: Rs. 1000.00 (U S $ 80.00)
 INTRODUCTION

The massive propaganda blitzkrieg denigratin g sociali sm nnd the voluminolls materinl
brou ght out by imperialism and reactionaries notwithstanding, nobody so far has sllcceeded in
cha llenging the basic theory that Marx placed before the world. The profundity of Marx's works
lies in his sc ientific analysis of the evolution of society and the fo resight of the path that it will
charier. It is based on such a scientific analys is that Marx concl uded that society will reach
a s tage where the state will wither away. T hat capitalism has failed to prove its superiority
or eternity, as postulated by its protagonists, even in the wake o f the so ca lled "demise of
sociali s m" - the continuing recession and intens ified exploitati on, vindicate thi s analysis.
Marx, unfortunately. could not co mplete the work that he set before himself. After
the second volume of Capita l had come out in print. it was len to Frederick Engels to go
thro ugh the ma nuscri pts facil itating it to be made available to the whole of mankind. In the
preface to Volume lIt of Capital. Engels writes: "As regards the first part, the main manuscript
was serviceable o nly with substantial limitat ions. The entire mathematical calcu lation of
the re lation between the r<lte of surplus~value and the rate of profit (which makes up our Chapter
Ill) is introduced in the very beginning, whi le the s ubject treated in our Chapter I is considered
later and as the occasion arises. Two attempts at rev ising, ~ac h of them eight pages in folio,
were usefu l here. But even these did not possess the desired continuity throughout. They furnished
the substance for what is now Chapter I. Chapter n is taken from the main manuscript. There
was a series of uncompleted mathematical ca lculations fo r Chapter ITT. as well as a whole, al most
complete, note-book dating from the seventies, which presents the relation of the rate of
surplus-value to the rate of profit in the for m of equat ions. My friend Samuel Moore, who has
a lso translated the greater port ion of the first vo lume into English, undertook to edit this note-book
for me, it work for wh ich he was far belief equipped, being an old Cambridge
mat hemat ic ian. It was for his summary, with occasiona l use of the main manuscript, that Ithcn
compiled Chapter Ill. Nothing but the title was available for Chapter TV. But s ince its subject
matter, the influence of turnover o n the rate of profit, is of vital importa"nce, r hnve written
it myse lf, for which reason the whole chapter has been plnced in brackets".
The present volume, the first comp lete English translation of M arx's Marem(lliche.rkie
Rukopjsi, I am sure would serve to give us more i'nsight into his works. Marx's Millhel11atical
Manuscripts are primari ly devoted to describing and explaining the nature and history of the
d ifferential calculus. T hey contain many valuable ideas on the nature and role of variables,
existence of functions, ana lytical geometry, genera l theory of eqllations etc. These in the main
relate to his exp loration of the history of examination of the study of mathematics.
Thi s volume, we trust wi ll help in understanding the deplh and method of his analysis
and help in drawing strategies for future investigations. Tn this connection T must appreciate
the momentous work done by S hri Pradip Baksi in I:Irillging oul th is legendary work.

Harkish a n Si ngh Su r jcct

 WHY THIS PUBLICATION

With the publication of. th is firs t complete E rrg li sh tra nslat io n of Ka rl Man 's
Ma thematical Malluscripts ( Mo scow, 1968), a so far almos t unknown area of Ma rx's
thought is bein g presented to o ur readers. Alo ng with .this a sp~c i al supplemen t , Man mid
Mathematics, I;; also bein g pub li shed.
Pradip Baksi, a Marx-sc ho lar, has un dertaken and completed this stupend ous job at a
time, when th ere were tremors in the soc iali st system, In several socialist coun tries
includin g the erstwhile S ov i e~ Union, and later on thi s led to thei r dis integration one
afte r anothe r. i
Pradip's sincerity and firm convi cti on has emboldened uS to rise to the occas ion and
publish the present volume .
....J' .' D isinteg rati on of the erstwhile soc ialist countries, particu larl y of the Soviet Union has
made the imperi ali sts and !thc cap ita li sts.much more aggressive these days. T hey arc not spa ring
. any c ffo rt (0 . seal the fate of socialism a nd of the evcr grow in g world w ide move ments of the
revolu tionary fo rces. In spi te of thei r un precedented evi l desig n to subjugate the
.deve loping cou ntries a nd thu s to contro l the world economy, the revolutionary and patriotic
forces are faci ng thi s threat vigorous ly . and registering poli tical victories one after
another in diffe rent countries.
It is in thi s co ntext that the present vo lum e is being pub lished , which we f irm ly believe
w jl I e voke curi os ity am ong th e sc ho lars and generate academ ic interaction on th is subj ect. We
are aware that in th e present poli tica l scenario academic publ ications on Marxism are of
im mense value . We ass ure the scho lars and students of Mar x 's thoug ht that we would continue
o ur endeavo ur to publi sh the u np ubli shed works of Karl Marx and, books and monographs on
a ll iyd subjects.
I sincere ly ackno wledge the contri bution of S hri Pradip Baksi. and hope this is just the
beginn ing.

Sub has C hakraborty

C ha ir~ an , Publishi ng Com mittee, Vi swakos Pari sad.
 MARX AND THE WOR LD MATI-ffiMATICA L YEA R 2000

It would sound somewhat banal to talk about Karl Marx as a 'living thinker', as Engcls
spoke at the funeral of Kar! Marx. He is onc of those. who left. fin indelible legacy of thoughts.
which brought in its trail a wide plethora of ideas and concepts. The enormous variety of his
work triggered off reth inking and reappraisal of many facets of learning and pursuits. Needless
to add that rhe whole gamut of Marxist interpretation or Marxist view of litcmlure,
soc io logy, hislOry etc. could comc up not just by practitioners of Marxism in the political
arena. There are many scholars, without being wedded to Marxism, who ha ve contributed
imme nse ly to the body of literature on Marx. It often looks, in the wake of political debacle
in th e erstwhile Soyiet Union or in the East-European countries that, perhaps, Marx's image
as an o riginal thinker like Sigmu nd Freud would have remained un.scathed and unsullicd, had
he no t been drawn upon too heavily by political figures. That his profundity of thoughts
and ideas sti ll continues to have an intellectual appea l, despite what has happened and
perhaps, still keep on happening by using his name and work, is borne out by the amount of
contemporary literature on him and on allied matters. Looking back, one may even say that
Marx's work could have gone down in the pages of history just as a thinker like the great
celebrit y Charles Darwin, purely on the strength of his rich output of thoughts and ideas.
The intellectual make up of Karl Marx, whatever some of his admirers may say. was
dominantly shaped by the German tradition of trainin g and scholarship and it is no wonder
that mathematics did come within the purview of his acquisition and investigation. Steeped
as he was in the discourse,s with a philosophical con tent, he made some daring forays in
mathematics, as is brought out in this publication. All these stemming from the German
tradition would have kept him in good stead in hi s subsequen t endeavour, even if there were
no experiments undertaken by Lenin or Mao or Ho Chi Minh. Marx was, doubtless, scienti fi c
in approach which some of his adherents may not be in the sty les of persuation and activity.
This publication, as its title implies, is somewhat unconventional in the parlance
of mathematics or even in the historical literature on mathematics. Even though, in the course
of history, malhematidans were seized of or were often involved in politics, their impact
has largely been ephemeral. Indeed, Marxism or anti· Marxism has seldom been found to
be a forte of mathematical celebrities. On the other hand, as remarked earlicr, there is hardly
any area of thought/ not 10 speak an activi ty, which has kept itself fully immune from Marxism,
whatever be it today in political reality. There is, perhaps, something intrinsically and
perennially intellectual, in any of his endeavour dealing wi th society, culture, o r hi story. ll1ere
are. indeed, in recent years social historians of mathematics who look at growth and devclopment
of mathematical ideas from Marxist standpoint. There is equally a strong body of literature,
particularly in the arena of mathematical education, which treats of Marxism critically
without mincing logic and often, to the point of its rejection.
It is being increasingly realised that culture, cxcitement and history of mathematics with
societ al implications shou ld be focussed more than what cou ld be done hitherto. The
World Mathematical Year (WMY) 2000 is thus being projected by the internat ional
mathematical comm unity, with the accent, not merely on cul tu ral facets of mathematics but
a lso un development of hi storiograph y of the history of mathemalics. The present
 publication should be looked upon as a precursor to such pursuits at the international level.
<

In keeping with jt ~ ra;sol1 d'etre, this book seeks to dig up what Karl Marx sought to do on
mathematics. Ma~hemati cal ideology Il)ay look askance at this part but the compendium of
critique on mllth ~matical thoughts and ideas , cast in Marxist or a-Marxist mould will, it is
e nvisaged, immensly contribute fo the shaping of thought processe.s warranted by WMY 2000.
Both the parts of this treati se, taken in their·entirety, ought to unleash pursuits thal are free· ~
from inhibitions in the wider perspectives of the imperatives of WMY 2000. Historiography of
history of mathematics will, hopefu lly, acquire a sti mulus and new dimensions, because of
a publication of thi s sort.
Now, a few words about Pradip Baksi, but for whose assiduity and painstaking ardour
for hardwork, this publication would not have come within miles of reality, He is not a
mathematicia'n per se, not even a historian of mat hematics in the sense we are accustomed
to nowadays. He is trained in Russian language and had a st int in the Soviet Union . Pradip,
obviOUSly, is not one of the many Indians, to whOm exposure to' Marx's work has come
via El'lJ::lish alone and this translation of the works of Man direct ly from Russian into English
does not 's uffer, as is often said , from any constriction, if any, because of co lonial tinger His
training in philosophy has definitely facilitated his endeavour. He deserves to be specially
commended for bringing to fore these works by and on Marx and on related issues which
would, otherwise, have remaine.d inactessible to many of us ,

Oilip Kumar Sinha

92, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Sir Rashbehary Ghose Professor of Applied Mathematics,
Ca[cuna - 700 009, Universily of Calcutta,
 PUBLISHER'S NOTE
This volume contains the first complete English translation of K. MARK S,
MATEMATICHESK1E RUKOPISI, I zd. ~NAUKA". MOSKVA, 1968, toget her with u spec ial
supplement entit led MARX AND MATHEMATI CS.
Marx' s mathematical manuscripts are primarily devoted to desc ribing and expl aining the
nature and history of the differential calcu lus. However, these wi ll beofint erest to the contempo rary
invcstigulOrs oflhe symbolic calculi of mmhemntics and logic, of sign syste ms in genera l and, to
anyone interested in the history of ideas.
The special supp lemen t to th is vo lume contains materia ls, pertaining 10 the task of s ituatin g
Marx' s mathemati cal in vestigations in the hi story and structure of Marxism, mathematical
thoug ht and, ideas in genera l, as we ll as those, which may he lp to formulate strateg ies for
fu ture investigations.
 TRANSLATOR'S NOTE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In KMarks. Matematicheskie Rukopisi ("Nauka" M.,1968), Marx's own texts hav,c been
published both in the o riginal language '(main ly German, but in places French, English.ol' U
mixture of two or more of these languages) and in Rus!\ian translation. However, the prefnce,
editoria l comments, notes and appendices aTC all in Russian only. Hence, Russi an is the only
single language through which the entirety of this volume becomes accessible. The present
lranslat'ion has throughout followed tlle texts, comments, notes and append ices in Russian.
However, where Marx's own text is only in Englis h, then; that has been reproduced. I have
added two notes: 98a & 1 1I a, and a few comments and footnotes . The prefac!! of the 1968
edition has been variously superseded by the developments in Marx·studi'es and in mathematics.
A new preface is due. I began writing one; but it got out of hand. The result: a special
supplement, ent itled Marx and Mathematics. The sources of the materials' included in thi s
supplement have all been indicated at the end of each item.
I owe a great debt to the following persons; they have helped me at vari ous stages of the
work, indicated below, culminating in the publication of the present volume.
For the work c ulminating in the present translation of : K. MarkS; Matematicheskie
Rukopisi (M.,1968) :
T<'lpan Kumar Chattopadhyay of Calcutta University, Huberl Kennedy of Providence College (U.S .A), Timir
Ranj~n Mukherjee and Biswarup Bhowmik of Calcutta, Dr. Dilip Banerjee of St. George:s Hospital and
Medical School (London). Dr. Vinay Totawar of the Central Institute of English and ForcignLanguages
(Hyderaba~) and, Amol Pad wad of Bhandnm College (Mnhamstra) .
For the work leading to the spec ial supplement ent itled Marx and Mathematics:
Evgeniya Mikhailovna Bykova - formerly of the Institute of Oriental Studie~ of the USSR Academy of
Sciences, lrina Konstantinovna Antonova - formerly of the Institute of Marxisum-Leninism of the CC
CPSU, Mikhail Ostapovich Ovsienko of the PlIshkin Institute, Sergei Serebry.my · ... furmeriy o(the Maxim
Gorky Institute of World Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences nnd pr~s('ntly of the Russian State
University for the l:Iumanities (Moscow), Fabien Laurent ofPoitiers (France) and, B.arcn Ray of New'Delhi.
For generously offering to organise the publication of the present vol~me :
Subhas Chaki'ooorty - Minsiter-in-charge of the Departments of Sports & Youth Services and Tourism,
Government of West Bengal.
For putting me in touch with Shree Subhas Chakroborwin this connectio n :
Subrata Tapadar of Calcutta.
Finally, a}l the workers engaged in the production of thi s volume.
The usual disciair.ners apply everywhere.

May 6,1993. Pradip Baksi .

 ABBREV IATIONS

MECW(E), ....... , ...... .. Marx-Engels : Col. Works (Eng lish ed .), Volume No., Page No.
MECW(R), ........ , ...... . Marx-Engcls : Col. Works (Russian cd.), Volume No., Page No.
MR, ...... . Marematicheskie RlIkopisi, K. Marks ("Nauka", M., 1968), Page No.
PV, .... .. Present Volume, Page No.
S. U. N... .. Storage Un it Nu mber (of the Archives of the erstwh ile Tnstitut
of Marx ism - Len inism of the C C CPSU).

CONTENTS
PUB LISHER'S NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'"
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V III

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . .
PREFACE TO TH E 1968 EDITION.

KARL MARX. MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS.

PART I
DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS: ITS NATURE AND HISTORY

TWO MANUSCRIPTS ON DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS 18-39

ONTHECONCEPT CF ':! !EDER1VED FUNCTION {S.U.N. 4147J 19-25
ON THE OI FFERENTI AL[S.U.N. 4150] 26-39
DRA FTS OF AN D ADDITIONS TO "ON THE DIFFERENTIA L" . .. 40-63
FIRST DRAFT [FROM S.U.N. 4038) ..... . 41-52
SECOND DRAFT [S.U.N. 4148] . . . . . 53-59
THIRD DRAFT [S.U.N. 4148] . . . . . . . . . . 60-62
SOME ADDITIONS IFROM S.U.N. 4149J . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-63
ON THE H1STORY OF DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS [S.U.N. 4038J ... 64-86
A PAGE OF THE NCYrEBOQK ENTITI.ED " B(CONTINUATION OF A) [I " •••... 66
I. THE FIRST DRAfTS . . . . 67-76
II.THE HISTORICAL COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT 77-82
••
 CONTENTS

I) MYSTICAL DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS 77-78

2) RATIONAL DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS 79-80
3) PURE;LY ALGEBRA IC DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS 80-82
Ill. CONTI NUATION OF ·THE DRAFTS . . . . . . . . 83-86 '
THEOREMS OF TAYLOR AND MACLAURIN. LAGRANGE'S THEORY
OF ANALYTICAL FUNCTIONS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87-94
,~,

.....',: f. ' FROM TIlE MANUSCR1P"f "Tf\YLOR'S THEOREM, MACLAURIN'S THEOREM AND .
LAGRANGlANTHEORY OF ANAL YTICAL FUNcnONS"[~.U . N. 400 1] . . . . . . . 88-92
2 FROM TH E INCOMPLETE MANUSCRIPT '1"'A YLOR'S THEOREM" [FROM
S.U.N. 43021 .... .. .. , . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93-94

APPENDDC TO THE MANUSCRIPT "ON THE HISTORY OF DlFFERENTlAL

CALCULUS". ANALYSIS OF D' ALEMBERT'S METHOD . . . . . . . . . 95- 106
ON TH E NQN · UN IVOCALlTY OF THE TERMS "L IMIT" AND "Ll MIT1NG VALUE"
(S.U.N. 4144] .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96-98
COMPAR I SON OF D 'A LEMBERT'S METHOD W ITH THE ALGEBRA I C
METHOD[S.U.N.4144] . . . . , ... " . . . . , ... , ' , .... . . . . . . . . , .. . ,.. 99- 101
ANALYSIS OF D'ALEMBERrs METHOD IN THE LIGHT OF YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE
[S.U.N. 4143) , .. . . . . . , . , , .. .. ... ... . , , .. .. . , , ... , . , , ... , . .. , 102· 106

,.i "

PART II
DESCRIPTION OF THE MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1870 . 108-118

ARITHMETICAL AND ALGE"BRAIC 'CALCULATIONS AND GEQMETR ICAL DRAWI NGS
IN THE NOTBBOOKS ON POLITICAL ECONOMY [S,U.N. 147,210,1052,1 153] ....... , .. , 108-J09
NOTES AND EXTRACfS FROM POPPE'S BOOK ON THB HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS
,.
. AND MECHANICS [S.U.N. 497,2055] " . ; .. " . . . . . , " , .. " .. " . . . . . .. . 109~ 1J2
THE PROBLEM OFTANGENTTOTHE PARABOLA (A PPENDIX TO A LEITER TO ENGELS)
is,u.N. 1922)
. . . . . , . '. . , .. , , . ... , .. . , : , , .... . , . .. , ... , . . . . . ~ 113-.114
THE FIRST NOTES ONTRIGONQMETRY [S.U.N. 2759) . . . . . ,., .. , .. , ' , . . . . , 115
THE FIRST NOTES ON COMMERCIAL A~ITHMETIC (S.U,N. 2388,2400] ., , , .... ...
' 11 6- I 18

MANUSCRIPTS OF' THE 1870s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119-238"

. T!"i ~ MANUSCR IPTS ON THE THEORY OF CONIC SECTIONS {S.U.N. 2760,2761 ,2762] . -: ' 119
. ,... :',.-\·,:,.•;~t~:I.RS1NOTESONT~EDi·FFERENTIALCALCULUS [S.U.N. 3704] · . , .. ,' , , ... . 119- 121 '
"~&:.~~NTH~METHODOF FlN IT.EDIFFERENCES"[S, U. N.4039] ... . . :. , ;" ." ... . . 121

.•,"
 CONTENTS xi

NO T EBOOKS CONTAIN I NG EX T RACTS ON COM M ERCIAL AR ITIIMETIC

IS.U . . N 388 1,3931J . . . . . .... . . . . . ... . . . . . . 122

'A NOTEBOOK CONTAIN ING NOTES ON MATHEMATICA L ANALYSIS ACCORD ING TO

THE BOOKS OF SAURI, NEWTON, BOUCHARLAT AND HI ND (S .U.N. 27631 . . . . . . . . 123-150
"CONIC SECTIONS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-126
QUADRATURES OF CURVILINEAR AREAS (ACCORDING TO NEWTON). . . . . . .. 1,,6-131
"CON IC SECTIONS or HIGHER ORDERS " 131-1 32
MA SOM EWHAT MODIFIED VERSION OF THELAGRANGIAN ACCOUNTOF TAYLOR'S
THEOREM,BASING ITON A PURELY ALGEBRAIC FOUNDATION" . . . . . . . . 132
. ON THE EVAL UATION OF LARGRANGE'S Mm:HOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133-135
ON THE DIFFERENT MEANS OF SEEKING (AND DETERMINING) TilE SUCCESSIVE
DER IVATIVESOFTHEFUNCI'IONj(x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... 135-137
2 l
ONSU BSTITUTI NG TH ESYMBOL~BYTHE SYMBOLS ~; , ~; , ~;ETl 137-[40

ON THE DIFFERENTIAL AS THE PRINCIPAL PART orTHE INCREMEN A

FUNCT[ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14[ - 142
ON TWO DIFFERENT WA YS OF DETERM INING THE DERIVATIVE . . . . . . [42-148 ..

ON THE QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPRESSIONS OF THE TY N

ALGEBRA AND ~ IN DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148-150

A NOTE BOOK CONTAINING NOTES ON THE DI FFERENTIAL CALCULUS ACCOR[ 0

THE BOOKS OF LACROIX,130UCHARLAT, HIND AND HALL [ S.U.N. 3888 J •••• 151-166
ON THE CONCEPT OF DIFFERENTIAL ACCORDING TO BOUCHARLAT 160-161
ONTHE LEMMA OF BOUCHARLAT . . . . . . . . . . . 161
A COMPARISON OFTHETHEOREMS OfTAYLOR AND MACLAURIN .... 161-163
THE PROBLEM OF TANGENT ; TWO DIFFERENT METHODS OF SOLlITlON . 163-164
TWO DIFFERENT METHO,oS OF DIFFEREI'mATION ... . . . . . . . . . . . 164-166
THE NOTE BOOK "A LGEBRA I ~ I S.U.N. 3932) 167-184
ON THE CONCEPT OF FUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171-177
ON T HE GENERAL THEORY OF EQUATIONS r7S-179
ON TtIECONNECTIONS BEnVEEN ALGEBRA AND DlFFEREr-.'TIALCALCULI 179-184
THE NOTEBOOK "ALGEBRA 11" [S.Li.N. 3933J . . . . . . . . . . . . IS5-210
OTHER M ANUSCR IPTS ON ALGEBRA [S .U,N. 3934,3935] 211-2 13
"SUC~ESS I VE OiFFERENTIATION "(S.U.N. 3999] ." 2 13
THEOREM S OF TAYLOR AND MACLAURIN, FIRST SYSTEMATISATION C E
MATER IAL IS.U.N. 4000J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214-230
TAYLOR'S THEOREM. MACLAURIN'S THEOREM AND THE LAGRANGIAN THEC F
DERIVED FUNCTIONS (S.U.N. 4001] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 -236
OTHER MANUSCRI PTS ON TI1E DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS (S.U.N. 4002,4003) .. 237-238
xi i CONTENTS

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE 1880s 239-301

THE NOTEBOOK -A.J. ~ A NEW SYSTEMATISATION OF THE MATERIAL ACCORD ING
TO TilE COURSES OF HI ND AND BOUCHARLAT (S. U.N. 4036J . . . • . . . . • . . . . . • , 239·241
"11. NOTE BOOK I".CONTINUATION OFTHE SAME MATERIALS (S.U.N. 4037) ... . .. , 241
THE NOTEBOOK "B (CONTINUATION OF A). 11 ". FIRST DRAFTS OF MARX'S OWN
POINT OF VIEW ON THE NATURE OF DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS AND DRAFTS OFTHB
HISTORICAL ESSAY[S.U.N. 4038) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 242·245
SOME SEPARATE SHEETS CONTA INING MATHEMATICAL CAl.CULATIONS[S.U.N.
4040.4048] . . ' . ' . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 245
NOTES ILLUSTRATING O'ALEM BERT'S METHOD, AS EX EMPLIFIED BY THE
DIFFERENTIATION OF A COMPOSITE FUNCfION [S.U.N. 4143) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246·247
ON THE NON·UN IVOCALiTY OF TH E TERMS "UMIT" AND ~LIMITING VAl.UE~, A
COMPA RISON OF D'A LEMBERT.'S METHOD WITH TH E ALGEBRAIC ,METHOD
[ S.U.N. 4144J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. , . ...... , . .. . . . . . . 248
ROUGH NOTES ON THE DIFFERENCES BE1WEEN THE METHODS OF MARX AND
D'ALEMBERT [S.U.N. 41451 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . 248
DRAFT MANUSCRIPTS ON THE CONCEPT OF DERIVED FUNCTION (S.U.N. 4146]. ON
o . !lY.. ."
SUBSTITUTING TH,E SYMBOL j) BY THE SYMBOL dx . . . . . . . . . . , . . .. ' . . . . . . 249-250

ON THECONCEP'T OF THE DERIVED FUNCTION [S.U.N. 4 147J • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 250

PRELIMINARY DRAFTS AND VARIANTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT ON THE DIFFERENTIAL
[S.U.N. 4148) . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . ' ... ' . . . . . • ' , . ; .. , , . . . . . . . . . 251
FOUR VAR IANTS OF THE DRAFTS OF ADDITIONS TO THE MANUSCRIPT ON TH E
DIFFERF;NTIAL [S.U.N. 4 (49) . .. . . ,., .. . . .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . 252-259
" ON THE DlFFER.ENTIAL [S.U.N. 41 ~Ol ........... , ......... ". , 260
COMPUTATIONS RELATED TO THE METHOD OF LAGRANGE [S.U.N. 4300] . ... , . . . 260
TA YLQR'S THEOREM ACCORDING TO HALL AND BOUCHARLAT {S.U.N. 43011 . ... . 261·263
AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCR IPT ENTITLED "TA YLOR 'S ;THEOREM " [S.U.N, 4302} 264-30 1

APPENDIX
. I. ON TH E CONCEPT OF "LIM IT" IN THE SOURCES CONSULTED
BYMARX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 303-312
2. ON THE LEMMAS OF NEWTON crrED BY MARX 313-3 15
3. ON LEONHARD EULER'S CALCULUS OF ZEROS . 31 6-319
4. "THE RESIDUAL ANALYS IS " OF JOHN LANDEN . . . 320-325
5. PRINCIPLES OF DIFFERENTIAL CA LC ULUS ACCORDING
TO BOUCHARLAT . •. . . . . . . . . . 326-332
 CONTENTS ~ i ii

6. THEOREMS. OF. TAYLOR .AND .MACLAURIN. AND .LAGRANGE '.S

THEORY OF ANALYTICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE SOURCES
CONSULTED BY MARX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 333·339
NOTES AND INDEXES

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1·378 .

INDEX OF QUOTED AND MENTIONED LITERATURE 379-381

NAME INDEX 382·)84

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . • . . • . . .. )86·387

PART ONE: HISTORY

ON THE HISTORY OF MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS
LE'ITERS (EXCERPTS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390·)95
MARXTOENGELS , 11 JANUARY 1858.... . . • . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1
MARX TO ENGELS, 6 JULY 1863. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . •. • . . . . 391
ENGELSTO F.A.LANGE,29 MARCH 1865 . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 392
MARXTO ENGELS,31 MAY 1873 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . 392
ENGELS TO MARX. IS AUGUST 18S1 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . )93·)94
ENGELSTO MARX. 21 NOVEMBER 1882 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 394
MARX TO ENGELS. 22 NOVEMBER 1882 . . . . . . .... . .. ... . . , , ... • . , . . 395
REMINISCENCES (EXCERPTS) ... . , , . , . , . , .. . '. , , , . . . . , . , , .. , . , . . . . 396-398
FROM ENGELS' SPEECH ATMARX 'S FUNERAL , .. . . . . . , . , . , .. , ' . . . . , . 397
FROM THE PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDI110N OF ANTI - DUHR1NG .. . , , . , , . . 397
FROM PAUL LAFARGUE'S REMINISCENCES OF MARX .. , .. . . . . . . . , . , . . . 398
A NOTE ON THE HISTORY OFCOLLECI'fNG. DECIPHERING. EDITING AND PUBLICATION
OF MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS- P,8nhi , , .. , . , . . . . , . . . . . . . 399-401
NOTES . , .. . . . . . . . . . . . , , , .. , .. ... . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . , , 402-403
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... , . . . . . " . , . . . . . " . , .. , .. , . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . 404-408
DIFFERENT EDITIONS OF MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS , , .. , . ' , . . 404
•
BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANUSCR IPTS . , , . • . . . . 404-408
 xiv CONTENTS

.1,' : PART TWO :' INVESTIGATIONS

INVESTIGATIONS''iNSPIRED BY MARX'S MATHEfVIATICAL MANUSCRIPTS:

'., ,'"

". ,1\'. -$EL,ECTI0N,

', .... .. , .". \ .~.~.' "

MA'RX AND HADAMARD ON THE CONCEPT OF DIFFERENTIAL- V.l.Glivenko . . . . . . 411-419'

MARX'S "MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS" AND DEVELOPMENT.GF HJSTORY -OF
MATHEMATICS IN THE USSR - V.N.Malodshii . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420-426
-ON THE OPERA TrON A L LOGI tAL APPARATUS OPERATrVE IN KARL MAR X'B "CAPITAL"
AND "MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS" - V, I. przhesmitsky. . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . 427-434
ON THE PROBLEM OF SITUATING MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANSCRIPTS IN THE
HISTORY OF IDEAS --' P. Baksi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ,,' . .,. ..•. ',. " '. "" .. . 435~447

. .( t . .' _,F ,.
,<;< .' ,-:"
I

~ ~", :t, .. ;.~" ,..J :>' •.: ".:,;~

PART THREE ': MATHEMATICSES
MATHEMATICSES: P~ST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

MATHEMATICS AND ITS HISTbRY: IN REifROSP~CTivE - A.P. YlIshkevich ... : . . . . 450-484

NON,-STANDARD ANALYSIS AND ;THEHISTORY OF CLASSICAL ANALYSIS
-F.A. Metlved~v'
.; .. :' .. : . ~ . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 485-491
',THE NEW STRUCTURAL APPROACH IN MATHEMATICS AND SOME of'li's
METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS ---..: G.I.Ruzavin ... '.; ; . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . ,:., " . 492-502
REFLECTIONS ON SEVEN THEMES OF PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS- V:A.Uspensky. 503-540
EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMEt'lT OF THE C9NCEPT OF CONSTR{)CTIVISABfLITY IN
MATHEMATICS - N.N. Nepetvoda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , ',' ... . ... . 541-:548

'-::-;,
." ,~

r", •• 1 .

;.,'

1.. " i "' \ i ,," '~.~ . ~.;.

..... ',' '~:

. ., , :~, ",' .-

'J> ,.:-,
'" .'

!., . i .- ~ .' "/ " : ' : '. / i r

.~', ~ .' .
 HHCTIITYT MAVKCII3MA·.Q EHIIHH3I1A .p. ilK KlI ce

K.MAPI(C
MATEMATV1YECKV1E
PYKOnV1CV1

lI a ;{.·\ 'I I·:: I! .C'I' UO . HA :VKA.

r:IAIlI IAJI l'E.uAh· I ~1I1J
';·1 1:UlliO-MAl '.;MATlPI EC: lit HI : , un:p.\ ' ''v rttl
MU I, I\!! .' I ~I\I\

FACSIMILE OF THE TITLE PAGE OF THE 1%11 EDITION OF KARt MARX 'S MATHEMATreAL MANUSCRIPTS
 PREFACE TO THE 1968 EDITION
The existence of Marx's mathematica l manuscripts within the body of his un published
writings was first mentioned in 1885. F.Engels referred to them in his preface to the second
ed itio n of Anti~Dilhrillg. [Scc :Aflti-Dahrillg (English ed ition), Progress, Moscow, 1978, p. 18.
However, the importance of Marx 's mathematical investigations was indicated by Engels
even earlie r, in his grave-side speech in me mory of Marx delivered on March 17, 1883. - TT.]
Engels considered them important and collected the same for publication,The photocopies of
these (nea rly 1000 pa ges of) manuscripts arc presently being preserved in the archives of the
Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC of the CPSU (with the dissolution of the CC CPSU,
tbis Institute has ceased to exist -Tr.]. A part of these man uscripts and some preparatory
materials were published in Russian, in 1933, on the occasion of the 50th death
anniversary of Marx, in the journal "Pod Znamcncm Marks izma" ("U ndcr the Banner of
Marxism") [1933, No. 1, 15~73J and in the coll ectio n o f essays cn titled Markiszm i
estestvoznaniya (Marxism and the natural Sciences) [1 933; 5~ 61].T hese included the results
of Marx's investigations inlo the nature of differential calculus.ln 1881 Marxjotted them down
fo r Engels, in two manuscripts. Till the n even this pari of Marx's mathematica l manuscripts
was not publ ished in the origina l language.
In the present edition, the manuscripts, whicb Marx cou ld comp lete in the main,o r those
which conta in Marx's com ments on some questions of mathematical Significance, 3re all
being published in their full form.
Marx's mathematical manuscripts conta in va rious types o f materials : Marx's own w ritings
on the nature and history of differential calculus, as well as the notes and extracts he made
from the sources, which he used.In consonance with this two-fold nature of the materials at
ha nd, the present volume has been divided into two parts. The first part contains all the origi nal
writ ings of Marx, and the second part is devoted to detailed descriptions of the notes
and extracts of mathema tica l significancc, jotted down by him. All these arc being published
here [in the 1968 edition - Tr.] in the original language and in Russian translation.
It is true th at the nature of Marx's orig inal writings and that of the notes taken by him are
not identical. Bulk of these notcs consists of extracts from the writings of other authors, the rest
being Marx's own commcnts. But, for a proper understanding of Marx's thoughts on
mathematics, often an acq uai ntance with these notes of him becomes a necessity. Hence,
not a part of this volume, but only its enti rety, properly expresses the mathematica l thinking
of Marx.
While writing the Capital, Marx became specially interested in mathematics. In th is
co nnectio n, on the "11th of Jan uary 1858 he wrote to Engels: "Tn elabora ting the PRI NCIPLES
of econom ics 1 have been so damnably held up by errors in ca lculatio n that in DESPAIR 1
have applied myself to a rapid revision of algebra. I hav~ never felt at home with arithmetic.
But by making a detour via algebra, I shall quickly get back into the way of things"
[M ECW(R). 29. 210; M'ECW(E). 40. 244J.
We notice the first glimpses of Marx's mathematical writings in his first note books on
political economy. Some algebraic calculations have been found in some of these note books
related to his researches of 1846 in their main contents . But it is possible, that these
 2 PREFAC E

calculations and comments were inserted by him at some later date; in !he pages earlier left
blank in .these note books.
,-'~ .
Sonre~<or the note books used by Marx in April-June 1858 contain preparatory materials
for his Critique of Political Economy. In them wc find : some draft sketches related to
elementary geometry and some algebraic calculations concerning generalisation of the
concepts of power and logarithm.
In tbis period Marx's mathematical studies proceeded rather disconncctcdly. Often he
studied mathematics, only when he was not busy with anything else. On the 23rd of
November 1860 he wrote to Engels : "Writing articles is ALMOST OUT or QUESTION for mc.
The only occupation that helps me maintain the necessary QUIE1NESS or MIND is mathematics"
[MECW(R), 3D, 88; MECW(E), 41, 216]. Thus, in spite of his other preoccupations, Minx's
mathematical studies continued. On the 6th of July 1863 he wrote to Engles ; "My spare
time is now devoted to differential and integral calculus. Apropos, I have a supernuity ofwor~s
on the subject and will send you onc, should you wish to tackle it. 1 should consider it to be
almost essential to your military studies. Moreover, it is a much easier branch of mathematics
(so far as mere technicalities arc concerned) than, say, the more advanced aspects of algebra.
Save for a knowledge of the more ordinary kind of algebra and trigonometry, no preliminary
study is required except a general familiarity with conic sections" [MECW(R), 30, 296 ;
MECW(E), 41, 484]. Then either towards the cnd of 1865, or in the early parts of 1866, in an
appendix to a leUer to Engles, he explained the nature of differential calculus in the light of
the problem of L.'lngent to the parabola. This letter rcmain~ untraccd [only the said appendix
has been found - Tr.].
But even in this period Marx's mathematical.studics were mainly connected with his
researches in political economy. Thus in 1869, having undertaken a study of the problem
of circulation of capital and that of" the role of bills of exchange in the calculations relating
to international trade, Marx read a very big text book on commercial arithmetic written by
Feller and Odermann. He took detailed notes from this book [see: S.U.N. 2388 and 2400]. It
was a principal trait of Marx's character, that when he faced a question, he never stopped
before becoming fully confident about the issue, never stopped without mastering the subject
to its very foundations. And this trait was revealed here also. Whenever he found that a certain ,
mathematical technique has been used in the text book by Feller and Odermann, then, eVen
if Marx knew about it beforehand, he considered it essential to reengage himself in its study
all over again. Thus were inserted his comments of a clearly mathematical significance, in
the aforementioned notes on commercial nrithmelic, ns well as in the notes taken afterwards
[see: S.U.N. 3881, 3888 and 3931]. It is these steps, which, in their turn, took Marx closer 10
the higher parts of mathematics. Marx's mathematical investigations acquired an almost
systematic character in the 70s of the last century, especially since 1878. In his preface to
the seco,!!.d volume of Capital [in the preface to the 1968 edition of tbe mss this has been
inadvertent.IY put as: "In his preface to the second edition of Capital" - Tr.l, Engels wrote
about this period: "There was another intermission [in the course of Marx's writing oC the
Cap~tal ~ Tr.] after 1870, due mainly to Marx's ill health. Marx employed this time in his
custom'a,ry"w.a y, by studying agronomy, rural relations in America, and especially, in
Russia, the money market and banking, and finally the natural sciences such as geology and
 I'nEFACE 3

physiology: Independcnt mathematica l studies also fig ure promincntly in the num erous
excerpts-full note books of this period "[MECW(R), 24 , 8; Capjtal, vol. 11, Eng.'ed. , Progress
Moscow, 1978, pp. 3-4].
But of course, even in this period Marx contin ued to remain interested in the use of
mathematics in poli tical economy. On the 31s t o f Ma y 1873 Marx wrote to Engels :~ I have
been telling Moore about a problem with which J have been racking my brains for so me time
now . However, he thinks it is insoluble, at lcast pro tempore, because of the many fa ctors
involved, fa ctors which for the most part have yet to be discovered . The problem is this: you
know about those graphs in which the movements of prices, discoun t ra tes, etc .• etc .• over the
year, etc., afe s how n in rising and falling zigzags. I have variously attempted to analyse crises
by calculating the&e UPS AND DOWNS as irregular curves and I bclieved (.md s till be lieve it
would be possible if the material were s ufficiently s ttldied) that I might be able to de termine
mathematically the principal laws govern ing crises. As I said, Moore th inks it cannot be done
at present and l have resolved to give it up FOR HIE TtM E BEING. " [M ECW(R), 33, 71-72;
MEC W (E). 44,504]. Evidently Marx could visualise long ago, that there is scope ro r us ing
mathematics in politica l economy.
But it does not become fully clear, even from the descriptions of the entirety o f his
mathematical manuscripts, presen ted in the second part of this volume, as to what exactly
propelled Marx to proceed fro m the stud y of algeb ra and commercia l arithmetic underta ken
by him, to the study of difrerential ca lculus. In fact Marx 's mathematical manuscripts we re
born in that period when he bega n to study elementary mathematics with the aim of studying
differential calculus alone, i.e., when he started s tudying trigonometry and conic sections
and w rote the aforementioned letter to Engles [dated July 6, 1863 - Tr.] indicating the
necess ity of such study.
Incidentally. at that time the s ituation in differential calcu lus, especially of the found ation
upon which it was constructed, was in a bad s hape. Engels quite graphically d epicted
this s ituatio n in his Anli-D!1hring: "With the introduction of variable magnitud es and the
extension o f the ir va riab ility to the infin itely small and the infinitely large, ma th ematics,
usually so strictly ethica l, fell from grace; it ate of the tree of knowledge, which opened
upto it a ca reer of most colossa l achievements, but at the sa me time a path of erro r. The
v irg in sta te of absolute validity and irre futab le proof of every thing mathematical was go ne
for ever; the real m o f controversy was inaugurated, and we have reached the po int w he re most
peop le differentiate and integra te not beca use they undersL.'lnd whalthey are doin g but from
pu re faith, because uplO now it has always come ou t right" [MECW(R),20, 88 -89 ;
Anli-Dahring, Eng. ed. Progress, Moscow, 1978, p. 110].
Na turally Marx could not put up with th is. In his words: "it became important for him,
"here as everywhere", "to s trip the veil of secrecy from science"[see: MR, 193; PV, 881.
This task beca me important also due to the fact. that the process o f transition rrom elementa ry
mathematics to th e mathematics of variables of necess ity atta ined a dialectical character,
owing to its very content. And Marx and Engels considered it to be a duty of theirs' to
show, how the materialis t dialectics is of use not only in the socia l sciences, but in the natural
sciences and mat hema tics as well. To unveil the d ialectics or the process of trans ition to the
mathematics of va riables, it was necesary to conduct detailed inves tigations about the "m ystery
4 I'REFAc e

which even to-day surrounds the magnitudcs employed in the infinitesimal calculus, the
differentials and infinitesimals of various degree" (MECW(R), 20, 582; Anti-Daltring, Eog.
ed., Progress, Moscow, 1978, p. 444]. That is to say, Marx had before him the task of laying
. bare the dialectical nature of that symbolic calculus, which operates with differential
symbols.
Marx was self-educated in mathematics. He could only turn to his friend Samuel Maore
for relevant advice. But Moore had very little mathematical knowledge. And that is why he
could not be of much help to Marx. Notonly that, it appears from his remarks on the manuscripts
which MarX" sent to Engels in 1881, that MonTe was not at all able to understand Marx's
thoughts a~out the origin and significance of the symbolic differential calculus [sec:
MECW(R), 35, 93-94J.
Marx began his studies of the differential calculus with the text·boo ks which were then
in use in the Cambridge University. In the 17th century Newton held the chair of mathematics
in this university. And since then his tradition has been respectfully obeyed in England. It
is well known, that in the 205 and 30s of the last century, the English youth assembled
around the "Analytical Society"of mathematicians were forced to wage a relentless
struggle against the representatives of this outdated tradition, which elevated the method of
Newton into a kind of sacred and unsurpassable dogma, his distinctive expressions and the
synthetic method of his RPrincipia" included. This trad itio n demanded, that all problems, to
be solved with the help of the techniques of calculus, are tQ be solved directly from the
beginnings - they are not to be subordinated to any general problem.
I[ tbe above m.entioned background is kept in view, then we shall be able to understand
why and under what sortol circumstances did Ma rx begin his study of differential calculus with
the Cours complet de mathematiqlles [Paris, 1778] by Abbe Sauri. This book was written
according to the method ofLeibnilz, and Leibnitzian symbols were' used in it.,Soon after this,
the very Newtonian method of "analysis thro ugh equations containing infinite number of
terms", directly drew Marx's attention [see: S.U.N. 2763]. Marx became so enthused after
having considered the Leibnitzian algorithms of differential calculus according 10 Sauri's
book, that he undertook the task of explaining them (using the example of tangent to the
parabola), in the special appendix of a letter to Engels [see: MR, 251·254; PV, 113·114].
After fini shing the text book by Sauri, Marx studied the English translation of a newer
French book: An elementary treatise on the flifferential and integral calculus [1828] by
Boucharlat. In this book the ideas Qf d'Alembert and Lagrange were lumped together
ecJectically. In France alone it saw eight editions. It was translated into otber languages
(including Russian). This book too could not satisfy Marx. He began to study the works of
other mathematicians and other text books. He studied the classical writings of Euler and
MacLaurin. MacLa urin popularised the works of Newton. Marx also s tudied the text books
by lacroix, Hind, Hall, Hemming and others. All these books have found their piace in Marx's
notes and excerpts.
In these books, what at first drew Marx's allention, was the outlook of Lagra nge.
lagrange attempted to ta ckle the characteristic difficulties of differential calculus by .
providing it with an "algebraic M foundation, i.e., he attempted to do it without using the
concepts of infinitesimal and limit, which were till then inexactly defined and were quite vague.
 ['!tHFAC~
,
However, having beco me acqua inted wi th th e concepts o f Lagrange In detail, Marx very soon
understood that no sa tisfactory solution of the character is tic difriculties associated with
the symbolic apparatus of differential calculus was possible along these lincs. And that
is why he set out to elabora te the proper approoch for dctermining the true nal ure of this
calculus.
In the second part of this volume we become acq uainted with th e path which Marx
traversed in his journey towards that goal. This part contai ns description of all the mathematical
manuscripts of Marx. This description is, as fa r possible, chronological. Here we once again
find tha t Marx undertook the study of algebra, with the aim of properly eva luat ing the point
of v iew of Lagrange. Marx wanted to find out the algebra ic roots of differential calculus.
He was drawn, first of all ,to the theorem about the multiple roots of an algebraic equation.
Determination of these roots is connected, in its content, with the success ive differentiation
of the original equation. Marx, specifica lly and in detail, discussed this question in a series
o f manuscripts beginni ng with S.U.N. 3932 and 3933. This discussion figures under the heads
"Algeb ra I" and "Algebra 1"1". Theorems o f Taylor and MacLaurln especially drew Marx's
attention. Lagrange attempted to prove these theorems in a "purely algebraic" manner, i.e.,
without taking the help of differential calculus. In this connecli on Marx began to
systematically collect the material about Newton's binomial theorem and about Taylor's and
MacLa urin 's theo rems, from different sources. And thus were born the manuscripts
co ntained in S.U.N. 3933,4000 and 4001.These manuscripts ca n no longer be cons idered mere
notes taken from the works of other authors. And that is why here their full texts have been
published. Generally speak ing, in Marx 's notes gradua ll y one comes across more and more
of his original comments. Especially noteworthy in this con nection, are his commcnts on
the concept of function and on the substitution of the sy mbol % by the symbol dy/dx.
His original comments arc also to be found in a series of other manuscrip ts [see: S.U.N.
2763,3888,3932 and 4302]. Having become conv inced that Lagrange 's "purely algebraic"
method is incapable of so lving the prob lems of the foundations of differential calculus, and
eve~ after arriv ing at his own view po int about the co ntent and method of this calculus,
Marx, all the sa me, went on co llecting materials abou tlhe various ways of differentiating,
from the sources aLhis disposal [see: S.U,N. 4038 and 4040]. And onl y after that did he begin
writing his own opinions about the "algebraic" method of differentiating (a ce rtain cla ss of
functions). Subsequently he began drafting the fundamental ideas exp ress in g his
characteris tic point of view. These ideas have found express ion in the articles included in
the fi rst part of th is volume, as well as in their differen t drafts. Now, let us turn to the conten ts
o f these writings.
The greater part of Mar x's original mathematical writings were born in the seventies of
the last century. At that time, in Europe, modern classical analysis was being co ns tructed,
with its characteristic theo ries of real numbers and lim it (above all in the works of K.
Weierstrass, R. Dedekind and G.Cantor).
This direction of the works of European mathematicians was at that ti me virtuall y
unknown in the English universities. The famous English mathematician Ha rdy wrote his
"Course of Pure Mathematics" many years later (in 1917).[This information is incorrect. The
first ed ition ofG.H .Hadry's A Course of Pure Mathematics was published no l in 1917, but
, PREFACE

in 1908. - Tr.] In the preface of the 1937 edition of this text book Hardy wrote with
justification: "It [this book] was written when analysis was neglected in Cambridge, and
with an emphasis and enthusiasm which seem rather ridiculous now. If I were to rewrite it
now I should not write (to use Peaf. Littlewood's similic) like a missionary talking to
cannibals". And Hardy noted lower down there, that "even in England, there is now [i.e .• in
1937. - Ed.J no lack" of manuals on analysis.
That is why it is not surprising, that the relatively modern problematic of the ~hen nascent
continental mathematical analysis remains unmentioned and undiscussed in Marx's
mathematical manuscripts. But still, even to-day, his ideas about the content of symbolic
differential calculus are of interest.
The concepts of the "differential ", of the different orders of the "inFinitesimal "etc., and
the symbols dx, dy. d 2y, d 3y, ..., dy/dx, d 2y/dx 2, d 3y/dx 3••• etc. arc characteristic of the
differential calculus. In the text books of differential calculus published in the 19th century
and, available to Marx, some special magnitudes were mentioned over and above the
aforementioned concepts and' symbols. These special 'magnitudes were considered to be
different from the usual mathematical numbers and functions. And it was considered
imperative that mathematical analysis be conducted with the help of these special magnitudes.
To-day the situation is different: there are no special magnitudes in analysis. But the
symbols and tlie terminology have been retained. These have been found to be very usefuL
How come? If the corresponding concepts turned out to be meaningless, then how could the
words and symbols be retained? Marx's mathematical manuscripts provide the best possible
answer to this question. In addition, these manuscripts also provide that answer, which helps
us to determine the contents of all types of symbolic calculi. It may be noted tbat only recently
the general th,eory of symbolic calculi has been constructed in modern matbematicallogic.
The main thing here is the operational role of the symbols of calculus. If one and the same
computational process is repeatedly used to solve very different kinds ' of problems, then it
is useful to choose a special symbol for this entire process. This symbol designates in brief,
what Marx has called, the "operational strategy" of its formulator. Here, first of all comes
the very process. Marx has called this process "real", to distinguish it from the symbolic
designation introduced for it.
But why is it so worthwhile to introduce a new symbol here? Marx's answer to this
question, consists of the following point: owing to this we need not complete the entire process
every time; and by utilising the fact, that we have already completed this process in certain
cases, we can reduce the task of completing it in more complex cases, into its completion in
the simpler ones. For this, only the regularity of the process under consideration is required
to be studied, and then some general rules for operating with the new symbols arc to be
determined. These rules will permit the aforementioned reduction. But in that case we also
obtain a calculus, already operating with new symbols. Thus, in the words of Marx, we
enter into its "ground proper". And Mane explained in detail the dialectics of that "inversion
of method", which is connected with this transition to the symbolic calculus; conversely, its
rules do not permit a transition from the "real" process to the symbol, but rather, these rules
allow us to seek the "real"process which corresponds to a symbol. By prescribing a "strategy
of operations", these rules make the symbol operational.
 PREFACE 7

All tltis Marx inves tigated in his two fundame nt.1 l articles written in 188 t and sent to
Engels. These are: On the concept of the derived function [sec: MR, 29; PV, 191 and On the
differential [sec: MR , 47; PV, 26]. In the first article Marx considered the "rea l" process (the
algorithm) of searching the derived functions and differentials of a ccrt.1in class of functions
and introduced the correspondi ng sy mbols for sueh processes (he ca lled it the process o f
"a lgebraic" differe ntiation). In the second he depicted the "invers ion of melltod" nnd went over
to the "grou nd proper" of the differential ca lculus. For lhis, first of all he utilised the theorem
about the derivative of product. This theorem permits the sea rch fo r the derivative of product
to be reduced into a search for the derivatives of factors. In Marx's own words, thus the
"symbolic di fferential co-efficient has become an independelltpoint of deJJarture~ only its
real equivalent must be found out ... But with this, the differential ca lculus too appea rs as
a specifi c kind of calculus, already opera ting independently upon its own ground, since its
poin ts of departure du/tix, dz/dx are mathematica l magnitudes which belong on ly to this
calculus and characterize it " [MR , 55 & 57; PV, 30-31]. They are the reby "at once
transformed into operational symbols, into the symbols of processes, which are to be
carried out ... fo r finding out ... [the] aderiva tives". Hav ing ini tiall y emerged as the
symbol ic expression of the "deriva tives". i.e., of the operations of different iation nlready
carried ou t, the symbolic differential co-efficient now pl ays the role of the symbol of those
operations of differentiation, which remain to be ca rried out" [MR, 57; PV, 31]. Marx was not
aware of the strict definitions of the fundamental co ncepts which characterize modern
analysis. T hat is why, the con tents of his manuscripts appear to be dated at first sight. It seems
that these arc confined within the fra mework of what was known to Lagrange, Le., confined
to what was known at the end of the 18th century. However, in rea lity the fundamental
characteristic tendencies of Marx's manuscripts are of considerable Sign ifica nce even
to-day. It is true that Marx was not acquainted with the modern definitions of the concepts
of real number, limit and con tinuity. But it appears, that even if he had an acquaintance with
these definitions, he would not have been satisfied with them.
The situation is as follows: Marx was in search of the "rea l" process o f finding out the
derived function, Le., of an algorithm, which will permit, fi rstly. to answer the ques tion-
whether there exists a derivative for a given function, and secondly - if it exists then how
to find it out effectively. It is well known thnt the concept of limit is not algorithmic, and that
is why such problems are solvable onl y for a certain class of functions. One of those classes
is lite class of ana lytical functions, i.e., the class of such functions, which are decomposab le
into powered serieses and - to use an expression of Marx - are objects of "a lgebraic"
di fferen tiation. As a matter of fact only such functio ns were investigated by Marx. At present
the class of s uch functio ns - for which the two aforementioned questions can be answered
- may be significa ntly extended, and operations with them may be so constructed, as to satisfy
all tbe modern demands of strictness and exactitude. However, from Marx's point of view it
is essential, that all passages to limit be investigated in the light o f their effecti ve completion;
in other words,it is essential 10 construct mathema tical analysis bas ing it upon th e theory of
algorithms, as we would put it now.
The following statement made by Engels in his Dialectics of Na ture, is well known to
us : "The turning point in ma thematics was Descartes' variable magnitude. With it came
 • PREFACE

motion and hence dia/eclics in mathematics, and at once, too, of neces~ity the differential
and integral calculus, wbich moreover immediately begins, and which on the whole was
completed by Newton and Leibnitz, not discovered by them It [MECW(R), 20, 573; Dialectics
o/Nature, Eng. ed., Progress, Moscow,1976, p. 258]. .
But what is a "variable"? Generally speaking, what is a "varillblc" in mathematics?
The famous English philosopher Bertrand Russell said in this connection, that "it is of course,
one of those concepts wbich arc the ,most dirricult to understand ". And the mathematician
Kart Menger listed at least six enlirely different meanings of this concept. For explaining the
concept of variable, in other words, that of the function in general in mathematics, Marx's
mathematical manuscripLS are of considerable value, even to-day. Marx directly raised the
question of the different meanings of the concept of function: functions "of x" and
functions "in x", and specifically dwelt upon how the changes of variables arc ·depicted in
mathematics, upOn the dialectics of this change. Marx attached special significance to the
question of the means of representing the changes of variables, since, the characteristics
of that method of "algebraic" differentiation, which belongs to him, arc at issue here.
The point is this: Marx decisively came out against representing all changes in the value
of the variable in the form of an addition (or a SUbtraction) of some predetermined value of
the increment (of its absolute value). Sufficient idealisation of the real changes of the values of
any magnitude already assumes, that we can fixate all its values with exactitude. But in reality
all such values can only be approximately fixated. So the assumption upon which differential
calculus is built, must be such that, to obtain tbe expression f'(x), Cor a Cunction derived
from a given function f(x), informations regarding the exact value of any variable are not
demanded, but the expression f(xJ for the Cunction, is deemed sufficient. Here one is merely
required to know, that the value oC the variable x in fact so changes, that any neighbourhood
(however small) of every value of the variable x (from the domain of its values under
consideration) has the value Xl j this valu~ is different from Xl but not grea,tc[ than it : "in fact
Xl remains as indeterminate as x" [MR, 159; PV, 74].

Here it is understandable, that whcnx changes into Xl' then the difference XI - X is formed .
This difference is also designated by I:J.x, so that, as a result, Xl appears as equal to x + I:J.x.
However, Marx stressed, that this takes place only as a resull of tbe transformation oC the
value ofx into the value of Xl and it does not precede this change, and that the representation
of Xl as definable by the expression x + Il x, signifies, as it were, an insertion, thereby, of
distortive assumptions into the representation of motion (and of all change in general). These
assumptions are distortive, because in that case: flTbough in X + A x, as a magnitude Ax
is as indeterminate, as is the indeterminate variable x itself, nevertheless, Il x is determinate
as distinct form the particular magnitude x, as the foetus beside its own mother, before she
becamc pregnant" [MR, 159; PV, 74].
In consonance with these observations, Marx begins his definition of the function f' (x),
derived from the functionf(xJ with the statement that x changes into Xl. As a resJllt of this
f(x) changes i?to fiXI). And the differences XI ..:.x and f(x l) - f(x) are formed. The first of
these differences is wittingly different from zero, since Xl~ x. nHere the increased x, i.e., Xl is
 PREFAC [; 9

distinct from itself, from what it W:IS prior to the increase, i.e., from x, but XI does not appear
asx increased by d X; tha t is why, in fact Xl rema ins as inde te rminate asx" [MR, 159; PV, 74].
According to Marx the rea l ",ecret of the differential calculus is as follows: to determine
the value of the derived fun ction at a point x (where the derivati ve exists), it is necessa ry not
only to find out the point XI different from x in the neighbourhood of this point, a nd to form

the ratio of differences j(x l ) - [(x) and x, i.e., the expression [(XI) - [(x) , but also to
Xl _
xl-x
return the re after back to that same point x; however, this is no direct re turn , bu t ra ther, a
retu rn in some special manner, conn ected with the concrete determination of the function
[(x), since the simple assumption of XI aX in the expression L!(x l ) - j(X}]I[XI -x1 turns it
into [f(x) - j(x)]I[x -xJ, i.e., illto 010, in other words into absurdity.
This chara cter of the definition of the derivative, which cons ists of the formation of a
difference Xl - x o ther than zero, and then - after establishing the ratio
[f (x,) - !(xl] I [x, - xl
- the dialectical "subla tion" of that difference, is retained also in the modern definition of
the derivative, where the re mova l of the difference Xl - X is effected with the help of the
passage to the limit: from Xl 10 x.
In his work under 'he ' i,leA PPENDIXTO THE MANUSCRIPT "ON THE HIS TORY OF
DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS ", ANALYSIS OF D 'A LEMBERT'S METHOD Mar. '00 spoke
of the "derivative", in essence as the lim iting value of the ra tio [[(XI) - [(x)]I[x l - x1 though
in this connection he used a different terminology. The confus.ion connec ted with the terms
"limit" and "limiting value" led Marx to comment, that "perhaps the concept of limitin g value
has been incorrectly interpreted " [MR , 217; PV, 98]. This muddle prompted him to replace
the term "limit" in the defin ition of the de riva tive, by the term "absolutely minimal .." '.. "
expression". However, he did not insist upon this substitution, as he fo resaw thata more
precise concept of limit, with which he go t acquainted from Lacroix's big Treatise on
differential and integral calculus, a book which sa tisfied Marx cons id erably more tha n the
other text books, may render the introduction of a new term unnecessary. In fa c t [elsewhere]
Marx wrote about the concept of limit, that: "This category which has fou nd wide use in
[mathematica l) analysis mainly in that of Lacroix, acquires an important sign ificance as a
substitute for the category of minimal expression" [MR, 129; PV, 6ZJ.
Thus in esse nce Marx has a lso explained the dialectic .. connected with the defin ition of
derivative in modern mathematical a nalysis. Here we have a dialectical, and not formal, .
co ntradiction. It will be shown below, that the presence of the latter made the differential
calculus of Newton and Leibnilz "mystica l". Here it is necessary to keep onl y the following
in view: Ma rx by no means forbids the presen ta tion of every change in the value of a variable
in the for m of an addition of some "increment" to its already eX isting va lue. On the conlraty.
when the question of evaluating the result of an already accomplished c hange arises, then the
talk about an increase in the value of the variable (for example, about the depende nce of the
increment o f a function upon the increment of the corresponding independent variable), a nd
what Marx calls "the point of view o f summation" (xl" x + ~ X o r Xl .. X + 11), become entirel y
2
 10 PREFAC E

justified. In his last work entitled the Taylor's Theorem, Marx especially dwells upon this
transition from the "algebraic" to the "differential" method. Bul unfortunately this work
remained unfinished. 'And that is why only a part of it has been included in Part I of the present
volume. [However, a very detailed description of this manuscript, almost its, entire text, has
been included in the second part of this book; sec: MR, 498-562; PV, 264-301]. Here Marx
stressed, that when in the "algebraic" method XI - x exists for use only in the form of a
difference, and not as Xl - X - " and, that is why, not as XI - X + h, then in the transition to the
-differential" method we may consider h "as the increment (positive or negative) of x. We
have the right to do this also as : XI - X - 6. x, and this 6. x itself, ins tead of servil'!g • as in 9ur
mode, as a simple symbol or a simple sign for tbe difference of x-s, i.e., for XI - x, may also
be treated as the magnitude of the difference Xl - x, [itself] as indeterminate as Xl - X and, as
changing as it (this magnitude). Thus, Xl - X _ 6. x or = the .indeterminate magnitude It.
Hence it follows that Xl - X + h, and [(XI) or y, turnsJnto f(x + It)" [MR, 522; PV, 278-279].
Thus, it will be extremely unfair 10 depict the standpoint 'lf Marx as the rejection of all
other methods used in differential calculus. If these methods turn oul 10 be successful, then
Marx sets before himself the task of explaining the secret of their success. And when he
succeeds in this, i.e., after the method under consideration turns out to be well grounded
and the conditions of its applicability arc fulfilled , then Marx co nsiders a transition to that
method not only entirely justified, but also expedient.
After his manuscripts of 1881, containing the fundamental results of his reflections on the
nature of differential ~alculus, Marx intended to send a third work to Engcls, related to the
history of the methods of differential calculus. At first he wanted to outline this history in
the light of concrete examples of the different methods of proving the theorem about the
derivative of a product. But afterwards he renounced this intention and proceeded to outline the
general characteristics of the principal' periods in the history of the methods of
differential calculus.
Marx could not give a proper shape to this third wQrk. Only tbe indications regarding the
fact that he intended to write it and the rough copy of this manuscript, have been preserved.
From these we come to know: bow Marx formulated and changed his plan of the historical
essay on this theme. In Part I of the present volume this r6ugh copy is being reproduced in its
full form [see: MR, 137-189; PV. 64-86]. Therein all the instruc tions of Marx, regarding the
necessity of inserting this or that passage from the other manuscripts into tbe text [of the
historical essaY1. have been fully taken into consideration. This manuscript gives us an
opportunity 10 elucidate the standpoint of Marx on the history of the principal methods of
differential calculus. These are: .
1) the "mystical differential calculus" of Newton and Leibnitz,
2) the "rational differential' calculus" of Euler and d'Alembert,
3) the "purely algebraic calculus" of Lagrange.
According to Marx the characteristic trait of the methods of Newton and Leibnitz was
this: their creators did not see the "algebraic" roots of the differential calculus, they started
working directly with its operational formulae. That is why, their origin and meaning
 1'ltEFACE 11

remained obscure and even mysterious. And the ca lculus itse lf appeared "as an indepe ndent
means of computation, dis tin ct from the ordinary algebra~ [MR, 153; PV, 72 ), as a quite specia l
mathematical discipline, just discovered, which is "as far away as the sta rs in heaven, by way
of ordinary algebra " [MR, 199; PV, 90].
To the question as to "How werc the sta rting points for the differcntial sy mbols as
operational formulae obtai ned", Marx answered that this was done "with thc help o f either
secret or evident metaphys ica l presuppositions, which in their turn lead 10 metaphysical
non-mathematical consequences: what happcns is a forcib le des tru ction of ccrl.1in magnitudes,
blocking the path of deduction, [whi ch] , however, were gc nera ted by th ose ve ry
. presuppositions" [MR , 123; PV, 59].
Elsewhe re Marx wrote about th ese very methods o f Newton and Lcibnitz:
"Xl" X + 6. X at once turns into Xl - X + dx ... , where dx is postulated by a metaph ys ical
explanatioll. At first it exists, and is explai ned only s ubsequently". "From this arbitrary
postulation it fo llows, tha t ... terms ... must be removed by j ugglery, so that a correct result .
may be obta ined" [MR, 165; PV, 77].
III other wo rds, so long as the means of introducing differential sy mbo ls into mathematics
remain unelu cidated, and what is more, remai n in general incorrect - so long as the differenlials
dx and dy are s impl y identified with the increments flx and fly - they turn out to be
unfounded, they arc presc nted as the mea ns of "forcible" abolition "by jugglery", and as the
means of their own removal, it becomes necessa ry to metaphyscia J1 y invent certain actuall y
infin itel y s mall magnitudes. These are treated, at the same time, bo th as ordinary magnitudes
other than zero (as wha t arc now called "Archimedean" magnitudes), and as "va nishing "
magnitudes (turn ing in zero) as distinct from the finite or infinitesimal magnitudes of even
lower order (i.e., as "non -Archimedean"magniludes); simpl y put: as both ze ro and not zero
at the same time. In this connection Marx said : "there remains nothing else to do, b:.Jt to
present the in crements of h as infinitely small [magniludesJ and to register them as such, as
independellt beings, for example, in the sy mbols ... dx, dy [etc). But infinitely small mag niludes
are also magnitudes, as are the infini tely big(the wo rd infinitely (small) signifies o nly the
fact that it is indefinitely small) ; Ihat is why, these dy, dx • ... also figure in the computation
as ordinary algebraic magnitudes, and in the equation ...
... k _ 2xdx + dxdx
the term dx dx has as much righ t to ex ist as has 2x dx". That is why, "mos t aSlOnishing· ·is
that argument, by which this term is forcibly cast away" [MR , 151 and 153; PV, 71].
Acco rding to Marx, the prese nce of such actuall y infinitely s mall ma gnitudes - i.e., of
formall y contradicto ry objects, which arc not introduced wi th th e help o f successive
mathema tica ll y grounded operations, but ace postulated upon the fou ndations of metaphysica l
"explanations", and arc removed thereafter by a "s leight of hand " - is what makes the
ca lculus o f Newton and Leibnitz mystical, notwiths tanding the series of a~vantages ob t.1ined,
owing to the fact that this ca lcul us straight off beings with the operational fo rmula e.
At the sa me time Marx did of course highly appreciate the historic Significa nce of the
methods o f Newton and Lcibnitz. He wrote: "Thus, they themselves believed in the
mysterious character of the newly discovered calcu lus, which provided correct (and
 12 PREFACe

moreover in the geometrical applications, really astonishing) results by a posi tively incorrect
mathematical procedure. They were thus self-mystified, valued the new discovery all the
higher, enraged the crowd of old orthodox mathematicians all the morc, and thus called
forth tbe cry of opposition; it aroused an echo even in the lay world, and that is necessary for
,.,: paving the path for something new" [MR, 169; PV, 78).
According to Marx, the next stage in the development of th e methods of differential
calculus appears to be the "ra tional differential calculus" of d ' A1cmbcrt and Euler. Here
the mathematically incorrect methods of Newton and Leibnitz stand corrected, but the
point of depa rture rema ins the same. "d ' Alembert starts directly from the starting point of
Newton and Leibnitz : Xl _ X + dx. But he a t once makes a fundamental correction :
Xl - X + Ax, i.e., x+ an indeterminate, but first of all a finite increment. [In tbe literature'

. at Marx's .disposa l "a finite increment" meant: a finite increment o the r than zero. ] This he •
calls /I. With him the transformation of this" or A x into dx ... takes place only as the last
result of the development or at least just at the eleventh ho ur, while with the mystics and the
initiators o f calculus it appears as the starting po int" [MR , 169 & 171; PV, 79]. And .Marx
stressed, that here the removal of the differential symbols from the final result takes place
through "a correct mathematical operation. Hence, now they are removed without a tric k" [MR,
173; PV, 80].
That is w hy, Marx made a high evaluation of the his torical significance of d ' Alembert's
methods. He wrote: "d' A1embcrt tore off the shroud of mystery from the differential calculus
and thereby took a great step forward" [MR, 175j PV, 801.
However, since, for d 'Alembert the starting Point remains that very representation of a
change of x as the sum: x+ the increment A X , which exists beforehand and independently of
the change of X - here the· di a lecti~ proper of the process of differentiation is not yet
revealed . And in c riticism of d' A1embert Marx makes the remark: "d' Alembert starts from (x+
dx) but corrects this expression changing it into (x + A x), and correspo nding ly into (x+ 11); now
a development becomes indispensable, with the belp of which A x o r" turns into dx, but the
entire develo pme nt, which actually takes place, is reduced to this" [MR, 221; PV, 100].
It is well known, that to obtain the derivaJive dyldx from the ratio of finite differences
Ay/Ax, d ' A1embert took recourse to the "transitio n to limit". In the manuals used by Marx this
passage to the limit came before the expansion of the expression f(x+ IJ) into a series of
ascending integra l powers of Ir. wherein the coefficient of " in its first power, was the
"ready made" de rivative f'(x}. That is why, the task was reduced to "freeing" it fro m the
multiplier h and from the other terms of the series. Howeve r, this could bave been done in a
more natural way, by s imply de finin g the derivative as the coeffici ent of h in its first power,
in the expansion off(x + h) into a series of powers of h.
Actually, in "the fi rst method 1), as well as in the ra tio na l 2), the unknown real coefficient
is manufactured in a ready-made form by the [use of] binomial theo rem, and is met with already
as the second term of the expa nded series, thus, in the term necessa rily contain ing hI.
Consequently, as in 1), so also in 2), the entire furthe r course of differentiation is a luxury.,
This is why,le t us cast aside this useless ballast" [MR, 177; PV, 81].
 I'REFACE i3

Lagrange the founder of the next stage in the development of the methods of differential
calculus, of the "purely algebraic" calculus according to .Marx's periodis:ltion, did exactly
the same thing. At first Marx very much appreciated the method of l..:lgrange, "whose tbeory
of derived functions provided a new basis for the differential calculus" [MR, 193; PV, 88].
Usually f(x+ h) is expanded into a powered series of h, with the help of Taylor's theorem.
Historically, this theorem appeared as the completed construction of the entire differential
calculus, and thereby turned into its starting point, connecting it directly with [the existing]
mathematics, which comes before the Ldiffcrentiallcalculus (it does not use the specific
symbolism of this calculus). In this context Marx commented: "The real, and accordingly
the simplest, interconnection between the new and the old, is always discovered only when
this new itself already attains its final form, and it may be said, that in the differential
calculus this return (taking) backwards was carried out by the theorems of Taylor and
Macl..:lurin. [The theorem of MacLaurin may be viewed as a particular instance of Taylor's
theorem, and Marx too did the same; see: MR, 195 & 197; (PV, 88*89).] That is why the
idea of leading the differential calculus on to a strictly algebraic foundation was conceived only
by Lagmnge" [MR, 199; pv, 901
However, Marx soon found out that Lagrange failed to effect this reduction.
As is well known, Lagrange attempted to prove, that "generally speaking", i.e., save "certain
particular instances" where the differential calculus is "not applicable", the expressionf(x+h)
2
is decomposable into the seriesf(x) + ph + qh + rhl + ... , where p, q, r, ... - the coefficients
of the powers of 11, are the new functions of x independent of h and arc "derived" from [(x).
Largrange proposed a proof of this. In essence, this proof did not have sufficiently exact
mathematical sense. Naturally, it did not come off. Marx wrote about it: "This leap from
the ordinary algebra, and besides with the help of ordinary algebra, into the algebra of
variables [Le., into the general theory of functions, which rellects movement and change in
general - EeL], is accepted as an accomplished fact; it is not proved and, first of all, it
contradicts all tlte rules of ordinary algebra" [MR, 207; PV, 93].
And about the "initial equation" of Lagrange Marx concludes, that it is not only unproved,
but also the very "deduction of this equation from algebra rests upon a fraud" [MR, 207; PV,
94 1.
In the concluding part of Marx's incomplete manuscript [on Taylor 's Theorem]
Lagrange's method appears as the completion of the methods of Newton and Leibnitz, corrected
by d' AJembert. It is the "algebricisation" of Taylor's formula, carried out with the help of
this method itself. "Thus did Fichte side with Kant, Schelling - with Fichte and, Hegel -
with Schelling, wherein neither Fiehte, nor Schelling, nor Hcgel did investigate the general
basis of Kant, of idealism in general; or else they could not have developed it further"[MR,
209; PV, 94].
We find that in the historical essay Marx gave us a graphic example, from his point of
view, of the application of the methods of materialist dialectics in the science of history of
mathematics.
* *
*
 14 PREFACE

Preparation of the present edition of Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts entailed a lot

of work.Texts of the manuscripts had la be deciphered in their entirety.The work co nn ected
with the dating of the manuscripts had 10 be carried out. Marx's own statements were
s~paratcd from the extracts and.notes taken by him. Storage Units had to be formed as unbroken
pieces of manuscripts, on the basis of an analysis of the mathematica l contents of the
manuscripts (in fact many manuscripts are not contained in copy books, but are separate sheets
- often quile disorderly). In the overwhelming majority of instances the sources, from which
Marx took notes or extracts, were ascertained. All original comments of Marx contained in
th~e notes were singled out, by compa ring the notes with their sources. All independent works
and comments of Marx were translated into Russian .
. The task of separa ting the origina l comments of Marx from the notes and extracts,
involved a series of difficulties. Marx wrote the notes for himself, to have the necessary
material on hand. As usual, he used a large number of most diverse sources. But if the source
did not deserve a special mention, if, for example, it was simply a compiled text book, quite
widely used in En·g land at that time, then often Marx did not mention it as the source of an
extract. The task was further complicated by the fact, that most of the books used by Marx arc
now bibliographical rarities. Finally, this entire work could be completed at first hand, only
in England, where the stocks of corresponding literature were inspected and studied in detail,
for solving this prob lem. This was done in the following libraries: the British Museum, the
libraries of the London and Cambridge Universities, Ihoseofthe University College of London ,
of the Trinity and SI. James Colleges of Cambridge, of the Royal Society of London, as well
as in the person.al libraries of the eminent English scientists of 19th century - De Morgan
and Graves. Inquiries were made also in the other libraries, for example, at the St. Catharine's
College and elsewhere. There are some manuscripts, for which it was natural to assume that
their sources were German; For these, the German historian of mathematics Vuccing inspected
the library stocks of G.D.R at the request,hC tbe Institute.
A few miSSing pages of the manuscripts were obligingly supplied, in photocopies, by the
Institute of Scoial History of Amsterdam, where the originals of Karl Marx's mathematical
manuscripts are being preserved.
Since these manuscripts are of a draft character, omissions and even computa tional errors
are to be found in them. In this edition the corresponding insertions or corrections have been
placed within square brackets. In this connection all the square brackets of Marx had to
be changed into double square brackets. Marx wrote some words in an abbreviated iorm.
We have given their full form. But the text remains in the main unaltered. In p laces even the
old spell ings have been retained.
The principal language of these manuscripts is German. But if the source was in French
or English, then Marx's often wrote the ent ire text of the corresponding manuscript in French
or English. In a number of instances Marx's text turns out to be so mixed up, that it becomes
difficult to state, in which language that manuscript was originally written.
The task oC dating the manuscripts with exactitude also entailed a lot a difficulties. These
difficulties have been mentioned in detail in the description of each separate manuscript. These
descriptions have been provided in accordance with the archival number of the manuscript
 PREFACE IS

and th e tiUe conferred upon it, characterising its source and conlent. Where the title or the
sub-title belongs to Mane himself, it has been put within quotation marks, in the original
language, as wel l as in the Russia n transla tion. In the first part of the present volume. the liUes
which do not belong to Mao( are accompanied by an aster is k ma rk.
Descriptions of the manuscripts have been givcn following the order of the archiva l
sheets. In these descriptions, while indicating the archival sheets, Marx's own numera tions
of the pages have also been given, including thosc in letters. The published tcxts of Marx arc
everywhere acco mpanied by numbers o f the archival sheets, indicating ",here they are to be
fo und. [All these manuscripts arc related to Stock 1, Inventory 1 o f the Archives of the
ers twh ile Ins titute of Marxism-Leninism of th e Central Comm ittee of the Communist Party of
Soviet Union - Tr.]
In ma ny cases the language of Marx's mathema tica l manuscripts is different rrom the
language which we now use, and to understand the ideas of Marx it becomes necessa ry to turn
to the sources used by him and to expla in the mean ing of the terms used in them.Such
explanations have been given in Ih~ notes at the end of this book, so as n,at 10 interrup'l
Marx 's texts. Where more detailed informalions about the c;o nlcnts of the sources used by Marx,
were deemed necessary, the same has been provided in the Appendix. Al l such notes and
insertions are of a purely factua l character.
The texts of Marx conta in a large number of underlines with wh ich he s tressed the places
which appeared to be especia ll y important to him . All such stresses have been reproduced
herc by using specia l. type faces.
* *
*
Th is volu me has been prepared by late Professor S.A. Yanovskaya of the M. V .Lomonosov
State University o f Moscow. The Preface, Description of the Mathematical Manuscr ipts (put
together with the help of AZ Ryvkin), Appendix and Notes belong to her. Professor K.A.
Rybnikov took part in the preparation of Ih is vo lume. That apart, he conducted the huge
work of bringing to ligh t the sources Karl Marx used, while he worked on his Mathematical
Manuscripts. Com ments and advices of academicia ns A.N. Ko lmogorov and l. G. Petrovsky
have been taken into accou nt wh ile preparing the presen t edition.
A. Z. Ryvkin (of the Main Editorial Office of Physico-Ma thema tical Literature o f the
"Na uka" Publishers) and O.K. Senekina (of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C C
CPSU) conducted the entire editor ial work connected with this volume, the preparation fo r its
printing and proof- reading.
This volume carries an indcx of the literature quoted and mentioned, as well as a name
index. In the indexes the references to the pages of Marx's text have been indica ted in ita lics.

In stitute of Marxism-L eninism

CCCPSU
 KARL MARX
MATHE'M ATICAL
MANUS,CRIPTS
 PART I

DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS:
ITS NATURE AND HISTORY

3 ,-
__ . •L
 TWO MANUSCRIPTS
ON
THE DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS
 I
• ON THE CONCEPT 01' THE DERIVED FUNCTION 1

I
Lcllhc independent variable x increase to Xl and thcn the dependent variable y increases to
2
Yl ,

Here, s ub I). the simplest case is heing invcslignlcd. Hcrcx appears only in its first power.
1) y _ ox ; if x increases to XI' then YI - aX1 and YI - Y _ a(xj - x). If now wc carry out
the difJercmicll operation, i.e., a llow XI to decrease to x, then wc wou ld gel
x\"",x;Xj-x"O,
hence,
a(x j -x) - (1-0 -0.
Further, since y increased to Yt only .owing t Q the facllh al, x inc rcascll to XI' wc would also
have

Thus,
Y, - Y - a(xj - x) would turn inlo 0 = O.
Thus, a l first the pos tul a tio n of a diffe rence, <1 lld the n its inverse remov.,1 w ill lead
literall y, 10 lIothing. The e ntire difficulty in understanding the differential opera tio n (as in
Ihal of any /legation of negatioll w hlltcvcr) lies precisely in see ing how it differs from
such a simple procedure, a nd thus leads to vnlill results.
If wc div id e aCx. -x), and a lso, correspondingly, the left hand side of the equation, by the
factor XI -x, then wc sha ll get
YI - y
- --a.
Xl -x
Since y is a dependent variable. it can by no means accomplish any independen t movement.
That is why [here, as y _ axl YI cannOloccame equal to y, and so too YI - Y can not beco me
equa l to 0, unless earlier x. became equa l to x.
On the other hand, wc saw that Xl cou ld no l become eq ual to X in the [unct io n a(x 1 - x),
unless the latter turned into O. That is why, the factor Xl - xwas Il ecessarily afillile difference 3
at Ihal moment, when wc divided by it, both the sides of th e equation. Thus, at the moment

o f co ns ti tu li ng the ratio y, - y , XI -x always presents iL<;ell"as a fi nite difference, and hence,

xl-x
YI -y
is n ratio of fin ite differences; accord ingly
x,-x

And thus,
E.. .. a
6x '
 20 MA'nmMATICAL MANUSCR[[>TS

where the co ns tant a fignrcs as the Iimit 5 0f the ratio of [inilc differences of the variables.
Since a is' a constant, neither it, nor, consequen tly, the right hand side of the equation,
reduced 10 it, mCl Y undergo any change. In that case, the differential process runs its course in
the left hand side:
y, - Y 6."
- - or =
xl-x I1x'
and this is a cha'racleristic of slIch simple functions as ax.
Let. in the denominator of this ratio, r the variahle] x\ decrease, approaching x; the
limit of its decrease is att.:lincd, as soon as x\ turns il1lo x. With th is the diITcrcncc x\ -xwill
become equa l to x\ -x ... 0, and hence also YI - Y "" Y - y ""' O.

W~ thus obta in , ~ "" a.

Since in the expression *
every trace of its origin and its meaning has been wiped out, we

change it into ~, where the finite differences x, - x or 6 x and y, - y o r 6yappearsymbolized,

~
.
as removed or vanished differences, so that . t!J. Th us,
" , 6x turns mto dx'

1x - (I,

dx are in fact only infinitely small (lnd Ith:lt their ratio] merely approaches
as will be shown tangibly, further, sub It) , 11 requ ires to be
*'
The closely hcld consolation of some ralionnlizing m;lthcma ticians, that the quantities dyand

mentioned
is a chimera,
fnrther, 115 a
'charac'teristic of the instance under consideration, that as EL = a, likewise El.. = a i:e., the
, '. 6x ~

limit [of the ratio] of finite differences is at the same time nlso Ihe limit lof the mtioJ of the
differentials,
2) The following may serve as the second example of the same case:

y-x

y, - y or ~"" 1 o d"
x, -x 6x o or dx""1.
11
When y - f(x}, "'::'.kJi'·t:~in at the rig~t _hand side of the equation the function x is situated
in its expallded'l1lgebfafc expression,6,. ihen, we c.:a ll it the expression (or the initia! function of
x ; its first modification, obtai ned through the postulation of a ditTerence, [is calledJ the
 ON 'IlIE CONCEPT OF '1'1 rE DErHVI]) FUNCT!ON 21

preliminary "derivative" of the fll nc tio n x ; llnd the rim!! rorm wh ic h i t tn kcs as a result o f the
differential p r ocess I'is called I the "derived" jU llctio" o f x 7
1) y_ax 3 +bx 2 +cx_e.
I ( x increases to Xl' then

Yt - (u:/ + bx t 2 + cX j - e,
Y, - Y - a (XI) - x 3) + b (X 12 - x 2) + C (Xl -x) '"
- (l (XI -x) (X12 +XIX+X2) + b (Xl -x) (XI +x) +c (XI - x).
He nce,
Y
- - - or ~ = a (X, 2 +x, +X2) + b(x, +x) + c.
)'1 -
Xl -x !:t.x -
The prelimiIlGr)' "deriwlliv('''
. a(.\/+x\x+x2)+h(xI+x)+c
is herc Ihe limil of the ralio of finite differences , i.e., however sm<lll we may hIke these
differences 10 be • thL: v,iluc ur ~ wi ll be g iven hy this "dcriv;llivc". However, it does not
~x
coincide, as sub f) , wilh the Jimit of the ratio or di!Tcrcn lials·,
If in the [unction

the variable x J decreases, till italt;lins the hotllldary of its dccreasc ; I.e., lil l it be1.."omes eqlllll
to x, then :1."1 2 (urns into X2, XI x inlo x 2 and XI + x into 2x and wc get the "derived" jUllction
of x:
3ax 2 + 2hx + c.
He re it is cLear, that :
Firstly, ror obtaining the "deriv:ltive" it i~ cS!'-icnliallo ;tssu me l'lilt Xl "'X, he nce in the !ifr icl
ItI t1flrematica! sense Xl-X = n, without a ny suhterfuge cOlH.:cr ni ng m er e l y i n fi n ite
approx i ill,l tion.
SecQnd!y, the assumption thal Xl - x , line! hence, XI -x - 0, does not introd uce an y th ing
symbolic intu the "dc rivaLivc·""*.
The lUagnitl\{le xi' introduced initi.11ly through the chilnge o f x, does no t van ish, it is
merely carried (0 its minimal limit =
x, and remains once agitin 1tn clement introduced in
Ihe initial function x, which in comb in<llions partly with itsel f, find pa rtly with the initia l

• In Ihe rough dmn or thi., work (S, U.N . 4 L46, ~.4), "ner Ih is !,hm~ c it is s~i d :"On Ihe o!hcr h~ lld, now
Ihe difrl~rcl1li"l process lllkes plil(".c in the prelill1in;,ry "derivalive" oflhe funclion .1' (righ l hand side) ,while,
ill the left hand side, the same pfOCC'SS ncccss;IJ'ily <l<xolOpanic~ Ihis 1l1()Vcmcnl'· . -Ed.

** [n pJHcc of thi~ in the dran it is said. "b) The M:nn'h [or the "derivativc" from Ih!! initifl! function x so
procceded, Ihal ~I fir~1 wc undcrtook <l few finil': dilfert!lIli(Jlion~' [asslIInptiom; nf nni1~' dir[('rcnl,;csl~ the la!lcr
,.
g~vc us Ihe prel iminnry "daiv:ll;\'C", which is the limit or ~'.:. . The dilTercn!ial process 10 wh kh Wl~ pm;>. lIve r
after thi s, ,akes this iimillo ils minimal value. Thc magnitudc XI' intr(lduced in thc (ir~1 Jiffcn:ntilltiolJ do(,s nOI
vanish ... " ..- Ed.
22 MA1TlEMATICAL MANUSCRWrs

func tiofj, .g ives us the fin al "derivative", i.e., the prelim ina ry "derivative", carried to its
;lIinimal value.

Reduc tio n of Xl into ~ ins ide the first (p rel iminary) "derived " functio n turns M.. o f the le ft
Ax
hand s ide into %o r ~ , tha t is to say
o dv
- or :;:.L. ... 3ax2 + 2hx + c
o dx '
so that the derivative appears as the limit o f the ra tio o f diCCcrcntials.
Th e tra nscendental or sy mbo lic mishap occurs onl y in the le ft hand s ide, but it has alread y
los t its horrifying Corm, since, now it occ urs o nly as a n exp ress ion of a process, the rea l
contcnt o f w hich has Illrca,d y been revealed , in the right hand side of the eq uation.
In the "derivative "
3m:2 + 2hx+e
the variable x is situated under co nditions cntirely d iffe rent from those ob tained in the initial
func tion "," (namely, i.n ax.l + bx 2 + ex - e). That is w hy .it [this deriva tive] in il<; turn ca n appear
as an initial Cunction a nd, w ith the hel p o f a re newed di ffe rential p rocess, can become the
mother o f some o the r "deriva tive". This may be repea ted till the variable x fina ll y becomes
bere ft o f all "derivatives", hence, it may continue e nd lessly [or fun ctio ns of x, presented onl y
cl'y d'y
as in finite serises, as is o ft en the case. Th e sy mbols ~' (JXJ etc. merely indicate the

genealogica ( ,,·deriva tivc'; in r~spect o f the initial functio n o f x, given at first. T hey become
m ys terio us; whcn they arc treated as th e starting points o f moveme nt, a nd no t s impl ~ as
expressions of successively deduced func.lions of x. Then it rea lly secms aston ishing, that the
~a. tio o f va nishin g quantities must agai n pass thro ug h hig hcr orders o f vaniShi ng, whil e no
o ne , :wonders, ·fo r examp le, about the fact that 3x 2 may pass th rough the process of
differentiation, as s uccessfully, lIS d id its grandmother x-1. It is poss ib le to proceed from 3x2,
j u~t as from t~ e in.ilia l functio n o f x.

However, nolabelle. ~ appears as the starti ng point of the differential process, in

fac t, o nl y in t hose equations, which wc ·had sub I), where x en te red only in to its Cirst power. B ut
then , as s hown 'sub J), as a result, wc get

M.. .,. a_!!l

ll·x dx '
Th us, here, with thc help o f the di ffe re ntial process, Ih rough w hic h M..
~x
passes, in fac t no
new limit is fo und. This [sellrch for a new li m it] is possible, o nl y in so fa r as the preli mina ry
"derivative" contai ns the varial:i lex, i.e., in so far as ~ remains a symbol of some real
 ON 11tr:.CONCEPTOf TIlE DERIVeD FUNCTION

y
,' ,=,/xfl etc ., a nd their
process·. Of course, Ihis does not in any way preven t the sy mbols !!l.
(X (.

comb inations, in differentbl c<llculus, from en tering also into the right hand side o r th e Ctl ualio n.
But then, we also know, that such purely symbol ic eq ua tions merely indicate those oper(ltions,
w hich must subseque ntly be carried OU I, upon th e rea l functio ns of the variables.
2) y_ox".
If x turns into XI' then y\ .. axt' and YI - Y- o(x\'" - X"') ..
- a(x, - x) (XI",-I + X j ",-2 X + x1"'-} Xl + e lc. uplO the term x,"' - '" x;m-I).
Hence,

y, - y o r ~Yx _a(~"'{'-I+)."'{'-2x+Xj _ .lx2+ .... +xr - "'.l.m-I).

XI -x u

If we now apply the differential process to this nprelimillary derill(~tille", so tha l Xj becomes
equa l 10 x or xI - x becomes equil lto 0, then

""-.
•
turns
,
;nlo X",-I. ,
Xj- 2X " X",-lX_X", - l.l_xm- 1

Xj-}x 2
, = x"'- J + 2 '" X",-I
" X"' - }X2

and fin a ll y,
xi - "'X'" - I " " xm - "'X",-I -xO.", - 1 _xnr- I.
We thus ob tain, m times, the funcl ion X", - I, and tha l is w hy the -derivative" is ma.l.... -'.
Owing to the eqUlLlisation x\ -x inside the fl prelim inary deriv<l livc"··, o n the left hand s ide
6v . 0 dv h
.=L. turn s mto - or::.L, em:c,
I1x 0 dx
dy .. 111',,,.,,,-1
dx ..... .
It is poss ible to set fo rth all the operalions of differentia l calclll us in this manner, hut th at
would be awfully useless pedantry. All the same, we sha ll cite }]cre onC more exa mpl e, s ince
in the fo regoing, the dirference XI - x entered inlo Ihe func tio n x ollly Ol/ce , and that is why,
wh il e cons ti tuting the expression
y,-y
or ~
6x
il vanish<::d from the rig ht ha nd side.
Th is does not h:lppen in the fo llowing instance:
3) y .. aX j

• The correspondinl,; senlcnce in the dmf! reads thus (shed 7): "11 may be ohll1ined only Ihere, wh cre the

such th:l\ "*

preliminary/derivative" contains the vllrill\lle x, for ils movement loo. may ("orm some genuinely new value,
is Ihe symbol of some real process~ .-Ed
•• That is in the right hllnu side. - Ed.
 MA'l1lEMATICAL MANUSCR1JY 1S

if x turns into XI' then

YI - a".
Hence,
YI - Y'" a" - er .. tt'(a~'-" - 1)
[But]

Hence,
YI - Y - a~(a"' -x -1)-
(x -x)(, - x- 1)
_ a' /(X I - x)(a _ 1) + I • 1 (a - 1)2 +
. 1,2

+ (x , - x) (x, -x - 1) (x, -x- 2) (a - 1)'- + etc, I .

1,2,3

y - y~x (x -x-I)
:.9 x:-x or xx- «,,(a -1)+ 11-2 (a- 1)2+

+
(x , -x-l) (x,-x-2)
' . (a-1)3+ctc. .
I
1,2,3
If now Xl becomes equal lO x, hence XI -x beco mes cqual to zero, then we ob l(lin as the
"derivative"

trj(a-.l)- ~(U - I)2 +~(a-l)'-c,c,I, .

Thus,
~ . 1 1
dx -a'i(a -1)- 2(a-1)'+3(a -l)' -c,c,l,

If we now dc'signate the s um of conslanis within the hmckcts by A , then

dY '.-A a" .
dx •
here, however A = the Nllpierian loga rithm of the number a, s'o
~ or, I' (" m pace
I0 f 'Its va Ilie,· t hen -da' - Ioga·at , an d dO'" _ log a'a"dx
y wc put
dX ~

Additio/lal/ylD.
We have :
1) co nsidered the case, where the fetctor (XI-X) is cont(lined only once in [the expression
leading to J the ''prelimillary derivati~'e", i,e" in the finite difference equation ll , owing to
which, when both the parL'; arc divided by (Xl - x), Lan expression] is formed [for]
 ON TIlE CO NCEPT O F TIlE DERIVED I'UNC110N

Y, - Y 6v
-
Xl
- 0'
-X
=
L\.x
[w hic h does not conta in en tries of the di ffe rence (Xl -x)], i.e., this factor is excl uded (ra m the
fun c tio n x;
2) considered the case (in the example: d (a~». where the fac tor (XI - x) remains in th e [ unction
x a ft er [the ra tio J ~ is fo rmed l2 .
6x
3) Still remains to be cons idered the case, where the fllctor (XI - x) is 1101 immediately
excl uded from the fi rst difference equa tion [leadi ng to] (" the pre lim ina ry de r iva ti ve~)
y - ..fill+iI.
) '1 _ va2 +X2I'
YI - y- ../a2+xl-~;
We s hall divide th is fu nction of x-conseq uenll y, al so th e le n ha nd s idc- by Xl- X . Then
y,-y (o r At) ../0'i+x1-..fiif+Xi
XI-X lix Xl-X

In o rder to free the numerator of irra tiona lity wc mU ltiply both the numerator a nd denom inator
by ../a 2 + x~ +..fiiI+iI and get
~_ 02 + xi - (0 2 +X2)
11 X (XI - x)(v'a 2 + x1 + ../02 + Xl )
xl _X2

Bu t
xi - x~
(x] - x) (../0 2 + x1 + ../a2 + X2)
(Xl - 1')(X] +x)
= 7(x~,-_~xi)~(~vFa'~+~xl~+~v~a~'+~x'~)'
Hence,
At XI +x
lix" ../a1. + x21 + ../02 + X2
If now XI becomes equa l to x, o r XI - x beco mes eq ua l to 0, the n
!!.r _ 7.x .. x
dx 2vo1. + x1. "0 2 +1'1.'
Hence,

dyor d v0+X·"a
2 2 xcix
2 + x1.'

4
 'ON THE DIFFERENTIAL 13
I
'~ .".-. ' .,' .,'
1) SUppO!liC the function [(x) or y=uz is to be differentiated, where u and z arc both
fUl.lc.~ions ~cpend~l}.tupon the independent.. variable x; . they arc illllcpcndenl variables
rc~a!t'i~e to (unction y dependent upon them, which, thus depends also upo~ x.
the
Yl- "Ill,

.\ ;- Ye Y - "l ZI -;- IlZ'" ZI( U 1 - Il) + U (ZI - z),

ul.!.z ..
6.x .

Now, if in the right hand side XI becomes equal to x, consequently XI -x- 0, then
u 1 - u - 0,
";,,1; .
Zl - Z - 0, hence, [in the expression
,
J Z I XIIIl =Xfl the fact or ZI also turns intq z and
.

fin ally. in the left hand s ide YI - Y '" O. Thus

.!!1.- du dz
A) ax.-zTx+u(lX·
'\ ' ",. ! •
This equation, being multiplied by the denominator dx comm~n to alllcrms, turns into
B) dyor d (uz) ... zdu + UdZ l4 •
2) Let us, at first consider the equation A) :
E1.. z dft + It dz.
dx dx dx
In the equatio ns wi th o nly o ne variable depe nde nt upon x the rimil result was alwa ys

*-1' (x) ,
where !'(x), the first derived fun ction of f(x) , was free from all symbolic expressions1!i,like,
for example, nu"' - I, in the instance where J."'" is the ' initial fun ction of the independent
variable ' x. Precisely owing to the processes of Jifferentiation, through which the function
f(x) had 10 pass, in order t9 turn into !'(x), there appea red , opposite the latter, Le., opposite
the real differential eoefficient l6 , on the lefl hand side, as the symbolic equivalent of its double,
~ or~. On the olh~r hand, ~ or ~ thus found its rea l cquivalentcin!'(x).
, I . . • . ." I' •. ' I' ·
In theequation A), the first derivative ofllz ,!,(x) itself, conlai,!-ed within i.t the symbolic
differential co-efficients, which, that is why, s tood 01.1 bo th sides," while on n'cither s ide they
had any real value . But since, in our Ireatmenlof IIZ we followe'd the sa me method as earlier,
when we operated upon the functions of x with 'only one independent variable, this contrast"in
result is obviously conditioned by tlte s.pecifi c character of the .initial, fun ction itself, i.c., of
Itz. On this in greater detail, sub 3) .
• The latter part or.this equality was completed by Engels. - Ed.
 . .......• .!j~--.,,_. , .. .:.." '.. _, c"';:"''''-'-i)'
-- .... . . -.r".- ............... ""..... -, - . ~ '....",.. \. "" ~ .......
" (jI.
~ . - ......
. "

..
~ .. .

'.'T":'-' ., ....
..... \. .......,-~\.
... \ . ' 44- ..... : ...... ..
...•
~ .
I. \ ~\ •

.....
,'~ '"
".•,:,..; .... ..... ,,'.
.,: \
\
'\.
,\.

" .. \0 ..1'- ';\.....

" ,_'" , . ; .... . '\ ~ ~\ •• \" t . • ; :'.~ _ ;\ . : ~~ .
•• '\1,.-.:• ..:_."l. -\ ... ..'- .. - .
.... , . \ _ Itr _t'"" .,

-
.' ,
."
. - ;-- •• I . • V' .. '\_
,' ......
... \ \
-. ... 1.\:....,....;. ~"'_\'_ . _ ~\o .~ :
I ,
. ,'" ~\o,i_\. ...... _""'.. , _ .......~ •.,...I..ol-1...
'.
...... _l\oo.\ .....'..:.
.--

.' .'
. ~

.."
\ ,,"

PIIOTOCOPY OFTI-/E FIRST PAGE OFTHE MANUSCRIPP ON THE DIFFERENTIAL".

 28 MA1111:MATICAL MANUSCRlJYfS

However, preliminarily, let us cons ider furth er, whether or not there arc any snags in the
deduetion of equation A).
In it'i right hand part

turned into ~.
du dz
*. since XI became equa l tox, hence.x]- x .. O. BUl, in place of * ,~ we wrote

- - without much of a reHeetiu n. Was this permissib le under the circumstances, that

*
dx' dx'
Ihese 5 figure here as multipliers of tile vtlriables El and z respectively, whereas in the
instances involving one dependent variable the sole symbolic differentia l co-e ffi cient obtained
therein - gor ~ - did nol have any multiplier, save' the constanll?

If on the fig ht han d S IOd ewe S Ubstltute '

0 h
lor
0 .
t e express ions -ddll ' -ddz ,t helr
' .mltta
" I malO lorm,
0 ,

x x
'h~n il turns into zQ + Cl Q , Had we multiplied furth~r z and 11 by the numera tor o f [Ihe

expression]
o
~ nccompanying
0
eaeh of them, then we would have got * +
variables z and It themselves became equal to 2ero 17, th eir derivatives too arc equal to zero;
~,and since the

hence, in the end

~- 0, and n~t z ~ + 11 ~ But this pro~cdure is mathematically wrong.

Take for example,

U 1 -1t All
xl-x - Ax .

The numerator turned out to be = 0 not because wc st.lfted with the equalisation u 1 - I t .. 0 ;
,he numerator beca me equa l 10 zero, or 11 1 -" .0
on ly beca use, the denominator,
i.e., difference of thl? independent va riable x or xJ -x became equal ,to zero.

Thus opposite the variables 11 c:t!ld Z sL1 nds no t 0, bul ~, the numerator o/which is, ill this

fortn. inseparable from its denomi/lator. That is why ~ as a mulliplier ca n turn its

co.-efficients into zero, on ly when and in so far as ~ - 0 .

Even in the ordinary algebra, had the prod uct p. ~ appeared in lhe form p . .Q • it would
o 0

have been wrong, to draw the conclus ion straight off from there, that it must be equal to zero,
 ownn: DlFFEREN'!1M, 29

though here it call be always assumed to be equal to zero, so long as we can nrbitrari ly s tart
the null ification e ith er from the numemtor or from Ihe denominator lS ,
x 2 _a 2
For example, P' - - -, If we assume I'that x = a, wherefrom I x 2 .. a2 , i,e., x 2 - a2 :o 0,
x-a
o 0
thcn wc sha ll gct P' - .. - , And Ihe la tte r may always be assumed to be equal to zero, s ince
o 0
~ may as well be zero as also it can be any other [number].

If we expa nd x 2 - a 2 into its factors, then we sha ll get

p.~=:. (x+a)""P(x+a)
and, since X:z a IQ, '" 2Pa,

Sllccessive differentiation - ror exam ple, or [the fun ct io n] x 3, where oo becomes = 0 only

for the fourth derivative, since in the third the va riahlc x has vanished and has been
'
su bstltute db y a consl.<'Int -s hows tIlal., on I y un der camp IeleI
y d , ns 0
' d co nd'IlIo
ctcrmmc 0

becomes = O.
Howeve r, in n ur ins tHoce, where the or igin of these ~ , ~ as the differential expressions
~ ~ , ~ ~ ,
proper for .1.\: ' ill arc well known, the dress-coat or dx ' dx fll" them at once.

3) [n the equations considered ellri ier,like y .. X" ,), = a'~ etc, some il1itial function ofx stands
opposite the y, which is "dependent "on it.
In Y= uz both sides are OCCllpicd hy "depcndcnts ". Here, if y is immediately "dependent"
upon u and z, then u and z are. in their turn, dependent upr;n x.This specific character of the
initial function IlZ inevitnhly leaves its mmk upon its "derivative".
That Il is a function of x, and th at z is some other function of x, may be expressed as
follows:
,,- J(x),
that is why
z - <p (x), z, - z ~ q> (x,) - qJ (x),
But neilher (or f(x), nor for ~(x), does the initial eqwltion provide the primary fun ctions of
x, i.e., the determi nate values· in x. As a result of this /( and z figure only as names, as
symbols of functions dependent on x; that is why, only the Reneral forms of this ralio of
dependellce :
z)-z = CP(xl)-~(x)
X1-X XJ X

• Here in the sense or "cJclerminlllc expre~sions~, - Ell.

 30 Ml\lllEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

imm.ediatcly give the process of arriving al [he derivative of l/Z. When the process alia ins
the point, where it is assumed that XI = X, Le., XI-X'" 0, then these general forms turn into
du .!iL!cl dz _ E<clll
dx dx'dx

equations with only onc dependent variable,

apart from that of ~, ~~ here.

*
dx'
and the symbolic differential co-efficients as such appear inside !.he "derivative", But in (he
cc~tainly does not have any other

It 100 is only the symbolic differential expression [or

~on[cnt,

y, - y [(x,) - [(x) 20
Xj-X X1-X

dll dz
Though the naLure of dx ' dx' i.e., generally, that of the symbolic differential co-efficients
does not change a bit. if they appear inside the very derivative, i.e., also ill the right hand
side of the differential equation, thereby, however, changes their role as well as the char.acler
of the equation. .
I[ we reprcsent the initial fU'nclion of uZ"in the general form, by [(x) and. hc"nee, its first
"derivative" by [,(x), then
!!l.. du dz
dx- za:x+udx
turns into :

f& -['(x).
We obtain this general form, forequation~with only one dependent variable. In both the cl'lses
the initial forms of ~ emerge from the processes of deduction, which transform [(x) into

f '(x). That is why, as soon as [ (x) got transformed into f'(x), the latter
. also stood Oppl);s lte
. !il'.
dx
as its symbolic expression proper, as its double or symbolic equivalent.
This is why in both the cases ~ plays an identical role.

The case is somcwhat diffcrent with 1£ and *. Along with thc·othcr elements of [the

derivative]f'(x). wher~in they arc contained, they find in ~ their symbolic expression, th~ir
symbolic equivalent, but they themselves, on their part, do 'not stand opposite any f'(x),
<p '(x), for which they, in lheirlurn, would bcsymboJic doubles. They hav~ come into the world
one-sided.ly, as shado~s without the bodies which have cast them, symbolic differential
co-efficients . without the real differential co-efficients, i.e., without the corresponding
equivalent "derivatives". Thus, the symbolic differential co-efficient has become an
independent point ofdeparture, only its real equivalent must be found out. Thus, thc initiative
 ON 1'1-113 DIFI'[:REN·I1t\L 31

has shi fted from the right algehrai c po le, to the len sym bo lic o ne. Bul with this, the
dil'fc rential calculus too appea rs as a spec ific kind of calcu lus, alrcltdy operating indcpcllIJcntly
upon I, ts groun d
OW Il ,s ince d • -,dz arc mll llema
' "Its pOints 0 I' d. eparture -till I' llca I ma g llltu
' d cs,
x lX
wh ich belong o nly to this ca lculus and cha rac te rize it. And this reversal of the method
resulted here from the algebraic different ia tio n of uz. Thus, th e algebra ic method, by itself,
turns into its oppos ite, the differential method *. But, what arc the "derivatives " co rrespond in g
10 t he sym I10 I lC ' I co-e rr"IClcnts du
' d 'Il'rere ntla dz? TI le !nlla
dx' dx' ' ' I eq uation
' Y= IIZ docs no l g 'ive us

a ny info rmation to hel p answer, this question. However, it may be answered, if, in pla ce of u
and Z, o ne may ass ume some arbi tmry in it ial fun c tio ns of x, for example:
/I - x· ,z -:e +aJ?
But thereby itself, the symbo lic diffe rential coeffic ie nts arc ut once trll nsformcd into
operational symbols, into the sy mbols of processes, which arc to be curried out over x· and
x 3 + ax 2, for finding out thei r "derivatives". Having initiall y emerged as the sy mbo licexpress ion
o f the "deriva lives", i.e., of the opera tion s of the algebra ic tI ifferent iation nIready carried out,
the symbo lic differential co-erric ient now plays the role of th e symbo l of those operations of
differe ntiatio n, w hic h remain to the ca rried out.
Althc sa me time, with this the equa tion
!!i!.. du dz
dx-zdx+udx
- which is purely sy mholic fro m the vcry beginning, s ince no sitlc o f it is free from
symbo ls - turns into a general sy mbolic opera ti onal equation.
Wc no te further th at**from the beginning of the 181h century IIpto the present timc, the
general tas k of dirfercnli<ll C<l IClllu s is IIs ually formulated thus: how to rind Oll t the real
equivalent for thc sy mbol ic d ifferc ntial coefficient.
4)
A) El _ z dEl + El dz .
dx dx dx
* tn 11 df/lfl of the ~rlicle "On The Diffe ren ti al" Ih is pa rRhraph is set furlh liS foll ows [S.U.N. 414R,s. 16-17] :
~Con\lerscJy with ~:~ , :;.~. Bo m inside the de rivlltive, they,logelher with Ihe remaining elements of lhe Jaile r,
fi nd in !!l:.d(t Iheir symbolic expression proper. consequentt y. lheir symbolic cquivalcnl. \3u\ Ihey lhem~elvcs
x
exist wilhou t equi\llllent~, withoul proper differcnlilll co-efficicnls, i.e., wil hoUI Ihe de ri\llllives
['(x) , t(! '(x) of which, in their pa rt. Ihey would he symbolic expressiollS. They appear before us as
ready-made dilTerenlill1 symbols. whose real \lalues resemhle Shlldows, the bodies L"'Orresponding 10
which lire to be sought out. Thus the tas k. 31 ha nd lilerall y took a turn. The symbolic diffferentilll co-eCficicnls
became start;/f!; poin/.f in Ihe full sense of the words. Their cquivalenl$ - the differential co-efficients proper or,
Ihe corresponding de rived runelions'" arc still 10 be found out. Thcreby Ihe intiative hn s shi Oed from the righl
hAnd pole 10 Ihe leO. Since this inversion of method emerged (rom the algebraic mO\lement of Ihe function
U:, its basis is thereby algebrllic ·". -Ed..
** In the drafl : "save a few exceplions~. -:- EO.
 32 MAll IEMAllCAI. MANUSCIUP'I'S

Evidently, this is no t the si mples t expression o f the eq uation A), since all of il<; te rms
co ntain the com mon denomi na tor dx. Discarding this co mmo n denomin ator, wc get
B) d (uz) or dy =zdu + utlz.
In B) all the traces of its ori gin from A) has vanishccJ . 1l1at is why, it is correct, in that
si tuation whcn" a nLl z are dependen t upon x, as we ll as then, whcn they a rc o nly
in le rdcpcndcntZI - independent o f any relation with x w hatsoever. From the very beginning
it is a symbolic eq ua tio n and ca n, fro m the very beginn ing, serve as a sym bolic o pera tio na l
equation. Finall y, it asserts that, if
y - 21/ e ll';
i.c. t Y = the produc t o f Rny number ofva riahlcs, then dy = the s um of those products, in each
of w hich, onc of the multipliers is by turns cons idered to be a variilblc, o thers - cons tm ts.
However, fo r o ur purposes - na mely, fo r fu rther inves tigations in to the di ffe re ntia l o f y
ge ne rally - the form B) won't do. That is why , lf wc put
u _x 4 , z-~+ aJ?,
the n [we can operate furth er, as fo llows: ]
d". 4~ dx • dz .. (J.? + 2ax) dx,
as it has been shown earlier fo r equatio ns with on ly o nc dependent va riable. Let us put
these va lu es o f du and dz in the equation A). The n :

A) ti.l_ (' . ') 4x'dx .. (:lx' + 2ax) dx .

dx x + ax dx +.\ dx '
consequent ly,

~ .. (x 3 + ax 2 ) 4x 3 + x4 (3X2 + 2ax),

tha l is w hy .,
dy -/(x' + ax')4x' + x' (3x 2 + 2ax»)dx.
The expressio n w ithin brackets is the firs t deriva tive of uz, bu t since uz - f (x), its derivat ive
... J'(x). Pulling the la Uc r in pl ace of the algebra ic func tion, wc get
dy - [,(x) dx.
We have a lready obt:lined the sa me res ult fro m an a rbitra ry equatio n w ith o nl y o nc
independent va riable . fo r exa mple:
y-x",
~ - mx·- I - [,(x),
dy- [,(x)dx.
Ge nerally speaking, we ha ve: if y .. [ (x ), the n, irrespecti ve of the fact whe the r this fun c tio n
o f x is cert.'lin initial function in x o r whethe r it conta ins dependent va riabl es , [it is ] always
[the <ase th, t J dy - d[(x), alld d[(x) - ['(x )dx, such that
B) dy ... ['(x)dx is the universal form of the d ifferentia l of y. The same could .have been shown,
at o nce, also in the ins tanee whe n f(x) has the fo rm f(x, z), i.e., when it is a fun c tion of two
variables, indepelldcnt of ea2il olher. But tha t is unnct.:essa ry for our purposes.
 ON TIlE DlffEltEN'llAI . 33

11

1) J'he differential
dy - ['(x)dx
at first looks more suspicious than the d ifferentia l coefficient

~-['(x),
fro m which it is deduced .

In ~ - ~ the numerator and the denominator arc insepa rably connected with eac h other;

in dy - ['(x) dx they loo k separated, so that the co nclusio n s uggests itself, that this is o nly a
disgu is.ed expression for
O-['(x) - O or 0-0
with which "there is nothing to be done".
A French mathematician of the first third o f the 19th century - Bou charlat, who, like the
"elegant" Frenchman 22 known [to you], but in an en tirely different manncr, has clearly

*'
connected the di fferential method with th e a lgebra ic method o f L1grange, says:

If, for example, ~ .. 3x2, then ~ in o ther words ~ or , rathe r, its va lue 3x2 is the differential
coeffic ie nt of the fun ction y. Since ~ is thus a symbol, represe nting the limit 3x '\ dx s hould

a/ways have stood· under dy. But, to facilitate the algebraic operations we cons ide r ~ to

be an ordinary fraction and ~ .. 3x2 to be an o rdinary equation; freeing it from the

deno minato r we get as the result : dy _ 3x2dx, w hich is called the dirferentia l of y"23.
Thus, in o rder to ~ facilik1te algebra ic o perations" a fa lse formu la is deliberately
introduced, chris tening, it as the "differential ",

In reality th e case is not so fraudulent.. In ~ U the numerato r is inseparable from the

denominator. But w hy? Because only in th e unseparated form do they express a relation, in
this case the ratio
y, - y j(x,) - [(x)
xl-x x l-x
reduced to its absolute minimum 2\ where the numerator has become zero, beca use the
denominator has. Separated, they are both zeroes and that is why they lose the ir sy mbolic
mean in g, their se nse. But as soon as xl-x - 0 obk1ins in dx a Co rm wh ic h una llc rab ly
'" III the draft : "ternllined", -Ed,
•• In the draft: "In Ihe form ~". -Bd.

5
 MA"l1IEMA'nCAL MANUSCRIPTS
"
p resents it as a van ished difference of the independent variab le x, and conseq uentl y. also
dy as a van ished d iffere nce of the fu nction of x or, of the dependent variable y. such a separation
becomes an enti rely perm issible ope rat ion. W herever dx now st.1nds, s uc h a cha nge of position
Icaves the relation o f dy 10 it, untouched. Thus dy - [,(x)dx appears to us as another form of

~:H'(x),
and is always replaceable by the lattc r2S •
2) T he differential dy - j'(x)dx was obtained by direct algcblaic deduction fro m A) (sec I t
4), But algebraic deduc tion o f eq ua tion A) has already show n that, the d iffe rent ial symbo ls,
in the g iven insta nce the symoo lic differentia l coeffi cie nts - in itia lly orig ina ting o nly as the
symbolic expressions fo r algebra icall y ca rried out processes o f diffe rentia tion - necessa rily
lurn inlo independe nt sta rling po ints, in lO symbols of opera tions, w hic h s till rema in to be
carr ied o ut, o r inlo opc ratiomll symbols. In conseque nce, Ihe symbol ic equal io ns whic h
eme rged along algebraic lines, a lso turn inlo sy mbolic opera tional equa tio ns.
Th us we have a double right to consider dy - f'(x)dx 10 be ,I sym bo lic operationa l
equa tion. Moreover, wc now know a priori, that if in
y - f(x) [and J dy. df(x)
the d iffe rential opera tion indicated by d[(x) is to be performed upon [(x), lhen lhe resu lt w ill
be dy _ [,(x)dx and that hence, we fi nally obtain

~H'(x)
But [it happens} only fro m tha l moment, when the differentia l begins 10 fu nction as the
sta rting point of calcu lus, when lhe invers ion of Ihe algebra ic method of d iffe rentiation is
completed, and hence the differen tia l calcu lus itself appears as an altogcther special mode,
a specific way, of reckoning with lhe variable quantities.
To make it mo re g raphic, I sha ll put forward the sum tota l of the algebra ic method applied
by me, substituting moreover, o nl y the determina te algeb raic e xp ress io ns in x by the
ex pression [(x) and designating the "preliminary derivative" (see the first mss·) by [ I (x), as
distinct from the [inal "derivative" ['(x)
Now, ;[ f (x), y, f(x,) - y" [ then J
f(x,)-f(x) - y, - y 0' 6y,
f' (x) (x, -x) . y, - y 0' 6y.
T he prelimina ry de riva tive /1 (x), j ust li ke its multiplie r X l- X, must·" co nt.1 in expressio ns
in Xl and x, save the sofe exception,whcre [(x) is an initial func tio n of firsl power
f' (x) • y, - y o,.!£·
xl - x !J.x
Now, putting
Xl-X, i.e., XI -x -0 in
• See :" On The Concx:pl OrThe Derived Function" I PV,I9 J. Ed.
··'n the draft; ~mllst as a rule ".- FA.
 ON THE D tFFHRHN'nAl. 35

t (X), wc ge t :
1'(x) - Q
o or !!Y.
dx'
and finally:
/'(x) dx _ dy or dy - /,(x) dx.
The differential Of y is thus the final poin t of algebraic development : it becomes the
sta rting point of d ifferential calcul us, now moving upon its own ground. Here dy,
considered in an iso lated manner, Le., without its eq uivalen t the differentia l pa rt 26 o f y - at
o nce pla ys the same role, which I!y played in the algebraic method, and dx - the differential
part of x - plays the same role, which I! x playcd there.
Had we freed

~ - I' (x)
fro m its denom inator, [we wou ld have got]:

I) lJ.y-I '(x) lJ.x.

Conversely, starting from the di fferen tia l calculus as a ready-made, scparate means o f
computation - and such a sta rting point was, in its turn, derived algebraically - wc at once
begi n with the differential exp ress ion o f the equat ion I), namely with:
11 ) dy - /' (x) dx.
3) Si nce the sym bolic equatio n of th e differentiltl appears .already in the a lgebraic
trea tment of the most elementary functions with onl y onc dependent va riab le, it may seem
that, the invers io n of method too, could have been carried through in a manner, which is much
eas ier tha n what took place in the case of
y= UZ.
Th e mos t elementa ry fun c tions a re functions of the first power:

a)y -x, which gives the differential coefficien t *" _ 1, hence the differentia l dy - dx.

b) Y -x± ab , which g ives the diffe rentia l coeffic ient !!Y., _ 1, hence again the diffe rential
'x
dy- dx.
c) y - ax, w hic h gives the differential coeffidcnt -
~i a, hence the differential dy = adx.
Let us consider (he c:imp lest inslllnt"l' rsub a)1-
There: y - X, .1 I - XI ;
YI - Y or lly - Xl - X or I! x.

I) Yl-Y or~lJ.lJ.x- t;hcnccals\ldy -I!x.

XI -x

If, now, in .!\.t

llx we pu t XI -x or XI -x ,. 0, then:
 36 MA111EMAT1CAL MANUSCRIPTS

IJ) ~. or *" 1 ; hence d)' "" dx .

From the outset, as soon as wc obtain I ), Le., ~~ "" 1, wc arc forccll to ope rate further on
the left hand side of the eq uation, s ince the right hand s ide is occupied by the constant 1. But
with this the inversion o/method, which throws the initiative from the right hand side 10 the
left, appears, as if from the very beginning, proved once and for all, in fact, as the first word
of thc.[new]algcbraic method ilself. Let us L'lkc a close r look at the issue.
Th e actua l result was:

I) -
t~ 1

11) ~ Ol"*_l.
Since both I) a nd
assumption Xl-X - 0
ThaI apart, operati ng
side there is "nothing
U) leads 10 onc and the same result , we C:ln choose between them. The
is unnecessary in all cases, and is hence also an arb~trary op~ratio n.
further upon 11), Slarting from its left hand side, s ince on the righ t hand
to do", we get:

~ 01" ~- 0

The fin al conclusion would be ~ ... 0, i.e., the me thod by which ~ was obtained , was wrong.
At the first s tep it does not give us anything new, and at th e second leads already to nothing27 •
Finally, we know from algebra, that if the rig ht hand sides of two equatio ns are identical ,
then their left hand sides also must be identical. Hence it fo llows tha t,
<!x.~~.
dy I1x
But since x, and depending on it y, arc both va riable magnitudes, so tJ. x, while remaining
a finite difference, may, however, decrease infinitely; in other words, it may approach
zero as elosely as onc wishes, Le., may become infinitely sma ll ; ~o may tJ.y, which depends
upon it. From ~ - t~ it follows tha t ~ does not in fact designate the extravagant ~ , but
conversely, it is the ceremon ial dress-coat for :~, when the laller functi ons as the ratio of
infinitely small differences, i.e., [fu nctions] differently from the usual way of calculating
difference::;.
But the differential dy _ dx is, in ilS turn, bereft of all sense, or rather, has exactly only
that much sense, as much wc have discovered in both the differential parts, by analysing ~
. If we take the lalteronly in the value attached to it 28, then it is possible to perform wonderful
operations with the differential, as is shown, for example, by the role of atb:. in the definition
 ON TilE DIFFElmNllAL 37

of the sub-tangent to the parabola, for which an actua l entry into the nature of dx and dy is not
at all necessary,
4) Before passing over, to section III), where a very brief draft outline of the historic
cou rse of development of the differential calcu lus will be g iven, lel us exa mine onc more
example of the algebraic method , applied so far, For a clear cut chllraclerization of it, I shall
place the concrete function on the left hand side, which is alwa ys the side of initiative, since,
we write from left to right; hence also the general equation:
, ,.'
xm+Pxm- 1 + etc, + Tx + U ... 0,
and not
0- xm + Pxm- l + etc, + Tx + U,
Suppose, that the function y and the independent variable x have been separated and that
they are situated in two equat ions, of which the first presents y as the function of Ihe variable
U, 'and Hle seco nd ..:. 11 as the function of x,
and suppose, Ihat the sY;lIbolic' differelitial
coefficient common to both the equatiolls, is required 10 be found 29, Let :
1) 3112 _ y, 3u, 2 _ YI;
then
2) X 3 +ax2 • 11, x,J+ax I 2 • u,"
At first, from equation 1) wc gel:
" " "-., '
' 3u l '2 - "3u 2 - Yl - y,
3 (u l 2 - /1 2) .. Yl - Y,
3 (u l + u) (u l - U ) - YI - y,
3 (Ill + U") .. y,:- Y or
III - U
¥,
uU

*'
If now wc put in the left hand side u l - 11 , so Ihal uI - u _ 0, then

3(u + u) ..
3 (Zu) _ Ex.
du'
6u .. ~,
Let us insert in place of 11 its value x 3 + ax2, then:
3) 6 (x3 + ox') _ Ex..
dll
Now let us turn to equation 2), then:
xi + ax1-xJ - ax2 _1I 1 _ u,
(x~ _Xl) + a (X1-X2) .. UI -11,

(XI-X) (x~ + XIX + X2) + a (XI -x)(x l +x) - 11 1 -11,

38 MA" IEMA'neAr. MANUSCRIPTS

u\ - U au
(Xf+x\x+x2)+a(x\+x)- - - or~'
XI-X uX

Suppose on the left hand side of the equation Xl - x, then XI - x - 0, and hence
(X2 +xx +X2) +a (x+x) _ du.
- dx
. . du
4) 3x2 +2ax_ dx'
Now if we multiply the equations 3) and 4),thcn:
d, du d,'"
5) 6 (x' + OX2)(Jx2 +:Iax) - du' di - ~ ,
Thus, the operationa l formula
d.J' d.J' du '
/IX- fIij'/IX
has been found algebraicall}'.1t is at limes suilablc also fo r the cquntions with t\\"o inucpcndcnt
variables.

It will be obvious from the following example, that now no slc ig bt of hand is necessary
for giving a general shape" 10 the developments pbscrvcd in the concrete functions.
Lel :
1) y-/(u ). y, - I(u,). y, - y - I(u,) - I(u).
then hence

2) u - q> (x). u, - U - q> (x,) - q> (x),

From the difference sub 1) it follows that

---
y, - y
u\ - U
I(u,) - I (u)
"l - U
!!.ldl(u)
du" (fU"'
But since dI(u)" f' (u) du, therefore
!!.l_ ['(u) du ,
du du'
hence:
3) ~- ['(u),
From the difference sub 2) it follows that
"I - u _ cP (XI) - cP (x) du _ ~
xl-x X l - X ' dx dx'
 ON 'n lE DlFFEREN·Il AL
"
bu t since d cp (x) - ql '(x ) dX,thcrefore
du _ <p ' (x) dx ,
dx dx
hence:
4) '!l:: - q> '(x).

Let us multiply the equations 3) and 4), then :

dydu dy l l , ,
5) Tu' Ox or Ox - f (11). q> (x), and
this is what was req uired to be demonstrated ,

N.lII The end of this second installment will follow after I look over John L1nden in the
Museum32.
 ,.

' ...

, .

THE DRAFTS OF
AND ADDITIONS TO
"ON THE DIFFERENTIAL,,33
 *FIRST DRAFT" .
As soon as wc set ahout diffcrcntialing [(II, z) l = uz 1. whe re the va riables It a nd z arc
both. functions of x ,wc gct-as dislinctfrom thccn rlicr instances,where th ere was o nl y
o nc dependent variable, namely y - the di fferent ia l express ion on both skies, namel y:
ill Ihe first jllstance :
dv du dz
=·Z - +II-
dx clx ill:
ill the second, briefly:
dy .. Zdfl + udz .
The Jalter has not yel aW.incd thal form, whic h is ob ta ined in the case wilh OIlC de pe ndent
va ri,lble ; for example, in dy _ lr/aX"' - 1dx. Si nce here !!l'..dd l it once g ives us [,(x) .. max", -I ,
J

x
which. is free from dilTc rcn tia l s ymho ls. Such :t form has no place in dy .. zdu + udz. In
the eq uatio ns with o ne dependent va riable wc have seen once and for a ll , how the functions
de rived fro m Ilhe fun ctions in I x - as in the above men tioned ins llmce of x'" - <Ire obtaincd
throug h ac tua l di ffef.cntiat ion [ suppos ition of difference ] ri nd ito; subsequen t removal ,tnd,
how along with this eme rgc... the sy mbolic equ ivalent fo r the derived functio~ ~ - ~. Here
the s ubstitutio n of rx in pl ace of ~ is no t o nl y pcrm iss ihlc, but also in evitabl e, s ince in

its virgin primitive form proper ~ is eq ual to a ny magnitudc, in so far as ~ - X must tl lw:lYs

give 0 = O. However, he re 0oappea rs as equal to cert<l in entirely de fined particular vlt lue, as
equtl l to IIIX",-l ,a nd hy itself, it is thcsymho lic rcs ull of those oper<llio ns, by means of w hich
Ihis value is ded uced from x"'. And it is presentcd in E!ldd' in the capaci ty of suc h a resu lt.
x
dv 0
Consequently, he re d;( - 0) has been s hown in its eme rgence as the sy mbo lic value o r, as
the diffe ren tial express io n o f the a lready reduced [de ri ved] f'(x), and no t co nversely, no l
asf'(x) obtained through the symbo l -1x.

B ut at the same ti me ha vi ng once obtained this result, a nd hav ing thu s found oneself
already on the gro unds of differentia l calculus , converse ly, if fOf. examp le,
X'". J(x). Y
is required to be di ffe rent iated, then we know beforehand that
dy _ /1tX'" - ldx
or,
dy
dX· ,1IX",·I.

6
 MA'J1 !EMAT!CAL MANlJSC !t!!'"I'S

Consequcn tl y, here we proceed from the symbol; it ;.ppears as nothing more than thc resu lt
o f a deduction from thc functio n of x, but it is alrcmfy a ~}'lII holic (!xpr(!~.\·i()JlJ\ ind icatin g
which operations arc to be carried olltllpo n /(x) li.lT Oh't:ti ning the real value of ~;, i.e., o f

r(x). In the first instance, ~ or ~ is obtained as th e symbo lic equivalen t of [,(x), (l1~d in on.Jc r
to revea l the emerge nce of EJ;, it is essential to beg in w ith this; in the second instance,

r(x ) is obtained as the real va lue of the symbol !!J.

I . However, s ince the sy mbols
<X
~,
(/2y
dx 2 e tc. bec<l me operationa l formu];i s of the dilTeren till l calc u l u s·~6, they can also appellr in
the right haml side of the equatioll, in the capacity of such formulae, as has lllready happened
in the simplest insl.t nCe of dy _ r(x) dx. If, as disti nc t fro m the fact tha t such an equa tion
Il ppea rs in the given instance i n its final from, it does not al ~lIlce g ive us ~ ... r(x) ctc., then
th is signifies Ihal, it is an equation which o nly sy mholicnlly expresses: which operations arc
yet to he carried o ut upon definite fUllctions.
This is just what t.1kes place also in the s implest instance - d (ill). ~hbrc Il a nd l arc
both variables, hut, althe sa me time, these fu and lJ are fun c tions o f onc and Ih e S:i me th ird
va riahle, fo r exa mpl e of x 37,

Let us assume, tha t!(x) or y = III is to be differentiated, whcre u and l are hoth variahle~
dependent 011 x.
Then

and,

Hence,
Yl-y.~-~
xl-x xj .-x · x!-x
or,
k . U, ll-lIl
~X xl-x
But
III lj - U l - l. (u. - /I) + U (l! - z),
since this is equa l to
 ONTI-IE I)[FFEREN'I1 I\L

Thus
_,~
, ,~z~,_-_,_
, _z II I - Il Zl - Z
- z - - + ,, - -
XJ-X IX I -X X l -X

I f, o n the rig ht hand s ide,

Xl - x beco mes = 0, or XI becomes = x, then
Il t ':"U- O, i.e. , U 1- U and,zl -z " O,
i.e. , Zl -z; from this we ge l
!!1. -z-
du
+u-dz
dx dx dx
and hence
d (uz) o r dy .. WU + udz.
In respec t of Ih is di lTc re ntia tio n o f IlZ il is necessa ry to no te Ih il l, as distin ct fro m our ea rlier
ins umces, w he re we had ollly olle dependent variable, here the d iffe rent ial sym bo ls a re fo und,
at ()nce o n bOlh the s ides o f the equatio n, namely;
i,1 the first instance:
El.. _ z du + It dz .
dx dx dx'
ill the second :
d (uz) o r dy - zdu + udz,
wh ic h also has a form different fro m the o ne obt<tined in the case w he n there was o nc
ind epende nt v<lri il ble, ns, for examp le, whcn wc had dy .. J'(x) dx; sin ce he re di vis io n b y dx

at o nce g ives us ~ .. f'(x): as a s pecia l exp ress ion for the de ri va tive of the fun ctio n o f x, Ihis

J'(x) is free from symbo lic co -e ffici en L'i; it h ll S no place in dy .. zt/u + fl dz.
It has been s hown for th e [unc tio ns with ollly one dependent variable: how from a ce rtai n
fun c tion of x , fo r example, from f (x ) _ xm, a second fun ction o f x, J' (x) or, in the given
ins tance mx",-I, is deduced, through authentic differentiation and it.\· subsequellt remo val and

ho w from this ve ry process, a t the same time e merges the symboli c equivalent %- ~, in the
le ft hand s ide o f the eq uat ion, fo r the de rived func tio n.

Furthe r, he re Ihe suppos itio n of ~-~ was no t o nl y pe rm issihle, h ut ma thema ticall y

necessa ry, s in ce in its v irgin pri mitive fro m proper ~' can assume an y nume rical va lue, s ince
~ - X nlwnys necessari ly o
gives 0 = O. He re -o appea rs. as the symho lic eq uivale nt of some
 MA·I1IEMA'I'ICAL MANUSCIUP1S

entirely dete rm inate real value, for eX;lInple, of IIU.... - I ahove; and it itself appears on ly
<"IS the result of the ope rations by mCims of whic h Ihis va lue was deduced fro m x"'; as such a

result, it is consolidated in the fo rm 11..

, .
IX

Consequently, here, whe re !!l (_

dx
Q)0 has heen shown in il'i e merge nce,/ '(x) is not obla ined
through the symbol El"d' , but, conve rsely, the diffe rential express io n !!ldd is obta ined as the
x x
symbolic equivnlent o f the a lrcady derived function of x.
But as soon as th is resul t is obtllined, wc cil n operate in the reverse direction. If some
/(x) , fo r examp le x"', is requ ired 10 be differen tiilted, the n fi rs t of a ll we see k the vll lue o f dy
dy
and ri nd tha t dy - mx",-I dx, whence- _ 111.1:", -1.
dx
Here the symbolic expression figures as the slmling point and Iwel a rc al ready operatin g

on the proper grounds of differential ca lculus. in other wo rds, ~ etc. alread y serve us as

formulae, indica ting:

to which of the d ifrerentitl l operHtio ns, already know n to us the fu nc tion of x is 10 be
suhjected.

In Ihe riTst insta nce !.!x., (_

(X
Q)0 was obtained as the symbolic eq uivalent for [,(x) , in

the second - ['(x) is sought and found as the real va luc of thc sym bo ls 1x, ~~ elc.

Bu t if these symhols <llrcndy serve as operational formu lae o f the di rrerentia l ctllcul us, then,

*-
as such. they can a lso a ppear in the right ha nd s ide of the eq ua tion, <IS it hlls alrclldy hapiX! ned
in the sim plest inst<"lncc of dy - /'(x) (Jx. lf a s imila r eq ua tion, in il"i fi na l fo rm, can nol a t o nce

be reduced into J'(x) elc., i.e., into some rea l value, as in the sim pl esl insUl nce, th en th is
signifies that thc gi.ven cquation only symbolical ly exprcsses: w hich operations arc to be
ca rri ed ou t, whcn determinate /unC.' tiol!!,' occupy th e place of Ihe ind etermi nate Is ig ns of
thc functionsJ.
The simplest instance, where this happens, is (J (uz), where It and z me bolh va riahles, but
both arc atlhc SlIme time functio ns or o ne and the same third va riahle, for example, of x.
If the process o f dirrerentin lion at once lea ds us to
!!.l - zdu- +u-
dz
dx dx · dx'
(scc its origi n in note book J, repented in p.lO of this note book) [ PV.43] . then it s ho uld not
be forgo\lcn~ tha t here u [l nd z arc hoth variables dependent 0/1 x, as is y, whic h depends o n x
 ON '11 11: DlFI'EREN'J1AL

only h('(':III'';c it depends on z find 11. In Ihe cilseof {JIlt! dependent variable we have the laller
in' the 'ymbolic ·side. But now we have two vuillbles It and z in the right llltnd s ide, both
independenl of y, but bo th dependent on x, and their character, las J vnriahlcs dependent on
'h
x, st;m ds out In t e sym b0 I'IC co-c rr'IClents
, co rrcspon d'Ing to them -till dz '
dx ' -Ix
,
If dependent vilriables appear also in the right hand side then, that is why, they must also
of necessity st.1 nd out as symbolic differe ntial co-efficients in that s ide.
From the equation
!!1. .. Z dll + 11 dz
dx dx dx
it follows Ihflt :
d (uz) o r dy .. Wit + lIdz.
But this equfltion on ly indicates the operations which <I re req uired to be carr ied out, as
soon as It and z are given as determinate functions of x.
Fo r exa mple, had the simplest inst.'l nce been
u:-ax, z .. bx,
then
d (uz) or dy .. bX'adx + ax·lxlx.
Dividing both skies by dx wc gct:

¥X .. abx + bax .. 2abx

and
tf2
!!2d2 - ah + ba - 2nb.
x
Had we taken from the very beginning the product
y or IIZ" QX'bx .. abx2
then
dv {/2v
IlZ o r y .. abx2 ::.1- .. 2ahx ;..;.....L .. 2ab
'dx 'dx 2 .

As soon as a formula, for example like [w - 1Zl ~~ is obta in ed, it becomes clear, that this
equa tio n - which ma y he called a general operational equation - is the sy mbolic expressio n
of the diffe rential operations to be carried oul. I f, for eX:lmple, we take the exp res.<;ion y ~; ,
where y is the o rdina te, and x is the :lhscissa, then this is the general symhol ic expression for '
the s ubtangent to any curve Oust ns d (uz) _ zdll + Ildz is the same for the differentiation of
the product of any two variables, dependent upon onc and the samc third vari:lbl e).
But so long as we keep this expression as it is, it does nol give us anything more, though
we may visualize, that dx is the differential o f absc issa, and dy - the differential o f ordinate.
 46 MA'I1 IEMATICAl. MANUSCRW IS

In order to obtain· some pos iti ve result wc must first o f all t.'lkc an cqu<lti on o f some
determinate cu rve, w hich would g ive us a determinate va lue for y in x, and Ihut is why also
for dx, s uch as, for example, the eq uation o f o rd inary parabola : y ~ _ (lX. DilTcrentiating
the lalter, we ge l 2ydy - adx;

hence, dx -~. Substituting this determinate vlllue of dx in the genera l fo rmula o f s ub tange nt
a
dx
Y- wc gel
d)'
2J'dy
Y a _ ~ _ 1l:
dy ady 0'

and since)'2 - ax lthis}

2ax
- - - 2x
a '
which is the value of th e subtangent to the ordin<l ry porabo la. Thus, this value is equa l 10
twice that of the abscissa .

But if we d es ig nate the subta ngcn t by 1:, rllen the general equatio/l Y ~; - "t merely gives
us ydx _ i:dy. That is why from the point ofv;ew of differential calculus(with the exceptio" oJ
Lagrange) most oJren the question was: /howl to filld out Ill(! real value oJ ~.

It may be s hown, th :l tthis difficulty Illready revea ls itself, if we suhs titutd in plll ce of Eldd e tc.
. x
· primary
t helf · f ro m 0 ; then
0
11. -z-+u-
du dz
dx dx dx
takes the fo rm of
o 0 0
0- z·O + /l'0'
Th is is a correct equation. But it leads u.~ nowherc further than [te lli ng] that, these three ~
emerged fro m different differential co-cffiCie nts, Ilnd of the di ffere nces of the ir e merge nce
no thing remnined. However. it should he remembered that:
1) in the instance of o ne independent variable, a lrcady in the first expositio n, at (irst we
obta ined

~ or;j; - [,(xl, hence, dy - [,(xl dx .

But, s ince
 ON TH E IJI I'I'EREN"J1AL 47

!!l.51 d)' _ Oand dx ... O,

dx 0'
hence,
0= o.
Howeve r, hy transforming !!xl cnnvcniely into its indeterminate expression
o here we
<X o•
commit a positive mistnke, si nce here ~ is fo und me rely as the symholic equ iv,lI e nl of the real
value of f'(x) and is as such consolid;IICd in the cxpression;;, hcnce, also in cl)' ... f'(x) dx.

ul - U . du " 0
2) - - turns Inlo -,- ur IIIto -0 ' because XI becomes equal 10 x, or XI - X - 0, thus, foc
XI -x 'x
111 - fl 0 0
- - what we lit on ce get is 110 1 0, hut -0. But ge nera ll y spea king wc know, that -o may
X I -X
lls.sume any value Rnd th Rt in detecminate inst.1 m;es it attains a specia l value, ob L1inllhle if
in place of u so me determinate function o f x is PUI; that is 10 say, wc nOI o nl y ha ve the right
10 trans f mm -0 t hmug h -dll
d' bul Ih·IS must be uo
·' ne, slII
. ce c.
llt) \
b -d
du an
d -dz f· . h .
,- Igurc In L c given
o x x (X

inslance only as symhols of the differential operations to he c(1rried Ollt" IButJ so long as
we do nol proceed furlher than the resu lt

f:!x.
dx
""
- z-+u-
dx
dz
dx '
hence,
dy .. zdu + udz,
du dz o
these -1-' -,- • du and dz re mnin as inderterminatc li S is the O· w hic h C;lII assume <my value.
t:x (X

3) Even in nrdinHry algchrll ~ C;1I\ Ilppcar;"ls a fnt.m of the expressions having a certa in 'rea l
" x2 ___ a2
value, just becllUse ~ c~ n be the symbo l of Il ny magnitude, Fo r exam"plc, aSSlfme thllt - - -
x-a
is given, Let us put, x .. a, thcn x - a .. 0 and x 2 _ a 2, that is why X2 - a2 .. 0, Hence, wc get,

so far , the result is co rrect, hut though

o can al so have allY value, it wo uld he wrong to assert
o
x Z _ (12
o n thnt "ground that, - - - has no real valuc,
X-ll

Hav ing facto rised x2 - a2 into il<; factors, wc ge t (x + a) (x - a); that is

 48 MAJ1IEMATICAJ. MANUSCHJI'rS

x'_a 2 x-a
- - - - (x+a)· - - -x+a;
x-u x-a
hence, if x - a .. 0, then a, a nd thill is w hy x + a '" a + (I_ 2a;\S.
X ..
If wc had a term nf the form P(x - tl) ill an onlin ary algehraic equa ti o n, lhen.
wh e n x-a, Le. , x-a-O, wc would necessarily have P (x-a)-P·O-O; and al so
subjec t 10 th e sa me presuppos itions P (X2 - ( 2 ) .. O. Fa ctorisa tio n o f x2 - (11 into the factors
(x + a) (x - a) woukl not introduce any change into this, fo r
P(x + a) (x - a) .. P(x + a)'O- 0
,However, fro m this it does nol at all follow Iha t, if hy supposing x .. a wc o bt.1in a le rm
o f the type P.(*} then iL.. value is necessari ly equal 10 zero.
~ Clln assume any va lue, since ~ .. X alwa ys gives us 0 .. x·a .. 0 ; hut jus t beca use ~ ca n
lake any va lue, it shou ld not necessarily be equal tu zero, and if we are aware of its emergence
Ihen as soo n as some reil I val ue hides be hind il, the laller ca n also be found o ut.
x2_ a 2
Thus, for examp le in p. - - - ; if X - a, x -am 0 and, hence, also x 2 _ (12, x 2 - a2 _ 0,
x-u
the n
p ,x2 _a 2 - p.Q.
X-ll ' 0
Though th is result loo was ohtai ned in a manner whic h is ma lh ema tic:tl ly full y
correct, it wou ld, however. he mathematically no less wro ng to assume wi thou t furth er
[precondilions} thai, p. ~- 0, s in ce from Lhis suppositio n it w(Hlld foll ow, Ihllt % is
unconditionally incapable of assuming IlIIY vll lue o th er than ze ro, a nd Iha l, hence,
a
p·o, p·a.
Further, it would be necessary to investigate, whether ur not any other result may he
obtai ned by faclOrising X2 - a 2 into its f;Jctors (x+a), (x - a) ; actually Ihis fa c tnrisH tio n turns
the give!) exp.ression inlo
x-a
p·(x+u)·--- P·(x+a)·t,
x-a
and [if I x - (1. then also in to p.2a o r into 2Pu. More so, whe n we operate w ith the v(lriahlcs19 ;
Ihen it is nol only righl, but a lso absolutely necessa ry to co nsolidate th e emerge nce of
o
a
through. Ihe differential sy mbo ls ?, (t':'Y, etc., for wc h;lVC proved beforehand
(M. 0:
tha t, they
emerge as symbolic equivalenL" of Ihe func tions deri ved from the vm iablcs sul'ljecled to the
determinate processes of di fferen tiation. Thus. ir primarily they arc rcs ulL-; of the e lapsed
prol.:c ss~<; of differentiation, then, just hy vi rtue of thllt, they Cll n also play <In ill verse role-
th;'ll of the symbols of those operatio ns . to whid the variables arc hut supposed to he
 ON Tt-IE OiFFEUEN'J1I\L 49

subjected, i.e., [the role] of operational !>ymbols, figuring by now not as resu lts, but .IS points
of departu re - and herein Ijes their essential role in the differential calculus. rn the capacity
of s imila r operatio nal symbols they themselves can become the content of the equa tio ns
involving the different varia bl es (in the case of implicit functions, (rom the very beginning, at
th e right hand sidc [of the equation] s ta nds 0, and all the dependent and independe nt
va ria bles, along with their co-e fficients, arc s ituated on the left).
Tha t is how the matter stand s in the equat ion
d (uz) !:!1.. zdu udz
dx ordx-dx+dx'
When disengaged from what has been sa id earl ier, the functions z and u, dependent upo n
x, themselves appear here aga in as invariables, but each o f them is endowed with the capacity
of bei ng the multip! ier of the symbol ic difrcrential co-e ffi cient of the other.
Hence this eq uation has only the sign ificance of some genera l equa tion, ind ica tin g
th rough symools : which opera tions are to be carried Ollt, if u and z a rc correspondin g ly g iven
as dependent va riab les of two determinate fun ctio.ns of x.

On'ly when u and z are [some] determinate function s of [xl ma y the expressions du
.. dx
(_Q)0
dz ( - '0)
an d dx 0 an,
d he nce, aIso III - 0
dx (0) turn "mto 0" " \ ue-' 0'"
, I.e. , Ihc va 0 0 IS
" not anticipate
"" d

beforehand but must iL<;c]r appear as the conseq uence of determinate equations exp ressi ng
functional dependence.
If, for example, !l "" x3 + ax 2, then
Q ... du ... 3xl + 2ax (Q) _
dJ u _ 6
Odx ' O d x .3 '
2

(-o0),- "1'
d' _
dx2
6<+ 2a
'(Q)o , = d'u
dx
= 0
4 '

"
I.e., " t h" I
m IS "lll s\a ncc a'"
asl 0 0.

The essence of this entire history consis ts of the following: he re, throu gh the very
differentiat ion we get the differential co-efficients in their symbolic form as results, as va lues
[of th e symbol] ~ in the differential eq uation, namely, in the equa tion :

d (uz) !!y.. dll dz

dx or dx - z-:J; + u-;;; -
u - u
But we know that u = some determinate fun ction of x, for example f (x). That is why - '- .
x l -x

in its differential symbo l ~ , is equa l 10 f'(x), i.c., the firs t derived function o r f(x). Exactly in

7
 MAl' li!MAT1CAL MANUS CI{11 y rs
"
.
the sa me way z _ cp (x), and t hat IS . -,dz _ ql' (X,
W hY [ I'kCWISC r'
) 'I.C., t hC ITSl dcrl' ve d runchon
.
tX
of q> (x). But the initia l equation itse lf g ives us neither 11, nor z in the fro m o f a determ inate
functi on o f x, as, for example, wou ld bc, u _xm, Z _ Vi .
It gives u and z only as general c.xprcssions for any two functions o f x, whose prod uct is
to be differentiated.
This equation says that if the prod ucl of any two fun ctions ofx represe nted by th e expression
Ul is req uired to be difrcre nliatcd, then at first the corresponding rea l val ue of the sy mbolic

differential co·cfficicnt ~~. Le., let us say, the first deri ved function of ['(x) is to be found
ou l, and this value is to be multiplied by cp (x) = z, there upon in the sa me way, the real va lue
of :; is to be found out and multiplied by [(x) = u; fina ll y, the 'two products so ob tained are
to be added. Here the operations of differential calculus arc assu med to be already known.
Thus. the given eq uation onl y symbolica ll y indicates the operations to be carried out,
and along with this the symbolic differential co-effi cien L<; ~: ,~; bcco me here the symbo ls
of those differential opera tions, which remai n still to be carried out in each co ncrete insta nce,
whereas ~nitially they themselves were deduced as sy mbolic formula e of the di ffere ntial
operations already ca rried oul.
As soo n as they atta in such a character, they themselves can become the content of
differential equations, as for examp le in Tay/or 's Theorem:

Yl " Y+~h + etc.

But even in that case, it is, anyway, also merely a general symbolic operational equation.
Differentiation of uz is of interest, beca use it is the simp lest in sta nce, wherein - as distinc t
from the development of s uch insta nces, where the independent variable x has onl y one
dependent variable Y - the very applica tion of the original method leads 10 Ihe emergence of
differential symbols, also in the right hand s ide of the equa tion (its developing express ion), that
is why here they appea r at the same time as opcra tional sym bols and as s uch become the co ntent
of the equation itself.
This role, in wh ich they indica te the operations to be carried oul and that is why serve
as the starting point, is the ir characteristic role, already operative in the ground proper of
differential calculus; but there is no doubt that, none of the mathematicians paid any attention
to this turning point, to this role inversion, and what is more, none of them proved its
necessity in any absolutely eleme ntary differential equa tion. Onl y this is mentioned as a
fact,.that while the inventors of differential calcu lus and the majority o f their fo llowers make
differential symbols the point of departure of calculus, Lagrange conversely takes algebraic
ded uction of the real 40 functi Qns of the independent variables as his starting point, and makes
the differential symbols purcly symbolic expressions o f the derived fun ctio ns.
 ONTIlE DIFI'ERENnAL 51

Returning once more to d (uz) we get at first, liS a result o f the suppos itio n XI -x - D, as a
resulL of the differential operation itself:
dv 'du dz
dx- z dx +u dx .

Since here the denominators are one and the sa me, we gel
dy - zdu + udz
as the redu ced expression. This corresponds to the fact that, in the case o f o nly one dependent
variable o n the left hand side we had ~. and as its symbolic expression we had ~ ... f'(x) ,
in the capacity of the symbolic express io n fo r the derived functi on of x, i.e., for f'(x) (for
example, for mO).",,-I, which is the/'(x), if OX'" - I(x» and hen ce, only as the res ult [wc had]
dy - /'(x) dx

(for example,: _ max"' -I, dy .. maxm - 1 dx, which is the differential of the function y) (the

latter, we can at once conversely turn into : ... max",.-I). But the instance

dy .. zdu + udz
is different further owing to the fact that, the differentials du, dz here stand on the
right hand side, as operational symbols, and dy is determined o nly after th e operations
ind icated by them a rc completed .
If
u - f(x) and z - 'I' (x),
then we know that for du we get
du - /,(x) <Ix
and [for dz]
dz - 'I"(x) <Ix.
He nce,
dy - 'I' (x) f'(x) dx + f(x) 'I"(x) dx
and

;;; - 'I' (x) /'(x) + f(x) 'I"(x) .

Thus, in the first instance, at first the diffe rent ial co-efficient

~ - /'(x) was obtained ,

and there upon the differential

dy - /'(x) clx.
In the second - at first the differential, and there upon the differential co-efficient -1;.
In the first instance, where the differential symbols themselves appea r only out of the
 Mi\'111EMATICAL MANUSCIHIYJ'S
"
opera tions ca rried out upon f(x), the re at fi rst the derived function - the rc~1I differential
co-efficien t, is to be found OUI, so Ihll l opposite it appeared ~,as i l'> s ymbolic expression,
and only after it has been found ou t, C,In the differential
dy - ['(x) dx
he deduced.
Conversely for dy - zd" + udz.
Since here du, dz figure as operational symbols, and besides indica te those operations which
we have already learnt to carry oU l in the differential calcu lus , so, for sea rching the real value
Of1; we must First of all change u and z into their v<1 lues in x, in every co ncrete instance,

in order to find o ut
dy _ 'I' (x)l'(x) dx + [(x)<p'(x) dx,
and on ly further division by dx g ives us the rea l value of

~- <p(x) I'(x) +[(x) <p'(x) .

The sa me holds for
du dz dy tFy
dx' dx' dx' dx 2
etc. and for all the morc co mpl ex formula e, where the d;jJeremial symbols themselves appear
as the content of the general symbolic operationa l equations.
 'SECON D DRAFT 41
[I]

We began with the algebraic deduction of/,(x), to reveal the emergence o f its symbolic
di fferentia l exp ressio n %or . ; , and to thus lay bare its meaning at the same time .

Conversely, now wc must pr~cccd from the sy mbolic differential co-efficicn ts ~~ or :

la ken as given formu lae, in order to find out their co rrespond ing rca l equ iva len ts f '(x ), cP '(x).
And bes ides Ihese di fferent modes o f interpreting the differential calcul us , ema nating from
different poles a nd , produc ing two differe nt historical sc hools, do not e me rge here from
changes in our subjective method, but a TC produ ced by the nature o f the function IIZ under
cons idera tion . Wc treated it just th e same as wc did the functions o f x w ith on ly onc
indepe ndent va riable, when we proceeded rrom th e right hand pole, and o pe ra ted upon it
algebra ically . ' don' t think tha t any mathematician has proved or e ven noted the necess ity
o f this tra nsition rrom the fi rst (historica ll y, the second) algebraic mettiod. They were l OO
absorbed with the material of th e calculus, to do this.
In fac t wc see that in the equation
o or !!x.. zdu +u E~
o dx dx d x

1; emerged from the process of deduction occuring upon IIZ in the right ha nd s ide,
absol ute ly in the sa me way as it happened earlier, [or the func tions o f x with only one
dependent va riable; bu t on the other hand, the differentia l sy mbols dill , ddZ , appear, in the ir
lX x
tu rn, 10 be included in/ 'ex) itself or in the fi rst deriva tive of IIZ . Owing to this they appea r
as e lements of the eq uiva le nt of El
l . Th us, the sy mbolic differenti al co·effi cients the mse lves,
lX .
in thei r turn , already became the subj ect malter or COll fellt o f the diffe rentia l ope ration,
instead o f riguring, as before, merely as its symbolic results.
Here we have two moments. Firstly, along with the va ri ables themselves, th e sy mbolic
differentia l co·e fficic nts in the ir IUrn become contentful elements o r the ded uction, [they .
become1the objects of differentia l operations . Secolldly, formul ation o f the question so turns
ro und, tha t instead o f secking the sy mbolic express ion for the real diffe re ntial co·erficients
(for J'(x)), the real differenti al co-efficient is sought fo r its symbolic express ion. Along with
these two mome nts , a th ird a lso is given at the sa me lime : namely, the symbolic differe ntia l
co~e ffi c i e n ts no lo nger appea r as sy mbolic results of the di rfere nt ia l o perations carr ied
Oll t upon real runc tions of x, but, conversely lthey] now play the role of s ymbols indicating
those di fferent ia l o pera tions, whic h mus t be ca rried out ove r the real fun ctions o f x, Le. {they ]
thus become o pe rational symbols.
In our case, wh ere
54 MA'IlIEMA'nCAL MANUSCRI J r l~

!!1.. · z -du +,, -dz

dx dx dx'
we could have operated further, had we known no t only that z an d U fire both functions o f
x, but also if, as in the case of y - X"', the rea l va lucs of u and z were g iven in x as, for
example,
u-Vi, z- Xl + 2ax2,
Thus ~. : in fact play the role of indicators o f the opcnl tions, the mode of ca rrying out
which is supposedly well known for all such func tions of x, which arc sub." tituted in place of
u a nd z .
c) Tbe equation obtai ned is not simply it symbolic operationa l equation, but is on ly a
preparatory symbolic operational equation. Since in
[I)J
!!l.. · z -du +,, -dz
dx dx dx
the denominator dx is present in every term in both the sides, the reduced expressio n for th is
equation will be :
11 ) dy or d (uz) _ zdu + udz.

This equation immediately says Iha t, if the produc t of two arbitra ry variables a re to
be di ffe rentiated (in fu rther app lication it may be generalised for the product of any number
of variables), the n each of the factors is to be multiplied by the differential of the o ther
multipl ier a nd the two produCL'i so obta ined arc to be added .
Thus the first o perational equation
=.
dv
dx
Z-
du
dx
+II -
dz
dx
becomes super fluous as a prepara tory equat io n - if the product of two arbi trary va riables is
to be differentiated - for it has fulfilled ils role, nam ely: 10 prov ide th e gene ral symbo lic
operat ional ·formula, leading directly to the goal.
And he re it shou ld be noted Ih at, the method of in itia l algebraic deduction again turns into
its o pposite. The re, first of all we obtained fly - y\ - Y as a symbol correspondi ng to
I(x ,) - I(x), where both [( (x,) and J(x) ] are o rdinary algebraic exp ress io ns (s ince f(x) and
. n In
f( XI ) were give . th
e 'lorm 0 fd e terrnmatc
. l bral
age · c f unctions
. f ) F h f(x,) - f(x) was
0 x. ur! er
x l -x
pres~nted in the;: form of -t, a nd s ubsequently J'(x) (the first derived Junction of I(x») - in

the form of 1;, and o nly from the final equation for the differential co-efficient ~ - J'(x)
we obtained the differcntial
dy . I'(x) tix.
Conve rsely, th e eq uation obtained above gives us the differentials dy, dz, du as
starling points. Namely, if we subs titute for u and z some determinate algebra ic func tion of
x, which we s ha ll designate o nly as
 ss
u - [(x) a nd z- <p (x),
then we get
dy - <p (x) d[(x) +[(x) d <p (x),
and these d symbols ind ica te only the differentiation w hich is yet 10 be carried out. Result of
Ihis diffe re nt iation ass umes the general for m:
d[(x) - ['(x) dx
and
d <p (x) ~ <p '(x ) dx.
Thus,
dy - <p (x)[,(x) dx +[(x) <p '(x) dx.
Finally.
;j; - <p (x) ['(x) +I(x) <p'(x).
He re, where the differential already plays Ihe role of a ready-made opera tional sy mbol, wc
deduce the differe ntial co-cffic icnts fro m it, while in the initial algebraic development,
conversely, the diffe rentia l was obtained from the equation for the differential co-efficienls.
Let us co ns id er the very differential, as obta ined in its s imples t form, namel y. as
obta ined from a func lion of the fi rst power;

y- ax, ~- a;
whence the differenti al
dy - adx.
This equation, connecting these two differentials appears to be much morc dubious , than
the equa tion for the differe ntial co-efficient
Qor!!t .. a
o dx '
from which it was deduced.
Si nce dy .. 0 and dx - 0, dy .. adx is identica l with 0 .. o.
But, nevertheless, we have the full right to use dy and dx in place of the extinct - bu t
fixated in their act o f extinc tion with the help of these symbols - differences y, - y, XI - x.
So long as we do not proceed furth e r than the express ion
dy .. adx
or, genera lly,
dy - I'(x) dx,
it is noth ing but a mere record in ano ther form of the fact that
;j; - [,(x) ,
which = a in ou r case, owing to which we always have the opportunity, to again trans form
it into this lalle r form . But this possibility of transformation already makes it an opera tiona l
sy mbol. We see at once that, if we find dy .. f'(x) dx as a resu lt of the processes of
differentiation, then we shou ld onl y divide both the s ides by dx to find out ~- f'(x), i.e. ,
the differe ntial co-efficients.
 MA'IlI EMATICAL MAN USCIHIYI'S
"
Thus, for exa mple, in y2 _ ax,
d (Y'). d (ax), 2ydy . adx.
This latte r equation fo r the differentials gives liS two C(lIla lions for difrcrcntial co-erricicnts
namely:
!!l • .E.... and ddx .. .?1..
dx 2y y a
But 2ydy - adx gives us, and also, immediately, the value ~ for d.x\ which, for
a
example, having been put into the general formula for sublangclIl Y ~; , helps us lastl y 10

obtain 2x, the abscissa doubled, as the value of the subtangcnt to the o rdinary parabola.

"
Npw let us take an example in which the symbolic express ions serve as Teody-made
operational formulae of the calculus from the very beginning amI, co nsequently, the real
value of the symbolic differential co-efficien t is sought; and after that wcs haJl give the oppos ite
elementary algebraic exposition.
1) Let the dependent function y and the independent variable x be con nected nbt by the
onc and ·the on ly equa tion, but let them he so connected thaty figures immediate ly as a function
of the variable u in some first equation, and /l immediately figures as a function of the variable
x in some second equation. The task is : to find Ollt tile real value of the symbolic differential
co-efficient ~.
Le.
a) y. [(11), b) a. ~ (x).

At first 1) y .. f(u) gives:

<Ix. 1i.J!!l _ ['(11) dll _ ['(11).
tlu du du
2) dll . d'P (xl. 'P '(x) dx. q> '(x) .
dx dx dx
Consequently.
=d\! . -dll • ['(11) . q> '(x).
du dx
Bu.
<Ix du • <Ix .
du dx dx'
consequently

~• ['(11) . q> '(x).

Example. If a) y _ 31l2 , b) u - x1 + ax2,

 ON Til E DrFFElU!N'llfo.L
"
then according to the formula
!!J: _ d (3u'L 6u (_ I'(u) );
dll du
but the equation b) gives rthe value 1u "" r + ax?, If we put th is value of u in 6u , then
!!J: _ 6(x' + ax' ) (_ I'(u) ) .
du
Further,
du
dx - 3x'+2ax(- q>'(x)).

Co nsequen tly.
dv du dv ,
=. - or =dx - 6(x' + ax' ) (3x' + 2ax )(- f (u)· 'I' '(x)).
dll dx
2) Now let us take as our initial eq uatio ns, those which are contained in the last example,
fo r developing them according to the fi rs t, algebraic mode.
a) Y_ 3u2 , b) u - x 3 +axl ,
Since y - 3ul, Y1 - 3U,2 and YI - Y _ 3(u l '2 - U2) "" 3 (u l - a) (ul + a).
He nce,
YI-Y
- - .. 3 (Ill + a).
u 1 -u
If now it is supposed that u, -11- :0 and conscquently, Ill " 11, th en 3 (u, + 11) turns into
3 (u + u) .. 611,
Let us put in place of u its value from the equation b); then

7u" 6(xJ + axl ).

Furthe r, since
Il_X3 + ax 2, Il l - X I J +a.t l '2;
consequ ently,
III - l l - ( X I 3 + OX I ?) - (x 3 + ax2) .. ( X I ;\ _x3 ) -a(x, '2_x'2 ),
UI - U -(X l -X) (X , 2+XIX +X2) +a(x\ -x)(X 1+x);
hence,
"l - El
- - .. (X\2 +X\X + Xl) +a(x l + x).
xl - x
If now it is s upposed that x, - x .. 0, consequently, XI" x, then Xl 2 + Xl X + Xl _ 3x2
and ,
a(x\+x)- 2ax.
du
Consequently, dx .. 3x2 + 2ax.

8
58 MKllIEMA'nCALMANUSCRIPTS

Now multiplying both the functions of the right hand s ide, we shall gel
6(x3 + ax2) (3x 2 + 2ax),
10 which corresponds on the left hand side
!!l . du _ !!l
dll dx dx'
Le., the same as before.
We shall put the determinate fun ctions of the variable on the left hand s ide, a nd the
functions dependent upon it on (he right, so that the difference in the modes of deductio n
comes out more clearly, since, thanks to the general equation, where on the right hand side
sta nds o nl y zero, wc have become accustomed to cons ider th at the initiative lies on the left
hand side. Co nseque ntly

a) 3112 • Y b) x 3 +ax2 _ 1l.

Since
3112 .. Y
then,
3(Il I 2 _1l2) .. YI_ y,
or,
3(1l\ - u ) (u I + Il)" Yl - y,
hence,

3(1I! + Il ) ..

If now U 1 - u and, consequently III - Il '" 0, then we ge l

3(u + u) or 611"!lx·
du
Let liS put in 6u the va lue of U fro m the equation b), the n
6(x' + ox2) _ !!l
du
Further if
xl + ax2 .. u,
then
X I 3 + aX 1 :2 .. "l'
and
X l 3 +axj 2 _ .x3 -ax1 ", / \ -/I;
hence
(X,3_X3) + a(x\ 2 _Xl ) - Il l -Il .
Expanding into factors:
(XI-X) (Xll+XIX +X2J + a(xl -x) (XI +x) .. u 1- U,
 ON TilE D1FFE1U; NllAL
"
Hence,
Ul - U
(X1 2+X.x+x2)+a(xl +X)- - - ,
xl-x
when XI - X and conseq uently, XI - X "" 0 then
dll
3x2 +2ax - dx'
Multiplying the two derived funct ions we shall get :

6(xl + ax2) (3x2 + 2ax) -;l; ,

and, putting it in the usual order,
=dv . -dll _ .::..L
dv _ 6(X3 + ax2) (}x2 + 2ax) .
du dx dx
It st.1nds to reason all by itself, tha t ow ing to ilS cumberousness, llnd often also
due to (i lS] difficulty, the expa nsion of the firs t difference !(x 1) - [(x) in to such terms, each
of which co ntains the factor XI - x, the latter method can not be com pared (I S an instrument
of computation), with the onc historica lly formed long ago.

But on the other h(lnd, in the latter, onc ma y proceed from dy, dx, ~ as given opera tional
formu lae, whercas in the former their emergence is visible, which is clearly algebr<lic.1 <lm
not asserting anything more thnn this. How were the starting points for the differential symbols
as operational formulae obtained in the [historicallyl first method? With \he hclp of secret
or evident meta physica l pres uppos itions, which in their turn lea d to me taphy sica l,
non-mathematical consequences: what happens is a forcible destruction of certain magniludes,
blocking the path of deduction, [w hich] , however, whe re generated by those very
presuppos itions. In order 10 show the di ffere nce of the methods emana ti ng from opposite
poles, in the light of a historica l examplc, I have compared - as instantiated above - the
situat ion of d(lIz), as per Newton and Leibnitz on the one hand , with that accordingto Lagrange,
on the other.
1) Newton .
Firs l of all, wc are told, that if th e va riables grow, then x,y etc. dc.... igna te the speed of
their fl ow, in other wo rds, lI es ignate the correspond ing growth o f the [va riablci] x,y etc.
Further, si nce the numerical magnitudes of all possible quan tities may be rep resented
by straighllines, the ge nera tell momellts or infinitely small qualltilie~ are equal to th ~ product
of the speeds X, y etc. and an infinitely small put of time 't , in course of whi ch llley last,
co nsequently, [they arc]- in, x't, y''t 42.
 *THlRD DRAFT
If now we co nsider the diffcrc"nlial of y in iL<; general form dy - [,(x)dx, the n, here wc
a lready have in fro nt of liS the purt.: sy mbolic opera tio nal equatio n even in that case, when
J'(x) is a constant from the very beginning as in dy _ d(ax). adx. This baby rcxprcssion]
Q or !f1. ~ ['(x) looks more s uspic ious, than iL<; mother. For in El "" Q tile del/omillator
o dx . dxO
and (he IIIl1ner(Jlor are inseparably connected; in dy - f'(x)dx. they arc visibl y separated,
so that the fo llow ing conclus io n thrusts itself: dy _ f'ex) dx is only a masked expression for
o _['(x)' 0, consequently o ..s D, and with this "nothi ng ca n be done", Morc subtle a nalysts

*'
belonging to o ur century. fo r example, like the Frenchman Bo ucha rla t, a lso smelt that
here something was wrong;. He says: "For example in ~ ". 3x2,

rightly, its value 3x2 is tbf~ differe ntial

i.e., ~ or more

co-e ffi c ient of th e fu nction y. Since

symbol representing th e li'mit 3X2, dx must always stand below dy . But in order to facilitate
* is thu s the

algebraic operations, w~ conside r !!I to be an ordinary frll c tion ,a nd dy .. 3x2 - to be an

dx dx
ordinary equation. Freei ng it from the denominator dx, we get· as the res ult dy .. 3x2dx-
a nd this express ion is ca lled the differential of y "43,
Thus, in order to . "facilitate algebraic operations\ we introduce a false formul a. tn
rea lity the case is nOI like tha t. In ~ (striCtl y speaking, we s hould write (~)) the ra tio of the
minimal express ion . for )'1 - y. i.e., fo r f(x!)-f(x) or , for the increment 0 f(x), and of the
minimal exp ress ion for XI - X, Le., fo r the incremen t of the independe nt variab le x, assumes
such a form, wher/c in the numerator is inseparab le from the denominator. Out why? So that
~ is preserved as I.he ratio of extinct differences. But as soon as XI -x .. 0 obtai ns in dx a
form, which shov#s it to be the ext inc t difference of [the variable] x, and so y!- y .. 0 a lso
comes forth as dy, the separation of the numerator from the denominator becomes a n
ent irely pcrm issiJble operation. Now wherever dx may be s ituated, its connectio n with dy is not
af[ected by fjuch change o f place. Consequen tl y, dy .. df(x) - f'(x) dx is on ly ano ther
expression for ~ _ J'(x)], which must appear at the cnd, so that a free [ from the multiplier
dx]f'(x) could be obtained. Incide ntally, the rollow ing example shows, how rar lIseru l this
formula dy "" ~lf(x) becomes at once, as an operatiollal formula:
y2 _ ax,
dry) - d(ax) , 2ydy- a dx,
he nce,
dx_~·
I a

I .
Putti ng this value o f dx in the general formula o f the subtangcnt y dx , wc get
~
 ON 'nu: Oll'I'ERI;Nl1AL 61

~
Y a _ 2y'dy _ .?t
dy ady a
and since
y2 _ ax,

[
SO 2y'
a
j_Zaxa _ 2x •0
thus 2x , i.e., double the abscissa of the ordinary parabola , is the value of its subtangent.
Howcver, if dy .. df(x) is considered to be the firstsL1rting point, wh ere from only subsequently
~ itself is deduced, then, so that this differential of y has so~e sense, it has to be supposed
that the differential particles dy, dx arc symbols having a definite purport. Had such a
presuppositon not been generated by mathematical meL1physics, but, for example, if it
had to be deduced immediately from some function of the first power like y .. ax, then, as
we saw earlier, it would have led us, to YI - Y - a, which turns into EXdxd . . a . But from here
xl-x
nothing definite can bc extracted a priori. Since At - a, exactly in thc sa mc way as
° Ax
~ .. a, and s ince it is true that II x, lly arc term ina l differences or increments, but terminal
differences or increments with limitless c.1pacity to decrease, so with equal success they ma y
present themselves as dy, dx and as infinitely small magnitudes which arc as proximate to
zero as possible and, as magnitudes emerging as a resu lt o f actual equalisat ion of zero and
XI - xand, consequently, of YI - Y land zero]. In both thc cases, the resu lt on the right hand
side remains one and the same, so long as it is not assumed in this side that XI .. x, that is
to say, XI - x .. O. That is why, on the othe r hand,. this equalisation with ze ro wou ld appear
10 be as arbitrary an hypothesis, as is the assumption that dx, dy arc infinitely small
magnitudes. I s hall briefly show the historical course of development sub IV), in th e light of
the example d(uz). However, before that, sub IIl)44 I shall give one more example, which
will at first be invesligated on the bas is of a symbolic calculus, with the help of some
rcady·made operational formulae, and after that it will be presented algebraically. Wc have
already s hown upto sub 11) that, even when applied to such elementary functions as the
product of two va riabl es, the lauer method, with the help of its proper resu lts, perforce gives
the starting point for a method, which ope rates from the oppos ite pole.

Ad IV.
Finally (according to Lagrange), it should be noted further that, the limit or the limiting
value, which is already met with sometimes in place of the differential co-efficient of New ton,
is still deduced by him from purely geometric rcprcsenL1tions, and it plays a prominent role
.ill date. Do the symbolic express ions figure therein as the lim its ofJ'(x), or, conversely. does
" (x) figure as the limit of the symbol, or [Whatever] , do both figure as limiL~? This
:"'ltcgo ry, which has found wide use in [mathema tica l] analysis, mainly in tha t of Lacroix,
 62 MA'l1iEMA'n CAL MANUSCRlrTS

acquires an impo rtant s ig ni fica nce as a subs titute ior the catego ry o f "minimal express io n"
- eilherof the deriva tive in contras t to the "primary de rivative", orof the ratio Yl - Y , as soon
Xl -x
as the application o f ca lculus to the c urves is at iss ue. I1 is easie r to represent it geometrically.
and that is w hy it is to be met with already in Ilhe writ ings of ] the ancient geometers.
Fo r some of o ur co ntemporaries the lim it is still hidd en, ow ing to the fa ct that the
differentia l pa rticles a nd d ifferential co-cfficicnts express o nl y approximate valucs 4.5 •

• SOME ADDITIONS 46
~) additionally on the diffcrcnth,.ion of IIZ 41.
1) In the las t ma nuscript, while developing d(uz), it was essential fo r me 10 show in
applica tio n to the equ atio n
dv
A) ..::.t.._z _du +u _dz ,
dx dx dx
that the a lgebra ic method here applied itself turns into the di ffe rentia l me thod, ow ing to the
fac t tha t it develops insid e the deriva tive, i.e., o n the right hand side [we have ] the symbolic
difJ,!rential co-effic ients w itho ut the corresponding equivalent real co-efficienlS; alo ng with
this, these sy mbo ls, as such, become independent starting POiI/IS, a nd are given in the
ready-made form o f operational formulae .
For this purpose the fo rm o f the equation A) turned out to be even mo re s uitable, as it
permits a compa rison of [the express io ns} ~, : obta ined w ithin the deriva tive/'(x), with

~ standing opposite [them ] o n the le ft ha nd side, wh ich is the symbolic diffe re ntia l
co -efficient fo r /'(x), and that is why constitutes its symbolic, equivalent.

Concerning the cha racter of du , dz as operational fo rmulae, I have limite d myself to

dx dx
indicating. that fo r these symbolic diffe re ntial co-e rcicicnts any "derivative" may be found o ut
as their real value, if in pla ce of u any f (x ), fo r example, )x2, is put, ,rod in place o f z -
any cp(x), for exa mple, Xl + ax2 •
However, I could have a lso ind icated the geome tric applicat ion o f these operational
formulae, since, fo r exa mple, y dx serves as the general formula f or subtangerlls 10 curves,
dy
w hich is, in fo rm , e nt irely id~ntica l
with z du • u dz , s ince all of the m a re products o f a
dx dx
variable and a symboli c differential co-effi cient.
And finall y. it ma y be no ted furth er, that y - IlZ is the simplcst elemcntary fun ction (here
y is y l and uz is the s impl est form of the seco nd po.wcr), upon which o ur theme ma y be
deve loped.
 ON TIlE DlFI:ERI.:N·I1AL 63

A) DIFFERENTIATION OF

3) Since the si tuation of dE. is converse in relation to d(lIz) - here multiplication, there
z
division - it seems natural for the algebraically found operational formula
d (uz) _ zdu + udz
to be utilized immediately for finding out d ~ . That is what I shall do, so that the difference
z
between the method of immediate deduction and Ihe simple application of some result
of differentiation obt.1ined earlier . - wh ich is, in its turn, an operational formula - comes
oul clearly.
11
a) y .. -;
z
b) u-yz.
since
11
y--,
Z
u
yz--·z- u.
z
Thus, u only formally masque rades as the product of two multipliers. However, thcreby
the problem is in actuali ty already solved, for the problem of differentiating a fraction ha s
turned into thc problem of di fferentiat ing a product, for which we have a magic formu la in
our pocket. According to this formula:
c) du .. zdy + ydz.
Wc at once observe ,lhat the fo rm of the first term on the right hand side, namely, of zdy,
is such, th at it must quietly remain in its post till the last minute, si nce tha t task is to find oul
the differential of y ( -~ ). Le., to express it in [terms of] the differentials o f u and z. On
the other hand, for Ihls very reason ydz should be shifted to the left hand side. That is why:
d) du - ydz - zdy.
If now wc put the value of y namely E.. • in ydz, then
z
11
du--dz-zdy;
z
that is why
zdu - udz -zdy.
z
Now the moment of fre e ing dy from its sleeping partner z has arrived, and wc. gel
zdu - udz - dy- d _11 .
Z2 Z
 ON THE HISTORY
OF
DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS 49

'j"

. ,
 ., l ·"

.•_- ------
~-'

." i I i.'.
.,
i'. ,

I , .••.-•. 1 : ' \ ~. '.•.

,...--. •
,..
f .. . .

...
~ -.
".
.., -, ,~ ,~..':."- ---" .. ,.
I •
J ' ..... !
,'" .-~ . .,..".-\. t ..._-!'4"" -l·-'.-,.
r 1....' J-
•
- -.
~ '. '

..
,~, \~- ~ ~~.: ..

-----
.- -
>,..:.• ' . : .. n· ',.
" ~ --- - . -
.(
--
"

". •
.,
-"
"
--"-----" -' .J • (~,1J

'. -;- .-
I • -
j
'P-"' ....... '
~ . .....
.
\ \ .
l--.• ,
•
' ~ 41'.
1- . ' \ ... __ J
~ \
' ..
.. ' ~
, _",,- ,-.1

' --- - --
- ' " f'oJ-
.- ..J

PIIOTO<..:OI'Y Of A I'AOF..OF TtH! NOTI: nOOK EN·lTll. EO · U lCON'IlNUI\110N OF A). 11-.

 ·A PA GE OF THE NOTE n OO K (I\'TITLED ~ B (C ONT I NUATI ON Of' A) 11" 511

1) Newton, b . 1642, t 1727. "P"i1o:wphilll! 11lIlImllis ",.il1cipia lIIathell/o l i('lI". puhl i!'.hed
in 1687.
Bk. I., Lemma XI, SdlOlia. Bk. 11 .
Bk. If. Lemma 11 , after Pl'Oposit;()11 VII 51 .
.. Analysis per (JIUllllilt.J/ltlTl .\'(!I'ies, f!f/xio// e.\· etf..'. ~ , wr illcn in 1665, puhlblh;J in t 7 11 ·~ ~ .
2) L.eiblli/z.
3) Tay/or (J .Broo k). h. 1685, t 173 1, publis hed in 171 5 ~ 17 : ,. /l.Jet/wdu ,\· iIlCI'(!fI/(!lI/nrtllll
elc.".
4) MacL atlrill (Colifl ), h . Hi98 , .;. 17-16.

15) J ohn L al/dell . I

6) d 'Alemhel'l, b. 1717, 'j' 1783. "Traile de j7ui(/e .\ " J 74-1 5.'.
7) Elller ( LcnnhanJ) . Ib.1 1707, 'j' 1783. -6.
~ /lI lr(}(II/Clio ill ol/a/)'sill ill[illit(Jrum\ Lau!ot:1llllc. 1748.
~ /nstiflltjon e:) calclIli dilfcl't!lIIialis", 175.1 (P. I, t:h. JIl t:.
8) Le/grange, h. 1736. "The'orid des liJlK/ ioll s tllwlyliqlles" ( 1797 and IS I3) (Se(~
Introduction) .
9) Pois.wJ/1 (Den is, Simcnn). b. 1781, 'f 1840.
10) Lap/(Ice ( P. Sim oll, Marq ui:c; de), h. 174<). t 182.1.
11 ) Mo/glint "Le~'olls de ca lcul dijJi!relllief el de (',Ih'ul illlegrul" f<\
 *.. TilE FIRST DRAFTS
Newtoll : b. 1642, "t 1727 (at (hI.! age of 1015). "Philosopltia/! /u/llIralis pr;!!c;";(I matltematica"
(first puhlishctl in IfiH7. SCJ! Le"1I110 I allu Lemma XI. Sdwlia). Then I.:spccially: "Amdysis per
qllulIlifulIIlII serie.\~ jlUX;OIlI!.\" elc," first puhlished in 1711, but writl~n in 1665. whereas
Lcihnitz made similar discoveries fo r Ihe first time in 1676.
Leihlfilz : h.1646, 'r 1716 (al the age of 7U).
LtlKI"tUlKI! : h. 173(;, wns already lIcnd during Ihe rule or
emperor (Napoleon I) , inventor of
the methot! of variflliOfIS. "Tht!oriti des Jm/(.:Iioll .~ Ollfl/YfiqllL'.\·" (1 7<.)7 and \ 8 13). ...
t/'Alemberf : h. 1717, t 171U (at the age or 66). "Trtlile de fluides", 1744 .
1) Newtoll. Speeds, or t1uxinns , for example off"/! I'ariable,,, x,y cH:. arc lIcsignnlcd hy y x,
ch;, I f, for ex .. mplc u <lntl x llntl a re i/lterre/II/"d maK/lillldt!~· (flUt!lIt.';), Kt!IU!rtllt!d h>: continuous
motioll, then il antl.r dcsionHh:
~ x i~ the ratio
thc spectls of their im:rcmcnt and, consequently.!;.

of th e spcetls. with which their incre me nt is gcneratctl.

Since the nume rical magnitutles 1)1' ;d~ssihle quantities mily he represented hy straight
I ines, SI) the mO/lle/la·, or infinitely small parL<.; of the generated magnitudes =
the produc ts of
their speeds ;tnd of the infinitely SIll,III parts (If [iml,;, in cntl r~e of which [hese !'JlCeds lasl SiJ,
such Ihal, if"t tlcsignales this infinill:ly sl1lall part uf lime, then the muments of the m:lgnitullcs
x Hntl y arc correspondingly represcnteJ by T.r ;lIltl Tjr. Fur eXlImpk )' = I/Z ; if wc designltle
the spectls of innement of the 1ll00gnttutlcs <;t1rrespondingly hy j', i, il thc n their moments
will bc "ty,
1:Z, "til, and wc "hall get:
J' - IIZ, Y + "ty - (11 + til) (z + tz) .. IIZ + 1ft: + nit + "t~ili ;
hence,
ty _IrtZ + nil + T2ili .
Since T is infinitdy s m:lll , so it vanishes all hy itse lr. and even more cumpletely vanishes
"t~ iIZ, as lhe product, corresrnnlling nol In the infinitely sma ll segment of time"t, hut to its
:;ct.:o ntl power. ( I r. for example,
, I )
then "t~ - 1 million x 1 million ·
"t - million'
Thus, wc gt.:t
. . .
)' -IIZ+ 211,
or lhe /luxi<l of y _ IlZ is liz + ill 51 .

2) Leihnilz. Surrnsc the differential of IIZ is rcquiretl to he fountl out.

11 turns intn 11 + dll, Z - into z+dz .
Thus,
!IZ + d (IIZ) _ (1/ + du) (z + dz) .. IIZ + udz + zdll + (itulz .
If from this the given magnitude IIZ is suhtractetl then IIdz + zdll + dlulz will remain
as the increment, cl" dz - the protluct uf infinitely small cllI and infinitely small dz - is an
 '8 MA'lllJ :MATICAL MANUSCIUlrl~

infi nitesimalofscconcJ order and vanb.hcs as compared I{l th{~ infini lcsimals Ill" fir:-I order utlz
'_ • '1' ~ , : •~ t "
and Z(/II. That is why
d (~IZ) - 1U1.1 + zdll ~.
S tales lhc' iask in ,I general from as follows: Lcl
y - J(x),
y,-l(x+");
' ~I) •

of YI - Y . ()'. h
the value when the magnitllde " vanishes, Le., tIl e value ,0 1 .-
0 . , IS to C

determined. "
"

Newton llnll Lcibnilz as well as the majority of their s uccessors., oper,lle upon the ground
of d iffere ntial calcu lus ['rom the very beginning. and Ih a t b why the differe ntia l expressions
fit once se rve them liS operati onal formulae for sC!trching the real c qlllv;d c nl~<;. 'The whole
issue is this: with the trans formati o n of the indcp ~ cnl variahle x in to ·x l• the depend e nt
variable turns into )'1' but X I -x is of nccessity c411a l 10 some <.Iiffc rcnec, for cxamp le ·".
This is containcd in thc very concept nf illl: vari:lblc. Hnwcvcr fruiTI Ihis it doe~ .iiol ~It all
fo llow, that this differencc, which is C4Ual '!<j ',Ix, is a valli~hing Ini agnitudc'l, i.c~ , in rc:ll ity
it = O. It may prcsent itself :\ Iso mi;1 finite d iffcre nce. If wc ai... uiTIe befo re lian<.l , ihat the
incrc:lsingx turns into x +x
(Ncwwn's 't pl<lys no mic in his analysis of the bas ic 1\ lnct io l1 s
IInd perhnps that is why it has been omillcd(~l) or, ns pe r Lc ibni tz, into'· x '~ dx. then the
<.I iffe ren liai expressions <It once turn in to opcfiltiona I symbols, without f II Tlhe r adva nee of tlicir
nlgebraic desccnt.

Ad [PI 1S· (Newton).

T nke the Ncwto nian initin l eq uation fo r the prod uct llz, w hich has to be dirfercnti<l te<.l. Th cn
Y + "()' - (1/ + in ) (= + i "( )
Y- Ill,
Having cas t away 1; -as he him se lf gladly docs, as he cxpands the firs t dilTc rcn lin l eq uatio n
- wc shall gel:
.y +}' - (11 + it) (z + i) ....:.·
· .. ..
y+ y _IIZ + 11 Z + Z 11 + Jl Z,
· ..
Y+)'- IIZ - IIZ + z It + 11 Z.
Conseq uently, s ince IIZ - y.
· . .
Y_ 11 ~ +z 11 + ilZ .
• See I'V, 49,51. , .
 ON· n lE IIISTOI{Y 0 1' DI I'FI.;RENTli\I.. CA1 .CULllS 69

And in order to ohlain Ihe ~o~ rct:l result il z·has 10 he disc:lrded. But where did Ihe rorcibly
dis~arded lerlll I1
Z~ o m 9 fro.m ?
... That is very s imple :· the main p(Yinl is' ·lhis, that the difi"e n:ntillls o f y in the form of
)" of 11 in the form of illtnd of 2 in the form of Z Olrc Introduced frollY the ve ry beg inning,
by definition, as existing side by s ide with the v.:lriabl cs, from which they come into bei ng,
ItS independent of them, and arC·Tlo t in troifuced malhemOl l iCOl lly at all.

C?,n the one ha nd , wc sce, of what bcnefi.' is this presup posed exis te nce of d,y , dx or i" as x;
soo n as· the ya riPlhles grow, I am only to s ubSli tute in the al gebraic fllnction, lhe binomials
y + i', x + x
etc., and after Ihat they arc only to ·be ma noe uvred as o rdinary algebraic
magnitudes-o
Thus for example, hav ing y - ru, I gel
y+y - ax +ux ; '
thus,
. .
y-(/x+y .. ax
he nce
. .
y '" ox.
Thu!"> , I a t o nce ge l the rcs ull : differential of Ihe de pe ndent va riable is eq ual 10 the
inr.:n:me n{ of rllw fUl1l.:t illn I llx, i.e., {IX is equal 10 Ihe real value deduced/mln (IX, (/ (lhClI here
it is a conslant, is aedden l.l1 ;lnd does no t change the general chnracter of the res ult, ~ in ce
only this cond itio n is ohliga tory, thnt the variahle x is ~ ilLlnt cd here in th e firs l power)
[multiplied hy il. If I generalise Ihis result 61, the n I knuw LthatJ y =f(x), for il s ig nifics, that
y is dependent upo n Ihe va ri;lhl c x . If the magn itude derived from f(x), i.e., the real elemenl
o f the increme nt, is ~a ll cd J' (x), then the general rcsu h will be
j-/, (.,) x.
Th us, it is known lu mc hcfo rt:h:tnd, thall he equivalenlo f the dil"fcrcntia l of the dcpcn uent
va rill hie y is cq u;tI to th(~ fir:-. t de rived fu nclio n accord ing to Ihe independent v;. riablc multiplied
h y its dilTercntial, i. e., hy dx or .r.
Thus, in general , if
y - f(x),
the n
")' -1' (x) "x.
or, .y ..
the renl clH.:ffidt:llt in x (excl uding the case, where i1 ctl n~ la nl appears , ow ing to thl
fact that x enters in tu the first power), multip lied hy i
;. ;.: ' v ·
But Y - lIX at o nce gives..,. .. n a nd gene rally
x
~ - /, (x ).
x
Thus two furthe r developed o perational formula e arc fo und ror the differen tia l, and for Ihe
diffe rential ~o-errident. forming the basis of {he e nt ire difrere ntial ~alculus.
 70 M A'111EM ATI Ci\I. M t\NIJSC IHI'TS

A pil rl from I his. ge llc ral] Y spc.l! king, thanks to the (/ prio!'i supposition of the t1i ]Terelllia Is
d.. , dy etc. or .r. )'
elc., as imJepc ndc nL isol:I ICd, incrc lllc nls o r x and y. " g rc~11 advllntllgc is
obl1l incu . pe rmitti ng the di lTc rcnli,1I c;lIc ulu s 10 express Idl func tions of the varil1hlcs in
diffe rent ia l fm ms, fro m the very beginning.

S ince 1 developed the ~J:'lsic fun<:lio ns o f the va riables, like (lX,

)'

as well" " :!.. , ,·II!tnc nt,.ry c ircu i:'T fun c tion s alo ng this path , I can , w hile scarch'i ng d)'.
th em jUq l il..e t ill' Ilw lt ipl icalion tab les o f arilhmctic. But now if wc look 01\ th e oppos ite si/..lc
o f th e a rfa ir, wc sha ll al mu:e o hscrvc, that the e ntire inili,,1opcr:ltio n is m:tth ~ m:l(i" .. ll y w ron g.
*'
ox:!: h, x),.:!, .x". lI'~. log x

use

T ake the simpl est eXllmplc : y "" ):2. If x grows, then it obtains some inde te rminate inc re ment
" ; owing 10 this)', the variahle depe nde nt on il, also obt:tins ;tn iml c te rminat~ in c reme nt k, and
wc s hall hilve -
y + k .. (x+ 11 F_ X1+ 2hx + ,,:
- <I for mula provided by th e binomiallthco rc m\. Hence
y + k _ x 2 or Y + k- y .. 21u: + h!
consequen tly,
0' + k) - Y k _ 2ft.\"+
{)f "2.
Hav ing div ided bot h the sirJes by 11. wc gel
k
-;;-2\"+ 11.

Now assuming" = 0, wc s ha ll ha ve
2,"+11 ... 2r +0 .. 2r.

On the o the r hand, *becomes~ : h ut s ince y turned inlo y + k u nl y because x tlLrned in lO

x + 11, so Y + k again turns jn to y whe n It tu rns in to 0, 011 the stre ngth of w hich x + h aga in
becomes x + O. i.e" x. Hcnce, k nbo hecomes () 11nd ~ a: ~. w hic h ma y be pr~sentcd now in the
form of ".r
.1 o r l' . T hus wc get o or l .. 2r
(.x x o x
I f in
y + k _x 2 .. 2hx + h2 0 r (y + k) -y .. 21u" + 11"2

=
[wc assu me Ih[ll h OJ (h turns in lo Ihe sym ho l clr o nly heciluse, in its ini ti.II form , it was
supposed to he equa l 10 0), then \....c s ha ll ge t k .. [) + n .. 0, and thc sole res ult ohtained by
liS is hul a n assertio n of our s uppositio n, that y s im ply hCl'omcs y + k. w he n x becumes
x + If, .. .. hence, when x + 1I .. x + O- x. the n y+ k ... y, o r k .. 0,
But by no mea ns do wc get, after Newto n,

k- 2r dx + dxdx
or, in Ncwtn niit n notatio ll
 ON TIlE IIISTURY 0 1' DlFI'EI{I:NTI/\I . C/\IXIJI .liS 71

h turns into X, nnd on the strength o f th;lI, k. - inlo j', o nl y s inl'c " has gone down in to hell
Ih ro ug h 0, Le., since the differe nces X I - X (o r (x+h)-x), and Ihal is why a lso y,-y
( .. (y + k) - y ), arc reduced to thcir absolutc minimum expressions: x - x "" 0 and y - y .. O. In
so far liS Newton ge L<; Ithe llifferentials l from the increments o f the var iables x, y e tc., no t
with the help of m;tth e malk"al uedIH:tion , bul al once pUl<; th e s tamps o f differe ntial s .r, .i'
=
e tl·., over the inncml'nis, these incremenL~ ca nno t hl~ O. fur u therwise the result wll uld
be !lull, :-.i lll"e, expressed a lgebra ica ll y, the s upposition that these in cre men ts arc equal to
zero, fro m the vt,.: ry begi nning. is l<lnla mU Unl tn s up posi ng at \lIICC " .. n, and that b why
k .. D, as ;Ibuve, in the equa tion
(y + k) - )' .. 2ltx + 112

=
and hCIlI.:e, It)()htaini ng in Ihc 1:ISI inSl<I IICC\)ro (J. The s upposi tion that 11 '" 0 is i mpefmis~ihlc
before the firs t derived function of x, il) the giw n case 2x, is !"reell from the Illttlliplic l " by
di vi~ i H n . and th us
v - \'
-_ 1_....:... .. 2r
h
+"
is oh tained .
Onlv aflrr thi:, nwy the rin<ll diffcrelH:e he rcmuved. Th a t is why, in till: ~11l1H.': way the
d ificrc nliall'O(;ITil:ic nl

!.!l.
,L, 2r
lllu~1 he initially c.xpandcd 61• hd"nre wc I.:an ubt;d n the differenti;1I
cl)' - 2r(Jx.
T htl~, Ihe rt:: rcm<lins nothing el~c 10 do, hUllO prcsen t lhc incremenL, uf "as infinitely
~mal t !1ll:,).!!1 iUtdc~ I tllH.lln regis te r the m, as slIch, as illllepelldt'lI( heill~s, for exampl e , in th!.!
:-.ymlw ls _t, .i' e tc ., or fit·,d), letc J. Out in fi nitcl y small magnitudes arc ;l h-,n m;tgnitmk s. as a rc
thl; infinitel y hig (the wnrd infini tely (s mall) :-, ig niCics on ly the rHl.: l that it i!> indefinitel y snlllll);
that is why . Ih ese dy. dx e\(.:. ur j:. X !e tc l 11 1." 0 fi gure ill Ihe CO IllP U!;tlinll ; I ~ ord inary
nigdml ic mllgniLlH.ks. lIud in the l'4 uatinn rcu lIt"l'd ahove
(y + k) - Y o r k .. 2wlx + "x"x,
thc te rm d\" dx h.ts as mud rig lit tucxis l, as has 2.rdx. But most astonishi ng is that argume nt,
by wh ic h this te rm is forci bl y Gis t a w ay, na mely, n n thc s trc n.glh u f Ulilis ing the relativ ity
of the cnnn.:pt or infinitely ~11l<l1 1; lirt/x is discarded hCclUse it is infini lely sma ll as compa red
1( 1 dx, a nd l'l) n Sl~ qIl C l1tl }', a lso as comrarcd 10 2xdx nr lr.r. Or, if in
. - .
Y - I l l +ZJI + lIZ,
(the ;tlldl'ntll it: is uis~::tnlc d in view 0 1" its infinite slllJllncss in comparison wilh If:! or ;:/I,
the n ()1I 1y lhe me ntion o f tIll,: fa c l, th;lt in o ur cyes I;;: + ZII has all ;Ipprnxima tc \"alul·. (.:oncc ivably
as prnxill1:Hc tu the exac t (value 1as p o~~ihle . may serve as a math(' ma lil'al .i ll ~ tiJ"i cal i(ltl
f(lf this. Wc meet with the same Iype of mant.c uvre, ; d~11 in the ord ina ry a i.!!c hra. Du I. lIl1.:n wc
fa ce 1111 eVen g reater mir:t l·lc: ()wing t(llhi~ rlH:thl,d. wc get, for Ihe ucrivcd function (inl x,
72 MA'l1ll :MATICAL MANUS('JUnS

by 110 means an ,lpprtlx imaIC, hu t'ln ent irety exact value (1 IHHI ~ h , as alwvc . it is corred only
sy m bo lic,lI ly), as in the pamplc y-
2\.\" + .~..i:. Hen' discarding _i..l-.
j; - 2r.i: is oblai ll c~
a nd
.,. . ..... .

, '
"
wbic h is the correct ·fir:;;t . derived function of X2, as"it is p roved. already in the bfno mial
[theo reml·
8 ilt this m intc:lc Is no . miracle at all. COll versely. it wo uld h;f"C h~cll a' mlradc, ha ~ 'the
fo rc ibl e casting away of ii 1101 ginm all eX(lct rew!, . Fo r wll(l/ is {/i.\"Cl//'dl!d ' j".\, bi" .\"aml!
mistake ill computalioll , which, however, was tin; unavoidahle conseque nce o r th e mclhl)d,
pc rmitl ing the inlrouuctioll of ;111 indctcrminalc illCfCmcpl 7 for cxanlplc " . {I f the v:l ri abl c at
o nce as the d j'rfcrcn t i:d dx o~ i, :IS a rc;u.ly -rmH.lc opcralit',!wl ~y'I1;tHil amf th llS of im,mel.l iately
obt:t i n i ng 'the d j rrerell li;r I C:I lI; u I us as ,HI imlepclllk nt Illea n~ of t:omptlta tillfl. lIisti Ilt:nrum the
o rllinaryal!!cbra ,

.~- .. ,,-.,

Th e r.:olt r ~c ()j' the algebraic mcthou tI~cJ by us nwy he ucpielcd i n lhe gene ral from as
und er. Iflex) is given, then at f irst the "preliminary derivative" is CXPllllllcd , w h ich wc sha ll
call ['(x) :

l)['(x)- ",'
6'; , or :\_ "" /1 (x),
Fro~n this equiltion it follows tha t;
t.J' - I'(x)t.x,
T hus, lrl SO ;
t.I(x) - I '(x)"x , ',,~

(s; ncc)' -I(x)), Isol t.J'-t.I(x),

Supposi ng XI -x'"' 0, anJ r.:Ouscqllcnlly. ;lIso ;". ,i
__ f __ r\
)' ) - y"O, wc gC !
-," ; !'I
12) 1 -d" - [,(x), "
dx
Then
(/J' - f' (x) (/x,
hence, ;tl so .'
(/[(.,) -['(x) (/x
(, ;nl'c y - [(x), d)" . (/[(xi). .
- ~ , ,
 ON THE HISroRY OF DlfFERENTIAI. CALCULUS 7J

Since we have a lready expanded

1) 11/(x)- /'(x)l1x,
we see that
2) d/(x) - f'(x)dx
is o nly the d ifferential expression for 1)

(----J

1) If x turns into XI' then

A) x l -x-6x;
hence the foll owing conclusions:
Aa) 6x-x,-x ; a) x l -6x-x;
6 x, the difference between XI and x- expressed posilively- is conseque ntl y, the illcremellt
of the va riable x, beca use, if it is taken, conversely, away from XI' then the latter returns 10
its initial co nditio n, to x.
Hence the difference may be expressed in two ways: immediately, as the difference
between the increased variable a nd its co nditio n prior to in crease - and this is its n egative
expression; and poSi tivel y. as th e increment ·, as the result: as Ih~ increment of x to tha t
conditio n of it, when it does not increase furth er, and Ihis is a pos itive expression.
We s hall sec la te r, what ro le this two· fold understanding plays in the history o f calcu lus.
(2» ) b) x,-x+l1x.
XI is inc reased X itself, its growth is no t separa ted from it ; Xl is the ent irely indeterminate
fo rm of its inc rease; this fo rm distinguishes the increased x, i.e., XI from its initial fo rm prior
to increase, fro m x, but it does not distinguish X from its increment, as such. Owing to this the
relatio n of XI and X may be expressed o nl y nega tivel y, as a difference, as XI -x. As opposed
to th is, in Xl - X + 6 X :
1) The difference is expressed positively, as the increment of x.
2) Tha t is w hy its inc rease is exp ressed not as a difference, but as the sum of it in its initial
condition + its increment.
3) T echnically speaking, from a monomial X turns into a binomial. a nd wherever in the
ini tial functio n X is met with. in some power, there in place of the increased X appears the
binomial, consisting of x itself alld its illcrement ; genera lly (speaking] in place of X'" the
bin omial (x + h,/". Thus. expansion of the increase of [the va riab le ] x in reali ty beco mes a case
of s imple application of the binomia l theorem. Since X co mes fo rth as the first, a nd 6. x - as
the second term of th is binomia l - wh ich is indicated by their very interrelat ion. in so far as X
must have existed prior to the emergence o f its increment !lx, so in reali ty only a function
of x is being deduced with the help of the binomial, mea nwhi le d X fi gu res s ide by side as
a multiplier w ith increasing powers; and herein 6x in its first power, i.e., 6xI, must appear
• Here Marx has written is pencil ~ or decrease ~ . - Eu.

10
 74 MA nmMA'I1CAL MANUSCRIPTS

in the second term of the expans ion as the multiplier of the first deri ved function of xl>
deduced with the hel p of the bino min ltheo rcm. This is obse rved at o nce, whcnx is g iven in
ilS second power. x 2 turns into (x + t:.X)'2, which is nothing else but the mll /liplicarioll o f
x + .:l x by itself, [and which J gives x2 + 2x 8 x + II x2, i.e., the first term mus t be the ini tia l
function of x, and the first derived fun ction of X2, i.e., in the given case [2J x form s the second
term with the multiplier .1. Xl ; this [multiplier] appears in the first term o nl y as I1xO - l.
Thus, the derivative is found not through differentiation , but by applying the billominl theorem
i.e., lhro u~ multiplication, and bes ides, beca use the inc rement XI figures from the very
beginning as a binomial , as x + 11 x .
4) Though in x+Ax, asa magnitudcAx is as indeterminate, as is the indetermi nate
variable x itself, nevertheless, 6.x is determinate, as distinct fro m the part ic ular magn itude
x, as the foetus beside its own mother before she became pregnan t x + 11 x d oes no t s impl y
inde te rmin ately express th e fact th at, as a variable x has increased, it also expresses how much
x has increased, namely, by t:J. x.
5) When the derivative is fo und by applying the binomia l theorem, Le., by substi tuting
x + AX for.t in the determina te powe r [of the va riabl eJ x, then x never appears as XI; the
entirf} .. expans io n moves around the incremcn t t:J. x. Only o n the left hand side, when in
y,' -Y[h
.~ t e" IIlcrcmcnt 1 !lx turns into zero, does!l X fina ll y appear again as equal to XI -x,
uX
s uch that

----_.
YI - Y
6.x
>'1 - Y
XI-X

Thus , the positive s ide of the equalisatio n of XI-X with zero, namely , thc turning of
XI into x, can no where appear in the expansion in so fu as XI' as s uch, never fig ures on that
side, where the expandcd series is situa ted; thus the rca l secret of differential ca lculus remains
unrevealcd.
6) If Y - f(x) and Yl - f(x + A x), then we can say, that in this meth od, lhe expansion of Yl
so(ve~ 'he problem of searching the derivative.
c) x+.1.x-x\ (hen ce also,y+6.Y-YI). Here.1.x may appear only in the fo rm of
.1. x - XI - x, i.e., in the negative form o f a differen.ce between XI and x, and not in the positive

form of an increment of x. as in -':1 - x + .1. x.

1) Here t!:le increased x, i.e., XI is distinct"from itself, from what it wa s prior 10 the
increase, Le., from x. but XI does nor appear as x in creased by 6. x ~ tha t is why, in fa ct
XI remains as indeterminate as x.

2) Further, just as x enters into an initial functi on, so does Ihe increased XI - entcr
into the initia l fun ctio n transformed by the increase. Thus, for exampl e, if x appears in the

• Ma rx wrOle in pencil : • ( - t;) .. - Ed .

 ON THE HISTORY OF [)IFFEU!iNTIAL CALCULUS 7S

fun ctio n x-J, then XI appears in the function X I] ' While a t first we substitute x by (x + dX) in
the initia l fun ction, the deriva tive is furni shed by the binom ial in an entirely read y-made form ,
tho ugh e ndowed with the multiplier dX and appearing as the leader of the other te rms in x
with the multipliers dX 2 e tc.; now from this immediate form of the mo nomia l XIJ, of the
augmented x, we may immed iately deduce as littl e, as [may be deduced} from x-J. However,
he reby the difference X I 3 - x 3 is given. W c know from algebra , thatall differences of the form
X3 _ a3 are divis ible by (x - a), i.e., in the given case by Xl -x . That is why when we divide

X I3 - Xl by Xl - x (in place 0 1 multiplying, as before, (x + d x ) by itself, as many limes, " S

many are the unil~ in the index of power), we ob tain [prelimin arily] an expression o f the form
(XI -x)P irrespecti ve of the fa ct, whether the ini tiill funct ion of x is a polynomial, (Le.,
co ntains X in various powers), o r, as in our example, a 1110nomial. In th e cou rse of division
th is (x , - x) becomes the denominator for Yl - Y in the left ha nd side, and, thus, there eme rges

YI - Y - the ratio of the d iffere nce of the fun ct io n to the difference of the independent
Xl -x
variable x in its abstract difference fo rm. Expansion of the di fference between the fun ctions
expressed inxl' and those expressed in x, in to such terms, each of which has the multiplier
Xl - x, may, in view o f the characteristics of the initial function of x, demand grea ter or
lesse r algebraic manoeuvres; perhaps, it is a demand wh ich is not always fulfilled as eas il y, as
in the case of x l 3 _X3 . But this cha nges nothing in thc method.
Where, owing to its own na tu re, the in itial function does not permit a direct expansion
[of the difference] [(Xl) - f(x) in (Xl - x) P, as it happe ned for f(x) .. ItZ (two variables

dependent upon x), there [the expression] (XI - x) appears [in the 1multiplier x
,~ x . Further,
when after the transfer of Xl - X to the left hand side, through the divisio n of both the s ides
by it , Xl - X still remains in P itselr (as, fo r example, while dcducing the derivative of y - aX,
then we find
y,-y {(X,-X)- l )
- - - a'~ (a - 1) +
X I -x l '
2 Ca - 1)2 + etc. ,

and there the supposition that Xl -x .. 0 g ives

'" a~ {(a - 1) - :Ha - 1)2 + ·Ha - 1P - etc. } ).
This, as in the example jllSl cited, ma y happen always, only if the suppos ition of XI - x
equal to zero, leading to its disappearancc, always left positive results in its place. In
other words, these x, - x, still remaining in P, cannot be con nec ted with the o ther ele ments
of the express ion P as multiplie rs (as ml1itipiicators). In the opposite case, P could be
represented as P _ P (Xl - x) a nd , it means, that in so fa r as XI - X was already assumed to be
equa l to zero, as p' 0 ; this would s ignify that P _ 0 63 .......
76 MA"n IEMA'lle AL Mi\NUSCRII>TI

When y - xl, and y, - X,3, the first finite diffe rence XLl- x3 is, conseque ntl y. expanded
again into
1\ - y - (x, - x) P,
hence
1, - Y _ P o
XI-X

The express io n P, presenting ilSelf as it combination of Xl and x, is cq~ltil to f l- the

derivative of the first finite difference; hence, Xl -x is excl uded . as arc the high er powers
of it (XI -x)2 e tc. Owing to this, in the given case, Xl and x ca n o nly combine in pos itive
x
expressions,l ikcx,+x; XIX, --1,VX j X etc. Hcnce,i fn owwc assume thill xl-X, then these
x
expressions wi ll co rrespondingly turn into 2 x, X2, ! or 1, ID or x e lc., and o nly on the left
x
hand side, where XI -x form s the denominator will 0 appear, and conseq ue ntl y, a lso the
symbo lic differential co-effi cient etc.
 11. THE HISTORICAL COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT
x,
1) Mystical differential calculus. Xl _ X + l!J. x nl once turns into XI - X + dx or x + where
dx is postulated by a mct.'lphysical explmtatioll. At first it exists, and is expla ined o nl y
subseq uently.
But even then y, - y + dy or YI - Y + y. From this arbitrary postulation it follows, that
x
in the expansion of the binom ial x + I:!. x or x + the terms in x and i::J, x, which, for examp le,
were obtained side by side with the first derivative. must be removed by jugglery, so that a

antic ipated, and no t deduced, but premised with Ihe he lp o f an elucidation, so

symbolic differential co-efficient, is also ollticipateclby this elucidation.
*
correct result may be obt.ai ned e tc. etc. S ince, upon actua l substan tiatio n, the differential
ca lc ulus proceeds from th is last resu lt, namely, from the differential particles, which arc
or ~, the

If the increment of x is equal to fl x, and the increment o f the variable depende nt upon it
is equa l to fly, then it stands to reason all by itself, that ~ expresses the ratio of Ihe increments
;'x
of x andy. But that flx figures in th e denominator, i.e., the increment of th e independent
variable stands in the denominator, and not, conversely, in the numerator, is a consequence of
the fact, that the final result of th e development of differential forms th emselves , namely, the
diff(!relltial, is also given already before hand, by the premised different ial pa rticles.
Let us consider Iht' simp lcf,t relation between the dependent variable y and the
independent variab le X, 3!'o \11)' - x . In this case it is known that dy - dx or thaty _ x . But since
we seek the derivative of the independen t [varillble I x, here which - x, so bo th the sides must
b ~ divided by x 64
or dx , ;lnd hcncc
d .
El or .r. - 1.
dx x
Thus, we know once and for all, that in the symbolic differential co-efficient, increment lof
the independent variable J must be situated in the denominator, and not in th e numemtor.
But now for the functions of x in the second degree, the derivative is at once soug ht wi th
the help of the binomial theorem, [prov iding the expans ion, in which] the derivative
appears in a ready-made form illready in the second term with the multiplier dx or X, i.e. ,
with the increments in first power + the te rms to be discarded. However, Ihis trick is, though
unco nsciously, mathematically correct, since it on ly clim inates that mistake in compu tation,
which emerged at the very beginning, from the initial tricks.
Only XI - X + fl x is to be transformed into
x,-x+dx or into x+x,
' ..
so that thcn \\.'" can lord ove r this differential binomial, just as [we dol over the ordinary
binomials, which would be very comfortable from the technical point of view.
The only question which may st ill be raised is as follows: why the terms block ing the path
are forcibly eliminated? It has been assumed 10 be well known, that they sta nd in our path
and, that, in reality, they do not belong to the derivative.
 78 MA111l!MI\'n CAL MANUSCRll'lS

The an . . wer is very simple; it has bee n found out experimenta lly. Not on ly for many more
complex functions of x, includin g those in Ihcir all1l1ylical forms, like the equa tions for c urves
etc., were th e actual deri vatives long si nce well known, bu l this was also discovered
imm ediately in th e fi rst poss ible experimen tal so lu tion, namely, upo n co nsideration o f the
simplest algebraic ftlnClions of the seco nd degree, for example:
y _Xl ,
Y + dy - (x + dx)2 _ x 2 + 2xdx + dx2 ,
Y + Y_ (x + x)2 _ x 2 + 2.U + Xl,
If f rom both the sides the initi al function x 2 (y _ Xl ) is subtracted , then
dy _ adx + dxl ,
y- 2xX+xx ;
discarding the las t terms from both Ilhe right hand 1s id es, wc sha ll get:
dy - 2xdx, .y - 2l:i,
and, further.
!!l _2x
dx •

l' _ 2x.
x
But from (x + a)2 il is known , that x 2 is th e first term , :wd 2xa - the second ; if this
expression is divided by a, as we have divid ed above 2xdx by dx or 2xX by X. then we would
get ~,as the first derivative o f x 2 , as the accretion in x 65, which the bi nomial added to
X2. Thus, for seek in g the dt, rivative they had to discard dx2 or xi, not to speak of the fact, that
there was nothing 10 be done with dx2 0 r xx in itself.
Thus, alrea dy at the second step along the path of exper imenta tion, Ihey inev itably
arrived al th e conclus ion, thaI, not o.nl y for obta ining the correc t result, but also for
obtaining any result at all , it is essential to disca rd dx2 or xx.
But on the other hand , in 2xdx + dx 2 or 20· + xx, they had before them a correct ma thematica l
expression (the second and the third term) of the binomial (x + dx )2 or (x + X)2, Tha t this
mathematically correct result is based upon all equally marhemalically wrong presllPposition
at the very foundation, thal s upposed ly, from the very beginningxl -x - .6 x is nOlhingelse but
XI -oX - dx or x- this they did not know 66 , In other words, that ve ry IC~UIt could have been
obtained and proposed in the mathematical world, not wi th the help {1 [ j ugglery, but with
algebra ic operations of the s implcst type ,
Th us, they themselves believed in the mysterious character of the newly discovered
ca lc ulus, whic h provided correct (and more over in the geometr icu l appl icat ions, rea ll y
astonishing) res ults by a posi tively in correct mathematical procedure, They were thus
self· mystified, valued the new discovery all th e higher, enraged the c rowd of old orthodox
mathematicians all the more, and thus call ed forth the cry of o pp o~ ition ; it aro used an echo
even in the lay world, and that is necessa ry for paving the path for some th ing new.
 ON THE HISTORY 01' DII'FERENT(ALCALCULUS 79

2) Rational ditl'crcntial cakulus. d'Alcmbcrt starts directly from the starling point of
Newton and Leibllilz : Xl'" X + dx. But he lit once makes a fundamental co rrection:
Xl =- X + 6. x, i. e., x + an indetermillate, but first of all afillite illcrement. This he calls h. With
him, the transformation of this h or 6. x into dx (likc all Frenchmen he uses the Leibnitzian
notations) takes place only as the last result of the development or at least just at the eleventh
hour, while with the mystics and the initiators of calculus it appears as the sta rting point
(d' Alembert himself opcr;'lles from the symbolic side, bUI before that side turns into a
sy mbol). By this a t once a two fold result is obta ined 67.
a) Ratio of the differences

[(x+") -[(x) ~[(x +") - /(x)

It Xl - X

has as the starting point of its own formation 1) [thcdiffcrencelf(x+h)-f(x),which

corresponds to the algebraic function given in X, obtained, when in the initial function of
[the variablel X, for example, in x 3, x is substituted by that very x with its increment, i.e., by
x + 11. This form (- Yl - y, if Y "" fex» is the form of the dif/raellce of fUllctions, which is
required by the development, so that the increment of the functio n in the ratio may be
transformed into the increment of the independent variable; hence, it plays a real role, and
not purely a nominal onc, as with the mystics. For, if I have with the la ttcr
f(x)~x',
f(x+h) - (x + hP =x3 + 3x2/t + 3xh 2 + 11 3,
the n I know beforehand, that the oppos ite s ides of the equality
f(x+ h) - f(x) _x 3 + 3x 2h +3xh2 +,,3 -x3,
are reduced to increments. This may not have been written, s ince in the second side [R .H.S] I
sce, that of the increment of [the function] x 3 .. the next three te rm ~, just as in J(x + 11) - [(x),
there. rem.<tins only the increment of the [function] f(x), i.e., dy. Thus , the first difference
equation again, beforehand, plays only a vanishing rolc. The increments beforehand sL'lnd
oppos ite each other on both the sides and if I have them, then from the definitions of dx and
dy I can conclude, that !!1..d or ~ is the ratio ctc. Hence , in order to (orm El.dx or ~, I do not
l
x x x
need the first difference, obtained through the subtraction of the in itial function in x, from the
changed (by the substitution of x by X + h) function (from the increased function).
It is essential for d'Alembert to hold fast to this difference, because the process of
development must emerge from it. That is why in place of the positive expression of
difference, i.e., in p.lace of the increment, the negative expression of increment, i.e., namely,
the difference I(x + 11) - f(x) comes to the fore, in the left hand s ide. And of this stressing
of the difference in place of the increme nt (the Ouxions of Newton), we at least have a
presentiment in the Leibnitzian notation of dy, as opposed to the Newtonian y .

2) f( x +") - f(x) - }x'1> + 3x'" +"'.

Dividing both the sides by 11, we get
 80 MA111EMATICAL MANUSCRUVfS

f( X + h) - [(X) _ 3x2 + 3xh + ,,2

Here in the left hand side "

[(H") -[(x) .!(H" )-[(X) . , d
. IS .ormc ,
II x1-x
appea ring. thus, as the derived ratio of fillite differences, whc rc:l.s for the mystics it was a
ready-made ratio of increments, provided by the ddinitions of dx or x and dy o r y.
3) Now assuming" - 0 or Xl - X, i.e., Xl - x - 0 in
[( X+ " ) - [(x) .!( H " ) - [(x)
" x, - x
wc thereby trans form this expression into ~ ; s imultaneously with this, owing to the

transformation of It into 0, the terms 3xh + 112 also turn into zero, moreover, by a correct
mathematical operation. Hence, now they are removed wi thout a trick. We ge l :
o dv
4) 0 or ';b: - 3x' - ['(x).
The latter ca me into being, as with the mystics, as already given, when x turns into
x + It; since in place of x 3 I (x + hP g ives x3 + 3x2h + etc., wherc 3x2 already appears in the
second term of the series as the co-efficient o f h in first degree. Thus, the conclusion is the
same as with Leibnitz and Newton, however, here the entirely ready·madc derivative 3x2 is
disentangled fro m its su rround ings. stric tl y algebraically. This is no development, but rather
the disentanglement of f'(x), here of 3x2, freed from its multiplier 11. and from th e other terms
marching in a row along with it. But what has really been developed, is the left symbolic side,
namely, dx. dy and their ratio, the symbolic differential co·efficicnt ~ - ~ (more correctly,

conversely, %- ~). which, in its turn, again ca lled forth a coup le of metaphysical horrors,
though this time the sy mbol hJIS been wormed out mathematically.
d' Alemberl tore orr the shroud of mystery from the differential ca lculus, and thereby took
a great step forward . However, in spite of the appearance of his "Treatise on the liquids" alrc"dy
in 1744 (see: p. 15 *). the method of Leibnit7. prevailed in France for many more years. There
is hardly any need to point out, that Newton ruled in England till the first decades of the 19th
century. But here \00, as in France earlier, the d'Alcmbcrtian foundation - with certain
modification s - prevailed till the presen t moment.
3) Purely algebraic differential calcu lus. Lagrange, "Theory ofanalyticalfullcliolls" (1797
and 1813). As in 1) and 2). [here Jilso] the first starti ng point was the increasing x, if y or
[(x)- etc., the n Yl or [(x+dx) - as in the mystical method. and Yl or f(x+lJ)
( - [(x + A x)) - as in the rational. This binomial starting point at once gives us a binomial
expansion on the other s ide, for example:
* Sce PV, 66 . -E<!,
 O N TilE I-[]STORY OF I)1Fl'l] ltENT1ALCA[,CULUS

X'" + 111."("' - lit + etc. ,

where the second term mx"'- III already gives thc unknown .rea l difrcrential co-crricic nt
mxm -I in an entirely ready-made rorm. '.
a) f(x + Jr) st.anding on the Icft hand sidc is rclatcd the ;;~p~il~C~ , ~cries s tanding
la
opposi te it, as soon as x + h is substituted in plaec of x in' the glvenl rn';lilil I"unction. just as
in algebra the IIIlexpallded general e.i:pression, and first 'or all, the ' ve:t{'HJRomial, is rdated
to the corresponding expanded series, as in ' ,";T'

(x+ hP _ x3 + 3X?f1 + etc.,

(x + hP is re lated to the expa nded seric... x 3 + 3x'll + etc" cqu'ivalcnt 10 it. Thcreby iL",cl f
f(x + h) appears in the same algebraic correlation (o nl y in appl icatioll to varii,blcs), in which,
in the whole of a lgebra, the genera l cxpression rinds itself to its expansio n, -rls, fo r exam ple, in
a . x x2 x.l
- - - I + - + - 2 + - + elc.,
a -x II 0 ll·l

_a_ is related to the e)q,andcd s~ries 1 + etc:, o r <IS in

a-x
s in(x+h) - sinx nis !J+ cosxsin h"
sin (x + /I) is related to thc expansion s tanding oppos ite it.
d'Alembert s imply algebraicised (x + dx) or (x +x) into (x + 11), he nce also f(x + 11), from
y,
y + dy, y + L1grange imparted a purely a lgebraic character to the eTlt.ire ex pressio n, having
co untcrposed 10 it, as a general IlIlexpall ded expre$sioll, the ex panded series, which must be
deduced from it .
b) In the rirst method 1), as well as in the rationa l 2), th e unknown real co-efficien t is
ma nufactured in a ready -made form by the [use ofJ the binomial th eorem, and is met with
already as the seco nd term or the expanded series, thus, in the term necessa rily cont.1ining h'.
Consequently, as in 1), so also in 2), the entire furthe r course of di ffere ntiation is a luxu ry.
T hat is why. let us cast aside th is useless ba llast. From the binomilll expansion wc know
once Ilnd for all, that the firs t rea l co-efficient is Ihe multiplier o f h, the second co-c ffic ient
- tha t of h2 elc. These real differential co-erficicnls are nothing hut successive binomial
developmcnts of the derived jUllctiolls from IIIe illitial fUlZctioll in x (;md the introductio n o[
this category of derived fUllctiolls is one of th e most important [aC hievemen ts]). Concerni ng
the separatc difrerential forms, we know that, tu IUrns into dx, 6.y - into dy, tha t Ih e first
derivative find s symbolic express ion in the form of !ill ,the second de riva tive, the co-efficient
ex
of ~lrl_ in the form of ~ etc. Hence" thanks to the sy mm ctri es, we can present the results
obtained by us pu rely algebraica ll y and at thc same time in tht\ form of th ei r sy mbolic
difrerential equivalents. Of the differential calculus proper the nomenclature alone re ma ins.
Under such circumsL1nces, the en tire task is in essence reduced to : find ing out the (algebraic)
methods "of expanding all types o f func tions of x + h according 10 increasi nc integral powers
of h, which cannot be done in many cases without [recourse to ] highly c umbersome
opera tions"68,
11
82 MA'J1-IEMA'n CAL MANUSCRIPTS

Thus far there is nothing in ugrangc, which could no t have been obta ined directl y
proceeding from the method o f J 'A lcmhcrt (for the laLter method also conL.1ins, only in 11
corrected form, the entire co urse of deduction of the mystics) .
c) But consequently, in so far as the expansion of y, or (x + 11) ... e tc., appears in place of
the earlier differential calculus [[and the reby. in rea lity, clearly comes forth the secret of those
methods, which proceed from y + dy or y + Y. x + dx or x + X, na mely, that their ac tual
expansion is based upon the application of the binomial theorem, ill so far as, from the
very beginning they present the increased x, as x + dx, the incrcascdYl -asy + dy, tra ns forming
thereby the mono mial into a bi no mialll, the Ifoll owi ng] tas k e merges: s ince in f{x + 11)
we have a functionofx witho ut power, only its gellerallmexpandedexpressioll, the general,
Le., s uitable also fo r the function s of x of any power, series of expansion is to be
algeb raically deduced fro m this very uncx panded express ion .
Here, for the purpose ofa lgebricising the differential calculus, L'lgrange takes that theorem
of Tay/or, as his immediate s t.'lfting point, which has outlived the New/onialls alld New 1Of1 69 ,
In reality this most gene ral and mos t co mprehensive theo rem, is also at the sa me time the
operationa l formula of differentia l calculus, na mely, expressed in sy mbolic differential
co-efficients, the expanded series for :
y\ o r f(x + h), Le.,
y, or f(x+h)-
_ y .(or f(x)) + El h +!!2 ~ +!!2.~ + E:J!. --..!L + ....
dx <ix' [2) <ix' [2-3) dx' [2'3-4 )
d) Here the investigations o n the theorems of MacLaurin and Taylor arc to be insertcd 7o .
e) The Lagrangian a lgebraic expans ion of f{x + 11) into its eq uival ent se ries,
s ubstitutes the Taylorian ~ etc. and retains them onl y as the sy mbolic differential
express ions of the algebraica ll y derived fun ct io ns of x. (This is to be s ubsequently developed
further 71 .)
 *111. CONTINUATION OF THE DRAFTS

c) Continuation orp.2S*
Initially we have XI - X - !! x as an expression of the difference Xl - X ; "ere the
difference exists only in its difference form (analogously, w hen y is dependent upon x, wc
often write y \ - Y ). Assuming Xl - X - /j. x, wc thereby impart upon the difference, an
expression which is already different from itself . We express, though in an indeterminate
[orm, 'he value of this difference as something different from the difference o f magnitudes
itsel r . Thus, for example, 4 - 2 is the pure express ion of the difference between 4 and 2 ; but
4 - 2 = 2 is the difference expressed through 2 (on the right hand side) : a) in a pos itive form,
hence, no morc as a difference; b) the subtraction executed, the difference computed, and
4 - 2=2 gives us 4= 2+ 2. Here the second 2 appears in the posi tive fo rm of all increment of
the i"itial2, thus, in a form, which is directly opposed to the form of difference. ( Exactly
in the same way a - b _ c, a _ b + c, where c comes forth as an incrcmcnt of b , same also
for X I - X - d X, XI - X + !J,. x, where 6. x figures immed iately as an incremcnt of X .)
Thus the simple initial assumption of XI - X - !J,. x - someth in g. puts somcthi ng else in
place of the form of difference, namely, the form of sum X I -x+!J,.x; along wi th this
Xl - X, expressing only a difference, [bccoqJesl the equiva lcn t value of this difference, the
magnitude 6. x. Also in the same way, from Xl - X - !J,. X we obtain Xl -!J,. x - x Here, again
we have the form of difference in th e left hand s ide, bu t as the difference between increased
XI and its incremen t proper, a ppearing beside it independently. The difference between it and
the increment of x, equal to !J,. x, is now a difference, already expressing - though in an
ind eterminate form - a determinate value of x.
But i[ we proceed from the mystical diHerential ca lculus, where XI - X at once appears as
Xl - X - dx, and if at first dx is corrected into 11:X, then we proceed from X l - X - A x ; hence,
from XI - X + A x; bu t this ca n, in its turn, be again transformed into x + A X . ·xl • so that the
increase of x again attains the indeterminate form XI ' and, as such, immediately appears in
the calculus.Th is is the st.1rting point of our algebra ic method.
d) From these si mpl e differences in form, we at once, and immediately, obtain that
fundamental difference in th e treatment of calculus, which we cha racterised in particular
(see the correspond ing separate sheets)n , while analys ing the method of d 'Alembert. Here
I shall limit myself to ~t;)me remarks of a genera l character.
1) If the difference Xl - X (and hence also YI - y) appears at once as its oppos ite, as the sum
Xl - X + 11 x. and that is why the magnitude of its value inSL"ln tly assumes the positive form of
the ;,rcrement A x, then if in the illitial fUllctioll in x, in place of x everywhere we substitute
x + A x, then a binomial series of a determinate degree is required to be expanded and, the
expans ion of XI is reduced to an application of the binomial theorem. The binomial theorem
is nothing but a general express ion for the binomial of first degree multiplied w ith itself
• See : PV, 71 ·72 .-Eel .
 84 MA"nn:MA'I1CAL MANUSCRIPTS

m number of times. ThaI is why, if wc at once present a differellce liS ils opposile. as 11 sum,
then multiplication becomes the method of expanding Xl [or] (x + A x).
2) Since in the genera l expression Xl -x + I::r.x, the difference XI - x given in the positive
form of !J. x, i.e., in the form of an illcrement, is tile latter or the secolld term of the
expression, so x becomes the first, and 6. x - the second term of the initial function in x,
when the laltcr.appears as a function in x + A x. But we know from the binomial theorem, that
the second term figures on ly as a multiplier in increasing degrees beside the first term, and
besides as such that the multiplier of the fi rst express ion containing x (of a determinate degree
of the binomial) is (6 x) 0 _ 1, the multiplier of the seco nd term is (6 x)"that of the third
(6x)2 etc. Thus, in the positive form of an increment the diffe rence, appears only as a
multiplier, and besides at first really as a multiplier in the second term (since (6.x)O -1) of
the expanded binomial (x + 6 x)"'.
3) On the othe r hand, if we consider expans ion of the functions according to' x ·itself,
then the binomial theorem gives us for this first term, here for x, the derived functions according
to this x- onc after the other. For example, if we have (x + 11)4, where, in the algebraiC
binomial" is considered la he a known, and x - an unknown magnitude, then we get
l+ 4ih + etc.
4x which stands in th e second term, and has as multiplier h in the first degree, is hence the
3

first derived function of x or, algebraically speaking: if we have th e IIIIexpm1ded bi1lomial

expression (x + /1)4, then the expanded series gives us as the first addition to .x4 (as ils accretion),
4x3 , which appears as the co-efficient of ". If x is a varia,ble ,nnd we hn ve I(x) -.l.'4, then
the very increase o f the latter turns this [cxpressionl intof(x + h) or, in the first form, into
" "
f(x+6.x)-(x+Ax) . - x 4 +4x3 6.x+• etc .

.x4, ·which was obtained by us, in the ordinary algeb raic binomial (x + h)\ JIS the fifst term of
the binomial[expansionJ , now appears in the binomial expression of the variable x, in
(x + A x)", as a reproduction of the initial function in x, bc[ore it incrcased and became
(x + A x). From the very nature of the binom ia l theorem it is clear beforehand, that if
I(x) -x· turns into [(x + 11) - (x + 11)., then the first term in fthe expansio n of] (x + 11)4 is
equal to x4, Le., it must be equal to the initial fu nction ·in x; (x + 11)4 must conL'lin both the
initial function in x ( here X4 ) + all the terms (lcquired by .x4, while it was turned into
(x + 11)4, hence, the first term lin the expansion I of the binomial (x + h)4 [is th e initial function].
4) Further, the second term of the binomia l expans ion 4x·~h instttntly giv.cs us: the first
derived function of X", namely, 4x3, in. an elltirely ready-made form. Thus this d.erivative
was obtained through the expansion of .
f(x+ ~x) - (X+ ~x)';
it was obtained owing to the fact that, from the very beginning the difference XI -x was
presented as its opposite, as the sum x +.0. x.
Thus, th e binom ial expansion of/(x + .6. x) or YI' obta ined fromf(x) through the increase of
x, provides us the first'.derivative, the co-e fficien t of h ( "in the binomial series), and besides
already at the beginning of the binomial expansion, in its second term. Hence, the derivative is
not at all obtained through differentiation, but with the he lp of th e expansion of
I(x + It) or Yl into some determinate expression, obtained by s impl e multiplication.
 ON 11113 mSTORY 01' DIFI'ERINIlAL CALCULUS ss
Thus, the corn er-sto ne of this method is the expans ion of the indcterrnin;lIc expressio n
f(x + II x) or YI , in to a determinate binomial fo rm , and by 110 mea ns the cxpnnsion of
Xl - X, and hence, a lso o f Y\ - Y or f(x + h) - f(x) as d ifferences.
5) The sole d iffere nce equation, which is met with in this me thod , consis ts of the. fact that
s in ce we ins ta ntly get; .
f(x + 6. x) - (x + II x)~ -x4 + 4Xlllx + 6x2 1:J.x2 + 4x6.x l + 1:J.x4,
so, when we write;
X4 + 4x3.1. x + 6x2 II X2 + 4x6. x3 + II x4 _ x 4,
Le., in the e nd , we again substract the initia l function x4, w hich is the beg inni ng of the
series; we have before us a n illuemellt, which the initial fu nction in x obtained through
binomial expansion. That is wh y, Newton.also writes like th at. Hence, wc have the increment
4i Ilx+6i .1.·i + 4x ll i + I1 x\
i.e. the incre ment o f the in it ial functio n in x.That is why, in the opposite side we don't need
a difference expression af any kind. The in crement of x co rresponds 10 the increment of y, as
y or f(x) - x4. Not fo r nothing Newton at onee writes:
dy, fo r himy- 4xx etc.
. ,.
6) Now the enti re further development cons ists of freeing the completely ready-made
de rivative 4x 3 from its multiplier 6. x and from the neighbo uring terms, of disenta ngling it
from its surroundings. Thus, this is not a methad of development, but o f disengagemellt.
e) Dif1~renliallon or/ ex) ( as a general expression).
We note at first, tha t the co ncep l of "derived function" for the successive rea l eq uiva lents
of the sy mbo lic diffe rential co-efficie nl'i, which was quite unknow n to those w ho fi rst
discovered the differenctial calculus and to their firs t successors, was in fact, fo r the
first lime, iiltroduced by Lagrange. In [ the writings of ] the earl ier[lluthors ] only the
dependent variable, fo r example y, fi gures as the fUllction af x, wh ic h fully correspo nd s to the
initial algebraic.: meaning of fth e wordl func tion, app lied at first to the so ca ll ed indeterminate
equations, where the numher of the unknowns is greater than the number of eq uations, and
thus, where, for example, y t:lkes d ifferen t va lues depending upo n the different values pu t in
place of x. Whereas in Lagrange the initia l function i!) a de termina te algebraic expression
o f x, whieh is to be di fferentiat ed; hence, if y o r f(x) - x4, th en .x4 is lhe initial function ,
4xJ - the first derivative e tc. That is why, tQ avoid confusion, wc s hall call,y the dependent
[variable]. or f(x) - thefunctioll of x, the initia l fun c tio n, in the Lagrangian sense - the initial
[lIl1clion ill x, correspondingly the "deri vatives" arc fun ctions ill x .
In lhe a lgeb ra ic method, where we at first eXPlllldf I - the preliminary derivative or
[the ratio] o f finite differences a nd, o nly fro m tha t, the fiMl de rivat ivef', we know be forehand,
that f(x) - y, hence:
a) Ilf(x) - 6y, and tha t is why conversely also, l1y -llf(x). What is now 10 be developed
firs t of ali, is llf(x), the value of the fini te diffe rence o f f(x).
Wc find that:
I ~' . ~ I
f (x) - rx ' I.e., rx -f (x).
r
86 MA·n IEMATICAL M i\NUSCRIJ'T~

That is, also

!> y - 1 '(x) !>X,
ands incell y- 11[(x),so
!> I (x) - 1 '(x ) !>x.
Further, the unfo lding of the diffe rent ia l expressio n, which in the rinal count gives us

dl(x) - J'(x)dx,
is simpl y the differe ntial expressio n of the fini te difference unfo lded earlie r.
In the usual method
dy 0' dl(x) - J'(x)dx
is no t a t a ll expa nded, but . scc above , the full y rcad y-made!'(x) furnished by the bino mia l
(x + tJ. x) or (x + dx) o r, is o nly disengaged from its multiplier and fr0':fl the accompanying
terms
 *THEOREMS
OF TA YLOR AND MACLAURIN
LAGRANGE'S THEORY OF
ANALYTICAL FUNCTIONS
 1. FROM THE MANUSCRIPT "TAYLOR 'S THEOREM, MACLAURIN'S
THEOREM AND LAGRANGIAN THEORY OF ANALYTICAL FUNCTlONS,,73
I
Discovery of the binom ial theorem by Newton ( in its applicatio n to tbe po ly no mial),
also gave rise to a revol utio nary trans formation in the whole o f algeb ra - firs t of all,
because it made the genera/theory of equalions poss ible.
But th e binomial theorem is al so an imporklnl fo undati on of th e differential ca lculus -
and lhis is defi nitel y recognised by the ma thcma lici<lTls, especiall y from the time o f
Lagrange. Even a cursory g lance s hows th at, with the ex:ception of the c ircu lar functions
emanating from trigo nometry, all diffe rentia ls of the monnmials li ke X"'. a:r, log X e tc., arc
deduced only with the help of the binomial lheor~m 74.

Now it has even beco me a fashion to show in the tex.tbooks that, as the bi nom ial th eorem
ca n be deduced from Taylor's a nd MacLau rin's theorems, so also conversely?5. However.
nowhere, not even in L1grange - whose th eo~y of derived functions provided a new basis
for the differential ca lcul us, is this connection between the binomial theore m and the two
o thers, laid ba re in a ll its virgi n simplicity, and here, as everyw here, it is important to s trip the
veil o f secrecy from sc ience.
Tay lo rs theorem, whic h is historically prior to MacL:lurin's tbeo~e m , gi:ves l~ - unde r
definte presupposi tions - a sequence of sy mbolic exp ressions fo r all the:fun c tions of x, when
x is incresed by a pos itive or negative increment IJ 16, Le., generally for f(x ± h), indica ting
that series of differential opera tions,by means o( which f(x ± h) 'may b1 expanded. Thus,
what is a t issue here, is the expllnsion of any f Ull ctioll of x, as SOOIl ds x changes. .
In contrast to this MacL:lUrin gives - also under deterll}inatc assumptio ns - for every
fUllction of X t the genera l expansion of this very fun c tio n ofX, also in a series of symbolic
expressions, indic~ tjng how it is easy to expa nd , with the help o f the differential calculus,
those [unctions, the algebraic expansions o f which arc often very c umbersome and difficult. But
the expansion of any fu nc tion of x signi fies no thing other tha n obtaining constallt junctions
combining with [the powers of ] the independent variable x 71, since the expansion of
the ve ry variab le was, as it were. iden tica l with its variation. i.e., with the objec t o f Taylor's
theore m.
Both of these theo rems arc colossa l ge nera lisations in which the differential symbo ls
themselves become the content of the equation. l ns tead of actua ll y success ively deduced
functions of x. the derivatives are presented on ly in the form of thc ir symbo lic eq uivale nts.
each of which, independently of the type of the functions f(x) o r f(x+h) , prescribes some
operat iona l stategy to be carried ou l. Thus, two rormula ~ arc obtained ; they are, with certa in
restrictions, applicable to all particular fun ctions of x or x + 11.
Tay lor's formula:
dv d 2y 112 d3v h~ d3v h4
f(x+h) o'y - y+="+ - +~--+~ +ctc
1 dx dx2 1·2 dx 3 1·2·3 tfx4 1·2·3·4 .
MacLaurill 's/ormula:

f(x) or y .. (y) + (~)f + (d~n ;; + (~:;) ] ~'3 '+ (~) 1';~'4 etc.
 I'ROM nm MAN USCR IPT "TAYLOI~'S T IIEO nEM, MACI..AU1~IN·S TIJ1lOl~ EM· 89

Even at a first glance it is visible thn t, histo rically, as well as Lh eorct icnlly, here it IS
already assumed, that the arithmelic(o/ what may be cll ll ed) the differential calculus, i.e. ,Ihe
deve lopment of its bllSic ope r;Hio ns, is bo th Iw:lilable and well know n. This .sho uld not be
(o rgo tton latter on, whe n I shalt assume this acqua int fl IH.:e.

11

M aclaurin 's theorem may be viewed as a parliclI/ar i"stance or T"y lo( ' s theo rem. In
Tay to r's [theorem J we have:
y- I(x),
d,
y,'" f(x+h) .. f(x) o r Y + 1;, 1 [I 1
cl ", h " + elc.
11 +"2 cldx'y1 112 + elc.+ 1:2.3 ........ ./1 d;:-
I[ in f(x+h) and, also o n the right hand side, in Y o r [(x) and, ill its derived [unctions,
symbolically derived in th e fo rm o f ~ , ~~; etc ., wc ass ume tha t x ... 0, !.lIch tha i, nil these
functions will no mo re contain anything o the r than a revers,,] of the cvnst.'l lll c le mcnt o r
x 78 , tben

[(h) - Y +(<!x.)
dx h + (<0.);"
dx2 ~ + (<!!x)
dx3 1.2.;" 3 + e tc.

Then y] - f(x + 11) - f(O + 11) wi ll be that very ftlnction o f I! ,which y .. I(x) i:;, in respect of

x, (or 11 enters into [(11), jus t asx does into/(x), and (y) into (i.1)
dx
eLc.- [lll;(cinl :lll tmce o(

the variable x has van ished . Tha t is why, on both the sides wc can pll t x instc;:d of h, find thcn
we get:

I(x) - (y) m I (O)+(1t)x+(~) -1·2

x'+
elc.+(dd;Y) " -/1 + etc.
";.1-':'2:'.;;-"'-

Or, as is usually written:

x2 x3
I(x) - 1(0) + !'CO»: +/,,(0) 12 + /,,'(0) 1.2.3 + c1c.,

as, (or example, in the expansion of f(x) o r (c + x)'" :

(c + 0)" - I(O) .~ c,
m (c + 0)'.... 1 x ... me""'] x - ['(0) x etc.

Afterwards, in the trans iti on to Lagrllnge, I shall no more especially dwe ll upon the
theorem of MacLau rin, wh ich is on ly a particula r in stan ce o f Taylor's theorem.
He re, let us only note further that like Taylor' s theorem, it Cllso has its own so ca lled
"exceptions".In the fo rme r, the exceptions always a rise out of the irra tiona lllll lure o f the
cons tant function , in the la Uer - (rom the similar nature o f the variable fUlIction 79.
12
90 MA'J1lcMAI1CAI . MANUSCr~l!'TS

Now o nc ma y ask o neself: is n't the case like this, that Newto n havi ng disclosed to the
world onl y his results - as he does for example, in the most difficult instances of
"Arithmetica universals" - quietly extracted both Taylo r 's and MacLaurin 's theorems, for
his persolltl\ use, from the binomialthcorcrn alrea dy discovered by him ? T o this it ma y be s<lid
with full confidence: tha t no, he was not onc of those, who would give his pupils the
opportunity to appropriate s uch a tliscovery·. In reali ty he was s till loo nbso rbcd with
the e labo ration of those very differential opera tions, which were already assumed to be
well known and avai lable to Taylor and MacLauri n. Th is is testified by the first elementa ry
form ul ae of his calc ulus. Clea rl y, Newton initially approached the m Cro m the points of
departure of mechanics, and no t from those belonging 10 pure analys is.
On the other hand ,Taylor .md MacL1urin operated upon the basis o [ d ifferentia l
ca lculus itself, fro m the very beg inning o f their work; and that is w hy, nothing pro mpted
the m to seek the simplest possible algebraic points of departure of this calculu s; th e more so,
ns the controversy among the fo ll owers of Newton a nd Le ibnitz revolved aro und the
definitions of thl! ready·made fo rms o f en1culus, just discovered by an abso l utc ly specia l kind
of mat hemntical discipline, [forms], which nre as far away as the stars in heaven, by way o f
o rdinary algebra.
The connection o f their respective illitial equations wit h the binomi(li theore m, was,
fo r them, in some wa y selr·evident. Bu t by far this con nection wns not understood by them,
in a manner in which, [or exa mple, it is unders tood while d ifferentiatin g xy or x/y, that these
ex pressions arc g ive n by o rdina ry a lge bra ..
The real, a nd accordingly the simples t, interconnection between the new a nd the old , is
alwa ys discovered only when this new itselr already allnins its final form, and it ma y besaid,
that in the differentia l calcu lus this rc turn(tak ing) backwards was carried o ut by the theorems
o fTayl or and MacLaurin. That is why, the idea o( leading Ih e different ia l calculus on to
a strictly algebraic fo undation, was co nceived o nly by ulgrange. Pe rhaps in (his respect he was
p receded by Joh/f Laffdefl , the m id· 18th century English mllthematician, in his "Residual
A nalysis". But be fo re fo rming a final op inio n on this, I mus t (irsto t' a ll , go thro ugh this book
in the Museum.

Ill. THE LAGRANGIAN THEORY OF FUNCTIONS

Lagrange proceeds fro m th e a lgebra ic founda tions o [ Taylor's theorem, Le., from the
mos t ge neral fo rmula of differen tia l ca lculus.
Rega rding the ini tial equation of Taylor
2
Yt o r f(x+h)- y or f(x)+Ah+BI?+CIt + e te .
• The publication of the eight volumes oC the mathematical manuscripts oC Newton edited by 0.1'. Whitcside et
of (1967.1981 ) ha~ changed our ide~s on this issue. Newton did discover the expansions of Tay to r And
MacLauTin.-Tr.
 FROM THE MANUSCRIPT · LAGRANGIAN ·ntEORY OF ANALYll CALf'UNCTIONS · 91

only the foll owing is to be noted:

1) This series is no t at all proved ;f(x + h) is not a binom i:1i of a llY definite degree; f(x + 11 )
is rathe r an indefinite gene ral ex press io n for every fu nc tion (of the variable] x, this lx]
increases by the pos itive o r negative increment h ; thm; f(x + h) includes ill itself fun ctio ns
of x of every degree, but at the sa me tim e it exclmles every definite degree of that very series
of expans ion. Tha t is why, Tay lo r pu iS "+ elc." :lIlhc cnd of the series. Bul it should be
proved further, that the rule of expa nsion into a series, true fo r th e definte fun c tions of K,
subject to increment - independentl y of th e facI, whether they arc now presenled as a fi nite
equation 80 or as an infinte series - can be unco nd itio nally extended to the indefinite ge neral
[(x), and tha t is why, also to the eq uall y indefi nite and generalf (xl) o r f(x + 11 ).
2) This equatio n is translated into the differcntial longuage with the he lp o[ a do uble
diffe rentia tion of YI - first in respect of 11 as variable <lnd x as constant, and the n in respect
o f x as va riable and h as constanLThus two equatio ns arc o btai ned, of which the first
s ides [L.H.S.] a re identical, whereas the seco nd sides (R .H.S. l a rc different in form . Bli t in
o rder 10 eqmllise the indeterm ina te eo-e[fjcients of th ese second s ides, wh ic h are, all, in point
of fac t , functions of x, it is assumed fu rther - and this is indispensa ble - UnIt the separa te
co-efficienL<; A, B e tc . arc -- though in determinate, [stillJ finite magnitude... , and I it is to
bel a lso [assumed] that the multipliers" acco mpanying them increase in jntegral and positive
[Jowers 81 • Even if it is assumed - which W:1S in reality 11 0t the case - tha t Ta ylor proved
all thcse for f(x + 11) , in so far as x in f(x) remains gel/era I, then from this it s till does not
at all follow, tha t it holds good even then, when the fun ctio ns o f x aSSUllle defi nte particular
values. Conversely, the latter can be incompatib le with the transfo rmations [effected]
with the help of his series
dv d 2v 1
Y1 - y+ ::..L
dx
It+:::........Lh + e lc.
dx?
In brief: the conditions or assump tions, included in the unp roved init ial equa tion o f
Tayl or, arc co nta ined, it goes without s<lyi ng, also in the theorem
,
Y1 _ Y + !!x. h +!!...1..2 ,,2 + etc .,
dx dx
deduced from it. That is why it is not applicable to certain functions of x, which co ntradict
these assumptions. He nce the so-called exceptions to the theorem,
Lagrange bases the initial eq uatio n upo n nlgebraic foundations, and shows at th e same
time, by its very developme nt, to which parlicu luar instances, contradic ting its gelleral
cha racter, Le., the general, indeterm inate c haracter of the fun ctions o [ x, it is inapp licable,
owing to this cha racter of theirs.

N) 1) Th e g.reat merit of La gran ge lies not on ly in laying the founda tions of Taylo r's
theo rem and diffe renti al calculus in genera l th roug h a purely algebraic ana lysis. but in
partic ular <llso in the introduction of the ve ry concept of derived functions, which <1 11
the s uccessors of him have in fae l used in some way or the o ther, tho ugh without e .... er
 MA'I1IEMA'I'ICAL MANUSCRIPTS

mentioning it. But he does nOL confin e himself to th is alone. He g ives a ptITcly a lgebnl ic
expans ion of all possible func tions of (x + h), in ascend ing integra l pos iti ve powers of",
a nd then ch ristens a ll the co-cffi c icnts tlltlS obtai ned, with the names o f diffe rentia l
cal culus.AII si mplicities and short cuts, which the differentia l ca lculus itself allows (Taylor's
theorem and others). thereby s uffer a damage and are very often repla ced by Hlgcbraic
cperations of a much more cumbersome and comp lica ted character.
2) So far as it is a quest ion o f pure analysis, Lagrll nge is in [act free of all that appe ars
to him as metaphysical transcendcnce in Newton's Ouxions, Lc ib ni tl.'s infinitesi mal s o f
various order, the theory of limits of van ishing tnllgnitudes, the subs ti tution of the sy mbol

~ ("" ;i;) in place of the differcntilll co-efficients etc. However, thercby hc hi mself is not

deterred from cons tantly usi ng ol1e o r the olher of these "me tap hysica l " no tions, whi le he
applies his lheory 10 curves etc.
 *2.FROM THE INCOM PLETE MANUSCRII'T
"TAYLOR' S TIIEOREM "
Thus, ifin Taylor's theore m ~, 1) for certai n speci/ic!orm.... o f the bino mi;1i thcorcm,whcrc
for (x + Il)'" - under the supposition that In is an illtegral alld positive power, and that
is why the multip liers in" a rc equal to lil, hi, 11 2, h3,etc. - it is accepted, that h fcntcrs into] an
ascending. positive and integral power, then it is la lso ] accepted, 2) Ihal as in the algebraic
bino mild theorem of a general fo rm, the derived /ucriolls v/x are dete rminate. in as m uch as
[lheY1 afC finite junctions ill x. But a third cond ition is added 10 this. The derived fun ctions
o f x may turn into 0;+ 00, - 00, and" It] ma y ;llso become _ h- l or ".y;,
(fo r exampl e, h 1Ij,), onl y
when the variable x lakes a parlicular value, for example x _ a 83, Let US sum up w hat has
been stated : Taylor's theorem is generally <JpplieabJe to the expans io n in se ries of [those]
functions in x, in w hich x becomes equal to x + If o r, increases, turning into XI from X, onl y
if: 1) the independe nt varibale x retai ns the genera l indeterminate from of x, 2) the in iliai
function in x is itself decomposable, th.oug h differentiation, in to a series of de tc rm inatt' ano,
in so far as it is so, of finite derived fun c tions in x with the correspon ding multipliers 11
in ascendi ng, pos itive and integra l powers, i.e., hi, 112, 113 etc.
But in other words, all these conditio ns are but express ions of the fact tha I, this theorem
is merely the binomial theo rem with illtegra/ alld positive indexes of power, translated into
the language of differential calculus.
Where these conditions are not fulfilled a nd, hence,Tay/or's theorem is /lot applicable,
there appears that [situation1, which comes fo rth in the differential calculus as"exceptiolls" to
this theorem.
But the biggest mistake of Tay lo r's theorem is not these particular excep tions to its
applicability, but that gellera /mistake, which consists of the (act tha t
y - [(x) [and ] y, = [(X+ iI),
which are o nl y symbolic expressio ns of binomials o f some powerS-, turn iu to such
expressions, in which f(x) is a fun ctio n of x, which includes a ll powers in itself a nd tha t is
why, it itself has 110 power, s uch that YI - f(x + It) also in cludes in itself a ll powe rs and itsel f
has no power, appea ring as it were, as an unexpalldable general expression for any function
of the variable x, when the lauer increases. That is why, that series of expansioll , which
serves as an expa ns io n of this f(x + 11) without power, namely, y -All + Bh 2 + Clt3 + etc.,
includes in itse lf all the powers, whe reas it iL<;elrhas no power.
This lea p (rom the ordinary algebra, a nd besides with the help of ordiflOlY algebra, into
the algebra of variables, is accepted as an accomplished facl; it is no t proved nnd , first of
all, it cOllfradic l~' all the rules of ord inary algebra, whe re y - f(x) and YI - f(x + 11) can never
have th is mea ning.
In o the r words: not only is the initial equation
2 1 4 .5
YI o r f(x+/l)- y o r f(x)+AII+BII +Ch +Dh + Ell + etc.
1101 proved, bu t - co nsciously o r unconsc ious ly - the substitut ion o f variables in pl ace of
the cOllstan ts, is also assumed. Th is co ntradicts all the rules of algeb m, since algebra, and
he nce also the algeb raic binomial, admits only constants, and besides constants of merely
 94 MA"J1 IEMATICAI.. MANUSCIUIYIS

two kinds - known and unknown. That is why, the deduction of this equaLio n from algebw
rests upon a fraud.
However, if in fact Tay/or's theorem - the except io lls Lo whic h have hard ly any
significa nce Jor applications, since actually they arc confined to s uch fun ctions in X,
which are undiffer.entiable 85,i.c., do not at all yield to a treatment with the means of
differential calculus - in parctice showed itself 10 be Ihe most comprehensive, the mosl
gcncn~ l and fruit[ui operational formula o f the whole of calculus, then it is on ly due to the
accomplishment of that entire task, which arose, from the school of Newton to which he
[Ta ylorJ belonged, and generally, from the entire Ncwtono-Lcibnitzian period of the
developmet of differential calculus, which from its very first step elic its correct result from
mistaken premises.
Lagrunge gave us the algebra ic proof o f Taylor's theorem, Hnd genra lly speaking
based it upon his algebmic method of differential ca lcu lu s . If I write the historical part
of this manuscript 86, then I shall dwell upon this in detail.
Here - as a freak oJhistO/y - ! only mention thai, L1grange never returned, to that which
unconsciously served as the ba is of Taylor, i.e., 10 the binomial theorcm, and besides in its
si mplest form, where it [i.e., the binomimal] cOnsiSl'i of only two magnitudes (x + a) or, here
(x + It), and has positive integral index of power.
Further, in a much lesser measure does he return fllrther b<lckward and ask himself the
question as to why th e Newoni<lll binomial theorem translated into the differential form, and
a t the same time forcibly freed from its algebraic conditions, appears as the all comprehens ive
general o perationa l formula of the diffcrential ca lculus, based upon it .The answer is simple:
bec:wse from the very beg inning Newton assumes that Xl -x = dx and, hence Xl = X + die
Thus the expansion o f the differel1ce instantly turns into the expa nsio n of a Slim, into an
expansion of the binomial (x + dx) (wherein we ent irel y digrcss from the [act that it should
have been written as Xl - x'" 11 X or 1/) (hence, XI'" X + 6. x or x + 11). Taylor merely
developed this basis or the system into its most general and comprehensive form, which,
generally speaki ng, became possible, for the firs t time, when all the fundamental operat ions
of differential calculus were already discovered, because what meaning would his ix, ~/:{
etc. have, if for all the important fuctions in X their corresponding 2, d ' y
<ix'
etc. were not
already obtained?
Conversely, Lagrange immediately sides with Tay/or's theorem - na turally under such
circumst.'lnces, where , on the onc hand, thc sllccessors of the epoch of Newton-Lcibnitz
furnished him with thc already co rrected vcrsion [of the formula] Xl -X "" dx, that is, also:
Yl - y., [(x + It) -f(x) and, on the othcr hand, having just algebdcised Taylor's formu la, he
constructed his own theory of "derived" JUllctions. [[ Thus did Fichtc side with Kant,
Schclling - with Fichte and, Hegel with - Schelling, wherein neither Fichte, nor Schelling,
nor Hegcl did investigate the general basis of Kant, of idealism in general; or else they could
not have developed in further.J]
*APPENDIX TO THE MANUSCRIPT
"ON THE HISTORY OF
DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS"
ANALYSIS OFD'ALEMBERT'S
METHOD
 'ON THE NON·uN IVOCA LlTY OF TilE TERMS
"LIMIT " AND " LIMITI NG VALUE " 87

I) x 3 ;
a) (x+hP", x J +3/u2 +3h2 x+h J
b) (x+ hP- Xl . 3hx2 +3h2 x+h 3
c) (x+hP- ':I_II+II ' .
h Xl .. ..u+..u
':1_2

Whe n h becomes =0, then

~+~ - ~ ~-~ ~
o o r - 0- - 00 or dx and the right ha nd s ide .. 3x2,

hence,
Ex. _ 3x'
dx .

y .. xl; y, _ XI J

y, - y- XIJ _X3_(XI-X)(x ,2+x,X+X2);

y, - Y dv
- - or:::.L .. X2 + XX+X2 ·
XI-X dx •

3xl .

11) If wc assu me that xl-x- 11 . then,

1) (x, -x ) (x, ' +X,X+X2)_ hex, 2 +X,X +X2);
2) hence,
y, - y
- 1-, - .. xr+xrX +x2.

In 1) the co-efficient of It is 110t a ready-made derivative, like f' above. but t ; thal is w hy
the division of both the s ides by h does no t g ive ~. but gives

I:J. Y or : ; "" xr + X,X+X2 etc. elc.

II
H , on the o the r hand , in I c), i.e., in
[(H iI) - [(xl y,-y .. 3x2 + 3xll+h2,
" or iI
 'UMIT" AND "LIMITING VAWE" 97

we start from the supposi tion that, on the right hand s ide, the value of the terms 3xh + 1/2
diminishes furth er and fu rther, commensurately with the dimunition of the value of" BII, and
he nce, the value of the entire right hand side, 3x2 + 3x1l + 11 2, becomes morc and more
proximate to the value of ltl, then, howeve r, it should be added that : it [tliis proximation]
does happen, without ever conciding with it [3xl J.
Thus,)x2 becomes the value to which the se ries ltl + lfll + III constantly approx imates,
never attaining it , and what is more, consequently, never going beyond it. In th is sense
)x2 becomes the limiting va lllc 89 o f the series }x2 + 3xh + It2.

On the oth er hand, the magn itude Y1 - y ( or Yl - Y) also gelS diminished all the morc, when
1I xl-x
the denom inator h gets diminished 90.

But s ince YI J: Y is the equivalent of 3x2 + 3xh + 11 2, so the limiting value of this series is
also its proper limiting value - in that very se nse, in which it serves as the limiting value
o f the series equivalent to it.
However, as soon as we assume that!J _ 0, in the right hand s ide, the terms , which made
2
3x the limit of its va lue, van ish; now 3x2 is the fi rs t derivative of x 3 and , hence - [,(x) . As
f'(x) it shows thai, from it, in its turn,f "(x) may be derived ( in the given case, which
- 6x) etc., that, co nsequently, the increment f'(x) or 3x2 is not equal io the sum of the possible
increments of the expanded I (x) - x3 • Had I (x) itself been an infinte series, Ihen, o f course,
so wo uld have been the series of all poss ible increments ob~ined from it.Sut in Ihis sense
the expanded series of ,increments , as soon as I stop it abruptly, would be the /imitillg
value of its expansion, eonsequenlly, here the limiting value, is the limit in that usual
algeb ra ic or arithemtic sense, according to which the expanded part of an infinite decimal
frac tion is the limit of its possible expansion.This limit is sufficient for practical or theoretical
considera tions.Th is has nothing in common with the limiting va lue in the first sense. .
Here, in the second sense, the limiting value call be iflcrellsetj,. at will, whereas there (the
value of the expression J ca n on ly diminish . Further, so long as h only diminishes
YI - Y _ YI - Y
h xl-x

can only approximate the expression ~; the latter is the limit, which this ra tio ca n never

attain and what is more rcan never] cross, in so far a,s ~ may be consid,cred as its limiting
value !H ,

y,-y . . O!!l.
But as soon as - 1-, - turns mto 0 - dx ' the latter ceases to be the limiting Talue of

Yl/~ Y ,for this laller [exp ress ion] has itself vanished into its limit 92. In respect of its earlier

13
" MA'lltEMi\TICAL MANU~C lturJ'S

form YI - Y or y, - y it ca n onl y Gc sn id, that ~ 'is its absolutely minimal expression,

" Xl -x
w hich, iSQlatedly cons idered, is no expressio n at all , it has no val ue; but now )x2, i.c.,
f'(x) stands opposite the express io n ~ (or ~) as its real cquvalent.Thus, in the equati on

(
~ or ~) . I'(x),

neither of the two sides is the lim iti ng va lue o f the othe r.They a rc s itua ted , not in a limiting
relation 10 each o ther, but in an equivalence relatioll.

If I have %.. 2, then ne ither is 2 the limit o f ~ , nor'1- the limit of 2. It would be a
banal tautology to asse rt, that th e val ue of any magnitude is equal to the limit o f its value.
Thus, perhaps the concept o f limiting value has been incorrectly interpre ted , and is
constan ll y so interpreted. In application to the differential equations93 , as a means
preparatory to the supposition of xt-x or h .equa l to zero and, to make the latter more
graphic, it is infantile; its emergence s hould be sought in the first myst ical a nd mystificatory
method o f ca lculus . In applica tio n, however, of the differential equations to curves etc., it
actua ll y serves the purpose of ge moelrically graphic representation.
 'COMPARISO N OF D' ALEMIl ERT 'S
METHOD WITH TH E ALGEBRAIC METHOD
Let us compare the method or
d'Alembcrt with the a lgebraic onc 9.,
I) f(x) or y.x';
a) f(x+h) o r Y,- (x+h)3- x l +3x2h+3xh2 +h3
b) f(x+") -f(x) or Y1-Y'" 3X2h+3xhl+h3;
c) [ex + y) - [(x) or y, - y "" 3x2 + 3>.:11 + 112 ;
" It
i f h - 0, then :
o dv
d) 0 or dx· )x2. I'(x).
11 ) f(x) or y. x' ;
a) [(Xl) or y, -Xl 3;
b) [(x 1)-/(x) or Y1-Y - X,3_X 3 =(X , -X}(X,2+X j X+X 2);
f(x,) - f(x) y, - y
c) or --,", X}2+X,X+X 2,
XI-X XI - X

When x, becomes - x, then X I - x = 0, hence:

d) -o or ~_
dv (X2 +XX+X2) .. ]x2,
o dx
In bo th [the methods ] one and the same [thing happens] : if the independent va r iable x
increases, then the dependen t variable y also inc reases. Everything is reduced to the manner
of expressing the increase of x. When x beco me x, • then xl-x - tix - ;, (an
inde te rminate, infinitely diminishablc difference, which however, always rema ins fini te )9'.
!:J. x o r h is the increment, by which x has increased, for :
a) X I - X +!:J. x, but also, conversely,
b) x+!:J.x or x+lI-xp
Di ffe rentia l calc tll us histor ically starl,> from <I), i.e., rrom (the pos itio n I tha i, the difference
6. x o r the incremen t h (both express one and the same th ing, the fi rst - negatively, as the
difference 6. x, the seco nd - pos itively, as the increment 11) exists independel1t1y along wi th
the magni tude x, of which it is the increment, and hence, whic h il expresses as il1creasd,
and inc reased by h. With this, from the very beginning an advantage is gained, wnich - in
consonance with the express ion of the initial functi on of the v<lriable, as soo n as the la tter
increases - is exp resscd in binomia ls of determinate power, and that is why, from the very
beginning, the binomia l theorem beco mes appl icable to it. Actually, al ready in Inc' genera l
left hand s ide, wc have thc binomia l, namely x + !:J.x, [s uch that f(x + 6. x)] or y\ - e tc.
Mys tical d iHercntia l ca lculus at o nce turns: x +!:J.x into (x + dx) or, according to Newton,
in to x +.t 96. Owing 10 this, also o n the right a lgebra ic side, we at o nce get the binomials
x + dx or x +.t, which a re then treated as o rdinary binomials . Instead of being derived
ma thematica lly , the transformation of 6.x into dx o r x is assumed a priori .. that is why,
afterwa rds, the mystical rejection, of certain terms of the expanded binomials, becomes
poss ible.
 100 MK n IEMA:nCAL M ANUSCRIPTS

d 'Alembert starts from (x + dx) • but corrects this express ion, c ha nging it into (x + .6. x),
and correspondi ngly into (x + h) ; now a development becomes indispensab le, with the help of
w hich A x or h turns into dx , but the entire develo pment, w hich actuall y ta kes place, is reduced
to this.
Whether onc Sk1 rts incorrectly from (x + dx) or correctl y fro m (x + It ), the substitution o f
this inde te rm inate binomial in the given algebraic [powered ] funct ion o f x . turns it into a
binomia l o f some determinate power, j ust as in I a), in place of Xl there appears (x + hP.
bes ides in the binomial - whe re, in onc case dx, and in the other h. figurcs as its last term,
and hence. also in the expans ion o f this binomial - o nl y in the fo rm of a multiplie r,
ex terna lly attached to the fun c tions to be derived, with the he lp of the bino mia l.
Th at is wh y already in I a) we find the first derivative o f x 3 in a ready- made fo rm , namely
3x2 as a co-e ffic ient in the second term o f the se ries, e ndowed w ith the multiplie r h. From
Ihis moment 3x2 _ ['(x ) remains invariable. Th is deriva tive is in no way obta ined as a result
of some p rocess o f differentiation, but from the very beg inning, it is g iven by th e bino mial
theorem, a nd bes ides, beca use, from the very beginn ing we presented the increased x in
the fo rm of the binom ia l x + Il x ... x +" , i.e., as x increased by 11 . Now the w ho le task
consists o f freeing no t some merely embryon ica Uy ex isting[,(x), bu t an entirely ready-made
o ne, from its multi plier 11 and from the Olhcr ne ighbouring tc rms.
Conversey in n a), the increased XI enters into the algebraic fu nct ion exactly in that
fo rm, in which initialy x e ntered into it; x 3 turns into XI 3 . Thus the derivative f'(x) can be
obtai ned o nly as a resull o f two successive d ifferent ial opera tions, and besid es,
[opera tions] of e ntirely differe nt character.
In the eq ua tion I b), tho ugh the difference / ex + It) - f(x) or YI - y, also paves the way
(or the appea rence o f symbolic di ffe rentia l co-efficient, this d iffe rence does not introd uce
a ny change in the rea l co-efficient, it is only sh ifted fro m the second place in the series to
the firs t, and tha t is why it becomes poss ible to free it fro m h.
In 11 b) we get the express io n of di ffe rences in both the s ides; in the algebra ic s ide, the
d iffere nce is so expanded , tha t (Xl - x) appea rs in the fo rm of a multiplier of some derived
fun ction in X and Xl' ob ta ina bl e by dividing x{- xl by XI - x. Onl y the presence o f the
differe nce x~-x3, made its expa nsion into two fa cto rs poss iblc.$ in ce xl-x- h, so the
m ult ip liers, into w hi ch xj_ x3 is expa nded, co uld a lso be w ritter n in the fo rm o f
h (x~ +X) x + x 2). He re in emerges the novelly, which disting uis hes it fro m 1 b). As a multiplier
itl the preliminary derivative, h itself is deduced only w ith the help o f an expans ion o f the
di fference xl _X3 in to a product of two multipliers, w hereas h as a m ultiplier in the
"de riva tive", as it itself is in I a), already ex ists in the read y-made fo rm, even before an y
di ffere nce w hatever w as fo rmed. That lhe indeterm ina te increment o f x into XI atttai ns bes ide
X the solitary form o f the m ultiplier h, is implied in 1) from the very beginning; in 11) however
(since XI - X - /I), it is proved ded uctively. Tho ug h in I), o n the o nc ha nd h is indete rm inate,
howeve r, o n the other hand, it is determinate a ll the sa me, in so far as the indete rm inate
increment o f x al ready appears as an independent magnit ude, by which x has increased, a nd
which, that is w hy, as s uc h appears bes ide it.
 D' ALEMI3I;RT'S M[!1l10D 101

Further in I c) ['(x) is frced from its multiplie r" ; in th c left hand s ide we get
Yl-Y
- '-1- 0' . [(H h)I- f[ (x)' I.e.,
. . 0 r thc d'rr
somc expression I crc nha. 1coe rr"IClcn l , stl'11 r'mite.
.

But we ge t it on the other s ide, whcn in [(x + I~~ - [(x) wc assumc h _ 0, conscquently wc

turn it into ~., ~ . In I d), on thc onc hand wc get the symbolic diffcrential co·e fficients ,
and on the other,!'(x), already existing in a ready- made form in I a), now frecd from its
neighbouring tcrms, and it fi gures alone in the right hand sidc.
Positive devclopment L,1kes place only in the left hand s ide, for it is he rc, that the
symbol ic differential co·efficicn l is obtaincd. In the right hand s ide thc dcve lo pmcnt is
confined only 10 freeing j'(x) _ 3x2 - which was found a lready in I a) with thc' he lp of the
binomial- from its initial accompaniments. In the right hand sid c, the turning of h into 0 or
XI - X - 0 has only Ih is nega tive purport .

Conversely, in 11 c) a t first, some preliminary derivative is obtai ned by div iding both the
sides by XI - x( - 11).
Finally, in 11 d) the pos itive ass umpiion of XI - x gives us the final derivative. But
this assumption of XI - x, at the same time stands for the ass umption of X I - x - 0, and owing.

to this, in thc Icft hand sidc the finite rat io YI - Y is turned into.Qo
XI -x
or 5!x.
dx
In 1) thc search for the "der ivative" is as littl e feli c it ated by the assumption
XI - X - 0 or 11 - 0, as it was in thc mystica l differential method. In both the cases, the

acco mpanying terms are removed from the path ofJ'(x) - emergen l at oncc in a ready·made
form . Now this remova l is mathmati c.1 l1y correct, there it was done by a coup tI'eta t.
 "ANALYSIS OF D'ALEMBERT'S METHOD IN TIlE LIGHT OF YET
ANOTHER EXAMPLE 97
Let us operate according to the method of d' A lembcrl :
a) /(U)98 or y .. 3u2 ;
b) I(x) or u _ x3 +ax'2.
y'" 3u2, (1)
flu) - 3u2 , (la)
+
flu 11) - 3(u +11)"
~+~~OO - ~+~-~ - ~+w+w - ~-~+w (2)

(here the derived [ullctioll is given by tile binomialllieqrem ill a ready-made form - ill the
form of th e co-efficie"t of 11),
flu + 11) - flu) _ '6 3/
h u+ I.
with th e help of this divi sion/,(u) .. 6u, given already in a ready-made form in (2), is freed from
its multiplier" : '
flu + 0) -flu) _ 6
If u,
y, - y
- - • then - -
0 "£ - 6u.
u 1 -u 0 du
Here, if we put the value of u from the cquati0f! b). wc sha ll have
!!x. - 6(.<
j '2
+ax),
du
Si nce in a) y is differentiated in respect of u ,so
(u l - u) .. h , or " .. ({l! - u),
because, u is the independent va riable.
Thus,

~-6(i+ax\
(This is obtained from [(u) or y -3u2).
[Now wc shall operate with b); according to the same method, namely :]
b) I(x) or . u _ x3 +ax2,
I{x + 11) - (x + liP + a(x + hF,
I(x + h) - I(x) - (x + hP + a(x + IIF _x3 - ax'1. -
_ x3 + 3x'1.11 + 3.xII'1.+ h3{- x 3 +
'lax"
+ ax'1. + + all'1. - ax'1. ..
.. (3x'1. + lax)" + (3x + a) 11'1. + 11 3,
[(x +J;! -[(x) .. 3x'1. + "2ax+ (3x+ a)h + 1l'1..
r[ now we assume that h .. 0, then in the second side [R.H .S.l
 0' ALEMI3ERT'S M[lTt (00 103

oo or du
dx _ 3x2 +2ax.

But the derived fun cl iol1 3x2 + 2ax is already conL'l ined in a ready-made form in
f(x + 11) - (x + hP + a(x + 11)2,
s ince thc latter gives,
XZ + 3xlll + 3xh2 + 113 + ax2 + 2axh + a1l 2,
hence,
x3 + ax2 + (3X2 +2ax) 11 + (3x + a) 112 + 113.
H already appears as the ready-made coefficient of h. Hence, this derivative is not
obtained throughoiffercntiation; but owing to thc incremen t of I(x) into/ex +11), Le., of
x 3 + ax2 into (x + hP + a (x + 11 )2.
H is obta ined simply owi ng to the fac t, that with the transformation of x in tox+ h,
on the other side we obta in the binomials x -to It in determinate powers, besides th e second
term, with the multiplier h. contains Ihe derived funct ion of u or J'(u) in a ready-made form.
All further procedu res lead on ly to the freeing of J'(x) given from th e very beginning,
from its coefficient proper jl. and from all the other remaining terms.
The equation
f~(cx-'-+-,-,h:-)--<f-,(x,,-) _ e ,c.
h
has a two-fol d s ignifi ca nce: firstly. it allows us to obtain the nUlllera tor of the firs t side
r
[L.H.S .J in the form o f a difference of the values] of lex). [Le .• } at first as equal to A/(x);
in the second s ide [R.H .S. } il gives onl y an algebraic adva nta ge, permitting the remova l of
the initial function x3 + ax2 etc., given in x, from the result of fulfilling the ope rations in
(x+hp+a(x+ h )2.

But let us proceed further. For a) we got

!!1.. _6(X3 + ax2),
du
and for b)
du
dx - 3x2 + 2ax.

Multipl ying ¥u by dud.x' wc got

<Ix . du _ <Ix
du dx d.x •

i.e. , the unknown[so ughtJ . Here, in place o[ ~ and : ,let us put the val ues obtai ned for

them and we s hall get ~ _ 6(X3 + ax2) (3X2 + 2ax),

 104 MA'I1IEMATICAL MANUSCltlPTS

a nd, generally spea king , if wc have;

d" d"II'
Y -f(lI) , =."'-""-
du
dll
du' II - f(x) , dx -.=
dx'
d"x'

the n,
!!i.. . du or <Ix . "fJIIl. <!fJE. .
du dx dx du dx
If in the equatio n a) we ass ume that If - u l - u, a nd in the eq uatio n b) " - xl - x, the n the
affair takes the foll ow ing form:
Y o r f(lI ) - 311' .
feu + (u l - u» - 3(/1 + (u l - u» 2- 3u2 + 6u (u\ - u) + 3(u 1 - u)2·,
feu + (u 1 - u» - feu) - 3u2 + 6u (u l - u) + 3(u, - u) (u l - 11) - 3u2,
hence. ,
f(1I + (11, - 11)) - f(") - 611 (11, - 11) + 3(11, - 11)' .
f",(1_' +_(,-"-'.1_-.:.."",
~ ))_-;..'",
(11.:.)
- - 6u + 3(u 1 - u).
. u, - u
He nce, [if 1 in the first term 11 , - U- 0, then

i'X
d -6u+ 0-6u.
11

Th is shows tha i, if from the very beg inning/(u) turns into/(u + (u\ - u», such that in
the second s ide rR .H.s.J. its increment appears in the form of th e positive second term of the
determinate binom ial , then th e second term, which has as its multiplier (u l - u) o r If accord ing
to th e binomial theorem, instan tly s hows the unknown coefficient. If the second te rm is
a polyn oq1ial, as we sce in X3 + ax2, turning into (x + hP + a(x + 11)2 o r in
(x + (XI - X»3 + a(x + (XI _ X»2,
then for obtaining the co-efficient of Iz, o r of XI - x, only the terms with XI - X (or h) in the fi rst
powe r arc requjred to be written down - and the co-e ffi cient is ready. This result s hows:
1) that if, in d'Alembcrt's expans ion, in place of x l - X - h, conversely we put h - XI -X, then,
by this absolutely nothing is changed in the method itsel f, on ly the peculiarity o f this method
is revea led more c lea rl y. It consists o f the fa c t that, with the he lp of
f(x+h) o r !(x+(xl-x» in pl ace of the ini tia l fun ctio n in the algehraicexpress ion on
the second side, in the given instance in place of 3u2, the binomials are obtained insta ntly .
The seco nd te rm with the multiplie r h or Xl - x, thus Obtained, is the ready-made first
derivative o f the fun c tio n. Now the task co ns ists of free ing it from It or XI - X, which has
already been made easy. The deriva tive is already presen t in a ready-made fo rm ; hence. it
 D'ALEMOERT'!'i METHOD LOS

is not sought by assuming Xl -X - 0, but is freed from ils multuplicr (XI -x) and from others,
Just as it is obt.1ined, by s imple multiplica tion (binom ial cxp:lIlsion) as the second te rm
[with the multip lier] Xl - X, (so J is it freed, in the fin a l count, from the Jallcr, through a division
of both the sides by XI -x, The intervening ope rali ons co nsis t of an expansion of the equation
[(x+h)-[(x) or [(X+(XI-X)) - [(x)-[····].
This eq uation is nccesary only to force the disappearance of the initial fUllction in the
second side {R.H.S.}, s ince theexpa nsionof[(x+h) inevi tably co ntains/(x) along wi th its
binomially expanded increment. Thus, these rtenns, co rresponding to the initial fu nctio n 1arc
removed from the second sid e [R .H.S.].
Consequently, what happens, for example, in
(x + 11)3 + a(x + 11)2 _x3 _ ox?,
consists of the removal of the first lerms x 3 and ax2 from the binomials (x + hP + a(x + h)2 ;
thus, we obtain, the ready -made derived function endowed with the multiplier h o r Xl -x as
the first term of the equation.
In the second side [R.H.S.]. Ihe first differentiation is nothing but a simple sublraclion of
the initial function from its increased expression; hence, it gives us the increment, by
which it has increased ; besides, its first term, endowed with the multiplier 11, is alrc.a dy the
ready-made derived fun ction. The other terms cannot contain anything else, apart from the
co-eWeients of JJ2 or (x l -x)2 etc.; the first division by X I -x in this and in th e other
side lowers the ind ices of power of the latter by o ne unit; bes id es the first term will appear
without h .
2) The difference from t-hc method of [(X l) - [(x) = etc., co nsists of the fact that, if, for
example, we get [(x) or u - X3 + tu: 2, when [(Xl) or "l - Xl 3 + OX 12- [then] the first
increment of the variable x. by no means gives us a ready-made /,(.1.'), from the very beginn ing

[by fo rming the difference/ex,) - f(x) we get 1

/(xl)-[(x) or " 1 - I _X,3+ ax ,'_(r+oxl) .
Here the issue is not One of again removing the initial futl ction,sincc Xl 3 + aX 1 2 does
not contain X3 and ax2 in any form . Conversely, the first ' difrerence equa tion gives us a
certain moment of developmen t, namely, the transforma tion of each of the two initial terms
in the difference [of the powers] of X l and x. Namely:
(u l - IlJ., (XI 3 -r) + a(xl 2 _x2).

Now it is already clear, that if in each of these two terms wc again isolate the multiplier
XI - x., then as coefficients of XI - X we shall get functions in XI .tnd x, namely:
[(Xl ) - /(.1.') or U1 - U- (X l - X) (XI 2 + XIX +X2) i ' a(x l - X) (Xl+ x).
Having divided this, and hence also the left hand side by XI - X, we s ha ll get
[(XI) - [(x)
or

14
106 MA·nlEMA'I1CAJ. MANUSCRW I ~

Wi th the help of this divis ion we obtained the preli mi nary derivative. Each of its parL"i
contains te rms with XI'
He nce , we may fina ll y obta in the firs t fun c tion in x, s ubject to deduction, on ly having put
XI-X, hence xl - x - O. Then
X
1
2_X2, XIX_X2
and, hence,
(xI2+xr+x'2 ) _ 3x2 and x I +x-x+x - 2x,
whence,
a(2<) - 2ax.
In the othe r [side] the result is
E1J9. _ du _ Q.
dx dx 0
Hence, here the derived function is obt,lined onl y by assuming XI ""X, i.c., XI -x". O.
[The equal ity] XI - x gives the rina l determinate result in the form of a prope r function of x.
But XI - x also gives Xl - X _ 0, and that is why at the same li me, a long with this
dete rm inate result, in the other s id6 [it] gives liS the sy mbolic (exp ress ion 1
Q or El.
o dx
It could have been sa id earlier that : i.n the end we must get the derivative in Xl a nd x. It
ea n only be transformed into a derivative in x, as soon as wo:! put XI - x, but 10 ass ume xl - x
is the sa me th ing as assuming Xl -X - O. This turn ing into zero, pos itively exp ressd in the
formula X I - X, 'is essential for turn ing the derivative into a fun ction o f x, whereas the
negative form of XI - x-a must give us the symbol.
3) Eve n if this treatment of x, where its increment, for example, XI - X - 11 x or It, is
not introduced along with it independen tl y. was a irelldy known, even then it is highl y likely
- a nd after see in g [the works of 1J . L1nden in the Musellm , I shall be able to convince
myself about il - that all the same, its essentia l distinc tion from the other trea tmenLo; could
not be unde rstood.
The differe nce of this method from [the method of JLagra nge cons ists of this: in the
given me thod a prqper differentiation is ca rried out, on the s trength o f which the
differentia l expressions appea r also in the sy mbolic s ide, whereas with him the deduction does
not present the differentiation algebraically, but it algebraica lly deduces the functions
im mediately from the binomial, and their differen tia l fOrlll is introduced only for the purpose
of "symmetry", since from the differentia l calculus it is well known that, the first deriva tive
- ~ , a nd the s~ond - ~ etc.
 PART 11

DESCRIPTION OF THE
MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS
 MANUSCRIPTS OF' TilE PERIOD PRIOR 1'0 '1870

A RI T HM IlTI CAL AND A LG EBRAI C CALCU LATIONS AND GEOMETRI CAL

DRAWIN GS IN THE NOTE nOOKS ON POLITICAL ECO NOMY

It seems that fo r the period prior 10 the 60s of the last century there He no well co nneded
mathematical manuscripts of M~rx. In some nole books of excerpts on political CCOllOmy. there
IIrc scparnle pIIges containing mathematical calcur~lion.', Bm even there, whe re the note book
has the dating in Marx 's hand, i t is difficul t 10 ascertain the lillle of these calcula tions. I1 is qui te
possible that certain blank pages were ten in n note book 'lil(.I, Marx I~ler on used this blank
space of an old nole book, for mathematical c~!culaliOl1s. The rollowing mmlUscripls consist of
such pages containing calculations. T hey do not contain HUY lex!.

S.U.N. 14 7
I1 is 11 nole book wi th excerpts on rolilieal economy (from Shut?, List Ociander and Ricardo). dated
1846. On the lll.'.t pages(64.71) of this Mtc book there are ~olne ~tgebmie e~lcu l alion s re lated to
the generalisntion of the concept of power in the c~~es oi fnu.;tionIlJ nnt! neg<ltive indices, to Ihe
exponcntial fuoclion aod logarithms, to COlnbinaloriCl; nod, Ihc binomill l of New ton. In these
sheets the re are no lexts in words.

S.U.N.2 1(1
It is a note hook on political econom),.containingexccrpts rrom Kenn)"s book. Since the excerpts
are from a book, which was published in 1846, so, in 11l1)' case, Ihi~ note book CM not be dated
earlier than that year.
On the sheets 12-17 there Me mathemlliiclIl calculations. '111ei r content is not very clcar. At fi rs t
we find an equali ty
10; 2 ~ ( 10 ~ 31): (2 ~ ~), and a sys tem of two equnlions

10:2:( 1O~!):(2t !), ! t ! .. 4,

% Y % Y
connected with it. Solution of the system turns the first equlltion exactly into the equa lity cited
above. FUrther, {x + a )6 and (x + a)5 arc expanded acco rding to Newton's binomial. There are
other systems of equations with two or thrce un knowns, of some sort (it is difficult to say of wha t
sort).
On sheet 16 the re arc two diagrams : of a ci rcle and, appllrenll)" of a parabolll. lIere also
we have equations or the straight line ~nd Ihe circle, and some arithmetical calculations, which
continue in sheel 17 ( in particular, divis ion orthe numbe r 15911729 by 2 ; of theobtili ned result,
i.e., of 7955864 b)' 4; oflhe numbe r 1988%6, obtained HS a result orthat div ision, by 75 11 95; it
is difficult to rollow the calcul~tion rurther).
Thus, it is clear, thlll Marx by ch~nce ret~ined these calcula tions. Here Ihey are bei llg
mentioned only to make Ihe picture complete.

S .U.N. I052
We ru.ve in view sheet No. 36 of the note book cntilled "M", containing the " I ntroduct i o n ~
and index of seven no!t" books of preparatory work, fo r thc book ·Critique o f Po lilieal Economy".
This note book has the dates: 23/VIII and IX/1857, first half of J unc 1858.
 tIlSTOI~Y OF MATIIEMJ\'nCS AND MECIIANIC) ' 09

T his sheet contains certain calculations, hl\vjng in view some exp~!Isions in series, IInd solu tio n
of the problem oC puning n arithmetic means between the numbers nand b (at fi rst genera ll y. and
then, when a. 1. b _ 23 and n. 10).

S.U.N.ltS3
Sheets 15 and 17 of the above mentioned note book containing the tllematic indexes of the note
books ,. VII re lated 10 Ihe preparatory 'NOrk leading to Ihe book "Crilique of Political Economy· .
Apparently hlllf of it initiulJy remained unused. Ifere wc have:
on sheet 15 - geometrical drawings : of a recl~ngle IInd n trillllgle;
on sheet 17 - fractional indices of power and logarithms. two triRngles and a square, divis ion
of trianglcs with a common vertex ~t some internlll point.
In manuscript 497. we find, for the fi rst lime, an well ordered text with historico-mathernatical
contents .

NOTES AND EXTRACTS FROM POPP E'S BOO K ON THE HI STO RY OF

MATHEMATI CS AN D MECHAN ICS
S.U.N.497
Among ,he photocopies of a note book containing extracts on the history of technology, tllken
dow n by Marx in September-October 18SI,there lire three sheets: 19·21 ( in Marx 's numeration
pp. 10. 11) , containi ng nOles taken from some parts or the bonk : l ,II .M. Poppe, "Geschichtc
der Mathemalik seil derlihestcn bis auf die neueste Zci'". Tiibingen.18~8(J.H.M. Poppet "l listory
of Mathematics from the most ancie nt to the most modern lime', Tubingen, 1828}. '11lis note
is a very short description of the introduction 10 this book and of some informiltions aboulthe histo ry
o f pure and applied m~themi1tics. To give an idea or what, namely, drew Marx 's ottcntion in
Poppc's book, here we rep roduce Marx's text in full .
Introduction. The method by whi ch the an c ient Egyptians dete rmined Ihe heig ht of pyramids
in terms o f the length of their s hadows, itsel f shows how in compl ete was the mathema tics of
the Chaldeans and the Egy ptians. The Grec ks a re ou r teachers in ma thema tics. Plato inve nted
geometrical analysis. Euclid, 284 B.C., s tudied in Athens, under the Plalo nists. After him
little has c hanged in e lementary geomelry. Roman mathematicians we re mere tra nslators and
commentators of the ce lebra led Greek a uthors. Towards the 7th century Ihe mathematica l
sciences flouris hed in lite countries under Arab ru le, and later on, in those under the Pe rsians.
The Moors brought them to Spain, and from there, they spread into the res t o f Europe. In
the 10th , lllh , 12th and 13th centu ries mathe matics found its refuge o nly with Ihe
Arabs.Astronomy was espec ially cultivated by Ihe m. They translated Eucl id, Apollonios,
Arc himedes a nd others. Roger Bacon in the latter half of 131h centu ry (1-14).
T he numbers (1.14) indicate Ihe corresponding plIges of Poppe's booK. The extracts that fo!low
have been subdivided, as in the book into two p~rts: History of Pure and of Applied Mathematics.
However, Marx look a more or Icss detailed note, of only a part related 10 the history or arit hmetic
o r "the art of counti ng". On this we read in the manuscript;
F irs t Pa r t. History of Pure Ma th ematics.
1) His tor y of' AI'ilhm etic, or the art of countin g.
The Phoenicians . Eve n the mosl anc ien t people, to the exclusion of the Chinese and the
Tat.1rs, counted in tens. To all appearance, it was suggested to Ihem by the fingers on bOlh the
 110 DESCRIP"nON OF "I1m MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

hands. The le tters of their alphabe t served them as numerical signs. Differe nt powers of tens
were distinguished by strokes, as with the Greeks, or by suitable combinations of letters,
as with the Romans. The so-ca ll ed Arabic numerals are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It is one of
the most beautiful discove ries. By us ing them, the bigges t number elm be writlen down with
the help of zero and de finite place ind ica tions. It came 10 Europe in the 10th o r 11th century.
through the Arabs. Even Archimedes had 10 deal with very big numbers, for this he applied
orders of ten thousand, o r myriads. But with this he could not carry Qu t the co mputa ti on o f
the circu mference of a circle further than the limits of 3~ to ~. tak ing the d iameter of a
c ircl e as the un it. Initia lly the Arabic numerals and their place values were lIsed only by
the mathema ticians, in no way were they used in ordinary life. In the 15th ce ntury even in
the source materials, these numer.Us were still very rare: till thcn most often the Roman
nume rica l symbols were used . Arabic numera ls bec.1me more common place, o nl y from the
middle of the 16th ce ntury . In (he 15th cen tury these numera ls were more to be seen on stones,
than on parchment. They still remained nearly unused in printed publications. fn the o lder
printed books even the year is a lmost always indica ted in words or by Ro man letters. Thus,
in Roman times and later on even the small computations, for examp le, agricultural o r
commercial calculations, were ca rried out not with the help of numerals but, with pebbles and
other ana logous symbo ls o n the computation-board. On it, a few paraJlellines were drawn;
and there onc and the sa me pebble or some other symbol on the first line s ignified units, on
the second - tens etc.
Ancient number games. S uperst itio ns. As, also, in more recent times, especia ll y in the
16th century. Discovery of the Pythagorean!> : a multiplica tio n tabl e (true, very inconvenie nt
and cu mbersome), polygona l-pyramidal etc., trivia l and corporea l numbe rs in genera l ; and
also calculation of musical ratios. The Greeks knew the four operations of arithmetic, as well
as the properties of geomet rical ratios and proportions, arithmetic a nd geometric progress io ns
and, the doctrine of those magnitudcs, whose ratio ca n not be exactl y expressed in numbers.
And also th e means of extracting the quad ratic and th e cubic roots. Towards th e cnd of the
16th ce ntury . ex tra ction of roots - a lso approximate whcn they are irration al - was ca rried
, forward furth c r than the way it was done ea rlier, when si mpl y the fractions attached to the
w ho le numbers indica ting the root, were considered enough . For this Simon Stewin used
decimal frac tions. Naming and designating powers created a lot of trouble in the ancie nt
period ... Partnership rul es etc., were no t rare in the 16th cen tury. At tha t time began the
comp utatio n, of compound interests on capita l... It appears that in 1731 Graumann first
discovered the chain rule .... The Rule of False Position was used, w he n algebra was s till no t
well know n or was hardly used.
Logarithms. In 1614 the Scotlander 10llal1n Napier gave the· world its first logarithmic
tables. These were imp roved upo n by Briggs. His logarithmic tables were published fo r
the first lime in London in 1624. Count ing machines. Already from the beginning of
the 16 th century text books of arithmetic appeared in very large nu mbers. Span iard Juan de
Ortega ...... Adam Riese (15-19).

Here it is not deH, I'IS \0 whl'lt these numbers 15-19 signify. In Poppr's book, these pagescontl'lin
two intrOductory parl'lgraphs of the first part of the book . Marx did not take any note from these
 HISroRY OF MATIIEMAIlCS AND MECHANICS III

pagcs. The aforcmenlio ncd part of the nOles is relaled 10 §§ 19-51, pp. 19·51 of Ihis book. The
laller part of the noles proceeds in [he following order:

2) History of Geometry. Fo r its emergence Geometry is indebted to the a rt of measuring

fields. Thales. Pythagoras. Oenopides of Chios. 500 B.C. Invenlor of some s imple geometrica l
problems. Hippocrates of chios. 450 B.C., was the first to discover the equivalence of certain
spaces enclosed by curves and o thers enclosed by stra igh t lines. Plato, 400 S.C. Upto
Plato's time the circle was the only curve investigated in geometry. He introduced the co nic
sect ions (ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas). their inven tor proper was Menac hmus. Later
on Arista us wrote 4 books and Apollonios 8 books o n the same. EudoxlIs o f Cilldus. Euclid,
300 B.C. Archimedes, 250 B.C ..... Towards the end of the t 7th century a new epoch began
in geometry. It occu rred in connection wi th the discovery of the analysis of the in fi nite,
by Newto n a nd Le ibnitz.

From [he next. 3rd. section of the book (pp. 99.118) Marx took down onty the heading.
3) History of practical geometry in particular.
From the 4th section (pp. 118-128) apart from the heading. M~rx took down only a sentence.
4) History of trigo flOmetry in partjclIlar. In the Orient tablcs of tangent'; ex is ted before the
Europeans had them.
Notes from the 5th section (pp. 128-162) of I'oppe's book, taken by M~ rx reads :
5) History of Algebra and Analysis. Greek Diophalltus is co nsidered to be the inventor
of a lgebra, because of his studies O ll equations. The Arabs knew it a t the beginning of the
10th centu ry. In the 16th centu ry the Italians were ahead ofothers. Towards the end of the 16th
ce ntury the Frenc hman Fra n)o is Vieta [introduced] the genera l art o f calcula ti o ns with
letters. End of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century is the· brig htest period of
ma thema tics, thanks to Newton, Le ibni tz, Bernoulli ete.

From the second part of the book (pp. 165.568). Marx took nole only of the beginning (pp.
165-166.170).
Second Part. History of applied mathematics.
1) History of the science of mechanics. Statics or the s tudy of equ ilibrium of so lid bodies;
mecha nics, o r the study of movement of solid bodi es; hydrostatics, o r the study of
equilibrium of liquids, flowing substa nces; hydraulics, or the s tudy of movement of liquids,
flowing substances; aerostat ics, o r the s tudy of equ ili brium of air like substances;
pneuma ti cs, or the study oC movement of a ir like substances; atomometry, o r the study of
eq uilibrium and movement of vaporous substances. During the last 150 years these sciences
produced more results, than in the previous 1000 years. From the very beginn ing people
[must have possessed] some natural mechanics. Archimedes conducted the fo llowing
invest iga tio ns with the balance: if both the a rms of a ba lance arc of the same length, then
for const ituting an equilibrium, the weights lying on both the pans of the ba lance must also
be equal; if one a rm is longer than the other, as in the case of the so-called s teel ya rd, then the
weigh t a ttached to the lo nger arm, must be less than th at attached to the other - in that ratio,
by which the longer [arm] is lengl he ir tha n the shorter one. Thus, he arrived at the conclusion,
about the balances with uneq ual arms : that for equilibrium to t.1ke place, the two weights,
112 DESCIUP'1l0N 01' '!111! MATI-IEMA11CAL MANUSCRllrrS

suspended from the unequal arms of such b;lIanccs, mllst be inversely proportiollal. The
entire theory of lever and of all machines based on it, is included in this rule.
There arc no original oommcnls of MarK in Ihis manuscripl. Bill he did ~ 101 of work 10 collect
those informations on th e hislory of mathematics And mechllnics from I'oppc's book, which were
of inleresl to him.
S.U.N.2055
From Marx's ]Cller to his un cle, Lean Philips dHlcd th e 141h of April 1864 (vide, Works, V. 30,
pp. 538.539) (Eng. cd. V. 41, pp. 514.516) we learn, that Marx was specially interested in the
history of arithmetic and especially in the computing instruments. In this lettcr wc find [hal in
the British Museum M~rx was s tUdyin g Ihe old classi c of 130ctius (480-524 C.E.) ~ Dc i I1stitutionc
arithmcticac·. even before it W/lS republished anew by Fricdlein in LeilYl.ig, in 1867. In th is JcUer
he writes, that he also used somc other works a nd compared them with Boctius' book. A
comp1lrison of this lellef of Mllrx, with IUI excerpt taken form Poppe's book "H istory or
Mathematics ... • on sheet 3 of the note book of cxtracts, carrying th e heading "Diversa (I R67-69t,
shows that Poppe's book: was, in any case, one of those ~o ther writings" which he had read al ready
by '864.
This extract from Poppc's book is being reproduoed below in full. Numerals within brackets
indicate Marx 's page number, as well as the pa ragraph number of Poppe's book.
A t the time of the Romans a nd even late r, never were the ordinary calculations, for
example in domestic affa irs and trade, carried out with the nume rals, These were conducted
w ilh stones and analogous sy mbo ls on the counting board. On this board certain parallel
lines were drawn ; and there one and the same stone or other materia l symbol indica ted the
un its on the first line, tens - on thc sccond, hundreds - in the third, thousands -:- on the four th
etc. (even now the Chinese use s ueh coun ting boards) (22).
The Pythagorean multiplica tion table was still very inconvenient and cumbersome
because in part it consisted or spec ial signs, a nd in part - the lellers of the Greek alphabet
(23,24).
114 ])I:.SCR[(Y]10N or TIlE MA'IlIEMA'IlCALMANUSCR rp"IS

infinitely small, it coi nc ides with the corresponding part of the curve ilsc:1 L Consequen tly,
I can consider m"R la be a l1 (triangle), and the 11 mllR and A mTP arc simi lar trian gles.
That is why

Hence, the subt.:mgent PT = y:.

dy (= fiR) : dx (= mR) = y (= mP) : PT (which) is the Sub-1.1ngcnl «(or the (nngen! Tn).
And this is the gel/eral differential equation ro r any point
of tangency of allY curve. If I am now required 10 operate further with this equation and to
determine wi th its help, the magnitude of the sub-tangent PT ( on having the latter, it remains
for me only to connect the points T and III with. a straight line, and the tangellt is obtained).
then I must know the specIfic character oJ the curve. In keeping with its character (as a
parabola, ellipse, cissoid 9h etc.) it will have a determinate general equation for its o rdinate
and abscissa al any point, w hic h is well known from the algebmic geometry. If, for example,
the curve mAD is a pa rabol a, then I know thaly'l (y is the o rdin:ttc of any arbitrary pOint)= ax,
where a is the parameter of the parabola and x is the abscissa corresponding 10 the ordinate y.

If I put this value of y in the equation PT = y d/X , then , consequently, I must at

'Y
first seek dy, Le., find out the differential of y (an expression, w hich reprcscn ts its infinitely
small increase). If y2 ... ax, then 1 known from the differential ca lculu s, that {I (y2). d (ax)
( it stands to reason, that I mus t differentiate both the parts of the equation) g ives
2ydy .. adx (d everywhere designa tes the differelltial).

Hence, dx - J:f!!.l, If I put this value of dx in the formula PT _ Yddx , then I sha ll get
a y

PT- 2y'dy 2"

.=.L (s ince y2 .. ax ) - -2ax-- Lx.
ady Cl a

Or: the s ubtangent at any point III of the parabola = twice the abscissa of the same point. The
differential values arc cancelled in the operation .
 THE PROBLEM OF TANGENT TO THE PARABOLA
(A plHmdix 10 11 Ictt el" to E ngcls)
S,U.N. I nz

This -Appendix" to a letter to Engcls bclongi llg to the cnd of 186S.beginning of 1866 (vide,
ME<"'W(E). 42, 208.210), is the first text with ~ proper m~thernatical content within the
manuscripts of Mnrx. The IcHer il~clr hns not reached us. In Ihis ~ppcndix Mllr.~ explains the
essence of the differential calculu.' to !.lngels, in the light of Ihe problem of langcnt 10 the
paraoola. Marx's source is the third volumcofa book by Abbe Sauri (pp. 13-14); Souri, ffCOU ,..f
compfe/ de mQtlrtJmu'ique~·. Paris, 1778. Ilere differentiation is understood exactly along the lines
of LcibnilZ.

APPEND IX
During my last Slay in Manchester [from October 20lh to early November 18651 onc day
you asked me to explain the differcnlial calculus. You w ill be ab le to size up the ques tio n in
full, in the light of the (allowing example. The whole of differential calcu lus sprang up,
init ially from the problem of constructing tal/gcllts to an arbitrary curve, at any of is points. I
wish to expla in the essence of the maller to yOIl in the light of this example.

7 A p p

, ----
Let the line nAO be an arb itra ry curve. We do lIor know its nature (whether it is a parabola,
ellipse etc.), and at a point III on it a tangen t is req\1ired 10 be drawn.
Ax is the axis. Wc drop the perpendicu lar mP (the ordina te) o n the abscissa Ax. Now
assume thalthe point 11 on the cu rve is infinitesimally proximate to the nearby m. If I drop
a perpendicular nI', on the axis, then p must be infinitesimally proximate to the point P,
and Ill' mllsl be infinitesimlllly proximate to the pHTallcl line mP. Now iet us drop an
infinitel y sma ll perpend icular mR upon Ill'. If now you Iilkc the absc issa A P as x ;tnd the
ordinate fliP as y, then lip = mP (or Rp), inc reased by the infinitely s mall increment [IIR] , or
lllRJ = dy ( the different ia l of y), and mR (Pp) = dx. Since the 11111 part of the tangent is
15
114 DESCRII~J10N OF '1'1 lE M,,"nIEMA'llCAL MANUSCRIPTS

infinitely small, it coincides with the correspo nding part of the curve iL<;c1f. Conscqucnlly,
I can consider mllR to be a Il (triangle), alld the !1 mllR and Il IIITP arc sim ilar triangles.
That is why
dy (= HR) : dx ( = mR) = y ( = /liP): PT (which) is the sub- tangent (for the tange nt TO).
Hence, (he subt..1ngen l PT = Y dx, . And this is the general differelltial equatioll for any po int
'Y
of tangency of allY curve. If I am now requ ired 10 opera te further w ith this equa tion and to
determine wilh its help. the magnitude of the sub-tangent PT ( o n Iwving the latler, it remains
(or me o nly to connect the points T and m with a straight line, and the tangent is obtai ned),
then I must know the specific character of the cu rve. In keepi ng w ith its character (as Cl
parabola, e llipse, cissoid 98a etc.) it will have a determinate general equatioll for its ordinate
and absc issa at any point, which is well known from the algebraic geometry. If, fo r example,
the curve mAD is a parabo la, thcn I know thatyl (y is thc ordina te of any arb itrary point)= ax,
where a is the parameter of the parabola and x is the abscissa corresponding to the ordinate y.

If 1 put this va lue of y in the equation PT = Y ~;, then, co nsequ ently, I must at
first seek dy, i.e., find out the differentia l of y (an expression, w hich represents its infin itely
small increase). If y2 .• ax, then J known from the differential calculus, that d (y2) .. d (ax)
( it stands to reason, that I mus t differentiate both the parts of the eq uatio n) gives
2ydy ... adx (d everyw he re designates the differential).
y
Hence, dt - 2rt . If I put this va lue of dx in the formula PT - j~ . then I s hall gel

2y'dy 2" 2ax

PT = _::L (since yl .. a.:r) ----2<.
ady a a

Or: the subtangent at any point In of the parabo la = twice the abscissa of the sa me point. The
differential values arc cance lled in the operation.
 THE FIRST NOTES ON TRIGONOMETRY
S.U.N. 2759
Advising E"gels to stud y the differential ca lculus, Marl( wrote to him o n the 6th of July 1863, Ihal
~ Saw: for a knowledge ofllu: more ordinary kind 0/ algebra and trigonometry, no prdiminm"y ~·(!ldy
is required except Q general familiarity with COllie sections.· (vide, MECW( E), 41, 484).
The pages of his notes on trigonometry and theory of conic sections, which have been
preserved, are a testimony to Ihe {act, that Marl( considered s uch 11 preliminary labour essentia l,
for himself 100.
T he fi rst of Ihese notes, rclllled, 10 all app<:<HirnCC, to lhe bcgillning of the 1860s, is devoted 10 11
s ummary of trigonometric formulae. h has been pUllogcthcr according \0 the fi rst volume of
SHuri's book (pp. 433-482) and is related to the sections: "On TrigonornetryH (pp. 433.447),"On
the solution of triangles" (pp. 448-452), "On the soluti on of oblique·angled trianglts " (pp.
452.482).
Photocopies of tile manuscripts cOntllin 24 s heets:
S.I. - Summary of trigonometric formulae, under Marx's heading: "Resume. r .
S .2. - Calculation of certain values of trigonometric funct ions under rhe heading : ·Culcullltion
of trigonometrical fun ctions".
Sheets 1 and 2 have not been numbe red by Mane Further on the sheets are numbered by the
numerals. from 110 18. wherein some numerals have been repeated.
5.3.- (p. 1 in Mane's numeration) contains 11 very brief description of the section. ~ On
Trigonometry· of Sauri " book
5.4.- Carries Marx's heading: "11. Resolution des triungles·. This section conlinues upw the
lower part of 5.5 entitled " Resolution des triangles obliqueangJu",
This section continues upto s .15 (p. 10 in Mar,,'s numel1ltion). entitled : "Recherches /llterieures
trigonometriques". At issue here are: trigonometric fUnctions of mulliple angles , cons tructioll of
some formulae with a view to convenient logarithmisation, "impossible" problems in view of the
emergence o f imaginary numbers etc.
The manuscript comes 10 an cnd in ss. 23-24, with four t~bles of formlll~e for trigonometric
functions of multiple angles.
This note is very concise in form and contains only thc formul~tions of Iheorerns o r summMies of
formullle (without proofs). In spi te of such brcvity, Marx includcd in his note all the qucMio ns
of 8n npplicd chara cter from thc sections on Irigonomclry of Sauri's book : mcosurcmenl or the
width of a rivcr, of Ihc hcight of 11 tower or mountain, of the distftnce between tWO inllccessibk
places, methods of survey for maps and plans etc.
The manusc ript con t~inli many drawings; however Mar" executed them only by hand (without th..
help of any dr~wing instrument).
 TH E FIRST NOT ES O N COMMERC IAL ARITHM ETIC
The fi rst notes 011 oommerci~l arithmetic, rel~te(~ to 1869, nrc dislinglli~hcd by 3 characteristic
Irait of Mar)!, consisting of the fact Ihal hilving me! with some special questioll, with which he
was insufficiently acquainted, MMx considered a special study o[thal question essential for himself.
In the manuscripts 2388 and 2400 wc sce how the study of political economy leads Marx 10 the
necessity of mastering lhe technique of sculing lhe bills of exchange, in connection with which, in
its lurn, arises the need 10 solve SOme gCllc ral "IYI>CS· of arithmetica l problems.
From Ihe days of yore people devised special rules for sol vi"!: these problems - special rules
for each type of problem : (simple and complex) rule of three, chain rule, rule of putncrship, rule
of mixture etc. And though M~rll was not very fond of arithmetiOlI calcula tions ( in 11. leuer
datcd the 30th of mlly 1864, Engels even wrote 10 him regarding his ·nrithmetic~: "you would
seen: prefly Iw:lI to hllve ig"ored I it}, if 'he failure to correct tire scu"duloll~' pr;,rtillg errors ill tire
figures is a"ytiri"G 10 go by") (MECW(E), 41, 532), he studied 1I11thcsc ru!e~ with unusual patience
and integrity, from Fe ller and Odermann's course on commercial arithnletil::, and with grea t care
took detailed notes from il.

S.U.N. 2388
30 pages, pp. 109- 139 (ss. 109-139), of the note book containing extrllct5 on Political Economy
entitled" 1869, Note book 1", contain Marx's notes on commercial arithmetic.
In connection with the study of circulation of capital, Marx took note.,> from G. J. Goschen's
"The T heory of the Foreign Exchanges·, on pp. 87-(09 of this note book. While stUdying this
book Marx was in need of some special informations rega rding lhe settlement of international bills
of exchange, that is why he turned to the section on the sClllement of bills of exchange in the book
: F.E. Feller and C.G.Odermann, "Das ganze der kaufmiinnischen Arithmetic·, (" A Complete
Course ofCommerdRI Arithmetic"), Lcip-l.ig, 1859, IInd look detailed notes from it. Uaving takcn
notes from paragraphS 382-407 ( pp. 3 18-365 of this book), related to the technique of direct
settlement of bills of exchanges between cities lmd countries, which hllve an unrnedi~ted exchange
relation, Marx interrupts the notes with the words (s. 118): Be/ore pa.l·sinS ow:r to Il rlJitrulion in
an indirect way· , an in.rertion(clrai" rule and calculation of percentage.f).
After Ihis he referred 10 lhe continulltion of the lelll on p. 135, where the author has gone b.1ck to
the c.alculation of bills (Ch. XIV). The insertion is a note taken from the chapters V-X, of that very
boo k (§§ 129-316, pp.98-24S) by reller and Odermann.
On sheet 127 wc find the following comment of Marx, related 10 the section devo ted 10 the
calculation of rebates IInd, expressing his criticalllllitude to the book :
Customary rebates a re pure charlat3 llis m. Be they calculated from 100 or upon 100, they
are al ready, before ha nd , added 10 the selling price 99.
At the end ofs. 138 Mllrx's postscript: WContinuu/ion, Note Book 2, 1869 - and, on 5. 139:
-Con/en/S " of the no te book from p. 87. Ile re we have the d etailed headings of those pil rts of the
books by Goschen, and by Feller and Odermann, from which notes have been taken, as well as
indications to the corresponding pages of Marx's note book.
In order to give an idea of Ihe contents of this manuscript, he re we reproduce this table of contents
;n full (s. 139).

• Tha t is when there is no direct relation or, when bills issued from two points arc exchanged in a third point.
-Bd.
 FIRST NOTES ON COMMERCIAl. AIUTIIM lmC JI7

CONTENTS
1) Money Mtlrket Review (1868) and "Economist " (1868):
Register oJ cOlltents (1' 1'. 87-89)
2) Goschell : Theory oJ Exchanges.
DeJinition (90)
Infernalimlal Iffdebtedness (90)
Variou s classes of Foreign Bills in which llIfematiollal
Irldebl f> t!lIess is ultimately embodied (90-93)
Fltlch aljons ill the price of Foreign b~lIs (93-99)
Illterp~(!/atioll of Foreign Exchanges (99- 104)
So called eorreetives of Foreign Exchanges (104-109)
3) Ca lClllalioll of Bills of Exchange.
CalculalUm of Bills Of Exchange jn general (l09)
CalClllatioll of Parily {COil version illto hard currency! (109-110)
COl/versioll of the Bills of Exchange illlo other rates.
Direct ( Il O- 1l 2)
Indirect (11 2-114)
Calculation of Arhilratiolls.
D irect ( 1l4-118)
In direct (135-138)
Rule of three.
Complex rule of three ( 118-119)
Chain rule (118- 121)
Partnership rule ( 121- 123)
RlIle of M ix III re (123-125)
Calculation ofpercelltages (1 25- 127)
Ca/cilia lion of il/teresls (127-13.1)
Calculatioll of d~rcollllt {rebate} (131-l32)
Calculalion of terms ( 131-134)
From this list wc find that at first Mlloe delllt only with certain "IYpeS· of ~ rithmet ical problems,
for [he solution of which, special rules have been proj)Qsed for each "type" .

S.U.N.2400
11 is n big nole book. consisting of l25 sheets with Engels ' SUpct1iCriplion :
1869
1) Co mmcrci:tl C1lcu lations, Note book 11, End. pp. 1~36.

2) Foster, Co mmerc ial Exchanges, 37·51.

11& OESCRII'110N 0 1' THE Ml\nmMl\llCI\L MI\NUSCRWI'S

3) Haus ner, Comp. Statistics, 1865.

4) Sadler, Ireland, 1829.
The first 36 pages (ss. 3-38) He continuation of manuscripl2388. lIere, firsl of all the notes from
chapter XI V come 10 an cnd and, noles arc taken from chapler XV of the book by Fcller and
Oderman n §§ 413·426, pp. 382·400 -1I00U! the calculation of Bills of Exchange, calculations
of values of shares and of olher governmcnt papers. Further on, MHX relurns 10 Ihe chaplers XI
.XIII. §§ 317-380, pp. 246-318 of this very book - which he skipl>cd earlier - on [he gold and
silver contents of the currencies of dif(ercrll counlries. This nole comes 10 an e nd with Ihe notes
from chapters XV I - XVIII, §§ 428-471, pp. 402·481. These arc aoou t ClIlculations of weights
,l nd measures, estimll le of commodities and calculation of losses in cases of shipwreck.
 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE 18705

THE MAN USC RIPTS ON TH E THEORY OF CONI C SECTI ONS

Here the following manuscripts are in view : S.U.N. 2760, 2761 ~nd 2762.
S.U.N.2760
It consists of 9 sheets (55.1-9) of notes, taken from: 1. lIymers, "A treatise on conic sections
and the application of algebra 10 geometry·, 3rd cd., Cambridge, 1845. 111;5 book was found
in Marx 's pcrsonallibrllry. Marx look notcs from rhe first 12 pages of it. These pages nre related
10 the introduction of coordinates; the problem of finding the distance between two poi nts. given
their coordinates; the eq uation of the straight line and, the problems of: determining the equatio n
of a s traight line , in te rms of Ihe segments cut of[from it by the axes of coordinates and, the equal io n
of a straight line passing through one amI two points,tlleir coordinates being given.
S.U.N.276 t
5.5 double page sheets of rough notes, on the theory of conic sections , from Sauri's book cited
above, volume 2, pp. 2·27, in French and English.
S.U.N.2762
4 double page sheets in Frenc.h . Fair notes on the theo ry o f conic sections from the same book:
by Sauri. volume 2. pp. 2-2.7.

THE FIRST NOTE S ON THE DI FFERENTIAL CALCU LUS

S.U.N.3704
4 sheets of photocopies; lhe beginning is not there, we have only rp. 3-6 in Mane's pagination.
From the content il is clear,that to all appearance, this manuscript is the very firsl note taken from
the initial paragraphS o f Boucharlat's text-hook: (" An Elementary Treatise on the Different ial
and Integral Calculus" by J .-L l3oucharlal. Trans la ted from French By R. Blakelock:, B.A.,
Cathar;na Hall , Cambridge-London, 1828). i.e., (this note] is relaled 10 that lime, when Marx,
having gal acquainted with the b~sics of diffe rentiftl calculus according 10 Sauri's course, turned
10 8 newe r Irelltise on this C/l leulus by Boue harlal.

The preserved sheets of lhe manuscript contain notes from II 5· 18 this text book. The following
beginning of page 3 of Marx '5 manuscript indicales thaI, in the missing pages 1-2 notes were lake n
from the paragraphs preceeding the fifth onc. I1 reads :
He wou ld say
(x+dxP - xl +3x2dx+3x(th-)2 + (dxp.
Now, if we sub tract the gfven quantity x 3, there remains 3x 2tb: + 3x(dxF + (dxP ; the two
lalter term s disa ppear as in f in ities of the second [and thi rd ] order [s1 and, wc ge t
d (x 3) _ 3x2dx, which is the differe ntial of Xl, e.g. =d (x 3), and there is less to be said aga inst
this; as in the other equa lion y = etc., x changes independently of y and the changes of y are
onl y correlative to lhose of x.

/
120 DESCRII~nON OF'111E MKl1lEMAl1CAL MANUSCRWI~

Here Marx co nsiders 1111 eX~lllple, which BOllclmrlnt investigated in § 3 (for llie fllillcxt of Ihis
paragraph sce PV, 326·327, \)ot he diffe rentiates it according to Sauri, i.e., using the inf'inilcsimat
method of Newton-Leibnit1.. Mllrx's objections 10 il are sliIIlo be met with. It ilppear.>. th:tt the
words Mhe would s~y" [Hbovel refer to wh<lt Boucharlat would say, if he would act a<-'Cording to
Sau ri .
The following ci rcumstance too speaks- in favour of this conjecture: in his critiCltI comments
following the eXJ!mples of differen tiation of the functions), _ 11 + 3.~, y _ t1Xl - b 1 and), - 11 ~.~

(§§ 5-7 According 10 Bo ucha rlat), MilT)( writes (in p.3), taking notes frOIll § () orlhis book;

dx " is itsel fth edifferenlial ofx·. lr we had s:lid from the beginn ing [thnt J wc ca ll the infin itely
small increment o f x -dx, the thing was s imple, ns with Sauri. But having introduced 11, and
spoken till now of the differential of the algeb ra ic expression of it as the differentia l of the
functiony Cv be ing the runction or X, put on thc othcr side of equation), hc wa nts some hocus
pocus 1OO•
F? r (insta nce l let us have:
Yt-Y
y .. X, YI .. X + h, Yt - y - ", - ,-, - - 1 ; as h does not enter into the second s ide fR.H.S .]
of the equation, we pass to the limit in making Yl - Y or)'1 - Y = dy and h inlO dx. And as all
Yt - Y
expression of x has disappeared in - ,-, - - J, we hHvc not eve n ;1 pretex t to say. that"

becomcs dx, and thcrefore YI - Y - dy o r that "0o - 1.

It is o nly true in that sense tha t
o every quantity q w ha tever, bCl.'a use 0o .. q, gives
o
0- q.O or 0 = 0 100•
The remaining pari of Ihis manuscript (pp. 4-6 acco rding to Mar)() is a no te tHken frnm §§ 10-18
of that ve ry book or Boocharlat. (For the contents of these pHagraphs see rv, 327-330.) Here it
is also evidenl that Marx is s till in favour ofSlluri's method. lbus, in Ihe case of the theorem about
the differential of the product of functions, which is proved in Oo ochariat (see § 14 in pp. 329-330)
as per Lagrange, Le., formally multiplying the expltOsions
YL _y+Alr+BI?+CI?+etc.,
2
zl _z+A 'h+O'h + C'h J + etc.,
Mar:.;: writes (p. 5 in his pagination):
He develops oul of this d (XYZII etc.), which might ha ve been done much morc si mply and
directl y (see Saurt).
He says:
Further on, the proof according tn Doucharl~t i~ set forth in full (scc PV, 330) . After this Mnrx
adduces a Simpler proof (p.S) from Saur; and notes Ihat [actually speaking DouchHlat also omits
Ihe terms with Ihe higher powers of 11. This comment of Marx reads:
Instead of which he might s imply have said:
(z + dz) (y + dy) - zy + dz -y + dy ·z + dz ·dy.
 FInST NOTES ON Till; DIFFERENTIAL CAI .cUl.US 121

d(zy) -z dy+ydz
by sUbtracting the g ive n quantity zyaml suppre!ising dZ'dy; he does the same in suppressing
(Bz+AA ' + 8 ' y) h + etc.

'ON THE METHOD OF FI NITE DIFFERENC ES "

S.U.N.40J?
Two small pages (two sheets ofphotooopi(5). 11 is a vcry briefnote( almost without word~ , only
calculations, very liule explained) taken from §§ 17 1,1 72 ofSauri's book ~COllrs com plct de
mlllh ~ matiques · , vol. Ill , pp. 303-304. In Slluri 's course, with these paragraphs begins the sC(:lion :
~Calculus of finite differences."

Here Slturi compares the val ues of the variable x :

X, x+p, x+2p, x+3p, x+4pctc.,
with the values of the "variable magnitude",. :
y, y, y', y", y'v e tc.,

nOling herein, Iha t if ,. -xD, then 1111 values of y remain consl~n t (being equal lo onc). And with
lhis comment, Marx begin5 his notes. After tha t Marx adduces the following comment of Sauri :
if y _ O.t + b , Ihen the series for the y-s will be arith metic; jf y _ (1", then it will be a gl!ometric
series; if,. _ •...0 ,then it will be harmonic.
~+<

Later on the differences between the successiv~ vatues of y-s and the differences of the second
and highe r orders (differences between the differences of the firs t, then of the second etc. orders)
have been considered. The corresponding notations have been inlroduced :

Dy _ Y - y, 1)1 - y' - I, ....... 1)2 Y - 1)y - Dy _I' - 2y + y. 1)3,. .. I" - 3y' + 3y - y .

With fhi s fhe note abruptly comes to an end.

16 "
NOTE BOOKS CONTAINING EXTRACTS ON COM MERCIAL ARITHMET IC
S.U.N.388 1

The note book with M ~ rx 's supcn;criplion : "[[ , Begun on M~rch 1878", <::onl;';115 in ils sheets
144·146 (142-144 in Marx's numemtion) extracts from th e book "Das GHllze deT kllu fmfinnische n
Arit hmeiic" by Feller and Odcrmllnn( §§ 385 and 382), on mnthcmaliall evaJu~tions of Ihe impact
of discount upon Ihe ralC of exchange.

S.U.N.3931
It is a note book with extrllcts on commerc!al arithmetic, in German; 69 sheets.
S heets 1·20. Extracts rrom the book by FeJler and OdcrmHnn : OH'plcr IX- on the calcul atio n of
di scount, §§ 294-309, pp. 226-238; Chapter X IV- on the calculft lion o[ bills of exchange. §§
382·418, pp. 320·390.
Sheets 21-22. Extracts from Sauri's book, vol. I, pp. 109·121, on arithmetic and geometric
progrcssions . .
S heers 23-54. Extracts from the book by Fel ler and Odermarm : ch~pter VII - on the calcula tion
of percentages, §§ 210-260, pp. 162-196 i chapte r VIII - on the calculation of interests, §§
261 -293, pp.197.227.
S heets 54·69. Extr;::CIS rrom Sauri, vol. I, pp. 109-132, under the ge!lcra l heading givcn by
Ma rx : " Insertion (Progression efc.t - on progrcssions /lnd logarithms.
 A NOTEBOOK
C ONTAINING NOTES ON MATH EMATICAL ANALYSIS ACCORDING
TO THE BOOKS OF SAURI, NEWTON, BO UC HARLAT AND HIND
S. U. N. 2763
81 sheets in German and Prcnch.'fbis note book, containing extracts Hnd notes on ma thema tics; is
rela ted to a long period of Mane's study of mathematics, starling with Ihe work on SlIuri 's cou rse,
drawn up according 10 Lcibnill IInd Newton, ri ght through the wo rks of Newton himsel f (ss.
24.28). and uplo a dCliiiled acquain tance (accon.ling 10 the books of Boucharlaland Hind) with the
ideas of the "algebraic" differential calculus of Lagrangc (ss. 37-81).
LlHer on Marx no more considered these ideas of Lagmngc 10 be suitable as a "basis" I upon which
the differential calculus may be constructed (sce the first pari of the present volume). But i n the
note book herein described, he still did nol arrive allhi5 conclusion. lHere1 the task remains, first
of a ll to look Into the "method of Lagrangc-, according to the sources available to him and, to
ascerta in its value and shortcomings. In this connection the qucstion of dating this manuscript
is of considerable interest. The answer to this question may throw light also upon the question,
as la when, namely. did Marx's own dialectica l understanding of the operalionlll nature of
differential calculus finally mature. Unfortunately, a number of difficulties li re connected wi th this
[problem of) dating.
ft is clear from certain bibliogl1lphical indications and dates on sheets 33·36, no t related to
mathemalic.~, Ihat those pages of thi s manuscript which arc devoted to Lagrange, were, in any
case, wrillen IIfter 1872. It may be said with confidence that they we re writte n before 1881, {the
year] with which is associaled Mane's fi rst work "On the Concept of the Derived Function",
wherein Marx has al rea dy come out with his own way of treating the basic concepts of differential
calculus. However. these boundaries could not be significantly narrowed down. The problem is
this: in the last two pages of the note book containing manuscript 2763 (sheets 79·80), under
the heading - "Colltinllolion of Qllother 1I0fe book( lit , nex/ fO Kaufmann 1I ) (lust (XIS!:) (sce
descriplion of the manuscript.s 3881 and 3888), Marx once more begins to take notes from those
paragraphS of Douchllrlal·s book, which arc devoted la !he method of Lagrange. EVidently these
noles we re taken not with an intention to criticise LlIgrange. but to look (and besides,
surricientJy .sym palhcticllll y) inlo his "method" .!t is true, that Marx soon s topped this note
abruptly and crossed it out with ~ pencil. But the note book: - K,aufmllnn W(see manuscript 3881)
begins with thc following superscription in Marx's hand ;"BegurI on March J878~. We do not
know when it was finished. i 'ote book III (manuscript 3888) follows the no te book"Kaufmann W .
Th us, in any CRse, it belongs to a period after MaTch 1878. Further, the continuation of this note
book - ils last pages, have becn placed in manuscript 2763. It is natural to th ink: that Ihis
continuation could hardly have been writen earlier than 1879.
On the contTllry. the first pagcs of manllscipt number 2763 contain notcs from SlIuri's book. This
provi des a basis !o assume that these I)ages could have been written before 1872. From a ll this it is
ctel\r thalthis note book is actually related to a sufficiently long span oftimc, in thc course of wh ich
Marx's mathematical studies also found expression in certain olher note books.
In manuscript 2763 Marx 's own point oCviewon the nature of d ifferentia l ca lculus has sti ll not been
formulated; he still, in the main , highly evaluatcs the ~algebraic method~ of Lagrangei however,
here we already have a number of Marx 's observa tions regarding the choice and role of the
symbols of differential calculus, the dialectic of quality and quantity, ofform and content, of unity
and opposition connected with them, and llbout the interrelationship of algebra and
mathematical analysi~ the ~a Jgebraic· roots of symbolic differential calculus). l bcse observations
124 DESCRlP'nON OF T t III MA'I1 IEMA'nCAL MANUSCIUPTS

are alre~ tly, in part, a preparatio n towards Ma rx's ~wn conccption, which also begins to take
shllpe lit this stage of his matocmati(;;ll studies. MallY of these (ideas] we re later on elHoorated
by Marx. In the detailed desc ription of manuscri pt 2763, which follows herein under, Marx's
own observations have been brought out in rull .Many such placcs(of the ma nuscript!, as lire not
simply extracts, but [his) own IIccount of the noted mate rial, have also been brought fo rt h. Ti !les
of 1111 the four par ts of Ihe manuscript helong to Ma rx himself. The sub-litles belong to us.

~CO N I C SJ~CTJONS "

S heets 1-24 (i n Mnrx's numera tion: ad 1'.1,1-23). ExtTllcts from Sauri 's book "Cours complet de
ma tbCmatiqucs·, 1778, voL .11 , pp. 2-49, entitled "Co/li~ Sf!~/io/ls". ' 111s part of the book contai ns
the chllpters o n pa r ~bola (pp. 2-12), circle, ellipse IHld hype rbola (pp. 12·34) and, part (pp. 34-49)
of the chapter on the IIsymptotes to hYI)Croola and the dilltneters of ellipse IInd hyperbola.The
aCCOtUl t still has a very archaic c haracte r. Tho ugh illreildy from the geomelrica l properties of
the curves, equations arc deduccd , colll'!ecting the abscissae IInd ordinates of their points, Ihe
f;eneral method of coordi nates is s!itlllbsenl. Abscissae and orcJin;'ltcs of a given curve exist
in it,just like its axes of symmetry, tangents aRd diamete rs, IInd are defined thro.ugh the lilter.
Thus. the ~ordinate of the parabola~ is defined as "Ihe tine I' M . perpendicular to the axis and ending
althe pa rabola" (1'.2); the ~abseissaH - as "the part APofthe axis, enclosed between the o rdina te
and the point A , where the axis meets the p.1Ta!Jola~ (ibid).The "tangent " is unders tood as a
strdight line having one, and o nly one point in common with Il given curve. 'fhe urea of Ihe
"semi-parabola" acb (where a - is the vertex of the parabola, c - a point on il, ab-t he abscissa
of the point c) is determined in the mode of Archimedes, simplified according to the methods of
Newton and Leibnitz (i.e., throug h the "chilrnctcristic triangles" of Pascal and Lcibni t'l. - Ihrough
the idenlifica lion of an infinitely small arc of Ihe curve with a segmen t of its langent, of the
infi nitely small curvi linea r trapeZiums with rectangles, di ffering from them by infin ilesima ls
of the second order). Area of Ihe el lipse is sought diffe rently - by means of the badly [onnulated
principle of Cavalieri ; "Sum of all y is equal to the area of the ell ipse" (1" 22)./\ large number of
theorems abo ut the diffe renl properties of each of the conic sections, thei r diameters, axes,
foci, asymptotes and the olher elements, about the ways of constructing tangents to the m,
construction of any numbe r of points on these curves, computation of the a reas connected with
them, and others ilTe proved by the usual arguments of elementa ry geometry (I.e., synthetically,
and not with the help of calCUlus).
It is not possible to extract any general method or principles for systematisi ng the mllterials from
this part of the book. Onc may think, that Marx read il, having in view the introduction 10 the English
translation of Boucharlat's text book(l828), where the reader has l>ecn specially forewarned, that
the main body of the wor k assumes an Hcquaintance "with the elementary principles, relating 10
eu r ve5 ~ , llnd under thc .laller, firs t of all, he had in view the conic seclions. In fact, III ready on the
6th of J uly 1863 Marx wrote to Engels. that he had H1\ superfluity of wo rks" on the diffe rential
and integral c.alculus and that: ·SII'Ie fo r a knowledge of the mo re ordinary kind of algebra arId
trigonometry, no preliminary s tudy is required except a general/amiliar;f}' wiflJ conic sf!clions"
(editor's slress) [ MECW(I:0, 41,484 I. 'l11e choice of Slluri's book is natu rally explained by
the ract that, at first Marx very much appreciated the simplicity of its mc thoos (see the description
of manuscript 3704). I-Jowever. a closer acquainta nce with the conten t of the section on conic
sect i~ns, from which Marx took notes ill great de tai l, must have disappointed him. IInd in fllct,
Marx did abruptly s top his notes, from Ihechapter on the asymptotcs to hyperbola IInd the diameters
of elli pse and hyperbota - which occllpies pp. 35-68 of Snuri's book - at p. 49 of Ihe book.
And later on he look nOles from only onc of Ihe remaining chapters: from t he chapter "On Conie
 'OONICSEC!10NS' '25

Sections of Highe r Orders· (~ce below - description of sheets 29+33). Even he did no t have the
patience to study all of those large number of particul,u theorems, not connected by any kim] of
genera! idea.
The content of the laller parts of manuscri pt 2763 ( beginning with sheet 33) shows that, these
must have been written after manuscript numbe r 3704, wherein Marx is still in favour of
Saud's (i.e., Leibnitz's an d Newton's) method. However, th ere are direct indications in the
manuscript to th e effect that sheets 37-81, were, in /lny case, wrillen after 1872, because on sheets
33·36 ( pp. 32·35 in Marx's numeration) Man: provides a list of the (then!) latest books on the
histo ry pfGermany. In this lisl Ihere a re pu bl iC(ltions of the years 1866,.1868,1871 and onc o f them:
" Von 1806-1 866. Zur Vorgeschichtedes ncucn Deutschcn Reich" von 11 . Langwe rth von Simmem,
was published from Leipzig in 1872. It is true, ilmt the sheets 33-36 MC related to Ihal pMt of the
ma nuscript, which is sit ua ted (i mmediately) after the last extrads from Sami 's book. Out it is clear,
that the pages thilt follow could not have been written befo re 1872.
Sheet 1 (ad p.I /lccording to Mont), aUached 10 the beginning of the man uscript, contaillS
definitions, which were at firs t omitted by Marx: o flhe "paraoola" (as it was usually done, i.c.,
through ~focus " an d "direclrix"), of the "a){is~. "diameter H , "tnngent", ·ordinate" and
"abscissa", of the ~s ubtan genl", "parameters" of Ihe ax is or diHmeter, "normal ", ·subnormal",
~applica l es to the diame ter"' , "radius-vecto r", and "vertex" - all Ihese speciAlly for the pnrabola.
The list comes 10 an end with the following observa tion. which is ootlhcre in Saur;' ] 1 appears,
tha t il belongs to Marx himse lf :
From these dala, given by the very co ns truction of the cu rve, fo llows the explanation:

t o p

If a point m is given on II curve and I am requircd to draw a tangent through it, then it is
clear, that, if I have, corresponding 10 Ih is po int rn, for example, to the point m in the fi gure
inserted here, (he subtangellt pt, Le. , the correspondi ng extension of the abscissa aI', then 1
am only to connect the terminal point of the subta ngenl pt, i.e. the point I, with m by a
s traight line - and th en, ml is the langent.
Further, s ince up is Ihe abscissa, by extending which the subLangenl is obta ined, so mp is
the ordinate .
• Wha] we have in view here under ·ordinate • or "applicate (i.e .• 3l1aehed) to the diame ter" - if we speak
about it in a more mode rn language - is the ordi ll3tc of a point of a parabola in a system of coordi nates, the
o rd inate ax is of which is a tangent at a fixed poi nt m o f the parabola ,and the axis of abscissae - is the diameter
passi ng th rough that very point m.-&!.
126 DESCRII'1l0N OF "111E M""I1IEM,,"nCAL MANUSCRIPTS

Since a po int m on a curve is obta ined, co rresponding 10 a g iven abscissa, when Ih ...: cu rve is
inle rsectcd by the pe rpe ndic ul ar aris ing fro m the c nd po int o f the ahst"issa, IH.: ncc, a lso,
conversely. the straight line jo in ing m w ith p is perpend icular to the ax is.
From Ihis it fo llows furth e r, Ih<ll the point m, where the ord ina te, correspond ing to the
g iven abscissa intersects the c urve, is the po int in which the t.:'m gcnl. ~crrcspo ndj ng la this
o rd ina te, touches the curve. Il is the po int of ta ngency. He nce it fo ll{H\s Iha l: if a given poillt
m o f a parabola is its vertex a, then at the same lime it is the po int, where the ordinate, Le. , the
perpend icular 10 the a xis, is to be ra ised ; and here in it is thc o nl y po in t, w here (co rrespo ndin g
to this o rd ina te) the ta ngent to uches th e c urvc. l-{cnee, Ihis tangelll alld this ordinate coincide:
ins tead to two - he re we have the one and only one line, perpendicula r to the ax is a t a.
Thus, w hile the tangent beca me infi nitesima l· , abscissa pa t urned into 0, and alo ng w ith this
a lso ils ex tensio n, the s ub l.1 ngent, o r, to be more precise, the differe nce be tween the
abscissa and the subtangent has va nished, both o f the m have co inc ided w ith th c s tartin g
po int of the ord ina te a nd o r th e tangc nt a t a, the diffe re nce be twee n th em has a lso
v an is hed ••.
The remai ning part of this seetio!1 is wrillen in French, i.e .• in the la'lgullge of the text booksTudied,
Though a large part of this is no mer<: e.~trllcl, but summarized statement of Ihe ma ter!a l noted .
However, Ma rx carries out all the calculations in full, the diagrams ( includin8 the high ly
intriCllte ones) have been copied (with the designation5 exactly retai ned). This pari of the
manuscript does not conlai n any commenlthat is Marx 's own. It comes to an end wilh It diagram
related to §55 of Sa uri 's book, left unnoletl, whcre the concept of nadjoining circles" has been
introduced. Unde r Ihe diagram, li t the beginni ng of It line the numbe r ~ 1r has been wrillen ( it
is the number of the next point of the note) and a blank space has been left. Perhaps, later on
something was wri tten the re wilh R pencil. traces of which are now unrecognizable. 111ercby it
appears, that fo r some lime Ma rx inte rrupted his mathema tica l studies.

Q UADRATURES OF C URVI L IN EAR AREAS (A CCORDING TO NEWTON)

S heets 25·28 in Germa n.

Extracts from the works of Newton, .alo ng with Marx's critical observations. 111ese a rc being
reprod uced here in fu ll . Marx indicated his own large commenlS by a vertical line on the left. In
olhercases it is c\eltr from the context, itS 10 where Marx is enunciltling Newton, Itnd where
il is a comment on hi m. r o r a commentary o n this section of Ihe manuscript see :[edilorial]
nole~ 101-107.

QUADRATURES O F CU RVILI NEAR AREAS

( Fro m Newto n's comm unica tio n on "A lia lysis wilb the help of equatiollS with infinite
number of terms", addressed to lhe Pres ident of the Roya l Socie ty in Londo n 101, in 1669) .
• Eviden tly, in this observa tion, what is had in view under - tangent-, is a segment of the tangent between Ihe
point of tangency and that poinl where the tangent intersects Ihe axis of abscisslt, i.e., (sce Ihe figure) Ihe
segment ml , if the points m a nd I are differen t. If m ~n d I coincide, then they do no t univoca lly dete rmi ne a
straight line - the tangen t - and. then not the segment nrl is 10 be laken for the "tangent", but Ihe (!"Iire
tangent. I1 appears that, he re this is what Marx wanted to say. - &I .
.... Thlt t is to say, Ihe diffe re nce between the abscissa of the -starting points" 1/1 Itnd t of Ihe ordi nate and the
tltngen\ has va nished : both the points ha ve coincided with a.-Cd.
 QUADRATURES 127

At issue here a rc the simple curves of the type

y .. ax"'/"
, ,
(whe re, fo r example, [or tne parabola a c: p i and x ...It• ... x l ).

A B - x, 8 D ,. y, a, b, ca re g ivep. magnitudes, r m, 1l1- whole numbers.

If Y - axW", then

the area A BD - - -
all "'+"
x~.
m + rl
(This has been pu t forwa rd l02w ithoul proof.)
As examp les he g ives:
2
1)x2 _1.x1 =y; a .. 1, m - 2. 1l ... 1 ; then
1
the area ABD _"j" x3 •
,
2) If 4 rx '" 4x'2 - y (a .. 4, 1. n .. 2), then
In -
8 xi3 ]03
ABD __
the a rea
3
Th is e nume ra tio n is no t acco mpanied by a ny ki nd of proof: ne ithe r a proof of the genera l
theorem, no r a ny explanat io n fo r the examples.
Take the first example: y .. x 2 then an clement of the area = ydx .. x 2 dx.
Hence,

the a rea
, ,
Secolld example: y .. 4x '2 ; an cl emen t of the area .. ydx .. 4x '2 dx ; he nce,
,
] 4x.,·1 8 3
the a rea ... f 4X 2 dx - - 3- -3X2 .
2
•
And generally: if y - ax'1f, then
128 DESCRllynON 01''1'1 Ri Mi\'Il Il:MA'nCAL MANUSCI{WrS

an clement of the area ~ y tlx =: a~ dx ;

hence,
the area .. f ax -v. dx :
ax"Vo+l
.."
ax --;;- all ..... ~
f ax""dx- - -m-+n- - - - x-.-.
m +n
m l
-+
11 11

Newto n knew from ana lytica l geometry 104, that an clement [oCthe areaJ o f the parabola
etc." ydx, i.e., equal to the differential of the unknown curvilinea r arca ; and s ince according
to the equalion of the c urve y _ ax""", so th is di fferential . (lJt"I. (Ix, i.c .• equal toy expressed in
the abscissa[multiplied by dx]. He knew. [urther, from thal very so urce, that the area is
co ns idered to be the infinite sum of these cicmenl'i, i.e., to be
Jax"Y. dx.
m
He knew further, that the resu lt for x mdx (where m may be any - . only In and 11 are who le
. X",·l . ".
numbers; fo r exa mple w hen n ,.. 1 x % x m) [is] -
, -
m+-1. which gives
X"".1 1
ax'" dx "" a - - - --a~·I.
f m+ 1 m+ 1
However, the di ffe rentiation, fo r example of x"', already showed him, that its di fferent ial
is mx",- I dx, i.c., the second term of the binom ial expa ns ion, agai n becomes the first [ and J,
thus, gets integra ted accord ing to the formu la:
mx ",-hi dx
T="---",,i";,.,
(m - l + l )dx - x' .
Hav ing known this formu la, he kn ew from :1 naly lica l geo metry, that it is the integral of
y dx, i.e. of the di ffe rentiated function of x in the eq uatio n of the curve 10~ . However, that he
co uld not at all cope with the applica tion of integral and differcn tial calcu lus to analytica l
geometry, s hows his fo llowing proo f of the gc nerallileorcm, where:
1) the au xiliary c:::J or, morc correc tly, the auxi liary trapezi um is nOl constructed from
dxa nd y + dy, but from dx and some height, which is no t the ordina te, that is why [dy] does
not van ish when dx wtnishes ; 2) he does not constru ct the curve fro m the equation
y - elC., but does it geometrica ll y, assum ing the area to be given ; 3) the height y is fo und
with the help o f di ffe re ntiation of the given function of x, and then it is conversely concluded
that : if now th e heig ht y .. such and such, then, conversely, if y is given by such an expression,
then the arca must be such and s uch. However, he actu all y avo ids integra ti ng or showi ng,
how th is inverse process may be accomplished with lh e hel p of calcu lus; 4) in other words
he also observed, that the formul a is not enough for all s im plc curves, and (one s hould also
write] + C ; in many cases this consta nt is not 0, but mu st be furthe r defined. In the next pagc,
we s hall now g ive his so-ca lled proo f, word for word.
NO!'1bc ne : Whe ncver he writes 0, 0' etc., we write dx, (Lx' etc.
 QUADRA'I1JRES 129

1) Preparation for tile proof The area to be calcula ted ABD=z;All - x;BD-y;
BP - <4; Bk - v; =
BPKH (v<4) - the ",co BflW;
AP -x+ dx ;A5/3 -z + vdx.
From the arbitrarily chosen interrelationship ofx and z, I seek y as follows:
2 J 4
A) Suppose z- - x 2 or Z2 _ - X 3.
3 9

J
Kf-,_ =-iH
D

Putting x + dx for x and z + vdx fo r z, we get :

4
B) 9" (x + dx)l- (z + v dx)2 ; hence:

9"4 (x3 + )x2 dx + 3xdx2 + dx3 ) _ Z2 + 2zv dx + v2 dx2.

9"4 X3 - Z2; mut ua ll y curta ili ng these two terms and dividing the res t by dx, we get
....
"94 (3X2 + 3xdx + d.x2) .. 2zv + v2 dx.

Now ass ume that BP- dx d im inishes in fi nitely and finall y vanis hes , i.e., actua ll y·becomes
o (earlier he already ca lled it 0); then the terms mu ltiplied by 0 vanis h , and we gel:
4 4
C) - . }x2 .. 2zv or - x 2 .. 2zv whence
9 ' 3 '
2
'3X2 oa zv.
But now, whe n dx becomes =0, v is equal to y (why? Isn 't v the ordina te. and dx the
fun ction of v 1 106) and that is why
2 2 J .. .
'3 x2 - zv .. .zy - '3 x '2 y.
2 2 J
Butif -x2_ -x ~y then
.3 3 '
17
130 DESCRwnON OF Tt m MA11iEMA'l1CAL MANUSCRll'TS

2
-x'
3 x2 23 I
y - - - - J . x -2- x2
2 3 x"l
-<1
3
[[Thus, wc have found Y. by 1) <lssuming that thcdirrcrcntial rectangle .. ydx,which
by no means follows from the construction, and then the diffcrcnlilllion of ~ x) is obL1ined

from the accepted expression for Ihe area vz .,. ~ Xl , 11

Now NeW/Oil Sldds - and this must be proved - that he ca n illfegrale:
1
"I[ tha t is why (why?), conversely, x i _ Y (Le., jfwc ha ve the eq uation of the curve), then
2 2'
thea rea z-3"x ".

Hence, the cou rse of the argument is like this: if the equation for the area is given ,i n
which it is expressed through the abscissa, then I sha ll find oul with the help at' differentiation,
. I I .
(he equatIOn of tire curve, for exa mple y _ x '2 (perhaps y _ J . x 'l , a nd If I c h:lnge 1 by a or
by some given number, and 1
by mill [then] I shall get y - (IX;), i. e., a determination of the
ordinate y in terms of the abscissa x. Then I conclude that, conversely. it must also be
possible to find oulthe area from the equation of the curve, i.e. by in tegrating. and besides th is
area must be lhat only, from which I found
m
y _axtr.
However, thereby I have s till by no means integrated, allY more than initially obtaining
the differentia l of the area ABD directly by differentiatillg the equation of the curve, which,
you sce, I, conversely, obtain as th e result 107. However, had Newton thought, that this method,
which he ca lls "preparation for the proof", gnve the proo f itself, then he wou Id not have given
any kind of proof after this. But this imaginary proof consislS only of the fa ct that, onc and
the same thing is repeated in a general algebraic form instead of determinate numbers, i.c.,
2 3 n ~M
instead of z - -3 x ~ what is assumed is z - - - ax --'-.
m+n
Now let us get acquainted with the following proof
Proof. Now in the general form, when
11 ,.,+,.
z- - - ax -;r
m+n
(instead of - ~ x ~ ; a general algebraic expression, s ubstituted fo r the numbers), or (it is only
an algebraic simplification, substitution of simpler expressions, in place of which their
values may be aga in SUbstituted), or [if] ~ .. c and 111 + 11- p , [then} when (with the
111 + 11
help of this substitution which does not give any kind of new demonstralive argument, but
 "C(}N1CSEC nONS or 1I1GllEn O[WElts' 131

.P
only repeats the assumplioll in other si mpler des ignations) z ... ex n or z:' '' C" xP, then, if we
s ubstitute (just as we did in th e preparation ) x + dx [[he writes as above, x + 0]] [for x ] and
z + vdx (for him , as above, x + v 0) or (what is the n reduced to the sa me) z + ydx for z [[ the
progress cons ists of the fact that the clement of the c:::::J is defined directly as ydx without
furth er ba ll yhoo 1], [we shall getJ
C" (x P + prt dx + ., ........ ) "" z:' + nz n-t ydx + ....... .
Removing en xP a long with Z" and dividing what remained by dx I then assuming it to be
'" OJ, we s ha ll get
c" PX p- 1 '" IIZn- 1y _ ylI Z" _ Y" Cn ~
C'--:;;-,
- - - J"
Z CXn
or, dividing by en x",
en pxp-t yn Cn>!,
- :':,-y- - ,
Cn J...P ex i en).'"

px -I ... yn ,whence
cx-%
ny_px-1cx.,{' _pcx l -t "'pc x '7f! .

. Substituting aga in for p and c , their values, we shall finall y get : y .. ax ".(In fact, herein
•
all m+n - n m m
"y - (m + n) - - x-"-, ny .. an.x",y - ox" .)
III + fl
•
That is why, if conversely, it is assu med that y .. ax"'" (i.e., the equa tion of the c urve is
given), then for z is obt<lined the val ue ~ ax ~, Q.E.D. That is, nothing is proved
111+11
but only the "prcpa r<l tion for the proo f" has been repealed in a genera l algebraic from.
Sheet 28 (p. 27 according to Marx) of the man u ~cript contains only one line : " ... but only the
~preparatior. for 'he proof ~ has bet!n rt!peated in a general algebraic fo rm". Rest of the sheet is
blA nk. Evidenlly, between this section of the manusc ript and its Jaile r parIS, there was a second
break in MarK 's work.

"CONIC SECTIONS OF HIGHER ORDERS"

Sheets 29·33. Here MarK returns 10 volume IJ of Sauri's book, but as has been noted earlier,
this is no continuation of the note~ from the chapter, from which he was taking notes earlier. He
also om its the neX"ttwo chapters, and begins laking notes in full, fro m the chapter "On Conic
Sections of Higher Orders" (§§ 91-99, pp. 95-105). In this ch"pter Sa uri considers those curves,
whose equaTion has one of the following forms, under a system of coord inates chosen and speciall y
indica ted by him.
1) y",u _ x'" (2a -x)~ o r, what is considered by Sauri to be different from it and is hence obtained
through a transformalion of the system of coordinates,
y ...... - x"' {a -x)" -"circles of higher ordcrs"(the order is determined by the number m,
sequence in the order - by the numbcr n ), § 91;
2) y no+n _ a '" .r "-"parabolas of higher orders '., § 92 ;
 132 DESCRWIlON OF TIrE MATlrEMA"Il(;AI._MANUSCIUI"TS

3) !!. y • •• ".1" " (11 - :r)'"-"ellipscs of higher o rders", § 93 ;

a

4) 1.'.)' _. -x" (u +.t)" o r, when laken 10 Ihe asymplolcs, K" i ' .. ll"""-"hyperbolall of higher
a
ordcrs".§§ 94-95;
5) u"- I ), -.1" "' ... bX"-t + aa ...- l ... ... ... a .. _I k - " paraboloids",§96.
Here, Mifwc nsslImc x 10 be infinite, posilivc or ncgalive, Ihen, disregarding all the terms, which

may be considered BS 0 in compa rison to x .... wc get Ihe ClluRlion y .. " ; ; M (p. 102). In Sauri
a-
Ihe latter sigllirics, fhM when x changes from - 00 10 + 00, then in the C<tSC oral1 odd m [he curve,
owing to ils conlinuilY ,must intcrsecllhc .1"- a:'Cis (as the ordin~lc y from being equal to - 00 muSE
become equal to ... 00, i.c., from being ncgllljvc must become positive), and besides mus l intersect it
odd numher of times. And Hn~logou~ly when nr is an even number, Ihen the curve must eilher not
intersect the x·a:ds al all, or must intersect il even number of limes, HS dislinct from zero. Marx's
note comes 10 an cnd with the consequences thl1t follow from here , and arc related to thc number
of real and imaginny rools of the equal ions of higher dcgrees(with one unknown x) .
This note is very IHconicand does nOI contai n any observ~tion, which is Marx's OWIl. Ilowever,
1111 definitions, diHgrams IInd general assertions of Sauti have been reproduced by Marx in full. That
he did not intend to study Sauri's book lIny longer, is c1e~r from the f~ct th~t, he did notlcave any
blank space in the last sheet 33 (p. 32 oC Marx ) of lhis note, but began writing he re itself,
informations about the lalest books on the hislory of Ge rmany [referred to above], which he found
inte rcsting
Sheets 34·36. were not numbered by Marx. The following sheet 37 has Marx's number - 33" .That
is why to obtain Marx's numeration for the sheets 37-52, onc must subtract four from Ihe archival
number of these sheets. later on Marx commits two mistakes in numeration ; he wro te "46-
instead of "45" lInd "44" instead of ~47" ,and upto sheet 62 the archival number is already 10
more than MHrx's numbf=.

"A SOMEWHAT MODIFIED VERSION OF 111E LAGRAfrlGIAN ACCOUNT OF TA YLOR 'S THEOREM,
BASING IT ON A PURE/~Y ALGEBRAIC !·aUNDA110N"

Sheets 37-81, in German; IherellTC English Hnd Frenc h phrase!>.

Marx united this enlire pari - more than h31f of the mllnl1scripl- umler the general litle :"A
somewhat modified version of th e Lagrangian account of Tay/or's theorem, basing it on a purely
algebraic foundafiQn~.l1 5tHt:> (sheets 37·44, Marx's pp. 33.40) with noles from the IlISt chapter of
the section on - Differential Calculus" of Bouch~ rl a l'S book entitled ;-00 Lagrange's method of
substantialing tbe differential calculus without re(lOurse 10 limils, infinitcsimals or any kind of
vanishing quantities- (§§244·250,pp. 168.172, in the 5th Freneh edition in our possesSion). In
places this note alternates. with extracts from chapter 5 of J. lIind's " The Principles of the
Differential Calculus", Cambridge, 1831, §§95, 96, 99, pp. 120-121,124-129. Herein it acquires
11 systematic character and consists of points, successively numbered 1-9 by Mn rx. All these
pagcs of the manuscript have been c rossed out in pencil, with the exception of one place
o n sheet 39 (p. 35 according to Marx), put inside a frame by him, where, retu r ning once
more 10 the equations y .. f(%") + Ph, p .. p +QII. Q .. q + Rh, ....... , found in Douchllrlat (p. 168),
Marx explains (having in view the expansion of their right hand sides in series):
So in each of these equations, only the second term, containing It in its first power, is to be
fo und out.
 ON THE EVALUATION OF LAG RANGE'S METHOD
In this conspectus MaTl( pays special allentian to such places of the text-books under
consideration, which arc relau~d 10 lhe modes of introduci ng the speci fic. symbolism of
differential calculus as per ugrllnge and 10 the evaluation of his method. llere . in places Man.:
mentions bis sources IInd quoles from them (within quotation markS). TIIUS, on sheet 41(p .37
acco rding to Marx) we read:

nolation· .

Boucharlat says, that the expression *

Thus L1grange himself says, that he writes (Lx ins tead of" • for the sake of uniform ity of

is the symbo l of the operation by which wc obtai n

the coefficient of h in the development of f(x + h), and::Z ' Z etc. ind icate that if
repeated, the sa me process w ill make known to us the coefficients of the other powers of h.
In reality a comparison with Tay tar's formula and the differential ca lculus genera lly
s hows that if the development of a proposed fun ction of x + It is by any means cx prc.<;scd in
a series ascending by intcgral and positive powers of 11, then the coefficients of
III III /in
11 '"2 ' 2.3 ..... , 1.2.3"n ' wil l be so m any Derived FUfl ctions equiva lcnt to the
corresponding Differelltial Coefficients denoted by

This place of Marx's nOle is relaled to § 251(pp. 172· t 73 of the 5th French edilion) of 130ucharlal's
book.
Fo llowing Boucharlat, Marx scts forth furthcr, 115 an example, thc way of seeking s uccessive
derivatives of ox", by expanding 0(% + h)- according 10 Ihc binomilllthcorcm and lillting thc
b2 b)
cocfficients of ", -2 . -23 ctc. , afler which he writes (Sheets 42 , MHrx's p. 38) :
l' 1"
Consequently, Ihis method does nol permit expans ion of algebraic and transcendenta l
functions with the help of differential calculus, but, converse ly, il is a means, for obtaining
from th e algebraic expansion of functions, Ihe expressions for their di fferentials in a
ready·made form.
Immediately liner this plHce, there follows an evaluation of Lagrangc's method. It is 11 summi ng up
of a parI (§§ 244-25 1) of the Chapter on lagrangc's method in Ooucharlat's book, from which
Mllrx took notes learlier] . However, in the 5th French edition of this book in our possessio n,
there is no such formul!\lion. It is nOlthere in Hind's book too. (Not excluding the possibility,
however, that it may be there in Ihc notes ofG. Peacock to The English Ir~l1slal i on of S.F.Laeroix's
book: An clementllrY trealisc on the Dirrercnli~1 and Integral Calculus, Cambrid ge, 1816, (we
are of the poSition thlll) this requires to be vcrified.) After this summing up IInd the evaluation o r
Lagrange's mcthod contained therein, Mllrx cited the eva luations of Lagrangc's method conlained
in the books of Bouchllrlat (§ 252, p. 173, 5th French edition) and Hind (§99, pp. 128-129) ,

* The words "ror the sake of uniformity of notation" li re thcre in Hind's book, §9S,p.120(in the section on
Lagrange's "dcrived fUlJctions").-Ed.
I
134 DESCRJP1l0N OF HIE MATI II:MflllCAI. MANUSCRIPTS

mentioning the surnHmcs of Ihe authors, within s(luHrc hracl(C1~ and quotation marks. 'nlc whole
of Ihis pari of Ihe nOle (sheets 42·43, pp. 38-39) has been crossed out in I>cncil. in lhe ma nuscript.
It is being prcscnled below in full, since il throws some light upon a stage in Marx's plllh.
treading whi.ch he arrived I'It his own point of view on the nAture of dirferential calculus. llere (and
later on) Marx's square brackets have IJccn changed inlo doublc square bmckcls.
Thus, if in his theory of functions Lagrangc did not do anything mo re than finding the
expansions for functions, till the n a\gcbraiclllly undccomposcd, in order to g ive thereby
al so their differential express io n"', then his con lribulionlo differential cal culus is limited to
this, that :
1) he a lgebra ically proved the theorem o[Tay/or, which, under certain constraints, may he
viewed, in a determinate sense, as the basis of diHcrential calcu lus, [having algebraica ll y
proved1 that expa nsion of [(x + h), from which Taylor proceeds [Since here Marx hlld 10 rcpclll,
several times, B few words stllting that ugrange prov~d ~omc lhin galgebraiCl\lIy, one such repetition appears
omitted in Ihe manuscript. It had to be restored, though thereby the clause became awkward . Wc note that in
a ll the sources used by Marx, Taylor's theorem was proved with the assumption thHIJ(x+Jr) is expanded in a series
ofasccnding integral positive powers of Jr. lbal;s why, while speaking abou tlhis theorem, it WitS n31ur31to connect
the name of Taylor nOI only wilh its formulation, but also with its proor.(For this In detail . sec PV,333.33S.)
However, from Ihis it is already clear, that Ihese observ~tions are nOl, wittingly, mere eJ(tracts rrom the sources
of Marx's nOles.-f:.d. ];

2) algebraically proved once and for all, that[(x) or y is the first term of the expa nsion of
[(x + It) and tha t the seco nd term, contai ns on ly the first power o f" as well as the coefficient
of h. which is the value of the (irst differe ntial coefficien t ~ ,

0' !!x
dx- the coefficient of h.
and tha t is why the first dirrerential is
the second term X dx (instead o[ h ).
But proceeding along his own course. Lagrange not only found a new theorem ror the
difrerential ca lculus. to whic h his name is attached lNow, in the differential calculus, usually the
theorem on proper value is called "Lagrange's theorem" . iJl the lext books used by Marx(sce, for example,
T.G.I-Ia ll. - A trealise on the differential and integr~1 calculus" , London, 18S2,pp. 227.231 ), Ihe formula
(expansion in series) for handling functions, carrying his name, and published by him for the !iT'St time in the
article "A new method for solving lettered equations wilh Ihe help of series -(Mem. Ac. Berlin. 1768) ( 1770),
was called "Lagrllnge's theorem· .-Ed. ] , but, as we sha ll see later on he also provided the differential
calc ulus with its own rationa l basis, having presented the successive coefficients of 11, 112
etc, as the derived functions of x :f'(x) , f "(x) , f'''(x){e lc.).
It s hould be mentioned furt he r. that Lagrange designates the .der ived functions
dirferently : namely. instead or: • ~~ etc. he writes y ' , y"etc .

• Under "differential expression" of functions what we have in view here is the eJ(pression (or their differentials
o r "differential coefficients", Le., fo r the de ri vatives.-Ed.
 EVALUATION OF LAGRANGIj'S MI::J1IOD 135

[[On the other hand, though in the method of Lagrange "the princ iples of differential
ca lculus appear demonstrated in a manner independcnt of evcry considerations of limits,
illfinitesimals or evanescent quantities, he is himself hound conskl nll y to have recourse to
limits or infinitcsimuls, as soon as he comes to its applications, f.i. the determination of
volumes, surfaces, the length of curves, or 10 ob tain the expressions for the sublangents
e tc. "(Boucharlat) •.
At the same timc "his me thod implies a previous knowledge of the methods of
devcloping all kinds of fun ctions of x + h in intcgral ascending pos itive powe rs of h, which is
often uttcrly difficult. Meanwhile, MacLlurin 's and Taylor's theorems, wncn once
establiShed, enable us to determine, with great case, the developments of many functions,
whose expansion by common algebra, would be exceedingly ted ious"(Hind). ]J
The aoove quotation is from point 99,chapter V, pp. 12R-129, of lliml's book. \
After this (under numbe r "9" , sheets 43-44, pp .•39-40 in the m~nu!icript) Manc look notes from
l-l ind (end of § 96. pp. 126-127), ~nd cited il as an e:campte of the proof of the theorem on the
first and second differential of Ihe product of IwO functions, by L1grangc's melhod . It sim!,l y
consisls of a formal multiplication of the TayJor's seric.scs for these functions andthcn of writing
out the co~fficients nf 11 and '~2 as the first ~nd second derivatives of the product (wilh their
SUbsequent tr~n s lation into the Leibnitzian language of differential symbols).
M~f.I( :>epar~ted the rest of point "9" from Ihe precceding text by 11 horizont.,1 line (sheet 44,1'. 40
according to MMX) lInu guve it the title ;"ToK'ords equ(Jliolllll, 1'.34 ". "Equlltion lIJ "is obtlli ned
by slI!"lituting Ir + i for Ir in theexpHnsion of/(x+/I) into a series of powers of h , which gi ves
one .o f the cXllltnsions of I(x + 11 + I) into a series of powers of the two vHiables hand i. TIlen.
substituting x + i for x in the eXpansionofj(.l + h) according to the powers of It and. eXJlllllding
therein the coefficients of the powers of It accordin g to the powers of i ( in the expMsion for
'T
1 + It) these coefficients arc functions of x ). l3ouch~rlac o bl"ins another expansion for
l(x +/I+I)
according to the powers of the variables" ~nd i. lIere Marx first of a ll writes out the second
expansion. and IIbtuptly stops the conspectus, witho ut proceeding upto equation Ill. What,
namely. did not satisfy him in the previous notes (o r in l3oucharlat). remains unclear. However.
it is important, that this is put 01" the Lagrangillll explHIlHtion of the connection between the
coefficients of the expansion I(x + h) into a series of the powers of i and the successive de riv ed
functions of 1(xl. and here Marx gocs over 10 a considerlltion of Ihe corollaries which follow from
it.
Here the crossed out part of the manuscript comes to an end. Marx did nOI cross out the following
sheets 45-63.

ON THE DJIo'FlmENT MEANS Ol~ SEEKING (AND DETERMINING) TUE SUCCESSIVE

DERIVATIVES OFTHE FUNCTION f (x)
The non-c rosscd-out part of Ihe manuscripl begins as under ( sA5.Mrtnc's p.41) (he re
YI • f(x + h) and. h Is assumed 10 be different from -zcro):

10) If at first we take the L.1grangian expa ns ion as tne pure development of the derived
functions of x,
.. In the 5th French edition of Boucharlat, this is point 252, p. 173.-Ed.
'36 DESCIUP' J10N OF 'nlE MA" IEMA'neAL MANUSCRWTS

112 113
y, - f(x) (or y) + ['(x) 11 + ["(x) t.2 + ['''(x) 1.2-3 + "',
112 11)
Yi - f(x) or y, - y - ['(x) 11 + ["(x) t.2 + f'''(x) J .2.3 + "' ,
( the first difference - 11)') (la)
and
y, -
- - Ya f '()
x+ f "()
x- 11 + f '''(x) -11'+ f w() 11'
x--+'··
h 2 2·3 2·3·4
and des ignate
y, - Y (i)
---Y (lb)
11
then
(i)
y - f '()
x+ f "()
x-+ x -11' + f w()
11 f' ''() x -11'- + '" (11)
2 2·3 2·3-4
AOer this Marx forms the diffe rence y0_ /,(x) and calls it the second difference of to1 y; ancr
that he introduces the function /:JJ . . y<D~ ['(x). Subtracting ~ 1"(.1") from the laller he gets the
third difference and Ihe functi on y0. 21 GJ,_["(x), with which he operates the way he did with
CD . ,
y IlInd y®. ute r on Marx writes OUI the followingcqualities (sh~1 46,p. 42 according to Marx):

,,2 ["(x) ",

1) 11-)'
- ,, - '"
[ '()
of +
["()"
:r '2 -+ [..,()
x 2'3 + 2-3'4 + ...•

2) Yt-f(.t) t.:M. • .!["( ) +["'() Jr2 [" ( )~ ...

Itl /, 2 x x 2'3 + ,r 2-3'4 + ,

)'\ - f (x) l.J!l ~ ["(.r) 1 t" IV I!

3) hJ - /12 --'-,-"2-3' (x) +1 (.r)2'N+'"

)'1 - )' CM. '21 ["(.T) B1 [..,( )

.r IV 1
4)-';;:- -h} - -"-'-- 11 "I (x)2-3 ·4+ ··· ·
Transforming (co rrespond ingly) the left hand parts ortheseequalilies inlo
l(x + II)-I(x) l(x+II)-f(.f)-f'{xl ll
h 111.

lex + III - I (x) - J'(x) 11- ~ r(x) /1 2

11'
I(x + /r) - I{x) - f'(x) h - ~ r {.f) 111_ ~f"(x) Jil
",
[Yl was changed into its value I(x + 11»). and in them formally assuming 11 .. 0 [it is possible
to do this, since it has been assumed that I(x + 11) is decomposable into Taylor's scries, and that is
 SUCCESSIVE DER IVA'llVES 137

why hcrc al l Ihc neecssary limits arc meaningful} MHX further concludc.~ (shce! ,16, p. ,12
accordi ng 10 Marx) :
Hence, we ge t :
a
1) 0 - [,(x ), 2) ~+"(x),
o 1-I
3)~- 2 31"'(X),
1 IV
4) --
a -2·3 A
(x),

etc. e tc.

Wc ge t these dirferent val ucs o f ~ purcly algebra ica ll y. They all eme rge fro m rsucccssive)
dedu ction of derivatives fro m the in itial fu nction of x , since f'(x) is the de riv ative o r
I (x ), ["(x) - that orf'(x) etc. He nce, w ha t remains of the process itself, is attach in g 10 the
s ymbol ~ its vario us values.
However, it is natural that, if a symbol can have different values depending upon the //Icons of
its generation, then it can not take the form of a constant, but must contai n variable (p,lrameter:;),
indicating whateve r supplementa ry information is, willingly, still necessary, so that its vHI ue
may be exactly determined (i n an y case, what is necessary, is 10 know fori!, that concrete process,
in which this val ue is formed). (Fo r example, the symbol of derived fundion must contain
an indication, thal Ihe prototype func tion and argument, according to which the derivative
is soug ht, should be known). If such supplementary information is related to the me(lllS of
generating the object, then it is clear,that it must dete rmine this means itself, its difference from
the other means, i.e., its qualify. The symbol (t) - even if it is provided with the indexes (1),
(2), (3) ...., playing the ro le of the v~lues or the numerical parametcr(n) - docs nol satisfy this
demand. The state of affai r is different wi th the symbols.!!.t",d ,4, dJ~ etc. '1l1~t is why the questitlll
of substituting the symbol * by these symbots -
'" '"
of the dia lectic of quantity and quality
connected with them - draws the attention of Ma rx , and he specially dwells upon it in shcets 47-
49(pp. 43·45 in Marx's numeration). Part of this no te, related to the substitution of the symbol
-0o ~ .
by the symbol Jx ,was puhhshcd carl icr(in Russian , sce "Pod Znamenem Marxizma", 1933,
No. 1, pp. 21.23) . This note is being presented below, in full.

ON SUBSTITUTING THE SYMBOL %BY THE SYMBOLS;£: ETC.

The ratio
[(x< il) - [ (xl f (x< il) fix ) y, - y ~
or or or expresses [the ra tioJ of the
h x t -x Xl -x 6.x
d irrerence betwee n the ini tia l magnitude of the func tion [(x) and its augmented magnitude
[(x + 11) [to It ]. o r the rati o be tween Ihe part by which the runction of x, i.e., [(x) g rew a nd
the magni tude o r inc re me nt of the variabl e x, of which it [i,e.[ J is the fun ctio n.
This is the ratio of th e dirference of the runction or x 10 the d iffe re nce or the variable x
itse lf.
18
138 DESCRJlTnON OF 'niE MA'n Il!MATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

In the numerator we have the difference betwee n the fUll ctions oJ x, in the denominator
- the difference between the ini tial and augmented magniludcs of the variable x itself; in the
denominator - a measure of the change in x, in the numerator - 11 meas ure of the change of
its fun ction.
lly is the first difference of y. and A x is the first {Ii/Jerellce of x.
If 11 x .. 0, then 6y ., 0, since in so far as x became .. x + 11 x, y became .. YI .
Wc see in the first and the second clCprcs.!'ions :
[(H 11) - [(x) .[(H h) - [(xL y, - y • E-
h Xj-X x, - x tJ.x'
tha t if If .. 0, the n
[CH 0) - [(x) .rCx) - [(x) • .Q
o 0 0
It is clear that, as soon as lJ. x or 11 becomes cqua.' to zero, YI - Y or 6y becomes .. O.
Since XI - x .. (x + tJ. x) - x -ll x, as soo n as Il x becomes equa l to 0, so becomes dy.
Thus, it is clcar, that here YI - Y or 6.y does not only become 0, but it is also [true] that this
happens only as a consequence of the transformation of 6. x into zero or of the equalisa tion
XI" X; since XI - x .. 6. x, i.e., (x + 6. x) - x .. 6. x, so the first side [ L.H.S.1 can become zero
or x + 6. x can become .. x, o nl y if 6. x becomes O.
Thus, even while the va nishing 6.y displays dependence of the function y upon the va ri able
x, o f which it is the func tion, its final turn ing into 0, its fina l disappearance, itself remains a
consequence of the d isappearance of!J. x, which is the increment of the va riable x; dependence
of the function y upon the variable x is retained right upto the nullification

*
108.

But in the expression this qualitative relatiot! between the fu nctio n ya nd the va riable x,

of which it is the function, has also vanished. In the expression ~ all trace of the qualitative
di ffere nce between the numerator and the denominator, between the fun ction of a variable and
the variable itself, has been erased.

That is why, in order to express the emergence and meaning of

"
*' we put dx. in place

Hc nce,1; is not only the symbol for *'

o f the vanishing!J. x, and with it the va nish ing 6.y is now naturally substituted by dy.

bUI it is al the same time also a · symbol of the

process, through wh ich, under given determinate conditions, ~ was obtained from the original

equation, and it [~] expresses that which * can not express, namely the fact, that the
transformation of ay into 0 fl ows fro m the qualitative relation o f the function y w ith the
va riable X, and tha t is w by, the transformation of 6.y into dy is a consequence of the
transforma tio n of 6. x into dx. Thus, in the negation is reta ined that quofitolive relation, of
which this trans fo rmatio n is the negation 109.
 SUBSTITUlINO'llmSYMOOLQ BY nmSYMBOU;!2, . dl~, ~ ETC.
o
*
'x dx dx

On the other hand , does. not indicate what vanishes; here only the quantitative s ide is
expressed, namely. that the numerator has vanished, as al so the denominator and thereby
the ratio itself vanishes ;thc existing qualitative relalion, owi ng to which 0 of the nume rator
is only a consequence of the 0 of the denominator, i.e., the very expression of dependence

true, that *
of the function upo n the variable, of which it is the [unc tio n, is no l expressed [in it]. It is quite
can express any magnitude, but La the same exten t ca n x express any magnitude;

the particular va lue of %, as well as of x, every lime depends upon those determinate

conditions o r functions, in which Ihis ~ or x fi g ures, and upo n those determinate

conditions, which lead 10 the emergence of a ~ or to a change in x.

But not o nly did the inves tigation into the process of e mergence of ~ Jead us to the symbol
for the transformatio n of ~ into -0° , but [also Jlo the result obta ining from the. original
"Xdd
x tu
equation. Namely. this result is :

~ - J'(x), and not ~ - 0, or any o ther arbitrary real value.

We have (see p. 42*):
1) 0 (1) _ I'(x),
o 2) ~ (2) ~ 1f"(x),
o
~ (3)-
1 fV
3) 2\f"'(x), 4) 0 (4) - H4f (x)
etc. etc.

Thus, we see that the first real content of the sy mbo l %is equal to the firsl derived funcliofl

of x or the function J'(x), and that the further contents, or rca l values of ~ all co nsist o f
determinate functions of thc variable x, deduced from the orig inal function of x, s uccess ively
emerging o nc from the other, according to a determinate rule.

[[Here we can also say that when %turns into 0, thereby the differential coefficient as well
as the limit becomes equal to zero. This t..'1kes place, when the process leads to [a s ituatio n]
when the variable itself vanishes or becomes equal to some constant.
For example, if we had y - f . x
[here the abbreviated not.'1tion signifies: y is ;i fun ction of x, graphically coi nc iding with
the expression "x"] ,
y, - f·(x+h)
* SheeI 46;PV,137 .
140 DESCRIPTION OF THE MAT! IEMA"I1CAI , MANUS CI~II'TS

[Le., y, graphically coinc ides with the func tion "x + /I" J ' then

YI _/·x+ h[=y+"I;
and whcn If turns inlo 0, here

y,-f·x - y.
Hence

Lc.,f. -1; lhe re it means: i.e., equal 10 (the derived) function 'iL
dx·l

So that ~ - L Here the variable x has vanished.

Jf we substi tute ~ by ~ • the n ¥X - 1, hence dy .. dx and 1 .. 1 (si nce !!1..dd - E: .. 1).

x a
Here 0o became equal 10 some conslanl.. ..
Let us differcnlialC ~ lor obtaining the second differential; since the increment of the

const.1n l is equal 10 zero, we shall gel ! (~) -~ . 0 or ~- 0.]]

Thus, on ly by fixating (in symbols) the qualitative relation within ~ by ~ . we get the

opportunity to fixate (he ~ (2). ~ (3) and ~ (4) differing form the first %or ~ (1) but
con nected with it and emerging from it s uccessively, to mrlke them symbols of the processes
connected amongst themselves in a law governed way, of the processes which give birth to
them. [We note that] they themselves express this connection of theirs, through the second
side (R .H.S.], whe re th ei r different real values appear, values which have determinate relations
among them, and they all emerge at a step eithercloscr or more distant fro m the original functio n
of x and the first equation A), in which this initial function slill figures.
Marx now goes over 10 8 discussion oflhe first oflhe fourcquations, ciled above (seep.136),
having nOled (allhe bouom ofshcCl49, p. 45 acco rding 10 Marx):
Now we shQuld firs t of all consider the result of the first differentiation, taking into
account the second side {R.H.S.) of our equation and the processes which lead to it.
The equalion at issue here is Ihe same expansion of f(x + I.) inlo Taylor's series.
Immediately aner these words we find the note cited below (shecISO, p. 46). What is at issue here
is the differential liS the principal part of the increment of 8 function 110.
 ON THE DIFFERENTIAL AS
THE PRINCIPAL PART OF THE IN CREMENT OF A FUNCT ION

A) The origil/al equatioll :

f (x + h ) o r y, - f(x) (or y) + f'(x) h + 11"(X) h' + 2 31"'(X) h' + 2'~'4 f

1
<V (x) h' + .. ..

As the fi rst tas k wc ta ke away lex) fo rm I(x + h) or y fro m Yt' The n we gel, so lo ng
3sII> 0,
fly _ I'(x) h + .! I"(x) h' + _1_1"'(x) h' + - .I _ f <V (x) h' + ....
2 2·3 2·3'4
Further, for o btaining the ratio o f the d iffe rence between I (x + It) and [(x) 10 the
increme nt o f the va riable x (s ince Xl -x - h). wc divide both the sides by It and gel
~ _ I'(x) +.! I"(x)h + _1_ 1"'(x)h' +_I_ f w (x)'" +....
fl x 2 23 23~

The division by h, whic h is essentia l fo r obtaini ng the ratio~ , freed the second term
of the original equation and the first term of lit is new equation from h, in fact it is tha t te rm,
whic h has h as its multiplier, o lLl y in the fi rst power; bu t alo ng w ith this a ll the rem a in ing
terms of the original equatio n also ga l modi fied, so that the mUltiplier h. in each of them, lost
its power by 1, suc h that, fo r example, the third term has 11 3- 1 or ,,2 instead of III etc. However,
it is important 10 remember, once and for all , that the process of freei ng the second term o f
the origi nal equation from the mult ipl ier h, also modifies the remaining te rms.
Secondl y, wc see from Ihe equation where Ay appea rs (i.e., the original/ullclioll of X still
participates, so long as

by - f(x + IL) - f(x)),

that the more the magnitud e " diminishes, the lesser hecomes each of the s uccess ive
terms, in comparison to the preceed ing ones, such that the fi rst term f'(x)" where f'(x) is
acco mpanied onl y by the first powe r oC h, expresses the biggest (part] of the difference
between Yl and y, and the smaller h beco mes, the morc does this term become proximate
10 the sum of the partial differences, the su m lolal of which is A or the series fo r l1y , and
Ihe less does Ay exceed * f'(x)h.
MaTlt ,J,,,':' nol all the product ['(.r) Ir (or, in another notation /,(x) Ax), the diffcrential. However,
we sce , Ih~t he specially 5lresses the role of this product 115 the princil)'11 parll1fthe increment of
the fu nction /'(:c), when x is increased by Ir (or Ar). Thus we have a balois for thinking, that
Marx had a concept, equivalent to the concept of the differenlial as the principal part of the
• Here in the sem.e of -differs from-. In a nu mber of places M ~rx himself s tipulates (see pp.88,9 1,22S·226)
the use of the term ~i n cremenl" in the sense in which we now use the term "absolute value of IIn
increment", - £d .
I '" DESCRIPTION OF '11 lE MA'nIEMAl1CAL MANUSCRIPTS

increment 01 a fun ction (for what it WAS like in Eulcr, scc : Appendi/(, On Lconhard Eulcr's
Calculus of Zeros, p.316) . .

ON TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF DETERMINING THE DERIVATIVE

Discussion of the first ot the four equations cited above in p.136 concludes with the words (sheet
50.p. 46 according Mane):

If h becomes = 0 and that is why ~y - !!1..dd • then in the second side [R .H.S.] of the equation
. uX x
a ll the terms co ntainingh vanish and there re mains only I'(x) as the real va lue of ~. It shou ld

be remembered, that ~. f'(x) was ob tained purely algebraica lly . without recourse 10 the

'differentlal cal culus, and, thal. conversely, rather, the symbolic differential expression

for ~ was devel oped fro.:n the algebraic result ~ - /'(x).

There is nol doubt. Ihat it is nol a note. These ate the words of Marx himself. and besides Ihey
are such that just as abl;lve, they contain his characteristic ideas, which he developed later on :
ideas like the counterposlng of the ~symbolic~ differential up ression against its ~rea l " ,
"algebraic" value.Having concluded the discussion on the Orst equation, Marx goes over to the
next, observing therei n (sheeI SO, p,46 according to Marx) :
There a re two difficuilies here. They emerge, whe n we do not have, as it happened here,
these four algeb raic equations side by side, bUl get them though differen tiation .
What, namely, are these two djrficullies? Ills not fully clear. It is true that after this statement
Ihe text starts with point a), bullhere is no point b) in the ma nuscript.
However, from the contexl it is clear, that what is at issue here are the difficulties, which emerge
in the transition (rom the equaUons taken down by Marx, 10 the eqUAtions used in tbe successive
search for Ihe derivative of the (11 + 1).lh order Cn"it 0) off(x), as Ihejirsi derivative of t he derivative
of the n-th order. J udgi ng by the beginni ng of poinl a), by Ihefirsr difficulty connected with
such trllnsilion - though it is 5tllllo come - Marx implies the question, as 10 how could h -in
connection with the se/lfch for the fi rs t derivative, which WIIS already subjected 10 (as we would
say now) • a limiting transition to zero through h- • -lIgain tu rn out to be diffe rent from
zero, and be again SUbjected 10 a limlfing transition to zero through h. whi le seeking the
second derivative etc. In so fHr as , having explained this, Marx goes over to the general
question of reconciling the usual definition of tbe derivative of (n + i)-th order 85 the first
, , ,
derived function of the derivative of the n-th order. with the definition of Ihe expressions

(~) , (*) , (*) etc., through the differences obtainable from the ready.made expansion of
>(x + h) into taylo r's series (see : PV,136), it is nat ural to think Ihat unde r the ~sl:CQnd difficulty·
Marx had in view: the question of the connection between the two different definitions of the
derivative of (/I + I)-Ih order :1) as the co·efficient of (n: 1)! h .... 1 in the expansion of f(x + /I)

'" In this connection Marx also speaks of the limit (see below , p.144 ).- Bd.

...~
 lWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF DblERMIN ING 'nlE DERIVATIVE 143

and, 2) as the firs t deriva ti ve of the deri vative of n- th order. To all appeara nce, in the present
manuscript, Marl( ~Ii 11 thinks, tha t Lag range not only succeeded in de rivi ng the second of these
definitions from the first, but also, conversely, the firs t from the second, Le. , he coul d prove Iheir
equivalence. Later on, as we know (see: I'V,80,f3) ~I'urely algebraic difrerenlial ca1cu lus ~),
Marx no more thought Ihal Lagrange actually succeeded in putting the differential calculus upon
a ' purely algebraic· foundatio n.

At the beginning of poin! a) Marx once more wriles out all the four equa tions ci ted above (PV,
136 ), in the following form (sheet 50,p. 46):

,12 1 3.141V
1) f(x + /.) - f(x) + Jif (x) +'2 h /"(x) + 2.3 11 /"(x) + 2'3'411 f (x) +' "
1 1
2) fC!1x + 11) .. / '(x) + -2 It!" (x) + -2
·3
J? /'" (x) + _1_ ,,3 f
2-3·4
IV (x) + ''',

3) /l) (x + h) .. ! /,,(x) + _1_ lif"'(x) ... _1_1. 2 f IV (x) ... ...•

2 2-3 2-3'4

4) f0(x+II) _ - I- f,,, (x) ... _ I_ If flV(x) ......

2-3 2'3·4

(Here fG1x + 11) ./1{x ... h) , /!tx ... /I) have been used in a special sense. 1bey designate respeclively :
I(x + 11) - f(x) f(x ... h) -/(x) -/' (x) h d
I, ' h2 an

f(x+ lr )-f(x) - f'(x) h - ~/"(x)1I2

- - - -- _ , . - --"-- - , sce PV,136.)
h
Having taken note of the fael Ihal , afterwa rds from Ihese cqullions the successive va lues of
I 1) 4

(~) , (~) , (~) and (~) were "developed", Marx conlinues (sheet 51, p.47 according 10 Marx)
as unde r :
Hence, here th ere is no algebra ic ground to get aston ished about the fact ,that in 1) h has
beel! assumed to be equal to 0 - and that is why all tile terms conta in ing 112, III etc. - in
other words, containing the powe rs of " greater than 111- have vanished; that in eq uation
2) th ere aga in appeared, not only 11, but also the ex:tinct terms , and bes ides in a fo rm, to
•
which they were led in course o f obtaining Z or (~) from equation 1); and that the same
holds good between equations 2) and 3) etc .
The suppositio n of 11 - 0 in all the fo ur equatio ns ca n give, in each of them, only di ffe rent
results, s ince our f(x), and that means also f(x + 11), is fou nd in each of them in different
conditions; all the fo ur equations express f [fun ctions o f] (x + h),but f(x + h)J0 (x + 11),
f r:i{x + It ), ffi:t.x + 11) etc. are deduced one from the other under different conditions, a nd that
is why these functions arc di fferent from each other.
After this six lines have been c rossed o ut in the manuscript (sheet 51 , p. 47 acco rding to Marx).
In them the following no tations have been introduced for Ihe ~di(ferenty-s" : y, y ", y ···etc. i,
- throughp,q,r etc., and a consideration of the exampley ., axl began; however, appa rently,
14. DESCRlfYllON 0 1' 'mE MATIIEMAl 1CAL MANUSCI~WrS

Ma rx did not plan doing thlll,and went over 10 11 oonsidcra tion of the second difficulty. lIere he
writes (sheet SI. p.47):
When in the first equation, wh ich s till conL.1 ins the o rig inal fun ction oex, and that is why
also the origina l fun ction f(x + h), as a result of ass uming It eq ual to zero; in conclus io n: in

!!ldd (o r in Yt - Y) o nl y the cocHicicnt o f 11, now remains in its first powe r, however,
x xt-x
freed fro m" [a nd J equal to ['(x) - it is the first derived fun c tion of x; the thing is that,
th is is the limit of the variatio n of x in that equation, in which the o riginal Cunction o f
x appea rs; meanwhile the assumption that h is equa l 10 zero gives at the same time the
o lhe r limits in the derived equations or, what is the same thing, th e other values o f ~. (On the
concept of limit see below.+:.) The internal connection among the different equa tions, each
of wh ich starts fro m the res ult o f the preceeding o nc, flow s from the ir structu re, their
deriva tio n, and si nce Lagrange elucidated it purely algebra ically, 110 objectio n ca n be raised
against it 111 .
But if ~no objection can be raised M, then the second objection also turns out to be seltled.

Actually, one may use the Lagrangilln proof, that the coefficient of n\ h ~ in !he exp:msion of

IC.t 1-11), in the series of powers of h. is the n-th derivative-of I (x) - (or obtaini ng this derivative,
not wi lh the hel p of thal n-th equality, on the left hand side of which the expressions
A 1- /I), f3\x 1-11) etc. sta nd, but as the lirst derivative is obtai ned. from the expansion of
I(x ", h) - but rKl W already from those analogous expansions for f'(x ... /I) , I"(x 1-11) elc., where
I '(x 1-11 ) , /, '(x ... h) elc.,are the augmented val ues oflhedcrivcd fU!lclions /'(.t), I "(x), etc., in that
very sense in which I(x", 11) is the Mugmented value of the function I(x) . (11 is na tural, lha t these
expansions are no more to be written al the same time, since at (irsl /'(x), I"(x), etc. should be
found successively.) It is dear, thill this is wha t Marx had in view, when immedi8tely after the
place ci ted above he wro te (sheets 51-52, pp. 41·48 according to Marx):
But, o n the o the r hand, from he re ·it follows that, s ince these different results

have as th e ir source the connectio n among the equations, derived o nc after the other, then,
namely , that is why, we ca n also operate o therwise, since this has already been established .
.IHere whllt is being refe rred to is the Lagrangilln proof, elucidating the con nection ~mong
the cocfficients of the expansion of/(.'( '" 11) into a series of powcrs oC b and the successive derived
(unci ions of !(x), (see: Appendix p.332). J
. [[ Ins tead of having, for example, 4 eq ua tions for the 4 first differentia1 coefficients at
the same time, it is eno ugh to have the result of the firs t, in o rder to obtain the data for the
second, and in th e sa me way -the result o f the second, in orde r to deve lop the third from

'" See, footnote in p.142. -Ed.

 lWO DIFFERE NTWI\YS OF Di!T'CRMINING TIl E DEI{IVI\TIVI! 145

it, for, namely, because they arc derived onc afte r the othe r, the resul t which gives Ihe first,
must give the seco nd etc ... 1]
[In the paragraphomilledbelow,brienyspcaking the issue is th is ttmt: it is enoushtoconsidcr
the transition from the coefficient of }, to consider the transition from the coefficient of h to
the coefficient of ill since ~ancr thal everything is understandable all by itsel ( for the coefficients
of I,), h~ etc.~ J
Hr (x), the first derived function [in1 x (as distin ct from th e original fun ction Iin J x~ Le.,
f(x»), in other words, the coefficient of Iz in the origina l equa tion, is the new sta rtin g point.
Since x is a variable, it mus t permit a new increment wi thin new boundaries. We shall
proceed frc;>m this resu lt f' (x) and at first consider it as in indepe ndent fun ction 1inJ x, not
recalling , at firs t, its more distan t relations withf(x) andf(x + h) . Then wc shall get:
y-I'(x).
1
y, - I' (x + iI) - /' (x) +f" (x) iI + 2f'" (x) iI' + ...•

fly or y, - y - /' (x + iI) -/' (x) -f" (x) iI +1/''' (x)iI' + ...
Hence,

~ (or y, - Y) -f" (x) +.!.2 f'" (x)iI +_1

- / IV(x)iI'+ ...
Ax xl-x 2·3
Ea rlier the second line appeared as the second equation, lhe first derived equa tion beside the
[irst.)]
[Here "ea rlier" indicates those places in the manuscript (sheet 39 and 41, pp. 35 and 37 according
to Marx) , which contain the notes of §248 of Boucharlat's book (p l71 o fit~ 51h French edi tion).
wherein the Lagrllngi an proof of the connection among the coefficients of the expansio n
I (:r+") is given Rnd ro r the successive derivlltives of I(x) the follo wing equations Arc used:
f(x+Ia) " /(x)+Iaf'(x)+ terms in /a l , in la' etc.
/,(x+Jr) _ /,(.r)+III"(x)+ terms in 111, in la l etc.
f"(x+h) - I"(x)+hf'''(x)+ terms in Ill, in It' etc.
etc. etc. etc.)

(~)' or ~ _ f" (x) or (Y'/~ Y)

Here Marx designated the transifion to limit (as 1a ....0) , by placing within brackets an expression,
, ,
which we wou td have placed after the sign of limit. Late r on he s pcciall y stipulates it (sce PV, 267) .

Here symbols of the type (~) , (%) .etc. ere simply related to the successive derivlltives.
,
. IS
H ence, now It . necessary to Interpret
. t h'IS ~Ol
0 or Ex.
dx - f "() . connect 'Ion
x Ifl W l' th the

result <;>f the firstf(x + 11), which is its starting poin . f it is considered all by itselr, then, what
was true ror the first runction [in] x + h, is absolutely true for it . The difrerence appea rs only
the n, when we consider it, not in an isolated way, bu t at the sa me time as the res ult, which
we obtai ned as we proceeded from the result f'(x ) of the rirst eq uation.

19
'46 DESCRllynON 01' 11 lE. MA11n:M"nCAI , MANUSCnll'TS

Having written Ihis, Marx <XInlinucs (sheet 52.11.48 llcoording In MMX) :

Let us take as an example:
a (x + 11)"' .. y, ; i.e.,f(x) .. ax'" and y," f(x + h> .. a (x + hY'.
This example (sheets 52-63, pp. 48, 46, 44, 45-52, 52 according 10 MMx) is ve ry convenient,
beaJuse in ilthe expansion inlo a series according to the powers of 11 , is given by Ihe hi,nom;a l
theorem of Newton, Le., without the help of diffe rential c.1Iculus. IIcre MRTX verifies in detail,
3111h81 he has said above. Thus, for example. having shown sub 1) • that the coefficient of h ( i.e.,
ma,y ..-I) is actually (the first) deriva tive of ox" in the usual senSe (i.e., it is the limit (lf the ralio
[(:c + Ir) - [(x) as Ir -+ 0). Ma rl( writes further (sheets 53.p. 46, the second 46-111 page IIccording 10
Marx): "
max "'-\ is a pure function of x, 'Yhere in no h ente rs ,just lIS it was the case with ax"'.
In both of these expressions x is also the yar iablc, ,lIld th at is why it also admi ts of
varia ti on in the second, just as in the first. Thai is why, sub 1 ) we could j us t as well take
max"'-' as the starling point, asf(x), as we did in the case ofax'".
After Ihis, M~rx goes through all these details, also for seeking the second deriva tive,
spcci~lly stressing , that the sC(:Ond derivative of f(x) - considered as the fitsl derivative o f
f'(:c) - herein tlctually tu rns oulto be the second derivDtive of f(:c) and that too in the Lagrangian
sense (i.e., the coefficient of 11 212) •
In connection with this, and in addition 10 the foregoing, Marx dwells upon yet another definition
of the second , that is, also of the higher order derivatives (and differentials) : through the
differences of higher orders.
Some of the manuals at Marx's disposal are known to us. In them derivativcs of higher orders have
not been defined through finite differences of highe r orders (usually this i~ not done in modern
cOurses too). If it is done. liS for examplc. in Lacroix's book (S.F.Lacroix, "Traite du calcul
diff\!rentiel et du calcul integral", voU- III , Paris, 1810-1819), then only in Ihe section on "Finite
,Jjtrerences". which Marx did not study at all. (Marx's notes on mathematical analysis - with
the exception oflhose from the works of Newton ,seellbove pp.127-l31 - are related [ 0 the section
entitled -Differential Calculus".) If we use that definition of the "second difference or A'y ~ .
which to all appearance belongs 10 Marx himself, and which he inlrouuced above (see p.136 ).
Ihen we get thllt f"(x) is the limit of the ra tio 2~oX2 Y when Ax -O(here " is uesignaled through
•

Ilx). meanwhile he re for Marx (sheel57, p. 47 according 10 Mllrx,second lillle "47" for Marx)
f"(:c) is thal ve ry limit of the ratiog, which is cited in the mouem manuals, where lJ,~ y is the
Ox
usual difference of second order. The calculations Through which Marx I/lys the founda tion of
Ihis conclusion, also indicate the same. These calculations - if carried out with more
appropriate notations (Marx's no tation fo r the augmented value of the derivative y' is
inappropriale, because, • was adopted to designate the derivative) -look as unde r :
Let us have the {ollowing no tations (the symbol:::: reads : designates):
Y :::: f (.1'),
6y ::: Yt- Y. 62y
Y, :::: /(.1' + Ill. :;:: 6 Y t -6 Y I
6y t ::: Y2 - Yt 6x .. 11 bea
1 let
constant.
 lWO DIfFERENT WAYS OF DETEnMINING Til E DEltlVKllVE .47

And let

f "()
x .. "lID f'(Hh)-f'(x)
h_O
J
I
• (' )

Let us substitute for the derivative f'(x) its approximatc (Hprc-limit") value:

[(x + ';> -/(.ll .. ~.

I 6.x
Thcn analogously f'(x + 11) is substituted by

[(x + 211) -[Col + 11) .. Yl-YI .. 6.YI and the ratio f' (x +~) -['(x) by
h h 6x
6YI-6y 6 2y
6x /lx 6 2y
6.x .. 6.l .. 6. .';"
whence Marx draws the conclusion [ see (I) 1:
2
_l .. ,.Im ~2
f "()
d~_06.l

Thus it is natural 10 think that here Marx used - not in the form of an extract, but a proper
account (of) - some other source still unnoticed by us, where the differential calculus has been
set forth in closer connection with the calculus of finite differences (as it was done, for
example, in Euler, whose "Differential CalculusH even begins with a chapter on "The Finite
Diffcrences" ; sce, Institutioncs calculi differentialis eum ejus usu in analysi [initorum ae doetrina
serierum, al/ctore Lconhardo Eulero, impensis ~cademiae imperialis scientiarum, J>etropolitanae,
1755), ( there il> a Russian translation: L. Euler, "Differentsial noe ischislcnie M • Moskva-Leningrad,
1949, ch. I ), It is true that, 10 all appearance, Marx could not gel acquainted with Euler's book,
though apparently, he'intended to do so.
Later on (sheet 57-58, pp, 47-48 according 10 Marx) havi ng done (excluding the definitions through
finite differences), what was done for the second derivative, also for the derivatives of third and
fourth orders, Marx still fUrther concretises his e)Cample, assuming m .. 3 in the formulae obtained
by him, Namely, he writes (sheeI59,p, 49) :
For example, if ins tead of the indeterm inate expone nt or index m we subs titute 3, then
we shaH get [ .... ].
In this example, Marx is able 10 complete all the calculations through 10 the cnd (upto obtaining
the fourth derivative, equal 10 zero), which he does (sheets 59-63, pp. 49-52, once more 52) first
by listing the formulae obtained earlier in a general [arm (in terms of m), and then by
assuming in them m=3. Herein Matx especially highlights three circumstances : that 1) the
initial function ~nd all its derivatives arc different fUnctions (sheet 62,p. 52),
bUI all the terms, which later on develop independently. and arc differentiated, arc includ ed
in the initial function, so that Ihe initial function a lready contains these derivatives in embryo.
2) The successive derivatives are not simply coefficients o( h, h2, 11" . .. in the expansion of
[(.l +,11), but arc distinguished from the eocftlcicnt of II~ by the multiplier 1'2'~ ... n (sheet 62,Marx's
p.52) .
• In the modern courses of mathematical analysis (see, for example, F. Franldin, "Mathematical Analysis",
Part I, Moscow, IL, 1950,§93, Finite Differences, pp,150-160) this is proved in a more general form and more
strictly (though not constructively"b). -Ed.
 148 DESCRIPTION OFTHE MATIIEMA'I1CAL MANlISCRwfS

3) While obtllining the coefficients of lhe cXJl~n~ion for f(x + 11) (if wc do not have them yet )
along the path of successive differentiation of the illrcady obl" incd terms of fhe cxp,lnsion, it
should be remembered,fhM h is considered to' be 11 conslllol (sheet 63,p. 52, MilTX'S second 52-nd
page).
In other words, M:lTX knew beforehllnd lhat,lhc mistakes of calculalion impeding understa nding
mlly be connected with !he lack of auention towards the ex;!c! formulation of the theorem llboul
the connection between the derived f UllClions of /(x) and lhe cocf(icicnts of expansion of
f(x + It) into a series according 10 the powers of fr.
Following Ihis, lhe notes on sheets 64-68 (pp. 53-57 according 10 Mar,,,) have been str uck out in
pe ncil. 111CY contain the following extracts:
extracts on ug range's mcthod from Boucharlat's book, pp. 168-17 1 (of the 5th ed. )ancl, exlracts
o n Ta ylor 's theorem from lIi nd -s book, pp_ 83-85. He did not strike off the no tes on sheets 69 -77
(1'1'.58-66 according 10 Marx). However, since they contain only the extracts from Hi nd's book,
here we limit ourselves to indicating the corresponding pages of the book and lhe titles, under
which these extracts have been cited by Ma ne.
Sheets 68-7 1 (pp. 57-60 according 10 Marx). Extracts from Hind's book, pp, 86-92. Marx ' s
heading: • A. Finding certain limits or Taylor's theorem in its application ,,] 12,
Sheets 71-73(pp. 60-62 acco rding to Marx) . Extracts from Hind's book, pp. 96-98, Marx 's ti tle
:"B . Further manipulations with Tay/or's theorem" . .
Sheets 73-77 (pp. 62-66 according to Marx) . EXlracts from Hind's book, pp. 92-96, unde r
Marx's heading ;"c. Failure of Tay/or's theorem".
Sheets 78 and 79 (upper part) (pp. 67-68 acco rding 10 Marx) contain his own obsctV<ltions. He
speciaUy marked them out on 1'.67 (sheet 78) by a line of the formE: in the left hand side. T his
section is being reproduced below. The ti tle has been provided by us.

ON THE QUALITATIV E DIFFERENCE BETW EEN EXPRESSIONS OF

TH E TYPE ~ IN ALGEBRA AND 1; IN DI FFERENTIAL CALCULAS
Bc it (~) I, (§) 2 etc., i.e., that (~), which we get in the first diffe rentiation, amI those

(~) I etc., which appear as a result o f the success ive differentiations, the ~ a ppears there,
w here x appea rs as the independent var iable and y as the dependent va riable;
consequentl y, where it emerges from ~
/;x
d
reduced to EKdx , it is qualitatively different from

[that] ~,WhiCh we get th ere, where x is a constant magn itude, as in the ordinary al gebra.

. ~-~ ~-a)~+~
For exa mple, if we have - - - , then for the lalter we may also write.. ; if
x-a x- a
x2 _a 2 0
we assume tha t x-a, then x 2 _a 2 _ a2 _a 2 andx-a-a-a; :.-----0; but ildoes
x-a
not turn in to % because the de nominator = 0, but rather because the nu merator and the
 ON THEQUAUTATIVE DlF11ERI!N CE JlE1WEliN~ AND1; 149

denominator turn into 0 :ltthe same time, when instead of x and x 2 wc substitute their values
a a nd a211J ... Meanwhile in

[(X+ h) - [(x) _ y, - Y
xl-x xl-x
the value of the numera tor is determ ined by the va lue of the denom inator and is dependent
on it. It is true, that I ca n say : if in the numerator It becomes equal to 0, the n

[(x + h) - [(x) _ [(x) - [(x),

=
and that is why 0 ; but here I can assume that ,,=
0, only if Xl - x .. It .. 0, i.e., if x J - x
becomes .. x -x .. O.
The numerator changes its magnitude, only if the denominator changes its own 114 ..•
On the other hand, in [(x + It) - [(x), without preliminarily assum ing Xl - x .. 0 or
Xl - x, I can not assume that" = O.

That is why, this qualitative inter-relation between dx and dy does no t exist there, where
the numerator is not a function of the variable x, but where x in the numerator and in the
denomi nator is onc and the same constant, though unknown and still indeterm inate, but
always a conslant magn itude.

x'2_a 2 (x-a)(x+a) x'2_ a2

Further, - - - .. - x + a. And when x _ a, then that is why - -- - 20.
x-a x-a x-a
o 2 d
This 2a is not the limit ofx2 - a in the se nse, as, for example, in !'1.dx - m ; 2a was obtained
x-a
2
by simple division, as the actually obtained value of the fraction a
X2 -
x-a
It is a limit only in that sense, in which the actually ObL'lined value of any numerical ratio
is its limit. .

Thus ~ .. 2 . ~ is neither> no r < than 2, and in this se nse every equa lity expresses some
limit 115, and even for every consL.1nt quantity, like 3 etc. its limit coincides with its being. 3
is neithe.r 2, nor 4. nor any o ther fract io n in be tween 2 and 4, but is equa l to 2 + 1. o r 4 - l.

1 is in itself its proper limit. If I express it in the form of a series, then

' 13 1 3 3 3 3
10 0.33' then 3"10+ 100+ 1000+ 10.000+'"
9
10 1
In this case 3 becomes the limit of il~ infinite series.
ISO DESCR1P110N ~)F '/1 If! MA'I1 lEMAnCAL MANUSCRIP1S

The next two sheets 79·80 (rp. 68-69) hHVC IIgain been muck out by Man{. lie gave them the
heading:
Continuation of a~o''' er note book (/11, /lext to Kaufmall ll ll) (lasl page).
These pages have already been referred to( ~ I'V, 123). In addilion to whll\ has been said there
we o nly nole Curt her thaI, here Marx puts a number of questions regarding the inilial supposition
of Lagrange. Havinp presupposed lhal !(x + hI is equal to !(.l) + PIr, why should J..agtange assume
tha t P is a (unctio'! no t only of x, but also of 11, represented in its turn in the form of P - P + Qb,
where p is a funclian o nl y of x, but Q - agllin of both x and" 1 Analogously why s hould it be
v~lid also for 0 etc., i.e., why should the Lagrangian series be infinite (unboundedly continuous)1
And why must Ihe same hold good fo r lhe series represenling/,(x + 11), f"(x+ 11) ele.1
Here Marx's answer to Ihese questions consists of the following; Lagrange's Iheo rem has a general
character, i.e., it s~oul d be appliCAble not o.. ly to such functions as f(x), for which f(x + It) is a
IXllyno mia l of son)e determina le order relative 10 h, in particular, it mus t a lso be applicahle 10
f"(x + 11) elc., owihg to which Ihe I..agrangian series also appears (in Ihe genera l Cllse) 10 be
unboundedly continuous (~infiniteM).
This paragraph ( tho ugh s lruck off by M~tx) clearly belongs to Marx himself. It is nol an extract
from any source, n<?, even a nole, Ihough it is connected with a desire 10 investigAte tile hazy ideas
of Lagrange, oonsif ti ng of cont rlllXlsi ting the "general instance" of an arbitrHY runction 10 some
,
individua l, "particular" functio n. That is why it would have been natural to cile this lext here.
However, in so faus, its beginning is situated in another note-book (manuscript 3888). and without
this beginning (and what precedes il). the continuation of the tex t is incomprehensible, it will
be adduced while describing manuscript 3888.
T he las t, 81-51 shect o[ manuscript 2763 contains on ly a heading : 'Continuo/ion of /Ire fi r-st inside
cover (reloted to figure J), which is, apparently, there in the second inside cover. IJcre ma nuscript
2763 comes 10 an e nd .
 A NOTE BOOK CONTAINING NOTES ON THE DIFFERENTIAL
CALCULUS ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS OF LA CROIX,
BOUCHARLAT, HIND AND HALL
S.U.N. 3888
Marx gave this nOle book the heading: "/11 n e.'l:( to KoufmQrlll U-, sheets 1-87. Language
-German, in places french or English. Since the note book "Kaufmann 11" (manuscript 3881) was
used si nce March 1878, the dale of Ihis manuscript can nol be placed earlier Ihan 1878.
Immediately under the headi ng of the nole bcok (evidently, o n its inner cover) there is 11 quotation
from the book by Feller and Odermann, which runs (shecI2) as under:
Sec p. 185 of the book "Commercial Arithmetic", wherein it is sa id: "However, in o rder
to calcu la te the nel profit o r net loss o f an enterprise, it is necessa ry to lake into account,
also the interest UPOII file illvcsted capital ( he has in view the capital, in vested in co mmO(.Iilics
etc,) durillg the time, in course o/wh ich the latter conl/ot be utilised".
The words within nrst brackets inscribed by Marx inside the words ~in ... ~slt!d capital dllrinc
t"~ tim~ · , a re
nott herc in the book. Yet another small difference consists of this: Marx simply wrote
"to calculate", instead of "to be able to ealculate~ - which is there in the book .
On sheets .l-ll (above) (in Mllrx's numeration ; 1-22, 22a, 23, 230, 2-27) there are extr~cts from
a source unknown to U5 ; on the currencies of different countries, meRns of coinage, weighing ingots
etc. It is stili not clear, with whalthe above cited quotatio n is related.
AfCer this, under the title ; M/nserliQn", on sheets 31-36 (pp. 27-32 in M~rx's numbering) there
is a note from two sections of the lext-book by Feller and Odermann ;
~t\) Parln~rsltiprll/e\ pp. 144· 15 1 of the text-book, sheets 31-35 of the manuscript. It is a rule fUr
proportiona l division - "simple", which may be "direct" (direclly proportional) and "inverse"
(inversely proportional). and "compound" (compounded by some addilion~ 1 conditions imro~cd
upon the given ratiO).
This noteconsisl$ mainly of the solution of problems, Rnd contHi nsalmost no expl"natory text from
Ihe book. The last problem solved therein (for illustrating the ·compound" rule of partnership)
reads: "4 mills must grind a t onc and the !i3me time 2 000 tchetvcriks of grain. How this grain
may be divided among them, if mill A grinds 15 tchetveriks in 4 hours, 0 - 16 tchetveriks in 3
hours, C -10 tchetveriks in 3 hours and D - 9tchetveriks in 2 hou rs ? ~( Feller IInd Odermann,
p'. 150). Marx adduces In his nOle both the solutions of Ihis problem, consisting of 11 reduction to
simple - direct iind inverse - rules of partnership. (The nrst reduction is carried out with the
help of the answer to the question : "How much grain docs each of the mills grind in one hour?
"The second - by providing an answer 10 the qucstion : "llow many hours lire nccded by each
of the mills, 10 grind one tchetverik of grain ?").
"B. Rule of mixTure-, Le., the means for solving the problems of computing : 1) the mean value
(of the unit of mix ture according to the · weights· of the components and their quantities), 2) the
numerical interrelation among the quanti tics of components of given "weights", necessary for
obtaining a mixture of the required ·weight". From this section Marx notes (Sheets 35-36, pp.
31-32 in Marx's numbering) only a part, related to the problems of the nrst tYt>e (pp. 153 -154
of the book). Here, Marx's attention is especia lly drawn to a problem, in which the data about the
consumption of tea in England during 1842-1846, is cited: the number of pounds of lea (consumed)
and the (mean) price of onc pound of tea in every yea r (is given) - the corresponding m~a n (amount
and price) for I year is to be computed. In conn\.'Ction with this problem Marx not only ci tes the
entire table oC data and results, found in the text·book, but ~lso writes down (within square
brackets) a long comment, in which he !Inlllyscs the dynamics of the process : the course of change
151 l)ES('RI I¥110N 01' '1111;. MA Tl-IIlMA'IlCAL MANIJSCI{II'TS

of the dala over 5 years, in absolute numbers and percentages, ~nd computcs all of them. On the
pages following this (on the lo wer p~rt of sheet 36, sheets 37-39; PI). 32-35 in MlHX'S numbering)
we lind a paragraph abou t ci rculatio n of Cilpital ; in lerms of the subject m~lIc r Ih is is related to
Ihe 2nd part of volume 11 of "OI]1ila l".
The properly mathematical part of Ihis manuscril't sla rls from shecl40 (p.36 in Marx's nu mbering)
and continues U]110 Ihe cnd of the nOle book (sheet 87; in Marx's numbering 36·63. 66·73. 76·86,
in Ihe pholo copy the !~Sl page is unnumbered). AlmOSl the enlire text of this mn nuser!pt is crossed
out in pencil. 1I may be sub·divided inlo the followi ng parts, the oonle nlS of which will be
described below in brief. Orlhe comments of Marx,t he smaller o nes have Ix:en ei led in the course
of the dcscril>lion ~ nd the bigger oncs have been s pecially separated and ~ re heing separately
reproduced below. I IOI<I'ever, from the text of the description thcir reference poi nts will be clear.
Some additiona l references precede the tC.>;1 of these comment~ of M~rx .
I. Sheets 40-41 (Marx 's pp. 36.37) . Exlmcts from Ihe inlroduction 10 Ihe big "Trea tise" of
Lacroix, whic h Marx begins by exactl y mentioning Ihe source, which he does only in alse of such
authors, whose name itself has a significance. In th is manuscript he still mentions Ihe nnmes
of Doueharlat and Hind (sce below), bul oftener only for crilicising, and docs so withou t men tioning
the source. This part of Ihe manuscri l>l sta rts with a new page (sheet 40, Marx's p. 36), as under :
Lacroix : "Traite du calcul differelltiel et du calcul integral", t I, 1810.
IlIlroductioll.
The note consists of the following six points, corresponding 10 points 1-5, 10-11 of Lacroix, pp.
1_7: 13-14, but thei r oontent is given quite brieny . Since at is,~ue here arc Ihe fundamental concepts
of "function" IInd "limit", wc shall describe il in greater detai l, as complIred to Ihe other parts of
the manuscript. The numbering of the points is according 10 M;lTx.
I ) Maf)( gave this point the tille : "Function :1" . It conlainsonly a quot~tio n from Lacroix, cited
by MUll: within quotation m~rks . I1 is a definition of fu nction as dcpendcnce (ill exact Gc rman
lranslalio n).
2) The second poin t lllso starts with some words which arc tr"nsla tions from Lacroi;c 's Icxl (p. 2)
(bu l here il is no more complete and, is without quo tation marks) (sheeI40) :
Consideration of indetermillate equa tions led to a generalisation of thc concept of fun c tion.
If it is des ired 10 express, that a certain quantity ca n not be a5>signcd, wilhoul giving, ear/ier,
determinate values 10 some olher quantities, which could obta in infinite number of them
[s uc h vll lucs} in o nc nnd the same question, then the word, "fun c tion" is used for designating
this dependence.
MlIrx nOles this point in grelller detail: here we have all the examples adduced by Lac roix, the
definitions of e.l'plicil and implicit functions and the definition of algebraic functiQns, and commenlS
(p. 3 of La croix), which reads (sheet 40) :
Amo ng certain quantities equations are not demanded, if onc of them is an implicit func tion
of the re mai ning, il is enough, that iL~ value is dependent upon their values; fo r example, in
the circle sine is an implicit fun ction of the arc - though no algebraic equation can r.xprcss
it, beca use when onc of the two (magniludcs) is definite, so is the other, a nd conversely.
3) Infinite serieses and transcendental funclions (l ike those inexpressible by a finite number of
algcbraic terms) (I..acroi)(, 1'1'. 3-4), sheet 40.
4) Convergence IInd divergence orseriescs (Lacroix, pp. 4-5), sheet 40.
A series does nol always give the value of lhe fUllction, to which it belongs; often it moves
away from it [th e fun c tion] with an increase in Ihe number of Icrms.
 NOTES ON DIFfERENTIAL CALCULUS

Example :geometric progression ( the series for - ' - ).

,-x
5) In order to be able to use the expansion into 11 series, it is enough to know "Ihe ((lW, (lccording
10 which ils lerms ore formed " (Lacroix, p. 5), sheel 41. But if the computation of the approximate
value of a function, which isexpa ndable in a series is at issue,then the convergence oflhe series
should be carefully checked.
And further, in the same place :
... and these calculations may be fully relied upon, onl y ir we are in a pOS Ition to indicate
the limits of tire difference, whi ch ma y occur betwee n them and the true val ue.
Unbounded decrease of the ~terms "of a series as the essential sign of its convergence. (And in
Lacroix the discussion is about the "terms· of~ series, no t their absolute values, though in the next
example - which Marx did not yet note - lacroix proposes" 10 disengage from the sign" of jus t
such numbers) .
6) Omi!!ing all Ihe examples cited (and discussed) by Lacroix, Marx goes over to poinls 10-11
of Lacroix (pp. 13.14) and lakes notes brieny under the title :"Limil", shet'! 41. Here (point 10)
the concept of limit is introduced in the light of an example: it is about the search for the limit
of Ihe fr~ct ion -..E!... when x _0:>.
x ..
First, the difference belween u and Ihis fraction is computed; Ihen Marx wriles (sheet 41) :
a2
T his difrerence-- beco mes the smaller, the grea ter x is; [;IJ may be made smaller than
x+a
any g iven magnitude; hence, the proposed fraction may be made as close to a as you p lease,
i.c., a is the limit of the function .....!!!..- • relative to indefi nite augmentation or x.
Ha
(There is no general definition of timit in lacroix 's "Trea tise". On lacroix's concept of timit.
see Appendix, pp 309·311 ). Fro m point I1 Marx took down tho1l pari, where it is said that, if the
ratio ax : (a.t +X2) is to be reduced to its "Simplest expression " - ' - , then itlurns out that, liS x
o+x
diminishes, not only does Ihis expression more and more approach one, but also turns exactly
into I ,when x . O. lIere a question has been raised. Marx states it as follows;
Bul could ox, ax + x 2 - s ince they have turned into 0 - still have a. determin ate re lation?
MllTx wrote down also the answer 10 th is question. It consists of this; "I he r1llio - ' - of the
a+x
qU8ntities axllnd u.x +x2 can not only alla;n unily, when in it we put x. 0 ,but can also surpass
it, when we assume thal.\ is negative" (Lacroix • p.l4) .
Wilh this Marx's notes from the "Int roduction" of Lacroix's MTreatise" comes to an end.
11. sheets 42-66 (pp. 38-62 in Mux's numbering). Extracts from the English translation (1828)
of the· third French edition of Baucharlat's book, points 3-72, pp. 2-45. This part of the
manuscript contains a number of Marx's own obscrvations, Ihe text of which is being rep roduced
below. It has been divided by him inlo the following 20 points . (Titles of the points, round in the
manuscript , are being reproduced here wilhin quotation marks. Number of thc points and the
pages of Ihe English edilion of Boucharlat's book are being indicated by pUlling them wilhin
brackets. In the end the sheet number oflhe manuscript is &cing given.
I) The derivative and Ihe differential of the funcliony.xl (poinls 3-4, pp. 2·4). For Marx's
critical comments on Boucharlal, see r v, 160·161.
20
1S4 DI:SCR11YflON OF '1'1 Il! MAT! mMA'l1CAI~ MANUSCRIPTS

2) ""/'lIt: different/ul o/J::: [is equQllo 1dx~, (points 9- 10, pp. 5- 6). After Ibis tille: ~prQved in
IlIe /ol/Qwing slmnge wuy", ShCC142 (scc Appendix, pp 328-329).

3) 'nle mClhod of findi ng the dcrivll!ivc as the limit of lhc r~lio [(x + '~~ - [(.~) ( when "h ,. 0") by
expanding r(x + h) in10 a series according 10 lhe power.; of h (poi nl 13, p. 7). Sheet 42 .
4) Application of this method 10 Ihe diffcrcnliillion of Iwo or more fUIlClions (point 14, p. 8). Sheets
42-43.

5) 01ITcrcnlintion of th e quotient'=' (point 16, p. 9). Slu:cI43.

y
.~Z~dT~ (/;:dtdu
6) I)criv~liveo( Ihe l)Ower x'" (Ihrough the cquHIIIY .. - + + - + - + - + ... and
xyzlll . .. x y Z f /I
the ,1ssumplion in it of ;( .. y .. z .. f .. u .. ...• and Hl logclhcr chere :lfC III of lhem). Extension to
fra ctional ,!nd neg;\tivc powers. Another methnd nf d;lrercnti~ t;on of power (through the
eXIl..1nsion u( .r + Ir)"'ncconling to Newton's binom i~1 formulll)(I>oints 17, 19.20, pp. 9-12) .sheets
43-44 (lOp).
7) "On tl.e pri"ciplt: of the melfrO(I Df indeterminall: coeffidcIII$ " ("third ('lot note to th e Engl ish
edition of Boueharl~t 's hook, pp. 364-365). Sheet 44.
8) Differentiation of composi te function (point~ 26·29, p. 14·17). Sheets 44-45.
9) "Succcssivt: differentiafion"(poinl 30, pp.17-18). Sheets 45- 46{top)
10) ~MacLaurin 's theorem M(pOillts 31-33, pp. 18·21). Sheets 46-47.
J J) Definition of "transeendentlll qu~ntities H(point 35, p. 22). The entire text of this I>oint, in
the English Irllns\ation of Boucharl31's hook, corn;ists of the words: "l"rul!.'icClldental quantities
{are! ~-UcJlll$ are affected hy variable indices, losurifhms, sines, CO::iines etc. ~; Marx adduces
it in full (save the word "nre", which wc have put within brackets ).,lInd underlines it. Sheet 48.
12) -To differentiate rr" (points 36·37, p.p 21-24). Sheets 48-49.
13) I)if(erentiation of logarit hm (poin t 38, p. 24). Sheets 49·50.
14) "Ti,e arc il' greater than Ille sillt; lIIld less tlwllthe tan.r;l!nt"(points 39-40, pp. 24·25). Thi!sC
are the first words of I>oint 39. In I>oiut 40 the issuc is: the limit of the rlltio sinx (when'\" - 0").
x
Sheet SO. (Sec , Appendix, pp. 309.)
15) "Differcntial of the sin~, whose arc is x-(points 41 -43, pp. 25-27). Sheets 50-51-
16) ~Differenti{/I of cos.\"" (point 44, p. 27). "Differential oftunx~ (point 45, pp. 27.28). HDifferential
of cot x and sec x" (I>oints 46·47, p. 28). "Diffuentiai of Ihe COl'ua nl x~ (point 48, p. 28).
"Differential of versinlls ~(po i nl 49, p. 28). Sheets 51-52.
17) Compendium of formulae for thc differe ntials of trigonometric functions (composed by Marx).
Sheet 52. .
1B)"Tay/or's tlreorem • (poin ts 52-60, pp 30·35). Contains two long comments of Marx : a) about
Boucharlat's le mma (sce, PV, 161 ), b) collljl.1rison ofTaylo,'s and MacLaurin 's theorems (see,
I'V, 161-163). Shcel~ 53-57.
19) ·On the differentiation of eqllations of 2 variables ~ (points 61-68, pp. 35-41). Here the issue
is differentiation of the implicit function (iocl uding successive) and complete differential. Sheets
57·62.
After this there lire three insertions in the m3nuscript (on sheet 62) under the titles: "70) ad p.
-10, after 7, also 7 a ", "7b)" and ?cr. i-Iere Marx takes note.~ from the points 22-23, 25, the pp.
 NOTES ON DIFFERENTIAL CALc{JLlJS l55

12-13,omilted earlier_ 7a) is related to the differentiation of ~lInl, 7b) - to the role of the
constant liS II mu](iplier (in differentiation), 7c) the slime for the constnnt ns an item. Here
Marx pays special attention to a general comment of Oouch~rlltt, which he expresses (mainly in
German) as under:
The method for the process of differelltiatioll, consisting, at first of finding Ihe value of YP

and then from there to ob tai nin g YI J~ Y and, then passing on to the limit by making If - 0, is
very cllmbersome , when the issue is differentiation of a quantity which contains severa l
te rms. Howeve r, if we ca n differentiate each te rm separately, then a simpler procedure is
possible owing to the theorem: the differential of a sum of functio ns is equa l to the sum
of the differentials of those functions.
(PrOOf of the theorem - which is there in the notes - is given in Boucharl<lt·s book with the help
of lhc expansion of the values of [he terms at the "point" x + h in the series ncconling to the powers
of h.)
20) ~Melhod of lansents (i.e.; differenlial expressions oflangenls, sublangc'I/s, norma Is, and
subnormals of curves)" (points 69-72, pp. 41-45), with Marx's critical comments. Sheets 63-66
(top).
Here Marx did not take notes from the succeeding sect ions, devoted to the other problems of
differential geometry, the methods of "reve~ling" the indetermin3neies, the problems of
maximum and minimum, and also the different methods of laying Ihe foundations of differential
calculus.
111. Sheets 66-75 (pp. 62-63, 66-73 in Marx's numbering, by mistake "66" instead of "64").
Extracts from ch. V of Hind's book: section "Ill. Development of functions etc.", points 69-82,
pp. 68-98, with a few omissions. The extracts are related to the theorems ofTaylor and Ma cL~ llIin
and they p,·oeeed in the following order (the numbers within square brackets arc ours) :
[lJ Shecl66 (p. 62 of Marx). M<lcLaurin's formula, regarding which Marx writes:
Putting u in place of y th e formula of MacLaurill :

(dU) cO + (tPlI) ~ + d'") x'

dx 1·2 (dx 1·2·3
It .., (u) + + ...
dx 1 2 3

Hind puts for this

X x2 X3
U'"' Uo + u11 + "21.2 + u3 1.2.3 + ...
[[where the abSllfd Ill' 112 etc. in placeof u' , u" , u'" may g ive rise to misunderstandings, since
these sy mbols have an entirel y different meaning in operations with the finite differences]].
He observes first of alllhat, u~f(x) may be expanded according to MacLaurin's
form ula, o nly if u represents a function of x, which can be expressed ill ascending and
integral powers o/x.
The words underlined by Marx (here ital icised) are important for understanding the subsequent text
of the manuscript.
[2] Sheets 67-68, Mane's pp. 63, 66. Examples of appliCl'tbility of MacLaurin's formu la
(u .v'iX'=T, log.l"). Methods for obtaining the expansions in certain cases of applicability of
MacLaurin·s theorem, by representing the functions of u in the form of u -xI"v, where v is a
function of x cxpandable according to MacLaurin's theorem . Examples:
 156 DESCRI P'nON OF TJ lE MA'11 IEMA'lleAL MANUSCRII'TS

I
l)u- rx::xr- rx~, k"'2' v .. Vf=X;
2)" implicit [unctions given by the cqu~lion rill) - /IX) - a.r'I_ 0, k .. I, v is n fUllction definable by
the equation avl - xv - a .. O(Hind, POil11 (,9, example 9: points 70-71 , corol lary 1-2; examples
\-2, pp. 74-76).
(3 ) Sheet 69, Ms rx's p. 67. On obtaini ll!; Ihe expansion into a powered series wilhoul [he help
of MacLaurin's theo rem : differentiation of a series wi lh intl.etcrminalc coefficients.
Example I - eXp<lnsion of the function Q< "by the method or inde terminate coefficicnls · (Hind,
point 72, corroJary 3, pp. 76·77, Marx did not write the remaining 4 cXilmplcs of [his poinl).

Substitution of X" ~ for obtaining the expansion in dimi nishing powers of x (ibi d ,second time
point 72, cor. 4, pp. 81.82).
[4J Sheets 69 (botlom)-70, M ~n: ' s pp. 67-68. Formulation of T~y l or's theorem in lI ind's book.
M~rx begins this section with the words (sheet 69, bottom) :

Hind expresses Tay/or 's theorem as fo llows:

Thus it is clear that Marx does not ascril>c this formulation to Taylor himself, though later on he
sometimes so writes, as though he thinks, thll1 if not the formulation, then in any case the proof of
Tllylor's theorem, presented in the books of Hi nd IInd Boucharlat, belongs to Taylor himself.
In connection wit h I fi nd 's wOrdS,thM "if 0 function does n01 hllve a rationlll lI!gebrllic form,
then Ihe number of its diffe rentia l coefficients [derivatives] is infinitely large" (t hat is why the
series obtained is also~unboundedly continuous~), Marx writes afler the words "if i t doe.~ flol haw:
011 algebraic/arm- :

Hi.e., a lways, w he n [they a re1 transcendental / w /clivIIS (expollelltinl, logarithmic, or

trigonometrical') s ince the na ture o f these fun ctions does no t permit t hei r expression by
means oJ algebraic expressions 0/ finite IIllmber 0/ terms II
Unbounded continuity of a series is illustr~ted by the example of expansion of sin (x + Ir) into
Taylor's series.
Other examples and the proof of Taylor's Ihoorcm (ana logous to the proof given in l3oucharlat's
book, cMlier Marx took de tailed nOles of it and analysed it critically, sce If , 18) ; and here M~rx
does not note the corresponding observlltions contained in point 74 of I li nd's book.
The section comes to an end with the words (sheet 70, Mafx's p. 68) :
So lo ng as the res ull o f applica tio n o f Taylo r 's theo rem is consid ered onl y as an
an aly tica l transform<l tion, irrespective of whether the /l umber of terms are fill ite or infinle, o r
else, if Ihe va lue of the fu nc tion is required to he ascerta ined in any particular sta te of the
principa l va riable, then it becomes importa nt to rind OUI the limit o/the qualllity,-wliich is
omitted by stopping at allY assigned lerm o/fhe development, for exa mple, whe th er the va lue
of the omi tted quan ti ty wi ll be grea ter or lesser, tha n the vlll uc o f the I.i miting q uantity. ,.11
w hich wc s topped. ( For exa mp le, w ill the fi rs t term be g rea ter tha n the su m o ( all the rcst ?)
In Hioo's book the correspond ing text follows immediately after the comment on Ihe "unoounded
continuity· of Taylor's series, mentioned lloove (point 75, cot. I, pp. 86-87). AJllhe Eoglish
words in this extract belong 10 I-find; on Ihe whole il does convey the text of the book exactly,
Ihough in Ihe laller words( after those underlined by him) Marx isolated and mentioned the task,
which the author attempls to solve laler on .
This section of Ihe man uscript contains both the formula lions ofTaylor 's theo rem: [foundJ in pp.
83 and 84 (point 74) of Hi nd·s book, example 3 from this point (p. 86) and, in the beginning of
poi nt7S (pp. 86-87).
 NOTES ON DIF'fUREN'Il/\LC/\LCIJLUS i57

[5] Sheet~ 70 (bottom, under a Hnc) -74 (top), Marx's pp. 68-72.
Cases of inapplicability of Taylor's theorem to the [unction f(x + /.), considered ~ecordi n g to
Lagrllnge, i.e:, as possible only for some pilrticu!~r vHJues of x. EXHmple
U.X2 - -IX-I'

whenx· a ( Hind, point 77, pp. 92-93, upto eXllmple 2). Sheets 70-71.
Proof of the fact lhlll in the ~general" cases the exp~nsion into Tayloc's series cannot contain
fractional and negative powers of" (according \0 Lagrange) (I-find, point 78, p, 94). Sheets 71-72.
Ccrtllin signs, permitting recognition of the existence of such special values of x, for which
f(x + Jr) is not expMdable into Taylor's series (1 Iind, pOints 79-80, p. 94 (bottom) -96). Sheets 72-73.
Taylor's series giving the expression fo r the increment or a function through its successive
di fferentials: 6. u .. ~u + ~~ + 1~~~3 + '''(Hind, po int 81, pp. 96-97). Use of such an expression for
the increment (in the instance, when the expansion for I(x + d\') 11I.:conJi ng to the powers of dx, is
already known) [or finding out the successive derivatives of u in terms of x . Example 1 :
11 ".\"" , where the expansion for (x + dx)'" is obtained according to the binomial theorem. Sheets
73·74.
After this having written the heading (sheet 74, Marx's p. 72) :
Deveiopmenl of fu nctions of 2 or more independenl variables 11'" I(x,y, z etc.) or
f(u,x,)"z etc.). 0 (Hind, ch. XII, point 256, p. 370), M~rx, however, did no t take notes from
this section.
IV. Here Marx returns backward, to the fundamental question, which interests him : llbout the
nature of the two methods of differentiating, with which l30uchallat stRrtcd «(sec 11 , 1) and 3»
and the meaning of the symbols ofdi[ferential calculus. Marx's own comments (sheets 74-75.
Marx's pp. 72-73) summing up the "first" method, which has been pla<--ed in the manuscrip t (sheet
74) afte r the number "1)", is being reproducte~ below (sec, PV, J64).
Marx got acquainted with the "second", Le., Lagrange's, method enunciated as per Po;sson,
at fi rst in Hall's book (Th. G. Hall, A treatise on the difl'erent;al and integral calculus, 5th cd.
(wi lh us), London, 1852). Having taken notes (sheets 75-79{top), pp. 73,76-79,"76"':"- Ma rx's
slip of pen) from points 6·10, 13, pp. 2-8 of Hall, contai ning examples of eXpilns;on of f(x + 11) into
a series of ascending integral positive powers of hand, Lagrange's "proof" of such
expansibility, by the method of indeterminate indices of power (through the representation of
f (x + 11 + ") once as I«x + 11) + 11) and next time as f(x + 211», Marx sums up the "second" method
(sheet 79, p.79 of Marx). This comment oC MRrx is also being reproduced below (see p. 166).
The entirety of this part of the nOle is placed under the title (~heet 75, Marx's p. 73) :
2) In place of the method indicated above, the method of POiSSOIl, etc.
Going over the rules of differentilltion, which must facilitate the task of differentiating and
"mllke it a simple algebraic operation" (Hall, p. 7), 1·la 11 still considers preliminarily, the example
of differentiation of the function u ... ha +x(point13), directly using the definition of the deriva tive
+x
as the coefficient of the first power of h in the expansion of I(x + It) and, from there he goes over
to its det:inition as the limit of the rati'o f(x + 11) - [(x) . M~rx wrote down this example in full (with

"
all rhe calculations), calli ng herein the second definition Ihe "first" (sheets 78-79, Marx's pp.
1
78-79). ( Herein he obtains the expansion of by "angular" division .)
1.-"-
b"
158 DESCRIPTION OF TIlE MAlllEMAllCAL MANUSCRIPTS

Here Marx SlOpS hIkin g nOles [rorn lhe beginning of Hall's book (;1pparC!11Iy, he w~s in need of
it only to sum up lhe cs~cncc of lhe "second "method of differenlialion -the method of Lagrangc).
Further (sheets 80-81, Marx's pp. 80-81) on he takes 1101es from Ihe beginning of chapler VIII of
Ihis book (points 95-96, pp. 87-88) under Ihe title (sheet 80, p. 80) : "Function,l" of two or more
variables and implicit funclions~ wilh lhe iuSlruction "(cf p. 53 sqq)". Here ( scc 11. 19) it is
possible tha! Milrx turned la this chllptcr. because while propagaling Lagrange's method 1-11'111 wrote
in the preface to Ihis book (p.V),lhat irfaT the funclions or one variable both the mcthods(of limils
and of Lagrange) ue of equ~1 vlllue, then for the functions of two (or more) v;ui~bl es the expansion
of f(y + k, x + h) specifically gives only the complete differential. (Of course Hall had in view
the simplicity of the formal tmnsformations.) However, considcr<1blc Simplicity - and especially
clarity - w~s not obtained, and, perh~ps, th~' is why Marx did no t take notes from beyond the
beginning of Ihis scction, where the expansion of f(x + Jr, y + k) is obtAined from the expansion of
f(x + 11, y) when y turns into y + k.
V. This part of the manuscript (sheets 81 (bonom) -87, pp. 81-86 and one unnumbered, according
to Marx) contai ns a short extract from S~uri's book and a continuation of the notes from
Boucharlat (the s1Ime English tmnslation of 1828). Marx summed it up with his comments.
Extracts from S3uri (sheets 81-82, Marx's pp. 81·82) are related to the third vo!ume o f this book
(PariS, 1778), pp. 3 and 11-12, and contains:
a) differenliation of the product xy (sheet 81, bollom). Here, SIJCaking about th e rejection of the
product of dx 1Ind dy 8S an infinitesimal of higher order in comparison with dt and dy, Marx adds
to Sauri's text :"according 10 Leibnitz" ;
b) successive differentiation and then. conversely, the integration of the functions y _ x'" and xy
(in the cases, when dx is either 3 constant or it is not). Sheet 82.
To the extracts from Boucharlllt, Marx gave the heading (sheet 82) :
"Failure [sf of Tay/or's theorem (continuation of p.69)".
Here, the continuation of Ill, [5], sheet 71 is being referred 10. Marx sub-divided these extracts
into 5 points, indicated by 1he Roman numerals and thcse are, in their turn, sometimes subdivided
inlo sub-points. Wc too sh1l11 be speaki ng of their contents under these numerals ; numbers of the
points and pages of the source have been indicated according to the English translation of
Boucharlat, and in the cnd the corresponding sheets of the manuscript have been indicated.
In the source 1he corresponding U.:xl is printed in brevier. With this Ihe section entitled
"Differential Calculus" in Boucharlilt 's Ik>ok comes to an cnd.
I. 1)-2). The instance, when for some value a of the variable x the radical vanished in 1(0), but is
retained in f(a +.h) (points 253-254, p. 162.). Sheet 82.
3) The general proo f, that if th er('. is a fr1l ctional po wer of" in the expansion for f(a + 11), th en all
the derivatives of f(x), starling from some, turn into infinity when x _ a (point 255,. p 163). Sheets
83-84.
11. 1)-2). 'lbe method of obtaining the expansion for I(a + 11) in such cases, not according to
Taylor 's theore m (but by a suootitution of x + h in place of x in f(x) and an application, for
example, of Newton's binomial theorem). Example:
[(x)- 2ax-x2+ a-l."(1-a2.
To find out the expansion of I(a + 11) (points 256-257, pp. 1.64-165). Sheets 84-85.
This point of the note comes to an cnd with Marx's words (sheeI85):
It comes to this. that the application of Tay lor's theorem is feasible only upto the n-th
term [[if at all ]] through the application of the expedient means of ordinary algebra,
supplemented; this has nothing in common wi th differentia l calculus.
 NOTES ON OIFFl!ltEN11ALCALCULUS 159

Ill . Lagrange proved that (point 258, p.166: sheet 85) : the development of /(x +Ir) can not
contain terms with/ractiollal powers of h, so long as x, as iI happens in ~ gCller;,1 development,
remains indetermin{.lfe, Le., does no t obl~in some particular vlllue a. Here, as in the entire text of
this part, th~ proof is noted in full : Up(O obtailling a cOlllradiclioll wilh th e assumplion,
as writes Marx.
In this extract Ma rx very brielly explains the text of the source, where it has only been sllid:
"when x remains indeterminate".
IV. The same for the negative powers of h (point 259, pp. 166-167). Sheet. 86.
V. The same for terms of Ihe type A log 11 (I>oinl 260, p. 167). Sheet 86.
Drawing a tine aner this, Marx wri tes furth er under the num ber ~ VI· (shcet86, p. 86 accordillg
to Marx) :
VI. III ge/leral in lhe Lagrallgiall algebraic deduction of Tay/or 's formula or, still more
generally, ill the deduClion of his
f(x + h) :.-f(x) + ph +ql(2+ rh3 + ...
from the very begillning the cases which latler 01/ appear as "Ihe cases of illapplicabililY" of
Tay/or's theorem are excluded. (This besides the facl , t/tat it has already been lIoted
espec ially sub III (p.SS) and sub IV and V on this page ").
a) In L1grange, who ob tains algebraically. ([ and not by app lyi ng the differential ca lculus]]
!l1.. !!2 h2 !!!l.. 11 3
f(x + h) - f (x) + dx It + dx'l 1.2 + dx3 t .2.3 + ...
<!1.
dx IS. nO lh·Ing other than a sy mbol of the opera/ion, by which the coefficiellt of h is obtained
in the developmen t of f(x +") ; and once this coefficie nt is found , the expressions
d'y dly
dx2 ' dxJ ctc. mean only this that by repetition of the same process the coefficients of
"2. /13 etc. w ill be foun d, but on ly after - in conseque nce of these s uccessive processes-
the second term is agaitt and again. reduced 10 a term affected by rile first power of" ; so lhal
we require on ly lo know by the rules of algebra, what ~ oughl to be for each function. If, fo r

ins tances, it we re as ked wha t -1x- is for the func tion X"', Ihen we shou ld have developed
(x + 11)'" by the binom ial theory, which gives
x"'+mx",- Ih+ ... ;
hence, as ~ must indicate the coefficient of the fi rst power of h in the development, we should
have

:-mX"'-I.
If we are as ked further,what ~ willbcfor mx," -l [[ ~en ce
d'y
what dx 2 wil l be [or x'" ]],
we s hall develop aga in by the bi nomia l theory:
-Evidenlly wha t is bci llg referred to here is carrying the proof forward righ t upto the contradiclioll with the
-assum ption", which is also considered to be excluding the special cases ; p.85 is also s heel85. - &I.
 160 DESCRWllON OF TilE MIITllEMA'!1CAL MANUSCI~WI'S

m (x + " )m_l. mxm- i + In (m -1)x"' -~ " + ".

That is why, 1; rormX"'-" or~~ forx'''=m(m - l) x m - 2•

Thus the w hole thin g is red uced to heing ,Ible to find o ut, by analytical procenes, the
developmem of rite different sorts of [unctiolls which algebr(l ca ll pre,w:nI .
In fact with Ihis keenly summed ullcommcnl - saying lhal in essence Lagrangc proved n01hing.
as he assun1cd what he wanted 10 prove - this manuscripl comes 10 an cnd. Sheet No. 87 (Ihe
unnumbered page) is full o[ clllculllliollS wilhoul ;IUY order nnd words, Dnd il is many limes crossed
OUI (by ov~J curves).
Now wc prc.'Ient MO'Irx's own comments. rnenlioncd in the descriplion of the manuscript. The
firs t of them is related 10 Lhe very bl!ginning of !loucharlal's book: (sec 11 , I) and contai ns Marx's
critica l comments, related 10 tile mode o( introducing Ihe concepl or dilTercnl ial in Ihis boo k
(sheet 42, Marx 's p. 38),

ON THE CON CEPT OF DI FFERENTIAL A CCORDI NG TO nOUCHARLAT

Y _x 3 , Yl - X3 + 3x2h + 3xll2 + hJ,

YI-(x+ h P, YI - J' .. 3x2 11 + 3xll 2 + 1z3,
, YI - Y
•• - - .
3.'
X +3xh+h2 ;
h

if h dim in ishes 10 0, the n YI J~ Y - 3x2 ; hc nce 3x2 is tile limit to which YI/~ Y tcnds as h goes

Yt -Y 0 inc re me nt o f the fun ctio n y 0 I

o n dimi nis hi ng ; but the n also - ,-,- .. 0 ' or - - ' le ncc
increment of the va ri,lble x 0 '
o
"0'" 3x2 ,
This is sti ll in acco rda nce with common algebra, liS ~ can be equal to any qua nt ity, But as

In ~ alllra ce o f Ihe fu nc tion (IS well as of the vlHiable x h(ls van ished, so in pla ce o f %the
expressio n ~ is subs tituted, reminding liS Iliac the function was y all d the va riable x ; dy and

dx are evanescent q ua ntil ies; : - 3x2 ; ¥X. or rather its value 3x 2 is the differential coefficien t
of the f unc tion y.
lIaving wrillen this Mane. (."Omme nlS (on p, 38):

. n 0 [ e vanescent quull flttes

I ntro d uctlo .. an d all
- h· . <!x.
Clr ratio dx ms lead 0 [ 0
0 no mo re belo ngs

10 algebra ; bUI mo re tha n th al : though "is the symbol which rep resents the limit 3xl "
 NOTES O N DI!:FERENTIAL CA LCULUS 161

iUid 16@fld6f@ Hdx ought properly to be always placed under dy", nevertheless, "in order 10

"'aeillta{~ 6pe:tiHi6ft§ Itt dlgiltmsH we treat 1; as a commo n frac tion and : - 3x 2 as <1 common
equation ; and thus by dc'IUitlg Ihe 4Hluatlon of its deno minato r - lwe ] obta in dy _ 3x2 dx,
this expression - obtained iti a rather equ lvo4;oUS way - [is) Ihen ca lled the differelltial of
flie /WfE!tion}1 (16.
f~~ (6l1BwiRg EBtflmcnl of Marx (which he later on struck off by a vertical /lne) is take n from
HI HJ)/ illld hi fdlllleu ttS OOl/chlld/II's lemma, with the help of whi ch he (O ouchart~[) proved
Taylof/§: iHOOre'o'L fI i~ tHl §h(k!1 Sj (Mnx 's p. 49).

ON THE LEMMA OF BOUCHARLAT

&, H6tJite a iie'k ~ieffietit r!§lllcte Introduced, as compared to wha t precedes. Till now, if
J -/(i)i and wc lid!
y, - f(" 11),
[tt€H 1 ,~ ~iI§ tfm [tbe] o nly variable, bUI also its increment h. It is true \lhat1 throug h tile
dpefiitlbl1si jh~ liitler Was iflHJlcd so far as fa] co nstant, as a g ive n magnitude, beca use
tii hefwise~ f:i, (x ... Il)2 could 1101 be treated as a binomial, [a nd] we co uld ,no t ha ve
x 2 + 2xii +j;i i but ~ hs:~lr tJppcars in this fo rmula , for the give n mo ment, as (a) constant. [t is
separated as an iritlependtlrH magnitude from h 2, r.L Besides x is virtually a flue nt, but it
becomes on ly a real fluent in the moment it generates a fluxi on, On the other ha nd h, a fter
it has performed its business as" "consta nt" magnitude throug ho ut the binomial ope ration,
is immedia tely treated as a variable, it becomes not o nly 0 in

but it figures as an evanescent quantity ~ be ing transfo rmed in

evanescent) and it is o nl y as a ra tio of
*-
~ (as the deno mina tor of

)'1,;)' (when" become

~),

evanescent [increment of the] function y

evanescent increment" (increment of x) ,
that Ihis ralio finds its value in a coefficient free of all differenlia l quantities. Bul in what
now follows, and upo n which the theorem of Tay tor [is] fo unded, we proceed to ~ till ,now
unknown dilemma.
Either x is considered as variable, and its increment" as constant, or x is conside red as
consta nt and its increment h as variable - in order to prove, that it is the same whether we
start from the one view or the oth er 1l7, The questio n seems rather to be whether we bad
laid any foundation in tbe precedent development, which would allow us to put s uch a
dilemma!]]

A COMPARISON OF THE THEOREMS OF TAYLOR AND MACLAURIN

The following comment of Marx, devoted to a comparison of the theorems of Tay tor aM
MacLaurin is there on sheets 55·56 (Marx's pp. 5 1.52).

21

,.
162 DESC RwnON OF 1118 MAl'IlEMA11CAL MANUSCR11>TS

f[ The difference between it [Taylor's theore m 1and MacLaurin's theorem:

1) MacL.aurin stnts from y _ / (x). Taylo r 5t.HtS from Yl "" f(x + h) 118,
2) Ma cLaurin rl rrangcs Ihe fu nction /(x) according 10 the powers of x:
y - A + Bx+ CX2 + Dx 3 + ...

That equa tion is s uccessively d iffe ren tiated in respect to x; the differential coefficients ~,
Z e tc. so found (i.e., the values on the other side ( as ~- B + 2Cx + etc.» a rc then reduced 10

their expression w he n x becomes 0 ; so y becomes (Y), ~ beco mes (.~) e tc . a nd these values,
together with the lIumerical coefficients subs tituted fo r the in~ctcnninatc coefficients in
the o rigi nal equation. Thus for instance in the th ird diffe ren tiation, if [we1 put x .. 0, wc get

(Z) . 2 C ,and so C - ~ (~1, also D - (~) 1.~.3 ... ,wh il e in the origi nal development
of y. the factors x, xl, x 3etc., the development of x remains unchanged a nd reappears with
the di fferentia l cocfficients.
3) O n the o lher side, Tay/or lI9 starts not from [Ihe fUllction] y ,or y .,. [(x) ]20, but with the
function Yl o r Yl - f(x + h).
Thc indeterminate coefficients A etc. (unk nown fu nctions of x) are found by differentia ting
the p rimitive development o f
f(x+h) or y ]_ y+Ah+Bh2 +Ch 3 + ...
where the factor x does not appea r.
In Mac L1urin the va lues of A, 8 etc. in [the J form of differential coefficients, [a re] fo und
by successive differentiations of the first eqllafio1!, arranged according to the powers of x, but
Tay/or proceeds differently; he differen tiates first (oll ce) ill respect of h, a nd then in respec t
of x, so that he gets :

dYI dy,
1) - - ... and 2)dx - ···;
d"
as these tw o express ions arc equal, acco rd ing to b) (p . 49), the coefficients of the same power
of 11, f ound ill the two different ways, are equated, and then A - ~ g ives by s ubstitution,
the differential expressiolls, consisting o f s uccess ive ascend ing differentiations without
further processes of differentiation having been recurred 10; the powe rs of h, 11 2, h3 etc.
play the sam e part as x, Xl e tc. in MacL1 urin 's theorem; x does IlS little appea r for itself as a
coefficien t as It in M acLaurin's theorem ; the numerical coef(icients like~, 2~3' 2.~.4 fo und
by MacLaurin through differentiation and taking the limit arc found by Tay tor, through the
equatio n o f the two different expressions found for Ihe coefficients of the same powers of
h. JJ
 NOTES ON J)JFFEREN11AL CALCULUS. 163

MacLaurin :

y (or f(X))-Y+(~)H1(~)X'+2\(~)X'+
Tay/or .-
Yl ( or f(x +h)y_y +!!.Y. h +!!:l...!£..
2
+!!:1..L+ ...
l
dx . dx 1·2 dx l·2·3
On tbe other s ide of the equation,f(x) co uld s tand instead o f y as the first term, since
y, - f(H h). y - f(x).
MacLaurin's theorem is deduced fro m tha t o f Taylor. Accordi ng to the la lle r, if
everywhere ins tead of y we put f(x), then we shall get :
f(x + 10)) _ f(x) + df,(x) h + tI'{5x).!!':.. + dlf(x)....!L~, ...
cu 1·2
cu1 dxl 1·2.3
If we make x - 0 and represell t, like MacLa,jrln, with the help of brackets, the values of the
different coefficients of x, when x ~comes 0, then the form ula of Taylor becomes:
f (h) - (f (x» + (lj(X)') h+ (t!!.1J.ol).!!':..
+ ...
\ dx dx' [ ·2
h enters into f( II ), asx entered into f (x); here we can pu tx for I!, because th rough this cha nge
nothing is altered in the differentia l coefficients; then

f(X)-(f(X)) + n~X))H (tI'L\X») ;.~+ ..

which is MacLa urin 's theorem.
Ma cLaur;'I 's formula, that of successive differentia tion gellenllised ,- Tay /or's, mo re
general, formula for tile developmellt of differellt f Ullctions in the form of a series.
00 sheet 64 (MaTlc 's p. 60) afler an extract from Boucharlat (See 11, 20), related 10 the problem
of constructing langeol lo a curve, we find the fo llowing comments of Marx :
THE PROBLEM OFTANGENT: TWO DIFFERENT METHODS OF SOLUTION

':,f" - - - - - j t /

A S I p p

{(This second method, where Taylor's theore m is applied, is more complex and more
tedious than the first one; apparentl y, in it is circumvented a difriculty. consisti ng of the (act
 164 DESCRIPllON OF Tl m Mi\'I1IEMA'ITCAL MANUSCRIPTS

that the arc MM' coincides lVilllthe chord MM I Iscc figure ) a nd Ihat is why there appears a
(riangle, onc of the s ides of whic h is in [,let the arc; rncil llwhilc it is clear that when increment
. of the abscissa diminishes, then M ' comes closer 10 M, till the o r(.lina l~ M ' p ' co incides with
MP, ilnd hence, the seca nt M M ' also lums 0111 10 be a mere CfJlIll'lltQlion of Ih~ ~'lgl;JJI
TM, i.e., SP too co incides with PT. On the o th er hand this cVllsion 11> on ly apparent-, fQr
the en tire ruse is reduced to a sim ilnril y o f the 2 triangles , a nd since the two tiides of !he
auxiliary tri,1l1gle dx and dy are s ma lle r than a po jn t, so under s uch c ircumstances the re is no
need to s t.1nd o n cere mony to ass ume th:l llhc c hord coinc ide:; with the arc and vice versa .
This apart, in the fif'§t method lOO, co mparison in pairs arises only In app li§iHkm ~o bo th the
cathetus; a nd phantasy may assign the c harac ter of the hypotenuses 121 . 11

TWO DIFFERENT METHODS OF DIFfERENTIATION

Ma rx dcscribes the first method 0 11 s heets 74· 75 ( M~rx's pp. 72·73 ). ror clCpliW.<J!iolll> sce : p. 157.

THE "FIRST" METHOD : ~a!' I..IM ITS "

1) At th e foundation , or althe s tarting point, namely, to find out the difJe reiii:'::! coefficient,
we sta rted with the following me thod:
I) y-f(x);
11 ) y, - f(u") ;
If, fo r insta nce
y -f(x) -ax',
then
YI - f(x + 11) ... a (x + 11)2
hence
YI _ ax2 + 2ahx +ah2 •
and
Ill) )'1 - y - 2ahx + all 2 .
Dividing both the s ides by 11, we o btained
YI - Y
IV) - ,,- - 2ax+ah.

YI - Y is equal to the difference o fY I (inc rement to Y, over Y) , hence - .1.y ;

x + h " X,; h is equa l La the d iffe rence o f X I' equa l to 6.x (i.e. = the excess in XI over x);

hence we ca n write instead of YI /~ Y - 2ax + ah :

f>x
V', -f>y - 2ax + all .
 165

:r~s '~n n~n4 ~iqF pr thi~ eq~a.tion c~rrc.<t~cs !~C ratio of the finite difference oJ the
!1I~F[ip." f !9 flU: !it!i/~ diff.£:f.~rJF~ 0.( (liE: ft1~epet!#f'!t variable x. Now assuming" - D, ~~ shall
get:
VI) Q _ .O nv
.. g' '''''
H .!!fill ~~ mu ~ ~yo nd the limits of ord inary algebra. If, fo r inSlance, wc have:
£1 =111 .. . " ~x+a)(x-al
_.X __ . • {he' " I' eauallQ . .. x. ._ a
-: 4 ~ !t.... rr r ~ "'f u", '"
.
A •• 1I
x 2 _ Q~
=
Th'! j~ . .f = Ii H H, ~i ...c~ Rn !heq!her haq~
"c c)
'H
~. n; .!'f ::q ) ~ (xta)
a} ," ., · 1.

Assu ming on both the sides x - {l. wc shall gFt ~- 20. Since 6. x _ 11, so, if h - 0,

Af =6 i !WH ~~ ~ t?fE9m~.~ fl p~'r if! r::p,r.~e~9r~~~ 8f of !~creasing by It, so YI - Y. when

,, -a.i·.;·.~h~n :f:t-ll ~:f: hE nff~ .f~ P : (lY - O. I ~ lhi sformnoth ing [ is l tobedon e with
the equation, which cpntains not even thq ~racc of a function, or of the principal var iable; ~
exprc;;:': ~,I ~.e factl th: t ~oth ,the differe.l}cc* ~{J ~I)~ A.f h.a~e di~~p,p.eared, but wc want to f~x
the character of the lat;lV;: ..~$l t have dlsapJX;<!req ; tM c 'Ya~t ~ rlx f~ern as eyanes~c:;nt !I.n
the negation, ~he character or that which is MgatcuJ " ;;~._dh . w hy we assume 'ix.
t at IS I
dx In pace 0
f

~; instead or!J. we write d, instead or the difrerence its dimiJH.!ti¥E! !~~ differentia l. J:lencc :

VII) ;l; -2ax.

This s hows firstly. that the terms, which epmpo.se the rlJtiQM.t; ~¥'lr.&~fF.nh im~ that t~e¥
have in fact disappeared or become - ~,as soon liS we hilV§ 2{l.f,
2ax is therefore the limit of their variations.
This differential coefficient has therefore two express ions, the one s h ow in~ the movement
1; .the other showing its value, its limit.
What, after the operatioR1i .ar~ pcrrorme~: disappears i~ ~~ } - 0 ; and there would be
o nly an error in the calculus, if the y were not rcn:tQved.
The only di fficu lty is therefore the dialectic[a11 notion ot'flxing a ra. tio bc~~;::~:' eva nescent
quantities, a,!d when this has done its duty, the ratio (~) disappears also in the. resull of
the calculus.
 THE "SECOND" METHOD:OFLAGRANGE
On this comment of Marx, sec the description on p. 157 It is on ~:lCCI 79, Marx's page number
is the same.
The importance of this method appears in the latter ana lytica l operations, and not in the
initial o nes, since wc ha ve
1I1-/(X +11) '" u+AII +8112+ Ch) + "',
.
the Iatter opem tto r' . . 11 , - U du A'r
n, at Ifsl conSIsts In -1-,- - dx - ,1 wc assume Ihath - O;ifwedonot

assume It = 0, then, in order 10 get rid of B,,2 + Ch) + ... , it is taken as a s mall vanishing
[magnitude] in respect of A, meanwhile, here such a representation is absolutely superfl uous.
But it is importHnl, that when u ... [(x) and x turns into x + h, [It becomes] = Ill. then
«, -« - f(x + h) - !(x),
and this is the difference between the fUllctions o/x + " and of x, which must depend upon 11.
the incremeM of x, i.e., the difference III - U , is represented by a series of the form
All + Bh2 + Ch] + etc., Le.,
III - U +Ah +B,,2 + Ch3 + ...•

0'
Ill'" f(x) +Ah +Bh2 +Ch3 + ...•
~here the powe~s of." ascend.; that t.hes~ !owers hav'c o.. ~~· j:..v,,;/lve indices (and are
I~tegers, not fractIOn,s ). that the fl,:::1 term 11W.'"' _ _ u _ J (x); and thatA. tile coefficient of the
fl~st power of h, IS th e .~,..~ ~ ~~JJerential coefficient and All (-Adx)tlle first term of the
u
difference beJw~:;: I and u or betweenf(x + Il) and f(x).
J 'he fundamenlal task of the differential calculus is to find out the values of the
coejficiellfs A, B, C. etc.; that is why a differential is the secolld term of tire expansion
f(x + h).
Shccts 80-81. Exlracts from the same book of Hall, §§ 95·96, pp. 87-88, related to theexpansion
. of functions of certain variables inlo Taylor's series.
Sheets 81-82. Extracts from Sal/ri, volume Ill, pp. 3, 11-12, o n the differentiation of product and
on repetitive differentiation.
Sheets 82-87. Extracts from Doucharfat, §§ 255-260, pp. 176-180, related 10 the cases of
inapplicability ofTaylor's formula.
In Boucharlat's book Ihis is the last section of the differential calculus.
 TH E NOTE BOOK "ALG EBRA I "
S. U. N. 3932
This note book: contains notes on algebra (on the general theory of the equations of higher orders).
taken mai nly from Lacrobt 's "Elements of Algebra-, (We have the 11-lh f'rcnch edition of Ihis
-Eltments d'algebre- l\ rusage de ['(\oo[c centralc des qual re-nations, pM S.P. Lacroi x; Paris,
1815.) " is possible that Ma rx hHd al his disposal a quile exact English translation of Ihis book.
Marx look these notes in German, in places we rind English a nd French words and phrases. The re
are 93 sheets in Ihis note book . This nole contains a number of Marx's own lengthy comments,
from which it is clear, that in il Marx collected materials devoted tQ lhe search for the algebraic
roots orlhc differential calculus. 1b81 is why il may be held, that Ihis manuscript belongs to the
second half of the 70s, when Marx 's characteristic point of view abo ut the nalu re of symbolic
differentia l calculus began to take shape.
The structure of Ihis conspectus is quite complex. Macx sub-div'ided it into five p.uts, numbe red
them with Romlln numerals and supplied their headings. In consonance with this, we sub-divided
our description of this manuscript into five parts and gave them the titles provided in the manuscript.
Marx did nol number the first , title sheet. On it is writte n only: "Algebra 1".
Then fo llows that part of the note book, to which Marx gave the title ; "I. General th eory of
equationfsr·
This part occupies the sheets 2-18 (in Marx's numbering pp. 1-17). Marx begins straight off by
laking no les from § 178 (pp. 246-247) of Lactoix 's book, wherei n begins the section on the
"General Theory of Equations". However, afte r a few lines, in connection with a reference to
§ 109 of Lacroix's book, containing a short enunciation of the method of solving the quadrati c
equations, by adding to its left hand side, till a full square [is formedj , and having fini shed the
conspectus of § 178, Marx turns general ly to the section o n quad ratic equations in Lacroix's book.
Marx gave poi nt 2) of his conspectus (sheets 2-4, pp. 1-3 accordi ng to Marx), the title : "RooIS
of lire equations of second power", Ilere the questions about the number of roots of the
quadratic equations and the signs of the roots have been considered (§ 106, p.156, with reference
to the "Algebra" of Emily (Emmanucl) Devcley, which Lacroix ci tes in this parag raph); here
the (ollowing issues have also been considered : ~ wh en a root ofthe equQ/ions of tIl e second power
may become imaginary M (§ 114, pp.166-167 of Lacroix's book); if x _ a is a root of the equation
x2 • P X _ q, then the other root is x .. - a - p ( § 116, pp. 168-169). After the quadratic equations
Marx wenf over (sheets 4-8, pp. 3-7) 10 the section on equations with Iwo terms, in Lacroix 's book
(§§ 156-159, pp. 222-228). Here he took specially elaborate notes from § 159 (pp. 225-228),
devoted 10 the roolS of the moth power from unity .
Afterwards, following Lacroix, Marx went over (sheets 8-9, pp. 7- 8) to "the equations which can
be solved as equations of second power" (§§ 160-162, pp.228-231), Le., to the equations of the
formx 2 "' . pX"' - q.
Marx omits the section ~ On the Calculus of Radicals" (§§ 163-171, pp.231-239), but specially
dwells upon the section entitled. ~Commen l s on cerlain special casesof theCalculus of Radicals"
(If 172-174, pp. 239-243). Here (sheets 9-10, pp, 8-9) his attention turns 10 Lacroix's· C{lmment
about the so-cal led "paradoxes", connected with the formal transfer of the rules of operations with
the roots of real numbers on to the roots of imaginary numbers, in particular to the transrormation.
V=T V-T - v'{-I).(-l) .. v'[. ~ I,
in connection with which he ci tes !..acreix's reference to BC7.out, according to whom, "when we
do not know how the square a1 was formed, and we seek its root, then we must consider both + a
'68 I)ESCRJP'nON OF nil! MATtIEMA'nCAL MANUSCRIPTS

aixl -11, bul when we know beforehand, which of Ihese two qllanlitie5 was multiplied wilh itself
in order 10 form Q2,Ihen we musllake namely. it"(pp. 239-240). Marx commenls (ShecI9) :
A~cording 10 Lacroix, this explanatio n of I3czout is e nough (or the eli mination or
the
difficulties in such particular insta nces; concerning the other insta nces. says he, sufficient
el ucidatio n is given only by the properties of two-termed equations.
Here itself is ci ted an example of the tra nsformatio n: 4Va' V-T _ 4Va .•.;r:1j2 _ 4Va . 4.,r:j:T -

*.
.4.fii, which is willingly false , since if 4,fQ is a real number, then the imaginary number
4Va ' V-T [urns aul 10 be equal 10 lhe rcal number In this cnnRcction Marx mentions
Lacr<iix's explanation, consisling of an instruction to the effect. that in the general instAnce such
transformations introd uce supernuous roots : there are only two quadratic roots of one, the roo ts
of the foudh power are four [in numberJ.
Ncxi scc:ion b~ the conspectus (sheds 16. j i. i)p.9-1 0) is devoted to the operati6ns with fractional
indices (in Lacroi;c '$ book it is §§ 175-177, pp 243.246). Ilere Mar;c especially singles out
Lacroix's comments on the Significance of the dcsignations of radi cals, introduced by
Descartcs, with the help of [he fractional indices of power. Here Marx writes (~heel 11, Marx's
p.IO) :
Calculatio n of the rools with s igns requires a specia l ana lysis and it is clumsy, s ince the
sign V, exp ressing the radica ls, has no connection with the ope ration, through which they
are obtained. Replacement of this noLltion by that of the fractional indices of power, is a
g reat co ntri butio n of Desca rtes. Il faciliL.1tes all operations by its analogy wit" the illtegral
indices of power and makes applicable to them the rules, which are applicable to the
ca lculations of the latter,
Only after this long digression (shcets 2·11, pp. 1-10) does Marx rClurn (sheet 12, p.ll) to thc
ge neral th eory of equations, with which hc began his note book.
Here he takes notes (sheets 12 ·18, pp. 11-17) from the secti on on the general theory of equations
(§§ 179-184, pp. 248-256 of Lacroix's book), where the issues arc; the number of divisors of Ihe
first powe r, which an equation may have; formation of an equation through the multiplication
of its simple divisors; the relation between the roots and the coefficients of an cquation (t he
r~nd8mental theorem of algebra about the existence of roots is only mentioneu, but n ol proved):
"'ilh this, the tlrst part of th is note book of Marx comes to an cnd .
Marx takes notes, from the next section ofLacroix'sbook,devoled to the elimination of the
unknowns from equations of power greater than one, only in the fifth pari of Ihis nOIC book of
his. Here (sheets 18·27, pp. 17-26) Marx goes over to that part, which he entitlcd :

~lJ. Tire first demerr{ary appeamrrce of ~ _ CIO ami Qf~ in ord;rrary algebra. ~
This part contains a selection of ex tracts from Lacroix's "Elements of Algebra" , where the
spcci~1 cases o f the equlltions of first and second powe rs, leading to expressions of th e form ~

and ~ are investigated in the light of the examples about the problem of two couri ers (pp.
97- 104, q uoted from Lacroix's book) and Clairaul's problem about th e point. equally j lIumined by
two differcnt sources of light (ibid, pp 174-180). In connection with Iheemergence o f the sign co,
a plAce from Buler's "Elcmen ts of Algebra- (Lyons edition, 1795, § 293, p. 227) is cited, where

the equality -0' • rn is "established" by Euler, through an e;cpansion of the fraclion - ' - inlo an
, -a
 'm E NOTE BOO K "A LGEBRA [" 169

irlfjnitc series; wheri a ;o L 't'hls !lxtt"liet Is Hccompanied by the fo llowing comments of Ma rx, The
first comment (sited 21. p, :lO}. Vlhleh Mat)( plllccclln a box, is bcing rcproduced below:
It should bc ndied, that In this examp le from the mosl elementary algebra, the difference
b - c ill the denomlllator ail the while diminishes, as b remains conslan', and c alllhe lime
iilcreases i22. The matter is entirely different with [(x + h} - [(x) or with Yt - Y . Actually,
I x 1 -x
x + h" xi hencexj -'x'" li j kefe.t remains a constant, but 11 alllhe while dimi nis hes, that is why
XI aisd dim in ishes :

YI-Y _ ~y.; g\ves!!tdd' In Its minimum Va lue; but Ihistransformation ofl1x into dx,
xl-x llX x
and that is why, of.1.y into d)l, iakes place when x remains constant. That is why, it does not
matter a t all, as to whctH~f We Jlil\,C i

1) :-: .. a ; where bfi the flgllt han.d side, the variable x has completely vanished ( .. xli),
or

2) ~;- /'(x) + ~ ["(x) h + ,

III the second case, assuming it = 0 We gel

t!1. _/,(x) .
dx '
fo r instance, ~~ - m X"' -i . In both the sides on ly 11 changes, whilcx is not affected, a nd that

is why it remains a constant du ring this op6rafion.1 /I '(t) It + e tc. vanish, since the multiplier
If turns into zero, but J'(x)does no t change, because it dOes not conta in h ; on the other hand,
in
~ j(x+h) -[(x) _ YI - Y
I1x h xl-x
x also remains unchanged; the difference Xl - x becomes = 0, since Xl turns into.x, i.e., s ince
It = O. That is why, in
1), for example.f(x) - ax,
f(x + 11) - a (x + h) - ax + ah,
hence.
f(x + 11) - f(x) or y, - Y - ax + all - ax - all.
whence,
y) - Y
or or ~
lE
-a.
XI -X '

22
170 DI!SCRIP11 0N OF TilE MAT llEMA11 CAL MAN USCRIPTS

In the right hand side there is no [unction of x, there is only the constant a ; this in no way
obstructs the perception of what happens wi th YI - Y , when Xl -x co nstantly diminishes,
-x XI
ow ing 10 the fa ct that" diminishes, i.e., XI constnntly approximates lox. Herein x remains
a constant; finally we gel dx in place of 6..t, and Ihat is why also dy in place of fly , whence
'!i'dx '" a instead oC ~ - a. No change occurs in the right hand side, since a is a constant
d
~x

magnitude a nd, Ihat means, il does not co ntain x ; but the same th ing happe ned, when :~
turned inlO~ _ [,(x). though here in the right hand side [wc have ] a func tion of x; however,

the trans fo rmation o f l:J. x into dx nssumcs only a change in xl> Le. , in the c le ment h u~XI' while
x remains a constant 123.
Marx 's second commenl (shcCI 23, p.22) is rcla ted to such It n i nst~nce of the problcm of two
cou riers, whcn they slart from one point (0'" 0) and move in one direction with the same speed
(b - c). In "pplica tion to lhe illdetcrminancy ~ oblained in this case. Marx writes :

Thus, here, th e expression ~, fo r the values of x and, of y eq ual to it, is only the symbol

ofan illdetermillate quantity. In olhcrcascs, whe n [he expression ~ has other origin, this symbol
also acquires another meaning.
The follo ..... ing comment of Marx (sheet 23. p.22) is related to Elder's work.

[{In his "Ele ments of Algebra" Eu/er says about the expression ~ .. 00: it wou ld have been
a mistake to think, that an infinitely big number can not increase 124. (Ea rl ie r he sa id, th at
00 is obtained by dividing 1 by 0, s in ce

-1 - -1- - 1 + 1 + 1 + ... III

" lIIJlnUU111
"'"") .
o 1- 1

Sincc ~ s tands for an infinitely big number, and ~ is, beyond doub t, doubled i, namely

- 2~1 , so it is eviden t, that a number, "\'en ifil is illfinitely large, can nevertheless become 2,3
or x tim es bigge r.

Here, first of all, it.should b~ noted, that %(o r any o ther numerato r with 0 as jts denominato r),

expanded into a series, is exactly that, what 1 is beeause.£ - _ 2_ - 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... l/I

0' 0 2-2
infinitum.
2 1
Consequently , since the terms in the right hand s ide are eq ual , so
0·0
This apart, since
 TlI B NOTE BOO K "AI.GBllRA '" 17 1

I I 1 2·1 2
----
o I- I and - - . . --
I - I 2{1 - 1) 2- 2
so aga in
2 I
0'0·
00 may be represented with the same success, as with the ser ies fro m un ity like
1 I
- · - - - 1-tl-t1-t ···
o 1-1 '
thro ug h an infin ite series of nu mbers, growing in a ny g iven ratio. Though, he rein , a
de termina te pa rt of o ne infinite series may be equal to 1'1 etc., of the determinate part of
ano the r infinite series, but nc.ithe r the fi rs t no r the seco nd determ ina te pa rt, is in allY proportion
to the entire illfln
, i (~ series, and in this case only this much may be said, tha t th e sericses ma rch
to i.~nnity In va rious ratios. J]
Marx's heading of the third part of this note book (sheets 27-34, pp. 26-33) :
-Ill. Rudiments of infinite serieses. ·
I,n its, {\I tn , this section is subdivided into two parts. First part : ~A ) Al" 11 preparation for tlris,
'0 begin with tlze approximate calculation of roots· (sheets 27-30, pp. 26-29). Selection of
extracts from Lacroix ', "Elements of Algebra", §§ 98-104, pp.145-152. This is part or the chapter
entitled ·On the equations or second power with one unknown\ in which is proved the theo rem:
HThe whole numbers, whic h are not squares, have nei the r whole, no r fractio nal ~o ts" and, the
followi ng questions are enunciated : "Wha t is incommensurabili ty or irrationali ty·, 'ft How are the
radicals, of !he roots 10 be extrac!ed, designated by signs" , "Method of approximate calculation of
roo!sft. "Method of abbreviated extracti on of roots by division'" "Method of its (of the process of
extrac tion o~ roo ts) unbou nded conti nua tion by ordinary fractions· , "M(llhod of obtaining, ~s far
85 possible. simpler ~pproximate value., of roots from f~ctions, whose terms arc not squares-. ft
Second pa rt : -D) Infinite seriesel'· (pp. 31-34), Selection of extracts from the same book of
Lacroix, §§ 235-237, pp. 326-33 1, Concluding paragraphs from the chapter entitled, HOn
proportions and progrcssions'-, whe rein, "The division of m by m-I, continued unboundedly·
IInd "The. cases in which this qUOTient cO,!lIf:rges and can be tAken as the app roxi mate value of
the fraction ~1 ", are considered. Here, a short excerpt from the big "Trea tise" of Lacroi x -
.,-
lIS Introduction, pp. 3-6 _ is 8lso included.
On p.30 of the nnle book, there arc IWO short comments of Marx :
-.12, fo und w ith the help of s uccessive divi&,ion, turns o ut to be a n expres." io n thro ugh
infinitel y continu ing approximatiofl of the roots, all of which arc o rd ina ry frac tio ns. Thus, the
ex trac tio n of irra tional roo l", w ith th e help o f the extraction of roots from successive
remainde rs, leads to an infinite seri es.
Alread y in the case of a simple approximation of the ordinary frac tion by decim als, we
get a n infinite expression, just as in the case of the irrational roots.
a
T he fourth part of this note book (sheets 35·3B, pp. 34-37) contains short nole of Mar x,
reproduced below (it was £i rst published in Russian, in the journal "Voprosy Filosofii" , 1958, No.
11,89.95).
 172 LJESCHlP"JlON OF TIlE MATlmMATICAL MANUSCIHJYJ'S

This note is based ufKln informaliolls conlaincd in : 1\) Lacroh.·s ~Trcatisc on uifrcrcnlial and
intcgral calculus" (Paris, 1810, vol.!. Ill'. 2.4) and. 13) Eulcr's ~E l cn1ents of Algebra "(Part Two,
chaplets I and 11 ).
"IV. On the concel,t of"unctioll" .
A) If a problem is generall y dc terminahle m , thcn for ils determ ination as many
equations are req uired, as arc the unknown qualZtitie.\· 10 be so ugh t. Tha t is why , all those
prob le ms, in whi c h the number o f eq uations given are as man y, as are the unknown
quantit ics lU present, belong to the realm of determinate analysis.
I( a prob le m does nol furnish as many eq uations, as arc the number of unknown
quanti ties lthere), then some of the la tter mus t re main indetermina te and IJIhe discuss ion
will now ente r into these]], they a re determined by us arbitrarily. Th,lt is why such probl ems
a re called illdeterminate and [they] constitute the subjec t m,[lIer, of a special division of
algebra, o f the indeterminate alia lysis.
Since in such cases instead of onc or more unknown qu antities some arbitmry numbers
arc taken, the problem permits o f different solulions. On the other hand , upon such problems,
often condi tions are imposed, so tha t the nu mbers sought for become integral alld positive or
at least rational; the reby thc number o f possible sol utions are o fte n reduced to very few;
some times their number is infinite, and il is difficult to asce rtain lth emJ; sometim es a so lut ion
is not at all possible.
a) To find out two positive and whole lIumbers, whose sum = 10,
We have before us the problem:
1) x + y-lO, 2) x-IO-y,
where y is res tric ted only to this, that it must be an integral alld positive !lumber,
rf we assume that y =10, th en we would get x .. to - 10 - 0; but x =0 is excluded, for x too
must be an integral and positive number. Thus, the value of y = 10 a lso falls throu gh ; the
values of y, which we have the right 10 try, arc possible only within the bounds of 1 to 9. Such
limits are possib le for y, thanks to the given conditions of the very problem.
On the other hand, already from the first assu mptio n we sec; that y = 10 - whcrein x
turns into 0 - is e xcluded .
Exactl y in the sa me way if wc put y = t1, then
x- 1O-lt -- 1,
which contradicts th e condition that, the numbe rs must be positive,
But both o f these assumptions, excluded by the problem, show, that the value oJ x dependj'
UpOIl the value ofy alld challges a/ollg with the latter; for when y = 10, the n x = 0, and when
y = 11, then x ~ - 1. Furthe r operation wi th the equation leads to the sam e thing. The possible
values ofy = I, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9; but in that case the corresponding values o f x =9, 8, 7,
6, 5,4, 3, 2, 1, s ince x - 10 - y, ow ing 10 which, whe n y = t then x _ 10 - 1 _ 9 etc.
Hence, here th e value oJ the unkllown x depends upon the value of unknowlI y and it
always challges depending upon the arbitrarily assigned values oJ Y: but never going beyond
the bounds of 1-9, prescribed by the problem. And , name ly, on the basis of this interrelationship
in th e indete rminate equations, onc o r these unkllowns, likex here, was at first called afullction
 "" -
. - • '-T-M. ';- --"\:-. •

"On the concept of function" . Photocopy of a page from the note book "Algebra In.
 174 J)r':sClur-nON or TIlE MATIiEMA'l1 CAL MANUSCRuYl'S

of y f1 of th e other u nknown, success ively o bta ining d iffere nt values i~d,e p~E;tde nl ly of x ]J.
In o rdi nary algebra Ihis was the first occas io n o f c haracteri;.; ing ()lie 1l~lk'JOWIl as tlte fUllction
of another. Here in , fro m the ve ry beginning
o I,' •"
we
a'bs tr.ac l fro m s uch quantities as a, b, c,
'
for in stance from 10 in the af~ rc~~el), i.one~ ~ + y - 10, and dc~in c x pol y as aJunctiotl [o f],
y, a f unction of that W~kIl OWlt , upon w~ic?, i ~1~P;t~~S,. ~? r ~. ~,~ ~ 9. i..t u/ready. delerminef/ {l ~~
retains one and the same value in every poss"ible 's olution o f this problem.
I. "

f(y ) or x changes its value depend i ng upon the changes a/th e utl~lIown y, of w l\il;=p it is.
a fun ctio n.
But challges o f y itse lf cons ist o f this, that wit~i~ kno,'t'/n liTl;li ~ qiff~ r~,f\t !J,\l.me r{e al
values may be ar b i t ra ~ il y assigned, to it, f~r ~ ~s~nce, ~ h,e a boy~ [men,Ho n e~n Q: ~ i ff1! r!!:ql ~i': t\l es:.
If, fo r example, ~e ~~s ig~ -i\t tht: va l ~e ~.l~e~ x_ ' P.-9- ~ i lf~~ ~~cn ' ~ .. l Q- 8 -, ~~\c.
Each o f thf',se <trbitrary n~lI1lCnca ! Y{l lucs ?,r
..f. from ~ lO ~, so! y~~ the C~ "~tiQ I1 ~ pe rmitting ra r
x a valQe, correspo nding t~ a y'<tlup as,s~rqM tP.r
Y ; ~ Pt wfi~lh er we ass ig n y the value 1, or 8,
o r 3, here in y a lways rema ins a' collsta~t ,: Jo y itse lr, no change takes place, w hich would turn
it into 2 fro m 1 o r into 9 from 8 ; hence, it is not a variable, tho ugh - within de te rminate
limi ts - we may change its value at w ill . S imilarly, in the expressio n ~ , w here m is 110 1
In - 1
an unknown, as dis tillct f rom y, [and where1 we vary the value o f m at w ill , howeve r; oW,ill&" ~o
this m never becomes ( I variable ; it is merely an indeterm inate cons tant, ':V~ ~ch., namcly; owing
to this, may a bL'l in arbitrary, and [bes ides1 any a,rb ~tra~y. ~I,lX(l~ricai' value. ~ f we p ut 1Jl-. ~~
1 .. 00 ; I"f wc assIgn
Ihen -m- - -0 " m Ihe I]\ln:\c:nq
" I va \ Ut 3, th
" e"l -In- - -2
l " \ th~
etc. Exact ly. 11'
m-1 . ". I·', " . 1Il-.1 ."
same way the'ullknown x in the;equa\i.l'n x- l Q=. ydi ffers from 10., not" dq~ to the f;tc\ lhal
10 is a consta nt and y a va riab le, bilt bec~~~: 1 ~ is tl~e de~~r~l{~~te C;~{lstan t v<!lllc o f a
magnitude, whic h rema ins determinate in every poss ible sp\ ution of this 9qll a lio n, whereas y
is indeterminate, but is always also th e constallt value of a I1Iflgnitllde, "ild that is why in
the sol utio n of th e equatio n it may be determ inately va ried as 1,2, etc.
Tha t is wh y, here, the independent IIl1 kllOWIl Y is no l a variable, in the same meas ure as
III in the expression ~; it is not de termined in the same way, as m is na l determin ed in
m- I
respect o f numcr.ical arithm etical va lues; it diffe rs fro m m owing to [t he fac q , 1) that in an
algebra ic express io n In , as d istinct fromy, is not an unknown; 2) that the determ inatio n o f the
va lue o f so me o ther unknown x, does not depend upon the determ ination o f the value of, m. " I
But if we had the equation
In
x - --
In - t
then the va lu e o f x wo uld d cpe n ~ ~p o,n the ~ iffe(C nl num e ri ~a~ val, ~es , which we wo uld
ass ig n to m.
Thus, we see tha t the concept of fllIlC~{~~t ~s it i~ i1 i a~ l y e m crge~ in illd?term ir!~ re
alia lysis, s till had a 'very limited mcan~ng, flp.plica~ l~ Qnli' to de finitc. f~rfl1s, o f equaUO{l~.
If now wc re turn to the solution o f t~e eq uil;tio n x - 10 - Y-l lh~n
 ON 1l1~CONCElYr OF FUNCIlON l?5

y = 1,2,3, 4,5,6,7,8,9,
x = 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
The last four values of y = 6,7,8,9 gives us for x, its corresponding first values: 4, 3,
2,1.
Hence the equal ities arc:
6 + 4 = 10, 7 + 3 = to, 8 + 2 = to, 9 + I = 10.
But we get the same 4 cqua lities when
y = 1, 2, 3, 4, and x = 9, 8, 6, 5.
Thus the prob lem in fa ct admits of on ly 5 diffe rellt solution s:
y = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, x =9,8, 7, 6, S.
If wc had , for inst,1 11ce, x -~, thcn thc solution would not have diffe red from that of
y- 1
[x - ] ~; the condition that x has 10 he a pos itive whole number, wo uld nutke the
m -l
problem difficult, but would change nothing in the chara cter of the equation .
b) If instead of Olle, as above, two equations arc given, then the problem may be
illdeterminate, onl y if these two cquI'lt ions co ntain more thnn two unkllowns.
Thi~· type of problem [[where onl y the eq uations o f first power are proposed]] is met
with in the o rdinary elementary texl-books of arithmetic and is soived with the hel p of the
so-ca ll ed Regula Cocci ( fhe Rule or Positioll of Fa lse).
For example, 30 persons, me n, women :Ind chi ldre n, s pent SO Sh. in a lavern, wherein every
man spent 3 Sh., woman - 2 Sh., and child ~ ISh. How ma"y men, women and children
were there?
Let the number of mell be =p, of women = ~ and , of child ren = r ; then we get
1) p+q+r-30; 2)3p+2q+r .. SO; .
from hcrc we are required to find out p, q and r in whole alld positive numbers.
Equation 1) gives us r ... 30 - P - q ; hence,
p+q<30j
h~v in g put the value of r in the 2nd equation, we s hall get
3p+2q+ 30- p-q _50 ;
that is
2p+q+30-SO;
hence
q - 20-2p. p+q_ 20-p<30.
From the equa tion q - 20 - 2p it fo llows, that if p = 10, then q - 20 - 20 - 0; tha l is why,
had we taken a number> 10 in place o f p, then q would ,have been negative.
For example, if p = U, then p+ q _ 20- P turns into U + q _ 20- 11, orq .. 20- 22 - - 2
This is excluded . He nce, in place ofp we ca n take all those num bers, which arc not > 10.
176 DI!SCRllrnON 01' TIlE MA'nmMA11CAL MANUSCRIPTS

Remembering, that p + q < 30, and q .. 20 - 2p [[and that, that is why. when p = 0, q
= 20]]. wc then geL J 1 answers :
p = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, .8 , 9, ID,
q = 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10,8, 6, 4, 2, 0,
r = to, 11, 12,13, 14, 15,16,17,18,19.20,
If wc exclude
J)p = O,q= 20, r= 10,
II)p= 10,q=O, r=20,
i.e., the first and the last solutions, where s ub I) p = 0, and sub IT) q = 0, then there will remain
9 solutions.

B) 1) Thus, inilially the concept of flll/ction was restricted to those unknowns in the
indeterminate equations (i.e., in the equations whose number was less than the number of
unknowns entering into them), whose value depend upon the values of the olher unknowns
and that is why chalice with different ([either entirely arbilfary, or :irbitrary within certai,l
bounds, determined by the very problem}] v(llues, assigned to the olher unknowns.
For instance,
y_ax2 +bx+c;
here y is a function of x; in y - axz + bx2 + cz2 • Y is a function of i and z. In the equations
a) xl+ y3 - axy, b) Xl + y3 +Zl _ axz+ byz + cxy •
1) x, y and z are, re la tive to b), mutual function s one of the others, 2) [in the first two
equations] y is an explicit junction of x or of x and z, since its value is given, when the values
of x and z are determined, but in b) y is an implicit junction of x and Z, since even when
they arc known, the algebraic equation still remains to be solved for the determination of y.
Thus, the concept of func/ioll, as it was obtained from indeterminate equations,
consisted of the following: if the desire was to express [the faclJ that a certain magnitude
is indeterminable, without prior assignment oj determinate values to otller magllitudes, which
could obtain indeterminate number of such values in one and the same problem, then the word
jrmclioll was used for designating that dependence.
2) Later on the concept of junction was generalised; it was extended 10 every algebraic
unknown, whose dependence upon indeterminate magnitudes may be expressed by an
algebraic equatiOfr. Such functions were called algebraic. Algebraic functions always contain
only a determinate number of terms, when these functions are expressed in the ir characteristic
form, But, as we saw, proper jraclions 127 can be expllndcd only into infinite sericses; and the
concept of function was transferred al so upon the laller, and thereby the path towards the
transcendental jUllctiolls was paved; such are the logarithms, which can be expressed only
by an infinite number o f roolS 128, as well as the silles and consilles, if they aTe to be expressed
in terms o f their arcs.
 ON n -n: CONCEPT O F FUNCTION 177

C) Further gelleralisatioll [consists of Ihis, Ihal il I does Ilot {Jell/and equatiolls among some
magniludcs, fo r o nc l or Ihem ! 10 be an implicit [unctioll of Ihe ot he rs ; il is enough Ihilt its
value dcpc nd s upon Ihat of the others. Fo r ins t.1n ce, in the circle the sin is an implic it fu nction
of t he a rc, though no algehraic equation ca n exprcss this, s in ce o nc o f Ihe Iwo is deter min ed,
if the o ther is de te rm ined ,!nd vice versa. ( He rc wc d igress from the radius, beC,Hl se a de finit e
arc is not al iss ue 12'1.)
D) The co ncept o f [ullctioll is furthe r developed and it ohtaincd g rcH tcr imporlllncc thanks
to the Cartes ia n applica tion o f ldgebra to geo melry, Le., owi ng to Ihe analytical or higher
geometry. Th e unkn own qWlOtiticsx, y elc. turn into variables, iI IH.llh e.knowlI - inlo COI/Slanls.
Th e fun c ti on of 11 vllr i;lblc is another variable, whose va lue dHlllges alo ng with tha l o f
the firs t, i.e., depends upon it. It has this in common with thc fun ct io ns in indele nninale
equation s: wh e n a pnrlicular value of Ihal v:lriable is g ive n, of wh ich it is a functio n, thcn it
assumes a corresponding determinate value.
Mllrx jpvt: the followi ng title to the fin~l, fifth P;Ht of this m~nuS(:ripl (!'<heets 39-93, pp. 38-76.
74 (lnslea d of 77.89}) :
"V. Elimimlfion of IlIIkno .....n5 form equa!ion.~ of power greater flwn one".
Contenlwise il is related. firs l of llll .to Ihe chapler bea ring the S;Jnle headillg ill Lacroix's "Elemenls
of Algebrll"(§§ 185·IQ6, pp. 257-27 1). lIowever, si nce in Ihe texl 0[" Ihis ehn pler Ihere arc
references 10 the previous chaplers, from which Marx d id n01 I.,kc notes earlier. here the
{:onspc:clus Ilcgins with Ihese earlier cw.pters. And since. IlIler on. Marx did not confine himself
10 the chapler on the elimination of unknowns, but included in his noles lhe lwo suC(:eeding
Chaplers fmm I.Hcroix·s hook - he divided Ihe entire lext lof this p-1rtJ in ils turn into five pariS,
numhered them wi th the Latin lellers A-I':'and provided the titles .'
~A. For the equutions of fi rs! tJOwer·,
on. Pint/ins oullhe ,r:rf:("e.~' common measure",
ne. Elimination of unknowns from equations of pOIl"U gre(l/tr Ilran one",
"D. Pin t/ins 0111 II,e mlional ilIIII multiple roots of IIl1mericu/eqlllllions ",
"E. Appro.l·inwfe s()/ulion of numt:l"icll/elJUOli()n~'~ .
Part "A." (~ hee t s 3Q·.17. pp. 38-46) con lllins nOles fwm two e;lrlier c hnplers ('I f L;le roi x's
book. dcvotcd 10: I) solulion of ~ syslcm of linenr equal ions by slLecessive climillll1i on of the
unknowns (§§ 78·1'12. pp. 1 J.l-1 23) , ~nd 2) the genera l formulae for lhe SOllLl10l1s Ilf syMcms llf1inea r
equlllions (H 83-89, pp, 123-134).
PRrt "13" (s heels 47-52, pp. 016-51) con!ai ns exlrilclS from Iheclwpterentilled "On algcbrHlc rr~ctions·
(§§ 4R-50. pp. 67.76) of the s ~ me book of Ulcroix, rel ated to the EuelideM} al !,'Orilhm for fi ndi ng
out the grea tCSI l."Ommon measure of two polynomials.
In parI "G', having laken notes in poinls 1)-6)(shee1s52-56. pp. 5 1-55) from Ihe lx:gi nn ing (§§
185-190.257-262) of the sa me c hapter of l..acroix's 000k..10 which the whole of section V should
have been devoted IInd which contai ns the general melhod of findi ng out lhe reso lve nls of the
two equations
f(x.,.) .. O and g(x,,.) .. O
through the me thod of finding oUlthe grea tcst common measure of the polynomials f( x,y) and
g (.r, y). right upto thH(1);Hticularexllmple,theanalysisofwhich Lacroix premised byan enunciation
of the general method, Milrx writes (sheet 57) :

23
 178 DESCRIPTION OF 'nlE MATl lEMA'n CAL MANUSCRJPTS

7) the me thod sub 6) applied to particular equations, can also be appli ed to gen eral
equations.
After this generalisa tion follows (s heets 57-58 , pp. 56-57) the insertion adduced belo w, devoted
to a s hort s tateme nt of the gene ral theory of equations in terpreted also through the ~ppa ralus
of diffe rential calcul us. I1 appears Ihat MacLaurin's · Trca l i~e of Alge bra " served lIS Ihe source of
this insertion by Marx.

ON THE GENERAL THEORY OF EQUATIONS

ff Wc no te al first :
a) A general equati on like
XI! + PX,, -l +Qxn - 2 + R X,, · 3 + ". + Tx + U _ 0,
has th e form J(x) - O.
If wc consider s uch a po ly no mial ex press ion, not as an equa tio n, but as - its firs t s ide
IL.H.S .] - a runctio n of x, the n, w he n x assumes a determ inate va lue, fo r exam pl e, a, fwe
get] [(a), ['(a) , ["(a ), ... , f (fI ) (a); the fUl !ctioll X IJO varies [or till! va rious values o[x. Whe n
x [a ss umes} a pa rtic ul ar va lue a, and th is particul ar value a turns [(x) into 0, i.e., [(a) - 0,
... the n the va lue a sa tisfies the equatio n~ solves it, or is its root.
The in vestigatio n into the roots o f the equ atio n [ (x) <= 0, coi nc ides w ith the expans ion o f
the poly no mia l[ (x) into its fa ctors, as the sea rc h for some roo t a o f the equati o n is determined
by the corresponding [actor (x - a) o[ the polynomial and vice versa. This is proved by the
fa c t that, Taylo r's series is always applicable to s uch a po lynomial.
We have
f (x) - f(a + (x - a)) - f(a ) + (x - a ) f'( a ) + ... + (x - al".
Tha t is why, when [(a )-O, i.e.,when a is a root, then x-a is a [actor; a nd co nversely,
w he n x - a is a fac tor, the n [(a) - 0 and a is a root.
(3) Every equation Jzas so many roots, as many it has powers.
[(x ) - 0 always has one root 131, i. e., a lwa ys has a fa cto r o f the form (x -a), which divides
f(x) with out a remainder.
The quo tient M
X .- a
ha s the sa me form as [ (x) , but in power it is lower o nly by one. He nce,

it mu st ha ve a fa c to r o f the fo rm
( f)(X( ) ) , and the quo tie nt o f this divis ion is Cl
x - a . x-a2
polynom ial of power 11 - 2. Ope ra ting furthe r in the sa me mode we s ha ll fi nally get a
quo tient, where x no mo re has a ny power (>.,.() -1), hence,
_.; ---,-,-<f-"(x"')- - ; _-, - 1,
(x - a,) (x - a, ) ... (x -a)
i.e.,
f(x ) - (x - a , ) (x - a, ) ... (x - aJ
a p a 2• •• . , a" are the roots of the equa tio n [ (x ) - 0, a nd no other magnitude can be its roo ts, in
fa ct , if wc subs titute some o ther magnitude Q fo r x, then
 GENERAL TIl I:ORY 01: I;OUA'110NS 179

J(Q) - (Q - "I) (Q - a,) ... (Q - a.),

w h ich is not = 0, i. e., Q c<ln no t be a rool.
y) COllllectioll betweell the coefficiellts of all equatioll alld its rOOls.
Let the rooLo; be a, h, e, .... , I; tht!n if we have a gene r<1 1 equation of IH h power, then
x" + P l).",-I + P2).",·2 + ... +p" - (x - a) (x- b) (x - c) ... (x -I) <ox" -X,,·I (a + b + e + d + ... ) +
+ x"·2 (ah+ (lC + ... +he + ... ) -x,,-3(abc +(/cd + ... ) + ... + x (-1)" obe .. ,I.
If we des ig na te by L the su m o f a ll the exp ress ions, analogous to that, before w hi c h this
sym bol is pu t, then
X" + PI x"· 1 + P2 x"·2 + ... + p" _.\'" -X". I L (a) +.\",.2 L (a b) - )..... .1 L (abe) +

... +x (-I)'abe ... I.

Thus, in genera l: (- 1 ), Pr - the sum of all products of I' roo l.~· :11
lI ~ving finished Ihis insertion, M ~rx con tinues (sheels 58·65, pp. 57.64) the notes from the clwpler
on the elimination of unk nowns from Lacroix's book (§§ 19 1-11)6, pp, 262·271). after which he
goes over to part V o(his conspectus (sheels 66·82. pp.65.76. 74.78), relnted to the search for
the rlllional and multiple roots of numc riCllI equations. This pari conlains noles from the clmpler
bcn ring the same he"ding. of l~crojx's bool: (ff 197·210, pp, 271·2RR) ,
Sheets 74·78 (pp. 73·76,74) contnin the foll(lwing comments of Marx. relnte<!to the connections
between IIlgebr~ ~nd di!Teren tiall:illculus :

ON T HE CONNECTIONS BETW EEN ALGEB RA AN D DI FFERENTI A L CALCU L US

[[1) We no te firs t, th:lI the gener<1 1 equa tion, w hich is the starting po in t, is
x'" + P x,Ift. t + Q X",·2 + ... + T x + U= 0,
o r f(x) or y = e lc.
Ha vi ng w riue n the eqU:l lion IJ2 in reve rse order, wc s hall gel
[(x) or y_U+ T x+ ... + Qx",·l+Px", - I+X"',
which cou ltl be w ri tten as :
y- A + 8 x + C.r2 + ". +PX", - l +Q x m -! + .. "
sud! that this IQ..\"".'J is he re o nl y <1 gc neral lcrm .
Th us, the htUer eq uat ion, fm m wh ic h MacLour ill proceeds 1.'\ is not hing but the general
eq ua tion o f algebra with olle unknowll, written in the reve rse o rder, because he re wc need the
ascendi ng ortler of powers. For the res t the difference consist') only in this, that the se ries for an
eq ua tion with power III contlli ns (m + 1) terms, w he rclls he re we have an infini te series 1~4.
2) As reg" rds the ded uc tion of eq ua tio ns from the proposed or ini tia l eq uation U5 , the
proced ure is exac tl y th e sa me, as in the d ifre rentia l calcul us, in fac t that is how M aeLallrill
co mes fo rth, sllcces~:ively differentiating lhe initial equatjoll Y = .... Thus, this method
represents a tra ns la tio n from the language of al gcbr:I, into the language o f diffe rential calcu lus.
3) Lacroix says, that equat ion 2) or (A) J[the first derivative is obla ined by putti ng x for a
in
 .80 DESCRII'1l 0 N OF 1'1lE MAT! leMA"lleAL MANUSCRIPTS

In a",·1 + (11/ - I) P am - 2 + (Ill - 2)Q a", - J + ... + T - 0,

wh ich is permiss ibl e, si nce a is onc of the va lues of x 11. is suc h tha t
m .\."", - l + (m - l)P x"' · 2 + ( 111 - 2)Q x", · 3 + ... + T .. 0 136

is directly deducible fro m the in itia l :

X""+ P X"'-I + Q .r'lf-2 + ... +Tx + U ", O,
and bes ides such tl at : multiply every term wi th the index o f th at power o f x, which it
co ntai ns, a nd the n diminish this index hy o nc. J ust as the equality A =
0 is dircclly deduced
from V = 0, so is [he equal ity B = 0 deduced from A = O. by rcpealing the sa me me thod.
A O<l logousJy C = 0 from B = 0 etc. 137.

It is not appa re nt, as to what perm its on the basis of ordinary algebra 10 change with th,c
help of arb itrary d ivis io n o r multiplica tion, each separate term of the equatio n individ u(l ll y,
independen tly o f it<; othe r terms. For examp le, fro m x"', I ma ke m x"' - I, m ulti pl yi ng x'" by m
and by divid ing th:lI byx; in fact, mx", -l ... m :'" ; hence, th ereby I ehnnge th(' [lumcric(l1va lue
of this term, w hic h ' wo uld be (l llowed [ to do ], acco rdi ng to a lgcbm , o nly unde r the
co nditio n, that I would multiply a ff the terms by m and divide them by x ; the n, inste(ld o f
P X", - l, I would ge t as the seco nd term
m P x",-i_ m P X'" ~ 2
""'-';-_
X
b ut by no mea ns (m - 1) P X", -2 etc.
Th us, Ihis metho d co mes forth as Hystcro n Prolcron 1 ~8 . in so fllr as th e diffc re nti"l me thod
ha s bcen s il entl y ass umed. [[This comment is fa lse, as La cro ix docS: nOI assert, that he obtains
(In identical equatio n w ith the help o f this method, but o nly that in Ihis wny th e power of the
equa tio n is lowe red by o nc. However, he knew it o nly fro m the d iffe renti(l i calculus.l ]
The p roo f sh o ul d have been alo ng oppos ite lines, so that the d iffe re ntial opera tion was
obla ined fro m the a lgehra.ic.
f):. X'" + P X"' -l + Q X",- 2 + R xm-~ + ... + T x + V .. 0 ;
assum ing x - a + y, we sha ll get
(a + y)m +P (a + y)m- l + Q {a + y }",-2 + ....
hence,
m (m - 1)
1) a"' +mam ' y + am - 2y2 + .,, +Y" +
1·2

(la)

+ Ta+ Ty+
+ v -o.

Il · -
 CONNEC110NS IJE'IWJ:EN AI.G EIlRA ANI) ])1 1"1'1 :ltI 'NTiA L ('AI.CUi .US 'SI

Rend horizoll/ally. in Ihese expressions we h,lve :

1) am + m a"'- I y + ctc , tht.: binomi,tl expansion for (a + YY", substituted in plm:c of A.... ;
2) the binomial expiln~I PII tor P (a + y)"' - 1 ;
3) the slime for Q (a + .1')'. ~;
4) the S<1me for R (a + y)''' - '~;

5) Ihe same for T (a + y) ins iead of Ihe term Tx in Ihe initia l equat ion, rUrther, I have
the righlto pl:H.:C U:l t the cnd ni"thc firs t vertical series, since hy llnaiogy with the other terms
U is the same coefficient of Y' ( .. 1),
Hence, these results arc oPtained Py a simple applicalioll of the hillomial theorem, when
Ih e monomhll x is replaced hy the binomi<1 1 ()' + a). And these results, rend vertically, give liS
as the first "t'rit'" lI m + P 0"' - 1 + Q am - 2 + R a m -,l + .. , ,+ Ta + U, whi<..:h in fad coincides with
equation I), Ilnly when in place l1f x is substituted unc of its v!llue .. a,
Sinn (I is " val ue o f x 1wherein /(x) .. () j, this series vanishes hy il-;elf or =0, Hence,
what n- rn:lins, is
11/(111-1) ">
I) ma.. -1 y +- (I"' --y2 + ... +),"'+
2
, (m - 1) (m - 2)
2) + (m - 1) Pa"' -" Y+ PO,,·-J y 2 + ... +
2
(111-2)(111-3)
11 ) 3) +(m-2)Qam - ~y+2 QU m - 4 y2+,.,+

4) +(m-3)Ra", -4 y + (m -3) (m-4) RlJ"' -.~y2 +.h +

2

+Ty-O.

If i divide all these terms by ),1.'9,thcn i Sh'l ll get:

lI/(m -1) m 2
1) ma'~-l + a - y+ ... +)",, -I +
2
(m - 1) (m - 2)
2) +(m-1)Pa,,, -2 + - _ Ptlm -~y+'''+
2
(1/1 - 2) (1/1 - 3)
lIa) 3) +(m_2)Qa m - 3 + R l l m - 4 y+'. ' +
. 2

4)

S ince he re the first vertical series

m (lm-l + (m -.1) Pa m - 2 + (Ill - 2) Q a", -3 + (111- 3)R um - 4 + ... + T
182 I)ESC II.WIlON O~·TJIE MA·nlEMA·I1CAL MANUSCII.II'TS

does I/Ot contain),. so it must be =0, in so far :IS iL<; sum together w~th the other vertica l scrieses
= OI~O, i.e., it = 0; intlcpcndclltly of the valuc o f y.
Hcnce, J have,
m a",-I + (111- 1) Pa", -2 + (m - 2) Q a,"-3 + (m - 3) R 0," -4 + ... + T - O.
Now comparing the first derivative of equil tion 1) with this, I find:
I) or (V) ;
.. a"'+Pa",-I+Qa", -2 +Ra",-J+ ... +Ta+U _O,
11) or (A);
_ In a"' - L + (111- 1) PU", -2 + (m - 2) Qa", · J + (m - 3) R a," -4 + ... + T - O.

Here substi tuti ng aga in in I) an d 11) a by x, w hich ca n be done, since a is onc o f the va lues
o f x, wc s hall ge l :
I) or (V) ;
.. X'" +P .1.',"-1 + Qxm - 2 +R .-\"",-.1 + ... + T.1.' + V- 0,
11) or (A) ;
"" 111 ..1."",-1 + (m - 1) P X",-2 +{m - 2)Qx'"-~ + (m - 3) R .\__ 4 + ... + T - o.

A com parison of these two equations shows, that in obtainin g (A) from (V) x'" is multiplied
by the index o f its power m and from this index itself 1 is s ubtracted; thcrcby x'" turns into
m X",-I. I Ireal lhc remaining terms in the sa me way; fo r example, I multiply P .1.'", -1 by tht.:
index of the power or x _ m-I; (m - I) P X'" - L is obtained ; then subtracti ng 1 from the
index,1 fina ll ygcl (m _ l)Px", -1-L ... (m_ I ) Px", -2 etc . In the sa me way Txtu rns intoT,
when I multiply it hy the index of the powcr of x _ I, and s ubtr<1ctl from the index o f its power,
thus, getting l ·T Xl- L _ T XJ _ T. Finally V _ U·.1,(J vanishes, when I multiply it by Ihe index o f
the power o f x _ o.
In obtain ing th is result I do nol s tart from the fllct thHt I can so opera te, hut from this, that
A = 0 is deduced fro m V = 0 upon a str ict algebraic found ation; it s hows, that I could have
directly ac ted like that 141. Now, concerning the deduction or B = 0 fro m A =
0, in so fa r as
A = 0, i.e., A vanishes, wc gel as rema inder: .

1) (lII- l )a",-2 y + ... + ym-l +

III
(m - 1) (m - 2) p am -.• y+ ... +
2) +
2
(11I-2)(11I-3)Q
am - ' y + ... +
3) +
2
Ill)
4) + (m-3)(m-4)R
- -- - a m - ' y + ... +
2
 CONNEcnON!'. !l1 :'IWl:[N t\1 .W·IlRt\ t\Nl) OlFl'ERJ;N·I1t\I. Ct\t.CUI .US "3
Since all the terms [ of the first column 1 of the left lutnd side, 1whi<:hl = 0, has 2 as
de nom inato r, I can multip ly the ent ire eq ua tion by 2 and thus remove this denominator.
Further. since illl the terms wn tain y as the gcnc ral coefficient, I ea n divide the ent ire
equat ion by y and thus remove y I from the first ("ol um nl. Then I get III or (B) =
- m (m - 1) a lW - 2 + (m - 1) (m _ 2) Pa", -J + (m - 2) (m - 3) Q a," - 4 +
+ (m - 3) (m - 4) R am -~ + ... + 12· 1·SJ.
Agai n subst ituting in this equation Cl by x and by comparing it wi th equfltion 11 ) or (A), wc
shall get :
CA) - m.1.'",- 1 + (m - 1) P .1.... - 2 + (m - 2)Q.\--3 + (m - 3)R .1.'",-4 + ... + T,
(B) - m(m - 1).1.'", -1 +(111_ I) (111- 2) p.\~,, -3+ (m_ 2) (111 - 3)Qxm - ~ +
+ (m - 3) (m - 4) R .1.'''' - S + ... + ( + 2' 1'51.
This co mpa rison shows, that B = 0 is deduced from A = 0, in the same way as A = 0 fro m
V = 0 142. m.1.'", - 1 is transformed into III (m - 1).1.''''-1, i.e., mx", - I is multiplied by th e in dex
of its power m - I , and this ind ex of power is il<;el f diminis hed by I, i. e., .1.'", - 1 is divided by
x; wc get:
.1.'",-1
m(m-l) -x- or m(m-1)xm-I-I""m(m-J)xm -2,

and so with each of the following terms. 125J vanishes, in so far as its coefficien t is xli; it
vanishes upo n being multiplied by 0, i.e., by the index 0 of x etc.
He nce, the me thod of successive diHerclllialioll, applied in MacLaurin's theorem, is also
borrowed from o rdina ry algebra, just like the general form of the fun ction x, from w hic h
he sets off a nd which is the general algehraic equatioll with one unknown, differing only
in this, that instead l1 f a determinate equatio n lhere] "ppears a po lynom inl express io n o f the
gene ral functio n of x in the form of an infinite series.
[f Wh ether I cons ider th e expression
x'" + P x... - I + Q x ... - 2 + ... + T x + V,
as eq ua l to 0, o r o nly as a fun ction of x independentl y of its equality wi th 0, the esse nce of
the ma tter is not a lte red by this. In both the cases the issue is o nly abou t the generalpolYllomial
expression o r this equation 143. JJ
T hat MacL1urin inverts 'lEis series, i.e., writes it, beginning not Wilh the fi rst term, bu t wi th
the las t, is also no t an arbitra ry and ani(icial mode, bu t is sim ply o<lsed upon the binomia l
theorem.
If I put a binomia l w ith one unknown in its si mplest fo rm , i.e., x + a in an indete rmihalc
power - where x, as well as a may, in their tu rn, represent wha teve r polynomia l cxp;lnsions
you li ke - then, if I make x the fi rst term, and a the second, I obl.ilin (x + a)"', a nd he re the
expression takes pl ace according to x, meanwhile a fi gures o nl y as the multiplier a, a2 e tc.
in diffe rent de rived fun ctio ns of x'" ; and, conversely , if I make a the first term, a nd x the
next, i.e., write (a + xr,
then I expand am with its derived expressions m am -1 ...
In differential calcu lus. when wc s tart from the first polynomial ex pression, the fu nc tio n of
x, then a ll further derivatives can generall y figure only as derived fu nctions of the variable x.
184 DESCRII'llON 0 1' ·rIlI: MA·lf IEMA IKAL Mi\NUSCI{IPTS

Ins teml o f assuming x = a + J, (I S in :Jl gchm, he re, l1t first (x + a) is expanded and thcn it
is assumed thnt a _ 0 14 4 . which lends to th e S(Jfne res ull, since in the nlgehraic deduct ion y is
afterward s algebraically removed throu gh s uccess ive d ivision o f bo t h the sides of Ihe
equation by y w.
Separate terms of the alge bra ic equations give us at the sa me ti me the gencral proof of
this, that the nex t derived fu nc tio n o f .1- is equa l to m xm - I , that o f /11 X",-I is equal to
In (m - 1) X",-2 etc., Le., in essence, [the proo f] of s.llccessive differentia tio n.

Initial Eqflation of Ma cLaurill :

y - A + Bx + C x 2 + DX_I + ...•
That of Tay/or:
)'1 .. y+A 11 +B 112 + C fl.l + D 114 + ...
In both the C!lSCS the issue is the determination of the indeterminate coefficienL<; A,
B, C e lc . in the firs t case they are COn SlaIllS, as in Ihc a lgebraic de rivation of the cxprcssion·s
V. A etc., a'" + P a"' - 1 + ...• m am - I + (m _ 1) P a"' - 2 + ... ,HC , se rieses acco rding to the powe rs
o f thc given value a of the va riable x; ill the seco nd case A, B, C etc. arc indetermi na tc
functions of tile variable: x ; but here agai n [ we have] an analogy w ith a lgebra. For the
solution o ( th e general equrlt io ns with two unknowns, we reduce them to the (orm :
1) x'" + P X", -I + Qx", - 2+ ... + Tx + U _ 0,
2) X" + P IX,,-I + Q j X,,-2 + ... + YjX +ZI _ 0;
r
from them x is eliminated, ri nd for Ihis ) we are required to fi nd ou t the coefficients p, q
[e tc. ], PI' ql etc .• containing the func tio ns of Ihe second unknown y, entcring in to the fina l
equation I~; only x is to be replaced by 11. so that instead o f x'" + e tc. the fi rst equation IUrned
into
f(x) (or y) + P x + Q x 2 + ... )4' • n
The 11151 parI or Ihe nOle-book "E" . on s heel$ 83-93 (pp. 79-fl9), is the consl>cctus of the chaptet
on approximate solution of numeric;!1 equations from Laeroix 's "Elemenls of AI gebra ~ (§ § 2 11-
222, pp. 289-3 L2). With this cha pler, the enunciation of Ihe general theory of algebraic
equlllions comes tll an cnd. in Ln croix's book. The next chapter of the nook is entitled ;"On
proportions and progre.'>sions", and Marx begins his nOle-book "Algebra tl" with its examination
(sce, manuscript 3933).
 THE NOTE BOOK" ALGEBRA 11"

S,U.N.3933
Ma Tx gave Ihis nOle book the heading "Algebra W . It consist, of92 ~hccls (pp. 1-67,48·72 in
Ma rlt's numbering) . I1 is a continua tion of the note book "Algebra ' "(manuscript 3932).
Contcntwise, it has been sub-divided into Ihree parIs; in the first, the nOles taken from Lacroix's
"Elements of Algebra" hllve been completed; the second is d evoted., ~peciaJly. 10 Newto n's
binomial Iheorem and 10 the questions of oombir;ft lo riO'!,lIcquai nta nce with which is assumed
in its proof; in the third, notcs have been lal::en from MacLaurin's "Treatise of Algebra ",
The contcnts of these three parts are as follows, in brief:
I. Sheets 1-25 . Sections VI-V II conla;n notes taken from the ch~ptcrs:~O n proportions and
progress ions" , "Theory of exponential, and logarithms", llnd "Questions related 10 iflterc~t (In
money", of LlIcroix's book, with insertions (rom other sources.
11. Sheets 26-27. This part of the manuscri pt, afler the first two pages (of Sce/ion VIII), is
devoted to ·variaHon" ( Iillear dependence of one mat:nitude upon ano ther, 011 its square, on its
roots, upon the product of others elc). It is no mere conspectus, but 11 systematization of a large
amou nt of mll terial collected from the most diverse sources.At [irst (sheets 27-38) - as a
prepara tion towards the apparatus, necessary for Newton's binomial theorem - questions of
combinatorics : tlnite sets of objects ("Co mbinations"), diffefCnt modes of forming combinations
(making futllists of combi nations of a determinate type) a nd couming Ihe number of combinatio ns
of differe nt types wilhout a preli minary construction of their lists, arc considered.
Then fottows (sheets 38-68) Ihe section under the beading :"q The binomial theQrem" . Here,lIt
firs t (Sub-section I, sheets 38- 40) malerials, testifying 10 the empirical emergence of the theorem
are adduced. After that (sub-section 11 , s heets 41-5 I ) its proof is given for the integral po~itive
inde x n of Ihe power of a binomial (with the help of combinotoric.s). Finatt y(in SUb-section
Ill, sheets 51-68) under the heading "G~nerQI binomial /heQ~m~, materials related 10 tne
generalisation of the theorem for fractional and negative index fI of the power ofa binomial, and
to the application of the generalised theorem (or calculation of roots and expansion into serieses,
have been collected.
Here, amidst the sources apl>ear the classical works of Euler and MacLaurin (in the nOles fornl
these works Marx always mentions the names of (heir autho rs), as well as a huge number of
various text-books on algebra - English and Ge rma n (apparently, Marx did not think, that it
was necessary to remember the surnames of tbeir authors). Among them the re He sueh a othors,
w hose names could not be IIscert~ined .
Ill. Sheets 68-92. Notes taken from MaeLauri n's "Treatise of Algebra\ chapter XIV of the fint
part, and from the first five ehapten of the second part(for the continuation of this conspectus, ~ee
manuscript 3934). Here the followi ng questions have been considered : commensurabili ty and
incommensurabi lity (Euclid's algoritbm). ~tbe number of foOts , which an equation of any power
may have" , symmetric functions, the number of positive (and, correspondingly. negati ve)
rools of an equation (Descartes' rule of signs); here speciala llention has been paid to the question
of multiple roots of an equlltlon, in so (ar as tbis question is connected with the emergence of
de rived functions in algebra. This note contains a large numbe r of Marx's own comments.
Now wc shall give a detailed description of this manuscript.
Sheet 1 (Marx did not num ber it). On the tille pa ge we read: ~Alg~bra If".
Sheets 2-9 (Marx's 1-8). "VI . Proporlionsand ProgressioflS~. Notes from Ihe chapler hearing
tbe Sli me liile, of the same book by Lacroix (§§ 223-236, pp. 312-317).

24
186 DESCRIP110N OF'nm MATHEMATICAL MANUSCR1 1'l"S

Summing up an cXllmination of the different types of derived proporlions. Marx brieny

r~Hmulaled Ihe conclusion (sheet 3). al which lacroix arrived, as under:
4) What has been sta ted in point'> 1),2),3), in fact contains an extract or the theory uf
proportion; the entire doctrine i~' super/luous, since for every propor/ioll, an equailtm
corresponding to it may be substituted. A special consideration of proportions IS still utiicful;
o nly in so far as it provides an easy transitio n to progrcssions.
While taking noles from Ihe section on progressions, Marx underlined those places ftom
u eroix, where the discussion is about~infinitc colltinualion of a series"(p. 326) about that fact, Ihal
~ the expansion

I I
1+-+""2 ctc.
m m

can be considered as the value of the fraction ~ every lime, when it is collycrgent M(pp.
m-I
327_328)'·8, and that convergence takes place. only when m>1 . "In illl other cascs[ of continuous
division of m by mol} the remainders should nol be neglected, since by their constant increase
they prove, [hat the quotients move off more and more form the true value"(p.328).
Sheets 9·25 (Marx's 8-24). "VII. Expcmential magnitudes and logarithms." This section oUhe
note book. begins with notes from the chaplet on the same theme of Lacroix's rook.Taking notes
from §§238.250 (pp. 331-346), Marx numbered them (including also a large comment on pp. 337·
344) by the numerals 1-13. It is devoted to the arithmetic Complement of logarithm. § 248 (pp.
342-345; § 12. shcets 13-14 in Marx's manuscript) - Marx's conspectus of this topic is
inoomplele. The oonspectus comes to an end with the [ollowing extracl(sheel 14) from Lacroix (p.
344):
Thus, by this operation we turn subtraclion into addition, using, instead of the number to
be subtracted, its arithmetic complement.
After this Marx wrote :-[[Furlher on Ihis, in {aUer §JJ~. In oonneclion with this commcnt, see
below·sheet 25, bottom M ; rV,lBB.
In § 13(sheels 14.16), dcyoted 10 thc mode of transition from one system of logarithms 10 any other,
Marx alternates the conspectus of the oorresponding paragraph (§ 250) of Lacroix with Ihat from
the book: J .Hind, "The Elements of Plane and Spherical Trigonometry", 3rd cd., C,ambridge,
1837, ch VII ," The Calculation of Loga rithms and the Construction of Mathematical Tables", H
162-177. Here Marx's notes do not strictly follow Hind's text. In these notes the discussion is
about the different systems of logarithms: decimal (w hich is called tbe "common system oC
logarithms or t~at or Briggs"), and natural, which was identified - as was stilllhe case, usually
in most of the manuals of 19th century-with that of Napie r. § 14 (sheets 16-19) under the title
·calculation based on rhe No.pierio.n system ., begins with the following comment of Marx.:
a) The starting point is tbe exponential equation y - ax , and the problem is, first of all , to
express aX in terms l i.e., positive and integral powers] of a (the base) and x, i.e., the base a nd
its exponent, which is the logarithm of y. [n order to ca rry out this trick - OIl tlte basis of
ordinary algebra - it is necessa ry first of all, to turn the monom ial a~ into a binomial; and
since every magllitude = itself + 1,-1, so nothing prevents [us] from writing instead of the
monomial aI, tbe binomial (a +-1-1yor,what is the same, (1 + (a - 1) j"", whe re 1 is the first
term of the binomial and (a - 1) is the second. Thus we obtain for a~, a series ill ascendi"g
 11fE NOTE BOOK 'ALGEllI~A 11" 187

positive integral powers afx, by applying the binomia l theorem. The problem is so lved by
the me thod of indetermina te coefficien ts and their determination with the help of two differe nt
express ions for the expans ion in series o f one .1nd the same func tion; the lalte r itself is based,
here, upon the fact that f(x) -fez) - f(x + Z)I ~9.
After this Mar.'( lakes det~ilcd noles from Ihe ~ame chapter of Hind's book, now from the very
beginning, Le., §§ 160-165, pp. 154-158. This enlire poinl 14 of the manuscript hlls been
sub-divided into three points: a), b), c).
,
In point a), after Ihe cxtracllldduced here, the re is a deduction of Ihe "expon.::ntial theorem", which
is usual for the majority of courses on analysis and ftlgebra, of Ihe first half of 191h century:
A2 .~ Alx1 A'x'
«"_I +AX+-- + - + ... + 3 + ...
I·2 I·23
. 1·2· '''p

(where A_(a_l)_i(U_1)2+-j(a_l)1_ H. )through the me thod o( indetermina te

coefficienTs (sce, editor'S no te 1~~.
Point b) (shect 18) carries thc hea ding (given by MRrx) : "b) To dedl/ ce from the eqllation
y _ a< on expressi:m for x (for t'rl: logarithm) in terms of a and yW.
This expression is obtained in the form of a quotient of two logarit hmiC serieses :

(y_1)_~(y_1)1+~(y_ 1 )1_
I.
A''" (0_ 1) _ _1 (u_l)1+ _(0_1)1_
1
2 3
After this it is said Ihat :

Th is express ion for x has no practical value for arithmetica l calcula tion of x, save (lie
case, wllell both the serieses - in HIe numerator a nd in the denominator - are cOllvergent.

Point c) (sheets 18-19) carries the heading : "c) Calculation of rht! nllmerical value of rht!
host! af tire Napil!rian system of logaritlrms w • Thi s point contains the definition of the base e of
the natural logllrilhms, 8S such a v~lue of a, wherein A '" 1 ; and, fur ther, it contains ~
calculation of e with the help of the sum of len terms of the series for e, thus obtained from the
"exponenti Dltheorem ". MDrx mentioned this calculation in full,with a mistake in the 6th deci mal
place: I! '" 2 · 71828276. Presence of the same mistake in the book by Hi nd,quoted above, fina ll y
solves the question - which remained open for ~ long time -oflhc unkno wn source of the ~heets
14-19 of manuscript 3933.
The issues in § t 5 lire (sheet 19) : nega tive logarithms, logarithms of zero IInd of negatilje numbe rs.
The beginning of Ihis paragraph is the conspectus from § 2S I of l.iIcroix 's "Elements of Algebra"
(p. 346). In this I'afagrnph Lacfoix explains (it is now commonplace) the meani ng of the words
~ I ogarithm of zero is equa l to nega tive infini ty", which· we see in many tables ". Having written
down this explanation. M"rx writes further :

Usua ll y il is a rgued like this :

1 1
O-- ",, --a- "' .
00 a"
188 DESCRIP'llON OF 111E MA11iEMA'I1CAL MANUSCRIPTS

After this Manc oontinucs :

The equation
-y .. ax or y--a"
can not be satisCied either by a positive or by a negative value of x; that is why logarithms
o/negative magnitudes can notcxiSI in a system, which has a real magnitude as its base; they
are, owing to this, imaginary.

The source of both these pl~ce.<; (they lIrc nol there in Lacroix), is the slime lext book on
trigonometry by llind, mentioned above; now it is chapler IV, " The Nature and Properties of
Logarithms·, its very beginning: §§ 89·90, pp. 67·68 . however, ItlC beginning of chapter XI (pp.
239-240) of another book by the same author:Thc Elements of A1b>ebra-, 41h cd. Cambridge, 1839,
is also contcntwise very close 10 Ihese paragraphs.
After this,on sheets 19-20 (Mane's 18-19), the notes from chapter VII COllie to an end . This is
the chapter on ~Exponential Magnitudcs and Logarithms "in Lacroix's book .
Sheets 20-25 (Marx's 19.24). These are notes rrom the next, the last, chapter of Lacroix's book
(§§ 256-262,pp.349·358), under the heading :"16) The theory of geomelricprogressions ond that
of logarithms applied to the problems of interest on money· , devoted to these applications.
The conspectus collles to an end wi th the following comments DO (sheet 25) :

If 11 becomes infinite, the n a _ Ar and A _ ~ j thcn a becomes a perpelllity ; A is the

present value of this perpetuity. If we represent the gene ral expression rorA in the following
form:

A -7 {1- (1 ~ ry.} - ~ - r (1 a+ ry' ,

then we sha ll get the difference between E., the present value of a perpetuity a and the
r
[present] value of an annuity, payable yearly [for n < IX> years, in instalments - a].
Leases are often concluded for a term of 99 years; if we put this number and assume
that increase - 5%, Le., r - 2~' then A - 200 (1- 1 ~5) is obta ined as the present value of

a lease for 99 years; its price difrers from Ihe present va lue of a perpetuity only by 1~5 [ in
yearly insta lments] of the same amount l!il.

Sheet 25(Marx's 24) , bottom.· 17) Addition to §12, p. 12 and 13 on arithmetic complement ".
However, this add ition, contemplated earlier by M ~rx(see, 1'.186), remains unwritten even here.
All the same, apparen tl y, Marx did not renounce his intention to teturn to this question, since
part of the page unde r Ihis heading and the who te of next page oC the note book remai ns blank:
in the photocopies there is no page m~rked 2S by Marx.
Sheets 26-28 (Mllfx's 26-67, 48). For the whole or this part of the manuscript (excluding sheet
68) Marx's nUmerations, and archival numerations coincide. That is why, hence rorth, upto sheet
67, only the a rchival numeration will be mentioned. Section VIII contains materials related to
combinatorics and Newton's binomiat thcorem. On the top of sheet 26 we read :
·VUI . (Continuation of the theory of equations see nDle book I, A 1gebrar.
 'niH N01]: OOOK •J\LGBBRA Il" 189

Sheets 26·27. "A) Var;at;on". Under · Varintion" here he considered : the chllnge of some
magnitudes proportional 10 others, their product, quotient, squllrc root of thciT products c tc. Thc
symbol er is introduced for thc designating the fact Ihal y changc.~ in proportion to :£, IInd it is
suggested that the expression y Ot x bc TIllld as:" y varics as x· .
Properties of varilltion , like:
ifycr .1' and xot l, lhell yOt l;
ifycr .f and xOt l,tlienxOt.fii;
and others, are proved. Examples from geomclry, commercialllrithllle tic(illterest.~ on capital)
etc., are ciled. One of the most prob~ble SOurcc.~ lofthis part of the manuscript) appea rs 10 be the
book : H.Goodwin, "An Elementary Course of Mllthemlllics\ Call1oridge, 4th cd., 1853 ISl .
The beginning of the section on · vari~tion " in reality reads as follows :
A) Variation. If a magnitude y depends upon another x, such that, whcn x changes its
va luc, n correspond ing ly proporl iona l change o r val ue tnkcs placc in y, thcn il is s<l id, that y
varies as x, and fo r th is the symbol oc is IIscd, Le., yoc x.
For insulnce, in Euclid VI, 1: "Triangles alld parallelograms oJ the same height
correspond to each other, (IS do their bases." Ir we double lhe base of a triangle o r of a
pa rallelogram, whose height remains the same, the n we sha ll do uble their area,and thci r a rea
changes in the ratio in which we change t he base. ThaI is why, fhe area varies as the base,
Jor a given height.
In goodwin (§93, p.S9) we read:
· Variation, § 93. If a magnitude y depends upon another .1', such that, when x change lils] v~lue.
the v~lue of y changes in the same proportion, then it is ssid, thnt y var;es di,.cctly nsx or in brief,
varies as x .
ror example, we know from Euclid VI,I tho1t if wc doublc thc base of 3 triangte, kecping the heighl
same,then we shall double the aTCa, IInd thaI, in whatever proportion we change the bnse,lhe ;ltea
Changes in the same proportion, hence, we must say, that (for 11 given height) the nrca of it
lriangle ~'aril:ls as its ba~·e. The phrllse"y varies as x" is wriHen as : y Ot x" .
The theorems in Goodwin's course arc also contenlwise dose to this. Howcver, there is 11
discrepancy between the lext of the manuscript and that of Goodwin's book.l11~t is why, onc
may think, that cithcr Goodwin's book was, in facl, not the source book for M~ rx, or, that along
with it, Marx had yel olher books at his di~posaL According to the searches conducted ill the
libraries of England, the most probable other source in this contexI may be : Th. G. Hall, "The
Elements of Algebra", 3rd ed., Cambridge, 1850, §§ 125-127, pp. 149·152, chilptcr IX, "Hatio,
Proportion, Variation and Inequalities·.
Sheets (27-38). "6) Pernrutot;o/!S, Combinations and Variations" .
It is a conspectus of materials on combinRtorics, at least from two sources, thc ide ntity of
which could not bc established wilb full ccrlainty. Judging uy the tcrminology used by Mane,
the conspectus is in Ihe ma in based on an English sourcc. The coincidence in the sequence of
e xposi tion, modes of proofs, terminology and nolations, provides grciltcr ground to IIssume, that
tbis source was the same book by lIall, chapter XIII , · Permutations and Combinations·, pp.
209-214. However, within these notes Marx mllkes" big inscrtion (on sheets 31·38) from some
o ther, apparently Gcrman, source; Cor our surmises on which, see below (pp.191-192 ).
This note begins with the empiric.11 CJ(amination of perm uta lions from two, three, (our and five
letters. Then follows (point 2) the definition of the concept ofvarialion oC 11 elements taken r al
190 DESCRII'11QN OF THE MATlIEMA'IlCA!. MANUSCRIPTS

a lime; and in point 3) the ir numbe r is calculillcd inductively, for which the symbol IIV r is
introd uced (in Hall it is ~Vr)' TIlen the number of pcrmlll.1tions from If elements is obtained lIS
IfV n. Then (in point 4). permutations with rcpcliliollS arc considered. I! has been s howfI that
the number of such permutations from If elements, among which wc rind a magnitudes o f · one
type", fi of another, Y- of a third, is

a " ' 2·1 x ~ ···2·1)( y···2· 1

(in Marx's writings, the "factorial" sign is not there; however, it is not there even in the lext
book:: by Pous, published in 1880).
In pointS) the combinations from If clemenlS ta ken r at a lime, 3TC considered, for Ihe number of
which the sign" C r is introduced, and it is shown tha t
'V, -nC(n - r).
nC,--
'V,
In the next insertion, containi ng new points 1)-5). at fi rst the concepts of element, [orl/l or complex
and , doss o[[ornlS have been introduced. Here in the manuscript we read (shect3!);
Things, which are in a defi nite order and arc to be united into a group in this or that way,
are ca lled elements, s in ce onl y the order in which they appear, is of importance. 1lnd not
their magnitude or peculiarity. Each o f such union o[ so me elements, is called a form
or complex. A class of forms is determined by the !lumber of its elements, thus, for example,
[the fo rm] 23 14 5 is o r a class higher th an 2 3 5 4.
S ince the properties of the elements are un important, so any element is designated by a numeral
or a lelle r of the alphabet,and the problem is raised in this way ;
The ai m o [ the investigations into permutations, combinations and variations is to :
a) es tablish strict rules for the generatioll of forms;
b) determine the /lum ber 0/ these forms, without lis tin g their tot.'1 lity.
To solve the first of these problems. the forms ArC put in lexicographic order (i.e .• in the
a lphabetic orde r. he rei n the numera ls 0,1,2 .... , 9 constitute the alphabet), if the diffe rences of
thei r classes are not conside red, and in arithmetic [orderl - in the contrary case. (By
"arithmetic · is meanlthe arrangement of forms in the ascending order of their classes, i.e., pr the
number of elements in a fo rm; here in, the forms cntering into every class. arc arranged wj thin
it lexicographically.)
Point 2) is devoted to the solution of both the tasks men tioned above, [or o rdinary permutations
and for permutations with repetitions. I lere the symbols like P (1,2.3) and P(a,b,c,c) arc used an d
a certain extension of the concept of permutation is spoken of. rega rding which Marx w rites:
Th e concept of permutatioll has been widened - however, it coincides w ith the well
knOWll case of mriatioll - when from given eleme nts, by all possible mea ns, some
determinate set or them is to be chosen and the la tter is to be placed in all possible orders, fo r
exa mple, [or obta ining/ram 11 elemellts, all poss ible arrangements, laking two a t a time.

In point 3) combin3lions are considered. SymbolS like the following arc used:
, , ,
C (1.2.3.4.5) . C(1.2.3.4,S) 3 • C (1.2.2.3,3,3,4,).
among which the first designates combinations from five elements, taken three a l a lime. the
second - combinations from the same five elements, takcn th ree at a lime, wi th all possible
 'nIB NOTLlOOOK 'ALGEBR A 11'
'"
repetiti ons ( for example, 111,122,124 and others). the third - combinations from four elements
1,2,3,4 taken 4 at a time, besides the numeral 2 is permiHcd to 1>c repeated not more than twice,
and the numeral 3 - not more than rh rice. "nle conspcc;Il.!S contains : examples of m~king
full lists of all possible combir.~tions of this or that tYI)e; the tormula for the number of
combinations from x elements, taken", ~t 11 time; the formula for the number of combinations with
repetitions, from If elements, taken", at a lime, under the condition that every clement may be
repeated any number of times, not greater than", ; find notes on this, thill the number of such
combinMions with re petitions is equal 10 C.,,:,, _, ( in our notation ).
In point 4) variations have been examined, again, with repetitions or without. The symbolS
used liTe analogous to those used for the combinations. We find notations like:
, ,
V(I,2 . 3.4,) , V(I,2,3)4.

All form s corresponding to the first nolation are listed. It is proved that, the number of all
possible variations wilh repetitions from n elements, taken m at a time, i~ eqUAl to /I "'. To put
in modern language, the question of formation of the direct product of some (finite) set of
elements, has been specialiy considered and the direct product of the sets ( ~serieses~) : ( 1,2.3,),
(1,2), (1,2,3.4,) have been fully listed. It has been proved .that the number of elements of
the direct product is equa l to the product of the number oC elements · of the factors~. 11 has been
nO:r!d, in particulu, thnt if ~Il the, m "f~ ctors" have the same number of (n) elemen ts. then the
number of e lements of their direct product, i.e.,""', coincides with Ihe number of variations with
repetitions from n etements taken m at a time, obtained earlier.
The (lasl) point 5) ;s devoted to the various modes of forming a given sum by chOOSing some (of
the given) "addenda", which, herein, mayor may not be repealed, and by composing lists of the
corresponding combinations and variations "of the addenda ". An algorithm has been adduced,
answering the question of solvability or unsolvability of the problem and permitting easy 1i~ling
of all its possible solutions in a definite order. Here the following symbolic notations 3re found:
, 3 l l l l
9C (1,2,3,4,5), 9C (1,2,3,4,5), 9V (1.2 ,3,4,5) ,9V (1,2,3,4,5)

Here 9 is the given sum of r, 2. 3. 4, 5 - the permissible addenda. whose number must not be
greater than three and which (in cases, when 3 stands above the right h~nd side bmcket) may
not be repeated more than three limes.
In Ihis insertion, there are no English words; contentwise it is close to the ideas wide-spread
wilhin Ihe German school of combinlllorial analysis (1Iindcnburg. Eschenbach, Rothe. Kramp'and
others) of the first half of 19th century. And this provides the b8si~ to assume, that the source of
this insertion is, to all appeHence, German. However, Marx could have al his disposal only such
German sources, as were availllble in England. lbe corresponding search in Ihe British
Museum and in Ihe other libraries of England has not yet yielded a conclusive result.l·lowever.
closest resemblance 10 the text of the insertion contained in manuscript 3933, is observed in tne
following books:
1. B . Thiba uI, "Grundriss der allgemeinen Arithmetik order Analysis zum Gebrauch bei
akademischen Vorlesungen "rOutlines of general arithmetic or analYSis [or use in aClldemic
lectures"), GOttingen, 1809. Chapter 2 of this book : "Firs t principl es of the studies on
combinations H
conlains 8 discussion on demenlS, forms, classes of form$, their lexicographic
-

and a rithmetic o rder and contains the notations

192 DESCRIPTION OF lllE MA11IEMA'IlCAL MANUSCRIPTS

• 3
C (1,1,1.2,2,2,3), C (1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5),35 well as algo rithms', similar to
those mentioned in the manuscript, for obtaining all possible combinations of Ihis or that type,
and calculation of their 11lImber(withoUI a preliminary compilation of these very combinations).
2. Fr.W.Spehr, HVollsllindiger Lehrbegriff der feinen Kombinationslchre. mil Anwendungen
dcrselbcn aur Analysis und Wahrs cheinlichkeilsrcchnung" (" A complete academic conception
of the pure studies on combinations, with their application in analysis and calculus of
prob<lbilifics"). Braunschweig. 1824, 2nd cd. , 1840.
This book is written on the basis of the ideas of Thibaut.The aut hor specia lly stipulates, the
merits of Thibaut's notations and, in essencc, considers those very concepts (and in the .same
order), whi.:h were mentioned in connection with ThibaUl'S book
However, in spite of this quite signiucant similarity of the material and notations, bOlh the books
differ from Marx's lext, as regards the style of exposition, as well as in respect of Ihe exarnples:lbat
is why, the question of the source of the laner (i.e., of Marx 's text] may slill be considered
unsolved.
Having finished this insertion, Marx summed up the noted material on combinatorics, commenting
first of all (sheeI37),that :

In order not to confuse these 3:Permutatiolts, Combinations and Variations , Permutations

shou ld be restricted to Variations of all elements from a given complex of them; and it would
be the best thing to consider Variation along with Permutation and after that Combination 153.
After th is, Marx once more brie(1y listed all those results mentioned earlier, which are
connected with the number of permutations, variations and combinalions(with repetitions or
without), After mentioning the formula for the number oE permutations with repetitions: a
times the elements of one type, b times that of the other and c times - of a th ird, of the form:

n(n -1) .. ·3·2·1

Marx makes the following insertion:

[[In the exposition on pp. 31(end) and 32 the concept of permutation "is extended"
to prepare the "proof" for determinate instances of variation. This is nonsense 154.] 1
Sheets 38-68, "C) The binomial theorem". These notes were take n from a number of sources, onc
of them (apparcotly the same one, to which belongs the insertion on combina torics, pp. 31-38)
could not be established.This pari of the note book consists of three sections; Marx indicated
them by the Roman numerals I), 11) and Ill) .
Section I) (sheets 38-41) carries no heading . It contains notes taken from: MacLaurin's H Treatise
oC Algebra", §§ 42-47, pp. 38-42. In this case Manc clearly mentions t~at he is using its 6th
edition(London,1796). This edition fully corresponds to the first edition of the boo k at o ur
disposal _The conspectus begi ns with the following words of Marx:

1)1) The empirical origin of this theorem is explicitly observable in MacLaurin's AJgebra;
in fact, the 'Iatter 15 the first commentary(reinforced by proofs) on Newton's
"Arithmetica Universalis", where in application to the most difficult things, results bpve been
brought forth without explanations, often in an inaccessible form, not developed and, without
proof.
 '111£ NOTE BOOK "i\LGEOR/\ 11" ]93

This en]ire seeti"n of Ihis conspeclus is 001 an extrllel from M:lcI. ..1urin, bul M:ux's own
exposilion of Ihe noled mllleria l, wherein MM:>: speci~lIy notes thc circumslancc : Ih,ll M ~cL.iltII'in
d raws general conclusions, nOI o n the basis of proofs,but mercfy wi th the help of indu('.]ivc
gen e ralis~ l ion of observations, rela ted 10 the exp,1llSlon

(a + b)6 . a6 + 6a'b+ 15a~b2 + 2Oo l ,,) + I St'?b· + 6(1b' + b6 .

Marx stresses lhat Ihe eharncter of these observations is heuristic ~nd commeolS (on Ihe
mClhod of searching Ihe coefficien t of Ihe subsequcllt lerm according 10 the coel"ficicnt of Ihl!
previous term) (sheet 39):
In the second tcrm the coefficie nt = 6. T his sim ple comp;trison of the second te rm with
the fi rs t would onl y show, th at the coe ffi cient of the second term= the power uJ tile first,
since we ha ve a 6, it is 6(a Sb) Jor the secOlld term. But if wc compa re Ihe Ihird term with
thc second, then the second ten'n = 6«(l ~b) ; Ihe third term = 15 (a 4/)2) .
Adduci ng fu rther, as regards the oOservations, the rule of MneLllurin. suggcsting - with the
aim of finding out the coefficient of any lerm according 10 the coefficicnt of the previous
one - Ihat wc · d ividc the coefficient of the previous lerm by the index of powcr of the given ternl
and multiply the quot ient obtaincd by the index of power of a in the Slime term, incrc;,sed by onc",
Marx comments, Ih~ t il would hHve been simplcr to multiply the. quoticnt obt~incd, by the index of
power of Q in the previous term. (The words dted within ljuot3tion mil rks h,lVe hee n borrowed by
us from MaeUtu rin's "Algebra .. p.40, where too, they Ilave been pu! within quotes. Appare ntly
this gives M~rx theoccassion 10 thi nk that they do not belong to M~ cl..au rj n , bUllo Newto n himself,
in so far as here. AS elsewhere, whenever Macl ...1urin·s te xt is found within ljUOlalion marks. M:tnt
in his conspectus menlious Newton. ln such cases he writes : "according In Newton", "in
New/o n", "i.e., New/on".)
Concerning Ihe next varagraph. where M.. eLa urin obtains the genera l hinomia l theorem of
New ton, by the simple extent ion (lf a rule, vcrified for the exp~nsion (lf the sixth ]lower of the
hinomial , to the instance of an arbitrary index of power In, Mne:>: wTites:
Now th is empirical findi ng is gencm li scd.
M 1H Xmakes an analogons comment in eonneclion with this, [hnt the nu:nber of te rOls of the
eXpllnsion (a + b)" herein turns out 10 be m + I. He wriles:
Th is lalte r is also, in fact, obtai ned only by ge neralising the example (a + b)~ .
Lower down, Marx once mo re s t rc~ses this when he "sums lip" as under(shL"Ct 40):
2) We sa w above, that in MacLa urin (i.e., in Newton) the expansion of the binomia l
- in connection w ith the investiga tion into the l:ocfficienlS - into the 2nd,3rd,n-th power,
gives 2+1, 3+1, generall y 11 + 1 tcrms; this si mple genera lisa tion gives:
(x+ a)2-x2 + 2tlx+ a2 , (x +ap _ xJ + 3ax2 + 3a2x + a3 ;
(x + a )2 gives 3 te rms, (x + ap gives 4, and that is why (x + a)~ gives n + J terms.
Sta ting the generat formulal ion of the Newtonian binomial theorem accord ing to Mlle Laurin, MHrx
observes tha t in it the gencral lerm is not written :
.... as give n in MacLaurin , with out the general term .
Goi ng over to the generalised rule fo r the expHns;on in power of polynomials Marx writes:
Newton a t once applied the binomial theorem [[which was s tillcm ly a ge ne ra Ji sc~ e mpirical
n
expression,obta ined, whcn instead o( 6, for insta nce, In is put to the polYllomials,
25
194 DESCRIIYJlON O l~ Ti lE MATIIEMA"n CAL MANUSCRII'1S

In connection with the e xplanation of this rule i l l the light of the exam ple of <:)(1"' 0510 0 in square
Q + b + c, as the binomia l (Iu + b I + c), Marx observes:
o f the three terms
Il co uld also have bee rl e xpanded as (a + [b + c])2.
Aflcr this there ;s an insertion by Marx (sheet 40). lIs source is no morc lhe ~Trc3 t iscof Algebra"of
Maclaurin. Here Mane writes:
This, in genera l, is the first elementary exposition acco rdi ng la New ton. To it, in essence,
when it aga;" appears in th e elementary form under the rubric of invol ution · or rise in power,
nothing has been added;[it has} s ince then been only so mewhat generalised; suppose, fo r
instance, the expa nsion fo r (x + y)6 is 10 be ob tai ned, then :
x6 . .. x 5 ••• X4... x 3 . . . x 2 •.• Xl... Xl ( powers of x),
y' . .. y l ... y' .. . y' . . . 1' .. . y' .. . y' (powerso!y ),
1. . . 6 . .. 15... 20... 15. .. 6 .. . 1 ( coefficiellts),

(0 general the ,H h powe r of (a ± b) or (a ± b'r =

_ a" ± -n a,,-I b + _.
" __
,,- 1 a~2 b2 ± !!.."-t . n-2 a ,,_31J3 + ..... ± b".
1 1 2 1 2 3
If the terms of a binomial have coefficiell ts li ke, for e xa mple, (20 + 3b)4, the n here
tbey may be raised to tha t powe r, in which the term contain ing the given coefficient is ra ised .

He nce,
100 4 . • • 80 3 .•• 4a2 .. . 2a 1 .•. (20)0
(3b)'. .. 3b' ... 9b' ... 27b' ... 8 1b'
1 . . . 4 . . . 6 . . . 4 . .. 1
160 4 + 96a 3b + 2160 202 + 216001 + 8 1b" .
Here il is dear Ihllt havi ng take n notes from the old" Treatise~o f MllcLau rin, Marx had 10
tu rn to a source closer to his lime, in order to draw the concl usion that , since the ll li tt le has
c hanged in Iile e lementHYexposition of the question. Appare ntly, th is so urce was the book :
Hal l, "The Elements of Algeb rlln London, 1840, where at the end of the section 0 11 invol ution
there is both the algo rithm fo r rais ing the binom iltl in power. menti oned by Mar x. a nd its application
:0 the example (20 . 3b)4.
Marx gave section 11 . (sheets 4 1.5 1) the ti tle: ~/J. The binom ial theorem fo r positive an d
integral ifl dices 0/ J'Ow.:r" .This conspectus is from the second of those two (apparently Ge rma n)
sources, to which the conspectus on combinatorics belongs. The grea ter part o f this !;eaion
i.\ devoted to the pro%f the binomilll theore m, in wh ich, a) the conoepls : of "form", "classes
o f fo rm ". ·order of forms· . combina tions and variations "with a defini te sum~ ,and b) the no tations:
• •
V ( 1 .2)~. C( l , 2)".

-Here .is a slip of pen in the manuscript: instead of "i nvolution", th ere is "evo l utjon~. In MacLaurin, th e rise
in power is called ~i n vo lu t i on · ,and the o pposite operation - extraction of roots - "evolution". - Ed.
 'nlE NOTE BOOK · ALG.GnRA JJ " '95

h~ve been used; we have already mel willi lhese ~nd others in Ihe nOlc:; o n combinatorics (see
'2 •
pp.190-192 ). The new nOl8lions : C , C, ... , C have also been inlroduccd, for Ihe sum of al l
possible produCls, corresponding 10 llll pOl>sibie combina fions from" clemenls,Caken resl>cclively
o nc, lwo " ' n HI a lime . lIere, lhe elements ue numbers or IIlph~bctical eXPfcs~i\lns 'If
ordinuy ~Igebra; here thc'comhinalions of c le ments hllve 1I1so been oonsidercd:ls prodl1et~. The
proof begins wi th a considernli,)n of producls of two, three elc. f~ctors, rcprescnled ;IS Ihc sum
of an IITbitTll fy number of addenda. ' In every r~etor) these addend;] nre designated by Ihe numeT!JIs
1,2,3, ...... With the help of the fo rm:l tion of 'varialiorl::1 forms' - (lirect products of those
sets of numerals, by which the addenda :Ire numbered in Ihe fa clors - Ihe terms of the producl
are put in a definite order. An c..umple of sueh ordering and of the corresponding 1:lble of
all"variational fo rms", "re:llisi ng" Ihe lerms of Ihe product : (a + bx + ('.x2) (d + x) (fr _ ,~{2 + '1.1?),
have been adduced by MIIT)( in full. u.tter Oil Ihe products of some more special types arc
considered. At first, il is cxplalned (with Ihe hel p of Ihe conslTllctio n or "v~ riationnl [orms" fwm
the numeral~ 1,2 and, their "re~li~mtions"), Ibat every product of the Iypc
(.1" + a) (x + b) (.l +c) ... (x + k)(.l + f)
is equal to (i f n is the num ber offaetors)
I z ~~ll ~_l~
X'+U- 1 + U-2 + ... + er + ... + Cx + C.
Then, the assumplion that all Ihe second3ry terms in the facto rs ue mUluHlIy e(lual, gives Ihe
binomial Iheo rem.
The usual mode of oonslfucting the tables of binomial CQefficien ts is la ter on ohlfli ncd
wi lh the help of multiplication of bolh the sidt:~ of the equal ity
( l + xr- I+A1"+82 + CY' + ··· +M.Y' , by (1 ... .1').
,
In 11 Ja lter part of the notes, where we find new notations nB (,. .. 0,1,' .. ,11) for Ihe Ilumber of
eombinali Olls of n items taken rat a time ' , i.e., for the binomial coefficients, Marx writc~ (l>h(:cI
48i
C) In fu rthe r "comme rcia l" e iaboratiolll hepolVers oJboth the terms of the billomial, like
~ .. d' " . ,,,. . . 11 (11 - 1) b" I
a" • V ' lig ure as 19n1larles, lInd then CDeJJlClents, Iikc
11
2 J
c tC.:t S rno/tlla
coefficiellls.
In this con nection Marx ma kc.<; Ihe fo llowing comment:
{{Wc no te he re, (hat th e f lll/Cliol/s wilh x n, a long with the derived JUllctions o r differetJIial
coeJficienls ded uced fro m them, in the difrerential calc ul us, include within themselves onl y
a part of these billomial coefficien ts, fo r example
d (,<)
_ _ _ 11.1",,-1 •
dx '
here th e di ffe rentia l coeffici ent o r th e fi rs t derivat ive incl udes w it hin ilsclf the ent ire binomial
coeff icient 1', since the la Iter - n,i. c., the nume rica l va lue o f the frac tional coefficient - +;
where the j,ltle r appears indepe ndentl y, as al(cady in f t>, Le., in the 2nd differen tia l
·such notations, :lnd the entire s lack of formulae connected with chem, contai ned in thi:o. sC<..1io n of Ihe
manuscripl, are the re in Ihc book: B.Thibaut, - Grundriss der IIl1gcmeinen Arithmetic ....... ·, Gallingen, 1809,pp.
44 and afte rwards. - Ed.
196 DESCRII)"nON 01' TIlE MATI IUMA'nCAL MANUSCRIPTS

coeffic ie nt, there o nly the coe fficient derived from the index of power of the functio n enters
into the de rivative, but nol the numerica l fractio nal coefficient accompanying it. T hus
d' (r') d (/I x·- 1;
or - - - 11 ( 1I - 1) x~-2 - j "(x")
dx1 dx
1
does no t incl ude withi n itself ; rather it • wou ld be 12 I", as initiall y wro te
12 1·
Lagra ngc; thus, not includ ing _L
1 ·2
in I" or ~dd'2
x
(!!...)
1·2
where the frac tiona l coe ffic ient
appears as the deno min ato r o f th e seco nd term (with ) h. as in Taylo r's theo rem.}]
This (laSI) pari of scclion 11) conlains the usual theorems about the propertics of binomial
r lI - r r r+ I T+ I .
expansions (thll l 11 B .. n n . Ihal n B + n H .. (n + 1) B ; Iha t the s um of the binomia l
coefficients for the binomial of power n is equal to 2"; that about raising the power of complex
numbers according to the binomial theorem, and others). Marx gave section lII(shcets 51.68)
the lille: ffGel1eral binomial/lI eorem". It consists of three parIs: A) H) and ad 0 ). " ar t A) (sheels
51·57) begins with the fo llowing words, relaled 10 its content .
T ha t whal was obtained fo r the binomials with integral alld positive indices, holds good
also fo r the binom ials witl: negative and fractional illdices [[a nd the imaginaries, fro m
which here we digressed jnitially n.
But in these cases the series becomes infi1lite.
The source of this part of this conspectus, could not be finally established. Apparentl y, here, agai n
some English text book on algebra has been used.
Extention of the bioomial theorem in Ihe CIISC of the fractiona l and negative indices of power, is
carried out with the help of the method of indeterminate coefricients, to which at first the po int 2)
of Marx's conspectus was devoted. lIere the proof of univocali ty of Ihe notion of a function in
Ihe form of a powered series coincides almost word for word ( right up to a complete identity in
no tations), with the one found in the book: Hall, "The Elemeuls of Algebra" , Londo n, 1850,ch.VI II
~T he binomial theorem", p.2 11.

Point 3(1) is devoted 10 the applica tion of this method whe n n _{ ( In Ilall's book this example is
found in p.223.)
Namely. it is assumed Ihat
v'f'+X' _ A -+ Bx ... ex l ... Dx) ... E:c4 ... •.

Raising both the sides oCthis equality 10 Iheir square, given, then after, the possibility of obtaining
a sys tem of equations, determining the coemciellts A ,B ,C " . . , it is consequently observed that
they coincide exactly with those which were obtained when the binomial theorem was extended to
1
the case of,. - 'Z' Having noted, tha t (sheet 52):

thus this method may be applied 10 the binomial w ith negative indices,
Ma rx we nl over in his conspectus (point 3b», to Ihe proof of the theorem in the general case of
fractio nal o r negative (i ntegral and fr~ctio n at) 11 • He rein at firs t it is assumed that
(1)

* 'Ibal is, the expre.~sion ,.(,.-1) .1'-2. -Ed.

I ·2
 11lE NOTE iJOOK "ALGEBRA 11' 197

where Ihc coefficicnts dcpcnd only on /I,but do not depenr.l on x ; then in lhis eql111lity x is subsli luted
by x + Y , which gives
11+(x+y)J " - A+8 (x+y)+C("ayf+D,uy») ~E'("+y)·+F ("l'+Y) ' H"'c. (2)
In Ihe ri gh l hand part the binomial (x + y) is found on ly in integml positive powers, for which
Ihe binomial Iheorem is already proved" Using this, the author of the mllnual from which M1IfX
tuok no tes, pcrm ils himself (though herein the coefficients tllke the form of infinitc sericses ) to
expand Ihe right hand side of the C<juality (2) acco rding to the powers of y "Then having representcd
Ihe le ft hand side in the form of 1(1 + x) ... y 1°, he obtains the possibilily of using the method of
indclerminatc coefficients , to show, that all the indetermi nate coefficients, A, D , C, D," "" life
expressed Ihrough the second coefficient ( through B ) exactly in the same wa y as il h1lppcns in
the binomial theorem fo r the integral and positive index n " Finally, with Ihe h.:lp of Ihe same
melhod of indete~minat e coefficients it is proved Ihat, just as fo r Ihe fractional, so 1IIso for the
neg11live inde x 11 , rhe cquHlily D - 11 holds good"
I'arl (A) comes 10 IIIl cnd wilh Ihe appliClltion of Ihe binomial theorem 10 the extractio n of roots

,
of num bers and, to Ihe modes of hastening the convergence of the serieses oblained Ihcrein" Thus,

with Ihis ai m V2 is represenled as -k ¥SO, i.e", as ~(l f"

1
+ 49 Since here all the ordinary
fra ctions arc Subslituted by decimal fractions, in his notes ~lIrx
ma kes an inserlion (placed within
a bo:<, in sheets 56-57), devoted 10 the theo ry of decimal fra ctions; conte nlwisc and
notation wise it is very close to §§ 38-43 (pp" 27-29) and, later on, 10 § 107 (pp" 72-73) of the book:
H " Goodwi n ,~ A n Elementary Course of Mathemali cs~ , Cambridge. 4th cd", 1853"
Rega rtl ing the queslion of the source ofseClion Il l, it is essential 10 note thal Ihis section, devoled
10 Newlon"s binomial theorem, happens to bea gene r~1 systematisa tion ofa I~Tgeamounl of mat erilt I
culled from different books" It is dear Ihat, MaTx did not acciden l ~ lIy 1) begin wilh a non-slrict
deduction of this Iheorem (from MacLaurin 's "Algebra "), reduced 10 a simple empi ri cal
generlllisalion oC the observations related to the cases when 11 " 2,3"""",6 (where 11 is the index
of po wer of the binomial ); 2) locate aner Ihat, a proof, in which it is obtained conver.;ely, as II
partic ular instancc of 11 more generallheo rem (aOO ul the producl of binomials of the Iypc (:1' + a),
1 :s i~ /I ) and which Ihus, convincingly teve~ ls the reason of ils validily ; 3) later on go over to
Ihe va rious modes of extendi ng the theorem 10 lhe instances of fractional and negative n,
encounlering the rein Ihe problematique connected wilh the infini te powered sericscs and Ihe
modes of ca lculating Iheir ~sum"; and 4) in spite of his disaffection 10 ari lhmetic -about which
Ma rx sa id Ihat he "never felt III home" with il - having met with questions of computational
mrtlhcmllli cs, he did not re~ent the la bour of searching for the materia ls, connected wilh Ihe
a lgorithms fo r operating wilh the deci mal fra ctions, and made a specia l inserlion in his noles,
regarding these algorithms"
Tt stands 10 reason, all by i!Self. Ihat Ihe qUeslions of convergence, and of has tening Ihe
convergence, of an infinite nume rieal series, are also to be met with in Marx-s conspectus, in
conncclion with the generalisalion of Ihe biOO{l"lia l theorem"
With the help o f this theorem approx ima te roolS of any kind may be ex tracted. But the
series mus t be so construc ted, th,lt i t coflverged, It means, that the ser ies, which the binom ial
theore m gives for the unknown root, converges, i.e", {the sum J of the first term + the 2nd,
3rd etc_success ive terms of the series co ns!.1ntly approximates to the root sought, and ca n be
broughl as close as you wish to this quantity, such that taken in abso lute magnitude the m istake
becomes sma ll er th an any given positive quan tity, when a su ffi cient number of terms of the
series are tRken into co nsidera tion"
198 DESCRIPTION OF TIlE MA'IllEMA"l1CAL MAN USCRIPT'S

lIowever Marx 'S conspectus contains nO crilcrion fo r convergence. This. in spite of the fact that
he examined a large numbe r of different lext books On ~lgcbrn. and ·complete" courses of
mathematics: English, German and French , which C(Juld be obtained in England in the 60·70$ of
the 11151 cen tury. I-Io wever. he did not find a text book, whe re questions of Ihis sarI were discussed.
Meanwhile, Marx used such manuals, 8S the highly specialised "Complcmc'l'" of Lacroix to his
course on algebra. I1 is Ihis manual Ihat Marx used for the next point of his man uscript.
Part B) (sheets 57-63) consists ef five IlOin!s. The rirs! among them is devoted \0 Eu!er's
generalisation of the binomial theorem for fractional and nega t; ~c indices of power_ Its source
is Lacroi x's book :"Complement des element~ d'algebre", 4th ed., I'ari~, 1817, § 79. pp . 159-163.
11 starts with the words (sheeI57) :
"1) Euler gave Ihe following general proof of the billomial th eorem".
As Is well known,lhis proof is based on this: Iha! if thc series
m(m -I) ~
I +mz + 2 ;:-+etc.
1·
i$ considered as a new function of m , then the equality
f(m)- f(1I) - f(m + 11)
will express its characteristic property. In Bulcr the proof of this property is restricted to the
following words : "Porma tion of the terms or th is product (ofthc series for f( m ) multiplied by the
series for f(n)Jmust remain the same, irrespective of what sort of numbers are represcnted by
1he leuers m II nd 11 : integrals or, as you wish ". On this Lacroix comments. that such a proof
did not satisfy ma ny mathematicians. In the 7th (posthumous) edition of 1863, after Ihis (pp
151 -1 S3) an in!.lucUve proof was adduced; it says that : the codficients of the prod uct of Ihe
5erieses for f(m) ftnd f( r.) are actually equal to the coefficients of the series for f(m + 11). In
the 41h cd., used by Marx, on p.I60, instead of this proof a short explanation of Buler's idea is
given. which reads in Marx's conspectus. as under.
Having designa ted through P the product of the serieses

1.2 ' z + ··· ,f(1I)- l+n::+ ~2

m{m-I ) 1
f(m) -l+mz+ \.2 l + ...•

Marx wri tes (sheet 57) :

This product =P. Expanded according to the powers of z, it may be rep resented by the
se ries
P - 1 +Az+Bz2 +Cz3 + ...
The coefficicntA, B, etc. , of nny term of this se ries depends upon the mode ofjoiniflg the terms
oJ both the factors, fro m the first to that, which contains that very power of z . s ince these are
the only terms, which participate in the formation of the terms of the product under
consideratio n.The mode ofjoifling these terms does not chaffge, independently o f this or that
vallle of m and fI; and that is why, if[thc terms of the product] are known in one case, where
111 and" are determinate mtmbers, lhen they are unknown in all tile other.
Having noted, that from tbis follows the necessary coinddence of the coefficienls of the series for
the product of f(m) Ilndf(1I), witb the coefficienls of the series for f(m + n), Marx completed the
exposition of Buler's proof according to Lacroix. Tben Marx made 11 summa ry of this entire
material, by enuncia ting it once more, in a s horter form (sheets 58-60). He has put this summary
withIn square bracke ts.
 THE NOTE BOOK "ALGEIJRA 11" 199

The fo llowing points 2) ilnd 3) (shect 60) of the conspectus lire devoted to the instances of irralionlll
and imaginary indices of power. The source of these points could not be eSlablished (these instances
have not been oonsidered in Lacroix). However,lhis source belongs enlirely althe level of 181h
cenlury mathematics. Thus the proof of (1 +:) "' .. f(m) when m is an imaginary number (and
m m(m-I) 2
wheref(m)iSlhebinomialseriesl+T: + 1.2 :r + ... ),;5 based in it upon the following

reasoning:
when m is integral and positive wc have
f(mr-[(m)· f(m)--f(m)j {(m ~m+ --· +III)J
V V
m times m limel>
i.e., j(m)"'_f(m 2 ) .

According 10 Ihe aUlhor, imaginary numbers are mere imaginary objects. Thllt is why the re is
nothing 10 prevent us from imagining that, such a rule holds good also for them . But then we
shall have (since for negative m the theorem is already proved)
j(V-f).r-f _ j(V-T 2) _ j( -I) _ (1 +zr' .. (1 +z) r-T. r-r ,
,
I.e /I,m'"
V-' } .. ( 1 +z )V-r ..r;:r .

By, equally formally, raising the power of both Ihe sides of the cqu~lily by ~, wc sh~11 get
.r;:r r-T . -r-r .r-f
f( r-rF' - ( I + z)----w:-;:-- .. (I + z)· •
0'
(1 + z).r.:r .. j(-.t=IT.
i.e., Ihe theorm is valid for m .. V-f. lIere Marx abtuptly stopped taking notes. Appa rently, he
did nol think thHt it WHS necessary to take down this kind of a "proof", further .
Ma rx gave his point 4Xsheets 60-62) tbe hellding :- 4) TranSformation of the binomial
series for fra ctional or negative indices of power&. It is devoted 10 the elucidation of the types of
coefficienls or an eXpllnsion and, 10 the calculations simplyfying thcir transformation.
In point 5) (sheet 63) e ntitled ;-5) t"ambert'sformula /orappraximation Lllm ocr\'s method, of M
,

cll1cu!~ting rOOIS of numbers with the help of succcssive approximation, is enunciated. An

analogous exposition is found in the courses of :Hind ,"The EJemenls of Algebra", 4th cd.,
1839,§259, pp. 230-231 and, lIall, ~lhe Elements of Algebra", 1840, §165, pp. 225-226.
However, it apI>Ca r.; that none o[ these courses served li S the source of Ma rx·s conspectus here :
Marx's no tlltions and calcUla tions are different.
The last paft o[section III under the title : -Ad. DJ Something elementary from Euler on binomial
theorem "(sheets 63-68) consists of two points. In point I) Marx look notes from §§3S8,3S9(pp.
11 7-119), chapter X I of Euler 's "Elements of Algebm" , devoted to the algorithm of ClIlculating
the coefficients of the expansion fo r {a + bt, when n is integral and positive. Here Mar=< also
reproduces the corresponding translator's foot-note (on pp. 118-119) from the 1822 English
edition of the book: - Elements of Algebra by Leonhard Euler, translated from the French with
two notes of M. Bernoulli. .. and the additions of M.de la Grange. 3rd edition, by the Rev. John
Hewlet!..:, 10 which is prefixed a memoit of the life and characte r of Euler, by Ihe late Frands
Homer, Esq ., M. P., London, 1822". Thai is why, ..... e may think that it was this edition which Mar=<
had at his disposHI.
200 DESCRIPTION OF THB MA'11U3MA'n CAL MANUSCRIPTS

The translator's fool-nateon pp. 118-119 is related to Euter's mode of representing lhe

coer"Clenl
e ' 0 f a 'b'~'m I e orm 0 r h' (n! ) . based on Ihc facllhal the term 0 'b" conta ins ,
p! Il-P !
11 letters, out of which n! permulalions may be made, such that, all pcrmulations related only 10
the leucrs a (1I1logclhcr there are p of these letters) or only to the letters b (of Ihem allogclher
there are 11 - P }.giveollc Hlld the same result. On lhisscore the Iranslalorcommc nls,lhat il is better
to use the [ormula for Ihe number of combinalions from 11 elements tak.en p III a time, Le.,
~"
n (n-l) ... ,(n-p-tl) i t hen he I" [ustrale d Ihc apl",callon '
0 f Ih,s rormu "a or ca 'eu
" aliOS Ihe
p ,
binomial cocfficienls [or" equal 10 7 and 4.
Having take n down Ihis comment and tben representing the expansion for (a + bt in the form:
2
b
a~ ? na" _I -, + It (n _ I ) a" - 2 - b + n(n _ l)(n _ 2) /I~ -] -b-
' + etc., Marx commented (s heet 66):
1~ 1' 2 '3
And so after this in Tay/or's theorem there appears as the derived functions o[ x If:
11..\.",-1, n(n-l)x,,- 2, n(II-1)(n-2)x"-3 •...•
112 Jrl '.
meanw h'lle "1
" ' i~' 1 . 2 . 3 etc. figure instead of the 2nd term h, i.e .• the denominators,

to be more precise, the fra c tions t 1

I'2
1'~' 3 etc. appear as the numerical coefficiellts of
[the powers of ] h.
Point 2) has the title: · 2} /rra/ional powers·. It contains notes take n from §§36 1·369 of
chapter XII (~Oll representing the irrational powers by infinite serieses~) and §§370,373, in part
1375 of cbapter XIII (~,On the expansion of negative powers") of the same book of Euler. Ma rx
sub·divided this poinl, in its turn, into points al, j3) and y).
In point a), Va+Jj is expanded accord ing 10 Newton's binomiallheorem (§364) in the form of

~ • .fii ?1.b.fii _1.lb2 .fii1 +l..!. .~bl ra3 _.!.J. .~.~ b',IQ + etc. (1)
2 a 24 a 246 a 2468 a·
In point 13) is considered the case, when a is the square oC a rational number c, Le., when in
the righ t hand side of the equality (1) "there is no sign of rool": all terms of the series are rational
(§365).Euler's example, wherein the first two terms of this series are used for approximate
calcul~tion of ,fO (by the method of successive approximation), was noted by Marx in all its
. 4801
details, right UplO the obtaining, for this TOOl, of the approxImate value 1%0' the square of

which is greater than the number 6 only by 384~600 (§366). This note also contains an
extension of this method for approximate calculation of the roots of any power n ,where n
is integral and positive, and a reference - marked by a half box C - to the general method
of approximate calculation of roots, published by Halley in the· Philosophical Transaclions~ of
1694. (This reference is found in the foot-note, with whieh Euler brought his chapter XII to an
cnd .)
13) (sheel68, Marx's p. 48) with the following comment :
Marx completed his poi nt
Stating all this in the MElements of Algebra", Euler does not specially take up the
• •
expansion of (a + b)7r without which he can manage, since (a+brfr _ \y(a+b)"', here he
 nlE f'JO'IE UOOK "ALGt;B/M 11" 2U1

expands (a + b)'" and {/(a + b) ; on the contrary, <IS wc saw, his lllcurclit:al JClhlction provides

a specia l proof ror th e case, when (a + b)'" or [(Ill) - [(~}

Poinl y) is relaled 10 ch~pl er XIII of Euler's oook, i.e., 10 Ihe hinomial Iheorem for thu negative
index of power. Here the coefficienls of the expansion for (0 + ")_J are computed (§373) and. a
comment is made to Ihe effect, that the mulliplication oflhe right hand side of Ihe cqUlllity
I l b b l bl b - l M b 6
- - - - -3 - +6--10-+15 - - 21-+28-. (2)
(o+b)l 0) n~ a5 a6 07 aR 09

by (0 + b)l actu<llly gives the resu!1 1 (as i\ s hould hc, if equality (2) is v~lid, since

- 1 - ) . (a+W- I) .
(0'" b)
With this, the section of manuscript 3933 devoled 10 the billomilll lheorcm comcs 10 its cnd. On
Ihe last shcel of this section, Marx wrote 48 instead of 68; appilrenll<lY it is a cllse of ~ li p of [)Cn.
That is why Ihc numeralion of the shcelS Iha! follow difrer from thilt of Mrtrx by + 20.
Sheet 69 ( Marx's sheel 49) begins wilh Ihe following sentences, (:on tentwisc rclalcd only 10 cue
of the 19ter pages (sheel 73) of the text:
(Pure] imagil/UI)' quantifies. 2 imagi1lary qualllrlie:..·, being mutua fly multiplied, give
a real qualllily; but {Ill jmagillalY, multiplied by a real one, always gives all imaginmy
quantify.
The entire remaining lext of manuscript 3933 (sheets 68 ·92) is ;1 note IIIken from Mncl.auril"&
"Treatise (If Algel,rll· . Mlirx gave it the title; "From M IJcl.lluri" '.~ 11 I[;<:hl"a·'.
The con~peclus begins with chapler XlV o f the aforementioncd hook (from the prc\'iolls chAJl I c:r~,
devoted to thc Il lgebuie opera tio ns with polynomiRls and In Ih.: ~Olulioll c.f clju3hon~ of ri(~1 find
second dc.''!.ree, Marx took nolCS only of the l,rorcmentk~ned §§4247, rcllllcd to Ihe binomi .. l
theorem) . Poi nl I) of Ihis note bears the litle ~ Of surds", i.e., lhc same ~s tha\ of III is entjre c hllpler
of M a..:L'urin .111c.~ notes hilVe been t... ken from §§92·1()<l {pp. 9·\· 104) lino § 117(p.JOQ) (in
Mux's not.:s - I)P.<l9-5 1. sheets 69-71 ) . Here tbe h.~uc... arc; the concepls of
commen:;umbil ity and ineommcnsurlIbility; Eucl id's ali,'O ritilm for <;(:arching rhe gfCdlcst common
measure; divisibility of num bers, Ihal the quadralic or clliJic WOl (lf il whole number C:,ll only
be a whole or irralionl1l number; commensurability in \xlwer alld comple.~ loInds; IInd rhe
existence or slIc h pHticular instilrlces, in which tilc I"ruduclS ()r complex surd~ are r~tiunlll.
M"cLaurin oosed the proof, that if lhe algorilhrn ror seeking the grelllest common mCllsure of two
magnitudcs a :tnd b (b < u}docs no l come to an end, then these rllagllil\!dcs IIrC incomme nsurable,
upon the well known proposition I of book X of Euclid's "ElcIIlClllS· . (11 is well known, HmI this
proposition - accord ing 10 which, if fro m a magnitude mo re Ih~n hall is subtracted, from the
remainder more Ihan its half elc., then upon continuing Ihis process, we may obtain as re ma inder Il
magnitude, smaller than any magnitude givclJ in IIdVl\nce - lies at the b<lse of the method of
exhaustion, Ihe anc ient fore·runner oC Ihe method of Iimils).
Namely, MllcLuurin shows 8t first, Ihat if 0 -Im, + c( wher.: 0 < c < b and, m is a whole numher).
then bm > c ,owi ng \0 which

e <.!./for, in other wo rds, Ibat the slIC'.cessi vc

2
remainders in Euclid's algo rilhm so diminish,that ellch of them turns OUl IO be smaller Ih~1l half

26
202 DESCRIPllON OF'I1IE MAlllEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

of [he pre-pr<:v;ous one. Hence Mnc Llturi n concludes. that [he remn~nls become slnltl!er than
any mllgnitude given in IIdvancc.
I n Ihis COnle,,;!, there is no reference 10 Euclid in M lIcL<lurin. M arx gi ves Ihis refe rence in his
rlalc!!. He writes (shecI 69) :
Subtracting Crom any magnitude, more than its half, from the rest more than its half etc.,
we s hal l arrive a t a remainder < any ass ignable magnitude (Euclid).

In conncclion with whal he read, Marx made [he commenl (which he placed wit hin a box).
wherein he stressed tha I, the inequality c <1 a follows from the fact, that c < b and m ~ L [n
2
adr.lition, Marx adduced a further argument, i n defence ofthis, th al if b is not the common measure

for a and b, Ihen the inequality c < 1. a is strict:

2
a
But had it been Ihe case that c .. %, thcna-mb",,%,a -%- mb hence • --
2 mbor
a - 2 mb . wh ich con tradicts what been assumed.

Marx did not take notes from §§ 110-116 •. related to formal tra nsformations of the expressions
containing radicals. Having taken notes from § 117 - in. which the problem raised is : to seek [or
a given com plex expression, contai ning radicals, an expression o f the same type, which being
multiplied by the giver., gives a product, not containing radicals - Marx writes in brllcKets:
Wconl;nt/QI,'o n Ill/ er" .I lowcver, this continuation is nOlto be [ound in the liner part of this note:
M~rx did not take notes frum the paragraphs oontaining the solution of the problem raised, [or
certain particular in~tan<X's .
111en follows the notes from the first five chapters of MacLaurin's -Algebra\ unde r the
titJe:"Tlleory 0/ eqllations according to MucLallrin ". The contents of these chapters and of the
correspondi ng sections o f Marx's conspectus arc as fo llows .
• The issues in chapter 1 arc :"obtaini ng" equations of higher degrees by multiplying some
equations of the first two degrees; solution of equations of highe r o rde rs as an inve rse prOblem
co n~i s lin g of representing them in the form of products of t he equations of thefirsttwodegreesj
and "the nnmber of roots, which an eqnation of any power may have" .
Chapler 11 is devoted to the question of connection of Ihe number of chllllges in the sigll~ of
coefficients of an equa tion with the number of its positive and negative(rea l) roots (Dcscartes'
rule 0/ signs) and of the other dependencies between its roo ts and coefficients .
Chftpter 11 1 is abou t the transformation of equations and the removal of their intermediate te rms.
In chapter IV the search for the multiple roots of an equation, and in chapter V the boundaries of
the roots of an equation, have been discussed.
In this note book the conspectus o f chapter V does not come to an end. It contin ues in a new
note book (see below mllnuscript 3934).
Marx took notes from chapter I (§§l - U ,pp. 131-138) in full (sheets 71·73, pp. 51-53 in Marx's
numera tion). MacLau rin begins il (§2) wilh the constru ction of an equation according to ils roots,
noting therein, that if all the roots are equal, then the problem is reduced to what has al ready been
 TI-IE NOTE 0001< ' ALGEm~A 11" 203

considered: to involution, i.e., to raising the binomial in power; the o pposi te task of seeking the
roots of an eq uation obtained, also tu rns out to bea ease of what has alrclldy been considered : of
evolution, Le., of extracting the root. However, if the roots of an cq\l~tion He equlIl, then we find
ourselves facing a new inverse tas k: solution of equations. In his nOles Marx puts it this way (sheet
71,Marx's p.51):
Or e lse, if the equalions multiplied are different, the equatio ns generatcd thcreby are no t
powers [or binomials]; that is w hy, their expansion into tile simple equation, fro m which they
arose, is an operat ion different from extractioll of roots and, it has its own name: resolutioll
of equatimtS (resolut ion exp resses the same thing as solution).
In this con nectio n Mar" notes below (sheet 72, Marx's p. 52) within squa re brackets:
[[Here it shou ld be no ted, that in applicat io n to equatiol1s wc c hoose a pat h, opposite
to that along which wc we nt, expandil1g the bil1omiallheol'em (a nd the theory of combina tio ns,
upon w hich it is based) ; in the la te r case we start w ith the binom ials with d iffcren t second
te rms, in order 10 go over[to those] , whose bo th terms are sa me; he re we cOlls ider at first
(s ub2) a g ive n equation , m ultiplying which, by itsel f, we get an equation o f higher order; and
after that we go over to the equations[co rresponding 10 binomialsl, which have the samc
unknown, but diffe rent second terms. Since the in itia l equatio ns are so w ritte n thal all the terms
nf them arc on o ne side, and on the o ther s ide - 0, so here also, whe n equa tio ns oC higher
powers emerge, the issue is, as befo re, only about the multip lica tion of the binomials 2 by
2 . 3 by 3 Clc.11
Dy - multiplication of the binomials· here he means: represen ta tio n of the product
(x - 4 t) (.t - a1 )'" (x - a.), whcre, at, u: • ... • a., 3rc the roots of the unknown equlltion, in the
form of ~ 1)Olynomia t, exp.1nded according to the powe r~ of the unknownx.
The conspectus of chapter 11 ( MacLauri n, part 11, ch. 11 , §§ 12- 21,pp. 139- 147;shcets 73·76,
Marx's pp. 53·56) contains three observations of Marlt, of which the second is of special inlere,~t,
since (rom it, it is clear, that Marx hlld some i nfor m ~tio n abou I Ihe works of Cauchy.
Unfortunlltely, the source of Ihis information (:Qu ld not l'Ot: established . [Thi s source could be :
Moiglzo F., Lc~ons de c.11cul difCcrenticl et de clllcul intcgr~l, rtdigtcs d 'a pres Ics mc thodes et les
Ol1vrages publics 011 inedits de Mr . L.A.Cauehy. 2 vo l. , Paris, 1840 et 1844 . (sec, rv, 66 and
no te ss ).-Tr. J
The first observation is related to §§J2-13,which Mac Laurin begins with the consideration of
the "product of any num ber of simple equations ~ , in ordet 10 Ihu5 proceed to the conctusion
thal : I ) the power of the equation th us obtained iscqualto the number of its rools, 2) the number
of te rms of the eqUAtion is greater tha n its power by one and, 3) the coeffi c ients of these terms are
symmetric [unctio ns of the roots of the multiplied ·si mple· equations (sums of the products .of
these rools taken o ne, two c lc. at time, with the signs + or - depending upon the evenness of the
number of the factors of the products added) - then 10 extentl it to Hny equation of highe r power,
withou t tlwclling upon the question of legi timacy of such e xtention.
In this conncdion Marx writes (sheets 73-74,) Marx's pp. 53-54):
 204 DESCRIP'1l0N OF TIlE MATI1EMAllCALMANUSCRII'T'S

[[These two rules, as well as the format io n of coefficien ts a nd lhe c hange of signs, in so
far as all these a re deduced from the multi plicat io n o f (x - a) "" O. (x - b) - 0 •
(x - c),.. 0 • (x - d) - 0 etc, i.e. from the mUltiplication of the binomials (x - a) , (x - b) ,
(x - c) , (x - d) etc., are nothing new in comparison 10 the developme nts in the binomial
theorem, and correspondi ng ly . to that in the th eory of comb inat ions. ]]
Hellving written, after this, the expressions for the cocffic.:ients of an equation through its roots,
Marx made the second comment (sheet 74,Marx's p. 54):
{[Thus emerge the sym metric equations . As many of these can be co ns tru cted, as o ne
wishc..~. But from this, it s till by no means follows, that every givcl1 cquation mllst have a
root, as MacLaurin, evidently, would have it. The proof late r on proposed by Cauchy , seems
doubtfu l. Jl
Marx's third observation (shcet 76, Marx's 1'. 56) is rcliltcd to the Carlesian m!e of signs,
connecting the number of changes of signs in the successive coefficients of ill) equation (with
the independent terms other than zero) with the number of positive roots of the equation.
In §19(pp 144-145) MacLaurin formulates this rule liS follows (without stopping to cons ider
the "impossible" roots of lln equation, "positive or negative", taking them liS unders tood): "The
number of positive roolS of any equation is equal to the numbe r of changes of signs of its term
from + 10- or from- 10 +; the remaining roots arc negative".
However, he proves the validity of this assertion only for the quadratic and the cubic equations,
with the help oflln examin~tion of the possible particular instances ([or example. when the
equation has the roots n, b, -c (a, b, c > 0) and a + b > c or a + b < c) and by operating upon the
corre.~pondjng inequalities. Herein the equations are so considered, that as if all their roots could
only be rea!. In spire of the absence of any kind of reference to the mode of generalising these
arguments, MacL1urin concludes his arguments with lhe comment (p. 147)'lhat, "the slime mode
of argument may be extended!O tile equations of higher degree, and the rule, mentioned in §19 may
be applied to all types of equatiuns" .
[n his comments, placed not only within square brackets, but also within a box, Marx re(1ected
upon the idea of II general proof of I)escartc.~' rule (formUla ted without the assumption of "positive"
or "negative" complex numbers) in Ihe light of on example, which may be gcnerali~cd without
di[ftculty. I-Ie wrote:
Suppose f(x) .. 0, where f(x) is a [complete] po lyno mial ; let its signs be
+ + + + + + (1)
{A polynomial (/o"r" + a!x~-! + . . + an_IX + a" is called "complete", if all its coefficients a re different
from zero. We Shll!! be able to ca!! the equation f{x) ... 0 "complete", if fix) is a complete
polynomial .]
Let us introduce into the equation a new root m ; then it w ill be necessary to multip ly
[(x) by (x - m), and if wc write down o nly the signs obta inab le when multiplied [by -m ], then
we shall have (2), j [ m is positive; hencef(x)· (x - m):
 mE NOTE BOOK "ALGEI3RA Jl" 205

+ + + + + + (l)
I) + + + + + (2)
+ + ± ± ± + ± +
If In ;s negative i.e.f(x) is to be multiplied by (x + 111). then (3)
+ + + + + + (1)
1I)
+ + + + + + (3)
+ ± ± + ± - ± + ± ± +
Comparison orthe results in J) and IT) with (1) gives
, + + + + + + (I)
+ + ± + ± ± ± +
Depending upon which of the two signs + o r - will take the place of the equi vm:a l
s ign ± • we shall get, if wc put for ± here [everywhere J + :
+ + + + + + (1)
+ ++~++++ + (I)
If wc put [everywhere] - :

+ + + +

in both the cases there will be one challge of sign more sub I) and also in comparison sub 11)
[at least] one more continuation of the same sign.
a) Hence, eve ry additiona l positive root entails, at least 1 addiliollai change oJ sign,
and every additional negative root - at least! additional continuation of the same sign.
b) That is why, the number of positive roots of an equation can II0t be more thalllhe number
of challgel' of sign, and the number of negative roots not 'inore than the number of
continuations of sign,
c) If all lite roots are real, then the number of positive roots= the /lumber of changes
ill sigil, and the nu mber of negative roots= the number of continuation of s ig n (co ns tancy
of sign).
Wilhin ~ box. wc reHd in M(ltx's hHnd, (sheet 76, bol1om):
[,[What has been put wi thin l 1. in this nOle~book, beginning with p .49,under the
titlc"From MacLau rin's Algebra", does nol belong to MacLaurin.Jj
This observa tion, placed inside a box, is clearly of cursory Hod provisional n~lurc . In pMticular,
not every thing in it has been stipulated i"; full . However, it is eleHt lhal, lhc.,smallest number of
c.hanges in sign as 11 result of the addilion of a positive root (i.e., in inslance I) will lake place.
when we s h••lI subslilUle all Kequi vocal- :2: signs everywhere by one and the SHme sign plus or
minus ' . Thal is why, even if under such substitutions the number of changes of sign is
increasc(] by one HS Hresult, lhen it is incrCIIsed at least by one, ~Iso in the other cases. Thus the

.. In the case.... when in some of the places occupied by the signs :2: ,zcroe.... are found, the number of changes
in I;ign will not be less, Ihan in the cases when all.1:: signs are changed only by + or only by _. - Ed.
206 DCSCRIP' nON OF TIlE MAnmMA11CAL MANUSCRIPTS

vcriticatiorl conducted by Marx, i~ quile sufficient. Since the Ilumber of negative roots of the
equation fix) _ 0 is CqUl11 10 the number of posilivc roots of the cquil1ion fe-x) .. 0 and, if it is
complete, Ihen every const~ncy of sign in fix) mutua lly univoClllly corresponds 10 Ihe changes of
sign in f( -x), and here Marx slUdics only the complete equations, so thcobservatioll within
the box is fully valid, also in application to the negative rools, though, apparently, it has been
suh~lnnliated directly (in a way armlogous 10 what has been done for the positive rooIS.)

In the nexl rmge 57 (Sheet 77) MMx nalurally rclurns once morc to the last poinl of his
observation within the box, in connection with the notes of the rule for the tmnsformation of an
equation, whose roots differ only in signs, from the roots of a glvcn equation (Milcl ...1urin iilustrMes
these roots in thc light of the equation
_rl-xl-19x2+49x-30 _ 0, (1)
transformable into
x4-!-xl-19x2-49x-30 _ 0; (2)
sce, ch. Ill , §23, p.148). The Te.~t is marked on one side by the sign E . lIere he writes :
[[It is very s imply explained from (point c) placed within [ ] in the previous page.
Roots of (1) were + 1, + 2, + 3, -5 ; lhe three positive roots correspond to three changes in
s ign in (1), from the first term to the 2nd, from the 3rd to the 4th, and frOIll 41 h 10 5th. To the
one negative root -5, corresponds onc constancy of the sign, namely, in the 2nd and the 3rd
terms :(-x3 -19x2 ).
Challgillg the signs into their opposites we gel the roots - 1, - 2, - 3, 5; that is why, 3
conSl.1. ncy of s igns; onc : (+.l..4 + xl), and 2, na md y : (- 19x2 - 49x - 30); meanwhile for one
positive root 5 one ehange of sign, from the 2nd term to the 3rd : (+ x 3 - 19xi ).J]
Chapter III (§§23-32, pp.138-161) contains furthcr rules: for transforming cquations, permitting
increase (and correspondingly decrease) in all the TOots oran equation by onc and the same num1)('.f
e; "for freeing" an equation of the 2nd (genemlly of any intermediate) term, by multiplying all its
rools by a given number, by cha~ging it into an cquiv~lcnt equation. with the coefficient of the
old term, equal to one; and "for freeing~ an equ~Tion of fr<lctional coefficients, by changing it
into such 11n equation, whose roots are opposite of those of the given. Man: noted (sheets 78-83,
Marx's pp. 58-63) all these in fulJ.1t does notcont~in any comment ofM1'Irx (which is not purely
computational in character). The matter stands otherwise with ch~plcr IV. Mllrx's interesl in
th e algebraic origins of differentilll C!1lculus prompted him to pay special attention 10 this
chapter devoted to the algorithms for searching the multiple roots of an equation. The conspectus
of this chapTer contains a number of Marx's critical comments. Most of them arc comments in
the margins. Such, for instance, are the following:
I. MacLaurio reduced the question of searching the multiple roots of ao equation, 1101 equal IQ zero,
into the question of searching The mulTiple roots of another equation, equal 10 zero, for this the
given equation is transformed, by substituting in it, y -!- e for x. Herein he explain!' that, in order
to write the last (frce) term of the transformed cquation, it is cnough to substitute e [or x in the
initial equation. Having noted this Marx adds (.o;heet84, Marx's p.64);
[[Le., to make e a rool of x, which M:u.:Laurin does not say.1J
11. MacLaurin explains the rule forohTillning the other terms of the tTilnsformed equation from its
free term, lit first only in the light of some examples (without a general formulation) (§34,
pp.163-164). After that he writes, that "its proof is easy to generalise" with thc help of the binomial
 '1lI!! NOTR OOOK • ALG!!llItA Il" 207

theorem. Puning the quolllt ion from M;u:Laurin (wi th in quolMion mnrks)~ " il1dicating the l').1gc:
"p.164", Marx commen ts (shcet 84. Mnrx's p. 64):
(fIn reality he re we do n't havc a ny kind o f proof, only a fa ... 1 i... s lated . 11 is observed when
correct comput<ttional opc rations arc performed.}l
Ill. From the following eXlr~CI from his conspectus of ( §36,p. .i"5 of M;;cl..-IIurin ), the characler
of Ihis sort of comments of Marx becomcs cspcci;llIy cle~r. Here we reproducc it in [ull (sheet 85,
Mafx's p. 68) :
4) Le t us ass ume now, that 2 values of x are cqual 10 each tll her and al so to e. f[ A very
helpless expression for the fact, that x has 2 val ues e. 11 the n the 2 va lues of y will be _ 0 in
the tra nsformed equation, s ince y . x - It [fit should have been noticed already as the equation
in It turned o ut to bc identic<l l with the initiHI onc in x. Fro m the vc ry begin ning it is said
that, si nce x - y + e (o r what is the sa me, y .. x - f! ) , thcn x may be equal to e, only if y - O.
Tha t is why, if the initial· equal ion has 2 val Llcs e fo r x, then 2 timcs y - O.JJ
Two longer ob:.crvalions of M~,.( ilre of iI di LTercnt c harncter. T hey come directl y, o ne afte r [he
o lhe r, on sheet 87 (~nd end up on sheet 88, Marx's 68,althe topmoslline; in [he photocopy of
sheet 87, the numbering in Marx's h~nd i~ not viSible). lIere first of all Milrx ex presses his
bewilderment al M!lcLaurin's failure to notice Ihe conneclion between the method of seeking the
multiple rools of an equation and diITerentiation . The text is ma rked by E sign on onc side. 1·le
writes :
[[Most astonishing is the facllhat MacLaurin, who discoverd this method of searching
the equal roots oJ (Ill equaliol~ and applied prec iscty the same method in differcntial ca lcu lus
for expanding ill series the fun elio n/ (x), given in a gene ral fo rm, ncver eve n mentioned, that
he re the rule Jor s uccess ive deductioll o f derived equations has been algebraically proved,
so that if the original equation is;
I) X4 _ px3 + qx 2 _ rx + s- 0 - J(x),
[then]
11 ) 4x' - 3pX2 + u/X - r - 0 - ['(x) ;
Il l) !ix2 - 3px + q - 0 - [,,(x);
actually 1a2 - 6pJ." + 2q directly divided by 2, gives 6x 2 - 3px+ q ;
IV) 4x - P - 0 - ['''(x);
ac tually la - 3p , divided by 3, gives 4x - p;
V) 4(-"') - 4 [ since -'" - 1 J - [W(x) .
This last olle is no more all equalioll, but still it is the last product oJ that differelttialion,
thorough whieh these equations were algebraically deduced .]]
Marx's second commen t con tains a criticism of a suspected mistake of Mnc Lau rin.
The issue is Ihis : it is true Ihatal firs l Mad.aurin did not use general expressions for polynomi~ls,
and only in Ihe light of some examples explai ned his idea , Ihat if the equation
}"' +O ,>",-1+02 }"'·1+ ••. +u._2 y1 +0._l y+a.- O
has two roots equal to zero ( Mad.aurin wrote "two values· of y , "eqllfll 10 nothing"), then in ils
left hand side Ihe polyno mial musl have as factors (y - 0) and (y - 0), i.e., musl be of Ihe form

• Here is a slip of pen in fhe manuscript; instead of "initial", he re he wro te "tra nsfo rmed". - ED.
208 Dr:SCRI IYIlON OF lllE MATIIEM A'!1CALMANuS";IUPTS

M yl (where /If is 11 pOlynomial). hence it follows Ih:lllhc cocmcicnls a .... J and a. m ust be equal 10
zero.
lIowever, in MllcLllu rin's - Al{,"Cbrll " the way in which Ihis idea has been expressed is such, tha t it
is no l always dea r to the reader, liS 10 wha t, namely , lhe author wishes 10 say.
In applica lio n 10 thcequa lion .r' - pxl "," qr - r_ 0, upon havi ng the mul tiple root x • e(l.c .• w he n
th e substi tution x .. y + e i ~ made ) and ge tt ing il trans formed in to 110 equa ti o n wi th the nlU lliplc rool
y .. 0 ., MacLllurin write." ;
" In so fa r liS wc a s~unlC that X" e, Ihe 111s1 term of the transformed cqua lion, i.e.,
tJ- p~"," qe - r, vanishes. And since the two values uf y vlInish, the pcnulli nlfllc term, i.e.,
3e1y-2I'Q ... qy will vanish III Ihe same lime, liO that Jc2-2pe i- q-O "(p. 166).
I-Iowever, the words" two values of y vanis h" have no exact meaning. If we impa rt upon the
vlHiable y the value zero two limes, then it obtains one va lue (zero), Hnd not two. Instead of s ayi ng
that a ( transformed) equation has two "roots· , equlIl to zero (Le., its left hand s ide is ex pa nded
into factors, amongst which (y - 0) appears twice), MacLaurin speaks (he re) of two ·values" of
y , equal to zero. It is not surprising tllll! such a substitution of the wo rd "root" by the word ·value",
would gi ve Mnrx the (wro ng) impression, Ihal MacLaur in simply concludes llooul lhe equa lity of
zero wil h the expression 3t:1 -2pei-q from the equality of zero with Ihe expression
:k1y _ 2pt:y + qy when)' .. 0, and that MacLa urin made a crude mis take.
Ma rx's second comment (sheet 87) shows Ihat he really had such 1111 impression. l ie plllced il within
squa re brnckets Ilnd it ;s related to I.he immediA tely next point of MaeLaurin's p.166:
"If a biquadratic equa tion is proposed,namely x·1 - px) + q.'(2 - I "X + s" 0, II nd two of its roots lire
equal, Ihen upon the assu mption that e -x, two of Ihe values of y must vanish and lhe equat ioll in
§34 is reduced 10 the following form:
lAI issue he re is the equation obtllined upon the substitution of x .. y i- e, from the equation
r - px3 i-qx1- rx +s -0 . ]

y' - 4<1
-p "'11
I -• 3p<1 - o.
· ql
So that 4e l - 3pe1 + 2qe - r .. 0, or since x .. e,
4x' -3p.r i- 2'lx - r- 0 ".
In his observ ation Marx wrole (the text is marked by a line on one s ide) :
[[That MacLaurin, in his demo ns tra tion, as we saw above, perm illed a c rude blunder, is
expressed in s lim by th e racttha t he says : If y k1kes the va lue 0 second time, then [ra m the re
it fo llows, that its first coefficie nt [[ s ince y tiDes no t fi gure in the firs t derived equation,
)"'- lJ] is equal 10 zero. This is but playing wilh Ihe wo rd " va lu e~.
If in (4& - 3pe"2 + 2qe - r) y, the value o f y ... 0, then it designates, a ccord ing to all the
rul es o f d ed uction, tha t we the n have
(4e3 - 3pe2+ 2qe - r )· 0,
whe re in place o f y its value 0 has been put ; but the reby its coeffic ient vll nis hes, no t beca use
it is itself equa l to zero, but because it has a factor 0 ... y. However, wc s ho uld o blain
4e3 - 3pe 2 + 2qe - r _ 0, and that is wh y Ihe equation is to be divid ed by the factor y - 0
 lliUNOTE BOOK "AUlEFlItA!I" 209

(since y _ 0 gives (y - 0) as a factor of the equatio n), i.e ., by y 15S, and thell th e co-cfficient of
y, as a term o f the transformed exp ressio n, w hich _ 0, a lso becomes,., 0, independently of
y !S6, It is understandable, fhat the divisio n by y ill all equati()/I _ 0, where each term has as
u factor some power of y, is accomplishuble. But if we divide first time by y , the n
y 1>,2! ya wil l be the corresponding fa ctors of th e three remaining terms; if we divide once
more by y, then y,y2 wi ll be the fa ctors of the two remain inglcrms; a nd if we d ivide for the
last tirh.t by YI then the re remains only y with the coefficient 1. 11
13)' Ihe words "as wc saw above", Marx here indicalcd ~n analogoos commen t, which he made
earlier, in connection with the question of the muHirle roots of the c ubic equation
~ -pr. qx - r - O(Mnd.aurin, I'arlll, §§33, 36). Transformation of his equation by substituting
y +- c: for x, where 11 is H root of the o riginal equation, gives, since e' -
p e1 + qll - r .. 0,

+q
:~ly+
f P
:cl
yl_yl. 0;

~nd in (;unnection with the comment of Macl.Aurin, that if· two values of y v.1nish then the
H
,

co-efficien t of y (i n thi! transformeu equation) "also mUSI vHnish" (p.166), M'lr.'( wrote the
following (sheet, 85-86, Marx's pp. 65- 66):
Here 3e'2 - 2pe + q by no means becomes _ 0, because Y has a 2nd vlIlue = 0, fo r lhe equal ity
with zero o f the produc t of 3e2 - 2pe + q and 0 [[ this 0", y ]] does not prove, that the
cocfrlciertl of 0 is a lso 0, or e lse every thing wo uld be 0, since evcrything be ing mulliplied
by 0 beco mes - 0, The ract that some second value of y '" 0, is translated by MacLau rin, as
or
deSignating that the coefficient y must be equal to O!
In Ihe same page, Marx wrote lower down:
I f in an cq up.tion in x o f the 4th power (equation 1) there are two equal roots and e .. x,
i.c., x'" y + e - y + x, he nce y - 0, then the two values of y (it should ha ve been said: two
coefficients o f l yand J y) must vanish ...
Thus, he re too, Mo1rx raised an objeclion Hgainst MacLllurin 's use of the word "value ". (Equali ly
with zero ofa coefficient of y is a conscquene~ of the fact, thal 0 isa mulliplcrool orthe equation.
and not simply a second "value" of y.)
Taking noles from the next, firth chHpter of MacLa urin's "Algebrll",Marx not only completed
some calculations omitted by MacLau rin, but also illustrated his arguments by examples, which arc
not there in MacLaurin. Thus, M~rx examines the proximation of the boundaries of the roots of
an equation, in the tight of the equ~ 'ion
x 3 _ 2x2 _ 5 _ 0,
which is not there in MacLaurin. That is why, it is nalUral to think, Iha l having read MacLaurin,
Marx turned to some other lilerature, conlaining rurlher development of the questions considered
by Mllculurin. Marx himself said Ilbout what h~d actu~l!y happened. Thl.ls on p.64 (sl1eel.84),
althe very beginning of his notes from chapler IV of MacLauri n's book, on the transformation
of the equation.
x 3 _px2 +qx -,. _ 0
by substituting (y ... c) for x, Marx wrote (inside a box):

27
21' DE..'\cRlYnON OF 11 m. MA'I1\EMA '1CAL MANUSCRIPTS

Successors of MaculUr in inve rted this, substituting in stead of (y + e) (for exmn p\c)
(e + y) for x , so Ihat x3 turns into (e + )lp etc. Then in the above mentioned case the original
equation is transformed into
e' + 3e' }
- pc? -2pe +3e} ..2 + 3_0.
+qe +q Y _p r Y
-r
Apparently, Hall belongs 10 the rank of ~uch Hsucccssors of MacLaurin~. We already had an
encounter with an extract from his "Elementli of Algebra ·, ;n conncClion with th e question offurthcr
development of the algorithms of "involution" (raising the l)Ower, see pp.192-1'94 ).
Ha ving noted the arguments, with the help of which MacL.IIurill proves, that the greatest
absolute magnitude of the negative coefficients of ~In equati on (Hthc greatest negative
coefficient ~), raised by onc, is always Ihe uPI>c r boundary of Ihe roOt5 of lhe equ~tio n , which he
conducted in the lighl of Ihe example of Ihe cubicequ3tion
xl-,JXZ-qx-r -O
separately for all lhe Ihree cases, when successively p, q or r is this "greatcst negative
coeffjcienl~ , Marx gene ralised Ihis argument, clearly formulaling ils blIsic idea.

This nole book comes 10 an cnd with the following observlllion of Marx (sheet 92; it is no llhere in
Macl..aurin);
[[In a complete equation, where not a s ingle tl!Jm is absent and the signs either remain
unchanged, or successively lake turns, lihere] every root, ta ken by itse lf [ i.e., as an
abso lute magnitude J, must be less than the coefficient p ; for the lauer is the sum of the roots,
taken w ith the opposite signs; [or only th e positive (alteration of s igns) o r on ly the negative
(constancy of signs) roolS, it is, conseq uently, g reater than eaeh rool.1]
 OTHER MANUSCRIPTS ON ALGEBRA
S.U.N.J934
It is a note book 011 algebra. It carries ne special title: and, it is 11 continulItion of ~Algebrll 11- (sce
above: manuscript 3933). Sheets \-22; according 10 Mar"'s numbering 1-19, 23-25 . 'nll~
language is German; in places it contains English wo rds and ex press ions.
Sheet 1. The notebook begins with the following observation of Marx, which, however, has the
character of a summary of the text that follows :
[[5) The search for the real roots of a ll equation by finding lite limits of Ihe roolS has a
sense onl y in that case, when the roolS arc irrational, i.c., arc no t whole numbers, and, hence,
the values of the roots are represented only approxiinalely. If the equation is ratiol/al or
commensurable, i.e., if its roots arc whole numbers, then they must be contained as factors in
the la st term of thc equa tion = the product of all th e roots. That is why, this las t tcrm is to be
expanded into factors, with the help of the method - explained ea rlier - of deducing
from them those, which constitute th e roots.
But if the eq uation is incommensurable, then thc following method, adduced by Mac.ulUri n
[is to be considered ]. It consists of a transformation of the eqmllion, assuming x", y :t. k,
hence y - x + k; here k rep resents the approximate root greate r or lesser th an x ;
MacLaurin begins with the latter. Upon substitution of y + k for x, the transformed equa tion
also becomes equal to zero, just like the initial onc; further, it is oJthe same degree; depending
0·" whether for X" we write (y + k)" or (k + y)", the last or the first vertical series l!i1 of the
transformed equatio n beco mes an equation (where y is a factor only as),O) (it i:s bettcr 10 expa nd
it the way Lacraix does - as (k+ yr, s ince in the method of limits, every time you are
required to beg in with the term in le, namely : it is to bec3st away as equal 10 zero), in which
k enters in the same way, as docsx in the in it ial equation, herc f(k) for J(x) , In fact, in Ih is
equa tion k fi gures as a root of the origina l eq uation, for y + k - x j but here y - 0, hence,
k .. x . That is why this equation cannot give any othe r limits, apart from the limits o f the
equation itself, al ready furnished by the original equation, namely, thc limits o f thc posilive
terms (as well as o f the negatives) and the limit 0 158 • JJ
Sheets 2·5, Hnd of the notes from chapter Vof MacLaurin 's "Algebra"(Cor its beginning sce
Ihe note book "Algebra n", manuscript 3933).
Sheets 5-8, Note5 from Chapter VI of MacLaurin's "Algebra". MHx gave it [he title:"l'JSolurion
of ~quations with comm~nsu rab/~ roots".
Sheets g.15.Conspcclus of chapter VII of MacLaurin 's" Algebra ". It carries the heading given
by Marx: "G) Solutioll of equatiolls by {illding the equations of a lower order, which (lre its
divisors".
Sheets 15-19. Conspectus of the addition to chapter VII ofMaeL..:lurin 's "Algebra", Marx gave:
it the heading : "H) ReiJuction of equations by irrational divisors· .MaTx began this nole with the
following comment:
1) This chapter was not written by MacLau rin, bu t by the publishers Hto whom
MacLaurin gave the manuscript on completion] ] :..Marlin Folkes (Pres ident of the Roya l
SOciety), Alldrew Milellel and Rev, Hill, Chaplain of the Archbishop o f Canterbury.
It is an explanation of the "Rule", which Newtoll gave on p. 264 of his Arithmetica
UlIiversalis.
 DESCRIP110N OFTlm MA'!1IEMATICAL MANUSCRI PTS

In this supplemcntary the issuc is : th e reduction of a n equll li o n of fourth degree

J"~+ pr + qx:l + r.c + ~' .. 0 to an eq uation of the form
1
(Xl+ lPx+ Q)l ." (lex + 1)2

by finding the s ui table nume ri Cil I v/l lues for k,l , " and nn expression for Q through these numbers,
Marx did not lake down the rule, according to which Ihis reduction is Cil tri cd o ut (pp, 213-214), lie
directly began his notes from its substantiation, contai ned in p. 218 of MacLaurin's book. M ~rx
nOled only the main parI of this sui.JsIl\ntiat ion, ending it with the words (sheets 17-18) :
That is why, if the corresponding values of 11, k, f, Q satis fy 1hese conditions, i.e., if they
correspond to each other, then it is proved, that they have been correctly surmised and that
by adding 11 (kt + 1) 2 10 the given equation it is comple mented to the sq uare (x 2 + ~PX + Q )2.
After this Mux notoo example 11 from M ~cLaurin (pp, 2 15-2 16), then example I (pp. 2.14 -2 15).1le
did not take notes from exa mple III (pp. 21 6·217) and the enti re te)(t thut followed the sul)stnntiation,
which is devoted to th e limits or particular instnnces of the rule. But M ~ r)( wrote; #cf further 011
pp. 216·2:!r. Apparently, he intended to return to this topic, once more. He lert three pages blnnk
in thi s note hook ~nd continu r. d his notes from p. 23.
Sheets 20-22 ( Marx's pp. 23-25). Notes taken from chapter VIII o{ MacLaurin 's ~ Algebra~. Marx
gllve it the heading: "I) Solution of equoliOl/S accon/inG 10 Co rdo n '~. rll/e and an(llogy~. From
this chapter Marx noted the firs t p,lrt rela ted to Ih~ soluti on of the c ubi c equati o ns and the
e)(lraction of cubic. rools. §§ 82 IInd 83 o f chaptcr VI II , cevoted to the soluti on o f th e equati o ns
of fou rth degree remains unnoted: here Ihe conspeclUf> of Mlld Jlul"i n 's ~ Al gc bra· abruptly
COIllCS \0 an end. Marx never res umed it.
S.lI.N.39JS
In this archival unit a few smaller manuscripts have been joined together. Contcnlwisc they Me
clo.~ to the mate rials noted by Marx in his no te books on algebra (sec manuscripts 3932-3(34). ln

all there are 16 sudl s heets.

I . Sheets 1-2. Two sma ll sheets under the ruhri c ·VllI. Calculation of I..ogur;thm.f", l..{)nlentwisc
they are dose to § 14 (pp. 15-19 in Marx's num hc ring) o r the no te book "A lgebra W . T hc
language is Ellglish. Its source is tilt book: J.Hind , ~The Elements of Planc I"Ind SpheriCil I
Trigonomelry K, 3 rd ed., Cambridge, 1837, ch. VII, §§ 161- 165, pp. 154- 159.
2. Sheets 3·6. Four sheels without a common title (mainl y calculations). They contain calculat ion
oC the logarithms of numhers, Cillculation (If lhe cha ractcri~lics and manti s~ a ; ~nd furth er,
repetition o{ the m~terials of Ihe two previous sheets. l .anguage - English. Its source is th e same
book by Hi nd, chapletS: IV, §§ 89· 99 , pp. 67·78 and Vr!, §§ 161 ·177, pp. 154-167 (wi th a few
omiSSions).
3. Sheets 7·10. Four cle~rly wrillcn \),1gCS. Marx numbered the m 1·4 . 1ille: · l1u~ D(J(;lrine of
CO fllbinalio" .f H • It contains a few basic concepts IInd theorems of elcmen!ary combin6tori cs.
I1 is sub-divided into the followi ng parIS: ~Gl!n(!rul· - containing three points :~ 1) The simplest
starting poill/~, 2) here th e concepts of form IInd comple)(, higher and lower forms, o rdcr IInd cla ~ses
of forms h:lVe been in troduced, 3) (:ontains formulat ion of the problems of combinal o ri c.~. Then
follows the parts: ",\ ) Permutation ~ and - 8) Combinution ~. The notations arc the same, as in the
Ilote-book "Algebrll l1'"(pp. 27-38 in Marx'S numbering). Language - GermAn; the source hll5
not l>cen established; contentwise it is somewhat proximate to the correspondin g pl'lrag rHphs
of: M .AStern, ~ Leh(bucb der algebrllischen AO.l1 lysis· , 1860, and also to th e afore me nt ioned (se<:
pp. 191-192) boo Y.~ by U.Thibllut and Fr.W. Spehr.
 OTIIER MANUSCRIl'TS ON AI.Gf:URA 213

4. Sheets 11-13. Th ree sheets entitled : ~MctJrod of indctcrminU/c Cpe/ficicn/s.... The method of
indeterminate coerricient.~ is formulated and proved, and it is then npptied 10 seeking the
expansion of ~ into 8 powered series. Conlentwise, it is rciated to point 3H), secti on Ill ,
"General binomial Thcorem~ of the note -book "Algebr~ 11 " (sec p. 196). llle source is possibly the
same. Thcre is also a great amount of resemblance with the text of pp. 195-196 of Ihe "Algebril"
by Wood, in which , on p. 197 the same example of the expansion of ~ into a seri es, has
been adduced. Language - German; the first phrase is in Englis h.
Only in the first page,the text is in (natural) language; the rest are calculations.
5, Sheets 14-16. Three sheets , joined by the title : ~Po",ers Qnd Roots". Apparently, it is an
Insertion to one of the notes on algebra, conlemplated by Marx,si nce it ends with the words:"£nd
of tire insertio,,". Here the operations wilh radiCllls, onen represented in the form of fractio nal
powers of arguments. have been examined. Language - German.

"SUCCESSIVE DIFFERENTIATION"
S.U,N.3999
6 pllges JOllled by the title: "Successive Differentia/ion (according 10 O. W.Hemming, /848,
Cumbr;d8e)~. This is a conspectus of some paragraphs of the book: "An Elementary Treatise on
the Differential and Inlegral Calculus· , by G'w.Hemming, Cambridge, 1848 (§§ 92 -116, pp.
60-77). The page num bers are according to the second edition o f this book, dllted 1852. Ma rx
look notes fro m the following para graphs only:
§ 92. Definition Ora" independent variable.
§ 94. Successive differentiation.
§§ 96-98. Relations between successive differentials and differential coemcients, when Ihe
Independent variable is ge neral.
§ 99. Form the above relation~ when the quantity (x), under the funct ional sign, is independent
v~dilble.

§ 107. To pass from an equation among differentials, with x as an independent variable,to one
among differenti/tl coefficients with re.~pcct to x, and the converse.
§§ 108.109.1'0 pass from 11 gene ra l independent variable to x, and the converse.
In Ihese paragraphs, the defin it ions of the independent variable IInd of the general independent
variable arc given. Ihe relations ~mong derivatives and differentials are considered, these are
connected with invariance o f the differentials of first ord er in respect of the choice of
independent variable and the modes of transforming equations in derivatives into equa tio ns in
differen tials. and the converse. He rein a variable is called independent if its dirrerential is taken
as a constant. If the dependence among variables is given by an equation and no d ifferential
Is taken as constant, then Hemming calls it an equation having a genual jndependenl vuriable
or says thal the independent variable is general. This conspectus does not contain any comment
which is Marx's own. Apparently it was wril1en at the time of writing section I, "Lagrangian
deduction (somewhat mOdifieu) of Taylor's theo rem, based upon an algebraic foundation" (of
manuscript 4000),ln the second half of the 70s of last century, when MArx took a special interest
in the problem of meaning of successive differentiation (sce: I'V, 214).
The manuscript is written In English, with a touch of German.
 THEOREMS OF TAYLO R AND MACLAURIN, FIRST
SYSTEMATISATION OF THE MATERIAL
S.U.N.4oo0
48 sheets of a note book (pp. 1·48 in Marx's numbcring).lts contenl corresponds 10 that
period of Marx's mathematical studies, when it sIill ~ppellrcd to him Ihal Lagrange's RUempt to
CQnslruc l mathematical analysis Hll the theory of analytical functions is concl usive. Evidently,
Wilh the aim of investigating the Lagmngiall theory and reveal ing il~ nlgcbraic origins, Mar;.:
systematically arranged In this nOle Irook, [he notes from all those sections of the courses of
Boucharlal, Ilind, '-lol l, Ilemming. L1croix, MacLaurin and of others AI his disposal, in which Ihe
Lagrangian theory or questions related 10 il have been enunciated.
Four sections, of this note book, consti tu te ils STelltcr pari (sheets 1-37). Mllrl( g~ve them the
tilles !
"I. Lograngian deduction (somewhat modifit:d) of Tay/or's theorem, based upon an algebraic
fOlmdulion". Sheets 1-13.
"11, Toylor's theorem, based upon a translatl'on of the binomial theorem frolll the language of
algebra into the differential mode of e:rpression". Sheets 14-20.
blfl. Ma cLallrin's tl,earem is also a simple tran slation of the binomial theorem, f,.om the
language of algebra to Ilrat of tire differentials", Sheets 20-28.
"IV. Mo,.e on Tay/or's theorem". Sheets 28·37.
Section I consists (If several points, indicated by Latin capital leuers from A) to r). In point A),
Lagrangc's attempt- to prove, thlll in general, leave 11 few exceptions, IIn IIrbitrary functio n
f(x + III may be expRndcd into 11 series of intcgral positive ascending pOWCIS of fr, has been
enunciated according to 130ucharlat (U 244,253, pp. 168·169, 173-175). It was Rn al\Cmpl to show,
that in such a gencral case the equality
f(x + /I) -f(x) +pl! +Qh 1
must occur, whcre p is a function only of x, neither identically equal 10 ze ro, nor to infinity, and
Q is a function of x and fr, which is represented in its turn as Q - q + Rh where q is 11 function
of x, and R-a function of x and I" represented analogOUSly as R ... r + SII etc. Herein, the
altempt to prove, that a multiplier or p can he nei ther a negative power of h, nor logh, is also
enunciated. The func tion p is defined as the derivative of f(x) and for it the notatio n f'(x) is
introduced. Analogously, in point 13), the derivative of de ri vativCll (successive deri vatives) afe
c!efined, and the notations/"(x), f'''(x) . flY (x) etc. lire introduced (following Boucharlat § 248).
In poipt C) the int(lrrelations among the coefficients of the expansion
I(x + h) .. f(x) +ph + qJr2 + ,Jrl + s"~ etc.
and the li\lcccssive derivatives ["(x) , f"'(x) etc. are dete rmined by the method of indeterminate
coefficients with the help of the equality
f(x + (h + I)~ .. f«x + i) +/1)
([ollowing Bouc\larlat, §§ 245-247,249,250). In the last of these paragraphs, the notations
fpr th~ dl;;rivatives and the differential symbolS have been introduced, Here the enunciation
8S per Doucharlat comes 10 an end. Further on, It has been shown according 10 Hind (§ 97, p.
127) thlllthe LagrHngian derlva\ives arc the limits of the ratios ~ when 6.x ..... 0, i.e., they
A.'
arc ~diffcrential coefficients," Here Marx wrote (sheet 7) ;
• Boucharl at wrote (I'. 168) that he is modifying 'he method of Lagrange. - &1.
 Tiit201<f::MS OF TAYl.OR I\ND MI\CI.AURlN: fIRST SYS'1fiMAT1STlON 215

In comparison with the results of differentia l calculus we rind, that f'(x) is the real
equivalent for ~,["(x) - the real equiva lent for Z etc, or, conversely, ~, ~~ etc., are
differential expressions for the re:l! differenlial coefficients, i.e., the derived functio ns of x in
Lagrange.
After this 'came the following comment of Mane. It has the ChU3Cler of a summary.
Contcntwise it is related to §§ 251 and 252 of the text book by 13 0uchar l~1 (save Ihe first phrase,
the source of which appears 10 be Hind's book; sce 1).120) .
Lagrange himself says, that dx is chosen instead of h, dx 2 instead of 112 ete. only to
estab lish lhe uniformity of notation.

Here the express ion ~ becomes the sy mbol of the operation, through which the

coefficient of It in the expansion of f(x + 11) is obtained; - : ' : ; etc. indicate, that the
same process, being repeated, gives the coefficients of the other powers of h Hence, it is
necessary to establish, only as per llle rules of algebra, what the ~ etc. must be for each

function. For example, what is the ~ for xm? We are required to expand the function

(x + h)m according to the binomial theorem, which gives xm + m.xm - i h + etc. ; since ~
indicates the coefficien t of the first power of h in this expansion, so dY - mx", - i etc.
t
<X
Hence, the entire problem is reduced to this: 10 expand the different types of [unctions,
with thc help of thc analytical processes, which algebra can provide us. Hence the method
presupposes an algebraic expansion o[ all these functions and thereby the differential
expressions correspo nding to them are obtained. Conversely, in the differential calculus, the
differential forms, i.e., the operations indicated by them , serve the search for these functions,
along their own short cut path.

[[ lns~ead of ~, ~ etc, Lagrange also designates the derived functions by y' , y" etc.]]

[[Though in the method of Lagrange the principles of differential calculus are demonstrated
independently, free of any reference 10 limits, illfinitesimals and evanescent quantities,
however, he is constantly required to have recourse to them, as soon as the issue co ncerns
applications, for example, the determination of volumes, surfacc"o;, length of curves, finding
the expressions for subtange nts etc. His method assumes an acquaintance with the analytica l
methods for expanding all types of functions of x + h in integra l ascending positive powers
of h, which he has put fo rward; and often this expansion is quite difficult. That apart,-the
theorems of Taylor and MacLaurin, once established, provide, wi th great ease, the means.to
expand into series many functions, whose expans ion through the methods of ordinary algebra,
may be obta ined along an ex tremely, tiresome and round about path.]]
 -I'hotooopy of the first p<lgc of the manuscript entitled
"Theorems of Taylor and Maclaurin, firsl systema tisation of the material" _
 lll00RI~MS 0 1' TA YI-OR AND MACLAURIN , FIlt.''iT SYSTEMA'IlS'110N 217

I~oi nt
C) comes to an cnd with the following comme nt of Marx, lIere he obtai ncdJrom Newton 's
bi nomiaJ theorem, the derivative for the functi on aX"', utilisi ng T;ty tor's theorem and, conversely,
obtained Newton's binomial theorem, with the help of the theorem about the dilTcrenlia l o ( 11
product.
[[We have jus t see n, that fo r ob taining the expansio n fo r f(x + 11), for example, (o r ax"', it
is e no ugh to expand a(x + hyw according to the bino mia l theorem:
ah'l
mx", - tah, m(m-1)X"' -2·_ ,···
1· 2

Then wc kn ow that the coefficient of h - ~ , the coe rricient of :~~ .,. ~ elC,
Conversely, once Taylor's theorem is estab lished, it is possible to de(luce the billomial
theorem from it,- it may be still easier to deduce it wilh the help of the most elementary
differential operations.
For instan ce, s ince it has already been demonstrated, that
d(xy ) _x dy+ydx.
so, in genera l
d (xYZt/l) "" x)'zt tlu + yztu dx + ztux dy + tUX)' dz + xyzu dt .
Dividing both the sides by xyztu, we shall get
d (xyztu) ,., xyzt du + yztu dx + zlux dy + taxy dz + xyzu dt .
xyztu xyztu yztux ztuxy tuxyz xyzut
Hence,
d (xyztu) ... du + (Lx +!!l + dz + dt
xyztu ux yz t
Ifnow,x,y,z,t,uaremadcequal to each o ther, and consequcnU y, it is a:-;s umcd, [or ins tance,
that they are all equa l to x,a nd thaltheir number is equal to In, then
d (xm) .. m dx
X'" x
hence,
mx"'dx
d(xm) = - mx"' - ldx.
x
d (x'") o r ,py
-dy _ mx"' -t and thus f.iX!" m (m - 1).r"'-2 etc. and all [Ine de rivedJ
That is,
dx dx
[uncI ions of X'" may be so obtained .]]
Mar}!: gave poi nt D) the title:-D) ApplieQ/iQn of L ugr angt!'s me/hod 10 an elern en/fuy ca.re ~, h
conlllins the nOle laken from [he text book hy Hi nd (pp, 126-127), of an example of applic.,lion
of Lagrange's me thod Cor finding out the dcrivative of the product o f t....,o functions y and z of
the argument;c by representing the ~ugmented values of J' and z in the form of y -t ph -t ..l-
\ .z
q1-r 2 -t

+ elC, and z + PIli + /2 1! 111 -t etc, and, for searching the cocHicient of h ( in the firs! degree)
in their product with the help of formal opera tions wi th serieses,

28
21' OESCRIP'Il0N 01"11 lE MATI IEMA'lleAL MANUSCRlns

Marx g~vc point E) the heading: "E) More 011 ,he im//(l,I"j'ibility. Ilrot p wo Our that ,. "as f" cgalivt!/,
fractional elc. indices ill the gtmerai <!XJH1I1~'i()1I fo r f(.r +J.) where.r;s indelerm in aft:, bUI is a
variable, which ca n assume {lny value",
In this point, lit fi rst notes are talc.e" fmm § 253 (pp. 173-175) of the text book by Boucharla l,
devoted to Ihe proof, thal lhe coeffi cient of " in the lirsl degree may be equa l to ze ro on ly in the
pa rticul~r inslances, and then from § 259 (pp. 179-180), containing Ihe LagrHngian proof, that in
the expansion of {(.>: + It). h can not enler inlo 11 fractional powcr, since in [hili case the number
of different va lues of the cXI)'1n~ion for I (x + It) would be grealer than Ihe nu mber of different
val ues of the very expression [(x + 11). On Ihis proor (Bouchar[al mentio ned that it belonged to
lagrange) Marx wrote (sheet 9) ;
E..1 rlier it was shown. tha t h in ph C;lIlnot have a fra ctional inde x. This could have bee n
s hown, in the sa me way, for all [he othe r terms o f the expansion. But Lag range in addition
g ives the following interesting proof.
After this point, Marx wrote thc following COlllment, as 3 summing up exercise, and without allY
ti tle (sheet 11) ;
Lag range 1) algebraically proves what Taylo r presupposes: tha t so lo ng as x re mains
inde te rminate, f(x + It) may always be represented by a n infi nite series"" f (x) + pit + qh'2 +
e tc. ; he provides an algebraic basis to the diffe re ntial calculus ; but it is la be used o nly as
the s tarting point, s incc it is qu ite poi ntl essly ted ious to develo p algebraica ll y, that which CP. II
be attaincd much more eas ily, through the proper methods of d iffere ntia l ca lculus.
2) From the very beginn ing he de monstralcs, Inat the genef:! i series fo r the ex pans ion
o f f (x + 11), where x is indetermina te, excl udes a ll those pa rticular ins tances , whe re Taylor's
theore m is inapplicable.
3) By introduc ing (he concepl of the derived f tltletiolls of the variable, he, in essencc, gave
d i[fe re ntia l calcul us a new be:! ring, removing tllereby a lot of useless d iffic ulties.
If in Taylor's theorem it is inscribed that :
f(<<Io )- f (x )+ df (x ) . f:.+ tP f (x) .~+ d' f (x) .~+ ...
dx 1 dr'2 1·2 dx) 1·2·3 '
then th is formul a by no means conta ins the concept of derived fun c tions [,(x), f " (x) e tc.,
and me rely says , that the successive differential operatt.olls took place in respect of one and
the same initial l(x ); in it the success ive differenti:!1 coeffic ie nts arc e xp ressed as' the
successively derived fU/~diolls of x.
On the oth er h and , ~ ~ e n L1 grange writes :
10' 10'
f(u 10) - f Ix) + plo + q . T2 H· 1,2,3 ... "' ,
the n there it is ass umed that in
f (x + 11 ) - fIx ) + plo + qlo' +
the coefficients P. q e tc., were a lready reduced to the ir values eq ual to f'(x ) , [ "(x) etc. 1S9,
Ihvi ng e xplained in a rew Olore word.~ , tha t sincc LIIgra ngc's argumcnts had a genera l cha racter
( we re related to any runction [(]C)) , they Olay he applied also to the derived funct ions, on which
some calcula tion:> in point B) we re based - Marx went over [0 poi nt p), whe rein section I o r this
ma nuscript was corn pleted . In it he took no te:! from §§ 8,9 (pp. 4-6) of "A Treatise on thc
 TIJOOREiMS OF TAYLOR AND MACUtUR1 N . FIRST SYSTJ\MAT1S'110N 219

Differential and Integral ('..alculus, ~ nd the Calculus of VilriMions· by 111Om:lS G. Hall. ( We. have.
its 5th edition, published in 1852.) This conspectus begins with the sentence :
F) Lagrangc's dcmonstratio n, that whcn x is indcte rminatc, thcnf(x + Ir) may bc reprcsented
in the form of f(x) + ph + q 112 + etc., has been pla ced at the very begin ning of some of the
manua ls on differential ca lcul us, and is dea lt with as follows.
Then follows the demonstration, not on ly -by the melhod of indelerminale coe(fieients, but also
ofinde.le.rminate indices of power, th~1 iff(x -t 11) .. u -tA h" ... 11 I!~ -t C h' -t, whe.re a < ~ <Y "', then
u "/(x) • a .. t. ~ .. 2 , y .. 3, "' ,

I'; ,C" LJ=l

A .. /'(x), B- CM . .;
12
The term Ah is called the differential, and 'he coefficient A - Ihc differential coefficient; for
them the usua l nOlalions wt:re inlroduced. Marx adduced Ihis demonslralio n from H all'~ book,
pp. 4-7. Namely, Ihal is what is had in view here.
As has already been noted, section 11 of lhe ma nuscript was wrillen at 11 time, when to Marx
appeared sufficiemly well g rounded the Mproof", given by Lagrange, that in Ihe general case the
expansion
f(:e ... Ia )-!(x) "'ph ... q"l+rll}+ "' ,
wherc p, q, r, .... are fun ctio ns of:e, must be valid .This fully corresponds 10 its ti tIe (sce p.214).
Here Marx slates the propositi on thilt : Taylor CQ uld proceed to his Ihcorem heuristically by
gcncralising Newto n's binomial theorem; hc adduces a number of consideratio ns in support of
this proposition and observes al the same time, thft! yel Taylor could not prove the.legilimacy of
such generaHsalion.ln all the. manuals at Marx's disposal, Taylor's theorem has been proved
in the main identically. Apparently, in this connection Marx Ihoughl.thallhis proof belonged
10 Taylo r himself. (For the de tails of these proofs sce, Appendix. p. 333). Those parts of this section
of thc manuscript which Hre not nOles from o ther source~, Me being reproduced below, in full.
Immedi ate ly following the headi ng oC section 11 , Marx wrote on sheets 14-17:
A) S oucharlat remarked in the second note (Appendix) to his "Traites du ca/cui
di!ferellliel el du calcul integral n : "With the exception of the differen tials o f ci rcul ar
functions, wh ic h are eas ily deduccd from the trigonometric formu lae, a ll o ther mOllomial
differen tials, like, [or instance, the differentials of xm , ax , log x etc. were obtained wi th the
help of the binomial theorem. MacLaurin's theorem was applied for finding oul tlte constant
A i l t the formulae for exponential functiolls, but could be managed withou t it Hon this
aflerwardsll. Hence it fo llows, that all the principles of differentiatiolt are based only upon
l/re binomial theorem "-.
Bu t, o n the o ther ha nd, Tay/or established his theorem(wh ich alo ng with MacLaurin 's
theorem - the latter in its turn may be represe nted as a particula r instance o f Taylo r's
theorem - ha ppens to be of ulmos t importance for the operations of differen tial ca lculus)
at a time, whe n not only the bino mia llheorcm was already known, but also the expansio n
of the jUllctions of x furni shed by it, through the methods o f differential calculus itself, as
well as, the so called elements of differe ntial calculus, which were in ge neral a lready deve loped .

-ThiS Appendix is not there, in the Sth edition of the texl book by Boucharlat enti tled : ~Elemerts de calcuf
differentiel el de calcul inliSgral" (P1lri s, 1838). at our disposal. - Ed.
2W DESCRIPTION OF 'nm MATl tI; MA 'IlCAL MANUSCRIPTS

The function f(x + "), in the second side lR .H.S.]. in the s ide o f the developed series,
is always represented, in accordance with the binomial theo rem. fby the terms] with faclOrs
2
hO( .. 1), It, 11 , 1"3 etc. (with ascclldi1!g integral and positive powers of h. steering clear
1- 2 l" 2
of the negative, fract ional and logarithm ic indices, on wh ich wc shall not be able to dwell
here, after covering L'lgrangc's method); the indeterminate coefficients of 1/ in its succcss i*c
powers, Le., the diffe reNt successively derived [ullctions of x, or the differential coefficients,
natu rally, have different forms , depe nding upon, wha t sort of initia l func tio n [(x) is 'to be
expanded - [or inslance, depending upon , whether this runction is x"', or aK, o r logx or
sin x or more complcx l60 etc. But, evidently, Taylo r's theorem is based upon the s implest
application o r the binomial theorem, Le., [(x) - X"'.
T hat is why wc shall expa nd J(x + 11) '" (x + 11)'" according to the bino mi al theorem. Then,
ror inst.1nce,
m (m - 1)
(x+II)"'.X"'+"u..,.,-I!J+xm- 2 1!2+ ... ""
1·2
-X'"
1 (111 - 1).\'", -2 11 2 + ...
+ "u",- II! +-111
2

In the thi rd term, Le., in ~ m (m - 1).x"'- 2112 (the same as what Lagrange wrote in the above

mentioned expansion as ~ J" (x)II~. there is a derivat ive or x, directly deduced rrom Inr" -l,
namely, m (m - l)xm -2; in ordcr to have not hair o f th is runc tio n, but the entire (unction as
a whole, it is necessa ry to write here and afterwards m (rn- 1)X"" - 2 112
2 i.e. , put the numerical
1·
divisor under 11 2 , 11 3 e te.
T hen wc shall have
according to the considering
binomia l theorem x as a variable
. X" = [(x)

m?,-I It -m?,-I/I • ['(x)" -~It

<Ix

m (m- 1)x"' -2"

-
2
_ m(m-l)t"' - 2,2
2 . , - ["(x)!!...
2 .. d2... ,,2
2 2 d.e 2
3
m (m _ l)(m _ 2}x'" - 3.!!..- _ m(m-l)(m-2)?,_3(l 3
.. f "'(x) .!!..- .tx ..!!'2·3...
2·3 2·3 I 2-3 d2
4
m (., - 1) (m - 2) (m _ 3V- 4 - -'-
1
2·3'4
elc. etc. etc. etc.
 THEOREMS OF TAY[.0R ANI) MAC! AURIN : FIRSTSYSTEMATISTION 221

Thus, Taylo r already knew, ho w to find cl (xm) = lIn;m -1 dx along the palh of dillerenlia l
d (xm ) dy
calculus, hence ~ or dx - m.X,,. -1 and, also fur lher

~ "" m (m - 1)x", -2 etc.;

in other words, he knew, that the derived {unct ions ofx deduced wi th the help of the hinomial
theorem, arc identical to those which appear as success ivediffe renlial coefficients; he also knew
that while findin g out these functio ns throug h diffefential calcul us, h as well as its numerical
1
coe rficients - [- , - 2 etc. disappear; we get the [unct ions In xn - 1, m (m - 1)x", -2 e lc . as the
1,2 [, ,3
res ull<; of diffe rential operations, expressed by ix; etc.

On the ot he r hand, the binomia l theorem shows, that

112
f(u iI) here (x + iI)'" ~ fix) + ['(x)iI + ["(x) [,2 + f"N 1,2-3 +
"3
Hence, in o rder 10 obtain the proper expansio n of J(x + 11), the second term is to be
'l'db
mu l tip le iI thet h'db
y -, If y -IJ22e1c., In
. at her words, 1I , I 1' etc. w ll' ht lelf
i ' numcflca
' I mu 1tIP
' 1'l et~
1 1
- extinct in the process of d ifferent iation - are to be restored.
Thus, for in stance, when x'" = xl,
l(x + fI) .. (x + h)3 _ x 3 + 3x2Jt + 3xh2 + 11 3 .
Thus , the derived fun ctio ns of x arc oblained through the bino mia l theorcm, and they
turn out to be those functions, which are obta ined through di fferentia tio n :
3x2 _ 3x 2 , 3·2x - 6x, 6.\:° ",, 6.
3
If wc restore I" h22' - h23 etc., extmct
. .m d'ff "
I erentJatlOn , t hen we S;I
h II ge t :
1, 1"
mX" - I ... for 3.~... 3~1I,
6x 1J2 ,
m (m - 1).t"'-2 ... for 6x ... = 3xll- ,
2
for 6.\.(1 ([ i.e., In (m - 1) (rn _ 2)X", - 3 [or] the third [derivcd] fun c lio n o f (x + hP"
6ft3
~ 3 (3 -1) (3 - 2)x'-' - 3' 2 ' lx"~ 6 " ' H3
- - il'Il,
Hence,
J(x+ It) or (x+ h)3 =.i' + 3x2h + 3xh 2 + 113 ,
In o the r wo rds, lhe result obta in ed, is already known from the binomia l theo re m.
Further, as mentioned above, Taylor knew, that the series obta ined throug h the bino mial
theore m, starting from th e orig inal '[unction upto its derived fUnctio ns, is represcnte d in the
diffe rential [calc ulus] as fo ll ows: xm as f(x) or y, the origina l fun ction; the second func tio n
 222 DESCRIP110N OF TIlE MATlIEMA'nC,\LMANUSCRwrs

in the binomia l theorem III X"' - I as the rea l value of the first differential coeffi cient ~; the
third function as the real value of th e second di ffere ntia l coefficien t ~~ e lc. If now I subs titute
fo r these func tio ns in
1/2 113
(x + h)'" _X'" + mxm - 1h + m (m - t )x", -2_ + m (m -1) (m _ 2)x.. - 3- - + ...
[,2 [ ·2·3
their differential exp ressions, and in place of (x + 11)'" put the indeterminate [(x + 11), then I
shall gel
dy (fly 112 dJy 11 3
f(X+ 11) . f(x) (o r y) + - 11+ -2· - + -3· - - + ...
dx dx 1·2 dx 1·2·3
w hich is Ihe theorem of Ta ylor.
[[Wc sho uld no te further , that if as the 4th derivative of {x + 11'1" we gel
11'
m (m - 1) (m - 2) (m - 3)x.. - 4 1.2'3.4 ' whose differential exp ress ion th en for
(x + 11)', [it]
. 3 (3-1) (3 - 2) (3 - 3)x'-·.3·2-1·0x-'. 0,

being multiplied by 1 ';'~'4 ,i t is again .. 0, so th~t, in Ih is case, ~ - O. Thus, here too, the
biflomiallheorem again 'shows, that as soon as x - lhe variable in differentia l calculus - is
excluded from the derivative and, hence, the latter becomes a constallt, the ~ co rresponding
to it beco mes - 0 ; i.e., the deduction of the new fun ctio ns of x, and that is the new
differentiation, eomes to an cnd .]]
It is liue, that here Taylor's formula was obtained for [(x + 11), only from the most
elementa ry a{lplication of th e binomia l theorem, namely by s ubst itut ing x + h for x in
x'" and by the: subs€:Qucnt expansion of (x + 11)"'. But th is changes absolutely nothing in the
generality of the result, beca use 1) the factors" in the ir ascend ing integra l and positive
powers [[ slarting, if yo u wish, from 110 _ 1 for the firs t term of the series of expansion fo r
f{x + h)]] wi ll remain the same, whatever J(x) be ;2)thecoefficients1;, Z etc., which
are in reality the symbols of differential operations 10 be carried out, unde rstandably, give
different results, depending upon the speci fic character of the o riginal fun ction [(x). It is
o nc thing, for instance if [(x) '" ox, another - i fax~ etc. In a ll the cases they g ive
f'(x). J"(x) a nd the subsequent derived fu nctions of [(x), a ll of w hich can, in addition, also
be obtained algebraically, and again, essentially, on the bas is of the binomial theorem, as
Lagra nge showed it in practice.
It is true, that [(x + iI) is undetermined, it does no t have a determinate power and that is
w hy, it is expanded inlo a n in fini te series. Bu t [(x + 11) [ - (x + 11)"'] remains en tire ly
indeterminate and expansiable only into an infin ite series, till m acquires a determ inate va lu e;
 TIiEOREMS O FTAYLOl{ AND MACtAURIN ; FlRSTSYSTEMA'llSTION 223

that is why,translated into the lang uage of differentia l cl.llculus, it also g ives an infinite series,
as is required by the given instance.
An authe ntic generalisation of this proof was given only by Lagrange. As we shall sce
now, in Taylor, this generalisation has the character of o nly a hypothetjcal assu mption, and ,
besides, underslandably, he did not investigate tbose conditio ns, which this hypothesis
includes within itself.
[[A c ursory glance is enough to sce, that if

f(x+Iol-f(x)+plo+q-H - + ...•
,,2
IIJ
2 2·3
112 hJ
- f(x) + [,(x)" + ["(x) H + ["'(x) 1.2.3 +
dy (Fy 112 dJy h3
- f(x) + dx I! + dx2 1.2 + dx3 1.2.3 +
[thenJ the difference f(x + 11) ~ f(x) o r )11 ~ Y is equal to the infinite s um of the de rived
[unctio ns o[ x or of the differentia l coeffi cients. All the terms in th e second s ide [R.H.S.1 -
in the s ide of the deve loped infinite series of the general express ion f(x + 11) sta ndin g in the
first side lL.H.S.] - which are connected with f(x) by the + sign, L.1ken lOgcUlCr form the
difference between f(x ) and f(x + It ). What co ncerns the infinite series of derived fun ctions
o r differential coefficients, is that an (infinitely) overwhelming majority of these functions
may in fa ct be represented onl y through an infinite series .
Owing to their very nature, the expofle1lfiai, logarithmic and trigonometric func tions ca n
no t be represented by algebraic expressions with a finite /lumber of terms 161 .
Again, from among the algebraic functions proper, a n overwhelming majority, [fo r
example1, like, _a_ etc., can be represen ted only by infinite serieses . Only o f the
a-x
determinate algcbmic fun ct io ns, like, for exa mple, (x + IJ)4, the re arc determinate number
[o ther than 01 of d erivatives; ultimately the fun c tion becomes a constant (x is eliminated), that
is, {the derivative} is a lso", 0, as it stands 10 reason also (or the ide nticfl l equations [with
identica lly equa l s id es). In the rest J'(x),.. 0 (where I' s ignifies all the subseq ue nt f", I'"
etc.) does no t designate, that x became equal to 0, i.e., is e liminated, bu t o nl y designates, tha t
J'(x) '" 0 is an equation [of determinate fo rm] of a determinate degree: because every
equat ion, if both o f its s ides are written o n onc s ide, g ives zero o n the other, and J'(x):z 0
just serves the searc h fo r x, through the fact, that the diffe rential express ion in one s ide
becomes its real value, according la Ihe o ther *; in this connection l the equation l l'(x) - 0
plays quite a signi ficant role in the theory of maxima and minima.]]
B) Ins tead of

f(x+Io)-f(x) (or y)+-Io+-·

dy tJ2y "2dJy 113
- + - 3 · _ - + .. .
dx 2
dx 1·2 dx 1·2·3

* Evidently, here the intention is to state, that in the equation f'(x) .. 0, the symbolic expressionf'(x) (or~
is presupposed by its already substi tuted real value. - Eel.
2" DE.'iCRWn ON OF 11 lE MA11lEM,,"n CAJ . M,\NlF.;CRW]"$

the theorem is written also as:

f(H h) _ f(x) + ~. J.. +!!:L.l9.. £.. + d' [(xl . ~ + ...

dx 1 dx'l 1·2 dx l 1·2·3
In full , accordin g to Lagrangc:
qh2 r/,3
f(x±h)-f(x),pI<+ ['2' 1.2.3 +
or
112 III
f(x, h) - f(x) ,['(x)" + [,,(x) [,2 ,['''(x) 1.2-3 +
C) Ins tead o f presenting his theorem as the b inomia l theorem tra ns lated into the
language of differen tial calcu lus, T aylar co mm un iC:ltcd il through a hypo thes is, outwardl y
obtained wi th the help of a general proof.
1) Let us assume that the function I(x + h) is expanded in ascending, positive and
integra l powers of 11 . The n
Yl or f(H") - Y (or f(x» +A" + B'"+C,,' + .. . , (I)
where A, B, C etc. arc indetermina te coefficients, unknown functions of x.
In fac t, since the equation (p. 15, las tli nc)*

f(x +") - f(x) + ~" +

was fou nd through the binomia l theo rem and the already known results of di fferen tial
calcu lus, it was notdifficuit to again substitute the indete rminate coefficients instead Of ~
e tc., i.e., instead of the differential coefficients or deriva tives; and the method of
inde term inate coefficients is often applied in algeb ra, for example, in the expa nsio n of
logarithms, like A, B etc., in order to then conversely ded uce from them, with the help of the
different ial calculus itsel f, the di fferentia l coe ffi cients, and thereby provide them w ith a
general derivation. What Tay lor introduces here independentfy of the diffe rential ca lcu lus,
cons ists of just the fact, tha t f(x + h) may be expanded into the seriesf(x) +Ah + ctc.; but
for him it is on ly a hypothesis; it was proved fo r lhe firs t time by Lagra ngc.
If it is assumed, that he found his theory priva Lim, in the fo rm in which we enunciated it
sub Jl A), then the subsequent substitution of A, B, C etc. in place of the der iva tives of x
or th eir different ial exp ressio ns - as the sta rting point for the differential operations proper
to be · carried out - was not, to be sure, willingly such an intricate affair.
2) Eviden tly. there is only one way[to ensu re1 that the coefficients A, B, C etc. are
dete rmined from the equat ion
y\ _y +Ah +Bh2 + Ch 3 + ...
: to ma ke two ou t o f this one equatio n, whose first s ides [L. H.S.], Le., the unexpanded
express ions of the func tions, are one and the same, and the second sides (R. H.S. ]. i.e., the
* Sce, PV. 222 - Ed.
 THEOREMS OF TAYLOR ANI) MACLA.URIN : FJRSTSYS'IT:MA11S'I'ION

terms o/the functioll expanded ill/o a series, assume differe nt forms. Since the two first sides
[L.H.S.] are identical, so the second sides [R.H ,S. ] mus t also be identical, hence, the terms with
the factors containing h in the same powers (y has the factor 110 - 1) may be equalised.
If differentiation is carried out with the ass umption that, x is a constant and" - a variable,
then y disappea rs, since y is a function of x, not containing hJ 3(1d we get A without" (with
11 0 • I). the rcmaining terms give the numerical coe fficients, because hI, 112 etc. have been
furnished with the numcrical indices of power. If differentiation is 10 be ca rried out, sta rting
from the other 8s5umplion - that" is a constant, and x is a variable - then we shall get ':::

in ascending line as 1; + ~ h + etc. The trick of this method is revealed ill Ihe differelltiation
of the first terms
dy, dy, dy
--A + --- +
dh dx dx
As soon as
A _!!1.
dx
is already found , the remaining coefficients, Z etc., a.re somehow obtained all by
themselves.
After Ihis Ihe conspectus (sheets 18-19) is related 10 Taylor's theorem. 1llese notes are laken
rto m §§ 55·57 (pp. 34.37) or the text book by Boucherlar (on rhe C(lnrents of these parag raphs,
I CC! : Appendix, p. 338).
Secllon 11 comes 10 a close with point D) (sheets 19.20).11 ca rri es the title:
-D) flit mod. 01 proving (on t/le basis 01 differential calculus) Taylor 's IheoreM, wherein the
indices o/the jj(JWlltIlQ/ h lire also considered as indeterMinale, and or.! souslll/or at Ihe saMe
tiM e ....ith Ihe indderMil1(ll1l t;{le/ficients A, B dc. or P,Q, etc. 0/ ,,".
It is a note taken from § 74 (pp. 83·84) of the text book by llind ,
Section III of this manuscript is devoled (as is evident from the title mentioned above) 10
MacLa url n's thcorem : it proposes thaI, this Ihcorem could have been obtai ned IIt!uristical/y,
from Newton's binomial theorem. 1I0wever, here, 10 begin with, Marx stresses nol onl y the
resemblance, but also the difference of MacLaurin 's theorem from Ihat of Taylor. The difference,
ntlt of all, consists of this,that while in Taylor's theorem the expansion of the function in series
l!lke8 place in the neighbourhood or, though fixed, but nevertheless indeterminate (and in that
senJ8 tI tllil'lahle ) point ¥ ; in MacLaurin's theo rem it takes place in the neighbourhood of a
determinate point O. &0 Ihat all Ihe coemcienls of the expansion are constants (values of the
runction and ils derivatives althe poi nt 0). Marx writes :

A) Tay /or's theorem gave the formula permitting the represe ntation of every functio n in x
(under the above mentioned cqnd itions). whcn x increases by a positive or nega tive increment
h, i.e" when/ex) turns into /(x ± 11), in the form o f a series, whose first term is /(x), and the
foll owing terms ~ etc., having as fa ctors Ir in ascending powers, are the differential

29
226 DESCRIPTION OF 1'1lE MA"n IEMA"lleAL MANUSCRIPTS

coefficients Dr., 10 be morc precise, the sy mbols indicating, how along the path o f dirrcrentiation,
the successive functions of x arc derived, the sum of which , taken together with the ir factors
h, 112 etc. = the difference between lex + /I) and I(x).
MacLaurill 's theorem must give an expansion in series of (he very functioft in x, as for
example,
1 ,
Y ___ , Y _ (a 2 + bx)'-, y _ (a + x)'" .'
aH
,
(besides in ascending powers of x). The [ullc tion of x - (a + x)- I or (lP + bx)"'i, or (a + x)'" etc.
Since I(x) mu st be expanded in ascending powers of x, so here x plays the same role, as
the increment h in Taylor's theorem. It is the second term o f the binomial a nd tha t is why
here it appears only as the factor in ascending powers; as there we had hO, hi, 112 here we
have x 0 , Xl, x 2 etc. For example, what is aetually developed in Taylor"s theorem, is the
first term: the derived functions of the variable x, meanwhile h, the increment, the second
term, fi gures only as the factor in ascending powers, beginning with hO - 1. Conversely,
likewise figures the variable x in MacLaurin's theorem ; consequently, th rough this th eorem
one should oblain the development of the firs t term, wh ich, here, is a constant magnilllde ;
the trick co nsists, namely, of this: in order to obtain the algebraic deduction of the constant
coefficients, contained in f(x), with the help o f differential calculus ...
Then for obtaining the expansion in powers of x, for (c +x)~ (corresponding to what is obtained
according to Macuurin's theorem) with the help of Newton 's binomi~1 theorem, Marx at first
writ ~~ the cxpHnsion accordi ng to the lat ter thcorem :

(c +x)"_c" +n c"-lx + etc., (1 )

paying IIttention 10 Ihe fact, that for (x + c)" it would look o therwise:

(x +c)"_x· +nx ·-1c+ etc. (2)

Then he dwells upon an explanation of the sense, in which in Ihe first o f Ihese expansions with
Ihe cons/onl coefficients c", n c"-I • ...• the lal1er may be considered as functions. He writes
(sheet 21) :
But we shal l ca ll these derivatives, functions of c, in the se nse, in which, if I divide
a4 a3
a 4 by a in the order: - _ a 3, - _ a2 etc. , [then] a3 , a2 , a, ma y be ca lled functions, derived
a a
from 0 4.

After this Marx considered the function (c + x)" as l function of x IInd differentiated it in
respect of x, thus obtaining successively:

(c + .\")~ " y - [(x), n (c +.\")"_1 -~ .. [,(x), n (n -1) (c +x)" -l_ ~ - ["(x) etc.

,
The n assuming;.: _ 0 in all these eq ualitics. he observed that in consequence the coeffici e nts
c ~ , n C~-I , 11 (n - 1) c~-l. etc. of the expansion (1), are obtained (as [(0),1'(0) • ["(0) •...).
and concluded (sheets 21.22) :
 T1IEOREMS OFTAYLOR AND MACU.URIN : I'lnSTSYSTEMAllS1l0 N 221

And thereby, proceeding from Ihe binomial theorem, we oblain the wh ole of such a secret,
as MacLaurin's theorem.
We note, nevertheless, that in the binomial (c + x)" and ill the derivatives of it, as soon
as we proceed 10 ass ume that x - 0 and to thu s obtain the constant c~ wi th its derivatives,
it is a matter of complete indifference to us , \.Vhether we write (c + x)" or (x + c)~, s ince in
both the cases 0 + c and c + 0 is always - c. But initially it is no t a matter of indifference,
in respect of the fact, that x figures as a fa c tor wit/l tlie ascending powers of en e tc., quite like
h in Taylor 's theorem.
After this M ~ rX" went over to the proof of MacLaurin's theorem, about which he took notes from
Doucharlat's text book. The coTreslX'nding point of the manuscript carries the heading: "DJ
MocLaurin '$ account". It s tarts (sheel 22) with the words:
1) Here the equation is independent of the differential ca lcu lus,from which follows,
[ (x ) or y_ A +Bx+Cx2 +Dx2 + Ex.4 + " 'UX', (1)

(In fact everyth ing is borrowed from algebra, even the successive differentiation etc. ; see the
no te book "Algebra 1\ p. 73d, sq.)*
Later on Marx noted § 31 (p. 20.21) of Boucharlat's book in fu ll(on its content, sce: Appendix,
pp. 336-337) . Mux fin ished it (on the IlIst line of sheet 22) with che wo rds :
The re is absolu tely nothing here, that was not borrowed from algebra - [this includes] the
initia l equation and the deductio n of functio ns.
In point ~2) Examples of application of Mo cL aurin's Theorem - , Marx noted from Bouchllrlal, at
fi rst § 34, p. 23, which conta ins an application of MacLaurin's cheorem for the deduction of the
binomial theorem of Newlon. He com pleted this conspectus (sheet 23) with the words :
Thus the bino mial theore m
In (m - 1)
( au)"' _ a"'+mam -1x + am -2x2 + ...
1·2 '
is in its turn deduced, fro m the theore m of MacLaurin, deduced from it.
Then follows the notes from I§ 32,33 (pp. 21 , 22) of S ou cha rlilt's book. It con tAins an application
of MacLaurin's theorem to the eX"pansion in a series in powers of,r, of the function: y .. -,_
a+>
and y .. val . bx .
Ma rx took notes of his point")) Failure., of MacLaurin'sTheorem", from Hind's book, from
which he nOled, in order of points 1),2), the general considerations About the instances in which
Ma cLaurin 's theorem may turn out to be inapplicable (p. 75, § 70); a) the cX"ample of the
func tion u .. ~, whcre 8CC!lrding to Hind, the -impossibility of carrying oul the expansion
in the form, requi red by the theorem {of MacLaurinj, is indica ted by the symbol r-T, which appears
in every term [of the I series- ( Hi nd. p.74); f') the considerations related to the impossi bility of
eX" panding logx in a series of powers of x (§ 70, pp. 74 .75); y) the uample of the function
u "00. b.""'.c:c 1+ ...• the inapplicabi lity of MacLnurin'a theorem to it is conditi oned by
thc presence of fractional and negative powers of.dn its expression (I 70. p. 75); 6) the enmple

* Herc p. 179 and afterwards. - Ed.

228 DESCRWllON OF nm MATHEMA11CAL MANUSCRIPTS

of the function u .. -Ix - xl. 10 which MacLaurifl's theorem is not di rectly applicable,but for which
the expansion in the series
u _ l.1 _ _I
x
.r1'1 __I x'i'2 __
I l1_
x
.. '
2 8 16
is obl~ined by representing u in the form of Vx . .;r:x and by expanding v _ vr:x according
to MacLaurin's theorem (§ 71, pp. 75· 76; in Man,', manuscript pp. 25.26).
In connection with the example u .. ~. considered sub a). Marx writes there (in sheel 24
o[the manuscript) :
Since al! the terms in the series o f expa nsion have the factor ¥-T, so with it nothing
can be done; this function may be expanded in "possible expressions"I62, but not in asce"ding
powers a/x, i.e., no t through an app lication ofMacLaurin 's formula. The "distress" is in this,
that we can not get rid or V-f, and this [arises) aga in rrom the nature or the nconstant"
c le me nt inf(x); name ly, ir in ! (x)-vii:'T we put x-O, th en we sha ll get vCT,
and hence, the seco nd s id e (R.H .S. ] must a lso be reducible to V:T, as it happens
- ~~ .
in ¥-1 ( l -x-2:-"'3-etc.);irweputherex-O,thenwhatremai ns is v-I ·(1)-v-l.
.~ .~

Marx took notes of point "E) Expansion of d,e function lex) in decreasing. and not increasing
powers of the independent variable x· (sheet 27), from § 72, pp. 81-82 of Bind's book.
Here, the expansion of the function in decre~sing powers ofx is obtained from the expansion in
increasing powers of z, of the function, obtained (rom the given substitution x .. ..!. .
•
In point "F) MucLourin's theorem as a special ittStunce of Tay/or's theorem"(shects 27-28)
Marx adduced 11 deduction of MacLaurin's theo rem from Taylo r's theorem, following
Boucharlat's (§ 62, pp. 39-40) and Hemming's (I ISO, pp. 107-108) books.
Section IV of the manuscript (sheets 28-48) carries Ihe title : ·IV. (More on Taylor's ,heonmr.
This section begins wi th poi nt "A) Just as Tay/or's theorem is deduced from tire binomial
th eorem, likewise. conversely, the binomial theorem may be deduced from Toylor's t"eorem ~.
Here, the example 1 from § 74 of Hind's book is noted,on which the aut hor writes: "This example
is a general proof of Ihe binomialtheorem,lhough it is not unusual 10 assume Ihe binomial
theorem, which can be established proceeding from the algebra ic principles, for the proof of
Taylor's Iheorem~ (1'" 8S). AI first Marx noled sub a) the deduclion of Taylor's theorem from
Newton's binomiallheorem, which followed the words quoted above, and Ihen, under the tille :
"b) Conversely, tlte deduction of binomiultheorem from Tayfor's tht!orem~, he noted the first pari
of this example.
Marx gave the next point the litle : "B) Tayfor's and MacLaurin 's tlleorems· (shccl 29). Here
Marx at first adduces the initial equations
l)f(x\) or YI .. Y +Ah + Bh2 + CM +DIt· + etc. ;
2)Hl:) or y-A +Bx+ C:c2 +Dxl+U +ete.
of the theorems of Taylo r and MacLaurin, respectively, and then comments:
Regarding the initial equation itself: il is borrowed from o rdinary algebra.
Marx again returns 10 his notes from the chapter on multiple rOO IS, from LacrOlx's "Elemenls of
Algebra- IInd Maclau rin's "Treafise of algebra", paying specialllllentio n 10 the fact that; the
algorithms for finding out lhe multiple rools, are in facl based upon succes~ive d iffere ntiation. Thus
on p. 34 of this manuscript Marx writes :
 TliEOREMS OFTAY LOR AND MAClAUR1N : FIRST SYS"l1~MA11STION 229

The only thing that interests us here, is th e loweri ng o f the power of the genera l eq uation by
one; carried o ut success ively, it is the al geb raic method of executing the successive
differentiation.
Immediately before this we read in the manuscript (sheets 33.34) :
I borrowed the algebraic expansion from the inventor o f MacL·wrin 's theorem himself,
i.e., from Colin MacLaurin , 6th edition ("A Treatise of Algehra in th ree parts etc.", London,
1796). The publishe r - Anne Ma cLaurin, MacLaurin's widow. It is a posthumous production.
By the way, it is said in the preface that: "Sir Isaac Newtoll's Rules. in his "Aritllmetlea
Universalis" , concerning the reso lution of the higher equa tions, and the affections of thei r
roots, being, for the most part, delivered without any demorll·lration, Mr. MacLaurin had
des igned, that this Treatise should se rve as a Commentary o n that work. For we find all
those difficult passages in Sir Isaae's book, whi ch have so long perplexed the s tudents of
algebra, clearly explained and demonstrated".
Regarding the art of deducing the equations of lower degrees from those of the higher
degrees, it is well known that Newton discovered it with the help of differential calcu lus or,
co nversely, being the author of the binom ial theorem, he discovered his enti re theory of
differentiation with iL.. help . MacLaurill (Co/in) , born in 1698, in Scotland, died in 1746.
In 1720 (a t the age o f 22) he published [his llreat ise on curves, which startled even Newton.
Ta ylor (J.Brook) bo rn in 1685, in Edmon ton (Middlesex), died in 1731(a t the age o f 46) .
He published [his] "Methodus incrementorwn direc:ta et inversa ", London, 171 5·17, which, so
to say, is the resume o f his theore m. Apa rt from th is, he also published a number of
mathematical and, some metaphysical works.
The direct source of this pMt of section IV of this m~nuscript (sheets 29.37) are §§ 204, 206, 207
(pp. 280·281, 283·285) of Lacroix 's "Elements of Algebra ·. from whic h Marx took notes earl ier, in
the note book · Algebra ' ". lIaving written down the equation, subsequentl y obtained by Lacroix
from the general equation
x-' +p x---'+Qx- - 1+Rx«-' + ... +Tx + U " O
by substi tuting x .. y + Q , where Q is a mult iple root of the general equation. Ma rx concludes (sheet
37),
This is also exactly the result, that would have been obtained by successive differentiation.
The IlIst 11 pages of the note book (shccts 38·48 of the manuscri pt 4000) contain 8 few
observations related to the bi nomial theorem, TI)'lor's series, as well as notes taken from the
paragraphs on total differential from Boueharlafs. lIall's and, Sauri 's books.
This part of lhe manuscript does not contain any sub·title : Marx only numbered his poin ts.
Poin t I begins wi th the wo rds (sheet 38) :
1) The binomial theorem (which can be extended 10 the polyrlOmiab;) is the greatest
discovery of algebra proper. Not only did the solution o f the equations of determ inate
power, as it happened earlier, become poss ible with the help of this theo rem,but also the
general theory of equations.
Aner this Marx adduced MacLaurin's account of the method of obtaini ng the equDtions oChigher
o rde rs, by mUltiplying the equations of fil'St degree.
Poi nt 2 (sheets 39 and 40) begins with the words:
230 DESC IUI~110N OF TIIE MA'nlEMAllCAL MANUSCRllrrS

2) The bino mial theorem not o nly permitted development of the genera l theory o f
equations (includi ng those with some unknowns). it also se rved the development o f
comhinato rics, theo ry o f trigonometric, exponential e tc. [u nctio ns ; it is the genera l basis
o f differential calclIlus; and that is why, the questio n tha t na turall y a rises is : hav ing
d iscove red the bi no mial theorem, as well as the diffe rentia l calculus, did no t Newton derive
it, or his disciples Tay/or and Mac/aurin (the fo rmer chronologica ll y prcceeds the latter) -
tho ug h thei r genera lisi ng fo rmulae made thc tech nical application of the d ifferentia l calculus
un usua lly easy - d id not they draw thc ir resul ts, eve n if on the quiet, fro m a n applicatio n of
binomi al lheorem? *
On sheets 4 1·46 Marx III first took notcs from §§ 63,64 (pp. 40-43) of Doucharlllt's book, devoted
10 the different iation ofequatlons with IwO va riables, and the n fro m §§ 26-28 (pp. 15-18) of the
same text book, related 10 Ihe diffcrentiMion of composite functions. Aft er th llt Mllrl( returned 10
the differentiation of an equation with diffe rent variables and took notes from §§ 66-68 (pp. 44 .45)
of the same book, devoted to the concepts of to la I differential and partial diffe rentials. Ilere Marx
Hlso look notes from the concludin g § 70 (pp. 46-47) of this section of DouchHlat's book, related
to the differen tiation of inverse funclion, as well as from the Appendix 5 (p. 500) on the SlIme theme.
Late r on under the title : ~Allolht!r method for the gt!lI(!ra/ t!ljualioll of differellt varioblt!s · (sheel
46) Marx took notes fro m § 96 (pp, 87) of chapter VIII, "Functions of two or more variables", of
1·lall's book.
In conclusion he listed the formulae for the first, second and third differentials of the product of
two functions, from Sauri's book (volume Ill , p. 3).
This manuscript ClIme to an cnd wit h three observations of Marx (on sheets 47,48) under the
general title: -Ill respect of Tay/or's theorem alld /"08roIl8e'$ e.~pallsioll (p.l, 29)", The first of
the m is devoted to an applica tion of Taylor's theorem to the approximate O1icul8tloo of the
increment of a functio n, according 10 Hind (H 81,82, pp. 96-97).
The second is abou t the advllntages of the Lagrangian notations for the derived fu nctions.
The third gives the gene r~1 characlerislic.\ of the inSlllnces of in~pplicabi1ity ("the excepl jo ns~)
of Taylo r's theo re m. Marx writes (sheet 48) :
Il l. The fa ilures (so ca ll ed) of Taylor's series occ ur whe n it ca n no t give the developme nt
or the func tion (x + 11); it ha ppens, when thepart;ell/ar value of the fun ct io n is inexpressible
in integral and positive powers of h, in combina tion with finite coeDkients.

* On this q uestion see the footnotes on pp, 90, 232 and 333. - Tr.
 TAYLOR 'S THEOREM, MACLAURIN 'S THEOREM AND THE
LAGRANG IAN THEORY OF DERIVED FUNCTIONS
S.U.N.4001
It is a manuscript of 27 sheets, under the general hcalling ;"raylor's tlreorem, }.foeLal/rin "s
th eorem and l.agrang;QII th eory of derived Junctions·, (In Marx's numeration pp 1-8 ,5-6,4-5, an
unnum bered page, '·20). Apparently this mlllluscript is ft rough drllfl of an intcm.lcd general account
of the entire material on Ihis theme, which Mane noted carlier. Evidently. it is related to the 2nd
half of the 70s of tne last century. i.c., 10 [hili l)Criod. when Mllrx still defended [he ~algcbrajc~
point of view of I.lIg rllnge. on the na ture of differential CIIlculus.
This manuscript has three sections, of wh ich the first tWO have liS their lilies only the Romlln
numerals l and 11, and the third carries the title; • Ill. Th e Lagrangion I/leary offuflc/ion.t 8 •
Section I (sheets 1-2) hits been published inful! in the present volume (pp.88-89). Section 11 (sheet
2) begins as under ;
11
1) Let us t:tke the simplest cxp ression of the binomia l, for instance (x + e)m.S ince
x + c - c + x, the numerical valuc of the binomia l does not change at all, whether we write
(x+c}"'o r (c+x)"'. Ncvertheless, the scrieses by wh ich these two identical expressions
arc representcd, have different forms. In the firs t case, deriva ti ves of x arc unfolded, whercas
the second term c figures only as a factor in a~cending powers, like Jr in Taylor's series. On
the contrary, in (c + x)"', whe re c is the first term, and x is the second, th e derivatives of c
are unfolded; whereas the second term x figures onl y a~ a factor in ascending powers, like
the var iable x in MacLaurin's theorem .
In conneCfion with the fact, that the expre..<isions in.\', c, and correspondingly in x, h (in transition
to x + Jr from x) IIPI}Car here. Marl( laller on (on sheet 5) made the following insert ion regarding
Ihis· :
We note here that: in the statemen t of (see p. 3) the binomial cx~ansion we call
f(x) , f'(x) etc. the derived functions of x'" ; and this is perm iss ible, since the concept of
function at first emerged from [those ) indeterminltte equa tions, where Ihereare morc unknowns
Ihan equa tions, and that is why, the va lue of x changes, when, for instance, changes the value
of y. Later on the concept of function was transferred to the ullknowns in an equation,
without taking s tock of the known magnit udcs, as the lalter appear as const.1 nL-,. Finally,
in the calculus of va riables, it is spoken of, for examp le, abou t f(a), when x takes a particular
value a. That is why. we ca n, without being confused, spea k about the function s ofx in respect
of the binomia l (x + h)/ft, as well as in respect of the binomial (c + x>,," - aboutf(c) and the
derivatives!' (c), f"(e) etc.
With the aim of showing how, proceeding from the binomialtheorcm, it is possible to go
over 10 such a generalisation of it, which must lead to the Taytor's Iheorem - Marl( begins here
(sheets 3-4) with a translation of Newton's binomial formula into the language of differential
calculus; Ihis has been don e exaclly in the way it was done in his mllnuscript4000 (sec p. 219).
Marx puts this intuitive transition, thi~ conjecture, leading to the funclions of a more general form ,
from the powered functions (Iel us recall, that for Mllrx, as well /IS for Lagrange, the issue was. s till,

·On 1).2 Marx wrote: +H p. 5· · ·. On p. 5 he made the insertion cited here, after writing: "ad ••• •. It
begins wi th the words; "We note here that ". - &I.
 I) ESCRJIYnON OF TIlE MAT! lEMA11CAL MANUSCRII'TS
'" In essence, o nl y the ~m~lytical functions of the real v/lriables, i.c., the functions, whic h may be
expanded into powered series) as follows (shccI26) :
If now the equatio n has La become general then instead of I(x) " X'" we must put
f(x) .. y. where the variable x has no determinate power, but is capable of any power, so
that the function (x + 11)'" takes the general form/ex + h). But what happened in the left hand
side of the equation, must be repeated also in the tight hand side, i.e., wc must strike out
the la ucr terms, provided by the power m of the binomial (x + 11)"\ and substitute them by +
etc. etc., in order to indica te the possibility of the infinite appearance of the new derived
functions of the gcnernlf(x + 11).
Then wc shall obtain
YI or f(x+h} - f(x) or yho+Ah+Bh2+CIz3+DII4+
and this is the bas ic eq ua tion. from which Taylor proceeds for the expos ition o f his theorem.
Thus,

y, or f(x+h) - f(x)+
!!.l'. if' v h'
cUh+~·\.2+···

Hence, for every given fun ction x,in which x changes, i.e. , turns in to x + 11. we should
only compute the differential coefficients ~,~ , ... • Le., the successive derived functions

of x, and then restore again the factors h,..!i!.-.

1·2
etc., extinct in the process of differentiation,
in orde r to obtain the expansion for f(x + h),
Thus, TayJor's theorem appea rs as Bsimple translation of the binomial theorem, from the
algebraic language into the languag~ oC dlCrctcntllll e~ltulus.
Then Marx prefaced tha pMM tlf Taylor's theorem in the gene ral instance, wilh a discussion
once mort! of Iho qu@!l!on, as to whether Newton himself also discovered Tay tor's theorem,
proceeding !'mm his binomial theorem.To this and to an analogous question regarding Tay tor
Mllt;('s answcr is as under (sheet 5) :
The question arises: did not Newton, hav ing discovered, the binomial theorem, through
a secret application of the la tter, also discove r, for his personal use, the theorem of TayJor,
which is s uch an unusually simplified application of the dlrferential €a1culus? To this
question, onc ought to unconditionally answor 'n
thil negative". In that case hc would have
made a brilliant display of this finding, Hlld he noticed Ihis simple co nnection, then neither
Taylor, nor MacLaurin, nor even Lagrange would have had anything more to discover, and
the differential calculus would have, in essence, been completed by him.For, though Tayloc's
(a nd correspondingly MacLaurin's) theorem is directly related only to the functions of one
and only one independent variable, it remains the basis a lso for the expansion of the (unctions
of many variables, given in an expticit, as well as in an implicit form .

• We have indicated earlicr, that the talcrdcvelopments in Newton-s tud i ~ hRve provided il1 flffifjfliillv@ilnSWi:!f
to this question. See, PV, p 90, 230 8nd 333. -Tr.
 TAYLOR'S TIIEOIH3M ETC. 23J

The same is more doubtful in respectofTaylor, who had at his disposal, on Ihe one hand
the Newtonian algebra ("Arithmetica Universal is"), and the differential calculus of Newton
and Leibnitz on the olher.
It is truc, that onc could have said, that in algebra the issue is always only the binomials
of a determinate power m, as in (x + 11)"'. whereas f(x + 11) includes every determinate power
only as a moment, but abso lutely excludes it as a boundary. However, this retort could have
been turned against Tay lor, for the binomial theorem has much greater genera lity, than his
theorem.
The first permits 11- 1 , h VR , /("!. etc., morc precisely, It in any possible power as factors of
the functions of x, whereas Taylor's theorem is app licable (i.e ., does not fail) only if the
functions of x arc s uch that, though they are indeterminate and capable of any c hange,
I(x) , /'(x) etc. arc all finite expressions (which do not at all lose their variability) and,
besides, in the expansion, their factors arc ascend ing, positive and integral powers of h. But
Tay lor did not even attempt to demonstrate, that the indeterminate I(x + 11), which admits
o f any expansion, can be represented after the pattern of the binomial expansion. He, in fact,
arouses suspicion, because, for example, in (x + h)"', where owing to the indete rm inateness
of m, the series may be made infinite, he limited himself to writing fo r (x+ h)'" the series
I(x) + /,(x)1I + ... + etc., forgelling, therein, that inspite of the endlessness of (x + 11)"', in so
far as we left m indeterminate, its cnd is known to us, for the penultimate term ca n contain onl y
x, and the last term can on ly be ,to 11'" _ h'" 163 •
All the same it appears to me 10 be beyond any dispute, that Tay lor did not have the
s lightest idea about this simple con nection between his theorem and the binomial
theorem. He acted entire ly on the grounds of differential calculus. without returning to its
sources.
Having noled, thal Tl ylof proceeded from the equatio n
(A) !(x+h) or Yt - y(or !(x»+.4h-tBh 1 +Chl +Dh4 + .. 'Ctc.,
and dwelling once more upon the mode of emergence of Ihis type of polynomial in alge bra (in
the general theory of equHtions), Marx concludes (sheel 6) :
Tay lor changes nothing in the initial equation obtained with the hclp of the binomial
theorcm, apart from making I(x + 1/) bereft o f powers, Ihat is, capabl e of <my expansion ,
owning to which he also makes the right hand side inaccessible for complet ion with the
help of + etc. He uses the binomial theorem (or, what is the same, the general form of an
equation with onc unknown, provided), only in so far as it gives him his initial equation,
without the proof, which is applied here. The po lynomia l itself is conside red by him from
the stand point of differential calcu lus.
After Ihis (sheets 6.7) Mar" staled the proof of Tllylor's theorem according 10 Boucharlal (§ 57,
pp. 36-37), which he apparently ascribed to Tay to r himself.
Further (sheet 8), he adduced an analogous, but more general proof of Tay tor's theorem,
according 10 Hind (§ 74, pp 83-84), where the initial e xpansio n,
Yl - y+ Ph" +Q/JP 't R liT 'tS/r6't etc.
contains nOI only Ihe indeterminate cocfficienls P, Q, R, S ....... , bul also the indeterminate indices
of power 0, p, y, b .... With Ihis point 1) comes to an end .

30
 234 DESCR1P110N OF nm MATlIEMA'I1CALMANUSCRIPT$

Point 2) of section 11 (sheet 9) carries the lillc: ~2)MacLau,.i"·s /lzeorem H

• With thcllimof
obtaining the induction of MacLaurin's theorem, starling from 11 gcner~lisation of the binomi~1
theorem of Newton, here Marx bcgi ns by IIpplying Ihe 1~t1cr to the expanSion of {c + x)"'. and
then substitu tes the coefficients or the powers of:c in this cxpnnsion by indeterminate
coefllcients . Thus having obtained the equation
[(xl" (c+x)" -A xO+B.~ + ex' +Dxl +E r' + .. . + "cx"-1 +.1"',
he concludes fUrlhcr (sheets 26, the insertion "Zu MacLaurin, p.S"):
As earlier, wc can, upon obta ining Ta ylor's [in itial equation j, gene ralise this equation into
f(x) -A + B x + C x2 + ... +ctc. etc. (without comi ng 10 an cnd), and this is the initial equation
of MacL1urin.
In this connection Marx specially dwe lls upon the fact, that such an order of arrangement of the
te rms of a series is inverse, in resp(~ct of their arransement in the polynomial, representing the left
hand side of the general equation or n-th power; and that (sheet 27) thus:
.... we s hall gel rid of the term x n, appropriate onl y for the equations o f a determina te
power, which, lill the co nvers io n of the series, formed its first term, a nd hence, which must
now be its las t term . It is subs tituted by + etc. With this the polynomia l acq uires that genera l
fo rm, which is essential, when we substitute (c +x)n or any other dete rminate fun ction of x
by the genera l express ion f(x), where f(x) does not ha ve any power, but includes a ll the
powers in its expansion. Then we s hall get the general :
f(x) o r y .. A+Bx+CX2+Dx 3+Ex4+ · ·
- the bas ic equa tio n, fro m which MacLaur in begins the e xpositio n of his theorem.
He re the insertion comes to an end. The subsequcnt texl (shect9) reads:
Thus, the start ing point of MacLaurin's exposition
y o r f(x)-A+Bx+Cx 2 +Dx3 +Ex4+ ...
is already an algebraic expression (w ith indeterminate coeffic ients, for the binomial (c +x)n,
in which the known c is the first term, and x- the second. Hence, in order to expand any
arbitrary function of x, Le., to represe nt it in the form [of a sum] o f the produCl<; of its constant
functions and the asce nding integra l powers of x, it is necessary only to translate this
algebraic expressio n into the lang uage of differential calculus, i. e., to find Oul the differential
sy mbols for the coeffic ients A, B, C, D etc.
Here, as in manuscript 4000, Marx specially deals with the [act, that while in Taylor's .series the
coefficienTs are the derivcd functions, in MacUturi n's series the coefficients are constants. Thcn
Marx describes as follows, the c ircumstance, where the~e constanls are v~lues of thc derived
functions o[x, when x _ 0, and that is why they may be round with the help of different ial calculus:
But here, fro m the very beginning, there a rises a difficulty, w hich is a lien to Taylo r's
theorem. With the ·he lp of differe ntial calculus, o nly the functions of the va riables m~ y be
obtained directly, w hile wha t is a t issue here is, conve rsel y, the expans ion connected with
the variables of constant fu nctions. On the other hand, differentiation is possible, only when
x turns into Xl or into x + It, as in Taylor's theorem. The issue here is not about the functions
obtained as a result of the change in x thanks to the positive or negative increment, but about
the representation of the genera l expression f(x) in an expanded form, with the factors of x in
 TAYLOR'S '!1 [EOREM ne. 235

ascending power, as, for example in [he ordi nary :1 lgcbra , which represents/ex) _ _ a_ with
a-x
the help of successive divis ion, in the form o f the series
-a- _ 1 + _X
l + _l X2+_X3
1 +
a- x a a2 a3
If now in (c + x)n, wc take x as a vari able and expand this [(x) with the help of the
d ifferential ca lcu lus (hence, turn ing [(x) into [(Xl) or into [(x+ 11) etc.), then wc s hall get :
(c+xr -y - f(x)

n (c+ x),,-I -!!l'.

dx
- ['(x)

n (lf-l)
1·2
(c + x )n-2
1 d2y
2. dx1 -l 2
["(x )

n (n -l)(n-2)(
1'2 .3
l'"
c+x- - 1 d 3y
(; dx3 -l 6
["'(x)

etc.
Thus all the wh ile wc get new binomials, and not an independe nt ex pans ion o f the cons tant
fun ction in c. However, we atta in the ultimate goa l by assu ming in all the binomials x - 0, i.e.,
a rter wc have already used the va riable for obta inin g an expans ion, we remove it.
The talte r part of poinl 2) is again, as in manusc ript 4000, devoted 10 Ihe multiple rools of Rn
algebraic equation . Marx begins it (sheel 11) with Ihe words;
In order to indicate once more the algebraic clemen t of the differentia l calculus, wc
shall furth er refer to MacL1 urin 's deduction proper.
Marx complelcs Ihis deduction, consistins of the sellrch for Ihe indclcrmimlle coefficicnlS of
Ihe ex,l.,nsion !(Xl or>,.A + Ox + Cr1 + D.rl + elc., with the help of successive diffe rentiation
and Ihen with Ihe supposilion of x - O.lhus (sheet 11) ;
Co ncern ing the process o f success ive differentia tion, specia ll y applied here, !it may be
sa id] , that Mac La uri n. in his "Algebra"- whic h, in his own wo rds, is, in essence, a
co mmenlary o n Newton's "Arithmetica Universal is" - developed th is process purely
algebraicall y, namely, in that part, where the success ive lowering o[ the power o f an equation
by onc, with the aim of findi ng o ut its multiple roots, as we ll as the detection o f the unknown
[roots], have been discussed.
In MacL..aurin·s • Algebra· Ihe melhod of seeking the mUllipte roots has been enunciated only
in Ihe tight of the examples of the equations of thi rd and fourth power (see the descriptio n of
manu~cript 3933, pp. 206-208). That i~ why, here, ItS in manuscript 4000, Marx enuncialcs this
method IIccording to LRCroix 's "Elements of Algebra", where the a1so rithm has a more general
character(whe re it has been constructed in appl ica tion to an equa tion of Rn)' power m). Underlining
the circumstance, where the result turns out 10 be coincidins with what is obtained by successive
dilTerentiation of the initial equ3 lion, Marx explains(sheets 13-14) that coincidence as follows :
Regard ing this algeb ra ic form o f s uccess ive diffe rentiation, it should be noted that: wc
get the equa tion as a res ult of the ass umption that x _ y + a, i.e., x - a _ y. If a itself is a root
o f the equatio n, then x - a, Le., x - a - 0, hence y - O. In x - a - y the difference between x
2" DESCRIPTION OF TI lE MATI IEMA'Il CAL MAN USCRIPTS

and a has been posited, and bes id es, this difference co y. Then, jf x"" a, i.e., [ir] the
difference posited at fi rst, is aga in ta ken llway, then owing to this wc gel a two-Cold result: o n
the one hand a as onc of the rOOISof the equation or a particular value of x; on the other hand,
y - O. Thus, the setling up and removal of the difference appea rs, as in the differential
calculus, as the suppos itio n, o n the o ne hand, of some thing pos iti ve, and o n the other, as
the supposition o f O.
The last parI of section 11 (sheets 14·16). is devoted IQ MacLaurin '$ theOrem as 3 particu lar instance
of Ta)'lor's Ihcmcm.ll has been reproduced in the presenl volume (see, pp.89.90).
Poinl 1) of section III of the manuscrip t carries the title: "Ill. The Lugrang;u n theory of
functions" (sheets 16-17). If has also been reproduced in the present volume (see, pp. 90-92).
After this, the manuscript contains a detailed ae<:ount (according to Boucharlal, §§ 244-260, pp.
168-180) of the Lagrangian proof, that in the ge neral instana f(x + Ir) c~ n be expanded into a
series of integral ascending powers of Jr, and th~t such a series must be that of Ta ylor.
Going over 10 the last example, of this part of the manuscript, of an application of Lagrange's
method ror finding out the derivative of the product of two functions, Marx writes on sheet 24 :
Before ma king, in co nclusion, a somewhatio ng com me nt o n the method of Lagrange,
let us consider at first, the simplest example of its applica tio n. Suppose, fo r instance, that
I(x) '" «z is to be differentiated.
Marx's concluding remHb (point 11) (sheets 25-26) have been reproduced in Ihe present volume
(see. pp. 91-92)
 OTHER MANUSCRIPTS ON THE DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS
,\ . S.U.N.4002

Some separate shecls(fouf in all). with Marx's num berin g 1,2 and 1,2, carrying respectively
the litles : "Toy/or's T"eorem~ and "I) Taylor 's Th eorem", The contents of both the ptlirs of
sheets coincide. Most likely. onc pair of , heels served as the draO for the o.thcr. Conlentwise it
corresponds 10 those pa ris of the manuscripts 4000 and 4001, where Taylor's theorem has
been obtai ned by induction , from Newton's binomialthcorcm. However, in Ihis connection here il
has been said, Ihat :
To all appearance, TayJor did not in fact arrive at his discovery so s imply .
The m~nuscript stops sudden ly at the heading : "MacLllurin 's Th eorem ",

S.U.N.4003

{\ few sheets, in the main con taining calculll.lions (in pari also notes), which Mane jotted down,
evidently, while reading the text· books by Hind, Boucharlat and o thers; in all 26 sheets ( Marx 's
numeration: 1·7, Ill , furth er 6, a page without number, 3·4, again a page without number).
Sheets 1·7, entitled : "Lagrunge (Deril1ed Fun ctions)" , numbered 1·7 by Marx, conta ;n:
calculations related to §§ 95-97 (pp. 120-127) of Hind's book, in which Lagrange's meehod has
, been enunciated ; a quotation (with Marx's refe rence to Hind) from § 99, wherein il;s stressed that

! ,
in practice, the expansion into a series is carried out with the hel p of the usual methods of

f ,• ..
d ifferential calculus, and noi following Lagrange; and linally, calculati ons, related 10 § 74, to which
, .i i <
; Marx turned in connection with the reference, found by him in § 96, to an analogous method (of
indeterminate indices of power), applied earl (er.
•
•'-" I Sheets 8 -9, carry the title:-Logrunge's Mt 1hod". It is the beginning of the conspectus of §
244 (pp. 168 -169) of 130ucha rlat's book. The ~ language is English. This no te abrupll y comes to an
·, ; end with the calculations re lated to an exam61e borrowed from Hall ( p. 3).
Sheets 10·18 are related to the instances of applicabi lity of Ta y tor's theorem . The lirst two
instances

y . ;rl + v;r-q and

'"
are from § 77 (pp. 92·93) of lI ind's book;the second two :
1
Y • b+ vx-a and y . - -
(x - a)
are from § 69 (pp. 52·53) of Hall's book..Sheels 19·22 contai n rough calculations related in the
main to the deduction of Newton's binomial theorem wi th the help of Taylor's series.
Sheet 24 conlainsextractsland diagrams from § 88 (p p. 111·112) of Hind's book. In th is paragraph
Hind attempted to substantia te Newton's method of nuxious wilh the help of the method of '·
limits.
Sheets 25 and 26, contnin the differentiation of x)' acco rd ing 10 Leibnitz and Poisson; the no tes
are taken from Sauri , volume Ill, p. 3 and Hall , p. 4. It is being reproduced here in full :

i
,

,
2,. DESCRWI1 0 N OI' T IIE MAT liI!MAllCAL MANUSCRII"TS

THE DIFFERENTIATION OF xy
j):L.eibnitz's method.
i<,<,y)
-xy
if/Ix ,y) _ (x. dx) (y. dy) - xy,
. df(~ ;y) - xy +x dy + Y dx + dx dy -xy,
:. df(x,y)-xdy.ydx.dxdy,
We neglect dxdy as an infinitesimal of 2nd order. (As to this neglecting, the same in Newton,
onl y [the J notation [is] d iffcrcn 1.)
:. df(x,y)-xdy.ydx.
2) According /0 Poissoll.
If we have yz, then according to the genera l proposition:
y,-y+Ah+Bh 2 + "',
zl-z+A 1 h+B,h 2 + ".
Wc know (rom the same proposition:
<!y. dz
dx - .A and dx - AI'
Mulliplying the 2 equations:
z,y, - zy +Azh + Bzlt2 + ... +AtYh +AA ,h2 + ... + BtYh2+
Hence:
zty , - zy
h -Az+A , y+(Bz+AA1+BV')h+ '"

making It - 0:
zV' , -Z)' ~
o -Az+A1y, [and] dx - Az+A,y .

Putting in the values orA andA,:

d(zy) _ z(ly+ ydz 164 •
 MANUSCR IPTS OF T HE 1880s

T H E NOTE BOOK· A. I. .
A NE W SYSTEMATI SATION OF T HE MATERIAL ACCORDING T O THE
COURSES OF HI ND AN D BOUCHARLAT

S.U.N.4036
This a nOle book C<1rrying the title "A. I.". (11seems Ih~llhe large Roman numeral I was written
later on, in pencil). ln all Ihere are 42llagcs; in Marx's numeration ri rst comes la, then the pages
1·35, lhen pages 37-41, and the IltSlllilgc is without number.
11 is a systematic conspectus of the first three chapters of Hind's book, with a few insertions from
l3oucharlat's book. In the nOle book"O(conlinu3Iion of A). II ~ Ma rx already look notes from the
fourth chapter of Hind's book, the beginning of which is devoted 10 the differentiation of
trigonometric funttions (sce. manuscript 4038). Bul in note book "A. I." Mane anticipates this
section in his section IV, containing the noles from chap!crs I and 11 of: Hind, ~The Elements of
Plane and Spherical Trigonometry", 3rd. cd., o.mbridge, 1837, pp. 7-46. lie makes Rn aMlogous
insertion, devoted to logarithms, in connection with the differentiation of logarilhmic and
ellOponential functions.
In section I (sheets 1-3), corresponding to chapter I of Hind's book, devo ted to the "definitions
and preliminary observations", M~rllO noted only the eXHmplcs 1-9 of Hind (pp. 20-24), n'u mbering
them with Ihe urstsmalllcllers of the Greek alphabet(u - t). In all these ex~mples the deriva tive
is sought, proceeding direclly from its defi niti on as the limit or the ~Iast value· of the ratio ~ .
Ox
In the examples 0.) and ~), !he func!ions u - ox and u .. a.r1 -1J.x2 + cc - e, respectively, are
difFerentiated. Mat)( wrote a note on Ihe mHgins of the example ~) . This example (as it was
wrillen by Marx) (sheet 2) and the corresponding note (comment) of Marx is being reproduced
here in full.
Il) u _ a.r3_b.r2 +cr _ t'; ul - axIJ-bx\2 +ccl-t'
u 1 - u .. a (.r l ) -x) - b(X]l _x2 ) + C (.1'\ -x) ;
u1 - U _ a (XI - x) (.r\2 + .r1x + x 2) - b(~l ' :" x) (XI + x) + cCx I - x)
hence : .'.:, .
UI-u -l\u
-- QC --(1(.rI2+xlx~x2)-b(xl +x)+c .
.t:1-x 6..1' ..
~,.,.

! If the increment of x be diminished sine limite Xl becomes _ x.

do .
-d _3ax 2 _2bx+'c;
..
.,
du - 3ax2 d~ - 2b~ dx'+ c dx

13) It s hould be noted that here is a difference fro m a). Thcrc·wc had ~: - a, and tha t is

why whcn it turns into ~ nothing ~hanges, apart from the form of thc lcft hand side. In f3)

• A slip of pen in the manuscript :"here" has been writlen. where as, il should be ~ t here". -Ed.
240 DESCRIPll0N OF"J1113 MATII);MAl1CAL MANUSCRWTS

both the sides ; with the decrease of the increment of x si ne lim ite XI becomes ... x, and this
gives us at the sa me tim e, in the right hand s ide-the .fi rst derived function of x and in the le ft
hand S I'de t he converSion
'f6 .lI o dll
Q - - Into -d '
fi x x
But whe n Xl-X, Ih~ n in rea lity,wegc!·
All O·
--------1l 1 - U

!:J.X xl-x 0
so that it is on ly_ "seem i ngl y~managcd with that, which does not linger he rein ; but the
adva ntage of elementary deduction consists o f th is, tha t in L~C right hand side 0 is no morc
met with as a facto r, ex term inating the determinate ,terms; rather, conversely, it is immediately
detected , that the co nve rs io n o f x J inlo x gives a new func ~ion o f x in the right hand side,
dU
meanw hile in the len ha nd 's ide it is s hown, through the conversion of l1u into dx , that this
fix
new func tion is the limi ting and ulti mate va lue of ~·u .
fix
In the example y), where the function

is diffe renlialed directly from the definition of the d~rivative, afler the words:
"If we do the sa me w ith the help of diJJerenlial calculus, then"
Marx adds the deduction of ~; according to the rule for differentiating the quotient.

In 5ection 11 (sheets 4.13), which is 8 short conspectus of chapter tI ("On the differentiation of
algebraic functions of onc independent variable") of Hind's book, Ma rx took down, fo r the most
part, only the fo rmulae and examples contained in this chapter, without adducing any proof,
not even for the differential of a producl. However, Marx completed the calculations pertaining
10 Ihese examples, in full, sometimes even in gre<lter delail, than did Hind. Bulk of these pages of
the manuscript contains only calculations.
Conlentwise section 111 (sheets 14·26) is related to chapler III ("On the differcnti~tion of exponential
/lnd logari thmic functions of one independent va riable", §§ 34.46) of I-lind's book. Having noted
the whole of § 34, in which the derivative of an exponential function is sought with the help of a
reference to the fact, thllt "it was demons.! rated in algeb ra", that
1 1
loga - (a-l)-Z(a-l)z+3(a-lp- .. . .

Marx makes an insertion (sheets 14·17) from Hind, ch. VII, pp.154. 159, under the title:"'ns.!rtion
from trigonometrical a/Gebra~. Its content in fact coincides - right Uplo the mistake in the sixth
deci mal place of the expansion for.! -with §§ 13 and 14 of section VII of the manuscript 3933
(~Algebra W ) described in pp. 186·187.

At the end of the insertion on sheet 17 Marx wrote: "End of tile insertion ", and then under the
heading : ~continuQtion of p. J3(prior fO fhe ins.!rfionr he retumed 10 § 34 of Hind·s book, this
time taking notes from it ve ry briefly. After this he look notes from §§ 35·37, and also from
example I of § 45 of chapter III of Hind 's book.
 TIlE NO·J1:.nOOK '1\.1.' 241

In the insertion the serieses ror aY and log,r were oblr.ined by ~Ilplying lhe binomiallheorem. While
deducing the derivative of a'; proceeding directly from the dcfinition of the derivative, Ilind used
the series for log a. In l30ucharlat ':> book the derivative of Q< was sought wilh the hel p of the
expan:>ion of the expression at. ~ into a series in powers of Ir Rnd by looking ro r the coefficient
of the firs t power of ft. The laller was derived by using MacLaurin's theorem and lhe metho d
of indeterminate coefficient:>.
In this connection Marx once again turned his attention to the connection between the methods
of differentia l calculus ~n d those used in the courses of algebra. He wrote on sheet 19 :
rf we aga in compare with this, the deve lopment of the same prob lem, resti ng up on the
differential ealculus itself, then we shall again observe, how in Taylor 's fi nd MacL.1urin's
theorems, a simple trallslation from one mode of expression into another, in which 1) the
common bas is, which is also the binomial th eorem, is used by MacLaurin's theorem, for
further development, wh ich g ives us f(x) [[in the given ease y - ax]] expanded into a series
of integral, positive and ascending powers of x, where, then it is assumed that x - 0, in order
to find out tha t which is in fac t required 10 be found out, i.e., the coefficients A etc. , which
are [functions] derived from the constan t a. Let us exam ine Ih is deduction.
After this Marx took detailed notes from §§ 36·40 (pp. 24.28) of lloucharlat's book devoted
10 the differe ntiation of the exponential funclion, and then again returned 10 lIind, and aga in
took detailed notes from I§ 37·46.
Section IV carries the title : "Preliminary recapitulation of Ihe trigonometric developments-. lt
is a detailed conspectus from the text book by lI ind, mentioned above and, [ram: Hall Th. G .•
"A Treatise o n l'lane Trigonometryft, London, 1833, ch . I. Here the deduction of ord inary
trigonometric formulae, required for the differentiation of trigonometric functions, has been
discussed. Pages la and 41 of this note book contain the usual proof of the theorem about the
differential of product.
The content of the last, unnumbered page is rela ted to the next note book entilled:"B (continuation
of A). W . It is the beginning of the first drafl of the work on differential . It comes to IIIl end with
the words :"Su, furl/ rer note book 11, p.9". This page has been reproduced in the present volume
(sec, pp. 40.42).

"11. NOTE BOOK I"

CONTIN UATION OF THE SAME MATER IALS
S.U.N.4037

tl is a nOle book ca rrying the title :"11. Note book r. 18 completed pages. Conspectus of the
text books by Boucharlat a nd Hind on differential calculus.
Sheets 1-3 begin with the heading :"/.A) Maxima et Minima affunctions of one vuriable ~,thcn
follows the Roman numeral "I". Conspectus of §§ 9l-tOl (pp. 64.70), related to the section under
the same title, of 130ucha rlat's tex t book (French edition, 1838).
Sheets 4-18 begin with the title :"/1. Additionllllyon Ma,rima and Minima". Conspectus of chapter
VII (§f 109-120 and 123-124; pp. 147·171, 173-177) of the text book by Hind. From the lasl § 124
Marx notes only example 1; the last three pages (177- 179) ofcha ptcr VII remain un noted.

31
 THE NOTE nOOK " n (CONTINUATION OF A) . 11"
FIRST DRAFTS OF MARX'S OWN POINT OF VIEW ON THE
NATURE OF DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS AND DRAFTS OF THE
HISTORICAL ESSAY
S.U.N.4038

39 completed pages; il carries the title :"D (Continuation ofA ). IJ- (the large Roman numeral 11.
is wrinen in pencil , like the nume ral I in the note book wit h the title -A.I-; scc, the manusc ript
4036).The first pace is unnumbered, then fo llows Mane's numerations pp. 1-37, the last page
of the no te book is again unnum1x:red.
Sheet 1 (!In unnumbered page). It contains a name index, years of birth and dea th [of the authors]
a nd the tilles of the classics of differential calculus. Il has been reproduced in the present volume
under the title:"A page of the note book entitled -8 (continuation of A). 1I"(sec , pp. 65-66).
Sheets 2·8 (Marx 's 1.7), carry the tille: "IV(con fifluafiofl 0/ IV A). Differenli(Jtiofl o{trigonometric
functions ·. Marx's conspectus of the paragraphs devo ted to the differen tiation of trigonometric
functions, successively fro m the courses of : Sauri (vol. Ill, § 27, pp. 36-37), Ilall (ch. II, §§
29-31, pp. 18.19), Hind (1) (ch. I, 118, pp. 22.23), Hemming (1Xch. Ill. § 30, p. 23). Hind (ch. IV,
I§ 47·48, pp. 46-47) and, l30uc harl at (I§ 43-51,pp. 30- 33). (The notes of interrogation indicate,
that the source hAS not been established with com~le te certai nt y.)
Marx began his notcs with § 27 ofSauri's book (Sauri sti ll ftdhered to Lcibnit:t's method, and that
is why, fo r him si n of an infinitesimally small arc was sim ply equal to the IHC itself). Marx
e nunciated this point under the title (p.l):
-8) On;: of 'he simplesl forms of tire account based 011 tITe differl!!nlial calculu s itself - .
In Hall '5 · book(which proceeds from the method of Lag ran ge) the aug mented value of the funct ion
u is expressed in the form:
d,
u+-+U/r 1·
dx •
on Ihis Marx observes within brackets (sheet 3, point b»:
(Where U is the rep resentative of all furthe r coefficients with higher powers of h) ,
The following method, noled by Marx in point c), is based on the equality
. XI -.t
UI - u 1 "'-2-
- - "'cos- (x +x)
X l -X 2 I

where u '" sinx. Hnd in transitio n to the limit when'¥1 - x . lI ind applied such 11 method in §
18, in the example of the differentiation of the function U '" sin lx, ill ustrating th~ definition of
the derivative. Mllrx IIpplied !he same method (or finding out the derivative of the fun ctions
U '" sin.tend u '" cosx. Was this paragraph of Hind's book Mll rx's source here or did he have some

other source al his disposal? This we oould not ascertain. Further, going over 10 the method
enunciated by him in point d), Marx wrote (sheet 4) ;
d) The previo us melhod (c) presupposes the basis of differential ca lculus onl y in Ihe fiffal
translatioll into its language, of the resu ll, which is obtained without the help of this calculus.
 TIlE NOTE BOOK ' 13 (CONTINUATION OF A). 11" 243

This happens in yet full er from, in the following method, which proceeds directly from
the finite differences, turning into differentials in the end .
Here, the method, utilising the form ula •
. ( • I -smx
Sin X + uX
. " 2 OOS (x. T
Ox I . Ox
slO T '

has been discussed. Having wrillen down this formula, Ma rx continues (sheet 4) :
From the sta nd point o f finite differences it is concluded further that:
. 6.x.
if the arc 6.x is very small, then cos(x+6.x)_cosx, approximately, and s'"2 1S
6x
nearly - 2'
Hence,

sin(x +6. x) - sin x or IlSinX_2cosX.lI.; _cosx'IlX , nearIY.

Translated if/to differential form, it gives d sin x - cos x dx. where Il is s imply s ubstituted
by d, and the sign for nearly = by the = sign.
It could not be established, from whe re Marx borrowed this (entirely non.st rict) deduction. In
Hemming's book, which also begins with the above mentioned equality, the deduction of the
formula Jy .. 005 x dx, where 1 _ s inx, is obtained . by dividing III (Le., 0. sinx) by tu and
through a transition to the limit.
Going over to the next (loint Marx wrote (sheet 5) :
e) This (differential) method differs from the prev ious ones, emana ting from differential
ca lculus ( i.e., from a) and b». in this th at, the increment is not instan tly cons idered as the
differential.
Here Hind's method (§§ 47, 48, pp.46, 47) has been discussed. In this book the function u .. si np,
wherep is, in its turn, a function of .%~is differentiated, proceeding from the equality
. 1. .1.
u , -u 1 sln'2' 1 SIl1'2'
--_2cos(p+ - ,) - - • cos ( p . - , ) - -
h 2 h 2 1. h '
'2'
through 8 transition to limi t when /1- O. Here the increments i and Jt of the variables p and x arc
in fact not identified directly with the differentials Jp and dx.
In that last point C) of this section (rom §§ 43-51 (pp. 30-33) of Iloucharlat's book, notes are
taken under the Illle : -n (Boucharla fJ" (here, elsewhere Marx did not indiCllte his sources).
Here the s tarling poinl is the equality
si n (x. It) - sinx • sinxcos h . sinh con - sin x
Ir "
which is tra nsfo rmed into the equali ty
si n (x.l1)-slnx si nx(cosh-l) si n llcosx
11 .. 11 • 11 .
244 DESCRI i"'l10 N OF 11 lE MATI ICMA11CAL MANUSCRIPTS

When " _ 0, bOlh lhe terms or [hi s equality [urn ;010~. and BoucharlAl , wh o is in fac t required

._0 COs ;, -
to compu te Um
r
1 , says iu thi s connecti on (wc reproduce here Marx's nole on sheet 6) :

"1Icoc<:, we musl gjYe this term [COS~ - I} another f orm".

. 'h
After this l30ucha rlal .ransformcd Ihe expression cos" - 1 inlo Sl~ I and Ihen the Iransitio n
00' +
10 limit is cffee.cd by Ihe simple assumpt io n of ,,_ 0 Bm! Si~ 0 _ 1.
Sheets 9·16 (Marx', pr.8. 15). The lexl Lx:gins with It reference provided by M8tlc:"(see, th e
beginninG of/his i/l nore book I, n:peated on 1'.10 of this note bOQk)~. Ilcrc Marx has in view
lhe lasl{unnurnbercd) page of manuscript 4036.
This tex t is the first drafl o( M afx's work o n the differential. 1I h ~s becn published in Ihc prescnt
volume (pp. 41.52) . It occupies thc fOllowing shects : the last unnumbered pllge of the note book
w A.l ~ (the beginning) (s heet 42).(shect 11, p. 10 orthe prcscntnote boo k under th e title:wHere
is the be8inning Q/pageS", sheet 12 (p. 11) UplO Ihe words :~/url"UQn p.S /QP Qnd p. 9 w , sheet
9 ( p. 8). Bfler Ihis the remaining part of 'he texl conl inues on sheel 12 (I'. 11 ) , sheet 10 (p.9) and
sheets 13-16 (pp. 12-15).
Sheets 16-35 ( Marx 's pp. 15-34). Draft s of Ihe essay on differenlial ca lculus. These have been
published in the present volume (pp. 64 -86) under Ihe tille : ~On the His tory of Differenli al
Calculus".
Sheets 36·38 (Marx's pp. 35-37). These pages co ntain th e beginning of a no te, which Marx did
not co nt inu e. Hc did no t evcn formulate clearly, what, namely, he wished to say. The beginning of
th is note reads (sheet 36):

Irom it the secret of differential calculus can not be extracted directly; it can be found only
from the opposite method, where the augmented value of x appears only as XI' Le., the
difference rek'tin s its difference-form XI - X , also in the subsequen t deduction. Hence, the
secret which remains hidden in the method used by us, is required 10 be revea led,
The mean·in g o f th e s ubsequent part of Ihe text is not sufficiently clellr. We may only
surmise, what Marl( intended to explain, namely : why, fo r oblaining the derivative, lit first the
difference Xl - X d ifferent from 0, is requi red 10 be formed, and then removed. AClually. here
considering the function :cl , Marl( at first formed the difference Xl - x2. which is rcpresenled in the
form of (x +x) ex- -x). whence dividing both Ihe parts by x -x. he obtained furtherx + x _ 2x. After
Ihat he wrote (shee t 37) :
But though till now we deduced correctly : from x2 we went over to the difference
2
x - x2, then obwined (x - x) (x + x) from this difference, and from the latter ":"" the divisor
x - x, Le., all the time we have applied only the exp ressio ns derived from the initial X2;
however, du ring this time we forgot that x - x - 0 in the expression (x - x) (x + x), that
is also in o· (x + x) _ 0, before any further divis ion by x -x may occur. Nevertheless, this
development showed us :
 'I1IE NOTE IlOOK "J)(CON'nNUATtON 0 1' A), lE" 245

1) Persis te ntly draw ing upon the treatment of x 2 and Xl , whence also of x ~n dx,lls different
magn iludes, that is also of x 2 _x2 and x-x as aClllal differellces, we could find ou t the
derivative of x2, namely 2x. But how?
2) After violating all the rules of a lgebra, wc still, in the c nd , trcated x-x in the
expression (x - x) (x + x) as an actual difference, Le., acted as if the firs t x is a magni tude
different from the second x, and that is why permitted ourselves to divide (x-x) (x +x) by
(x - x), [but] as soon as wc ob t.1ined the positive express ion x + x without any o ther
factor,a pa rt from I, we sudden ly remembe red that, x and x are no t at all different, but are
identical magniludcs and that is why x + x ... It.
Here the note abruptly comes to an cnd. Later, on sheet 38, under the title: "3) ad 10 ".35" the
deduction of the derivlllive 2r from Xl, by forming the diffcrences xl- .r- And x -x, wriuen on
sheet 36, is repeated (with some olher expressions).
The last. unnumbered page of the nOle book (sheet 39). contains on ly some calcul.1lions rchlled 10
the dete rminlltion of the suhtllngent to parabola.

SOME SEPARATE SHEETS CONTAINING MATHEMATICAL

CALCULATIONS

S.U.N. 4040

A double-page writing papcr (pp. 1-3), containing a summary of the formulae of differential
ca lculus. Source: I·Hnd's book, chapters I ,U.
S.U.N. 4048

Some separllte sheets (10 in all), containing calculations relllted to v~ r ious questions, referred to
by Marx in his notes. These sheets do not contain anything new in comparison 10 the nOTes. On
one sheet the general equlITions for the curves of ~econd ~nd third o rder have been written.
 NOTES ILLUSTRATING D' ALEMB ERT 'S METHOD AS EXEMPLIFIED
BY THE DIFFER ENTIATION OF A COMPOSITE FUNCTION
S.U.N. 4143
A manuscript of 14 pages, Marx f1umbe red them with the small tlllin Lel1crs from a 10 /1 •

Sheets 1·7( M ~rx·s pages a tog). Marx 's nOlesi ll uSlr8tingd ' J\lcmbcrt's method ItS exemplified
by [he differentiation of a composite [unction.These have been reproduced in the present
volume, under the line: "Analysis of d '" ft:mlxrt 's ml!lllOd in ' he fight of ~t ano/iaer camp/e"
(pp. 102-106).
Sheets 8-9(Marx's page hi I) carry the heading: "l,agrangc". These s heets contain ca lculations
related 10 the differentiation of the product oflwo fu nctions u and t, according 10 Lagr.. ngc 's method,
i.e., by rep resenting the product of the augmented val ues of the [unctions in the form o f the product
of two scricscs
I
u+ph+-qh1 + ,..
2
and a sea rch ro r the coefficients or the first power of 11. Source : Hind, § 96 (pp. 126- 127).
Sheets 1O. 14(Marx's ( turned over)A: to 1'1 ), devoted tothedifrercnlials of second order.
Here the question specially discussed is : how to differentiate ex pressions of the type! '(x)d.\" .Thus
o n shects 12 a nd 13 wc read;

x' , 3x' • /'(X), 6x • I"(X).

I) 3x2 or /,(x).;£' .
If wc proceed from ['(x) as <p (x), i.e., assu me that 'P (x) - )x2, thcn mov ing along the
aforementioned path, wc shall ge t :

11 ) 6.x - <p' (x) -11;. Here cp is written only to make it di ffe rcnt from the first ['(x).

d (3x2) • d /' (x) • d (;£') ,

dy. ['(x) dx, d (dy) or d'y. d (J'(x) dx).
If dx is a cons tant, the n [it] - d if' (x» dx.

'1i; . d (J'(x)).
Bul d (J'(x)). I"(x ) dx,

:. Z· ["(x) dx or ~. ["(x) .
[[If we take 3x2 as the firs t derivative, then it is equal to ['(x) and ~ - ['(x) .
That is why :]J
 NOTI':.s ON D'I\LI::MIJER'rS MElt-lOO '41
a) 3x' - f'(x) - ;l;'. Thus, dy - f'(x) dx.
That is why:
d'y - d (f'(x) <ix) - /"(x) <ix' .
b) 6>:-/,,(x).
If dx is taken to be a consta nt, then
d'y - d (f '(x) <ix),
!!'1. _ d (f '(x)) but d (f'(x)) - /"(x) <ix.
.. dx2 dx
Hence

'fll; -["(x) .
In this method the formula ~ - fl/(x) is obt.1ined, only owing to the hypothes is, that

d (f '(x) <ix) - d (f'(x)) <ix ,

i.e" tha t dx is taken as a constant. This account may serve as a proof only if there is no
arbitrariness in th e hypothes is that dx was a constant, in the result dy - ['(x) dx, where now dx
is not considered as dx - d (J(x)), but as the dirfercntia l of the magnitude x. If it turns out
to be a consta nt in the first differentia tion, thcn it so happens a lso in the seco nd,
 ON THE NON-UNIVOCALITY OF THE TERMS
" LIMIT " AND " LIMITING VALUE"

A COMPARISON OF D' ALEMBERT'S METHOD WITH THE

ALGEBRAIC METHOD
S.U.N.4144

8 sheets of nOies. MIITX numbered them with Latin tellers from A 10 H. It has [WO paris (A-D
and E-IJ). T hese ha\'c been pUblished in the present volume, under the titles: 0" lire 110t!-
un;vocality of Ihe fermI; u/imil n and nlimiting value" (pp. 96-98) and Compari.fon of J'Alembt:rl'S
me/hod wilh Ihe algebraic me/hod R (pp. 99-101) respectively.

ROUGH NOTES ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE METHODS

OF MARX AND D' ALEMBERT
S.U.N.4145

Two sheets of rough notes devoted [a explaining that the difference between the methods of
Marx and J'Alembert, is not to besimply reduced 10 lhe [act that, instead of /., Xl -x is written. With
this /lim Marx differentiates the runctionf(x) """'. representing al [iTst, its augmented value, in
the form off(x + /I). and then in the (orm or /(x+ (Xl -x)). Applying the binomiallhcorem in both
the cases, he obta ins the derivati ve as the coefficiem of !J in Ihe first power, corresponding 10
(Xl -x). Mlcr this Marx finds out the deriv3tiveofthesame (unction, representing at first, the
difference xIZ-x' in the form of the product (Xl -.T) (XI +x), and then by di v iding it by Xl -X and
assuming finally, tha t .T l ":c. In this connection regarding the firsl method Marx observes:
Here we have the desired fun ction 2x at once in the ready- made form, in the first
derivative, as the coefficient of (XI - x); it is obt.1 ined direclly with the help of the binomial
theo rem.
On the second method Marx wrote an 'incomplete sentence in the margin, after which dots follow:
Hence, when not only X t - x is to be removed, but when the assumption x t - x, or
XI -x - 0, g ive s XI + x - 2x, i.e ., the fun ction 2x is ded uced throu gh the reduction of
(x t -x) x (Xl +x) ...
 DRAFT MANUSCRIl'TS ON THE CONCEPT OF DERIVED FUNCTION
S.U.N.4146
A manuscript of 9 sheets. II-COnh'lins: a) draft of the manuscript ·On the concept of Ihe derived
func ti on" (scc PV, 19·25 IInd the description of manuscript 4147, given bclow). sheets 1-8 (Mux's
numberi ng : 1-6, 5 and two pages without number) - the diffcrcn l readings found in different
places of the draft 1I1l0 in the fair copy of the publ ished m3nuscrip' • On IlIe concept of derived
funclionft. have been inr.iicalcd there in (ool-notes; b) th e observations contai ned on sheet 9 -
Ihese are bei ng reproduced below, in futl.

ON SUBSTITUTING THE SYMBOL ~ BY THE SYMBOL!;

It has been shown, for insta nce, that

1) When
y_xm_!(x), Yt-xt,
we gel
~ or ~-mX"'-I.
It was shown, that the derived functi on ['(x) o r mxm - I is obtained from the initial
[(x) -X"',
by ass uming XI - X, i.e., XI - X - o.

B ut th·IS assumption
. 0
r XI - X -
0, or 0
r XI - X,
y, --
turns - y .mto -0'
0 an d'ms lea d 0
r Ihe
XI -x
latter we write ~ , in order to indicate the origin of this ~, i.e., [10 indicate] what so rt of

'. 0 r actua I d'I r'Icrences, m

a ratIO . th ' . d
e alorementlone rY
case 0 '-
- - Y, .III teen
h d turns mto
. 0.
-0
XI -x
This is all the more validated, owing 10 the fact that as result we get
o
0- ,nx--' - [,(x),
and in th e left hand side of the equatio n, this res ult ~ was obt.'l incd, thanks to the movement
which ensued from the variable x sl..'l nding on the right hand side.

* may be = any magnitude X, as

O-X·O-O.

32
25.
'
Smee h O
ere
,
DESCRWllON Ol'lllC MA111EMA11CAL MANUSCRllyrS

0 ,IS . not cqua I to an arb'i!fll.ry X, but - IILX", -I, so through

may indicate : in consequence of what sort of movements of the independent variable ~ in a
* or !!l..Jn
dx we

determinate fun ction/(x), did the symbol ~ emerge.

2) However, since the meaning of !!1.

dx'
whose special value naturally changes
depending upon the determinate [orm of/ex) itse lf, has been fixated once and (or all, as soon
as wc ope rated on the grounds of differential cal culus; the tusk is lthcrcby J inverted. Namely,
the special value of -1x ' like, for example, mx". -l above, i.e., the derivative to wh ich it
corresponds, is required 10 be found out through differentiation.

ON THE CONCEPT OF T HE DERIVED FUNCTION

S.U.N . 4 147
The firs t among Mnrx's works of 1881, on the nature and his tory differential calculus. In it Marx
introduced the concept of algebraic differentiation and the corresponding notations for I he process
of finding oul the derivative, for a certain class offunelions . It was wriuen in the form ofa leuer
to Engels, on 8 sheets of writing 1)'1d, with an envelope attached to il carrying the heading ~For
G~n~ror (sheet 9). It has been reproduced the present voiume, undel"' the title · On t/lc concept
of the deriW!d junction" (pp. 19.25). On this manuscript also see the Preface and nOle l.
 PRELIMINARY DRA FTS AND VARIANTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT
ON T HE DIFFER ENT IAL
S.U.N. 4 148
Three groups of sheets, photocopies, described below in poinls 11), b) and cl, have been united in
this archiva l uni t.
e) Photocopies of6 sheets of double page writing papers, sheets 1-14 ( Marx's numbering: 5- 15
( 14 Iwice).and photocopies or two SC]lMlllc pages 16 and 17. These have been published in the
present volume : sheets 1·10 (pp. 5 - ( fi rst) 14) under the title: "Second dra ft " (scc pp. 53·59 and
note~l ); sheets 11 · 14 (pp.(second) \4-17) under the ti l le: "l bi rd draft "(see , pp. 60·62). Photocopies
of the pages ' .4 of the second draft are missing (see, nole 41 ) .
b) Sheets 15·27 (in Marx's numbering : pp.ad 3, once more ad 3, 4-9, unnumbered, 11 -13) - draft
of the m~nuscript ·On the dirferen tia' " (see below manuscript 4150). Va riants of parts of this
manuscript have bcen indicated in the foot notes 10 it (see, pp. 26-39). The paragraph reproduced
below is from the draft. It is absent in m8nu~cript4 1 50. With it poi nt 4) of the draft,corresponding
to point 4) of section I of the fa ir copy (sheet 20), comes to an cnd.
The initia l course consisted of Ihis: fo rming Ihe diffe rence !(x t ) - !(x), to obtai n al fi rs t
6[(x ) - 6y.
and then MM
llx
or .Ax..,
llx
with the aim, of fi na ll y deriving fro m there,the deriva tive

['(x)" ~, bY assum ing YI - y .. 0, toobtain in concl us iondy - [,(x) dx. dy is the /ast sy mbolic
res ult of the differe nce- form. Conversely, dy beco mes the sta rling po int, as lly ea rlier. With
the help of operatio ns indicated by it ['(x) dx is ob ta ined, and in concl uS'ion wc obtain
!!x. _/'(x ) from dy .. ['(x) dx, mea nwhile, as in the ini tial deduction, dy .. ['(x ) dx, Le., the
dx
di ffere ntial of y, is obta ined as the las t result from 1; .. /'(x).
T his paragraph was written on a separate page,which Marx numbe red wi th the nu meral 6 . Afte r
it, there is a sentence on this page, wilh which the next point 5) begi ns.
5) Let us now exa mi o'e the differential dy .. /'(x) dx.
This sentence is not there In the fa ir copy, whe re this point 5) corresponds to point 1) of section
11 . In th is connection it may be men tioned that the remaining pa rt of p.6 of the d raft is blank; in
the fai r copy this page is absent.
c) Sheets 28-30, arc, content-wise, related to the dirferentiation of the product of two functio ns
and to the search fo r the second differential and the second derivative. The sheets not numbered
by Ma rx have the character o ~ incomplete fragments. They do no t contain ~nyl h ing new, in
comparison to the material [hercin) published.
 FOUR VARIANTS OF THE DRA FTS OF ADDITIONS TO THE
MANUS CRII'T ON TH E DIFF EREN TIAL
S.U.N.4149

In Ihe firs t dran , lhe most complete initial plan of this suprlcmcnt to the manuscript "On lhe
differentia)" (scc. the description of the manuscript 4150) has found expression. Apparently it
plays Ihe role of an outline.This <.Iran contains len pages and consists of four sections , with Ihe
following titles provided by Man: :
Sheets 1·4. "A) Additionally on fire differentiation af.ry·, p.l - beginning of p.4.
Sheers 4·5. "8) Til e equation y2 .. ax" pp.4.S.

Sheets 6-9. "C) Differenlialion of ~ ", pp. 6·9.

,
Sheets 9-10. "DJ Implicit form". end of p.9-p.lO.
In the second draft, sheets 1l·16 (Marx's pp. 1·5 /lnd one page withoulnumber). the first two
sections (sheets 1I ·13~nd 13-15) have been fair copied. PiTsl of ~II, here MHrx corrected A slip of

pen in the title of section A) : slruck oul xy and wrote la. However, here too, we have many
cancellations at the end of every scction.·lt shows that Marx was notsalisfied even with this new
version.
In this connection il is of interest 10 note that in the following two drnOs (third and fourth)
these first two sections do not exist at a ll. Apparently, later on Marx dropped the intention of
including them in the supplementary. Drafts third and fourth, each contain only twO sections:

~A) Differentiation of!! . , pp. }·3.

,
~n) Differenriulion of tin implicit function· " cnd of p.3 - p.S .
The third and the fourth drafts contain nearly no cancellation , but a 101 of rough calcutlllion

regarding the expansion of the fraclion ----l:...... ;nto a series has been appended 10 the third one.
y - .1:
lIere all the fou r drafts will be described at the same lime. I1 will be based on the four sections
projected by Marx in the first draft, bUllhe conlents of each of Ihem will be elucidated, in the
main, in accordance with the variant, more carefully edited by Mar.'(. ( Herein all the exisling
variants will be adduced in the fool notes or otherwise.)
We shall begin wilh seclion A) of the firsltwo drarts.
1'oinl1) of this section has been published in the present volume (sec, p.62 and nOle 47), according
10 the second dtllft, whe re Marx made 11 fai r copy of il .
Apparently, in lhe following poinls 2) and 3) Marx wanted to bring to light Ihe following:
should we not get rid of the assumption, that the variables u and % lITe both functions of one and
Ihe same independent variable x ? Should we not proceed on ly from the presupposition that u and z
are interdependent ? In fll CI Matx wrote on Ihis (we quote from Ihe second draft) :

• In the third draft : - 8) Differentiation of implicit functions~. - Ed.

 J)ItArlS 01' AI)[)ITION!'i TO 'OIE. MANUSCI~WrON Till! IJIFFEItENTIAL 253

2) So far as the origin of the symbolic d ifferential coefficien t inside the "de rivative"
f'(x) is concerned, d (uz) could also have been expanded, withollt (lte equation
y"" llZ ,
namely, as a func tion IIZ, considered in iso lation.
Le t us assume at first, that u and z depend upon x; then
a) IlZ ;

whe n x becomes Xl:

b) /tIZI'

Tha t is why, subtnlcting a) from b) :

Il lZ 1 - IlZ;

expanded in fa c to rs '"
Zl (Ill - 11) +U (Zl - z);
,,'
since both depend upon x:
Zl (Ill - 11) Il (Zl - z)
c) + ; assuming Xl - X, Le., x, - X - 0:
x,-x Xj-X

du dz
d)zdx+udx'

3) We could, finally. develop also without X and assume that Il and z are tnlllllally dependent
upon each other.
However, here M ~rx COUld. not PUtllcroSS ihe problem with eX/lclhude, IInd it is possible, Ihal
namely thlll is why. later on he refrained from including Ihe seelions A) l!Od B) or the first IWo
drafts in his supplemenlto the article ~ On the dirferential~,
Section 11) is being reproduced below IIccording 10 the first d raft. where il has bl'en enunciated
in greater de lllit. From this draft it is IIlso evident, that ~t that st~ge of his work -to which the
manuscripts ~On the concept of the derived function" and ~On the differential" and then the
additions to the IlIuer arc related - Marx was first of all interested in wh~t he himself called,
the "purely 1Ilgebra ie" ~spect of the differential calculus; nevertheless, he was IIlso preoccupied
with the qLlestion of geometrica l application of the lauer (namely. 8S geometrical), To all
appcarencc. initil11ly Mane wished to investigate this question in the first drafts of the supplement
to the nlllnuseript ~On the differential" ; but afterwards he decided to postpone it till the completion
o f one of the IIIHer "issues~, evidently, he considered the question to be serious enough, so as not
to 181k about il in passing, but to devote to it a special enlry, Unfo rtunately, this intention of Mar x
could not be aClualised.
The text of this section is being reproduced below, in accordance wi th Ihe first draft (Sheets 4-9) :

... Marx's expression "expanded in factors", is related to the transformation of the differences UI%t - uz 1
and u%\ - U% inlo the products %1 (u 1 - 11) and u (%, - z).- Bd.
". DESCRIP'n ON OF '1lII! MA'IlIEMA'I1 CAL MANUSCRIPTS

D) TH E EQUATI ON y2 _ at
1) If this equa tion is treated as the equation of the pa rabola·, then this object iLself dictates
the path •• , demanding that it be turned over. If y2 _ ox, then inevitably a lso:
ox,.,. y2, w here x is the dependen t, and y - the independent va riable. This is the proper
path, since the general formula for sub· tangent to curves _ y ~ , hence, in the given

particular equation of parabo la dx must finally be expressed in y and then substituted in

the general formula.
2
When divided by a, ox _ y2 g ives : x - L • an equation with one dependent variable in
a
the first power, a nd bes ides onc of the mos t elemen tary func tions of the independent v<lriablc
y. However, wc shall keep it for the subsequent gcomctric application, sinee I persona lly wish
to make a few more prefatory general remarks on the method used by me .. •. Now only
2) y2 .. ax wi ll be considered, pu rely analytica ll y.
Yt 2 - axu when x turns into XI. Hence,
YI 2 _ yl_ a (x t - x), (.vI - y) (.vI + y) - a (XI - .\").
If we div ide, in the right hand side, xl-x by ilSelf, then we shall get a·1 - a; in the left

hand s ide : (Ytx1-x

-Y) (.vt + y) ; hence

(Y' -Y)
XI -x
(y, + y) - a. [(1) ]

This first result of ours should not be Ict oul of view, since il vividly shows, that, exactl y
as in our very first example, where we had y .. ox and obtained
YI-Y
x1-x.- a ,
(here lOO ) the entire differential operation onesidedly occurs in the symbolic [cft hand
s ide· .. •.
If now in (1), in the left hand side we assumed that XI .. X, hence x .. 0 .. dx, then
XI - X _ X -

thereby YI .. y, hence, YI + Y will turn into y + y , into 2y J YI - Y into y - y, into 0, into dy, and
we get :

3) ~'2y-a .
• In the second draft, here is an addition: ·which has not occurcd yet in thi~ cntry~. - Ed .
•• For the solution of the problem of subtangent to the parabola (see, the lext that fOllows). - Ed .
••• This sentence is absent in the second draft. In its stead there we read; • Here we s hall not be concerned
with it any more" , - Eel .
..... In its s tead the second draft contains only: "The subsequent differential opera/ion occurs onesidt:dly in the
symbolic, i.e., in the left hand s ide". - Ed.
 TIlE EQUA110N 1- ox

The form 2y ~ in no way differs from the fo rms z ~~ clz

or 11 dx developed sub A) 2), and
that is why, nothing more is required to be sa id about iL~ deduction, in this connection.
du dz
The difference consis ts of this, that dx' dx arc developments upon uz*, as symbolic
differential coefficients; they emerge as mu ltipliers of the dependent variables 11 and z, in the
righ t hand side, [whilel operating with y2, we see the reverse: the one and only variable y
emerges in the left hand side, as the multiplier of th e differential coefficient -¥x; this is
explained simply by this (see, above B) 23», that the difference y, - y from the very
beginning has as its multiplier (YI + y) , owing to which the assumption that YI - Y must
equally give-the positive resu lt 2y, Le., twice the dependent variable y, as well as the negative
res ult y, - y_y - Y - dy.

,"
. t - , whi ch Mane carries
Sec tion C) of the first draft is devoted to differen tiation of Ihe quotien

out first (in point a», using the .ready+made formula for the differential of the product. In points

b) and c) Marx sought Ihe diffe rential of the quotienl ~. wilhout using Ihis formula. Here he proceeds
,
.".~:'." ;d!.r~clly fro m the definit io n of lhe derivative. Herei n, for wbrcvily of proccdure whe lakes Z as Ihe
~. .'i~dependent variable. and oomme nls (p.9) :
.~.~: B~t~t...~OU ld be a mistake to conclude from this, that the expres~illn for the general ratio of
~cI?en~ence, .of ·x.upon the independent variable x, sla nu ing in th e left hand side, which we
;·ob(ai~e~·
..
~~~rlier·
.'.
.~or :ihe symbolic differential coefficient, in its finit e form Yt - Y , has in its
xt -x

di(fer~.nti~Ho~~ *.,
nov( been supplanted by some other form of the ratio of dependence.

Is it not. clea r? J rom this, that, to all appearence, Mar)!: did nOI at all inlend 10 replace the usual
malhiimatical
-,
modes .of expressing
,
the dependence between variables, by some other (generalised)
mode of expreSsing thei r ~ interdependence"?
. " .

In' pa:i nl· .b),. having formed Ih. difference

u, _~
and ha vi ng tr ~nsf? rm ed it into
, .~',

z (u(- u) -:u (z! -:) .'.'

" '
- .. • Marx·then
lZl .

In poinl c), this differential is obtained, starting from the division of the di ;i~~i~c~ '·~I· - ~ by
..;.. zJ Z

Zl - z, Le .• through an initial search for the derivative of the quotien t. This is in f.ul i'agreeme.nl with

* In the manuscript. owing to a slip of pen, here we read "xy" . - Bd.

25. DESCRIJYTlON OF TIlE MA-n mMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

Ihe method usually used by Mane Nevertheless, having obtained, in point b).lhe right hand pari of the

"
formula (1), without an initial divi~ion of the difference ...! -~ bY:1 - z. Marx observes (shcet 8):
'. '
T he method is absolutely the same, as ea rlier, only in the result the re is something new:
the d iffe rence of the indepe nden t variable Zl - Z stands in the numera tor, whereas the
posi ti ve expression of eq uality Zt - z sta nds in the denominato r in the form of Z2.
If Marx made R fai r copy of the manuscript 'On Ihe differential". before sending ilia Engcls, then,
apparenlly, lhe additions 10 it, were read by somebody (mosl probably by Engels or Moore) whi le
Ihese were sliIl in Ihe rough copy-stage (which is the first draft of Ihe supplement). Eviden!ly,
Ihe aforementioned place called fo rth some critical comments of the reade r. in a nswer to which
Marx wrole the lAst Iwo va ri ants of the supplement. Wherein the seclions C) And 0 ) of the first
draft served as the basis, as has already been noted, for the third and fourth d ra fts, whe re they
were turned into sections A) and B).

Section A) of the 'hird drafl, is devoted to the differentiation of the quotient ~ . " was wrille n
,
di rec' ly in the form of an answer 10 a critical observation. In his answer, Marx explained, tha t the
rdu-udr . u u
expression , obtained by him, was not the derivative of - , but Ihe differentia l d - .
r· ;: r
(Let us remember 'hat for Marx - just as it was for Euler, see, Appendix, ~ On Leonhard Eulcr's
Calcul us of Zeros" - q uantitatively spea king, a differe ntial was genera ll y equal 10 zero.)
In the fourt h draft, which is the edi ted, final, fair·copy-stage oflhe work on the supplements, seelion
A) lost the cha rade r of an answer 10 some ailiCII I comments. Thai is why 10 depict Ihe entire
course of Marx's work, we shall adduce nol only the lext of this section according 10 the fourth
d rafl,but also (in foot nOlcs) all the existi ng differences, from the text o f the lhird draft .
Section A) consists of 3 poin ts: 1}, 2). 3). The first two of these are being reproduced here in
fu ll. I'oinl 3) is to be found o n p.63 of the present volume, in accorda nce wilh the (hird draft
(which is fuller on this point)

A) DIFFERENTIATION OF !!.
z
1) Let us assume that in *, Ihe independen t va riable is z, and u is thc depcndenl va ria ble.

Just for a change, th is time we s hall co nsider the fun ction, g iven in an algebraic form,
independentl y of the fo rm o f the eq uation [in the third dra ft, ins tead we read: "For the sa ke
o f a change lhis time we s hall co~sider ~ :l:s it function of u and
l
Z, not connecting it with a
u ! .:., .., . " .
third va riab le, depende nt on z . in the form of iIA eq uation" - Ed .], whatever that might be
- this can always happen' (aitt6ng the functions given in a" algebraic ,form the re may be
expressions conta in ing Jl!n ~5,"cos ines etc., logarithms and exponenti"al expressions like a:r).
 DIFFERHN·I1A'IlON OF ,
tI

a ) ZU , I"r zgrows "mlo z l , 1h

en ' :

U,
,
b) T; subt ractin g a) from b) :

Z" , - uz l
,
" , 11 ••
c) z-z;arnvmg at a oo mmon denominato r :
z,z
; expa ndi ng the numerator [into

a difference of products ] :
Z ("1 - u) - U (ZI - z)
d) zz , . If nowz l beco mes -z, hence,z, -z- 0, then" : "

e) zdu~"dz [" hence,d ~ _ zdu ~ udz" (3rd draft) -Ed. ] :

z z z
This expression seems to be strange. In fact il was obtained at the cos t of a total change
in method , for - see d) - Zl - z instead of being in t~e denominator, found itself in the
numerator, and d) was turned into its differential express ion e), only ow ing to the fac t
that we reduced Zl - z, s ituated in the numerator, into ZI - Z - 0· .. .

Th is · apart, though it was assumed, that in ~, U is the dependent va riable, and z-

independent, we would have obl<lined the same result, had we assumed, that in the numerator
of the ex pression d) Z (u, - ll) - " (Zl - z)(where the role of Zl - z does not at all differ from
the role of ", -" ), " I" U, 11 , - u .. 0 ,a nd that z depends upon u ••••.
It is true th at we ca n so interpret the whole process. In d) the denominator z,z turns
into zz, i.e., it is assumed that Zt - Z. tha t is, Zl - z .. 0, where from, on the onc hand, in the
num erator Zt - Z turns into dz, on the other, ul - u into du (s ince u depends upon z, i.e. when
in the denominator z, " z, then III - U, i.e., uI - U - Il- u .. du).
Thus the method could ha ve been saved in respect of the numerator, however, on ly to give
it up fully . Namely , its general res ult , which was [as followsJ : the ratio of dependence of It
y, - y
variable upon another must be represented as , if Y is presupposed to be the
x1 - x
dependent, and x - the independent var-iable .

• ~ if z grows into %1' Ihen u into u l ' hence~ (3rd draft). - Ed .

•• "If zl becomes _ z, lhen II: ,urns into zz or Zl, z -:_ dz, u l - U _ du, hence :" (3rd dra(J). - Ed .
••• In the Ihird d raft in pl/lce of this paragraph, we read: · Wha t has struck you, is Ihe appea rence of
this reSUl t. I suppose this, because otherwise you would nOI have Ihough'that the dirrerenlia,ion or
-!- presented H peculiar ClIse, in the development of which the method was undergoing som~
modifiCII:tion ". -Ed .
•••• This paragraph is abse nt in the third draft. -Ed.

" 33
,,, DESCRI'YI10 N OF TI lE MA'i'l tCMA11CAL MANUSCR IPTS

[Ins tead o f the last two paras, in the third drafl : "Actua ll y . elz (c) (i n the final form o f
ZI - Z (d» , the di ffe rential part icle of the independent var iable z, s tands in the numerator as
the mulliplierof 11, while z itself, in the pos itive fo rm o f z2 (in th e rinite fo rm III (d», is situated
in the deno minator. Thus , it seems,that wc proceed from th e fi nite ratio sub (d) to its
diffe rential express io n s ub (c), assuming sub (d):in the numerator Z ( Il l - u) - 11 (ZI - z),
Zl .. z, hence Zl - z .. 0, and Ihis looks like a change in th e method , mo re so , as here in the
denominator, instead o f be ing made to represent the removed difference ZI -z .. dz, is rather
tu rned from Z II into Z2" . - Ed .J
2) Le t us aga in use the equa tio n fo rm·,

a) y - ~;
z

I
(zu 1 - uz1) ,-
YI - Y z, z __ z~,z
__ ____ __z-'--,z
c) - - - - - - - -
z\ - Z ZI - Z ZI - Z

I
(z (u I - u) -
z» , - U (ZI -
YI - Y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---"z''''z
d) - - -
Z I -Z Z I - Z.

I[ now we put in th e right hand side ZI - z, hence, Zl - Z- 0 etc, etc., the n :

I
d (z(/u -udz) ·"""i
e)!!l_ z
dz dz
and ,

f) dy o r d -" - (z du - u dz) '-,

I ;
z z
hence :
z du-udz
dY -
z,
Hence, the diffic ulty a rose onl y fro m this, that the differential occupied the place o (
the differential coefficiellt · ·,
Let us co mpare (sce" the previo us ma nusc ript) with what was obta ined w hile differentiating
uz :
• In the thi rd draft ; -The secret is explained as soon as we aga in use the initlll form of the equa tion- .
-&I .
• • In the third dra fl : -The riddle was completely solved. The di//uentiol coefficient represen ted s ub e),
was obtained also in I) e). and here sub I). the result is IhedifJerentillr. - Ed.
 DIFFEREN111\110N OF !!.
,
A)
!!r. -z-+,,-
du dz
and B)dy -z du+udz.
dx dx dx
The diffe rence between :

a) d (uz) - z du +" dz and b) d!!. "" (z du-" dz)· 12 , arises only from the difference
z z
between the func tions being differentiated.
Sections D) of the fi rst draft and B}of the third and fourth drafts are devoted to the differentiation
of an implicit function. In the first d!"ft Mar:< examined the example of finding the derivative
of the (unction y (.f). in terms of x, given by the implicit equation of seco nd degree
b
,
yl_ 2yx + - _ 0 • borrowed from Hind's book (p.23. example 8 ; in I-lind the equation is

:ul -2ux+a1 _O).

In the third and fou rth drafts Marx examined the (unction y (x), given by a n implicit equation of
the same type
yl-2p .. O.

Ma rx then expands (in the third and fourth drafts) the obtained result
!!l. _-L.
dx y-x

into a series by division al an angle:

" XX .f1 2
--"--
y-x
- 1+-+-+-+
y yl yl
...

and explains , that in the given case he thus obtained,

I I I
2 .. 1+-+-+-+ '"
2 4 8 '

x I
since it follows from the equation y2 - 2yx _ 0 (when y .. O)that Y-Z"
 ON THE DIFFERENTIAL
S.U.N.4150

Marx's second work, of the year 1881, on the nature and histo ry of differential calculus. In it
Marx's own method of diffc renli~lioll is IIctualised, using the theorem of the derivative of
product.lt is a manuscript of 13 sheets of writing paper. An envelope (sheet 14 ) with the heading
:~For Frt!d" . was attached to it. 11 has been published ill full in the first parI of the present volume

(pp.26.39),under the link :"011 the differential ", On this man uscript scc also the preface and
note n .

• COMPUTATIONS RELATED TO THE METHOD OF LAGRANGE

S.U.N.4300

8 Sheets of detailed ca lculations, related to the section:" On the method of Lllgrangc, 10 prove the
principles of di fferential calcul us without having recourse to limi ts, infinitcsimals or allY other
evanescent quantities ", of Bouchllrlat's book.(ln the 5th edition of this book ~t our dispos~l,il is §§
244-254,pp. 168-176; on its content , see: Appendix," Theorems of Taylo r /lnd MacLaurin IInd
LIIgrange's theory of analytica l functions, in the sources consulted by Marx").
Marx systematised the materia l according 10 his own plan. Hedivided it inlO six parts, numbered
them with the Roman nume rals I-VI, with additional indexes inside each part.
It contains no important addition to Bouc hllrlat's account or to Marx's manuscripts 4000 and 4001
(see,the descri ptions in pp.214 and 231 ). That is why, here only the following observation of
Marx,is being reproduced. It is of interest from the point of view of his understanding of the
"infinity" of a series.
Having written in pari 11 the formula

[(x + 11) • [(x) + ph (or (x) lI) + qh2 + ,hl + sh~ + tM +

and having raised the problem of explaining the rule of successive formati o n "of the derived"
functions P, q, " s, t etc., starti ng from the initial function /(x), Marxsummed up in thefolJowing
words, what he has already done (Sheet 3):
The first result
1) gives at all events, tha t
f(x + h ) - f(x) + ph (or f tx>h) + the terms
.
with h2 h3 •.•
"
2) that the series has 110 power, i,e. owing to its own nature, it ca n always be co ntinued.
 TAYLOR'S THEOREM ACCORDING TO HALL AND BOUCHARLAT
S.U.N: 4301

In Ihe manuals al Marx's disposal, Tay tor's Theorem was proved in lWO different ways:
1) with the help of the ready-made apparatus of differential calculus, but proceeding from the
assumption, that "in the general instance". for any x and 11 •
(1)
where A, H, C , .... II TC unknown functi ons of x,to be determined (this was done in the text books
by Boucharlal and Hind, with The help of the method of indeterminate coefficients);
2) by the method of lagrangc. i,e. without the apparatus of differential calculus, and
conversely. by defining the derivalive as the coefficient orlhe rirsl power of Ir in expans ion (1).
and Lagrange wanted 10 substantiate this method ~ purely a lgebraically" (in Hall's book Ihis allempt
of Lagrange has been enunciated in a form, which was given 10 it by Pois50n, who allcmpled to
complete it).
C rilicising the proof of Taylor's theorem, presented in the books of Hi nd and Boucharlat, Mar!t
observed (see, PV, 88-92,231-236 and also pp_93-94, 264-301 ) that their initial assumptio n is
unfounded. In the present manuscript he gave an account of the proof of Taylor's theorem,
acco rding to BouchHlat, but wanted to utilise Poisson's method for substantiating the validity of
the initial assumptions of this proof. There are two copies of this manuscript (ooth in English) :
a rough, and a [air copy, identical in content. lbe fair copy (pp. 1-4 in Marx's numeratio n) consists
of four points, designated by the Roman numerals I-IV, in the rough copy (pp. 1·4 and onc more
unnumbered page) the same material has been spl it into five points ( I -V). The content of the
man uscript and the quotations from it, are being reproduced below, in accordance with the fair
copy. As has already been ind icated, Marx thought, Ihal nol only the formul~tion of Taylor's
theorem, but also ifs proof adduccd in the books of Ooucharlat and Hind, belonged to Taylor
himself. In none of these books there was any bibliogmphical referencc. Nevertheless, the fact
that Marx looked for the title of the corresponding work of Taylor and, speaking of Taylor
adduced the [corresponding] bibliographical information, induces us 10 assume thal he wanted to
verify this hypolhesis from the primary source, which, unfo rtunately, he could nol manage to
do.
Accordingly, Marx formulates in poinll ,lhe initial assumption of Boucharlat, as follows;
Tay lor's theorem may be considered to be the resume of his "Melhodus incremenlorum etc."
(London, 1715-1717). He proceeds from the following suppositioll :
If y - f(x) and y, - f(x + iI ), Ihen this latter function may be developed as a series
according to the ascending powers of 11, thus:
y,-y(or yh O)+Ah+Bh2 +Ch3 +

.,
~ereA, B, C elc. are unknown fun ctions of x .
26' DI!SClUI'"llON OF TIlE MATHEM,,"nCAI. MANUSCRIPTS

Tha t is why two proble ms emerge : wc h~vc 10 1) prove Ihal val i~ity of MT~ylor's SU ppos iTion~,

and 2) find OUI [he unknown coefficients A. n, C, .....

11 is well kn own Ih lll th e class of functions investigated by the mathematicians of the 18th and the
first half of 19th century were such, that it was n.1turall0 ass um e Ihal a [unclion may be represe nted
by It powered series only " in exccpli o nal cases" . Rcferri nt: 10 L ngrangc. who tried 10 pro ve it, L acroix
wrote in his hig "Trea tise· (p. 160): "Wilh Ihis aim wc sh~1I use It vcry elegant ana lysis, carried
DUI by Lagraoge in 1772 and enl arged thereupon by the highly s p.'lrKl ing comments o f Poisson".
<10 this connection Lacro ix mentioned in Ihe lis\ of literature. It paper or Poisson, published in
the th ird volume of the journal "La Corrcspondance sur L' Eoole I'olylechnique".)
Hall began his book following I'oisson. Marx used this book in his poi nt I, devoted 10
substantiati ng "Ta ylor's suppo.~ition". After the arore me ntioncd place Marx writcs :
But Poisson and other French mathematicians have afterwards proved: if y - f(x)
and y • ., f(x + 11) the n : Yt - Y or f(x + h) - f(x) is expressible by a series of the form
A It +B h2 + C hl + etc" hence:
2 3
y,_y+Ah+Bh +CIt + (1)
the chief object of the differcnlinl cal culus being to find the values of the cocfficicnL~
A, B, C etc. I shall no t give here the general demonstration, but an example.
Then Marx adduces from Hall ( § 7, pp 3.4) an example (No. 3) of the eXPl'nsion of the value of
the functio n.
y_ AX"'+BX"+ e~ + etc.,
into a series of Ascending powers of 11, when x is substituted by x + 11.
Point I comes to an end with the fOllowing observat ion of Marx (sheet 2), related to the adduced
"general demo nstration" by Hall :
The demonstration of Poisson etc. offers, moreover, the great advantage that it cannot be
given without stating already the cases, in which the se rial development with ascending
integra l powcrs of if and unknown or indeterminate functions of x leads to irratio nal res u l L~
- thu s predeterm ining the limits of the applica bility of Taylor's theo rem, its ~o-ca ll ed
"failures" .
In points 11 and III Marx gives an accoun t of the second problem, from 13oucha rlat's book : the
unknown functions A, 8, C etc. in expansion (I) are soughl thmugh the method of indete rminate
coeffi cients. In point 11 the foll owing lemma is noted: - If in a function .y of x, the va ria ble x is
changed intox + Ir, then we shall get one and the same differential coeffi cient, irrespective of the
fa ct, whether x will bea variable, and /r a constant or /,-8 variabl e, andx a constant· ( Bo ucharlat,
§ 55, p.34).
In point III the equatio ns are written with the help of differentiation first in respect of 11 and
then in respect of x, and application of the le mma (q uoted above) ; and from these equations
the coefficients A,H,e etc. are determined (see, Appendix, 1'.338). Taylors theorem, thus
obtained, is then ap ptied to the search ror the expansion in Taylor's series of the function
log (x + 11) (in the draft this example occupies a special point IV).
Point III ends with the followin g words of Marx (sheet 4) :
 TAYLOI\'S THOOREM 263

S ince all tmnsce ndenL11 fun c tions of x -exponentia l, logarithmic, trigonomctrical- (in fact
aI/funct ions of x save those possess ing a common algebraic for m)- rcruse by the ir nature,
their expansion in a fi nite number of algebraic terms, it is self-ev ident that the differential
coefficiehts of such fun ctiolls of x can on ly be expressed by an infi nite number of terms,
whence it fo llows that the ("orrespo lldillg functions of x + h-o r Tay lor 's ser ies- ca n also
in gene ra l be but expressible by fl series of te rms in de fi nite ly conti nued.
Tay lor's theorem may also be written · [as1
!!:.!l.il 11 !!.J1.!l
112 !!:..!lE. JJl !!:..Jl..!l h"
f(x+h) .. fx+ dx 1+ dx 2 ~+ d.t;l t ·2·3 + ··· + dx" 1'2·3+
This is without any doubt the fo rmula wh ich has led La gwnge to his theory of functiolls,
O the r fe ll ows deno te the successive diffe rent ial coefficic nl<J by P. q. r etc., and write then:
h 112 11 3
, f(HIr) - f(x):P1+q 1.2 H 1.2.3 + ...
It is unders ta ndable, that if lex t 11) is expressible in Taylor's series, thenf(...) has derivaTives of
any o rder. Lagrange alCempled to prove, Ihal ~ in the general instance- the affair is like this:
f(x • 11) is expilnded into Taylor's series, but his s uccessors-au thors oflhe text books used by Marx
-did nol al all doubt, that eve ry functio n is differentiable, and besides ~n infinite number of
times . From' thei r point of view only 11 polynomial had 11 finite numbe r of de rivatives. It is
not surprising, that in this connection Mlt rx made a distinction between two instltnces :
func tions expressible by a fini te lieries, and funCTions expressible by an infinite series.
In the las t, fo urth point, Marx gltve an Itccount of the theorem on the method of indeterminltte
coefficients, fOllowing l30ucha rlat (i n The fifth edi tion of his book, it is the sixth appendix). The
followi ng words of Marx precede Ihe demonstra tion of this theorem:
As the merhod of indelermilloftt coefficiell ts is of freque nt use in the differe ntia l ca lculus ,
shall add a very si mple demo nstration by BOllcharlat (Frenchman).
Thc time of writing this manuscript coul d not be established. Howcver, the re is some ground to
assu{J1e, that it was written IIfter the manuscripls 4000 and 4001, but berore manuscript 4302 (see,
below). In fact the ideas developed in manuscript 4301 , are ye t 10 be found in the manuscripts
4000 a nd 4001, in whi ch the first results of Ihe work o n the theore ms of Taylor and MacLaurin
and LHgrHnge's theory of8n3!yti~al functions have been su mmed up. Theltuempl 10 use the method
orLagrange-Poisson, not as something prior to the di ffe rential calculus, but within this very calculus,
so as to remove with its help, Ihe inadequacies in The demonSlration of Taylor's theorem,
completing the construc tion of differentia l calcutus, happens to be a new one. At the same time, it
is evident fro m Marx's last incomptete manuscript, wherein he criticises the Mdemonstrations".
adduced in the books of I-iallltnd Boucharlat, that this a ttempt did not satisfy Marx .

• In the nOTation adopted by Marx. - Ed .

AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCRIPT ENTITLED "TAYLOR'S THEOREM"
S.U.N.4302
The task of dating this manuscri pt presents no difficulties, since in it Mar" refers to the mllnuscri pts
sent 10 Engcls as" in the fi rst two" (this refers to the manuscripts "On the concept of the derived
function" and "011 the differential"). Hence il was written, nol earlier tha n 1881, 10 all
appearence, in 1882.
This ma nuscript, in 45 sheets, remains o nly in lhe form of a rough draft. and that loO at a very
earl y stage of it. Marx retu rn ed many times 10 the beginning and 10 the other places of this
manuscript and Ihat is why it does not contain his continuous numbe ring of the p ages. It would
be nalural 10 divide it inlo the following parts, for description .
I. Sheets 1-4 (in Marx 's Illllllcralio n pp. 1-3 and 4 lines of p. 4). MHX gave this part the title :"Taylo r's
Theorem ".
11 . Sheets 4-7 (pp. 4-7) (upto the diagram on p. 7). Title: "Adp.l Additionallyw.
111. Sheet 7 (p.7 under the diagram), begins with the words: "Alllhis beller be so begun" and ends
with the indica tion wi thin brackets: "Conlinualion on p. II_N.
IV. Sheets 8-9 (pp. 9, 8). Title: "Preliminaries of successive di/ferenlialion (prefafory 10 p. lr.
Page 9 ends WiTh the following words within brackets : "Con/in. on previous p. 8"
V. Sheet 10 (p. 10). Title : "Ad p. 5" .
VI. Sheets 1-18 (pp. 11-17, and once more 17) . Page 11 begins with the words: "Con/in. ofp.
8 and 9 n
VII. Sheets 19-23 (pp. 11·, 11~,117 ·, 118, 119 upper half). Continuation of the text, begun o n p. 7.
Page 11_ begins with the heading (in the left upper corner afler a cancellation) : "Ad. p. 11-.
VIII. Sheets 23-25 (p. 119 beginning with the tit1e : "Prelude 10 p. 1 ; Taylor 's Theorem ", p.l and
an unnumbered page ). Two sheets, on which Marx wrote at the same time, continuing from
certain places of p.I inlo the unnumbered page, which he called "Ihe opposile page". " begins
with the Roman numeral I, under which he wrote "a)". To "11 appearcnce, it is the number of the
fo rmula fo r the cxpansion of (x + 11)$.
IX. Sheets 26-38 (pp. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, again Jr, again i, j , k) . Pagc "a" begins wit h the words:
"Ad p.1; Taylor's 11Ieorem". On p. "c" (fourth li ne from top Marx begins a new section unde r
the title: "Taylor's Theorem". Page "k" carries the heading: "MacLaurin's Th eorem w.
X. Sheets 39-40 (pp. 0, p). Title: "Successive Differenlialion -.
X I. Sheet 41 (p. s). Title : "Ad p.l (Taylor's Theorem)".
XII. Sheets 42-45 . Four separate pages. The first th ree are numbered 1-3 in pencil, the last one
is unnumbered. P~ge 1 carries the title: "Towards Taylor's Theorem, p. J". Pa ge 2 has the
heading: "Ad. Taylor's Theorem (p.]). Page 3 carries the title: "Ad Taylor's1'Jl. p.l, eq, [Jr, written
in pencil .
It is evident from the above list, that Marx returned to the beginning of This manuscript at least
8 times; that is to say, this beginni ng did not satisfy him. So many variants, as well as the fact, that

* 11 ' , prooobly because, by mista k:e Marx took: the previous page lIb to be n6. -Ed.
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCRIPT EN'I1TLED - TAYLOR'S l11EOREM " 265

all of them has the character of rough, unchecked drafts (in plllCCS cont~ining explicitly wrong
calculations and conclusions), makes the t ~sk of ascertaining MHX'S intended plan of the
manuscript, a difficull one. The text of this manuscript is being rcproduced below almost in full.
However, a closer acquaintance with the manuscript, provides sufficient ground, to draw the
fo llowing conclusions aoout Marx's ideas and intentions.
1) The unsatisfactoriness of all the modes of substanliating Taylor's theorem, found in the
manuals of Boucharlat, Hi nd, lIall and others, was clCllr to Marx . The attempt, contemplated in
manuscri pt 4301, 10 correct the deficiencies of Boucharlat's proof.. by substantiating his initia l
ass umption, no more satisfies Marx, as he sees, Ihat Boucharlat's inilial assumption is nol at all
tenable: nol every function f(x ... h) may be expanded into a series according to the ascending
integral powers of 11.
2) That is why Marx thought that Taylor's theorem was obtnined through a generalisation of
Newton'S binomial theorem, which permits Ihe expansion of (x + 11-,. into the series indicated. Such
a generalisation had to isolate a class of functions 1(X +11), for which this expansion is possible.
even if, in its tutn, in a certain generalised sense. But certllin difficullies are connected wilh
this sort of generalisation, and Marx highlightcd them. First of all, here a transition (even a "lea p",
as Marx Clllls il ) from a finite polynomial to an infinite ( indefinitely continued) series, is
essenlial. Further, in the binomial theorem,x + h is a simple sum of arbit rary x and" ; in differential
calculus x ... 11 is a mode of expressing (what we would now call) the local change of Ihe variable
x • which Marx expressed in his algebraic method of differentiation. wi th the help of the
indeterminate difference Xl -X (see, the manuscript ~On the differential ~ , pp.26·39). In this
connection Marx had 10 specially ponder upon the diITcrence between the indeterminate
differences XI -x, corresponding to .1'1 - .1' , to be "removed" in Ihe process of differentiation
(in the transition 10 limit). and the fixated difference I(x", 11) - f(x), by no means in need of such a
·remov~ 1 • (which also is designated by .1'1 - .1'), and which is to be computed (approximately)

Ihrough an expansion into the Taylor's series.

3) It is natural that Marx wishes to investigate the confusion generally connected with the concepts
of constanl and v~rjable. with the concepts of a function as an analylieal expression (functi ons "i n
X ") and a function as a correspondence (fun ctions ·of x"). wi th successive differentiation. Of
special interest in this connection is a note, which Marx placed in that section of the manuscript,
which is devoted to successive differentiation, and which we marked out under the heading: 0"
the word ·Iullctioll~ (see, below p. 268).
The draft and fragmentary cha racter of this manuscript makes its reading and description very
difficult. The difficulty is the re right from the arrangement of the different parts of the manuscri pt,
especially as Marx many times returns to its beginning and to the other parts. AJI corresponding
indications provided by Marx have becn laken into account,as fBr as possible. In all the other cases,
the lexts hBve been joined together according to Ihe questions considered (but always mentioning
the pari number given in the list on p.264, so that the reader may retrieve the content of each of
Ihese parts, if she or he so wishes). Some parts of the manuscript, contai ning only calculations
(which are, by the way, easier 10 do all by oneself. Ihan to follow the way another person does it)
have been omitted. Cerlain explicilly miSlaken places have also been omitted (but the mistakes
have been indicated).
In consonance with Marx's directions we shall sla rt with part IV (sheet 8), and then proceed to part
VI of the aforementioned list.

34
 PRELIMINARIES OF SUCCESSIVE DIFFERENTIATION
(PREFATORY TO PAGE 1)
We know that if we have :y - !(x),thcn d/(x) - f'(x)dx.
Hence

1) d !JxX) - [,(x); being differentiated in its turn ['(x) gives d [,(x) - f"(x)dx;

hence:

2) d 2 x
) - /"(x); further d /"(x) "/,,'(x)dx ;

hence:
d /"(x)
3) -~ - /,,'(x) ; further: d /,,'(x) - f"(x)dx;
hence:
d rl/(x)
4)dx - f"(x) etc.
A. The "derived" functions, in their turn, may be considered independcnlly of the entire
chain of functions, connecting them with the original function; on the other hand, each of
as
them may be presented also the "derivative" of the previous original function. In this case,
those very functions appeared as:

1) y or [(x) with the derivative!'(x). hence, iJS before d1Jxx) - f'(x); this function in itself
- <p (x);

2) y or cp (x) and the one deduced from it: d <p(x) - cp'(x)dx and d :;x) - cp'(x); this
function, in its turn, is an independent function, say F (x);

3) y or F (x) and the one deduced from it : d F (x) .. F '(x)dx and d 2 x

) - F '(x) .

Thus, we have:

1) ['(x) - d!Jxx l •

2) df " (x) - d t};X) ; if here we put the value of [,(x) then we shall have

d(~l. d(d[(x)).
dx dx2'
hence, .

f "(x )_ d(df(x»
dx2 '
 AN INCOMPLl3TE MANUSCI~IJYI" EN1'I1l~ED' TAYLOR'S 'nmOREM • 267

an expression, wherein we leave the meaning of the numerator, for the present,
indeterminate.
(Con tin. on previous page 8.)
Marx continues this procedure on p.8 (sheel 9). lill be obtllins ;

d (dodod/IX))
WI ) dx) d(d·d·df(x»
I x_ dx - dx4 .
Hence •
WI) d·d·d·df(x)
I x- dx4 .
With this, part IV of the manuscript (lIccording 10 our lisl) comes 10 an end.
Part VI on p. 11, is preceded by the words ; ~Contin. of p. 9 and 8"; it begins with a repetition
of the entire aforementioned procedure. Then Mllrx writes (sheet t 1) :
We have seen, how these various formulae were obtained in the form of symbolic
expressions of derived functions, hence, as the symbols of operations already carried out;
and from the earlier account it is understandable, that they become the symbolic operational
formulae, formulae. indicating only those operations which are yet to be carried out for
finding out the real equivalents corresponding 10 them, or the derived functions. But these
formulae themselves are still 10 be analysed in detail.
1) Let us consider, at first, the numerators of the symbolic differential coefficients for
[,(x), [,,(x), f"'(x) andfN(x), namely: df(x), d (df(x)) , d (d (df(x))), d (d (d (df(x»))) etc o

These expressions emerge only because, the various functions appear in the chain of their
deduction from the original function and that of one from the other, Le. as successively
deducedfunctiolls, each of which always springs from the one immediately preceding it. But
they appear in the other equations too, in their turn, themselves as the original functions, Le.
irrespective of the chain connecting one with the other and with the initial, original function,
which, in its turn, may carry the birth-mark of some other orginal function, of which, initially,
it is the derivative.
Beyond the mutual connections, these functions appear as follows : for example y or
f(x) .. 5 X4 (at the first glance, it is possible to indentify this original function as the first
derivative of X S).
Hence,
['(x) - d
x
) or :ix Ho x' 2- 0

Let us call this independently appearing derivative q>(x).

But still preliminarily the following is to be noted:

f
'()
x " d
~ "x'dv - --
or~ Y. - Y
dx dx XI -x '
since 'the latter will be reduced to !; thanks to the equalisation XI .. X , or XI - x ... O.
268 DESCIU IYllON OF T IlE MATHEMAnCAL MANUSCRIPTS

To fixat e this, we sha ll desig nate the {expression] YI - Y , which has undergo ne this
metamo rphos is, through
d
(YI - Y),
x1 - x
where, consequently, t~~ "'b:ackets indicate that YIx ]-x
- Y has
turn ed into 7x'
Thus, we obtained
I'(x) = d[(x) or !£!' _ (Y' -Y).
dx dx x]-x
But here a few mo re remarks s ho uld be made abo ut the word fUflction .
Since th e fo l lowing insertion is of interest, independently of the question of success ive
differentiation, it is being reproduced below in the form of a sepflrilte note (sheets 12 .13).

ON THE WORD "FUNCTION"

Initi all y the word "func tion" was introduced in algebra, while inves tigating the so·callcd
indete rminate eq ua tions, whose numbe r was less than the numbe r of unknowns entering into
them. He re, fo r exam pl e, th e value o f y changes, when in place of x its numerical values,
for example, 3, 4, 5 etc ., are subs tituted. Here y is ca lled a fu nc tion of x, because it must su bmit
to the latter's command, jus t as every functi onary does, eve n the great Wilhelm I is himse lf
dependent on somebody .
In consona nce w ith this, in the differentioa l calculus the word "fun ction" was transported
with this sense, upon the dependen t va riable, fo r example, upon y.
Consequently Y or f(x), i.e., y or 5X4 in our example, s ignified a functi on o f x, and
besides it is that function of x, which is given by the dete rminate expression 5x 4 , because the
value of Y cha nges a lo ng with the cha nges in the values, which x produces through its own
variation, in its own spec ific express ion Sx4.
However, whcn Llgra nge introduced lhe definition o f the "de rived" functions, and along
with that also the dcfinition of the o rigina l fun ction, from which thcy ha ve been deduced,
then th ere arose th e confus io n whi ch con tinues till date . Llgrange's fun c tion entered into
all the modern treatises of calcu lus, where, however, the word "fun ction" is used at the
sa me time, also in thc prev ious se nse: thus, fo r example, if y - 5 ..\.-'\ then we have : Y o r
f(x) , or s till more specifically, y or f(x), or the function 5 X4 - f(x), or 5 r.
The confusion may be removed only by reading:
y as the function of x, i.e. as dependent upon x in each particular case or as the function
of x in its determinate expression 5 x4 , which = the orginai fun ct io n in x : 5 X4 ; exactly in
the sa me way in respect of the derivatives : y is always the func tio n o/x, they [the derivatives]
are functions in x . In the last sense, the word "functio n" designates for the original function,
that algebraic combination, in which x nppears initially, for example, as 5x4 and fo r the
derivedfllnctiofl [it deSignates] those new val ues, which appear instead o f Sr, as a res ult of
the variations of x and of th e diHerentialio ns co rresponding to them 165.
In Lagrange when the expression f(x) sta nds to the le ft of the algebraic expression in x,
{the n it] has th e mea ning of only a general and that is why indeterminate expression, s '~nding
o pposite the particu lar 166; a nd f(x + 11) has the meaning of a genera l uncxpandcd expression,
'"
standing opposite its deve loped expression, 11 scria l l:xpa nsion, as, fo r examp le , in algebra
(x + a)m is the genera l uncxpandcd expression , while on the right hand s id e, on the s ide of
seria l expa ns ion, stn nds X'" + etc.
This is quite enough and adequate for determina te purposes; nevertheless, wc should no t
fail to distinguish the functio ns of x from the functio ns jn x, s ince o nl y from this dis tinctio n
does it follow, tha t the func tions of x may have co ncrete exis tence, as distinct fro m fun ctions
in x , like, for insta nce, Ihe existence of the ord inate, when x is the abscissa lI.md the orginal
func tion in x is simply an expression in x ]] etc.
After th is Mane went over to explaining the meaning of the expressions: d[(x), d(d[(x»,
d (d (d[(x») etc., placed by 'him in the numerators, i.e. of the differentials, now ofllny order. With
this aim , first of all he slJccessively differentia ted the fun ction y -x', IJsi ng for the dcrivalive

.z. the new notation (:: =~), introduced by him, which is also extended to the differential,

designating the differen till l dy thro ugh the difrerence Yr - y , taken within brackets, i.e. thro ugh
-(YI - y)" . If y _ [(x), then Marx writes there upon (Yl - y) - ([(XI) - [(x» o r - as he says , .. in
ano the r method" - (Yl - y) - (Hr: + 11) - f(!l», thus subsitituting Xl byx + 11. Here we read (sheets
13-14) :
If we s hall at o nce consider each of the various derived func tions, in its turn, as the o riginal
functi on, i.e. independently of the entire ehain of deductio n, then: if wc ha ve
1) y - [(x) - x', the n y, - [(x,) -x,'.
Having designated Yl - Y , when owing to the ract that x - 0 it becomes dy, by
XI -

[(x,) - [ (x )
(Yt - y), and exactl y in the same way XI - x by (XI - x). that is also by

(f(x ,) - [(x))
,as soon as x,-x becomes .. 0, wc s hall have:
(xl-x )
(y, - y) or (f(x,) - [(x)) _ ['(x) _ Sx'
(Xl-X) (XI X) o r h
and
dy 0' (y, - y) 0' (f(x,) - [ (x)) - [,(x)(x, - x) 0' ['(x) dx - Sx'(x , - x ) 0' 5xtJx.
And in ano ther me thod :
(y,-y) or (f(x+ " )- [(x)) _ ['(X) ... 5..{'
.' ,
(XI-X) (XI-X)
and in the same way
dy QC (y, - y) 0' (f(x + ") - [(x)) - ['(x)(x, - x) - 5x'(x, - x) QC SxtJx.
FUrlher, having designa tged the obta ined derivative S!l~ by w{x), Marx treats it just as the
fundion [(x ). Le., just as .~. was trea ted. He repta tes it also fo r the function F(x), obtained by
differentiating w). After that he concludes (sheets 14-1S):
270 Oc.';;CRIITIlON 01' TIlE MAll1EMA11CAL MANUSCIUIYI'S

We see here, that

\ ) dy or (YI - y) - ([(XI) - [(x»,
2) dyor (YI - y) - (<p(x l ) - <P(X» ,
3) dyor (YI - y) _ (F (x l ) - F(x))
elc.
or in another mode of expression:
t)dyo r (Yl-Y) - ([(<+ ltl-[(x),
2) dyor (YI - y) - (qt(x+ It) - qt(x)) ,
3) dyor (YI - y) - (F (x + It) - F (x))
etc.,
Ihat, hence, dyo r (y, - y) expresses th e removed diffe rence of the different fun ctions a/x,
and besides that of the different Junc/ions, obtained in 1).2).3) etc., every time through the
differentiation of the respective original func tions in x,
[(x)-x', qt(x)-5"', F(x)-SAx'.
Thus, dyor (Yl - y) in 1), 2), 3) has three entirely different values, wh ich arc represented
by the differentials:
1) dyor (YI - y) - ['(x) (XI -x),
2) dy or (YI - y) - 'I' '(x) (XI -x),
3) dy or (YI - y) - F '(x) (XI - x).
Converse ly, in the expressions of the symbolic differen tial coefficients
I ) ([(XI) - f(x)) 2) ('1'(.<1) - <p(x» 3) (F (XI) - F (x)) , ...
• (XI-X) • (Xt-X)' (Xl-X) ,
II - X is the same, as in the differentials, where xl - x appears in all the three equations, as
o ne and the same factor. But this is self· understood. If we take th e fun ctio ns
f'(x) , cp'(x) , F '(x) in the concrete expressions given for the exa mples, then ':
\) ['(x) - 5"', 2) qt'(x) - 5'4x', F '(x) _ 5·4·3x'.
Though all the three are different functions in x, they all ha ve this in common, that they
are fun ctions in one and the same variable x. The y were all obt.1ined through differentiation,
namely through the assumption that XI - x, that is XI - X - 0, (XI - x) - dx.
'After Ihis Marx went over to obtaining these ve ry derivatives with the help of the operational
fo rmulae of diffe rentia l calculus, Le., he began nOI with the derivatives, but wi th the symbolic
fo rmulae of the differentials. Here Marx writes (sheet IS) :
If we now proceed from the operatio nal method , where th e actuall y sy mbolic differen tial,
emerging f rom tlte differential coefficients serves as the starting point, in order to find out,
co nversely, th ese firs t ones, then, fo r exa mple,
\) dy or (YI - y) - ['(x) (XI - x) ;
that is why
!!x. or (YI - y) - [,(x)
dx (XI -x) .
 ON 'IlIE WORD "FU NCTION"

Exactly in the same way:

2) dy or (Yt - y) - qt '(x)(xt-x);
hence
(Yt - y) ,
- qt (x) •...
( xl-x )
In the differntial (XI -x) or dx appears as a factor of the first derived function in x, in
respect of f'(x) , <p'(x) , F '(x) etc. Thus, the latter are obtained only by freeing them from
their accompanying multipliers through division, in other words, by dividing (Yt - y) .. dy by
(Xl - x) or dx.
Further (sheets 17.18), Marx carries out 1111 these successive differentiatio ns once more for the
x"
function /(.r.) ... right upto finding out the third derivative, starting every time with the
formula for the difrerential, Le., the formula of the form J(jl(x) .. Ip'(x)dr ( here, in the calculations
there arc quite a few slips ofpcn). Summing up, Marx writes (sheet 17):
If we now compare this with the expressions obtai"ed through substitution (p .11 *), then,
having equalised the different expressions for the same f'(x) ,J"(x) , f"'(x) theri: and here,
or as in our example [the expressions) 5x", 5·4.x-l, 5'4')x' , we shall have:
d rlx'
1)T - I'(x) (resp. 5x') -
d,
t.
2) d ('lxJx» - ["(x) (resp. Hx~ - ~.
3) d (d <:.{(X))) _["'(x) (resp. H'3x') _ d£ .

Thus, the expression on the left hand side does not sta nd for any thing other than the
fact that, sub 1) the original function is differentiated for tile first time, s ub 2) - for the
second time and sub 3) - for the, third time and since we designate this first differentiation
by df(x). so wc can designate the' second d(df(x)) by d'f(x). the third d(d(df(x))) by
d If(x), wbere d, d '2 , d 3 do not singify any thing apart from the fact that,f(x) is differentiated
for the first lime, the resuil thus obtained is again differentiated etc. Thus we obtain:
1) E.ful_ El 2) d' [(xl. Et 3) d' [(xl. Et:.
dx dx ' dx2 dx. I dx l dx .
Since f(x) - y, we can, everywhere, write in the left hand side y instead of f(x}, and we
get: .

1);l; - I'(x) -;l;. 2) ~ - I"(x) - ~. 3) ~ - ["'(x) -l' .

[In 'each of these equations] the difference between the two expressions is o nly
apparent.
On the left hand side all the derivatives have been expressed as derivatives of the or igina l
function f(x);
on the right hand side they have not on ly been expressed as derivatives of the original
function, but also each as the derivative of the preceding one .

• sce, PV,267 - Ed.

 DESCRIIYIl O N Of' TIlE MA'nIl3MA'I1 CAL MANUSCRWI'S

l)But dy . (YI - y) . ([(XI) - f(x)) . df(x),

2) exactly in the SHine way
dy' . (YI' - y') . ([ '(XI) - f'(x)).
Thus, if sub 1) the sublated difference between the original f(x) and f(x..) is
represented, then sub 2) [is rep resented] the sublaied differellce between the first derivative
[,(x) and its function ['(Xl)' changed owing to the increment of X to Xl .
But
d' f(x). d (d ([(x)))
does not express anything else; since df(x) is the differential of the original functionJ(x), it
is equal 10 ['(x) dx, and that is why d (d lex)) is the differential of the first differential
f'(x) dx 0.
d (j(x» is the first differential of the original functionf(x).
d (d/(x» o r d 2J(x) is the second differentia l in respect of the orginal func tion, but (it
is the] first differential in respect of the first differential ['(x) dx,
Th. same for d (d (d f(x))) e tc.
d (y' dx) is d 2 in respect of y and in the same way d (y" dx 2) is d 2 in respect of dy, hence,
d 3 in respect of y,
Thus, the most suitab le form is obtained for calcula tion: if f(x) - y, then
I'(x) .;j;, /"(x) • 'tf; ,/"'(x) • 'tf; ,
Expression of this confusion is a remnan t of the Ncwtono-Lcibnitzian methods amidst
the modern ma themat icians, who not only .....
Here part VI (of our list ) breaks off. One may Ihink, that speaking of the confusion, which
happens to be the remnant of the methods of Newton-Lcibnitz, Marx hHd in view [the practice of)
operating with the expressions of the form ~~ ,as ordinary fractions, when x is not an independent
vllriable. For Marx the source of information about such confusion could, for example, be Ihe
lexl book by Ilemming. In fact Hemming writes (see, the nOle on p. 65) about the notalions
: ' ~, ... , ~ : "These expressions are sometimes used ins.lead of f'(x) , f"(x) etc. also in the
instances, when x is nolan independent variable. But in this case it is clear, that the numerators,
no more reprcscnt the successive differentials of y and that these expressions in realily cease 10
be fractions, but become simply symbolS, equivalent to f'(x) , f"(x) , .. , ,f (~~x) -, let us note in
this connection, that in the entire lext ci ted, for Marx x is always an independent variable.
The account proper of Taylor's theorem begins with part i (in our lis t above sheets 1-4). It is
being reproduced below in full. While readi ng this pari, we should remember,that Marx uses the
term "ableilen" ("to deduce") in a sense wider than what is in current use; for Marx Ihe derivative
is "deduced" from the original fun ction (i.e., obtained from it acco rding to definite rules),
Taylor's theorem is "deduoo" from Newton's binomialtheofem (i.e., il emerges as a gcneralisati';:ln
of this theorem, herein the permissibility of which is still to be substantiated).
'" Here is a slip of pen in the masunscript (and it is repeated below several times): instead of "differential"
Marx wrote "derivative", This slip of pcn has been corrected. - &I,
•• Here the sentence breaks orr. - Ed.
 TA YLOR'S THEOREM
Let us take

1) (x + 11)" _ x'" + /fiX .. -1 -" + m(m - 1)x .. - 2112 III

_ + m(m - l)(m _ 2)x .. - 3 - - +
1 1·2 1·2·3
if'
+m(m-l)(m-2)(m-3)x,"-4 ' ' ' +
1234
This is the binomial theorem.
If wc now assume that in (x + 11)"', x is a variable, and h is its increment, then, when" .. 0,
(x+ if)" - (x + 0)" -x' . .
That is why. before its increase, the original function in x is X"', or
a) X"' - f(x)-y,
b) (x + if)' - f(x + if) - y,.
That is why the above mentioned equation is transformed into
h 112 ~
2)f(x+h)or Y1 - )':"'+fnx .. · 11+m(m-l)x",·2'1.'2+m(m-l)(m-2)x", - ll.2.3 +

+m(m-l)(m-2)(m-3).< -- ·
h' + ...
1·2·3·4
If in the right hand side we ass ume that" - 0, then it will become euqal to 0 also in the
left hand s ide, and we shall again get y .. X'" or ." [(x) (scc a)). Thus, the first term of the serial
expansion for YI or for I(x + 11), is inevitably - f(x) - y.
Hence, equation 2) is transformed into
h h2 hl
3) f(x + 11) or YI - Y + ,mm-1 + m(m - 1)x ... - 2t.2 + m(m - 1)(m - 2)x",-l 1.2.3 +
1
+ m(m - 1)(m - 2)(m - 3)x ... - 4 . If'
. . + ...
1234
Regarding the coefficients of h we know that
the derivative of x'" _ mx "' -l,
the derivative of mx .. -I _ m(m - 1) X ",- 2 .
the derivative of m(m - 1) x ... -2 _ m(m - 1)(m - 2) x ... -3,
the derivative of m(m - 1)(m - 2) x ... _ 3 _ m(m - 1)(m - 2)(m - 3) x" _ 4 etc.
That is why equation 3) is transformed into

4)f(x + /)I or y , - y or f() x 1

x + f'() if + f"() if' + f "'()
x!.2 if' + f"()
x 1.2.3 h' +
x 1.2.34

But since

35
274 DESCRll"I10N 0 1' TIlE MATl-IEMA11CAL MANUSCRIPTS

[,(x) - ~ • /,,(X) - ~. ["'(X) - '2 . ["(X) - af.

d'
, .. .
and s ince wc may s ubstitute fo r the derived fun ctio ns, thei r symbolic cquivalcnl'i, so :
!!l' iI !!:t iI' !!:t iI' Ii2 iI'
5) [(x+ iI) or y, - [(x) or y + dx 1 + dx' t.2 + dx' 1.2.3 + dx' 1.2.3.4 + ...
and this is the Tay/or's theorem, Le., the general opera tiona l formula for dirrcrnliating
every f(x). [when x J increases by a po!)itivc o r nega tive incrcmcnth 161, Herei n it is necessa ry
only to represen t y thro ugh the g iven functions in x and , as wc shall unfo ld correspondi ng.
dy ([2y . dy ([2y
to them dx' dx2 etc., to substitu te the va lues of dx' (/x2 etc. thus obtai ned, in lne above
mentioned fo rmula , having mod ifi ed therein, their numerical muhipliers, thro ugh
112 III
multiplicatio n by". M ' 1.2.3 etc.

Fro m the po int of view o f the algebraic method applied by us, this theorem is, till we act in
its cha racteristic way, inapplicabl e; though, as has already been sa id, on the basis of the data
obta ined w ith the help of this method, it ca n be directly ded uced from the binom ial theorem.
That is why, fro m its sta nd point, onl y the fo llowing remarks may be made about this most
general and the mos t compreh e ns ive o f all the operationa l equations of differential calculu s:
a) To be at all applicable, it requires (sec, equation 4), that the origina l fun ction in x he
expandable, not only into a series of determinate, and in this sense fin ite, fun ctions of x, but
tha t, apart from it, it sho uld be a series of functions of the indica ted sort, with the faclor h in
ascend ing, integral and positive powers. Lower down, we shall aga in return to this .
h) From eq uation 5) it fo llows that
!!l' !!:t t.2
[(x + iI) - [(x) or y , - y - dx 11 + dx'
11' !!:t
+ dx'
iI' Ii2 11'
1.2.3 + dx' 1.2.3.4 + ...
But Y1 - Y is a finite differe nce, - fly, because it is only the difference between f(x) in it~
orig inal condition a nd the same f(x) in its increased form. This difference is not reduced 10
dy. Hence it follows, that the finite difference
y, - y or [(x+I1 )-[(x)
is express ible hy a sum of differential coefficients with the fa cto rs h in ascending (integra l
and positive) powers.
This s um is the inc remen t attained by the dependent variable y, when x increases by h.
But fro m equation 4) it follows, that it does not sign ify anything o ther than the fa ct, that
f(x + h) - J(x) (or y, - y) is expressible through the s um of fun ctions with the increme nt h in
ascending e tc. powers, deduced from f(x) .
But we know that
 AN INCO MPLETE MANUSCRWr EN'ITn. ED · TAYLOR'S lllEO REM • 275

['(x) _ cJx. - y, - Y
dx x1-x
where it is assumed
that x L - x, x,-x
that is. also y, - y .. 0,
[,,(x) _ (y ') y' _ fr (A)
(x,-x) dx2 '
since xl-x - 0;
(y") " d3
J"'(x) - - y _!'..:l
(x, -x) (}xl
since x,-x-O. etc.

If the various derivatives are viewed as functions, successive ly deduced from the original
function [(x), then the essence of the matter presents itself like this.
But if we consider each of the derivatives on ly in respect of its own immediate original
fUllc tion, i.e., in respect of that /(x), from which it springs directly. then we shall gct on ly a
series of funct ions/(x) and f'(x). Rot having any [furthe r) connection [among themselves].
but that is only the differential expression ~ for each of these differential coefficients.
Thus for example at first [we have] :

1) fix) - r" YI -Y El
J'x or 3X2 - --,
xl-x
where Xl - X - 0, that is .. dx;
2) f(x)-J-t',
f'(x) - 6x - y, - y, where x, - x .. O. that is _ El. (B)
xl-x dx'
3) f(x)- 6<,
f'(x)- 6 - y, - Y, where xl-x- 0 , that is- Eldx d .
xl-x
If we adhere to Ihe modes of operations (B), then every time we shall get only
fix + h) or y, - fix) + f'(x )h • .

Thus, y \ - Y .. f'{x)1I - ~ h. But only this f '(x) , that is also its syrnbolic equivalcnt ~,

i.e .• f'{x)lI - ~h , every time in the other from (B) I) . ,(B)2)' and (B) !) . YI - y, which ..

• Since it is clear that here the issue is one of a'pproximale equality, we look the liberty of using here, and
later on, the .modern sign of appro ximate equality. - Ed.
276 DESCRII"nON OI'111E MATHEMAl1CALMANUSCR1PTS

- ['(x)II - ~ h, retains in all the three equations, the same form, but has entirely differellt
values, besides the connecting link between them is so small, as, for example, is that of the
orig inal function Xl with a preceding one, from which it is deduced; if, for inst.-tnce, ou r
original function was x\ then
(X+II)4_.x4+4.xlh+ ...
.Here the first derivative [,(x) is 4 xl, and we shall get
4 (x +h)l_4xl+ 4·3x~h + 4·3xh 2 + 4 Ill,
Having divided both the sides by 4 we shall have
(x + hP_ Xl + 3 x 2Ji + 3 xh 2 + lil,
where Xl, the original fWlction, from which we proceeded su b b), figures, in ilS turn as the
derived flmction. As little it has disturbed us in respect of x 3 sub (8)1)' so li ttle it must
disturb us in respect of 3x2 sub (8)2) or 6x sub (8)3)' The "deriva tive" is deduced only
relative to that function, from which we proceed, Inking it as the original function.
Thus, in mode (8), Y1 - Y is not the sum of derived functions and that is why here it
does not suit us.
On the other hand, if we turn to (A), where the derived fun ctions are presented as
successively derived from the o riginal function and, hence, as a chain of derivatives, then

[(x+")-[(x)or y -Y" El
I dx
,,+ !0' -'" + ...
dx21.2
is at the same time a chain of the differences YI _ Y 168 .
Here the formula
y,-yor [(x+Ir)-[(x)-
signifies, in respect of Yl - Y, on ly this, that through the successive differentiation of [(x),
that is, also of I(x + h), we get this series, whence through differentiation:

of YI - Y wc obtai n ['(x)1I or '1x" + ... ,

of (y'), - y' we obtain j"(x)Ir or ~ h+

of (y"), - y" we obtain ['''(xlI> or ~,,~ ...

'.
Thus, we treat the original function x [notJ as one simp ly considered by itself, but as
one potentially containing all its "derivatives"; owing to this,/(x + h) - f (x) or Y1 - Y too, not
only contains Y1 - y, but also (y'), - y' , (y")l - y" etc.
 AN INCOMPLETE Mi\NUSCIUP'T EN"IlTLED • Ti\ YLOR'S 11'IEOREM • 277

Here we consider th e origi nal fun c tion in x, for example X'" - y, as poten tia ll y co nta ining
in ilself a ll the functions ded uci ble from it; tha t is why, [we do the sa me for 1the increme nt
f(x + 11) - f (x) or YI - y, 'as exp ressibl e through these derivatives, in pla ce of whic h the re then
appear the equ iva lent diffe ren tia l symbo ls, i. e., the sy mbo lic di ffe ren ti al coefficients
correspond ing to the m.
After this there are a numbe r of aditions to p. 1 (to ' Taylor's theorem ~) in the manuscript, the
fi rs l among which was written in several variants. Towards the end Marx re,wrote it unde r
the lille · Prelude to p. ) ". ne re he f!tjscd the problem or transitio n from algebra - whe re x and h
are constants , to the differen tial ClIlculus - where each of them may be viewed both as 11 constant
and as a va riable, besides every time the sense, in which it is being considered, is to bcspecified.
Namely, in this connection Marx also discussed the transilion from the mode of expu$sing the
c hanges of the va ri able x through the diffe rence x t -x, to its ex pressio n th rough the sum
x + 11.
All these variants of the first supplement (in our list these li re parts 11. V, III and VII ) are bei ng
described below, in Ihe main in the order in which they we re written in succession by Man(. An
exception h3s been made fot part V, which is an insertion, made by Marx, to what has been written
earlier.
Part 11 o f Ihis manuscript (see. the lisl on p. 264) begins as follows (sheet 4) :

AD P.I) ADDITIONALLY

Let us take as given, wha t follows be low where (x + lI)l is a n ordin ary b inomia l and that is
why x is no Lv iewed as a va riable, that

a) (x + It)··1 or y -x-. I + (m + 1) X"-" + (m + 1) m.r" - I -112 +

1 1·2
III 11·
+ (m + 1) III (m -1}x"'-2 1.2.3 + (m + 1) m (m - 1) (m - 2)X"'-3 1.2.3.4 +

Our me thod perm its di ffe re ntiation of this equation, Le., the acceptance of x as a
va riable, whil e h is co nside red to be a constan t, and not an inc rement of x, s ince XI - x ex ists
for us only in this difference-form, a nd not as some XI - x - h a nd, that is why not as
xl-x +h ,
Afler this Marx differentiates the equlI.tion a) (sheets 4-5) "algebraically" ( i.e., by his own
me thod) : wherein he al firsl changes x into x, and correspondingly y into y" from the eqUlltion
thus obtained he subtra cts equation a) term by term,then takes the common facto rs OUI of the
b rackets in each binomial and the n transforms the faclor ,1"t-.l"') into the form
(xt - xP) .. (x, -x) (X,,-I + xt- 2 x + .. . . + X l xP- 2 +.", _1 ) (p .. m, m-I, .... I ), and fina ll y
divides both th e sides of the equali ty by x, - x, assumes that .1"( -x and as a result oblalns

'O.~
2
h + elc.
0 [t.e .. dx J .. (m + l )x"'+(m + 1)mx"· 11" +(m+ l)m(m -1)x"'-2 T2
 218 ])E.'-;(RIJ>TION OF THE M ATr rEMA'I1CAL MANUSCRIPTS

T hen he di vides \Jolh lhe sides of the obtained cqu~lion by (m + 1), writing therein, the resul t
0
obta ined in the left hitOd sitle in the form of 0 ( )' l-lere sheet 5 (p. 5 in Marx's nume ration)
x In + 1
comes to an end.
O n sheet 10, unde r the li lle ; "A d. p.5 ~
(Le., in part V of the man uscript) Ma rx returns to the latter
no tation, and observes ; ~ln
O
order /0 t!scape fro m th is 0 ( ) etc." After this he transforms the
x m +1
lIraTe mentioned equation into the for m

"Z
A) (m + 1)( x'" + mx"'-I h + m(m - l)x"-lTI + ... + ) .. (m + 1l(x + Ill'"
T
a nd wri tes, al firs t justifying th is transfo rmation:
But we have repea ted this binomia l (x + h)'" (in its unex pa ndcd form) a nd in its serial
expa nsion (m + 1) times. The facto r (m + 1) is the umbilical cord, which indicates the o rig in o f
. the de rivative from (x + It).. > 1. Exac tly in the sa me way ... the factor (m + 2) wo uld indicate
the o rig in o f the derivative from (x + 11).. ·2.
If in A ) we strike o ut the faclor (m +' 1), then the binomial (x+ h)"' will appear as
independe nt as its initial equa tion (x + 11).. · 1, a nd we shall get :
112 113
B ) (x + It )"' ... X'" + 11lX", - lh + m(m - 1)x"'-2 1.2 + m(m - 1)(m - 2)x",-1 1.2.3 +

+ m(m - l)(m - 2)(m - 3)xm-4 h' + .. ,.

1·2·3-4
T he insertion in p.S, i.e. , part Vends with the wo rds:
Equa tio n A ) g ives us the bino mial (x + 11)", (m + 1) limes, deduced fro m (x + h)"" I. As an
exa mple, it is mo re than enough; thus; we proceed to B).
T hus, it is clear, that Mllrx ca rr ied out all these calculations, only for the sake of an example. In
one of the l a tt ~r supplements he writes, Ihal he d id it for ohtain ing the expansion of (x + 11)'" with
the help of diffe rentiation, though in that case the binomial theorem of Newton, is a ll the same
assumed to be already proved, and hesides [proved) for (x + 11) in ils (m + l l·t h powe r.
On p.6 of his manuscript, Ma rx went over to the following analysis oflhe equa tion obtai ned by
him:
This equation o f m-th degree is one degree lower than the equation o f (m + 1)-th d egree,
from w hic h it is derived . Nevertheless we ca n tra nsform y or f(x) in to YI or f (x!) , without
hav ing to cha nge the algebra ic compositio n o f the equation by the breadth o f a ha ir. Fo r this
it is eno ug h to :
1) put X'" - f(x) o r - y, and here it is all the more justified, s ince a fter the deduc tio n of
X'"from X"'.I we a t once represented all the fo llowing func tio ns, a t first as directl y deduced
fro m X"', and th en s uccess ively one from the other - that is [represent] all o f them as func tions
successively deduced from x"' ; and
2) cons ider 11, which was an ordina ry constant magn itude in the deduction o f o ur
eq ua tion, like a in (x + a)" in algebra, as the illcremellt (positive or negat ive) of x. We have
 AN INCOMI'LE'm MAN USCI~l IYr !:Nu r LED 'TAYLOR' S T I IIJOR!;M "

the right to do this also as: Xl - X - 6 x, and this 6x itself, illstelld of se rving , as in our
mode, as a s imple sy mbol or a si mple sign fo r the difference of the x-s, i,e., for XL- X ,
may also be trea ted as the magnitude of the difference Xl - X , (itsel f] as indeterminate as
Xl - X and, as chang ing as it (this magnitude), Thus, XI - X - tu or = th e indeterminate
magnitude h. He nce it follows, that X I ... X + h, and I(x\) or YL turns in to I (x + 11 ).
Thus, we get :/ (x) -X'",

11'
A) f(x + 11 ) or y, - (X+ 11)" . X" +mX"'- l h +m(m - l )x"' -l _+ . . .. *
1·2
Ir now we examine both the s ides of this equation, then the left hand s ide shows us, that
X" or [(x ) turned into (x + 11 )'" or into I (x l ) - I (x + 11), as X increased by h, s ince the binomial
(x + h )" was obta ined from the monomial X"', wh ich, however. now appears as all express ion
o f the variation o f X"', and no I, as in an ord inary binomial (x + a)"', as An expression o f the
sum o f two cons t..1nts raised in power. This may be said about the general un exp anded
expression (x + 11)" or I (x + h) - YL,
In the expanded serial expression on the right hand s ide, the fi rst term )(" is no more -
as in the bi nomial theo rem - s impl y the highes t power of the firs t term of the binomial
(x + 11)"; it is I(x) , s ince y .. X"', and all the remaini ng terms together rep resent onl y the
increment, whi ch [(x) or Y, or x:"' attained, asx increased by /l .
After this Marx o nce more proves, lhat in the given case the fi rSI term of the expansio n of
f(."{ + It), is f(x ) or y (in Ihe given casex"'); and then he writes (sheet 7) :
That is wb y, we may write the equation A) also as:
III III
B) f(x + 11 ) - y, - y + mx" -'II + m(m -1)<"-' 1.2 + m(m - I )(m - 2,,"-' 1.2.3 +

We were in need of all these preliminary twists and turns, beca use ill our method YI is
represented no t as the s um o f f (x ) + its derived terms, but, co nverse ly as the dirference
between [ (XL ) and I (x ), expressed generally throllgh Y1 - A (XL'" - X"') wh ere A may represent
an arbitrary co ns tant 169 ,

Th e di ffere ntial method proper proceeds rrom XI - X - h (i.e., - 6 x) ; he.nce, XL - X + h ; that

is wh y Xl fi gures fro m the very beginning as x + h, Le., as a binomial o f the first power, s ince
x + 11 _ (x + 11)1, ow i.ng to which its differential express ion is (x + dx). With the exception
o f the fun ctions in x or the first degree, for alllhe remaining fun ctions in x. as soon as
x increases by h, the powers of the binomials arc tha t is why computed, beg inning with the
second, and the expansion itself constitutes an application o f the binomia l theo rem LlO ,
* Thishas been repeated twice, almost word for wo rd; since at first Marx did not designate the obtained equation
by Ihe teller A ) (ro r rurlher reference) ; here only the repetition is being reprodUced. - Bd.
280 I)ESCR1IYl10N OF T t lE MATHEM A'I1CA1. MANUSCRWrs

Hence, here it st..mds 10 reason, tha t the first term o f the series, Le., of the binomi,,1
expansion _ I(x) or y, a ll the remaining terms afC = the inc rement attained by this function,
owing to the fact, that x turned into x +"
and that, hence, the happy expression for the genera l
formul a of the binomial (x + h)" instantly appeared ill the /ol'm a/ the equation B).
T he fact, that though Newton's binomial theorem for (x + "'r was obtained with Ihe help or
differentiation, however, it was subject 10 [he supposed validity of this theorem for (x + hr·\ .
was not liked by Marx. And he made an allempt 10 substantiate this assumptio n. The lower
hal f of page 7 (part III in ou r list) constitutes Ihe beginning of this ~uempt.
T his beginning is being reproduced below, in full (sheet 7) :
All this be better begun as under :

Suppose that given:

[(xl-x', [(x,)-x,·.
We have s hown ea rlier (sce the firs t manuscripl lll), Ihat if/(x) .. X", I(x,) -XI'", {then]
YI - Y - I(x , ) - I(x) - xt' - ;C" - (XI - x) (XI", -I + XI,"-lX +XI," - lX l + X/,-4X l +
+ upto the m-Ih term xl'"-"X,"-l).
Div id ing this by (XI -x), we sha ll get
y, - y [(x,) - [(x)
- - or -(x .. -I +·· ·+X"-"X-- I).
XI - X XI - X I I

Assuming XI -x, hence ,XI -x-O, we get

dy ([(x,) - [(x))
-or _mxm - I
d.x (x, - x) .
Jus t as the fi rst derivative of X'" was obta ined, so may we obt.1 in all the latter. All o f them
are found through one alld the same melhod, based on the algebraic presupposition, that a
difference of the form x.... - a'" is always div isibl e by x - a and, he nce, ca n always be
represented as (x - a) P.
(Continuation on p. 11-) .

1I is dirficultlo undeMitand [he content of pari VII (sheets 19-23 in our lisl) Ihat follows. Only this
much is clear, that having (ound the suc«ssive derivatives y " y", ... of y .. X"', Marx wanted
somehow to subSlantiR te the necessity: 1) of multiplying y , y', y", " ', respecti ve ly by
,,0, hi, 11 2, "', 2) of dividing the obtained products, beginning wilh y'Jr, by 1,1'1,1 '2·3, ....
respectively, Ind 3) finally of adding all these quotients in o rder 10 thus obtAin the expansion
for (x + h)"', wi thout leaning upon Newton's binomial theorem. But Marx could nO I realise this
inlention l7l, and later on he turned away from both the variants of the supplement to p.l,
contemplated by him. 'IlIal is why, those portions of parI VII are being reproduced below,
which are of independent interest.
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCRllrr J;N11TUJ) "TA YLOR'S TI-lEOREM" 281

The first among them is related 10 Mane 's subslallliali on of lhe fact, tllal for IIn integral and posilive
m, (x + 11)'" must be expandable in a series accordillg to the powers of If. Marx justifies it as
follows (sheet 20):
Wc know from algebra, that in the binomial (x + 11)" (- (a + c)", for ins tance, where m
is an integral, posi tive ind ex of power) expressions in x have as thei r multipliers, the
la tter term of the binomia l, here h, in ascending powers, [si nce ) (X+h)6 [L i] -
(x + h) (x + h) (x + 11) (x + h) (x + Il) (x + 11). Here, whether x is a va riable, or an unknown
algebraic constant, o r even an unknown like a in (a + 11)6, the latter, in the given case the
constant term h in ascending, integral and positive powe rs U' (_l), h', h 2 etc., will always
be (under the given conditions) made multipliers of the successive express io ns [in xl, which
are obtained for x, as constants in a lgebra, through succes ive multiplication by itself, but which
appear as functions of the variable x, while differentiating the intermediate "derivati.ves".
Here we shall also reproduce Marx's general comments on the modes of expressing Ihe changes
of variables in the "algebraic' method of differentiation,which Marx placed in p. 11·, in connection
with the ques tion of the value of the constant as an item or a faclor in 5uch difTerentation (sheet 19).
Notabene: he re Il is introduced, not only in the beginning,as an ordinary constant, li ke
(x + a)6, (x + C)6, (a + 0)6, (a + h)' in algeb ra; it must always remain a conslant and, o n
the basis of the algebraic method of differentiatio n adopted herc, by itself it can neither be
a va riable, nor the increment of a variable, since in this method of differentiation, the difference
of the independent variables XI -x (accordingly that of the dependent variables Y I - Y or
f(x , ) - f(x») remains always in this initial form of illlnd, hence, Xl -x, as well as Y, - y, can
never be assumed to be equal to some value of the difference, -l1x or h, and hence, can
never be represen ted in the form of x, - X _ tu or h, x, - X + tu or - x + h. nor can
Y, -Y ~ . I
YI - Y become -Ily or le. If we write - - or as an equlva ent of the preliminary
x,-x I!J.x
derivative, then for us these are o nly signs for the indeterminate XI -x and Y, - Y and not
[fixated] values of differences, s uch that XI - x - l1x, as the value of an indeterminate
difference, o r Yl - Y -l1y, as just the same. In the entire deduction [of the derivative] from
f(x) , the augmented X always figures as XI and, on the other hand, the augmented Y - as Y I '
that is why, they can not at the same time figure as x + I1x and y + I:!.y.
Having turned away from both the variants of lhesuppleme ntto p.I, Marx decided to substantiate
the Iransition from the "algebraic- form of Newton's bioomialtheorem to its "differenti al"form,in
another way _ The following pari (pari VIII according to our list) of the manuscript is devoted 10
this. It is being reproduced here in full.
Here, under the liut e: ·Prdude to p.l; Tayfor's Tlleorem ", Marx begins with the formula
I) Y, or /(x+II) .. (.ull)"'_
h
.. x'" + nu'" - 1_+ m{m - l)x'" - 2 -112 + m(m - ' 1 )(m - 2)x"'-l _Il'_ + .. . . + X"-" h",
I 1·2 1'2-3
and writes about it a few lines below (sheet 23) :

36
282 DESCRIP110N OF TIlE MA'llIEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

Considering sub I) the equation y\ - X'" + etc., to be independently appearing, we can prima
facie take it as an ordinary algebraic exp ression of a binomial of the si mplest form
(x + 11)" _X'" + etc., and, namely. the same in integral and positive power, as it was assumed
from the very beginning about the index of power m. Wc shall, al first, take it in this form as
the point of transition 10 the differential melhod,whcre it is assumed that Xl - X _ It [[hence,
alsoYI - y - k, if it su its]J, that is Xl - x + h. This g ives us theopporlunity of direct [transition
to the differential method1 from the method applied so fa r, where XI -x, Yt - y, appear only
in this universal form of their difference and where, also, as soo n as o n the right hand s ide of
the equation, x increases, it appears only as X I ' i.e., in the same indeterminate form, as the
initial x, and neve~ turns into XI - X + I1x or X + It. But it would be a mistake to think, thJlt it
was possible to act along the opposite path, i.e., 10 assume, conversely , that h _ X I - x, and to
pass over from the differential method to ours.
We reproduce below the whole orthe remaining text or part VII! (according 10 our list) in full
(sheets 24-25) :
I){-(x-+ h)' - X,
h2 III
+ 5x 4h + 5·4x} - + 5·4· 3x1 - - + 5·4· 3· 2x
h~
+ III
a) - 1-2 1-2-3 1-2-3- 4 -
This is an ordinary algebraic equa tion;on the onc hand, the unexpanded general
expression of the binomial of two constants X and h. namely. in the left hand side (x + 11)' ;
on the olher, Ihe seria l expansion,attained through the binomial theorem in the right hand side.
If in the general expressio n (x + 11)' we put h - 0, then instead of (x + 11)' we sha ll get
(x + 0)' - x'. If now wc consider x as a variable, then x' will be a determinate function j" x,
namely f(x), but x' is a lso a function of x, because the value o ff (x) changes with the variations
of x; thus, now, viewing this function as a function dependent on x, wc call it y ; and the
express ion f(x), when it is taken in the sense of this dependence, is equivalent 10 y. On the
o ther hand, since x' _ f(x) , (x + 11)' turns into f(x + h) or YI' Thus, in place of I)a) we get:
y o r f(x) - x'.
Ill ' 11'
Y1 or f(x + h) - (x + h)l - r + 5x4h + 5·4r 1.2 + 5·4·3xl 1.2.3 + .... + Ill.

If we again put h _ D,then this series is reduced to r; in the left hand side f(x + 11) is reduced
to f(x) or Y1 to y. That is why, we have: Y o r f(x) - r . If we substitute this value of x' in
the equation I)a), then it turns into equation b)"[see, below). The first term of the series,in
the ordinary binomial expa nsion of two constants remains in its own place in the first term,
but it changes its character completely. It is no more the first term [of the elCpansio n}of the
o rdina ry binomial (x + h)', but [it is] the prototype function of the va riable x - namely, r -
before it turned into f(x + 11), and hence r too turned into (x + h)' .

"After "b)" in the manuscript at first there was written : "(see,the opposite pagey. Part or this statement was
later on struck out. - &I.
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCI~I[YJ' ENTI'Il..lJD "TAYLOR'$ THEOREM" 283

Thus, now the eqation has the form:

b) y, or f(x + h) • Y or f(x) + 5<'h + 5·4<' -h'2 + 504'3<'-2

h' 3 + 5·4-)·2< h '+ )
h' .
( ,. 1· . . U·3-4 .
On the other hand,from b) it follows that: .,l ii'! .• '

/1 2 11) h4
c) y, - y or [(x + /I) - [(x) - Srh + S·4x' 1.2 + 5·4·3x2 1.2.3 + S43·2x 1,2.3.4 + h'.

Thus, at one stroke, having turned the rirst term xl into f(x), the whole of the remaining
bionomial series, beginning with its second term, was also turned into a series of terms,
constructed from the successiv[y derived functions in x.
All the 11, /1 2 , III etc., which accompany these "derived" functions as multipliers, now
turn into differen t powers of the difference between xland x or between (x + 11) and x - since
XI - x - 11, or x, - x + 11 - from being th~ second terms of the ordinary binomial (x + 11)'. because
«x + 11) - x) _ " is a differen ce, which emerges owing to the fact that the variable x grew
into XL or x + h, Thus, the entire series is now the difference between the original function
in x and the fWlction ofx grow" into (x + 11). This difference may also be positively represented
as an incremen t, which the original function in x obtained, as x increased into Xl or x + 11.
Thus, thanks to a very simple manoeuvre the entire serial expansion of (x + h)',
a) from the binomial expression of two consta nt magnitudes, turned into a series, whose
rirst term is the original function of the variable x, and all the remaining terms are the sum of
increments, attained by this original function,owing to the fact that, from f(x) it has turned
into f(x + 11). Hence, all these increments spmng up from its movement,and not as terms of
an ordinary algebraic binomial expansion. Whence follows(see above) equa tion c).
[b)] However, the suppos ition of h _ 0 served us, not only in the metamorphosis of the
ord inary binomial of two constants into the expansion for the function of one variable x, when
this va riable increases, from the very beginning it also indicated the method to be applied,!n
order, on the onc hand, to free the ready-made successive derived functions in x from their
surro undings, wherein they are s ituated in the seria l expansion, and on the other,to produce
the corrcspending symbol ic differential coefficients.
A) It beca me possible to put the first term of the series xl - f(x), beca use: 1) it itsel[
· has the factor hO- I, i.e., is free from h, and 2) the supposition of h - 0 has already removed
all the remaining terms and,thus the entire series has been reduced to r . Tha\ . i~ why, so that
the derived fu nctions Sr, S·4x' etc. found themselves in a condition analogous to xl, they
are to be : 1) successively freed from the multipliers 11, 112 etc., which is possible on ly through
success ive division by Jr, and 2) when a "deriva tive" is freed from 11. Le., turns out to be
freed as a "derived tt function, then it is nccessary, as it was with the first term. to assume that
h - 0, Le., 'to preliminarily remove, at the same time, all its collateral terms from the path; and
the entire series is reduced to a freed "derivative", as it happened with the first t erm l7l.
284 DESCR!I"110N OF TilE Mi\THEMI\'nCAL MANUSCRIPTS

B) Th e suppos itio n of If = 0, in the ope rat ion with the first term o f the series turned the left
hand s ide, Crom /(x + 11) or YP into f(x + 0) o r y, in other words into f(x). But as the derived
functions may be freed from thei r multipliers h only through a division by h, this divisio n
produces in the left hand side

y, -y) [(x + 11) - [(x)

( - -x, -x- or It .
Hence, when, in the right hand s ide It turns into D, so as to reduce the entire se ries into a
freed "de riva tive", then the left hand side inevitably assumes the fo rm

X, - y Q [(H 0) - [(x) o
o o or 0 o
Thus, the suppos itio n o f h ""' 0 generates, in the left hand s ide, the symbolic differential
coefficient o f the "derived" fun ction in x.
Hence, now, it is proved, that the fi rst operation,through which it is established that the
fi rst term of the se ries - [(x) or y, g ives two things at o nce:
1) transforma tio n o f the ordinary binomial (x + hP = xl + etc., into [(x + 11) - [(x) + a
series of func tions ' '-'ith the mult ipliers h , 112 etc., deduced from [(x), i.e., wi th the powers
of the increment, which the independent variable x o~tains, when from x it turns into Xl ' i.e.,
when it obtains th e incremen t ,, - Xl - x;
2) the method. which frees the ready-made "derived" fun ctions in x, as suc h (in fact it
is obtained through the ex pans io n of the o rdinary binom ial of the two constan ts x and h), and,
along with this, counterposes them oppos ite the ir symbolic differential express io n. Thus, we
can, now, aga in return to the business.

[){(x + h )~ _ x~ + 5x4h + 5·4x)-

h' + 5·4·3x 2 -11'- + 5·4·3·2x h' + h~.
a) 1·2 1·2·3 1·2·3·4

In fact, so far, in this manuscript only the other mode of representing the bionomial theorem
of Newton, has been discussed, i.e., ils translation, from the language of algebra to the language
of differential calculus and, correspondingly the serial expansion of (x i- If)'" (m - integral and
positive) accord ing to the powers of If. But even in its formulation without the residual term,
Taylor's theorem is vlllid fo r a much wider class of functio ns, the transition 10 which is
connected wit h the transition from a finite polynomial to an infinite series. Marx discusses this
transition, in one more addition to p.l of the malluscript, which follows the "Prelude" . He re he
specially dwells upon the difficulties, connected with the extension of the expallsion obtained
for (.r i- If)'" (when m is integral and posi ti ve) to a wider class of fUllcrions . This addition is being
reproduced below in full. With th is begins part IX of the malluscript (according to our list) (Sheets
26-28).
 AD P. 1 (TAYLOR'S THEOREM)
Wc deduced the initial equat ion
1) (x+It)", .. X"'+.'rum-1h+·······
itself, through differentiation from the equation
(x+h)m+'_ X",+i +(m + 1).\-""'11 + ...
But thus wc took the same binomial theorem as the already g iven sta rting point : we
simp ly look as the start ing point, the binomial (x + 11) in its (m + I)-Ih power, so as to obtain
through differentiation the binomial (x + lI)m, so Ihat it could appear through differentiation, as
the given starting po int.
But the algebraic binomial is related only to the binomials o f a determinate power. From
the point of view of algebra . these arc based only o n constan t magnitudcs, x + It itself is the
binomial of first power = (x + h)l. Wc can continue the series obt.1 ined for (a + If)'" as far as
we wish, and designate this con tinuatio n through + ,as it happens in eq uatio ns 3) and 4) .,
because m is an algebraic magnitude with an indeterminate numerical va lue; but this is no
hindra nce to the rinitude of the series. We can also write it with a begin ning and an end:
x'" +mx",-lh + .... + InXh",-l +ltm.
Here y\ or f(x + h), which we use in the differential calculus, is and remains o nly a
symbo l for the binomial (x + Iz) of a determinate though. arbitrary power.
Thus, only formally, through the interruption with + etc., do we get an infinite se ries,
whereas in fact it is expressible, as in the generalised fo rm, with 11 beginning and an end,
with the intermediate + etc., in the middlc. But this is not all . Coefficients of the functions
hO ( or 1), hI, 1{2, 11 3etc. show that we reprcsented (x + II)m as expanded in integral, positive
and ascending [powers of h]. Thus we have put at the base, not on ly an algebraic [binomial),
and tha t is why, essentially, some power of a given binomial, bula special fo rm of the
binomial theorem proper. This apa rt, we should not forget, that for obta ining 11 s impl y as a
multiplier of the functions in x, we chose the form (x + a)m (si nce in an a lgebraic binomial
h is a constant, analogo us to a), where x is the first term, and h - the la tter, instead of the
form (a + x)m, where they stand in the inverse order.
It is true that we co uld also have stmtcd from a binomial with negative or fractional power,
-m or lE. , and thereby co uld have obtained an infinite series.
11

But in this case too, not to speak o f the other limitations, which will be sta ted later o n,
on ly a binomial of some determinate power is aga in put at the base, s ince -m or m are
11
a lso determinate powers, just like m. Even in this case, the infinite series is a n expa ns io n of
some general expression in a determinate power (li ke (x + h)-m, (x +11)7., Wn a determinate]]
though negative or fractional [[ power]].

• See. PV. 273.

286 DESCR!,TnON OF '11 lE MATI IEMA'lle AL MANUS CRIPTS

Here, the y10r [(x + 11), obt<lincd by us, ;lI ways remains only the symbol of a b inomial o f
some power: positive, negative or fractional; that is, here the series corresponding 10 such
Yt or I(x + 11), is also no thing but a generalised expression of a power of the binomial, [it iSJ
in fact only the generalised expression of an example of a binomial of some determinate
algebraic for m.
Perhaps, this deficiency ma y be avoided. Il may be possible for us to gel rid of this
limitation of the algebraic binomial. having recourse to the algebra ic method of
indeterminate coefficients. At fi rst wc shal l t<l ke the expression in equation 2) back to its initia l
algebraic form, namely from:
2) [(x+h) or YI_ X"'+I1tx"'-I!!.+m(m_I)x",-'2!L+
1 1·2
+m (m - 1}(m - 2) X ",-3 _h'_ + ...
1·2·3
[to J
2a)f(x+h) or YI_ x"'+(/~lxm-l)lI+
+ (mc rn1·2- I) x "'-'2) 112+ (rn(11I - 1·2-3
1)m(m - 2) x "'_3) 113 + ...

Here the functi ons no mo re appea r as integral [lInetions 174, they appear, as it was initially
the case in the binomial expansion, as
x"'+mxm-i h+.!m(m_1)x...-2 /12+ _ 1_ (or !)m(m_l)(m_2)XIlt-3/i3+ .....
2 1·2-3 6

and this has been indicated [above] throug h the brackets.

After th is formal modification, consisting of the fact, that 11,112 ,113 , etc. are freed from
their denominators, and functions in x are represented in that form, wh ich th ey had in their
initial algebraic deduction, where o nly the second term m,X m_I appears as an integra l fun ction,
the third as half of the integra l fun ct ion m(m - t) x _'2
etc., we subst itute the functi ons of
x by the inde term inate coefficients A ,B ,C etc. and obtain for 3) (and hence, also for 4»
f(x+II) or YI -[(x) or y+AII+Bh 2 +Ch3 +Dh +EI/'+'"
4

Here A, B . C ,D, E etc. appear as fu nctions of x (co mpare 2a», which, however, are yet to
be found o ut. This apart, the ser ies in itself may be continued as far as one wishes. And now
it can no morc be reduced to a series, whose end, like its beginn ing will also lend itself to
determination, since we can go on writing at our will, as far as Fh 6 + Gh 7 etc. etc., making the
numerica l coefficients 1.,
_1_ , 1 ,wh ich give away their origin, invisible in the
2 1·2·3 1·2-3-4
indeterminate coefficients At B Ct D, E, F etc., along with the derived functions themselves.
t

While th is manoeuvre is ca rried out in the ri gh t hand side, in the left f(x + h) or y, turns
from th e symbol of a binomial of some power, into a genera l unexpanded expression of this
infinite ser ies, not having any power, though it does include every power.
 AN tNCOMPLETE MANUSCR Wr t:NTrn.ED ' TAYLOR'S THEOREM" 287

I(x) is [[a}} function of [[a)] variable x, open to infinite expans ion ;I(x + If} is the gene!al
unexpanded expression of Ihis fun ction [of] x, when the latter turns inlo x + h from x.
Fu rther, it is understandab le in respecl of the equation
3) y, or f(x+h)-y+f' (x)h+f" (x)!l...+---,
1-2
that fo r the func tio ns [,(x), I" (x) [etc. ] we may not as simply s ubstitute lhcir sy mbolic
equivalents, as it happens in equation 4), but that (these equivalents] are yet 10 be found
ou t through differentiation 17.5.
The section of the manuscript, which follows this addition, and which is devo ted to a critique of
the proors of the theorems of 'raylor and Macu urin, as th ey were known to Marx , s how th at
according to t.:1arx the Justification of this enti re manoeuvre was not at all selr-evidcnt. Thi~
section bcgins 8S follows (shcct28) :

TAYLOR'S TH EOREM
Taylor's ini tial equation is :
I ) Y1 or f(x+h) _ y+Ait+ Bh 2 +CIt 3 +DIt 4 +Eh s + ...
To obta in the opportunity to work wi th this theorem, it is necessary to use the
manoeuvre based on the same bi nomial [theorem], cons isting of an applica tion of this
·.:heorem 10 a polynom ial expression, th rough its representa tion in the form of a binomial.
Let us take as an example (x + a)2, and write (x + a + b)2 instead of Ihe latter. We can expand
it : as «x + a) + bP or as (x + (a + b))2;
in the first case we shall have:
(x+a+b)'- (x+a),+2(x+a)b+b' ;
in the seco nd case:
(x + a + bP - x2 + 2t (a + b) + (a + b)2 .
T he importa nt thing in this example is the fact, that between the two right hand s ides there
is onl y a fo rmal, though wittingly merely formal, diffe rence; however, from the very beginning
their identity is demonstrated through the identity of the left hand sides.
Having then written: "And now to bu.siness·, Marx went over to an account of the proof of
Taylor's thcorem, according to Boucharlat. As we al ready know( see, for example, Appendix pp.
337·338) in Doucharlat's book this proof is preceded by a Icmma (§§ 55, 56, pp. 34-36), asserting
that
d[(:x + Ill .. d[(x + III
<Ix dh
Marx begins with this lemma. HaVing given an account of its proof according to Boucharlat, Marx
comments (sheet 29) : "11 could hQve luen proved much more simply".
The explana tion that follows is so sketchy, that here one can only surmise about the course of
Marx's thought. Wc shall hazza rd below one such conjecture.
In o rde r to prove that the equality
'88 Dl,iSC]HI"nON OF TIlE MATIIEMA"Il CAL MANUSCRIPTS

df(x ... 11) .. d[(:c ... 11)

dx dl!
holds, one may argue as follows. If wc attribu te to x the augmented va lue Xl ,then x ... 11 turns
into Xl .. 11 and [ (x ... 11) into l(xl ... Jr) , and we shall ha VC'

~1 _ [(x I '" 11) .. I(x'" 11) .. !(x, ... h) -/ (H 11)

!J.x XI x (x, +11) -(x+h)
Analogously

.y(.\" ... Ii) I(x", hi ) - 1(·"1'+ Jz) lex ... hI)" f(;u 11)
!lit" ", -I! (x +",) (x +h)

If now 10 facilitat e the argument wc substitu te x ... " by l (this MRrx himselr did nOI do). then
we s hall always hllve Ihe op portunity to represent the augmented value of l , i.e. <:'1 in the fo rm
of .1't "'''. 8S weUu in the form o f x'" h • . lIerei n bolh Ihe ratios
I(x] ... 11) .. f(lt'" III and I(x'" h t ) .. f(:{'" III
(xl +/il-(x ... lr) (x +11,) (x+h)
may be represented as

I, -z
Ind bot h will be equal 10 one a nd the same "preli mina ry· deri va tive according 10 z for I(z)
(i.e., for I(x + 11) . if the taue r exists. Whence the correctncss of equation (-) follows ve ry easily.
The crux of th e affll ir is IIgain the fact, that z, - z may be represe nted bo th in the {arm of
Xl -x, as well as in th~t of h, - 11 . so th at Xl - X .. 11, - h. The following words of Marx (s heet
29), go to show that the a forementioned conjecture really co rr es po nds to Marx 's ideas:
Since we have two expressions for th e sublated diffcrcnce (XI -x) , name ly (X I -xl and
(h , - 11 ) [ ... J, it is clear that these two are only formally different forms, of one and the
same sublated difference, which are mutually equa l 116.
The explanatio n omitted here, was placed by Marx wi thin bracke ts. It contains such a slip of
pen, which co uld not be removed with o ut so me so rt of conjecture.
Further, Marl{ analogously trea ts the ·proof" of Taylor's theorem acco rdin g 10 Bouc hllrlat. whi ch
is based on this lemma ; al first he e nu ncia tes Ihis proof and then criticises it .
Bo ucharlat"5 proof (see. § 57. pp. 36-37) consists o f Ihis ; at first the afo rementio ned eq uation
I) is differentiated in respect of I. and in re..<;peCI of X, which gives the equations
dy,
11) -;n; '" A+2Bh+3Ch1 +4DIIl + 5tll. • + ... .•
dYL dIJ +_h+_h2+
=- dA dB dC "J+_I,
_ dD • • ~h
dE l • ..... ;
Ill) _ to

dx dx tt, Jx dx dx dx

referring 10 the lemma, owing 10 which ~ '" 1; ,Boucharlallhen equalises the coefficients of the same
powers of h in the equations 11) and Ill). and thus obtains Taylor's Iheorem in the form of the equa ti on
 AN INCOMI'LI!TU MANUSCRIPT ENTITLED ~TA YLOR'S TilBOREM "
"9
IV)

T hen Marx criticises Ihis entire procedure as IlIlder (sheet 30) :

The qu estion arises, how we could transform formula l), an algebraic binomial of
the si mplest form (x + 11)"', masked by indeterminate coeffi c ients, into IV) ?
Didn ' t that adroit manoeu vre - which consisted of : first differentiati ng I) accordi ng
to 11, and then acco rding to x, and thus obtaining fo r YI two differential equati ons, the general

ex pressions [i n the le ft hand sides] of wh ic h d; and ~~ are identical and that is w hy the
res pective serieses of expansio n are equivalent, ow in g to which their separate terms may
be equated with each OIher - have a decis ive significance here ?
Not at a ll.. The criterion indi cat ing which functions of x in the two equations may be
equated, is given by the factors 1-fJ (= I ), hi, hl,It), 114 etc. Only those functions may be
equated whose factors happen to be the same powe rs of h, But where from did we get these
very fact ors ItD, hi ,Ill, 11), etc" stipulating the whole process?
The ini tia l equation I) is like thi s:
I) YI= yho+Ahl+Bhl+ChJ+Dh·+Ehs+ .....
It is true, that we have disgui sed the fun ct io nsr(x) ,j"(x) ,r"(x) , etc. derived from the
binomial, in the indeterminate coefficients A , B , C. D, E etc. However, we remember about
the latter that they are a fter all functions of x, o r else we cou ld not ha ve d ifferent iated them,
ne ither ( accordi ng to) x, nor [according to] h; but in our equation we grabbed the factors
hO, hi, h 1, h) etc. in (their] pristine virg in fo rm , as they were g iven to us by the bi nom'ial
theorem; and by not fastening them in the equation by <lny trick, with the two identica l but
formally differe nl translations of equati on I) into differential forms, we could not seduce
anybod y.
After this Marx went over to discussing the attempts to prove, by the method, not only of
indeterminate coefficients A., 8, C. but also of indefinite indices of powers a, ~,y ; ... of Ir ,
that 11 must enter into the expansion• of /(x+h), into a series according to the power of h, namely
in the same way, as it has been 'presupposed in equation 1. Here he adduces Ihe proofofTaylor's
theorem according to Hind (sce, Hind, §74, pp. 83·84) and criticises it. Since.m aquaintance
with this proof is required, for understanding Marx's critique of it, its account, as given in the
manuscript (sheets 3 1.32), is being reproduced below in full.
This is still more vividly striki ng in the later attempts to give the differential deductio n from
I) suc h a fo rm, where in not only would the functions of x, but al so the powers of h, appear to
be found through differentiation.
Name ly, here the init ial equation is written as :
la) y= y+ Ah (l+8h 13 +Ch Y + Dh t.+···

And then we get:

1) !!1.J..= a.Ah a - l + pBh ~r+yCh ~I+ BDIl6 -1+ ....•
dh
37
lO() DESCRI]Y110N or THE MATHEMA11CAL MANUSCRIPTS
dy, dv ciA,,, dB 11 de,y dD II
2) - =+ - , + - h +- , + - h +".
dx dx dx dx dx dx
Then we argue as follows: the icrt hand sides of both 1) and 2) arc equal, hence, their serial
expansions too arc equivalent, and their correspondingly analogous terms may be equated;
that is Why; in the first place, a All «-I - ~ . But since ~ has the muilip lier 1 ( ... h 0), so
It n-I must be _ hO, and, hence, a-l- 0, that is, a _ ' 1.
Thus we have killed three birds with a single shot: 1) since a - 1, so now wc know, that
in the initial equation Ah <l .. All' = All ; 2) thereby the values of the indeterminate indices of
power f3, y, () etc. in h 11, "Y • It II ete:, have also been potentially given to us; 3) since
a Ah a-I - ~ • i.e., nAh (1.-1 ... l' Ah l - I ... A , so A -1; .
Th c seeon d act 0 . .IS as f ollows: .
f equatmg pBh H ... dA
dx ha . Hence, ,H
I - ,"
I th
at ·IS
1> - 1 2- 1
j3 - 1 - a; but since a". I, j3 - 1 ,., I, i.e., j3 ... . 2 and j3Bh - 2Bh - 2Bh .
Now wc know firstly, that in the initial equation la) we can put Bh 2 instead of Bh P ;
hence, it is deduced, and not assumed from the ve ry beginning.

Secondly, that f3Bh 1>-1 ... : h ~ turns into 2Bh "" : h (since h (l "" 1/;), he~ce, 2B = :

and B "" ~ .: ; if here we substitute the value of A , then

B_ 1. . .!L (!!l'.) _ 1..!!'r .

2dxdx 2dx2
There is no need to extend it further.
I! may appear, it is true, that Marx's critici,m of this proof is based on a misunderstanding.
Hind assumes that I(x + h) may be expanded into a series "according to the integral, positive
and ascending powers of " " (see, Hind §74, p.83), and in fact in this presupposition it is
demonstrated, that if the coefficient of la l(k> 0) is not identically equal to zero, then the
coefficients of hi , la l , .... ,11- 1 also can not be identically equal 10 zero. (The fact is this, ihat
Hind also presupposes, though tacitly, that the coefficients of h a, II ~, h 1.... . are "finite ", Le., are
different from 0, as well as from 00). However, this proof is highly slipshod in f9rm and may give
rise to the impression : aL if: following Lagrange. the author wants to demonstrate the
expansibility (~in the general instance ~) of every I(x + III inl0 a series according to the powers
''0. 111. ,,1 .... ; namely, thus did Marx understand it . Apart from this, Hind no where verifies
the validity of the initial presupposition (regarding the properties of the indices, of power
a, fJ, y , ... .) for any concrete functi o n. Le .• as such, no where does he find it necessary. In sum,
Marx has rightly reproached Hind, by saying, that he merely created an appearence of greater
generality for his formUlation of Taylor's theorem. According to Marx, Uind did not in vain
directly formulate his initi81 assumption, that he is going prove Taylor's theorem for the
functions l(x+II), permitting its representation in the "binomial form", I.e., as
ICx + hl + I(x) +Ah i' B1I2 + ...
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUS<"1UIYJ· I:.NUIl..ED "TAYLOR'S TIiOOREM' 291

The enli rety of Marx's criticism of Ilind is being rcproduced here in full (sheels 32·33)
Th is improved and more prete ntious version of Taylor's expansio n comes to the
fo llowing. The equalisa tion of the firs t terms of both the equa tions, is the key to it all !

a A ll a-I - ~; and since ~ has as its multiplier /to, then 11 a-I must be .. hO, and, hence,
a - 1 - 0, i.e., a _ 1 and a All a-I _ Ah I-I .. A.
But let" , in the in itial equation

a be a nega tive magnitude (a nd an indeterminate a may be any thing, as it is indicated

by the binomial theorem in its general account), thcnAh turns intoAII and aA II a - I into
(I -(I

I
-a Ah - - • Now if we put a- 1, as it follows from the aforementioned accoun t, then
ft

_o. Ah - a - I .. _ Ah - I - 1 _ _ AII - 2 •
Since Marx did not have a sign for absolute magnilude, to express that a is a neg8live number,
he substitutes a by - a, where the laller a is positive..
Hence, according to our previous argument, we must conclude, that si nce
fIl.
dx dx
_ fIl. x 1 (or" 0)
•

so it must be th at h -2 _ h 0; Le., - 2 _ 0, or, in other wo rds, s ince 2. 11 0 .,. - a All - I-I, so

it must be that 11 - I- I .. 110 and, hence, - 1 - 1 .. 0, wh ich results in - 1 .. + 1. However, th is
ridiculous result onl y demonstrates, that we quietly proceeded from the presu ppos ition,
that h !' is only a masked express ion fo r hi, i.e., we presupposed the equali ty a .. + 1, and our
intention of not onl y es tabl is hing the ex pans ibility into a seri es with the factors
11 0, 11 I, h 2, ,, 3 etc., but also of ded ucing the correspo ndi ng nume rica l powers of
h : 1 , 2, 3 , etc. , th rough di ffe rentiation, from the indeterminate indices of power
a, f3 , y etc., was from the very beg inning a thoroughgoing fraud.
Further, in All a could be less than 1, and then a - 1 would also be a proper fraction,
(I,

so tha't the general express ion [for the powe r o f 11 ] would be o f the form It "';•. Exactly in the
sa me way a could also be (irrational] .
Here instead of an irrational a , Marx wro te log h, and it is not clear whether it is mean t as the i/1du
of the power of h, or as the power h ..
However, herei n the initial equa tion
Yl- Y +Ah (I +Bh 11 + Ch T+ DII 6 + ...
is either only an improved mask for h i , It 2, It 3, borrowed fro m the lIlinomial, ' or if we
actuall y consider a, for example, to be a simple general symbol o f the index of power, i.e.
in all poss ible for ms of a, then the terms of the two equa tions deduced through di rferentiation,
are not to be equa ted, Le., they arc not worth a fa rth ing.
t:The sense here is: "let us consider an instance, whon ". -Ed .
 DE:SCR[ I~ nON 01' ·11113 MATllEMA11CALMANUSCRIPTS

But we do know, that there exist functions of x, which, when x increases by h, give
nega tive or fractional powers of the laller.
Hence, the result, consists of this : that the [multipliers] or th e different s,uccessive
derived functions in x, borrowed from the binomial, namely," 0, h i , ,, 2 etc., must remain
presuppossed; that we got them through the binomial, and not through diffcrenti,'lI
development; that, consequently, the binomial form, where fro m to proceed, is fully
determined, where the multiplier h is expa nded in illtegral, positive and ascend ing powers".
Marx contin ues his eriliquc further. Now he dwells upon the question of exprcssing Ihe
indeterminale coeffi c ients A, B, C, D etc., thro ug h the derived funcli o ns of {(x) and,
correspondingly, upon the inslances, where (according to Marx) a - finite" derivll tive does not exist.
He writes (pp. 33-34) ;
But this is nol all. Even with the derived functions in x (sec, 3» J'(x) , ["(x) etc., disguised
in the indeterminate coefficients A, B, C, D etc, the affa ir is not fully Kosher"·.
There we deduced : f'(x) - ~ , but there we also had [(x) - x"', thanks to which
J'(x) .. m x "'-I, i.e. like all the function s in x, deduced latter on with the help of the binomial,
f'(x) was a determinate and fi!lite expression in x ; and, we note, that the initial functions.
which are expa nded with the help of the binomial, always have, in their general form . a
determ inate power, as for instance, when f(x) _ x "', as well as, when it .. a'" .
x"'-a'"
Whichever way the derived fun ctions might be represented: through a finite or an
infinite series, each term of such a series is determinate and, to that extent, a finite expression
in x. For example, in x 4 (or x"') 4x 3 (or nu "' ~ l ) is a determinate and finitc expression,
which does not in any way in nuence its possibility of being expanded as a runction in the
variable x. Owing to the fact th at x again turns into x + 11, 4x 3 is tranformed into 4(x + liP ,
though 4x 3 is a determinate express ion, and is to that extentfini/e.
The same for
a X X2 X3
- - - 1+ - +-+-+···
a -x a a 2 a3
Eh
ac term 0 rh , x-,
t e senes, x"2"'
' x-,' etc., 'ISfa imtlc,
" b ecause determmate,
' fIInctlOn
i' 0,,r x,
a a a
besides it is a matter of total indifference, whether I find the series by dividing a by
a
a - x or, through a shorte r route - by successive differentiation or__ ,
a -x
But when we subs titute the indeterminate coefficients A, B , etc., in place or f'(x) , ["(x)
etc., we face the same dilemma, as in hO," 1, h 2, etc" i.e., for the multipliers of the
• Here an expansion of the form f(x + h) • A +BII + CII + DII J + "., is called the "binomilll Conn".
'
-Ed .
• • Marx used this word ironica lly. In ancient Hebrew it means: strict observance of the reli gious
prescription, prohibiti ng the use of one and the· same utensils for meat and milk products.
Evidently, here Marx wishes to stress, that even from the point of view held by the au thor, the
arguments given herc arc unsatisfactory. -Ed.
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCRIPT ENTITLED "TAYLOR'S 11IEOREM" 293

derived functi ons in Taylor's initial equation, as a whole transferred from a special form of
the binomial.
Either A • B, C etc, are indeterminate coefficients - only the other names of the
determinate and to that extent ~fini(e " derivedfullctiolls if! x, borrowed from the binom ial, or
as general symbols fo r the derivedfullctiolls in x,A, B , C etc" must be the sy mbo ls of the
derived fun ctions, not only when the latter are determinate and finite, but also when they are
- 0, - co, or _ - 00, And we already know, that in fac t such is the case,
Since in the following pages of the manuscript (pp, i, Jr, again i), Marx sums up all that he has
already said a bout Taylo r's theorem (sheets 34-36) and gives a general o utline of .his attitude
to Lagrange's atte mpt to substantiate the initial assumption, upon which the demonstration of
Taylor's theorem is built, as per the oooks of Boucharlat, Hind etc. - the lext of these pages of
the manuscript has already been reproduced in the first part of the present volume (see,. pp. 93-94
and note 82).
After Ihis Marx went o ver to a more detailed account of Lagrange's demonstration of
TayJor's theo rem . He wrote (p. i continued and p. i); (sheets 36-37) :

If we take Taylor's initial formula:

y- !(xl,
I) Y1 or f(x+h) _ f(x)+Ah+Bh +Ch 3 +Dh 4 +Eh s +,."
2

then we can write it as :

- f(x) + h CA +B"+ Ch l +Dh 3 +Eh 4 +FII 5 + ....).
If we call the entire expression within the brackets P , then
1) y, or !(X+ hl - !(xl + Ph.
Lagrange says, that this is the express ion, to which the ent ire serial expa nsion mus t be
reducible, as soon as the variable x turns into x + 11 and, hence, [(x) turns into [(x + 11) j
because, putting h - 0, we shall get f(x + h) "" f(x) , in other w ords,f(x + 11) is conversely
reduced to its original express ion. Thus, it demons trates to us, that in the serial expansion
off(x + 11), i~ first term must be - f(x) or y.
Let us now consider Ph more closely:
Ph _ h (A + Bh + Ch 1 +Dh l +Eh 4 + ... );
hence ,
P _ A + (B + CII + Dh 2 + Eh 3 + ... ) h.
If we designate this A by p and tb~ expression in brackets by Q, then
p _ p+Qh.
If we now substitute this value of
P ,.. p+Qh in
1) !(X+ hl - !(xl + Ph,
then wc shall get:
!(x + hl - !(xl + (p + Qhl h - !(xl + ph + Qh';
294 DESC RllynON O F '1'1U! MA'n II!MAll CAL MANUSCRIPTS

Le.
2) f(x + h) - f(x) + ph + Qh'.
lagrangc at first cons iders onl y the seco nd term ph. Since p has h, o nly <15 a multiplie r
outside itself (as distinct from Q, which aga in incl udes the function h within i/selfl, and
since in general, apart from x and 11, wc do not have the other for ma tive e lements in the
series, so p must be a function of x, besides its first derivative is the mini mal expans ion of
I(x). Then he demonstrates tha t, p can nol be .. 0 or co a nd ca n not have the mulLiplier h
with negative or fractional indices of power 177, The grea tness of this proo[ lies in the
following: just as in [(x) the variable x is indeterminate and general, i.e., it never takes any
particular va lue - a 178 etc., and relains the capability of any increment. so does f(x + h,.
con taining Ihis x in its serial expansion and in the general rule of expansion. exclude all
particular in~ta n ce~. which appear in Ta ylor as its failures. [[ Anoltrer s trea k of its greatness
lies in this. that the theory of derived functions, which is interwoven into the serial expansion
of/ex + h). is at once app lied, conversely. fo r more exact determination of the terms of this
seril;S. But here I shall not enter into the details. J1
Thus. till now we had :
f(x + h) - f(x) + ph (or I'(x)h) + ...
Having analysed Qlt l in detail. we sec that it
.. (B + Ch +D/{l +E1I3 +Fh4 + ,.. ) Ill ..
_ B1I2 +hl(C + DII + EII2 + ... ).

If we designate B by q and the expression included withi n brackets by R. th en

Qh 2 _ (q + Rh)h2; he nce, Q .. q + Rh .
Having substituted this expression in 2). we sha ll get :

3) f(x +h )-f(x)+ph + (q +Rh)h',

f(x + h) - f(x) +ph + qh' + Rh' ,
arguing further in the same way, we sha ll get:

R - r+ Sh. S-s+TII.···.
f(x + h) - y (or f(x)) + ph (or I'(x)h) + qh' +rh' + sh 4 + ...

This series can not be concluded. because every time a new expression will be obta ined
: after the last S .. s + Th. an analogous T .. t + Uht where U again incl udes within itself the
functions of x and h. 1)lus, this mode of expansion excludes any fin al completion of the series.
whatever tha t might be.
We do not have the pages I , m, and /I of the manuscripT al our disposal, and we do not know
whether Marx had them o r not. Page k begins with a Hne and then Comes the following section,
devoted to MacLauri n's theorem·.
Here Marx writes (sheets 38) :

-This page of the manuscript was crossed out in pencil. -Ed .

 MACLAURIN'S THEOREM
I) I(x + It) or [(Xt) a YI is expanded according to Taylor's theorem; according to
MacLaurin's - I(x) or y, i.e., the function of x itself, is required to be expanded, not
algebraically, but with the help of differential calculus; thus, in fact, it does not stand for
anything other than the [assertion] that, the COl/slant coefficient of the [powers of ] x must
be found through differentiation.
11) If wc have a binomial. for example (x + C)4 , then its expansion may be written in two
forms, depending upon, which term x or. c, is taken as the first or as the lattcr :
a) (x + C)4;' X4 + 4x 3c + 6J?c'J. + 4xc 3 + c4 ,
b) (c + X)4 _ c4 + 4c3x + 6C 2X2 + 4Cf + X4 •
In a) the function in x appears as expanding in series, and c in. ascending, integral and
non-negative'" powers, i.e., cO, Cl, c2 etc. appear simply as factors.
In b), conversely. the function in c appears as expanding in series, and x in ascending
etc. powers, as factors.
Evidently, equation b) is equation a) inverted, because, reading equation a) from right to
left, I get
4 3 22
c + 4c x + 6C X + 4a? + X4.
Thus, if Taylor's initial equation is:
J
a) YI'" Y + Ah + Bh2 + Ch + Dh4 + ... ,
then, having designated c4 by the letter At 4cJ by B, 6c 2 by C and 4c by D, [we shall obtain
MacLaurin's equation]:
f3} y ... A +Bx+ cx2 + D.I + ..
In a) the indeterminate coefficients A , B, C etc. are functions of x, in f3} - they are
functions of the constant c.
Ill) A) Y m [(x) or (c +xr-
_ cm + mcm~lx + m(m-l) Cm-2X2 +
1·2
+ m(m-l) (m-2)c'-' x' +
1·2·3
+ m(m-l) (m-2) (m-3) Cm-4X4 + ...
1·2·3-4
Since only the variables can be differentiated, the expansion of the constant coefficients
of the function [of] x through differentiation presents itseIr as a contradictio in adjecto --.
But we shall do what we did with Taylor's theorem. Ir we assume that x", 0, then
y or [(x) - (c +x).
turns into
-In the manuscript: "positive". -Ed.
-- Here it means: finds itself in contradiction with the very definition of differentiation. - Ed.
'96 DESCRuYllON OF '11 lE MA'll IEMAnCAL MANUSCRIPTS

y or 1(0) or (c +x)" - (c + 0)" - co.

Since we have thus found the m-th power of c or cm assuming x- 0 in (c+xl",
ana logously. all derivatives of C'" may also be so found: we shall seck the derivative through
the differentiation o f (c + xr.
and then assume that x .. 0; hence, as
y or I(x) - (c +xl"
so
!lx
dx
.. m(c + X).... I ;

if here we put x .. D, then (c + x)m-l turns into

(c + 0)"-1 _ ,"C'"-1 - ['(0).
In the same way we s hall success ively o btain the le n~ s of the series.
Hence, we get:
I(x) - 1(0) + J' (O)x + /,,(O).£. + /",(0) L + ...
1·2 \.2-3

.- (y)o + (~)o x+ /2 (;S):, +

+_1 (~)x' + . . +
1·2·3 dx 3
o

1-2~u (:t),
+ m x" •
where the brackets ( )0 indicate that, these symbolic differential coefficients correspond to
the "derived" functions, in whic h it has been assumed that x .. O.
Here, part IX of the manuscript (scording 10 our list) comes to 'an end.
Then fo llws pari X. I1 carries the ti tle: MSucussiveDiffuenliation" (pp. 0, p; sheets 39-40).
lIere Marx returns to the question: how, after having the expansion orf(x +Je) according to the
powers of h, one is to extract from it the s uccessive derivatives of f(x). by forming the differences
f(x + h) - f(x), then dividing them by " (~freei n g" the first term of the expansion of difference
from the factor h ) and, finally by assuming tha t h • O. He has already considered this question
earlier, so far only in application [0 the firs t derivative, (see, p. 283 and note m). Now Marx
examines the same question for successive derivatives. The issue is this: how, afte r already having
the seria l expansion of f(x + h) accordi ng to the powers of h, these may be utilised for extracting
from it, all the derived functions of /(x), in Marx's words ~ potentially ~ contained in it. With
Ihis aim in view, Marxcarrics out those veryope rationswi lhf'(x + h), which were discussed above.
in respect of /(x + le). However, while obtaining the expansion for f'V: + h), from theexpans~on of
Iv:+h) , Marx commits a mistake in calculation, which he himself notices later on. Since he
discusses the same question once more, in the supplement to p.l , which follows (pari Xl in our list),
and besides does so in 8 considerably clearer form, only this supplement is being reproduced
below (Sheet 41). Since this supplement also contains that very error in calculation (leadi ng 10 8
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCRII'T i!tflTlLED "TA YLQR'S THEOREM' 291

silUalion where the derivatives appear to be coinciding with the coefficients of 11 in Iheexpansion
of 1(X + 11». we omit here the latter part of this supplemcnnl (10 p.I). It will not be difficult
for the readers 10 complete these omitted calculations themselves.

AD P.1 (TAYLOR'S THEOREM)

I) Y, or [(x+ 11) or (x + Jr)"-

...~-, -Jr +mm-
.. x• + 1TU. ( 1) A..~-, -11'+
1 1·2
+ m(m - 1) (m _ 2) X",-3 -.!L
+
. 1·2·3
Jr'
+ m(m - l)(m - 2) (m - 3)x!"-4 - 2 3 4 + ...
1· ..

Putting h .. 0 I we shall get

[(x) - <".
Thereby the riddle is already solved. The fi rst term [ of the expansion for] (x + 11)'" ,Le.,
X'" is not considered as the first term of a binomial expansion, but rather as the given function
of the variable x, which, in the given insta nce, is X"'. Thus, the entire expression in the left hand
s ide s ub I) minlls X'" itself, appears as produced by the fact that , in X'" the variable x grows
and turns into x + h, and thereby x'" turns into (x + h'r' or into what we have written [above).
But the method, through which tile successive "derived" functions already cOlltained in
the series are sought, as such, in the system. where XI is treated as x + h, follows from the
very first operation, through which we found XIII .. f(x) j as ilS multiplier x'" has only
110 (or 1); that is why, when we assume that h .. 0, the other terms which have" as their
multiplier, disa ppea r; and only X'" remains as the equivalen t of y" when it has again turned
intoy.
Thus must the other functions of x be success ively freed from their h, and then it must
be assumed lhat" .. O. As in the first operation, by equating h with zero,f(x + It) was turned
into ,f(x + 0), i,e., inlof(x) so also now, lhrough an analogous operation in the left hand side,
we obtai~ the form of symbolic differential coefficient corresponding to it.
Since
y,( or [(x+iI))- y(or[(x)) + mx!"-'II +
_....... 2 ,,2
+m(m-1}.A. 1.2+'"
so
• I'
y, - y ( or [(x - iI) - [(x)) _ mx!"-'h + m(m - 1) x!"-' -'- + ...
1'2
Dividing both the sides by h. we shall get

38
'98 DESCRII~llON 01' Tl iH MA'IlIE MAl1CAL MANUSCRI PTS

(or [(u I~~ - f(x)) _

- mx .... , + m (m - I) x-2 - " + m (m - 1) (m - 2)x",-J -Jr2
- + ...
1-2 1-2-3
Here ,nx"'-! pla ys the sa me role as x'" ea rl ier ...
In pari XII of the manuscri pt Marx again (for the lasl time) returns 10 p.!. Considering Taylor's
theore m 10 be the most genera l operational formula of lhedifferential calculus, logically as well
as his torically obta ined through Ihe latter, he proposes Ihll l it is essential to start wilh Ihe dcduclion
of the binomiallheorem, wi th the means of the re'ady-made different ial calculus, Le. , wilh [he
help of the operational formulae of the talle r. Wit h Ihis aim in view in the fragment ~TowarJs
Tay/or's theorem_ p.l ~. he firs t of all obtllins the derivative ofr" (fo r integral and positive m),
using the fo rm ula for the differential of product. Then he demonstrates this fo rmuta by the
me thods of New ton·Leibn itz, eviden tl y. thinking, that since we have al ready operated upon the
grounds of diffe rential calcul us, in other words. substanlia led its methods, we may now use the
methods of Newton and Leibnitz too : that is, we may consider them sufficientl y substantiated.
In the fragme nt "Ad Taylor's Th eorem (p. J)" which fo llows, Marx compa res Ihe successive
de rivatives of X" thus obtai ned. with tile coefficients of the powers of h in the expansion of
(x+ hY" acco rding to the binomial theorem and reveals, whe rein lies their differences. We
recall, tha t d ue 10 an error in calculation, notwithstandi ng the faet that Marx knew them well and
wro te about them ea rt ier-see, p. 286 and note 11'_ Marx did not notice these differences in
parts X and XI of the manuscript. Thar is why, it may be thought, that the aim of the present
fragment was: removal of this error. Both the fragments are being reproduced below, in full (sheets
42.43).

TOWARDS TAYLOR'S THEOREM, P. !

If
(x + h)'" -x '" +m.x "'-lh + m(m-l ) x ",-2 112+ ...
[1 -2J •
then the diffe re ntial ca lculus has already proved , independently o f Taylo r, that if I(x)- x·•
then
~ or /'(x) _ mx ",-1 ,

£li or ["(x) - m(m - I) X" ,.

etc.
But how?
As an example let us take th e prod uct of the variabl es xz.
If they va ry, then this product tums into (x + dx) (z + dz), which in a certain sense I is r
a binomial ofsecond degree and which differs from (x + a) (x + a) or (x + a)2 onl y in fo rm,
in this, th at instead of th e first (x + a) we have (x + dx) , and (x + dz) - instead of the second
(x + a), that is why instead o f x 2 + ax + ax+aa we get xz+ zdx +xdz+dxdz; havingtaken
away xz fro m here, we have zdx + xdz + dxdz ; having s truck out the last term, we get
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCR IP'f EN'll'n _EI) "TA YLOR'S nlOOREM " 299

zdx + xdz.
Since, it is obtaincd through the binomia l that d(xz) .. zdx + xdz, it may be appl ied to the
product of any number of variables, for example:

d (xzuv) .. zuv dx + X liV dz + uzx dv + XZ\l du .

xzuv XZU V XZIIV xzuv xzuv
After cancellation we shall get:
d(xzllvt. dx + dz + dv + du
xzuv x Z V 11'
d(x") _ dx + dx + dx + dx _ 4dx \
x4 x x x x x'
d(X4) .. 4 dx . x~ .. 4xJdx d(X") _ dy .. 4xJ *,
x ' dx dx
lmaginc, that in the formation of the product, not 4, but m variable factors x z u v t y etc,
took part ; the n '

d(x"') .. mdx ,
X'" x '
he nce:
d(x m)_ dx
,/IX m - d(x "') .. mx ",...Idx
X '
or
d(x-) (_
dx dx
El) _ IIIX m-I
'
and
d(mx>"-I)
d x " m(m - 1) x ",-'2 etc.

Hence, it was obtained only owing to the fact that

d(x y) - ydx + xdy,
found w ilh the help of the binomial, was applied as an operationa l formula.
•

AD TAYLOR'S THEOREM (P.I)

Regarding equation IV)

YI - Y ( or [(x» + f'(x) IJ. + ["(x) j{ +

I 1·2
+f'''(X)~+f1V(X) 114 +
1·2·3
. , 1·2·3·4
+ [ V(x) h + ...
1-2·3-4·5
* The lasl two lines we re written on the ri ght hand s ide, in Marx's hind, in pencil.-Ed.
300 DESCRIP'1l0N OF 'nil! Ml\'nmMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

it could be said, lh~ l [the cqulIlilics] ['(x) _ mx.m-I . fIr x .. m(m - 1) x etc. have been ",_2
1 1 1
demonstrated, it is truc, also differentially·; but the numerical fa ctors 1'2' 1.2.3' 1.2.3.4
etc. have simply been borrowed from the binomial theorem. For our purposes herein lies the
crux of the affair; and this crux is no morc astonishing than the circumstance, th at the
companions of these fun ctions, beginning with the second term, the coefficients of the
functions Ir . ,,2.
11 3 , 11". 115 etc., in ascending powers, remain direct ly derived "from the
binomial theorem".
m{m-l}'" (In - r - 1)
The genera l binomial coefficient - 1.2. r mu (the same, as the one for the
combinations from m elements, taken r at a time, without repetitions). which is, as in our
case, when r - m ( r ca n never be greater than 111 ),
111(111-1)'" (m - (111 - 1)) _ In (m - 1) (111- 2) '" 2· 1
1·2···", 1·2·" m
proved through combinatorics; the binomial theorem itself, for integra l and positive
powers, is only a particular application of it ( the number o[ combination s divided by the
number o[ permutatiofls).
But, for the differential method , where XI - x +". [(XI) _ f(x + IJ) etc., it i.s important, that
what is given by the binomial theorem turn ou t to be deduced in the differential calculus itselr.
However, s uch deduction, as we saw it whil e obtaining mx m-I from x m e tc., by the means
of differential calculus, can, in its turn , be actualised, upon the found ations ofbin omiai theo rem .
alone.
The las! fragme~1 of part XII (in out list, sheets 44-45), differs even in form from the rest of
manuscript 4302. It is wrillen on seperlte sheels, not lengthwise, bUI across the sheets and contains
only some inoomprehensible calculations, in places repeated twice. Thi s fragment carries the title:
-Ad Tay/or's Th., p.l, #!q. llr . But neither p.l, nor the equation III ( Roman "I" and . II1 ~ ) could
be found in the manuscript. The aHempt to identify equa tion III with equation 3) on p. 1 (PV, 287)
does not lead us anywhere. The fragment begins with the formula
I)y! or (x ... h) .. .. y +Ah+Bh ~+Ch)+Dh~+E,,3+ etc.,

in which, then, h + z is substituted in place of 11. The purpose of this substitution is not at all clear :
in any case it was done nOI to seel:. the coefficients A , B, C. etc. of the binomial expansion,
since the binomial theorem of Newton, is already assumed to be I:.nown - it has been applied
even in the expansion of (x + h + z'j. The remaining calculations are equally incomprehensible.
They are not accompanied by any explanation. That is why, this entire fragment is not bei ng
reproduced.
In spi te of its incompleteness and draft character, manuscript 4302 is of unquestionable interest.
It alone finally permits us to ascertain Marx's points of view on the natu re ofdifferenli al calculus
prope r, o n the concept of function, on the means of mathematical representation of motion, on
• That is, not thro ugh Halgebraic · differentiation, but with the help of the operational formulaeofthe differenti al
calculus. - Bd.
 AN INCOMPLETE MANUSCRIJ>T ENTITI'£D 'TAYLOR'S THEOREM' 301

the methods of Ne wton and Leibnitz. on Lagrnngc's thcory of analytical functions, on the
deficie ncies of thc m~nual5 at Marx's dispos~1 ~nd, especinlly, those of the proofs of laylor's
theorem given in these books, on that method of proving this theorem, which appeared to bc t he
corrcct one, to Marx himself. It is clear from the manuscript that this proof, should have begun.
according to Marx, from the particular case of the powered function x"and it should have been
then extended to any function f(x), having thc "binomial form ", Le., 10 such , that
f(x ... h) - A ... Bh ... Ch 2 ... .. ., ( I)
where A , B, C, etc., are functions only of x . From this expansion Marx furthe r extracted the
successive derivatives of /(x) , "contained already in it, in a ready-made form " , and thus obtained
Taylor's series from series (1). We nole Ih8t such a proof of Taylor's theorem - with the
corresponding speCifications, concerning thc rcgions of conve rgence of the scri eses fo r
f(x ... 11), f'(x ... 11) etc - is provided also in the modern courses of mathematical analysis and,
especially, in those of the theory of sericscs • .

'" See, for example, 1) CP. Natansoo, Pn:izvcdliye. inlcgrdly i riady (DeriVllti\U, integrals ani serieses), in the "Erltsildopc'da
derrentamoi matematiki", wI. rn, M .' L, 1952, Ill. 347-348, 4SS-4S7 and 469-470 (Taylar's thoorcm for the function x k,
theorems of term by term differentiation of a powered series and, Taylor's series); 2) K. KlloPP, Theorie
und Anwendung der unendlichen Reihen (Theory and IIppliC.'ltion of infinite series ), 2nd ed., Berlin, 1924,
pp. 173-174. -Ed.
 APPENDIX

•
 ON THE CONCEPT OF " LIMIT"
IN THE SOURCES CONSULTED BY MARX

At first wc s hall give an account of the definition of "lifT!il~" (togeth er wi th the·

examples expl ai ning it), as well as o f the modes of using the word "limit", con tained in the
courses of Hind a nd Bo ucharlat. Marx had these books and studied them c riti ca lly . This
account w ill give the reader, who is accustomed 10 the mOdern use of the term "li mi t" in
mathematics, an opportun ity to correctly understand Marx's critical remarks rega rding Ih is
concept, and his special way of interpreting it.
H ind's book was written accord ing to d'Alembcrl's method, i.e., in it the de rivat ive was
defined thro ugh the concep t of limit. Thai is w hy. the introd uctory chapter of the book is
devoted to the "me thod of limits ". Howeve r, ne ither this chapter, nor any other place in the
text-boo k conta ined any definition of "limit". There wc find o nly the definitions of "limilS" of
a var iable, in some sense of the exact upper a nd lower boundaries of the sel of its values.
(In pa rticular, this set could also conta in an "in fin itely large" value of the va riable. designated
by the s ign 00. But the rule for operati ng wi th this s ign has not been specified : the concept of
absolute magnitude is not present there, the signs + 00 and - 00 arc also absent, it has been
considered to be simply self-evident, that fo r any a i2: 0, 00 + a .. 00, that for any "finite" (Le.,
different from 0, as well as from (0) a, a· 00 _ 00 and E.. _ 0.)

As 10 what the function is -

'"
il is possible on ly to su rmise, from the examp les. The
cOQcepl . o f limit has in fact been silentl y introd uced in the in troductory c hap tc r- we
s uspcct- thro ug h the iden tifi cation of the limit of a function (at a point, coinc iding with the
exact upper or lower bound of a set of values of the arg ument) with one of the two " limits "
(with th e exact upper o r exact lower bound) corresponding 10 the set of values of a fun c tio n.
In so fa r as only monotonic or piecewise monotonic fun ctio ns have been co ns ide red in
Hind's book, such a "limit", in practice, turned o ut to be coincid ing with (one-s ided) lim it in
lhe more common place sense of the word. And Hind in fa ct used it in this sense, throughou t
the rest of his book. However, he used it in such a manner, that this concept, which was
supposed to "improve" upon the method of actual infinitesimals, to wi t, fa iled to a Uain th is goa l,
and turned ou t, in general, to be redundant.
In fact, Hind cou ld, of course, have substituted the searc h for one-s ided limit of a
piecewise monoto nic function f(x), determinate at the inte rval (a, b), when, fo r example. x
tends to + a, by the solut io n of the two fo llowing problems:
1. To find out the number a, so that when a < x < a, the function is monotonic (in the wider
sense. Le., non-di minishing or non-increasing; let us assume for the sake o f definitiveness,
that herein the functi on turned o ut to be mono lonically no n-di minishing).
2. To find o ut the exact, in ou r assumption lower, bound of the set of values of the
func tion, at the interva l (a, a), Le., fo r a < x < o. It is clear; that it w ill be theLimf(x) sought.
But Hind did no t proceed that way. Following Newto n (see, Appe nd ix, "O n the Lemmas
of Newton cited by Marx", pp .313 ~ 315), he treated limit as something actua l. Le., as the "last"·
 304 A!'!'ENDIX

value of the fun ction, for the "las t" va lu e of the argument. In other words, he was in searc h
of Lim I (x) as the exact lower bound of the val ues of the func tion, not in the in te rva l
a < x < a, but in the segment a:s; x:s; a, i.e., he assumed that the "last" va lue o f l ea) has some
how already been determined , a ll by itself; and in that case "the ent ire procedu re described
above los t all sense: the number a could be taken for et, and the exact lowe r bound of the set
o f va lues of the fun ction, consisting o f onl y one number lea) co uld be sought and tha t would
turn out to be the same/ (a).
Apparently. Ihis is wha t Ma rx wa nted to say, when he remarked; having Hind's de fin itio n
in view, tha t the re is no se nse in trea ti ng 3x2 as the limiting va lue of the same 3x1, when x
lends to zero, cha racterising th is sari of treatment as "banal tautology" (sce, pp. 96-98
a nd notes 90.92), and whe n he ca lled, Ihe actual approach 10 limit - the presuppos ition, that
a fun ction ac tua ll y attains its limiting value, as its "las t" value for the "last" va lue of the
a rgume nt - in gene ral "infantile\ the e mergence of which "s hou ld be so ught in the fi rst
mystica l a nd mystifi ca tory me thod of calculus"(see, p. 98 ).
The fact tha t the actual approach to limit by no means solved the probl ems co nnected with
the actua l infin ites ima ls, becomes especia lly dear, when the "last" val ue of the argument has
to be "infinitary".Thus, in particular, when the sequence {an} is at issue, then the limit has 10
be that te rm of this seque nce, in whic h" _ 00, i.e. , the limit is consid ered as the end (the last
te rm) of the infinite ( i.e" endless) seque nce of terms, It is hardly su rprisi ng, that a concept
like the "actua l lim it" appea red to be no more clea rer, than the concept of the "actua l
in fi nitesima l", wh ich Marx ca lled "mystical".
It is well known , tha t the defin ition o f the limit of a fun ction, without presupposing the
completion of Ihe infinite numbel of steps, and permiuing an exact formula tion in the
te rminology of va riab les and of pa rameters, having only finite values, fin all y e ntered into
mathematical use onl y from Ca uchy's ti me, to be more precise, onl y from the 70s of the las t
century. But eve n at that time, it was not full y clear to the authors o f many tex t books, which
were in wide use, that the limit is not to be interpreted actuall y; that evcn in those cases,
where the func tion is continuous at a poin t a, i.e., when the lim it of the fu nction f (x) as
x - a equalsf(a), it must turn out la be equal tof(a) , namely. under thc condition, that
though x tends as close to a as possible, nevertheless it never reaches a.
In connection w it~ Ma n 's mathema tical man uscripts, it is of special imporL1 nce to us,
that if the value o f f (a ) is no t defin ed, an d th e limi t of f (x) ex ists w hcn x - 0
(correspondingly, whe n x tends to + a or to - a), the n it is possible s imply to rede fin e the
fun ction f (x ) at the point a, having assumed, according to the defini tion, that f (a) is
equal to this limit. Su ch a rede finit ion of the value of a func ti on is ca lled its redefinition at
continuity. In tha t case, the limit of the fun ction f(x) as x - 0, will be the value o f the
function already re-defin ed at x - a. This, howcver. has nothing in common with the treatme nt
o f the va lue off(a ) as the univocally defined value o f the fun ctio n I (x) itself, but attainable
onl y at the end of an infinite process of approxi ma tion o f x to a, as fa r as possible. Na mely,
,
s uch a redefiniti on"a t continu ity" , Marx had in view, appa rently, whe n he ca llcd the limit
of the ra tio ~ as 6. x - 0, the "a bsolu tely mi nimal expression" of this ratio (see, p. 97);
6x
 ON lllE CONCEl~ r O I' ' UMIT' 305

evidently, herein, for the sake of clarity it is held, that the limit of this ratio as 6. x -+ 0 and
subject to the condition, thallhere exits iI number a, such that for 0 <!l x < a, the ratio ~
o.x
decreases with the dimunition of !lx,ln fact, !..acroix used Ihis very mode of rede(ining
functions, in his cxamples(see below, pp. 310-311). But while constructing analysis, Lacroix
proceeded from Leibnitz's metaphysical "principle of continui ty", which he used as a
self-eviden t axiom; hcnce he did nolconsider any other redefinition of the values of a function,
at all possible. Sce pp. 28-29 and note 18, on the fact that to all appearence, Marx also
admitted of the other modes of redefining the ratio ~
o.x when !l x ... fly - 0 .

Now we shall give an account of those statements o'f Hind, which may be of use while
studying Marx's manuscripts. The aforementioned conclusions follow from these statements.
Hind's introductory chapter: "On the method of limits", begins with definition 1. which
reads:
"Limits of the quantities, which admi t of changes in their magnitude, are such
magnitudes, between which are iqcluded all the va lues, which it may have, in all its changes;
beyond which it may never go and from which it may be made to differ by a quantity, lesser
Ihan any, which may be indicated in finite lerms" (i.e" without using the signs IXl and
O. - Ed.) (sec, Hind, p.l, our italics. - Ed.).
A series of examp les followed this definition; however, in them the dcfinilion was not
used even once in a clea r form : not even once was it demonstrated, that th e "limits" indicated
by the au thor, do actually satisfy the demands, formulat ed in definition 1. The first of these
exnmples reads:
"The quantity ax, where x admits of all possible values from zcro, or 0 to infinity, or 1Xl,
becomes 0 in the first insL.1nce and <X) in the las t; and, hence, the limits of the algebraic
expression ax are 0 and 00: the first is called the lower, and the last the upper Iimit "(ibid).
(Evidently, here it has been assumed that a > 0.)
This very first exa mple mus t have led the reader to bewilderment. In fact, how to make the
quantity ax, other than 1Xl, a "quantity, lesser than any, which may be indicated in finite
terms "? For Hind, it is evident, tha t so long as x remains a finite magnitude, the
difference <X) - ox is equal to 00. If x _ 00, then also ox _1Xl and the difference 00 - IXl is
undefined.
In the second example (one should think, of course, under the same conditions relative to
x and a) the lower and upper limits of the expression ox + b, were found ; these turned out,
rcspectively to be b and infinity.
ax
In th e third example the lower limit £a of the fraction b + b was found through the simple
x+ a
substitution 0[0 in p'la ce of x in the expression of this fraction, the upper limit ~ was obtained

39
306 APPENDIX

b
a+'i
by SUbstitu ting CJ() in place o f x in the fraction - - . Here it was not explai ned : under what
o
b+-X
sort of condi tio ns in respect of a and b, the v:llucs found arc actually the lowe r and upper
limits (respcctively).Thcrc is nol even a hinllo th e effect that, it should be verified whethe r
or not these va lues at all satis fi ed the g iven definition of "li mits" (to be su re, in particu lar,
abou t the monotonic nature of the function considered). As though the reader "was prepared"
to fi nd out the limit of a funct ion by subs tituting in its expression (or in its transfo rmed
expression, not bereft of meaning, also in that case, whcn the expression di rectly giv ing the
function is indetermina te). the li miting va lue of the argument.
We a re reproduc ing bela:w, in full, the fourth and the s ixth examp les, as well as the
example special ly marked ou t in poi nt 2 of the in trod uctory ch<lpter - in which a gradua l
transition takes place, from the concepts of lower and upper lim its of a function to a concept
of l imit which is closer to the customa ry onc; and Hind e xplaincd the actua l c haracter of the
latter. From these accounl'i it will also be sufficientl y clear: how far confused, in genera l, is
H ind's account of this section o f limits.
o 0
"Ex. 4. Sum of Ihe geometric series a + - +"2 etc., con tinued upto the n-th term, is
x x
expressed by the quantity

a(-'--I) OX(I -1.)

x~ x N

now, if 11 '" 0, then,evidently, the lower limit ... 0 ;but if n ... oo " then 2.
x'
becomes equal to

0, and that is w hy the upper limit is ...!!£; it is usually called the su m of the series, con tinued
x-I
upto infinity H(p.2).(Herc, of course, it has been silently assumed that the argument o f the

function
ox(t- ~) is 11 ; a and x are such pa rameters, that a> 0, x> 1.)
x -1
"Ex. 6. If a regula r polygon is inscribed in a circle and the number of its sides is
successively doubled, then it is evident, that its perimeter will more and mo re approach equality
with the per ip hery of the circle and that fina ll y, their difference must become less than any
quantity whatsoever; tha t is why, it is clear that the c ircumference of the c ircl e is the li mit
of the pe rime te rs of polygo ns n(pp. 2-3).Here, one of the "limits" of Ihe sequence cortdidered,
is no more spoken of, no l even its upper limit - as was natural, follow ing definitio n 1,
hut simply the limit, and that too in its usual sense.
 ON '11IECONCEI'TOF ·UMIT"

"2, To prove that the limits of the ratios occflring between sine and lan of an arc of a cire/e,
and th e arc ilself, are ratios of equality,
Let p and p I be the perimeters o f two right polygons with 11 s ides, the first is inscribed
in; and the seco nd is circumscribed about a circle with radius 1 and circum fe rence
.. 6 '28318 etc. _ 21t; then (trig.)

p .. 2n s in ~ and p ' _ 211 t.1n -;

~

11 11

,hence,
~
21. sin -
.P...
p' - 2n
n .. cos-,
lan -
~
~

11
11

and if it is ass um ed th at th e value of 11 is indefinitely increasi ng, then the value

of cos ~ is 1 and that is why p .. p '; but, evidently, the periphery of the circle lies be tween
fI
p and p I, and that is why in this case it is equal to either of them; hence, in this presu ppos ition
the n·th part of the perimeter of the polygon is equal to the ,Hh part o f the periphery o f the
circle, i.e.,
'"
2 Sin 2112 tan -It ,or sm
-- - -
.It It
- - - - tan -It
' IIn n nn fI'

o r the sin and th e lan of an arc of a circle, in their last or limiting condition find themselves
in a ratio of equality with the arc i~e lf"(p .3).
Here the word "limil"(" lim ilS") is met with only in the formulation of the theorem,
but, in order to unders t.1nd this formulation, it became necessa ry 10 surmise from the proof,
that the issue here is about the usual limit of the ratio s in x and tan x, when x tends to O.
x x
However, in this case Hind 's proof is hardly sa tisfactory, even for his tim e. From it o nl y this
much follows, that the author wished to obt.1in the equality
. ltlt lth (1)
sm - - - - tan -,wen n_oo,
11 n n

But, asserting, that for n - 00, cos ~ - 1, he used the fact that!! .. 0, when n .. co; but in that
n n
'~'OOd
case sm - = s m .., an tan -~ .. tan 0 .. 0, Le. ,for ob taining the equalities (1) , from
n •
which, in themselves, incidentall y, the theorem about the limit of the ratio si n x when
x
x - 0, does not at all foll ow, The arguments through which the author arrives at these
equalities, are not at all required ,
308 i\I'l'cNDIX

In fact it remains inco mprehensible, how such a confused nccount could pretend 10 be
o ne abo ullhc essen tial adva ntage of the enunc iated method of limits, inte rpreted ac tuall y. in
compariso n to the me thod of actua l infinitcs imals, in the given case 10 the simple identifica tio n
o f the in Cinites imlll arc of a circle, with its chord.
In the text-book by Boucha rlat (sce, Boucharlat, p. VII) too the method of limits, was
considered to be mo re precise than the method of infinites imals:"co rrccling, that which may
be imperfect in the latter". However, in Boucha rlal's book, there is no a tte mpt to define,
the mcaningoflhccxprcss ion to "te nd (oscme lim it" (how o nc may make sure, tha t suc h
a nd such magnitude may tend to s uch and s uch limit). The concept of limit - also "actual"
- appeared in it, firs tly in connection wi th the sea rch for the derivative of the fun ctio n
y ... x 3. We s ha ll reproduce it in full , s ince Marx 's critica l remarks in the manuscript 011
the Iloll-flltivocality of Ihe terms "limit"olld "limiting value", are rela ted 10 it.
"While exa mining the seco nd term of the equa tion
(2)
y' - y - 3x2 +3xh+h2
" .
we find , tha t this ra tio dimin is hes a long wi th the dim unition of" a nd Iha l, when Ir
becomes zero, this ratio is reduced to 3x 2. Hence, the term 3x 2 is the limit of the ratio
y : it te nds to this te rm , when wc compel" to diminish.

In so far as, in the presuppositio n that" .. 0, th e increment of the magnitude y also becomes
y
0, is reduced to ~,and, hence, equation (::!) turns into

o
O'_]xl.
~

There is nothing absurd in this equation, because algeb ra teaches us, that "0o may represent
a ll sorts of quantities. We may nole,tho ugh, th at since by dividing both the terms ofa fra ction
by onc a nd the sa me number, its va lue is affected in no way a nd that, consequently, it may
remain the sa me, even when its terms arrived at the last stage of sma llness, i.e., turned. into
zero" (pp. 2-3).
It is also of impo rtance to note, fo r underst.,nding the aforemen tioned manuscript of
Marx, tha t in Bo ucharlat's account Ihe limiting transition from an equali ty of the for m

:~ - III (Xl' x) (where y - I(x) to a n equali ty of the form ~_ f'(x), appeared to have
been actualised separately, in the left hand and right hand sides of the first of these equ lities:

from : ; to ~ and from et> (Xl' x) td f'(x). (Herein, by the limil of the ratio !;
(correspo nding ly, Y) he had in view an expression of the form ~, turning into El)
<Ix'
 ONllIE CONCEI'TOI' -UMrr 309

,
Thus, ha vi ng obtained the equa lity Y - 1 ,w hile searching fo r the differen,tial of x,
Bouc harlat concluded; HS incc the quantity h does not en ter in to the second term of this
equa tion, we.see, that in order to go over to the limit, it is enough to change Y' - into ~
d

which giv~S;i; - 1 M (p.6).

Boucharlat trea ted the inSi.1nCe of the limit tu rning to be equa l to zero, as o nc indicating
the non-existence of limit. Thus, investigating the derivative of y _ b a nd having obtained
the eq uality ~ ... 0 , he concluded, that "neither is there a limit, nor a differential" (p.6).

Boucharlat.. in essence, obta ined the limit of the ratio Si~x as x - 0, the way Hind did,
tho ugh in a mo re access ible form . At first he demonstrnted - approx imately in the way it is
now done in the text-books - that the "a rc is grea ter than the sin and smaller tha n the
tangent"{p.29). But herein, it was not even mentioned, that hence it follows, that
si -
-
tanx
- - <sinx
nx<sinx
x
--
s inx
(0 <X'< -")2 '
i.e., tha t the ratio Si~x lies between cos x and 1. In stead like Hind , Boucharlat wrote:

~ From what has been said above, it follows thalthe limi t of the ratio o f sin to the arc is
one; for when the arc " .... becomes zero, owing to wh ich the sin merges with the tan , the n
the sin merges all the more with the arc, whic h is placed between the tan a nd the sin ; he nce,
s in It . s in"
in the instance of limi t we have - - h or, better stili , - , -'" 1" (p.29). The fact, that when
arc I

. sin 11 0
11 ... 0, the ratio -,,- "turns" into 0' Le., beco mes in general indcterminate, a nd the
conclus ion made th c rc ~po n, onl y to the effect that "the s in merges with the arc", when
the la tter turns into 0, did not disturb Boucharlat either, as it did not dis turb Hind .
The informations provided here, on the treatment of the concep t of limit in the books of
Hind and Boucharlat, arc, to all appearence, enough for understanding those places in the
manuscript 011 the lIoll -univocality of the terms "Iimit" and "/imiting value", in which Marx
cri ticises these au thors for their actua l approach to li mit (notcs9()-92 a re related to these
places).
For undersk1 ndin g the other places of the manuscripts, characterizi ng Marx's rela tion to the
more modern treatments of limit, informations regarding the trea tme nt of this concept in the
other sources a t Marx's disposal, a re essential. He re first of all a mention must be made of
Lacroix's la rge "Treatise" on the differential and integral calculus, 1810.
 310 APpeNDIX

Following Lcibnitz. l"'<ICro ix tho ught, that every func tion is subordinate to the "rule of
continuity" in its c hanges, and tha llh c transitio n 10 the limit is an express io n o f this rule, "Le. ,
of the rule, which is l)bcycd by motion in its linear descriptio n and according to which,
th e success ive poi nts o f o ne and the sa me curve fo ll ow each othe r, w itho ut any
intcrva l"{p .XXV). But s ince c hange of magnitude can no t be s tudied without a considera tion
of its two di fferent va lues, between which, wiUingly, there is an interval, so the rul e of
co ntinuity must be exp ressed as foll ows: "the sma ller this interval , the closer arc we 10
th is rule and on ly the limit correspo nds to it fu lly" (ibid). This role of con tinuity. in' Lacroix's
mathema tica l analysis, explains' why he fo und it expedie nt "to use the method of limi ts" (p.
XXIV), while construc ting a systemati c course of mathematical ana lysis.
Lacroix thought, that the c9 ncepts of "infi nite" and "infin ites ima l" are defi ned only
negatively, i.e., as "excluding every bound, in the se nse o f greatness as well as in that of
sma llness, which gives on ly a number of nega lio ns, but wou ld never form a posi tive concept-
(p.XIX). In a foo t-no te in this page he adds: "The infinite is essentially that, about which it
is asserted, that its bounds les limites can no t be atL1 ined by any indicated va lue of it". In o the r
words, Lac roix did not ad mit of any actual infinity: ne ither the actually infinitely la rge, nor
the ac tually infinitely sma ll.
Lacroix introduced the concept of "limi t" as follows :

"Let us consider at first a very s im ple fun ction ~, in which we assume tha t x is pos itive
Ha

a nd inde (initely inc reasing; the resu lt ----f!.....a' obtained by dividing both the terms of this
1+ x
fractio n by x, evidently shows that the function always remains less than a , but that it
constan tly app roaches a, s ince the!!.. part of its denomina tor diminishes · more and more a nd,
x
may be made as sma ll as one wishes. The difference between a and the proposed fraction,
which may in general be expressed through
ox a2
a----
x+a x+a'
becomes as sma ll , as great x is, and can be made smaller than any given magnitude, however
small , so tllat the proposed fraction may come as close to a as we wish : hence, a is the limit
. of the functi on ~. in respect of an indefinitely increas ing x.
Ha
The properties just fo rmulated, also include the true meaning, which sho uld be a ttributed
to the word limit, so as to include in it, a ll that may he required here" (pp. 13-14).
In Lacroix there arc no assumption s abo ut the monoto nic or piece-wi se mo notonic
funct ions. And usuall y his limi t is not one-sided: the va riab le ca~ approach its limiting
va lue, in any way. In place of the concep t of absolute magni tude Lacroix uses, tho ug h not
systematica ll y, the express io n "magn itude without sign", however, its meaning sti ll remains
imperfect. He also s tresses, that a fun ction may no t only ~It tai n its limiting value, but also
 ON '111E CO NCEPT OF ' UMlr 311

"c rossfl it, may , in gc ne ral, osc illate itwund it. But Lac roix still did not ex plicitly formulate
the bounds, consisting o f the fact, that while ,lpproilching its lim iting value u, the argument
in respect of which the trans ition to limit ulkes pla ce, it is not assumed to be allaining a, i.e. ,
that the limit is not und erstood actually. Since the fun c ti ons with which he was concerned,
were continuous, i.e., the limi ts considered by him coi ncided with the values of the functio n
fo r the limiting value of the argument, he so metimes pe rmitted himself to spea k, as would
speak a person who thinks, thnt in the lim iting trans iLion, the npproach of th e argument to: its
limiting value must bc co mpl eted in its a ttainmen t of this value.
It should also be mentioned, that La croix used onc Hnd the sa me word limite for
designating limit - the term , which, as wc saw, he unde rstood in a mu ch more genera l and
precise sense, close to its modern meaning, as compa red to Ihe meaning which Ihis concept
had in the text-books o f Hind and Boucharlat, criticised by Marx, as well as for designating
the approximnlc va lues of function s, in cerL1in cases .
All thcse informations on the concept of limit in L1croix's large "Treatise" - which, as
we know, Marx always used as the most reli able (from among those at his disposa l) source
o f information on the bas ic concepts of ma thematical analysis, like the "function", "limit"
etc. - are, apparently, e nough fo r underst.1nding what Mnrx had in view, when he briefly
observed, abou t the co ncept of limit in Lacro ix 's trcntisc, that "th is ca tegory, which has
found wide use in [mathema tica ll annlysis, mainly in thal of Lacroix, acquires an important
Significance, as a suns ti tu te for the category of "minimal expression" (pp.61-62). First of
all it is clear, that Marx in fac t understood the concept or "absol utcly minima l cxpress ion",
used by him; in connec ti o;\ with the "non-u nivocality" of the te rm "limit ", in that very sense,
in whiCh wc now undcrstand the concept of limit It is also clea r, that he foresaw, thallater o n
when Lacroix's unders tanding of the concept of limit will, evidently, full y supplant the
less sa tisfactory concept of "limit ", then that will make the introduction of a s pec ial -
new - concep t of "ailso lute ly minimal exprcssion M unnecessary. In other words Lacroix's
concep t of limit will be a substitute for the latter.
In connection with the j us t-referrcd paragraph o f Marx's manuscript nnd also some
oth er places in it, we s hou ld perh,tps adducc L'lgr<lnge's words regarding the concept of limit,
from his introduc tion to the "TIlCory of Anal ytical Functions" (Lagrange 's Works, vo l. IX,
Paris, 1881).
Speaki ng o f Euler's and d'Alemberl's a ttempts to view the infinitesimal differences
as absolute zeros, only the ratios of which actunlly e nter into the calculus, wh ich are,
bes ides, viewed as the limits either of the fin ite differences or of the indefinitely large
(limes 011 illdrffillies) differences, Lagrange wrote: "But it should be noted, tha t this idea,
though in itself valid, is not clear e nough to serve as the [initial] principle o f a sc ience,
whose trus tworthiness is to be based on being obvious, and especialy owing to the fact that
it is heing proposed as the first [prinCiple] "(p. 16).
Lower down he observes - in connection with the Newtonia n method of th e ultimate
ratios of evanescent quantities - that "this method, like the method of limi ts, about which
we spoke above, and which is in essence on ly its algebraic translation, has a big deficiency,
in that it considers quantities in such R condition, wh j!n they cease, so to say, to be quantities;
for, though wc very well understand the ratios o f two quantities, tilllhey remain finite. reason
'12 APPENDIX

fa ils to connec t any dear and precise idea with these ratios, : \S soon as its te rms, the o nc and
the o ther, allne same time become zeros" (p.18).
And here L...1grangc wcnt over to th e attempts of the "sk ill(u! English geo me te r"
Landen, to cope with these di fficult ies. He highl y evaluated these ntlc mpts, though he thought
that Landen's method was loo cumbersome (scc, Appendix. "The Res idual Analysis" of John
Landcn) .
About himsel f L....'grangc wrote, tha t even in 1772 he held: that the theory of serial
expans io n of functions con tains the true princ iples o f diffe rentia l ca lculus, freed from
all considerations of in rLnitcsimals o r limi ts"{p. 19).
Thus, it is clear, that L1gra ngc did nol consider the method of limits to be mo re perfect,
than the me thod of actua l infinitesimals, and that this idea of his was connected with the
fact, that the limit d iscussed in analysis, was also understood actually : as the "final" value of
the function fo r the "final" ("eva nescent") va lue of the a rgu ment.
'.

ON THE LEMMAS OF NEWTON CITED BY MARX

Marx me ntio ned, in;l sepa ra te s heet att:l chcd to the ro ugh dran of his essay o n the
his torica l course of deve lopmen t of the di ffe rential calculus: the scholia to Lemma XI of the
1st book and, lemma 11 of the 2nd boo k of Newton'S " Princip ia ", devoted to - the bas ic
concepts of ma thema tica l a nalys is, used by Newto n - the co ncepts of limit and moment.
In ob ta in ing (the scho lia) to lemma X I of the firs t boo k of his "Principia Mathc matica
Philosoph ia Naturalis", Newto n attempted to expla in the co ncepts of "l imiti ng ra tio" and
"limiting s um " wi th the help of very no n ~ prec i sc con sidera tio ns o f an o nto log ical cha rac ter,
"metaphysica l, no n-ma thc mtical assum ptio ns ", as Marx c harac te rised them. Name ly. Newto n
writes: "An o bjection is raised, tha t the "limiting ra tion does no t ex ist for eva nescent
quanlities, for the ralio which th ey have be fore disappea rence, is no t limiting, a nd a fte r
, disappearence, the re is no ratio. But under such stra ined a rgume nts it will appea r, th at fo r a
body reaching some place, w here movement s to ps, there ca n not be a ~ Ijmitjn g " speed, fo r
the speed which the body has curlie r, be fore it had reached this place, is no t "limiting", and
whe n it has reached there, there is no speed. The answer is s imple: by "limiting" speed
s ho uld be unders tood th at with wh ich a body moves, ne ithe r before reaching the ex treme
place, where movement ceases, no r a fter tha t, but when it arri ves there, i.e., na me ly, that
speed, possessing w hich the bod y arrives at the extreme place a nd w he re in the moveme nt stops.
Just like th is, wha t mus t be understood by the Iill},oiting ratio of evanesce nt qua ntities, is the
ratio of quantities no t be fore th cir disppea rence, and no t a fter, but while they arc d isappearing.
Exactly in the same way, the limit ing ra tio of emergent q ua nti ties is tha t wi th which they
are bo rn . The limit ing sum of e mergent or evanescent quantities constitutes the ir sum , w hen
they, by inc reas ing o r dec reas ing, o nl y begin or cease to be. There exists sllch a limit, w hic h a
s peed may a tlain a t th e end of a movement, bu t ca nno t cross - it is the limitin g speed. S uch
is the reason fo r the existence o f the limit of em erge nt or eva nescent qu antities a nd
proportio ns" (I. Newton, Meta maticheskie Nachala Natura lno i Filoso fii. Trans lated by A. N.
Kry lov. T ra nsact io ns of the Ni ko laevsky Naval Academy, Sa nkt-Pete rburg, 1915 , p. 64).
In modern math ematics the "speed of a body ata give n mo me nt 10", is de fin ed through the
ma thema tica l concept of lim it, a nd it may lead to ma ny observations, including those hav ing
an o ntologica l cha racter, in fa vo ur of the na turalness of this de fini tion. However, the
naturalness of the de finiti on of th e specd, of a body at a g ive n moment t D , throug h so me
lim it of a ratio of evanescent quanti ties cannot as yct serve, eithe r as a proo f of the fac t, that
the correspo nding limit ex ists, or mo re so, as a justifica tio n fo r de fini ng this limit as the
"ratio o f so me quan tities, no t be fo re the ir disappeare nce, and no t a fter, but while they are
disappearing" , i.e., as a ra lio of zeros, Ihe va lue of w hich (the ra tio) m ust somehow be defined,
as a body must have a velocity also at that mo ment, when it a rrives at tha t extreme place,
where moveme nt s to ps. It is clear, however, that from suc h a "de fini tion", the mea ns of
mathe ma tical compu tation of lim it, is no t 10 be extracted and tha t, here, in fa ct we have a
c ircle befo re us : the speed at the moment t D is in fa ct understood as a limit, conversely,the
limit is de fined thro ugh the speed at the momen t t", the ex is tence of which in this case,does
in fact appear as a "metap hysica l, no n-ma thematical assumptio n" (consis ting of the fact, tha t
the reOecti on is assumed to be the object reflected upo n : an abstrac t mathe ma tical co ncept
fo rmed by o ur tho ug ht for cognitive purposes is taken to be a reall y existing ideal object).

40
314 APPENDIX

Lemma II o f the second book o f the "Mathe matic;11 Princ ipl es o f Na lural Philosophy" ( ibid,
pp. 296-298) contains the fo llowi ng expla nation o f the co ncep t of "moment" (or in finitesima l)
: "Here l co ns ider ... quantities as indete rminate and chang ing and, as though inc reasing or
diminishing out of conSlanl movement o r n ow, and by the wo rd moments I un derstand the ir
inst.1 nl increases or decreases, such that th e increases arc co ns idered as pos itive, or add able
mome nts, the decreases - as subtractable, or nega tive. But wc must sec to it, that the finite
particles a re not take n fo r th ese. Fin ite pa rticles a rc not mome nts, but arc the mselves quantities
o rg inating fro m the mo ments. Th is s hou ld imply, that this is o nl y the ba re ly emergent
beginning o f fi n ite mag niludes. That is w hy in this le mma, magnilUdes o f the mome nts a rc
neve r co ns idered , but o nl y their initial ratios arc considered . The same is obta ined, if
ins tead o f the moments we ta ke e ither the speeds o f the in creases o r that o f the decreases,
o r any othe r finit e qUfl nl iti cs w ha tsoeve r, but proportiona l to these s peeds" (ibid , pp.
296-297). It is natural, that Marx wou ld firs t of all be interes ted in this explanatio n - in
w hich New ton aga in had reco urse 10 the "meL'lp hysica l, non-mathema tical assumpt ions", this
time abou t the essence of t.he d iffe rentials (" momentsM).
But th is lemma co uld. also have drawn his attentio n, because it con tains Newton's well
known attem pt to prove the fo rmu la fo r the diffe rential of the product of two funct io ns, w ithout
hav ing recourse to the d is missal of the infinitesi mals o f higher o rders.

This ( uns uccess ful ) attempt co ns is ts o f th e follow ing. Let A -·1 a be the va lue o f the

fu nc tion f(t) a t the point to' B -1 b - the value o f the fun ction g(J) at the sam e po int to ,
a and b - the in cremen ts respectively o f the func tio nsf a nd g, at the segment [to, 'd. (He rein
belo w we s hall a lso des igna te them by llf a nd Llg respectively.) T hen the incre ment o f the
prod uct f (t). gel ) at the segment [to, tll is

i.e., Ab +Ba, w h ic h Newto n takes as the diffe re ntia l (" moment") o f the prod uct o f th e
f unc t io ns f and g a t the poi nt to' B ut here Ab + Ba, is no t f(to) Llg + g (to) 1lJ, but

([(Iol + 16[) 6g + ( g(1 0) + 16g) 6[, Le.,il differs rrom[(l o) 6g + g (10) 6f by Ihal ve ry
magni tude Llf 'Ilg, the dismissa l of w hich, Newton wa nted to avoid. However, b y
identify ing Ab + Ba with f( t 0) Llg + g (t 0) Ilf , Newton carr ied o ut, namely, this ve ry
dismissal (t ho ug h silently).
As it ap pea rs from the fi rst d ra fts o f his work o n the di ffe re ntial (see, PV, 4 1 ). Ma rx
at first wa nted to throw l ight upon the historica l co urse of the developme nt of differential
calculus, by us ing the his to ry o f the theo rem abo ut the diffe rential o f a product as an example.
There is, tha t is wh y. no do ub t abou t the fact, that lemma 11 mus t have drawn Marx"s atten tio n
in this connection.
 ON TIlE LEMMA'S 01' NIiWTON CITED BY MARX 31S

As the sources from which Marx took his extracts,do not specia ll y mention lemma Xl of
the first book and lemma 11 of the second book of the "Principia", there is all the ground to
think,that Marx singled them out, having turned directly to Newton's "Principia",
Since the definition of the lim it of the ratio of evanescent quantities through the speed of
a body at a given moment to' does not con tain the means of computing this lim it, Newton
in fact could not use this definition for such computa tion, For that he had 10 use some other
presuppositions about the limi ts,permitting the reduction of the computation of the limits o f
ratios o f evanescent quantities into the computa tion of such limits, whose numerical value
was fully and besides, quite naturally. determinate. The role of such a presupposition plays
first of all : Newton's lemma I, in the first section of the first book of his "Principia" : "On the
method of first and last ratios, through which the following is proved". In his comme nts
on the his tory o f differential calcu lus, Marx mentions this lemma along with the sc hol ia 10
lemma XI (see, PV, 67).
Lemma I states: "The quantities as well as the ratios of quan tities, which in the course
of any finite time consta ntly tend to equal ity, and before the end of Ihis time come closer to
each other - close r than any given diffe rence - will be equal at the limit" (I. Newton,
Matematicheskic Nachala Naturalnoi Filosofii, SpB., 1915, p. 53).
However, in the proof of this lemma, the existence of lim it itS actually att,linable at
the end of the interval of time considered , was in fact silently presupposed. In fact this
proof consisted of denying the fact,that the value of the quantities attained "at the end of
this tim e"(thcir "limits") may differ from each other.
Thus, Newton always understood limit actually and that is why he hardly surpassed-
in respect of ma thematical exact itude and validity - the Lcibnitzian actual infillitesimals
o r the moments corresponding to them, which, as is well known, Newton too used in practice.
 ON LEONI·IARD EULER'S CALCULUS OF ZEROS

* An acquainta nce with Eulcr's attempt to co nstruct the differential calc\lIl1s as a calculus
of zeros, is cssctHiai for undcrsl<lnding those places of Marx's manuscripts, where in the ratio
is viewed as a mlie of zeros, as something exactly equal 10 the vltlUC or the derivative of
y in respect o f x for any value of the varillble x, and at the sa me time as somet hing wi th
which o nc ma y operate as o nc does with the ord inary fractions - for example, wh ile equating
the product ~~ . ~: with the "fraction" ~~ ("cancelling" dv). T his attempt should be
highlighted a lso in conn ec tion with th e fact, th at in the list o f lilcralurC,:ltlac hcd to the drafts
of his essay on the his tory of d ifferential ca lculus (scc, PV, 66 ), Marx made a specia l
mention of chapter IIf of Elder's "Differen tial Calculus", devoted to an account o f this attempt.
Furthe r, it is also imporulnt, in view of the fact, that Marx ca llcd Eulcr's calcul us "rationalist".
The "Differential C1lcu lu s"o f the great mathematician,member of the Academy of Science
o f Pcte rburg,Leonhard Eule r,was published by the Academy of Pcterburg,in 1755. This
work is based on an allempt to conside r the differentials as exactly eqlla l to zero in
magnit ude,b ut at the sa me ti me also as different zeros: zeros wi th "histories" of their origins,
fix ated in the d ifferences o f nolat ion (dx, dy etc.),which permilS them to be considered as
such ze ros, whose ratio ~,whercy - f(x). is distinguished by the fa c t that it is the derivative
f'(x) and, th at it may be operated upon as an ordinary fraction.
Eu lc r undertook this attempt with the aim of freeing mltthematical analysis from the
treatment of differe n tin ls as actuully infinitesima l magnitudes, having [In explici tl y
contradic tory character (being in <I cerl.1in sense, both zeros and not-zeros at the same lime).
Euler thought, the assertion to the effect that "pure reuson recogn ises the possibility o f the
thousandth parI of a cubic foot of matter to be bereft o f all extens ion", to be "quite
insurricient" ( in the given context it means "impermissible", see: L. Eulcr, Differentiul
Calculus, M.- L., 194Q, p. 90). "An infinitesimal quantity is nothing but an evanescent o nc,
and that is w hy it is exactly equa l to zero. This is in agreement with that definition of the
infinites imals,acco rding la which they arc s maller than all possible givcn quant ity. In fact,
if a quantity is so small, that it is sma ller than any possible given quantity, then, wittingly, it
canno t hut bc equa l to ze ro; for had it not been equa l 10 ze ro, then it would be possible
to posit a quantity cqual to it, but that will co ntradict the presuppos ition. Thus, if someone
as ks, what is an infinitesimal in mathematics, then we shall a nswer, that it is exactly equal
10 zero. Hence, this concept has no secrets hidden in it, the likc of which arc usua ll y attached
with it and which makes the infinitesima l ca lcul us highly suspicious in the eyes of many" (ibid.
p.91).
Since a simp le assertio n of the identity of the diffcrentials with zeros, does not as yet
produce thc differentia l calculus, Euler introd uced "different" zeros, ins talling two typeS'o f
cquations fo r them: "arithmetic" and "geometric" . In the "arithmetic" sense all zeros arc
equal to c(lch other, and fo r an a no t equa l to any zero. a + 0 is always equal to a,
 ON LEONIIi\I~D I:IJt .ER·S CALCULUS OFZI::ROS 317

ind epende ntly of w hat sorl of "zero" is lidded 10 a. In the "geome tric" sense o nl y Iwo such
zeros are equal to each other, the "rati o" o r which is equ al to onc.
He re Eul e r· does no t explain , wllltt he me.lOS by the "ratio" of two ze ros. Onl y this much
is clear, that he ex tcml ed Ihe usun l properties of th e ratios o f magnitudes o the r tha n zero,
upon these "ratios" <l nd , thllt by the ra tio of two "zeros": dy and dx, he in fact understood
tha t whic h is expressed as Lim ~, in the lang uage o f modern mathematical a na lysis. And
tr..-o l! x
that is why. Elder 's theory of "ze ros"eould no t free mathema tica l analysis from the need of
introdu c in g the co ncept of limit (and the diffic ulties co nnec ted with this concept).
In so fa r as Elde r's leros could be different "zeros" (in the "geo metric" sense no t equal
to one l1n o the r), it was necessary to have different sig ns fo r them. Eulcr wro te: "Two zeros
may have a ny geometric relation between them,th ough fro m the arithmetic point of vie w Iheir
rela tio n is that o f equa lity. Thu s, in so far as th ere may be a ny rat io be tween zeros, different
sym bols ha ve been used o n purpose, to ex press these different ratios. especially when the
geometiic ratio of two dirferen t zeros, is requ ired to be de fined. But in the calculus of
in fi nitcs ima ls, only the ratio o f different infinites imals is soug ht. Tha t is w hy, if we do no t
use di ffe re nt s igns fo r them, then there will be a g reat confusion and the re will be no way out
of it" (p. 9 1).
If by so inte rpre tin g dx and dy as ttdiffcrcnt " zeros, whose ratio is equa l to [,(x ). we go
over fro m 1; "" [,(x) to (Jy .. [,(x) dx , then we o bt.1in a ~ equl1 li ty , whose le ft hand s ide and
ri ght hand s ide arc equa l to each a the l. both in the "a rithmetic"a nd in the "geometric" sense. In
fact, in the le n as we ll as in the right ha nd side "zeros" w iJI s tand , and, as it has already
been noted,all zeros are mu tua ll y eq ual in the "a rith me tic" sense. Since the ratio o f dy to dx
is eq ua ted f ully w ith [,(x) - i.e., in the "arithmetic" as well as in the "geometric" sense rthe
ratio (1;) :[,(x), w he re y - [(x), is considered eq ua l to o nc, eve n ir ['(~) .. 0 I. a nd the rul es
for ope rating with o rdi na ry r<lti os are ex te nded upo n the "ratios" o f zeros , we ge t
dy : ['(x ) dx - (~) : ['(x ) .. 1, or, in oth er words, dy nnd [ '(x) dx arc equal to cl.ch othe r, in the
"geo metric" sense too.

To a ll appearence, it is namely this "complete" equivalence o f the cquali ties 7x -['(x)

and dy - f'(x) dx, no t onl y in th e sense o f the poss ibility of trans it ion rro m one o f them to
the other, but also herein (a nd o wing to th is),in the trea tment of the "rat io" o f the "diffe rential
particJcs"dy a nd dx as an ordin ary ratio (as a fra c tio n). in spite of the fac t,th at as "dif(e rential
particl es" dy and dx a rc zeros ("differe nt" zeros, to be des ig nated dirrerentl y)- whic h Marx
had in view,wh en he transformed the [irst o f these cqualilies into the seco nd (sce, PV, 69 ).
Fo r mo re de ta iled informations abo ut Eule r's zeros and the histo ry o f ideas co nnected
with the m the reader may re fer to : A.P. Jusc hkewi tsch, Eul e r und La grange tibe r die
318 APPENDIX

Grundlagen der Analysis, in Sammelband zu Ehren des 250 GeburlS tages Lconard Euiers,
Berlin, 1959, pp. 224-244.
Here we sha ll limit ourselves to two more remarks of Euler. These m,IY be of use while
studyi ng Marx's manuscripts. The first onc is rela ted to the concept of the differential as the
principal part of the increment of a function. This concept played an impo rtant role in
mathematica l analysis, especiall y in its applications. Euler introduced it as follows: "Le t an
increment obtai ned by the variable x, be very small, so that in the expression (for
the increment Ily of the fun ction y of x, Le., in J P IV ... Q w2 + R w3 + etc.·, the te rms
Q w2 + R wJ, and more so the rest, become so s mall ,tha t in an expression,where a great
exactitude is not required, they may be negleeted,in comparison to the first term. Them,
having found out the first differential Pdx. wc know, of cOllrse only approximately, also the
first difference, for it will be equal to Pw; this is of grea t he lp in many cases, where analysis
is applied to solve practical problems" (ibid, p. 105). In other words,having substituted in
the expression of the differential of the function yof x (Le., in Pdx, where P is the
derivative of y in respect of x)the differential dx,equa l to Euler's zero,by the finite increment
IV of the variable x,we sha ll get thllt very concept of the differen tial as the principal part of

the increment o f a function, which is the point of departure of the modern courses of
mathematical analysis.
There is an analogous concep t of the differential as the principal part of the
increment of a fun ct ion in Marx's manuscripts (see, description of manuscript 2763,
pp.141-142).
Another remark [of Eul~r} is associated w ith the question of choice of notations, specific
to the diffe rential calculus, i.c., for the differentials and derivatives. Above all what is of
interes t here is the fact that Euler interpreted Newton's pointwise nota tions as signs of
differentials (and not of derivatives). In fact he wrote: "The name "nuxia", which was
in it iall y used by Newton to designate the speed of increment, was by analogy trans ferred
to the infinitesinal increments, which a quantity admits,when it, as it were, nows" (p.103).
And lowe r down there we read: "The differentials, which they (the English-Ed.) ca ll nuxia ,
are designated by the poi nts adopted by them, which they put over lette rs, so that y
designates for them the first nuxia of y. y- the second,)i'- the th ird nuxia etc."
However, Euler was not satisfied with this mode of notations, and he continues: "Since
the mode of designation depends upon will,these not.1tions may not be rejected , if the number
• Euler's ~Dir[erentia l Calculus" began with Ihe calculus of finite diHercnces and the theorem, which
reads : Mi[ the variable:! admils an increment, equailo w. Ihen some funclion of)( emerging as a result of
this inCNlment may be expressed as P '" + Q ",2 + R ..) + etc., wherein, this expression is ei ther fini te,or il
cominues endlessly · (p. 103, see also, p. 61). The proof of this theorem was b~sed upon the fact,thM the
class of functions herein considered by Euler consisted of powered functions, polynomials and clcmenlllry
Iransccndental [unctions,expanded in intinite powered serieses; he permitted himself to Ireat them as finite
polynomia ls.
 ON I.£ ONI [AHD EU U~R'S CALCULUS OF ZEROS 319

of points is not large, so that they may be ea sil y co unled. However, if many points are 10 be
s uperscri bed, then Ih is mode creates great confus ion and a lot of disco mfiture. In fac t, the tenth

differential or the tenth nuxia, may thus be des ignated extremely awkwardly as: ji; whereas
our mode of des ig na tion d JOy ,is easily und ers tood . There are occasions, when differentials
of much higher and even indeterminate orders are requ ired to be expressed; in such cases
the English mode w ill become most unsu itable "(pp.103-104). Marx also spoke of an
analogous identifica tion (in certain cases), by Newton and his successors of the "nuxia" X,
y etc.with the "momenlS" (i.e., differentials) 'tx,
'ty etc. (where "t is "an infinitesimal
part o f time"). Here Marx observed, that "Newton's "t plays no role in his analysis of basic
functions and perhaps that is why it has been omilLed" (p. 68). and that Newton himself gladly
casts away "t (ibid) . In co nsonance with this, when Marx spoke of the method of Newton,
he also used such expressions, as "the differentials o f y in the form of y, of u in the form of
u and of z in the form of i (sce, p. 69).
11

We also no te that Marx especially s tressed the advantage of the Leibnitzian sy mbols of
differential ca lcu lus, over the symbols adopted by New ton and his s uccessors (sce, p.79).
 "THE RESIDUAL ANALYSIS " OF JOHN LANDEN
In a number of M:trx's mathematical manuscriplS wc find a mentio n of Marx's intent ions to
get acquainted with the works of Jo hn Landcn, in the Britis h Museum (sce fo r instance, p. 39)
Marx saw in Landcn, a possible p,redccessor o f Lagrangc, who strove to re turn 10 th e strictly
algeb raic fo und:1 Lions o f th e differential ca lcu lus (p. 90). and assumed, that Landen's method
must have been ana logo us la the method of "algebraic diffcrcntiillion" proposed by him; but he
had doubts, as la whether Landen understood the essential difference of this method from those
of the others.
To get convinced about the fairness of these assumptions, M;ux wanted to scc i,n the
Museum, "Th e Res idual Analysis" of Landen.
Marx could have o btained informations about this book, from two sources at his disposal:
Hind 's book (2nd cd., p. 128) and Lacroix's hig "Treatise" (vo\. T, pp. 239-240). Incid cnL.1 J1 y,
these two sources arc a lmos t indentica l, as Hind, in essence, on ly translated the corresponding
place from Lacro ix, into English. In Hind we read: "However the idea o f constructing a calculus
of this type [Le., differen tial calculus] upo n purely a lgebra ic foundations was, apparen tl y, first
conc ievea by Jo hn Landen, the fam ous English mathematician, whose creativity no uris hed in
mid 18th century . The first task o f his "The Residual Analysis" was 10 obta in a n algebraic
expansion o f th e diffe rence of two identical functions of x and x I, divided by the difference of
these very magniludes, or fin expansion of the express ion [(Xl~ - [(x), and to find o ut, what is
x -x
called the special value of the resu lt obta ined, when x' is assumed to be - x and when, that is
why, all trace of the divisor x' - x has already va nished". (In lacroix more perecisely : "... when
this quotient [(x') - f(x) / x' -x} is already so o btained, that in it no trace of the divisor
x' - x is re tained , [then 1in it, it is assumed that x' - x, so that the ul timate a im of the calculus
cons ists of arriving at a certain jpecia l value o f the above mentio ned ratio".)
To all appearence, Ma rx could not rea lise his intention of going through Landen's book in
the British Museum . However, an analysis of the content of this book fully confirms tbe
aforementioned assumptio ns of Marx, wbich he himself co nsidered to be "highly likely ".
Thecomplc tc titl c ofLandcn's book is : The ResidualAflalysis, a new branch of the a lgebra ic
art, of vcry extensive use, both in Pure Mathematics, and Natural Philosophy, Book I. By John
Larlden. London, printed fo r the au thor, and sold by L.Haws, W.Clarke, and R.Collins, a t the
Red Lio n in Pater-noster Row, MDCCL XIV.
Its preface begins with the words: "Hav ing remaincd busy for sometime past with a new
and simple method of invest igations on the binomial theorem, with the help of a purely algebra ic
process, I wished to examine, whether the mea ns wh ich helped me to inves tigate this theorem,
may turn out to be of use fo r investiga ting o the r theorems, and I soon found, Ihata compu tatio nal
technique based on those means, may be applied in many investigations ... I named this special
technique - the Residual Analysis, since in all those investigatio ns, where it is a pplied, the
 "THE RF..slDUALANALYSIS· OF JOHN LANf)EN 321

principal means, through which we arrive at the desired conclusions, are such quantities and
algebraic expressions, which the mathematicians call the residuals".
Later on the author criticised Newton's calculus of Iluxions and Leibnitz's analysis of
infinitesimals, because these are based upon the introduction of some unjustified new
"principles" into mathematics. He thought, these are the explanations of the values of the new
terminologies, introduced into the theory with the help of, in reality non-existent but
nevertheless assumed (to be self- understood), imaginary movements and figurative conritfuous
flows, which do not bring into mathematics any clear and precise idea, but compel us to talk,
for example, about such - at least incomprehensible - things, like the speed of time, speed
of speed etc., which are not even necessary for the explanations (and that is why, conversely,
these are not capable of serving as the means for defining certain exact mathematical concepts)
- [such are the new "principles"] of Newton's calculus of fluxions. In Leibnitz's analysis of
infinitesimals, he considered, the introduction of the infinitesimal magnitudes and of the
magnitudes infinitesimally smaller, than the infinitesinal magllitudes unjustified as new
"principles"; their dismissal (when obtain.ing of approximate results are not at issue) is "a very
unsatisfac.tory (if not erroneous) mode oC getting rid of such quantities" (p. IV). Landen
proposes, that mathematics is not in need of such principles, which are alien to it, and that his
"Residual Analysis", "not admitting of any principle, apart from those, that are accepted in
Algebra and Geometry since antiquity", "is no less useful (if not morc), than the calculus of
flux ions or the differential calculus" (p. IV).
The starting point of un.den 's residual analysis is the formula
a' _If
_- _ _ a' - I+ ar- 2b+ ... +17- 1 (1)
a-b
(r is an integral and positive number), and the following formulae deduced from it, and with its
help:

m
v"T_w"Y
v-w
m

_ v 7m-I
w
1+ - + -
V

m
w
V
l' +. . +
2m
w
V
r ~
,
(2)

1+
w
V T+ r+ w
V
... + w
V
l
V
-.,. -w -.,.
m

V w
m

--v-1 'W
m
r
w w
1+-+ -
V

m
V r+ r
2m
w
V

l!::.!i!!
,
(3)

1+
w
V T+
.!"
V r+ ... + w
V
l
41
 APPEN1)IX

(where m and r are integral and positive numbers, .: l corresponds to our (:) *).
Landen obtained the derivative of the powered function x', for an integral and fractional
(pos itive or negative) index of power P, as a "special vatue~ of the ratio
x!-xt
X-Xl

when x -XI' In other words, he so redefi ned the ratioI

xl' -x,
when X _XI ,that even when
x -XI
X - Xl' the strength of the equalilics, corresponding to the formulae (I), (2) and (3), were
retained.

Landen designated the "special value of the ratio Y - Yl (where Y - [(x), Yt - !(x l » when
ft

X -XI

x .. XI' through [x": y].

He carried out the trans ition 10 the irrational index of power, in the light of examples; to begiri
with, by finding out the "special value" of the ratio v~ - w~,
when v .. w (i.e., the derivative
v- w
of v~ in respect of v) in two different ways: once according to fo rmula (2), fo r m .. 4 and
r - 3; nexllime, according to the same formula, but - ~since~ - 1'3333 etc." - successively
applied to the pairs: (m-13333, r-lOOOO), (m - 133333, r ... lOOOOO) etc. Landen
escaped from the difficulties connected with the fact, that this process is infinite, by observing,
that the "u ltimate va l ue~ of
1+1+1+1 (13 333 etc. times)
1+1+1+1 (10000 etc. times)
11 is cv iden t1y equal to ~, the magnitude, from wh ich [the number J 1·333 etc. was obla incd (by
division)" (p. 7) .

• To obtain formula (2), using (1), it is enough to note that

. . ............ -. , -. ,
--
v'-w' .. v -w .101 -w _ ~.(v')-(w')
v -w v-w ' '" .. V -W ' ... .. .
v'-w' v'-w'
Formula (3) is easily deduced from formu la (2) . In fact

•
(vw)' (v - w)
.
(vw)' (w - loll
 "TIlE RESIDUAl. ANALYSIS" 0 1' JOHN LANDEN 323

After Ihis he went over to that insL1nce, where ..fi "'1'4142 etc., treating it according
In ...
r
to the second mode, i.e., as he himself observed, "approximately", but so that, every time it
may be made "more proximate"; he again concluded, that the "ultimate value" of
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 ... (14142 etc, times)
1+ 1 + 1 + 1 ... (10000 etc, times)
"is equal to..fi, the magnitude from which [the numberJ 1·4142e!c. was obtained (by extracting
'he roo,)" (p. 8).
It is not surprising that Landen could not construct his "Residual Analysis " without falling
back upon the concept of limit, in some form. However, he spoke of limit, precisely in the
manner of Newton, treating limit as the "ultimate value" (as the end) of an infinite (i.e . endless)
sequence. Naturally, he did not use this definition in practice, but he had to have recourse to
such means of precisely estimating the approximations and convergence (or divergence) of the
processes for attaining them successively. which were prompted by the concrete content of the
problems considered by him.
Like the other mathematicians of his time, Landen thought that it was possible to freely use
the divergent serieses in formal transformations of expressions with the help of infinite serieses,
if the latter play, therein , only the role of an intermediate stage in the transformation. If a series
must express the value of some magnitude to be computed, then, for it to be used, the series
must be converge nt. Here Landen did not think, that it was necessary to explain, what he meant
by convergence (or divergerlce) of a series, but having expanded a function into a series (with
the help of some formal transformations), he usually indicated the radius of convergence of
the series thus obtair-ed, and also mentioned the methods, permitting an "improvement" upon
its convergence (its substitution by another series, which converges "fas ter" to the same limit).
Thus, among the "principles", which "were accepted in algebra and geometry since antiquity",
Landen, evidently counted some forms of transitions to the limit, with which he could somehow
cope in practice (when approximate calculation was at issue). But he did not have a precise
general concept of "convergence" and "li mit". Nor did he have the methods for computing the
limits (or detecting their absence), applicable to a sufficiently large class of expressions. That
is why Landen sought such a definition of the derivative (of the "special value"), which would
directly contain within itself an algorithm for finding it.
Like Newton, herein, he too, discussed the functions of x as certain analogies of the concept
of real number. Just as every natural number may be considered as a sum (finite or infinite) of
the powers of base 10; each being multiplied by one of the numbers 0, 1, 2, .'" 9, so also every
function of x, according to Newton, must be representable in the form of a sum of the (finite or
infinite) powers with base x, each belRg multiplied by numbers (coefficients) - i.e., in the form
of a powered series. (The series was considered to be "representing"the g iven functi o n, given
with the help of a finite Halgebraic" expression, if it was obtained through formal
transfo rmations from the expression, which posed the function. Thus, the series
1
1 + x + x 2 + ,., + x" + ... is considered to be "representing" the function -1 ,in so far as it
-x
'24 APPENDIX

could be obtained by dividing 1 by (l - x) according to the method of dividing the polynomials.)

That is why the problem of finding out the derived function of f(x) could be represented as
reducible 10 an analogous task for xP and to the problems: having known the derivatives of
summands (or factors) , of having to find out the derivative of the sum (or product). These are
the problems which Landen solves firs t of all in his "Residual Analysis". Extension of these
methods to the functions of several vari:tblcs and partial derivatives of different orders entail a
number of technical diffic ulLies and L1ndc n managed Lo cope w ith the m with the help of -
sometimes very clever - formal calcu lat!ons.
Herein, it was usually presupposed silently, that a fun ction is ullivocally represented by its
corresponding powered series, i.e., if two powered sericses must represent one and the same
function of x, then the coefficients of the identical powers in them must be equal (hence the
wide use of the method of so-called "indeterminate coe fficients").
As an example, illustrating the application of these methods by landen, we s hall adduce
here a proof of Newton's binomia l theorem in the general instance of a n a rbitra ry real index of
power of the b ino mial - as proposed by Landen (with certain speci fication s now in use ).
Landen 's proof may also be of interest to us, as Marx attached a special importance to this
theorem of Newton, first of all in connection with the theorems of TayJor and MacLaurin (see,
PV, 88 & 93). Let .
(1)
where p is any real number, A I , A 2 , A), A4 are indeterminate coefficients, assumed 10 be not
dependent upon x. Assuming x - 0 in both the parts of the equality, wc shall get AI - a'.
Differentiating the equality (1) in respect of x, term by lerm (of course, Landen did not speak
of the derivatives according to x, but spoke of the corresponding "special valucs M, which he
could already find out for A r, where A does not depend on x and, for any real r) we shall have
p(a+x), -1-A2+ 2A.1x+3A4x2+ ... (2)
Now multiplying both the sides of equality (1) by p, and of equali ty '(2) by (a + x), we shall
get, further,
( I' )

p(a+x)'. aA 2 + ~3} x+ ~34} x2 + (2')

whence, owing lO the presupposed univoca lity of the expansio ns of the expression pea + xY' in
series, according to the powers of Xt

~Al-pa'-I,
p-I pep-I) ,_,
---za-A 2- 2 a ,

p-2 .p(p -J)(p-2)aH

or A 4 - A
3a 3 2.3 '
. , .......................................... . ................................ .
 °HIE Rf:S IDUAL ANALYSIS' OF JOHN LANDEN

i.e., (a + x)p- at' +E. ap - t + P(P- 1)

1 1-2
aP-2X2 + p(p - 1)(P- 2)
1-2-3
r + ...
(JI' -J

and this is the binomial theorem of Newton.

Th ough Jo hn La nden's res idual analys is did not become a wo rking in st rument of
mathematicia ns : Lande n's notatio ns were very cumbersome, and - perhaps that is why - he
did no t arrive at the theorems o f Taylor and MacLa urin ; it sho uld not however be thought, that
the works of La nde n did not exert any innuence upon the development of mathematics. Landen
himself wrote, that a number of theorems from his "Res idua l Analysis", "drew the attention of
Mr. De Moivre, Mr. Stirling and of the other prominent mathematicia ns"{p.45). Lacroix informs
us in his "Trea tise" (vol. I, p. 240), that he used Landen's methods in the "Supplements to the
Elements o f Algebra" for proving the binomial formulae, and for serial expans ion of the
exponential and logarithmic functions.
However, appare ntl y, it was Lagrange who drew Lacroix's attention 10 Landen, upon whose
"Theory of An alyti cal Functions" Lacro ix based his "Trea tise". Lagrange wrote, in the
introduction to his book, referring to the di fficulties bedev il ing the bas ic concepts o f Newton's
analysis, that : "To get rid of these difficulties, a skilful Englis h geometer, hav ing made
impo rta nt d iscoveries in analysis, recen tl y proposed to change that method of n ux ions. which
was so far steadfastly followed by all the English geometers, by another purely analytica l
method, which is analogous to the differential method, but in which, instead of usi ng o nly the
infin ites imals or the d ifferences of variable quanti ties eq ual to zero, at first the d ifferent values
o f these quantities are used, which arc then mutually equated with each other, since with the
help of div is ion, the factor - which this equalisation would lurn into zero - is fo rced to
d isappea r. T hus the in fi nites imals and the eva neseent quantities are actua ll y gol rid of ; but the
methods and appl ica tions of calculus become complicated and less natura l, and one mus t agree
to it, that this mode of making the principles of differential calcul us more precise, robs it of its
basic adva ntage - the s im plici ty of method and the ease of ope rations". (Apart fro m the
"Residua l Analys is", L'lgrange also refers to Landen's"A discou rse of the res idual analysis",
published already in 1758; sce, "Oeuvres de Lagrangen, T. IX, Pa ris, 188 1, p,I 8).
Apparently, Lagrange's afore mentioned observa tion is connected with the fact, that Landen
used highly cumbersome nota tions and hence could not arrive at th e concept of differential and
at a calculus operating with differential symbols.
In contradistinction to Lagrange, Lacro ix observed, that La nden's method may "in essence,
be reduced to the method o f limits" ("Treatise .. ", p. xvn ).
 PRINCIPLES OF DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS
ACCORDING TO BOUCHARLAT
From among the boo ks o n math e ma ti ca l analysis a t Marx 's dis posa l, apparently,
Boucharla t's "Elements of differential and integra l calculus" is of the g reatest significance, for
an understanding o f Marx's ma thematica l manuscripts. Marx ga l acquainted with it, through
the English transl ation of its third French edition (of 1826). This translation was d one by
Bla kelock and it was published in 1828.
This text boo k enjoyed great popularity a nd saw many editio ns. In 1881, its 81h editio n was
publis hed in Paris, with no les by M.P. Laurent.lI was a lso translated into a numbe r of fo reign
languages, including Russia n.
An alumnus of the Polylcchnic.11 School, professor of "transcendental " (higher) mathematics,
a uthor of a number of texts books of mathemat ics and mecha nics, Boucharlat, Jean-Louis
(1775-1848) was a t the same time a poet and was, from 1823, professor of literature in the
Athcneum of Pa ris. It seems that the literary merit and clarity of expos ition of this book also
furthered its popularity in a large way.
Thus it is clear that, Marx was not accidentally drawn to Boucharlat 's co urse.
At the same time, in sp ite of its au thor's pretentions abou t the grea ter s trictness o f the
exposition and a lso to the e ffec t, that he has managed to improve upon the ftalgebraic ft me thod
of lagrange, with the help of the theory of limits (sce, introduction to the 5th edi tion, 1838, p.
VIH), the mathe matical level of this course was no t very high. Even in its,5th ( 1838) editio n,
and no t only in the 3rd - the English transtation o f which was used by Marx, the concepts of
variable, func tion, deriva tive and different ia l were ind rod uced as fo llows .:
ft l, It is said, that a variable is a function of another variable, whe n the first is equal to an
analytical expression, cons titued out of the second; for example, y is a fun c tion of x in the
foll owing equations :

3, Let us now takc the eq uation

y_x 3 (1)
and assume, tha t y turns into y', when x becomes x +" ; hence, we have
y' - (x+ h>'
and, ca rrying ou l the indicated operation,

·Marx not only took notes from this text book . in a number of places of his manuscripts and pOlemised against
its author about his basic me thQdological uircctions, but also put in H lot of labour for the [actual verification
of thel an er. That is why, it is hardly possible to do without an acquaintance with this text-book. liere we shall
give a detailed accou nt of the first twe nty paragraphS of this book. These paragraphs are specifi c for this book,
and Marx's critical observations arj: especially directed towatus them. Wherever in the man uscripts, an
acq uai ntance was requireu of these pilragraphs. there a menlion has been made of the corresponding pages of
the appendix, containing their account. - Ed.
 PRINCIPLES OF DlFFEltEN11AL CALCULUS ACCORDING TO [)QUCIIARLAT 327

y , _ Xl + 3x211 + 3xll2 + 113 ;

if from this equa tion we subtract equation (I), then we shall have
y' - y _ )x211 + 3xll2 + hl ,
and, dividing by h,
,
(2)
Y I~ Y - 3x2 +3xll + "2.
Let us see, what this result teaches us :
y' - Y is the increme nt of the fun ction y. when x obtains the increment h. that is why this
difference y' - Y is the difference between the new condition of the variable magnitude y and
its in it ial condilion.
On the other hand, s ince the increment of the variable x is 11, it follows that, the expression
Y is the ratio of the increment of the function y to the increme nt o f the va riable x.
Examining the second element of equation (2), we see that this ratio diminishes along with the
dimunition of" and that, whcn h becomes zero, this ratio turns into Jx2.

Hence. the term Jx2 is the limi t of the ratio L..:...l ; it tends to this term, when we compel
x to.diminis h. "
4. Since in the presupposition, that" - 0, the increment of y also becomes zero, so

turns into ~,and that is why from equation (2) we get

(3)
Q
o - lx' .
there is nothing absu rd about this cquation, si nce algebra teaches us that '0o can represent
any magnitude whatsoeve r. On the other hand it is clear, that sin ce the division o fbolh the terms
of a fracti on by o ne and the sa me number does not change th e value of the fra ction, we may
conclude, that the s mallness of the terms of a fractio n does not in the leas t innucence its value
and that, hence, it may remain the same even when its terms atta in the last stage of s mallness,
i.e., turn into zero .

The fraction ~ in equa tion (3) is a symbol, that has substituted the ratio of the increment
of the function to the increment of the variable; since in this symbol no trace of this variable
remains, we shall ~epresent it by ~ ; then 1; will remind us that, y was the function, and x ---':'
the variable. But due to this, dy and dx will not cease to be zeros, and we shall have

dy _ lx' (4)
<Ix .
328 APPENDIX

~ to be more precise, its value 3,r is the differentia l coefficien t of the function y.
dx'

We note, that si nce ~ is a s ign, representing the limit )x2 ( as is shown by equation (4»,
dx must a lways be under dy. However, to faci litate algebraic operations, here we must get rid
of the denomina tor in eq uation (4), a nd we shall get dy - 3r dx.
Th is express ion ]x2dr is called the dirferen tial of the fun ction y" (pp. 1-4).
In §§ 5-8 Bouc harlat finds out the dy for

y _ Q+ 3x', y- 11- '" , Y - (x' - 20') (x' - 3a').

-x
I.n a ll these cases the expression for the augmented value of y , Le., (in the notations of
Boucharlat) for y', is equa l to f(x + 11), if Y - f (x) is rep resented in the form of a polynomial,
,
ordered according to the powers of h (with coeffi c ients in x), after which the ratio y is
eas ily repese nted by a poly nomial of the same kind . The assump tion o f h - 0 in the latte r gives
~, the multiplication of which by dx comple tes the sea rch for the express ion o f the diffe re nt ial
dy.
"9. The express ion dx itsel f is the differen tial of x, for let y;< x, then y' _ x + h, hence,
y' - y - "and, that means, Y- 1. Since Iheq uantity h does not e nter in to the second e lement

of th is equation, we see that for the trans ition to limit, it is eno ugh to change ~.
" mto ~
dx '

which w ill give 1; - 1 , hence, in our supposition,

dy-fix".
" 10. We s hall also fi nd, tha t th e diffe rential of ax is adx; but if we had y - ox + h, we would
a lso have got adx as the different ial, whe nce it fo llows, that the cons ta nt b (not accompany ing
the variable x) gives us no tcnu when differentiated, or, in other words has no differential a t all.
However, we may note, that if y _ b, then before us we have the case, where a is zero in the
equa tion y - ax + b and where, tha t is why, since ~- a is no~ reduced to ~- 0, the re is
neither a limit, nor a differe ntial " (p. 6).
Thus we see tha t in Boucharlal's book :
1) There is no definiti on e ither of the limit, or of the derivative and the differe ntial. All these
concepts a re only explained in the light of examples, and besides onl y such, th at the ra tio
[(x + h/~ - [(x) is represented in the form of a polynom ial , ordered according la the powers of
11, with coeffi cients in x . Herein, the search for tbe li mit o f this ratio when h - 0 is trea ted as
the assumption of Ir _ 0 in the polynomial obtained. The questions, as to whe the r there a re other
 I'RINQPU;S OF DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS ACCORDING TO OOUCUARLA T 329

instances, and whether it is possible to "differentiate" in those cases, and if possible, then how,
are not even mentioned here.

2) The transition from the derivative 1; .. qJ(X) to the differential dy .. qJ(X) d.x is considered

to be an illegitimate operation, carried out only with the aim Qf "facilitating" algebraic
calculations.
3) From
[(u ';~ - [(xL <p(x. h) • (A)

when "" 0, it is concluded that also when" .. 0 , i.e., when [(x + h/~ - [(xl loses its meaning

(turns into ~), the equality (A) retains its strength, Le., we must get

0o - cp(x. 0). (B)

In other words, it is held, that <p(x, 11) must be defined (a nd continuous) at It .. 0 and that the
equaltiy (B) logically follows from the equality (A) (though the expression ~ is devoid o f any
sense).
4) The equality of zero with the limit or the differenlial is evaluated as a tes timony to the
crfect, that "there is neither a limit, nor a differential", though at the same time dy and dx are
always zeroes (if qJ (x) .0, then the differential - equal to cp(x)·Q - exists; if qJ(x) _ 0, then
it does not). But, evidently, here the question, as to which of the zeroes are considered to be
"existing", and which are not. does not even arise.
It is not surprising, that Marx was not satisfied with such a mode of trea ting the basic
concepts of differential calculus. And in fact, even his first co nspectus o f the initial paragraphs
of Boucharlat's book (sce, PV, 153) contains critical remarks directed at its author. But what
Marx especially did not like, is the fact, that a basic concept of difrcrcntial calculus -" the
concept of difJerential - turned out to be unsubst.1 ntiated and its introd uction was justified
only by saying, that it "facilitates algebraic operations" (see, the manuscript "On the
Differential", p. 33) '
§ 11 of Boucharlat's book is devoted to the observa tion, that "sometimes the increment of
the variable happens to be nega tive; in that case it is necessary to substitute x by x - h and to
operate as earlier". Thereby in the example y _ - a.x3, it is obtained that dy _ - 3ax2clx, and the
following conclusion is drawn: "we sec, that it is reduced to the presupposition of a negative
dx in the differential of y, computed under the assumption o[ a positive increment" . But for
Boucharlat clx is Q. Howeve r, the question as to what does a "negative zero" mean did not dawn
on him. (In the manuals of that period the concept of "absolute magnitude" was no t present.)
Since the [ollowing three paragraphs 12-14 are especially characJeristic of Boucharlat's
book and s ince a number of places of Marx 's manuscripts arc related to them, here th~ir text is
being reproduced in [ull. .
42
330 APPENDIX

"12. Before proceeding farther,wc shall make an important observation, namely . that if in
a n equation, the second term of which is a fun ction of x a nd, that is why. whic h ma y be
represented by us in the ge neral form of y - f(x) , we supstitute x by x + 11 and. having then
ordered it acco rding to the powers of It, obtain the expa nsion
y' - A +Bh + Ch 2 + Dh3 + ctc., (C)
the n we must always have y _ A. In fa c t, if we put h - 0, then the second eleme nt is reduced to
A; as to the first clement, since wc marked y by a stroke only 10 indicate that y has undergone
a definite change, w hen x turned into x + If, it suits us to remo ve ,the stroke of y, when h w ill
be zero, and the equation (C) is then reduced to
y-A .
"13. This w ill give us the opportunity to generalise the procedure of differentia tion. In fact,
if in the equation y _ fx, in wh ich we ma y cons id er the expression represe nted throughfx to be
known, we substi tuted x + 11 for x and, having ordered it according to the powers of h, we
co ul d then obtain the foll owing expansion :
y' - A +Bh + Ch 2 +Dhl + etc.,
or, better still, if according to the previous paragraph [we obta ined].
y' .. y +Bh + CII2 + etc. ,
then we s hall have
y' - y -BII +Ch 2 + etc.,
whence,
, .
T-B+Ch + e tc.

and, in transition to the limit. ~ .. B. This teaches us, that the differential coeffi cient is equal
to the coefficient of the te rm. co ntain ing the fi rst power of It. in the ex pans io n of f(x + 11).
ordered according to the ascending powers of It. •
"14. If in stead of one fu nc tion y. c hanging its cond itio n due 10 the increment imparted by
the vadable x, which it contains, we have two fu nctions y and z of the same variable x and a re
able, in partic ular, to find out the differentials of each of these functions, then it will be easy to
deduce from there the differential of the product zy of these func tions. through the follow ing
proof. In fact, if we put x + h for x in y and in z, then we shall have two expansions, which,
having been ordered according 10 the powers of It. may be represented as :
y '_y +Ah+Bh2 +clc., (5)
z'_z+A'h+B'h2 +ctc., (6)
in trans ition to the limit, we shall find:
!!x . A dz_, (7)
A
dx 'dx ,
multipl ying the equations (5) and (6), each by the other, we sha ll get
 PR INOPU:S OF DIFFER ENTIAL CALCULUS ACCORDING TO OOUCIIARUT 331

ty' _ zy + AzlI + Bzfl2 + etc. +

+A 'yfl +AA 'h2 + etc. +
+ B 'yh2 + etc.,
whence
t'
y J~ZY -Az +A 'y + (Bz+AA ' + B'y)1I + etc.;
in transit ion to the limit and indicating which expression is to be differentiated by a point, we
s hall get
d·ro
't'-A z+A 'y;
putling in place of A and A ',their values given by equations (7) we shall have :
!!:!x_zdy+y dz
dx dx dx'
and, remov ing the common divisor dx,
d.zy _ zdy+ydz.
Thus to qbL.1 in the differential of the product of two variables, it is necessa ry only to multiply
each o f them by the differential of the other and to add these products".
In § IS this rule is used la find out the diffc:rential o f the product of three variables, in § 16
- for f'l btaining the differential of the quotient I.
z
In § 17 the differential of the power y _ x"'. for an integral and positive' m, is obtained from
the formula
d· xyztu etc. ' dx. !!l dz dt du (9)
- -+ + - + - + - + etc.
xyztu etc. x y z t u
by assuming that x, y, Z, t, u etc, are equal to x and L.1king their number to be m .
§ 18 contains a formulation of the rule for differentiating power.
In § 19 this rule is demonstrated for fra ctional and nega tive indices of power, through formal
operations with the signs of differentials (permitting reduction of the problem into instances
already conSidered).
In § 20 th e differential of power is obtained directly, with the help of the expans ion of
(x + 11)'", according to the binomial theorem of Newton.
In the third ed ition of Boucharlat's book, th e English translation of which was used by Marx,
there was a note (Note 2), the beginning of which figured under the titl e: "Considera tions,
demonstrating that the principles of differentiation are ba sed upon the bionomial theorem ",
Since this no te especially drew the attention of Marx, here we reproduce its text :
"W Ilh the exception of the differentials of circular fun ctions, which, as we saw, arc easily
found w ith the help of trigonometric formulae, all the other one· term differentials, like, for
exa mple, the differentials o f the functions x'", tr etc" were deduced from the binom ial theorem
332 AP I'ENDIX

alone. It is true, th at while definin g the constants A in the exponential formulas, we had recourse
to Mac Laurin's theorem, but we could have done without it".
Later on it has been show n, how, namely, this could have been done, with the help o f fo rmal
cal culations in vo lving infiniteserieses- but these ca lculations arc not atall subs tantiated ,from
the modern po.int of view. After that Boucha rla t concludes:
"Hence, it follows, that all the principles of differentia lion arc base~ upon the binomial
theorem alone; and since this theorem was demons trated w ith all poss ible strictness, in the
Eleme nts of Algebra , we may concl ude, that o ur princi ples rest upon a solid bas is".
Thus, it is clear, that Boucharlat held the point oCview of "algebraic" differe ntial calculus
of Lagrange, which he attempted to imp'rove, with the help of the concept oClimit. However,
his "improve ment" amou nted to this, that while Lagrange wanted to avoid us ing the still
uns ubs tanti ated concept of limit, and defined the derivative of Ix s imply as the coefficie nt of
the firs t power of It in the expansion
f (x +It) - f (x)+AIt+Blt2+Ch 3+ "', ( 1)
where A , 8, C, .... are funct ions in x, Boucharlat "divi ned " the same derivative ("di fferential
coefficient") through a tra ns ition to limit, consis ting only of the fa ct, that he assumed , that
h - 0 in the expans ion
1(" h) - [(x) - A + BII + Cl I' + '" (2)
h '
which he obtained purely formally from the expansion (1). Herein, Boucharlat did not give any
defin ition of the concept of "limit" or any interpreL'l lion of the latter. He confin ed himself to
the hints , that th e limit is the last value of the vari able indefinitely tending towards it (Le.,
without ha ving a last value). It is not surpris ing that such a de[in ition of the concept of limit
co uld not satis fy Marx.
 THEOREMS OF TAYLOR AND MACLAURIN AND LAGRANGE' S
THEORY OF ANALYTICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE SOURCES
CONSULTED BY MARX
1) These theore ms a nd L..1gra ngc 's theory o f analytica l fu nctions especia lly. dre w Marx 's
a tte nlio n. Quite a few of the mosl important ma nuscripts a rc devoted 10 them (see , ma nuscripts
4000, 4001, 4300, 430 1, 4302). For an understand ing of these manuscripts a nd , especially
for an unde rstanding of the criticism to which Marx has subjec ted th e proof of Tayloc's
theore m, as it was fo und in the manuals a t his disposa l, an acquainta nce with these proo fs
and with the corresponding ideas of Lagrangc, is a must. Ho wever, be fore we pass over to the m,
let us d well a little upon the his to ry of the theories of Taylo r a nd MacLa urin *.
Ta y lo r' s theo re m is co nta ined a s the 7 th pro pos itio n, in th e book : "Mcthodu s
incre menlo rum direcla et inversa", by the English mathe matic ia n Brook Taylor (1685·1731).
It was published in London, in the year 1715. Alread y in 1712, Taylo r in fo rmed his teacher
J . Macbin abo ut th is result in writing. Condo rcet was the firs t to call it "Taylo r's theorem"
in 1784, in his a rticle "Approx imatio ns", in the 1st vol ume of the French Encyclo paedia
(Encyc lopedic mc thodique). In 1786, Simo n Lhuilier a lso used this na me in the book
"Exposition e leme nLaire des principes des cal culs superieure", which rece ived a prize of the
Acade my of Sc ie nces of Berlin (the theme was proposed by the Academy fo r a competition) .
Since the n th is theorem entered into a ll the ma nuals of mathematical analys is and was never
called o therwise. Ho wever, now it is known tha t the Scottish mathematician Ja mes Grcgo ry
(1638- 1675) was in possession of it already in 1671/72".
Bo th Gregory a nd Tay lo r arrived at "Ta ylo r's theo rem", proceeding from the finite
di ffe re nces. While so doing, Taylor delibera tely set be fore himself the direct tas k, of
exa mining the highly co nfused account given by Newto n, of his interpo la tion fo rmula . He
obta ined his theo rem, by firs t assign ing a (finite) increment, other than zero, to the
independent variable, and then - after a number of trans fo rmations - by turning the la Iter
into zero, "by dividing it into an infinitely large numbe r of pa rts ". If we s ubstitute the
e xceptio nally cumbe rsome notatio ns of Taylo r by more modern ones, the n its proo f w ill look
like this.
Let y - I(x ), whe re x is a va riable, which c hanges, as he says, "uniforml y", i.e., by
s uccessively obtaining the values x, x +,6, x, x +2,1,x , ···. x + /lAX - x+h. And let the
co rrespo nding va lues of [(x) be y ( or Yo) . YI ' Y2 ' ... Y~. Let the s uccessive diffe rences
• Here Ihe following books serve u our sources : M. Canlor, Vorlesungen uber Geschichte de r MllIhema tik,
2nd ed., vol. lII , pp. 378-382; D. D. Morduhai-Bol lovsky, Kommenta rii k ~ Me t od u raz nosliei", i n the bk.:
iS8ac Newlon, Malematicheskie rabo ty, M.·L., 1937, pp. 394 ·396, M.Ya. Vygotlsky, Fs tupitclnoe slovo k
"Differenlsialnomu ischislcniu " L. Eu lera, in the bk.: L. Eulcr, Differentsialnoe isehislcnie, M.-L., 1949,
pp. 10-12; G. Vi leilncr, Is toriya matematiki 01 Dekarla do serediny XI X stolelia , M. , 1960, pp.
138-140; O. Becker und J.E. Horman n, Geschichtc der Mathemalik, Bonn, 1951, pp. 200-201, 21 9; G. G.
Tseiten, ISlorlya malcmatiki v XVI i XVII ve kah, M.-L. , 1938, pp. 4 12, 445; ' D. J. Struik, Kratkii ocherk
iSlori i malematiki, M., 1964, pp. 153·1 54. For a futl er treatment, see: M. Ca ntor 's book, pp. 378-382. - £d ..
• * Now we also know Ihat Newlon himsel f was in possession of the Ihcorcms ~of Taylor and MacLauri n". On
this see; Yu.shkf:lJ;chA .P., Mathematics and its History in Retrospective 11 Special Supplemenl to the preseol
volume, part three, firs l article. - Tr.
334 AI' I't;NI)IX

(d iffere nces of the First order) between YA + I and Yk (k - 0, 1, ·· ·," - 1) be l1y. l1y" ...•
AY,,_I ; the differences between these differences (differences o f the second order) :
4 2y . 6 1Yl ' "', 112y" -2 etc. For the sake of visua l cla rity let us write all this in the form of the
following circuit:
x x+ll.x x+2Ax x + 3l1x x+ nAx
y y, y, y, y"
Ay Ay, Ay, AY,,_L
A'y 111YI 6 ' Y,,_2
A'y 113Y,, _3

Then it is c lear, Ihat

1,-Y+ l:!y ;
Y2 - YI + .6.YI' l1y, - fly + 112y •
Yl - Y2 + 6Y2' I1Y2 - Ay, + ,6,2YI' .1.2y, _ 6,2y + 113y,
........... . ................ . ................................. ... ....... , .....
Hence we get further:
f(x+ Ax) - y, - y + Ay ,
f(x + Ux) - y, - (y + Ay) + (Ay + A'y) _ y + Uy + A'y,
f(x + 3Ax) - Y, - (y + Uy + A'y) + (Ay + A'y) + (Aly + A'y) - y + 3Ay + 3A2y + A'y,
................ . ................. . . . ................. . .......................
Havi ng noticed the general regularity, Taylor co nsequentl y concludes, that
n(n-1) ,,(n-l)(n - 2)
!(x+n6.x) - y+tl6.Y+t'26.2y+ 1.Z,36.ly+ "'+6. ny, (1)
and this is the interpolation formula of Newton (for interpolating through equal intervals).
Its resemblance with Newton's binomial theorem, above a ll the fact that the coefficie nts of
the expansion according to 6.y, 6. 2y,' ", 6."y are exactly the same, is quile evident.
Assuming n 6.x - h (in Taylor it is v, not 11). we shall have:
n" J!...
6.x •
n_ 1-" -6.x6. x • n _ 2 _" -62d .x x.....
'·
n _ (n _ 1) _ h - (n - 1) 6. x .
11. x
Putting these va lues of n, (n - 1), (n - 2), "', in formula (1) Taylor obta ined (in ou r
notations) :
I) I ~ h (h - A x) ~ h (h - A x)(h - U x) A'y
f( X +I -Y+I6.X + 1·2 llx2 + 1·2·3 6.xl + (2)
wherein he did not write out the last term
 ON '11 I!! lllOOREMS 01' TAY LOR AND MACLAURIN

"(" - 6X) (" - UX) - - - (" - (n - 1)6X) 6'Y

1·2 ... " t!.¥." .
Then he imagined h to be fixated, n actually infinitely large, and I:J. x to be an actual
infinitesimal ("zero"), thinking, that herein ~ turns inlo the first nuxion y (Eldx
d
according
6X
to Leibnitz), :~ - into the second Ouxion y (~ according to Lcibnitz) etc. Thereby
formul a (2) turned into
. 112 . III
f(x+") - Y +y" +Y- 1-2 + jI- - -+
1-2-3
Le., into Taylor 's series.
Thus, even after beginning with the finit e differences and only then "removing" them,
Tay tor s till operated entirely in the style of Newton and Leibnitz with the ac tual infinities,
actual infinites imals and the symbolic formulae of the ca lculus of nuxions, without
pondering upon whether these have any "real equivalent" or not, and of course, without
caring for the convergence of the series thus obtained (and besides, namely, for f(x + h) . Here
it should also be mentioned, that though Taylor was an ardent supporter of Newton in the
cQntroversy with Leibnitz, which is why he did not use the notations of the latter and no where
referred to him , it was not accidental, that still Euler enunciated his proof in the
Leibnitzian lan guage·. As has been observed by O. O. Morduhai-Boltovsky , in essence,
fa ylor approached the Newtonian nuxions from the Lcibnitzian, and not the Newtonian
side, namely, from the finite differences (see, the "Kommentarii" mentioned above, p. 396).
Regarding the history of MacLaurin's theorem, it should be noted, first of all, that it is
already there in Taylor, in the form of a particular instance of his theorem, when x - O. It is
true, tha t in contrast to MacLa urin, who obtained the expansions for a~, sin.:!., cos.:!. already
a a
known at that time , more simply with the help of this theo re m, Taylor nowhere uses
"MacLaurin's series".
Furthe r, in con nection with the manuscripts of Marx, who specially observed , that he
borrowed the "a lgebraic expansion" directly from MacLaurin himself, it should be mentioned,
that the demonstration of MacLaurin's theorem given in the text-books of Boucharlat and
Hind (through the method of indeterminate coefficients), in fact belonged to MacLaurin
himself. Suc h a direct borrowing from the author, whose name the theorem carries, could of
course have taken place, also in ' he case ofTaylor's theorem. The bibliographical list, which
Marx composed in connection with his preparatory s tudies for the his torical essay, is to all
appearance, a testimony to the effect, that Marx int" nded to get acquainted with Taylor's work
in the origina l ; but this wish o f his remained unfulfilled.
2) In acco rda nce with the orde r in which Marx criticises the de monstration of Taylor's
theorem in manuscript 4302, we shall begin with Boucharlat's book (J .-L. Boucha rla t, Ele mens
• Euler demonstrated Taylor's ·theorem as per Taylor as well . See, L. Eul er, DiITerential calculus, ch. lIT
("On finding out the finite dirrerences"). §§ 44·48, pp. 240·241. - Ed.
336 APPENDIX

de calcul differentiel, 5th cd., Paris, 1838; Marx had an English translation of another edition
of it).
Having enunciated in § 30 (pp. 19-20) the question of successive differentials - where,
incidentally, having obtained 6a as Ihe third derivative ofaxl , he observes (p. 20): "Here we
can no more differentiate, as 6a is a constant n - Boucharlat goes over 10 MacLaurin's
theorem (§ 31, pp. 20-21). In his book the demonstration of MacLa urin's tbeorem precedes
that of Taylor's theorem (the laller is demonstrated in §§ 55-57, pp. 34-37). As has already
been observed, Boucharlat demonstrated MacLaurin's theorem according to MacLaurin
himself. However, he did not read latter's work. In fa c t, in the note to the title "MacLaurin's
theorem n, Boucharlal wrote: nAs Peacock has observed, this theorem was a lready discovered
by Stirling in 1717 and hence, before MacLaurin made use of itn, and as has already been
mentioned, MacLaurin fully acknowledged, that the theorem was already there in Taylor. In
Boucharlat's demonstration, no where are the questions of legitimacy of his assumptions, not
to speak of
those aboullhe convergence of the se rieses under consideration, raised in any
way. Here we are giving an almost word for word translation of Boucharlat's demonstration
of MacLaurin's theorem.
"Let y ~e a function of x; let us expand it in respect o f x and suppose that
y-A +BX+CX2+Dxl+Ex4+ etc.; (16)
we shall get, by differenliating and dividing by dx:

~-B+2CX+3DX2+4Ex3+ elc.,

!!l.
dx' -
2C + 2·3D x + 3·4£ X2 + etc.,

!!l.
dx 3--
2·3D + 2·3·4£ x + etc.

......................................................... , ........ " ...... ... .

We shall designate by (y) thaI, which turns into y, when x - 0,

by (¥X}hat, which turns into ~, when x - 0,

by (~) that, which turns into ~ ,when x- 0;

..... . . .. .... , . . . ............ , ......... . . . .............................. . . . .. .
the preceding equations will give us

(y) -A, (!;) -B, (~) - 2C, (~) - BD;

whence we shall extract

(!il') _. (!!l.)
A _(Y),B- dx 'C- 21 dx' ' D - 2-3
1 dx' ; (!!l.)
substituting th ese values in equation (16), we sha ll have
 ON lliE TIiEOREMS OF TA YLOR AND MACLAURIN )J7

y _ (y) + (5Y.)
dx
X +! (!!5!.) X' + _I (!!5!.) X' + ....
2 (/X, 2-3 (/xl '
(17)

and this is MacLaurin's formula".

In the following §§ 32-34 (pp. 21-23), in accordance with MacLaurin's formula,
expansions are found for

y• .-!...-.,
o+x
y _-./a2 +hx . y - (a +xr.
Thus, in the third example, the binomial theorem is deduced from MacLaurin's theorem.
In the first appendix of the 5th edition of Boucharlat's book, which we have, entitled
"Demonstration of Newton 's formula with the help of differential calculus", a direct proof
(by the same method of indeterminate coefficients) of Newton's binomial theorem (for integral
.and positive indices of power) has been given, with the help of successive differentiation.
It reads as under.
Boucharlat begins with the expansion of {l + zr,
then from it he obtains the expansion of
(a + xr, necessary Cor him, by SUb~tituting z _.!. He said, let
. 0

(1 +zr-A +Bz+Cz2+Dz3+Er+ ... (I)

Assuming z - 0 , he gets A-I and, hence,
{1 +z)"' .. 1 + Bz+ CZ2 +DZl +Ez4 + ...
Differentiating both the sides of this equation in respect of z, he gets further
m (1 + Z)",-l. B + 2Cz + 3Dz2+ 4Ez3 etc. +
Referring to the fact, that this equation occurs for any Z, Boucharlat assumes that z - 0 and
thus obtains m-B. Differentiating once more and again assuming z - 0 ,he obtains
m(m-I)-2C,
whence
c_m(m-I)
2 '
and after that he concludes : "All the remaining coefficients are so defined, and by substituting
their values in equation (1), this equation is turned into
m (m -I)
m (m -I)(m - 2)
(1+z)"'-1+mz+ . z2 + 1.i.jzl+ etc." (pp. 491-492).
12
3) Boucharlat also proved Taylor's theorem by the method of indeterminate coefficients.
Therein he not only aSSumed, that every function' of some variable may be expanded into a
series, according to the powers of any of these variables, but also thought, that this expansion
must be unique, i.e., the coefficients of any two such expansions (in respect of the powers
of one and the same variable) must be equal. This will give him the opportunity of applying
the method of indeterminate coefficients.
In order to get such an opportunity, i.e., of being able to equate the coefficients of two
expansions of one and the same function, Boucharlat begins with a lemma, stating that the

43
33. APPENDIX

derivatives of f(x + 11) in respect of x, and in respect of h, 3rc equal. Since in manuscript
4302 (see, p. 287) Marx expressed dissatisfactio n w ith the demonstration of this lemma in
Boucharlat's book, and since pp. 41-42 (see, note 117) of manuscripl3888 cannot even be
understood without an acquaintance with Ihis demonstration, here wc reproduce it in full.
§§ SS (pp. 34-35) is devoted to it. wherein we read:
"If in a function y of x • the variable x changes into x +" .
then wc get onc and the same
differential, both wheri x is a variable, and" - a constant, and when If is a variable, and x -
a constant.
If to prove Ihis, in the equation y - Ix wc substitute x +" -
XI· for X, wc shall have

Yl - Ix l ; the differentia l of f XI will be equal 10 some other function of Xl' represented by CflXt
and multiplied by dx, hence, dYI - CPXI (/xl or, if we subs titute for Xl' its value x + h,
dy, - 'I' (X+ h) d (X+ h).
But the only change, which fhe hypothesis, thatx is a variable and h is a constant, introduces
into this differentia l, is related only to the factor d (x + Ir), which is reduced to dx, when x is a
variable, and h - a constant; hence, in that case we have
dy, - 'I' (x + h) dx •
whence
dy, (35)
dx -'I'(x+ h) .
Conversely, if we make x a constant, and h a variable, then the factor is reduced to .dll, and
we shall have
dY I - III (x + 11) dh ,
that is,
dy, (36)
dh -'I'(x+h);
equating these two values of cp (x + h) , we shall get
dYt dYl"
dx - dh .
In the following § 56 Boucharlat extended this lemma to the derivatives of higher
orders and, in § 57 demonstrated Taylor's theorem with its help. The words with which
he begins Ihis "demonstration", speak of what be thought to be - as Marx calls it - his
"initia l equation" (37), applicable to any function. He begins : "Lety be a fUnction of x + Ir ;
let us assume, that when we expand this function according to the powers of h, we shall have
Yl - Y + All + 2BII2 + 3ell) + etc., (37)
where A, B, C, ... are unknown functions of x, whic h arc to be dclcrmined M •
Differentiating equation (37) in respect of la and in respect of x and baving thus o btained

• Though Boucharlat used the Lagrangian notations for the derived functions, he designated the augmented
values ofx andy (Le., (x + h), andf(x + h» by x' , /. We have changed these notations intoL, and y,. - 'Ed.
 ON 11iE 11lEOREMS OF TA YLOR AND MACLAURIN '39
dy,
dlt -A + 'lE1t + 3Clt 2 + etc.,

dy, dy dA dB
d:c - dx + dx 11 + d:c h2 etc.,
Boucharlat then equated, referring to the lemma , Ihe coefficients of the same powers of It
in the last two equations and thus obtained the expressions for the coefficients A, B, C, ... ,
required by him, through y and its successive derivatives. Marx gave an account of this
demonstration in manuscript 3888 (sheets 54-55, pp. 50-51 in Mane's numeration), where he
compared it with the aforementioned proof of MacLaurin's theorem. In manuscript 4302 he
criticised this demonstration, mainly for its unsubstantiated initial assumptions.
The §§ 58-61 (of Bourcharlat's book) contain examples of expansions of [(x + 11) according
to Tay lor's formula, for the instances, where [(x) is Vi, sinx, cosx, logx. The question of
convergence of the se rieses obtained, is not even mentioned anywhere. The cases of
inapplicability of Taylor's series, have been considered only in the last paragraphs, printed in
brevier, of the first part of the book (devoted to the differential calculus).
The final § 62 of the section on Taylor's theorem and its applications, is devoted to
a deduction of MacL3urin's theorem from TayJor's theorem . A full account of tbis deduction
has been given by Marx in manuscript 3888 (see, sheets 55-56; pp. 51-52 in Marx's
numeration).
NOTES
AND
INDEXES
 NOTES
1 This manuscript was completed by Marx in 1881, fo r Engcls. This is the first work in
the cycle of manuscripts planned by Marx, devoted to a systematic account of his
ideas on the nature and history of differential ca lculus. In this article he introduced his
concept of algebraic differentiation and the corresponding algorithm for finding o ul
the derivative for certain classes of functions. The envelope. attached to this
manuscript,carries the heading in Marx's hand: "For the General". That is how Engcls
was called by the Marx family. for his a rticles on military affa irs.
Upon getting acquainted with this manuscript, Engels wrote to Mane his Icuer dated
the 18th of August 1881 (sec, K. Marx and F.Engeis,works ,voI.35 ,pp.16-18)
[and, special supplement to the present volume, partone,letters (excerpts). fifth le tter
- Tr.J. The present text follows the fair copy made by Marx. Some of the
materials preparatory to it (drafts and supplements),are being published in p.248
of the present volume. Variations in the text,along with the ir unpublished
rough drafts have been indicated in the foolnotes.A part of this manuscript
was at first published in 1933, in Russian Lranslalion,in the co llection
"Marksizm i estestvoznanie" [Marxism find Natural Science), M .. Partyzdat,
1933,pp. 5-11,and in the journal "Pod Znamenem Marksizma" [Under the
Banner of Marxism),No.l,l?33,p.15ff.
The German (origina l) has been published for the first time in the 1968 edition. - Tr.
2 In order to avoid confusion over the notations of derivatives, here and everywhere
afterwards in analogous situations,Marx's notatio ns x' , y', ... for the new values
of variables. have been substituted by XI' YI' ...

The sources used by Marx,did not as yet have the concept of absolute value.That is
why Mane often (apparently,for the sake of determinateness) considered o nl y the
increase in the value of the variable,but somet~mes(see,for example, PV, 88, 274 ) he
also spoke of an Mincrease of x "by the positive or negative increment h ".
H

3 In keeping with the terminology adopted in the sou rces used by Marx,by finite
difference,is meant, always, a difference o ther than zero.
4 In every equality Marx distinguishes two sides (now called: two parts) - the left
and the right, which do not always play a symmetrical role in his writings.
On the left hand side of a~ equaJily he often places two different,but synonymous
expressions, joining them by the connective l'or".
5 In the mathematical literature at Marx's disposal,the term "limit" (of a function)did
not have an univocal meaning. Most often it was understood as the va lue of a
function,actuallyauained by it at the end of an infinite process of approximation
of the argument to its limiting value (see,Appcndix,pp. 303·305). Marx's manuscript
devoted to a criticism of these s hortcomings, ent itled On the lIoll-ullivocality of the
342 NOTfS

terms "limit" and "limiting value", has come down to us only in the form of a roug h
draft (see,pp. 96-98 ).
In the present manuscript, Marx has used the term "limit" in a special sense: as an
expressio n,rede fini ng those values of the argument, in w hich it is not de fin ed. Fo r Marx,
such expressions,in need o f redefin ition,were the ratios ~~ (when tJ. x =0, tmning into
%) a nd ~, interpre ted as the sy mbolic express ion for the ratio of "re moved,or

extinct,diffe rences", i.e., fo r *. In applica tion to the ra tio ~, M arx

tu
"limit" - in so me connection w ith the de finitio ns of this concept in Hind and
unde rstood

*.
Lacroix (sec,Appcndi x,pp. 303-305) - as an exp ression identicall y equal 10 this
ratio,when I1 x i" 0, but redefining it at continuity,whe n it turns into Hence ,he re
the "limit" had to be the "prelimin ary deriva tive" (on this sce, p. 20~21 and note 1).In
accordance with this Marx writes (on p.21) (rega rdin g the ratio t; , w here
y_ax 3 +bx z +cx_e ) :
" The preliminary "deriva tive" a (x,'2+ XIX + X '2) + b (XI + x) + c is he re the limit of the
ratio of finite differences,i.e., however small we may take· these di ffe rences to be,the
value of ~ w ill be give n by tltis "derivative" ". Lowe r down (sce,p. 21-22) Marx
Ax
spea ks abo ut the fact, tltat the assumption XI - x, i.e., 6. X _ O,"la kes this limit to its
minim al value ",wh ich gives the "fin a l derivative".
Analogously, by the "lim it of a ratio of differentials", in th is ma nuscript Marx
understands the "real "("a lgebraic",see: no te 6) expressio n,giving the va lue of this
ra tio, in o ther words,the derived fun ction. However, e lsewhere Marx writes,tha t in
Ihe equa tion !; .. f'(x) " neither of the two sides, is the limiting value o f the
o ther.They are situa ted, no t in a limiting relation 'to each other,b ut in an equivalence
relation "(sce, p. 98 ). But here the concept of "limit"("limiting va lue") has been used
in ano the r sense: it is closer to the concept,w ith w hich we a re now accustomed.
In a sense,even more close to the modern concept of limit,Ma rx u se~ the te rm
"absolutely minimal express io n "(see, p. 97); abo ut which elsewhere (see, pp . 6 1-62)
he wrote,that the category of limit,in the sense which Lacroix impa rted to it and in
w hich it has an important s ig nifi ca nce fo r mathema tica l analysis, is a substitute fo r
it (for Lacroix 's definitio n see, Appendi x, pp. 309-3012 ).
6 By "a lgebra ic" Marx unde rstood any exp ress ion, not conta ining the symbols of the
derivatives and the dirrerentialS.S uch an use of the term "algebraic express io n", was
characteristic of the mathematical literature of ea rl y 19th century.
 343

Marx often made a distinction between the concepts: "func tion of x" an(j "fu nction
in x", Le., between a function as a correspondence and a fu nc tion as an ana lytical
expressio n (see,p. 269). In the present manuscript he did not stric tly adhere to this
dis tinction, a nd after:- spoke s imply of the "fun ctio n x", perhaps, beca use he
always had in view only the functions, given by some "a lgebraic exp ression". He
indicated the correspondence, the value of the dependent variab le y in respec t of the
va lue of the independent variable x, with the he lp of the equation y - [(x),where
y is th e dependent variable, and I(x) is the analytical express ion . cons idered in respect
of the appearcnce of the va riable x in it.
7 The essence of Marx 's method of algeb raic differentiation consists of this: he
redefines the ratio

f(x,)-f (x)
(1)

of the finite differences (having a mean ing onl y when XI" x) a l continuity for
Xl - x. With this aim in view he seeks the fun ction <p(x l , x), Whic h coincides with
the ratio (1). when Xl" x . and. which is continuous when Xl - x.
S~c h a function <p(x l , x) Marx calls: the preliminary derived function o[ the [un ction
[(x ), and he ca lls the fun ct ion <p(x, x),otitaincd from qJ(x l , x) by. assum ing XI - x:
tile deriva tive o[ the [unction [ (x). If the latter ex ists (whic h is the case for the class of
func tions here considered ), then it coincides with the modern concept of the
derivative :

Urn I(x" - I(x) _ f'(x).

;',_;' Xj-X

At the sa me time Marx was aware of those functi ons for whic h the o peration of
different ia tion was not defined (sec, PV, 93-94 ).
8 Here Marx reproduced a formal expansion of a function into a series,keeping aside the
questions of co nvergence of the series obtained and of coinc ide nce of the values of
the fun ct ion w ith the limi ts of partia l summalions.This was characteris tic of the
ma thema tica l books at his disposal.
9 :. - a symbol,that has been s ubstitu ted by the word "hencc ",in written proofs.Now
Ihis symbol is not in use.
10 The tex t of the entry entitled: "Additionally",consists of the contents of a separate sheet
appended to the manuscript.It has its own independent page numbers: 1 and (on the
other s id e) 2.
11 To a ll appearence, by fi nite difference equ3 lion,Marx implies an express ion of the form
[(XI) - [(x) _ (XI - x) cp(x j • x). See, note 7.
,« NOTES

12 Here S.Moore wrote in pencil : "That is not the case, these fa ctors are XI -x - 1.
Xl -x- 2 etc,", Apparenlly,hcrc Marx did not mean the fa ctor (XI-X), but the
expression (Xl - x) and wanted to say, that the turning into zero of the difference
XI - x, reta ined in the expression of the preliminary d c ri vativ~,docs not rob the latter of

its meaning.
13 This manuscript also belongs to 1881.The envelope attac hed 10 Ihis manuscript carries
the heading: "11 . For Fred ". Marx called it the "second instalment" (scc,p. 39). In it
he continued to give an account of his conclus ions, at which he arrived in the process
of his mathematica l studies . Engles showed this manuscript to S. Moo re and sent latter's
comments to Marx with his own letter dated the 21st of November 1882 (see, Works,
vo1.35, pp . 92-93 ; and specia l s upple ment to the present volum e, part one, letters
(excerpts), sixth leuer - Tr.).
Th is manuscript "On the Differential" was published for the first time, in part, in
Russian,in 1933: in the collection "Marxism and Na tu ra l Scie nce", pp.16-25, and in
the journal "U nder the Banner of Marxism", 1933,No. 1.
14 Thus, he re Marx assumes, th ~ t the func tions u and z arc given by, as it will be clear
from what follows, the equations u _ f(x) and z = <p(x), where f(x) and q>(x) arc
expressions" in the variable x ". They are dif(erentiable functions of x. This situation,
where for the justification o f the theorem about the differe ntial of the produ<!t of two
no other information is required about the form o f th e functions f(x) and <p(x) apart
from this, find s its refl ection in Marx's picturesque exp ress ions about ~:,: as
"shadows without the bodies which have cast them, symbolic differential
coefficients without rea l differential coefficie nts. i,e., without the corresponding
equivalent "deriva tives"" (see,p. 30). Ma rx also speciall y stipul ated them in the drafts
of his work on the differential .He re,as well as everywhere later o n,Marx's brief
notation dllZ, has been substituted by the nota tion d(llz).
15 That is from the symbolic express ions s p~ci fic to the differential ca lculus : the
signs of derivatives and dif rentials.
16 In the literature of the- 18th-19th centuries, the derivative was o fte n call ed the
"differen tial coefficient ", having,evidently, in view the definition of the derivative as
the coefficient of first power of the increment h of thc independent va riab le x in the
expansion of f(x + h) into a se ries according to the powers of 11.
The adjective "real " i~ associated with the fact,that in the expression for f'(x) there
are no sy mbols specific to the differential c:a1culus.
17 The mode of expression,according to which,as a result of multiplication by zero "the
variables z and u themselves become equal to zero" , is explained by the fac t,that even
during Ma rx ·s time, the . representation of mathematical operations over numbers
 NOTES ,45
as something w hich c hanges those very numbers, was wide spread: addition of the
positive number b to a "increases the number a", multiplica tio n of a by 0 "turns the
number a into zero" e tc.On ly in the 20th centu rY, these representa tions were
subjected to [greater] scientific specification.
18 Apparently the words ftas we can arbitra ri ly start the nullification either from tbe
numerator o r fro m the denominator ",signify that the redefiniti o n of an expressio n of
the form ~f~I, whic h a t x .. 0 turns into ~ and that is w hy loses mean ing,may be carried
out differentl y for x .. O. If,while redefining, we wish to retain that property of the
ordinary fraction according to which,when the numera to r is equa l to zero,i t is itself
equal to zero,the n the value Of~ must be O. 1n that case "to start nullification fro~
the denominato r " also means: la posit ~~:~ as equal to zero.I n so for as a fra c tio n with
o as its
denomina to r does not exist, "to start nullification from Ihe denominator" ca n
no more mean: to retain,while redefining,some property of the ord inary fraction with
o as its de nomina to r. But if,whe n x III a, ~~~~ .. q:J(x) and tp(x) is continuo us a t tbe

t~ posit ~:~
,-.
point a (Le., Lim <p(x) - t:p(a», then it is natural as equal t9 q:J(a), hav ing

thus retained,a lso for x .. a, the equality ~~~~ .. <p(x) . If due to this the numerator
turns in to zero, as a resu lt of the fact, that the denominator was made equal to
zero,then the words "to start null ification from the denominator" may na turally be
interpreted as s ig nifying: to redefi ne in the afo rementio ned ma nner, Le. , "by the
. continuous approach ". In the books used by Marx ,even in Lacroix's big "Trea tise",
retentio n of the equality ~ .. W(a) for /(0) _ g(a) _ 0 was considered, in general, to
be independent of a ny "arbitrariness" whatsoever: it was an inevitabl e co nsequence
of the metaphys ica l law of continuity "of all that is real",
19 Here is a slip of pen in the text: instead of x .. a, here he wrote x2 .. a2• Apparently.
instead of co rrecting it, Moore made the follow ing insertion in pe nc il : .. and si nce
x2 _ a2 ,x .. ± a, [tha t is w hy P(x + a) ] .. 2Pa o r 0 ". However, such a n interpretation
does not fit into the entire context.

20 H ere M arx ca I1s t he .!!Y.

express ion dx' 0 b·
talOed · th e tranSlhon
m .. f rom the f··t
1nl e

differences to th e d e rivative, tile symbolic differential expression for

. [(X\ )-[(X))
correspondmg to .
( x1 - x

44
346 NOTES

21 To all appca rcnce,what is being discussed here is the case,when the cho ice of the
independent variab le is not so fixed, that any onc of the variables u and z may be
tnken as the ind ependent variable. In general,if u and z may be viewed as function s
formed from onc and the same independent variable, then the choice of the value of
onc from u, z determines the value of the independent variable, nnd that is, also the
value of the othe r.In other words,here we have in view the invariance of the
symbolic operational equation obtained,in respect of the choice of the independent
va riable.
22 Apparently the words "to you", in the phrase "known to you" (rct.1ined in the draft)
were dropped while copying.ll may be assumcd,lhat here the French mathematician
L.B. Francoeur is being referred to. Engcls wrote to Man, about him in his letter dated
the 30th of May 1864 (see,Works,Eng. cd.voI.41,p.532).
The word "elegant" within quotation marks is related to Engels ' comment : "some one
very elegant" - and expresses Engels' ironical attitude 10 the person being referred
to. Like Boucharlat, Francoeur too - but somewhat differently - tried to connect
Lagrange's "algebraic" method (see,p. 33) with Lcibnitz's differential calculus, which
operated with the symbols for the differential.Marx's ironical "clearly" refers to the
way this was done,by Boucharlat, as well as by Francoeur.The first one did it to
"facilita tc algebraic operations" (sec,the next paragraph of the Lcxt),by deliberately
introducing a y..'rong formula; the second person asserted, that the differential to is a
sy nonym for the derivativc and diffcrs from it on ly in notation", and accordingly wrote
there itself,that "the derivative of x is x' - 1, or dx - 1" (sec, L.B.Ft:ancoeur, vol n,
p.253).
23 The text within quotation marks is a translation from the 5th edition of 1838,of
J .-LBoucbarlat 's book, pA.
24 Evidently by the expression "reduced to its absolute minimum ", what is meant here
is: the redefinition of the said ratio by the cont inuous approach,when Xl - X, i.e., in
essence,the transition to limit when Xl - X •
25 See, Appendix, "On Lconhard Euler's Calculus of Zeros".
26 Here Marx is making a disti nction between the differential particlcs dx and dy
appearing as the "sublated " differences .1. x and .1.y, and the differential dy, defined
by the equality

dy - ['(x)dx . (1)
The lattcr may be treated as an operationa l symbol permitting the derivative f'(x) to
be found ou t,in accordance with the differentials dy and dx already found, in
transition to the equality

~- [,(x), (2)
 NOTES '47
equ iva lent 10 (1) (scc,note 24).
27 Ma rx's argument against treating the inversion of method,as orig inating a lready in
the "algebraic" differentiation of the simplest functions o f first power,consislS of the
following: 1) the step of assumi ng XI _ x is unnecessary,as here the preliminary
derivative already coincides with the fina l onc, i.e., the specificity of the "a lgebraic"
method of differentiation is not revealed; 2) a n extens ion of the observations
regarding the differentiation of the functions of the first power on to the general
instance cou ld lead to the clearly false conclus ion, that all the derivatives of higher
orders, starting with the second, must be equa l to 7..ero.

28 That is, if we co ns ider ~ as a ratio o f infinitcsimals,as it was done by Leibnitz and

Newton.
29 Tha t is,if the derivative ofy in respect of x is to be found,considering y as a function
of x, jointly given by the equations:
1) y .. 3u 2 • 2) u .. x l +ax 2 •
30 Here Marx assu mes, that the right to operate with the differentials,in the manner
of operating w ith the ordinary fractions, has already been established (see,pp.32-33,
and also Appendix,pp. 327-328).
31 Here, in the manuscript Moore made the following remark in pencil: "O n p. 12(5)
this is proved for the concrete case there investigated. S hould it no t have been proved
also for the general case, and should not its validity be assumed 1" This remark is
based on a m isunderstanding. The "developments observed in concrete functions"
consisted of the fact, that as a result of their differentiation the symbolic expressions

of the form ~ and ~ , were obtained.Since Marx had already assumed the right to

operate with such expressions,in the manner of operating with ord inary fractions,it

was natural [fo r him] to observe in conclusio n,that

t!x.
du
du t!x.
dx - dx·

32 Marx did not w rite Ihis section Ill , apparen tl y, because he could not actualise his
intention of look ing up J.Landen's book in the British Museum (see,Appendix,p.320)
33 Unde r this title ,three drafts o f the different sections of the work "On the Differential-
and a few drafts of the additions to it,have been jo ined together. For g reater details sec,
PV, 241, 244, 251, 252.
34 This draft has been taken from the notebooks,to which Marx gave the titles "A.I"
and "B (continuation of A).Il"(see,PV,241,244). It begins on the last page of the
note-book "A.I. fl(not numbered by Marx) and is spread over different places in the
'48 NOTES

note-book "B"(which Marx indicated by special marks). A part of Ihis draft was
published for the first time in 1933, in Russian (sce,"Pod Znamencm Marksizma", No.
l ,as well as "Marksizm i eSlcstvoznanic", pp.34-43).
35 Marx everywhere calls an expression containing the symbols dx. dy etc.,which are
specific to the differential calculus - sy mbolic (as dis tinct from the algebraic, see
note 6). He calls an expression of the same function, not containing the said
symbols - real.
36 Here those sy mbolic expressions arc called operational formulas of the difrercnlial
calculus, which indicate (sce, in the text below): which operations are to be carried out
upon definite functions, for obtaining the real value of this or that derivative.
37 Here no te-book "A.I" comes to an end. At the end of this page,it is written in Marx's
hand: "see,further note-book II,p.9".It refers to the note-book "8 (continuation of A)".
38 On the character of this sort of rederinition by the continuous approach and about the
possibility of other rederinitions, sa tisfy ing this or that demand, ~ee note la, as well as
the Appendix, pp. 304-305 .
39 That is , when we go over from the region of ordinary algebra to that of the functions
(dependent variables). for which the ratio

f(x,) ~'j(x)
,

turning into the indeterminate form ~ when Xl = X, is to be redefined.

40 Usually Marx calls the expressions, not containing the symbols specific to the
differential calculus _ "a lgebraic" (see,note 6) or "real" (see,note 2).
41 Manuscripts of the second and third drafts are available only in rough copies. They
contain many cancellations and insertions. The first four pages of the second draft
are missing (that is why we begin it with a dotted line).
With certain cuts,these two drafts were published for the first time in 1933,in Russ ian
("Pod ~namenem Marksizma", No. 1, and also "Marksizm i estestvoznanie",pp.26-34).
Sce, "Preliminary drafts and variants of the manuscript on the differential", point
a), p. 250.
42 This entire paragraph (starting from the words "if the variables grow") is Marx's
translation,into German, of the corresponding place of Hind's book (sce, T.Hind, 2nd
ed.,Cambridge, 1831, p.l08). Here the second draft comes to an end.
 NOTES 349

After this paragraph Marx left about half· a page blank ; apparen tl y, not finding
the essential informations in Hind ,hc sctlls idc his intended investiga tion, evidently,
having decided to return to Hlater on.
The materials abo ut the differentia tion of prod uct by Leibnitz's and Lagrangc's
methods were available in the text·books by Hind and Boucharlat (sce, Appendix,
pp.329-330). However, these text-books did not throw any light upon Newton 's method.
43 Th is quotation is from BoucharJat's book (sce, the 7th ed. of his book, Paris, 1858,pp. 3·4).
44 Here Marx reso rted to a somewhat different numera tion of the sections of his work. ft
differs from what he did earlier. .
He wanted to place in section Ill , the materia l that was placed in section 11 of the
second draft.In section IV, he wanted to throw ligh t upon thc histo rica l course of the
development of differential calculus with the hclp of the example of the his tory of the
theorem of differential of a product.
45 In con nection with th is paragraph see: note j ; the Appendix ~ On the concep t of "lim it"
in the sources co nsulted by Marx", pp. 309·310 (where informations have been
prov ided to the effect,that in Boncharlat 's book both the sides of the equality

1; - ['(x) were treated as limits); pp. 310-312 (where the concept o f limit has been
discussed according to t~e big "Treatise" of Lacroix and Marx's wo rds in the
present paragraph about this concep t ha ve been referred to ). ft is still no t c1ear,what
Marx had in view,when hc trea ted the symbolic expression as the limit of
f'(x).(Perhaps he had only that s ituation in view,where the derivative is obtai ned by

assuming XI - x. Le., when the numerator and the denominator of the ratio :~
attained their limiting values "zero", and that is why the expression f'(x) had to

co rrespond not to &.

Ax
but to
d
Eldx .) About Marx's reference to Lagrangc's

relation to Newton's understanding o f the concept of lim it, sce there, pp. 311-312.
46 Marx intended to make so me additions to the manuscr ipt "On the Differentia l". Four
drafts of these have been preserved (for the details see,PV, 252-259, w here a number
of fragments from these drafts,have been reproduced).These dra ft are incomplete in
nature; and here we reproduce only two relatively unbroken (and comprehensible)
fragments out of these.
47 Marx gave this heading to section A) of the second draft of his supplements to the
manuscript " On the Differential ". Here only its point 1) is being pub.lished. It contains
a brief resume of his principal work on the differential. The important addition
350 NOTes

here is the reference to the geometric application of the operational formulae. For the
details see, PV, 252.
48 This is § A) of the third draft . The title belongs to Marx.Here on ly its point 3) is
being published . In it Marx gives an account of an example of the applica tion of the
theorem about the differential of a product, as an operational formula for seeking the
differential of a quotient ( in his characterist ic litera ry manner).
49 Marx finis hed his manuscript "On the Diffe rential " with a promise to w rite a spccial
section, devoted to the historica l course of development of the differential calculus.
In the drafts, preceding this letter, he expressed an intention to throw some light upon
thc history of differentia l calcu lus through the example of the history of the theorem on
the differential of product. To all appcarence, none of th ese intentions was actua lised
in fu ll. On ly som~ rough drafts, conta in ed in the note-book "8 (contin uation of A)" have
been preserved. Th ere they alternate with the ca lculations ca rried out by Ma rx in
connection with his work on the differential.
In accordance with Marx's initial in tensions, these drafts begin w ith a discussion of
the methods of Newton and Leibnitz, in the light of the exa mpl e of the theorem on
the differential o f a product. Then follows on ly thc begin ning of the unfinished section
devoted to d'Alembert's method.Later on Marx went over to a more detailed
discussion and criticism of the methods of Newton and Leibnitz, in general. This leads
him to a general periodisation of the history of differential calculus.
It is divided into there periods: 1) the mys tical differentia l ca lcu lus of Newton and
Le ibnitz, 2) the rational differe ntial calculus of d' Alembert and , 3) the purely
algebraic differentia l calculus of Lagrange.The second pa rt of th e preserved drafts of
the essay on the history of differential ca lculus, cons ists of a discussion of the
characteristics of this third period. Appa ren tl y, Marx wa nted to develop th is part as the
third lelter to Engels. The concl uding part of these drafts of historicaJ character, is
devoted to a more det.1i1ed account of th e genera l ideas conta ined in the first
part. Save some o mitted paragraphs, thesc are contentwise related to the work
"O n the Differcntial"; these drafts arc being pub lished here in full.
50 In a number of cascs th is bibliographical list, co ntains references to those places
o f the quoted source, in which the bas ic concepts and methods have been discussed.
The text-books at Marx 's disposal do not conta in these references. That is why it may
be assumed, that these places were picked out by Marx, after he went through them in
the corresponding wotks (eviden tly, in the British Museum). The fa ct that Marx put the
name of John Landen within a box,ind icates that he specially wanted to get
acquainted with J .Landen 's "The Resid ual Anal ysis". For the details sec, Appendix,
pp. 320-325. It is not known, from where Marx collected the years of birth and
death, mentioned in the list .On ly this much is clear,that this source was silent abou t
Lagrangc's year of dcath.
 NOTES 351

51 In the scholia (0 lemma XI of the first book of "Principia Mathematica" and in lemma
11 of its second book, Newton explained the bas ic concepts of differential calculus,
correspond ing to our concepts of the "derivative" and the "differential".
For the deta ils of these lemmas of Newton, sec: Appendix, pp . 312·314:
52 For Marx's conspectus o f this wo rk(along with his critical remarks) sec: pp.126·131
of the present volume.
53 d' Alembert's "Traite de nuides " does not contain any material on the basic concep ts of
differential calculus. d' A1embert's ideas on the basic concepts of d ifferential calculus
are to be found in his essays in the Encyclopaedia and in the "Opusculcs
mathema tiqu es". It is not clear as to what namely drew Marx's attention to
d 'Alembe rt 's "Traitc de nu ides" .
54 The th ird chapter of part I of L.Euler's "Differential Calculus"is devoted 10 the
question "o f infinities and infinitesimals". For the details see, Appendix, pp. 3 15·318.
55 Abbe Moigno composed this book,"lI ccording to the methods and works of Ca uchy,
published and unpublished" . The first volume of Moigno's "lectures" were p ublished
in 1840 ,the second volume - in 1844.
56 This conclusion (according to Newton) requires explanation : "Since the numerical
magniludes o f all poss ible quantities may be represented by straight lines", so that the
change of every magnitude may be represented in the form of a rectilinear movement
w ith variable speed . And since in co urse of an infinites imal interval of lime, the
speed of movement may be considered to be unchanging, so the path traversed by
a point,corresponding to this interval of time (that iS, lhe corresponding change in our
magnitude), is equal to the derivative of this speed (fluxion ) during the infinitesimal
interval of time "t. That is why the "moments, or infinitely sma ll parts of the
generated magn itudes = the products of their speeds and of the infinitely sma ll parts
of time". On the metaphysical character of Newton's attempts to s ubstantiate the
concepts of "fluent", "fluxion" and "moment", corresponding to our concepts of
"function","deriva tive" and "differential" , which were defined in the ~ermino l ogy of
mechanics, see: Appendix, pp. 313·315.
57 [n note 49 it has been pointed out that Marx still wished to return to the history of
development of the differential calculus, in the light of the his tory of the theorem
on the differe ntial of product That is why he left a blank space after the incomplete
extract from Hind's book. Here, after repeating once more the same extract, the theorem
o n the differential of produ cl- treated according to Newton - is enunciated as an
example. (In Hind' ~ book, this theorem consti tutes exa mple 3, o n p. 109).
58 In Hind's book the theorem on the differential of product bas not been used to illustrat~
the method of Leibnitz. That is why Marx turned to Boucharlal's book. Th e present
para graph is an extract fro m his book (see, Boucharlat, p. 165).
352 NOTES

59 This sentence is (rom the text-book by Hind quoted above (Hi nd, p. 106 ). However,
Mane did no t further enunciate Hind's account of the theorem on the differential of
product. After this, in Mane's note-book there are 5 pages (pp. 16-20), which wc have
dropped. These are in the main full of calculations, related to the theorems about the
differentiation of the quotient and of the composite func lion,and also to the solution of
the problem of the tangent to a curve, taking the parabola y2 _ ox, as an exa mple. Wc
have reproduced on ly the comments, written on the blank spaces on pp. 16-18, in
which Marx stressed the fact, that Newton and Leibnilz bega n directly with the
operational formulae of differential calculus.
Then under the rubric "Ad Newton" Marx criticised these methods of Newton and
lcibnitz, s tressing that s uch methods,in sp ite of a number o f their advantages,
inevitably entail the introduction of actual infinitcsimals and the difficulties
co nnected with them. Here again,the theorem about the differential of product has been
used as the main example.
60 By X, y, z Newton and his successors usually designated the ra te of change (fl uxion)
of tbe variables x, y, z (fluent ), i.e., the derivatives of x, y, z in respect.of the
variable,play ing the role of "time"; by u, "'tz
'tY, they indicated the "moments",
co rresponding to the Leibnitzian differentials or infinitesimal incremcnl<;. However,the
notations X, y. z were often used by the Newtonians also (or the "moments" or
differentials (see, Appendix, pp. 318·3 19).
61 Here the following heuristic generalisation is being discussed: in the formula
. .
y-ax (0
y is treated only as a function f(x), and the constant a - as the derivative of this f(x) ,
as a new functio n f'(x); herein formu la (1) becomes a particlH..1r case of the marc
genera l formula
y- ['(x)x. (2)
However, while treating x, y as increments,though infinitesimal, the factor [,(x), is a
function not only in x, but also in x; in formula (2) the "derived" function f'(x),
independent of X. does not occur. It is this situation (which forced the Newtonians
to forcibly remove the terms cont.1ining x, though the latter had to be other than zero,
so that formula (2) became comp rehensible), which lies at the root of Marx's
criticism-a few lines below- of the Newtonian definition of the derivative of the

function y _ f(x) as the ratio ~.

x
62 That is, obtained in the form of a "real" express ion, not con taining differential
symbols.
63 Here a few lines have been omitted. Their meaning is not at all clear.
 NOTl!S

64 If Y- X and y is x itself, then, to approach the equality, in which there is a s ide not
containing the differentia l symbol X, it is enough to divide both the parts of the equality
by x.
65 Evidently here "the accretion in x" signifies a new fun ction in x, obtained from the
initial function X2 - so to say, in addition to it - with the help of the binomia l
theorem: as the coefficient of dx in the expansion of (x + cU)2.
66 Evidently what is beingJeferred to here is the fact, that not dy-2xdx, but
dy .. 2x dx + d,x2 is obtained directly with the help of the binomial theorem. But only as
the consequence of a fal se premise, does the latter equality appear to be mathematically
correct.
. 67 Meaning of the expression "twofold result" remains unclear. Then follows point a),
but there is no point b). Perhaps, here the ~twofold result" consists, firstly of the
fact, that in the left hand side the difference ~ turns into Eldd (and is not identified
<lx x

from the very beginning With~, and, secondly, of the fact that, in the right hand
side, now the terms 3xll + 112 are removed with the help of a correct mathe matical
operation,and not by sleight of hand.
68 The expression within quota tion marks is from Hind, § 99, pp.128-129.
69 Evident1y he re the following fa ct is being referred to : Tay tor's theorem was
published in his "Methodus incrementorum ", in 1715, i.e., during the life time of
Newton,in whose works there is no mention of this theorem . See also : Appendix,
p. 332 .
70 For materials about the theorems of MacLaurin and Taylo r see :PV , 88,93
214,231,261,264
71 For Marx's' account and critique of the basic ideas of Lagrange's theory of
analytical fun ctions, see: PV, 90-92.
72 The reference here is to those separate rough drafts, part o[ which has been publisbed
in the present volume under the title n The First Drafts" (see, PV,67-76).
73 rn the manuscript devoted to the history of differential calculus,there are two places,
arranged almost immediately one after the other, in which Marx proposed to
introduce : 1) the investigations on the theorems of Taylor and MacLaurin, 2) a
discussion of Lagrange's theory of analytical functions (see, p. 83). These intentions
of Marx remained unrealised, though on these themes he had a vast amount of material
at his disposal. He collected them from the sources at his command, even :before he
arrived at his own point of view on the nature of differential calculus, which he
enunciated in his works sent to Engels. Tbese materials are in the main in the
nature of a conspectus, however, they do contain resumes or Marx~s critical
comments. From among these the most significant comments are contained in the
45
'54 NOTES

manuscripts : 1) "Taylo r's theorem, MacLaurin 's theorem and the L.1grangian theory of
derived functions" (for the details of which, sce: PV, 231) and 2) "Tay lar's theore m"
(this remains incomplete). Here the corresponding extracts from these arc being
reprod uced (as some kind of a realisation o f Marx's aforementioned inte ntio ns). Fo r
the extracts from the other notes on the same theme, sce: PV,132, 214.
74 In the manuals of differential calculus at Marx's disposa l,the der iva tives of all the
elementary fun ctions, save the trigonometric ones, were in fac t deduced with the
help of the binomiallheorem. On Ihis Marx himsclf wrote in the manuscript "Theorems
of TayJor a nd Mac L..aurin, firs t sys tematisa ti on of the ma terial "(sec, PV, 219-220).
Later o n Marx fo rmulated ano ther method of differentia ting this class of funct ions,
and ca lled it "algebraic" (sce, the manuscript "O n the Concept of the Derived
Function"). Thus it is clear, that chronologica lly this manuscript is prio r to the
ma nuscript "O n the Concep t of the Derived Function" and · O n the Differential".
75 Thus in Hind's book (pp. 84-85) after an example,containing the deduction of the
binomial theorem with the help of the expansion of (x + hy.. into Taylor's series,
theorems o f Tay lo r and MacLaurin have been deduced from the binomial theorem.
76 He re (see also: PV, 274) Marx directly says, that by an "increase" in the value of the
va riabl e x, he means any change of this va lue: a pos itive, as well as a negative inc reme nt
h.
77 Since, according to Marx, a function in x is an exp ress io n, so it is a co mbination of
signs,which is examined in respect of the entry of the variable x into it.
In the given in stance ,the te rms of MacLaurin's se ri es, i.e. , the produ c ts
("combinations") of the following two expressions are be ing re fe rred to : 1)

xl (k .. O, 1 ,2,3 .... ) and. 2) the corresponding "co nsta nt function" a2l

K! .

78 Marx ca lls an expression a " constant function", if it does not co nta in entries of the

variable x. (Y), (~), (~*) etc.are expressio ns o f the function f (x) and of its
successive derivatives,i n w hich all the entries of the variable x have bee n substituted
by a constant - zero. The result of such a substitu tion in y, correspo nd ingly in the
deriva tive ~~. is indicated in the ma nusc ript by (Y), correspondi ng ly by (~~).
Marx adopted this notation from Boucharlat (sce: Bouchariat, p.4D). It has been retained
in the present volume.
79 Here Marx did not exp lain w hat he meant by "the irrational natu re of the constant
function n • Apparently , the issue here is the reason behind the emergence of
 NOTES
'"
"exceptions" in both the cases: it is the presence in the expans ions, in both the cases,of
terms,not having any reasonable mathematical sense.
In the first case: directly bereft of such sense (for example,a "fraction" of the form *). in
(he second: for the defin ite values of Ihe variable x ( for example. _c_ • for x _ a).
x-a
Here "irrationality". does nol indicate algebraic, "ir-ratio- nal -ily" . This word has
been used here.as opposed to the word "rational "(compare: "the ra tional differential
calculus of Eu ler and d 'Alembcrt" as opposed to "the mystical differential ca lculus o f
Newton and Leibnitz"). At the very end of his manuscript "T heorems of Taylor and
MacLaurin.fj rst systematisa tion of the material", Marx gave the ge neral charac teristics
of the instances of their inapplicability. in brief(see: PV, 230).
80 Here the expression: "presented as a fi nite equation",evidentl y mea ns presented in the
following form :
[(x +h )- PO +P 1 h +P 2 h 2 + ·.. · +P" h ". were 11 is a positive and integral number,
P., (i - 0 , 1 .2 , .... ,11 ) - arc functions in x.

81 To understand Marx 's critique of the proof of Tay lor 's theorem,which foll ows,we
must ta ke into consideration a more detail ed account of th is proo f,accord ing to the
sources used by Marx. For such an account see: Appendix, pp . 336-339.
82 This fragment from Marx's manuscript "Taylor 's theorem" has been reproduced
here,as it conta ins, in the most concentrated for m,Marx's points of view: o n the
s hortcomings of th e proof of Ta ylor's theorem,as it was known to Marx ; on the
"algebraic" roots of this theorem in the binomial th eorem ; and on its essential
difference from the latter. (For grea ter details,see: PV, 264). As it is dimcult to read
and understa nd the fi rst paragraph in this fragmenta ry form,we mention that here Marx
s ums up his critique of Hind 's account o f the proof ofTay lor 's theo rem.In it (see : Hind,
§ 74, pp .83-44,§§ 77-80, pp.92-96),
1) Tayl or's theorem is proved by presupposing that the expressio n f( x + 11) may be
expand ed in to a series of the form [(x) _ Ph + QII j) + Rh l + ... ,where
(l

P, Q, R , ... 'are functions of the variable x, and the ind ices a, f3, y, ... are
ascending, integral and pos itive numbers;
2) the "exceptions" to Taylor"s theorem arc cons idered to be conditioned by the
~

fact,that fo r some particular val ues of the va riable x. these conditions are not fulfill ed
(some of the coefficie nts P , Q ,R , ... are not defined : and they "do not have fini te
va lues" at these po ints);
3) followi ng Lag range, an attempt has been made to show, that, genera ll y speaking,i.e.,
excluding the separate particula r values of the va riable x, the pres upposi tions under
which Taylor's theorem is proved, hold good for every fun ction [(x) (i.e., the indices
356 NOTES

a, ~, '( . ... ca nno t ha ve ",ega tivc or fractio na l va lues,the functio ns P , Q J R . '.,

do not turn "into infinity ").
The comme nts o f Marx,which follow,are devoted to a criticism of this sort of
attempt, they show its unprovabililY.
83 The words "for example, x _ a ", arc related to the fo ll owing example cons ide red by
Hind : f(x+ It ) is to be expanded into Tay lo r's series, w here [ (x) - x 2 + ";x - a. Whe n
x - ~. f (x + h) has the sensible value (a + h)2 + VTi , while its representation in
Tay tar's series gives,according to Hind, o nly 11 a2 + 2011 + h2 + 0 + 00 _ 00 + 00 - 00 e tc.,
w hic h does no t dete rmine a nything 11 (sce: Hind,p.93.).
84 Wha t is mea nt here is the fun ction y - x"'. where m is an integral and positive numbe r .
85 A lite ral transla tion of this cla use would be : "which ca n not g ive a result along the
path of di ffe rentia tion".
86 Literall y: "in the poss ible his torical part o f this ma nuscript" .
87 In the ma nuscript "On the History of Differentia l Ca lculus" Marx observed,that (rom
a si mple difference in the form of representing the change of va lues of a
func tion, flows the fundamen ta l d ifferences in the treatment o f differentia l
calc ulus(see:pp. 83.84). Here he refers to some "separate sheets" , w herin "while
analys ing the me thod of d~Al embe rt" he has .disclosed this idea (ibid). The re arc
two g ro ups o f s uch sheets : one group is marked with cap ita l Latin letters fro m A
to H (sce, PV, 248), the other - with sma ll La tin letters from a to n (sce, PV, 246).
As d ' A lem bert defined the deriva tive through the concept oflimit, Marx natura ll y
began the a nalys is of bis method w ith a critique o f the concept of limit. From the
info rma tion provided in the Appendix (see : "On the concept of "limit" in the so urces
consulted by Marx", p.303), it w ill be quite clear that thi s concept is unsatisfactory.This
pa rt o f this manuscript consists of th e sheets A· D (in accordance w ith its conte nt,it is
being published he re under the title: On the no n-u nivoca lity of the te rms Hlimit R
and "limiting va lue").The sheets E·H a lso have a d irect relatio n with the a bove
mentioned pla ce of the manuscript o n the his tory o f d iffe rential calculus. These
arc bei ng publis hed here under the title: "Comparison of d 'Alembcrt's method w ith
the algebra ic method". Sheets a- g of the othe r g roup,are in essence devoted to the
. sa me q uestio n.T hey are being published here unde r the titl e: "Analysis o f
d ' A1 embert's me thod in the light of yet a no the r example ". Fo r the contenlS o f the
re maining pages of this group (11 to n) see: PV, 246-247.
In consonance with Marx's reference to these a ttached separa te sheets,as being
devoted to an a na lysis Of d ' Al embert's method, here these have been joined togethe r
under the general title : Appendix to the manuscript "On the HislOry of
Differential Calculus". An alysis of d'Alembert 's Method.
88 In o the r words,he re the proposa l is to examine the expression 3x 2 + 3xll + h 2 for the
non-negative va lues o f x and h, assuming tha t, Jr indefin itely tends to zero (rema ining
 NOTES

different from zero). Let us reca ll, that the so urces used by Marx did no t conta in the
concept of absolute value; it was not needed while cons idering the su m of no n-negative
s ummands.
89 Here Marx proceeds to substantiate his conclusio n, that "perhaps the concept of
limiting value has been incorrectly interpreted, and is constantly so in terpreted " (see,
p .98), and conseque ntl y it is appropria te to substitute it by some othe r new
term,understood univocally.For this purpose he proposed the term "absolu te ly minimal
expression", which means the limit, in a sense w hich is now common (see,p. 97 and
Appendix, pp. 303-304 )
Marx's criticism of the definitions of "limiting value" and of the me thods of using
this concept in the books of Hind and Bouc harlat,is related first of 311 to the
fact,that in these books "limit" is interpreted actually,i.e., it is viewed as the "las t"
value of the function for the "'ast" value of the argument; he sa id " it is infantile; its
emergence should be sought in the first mystical and mystificatory method of ca lculus"
(see, p. 98). In the present paragraph,evidently, "limiting value" is unde rstood
according to Hind 's definition of it (see, Appendix, pp. 303-304) .In practice he
treated it as coincid ing with the one sided limits of the fun ction,for Ihe a rgument
tending 10 some number to the right or to the left,i n the given case the function
3x2 + 3xh + h2 with the o nc sided limit to .the right,is consid<;red as a function of 11,
fo r h - + O. However, as distinct from Hind , Marx stressed that this "limiting value"
has a meaning, o nly if it is not understood actua lly: computed unde r the assumption,
that 11 ,,0 (here 11 > 0), i.e., he treated it the way we now do. At the same time, in
application to the function )x2 + ltll + hl co nsidered, hereby the demand contained
in the definition of "limits"(as the exact upper a nd lower bounds of the values of the
variable), with whieh Hind's book begins,is no t transgressed.ln fact, as Ma rx
observes,firstly,this function constantly tends to its li mit (here,or. course, the lower).
as h tends to zero and ,seco nd ly, never having a tta ined it, wl1at is more, hence, never
having crossed it, i.e., it wittingly fulfils both Ihe demands of Hind 's definition (Hind
himself us ually did not verify the o bserva nce of th ese demands; see:
Appendix,pp.303-304).
90 If the (one sided) limit of the func tion 3x2 + 3x1r + h2, as h tends to zero (to the right
hand side, i.e.,as 11 diminishes) is interpreted actually, Le.,the argument h is assumed
to be attai ning its limiting ("last") va lue 0, then as the set of values of the function
- in respect of w hich,according to Hind 's definition,the limit mus t exactly be the lower
bound - it is e no ugh to choose a set, cons isting of only one value of the fun c tion
for h - 0 (see,Appendix, pp. 303-304 ), hence, in the g iven case, consisting o f o nly one
number 3x 2 ; however,to look at it as the limiting value of the same 3x 2, as h tends
to zero,would be - as Marx says lower down - a banal tautology .In ot he r words,it is
natural to speak o f 3x 2 as the limiting value of 3x2 + 3xh + h 2 as h te nds to zero,
whe reas to look at 3x 2 as the limiting value of the sa me 3x 2, also as It te nds to zero,
is no t meaningful he re - first of all, in so far as it is quite superfluo us, it does not give
us anything new.
'" NO"IT"s

9 1 Here the express ion -00 ilr;cif is cons idered to be the lim it of the ratio y. - y • as it has
x.-x
been do ne in Boucharlat's book (scc,Appendix, pp . 308-309). hut with a diffe re nce:
he re also the lim iting va lue (again in the sense o f I-find) of the fu nct ions XI - x and
YI - Y as XI - +X, is not understood by Mane: actua ll y, i.e., it is written unde r the
assu mption that XI "x (here XI> x).

92 He re again th e issue is this : ~ ( or ~) should not be treated actually. i.e. as the

value of the ratio Y1 J~ Y • when h - 0; as in that case, following Hind and by obtaining

the limiting expression ~ through the s imple assumption of h ... 0, it would suit 10 permit

the co ns ideratio n of this express io n - in wh ich no trace o f the ra lio Y. I~ Y • contai ning

the variable " rema ined - as the limiting value of the same ~ (co nsidered as a
"cons tnnt" function of h) as h - + 0, which gives us nothing new. However,in respect

o f the expression Yl /~ Y , conside red w hen h is different from zero ( here h > 0), ~,
to he more precise,the derived fun c tion standin g opposi te it "as its real equivalent",
is, as sa id Marx, "its absolutely minimal expression", i.e., it is the I imit,in th e sense
now common.
93 In the original initially it was: "to the above mentioned differential equations", but
Ma rx struck ou t the words "above mentioned". However, it is clea r , that as before,
equations in the proper sense of the te rm are not at issue he re,but rather,the true
formulae o f the diffe rentia l calculus,w hich have the form o f equalities.
94 In the ma nuscript: "with ·the geometric o nc"; c1,early, this is a slip o f pen.
95 As has a lread y been nOled, in the sources used by Marx zero was not considered to be
a finite mag nitude. That is why,here it has been sa id ,th at the d iffe rence Xl - X - 11,
becoming as small as you please, a ll the sa me it rema ins different from zero.
96 Instead o f X + 't X, Marx here s imply writes x + X. About the reasons behind such a
substitution see : PV,68 ,and also note 60.
97 This fragment co nlc1 ins the co ntents of the sepa rate sheets a-g. Sheets h-n conta in only
some rough calculations or unfinished no tes.1t is difficult to understand the ir
mea ning. These arc not be ing published here. Abou t them see: the descriptio n given on
pp . 246-247 of the present volume. Sheets a-g a re devoted to an a nal ys is of
d 'AJembert's method, cond ucted in the lig ht of the same example o f a composite
function , wh ic h has been examined in the manuscript "On the Differential".
 NOTES 35'

98 The symbols f(x), f(u) used here arc s hort forms of the expressions : "a fun ction
in x", "some (other) runction in u". While analysing this very example in the
manusc ript "On the Differential", written later on, Marx des ignated these functions by
different lelters.
98a The Cissoid is the algebr<lic curve with th e equation

y2(a -x) _ X3 .

or in polar coordinates
r - asin q> t.1nq>.

99 There is a rule in Feller and Odermann's book, wh ic h permits the trader to compute a
sum x , which he must overcharge Tor his goods, if he wishes 10 gel such and such a
sum for it, after allowing such and such a reba te from hundred or on hundred.
100 Here it is difficuh 10 understa nd, what sort of "hocus pocus"of Boucharlal Marx
has in view. In any case, it may be observed, that Boucharlat defined dy only thro ugh
dx (to be more precise, he defined only their ratio ~). That is why, in o rder to know
what is dy , one should be able to answer such a question for dx. But if, for every
x. y - x, Ihen according to Boucharlat we get, onl y dy - dx, i.e. , dx .. dx, which does
not give any answer to the question, as to what one should unders tand by dx. If Sauri
simply says that dx is the infinitesimal increment o f x (here Marx has not yet faced the
difficulties connected with the actual infinitcsimals in th e calculi of Newton and
Leibnitz), then Boucharlat only pretends, as though he is in fact explaining, what
is dx. It is not accidental that Marx has put the corresponding words of Boucharlat within
quotatio n marks: d.x nis itself the differential of x ". For the full lext of § 9 of
Boucharlat's book and comments on it,see: Appendix, p. 328.
360 NOTES

101 For th e Russia n transla tio n of New ton's wo rk (with co mm entaries by 0 .0.
Morduhai-Boltovsky) see: LNewton, Malcma techskic raboty , M., ONTI, 1937, pp.
3-24. The extracts arc from the beg inning ("Quadraturc o f s imple c urves, Rule I")
and the cnd (" Demonstration of the quad raturc of s imple curves according to th e fi rst
rule") o f this work of New to n (p. 3 and pp. 22-23 ).
102 At the beginning of Newton's work, after the words: "The following nota tions arc
adop ted: A B .. x. BD .. y; let a. b, c be known quantities, and rn, n - be whole
numbers". under th e title "Quadraturc of simple curves, Rule I", there is an assertion :
'" at! '" +11 • • •
"If. ox 7f .. y. then - - x - .- .. the a rea A B D". which IS no t proved there, but IS on ly
m+ n
formula ted, and "expla ined by exampl es". Here, namely, that is w hat Marx had in
view. However, the demonstra tion adduced by Newton, at the cnd of the work also
does not sa tis fy Marx (sce fur ther, the text of the manuscript and note 103).
103 Then fo llows the comment, which Marx marked ou t by a vertica l Iine on th e left ,to
indicate, that it is not a conspectus,but an insertion, which belongs to Marx hi mself. In
this insertion Marx criticised the Newtonia n proof of the theorem (which is us ually
called the Newton- Leibn itz theorem), on the connection between the definite integra l
and the original fun ction, adduced below. Herein Marx's statement, to the effect that
Newton already kn ew - from geometrY,trea ted analy tically - the content o f the
theorem demonstrated by him, is his torically full y justified. As is well known, Newton 's
teacher Barrow did in fact observe the connection between the problems o f findin g
the area and the cons truction of tangents, i.e., between quadraturcs, co mpu ta tion of
definite integrals, and differentiation.The essence of the other reproo fs of Marx,
addressed to Newton, consists of the fact, that the latter does not introduce th e concept
o f the definite integral as the. limit of a sum,a nd accord ingly, in th is sense does not
co mplete any process of integration, and also of the fact, that having observed in the
•
integrand fun ction [ (x) the deriva tive in respect of x of f [et) dl, fro m there Newton
o
•
draws the conclusion, that also, conversely, the primitive of [(x) is f [( t) dl, without
o
taking into consideration the fac t that the primitive is being defi ned non-univocally.
104 By analytica l' geometry Marx here means geometrical applica tions of mathematical
analys is, or geometry, analytically considered. It is well known, that the elements of
such a geometry were shaped prior to Newton, in the works of Ferma t, Pascal and
Huygens.
105 Evidently , here Ma rx wa nted to say that, from "analytical geometry" it was known to
Newton, that if z (x) is the area, bOund (as .it is. usually done) by the curve y - [ (x),
 NOTES 361

then it is the integral of y dx, Le., of f(x) dx, where f(x), i.c., the expression borrowed
from the equation of the curve, is the resu lt of differentiating the function z (x).
106 Here indeed there is a lack of clarity in"Newton's account.lt is connected with his
understa nding of the " Iimit ~ as the actua lly attainable "cnd" of a process of "infin ite "
(indefinite) approach to the "final"(limiling) state (scc, Appendix, p. 313). The
(curvilinear) trapezium BD bP (see the diagram on p. 129) is s ubstituted in Newton's
account by a rectangle with the same base B P and hcightBK, which is presumably so
chosen, that the rectangle KBf3H is equivalent 10 the trapeziu m BD 6f3. Hence, the latter
is supposed to be rectifiable. However, in this assumption it is not clear, as to what
gives Newton the right to think, that in the nfinal n sta le, i.e., when by diminishing
indefinitely Bf3 ultimately turned into 0, the height K D, which Newton des ignated
by the letter v, must coincide with th e ordina te DB or y. For then we s ha ll have only
K D'O - BD·O, and th is equality is true Cor any K D and BD.

107 Apparently, here Marx has in view tbat which he has already sa id (in points 2) and 3»
above, on Newton's de monstration, namely, that "he does not construct the curve Crom
the equation y _ etc., but does it geometrically, assuming the area to be give n''', and
"actually avoids integrating or showing, how this inverse process may be
accomplished with the help oC calculus", i.e., in Ihis prooC Newton does not at all use
the equation oC the curve y _ f(x) : no operation of integration or differe ntiation is
carried out with f(x)(what is diCCerentiated is not the equation o f the curve, but the
equation of the area). The definition of the integra l as the limit of the sum is hidden
in Newton,bchind his understanding o f the differential of the area o f a c urvilinear
trapezium, bound in the interval [a, b1 of the curve y - I(x}, as y dx. However, stated
in a mode rn language, neither does Newton give a n exact definition of the area o f such
a trapezium, what is more, nor does he give such a definition of th e integra l

J[(x) <lx,
o
which could have contained within itself th e co nstructive method of its approximate
co mputation. It is for th is reason, that Marx reproaches Newton.
108 That is, the dependence ofy upon x is revealed, also in the fac t that both the inc rements
l:J.x and l:J.y turn into zero at tbe same time.
109 According to Mar~, the tra nsforma tion of .1.x into dx consists o f the fact, th at .1.xother
tha n zero. turns into dx equal to zero. Marx calls this transformation, the negation of
.6.X. We note, that the formal negation of something not equal to zero, is also equal to
zero (if the double negation of A gives A). On the differences of dialectical negation
of negation from such formal double negation scc : PV, 19 (beginning o f the manuscript
"O n the Concept of the Derived Function").

46
362 NOTES

110 In the modern text-books o f mathe mat ical a nalys is , usua ll y th e diffe rentia l is
introduced as the p rincipal Ii nca r pari o f the increment o f a functio n, a nd at the sa me
time in practice it also appea rs as an o pcr:ltional symbol o f the di ffc rc ntil'l l calculus.
Marx has made a distinctio n between these two fun ctions o f the diffe re ntial.
The diffe rential particles t1xt dy, which arc exactl y equal to zero, correspond to the
d ifferen tial as an operatio nal symbol, defined by the formul a: dy - f'(x)dx ; a nd the
differential dy as the prin cipal part o f th e inc rcmc nl o f the fun ctio n y - f (x ), is de fin ed
by the formula dy - [,(x)II , where h is a "finite" (other than zero) inc re ment of the
inucpcndc nt variable x. Eu ler too treats the issue analogous ly (see, Appendix, p. 316)
111 It is clea r from the laUer manuscripts, fi rs t o f all fro m those published in the first
par t o f the present volume, th atlatcr o n Marx: changed his evaluatio n o f Lag rangc 's
method. Howeve r, in the g ive n case his auitude boils down to lrus: th ere is no po int
in ra ising an o bjectio n aga ins t Lagrange's me thod o f explaining the interrelation of
the coefficients o r the expansion/ex + 11) into a serics according to the powers of "
and the success ive derivatives o f the fun ction /(x).
111a ConstrllCliv;sm is o ne of the tre nds of ma the matics. Like class ica l mathema tics,
construc tivist ma thematics too inves tigates the fo rmal and qua ntitative re latio ns o f
o bjec tive reality; but th ere a re so me di[ferences tha t characterize the m.
Those w ho be lo ng to the classical trend believe that they know (and so me times th ey
may know) the prope rlies o f the objects they investigate, tha t is wh y they do no t pay
attentio n 10 the me thods of constructing th ose .mathematical objects. The co ns truc tivist,
o n the o ther ha nd, limits his/her work to the constructivisable objects alo ne . The
exis tence o r a construc tivisab le object is cons idered to be proved, o nl y when the
poss ible a nd e ffective methods of its cons tructio n a re indicated.
The concept o f co ns truc tiv isabl e object is fo undationa l 10 COlls/ruclivist mathematics
and logic, that is w hy this co ncept is no t defined - it is o nl y explained with the hc lp
o[ exa mples. The lette rs tha t go into the construc tio n of a wo rd a re exa mples o f primary
conslructivisable Objects . Wo rds arc built from thcse constructivisable objects -
acco rding to some agreed ru les; a nd fro m the words - the more co mpl e x
cons trUClivisable objects, such as cla uses, sen tences and texts . Cons ider the pa ir < 404,
55> . Here, the use of the algorithm for column-wise subtraction s uccess ive ly ge nefRtcs
th e fo llow ing constructivisable objects:
404 404 404 404
~ 55 55 55
9 49 349.
Every cons truc tivisable object is determ ined by the o nc immed ia tely preceding it. If
an o bj ect is no t g iven b y direct observatio n or by an a lgorithm the n it !s no t a
cons truct ivisabl e object. The collectio n of all the na tural numbers, considered as an
 '63

actually infin ite set o r the Series of Na tu ra l Numbers ~ is no t a construc tiv isable
object, s ince there exists no algo rithm for constructing this series [Petrov yu. A.
Logicheskie prob\cmy abstrakts ii bcs koncchnos ti i osuschcs tvimos ti. M., 1967. ].
In order to work with the constructivisablc objects, it is necessa ry 10 know about
the methods of determin ing the ide nt ities and differences amo ng them. For example,
cons ider the word "constructivisabl c": in it, one and the same le tters "c", "s", "t" a nd
"i " arc stand ing in differe nt places. Studies o n the methods o f determining these
identities and differences have given risc to the concept of identifica tion.
Similarly, investigations into those construclivisab le objects that a re not realizable
in practice, have g iven rise to th e concept o f potential realization. Fo r example, in
practice wc can not w rite a word, which is as large as poss ible; bu t, go ing beyond the
boundaries of this rea lity, wc think tha t it is theore tica lly possible to do th is work
[Ruzavin G. !. 0 prirode matematichcskovo znaniya. M. , 1968 .).
T hc re arc some similarit ies bctwecn the construc tivis t and the in tuitio nis t concept of
cons truc tivisab le objects: according to the followers o f both the tre nds, the ex istence
o f an object under considerat ion is p roved,only whe n the possible effect"ive means of
construc ting tha t object is g iven - not o the rw ise. Therc arc mu tual d iffcre nces too:
the intuitionists are o f the o pinion that all ma thematica l objects a re prod uced by some
"p rimary intuition", this "intuitio n" is the crea to r of all thc numbers; the constructivists,
o n the other ha nd, op ine that in the ultima te a nalysis, cons truc tiv isa bl e ma thema tica l
Objects and the methods o f construc tiv ist mathematics a re no thing but idea lized
prototypes o f the objects o f this world and of the regul arities that govern the m.
Intuitio nist L. E.1. Brouwer arg ued that the roots o f most o[ the idea l izations o f classica l
ma thema tics may be traced back to the princip le of excl uded middle of cJassicallogic.
Constructivists Iikc E. B ishop have declared the universa lity-cla im o f the principle
o f non-contradiction of cl assica l log ic to be baseless. Bishop has ca lled it the "princ iple
of o mniscience", w hich sta tes that : an arbitrary set A cither has an e le ment w ith a given
p roperty P or it does no t. "In case A is a n in fin ite set th is p rinc iple is not
constructively va lid, because the examination of each cle ment of A to see w he ther
o ne o f them has the p roperty P is no t someth ing that ca n neccssa ril y be done by
a fin ite ro utine process" [BishopE. T he Constructivisa tion of Abstract Mathe ma tica l
A nalys is // P roceed ings o f Internatio nal Congress o f Ma thematic ians (MOSCOW,
1966}. Introductio n. Izd. "M lR ". M., 1968. p. 308.].
In contrast to the classica l ma the matica l concept of actual infinity, cons truc tivists
have proposed the co ncept o f potential r.ealization of infinity. According to the concept
o f actual in fi nity, any co llection of a n infinite number o f objects is an actua lly existing
sct ; and according to the concept o f potential rea liza tio n o f infinity, the construction
of a n infin ite set is a process witho ut a ny last step. In classical mathe ma tics: to ex ist
 NOTES

is to obey the principle of non-contrad iction ; and in construct ivis t mathematics: to

exist is to be constructivisable. In the fi nal analysis, the content of the construct ivis l
critique of classical analys is is as follows: to admit the concept of actual infinity is to
extend over infinite sets, those principles of classica l logic which arc applicable in
the case of fi nite sets (e.g. , the pr inciples of excluded middle and non-contrad iction
a nd, the rules o f formal deduction based on them) ; such a n ex tens ion is not perm issible.
In the 30s of the presen t century, whcn thc concept of algorithm became more exac t
through the investiga tions cond ucted by Church, Klecne, T uring and Post, this led to
significa nt deve lopments in constructivist mathematics. An importa nt result o f these
developments: Markov 's concept of natural algorithm [Markov A . A. Tcoriya
aigori fmov. M., 1954). Martin · Leo f's inves tigations into the interre lationship o f
algorithm a nd meta-algorithm too broke new .grounds [Martin.Leof P. Ocherki po
konstruktivnoi ma te ma tike. M., 1975]. Investiga tions into the logic of the principles of
cons truc tivist mathematics have led to the emergence of co nstructivis tl ogic.
The logica lly valid positions o f intu itionist log ic are c ritically recons truc ted in
construc tivist logic. Co nstructivist logic is based upon the following sys te m of
ax ioms[here, A, Band C are a rbitrary propos itions a nd,the logical connectives
. (a nd), v (or), - (i f ... then) a nd - (the negation symbo l) have been used in their
usual sense; but un like in the classical logic, here they a re not inter-translatable,
s ince tbe principle of non-contrad iction etc., which al e fou nda tio nal to these
transformations - are not va lid in cons tructiv ist logic] :
A ~ ( B~ A);
(A ~( B ~ C)) ~«A ~B ) ~ (A ~ C));
(A· B ) ~A;

(A· B ) ~B ;
A ~( A v B );
B~( A v B );

A-<B~(A · B ));
(A ~ C) ~ « B~ C )) ~ «A vB ) ~ C)) ;
(A ~B) ~«A ~H)~A) ;
A~(A ~B ).
The fo unda tions of construc tiv ist log ic were laid by Kronecke r, Brouwer, Weyl,
Heyting (a ll intuitionis ts) and, by the construc tivists Kolmogorov , Shatunovsky ,
Vasil iev, Glivenko and, especiall y through the investiga tions conducted by the sc hool
of Markov.
[See also: Nepeivoda N. N. Emergence and Development of the Concept of
Cons tructiv isabil ity in Mathema tics 11 Present Volume, Special Supplement : Marx
and Math ematics, Part Three, last article.1
••• *** ***
 NOTES 365

The editor of KMarks, Matematicheski Rukopisi (M., 1968) did, not provide any note
on constructivism. She did not think that it was necessary for the readers of that edition,
perhaps, in view of the fact that some of the major centres of constructivist mathematics
were (and are) situated on the territory of [erstwhile] USSR. But our situation is
different. Here tbe class ical trend is overwhelmingly dominant. The terms
constructivist matbematics or constructivism arc absent in the glossary of
mathematical terminology published by the Wes t Benga) State Book Board, in the
glossaries of matbematical and scientific terminologies published by the Bingla
Academy of Dhaki and, in the glossary of scientific and technical terms published
by the Government of India . That is why our readers are in need of a note on this term.
*"'* *** ***
Through his investigations into the characteristic concepts and symbols of .differential
calculus (like the derivative and the differential) Marx arrived at the conclus ion that
they are operational by nature. Forty-four years after his dea th, in 1927, intuitionist
Hadamard arrived at similar conclusions about the general nature of the differential
calculus {see : Glivenko V. I. Marx and Hadamard on the Concept of ~ifferentialll
Present Volume, Special Supplemcnt: Marx and Mathematics, Part Two, first article].
Intuitionist L.E.J Brouwer was the first to propose the theory that the standard
mathematical quantifiers and connectives are by nature operational. The conslructivists
accept this position of Brouwer, though they reject the philosophical idealism
connected with mathematical intuitionism.
Thus the development of the constructivist trend has created material grounds for
connecting Marx's mathematical investigations with the mainstream of history of
mathematics, by revealing their inner linkages. This is the historic significance of the
constructivist trend for the modern reader of Marx's Mathematica l Malluscripts
and, conversely, that of Marx's mathematical investigations - for the mathematicians
of to-day and to-morrow. - Tr.
112 These pages of Hind 's book are devoted to an estimation (from above and from below)
...of the remainder term of Tay tor's series - to an estimation "of the quantity, which
diminishes, as we stop the series at any of its indicated term" (Hind, p. 87). According
to Hind, such an estimation must be carried out, when the "analytical transformation of
a function" - wherein divergent serieses may also be used - is not at issue, but when
some particular value of it is 10 be computed.
113 Later on Marx cited an example, in which the turning into zero of the numerator of the
fraction, for some value of the variable x, must entail that its denominator too turns
into zero. However, here he made a mistake in calculation, which cannot be rectified
in his example. So this portion has been omitted. For the examples explaining this
idea of Marx, see: note 1l4.
366 NOTES

114 After this Marx again turns to th at exampl e w hich we omitted (sec note 113), but this
time witho ut the previous mistake. However, eVCn nOW there is a mistake in the
calculation, but it is of th e nature of 11 slip of pen. Tho ugh the exnmplc chosen here, by
Marx, is not a happy onc, but the mea ning is clear. Nlllncly. it has been observed, that
in differe ntial calculus the numeralOr f(x + 11) - f(x) of the fract ional expression turns
into zero, as a result of th e turn ing in to zero of the denominator, whereas, generally
speak ing, in ~ algebra" such cases a fe also possible, but o nl y when the equal ity of the
denom ina to r with zero, is a consequence of the fact thalthe numerator has turned into

zero. Fo r examp le, s uch would be the case o f the fra c tion ";":";, had we put in it,
x -a
the numera tor equal to zero, Le., had we imparted the va lue a to the variable x. Or,
(x-a)(x-b)
.
the case 0 [ t he [ ractlon ( . )( b)( ) (a, b ,c - . . d'['
arc pair wise I lerent
x-a x- x-c
numbers). w he re, from the equality of the numerator wi th zero, qu ickly foll ows the
equality o f the denominator w ith ze ro, but not conversely. In this connectio n sce
a lso: the manuscript "On the Differential - (see: PV, 28-29) nnd nOle 18.
115 Here Marx 's concept of limit is still very closely connected w ith the concep t of the
"boundaries of change" (see: Appendix, p. 303).
116 Marx later o n developed this c ritique o f Boucharlat, in his manuscript "On the
Differential" (sec: PV, 33-34).
117 In Bo ucharlat's book (5th ed .,p. 34, § 55) demonstration o f Taylor's theorem began
w ith the lemma: "If in the fun ctio n y o f x, the variable x is c hanged into x + 11, then we
get o nc a nd the sa me differential in bo th the cases: when x is a variable and If is a
constant, as well as in the case when h is a va riable and x is a co nstant ~. (see a lso:
Appendix, pp . 337-338).
118 Since the basic manuals at Marx's di sposal not on ly gave onc a nd th e same formulation
of the theorems of Taylor and MacLaurin, but also gave exactly identical demonstrations
of the m , it was natural to assume that these belonged to the authors o f the theorems
themselves (a nd th at was indeed th e case with MacLaurin's theorem ; sec: Appendix,
p. 335).
119 Here the re ference is to the proo f of Taylo r's theorem in Bo ucharlat's book (see;
Bo uc harla t, pp. 36-37 or Appendix, p. 336 ff.).
120 Here Marx used so me abb rev iated (stenographic) mode o f writ ing, s ubstitut ing fo r
-the words "functio n y", the expression "fCy)". Thus, this place shou ld be read as : "".
Taylor Slc'lrts no t from the fun ction y, or y - f(x) , but ... ".
121 In this paragraph, as well as in a number of other manuscripts (see: for example, p.
96), appare ntly written later on, Marx compared the method of actual infinitesimals
of Newto n and Le ibnitz, with the me thod of limits, interpreted ac tua lly, as attainable
at the e nd of an infinite process o f approx imation o f the variable to its limiting
 •
NOTES 367

value; bes ides, w itho ut any substantialion, suc h correlatio ns a rc exte nded 10 this "cnd" ;
these a rc of a ny sense o nl y for the pTe-1imil condi tio ns (fo r cxamplc,,,:,hcn considered
as given "tria ng les", the sides of which are eq ual to zero). Here Man, arrives a t the
concl usion Iha t, in essence such a "method of lim its" is no betle r tha n the method of
actual infinitcs ima ls (sce: Append ix, pp. 303-304, 313).
122 Here the refe re nce is to Lacro ix's account of the an alysis of the specia l case o f the
proble m of two co uriers, in his nElcments of A lgebra " (§ 64, pp. 94-96). The case
here is this : two couri ers proceed fro m the two towns, separated by the distance a ;
they proceed in o nc and the same direc tion ; the speed of the seco nd (b) is g rea ter
tha n the speed of th e fi rst (c), besides b is constant ( b = 6 Km/hour), anti c increases:
it s uccess ively attains th e values 5'8, 5·9,5'99 etc. ; th e d ista nces x anti y, traversed
by each co urier, upto the po int whe re the second o vc rL'lkcs the first, arc to be fo und
o ut. It is not diffic ult to no tice tha t here the solutio n has the form
x~--
ab y - -ac-
b- c' b -c'
when c is inde finitely tending 10 b.
123 He re Ma ne has the follow ing s ituation in view : as "tends 10 0, the term J'(x) in the
express ion

['(x) + 1 f"(x)" + ...

2
rema ins unc hanged, since in the co urse o f this ope ra tio n x is assumed to be a cons ta nt.
124 Here Marx re fers to the fo llowing two places of "Ele ments d 'algcb re pa r L. Eule r"
(Lyon, 1795).
a) "He re it is still necessary to dispel the quite widespread mistake of those, w ho think
that th~ infinitel y la rge can not be enlarged. This view if inco mpatible w ith the
desired prin ciples, wh ich we have j ust esta bJis hed [by introduc ing.l as 0 and there fo re
~

o1 as 00 -
. 2.
I 0 eSlgnates an infin ite ly la rge numbe r, Ihen, smce 0 IS,
Ed.]; fo r ·f 1 d .

undo ubtedl y, twice -6; it is c1ear,that a number even if it is infinitely la rge, can
s till become two or severa l limes larger"( § 84, p. 60).
b) In ano the r place (§ 293, p. 227) Eul er represents a n a lgebra ic fractio n by the s eries
1 + a + a 2 ... a nd o bserves: "Let us assume firs t of all tha t a - 1; then, our series
1
turns into 1 + 1 + 1 + etc. upto in finity. The fraction -1 , to which it must be e qua l,
-a
turns into -6 , but we noted above that -6 is a n in fi nitely la rge number; he nce he re it
gets an elega nt co nfirma tio n".
368 NOTES

125 Here "determi nability of a problem" is understood as follows: tbe proble m permil<i
such a formula tion (with the help of equations), which is univoca lly determined by
the values of the unknown sought for.
126 Of course, here as well as lower down, by the express ion "numbe r of equatio ns" what
is meant is : the number of independent equations, hence, not one of them is a logica l
consequence of the rest.
127 He re the expression "proper fraction Mmeans: a "fraction in the proper sense of the
word\ as wro te Lacroix, see p.3 o f his "Treatise", i.e., an expression of the form ~ ,
where P a nd Q a re polynomials, expanded accord ing to the powers of some variable
~ for exa mple of x - such that the "angular" div isio n of P by Q gives the remainde r
R, the power of which is less than the power of Q. According to Lacroix, the expression
of a "proper fraction" in the form of an infinite series is not the expression of a
function, definable by this Craction in its " proper~ form, since "a lgebraic functions
always contai n o nly a limited number of te rms " (ib id).
128 Approximate values of loga rithms may be found with the help of the process of squa re
root extraction, i.e., with the help of a few "algebraic operatio ns". But for the exact
computa tio n of the loga rithm o f a rea l number, in the genera l case, a finite number
o f these operations arc not e no ug h. (We read in Lacroix: "Such fo r example, are the
logarithms, whi,c h may be obtained only approximately and which depe nd u~ o n the
extraction of a n inHnite number o f roots"( ibid, pA).
129 That is to say herea definite arcof a definitecirc1e is notat issue : an arc is not considered
as such, but only in respect of the entire circum fere nce - as a part of it, i.e., as
an ang le (herein, two different a rcs, constituting identical parts of two diffe rent circlcs,
are identified). This observation of Marx is explained by the fact, that in Lacroix sin x
was no t considered as a number, defined by another number x, but was considered as
a segment, whose length depends no t o nl y on the arc, but also upon the radi us of the
circle, with its centre at the vertex o f the angle. In [act, Lacroix wrote: "Here we
digressed from the radius, though the magnitude of si n also depends upon this ele me nt,
since we have in view only one c ircle "( ibid, p .3).
130 Here "va riation of the function x" mea ns: changes in the values of this function.
Let us reca ll , that Marx called a n Malgebraic" expression, co ns idered in respect of the
e ntries of the va riable x or its values into it - "the function x" (or "the function in x").
131 H ere Marx assumes this bas ic theorem of a lgebra to be already proved.
132 He re the reference is not to an equa tion, but only to its left hand s ide ; below Marx
himself sa id, that whil e speaking about the general equationf(x) - 0, he had in view its
left hand side, i.e. , f(x).
133 The reference is to MacLau rin 's own proof of the theorem, which bears his name. For
its account in Boucharlat's book sec: Boucharlat, pp. 20-21 and PV, Appendix, p. 336.
 NOTES 369

134 A considera ble part of the tex t that fo llows has been struck oul by pencil.
135, The re fe rence is to the sea rch fo r the multipl e roots of the "proposed" equation
f(x) - O(a nd their ratios). (As is well known, the TOoL" of multiplici ty k o f the equations
f(x ) - 0 are the general rools of the equations f (x) '" 0, /,(x) = 0, ... • f{l{) (x ) = 0, not
sa tis fyin g the equation J (k+ 1) (x ) - O. ) In his text-boo k on algebra Lacroix no where
uses the terminology o f differential calculus and :lvoids them to s uch an extent,
that he does not even introduce the concepts o f the polynomial and the deriva tive of
the polynomial
aox"'+ a1x m- I + ... + am_Ix + am'
w hich he could have ca lled, according to the defin ition, the polynomial
ma ox m - I + (m - l )a I X",-2 + ... + a m - 1·

This is why in La croix, the left hand side of the "proposed" equ ation is also not
des ignated fiy f(x). It has been introduced here by Marx. The pol ynomial s which
we wo uld now des ignate by f( a) , /,(a ) , ["(a ), ... , Lacro ix co rrespo ndin gly
d.esignated by the letlers V, A, 8 , ... However, the absence of an appropriate
symbol ism forces him sometimes to use the sa me lellers, V, A, B , ... to des ignate the
polynomials [(x), /' (x ) ,f"(x) , ... . Co nverse ly, Marx fi rs t of all draws our atte ntion
to the fact, that all these polynomials are obta ined from/ ex), through successive
differentiation.
136 It is that equation (2), abou t which Marx spoke at the beginning o f po int 3). The
equation
x", +PX", - I + Qx",- 2 + ... + Tx + V- 0
carries the number(l ) in Marx's conspec tus.
137 The result of substitutingy + a for x in the polynomial
! (x)_ x'" + Px"' - ! + Qx"'- 2 + ... + Tx + V
was presented by L1cro ix in the fo rm
B C
V +A y +"2 y2 + 2.3 y3 + ... + Y"'.

he nce
v - f (a) , A - f'( a), B - ["(a ), C - /",( a),
If a is a multiple root (of multiplicity k) o f the equation [ (x) .. 0, then
f (a) - f'(a) - ... - f(k~a ) - 0,
i.e .• V - A - B - c··· - O. This is what has been proved in Laeroix. Marx reproduced
below the technique of this proof. .
138 H ysteroll Prote rOfJ is a logica l error,cons isting of putting the s ubsequent (hysteron)
before the antecedent (proteron). Exa mple: "the cart be fore the horse".
47
:3,10 NOTES

139 Taking y out of the brackets in equation (11). and thus the reduction of the search for
the roots of equal ion (11) into a sea rch for the roots of equa tion (I la). has been depicted
by Lacroix as the "division" of both the parts of equation (11) by y. See: Lacroix's
book. p. 281. Marx used the same terminology here and afterwards.
140 Of course hcre it has been assumed that a is a root of equation (1) of multiplicity le,
where k> 1.
141 In other words it was possible to formulate the rule s impl y as :
if a is a multiple roo t of cquation (1). then it is also a root of the equation A - O. where
A is a derivative of the left hand s ide of equation (1). The calculations which follow this
in Marx's manuscript. are not there in L..1croix.
142 Of course under the assumplion that a is a rOOI of multiplicity k, where k > 2.
143 See note m .
144 In the original : x - 0 ; but to all appearunce, il is it slip of pen.
For an understanding of the text that follows, it is enough to note. that apparently.
here Marx has in view an analogy with the method of differentiation, enunciated after
Lagrange by Boucharlat.lt cons ists of the following :f(x + 11) is expa nded into a series
according to the powers of 11 :

f(x + h) - f(x) + Ph + Qh 2 + Rh) + "',

-
after which the ratio I(x + I~! [(x) turns ou t to be equa l to

P+Qh+Rh2+ ... (1)

Thus, Boucharlat reduced the search for the limit of the ratio:' I(x + h/~ - [(x), i.e., for

the dcrivative [,(x), into assuming h _ 0 in the expressio n (1). Here for Marx a plays
the role of h.
145 Apparently here Marx says that whilc obtaining the expression A from the expression
V algebraically, in essence we do what Boucharlat would have done by applying
the method of differentiation enunciated in the previous note, to the search for the
derived function A of V; here in the algebraic deduction of A from V, the unknown y
plays the role of h.
146 The reference is to the method of eliminating onc unknown from two equations with
two unknowns, proposed by Euler in his "Introduction to the analys is of infinities"
(ch. XIX, §§ 483-485, in the Russian edition of 1961, pp. 253·255). For eliminating
the unknown x rrom Marx's equat ions 1) and 2), whose coefficients (P, Q , ....
PI' QI' ... ) contain the variable y, the first equation is multiplied by the polynomial
X"-l + pX"-2 + qxn-) + ....
 NO'IE'; 371

containing the indetermi na te coefficients p, q, . . ., ,IIlU the second is multiplied by the

polynomial

containing the ind eterminate coefficients PI , ql' ... By equa ting the coefficients of
the same powers of x in the products thus obta ined, the problem is reduced to the
solution ofa sys tem of In + n - 1 equations, linear in respect of 111 + n - 2 unknowns
p , q,''', PI' qt' "', having the coefficients P, Q, ''', PI' QI' "', dependent only
on x. The last of these equations, found from th e first 111 + 11- 2 equations, by
s ubstituting the expressions for p, q, ... , PI' ql' ... and P , Q, ,.. , PI ' QI' ... , in
it also gives us the "final " equation (the resultant), which no more conlains the
variable x. In his "Elements of Algebra" L'lcroix gives an account o f this me thod of
Euler, but only in the light of examp les (see: §§ 192-195, pp. 264-270). (For a modern
account of Euler's method sec, for example, van der Waerden, S.L Modern Algebra,
M-L., 1947, § 27, p. 115- 117.) [A newer English edition of it was publishe~ by
"Ungar", New York, 1953 - Tr.]
147 Here Marx's comment comes to an end, but the conspectus of the above mentioned
chapter o f Lacroix's "Elemen ts of Algebra" continucs. However, what, name ly, Marx
wanted to say here, remains unclear. Only this much can be sa id , that he had in view
an analogy between Euler's method for eliminating the unknown (sec note 146) and the
method of demonstrating Taylor's theo rem as enunciated in the books of Hind and
Boucharlat. This demonstration was based upon the assumption that, if y - f(x), then
J(x+ 11) -y+Ah +Bh2+ Ch) + ... ,
where A, B, C, ... are "unknown functions of X, which arc to be determ ined" (Boucharl at,
p. 36).
In other words, as in the case of the indeterminate coeffi cients P. q, ... , PI' ql' ... ,
in Euler's method, here also the numerica l "indeterminate coefficients" are not being
referred to. The latter arc considered as fun ctions of the "second"o f the two unknowns
or variables (" and x in the demonstration of Tay lor's theo rem; co rrespondingl y x and
y in Euler's methOd) , to be determ ined.
148 Like the majority of mathematicians of his time, Lacroix called a ser ies convergent,
if "the terms forming it diminished as they moved away from the first term " (I.,.acroix,
p. 328). In his conspectus Marx too adduced this definition.
149 In other words, here the following circumsta nce is bei ng utilised: the exponential
fun ction J(t) - at satisfies the functional equal,ion f(x) .J(z) - J(x + z). Namely , the
following serieses are being written:
a" - 1 +Ax+ Bx 2 + ex) + ... ,
372 NOTE."

a t _ 1 +Az+Bz2+CZ3 + ...•
a~U _ 1 +A (x+z) +8 (X+Z)2+ C(x+z)3 +
the first two :lrc multiplied, and; the indeterminate coefficien ts A, B, C, ... arc
determined by equating the coefficients of the like terms of the form:xi zf in the sc r ics~s
for (a;&" ·a<) and aH ',

150 This comment is not there in the 11th (French) ed ition of L'lcroix's "Element.. of
Algebra" (1815). It may be held, that irno! the whole ori l, lhcn aliens! its last para
belongs to Marx. To undersL.1nd the text Ihat follows it is enough 10 note, that in
•
§§ 260-261 (pp. 355-357) of lacroix's book the issue is about the sum o f money A,
lent for n yeiHs at inte rest (r units per year), to be repaid by the debtor in course of
these 11 years, in yearly instalments of onc and the same s.um of a. Considering capita l
. A to be turning at the end of the fI-th year into A (1 + r) \ and the sum of money
a which is to be paid a t the end of the first , second e tc. years, upto the cnd of the ,Hh
year, 10 be equal 10 the sums a (1 + r)" - I , a(l + r)" - 2 , ' .. , a, Lacroix obl<lincd the
corresponding equality
A(1+r)" _ a(1+r),,-I+ a(1+r),, - 2+ ···+a,
whence, summing up the progression in the right hand s id e he obtained
A (1 H)"- a[(1 H)" - 1J (1)
r
The equa lities

A -7 {1- (1 ~ r),,} -~- 1\1 :r)'"

given below by Marx, are obtained by dividing both the paris o f equa lity (1) by
(1 + r)". SinceA is the sum to be paid at the given moment to finally settle the account,
A is called the "p resent value~ of the debt.
151 This ca lculation is based upon the (allowing:

When n-99 and r-;O wehave (lH)"-(;~r

We know that log (;~ r-
99 (log 21 -log 20) - 2'0977 • hence (;~ r- 125,

152 Marx cou ld have found such an accou nt o( the question of linear dependence (of
"varia tion") in many text books by the Englis h authors of his time. Thus, tn R. Potts'
"Elementary Algebra n , sectio n IX, p. 16 (1880). we read: "The sign ex is used instead
of the words "varies as" and the propo rtionaJity [of a variable x to another variable y ]
written in the form of x ex y is read as: "x varies asy". Potts' propositi on 23 reads : "If
 NOTES 373

x varies as y, and y varies as Z, then x varies as z ~(r. 1.7). PoIL<; also adduced other
propositions on th e properties of var iation.
153 This crit ical observation of Marx is directed ag.linst "w idening" the concept of
permutation, discussed above (sce, PV, 190), which unavoidahly ent.li1s a confusion
between the concepts of "permutat ion" and "variation" (the ir merger). The main
point is this ; though a permuL11ion of 11 e lements may be viewed as a variation o f n
e lements taken 11 at a time, but in so doing the difference helween the permutation of
11 elements and the variation of 11 elements taken In at a time (when m < 11) is reLlined,
whereas in the "widen ing" of the concep t of permutation, about which Marx wrote, this
distinction loses me'l ning.
154 Apparenlly what is being referred 10 here, is the method of obtai ning all variations of
11 ele ments la ken m at a time by : a) co ns titlltin g all permut.ltions of 11 e lements, b)
separating in each of them, the first m elements from the rest and c) finally, equating
all such permu tations mutually, whose beginnings ("words made of the first In !ellers)
H

co incide.ln so far as the number of such variations - (11 - m) ! , it is clearthat the number
of variations of 11 elements taken at a time - ( II!) I. It is also clear, that it does not
111
11 - m .
requi re any Mwiden in g~ of the concept of permutation.
155 It is clear, tha t by "divis ion by the fac tor y ", of an exp ression of the form
Ay + By Marx here means a fo rmal transformation, consis ting of the following: y is
taken out of the brackets and the second factor (A + B) is separated,which is viewed as
the result of such a "div ision", independently of, whethe r y is equal 10 zero or nol.
156 If th e equation has a root y - 0, then its left hand side may be represented in the form
of the product (Ay + B) y. "Having divided" - in the sense expressed in note m_
the left hand side of this equa tion by y, we sha ll obtain the equation Ay + B - 0,
which is a multiple rool of the initial equation, when y _ 0, and in its turn it has
y - 0 as a root, ow ing to which B must be equal to zero independ ently of y. And that is
what Marx has sa id .
157 MacLaurin trans formed the equation by substituting
x=y+k
and, wrote the terms with the sa me powers of y in a column one under the o ther.
The vertical se ries, referred to by Marx, corresponds 10 the free te rm of the equation,
obt.'1 ined as a result of this transformation.
158 Apparently, here Marx wishes to explai n, why the search for the bounds of the roots
should not be co nfined to a conside ration of the free term of the transformed equation,
and wl)y o ne shou ld successively turn to the coefficients of the te rms prior to it,
beginning with the Illst term (i.e., to the derivatives of the last term).
It see ms that in the last clause there is a s lip of pen: instead of "roots" Marx wrote
"terms", evidently having in view the fact, that the positive roolS a re contained between
374

zero and thei r upper bounds and , the negati ve rools - be tween their lower bounds and
ze ro.
159 Here Marx has turned his attention to th e difference in the forms of express ion of the
powcrcll se ries fo r f (x + 11 ). If Ih is series is written in th e form
112 113
[(x) + ph + q - 2 +7 - 3 + etc .•
1· . 1· 2 ·
the n the coc rricienLS p. q, r, .... arc the successive derivat ives f'(x) • / "(x) • f'''(x) •...
However, it will be incorrect, i f th e series is written in the form
I(x) + ph + lIh 2 + rll 2 + ...
160 That is, a composite function ex press ibl e through ele menta ry fun ctio ns. Th ese may
be defin ed, for exampl e, as :
1) all ele menta ry fun c tions like x"', er, logx,s in x and othe rs whic h arc "expressible
th rough eleme nta ry func tions", 2) if a fun ction I(x" Xl' "', x,,) ( /1 = 1. 2, ... ) is
"expressible th rough elemen ta ry fun ctions", then a function obta in ed from it by
s ubs tituti ng the functions ~express i b l e through elementa ry func tions" in place of the
a rguments XI' .l1:, "', X~, is also "expressible through elementa ry fu nct ions".
Evidentl y the n, composite functions a rc such functions, as are "express ible th rough
el eme ntary fun ctions". but are the mselves not elementary, and that is wh y in the general
case they cont.1in a few elementary fun ctions, like: log si nx, s in '" x e tc.
161 Tha t is, polynomials.
16 2 In Hind, as well as in the o ther so urces used by Marx, express io ns con t.1 in ing
..;::-r were considered indicative o f the unsolvability of th e probl e m, "imposs ible"
expressio ns. Conversel y, expressions not con ta ining the imag inarics, were o ften
ca ll ed "poss ible". The fact that Marx has put the words "possible expression" wi thin
quota tion marks, is expressive of his irony directed at th is sort of auitude towa rds the
e me rgence o f the imaginaries. .
163 In a number o f places, in his manuscripts Marx adduced bibl iograph ica l informations
about th e memo ir of Taylor, "Me th od of increments ", which conta ins Ta ylor 's theore m.
A s heet, attached to the manu script "On the His tory of Differential ca lculus" also
cont.1ins a refere nce 10 this memo ir. T his shows that Marx inte nded to get acquainted
with th is wo rk in the or iginal. Such a n assu mption is also s uppo rted by Ma rx 's
special me ntion of the fact that he borrowed the informa tions o n MacLa urin 's
theorem dircctly from MacLa ur in . Though, he re too, his source remains the text-books
at his disposa l. In Hind's book (pp. 84.85) the bi nomial theorem has been deduced
( fo r a pos it ive and integral 111) from Taylor's theorem, a nd the res ult has been written
in the (arm
m(m - 1) lII(m - 1)(m - 2)
(x + 11 )'" _ x'" + niX'" -1 11 + x"' - 2 112+ ).:'" - 2 113 + etc.
1·2 1·2-3
The fact that the last te rms of the ex pansion were not written, appa re ntl y provided
Ma rx w ith the grou nd to ascribe to the au thor, an urge to trea llhis pa rt ic ular instance
 NOTES 375

from a more general point of view. It is natura l thilt here Tllylor himself appeared to
Marx to be the "a uthor".
164 These two sheets, arc in the nature of rough drafts and they do conL1in slips o f pen. which
wc have corrected, as the mean ing of the text was quite clear. Here the source of point
1) is: Sauri's book (voL III p. 3). The source of point 2) could not be es tab lished.
Giving an accoun t of Lagrange's method, Lacroix referred to the fact that this me thod
was furth er improved upon by Poisson (L.1croix , Treatise, p. 160). In his list of
references Lacroix mention ed a paper by Poisson in iss ue No. 3 of "La co rrespondance
sur L'Ecole Poly technique". In the bibliograp hica l index <llIa ched to his his torica l
essay (sce: PV, 66) Marx has mentioned Poisso n w ithout men ti oning his works.
165 Here Marx stresses the difference between fUll ctions as ana lyt ica l express ions
(functions "in x~) and fun ctions as dependence (of onc variable upon another:
fu nctions "of x") and draws our allen tion to the co nfusion caused by the fac t,that
these concep ts are not distinguished. In modern litcr<lture, especia ll y in th e work on
mathematica l logic, ca rried out by the school of A.A. Markov, Ihis co nfusion is
eli minated by us in g two different equa l ity s igns: "=" and " ::::::: ". "y = [(x)" in essence
s ignifies, tha t y is a fun ction "of x", in Marx 's sense; "y::::::: [(x)" Sign ifies tha t y is
an analytical expressio n - a word in the co rrespond ing alpha bet, having the fp rm
"[(x)" (in the examp le co ns idered by Marx, .5x4 is a function ~ in x", in Marx 's sense).
For grea ter detai ls see: note 6•
166 ] ~ acco rdance with what has been sa id in the prev ious note, Marx unders tood an
expressio n like [(x) .. .5..(I, in a sense, according to which we would now write
f(x) ='= 5x', i.e. , a statement to the effect, that f(x) has the fo rm 5x" (that [(x) is a
"word" of the form 5x"). Such express ions, as well as equatio ns, have two sides (right
and Icft), which Marx here co unterposes, onc against the other : the ge neral
indeterminate expression ( the le ft) as opposed to the particular expression (the right).
167 From the paragraphs which follow immediately, it is clear, that Marx by no means
cons idered such algeb raic (in his sense of the . word) induction of Tay tor's theorem
to be its actual proof.
By "differentiatio n" Marx sometimes understood simpl y: formati on of the difference
f(x + h) - f(x) j and in that case, "differentiatingf(x), when x increases by a positive
or negat ive increment h", is natura ll y understood as : an approx imate (UpIO this or
that degree of exactitude) ca lculation (o f the finite) increment of the function (at a
given point xeJ for a given increment h of th e independent variable x. On the use of
Taylor's th eorem for the successive differentiation of the func tion f(x), wi th the help
of a serial expans ion of [(x + h) according to the powers of ". see below.
About the word "every" (function), it is evident from the paragraph that fo llows
(point a »), that Marx never thought that every function could be expanded into Taylor's
376 Non,s
series. Th:!! is why it is clear, that by "every functi o n" here he meant every fun ction
[(x), fo r which [(x + 11) can be expanded into Tay\or 's se ries.
168 Ev identl y here the reference is to the fac l,that from the expansion o f J(x + 11) into
Ta y\or's se ries, it is poss ible to extract Ihe cha in of differences
. y. - y. (y ')1 - y ' , (y " )1 - y " etc.,
about whi ch Ma rx wrote in detail in the paragraph Ihal followed. Under the influence
of the sources used (scc: firs t o f all the text-book by Boltcharla t), Marx used the
notlltion y ' in the sense o f the augmen ted val ue of y ; Le:, YI' as well as in the sense
of Ihe deri vative of y. To remove this do ubl e meaning, in the nex t paragraph wc have
eve rywhere substituted Marx 's
y' - y . y" - y' , Y HI _ y" etc,
respecti vely by
y,-y , (y '),-y', (y") , -y"clc.
169 The seco nd part of this paragraph , beg inn ing with the words "but, conversely",
co ntained 3 number of cancell ations and s lips of pcn. But as it was not q uite clear, wha t,
namely, Marx wa nted to say he re, wc did not take the libe rty o f correcting even the
explicit slips o f pen. Apparentl y he re Ma rx had in view some ge nera lisa tion ( for any
functi on, express ible through a powered serics) of that directly "algebraic"
differen thltion o f the equality
YI o r (X+ h)"' +I -
h ~ ~
-x"''' I + (m + 1)x"'- + (m + l)m.r"' - I -
+ (m + l)m(m - 1}.l.... -2 _ - + etc.,
1 , ·2 1·2·3
which he s tudied on pages 4-5 of his manuscript. It see ms, that in the words "the
difference between [(XI) and [(x) the letter [ is simply a stenographic n?tation for
the word "function", i.e., this place should have bce n tran slated as "the difference
between the values of some functi on in XI and in x". If suc h a fun ction is designated
by the le tter W, then the formula
y\-A (Xlm_xm)
tw hic h contains an explicit s lip of pen) may, perhaps, be read as :
qJ(x,) - qJ(x) - A (x,' - x-).
By the wo rds "a n arbitrary co nsta nt A R, evidently, he re he meant: "some" ("some
not closely defined ") constant.
170 Here Marx has in view the me thod of formal differentiation of a functi on, rep resented
th rough a powered ser ies, the fi rs t prescription of whic h' reads: if
[(x) - A +Bx+C x 2 +DXl+ elc. ,
then
[ (x 't' h) - A + B (x + 11) + C(X+h)2+D (x+ h)3 + etc.
 NOTES

.. A +B (x+ h) + C (x2 + 2x1l + 112) + D(x3 + 3x 2h + 3xh 2 + 11 3 ) + etc.

This in fact suits the use of the binomial theorem, beginning with the second power of
the binomial (x + 11).
171 The reference, appa rently, is to the manuscrip t "O n the Co ncept o f the Derived
Function" (see: PV, 19).
172 Jo hn Landen obta ined the binomial theorem o f New ton, and besides he ob tained its
genera lisation for any real index of power, with the hclp of his "res idua l analys is" -
which is somewhat ana logous to Marx's "a lgebraic method o f differentiation" (see:
Appendix, p. 320).
Marx did not want to fin ally formul ate his own manuscri pt on the history o f th e m e thods
of differential calculus and the theorems of Taylor and MacLa urin, before ge tting
acquainted with the works of John Landen. But unfo rtunately he co uld no t realise this
intention o f his. It should also be mentioned, Ihat, as will be cl ear from the further
description of manuseripl4302, Landen's proof would not havc fully sa tis fied Marx,
as Landen proceeded from the presupposition about the expansibility, and besides
univoca l expa ns ibility o f (a + xy inlo a series in ascend ing a nd integra l powers,
whereas Marx though t tha t it is essentia l to substantia te such an expans ibility. And he
did it for an inlegral and positive p, referring 10 the dislributivity of multiplication
in respect of addition, when with this aim in v iew Marx presented (x + 11)6 in the form
of
(x + iI) (x + iI) (x + iI) (x + iI) (x + iI) (x + iI).
The English translation of the 1828 edition of Boucharlat's book, used by M a rx , did
no t conta in the "Appendix I " to its 5~t h edition, devoted to a "proo f of Newton's formula
with the hclp o f d ifferential ca lculus".
173 It is clear from what follows, that here Marx has in view o nl y the method of searching
the first deriva tive, co nsisting of the following: if
f(x+h)_A+Bh+Ch 2 +Dh 3 + ...•
w here A, B, C ..... a re functions only of x, then after assum ing" '" 0 we notice tha t
A - [(x), and thus (for" JO! 0) we go over to the equa lity
[(x+hl-[(x)
h - B + ClI + DI'
I + ... ,

and in the right hand side we o bta in the "preliminary" derivative, I.e., an expression,
in which it is en·ough to assume h - 0, for obtaining the deriva live of [(x). Here the
question of the methods of "freeing" the furth er derivatives is yet to be cons idered .
174 Here Marx wants 10 say, that in eq uatio n 2a) the coefficients of the powtrs o f It a re
th emselves no t the success ive der ivatives o f (x + h)m, but arc some fractional parts of
them.
175 Since it is no t clear why in place of the functions J'(x). f"(x) etc., their sy mbolic
equivalen ts k' ~ etc., may not be simply subs titu ted, it is evident tha t he re Marx

48
378 NOTES

wanted to sa y something else. Basing o urselves upo n w ha t he wrote afterwards, it is

natural to assume, that here wc ha ve another case of a slip of pc n, a nd that what he
inte nded to say cons is ted o f the fo ll ow ing:
Ir wc have only the expansion
f (x + h ),.. I (x) + AII + Bh 2 + Chl + ... (1)
with the inde terminate coeffic ients A, B, C, ... • then we must s till "w ith the help o f
differc ntiatio n"- here: fo rm atio n o f the ratio
[(x+h )- [(x) A BI Cl '
h - +I+ l + '"

a nd the n the assumption of" - 0 - at fi rst establish that A - [,(x), and then obtain from
the expans io n of f(x + h), the expansion of J'(x + 1/ ) :
f'(x + h) - f'(x) + 28h + 3Ch' + ...• (2)
whence
f' (Hh ) -f'(x ) 28
- + 3CI1+ '"
h
and, fu rther, fo r h - 0

/"(x) - 28. i.e .• B - 1\ /,,(.). clc.

Only afte r th is sha ll we be able 10 substitute fo r the indetermina te coefficients

A, B, C, ... the ir "symbo lic equivalents", i.e., the express ions involv ing the symbo ls
~, ~ •... (a nd the numerical coefficients).
176 Let us reca ll, that as in Euler 's calculu s of zeros (see: Appe ndix, p . 316), here the
"removed" (thro ugh the assumptio n of x,_x) d ifferences (" , - ,,) a nd (v, - v) (in
Marx 's notatio n) a re mutually "equ al", if their ratio is equal to o ne, i.e. , the limit o (
u, - u
the ra tio - - is equa l to 1, as XI - x.
v, - v
177 Sce: Appe ndix, "Theorems ofTaylor and MacLaurin a nd Lag range 's Theo ry o(
Analytica l Functions in the sources consulted by Ma rx ", p . 333.
178 In the orig ina l, this entire pa ragraph contai ns a grea t many cancellations. It is difficult
10 say, ho w it sho uld be read. Fo r example, may it no t be inte rpre ted as : "It is never
viewed as "taking o nl y o ne [determinate) pa rticular value a"? Appa re ntly, suc h a n
interpretatio n mus t correspond 10 Marx's understa nd ing of the w ords "generall y
spea king" in Lagra ngc's demonstration.
 INDEX OF QUOTED AND MENTI ONED LITERATURE
Alemberl J. d', Trait~ de J'equi li bre el du
mouvemenl des fluides. Paris. t 754. - 66, 67,
80.
Beeker 0., Harmsnn lB.. Geschichte der Malhematik:,
8onn,1951.-333.
Ooellus Anicius Man lius Severni us,Anicii Manli i
Torqu8 ti Severini Boetii De insli lulionc
arithmeticaelibri duo. Ed. G.Friedlein. Leipzig.
1867 . -112.
Bouchllrlat J.-L., Eleme ns de calcul differential
et de catcu l integral, Some e<I., Paris, 1838,
English translation of the 3rd French ed.: An
elementary treatise on the differentia l and
integral calculus, Cambridge-London, 1828.
-4,33,60,119.121,123,124,133,134,135,
136, 145, 148, 151, 154-158, 160, 161, 163,
166,214,218,219,225,227.228, 229,230,
233, 236, 237, 239 , 241-242, 243, 244,
260·262, 263, 265, 287, 288, 293, 303 ,
308-309,326-332,335·339.
Cantor M ., Vorlesungen Uber Geschichte der
Mathematik, Bd.3, 2.Aufl ., Leipzig,1901.
333.
Devely (1.8.L.), Alg/!:bre d'Emite, 2 vol., Geneve,
1805 . - 167.
Engels P., Anti-Diihring, Progress. Moscow,
1978. - 1,3,4 .
Engels P.• Di a lectics of Nature, Progress,
Moscow,1 976. - 8.
Euclid, Euclid's Elements, in 3 Volumes, M.-L.,
1949-1950. -189, 202.
Euter L, eh!mens d'algebre, Lyon, 1795. - 168,
170, 172. 200, 201.
Euler L., Insliluliones calculi d ifferenlialis cum
ejus usu in analysi finilorum ac doctrina
serie ru m, Berlin 1755 . Russian translation:
Differcntsialnoe ischeslicnic, M.-L., 1949. -
66,147,3 16-319.333,335.
Euler L., In troductio in ~ naysin infinitorum.
Lausss"e, 1748. -66.
Feller F.E., OdeTmann C.G., n as Ganzc der
kaufm!innischcn Arilhrnclik, 7 aun., Leipzig,
1859. -2,116,117, 122,151.
Foster J .L.. AnessllY on the principleof commercial
exchanges, London, 1804 . - 1 J7.
Frankli n, F.,Matematicheskii analiz, M., 1950. -
147.
GoOdWin H., An elementary course of mathematics,
4th ed., Cambridge,1853. - 189, 197.
Goschen G. L,The theory of the foreign
exchanges,8th ed., London, 1875. - 116.
lIall ·Ib. G., A treatise on plane trigonometry,
London,1833. - 241.
Halt Th. G., A treatise on the differential and
integral calculus, and the C/llcutus of vari~tions,
5th ed. , London, 1852. - 134, 151, 157, 158,
166,214,219, 229,230,237, 242,261,262,
263, 265 .
Hall Th. G., The elements of algebra, 3rd cd.,
Cambrid ge, 1850. - 189,194,196,199,210.
Hall ey E.• Melhodus nova, accurata et racHis
inveniendi radices aequationum quarumcunquc
gcneraliter, sine praevia reductione, "Philosophical
TransaClions of the Royal society of London",
London, 1694. - 200.
Hausner 0 ., Vergleic hende Statistik von Europa,
2 Dde., Lembcrg, 1865 . - 117.
Hemming G. W., An elementary treatise on the
differential and integral calculus, Second ed.,
Cambridge, 1852. - 213 , 214, 228, 242, 243,
272.
380 INDEX OF OUOlE D AND MENTIONED LITERATURE
Hind J ., The principles of the differcnli~1
calculus; with its applications 10 curvcs and
curved surfaces, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1831.-
81,123,133,135, 148,151,155,1 56,157,
214,217,225,227,228,230,233.237,239,
240, 24 1,242,243.245,246,259,261,265,
289,290,293,303-308,320,335.
Hind 1., The elements of algebra, 4th ed.,
Cambridge, 1839. - 187, 199.
Hind I. , The eleme.nts of plane and spherical
trigonometry. 3rd cd., Cambridge, 1837. -
186-188.212,239,240,241.
Hymers l ., A treatise on conic sections and the
application of algebra 10 geometry, 3rd ed.,
Cambridge, 1845. - 119.
luschkewitsch A.P., Euler und Lagtange liber die
Grundlagen der Analysis. In : ft Sammelband
zu Ehren des 250 Gcburtslages Leona rd
Eulers ft , Berlin, 1959. - 317-318.
Knopp K., Theoneund Anwendungder unendlichen
Reihen. 2 AuO., Berlin, 1924. - 301 .
Lacroix S.F., Traitc du calcul differenliel el du
calcu[ i n !~grlll . 3 vol., seconde cd ., Paris,
1810-1819 . - 9 ,146,152,1 53,171 ,262,305,
309,310,320,325.
Lacroix S.P., Trail~ clCmentaire de calcul
dirrcrentiel el de ca lcu[ integral, 2-e ed., Paris,
1806. Eng. Ir. : An elementary treatise on the
differential and integral calculus, Cambridge,
1816. - 133,146.
Laceoil( S.P., f:lc!mens d'algebre, 11-me ed., Paris,
1815. - 167-168, 171,177,179,180,184,
185,186,187,214,228,229,235.
Lacroil( S.F., Complement des elements d'
algcbre, 4- e cd. Paris, 1817. 7_ me cd., Paris,
1863. -198,199,325 .
Lagrange J. L, Throne des fondions analytiques.
Pa ris, 1813. Or in : Ocuvres de Lagrange, VoL
IX, Paris, 1881 . - 66, 67, 80, 311-312, 325.
Lagrangc J . L.. Nouyclle m ~1flOdc pour rcsomJre
[cs equations , l iucralcs par le moycn des
series, · Mcmoircs de l'Academic royale dc
Sciences ct l3ell es LCUrcs de Berlin ". Val.
XXIV. 1770. -134.
Landen l.o The residual analys is, London, 1764.
- 90,311,320-325 .
Landen J., A discourse of the rcsidu~llInlllysis,
London , 1758. - 325.
Lhuili cr S., Principiorurn ca Iculi diffcrcntilllis et
integralis expositio eierncntarics, Tiibi ngen,
1795. - 333.
MacLauri n c., 1\ treatise of alge bra in 3 parts, 1st
cd ., 1748; 6th cd. , London, 1796. - 178, 185,
192,193, 194, 197,201,202,203,205,206,
207,208,209,210,211,227,235,336.
Ma cLaurin C:, GeomctriR orga ni ca, sive
desc riptio linearum CUTVllrum univers alis,
London, 1720. - 229.
Marks K., Matemalicheskie rukopisi, in : " Pod
Znamenem marksizma", No. I, 1933 and, in:
the collection· Marksizm i estestvoznania",
M., 1933. -1,137.
Marks K.,O poniyalii runklsii, in : "Voprosy
filosofW, No. 11, 1958. - 17lff.
Moigno P., Le(jOns de calcul differentiel el de
calcul integral, redigees d' npn!s les mcthodes
eties ouvrages publics ou incdits de Mr. L. A.
Cauchy, 2 Vol., Paris, 1840 et 1844 . - 66.
Natanson I.P., Proizvodnye, integraly i riady, v
kn . "Entsiklopcdi~ elementarnoi malematiki",
1'.111, Gostekhizdat, M.-L., 1952. - 301 .
Newton I., Philosophiae oR.turalis principia
mathemalica, London, 1687. Russian ed.:
Newton L, Matemalicheskie na cha la
naturatnoi filosofii, perevod s lal. s poiyasn.i
primech. A.N. Krytova, Izvestia Nikolaevskoi
mors koi akademii, Spb., 1915·1916. - 4, 66,
67,313-315 .
 INDEX OF OUOTED AND MENTIONED LITERATURE
Newton I., Arithmetica unive rsalis, sive de
composilionc et resolutionc Hilhmelica liber,
Cambridge, 1707. - 90, 192, 210, 228, 232,
234.
Newton I., Analysis per quantitatum series,
fluxiones el differentias, cum enumeratione
linearum terti i ordinis. 1711. - 66, 67.
chnymm chis lom chlenov. V sb. : isallk
Newton, Matcmaticheskie raboly, M.- L.,
1937. -4,126, 146.
Poppe 1. H.M., Gesehichtc der Mathcmatik seil
der iiltesten bis auf die neusle U!lt, Tiihingcn,
1828. -109-112.
Polls R., Elementary a lgebra, 1880. - 190.
Sadler M.Th., Ireland; its evils IInd their
remedies, 2nd ed. London, 182Q . - IlK
Sauri , Cours compJcl de m~themaliques . 5 Vols.
Pa ris, 1778. - 4,113. 115, J 19,121, 122, 123,
124,125, 126, 132, 158, 166. 229,230,237,
242.
,8>
Speh r Fr. W., Volistiimliger Lehrbegriff der
reinen KOl11binationslehre etc. llraunschweig,
1824. - 192,212.
Stern M.A., Lehfbuch def ~lgebraische n Anal ysis,
1860. - 212.
Struik DJ., Kralkii ocherk iSlorii malcmatiki, M.,
1964. - 333.
11liOOul 13., Grundriss der IIl1gcrnci nen Arit hmclik
odcr Analysis zurn Gebrauch bei akademischen
Vorlcsungen, Gotingen, 1809. - 191., 192,
195,212.
Tscilcn G.G., Istoria malcmlltiki v XV I i XVII
vckRkh, M.-L..1931l. - 333.
Vileitner G .• Istori ll matematiki 01 Dekarta do
scrediny XIX stoletill, M., t960. -333.
Wood 1., Elements of algebra, 3rd ed., Cllm bridge,
1810. - 213.
 NAME INDEX

Alembert 1.L. d'(1717-1783). -(4, 9,10, 12,13, Dcscarlcs n.(lS96-1650). - 8, 168, 177, 185,
66,67,68, 79,80,81,82,83,95,99,100, 102, 202, 204.
104, 246,248.302,311.
Dcvclcy I.E.L.(1764-1839). - 167 .
Apol1onios (llbou1 200 B. C.). -109, Ill.
Diophantus (probably 3rd century). - /11.
Archimedes (about 287-212 B.C.). - 109, 110,
Engels F. (1820- 1895). - 1, 2, 3, 4, 7. 8,10,26,
111, 124.
/13,115, 116, 117, 124, 250, 256, 260, 264.
Aristaus (3rd century ~.C.). -111.
Eschcnooch I. K. (1764-1797). -191.
Bacon R. (about 1214-1294). -109.
Euclid (cnd of the 4th - beginni ng of the 3rd
Barrow I. (1630-1677). - 360. cen tury RC.). -109, 111 , 177, 185, 189 , 201,
202.
Bcrnoulli. - /11,199 .
EudoJ(us of •
Cindus (about 408- about 355 O.C.).
BClQul A. (1730-1783). -168.
- Ill.
Blakclock R.( 1804-1892). - 119, 326.
Eu!er L. (1707-1783). - 4, 10, 12 , 66, 142, 147,
80elius (about 480-about 542 C.E.). _ 112. 168,170,172, 185,198,1 99,200, 20 1,256,
3111, 316-319, 333, 335.
Boucharlal 1.L.(1775-1848). - 4, ..33,60, 119,
120, 123, 124, 133, 135, 136, 145, 148, 151, Fel le r F.E.(1800-1859). - 2, 116, 118, 122, 151 .
152, 153-158, 160, 161, 163 , 166, 214, 218,
Fostcr J.L. (about 1780-1842). - 117.
219,225,227,228,229,233,236,237,239,
24 1,242,243,244, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265, Folkes M.(1 690-1754). - 211.
287, 288, 293, 303, 308, 309, 326-332,
Fichte 1.G.(1762-1814). -13, 94.
335-339.
Fr~nCQeur L.B .( 1773-1849). - 33.
Briggs H.( 1556 or 1561-1630). -110, 186.

Cantor 0.(1845-1918). - 5. Friedlein 1.G. (1828-1875). -112.

Goodwin H.(18 18-1891) -189,197.

Cardan 1. (1501-1576). - 212.
Goschen 1.1.(1831 -1907). - 116.
Cauchy AL. (17~9-1857). - 203, 204, 304.

Cavalieri B.(1598-1647). -124. Graumann I.P.(1690-1792). - 110.

Clairaut A.K. (1713-1765). -168. Graves 1.T.(1806-1870). - 14 .

Gregory 1.(1638-1675). - 333_

Condorcet 1.A ( 1743-1794).-333.
HaIlT.(1803-1881) .-4, 134, 151, 157, 158,166,
Dcdekind R.y.W.<t831-1916).-5.
189,194,196,199,210,214,219,229,230,
De Moivre A(1667-1754).-325. 237, 241,242, 261,262,265.

Dc Mo rgan A (1806- 1871).-14. Halley E. (1 656-1742). - 200.

 NAME INDEX 383

Hardy GJI.(1877-1947). - 5, 6. Leibnitz G.W. (1646-1716). - 4 , 8, 9, 10, 11,12,

13,59,66,67,68, 79,80,90,92,94, lJ I, 113,
Hausner 0 .(1827-1 890). -117.
120, 123, 124, 125, 135, 158, 233, 237,242,
Hegel G.W.F.(1770-1831). -13, 94. 272,298,301,305,309,315,319,321,335.

Hemming G.(1821-1905). - 4, 213, 214, 228, Lhui licr SAL (1750-1840). - 333.
242, 243, 272.
Littlewood 1.1. (b. 1885). - 6.
HindJ.(1796-1866). - 4, 81,123, 133,135, 148,
Machin 1.(d. 17SI).-333.
15 1,156, 157,186,187, 199,212,214,217,
225,227, 228,230, 233,237,239 , 240, 241, MacLaurin A. - 229.
242, 243, 245, 246, 259, 261, 265, 289, 290,
MacLau rin C. (1698-1746). - 4,13,66,82,87,
293,303 -311 ,320,333.
88,89,90, 135, 154-155, J62, 163, 178, 179_
Hindenburg K.F.(1741-1808). -19 1. 183, 184, 185, 192, 193, 194,197, 201, 202,
203,204,205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211,
Hill J . - 2JJ.
212,214, 219, 225-229, 230, 231, 2}2, 234,
Hippocrates of Chios(2nd ha lf of 5ch century 235,236,241,260,263, 264, 287, 2~4, 295,
B.G.). - Ill. 325, 332,333,335, 336, 339.

Homer F.(1778-1817). -199. Menachmus (4th centu ry B.G.). -111.

Hymers 1.(1803-1887). - 119 . Menger K.(b. 1902). - 8.

Kant l.(1724-1804). - 13,94. Mitchel A.(d . 1771). -2JJ.

Kaufmann 1. 1.(1848- 1916). - 123,150 H J . Moigno F.N.M.(1804- IIppoX. 1884). - 66.

Kramp C. (1760-1826). -191. Moore S.(b. appox. 1830- d. approx. 1912). - 3,

4,256.
Lacroix S.F. (1765-1843). - 4, 9, 61, 133, 146,
152,153,167, 168, 171,177,179,180,184, NapierJ.(1550-1617). - JJO, 186, 187.
185,186, 187,198.199,211 , 2 14,228,229,
235,262,305,309-311,320,325. . Newton 1.(1642-1727). - 4, 8, 9,10,1 1,12, 13,
Lagrange J.L. (1736-1813). - 4, 5, 7, 10, 13,33, 59,61,66,67,68, 71,79,80,82,85,88,90,
46,50,59,61,66,67,80,81,82,85,87 , 88, 92, 94, 99, 108, 111, 120, 123-125, 12f?
89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 106, 120, 123, 132, 133, 127-/30, 146,154, 185, 188, 193, 197,211,
134, 135, 143, 144, 145,146,148 , ISO, 157, 217,219,225,226,227, 228,229,230,231,
158 , i59. 160,166,196, 199,213,2 14,215, 232,233, 234,235, 272, 280,284,298,301,
217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 224, 230,231, 236, 311,313-315,318,319,321,323,324,325_
237, 246, 260,261,263,268,293, 294, 301 , 33],333,334,335,337.
311,312,317,320,325,326,332, 333, 338.
Oderman n C.G.( 18 l 5- 1904). - 2,116,1 18, 122,
Lambert I.H. (1728- 1777). - 199. 151.
Landen J . (1719-1790).-39, 66, 90, 106, 311,
Oenopidcs of Chios (Sth century B.C.). - J1I .
320-32S .
Laptace p.s. (1749-1827). - 66. Ortega J.D.(d. IS67) . - 110
Lllurenf M.P.E. (1841-1908). - 326. Pascal B. (1623-1662). - 124.
384 NAME INDEX

Peacock G. (179 1.1858). - 133, 336. Schelling F.WJ . (1775.1854). - 13, 94.

Philips L(d. 1866). - 112. Spehr F.W.( 1799-1833). - 191.211.

Plato (approx. 427· approx . 347 H.C.) - 109, Stern M.(1807-1894). - 211 .
11 J.
Stewin 5.(1548.1620). - 110.
Poisson S.0.(1781-1840). - 66,157,237,260,
Slirling '.(appro:c . 1692.1770). - 325, 336.
261, 262, 263.
Taylor B.(1685- 1731). - 5, 10, 13, 50, 66, 82, 87 ,
PoppeJJI. M(1776-1854).-I09, 110,111,112.
88,89,90,91,93,9.1,132.133,134,135, 136,
Polls R. (180S-1885). -190. 142, 143,148, I5-/, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161,
162,163,166,178,196,200,214,217,218,
Pythagoras (approx . 57 1- approx. 497 n .c.).- 219, 220-230, 231·234, 236, 237, 241, 260,
1l0, lll , ll2. 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 271·274, 277,281,
Ricse A. (~pprox. 1492-1559) . -110. 284,285, 287, 288, 291, 293, 294, 295,297,
298,199-301.325, )33·339.
ROlhc II .A. (1773-1842). - 191.
'[bales (aboul 624-abou[ 547 I).c.). - J 1 1.
Russel B. ( 1872-1970). - 8.
Thibaulll .r:.(1775-t832). -191.192,195 , 212.
Sadlcr M.T. (1780-1835). - 118.
Vicla F.( 1540-1603). - 1J1.
Sauri (1741-1785). -4.113.115.119.120, 121,
Wcierslr3~s K.T.W.(1815-1897). - 5.
122,123, 124, 125. 126, 132, 158, 166,229,
Wood 1.(1760-1839) . - 213.
230, 237, 242.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

49
 INTRODUCTION
This special su pplement 10 Marx's Mathematical Manllscripts has grown oul of an attempt
to write a new preface 10 it. The supplement has three parL...
PART ONE: HISTORY, contains materials pertaining to the his tory of evolution of Marx's
mathematical invest iga tions, to that of the work leading to the publication of thcir resu lts and,
a bibliography, listing {he majority o f existing publications the field. The bibliography is not
exhaustive.
PART TWO: INVESTIGATIONS,conta ins four articles inspired by Marx's mathematical
manuscripts. Three of them are trans lations from Russian. They relate Marx's mathematical
investigations respectively to : the history of analysis, the study of histo.ry of mathematics in
the erstwhile USSR and, the logic of Mane's Capilal. The fourth article provides an outline of
the problem of situati ng Marx's mathematical manuscripts in the his to ry of ideas as a whole.
Parts one and two reflect the past - the work that has al ready been done. The question
arises: where do we go from here? Marx conducted his investigations in the 19th century,
basing himself ma inly upon the developments in analysis upto the cnd o f 18th-beginning of
19th cen turies (e.g., upto the time of Lagrange). We arc living in the last decade o f the 20th
century. In Marx's lifetime, and even a couplc o f decades after his death - right upto the first
decade of this century - practically, there existed only one (now called the classica l ) trend
in mathematical analysis, but now there are many (classica l, intuitionist, constructivist and
non-standard - some of them overlap and, branch ou t into multiple sub-trends). Tndeed, the
fact that even to-day we speak of mathematics in the singular, renects a particular view of it.
We must also tra in ourselves to speak, in the plural, of the mathematicses. [This graaphic
barbarism has been inloroduced to jolt the reader out of the prevalent singula r use of the word
mathematics, which is morphologically both plural and singular in English. In Bengali and
Russian we have greater graphic clarity: goniI > gonitsamulta ; matematika > matematiki.]
The on tologica l and epistemological consequences of these more recent developments in the
history of mathematics are profound: that which was considered to be one has also revealed
itself as many. The e ntire problematique of truth and certainty has entered into an era of radical
reconstruction all over again. At long last, the strongest bastion of theoretical dogmatism -
the monopoly of the classical mathematical paradigm - is c rumbling before our own eyes. It
is clear, that is why, that there is no point in beginni ng our investigations from just where Marx
left his work unfinished - when he died in 1883. To-day, even a survey of the post-Lagrange
developments must base itself upon the contemporary attainments, the frontiers of which are
being extended daily, hourly.
PART THREE : MATHEMATlCSES, has been planned to provide the reader of this
volume with a perspectival update on the relevan t developments. Owing to reasons beyond the
control of the present author here the cut year is 1987 - when a ll the five articles included in
this part were published in Russian, as part of the proceedings of a symposium on "The
Regularities and Modern Tendencies of the Development of Mathematics". held in September
1985, in Obninsk.
All the articles included in this supplement arc, to my knowledge, being published in English
for the first time. All trans lations from Russian are minc. It will be notcd that all the articles
 INTRODUCTION 387

herein included - save my own - arc transla tions from Russian. A number of factors
determined this choice. A vast amount of relevant work ex is ts in Russ ian , and our rcaders arc
generally unaware of them - this s ituation requires correctio n. Where a collective e ffort is
needed, I was constrained to work s ingle -handedly, wit hou t any kind of institutiona l sllpport.
I have deliberately excluded the materials alread y available in English, si nce our leaders have
greater access to them, thanks to our historical contacts with thc English-us ing world . Thus, a
very relevant article by John Kadvany, A Mathematical Bildungsroman 11 History and Theory,
1, 1989, pp. 25-42, wh ich should otherwise have been repr in tcd in part three of th is s upplemcnt,
remains excluded. I strongly rccommend it fo r any reader of Marx and Mathema tics. I have
hea rd that the Italian publica tions o n Marx's mathematical manuscripts arc really very good;
but I do not read Italian; in fact, apart from Ru ss ian I do not read any other European language.
This personal limitation has also contributed to thc.inadequacies of this supplement. Let us hope
that in future some onc will make the other releva nt materials access ible to us.
The limitations of thc present volume and of this supplement will be overco me w ith thc
publication of a better and complete edition of all the mathematical manuscripts o f Marx (so me
400 pages of them still remai n unpublished), as well as with the publica tion of newer and newer
s tud ies on them, executed with ever greater competence; but more importan tl y, we must join
hands in opening up new frontiers in mathematical theory and practice and, in the cognate
disciplines (e.g., in informatics) and technologies, and thus carry forward the critical and
trans formative spirit embodied in the mathematica l manuscrip ts of Karl Marx .

Ca lcu tta, June IS, 1993. Pradip Baks i.

PART ONE: HISTORY
ON THE HISTORY OF KARL MARX'S
MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS
Letters (excerpts)

Marx's mathema tica l investigations have becn d iscussed in a number o f letters

of Marx and Engels. English translations of the relevant sections of some o f
the hitherto published relevant letters are being reprodu ced here.
 LETrERS 391

Man to Engles
In Manchester
[London, J 11 January [1858 J
Dear Fredcrick,

* * *
In elaborating the PRINCIPLES of economics l • I have been so damnably held up by errors
in calculation that in DESPAIR I have applied myself to a rapid revision of algebra. I have never
felt at home with arithmetic. But by making a detour via algebra, I shall quickly get back into
the way of things.

* * *
your
K.M.
[ MECW(E), 40, 244 J

Man to Engels
]n Manchester
London. 6 July 1863
Dear Engels,

* * *
... My spare time is now devoted to differential and integral calculus. Apropos, I have a
superfluity of works on the subject and will send you one, should you wish to tackle it. I should
consider it to be almost essential to your military studies. Moreover, it is a much easier branch
of mathematics (so far as mere technicalities are concerned) than, say, the more advanced
aspects of algebra. Save for a knowledge of the morc ordinary kind of algebra and trigonometry,
no preliminary study is required except a general familiarity with conic sections.
• * *

your
K.M.
[MECW(E), 41, 484J
*Por the notes see pp.402.403 of this supplement. ~ Ed.
 392 LE1TERS

Engels to ' Fricdrich Albert Lange2

III Duisburg
Manchester, 29 March 1865
7 Southgatc
Dear Sir,

* * *
There is a remark about old Hegcl which I cannot let pass without comment: you deny him
any deeper knowledge of the mathematical sciences. Hegel knew so much mathematics that
none of his disciples was capable of editing the numerous mathematical manuscripts that he
left behind3 , The only man who, to my knowledge, has enough understanding of mathematics
and philosophy to be able to do so is Marx.

* * *
Yours very respectfully
Friedrich Engcls
[ MECW(E), 42, 138 ]

Marx to Engels
In London
[Manchester,131 May 1873
25 Dover Street
Dear Feed,

* * *
4
I have been telling Moorc about a problem with which I have been racking my brains for
some time now. However, he thinks it is insoluble, at least pro tempore, because of the many
factors involved, factors which for the most part have yet to be discovered. The problem is this
: you know about those graphs in. which the movements of prices, discount rates, etc., etc., over
the year etc., are shown in rising and falling zigzags. I have variously attempted to analyse
crises by calculating these UPS AND DOWNS as irregular curves and I believed (and still believe
it would be possible if the material were sufficiently studied) that I might be able to determine
mathematically the principal laws governing crises5 . As I said, Moore thinks it cannot be done
at present and I have resolved to give it up FOR THE TIME BEING.

* * *
your
K.M.
l MECW(E), 44, 504.]
 LETTERS 393

Engels to Marx
In London
August 18, 1881
Dear Moor6,
... yesterday I found the courage at last to study your mathematical manuscripts? even
without reference books, and I was pleased to find that I did not need them. I compliment you
o n your work. The thing is as clear as daylight, so that we can wonder enough at the way the
mathematicians insist on mystifying it. Butlhis comes from the one-sided way these gentlemen
think. To put ~ .. ~ , firmly and point blank, does not ente r their skulls. And yet it is clear

that ~ can only be the pure expression of a completed process if the last tra ce of the quanta
x and y has disappeared, leaving the express ion of the preceding process of their change
without any quantity.
You need not fear that any mathematician has preceded you here. This kind of differentiation
is indeed much s impler than all others, so that just now I applied il myself 10 derive a formula
I had suddenly lost, confirming it afterwards in the usual way. The procedure must have made
the grea test sensation, especially, as is clearly proved, since the usual method of neglecting
dxdy e·tc. is positively false. And that is the specia l beauty of it ; only if ~ .. ~ • is the
mathematical operation absolutely correct.
So old Hegel guessed quite correctly when he said that differentiation had for its basic
condition, that the variables must be raised to different powers, and at least one of them to at
least the second, or 112, powerS. Now we also know why.
If we say that in y .. f(x) the x and y arc variables, then this claim has no further
consequences, as long as wc do not move on, and x and y arc still pro tempore. in fact constanLS.
Only when they rea ll y change, i.e., iflside rhe fUllction, do they indeed become variables, and
only then can the relation st ill hidden in the original equation reveal itself - not the relation
of the two magnitudes but of their variability. The first derivative M shows this relation as it
6x
happens in the course of a real change, Le., in each given change; the completed derivative
~ shows it in its generality, pure, and hence we can come from ~ to each :~, while the la;ter
itself only covers the special case. However, to pass from the special case to the general
relationship, th e specia l case must be abolished ( aufgehoben) as such.
Hence, after the function has passed through the process from x to x' [in the notation now
in use: to Xl - Ed.] with all its consequences, xcan be allowed calmly to become x agai n ;
it is no longe r the old X, which was variable in name on ly; it has passed through actual change,
and the result of the change remains, even if we again abolish (all/lIeben) it.
50
39' LETmRS

At last we see clearly, what mathematicians have claimed for a long time. without being
able to present rational grounds, that the (derivative or) differential quotient is the original, the
differentials dx and dy 3CC derived : the derivation of the formulae demands that both so-called
irrational [bere "irrational" means "non-rational" - Ed.] fac tors sta nd at the same time o n one
side of the equation, and only if you put the equation back into its first form ~ .. f'(x). as you
can, are you free of the irrationals [i.c. "non-rationa)s" - Ed.] and instead have their rational
expression.
The tbing has taken such a hold of me that it not only goes round my head all day. but last
week in a dream I gave a chap my shirt-buttons to differentiate, and he ran off with them.
Yours
F.E.
[Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx, London, 1983, XXVll·XXVm.J

Engels to Marx
In Ventnor
London, November 21, 1882
Dear Moor,
... enclosed a mathematical essay by [Samuel} Moore. The conclusion that "the algebraic
method is only the differential method disguised" refers of course only to his own method of
geometrical construction and is pretty correct there too, I have written to him that you place no
value on tbe way the tbing is represented in geometrical construction, the application to the
equation of curves being quite enough. Further, the fundamental difference between your
method and the old one is tbat you make x change to x( in the notation now in use: to X I -
Ed.], thus making them really vary, while the other way starts from x + h, which is always only
tbe sum of two magnitudes, but never the variation of a magni~ude . Your x therefore, even
when it bas passed through x and again became the first x, is still other than it was; while x
remains fi)(ed the whole time, if " is first added to it and then taken away again. However,
every graphical representation of the variation is necessarily the representation of the completed
process, of the result, hence of a quantity which became constant, the line x; its supplement is
represented as x + h, two pieces of a line. From this it already follows that a graphical
representation of how x again becomes x, is impossible .. ,
Your
FA
[Mathematical Manuscripts ofKarl Marx, London,1983, p. XXIX.]
 WTrERS 39<

Man to Engels
In London
November 22, 1882
1, St. Boniface Gardens,
Ventnor.
Dear Fred,
.. . Sam, as you saw immediately, criticises the analytical method applied by me by just
pushing it aside, and instead busies bimselfwith the geometrical application, about wbich I said
not one word. In the same way, I could get rid of the development of the proper so-called
differential method - beginning with the mystical method of Newton and Leibnitz, and then
gQing on to the rationalistic method of d' Alembert and Euler, and finishing with the s trictly
algebraic method of Lagrange (Which, however, always begins from the same original basic
outlook [as that of] Ncwton-Leibnitz) - I could get rid of this whole historicaI"development
of ana lysis by saying that practically nothing essential has changed in the geometrical
application of the differential calculus, i.e., in the geometrical representation.
The Sun is now shining, so the moment for going for a walk has come, so no more pro nunc
of mathematics, but I'll come back later to the differential methods occasionally in detail
Yours
K.M.
[Mathematical Manuscripts ofKarl Marx, London, 1983, p. XXX.]
Reminiscences (excerpts)
Marx's friends and comrades have mentioned his mathematica l studies in their
reminiscences or elsewhere. English translations of the rel evant portions of
some s uch writings are being published here.
 REMINISCENCES 397

•••
Engels' Speech At Man ' s Funeral ( Excerpts )
••• ...
. . . in every si ngle ficld, wherever Marx has conducted investiga tions and, it goes without
saying that the fields of his investiga tions were many and variagated, and no where did he tackle
the task of investiga tion s uperficiall y- in every field , even in mathema tics, hc has obtained

17 March 1883
...
independent results .
••• •••
[M arx- Engels Smriti, Pragati, Moscow, 1976, p.6 ( in Bengali)]

... ...
From The Preface To The Seco nd Ed ition Of Allti-Diihrillg
...
Marx and I were pretty well the only people to rescue co nsc ious dia lectics from German
idealist philosophy and apply it in the materialist conception of nature and history. But a
knowledge of mathematics and natural scie nce is essen tial to a conception of na ture which is
dialectical and a t the same time materialist. Marx was well versed in mathema tics, but we could

••• ••• ...

keep up with the natural sciences only piecemeal, intermittently and sporadically. •

. . . to me the re cou ld be no ques tion of building the laws of dia lectiq; into nature~ but of
discovering them in it and evolving them from it.
But to do this systematically and in each sepa ra te department,is a gigantic task. Not onl y is
the domain to be mastered almos t bound less; na tu ral science in this entire domain is itself
undergoing suc h a migh ty process of being revolu tionised that even people who ca n devole the
whole of thcir spa re time 10 it can ha rdl y keep pace. Since Kart Marx's death, however, my
time has been requisitioned for more urgent duties, and r have therefore been compelled to lay
aside my work. For the prcsen.L, I must content myself with the indications given in this book,
and must wait to find some latcr opportunity to put together and publish the resul ts which I have

...
arrived at, perhaps in conjunction wi th the extremely important mathematical manuscripts left
by Marx 9•
••• •••
London, September 23, 1885
LFrom: Engels, F. AlIli-DUhring( Eng. Ed.), Progress, M., 1978, pp. 15:16, 18.]
,.. REMINIS(ENCI!S

From Paul Lafargue's Reminiscences Of Karl Marx

*** *** ***
Apart from studying the works of poets and novelists, the other astonishing means that Marx
discovered for giving rest 10 his brain was studying mathematics. He had a special kind of
inclination to mathematics. Algebra even provided him with mental solace, be used to study
Ihis branch of mathematics during the most painful moments of his eventful life. He could not
concentrate upon his usual scientific activities during the last days of his wife's illness, in those
days he co uld forget the pain that seared his mind owing 10 her illness, only by studying
mathematics . During these days of mental agony he wrote a treatise on infinitesimal calculus.
Experts are of the opinion that this work of him is of immense scientific value. In higher
mathematics Marx saw the most consistent and at once the most simpieexpression of dialectical
movements. He was of the opinion, that so long as a science does not get us~d to the use 01
mathematics, it can not be called a truly mature science.
*** *** ***
[First published in 1890.]
[Marx-Engels Srnriti, Pragati, Moscow, 1976. pp. 31-32 (in Bengali).]
 A NOTE
ON THE HISTORY OF COLLECTING, DECIPHERING, EDITING AND
PUBLICATION OF MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS

PRADIP BAKSI
Kart Marx died in 1883. A partial edition of his Mathematical Manuscripts came out
in print 85 years after his death, in 1968. During the first years of this intervening period, these
manuscripts arrived in Germany. together with the other unpublished ma nuscripts of Marx
and Engels, from England. These manuscripts beca me the properLy of the Socia l Democratic
Party of GcrmanyiO, We know th at Engels co nsidered Marx's mathematical manuscripts to be
important. He expressed his desire to publish them, in his preface to the second (1885)
edition ofAnti-DUhring. This wish remained unfulfilled during his life time. Fred erick Engels
died in 1895, After his death, it was the Social Democratic Pa rty of Germany that became
primarily responsible for publishing the said manuscripts. This party failed to fu!fill this
responsibility. Wha t is morc, onc of the important leaders and theoreticians, first o f the
Social Democratic Party and s ubsequently of tbe Communist Party of Germany, Franz
Mehring (1846· 1919) declared, at the behest of some mathematicia ns (o f whom exactly, we
do not know), that Marx 's ma thematical manuscripts are of no importance [1 9, p. 14 ; all
references in this article are to the entries in the Bibliography appended at the end o f Part One
of this Supplement, pp.404·408J. Before the Russian revolution of 1917, a Russ ian
revolutionary emigrant David Borisovich Ryazanov (Goldenda kh) (1870.1938) worked for
some time in the archives of the Socia l Democra tic Party. in Berlin. At that time he noticed
that a part of Mane 's mathema tical manuscripts was not there in the arch ives. He located them
at the residence of an important leader of the Social Democratic Party, Eduard Bernstein
(1850·1932). Subsequently Ryazanov approached a leader of the Austrian Social Democratic
Party Frederick Adler (1879·1960) and, requested him 10 take the initiative for publishing
the mathema tical manuscripts of Marx. Ryaza nov's attempt too failed to bear any fruil,
but in the process ten ma thematical note·books of Marx went into the personal custody of
Adler.
After the revolution of 1917 a Marx-Engels Institute was estab lished in Moscow and,
Ryzanov was appointed its first director. This institute of Moscow acquired a co ntractual
right to photo-copy the manuscripts of Marx and Engels, from the archives of the Social
Democratic Party of Germany. In persuancc of this contract Ryaza nov and his colleagues
demanded the mathematical manuscripts of Marx for photo-copying purposes. It was only
the n that the au thorities of the archives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany could
recover the aforementioned ten note-books of Marx from Adler. Ryazanov's efforts in this
direction were reported in the July 1924 issue of "lnprekor" published from Vienna [64]. At
long last in 1925 the Marx·Engles Ins titute of Moscow succeded in obta ining th e photocopies
o f 865 pages of Marx's ma thematica l manuscripts (1 6,p.56. ]. A German mathematician ·, ~.
Gumbeil was already acquain ted with these ma nuscripts. He was brought to Moscow and
given the task of editing them. R. Mateika and R.S. Bogdan helped him in the task of
deciphering the texts . In 1927 Gumbeil declared that the press-copy of Marx's mathematical
manuscripts was ready [ib idJ. However, some other associates of the Institute (fo r instance,
400 IIISTORY 0 1'1111:: MSS

E. Kolman) had a different opinion in this regard [scc: 9, p.l8S and 29, p.IOl]. Ryazanov,
the first director of the Ins titute, was' expelled from the C.P,S.U in 1931. He was killed in
1938. Vladimir Viktorovich AdoralSky (1878-1945) became the next director of the Insti tute.
Gumbeil was removed and, in his place the task of editing the mathematical manuscripts of
Marx was given to Sofya Aleksandrovna Yanovskaya (1896-1966). Initiall y s he was assisted
by D.A. Rykov and AE. Nahimouskaya. In 1933, on the occasion of the 50th death anniversary
of KaTl Marx, two o f his articles on the nature of differential calculus and, an editoria l article
of Srn. Yanovskaya were published in the journal ~Pod Znomellem Marksizma and in a K

colleclion of essays entitled "Marksizm i estestvoznonie". Upto 1968, those who were interested
in the said mss had to remain contented mninly with these publications. After 1932, a Swedish
mathematic ian Wildhaber remained associated, for so metime, with the Moscow-team
working on the mathematical manuscripts of MlHX. A member of the Soviet delegation to
the Tenth International Congress of Mathematicians (1932) declared in one of the sessions
of the congress thalthe entirety of Marx '5 mathematical writings arc going to be published
soon [27]. This promise too remained unful filled. Arrived the Second world war. During the
\\ ar the archives and the libra ry of the Institu te were shifted to some place in the Soviet Far
East. Work of the Institute s lowed down. After the War the pace of work picked up slowly.
However, Srn. Yanovskaya - the editor of Marx's mathematical manuscripts - was also
required to cope with the teaching of malhematicallogic in the Moscow University and, with
the task o( translating and editing text-books of mathematical logic. Her health began to
deteriorate. A Congress of Mathe ma ticia ns was organised in 1950 at Budapest He re the
delegates from all the other socialist countries repeatedly asked the members of the Soviet
delegation: when, at long last, are they going to publish the mathematical manuscriplS of
Marx ? The members of the Soviet delegation had no definite answer to this question {19,
pp.205-206]. After the relurn of lhis delegation to the USSR, Ihe responsible authorities beg:tn
to take more v igorous steps. Now Srn. Yanovskaya was given a new assistant: Konstantin
Alekseievich Rybnikov. An important event of the 1950s was the publication of a note of
Marx entitled "011 The COllcept O[ Function" in the journal "Voprosy Filosofii " No. 11,
1958)11. As th e work entered into the 1960s, it was noticed that the manuscripts arc
opaque in quite a few places (similar problems were being encou nte red by the editors of
many other manuscripts of Marx and Engels). That is why the question of verifying the text
once more from the originals was posed with some urgency. Meanwhile - in fact before
the Second World War - on the 19th of May 1938, the entire archives of the Socia l
Democratic Party of Germany, inclus ive of the manuscripts and letters of Marx and Engels,
has become the property of the Interna tional Institute of Soc ial History, Amsterdam (sec:
note 10). That is why, a Soviet delegation was sent to Amsterdam in August 1964; in sea rch of
r
the necessary papers 19, p. 207]. A member of this delegation was Srn. Olga Konstantinovna
Senekina. She noticed, that when - during 1924-1930 - the team of Soviet workers under
the guidence of O.B. Ryazanov, was busy in photo-copying some 55,000 pages of Ihe writings
of Marx and Engels, then quite a few pages o f Marx's mathematical manuscriplS remained
un-photocopied, due to inadvertence. Now the photo-copies of those pages were obt<'lincd.
This pushed up the volume of the hitherto known mathematical manuscriplS of Marx to nearly
1000 pages (sce: the Preface to the 1968 edition of these mss). The editor of the 1968 edi tioll
 HISTORY OF TIlE MSS <01

of Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts, Srn. S.A. Yanovskaya died in 1966. Two yea rs after
her dea th, in 1968, a 639 page edition of Marx's mathematica l manuscripts was brought out
. under the joint supervision of K.A. Rybnikov, O.K.Senekina and AR ivk in. In the Preface to
this edition, the work that went on around these mss prior to 1931, remains unreported.
However, the work of the 1933- 1968 period ha$ been described in det.ai l [PV,14-15] . An even
more importan t "silence" of this Preface involves the fact that it is an incomplete editio n. This
becomes evident to anyone who ca res to go through this edition. Why were certain pages
of Mau 's mathematica l manuscripts dropped ? Apparently, the perso ns responsible for the
publication co ns idered these pages to be mathematically insignifica nt. It goes without saying,
that such an approach towards Ihe manuscripts of dead authors is - 10 say the least -
unh\storical.
It may .be mentioned here that the work of the Ins titute of Marx ism-Le ninism of the CPSU
(which evolved out of the Marx-Engels Institute of Lenin's time) has always been affected by
the power-s truggle within the top leadership of that party . Beginn ing with Ryazanov, many
competent workers were removed and killed. Those who were sparcd the hospitality of
labour camps or death, left or were forced to leave the country. The noble work of editing and
publishing the works of Marx and Engels became the subject-matter of self-promoti on and
intrigues of mean-minded and incompetent persons. In an atmosphere of all-round decadence
of Soviet barrack socialism, quite a few generations of that socie ty los t all interest in Marxism,
thanks to the criminal activities of the party and Slate leaders. Those who relained some honest
interest failed to remain in the good books of the powers that be. In these ci rcumSLa. nces, the
1968 partial ed ition of Marx 's mathematical manuscripts was left j ust like that for about two
decades. Even more truncated ed itions were brought oul in some other countries (see: the
bibliography). Words went around that the 1968 edition is by and large satisfactory and,
that it would be included in that form in the contemplated complete works of Marx and
Engels·. This "co nsensus " was broken in the wake of Pe res tro ika. A decis ion was laken
towards the end o f 1987, to prepare a new and complete edition of Marx 's ma thematica l
manuscripts o n the basis of all the hitherto available papers. At this SLa.ge, the task of editing
was given to Srn. Irina Konsla ntinovna Antonova o f the Institu te of Marxism-Len inism,
Moscow. Towards the middle of 1988 she told the present author that she hopes to complete
her part of the job by the end of 1990. Then ' it would require the approval of the experts of
the Institutes of Marxis m-Leninis m of Berlin and Moscow, before pub lication. These plans
have been overtaken by larger movements o f history. Tumultuous changes have taken place
by the end of 1991. Firs t the G.D.R. and then the U.S.S.R. has ceased to exist. The ruling
communist parties of these two co.unlries have been aboli shed and the Insti tutes of
Marxism-Leninism controlled by them have been wound up . The publication o f a complete
edition of Marx's mathematical manuscripts as part of the projected complete works of Marx
and EngeJs has now become a matter of uncertainty all over again. When, where and how they
would be published in future or whether they would be at all published ever - who knows?

• For a different opinion on this question see : Ma/odshii (PV, 423-424). - Bd.

51
 Notes
1. In the summer of 1857 Marx began to write a series of economic manuscripts in order
to sum up and systematize the results of his extensive economic research started in
the 1840s and continued most intensively in the 1850s, (In the first half of 1850s he
filled 24 paginated and several unpaginated notebooks with excerpts frqm the works of
other economists, books of statistics, documents and periodicals.) These manuscripts
were the preliminary versions of an extensive economic work in which he intended to
investigate the laws governing the development of capitalist production and to
criticise bourgeois political economy. Marx outlined the main points of this treatise
in an unfinished draft of the 'Introduction' (one of the first manuscripts of the
series) and in his letters to Engels, Lassalle and Weydemeyer, Further economic study
prompted Marx to specify and change his original plan. The central place in the series
is occupied by the extensive manuscript, Critique of Political Economy (widely
known as Grundrisse), on which Marx worked from October 185710 May 1858, In this
preliminary draft of his future Capital Marx expounded his theory of surplus value,
After the first instalment had been prepared for publication in 1859 under the title A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx added .several more
manuscripts to the series in 1861.
The manuscripts of 1857-61 were first published in German by the Institute of
Marxism-Leninism of the C C C P S U in 1939 under the editorial heading Grundrisse
der Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Rohentwurf). These manuscripts and A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Part One are included in vols, 29
and 30 of the English Edition of the Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick
Engels (Progress, Moscow, 1975-).
2. Lange, Friedrich A/bert (1828-1875) : German philosopher, economist, neo-Kantian ;
member of the Standing Committee of the General Association of German Workers
(1864-66), member of the International, delegate to the Lausanne Congress (1867).
3, I began my inquiries about Hegel's mathematical manuscripts in 1980, In this
connection', I received a letter from Dr. Helmut Schneider of the Hcgel-Archiv,
Ruhr-Universitat Bochum. In this letter dated the 7th of Fcbruary 1982, he slated
that the mathematical manuscripts of Hegel are ncither there in their archives, nor
have' these mss been p~blished so far. - P. B.
4. Moore, Samuel (1838-1911): English lawyer, member of the International, translated
into English Volume One of Capital (in collaboration with Edward Aveling) and the
Manifesto of the Communist Party; friend of Marx and Engels,
5. In this connection see:
a) Zoltan, K. Marx cs a valsagok t6rtvenyeinek matematikai tanulmanyozasa [Marx
and the mathematical investigations into the laws of crisis], Kozgazdastigi Szemle,
Budapest, 1962,12, pp. 1464-1483;
b) Dllflayaeva, V. K voprosu 0 matcmaticheskom metode v "Kapitale" K. Marksa
[On the question of mathematical method in Karl Marx's "Capital "), Voprosy
Ekonomik~ 1967, 8, pp. 18-30,
 N01ES 403

6. "Moor" was Marx's nickname in Marx family. His close friends also called him by that
name [see: Marx-Engels Reminiscences. Bengali cd. Progress. M., 1976].
7. Sce: PV, 19 and 26: "On the Concept of the Derived Function" and "On the
Differential". ~
8. See: Hegel,.G. W.F., Science of Logic (Tr. : W.H. Jhonston and L.G. Slruthers),
G.Allen and Unwin, London, 1929; Volume Onc, Book .One, Section Two, JIC-
The Quantitative Infinity. pp. 241-332 [especially: IIC (c) - The Purpose Of The
Differential Calculus Deduced From IL'i Application, pp. 291-320l
9. Here Engels expressed his desire to publish his Dialectics of Nature and Marx's
Mathematical Manuscripts together. This wish of his remained unfulfilled. The
Dialectics Of Nature was first published in 1925 and a part of Marx's Mathematical
Manuscripts in 1933, an enlarged but nevertheless incomplete edition of the same
came out in 1968.
10. For a general overview of the history of preservation, change of ownership and
publication of the manuscripts, letters etc. of Marx and' Engels, see : Saha, Dr.
PaRchanan - Marx Engefser Pallduiipi Kibhabe Raksha Pelo ? IRdo-GDR Friendship
Sodety, Calcutta, 1983.
11. Sec: 0 Ponyatii Funktsii, Voprosy Filosofii, 1958, 11, pp. 89-95 & PV, 171-177.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Different Editions or Man's Mathematical Manuscripts
1. Matematicheskie Rukopisi, Izd. "Nauka", Moscow, 1968 Ed. Sofya Aleksandrovna
Yanovskaya; pp. 639 + illustrations. Language: original and Russian.
2. Mathematische Manuskripte, "Scripter Vcrlag", Kronberg Taunus (FRG), 1974; Ed.
Wolfgang Endcmann. Photocopy of the German portions of Par,l I of (1.) above (pp.
19,.106 of the present volume).
3, Manoscritti Malemalici, "Dcda lo Libri", Bari. 1975; Ed. Franccsco Matarrese. and
Agusto Ponzio. Italian translation of Part I of (1.) above, plus two editioria l essays.
4. Mathematical Manuscripts Of Karl Marx, New Park Publications Ltd., London, 1983;
Ed. Cyril Smith. English translation oePart J of (1.) above, plus the English translations:
of the Preface, Appendix, and the relevant Notes of (1.); of three relevant letters of
Marx-Engcls and, E. Kolman 's review of (1.); of the essay "Gegel i matcmatika"
("Hegcl and mathematics") (1931) by E. Kolman and S. A. Yanovskaya; and the article
"Hcgel, Marx and Ca lculus" by C. Smith.
5. Les manuscrits mathematiques, "Economica", Paris, 1985; Ed. A. A1couffe. French
translation of Part I of (1.) above, plus the editorial essay: Marx, Hegcl, et le "calcul".

Bo~ks And Articles On Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts

L Alcouffe A., Marx, Hegel, et le "Calcul" // Marx, K, Les manuscrits mathematiqucs,

Paris: Economica, 1985. pp. 9-109.
2. Baksi P., Markser Gonil Vishayak Pandulipi Prasangc (On Marx's mathematical
manuscripts) I1 Gonit, Calcutta, 1983, 2(2), pp. 51-58.
3. Baksi P., Karl Markser Gonit Vis ha yak Pandulipi 0 Tar Tatparya (The mathematical
manuscripts of Karl Marx and their Significance) /1 Marksbad, Gonit 0 Tarkasllastra
- a collection of essays, Jnananveshan, Calcutta, 1985, pp.30-65.
4. Baksi P. On the Problem of Situating Marx 's Mathematical Manuscripts in the History
of Ideas /1 Present Volume, Specia l Supplement, Part Two, last article.
5. Basheleishvili 8 ., K Voprosu 0 zakone ed instva protivopolozhnostiei v
malcmaticheskikh rukopisyakh K. Marksa (On the question of the law of unity of
opposites in the mathematical manuscripts ofK. Marx) IIS tudencheskaya Nauchnaya
Konferentsia, Tibilisi, 17-23 aprelia, 1952. Izd. Tibilisskovo gos universiteta im L V.
Slalina, 1952.
6. Bottazzilli u., Processi algebrici e processi dialettici nei Manoscritti Matematici di
Marx, 1975. Unpublished. A later French version of it was published in : Dijalektika,
Beograd, 1980, 3/4, pp. 69- 85.
 BIBLlOGRAPIIY 405

7. Budach L., Karl Marx und die Matcmatikeinmal anders gesehen /1 Karl Marx, die
Berliner Universitiit und die Verantwortung fUr die Festigung des Friedcns und des
Sozialismus, Berlin 1983, s. 34-40.
8. Burkhardt F., Marx und die Mathematik II Wiss. Zeitschr. der Humbold.-Univ. zu
Berlin, Ges .- u. Sprachwiss, Reihc, 1968, Hft. 6, s. 863-866.
9. Burkhardt F., Kar! Marx und die Mathematikl/ Karl Marx "Das Kapital". Erbe und
Verpflichtung. Leipzig, KaTI Marx-Universitiit, 1968, s. 695- 701.
10. Casanova G., Karl Marx et les mathcmatiquesll La Pensee, n. s. Paris, 1948, N. 20. pp.
68-72.
11. Endemann W., Einleitung II Marx, K. , Mathematische Manuscripte, Kronberg 15.
Scripter Verlag, 1974. s, 15-49.
12. Gerdes P., Marx demystifies calculus II Studies in Marxism, vol. 16, 1985; MEP
Pubis. Minneapolis, USA. Reviewed in: Science and Nature, 7/8. pp. 119-123.
13. Glivenko V. I., Poniatie Differentsiala u Marksa i Adamara (Marx and Hadamard on
the concept of differential) II Pod Znamenem Marksizma, 1934, 5, str. 79-85; &
PV,411-419.
14. Gokieli L.P., Matematicheskie Rukopisi Karla Marksa i voprosy obosnovanya
Matematiki (Mathematical Masnuscripts of Karl Marx and the Questions of the
Foundations of Mathematics). Izd AN Gruzinskoi SSR Tibilisi, 1947. (A Georgian
edition of the book was published in the same year.)
15. Guerraggio A ., Vidoni F., Nel laboratorio di Marx : Scienze naturali e matcmatika.
Milano : Angeli, 1982.
16. Gumbeil E., 0 matematicheskikh rukopisyakh K. Marksa (On the mathematical
manuscripts of K. Marx)/I Letopis Marksizma, M.-L., 1927,3, str. 56-60.
17. Herzmann l., Tomek I., Marksova kritika metafyzickebo pojeti zakladnich pojmu
diferenciainiho poctu II Filoz. Cas., Praha, 1981, 1, s. 78-93.
18. Ibragimov S., Matematicheskie proizvedenya K. Marksa (Mathematical works of K.
Marks)// Azerbaijan Kommunist, 1968, 1, str. 9-14.
I
19. Katolin L., "Mee byli togda derzhkimi parnyami..." ("We were then the impudent
twin .. "). M. Izd. "Znanie", 1973 (2-oe izd. 1979).
20. Kennedy H. c., Review of Karl Marx's Matematische Manuscriple (Scripter Verlag,
F. R. G., 1974) and of Manoscritti matematici di K. Marx (Bari: Dedalo Libri,
1975)// Historia Mathematica, 1976, 3, pp. 490-494.
21. Kennedy H. C., Karl Marx and the foundations of differential cakulusll Historia
- ./ Mathematica, 1977, 4, pp. 303-318; correction in : Historia Mathematica, 1977~ 5, p.92.
22. Kennedy H. c., Marx, Peano and the Difrerentia!s. Unpublished. Revised copy ofa paper
read at the 15th International Congress of the History of Science, Edinburg, August
1977.
23. Kennedy H. c., Marx's Mathematical Manuscriptsll Science and Nature, 1978, 1, pp.
59-62.
406 BlBUOG RAPHY

24. Kholshevnikov A., 0 ma tcmatichcskikh rukopisya kh Marksa (On Marx's mathematical

manuscripts)/1 Front nauki i teklmiki, 1933, 2, sIr. 100-L06.
25. Kisileva N. A., Karl Ma rks i Matcma tika/l Matematika v shko/e, 1969, 1, Sir. 5-10.
26. Ko/man, A., Karl Marks i ma temat ika/l Dijale~tika, Bcograd, 1968, 3, s. 27-41.
27. Ko/man E., Eine ne ue Grundlcgu ng dcr Di fferentialrec hnung durch Karl Marx/l
Verhand lun ge n des Internationalen Mathematikcr-Kongrcss, Zuric h, 1932; Il Band!
Sektio ns-Vortrage, 1932, s. 349-35 1.
28. Ko/man E. , Einc ncuc Grundlcgung der Differcntialrechnung durch KarI Ma rx /I
Archeion. Archivio di storia della scienza, 1933, 15, pp. 379-384.
29. Ko/m an E" K. Marks i m:ltcmatika (0 'Matematichcskikh Rukopisyakh' K. Ma rksa)/1
Voprosy istorii estestvoznallia ,i tekhniki, 1968, 25, sIr. 101 -102. Fo r an Englis h
translation o r the same sec : Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx, London, 1983.
30. KOlldakov N I. (Ed.), Matematichcskic rukopis i KMla Marksall Logic heskii Slovar-
Spravochnik. M., Nauka. 1975, s tr. 341.
31. Kuzicheva Z. A., Rybnikov K. A., Matematika v nauchn ykh issledovanyakh K. Marksa
(Mathematics in the sc ienti fic investiga tions o f K. Marx)ll lstoriya i metodologiya
cs testvennykh nauk, Vyp. XXXII, Matema lika, Mekhanika. Izd . Moskovskovo
Un-la, Avgust, 1986, str. 3-13.
32. Loi M., Review of: Marx, K., Les mOllllscrits matlll!matiques (Paris: Economica,
198 5)/1 La Penste, Paris, 1987. 256, pp. 129- 131.
33. Lombardo R. L., Dai ' Manoscritti matematici' di K. Marx/! Critica Marxista-Quadertli,
1972,6. pp . 273-277.
34. Magalli L., Marx matemalico : 11 fo nda menti del calcolo differenzialc/l Conosccre
Marx. Mil ano : Angeli, 1983, pp. 55- 89.
35, Maiburova D., 0 matematicheskikh rukopisyak h K. Marksall Obshestvenllye Nauki v
Uzbekislalle, 1968,5, Sir, 26-30.
36. Miller M. , Karl Marx ' Begrungung der diffc rnlialrcchnungll Wiss. Z. Hochsch
Verkchrswesen "Friedrich List" . Dresden 16, DDR .,1969, s. 649-659.
37. Molodshii V. N. , 0 Matematicheskikh rukopisya kh K. Marksa/l Matematika v shkole.
1969,1, s ir. 10-23.
38. Molodshii V. N., "Matematicheskic Rukopis i" K. Marksa i razvitic istorii malematiki
v SSSR (Marx 's "Mathematical Manuscripts " and the development of History of
Mathematics in the USSR) I! Voprosy Is/or;; Estestvoznania i Tekhn iki, 1983, 2, SIr.
29-34; PV, 420-426.
39. Mueller J., Karl Marx un d die mathcmati k/! Ttigliche Rundsc"a u, jg. 9, Nr. 72
(1953-54).
40. Na"imouskaya A. , Ab matema tychnykh pralSa kh K. Marksall Zap iski Bellaruskai
Akademii Na uk, kn. 1. 1933, sIr. 1-30.
4 1. No vak I.P., 0 ma tematiches kik h ru kopisya kh K. Marksa/l Problemy Filoso fii.
Alma-At.'l, 1968, SIr. 311-320.
 BIBUOGRANIY 407

42. Pallfilov V. A., Vliyanie matcria listichcsko i dialckliki konechnovo i bcskoncchnovo na

sposob differe ntsirovaniya K. Marksa (Innuence of the materialis t dia lectics of the
finite and the infinite on K. Mane 's mode of differentiati on). Dissertation.
Dnepropetrovsk Gosudarstvenny Universitel, 1978. A copy of the rnss ex ists in the
INION Library. Moscow.
43. Przelaskowski W., Prace matematyczne Ka rloa Marksa 11 Ecollomista, Warszawa,
1960, I, s. 159· 165.
44. Przelaskowski W., Poj.ecie funk cj i w pracach Karloa Marksa ll Studia ekonomiczne,
Warszawa, 196'0,4, s. 187-203.
45. Przhesmitsky V. I., Operativnyi logichcs kii apparat rabotayuschij v "Kap itale" i
"Matematichesk ikh Rukopisyakh" K. Marksa (On Ihe Operationa l Logical
Apparatus operat ive in Karl Marx 's "Capita l" and "Mathematical Manuscripts ") 11
Voprosy dialektiches koi logiki, printsipi i formy myshleniya. M. 1985. s. 70-81;
PV,427·434 .
46. Psheliaskovsky V., Malematiches kie melody v ekonomii v svele " Malcmaticheskikh
Rukopis iei " Karla Marksa (Mathematica l Methods in Economics in the light of the
"Ma thematical Manuscripts " of Ka rl Marx). Doklad na mezhdunar. ekon. konf. 5-8
Sent., 1972, Varshva.
47. Piaskovskii B. V" KOllvai B /. , K. Marks i matematika/l Filosofski problemi
s uchasnovo prirodoznavstva. Mitvid. Naukovi zbirnik. Vip. 11, Kiiv, Vig. Kiivskovo
Un-t u, 1968, s ir. 47-60.
48. Rabinovich I. M. , 0 po liarnom svoistve znaka ravenstva v "Matematicheski kh
Rukop isya kh " K. Marksa (On the po lar properties of the equality sign in K. Marx 's
"Mathematical Manuscripts") /I Nauka i tckhnika, voprosy is torii i teorii. M.-L., 1977.
49. Reiske G., Sehenk G., Marx und die mathemati k/I Deutsche Zeitschrifl fur Philosophie,
Berlin, 1972, 4, s. 475-483.
50. Ruzavin G. I., "Matematicheskie Rukop isi" K. Marksa i nckotorye prob lcmy mc lodiki
matematiki ("Ma thematical Manuscripts" of K. Marx and some problems of the
methodology of mathematics)/1 Voprosy Fi/osofii, 1968, 12, str, 59-70.
51. Rybnikov K. A., 0 rabo!..1kh K. Marksa po matcmatike (On K. Marx 's works on
Mathematics). Dissertation. 1954. Unpub lished .
52. Rybnikov K A., Matematicheskie Rukopisi Marksal/ Uspelchi Matemalicheslcikh
Nauk, 1955,1 0(1), sir. 197·199.
53. Rybnikov K. A., K voprosu 0 poniatii funkl.. ii (On the question of the concept of
fun ction )/1 Voprosy Fifosofii, 1958, 11, str. 89-92.
54. Ryvkin A., Marx y las matematicas 1/ DocwnelllOs Politicos, Bogota, 1968, N. 75.
Mayo-Jun, pp. 34-38,
55. Shugain O. V., Mathematichni rukopis i K. Marksa i " Kapital" l/Vi~nik Kiivskovo
Universiletu, 1968, Seda Filosofii, 2, str. 92-98.
408 OIDLIOGRAPliY

56. Slavkov S., Samostoiatc1nitc raboti na KaTI Marks v oblasta na matcmatikata// Spisanie
na Bulgarsk. Akad. na Naukite, Sofia, 1961, 4, sIr. 43-61.
57. Slavkov S., KaTI Marks i niakoi problcmi na matematikata. Soria, "Nauka i IzkuSlVO",
1963,122s.
58. S[avkov S., Karl Marks i niakoi voprosi na dialektikata v matematikatall KaTI Marks
i Filosofskovo Znanie. Soria . Izd na BAN, 1984, s. 7-42.
59. Smith C., Hegel Mane and calculus If Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx.
London, 1983, pp. 256-270.
60. Sni} Mo-fu, On the mathematical manuscripts of Marx ( in Chinese). Sin kicsjuz,
Peking, 1952.
61. Struik D. l., Marx and Mathematics /I Science and Society. 1948, 12, pp, 181-196.
62. Toms M., Nad matematickymi rykopisy Karla Marxc/! Polilekonomie, Praha, 1980,
6, s. 569-576.
63. Treder H.-J., Die Beziehungen van Marx und Engels zu Mathcmatik und
Naturwissenschaft!/ Marx-Enge/s-Jahrbuch. Berlin: Dietz, 1986, 9, S, 34-58.
64. Varjas A., Marx als mathematiker. Ein Beilrag zur Entwiklung der Marx'schen
dialeklikl/lnternationale Presse-korrespondenz, Wien, 1924, 18. VII. No. 92, s. 1165-
1167.
65. Yanovskaya S. A., 0 matematicheskikh rukopisyakh K. Marksa/! Pod Znamenem
Marksizma, 1933, 1, SIr, 74-115.
66. Yanovskaya S. A., Predislovie (Preface), MalematicheskieRukopisi K Marksa. M.,
Izd. Nauka, 1968 (pp. 1-15 of the present vOlume).
67. Zeman l ., Zap/etal I., Matematicke rukopisy K. Marxe a jejich Vztach k dnesku /!
Filoz. Cas., Praha, 1983,4, s. 536- 547.
68. Zo/tan K. , Marx es a valsagok t6rtvenycinek matematikai tanulmanyozasa (Marx
and the mathematical investigations into the laws of crisis)/! Kozgazdasagi Szemle,
Budapest, 1962, 12, pp. 1464-1'483.
 PART TWO: INVESTIGATIONS

52
INVESTIGATIONS INSPIRED BY MARX'S
MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS:
A SELECTION
 l)1ARX AND HADAMARD ON THE CONCEPT OF DIFFERENTI AL
VAS ILI IVANOVICH GLlVENKO

I. Two Poill1s Of View on the concept DJ Differential.

In the history of differential calculus one comes across two basic points of view on the
concept of different ial.
According 10 the first, the concept of d ifferential immediately reflects some external
reality; for the sake of brevity we sha ll call it the 0 b j eel i v e point of view. Th is
was the point of view of the inventors of d ifferential calculus. For them - thedifrerentia l
was an infi nitesima l incremen t of the variable. The exte rnal reality reflected in the word s
" infinitesimal incremen t ", was somehow th ought to be se l f-evid~nt.
The concept of derivative was not there, its rol e was fulfilled by the quotient of two
differentials. Thus, unlike our objective point of view of the derivative, in this conception
the derivative was not viewed as an immediate reflection of some externa l reality.
Modern analysis 100 has retained the objective poinl of view of th e differentia l, though
here it has acquired a different meaning. Here, first of all, we separate from among the
tota lity of avai lable variables, those which wc consider to be independe nt, and the
d ifferential of such a variab le dx is simply cons idered to be its arbitrary finite increment
!1 x. For the remai ni ng variab les, which arc functions of the separated independent
variables, some other defi nitions of the differe ntial are well known ; these definitions
are different in form. For the sake of simplic ity, we sra ll limit ourselves to a si ngle
function of a si ngle variable x: .
y= f(x).
Then according 10 Slolz's definition, used in the better text books of modern analysis
(those of de la Vallee Pouss in and Courant, for example) if fly = A· 6.x+ a·!1x,
wherein A is not dependent on 6. x, and Cl together with 6. x tends to zero, then
dy= A ·/1x.
Briefly, the differen tial dy is the princ ipal linear part of the finite increment {j,y. Other
definitions of the differential are also accepted: accord ing to the most widespread among
them,
dy= /(x) : 6x;
according to Cauchy's definition ,
dy= limf(x + h·6x) - f(x)
h
But when one intends to exp lain the most general meaning of these definitions. then one
has recourse to Stolz's definit ion: it is not difficu lt tO,estab lish their equi valence with
Slolz's definiti on.
There are deep going differences among th e conceptions of the differential as an
infinitesimal increment (i n the meaning that was bestowed upon the words "infinitesimal
.12 V. 1. GLlVENKQ

increment" by the in ventors of differentia l calculus), as an arbitrary fi n ite increment o r

as its pri nc ipal linear part ; bu t all the same in all these cases, we deal wi th the objective
point of view about th e concept of different ial.
In both the cases the d ifferential im mediately re fl ects some external reality, every lime,
j ust like the variab les x and y themselves.
Accord ing 10 the second poi nt of view , the derivative

';'. [ '(x)= limM

.1x 6.x-tO
immediately refl ects some external rea li ty; for the sake of brevity we shall call it the
ope r at io n a I p oint of view.
Here the concept of diffe rentia l refl ects the well know n aspects of those mathe matica l
operat ions, from whi ch the definit ion of the derivative and the co mputati ons with the
derivatives fo llow.
From this point of view, the differentia ls are introdueed in the form of rat ios of
di fferentials, ratios- that are symbolized in the derivati'Ves:
[,(x) = !!!> .
clx
After this . it is not diffic ult to understand. that the operations with the sy mbo lic ratios
~ , according 10 Ih e very ru les Ihnt are applicable to the algebraic fractions, will not
lead to any cont rad ictio n. But ne ither is it mandatory. that we seek an immediate
interpretation of eac h and every result that follows from these operations. In particu lar,
nothing obstructs us from viewi ng the formula
dy= ['(x) dx
(obtained by freeing the aforementioned formu la of the derivative of the denom inator),
as only another expression of the formu la

;l;= [,(x)
Substa ntiat ion of the ope rationa l poi nt of view had to wait fo r a considerably longer
period of ti me, th an what was required fo r. the substant iation of the object ive po int of
view about the differe nt ial. The difficulty here was not with establishing t h ~ very
po.J.Jibiliry of thus, and not otherwise. interpret ing the di ffere nt ial, but rather with the
discovery of the meaning of such interpretati on.
In this direction, the first methodologically ex haustive work was done by K. M arx; th is
work was wrinen about fi fty years ago, but was published onl y last year [ K. Marks,
Matema ticheskie Rukopisi ( Mathe matical Manuscripts) 11 Pod Zllamenem Marksizma,
J 933, I, str. 15-73 J. J. Hada mard has treated the diffe rentia l.along th e same lines, but
differe ntly, in hi s modern tex t book [ J. Hadamard , Cours d'Analyse, Pari s, Hermann ,
1927, pp. 2-1 0. J.
 THE DIFFERENTIAL Of' MARX AND or IIADAMARD 41J

2. The Differelllial of Marx alld of Hadamard.

The well known theorem about the differentiation of a function will play the principal
role in what follows: let , as before,
y= /(x);
let x be the function of some variable I ; then

(1) <Ix = I' (x)- dx

dx dt
Man's idea is as follows. When the start ing point of the differential calcul us, the equality

~; = I'(x) ,
is taken isolatedly, then, at first, it has only a descriptive characte r. The real result of the
operations, through which the derivative is determined, stands on the right hand side of
this equality; the left hand side serves only as a symbol of those very operations, which
lead to Ihis result. But after the meaning of this symbo l has been defined by such an
eq uality , in consonance with this definition, it appears on both the sides of formula (I).
[Hadamard proceeds from a formula, which is analogous to formula (I), but in vo lves
two variables: if
,=/(x, y),
then,
(/, = El. _ clx + El. _<Ix_
dl dx dl dy dt'
Marx has used a particular instance of this last formula: if z = x· y,
then,
dz= y . dx+x.~
(/1 (/1 dl
However, we lose nothing by illustrating their deduction by the s impler formula (I).)
But there we are already dealing with operations under similar symbols: they themselves
become the object of a calcu lu s. "Thereby the differential calcu lu s appears as a specific
type of calculus, already independently operating on its own ground ". Naturally, the
formulae of this calculu s have the meaning of operational formulae: thus, formula (1),
upo n establishing the connection between ~~. and ~ , thereby shows, what one must

do,so that having ~~ one may obtain 7,. And from this very point of view this formula
appears to be even more excessively complex. Since the nature of the variable r has no
signifi cance here, reference to this variable - to the differential ell - may be dropped
a ltogether,just as one drops the common factor. According to Marx, this is not only
, -
po s si b I e, but also ne c e ss a r y : for the removal of the illusion, as though the
formula ( 1) is true only in respect of some really independent variable. Thus we get a
new formula
414 v. I. GLlVENKO

(2) dy= J'(x)· dx.

This is an operati onal symbol: once wc obta in the formula (2) as a res ult of computations,
it is enough to divide both the sides of this formu la by dx, for obtai n in g the derivative;
it is enough to divide both the sides by cif - for ob taining formula ( 1) etc. Here the
d ifferential ca lculu s as such finds its ow n natura l fu lfilment, and the" operat ional
equation " (I)," as a preparatory equation, becomes superfl uous, after it ful f il s its tas k
of suppl y in g the general symboli c fo rmula fo r differentiation" (2), " which directly lead s
us 10 ou r goal ". [we may recall, that for Marx , st rictl y s peak in g, th e equations ( I )
and (2) are not at issue; he was concerned wi th the equations

~= v·
dx
+ x.!!1.
df . lit cif
and
d(xy) = y·dx + x-cly .
But clearly , that does not change the affairs.]
Hadamard approaches the different ial from the same operational poi nt of view, but
differently. Havin g establis hed formula (1), he proposes to write o ut formula (2) , by
si mp ly indi cating thi s convention , and thi s alone, that whatever be the fun ctiona l
dependence of x and yon the parameter r, the eq uality ( I ) does hold good .
Hadamard ins ists o n th is definition of th e differe ntial , s ince it permits the use o f the
formul ae contai ning o perat iona l sy mbols, for obtainin g rhe derivat ives. Let us ass ume,
that computations w ith the .differentials - in the sense th at follows from Hada mard' s
definition - did indeed produce the formu la,
dy= A·dx.
Th en one can assert that
j'(x) = A.
Actually, as pe r our assumpt ion , for any I, we have:

E1.=A. dx .
cil dl '
on the other hand , we know, th at for any I

<!x = j'(x) . dx
df df
From a comparison of these equalities, we get what is to be proved .
•
Hadamard defined the second differentials analogously. Proceedi ng from the formula
(I), Hadamard stales the dependence between the second derivat ives to be

(3) :!J =
df
f'(x)· ~
df
+{'(x) .(dX)'
df
and proposes to write the formula
(4) d'y=j'(x)·d'x+J"(x)·dx',
 THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF VIEW He. 415

as indicating this and this alone, that the equality (3) holds good, whatever be !he
functional dependence of the variables x and y on the parameter t. Formula (4) may
again be used as the operat iona l symbol for obtaining derivatives.
Let us assume, that computat ions with the differentials did indeed g ive us the formula
d 2 y= A ·{/2x+B·dx 2 ;
then we can assert that
f'(xl ~ A, {' (xl ~ B .
Indeed, as per our assumptions, we have for any I:
,
([2)' ~ {(xl. d'x2 +{'(xl. (dX)-
dl 2 dt df
From a comparison of these equa litics, taking into consideration the facl that the
derivatives of t can have any value whatsoever, we get what is required to be proved.
But is it necessary to abandon the definition of the differentia l as the principal linear part
of an incre ment, in order to be able to thus use the folmulac containi ng the differentials
as operat iona l symbols? This ;s not a very simple question and it requires to be discussed
separate ly.
3. The Operational Point O/View alld the Dijferellfial as the Principal Linear Part o/all
IlIcrement.
We have seen, that the definition of the differential as the principal linear part of an
inc rement demands, first of a ll, that we apportion one of the variables as independent.
In reality, however , there are no absolutely independent variables. Even in the process
of so lving one and the same problem of geometry, mechanics etc., it is often impossible
to consider one and the same variable independent, from the beginn ing to the end . It is
cJear, that the formulae of differential calculus, when applied to such problems, will
really become full~fledged operational formu lae, only if it is not required of us, that
havi ng once made a choice of an independent variable we should retain it in that ca pacity
fo r the entire cou rse of the computat ions; in other words, if the formulae, contai ning the
differentia ls, and written with the assumption that x is the independent variable, remain
unchanged, even when x turns out to be a function of another independent variab le. In
this sense, the invariance of the formulae, containing the differentials, thus happens to
be an esselltial cOlldition for thc concordance of the objective and the operational poin ts
of view about the defi ni tion of the differential.
The definition of the first d ifferentia l, as the principal linea r part of an inc remcnt ,
satisfies this essential condition. Let liS recall the proof of this well known fact. At issue
J'
here i~ formula (2) : dy = (x) . dx.
'When x is an independent variable, th is formula is obtained as under. First of all
.6.y = A ·6.x+ a·!lx,
.At=;\ + a
'" x '
 v, I. GLlVENKO
'"
lim .Q.r:::: A
t1x
j'(x) = A,
dy= A·ax,
(2*) dy= j'(x) - t1x_
Let us note, th at in th is argu ment th e value of x is fixed, a nd tJ. x arbitrari ly tend s to zeru
: conseque ntl y, !:J. x is viewed as a variable, flot dependent 011 x. This remark will plny
a vital role in what foll ows. As of now, let us return to what wc have obtained:
dy= [,(x) - t1x;
this apart, si nce dx= tJ.x, formula (2) quickly follows from it.
Now, suppose that x is not an independen t variable, and x:::: <Il (I), such that it is illsll
' the case that y = 'If (I). Then one may get convinced aboul lhe validity of formula (2) IL .~
under: Owing to (2*) :

according 10 formula ( 1):

1,1'1- t11 = f'(x) - <1>'(1) - t11
a nd , finally. owing to (2*):
f'(x) - <1>' t11 = f'(x) - dx [f<om (2*) - we have q>'(t) - t1/ = dx] _
Dy compa ring the last three equalities, we get formula (2), C learly, (2) may serve as UI1
operational formula , quite equivalent to Hadamard's definition.
Difficulties ari se, when we try to defi ne the second differential. T he definition o f tl",
second d ifferent ial is already included in the defin ition of the differential as the prim:ipa l
linear part of an increment, and th ere is no room for any addit ional "arbitrary"
understanding. In fact, accord ing to this definition, the differential dy is itself a fundiol1
of x, and that is why the second differential d 2y, the different ial of the differential , is
thereby defined as d(dy); it on ly remains to be computed. For this, let us note, that from
the formula (2*) it follows that
d 2y= d[(x)-t1x] _
Further, as we have a lready noted, if we do not wish to make all our proofs of in variatl\.'\'
of formula (2) - infinite, then we must view D. x as a variable independent of x . I-I cn{;{~,
it easi ly fo llows, that the fac tor 6. x stands after the differential sign, while differentiatill~
from x, and we get:
d'y= [dj'(x)] - t1x.
whence, hav in g (2*) in view:
(5*) d'y=f"(x)-t1x'_
We get the final formula for the second differential, by substituting dx:= 6.x:
(5) d'y=f"(x)-dx'_
 CONCLUSION

This formula, now found in the assumption, that x is an independent variable, turns out
to be non-illvarialll. In fac t, let,
x = <1>(1), y = lJI(t),
then, owing to (5*)
d 'y = 1jI"(I) - LIt' ;
according to formu la (3)

.
1JI"(t) -LIt ' = l(x) - <1>"(t) -LIt' + l'(x) - [<1>'(t)]' - LIt '
and, finally ow ing to (5*)
l(x) - <I> "(t) -LIt' = l(x) - d ' x,
and ow ing to (2*)
f'(x) - [<I> '(t)] , - LIt' = l'(x) -dx'_
Comparing th e last four equal it ies we get:
d 2y = f'(x) . ([2x+ {'(x), dx 2 •
This result does not coincide with formula (5).
The conclu sion is clear. If we really want the differential calculus to be a full-fledged
calculus, if we wish to have the right to use its formulae, as we use the algebra, without
examin in g at every step, how they were obtained, then we shall be satisfied with the
operational definition of the differential, as its basic definition. The concept of the
differential as the principal linear part of an increment, turns out to be only an
interpretation, suitable on ly fo r definite particular instances. When, in pursuit of an
immediate and objective interpretation of each and every symbol, one accepts the
principal linear part of an increment as the definition of the differential, i.e. when attempt
is made to reduce the concept of differential as a whole to it, then one ge~'s . Q.. defective
result, since, by so doing, one fails to arrive at the differential calcu lus as such.
4. The Operational Point of View and the Objective Understanding of the Differential in
General.
Our conclus ion may be explained only by stating, that, n a m e I y , i t 1 s
the operationa l u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the
differentia l calcu lu s which r eflects
t h 'e rea l i t y cor r e c t I Y and f u I I Y [even if,
ow ing to the fact that in reality, as has already been mentioned, there are no absolute ly
independent variables ].
Does this exclude any objective understanding, whatsoever, of the differential
symbo ls?
Let us put the question more exactly : given a system of differential symbols
dx, dy, d 2X , d 2y etc., mutually related - just as the derivatives of any variable t,
dx dy d2x d 2y
dt' dt' dt2' dt2 etc. are

53
418 V. l. GLlVENKO

is any interpretation of th ese symbols, independent of the variable t possible?

We saw, that the interpretation as th e principal linear part of an increment is possible
on ly for the symbols of the first order dx, dy; from this, however, it does not follow
that other interpretat ions, which ·would be suitab le for the symbols of any order, are not
possible.
Such interpretations do reall y exisl. For example, geomet rica l interpretatio ns arc
possible.
Let us take a curve defined by the equation :
y= f(x).
Let us assume, that on this curve
x=x(s),
y = y(s) •
where s is the length of a segment of the curve (from a definit e point and , it is positve
or negative - depend in g upon the direction chosen ). Now the differential symbols
dx ,dy, d 2X • d 2y may be interpreted as follows. Let us introduce some arbi trary
CQnstants not equa l to zero, indi cated through ds and d 2S and put:
dx = x'(s)·ds,
dy= y'(s)·ds.
d 2x= x'(s) ·d 2s+ x"(s) ·ds 2 ,
d 2y= y'(s)·d 2s+ y"(s)·ds 2 .
It is eas il y seen, that this interpretation sat isfies the equal ilies (2) and (4). The length
s of the curve-segment , is a properly of the cu rve - not dependent upon its analytical
presentation. Th at is why the said interpretation too is not dependent on it. Naturally,
whoever uses the differentials in this or Ihal part of mathematics, bases hi s nOli on of the
differential upon those interpretat ions, 10 which he is accustomed. Thus, interpretations
like the o ne indicated are constantl y fo ll owed in investigations pertaining to diffe rential
geomet ry,. however, these are not created for the differential s themse lves of the
co-ordinates x and y, but rather for these or th ose expressions formed with them.
expressions - that are of geometric interest.
It is clear however, that the presence of this sort of interpretation does not, in essence,
solve the problem of the differential. Marx solved thi s problem through a d ia lectical
investi gatio n of how the transition from algebra to the differential calcu lus was
acco mplis hed in mathematics. As a result of !lis investigat ions there arose the
understanding of the differential calculus, as an a lgebra of its own kind, constructed over
(he ordinary algebra - which includes the differential symbols, besides the numbers.
T he d efinition of the differential provided in Hadamard' s text book shows that
mathe maticia ns are also arriving at that understanding of the general characte r o f the
differential ca lculus, where dial ectics had arrived in the hands of a materialist
philosoph~r - some half a century ago, ·
 CONCLUSION
'"
Source,' Pod Znalllentm Marbivna. 1934.5, SIr. 79· 85.
About lire Autlro, ,' Vasili Ivanovich Glivenko ( 1891- I 940). malhcmnlicinn and logician; graduated from
Moscow University in 1925. obtained his doctoral degree in 1928 ; taught in Karl Libknekht
Teacher.Training Inslitute Moscow. from. 1928 to 1940; made greal contribUlions to the instuitionist
IInd constructivist logics. ~ .
O,h" Publications:
I. Sur la logique de M. 8rouwer 1/81111. Acad. Sci. de 8dgique (5), 14(1928).
2. Logika Protivorechii. [929.
3. Osnovy Obshiei Teorii Stru ktur. 1937.
 MARX'S "MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS" AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS IN THE USSR
VLADIMIR NIKOLAVI CH MOLODSHII
The "Mathematica l Manuscripts" of Karl Marx were published in 1968 (I], in connect ion
with the JSO-th anniversary of hi s birlh. "All those manuscripts of Marx. which were morc or
less complete, or those which contai ned his own comments on this o r that mathematical
question", were included in this publication - in the original language and in Russian
translation [1, s. 3 ). A part of Marx's mathemat ical manuscripts, containing th e result s of his
reflections on the nature of differential calculus. were published in 1933, in Russian translation
[2].
For the Soviet hi storians of mathematics, the mathematical manuscripts of K. Marx, were
important supplements to the fundamental works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, upon
which they constantly based their in vestigations. Here I have in view: Marx 's "Capita l", Engels'
"Ant i- Diihring" and '~Dialectics of Nature" and. Lenin 's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism"
and "Ph il osophica l Notebooks". Marx's "Mathematical Manuscripts" helped the Soviet
scho lars to better orient themselves on philosophico-methodological questions - questions,
that are important for the history of mathematics, which to some extent determined the concrete
themes of their investigations, especially on the history of mathematical analysis and of its
substantiation in Ihe 171h-1 9th centuri es .
Mar)!: undertook a dee pe r study of mathematics in con nection with his eco nomic
investigations-[I, s. 4-6]. His mathematical manuscripts show, that subsequently he became
interested in purely mathematical problems - in questions pertaining to the problem of
substantiation of the differential calculus, and in its hi story. Marx not iced the deficiencies of
the basic conceptions of d ifferentia l calculus of the end of the 17th-beginning of the 19th
centuries and. he began to e laborate his own conception of "algebraic differentiation" and of
the philosophico-methodological and historica l questions intimat ley connected with it [I. s.
6-22]. Marx's conception is essentially different from that of Lagrange.
Marx treated the differential of a function as an operational symbol. In this connection he
investigated questions related to the nature of mathematical abstractions and to its symbols,
pertaining to making the definitions of the variable and the function more exact and, questions
related to the mathematical mean s of describing movement. Marx discussed the question of
regularity of the deve lopment s of mathematical conceptions in a "historica l essay", in the light
of the course of development of the differential c.alculus and the results of the attempts to
substantiate it in the 17th-18th cen turies.
The question of the nature of mathematical abstractions plays no sma ll role even in the
elaboration of the problems of the foundations of modern mathematics and of mathematical
logic. It is enough to recall the struggle between the supporters and opponents of the concept
of actual infinity. The dialectico-materialist ·elaboration of the problem of formation and of
types of abstractions constantly drew the attention of some philosophers and mathematicians
of our country - li ke S.A. Yanovskaya { 3]. Facts from the history of calcu li. axiomatic method
and questions of mathematical logic were analysed in their investigations in a new light [4]:
Compari sons with Marx's "Capital" were a lso undertaken. Marx himself had, o n more than one
 MAR X AND HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS IN THE USSR
'"
occasion, indicated that the logic of mathemati cs and the logic of "Capital" resemble each Olher
[5] ; and this was not achance re mark. Yan ovskaya used the results obta ined in th is field, while
e laborating the question of the epistemological foundations of the crite rion of truth in
mathematics (the practice of non-contradictority) [6) and, those of the concept of mathemal ical
rigor [7J. The creati ve output of S.A. Yanovskaya include the papers entit led: "On the so-called
Definitions through Abstractions" ( 1935) and "The Problem of Introducing and Excl uding the
Asbtractions of Orders Higher th.an One" ( 1965 ) [7J.
Modern investigators - especially philosophers and logicians - are drawn towards the
question of operational stre ngt h of mathematical symbols. V.I. Glivenko was the first to offer
an extended and pure ly mathe matical eva luation of Marx's treatment of the signs dx and dyas
o perational symbols [8. 1], (somewhat later, M. Prcchet too expressed analogous ideas) [8.21.
Marx's ideas about the operational stren gth of these symbo ls are true even in respect of the
wider range of materials prov ided by modern mathematics. As soon as the discussion turns to
the scientific interpretat ions of the reasons behind the e mergence and development of effective
mathematical concept ions and methods - especially th ose of the 19t h and 20th centuries, the
aforement ioned fact turns out to be important for history of mathemat ics.
Before the publication of Marx's mathematical manuscripts, historians of mathematics
studied the ideas of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, on the inner.regularities of the
development of the sce inces, from the other sources available. But in Marx 's "historica l essay"
on the development of the fou ndations of differential calculus, they came across Marx's own
ana lysis of the inner regularities of the development of mathematics.
Mane. showed that when the necessary conditio ns are created within the existing
mathematical theories, then a new mathematical theory may arise and develop. This new theory
"stands on its own legs", when its basic concepts and methods assume the spccific ities
characteristic of it a lone; the embryonic forms of these concepts contained in the initial
mathematical theories, do not have these specificities. Marx stressed, that a new theory is not
perfected and does not get recognition at once; that happens only through the struggle between
its adherents and the followers of the old ideas.
Having compared three conception s - those of Newton, d ' Alembert and Lagrange- Marx
observed, that in the period under consideration, the elaboration of the means of substantiating
the differential calcu lus proceeded along the lines of perfecting and making things more exact.
The first investigations inspired by th ese ideas include: S.A. Yanovskaya's "Misheil Roll
kak kritik analiza beskonechno ma laykh" ("Michel Rolle as a critic of infinitesimal ana lysis")
[ first published in 1947, reprinted in : 3, s. 76-.106]; and K.A. Rybnikov' s "Ob a lgebraicheskikh
korniyakh differensialnovo ischeslieniya" ("On the algebra ic roots of the differential ca lc ulus")
[9], and "0 roli algorifmov v iSlOrii obosnovaniya matematicheskovo analiza "(" On the role
of algorithms in the history of substantiat ion of mathematical anal ysis") [ 10].
Subseq uently , not on ly the hi sto rian s of mathematics, but also mathematicians and
philosophers, began [0 take an interest in the ques ti on of inner regu larities of the development
of malhe matics. Elaborati on of this question was found to be essential for analysing the nature
and mechanism of the sc ientific revolutions in mathematics.
Marx's "historical essay" helped to reveal the philosophico-methodological foundations of
the mistakes and insufficiently substantiated conclusions of some of the leading mathematicians
 V. N. MOLOOSIUI

of the centuries gone by. Yanovskaya discussed the foundations of the mistakes of Saccheri' s
proof of the parallel lines axiom in: I 11 J. Rybnikov revealed the inexactitude in the arguments
of 1. Bernoulli and Ya. Bernoulli, in their analysis of one o f the questions of variational analysis
r 12J. E. Va. Bakahmutskaya compared the c ritical remarks of K. Marx and T.P. Osipovsky on
Lagrarnge's conception of algebraic differentiation [13 J.
A study of the text-books of mathemati cs, published mainly in the 17th-18th centuries
showed . that the process of making them more perfect at times gave rise to ideas, that went out
of the framework of the then preva len t scientific idea s. but subseque ntly they became
components of new conceptions together with a new met hodo logy [ 14 1-
A.P. Yu skhevich noted [IS], and then S.A. Yanovskaya and N. T. Likholetov showed r 16 ].
that from 1804 to 1834. the teaching of differential calculus in Moscow University went through
three successive st ages, reproducing it s "mystical", "rationalistic" and "purely algebraic" forms
respectively. Ideas of Cauchy replaced them by the middle of the 19th centu ry . Roughly the
same can be said about the teach ing of mathemat ical analysis in the other universities and
institutions of higher learning of Ru ssia, during the first half of the 19th century r 17 and 18 ].
In vesti gations of the Soviet historians of mathematics confirmed the correctness of Marx's
crit ique of the conceptions of differemial calculu s he ld by Newton-Leibnitz. d'Alemert and
Lagrange, as well ~s of his pOSition, that nevertheless, the e laboration of the quest ions of
substantiation of differential calcul us, as per th ese conceptions, wen t along a li ne of ascent (and
that is why it produced concrete results) . r The Leibnitz -Newton apparatus of the differen ti a l
calculu s. togeth er with its "principle of getting rid of " the infinitesimals of higher orders, has
been provided with a new sciemific substantial io n in the non-standard mathe matical analys is
(see: "Matematicheskaya Entsiklopedia", T. JII, M., 1982. s. 10 19-1020). However, th is does
not reduce the merit of Marx's critiq ue, since the Leibnitz-Newton apparatus has been based
upon essentiall y different presuppositions in (he theories of its inventors 011 the one hand, and
in the non~standard analysis on the other]. Marx's "historical essay" served as a starting point
for those sections of some of the texl books of hi story of mathematics, which contained a
discussion of the developme nt of mathe matical analysis r19] . Th e second edition of the Great
Soviet Encyc lopaedia [201 and the "Filosofskaya Entsik lopedia" [2 1] contain a description of
the c.ontenlS and of the methodolog ical significance of the mathematical manuscripts of K.
Marx. Articles were devoted to these manuscripts in many journals, in pllriticular in the
"Uspekh i Matema ti c heskikh Nauk" [22]. "Pod Znamene m marksizma" [23], "Vopro sy
Filosofii" [24] and in "Matematika v Sh kole" [25]. "lsto ria Otchestvennoi Matemat iki " (26]
con tains a brief description of the role of Marx's "Mathematical Manuscripts" III the
development of histpry of mathematics in the USSR, during the last fift y years.
The questions about the st imuli , regularity and fo rms of scienti fic revolu tion s in the
mathematics of 19th-20th centu ries have principled significance for a dialectical materialist
elaborat ion of the history of mathematics of the same period . Fruitful investigations of these
questions are insepara ble from the analysis of the law-governed development of the
mathematical conceptio ns and theori es as a si ngle whole togcther with thei r b.asic co ncepts,
principles. methods of proof and norms of mathematical rigor. Namely thus did Marx pose and
in vestigate the question of development of the means of slubstan tiating the differential calculus
from the period of Newton and Le ibnitz to that of Lagrange. When the problem of sc ientific
 MARX AND tttSTORY Of' MATHEMATICS IN THE USSR 423

revol ut ions will gain it s proper place in the in vest igations of our hi storian s of Illat he llla! ics, then
they will be convinced about the fact that Marx' s ideas about the regularities of deve lopme nt
of mathematics, about the nature of mathematica l abstrac tion s and o perati onal symbols,a nd
abou t the st rugg le between the new and the o ld , are capab le of he lping them more than they
did earlier. The present aut hor became co nvi nced about thi s whi le investigating the sc ienitific
revol utions in the theory of numbers of the 18th-beg inning of the 19t h centuries, and in the
mat hematical analys is and geometry of the first half of the 19th cent ury. Other aut ho rs have
al so recognised and correspondi ng ly used this fact in their investigations [271.
The ideas expressed by V.1.Lenin in hi s "Materialism and Empirio-Critic ism" and in hi s
"Philosophical Notebooks" 'are also important for th ose histori ans of mathematics, w ho are
engaged in the anal ys is of th e scientific revoliltion s in the mathe mati cs - es pecially, of the
period beginning with the end of the 19th centutry.
The last - 50th - vo lume of the second edi tion of th e co ll ected works of Marx and Enge ls
has been publi shed recentl y. This edition includes 39 main and II supplementary vo lumes.
Thi s second editio n co ntains nearl y SOD new works and 700 lell ers more tha n th ose in the fi rst
[sce: Sokrovishnitsa revoltsionnoi mysli (k za vcrsheniu 2-ovo i1.dan iya soch inen ii K. Marksa
i F. ·Engelsa), Pravda, 1983,28 January]. In' the I I supplementary vo lumes, the hi sto rians of
mathematics will find some new statemen ts of Marx and Engels related to mathe matics, to its
ro le in the elaboration of th e questions of the soc ial sciences. This is of great signi fica nce for
the st udy of the hi story o r mathematization of knowledge in the 19th cen tury.
The ent irety of Marx's ma nu scripts pertain ing to the philosophi co- lI1cth odological
q uest io ns of mathemati cs and of its history, has not yet been published . Th ese will be included
in the multi-vo lu me academic ed iti on or the works of Marx and Engel s, be in g prepared by the
In s titute of Marxism- Le nin is m of th e CC of CPSU toge th e r with th e In stitute of
Marxism- Leninism of the CC of SUPG {2S]. However, a preliminary descript ion of a part of
this heri tage has been publi shed [29J; this publ ication may be used with profit.
Man: read (during 1878-79) Du Bois-Reymond 's "Lcibn itzi an Ideas in Modern Natural
Sciences" [30J and noted his state ment to the effect that: ".... Aristotle' s and Locke's view, that
the soul is a tabula rasa, is supported by the in vestigations of Rei mann , Helmholt z and others
about the axioms of geometry" [29, s. 87]. It would be inte resting la reproduce th e rest of Marx 's
conspectus of thi s speech of Du Bo is- Reymond and to compare it with the statements of
Lobac hevsky, Bol yai, Reimann and Hel mh o ltz abou t the nature of the presuppos itions in
geometry. A comparison of these notes of Marx with V.I. Lenin's conspectus of A.Rey's
"Modern Phil osophy" may also be of use. The following statement of A.Rey , noted by Le nin ,
in fact develops the afore mentioned statement of Du Bo is- Reymo nd, noted by Marx : "By
constantly movi ng fu rther from the space accessible to sense perception and by mov ing up to
the geometrical space, mathematics, however, does not move away from rea l space, i.e. from
the trlle relations amollg things. But rather, comes closer to them" [31] . At issue here are the'
mathematical abst raction s cha racteri stic of the mathe mati cs of the second half of 19th century
and, how the naturali sts npproac hed the dialectico-materialist interpretalio n of their nature. This
is an important issue for those who are investigating the history of mathemati cs of the 19 th-20th
centur.ies.
42' V. N. MOLODSHII

Marx also took notes form the works of Leibnitz and Descartcs : from what they wrote about
motion, and from the Leibnitz-C larke correspondence (32). and from some posthumous
publ ication of Descartes [33], An analysis of these nOles would certainly help the historians of
mathem atics to u nderstand the "Mathematica l Manuscripts" of Marx better.
One should not forget, th at as of now, the scie nti fic writ ings, especiall y those remaini ng in
the shape of manu sc ripts o f Mar x and Engels have not been co ll ected in fu ll. One cannot exclude
the poss ib ili ty of d iscovery of such new materia ls as may be of interest IQ the historians ~f
mathematics (see: 28 and 29].
Mathematicians and historians of mathematics o f other cou ntries have also taken note o f
Marx's mathematical manuscripts. Noteworthy in th is con nec tion is an essay of D. J. Stru ik
[34], whe re he has compared Marx's conception of "a lgebraic d iffe rntial ion" wit h t he
concepti ons o f Cauc hy and hi s successo rs. S vyatoslav S lavko v's monog raph on M arx's
mathematical manusc ripts [351 was publ ished in 1963. T he German and Italian editions of [the
fi rst part of} Marx's "Mathematical Manuscripts"( J968), were published in 1974 and 1975
respect ively. H.C. Ken nedy read his paper on Marx's mathe matical manuscripts in t he 15 th
International Mathe mati cs Congress(36J, Sov iet sc ho lars should analyse these materials and
ascertain the nature of the in fluence exerted by the work s of Marx upo n the development of
philosophico-historico-mathe matica l in vestigatio ns in the worl d.
[Thi s is a re-written and u pdated version of the paper read by the present auth or at the Second
School of History of Mathematics, Liepai, 3- 10, VII , 1978 . The firs t version of thi s paper was
pu b lished in: Is/oriko-Matematicheskie Issledoval1ia, Vyp. XXVI, s. 9- 17.J

Literature
I. Marks K., Matematicheskie Rukopisi, M" Nauka. 1968 (pred., prim. i kommenturii S.A.
Yunovskoi). 639 SIr. + risunki.
2. Ma rks K" MUlcmaticheskie Rukopisi/l Pod Znamellem MarksiZllla. 1933. I, s. 15-73; v sb.:
Marksizm i Estestvoznanie. M. Politizdal. 1933, s. 5-61.
3. Yanovskayn S.A., MelOdodologicheskie Problemy Nauki. M., Mysl. 1972.
4. Sbornik Stalei po Filosofii Malematiki . M., Uchpedgil., 1936.
'5. Dunaeva V" K voprosu 0 matcmalicheskom mctodc v "Kapi tale " K. Mnrksnl! Voprosy
Ekonomiki. 1967,8, s. 18-30.
6. Yanovskaya S.A .. Sodcrzhaleiln8),8 Istinnosl i Formailno-Logicheskaya DokazuemoSI v
Matematikell Praktika i Poznanie. M., Nauka. 1973 , s. 247-272.
7. See in [3} : 0 roli malemalicheskoi 51rogosti v iSIOTii tvorcheskovo razvili)'a matemaliki j
s petsiaitno 0 ~ Geomet rW Dekartal! fstoriko·Matematichtski~ Jss/~dovaniya (dalee: IMf), vyp.
XVII . 1966. s. 151- 184.
 MARX AND H[STORY OF MATIIEMATlCS IN TI lE USSR

8.1. G[ivenko V. I., Poniatie.Diffcrntsill[a u Marksa i AdamaraJlPod uwmellcm M",/csiVlla, 1934,

5. $. 79-85.
8.2. Ft~het M., Sur la notion de diff<!rentictlell J. Malhemat" t. 16., 1937, p. 233·250.
9. IMI, vyp. XI, [958. s. 583-592.
10. Tt. In-[a istorii estestvozn. i tekh., 1957, [7, s 287·299.
11. YOIlpl'skaya S. A., 0 mirovOZ7.renii N. J. LobachevskovolllMI, vyp. Ill , 1950, s. 60-64; see:
[3J,s, \07· 149.
12. RybinJwl' K. A., Pervye etapi razvitiya variatsionnovo ischisleniynlllMI, vyp, 11, 1949, s. 404-
429.
13. 8akhmufSkaya E. Ya ., Timofei Feodorovich Qsipovsky i eve "Kurs Mathematiki ~1/ IMI. vyp.
V, 1952, s, 28-74.
14. Sec, for example: V. N Malodshii, Osnovy ycheniya 0 chisle v XV III ·nachalc XIX v. M.•
Prosves hen ic, 1963; A.P. Yusllkevich, da Kuinya ·Zh. A. i problcmy obosnovaniya
matematicheskovo analiza II IMI, vYP, XV III, 1973, 5: 157-17.5.
15. Yuslchevich A.P., Malemalika v MGU 7.a pervye 100 lel sushcstovaniya I/IMI, Yyp. I, 1948,
s.43· 140.
16. Ukholelol' N I. i YOlfoskaya S. A.. Iz iSlorii prepodavaniya malernatiki y Moskoyskom
Universi lete (1804·1860gg.)IIIMI, vyp. VII. , 1955, s. 129-130.
17. Lobachevsky N.I., Nauchno-pedagogicheskoe nasledie. M., Nauka, [976.
18. Galchenkova R.I., Malematika v Leningradskom (Pelerburgskom) UniYersilete v XIX v, IIIMI,
vyp. XIV, 1961, s. 355·392.
19. Rybnikov K.A. , ISloriya Matemaliki. 2·e izd, Izd. MGU, 1974.
20. BSE, iut. 2·e, T.26, 1954. s. 496·498.
21 . Filosofskayn Enlsik lopedia, T.3, 1964, s, 342-343.
22. Rylmikov K. A. ,Malematicheskie Rukopisi K. Marksal/ UspekM Ilralem. lIauk, 10;1 (63). 1955,
s, 197- 199. Rozov N. Kh., MalemalicheskicRukopsi K. Mark salIUspekllimalem.llolll:. T. 23,
vyp. 5. ( 143): 1968, s. 205·210.
23. Yanovsl:aya S. A.. 0 matematichesikh rukopisyakh Marksall Pod Znomtntm Marksiwra, [933,
l,s.74-1 15.
24. Ruzavin G. I" Matematicheskie rukopisi K. Marksa i ne kolorye problemy melodologii
matemalikill Voprosy Filoso/il, 1968, 12. s. 59·70.
25 . Kiseltva N. I., Karl Marks i matematikaJl Matemarika v shkole. 1969. I, s. 5-10
Molodsllii V. N., 0 matemalieheskikh rukopisyakh K. Marksalllam lilt, S. 10·23.
26. ISloriya Olcheslvennoi malemaliki. TA.kn.2. Kiev, 1970, s. 460,461 ,465,496; A. P. Yushkevich,
Q rezvi ti isorii malematiki v SSSRlIIMI, vyp. XI, 1958; IMf, vyp. XXIV, 1979.
27. Rybikov K. A. , 0 lak nazyvaemykh tvo rcheskikh i kriticheskik h periodakh v iSlorii
mutemlllicheskovo anliza 11 IMI. vyp. VII, 1954, s. 643·665.
MolodsllU V.N. , Osnovy ucheniya 0 chi sic v XVIII i nachale XIX Y. M., Prosveshenie, 1963 :
Molodshii V. N., O. Kosh i i revolulsiya v malemalicheskomanalizepervoichctveOrli XIX v./1
IMI, vyp. XX III. 1978, 5.32-55.
Mo/ads"ii V. N .• 0 filoso(sko·melodologicheskikh predposylkakh otkryliya i razrabolki N. I.
Lobachevskim neevklidovoi geomelriill Filosojskie nauki, 1980,4. s. 75·85.

54
426 V. N. MOLODSIHI

28. S~lI dilw O. K., F. Engels i iSloriya nauki i tekhniki (po TlIkopisnym matcrialalm F . Engelsa v
Institute Mark ~i7.nHl-Leninizma pri Ts K K PSS)!I VO/II'OSY i.florii t!SltSll'ovullliya i leklmiki.
vyp. ](32).1970, $,1 4-19.
29. KrillilSkU A.M., Rabola K. Mark sa nad Yoprosami eSlcSlyowaniya (soo bs hcnie po
neopublikovannym materialam) /1 Voprosy Fifosojii. 1(3), 1984. s. 72·92.
30. DII Bois.Rqmomd E. , Zwei Fcslrcden in ti ffenllishen Sil1.ungen der kg. Preuss. Akademie dcr
Wissenschaften, 1871.
31. Lem'n V.I.• Poln. sobr. soch., T. 29, s. 482 (Eng. cd., M., 1961. v. 38, p. 4 18].
32. Leibnitii, Opera phi]osophica (cd. Erdmann), Berlin, 1840, pnrs prior, p. 774 -775.
33. Descarles H., Opuscul a posluma phisica Cl mathematica. Amsterdam;, 1101.
34. Slruik D.J., Marx and ¥alhcmaticsl/ Science and Society, 1948, 12, No. 1, pp. 181-196.
35. Sl(lYkov 5., K.Marks i niakoi problemy na malent.1likata. Sofia, 1963.
36. Ke/lfledy fI.C., Kar1 Mar" and the Foundations of Differential Calculus/I Hil/oria Mo./lremlllica,
1977, 4, pp. 303-318 : Russian tr. with additionslflMI, vyp. XXVI , \982.

Source: VOl' rosy ESI" slvozflaniya i Teklrniki, 1983,2, pp. 29-34.

Au/hor: Vladimir Nikolaevich Molodshii, Doctor of Physico-mathematical Sciences, Professor.
 ON T HE OPERATIO NAL LOGICAL APPARATUS OPERATI VE IN KARL
MAR X'S "CAPITAL" AND " MATHEMA n CAL MANUSCRIPTS"
V. !. PRZHESMITS KY
r. 0 11 the logic of Marx 's "Capital", the logical apparatus of the concrete sciences and, the
actual, real contradictions.
Th e q uestio n of the operational logical apparatus ope rati ve in Marx 's "Cap ital" is topical,
not o nly in connection with the necessity of defend ing Marxism an d the foundat ions of its
phil osophy, but ' also in co nnect ion w ith the requi rements of the concrete sciences, in
partic ular, th ose of phys ics and mathe matics. In Ihcse sc iences. spec ific log ical problems
are ,arisin g continuo usly; these proble ms de mand that we tur.t,l lo a logic, which is m ore
powerfu l th an that ord inary, tradit ional logic, which has beco me "mathe matica l",
Fo ll o wing Marx and Enge ls we shall use the te rn' "Logic" to ind icate the science, wherein
{he "laws of human thought " are investigated or, which is "a di sc ipli ne about the laws of the
very process of th ought " [Marx K. , Engels F., Collected Works, Russian Ed iti on T . 20, s.
9 1; T . 21 . s. 3 16] (Eng. ed., v. 25, p. 84 ; Marx-Enge ls, On Re lig ion (in Be ngali), Progress,
M ., 198 1 p. 258 - T r.) . Thi s discipline enters into a ll the fie lds of kno wled ge in the same
way. as the method of MOVEMENT of thought fro m the problems to be sloved to the ir true
solutio'ns, as "the met hod for seeking new results, fo r the transition from the known to the
unkno wn", as "the method of investigation and of thi nki ng" [ibid, T. 20. s. 138; T . 2 1, s. 303]
(E ng. ed., v. 25, p. 125 ; Marx- Engels, On Re lig ion (in Bengali), 198 1, p. 288 - Tr.). W hile
studying the works of Marx and Engeis, one cannot fai l to notice, that alread y in the 1840s,
they were using a qu alitatively ne w (d ialectical) logic which they themselves developed.
After the publication of Marx ' s "Contribution to the Criti que of Politica l Economy", in 1858
_ they o penl y decl ared that a d ialectical logic has been created, and that it is successfully
operative in sc ie nce. In thi s connectio n, they noted, th at the sc ienti fi c result obta ined by them
in logic is, " in it s significa nce, hardly inferior to the fun damental mate rial ist ideas" [i bi d, T.
13, s. 497J (Eng. ed. , v. 16, p. 47 5 - Tr.). Th is res ult was obta ined on the bas is of the
prin ciples of phi losophi ca l materialism : "to comprehe nd the speci fi c logic of a specific
subject-matte r" [ ibid , T . I, s . 325]," .. . an understanding of nature as she is, without any
ex tran eou s add itio ns ..." [ibid , T. 20. s. 5 13] (En g. ed ., v. 25 . pp. 478-479 - Tr.), "one mu st
not introduce an y arbit rary sub-divi sions" into the subj ect-matter under investigation, and the
log ical as pect of the subject-matter mu st "find its unity in itself" r ibid, T. 40 . s. 10] (Eng. ed.,
v. I, p. 12 - T r.).
Ma rx and Enge ls began the ir work in the fie ld of logic, while they were still young .
A lread y in 1837, Marx wrote confidentially to his father : " ... this work ... which had caused-
me to rack my brai ns end less I. (since it was actuall y intended to be a new logic) ... [it is] my
dearst c hild" (ibid, T . 40. s. 15.] (Eng. ed . v. I, p. 18 - Tr.).
This state men t ind icates the indisputable beg inning of the marxisl r?- Tr. ] dia lectkal
revol ution in 10g ic.·The new logic may be deri ved, w ith help of strict logical means, fro m its
primary e le me nt, its primary foundation, its initia l "ceJl" . Such an e le ment must fixate the
tota l o ve rcoming of that one-s idedness of scien tific though t - by logic - which e manates
fro m the Ari stote lian princ iple of non-antinomic ity of truth . A "Study of Marx's and Engels'
 428 Y.1. PRZIIESMITSKY

works show, that their purely logical demand is as under: to do away with the metaphysical
an ti-dialectical prejudice, the g lobal ization of the pricipie of non-antinomicity and TO USE
"I N THE PROPER CASES BOTH" THE DISJUNCTION (p v p) AND THE CONJUNCTION (p & P), AS
PERMISSIBLE LOGICAL FORMS OF TRUTH, understandably, basing oneself upon the p~ssib l e
"useofthe oppos ites" [ibid, T. 20, s. 528] (Eng. ed., v. 25, p. 493 - Tr.), where it is necessary
(our stress -V.P.).
Suc h an attitude to the conjunct ion (p & p) as a possible form of truth, fixated!
cpnsolidated in the Principles of logic as a science, is st ri ctly scientifically substantiated. This
(substan tiation) consists of the two following facts, related to the DIALECTICS OF NATURE:
(I) a co ntradiction in a scientific theory -Ihat, which in the final count takes the for m of the
conjunction (p & p), (has) by no means (its origin only in thought) in any and every case;
depending upon the concrete conditions, 'he concrete conte nts of thought, the foundation and
the root of a concrete contradiction lies: either really in thought, or - ilJ the perception
of reality and only then in thought, or - in the very essence of the subject-matter of thought,
i.e. exclusively in the very nature of things; (U) the set of three basic types of contrad ictions
are divided in scienti fic theories, into concretely defined sub-sets or classes of fu lly defined
spec ific ities, these are strictly differentiated in the writings of Marx and Engels .
According to Marx and Engeis, the first two types of contradictions constitute the class
of "trivial" and, "fa lse" or "seeming" contradicti ons and, they are to be contrasted w it h the
remaining class of "REAL or TRUE" contradictions.
Through their investigations in the "Capital" Marx and Engels made it possible for us to
understand the importance of the distinction between the real contradict ions characteristic of
reality and the contradictio ns of the sophist type, of that between the REAL contrad ictions
and the really TRIVtAL (tLLUSORY, SEEM ING) contradictions, those that give rise to the
PARADOXES. It must be pointed out however that ordinary logic lacks the means required for
visuali sing and express in g these distinctions, in so far as these dist inctions are not
immediately given by the forms of expressions, but rather by the contents thereby reflected.
Since the logical form of all types of con tradictions happ~n to be the one and same antinomy
- the conjunction (p &"ji), the determination of whether this or that real concrete
contradict ion is genu ine and true ·or an illusion or a parad9x is impossi,ble with the he lp of
ordinary logic. For this logic ·even the task of distinguishing between a REAL contradiction
from a sophi stic-co ntraq iction, becomes a BACK-BREAKING task in a number of instances.
Now let us take a loo k at the real conrradictions of scienti fi c theories.
We may take the following contrad iction, as an example of the really false o r seemi ng
contrad ict ion, that of the illusory contradict ion or paradox, from amidst the writings of
Marx and Engels: "why does the capitalist, whose sole concern is the production of
exchange value, continually strive to depress the exchange value ·of commodities? A riddle
wit h which Qucsnay, one of the fou nders of Political Economy, tormented his opponents,
and to which they could give him no answer" [ibid, T. 23, s, 33 1; Capital (Eng. ed.), r, p. 303].
The following example of a real, genuine, i.e. true contradict ion may also be considered from
among the writings of Marx and . Engels: "Motion itself is a contrad iction - even simp le
,!,echanical change of position can only come about through a body being at one and the same
moment of time both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same p lace and
 LOGIC OF MARX'S "CAPITAL" &. "MATIIEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS" 429

a lso not in it. And the contin uous origin ation and si multa neous solut io n of this
co ntradict ion is precise ly what motion is" [ibid , T . 20. s 123; Eng. ed., v. 25. p.I I I]. We may
co ns ider, alternatively, yet another e xample :" ... it is a contradicti on to de pi ct o nc body as
constantly falling towards ano th er, and as, at the same time, constant ly fl yin g a way from
it. The ellipse is a form of moti on which, wh ile allowin g th is contradictio n to go o n, at the
sa me time reconc iles it " {ibid , T . 23 , S 114 ; Capilal (Eng. ed.), I, p. 100J
Re markab ly, all these types and classes of contrad ictions, which we meet within the
scie ntifi c theories, have been' - o ne and"Ull - in vestigated in th e writin gs o f Marx and Engels.
The task o f recogni sing and revea ling the speci fi cit ies of these co ntrad ic ti ons has bee n
made an ord inary. routine and everyday affair, like that of so lving the riddles o r revea ling the
secret s of nature o r those of th e objects of thought , which have often been termed - after
He ge l - as the pro ble ms of "so lving" (log ica l) contradictions. S uch solut io ns arc carried out
by seeking out the essential , natural, intermed iate, logicall y·med iatin g linles. Inc identally,
o ft e n many such intermediate links are required to be sought , as, for instance, fro m the
standpoint of ele me ntary al gebra many intermediate le rms <In! required , 10 unde rs tand that

~ may represent an actual magnitu de "[ibid , T . 23, s. 326; Capital (Eng. ed .), I, p. 290].

The works .o fMarx and Engels also help us to understand the fact that the d ifference of the
actual rea l contradictions from the rea lly seeming and fal se olles - the pa radoxes -'which are
BAS IC to logic (and not to any theory o f deve lopmen t whatsoever), leads to the foll owi ng.
I) The real and actual contradictio ns in theory are an tinomica l·truths, as truth s they may
be log icall y used in appropriate s ituati ons either as natural e leme nts of true sc ientifi c thought
o r as log ical TR ANS ITIO NS e ncountered in logica l move ment of thoug ht - which the
developed sc iences can not d o without, whereas j ust like the sophistic"contradictions, the
parad ox type contrad ict ions can not play th at role.
2) Th e real and actu al contradic tion charac teri stic of no object of thoug ht, is conta ined in
the very ESSE NCE of the object o r it may eve n be THAT VERY OBJECT (as in particul ar, is
the contradicti on of MOTION), while the really paradox produc ing contrad ictio n is merely a
contradiction between th e ou ter side (a nd corresponding ly, the externa l appearence) o f the
o bjec t of tho ught and its ES S EN~E (and correspondingly, its inner regul arity).
3) From the standpoint of ord inary logic , the real paradox generat ing contradict io ns, just
l ike an y triv ial co ntradic tion - cea se to EXIST up o n Ih e j"r reso luti o n a nd , pe rm it
non· antino mi cal.represenlati on o f the ph enomeno n ind icated by them . 'In contrast to this, no
ac tual, real co ntra di c ti o n (l ike th e co ntradi c ti o n of MOTION) ca n be de pic ted
non·antino mically and in this sense they are INDESTRUCTIBLE.
The actual, real contradictio ns do not vanish even in those situations, when toget her with
... the ir carriers - as is c haracterisitic o f them, they are DEVELOPED - i.e. , tran sformed,
unfo lded an d, are suppleme nted w ith new phenomena, with new contrad ictio ns derived out of
the o ld o nes. S in ce th e develo,P me nt of an o bject DOES NOT ELI MINATE these real
contrad ictions b ut on ly creates a modus vivendi, i. e. a form in which they can move forward.
side by side, a form of the ir movement, And such in general is the meth od - e xplaine d Marx
- with the he lp of which real contradictio ns are resolved [see: Capital (E ng. ed. ), I. p. 106];
 430 Y. I. I'RZHrc.SMITSKY

All thilt hns been said above oblige us, follow ing Marx and Engels , 10 see and to take
note of the fact, in all the disciplines (and especially in logic and in philosophy as a whole),
that the aninomics and the symbolic conj unctions which ex press them, may depict, not o nl y
the fa lse and Iri~ial con tradictions. absu rd iti es and paradoxes, but a lso the real, actual
contrad ictions. And in that case such a conjullction can be the TRUE form of a TRUE
antinomical proposition, VITA LLY IMPORTANT rQR HIE SCII3NCE of logical transition along the
path of dialec tical negation together with a subsequent negation of the negation and, Marx
has graphi cally demonstrated the justifiability and result-yielding charac ter of such
conjum;tions in mathematics [see: Marks K. , Mtl tematicheskie Rukol)isi, M., 1968, s. 29-751 .
It mu st be clearly stated here. that now, when the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin arc to a
significant ex tent available to all. and are within the reach of ever)' Marxist, we s hould not fail
to noti ce thi s fa ct.
Here it may be indicated as a positive fa ct. that mathematicians in the USSR have
already noted, that the formal -log ica l Iype of thinkin g and the ve ry principle of
non-antinomicity may, under certai n c ircumstances lead even" to the appearance of delusions
and mistakes "[sce: Rybnikov K. A., Vvedenie v metodalogiyu matematiki (Introduction to
the methodology of mathematics), M., 1979, s. 50J. And that is why, thi s type of thinking
"did not and does not occupy a central position ... in developed human consciousness. The
acquisition of mathematical knowledge, and its composition , includes withi n itself a lot of
ele ment s that are not amenable to formal-logical· analysis. Quite a few of the methods of
mathematical "operation" happen to be "non-logical" [Rybnikov,op. cif., s. , 56-571. And in
so fa r as even to-day, we are required to use a "means of logical deduction wh ich arose in
the past" [ibid, s. 83-84], including the principle of nail-contradiction as the principle of
non-antionomicity, "notw ithstanding the evident logical discrepancies and lack of explanations
of the operational part of analysis", when "t he problem of construct ion of models and their
corresponding definite logical requirements have come to occupy the fo re-court "[ibid, s. 94].
He re the development of mathematics (as well as that of theorctical mechanics and physics)
is in ever g reater need of a recognition of that DIALECTICS OF NATURE in logic, about the
no n-naturaln ess of which N.N. Lu zi n, D.D.Morduhai-Boltovsky, P.S. Nov ikov and others
have spo ken repeatedly.
II. The o{)eratiolZallogical apparatus o/the "Ca{)ital" and o/the "Mathematical Manuscripts"
a/K. Marx.
Th e operali onallog ical apparatus adduced in th e courses of trad itio nal log ic, called forth to
ensu re the log ica l movement of scient.i fi c thought, does not guaran tee thc bannin g of false
identifications, antinomies or disjunct ions and, even of logical arbitrariness in scientific
thought. The log ic of the "Captia l" of Marx not only guarantees the banning of logical
arbitrariness in scientific thought, but also ensures it s successful development: reproduction
of the essence of the object under investigation in al l its contradictoriness, cons istency of
thought, its truth, broadness of the logical frame and of the gcnralisation s adduced, the
necessary strictness and, together with it, versatility of the conclusions. It is that is why,
namely. that the log ic of "Cap ital" is at least as supe ri or to the ordi nary logic "as the
rail ways are 10 the medieva l means o f transport" , to borrow an express io n from Engels [Marx
K., Engels F., Collected Works, Russian Edit ion, T . 13. s. 48; Eng. cd. v. 16, p. 476].
 LOG1C OF MARX ' S ·CAP1TAL" & " MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS· 431

The follow ing logical devices have been em pl oyed in tile "Capi tal" for ensuring the
reproduction of the essence of the object of investigation in the movement of scientific
thou g h!: contradict ions connected wi th the sol ution of tl.le problems under invest igati on have
been reveal ed and form ulated - these co ntradictions reflect the eS'scnce of the problems to be
so lved. Such a logica l order is clearly vis ible in Marx 's formu la!ion of the question of essence
of co mmod ity, of the cap itali st form of social production and, that of the di stribution of
capitali st profi t and capital [ibid, T . 13, s, 47-48; Eng. ed ., v. 16, pp . 475-476].
Further, the .co ntrad ictions, whi ch have been formulated as fragments of the reality under
in vesti gation, and wh ich appear as riddles or as secrets of the object of thought, are solved
purely logica ll y, i.e., in tho ught. This does not change anyth ing in thei r conten t, yet removes
the ve il of secrecy from their face, removes the veil of mys tery. [n so far as the realisation
of such an operation, while resolvi ng the rea l, and evc n seem in g, contradi ctions, I.C.,
paradoxes, demand s that not only the extern al aspect, the appearance of pheno me na. but also
thei r internal side, the regularity, and that is also the essence of the OBJECT OF THOUGHT
be taken int o account; here th ought, whi le real isi ng the logical operat ions, moves from the
formu lat ion of the questions to the ir true solutions, withou t tearing itse lf off, either from the
essence of th e object of thought or,Jrom the esse nce of the scient ific problems to be so lved.
Truth is the most va luable prope rty of th ough t and, that is why, it is first of all the duty
of LOGIC to control the truth of scientific thought. Since, namely, "LOGIC '" THE QUESTION
OFTRUTH" rLenin V, I. , Collected Works, Eng. ed . v, 38, p. 175J, Whil e performin g thjsduty,
the logic of Marx's "Capita l" - as di stinct from'Ordirary logic - proceeds from the fact
that concrete truths happen to be both non-antinomical and anti nom ical. That is why, as a lready
stated above, the new logic, the log ic of "Capital" - as distinct from the Aristote li an and
m od ern fo rmal logic - proceeds from the de mand th at BESIDES ·"EITH ER·OR" , "BOTH TH IS-
AND THAT" is also TO BE EM PLOYED in thc RIGHT PLACE. At a definite stag,e, thi s demand wards
off that si tuation, when actua ll y true propos itions are declared to be false on the basis of
the fact that the posi tions opposed to them, formulat ed earlier, turn OUI to be true - and
thi s is not a sufficien t ground for declaring the earlier ones fa lse. Here we are, in the main,
speak in g of the ready- made propositio ns and concepts. This is what I wou ld li ke to poin t
o ut at first.
Marx has also pointed out : "Truth includes not only the result but also the path to it. The
investigat ion of truth must itself be true; true investigation is developed truth, the dispersed
e lements of which are broug ht together in the result" [Marx K. , and Engels F" Collected
Works, Eng. ed ., Vol . I , p.113.]. That is to say, we must take care both of the consistency and
of the starting po ints o f the movement of scient ific thought. The log ic o f "Capital" takes this
into account. From the very begin ning it directs the subject of in vestigation al ong a path whic h
rejects all mysticis m and schol astic ism a nd , ensures "THE JOURNEY TO TH E TH INGS, AS THEY
ARE, l. E. UPTO TRUTH"' [Marx K. , a nd Engels P., Collected Works, Ru ss. cd., T . I, s, 29] .
In view o f the fact that lhe log ic of "Capita l" and of the "Two manuscr ipts on the differential
calcu lu s" o f K. Marx permits in the righ t place, a recourse 10 truth equally wit h ~tructu ral
d isj un cti on as well as with co nj unctio n - the actualisation of the forma[-I ogical kind of
consistency o/the movement a/scientific thought becomes impossib le, That is why, in this
logic, the movemen t o f sc ientifi c thought is actualised as a moveme nt from the statement
 432 Y. L I'R7..IIESMITSKY

of the question to be answered, to a true ans wer of it. He re the very process of movement of
thoug ht is actuali sed in the fo rm of a consistent unity of two - in a certain sense contradictory
10 the each other - dialectica l-logica l processes, appropriate ly termed as : the ascent from
the concrete to the abstract and, the ascellt from the abstract 10 the conc rete.
The ascent from the c6ncerte to the abstract leads to an unifi catio n and o rga nisation of
the sc ientific data, from there one may proceed to a true so lutio n of the prob lem under
cons ideration , These data are e mbodied in the necessary premises of the ascent to the concrete
strictly-scientific abstracti ons, wh ich are called the in itial abstractions for the ascent from
the abstract to the concrete. Initial abstracti ons, e ither as a kind of INIT IAL ~CE LL" of the object
of thought or as a kind of true answer of the question unde r considerati on, o r as a kind of
"LOGICAL BRIDGE" over the proble ms to be solved, turn out to be suitable for slIch an asce nt.
We shall discuss these two types of in itial abstraction s and ascents in de tail in another paper.
The ascent fro m the abs tract to the concrete is an intellectually real ised theoretica l
transi tion accordi ng to the correspond ing laws of reality (these laws a re logica l and
special -scientific); it is a trans it ion fro m the already prepared strictly-sc ien tific initial
abstractions corresponding to the concrete sc ien tific content , to the concrete kn ow ledge
sought - to the tru e a nswer of the qu estion under consideration.
In order to ensure that the unity of the in itial abstractions of the ascent, with th e laws
of the reality connected with them, was natural and , that they be dependab le theoret ical
Ele men ts and be the log ica l path of ascent to the true answe r of the quest ion under
considerati on - log ic must take in to account not on ly th e external aspect, the appearance, but
also the essence of the object or phe nomeno n considered. That is why dialeclicallogic must
seek or elaborate the neccessary concrete-scientific abstractions or laws of rea lity , initi al 10
the ascents, on ly in indi sso luble unity with the correspondi ng conc rete sc iences - and not
otherwise. That is why in the "Capital" - where the object of investigation pertain s to
econo mics and hi story - thi s logic func tions in an unity with political economy and history
of mankind. In Ihe "Two manuscripts on the different ial calculus" - where the object of
in vestigati on, the differen tial , is a mat hematica l object - this log ic func tio ns in an unity
with mathematics. It is understandable th at thi s unity of the dialecti cal logic with a
corresponding concrete sc ie nce must take place on ly th ere and to that exte nt , where and to
whic h extent it happe ns to be necessary.
The dialectical logic of Marx and Enge ls atta ins a broad ness of logical frame and sc ien tifi c
gene rali sation, since it ai ms at using the unity of opposites: of the indiv id ual (the particu lar
and the singular) with the general, of the concrete - with the abstract, of the real- with
the possible, and of the determinate - with the indeterminate [A ristotle underra ted the laner,
but the indeterminate sho uld not be underes timated) (see: Lenin V. I., Collected Works,
Eng. ed., vo l. 38, pp. 359-360) . That is why, while rising from the concrete to the abstr.ac t,
Marx reduces the gene ra l con tained ' in the things to thei r most generalised logical
ex pression [Marx. K., and Engels F., ColleCTed Wo rks, Ru ss. ed., T . 3., s 180] . On thi s road
o ne is required to raise scientific thought above the level of ordinary logic, i.e. above the level
of the logical connections of identity and difference, of affirm atio n and negatio n, above the
leve l of the Ari stote li an laws of excluded mid dle a nd no n-contrad ict ion and,
correspondingly of th e formulae:
 LOGIC OF MARX 'S "CAPITAL" & "MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS" 43J

1
(p & P) and (p p), v
from among which neither o ne is for ever-true, nor for ever-fa lse (but rather, both a re only
sometimes-true and sometimes-false), and thus rise to the level of connecting the opposites:
A FFIRM ATION and NEGATION, to express which one uses (p v
p) together with (p & p).
This requ ired representation of Ihis law of unity of the opposites AFFIRMATrON and
NEGATION is superfici a lly expressed more full y and deeply within the framework of its
abstract universality, in the lan guage of modern symbolic logic, by the formula:

'V p II 1 p&l ii 1v [ p&l P 1v It p & pJ v [p & ii J v [( p & p) & (1 p&l ii )11.

In log ic we s hall call this formula and the concrete law which it expresses, Enge ls' logical
law and formula of disj unction-conjunction without forgettin g the fact that this is only one of
the possible PARTIC ULAR expressions of the ESSENCE and "NUCLEUS" of DIALECTICS, of the
law of unity of opposites.
In view of the uni versality o f thi s law and of the formula that expresses it, while solv ing a
concrete problem - the object of thought, characterized by a cert ai n predicate in IJ and the
predicate itsel f, is c hosen in an extremely genera li sed form. That is to say, a lways only an
individual indeterminate exa mple is chosen, from amongst the set o f a ll the examples of a given
genu s, as the object of thought, which potentially carri es any fo rm inherent to the ir identity
a nd difference . Thi s ho lds good also for the predicates which figure in thought as per
necessity. Thu s scientific thought prOlects itself from be ing s uppressed PREMATURELY
within the limits of the Aristotelian fram e-work of such cond itions as, the "one and the
same object", at "one and the sa me time", in "one and the sa me re lation" etc.; this provides the
poss ibi lity of retaining, in the movement of thought from the s tate me nt of the qu est ion to
its true answer, all its poss ible potential ity, which can not be immediately realised and utili sed
in full.
The log ica l means that reg ulated, as an instrument and as a method, the strictness and the
versatility of scientific th ought in the "Capital " and in the other writings of Marx and Engels,
has the fo llowing poles.
When th ought moves fro m a question to its answer, those bou ndaries are not to be
lost sight of, within the lim its of which, Engels' la w and fo rmula

s= v
II p&l P 1 I 1 p & p JI
is adequate for the object of thought. Within these boundari es they (this law and formula)
demand extreme concreteness fro.m sc ientific thought (and thereby this th ough t becomes
ex tremely strict). But thi s form ula may be used o nly within the limit s of its actu al range of
applicabil ity (and herei n the dialectical logic of Marx .and E ngels reta ins w ithin itself all
that is really valuable and true in the ordinary logic). The movemnet of thought from the
state ment of a question to its true answer - according to the law that connects the opposites
wi th in the frame-wo rk o f a necessary abstract universality, which is regulated w ithin the
fram e· work of Engels' law and formula of d isjun ction:

s= II p&l p Jv 11 p& p J v [ 1 p&l p 1v [p &p J v I(p &p) & (1 p&l p)ll

55
434 Y. I.I'RWESM ITSKY

by way of ex:cluding from it every time those term s, which lose thei r meaning as per Ihc
g iven conditions and upon solutio n of a given prob lem - alone ca n ensure the ex treme
strictness and nu idity of th ough t

SOllree : Voprosy dialekricheskoi !ogiki.' !,rilmip), j formy mysh/eniytl (mmerialy

postoyanno dcistvu yuschevo simpoziumn po dinlektichcskoi logike). AN SSSR . [nslitul
Filosofii, M., 1985. s. 70-81.
 ON THE PROBLEM OF SITUATING MARX'S MATH EMATICAL
MANUSCRIPTS IN THE HISTORY OF ID EAS
PRADIP BAKSI

I
Ka rl Ma rx completed hi s sc hool education in 1835, with "a . good knowledge of
mathematics" [ 20, 644), wh ich included arithmetic, a legebra, geometry, trigonometry and
infi nitesimal calculus (25. 157 fr]. However, hedid not study mathemat ics in any university
depart ment. In the unive rs ities of Bon n and"Berlin, he auended lectures on law, Greek and
Roman mythology, Homer, his tory of modern art, anth ropology, log ic, geography, Isaia h and
Euripi des [ 20, 657 -658 and 703 -704 ]. Whi le a!tempt ing an elaboration of a ph il osophy of law
of his own, as a 19 year o ld student afBeTl in Upiversity, he expressed his dissatisfact ion ,on a
methodologica l plane. w ith "the unscientific form of mathemati cal dogmat ism" [20, 12J. In
th.e same year he composed three poems in jest, and gave them the common tit le : Mathematical
Wisdom [ 20, 545-546 J . Two years later, in 1839, he drafted a Plan of Hegel's Philosophy of
Nature [20, 510-514 J, three vers ions of wh ich have come down 10 us; they contain references
to mechanics. His No te books on Epicurean Philosophy [20, 403-5091, dating back to the same
year and, his doctoral dissertation, written du ri ng 1840 and 184 1 a nd submitted to the
Uni versity of Jena in April 184 1 : On the Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean
Philosophy of Nature r 20, 25-1 05 1, contain evidences of his contin uing phi losophi ca l interest
in the fu ndamen tal phys ico-mathematical concepts. Thus, in spite of a lack of forma l
mathematical ed ucation at the university-level, mathemat ics was always present in Karl Marx's
intellectual horizon, in some form or the other, even during his formative years. In the latter
half of the 1840's Marx's interest in mathemat ics was rekind led by the requi rements of his
investi gati ons in the fie ld of political economy. But withi n a few years this interest began to
d raw sustenance from other sou rces too: for instance, in Ju ly 1850 we fi nd him discussing the
then emerg ing mate rialist conception of nature and human history in the li gh t of the
developments in mechanics and in the other sciences [ 19,67-69]; in April 185 1 his fr iend
Rola nd Danie ls was imploring him to take up the study of physics in conenction with the
projected preparation of an e ncyclopaedia of the sciences [8, 11 3]; and in September-October
that year Marx d id study a treatise on the hi slory' of mathema.tics and mechan ics [PV, 109-112
). Aftcr that he went throug h the different branches of elementary mathematics all over again
and, made a special sutdy of ordinary algebra and differential calculus. These studies continued
for the next thirty odd years a nd, came to an end on ly with his death . .
In ..... mathematics Marx fou nd the most consisten t and at once the most simple expression
of dialectical movements" [ 19,3 1-32]. He was drawn to mathematics OWIng 10 the " many points
of contact bctween mathematics, philosophy and dialectical log ic" ( 16, 587]. In his more or
less complete mathematical manuscripts he investigatect" the dialectic, the being and the
becomi ng, th e nature and history, of the fundamental concepts of diffe rent ial calculus. Th at is
why on ly in the contex t of the history of interaction of mathematical and phi losophical thought
can we hope to take our first steps towards a proper assessment of Marx's contributions in this
fie ld.
 4)6 P. OAKSI

II
On the strength of the evidences ava ilable till date, it may be asserted, that mathematical
act ivities bega n on our planet in the Neolilhic era. It deve loped furt her in the centres of fi rs t
urbanization: in anc ient Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and India. T h is early mathematics was-
to use a modern te rm - constructive , pri mar il y oriented towards the construction of
mathe matical objects. The early lex lS containi ng arguments around mathematic al objects and
techniques grew so mewhat later : in anc ient Greece. T hough some othcrc ivilizatiolls - name ly.
the ancie nt I ndian c ivilizations - had a formidable theoretical cult ure of their own, the
inte ract ion of mat hematical and philosophical thought has been found to have been mos t
prominen t in ancient G reece alone.
It is commo nl y he ld that mathematic s became t heoretical with t he geome t rica l
investigat ions of Tha les (624-548 B.C.). Tha les was exposed to the mat hematica l practices of
the ancient Egypt i an~, who in the ir turn inheri ted the mathematics of ancient Cha ldea
,Mesopotamia). Anax imandrus (6 11 -545 B.C .) of the Ionic schoo l fou nded by T hales
in trod uced the concept of indefinite magnitude into mat hematics. Another Ionic thinker
Heracl itus of Ephesus ( 530-470 B.C.) was one of the pioneers in the conscious emp loyment
of d ialectica l reason in ph ilosophy, in connection with the problem of conceptualization of
change . These theoretica l concerns gradually culminated in the firs t noticabled isquiet with the
indeterminate mag ni tudes : in the react ions of the schoo l of Pythagoras (580-504 B.C .) to
numerical analys is. And finally. in the paradoxes associated with the name ofZeno of Elea (b.
475 S .c.), t he prQblem of defin ite desc ript ion of the indeterminate assumed ex plosive
dimensions. These paradoxes have a close parallel in the problematique of Milillda Prashlla
associated with the name of king Milinda or Menander ( 140- 1 10 S.C.) 24]. r
The di scovery o f irrationa l proportions in the school of Py thagoras and the paradoxes
formu la ted by Zeno led ancient Greek mathematics to the door s teps of a "crisis of
foundat ions". To meet thi s c hallenge Eudoxous ofCindus (408·355 B .C .) developed the method
of exhaustion, a lready introduced by Hippocrates oJ Ch ios ( 450 s.c.). In the E leatic school
the concern w ith the indefi nite went side by side wit h the development of the reductio ad
absurdum argument. T he problems thrown up by the contradict io ns involved in the anempts at
. a defin ite description of the indefin ite, generated attempts to demonstrate something by
' expell ing the obv ious fo rmal con trad ictions. And thus the grounds were created for taising the
ques tion of dialectics of mathematics more categorically. This the Socrat ics did .
In P laio's (428/427-348/347 B.C.) Republic we find a Socrates d issat isfied with the lack of
conceptual clari ty of the emp.irics and the Pythagoreans. proposing an investigation into the
d ia lectic of t he fundamen ta l concepts of the existing mathematical disciplines ( 27. 510-511
and 524-53'3 ). Pl ato attempted to put his dialectics and mathematics on a common founda tion
in his theory of idea-numbers . An analogous approach may also be fou nd in Aristotle' s (384-322
B .c.) remarks on a n uni versa l mathematics (3, 42]. However. it was Aristotle's sys tematization
of log ic in the image of the exi sting Greek mathematical theory. which influenced later
mathematical deve lopments most stro ngly.
Euc lid ( approx . 300 B,C .) benefited greatly from the critica l movement of Plat o ' s academy,
revising the princ ip les of geometry (Eudox us was associated with this movement) . After that
 THE PROBLEM OF SITUATING MARX'S MATllEMATlCAL MANU5CRWrs IN TIlE IIISTORY OF II)EAS 07

the method of ex hausti on was furthe r developed by Arch imedes of Syracuse ( 287-2 12 B.C.).
Study of the con ic sections was introduced earl ier by Menachmus nnd Pl ato, this was further
developed by Apo lIonios (approx. 200 B.C.) and his fo ll owers. Wit h these developments
ancient Greek mathe mat ics reached its zenith.
In the period that fo llowed, at fir st the He llenic cen tres of the med ite rranea n countries ( like
Alexandria) beca me the repository of the ancient Greek attainments in mathe matics. Afte rwards
the centres of mathe mati ca l and philosophi cal investi gations in the Greek' tradi tion shifted to
Weste rn and Central Asia. Meanwhile Chinese and Indi an mathe mnticses were not standing
still. For a brief review of the mathe mati cal auainments of the peopl e of ancient and medie val
Asia see : r 311. (32]. [33]. Afte r the 6th century A.D . the Greek, C hinese and Indian
mathe maticses interacted with each other, in the centres of learning of Arabic and Persian
speakin g Asia. In conseque nce we witnessed those de velopments in arithmetic, a lgebra,
geometry, trigonometry and mec hanics; with out ~hi c h the subseque nt e mergence of the
diffe re nt ial and the in tegral cal culu s would not have been poss ible. During th e 10th- 13th
centuries medieva l southe rn Europe became aware of these achievements through Hebrew and
Latin tran slat ions of the availabl e literature in Arabic. This peri od also witnessed a rene wal of
European interest in anc ient Greek Ph ilosoph y and literature as a whole. At around the same
time, however. the li vin g contacts between the mathematical traditions of Asia and Europe
started getting snapped. The crusades (11th- 13th centuries) prov ide the background to these
contacts and the ir subsequent de mi se.
Th ese contacts were to be re-establis hed some four or fi ve centu ries later. as one of t he
results of the colo nial elt pansion of the Eu ropea n cap italist powers in the East. By this.ti me
Europe became the centre of scientific acti viti es. The new ac hievements of European sc iences
of the mode rn age tric kled down to·the littoral towns of the colonies through the distorti ve filte r
of the co lonial educational policy of the European powers. However, even thi s meager ration
of new knowledge ushered in a process of renewal of learning in some of the coloni es . The
efforts of Tafazzul Hussein Khan and Raja Rammohan Roy in th e realm of mathematics l ,
indi cate the beg inning of this renewal in our own country . Marx was in general aware of this
process , and of its limitati ons; see, for example, hi s artic le e ntitled The F/lture Results of the
Brilish Rule ill India (writte n in 1853) [ 22, 29 ·34 1. We have lived through and are still living
through th e consequ ences of this rule. Science educati on in the e rstwhi le colonies still remain s
a "lagging- behind-mode1" of the same in the adv anced capitali st countries. Add to thi s lag of
the present , the near total absence of awareness about our past attainm ents in th e sc iences . Those
who study the hi story of anc ie nt and med ieval Indi an scie nces - a large part of wh ich is
occupi ed by math ematics - are promptl y ticked oul as purveyors of "soft sc ience" and as
nat iona li st propagandi sts. Of course the emergence of the study of history of scie nce is
con nected with the rise of patr iotic consc iousness in our society, and it is a significant
phenome non in the history of the sciences in India, for that reason a lone. But its role does not
get exhaus ted j ust there. it is mere ly the first lap of a long and interesting jou rnery. The study
of the history of anc ie nt and medi eval sciences has profou nd contemporary significance. We
shall me ntion j ust one example.
D.H.H. lllgalls ( 195 1), c. Goekoop (1967) and V.A. SmjmQ'II (1974) have, amo ng others,
ind icated the need for furth er investi gati ons into the logic of relatiolls present in GOlIgeso 's
 438 P. BIIKS r

(13t h century) Ta/tl'a Chil1tamalli 129]. Such in vestigat io ns are already being undertaken and
wi ll be undertaken in fu ture, wi th greater com petence; these will provide us with a more
co mple te picture of the logico-mathematica l ac tiv iti es co ndu cted o n our planet , and
conseque ntly, with greater insights for dealing wi th th e outsta ndin g problems in this field. He re
a pertinent problem may be posed (so metime in 1974-75. my Icacher Pabi lra Kumar Roy made
me aware of il, in Santi niketan): in India we had a long tradit ion both in mathematics and logic;
the great names of GOlI ge.w and Bhaskaracharya ( 121h ce ntury; infinitesimal method) are
assoc iated with the m; and yet, the su bsequent developments in mathematics and logic leading
to the e mergence of mathematical logic took place in Europe. and not in Ind ia - why?
It is customary to atte mpt an externalist answer to this (or to any other simi lar) questi on, in
terms of the relat ive stag nation or dynamism of the modes of production. Such auempt s are

I valuable ( for sociology of know ledge) in their own right. But how arc these trails (stagnatio n
and dynamis'm) of the historicall y existing modes of production ( e.g. Asiatic Mode of
Production, Capita li sm elc.) mediated into the sph ere of production and reproduc ti on of
know ledge, into that of math ematical and logica l thought in particu lar? Wc st ill do not have a
definitive answer. As of now wc can on ly propose a strategy for future investigat ions.
In ancient and mediaeva l Indian mathematics the deductive aspect (arguments etc.) had a
subs idiary pos ition, the constructi ve aspect was prepo ndera nt [on this see: Uspensky V.A .,
What is a Proof ? 11 The me No. 6 in : Reflections on seven The mes of Philosophy of
Ma thematics, in part three of this special supplement}. Thi s resulted in a considerable
development of the a lgorithms of arithmeti c. a lgebra and tri gonomet ry. In cont ras t, the
deduct ive momen t was very stron g in ancient Greek geometry. C lassical Greek logical theo ry
was abstracted mainl y out of thi s geometry. On the ot he r hand, anc ient Indian logica l thcori es
were, in the mai n, abstracted OUI of the anc ient Indian prescript ive gram matical tradi tion, whic h
again was constructive (algorithmic), with its stress on Ihe construction of "algebraic" sutras
for the normat ive conduc t of lin guistic activities. Perhaps this grammatical t radi tion itself
served as th e model for the anc ient Indian mathematical disciplines. FJ . Staal did not overstate
the point when he asserted that: "Hi storicall y speaking the grammatical method of Pani ni has
been as fu n dam~ntal for the Indian thought, as is the geomctri cal method of Euclid for the
wes te rn [European] th o ug ht" [ 301. Th e mode rn Eu ropea n deve lo pme nts in c lass ical
mat he matics and logic, cu lminating in the emergence of mathematica l logic towards the end of
the last cent ury. re-created the anc ien t Greek unity of the deductive moments of mathematics
and log ic. 0 11 a newer plane. It is only in this centu ry that the constructivist 2 1rend has begun to
assert itself in the world of mathematics (and in the cog nate disciplines) as a wh ole. And perhaps
it is not acc identa l, that the Indians are again making thei r presence fe h - this time thro ugh
the technological end of the spectru m, in the field of computer softwares. Falling in line with
the domi nant tradition in hi story of mathematics and logic, so far, we have been studying the
ancient Indi an tex ts of math ematics and logic, through the methodological filter of class ical
(western) mathe matics and logic. We may now attempt a constructivist reading of them.
Hopefully, this time there will be lesser paradigm-mismatch.
Now, before we get back to the deve lopments of mathematical and philosophical thou ght in
medieval and modern Eu rope, we must mention, further, tnat in the period spann in g from the
fall of ancient Greek c ivilization right upto the emergence of the new bourgeois civ ilization in
 THE PROBLEM OFS (11)A'nNG MARX'S MATIlEMA·I1CAL MANUSCRWI~ IN ·nlE I-I[STORY 0 1' IDEAS 439

15th ce ntury Europe, mankind witnessed seve ral attempts to cons truct encyclopaedias of the
sciences. Well known among these are : the Nalllralis Hisloria of Plinius Secundus Gaius, in
37 volumes (70 A.D.) ; the Risala - i-Ikhwalfus - SaJa ed ited by Ja yad bin Rifaa, in 51 volumes
(9th centu ry); Imago Mundi of Petrus de Allienco ( 1.41 0) and , Margarila Phifosophica of
Gregor Reisch ( 1496). Direct and I or indirect cumulative impact of s uch attempts to collect
the to tality of existing human knowledge contributed to the regenerat ion of an interest in
dialectics in med ieva l Europe. Thus, the gro unds were prepared fo r a closer interaction between
dialectical reason and mathemat ica l inves tiga tions on a more advanced level. Ho wever,
theo logy was the principal arena for the development of dialectica l reason in medieva l Europe.
And consequently we find a Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), mixing the ideas o f a dialectical
logic based on religious mys ticism "w ith the emerging notions of mat-hematica l ana lys is" [5,
81].
With the rise of capita lism in Europe came its individualis l philosophy domina ted by
rationalis t metaphysics. In this very period the opera lions with va riable magnitudes and
funct ions were hig hli gh ted in mathematics, thro ugh the inves tigat ions o f Desca rtes
(1596-1650), Leib nilz (1646-1716), Newlon (1642- 1727), Eulcr (1707- 1783), d'A Lembcrl
(1717-1783), Lagrange (1736-1813) and their contemporaries and followers. Among them
fi rst Descartes and thcn Leibni tz toyed with the idea of an u ni vers~ 1 mathematics. Such
deve lopme nts further wide ned the scope for inves tigations into the dialectics o f mathemalics.
B·ut the practising mathematicians took a differe nt course; in a sense a natural co urse - that
of exhausting the limi ts of formal reason. Bolza no (1781-1848), Dcdckind ( 183 1-1916 ) and
Ca ntor ( 1845-1918) arrived at thc concl usion thal to deal with the fun<.lamclltal concepts of the
mathematics of the va riable magn itUde, i.e., of the differe nt ia l and the integral calculus - the
derivative and the integral - in a proper manner, in finite sets mus t be very p recisely
investigated. Cauchy ( 1789-1857), Weierstrass (1815 -1 897) and others developed the theory
of limit. Consequently, th e edifice of classical analys is was erected upon set theoretic
foundations. But almost si multaneously, the well known paradoxes of the set theory arrived
on tM scene. RusscJl (1872-1970), among others, arrived at analogous pa radoxes th rough his
s tudies in mathematical logic. Thus the formal developments in classicial analys is and
mathematical logic prepared the grounds for a scco nd "cris is of founda tions n of mathematics
(the first "cris is of foundations" was associa ted with Pytha gorean numerical ana lysis and
Zeno's paradoxes ). In respon se there arose three schools: logic is m, fo rmalis m and
intuiti oni s m. The arguments that fo ll owe d led to cons id erable modifi ca tio ns, even
abandonment, of some of thei r respective positions, in the wake of Kurt GOdel's (1906-1 978)
famous res ults about th e incompleteness and incons istency of even the most elementary formal
systems [13]. Gradually, the emergt:nce of the intuitionist, constructivis l and non-standa rd
ana lyses, brought an cnd to the monopoly of class ical analys is, in the second half o f this century.
(But in the countries with a backw.a rd current mathe matical c ulture, like our own (reflected in
the terribly. poor slate of the investigations into the fo undations, histo ry and phil osophy of
mathematics in our co untry), classical anal ysis is o ften the only analys is "avai lable" in tbe
class- rooms o f mathemati cs, till date. J
During this en tire period of forma l developments, spa nning the whole of the 19th and nearly
half of the 20th century, mathematical epistemology faced the famous antinomy posed by Kant
 440 P. BAKSr

(1724-1804) : "the observable world is fi ni te but we can not find its limits in space and time;
therefore the, world is not finite but infinite, and there exists only the search fo r the limi t
according to the regu lative requirements of reason" [5,84].
The d ualism inherent in th is posi tion was, to begin with, philosophicall y overcome within
the idealist tradition of classical German philosophy itse lf, name ly, in Ihe dialectics of HegeJ
(1770- 183 1), wherein for the first time the whole world, natural, historica l. inte llectual is
!t, ••

represented as a process, i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, deve lopment; and
the attempt is made to trace Oll t the interna l connection that makes a continuous whole of all
this moveme nt and developmen t" [10,34]. However, having remained chai ned to idealism,
even such a grand attempt shrouded itself in obscurity and mystic ism. This myst ic ism left its
obvious mark in all of Hege l's writings on the top ical problems of the sciences, mathematics
included.
~ We have the testimony of Engels to the effect that Hcgel left behind him "numerous
mathematical manuscripts"3. But in view of the ir no n-avai lab ilit y4, as of now, we are
constrained to fall back upon the relevant chap ters o f his Science of Logic, in our efforts to take
a look at Hegel's excursions into mathemat ics [15, 129- 170 and 198-344]. For Lenin's
comments on the same see: [18, 11 6- 119J. Hegel attempted an explanation of the mathematics
of hi s ti me, espec ially of the differential calcu lus . But owing to his predetermined idealist point
of departure, th is attempted explanation remained artificial from the very outset. He merely
dressed up his categories, like the "Quality", "Quant u m", "Determi nat ion" etc., with
mathe matical trappi ngs, especiall y with the frills of d ifferential-calculus-term in ology . At bes t
it was an expression o f some of the concepts of his d ialectics in a mathemat ical language, in so
far as it was possible; but it could not lay bare the object ive dialectics of mathematics. Hegel
himself conceded that his attempt is merely a philosophical explanat ion of the existing
mathematica l practice [ 15, 3 19].
In co ntrast to Hega l, Marx (18 18-1883) studied the natu re and history of the concepts and
symbols of d ifferen tial calcul us and concluded that they are operalionai. Forty four years after
Marx's death, in 1927, Jack Hadarnard. an intu itionist mathemat ic ian, arrived at sim il ar
concl usions regarding the general nature of the fundame nta l concepts of different ial calculus
[see: Glivellko V. I., Marx and Hadamard on the concept of Differentia l 11 Part Two of this
spec ial supplement, first article] . T he intuitionists like L.E.J. Bro uwer (188 1-1966) and many
earl y constructiv ists were u naware of Marx's mat hemat ical investigations. Even to-day the
overwhe lming majority of the mathematicians, philosophers and historians of ideas are unaware
of them. A quarter of a century has e lapsed since the publication of the 1968 ed ition of Mar x's
mathematical manuscripts. Why then this lack of awareness about them, even in the late 20t h
century atmosphere of information boom? Why the responses to these manuscripts are so few
in nu mber ?
T he reader of these li nes may have noted th~ long gaps in, and the protracted nature of, the
history of the efforts to unravel the dialect ics of mathemat ics. Well, such is rea lity: " ....
dialectical thoug ht - prec isely because it presupposes invest igat ion of the nature of concepts
themse lves - is only poss ible for man, and for hi m only at a comparatively high stage of
developmen t (Buddhists and Greeks) and it attains its full deve lopment much la(er st ill th rough
modern philosophy ... " [ 11 ,2231. It may fu rther be mentioned in this connection that the stage
 THE PROBLEM OF SITUATING MARX'S MATHEMATICAL M ANUSCRWfS IN HIE HISTORY OF IDEM; 441

of theoretic thought associated with the emergence of materialist dialectics was precceded,
among other things, by the following encyclop,ledie attempts 10 classi fy the existing brilnches
of know/edge : that of the French encyclopaedists (1751- 1780), under the edilorship of Diderot
and d'Alembert; Saint Simon's (1760-1825) incomplete attempt, and Hegel's <lltempt to
phi losophically sum up the results of the natura l scicnces of the Newton-Linnaeus school. The
e nd of the posi ti vist attempt of Comte (1798·1857) and the beginning of the attempts of Marx ,
Engc ls, Danicls, Schorlemmer etc. are near contemporaneous.
To go back to the "silence" around Marx's mathematic;!l manuscripts: intuitionist
mathematics and Marx-studies could not (in spite of cel1ain proximity of Marx's position in
mathematics with those oflhe intuit ioni sts) join hands and slUdy the mathematical legacy !eft
by Marx. Emergence of Ihe construcliv isl movemcnt from within thc intuitionist trcnd hn.\
perhaps created more favourab le grounds. In its current phase the CQnstructivist movement has
rejected Brouwer's "semi mysitical theory of thc continuum" [4, 308], but has retnincu his
gencra l theory about the operational nature of the slandard mathematica l quantifiers and
con nectives.
So muc h by way of a contextual retrospective of the prob lem under consideration. Now, on
to the problem itse lf.

JII

A. To-day we nre in a position to extend Marx 's study of the differntial ca lculus to the
study of the symbolic calculi in general. We may investigate the dialectics of the varioLls
alternat ives in set theory, analysis, topology and, theory of categories. Thro\lgh a two-way
association of Marx -scholars and mathematicians engaged in the study of Marx 's mat hematic<1I
manusc ripts, the mathematical heritage lefl by Marx Illay some day get integrated into the
mainslreums of mathematics, just as inside of a hundred odd yenrs after the publication of the
first vol u me of Mal'x's Capital, his contributions in political economy got integratcd into, and
bcgan shaping, the mainstremns of economic thotlght.
n. However, the relevnnce of Marx's mathematical manuscripts does not get exhausled
there. In his fundame ntal art icles 011 the natlll"e and history of differential ca lculus, Marx has
shown that the transition from ordinary algebra to differntial calculus proper, involves an
inversion of method, ex pressed through the gcnet ic development of the characterist ic concepts
and symbols of this calcu lus (differential, derivative, dx, dy, !..../lv etc.) culminating in thei r future
ex
operational role (indicating strategies of rhe steps to be takcn ). I. S. Narsky has pointed out that
the methodological scope of this discovery of Marx goes beyond the framework of mathematics
- it applies to the meaning of signs in general [26, 156; quoted in : 7, 94]. Thus the theoret ical
'lpparatus of Marx' s mathematical manuscripts is of relevance to the study of sig n systems, to
Semiolic.\·!}. Th rough semiotic investigations, its methodological releva nce extends to the study
of all the disciplines as sign systems, as "languages", i.e., as systems of nrticulation. Expectedly,
such slUdics will reveal the characteristic "internal fo rms" of the different di sc iplines and their
interre lations, and thu.s fac ilitate the ongoing process of integrat ion of the sc iences and

56
442 I'. IJAKSI

disciplines. In this vast world of scmi Oli c investigations into the structures and functions of
disciplines, ex!Cnded from the computer techno logy to the art forms, the various trend s of
mathematics also have places of their own, along wit h the ordinary languages and other sign
systems.
C. In contrast to Hegel, who attempted a p hilo~oph i cal ex planati on o f the exist in g
mathematics, Marx proposed a new way of doing mathematics bereft of mel<lphysics, id ea li sm,
!1lystici.~m, obfuscat ion and sle ight of hand. tll others words .Marx auemptcd Lo chal/ge the
ex isting practice of mathematics, it.s existing rea lity. Th is atlempt to change the existi ng stale
of affairs of the sciences of this world - for example, of the classical political economy in the
Capiral, of the class ical natural sc iences in the Dialectics of Noltlre, and of classical analysis
in the Ma /h emm ical Manu scripts - is what di sting ui shes the materialist dialectics from th at
of Hegel , and for that matter from all previous dialecti cs (in this connection lcl us recall Marx's
ce lebrated e leventh thesis on Feuerbaeh). In so fa r ,IS Marx and his frien ds wcre nol conten ted
with mere philosophical in terpretations of the world and its sciences, the significance of their
theoretic activ iti ves became trans-phil osop hi cal. They allempted a radi ca l reconstruction of the
entire structure of human kno~ledge.
Thi s attempt began towards the middle of the 191h cenlLlry, but its fuller contours arc
gradually com in g 10 light only in the second hal f of the 20th century. The fi rst edition of the
first volume of Mm·x's C(lpital was published in 1867. The first ed itio n of its last (fourth)
volume (ed ited by K. Kautsky) was issued in 19 10 ; but that editi on of the fou rth volume
(Theories of Swplus Value) had many radical defects; and ultimately, the final (thi rd) part of
this last (fou rth) volume of Capitol in the ed ition prersently in use, was broug ht out on ly in
1962. Engels' DialeClicJ of N(!/ure was first issued in 1925; but a more complete version of
Engels' studies on the dialectics of the classical natura l sciences of his time could be brought
o ul only in 1973[ 12] . The first edition of Marx's M{lliletl1Mical M(IIw.scrip'.\· came o ut in 1968.
Marx 's Ethnological NOfebooh were brought out in 1972 [23}. The manuscripts of the first
materialist attempt at investigating the dia lectics of the interface of th e bio logica l and the social
sciences, Microcosmos: A DraJr Outline of Physiological Amlrropology, prepared in 1850 by
Marx 's frie nd Roland Daniels (1819·! 855), wa.~ brought out on ly in 1987 [9 J. A large pari of
Carl Schorlemmcr's ( 1834··1892) manuscripts on thc history of chemist ry remain~ unpublish ed.
Nearly half of the notes and manuscripts of Marx and Engels 6 remain unpublished too; these
inc lude : cl part of Engels' notes and manuscripts on the history of England, Ireland and
Ge rmany, history of philopsophy and history of military sCience :md, Marx's notes and
manuscripts on agriculture, agro-chemistry, history of technology. geo logy, biology.
phys iology and, a part (nearly 400 pages) of his mathematical rnanLL.~cripts. Public.'Hion of these
notes and manu scripts and the ir translation into the various languages of the world wi ll go a
long way in developing our conception of the theoretica l heritage of MJrxism . As of now, we
ha ve just begun 10 understand that at the level of cogn iti ve activit ies, M,lrxiSill constitu tes an
e ncyclopaedic e ndeavour at c hang ing the (th t: n and even now ) prevalen t w.ays of cog nl~in g the
world. One of th e open questions about the Marxist attemp ts in the realm of human knowledge,
is about the ir relation wi ~h the dominant scientific progrmn mes 7 of Ollr time, namely. with the
:ltomisti c, Ca rtes ian, Newtonian and Leibnitzian programmes.
 THE PROBLEM OF SITUATING MAHX'S MATllEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS IN T HE HISTORY OF 1l)EAS 443

It appears now, that the task of si tu at in g Marx's math ematical manuscripts in the history of
ideas unfolds itse lf at many leve ls: at the level of co mpletin g text editi ng and pub lication, that
of textual studies, that of si tuating these manuscripts within the struclUre and history of
Marxism, that of situating them in the history of mathematical and theoretic thought , and that
of Situating the emerging concepti on of Marx si m in the history of sc ienti fi c programmes. All
these tasks are interrelated. And finally, we shou ld not go about the m in the spiril of an archiv ist
of ideas or wi th that of a trad iti o na l historian of the past, but must take them up in the spi rit of
Marx , i.e, by simultaneous ly engaging ourselves in a comprehensive and systematic, case by
case, synchronic and diachronic. stud y of all the newly emerged and e me rging sciences and
tec hno logies of our time. In view of the giga ntic strides of human know ledge since the days
of Marx , and especially in late 20th century, Ihese tasks ha ve to be tackled by sc ienti fi c
collectives, aided by the late st attainments of the information process ing technolog ies.

f"OTES
I. Tafall.ul Il ussein Khan, the vnkeel or nmbllssador of Nawab As:!f-ud-Daulah at CalCUli:! duri ng
the Government of Marquis Cornw:!lis (1738-1805) tmnst;)led into Arabic Apollonios' De r(llionis
src/ione. Ncwton's PhilosQI,/!ill Nmllralis Principia Mathemu/ica. Thomas si mpson' s /\/gevm
and Wil liam Emerson' s Mecluwics. during 1788-1792 [2. 39.40J.
Raja Ram/noh;)n Roy (1772-1833) wrote a modern treatise on geQ/IIetry in Bengali [6, 407].
These manuscripts remai n untmeed till date.
2. On COII.flmclivislll see: note Ilia to Marx's Mathematical Manu.1cri,HS in the present volume
and, Nept'il'orla N.N., Emergence :l!Id Development of the Concepl of Constructiv isability in
MalhematicsJl Present Volume. Special Supplemenl : Marx and Mathelllalic.1. Part Three. last
Mlicle.
3. F. Engels wrote 10 F. A. Lange on Mnrch 29. 186~ ; U[ can not leave unnoticed a remnrk YOll make
ahout old Hegel, who you say lacked the more profound kind of mnthe mntienl nod nnluml-
scientiric training. Hegel knew so much mathematics that none of his pupils was eq ual to the t<lsk
of editing the IIIlmeroll.1 lI/afhrmaticalmGlUfscril'u he left behind. The only man 1 know who
understa nds enough malheml'llics and philosophy 10 do this is Marx (my emphasis - P. B.) [21,
H

173].
4. In [esponse to:) pcrsonal inqlliry from the present [llItho.r, Dr lI elmll t Schneider of the Hegel
Archi ..... Ruhr-Univcr.~itlll Bochul11. has informcd in his Ictlerdaled Fcbrunry 7, 1982. th nl ne;ither
does the Hege l Archivcs possess the origin:)ls of HcgeJ's mathematical m,muscripls, nor were
Ihey ever published.
5. St'II!iork.1 is the study of sign$ (Greek .~l'lIIl!ioll :: sign). A ~ign is a senrorily perceptible mlllerial
object, ac tion or, cvent, whieh denoles or represents anOlherohjecl. Semiotics hilS ils origins in
some of the ideas of the Americno phi losopher and logician Charles Sanders Pcirce (1839.191 4)
and the Swiss Iin gui sl Ferdinand de Saussure ( t 857. 1913). The range of scmoli c inve~ligmions
arc extended ovcr ~Il pnllerncd com rnuni cntiol1 systems: from the simplest signal systcms. through
the ordinary l:lnguages uscd by people, right upto the special langunges of various disci pl ines.
These nre trndilio nnlly divided into th ree parts ; syntactics, the study of structure; seman tics. Ihe
study of mcaning : and prngmntics. the sludy of nClual use. The growth of these invesligatiuns
hnvc given ri ...c 10 prominenl American French, Italinn. Czcch, Polish. ESlOnian and Ru~si .. n
schools of Semiotics .. But in spi le of both intensive and extensive deve\opmems the problem of
construcling a synthetic conception of sign remains open. Such a conccption must ~lIlswc r the
 1'. IlAKS I
'"
question or genesis of signs. ns we ll ns thnt of lhe t!cncric fUllctions of signs wi t hin a system. So
far the g~nt'lic :lIlU g~I'I'''k approaches 10 lhe sign systems have been posed as "cilhcr·or~
alternatives. A syslhesis of Ihese IIpprollches wi thin a "both-and" perspective is very much on the
ngenda of semiotic reseorch. 'nit m:'ll hemlllical mnnuscripls of Mux. may provide this relevcnl
perspective, in view of the facllhl!l Ihey contain such n conception (lf the chnmCicrislic signs of
one langungc, Ihm of Ihe differen tial calculus.
6. For a brief outline of the coments of these notes and m:ulUscripls scc: r 11, [11), [25J and, 1281.
7. T he concepl of lcien/i/ic pfOSl"ml1l11l' has evolved OUI of the modern invcslig:t1ions in history of
science. philosophy of science Md science of science. The basic tenets of a scientific theory, its
major premises, are alwllYs fonnulated within the fmmework of II s.cicntific progr,umne, which
sets the ideal of scientific explanlltion and o rganis:'IIion of knowledge, nnd lllso formullltes the
conditions under which kllOwledge is considcred to be hoth ilulhenlic nnd provcd. T he origins of
Ihi s cnneept enl! be traced b!lCk to I 111 re Lakatos (1922- J 974) ("rcsenreh program llle") ilI1d T hollK1S
Kuhn (1922-) ("pnradigm"), It hns been further clnbomled in suhsequent rcsearc h and altcrnative
concepts of scientil1c programme have been proposed. A promincnt worker in Ihis field Piamo
ravlovna Gaidenko (1934-) wrOte on this concept :
" So what is a scientific progrmnme, llnd why hllS the need arisen for such a concept?
Unlike a scientific theory, a scientific programme, as a rulc. lays claim 10 cover all phenomena
and to provide on exhnuSlive explanation of nil facts, Le" to an universn l interpretntion of
cvcrything exisling. A priocipJe or a system of principles formulated in i1 progrmnmc, is . hence,
w!ivel'S(1/ hi IWIIII'/!. The well·know n te net of the Pythagorenns - "nil is number". is a typical
example o f the concise formulllt ion of a scientific progmmme. A scientific programme is most
frequently formulated within the framework of philosophy (it is no acciocnt that Engcls spenks
of the principled impossibility for the natural scicnees "to free themselves from philosophy ~ ) Isee:
I J, 209- 210]. Its eremors are scientists who, at the same time, also come fonh as philosophers:
afte r all a philosophical system, unlike il scientific theory, is not inclined to distinguish n group
of ifs 0'1111 fac ts, but lays clnim 10 the universa l signil'iennee of its pri nciple, (11 is preciscly ill
analysing the structure of scientific programmes and the fo rms of their lies wilh the scientific
theories,.as well as in examining the evolution and change o f programmes. that phi losoph y and
history of philosophy can and must help history of science in solving its tilsks),
Nevertheless, a scientific programme is not identical wi th a philosophical sy.~tem or a definite
philosophical trend. Not every philosophic,,1 ~y~tern CM produce a scientific programme, A
scientific programme shou ld contain Ilot only thc characteristics of the object under examination
bu t also Ihe, closely connected with these ehnrncteristics , possib ility of e labora t ing il
corresponding method of research. Thus. a scientilic programme, so 10 SIIY, (Ietermines a defiFl ile
method of bu ild ing a scicntific theory by providing the means for the transi ti on from a general
world·outlook principle :ulvaneed in a philosophicnl system, to the reve lation of the tics between
the phenomena of the empiriC world. Thus. three diverse scientific programmes came into being
on the basis o f :lncient [Greek] phi losophy: a10mistic (which found its realisation in scientific
theories on ly in modern times); mathematical (Pythagorean-Platonic. which alr~ady found its
realisation in ancien t ti l1l~s - in Euclid's £lemcl1IJ' and in the mechanics or Arc himedes); and
Finally, Aristotle's eontinual isl programme, on the basis of which the first physical theory - lhe
physics of the Peripatetic school - clime into heing. The major scientific programmes in modcrn
timcs wcre created by Descartes. Newton and Leiboitl.

... ... •••

 THE PROB LEM OF SITUATING MARX'S MATliEMATICAL MANUSCRII'TS IN TilE IIISTORY OF II)IV\S 4<1~

A study of lhc cmergencc evolution and, finally, (lefltll of scienti fic programmcs, the emergence
ond conso lidation of new progrnmmcs. as well as changes in lhe types of tics het wecll prognllllm e ~
fin d the scientific theories bnsed on thcm mnkc ~ il possible to rovcnl the inlernnl lies hetween
science and Ihnl eullurnl·hiSloriefll cnlity wilhin Ihc fr:llllcwork of which il ex isls. Such nil
:Ipproach also makcs il possible to Iracc Ihc historically changing nat ure of these lies, i.c., 10 show
how the hislory a/science is internally linked with the I,islmy of cll/lllre.
The fact that within a definite hislorical period not onc but two find evcn more scientific
programmes can exist side by side. which. :lccording to their initial principlc.~. :Ire oP!lOsed to each
other. does not :llIow for n simplified conclusion about the contents of these progroll11llles. relying
o n some "primary intuition" of the given culture. but calls for (/ more Ihorm/,!;h ol1tdy.ri,f of 111f'
"composirioll" o/llwl C/lIIIII'('. ollhe dil'<!I"se le/Uhmcies coe¥jslill.~ ill il,
On the other hand, theexlstencc of morc than onc programme in each pcriod in thc devclllpmcnt
of science shows thn! the idclI that the hi story or scienec is an tlllil1tcl'l'uptcd, su 10 S;lY "line;u'''.
dcvclopment of definitc origil1lllly set pri nciples and problcms is unjust irled. The I'cry pmhlems
which are being tackled by sciencc, chnnge in thc course of Its hislory : each historical period secs
(hcir e~sentill ! ly different interpl'chllion" {14, 134.137 ).
Such in brief is Ihe mcani ng and significance of Ihe concept of scientiric progrnrnmc.

REFE RENCES

I. Dnksi P.. Kar! Ma rkser Prakriti Bijnan Charehn 0 Bijnan Bhnbonn [K arl Marx's studies of and
thoughts on thc nntural scicnceslll Mlllya.l'(/I!. Sharadiya. 1395 (Octo ber. 1988), pp. 157-174 nnd,
Nababmsha. 1396 (May, 1989). pp. 74·80.
2 . 8andol'O(lIr)"ay S., Bangiya Rnnesanee Pasehatyavidyar Bhumika {The Role of Occident:ll
Learning in Ikngati R~naissanccl. ClIlculla. 1980.
3 BellI 1:.". IV, Pit/gel J .• Mnthemnticlll Epistemology and Psychology. TT. b)' W. M:lYs. Dordrechl.
1966.
4. fJixhol' E., Th e ConWuctivisntion of Abstract Mathemntic:lI Annlysis!/ Proceedings of
International Congress of Mathemlltidans (1966). Introduction. Moscow. 1968 (pp. 307-J 13).
5. 8ngomolovA. S, ef ni, Dialcctical Logic I/Themes in Soviet Philosophy. Selection or nnicles from
Filoso/skaya EIJI.riklol,ediyn: Tr. byTJ . Blakely. Dordrecht. 1975.
6. ChoIlOl'a(III)'(I)' N., Mahatma Raja Rom mo han Roy. Al1ahabad. 1928 .
7. CltepikovM.G .• The Inlcrgmtion of science. Moscow. 1978.
8. Oanic1s-M:lrx Correspondellce; published under the title NOllye material), 0 K. Mnrkse (New
materials 011 K.Marx J 11 Voprosy FiloSQ/ii, No.5. 1983. pp. I 00-126. For a Bengali translation of
these leHers see: Marksbad 0 Bijn~n Samuhcr Dvandv ik atfl {Marxism and the dialcclic~ of lhe
sciences]. Calculta, 1986, pp. 17·84.
9. Daniel! H., Mikrok osmos: Enlwu rf ciner physiologischcn Anthropologic ( 1850 )1/ Il rsg. von H.
El~ner: Einger und onnot. Von 1. Bicker ('I al. Frankrurlll. M. etc .. 1987.

10. ElIgeis F., Anti-DUhring. Moscow. 1978.

11. fusels F.. Dialectics of Nature .. Moscow 1976.
 1', nAKSI
'"
12. Pridrikh Englcs 0 bialdtikc E.~tcst ... o:tn:lIliya /Frcdcrik El1gc1~ on the dialectics or the nntur:ll
sciences]. &I. by n,M . Kedro .... Moscow. 1973.
13. From Prcgc to Code!: A source Bock ill Mathematical Logic. IR79-1931. Ed. by Jenn vun
Heijcnoorl. I-Inrv:ml Universit y Press. 1967.
14. Gnid('lIko P. P. Evolution or Science: The Cultural· ll istorical AspccllISocia{ Sciellc('s, I'O!. XI II ,
No. 2. 1981. pp. 131 ~'44 . For greater dctai ls. scc hy the same author:
(I) Evolulsiya I'oniy:uiyn Nnuki S[:lllovlcn ic i R:lzvilie rcrvykh Nauchnykh Progr:lInm
[Evololion of Ihe Concept of Science : Formation :llltl Dcvclol)I11Cnl or the First Scientific
Programmes). Moscow. 1980.
(2) Evolulsiyn I)oniyaliya Nauki (XV II -X VIII vv,) : Formirovaniyc Nnychnykh Progl'amm
Novo'lO Vrcmini ]Evolution of thc Concept of Science (17th-18th cen turies): Form:uion of the
Scientific Progmmmes of the Modern Age]. Moscow. 1987.
15 . If"g"/ G . IV. P., Scient·.: ufLogic. Volume Onc. Tr. hy W.I!. Johnston nnd L. G. Stl'uthers. London
1929.
16. Knrl Map;: A Biugraphy. MoscoIII. 1973.
17. Kri";l$ky A. M., Rabota K. Marksa nad "oprosami esteslv01:naniya (soobschcnie po
ncopuhlikovannym material am) [K. M:lrx's writings on tllc questions of Ilalllrnl science (n
communicntion h~scd upon Llnpubl i ~hcd mntcrials) J 11 V()/JI"(1S)' FUo.wjii, 1(3), 1948. pp. 72-92.
18. Lenin V. I., Philosophicnl NoteOOoks. Collected Works. Eng. cd .. vo1. 38. Moscow. 1961.
19. Map;-Engcls Smriti IMarx-Engels: Rcminisccnces]. Moscow. 1976.
20. Marx K .. Engcls F.. Collected Works, Eng. ed. vol. I. Mo~ow. 1975.
2 1. Mill",\' K., Enge/s F., Sclected Corrcsponclcnce. Moscow. 1965.
22. Marx K.. Engl·ls F.. The Finit Indian War of Independence: 1857-1859. Moscow. 1978.
23. Marx K., T he Ethnological Note Books (studies of Morgan. PheH, Mllinc, Lubhock). Ed. by L.
Kmdcr. A~sen . 1972. (published under the tille ; Th/" Etlmlologica/ NOle 80ab of Karl Mm·x.)
24. Mifi/lda Prfll'h,w [Questions of Milindn]. Bengali tr. of Mi{iJldfl pari/I(! by Pandit Shl'ee01at
Dharmadhar Mnhasth'lVir. Cll1cullll. 1977.
25. Mrm: H., Karl MaT)(: Grundlagen der EnlwicklulIg zu Lebcn und Werk. Trier. 1973 [quoted in:
Hoiprikll K., 0 filosofsko-estesrvennonauchnykh is~ledovnni}'Olkh KMIOl Marksll (On lhe
philosophico-r1<1tural-scicntific illvcstigOllions of Karl Mnrx)/I VOlm/.,)' Filu.fOJii. 198]. 12, p. 4].
26. No!".,k.\' I. 5., DiOllecticnl COlllrlldiction and the Logic of Cogni tion (in Ru ssian). Moscow. 1969.
27. J>fmo, The Republic. Tr. hy B. Jowelt.J1 The Dialogues of Plato (in two volumes). New York.
1937.
28. Selreki,ra o.K.. F. Eugels i istori}'Ol nnuyki i rekhniki (po ru~opisnym materiOllam f. Erlgelsa v
InSlilute Marksi7.ma-Leninizma pri Ts K K P SS) I F. I!ngcls and the history of science :md
technology (according to the manuscripts of F. Engcls avuilOlhle in the Institute of
Marxism-Leninism of the CC C P S U)lf VU/lrO$\" ISlOrii £slesll'oUl(llliya i Teklmiki, vyp. 3(32).
M .. 1970. pp. 14-19.
29. 5I11il"lwl ' 11. A.. On the Reconstruction of the Navyn-NYllynlllrrdo-Sol'iel Sludil' s, 11. 1991, pp.
59-63 fEng. tf. of Redilktorskie slovo. Vvedenid(' I' IlIdiskllYu Logikll, M .. 1974).

30. Suw/ F. l., Twee metodische richtynen voar de filosofie [quoted in : Ht'II{)u L., Paninifl Curl"t'1I1
Trends", ill Linguislic.f, v.S. 1969. p. 497: quotcd in : Paribok A. 11., On the McthodoJogicn!
Foundmions of Indi:m LinguisliesJlllldo-SOI'il!l 5Iwlie.r, [, 1990. p. 19.].
 THE PROBLEM OF SITUATING MARX''s MATIIEMATICAL MANUSCRII'TS IN TilE IIISTOI~Y OF IDEAS <147

31. VolodarskyA .. Soviet Studies 01\ the I lislUry or Enstern Science 11 The I-listory of Science : Soviet
Research . Vcl. 11. Moscow. 19H5.
]2. Yushkt<"jch A. P., History or Mnthemntics of the MediaevnJ Orienl : A Survey oI'and Perspectives
for Research!! fllrio·S01'iel Swdies. 11, 1991, pp. 36-55.
33. l'ushkel'ich A. P.. Mathematics :lnd its History in Rctrospcctivc!! Present volume, Specinl
Supplement: Man: and Mnll!el/lulics, PMt Three, first article.
PART THREE: MATHEMATICSES
 MATHEMA TICSES :
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

57
 MATHEMATICS AND ITS HISTORY IN RETROSPECTIVE
ADOLF PAVLOV\C\\ YUSHKEVICH
The present paper is a revised and supplemented version ora report rcad .H the All-Union
Symposium on "The Regularities and Modern Tendencies of the Development of
Mathematics", held in September 1985, at Olminsk. The report dealt with t he changes that
have Qccured in our outlook about the development of mathematics from the" ancient
times to the modern period, as a result of the recent hislorico-sc ientific investigations. While
preparing this paper I th ought thar it would be advisable IQ provide a prefatory retrospective,
as [0 how the past of mathematics is viewed to-day: it wou ld be a short retrospective review
of Ihe historica-mathematical in vestigations themselves. The literature used for preparing this
paper is too vast, and the li st that follows the text of the paper contains references to only u
few books or papers, indicated against their corresponding numbers, tllure often only the name
of the author of a work and the year of its publication has been mentioned .
. Understandably, here we shall be dealing with only some of the changes that have taken
place in our ideas abou t the development of mathematics at the different SI ages of ils formation
as a science. Nowadays, somet imes we come across the view that the mathematics of ancient
Egypt, or Babylon, or China was yet to become a science nnd it became one only in nncient
Greece.However, the historians of science are yet to agrce as to which fields of learning Illay
be called a science and which may not be. The present author is merely of the opinion that
tht! aforementioned view is not sufficiently substantiated, ,lnd on this more later.
A J-Ijstoriographic Retrospective. Historiography of mathemntics dates back to antiquity .
One finds ils odd elements in the works of Plato and Aristot le, whose pupil Eudemlls of Rhodes
(inc iden tally, not a mathcmnticiun) was the first to author a treatise on the history of
gemoetry. Afterwards, inv ididual scholars did turn their attention to the history of
mathematics; but their work have long lost all significance. The study of the h istory of
science was highly valued by such leaders of sc ientific and philosophical thought as F.
Bacon and G.W. Leibnitz; and in the days of Enlightenment, its leading ideologists saw the
motive force of progress in the growth and spread of knowledge, wherein mathematics and
mechanics (inclusive of celestial mechanics) became the leading sciences. The firsl
fundamental work on the history of these disciplines and of some parts physics - "Thc
Hi story of Mathematics" by the Pari sian academician J .P.MolHuc!a - was published in this
pe ri od. Its first two-volume edition appeared in 1753 and, the secolld,much enlarged
four-volume edi tion came out duri ng the period 1792-1802, on ly after the death of its author.
This work was carried out through to the end by the astronomer J.F. Laland nnd
mathematician S:F.Lacroix [I]. This book was a great work o f its time; in spite of the then
unavoidable gaps, inexactitude and the dated methodology, t he modern reader will find
interesti ng information in it, whic h however, should be used with circumspection. Almost
simultaneously with the publication of the second edition of Montuc!a's work, came out a
two-vol ume general hi story of mathematics by anot her academ ician of Paris - S. BOSSll (I st
cd .. 1802), and a four-vo lume history of the physico-mathematical sciences by a professor of
the G6ttingen University A.G.Kestner (1796-1800).
The scope of the investigations into the history of mathematics was continUOUSly widened
during the 19th century.The study of the prim ay sources of the mathematics of the people
 HISTO(~(OGHAPIIIC ~1:mOSI>I,;CTIVE 451

of medieval Orient began, the first transli1tions of the works of the Arab and the Indian
mathematicians appeared, critical editions of Ihe works of the Greek allthors Euclid,
Arc himedcs, Apollonius and of the others were prepareci, similar editions of" a number of
classics of the modern limes were also begun, sometimes to be concluded only in the 20th
cen tury - these included the works of rhe l11<ltllematicians from R.Descartes und P.Fermat
to A. Cauchy, B.Ricmann and K. Weierstrass. The work in this direction has continued with
greater intensity in the present century. Thus, the old plan of publishing the comp lete
collected works of L.Euler (which began in 1911 and is nearing its completion only now) is
be ing rea lised. The works of K.F.Gauss, NJ. Lobachevsky, G.Grassmann, P.L.Chebyshev,
A.Poi ncare, D.I-li lbert and of others have either been published in full or in selections rfor
more detailed information see: the books by G.Loria [2) and K.O. MClY [3], which mention
the classics published upto 1946 and 1973 respectively]. During the last decades of thc 19th
century M. Cantor, V. Buonkompayne, G.Enestrem and V.V.Bobynin took the initiative
to srnrt the first journa ls of history of matllcllatics(see : 2] and, the first cou rses on this
subject were introduced in some of the un iversities - this is a rare phenomenon even
to-day. The literature on the history of mathematics grew and, the famous four-volume
history of mathematics by M.Cantor WClS published during the period 1880- 1907 [41:
however, the fourth volume of this book was written bY:1 group of scholars under the cditorship
of thi s great historian of malhematics. The work of Cantor covers the period uplO 1799. It is
.~lill an useful reference book, though in certain parts it has become entirely outdated; what
is more, in it the deve lopment of mat hematics is viewed only in itself, outside the framework
of general histo ry and, often not even in connection with the mathematica l natural
sciences. The two excellent books by G. Zeiten ('lclUally by I. Syuten) on the history of
ma thematics upto the beginning of the 18th century, at first published during the years
1893- 1903, are 01' a diffcrerll character: there thc mathematical treatment of the subject-matter
is much more deep in comparison 10 Cantor's work; it is true though that they contain less of
the detai ls. Both of them have been translated into Russian [5]. In this period the interest in
history of malhematics grew considerably among the mathematicians themselves, especially in
the history of those disc ipl ines in wh ich they specialized. Hence the works 011 history of
geometry by M. Shal (1837), those of A.Todd-Hunter (variational calculus, 1861; theory of
probabi lity, (865), A. Enneper (elliptical functions, 1876), 1. Yu. T imchcnko(t heory of
analytical func tions, 1899) and others. The aforementioned Zeiten was an outstanding
speciCl!ist in algebraic geometry and a person of broad outlook.
Towards the end of the J 9th and the beginning of the 20lh centuries, the growth in the
interest about hislory of mathematics was considerably promoted by the great German
scientist and one of the initiators of the movement for the reform of malhemCllics teaching
in the secondary schools, F.Klein. A three volume monograph on elementary mathematics,
treated from the point of view of hig her mathematics emerged out of his lectures read to the
teachers of G6ningen University. First published in 1903, this book is saturated with
historical materials. Its Russ ian trnnslation saw two editions [6J. The history of elementary
mathematics by the German pedagogue and scholar J .Tropfke [7], first published in a
two-vo lume edition ( 1902-1903) and then extended upto seven volumes( 19~1 - 1924), was
mainly intended for teachers. After a long gap K.Vogel and his collaborators decided to
 4U A. [>. YU$lIK EV1CII

prepare a new edition of "Tropfke'" jnt! in ·1980 a structura ll y quite excellent edition was
brought OUI; thi s book on !he history of arithmetic and algebra fully corresponds (0 the
contemporary state of our knowledge on thc subjects[8j. The subsequent Ill!W "Tropfke"
(geometry) has not followed, howcver, owing to the demise of K.Vogcl. Yet another widely
known history of e lemenla ry marhernptics was aUlhored by the American scho lar F. Cajorie;
it was published in 1896. Its Russian Tmll slation (19 10) is accompanied by hi gh ly valuable
supplements from the translator I. Yu. Timchenko [9].
Like many other mathematicians F. Klein too attached a g reat cognitive significance 10
the history of mathematics. He took the initiative to in clude innumerab le historiCal
informations into the famous German six-volume encyclopaedia of the mathematical
sciences (1898-1934). Klein wrote in the preface of this prac ti cally nearly al l-embracing
collective work [ 10]. that in it there should not on ly be a concise and genera li sed presentation
of the modern condition of the mathematical sciences with their applications in the other
sc iences and in technology, but also a descripti on of the evolution of the mathematica l
met hods from the beginning of the 19th century should be provided with the help of
carefu lly selected records and referencc literature. There exists an incomplete French
ve rsion of this encyclopaedia (1904-1914). One finds a fuller represenl<1tion of the history
of mathemat ics in the Italian ency lopaedia of elemen tary mathematics - published in 3
volumes and 6 books under the gu idence of L. Berzolari, 1. Vivanli and D. 1ili, in the years
1932-1950r I I]. Here. apart from the information s contained in the main text on the history
of elementary mathemCltics, there are independent sec tio ns on the main trends of modern
mathematics and on the qu esti ons of didactics; and they foHow the section o n elementary
mathematics. Thi s "Encyclopaedia" is very rich and is within the reach of the stude nts of
t.he first years of any university. But unfortunately, it is not well known beyond the borders
of haly. Runnin g ahead, let me add here: hi storico-mathematical essays or sections of
essays occupy a prominent place in all the three editions of the Great Sov iet Encyclopedia,
thill1k~ to the unfailing directions of the editors of the GSE, in particul ar of V.F. Kahan and
A.N. Kolmogorov. .
The ever growing interest in the history of mathematics and the recognition of its status
.:ISan independent and important section of th e entire system of the mathemat ical sciences,
in the 19th and 20lh centuries. Illay be illu strated with the help of many facts; fro111 amo ng
them I shall adduce only three. Two of them belong to the very beginning orthe 20th century;
they are, both related to the Second International Congress of Mathemati c ians held at Paris,
in lhe slimmer of 1902.
The first inciden t is D. Hilberl' s famous IXlperon the "Problems of Mathematics", read in
th is Congress on the 81h of August. In this paper 23 real problems frorn various areas were
posed; they exerted a strong stimulating innuence upon the subsequent development of
mathematics. Hilbcrt's problems are usually viewed from the mathematical angle of
vision.and Ihis is understandable. But there is another side to this affair: Hilbert's judgements
on the perspectives for the development of mathematics and the sorting out of ils e.~·pecially
rea l problem s, are based on a deep going analysis of its previous developmerH. In his own
words: "History teachcs us that the sciences develop uniterruptedly . We know that every age
has its own problems , whic h are ei ther so lved or arc set as idc as furitlcss and, substituted by
 H[STQIt[OG[~I\['[ [IC RETRQSPECrlVE 453

new ones, in the next epoch. In order to conce ive th e possible character of development of
mathematical knowledge in the near futurc, we mm;! take 11 look at those quc!';tions whic h st ill
remai n open, and su rvey thosc prob lems, which ha vc becn posed by Ill odern science, whose
soluti on wc ex pect in the future. It seems to me that suc h a su rvey of\ he problems is especia ll y
conte mporaneous today, at the dawn of a new cen tury" l121. I-lilbcrt wus an eminent
mathe matic ian of the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, like A. Poincare,and
it is thus that he posed the quest ion of the study or the past of mathe matics, in the interest of
a creative prognosti cation of the perspective for mathematics.
The second noteworthy fa ct was the placin g of M.Cantor's paper "On the lIi sloriography
of Mathematics" in the same Congress. h waS onc of the 4 plenary reports. Cantor began
his survey wi th MonlucJa 's work. There were 6 sectio ns in the Congress. The sessions of
the section on hi story and bibliography were held jo imly with the .~ec t; on 011 teachin g and
methodology; these sessio ns were presided over by G. Ca nto r. The pl enary report of
V.yoJterra o n the life and work of three great Itali an mathematicians - E. Belti, F. Bri osky
and F.Cazorati - was al so hisrorico- biogra phi ca l in character. In all the subsequent
congresses s ince then, there was always a section on th e history of mathematics.
As the third example, menti on may be made of the five-volume Soviet "Mathematical
Encyclopaedia" ( 1973-1985). It contains innumerable historical informatio ns and references
as a matter of course, though there are no historico-mathematical articles proper.
Omitti ng the events of th e hi stori co-mat he matica l life till the end of the first wo rld war,
which dist urb('d the normal cQurse of scientific progress, lel us turn to the last half a century,
marked by eve r growing act ivisation of the hi storico- math emati ca l investigations, wherein
a spec ial mention must be made of the last 20-30 years. [Onc must mention, however, that,
namely, in the years 1914-19 19, F.Klein read hi s remarkable lectures on the developme nt of
mathematics in the 19th century, to a sma ll circlc of li ste ners , who gathered in hi s flaL
These lectures were later on prepared for publicatio ns by R. Courant and O. Neugebauer;
Ihey were pttbll.~hed in 1926, a year after Klein's death. A Russia n translat ion of the first,
hi storico-mathematical, part of these lectures was published in 1937 [13] . The second part
is devoted 10 physics at the end of the 19th and beg inn ing of the 20t h centuries and to its
mathcmaticul apparatus; it cOnlain s s hort his torico-sc ien tifi c digressions, but they play a
subordinate and in sign ifican t role in i1.J In this period many socio- hi storical, general
cu ltu ra l, ideological and scientific-organi zational facto rs were in operation. We sha ll not
list all of the.,m, nor e nunci ate lhem in terms of their importance and shall be mentioning
o nl y some of the m.
First of all , hi story of mathematics, like that of the o ther sciences, is organismionally
cons tituted, with material support both at the international level and at that of the
indi vidual stales. In 1929 the International Academy of Hi story of Sciences was crea.ted and
the first International Congress of the Hi story of Sciences was held, at the initiative of a g roup
of leading sc ie nti sts fro m many countries. At present this Academy has nearly 230 full and
corresponding members in its rol[s; they are from many coun tries (26 of them are from the
Soviet Union) (fro m the earstwhile USSR - Tr.). Thi s Academy publi shes its journal since 1948,
and s ince 1968 has beg un awarding a prize for outstanding sc ienti fi c exce llence, in the nllme
of the g reat French historian of science A. Coire. After the founding of the UNESCO, an
." 1\ 1'. YUSflKUVICH

inlertl<:Hiollal Union or th e Hi storians of {ile Sciences was organised as ils subsidiary, jllsllikc
the lnternational Union of Mathemati cian s, Specia li sts in Mechanics etc., <111 of which
~o nsisted of sepenll c nalionalullions. The Sov iet Association of the lli storimlS of Science
and Techno logy was established in 1957. There is no formal,juridical connectio n between Ihe
Intcrnationn l Acadcrn y flll~ the Intcrll nionn l Union of History of Science, but in rea lity the
nwrnbers of tne Academy occupy all the leading posts in the Union; and there are Soviet
scho lars among them . An important job of the Unio n and ('If its national sections is to organi se
international congresses (from 1929 to 1985 the re have bee n 17 of them), national
co nferences, and sy mposiums of a genera l, as wel l as of a s pecific, character :- ded icated to
individual disciplines, prob1enls, jubilee ce le bratio ns elC.
The rno~ ! Important pre-co (ldition for speeding lip the progress o f inves tigations on the
history Qf Jllathemi\tl cs alld of the other sc iences, is the preparation of beller workers with
~lJiti\b'le s p~c; jall ~ati Q lls, in the in st itutio ns o f hig her learning and, the establishment of
In~titut~s pf history of science. In diffe ren t cou ntries thi s has been done in differe nt ways: great
s uccess hI'S pecll ac hieved in th is respect in the FRG . GDR (now Germany -T r.), USS R ( now
ex USSR -11'.), Frl'nce and, of late in China; the USA has not been men tioned here, since the re
the preparat io ll of workers and the org<lnization of researc hes have their ow n specificities, and
there is 110 scope fo r dwell ing !,.Ipon them in the present paper. As an exa mple, here we s ha ll
briefly narrate the Wltc of i1ffairs ill the USSR, mlli nl y in the t wo centres:n Moscow - one in
the Univers ity, <l1l9 nll9ther in llle Academy.
B~fQr~ 19 171 (ltfOrOlnentioncd) V.V .Bobynin lUught all opti onal course on the history of
In'lt h ~ !n ~Hi!;:sl In the M os<;ow Uni vers it y, for quite sOme time. In th e 30s, thi s cou rse was
renew~d and later o n made compulsory. A regular scientific seminar on the s ubject began to
function si nce 1933 - it obtained all·union recog niti on; research studen ts hip on the hi story
o f mathemat ics WIlS int roduced, doctora l lllld post·doctoral work began to be defended in this
spec ialization. Afte r the second world W<lr a spec ial section was created for the h is to ries of
Illath~ matic s and mec h<lni cs, stuoents' semi;lnrs were o rganised, and gmduation theses were
introduccd in th ese disci plines. Afl this brough t forlh tangib le results. This section is
cO'll nected with the other kindered organi z.ations in Le ningrad , Kiev, Tas hken t eIC., as well as
with the corres po nding centre in the Academy of Sciences, USS R.
An interest in th e his tory of mathemati cs existed in the Academy o f Sciences of tile USSR,
s ince 19n9. In th e fi rst years after the October Revo lution, the AC<ldemy at first ordered the
pri nt in~ Qf A.V.Vasili ~ v's book on the deve lopment of malhe mllti cs in Rll ss ia from the
epoch of E ul er to th at o f Chebyshcv (192 1), and then o f B. V .Stekl ov's ·book o n 1n<lIhematics
and ils sig nificance for mankind ( 1923) - Il book saturated with historical material. Like
V.A.Ste~'ov, many o th er members of th e Academy, name ly, A.N . Krylov, V.I.Smirnov,
S. I. Vav ilov, T.P. KmvelS ! P.O.Kuzmin , N.G.Chebotarev etc.- thi s list may be ex te nded
considerably - took an active interest in, and did study, the hi sto ry of th e phys ico-
mathemati ca l sciences. In the 30s and 40s certain measures were ado pt~d . with the aim
of impartin g D more reg ular character to th e investi gations on the hi s tory of the sc iences and
teChnology, conducted in th e Academy. The founding of the Ins titute of Hi story of the
Natural Scicnces in 1945, and after its amalgamation with the Commission on the Hi story of
Technology in 1953, its trans formation in to the Institute of History of Natural Science and
 ! nSTOR!OGRAPI1 re RETROSl'fc nVE

Technology (with a branch in Leningrad) - was of decis ive sig nifi cance. It is the biggest
institut ion of its kind iil the world. He re a highly qua lifi ed group of historians of mat llcmalics
works in c lose co llabora ti on, not onl y with their fellow-workers in Moscow and in th e
other Republi cs of the Uni on, but also with many fore ig n scie ntific (';en tres and in div id ua l
sc holars, above all with th ose fro m the GDR , FRG (now united Germany - Tr.)., Ch ina, USA,
France, Czec hos lovakia (now the separated Czec h and Slovak Republi cs - Tr.) and,
Switzerland. In this Institute too, a permanenl scientific seminJlr o n the hi story of mathematics
works and , spec iali sts - research students and docto ral candidates - are helped in the ir work.
The total numbc r of the more or less active hi storinns of JI1<1thcmatics to-dny, is not
known. According to a directory published in 1978 r141. at that time the'ir number was ne<l rl y
1500, now it must be consi derably more and , probably , about 2000. lIere, among olher things,
onc must have in vie w th e fact, that now in vestigations in this field <lre being conducted , not
ollly ill those cou ntries, where the correspond ing tradition has lo ng si ncc been established,
but also in those, where earlier there did not or almost did not ex ist a national contin gent
of hi storian s of the sc iences; such countries include: the many Arab states, Turkey, India,
China, Japan , Canad<l, those in Central und Sou th America, <lml of cou rse those Republics of
the USSR (now C IS - 'fr.) , which constituted - socially and c ulturally speaking .- the
backward periphery o f the Russian e mpire, before the October revolution. One of the
consequences o f the globa l decolonization of the e<lrlier possessions of the imperiali st states,
h<ls been a rapid growth oJ interest in th em, in their own cultural past, and in ge nera l, in hi sto ry .
In vest igat ions in thi s fie ld grew al most every mont!·,. The need to publish them, in tmn,
replaced the periodicals, that had been di sco ntinu ed since the beginning of the 20th century.
New historieo-sc ientific journals or series of occas io nal thematic co llecti ons a!1peared; after
the second world war their number grew - and continues to grow considerably.
A list of such publications, keeping it limited on the onc hand to those that arc more
specia lized , and on the other - to the most well known, in the c hrono logica l order of their
appearence, is as under: ~Is l o rik o-matematicheskie issledovaniya~ f" Hi stori co-M<llhemat ical
In ves tigati o ns"J (1948-), publi shed in the Ru ss ian language (where in the papers of foreign
authors are printed in their Russ ian translati ons; :lowever, these pub lications mainly conta in
papers of the Soviet scholars); "Arch ive for History of the Exact Sciences" ( 1960-), publishes
papers in the main Eu ropea n languages, save Russ ian (thi s is co nnected with the pure ly external
conditi ons o f publication - in this jou rna l the papers of the Sov iet autho rs are prin ted in
other languages); and finally, the orga n of the Mathematic<ll Commission of the International
Union of the Hi storians of Science - "Hi storia Mathemat ica" ( 1974-), publishes papers in
10 European and Oriental languages, as well as information on sc ientific activities, reviews
and bib liographical surveys. Th ere exists no da'" about the publicati ons on (he history
of mathemati cs, thoug h one may get some idea about their number from the (,\C l that til e 30
issues o f the "lstoriko- matcmatiches kie iss ledovaniY<l"(owing to purelyextern<ll reasons
Ihey were not pub lis hed during the years 1967- 1977) contai ned 600 papers. Apart fro m the
afore me nti oned publi cations, there are the collect ions publi shed by the Section o f Histo ry of
Mathematics and Mechanics of the Moscow University, by the history of mathematics
semin ars of the A.Poincare Institute of Nantes and Tou louse and, th e new journals being
publi shed in Indi a, Japan etc. All this has not on ly opened new opportu niti es for
publication , but has a lso stimulated further investigations.
 456 A. 1'. YUSI IKE Y ICII

We have Slated above the approx imate number o f the investi gators in the fi e ld of history of
mat he mat ics, and have added that the ir number is grow ing. We mus t m ention in thi s
co nnecti on, the fac t that si multaneolls ly the mathematica l prepara tio n of th ese inves ti gat ors
has al so improved - and this as a result of an improve ment in the educati on of hi g her
mathe matics, determ ined by the ra pid progress o f the mathematical sciences t hemselves. T he
ling uis ti c (min ing o f th e historians has a lso improved :now orig in al resea rc hes have become
impossibl e or d o become inferior in qualit y, without a solid kno wl edge of many lallg llages.
The direc tory o f hi stori ans o f ma.tiJe lllaties r l 4J cOll t<l in s the Ilam e~ of q uit e a few
mathe maticians - speciali sts in thi s o r that branc h o f th is sc ience. Genera lly speak ing, the
re latio n of the mathematicians with the hi sto ry of the ir own scie nce has not been and is not
uniform . It has lived through times of ri se, as we ll as those of fall.
The re are s pec ialis ts, who a re no t at a ll interested in the hi sto ry of scienc e. O n the othe r
hand , ot:le can count the names of doze ns of mathematicians, among them there are those who
arc o f the hi ghest class, who are not onl y interested in the hi story o f mathe matics, but are
active in thi s rie ld (in parti cular, they add hi s torical sections to the ir manua ls), and they :lIso
o rgan isat ionall y co-operate with the prog ress o f history o f mathe matics . a t the le ve l o f
o rganiza tio n o f sc ience. 1t is impossi ble to lis t the names of all sllch scholars. It is enough to
na me from among th ose of the o lder generati on : !'.S. Alexa ndroy, A .D.A lexa ndrov,
S .L. van de r W aerd en , A .We il , H .We y l, J .Dieudo lln e, A.N.Ko lm ogo roY, V.l.Slllirn oY ,
D.J .S tru ik ; and from among the younger ones - J .Do mbr, H.Koc h , Vu. LM anin ..
A .N. Parshin, A.D .Solovev, V. M .Ti kho mirov and K.Uze l. O f course t his is a personal
se lecti on, and quite fortuitous at that , and the names o f man y a top mathe matic ians have been
left o ut here - mathe maticia ns w ho arc s ys tematicall y buildin g brid ge s be tween
mathe matics a nd its his tory.
The hig htenin g o f the inte rest in his to ry of mathe matics a mong the mathe matic ians.
e.spec ialJ y amOllg the sc holars with a broad ran ge, in the firs t half of the 20th century, had , in
part , been conditioned by the cri sis in the foundati ons of mathematics and the di scussions
generated by it , which drew the attentio n of man y scholars to the histori cal ret rospective. It
was also influe nced al a different leve l ( in the first place, in ou r coUlltry), by th e pu blication o f
the Ru ss ian translati on of a part o f the "Math ematical Manuscripts" of K.Marx. in 1933.
fA greater part o f Mar x 's Mathematica l Manuscripts were pub li shed in 196 8, th ough a cOr.lplete
ed iti on o f the m remain s to be publi shed. - Tr.] O ne of the consequences of th e aforemen tioned
d iscuss ions has been a tc mpestuous progress of mathematical logic and , the fo ll o w ~ lIP
actioll still continucs. During the las t few decades, the "storms" in the de ve lopment o f
in fo rmalics and o f the adjacent fi e lds. as well as a revolut io n of its kind in comput ationa l
mathe matics, has again d rawn the attentio n of a number of s pec ia lists to his.tory. Clea rl y,
to-d ay , in princ ipl e ne w path s are be in g outlined for the development o f mathe mati cs and , o ne
o f the mea ns of try in g to unders tand the path s of its fu rther deve lopment, is to turn to its
re trospecti ve.
Coope ration a mong the math emat icians - t he historians and the s pec ialists, has already
beco me an imperati ve necessity in our time. It is necessary fo r both the g roups, and it is
already yie ldin g good results. Pe rhaps, he re pri ority s hould be accorded to : I) the
pub lication of the class ics and 2) to writing genera lised works on the h is to ry of mathematics
 H!STOR !OG!tA!'IIIC ItET!tOSPECTI VE 4S7

of the modern and the recent times. It is enough, for instance, 10 mention the pub lication
of th e co llected works of Eule r, Gauss, Lobachevsky, Ostrogr -:dsky, Riemann, Chebyshcv ,
a.Cantor, Lyapunov and of Markov Sr. All these modern publications arc accompan ied by
co mmen taries, without which it is diffi cult, and in any case less effective, to s tudy the
work s of the said scho lars. In Ihi s respect thc recent edition s of the c lass ics of mathemati cs,
arc as u rule qualitative ly superior to th ose of the 19th and early 20lh centuries.
in respect of the works on the history of mathe mati cs, onc may ment ion the multi -volume
Sov iet history of mathematics from the ancient times to the beginning of the 20th ccntury
[l5}, the publication of which is still in progress, and the French histo ry of mathematics of
the 18th- 19th cent uries, wherein, in many sections, the 20th centu ry too has becn dwelt
upo n (161 . The books dealing with thc hi story of mathem,H ics in large geograph ica l areas, as
for instance, the collective works on the hi story o r mathematics in o ur coulltry, whi ch covc r
the subject almost upto our time [17, 18], are of great value.
Jointly authored books, of the ty pe just mentioned, are genera ll y speaking preferable 10 the
monographs produced by single authors: in our time one person can not produce a ba lanced
and thoroughgoing work on the hi story of mathematics from the anc ien l lo the modern times.
To be spic ifi c, the American mathematician M. Kline cou ld not do it: hi s book 1191 contains
very in teresting and competent ly written chapters, yet, in spitc "Of its volume - co ntili nin g
1248 pages - there are very su bstantia l problems, related to importilnt mathematica l
disc iplines, fo r instance, rega rding the theory of probabilities, and in respect of some
reg io ns . like China etc.
We ha ve already mentioned two generali sed works on the history of mathematics [IS
and 16]. Now, a few words about the gene ral ori entation of lhe Soviet and th e French collectives
are in order. In the French casc it was perhaps determined by the lender of the grou l). In the
Soviet work, mathemntics has been considered, no t only at the level of its ideat ionnl
deve lopment or self~deveJop ment, but also as a soc ial phenomenon, in its intercon nections
with the social requiremen ts. with the o ther sciences , engineerin g, philosophy etc., brien y
speaking, in the interconnectio ns of the superstructure wi th the base (it is not for th e present
author - a membe r of the cditorial and authorial collecti ves - to judgc, how fa r thit-; attempt
has succeeded). In contrast, in the French wo rk, atten tion has been co nce ntrated, sa ve in a
few po int s of the introduction, upon the se lf~d eve l opment of the ideas of the SO-Cu lled
"pure mathematics", which have almost exclus ively been considered at the level of thei r
im manen~al interconnecti ons.[In the introduction of this work it has been said that "the
mos t elementary concepts of modern mathematics" have been considered "in their historical
contex ts" and, in interconnect ion w ith their app lications in the natur<l1 sciences. However. in
the course of the work th is declared objective has been very timidly realised.J It mllst be
stres sed, th at in this work, gene rall y speak in g, o ne finds a very deep and substan tial
mathem atical analysis of thc histori cal process: almost all the authors <Ire specialists in their
respective fields of mathematics, who have painstakingly stud ied the essential literature! o n
a given question, including many works of the mathematicians of our country (and this is 110t
true of M.Kl ine's book). What we have sa id abou t this book [16J, a lso holds good for an
earlier work of N. Bou rbaki - a remake of the hi storical essays conta ined in the various
vol umes of thei r "Elements of Mathe mati cs", which have been publi shed Sill yC 1939; this
58
 458 A. P. YUSIIK£VrCH

re·writing was mainly done by A.Weil and J.Dieudonnc [20].It may be stressed here, at the
same time, that in the recent years, one more often notices a greater awa reness about the
social factors related to the development of mathematics, also in the foreign literature on
the history of mathematics. The widely popular "Concise History of Malhe matics" by the
American geometer DJ .5tru ik, which was first published in 1948 and has since been reissued
many times in Englis h and ih numerous trans lat ions, inCluding onc in Russian [21]-
happens to be a notable example of this kind of book. Unfortunately, the va luable supplement
by I. B.Pogrebyssky, characterizing the mathe matics of the first half of the 20th cen tury-
laid ~sidc by the author - has been dropped, in the latest Ru ss ian edition of thi s book.
Along with the gene ra lized work s, the last half a century has also seen th e publication of
ma ny original wo rks, in c ludin g such monogra ph s, as have substantiall y deepened our
knowledge, as well as of tran slations from the Oriental languages - less known to the c ircle
of hi storian s of mathe matics of Europe and USA - into the languages of Europe. These works
encompass a very large time span and geographical territory . In the shortlisl that follow s we
shall indicate only the names of the authors and the years of publicat ion.
One must begin this part of the hi storiographical survey , with V. V.Stru ve's edi tion of the
Moscow·Egy ptian. Papyru s (1930), wh ich significan tly augmented our knowledge of the
mathematics of ancient Egypt - earlier this knowledge was a lmost exclusi ve ly based upon
the so·called Rhind Papyrus(1877). Next, we must menti on the pub li ca ti on of and
in vestigati ons upon th e cuneiform Sumero·8abylonian text s by O.Neugeba'uer (1934·1 95 1),
F.Turo· Oanjen ( 1938), E.M .Broins( 1957), A.A.Waimann (196 1) and Olhers. In the fie ld of
ancient Greek mathe matics one has to mention, at least th e works of O.Bekker (1933·). M. Ya .
Vygotsky ( 194 1), I.G .Bashmako va ( 1958-) , van der Waerden (1950), A.Sabo ( 1955-) and
J .P. Vernan (1962). The study of the mathematics of the middle ages has been conducted in a
number of regional direct ions. E.1.Bereozk ina transalted almost the entirety of the so·called
"Ten books" from Chinese into Russ ian; she also came out with a preliminary survey of her
investigations, in a book published in 1980. The Ja panese scholar 1. Mika mi gave us the first
sufficient ly adequate descripti on of the history of mathematics in China and Japan , in the
Engl ish language (19 13). Hi s subsequen t importan t papers are in Japanese and remain a lmost
unknown in Europe, till date. In C hin a proper, important invest igations began later, first
of all in th e works of Li Van and Tsyan Baotzun (1935 ·1937); their main essays still remai n
to be translated in the European languages. At present a large group of Chinese and
European spec ia lists are wo rking on th is problematique, and many important discoveries have
been made - which ha ve often been described only in the Ch inese Iiterature ..In the recent
years, the origi nal works of K. Sheml (of France), A.K.Volkov and those of the othe r
young specialists have been published. Chronologically speak ing, among the comprehensive
works, fi rst comes the volume devoted to mathematics in the multi· volume history of
c ivilization in Chi na, publi shed in 1954; thi s joint work of J.Needham and Wang Ling conta ins
a very ri ch bibliography , which is now, un ders tandbly. so mewhat dated [se'e :the
bibliograph ical survey in the just mentioned book by E.I.Bereozkina, Whic h, naturally, does
not contai n any reference to the publications since 1980.] Yet ano th er direction of research
had the mathemati cs of India as its subj ect matter. The first stage of the investigations in
this fi eld has been summed up in a two· vo lurne book by B.Duua and A.N. 5i ngh (1935·1938);
 HISTORI OGRAPIIIC RETROSPECTIVE 4~9

subseque ntly, interesting investi gatio ns were conducted into the infinites imal mathemat ics of
India of the 15th -1 6th centuries by S.T.Rajagopal and T .V.Vedmurty( 1949-). Afte rwards
other ind ian scholars, and to a lesser extent European scholars a l ~o conducted their
investigations in this area. A. 1. Volodarsky's book (in Russian) on the mathematics of
mediev al India came out in 1977. A great cycle of work has been conducted on the mathe mat ics
of the Arab coulltries, Iran and Central Asia. Here one mu st at least me ntion thc namcs of
P. Luke i ( 1938-), E.S.Ke nnedy ( [947-), R.Rashid (1968- ), Kh. Vernet (! 952- ), Kh . Samso
( 1966- ) and , from a mong the Sov ie t scho lars those of B.A.Roze nfeld ( 195 1-), G.P.
Matvievs kaya ( 1961-), as we ll as th eir many colleagues a nd pupils. [In 1983 G. P.
M at vievskaya and B.A.Rozenfeld pub li shed a bibli ography of the literature on Arab
mathe matics and astronomy, in three ·voumes. It is a much more detai led bibliography, than
the one publ ished by G. Zuter in 1900- 1902]. Finall y, the fo urth direct ion in the study of
the history of medieval mathe matics: its study wi thin the frame-work of the Europeall region.
Here, the aforementioned K. Voge l - engaged in the study of the dcve lopme nt of elemenlary
mathematics in medieva l Europe ( a nd Byzantium) - made great contributions. However,
the numerous works on the highe r mathematics of ' lncdieval Eu rope, a re of special interest.
He re significant contri butions have been made by P.Duhem,V.P.Zubov (1947-), A.C.Crombie
(1953), G.L.Crosby Jr. ( 1955), M.Claget! (1959-), K.Wilso n ( 1960), G.L. BlIsard (1961-),
J.Mu rdoc h ( 196 1), V.S.Shi rokov ( 1978-) and others. who have contin ued, and introduced
more c larity to the investigations of the pi oneers. Compared to the earlier understa nding of
the subject. medieval mathe matics and its ro le in the global progress of science now stand
illumined in a completely new li ght.
The principa l works on the mathe matics of antiqu ity have in the main been su mmed up
in B.L. van der Waerde n's we ll known monogaph (1950), and in the history of medie val
ma the matics , penned by the present au thor ( 196 1); both of them have been tran slated in a
number of lang uages; and in view of their years of publication, both appear somewhat Olltdated
on a number of points, in the li ght of our present level of know ledge of the subject.
Ne ither the Arab countries, nor Eu rope knew of book printi ng with the he lp of movin g
types. in the midd le ages - it began only in the midd le of the 15th century - and, books were
brought oul in the manu scri pt form. T hat is why the histori ans of the sciences of this period
are required to iook for manu scripts and the search yields ric h hau ls. But on the other queslions
too. history of math ematics is la'rgely ind ebted to archival investigations: these are related
10 the works of Newton, Le ibnitz, Eule r, Cauc hy, Bolzano, Ostrog radsky, Bunyakovsk y,
C hebyshev, Kovalevskaya, We ie rslrass , Dedeki nd , Luzin and others. In the instances herein
me ntioned and in many other in stances, the obtained archival materials were of great
sig nificance, not only for the exact datin g of various discoveri es or for solvi ng the questions
of d isputed priorites but a lso for the discovery of hitherto un kn ow n aspects of the creat iv ity
of the great scholars, of the ac tiv ities of large scientifi c collecti ves, of the inte rnational
scie ntific community, of the e mergence of scientific co ntacts among indiv idual sc holars and
among the institutions, in whic h they wo rked, ctc. As an example one may mention the
three vo lumes of L.Euler's correspondences,letters that he wrote to the Peterburg Acade my
from Berl in. in the years 1741- 1765. In this period he was a fore ign me mbcr of the Pelerburg
Academy and, a full member of lhe Be rlin Academy (he returned to Peterburg in 1766, where
he had earlier worked from 1727 10 174 1).
460 A. 1'. YUSIIKEVICH

The complete history of mathematics. like that of any other sc ience, consists not onl y
of the ni sl'ory of its idea", but also or tl,c hist0ry of the pcoph! who crca:ed that science, that
of their co llectives. In this connection on>! may mention the fact Ihat specialists and historia ns
o f mathematics (as well as thOSe of the other sciences) took part in compiling th e famous
16 volume dictionary of sc ientific bioghraphics, published under the cditorship of Gil1ispi
( 1970· 1980). Same is true of that big Italian b iograph ical dictionary (1975). which contai ns
leSS detailed biographies, as co mpared to the former, but is very rich;n illu strations and
provides a substant ial survey of the development of the sc ie nces since 1875 (mo re than
500 pages). Paucity of space forbid); us 10 dwell upon the book); about individual scho lars,
though they too are an inseparable parL of th e historico·scientific literature.
During the last 25 year~ a large number of monographs have been published on the hi story
of individual discipJines;these are highly useful even for the specialist mathematicians. It
is impossible to give a completc list ofthesc monographs here and onc is constrained 10 limit
oneself to a few eX(lmples. All of them arc of a very high scie ntific standard. though at times
quile subjective in their evaltm!ions of the role of individual discoveries or scho lars.
Such are some of the published monographs: on the hi story of the theory of numbers
and algebra (G.Vussing, 1963; L.Novy 1973; A.WeiJ, 1983; B.L.van der Waerden, 1985;
LG.8ashmakova and E.I.Slavlltin, 1985), on the development of set th eory and theory of
fllllctions (F.A.Medvedev, 1965-1982; J. Kassina and M. Giiemo. 1983), on the history of the
foundatio ns of analysis from EuJer to Riemann(A. Grattan -Guinnes, 1976; a book on
R.Dedekind - P.Dugak, 1976; U. Boltazzini, 1981), on the hi,s to ry of the trigonometric
sericses (A.B.Pa plau skas. (966), on the history of the theory of functions of the complex
variable (S .E.Belozero v. 1962), on the history of differential equations and of functional
analysis (K.Trusde !J - on the equations, 1960; V.A.Dobrovolsky, 1974; V.S .Sologub, 1975;
E.Lutsen, 1981), on computational mathematics and comput in g machines (G.Goldstein,
,1977; l.A .Apokin and L.E.Maistrov, 1974), on the theory of probabilities (L.E.Maistrov, 1967
and 1980), on non~Euctidean geometry (B.A.RozenfcJd, 1976). topology(J.K.Pon, 1974), and
logic (J.M.Bochenski - in English - 196 1; N.I.Styazkin. 1964; T KOlarbinski , 1965). It
is an incomplete list, but even if it is supplemented with <I few more names of hitherto
unmentioned monographs, even then that would not encompass all th e basic mathematical
disciplines. Work in this direction is of first order importance. and it is sti ll cont inuing.
Here, owing to in.<;ufficiency of space, we shall not be able even to ment ion many co llections,
devoted to the work of individual scholars, the development of this or that discipl in e in a
given country. that of the different fundamental concepts, like the number, function, infinitary
magnitlldes, differential, integral etc. etc .. and the activities of the individual institutions,
academics. societies, periOdicals etc. At times, even a series of articles (for example, those
or O.B.Sheinin 011 the history of the theory of probabilities and its appiications) is of no less
importancC,lhan this or that book.
Let us conclude the retrospective of the historico~malhematical investigations here. and
turn to a retrospective of malhematics itself. The problems selected herein for considerat ion,
make no claim to completeness and, naturally, they express the interests of the author. As
far as possible, the following exposition follows the ch ronological order of development of
mathematics and, takes care of ils regiona l specific ities.
 NEOLlTHIC M ATlI t:;M ATIC!'; 461

NeoLithic Marhemalics. Our j udge ments about th e format ion of the earl iest malhe matica l
notio ns, formed in the prc-historic times, !Ire based on arc hcological data, so me ti mes,
upon the wriuen legends and insc riptio ns, preserved on the arc hitectu ra l structures and
utensils, on the pi ctu res found on the roc k surfaces o f the ca ve dwe ll ings ; and , fin all y, ou r
ideas o n the subject · arc al so deve loped in anal ogy with the mathematical kno wled ge of
those people and tribes, who are , or were a short while ago, situated at the lowest levels of
cultu ra l development. For some time now, the earliest deve loped culture known to us has been,
the one that ex isted on the Indus river basi n. in the middle 'o f thc 3rd millennium B.C.-
the so-called Mo henjo-daro culture. Mathe matical tex IS fro m this c ulture have not surv ived,
and the inscriptions that have re mained intact, have no t been dec iphered. We have ex treme ly
meager d ata about th e arithmetical and geometrical know ledge of this culture, and still less
- about its hi story ; it appears to be cl ose to the culture of Sume r. Howe ver, result s of the
investi gatio ns into the c ulture of Mohenjo-daro, are not in confirrn ity with the hy po thesis
regard ing the introduc tio n of this culturc in the Indus Valley by so me of the Aryan tribes (i.e.
these stud ies do not confirm the hypothes is o f B.L.van derWaerden ; o n thi s mo re later) ,
Recent ly, an even more ancie nt culture has been d iscovered in Upper EgyVJ,. bu t it re mai ns
almost u nin vesti gated. .
The earlies t preserved Egyptia n representations of numbers date bac k 10 th e first half of
the 4th mi llennium B.C., but the two, aforementio ned , so far prese rved, bas ic mathematical
papyruses date bac k to the fi rst centuries o f the 2nd millennium RC. The Babylonian
cune iform tex ts are di vi ded into three basic categories : I ) the most ancient econo mic texts of
Su mer, 2 ) the tabl es for mu ltipli cati o n, di vis io n and ot her o pera tions, ofte n a lso
meteoro logica l tables - dat ing back to the end o f the 3rd mille nnium and,3) some even
later collecti ons o f proble ms - approximate ly belo ng ing to the 9 th-7 th centuri es RC . All
these written docu ments are c lose in time to th e Indu s Valley C ivil ization and, al l of
the m go back to eve n earlier periods; whether or not th ere e xi sted a ny direct contac t between
th ese c iviliza tions , that however, rema in s to be es tabl ished. A somew hat authe ntic
informati o n about the anc ient Ind ian mathemat ics of the subsequent centu ries, belo ng to
a much late r period; it is re lated 10 that epoc h whe n the re lig ious books ~ the Vedas - were
composed. It is con tai ned in some essays, enunciating the ru les for the conSlruction of
,
sac rificial a ltars, in the so-ca lled "Sulva- sutras", writte n, probably, in the 6th a nd subsequent
centuries S.C .; these have come down to us in several vari ants. The Chinese culture i.~ also
very ancient, but it is practica ll y impossible to iso late the authe ntic fa cts fro m the legend s,
co ntai ned in the late r c hi nese chronicles. {For ex amp le, about the awareness of some
particula r instances o f the theorem of Pythagoras in the 12 th century R C., and wit h its
ge nera lised fo rm - in the 6th ce nlury B.C.] The re is no doubt about the fac t, that al ready in
the school o f Mo Zi, the ph ilosopher and log icia n, i.c. in the 4th ce ntury S .C . or even
earl ier, the Chi nese attained a high le ve l of mat he matica l knowledge. By th e n, probab ly, many
of those pro ble ms abo ut which we came to kn ow fro m the mos t ancie nt ma!hematical and
mathe matico-astro no mica l works - "Mathematics in Nine Books" and the "Treat ise o n
Gno mo n" - we re a lready formulat ed and th e methods of the ir soluti on were found; these
books became fa mous through their editions pu bli shed around the beg inni ng of the C hr istian
Era.
462 A. P. VUS II KEVICH

Sometime ago, in 1983, B.L. van def Wacrden attempted a partial recons truction of the
mathematics of th e Ncolithic epoch. It predates the Egyptian, Babylon ian , Indian and
Chinese mathe maticses and serves as the ir most important primary source [24]. In the
op ini on of this leading algeb raist and out standin g hi storian of sc ience. there ex isted a very
highly deve loped mathematics in th e territories of Central Europe and Great Britain ,
somewhere between 3000 and 2500 B.C. ; afterwards. thi s mathemat ics spread towards
the South and the East, in to the territories o f Egypt, Bahylon , Ind ia and China. Its traces are
to be found in ancient Greece too - and Ihis includes the works of Euclid and Diophantus;
however, it was the Greeks who radically reorganised this ancient mathematics and c reated
a d eductive sc ie nce based o n definitions, postu lates and ax io ms. It will not be possib le for us,
here, to enter into a detailed analysis of the ideas o f van der Wac rdcn. His book contains many
interesting and va luable remarks, but his entire conception has been, on the wh o le, less
convinci ng ly nrgumented , Three basic argumentS have been pllt forward in the autho r's
introduction, The fir st among them - the presence of Pythagoras' theorem and of its
,
app lication for transforming a rectangle into a square, in the "S ul va-sulras", wherei n the
s ides oflhe right-angled tmingles used in the constructi ons are proportional to the "Pythagorean
triplets" of natural numbers. "Pythagoras' theorem" and the extensive tab les of Pythagorean
number triplets were well known in ancie nt Babylon, 'From this, van der Waerden concludes
- following A. Za iden berg (1978) - that there ex isted some kind o f a com mon source . of the
Baby10 nian algebra and geo metry, the Greek geometrical a lgebra and, the Indian geometry.
The second argu ment-the existence of a large number of similar problems in the ancient
Chinese "Nine Books of Mathemati cs" and in the ancient Babylo ni an texts, assumin g in
particular a know ledge of Pythagoras ' theorem. And the third argu ment - towards the end
of the 70s, n number of archeologists studied some mega lithic struct~lres. erected on so me
platforms, for cere monial rituals, as well as for definitely orien ted as tronomical observations.
These platforms are bordered with menhirs. p laced along ci rcu lar, e lliptical o r oval lines or
a long the circumference of forms flattened out into c ircles. It is possib le, some times, to
determinately inscribe indi vidual integral-numerical Pythagorean triangles into these fi gures.
Such mega lithic structures were erected si nce the middle of the 4th millennium B.e. and
were widespread in Central Europe, Great Britain . Ireland etc., in the first half of the 3rd
millennium B.C.; and, according to van der Waerden and Zaidcnberg , this test ifies to the
ex iste nce of a hi gh ly developed mathe m'atics in the Neolithic epoch and it influe nced
the entire subseque nt development of mathemati cs.
The decisive argument of van der Waerden is as fo llows: the di scovery of the Pythagorean
theorem and of the Ph ythagorean num ber triplets, were great discoveries, and rhe great
d iscoveries of mathematics, physics and astronomy are, save in the rare cases, made o nly once;
independen t discovery o f the sa id theorems and number triples in anc ient Baby lon (around
2000 B. e.), India, Greece (where they were well known not later than the 7th-6th centuries
B . e.) and China, is improbable. Some unknown people took all these wi th them in the
course of some mi gratio ns to the East.
Thi s arg ument cements th e entire co nception of van der Waerden . It has been illu strated
with the examples of momentarily invented epicycles and eccentric ci rcles, of th!! establishment
of the sphericity of Earth, the heliocentric sys tem of Copernicus, the three laws of Keple r,
 NEOLITHIC MATHEMATICS 463

and the laws of mOlion of Newton as wel l as his law of universal gravitation, the laws of optics
etc. Independem discoveries - for example, of the non-Euclidean geometry by
Lobachevsky, Gauss and Solyai - are very rare. There is inexact,ilude in van der
Waerden's e numerat iC1n ; for example, R. Hooke discovered the law of universal grav itatio_"
ind ependently of Newton; it is true, however, that he could Tlot construct a system of celest ial
mechanics. The defect however, is not with the particular instances of inexactitude; indep~ldenl
discoveries are by no means a rarity in the history of mathematics and of the sciences in
general . Here are some examples: the logarithmic tables of Napier a nd Briggs, the calculating
machines of Shicard and Pascal, the analytical geometry of Descartes and rermal, the
differential and integral calculus of Newton and Leibnitz,the theory of ellipt ical functions of
Abel and Jacobi, Dedekind's and Zolotarev's theory of cut, the special theory of relativity of
Einstein and Poincare, Urison's and Mcnger's topological theory of measure ... This li st may
be indefin itely extended fu rther and, in general, in the given (ealm of questions, it is difficu lt
to count and mutually compare the probabilities. Onc way or the other, according to van
der Waerden, when a theorem like that of Pythagoras , is found in different countries, then
the best course open is to accept the hypothes is of their dependence upon a primary source
and to use it, as a heuristic principle.
It stands to reason, that the question of dependence or independence of identical
discoveries in different cultural environs, requires to be in vesti gated . Only this much is
certain, that the solution of this question must not be based upon highly indeterminate
probablistic estimates and unprovable presuppositions about the course of development of
humanity. Having put forward his hypothesis and heuristic principle, van der Waerden
himse lf then and there notes many points of contact between the mathematics of China and
Babylon or [ndia and Greece; incidenta lly, these comparisons, made by him, are hi gh ly
interesting and deserve serious attention. But if sueh points of contact, yet to be studied in
the ir full scope, did ex ist, the n it is legitimate to ask oneself : were not the theorem of
Pythagoras and the Pythagorean triplets born in the c ivil izations of Mesopotamia, from
where they spread ou t in different direction s? Why '.lssume the existence of a high ly
developed N.eolithic mathematics in Europe, in the 4th-3rd millennium S.C., about wh ich
we practicall y know nothing, when we know for certain that a Sumero·Sabylonian mathematics
did ex ist, which is known to us, at least in part? And what makes the hypothesis of a
sin gle source more preferable 10 the hypothesis of independent discovery o f the theorem of
Pythagoras, in course of the progress of architecture, that developed upon the ground reality
of the general civ ic and ritual requireme nts of the people of a number of regions, wliich did
atta in sim ilar levels of culture, at approximately the same time?
About the integral numerical Pythagorean triangles, which may be inscribed within the
con tou rs, along wh ic h menhirs were placed in a number of instances, it is not at all
understandable, as to why the builders of the structures were in need of them. Traces of such
triangles we re not retained. And the contours themselves - be they spherical, flattened out
and cons isting of the arcs of circles of different rad ii, oval or even near ellipt ical - were
out lined. one shou ld think, with the help of simple string contraptions. Right-angled
triangles a re nol n eces~a ry for all such co nstructiQlls.
 464 A . I' YUSIIK I~VICH

Allciellf Oriellt. Wh ile going over from the unwritten evidences of mathematics to the
most ancient written mathematica l documents, o nc must first of all turn to Egypt und
Babylon. Here the informalion at our disposal, is clearly fra gmentary, but nevertheless,
it does allow us to judge the systems of numerati on, mcthdds of computation und
predomi nant Iypes of prob l e~s of both the c ivilizations. It ;lppears, that ill Ba lylon, Ihat
component of mathematics was considerably more developed, which wc can call algebraic:
here wc find cyc les of problems expressed in q uad ratic equations or in systems reduc ible to
the m - the Egy ptian papy ruses do n OI con tai n such problems; we have already mentioned
the fact that the theorem of Pythagoras and the Pythagorean numerical trip lets were known to
the Ba lylonians. One of the Egyptian papy ri dati ng back to the begin n ing of the 2nd
mill enni um B.C., conta ins a si mple algebraic prob lem, where the sum of the squares o f the
unk nown q uant ities is g iven, there e xits a given linear interconnection amon g the unknown
quantit ies and the so lutions - 6, 8 and 10 - happen to be double of the si mplest Pythagorean
numerica l triplets; but the text does not men ti on any tria ngle, thus it wou ld be hasty to
conclude abou t any acqua intance with the general theorem of Pythagoras and wil h the
Py thagorean numerical triplets in anc ient Egypt.
During the last few decades, there were only a few substantial discoveries in this section
of the history of math ematics: the most interest ing among them being the "Balyloninn
numbers" detected by A.A. Wai man n ( 1957) - these are numerical triplels, e xpressi ng the
ratios of length of some line segmen ts, parallel to the bases of a trapezi um, wh ich divide it into
pa ired bands of equal area; these numbers turn ou t to be Pythagorean numbers, their sums,
and d ifferences. But the study of the mathematics of Babylon and Egypt produced a number of
in teresti ng reconstructions of those methods wit h the he lp of which various Iyoblems were
sol ved there . In both the cases, the texts conta in only calcu lations, providi ng (he solution or
even, straight off, the answer, without any explanation: the enunciation is prescriptive in
character and does not include any such element, which wc would have now termed
theoretic. It is clear, however, that the solutions of many problems could not have been
obtained purely empirically. T his is truc, for example, about the ru le fo .. calculating the
volume of a truncated pyramid (Egypt) o r, about the solution o f quadratic equations
(Baby Ion); it is not like ly. that the rul e for the summa tion of the sequence of the squ<Lres
of nat ural numbers and, the corre lation among the Babylonian and Pythagorean numerical
trip lets (Baby Ion) or, the (approximate) equality of the area of a eircle w ith that of a square, a
side of whi ch is equal to 8/9 or the diameter of that circle, were detected acciden ta lly. Al l
the texts o f the a ncien t Orien ta l mathe matics, know n to us, high li ght only olle side of it:
these are ei ther man uals for so lving a defin ite type of problem, or co llect ions of exerc ises with
answers, and so met imes with verifications. T here is no d oubt, that there were mathematic ians
with a command over the too ls of arithmetical, algebraic or geometrical d eductions. Th is
apart , we do know that when the tex ts und er co nsideration we re being composed,
mathematics had already attained suc h a level of development, that apart frolll the problems
ge nerated by the direct requi rements of economic, poli ti cal and technological practice , it
a lso handled those problems which were bereft of all practica l significance, those which arose
in course of thc deve lo pment o f mat hemat ics itself. T he computat ion of the area of a rectangle
wit h given sides, is an elementary p rac~iI.;·a l problem, solved arithmetically. Renectio n on it
 ANCJI3NT ORIENT ANI) UIWI~CB
'"
gives rise to an absltflC!t algebraic proble m : the determination of the sides of a recta ngle in
terms of a given aretl nnd perlrtu:ter.
Some hi storians of science (A . Sabo, 1.0 . Bashmakova, P.P. Ga idenko and others) put
forward the view, that only ih ANcienl dteecc did mathematics nrise as a science, when
signifi ca nt portions of thi s disci pline bega n to be constructed in the form of deductive
axiomttll6 sySltltK th~)' OV inc, that there exists no gro und for thinking, tha t mathematical
know ledge Was foffflU ltlttid ill IINclcnt Egypt or Babylon, into suc h systems; the re , many
res ults were oBtai ned l!thpi ricut ly or through un substa nti ated gene ral izat io n from particlllar
modes of calcultition dr metl.suteffletit. Notwi thstanding this, the fo llowing remark of N.
BtiurbaJtI f21] is fuil y conviHoln6 : it jij Fldt posSible to view the e nt irety of Ba by Ionian algebra
as a simple collection of exercises, so lved e mpitlca llYl to the touch, and if it does not c orll ain
a ny "proof" in thf! formMI se nse of the word , thell some sort of, not yet fully reali zed, logical
argumentS \Ntte jJut (6f\Vi1fd , By usi ng the analogue of n mathematica l termino logy, used in
another context, \Ne may Oft ll 11f1~ le nt Oriental mathcmatics - "piece-wise deducti vc".
It has already been sajd 1ft the l:Jeglftflifig of Ih ls pllper, thatthe words "proof' and "science"
do not have any iJtlivClcnl filea ning when they 11rO viewed in their history, diffe rent co nte nts
were put into them at different times : The refusa t to ca ll the mathematics of Egypt nnd
Babyloh == sc ienEe, iJctlaLl g[! there lIfe MO proofs in the ir written documents, is as ground less,
as the ext:lusio H of lrt1ptt!§sltlfl/§Fn 01' the abstract school from pai ntin g, because they are
"not realistic", and of the works aftll unrd or f<hl~bnikov from poetry, as these do n Ol resemble
t h (js~ df Verlen or BldK , 'the slime is true nlso in respect of the ancient mathe mati cal texts
of China and India.
Ancient Greece ; HellCIIWH. After Egypt and Babylon, it is natural to turn to Ancient
Greece . There are several aspeets of th ~ pr(')bl crt1 of the sources of Grcek math emati cs, the first
among the m bein g the que,lUlbn of Otlt:lltDI influences, Taki ng it up in the case of Egypt,
B.L. van del' Waerden now, as they say, eleVlttcll lt, in the ultimate analysis, [0 a hYPolhetical
European cu lture of the Neolithic epoch; O,Netlgebuuer takes into consideration the emergence
of the theories of irrationality, proportldNS IiNd l htl!~ra ti o n s within Greece and thinks that
the Greek geometrica l algeb ra shows Babylonian Influence, which beca me stronger in the
beginning of Helleni sm, and he rai ses doubts about the rolell of the Ionic school and of
Pythagora s; I.G. Bashmakova is of the opin ion that Pythagoras is the c reator of
mathe mati cs as a science; A.Sabo gives precedence to the innuence of the Bleatic sc hool and
lhe introducti on of the rule of con traries; L.Ya . Jmuid has recently ra ised doubts about the
presence of O rien tal innuence ". It is apparent that opinions are changi ng and, clearly, the
d iScussion arOund this questi on wi ll continue. Perhaps, the question of fo rmation of Greek
mathematics should be considered within the wider frame-work of social and ideo logica l
development of the cntire Medi tcrranean cu lture. IIere the reader is recomended to get
acquainted with the material s publi shed in the co ll ection: "Metodotog icheskie problemy
razv itiya i primeneniya mate ma tiki" {"Methodological Problems of Development and
Application of Mathematics"J (M ., 1985), especially wi th the section: "Me todologicheskie
as pek ty stanovlen iya matematicheskovo znaniya" ["Methodo logical Aspects of Format ion of
Mathematical Knowledge"]
While dealing with the problem of formation of (he mathematical deduct ive method, in
that specific form, wh ich it assumed in Ancient Greece, i.e. in the first place, in the

59
 A I' YUSIIKEVIC/I
'"
axiomatization of geometry (but not of arithmetic, the reason behind which has been
investigated by $, A. Yanovskaya in 1958). from the very first steps OIlC nllls agninst the
non~univocality of the possible interpretations of the ancient idea of the inrinite. especially
in the early stages, and of thecorrcspomJing terminology. What gave risc 10 this idea? How
to understand the "apeiron" of An3ximandcr [ape iron - a concepl introduced by
Anaximander of Milelus (c. 610-546 D.e.) to denote boundless, indefinite, qu nlityless
malter in a state of contsam motion - Tr.l or the "aporias" of Zcna of Elen (c . 490·430
B.C.) [aporia - a problem which is dirricult la solve, owing to some contradiction in the
object itself or in the conccpt of it - Tr.J ? Therc is no doubt about the need for discussing
these questions, but we are still f<lr away from their unanimous solution.
Having mentioned the names of Anaximnndcr and Zeno of Slen, onc has to state that the
problem of infinite did have a decisive impact upon the entire methodology of Gree k
mathematics, upon its various aspects. 60 years ngo H.Weyl wrote, that mnthematics is the
science of infinity and if an intuition of the infinite was characteristic of the Oriental world,
where it did not give rise to any question, then the Greeks reconstructed the polar opposition
of the finites and the infinites into powerful instruments for the cognition of reality.
Unfortunately, the opinions about the problem of infinity and abou t the infinitesimal
methods of the ancien t Greeks, arc so divergent, that onc has to refrain from Characteri zing
them in the present papcr. .
In the recent times, unfortunately, the study, almost only. of the "Arithmetic" of
Diophamus, has co me to occupy oneoftheforemost positions in the study of thchistory
of Hellenic mathematics. I.G. Bashmakova was the first to produce a deeper study of this
work, utilising the tools of modern algeb raic geometry ( 1972-); soon it was iqdepende ntly
extended to the study of R.Rashid - the so ca lled Arab Diophantlls, by J.Sesiano (1974-) and,
to that of the so-called "Diophantine analysis" UP!O the epoch of Fermat (1.0 . Baslunakova
and E.l. Slavutin, 1984); these studies threw a new light upon the formation of this fie ld of
mathematics, which p layed an important role in the developmen t of theory of numbers and
a lgebra. In a recent book on the development of the theory of numbers (1983), A. Wei l
has related the entire work on indeterminatc analysis upto the time of Vieta [1540-1603]
and Bache! [1581- 1638], with the pre-history of the theory of numbers, since, therein , the
attention was fix ed, not only on the search for the integral, but also on th at for the rational
soluti ons. Weil has considered the works of Diophantus mainly in connection with those of
Fermat. whom he cons iders to be onc of the founders of the modern thcory of numbers,
together with Euter, Lag range and Legendre.
The "Arithmet ic" of Diophan tu s exerted a direct o r (and) indi rect innuence - mediated
through some unknown links - upon the development of Arab algebra. It has been a great
innuence. We must mention here the fact. th at so far the very emergence of the "Arithmetic",
has almost always been viewed as an isolated even t in the development of the mathematics
of the Alexandrine epoch. This work determined a trend of thoug ht different from the class ical
one, proposed by Euclid, Archimedes and Apollonius . To all appearence, it was the result of a
synthesis of the C lass ical and the Orie nta l traditions; the creation of the empire of
Alexander of Macedonia and, after its fall - the emergence of several He llenic Slates, created
the gene.ra J historical precondit ions fo r this sy nthes is . There arc common elemen ts in the
 CHINA 467

works of Diophantus and in those of Hero of Alexandria, who lived IIl!nrly two centuries
before the former. However, there still exists a very big gap in the primary sources known
to liS, which can not be fi lled by the data 011 hand about the prob lem of piers, related wilh the
name of Arch imedes. The ancient method of solving this problem is slill not known to us.
The possib le cO,nnection of "D iophantine Analysis" wi th the mathematics of India and China
a lso remains unknown. In Ind ia and China too, the integral and rational numerical so lutions
of different kinds of indeterminate algebrn ic equmions, did occupy an important place.
The Middle Ages. As we go over to the Middle Ages, we must first of all slale thal th is term
is unsatisfactory, even if because of the fact that in different regions its natural boundaries
belong to different cen tu ries. In the absence of;l better name, however, we shal l be using this
term. In places it began at the j unct ion of the pre-christian and the ch ristian eras, at others even
later a nd, came to an cnd in the 15th-16th centuries. The states that existed in this pcriod,
over considerable parts of the territories of China, India, the Arab countries and Europe,
were in the main similar types of feudal (1 - Tr.) economic and political formations
[while discuss ing the anc ient and the middle ages, the question of the Asiatic etc. modes of
production can not be/shou ld 1101 be avoided - Tr.]. They attained almost the same levels
of tech nical and matcrial culture. It stands [0 reason, rhat the exchnges of material and
spi ritual values that took place among these regions, were by no mean s regular and, were
interru pted by wars and interna l disorders. A natural consequence of all this has been the
emergnce of simi lar practica l problems before the mathematics of these four regions. In
some of the works - ' written in the period 1958-196 1 by the present author, often in
collaborat ion with B.A. Rozcnfe ld - a conception of medieval mathe matics has been
proposed, wherein it has been considered as a single whole; bUllhc specificities inherent to the
mathe mt ics of each of these reg ions have been taken note of there; these specifics were
largely the con seq uences of even earlier scientific, ph ilosophical and religious traditions
prevalent in these regions . That is why, it wou ld be better to consider the changes that have
taken place in the retrospective of mathematics, during the last few decades, separate ly,
within the frame-work of eac h reg ion. It must be mentioned initially, that during the last few
decades considerab le success has been achieved in the study of the medieva l mathemat ics
of many Oriental countries; and, 10 a great extent th is was made possible by the decolonizntion
of the territories unde r the co ntro l of the imperial powers, the emergence of independent
stales in Asia and Africa, as well as ow ing 10 the fast progress in those Republics of Central
Asia and of the Caucasus, that were backward areas before the October revo lution in
Russia and, were in the best of circumstances - second grade areas of the Russian empire.
China. Our know ledge of the development of mathematics in China has greatly
increased in the recent yea rs. Eu ropean scholars obmined their firs t so lid informations
abou t C.hi nese mathemat ics through an English language book ( 1913) by the Japanese
scho lar I. Mikami. In the fi rst half of the 20th Centu ry, work was conducted inlhis field
in Europe and in China, mai nly independen tly of each other. During the 30s-60s, considerable
contributions were made by Li Yan and Tsyan Baolzun, and by M ikami, who continued his
invest igations; however, they wrote m~ i nly in Chinese and Japanese and, for a long time their
boo ks and papers were accessib le to only a few European or American hi storians of science
(now the number of si nolo!? ists and historians of mathematics have increased). That is why
 468 {I.. P. YUSHKI'iV(CII

the publication of a generalised work on the 1llalhcml\tic .~ ol'China, by tlw EIlBlisil Ilinplogist
(and biologist) J. Needharn, was an event of great signJficil!H;e; N8~dh!Hn wrutG U1is bopk
(1959) in collaborat ion with the Chinese mathematic ian Wnng I... ing. Later on the work
gathered momentum in China and in Europe. Many of the Clllilsicn! works of Chinese
mathematics were trans lated in the European languages , and books w~re wrl~len about the
great mathematic ians of China. From among these trans lations one mllst firs t of atl] mention
the Russian ed ition of the tracts of the so- called "Ten Book,~"! whiGh h<lve been prpvigcg
with commentaries. The last of these "Ten Books" was wrilten ill Ih!} 7th century and, Ih!,!
earlier "Ni ne Books of Mathematics" were published some where near the b(}I£~n!1in~ of
the Christian Era. E.I. Bereozkina's translat ions of these work~ were publishe4 in th~ pt; rioq
1957-1985; and in 1980 she initially summed lip the result ,~ of her investigations in a I>pecial
monograph, wherein she has considered the altainmenls of the mltlhCllltlli chms of China upto
the beginning of the 14th century, but somewhat more br'iefly. K,Vogcl prepared a G~rman
trans lation of the "Nine Books of Mathematics" (1968) and, this is accompanied by hi~ own
commentaries. A collection of papers on the same book and on its most irnportant
commentary, composed in the 3rd century by Liu Huei, has been published in 198Z, in the
Chinese language, along with an English resume. The authors of these popers ~ Bai Shanshu,
Li Di, Shen Kanshen and others - made a significant contribution to It fuller study of the "Nine
Books of Mathematics". [The present author is greatful to A.K. Volko v, for transl~ting parts
of the big chapters of this collection, as well as Shen Kanshen's review (1985) of S. r.
Bereozkina 's book (1980) mentioned above - from Chinese. Kunshen has justly stressed
the importance of the commentaries of Liu Huei, in his review of Bereozkilln.] For nearly one
and a half thousand years the mathematicians of China, on very many inst~'nces, look their
cue from these "Nine Books of Mathematics", and this explains the special nttention that ha s
been paid 10 it; see: the bibliography prepared by the German sinologisl O. Kogclshats ( 1981).
The epoch of pre-decline flowering of mathematics - above all of algebra and theol:Y of
numbers - in ancient China of 13th century, has been the subject matter of a number of
important investigations. A Belgian scholar U. Libbrecht (1973) made a detailed study of
a treatise by Tsin Tsziu Shao; Leim Lai Young, who works in Singapore, publi shed (1977)
an Eng lish translation of a treatise by Yang Hue; J. Go (1977) published a French translation
of the works of Zhu Shijie, and used therein the special symbo lism devised in Ihat epoch. K.
Shemi (1982),just like Go, used a semi-symbolic language, in his doctoral dissertation on an
algebraic tremise of Li Ye - a contemporary of Qin Jiushao . Unfortunately. this dissertation,
as we ll as a much earlier work by another French sino[ogist K. Shrimpf (1963), on the
mathematics in China upto the 7th century, has not been published.
In this connection, special mention must be made of the papers of Ho Pen-Iok (Malaya) 011
Qin Jiushao, Zhu Shijie, Li Zhi (or Li Ye), Li u Huei and Yang Hue, in the 3rd, 8th and 14th
volumes of the American Dictionary of Scientific Biography [22].
As a result of all these investigations our knowledge of the development of mathematics
in China., has been greatly extended. It appears now that its arithmetico-algebraic component
is richer than what it was thought to be, in the beginning of this century. At the same time, a
number of questions remain unsolved and far from all the important primary sources have
been studied till date. Undoubtedly, there had been mulual interaction among the rnathematicses
 CI"UNA

of China, India and the Arab cou nt ries, which was rcOected cvcn in Europc : thc migration
'"
of sim ilar or identical proble ms, and not m,~rely the tledu<;lions const ructed upon the shaky
princip le of post hoc ergo propter hoc. testify to this e ffect Modern historians of
mathematics do takc nOle of all these moments, bu t by far not all of them arc clear and
definitive.
P. Liu kei has advanc~d a hypothesis aboullhe transfere nce oft ho rule of IWO false positions
and o f the meth ods of extragling the squa re roots ano cvbe roots of rnt ionlll numbers, to the
Arab counlries from China; but it lacks certitude. Pc rhaps the Brlgian sinologilit L. van Hee
was th e first to put forward the idea, prevalent ti ll recellt ti lnes, thllt Lill Huci solved the
prob lem of measuring inaccessible objects and the disl(lIlces tlpto thelll! by bas ing himself
upon th e simil arity of tmin gles . According to a recently adVllllcQd hypothesis, liu Huei
lI sed some methods which are c haracterestic of the Greek geomelrical algffOra. W e have
a lrcady mentioned the noteworth y proxi mity, of the treatment of the basic ideas of
geometry, in one of the works of th e Moist schoo l 4t h ce ntury B.C., wi th a somew hat earlier
ancient Greek treatment of the same. Exactly in the sa me way, the similarity between Liu
Huei's methods of approximate ca lculat ion and those found in Archimcdes' "Measu rement
of Ci rcle" - notwithstanding thei r inessenti al technical d ifferences - has been mentioned
more than once. All of this leads 10 an idea about the ex istence of sc ien tific contacts
between Chi na and the Hellenic countries: trade was conducted between China a nd the
Roman empire. In the more recent years an observation of D.R. Wagner (1978), to the effect
that the ancient Chinese malhematicians used the so-called principle of Cava lieri, in the ir
studies of the problem of cubature of a sphere, has become an object of specia l interest in
Europe; apparently, it was known much earl ier, to Mi kami (1 have not yet been able to veri fy
it). T he history of this question is as fo llows. Liu Huei expressed the volume of a sphere in
terms of the vo lume of a body, contained within the surfaces of two cy linders, inscribed
in a cube and having mutually perpend icu lar axes, but he cou ld not determine the vo lume of
this body. h is very likely that Liu HlIc r used the so~called principieofCavalieri, though
Ihis principle has not been formu lated in any of his texts known to us. We first come across a
formulation of this principle in the 5th cen tury, in the writings of Zu Chongzhi. [It is
difficult to translate this for mul ation with exactitude, as thc corrcsponding terms do not
. have fully determinate mathematical significance in latter Ch in ese speech; while re ferring
to Anaximander's concept of "ape iron", we have already mentioned the possibi lity of
non~univoca l understanding and translati on of th e anl,; ient terms.] Zu Cho ngzhi's son Zu Heng
applied this principle and fou nd out that the volume of such a body is equal to the 2/3 of the
cube, which g ives us the cubature of a sphere. It is remarkable that the result of Zu Heng
has been formulated in the 2nd proposition of Archimedes' "Ep istle to Erastophenes"; in thi s
work the method of ind ivisibles has been regularl y used for heuristic purposes (but not for
obtaining any "strict" proof); unfortunately, the concl usion of thi s proposit ion, contained
at the end of the "Epistlc", is not known to us. We do not find a statement of the "Princ iple of
Cavalieri" in th e Greek texts known to us, however, Archimedes' quadrature of the e llipse,
viewed as the resu lt of co mpressing a circle. leads to the thought, that in essence, this principle
had been used by him intuitively. Personally to me it seems plaus ibl e, that there had been a
Greek influence upon the infi nites imal methods of the Ch inese mathematicians of the
3rd~5th centuries.
470 A . P. YUSI-IKEV1 CH

On this score Leim and Shen Knnshcll display greater restraint (1985), wheil they say
that Liu Huei's text contain~ no evidence of a Greek influence; such an influence is discernible
only later on, in the works of Mei Wendong - a mathematician active in the 17th-18th
centuries.
On tne whole, however significan t may the achievements in the study of Chinese pri mary
sources be, still a very great amount of work remains ahead of LIS. Perhaps one of our primary
tasks is to study all the hitherto known commentaries on the "Nine Books of Mathematics",
which shed light upon the methods employed for solving those various problems, which we
!lOW ~ I<l ssj fy as algebraic, number-theoreti cal and geometrical. The Chinese treatises,
beginning witn the "Nine Books of Mathematics", do not conta in any proof, there we find
on ly laconic mention of the methods of solv in g the problCTi1s; the subSlantiations of these
methods are often met with in the commentaries. More than thirty years ago I expressed the
opinion, that it would be unjust to judge the mathematics of China on the basis of its collections
of exercises, that here and in the case of the mathematics of ancient Orient (and, I add,
of Indi a), we mus~ distinguish between the manner of presenting a discipline in the text books,
from the creat ive elaboration of the met hods of investigation which preceeds it.Both in China
and in Europe, the stud y of these commentaries tire, in essence, in their early stage. Recently,
A. K. Volkov examined the commentaries on the rules for calculating some areas (1985) and,
therein he noted that in th~ mathematics of ancient China, the very concept of "proof' and the
"systems of proofs", have their own spec ific characteri stics: not an axiomatic theory,
but a theory of moqels happen to be a more adequate anal ogue of the ancient Chinese logical
system, and their criteria for deciding about the correctness of propositions correspond to
this; this question deserves a more detailed study. The intensive work that is being carried
ou ~ in thi s 'field in China, USSR (now erstwhile ~ Tr.), France, FRG (now Germany - Tr.),
and in the other countries, will soon yield new results and, onc may say, newer postulation
of the problems too. The development of mathematics in C hin a beyond the c lassical period,
i.e. in the 14th eentl,l ry and afterwards, has not at all been touched upon here.
India. While dealing with S.L. van der Waerden's hypothesis about Neolithic mathematics,
we have already mentioned the latest investigations o n the history of mathematics in In dia.
Apart from the more detailed a nalysis of the works of individual mathematicians like
Shriphar or Mahavir (A. L Volodarsky, 1966, 1969), the reconstruction of the sol uti ons of
,
some problems in the Apaslamba "$ulva-sutras" (A. I. Raik and V. N. Ilin, 1974), the recent
observations pf R. Singh (1985) apout the so-called Fibonacci numbers of 7th~8th century
Indian mathematics or, the works on the hi story of Indian astronomy by D. Pingri (USA, 1963)
and A. K. Bag (India, 1966~), the most interesting attempts in this field were concerned
with the exact determination of the connections of Indian scie nce with the science of the other
regions and, with its place in the over<l ll progress of mathematics. The aforementioned
boo k by Al. Volodarsky contains an overall survey of the work done prior to 1977. [Here
the reference is to: Volodars~y A. I. Ocherki srednevckovoi indiisko i matematiki (Esays
pn M ~pieval Indian Mathem~tics ). M.: Nauka, [977, 182 pages. - Tr.] It appears that,
com parati ve analysis. must be further ~onti!lued in this direction. It is a fa.c t, Ihal here the
investigator hflS to face a deficiency of exact informations, so much so, that even the
emrgence and tIle ea r1i ~r stages of development of the now common ly accepted system
of decimal positional numeration, remain largely unclear.
 ARAB MATHEMATICo;; 471

Arab Math ematics. Durin g the last quarter cent ury, our ideas about medieval Arab
millhe matics have changed no less substantially , than th ose nbout mathematics in China. The
term Arab Math ematics has struck roots and comes in hnndy, though in fnct. at issue here is
th e mathe mat ics of the people of many co untries[where at a given period of time Arabic has
been the princi pal language of science - Tr.}, stretc hing from the Pyrenea n pen insula, through
the northern , Mediterranean regions of Afri ca, Near Ea.s t, Centra l As ia and furth e r ahead,
rough ly UplO the present borders of Chi na and India fin the case of India it shou ld mean
upto the Ind in-Burma border of Mu ghnl Ind ia and, in ea.se of C hina - at least UplO the eastern
borders of Sinkiang or Chinese Turkestan - Tr.]. The sourccs of Arab math cmati cs remain
largely lIninvestigated, they go back 10 the mathematics of Babylo n and Egypt, a large
number of Hellen ic states, Byzantine, and to the science of anc ient Khwarazm, not to speak of
the mu ch later influences which came throug h th e co ntacts with China. India etc. Here onc
may put fo rward a number of questions, but in the absence of exact data. it would be Illorc than
difficu lt to answer them. We have left o ut s uc h qu esti ons in the present paper. BUI o ne must
at once make one observation about the ex press ion "Arab Mathcmat ics" .We arc unable to
find a similarly brief ex press ion, which may be a substitute for it; but one has 10 st ress the
fact that even a brief bibl iographical survey of the original literature shows the spec ial
s ig nificance of the con tributions of the mathematic ians of Central Asia and, this jus tifies a
scparate treatme nt of the history of mathematics of Central Asia of the peri od under
considerat io n, in a number of books. Whe n o ne deals with the cu ltural developments of the
Central Asian Republics of the USSR (now ClS - Tr.J, which were, quite understandably,
closely connected with the cu ltu re of those leg ions. where Arabic o r Persian had been the
pricipal language of the scholars, then such a separate Ireatment becomes essential.
A more detailed study of the a lready known Arab works, and , to 11 greater exten t, an
ana lysis of a large number of mathematical manu sc ripts preserved ill the vari ous libraries and
arch ives. showed that med ieval Arab mathemati cs did atta in a sc ien tific level, which is much
hig her than what it was earlier thought to be. It goes without sayin g, that the mastery of the
Greek scientific heritage, which was one of the consequences of Arab expansion and of the
formation of the Arab states in the territories that were earlier under the rule of Rome, was
of great sign ificance for the progress of sc ientific and phil osophical ideas in these states, whic h
was oft e n supported (and sometimes opposed) by the rulers of these states as th ey changed
hand s.!t is enough to me nti on the scienti fic sc hool of Bagdad . of the end of the 8th-9th
cen turies , which blossomed soon after the stabilization of the Caliphate of Bagdad and , the
Samarkhand sc hool of the first half of 15th century, during the ru le of Ulugbeg. Thanks 10
the opportu nity of quick assimilation of the heritage of Greek ideas and the very turn of
thinking, the sc ience of the Caliphate of Bagdad found itself in a s ituatio n that was much
more favourable than the one in which sc ience found itse lf in India and, even mo re compared
to the s ituation in far off China. But an ent irely wro ng approach to Arab science, includin g
Arab mathematics is prevale nt till date ; accord ing to this interpretatio n Arab sc ie nce is
nothing but a transmission point between Greece and Rome on one side and the Europe of
the middle ages and of th e beg inning of the modern times on the other. Thi s concept io n was
cl early formulated by E.Renan, more than hundred years ago. in 1863. It was he w ho put
the ex press ion "ttie Greek miracle" into circu lati on and, cons idered Arab science to be a
refl ecti o n of f reek science, combined with the innuences which came fro m Pe rsia and India.
472 A. P. YUS HKEV ICII

In de fen ce of his thes is Renan adduced even philo logical cOlIsltlcrations : he, and not he
alone, thought that the Indo-El1ropean languages arc Inore ilL1ltrtblc for e;.: preSs[n~ abstrac t
concep ts. than the Semiti c ones etc. Howevcr. RCilan was not nl\ historian af scHtr1t:t\ liut his
ideas were developed by such important spcc illli sts ht the nbld Ms P.tannerl alid P,Duhtm;
these opinions are shared by some of the leadi ng sciloiars eVe!! to-day. This Eu rocentri c
co nceptio n of history of science, does not correspond to till! Ilc! ual course of scien tific
progress. and it has been criti cised many a limes in the Sov iet, as well as in th e foreign literature.
What is spec ial about Arab mathematics is th is. that here wc fi nd it magnificent development
of certai n trends which originated in Greek or Indlm'l tlIuthelllatk!l and, sci n\e important
advances in new directi ons. It would be enough to cite some e){ul1l11lcs ~
The first syste matic construction of the decimal posHionni arlthtt1etic, the princip les or
which were, however, borrowed fro m the Hindu s. Introdud loil of decimal fractions and the
method of extracting the II-th roots, by usi ng binomial e){pansltll'ls ( 1Ith-15lh tenluri es); the 'i
different numerical methods for solv ing algebiaic equations, and be~ldl!81h l sl an extlmp le of
approx.imate solution of a transcendental equat ion, wi th the help or sUccessiVe ltel'atlOI1§;
extension of Diophantmc ana lys is. solution of indclcnni llUIt1 linear ~}'S I~ll1SI \)fOpcrl ies bf
the friendly numbers, Wilson's theore m (9th- I Oth c cnturie ~) .
. An original theory of ratios and proportions; extension of the CO h C6 ~t of number to
the positive irrationa l numbers; arithmeti zation of the ancient tenchil1g;s on cjUath'atic
and biquadrat ic irrationalities (9th- [3 th centuries).
Isolatio n of numerical algebra together with the nlgebm of PolYltomlti l ~ lIs fin tlldepehdel'H
science; a developed geometrical theo ry of cubic equat ions and, a geotnetrlcnl theory of
the equati ons of fourth power ( 15th century , the corresponding treatise Is yet t6 be traced).
Diffe re nt theories of the parallels, connected with the attempts 10 prove the 5th postulate of
Euclid (9th -13 th cemuries). -
A reco nstruction of the 8th book of the "Con ic SectiOtls" of APbl16hius (9th cent ury).
New quadratures and cubatures (9th- 10th centuries).
In this list we have not speciall y isolated those trends and resu lts, where Ihe Arab
mathematicians happened to be pi oneers; it is enough to stale that where they broke ent irely
new tra il s. they wen t considerably furth er than thei r predecessors. We have ne ither mentioned
the names of these mathematicians, nor the names of those histori ans of scie nce, who have of
lale elaborated or are co ntinu ing to e laborate upon the entirety of th is vas t comple){ of
disc iplines, theories and problems: the lists of either of the m would be very large; one may
find these names in the corresponding literature. [See, for examp le ,' Matvievskaya G.P.,
Rozen!eld B.A., Matematiki i aSlronomy musuilman skovo srednevekov iya i ikh tl'ud y
(V III-XVn vv.)! Mathematic ians and Astrono mers of the Muslim Middle Ages and their works
(8th - 17th centuries)!; in 3 volumes (479+650+372 pages) , M. : Nauka, 1983. - Tr.). But
in view of the special importance of the question of eva luation of th e role of Arab
mathe matics in the subsequent forward movement of mathematics - a questi on. which has
already been touched upo n - it is essen ti al to dwell upon it. As we have no ted above, Ren an' s
eva lu ation of the iss ue. continues to find its su pporters even in our time. B.L. van der Waerden
stic ks to a clear cut Eurocentric position . He came Forward with the follow in g sketc h of the
emergence of modern science, in a sem inar he ld in Oxford in 1961 [25J, while discussi ng
 ARA B MATHEMATICS

J, Needham's paper on science in China, He said, Newton's mechanics is the basis of modern
science, where in three threads remain int ertw ined - eac h of which has emanated from
Grcece. The first among thcm is the planetary astronomy, leadin g to Coperniclls and Keplcr,
i.e . 10 the necessary prerequisites o f Newton's mechanics. The second thread: Newton's lIse
of Apollon ius' conic sections and of the e ntire structu re of the Greek axiomatic geometry,
which served as Ihe mode l for Newton's axiomatic mechanics. The third thread emerges
rrom the Greek mechanics of Arch imedes and of some other sc holars. There exi sts no doubt
about the en ormous significance of the Greek heritage for the sciences of modern Europe, and
that includes the work of Newton . But only the Greek heritage was not e nough for it. The
discoveries of Copcrnicus, Kepler and Newton are essentially based upon the Arab
traditions of a highly deve loped Jlew algebra and tri gonometric system. The intertwining of
the Greek and the Arab threads of scientific development and the ir subsequ ent creative
synthesis in the mathematics , mechanics and astronomy or medieval Europe, had provided the .
necessary prerequisites here .Not a ll the attainme nts of th e sciences of the Arab countri es, were
known in medieval Europe, and a lot of it had to be discovered anew. But often , even a
fra gmentary introd uction of the results of the Arah investi gatio ns, served as points of departure
for important trend s in modern European mathemati ca l thought. Such, for exa mple, ha s
been the case with the Arab theory of paralle l li nes, an acquaintance with which in t11e 17th
centu ry played an imponant role in the first stage of evolution of the nOIl -Euclidean
geometry.
All the same, if the sources of the sciences of modern Europe go back not onl y to Ancient
Greece, but also to the countries of the East. and the terms "western science" and "eas tern
science" become admissible only with so me stipulations - the mathematics of medi eval
Europe did have its own speci fi cities, whic h were onl y very insign ifican tly, or nOI at all,
c harac teristic of the other .times or regions. Two of these had a very import ant or even
determining signifi cance for the formation of th e math ematics of the modern period.
Here, first of all. we have in view, the creation and syste matic perfecting of symbo lic
algebra, in the 13t h-16th centu ries. The timid steps taken in this direction, in the Moorish
countries. are not going to be taken into account here : Ihanks to the march of worl d history,
these steps cou ld nOI be continued, and they fai led to exert any influence upon the
subsequent progress of mathe matics. The formation of symbolic algebra was of imme nse
significance for the enti re further deve lopment of mathe matics, and for deve top ments
beyond its boundaries; it was Le ibnitz who first evaluated the role of symbo lism inhuman
thought. Idea- and time-wise, the progress of symbolic algebra came along with suc h
attainments of the 16th century, as the so lu tion of the equat ions of 3rd and 4th power into
radi cals and , the introduction of imaginary numbers . He re the math ematic s of Europe broke
an unbeaten trail and this led to results of truly universal sign ificance for the entire system
o f physico-mathc mlltica l sc iences.
Another characteristic spec ifici ty of the mathematics of medi eval Eur~pe was con nected
with the di stinctive devel opmen t of some ancient natural-philosophic and sc ient ific ideas,
which , to a s ignifi cant extent, go back, on the one hand to Ari stotle and hi s school, and on the
other - to Pythago reani sm and to Plato. Here, medieval (European) mathematical thoug ht
went far beyond th e boundaries of that e lementary mathematics, wh ich was then known in
all the four reg ions cons idered in Ihis paper. On th e one hand, it was the program me of
60
 A . P YUSIIKEVI CII
'"
mathematizl.ltion of the entire world of knowledge, put forward by the schola r from Oxford
R. Grosseteste and hi s pupil R. Bacon, and together with it the development o f experimental
method and of the technical means of scientific investigations. On the other hand, il was the
first, but already fully perceptib le growth of the infinitesimal mathemat ics of a new lype,
e laborated first of all in the universities of Oxford and Paris (Sorbonne). An in principle new
developme nt o f the infinitesimal ideas took place here, and then also in the,. other uni versities
of Europe. T ogether with th is renewal and the deepening of the ancient discussions aboul lhe
nature of the infinite in both of its forms, o f the potential and the actual infi nity, continuity
and disc reteness etc., with m a short while, as has been poi mcd OU I by N.Bourbnki, the
fo undations of a theory of change of magniludcs, viewed as functions of time, and 01' their
graphic representation, were laid down - true, in a rudimentary form. The English (T.
Bradwardine, R. Swineshead etc. ) and th e French (especially, N. Ores me) scholars of th e 14th
century made a bo ld attempt to quant ify the bnsically qualitative natural philosophy of the
Peri patetics , with the he lp of infinites imal ideas. First of all, a new interpretation was given
to those sections of Aristotle's physics, wherein the interrelations of force and motion nnd ,
force nnd res;stance has been conside red - nnd this turned out 10 be especially important
for further developmen ts; in other words, a reconstru ction of the Peripatetic mechanics was
unde rtake n; afler that, all kind of changes of the continuous, and partly also of the piece-wise
broken, measurnble quantities or, in the terminology of the Pcripatetics, the intensification
- strengthenin g and remission - weakening of all kinds of "forms" or qualities,like hcat,
colour etc., as well as of goodness, si n e tc. - the varying intensity of which were dependent
upon the ir extensity - the s pread of their intens ity over finite or infinite intervals in space or
lime, were subjected to mathematical treatmenl. Here the simplest or mechanical movement ,
i.e. spa tial di~placcment too belongs 10 the category of form. Generally speaking, not
theologica l or et hical, but rather nat ural -scientifi c, and in the firs t place mechan ical intensi ty,
is althe centre o f interests here.
A quite vasl literature has been devoted to these theories of the Oxford and Paris schools,
wh ic h were extremely close idea-wise, thoug h coloured, so to say, in different tones ( the
English worked out their "calculations" fit a more abstract-qu~ntitative level; and the French
"theory of widths and lengths or forms" made wide use of the graphic representations, which,
however, were not alien . to the "ca lculators"). Th e works of P. Duhem, published in the
beg inning of Ihe 20th cen tu ry, laid the foundations of the studies in this field; however, V.P.
Zubov (1948) ha s convincing ly demonstrated that Duhem was not at all impartial in hi s
judgements. Here, once again, it is not possible to go into the details, and, by way of
eval uatin g the teachings under considerat ion, it is enou gh 10 stale thai, therei n we already
find the formation of an idea 'of variability - flow (flux us) of magniludes , of momentary
speed and accelaration, for which suitable, even Latin, terms were introduced and, the basic
law a nd the other properties of uniformly accelarating motion were proved at an ent irely
abstract leve l, not connected with physics.
The ca leulntioll!i and the !heory of widths and length s of form s became quite widely
known in the 15th and 16th centuries, first through manuscripts, and then throug h printed
publications and, in the university-level teaching o f a number of countries. Duri ng the last
quarter of a ce ntury, a very large number of investigations have been devoted to this
trend of medieval European mathematics, and th is includes the publication of many
 MODERN AGE 415

manuscripts; togeth er with thi s, thc illfucllce exerted by this trend upon the formation of
the "mathematics of variable quantities" ( A.N. Kol mogo l'Ov 's term) ill the 17th ce ntury
- on Galileo, Napier, Barrow, Newto n and hi s sc hoo l, and very likel y also 011 Descartes
and Leibnitl. - has been s tudied in g rea ter detai l. Of cou rse, the re has been 110 mention of
the beginnings o f ana lytical geometry and of infin itesi mal ana lysis. of lay ing the ir
foundations, in the schoo ls of Oxford and Paris: at issue here are the anticipations o f and the
ideational preparations for the just mentioned sections of mathematics. the foundat ions of
which were laid in the 17th century. In particular. such ideational con nect ions arc evident
in the terminology of Newton's" meth od of nu xions" and. in the fact thrll till date. in
differe nt languages, we use the exp ress ion" n owi ng coordinates" (the terms "variable",
"fu nction" and "coordinates" were introdu ced by Lei bnitz). Ti[[ date. the works of V.P.
Zubov (1962 and 1965) re main the best Russi an work in thi s fi e ld (the seco nd book was
published posthumously) but, naturally. the res ults of the later investigations could not b~
incl uded in them.
Modem Age. In what fo llows, we s hall be prov iding an even more fra gmentary survey of
the changes, that ou r notions about the historica l past of mathemati cs have undergone. and
we sha ll be illustrating it with only a few exam ples. Choice of, the examp les will bc. to a
cons iderable extent, connected with the recent archival in vestigation s and , they are aimed at
s howing how these investi gations are important for makin g our know ledge, not o nl y of the
medieval mathematics, but al so of the mathematics o f the modern and recent times, morc e xact.
Onc of the greatest events in this area has been the publication of th e eight volumes of
the mathematical manu scripts of Newton, edited by D.T.Whites idc and hi s colleagues
( 1967-1981) . ThiS editio n contain s excellent commentaries. It has funda mental ly changed
OLLr ideas about the scientific career of Newton and about the c hro no logy of his discoveries.
We ha ve also come to know of those o f his d iscove ries, which remained unpublished in
his li fetime. ow ing to va rious. and not always clear, reasons. Thus, Newton discovered the
ex pansions of Tay lo r and M acLaurin ; he was the first to auempt an ax ioma ti zati oll of the
method of flux ions; he proposed remarkable examples of asymptotic seria l ex pansions etc.
Almos t simultaneous ly. A.R.Hall brought out a 7-volume edition of the complete
correspondence o f Newton ( 1959-1977). Here . V. Boss' book on th e sp read orthe ideas and
di scoveries of Newton in 18th centu ry Ru ssia ( 1972), deserves special menti on.
The work o n the sc ie ntific legacy of Leibnitz has been less suc,:.ccssfu !; often hi s
manuscripts are found to be chaotic in character and can be read on ly with g reat difficulty.
[There are nearly 75000 separate work s of Le ibnil z, preserved in the Le ibni tz Archi ves of
Hanover, and many of them remain unpubli shed till date. On this see: Katolin L., "Mee byli
togda derzhkimi parn yam i ...... M ., "Znanie", 1979, p. 70. - Tr.] Study of Leibnitz's legacy
began long ago, but, in sp ite of many inleresting resu lts obta ined so far. the princ ipa l work
remains ahead of us. Some of the important relevant publications in the field are: the I Sl volume
of Leibnitz's mathematical, nalural scientific and techni cal correspondence. pertai ning to the
period 1672-1676, publis hed by l.E.Hofmann ( 1976); the same J-Ioffmann prepared a detailed
name index to th e e ntirelY of Leibnitz' S corresponde nce ( 1977) ;. E. Knob loc h published a
dialogue by Leibnitz , which contained, among other things. the firsl clear ex press io n o f the
idea of multidime nsiona l space (1976); three volumes of the publications and investigations
 A. P. YUS II K[i.V ICH
'"
of E.Knobloch (1973 ·1 980) are devoted to Lcibnil1.' S works on combinatorics nnd theory of
determinants; th e two vo lumes of the pape rs rend al lh e Leibni tz· se minars of Hnnover, 1966
( \ 969) and Pari s( 1978); and the complete chron ic le o f the life and work o f Lcibnitz. prepared
by K. Muller and G. Krenert (\969). Some of the publi shed works in the fie ld deal with
Lcibnitz's treatment of the problem of foundations of the diffe rential calc ulus; here , the
emergence and deve lopmen t of non-standard .mal ys is has led to a rc-assessment of the earl ie r
cvalu~tio n s of .the relevant contributions of Le ibnitz; Ihis ho lds good for Newton 100.
Finally. onc must mention A.B.Steckan's ( 1952) investi gations on the first nnalog int egrato rs,
invelltd by Leibnitz and Newton, as wc ll as by Ch. Huygcns and Jo h. Bcrnou lli.
Here onc must a lso mention the decp-going investigations on the history of Jacob
Bernoulli's work on th e theory o f probabi lities - based, to a considerab le ex len t upon archivlIl
materials - and the publication of hi s fundamen tal work in thi s field of mathematics the" Art
of Suppos itio ns"(as well as those related to the early stage of the sp read o f his ideas),
conducted by B.L.van der Waerden, K. Ko li and Vu . Henin ( 1975). Yn . V.Uspensky's
Russia n translatio n of the basic theoreti cal part of thi s work, whic h was subjected 10 deep
going analysis by A.A.Markov (1913), has been reissued recent ly with Vu. V. Prokhorov's
and O .V.Shein in 's commentaries ( 1986); A. Hold ( 1984) and the present atuhor ( 1986) too
dea lt with a number of re lated questions.
Limiting ourselves on ly to the archi va l legacy ofl he most oustanding mathematicians,
we must now go over to L . Euler. Here a greal amount of work has been done involving close
cooperation amon g the sc hol ars o f USSR, GDR, France and Switzerland. In vie w of th e variety
of the work done, wc shall have to limit ourselves to li sting the basic publications. Th ese
are: a complete description of the materials pertaining to Euler preserved in the archives of
AS USS R (1962) and a part of his scientific d iaries. a complete desc ripti on of the materials
preserved in the arch ives of AS GDR ( 1984), 3 volumes o f Eu ler's letters to the Peterburg
Academey of Sciences from Berlin (1959-1976) , an annotated index of the complete
correspondence of Eu ler-published in Russian ( 1967) and, a considerably stlpplemen ted
German edition o f il - published as volu me I of series TV of [he Complete Collected Work s
of Euler ( 1975). Vo lume V of this series contains the correspondence with Cln iraut.
d'Alembert and Lagrange (1980), and Volume VI - the co rrespondence with Maupertui s
and Freidrich If (1986). So far, volume IV has been issued in anot he r edi ti o n, which
contains th e correspondence wit h Goldbach ( 1976). All these vol umes are being supplied with
a la rge apparatus of commentaries; the publication of series IV continues. These fuller
studies of the archi va l mate rial s pertaining to Euler and their publication has been connected
with some memorial years re lated to his life - 1957, 1982 and 19R3 [ L. Euler was born in
1707 and he d ied in 1783, thus his 2S0th birth anniversary fell 011 1957, 275th birth
anniversary - on 1982 and. 200th anniversary of hi s death - on 1983. - Tr.land with the
ho ldin g of various conferenccs and meetings, as well as with the publication of some
col lections contain ing the papers read in these confere nces and the papers spec ially written for
these coll ectio ns. The sum total o f all this work has given rise to a much deeper awareness
about the works and sc ience-organ izat iona l activities o f Ihis g reat mathe matician of the
18th cen tury and of a number of his outstand ing contemporaries, about the scientific contacts
between the Ac.ademies of Sciences of Petcrbu rg, Berlin and Pari s, as well. as th oiie among
 MODERN ACIl 471

the other scient ific collectives and edllcutiollal institutions. We should add here, that the
publiclltion of some of the volumes of series H of the Complete Collected Works of Euler. in
particular of his works on rml.lhematical physics (1960) and, on the rheory of ship (1978),
have also considerably enriched ou r knowledge of the mathematics of 18th century.
The number of new books on the history of mathemlltics of the 19th and 20th centuries
considerably surpass all the above mentioned and related publiculions. In what follows, wc
shall be limiting ourselves to brief comments on some of the newer publicnlions on the
histories of mathematical analysis, Iheory of sets and , theory of functions of the real vnriable.
Thus, the manu sc ript entit led "Dissertations on the Theory of Mathematicnl Infinily",
presented in 1785 by L. Co.rnot in the competition organised by the Acudemy of Science!'!
of Berlin. anounced at the initimive of Lagnmge, has been published (1970, 1979), At that
time Lagrnnge was the Director of the Mnthernotics Class of the AClIdcmy und , he did nO!
approve Carnot's manuscript, and Ihlll is why it remained unpublished. Out it is undoubtedly
an interesting work. 'fhls wns the first variant orCurnot's widely known"Mcditntions on the
Metaphysics of Infinitesimnl Cnlculu!i" ( 1797, 2nd cd. 1813). CarnOI'!i basic idea -
substantiation of nnaly sis upon the principle of compensation of errors, doting bllCk to O.
Berkelcy - is one and the same in the rnonuscript und in the published version, but the
"Disserlu!io n" contains some lmpor'tnnt moments anticipating Cauchy's reform: an
understanding of the infinitesimal a.~ 11 vari:Il>le, of the con nection between Ihis concept nnd
the concept of limit, and even an attempt at synthesizing the th eory of limits toget her
with its"slrictness" and the infinitesimal ca lculus along with its OIlgorithmic attainments. It
is true Ihat Carnot could not succeed here, !lnd all this was succe!lsfully done by Cnuchy. New
light has olso been thrown upon the so-called theory of limits of d' Alembert, This name
does not quite exactly renee! Ihe role or d' Alembert in the elaboration of the theory of limits
: he was rather a successful propagandist of this theory, which wns still in need of some
important specifications IInd development; N, BQurbaki's evaluation or c1'Alornbert's
definition of the limil as "very clear", is an overstlllemcnt. Lhuilier's book - written under
the influence of d' Alembert, bu t providing a broader treatment of the concept of limit. ns has
been noted by E,S,Shatunova (1966) - won the prize in the above mentioned co mpet ition,
. Archival searches have also thrown n new li ght upon some aspects of the work ofCauchy.
The beginning of the proof sheets of the second part of his famous courl\e of lectures in the
Poly technical School has been found, and this has finally enabled us to date the proof of
Cmrchy's famous theorem about the ex.istence of solutions for the system of first order
differentinl equations, and lIt the same time to exp lain the real\on impeding the publication
of Ihis second part, and namely the differencos of Cauchy with th e th en more influential
professors of the Polytechnic, on the question of level of leaching of analysis in the
Polytechnic (K. Jilen, 198 I). The materials aVllilable in the archives of Paris have also enabled
us to specify the exact nature of M. V. OSlrogradsky's and V. Ya. Bunyakovsky's
participation in the elaboration of Cauchy's theory of residues, at its ea rl y stage ( 1824·1826)
and in its first applications in mechanics and in the theory of heat (investigations and
publications of the present au thor and V.A.Antropova, 1965; V.S.Kirsanov, N.S.Ermolaeva.
1985). Here, onc of the manu sc ripts of Ostrogradsky. presented at the Academy of Paris in
the beginning of 1826. deserves spec ial mention: herein Ostrogradsky's famous integral
formula has been formulated and proved for the first time and thereby his priorityJlas been
 A. I' YUSI 'IKEVICII

finally established _ . it has at times ben subjected 10 doubt; here wc find the first
genera li sat ion Qflh~ nlCthod used by Fouricr. during 1807-1822, for solving the problem
Qf Pf9P~~~(jon gf hpiI!. where!!l the ideas of D. Bernoulli and Eulcr were developed.
~ubs~quently, the authol' of (his work presentd it ill It sOlllewhat revised form, to the Peterburg
Academy o(Sciences in 1828 and, it was published in Ihe Transactiops of the Academy ill
1831. In 1827 OSlrogradsky sU(lmiued another memorandum 10 the Academy of Paris - on
the propagation of hC:lt ill the ripht prism, having an Isoseele., right angled triangle as its
base. He: conveyed his so luti on 10 G. Lame, who published his own enunc iation o f it in
1861, bllt the Russian tran~latiQn of Ostrogradsky's memorandum was published o nl y in
!965, Yel qnother valuable archiv:l1 materi;lI, to some extcnt close 10 the one mentioned
above, namely, the notes of Ostrogrndsky's lectures on th e theory of definite integrals, read in
the years 1858-1859, in th l;! hall of th e Eng ineering Ac;lderny, has been published by
V.I.Antropoy~ (196 1). Here Illany special integrals hllve been computed wit h the help
of CaucllY's theory of rcs idues and an originally enunc iatcd thcory of mult iple integra ls.
In thi s connecti 91l, here it must be mentioned, that in the 19th ilnd early 20th centuries
courses or differing volpn1c!:I on the theory of definite integrals - compu ted this way or
that, whcn the corresponqi ng prototypes w~re not elementary functions or th eir superposi l ions
- wer~ read in mflny universilie~. P.L. Chel:!yshev read it for It number of years in the
Unive rsilY pr PeterpuI-g", ps all i1llr09uclory COVf~e, logclhcr with the calculus of finite
di rf!.':ren/:ps. Recently, · N.S.Enno,lilCYf\ foulid the complete notes or the course on theory of
proba lililie.$, read by Chebyshev in the years 1876- 1878, including both the i nt roducto ry parts,
~lIl P ~he r~ad fl paper on it ·in the International Congress of the Bcrnollll i Society. This paper
is hGil]g puplished in the proceedings of the Con~ressl nnd the Illnllllscripts of the said
lectures arc be in g rendlcd ror publication.
The place of honour in the e lnborat ion of the foundatio ns of the mathematica l ana lysis of
19th century belongs to B. Bolzano, who largely anticipated Wcierstrnss, Dl;dekind and G.
c.llltor - b·oth in his genera l conception and in a number of concrcte results. Hi s rcmnrbble
"SlUdies on the Functions" remained in manuscript fo rm for nearly n hundred yeurs, find was
published by K. Rykhlik o nly in 1930, and from among the works published in his lifetime,
spec ial mention mu st be m<lde of the .-brochu re, cpnta inin g n "pure ly analytical" proof of
the theorem about the intermediate values of a continuous fvncllon ~ which too ffiiled to
draw the attention of the leadil~g matl1ematicians immediately. There WllS a gap in Bolzano's
proof : the theory of rea! IlUll1PCrS w,\s not enough for its completion. It hill' been found out
compa rati vely recently, Ihat ~vldently Bolzano hirnselfnoticed thi s gap. In any case the text of
his e laboration of the th eory pf real numbers has been preserved; it predates the const ructions
proppsed later on and i nde p~ndenl l y of each o llter by Weierstrass(1860), Mere (1869), G.
Cantor and Dedeki nd (1872). K. Rykh lik published this text in 1961; he is of the opinion,
Ihut Bolzano's theory, whie!l is not qui te c lear and complete, may be brought up to the level of
modern requirements of strictpess, witho~t substUl1tia l ohanges; on this all the spec ialists are
not in agr~ement wi th him.
Bolzano was nOI o nly a predecessor 9 f Wejerstfass and Dcdekind in the realm of ideas,
Qut it appears - as has been shown by P. Dugak (1973) - th at he influ enced both of
them.Weierstrass set fo rth his c lassical system of mathematical analysis, as well as the theory
 MODERN AGE 479

of analytical functions in his Berlin lectures. Weierstr~tss' published :;OIllC isolated new
resu lts contained in the ! ~ct lLres, but did not publish the course of lectures, as he Was not
satisfi ed with what he attained. Weicrstrass' lectures were coll ected by a d iverse in te rnational
audiencc, but their contents were spread even wider. thanks to the printed ve rsions prepared by
some of his listcners. rn 1973 P. Du gak pub lished high ly in terest ing notes of 4 COU'rses
of lect ures read by We iers trass durin g th e yea rs 1861- 1887, and the co rrespond in g
correspondence of Weierstrass with a number of o lltstandin g mathcmaticians. These material s
substan li aly he lped speci fyi ng the Slages of development of the foundations of class ical
analys is of Wcicrs trass, as well as of hi s system of theory of <t naly tic;1l fun ctions. Of no
Icss importance is P. Dugak's book o n R. Dedekind, publ ished in 1974. Arc hi va l materials
consti tute half of thi s book. These materials are related to Dedekind, o ne way or the ot her;
these are: hi s ma nusc ripts, co rrespondence (in part icular, wilh G. Cantor) - in P(lI't, not
co ntained in th e collect io n of their corres ponde nce publi shed by J . Kavai e.~ ilnd E. Netcr,1ctlers
of many o th e r leading mathematicians etc. Dugak co ns ide rabl y spec ifi ed the
interre lations hip of Canotr's and Dedeki nd' s se t theoretic ideas and the significan ce of
their respecti ve con tributi ons to set theo ry, III the li ght of the subsequent logico-
mathematical investigations right upto K. Godel and P. Cohen. J. Di cudo nlH! briefly
formulated the gene ral conclusio n in hi s forward to this book by Du gak : Cantor's early
work o n countabilllY, rea l numbers and topo logy remai n his. living and fun dament:t llegacy ,
und in these fields Dedekind shares with him, in equa l measure, the cred it fo r laying the
~set theoretic" foundations of the mathemat ics of our times. Unfortunately, P. Dugak failed
to mention F.A .Medvedev's contributions in the e laboration of the history of set theo ry, who
made a detailed and Objective stud y of the connections between G. Cantor's and Dedeki nd's
set theoretic in ves tigations, in a book published in 1965, it is true, however, that he d id not
have at his disposal all the archival matcrials, brought into circu lation by Dugak, who
mentioned Mcd vedcv ' s book on ly in pass ing. It is well known tha t set theory and theory of
funct ions were developed vigorously in o ur country. Thc first shoots of the :vloscow school of
theory of functions, o ft en called the school of D.F.Egorov and N. N. LUl.ill, date back to
the begin nin g of this century. Hence, the interest in the life and work of these scholars and
of their co lleagues and followers, is quite understandable. F.A.Medvedev was the first ( 1959)
to seri ously study the give n stage of the Moscow schoo l. Subsequently, many arc hi val
material s, pertaining to the life and work of the pioneers of thi s .~c h oo l and of their fol lowers,
came to light: Ego rov's letters to Kl e in, those of de la Vall ee-Polls.c;i n to Lu zin , Egorov-Lu"lin
and LU"lil1-Danjua etc. co rresponde nces, Luzin 's preface to Euler-Goldbach corres pondence,
Luzin's opinions about the work of the famous geometer S. P.Finikov etc. Recentl y, new
alld important materia ls perlaining to the first formative yeMs of the Moscow schoo l of theory
of functions have come to light; these are related to : the cou rse of lectures on the theory of
fUllctions de live red by V.K.Mlodzievsky in the beginning of the 20th cen tury, the papers
read at the stude nts' c ircle - where P.A.Florensky was one of the most active members and
where Luzi n took pari, the discontinuous functions stud ied the re etc. What is more, now new
light has been thrown upon the role of N.V.B ugaev, whose philosophico-l11athematical ideas
clearly stimulated the interests of the younger scholars and studcnts in the theory of functions.
Herein also comes to light the connections with the Moscow school of philosophy.
S.S.D.em idov's, F.A.Medvedev's, A.N.Parshin's and other publications pert:1ining to these
connect io ns came to light during 1985- 1986. In this connection one must mention the analys is
,'" 1\ . 1". YUSIIKI;V1C11

made by the Colo mbian sc holar R.K.Arbo lcda(1980) of the letters 10 M. Frechct from
r.S.Alcx<lndrov and P.S,Urison - who fou nded the Moscow sc hoo l of topology in the
bcgin ing of the 205 of this century. Reminiscences of !l.S. Alcxandrov were publi shed during
the years 197 1- 1980. These arc not arc hi va l':ml1cri als, but wc should n ot pu ss them over
in sile n!.:c, since here w.e fi nd a bri ll iant description of mathematics in Moscow with the
g lobal developments of math ematics in the background, fro m the mi ddle of the fi rst decade
of thi s century and fo r a stretch of more t han sixty years. D.E.Meinshov's rem iniscences of
his student days and oflhc carl y years of hi s scientifi c career ( 1983), constit ute a v:lIuabk
s upplement to the memoirs of Alexand rov.
Scientific correspondences were of first order significance during the 17th-1 8th cen turies,
when scieiltific peri odica ls were extremely weakly developed, sc ienti sts rarely mct onc
another, li ved in different towns and, scientific congresses and conferences did not take place
at all. These correspondences d id retain their place in scient ific life even hller O il , right uplo
o ur limes, though to a lesse r exte nt and. 10 the examples just c ited, here I sha ll men tio n
only three: the correspondence of S.V.Kova levskaya with G. Mittag-Lefflcr - edi ted by P.
Ya. Kochina and E.P.Ozhegova - important, not on ly fo r the biography of thi s outstand ing
woma n and mathematician, but also for invest igations into the lifc of the international
mathematica l community during the 80s of the last century; the correspondence between
V .A.S teklov and A .Knezer, in the begi nn ing of the 20th century, on questio ns of mathemnt ica l
physics and related themes - published by I.I.Markush and others (1980); and the
correspondence of A.A.Markov wit h A.A.Chuprov, 19 10-1 9 17,011 quest ions of probability
theory and mathematical statistics, prepared fo r publication by Kh.O.Ondar ( 1977).
COIlc/II!J"ioll . This survey of the histo ri co~ml.llhematic al investi gations of the las t few
decades, is far from co mplete; but even thi s survey shows, that these investigations have
not on ly considerably s upple mented our know ledge of the past of mathematics, but that they
al so entai l considerable changes in our general notions about the characteri stic traits of the
development s o f math ematics at di ffe rent times and in different directions. This survey was
divided into severa l po ints; in each of the m a correspond ing summi ng lip has been provided
with and, some of the open problems have been indicated. Now a few words remain to be
said about some o f the over-al l changes in that retrospective, wherei n the developmen ts
of Ihe la st four or fo ur and a half thousand years of developme nts of mathematics had been
p resented until recently; it is about these years that we may speak s ufficient ly co nfident ly.
At issue he re is the furt her specificat ion of the periodization proposed by A.N.Kolmogorov
{26]. It is true, that the periodization proposed here is global in character and, does not pretend
to provide th e universal characte ristic traits of the objects and methods of mathemati cs at
eac h of the indicated period s, thanks to the unevenness and inexact synchrony, and so metimes
o win g s imply to th e non-sync hron ous progress (al times regress) o f mathematics in
the different regions or sub-regions considered [26]; the same is true of the present survey.
Having this st ipul ation in view, suc h global periodization of mathematics, u nderstood as a
s in gle sc ience. without its d ivision into sub-discip lines, appeared to be full y sati sfactory for
a long time . Brie lly speaking, A.N. Kolmogorov, made a dist inction amQng four large periods:
i . Birth o f mathematics, as it look place, for example, in Egypt, where, ev idenll y,
mathematicallheory - in the sense of proofs of genera l theorems - did not exist at
 CONCl.USION
'"
all, nnd everyt hing was reduced 10 the co llection of arithrnelic:ll and geometrical
examples of pmcliea l importance, solvable Ht th e level or .<; implest concepts,
according to some prescriptions and rules for computation lInd measurement; however,
perhaps, in Ancient Babylon the prescriptions were nol confined to what wns of
direct practical necessity and, there arose more abstract scientific interests and they
evolved some general algebraic methods for solvi ng a number of problelJ1S (here, wc
have, almost word for word, reprodu ced A,N.Ko[mogorov's express ions, frOIll hi s
art icle in the second edition of GSE, v, 26, 1954),
2. The e lenlentary mathematics of the period 71 h centu ry i3.C.-17Ih century A.D. , whcn
it became theoretic, havi ng the constan t magniludcs of arithmetica l or geome trical
nature as its main object; approaches to th e ideas of an infinitesima l analysis lire
ob~erved in Greece and then in medieval Europe, but Ihey were not developed ; this
second period has been divided into two sub-periods in Kolmogorov's a rticle
entitled "Mathematics" - encompass ing, corrc1iponcling[y, the ancient (Greece,
I?"el lenistn, Rome) and th e medieval (count ries of the Orient and of Europe) pe ri ods.
3, Th e period of emergence and development of the mathematics of variables, from the
17th century; it enlers into (4 ,J the period of modern mathematics in the 19th cen tu ry,
in connection with extreme e}( tens ion of the Object of mathe matics and the
ge ne ra lisation of its concepts and methods; A.N. KolomogoTOv refrained from
providing any direct global characte ri stion oflhi s modern peri od. At the same lime
he has provided a fully intelligible account of the transit ion to modern mathematics,
which began in the first decades o f the 191h century, straight off in the two·fie ld$ of
geometry and a lgebra. His arti cle began with Engc ls' definition of mathematics as
the. sc ience of the quantitat ive re lations and spatinl forms of the real world, 1n the
sec tion devoted 10 modern mathematics Kolomogorov indicated Ihat, the range of
"quanti tative re lati ons" and ~spat ia l forms" srudied, becomes extremely widened in fhi !';
stage· (thts is exp la ined wi th the help of so me e}(amples) and that, whcn these Iwo
ex pressio ns are so widely understood, even then, that is even at the present stage of
development of mathematics, its initi al definition hold s good, Here Kol mogorov adds
that, when the ex pression "quantitati ve relations" is interpreted su ffi c ien tl y broad ly,
lhen"spatial forms" may be co nsidered to be special kinds of "quantitative relati ons",
Here it is not possible to enter into a di scllssion of the wide range of related
methodologica l questions that ari se, fo r example, of A.D.Alexand rov's treatment of
geometry (1952) as the science of spatial relations and forms, as well as about the other
rela ti ons and forms of reality, which are structura lly similar to the spatia l
ones("spatial· like"). B,A.Rozenfeld' s proposal to general ly call modern mathematics
non-'E uclidean, is hardly felicitous: th is word is very close ly connected with the
non-Euclidean geometry. This entire periodization is linked with the periociizlItion of
the preva iling social formations.
Many Soviet hi storian s of mathematics accepted A.N. Kolomogoro .... ' s peri odization with
some modifications. Now, lel me su mmarize the spec ific co mm ~ n t s regardi ng the peri od ization
61
482 A. P. YU.~!!KEV!CJl

nlready made; let me stipul ate agatn, that the terminology used here is conventional and, the
chronological and territorial boundaries arc diffused .
. While retainin g the term "the period of birth of mathematics", we should stress the fact
that not only in Ancient Babylon, but also in Egypt - the prescriptive form of
enol.tnciation was followd by works retlecting deductive arithmetical, geomet ri ca l and
algebraic thought; true, not at the level of constntction of systems like the Euclidean
geometry. Perhaps, the expression "piecemea l deductive mathematics", more
adeq uately describes th e mathematical th oug ht of the aforement ioned and similar
civil izat ions.
2. In Greece mathematics was transformcd into a deductive science, in the Euclidean
- if one may say so - sense, i.e., into a system of disciplines, axiomatically constructed
at the level of Aristotelian logic; it was not accidcnm! lh<lt the formation of this logic
was almost simultaneous with the codification of Euclid's "Elements". However, this
axiomatization did not spread to all the branches of mathematical knowledge and, in
the 19th-20th centuries it has been substanti<l ll y completed and developed. But
Greek mathemat ics is different from what preceeded it, also in another, in principle
more important, respect - important fr.om the point of view of subsequen t
development of mathematics: in natural philosophy and in mathematics there arose the
idea of infinity and it found application - it became the starting point of jnfinitesimal
mathematics; it is in Greece that the fruitful interaction of ph ilosophy and
mathematics was established. Thu s, the term "elementary mathematics " is hardly
adequ2.tc for the content of Greek mathematics. Perhaps, here the more general, though
less concrete, name of "the period o f emergence of mathematics as a logico-deductive
science", has some advantages .
3. Probably, the term "the period of e lementary mathematics" is most appropriate, when
one wants to provide a global characterization of the mathematics of the middle ages.
But her~ it is important to have in view the essential traits of mathematics in
Europe of 14th-16th centu ries and the progress of the non-elementary ide;<1s and method s
spoken above.
4. In reality, the 17th-18th centuries are characte rised, first of all, by the primacy gained
therein by the mathematics of the variable magn itudes. The problem of naming the
period of modern mathematics in terms of its contents, happens to be 1110re complex.
Perhaps, it would have been proper to borrow a term from modern mathematics, and
speak of this period as the period of "non-standard mathematics". However, the
question arises: would it be correct to speak of the last two centuries, as one single
period of development of mathematics? Does not the mathematics of the recent times
of scientific and technological revolution, with ils characteristically fast progress of
informatics and of the oth7r noticable (discrete,finitary etc.) tendencies. constitute the
fhst stage of a new period of development of this most ancient science? Personally
for me, it is very difficuh to provide an answer to-day.
 LITERATURE

Literature
L M alt/lie/a J,F. Historic des mnlhfmatiqucs ... P., 1758: 2 fcl. P., 1792-1802.
2. Loria O. Guidn llllo studio della storia delle mnlem:l!iehe . Sce. ediz. Milano. 1946.
3. May K. O. Bibliography lI nd Research Manunl of the 11i ~lO ry or Mathemalics. Toronto : Univ.
Toronto Press, 1973.
4. Canlor M. Vorlcsungen iiberGeschichte der Mathenmtik . Leipzig, 1880-1907. Bd. [· IV .
5. Tseiu lI O.G. Istoria matemaliki v drevnosti i v srcdine veb. 2- c izd. M.:Lo, 1938: 011 :.hC'.
Istoria matematiki v XV I i XV II vekakh. 2-e i1.d M.:L., 1938.
6. Kleill F. Elemenlnry Mathematics rrom an Advnnced Standpoint. Tr. E.R.Hcdrie k nnd
C.A.Noble,2 vols. New York : Mac millan, 1932 and 1939 {a Russinn lr. of the smne was
published in 3 vols, in Ihe years 1933- 1935 J.
7. TrOlifke J. Gesehiehte der Etementarmalht<ll"1nlik . !l., 1921-1924. I3d. I-VII.
8. TropjTu J. Gcsehiehte der Elementarmalhemalik. 4 Aun . B. : N.Y. 1980. Ild. I.
9. Cajorie F. Hislory of Elcmentary Mnthematics with reference 10 the Methods ofTe",ching. 2nd
Russ. cd. Odessa, 1917.
10. Enzykloplidie der mnthematischen Wis.~ensch:lnen, Leipzig, Bd. 1-6. 1898-1934: 2 Aull .
1952-1968.
11. Encicloped ia delle matemntjc~e e1ementari e complemenli con estensione Illlc principali
tcorie antllitiche e goomclriche... Milano, 1930· 1950. vol. 1·3.
12. Problemy Hilbel1a (GilberJn). M. 1969.
13. KId!! F. Lectures on the Development of Mathematics in the 19th Century. R\lss. eU. M.: L.,
1937, ParI 1.
14. ,'vIay K.O., Roe/mck L World Di rectory of Hi storians of M:lthcm:Hics . 2nd ed.
Toronto,1978.
15. Istoria malemntiki s drev neischikh vremeon do nnchnla XIX Slolelia, M" 1970- 1972. 1'.1-3;
Malemalika XIX vcka : Mnt.logikn. Algebra. Teoria chisel. Tcoria veroyatnoslei. M., 197 ~ ;
Matcmntika XIX vekn: Geometria. Teoria nnalit. funktsii. M., 1981.
16. Abrcgf d 'historie des mathfmatiques. 1700- 1900/Ed . J. Dieudonn~. Po, 1978. T 1-2.
17. ISloria o!echestvennoi mntematiki. Kiev, 1966-1970, T. 1-4.
18. Ocherki r;nvilia matemntiki v SSSR. Kiev, 1983.
19. Klill e M. Mnlllemalica! Thoughl from Ancient to Modern Times. N.V. , 1972.
20. BOlfrbaki N. Elements d'historie des mathemaliques . Russ. Ed. M. ,1963.
2 1. Sll"IIik D.J. A Concise History of Mathem:ltics. N.Y., 1967. (2nd Russ. cd. M., 1969.1
22. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. N.Y., 1970-1980. vol. 1- X·VI.
23. Scienziati e tecnologi dnlle Arigine nl 1875. Seienzinti lechnologi contemporanei. Milnno,
1975, vol. I-Il l.
24. Wacrdell B.t... 1'1111 cl/!/'. Geometry and Algebra in Ancient Civilizations, Bo, 1983 .
25. Scientific Change! &I. A.C.Crombie. L.o 1963
26. Kolmogo"~I'A.N. Matcmatika 11 BSE. 2-e izd. 1954. T. 26.

Source : Znkonomermosti razvitia sovremennoi matematiki . "Nauka~ . M.,1987. s. 28-74 .

484 A.I'. YUSIlKI~V1C11

A/mill lire Allllw!" : Yushkcvich, Adolf (Andrci) Pnvlovich (1906·). Senior histor in n of nllllhcma!ics , Rus~ii\,

Orfll!J" Puf;licmi(Jl1s :
I. ISloria matemnliki v srcdinc vcka. M.. 196!.
2. OmnT Khayynm. M., 1965 (in collabomlioll with others).
3. [storia mntcmaliki \' Rosii do 1917. M. , 1968.
4. Christian Goldbnch. M., 1983 (in colinbornlion with others).
 NON-STAN DARD ANA LYSIS
AND T HE B1STORY OF CLASS ICA l, ANALYSIS
FEODOR ANDRE IVIP!"II\1EDVJiPEV
T he history of classical analysis is perhaps the most investigated part of the hi s tory of
mathemati cs, and this is quite natural. Mathem ati ca l anal ys is has been viewed as the "~implesl
a nd mos t uni versa l language .. , most sui tttb !e for ex press ing the in variabl e r~l atiQns o f natural
phen o mena" [ I. p. XXIII), ThaI is why th e gre,lICSI representat ives of matllcmatical thought ,
and the most modest workers ill the fie ld o f malhcmatics, applied th~!r s trength 10 its
construction, from the 17!h to th e 191h century, as well as, during the greater part oflh e
p resent centu ry. This new discipline, in the p rocc~s RI' ils co n.~ l rucl i on, nol onl y served
as n fe licitou s means for deso ribin g the phe no me na pr lh~ external world, but also prov'ided
n possibility for advanci ng profound phil osop hicnl r.e f! c~ ti Qn s abou t the differential picture
of the world, about rhe causal oonnections in it, abQut the laws of nature a nd thought. Thai is
why, historians of science have paid the greatest nnen lion, namely, to the his tory of ana lysis.
A major specif icity of the approac h of the historiiHlS 10 the s tudy of the fortlla Jipn of this
b ranc h of mathematics has been, and to a cans iderab l!3: extell! st ill is, to yj.c"Y it as a s in gle
integra l theoretica l disciplln o. To a certain exlcnl this view reflects un Aspect of t]. Illorc
gene ral notio n, acco rding to which "mathe IJl atics: grew as a siq¥l~ w'l o l ~" (2, R, 13].
However, of late such a view about mathematics has been shaken Of ~a~ .at l eas~ been
questioned, "The pasic conclusion that may be drawn from the presence of several
co nfli ctin g approaches to mathe lllatics is as follows: there ex ists not one mathemat ics, but
mnny mathemnticses" [3, p. 358]; not o nly some indi vidual mathematicians and his torians
of mathemati cs, but even som@ ph ilosophers share thi s concl usion l4 , pp . 186- 187]. An
analogous hypothesis suggcsts itse lf also in respect o f math emati ca l analys is: it began to
take s hape after the constru ction o f the Intuitionist and constructiv ist analyses, and became
espec iall y clear after the creation of non-standard analysis, towards the middle of this
cen tury. Each of the systems mentip!led , is suffic ientl y independe nt of, and defin itely
different fro m, any other of the m - in terms of the composition of basic concepts, modes
o f advancing arguments about them and, computationa l proced ures; and it is hardly
probabl e , what is more, imposs ible (and even if possible, th en not necessary) that they be
united in a si ng le theoretical construction. Thi s especiall y comes tQ the fore, when we view
ana lysis. not so much as n theoretical doctri!le about its basic concepts, but rnlher as calculus,
as formal system. fSue h an outlook on mathematical ana lysis has been cQnsiderab ly developed,
at the leve l of hi storical studies, in a book [5] by C.H. Edwards.] In so far as, "it is
possible to propose a large number of formnl sys t em~, for describing o ne and th e saine
fragment of reality" r6, p. 87J, there is no gl'OlIl1d for preferrin g one of them in advance: it
would be ex ped,ient to use different calcull!1l difforent situalipns.
A di s tin ctive and even strange speci fi c ity o f theoretical construct ions-and not merely
of the mathemnt ical ones - is thi s, th at at a definite stage of thei r construction, and nl times
from almost the very beginnina, the adherents o f the corresponding Iheorericnl sc hemas
become tempted to view them as the universal and the only possible sche ma and to declare
a ll the others as false. Such, in part icular, was the situation in the history of mathematical
 48' F. A. MEl)Vt;DEV

flllalys is. in the second half of the 19th century, when thi s m;ll hematicn l discip line auained
the highest level of its development and when Ihe gloss of Callchy· Wcicrstl'<lss illll ri gour
was put on it. The anal ys is ofCaochy-Wcicrslrass was considered to be the only leg itimate
theoretico-anal ytical construction, ,me! all that preceded it cmne to be regarded as mere
approximations to it, and largely mi staken allhal : ", .. in the text- books o f Ca llc hy at long last
we arc on firm ground" [7, p. 207].
The works on the history of analysis come Qui mainly as descriptions of the
development of some integ ral, onc and only poss ible thing. which served as a kind of idea l
fo r a sing le science , to whic h the constructi ons o f the previ ous epochs approximated . From
the point of view of Ihi s ideal science (which is in practice reducib le to a constructi on, put
forward in some s tandard tex:t book , fo llo wed by the author of th e co rrespo ndin g "history of
a naly sis" or part thereof). thc problems that emerged in the course o f hi story had singu lar
correct so lulions; and it is these that were mninly of interest 10 the hi storians. Indeed the
approaches to them could be differen t: to a large ex:tent these are llnstltisfaclory and even
patently wrong, and then, in the course of Further sea rc hes they are usually rejec ted, or at best
they are used as auxiliary de vices, serving as the raw material, fro m which the ideal sc ience
was built, o r they provide heuristic ind ical io ns, wh ich lead to the discovery of the absolute
truths of th e ideal science.
In particular, the "evo lution of "rigour" in analys is can be summed up as a con tinuous
ascen t from unclear and vag ue concepts, th eir grad ual el ucidati on, and then th e arrival of
a s l<1ge of stabili ty - aftcr which it was impossible 10 have (lilY di s pllle rega rding what
constitutes a correct proof in analysis" [8, p. 50J. In the opini on of J . Dieudonnc, the analys is
o f Cauchy-Weierstrass happen ed to be this stage of stability.
The analysis of Cauchy-Weierstrass took s hape in the 19th century. However, before
that mathematical analysis went through more than two thousand years o f developmen t -
from the fi rst quadratures and cubatu res o f the ancienl Greeks to the ana lysis of Newton-
L e ibnitz, crowned with th e works of J. L. Lagrange and L. Euler. Here we s hall mention o nl y
some of the landmarks alo ng thi s road.
It is we ll known. that in ancient Greece the first quadratures and cubalUres were carried
Oll t with the he lp of so me infinites imal procedures 19]. These procedures were so Fruitful ,
that even after the e laboration of the method o f exh aus ti on by Eudoxus, which tended to
exc lude the inlinitesimals from mathematical arguments and soon became the offic ia l
doctrine on the co rresponding questi ons, infinitesimal considerations continued 10 be in
wide use, and among the users there were adhercn ts of th e method of ex:hulIstion; the
assertion o f S. Ya. Lureo, that if the followers o f the method o f exhaustion "did not get ho ld
o f read y-made soluti o ns , already dis covered by the alomists, th e n Ih ey themselves
preliminarily found them o ut - by stea lthil y a ppl y in g [th e method o f] atom is tic
decomposition" [9, p.159], is best illu st rated by the ex:ample of Archimedes.
With the renewa l of interest in the problems of analysis in the 17th century, inFinites imal
cons iderations agai n ca me to the fore (in the works of J . Kepl er, B. Cavalieri, J.·P. RobervaJ
and of many others) , though the spell .of the method of ex: hau stion a lso con tinued. I t was
cons idered to be an irreproachable, totally rigorous mode of mathematical reasoning in
 NON·STANDARD ANALYSIS &. IIISTORY OFCl.ASS1CAL ANALYSIS 487

respect of the problems of quadraturc, cubalurc, cc ntres of grav ity, maximums and minimums,
and tangents; and mathematicians did not see in it those serious logica l flaws, which Illay
be observed today; for example. this, Ihat therein, ne ither were the magnitulics under
consideration defined, nor were their existence proved. Though this spell was retained for
a long time, right upto A. Cauchy and even Imcr, nevcrtheless the method of exhaustion more
and more retreated to a secondary position. It was substituted by the injillilesima/ ('alculllS.
Name ly, thus was created the grand iose house of mathematical ana lysis - lhe IllO.~t
extensive and the most fruitful mathematical discipline.
Almost from the very beginning of its construction, strange reproaches began to be
sou nded regarding thc illogicality of the arguments, involving thc infinitesimals, provided in
Ihi s calculus - these reproaches co ntinue even lo·day [3, pp. 151· 177 J. However, much more
ill ogica l was the very demand, that the modes of reason ing lIsed in a nalysis arc 10 be
subordinated 10 the norms of existing logic. Mathematical ana lysis is based on the concept
of function - which is a specia l instance of relation (and for an extended understandi ng of
ftlnctio n, Ihey are one and the same). Logic of relations did not exist earlier and it was
t
conslructed only in che second half of the 19th century. It i~ true that individual advances
were made in that direction. Such atte.mpls datc back to Aristotle, ,., G. W. Leibnitz, 1.1-1. Lambert
and 10 some others, but the const ruction of the theory of relations as a section of logic
began only with A. De Morgan , or e\'en later - with C.S. Peirce.] Thal is why, the argu men ts
employed by the mathematicians in analys is, naturally, did no~ fil into the frame~work of
the arguments conducted in accordance wilh the canons of o lder thought. Mathematicians did
not like to wait till the emergence of the corresponding logic, in faetthey paved the path fo r
it w ith their new calculus, having constructed a forma l system, which is a special ins!ance of
a large fragment or the logic of relati ons ( th is was done by Euler, Lagrange and their followers).
In the final analysis this formal syste m was infinitesimal, and Lagrangc's heroic attempt at
liberatin g mathematical analysis from the infinitesimal s turned out ol be totally unsuccessful,
in spi le of his indisputable ach ievements. [In J . Grabiner llOJ one finds a good description
of many achievements of Lagrange.} What is more, even Cauchy's reconstruction of
analysis carried the mark of that very infinitesimal. On this, one must dwell in greater detail.
In correspondence with the established tradition, earlier we have united the constructions
of Cauchy and Weierst rrass into an aggregate. Indeed, there is much in common in thei r
approaches, which prov ides a definite basis for such unification. But in essence the
constructions of Cauchy and Weierstrass, differ by so many fundamerual parameters, I hat it
would have been more correct to spea k of two different systems of analysis, created by them.
T hi s difference has been quite clearly out li ned by N.N. Luzin [11, pp. 305·3 121, and in his
words, generally speak ing , this difference lies in the fact that, Cauchy "in principle, introduces
variables, and, thus, since then analysis stand s enriched by these new magnitudes, used
equally rightfully wi lh the consta nts, just as the imaginary nu mbers are lIsed on a par with
the rea l ones" [1 1, p. 305]; Weierstrass, however, "first of all removes all the variables from
analysis, any change, motion and everything. :s reduced to the statiollul:y conditions and to
that alone, i.e., to the constant magnitudes" [11 , p. 307]. These systems are also different in

,., (to G:lIlgesopadhyaya in Indi a - Ed.)

 ." 1". A. MED VEDEV

terms of the e xplicat ions o f the cOllcepts of infin ity, which arc fo undat io na lto them. Cauchy
based himself upon th e concept of potenti al infi nity ,m d, the concept of potent iall y infi nitely
small mag nitudes are cent ral 10 his system o f ana lysis, whereas Wc icl'slrass leaned o n
the I..:Ollc cpt of [lclual infinity, and he in f acl drove awCl y Ih e infinitcs im<ll s from analys is.
Thi s is not the place for citing the other diffe rences, many o f them arc yet to be brought to
lig ht; here we sha ll o nl y me ntion the fnet that Cauchy' s conceptio n completed the slage o f
infin ites ima l ana lysis, whereas III We ierst rass' system, a nal ysis was rest ruct ured as ,1 se t
theoretic discipline; its contOurs h:'lVC been quite clearl y ouUined by Luzi n l ll , pp. 307-3 12] .
[n flnites imal consideratio ns were put aside in the cl ass ical set theory, and the ac tual
infinites ima ls were deni ed every ri ght to exist; G. Cantor fought again st thc m encrgeti ca lly
- 9n :h is; see, for e xample, [12, pp. 294-296]. Allhe end o f the 19Lh and durin g th e first
half o f the 20Lh ce ntury, the We ierstrassi<lll syste m of analys is, based on the theory of sets,
became the ideal of analytical construc tion - it was co nsidered 10 be singu larl y legitimate
and absolute ly true. Armed with it, even the historians o f anal ysis start ed viewing the
prev ious develo pments through the pri sm o f such constructi on. Naturall y, there arose a ll
possible di stortio ns. They arc quite numerous, and the re is no scope here, eve n for pro vidin g n
simple li st of them. We shnl! cite only a Few examples.
Afte r a very bri ef and not entire ly Objective descriptio n o f B. Cava lieri's methods o f
quadralUre and cubalUre , O. Teoplitz termed his conc lu sions - "clever" rl3 , pp. 55-58J , but
there itself he c haracte rized them as "untrustworthy to the hi ghest degree". After that he
ad mitted, that in the 17 th century the doctrine o f indi vis ibles was "lauded to the ski es" and
was e mployed in vario us forms by P.G ul din , B. Pascal and J. Kepler ulld, th at in the works
o f G. W. Leibnitz the vari ous trends in th~ use of the infinitesimal methods ca me together,
"as rays converge in the focus o f a lens" and illumin ed th e entire 18th century. Teopliz
co ncl udes that L.Euler, O. Bem oulli, B. Tay lor and others "conslructed the new edi fice of
mathe malics basing the mselves upon such no n-strict and heuristic methods" [ 13, p. 591. T hu s,
it appears that a large mathematica l theory was built upon the precarious fo undations o f
do ubt fu l he uristic me thods. and onl y a "clever in stinc t" saved Cavalier; and , o f course, the
othe r math e mati cian s fro m makin g fal se mo ve s.
While describin g the mathe matica l analys is o f the 18th century, J. Dieudo nne, o n the
one hand. call s Eul er onc o f the two "g iant s of that century " r14, p. 20J (t he o the r o ne be ing
Lag range), and on th e o ther - presents him as nea rl y the greatest fumble r : he did not define
the concept o f a "continu ous" or "regul ar" function "more precisely"; did not give an
"ex act d efiniti o n" of hi s "mec hanical fun ctio ns"; hi s concept ion o f numerical serieses was
"shaky and imprec ise"; he "could not Formulate" the definiti on of the co ncept o f the sum of a
se ries , basing it on the concept of limit , and though "he knew we ll, that whe n th e ge neral term
of the series
00+(/1 + "'+lln+ ...•

does no t te nd to zero , thc n o ne should .not speak of thc "convergence" o f th is series in the
usual sense. neverthe less he thou ght that it was o fte n poss ible 10 calcul ate the "sum " o f thi s
seri es" [14. pp. 2 1-221; E uler "did not make a clear state me nt" about one of the divergent
sc rieses; "Eule r's inte rpretation s o f the diFFe rent meanin gs o f the word "s um" of a series

,
 NON ·STANDARD ANALYSIS & 111!iTOR Y OF CLASS JCAL ANAl. YSIS 489

appear 10 be vcry confused, leading to contradict ions", "Euler did not at all unde rstand the
d ifficulty in herent in his defi nition of the " .~ um" of a series" [14, p. 231; Eul e r "did 110t always
remember what he wrotc a few years back", "he did not clucid ,l!c the phcnomenon of
non-uniform convergence, when he ran into it" ! 14, p, 30], etc.
In short, it appears, that on ly wit h Cauchy did the mathematician s - to use an expression
of Bou rbak i, indicated above - find themse lves "on a firm ground", and till then they.
wallowed "in the quagmire of mathematical analysis" of the Newlonian- Lcibnitzian- Eu[erian
kind [3, p.151 J, and Cauchy too, quite oncn fell into it.
Demo lition of such mistaken ideas about the development of mathe matical analys is began
after the construction of the so-called non-standard ana lysis, in the midd le of the present
cent ury. [T he construction of this a nalysis is to a great extent connectcd with the name of
thc American mathematic ian A. Robinso n rI918- 1975J, and his work pub lis lwd in 1961 [15] is
cons idered to be the fi rst work in the field. This is not entirely correct. Eve n if we refrain
fro m mentioni ng its pre-history, wh ich dates back to the 19th a nd the firs t half of the 20th
centu ry, we may ment ion, for in stance, the work ofC. Schmiedcn and D.Lau gw itz, published
in 1958 [16J and the papers of the latter : {17J ,[18J. A.F. Monna began worki ng in Ih is
d irection [19, p. 41. since 1950.J The sole fact, that the infinitesimally small magnitudes and
numbers , that were assiduous ly driven away to build the Wcierstrassian analysi s, again
got back th~ ir right to citizenship in mathematics, itse lFcompels LLS to rc-examine the ideas
so far fo rmed, about the cou rse of development of analysis upto Cauchy and Wcierstrass, about
the c haracter of its infinites ima l apparatus and, about the modes of reasoni ng emp loyed
therei n. Now the in finitesimal proced ures are no more considered 10 be "non-strict, heuristic
methods", but are rather viewed as quite honest means of advanci ng mathemat ical reasoning,
which not on ly enable us to re-state the well-known results wilh grea t simp licity and
elegance , but also help us discover new results; as an exa mple of the latter, onc may mention
the so-called SOl ution-configurations for a determinate c lass of ord inary di fferent ial equations
[201·
This re-examination still continues. It began with the efforts of the fOlHlde rs of
non-s ta ndard analysis - Laugw ilz (1965) and Robi nson ( 1966) [2 1 & 22J. Now th e front in
favo ur of such re-exa minatio n is q uite broad, and the mere lis.tin g of the wo rks in the already
ind icated direct ion, wou ld take a lot of space. In particu lar, many resu lts of Euler. so far
co ns idered to be "non-strict" and to have been obtained by doubtllll means, turned out to
be rationall y in terpretable within the fra mc-work of these new ideas l23 & 24]. Now they
are no more the produ cts of some special and secret intu ition, but are provided wi th a rationa l
reconstruction in a different system of analytical till IJI, hl. Now there has even nrisen a danger,
of loO direct an imerpretation of some isolated notions of Leibnitz, Eulcr ;'l nd of some other
mathematicians, of thei r unneccssary modern ization in the spi rit of non-standard analysis. W.
Felsher has characterized this danger quite clearly [25 , pp. [79-180]. However, o ne may
state - by genera lizing, to some extent, L;'l ugwi tz's understanding of some of the resu lts of
Euler [23, p. 4J - that, we must exam ine the attainments of o ur predecesso rs fro m the modern
points of view, whi le keepi ng in mind the facll ha t they co ul d not have thought, name ly in the
way we do; al l the same, we can rationall y interpret what they did, namel y, with the he lp
of modern ideas.
62
<90 F. A. MEDVEDEV

Further, one of the basic principles of non-standard analysis is the principle of transfer I
translatio n, according to which every true statement of the classical analysis (the c lass ical
theory of sets) is {rue in the non-standard an.ilys is (non-standard (heory of sets) too, and
conversely (see: for example, [20, p.81]; and see: {2G. pp. 202-203.J for a more detai led
formulation]. Thu s, non-standard analysis appears to be yet another model for th at very class
of analytical phenomena and relations among them, for which the model of classical ana lysis
was blli]! . It is understandable, that in an atmosphere of supre macy of the classical model, the
latter played the role of a paradigm in the sense o f T. Kullll or, that of a research programme
in the sense of L Lakatos, and the historians of anal ys is examined the results obtai ned by the ir
predecessors through the pri sm of the basic propositions of thi s paradigm or programme . . rn
particular, si nce in it [the classical model] there was 110 room for Ihe actually infinitesimally
small, so all manipulations with them, met with by the hi storians, were viewed with
suspicion, and the data obtained with Iheir help, were interpreted as to have been fo und
non~rationally- intuiti vely or through the mediation of unreliable heurist ic methods. And
this led to the, not quite correct, prevalent inte rpretation of historico-scientific facts, herein
indicated (and largely, not even indicated) .
After the cons tru ct ion of non-standard analysis, classical analysis of the 19th cen tury
ceased to be the only correc~ analytical construction, its universalization and absolutization
appeared to be illegitimate forms of activities. At least two formal systems possessing equal
rights turned out to be equally suitablc "for describing one and the same fragment of rcality".
In its turn, the notions about some mythical "absolute strictness" - turned out to be a
myth . That is why there arose the necessity of substan tia l corrections in th e historiography of
mathematical analysis - corrections, that have been made complicated owing to the presence
of intuitionist and constructivist analyses.
Everything said and done, non -standard analysis permits us to give an answer to a tick-
lish question, which arose in connecti on with the earlier approaches to the history o f
classical analysis if we admit that the infinitely small and infinitely large magnitudes are
contradictory concepts, then how could the grandiose edifice of one of the most
importanmt mathematical disciplines be built upon them? And H.J.M. Bos - onc of the
keenest of modern histori ans of analysis - has been compelled , ·inspite of certain
prejudices against the non-standard analysis, to declare that "the recently constructed
non~standard analy sis provides an ~x planation, as 10 why analy sis could develop upon the
precnrious foundation s of the infinitely small and infinitely large magnitudes" [27, p. 131.
,
Literature
I. Fourier J. 8. 1., Thtorie nnnlyt ique de la ch:lleur (1822) li Oeuvres. T.1. P., 1888.
2. Is toriya matemntiki s drevneischikh vremeon do ""chnla XIX stoJctiyn. M., 1972. T. 3.
3. Kline. M., Mathematics: The Loss of Certninty. New York, 1980. [ Russ. Tr. : Moscow, 1984].
4. ~{III OI' M.I., MetodoJogicheskic problemy intuitsionistskoi mntemntiki. M., 1984 .
.'i. Ed""ards CH., The Historical Development of the Calculus. N.Y., 1"979.
6. Er~·lIol' Yu.L., Nckotorye voprosy primeneniya formalizovannykh ynzykov dJyn issledovoniyn
iilosof~kikh problem /1 Metodol. problemy rnatematiki. Novosibirsk, J979.
 NON·STANIlAIW ,\ NALYSIS & 11 1STORY or CLASSICAL ANALYSIS 491

7. BO!lrbaki N., Elemcnls d'hisloire des malhtmllliques, P.. 1Ru~s, Tr.: M., 1%31 .
8. Dieudollllt j" Ln nolion de rigueur en tnnlhctnaliqucs /1 conrcrcru,;c prononee le 8
dcccmore 1982 au Seminar loi de philosophic cl tnnthetnntiques. P., 1983 . Reprint.
9. Lureo S. Ya., TeoriYll beskonechno malykh u drevnykh atomislov, M.: L., 1935 .
10. Grabinu 1. V .. The Origins of C:lI1chy's Rigorous Calculus. Cnmhridgc; L., 1981.
It. Lm.in NN, Differcnlsi:lInoe ischislenic IIBSE. I·e iw. 1934 . T.22; On rile, Sobr. soch. M ..
1959. T. 3.
12. Kan/or G. (Cml/or G.). Trudy po I.::orii mnozheslov. M .• 1985.
13. Teop/ift 0., I!nlwicklung der Infinilcsimalrechnung. B., 1949.
14. DieudO/llle J" L'nnnlyse malhcmntique IIU dix·huilierne sil!cle 11 Abcrgc d'historic des
malhernaliquc$. 1700· 1900. Algl!bre. analyse classique, lhcoric des nOlllhres, P.• 1978.
J 5. RobillSOIl A ., NorHlnlldard Analysis 11 KUI/ikl. Akar/. We/cllsell. AIIIslerdfl/ll. Ser. A. 1961. Bd .
64, N 4.
16. Scilmie,lell C, !..al/gwill D., I!ine Erweilerung der Infinitcsirnnlrcchnung 11 M(llh. Z/Scfll·.
1958. Bd. 69.
17. uwgwilz D.. Anwendungen unendlich kleiner Znhlen, I : Zur Thcorie der Dislribuliollen 11 J.
reille undwrgew. /.1(1/11.196 1. Bd. 207.
18. Laugwi/<. D. , Anwendungen uncndlich klciner Zah1cn, 11 : Eln Zugang lOr Operalionsrechnung
von Mikusinski /I Ibid. Bd. 208.
£., Curriculum vitae de A. F. MOlUmll Symposium ded ie
19. Berlill £.0" IJIU F" \1(/11 de,-, Homi;>;
1\ A.F. Monna. Utrecht. 18 dcc. 1979/1 COIIIIIIIlUic(lliQIIS o//ile Ma/h. hIS{. Utrecht, ! 980. Vel.
12.
20. Zl'ollkiu A ,K" 51mbi,1 M.A" Nestandannyi analiz i singulyarnye ~ozll1uscheniya
obyknovennykh diffcrenlsialnykh uravneniill Uspekhi mal. IlllUk. 1984. T. 39, vyp.2.
21. ullfgwi/z iJ., Bemerkungen zu Bolzano GrOsscnlehre 11 Arch. flisl. E:wcl. Sci. 1965 . Bd . 2,
N 5.
22, RobinSOIl A.. Non·stand'lrd Analysis. Amslerdnrn. 1966.
23. ul/jglVit~ D. , Eulers Begrundung der Analysis aus der Algebra. ! 983. Prepar. N 728.
24. La!lgwit~ D., FlIll :lnd Resurrection of Infinitesimals 11 Textcs UMFUFA, 1984. N 88.
25. Felsclrer W., Naive Mengen . und abslrakle Znhlcn, J( : Algebraische und relle Zahlen.
Mnnnheim etc. [978.
26. Slro),(l1I D.K .. Infinilezimalnyi ana!iz krivykh i poverkhnoslei /1 Spravochnaya kniga po
matematicheskoi logike : Teoriya modclei. M" 1982, Ch. I.
27. 80S H.J.M .. Difrerentials. Higher Order Differentials and the Derivative in the Leibnitzian
Calculus 11 Arch. His/. Exocl. Sci. 1974. Bd. 14, NI.

SOllrce.' Znkonomernosti tazviliyo sovremennoi mulcm(ltiki. "Nauka·'. M., 1987; s. 75·84.

AbOI/I/he all/hor: Medvedev, Feodor Andreivich (1923-), Cand. (sc). Areas of speci(llization: history or
set thcory and theory of functions. Published a number of books IInd papers in these arens si nce 1965 .
 THE NEW STRUCT URAL APPROAC H IN MATHEMATI CS AND SOME
OF ITS METHODOLOGICAL PIlQlILEMS
GEORGI IVANOVICI I RUZAV IN
The structural approach in mathematics has fOllnd ils 1110St complete development in
the works of a group of French mathematicians wri ting under the pseudonym of BOllrbaki,
and of latc in the works of MacLlllC and , of the other scholars engaged in the e laboration of
the algebraic theory of categories. This approach offers an opportunity 10 take a new look
at many major problems of philosophy and methodology of mathematics. The most
important a mong these problems arc the spccific ity of the object and method of
mathematics, the place of mathematics in Lhe system of scientific knowledge and, the relati o n
of mathematical structures wit h objective real ity.
The general problems of the application of mathematics in the other sciences and in
practical activities become more clea r, when they are ve iwed from the point of view of
abstract st ructu res. The.question of the interrelationship of "pure" (theoretical) mathematics
with app lied mathemat ics simu ltaneolLs ly finds a more thoroughgoing solution.

I . FORMATION OF T"I~ CONCEPT 01<' AOSTRACT STRUCTURE AND THE EMfi:IWI!:NCE OF

A NEW AJ>l'ROA CU TO MA'nIEMATICS

Progress in mathematics has always been connected with Ihe growth in the abst ractLless
of its concepts and theories. Modern mathematics lIses ever deeper abstractions 10 study,
not on ly the quantitative, but also the more co mpl ex structu ral relations; the traditional
quantitative relati o ns among magn itudes happen to be a constituent part of these more
complex relations.
The beg inning of thi s new approach to the subject- matter of mathema tical
investigations is, to a considerable exten t, connected with the discovery of Ilon-Euclidean
geometry by N. I. Lobachevsky and J. Bolyai. It is difficult to overestimate the general
scient ific and theoret ico-cognitive sig nificance of this discovery. It not on ly undermin ed the
centuries old belief in the possibility of one and only . one geomelry of Euclid, but also
fundamentally changed ou r carlier notions about geometry, about mathe matics as a whole.
Above all, the theoretico-cognitive lesson offe red by the discovcry of the non-Euc lidean
geometries cons isted in the following: it convi ncingly demonstraled that the axioms of
geometry are nei ther empirical descriptions and inductive generalizations of tlte properties
and relations of the real physical space, nor arc they a (Jriori synthetic j udgements - as f. Kant
thought the m to be.
Mathematician s, fo ll ow ing B. Riemann, began to view these axioms as hy potheses of a
ki nd, whose appl icabili ty to the study of the su rroundin g spacc must be establislled afler
providing suitable interpretatio ns for the basic concepts of a geometry. Within I he framew ork
of mathematical investigations these concepts (of a point, straight line and plane) themselves
remai n as abstract as, say , the algebraic formulae. No one doubted the fact that the symbols
of these formu lae may ind icate any number, and subsequen tly any vector, matrix,
fu nctio n or other objcct. Howeve r, for a long time the stateme nls of geometry remained
 STrWCTURAL APPROACH IN MATIWMATICS 493

assoc iated o nl y with the properties and relations of ph ys ic<l1 space. 11 is that is why, na me ly,
that the di scovery o f the non-Euc1i dean geometries had such Cl decisive significance for the
,e me rgence of a new approach to the subjecHllall er of geometrical investigations.
In so far as axioms ca n describe the prope rti es and relations o f objects having th e most
d ivcrse cQ nc ret ~ .contents, we cannot pass judgemcnts abOllt their truth or fa lsity. basing
ou rse lves llpon al1Y one systcm of objects, serving as thei r int crpretati on. Besides. intuiti ve
se lf-ev ide nce also cannot serve as a c riterion for truth , since that which is self-ev ident
to one, !nay not .appear to be sel f-evident to another. That is why, the de rnand th at the axioms
should be intuiti vely self-dyide", js not a mathelpatical, but rather Cl psycho logical demand.
From Ihe lo gico- fTla t h ~ mali ca l point of view, the most important criterio n, which mll st be
satisfied by any sys teIT) ofaxiplns. is the simu ltanei ty or formal non-contradi ctorilY o f the
sys te m of axioms.
If n syste m pfaxiolll$ !S .contradictory, it wi ll not ha vc any intcrperlation and,
eOl1s~q uenll y ! "ViII have op sci!3ntj fic worth whatsoever. The demands for complete ness and
inc1ependoflce of a system g f flxipms ar~ Ilpt that obl igatory, if only ow ing to the fact that a
de pe ndent axiom Plln al WilYs b~ translfHed into il d»~s of theorems. and the criterio n of .
co mpleten ess lti i1ppllqble ol1ly tQ ~h e con1pg!J Mive ly. ~ imp!e axiomatic systems.
T he tl'un sition fro rn ll]e oOllgnW}1 r;;ontt;nIF4! axi o rnatj ~s like! for exa lllpl ~, Ule ax io plat ics
of the Euclidean e lcmenlilry .W:;Qnl~ trYr tQ ~he ilbstrm::t ax iQmatics !j~ e Ihe uxiorn'Hif:s qf '-fjlbert.
and the n on to those fully formq lized ax iOITHJl jcs, ~ h c fein &Y I"PQql& substj!l.lte fCl"ln~, and
propos iti ons are transformed imo folmu lae - is q uite a new step in the deve lop ment of the
a xi o matic melhod; it is so metimes called a revolution in this methOd: As we h~ye PPlep above,
it is, namel y, this approac1) wl,ich pmy it=!es an opportunity Fpr vjc,¥ing axiqms as nbstrnct
fo rms; these fo rms may be lIsed for investigating the prpperties and re lations o f various things
that diffe:r in th ci r conc rcte co nlenfS_
Tn the formation o f the ideas abol.![ ~ bs lrac t s lr4 ~ tures, a sig nificant role has been played
by the sel theory, which emerged towan:ls the end of the 70s of the last century. Thi .~ theory
was crafted, in Illp ITHlin, iu the wor~ !i o f the great German mathematicia n G. Cantor,
di rected at providing a sati sfactory fpUnPll lion 10 c la ssica l mnthemat ics. This theory views
the objects of all rnatlwmatica l t h eo r i~~ li ke the number, Functi on, vector, matrix e tc .• in
isolation from their malbematical contents. Fo r the set th!!ory these are bu t elements of such
infin ile sets. whic h 'TIay be hp.nd leq '!'o'! lh defi ni!e fHles. Such n,n ex tremely gcnera l and
abstract approach prQvided pn p pportunity for viewing the subject-maller of the most d iverse
mathcmatical di scjp lines fronl ' a sing l~ point pf Yie~; Namely, Ihat is why, wi th the
passage o r til11e the s~ tlh eo ry IJll m ~ [0 be lopke<!upon ~s th e fou qpllHpn of the entire house
of c lassicn l nlulllcmatics.
In the e nd, a synthcs i$ of 'h ~ &~ t:! ll ~o r~ l! f i~eps ~nd th~ ilxi!=l mmif m!! ~h o d leg tp a
new conception o f the abstract mathemat ical structu re. Thi s coneeplion was noated
towards the begin ning of thi s century. "One is te mpted IQ ackn0V:"~~ge that thc modern
concept of "struct!lre" W~1i in the main formed around the yea r 1.900; actually, it took
another thirty years of study to make it fui ly clear" - wrme~. J3o!J rb~kj 15, s. ~3]. This ,,:,prk
was do ne by that tp,lented leam Qf Fre!lCh mathematic if!ns. \.Yhjcll llscs Ihe col1ceJive pseudonym
 G,I.IWZAV IN

gf N, Bourbaki, They characterize a structure as follows:" In order to defi ne a structure,

ono or more relations, containing thei r clemcnts arc nt first spec ified ... then it is postulated
that thl; ~ i v(m reimion or relations sati sfy certain conditi ons (these are listed and they co nstitute
the Axioms Ilbout the stru cture under considerati on). To construct nn axiomatic theory of a
~ i v~n structyre. ls to deduce logical conclusions from the ax ioms about that structurc, witholl t·
aclmlttl!ls, nny Qther presupposition in respect oflhe elements under consideration (in particu lar,
s l<\)'in~ OIC\lf of ilny kind of hypothesis rega rdin g their "nature" [5, s. 251-

Prom Ihls, it is. evident lhllt concrete in terp retations of the objects of mathematical
inve sti~allon s I\re quite unimporta nt for Ihe sllid investigations. One can view these objects as
elemenl li ofabstracl mathemat ical Sll'11ctures, all the essential propert ies of which arc spec ified
with Ihl; h~ lp or ftxi()ms , N, Uourbnk i hnve elnssified rhe mathemat ica l structures into three
basie l ¥pC~, in <\c~ordan~c wit h Iho character of these properties; these are: the algebraic,
Qrd~ f l find t g p 9 1 0~ i ca l ~ Iruc tura!l, More complex or multiple structures arc formed by
cAml:!injn~ Ih ~se inili;tl stru<;luraf\, The stru cture of vnri ous mathematical theo ries muy be
~t~" i e d a11g Ih ~ reby they may IN cicu'sifled, with the help of these more co mplex structures.
If ~Arlier m ilth~mati cal Ilwories wero simply elaboruted onc beside the other, in the course of
th~if lih:lnriQ91I!m~r~QIWO, lhon now it is possi ble to revea l their deeper resemb lance. Thu s,
fgr ~xampl~! the ~Qt of natural numbers, which serves as the basis fo r the constru ction of
1l1ath<Jmalloai unalYliis, contains (:Ill the tlll'ee generative structures and hence, th ~ earlier
iSQla!inn gf alge;pra, g go m ~t r y Ilnd nnalysis turns out 10 he ground less,
Of hlle the ftl ~ebraic theory of categories is drawing ever greater attenti on of the
~ pccj" li s t s, Baforo Iho Qmergencc of this Iheory , Ihe set was considered to be the most genera l
QOnc~ pt gf mathQmali cs" Thflt is why, while subs tantiating mathematics, all othe r
miuhernat iQal Q(l nco pt ~ were sOtJ[:hI 10 be defined by usi ng the terminology of set theory.
f\Y(m Hl ~ ~g n Q"p t ig n or N, Uourbaki w(\s noex eoplion to thi s, based as it is, in the final cou nt,
Q Il An A)\:ipmmic Ih~o ry of fio t ~, The concept of category is not only un alternative to the
cgnlH'! pt of ~g t l it la ll!IiiO 1110 further concretization and development of the idea of
!11{1l hQm'niQai §lflHlture,
A P,fHQ~OfY i1i mnde li p of ft certain class of objects aild a definite class of morphisms,
wlwfl}jn ~A!; ~ ordered pai f Qf objects is contrasted with a correspondi ng set of morphisms.
All pplmlliAn with lhe m orp hi s m~, with the help of which from two given morphisms of a
eH t e~PfY I i\ third unique ol~menll:i found ClIl from umong Ihe set of morphi sms, is ca lled
Ihe eQlllpg:;,ition or prod\lQtlon of morphiSims , It must satisfy the 'condition s of associati vity
il n~ idtlnlifY[4, ~,Q- J 1], Simply speaking, in the thcory of catego ries the sum total of objects
i\n~ ~(;m~id ~re~ Ig~(!th e r with thoir structure Ilnd with some representations among them,
nHilillin~ thQ ~ iven ~ lntClure., If Bel fi ure viewed as the objects of a category, and
mflfimm latign ~ "lnong Ih ~m ~OI've ns morphi sms, then wc get the category of sets. Thus,
lng Qq nQ~p t gf s~ ll lIrnll out lO be a special case of th e more general concept of category.
In \,1QllINUH 10 th~ stati c concepl of a sel, here the princ ipal attonti on is tu rned towards the
Qh MaQH~ f gf reprt1saotatiQns, whi ch rotain the defi nite structural specificity of the objec ts, and
'h~ r~p¥ Ih~ iH1Iiv~, eg !1 ~lr1:lotlve alipact of mathematical know ledge is underlined.
 STRUCTURAL APPROACH IN MA TII EMATICS 495

2. THE ROLE OF ABSTRACT SRUCTURES AND CATEGOtUES I N THE MODERN

UNOERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT MA-rt'lm ANO METHOD OF MATHEMATICS
The ideas and methods of the theories of structure and category provide fI better
0pPorlunity to understan'd the qualitative chan ge, whi ch is taking place in the very
subject-matte r of mathematics, as we ll as in the applicati on of its method s in the other sc iences.
UplO almost the middle of the last century mathematics was viewed as a sc ience of
magnitu des and spatial fi gures . Of course , there in not the concrete physical, c hem ical etc.
pro perties of the magniludes, but the properties and relations co mmon to all of thcm were taken
into con sideration. Since eve ry magnitude can be expressed numerically wit h the he lp of a
suitab ly c hosen unit of measureme nt, in the past, often the essence of mathe mat ics was
considered 10 be located in the investigati ons regardin g the properties of a nd dependencies
among numbers (7, s. 151. The study of spatial figures in geometry was a lso, in the main,
limited to their metric properties. And th ough by the midd le of the last century, lhere did ex ist
in mathemati cs such theori es and se parate discip lines, wherein the questio ns of
measu re ment did not play any importa nt role (for ex:unple, in the projecti ve geo metry,
group theory etc. ), nevertheless, the view that mathematics is a sc ie nce about the metric
properties of and re lations among magnitudes, was dom inant among mathematicians.
With the emergence of the new abstract divisions of mathematics, a structural approach
towards the Objects of mathematical investi gaLions took shape; it became ever more clear
that the subject-matter of mathematics is not limited to the study of the properties and
re lation s obtainab le among magnitudes a nd spatial figures. One of the importan t
methodologica l conclusions, emanating from these latest results of mathematics. is this that
notwithstanding the practical significance of the metric re lations among magnitudes and their
representati Ons in numbers and functions, in the theorerical sense, they cons1itute o nl y a
part ' of the more extensive and deep-go ing tellchin gs about mathematica l. stru ctures and
categories.
In their attempts at underlining the difference between the mode rn and the class ical
mathematics , some scholars often view the modern as the "qualitative" and the class ical
as the "quantitative " mathematics. However, such a contraposition is, in essence, based 0 11 an
identificntion of the concepts of magn itude and number wi th quantity, and of the abstract
stru c tures and categories - with quali ty. On e cann ot agree with thi s po sition. It is
understandable that nobody will object to the posit ion that the concep ts of struc ture and
category are qualitati vely different from the magnitudes or fi gures of the three dimensional
space . There is , also, no denying the fact that modern mathematics has raised the
in vestigations about the real world to a qualitatively new height. But this does not mean that
now mathematics has gone over to the study of the qualitative specificities of objects and
processes. It is evident that by con trapositing modern mathematics to the classica l, the deeper
and more abstract character of the concepts and theories of modern mat he matics are soug ht to
be hi ghli ghted , the broadening of its scope and sphere of applicatio ~l is underlined - but by
11 0 mean s a transit ion to the qualitati ve methods of investigation is indicated . In contrast 10 the
methods of the concrete natural and social sciences, the methods of the theories of structu res
 <9' G. I. IWZAVIN

and categories are mathematical methods, and not the methods or specia l sciences, wh iell
include obsrvation and experiment. Had the co nverse beenlrue, mathematics would have been
then turned into a branch of the natural sciences and thereby il would have lost its character
as a "generally significa nt and abstract science", to which F.Engels drew our attention.
The concepts and methods of the theories of structures and cnlcgorics have made the
process of appl ication of mathematics in the other sciences. technology and practical activities
considerably easy. Actually, having proposed the su itable abstact structures, the schoJilf or
the practi cal worker can limit o neself on ly 10 verifyin g whether the objec ts under investigation
satisfy th e axioms of the structures under consideration or not.Thc entire further tedious
and difficult work of deducing the conclu sions from them becomes unnecessary, since one
ca n st rai g ht off use all tho se theorems which were ob tnin ed while st udyin g the
mathematical structure considered. Thus, the abstract structures and catego ries of mathematics
may be compared w ith ready-made forms, that Illay be used while investigating the phenomena
and processes having the most diverse contents.
Abstract struclUres can be successfully used for constructing mathematical models; wc
may especially use those among them, which aim at revealing not onl y Ih nu cri ad sstrk c)
dependencies among magnitudes , but also the re atitj of an n-melc c char cter.The study
of uch non-mc tr c relations is f considerable sig ifi cance f r thos sc iences, where
owing to the co mplexity of the object under in vestigation, and sometimes a lso ow in g to the
une laborated stage of a theory, it is irnnt ible to presen the results umcrically.That is why,
there one is often required to turn 10 th e abstract s ructures of order. In their investigations
about the dif erent types of rei tio s obta nab le mo ng individual s an g roups in socia l coli Cl ives,
psychologists an socio logists have egu to app y t ori ndsstrk ory o f g aphs, whic
constitutes the simples t formdstrnslebrdssclategory.
The experience of app lying the latest structural methods in the exact natural sc ie nces
convincingly shows the future possibilities open for th s line of malh ematdsat o n fthe sc ie nccs.
n fact, the use of the abstract structures o f mathematics in su ch branches of the exact natural
sciences as the theory of relati vity and the quantum mec hani cs, theory of elementary
particles and cosmology, quantum chemi stry and molecular biology etc., is dictated by
the very level of development of these disciplines. The concepts and theories of these
disciplines, not only very often do not permit visual representat ions, but also do not admit
of their description in the lang uage of classical mathematics. That is why, there o ne is requ ired
to turn to the ideas and methods of the abstract structures and categori es of modern
mathematics.Thus, these abstract structures go to highlight the remarkable idea of V.1.
Lenin regarding the fact that sc ientific abstractions,laws and theories do not push us away
from objective truth, but rather lake us closer to it. "Thought proceeding from the
concrete to the abstract - provi ded it is correct ... does not get away fro 111 the truth but
comes closer to it. The abstraction of mOl1er, of a law of nature, the abstract ion of volue
etc., in short all scientific (correct, seri olls, not absurd) abstracti ons reflect nature more
deeply, truly and c 0 m p let e 1y" [3 , s. 15 2; Eng. ed., v. 38, P. 1711 .
Yet another important rol e of the mathematical structures lies in the fact that they serve as
an exact languagc for the abstract description of the most diverse phenomcnn and processes.
 STRUcrURAL AI'I'IWACI I IN MATHEMATICS 497

[I is enough to note the fruitfulness of the method of Imlthcmatica l hypo thes is in the process of
fo rmat ion of the quantum theory in physi cs. In this connectio n Oyson wro le : "For physics,
malhclnlltics is not onl y an in strument, wit h the help of which it cnn qllnn tit<lti vcly dc.~c ribe
any phe nomenon, but is also an importanl source of such ideas and principles, o n the basis
o f which new theories are generated" [6, s. 11 2]. This spcci fi city of modern mathematics, as
an exact language, for abstrac tly dcscribing the interconnections alllong phenomena,
chracteri zes its ro le as a synt hesizer in the general process of develop ment of sc ient ific
knowledge.
While d iscuss ing the question of in ter-object interconnections, il is necessary , in the first
place, to turn our allent ion, to the ro le of mathe matics, namely, as an cx oct l<lnguage fo r
ex pressing thc dependencies, that we come across in physics, ast ronomy, chemi stry and in
the ot her branches of natural sc ie nce. The mathematical languagc of form ulae, equations and
fu c tions allows us to express the interrelotions and laws of the phe nomena investigated in every
specia l sc ience, in the most exact and genera l form. nU! for finding out the adeCJuate
mathematical languagc one must tak e the specific, qualitati ve c haracte r of these phenomena
into consideration. All th ese go to show, that in the real pract ice of sc ie ntific cognit ion, there
exis ts a dialecti ca l interconnection and reciprocity between the quan titat ive mathematical
methods and th e qualitati ve methods characteristic of every spcec ial science. The better we
know of the qualitative specificities of the phenomena, the morc successfu l we beco me in
using the quantitative and mathe matical methods. for analysi ng them. The estab lishment of the
quantitative regularity of phenomena, is a lways based upon the ability to reveal that which
is s imilar and common in what is in herent to th e qualitatively differe nt phenomena. And thi s
is possible o nly by study ing the phenomena within the frame-work of the specia l disciplines .The
e ntire powerful apparatus of mathematics turns out to be e ffecti ve on ly in that case, when that
which is similar and common in the phenomena under investi gation, is preliminari Iy discovered
a nd formulated in the fo rm of suffic ie ntly deep go ing general co ncepts and qualitative
dependencies. In fact, if thi s or that science proposes only the s implest of ind uct ive
genera lizations of facts and empi rical laws, where in the con nections among those
magnitudes are established, that are immediate ly observable in the experiments, then it is
impossi bl e to count on the applicat ion of the latest methods of mathemati cs, for their
quantitative analy sis. The history of phys ics; chemistry, astronomy and of the other sc iences
clearly tes tify to the fact that the progress of theoretical investi gations in them was
accompanied by an ex ten sive application of the mat he matical methods . Often th e de mand
for elaboration of these theories promoted the eme rgence of new mathematical methods,
a clear example of thi s is the emergence of the infinitesimal analysis.

3. THR MATHEMATI CAL STRUCTUR ES AND T H E REA L WORLD

Just as the quest ion of ~h e relation of consciousness and being, is basic for philosophy as
a whole, likewise the question of the relation of the mathematical structures and the real world
happen 10 be ce nlral fo r the philosoph y of mathematics. In con trast to the positivist approach,
the schoo l of N. Bourbak i, not o nly does no t ignore thi s problem, but, on th e contrary underlines
the fa ct that, "the interre lationship of lhe universe of experi ment with that of mathematics" is

63

,
 '98 G.I. RUZAVIN

the basic philosoph ical problem IS, s. 258].Thi5 school also does not deny the ex istence of
cl ose ties a mong Ihe structures of mathematics and empirical real ily, though il considers the
reasons of their ex istence to be ent irely unexplain able.
The difficulties co nnected with the understand in g of the objective nature of Ih e abstract
s tructures of mathematics, arc rOOled in th e very s pec ificit ics of mathematica l Knowledge,
which bases all its propos itions upon the laws and p rinciples of logic and not o n experiment.
It was not accidental. that is why, for G.Frcge, B. Ru sse]l and their fo llowers to have
atte mpted to seek the foundations of the e ntire pure mathematics in logic. But therein they
ignored lhe doubtless fac t that mathemat ics, as an independent science, needs its own
initill concepts and postulales. Otherwise, as has been correctly po int ed Oll t by A. Poincare,
. it would turn into a grandi ose taut ology. 11 is al so importanlto pay attention 10 Ihe fact Ihat
many western scholars cons ider logic itself to be an a-priori -science about the forms of
thought. And in so far as logic pla ys the most important role in the formation of abstract
struct ures, often these structu res arc th emselves a lso viewed as a-priori -forms.
The strictl y logical and deductive character of the constructions and substantialions of
mathematics are, ult imately, determined by the specificities inherent to the processes of
'a bstraction and idealizati on in mathematics. Firstl y, in mathematics abstraction proceeds
significantl y furth er than , say, in lhe naruralsciences. In the concepts of the geometri cal
poi nt , line, the variable. the func ti on and in the case of a ll the ot her mathematical concepts in
ge ncral , we abstract from the concrete contents and qu alitati ve specificities of objects and
processes. Secondly, many abstract ions of modern mathematics emerge through a series of
successive stages of abstraction and subsequcnt generalization. It is, namely. lhlls that a ll
the malhematical structures have been formed. Thi rdly. the relative independence of the pure ly
theo retical deve lopment is, perhaps, more characteristic of mathematics, than of allY other
sc iencc. In contrast to lhe experimental sciences, mathematics does not contain any
empirica l terms or experimental methods for verifying its propositions. These proposi ti ons must
be proved, i.e., log ica lly deduced from a sma ll number of axioms, accepted withollt proof.
All the herein mentioned specificities of mathematical knowledge especially clea rl y came 10
the fore with the trans ition in mathematics from the st udy oflhe quantitative relations among
magnitudes and figurcs to the inves tigations into structu res of the most diversc ki nd , which
often have only a distam s imi larity with the· traditional objects of classical mathemat ics.
In connection with this, the most widespread notions about the nnture of mathematical
knowledge and the relation of mathemat ica l objects and structures with the real world, we re
subjected 10 c riticism.
The e mpirical notions about mathematics - according to which mathema tica l
knowledge is essent inlly id ent ical wi th the natural-scientific knowledge - were the first to
be c ritic ised. Moreover, the e mpiricists misinterpreted natural-sc ient ific know ledge itself.
For instance. thc followers of classical e mpiricism vicwed its theory 10 be inductive
gencralisation of ex perience. The defenders of similar inductive·empirical notions wanted,
accordi ng to N . Bourbaki , "to compel mathematics to ari se from the experimental truths".
Evidently, the new stage o f development of mathematics refutes these nOlions. However, N.
Bourbaki so strongly stress the dominant role of ralional·theoretic thought in Ihis process,
that they en tirely forget about the objective source of e merge nce of math ematical ideas and
 STlwcrURAL AI'I'I~OACII IN MAT1IEMATICS 499

theories. They do agree that, "of cou rse, on cannot deny that Illost of these forms had a
completely determinate inductive content when they emerged; but once they were consciously
deprived of this content, it was possiblc to give them allthe!r cfficacy, which constitutes their
strength , and it was made possible for them 10 acquirc new interpretations and to fulfil
their own ro le in data processing" {5, s. 2.'59]. Clearly, all this is true, but from thi s it at a ll does
not fo llow that experi mental rea lity goes into the mathematical structnres as a result of
some predetenninalion or pre-eslablished harmony.
Exactly in the same way, these structures should neither be considercd to be a priori
constru ctions of the human mind, nor conventions or argcelllents devised for ordering
empi ri cal data or for "economy of thought" a la the s ubjective-idcalist philosophy of E. Mach.
One ca nnot deny the existence of elements of cOl1velltion, agreement and even of quite
understandabl e economy of thought in these sLnlclllres, in so fa r as any abstraction, as pointed
out by Engels, is a s hortening, and thereby it rids us of a mass o f details. BlLt these elements
do nol pl ay a se lf-sufficient role and can be correct ly understood only in that case, when
a s tructure is considered in the process of its historical emergence and development,
wherein the empirical and the theoretical, the conlentful andt1ic formal and, the concrete
and the abst ract fa c t o r~ dialectically internct with each other.
When we deal with the ready-made mathematical structures, then at the first g lance they
do indeed appear to be (/ priori forms o f knowledge, which turn out to be applicable to the
study of very different contcnts, But why does it so happen? Even the schoo l of N. Bourbaki
does nOI deny thc factlhat the in itial concepts and s tructures of mathematics do have a fully
determinate intuitive content; and this is evident from the aforementioned quotation. Many
western philosophers of science stress the priority of form ove'r content in all kinds of ways
and that is why they view the mathematical structu res as pure forms. One has o nly to
attentively follow the genesis of these fo rms historically and logica ll y, for the said illusion
to van ish.
In fliet, isn't there any connection and continuity between the primary structures of
mathematics. which have an entire ly determinate intuitive content, say th e three dimensional
space of Euclid, and the many dimens ional or even infinite-dimensional abstract spaces?
Don't these stru ctures emerge thanks to the singling Ollt of the deeper and more important
properties and re lat ions of the mathematical objects and structu res under investigation?
Considering the point of a many·dimensional space to be a vecto r, for which the ordered
sequ ence of rea l numbers serve as co+ordinates, we postulate that for them the basic laws of
o perations over vectors, hold good. Owing to Ihis it becomes possible ' to establish the
connecti on a nd to differentiate between the three-dimensional and the many-dimensional
spaces: al l the laws of operations in volv ing the vectors of the ordinary threc·dimensional
space do not hold good in the many-dimensional space, No less important is the fact that
owing to this, the continuity in the development of mathematical knowledge,. and the
possibility of testing the conclusions of the many.dimensiOlml space with the help or those of
the three-dimensional, are established, since in the limiting c;lse such conclusions must
correspond to the results of ordinary geometry .
The situation is quite analogous with any abst ract structure in general. The deepest
properties and re lations or the abstract mathematical Objects are formu lated in the axioms
 ,0' G. L RUZAVIN

of these Strl1ClUrcs. 11 is, n ~mcly, that is why that these structures turn out to be <ll?plicable to
the investigations of the most diverse phenomena and processes of the rcal world, and 110t
only of those which served the emergence of the primary slrucll1rcs.
Havi ng begun the work with such ready-made structu res, n mathematician usually
forgets those intuitive prototypes, which provided the impetu s for the formation of the ent ire
cha in of successive <lbstractions and ge nerali zations . And of course he is not bound to
remember them, si nce that would complicate his wo rk. Having proposed an abst rct structure,
he deduces the logica l conclusions from the axioms, seeks val'iolls interpretations for them,
es tablishes its conncctions with the other structu rcs clc. In other words, the modes of
appli catio n and elaboration of the mathematical structures are directl y opposite to the
historical path 01' their formation. Histo rica ll y speaki ng, mathematical know ledge went
from the separate, concrete system of objects, or interpretations, towards revealing t heir general
structures, i. e . from th e particular and the separate to the general, whereas in the process of
furth er investigations it moves from the ready-made abs tract structures towards the observation
o f various other interpretations.
Marx termed this prOcess of development of mathematical knowledge, wherein its final
point is take n as the begin nin g of the further movement of thou ght, the "inversion of method" .He
has il lustrated it in detail ii} the "Mathematical Manu scripts", in the light of the emergence
and lIse of lhe basic concepts of differential calculu s. In the article e ntitled "O n the
. D ifferen tial", he has shown, how, in course of the elabo ratio n of thc calcu lus, the sy mbolic
different ial co-effi c ie nt becomes an independent point of departllre, bllt "with this, the
diffe re ntial ca lculu s 100 appears as a specific kind of calculus, already operat in g
independent ly upon its ow n grou nd .... " [2, s. 55-5 7].
Th es~ ideas of Karl Marx about the "invers ion of method" in the cou rse of mathematical
cognition, p rovides us with an opportunity to proceed correctly towards the sol ut ion of the
problem of objective conte nts of the abstract structures of modern mathematics. At the first
glance, their e mergence appears 10 be a priori, but in reality it is the product o f a protracted
development, in cou rs~ of which, the deepest and the most im portant properties of the
struc tures are gradually brought to light. But as soon .as this cycle of development comes to
an end and leads to the formation of the correspondi ng mathematical structure, this fina l
point beco mes the beginning of a new stage of mathematical cognition, connected with the
e laboration of the th eory of the given stru ctu re and with its app lication in the other sciences.
In so far as the e ntire hi sto rical process of emergence of the structures, usually goes on
outside the fi e ld of vision of the modern mathematician, it is easy for him 10 have an illusion
about th e (I .priori cha racter of th e abstracl structu res or about some pre-establishe d harmony
am ong th em and the empirical rea lity.
Roots of the idealist notio ns about the nature of mathematical cognition consist. in thi s that,
therein th ose cO lln ectipns between the abstractions and reality are ignored, which are rea:lized
in the process of applicat ion of mathematics in the natural sciences, technology and in the
social- human sciences. Herc, the contra-positing of "pure" mathematics and its application, is
a lso to be largely blamcd. Th is has pro motcd the culti vat ion o f the idealist notions to the effect
,
 STI~UCTURAL APPROACIIIN MATlmMATICS ~Ol

that, it is not the case that the abstractions and structures or 1ll,lIhCmUlics arc in agreement
wit h the real world, but, converscly, it is the world and its regulllrilies that come 10 conform
10 these abstractions and struclu res of mathematics. Criticisi ng similar idealistic views aboul
mathematics F. Engels pointed out that here,"as in every department of thought, at a certain
stage of development the taw s which were abstracted from the real world, become dlvOl"ced
from the real world, and are set up against it as somcthin g independent, as laws coming from
outside. to which the world has to co nform" [I, s. 38].
Another widespread point of view o n the mathcmaticul structures is connected with their
conventi onal ist treatment. The famous French mathematician A. Poincarc is the founder of
this approach; under Ihe influence of the discovery of the new, non-Euclidean geometrics he
began to think that the axioms of geometry arc conventional agreements and, while choosing
them the mathematician is guided excl usively by the dcmands of co nvenience. We have
seen that the abstract structures are defined by thei r axioms and, to that ex tent, here
the mathematician enj oys considerable freedom, of choice, and of mutual comb inatio ns of
the axioms and, that is why, in these structures the conventional moment is clearer than
in the ordinary geometrical systems.
Understand ably, one can not deny the fact, that in the formatiqn of the abstract Slructu res,
as in tha t of any othcr mathemati cal concept, the e lements of choice and agreement do ha ve
a place. Without such choice, mathematical c reativity would become meaningless, but
freedom of cho ice does not signify a rule of arbitrarincss. It is confined with in the framework
of necessity and, in mathematics in particular - const rained by the demands of logical
non-contradictorilY of thc axioms of the structure. BUI how can we be sure of their
non-contradictority? In the li ght of the example of the geor:netry of Lobochevsky we have seen
that the nOIl-co ntradicloriness of its ax imos can be proved by const ru cting its model with the
help of the geometry of Euclid. In its turn, the non-contradictorincss of the geometry of Euclid
can be proved with the help of an arithmetical model.
This process of proving the relative non-contradictoriness of the more abstract and new
theories with the help of the o ld theories, with which we are more accustomed, is very
characteristic of malhematical cognit ion. It is testified, fi~stly, by the facl that there ex ists
a continui ty and c lose inter-connection among the ncw and the old mathematical thcories.
Secondly, the freedom in the process of creation of the new mathematical structu res,
constrained by the demands of logical non-contradictoriness of the system of axioms, in
essence signifies this, that the conventional elements play a subordinate ro le in
mathematical cognition. The mathematician may subst itute some axioms by others or seek out
more genera l premises for his conclus ion s, but ultimately the correctness of hi s results are
controlled by logic and by such well substan tiated and corroborated th eories, as the elementary
geometry of Euclid and arithmetic, the truth of which have been tested in the centuries old
practice of mankind.
Litera/fire
I. Mark! K.. Engels F., Soch. 2·e izd .• T.20 (Collected Works. Eng. cd. v. 25).
2. Marks K., M~tematicheskie Rukopisi. M., 1968.
3. /.I'nin V.I., Poln. sobr. soch. T. 29 (Collected Complete Works. Eng. cd., vel. 38).
I
502 G . !. RUZAVIN

4. Bllkllr I., DdYlIIU/ A., Vvcdcnic v leoriu k;llcgorii i runktorov (Introd uction 10 the Theory
or Categories and Funclors), M., 1972.
5. n,,,bnki N. (BOl/rbaki N.), Ochcrki 1)0 iSlorii rnatcmaliki (Essays on the History of
Malhemmics). M., 1963.
6. Dy.fOIl 1-: 1 .. Mmematika v frzichcskikh naukakh (Mathematics in the Physical Sciences) 11
Mnlemmikn v sovremennorn mire (M'llhcmalics in lhe Modern World), M .. 1967.
7. Foss A., Sushnosl mn!emaliki (Essence of Mathematics). M. , L., 1923.

SOtlra: Zakonomcrnosli nlZViliya sovrcl.11crmoi mntcnmliki. "Naukn", M., 1987, s. 155- 169.
Aboul Ihe Aulhor : Geargi IVllrlOyich Ruzavin ( 1922· ), philosopher and mathematician. Areas of
specilili7.i1lion : Phitosophy of Mathematics ,md Logic of Probahility.
OIlier works:
I. 0 kharaktere mntemlllicheskoi abSlraktsii, 1961;
2. Osnovnyeetapi razvitiya formailnoi logiki (SOOI. P.V.Tnvantsova), 1962;
3. Induklsia i veroyalnost, 1962:
4. Veroyatnostnaya logika i co roil v nauchnom issJedovanii, 1964:
5. Induklsin i vcroyatnost, 1965;
6. lnduktivnye vyvody i veroyalnostnayn logikn. 1967 ;
7. Semanliehesl:.aya kOntscplsin induktivnoi 10giki. 1967:
8. 0 prirode matem:\lieheskovo zOlllliya. 1967;
9. "Mntcmaticheskie Rukopisi" K. Marksa i nekotorye problemy mClodologii rnatcmaliki 11
VoproJ'y filoJ'ojii. 1968. No. 12, ~ 59-70.
 REFLECTIONS
ON SEVEN THEMES OF PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATI CS
VLADlMIR ANDREIV ICH US PENSKY
PREFA CE
An Al l-Union sympos ium was organ ised in the town ofObninsk, from the 26th to the 29th
of September 1985. on the theme "The Regularities and Modern Tendencies of the
Deve lopment of Mathematics". J took parI in it. I was invited by V ladimir Invanovich
Kupl sov. To him, to a large ex te nt , goes the credit for the relaxed, creative and bus illess-like
atmos phere of this symposium. T he papers were fo llowed by intens ive d isclIssions, which
co ntinued in the so-called "round table" meetings. I did not read any paper, but took parI in
the discuss ions several times. Mi khai l I vanov ich Panov thought that what I said was good
enough for publication and. it is he who gave them the shape of papers, to be included in a
collection [of some of the papers read at the symposium} edited by him. It is thus thallhese
"Seven Rcnections" came into bcing. Here are the themes:
I. Is it true that in mathematics everythi ng is defined and proved?
2. Is it possible to define the concept of natural number?
3. Is it possib le to defi ne the Series of Natural Numbers (wri tten with capita l letters)?
4. Is it possible to axiomat ically dcfine the concept of a scries of natural numbers
(written with smalllelters)?
5. rs it possible 10 prove, that Fermat 's Great Theorem can ne ither be proved nor
disproved?
6. What is a proof?
7. Can mathcmatics be made understandab le?

I. Is it true that in math ema ti cs everything is defin ed und proved ?

Mathematicians are, as a rule, proud of the fact that thcy arc malhcrnaticianlji. For
them, the source of their pride lies in their disc ipline - not so much in the usefu lness of
mathematics, as in the fact. that it is an unique field afknowledge, not resemb ling any
ot her. And even the non-mathemat icians are in agreement about its exclus iveness
(thus not only the mathemat icians themselves, but 10 their satisfaction. even those
around them, recognise the greatness of the malhematicians). lndeed, it is considered
to be gene rally ack nowledged, that at least the three fo ll owing traits belong to
mathematics, and to it alone. Firstly. In mmhemm ics, unlike in the other
d isciplines. all the concepts are strictly defined. Second ly, in mathematics - and again
un like in the other discipli nes - eve rythi ng is strictly proved from axioms. T hirdl y,
no other disc ipli ne has attained that leve l of respectfu l trepidation, at which
ma thematics remains not understood. Tutors of mathematics are hardly more in
/lumber, than those of all the other school- level subjects taken together, and yet there
is not hi ng that one (of them )can really say about modern "highcr" mathematics:
it wou ld be enough to open any monograph, or better sti ll a paper III any
journa1.(Please note, that it often goes unnoticed, that the third trait indicated above
clearly contradicts the first two).
 V.II.USPENSKY

When something becomes very well-known, then a suspicion c reeps in isn't this
"something" a myth (well-known ideas do indeed possess an autonomous self-support
mechanism). Let us attempt an, as far as possible, unbiased critical examination of the
three, just indicated, well-known traits of mathematics.
We notice, first ly, that it is not possible to define a ll fh e concepts o f mathemalics .
One is defined through the other, Ihis ot her through a third etc.; wc must stop at some
place. (Mrs ProSlakova rightly observed - "A tailor learned his trade from another,
that one from a third, but from whom did the first tailor learn it?") A story goes, that
once the famous mathematic ian from Odessa S.1. S hatunovsky was introducing ever
newer concepts in a lecture and, whi le so doing he was repeatedly being asked: "And
what is this and what is that? "; he lost his patience at long las t, and asked ill reto rt:
"And what is 'what is'? ".
Let us consider the struclu re of a defining dictionary in any language - Ru ss ian.
English or any other. In it, onc word is defined through anal her, Ihat one through a third
etc. But since the words of a language are finite in numbcr, emergence of a circularity
is unavoidab le (i.e., there emerges a situ ati on, when, in the final cou nl, a word is
de fin ed through and by itself). [ Here it would be useful to th ink of a graph. in which
the words are placed at the apexes and, when in the dictionary entry d efining the word
X one meets the word Y, then in that case an arrow goes from the apex X to the apex Y.J
There is only one way of getti ng rid of s uch a c ircle: some words arc to be left
undefined. And that is what is done in so me of the dictionaries. [For instance, the
words to . thing" ( in its principal meaning) and "all" have been lerr undefined in the
defining dictionary of English language comp iled by Hornby and Parnwell (81-
Unfortunate ly, such a dictionary has not yel been compiled for the Russian language .1
Clearly. such is also the case with the concepts of mathematics. And if, namely, o ne does
not w ish to permit a vicious circle, then one has to leave some of the concepts
undefined. The question arises - how are these concepts go ing to be ass imil ated?
Answcr : through immediate observati on, from experience, from intuition. There
is no need to remind the reader, that the formation of general, abstract concepls in
the human brain, is a complex process, which belongs more 10 the realm of psycho logy,
than to that o f logic. These concepts, which are assimilated nOI from verbal definitions ,
but rat her from immediate personal experiences, arc naturally called the {Jrim(IIY
concepts or categories of mmh.ematics, The concepts of point, st raight line, sel, natural
number etc. are examples of such categories.
One is certainly required to be careful while preparing a list of the categories
(primary concepts) of mathematics (such a lis t can hardly be made fully precise).
Otherwise the number of primary concepts will become unjustifiably large and, the
princi ple of "Occam's razor" will be vio lated. Here let liS cons ider, for example,
Ihe concept of a sphere. It is well-known thal a sphere is the locus of points in space
having a given fixed distance from a given point - which is the centre of the s phe re.
However, we can hard ly find anyone, who came to know what is a sphere, first of all,
from this definitio n. We must concede Ihat a perso n assimilates the concept ci f a sphere
in chi ldhood - from the examples of a ball, a globe, a ball-bearing and a bill iard
bal l. One learns the aforementioned definition of a sphere only in the cla ~ s-room. And
 ON DEFINITIONS ANOPItOOl'S IN MATHEMATICS 505

there, the teacher does not always find the time to exp lain it to the learners thallhe
sphere known to them since Ihe early childhood und, Ihe sphere about which they were
taught at school-nappens to be one anclthe same sphere. In consequence there grows
the notion th at : "everyth ing is upside down in their physics and mathematics; perhaps
even their sphere too goes upwards". The words just quoted were utlered by a "quitc '
intelligent studen t ", in justification of a statement made during a lesson, to the effect
that a sphere put on an inclined plane starts rolling upward . Thi s remarkable episode
has been described in [101. But, from what has been said above does it follow that since
onc co mes to know about the concept of a sphere from experi en(.e. :md not from a
verbal formulation, the concept of a sphere should be cons idered a primill"Y concept ,
o ne of the categories of mathematics?
It would appear, that the situation becomes morc clear in the case of the more
co mplex concepts of mathematics, which arc further removed frOm experi ence,l ik e fQr
example, the concept of a g roup - surely, onc would not regard the concept of a group
to be a primary concept. However, the process of formation of the concept of a group
in the brains of professional mathematicians is, perhaps. 110t very diffcrcnl from the
process of formatiml of the concept of a sphere in the brains of people in genera l (which
includes the mathematic ians and the non-mathematicians) : juslas the concept of a sphere
e merges as a result of numerous C!bservat ions of various spheres, so did the concept of
a group emerge as a result of exam inat ion of concrete groups - and on ly then was tll is
concep t fixated in a verbal formulation (obv ious ly, at issue here is the emergence of Illc
CQIlCcpt of a group in th e co llective experience of Illathemalicians, and not in
the experience of an individual mathematician). That is why not the mode of
emergence of a concep.t.bu( rat her the mode of transmission of informations about it
wilhin a system of know ledge, which shou ld be considered to be the chnrilCteristic
indi cator of its primacy (categoricity). For elucidat-ing what h3:S been stated above, wc
shall imagine a situation where the carrier of a system of know ledge - in our case
know ledge of mathematics - has to transmit his knowledge to others. Then he can tell
others, what is a sphere or what is a group, by using the verbal definition of the
correspondi ng concept. And that is why these concepts are not categories. If, however,
one is required to communicate, what is a set. or what is a straighlline or what is a natural
number, then that is done differently. For example, it is sa id that: a ll the chairs in this
rOOm constitute a set, and all the Ostriches beyond the Polar Circle ' constitute a set
(academician P.S. Alexandrov's example), and all the irrational numbers within the
interval rO,I]cons tit ule a set; and later on, after having provided su lTicient numbe r
of examples, it is said that : "these are all sets" - and thus lhere emerges the general
concept of a set. Analogously: zero, one, two, three, four, fi ve etc. are all natural
numbers, and thus e merges the genera l concepl of natural numbcr.fIt is high time
for pUlling an end to the anachronism of beg inning the series of natural numbers with
one. In 11 pencil-box therc are always some natural number of pencil s - perhaps zero.
A natural number is ·the card inal ity (of the number of e lemen ts) of a finite set, in
pnrticular - Ihat of an e mpty set.] (We see that while explaining the concept of
natural number, there appears the word "etc." - implic itly or explic itly, and it
 V.A.USI'ENSKY
""
coul d not have been otherwi se in the case of primary concepts: first, a sufficient
quantity of examples are indicated and, then we have the word - "etc.")
Thus, the first among the myths about mathematics - Ihat. "in mathematics
everything is defined" - collapses. Let U $ proceed to the »ccond : "in mathematics
everything is pro ved from axioms", I n order IQ get convinced that such is not the case
and , la thus blast this second myth 100, it wou ld be enough to open the dassio..: tex t-book
of school geometry by AP. Kisvpfx.psr any text-book of mathematical analysis fo r
Ihe technical colleges, or any uni versity level text-took of the thl!ory of numbers. [n
nil these text-books we co me across theorems being proved, but Imrd ly <Iny axioms
(save the axiom about the parallel lin es - the fifth postulate of Euclid). The silL1at ion
is somewhat en igmatic. Indeed, if there are no axioms, then on the basis of what rc the
proofs - say, of the theorems of the theory of numbers - put forward? Evidently,
o n the basis of common sense and some notions about th e basic properties of the natura l
numbers; thou gh these notions me identical for all persons, Ihey have nOI becn
explicitly formu lated in the form of a list ofax ioms. (How far they may be so formulated 1
Well, Ihat is the theme of OLl r next renection).
It must be stated in al l honesty that, in rea lity, in math ematics one pretty often
comes across theorems, whi ch are proved with ou t basing the proofs upon any kind o f
axioms. The situation with the third trait of mathematics indicated by us - namely,
w ith it s non-understandability - happens 10 be more complex. I1 wou Id be very easy
to say that it is a myth; bUI if in respect of the first two traits it was enough 10 ask
mathemar ics itself - one asks and gets a negative answer - then here. of course, it is
pointless to turn to mathematics wi th the question: whethe r or not it is understood. A
survey of social opin ion indisputab ly situalcs mathematics at a prized spot in terms of
the level of non-understandability . The reasons behind suc h an opinion happen to be
the theme of a separate large-sca le investigalion. Any exp lana tion of thi s phenomenon,
it mu st be admitted, can onl y be that mueh objective, as much it is possible, in
general, to be objective about the issues of social psychology . We shal l not plunge into
such a discourse here. In our last reflection we shall be making some remarks on this
theme.
2. Is it p oss ible to defin e the concept of natura l num be r ?
It ca n certainly be said that a Ilaft/ra/number is Ihe quantity of items in a
finit e totality. Evidently th is formulation is compatible with the meaning (to be more
precise. with one of the meanings) of the verb"to define" according 10 the "Defining
Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by D.N. Ushakov [5] (" to give a scientific ,
logica l characterizati on, a formulation of any concept, to lay bare its (scielllific)content"),
as well as with the formulation found in the Phi losophica l Encyclopaedia tll ] ( the
"defin iti on " of an object ~ the results of the investigations about which are reflected
in the corresponding concepts - "may be viewed as an (explicit and concise)
formulation of the contents of these concepts"). Let us proceed now to the concepts
behind the verb ~to define" . and Ihe word "definition", from the position of a
mathematician. And then, we demand that a defini tion s hould conta in exhaustive
information about the concept defined - it must be so exhaustive as to permit a
person having no .e arl ier knowledge about a g iven concept, to form a correct
 ON DEFI NING TilE CONCEPT OF NATURAL NUMBER 501

understanding of it, solely on the basis of the defini ti on provided, Ln that case can we
assume, that a pcrson who does not know anything at all as to what a natural llurnbcr
is all about (we <lrc not talking here about the term, but, nmncly, about the concept), will
be able to assimilatc.this concept from the first sentence o f thc present paragraph? T hat
is very very doubtful: when one rca lly does not know what is a number. then it is qui le
li kely that he may take th!! words "quantity of items" to signify, say, the ir. total weight
and, the very concept of finite totality of items gets diffused when one considers very
large total ities. Probably eve ryone would agree that tri llion 10 the power trillioll is a
natural number, however, it remains a fact that this number is greater than the number of
atoms in the whole Universe. It is not clear, as to how far appro priate it would be
to ta lk about a finite totality of trillion to the power Iri l[ iol'l quanti ty of items( 161.
Thus, we shall be cnpti ously demanding lIn ex hausti ve co mplete ness from a dcfinition,
i.e. we shall be demanding that the concept being defined be expressed with the he lp of
genera lly accepted sy ntactical constructions through othcr concepts. which se rve as
s tarti ng points for the definition under consideration. Taking into considerat ion what
has been said above, let us attempt the following formulation: a natural number is
the cardi nality of a fin ite set. Three basic conccpts are operati ve in this definition: I)
sel, 2) ca rdina[ity and, 3) finite. The ju sl men ti oned formulat ion indeed appears to be the
definition of a nalllral number, within the frame-work of those theories wherc in these
concepts are already somehow interpreted ( in particular, declared 10 be uninterpretable
o r primary) . Name ly such a def in ition - suc h, in the ideational sense, rightupto the
inessential details - has been accep ted in the "Elements de mathematique" of Nikolai
Bourbaki . (In this connectio n I wou ld lik e to remind the reader that in Bou rbaki 's theory
the fu ll name of one [unity] req uires tens of thousa nds of sy mbols, for the purpose of
being written down) [6, p. I 88]. Common sense, however, refuses to accept the concepts
of set, card inality and finite to be simp ler than the concept of a natural number. He re we
have the ty pical example of a definition of the s im ple through the complex.
One Should not take the above· me ntioned statements to be a criticism of N. Bourbaki
nnd of the o the r autho rs, who put forward analogous formulations. Ev ident ly, th ey, li ke
ot her peopl e, have some a priori notio n o f a natural number (apparentl y, a priori in
respect of the definitions th ey propose, an d not in respect o f experience). They do not
intc nd 10 g ive an exp lainin g defin iti on of the concept of natural number ( i.e., a definiti on
that could be used to teach a novice). Thei r aim is more modest and technica l: to give
a definition of lhi s concept within the frame-work of an ex pounded axiomat ic set theory.
The concept of a function can be defi ned through the concept of a pair, and the concept
of iI pair can be de fin ed through the concept o f a fu ncti on. It is cleart hat these intel lectual
cons trucliol)s have hardly anything in common with the problem of expla ining to the
uninitiated, what is a pair and what is a fun ct ion. The aim of the en tire foregoing
discllssio n is to lead the reader to the follow in g almost self-ev ident idea. Let us set
ns ide the mathematica l and logical problematique , co nnected with lh e sea rc h fo r a
de finiti on of (it would be more correct to say - the attempts at representin g,
mod ellin g) the natura l nu mber, with in the framework of this or that ax iomatic theory.
Let LI S take up instead, the attempts at provid ing a "naive" ex planati on of the concepl of
508 V.A USPENSKY

a natural number - an eX pl<l llalioll, that would e nabl e one who does not know, to know
what it is all about. Very soon we shall get co nvinced that such attempts arc fruitless.
We must admit that the naturalllumber is a primary, undefinable concept - il is o ne of
th e catcgories of malh ~matics.
3. Is it possible to define the Sel"ics of Nalural Numbers (written with en pi L.'l 1 letters),!
Having fail ed in our altempls al defining the natural number (or, 0 11 the con trary,
havi ng succeded in finding out that this concept is a n unde finable category), let LI S
now turn to the concept of the Series of Natural Nu mbers. When written with the big
or cap ital lette rs, th e Series of Natura l Numbers is the totality of all the ll,lIura l
nu mbers. If we know what is a natural number and understand the words "totality of all",
then we know what is the Series of Natural Numbe:-s. Conversely, if wc know the S·eries
of Natural Numbers, then we ca n eas il y define a natural num ber as one or ils ele ments.
That is why the concept of th e Series of Natura l Numbers is as undefinable as the concept
of natural number. (However. the sen tence "The Seri es of Natural Numbers is Ihe
set of all natural numbers" may be viewed as a legitimate definition of the concept
of the Series of Natural Numbers th rough the prima ry, undefinab le concepts of a
"natural number" and the "set of <111".)
The reader would exclai m - "How come? And what about the axioms of Peano?
Don't they define the Series of Natural Numbers ?" Of course they don'!. and whal is
more, ir one unders tands the Series of Natural Numbers as we do - i.e., as the unique
total ity of some un h ocally understood essences called the natural numbe rs - then the
axioms of Peano do not even pretend to do !n at. Indeed, let us see, how Ihe axioms of
Peano loo k: "Ze ro is a natural number. and zero is not the successor of an y number,
etc." Th us, these axioms are based on the concepts "zero" and "successor of' (here,
immediate succession is at i.~slle). But they do I~ot e xplain , and they ca n nOI ex plain.
what these concepts signify (i.e., what is "zero" and what is "successor of"), they onl y
indicate the connections between these concepts. However, th ese ax ioms ha ve been
so fonnulated, th at if Ihe zero oft hesc axioms is the ordinary Zero of th e Series of Natural
Numbers, and if the words "successor of " sig nify th e immediate success ion of one
number after .mother in the Series of Natural Numbers (such that Ze ro is succeded by
Unity, and after Unity co mes the figure Two ctc.), th en a ll these connecti o ns will be
satisfied in the Series of Natural Numbers .[ln order to stress the uniqueness, i.e.,
the absolute si ngularit y of the terms of the Series of Natural Numbers - Zero,One
(Un ity), Two (t he fi gu re Two) etc. - we write them wi th the cap ital-l etters. The words
"Zero", "One" (or "Unity" ), "Two" (or the figure "T wo") etc. are proper nouns in the
absolutc sense Ous t like the words "Sun", "Moon" and "Earth "), eac h of them has
unique mcaning - the quantity of elements of the empty , unit, two-clement etc. sets.
And the "zero" axiom of Peano indicates a proper noun on ly relatively, w ithin the
li mits of the given con text, 10 be more precise - in the context of that struc ture, which
has been desc ribed by these axioms. There are many suc h structures, and each one of
them has its own zero.1 In other words, Pean0's axio ms turn out to be true, correct
statements upon their natural interpretation in the Se ri es of Natural Numbe rs. B.UI
evidently, they wi ll be true, not only in the Series of Natural Numbe rs, but I.ll so in all the
other structures isomorphic [on the conco!pLS isomorphism" and "isomorphic" we
H
 ON DEFINING THE TOTALITY OP ALL TIlE NATUKAL NUMlmHoS S()<)

request the reader to go through the second of the two articles entitled "Isomorphi sm"
in th e 3rd edi ti on of the Great Soviet EncyclopaedinlI4] - V.A. Uspcnsky; readers of
the present trans lation will find this article on "Isomorphism" <tllhe cnd of the present
theme 3. - Tr.lto the Series of Natural Numbers. For examplc', if th e tcrm "zero" in
the axioms of Peano is interpreted as the sma llest prime number, and the words
"successor of'- as the [result of] Cl tran sition from one prime number to another
immediately next to it, then under such an interpretation all the axioms of Peano turn
('ut to be true. It appears that these axioms do not even perm it us to distillgllish th~
Series of Natural Numbers from the total ity o f all the prime numbers. I repeat, they do
not pretcnd to do so. They claim to, it is sa id, " define the Serics of Natural Numbers
ri ghl upto isomorphism". To be more precise, the axioms of Peano define not o ne, bu t
at once many mathematical structures, moreover they arc all isomorphic to the Series
of Natural Numbers and, consequently, isomorphic to cach o.ther. To ~e more precise,
the axioms of Peano define the ontire class of such structures . We shall call My slIc h
structure a series of natura l numbers (written with small, or lowercase lette rs!). Thu s,
the Series of Natural Numbers is one of th e sericses of natural numbc rs.
13riefly speak ing, isomorphism of two mathematica l stru ctures is the
mutually-univocal correspondence among the totalities of e lements of the first and the
second structu rc, retaining Ihe operation s and relations defined 011 these structures.
In our example the isomorphism between the struct ure N (the Seriys of Natura l Numbers
wit h the operat ion "to follo w") and the stru ctu re P (prime numbers with Ihe operat ion
"to follow") provides the following end less tab le:

o 2 3 4 5 6

2357111317

In thi s correspo ndence the operation "to foll ow" is indeed retained: 6 follows 5,
and simulta neou sly 17 follows 13, and in genera l in the upper row y follows x if
and only if the corresponding terms of the lower row Pr and P¥ (na me ly, in thi s order!)
follow one after the other (fo llow in the sense defined for P).
It is sometimes said Ihal the Series of Natural Numbers is the series

O. I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 126•...

but likewise it can be said that the Series of Natural Numbers is the series
zero, onc, two, three, four, five, six ... ,o ne hundred and twenty six ,.
o r the series

Q. I. n. Ill. lV. V. VI.... CXXVI.....

~ 10 V,i\.U.~I'ENSKY

[Isn't th e persistent exclusion of zero frolll the series of natural numbers explained
by the absence of the symbol (} in the traditional collect ion of symbo ls? i3ri efly
speaking, aren't we situated at the level orthe Latins on this question?]
Evidently, none of these serieses happens to be the Series of Natural Numbers
(w hich consists of abstract quantitative categories and ean not be depicted), these arc
but the serieses of names designated for it s terms, i.e. for the natural numbers. At the
same time each of these serieses of names may be viewed as onc of the serieses of natural
numbers, written with small letters.
, The situat io n with the Series of Natural Numbers is universal in cha racter. For
example, we have an ana logous sit uation with the three dimensional Eucljdillll space,
in which we live, Let us digress from the FacI that most probably wc live in
non+Eucl idian space, and generally speaking, we live not in the mathematical, but in
the physical space - and these are difrcrcnt objects, [In this connection we IllLlSt
mention the fact that, most probably, Ihe "physical" Series of Natural Numbers is
something different from its l1lathcl1l<1tical model - the "mathematical" Series of
Natural Numbers. On this issue see the decp+goillg but insufficiently appreciated essay
[16] by P.K. Rashevsky.] Let us abstract from rc<\lity and imagine that we live in an
entirely concrete three-dimensiona l Euclidian Space (we are again uS1I1g capital
letters, as we wish to st ress the uniqa cness of this space), However, it can not be
defined with the help of any numberof axi oms, it may on ly be "indicated with' a finger" .
On the other hand, there are nu merous systems ofaxiom.s (the most famous among them
belongs to Hilbert) [31. defining this space "right upto iso morphism". The phrase
within quotation marks indicates the fact that the g iven system of axioms defines an
en tire class of mutually isomo rphic spaces, and that o~r "real" Euclidian Space happe ns
to be onc of them.
In general, no system of mathematical axioms can ever define any structure
u ni vocally, in the best of the cases they define it right upto isomorphism. (Wc speak here
of" the best of the cases" as there are very important systems o f axioms, which define
the class of non-isomorphic structures. For instance, the axioms of group theory define
the mat hematica l strUCtures ca ll ed the groups, but all of them are not mutually
isomorphic.)
Let us sum up. Ji is 1101 possible to axi0n:tatical1y define the Series of Natural
Numbers. We may ' try to axiomatically define the concept of a series of natural
numbers - i.e., the concept of any arbitrary structure, isomorph ic to the Series of
Natural Numbers. We shall be discussing these attempts in ou r next reflection.

ISOMORPHISM
It is one of the fundamental concepts of modern mathematics. It initially :lTose in algebra
in cO{lnection with the algeb raic systems, such as groups, rings and fietds, but proved to be
extremely significant for the under~tanding of the structure and domain of possible
applications of every branch of mathematics.
 ISOMORPH tSM s"
The concept of isomorphism applies to systcms of objccts on whkh opcr:llions or relations
arc dclinoo. As il simple example of two isomorphic systcms consider the systcm R of all real
numbers under the operation of addition .1"= Xl +X l and the system P of positive real
numbers under the operation ot multiplication Y"" YI Y2' Il tums out thnt the internal ~Iay
out" of these two systems of numbers is identical. To show this we' map the lIystem R onto

.
the system P by associating to the number Y = ( j ' (a > I) in p. the numher .~ in R. Then the
,
prod uc t Y'" YI Yl of Ihe numbers 11 = a I and Y, = (! 1 which eOl"respond \0 XI and
Xl ' will correspolld to the sum X '" XI + A2 . The inverse ma pping of P OlltO R is given by
.t.", log,,1. From any proposition concerni ng the addition of numocrs in the system R we
enn obtllin a corresponding proposition concerning the multiplication of numbers in the
system P. For eXllmple. since in R the sum
S~"'XI+'~+"'+x"

of the terms of nn nrithmelic progression is given by Ihe formula

/I(x l + .\~ )
S:
• 2
it fo llows thnt in P the product

of Ihe terms of the corresponding geometric progression is given by the formula

p. '" ..J(YI .\I","

(raising to the II-th power in P corresponds to multiplication by 11 in R nnd extrtlction of the

squnre root in Pcorresponds 10 division by two in R).
As regards thei r properties, isomorphic systems are essentially the snme. Prom an
nhstnlet mnthenlllticaJ standpoint. such systems arc indistinguishable. Any system of objects
S' th:! t is i~omorphie to Jhe system S may be regarded as n "model" of S (modeling a system
S by rnc:lIls of a system S'), nnd the stud y of the properties of S Illay be reduced to the study
of the properties of the "model" S' of S.
T hc fo llowing' is n genernl definition of the isomorphic system of objccts such Ihnt each
system hus a number of relations ond each relation involves n fixcd number of objects. Let
S find S bc two given systems of objccts. Le t
Pt(.t· I .x1 .· .. ),k"'I . 2. 11
be the relations on S llnd let

F't (x' I • x'" ... ), k'" I . 2. "', 1I

be Ihe rei ut ions on S '. The systems Sand S', with thei r respective reln tions, are snid to
be i~o morphic if there eltists a one-to-one correspondence
x' = (J}(x) X= 'V(x ')
betwcen the elements of Sand S' such that
F,(x,.x, . .. )

implies
512 V .A .USl'13NSKY

,.. ( (/ , • .r' 2' ... )

a nd vice verS<l. The correspondencc is snid to be an isomorphic mnp. or nn isomorphism.
[In the cX<lmple cited above, the relnlion P(x • .I', ' ).-2)' where x= x, + x~ . is (Iefined on
the system R, and the relfll ion I;'(y, >". )'1) where Y=)', Yl' is defined on the liystem P , a
one-Io-one eorrespondeoce is given by the formulas .y '" a ~ and x = log" y.l
The concept of isomorphism arose in group theory whe re the r<let that the study of the
internal structure of two isomorphic systcms of objects represen l.~ Ill1e mthcr than two
prob lems was fi rst undcrstood.
The axioms of .my m:llhcmatic.lltheory determine the systcm of objects studied by the
theory only upto isomorphism: a n1111 hem.uical theory based on axioms. Ihm is llppl icablc 10
onc system of objccts is nlways fu ll y applicable to another. Therefore, every axiomatic
mathematica l theory allows not o nc blllm<lny "inlcrprel:llions" or "modcls".
The concept of isomorphism includes, as a particu lar case, the conccpl of
homeomorphism, which pl<lys a fu ndamental role in lopology.
A particular case of an isomorph ism is an aUlomorphism, which is n onc·to-one mUllping
)..'= (I>(.r) ~ "" ~(x')

of U system of objects wilh given reln ti o ns ''-.(x l ' x1 • ... ) on lo ilsel f Slleh thal

Ft (XI' ).',), implies PI (x' , . x' l' ... ) and vice versa. This concept also nrosc in group
theory hut Inter proved significant in most dispn.rale branches or mal hclllatics.
Reiercllu-s

Kurosh, A.G. Kurs V)'ssclrei Algebry, 3rd. ed" M-L" 1952.

EnlsikloJler!ia elememamoi IIIt11ematiki, bk. 2. Ed. P.S. A!cxandrov et al. M-L" 1951.
[Source: Tire Great Soviet EIIC),c/ope(/ifl . A Tra nslation of the Third Edition. Vol. 10. p. 465.
Macmillan, [976.1
4. Is it possibl e to axiomatically definc th e co nccpt of a seri es of na tural num bers (w ritten
with small lette rs) ?
So then, we get down to the attempts at ax iomati ca ll y defini ng the concept of a series
of natu ral numbers, wh ic h is a stru cture isomorphic to the Se ries of Na lura l Numbers.
As soo n ns we utter the word "iso morphi sm", already thereby it is proposed, that the
relalions and ope ralions to be retai ned under this isomo rphism have been indicated.
Consequentl y, fi rst of all we must indicate prec isely, the re lat ions and opernlioll s we
wish to exa mine in lhe Se ries of Natural Numbers and in the ~cr i eses of natural nu mben;
iso morphic to it. Among these operations we may inc lude zero-place operalions(i.e.,
individua l consta nts ; for exampl e, the indi vidual constant "ze ro~ may be viewed as a
ze ro-place ope rat ion) and one-pl ace re lati ons ( i.e., pro pe rt ies) . Th ese earmarked
operations and relati ons are to a signi fica nt ex tent arbi trari ly indicated. For example, the
Series of Natura l Numbers' (and thereby any series of natural numbers isomorphic to it)
may be viewed : I) as a structure only with the order relation "< ", or 2 ) as a struct ure
wi th an earmarked c le me nt "zero" a nd the operation "trans it ion to the next ", or 3) as a
struc ture, wherein, apart from the re lations and operations al ready ment ioned, the
operations of addit ion and multiplicat ion have al so bee n earmarked.
 ON AX IOMATIC DEFINITIONS or A SEI{II:.S OF NATURAL NUM()!;RS 51J

For our purposes it would be mos t graphic not 10 indicate any operation , bul only to
s tipu late the order relation "< ".Thus we shall be viewing every series of natural numbers
as a set, on which the binary order relation "< "has been defined. We shall be
investigating, namely, the properties of such Cl mathemm ical structure.
Let us enumerate these properties. When the re lation "< " is understood as an ordillary
re lation of order among natural numbers, then every properly of the rel<.ltion "< " in all
arbitrary series of natural numbers mus t (011 the strength of the presence of iso morph ism)
ho ld good also in the usual Se ries of Natural Numbers. After this remark, let us now
formulate some of these properties .
I . The re lation "<" is transit ive. Symbolica ll y:
'rIx'rly'rlz(x<YI\Y<z => x<Z)
2. The relation "<" is ami -re fl ex ive . Sy mbo lically:

\;>'x1 (x<xl.
3. T he re lation "< " is symmetric. Symbolically:
VxVy(x<yv y<x).
The totalilty of these th ree properti es s impl y affirms that "< " is a relation of s trict
li near o rder.
Before going ahead further, let us stop and think: strict ly speaking. why are we li st ing
these properties? Here's why. We hope that having listed a number of properties, wc
s hall be able to axiomatically define a series of natural numbers. In greater detail, our
plan is as follows. At fi rst we write out some of the properties c harac te ris tic o f the Series
of Natural Nu mbers. Th en wc declare these properties to be axioms and define a series
of natural numbers as an arbi trary mathematical structure, satisfying the listed ax io.ll1s.
We do not exact ly cla im th at a set defined wit h the given binary re lation "< " satisfies
o ur ax ioms (such a claim would be quite unrealistic), but we do claim that all such sets
(with the given relation) turn out to be mutually isomorphic. In so far as the Series of
Natural Numbers will satis fy ou r ax ioms (we sha ll be so chosing the axioms), the Series
of Natural Numbers will be o ne of the pairwise isomorphic s tructures, sati sfying these
ax io ms, and this means that all these mutually iso morphi c struc tures wi ll also be
iso morphic to the Seri es o f Natu ral Numbers .If we succeed in atta inin g the goa l just
enunc iated, then we s hould think that we have been able to axiomatically defin e a series
of natural numbers.
Keeping in view the a im th at we have put forward, can we remain satisfied with the
three propert ies-ax io ms listed o ut? Evidently, no. AlllinearJy ordered sets sat isfy these
axioms. among them many are non -i somorp hic and, con seq ue ntl y. wiui n g ly
non- isomorphic to the Series of Natura l Numbers N . For exampl e, the set o f all real
numbers R with the usual o rder ·relation will satisfy the th ree lis ted axioms. By
comparing Nand R we note that N has at least two such properties, wh ich are absent
in R .
These arc:
4. N co nta ins the s ma llest element. In symbo ls:
3x'v'y(x=y v x<y).
65
51' V. A. USI'ENSKY

5. In , N after every element x immediately fo llows some y. C: l mmcdiatcly" means there

is no third e lement between x and y.) In sy mbols:

V'x3Y(X<YA 13z(x<zl\z<y».
These fiv e ax i 011l~ signifi ca ntly narrow dow n the range of li nearl y
ordered sets sati sfy ing the m. The Series of Natural Numbers, as well llS
the set of real numbers
'1 2 3 5 6
0, 2 ' 3' 4' 6' 7' (.)
(cons idered in the usual order), com pl y with th ese ax ioms. The existence
of this, different from N, structure (*), satisfying the axioms 1-5, still
does not constitute an hindrflllce \0 the view that th ese axiom s prov ide an
axiomatic defi nition of a series of natural numbers: s ince this structure
is isomorphic to N ( and, thus it can be identi fied as a series o f natura l
numbers).
Fig.1 Figure I provides a graphi c dep ictio n of th e o rde r in (*) (a nd in N).
However, it is eas ily noted tha t the structu re (Le., the set plus thc order
relation) :

3 5 6
3 ' 4 ' 6' 7 '
I
.. 10 10'-
2'
la!.4 ( .. )

too satisfies the axioms 1-5 . Fi gu)'c 2 gi ves a grap hi c depiction of this
ordered struclUre. In this structure two ele ment s ( 0 ,me! 10) do not ha ve
any immediate predecessors. Let us fixate thi s si tuation in the foll owing
ax iom 6 .

6. If two elements XI and X 2 do not have any immediate predecessor,

then th ey arc equal. In symbols:

"Ix. "Ix2 /[13y,( y,<X 1 /\ 13z. (YI<z./\z.<x l ))]/\

/\[1 3y.z (Y2 <X2 /\ 1 3z2 (Y2<Z2/\ Zz<x2 »} ~xl=x2 1 ·

Axiom 6 eliminates the structure (**),but does 110t el iminate the
Struct ure
. I 2 3
0, '2' 3' 4 """"
I I
9+ - - .. ·9-
m-I' 4'
I 2 10+ 11 - 1 .
t'l g.2 I~, 10), n
 ON AX!OMATI C DEFIN ITIONS or A SERIE,<; or NATURAL NUMBERS 5 15

It is evident that the struClUre (***) is not isomorphic to a series of natuq'll numbers.
Like the horizon, our goa l is moving further and furthe r ... It appea rs la be unattainable.
The foll ow ing noteworthy fact appears to be the case: however many axio ms may we write out,
using the logical symbols, the sy mbol "< "<l nd the variab les, covering the e lcmcnts of the
stru cture being defined - there will always be 11 mode l of the totality of li sted axioms,
non-iso mo rphic to a series of the nall1ral numbers. In view of Ihe fundamenta l impo rtance of
this fa ct (signifying the impossibility o fa xio matically defining a series o f natural numbers by
usi ng the means ind icated), let us desc ri be it in grc:! ter detail.
The fo llowing symbols belong to the a lphabet of the fo rmal ized sy mbolic langullge,w hich
we are using for li sti ng the axio ms:
. I) the sy mbols of punctuation: the left hand side bracket''' ~'' and the right hand s ide
bracket "f,

2) the logical sy mbol s" 1 ", "A " , "v " , "::)" , " V" , "3" , "= "
3) the indi vidual variables x, y, z, u, v, w, x, ' y" Z, • 11, , v,. W, . ... ,
4) the symbol "< ",
P"omwlas are composed with the help of these letters, accord ing to the natu ra l , but easily
formulated sy ntactical rules, Simplest examples of such formu las arc:
x<y vy<x;
'<Ix (x <x) ;
3x3y(y<x=>y«x);
3y(x<y);
'<I x3y (x< y) .
No w, let us take any set, with any binary re lat ion denoted by "< " de fi ned o n it (it is not
obligatory for the relation to be one o f strict order), Wr; shat l be calli ng all such sets with the
relation "< ",a structure with the label < ,Thus, a structure with the labe l < consists ofa set
(called the carrier of the stru cture ) and th e relati on "< U ,Let us fix 1I carrier of th e s!ructure
as the domain of change for each individua l va riab le , Then every formula becomes either a
sentence, as the seco nd , third and (he fifth formula s of the just mentioned list arc, or sentc ntinl
fo rms, like the first and the fourth formu las o f the same li st. Those formu las which tu rn into
sentences are ca lled closed; we shall be considering only them in future. It is not di ffi cult to
notice, that the property of "bei ng closed" in respect of a formula, does not depend on the
structure, wherein we are examining the sai d formu la; this properly can be d efi ned purely
syntactica lly , according to the external form of th e formuta..(Closure cons ists of this th at all the
variables must be bound by quantifiers., ) It is sa id in respect of a (c losed) formul a - when
considered il~ a g iven structure - which becomes a true sen tence, that it is true ill the given
Slruclure o r that it is satisfied ill tile givell struClure; and about the struct ure it is sa id , that it is
satisfied by tile given formula,
The st ructure N - our usual Series of Natural Numbers with the usua l order re lation -
may be singled out from among the struclUres with the label <, we sha ll call any closed fo r mula ,
 '" V. A. USI'c.NSKY

turn ing into a tru e sentence when interpreted in the st ructure N - an axiom. Thus, however
many - finit e or infinite number of -- axioms may we wri te out, there will .Ilways be suc h a
structure with the label < • which, first ly, sati sfies a lt the li sted axioms. and is secondl y.
isomorphic to N.
Thus, it so turns up, that a se ri es of natural numbers ca n not be defined axiomatically: since
to define N flx iomalica ll y is to list sllch a system of ax ioms, as wou ld define N uplO
isomorphi sm (thi s, in its turn, means, that an y two st ructures satisfying a lllhc listed axiom s,
are isomorphic).
"But excuse me ~- the reader will nga in objccl - ~ Ihe axioms of Petlna do define the Series
of Natural Numbers UplO isomo rphi sm. Penno's system of axioms is ca tegorical, and this
r
signifies, that all the mode ls of it arc iso morphic". Any structure sH ti sfyin g each of the axioms
of a syste m is ca lled the model of that system or li st of ax ioms. J A little pat ience! Wc shall
look in to the axioms o f Peano too.
But now we shall discllss another question. Not merely the order relation "< .. , but a
numerous set o f o ther re lati ons and operat ions are defined o n the Series of Natu ral Numbers.
Among them there are the two-place (or bina ry) relat ion of di visibility o f two numbers; the
,three-place (or lernar:y) re lation "x + y = Z "; the onc- place (or sin gular) re lation of "bein g' a
pri me number" (l et us reca ll that we treat pro perties as o ne- place relati ons), Ihere we <Ire using
the etymologicall y more correct term "s ingu lar", following W.V.O. Quine, iJlstead of the now
wide ly used te rm "unary"; see: 7, note 29]; the two-place operation of addition; the two-place
operat ion of multip lication; the two-place operation of involution (0° = I); the o ne-place
o peration offollowing immediate ly (as is custom ary, we shall indicate it with the prime sy mbol,
such Ih at, 0' = I ; 13' = 14); th e constants 0, 1,2, 3,4,'" (Ictu s recall that we treat the constan ts
as zero-p lace operat io ns) ; the four-plnce operatio n [log 11+1 ( z! + y' !.+H)] (here, as usua l,
through [a] we indicate the integral part of the number (/); and many others. We ha ve adduced
on lya few examples, and altogether a cou ntless number of operations and relations are defined
o n N . In order to define the concepts of a struclu.re isomorphic to N, we must at first separate
ou t some operations a nd relations from among them (theoretically it is poss ibl e to take into
co nsideration all of them) and ex amine th e isomorphi sm, namely, in respect of tllese isolated
operations and re lati o ns. Indeed , th at is why there does not ex ist the concep t of a series of
natural numbers as sllch, but only the concept of a series of natu ra l numbers in respect of a
given li st of operations and relations. Earlier we have examined t he concept o f a $eries of
natu ra l numbers in respect of a li st, wherein there were no operat ions at all, nnd there was but
onc re lation - the relat ion of "lesser than".
In th e co ntex t of o ur investigations, the operat ions and relations sin gled Ollt in the set are
ca lled - Labelled, and the li st of such operations and re lation s - a label. To be more precise,
not the list of th ese ope rati ons and relations themselves, bUlthe li st of their names, is ca ll ed a
label, (this distinction is very important in itse lf) but for ou r pu rposes it is not quite essentia l,
and it wou ld be easie r for us not to not ice it. A set wi th some singled out operations and relations,
forming the list cr, is ca lled the (mathematica l )structure with the label cr. Now we can say that
any series of naturnJ num bers is a structure with this or that label cr. That is wh y, we should be
speaking not about a se ri es of natu ral numbers in genera l, bu t aboll t a series of natural numbers
with {h e label cr. So far we have examined the case, when
 ON AXIOMATIC DEFINITIONS OF A SliRIES OF NATURAL NUMI3ERS 511

<5 = 1<),
Perhaps the poverty of th is label is the reaso n behind the failure of our auempt at
ax io matica ll y defin ing a series of natu ral numbers? Let liS broaden the [abel and see what
h~ppe n s. First of a ll , let us add to "< ", the constant "0 " ( fOl' denoting the smallest clement in
respec t of the order "< ") and the prime sy mbol' " , " to indicate the operation of immediate
~ lI ccess i o n , ln
the Series ofNatu ra [ N umbers N, these objects come under the fol [owing ax ioms
(pro pe rties) 7 and 8 (compare the properties 4 and 5, wh ich follow from the properties 7 and'
8) :
7, liy(O=yvO<y);

8. 'r/x(x<x' 1\ l3z(x<"zl\z<x'»·
Any series of nat ural num bers w ith the label 10, I, < I is by definition isomorphic to N,
s ince isomorphism is considered in respect of 10, I, <). That is why any such series of natural
nu mbers cons ists of the elemetlls 0, 0' , . , . ,ordered as fol lows:
··
,
0<0' <0" <0'" <.
Rem 11 r k s. We musl be l1Wl1re or t!1C fl1Cl thal every series oflHlturnl numbers

& has itsownO, own' and own <, i.e., own clement indicated by O. own operntinn
.~ignified through"'" and, own relmiol1 denoted by "<". Strictly speaking. for

& cvery series of natura! numbers wc shall devise its own synlbols for these objects

~
- for example, if we 11fe conSidering n series of nntural numbers M , then it is
n ece~sary to add this letter" M "as nn index to the symbols "0 ", "',, . and
"< ". This strictness provides some convenience However, the absence or
0 strictness alsp gives rise to some conve'nience .In the given case. the convcniellce

·· from lack of strictness is considered to be greater, and thnt is why onc and lhe
snme "0" is used to signify various elements (but in every series of nnturnl
numbers it denotes one and only one clement; in particular, the cardinality of the
· empty set in the Series of Natural Numbers). Annlogously [or"'" and "< ".
· These remarks arc vnlid not only for a scries or nntural numbers, but nlso for nny
I,

t
structure with the label! 0, ' , < not bindingly isomorphit: to N.

Now we sha ll see, h ow an a r b i t ra r y strllct ur e with t he

labe l / O, " <}, subordinated to the axioms 1-8, looks (axio ms 4 and
5 follow from the axioms 7 and 8, but that is not a g reat calam ity).

f
F ig.3
Evidently, it is a linearly ordered set, where in 0 is the least element, 0'
is th e e le men t i mmediately fo llowing 0 (such that there is nothi ng
between Oand 0').0" is the ele me nt that immed iately fo llows O~ etc. All
these elements - O. 0' , 0" , 0'" - form the init ial cui of our structure.
T his in iti al cut is ca ll ed the standard part o f the structure, and the
remainin g part (it may even be empty) is ca lled lton-standard. The
standard pa rt is iso morph iC to N. Had there been notni ng but this standard pa rt ill any structu re
I,
wit h the [abel/ 0, ' , < subo rdinate to the ax ioms ['- 8, then we would have attai ned onr goal:
518 v. A. USPEN.~KY

axioms [-8 in their lota[iHy would have given us the axiomatic definition
of a series of natural numbers we are looking fo r, 10 be more prec ise -
they would have given us the axiomatic definition of a series of natural
numbers having the labe[ 10 , I , <! .
This, however, is nOI the case. The structure graph ical1y depicted in
figure 3 - say, the onc like (***), where

••
o' =~ . (1) =~. (9~) = 9~ctc,
• satisfies the axioms 1-8, but it is IlOt isomorphic to N it contains a
•• non-empty non-standard part (in figure 3 this non-standard part has been

,
depicted in the upper rectangle, in (***) this llon -stnndmd parL consists
of the e lements of the form 9 + ,~ nnd [ 0 + II~ I). What is more, it turns
out that no system ofaxioll1s can give us a series ofnature.11 numbers with
I
the label j 0, ' , < ,since the structure depicted in figure 3 wil l
· always be a model for SLlch axioms.
Perhaps it tS still a case of poverty of the label? What will happen if
we add addition and multiplication and consider a series of natural
numbers not having the label 10, < I, I'
but o ne with the label
10, " <, + , . I?
Would it be possible to make a list of axioms for such a richer label,
which would define the concept of a series of natural nu lTlbers having this
labe l - i.e., from a {{ the structures with Ihis label, would it be possible
to single out those structures which are isomorphic to N in respect of

·· 0, I, <, + ,. ? It appears that no, it can not be done. Whatever be the

totality ofaxiorns - finite or infil;ite - made out by us, for this totality
there will a lway s exisl a structure [with the label 10, ' ,<, + , . J , I
no n-i somorphic to N. [W hen we speak ofaxio rns, we have in view a
sy mbolic language, like the one described above for the labelj< !; o nl y
now, together with "< ", the alphabet con tains "0 ", "''', "+ " and
. " .]
What is more, w hat eve r b e t h e I a bel c hosen
undwhat e v e r be t h e s y s t e r n o f
a x i 0 m s chosen for this label, there will always ex ist a model of
this system of axioms, not isomorphic to N. Such, non-isomorphic to N,
models are ca lled non-slandnrd, and tht: axioms li s tin g the properties of
a series of natural numbers (especial ly, when + and· en ter into thl;': lubel),
are ca lled the axioms of arithmetic. That is why, we mily re-state what
Fig. 4 has been s tat ed above as fo llo ws: the r e e xis t s a
non -s tandard m ode l for a ny system
of aXIoms of ar i thmetic.
 ON AXIOMATIC DEFIN ITIONS OF A SER IES OF NATURAL NUMBERS
'"
If the ax ioms 1-8 or something equivalcn tt o them en ter into our axioms, then it is possib le
to s ingle out the standard part O. 0' • 0" , .. . in ,my model; in this casc, no n-standurdncss of
a model signifies the non-cmptin ess of the non-standard part. This non- stand ard Pll rt Illay turn
OLlt be more complexly constru cted. than the case depicted in figure 3. From the standpoi nt of

order, the non- standard pan depicted in figure 3 is simi lar to the set Z of all wh o le numbers,
In the case of natural axioms for a label that includes the operation of addition, the no n-standard
part o f any den umerable st ructure (i.e., of o ne containing denumerable number of e lements),
sat isfy ing these axioms, assumes a look, which we have (not very success full y) attempted 10
de piC! in figure 4. In this diagram we have attempted to somehow depi ct the followi ng idea: a
very large (denumernbly infini te) number of examp les of th e sets of whole numbers Z arc taken
up, and these exa mp les are arranged like the set of nil rational numbers Q.
Thu s, i t i s n 0 I P 0 s sib I e l O p r o d It c e a s y s I e III 0 f
a x i 0 m s, d e r i n i n g the con c e ptO f a Se r i e s 0 f
n a t U I' a I n U III b e r s (with any label whatsoever). To our know ledge, a more detailed
interpre tation of thi s statement is as fo llows: whatever operations and relations de fined on N,
may be chosen, there can nOI be such a syste m of axioms, .:::11 models of whic h are isomorphi c
to N, in respect of these operat io ns and re lations.
And now we shall answer the question: "But what about the axioms of Peano 1".
With inessential chan ges, the c la ssical ax ioms of Peano are us under. Here. th e label
0, 'Iis bei ng co nsidered .Th ree ax ioms ha ve beeil fo rmul ated:

1. 13,' (x' = 0);

u. Vx 'Vy(x'= y' ~ x= y);
Il l. The Ax io m of Induction.
We ha ve, ti ll now, o nly named the third axiom of induction, but have not described it. Now
wc describe it:
'<I p IfP (0) A '<I, (P(x) => P(x))] =>'<Ix P(x) I.
W he n we look at the axiom of induction we no ti ce that togethcr with the usual individ ual
variab le it contains yet another variable P. we shall exp lain the mean ing of thi s vari able. FirSI
of al l, let us reea ll thm the se mant ics of a fortl)u la (Le., the meaning anaehed to it) emerges
on ly after th e mathematical structure corresponding to th~ labe l is produced. In particular, in
order to find out the meaning o f the axioms of Peano (of the formulas I-m ), we must produce
some structure with the label ! O. I,
i.e., a set with a s ingled oul c le ment , indi ca ted by "0 "
and a singled out o ne-place ope ration, ind icated by " , ". Then th e domain of change o hhe
va riaba le x is at once define~ (l ike that of any indiv idual variable) - it is the sel of all elemen ts
o f the structure under consideration. What is the domain ofchange of the variable P like 1
Th e va riable P is of a special type, wc have not met with the like of it hithe rto in ou r
enu nciation. Its do main of change consists of all the possible properties (= one-place relations),
defined 011 th e structure under consideration, i.e., the properties of the elements of this structu re.
The concept of property is a primary concept; it is grasped from exa mples. The property of
bei ng even is defined on the natural numbers - every number m<ly be either eve n, or odd . It is
 520 V. A. USI'ENSKY

inessential that there <Ire even as well as odd numbers; we may construct a situ ation, where all
the number.~ arc evcn; what is important is that il .~llO llld make sense to ask in respect of every
number, whether it is even or odd. The property of being green is not defined 011 a series of
natura l numbers; for a number the talk of "being green" is pointless. The Series of Natural
Numbers possesses the properties formulated llbo·'e. as <I whole. Relations, too, may possess
properties: example - the relation of transitivity. But at the given moment we are interested
on ly in the properties of the elements of the stru ct ure under considenltion (for which the axioms
of Peano are satisried). Tt is these properties, namely, that can prov id e th e values of the
variab le P.
The fac t that an e lemc;nt a possesses the property Q is described as Q(a). IF a property Q is
de fi ned on the e lements of some set M, then it is pos$ib le to introduce for consideration a
sub-set of th is set, K - consistin g of those and only those elemell ts of M, wh ich possess the
property Q
x E K <=>Q(x). (+)
Conversely, for every sub-set K it is possible to introduce the property Q : or "be in g an
element of K", and again the corres~onde n ce (+) will be satisfied.
Thus, a property and a su b-set arc almost the sa me : "the langunge of properties" and" the
l ang\Jng~
of sub-sets" arc trivia ll y inter-translatable. For example, the axiom of induction
would look as Follows in the language of sub-sets:
\;IplrOE PA \;I X(XE p ""x' E P)] ",,\;I X(XE n l.
Thus, in the axiom of induction, the domain of change of P is the tota lity of alllhe properties
defined on the structu re under cons ideration. We shall now see, how this axiom is util ised 10
ascertain the fact that a structure satisfy ing the ax ioms of Peano, is isomorphic to N. Thus, let
a structure with the label! 0, 'I
satis fy the axioms I-Ill. Axioms 1-JI ensure the presence of a
I
standard part {O, 0' , 0" , 0"'· .. in the structure. Now let us apply lhe axiom of induction,
having taken as a value of the variable P, the property Po of the e lements of the structu re: "to
belong to the standard part". The axiom says that someth ing is true for a ll Po' in particular for
this Po. Thus, it occurs that
[Po (0) A \;Ix (Po (x) "" Po (x) J ",,\;Ix Po(x).
The pre mi se enclosed within squa re brackets is c'videntl y true ( 0 belongs to the standard part,
and it x belongs to the standard part, then x' too belongs 10 it); that is why Vx Po(x), i.e., all
x (all elemen ts of the struct ure t ) belong to the st:lI1d ard part. We ha ve already noted th at the
standard part is isomorphic l O N. This concludes the proof of this that the structure under
consideration is isomorphic to N.
Thus, any structure sat isfying the axioms of Peano, is isomorph ic to N, and consequently,
these axioms define the concept of a se ries of natura l numbers of the label 0, I ' I.
Apparently,
this si tuation contradicts our repeated an nouncement to the effect that it is not possible to
formulate a system of axioms with such properties .

./
 ON AX IOMATIC DEFINITIONS OF A SEKIES OFNATUHAL NUMIIEHS 521

There are no contradictions here, and here's th e reason why. Earlier we wcre speaking on ly
about the properties of the Series of Natural Numbers, which could be ex pressed through a
definite lingui st ic means - in other words, wc were talking about sOllle axioms written in a
definite language. This language contai ned only o nc typc of variables - the individua l variables
x. y, z, .... The essence of these indi vidua l variables lies in the fact that upon being
interpreted o n any structure, each one of these variables gets onc and the same set as its d omain
of change - it is thc set of all e lements of thc structure und er consideration. Another kind of
variab le - the variable P - takes part in the axiom of induct ion. lis values arc not the elements
of the structu re under cOllsiderut ion, but a property of these e lements (in ot her words - the
onc-place predicates defined on these elements, whence the variable P itself is call ed a
predicate, to be more prece ise - a predicate variable (~r valency I). Thu s, the axiom of
induc tio n is a formula of an 0 the r; e x ten d c d [a n g II age; Ihis lan guage
is more extended than ~he narrow language so far considered. (Narrow because it contain s
on ly indiv id ual variables). And when we said that there is no system of axioms. which fully
c haracterizes a series of natural numbers, then we had this earl ier, narrow lan guage in view .
Of co urse, an explanation has been provided. but it hardly satisfies anyone. What if it is not
poss ib le to write out a system ofax ioms for a series of natural numbers, in some lan guage? It
is, as they say, "not a fact fromlh e biography of a series of natural numbers, but rather OttC
from the biograph y oftha! language ". Simply put, a narrow language is bad, and look, now we
ha ve found a good, ex tended lan guage, in which it is poss ible to write the adequate axioms for
a series of natural numbers.
Everythin g, however, is not that si mple. Crudely speak ing, the situat ion is j ust the opposite:
a narrow langua ge is "good", an ex tended o nc - "bad".
.,
Let li S attempt an ex planation of the situation. We shall begin with terminology.
The fo rmulas, whe rein all the variables arc individual are called elementa ry formulas , and
the lang uage that perm its of only the e lementary formula s, is called an elemelila ry lan guage.
In the given context, the synonym for the term "elementary" is the term " 1st o rder" or "fi rst
order". AI11he a"xioms considered above, save the axiom of induction (i.e., the axioms 1·8 and
1·11 ) were elemenlary (lxioms, i.e., e lementary formula s. There exists no (neith er finite, nor
infinite, and besides oC any labe l) system of elementary axi o ms, which WOll Id satisfy the Serie s
of Natura l Numbers Nand, all the models of which would be isomo rphic to N.
There are non-e lementary fo rmulas, but they belong to a no n-ele rnentary language.
Variables of a more complex nature are permitted in this language - predicate variables of
valency I, properties (= one-place relation s) serve as their va lues; predicate variables of valency
2, binary (= two -place) relat ions scrve as their values etc., and also, functional variables (any
one-p lace ope rat ion, like, say, "to follow", may serve as the value of a fun cti onal variable of
valency I, and any two-place operation, like, say, addillon, may serve as the va lue of a functional
variable of valency 2). The axiom of induction is an example of a non-elementary formula. A
more precise non-ele menta ry lan guage, having the possibil ities just described, is called a 2nd
order/allguage : this means, that it admits of variables covering relation s and operations (what
sort of relations and operat ions, that must be defined on the e lements of the structure) , but
does not consider more complex variables, as the val ues of which may serve, say, the properties

66
~22 V.A. USl'ENSKY

of operal ion s or operations on re lat ions (or the properties of relation s such as "transitivity"),
The axiom of induction serves as an example of non -elementary formula of a 211d o nlei'
language (or sim pl y, as an examp le of a 2nd order formula).
A second ordcr lan guage is the simp lest of a ll non-elcml..:lltary languages,
One would think - and the presence of the axioms ofPeat1o somehow confinns this - that
it is possible to have a system of non-elementary axioms of 2nd order (i.c., axioms, written in
the form of formulas of this non-elcmentary language), defining the concept of a series of
natura l numbers. in the following precise sense:
I) N is a mode l of this system; and
2) any model of thi s sys tem is isomorphic to N.
However, here arises an unexpected , but qu ite fundam c ntal semant ic (onc may even say,
ep istemologica l) difficulty. The fact is this, tlu~t already in thc case of a 2nd o rder language (not
to speak of the more complex non-elementary languages), the very concept of a modclloses its
essential clarit y. The following example, connected wi th the so-called problem of the
continuum, illu strales this siltmtion.
It is well known that the quantity ofclements of any set is called the ca rdinal numheror the
cardiltalily of that se!. The concept of a cardinal number or cardinali ty is a generali satio n of
the concept of natura l numbers, in so far as the naturalllumbers arc the cardinali ties of finite
sets. From among the infinite cardinalities the following two are singled out: the cardina lity of
the set of all natural numbers and the eardinality of the set of a ll real numbers. The first is
indicated by No (read "alcph- nul l") and is called the denumerably-infini te (or infinitely
dcnumerable) card inalily; rhe second is indicated by c (small gothic "c") and is called the
cardianality of the continuum . Eviden tly, No < c. The fam ous cO lltill UUI/; problem consists of
explaining whether or not there ex ists any intermediate card inality, i.e., 1\ ca rdinalily satisfy in g
the inequality
No <m< c.
Th e famous con tinuum hypothesis consists of this, that such a card inality does not exist. (On
the stre ngth of the results of K.Godcl and P. Cohen) it is well-known that it is ne i the r
po s si b l e t 0 pro v e, nor d i s pro vet h e con tin u 'u III h y" pot h e s i s.
While speaking of "proving" and "disprov i!lg", we have in view all the. conceivable means
pe rmitted in modern mathematics . Thereby, the quest ion of the very meaning of the conti nuum
hypothesis remains unsett led. Indeed, the meaning o f such a statement is taken to be vague -
its truth or falsity can not be determined in any way. This extraord inary situat ion is radica ll y
di fferent from such situation s, often to be mct with, when we simp ly do not know someth in g
(though we understand the question very well). [An d the security of clarity in understandi ng a
question lies in th e c larit y of understanding the possible answers.]
It appears that we may write out a formula of the 2nd order, which then and only then has
a mode l (i.e., such a structure, for which it becomes true), when the continuum hypothesis is
true.
Tt is also poss ibl e to write such a formu la of the 2nd order, the existence of a model of which
is equ ivalent, on the contrary, to the ex i ~ t ence of an intermediate cardinality , i.e., to the truth
 ON AXIOMATIC DErlNITIONS OF A SERIES or NATUI~AL NUMBERS 523

of ne~ation of the continuum hypothesis. [ A 1I0le for ,lie s{)ec:i(/lis,~·. Example:; of such
formulas. known to the present author, con tain predicate symbols of valency 2. However, if in
the axiom of i nduction we change the prime symbol" , " into a predicate symbol, then th is
axiom too wou Id co ntain a predicate symbo l of valency 2 . I Thus, for the formulas of 2nd order,
the question of ex istence of their models Illay turn Outlo bc as hazy as Ihe continullm hypothesis
Itse lf.
That semantica ll y so vague a lan guage would be able to serve as a 'sat isf,lClory means for
axiomatically defin ing somet hin g - in particular, a series of natural numbers - appears to
be doubtfu! .
And indeed, if we an<1lyse the lIse of the ax iom of induction in the process of provi ng that
any mode l of the axioms 1-II1 is isomorphic to N, the n wc shall scc, Ihat herc , in essence, we
are using that very concept of a natural number, which we stilt on ly intend to define
axiomatically. Our property Po signifies "to have the form 0 "... ' ". The dots in the expression
"0 " ... '" are on ly a subst itute for the genem l notion ofa natural number. And it is not possible
to depict the property Po withoul nn a priori notion of the natural numbers or without
substituting that notion by dots or by the expression "etc.".
?l f.s i~ possibl e to lH'OV'C that Fcrmat 's Grcat Thcorcm ca ll nci thcr bc provcd nor
dis proyed ?
We have mentioned the cont inuum problem al the e nd of ou r last reflection. It is one of the
Illajol' problems agita tin g the intellect of mathcmaticians . In the famous report entitled
"Mathemati cal Problems", read by the great Hilbert in the year 1902, at the International
Congress of Mathematicians in Paris, it was mentioned as the first problem. We have already
not ed that the continuum problem turned out to be unsolvable : it is neither possible to prove,
nor disprovc the continuum hypolhesis.
While enumerating 23 basic problems of mathematics, Hilbe rt did not mention the problem
of prov in g (or disproving) the Great Theorem of FermaL Evidently, Hilber! did not consider it
to be ilT1portanl e nough. At the same time there is no doubt that it is the most famous among
the unso lved problems of mathematics. And besides, lInfOrlul1ately, it is unique among the
unso lved problems, kn ow n to the wide mass of non-mathematicians. We wrote "unfortunately",
si nce professiona l mathematicians spend an appreciable percentage of their time, studying and
refuting th e essays of the Fermatists - the name given to people, who do not have the
necessary mathematica l prepar<1tion, but who think that it is, namely, they who have proved
Fermat's theorem. .
Strict ly speakin g, Fermat' s theorem should not be cal led a theorem. The "Matematicheskaya
Entsiklopedia" [22] defines a theorem as a "mathematical statement, the truth of which has
been es tablished through proof" .
A proof has not yet been found fo r Fermat's "theorem". [However, not everyone supports
this point of view. Thu s, Viktoly Invanovich Budkin states in p.45 of his book "Methodology
of Cogn ition of "Truth". A proof of Fermat's Great T heorem" (Yaroslavl: Upper Volga
Publications, 1975. pp. 48): " 13 generations have passed, and yet Fermat's Great Theorem sti ll
remains unproved. Only in the present work, a compkl~ proof of the theorem is being given in
its general form". ]
 v. A. US I'ENSKY

What is more, thc sa me "Matemati cheskaya Enl si kl opcdia" (';onl<lins an article entitled
"Fermat' s Theorcm" , in ·its 51h vo lume (thc sa me volume Ihat contains the aforeme ntioned
definition of a thcore m). We too shall be using this generally accepted but imprecise term -
though wc admit that it would havc been marc corrcclto s peak of the hypothes is of rermaL
Many factors contributed to the popularity of Fermat 's theore m amo ng the
non- pro fess io nal s. These include: I) the authority of ils autho r : it has been stated by o nc of
the originators of the theory o f numbers - the famous French mathematician Pi erre de Fe rmat;
2) the res pect due to age: it was Slated ill around 1630; 3) the romantic circums tances of its
formulation: Pennat wrote it down on the marg ins of the 1621 edition of the "Arithmetic" of
DiophanlUs [ the e ighth proble m of the second book of the " Arithmctic " of Diophantus re"lds
- " To decompose a givcn squa re into two squares "; Fcnnat made thc following commen t on
this proble m - "On thc contrary, it is not poss ible to decompose any cube into two cubes, any
biquadratic into ( WO b iquadratics, and in genera l no power greater th an the squ are, into two
powers ha vi ng the sa me index. [ have di scovered a truly wounderfu[ proo f of this, but th ese
margins are too narrow for il"; this proo f could not bc found among the papers of Fennal J; 4)
the settin g up of a prize of 100,000 German marks for providing a proof of Fermat's theore m,
in 1908 by W olfs ke l ( natural ly, the "p lcasant" fact of thc institution of a big prize became mu ch
more well-known. than the "u npleasant" fact o f its co mplete de preciation as a resu lt of the
post-fi rs t-world-w,lr inflation); and 5) the s implic ity of its fo rmulation.
Of course , th e firs t four factors co uld not have been effecti ve in tandem, had not the
formul ati o n of Fcnnat's th eore m been so popu lar. It is as follows: W ha t eve r bel he
i n t e g e rn , g rea t e r t.h a n 2, I h e e q u a ( ion
x"+ y~= zn
h as n 0 p 0 s i I i ve i n leg r a I s o III I i o n.
We see, that the equatio n present in the formulatio n of Fe rmat 's theorem may be viewed as
an cquation with three unkn owns - x, y and z. In sofar as 11 may assume any of the va lues
3 , 4, 5, 6 etc., here, in fact, we have an infinite series of equations , and it has been s tated
that no ne of the m has solutio ns in s uch integral x, y a nd z Ihat x > 0, y > 0 and z> O. From
the po int of view o f log ic it would be more natllralto consider the equation
xn+yn=z"
as an equati on with four un knowns x. y, .z, and n. Then, Fennat's theorem wou ld s tate
that thi s equati on has no integral solutions for n > 2, .x> 0, y > 0 and z > o.
The search con tinues for the proof(s) o f Fermat's theorem·. Theoreticall y speaki ng, the
searc h for its refutation could al so have continued, but tllat is not happenin g. The si tuation with
the hy pothesis called "Fermat's theorem", is s ign ificantl y different from the si tuation in respect
of the continuum hypothesis: we know, that for the continuuTll hypothesis it has been proved
that it can ne ither be proved , nor di s proved (to be more precise, in 1939 Godel showed that it
can not be dis proved , and in 1963 Cohen showed that it cannot be proved). For the hypothes is
(theore m) o f Fermat, such a proof - the proof that it is ncither possible to prove, nor disprove
it - does not exist. The questio n arises: whet he r th is proof does not exist so far (with the

,.. A morc reccnt example : Andrew Wiles' ( June, 1993) claim to have proved th e Taniyarna-Weit conjecture,
enl3i1ing the solution of Fermat's problem. Experts arc now examining this proof.- Ed.
 ON FERM AT'S "TIIEOREM " 525

hope that it will be obtained in futu re) or is il in princi ple impossi ble? Had th is proof becn
obtained, it would, undo ubtedly, have been of g reat use for mathe matics. as it would ha ve
c losed, o nce and for all , the fl oodgates in the face of the fl ow of ignora nt atte mpts to prove the
theorem of Fe rmat. Unfortu nately, such a proof is not possi ble. It is true, that there re ma ins a
theoretica l poss ibil ity of prov ing that Fermat 's theore m cannot be proved. The appearance of
suc h a proof too wo uld have closed the aforeme ntioned fl oodga tes - but then, perhaps, the re
would have e merged a flo w of attempts to dis pro ve Fermal's theorem (for example, by way of
produc in g, in an o blique manne r, four astro nomica lly,l argc numbers 11 , x, y, z fo r which the
requi red eq uation wou ld be practica lly unverifiab le).
Thus, we are assumin g, that (a) there e xi sts a proof to the effect , that Fe rmnt 's theo re m can
not be proved; (b) there exists a proof to the e ffec t, that Fcnnat's theorem cannot be disp roved.
No w, our aim is to show, that (a) and (b) arc in compatib le, i.e., it is Il ot possible ror these
two. state ments to be true at the same time. In fact we find that (b) is incompatib le even ·with
the weak er-than-(a)-state ment (a l ) : "Fermat's theore m ca nnot be proved ". Wc shaU s ho w,
na me ly, th;lt fro m (b) the ex istence of a proof of Fe rnmt 's theorem foll ows and the reby (a l ) is
negated .
Fi rs t, so me pre limin ary re mark s. Le t us ag ree to c al l, a ny fo ur na tu ra l numbe r!'
11, X,,V, z suc h that 11>2, x>O, y>O, z> O and xn+y"=z\ the Fermat Jour.
Fe rmat 's theorem stat es that the Fermat fO llr do not ex ist. Di sprov in g any theore m is to pro ve
its negatio n. lThusl di sproving Fermat's theo rm would meun prov ing that the Fel'mat fOllr
ex ist. [ As be fore we arc lIsi ng inexact te rms and identi fy ing thc word Htheo rem" wi th the word
"state me nt" and not with the c xp ression "proved state mc nt".[
Lemm a 1. Ir it cannot be proved that the Fennat rou r ex ist, then they do not e xi st.
Remarks. Let A be a statement. There is no reason for thinking, that ir it ca nn ot be proved
that A, the n A is not true. However - and herein lies the essence of the lemma - that is the
case, as soon as A is the statement that "the Penn at fO ll r ex ist".
Proof of lemm a 1. We shall proceed fro m th e oppos ite. Indeed, we shall assume that the
Fermat four ex ist. Le t us write out an y of th em - let it be the rou r natural num bers
a , b, c, d . Let us ve rify that they reall y are the Fe nnat four, i.e. let LI S ver'ify th at tile
inequal ities a> 2 , b> O , c> O , d> O, and theequalityb"+ c"=d",aresat isfi ed.Presence
o r the fou r numbers a, b , c, d together with the indicated verification constitutes the
exis tence proof for the Fcrm at four.
Le.mm a 2. If Fermat 's theorem cannot be disproved, th en fennat's theo rem is true.
R emark. The re is no reason why thi s mu st be true of an y theorem.
Proof of Lemm a 2. Lemma 2 is simpl y a reformul ati on of Le mma I. "To disprove Fenn at's
theo re m" is "to prove that the Fermat four ex ist" , and to assert that "Fennat' s theorem is true"
is to say that "the Fermat fo ur do not exis t".
T he le mma 2, which we pro ved, has the structure" if P the n Q" . That is wh y, ir P has a
proof, the n Q too has a proof ( the proof of Q co nsists of joining the proof of the le mma with
the proof of P ). That is why, we have the foll owing
Coroll a ry of lemm a 2. If there ex isls a proof 10 the e ffec t, that Fermal's theore m canno t be
disproved , the n there al so e xi sts a proo f to the e ffec t, that Fermat's th eore m is true , i.e.,s imply
put, a proo f of Fermat's theore m.
 \)S I'IlNSKY
'" \1, , 1\ ,

In view of the importanc!! oflhi~ corollary, let us fiu nuulate il once Illorc: if there exist.~ (I
proof ID the effect/hat Fermat's theorem CallI/Of be disproved, thell fi'ermat's Ih eorem con Ill!
proved. Thus. if (b) , then Fermat 's theorem C<Jn be proved, and this is the promised negati on of
the statement (a l ).
The contradiction thus obtained concludes our argument s 10 the effect, Ihat (a L) and (b), and
even more so (a). and (b), arc incompatible.
Here arises the following natural question: but why these arg\\r'!1cnts ~a rH.lo.t be repea ted for
the continuum hypothesis? Indeed , Fcrmal 's hypothesis (theorem) states that Ihe hnlHlI four
do not exist , and the continuum hypothes is states lh?\ I\Wrc exists nQ S~ \ t\!\vin,g a cl\Hlina!ity
inte rmediate to ~ o and c. Now let us replace the Fermat foW by ~ set of intermedi ate
cardinality , and Fermat's theorem - 'by the continuum hypo!hesis and, I ~ t us Qnce tll ore adduce
the argume nts just adduced. We are bound 10 stumble somewhere 1 as Ibe state rnenl ~ (a') lIn d
(b'), oblained from (a) and (b), by substituting the word s '\contin qIIITl h ypo (llesi~ 1\ for Ihe words
"Fermat's theorem", are both true. And where shall '¥~ stumble? Here' l; where - in the proof
of lemma I (evidently , not in the in itial for mul ation, but with the replacement of the words
"Fermat four" by the words "set of intermediate ca rdinality "). The aforementioned p.l'oof of
lemma I was based upo n the following idea ; that i1 is in fa ct possiblc 10 produce the fOllr
numbers a. b, c, d and to assure onese lf that they are the Fermat four . Bul whal does it mean
to produce a set ? Objectio ns may .be raised, Ihal st rictl y speaking. we do not produce the
numbers as q uan ti tative categories, it is not possible to produce the m, we call on ly write their
names (for exa mple, in the form of zero with the prime symbols or in the fo rm of dec il'~p l
notation). However, the fact remains, that each natural number has a name, but Sll Ch i ~ I1Qt !he
case with the sets: I h er ea r e m 0 re s eis, t h a n t her e ~ i' r \~ a III e s (if wc
understand the latter as finite combinations of th e symbols of some ~!gh abet }. But !!ven if ,¥P
li!l1it ourselves to the sets having names, and prq~~!~e in pl~~e p ft~e sets - th ese n<\tnes. tllem
remains, all the same, a major~ifficulty : 11p;w tp: v~rjf~ ~!lh! 111e sel woduc~p h,\s an iq\p.rrnediate
cardina lity ? Tne verification to th~ effr~~ P1at Hlf! Tow IHllnbers are I!l e Fc:rnlat fpll1"' hi not
cOlll plicated in prjppip le (if w~ digress frO:IT! I!~e mHnber: 9.r ~l!! P, ~ ~nd Ihe ncc6ssary space) : we
jU~1 ha~~ t ~ pun ne ~~mpers il~ th~ ~quation anq compare the le ft hand side with the ri ght hand
side. But there ex ists no way o.f determining the card inality of the produced set or of
de terminin g whether or 110~ this cardinality sati sfies the inequalit~ ~~.< x < c .
The theme under consideration is most intimately con nected with the famous incomp leteness
theorem ofG6del. This theorem states that whatever be the proposed Co.r1cepJ 0/(T/ormal proof.
there would be such a statement about the na!uralllumbers, that neither it {lself, Hor its l1e~atj(l1!
may be/ormally proved within the/rame-work o/th~proPfJ.~e(1 co~u: epJ. We ~gin with the selt',
ev idence of the fac t that it is possipie to ~enrw fprm~1 nrpofvario ll slY. These de finition s differ
. onc .,another in respect of the collection of permiss ible axioms and the rules of ded uction.
from
It is poss ible to h av~ suc h notions abou t formal proof. wherei n there is no use al aI[ , e ilher of
the ax ioms or of the rules of deductio n. Briefly spj:!aking, the approac hes to the concept of
forma l proof may be very very differenL But all these approach~s have p fu ndamelltal
generality ex pressed in the fol lowing princ iples:
I) every forma l proof is a text - i.e :! fl finire c hain of sym bpls. chosen from S01l1e alphabet;
 ON FERMArS -T IIE()lmM" 521

2) in respect of every text, composed of the leHers of un alphabet u nder cons ide ration, it is
poss ible to a lgorithmically identify, whet he r or 1101 it is a formal proof, :tnd if yes, then
what, name ly, does it Slate;
3) only true s tatements can have forma l proofs.
On the strengt h of the thi rd principle, the prooutt ioll of il formal pr®f o f stlhle statement
guarantees its tru th an d, consequent ly, may be cOIl!:lidered to be its pt-oaf. The tOllverse, of
course, is not being proposed : It is not bei ng propolled liI,1I every tt"ue b~ evt:h es~cntia1iy
provable statement has n fo rmal proof,ln terms or a prc-glvcn concept uf fbrhial protH'.
A n ana lysis of GDdel' s incolnpleteness theorem shows, thHt the ~tatenlcnt tlll.!l-cih Jiscbssed
a lways has the for lll 3 x u ex) , where u is some property of the natura l mtlt1bcr x. Tl"li s
p rope rt y depends upon the concept or formal proo f undcr considc raUjjll, till! il is IllwllYs
algorithm ically verifiab le (just as it is poss ib le to a lgorilhmically verify the pro pcl"ty of
"being the Fermat four", in respect of four g iven numbers); l being algoriihhlically, veH ii abic
means - there ex ists an algorithm, which verifi es for allY C; whether or riOt U(c) is trucj. T hus
Godel' s theorem stales that ne ither 3x U (x), nor -1 3(x) U (x) has a formal proof.
Lct us make our demands about the notion of fo rmal proof even more stri ct\ Let li s demand;
name ly, that as soon as the statement 3 x Lt tu rns out to be true for SOillC algori thmicall¥
ver if iab le property U, then and the re Ihls statement 3 i U posse~seg £I fo rmaitproof. T his
demand is q uite natu ra l : it is real ized upo nJormali zatioh oFlhe following steps indica ted above:
I) the production of some c; 2) the verificat io n that this e satisfies the property Lt I here it is
essential, that c may in fac t be produced and, that u (c) may in fac t be verifi ed .
Our demand fo llows fro m two even more natural demands: •
I) if the (algorithmic'llIy) verifi ab le property U is val id for a number c, thell u(e) has a
formal proof;
2) fo r any property U whatsoever, if fo r some c the statement u(e) has a fOnlla l proof, then
the statement 3 x U(x) also has a fo rmal proof.
Now, wi th the help of arguments ana logous 10 those llsed in connection w ith Fen n at's
theorem, we arrive at the following conclusion: if neither the statemen t 3(x) U(x), nor its
negation 13 x U (x) has a forma l proof, then from Ih is informat io n a lone about the g iven
situation it is possib le to find ou t which of these two s tatements is true: namely, it is t rue that
13xu(x).
I ndeed, had it been true that 3 x u (x), then th is sta tement wou ld have had a form al proof;
perhaps it is 11 0t true Ihal3 x U (x), and jt is true that 13 x u (x) [the words "t ru e" and "correct"
ar.e synon yms, but the word "provable" has ·anot her mean ing (even other mea nings)].
Let us appreciate the paradoxicali ty of the s ituation once more:/rolll lhe sole/act that neither
A, nor nor-A has aformal proJ, it is possible 10 cOllclude ,which o/these two sentences is in/act
true.
 528 v, 1\ . USI'I~NSl(y

6, What is a proof ?
When we read a hook wrillcn ~ome fifty ye,lrs <lgo, then the
argument.s found there. appear to us tQ be largely bereft or logical rigour.
lide.~ Nenti Pointare, {90g
( Nauka i metod, kn, 11. gJ. 2, § 4: r2,s.3S6]).
In the previous reflection we came across the terms "proof" and "forma l proof". It is
somet imes thought that a forma l proof is a proof that is form al. We would prefer to take a
different look at these concepts.
t\ formal proof is a mathematical object, like, say, 11 matrix or a triangle. H is a finite chain
of the symbol,> of some pre-fixatcd alphabet, i.e., as they say in mathematics, a word according
to thi s alphabet. In the given instance, when we speak of a "symbol", we do not have in view
the meaningful, contentful side, but only the ex ternal, graphic aspect of it is taken into
consideration. To stress this circumstance, in mathcmatics, when the externa!, graphic aspect
is had in vicw, then they speak not about a "symbol" [or "sign"J, but about a "letter"'. Usually,
the letters of the alphabets of various ( Ru ssian, Latin etc. ) languages, numerals and the
punctuation marks are considered to be letters. It wou ld be reasonable, to consider thc gaps
among the words to be letters too (words in the ord inary, and not in the mathematical sense);
we may devise some special sy mbo l for it, fo r examp le 11 . This creates a possibility For view in g
a text, i.e., a sequence of words, also as a word ( in the exact mathematica l sense indicated
above). Thus, a formal proof is first of all a word in some alphabet - in the alphabet of (ormal
proofs. It is clear, that this does not exhaust the concept of Forma l proof in the least: we s imply
wanted to stress that th e concept of formal proof belongs to the class of words - just as the
concept. of triangle belongs to the class of ge,?met ri cal figures.
What sort of words may be co nsidered to be forma l proofs? That is the theme of a spec ial
discourse; it is beyond the cyc le of top ics we wish 10 discuss here. We stress here that it is
possible to give variou s definitions of the concept of formal proof, each of which would lead
us to its own set of formal proofs. In the previous reflecti on we have e nunc iated some general
postulates, to which any reasonabl e defin ition should be subord inated . It must be mentioned,
however, that somet imes yet another step is taken in the side of general ity and it is not demanded
beforehand, that on ly true statements sho uld have formal proofs, thereby the concept of formal
proof is fully separated from the concept of truth. And afterwards this discarded requ irement
is introduced in the form of a supp lementary property (which a formal proof, generally speakin g,
may not ha ve): name ly, if all statements having a formal proof are true, then the set of forma l
proofs is call ed semantically non-contradictory. A more precise general notion of formal proof
is e nun ciated with the help of th e concept of deduct ion; see , for example, [21].
We would like to st ress once more, that not the comentfully understood statements
themselves, but only their representations ( i.e., again words) may (or may not) have formal
proofs, in some precisely g iven I ~gico-mathematica l language.
The defin ition of tf,e concept of form al proof - perhaps, it would be better to say: the
defin ition of the sets of formal proofs - within the broad limits (conditioned by the general
limiting properties of the selS of fo rmal proofs, indi cated above), happens to be arbitrary. Here,
we ha ve in view that" juridical" arbitrariness, which distinguishes mathematical definitions in
 ON PROOFS 529

general. For example, wc have the "juridical" righl to nrbi lrmi ly derine a class or fUllct ions ilnd
10 call it, " as we wish", say - continuous.
It is another matter, that any reasonable mathematical dcfini tiollllsually claims to correspond
to some intu itive notions, to reflect them . Legitimacy or a definition still does no t signify its
reasonab leness. Thus, the mathematica l concept of a continuous curve reflects (with some sarI
of prec is ion) our intuitive, contentful notions of the trajectory of a moving point. Analogollsly,
the concept of formal proof reflects the intuitive not ions Or;1 cOntenlful proof.
Il may be said that the concept of formal proof is a malhemat ical model of the concept of
proof - in the same sense, in which the concept of continuous curve is a mathematical modef
of th e co ncept of'trajectory.
It st ill remai ns 10 be explained: what a proof is . We have indicated at the very beg inning
of the present cycle of reflections, that it would be incorrect to assume that in mathemat ics
everyt hing is proved; however, there is no doubt about the fnct that the concept of proo f plays
a central role in mnt hematics . " From the time of Ihe Greeks, to say 'mnthematics' is to say
' proof' " - thus beg ins Nikolai Bourbaki his" Elements de mathematique" [6, p. 23 J. Atthe
same time we have noted that the concept of proof does not belong 10 mathematics (only its
mathe mati ca l model - the fo rmal proof, belongs to mathematics ). It belongs to logic, to
lingui stics and, above all - it belongs to psychology.
Th us, one of the most important terms in mathematics, the term "proof", has no prec ise
defi niti on. An approximate deri nition of it is as follows : a proof is a persuasive argument,
which so persuades us that with the help of it we become capable of persuading others [12].
Hav ing grasped a proof, we become aggressive to a certnin extent, ready to convince others
with the help of the arguments which we have grasped. If we nre not so rendy , then it signifies
that we are yet to grasp the presen·ted argument as a proof, and even if we have given it the
recogni tio n of a proof, then we hav.e done so simply to brush aside something .
We fin d that the conccpts present in our defini tion of a proof are e ither log ico-linguistic
("argument " ), or psyc hological ( "pers uas ive strength ", " readiness") in nature. This fu lly meets
the esse nce of the matter: the very not ion of proof is inseparably connected with the linguistic
means a nd with the soc ial psychology of human society. And both of the m cha nge in the course
of history. Linguistic formulatio ns of proofs change . Our notions of persuation change.
The notion of persllation depends not only on the epoch, but also on the social surroundings.
Unfortunately , I am unable to reco llect now , where I read a pnssage on the follow ing theme.
T he Cardi nals of the lime of Gali leo, were quite intelligent, some of them saw with their own
eycs the mou ntains on the moon thro ugh Ga li leo's lelescope, and could follow the logic of
Gal ileo's arguments. However, for them, their own views, based on an a priori dogma, were
more co nvi ncing than any experimen t and any log ic. [In an article by S.P. Bozhich [13], we
fin d an interest ing analys is of how an a priori, predetermi ned notion about the ways of proving
th ings preve nts the recognition of certain facts.]
T he notio n abou t the persuasiveness of this or that argument depends on many factors.
Revea ling these factors happens to be an important lask of logic nnd psychology. For example,
the d ivision of concepts ( to be more precise, of terms) into sensible and senseless ones, happens
10 be o ne of Ihese fac lors . The concepts of ph logiston and therrnogcn were considered to be
67
 j30 V.A.USPENSKY

l"Peaningful in the 18th century. but they me now consi dered to be meanillglcss. Ei nste in
d iscovered thnt the concept of simultanei ty of two even ts is meaningless. as an objective
co ncept independent o f the observer ( to be more prec ise. he discovered t hat si multane il Y is not
a two- place relation between two eve nt s. but illhree-placc relation involvin g the I Si event. the
2nd event. and the observer. as its terms) . On the ot her hand , such an "ev iden tl y mea ning-less
concep t ~ as the' infinites imal number, now fits into an exact mea ning with in the framework o f
a new branc h of mathematics - th e so-called no n-standard analy sis. With the c hanges in the
notions about meaningfu ln ess or mean inglessness of concepts, the notion about th e ve ry essence
of scientific truth also c hanges. The notion of evidence 100 changes. Once everyone knew that
" hig her forces un leash storms, now everybody knows that s torms are caused by atmospheric
M

e lectricity. In the case of inert gases, their property of no t taking part in an y chem ical un ion
was so evi dent , th al lhis property was fi xated in the ve ry name "inerl"; when, in 1962, th ese
gases were for the firs t time found 10 take part in c hemica l unions, then, apparentl y. the chemis ts
were no t asha med, rather - they ha ppily stated that ~for exp laining the s tructure of these
uni ons, we did not need any, in prin c iple, new notion about the nature of chem ical bonds" (The
Great Soviel Encyclopedia, 3rd ed. the artic le on the "rnert Gases ").
It is common ground that human knowled ge changes with the march of hi story. Here onc
would like to s tress that not on ly the facts themselves go into the com pos ition o f knowledge,
but also the in itial pOSiti ons and presumptions, o n the bas is of which thi s or th at fact beco mes
a componen t of a system of knowledge : these are the notions abou t meani ngfu lness and
mea nin gless ness, about obviousness and non -obviousness. oft ~e poss ible and the impossib le,
of the part and the who le. pers uasiveness and the lac k of it, the proved and the unproved and,
the authentic and the inauthentic. It is poss ib le, that all these noti ons change more slow ly than
the si mple notions about facts .but in essence, they are his torically as relative as our noti ons
about fact s.
Mathematics is sometimes perceived as a s tationary rock towering above the waves of
c hang in g notions about th e other discip lines. O f course, there are grounds for s uch a view o f
mathe matics. At the same li me, the notion o f some absoluteness of mathematics is ev id ently
exaggerated. I f mathematics is absolute, then it is so only at the leve l of everyday experience
- jus t as Newtonian physics is absolute in its applicat ion to the phe nomena o f "medium s ize"
(and yet another - Einste inian - physics operates at the leve l of the s mall and the very big)
( see the already men tio ned article ofP.K. Rashevsky [16J ; on "diffusion in the large" notions
of the natura l number] .
In particular, the socio- historical conditi ona lit ies of the notions of proofs are on th e whole
ex tended upon mathematical proofs.
To illustrate what has been said above, t s hal l now brieny narrate my understand ing of the
c oncept o f proof in ancient Egypt. ancient Greece and in India.
W e do not have much authentic information as to how mathematical proofs were enunciated
and u nderstood in the anc ient period. The texts that came down to us are in man y cases
fragmentary : moreover the terms contai ned there in o ften have debatable interp retations; for
example, o n the interpretat io n of ancient Egypt ian math ematical texts, see the remarks of the
translator in : [4, p. 139J. There is a lot that is conjectural. Everyone makes conjectu res in the
 ON PIIOOFS

directi on s/hc wis hes, and the present author is no except ion. Taking these stipul at io ns into
acco un t, the followi ng outl ine may be proposed .
The proposed outline is based on the conviction that the notion o f proof is a product o f the
his tory o f soc iet ies. We are aware o f the Simp lificat ion involved in our hi storical excursuS,as
we describe ancient Egy pt as a centralized state - since the re have bee n periods of s plinterin g
there, o r anc ient Greece - as a de moc racy , s ince there, too, there have been cases of t yrnnica l
o r o li garchic rule. But then, any outline involves some si mplification.
Anciellt Egypt. A centralized theocrati c state, with an extraordinari ly st rong d isci pline .
Continuous cons truction of pyramids - requi ring colossal human and malerial resources and
un itin g the strength of the entire land - served as an effective ins trument for maintaining
cen tra li zati on, di sc ipline and ord e r. A utho rity o f the Pharaoh and of th e p ri ests was
incontes table . Authority of t he written wo rd was also un qlleslion<lb[e. If a pries t . scribe or
teacher sa id or wrote something , the n that mea ns - such is the case. If someth ing is w ritten on
papy ru s, then that is the casc. Persuasiveness was based on the autho rity of the source.
Ancient Egyptian mathe matica l tex ts contain ready- madc rec ipes w ithout an y
substantiatio n. When we speak of absence o f s ubst antiation, here wc have in view the modern
understandin g of the word "substantiation". From ,he po int of view of a person o f that time a
rec ipe on a papyrus was ful ly substantiated, as it came from an authori tative source a nd was
drawn up in the authoritati ve form of a record o n papyrus. T he fact of be ing record ed on a
papy rus, was in itse lf the proof. In reality, th is fact was e nough for convincing o thers with the
help of it. A number of recipes for compu ti ng the areas of triangl es and quadran gles have been
non- uni vocally interpreted in our time; the disputes about how to unders ta nd the terms
conta ined in these recipes, s till continue [4, ch .IV, §2, a 1. Dependi ng upon these interpretations,
these formulae may be taken to be e ither eXllct, or approximate , or totally incorrect. When we
speak o f incorrect formu lae, here. we .have in view the representation of the area o f a tringlc
t hro ug h half o f the produCt of the base and a side of it. Thi s is what academician L.S. POlllryagin
has to say o n th is score: " The f irst mathemati cal manuscript know n 10 liS - is the manuscript
of Ahmes, composed some 2000 yea rs before our era. It contains some algebraic and
geometrical rules - for example, fo r computi ng the area of a triangle ... However, th e Ah mes
Papy ru s contain s a mi stake. Accord ing to him the area of an isosceles triangle is equa l 10 the
product of its base and half of II side - but to-day every schoo l-student kno ws that it is not
r
true" 25]. However, many a researc her think s th at the corresponding anc ie nt Egy pti an term
s hould not be trans lated as a s ide, it s hou ld be taken to mean height ( and t hen the formu la
contai ned in the papy rus turns out to be true. However, even if thi s term did in rea lity signify .
not the height, bu t a side, the corres ponding (accord ing to our modern poi nt of view incorrect)
formula should be considered as proved according to the ancien t Egyptian understanding of the
word "proved ": as this formula is co nvincin g ly s ubstant iated by the fact that it (o f course, not
as a formu la, but as a rec ipe ex pressed in words) is co ntained in an authoritati ve doc ument.
The s ilUalion was somewhat different in (lncient Greece. ( In compari son to Egypt) here we
have comparatively s mall s tate formati ons togethe r with popu lar assemb lies. The orators, who
s po ke in these gat herings did not carry any a priori autho rity. They had to convi nce the
li ste ners by a rg uments. Fo rmul ati ng correc t arguments became an everyday and ac tual
requireme nt. He nce the birth of log ic in the hands of Soc rates, and ils final s hapi ng as a
$32 V. A. US I'ENSKY

discipline by A ri stotle. Hence also, the beginning of the deductive method in mathematics,
approaching the modern notion of proof. Arguments became the basis for mathematical
convicti on. The concept of the foundat ions o f correct arguments, of axioms and postulates,
arose. That which could beobtai ned through "legitimate arguments" from the in it ial statements,
cons idered to be val id. was cons idered to be convincing (and consequently , proved).
Fina lly, India . We intend to refer 10 so me geomet rica l figures, taken from mediaeval Ind ian
texts, bu t that does not mean that these figures did not appear in ancient India. In genera l, the
task o f dating of Ind ian mathematical notiolls gives rise to co nsiderable difrlculties, as some
tex ts may be expos itions of some other earlier texts. On the other hand, it is not so essential
ei ther: med iaeva l Egypt and Greece had nothin g in common with ancient Egypt and G reece,
bu t mediaeval India remai ned the cus todia n of the intel lectual heritage of a nc ie nt Irid ia. A n
essent ia l tra it o f this tradition was (and is) the conferrin g of the s tatus of hi g hest authe nti c ity
to the in ner light. Immediate inner illumination was cons idered to be the basic source of
kn ow ledge and it had indi sputable persu asive power. ThaI which was thu s known was
considered to be proved . In order 10 conv ince others o f it, those others must be b rought to such
a s tate, that they themse lves ex perience the inner il lum ination. T hai is why, a geometrical proof
had two parts: a diagram, and below it the inscription - " See !".
We fi nd the examp les of such diagrams wit h the inscriptions "See !" in some tex ts dating
back to the 12th-16t h centu ries [ 9, p. 76 and 154]. We reproduce below one o f these diagrams;
it has a lso been reproduced in : [ 15,p.75]. We arc of the opinion that it deserves to be included
in any modern, sccond ary school level, lext book of geometry: it shows, more graphically than
the modern proofs, that the area of a .c ircle is equal to the area o f a rectangle. the two s ides of
which are respectively equa l to half of the ci rcumference and half of the diameter of the given
ci rcle. See figure 5 below:

Fig 5.
The preseill author is aware of the fact that his views on the Ind ia n proofs a re different from
t hose o f an au thority in the field of histo ry of mathematics, like A. P. Yus hkevich , who
wrote: " The laconism of inferences in the Indian works on mathematics or the presence in
the m of diagrams t og~ ther with only the inscription "Sce 1", should not be viewed as the
manifestati on of some special approach to the problem of proof or of some s pecial movement
of thought "[9,p. I 55]. We are of the opinion that they s hould be so viewed. Or else, w hy do
we nOI come across this k ind of "See !" anywhere else? Why on ly in Ind ia?
S.S. De mid ov has put fo rward valuable consideratio ns on the evolution of t he conce,pt of
mathematica l proof in [15], where, in particular he s tates that, "in the final cou nt, the proof
 ON !'IWOFS

(giving power) of mathematical arguments is their persuasive power. What appeared to li S to

be c on vi ncing yesterday, does not appear 10 be so t04 day".
The definition of proofs as convincing I persuasive texts makes the concept o f pl'oof very
s ubjective (for some, a text is convincing, for others - not ). We do not consider it to be a
de fici e ncy of the definition. Such is the state of affa irs. Perhaps, the use of the word" makes"
above has been unfortu nate. O ur definition does lIot make the concept of proof subjective, it
only reflects the subject ive character of this concept. Even more inte resting is the problem
( we are very far from solvin g it ), as to why, nevertheless, the concept of proof has an ulliver.~al ­
c ultural c haracter in the sense, that within the limits of onc and the same culture, though there
occur disputes about whether or not thi s or that statement is true - such disputes are
comparati vely rare.
Whil e speakin g of such disputes, we do not have in view the disagreements among the
re presenlatives of various logical trends in mathcmatics, for example, those am ong the
representatives of th e ordinary, c lass ical math emat ics and the representatives of the
intu itionistic ( constructive) mathematics. The laller do not recog ni se many statemen ts of
ordinary mathematics as proved (and, o n the .contra ry, cOll sider them to be untrue ). It Illay be
sa id that the intuition is ts and construct ivis ts be long to different mathematical cultures and even
t he m os t customary words (like, say, "ex ists") has a diffe rent meaning for them (ev ide ntl y, the
intuitionists and the conslruct ivists think that the representat ives of traditiona l mathematics put
different meanings into words, and it is they - the intuitionists - who use these words in
their only correct meaning). That is why the intuitionists consider many proofs of traditional
mathematics 10 be invalid. .
H ere we are talking of so mething e lse - not about cha nges in the semantics of te rms, leadin g
10 lhe c hanges in the truth va lues of statements, but abou t the fact that a proof may turn o ut to
be not unde rstood and that is why not convincing (and once not convincing - it is not a proof
at all ). Modern mathematics has a complex s tructure, which has almost stopped to be v isible.
Th e proofs o f some of the theore ms turn out to be so cumberso me, that in order to be able . to
verify them one mllst have an extraordi narily big des ire, patience and time, to say nothing of
the fact that one must have spec ial knowledge - for a number of theorems, not only the
in ven ti on of their proofs, but even the verification of these proofs appear to be accessible, only
to a narrow c ircle of refined specialists.
So metimes the volume of the proof o f thi s or that theorem becomes an object of interest.
He re, we o fte n find that some theorems established earlier - which are no more required to be
pro ved - are permitted to be used as ready-made formulations in a proof. Will suc h an
argument be a proo f - i.e., a co nvi ncing lext- for some onc who does not know the proofs
of these theorems" establi shed earlier "? We do not intend to give an univocal answer to this
ques tio n. We would li ke to mention further, that the very word" earlier" introduces an
addilional subjective "relativist ic" moment (two almost simultaneollsly proved theorems may
be c hronol ogically different ly ordered by different observers). If any reference to any theorem
whatsoever proved earlier, is forbidden in a proof and if onc is required to go back directly to
the d efiniti ons and primary, undefined concepts ( which we have di scussed in our fi rs t
reflection), the n such a complete proof, may, in a number of in stances, stretc h into thousands
'34 V . A . USI'ENSKY

of pages of mathematical text ( and may even be morc di fficuh to perce ive, than a proof based
upon clea rly fo rmu lated - though not known to the reader - facts).
T he study of difficult mathematical proofs may be compared with a mountain-climber's
ascent to the peak. The sea-level corrresponds to the initial concepts. Ascent from the sea- level
may take months, and its mathematical analog (u nderstanding a proof) may take years. In both
the cases, th ere are many intermediate slaps. First, you go to the common high-a ltitude base
cam p. here thcclimbers goi ng to the various neig hbou ring peaks gather. Thi s stage corresponds
to the stage of serious mathematical preparation, sufficient for acquiring an understanding of
the more special themes. Then begins the assault to the chosen peak; here again, we have
intermediate camps and stops. For mathematics, the corresponding theories and theorems play
the ro le of these camps and stops. J ust as a mountaineer may make a limited number of ascents
in his life time, so may a mathematic ian - get to know only a limited nu mber of prooFs.
The fol lowi ng common trait of the mountai neer and the mathemati c ian is an important
one - there is some kind of conventionali ty involved in the choice of the point of departure.
The ascent proper does not begin at the sea- level, but from a poin t, where the professiona l
mountai neers may be able to gath er wi thout difficulty, but it may be a matter of great d ifficu lty
for an ordinary person,.if s/he wants to arrive there . The proof proper beg in s from an ana logous
poi nt : this point is situated at some genera l-cultural (wc have in vicw the mathematical culture)
level. However, at the present stagc of mathematics the generality of the prefix "general- " is
be in g lowered con tinuously, and now many proofs begin form a point, accessible o nly to the
narrow speciali sts. A second co mmon trait consists of a break up into stages, the presence of
sufficient number of intermediate stops (camps).
Where from does onc get the conviction in mathematics, that the proved theorems - thc
proof of which o ne never gets to know - are indeed proved, i.e., have proofs? Evidently such
co nviction is based on trust a lone. Seen from outside, such a situation should not appear to be
very strange. Indeed how many of the readers of these lines have seen the Easter Isl and ?·For
those who have not, the conviction Ihalt his is land ex ists, is also based, in the fina l ana lysis,
o n trust. But if a modern proof is based upon trust in authority, then how is it, in principle,
different from the anc ien t Egyptian proof?
It is not a simple question. Perhaps, the a nswer to it lies in the fac t that proofs arc gradua1iy
mov ing over from the ranks of the phenomena of individual experience 10 those of the
phenomena of collective experic nce. Pushing the collective to the fore is in ge nera l
characteristic of the history of civi lization. It is we ll known (and widely discussed) that with
the deve lopment of human society, there arises division and cooperation of labour and, this gets
stre ngthened steadi ly. Only in the deep antiquity could man himselF produce al l that he needed:
now everybody is required to use the results of the labour of others. It is known ( though less
d iscussed) that d ivision and cooperatio n of scientific knowledge takes place simultaneous ly.
It is d ifficult to say when - perhaps in the midd le ages - one could have fou nd individ ual
scholars, capable of grasping the totali ty of the knowledge of his time. Now everybody must,
this way or that, use the knowledge of others. The si tuation with proofs is an ana logous one:
the activ ities in the sphere of production and consumption of proofs have become as muc h an
object of division and cooperation of labour, as are the activities in the sphere of production
 ON !'ltOOI'S

a nd co nsumption of knowledge. The very concept of convict ion has begun to lose its
indiv idualized nuance and, is more and more assuming the character of "collective conv ict ion".
Evidenty, we must gradua lly learn 10 speak o f the conviction, of not a separate individlwl but,
of some scientific co llecti ve. Here, co llective cOll vict ion does not in any way signify that it is
equal to the "immediate convicti on" of each o f the individual members of th e co llective. A
co llective does not function as a sim ple totality of its members, but as a single whole. The id~tl
o f collective conviction indicates t he fact, that for every co mponent pm1 of a proof we have a
member of the col lect ive "answerable for il ", who is immed iately convinced, name ly, about
that part ( and other members of the co llective rely 011 thi s member 011 that given quesl.io n).
Th e age of informatics is introducing its own correct ion, also to the notion·of proof. For
instance, there ari se situati ons when a proof involves sort ing ou t of such a large number of
variants, that it becomes difficult for a human being to do the sorting, but a compllter can do it.
Let us assume that a computer sorted out all the required variants, and the sorting led to the
necessary results. Can we then say, that we have obtained a proof? And what if the machine
"ma lfunctioned"? (But a person also makes mistakes! ) That apart, a guarantee is essential to
the effect that the programme was right; correctness of programmes can be ascertained only
with spec ial proofs, and the theory of such proOfs constitutes a special division of the theory
of programm ing.
In reality, compu ters were used to solve the four colour problem. (For a formulation of this
problem, see: the article "The four co lour problem ", in the 3rd edition of the Great Soviet
Encyc lopedia.] In terms of simpl ici ty of fonnu lation, this problem, consis ting of a proof of the
four colour hypothesis, is hardly inferior to Fennat 's problem (consisting of a proof·of Fennat's
hypothesis), but in terms of the naturalness of the statement (and the applied signi ficance) it
is superior .to Fe rrnat 's problem. The solution of this problem was announced by Appel and
Haken in 1976 {17] and set forth in 1977 [ 18 and 19]. Thi s soluti on is based upon a reduct ion
of the solution into a large number of particu lar instances, the study of which was e ntru sted to
computers. The computers verified all of them, and thereby it was proved that every map is
four co lourable, as per requ irement.
Appel and Haken th emselves said about their proof [ 20]: "The proof involved an
unpreceden ted use of the computers. The calcu lat ions used in the proof made it lo nger than
w hat is traditionally considered to be permissible. In fact, the valid ity of the proposed proof
can never be verified without the help of computers. What is more, some of the decisive id~as
. o f thi s proof materialized th ro ug h co mputer experiments. It is posssible , of course, that one
fine mo rning the re would appear a short proof ofl he four colour theorem ... AI the same time,
it is a lso conceivabale tha.t sueh a short proof is not at all possible. In the latter case, new and
interestin g types o f theorems emerge, for whom traditional types of proofs do not exist ".
Of late, however, th e validi ty of lh e proof provided by Appel and Haken came to be doubted.
Th e doubt is not about the compUler-use part o f it, but aboullhe pre-computer, theoretical part
- wherein it is sought to be estab li shed that the en tire problem is really reducible to a
consideration of the particular in stances.
Co m men t il r y . Let us describe Ihe silualion involving the proof of Appet and Haken in
somewhnt greater detail. The basic iden of its aulhors is connected wilh.lhc following nOlions.
53' V, A. USl'ENSKY

First of all , the authors go over frollllhc colouring of the regions in a map to the co!ourillg of
the apc)(cs in a planar graph. such tha t it is a triangulation. Further, they call any sub-graph,
forming a cycle, and the interior of that cycle - a configuration. If it cnn be proved by some
standard method, that a coufiguration can nOI be immersed in a minimal countcr-cllnmplc of
(he four colour hypothesis, then it is called - I'edllcible. If each plana r trilUlgu]ntion contains
one of Ihe configuarations of 11 set ns n sub-graph, then that set of configurations is called
unavoidable. From these definitions it easily follows Ihal for obtaining a (positive) solution
o f the four colour problem il is enough 10 produce an unavoidable set of reducible
configurations. The authors of the proof produced 1834 explicit. reducible configurations,
forming the unavoidable set I 19,pp.50S-S67]. In each of these configurations. the length of a
cycle W:lS 14 or less. Computcrs were used both for finding the unavoidable sct :md for proving
the reducibili ty of its terms.
If in the first case (colIstruction ofthc sct) the computers were drnwn into a helping role. since
the very proof ofuno.voidnbility of the set obtained (now it is not important. how that was donc)
is not based on compu tcr.calculations, then in the sceond cnse (of verificmion of rcducibility)
the use of computers happen to be nn essential component of the proof, and e;"tch configuration
needs some 10 minu tes of computer time for such verificmion. While evnluating the proof of
Appe1 nod Haken, some reviewers illdieated 123 J that the authors of the proof needed four years
and 1200 computer hours for its construction and, that th~ text of the 1'1"001' takes 139 pages.
including 99 pages of drawings, the nvemge sile of more than 30 of these drawings being one
page. The reviewers commented that Ihe "essentially search type character of the proof makes
its verification difficult ( according to Appcl the verificfltion of all the dewils requires 300
computer hours)". Evidently. these 300 hours :Ire required for the verification ofreducibility.
However, as we have lllrelldy Illentioned, the non-computer part of the proof - involving the
verificlllion of thc unavoidability of the set of configurations produced - gives rise 10 doubt.
The fact remains thllt the text of the proof[ 1811nd 19] does not present this verifiC:llion di rectly
and exhaustively. We nave been informed through Il foot-note on p.460 that the details oi the
proof of unavoidabi lity of the prcsented set ( to be more precise, detai ls of the proof of the
so-called spacing out theorem, which provides the basis for this unavoidability), are contained
in the microfiches, supplied liS n special supp1cmenllo the journal . However,'the prescnt author
cou ld not go through that supplemcnt.
It secms that with the development of mathemat ics ( and wi th the ap pearance of ever more
comp lex and long proofs) the proofs arc losing all important tra it - thal of be ing convinci ng.
O ne fail s to understand, the n what remai ns of the proof: conviction Ipersuas iveness enters into
the very defi nit ion of proofs! That apart, with the growth in the com plex ity of proofs, their
ele ment of subjectivity grows too. Of course, a f or m a I proof is objective. But, first ly, not
the j udgements themselves, ra ther their expressions, their represelll ations in formal languages,
that have for ma l proofs. Second ly, though the verifi cation of the statement, thal a giVCl1 tcxt is
a fo rmal proof, is accomplished al gorithmically, it may give ri se to considerab le difficulties, in
the case of a volu minous text.
Large proofs begin 10 li ve by some macroscop ic rules. J ust as the concept of na tura l [l umber
gelS diffused in th e case of the "largc" numbe rs (once more we refer the reader to P. K.
Rashevs ky's a rticle) (1 6], so does our notion of a proof; it gets diffused, when Ihe volume of
a proof becomes inordinately large.
It so happenes, that though all proofs should, by definition, be convinci ng, some proofs are
more conv inci ng than the othe rs, i.e., as though, so me happen to be, to a greater extent proofs,
 ON MAKING MATHEMA TI CS UN DI;:I~S'fANDArlL E 517

than are the ot hers. There emerges something like :l gradati on of proofs accord ing to thc d egrees
o f de mo nstrabi lity - of cO,urse, such an idea funda menta ll y contradic ts our primary n otions
about the identical indi sputability of all proofs. But mathematical truths do permit a
g radation of that kind. Each of th e three following state ment s - "2·2 = 4" .
" 1714 > 31 11 " and " 300 !> I()()300" - are truc. However, wc say: " True as 2· 2 = 4", ;me! do
not say :" T rue as 1 7t~>3111" or " Tru eas 3OO !> IO()300" ,
7. Ca n mat hem a tics be mad e und erstandabl e 'f
Why so many people do not unde rs tand mathemat ics? The g reat Poincare was di sturbcd by
Ihis prob lem and, he wrote: "How to explain, why many an intellect refuses to understand
mathe matics? Is it not paradoxical? Indeed .... here we ha ve a problem, that does not le nd itself
to an easy so lution; all those wh o wish 10 devotc themse lves to teac hing must take u p thi s
problem" [2, p.353J .
Mos t probably both the sides involved "are to blnml.!". Non-ma thematic ians are to b lame:
a bad education has tmined them into a no n-understanding of and even in lo tak in g a hos tile
alt ifllde towards mathematics (as Po incarc ha ~ no ted " often the intellect of these peoplc who
are in need o f guide lines. is very lazy to seck them OU I") l2, p,354J. Mathematicians are 10 be
b lamed; th ey do not wish to waste their s trength, explai ning their mathematics 10 the
uninitiated (and how m<lny people a re asto ni shed 10 find , that there st ill remain;; something 10
be discovered in mathematics !), Of course, in math ematics there wou ld alwa ys remain
nume rous details inaccess ible to thc non-professionals (and even to the professionals, of a
diffe rent field of mathematics). But s uc h is the case everywhere -:- for exalnple, in chess, even
the ot her grand masters do nOI understand many a move, when Knrpov and Kasparov ball It:
agai n st onc another, AI the samc time, a very large part of mathematics, larger than what is
us ually tho ug ht to be the case, may be exp lained 10 a wider circle of well-meani ng li s teners and
readers - of course, not in detail, but at the leve l of the herart of the matter. Clearly, th is would
require tha! the math ematicians engage themselves sing le- mindedl y in thi s new directio n of
activ ity. Pe rh aps, thereby they would be di sc harg in g their moral duty to the humankind .
"But in order to help those who do not understand, first o f all, we must know what restrains
the m " l2,p. 345l It appears, th at the compl ex logical structure of mathematical defi niti ons and
sla te m e nts, in which the logica l connectives and the existential and universal quantifiers take
turn s, happens to be the hindrance in many cases. Every teacher of mathematica l analysis knows
the diffi culty that arises in the course o f parallel assimi lati on of the concept of limiting point
of a seq uence - the defini tion o f which has the stru cture
'<iE'<ik 3" (A AB),
and the concept of limit of a seq uence - the defin itio n of which has the s tructu rc
'VE311 'Vk(A ~ B).
However, arc these psyc holo'gi ca l difficul ti es encountered by the le<l rnel's, while assimilating
these concepts - difficulties pertaining to th e heart of the matter or, are these d ifficu lti es of
ling ui sti c expression? I do not have any fin al answer to this question. It is co nnec ted wit h an
evc n deeper quest ion: is it possible to separat e mathemati cs from its linguist.ic formulation? In
o the r words, does mathematics abide e xclu sive ly in the mathematical tex ts or does mathclnatics
have some other essence, differnt fro m the tex ts - and the lexts serve onl y as this or that (and
68
!\J8 V A, USI'I,,'1SKY

perhaps not always felicitous) mode of expression for that essence. It is clear that this question,
which we have called a "deeper" question, is appplicable not on ly to mathematics, but also to
any other discipline •. According to a formulation o f Engcls, mathematics is different from the
other disciplines in so far as it is "ilIl abstract science, dealing with intel lectual constructs"
[ 1,p.529]. {These inte llectua l constructs can hardl y be understood by the human in!ellect, .if
they are not based on ordi nary human log ic, and consequcntly - o n rea lity, frolll [he operations
with which, this logic has come into being.]
Like all rational concepts, the mallwmalieal concel'!s too exist in the form of notions,
not necessarily connected with texts. The linguist ic texts defining these concepts should be
recognized as important, but not as the only, means for their assimilation.
It appears, that now we have at our di sposa l more adequflte means of introducin g the
co ncep ts of lim it and limiting point of a sequence, [0 [hose learners (who do not have speci al
"mathematical capabilities" - that is, according to modern Ulldersl<l1ldilig, to those who do not
ha ve a high capabi lity of as si mi lating, namel y, lin guistic formul at ions). Let liS imagine a $crcc n,
on which we may draw the trajectory of the movement of a point, unboundedly approaching
some ot her stationary point, wh ich is the limit. This has to be repeated a number o f times, with
c hanges in the position of the limit ( so that the false impress ion is not c reated, that every
sequence has one and the sa me limit) , as well as in the mode of approach o f the moving POilll
to the limit (so [hat, in particular, the fa lse impression is not created, thm the distance between
the moving point and its limit changes monotonically).ll is possible to present an analogous
graphic illustration of the concept of limiting point: when, though the trajecto ry unboundedly
<tpproaches th at point at times - at others, it moves <tway from it by a definite distance. It
appea rs very likely, th at any viewer of such pictures would fo rm a correct notion both of the
li mit and the limiting point.
Onc is led to bel ieve that with the int roduct ion of compute rs, leaching wi 11 proceed a long
the path of visualization of concepts, traditional ly considered to be ent irely abstract.
fi ad the theme under cons ideration been one of pedagogica l significance alone, then we
would not have dwelt upon it so elaborately in an essay of philosoph ical character. However,
this theme exceeds the bounds of pedagogics and, closes lip to the question of onlological nature
of mathematical concep ts. Like all other rational theoretical question, this question too has an
app li ed sign ifi cance - in the give n case, in the o rder of reverse connection, it is pedagog ical.
Indeed, if a mathematical concept has an essence, different from its embodiment in a linguistic
definition or formula, then one ca n hope for a beller understanding of that esse nce, by
demonstrating its various manifestations (and not only ils formulation).
ln or<Jer [ 0 adduce a proof, wc ~hal1 cons ider a fresh example. On pp.71-72 of a recent ly
pub lished text book 124}, there is a formula that defines a mathematical concept - lhe so-called
C lark 's cone. Having formulated its definition the authors wrote: "However, at the first glance,
it is neither poss ibl e 10 understand the properties of Clark' s cone , nor the meaning of its formar
defini tion itself'. And further on, they have at first put forward some heurist ic arguments
explain ning Clark's cone, and then translated these arguments in the language of non-standard
analysis . He re one gelS the idea that as though the concept of Cl ark's cone ex ists a ll by ilself;
• Enter Jacques Oerrida and pos/-structuralism in Mathematics?-Ed.
 ON MAKING MATHEMATICS UNI)EUSTANDAtlLE S39

i[.~ dcf"ini[;on in [he form of a formula is only onc of [he means (and not the mosl felicitous
mea ns) of comprehendi ng thi s concept, but descriptions like the "results of exam inalion of the
s!.!t through a microscope" [24.p.86], ~re llsefu l fOf a better understanding of it.
Independent ly of the fact ', whethe r or not such is indeed the case, wc may put forward
the following fruitful work ing hypothesis: a tru c ly 'profou nd mathematica l concept or
mathematical statement must in essence be simple. And then there is a hope, that it will be
understandable (or better sti ll . understood): it is easy to get used to that which is simple. and
wc do not know any interpretation of "to understand" , other than "to get used to" .

Uleratllre
I. Marks K., cnge/s F., Coch. 2·(' i:d. T.20.
2. P{}il/car!!! H., 0 lIaukf!. M., 1983.
3. Hi/but D., Th!!! FOlllldmiofls o/Geome/ry. Chicago 1902 {Ru.u. /r.I948/.
4. Nellgf!bcUftr 0 ., Vorlu/mg!!!fI iiber Geschicllle (Iel' all/ik~11 1II(l1l/emallJclle WiSSI!!llsclwj/(m . 1:'rJ'/t'r IJrmd:
VOl'gri~citisclte M(lIltemalik.Berlill./934{Rllss. Tr. /937/.

5. Tolkoy)' Sloyar Russkoyo YllZ)'ta. M. 1938. T. 2.

O. /lOllrbakiN., Theoryoj5etJ. Mass., 1968. (RllSs. Tr. /965/
7. Church A., IIIII'odllCtiOI1 to Ml1Iell/(/tical Logic. Prince/Oil, /956 {Russ. Tr. /960j.
8. Homb)' A.S" Part/well E. c., AI! £ngli.~/t·/'e(ldl!l"s Dic/ionar)'. OA/or", /959.
9. Yus/tkeviclt A.P., /slOriytlll/mitellw/iki \I s redillt~ 1'~k'l. M" 1961.
10. POlo/sky M. V., 0 per/agogiciteskikh oS/lOw/kit obllchfniya ilia/ell/alike. M., /963.
11. Gorsky D .• Opredelillc/I Film. E'lIl$ik/opedia. M" 1967. T. 4. ·c. 150· /52.
[2. US/le/lsky V.A . Predisloviell Ml1Iematilw y sovremenllQll1 mire. M., 1967.
[3 . Oo:/zic/z S.P. 0 sposobakh is/imlo~lllOi o/sellki es/eSlVellllOllallcltllOl'O l'pka zyw/l/iY(l11 Logika i
t'lI/pil'iciteskoe p01.Iulllie. M. , /982.
14. Iwmorfizm 1/ Bolsh. SOY. Enls. 3-e izd. M.. 1972. T. JO.
[5. Dell/idol: 5.S., K is/orii (lksioll/a1ic!lesk.ol·O me/m/a /1 IS/Ol'i)'II i me/od%giyrl eSles/I'l'lIIlyklr 11(1(Ik.,
Mmellw/ika. Mekltan;ka. M., 1973. v YI'. 14.
16. Ra.fhev.dq P. K., 0 dogmate flaWralllOVO- rydwl US/Id/I. mal. /lal/Ie. /973. T. 28. VY/l. 4( /72).
17. Appel K., Ihzke/! IV., Every P/(lIwr Map is Foil/' ColoH/bldl BI/If. AII/el'. Ma/h. Soc. 1976. Vol. 82, N5.
· 18. A/'pet K.. Hakell w., Every P./allal' Maps is Foul' Colo/'(/b/~. Pt./: Dischargillg 11 Ill. l . MmJr. /977. Vol.
21, N3.
19. Al'pei K.. Haken W., Koch l., Every Plal/al' Map is FOllr Colorable. PI. 11: Rerlucib(li/y 11 ibid.
20. Al'pel K., flokel! W" Tlte 50lu/ioll of /lte Foul'·Calor. Map Problemll Scientific American. 1977. Vol. 237.
N4.

2 [. Uspellsky V. A .• Teorew(I G()delY(I 0 nepoll/o/e. M, /982.

22. Plisk{} V.E., Teoremwl Mm. ElIls. M., 1985. T.5.
~40 V. 11. USI'I.iNSKY

23. KOZ),I"t.II V.P., YU.(//llItlll(JII S.V., Tl'ol"iyu gm/m': (Algorilm., lIfg(liJmich., i 1IIt'1,·. ,,,"Obi.)!1 '/~o";yu

vcro),ol/wSl i: Mul. $UI/iSlika. Teorl'l. kibcl"IIl'likt, . M .. 1985. T. 23.

24. KIISrtlt.1J A.G., KlIllIIe/lIdZ(l S.S., SlIbdi//c/"CIll.rutly i ikh primelll!lIiy,,: Vdu'b. 1'(I.whit'. Nowuihink. 1985.

25. Urold otkrYll nel beseda s malemnfik011l L. l'ol1lrynginym : IntcrlliYll ak:ld. L. S. Punlryngina "Uchil.
gn"l.."IIVchit. gOl. 1985,23 mniyn.

SOl/ree: Zakonomernosti r:12:lIityn SOll rcm cnnoi I11nlernntiki. "N<luka". M .. 1987. s I06-15S.
AboU/ Ihe allthor : Uspensky. Vladimir Andrcillich (1930- ). M<I(hemlllician ;111d logician. fields of
spcei:llizalion: theory of algorithms and mnlhelllntienl 1inguislics.
Otfu!!" works:
1. 0 JX)nya[ii algorilmieheskoi slIod imoSli (1953):
2. Teorema Godelya i leoria nlgol"i[l11ov (1953);
3. Ob algorilmicheskoi svodimosli (1956);
4. Po nyalie programmy i vychislimyic opcrntory(1956);
5. Uporyadochcnnye i chistichno uporyadochennye mnozhestvn (1956);
6. Ncskoilka zamechanii 0 percehislimykh mnozhes!lIakh (1957);
7. K opredelcniyu chasti rcehi v tcorcliko-mn07.hestvcnnoi sisteme yazyka ( 1957);
8. K opredeleniyu padczha po A.N. Kolmogorollu(1957).
 EMERGENCE AN D DEVELO PMENT OF T ILE CONCE PT OF
CONSTRUCTl VISABlLITY IN MAT II EMATl CS
NIKOLAI NIKOLAEVICH NIiPEIVODA
Constructivisabi lity of a mathematica l theory signifies the possibility of isolating the
co nstru ctio ns of objects from their existence proofs.
Pre·Greek empirical mathematics was constructive by ils very nature. It was preoccupied,
name ly. with (he mea ns of construction of objects, and gave empirica l recipes in ce rt ain
s ituations. Mathematical reasonin g was red uced 10 onc or, in the extreme cases, 10 severn I
app lications of such recipes, and the only descriptive clement in it involved judging whether
o r not the problem at hand or, part thereof, belongs to a certain c lass . This descriptive
cle menl was most oflen reduced to an appeal to immediate obv iousness.
Construction of the objecl being sought was the only method of proof in the Indian
and Chinese mathematicses, and this construction WllS able to take the place of arguments
(we recall the Famous Indian diagrams w ith the word "scc"). Arguments could only help
in construction , they did not have any independent significa nce r11.
The concept of proof came ·to occupy a proper place in Greek mathematics. C lassical
logic was used with all its might. Il has been establi shed in the 20th century, that this logic
was suitable, in the first place, for describing the stalic universe of ideal concepts, and not
for carrying oul intcllectual construct ions. Though Aristotle did highlighllhe siJeclal logical
st atus o f the rule of contraries: " ... onc of these [direct proof] proceeds from the previous
[knowl edge], and the other (from the opposi te) from the subsequen t" (2, p. 3071 - this
remark, which astonishingly exactly refl ects the semantics of the rule of contraries in Kripk e's
l11ode ls. did not exert any influence upon strict mathematical arguments.
Nevertheless the use of classica l logic - an instrument, oriented towards descript ive and
not constructive appli cation s - did not lead Greek mathematics to Ilon~constructive methods
und theorems . As be fo re, ex istence proofs included (as a rule, geometrical) constructions.
Arguments from Ihe con trari es were used only fa substantiate the constructions already cnrried
OUI, in the main , for pro ving the equality or inequali ty of certain magnitudes.
The deeper reasons behind this phenomenon were revealed only in the last few decades.
It is inlirnntely connected with the h old~ up of the Greeks in front of the concept o f real
number. from the point of view of traditional mathematical paradigm - with their stran ge
antipathy to the explicit use of numbers in genera l, in strict mathematical argumen ts.
Vexations regDrd ing the speci fi ci ties of Hellenic mathematics - which are indeed not quite
understandable from the c lassica l point of view - have been expressed more th a n Ol1l.:e .
In particular, the question arises: why the real numbers were used in a masked manner, as
proporti ons, and why acquainta nce with incommensurability did not come in its way. and yet
in geometry. the natural numbers were avoided in all possible ways, though , one Y>'ould
think, that these arc sufficientl y intuitively reliable objects? Why, the Helleni c Drithmetic
re mained something like a handicraft or an art,. never entering into the sphere of opernt io ll
of "pure mathematics", save in the case of a few theorems like the one about the infinite set of
prime numbers? What prevented the Greeks from formulat ing and utilizing sllch a powerful
principle of conducting arguments, as the mathematical intuilion ?

\
542 N. N. NIWEIVOI)A

It has been proved, namely, that the ~ lassi c al geometry and the elementary theory of real
numbers are complete and solvable; sce, ror example, l31. Thus, for every concrete, closed
statement in the language of these theories, it is provable in them, that it is either A, o r -I A.
Consequently, classical logic can not lead LIS to the non-constructivisability of the theorems
proved either in geometry, or in geometry supplemented with algebraic operations on the
real numbers, but without the explicit me ntion of the integers as a set. In any classical proof
of these theorems one may mark out the construction and its substantiation, whit:h may be
carried Ollt, in particular, also by the method of "indirect proofH.
This fact once more confirms the depth of the intuition of the Greeks, which was based
upon purely aesthetic and methodological considerations, but which permitted them to stop,
namely there, where the rupture between argument and construction, between descriptive
and co nstructive know ledge, became important. S\lch an exact halt was conducive to the
fact that, the distinction between what was constructivc tlnd what was descriptive w;}s not
realized and, was correspond ingl.y erased Qut of the world outlook of mathematicians.
Perhaps . it gave an indirect push to the cou rageous introduction of numbers and their functions
in the mathematics of the modern times: mathemnticians were still unaware of the danger of
a rupture between the proof and the const ruction, it was erroneously accepted that [the
verbs] "to prove" and "to construct" were a lways lllulUally concordant. Co nsequently, as
before, mathematicians assumed - now, without any foundation, simply due to inertia-
that a strictly proved statement provided the means for the construct ion of those objects,
whose exi stence has bcen affirmed. Whcnthe constructio n was explicitly indicated in a poroor,
then that was, of course , rated somewhat higher, but the pride of place was reserved for
the other factors, in the first place - for the not expl.ici!IY formulated, and that is why
constantly implicitly changed, aesthetic ones.
Prior 10 the formulation of the axiom of cho ice by G. Cantor and E. Zen1,e lo,
mathematicians did not realize that.even after the explicit introduction of the totality of
natura l numbers together with the principle of mathematical induct ion, there would appear
nOIl-const ruct ive theorems of existence, whic h would not prov ide the construction sought-
even in principle. The axiom of choice is demonstratively ineffective. It states that. it is
possible to construct a function, by choosing ils elements from among e:lc h of th e members
of the family of nOIlMe mpty sets, without saying 1lnything about the method of carrying out this
choice. The shock generated by the ax iom of choice and by the paradoxcis of the theory of .
sets - wh ich appeared practically at the same time, forced the realization that a very large
part of mathematics of the period ending in the 19th century was indeed I}on~constrllctive.
T he axiom of cho ice was magnificently inscribed upon the entirety of the hitherto formed
paradigm of classical mathematics.
It should be mentioned here, that even in the 19th century attempts were made to construct
some sections of mathematics upon a more constructive foundation - in particu lar by R.
Grassmann [4] and E. Schrodcr [S] - but these altempts remained on the s idelines, away
from the main road, and were forgone n.
Thus, the "cris is of the foundations of mathematics" sharply posed the quest ion about the
nature of mathematical constructions and abollt the in terrelationship of mathematical
 ON CONSTRUCTIVISAB ILlT Y IN MATIIEMATICS 543

. objects and reali ty. And this gave rise 10 the neces.~ity of a mo re cxa~t and, in nny
case, a more expli cit characteri zation o f the class of con:<itru ctive methods and, if possible,
of e limin ating the e·xp li cit ly non-construct ive ones. While cxa1ll inin ~ th e problem of
co nstru ctivisab il ity, it is possible to mark .out three maj or trend s: pseudo-class ical , 110n-
classical and significative.
Th e aim of the pseudo-classical trend is to sing le out the constructive sub-langu a ges of
the cla ss ical theories, where in the classical log ic and the customary co ncept of lruth arc left
untouc hed. In modern mathe matics this approach begins wi th A.Poincare - who t ried to
isolate those resul ts o f cJ assica lmalhematics, which were obtained without the help of the
axiom of c hoice, as he considered Ipem to be more rc liable and , with D. Hil bert - who had a
more radical prog ramme. For a detailed ana lysis of Hilbert' s program me from a point o (
vie w that corresponds 10 the present s tate o f . th e investigati ons in the foundations o f
mathe matics, see: Ershov. Yu. L. and Samokhvalov K.F., 0 novom podk·hode k methodo log ii
mi.l lc matiki /I Zakonmernosli razvitiya sovre rnennoi matcrnat iki ("Nauka ", M ., [9 &7), pp.
85- 106. Here we sh all limit ourse lves onl y to the remark that O. Hilber! unequivocal ly
dec lared that the maj orit y o f mathe matica l s t a le m ent~ do nol ha ve any real meaning and, th.a t
mathematics is req uired to g ive correct res ults on ly in res pect o f a set of co mparatively
simple renl s tatements.
In t he non-classical trend the concept of effective method is considered to be of
paramount importance - mat he matics is viewed as the scie nce of effect ive ( in tellectua l)
constructions and fogic adapts itself to the methods of. such constructions, and· gets so
modified , as to willingly guarantee the conslrucliv isabilily of the construction s.
L.E.! . Br.o uwer was th e rirst 10 point Oll t that while aiming at att aining co nstrucl iv isabi lity
one mus t not bli ndly foll ow that logic, which is tied 10 the tradition [6J. The root~ of the
non-construct ive s tructures, are o ften not so mu ch mathematica l, as log ica l. For ·example,
in any recursivc lyaxiomatizab le non-contradicto ry classical theory co ntainin g arithmetic,
it is possib le - basing oneself upon a theorem o f G6deJ - to cons truct a statement of the
fo rm 3 x E N A (x), such that it is not poss ible to construct even one s uc h number 11, th at
A (11) is provable, but, neverthe less; 3 x E N A (x) is provable. !rldeed , ro r thi s it is enough to
take the stateme nt A - wh ich is unsolvable in the given theory, and to construct the formula

3x((x=O& A)v(x= I &1 A)). ( I)

Brouwer s howed, in particular that, the following two logical principles are most open
to crit ic is m from th e poi nt of view of conslructi visability : the law of excluded m iddle

Av 1 A and th e meth od or indirect proof 11

A ~A . Indeed in the co nst ru c ti ve
substantiation of th e law o f excluded m iddle it is de manded that a general meth od be
co nstnl cted in respect of every prob lem, for establishing whether or not a given statement is
true, and in th e maj ori ty of cases such a method does not exis t. Thus, the law of excluded
m idd le may be c alled "the principle of omn iscience", and it may be . app[jed only in that
s ituation, where both the lan guage and the interpretation are deli berately so se lected as to
exclude the poss ibility of emergence or unsolvable problems.
 544 N. N. NE I'I~IVOl)A

Analogously, the principle 11 A =>A signifies, IhallherccxislS u method for transition

from the formulat ion of a solvable problem 10 ils solution , I L'. the existence of the so-c;.ll ed
"un ivcrs.1I problem ' so lver", This too narrows d own the .,p llerc of ils constru ctive
applicability.
Brouwer showed, that III principle it is possible to develop mathematics shunnm g the
non-construc tive principles. in particular - the principle of omniscience and that of the
un iversal problem solver. The idea of logic as a calculus of problems, and that of the
logical rules as tran sformers of problems into so luti ons, was made mo re exact by A.N.
Kolmogorov [7J. Of lale it has been realized that an enormous udvantagc o f Kolmogorov's
interpretati on l ie~ in the fact that it has not been spec ifi cd through to the cnd, and, thu s, it
is mther an outline that can be modified. But 10 beg in with thi :-; ndvan tage was taken for a
deficiency; both S.c. Kleene and A.A. Markov derived the constrllctivis t (inlu itionist) logic
frolll ,In eX<lct definition of a lgorithm and of the concept of natural l11l1mber. They s howed
that the principles against which Brouwer raised' objections, are inclTeclive after a nntural
algorithm is given fOl: singling out the constructive I<lsk from ' among arithmet ical formulae,
and an interpretation is provided for the transformntions operative in Ihi s constructive task,
a~ algorithm s (partially - recursive functi ons) . N.A. Shanin carried this construct io n
through to its logical end (8J and, he provided an explici t algorithm for s ingling out the
constructive task, ha~in g showed that after this substantiati on of [he consn'ucti ol1 carried
o ut, o ne may go ahead with the methods of c lass ical mnthemnlics.
Th e th ird - sig nifi cative - trend views mathematics as a sc ience' of formalislns and of
the modes of their transformations. E. Schroder should be considcred to be the spiritual fathe r
of thi s trend in many o f its aspects, thou gh he did not formu late an exp licit "manifesto"of
significat ive f!la th ema ti c~.
Now wc shall dwell upon the pnths of deve lopment , the mutual interactions and, the future
perspectives of these three trends.
Gode l's incompleteness theorem turned Ollt to be a turning point in the fate o f the
pseudo-classical trend. Naive hopes to the effect tha t it will, be possible to get away without
nlly se rious reexamination of the paradigm o f clnssical mathematics, having s imply
"sanctified" it with the Hil bertian incantations (and then one may happily forget about
them) - were not vindicated. It bccnmc clear that the pseudo-classical trend too demands a
serious reconstruction of the entire system of mathemat ical concepts, and that is why, fro m
the point of view of psycho logical protection, the eas iest thing to do 'was to si mpl y interpret
Godcl's [ incompleteness l theorem as the collapse of Hilbcrt's programme as a whole - to
be able to get a long with what one was doing, this time, openly refusing to bother about the
fou ndations. A quite frequent methodological error crops up in the interrelationships among
the theoreticians and the "practi tioners" : the "practitioners"'n re incl ined to demand that the
theoreticians should substantiate their [i.e., practitioners'l positions and activities, but only
a "theoretician" on the verge of becoming a c harlatan can provide such subs tantiation, in so
far as ill practice there is nlways a mix up of tile rational, extremely exact activities , not only
wi th the non-optimnl, superfl uous movcs, bUI also with the plainly bad ones, dictated by
tradition. Th al is why a true thcory cann ot substantiate pract ice, but must reconstruc t it.
 ON CQNSTRucn VISAlllLlT Y IN MATlIEMATlCS 545

Nevertheless, namely, in thi s slack period . princip led resu lts were obtained by P.S.
Novikov [9] : he established that from the class ica l proof of a formu la of the form
3 x A (x) in ari thmetic - where A (x) is algorithmically solvable - it is poss ible to obt ai n
the construction of an 11 , ~ u c h that A (11).
During . th e last few years, the demands of theoretical programming, infonnatics ,Ind
those of the so-ca ll ed "arti fi cial 'intelli gence" have forced the log ici.lns to retu rn ( a the pseudo-
c lassical trend . In particular, the deve lopment of the progra mming languages like PROLOG
[ 101. has put forward the task of isolating those sub-sys tems of the classical logic , which
retain constructiv isabili ty in some sense - as onc of the most important tasks in thi s fi eld .
.
It appeared, in particular, that the system of Horn 's rormulae of the form
'
'ix" "' , x" ( P , & '" & P, =>Q ), (2)
upon which PROLOG is based, possesses such property.
The class ica l fo rmulae, which prov ide an opportunity lO describe and elic it
conslructi vi st consturctio ns, have been more systematica lly desc ribed in the latest works of
the Novos ibirsk sc hool : [I ll. [1 21. Here we fin d the theoretical fo undations for all possible
sys tems of log ical programmi ng, based upon the classica l log ic. In yet anot her work [ 13 J
se mantic condi tions have been introduced upon the constructi visnti on of classica l theories,
without impos in g any lim it upon the class of formulae used. It appeared that for the fu lly
constructive models (where any set defined by II formu la of our label (s ignatu re) is
recursively so lvable), the classica l logic is completely construct ively interpretable.
The development of constructivis t logic has forced us to ear-mark yet another co mponent
in the definition of a calculus, besides the ax ioms and the ru les of ded uctio n : it is the global
structure of th e infe rences; alld this has opened up yet anoth er opportuni ty for the
developme nt of the pseudo-c lassical trend. E ven the intuiti onist log ic ca n be interpreted as
classical log ic with a limited global structu re of natural dt::ducli on ; it has been establi shed
114] that one can oblain the classica l logic from intuitionist logic by addi ng 10 it one globa l,
structural rule of inference: the ru le of accepted unexpectedness.
But all these poss ibili.ties, opened up fo r the use of the pse udo-classica l tre nd do not
alter th e basic concl usion of Brouwer : while us{ng a logic one mu st carefu lly in vesti gate
the class of probl ems and the cl ass of implied interpretati ons, otherwi se reasoning and
construction would inev itably drift apart. The ear-marked sub-c lasses of formul ae. theories
and infere nces are based on such invest igati ons in every case.
The pseudo-c lass ica l trend has unexpectedly turned up on the highway of development
o f classical mathematics itse lf. Though it has not been explicitly recogn ized , category theory
may be that in strum ent , wherin again, as in the Hellenic mathematics, the con sl ru cti v~ and
the descripti ve aspects have merged into one - where, proof gu arantees constructi on. But
thi s has now happened owing to a transition 10 a new level of abstraction, whi ch has aga in
permi tted the ba nni ng of any explicit reference to the numbers. Fu rther, the theory of
categori es leads to the necess ity of investigating its ow n inr.er log ic. whi ch is intuitionst in
the spaces (toposes) and coherent in the more general case [ 15 1. T hus, here also. th e
pseudo-cl ass ical trend closes in on the non· class ica l trend .
69
546 N. N. NE!I'EI VQDA

Now. the n o n ~cla ss i ca l tre nd has di vided itself into two branc hes: intuition is m and
constructivism .
In intuitioni sm we essentially base ourselves upon the incomplete ness of our
knowledge. Name ly. we do not intend ( 0 pro vide any prec ise and fin al definiti on of the
class of effective constructions[16J. What is morc, in intuiti onism we try to use this
indcterminateness , thi s ignorance, as a pos itive Factor. For ex ~mpl e , from the substantiation
of the princ iple of continuity in [16] :
\la 3n A (a , n) =>\la 3 k\lp (V / (/ <k => a (Q .: p (Q) & A (fJ, u) =>A (a, u)) (3)
it is evident, that this princip le signifi es the absence of any know ledge of th e global rules,
~hich wou ld indi cate the behaviour of tile Brou werinn "sequences of choice" or of the
"sequences that ha ve become free" . What is morc, later on a concepti on of "lawless
sequences " has bee n worked out, where in, in general, aU accessible information constitu es
an initial block {17} . Thu s, - in intuitioni sm an atte mpt is made to de monstrate that the
knowledge of ignorance happens to be the most valuable form of know ledge, l ntuitionisr'n is
th us sharply at variance with the entire paradi gm of classica l mathematics,
Constru ctivi sm tries to unite co nstructivisab ility with maximum retention of the cl ass ica l
mathe mati cal . paradi gm. To some extent constructivi sm is as Platonist, as the class ica l
mathe matics. The c lass of objects under cons ide rati on and the me th ods of the ir
transformation (at this point we have nil essential difference with classica l mat hematics -
where one does not even th in k of the methods of tran sformation) are formul a ted precisely,
basi ng the formul ations upon 'an exact concept of a lgori thm . Knowledge is interpreted as a
normal state, and ignorance - as an anomaly, wh ich is inevitably presen t, but wh ich mus t be
overcome at all cost. Such an interpretation permitted A.A. Mark ov {I B] to clearly ear-mark
the system of initia l abstraction s, which are fo undati onalto co nstructi vist mathe mat ics. Th is
inte rpretation prede termined the journey of construcliv ist mathematics to a dead e nd in the
narrow constructivism of N.A. Shanin [1 91, where an atte mpt has been made to totall y ban
idea l sentences from mathe matics.
E. Bi shop tried to occupy an intermed iate posit ion [20], when he tried to get away fro m
an exact fixation of the class of effecti ve methods, as well as from bas ing onese lf upon
ignorance. But whe n hi s concepti on was made more precise - sec, in particul ar P. Martin-
Leof' s book [21] - it was found , that Bi shop' s-concepti on lies co mplete ly within the
fra me-work of constucti vism. Martin-Leof was the first 10: make use of the circumstance
- though it is true that he did not formulatc it ex plic itl y - that the gi ving of theconsrtucti ve
objects and of an e xact descripti.on of the me thods of transformation of the objects, still
does not full y determine the methods of tran sformatio n of method s, and that sllc h
co nstru ctive fun ctiona ls of the higher type, metaal gorithms, can be varied co mplete ly-
without touc hing the al gorithm s themselves.
Du ring the last fe w years, the demands of appl ication - in particul ar, of informatics, -
has stimulated a Renaissance of Constructivi sm, even in our country; but this time it is a broad
~o n s t ru cti v i s m , whi ch investigates the most diverse classes of methods and, correspond ingly,
the most di vergent constructivis't theories and even the constructivi st logics. The very concept
of cons!ruct!vist logic is little by liltle tearing itself away from its unjustified ties with a
 ON CONSTRUCf l VISAB ILlTY IN MATHEMA1' ICS 547

lIingle class of problems and effecti ve methods and is becoming a relative concept. whic h'may
be varied, depending upon the descriptive language, in which transformable objects are
described and proble ms are posed, and the class of programmes, or methods of transfo rming
concrete And abstract objects arc put forward , Viewed thus, intuitioni st logic itself appears
as the most classica l of the conslruclivist logics - th is log ic is constucti vist in that s i(U ,lIion,
where we are faced wit h the task of pure functi onal programming [22}. I n ot her words, a
eons~ructivist use of intu itioni st log ic is possible. when we are not very much constrai ned in
terms of time and other resources, when our co mputations only add new data, new know iedge,
over and above what we already have and, when il is possible to use the compleK structures
of data and the funclion~ls of higher type.
The use of inde pe ndent conslructi vist log ics , and not of some fragme nt s of classica l logic,
is eKpedie nt. when thereby the ex pressive pov.rer of ' language is sharply raised, and when the
constru cti vist description is by far shorter an d clearer than the corresponding classical one,
Forexample. in [2 3J a case of pure implicative logic has been considl!red , whe rein the formulae
have been constructed with the help of a single logical connecti ve - imp lication - from
amongst the proposit ional letters, and a trans lation of the problem described into the
tradjtigIH11 languages requires all the finit e type of A-ten.ns, predi cates upon the m, and
qlHlOtlfiers,
Practica lly speaking. the third - significati vc - trend is also high ly topical. Formal
calculi and transfo rmations of formali sms are widel y investigated in mathematical
linguistics and theoret ical programming. But the methodolog ica l and metamathematical
aspects of lhe s ignificative poi nt of view hn ve not been su ffi ciently analysed . In this
con necition see the works of P. Lorenzen [24] and S. Yu , Maslov: [25] , [261.
Let us attempt a few conclu sions. It is possible that the arrival of the pseudo·class ical,
"Helle ni c" stage - wherein the constructive and the descriptive aspects merge into one-
is indicative Qf the maturity and conceptual un ity, of the conceptual cOn)pleleness . of the
system of mathematical concept s. Here. explicit mention of numbers are banned from the
theories.
The desire 10 "carry the resu lts ri ght uplO ttie numbers", to have explici t theories of
compu tationa l methods and, generally, of the methods of pract ical constructions, leads to
constructivis m - in one form or the other. The different prob l e n~- or j e n ted cons tructi vist
theories mu st give rise to an unified pseudo-c lassical th eory . describing the effect ive
structures of a given class.

The intuitionist theories are more abstract and they too can give rjse to an entire fa mily
of more conc rete constrllclivist th eories; but they are operat ive in a different situation : when
it is not expedient to assu me the co mpleteness of a system of concept s or, whe n the system
of concepts is ex plicilily non·formalizable and when there is no poin t in striving at
completeness.
Finally, it is necessary 10 conduct serious and deep-gQin g in vestigations, to ascertain the
emerging shape of s ignificative mat hematics.
 N. N. NEl'ElVO[)A
'" Literature
I. Slntik. D. j .. A Concise Hiswry or M:lthcmnlics. N. Y.. 1%7 [ H us.~ . T r. M. , 1984].
2. Aristolle. Works, Run. cd., M.. 1918, T. 2.
3. Tarski A.. A Decision Method for Elementary Algchra and Gcol11clry. Bcrklcy; L.A., 1951.
4. Biryllkov 11. V., IJirYI,kovo L.G" ~Uchcnic 0 formllkh (vclichinakh)" German .. i Roberta
Grassmanov kak prcdvoskhischcnie knonstruktivnovo fWprllVleniYll v malcmalike. I. "
Kibcrnctika i logichcskaya fonmlizatsiya : Aspekty istoriU IlIcoldologii. M., 1982.
5. ScI,rlklt'r E., Vorlcsungcn aber die AIgcbr:l der Logik (cxaktc Logik). Leipzig, 1890-1905.
6. Bral/wcr LE.J" Dc onbctrouwbaarhcid der logischc principcs. I3d.2.
7. KolmtJgorov A.N.. Zur Deutung der intuitionistischcn Logik 11 Mm!,. ail.fellr, 1932 . Bd. 35.
8. Sluwi/! N.A ., 0 kOllstruktiynorn poninumii matcrnalichcskikh su:t.hdcniiIlTr. M IAN SSSR.
1958. T. 52.
9. NQvikov P.S .. On the Consistency of Certain Logical CalculusJl Mal. sb. 1943. T. 12(54).
10. Sistema "PR,OLOG - ES ~. Kiey, 1979.
11. Ers/rOl' Yu. L, Printisip t- pen::chisleniya/I DAN SSSR. 1983. T. 270, No. 5.
12. GOIlc/rarol' S.S., Sviridenko D./., l:-programmirovnnie/l Vychislitclnye SiStCI11Y. Novosibirsk,
1985. Vyp. 107 .
13 . Voronkov A.A., Konmuktlynnyn semnnlika dlya Teorii modeleill Vscsoyuz. Konf. po prikl.
logike: Tez.. dokl. Novosibirsk, 1985.
14. Nepeivoda N.N., Pmvil0 ncozhindnnnosti i slnrkturnye go 10 11 Semiotikll i inforrnatikn. ! 984.
Vyp.23.
15. Goldbl(l// v .. Toposy. Kntegornyi anali:t.logjki. M .. 1983.
16. Hey/illg A., Intuitionism. Amsterdam, 1956. (Russ. Tr. M., 19651.
17. Drogl/NII A.G.. Mate mnticheskii intuitsionizm : Vvedenie v tcoriyu dokazatclsty . M., 1979.
18. MarkovA.A" Tcoriya algorifmoyllTr. MIAN SSSR. 1954.1'.42.
19. Sha/ll'/I N.A ., Roil poniyatiya algoritma v scmantikcarifrnctichcskikh yazykovllAlgorillllY
v sovremennoi matcmatikc i eo prilozhcniynkh. Novosibirsk, 1982. Ch. 2.
20. Bishop E., Foundation~ of Construet~ve Analysis. N.Y., 1967.
2 1. Mar/ill-Leo! P.. Oeherki po konstruktivnoi mntemntikc. M .. 1975.
22. NelJciwxia N.N., Logiehcskii podkhod k programmirovaniyull Algoritrlly v sovremennoi
malemalikeicc prilozhcniyakh. Ch. 2. Novosibirsk, [982.
23. NClu;I'oda N.N., Konstruktivnye logikillNeklassicheskic logikL M., 1982.
24. l.orv!IIttll p .. Einftlhrung in die operative logik und Mathematik . B.. 1954.
25 . Maxlov S. Yu .. Mutntsionnye isehislcniya: Zllp. nnueh. seminarov LOMI .L., 1975. T. 49.
26. Maslov S. Yu., Oeduklivnye sistemy i ikh ekonomiches kic primeneniyn. M. Nnuch. savel po
kompleks. probJ. "Kibcrnetika AN SSSR. 1983. Prepr.
H

Source : Zakonomcmosti razvitiyn soyrcmennoi matematiki .• Nnuka~, M., 1987, s. 219·229.

Awlror : Nepeivodn. Nikolai Nikolnevieh, Cand. (se).
 ABOUT THE EDITORS
1. Editor of K. Marks. Malem(llic/u!skie R!4kopisi (~Naukn·. M., 19(8), So/ya Alebwulml'lI(1 Y(lIIol'skoya
( 111%-1%6), one of the pioneers in the study and \cnching of mathematical logic in lhe erstwhi le USSR. She
translated and edited Ihe works of llil bcrl, Ackcrmann, Tarski, Goodstein, K1ccnc and Church in lhe field of logic.
From 193 J (till death) she nlso shouldered the responsibility of editing Ihe malhcm:llicnl manuscripts of
Karl MarK. In. 1935 she obtained her doclom! degree ami, subsequently became a professor or llln,lhCl11alicallogic
in Ihe Mechanics-nnd-Mathematics dcparu!'cllt of Moscow SllIle University.
HI~r published books and paper.r ;,u;i(lde:
o Ink nn'lyvaemykh oprcdelcniyakh cherez abstraktsiyullStntci po filosofii maternatiki (1936); OsnovaniYfl
matematik; i matemticheskayn logikall Matem"tika v SSSR za trid[sa[ let ( 1949) ; Peredovye idci N.!.
Lohachevskovo - orudie boirby protiv ide,,1izma v matcrn3tike (M.-L. .1950); Iz istorii "ksiom,,[icheskovo
metod,,/I Tru dy 3-vo Fsesoyuznovo malhema[icheskovo siezd" (T.2. 1956); h . is[oril aksioma[;ki 11
l ~tori ko-matematicheskie issledovaniya (Vy p.II. 1958); 0 nekotorykh chert"k.h razvitiya mmematichc.~koi logiki
lotnosheniyu eo k [ekhnicheskim prelozheniyam 11 P,'imenenie logik; v naukc i tekhnike ( 1960); Problemy
vvcdeniya i isklyucheniya abstraklsii bolee vysokikh (chcm perv)'i) pory"dkovlf The Foundations of Statements
Ilnd Decisions (Warszawn. 1965.) [th is paper was re"d in Septrnber 19611; 0 filosofskikh vopros"kh
matematichcskoi logikill Problemy Logiki (1963); 0 matcmaticheskoi slrogoslill Vo/)/wy Fi/osofll,
1966. No.3; Metodologicheskie problemy nnuki (1972) [contnins her nrtic!es included in the "Pilosoi"sknyn
Entsiklopcdiyn": Logikn klassov, Logiku kombinatorna),n, lschislcnie, Logik" vysknzyvnnii. Logitsizm i dr.]

2. Editor of thc special supplement Marx alld Mathematics find tra nslator of K. Marks, Mlltellwl ;clleskie
HllkoJlisi (M., (968), Pradil1 Baks; ( 1948.-), MA (Philosophy & Russian).
Hi., Ilubfished books and papers i"clude:
Popper on DialeclicJl Marxist MiscellllllY, New Delhi, 6,1976. pp.50-55; MarkserGonit Vishaynk Pandulipi
Prasange 11 GOl/if, Calcutta, 1983, 2(2), pp. 51-58; Mnrksbad, Goni! 0 Tarknshastra (C., 1985, t 06 pp.) ia collection
of three essays: Dvandataitva 0 Gonit, Kllrl Markser Gonit Vishayllk Pnndulipi 0 TarTatparyn ami. Dvnndynlllulak
Tarknshaslra 0 Tarkashastrer Dvandvikata] ; Marksbad 0 Bijnnnsamuher Dvandvikata (TT. nnd Bd.)
(C .• 1986.174pp.) [contains Bengali translations of: (I) Novye mnlerinlr 0 K.M nrkse 11 Voprosy Filosofli, No.5,
1983, pp. 100-/26 ( Rolnnd Daniels- Karl Marx correspondence. 8 Pebruflry-IJune 1851. on Daniels' manuscript
- M ikrokosmos : Entwurf eiller physiologischen Anthropologic (1850) and, other issues of mutual interest); (2)
Polveka mboty n:ld [ekstami i zamyslami F.Engelsa - B.M.Kedrov nnd. Bibliogrnfiya osnovnykh nauchnykh
trudov B.M.Kedrova 11 Filosotlya i es!estvoznaniya (M., 1974) (a description of fifty years of investiglltions on
nnd around Frederik Engel!' work on the sciences by B,M.Kedrov and, a lisl .o f Kedrov's principal works) ; and
(3) Evolution of Science: The Cultural-Historical Aspect - P.P. Gaidenko" Social Scieflcts. M., 1981, vo1. XIII ,
No. 2. pp. 131-144J ; Karl Markser Prakriti Bijnan Charcha 0 Bijnnn Bhabona " Mlliyo)"ol/, C., October 1988
(pp. 157-174) and May 1989 (pp.74-80); Scientific and Technological Revolution, Philosophy and Marxism "
ParlY Ufe, N.D., August (pp.4-12) and September (pp. 19-27). 1990; India, Marxism Ilnd the World To-da)'1I Part)'
LAIc, N.D., October (pp. 1- to) and November (pp. 13-20). 1991.
 CORR I GENDA

ABBREVIA TIONS : p. page: I. line, f-n. foot note, r. read , f. for.

p.I , 1.12, r. Marks;zm, f. Mark;szm.
1'.8, 1.26, r. from x but, f. from XJ but.
p.14, 1.28, r. Social, f. SJ>Oial.

cJx !!2'
p. 36, I. 19, r. dx·,f'.dy'

. d'1I d'y
p.49,1. 21,1. - " f.-:;-J.
dx- dx
p.60,1.25,r. [~f' (x)j , f. ~ f' (xl] .
p. 63, I. 20, r. the, f. that.
p. 73, f-n., r. in, f. is.
p. 85, I. 23, r differen ti al, f. differenctial.
p. 9_<, I. I I, r.form, f.from .
p. 94, I. 6, r. practice, f. parctice.
p. 94, I. ID, r. generally, f. genra ll y.
1'.94, I. 14, r. basis, f. bais.
p. 94, I. IS , r. binomial, f binomimal.
p . 94, I. 18, r. Newtonian, f. Newon ian.
p. 98, 1. 3, r. t~ quivalent. f. equvalent.
p. Ill, I. 5, r. Chios, f. chios.
p. 123, I. 33, r. manu script, f. manuscipt . .

p . 136, I. 2 1, r. - 2 13/'" (xl il' , f. - 2 I 3 /" (xl Izl .

p. 137,1.25 , r. Marksizma, f. marxisma.

p. 177,1. 16, r.from, f.form.
p. 180, I. 6, r. that, f. t at.
f' ilia " y.
"9 , r. mam - Jy,.
p. 180 • I.....
1'. 184 ,1.11, r.-67, f.-27.
'. CORRIGENDA
l
p. 199,1. 8, r.
f(lII)" = f(lII) . f(lII) .. f(lII) =f(1II + In + ... + Ill) =f(III' ) f
\" ,1\ ,I ,.
V
m lIInes
V
In llme.\'

f(III)'" = f(lII) . f(lII) . . f(lII) = f(1II + III + . .. + Ill)

\,,____~ / \" J
In
'V
tIInes
V
m mnes

p. 202, 1. 12, r. what has been, f. what been.

p. 227, 1. 27, r. function s, f. function .
p. 237, 1. 12, r. again pages, f. again a page.
p. 237, 1. 28, r. 19-23, f. 19-22.
p. 275, 1. 25, r. (B) ,) , (B),) , f. (B),). (B),) .
p . 285, 1. 19, r. broken form , so also wi th, f. generali sed from, wit h.
2
p. 295, 1. 2 1, r. Cx , f.o?
p. 308, 1. 29, r. equalities, f. equli ties.
p. 320, I. 32, r. in vestigati ng, f. investigations on.
p. 326, 1. 19, r. tran slation, f. tran stati on.
p. 341 1. 7, r. pwi ng to , f. fo r.
p . 344, 1. 28, r. differential s, f. dif rent ials.
p. 379, 1. I ( co l. 2 ), r. ischi slieni e, f. iscli cslienic.
p. 379, 1. 4 ( col. 2 ), r. Lausanne, f. Laussan e.
p. 380, 1. 22 ( co l. 2 ), r. estestvoz nani e, f. estes tvoznania.
p. 386, 1. 2 1, r. graph ic, f. graaph ic.
p. 386, 1. 22, r. introduced, f. ,intoroduced .
p . 391, 1. I, r. Enge ls, f. Eng les.
p. 399, 1. 18, r. it, f. th e m.
p. 400, 1. 8, r. by , f. of.
p. 400, 1. 28, r. (No., f. No.
p. 412 . L 13. r. illlroduced. f. hllrodueed.
p . 417, 1. 11, r. J" (x) . [<I> ' (t) ]" t.t' , f./, (x) . [<I> ' (t)l'· ill'.
p. 425, 1. 32, r. Kisileva ,f. Kiseleva.
p. 425, 1. 36, r. Rybnikov, f. Rybikov.
 CORRIGENDA J

p. 427, I. 33, r. endl essly, f. endlessl.

p. 427, I. 34, r. dearest, f. dearst.
p. 438, 1. I, r. Tatt vachilltamalli, f. Tauva Chintamani.
p. 446, I. I , r. Enge ls, f. Eng les.
p. 446, I. 10, r, Nauchnykh, f. Naychnykh.
p. 453, I. 41-42, r, 1928, books since 1948 and s ince"., f. 1948, and since" ..
p. 460, I. 24, r, C. Thruesdell, f. K. Trusdell.
p . 466, I. 23-24, r, soon it was extended to the study of the so-called Arab
Dioph. ntu s by R. Rashid ( 1974-) and, independently by j . Sesiano, and
th en, f. (the same words in different order).
p. 470, I. 21, L happens, f. happen.
p. 478, I. I, r, been, f. ben.
1'.496, para 3 should read as :
Abstract structures can be successfu ll y used for cons tructin g mathematical
models; we may especially use those alllong them , which aim ,11 revea lin g
not only the numerical(metric) dependencies among magnitudes, but also
the relations of a non-metric character.The study of such non-metric
relations is of considerable signiii cdoce for those sc ie nces, where ow ing to
the comp lexity of the object under inves tigation, and sometime.s also owing
to the unelaborated stage of a theory , it is impossible to present the results
numeri cali y.That is why, there one is often required to turn to the abstract
structures of order. In their investigation s about the different type s of
relations obtainable among individuals and groups in soc ial collectives,
psychologists and sociologi sts have begun to apply the oriented theory of
gra.phs, which constitutes the simplest form of algebraic category.
p. 496, para 4, I. 2, r. thi s line of mathematisation of, f. th s line of
mathematdsat on f.
p. 496, para 4,1.3, r, In fact, f. n.fact.
p. 506, I. 7, r, Kisilev or, f. Kisvpfx. psr.
p. 506, I. I I, r. what "e the, f. what re the.
p. 5 19, I. 32, r, (0,' ) , f. io, I.
p. 520, I. 5, r. above, f. abo e.
p. 523, I. 13-14, r. O" ... ', f. 0"·,,' .
1'.546, I. 8, r, ". k V ~ ( V '(l < k..., f. "" k \f B(V I (l <k ".