History Of Mathematics

"It is surprising that the first glimpses of non-Euclidean geometry were had in the eighteenth century. Geronimo Saccheri... a Jesuit father of Milan, in 1733 wrote Euclides ab omni naevo vindicatus (Euclid vindicated from every flaw). Starting with two equal lines AC and BD, drawn perpendicular to a line AB and on the same side of it, and joining C and D, he proves that the angles at C and D are equal. These angles must be either right, or obtuse, or acute. The hypothesis of an obtuse angle is demolished by showing that it leads to results in conflict with Euclid I, 17: Any two angles of a triangle are together less than two right angles. The hypothesis of the acute angle leads to a long procession of theorems, of which the one declaring that two lines which meet in a point at infinity can be perpendicular at that point to the same straight line, is considered contrary to the nature of the straight line; hence the hypothesis of the acute angle is destroyed. Though not altogether satisfied with his proof, he declared Euclid "vindicated.""

"A copy of the Tentamen reached K. F. Gauss, the elder Bolyai's former roommate at Göottingen, and this Nestor of German mathematicians was surprised to discover in it worked out what he himself had begun long before, only to leave it after him in his papers. As early as 1792 he had started on researches of that character. His letters show that in 1799 he was trying to prove a priori the reality of Euclid's system; but some time within the next thirty years he arrived at the conclusion reached by Lobachevski and Bolyai. In 1829 he wrote to F. W. Bessel, stating that his "conviction that we cannot found geometry completely a priori has become, if possible, still firmer," and that "if number is merely a product of our mind, space has also a reality beyond our mind of which we cannot fully foreordain the laws a priori." The term non-Euclidean geometry is due to Gauss."

"In 1866 J. Hoüel translated Lobachevski's Geometrische Unter suchungen into French. In 1867 appeared a French translation of Johann Bolyai's Appendix. In 1891 George Bruce Halsted, then of the University of Texas, rendered these treatises easily accessible to American readers by translations brought out under the titles of J. Bolyai's The Science Absolute of Space and N. Lobachevski's Geometrical Researches on the Theory of Parallels of 1840."

"While Lobachevski enjoys priority of publication, it may be that Bolyai developed his system somewhat earlier. Bolyai satisfied himself of the non-contradictory character of his new geometry on or before 1825; there is some doubt whether Lobachevski had reached this point in 1826. Johann Bolyai's father seems to have been the only person in Hungary who really appreciated the merits of his son's work. For thirty-five years this appendix, as also Lobachevski's researches, remained in almost entire oblivion. Finally Richard Baltzer of the University of Giessen, in 1867, called attention to the wonderful researches."

"The chief mathematical work of Wolfgang Bolyai appeared in two volumes, 1832-1833 entitled Tentamen juventutem studiosam in elementa matheseos puræ... introducendi. It is followed by an appendix composed by his son Johann. Its twenty-six pages make the name of Johann Bolyai immortal. He published nothing else but he left behind one thousand pages of manuscript."

"Wolfgang Bolyai de Bolya... after studying at Jena... went to Göttingen, where he became intimate with K. F. Gauss, then nineteen years old. Gauss used to say that Bolyai was the only man who fully understood his views on the metaphysics of mathematics. Bolyai became professor at the Reformed College of Maros-Vásárhely, where for forty-seven years he had for his pupils most of the later professors of Transylvania. ...he was truly original in his private life as well as in his mode of thinking. ...No monument, said he, should stand over his grave, only an apple-tree, in memory of the three apples; the two of Eve and Paris, which made hell out of earth, and that of I. Newton, which elevated the earth again into the circle of heavenly bodies. His son, Johann Bolyai... once accepted the challenge of thirteen officers on condition that after each duel he might play a piece on his violin, and he vanquished them all."

"Nicholaus Ivanovich Lobachevski['s]... views on the foundation of geometry were first set forth in a paper laid before the physico-mathematical department of the University of Kasan in February, 1826. This paper was never printed and was lost. His earliest publication was in the Kasan Messenger for 1829 and then in the Gelehrte Schriflen der Universtät Kasan, 1836-1838... "New Elements of Geometry, with a complete theory of Parallels." ...remained unknown to foreigners, but even at home it attracted no notice. In 1840 he published a brief statement of his researches in Berlin, under the title Geometrische Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Parallellinien. Lobachevski constructed an "imaginary geometry," as he called it, which has been described by W. K. Clifford as "quite simple, merely Euclid without the vicious assumption." A remarkable part of this geometry is this, that through a point an indefinite number of lines can be drawn in a plane, none of which cut a given line in the same plane. A similar system of geometry was deduced independently by the Bolyais in Hungary, who called it "absolute geometry.""

"The most numerous efforts to remove the supposed defect in Euclid were attempts to prove the parallel postulate. After centuries of desperate but fruitless endeavor, the bold idea dawned upon the minds of several mathematicians that a geometry might be built up without assuming the parallel-axiom. While A. M. Legendre still endeavored to establish the axiom by rigid proof, Lobachevski brought out a publication which assumed the contradictory of that axiom, and which was the first of a series of articles destined to clear up obscurities in the fundamental concepts, and greatly to extend the field of geometry."

"In geometry the axioms have been searched to the bottom, and the conclusion has been reached that the space defined by Euclid's axioms is not the only possible non-contradictory space. Euclid proved (I, 27) that "if a straight line falling on two other straight lines make the alternate angles equal to one another, the two straight lines shall be parallel to one another." Being unable to prove that in every other case the two lines are not parallel, he assumed this to be true in what is now generally called the 5th "axiom," by some the 11th or the 12th "axiom." Simpler and more obvious axioms have been advanced as substitutes. As early as 1663, John Wallis of Oxford recommended: "To any triangle another triangle, as large as you please, can be drawn, which is similar to the given triangle." G. Saccheri assumed the existence of two similar, unequal triangles. Postulates similar to Wallis' have been proposed also by J. H. Lambert, L. Carnot, P. S. Laplace, J. Delboeuf. A. C. Clairaut assumes the existence of a rectangle; W. Bolyai postulated that a circle can be passed through any three points not in the same straight line, A. M. Legendre that there existed a finite triangle whose angle-sum is two right angles, J. F. Lorenz and Legendre that through every point within an angle a line can be drawn intersecting both sides, C. L. Dodgson that in any circle the inscribed equilateral quadrangle is greater than any one of the segments which lie outside it. But probably the simplest is the assumption made by Joseph Fenn in his edition of Euclid's Elements, Dublin, 1769, and again sixteen years later by William Ludlam... and adopted by John Playfair: "Two straight lines which cut one another can not both be parallel to the same straight line." It is noteworthy that this axiom is distinctly stated in Proclus's note to Euclid, I, 31."

"In the decades leading up to the period of relativity theory the architecture of space was revolutionized. Until then the mathematical imagination, and with it all of scientific thinking, had been dominated by a single book. ...Yet the mathematical framework the Elements espoused grants an unfounded privilege to one view, excluding the very idea of non-Euclidean geometries. The roots of a more flexible attitude to geometry reach back to the Renaissance creators of linear perspective, but the development... into the modern discipline... had to await the... great mathematicians such as Poncelet, Cayley and Klein. By the time of Einstein, non-Euclidean geometries and the even more comprehensive theory of had broken the grip of Euclid on mathematical and spatial thinking, and a new imagination of space could be born."

"Although K. F. Gauss, one if the spiritual fathers of non-Euclidean geometry... proposed a possible test of the flatness of space by measuring the interior angles of a terrestrial triangle, it remained for... K. Schwarzschild to formulate the procedure and to attempt to evaluate curvature] K on the basis of astronomical data... Schwarzschild's pioneer attempt is so inspiring in its conception and so beautiful in its expression...[!]"

"He dwells only on broad impressions of vast angles and stone surfaces—surfaces too great to belong to any thing right or proper for this earth, and impious with horrible images and hieroglyphs. I mention his talk about angles because it suggests something Wilcox had told me of his awful dreams. He had said that the geometry of the dream-place he saw was abnormal, non-Euclidean, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours."

"Let us then examine the extension of this universe to ascertain whether there exists there an infinitely great. The opinion that the world was infinite was a dominant idea for a long time. Up to Kant and even afterward, few expressed any doubt in the infinitude of the universe. Here too modern science, particularly astronomy, raised the issue anew and endeavored to decide it not by means of inadequate metaphysical speculations, but on grounds which rest on experience and on the application of the laws of nature. There arose weighty objections against the infinitude of the universe. It is Euclidean geometry which leads to infinite space as a necessity. ...Einstein showed that Euclidean geometry must be given up. He considered this cosmological question too from the standpoint of his gravitational theory and demonstrated the possibility of a finite world; and all the results discovered by the astronomers are consistent with this hypothesis of an elliptic universe."

"Selecting the z-axis as an axis of revolution, a point on the surface generated by rotating the curve r = f(z) is defined by two coordinates... z and \theta. ...Now ds^2 = ds_1^2 + ds_2^2 where ds_1 is the displacement along the meridian and ds_2 the displacement along the parallel of latitude. ...since ds_1^2 = dz^2 + dr^2 ...The [arbitrary] line element ds is... defined by the relation {{center|1=ds_1 = dz\sqrt{1 + (\frac{dr}{dz})^2}}}and The line element ds is thus defined by the relation:{{center|1=ds^2 = dz^2[1 + (\frac{dr}{dz})^2] + r^2d\theta^2 = A^2dz^2 + B^2d\theta^2 \qquad (1.1)}}where{{center|1=A = \sqrt{1 + (\frac{dr}{dz})^2} \quad and \; B = r \qquad \qquad (1.2)}}This is the first of the generalized forms of equations in curved surface theory in which A and B are parameters. ... For a generalized curved surface with an arbitrarily selected orthoganal coordinate system defined by the coordinates \alpha and \beta, eq. (1.1) assumes the generalized form...the coefficients will now be functions of \alpha and \beta. We may again write:{{center|1=ds_1 = Ad\alpha \quad \text{for} \quad \beta = c_1 ds_2 = Bd\beta \quad \text{for} \quad \alpha = c_2}}Equations (1.1) and (1.3) are of great importance in the theory of curved surfaces and hence in comprehending shell theory. By means of these equations the geometry of the surface is described as a two-dimensional configuration similar to the method used to define a point on a flat surface, i.e. ...by two normalized orthogonal coordinates. ...If a set of orthogonal coordinates can be selected such that A and B are independent of \alpha and \beta, the geometry in the neighborhood of a point on the curved surface does not differ from that of a flat plate. Then the cartesian-coordinate relationship:is still valid. This classification includes the s such as the cone and the cylinder. ...the distance between two points on the surface does not change in the development. For that reason, when a curved surface defined by the generalized equation, eq. (1.3), can be reduced by using a suitable set of coordinates \alpha and \beta to the form of eq. (1.4) with A and B constant, the so-called conditions of euclidean geometry will be satisfied. ...When it becomes impossible to select \alpha and \beta coordinates for which A and B are constant, the geometry of the curved surface becomes different from that of a flat surface... eq. (1.4), is no longer valid and a non-euclidean geometry must be applied. Such surfaces are not developable, i.e. they cannot be folded out into a flat surface under the condition that any line element ds remains invariant. This class of surfaces includes the , the , the and the hyperboloid."

"The decisive steps toward a clear understanding of non-Euclidean geometry were taken by Riemann, Helmholtz, and Poincaré, who recognized the essential unity of geometry and physics. However, the understanding did not come into its own until Einstein showed that such a combination of geometry and physics was really necessary for the derivation of phenomena which had actually been observed."

"[The] empirical origin of Euclid's geometrical axioms and postulates was lost sight of, indeed was never even realised. As a result, Euclidean geometry was thought to derive its validity from certain self-evident universal truths; it appeared as the only type of consistent geometry of which the mind could conceive. Gauss had certain misgivings on the matter, but... the honor of discovering non-Euclidean geometry fell to Lobatchewski and Bolyai. ... From the difference in geometric premises important variations followed. Thus, whereas in Euclidean geometry the sum of the angles of any triangles is always equal to two right angles, in non-Eudlidean geometry the value of this sum varies with the size of the triangles. It is always less than two right angles in Lobatchewski's, and always greater in Riemann's. Again, in Euclidean geometry, similar figures of various sizes can exist; in non-Euclidean geometry, this is impossible. It appeared then, that the universal truth formerly credited to Euclidean geometry would have to be shared by these two other geometrical doctrines. But truth, when divested of its absoluteness, loses much of its significance, so this co-presence of conflicting universal truths brought the realisation that a geometry was true only in relation to our more or less arbitrary choice of a system of geometrical postulates. ...The character of self-evidence which had been formerly credited to the Euclidean axioms was seen to be illusory."

"There was a period when cosmology got started. There were some important works in the 30s—the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman ideas equations]. ...Unified Field theories were the bane of GR in those days. Einstein... was convinced that physics should be primarily geometry... about 10 years later, maybe 15, Steven Weinberg was convinced that geometry was irrelevant... the important stuff is just field theory. ...Weinberg, later... collaborated in proving that physics really is geometry. Except not the geometry of space-time... it's the geometry of the graph paper on which the properties of space-time are conceptually plotted... the idea of a curved connection. If you want to plot... any physical quantity... like a , s, s, etc. you need to plot it on curved graph paper. But Einstein... didn't have that broad an idea of geometry..."

"Propositio XXXIII. Hypothesis anguli acuti est absolute falsa; quia repugnans naturae lineae rectae. [Proposition 33. The hypothesis of acute angle is absolutely false; because repugnant to the nature of the straight line.]"

", "Geometry as a Branch of Physics" (1949) from Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. ."

"The attempts to derive the parallel postulate as a theorem from the remaining nine "axioms" and "postulates" occupied geometers for over two thousand years and culminated in some of the most far-reaching developments in modern mathematics. Many "proofs" of the postulate were offered, but each was sooner or later shown to rest upon a tacit assumption equivalent to the postulate itself. Not until 1733 was the first really scientific investigation... Gerolamo Saccheri received permission to print... Euclides ab omni naevo vindicatus (Euclid Freed of Every Flaw). ...Saccheri had become charmed with the powerful method of reductio ad absurdum and... easily showed... that if, in a quadrilateral... [base] angles... are right angles and [vertical] sides... are equal, then [ceiling] angles... are equal. Then there are three possibilities: [ceiling] angles are equal acute... equal right... or equal obtuse angles. The plan was to show that the assumption of either... the acute angle or... the obtuse angle would lead to a contradiction. ...Tacitly assuming the infinitude of the straight line, Saccheri readily eiliminated the hypothesis of the obtuse angle, but... After obtaining many of the now classical theorems of... non-Euclidean geometry, Saccheri lamely forced... an unconvincing contradiction."

"It is to the doubts about Euclid's parallel postulate, and efforts of such thinkers as Saccheri, Lobachevski, Bolyai, Beltrami, Riemann, and Pasch to settle these doubts, that we owe the whole modern abstract conception of mathematical science."

"If we are to set up a system of axioms for a particular sort of geometry, two qualities are essential, and two desirable. The essential qualities are that: 1) They should be consistent. 2) They should contain all of the assumptions necessary for the purposes in hand. 3) They should be independent of one another and include nothing unnecessary. 4) The mathematical system built on them should be interesting rather than trivial. The first work where the problem of setting up geometrical axioms in this way was Pasch in 1882. The way opened by him was subsequently followed by a goodly number of others, among whom one might mention Peano, Pieri, Vahlen, HIlbert, E. H. Moore, R. L. Moore, Veblen, Huntington, and others or lesser note."

"A scruple... has troubled conscientious writers. We take Euclidean space as we know it, we take Cartesian geometry in that space, we set up certain point functions in that space and call them distances, certain transformations and call them motions, and find at last a set of objects which obey the presuppositions of non-Euclidean geometry. But is there not here, perhaps, a vicious circle around which the kitten is chasing its tail? The basis is a Euclidean space, and a Cartesian coordinate system in that space, which is based upon Euclidean measurements, and cross ratios which depend upon distances. How do we know that without all of these it would be possible to erect a consistent non-Euclidean geometry? ... We begin by setting up a system of axioms for a projective geometry in a space of as many dimensions as we please. The undefined elements are point, line as a system of points, and separation of pairs of collinear points. Other choices are possible... The idea of taking separation as fundamental was introduced by Vailati."

"Beltrami's idea was to find in space a surface with the property that if you define distance thereon in terms of geodesic length, you have the geometry of Lobachevski. An analogous idea is to find a new definition for distance such that, starting from our familiar space, if we redefine distance in this way we may have the obtuse-angled geometry, elliptic geometry, or the acute-angled, hyperbolic geometry of Lobachevski. An illuminating example of this sort was worked out by Klein following a hint dropped by Cayley. The root of the matter goes back to Laguerre... in 1858..."

"Riemann... made the important distinction, which had escaped previous writers, between the infinite and the unlimited. All of our experience tends to show that the universe is unlimited; a given segment may be extended indefinitely in either direction, but we know nothing as to whether it is infinite or not. If space have constant positive curvature, a geodesic surface is applicable to a Euclidean sphere where a geodesic is a circle, unlimited but not infinite. This possibility destroys the validity of Euclid's proof that an exterior angle of a triangle is greater than either opposite interior angle. Of all methods devised for attacking the problem of the bases of geometry Riemann's has proved by far to be the most fruitful. That is probably because it is the most flexible, and applicable to the greatest number of problems. In the twentieth century reverence for Euclid has been replaced by reverence for the differential equation{{center|1=ds^2 = \sum_{ij}^{} a_{ij} dx_i dx_j.}}"

"Fourteen years before Beltrami published... a greater than he had studied the whole of the non-Euclidean problem from a more lofty and difficult point of view. This was Bernhard Riemann, who offered to Gauss three topics for his projected trial lecture as Privatsozent at Göttingen. Gauss chose the most difficult, wondering what so young a man could make of such an arduous subject; he learned. ...'Ueber die Hypothesen welche der Geometrie su Grunde liegen' ...was read in 1854, but never published till 1868. Riemann's approach is far different from anything that anyone had tried previously. ...The modern theory of relativity, on its mathematical side, is merely an elaboration of Riemann's analysis."

"Gauss... wrote little on the subject beyond correcting the vagaries of his friend Schumacher, but it is certain that he reflected deeply, and arrived at conclusions subsequently supported by others. His revolutionary view, that Saccheri was wrong and that a consistent geometry can be developed... was carried through with complete success by Nicholai Ivanovitch Lobachevski."

"Having disposed, as he thinks, of the obtuse-angled hypothesis, Saccheri turns boldly to the task of destroying the acute-angle one also. He shows that under this hypothesis there passes through each point without [outside of] a given line two parallels thereto... Most unfortunately he speaks of parallels as intersecting at infinity... and then speaks of ultra-infinite points beyond them. His proof... breaks down just there. ...In Segre we find an elaborate argument to the effect that subsequent writers who approached the parallel postulate problem through the means of elementary geometry were directly, or indirectly, influenced by him. The greatest, if the least communicative, of these was Gauss."

"A writer who clearly saw the fallacy under the constant distance assumption was Girolamo Saccheri, S. J., whose 'Euclides ab omne naevo vindicatus' [Euclid Freed of Every Flaw]... in 1733, marked perhaps the most important single step in advance ever taken in the attempt to solve the parallel difficulty. This careful logician undertook to prove the correctness of Euclid's postulate by showing that when it is replaced by another, a contradiction is sure to arise."

"The way that geometers... went about proving the fifth postulate was to smuggle in somewhere some unavowed assumption. A common practice was to assume that two straight lines could not approach one another assymptotically, that... they ultimately intersected. Or, again, it was assumed that a straight line was not a closed circuit... legitimate as long as avowed. A franker, and so more admirable way... was to change the definition of parallel lines into something else that seemed to avoid the trouble, or else to reword the axiom in a less objectionable form. A real step in advance... is known as Playfair's axiom, though it is casually mentioned in Proclus...There are... a great many alternatives. One of the most famous is to define two coplaner lines as parallel if they are everywhere the same distance apart... but how do we know there are such pairs... A still neater method consists in defining two lines as parallel if they have the same direction, or opposite directions. But here we introduce a totally new undefined concept, direction..."

"In general the Greeks looked upon an axiom as something which was so self-evident that no reasonable person would object... while a postulate was a request that something be allowed. Now Euclid's fifth postulate... whatever else this postulate may be, self-evident it is not, and this was early perceived. ... The first line of attack was, naturally, the attempt to prove this postulate by the aid of others, and the axioms. Such, presumably, was Ptolemy's idea. But even if we grant that all of Euclid's axioms are self-evident, it does not... follow that he puts in his list all of the assumptions that he really uses."

"The ideas inaugurated by Lobachevsky and Bolyai did not for many years attain any wide recognition, and it was only after Baltzer had called attention to them in 1867, and at his request Hoüel had published French translations of the epoch making works, that the subject of non-euclidean geometry began to be seriously studied. It is remarkable that while Saccheri and Lambert both considered the two hypotheses, it never occurred to Lobachevsky or Bolyai or their predecessors, Gauss, [F. K.] Schweikart, [F. A.] Taurinus, and [F. L.] Wachter, to admit the hypothesis that the sum of the angles of a triangle may be greater than two right angles. This involves the conception of a straight line as being unbounded but yet of finite length. Somewhere "at the back of beyond" the two ends of the line meet and close it. We owe this conception first to Bernhard Riemann in his Dissertation of 1854 (published only in 1866 after the author's death), but in his Spherical Geometry two straight lines intersect twice like two great circles on a sphere. The conception of a geometry in which the straight line is finite, and is, without exception, uniquely determined by two distinct points, is due to Felix Klein. Klein attached the now usual nomenclature to the three geometries; the geometry of Lobachevsky he called Hyperbolic, that of Riemann Elliptic, and that of Euclid Parabolic."

"Lobachevsky never seems to have heard of Bolyai, though both were directly or indirectly in communication with Gauss. Much has been written on the relationship of these three discoverers, but it is now generally recognised that John Bolyai and Lobachevsky each arrived at their ideas independently of Gauss and of each other; and, since they possessed the convictions and the courage to publish them which Gauss lacked, to them alone is due the honour of the discovery."

"In 1804, Wolfgang Bolyai... sent to Gauss a "Theory of Parallels," the elaboration of his Göttingen studies. In this he gives a demonstration very similar to that of [Henry] Meikle and some of Perronet Thompson's, in which he tries to prove that a series of equal segments placed end to end at equal angles, like the sides of a regular polygon, must make a complete circuit. Though Gauss clearly revealed the fallacy, Bolyai persevered and sent Gauss, in 1808, a further elaboration of his proof. To this Gauss did not reply, and Bolyai, wearied with his ineffectual endeavours to solve the riddle of parallel lines, took refuge in poetry and composed dramas. During the next twenty years, amid various interruptions, he put together his system of mathematics, and at length in 1832-3, published in two volumes an elementary treatise on mathematical discipline which contains all his ideas with regard to the first principles of geometry. Meanwhile, John Bolyai... had been giving serious attention to the theory of parallels, in spite of his father's solemn adjuration to let the loathsome subject alone. At first, like his predecessors, he attempted to find a proof for the parallel-postulate, but gradually, as he focussed his attention more and more upon the results which would follow from a denial of the axiom, there developed in his mind the idea of a general or "Absolute Geometry" which would contain ordinary or euclidean geometry as a special or limiting case. Already, in 1823, he had worked out the main ideas of the non-euclidean geometry, and in a letter of 3rd November he announces to his father his intention of publishing a work on the theory of parallels, "for," he says, "I have made such wonderful discoveries that I am myself lost in astonishment, and it would be an irreparable loss if they remained unknown. When you read them, dear Father, you too will acknowledge it. I cannot say more now except that out of nothing I have created a new and another world. All that I have sent you hitherto is as a house of cards compared to a tower." Wolfgang advised his son, if his researches had really reached the desired goal, to get them published as soon as possible, for new ideas are apt to leak out, and further, it often happens that a new discovery springs up spontaneously in many places at once, "like the violets in springtime." Bolyai's presentment was truer than he suspected, for at this very moment Lobachevsky at Kazan, Gauss at Gottingen, Taurinus at Cologne, were all on the verge of this great discovery. It was not, however, till 1832 that... the work was published. It appeared in Vol. I of his father's Tentamen, under the title "Appendix, scientiam absolute veram exhibens." ...the son, although he continued to work at his theory of space, published nothing further. Lobachevsky's Geometrische Untersuchungen came to his knowledge in 1848, and this spurred him on to complete the great work on "Raumlehre," which he had already planned at the time of the publication of his "Appendix," but he left this in large part as a rudis indigestaque moles, and he never realised his hope of triumphing over his great Russian rival."

"The geometrical algebra of the Greeks has been in evidence all through our history from Pythagoras downwards, and no more need be said of it here except that its arithmetical application was no new thing to Diophantus. It is probable, for example, that the solution of the quadratic equation, discovered first by geometry, was applied for the purpose of finding numerical values for the unknown as early as Euclid, if not earlier still. In Heron the numerical solution of equations is well established, so that Diophantus was not the first to treat equations algebraically. What he did was to take a step forward towards an algebraic notation."

"Nesselmann observes that we can, as regards the form of exposition of algebraic operations and equations, distinguish three historical stages of development... 1. ...Rhetoric Algebra, or "reckoning by complete words." ...the absolute want of all symbols, the whole of the calculation being carried on by means of complete words, and forming... continuous prose. ...2. ...Syncopated Algebra... is essentially rhetorical and therein like the first in its treatment of questions, but we now find for often-recurring operations and quantities certain abbreviational symbols. ...3. ...Symbolic Algebra ...uses a complete system of notation by signs having no visible connection with the words or things which they represent, a complete language of symbols, which supplants entirely the rhetorical system, it being possible to work out a solution without using a single word of the ordinary written language, with the exception (for clearness' sake) of a conjunction here and there, and so on. Neither is it the Europeans posterior to the middle of the seventeenth century who were the first to use Symbolic forms of Algebra. In this they were anticipated many centuries by the Indians."

"With the help of books only he Wilhelm Xylander] studied the subject of Algebra, as far as was possible from what men like Cardan had written and by his own reflection, with such success that not only did he fall into what Herakleitos called... the conceit of "being somebody" in the field of Arithmetic and "Logistic," but others too who were themselves learned men thought him an arithmetician of exceptional merit. But when he first became acquainted with the problems of Diophantos his pride had a fall so sudden and so humiliating that he might reasonably doubt whether he ought previously to have bewailed, or laughed at himself. He considers it therefore worth while to confess publicly in how disgraceful a condition of ignorance he had previously been content to live, and to do something to make known the work of Diophantos, which had so opened his eyes."

"Wallis did not become interested in mathematics till the age of thirty-one, but devoted himself to the subject for the rest of his life. One of the earliest and most important books on algebra ever written in English was his treatise published in 1685. It contains a brief historical sketch of the subject which is unfortunately not entirely accurate, but his treatment of the theory and practice of arithmetic and algebra has made the book a standard work for reference ever since."

"The difficulties which so many have felt in the doctrine of Negative and Imaginary Quantities in Algebra forced themselves long ago on my attention... And while agreeing with those who had contended that negatives and imaginaries were not properly quantities at all, I still felt dissatisfied with any view which should not give to them, from the outset, a clear interpretation and meaning... It early appeared to me that these ends might be attained by our consenting to regard Algebra as being no mere Art, nor Language, nor primarily a Science of Quantity; but rather as the Science of Order in Progression. It was, however, a part of this conception, that the progression here spoken of was understood to be continuous and unidimensional: extending indefinitely forward and backward, but not in any lateral direction. And although the successive states of such a progression might (no doubt) be represented by points upon a line, yet I thought that their simple successiveness was better conceived by comparing them with moments of time, divested, however, of all reference to cause and effect; so that the "time" here considered might be said to be abstract, ideal, or pure, like that "space" which is the object of geometry. In this manner I was led, many years ago, to regard Algebra as the Science of Pure Time: and an Essay, containing my views respecting it as such, was published in 1835. ...[I]f the letters A and B were employed as dates, to denote any two moments of time, which might or might not be distinct, the case of the coincidence or identity of these two moments, or of equivalence of these two dates, was denoted by the equation,B = Awhich symbolic assertion was thus interpreted as not involving any original reference to quantity, nor as expressing the result of any comparison between two durations as measured. It corresponded to the conception of simultaneity or synchronism; or, in simpler words, it represented the thought of the present in time. Of all possible answers to the general question, "When," the simplest is the answer, "Now:" and it was the attitude of mind, assumed in the making of this answer, which (in the system here described) might be said to be originally symbolized by the equation above written."

"The chief innovator of symbolism in algebra was François Viète... an amateur in the sense that his professional life was devoted to the law... John Wallis... says that Viète, in denoting a class of numbers by a letter, followed the custom of lawyers who discussed legal cases by using arbitrary names [for the litigants]... and later the abbreviations... and still more briefly A, B, and C. Actually, letters had been used occasionally by the Greek Diophantus and by the Hindus. However, in these cases letters were confined to designating a fixed unknown number, powers of that number, and some operations. Viète recognized that a more extensive use of letters, and, in particular, the use of letters to denote classes of numbers, would permit the development of a new kind of mathematics; this he called logistica speciosa in distinction from logistica numerosa. ...the growth of symbolism was slow. Even simple ideas take hold slowly. Only in the last few centuries has the use of symbolism become widespread and effective."

"The historical associations of the word algebra almost substantiate the sordid character of the subject. The word comes from the title of a book written by... Al Khowarizmi. In this title, al-jebr w' almuqabala, the word al-jebr meant transposing a quantity from one side of an equation to another and muqabala meant simplification of the resulting expressions. Figuratively, al-jebr meant restoring the balance of an equation... When the Moors reached Spain... algebrista... came to mean a bonesetter... and signs reading Algebrista y Sangrador (bonesetter and bloodletter) were found over Spanish barber shops. Thus it might be said that there is a good historical basis for the fact that the word algebra stirs up disagreeable thoughts."

"The unnaturalness of mathematical symbolism is attested to by history. The algebra of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Hindus, and the Arabs was what is commonly called rhetorical algebra. ...on the whole they used ordinary rhetoric to describe their mathematical work. Symbolism is a relatively modern invention of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries..."

"The use of canon raised numerous questions concerning the paths of projectiles. ...One might determine... what type of curve a projectile follows and.... prove some geometrical facts about this curve, but geometry could never answer such questions as how high the projectile would go or how far from the starting point it would land. The seventeenth century sought the quantitative or numerical information needed for practical applications, and such information is provided by algebra."

"The true "principle of number," for Wallis as for Stevin, is the "nought". It is the sole numerical analogue of the geometric point (just as the instant is the temporary analogue)... Wallis expressly rejects the accusation that he is relinquishing the unanimous opinion of the ancients and the moderns, who all saw the unit as the element of number. ...the traditional opinion can be brought into accord with his own if the following distinction is taken account of: Something can be a "principle" of something (1) which is the "first which is such" (primum quod sic) as to be of the same nature as the thing itself and (2) which is the last which is not" (ultimum quod non) such as to be of the same nature of the thing itself. In the first sense the unit may indeed be called the "principle of number," while the nought is a "principle" in the second sense. ...The ancients... overlooked the fact that the analogy which exists is not between the "point" and the "unit," but between the point and the "nought." For this reason they were able to develop their algebra only for "geometric magnitudes"..."

"The essential difference between Descartes and Vieta is not in the least that Descartes unites "arithmetic" and "geometry" into a single science while Vieta retains their separation. ...both have in mind a universal science: Descartes' "'" corresponds completely to Vieta's "zetetic," by means of which is realized, with the aid of "logistica speciosa," the "new" and "pure" algebra, interpreted as a general "analytic art." But whereas Vieta sees the most important part of analytic in "rhetoric" or "exegetic" in which the numerical computations and the geometric constructions indeed represent two different possibilities of application (so that the traditional conception of geometry is preserved), Descartes begins by understanding geometric "figures" as structures whose "being" is determined solely by their symbolic character. The truth is that Descartes does not, as is often thoughtlessly said, identify "arithmetic" and "geometry"—rather he identifies "algebra" understood as symbolic logistic with geometry interpreted by him for the first time as a symbolic science."

"The creation of the formal language of mathematics is identical with the foundation of modern algebra. ...As far as Greek sources are concerned, the special influence of the Arithmetic of Diophantus on the content, but even more so on the form, of this Arabic science is unmistakable. ...concurrently with the elaboration... of the theory of equations which the Arabs had passed on to the West, the original text of Diophantus began, as early as the fifteenth century, to become well known and influential. But it was not until the last quarter of the sixteenth century that Vieta undertook to modify Diophantus' technique in a really critical way. He thereby became the true founder of modern mathematics."

"Descartes devised the notation x, x2, x3, x4,... for powers, and made the final break with the Greek tradition of admitting only the first, second, and third powers ('lengths,' 'areas,' and 'volumes') in geometry. After Descartes, geometers freely used powers higher than the third without a qualm, recognizing that representability as figures in Euclidean space for all of the terms in an equation is irrelevant to the geometrical interpretation of the analysis. The principle of undetermined coefficients was also stated by Descartes. A second outstanding addition to algebra was the famous rule of signs... the first universally applicable criterion for the nature of the roots of an algebraic equation. ...it admirably represents Descartes' flair for generality which made him the mathematician that he was."

"In their lack of common mathematical curiosity, the algebraists of Islam and the European Renaissance were contemporaries of the ancient Egyptians. They wondered and were perplexed, of course; but there they stopped, because they lacked the Greek instinct for logical completeness and generality."

"Improving on the devices of his European predecessors, Vieta gave a uniform method for the numerical solution of algebraic equations. ...it was essentially the same as Newton's (1669)... Although Vieta's method has been displaced by others... The method applies to transcendental equations as readily as to algebraic when combined with expansions to a few terms by Taylor's or Maclaurin's series."

"Letters had been used before Vieta to denote numbers, but he introduced the practice for both given and unknown numbers as a general procedure. He thus fully recognized that algebra is on a higher level of abstraction than arithmetic. This advance in generality was one of the most important steps ever taken in mathematics. The complete divorce of algebra and arithmetic was consummated only in the nineteenth century, when the postulational method freed the symbols of algebra from any necessary arithmetical connotation."