"Are there indivisible lines? And, generally, is there a simple unit in every class of quanta? §1. Some people maintain this thesis on the following grounds:— (i) If we recognize the validity of the predicates 'big' and 'great', we must equally recognize the validity of their opposites 'little' and 'small'. Now that which admits practically an infinite number of divisions, is 'big' not 'little' . Hence, the 'little' quantum and the 'small' quantum will clearly admit only a finite number of divisions. But if the divisions are finite in number, there must be a simple magnitude. Hence in all classes of quanta there will be found a simple unit, since in all of them the predicates 'little' and 'small' apply. (ii) Again, if there is an Idea of line, and if the Idea is first of the things called by its name:—then, since the parts are by nature prior to their whole, the Ideal Line must be indivisible. And on the same principle, the Ideal Square, the Ideal Triangle, and all the other Ideal Figures—and, generalizing, the Ideal Plane and the Ideal Solid—must be without parts: for otherwise it will result that there are elements prior to each of them. (iii) Again, if Body consists of elements, and if there is nothing prior to the elements, Fire and, generally, each of the elements which are the constituents of Body must be indivisible: for the parts are prior to their whole. Hence there must be a simple unit in the objects of sense as well as in the objects of thought. (iv) Again, Zeno's argument proves that there must be simple magnitudes. For the body, which is moving along a line, must reach the half-way point before it reaches the end. And since there always is a half-way point in any 'stretch' which is not simple, motion—unless there be simple magnitudes—involves that the moving body touches successively one-by-one an infinite number of points in a finite time: which is impossible. But even if the body which is moving along the line, does touch the infinity of points in a finite time, an absurdity results. For since the quicker the movement of the moving body, the greater the 'stretch' which it traverses in an equal time: and since the movement of thought is quickest of all movements:—it follows that thought too will come successively into contact with an infinity of objects in a finite time. And since 'thought's coming into contact with objects one-by-one' is counting, we must admit that it is possible to count the units of an infinite sum in a finite time. But since this is impossible there must be such a thing as an indivisible line. ..."
Quote Details
Added by wikiquote-import-bot
Unverified quote
0 likes
Original Language: English
Available Languages (1)
Sources
Imported from EN Wikiquote
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/History_of_calculus
Revision History
No revisions have been submitted for this quote.
Categories
History of calculus
146 quotes on TrueQuotesView all quotes by History of calculus →
Related Quotes
"In Sorbière's day, European thinkers and intellectuals of widely divergent religious and political affiliations campa…"
"On the one side were ranged the forces of hierarchy and order—Jesuits, Hobbesians, French Royal Courtiers, and High C…"
"[Joseph-Louis Lagrange's] lectures on differential calculus form the basis of his Theorie des fonctions analytiques w…"
"Nothing is easier... than to fit a deceptively smooth curve to the discontinuities of mathematical invention. Everyth…"
"Fermat applied his method of tangents to many difficult problems. The method has the form of the now-standard method …"
"Descartes' method of finding tangents and normals... was not a happy inspiration. It was quickly superseded by that o…"
"Archimedes was the earliest thinker to develop the apparatus of an infinite series with a finite limit ...starting on…"
"The fundamental definitions of the calculus, those of the derivative and integral, are now so clearly stated in textb…"
"The precision of statement and the facility of application which the rules of the calculus early afforded were in a m…"
"Nothing in Descartes' work led directly to Leibniz's calculus, but Descartes' discoveries in mathematics were certain…"