Mathematics Books

"It is true that [analytic geometry] eventually evolved under the influence of Descartes' book, but the "Géométrie"... can hardly be considered the first textbook on this subject. There are no "Cartesian" axes and no equations of the straight line and of conic sections are derived, though a particular equation of the second degree is interpreted as denoting a conic section. Moreover, a large part of the book consists of a theory of algebraic equations, containing the "rule of Descartes" to determine the number of positive and negative roots."

"Descartes published his "Géométrie" as an application of his general method of unification, in this case the unification of algebra and geometry."

"The gradual evolution of calculus was considerably stimulated by the publication of Descartes' "Géométrie"... which brought the whole field of classical geometry within the scope of algebraists."

"Descartes separated all curves into two classes, the "geometrical" and the "mechanical" ...according as (in our terminology) dy/dx is an algebraic or a transcendental function. ...this classification was abandoned long ago... The current definition... [a curve] which intersects some straight line in an infinity of points was given by Newton in his work on cubics."

"Descartes' recognized that the points of intersection of two curves are given by solving their equations simultaneously. The last implies... a major advance over all who had previously used coordinates: Descartes saw that an infinity of distinct curves can be referred to one system of coordinates. In this... he was far ahead of Fermat..."

"It is evident from Descartes' explanation of his method that he had an intuitive grasp of the elusive concepts of 'variable' and 'function,' both of which are basic in analysis. Moreover, he intuited continuous variation."

"Descartes' presentation differed from that now current. ...he used only an x-axis and did not refer to a y-axis. ...He considered only equations in the first quadrant, as it was thence that he translated the geometry into algebra. This... led to inexplicable anomolies in the translation back from algebra to geometry. As analytic geometry evolved and negative numbers were fearlessly used, the restriction was removed. ... The new method was not fully appreciated by Descartes' contemporaries, partly because he had deliberately adopted a rather crabbed style. When geometers did see what analytic geometry meant, it developed with great rapidity. But it was only with the development of calculus that analytic geometry came into its own."

"The essays of Descartes on dioptrics and geometry were sharply criticised by Fermat, who wrote objections to the former, and sent his own treatise on "maxima" and "minima" to show that there were omissions in the geometry. Descartes thereupon made an attack on Fermat's method of tangents. Descartes was in the wrong in this attack, yet he continued the controversy with obstinacy."

"The first important example solved by Descartes in his geometry is the "problem of Pappus"; viz. "Given several straight lines in a plane, to find the locus of a point such that the perpendiculars. or more generally, straight lines at given angles, drawn from the point to the given lines, shall satisfy the condition that the product of certain of them shall be in a given ratio to the product of the rest." Of this celebrated problem, the Greeks solved only the special case when the number of given lines is four, in which case the locus of the point turns out to be a conic section. By Descartes it was solved completely, and it afforded an excellent example of the use which can be made of his analytical method in the study of loci. Another solution was given later by Newton in the Principia."

"Thus the formal proof of von Neumann does not justify his informal conclusion: 'It is therefore not, as is often assumed, a question of reinterpretation of quantum mechanics - the present system of quantum mechanics would have to be objectively false in order that another description of the elementary process than the statistical one be possible.' It was not the objective measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary assumption of a particular (and impossible) relation between the results of incompatible measurements either of which might be made on a given occasion but only one of which can in fact be made."

"As stated repeatedly in this book, John von Neumann's Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics was an extraordinarily influential work. It is important to recall that the language most commonly used to describe and discuss the measurement process in terms of a collapse or projection of the wave function essentially originates with this classic work. It was von Neumann who so clearly distinguished (in the mathematical sense) between the continuous time-symmetric quantum mechanical equations of motion and the discontinuous, time-asymmetric measurement process. Although much of his contribution to the development of the theory was made broadly within the boundaries of the Copenhagen view, he stepped beyond those boundaries in his interpretation of quantum measurement."

"There are (at least) two possible ways to formulate precisely (i.e. mathematically) elementary QM. The eldest one, historically speaking, is due to von Neumann in essence, and is formulated using the language of Hilbert spaces and the spectral theory of unbounded operators. A more recent and mature formulation was developed by several authors in the attempt to solve quantum field theory problems in mathematical physics. … The newer formulation can be considered an extension of the former one, in a very precise sense that we shall not go into here, also by virtue of the novel physical context it introduces and by the possibility of treating physical systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom, i.e. quantum fields. In particular, this second formulation makes precise sense of the demand for locality and covariance of relativistic quantum field theories, and allows to extend quantum field theories to a curved spacetime."

"The physicists didn't want to be bothered with the idea that maybe quantum theory is only provisional. A horn of plenty had been spilled before them, and every physicist could find something to apply quantum mechanics to. They were pleased to think that this great mathematician had shown it was so. Yet the Von Neumann proof, if you actually come to grips with it, falls apart in your hands! There is nothing to it. It's not just flawed, it's silly. If you look at the assumptions made, it does not hold up for a moment. It's the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them. When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they're nonsense. You may quote me on that: The proof of Von Neumann is not merely false but foolish!"

"He [Russell] said once, after some contact with the Chinese language, that he was horrified to find that the language of Principia Mathematica was an Indo-European one."

"As a work in mathematics, Principia Mathematica soon became obsolete. Symbolic logic is also a field of philosophy, and so the study of major works from the past has a special role unlike that of the study of the history of mathematics."

"I can remember Bertrand Russell telling me of a horrible dream. He was in the top floor of the University Library, about A.D. 2100. A library assistant was going round the shelves carrying an enormous bucket, taking down book after book, glancing at them, restoring them to the shelves or dumping them into the bucket. At last he came to three large volumes which Russell could recognize as the last surviving copy of Principia Mathematica. He took down one of the volumes, turned over a few pages, seemed puzzled for a moment by the curious symbolism, closed the volume, balanced it in his hand and hesitated …"

"But why all these pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2?""Hm … how shall I put it? It's the price you pay for being truly certain."

"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1 + 1 = 2."

"The above proposition [1 + 1 = 2] is occasionally useful."

"We have found it necessary to give very full proofs, because otherwise it is scarcely possible to see what hypotheses are really required, or whether our results follow from our explicit premisses."

"The present work was originally intended by us to be comprised in a second volume of The Principles of Mathematics. With that object in view, the writing of it was begun in 1900. But as we advanced, it became increasingly evident that the subject is a very much larger one than we had supposed; moreover on many fundamental questions which had been left obscure and doubtful in the former work, we have now arrived at what we believe to be satisfactory solutions. It therefore became necessary to make our book independent of The Principles of Mathematics."

"It takes a huge chunk of this volume just to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. And a large part of that proof revolves around the problems of the finite and the infinite, and the paradoxes that Cantor's work had thrown up."

"Had the early Greek mind been sympathetic to the algebra and arithmetic of the Babylonians, it would have found plenty to exercise its logical acumen, and might easily have produced a masterpiece of the deductive reasoning it worshipped logically sounder than Euclid's greatly overrated Elements. The hypotheses of elementary algebra are fewer and simpler than those of synthetic geometry. ...they could have developed it with any degree of logical rigor they desired. Had they done so, Apollonius would have been Descartes, and Archimedes, Newton. As it was, the very perfection... of Greek geometry retarded progress for centuries."

"The Definition in the Elements, according to Clavius, is this: Magnitudes are said to be in the same Reason [ratio], a first to a second, and a third to a fourth, when the Equimultiples of the first and third according to any Multiplication whatsoever are both together either short of, equal to, or exceed the Equimultiples of the second and fourth, if those be taken, which answer one another.... Such is Euclid’s Definition of Proportions; that scare-Crow at which the over modest or slothful Dispositions of Men are generally affrighted: they are modest, who distrust their own Ability, as soon as a Difficulty appears, but they are slothful that will not give some Attention for the learning of Sciences; as if while we are involved in Obscurity we could clear ourselves without Labour. Both of 300 which Sorts of Persons are to be admonished, that the former be not discouraged, nor the latter refuse a little Care and Diligence when a Thing requires some Study."

"Circles are to one another as the squares on the diameters."

"Similar polygons inscribed in circles are to one another as the squares on the diameters."

"Two unequal magnitudes being set out, if from the greater there be subtracted a magnitude greater than its half, and from that which is left a magnitude greater than its half, and if this process be repeated continually, there will be left some magnitude which will be less than the lesser magnitude set out."

"Magnitudes are said to be in the same ratio, the first to the second and the third to the fourth, when, if any equimultiples whatever be taken of the first and third, and any equimultiples whatever of the second and fourth, the former equimultiples alike exceed, are alike equal to, or alike fall short of, the latter equimultiples respectively taken in corresponding order."

"To cut a given straight line so that the rectangle contained by the whole and one of the segments is equal to the square on the remaining segment. Let AB be the given straight line; thus it is required to cut AB so that the rectangle contained by the whole and one of the segments is equal to the square on the remaining segment. For let the square ABDC be described on AB; let AC be bisected at the point E, and let BE be joined; let CA be drawn through to F, and let EF be made equal to BE; let the square FH be described on AF, and let GH be drawn through to K. I say that AB has been cut at H so as to make the rectangle contained by AB, BH equal to the square on AH. For, since the straight line AC has been bisected at E, and FA is added to it, the rectangle contained by CF, FA together with the square on AE is equal to the square on EF. [Bk II. Prop 6] But EF is equal to EB; therefore the rectangle CF, FA together with the square on AE is equal to the square on EB. But the squares on BA, AE are equal to the square on EB, for the angle at A is right [Bk I. Prop 47, Pythagorean theorem]; therefore the rectangle CF, FA together with the square on AE is equal to the squares on BA, AE. Let the square on AE be subtracted from each; therefore the rectangle CF, FA which remains is equal to the square on AB. Now the rectangle CF, FA is FK, for AF is equal to FG; and the square on AB is AD; therefore FK is equal to AD. Let AK be subtracted from each; therefore FH which remains is equal to HD. And HD is the rectangle AB, BH for AB is equal to BD; and FH is the square on AH; therefore the rectangle contained by AB, BH is equal to the square on HA. therefore the given straight line AB has been cut at H so as to make the rectangle contained by AB, BH equal to the square on HA."

"If a straight line [AB] be bisected and a straight line [BD] be added to it in a straight line, the rectangle contained by the whole [AD]... and the added straight line [BD] together with the square on the half [CB] is equal to the square on the straight line [CD] made up of the half and the added straight line. For let a straight line AB be bisected at the point C, and let a straight line BD be added to it in a straight line; I say that the rectangle contained by AD, DB together with the square on CB is equal to the square on CD. For let the square CEFD be described on CD, and let DE be joined; through the point B let BG be drawn parallel to either EC or DF, through the point H let KM be drawn parallel to either AB or EF, and further through A let AK be drawn parallel to either CL or DM. Then, since AC is equal to CB, AL is also equal to CH. But CH is equal to HF. Therefore AL is also equal to HF. Let CM be added to each; therefore the whole AM is equal to the gnomon NOP. But AM is the rectangle AD, DB, for DM is equal to DB; therefore the gnomon NOP is also equal to the rectangle AD, DB. Let LG, which is equal to the square on BC, be added to each; therefore the rectangle contained by AD, DB together with the square on CB is equal to the square on CD."

"In right angled triangles the square on the side subtending the right angle is equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle."

"That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."

"1. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. 2. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal. 3. If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal. 4. Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another. 5. The whole is greater than the part."

"1. A point is that which has no part. 2. A line is breadthless length. 3. The extremities of a line are points. 4. A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself. 5. A surface is that which has length and breadth only. 6. The extremities of a surface are lines. 7. A plane surface is a surface which lies evenly with the straight lines on itself. 8. A plane angle is the inclination to one another of two lines in a plane which meet one another and do not lie in a straight line. 9. And when the lines containing the angle are straight, the angle is called rectilineal. 10. When a straight line set up on a straight line makes the adjacent angles equal to one another, each of the equal angles is right, and the straight line standing on the other is called a perpendicular to that on which it stands. 11. An obtuse angle is an angle greater than a right angle. 12. An acute angle is an angle less than a right angle. 13. A boundary is that which is an extremity of anything. 14. A figure is A at which js contained by any boundary or boundaries. 15. A circle is a plane figure contained by one line such that all the straight lines falling upon it from one point among those lying within the figure are equal to one another; 16. And the point is called the centre of the circle. 17. A diameter of the circle is any straight line drawn through the centre and terminated in both directions by the circumference of the circle, and such a straight line also bisects the circle. 18. A semicircle is the figure contained by the diameter and the circumference cut off by it. And the centre of the semicircle is the same as that of the circle. 19. Rectilineal figures are those which are contained by straight lines, trilateral figures being those contained by three, quadrilateral those contained by four, and multilateral those contained by more than four straight lines. 20. Of trilateral figures, an equilateral triangle is that which has its three sides equal, an isosceles triangle that which has two of its sides alone equal, and a scalene triangle that which has its three sides unequal. 21. Further, of trilateral figures, a right-angled triangle is that which has a right angle, an obtuse-angled triangle that which has an obtuse angle, and an acute-angled triangle that which has its three angles acute. 22. Of quadrilateral figures, a square is that which is both equilateral and right-angled ; an oblong that which is right-angled but not equilateral ; a rhombus that which is equilateral but not right-angled ; and a rhomboid that which has its opposite sides and angles equal to one another but is neither equilateral nor right-angled. And let quadrilaterals other than these be called trapezia. 23. Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction."

"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."

"To seek for proof of geometrical propositions by an appeal to observation proves nothing in reality, except that the person who has recourse to such grounds has no due apprehension of the nature of geometrical demonstration. We have heard of persons who convince themselves by measurement that the geometrical rule respecting the squares on the sides of a right-angles triangle was true: but these were persons whose minds had been engrossed by practical habits, and in whom speculative development of the idea of space had been stifled by other employments."

"All such reasonings [natural philosophy, chemistry, agriculture, political economy, etc.] are, in comparison with mathematics, very complex; requiring so much more than that does, beyond the process of merely deducing the conclusion logically from the premises: so that it is no wonder that the longest mathematical demonstration should be much more easily constructed and understood, than a much shorter train of just reasoning concerning real facts. The former has been aptly compared to a long and steep, but even and regular, flight of steps, which tries the breath, and the strength, and the perseverance only; while the latter resembles a short, but rugged and uneven, ascent up a precipice, which requires a quick eye, agile limbs, and a firm step; and in which we have to tread now on this side, now on that—ever considering as we proceed, whether this or that projection will afford room for our foot, or whether some loose stone may not slide from under us. There are probably as many steps of pure reasoning in one of the longer of Euclid’s demonstrations, as in the whole of an argumentative treatise on some other subject, occupying perhaps a considerable volume."

"‘Yet some few of such investigations we have in the five first propositions of Euclid’s thirteenth book … seems to be the work of Theo, […] rather than of Euclid himself.’"

"On being appointed principal mathematical lecturer... and as Euclid seemed to be one of the less popular subjects I undertook it myself. ...I can distinctly affirm that the cases of hopeless failure in Euclid were very few; and the advantages derived from the study, even by men of feeble ability, were most decided. In comparing the performance in Euclid with that in Arithmetic and Algebra there could be no doubt that Euclid had made the deepest and most beneficial impression: in fact it might be asserted that this constituted by far the most valuable part of the whole training to which such persons were subjected. Even the modes of expression in Euclid, which have been theoretically condemned as long and wearisome, seemed to be in practice well adapted to the position of beginners."

"The early study of Euclid made me a hater of geometry, … and yet, in spite of this repugnance, which had become a second nature in me, whenever I went far enough into any mathematical question, I found I touched, at last, a geometrical bottom."

"I should rejoice to see … Euclid honourably shelved or buried “deeper than did ever plummet sound” out of the schoolboys’ reach; morphology introduced into the elements of algebra; projection, correlation, and motion accepted as aids to geometry; the mind of the student quickened and elevated and his faith awakened by early initiation into the ruling ideas of polarity, continuity, infinity, and familiarization with the doctrines of the imaginary and inconceivable."

"It is enough we have the Work. A Work! whose Propositions have such an admirable Connexion and Dependence, that take away but one, and the whole falls; whose Method is the most just, admitting nothing without a Demonstration, and no Demonstration but from what foregoes; and these so convincing, elegant and perspicuous, that it is beyond the Skill of Man to contrive better. Here the most potent and diligent Carpers have never been able to set Footing: This is the happy Empire wherein Truth has had an uninterrupted Reign for upward of 2000 Years, in profound Peace: No Disturbance at all. 'Tis from hence the Heroes of the geometrical World receive Force to vanquish the obstinate and ignorant, and extend their Dominions."

"[E]arly analytic geometers—Descartes in particular—did not accept that geometry could be based on numbers or algebra. Perhaps the first to take the idea of arithmetizing geometry seriously was Wallis... [(1657) Mathesis universalis. Opera 1, 11-228.] Chs. XXIII and XXV, gave the first arithmetic treatment of Euclid's Books II and V, and he had earlier given purely algebraic treatment of s [(1655) De sectionibus conicus. Opera 1, 291-364.]. He initially derived equations from classical definitions by sections of the cone but then proceeded to derive their properties from the equations, "without the embranglings of the cone," as he put it."

"In Euclid's Elements we meet the concept which later plays a significant role in the development of science. The concept is called the "division of a line in extreme and mean ratio" (DEMR). ...the concept occurs in two forms. The first is formulated in Proposition 11 of Book II. ...why did Euclid introduce different forms... which we can find in Books II, VI and XIII? ...Only three types of regular polygons can be faces of the s: the equilateral triangle... the square... and the regular pentagon. In order to construct the Platonic solids... we must build the two-dimensional faces... It is for this purpose that Euclid introduced the ... (Proposition II.11)... By using the "golden" isosceles triangle...we can construct the regular pentagon... Then only one step remains to construct the ... which for Plato is one of the most important regular polyhedra symbolizing the universal harmony in his cosmology."

"Kepler followed Proclus and believed that 'the main goal of Euclid was to build a geometric theory of the so-called s.'"

"The doctrine of proportion, as laid down in the fifth book of Euclid, is, probably, still unsurpassed as a masterpiece of exact reasoning; although the cumbrousness of the forms of expression which were adopted in the old geometry has led to the total exclusion of this part of the elements from the ordinary course of geometrical education. A zealous defender of Euclid might add with truth that the gap thus created in the elementary teaching of mathematics has never been adequately supplied."

"Geometry is nothing if it be not rigorous, and the whole educational value of the study is lost, if strictness of demonstration be trifled with. The methods of Euclid are, by almost universal consent, unexceptionable in point of rigour."

"Upon these accounts it appeared necessary and I hope will prove acceptable to all lovers of accurate reasoning and of mathematical learning to remove such blemishes and restore the the principal Books of the Elements to their original accuracy, as far as I was able; especially since these Elements are the foundation of a science by which the investigation and discovery of very useful truths, at least in mathematical learning, is promoted as far as the limited powers of the mind allow; and which likewise is of the greatest use in the arts both of peace and war, to many of which geometry is absolutely necessary. This I have endeavoured to do, by taking away the inaccurate and false reasonings which unskilful editors have put into the place of some of the genuine Demonstrations of Euclid, who has ever been justly celebrated as the most accurate of geometers, and by restoring to him those things which Theon or others have suppressed, and which have these many ages been buried in oblivion."

"Euclid's Elements is certainly one of the greatest books ever written, and one of the most perfect monuments of the Greek intellect."

"To suppose that so perfect a system as that of Euclid’s Elements was produced by one man, without any preceding model or materials, would be to suppose that Euclid was more than man. We ascribe to him as much as the weakness of human understanding will permit, if we suppose that the inventions in geometry, which had been made in a tract of preceding ages, were by him not only carried much further, but digested into so admirable a system, that his work obscured all that went before it, and made them be forgot and lost."