## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

by E. Pap

Ratings:

Length: 1,632 pages32 hours

The main goal of this Handbook is

to survey measure theory with its many different branches and its

relations with other areas of mathematics. Mostly aggregating many classical branches of measure theory the aim of the Handbook is also to cover new fields, approaches and applications which

support the idea of "measure" in a wider sense, e.g. the ninth part of the Handbook. Although chapters are written of surveys in the various

areas they contain many special topics and challenging

problems valuable for experts and rich sources of inspiration.

Mathematicians from other areas as well as physicists, computer

scientists, engineers and econometrists will find useful results and

powerful methods for their research. The reader may find in the

Handbook many close relations to other mathematical areas: real

analysis, probability theory, statistics, ergodic theory,

functional analysis, potential theory, topology, set theory,

geometry, differential equations, optimization, variational

analysis, decision making and others. The Handbook is a rich

source of relevant references to articles, books and lecture

notes and it contains for the reader's convenience an extensive

subject and author index.

Publisher: Elsevier ScienceReleased: Oct 31, 2002ISBN: 9780080533094Format: book

You've reached the end of this preview. Sign up to read more!

Page 1 of 1

**HANDBOOK OF MEASURE THEORY **

E. PAP

*Institute of Mathematics, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Yugoslavia *

**Cover image **

**Title page **

**Copyright **

**Preface **

**List of Contributors **

**Volume I **

**Part 1: Classical Measure Theory **

**Chapter 1: History of Measure Theory **

**Introduction **

**1 Beginnings **

**2 The Greeks **

**3 Archimedes **

**4 Infinitesimal methods **

**5 Loss of measure **

**6 New beginning **

**7 Newly found measure **

**Chapter 2: Some Elements of the Classical Measure Theory **

**Introduction **

**1 Measurable functions **

**2 Measures **

**3 Integration **

**4 Function spaces **

**5 Product measures and the convolution **

**6 Regular measures **

**Chapter 3: Paradoxes in Measure Theory **

**Introduction **

**1 Paradoxical sets **

**2 Paradoxes in n for n 3 and in non-euclidean spaces **

**3 Invariant measures and amenable groups **

**4 Decompositions and perfect matchings **

**5 The type semigroup **

**6 Nonamenable actions and local commutativity **

**7 Marczewski’s problem **

**8 Tarski’s circle-squaring problem **

**9 The problem of equidecomposability with measurable pieces **

**10 Countable equidecomposability and countably additive invariant measures **

**11 The nonconstructive element in the paradoxes **

**Chapter 4: Convergence Theorems for Set Functions **

**1. Introduction **

**2 Classical results **

**3 Related convergence theorems **

**4 The relation between boundedness and exhaustiveness **

**5 Diagonal theorem for triangular set function **

**6 Dieudonné type theorems **

**7 Convergences of measures related to partial order **

**Chapter 5: Differentiation **

**1 Preface **

**2 Introduction **

**3 Differentiation in n **

**4 Some motivation **

**5 Derivation bases **

**6 Standard examples **

**7 Derivation bases in a metric space **

**8 Differentiation under strong Vitali assumptions **

**9 Strong Vitali conditions **

**10 Weak Vitali covering properties **

**11 Derivation bases in **

**12 Derivation bases in n **

**13 De La Vallée Poussin theorem **

**14 The Radon-Nikodým theorem **

**15 Some further remarks **

**Chapter 6: Radon-Nikodým Theorems **

**1 Introduction **

**2 The σ-additive case **

**3 The finitely additive case **

**4 The Banach-valued case **

**5 Finitely additive Banach-valued measures **

**6 Further results **

**Appendix. Singularity and decomposition theorems **

**Chapter 7: One-Dimensional Diffusions and Their Convergence in Distribution **

**Introduction **

**1 Brownian motion **

**2 One dimensional diffusions **

**3 Weak convergence of diffusions **

**4 Diffusions as a limit of stretched Brownian motions and stretched random walks **

**Part 2: Vector Measures **

**Chapter 8: Vector Integration in Banach Spaces and Application to Stochastic Integration **

**Introduction **

**1 Preliminaries **

**2 The Bochner integral **

**3. Integration with respect to measures with finite variation **

**4 Semivariation of vector measures **

**5. Integration with respect to a measure with finite semivariation **

**6. The Stieltjes integral **

**7. The stochastic integral **

**8. Processes with integrable variation or integrable semivariation **

**9. Martingales **

**Chapter 9: The Riesz Theorem **

**Introduction **

**1 The classical Riesz Theorem **

**2 The Riesz Theorem and the Hahn-Banach theorem **

**3 The Riesz Theorem for operators **

**4 The Riesz theorem for vector-valued continuous function spaces **

**5 Notes and remarks **

**Chapter 10: Stochastic Processes and Stochastic Integration in Banach Spaces **

**Introduction **

**1 Stochastic integration in Banach spaces **

**2 Regularity and the Doob–Meyer decomposition of abstract quasimartingales **

**Appendix A **

**A.1 The Doléans function **

**A.3 Quasimartingales **

**A.4 Right continuous quasimartingales **

**Part 3: Integration Theory **

**Chapter 11: Daniell Integral and Related Topics **

**Introduction **

**1 Daniell integral extension **

**2 Integral representations for linear functionals **

**3 The abstract Fubini theorem **

**4 The Radon-Nikodým theorem **

**5 Integral norms. Local integral metrics and Daniell-Loomis integrals **

**Acknowledgements **

**Chapter 12: Pettis Integral **

**Introduction **

**1 Preliminaries **

**2 Measurable functions **

**3 Scalar integrals, basic properties **

**4 Pettis integral **

**5 Limit theorems **

**6 The range of the Pettis integral **

**7 Universal integrability **

**8 Pettis integral property **

**9 Weak Radon-Nikodým property and related properties **

**10 Conditional expectation **

**11 Differentiation **

**12 Fubini theorem **

**13 Spaces of Pettis integrable functions **

**Chapter 13: The Henstock-Kurzweil Integral **

**Introduction **

**1 Partitions and Riemann sums **

**2 The Henstock-Kuruzweil integral on the real line **

**3 Further Riemann-type integrals on the real line **

**4 Multidimensional Riemann-type integrals **

**5 The Henstock-Kurzweil integral of vector valued functions **

**6 The Henstock-Kurzweil integral on general spaces **

**Chapter 14: Set-Valued Integration and Set-Valued Probability Theory: An Overview **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Notations and preliminaries **

**3 Integration of strongly measurable multifunctions **

**4 Weakly measurable multifunctions and graph-measurable multifunctions **

**5 The Aumann integral **

**6 The set-valued conditional expectation of closed valued multifunctions **

**7 Set-valued measures **

**8 The probability distribution of a measurable multifunction **

**9 Set-valued strong laws of large numbers **

**10 Set-valued martingales **

**11 Gaussian multifunctions. The set-valued Central Limit Theorem **

**12 Set-valued versions of the Fatou Lemma **

**13 Epigraphical convergence **

**14 Concluding remarks **

**Part 4: Topological Aspects of Measure Theory **

**Chapter 15: Density Topologies **

**Introduction **

**1 Points of density of linear sets **

**2 Density topology **

**3 Approximately continuous functions **

**4 Density topology in Euclidean space **

**5 Ψ-density topologies on the real line **

**6 Another local property of measurable sets **

**Chapter 16: FN-Topologies and Group-Valued Measures **

**Introduction **

**1 Definition and generation of FN-topologies **

**2 Exhaustivity **

**3 σ-submeasures and completeness **

**4 -order continuity and order continuity **

**5 Extension of FN-topologies and of measures **

**6 The completion of topological Boolean rings and the system FNe(R) of exhaustive FN-topologies **

**7 More on the μ-topology **

**8 Decomposition of exhaustive measures **

**9 Connectedness **

**10 Vitali-Hahn-Saks and Nikodým theorems **

**Chapter 17: On Products of Topological Measure Spaces **

**Introduction **

**1 A central problem in topological measure theory **

**2 On the ‘product-like’ structure of the Haar measure on a compact group **

**3 Topological liftings for product measures **

**Acknowledgements **

**Chapter 18: Perfect Measures and Related Topics **

**Introduction **

**0 Preliminaries **

**1 Compact measures **

**2 Perfect measures **

**3 Measures on product spaces **

**4 The marginal problem **

**5 Monge–Kantorovich duality spaces **

**6 Regular conditional probabilities **

**7 Independence and Blackwell spaces **

**8 Standard measure spaces **

**9 Mixtures of perfect measures **

**10 Disintegrations **

**Volume II **

**Part 5: Order and Measure Theory **

**Chapter 19: Riesz Spaces and Ideals of Measurable Functions **

**1 Preliminaries **

**2 Riesz spaces of measurable functions **

**3 Locally solid ideals of measurable functions **

**4 Ideal spaces **

**5 Order duals **

**Chapter 20: Measures on Quantum Structures **

**1 Introduction **

**2 States on quantum logics **

**3 Gleason’s measures **

**4 States on MV-algebras **

**5 Measures on BCK-algebras **

**6 States on pseudo MV-algebras **

**7 Conclusion **

**Chapter 21: Probability on MV-Algebras **

**1 Background on MV-algebras **

**2 States and observables **

**3 MV-algebras with product **

**4 Finitely additive measures **

**5 Open problems **

**Chapter 22: Measures on Clans and on MV-Algebras **

**Introduction **

**1 MV-algebras and clans **

**1.2 The centre of an MV-algebra **

**1.4 Loomis-Sikorski theorem **

**1.5 Decomposition of complete MV-algebras **

**2 Submeasures on MV-algebras **

**3 Real-valued measures on MV-algebras **

**4 Uniform MV-algebras **

**5 Measures on MV-algebras with values in a locally convex space **

**Chapter 23: Triangular Norm-Based Measures **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Triangular norms, fuzzy subsets **

**3 T-tribes **

**4 T-measures and their representation by Markov kernels **

**5 Integral representation of TL-measures **

**6 Integral representation of monotone -measures **

**7 Decomposition of monotone -measures **

**8 Jordan decomposition of bounded TL-measures **

**9 Jordan decomposition of finite TL-measures **

**10 Absolute continuity of TL-measures **

**11 Vector TL-measures with Darboux property **

**12 Nonatomic TL-measures **

**13 A Liapounoff type theorem for TL-measures **

**14 A Liapounoff type theorem for -measures **

**Part 6: Geometric Measure Theory **

**Chapter 24: Geometric Measure Theory: Selected Concepts, Results and Problems **

**Introduction **

**1 Preliminaries from measure theory **

**2 Structure theory for integral dimensional sets **

**3 Densities of measures and rectifiability **

**4 Sets of finite perimeter **

**5 Measure-theoretic calculus of variations **

**Chapter 25: Fractal Measures **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Hausdorff and packing measures and dimensions **

**3 Measures with a fractal structure **

**Part 7: Relation to Transformation and Duality **

**Chapter 26: Positive and Complex Radon Measures in Locally Compact Hausdorff Spaces **

**Introduction **

**1 Preliminaries **

**2 Regular extensions of (positive) measures **

**3 Complex Radon measures and their properties **

**4 Regular extensions of positive and complex measures **

**5 Bounded complex Radon measures **

**6 Characterizations of complex Radon measures **

**7 Isomorphic representations of **

**8 Applications **

**9 Generalization to Radon vector measures **

**Chapter 27: Measures on Algebraic-Topological Structures **

**Introduction **

**1 Invariant measures on arbitrary G-spaces **

**2 Nonmeasurable sets for invariant measures **

**3 Extensions of invariant measures **

**4 Invariant measures on Polish groups **

**5 Invariant measures on Polish G-spaces **

**6 Isometrically invariant measures on Euclidean spaces **

**Chapter 28: Liftings **

**Introduction **

**1 Terminology **

**2 Existence of liftings and densities **

**6 Permanence of liftings **

**6.4 Various Fubini products **

**7 Liftings for abstract valued functions **

**8 Liftings and densities with respect to ideals of sets **

**9 Beyond **

**Chapter 29: Ergodic Theory **

**Introduction **

**1 Basic examples **

**2 Ergodic theorems **

**3 Ergodicity **

**4 Recurrence **

**5 Mixing **

**6 More about convergence in ergodic theory **

**7 Entropy and information **

**8 Constructions in ergodic theory **

**Chapter 30: Generalized Derivatives **

**Introduction **

**1 Sobolev spaces and derivatives **

**2 Distributional derivatives **

**3 The Mikusiski operational calculus **

**Part 8: Relation to the Foundations of Mathematics **

**Chapter 31: Real Valued Measurability, Some Set-Theoretic Aspects **

**Introduction **

**0 Notation **

**1 RVM – first equiconsistency **

**2 Cardinal monotony **

**3 Nonregular ultrafllter **

**4 Rudin-Keisler order **

**5 Measures and normal Moore spaces **

**6 Counting remarks **

**7 Some complementary results **

**8 Set-theoretic measure theory **

**Chapter 32: Nonstandard Analysis and Measure Theory **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Extending the real number system **

**3 Calculus **

**4 Further principles **

**5 Set-theoretic measure theory **

**6 A lattice approach to measure theory **

**7 Internal functionals on continuous functions **

**8 Lebesgue measure **

**9 Representing measures in potential theory **

**10 Poisson process **

**11 Anderson’s Brownian motion **

**12 The martingale convergence theorem **

**13 On an infinite number of independent random variables **

**14 Exact law of large numbers and independence **

**Part 9: Non-Additive Measures **

**Chapter 33: Monotone Set Functions-Based Integrals **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Choquet and Sugeno integrals **

**3 Pseudo-additions and pseudo-multiplications **

**4 General fuzzy integral **

**5 Examples **

**6 Conclusions **

**Acknowledgement **

**Chapter 34: Set Functions over Finite Sets: Transformations and Integrals **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Set functions over finite sets **

**3 Transformations of set functions **

**4 The Choquet and Šipošg integrals **

**5 k-additive measures **

**6 The ordinal case: the Sugeno integral **

**Chapter 35: Pseudo-Additive Measures and Their Applications **

**Introduction **

**1 Pseudo-additive measures and integrals based on them **

**2 Applications **

**3 Idempotent integral as limit of g-integrals **

**4 Applications on nonlinear PDE **

**5 Non-commutative and non-associative pseudo-operations **

**6 Conditional distributive real semiring **

**Chapter 36: Qualitative Possibility Functions and Integrals **

**Abstract **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Set-relations and ordinal belief structures **

**3 Qualitative possibility theory **

**4 Conditional possibility and plausible inference **

**5 Independence in qualitative possibility theory **

**6 Qualitative integrals **

**7 Conclusion **

**Chapter 37: Measures of Information **

**Introduction **

**1 Probabilistic and non-probabilistic information measures **

**2 Branching inset information measures **

**3 Recursivity and generalized additivity **

**4 Recursive measures of multiplicative type **

**5 Regular weighted(l,m)-additive measures of degree(α,β) **

**6 Subadditive information measures for random vectors **

**7 Information measures in a theory of evidence **

**8 Measures of fuzziness **

**9 Weighted entropies **

**10 Summary **

**Author Index **

**Subject Index **

ELSEVIER SCIENCE B.V.

Sara Burgerhartstraat 25

P.O. Box 211.1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

© 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

This work is protected under copyright by Elsevier Science, and the following terms and conditions apply to its use:

Photocopying:

Single photocopies of single chapters may be made for personal use as allowed by national copyright laws. Permission of the Publisher and payment of a fee is required for all other photocopying, including multiple or systematic copying, copying for advertising or promotional purposes, resale, and all forms of document delivery. Special rates are available for educational institutions that wish to make photocopies for non profit educational classroom use.

Permissions may he sought directly from Elsevier Science Global Rights Department. PO Box 800. Oxford OX5 1DX. UK: phone: (+44) 1865 843830. fax: (+44) 1865 853333. e-mail: **permissions@elsevier.co.uk. You may also contact Global Rights directly through Elsevier’s home page (http://www.elsevier.com), by selecting ‘Obtaining Permissions’. **

In the USA. users may clear permissions and make payments through the Copyright Clearance Center. Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive. Danvers. MA 01923, USA; phone: (+1)978 7508400. fax: (+1) 978 7504744. and in the UK through the Copyright licensing Agency Rapid Clearance Service (CLARCS). 90 Tottenham Court Road. London W1P01 P.UK: phone: (+44) 207 631 5555: fax: (+44) 207 631 5500. Other countries may have a local reprographic rights agency for payments.

Derivative Works:

Table, of contents may be reproduced for internal circulation, but permission of Elsevier Science is required for external resale or distribution of such material. Permission of the Publisher is required for all other derivative works, including compilations and translations.

Electronic Storage or Usage:

Permission of the Publisher is required to store or use electronically any material contained in this work, including any chapter or part of a chapter.

Except as outlined above, no part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the Publisher. Address permissions requests to: Elsevier Science Global Rights Department, at the mail, fax and e-mail addresses noted above.

**Notice **

No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made.

ISBN: 0-444-50263-7 (Vol. I + Vol. II)

First edition 2002

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO 7.39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

Printed in The Netherlands

The main goal of this Handbook is to survey measure theory with its many different branches and its relations with other areas of mathematics. Mostly aggregating many classical branches of measure theory the aim of the Handbook is also to cover new fields, approaches and applications which support the idea of the measure in a wider sense, e.g., the ninth part of the Handbook. Although chapters are written as surveys to special areas they contain many special topics and challenging problems valuable for experts and reach sources of inspiration. I hope that mathematicians from other areas as well as physicists, computer scientists, engineers, econometrists will find useful results and powerful methods for their research. The reader may find in the Handbook many close relations to other mathematical areas: real analysis, probability theory, statistics, ergodic theory, functional analysis, potential theory, topology, set theory, geometry, differential equations, optimization, variational analysis, decision making and others.

Measure theory, as a classical mathematical area, is treated in many textbooks and monographs and new results are widespread in many different journals. In the last 30 years, traditional conferences on measure theory in Germany (Oberwolfach) and Italy (CARTEMI - Capri, Ischia, Maiori, Grado) were reach sources for new results and further development of many specific areas of measure theory. The increasing interest in measure theory (theory and applications) initiated the creation of the GEM working group (GEnerealized Measures) in the framework of the international EUSFLAT association, and parts of this Handbook are related to the GEM work. I mention also the specific approach by Bourbaki (1965) and the recent work of D.H. Fremlin (2000) with a systematic approach to measure theory of which volumes 1 and 2 are already published, and drafts of most parts of the other three volumes are available on web page at **www.essex.ac.uk/maths/staff/fremlin/mt.htm. Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, Kluwer Academic Publishers (especially the very useful CD-ROM version, 1997) contains also many measure theoretical items. The reader of this Handbook may see here one place where new results are obtained and new areas are developed. **

The Handbook preparation started in 1998 with many difficulties. Many discussions on the content and possible authors were undertaken with the measure theoretical community, well connected thanks to the previously mentioned conferences. I am obliged to the authors who agreed to contribute to the Handbook. In the cooperation with them it is the encouragement I was given and the nice personal relations with many of them not only through e-mail (more than 2000 messages), but also often in direct contacts, that have brought this project to the final stage. Although there was a great pressure on authors to make some unification, first of all because of common subject index and author index, they have succeeded in preserving their own scientific styles and approaches. Many mathematicians were contacted and involved, but several of them because of other obligations were not able to deliver their contribution themselves. The reader will also note that some areas are missing, or some areas are under-represented. Some previous issues of the Handbook series already cover some missing parts as Measure Algebras (D.H. Fremlin) in the Handbook of Boolean Algebras (J.D. Monk, ed.), Borel Measures (R.J. Gardner, W.F. Pfeffer) in the Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology (K. Kunen, J.E. Vaughan, eds). For the readers convenience, the subjects covered by the Handbook in 37 chapters are organized in nine parts although there are close interactions between them.

In editing of the Handbook, I received much help from the contributors, as well as many useful advices from Professors D.A. Fremlin, D. Kolzow, W.A.J. Luxemburg, and W.F. Pfeffer. I am grateful to the Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria, where I have managed a lot of related research. The project was supported during the visit of the editor to the University Federico II, Naples, as visiting professor for PhD students, by INdAM, Italy, in the period May-June, 2000, and by numerous visits to Naples, supported by MURST. I want to thank for the partial financial support of the Project in the Fields of Basic Research Mathematical models of nonlinearity, uncertainty and decision

(1866) supported by Ministry of Science, Technology and Development of Serbia. I gratefully thank for the fruitful cooperation and support of Dr. A. Sevenster, B. Lightfoot, A. Deelen from Elsevier Science Publishers. Finally, I would like to thank VTEX Typesetting Services and in particular Dr. Z. Kryzius for their fine work in converting the Handbook to its final typeset form.

**Endre Pap **

**G. Barbieri**, Universitá di Udine. Udine (**Ch. 22) **

**P. Benvenuti**, Universitá degli Studi La Sapienza

, Roma (**Ch. 33) **

**F. Blume**, John Brown University, Siloam Springs, AR (**Ch. 29) **

**B. Bongiomo**, Dipartimento di Matematica ed Applicazioni, Palermo (**Ch. 13) **

**J.K. Brooks**, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (**Chs. 7, 10) **

**D. Butnariu**, University of Haifa, Haifa (**Ch. 23) **

**D. Candeloro**, Dipartimento di Matematica, Perugia (**Ch. 6) **

**M.D. Carrillo**, Universidad de Granada, Granada (**Ch. 11) **

**M. ChlebíAk**, Comenius University, Bratislava (**Ch. 24) **

**P. de Lucia**, Universita Federico II

, Napoli (**Ch. 4) **

**J. Diestel**, Kent State University. Kent, OH (**Ch. 9) **

**N. Dinculeanu**, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (**Ch. 8) **

**D. Dubois**, IRTT- UPS, Toulouse (**Ch. 36) **

**A. Dvureĕenskij**, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava (**Ch. 20) **

**K.J. Falconer**, University of St Andrews, Fife, Scotland (**Ch. 25) **

**M. Grabisch**, University of Paris VI, Paris (**Ch. 34) **

**S. Grekas**, University of Athens, Athens (**Ch. 17) **

**C. Hess**, Universté Paris Dauphine, Paris (**Ch. 14) **

**A. JovanoviĕA**, University of Belgrade, Belgrade (**Ch. 31) **

**E.P. Klement**, Johannes Kepler University, Linz (**Ch. 23) **

**M. Laczkovich**, Eötvös LoráAnd University, Budapest (**Ch. 3) **

**P.A. Loeb**, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL (**Ch. 32) **

**N.D. Macheras**, University of Piraeus, Piraeus (**Ch. 28) **

**R. Mesiar**, Slovak Technical University, Bratislava and Systems Research Institute PAN, Warszawa (**Ch. 33) **

**D. Mundici**, University of Milan, Milan (**Ch. 21) **

**K. Musial**, Wroclaw University. Wroclaw (**Chs. 12, 28) **

**E. Pap**, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad (**Chs. 2, 4, 30, 35) **

**T.V. Panchapagesan**, Universidad de los Andes, Mérida (**Ch. 26) **

**D. PauniĕA**, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad (**Ch. 1) **

**H. Prade**, IRIT - UPS, Toulouse (**Ch. 36) **

**D. Ramachandran**, California State University, Sacramento, CA (**Ch. 18) **

**B. Rieĕan**, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava (**Ch. 21) **

**W. Sander**, Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig (**Ch. 37) **

**W. Strauss**, UniversitáUt Stuttgart, Stuttgart (**Ch. 28) **

**J. Swart**, University of Pretoria, Pretoria (**Ch. 9) **

**A. TakaĕCi**, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad (**Ch. 30) **

**B.S. Thomson**, Simon Fraser University, BC, Canada (**Ch. 5) **

**M. Váth**, University of Würzburg, Würzburg (**Ch. 19) **

**D. Vivona**, Universitá degli Studi La Sapienza

, Roma (**Ch. 33) **

**A. Volĕiĕ**, Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche, Trieste (**Ch. 6) **

**H. Weber**, Universitá di Udine, Udine (**Chs. 16, 22) **

**W. Wilczy ****Aski**, University of LóAdźA, LóAdźA (**Ch. 15) **

**P. Zakrzewski**, University of Warsaw, Warsaw (**Ch. 27) **

**Volume I **

**Part 1 **

Classical Measure Theory

**Djura Pauni ****a 4. 21000 Novi Sad. Yugoslavia. E-mail address: djura@im.ns.ac.yu **

Contents

**Introduction **

**1 Beginnings **

**2 The Greeks **

**3 Archimedes **

**4 Infinitesimal methods **

**5 Loss of measure **

**6 New beginning **

**7 Newly found measure **

**References **

At the beginnings of civilization mathematics could be differentiated from science and technology as rational art of solving abstract problems with numbers and geometrical figures

. The accent in this definition is on rational

, abstract

, and problem solving

. It means that the solution has to be obtained from initial data with some kind of rational, logical mental process.

To calculate the size of a geometrical figure was always regarded as one of the most basic aims of mathematics. Mathematically, size calculation of an object was divided into tree problems which were considered different: finding lengths of lines, areas of surfaces, or volumes of bodies. It was tacitly supposed that size of an object, which will be called measure, has the following properties:

• Same objects have equal measure.

• Part of an object has smaller measure than the whole.

• If an object is divided into nonoverlapping parts, the measure of the whole object is equal to the sum of the measures of the parts.

• Points have 0 measure in measuring lengths, lines have 0 measure in measuring areas, and surfaces have 0 measure in measuring volumes.

The exposition of all results in this article will be in contemporary mathematical language and notations. It introduces the problem of interpretation of what many authors actually wanted to say since often their mode of expression is not sufficiently clear, or the results are not explicitly stated but only implied, or the original exposition does not exist any longer.

The first civilizations rose in the fertile river valleys of China, India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt in the third millennium BC. Unfortunately, in China and India very perishable material was used for writing so it is very little known of their mathematical knowledge at early times. The dryness of climate in Egypt preserved fair number of documents, so that two papyri are preserved, Rhind papyrus and Moscow papyrus, devoted entirely to mathematics. Even more is preserved in Mesopotamia since they used to write on clay tablets which are almost indestructible, especially by fire.

In Egypt and Mesopotamia a lot of empirical rules were discovered for solving various mathematical problems. Some of them turned out to be mathematically correct, other only approximate.

Rhind papyrus contains 84 mathematical problems. Approximately 20 problems are devoted to computations of areas and volumes. The area of parallelogram (product of the base by height), triangle (half product of the base by height), and trapeze (product of half sum of the bases by height) was computed correctly. For quadrangles it was used incorrect formula (product of half sum of one pair opposite sides by the half sum the other pair of sides). Very intriguing is the 50th problem which says that the area of round field of diameter 9 is equal to the area of square whose side is 8. This is equivalent to

Even more interesting are 10th and 14th problems in the Moscow papyrus. In the 14th problem it is drawn trapeze with base 4, height 6. and upper base 2. From the solution it follows that volume of truncated square pyramid is to be calculated. Volume is calculated as sum of 16, 4, and 8 multiplied by 2. Is it application of

It is very difficult to say yes, and equally difficult to say no. Much more unclear is the 10th problem. It is to be calculated the surface area of figure which resembles basket. It seems that the formula

is Egyptian equivalent for π/4 one gets calculation of surface of a body related to circle. Half sphere or half cylinder or something else?

In Mesopotamia there were many different civilizations but all of them used cuneiform writing on clay tablets so all will be considered as one civilization. Most mathematical tablets come from two libraries: Tiglatpilasars I in Assur and Assurbanipals in Ninevah.

The sexagesimal system for writing numbers was used (without zero), so the calculations were simple to perform. They could solve much more difficult problems than Egyptians and were more interested in algebraical problems then geometrical. In Mesopotamia appear solution of quadratic equations and Pythagorean theorem. The area of regular polygon or circle was calculated that the length of the perimeter was multiplied by corresponding constants. For circle the constant was 1/12 which corresponds to 3 for π.

Greek philosophers and mathematicians made the great discovery that mathematical rules could be proved and that the whole of mathematics can be organized in axiomatic theory. The Greek geometry started with Thales of Miletos, but Pythagoreans made the initial development in VI and V centuries BC. They investigated the properties of numbers, geometrical figures; especially regular polygons, regular solids and circle, and created the theory of rational proportions.

One of the most important discoveries Pythagoreans made was the existence of incommensurable lengths, i.e., that there are segments whose lengths cannot be determined by the process which is today known as Euclidean algorithm. It seems that this discovery was made ca. 430 BC, and there are two hypothesis how it was done.

First hypothesis is that Pythagorean tried to measure the length of diagonal of regular pentagon by its side, since Pythagorean sign was regular pentagon with all diagonals drawn. The problem of measuring the diagonal with the side reduces to the problem of measuring the diagonal of smaller pentagon, formed from diagonals of the original pentagon, to its diagonal, and one gets infinite regress. This explanation is not documented in ancient literature.

The other hypothesis is based on the parity of numerical values for sides of right angled triangle and Pythagorean theorem. It is the consequence of easy observations that square of even number of the form 4*k*, and that the square of odd number is of the form 4*k *+ 1 (**Knorr, 1975, Theorems 7, Theorem 8, p. 151). If not all sides are even, then hypotenuse cannot be even since its square is of the form 4 k and the sum of two odd squares is of the form 4n + 2. So hypotenuse must be odd. Of the remaining sides one must be even the other odd. If hypotenuse is the diagonal of the square, then one side of the square is even and the other odd, so the length of the side of the square is number which is at the same time even and odd, which is absurd. This explanation can be much more easily defended with ancient sources. **

Theodoras of Kyrene (V century BC) studied the problem of irrationality of square roots of numbers and proved that square roots of number 3, 5, etc. to 17 are irrational, but in this one [17] for some reason he encountered difficulties

(**Knorr, 1975, p. 62). The more complete theory of quadratic irrational numbers was created by Theaetetos of Athens (V–IV century BC) and was included as Book X into Euclid’s Elements. **

Democritos of Abdera (ca. 460–ca. 370 BC) was good mathematician and proponent of atomic theory. He was pupil of Leuccipos of Miletos, and in philosophical circles it is understood that atomic theory originated from Leuccipos. But it is almost nothing known of Leuccipos. Atomic theory is very useful for mathematical applications since from it follows that any geometrical figure is made of atoms, and that one can use some kind of limiting process to determine lengths, areas or volumes. Archimedes attributes to Democritos discovery that a cone is one third part of the cylinder, and the pyramid one third of the prism, which has the same base and equal height, but that he did not prove it. The works of Democritos are lost.

The discovery of incommensurable magnitudes showed that all lengths, all areas or all volumes cannot be measured by rational numbers, and that the existing Pythagorean theory of integral proportions is insufficient. The Greeks did not create the notion of real number but used complicated definition of proportionality of ratios of geometric magnitudes so that so called geometric algebra could be applied. It was rather cumbersome system of calculations with geometric magnitudes but which was, or could be made, completely rigorous. It can be regarded precursor of the definition of real numbers by Dedekind cuts, but they had no intention of developing it further. The originator was Eudoxos of Cnidos (first half of IV century BC). Essentially his theory of proportions was presented in Book V of Euclid’s Elements.

In Book XII of Euclid’s Elements are presented rigorous Eudoxean proofs of the following results of Democritos and Hypocrates of Hios in which two geometric magnitudes are compared:

(1) Areas of two circles are in the same ratio as the squares of their radii. This result was discovered by Hypocrates of Hios.

(2) Volumes of two cylinders with the same height are in the same ratio as the squares of their radii.

(3) The volumes of two pyramids with the same height are in the same ratio as the ratio of the areas of their bases.

(4) A cone and the cylinder with the same height are in the ratio of 1 to 3.

(5) The volumes of two spheres are in the same ratio as the cubes of their radii.

can be made smaller than any magnitude of the same kind if *n *is sufficiently large.

The greatest mathematician of antiquity was Archimedes of Syracuse (287?–212 BC). Of his extant works 6 are devoted to calculations of lengths, areas, and volumes. These are:

• *Measurement of a Circle*. It consist of two theorems and one corollary, and is only fragment of the original work.

• On the Sphere and Cylinder.

• *Quadrature of Parabola*.

• *On Conoids and Spheroids*.

• *On Spirals*.

• *Method*.

Only the first two works were very popular and well-known throughout the history of mathematics. The last one was discovered only in 1906, and it had no influence at the development of mathematics.

The first Greek who is known to have tried to square the circle was Anaxagoras of Clasomenae. While he was in prison he occupied himself with this problem. Nothing further is known. Next, Hypocrates of Hios tries to divide circle into lunes (gr. meniskoi, lat. lunnulae), geometric figure bounded by two arcs. He succeeded to square 5 lunes. some greater than the half circle, some smaller, but this approach to the determination of the area of the circle was apparently dead end.

Dinostratos tried to square circle using special mechanical curve which was used by Hippias of Elis to trisect an angle. This curve is obtained in the intersection of the upper side of square when it moves uniformly parallel to itself towards the lower side, and the left side when it rotates uniformly around lower vertex to the right for 90° till it coincides with the lower side. Both sides start moving at the same moment and reach lower side at the same time. The Nicomedes showed that the side of the square is the geometric mean of the quarter of the circumference (side of square is radius), and the segment of the side between left lower vertex, and the intersection point of the curve with the lower side of the square. This solution was objected that uses point on the curve which does not exist, since when both sides reach lower side of the square they coincide and there is no intersection point of the curve and the side.

The first Greek who tried to square the circle by inscribing regular polygons in it was Antiphon, sophist from Athens, and contemporary of Socrates. His work is not extant, and there are only vague description of it by commentators. It seems that his idea was successively to double the number of sides of the inscribed polygons so that after finite number of iterations the polygon will coincide with the circle. Every polygon can be transformed into square so circle can be squared. The reason for coincidence is that after finite number of steps sides of the polygon will coincide with the circle (atom will be reached). This procedure criticized that the side of the polygon will never coincide with the circumference since the line can only touch circumference in one point. His idea, as presented by commentator, can be regarded more as a thought experiment than mathematical proof. If one understands it that circle is limiting case of inscribed polygons then it becomes true. Anyway Antiphon was the first to propose an idea that could be transformed into mathematical proof.

One generation later Bryson, pupil of Socrates or Euclides of Megara, proposes that one has to inscribe square in the circle, and to circumscribe square around circle, and that the circle will be equal to the an intermediate square. It very unclear what he actually meant, but the most important in his construction was that area of the circle is bounded from above and from below. Eudoxos was the first who transformed vague ideas of Antiphon and Bryson into rigorous proofs, but it was Archimedes who succeeded to apply them to the circle.

In *Measurement of a Circle *. This inequalities were determined by approximating the length of the circumference with the perimeters of inscribed and circumscribed regular polygons of 96 sides. These perimeters were obtained starting with regular hexagon and in each step doubling the number of sides of polygons and calculating their perimeters.

The second work *On the Sphere and Cylinder *is the most interesting, and is divided in two books. The main result is that the surface area of the sphere is four times as the area of the greatest circle (4π*r*, proposition 34 of the first book).

In *Quadrature of Parabola *he calculated that the area of the segment of parabola is four thirds of the area of the triangle with the same base and equal height. Here the sum of geometric series was used to obtain the result.

Conoid is solid which is obtained by rotation of parabola around its principal axis or hyperbola around its major axis. Spheroid is ellipsoid of revolution. *On Conoids and Spheroids *is devoted to the computation of volume of these solids and the Archimedean constructions for it are very similar to the modern definition of definite integral. To prove that the volume of paraboloid of revolution is half of the volume of the cylinder in which it is inscribed the paraboloid is divided into *n *slices in which *n*−1 cylinders are inscribed and around which *n *cylinders are circumscribed. In this work he computed that the area of an ellipse is *ab*π, where *a*, and *b *are greater, and smaller semiaxis.

The work *On Spirals *is devoted to the investigation of Archimedean spiral. It is very interesting because in it transcendental curve is investigated mathematically for the first time. The first twenty propositions are devoted to determination of the tangent line to the spiral, and played great role in the development of differential calculus. Last eight propositions are devoted to area computation. The main result is that the area of the figure bounded by the first turn of the spiral and the straight line segment joining its beginning to its end is equal to one third of the area of the circle whose radius is that line segment. Archimedes succeeded to calculate the area of spiral sector bounded by radius vectors *r*1, and *r*2 and which has central angle θ

The problem is not important but his skill of the computation is fascinating.

In the *Method *Archimedes showed how he has found some of his results with ingenious use of lever principle. For the sake of discovery he supposes that plane figure is composed of the parallel straight segments. Then these segments are balanced with another set of parallel segments which belong to known figure at the other end of the lever so that area of unknown figure can be determined. The decomposition of plane figure into straight line segments was extensively used in the XVII century. *Method *ends with volume computation of two new bodies. In proposition 14 Archimedes computes that the volume of the wedge cut from cylinder of diameter *d*, and height *d*/2 by a plane through a diameter of the base and one point on the circumference of the other base is *d*³/12. In proposition 15 is computed that the volume of the body, which is obtained as common region of two cylinders with equal diameter *d *whose axes are intersecting and perpendicular, is 2*d*³/3.

In antiquity there was no new ideas in measure theory after Archimedes. Only Pappos in his *Collection *gives areas of some interesting surfaces. The most interesting is the area bounded by the spiral on the hemisphere. If the hemisphere is generated so that quadrant makes one revolution about vertical axis, and the point during that rotation moves uniformly from the pole to the equator then the path of the point describes spiral on the hemisphere. Pappos proves that the spiral, and quarter of the circumference which connects its starting, and end point bound the surface which has the same ratio to the hemisphere as has the sector of the quadrant to the quadrant. The other result is the theorem which anticipates Guldin’s theorem. He says: Figures generated by complete revolution of a plane figure about an axis are in a ratio compounded (1) of the ratio of the areas of the figures, and (2) of the ratio of the straight lines similarly drawn to (i.e., drawn to meet at the same angles) the axes of rotation from the respective centers of gravity

(**Heath, 1921, II, p. 403). **

During middle ages interest for mathematics in Europe was very low, although some dim knowledge of mathematics was present, but without proofs and almost empirical. So, for instance, in the tenth century Adelbold von Utrecht knew that the volume of the sphere is obtained as 11/21 parts of the cube of the diameter (π = 22/7), but did not know how the area of equilateral triangle whose side is 7 can be 28 or 21. Gerbert explained to him that he has confused triangle with triangular number.

Only in Islamic countries from VIII to XIV century appeared some interest in mathematics. They were not very interested in measure theory computations, but have obtained some very interesting results. The most interesting result obtained al-Haitham (ca. 965–1039). Islamic mathematicians admired Archimedes and studied *On the Sphere and Cylinder *but *On Conoids and Spheroids *was unknown. Thabit ibn Qurra (ca. 835–901) calculated the volume of paraboloid of revolution in a new way, in a rather complicated manner. His proof was simplified by al-Kuhi (X century), but al-Haitham succeeded to solve the problem in full generality

, i.e., he found that the solid obtained by rotation of segment of parabola around its chord has volume 8/15 of the volume of circumscribed cylinder whose height is the cord. The proof was standard exhaustion argument in the manner of Archimedes. Basis for his calculation was recurrent formula for sum of powers of numbers

Using this formula it was possible to obtain the fundamental limit

Archimedes used this limit for *l *= 1 and *l *= 2.

The Renaissance men were interested in all things from antiquity and soon wanted to master ancient science and philosophy in which mathematics played prominent role. The level of mathematical knowledge gradually rose so that in the second half of the XVI century was high enough that discoveries of new mathematical results became possible. The mastery of *Elements *of Euclid and *Conics *of Apollonios prepared scientist for study of Archimedes. The Archimedean book *On the Equilibrium of Planes *on determination of centers of gravity of plane figures seems to be the work which spurned the imagination of mathematicians to apply infinitesimal methods to determination of centers of gravity of solids. Archimedes uses various results on center of gravity of solids but at that time no systematic work of his that contained proofs was known.

Francesco Maurolico (1494–1575), improved on Archimedean determination of center of gravity of solids in *De momentis aequalibus *from 1548, where the proofs were systematized, but it was not printed till 1685 so its influence was limited. Federigo Commandino (1509–1575) in his work *Liber de centro gravitatis solidorum*, Bologna 1565, determines the center of gravity of conoid, but uses Archimedean proofs strictly. His work was continued by Simon Stevin (1548–1620) who tried to simplify proofs. Stevin’s book *Beghinselen der Weeghconst*, Leyden 1583 (Introduction to art of weighing) was written in Dutch so its influence was not so great till the beginning of 17th century when it was translated into Latin and French. He deliberately tried to simplify and modify Archimedean proof structure, but he did not try to make general theory of it and in every theorem repeated reasoning from the beginning. Luca Valerio (1552–1618) continued of Commandino’s work in Italy. Valerio published the book *De centro gravitatis solidorum *Rome 1604. He was very skillful geometer, and expounded his proofs in Euclidean manner. He had great influence especially upon Galileo and his pupils.

The most influential work appeared at the beginning of the 17th century: *Nova stereometria doliorum vinariorum*, Linz 1615 (New solid geometry of wine barrels) by Johann Kepler (1571–1630). Kepler has become famous few years earlier especially after the publication of Astronomia nova

(New astronomy), 1609, in which the motion of planet Mars from Tycho Brahe’s observations was analyzed, and Kepler’s first two laws of planetary motion were expounded. In *Stereometria Doliorum *he tries to calculate volume of wine barrel since he was fascinated that wine merchants in Linz, Austria, used single measuring rod to determine volume of the cask without respect to its size, and without any calculation. In order to explore the validity of this procedure he studies the solids of revolution. In the first part he presented Archimedean theorems on area of circle and volume of sphere but gave proofs based on intuitive application of indivisibles. He said: "We could obtain absolute and in all respects perfect demonstrations from these books of Archimedes themselves, were we not repelled by the thorny reading thereof (**Edwards, 1982, p. 103). Circle is regarded as infinitude of isosceles triangles whose infinitesimal base is on the circumference, and the third vertex in the center. Sphere is regarded as infinitude of cones whose base is on the surface of it and all vertexes in the center. Kepler found that if a segment of conic section rotates around an axis 92 different bodies can be formed. Dissecting torus with planes which pass through its axis of rotation he reduced calculation of volume of torus to that of cylinder; Any ring with circular or elliptic cross section is equal to a cylinder whose altitude equals the length of the circumference which the center of the rotated figure describes, and whose base is the same as the cross section of the ring, this theorem is found in Heron’s Metrica where it is attributed to Dionysodoros whose works are lost. If the solid is formed by rotation of a segment of circle around its chord, he calls it apple if segment is greater then half circle or lemon if it is less, then he showed that its volume can be reduced to that of the wedge of cylinder whose base is the given segment of the circle, and height equal to the length of circumference whose radius is height of the segment. **

Kepler’s work was much studied, and soon appeared mathematical books in which the infinitesimal methods were used to calculate areas and volumes. Around 1630 there was a lot of interest among mathematicians for finding areas and volumes, mostly using some sort of subdivision method. The ablest were in Italy Cavalieri and Torricelli, in France Fermat, Descartes, and Roberval, and Grégoire of St. Vincent, Guldin and Tacquet. They mostly communicated by letters or in direct contact and had very varied interests so it is very difficult to established the priorities.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was interested in infinite and infinitesimal. He made some applications of them in his mechanics but it remained to his pupils and assistants Cavalieri and Torricelli to develop more fully their application to mathematics.

Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598–1647) tried systematically to apply infinitesimals to geometrical problems since approximately 1626, and wrote two books *Geometria indivisibilibus continuorum nova quadam ratione promota *(Geometry deduced by new calculations using indivisibles of continua) 1635. and *Exercitationes geometricae sex *(Six geometrical exercises) 1647. Cavalieri differed in two ways from Archimedes and Kepler. Firstly, his method consists in effort to connect two different objects, one known and one unknown. Then both objects are decomposed in the same way into indivisibles so that there is one to one correspondence between indivisibles and that indivisibles are in certain ratio. Then the area or volumes of the figures are in the same ratio as the ratio of indivisibles. Secondly, the indivisibles in which the figures are decomposed always have one dimension less then the figures. Using this method the limit processes were hidden. Cavalieri had still another technique, more arithmetical, and at the first sight not so general. If the lengths of the lines could be expressed arithmetically then he used sums of power of lines

which is equivalent to integral

Cavalieri’s exposition was far from rigorous and very verbose so it was difficult to read him and understand what he exactly meant.

Evangelista Torricelli (1608–1647) fully recognized the advantages and disadvantages of Archimedean rigor and indivisible methods and presented his ideas much more clearly than Cavalieri. He published his account of indivisible methods in *Opera geometrica *. This reduction is equivalent to the transformation of the integrals

for this curve. He was the first who succeeded to determine the volume of the infinite solid which is obtained by rotating hyperbola *xy *= *a *around *x*-axis. For this he used cylindrical indivisibles.

Grégoire de Saint-Vincent (1584–1667) had very interesting ideas on calculating volumes geometrically. He developed his ideas during 1622–1629 but because of war his results were not published until 1647. Then many of his results were not new, and his geometric approach was not so promising as algebraic one proposed in 1637 in *Geometry *of Descartes. In *Opus geometricum *(Geometrical work) Grégoire established that the area under hyperbola *xy *= 1 has the property that *A*(*at. bt*) = *A*(*a, b), a,b,t *> 0, where by *A*(*a, b*) the area between hyperbola and *x*-axis from *x *= *a *to *x *= *b *is denoted. His friend A.A. de Sarasa noticed that from it immediately follows that the area under hyperbola has logarithmic property since

and published it in *Solutio problematis a Mersenne propositi*, 1649. Grégoire’s geometric method for finding volumes was called "*ductus plani in planum*", and is presented in the 7th part of his *Opus*. It is applicable to the solids whose cross section are parallelograms, since they can be constructed by means of two plane surfaces standing on the same ground line, and parallel normals to that ground line determine cross sections. In that way he reduced the volume calculation to the properties of plane figures. His best results are application of that method to the volume calculation of wedges, formed by cutting right circular cylinder by means of an oblique plane through a diameter of the base. *Opus geometricum *was carefully studied by B. Pascal, Chr. Huygens. and G. Leibniz.

In France at the beginning of XVII century the center of mathematical life was around M. Mersenne (1588–1648) who was interested in natural sciences and mathematics, who organized regular meetings, and corresponded with mathematicians and scientist throughout Europe. Thanks to his correspondence Galileo, Cavalieri, and Torricelli in Italy were acquainted with work of Roberval in Paris, Fermat in Toulouse, Descartes in Holland, and vice versa just to mention the most famous scientist which were kept in touch through him. One of problems posed was to investigate the path of a point at the rim of a rolling wheel. The investigation of this curve, called cycloid, was very popular in the XVII century. Origin of the cycloid can be traced to Bouvelle (XVI century) but Galileo posed it as a problem to Mersenne in 1630, and the first investigation was done by Roberval after it. Gilles Personne de Roberval (1602–1675) was professor at College Royal in Paris since 1634. This post was renewable every three years. The professor had to propose problems to the candidates and author of best solutions becomes new professor. Roberval did not publish anything about his methods but succeeded to remain professor till his death. He solved many problems with infinitesimal methods which he developed around 1628. He formulated his ideas in the book *Traité des indivisibles *which was written 1634 but was not published till 1693. The indivisibles there were used intuitively and without rigorous proofs, and were presented as narrow rectangles. Roberval found that the cycloid can be geometrically presented in a way which is in modern notation *x *= *at−a*sin*t*. *y *=*a *− *a *cos*t*) and to find the area under an arc of the cycloid he calculated the area under accompanying curve (in this case sinusoid *x *= *at*. *y *= *a *− *a *cos*t*) on which he has to add one circle and finally obtained that the area under one arc of the cycloid is 3 times the area of generating circle. His success provoked Descartes and Fermat to find their own solution to the same problem. In 1638 Descartes used for it an ad hoc method similar to the Archimedean use of triangles in the quadrature of parabola and infinitesimal reasoning. Fermat uses direct decomposition of the area into horizontal rectangles and compares all the lines of the cycloid to the all the lines of rectangle which contains it. Roberval also found the volume of the solid which is generated by rotation of sinusoid. He geometrically found following integrals

In the next generation of geometers the influence of Descartes algebra begins to be felt and many results were discovered arithmetically. The greatest influence had the second edition of the Latin translation of his Geometry which appeared in 1659, since it contained many additions on arithmetical application of infinitesimal methods written by various authors.

John Wallis (1616–1703) published in 1655 his most famous book *Arithmetica infinitorum*. His aim was to present his own method of investigation instead of proving things, so that in it there is practically no proofs. After verifying some statement for 1. 2 and 3 or so Wallis claimed that it holds for any rational *k*. He introduced fractional exponents and claimed that for any rational *k *the results equivalent to the

holds. This result was proved earlier by Fermat and Torricelli but they published later. Fermat commented about *Arithmetica infinitorum: *"all these propositions could be demonstrated *viâ ordinariâ, legitimâ et Archimede*â (in ordinary, correct, and Archimedean way) with much less words then there is in his book".

About 1655–1660 the determination of arc length was done. First W. Neil determined the arc length of semicubic parabola (*y *= *x*³/²) and after him Ch. Wren succeeded to determine the arc length of cycloid. In all arc length determination the calculation was reduced to the quadrature of auxiliary curve. This is clear since the length of the curve *y *= *f*(*x*) is calculated geometrically as the integral

Chr. Huygens (1629–1695) and R.F. de Sluse (1622–1685) studied cissoid (*y *= *x*³/²(2*a *− *x*)−1/2). They found that area between the cissoid and the asymptote is 3*a²*π, that the volume of the solid which is obtained by rotating the curve around its asymptote is 2π²*a*³, and most surprising that the volume of the solid which is obtained when the curve and its asymptote rotate about *y*-axis is 10π²*a*. Huygens could not make up his mind how to present his results. For him indivisibles were not rigorous enough but Archimedean proofs were too long, so in his most important mathematical book *Horologium oscilatorium *which he wrote about 1656, and finally published 1673, he gave only results.

The next three mathematicians Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), James Gregory (1638–1675), and Isaac Barrow (1640–1677) succeeded to make a synthesis of earlier infinitesimal methods but they presented it in a geometrical language so that their presentations had very limited influence to the further development of calculus. Pascal wrote on cycloid *Histoire da la roulette *where he presented most things known about it, but his writing *Lettre de Amos Dettonville *had great influence on the development of analysis, especially on Leibniz. In the first letter in the part *Traité des sinus du quart de cercle *he very successfully applied the technique of characteristic triangle in solving geometrically

and some generalizations to the higher powers of sine. Leibniz repeatedly stated that he was lead to the invention of calculus by a study of the works of Pascal especially his application of characteristic triangle. This is the use of similarity of infinitesimal triangle in the point (*x, y*) of the curve *y *= *f*(*x*) formed by Δ*x*, Δ*y*, and Δ*s *with triangle formed by *y, sn *(subnormal-segment of *x*-axis between *x *and intersection with normal in the point (*x, y*)), and *n *(normal-segment of the normal to the curve between (*x, y*) and *x*-axis), and the triangle formed by *st *(subtangent-segment on *x*-axis between intersection of the tangent in (*x, y*) and *x), y*, and *t *(tangent-segment on the tangent between *x*-axis and the point (*x, y*)). Pascal never seriously studied algebra so he missed the possibilities which algebraic suggestive symbolism offers.

Gregory presented his version of general method in *Geometriae pars universalis *(Universal part of geometry) published in 1668. There he proves that determination of arc length is reduced to the quadrature of auxiliary curve, but also asks the converse question: to determine a curve (*u*(*x*)) whose arc length *s *has constant ratio to the area of another given curve (*f*(*x**dr*/cos*t *he had to make six transformations. This process can be fascinating to some but algebraically it is obtained in a couple of lines.

Similar result obtained Barrow in his *Lectiones geometricae *(Geometrical lectures) published in 1670. This book is very similar to Gregory’s. It can be explained that both were in Italy for considerable time so that they were well versed in infinitesimal methods of Cavalieri, Torricelli, and Roberval. Barrow’s book is more profound than that of Gregory but he also used geometrical language, correct geometrical proofs so that it was even more difficult to understand. In the lecture X, Proposition 11 is explained how to construct tangent to the curve which represents area of another curve using ordinate of another curve. In lecture XI, Proposition 19 he proves the other part of Fundamental theorem, in modern notation

showing that large rectangle *R*(*f(b*) − *f*(*a*)) (*R *is unit of measure) is equal to the area formed by all infinitesimal rectangles under the curve *Rf′(x)dx*. But he was rather disappointed that his book passed practically without much influence in scientific circles.

The ease of calculation in algebraic method was paramount and nobody was much interested in long chains of geometrical reasoning. Everybody wanted to apply mathematics as fast as possible to obtain explanations and discoveries of the natural laws. Rigorous geometrical methods went out of fashion in mathematics for more then a century and a half.

Between 1665 and 1685 Isaac Newton (1643–1727) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) created calculus. It were two different versions of general approach to the problem solving using infinitesimal technique. The novelty consisted mainly in two things: First, discovery that integration and differentiation are inverse operation to each other so that integration can be done by the formula (in modern notation)

Second, making algorithmic procedure out of it so that it can be applied systematically and generally. Their procedure, specially Leibniz’s, were very similar to ours but it should be remembered that both of them never used notion of function in modern sense since it was created much later. They used quantities

, magnitudes

or variables

which change with one another, one independently and the other depends of the first, or both depend on time.

Newton made his most important discoveries in 1664–1666, his "*anni mirabiles*" (wonderful years). His first systematic work on calculus was the so-called October 1666 tract on fluxions, the next were *De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum infinitas *(On the analysis by equations with infinitely many terms) written in 1669, spurned by the publication of series development of logarithm by Mercator in 1668, and *De methodis serierum et fluxionum *(On the methods of series and fluxions) written in the winter 1670–1671. He tried to publish *De methodis*, but it did not go easily and later he was no more interested. The second work, *De analysi*, had limited circulation in the English mathematical community since Newton sent it to the Royal Society in order to establish himself as a scientist which had found powerful new method for solving mathematical problems.

In *De analysi *he presented his discovery in three rules:

(1) If *y *= *axm/n *then the area under *y *.

(2) If *y *= *y*1 + *y*2 +…, were the sum can be finite or infinite, then the area under *y *is the sum of the areas under every term.

(3) If the area under the curve *f*(*x, y*) = 0 is to be determined then y has to be developed into the sum of terms of the form *axm/n *and the first two rules applied.

To solve *f*(*x, y*) = 0 Newton developed Newton method

of successive approximations

Newton parallelogram

for solving implicit equations, and used reversion of series.

In *De methodis *in the first part he developed his ideas from *De analysi *and applied them to 12 general problems. This paper remained unfinished and unpublished till 1711. Newton used this manuscript to send two letters to Leibniz in 1676 with review of his results, but Newton was not interested to continue mathematical correspondence with Leibniz.

Leibniz did not publish any book on calculus but presented his ideas in papers and letters so he changed his point of view with time. Around 1680 he wrote I represent the area of a figure by the sum of all the rectangles contained by the ordinates and the difference of the abscissae

, and that he "obtains the area of the figure by finding the figure

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading