You are on page 1of 16

Journal of Data Science 5(2007), 597-612

Textbooks on Differential Calculus in Eighteenth Century Europe: A Comparative Stylistic Analysis

M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an Universitat Polit´ ecnica de Catalunya
Abstract: Comparative mathematical textbook analysis aims at the determination of differences among countries concerning the development and transmission of mathematics. On the other hand, textual statistics provides a means to quantify a text by applying multivariate statistical techniques. So far this statistical approach has not been applied to comparative mathematical textbook analysis yet. The object of this paper is to quantify and compare the style of a number of textbooks on differential calculus written in 18th century Europe. To that purpose two multivariate statistical techniques have been applied: 1) simple correspondence analysis and 2) hierarchical clustering analysis. The results of both analysis help to detect some interesting associations among the analysed textbooks. Key words: Correspondence analysis, 18th century Europe, hierarchical clustering analysis, textbooks on differential calculus.

1. Introduction Schubring (1987 and 1996) supports the comparative textbook analysis as a means to determine the differences among countries, when speaking of style, meaning and epistemology in mathematics. In order to do so he claims that educational system must be taken into account because textbooks and their transmission depend on its constraints, values and styles. Following Schubring’s views I elaborated my PhD thesis, which aimed at analysing the mathematical development of calculus through a number of textbooks on differential calculus written in 18th century Europe, namely, in France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain (see Blanco, 2004). This paper deals with the analysis and comparison of the style of these textbooks. To that purpose I worked with the following textbooks on differential calculus: • Analyse des Infiniment Petits (1696) by the Marquis de L’Hˆ opital. • Analyse Demontr´ ee (1708) by Charles Ren´ e Reyneau.

but just the parts concerning differential calculus. 1994). • Anfangsgr¨ unde der mathematischen Analysis und h¨ ohern Geometrie (1786) by Wenceslau J. in the traditional histories of calculus. Multivariate statistics here provides the tools to detect any association among these textbooks. • Compendio d’analisi (1775) by Girolamo Saladini. • An Institution of Fluxions (1706) by Humphry Ditton. • Elementa Analyseos (1713) by Christian Wolff. 1993. Karsten. consequently.598 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an • Cours de Math’ematiques a ` l’usage du Corps de l’artillerie (1799-1800) by ´ Etienne B´ ezout. The aim of this paper is to analyse and compare the style of the studied textbooks. • The Doctrine and Application of Fluxions (1750) by Thomas Simpson. where they apply multivariate statistical analysis to compare the style of the different parts of the cavalry novel Tirant lo Blanc. . G. ´ ementaire de Calcul Diff´ • Trait´ e El´ erentiel et de Calcul Int´ egral (1802) by Sylvestre Francois Lacroix. So far textual statistics has not been applied to comparative analysis of historical mathematical textbooks yet. • A Treatise of Fluxions (1742) by Colin Maclaurin. They have been overlooked by the major works of their time and. Textual statistics allows to quantify a text by applying multivariate statistical techniques to create associations from the computation of word frequencies (Greenacre. In some cases not the whole textbook has been analysed. • Anfangsgr¨ unde der Analysis des Unendlichen (1770) by Georg Friedrich Tempelhoff. • Instituzioni Analitiche (1748) by Maria Gaetana Agnesi. Most of these works are barely commented on. Lebart and Salem. • Institutiones Analyticae (1765-67) by Vincenzo Riccati and Girolamo Saladini. and mostly even ignored. not studied in detail so far. In that sense it is worth mentioning the work of Ginebra and Cabos (1998) and that of Riba and Ginebra (2003).

4) theorem Table 1: Contingency table containing word frequencies. L’Hˆ opital corollary example problem theorem figure remark other words Total 65 72 46 8 156 18 22 387 Saladini corollary example problem theorem figure remark other words Total 0 0 0 10 50 0 0 60 Karsten corollary example problem theorem figure remark other words Total 298 3 0 0 77 2 101 481 Reyneau 6 2 2 0 68 13 7 98 Riccati 15 57 48 27 190 15 1 353 Ditton 31 3 13 5 23 11 0 86 Lacroix 0 1 0 0 36 0 0 37 Wolff 64 0 43 3 38 10 31 189 Maclaurin 0 0 0 6 55 0 0 61 B´ ezout 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 12 K¨ astner 248 105 137 26 41 76 174 807 Simpson 3 49 0 3 50 1 3 109 Agnesi 14 38 6 8 96 3 0 165 Tempelhoff 287 48 70 22 146 59 130 762 Total 1031 378 365 118 1037 209 469 3607 . 3) problem. 2) example. I grouped them into seven categories: 1) corollary. where columns represent the fourteen “authors” and rows represent the seven categories of “words”.A Comparative Stylistic Analysis of Textbooks 599 2. Methodology Following a similar approach to that of Ginebra and Cabos (1998) and Riba and Ginebra (2003) I took into account words used by the authors to introduce a section as a means to describe numerically the style of a textbook.

used to transform numerical information into graphical form. . there is no digitalized version available on line. In order to discover any association among the analysed textbooks and the frequencies of the words listed above I applied two multivariate techniques with the help of the statistical software MINITAB: 1) simple correspondence analysis. j = 1. fi· where the sum fi· = j =1 j = 1. . Once the count was up the words and their frequencies were arranged in a contingency table (Table 1). proposition. . Here “Riccati” stands for Riccati-Saladini (1765-1767).600 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an (which includes theorem. a bi-dimensional map. Simple correspondence analysis Simple correspondence analysis is an ordination and dimension reduction technique. p = 14 for Table 1). . It deals with the representation of the rows and columns of a contingency table on a biplot. . . . .1) fij (3. . that is. are obtained by dividing the frequencies into the total k (k = 3607 for Table 1). lemma. 2) hierarchical clustering analysis. definition. 3.1. scholium). . whose elements are frequencies (n = 7. proof). . The principal axes or components find an optimal orientation in each cloud of points. observation. As far as the analysed textbooks are concerned. respectively. Likewise.4) . where columns and rows represent “authors” and “words”. the collection of words had to be done by hand from manuscript copies. . and 7) other words (such as rule. Results and discussion 3. p p (3. 2. Hence. The corresponding relative frequencies. postulate). The row i profile is fij . i = 1. . solution. . fij . 5) figure.3) fij (3. p. . f·j where the sum f·j = i=1 i = 1. The contingency table is a matrix of dimension n × p. n. . 2.2) represents the distributions of frequencies in individual rows (marginal frequencies). n n (3. 6) remark (which includes remark. the column j profile is fij .

the marginal frequency) by the distance between the point and the origin. O) (3. i ) = j =1 2 p 1 f·j fi j fij − fi· fi · 2 (3. or of p column points in Rn .8) In both cases the development of the sum yields: 2 fij χ2 = fi· f·j k (3.9) i.A Comparative Stylistic Analysis of Textbooks 601 represents the distributions of frequencies in individual columns (marginal frequencies).. that is. we introduce the following matrixes: .11) (3. Inertia is associated with the chi-square value of the contingency table.e.10) . O: n Inertia [cloud of row points] = i=1 fi· d2 (i. How should the distance between two row (or column) points be interpreted? The distance between two row points i.5) and the distance between two column points j.j In order to detect the principal axes.6) This distance. called chi-square (χ2 ) distance. which in turn accounts for the variation in the table. Inertia is the weighted sum of each point’s mass (i. j ) = i=1 2 n 1 fi· fij fij − f·j f·j 2 (3. i is defined as: d (i.7) Inertia [cloud of column points] = j =1 f·j d2 (j. These profiles allows to define a cloud of n row points in Rp . resembles the usual Euclidean distance. those with maximum inertia in any cloud of points. the greatest distance among the points of the table. j is: d (j.the matrix of relative frequencies: F = |fij |n×p . O) p (3.the diagonal matrix of row distributions: Dn = [fi· ] (3.

Hence u is an orthonormal under the normalization restriction uT Dp −1 F D −1 .the diagonal matrix of column distributions: Dp = [f·j ] (3.16) V ar (ψ ) = i=1 fi· ψ 2 (i) = λ (3. . Its eigenvalue is denoted λ: eigenvector of the matrix F T Dn p −1 −1 F Dp ]u = λu [F T Dn (3. α = 1. In Rp the matrix Dn −1 represents points. can be determined similarly. The maximum inertia for the cloud of column points. . the inertia.14) −1 F )D −1 u displays the coordinates of row points in the The expression ψ = (Dn p factorial axes: p ψ (i) = j =1 fij uj fi· f·j (3. with regard to the origin O.15) with: E (ψ ) = n fi· ψ (i) = 0 i=1 n (3. in Rn . Let us consider now the whole set of eigenvalues of the matrix F T Dn p λα . 2. respectively. So far we have worked with the cloud of row points. .9). Dn p −1 F provides the coordinates of row profiles.12) −1 F and D −1 F T are the matrixes of row profiles and of column Therefore.602 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an .18) that is to say. The maximum intertia in R . In this case .17) −1 F D −1 . where N stands for the minimum of n − 1 and p − 1. as in (3. N .13) −1 u = 1. It can be proved that the sum of the eigenvalues is: N = α=1 χ2 k (3. is determined as follows: Inertia [cloud of row points] = = −1 −1 F )Dp u] Max = Dn [(Dn 2 −1 T −1 −1 Max[uT Dp F Dn F Dp u] (3. the elements of the matrix Dn are the row masses and Dp p the distance metric. .

In the contingency table created to the purpose of this study. Therefore. This is why they are also known as “squared cosines”. Somewhere in the contingency table there are significant differences among the profiles. namely.21) The (absolute) column j contribution to the inertia of the factorial axis α and the relative column contributions can be calculated in a similar way. thus rendering easier the interpretation of them. which measures the quality of the resulting representation: Relative contribution of the α-axis to row i = Relative contribution of the α-axis to column j = Cα (i) N α=1 Cα (i) Cα (j ) N α=1 Cα (j ) (3. contains the column masses and the matrix Dn Let us now define absolute and relative contributions. Let us .A Comparative Stylistic Analysis of Textbooks 603 −1 F T provides the coordinates of column points.124 (with 78 degrees of freedom). Absolute contributions indicate which points have been the most influential in determining the orientation of the principal axes. Then the relative row i contribution to the axis α is: Cα (i) λα (3. the units “authors” are represented by row points whereas the variables “words” by column points (or vectors). 2 (i) Cα (i) = fi· ψα (3.20) is called the (absolute) row i contribution to the inertia of the factorial axis α.23) These contributions can be geometrically understood as the projection over the α-axis of the distance between a point and the origin. The quality of the representation is computed from the sum of the relative contributions (or squared cosines) of the first m axis to every row or column (here. the matrix D the matrix Dp p −1 defines the distance metric. which means the ratio of appearances of a certain variable in a certain unit or point. quality provides information about the points which are best explained by the axes or by the subspace formed from the principal plane. m = 2). The total contribution of all the rows to the factorial axis α equals the eigenvalue λα : n i=1 2 fi· ψα (i) = λα (3. The chi-square value related to the contingency table is 1904.22) (3. It helps to interpret each profile’s position. Finally. we can compute the relative contributions of a specific axis to a row or a column. of the association between rows and columns. This value ensures the significance of the test.19) Each term of this sum.

Here the vertexes are the seven categories of “words” (rows).0141 Cumulative 0. in a symmetric map closeness of a row and a column does not imply any association in the data. referring to the principal axes. On the contrary. The use of an asymmetric map here is more convenient because the closer a point is to a vertex. as well as their coordinates with respect to each component (axis).0157 0.60% of the inertia (with bold type in Table 2). they show the most influential words in determining the principal orientation of the axes. assuming standard coordinates.8360 0.0075 0.0000 Histogram ****************************** ********* **** * survey the tables of concurrence analysis (Table 2) and that of relative inertia (Table 3). Therefore.3360 0.0525 0. A closer look at contributions reveals the words which play a major part in the formation of an axis. is quite accurate. contributions and squared cosines of every “word”.604 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an Table 2: Table of concurrence analysis.0109 0.9859 1. The coordinates of “authors” are principal. Contributions quantify the attraction of the points towards the axes. which work as a reference system.527 Proportion 0. Table 3 displays the relative inertia of every author to every word.1995 0. that is. Table 4 displays the quality. Axis(α ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Inertia(λα ) 0. the representation of distances. inertia. Table 2 shows the corresponding concurrence analysis.0297 0. The first and second components of the chosen plane explain 83.6364 0. but the overlay of two separate maps.0995 0. .0207 0. displaying the proportion of variation (or inertia). the information about the position among the “authors” profiles. related to total inertia. Karsten shows the major contribution to inertia (with bold type in Table 3). 0.9355 0.6364 0. I used an asymmetric map in order to display graphically the results of the correspondence analysis.527) accounts for the variation in the table. That is to say. Total inertia (here. the higher its profile is with respect to that category.9652 0.1053 0. In Table 4 bold type is used to denote the most significant contributions. On the other hand. that is.

044 0.003 0.339 0.005 0.003 0.042 Saladini corollary example problem theorem figure remark other words Total 0.005 0.006 0.026 0.038 0.003 0.013 0.003 0.012 0.023 0.122 Ditton 0.002 0.003 0.039 Total 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.002 0.041 0.005 0.000 0.031 Maclaurin 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.003 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.A Comparative Stylistic Analysis of Textbooks Table 3: Table of relative inertia of each “author” to each “word” 605 L’Hˆ opital corollary example problem theorem figure remark other words Total 0.001 0.047 0.011 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.069 Tempelhoff 0.015 Lacroix 0.001 0.087 0.001 0.006 0.011 0.013 0.068 B´ ezout 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.013 K¨ astner 0.006 0.042 0.154 0.000 .001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.013 0.098 0.007 0.004 0.045 Wolff 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.065 0.071 Karsten corollary example problem theorem figure remark other words Total 0.004 0.001 0.221 0.053 Riccati 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.012 0.009 0.010 0.000 0.008 0.009 0.032 0.008 0.139 Simpson 0.023 0.026 0.002 0.000 0.004 0.083 0.002 0.108 1.016 0.010 0.002 0.009 0.017 0.013 0.014 0.001 0.013 0.012 0.001 0.033 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.195 Reyneau 0.002 0.097 Agnesi 0.030 0.024 0.

063 -0.151 -0.047 0.175 0.152 Component 2 Coord -0. contributions and square cosines of every “author”.195 0.354 0.123 0.149 0.078 0.018 0.013 0.286 0.488 0.635 0.843 0.053 0.025 0. Table 5: Column contributions (“authors”).503 -0.891 0.652 0.013 0.776 0.041 0.000 0.022 -1.044 0.117 -0.154 0.049 0.161 0.215 -0.946 0.728 0.070 .235 0.097 Coord -0.025 0.892 Contr 0.339 0.006 0.069 0.050 0.139 0.195 0.806 0.403 0.669 0.061 0.720 -1.846 0.000 Likewise Table 5 displays the quality.049 0.221 0.614 0.027 0.013 0.699 0. inertia.253 0.353 0.588 0.606 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an Table 4: Row contributions (“words”).016 0.098 0.183 0. Quality (with bold type in Table 5) reveals the accuracy of the map in displaying each author’s profile.014 0.135 0.384 0.008 0. displaying the contribution of each “word” (Row Contributions) Component 1 Name corollary example problem theorem figure remark other words Qual 0.068 0.001 Contr 0.443 Contr 0.294 0.051 0.072 0.923 0.031 0.823 0.323 0.364 -0.000 0.122 0.211 0.001 0.966 0.375 0.730 0.631 0.544 -0.539 0.272 0.579 -0.918 0.882 0.919 0. higher quality means a more accurate representation.042 0.627 SqCos 0.045 0.039 0.049 0.071 0.154 0.004 0.375 0.133 0.911 0.073 0.175 0.850 -1.021 -0.055 0.404 0. (Column Contributions ) Component 1 Name L’Hˆ opital Reyneau Lacroix B´ ezout Agnesi Saladini Riccati Wolff K¨ astner Tempelhoff Karsten Ditton Maclaurin Simpson Qual 0.007 0.744 0.000 0.068 Component 2 Coord 0.019 SqCos 0.867 SqCos 0.494 SqCos 0.155 -0.115 0.243 -0.499 0.494 0.211 0.269 -1.391 -0.587 Inert 0.000 0.042 0. Hence. as well as their coordinates with respect to each component (axis). displaying the quality of “authors”.638 0.235 0.087 0.563 0.137 0.904 0.082 0.103 0.319 0.001 0.700 0.527 0.591 0.335 0.150 -0.000 0.649 0.108 Coord 0.003 0.709 -0.015 0.332 0.994 0.001 0.144 Contr 0.430 0.016 0.474 0.958 0.037 0.377 -0.939 0.893 Inert 0.281 0.323 0.218 0.012 -0.054 0.904 0.

Distribution of “authors” in the bidimensional map. (b) Row plot (“words”). Over the x-axis (Figure 1b) the greatest difference lies between the word figure to the left (with a contribution of 47.6%) and other words (with a contribution of .4%) and. From the coordinates showed in Table 4 and Table 5. These plots display the associations that can be detected. In them the first two components or axes are plotted against one another. considering “words” as reference vertexes.A Comparative Stylistic Analysis of Textbooks 607 (a) (b) (c) Figure 1: (a) Column plot (“authors”). the plots in Figure 1 are obtained. (c) Joint plot for rows (“words”) and columns (“authors”). to the right. The group of German authors lies to the right (Figure 1a) whereas the rest to the left. Distribution of “authors” in the bidimensional map. Distribution of “words” in the bidimensional map. the word corollary (with a contribution of 28.

to the top. There is still another group with an accurate representation. Dendrogram with Ward Linkage and Correlation Coefficient Distance -154.966) and Tempelhoff (quality: 0.9%). Riccati (quality: 0. When it comes to the y-axis.2%). The group of Karsten (quality: 0.323). except Ditton (quality: 0.918) bears also high quality. Over the y -axis (Figure 1b) the greatest difference lies between the words example (contribution: 37.96 15.02 100.003) and Wolff (quality: 0. Simpson (quality: 0. to a lesser degree of accuracy. Hence a third axis or component should be taken into account. the difference between Karsten and K¨ astner is the greatest.00 l i i i t f f r x n n in ta nes at on au r in olf hof oi zou te itto ne pi l ps yne acr ad l au icc w st rs g l o e e d r e a a l a b p lh k s ac sim re ka m m te Variables Figure 2: Dendrogram corresponding to hierarchical clustering analysis.946) and. Maclaurin (quality: 0.843).5%) and problem (contribution: 23.911).608 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an 15.846).635).5%). whose representation is not accurate enough.95 Similarity -69.939) and Lacroix (quality: 0. To the left the group of Saladini (quality: 0.5%) and corollary (contribution: 14.806). . Along the x-axis (Figure 1c) the group of “authors” to the right is related to corollary and other words. Agnesi (quality: 0. to the bottom. which includes L’Hˆ opital (quality: 0. Kastner (quality: 0.587). This group is associated with the word figure. Karsten associates with corollary whereas K¨ astner with example and problem. B´ ezout (quality: 0.904). and the one to the left to figure.923) have an accurate representation. Most of the points are well represented by this map (see the column for quality in Table 5). Reyneau could be included in this group but with lower quality (quality: 0. and the words figure (contribution: 17.

Maclaurin. • The group of L’Hˆ opital. namely L’Hˆ opital. hierarchical clustering analysis corroborates the ordination of the authors obtained by means of correspondence analysis above.2 Hierarchical clustering analysis Hierarchical clustering analysis consists of grouping n units (or profiles) into a hierarchy of k homogeneous groups or clusters. she was taught by Riccati’s father. Agnesi. that is. • The group of Wolff. That is the group to the left in the map of correspondence analysis. Conclusions In this paper multivariate statistical techniques are used for the sake of comparative textbook analysis. Reyneau. Saladini. Lacroix. Agnesi. Simpson. Karsten and Tempelhoff) is distinct from the remaining authors. B´ ezout and Lacroix (excluding Ditton because of his not accurate representation in the arrangement obtained by correspondence analysis). Likewise L’Hopital’s was the first textbook on . known as dendrogram.A Comparative Stylistic Analysis of Textbooks 609 3. On the other hand. This is the group to the right in the map of correspondence analysis. Their association can be explained by the fact that all its members. Agnesi. L’Hˆ opital. It aims at discovering associations induced by the style of some textbooks on differential calculus written in 18th century Europe. but Ditton. Tempelhoff. In fact Ditton bears the lowest quality of Table 5. K¨ astner. B´ ezout. The agglomerative hierarchical approach is the most commonly used. 4. B´ ezout. The following dendrogram (Figure 2) shows the clustering of the data relative to Table 1. the least accurate representation. Riccati and Simpson are really close. Riccati and Simpson appear to form another group. There is a subgroup including Reyneau. Karsten and K¨ astner. L’Hˆ opital. Saladini. On the other hand. This procedure is easily visualised from a treelike branching diagram. A plausible explanation rests on the fact that Agnesi read L’Hopital’s textbook and. It means that two units (authors) merge into a cluster with the least intergroup distance or the highest intergroup similarity. The intergroup distance is here defined by means of Ward’s method. Reyneau. what is more. Agnesi. Riccati. Maclaurin. belong to Germany. Saladini and Maclaurin. From the combination of correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis it can be claimed that the group of the German authors (Wolff. Riccati and Simpson. Hence the style of German textbooks can be claimed to be similar. Therefore. which is based on minimizing the within-cluster sums of squares relative to the between-cluster sums of squares. Lacroix.

An´ alisis de la discusi´ on L’Hˆ opital-Bernoulli. (2000). (2004). within the frame of the Inter-university PhD Program on the History of Sciences (UAB-UB). E. Chez Richard. Juaristi. It was supervised by]. M. Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya) for her assistance and her criticisms on previous drafts of the manuscript. Caille et Ravier. Botham for J. New York. S. Cours de mathematiques a B´ ezout. M. References Agnesi. To conclude. Ed. Olms. Cuadernos de Estad´ istica. M. to a lesser extent. Ditton. Milan (reedited in microform by Readex Microprint. Marta Ginovart (Departament de Matem` atica Aplicade III. . Correspondence Analysis in Practice.) (1962-). Knapton (reedited in microform by Readex Microprint. Academic Press. Muralla. ´ (1799). (2001). G. combined multivariate statistical techniques provide a new approach to analyse and compare historical mathematical textbooks.tdx. Afers 29. Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa [http://www. J. An` alisi estad´ istica de l’estil literari. An Institution of Fluxions. and Lizasoain.cbuc. B´ ezout. An´ alisis de Correspondencias. Ginebra. vol. 4. (eds. ` l’usage du Corps de l’Artillerie. H. Saladini and Maclaurin (and. Josep Pla i Carrera (Universitat de Barcelona) and presented on October 28. Instituzioni Analitiche ad uso Della Gioventu Italiana. 3. Reyneau). (1998). J. Hildesheim. Blanco. L. Gesammelte Werke Christian Wolff. et al. J. Acknowledgements This paper is based on a part of my PhD thesis: “Hermeneutics of the differential calculus in 18th century Europe: from the Analyse des infiniment petits by L’Hˆ opital (1696) to the Trait´ e el´ ementaire de calcul diff´ erentiel et de calcul int´ egral by Lacroix (1802)”. 1969). coordinated by the Centre d’Estudis d’Hist` oria de la Ci` encia (CEHIC). and Cabos. Greenacre. Cronos . ´ Ecole. 1977).610 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an calculus that Simpson read. (1748). Another interesting association is that of Lacroix. 81-113. whose works show a tendency towards the use of figures. (1993). 2004. 181-206. Hermeneutics of the differential calculus in 18th century Europe: ´ ementaire from the analyse des infiniment petits by L’Hˆ opital (1696) to the trait´ e El´ de alcul differentiel et de calcul int´ egral by Lacroix (1802). Blanco. Printed by W. I am grateful to Dr. L. M. (1706). Aproximaci´ oa l’autoria del Tirant lo Blan.

Schubring. Printed by T. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18. K¨ astner. Simpson. A. Analysis of Historical Textbooks in Mathematics (Lecture Notes). J. A. Paris. J. Stamperia di Tommaso d’Aquino. Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme. Traditional multivariate techniques: Potential for use in ecotoxicology. F. Scott. A. History. (1775). C. Pontificia Universidade Cat´ olica do Rio de Janeiro. “Sobre la metodologia de an´ alisis de libros de texto hist´ oricos: Lacroix como autor de libros de texto”. A. 363´ 388. Stamperia di Tommaso d’Aquino. Riba. S. R. G. 1999). Maclaurin. (1997). For the Learning of Mathematics 7. G¨ ottingen (2nd edition. G. J. On the methodology of analysing historical textbooks: Lacroix as textbook author. (1802). (1996). Actes Riba. Changing cultural and epistemological views on mathematics and different institutional contexts in nineteenth-century Europe. and Saladini. L’Hˆ opital. Actes del XXV Congreso Nacional de Estadistica e Investigacion Operativa. F. ou la Methode de Resoudre les Problemes des Mathematiques et D’apprendre Facilement ces Sciences (2 volumes). (1742). (1760). G. Printed by J. Chez Quillan. Saladini. Printed by Crapelet-Duprat. (1750). W. 273-298). T. W. T. 41-51 (Spanish translation by Rodrigo Cambray N´ un ˜ez. and Salem. Identity (Edited by Goldstein et al. London (reedited in microfilm by the University of Salamanca. Dunod. V. New York. (2000). L. Rio de Janeiro (2-nd edition. A Treatise of Fluxions. . ıAnalyse des Infiniment Petits pour l’intelligence des ´ Lignes Courbes. G. Anfangsgr¨ unde der Analysis des Unendlichen. Analyse D´ emontr´ ee. Schubring. (1987). R¨ ose. 128-137. 1988). 1970). (1994). R. Statistique Textuelle. Riccati. revised by Alejandro Garciadiego. 1994). Institutiones Analyticae. C. Edinburgh (reedited in microform by Readex Microprint. Compendio d’Analisi. H. del 27 Congreso Nacional de Estadistica e Investigacion Operativa. ´ and Ginebra. T. W. de (1696). G. A. Schubring. Paris. Greifswald). Diversity and homogeneity of style in tirant lo blanc. G. Imprimerie Royale (reprinted by ACL-Editions. Trai´ e El´ erentiel et de Calcul Int´ egral. G. Homogeneidad de estilo en el tirant lo blanc. A. ´ ementaire de Calcul Diff´ Lacroix.A Comparative Stylistic Analysis of Textbooks 611 Karsten. ` and Ginebra. (1999). 1770). Mathesis (1992) 8 . The Doctrine and Application of Fluxions. Myth. Ruddimans. and T. Reyneau. (1786).. Lebart. Lleida. In Goldstein Mathematical Europe. Sparks. (2003). revised.). G. and Clarkes. (1765-67). Nourse. In 2 volumes. (1708). Vigo. Anfangsgr¨ unde der Mathematischen Analysis und H¨ ohern Geometrie (In Lehrbegriff der gesamten Mathematik (1770-).

Rengerischer Buchhand´ . SPAIN monica. In: [ Halle. M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an Departament de Matematica Aplicada III Universitat Polit` ecnica de Catalunya Escola Universitaria d’Enginyeria Tecnica Agricola de Barcelona Edifici D4. (1770). Other versions: Anfangs-Gr¨ unde aller Mathematischen Wiessenschaften. (In Elementa Matheseos ´ Universae). 2006.612 M´ onica Blanco Abell´ an Tempelhoff. Wolff. Received April 12. C. 1962] 29 of the Latin series. Halle (1710). Anfangsgrunde der Analysis des Unendlichen. Lange. F. Campus del Baix Llobregat Avinguda del Canal Olimpic s/n 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Elementa Analyseos Infinitorum Tradit. G. 1962] 15 of the German series (edition: 1750). accepted October 2. 2006. (1713). In: [Ecole.