The massive propaganda blitzkrieg denigratin g sociali sm nnd the voluminolls materinl
brou ght out by imperialism and reactionaries notwithstanding, nobody so far has sllcceeded in cha llenging the basic theory that Marx placed before the world. The profundity of Marx's works lies in his sc ientific analysis of the evolution of society and the fo resight of the path that it will charier. It is based on such a scientific analys is that Marx concl uded that society will reach a s tage where the state will wither away. T hat capitalism has failed to prove its superiority or eternity, as postulated by its protagonists, even in the wake o f the so ca lled "demise of sociali s m" - the continuing recession and intens ified exploitati on, vindicate thi s analysis. Marx, unfortunately. could not co mplete the work that he set before himself. After the second volume of Capita l had come out in print. it was len to Frederick Engels to go thro ugh the ma nuscri pts facil itating it to be made available to the whole of mankind. In the preface to Volume lIt of Capital. Engels writes: "As regards the first part, the main manuscript was serviceable o nly with substantial limitat ions. The entire mathematical calcu lation of the re lation between the r<lte of surplus~value and the rate of profit (which makes up our Chapter Ill) is introduced in the very beginning, whi le the s ubject treated in our Chapter I is considered later and as the occasion arises. Two attempts at rev ising, ~ac h of them eight pages in folio, were usefu l here. But even these did not possess the desired continuity throughout. They furnished the substance for what is now Chapter I. Chapter n is taken from the main manuscript. There was a series of uncompleted mathematical ca lculations fo r Chapter ITT. as well as a whole, al most complete, note-book dating from the seventies, which presents the relation of the rate of surplus-value to the rate of profit in the for m of equat ions. My friend Samuel Moore, who has a lso translated the greater port ion of the first vo lume into English, undertook to edit this note-book for me, it work for wh ich he was far belief equipped, being an old Cambridge mat hemat ic ian. It was for his summary, with occasiona l use of the main manuscript, that Ithcn compiled Chapter Ill. Nothing but the title was available for Chapter T But s ince its subject V. matter, the influence of turnover o n the rate of profit, is of vital importa"nce, r hnve written it myse lf, for which reason the whole chapter has been plnced in brackets". The present volume, the first comp lete English translation of M arx's Marem(lliche.rkie Rukopjsi, I am sure would serve to give us more i'nsight into his works. Marx's Millhel11atical Manuscripts are primari ly devoted to describing and explaining the nature and history of the d ifferential calculus. T hey contain many valuable ideas on the nature and role of variables, existence of functions, ana lytical geometry, genera l theory of eqllations etc. These in the main relate to his exp loration of the history of examination of the study of mathematics. Thi s volume, we trust wi ll help in understanding the deplh and method of his analysis and help in drawing strategies for future investigations. Tn this connection T must appreciate the momentous work done by S hri Pradip Baksi in I:Irillging oul th is legendary work. Harkish a n Si ngh Su r jcct

With the publication of. th is firs t complete E rrg li sh tra nslat io n of Ka rl Man 's Ma thematical Malluscripts ( Mo scow, 1968), a so far almos t unknown area of Ma rx's thought is bein g presented to o ur readers. Alo ng with .this a sp~c i al supplemen t , Man mid Mathematics, I;; also bein g pub li shed. Pradip Baksi, a Marx-sc ho lar, has un dertaken and completed this stupend ous job at a time, when th ere were tremors in the soc iali st system, In several socialist coun tries includin g the erstwhile S ov i e~ Union, and later on thi s led to thei r dis integration one afte r anothe r. i Pradip's sincerity and firm convi cti on has emboldened uS to rise to the occas ion and

publish the present volume . ....J' .' D isinteg rati on of the erstwhile soc ialist countries, particu larl y of the Soviet Union has
made the imperi ali sts and !thc cap ita li sts.much more aggressive these days. T hey arc not spa ring . any c ffo rt (0 . seal the fate of socialism a nd of the evcr grow in g world w ide move ments of the revolu tionary fo rces. In spi te of thei r un precedented evi l desig n to subjugate the .deve loping cou ntries a nd thu s to contro l the world economy, the revolutionary and patriotic forces are faci ng thi s threat vigorous ly . and registering poli tical victories one after another in diffe rent countries. It is in thi s co ntext that the present vo lum e is being pub lished , which we f irm ly believe w jl I e voke curi os ity am ong th e sc ho lars and generate academ ic interaction on th is subj ect. We are aware that in th e present poli tica l scenario academic publ ications on Marxism are of im mense value . We ass ure the scho lars and students of Mar x 's thoug ht that we would continue o ur endeavo ur to publi sh the u np ubli shed works of Karl Marx and, books and monographs on a ll iyd subjects.

I sincere ly ackno wledge the contri bution of S hri Pradip Baksi. and hope this is just the beginn ing.
Sub has C hakraborty Publishi ng Com mittee, Vi swakos Pari sad.

C ha ir~ an ,

MARX AND THE WOR LD MATI-ffiMATICA L YEA R 2000 It would sound somewhat banal to talk about Karl Marx as a 'living thinker', as Engcls spoke at the funeral of Kar! Marx. He is onc of those. who left. fin indelible legacy of thoughts. which brought in its trail a wide plethora of ideas and concepts. The enormous variety of his work triggered off reth inking and reappraisal of many facets of learning and pursuits. Needless to add that rhe whole gamut of Marxist interpretation or Marxist view of litcmlure, soc io logy, hislOry etc. could comc up not just by practitioners of Marxism in the political arena. There are many scholars, without being wedded to Marxism, who ha ve contributed imme nse ly to the body of literature on Marx. It often looks, in the wake of political debacle in th e erstwhile Soyiet Union or in the East-European countries that, perhaps, Marx's image as an o riginal thinker like Sigmu nd Freud would have remained un.scathed and unsullicd, had he no t been drawn upon too heavily by political figures. That his profundity of thoughts and ideas sti ll continues to have an intellectual appea l, despite what has happened and perhaps, still keep on happening by using his name and work, is borne out by the amount of contemporary literature on him and on allied matters. Looking back, one may even say that Marx's work could have gone down in the pages of history just as a thinker like the great celebrit y Charles Darwin, purely on the strength of his rich output of thoughts and ideas. The intellectual make up of Karl Marx, whatever some of his admirers may say. was dominantly shaped by the German tradition of trainin g and scholarship and it is no wonder that mathematics did come within the purview of his acquisition and investigation. Steeped as he was in the discourse,s with a philosophical con tent, he made some daring forays in mathematics, as is brought out in this publication. All these stemming from the German tradition would have kept him in good stead in hi s subsequen t endeavour, even if there were no experiments undertaken by Lenin or Mao or Ho Chi Minh. Marx was, doubtless, scienti fi c in approach which some of his adherents may not be in the sty les of persuation and activity. This publication, as its title implies, is somewhat unconventional in the parlance of mathematics or even in the historical literature on mathematics. Even though, in the course of history, malhematidans were seized of or were often involved in politics, their impact has largely been ephemeral. Indeed, Marxism or anti· Marxism has seldom been found to be a forte of mathematical celebrities. On the other hand, as remarked earlicr, there is hardly any area of thought/ not 10 speak an activi ty, which has kept itself fully immune from Marxism, whatever be it today in political reality. There is, perhaps, something intrinsically and perennially intellectual, in any of his endeavour dealing wi th society, culture, o r hi story. ll1ere are. indeed, in recent years social historians of mathematics who look at growth and devclopment of mathematical ideas from Marxist standpoint. There is equally a strong body of literature, particularly in the arena of mathematical education, which treats of Marxism critically without mincing logic and often, to the point of its rejection. It is being increasingly realised that culture, cxcitement and history of mathematics with societ al implications shou ld be focussed more than what cou ld be done hitherto. The World Mathematical Year (WMY) 2000 is thus being projected by the internat ional mathematical comm unity, with the accent, not merely on cul tu ral facets of mathematics but a lso un development of hi storiograph y of the history of mathemalics. The present

publication should be looked upon as a precursor to such pursuits at the international level. In keeping with jt ~ ra;sol1 d'etre, this book seeks to dig up what Karl Marx sought to do on mathematics. Ma~hemati cal ideology Il)ay look askance at this part but the compendium of critique on mllth ~matical thoughts and ideas , cast in Marxist or a-Marxist mould will, it is e nvisaged, immensly contribute fo the shaping of thought processe.s warranted by WMY 2000. Both the parts of this treati se, taken in their·entirety, ought to unleash pursuits thal are free· ~ from inhibitions in the wider perspectives of the imperatives of WMY 2000. Historiography of history of mathematics will, hopefu lly, acquire a sti mulus and new dimensions, because of a publication of thi s sort. Now, a few words about Pradip Baksi, but for whose assiduity and painstaking ardour for hardwork, this publication would not have come within miles of reality, He is not a mathematicia'n per se, not even a historian of mat hematics in the sense we are accustomed to nowadays. He is trained in Russian language and had a st int in the Soviet Union . Pradip, obviOUSly, is not one of the many Indians, to whOm exposure to' Marx's work has come via El'lJ::lish alone and this translation of the works of Man direct ly from Russian into English does not 's uffer, as is often said , from any constriction, if any, because of co lonial tinger His training in philosophy has definitely facilitated his endeavour. He deserves to be specially commended for bringing to fore these works by and on Marx and on related issues which would, otherwise, have remaine.d inactessible to many of us ,

Oilip Kumar Sinha
92, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Ca[cuna - 700 009, Sir Rashbehary Ghose Professor of Applied Mathematics, Universily of Calcutta,

This volume contains the first complete English translation of K. MARK S, MATEMATICHESK1E RUKOPISI, I zd. ~NAUKA". MOSKVA, 1 968, toget her with u spec ial supplement entit led MARX AND MATHEMATI CS. Marx' s mathematical manuscripts are primarily devoted to desc ribing and expl aining the nature and history of the differential calcu lus. However, these wi ll beofint erest to the contempo rary invcstigulOrs oflhe symbolic calculi of mmhemntics and logic, of sign syste ms in genera l and, to anyone interested in the history of ideas. The special supp lemen t to th is vo lume contains materia ls, pertaining 10 the task of s ituatin g Marx' s mathemati cal in vestigations in the hi story and structure of Marxism, mathematical thoug ht and, ideas in genera l, as we ll as those, which may he lp to formulate strateg ies for fu ture investigations.

In KMarks. Matematicheskie Rukopisi ("Nauka" M.,1968), Marx's own texts hav,c been published both in the o riginal language '(main ly German, but in places French, English.ol' U mixture of two or more of these languages) and in Rus!\ian translation. However, the prefnce, editoria l comments, notes and appendices aTC all in Russian only. Hence, Russi an is the only single language through which the entirety of this volume becomes accessible. The present lranslat'ion has throughout followed tlle texts, comments, notes and append ices in Russian. However, where Marx's own text is only in Englis h, then; that has been reproduced. I have added two notes: 98a & 1 1I a, and a few comments and footnotes . The prefac!! of the 1968 edition has been variously superseded by the developments in Marx·studi'es and in mathematics. A new preface is due. I began writing one; but it got out of hand. The result: a special supplement, ent itled Marx and Mathematics. The sources of the materials' included in thi s supplement have all been indicated at the end of each item. I owe a great debt to the following persons; they have helped me at vari ous stages of the work, indicated below, culminating in the publication of the present volume. For the work c ulminating in the present translation of : K. MarkS; Matematicheskie Rukopisi (M.,1968) : T<'lpan Kumar Chattopadhyay of Calcutta University, Huberl Kennedy of Providence College (U.S .A), Timir Ranj~n Mukherjee and Biswarup Bhowmik of Calcutta, Dr. Dilip Banerjee of St. George:s Hospital and Medical School (London). Dr. Vinay Totawar of the Central Institute of English and ForcignLanguages (Hyderaba~) and, Amol Pad wad of Bhandnm College (Mnhamstra) . For the work leading to the spec ial supplement ent itled Marx and Mathematics: Evgeniya Mikhailovna Bykova - formerly of the Institute of Oriental Studie~ of the USSR Academy of Sciences, lrina Konstantinovna Antonova - formerly of the Institute of Marxisum-Leninism of the CC CPSU, Mikhail Ostapovich Ovsienko of the PlIshkin Institute, Sergei Serebry.my · ... furmeriy o(the Maxim Gorky Institute of World Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences nnd pr~s('ntly of the Russian State University for the l:Iumanities (Moscow), Fabien Laurent ofPoitiers (France) and, B.arcn Ray of New'Delhi. For generously offering to organise the publication of the present vol~me : Subhas Chaki'ooorty - Minsiter-in-charge of the Departments of Sports & Youth Services and Tourism, Government of West Bengal. For putting me in touch with Shree Subhas Chakroborwin this connectio n : Subrata Tapadar of Calcutta. Finally, a}l the workers engaged in the production of thi s volume. The usual disciair.ners apply everywhere.

May 6,1993.

Pradip Baksi .

ABBREV IATIONS MECW(E), ....... , ...... .. MECW(R), ........ , ...... . MR, ...... . PV, .... .. S. U. N... ..
Marx-Engels : Col. Works (Eng lish ed .), Volume No., Page No. Marx-Engcls : Col. Works (Russian cd.), Volume No., Page No.

Marematicheskie RlIkopisi, K. Marks ("Nauka", M., 1968), Page No.
Present Volume, Page No. Storage Un it Nu mber (of the Archives of the erstwh ile Tnstitut of Marx ism - Len inism of the C C CPSU).





18-39 19-25

26-39 40-63

FIRST DRAFT [FROM S.U.N. 4038) ..... . SECOND DRAFT [S.U.N. 4148] . . . . . THIRD DRAFT [S.U.N. 4148] . . . . . . . . . .



SOME ADDITIONS IFROM S.U.N. 4149J . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64-86 66

[I "










79-80 80-82
83-86 '



.....',: f. '

FROM TIlE MANUSCR1P"f "Tf\YLOR'S THEOREM, MACLAURIN'S THEOREM AND . LAGRANGlANTHEORY OF ANAL YTICAL FUNcnONS"[~.U . N. 400 1] . . . . . . . FROM TH E INCOMPLETE MANUSCRIPT '1"'A YLOR'S THEOREM" [FROM S.U.N. 43021 .... .. .. , . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

88-92 93-94

ON TH E NQN · UN IVOCALlTY OF THE TERMS "L IMIT" AND "Ll MIT1NG VALUE" (S.U.N. 4144] .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . .


COMPAR I SON OF D 'A LEMBERT'S METHOD W ITH THE ALGEBRA I C METHOD[S.U.N.4144] . . . . , ... " . . . . , ... , ' , .... . . . . . . . . , .. . ,.. 99- 101 ANALYSIS OF D'ALEMBERrs METHOD IN THE LIGHT OF YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE [S.U.N. 4143) , .. . . . . . , . , , .. .. ... ... . , , .. .. . , , ... , . , , ... , . .. , 102· 106
,.i "





is,u.N. 1922)

THE PROBLEM OFTANGENTTOTHE PARABOLA (A PPENDIX TO A LEITER TO ENGELS) . . . . . , . '. . , .. , , . ... , .. . , : , , .... . , . .. , ... , . . . . . ~ 113-.114 . . . . . ,., .. , .. , ' , . . . . ,




, ,

.... ...

11 6- I 18

MANUSCRIPTS OF' THE 1870s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119-238" 119 . T!"i ~ MANUSCR IPTS ON THE THEORY OF CONIC SECTIONS {S.U.N. 2760,2761 ,2762] . -: '
." ... . .

. ,... :',.-\·,:,.•;~t~:I.RS1NOTESONT~EDi·FFERENTIALCALCULUS [S.U.N. 3704] · . , .. ,' , , ... . 119- 121 '

"~&:.~~NTH~METHODOF FlN IT.EDIFFERENCES"[S, U. N.4039] ... . . :. , ;"


• .",



NO T EBOOKS CONTAIN I NG EX T RACTS ON COM M ERCIAL AR ITIIMETIC IS.U . . N 388 1,3931J . . . . . .... . . . . . ... . . . . . .


'A NOTEBOOK CONTAIN ING NOTES ON MATHEMATICA L ANALYSIS ACCORD ING TO THE BOOKS OF SAURI, NEWTON, BOUCHARLAT AND HI ND (S .U.N. 27631 . . . . . . . . 123-150 "CONIC SECTIONS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124-126

131-1 32 132

. ON THE EVAL UATION OF LARGRANGE'S Mm:HOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133-135 ON THE DIFFERENT MEANS OF SEEKING (AND DETERMINING) TilE SUCCESSIVE DER IVATIVESOFTHEFUNCI'IONj(x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... 135-137








137-[40 14[ - 142 [42-148 ..



. 148-150

151-166 160-161 161 161-163 163-164 164-166 167-184 171-177 r7S-179 179-184 IS5-210 211-2 13 2 13




. 214-230

231 -236 237-238

xi i




THE NOTEBOOK -A.J. ~ A NEW SYSTEMATISATION OF THE MATERIAL ACCORD ING TO TilE COURSES OF HI ND AND BOUCHARLAT (S. U.N. 4036J . . . • . . . . • . . . . . • , 239·241 "11. NOTE BOOK I".CONTINUATION OFTHE SAME MATERIALS (S.U.N. 4037) ... . .. , 241 THE NOTEBOOK "B (CONTINUATION OF A). 11 ". FIRST DRAFTS OF MARX'S OWN POINT OF VIEW ON THE NATURE OF DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS AND DRAFTS OFTHB HISTORICAL ESSAY[S.U.N. 4038) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 242·245 SOME SEPARATE SHEETS CONTA INING MATHEMATICAL CAl.CULATIONS[S.U.N. 4040.4048] . . ' . ' . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 245








SUBSTITUTING TH,E SYMBOL j) BY THE SYMBOL dx . . . . . . . . . . , . . .. ' . . . . . . 249-250 ON THECONCEP'T OF THE DERIVED FUNCTION [S.U.N. 4 1 47J • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . PRELIMINARY DRAFTS AND VARIANTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT ON THE DIFFERENTIAL [S.U.N. 4148) . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . ' ... ' . . . . . • ' , . ; .. , , . . . . . . . . . 250 251

FOUR VAR IANTS OF THE DRAFTS OF ADDITIONS TO THE MANUSCRIPT ON TH E DIFFERF;NTIAL [S.U.N. 4 (49) . .. . . ,., .. . . .. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . 252-259 " ON THE DlFFER.ENTIAL [S.U.N. 41 ~Ol ........... , ......... ". , 260 260 264-30 1




BYMARX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; 2. ON THE LEMMAS OF NEWTON crrED BY MARX 3. ON LEONHARD EULER'S CALCULUS OF ZEROS . 4. "THE RESIDUAL ANALYS IS " OF JOHN LANDEN . . .

313-3 15

31 6-319




~ i ii

34 1·378 .



. . . . • . . • . . .. )86·387

LE'ITERS (EXCERPTS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MARXTOENGELS , 11 JANUARY 1858.... . . • . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MARX TO ENGELS, 6 JULY 1863. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . •. • . . . . ENGELSTO F.A.LANGE,29 MARCH 1865 . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . MARXTO ENGELS,31 MAY 1873 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . .

39 1 391


392 ENGELS TO MARX. IS AUGUST 18S1 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . )93·)94
ENGELSTO MARX. 21 NOVEMBER 1882 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .


MARX TO ENGELS. 22 NOVEMBER 1882 . . . . . . .... . .. ... . . , , ... • . , . .

REMINISCENCES (EXCERPTS) ... . , , . , . , . , .. . '. , , , . . . . , . , , .. , . , . . . . 396-398 FROM ENGELS' SPEECH ATMARX 'S FUNERAL , .. . . . . . , . , . , .. , ' . . . . , . FROM THE PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDI110N OF ANTI - DUHR1NG .. . , , . , , . . FROM PAUL LAFARGUE'S REMINISCENCES OF MARX .. , .. . . . . . . . , . , . . . 397 397


A NOTE ON THE HISTORY OFCOLLECI'fNG. DECIPHERING. EDITING AND PUBLICATION OF MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS- P,8nhi , , .. , . , . . . . , . . . . . . . 399-401 NOTES . , .. . . . . . . . . . . . , , , .. , .. ... . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . , , 402-403 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... , . . . . . " . , . . . . . " . , .. , .. , . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . 404-408 404



. , , . • . . . . 404-408







MA'RX AND HADAMARD ON THE CONCEPT OF DIFFERENTIAL- V.l.Glivenko . . . . . . 411-419' MARX'S "MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS" AND DEVELOPMENT.GF HJSTORY -OF MATHEMATICS IN THE USSR - V.N.Malodshii . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420-426 -ON THE OPERA TrON A L LOGI tAL APPARATUS OPERATrVE IN KARL MAR X'B "CAPITAL" AND "MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS" - V, I. przhesmitsky. . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . 427-434 ON THE PROBLEM OF SITUATING MARX'S MATHEMATICAL MANSCRIPTS IN THE HISTORY OF IDEAS --' P. Baksi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ,,' . .,. ..•. ',. " '. "" .. . 435~447
~ ~", :t, .. ;.~" ,. .J

:>' •.:


.( t



.' ,-:"


_,F ,.


A.P. YlIshkevich ... : . . . . 450-484


-F.A. Metlved~v'

NON,-STANDARD ANALYSIS AND ;THEHISTORY OF CLASSICAL ANALYSIS .; .. :' .. : . ~ . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 485-491

',THE NEW STRUCTURAL APPROACH IN MATHEMATICS AND SOME of'li's METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS ---..: G.I.Ruzavin ... '.; ; . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . ,:., " . 492-502 REFLECTIONS ON SEVEN THEMES OF PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS- V:A.Uspensky. 503-540 EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMEt'lT OF THE C9NCEPT OF CONSTR{)CTIVISABfLITY IN MATHEMATICS - N.N. Nepetvoda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , ',' ... . ... . 541-:548




•• 1 .



" i "'

\ i ,,"




'J> ,.:-,






:~, ",'







.- ~ .'
.~', ~

"/ " :

' : '. /






ilK KlI ce


lI a ;{.·\ 'I I·:: I! .C'I' UO . HA :VKA. r:IAIlI IAJI l'E.uAh· I ~1I1J ';·1 1:UlliO-MAl '.;MATlPI EC: lit HI : , un:p.\ ' ''v rttl
MU I, I\!! .'
I ~I\I\


The existence of Marx's mathematica l manuscripts within the body of his un published

writings was first mentioned in 1885. F.Engels referred to them in his preface to the second ed itio n of Anti~Dilhrillg. [Scc :Aflti-Dahrillg (English ed ition), Progress, Moscow, 1978, p. 18. However, the importance of Marx 's mathematical investigations was indicated by Engels even earlie r, in his grave-side speech in me mory of Marx delivered on March 17, 1883. - TT.] Engels considered them important and collected the same for publication,The photocopies of these (nea rly 1000 pa ges of) manuscripts arc presently being preserved in the archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC of the CPSU (with the dissolution of the CC CPSU, tbis Institute has ceased to exist -Tr.]. A part of these man uscripts and some preparatory materials were published in Russian, in 1933, on the occasion of the 50th death anniversary of Marx, in the journal "Pod Znamcncm Marks izma" ("U ndcr the Banner of Marxism") [1933, No. 1, 15~73J and in the coll ectio n o f essays cn titled Markiszm i estestvoznaniya (Marxism and the natural Sciences) [1 933; 5~ 61].T hese included the results of Marx's investigations inlo the nature of differential calculus.ln 1881 Marxjotted them down fo r Engels, in two manuscripts. Till the n even this pari of Marx's mathematica l manuscripts was not publ ished in the origina l language. In the present edition, the manuscripts, whicb Marx cou ld comp lete in the main,o r those which conta in Marx's com ments on some questions of mathematical Significance, 3re all being published in their full form. Marx's mathematical manuscripts conta in va rious types o f materials : Marx's own w ritings on the nature and history of differential calculus, as well as the notes and extracts he made from the sources, which he used.In consonance with this two-fold nature of the materials at ha nd, the present volume has been divided into two parts. The first part contains all the origi nal writ ings of Marx, and the second part is devoted to detailed descriptions of the notes and extracts of mathema tica l significancc, jotted down by him. All these arc being published here [in the 1968 edition - Tr.] in the original language and in Russian translation. It is true th at the nature of Marx's orig inal writings and that of the notes taken by him are not identical. Bulk of these notcs consists of extracts from the writings of other authors, the rest being Marx's own commcnts. But, for a proper understanding of Marx's thoughts on mathematics, often an acq uai ntance with these notes of him becomes a necessity. Hence, not a part of this volume, but only its enti rety, properly expresses the mathematica l thinking of Marx. While writing the Capital, Marx became specially interested in mathematics. In th is co nnectio n, on the " 11th of Jan uary 1858 he wrote to Engels: "Tn elabora ting the PRI NCIPLES of econom ics 1 have been so damnably held up by errors in ca lculatio n that in DESPAIR 1 have applied myself to a rapid revision of algebra. I hav~ never felt at home with arithmetic. But by making a detour via algebra, I shall quickly get back into the way of things" [M ECW(R). 29. 210; M'ECW(E). 40. 244J. We notice the first glimpses of Marx's mathematical writings in his first note books on political economy. Some algebraic calculations have been found in some of these note books related to his researches of 1846 in their main contents . But it is possible, that these



calculations and comments were inserted by him at some later date; in !he pages earlier left blank in .these note books.
Sonre~<or the note books used by Marx in April-June 1858 contain preparatory materials


for his Critique of Political Economy. In them wc find : some draft sketches related to elementary geometry and some algebraic calculations concerning generalisation of the concepts of power and logarithm.
In tbis period Marx's mathematical studies proceeded rather disconncctcdly. Often he studied mathematics, only when he was not busy with anything else. On the 23rd of November 1860 he wrote to Engels : "Writing articles is ALMOST OUT or QUESTION for mc. The only occupation that helps me maintain the necessary QUIE1NESS or MIND is mathematics" [MECW(R), 3D, 88; MECW(E), 41, 216]. Thus, in spite of his other preoccupations, Minx's mathematical studies continued. On the 6th of July 1863 he wrote to Engles ; "My spare time is now devoted to differential and integral calculus. Apropos, I have a supernuity ofwor~s on the subject and will send you onc, should you wish to tackle it. 1 should consider it to be almost essential to your military studies. Moreover, it is a much easier branch of mathematics (so far as mere technicalities arc concerned) than, say, the more advanced aspects of algebra. Save for a knowledge of the more ordinary kind of algebra and trigonometry, no preliminary study is required except a general familiarity with conic sections" [MECW(R), 30, 296 ; MECW(E), 41, 484]. Then either towards the cnd of 1865, or in the early parts of 1866, in an appendix to a leUer to Engles, he explained the nature of differential calculus in the light of the problem of L.'lngent to the parabola. This letter rcmain~ untraccd [only the said appendix has been found - Tr.]. But even in this period Marx's mathematical.studics were mainly connected with his researches in political economy. Thus in 1869, having undertaken a study of the problem of circulation of capital and that of" the role of bills of exchange in the calculations relating to international trade, Marx read a very big text book on commercial arithmetic written by Feller and Odermann. He took detailed notes from this book [see: S.U.N. 2388 and 2400]. It was a principal trait of Marx's character, that when he faced a question, he never stopped before becoming fully confident about the issue, never stopped without mastering the subject to its very foundations. And this trait was revealed here also. Whenever he found that a certain , mathematical technique has been used in the text book by Feller and Odermann, then, eVen if Marx knew about it beforehand, he considered it essential to reengage himself in its study all over again. Thus were inserted his comments of a clearly mathematical significance, in the aforementioned notes on commercial nrithmelic, ns well as in the notes taken afterwards [see: S.U.N. 3881, 3888 and 3931]. It is these steps, which, in their turn, took Marx closer 10 the higher parts of mathematics. Marx's mathematical investigations acquired an almost systematic character in the 70s of the last century, especially since 1878. In his preface to the seco,!!.d volume of Capital [in the preface to the 1968 edition of tbe mss this has been inadvertent.IY put as: "In his preface to the second edition of Capital" - Tr.l, Engels wrote about this period: "There was another intermission [in the course of Marx's writing oC the Cap~tal ~ Tr.] after 1870, due mainly to Marx's ill health. Marx employed this time in his custom'a,ry"w.a y, by studying agronomy, rural relations in America, and especially, in Russia, the money market and banking, and finally the natural sciences such as geology and



physiology: Independcnt mathematica l studies also fig ure promincntly in the num erous excerpts-full note books of this period "[MECW(R), 24 , 8; Capjtal, vol. 11, Eng.'ed. , Progress Moscow, 1978, pp. 3-4]. But of course, even in this period Marx contin ued to remain interested in the use of mathematics in poli tical economy. On the 31s t o f Ma y 1873 Marx wrote to Engels :~ I have been telling Moore about a problem with which J have been racking my brains for so me time now . However, he thinks it is insoluble, at lcast pro tempore, because of the many fa ctors involved, fa ctors which for the most part have yet to be discovered . The problem is this: you know about those graphs in which the movements of prices, discoun t ra tes, etc .• etc .• over the year, etc., afe s how n in rising and falling zigzags. I have variously attempted to analyse crises by calculating the&e UPS AND DOWNS as irregular curves and I bclieved (.md s till be lieve it would be possible if the material were s ufficiently s ttldied) that I might be able to de termine mathematically the principal laws govern ing crises. As I said, Moore th inks it cannot be done at present and l have resolved to give it up FOR HIE TtM E BEING. " [M ECW(R), 33, 71-72; MEC W (E). 44,504]. Evidently Marx could visualise long ago, that there is scope ro r us ing mathematics in politica l economy. But it does not become fully clear, even from the descriptions of the entirety o f his mathematical manuscripts, presen ted in the second part of this volume, as to what exactly propelled Marx to proceed fro m the stud y of algeb ra and commercia l arithmetic underta ken by him, to the study of difrerential ca lculus. In fact Marx 's mathematical manuscripts we re born in that period when he bega n to study elementary mathematics with the aim of studying differential calculus alone, i.e., when he started s tudying trigonometry and conic sections and w rote the aforementioned letter to Engles [dated July 6, 1863 - Tr.] indicating the necess ity of such study. Incidentally. at that time the s ituation in differential calcu lus, especially of the found ation upon which it was constructed, was in a bad s hape. Engels quite graphically d epicted this s ituatio n in his Anli-D!1hring: "With the introduction of variable magnitud es and the extension o f the ir va riab ility to the infin itely small and the infinitely large, ma th ematics, usually so strictly ethica l, fell from grace; it ate of the tree of knowledge, which opened upto it a ca reer of most colossa l achievements, but at the sa me time a path of erro r. The v irg in sta te of absolute validity and irre futab le proof of every thing mathematical was go ne for ever; the real m o f controversy was inaugurated, and we have reached the po int w he re most peop le differentiate and integra te not beca use they undersL.'lnd whalthey are doin g but from pu re faith, because uplO now it has always come ou t right" [MECW(R),20, 88 -89 ; Anli-Dahring, Eng. ed. Progress, Moscow, 1978, p. 110]. Na turally Marx could not put up with th is. In his words: "it became important for him, "here as everywhere", "to s trip the veil of secrecy from science"[see: MR, 193; PV, 881. This task beca me important also due to the fact. that the process o f transition rrom elementa ry mathematics to th e mathematics of variables of necess ity atta ined a dialectical character, owing to its very content. And Marx and Engels considered it to be a duty of theirs' to show, how the materialis t dialectics is of use not only in the socia l sciences, but in the natural sciences and mat hema tics as well. To unveil the d ialectics or the process of trans ition to the mathematics of va riables, it was necesary to conduct detailed inves tigations about the "m ystery



which even to-day surrounds the magnitudcs employed in the infinitesimal calculus, the differentials and infinitesimals of various degree" (MECW(R), 20, 582; Anti-Daltring, Eog. ed., Progress, Moscow, 1978, p. 444]. That is to say, Marx had before him the task of laying . bare the dialectical nature of that symbolic calculus, which operates with differential symbols. Marx was self-educated in mathematics. He could only turn to his friend Samuel Maore for relevant advice. But Moore had very little mathematical knowledge. And that is why he could not be of much help to Marx. Notonly that, it appears from his remarks on the manuscripts which MarX" sent to Engels in 1881, that MonTe was not at all able to understand Marx's thoughts a~out the origin and significance of the symbolic differential calculus [sec: MECW(R), 35, 93-94J. Marx began his studies of the differential calculus with the text·boo ks which were then in use in the Cambridge University. In the 17th century Newton held the chair of mathematics in this university. And since then his tradition has been respectfully obeyed in England. It is well known, that in the 205 and 30s of the last century, the English youth assembled around the "Analytical Society"of mathematicians were forced to wage a relentless struggle against the representatives of this outdated tradition, which elevated the method of Newton into a kind of sacred and unsurpassable dogma, his distinctive expressions and the synthetic method of his RPrincipia" included. This trad itio n demanded, that all problems, to be solved with the help of the techniques of calculus, are tQ be solved directly from the beginnings - they are not to be subordinated to any general problem. I[ tbe above m.entioned background is kept in view, then we shall be able to understand why and under what sortol circumstances did Ma rx begin his study of differential calculus with the Cours complet de mathematiqlles [Paris, 1778] by Abbe Sauri. This book was written according to the method ofLeibnilz, and Leibnitzian symbols were' used in it.,Soon after this, the very Newtonian method of "analysis thro ugh equations containing infinite number of terms", directly drew Marx's attention [see: S.U.N. 2763]. Marx became so enthused after having considered the Leibnitzian algorithms of differential calculus according 10 Sauri's book, that he undertook the task of explaining them (using the example of tangent to the parabola), in the special appendix of a letter to Engels [see: MR, 251·254; PV, 113·114]. After fini shing the text book by Sauri, Marx studied the English translation of a newer French book: An elementary treatise on the flifferential and integral calculus [1828] by Boucharlat. In this book the ideas Qf d'Alembert and Lagrange were lumped together ecJectically. In France alone it saw eight editions. It was translated into otber languages (including Russian). This book too could not satisfy Marx. He began to study the works of other mathematicians and other text books. He studied the classical writings of Euler and MacLaurin. MacLa urin popularised the works of Newton. Marx also s tudied the text books by lacroix, Hind, Hall, Hemming and others. All these books have found their piace in Marx's notes and excerpts. In these books, what at first drew Marx's allention, was the outlook of Lagra nge. lagrange attempted to ta ckle the characteristic difficulties of differential calculus by . providing it with an "algebraic M foundation, i.e., he attempted to do it without using the concepts of infinitesimal and limit, which were till then inexactly defined and were quite vague.



However, having beco me acqua inted wi th th e concepts o f Lagrange In detail, Marx very soon understood that no sa tisfactory solution of the character is tic difriculties associated with the symbolic apparatus of differential calculus was possible along these lincs. And that is why he set out to elabora te the proper approoch for dctermining the true nal ure of this calculus. In the second part of this volume we become acq uainted with th e path which Marx traversed in his journey towards that goal. This part contai ns description of all the mathematical manuscripts of Marx. This description is, as fa r possible, chronological. Here we once again find tha t Marx undertook the study of algebra, with the aim of properly eva luat ing the point of v iew of Lagrange. Marx wanted to find out the algebra ic roots of differential calculus. He was drawn, first of all ,to the theorem about the multiple roots of an algebraic equation. Determination of these roots is connected, in its content, with the success ive differentiation of the original equation. Marx, specifica lly and in detail, discussed this question in a series o f manuscripts beginni ng with S.U.N. 3932 and 3933. This discussion figures under the heads "Algeb ra I" and "Algebra 1"1". Theorems o f Taylor and MacLaurln especially drew Marx's attention. Lagrange attempted to prove these theorems in a "purely algebraic" manner, i.e., without taking the help of differential calculus. In this connecli on Marx began to systematically collect the material about Newton's binomial theorem and about Taylor's and MacLa urin 's theo rems, from different sources. And thus were born the manuscripts co ntained in S.U.N. 3933,4000 and 4001.These manuscripts ca n no longer be cons idered mere notes taken from the works of other authors. And that is why here their full texts have been published. Generally speak ing, in Marx 's notes gradua ll y one comes across more and more of his original comments. Especially noteworthy in this con nection, are his commcnts on the concept of function and on the substitution of the sy mbol % by the symbol dy/dx. His original comments arc also to be found in a series of other manuscrip ts [see: S.U.N. 2763,3888,3932 and 4302]. Having become conv inced that Lagrange 's "purely algebraic" method is incapable of so lving the prob lems of the foundations of differential calculus, and eve~ after arriv ing at his own view po int about the co ntent and method of this calculus, Marx, all the sa me, went on co llecting materials abou tlhe various ways of differentiating, from the sources aLhis disposal [see: S.U,N. 4038 and 4040]. And onl y after that did he begin writing his own opinions about the "algebraic" method of differentiating (a ce rtain cla ss of functions). Subsequently he began drafting the fundamental ideas exp ress in g his characteris tic point of view. These ideas have found express ion in the articles included in the fi rst part of th is volume, as well as in their differen t drafts. Now, let us turn to the conten ts o f these writings. The greater part of Mar x's original mathematical writings were born in the seventies of the last century. At that time, in Europe, modern classical analysis was being co ns tructed, with its characteristic theo ries of real numbers and lim it (above all in the works of K. Weierstrass, R. Dedekind and G.Cantor). This direction of the works of European mathematicians was at that ti me virtuall y unknown in the English universities. The famous English mathematician Ha rdy wrote his "Course of Pure Mathematics" many years later (in 1917).[This information is incorrect. The first ed ition ofG.H .Hadry's A Course of Pure Mathematics was published no l in 1917, but



in 1908. - Tr.] In the preface of the 1937 edition of this text book Hardy wrote with justification: "It [this book] was written when analysis was neglected in Cambridge, and with an emphasis and enthusiasm which seem rather ridiculous now. If I were to rewrite it now I should not write (to use Peaf. Littlewood's similic) like a missionary talking to cannibals". And Hardy noted lower down there, that "even in England, there is now [i.e .• in 1937. - Ed.J no lack" of manuals on analysis. That is why it is not surprising, that the relatively modern problematic of the ~hen nascent continental mathematical analysis remains unmentioned and undiscussed in Marx's mathematical manuscripts. But still, even to-day, his ideas about the content of symbolic differential calculus are of interest. The concepts of the "differential ", of the different orders of the "inFinitesimal "etc., and the symbols dx, dy. d 2y, d 3y, ..., dy/dx, d 2y/dx 2, d 3y/dx 3••• etc. arc characteristic of the differential calculus. In the text books of differential calculus published in the 19th century and, available to Marx, some special magnitudes were mentioned over and above the aforementioned concepts and' symbols. These special 'magnitudes were considered to be different from the usual mathematical numbers and functions. And it was considered imperative that mathematical analysis be conducted with the help of these special magnitudes. To-day the situation is different: there are no special magnitudes in analysis. But the symbols and tlie terminology have been retained. These have been found to be very usefuL How come? If the corresponding concepts turned out to be meaningless, then how could the words and symbols be retained? Marx's mathematical manuscripts provide the best possible answer to this question. In addition, these manuscripts also provide that answer, which helps us to determine the contents of all types of symbolic calculi. It may be noted tbat only recently the general th, ory of symbolic calculi has been constructed in modern matbematicallogic. e The main thing here is the operational role of the symbols of calculus. If one and the same computational process is repeatedly used to solve very different kinds ' of problems, then it is useful to choose a special symbol for this entire process. This symbol designates in brief, what Marx has called, the "operational strategy" of its formulator. Here, first of all comes the very process. Marx has called this process "real", to distinguish it from the symbolic designation introduced for it. But why is it so worthwhile to introduce a new symbol here? Marx's answer to this question, consists of the following point: owing to this we need not complete the entire process every time; and by utilising the fact, that we have already completed this process in certain cases, we can reduce the task of completing it in more complex cases, into its completion in the simpler ones. For this, only the regularity of the process under consideration is required to be studied, and then some general rules for operating with the new symbols arc to be determined. These rules will permit the aforementioned reduction. But in that case we also obtain a calculus, already operating with new symbols. Thus, in the words of Marx, we enter into its "ground proper". And Mane explained in detail the dialectics of that "inversion of method", which is connected with this transition to the symbolic calculus; conversely, its rules do not permit a transition from the "real" process to the symbol, but rather, these rules allow us to seek the "real"process which corresponds to a symbol. By prescribing a "strategy of operations", these rules make the symbol operational.



All tltis Marx inves tigated in his two fundame nt.1 l articles written in 188 t and sent to Engels. These are: On the concept of the derived function [sec: MR, 29; PV, 191 and On the differential [sec: MR , 47; PV, 26]. In the first article Marx considered the "rea l" process (the algorithm) of searching the derived functions and differentials of a ccrt.1in class of functions and introduced the correspondi ng sy mbols for sueh processes (he ca lled it the process o f "a lgebraic" differe ntiation). In the second he depicted the "invers ion of melltod" nnd went over to the "grou nd proper" of the differential ca lculus. For lhis, first of all he utilised the theorem about the derivative of product. This theorem permits the sea rch fo r the derivative of product to be reduced into a search for the derivatives of factors. In Marx's own words, thus the "symbolic di fferential co-efficient has become an independelltpoint of deJJarture~ only its real equivalent must be found out ... But with this, the differential ca lculus too appea rs as a specifi c kind of calculus, already opera ting independently upon its own ground, since its poin ts of departure du/tix, dz/dx are mathematica l magnitudes which belong on ly to this calculus and characterize it " [MR , 55 & 57; PV, 30-31]. They are the reby "at once transformed into operational symbols, into the symbols of processes, which are to be carried out ... fo r finding out ... [the] aderiva tives". Hav ing ini tiall y emerged as the symbol ic expression of the "deriva tives". i.e., of the operations of different iation nlready carried ou t, the symbolic differential co-efficient now pl ays the role of the symbol of those operations of differentiation, which remain to be ca rried out" [MR, 57; PV, 31]. Marx was not aware of the strict definitions of the fundamental co ncepts which characterize modern analysis. T hat is why, the con tents of his manuscripts appear to be dated at first sight. It seems that these arc confined within the fra mework of what was known to Lagrange, Le., confined to what was known at the end of the 18th century. However, in rea lity the fundamental characteristic tendencies of Marx's manuscripts are of considerable Sign ifica nce even to-day. It is true that Marx was not acquainted with the modern definitions of the concepts of real number, limit and con tinuity. But it appears, that even if he had an acquaintance with these definitions, he would not have been satisfied with them. The situation is as follows: Marx was in search of the "rea l" process o f finding out the derived function, Le., of an algorithm, which will permit, fi rstly. to answer the ques tionwhether there exists a derivative for a given function, and secondly - if it exists then how to find it out effectively. It is well known thnt the concept of limit is not algorithmic, and that is why such problems are solvable onl y for a certain class of functions. One of those classes is lite class of ana lytical functions, i.e., the class of such functions, which are decomposab le into powered serieses and - to use an expression of Marx - are objects of "a lgebraic" di fferen tiation. As a matter of fact only such functio ns were investigated by Marx. At present the class of s uch functio ns - for which the two aforementioned questions can be answered - may be significa ntly extended, and operations with them may be so constructed, as to satisfy all tbe modern demands of strictness and exactitude. However, from Marx's point of view it is essential, that all passages to limit be investigated in the light o f their effecti ve completion; in other words,it is essential 10 construct mathema tical analysis bas ing it upon th e theory of algorithms, as we would put it now. The following statement made by Engels in his Dialectics of Na ture, is well known to us : "The turning point in ma thematics was Descartes' variable magnitude. With it came


motion and hence dia/eclics in mathematics, and at once, too, of neces~ity the differential and integral calculus, wbich moreover immediately begins, and which on the whole was completed by Newton and Leibnitz, not discovered by them It [MECW(R), 20, 573; Dialectics o/Nature, Eng. ed., Progress, Moscow,1976, p. 258]. . But what is a "variable"? Generally speaking, what is a "varillblc" in mathematics? The famous English philosopher Bertrand Russell said in this connection, that "it is of course, one of those concepts wbich arc the ,most dirricult to understand ". And the mathematician Kart Menger listed at least six enlirely different meanings of this concept. For explaining the concept of variable, in other words, that of the function in general in mathematics, Marx's mathematical manuscripLS are of considerable value, even to-day. Marx directly raised the question of the different meanings of the concept of function: functions "of x" and functions "in x", and specifically dwelt upon how the changes of variables arc ·depicted in mathematics, upOn the dialectics of this change. Marx attached special significance to the question of the means of representing the changes of variables, since, the characteristics of that method of "algebraic" differentiation, which belongs to him, arc at issue here. The point is this: Marx decisively came out against representing all changes in the value of the variable in the form of an addition (or a SUbtraction) of some predetermined value of the increment (of its absolute value). Sufficient idealisation of the real changes of the values of any magnitude already assumes, that we can fixate all its values with exactitude. But in reality all such values can only be approximately fixated. So the assumption upon which differential calculus is built, must be such that, to obtain tbe expression f'(x), Cor a Cunction derived from a given function f(x), informations regarding the exact value of any variable are not demanded, but the expression f(xJ for the Cunction, is deemed sufficient. Here one is merely required to know, that the value oC the variable x in fact so changes, that any neighbourhood (however small) of every value of the variable x (from the domain of its values under consideration) has the value Xl j this valu~ is different from Xl but not grea,tc[ than it : "in fact Xl remains as indeterminate as x" [MR, 159; PV, 74].
Here it is understandable, that whcnx changes into Xl' then the difference XI - X is formed . This difference is also designated by I:J.x, so that, as a result, Xl appears as equal to x + I:J.x. However, Marx stressed, that this takes place only as a resull of tbe transformation oC the value ofx into the value of Xl and it does not precede this change, and that the representation of Xl as definable by the expression x + Il x, signifies, as it were, an insertion, thereby, of distortive assumptions into the representation of motion (and of all change in general). These assumptions are distortive, because in that case: flTbough in X + A x, as a magnitude Ax is as indeterminate, as is the indeterminate variable x itself, nevertheless, Il x is determinate as distinct form the particular magnitude x, as the foetus beside its own mother, before she becamc pregnant" [MR, 159; PV, 74]. In consonance with these observations, Marx begins his definition of the function f' (x), derived from the functionf(xJ with the statement that x changes into Xl. As a resJllt of this f(x) changes i?to fiXI). And the differences XI ..:.x and f(x l) - f(x) are formed. The first of these differences is wittingly different from zero, since

x. nHere the increased x, i.e.,





distinct from itself, from what it W:IS prior to the increase, i.e., from x, but XI does not appear asx increased by d X; tha t is why, in fact Xl rema ins as inde te rminate asx" [MR, 159; PV, 74]. According to Marx the rea l ",ecret of the differential calculus is as follows: to determine the value of the derived fun ction at a point x (where the derivati ve exists), it is necessa ry not only to find out the point XI different from x in the neighbourhood of this point, a nd to form

x, i.e., the expression [(XI) - [(x) , but also to xl-x return the re after back to that same point x; however, this is no direct re turn , bu t ra ther, a retu rn in some special manner, conn ected with the concrete determination of the function [(x), since the simple assumption of XI aX in the expression L!(x l ) - j(X}]I[XI -x1 turns it into [f(x) - j(x)]I[x -xJ, i.e., illto 010, in other words into absurdity. This chara cter of the definition of the derivative, which cons ists of the formation of a difference Xl - x o ther than zero, and then - after establishing the ratio
Xl _

the ratio of differences j(x l ) - [(x) and

[f (x,) - !(xl] I [x, - xl
- the dialectical "subla tion" of that difference, is retained also in the modern definition of the derivative, where the re mova l of the difference Xl - X is effected with the help of the 0 passage to the limit: from Xl 1 x. In his work under 'he ' i,leA PPENDIXTO THE MANUSCRIPT "ON THE HIS TORY OF DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS ", ANALYSIS OF D 'A LEMBERT'S METHOD Mar. '00 spoke of the "derivative", in essence as the lim iting value of the ra tio [[(XI) - [(x)]I[x l - x1 though in this connection he used a different terminology. The confus.ion connec ted with the terms "limit" and "limiting value" led Marx to comment, that "perhaps the concept of limitin g value has been incorrectly interpreted " [MR , 217; PV, 98]. This muddle prompted him to replace the term "limit" in the defin ition of the de riva tive, by the term "absolutely minimal expression". However, he did not insist upon this substitution, as he fo resaw thata more precise concept of limit, with which he go t acquainted from Lacroix's big Treatise on differential and integral calculus, a book which sa tisfied Marx cons id erably more tha n the other text books, may render the introduction of a new term unnecessary. In fa c t [elsewhere] Marx wrote about the concept of limit, that: "This category which has fou nd wide use in [mathematica l) analysis mainly in that of Lacroix, acquires an important sign ificance as a substitute for the category of minimal expression" [MR, 129; PV, 6ZJ. Thus in esse nce Marx has a lso explained the dialectic .. connected with the defin ition of derivative in modern mathematical a nalysis. Here we have a dialectical, and not formal, . co ntradiction. It will be shown below, that the presence of the latter made the differential calculus of Newton and Leibnilz "mystica l". Here it is necessary to keep onl y the following in view: Ma rx by no means forbids the presen ta tion of every change in the value of a variable in the for m of an addition of some "increment" to its already eX isting va lue. On the conlraty. when the question of evaluating the result of an already accomplished c hange arises, then the talk about an increase in the value of the variable (for example, about the depende nce of the increment o f a function upon the increment of the corresponding independent variable), a nd what Marx calls "the point of view o f summation" (xl" x + ~ X o r Xl .. X + 11), become entirel y

.." '.. "



justified. In his last work entitled the Taylor's Theorem, Marx especially dwells upon this transition from the "algebraic" to the "differential" method. Bul unfortunately this work remained unfinished. 'And that is why only a part of it has been included in Part I of the present volume. [However, a very detailed description of this manuscript, almost its, entire text, has been included in the second part of this book; sec: MR, 498-562; PV, 264-301]. Here Marx stressed, that when in the "algebraic" method XI - x exists for use only in the form of a difference, and not as Xl - X - " and, that is why, not as XI - X + h, then in the transition to the -differential" method we may consider h "as the increment (positive or negative) of x. We have the right to do this also as : XI - X - 6. x, and this 6. x itself, ins tead of servil'!g • as in 9ur mode, as a simple symbol or a simple sign for tbe difference of x-s, i.e., for XI - x, may also be treated as the magnitude of the difference Xl - x, [itself] as indeterminate as Xl - X and, as changing as it (this magnitude). Thus, Xl - X _ 6. x or = the .indeterminate magnitude It. Hence it follows that Xl - X + h, and [(XI) or y, turnsJnto f(x + It)" [MR, 522; PV, 278-279]. Thus, it will be extremely unfair 10 depict the standpoint 'lf Marx as the rejection of all other methods used in differential calculus. If these methods turn oul 10 be successful, then Marx sets before himself the task of explaining the secret of their success. And when he succeeds in this, i.e., after the method under consideration turns out to be well grounded and the conditions of its applicability arc fulfilled , then Marx co nsiders a transition to that method not only entirely justified, but also expedient. After his manuscripts of 1881, containing the fundamental results of his reflections on the nature of differential ~alculus, Marx intended to send a third work to Engcls, related to the history of the methods of differential calculus. At first he wanted to outline this history in the light of concrete examples of the different methods of proving the theorem about the derivative of a product. But afterwards he renounced this intention and proceeded to outline the general characteristics of the principal' periods in the history of the methods of differential calculus. Marx could not give a proper shape to this third wQrk. Only tbe indications regarding the fact that he intended to write it and the rough copy of this manuscript, have been preserved. From these we come to know: bow Marx formulated and changed his plan of the historical essay on this theme. In Part I of the present volume this r6ugh copy is being reproduced in its full form [see: MR, 137-189; PV. 64-86]. Therein all the instruc tions of Marx, regarding the necessity of inserting this or that passage from the other manuscripts into tbe text [of the historical essaY1. have been fully taken into consideration. This manuscript gives us an opportunity 10 elucidate the standpoint of Marx on the history of the principal methods of differential calculus. These are: . 1) the "mystical differential calculus" of Newton and Leibnitz, 2) the "rational differential' calculus" of Euler and d'Alembert, 3) the "purely algebraic calculus" of Lagrange. According to Marx the characteristic trait of the methods of Newton and Leibnitz was this: their creators did not see the "algebraic" roots of the differential calculus, they started working directly with its operational formulae. That is why, their origin and meaning

1 'ltEFACE


remained obscure and even mysterious. And the ca lculus itse lf appeared "as an indepe ndent means of computation, dis tin ct from the ordinary algebra~ [MR, 153; PV, 72 ), as a quite specia l mathematical discipline, just discovered, which is "as far away as the sta rs in heaven, by way of ordinary algebra " [MR, 199; PV, 90]. To the question as to "How werc the sta rting points for the differcntial sy mbols as operational formulae obtai ned", Marx answered that this was done "with thc help o f either secret or evident metaphys ica l presuppositions, which in their turn lead 10 metaphysical non-mathematical consequences: what happcns is a forcib le des tru ction of ccrl.1in magnitudes, blocking the path of deduction, [whi ch] , however, were gc nera ted by th ose ve ry . presuppositions" [MR , 123; PV, 59]. Elsewhe re Marx wrote about th ese very methods o f Newton and Lcibnitz: "Xl" X + 6. X at once turns into Xl - X + dx ... , where dx is postulated by a metaph ys ical explanatioll. At first it exists, and is explai ned only s ubsequently". "From this arbitrary postulation it fo llows, tha t ... terms ... must be removed by j ugglery, so that a correct result . may be obta ined" [MR, 165; PV, 77]. III other wo rds, so long as the means of introducing differential sy mbo ls into mathematics remain unelu cidated, and what is more, remai n in general incorrect - so long as the differenlials dx and dy are s impl y identified with the increments flx and fly they turn out to be unfounded, they arc presc nted as the mea ns of "forcible" abolition "by jugglery", and as the means of their own removal, it becomes necessa ry to metaphyscia J1 y invent certain actuall y infin itel y s mall magnitudes. These are treated, at the same time, bo th as ordinary magnitudes other than zero (as wha t arc now called "Archimedean" magnitudes), and as "va nishing " magnitudes (turn ing in zero) as distinct from the finite or infinitesimal magnitudes of even lower order (i.e., as "non -Archimedean"magniludes); simpl y put: as both ze ro and not zero at the same time. In this connection Marx said : "there remains nothing else to do, b:.Jt to present the in crements of h as infinitely small [magniludesJ and to register them as such, as independellt beings, for example, in the sy mbols ... dx, dy [etc). But infinitely small mag niludes are also magnitudes, as are the infini tely big(the wo rd infinitely (small) signifies o nly the fact that it is indefinitely small) ; Ihat is why, these dy, dx • ... also figure in the computation as ordinary algebraic magnitudes, and in the equation ... ... k _ 2xdx + dxdx the term dx dx has as much righ t to ex ist as has 2x dx". That is why, "mos t aSlOnishing· ·is that argument, by which this term is forcibly cast away" [MR , 151 and 153; PV, 71]. Acco rding to Marx, the prese nce of such actuall y infinitely s mall ma gnitudes - i.e., of formall y contradicto ry objects, which arc not introduced wi th th e help o f successive mathema tica ll y grounded operations, but ace postulated upon the fou ndations of metaphysica l "explanations", and arc removed thereafter by a "s leight of hand " - is what makes the ca lculus o f Newton and Leibnitz mystical, notwiths tanding the series of a~vantages ob t.1ined, owing to the fact that this ca lcul us straight off beings with the operational fo rmula e. At the sa me time Marx did of course highly appreciate the historic Significa nce of the methods o f Newton and Lcibnitz. He wrote: "Thus, they themselves believed in the mysterious character of the newly discovered calcu lus, which provided correct (and



moreover in the geometrical applications, really astonishing) results by a posi tively incorrect mathematical procedure. They were thus self-mystified, valued the new discovery all the higher, enraged the crowd of old orthodox mathematicians all the morc, and thus called forth tbe cry of opposition; it aroused an echo even in the lay world, and that is necessary for ,.,: paving the path for something new" [MR, 169; PV, 78).

According to Marx, the next stage in the development of th e methods of differential calculus appears to be the "ra tional differential calculus" of d ' A1cmbcrt and Euler. Here the mathematically incorrect methods of Newton and Leibnitz stand corrected, but the point of depa rture rema ins the same. "d ' Alembert starts directly from the starting point of Newton and Leibnitz : Xl _ X + dx. But he a t once makes a fundamental correction :

+ Ax, i.e., x+ an indeterminate, but first of all a finite increment. [In tbe literature' . at Marx's .disposa l "a finite increment" meant: a finite increment o the r than zero. ] This he
Xl - X

calls /I. With him the transformation of this" or A x into dx ... takes place only as the last result of the development or at least just at the eleventh ho ur, while with the mystics and the initiators o f calculus it appears as the starting po int" [MR , 169 & 171; PV, 79]. And .Marx stressed, that here the removal of the differential symbols from the final result takes place through "a correct mathematical operation. Hence, now they are removed without a tric k" [MR, 173; PV, 80]. That is w hy, Marx made a high evaluation of the his torical significance of d ' Alembert's methods. He wrote: "d' A1embcrt tore off the shroud of mystery from the differential calculus and thereby took a great step forward" [MR, 175j PV, 801. However, since, for d 'Alembert the starting Point remains that very representation of a change of x as the sum: x+ the increment A X , which exists beforehand and independently of the change of X - here the· di a lecti~ proper of the process of differentiation is not yet revealed . And in c riticism of d' A1embert Marx makes the remark: "d' Alembert starts from (x+ dx) but corrects this expression changing it into (x + A x), and correspo nding ly into (x+ 11); now a development becomes indispensable, with the belp of which A x o r" turns into dx, but the entire develo pme nt, which actually takes place, is reduced to this" [MR, 221; PV, 100]. It is well known, that to obtain the derivaJive dyldx from the ratio of finite differences Ay/Ax, d ' A1embert took recourse to the "transitio n to limit". In the manuals used by Marx this passage to the limit came before the expansion of the expression f(x+ IJ) into a series of ascending integra l powers of Ir. wherein the coefficient of " in its first power, was the "ready made" de rivative f'(x}. That is why, the task was reduced to "freeing" it fro m the multiplier h and from the other terms of the series. Howeve r, this could bave been done in a more natural way, by s imply de finin g the derivative as the coeffici ent of h in its first power, in the expansion off(x + h) into a series of powers of h. Actually, in "the fi rst method 1), as well as in the ra tio na l 2), the unknown real coefficient is manufactured in a ready-made form by the [use of] binomial theo rem, and is met with already as the second term of the expa nded series, thus, in the term necessa rily contain ing hI. Consequently, as in 1), so also in 2), the entire furthe r course of differentiation is a luxury., This is why,le t us cast aside this useless ballast" [MR, 177; PV, 81].



Lagrange the founder of the next stage in the development of the methods of differential calculus, of the "purely algebraic" calculus according to .Marx's periodis:ltion, did exactly the same thing. At first Marx very much appreciated the method of l..:lgrange, "whose tbeory of derived functions provided a new basis for the differential calculus" [MR, 193; PV, 88]. Usually f(x+ h) is expanded into a powered series of h, with the help of Taylor's theorem. Historically, this theorem appeared as the completed construction of the entire differential calculus, and thereby turned into its starting point, connecting it directly with [the existing] mathematics, which comes before the Ldiffcrentiallcalculus (it does not use the specific symbolism of this calculus). In this context Marx commented: "The real, and accordingly the simplest, interconnection between the new and the old, is always discovered only when this new itself already attains its final form, and it may be said, that in the differential calculus this return (taking) backwards was carried out by the theorems of Taylor and Macl..:lurin. [The theorem of MacLaurin may be viewed as a particular instance of Taylor's theorem, and Marx too did the same; see: MR, 195 & 197; (PV, 88*89).] That is why the idea of leading the differential calculus on to a strictly algebraic foundation was conceived only by Lagmnge" [MR, 199; pv, 901 However, Marx soon found out that Lagrange failed to effect this reduction. As is well known, Lagrange attempted to prove, that "generally speaking", i.e., save "certain particular instances" where the differential calculus is "not applicable", the expressionf(x+h) 2 is decomposable into the seriesf(x) + ph + qh + rhl + ... , where p, q, r, ... - the coefficients of the powers of 11, are the new functions of x independent of h and arc "derived" from [(x). Largrange proposed a proof of this. In essence, this proof did not have sufficiently exact mathematical sense. Naturally, it did not come off. Marx wrote about it: "This leap from the ordinary algebra, and besides with the help of ordinary algebra, into the algebra of variables [Le., into the general theory of functions, which rellects movement and change in general - EeL], is accepted as an accomplished fact; it is not proved and, first of all, it contradicts all tlte rules of ordinary algebra" [MR, 207; PV, 93]. And about the "initial equation" of Lagrange Marx concludes, that it is not only unproved, but also the very "deduction of this equation from algebra rests upon a fraud" [MR, 207; PV, 94 1. In the concluding part of Marx's incomplete manuscript [on Taylor 's Theorem] Lagrange's method appears as the completion of the methods of Newton and Leibnitz, corrected by d' AJembert. It is the "algebricisation" of Taylor's formula, carried out with the help of this method itself. "Thus did Fichte side with Kant, Schelling - with Fichte and, Hegel with Schelling, wherein neither Fiehte, nor Schelling, nor Hcgel did investigate the general basis of Kant, of idealism in general; or else they could not have developed it further"[MR, 209; PV, 94]. We find that in the historical essay Marx gave us a graphic example, from his point of view, of the application of the methods of materialist dialectics in the science of history of mathematics.






Preparation of the present edition of Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts entailed a lot of work.Texts of the manuscripts had la be deciphered in their entirety.The work co nn ected with the dating of the manuscripts had 10 be carried out. Marx's own statements were s~paratcd from the extracts and.notes taken by him. Storage Units had to be formed as unbroken pieces of manuscripts, on the basis of an analysis of the mathematica l contents of the manuscripts (in fact many manuscripts are not contained in copy books, but are separate sheets - often quile disorderly). In the overwhelming majority of instances the sources, from which Marx took notes or extracts, were ascertained. All original comments of Marx contained in th~e notes were singled out, by compa ring the notes with their sources. All independent works and comments of Marx were translated into Russian . . The task of separa ting the origina l comments of Marx from the notes and extracts, involved a series of difficulties. Marx wrote the notes for himself, to have the necessary material on hand. As usual, he used a large number of most diverse sources. But if the source did not deserve a special mention, if, for example, it was simply a compiled text book, quite widely used in En·g land at that time, then often Marx did not mention it as the source of an extract. The task was further complicated by the fact, that most of the books used by Marx arc now bibliographical rarities. Finally, this entire work could be completed at first hand, only in England, where the stocks of corresponding literature were inspected and studied in detail, for solving this prob lem. This was done in the following libraries: the British Museum, the libraries of the London and Cambridge Universities, Ihoseofthe University College of London , of the Trinity and SI. James Colleges of Cambridge, of the Royal Society of London, as well as in the person.al libraries of the eminent English scientists of 19th century - De Morgan and Graves. Inquiries were made also in the other libraries, for example, at the St. Catharine's College and elsewhere. There are some manuscripts, for which it was natural to assume that their sources were German; For these, the German historian of mathematics Vuccing inspected the library stocks of G.D.R at the request,hC tbe Institute. A few miSSing pages of the manuscripts were obligingly supplied, in photocopies, by the Institute of Scoial History of Amsterdam, where the originals of Karl Marx's mathematical manuscripts are being preserved. Since these manuscripts are of a draft character, omissions and even computa tional errors are to be found in them. In this edition the corresponding insertions or corrections have been placed within square brackets. In this connection all the square brackets of Marx had to be changed into double square brackets. Marx wrote some words in an abbreviated iorm. We have given their full form. But the text remains in the main unaltered. In p laces even the old spell ings have been retained. The principal language of these manuscripts is German. But if the source was in French or English, then Marx's often wrote the ent ire text of the corresponding manuscript in French or English. In a number of instances Marx's text turns out to be so mixed up, that it becomes difficult to state, in which language that manuscript was originally written. The task oC dating the manuscripts with exactitude also entailed a lot a difficulties. These difficulties have been mentioned in detail in the description of each separate manuscript. These descriptions have been provided in accordance with the archival number of the manuscript



and th e tiUe conferred upon it, characterising its source and conlent. Where the title or the sub-title belongs to Mane himself, it has been put within quotation marks, in the original language, as wel l as in the Russia n transla tion. In the first part of the present volume. the liUes which do not belong to Mao( are accompanied by an aster is k ma rk. Descriptions of the manuscripts have been givcn following the order of the archiva l sheets. In these descriptions, while indicating the archival sheets, Marx's own numera tions of the pages have also been given, including thosc in letters. The published tcxts of Marx arc everywhere acco mpanied by numbers o f the archival sheets, indicating ",here they are to be fo und. [All these manuscripts arc related to Stock 1, Inventory 1 o f the Archives of the ers twh ile Ins titute of Marxism-Leninism of th e Central Comm ittee of the Communist Party of Soviet Union - Tr.] In ma ny cases the language of Marx's mathema tica l manuscripts is different rrom the language which we now use, and to understand the ideas of Marx it becomes necessa ry to turn to the sources used by him and to expla in the mean ing of the terms used in them.Such 0 explanations have been given in Ih~ notes at the end of this book, so as n,at 1 interrup'l Marx 's texts. Where more detailed informalions about the c;o nlcnts of the sources used by Marx, were deemed necessary, the same has been provided in the Appendix. Al l such notes and insertions are of a purely factua l character. The texts of Marx conta in a large number of underlines with wh ich he s tressed the places which appeared to be especia ll y important to him . All such stresses have been reproduced herc by using specia l. type faces.


Th is volu me has been prepared by late Professor S.A. Yanovskaya of the M. V .Lomonosov State University o f Moscow. The Preface, Description of the Mathematical Manuscr ipts (put together with the help of AZ Ryvkin), Appendix and Notes belong to her. Professor K.A. Rybnikov took part in the preparation of Ih is vo lume. That apart, he conducted the huge work of bringing to ligh t the sources Karl Marx used, while he worked on his Mathematical Manuscripts. Com ments and advices of academicia ns A.N. Ko lmogorov and l. G. Petrovsky have been taken into accou nt wh ile preparing the presen t edition. A. Z. Ryvkin (of the Main Editorial Office of Physico-Ma thema tical Literature o f the "Na uka" Publishers) and O.K. Senekina (of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C C CPSU) conducted the entire editor ial work connected with this volume, the preparation fo r its printing and proof- reading. This volume carries an indcx of the literature quoted and mentioned, as well as a name index. In the indexes the references to the pages of Marx's text have been indica ted in ita lics.



In stitute of Marxism-L eninism






__ . •L






Lcllhc independent variable x increase to Xl and thcn the dependent variable y increases to
Yl 2 ,

Here, s ub I). the simplest case is heing invcslignlcd. Hcrcx appears only in its first power.

1) y _ ox ; if x increases to


then YI - aX1 and YI - Y _ a(xj - x). If now wc carry out

the difJercmicll operation, i.e., a llow XI to decrease to x, then wc wou ld gel x\"",x;Xj-x"O,


a(x j -x) - (1-0 -0. Further, since y increased to Yt only .owing t Q the facllh al, x inc rcascll to


wc would also

Thus, Y, - Y - a(xj - x) would turn inlo 0 = O.
Thus, a l first the pos tul a tio n of a diffe rence, <1 lld the n its inverse remov.,1 w ill lead literall y, 10 lIothing. The e ntire difficulty in understanding the differential opera tio n (as in Ihal of any /legation of negatioll w hlltcvcr) lies precisely in see ing how it differs from such a simple procedure, a nd thus leads to vnlill results.

If wc div id e aCx. -x), and a lso, correspondingly, the left hand side of the equation, by the factor XI -x, then wc sha ll get YI - y

- --a.


Since y is a dependent variable. it can by no means accomplish any independen t movement. That is why [here, as y _ axl YI cannOloccame equal to y, and so too YI - Y can not beco me equa l to 0, unless earlier x. became equa l to x. On the other hand, wc saw that Xl cou ld no l become eq ual to X in the [unct io n a(x 1 - x), unless the latter turned into O. That is why, the factor Xl - xwas Il ecessarily afillile difference 3 at Ihal moment, when wc divided by it, both the sides of th e equation. Thus, at the moment o f co ns ti tu li ng the ratio y, - y ,



-x always presents iL<;ell"as a fi nite difference, and hence,

YI -y is n ratio of fin ite differences; accord ingly x,-x

And thus,

E.. .. a




where the co ns tant a fignrcs as the Iimit 5 0f the ratio of [inilc differences of the variables.

Since a is' a constant, neither it, nor, consequen tly, the right hand side of the equation, reduced 10 it, mCl Y undergo any change. In that case, the differential process runs its course in the left hand side: y, - Y 6."
- - or xl-x



and this is a cha'racleristic of slIch simple functions as ax.

Let. in the denominator of this ratio, r the variahle] x\ decrease, approaching x; the limit of its decrease is att.:lincd, as soon as x\ turns il1lo x. With th is the diITcrcncc x\ -xwill become equa l to x\ -x ... 0, and hence also YI - Y "" Y - y ""' O.

W~ thus obta in , ~ "" a.
Since in the expression


every trace of its origin and its meaning has been wiped out, we

change it into ~, where the finite differences x, - x or 6 x and y, - y o r 6yappearsymbolized,
. ~ . t!J. Th us, as removed or vanished differences, so that " , 6x turns mto dx'

1x -


The closely hcld consolation of some ralionnlizing m;lthcma ticians, that the quantities dyand

dx are in fact only infinitely small (lnd Ith:lt their ratio] merely approaches
as will be shown tangibly, further, sub It) , 11 requ ires


is a chimera, fnrther,




'charac'teristic of the instance under consideration, that as EL = a, likewise El.. = a i:e., the , '. 6x ~ limit [of the ratio] of finite differences is at the same time nlso Ihe limit lof the mtioJ of the differentials,

2) The following may serve as the second example of the same case:


x, -x

y, - y or ~"" 1 6x




d" dx""1.

When y - f(x}, "'::'.kJi'·t:~in at the rig~t _hand side of the equation the function x is situated in its expallded'l1lgebfafc expression,6,. ihen, we c.:a ll it the expression (or the initia! function of x ; its first modification, obtai ned through the postulation of a ditTerence, [is calledJ the



preliminary "derivative" of the fll nc tio n x ; llnd the rim!! rorm wh ic h i t tn kcs as a result o f the differential p r ocess I'is called I the "derived" jU llctio" o f x 7 1) y_ax 3 +bx 2 +cx_e. I ( x increases to Xl' then

Yt -

(u:/ + bx t 2 + cX




Y, - Y - a (XI)
He nce,

x 3) + b (X 12 - x 2) + C (Xl -x) '"

(XI -x) (X12 +XIX+X2) + b (Xl -x) (XI +x) +c (XI - x).

- - - or ~ = a (X, 2 +x, +X2) + b(x, +x) + c. !:t.x Xl -x
)'1 -


The prelimiIlGr)' "deriwlliv('''


is herc Ihe limil of the ralio of finite differences , i.e., however sm<lll we may hIke these
differences 10 be • thL: v,iluc ur


wi ll be g iven hy this "dcriv;llivc". However, it does not

coincide, as sub f) , wilh the Jimit of the ratio or di!Tcrcn lials·,

If in the [unction
the variable x J decreases, till italt;lins the hotllldary of its dccreasc ; I.e., lil l it be1.."omes eqlllll to x, then :1."1 2 (urns into X2, XI x inlo x 2 and XI + x into 2x and wc get the "derived" jUllction

of x:

3ax 2 + 2hx + c.

He re it is cLear, that : Firstly, ror obtaining the "deriv:ltive" it
ItI t1flrematica! sense Xl-X =

cS!'-icnliallo ;tssu me l'lilt Xl "'X, he nce in the !ifr icl


without a ny suhterfuge cOlH.:cr ni ng m er e l y i n fi n ite

approx i ill,l tion.
SecQnd!y, the assumption thal Xl - x , line! hence, symbolic intu the "dc rivaLivc·""*.
The lUagnitl\{le

-x - 0, does not introd uce

an y th ing

xi' introduced initi. 1ly through the chilnge o f x, does no t van ish, it is 1

merely carried (0 its minimal limit x, and remains once agitin 1tn clement introduced in Ihe initial function x, which in comb in<llions partly with itsel f, find pa rtly with the initia l In Ihe rough dmn or thi., work (S, U.N . 4 L46, ~.4), "ner Ih is !,hm~ c it is s~i d :"On Ihe o!hcr h~ lld, now Ihe difrl~rcl1li"l process lllkes plil(".c in the prelill1in;,ry "derivalive" oflhe funclion .1' (righ l hand side) ,while, ill the left hand side, the same pfOCC'SS ncccss;IJ'ily <l<xolOpanic~ Ihis 1l1()Vcmcnl'· . -Ed. ** [n pJHcc of thi~ in the dran it is said. "b) The M:nn'h [or the "derivativc" from Ih!! initifl! function x so procceded, Ihal ~I fir~1 wc undcrtook <l few finil': dilfert!lIli(Jlion~' [asslIInptiom; nf nni1~' dir[('rcnl,;csl~ the la!lcr g~vc us Ihe prel iminnry "daiv:ll;\'C", which is the limit or ~'.:. . The dilTercn!ial process 10 wh kh Wl~ pm;>. lIve r after thi s, ,akes this iimillo ils minimal value. Thc magnitudc XI' intr(lduced in thc (ir~1 Jiffcn:ntilltiolJ do(,s nOI



vanish ... " ..- Ed.



func tiofj, .g ives us the fin al "derivative", i.e., the prelim ina ry "derivative", carried to its ;lIinimal value. Reduc tio n of hand s ide into

into ~ ins ide the first (p rel iminary) "derived " functio n turns M.. o f the le ft


% r ~ , tha t is to say o
o dv - or :;:.L. ... 3ax2 + 2hx + c o dx '

so that the derivative appears as the limit o f the ra tio o f diCCcrcntials. Th e tra nscendental or sy mbo lic mishap occurs onl y in the le ft hand s ide, but it has alread y orm, since, now it occ urs o nly as a n exp ress ion of a process, the rea l los t its horrifying C contcnt o f w hich has Illrca,d y been revealed , in the right hand side of the eq uation.

3m:2 + 2hx+e the variable x is situated under co nditions cntirely d iffe rent from those ob tained in the initial func tion "," (namely, i.n ax.l + bx 2 + ex - e). That is w hy .it [this deriva tive] in il<; turn ca n appear as an initial Cunction a nd, w ith the hel p o f a re newed di ffe rential p rocess, can become the mother o f some o the r "deriva tive". This may be repea ted till the variable x fina ll y becomes bere ft o f all "derivatives", hence, it may continue e nd lessly [or fun ctio ns of x, presented onl y
as in finite serises, as is o ft en the case. Th e sy mbols ~' (JXJ etc. merely indicate the genealogica ( ,,·deriva tivc'; in r~spect o f the initial functio n o f x, given at first. T hey become m ys terio us; whcn they arc treated as th e starting points o f moveme nt, a nd no t s impl ~ as expressions of successively deduced func.lions of x. Then it rea lly secms aston ishing, that the ~a. tio o f va nishin g quantities must agai n pass thro ug h hig hcr orders o f vaniShi ng, whil e no o ne , :wonders, ·fo r examp le, about the fact that 3x 2 may pass th rough the process of differentiation, as s uccessfully, lIS d id its grandmother x-1. It is poss ib le to proceed from 3x2, j u~t as from t~ e in.ilia l functio n o f x. However, nolabelle.

In the "derivative "




appears as the starti ng point of the differential process, in

fac t, o nl y in t hose equations, which wc ·had sub I), where x en te red only in to its Cirst power. B ut then , as s hown 'sub J), as a result, wc get

M.. .,. a_!!l

dx '

Th us, here, with thc help o f the di ffe re ntial process, Ih rough w hic h

M.. ~x

passes, in fac t no

new limit is fo und. This [sellrch for a new li m it] is possible, o nl y in so fa r as the preli mina ry
"derivative" contai ns the varial:i lex, i.e., in so far as


remains a symbol of some real


process·. Of course, Ihis does not in any way preven t the sy mbols !!l. ,=,/xfl etc ., a nd their ,'
(X (.


comb inations, in differentbl c<llculus, from en tering also into the right hand side o r th e Ctl ualio n. But then, we also know, that such purely symbol ic eq ua tions merely indicate those oper(ltions, w hich must subseque ntly be carried OU I, upon th e rea l functio ns of the variables.

2) y_ox".
If x turns into XI' then y\ .. axt' and YI - Y- o(x\'" - X"') .. - a(x, - x) (XI",-I + X j ",-2 X + x1"'-} Xl + e lc. uplO the term x,"' - '" x;m-I).
XI -x

y, - y o r ~Yx _a(~"'{'-I+)."'{'-2x+Xj _ .lx2+ .... +xr - "'.l.m-I).

If we now apply the differential process to this nprelimillary derill(~tille", so tha l Xj becomes equa l 10 x or xI - x becomes equil lto 0, then

""-. •


Xj- 2X






X",-lX_X", - l.l_xm- 1 X"' - }X2

Xj-}x 2

= x"'- J + 2 '" X",-I

and fin a ll y,

xi - "'X'" - I



xm - "'X",-I

-xO.", - 1 _xnr- I.

We thus ob tain, m times, the funcl ion X", - I, and tha l is w hy the -derivative" is ma.l.... -'. Owing to the eqUlLlisation x\ -x inside the fl prelim inary deriv<l livc"··, o n the left hand s ide 6v . 0 dv h .=L. turn s mto - or::.L, em:c, I1x 0 dx

dy .. 111',,,.,,,-1


It is poss ible to set fo rth all the operalions of differentia l calclll us in this manner, hut th at would be awfully useless pedantry. All the same, we sha ll cite }]cre onC more exa mpl e, s ince in the fo regoing, the dirference XI - x entered inlo Ihe func tio n x ollly Ol/ce , and that is why, wh il e cons ti tuting the expression y,-y or ~ 6x il vanish<::d from the rig ht ha nd side. Th is does not h:lppen in the fo llowing instance:

3) y .. aX


• The correspondinl,; senlcnce in the dmf! reads thus (shed 7): "11 may be ohll1ined only Ihere, wh cre the preliminary/derivative" contains the vllrill\lle x, for ils movement loo. may ("orm some genuinely new value, such th:l\ is Ihe symbol of some real process~ .-Ed •• That is in the right hllnu side. - Ed.



if x turns into


YI - a".

YI - Y'" a" - er .. tt'(a~'-" - 1)


Hence, YI - Y - a~(a"' -x -1)-

_ a' /(X I - x)(a _ 1) +

(x -x)(, - x- 1)


• 1

(a - 1)2 +

+ (x , - x) (x, -x - 1) (x, -x- 2) (a - 1)' + etc, I . y
- y~x


x:-x or xx- «,,(a
' 1,2,3


(x -x-I)


(a- 1)2+

(x , -x-l) (x,-x-2)

. (a-1)3+ctc. .


If now Xl becomes equal "derivative"

x, hence

-x beco mes cqual to zero, then we ob l(lin as the


~(U - I)2 +~(a-l)'-c,c,I, .

. 1 1 dx -a'i(a -1)- 2(a-1)'+3(a -l)' -c,c,l,

If we now dc'signate the s um of conslanis within the hmckcts by A , then
dY '.-A a" .


here, however A = the Nllpierian loga rithm of the number a, s'o

~ or, I' (" m pace 0 f put Its va Ilie, t hen - - Ioga·at , an d dO'" _ log a'a"dx I y wc ' · da'

Additio/lal/ylD. We have :

1) co nsidered the case, where the fetctor (XI-X) is cont(lined only once in [the expression leading to J the ''prelimillary derivati~'e", i,e" in the finite difference equation ll , owing to which, when both the parL'; arc divided by (Xl - x), Lan expression] is formed [for]


Y, Y 6v --- 0' = Xl L\.x

[w hic h does not conta in en tries of the di ffe rence (Xl -x)], i.e., this factor is excl uded (ra m the fun c tio n x; 2) considered the case (in the example: d (a~». where the fac tor
(XI -

x) remains in th e [ unction

x a ft er [the ra tio J ~ is fo rmed l2 .


3) Still remains to be cons idered the case, where the fllctor (XI - x) is 1101 immediately excl uded from the fi rst difference equa tion [leadi ng to] (" the pre lim ina ry de r iva ti ve~)

y - ..fill+iI.
) '1 _ va2 +X2 I'

YI - y- ../a2+xl-~;

We s hall divide th is fu nction of x-conseq uenll y, al so th e le n ha nd s idc- by Xl- X . Then

y,-y (o r At)




In o rder to free the numerator of irra tiona lity wc mU ltiply both the numerator a nd denom inator ../a 2 + x~ +..fiiI+iI and get ~_ 02 + xi - (0 2 +X2)

11 X

(XI -

x)(v'a 2 + x1 + ../02 + Xl )

xl _X2
Bu t
xi - x~

(x] - x) (../0 2 + x1 + ../a2 + X2)

7(x~,-~xi)~(~vFa'~+~xl~+~v~a~'+~x'~)' _


- 1')(X] +x)

Hence, At
XI +x lix" ../a1. + x2 + ../02 + X2 1 XI -

If now XI becomes equa l to x, o r

x beco mes eq ua l to 0, the n

!!.r _

7.x .. x 2vo1. + x1. "0 2 +1'1.'

xcix dyor d v 2 2 0+X·"a 2 + x1.'




' .,' .,'


1) SUppO!liC the function [(x) or y=uz is to be differentiated, where u and z arc both upon the independent.. variable x; . they arc illllcpcndenl variables rc~a!t'i~e to (unction y dependent upon them, which, thus depends also upo~ x.
fUl.lc.~ions ~cpend~l}.t


Yl- "Ill,


Ye Y -

"l ZI -;- IlZ'" ZI( U 1 - Il)

+ U (ZI


ul.!.z .. 6.x .

Now, if in the right hand side


becomes equal to x, consequently


-x- 0, then

u 1 - u - 0,

Zl - Z -

";,,1; .

0, hence, [in the expression

J Z I X l =X III fl

the fact or ZI also turns intq z and

fin ally. in the left hand s ide YI - Y '" O. Thus

A) ax.-zTx+u(lX·
'\ ' ",. ! •




This equation, being multiplied by the denominator dx B) dyor d (uz) ... zdu + UdZ l4 • 2) Let us, at first consider the equation A) :


to alllcrms, turns into

E1.. z dft +
dx dx



In the equatio ns wi th o nly o ne variable depe nde nt upon x the rimil result was alwa ys


(x) ,

where !'(x), the first derived fun ction of f(x) , was free from all symbolic expressions1!i,like, for example, nu"' - I, in the instance where J."'" is the ' initial fun ction of the independent variable ' x. Precisely owing to the processes of Jifferentiation, through which the function f(x) had 10 pass, in order t9 turn into !'(x), there appea red , opposite the latter, Le., opposite the real differential eoefficient l6 , on the lefl hand side, as the symbolic equivalent of its double,

~ or~. On the olh~r hand, ~ or ~ thus found its rea l cquivalentcin!'(x).
In theequation A), the first derivative ofllz ,!,(x) itself, conlai,!-ed within i.t the symbolic differential co-efficients, which, that is why, s tood 01.1 bo th sides," while on n'cither s ide they had any real value . But since, in our Ireatmenlof IIZ we followe'd the sa me method as earlier, when we operated upon the functions of x with 'only one independent variable, this contrast"in result is obviously conditioned by tlte s.pecifi c character of the .initial, fun ction itself, i.c., of Itz. On this in greater detail, sub 3) .
• The latter part or.this equality was completed by Engels. - Ed.
, I . . • . ." I' •. ' I' ·

" . .......• .!j~--.,,_. , .. .:.." '.. _, c"';:"''''-'-i)' (jI. - ...... ~.

, .. -- .... . . -.r".- ............... ""..... - - . ~ '....",.. \. "" ~ ..... '.'T":'-' ., .... ... \ . ' 44- ..... : ...... .. .... . ...•
~ ..






,'~ '"

".•,:,..; .... ..... ,,'.
.,: \
'\. \





I. \ ~\ •




.... , . \ _ Itr

" ,_'"

, . ; .... . '\

~ ~\ •• \" t . • ; :'.~


_ ;\ . :

..1'- ';\.....

~~ .

_t'"" .,

'\1,.-.:• ..:_."l. -\ ... ..'-

.. -


., '
. -

. "
;-- •• I . •

V' .. '\_

... . - -\\

,' ......,'" ~\o,i_\. ...... _""'.. , _ .......~ •.,...I..ol-1... .


... 1.\:....,....;. ~"'_\'_ . _ ~\o .~ :
I , '.

...... _l\oo.\ .....'..:.




" ..






However, preliminarily, let us cons ider furth er, whether or not there arc any snags in the deduetion of equation A). In it'i right hand part

turned into ~. -




became equa l tox, hence.x]- x .. O. BUl, in place of



we wrote

du dz

dx' dx'



without much of a reHeetiu n. Was this permissib le under the circumstances, that figure here as multipliers of tile vtlriables

and z respectively, whereas in the

instances involving one dependent variable the sole symbolic differentia l co-e ffi cient obtained therein -

gor ~

- did nol have any multiplier, save' the constanll?
0 0 ,

. dll dz ' mltta If on the fig ht han d S IOd ewe S Ubstltute ' h e express ions - ' - ,t helr . " I malO lorm, lor t d d x x

'h~n il turns into zQ + Cl Q , Had we multiplied furth~r z and




by the numera tor o f [Ihe


~ nccompanying
n~t z ~ + 11 ~

eaeh of them, then we would have got



~,and since the

variables z and It themselves became equal to 2ero 17, th eir derivatives too arc equal to zero; hence, in the end


0, and

But this pro~cdure is mathematically wrong.

Take for example, U 1 -1t All xl-x - Ax . The numerator turned out to be = 0 not because wc st.lfted with the equalisation u 1 - I t .. 0 ; ,he numerator beca me equa l 10 zero, or 11 1 on ly beca use, the denominator, i.e., difference of thl? independent va riable x or xJ -x became equal ,to zero.

-" .0

Thus opposite the variables 11 c:t!ld Z sL1 nds no t 0, bul

~, the ~

numerator o/which is, ill this

fortn. inseparable from its denomi/lator. That is why

as a mulliplier ca n turn its

co.-efficients into zero, on ly when and in so far as ~ - 0 . Even in the ordinary algebra, had the prod uct p. ~ appeared in lhe form p . .Q • it would



have been wrong, to draw the conclus ion straight off from there, that it must be equal to zero,

ownn: DlFFEREN'!1M,


x-a o 0 thcn wc sha ll gct P' - .. - , And Ihe la tte r may always be assumed to be equal to zero, s ince

though here it call be always assumed to be equal to zero, so long as we can nrbitrari ly s tart the null ification e ith er from the numemtor or from Ihe denominator lS , x 2 _a 2 For example, P' - - -, If we assume I'that x = a, wherefrom I x 2 .. a2 , i,e., x 2 - a2 :o 0,




may as well be zero as also it can be any other [number].

If we expa nd x 2 - a 2 into its factors, then we sha ll get

p.~=:. (x+a)""P(x+a)
and, since


IQ, '"


Sllccessive differentiation - ror exam ple, or [the fun ct io n] x 3, where

o obecomes

= 0 only

for the fourth derivative, since in the third the va riahlc x has vanished and has been

' su bstltute db y a consl.<'Int -s hows t Ilal.,

on I y

, 0 un der camp IeleI d ' d co nd'IlIo ns 0 y ctcrmmc

= O.
~ as the differential

Howeve r, in n ur ins tHoce, where the or igin of these ~ ,
~ ~ , ~


proper for .1.\: ' ill arc well known, the dress-coat or dx ' dx fll" them at once.

3) [n the equations considered ellri ier,like y .. X" ,), = opposite the y, which is "dependent "on it.

a'~ etc,

some il1itial function ofx stands

In Y= uz both sides are OCCllpicd hy "depcndcnts ". Here, if y is immediately "dependent" upon u and z, then u and z are. in their turn, dependent upr;n x.This specific character of the initial function IlZ inevitnhly leaves its mmk upon its "derivative". That Il is a function of x, and th at z is some other function of x, may be expressed as follows: ,,- J(x), that is why z - <p (x), z, - z ~ q> (x,) - qJ (x), But neilher (or f(x), nor for ~(x), does the initial eqwltion provide the primary fun ctions of x, i.e., the determi nate values· in x. As a result of this /( and z figure only as names, as symbols of functions dependent on x; that is why, only the Reneral forms of this ralio of dependellce :


= CP(xl)-~(x)

• Here in the sense

or "cJclerminlllc expre~sions~, -




imm.ediatcly give the process of arriving al [he derivative of l/Z. When the process alia ins the point, where it is assumed that XI = X, Le., XI-X'" 0, then these general forms turn into


dx dx'dx dx' and the symbolic differential co-efficients as such appear inside !.he "derivative", But in (he

equations with only onc dependent variable, apart from that of

~, ~~ here.
y, - y


dz _

not have any other

cc~tainly does


It 100 is only the symbolic differential expression [or

[(x,) - [(x)

dll dz Though the naLure of dx ' dx' i.e., generally, that of the symbolic differential co-efficients

does not change a bit. if they appear inside the very derivative, i.e., also ill the right hand side of the differential equation, thereby, however, changes their role as well as the char.acler of the equation. .
I[ we reprcsent the initial fU'nclion of uZ"in the general form, by [(x) and. hc" nee, its first "derivative" by [,(x), then !!l.. du dz dx- za:x+udx

turns into :

f& -['(x).
We obtain this general form, the initial forms of

only one dependent variable. In both the cl'lses


emerge from the processes of deduction, which transform [(x) into

f '(x). That

. . dx is why, as soon as [ (x) got transformed into f'(x), the latter also stood Oppl);s lte !il'.
plays an identical role.

as its symbolic expression proper, as its double or symbolic equivalent. This is why in both the cases

The case is somcwhat diffcrent with

1£ and


Along with thc·othcr elements of [the

derivative]f'(x). wher~in they arc contained, they find in

~ their

symbolic expression,


symbolic equivalent, but they themselves, on their part, do 'not stand opposite any f'(x), <p '(x), for which they, in lheirlurn, would bcsymboJic doubles. They hav~ come into the world one-sided.ly, as shado~s without the bodies which have cast them, symbolic differential co-efficients . without the real differential co-efficients, i.e., without the corresponding equivalent "derivatives". Thus, the symbolic differential co-efficient has become an independent point ofdeparture, only its real equivalent must be found out. Thus, thc initiative

ON 1'1-113 DIFI'[:REN·I1t\L


has shi fted from the right algehrai c po le, to the len sym bo lic o ne. Bul with this, the dil'fc rential calculus too appea rs as a spec ific kind of calcu lus, alrcltdy operating indcpcllIJcntly
till dz I' ' groun dince Its pOints 0 I' d eparture - • -, arc mll llema llca I ma g llltu d cs, ,s ' " . d x lX wh ich belong o nly to this ca lculus and cha rac te rize it. And this reversal of the method resulted here from the algebraic different ia tio n of uz. Thus, th e algebra ic method, by itself, turns into its oppos ite, the differential method *. But, what arc the "derivatives " co rrespond in g
, upon I ts

' ' ' ' ' 10 t he sym I10 I lC d 'Il'rere ntla I co-e rr" IClcnts du dx' TI le !nlla I eq uation Y= IIZ docs no l g 'ive us dx' dz?

a ny info rmation to hel p answer, this question. However, it may be answered, if, in pla ce of u and Z, o ne may ass ume some arbi tmry in it ial fun c tio ns of x, for example: /I - x· ,z -:e +aJ? But thereby itself, the symbo lic diffe rential coeffic ie nts arc ut once trll nsformcd into operational symbols, into the sy mbols of processes, which arc to be curried out over x· and x 3 + ax 2, for finding out thei r "derivatives". Having initiall y emerged as the sy mbo licexpress ion o f the "deriva lives", i.e., of the opera tion s of the algebra ic tI ifferent iation nIready carried out, the symbo lic differential co-erric ient now plays the role of th e symbo l of those operations of differe ntiatio n, w hic h remain to the ca rried out. Althc sa me time, with this the equa tion !!i!.. du

dz dx-zdx+udx

- which is purely sy mholic fro m the vcry beginning, s ince no sitlc o f it is free from symbo ls - turns into a general sy mbolic opera ti onal equation. Wc no te further th at**from the beginning of the 181h century IIpto the present timc, the general tas k of dirfercnli<ll C<l IClllu s is IIs ually formulated thus: how to rind Oll t the real equivalent for thc sy mbol ic d ifferc ntial coefficient.

4) A)

El _ z


+ El dz .


* tn 11 df/lfl of the ~rlicle "On The Diffe ren ti al" Ih is pa rRhraph is set furlh liS foll ows [S.U.N. 414R,s. 16-17] : ~Con\lerscJy with ~:~ , :;.~. Bo m inside the de rivlltive, they,logelher with Ihe remaining elements of lhe Jaile r, fi nd in !!l:.d(t Iheir symbolic expression proper. consequentt y. lheir symbolic cquivalcnl. \3u\ Ihey lhem~elvcs x exist wilhou t equi\llllent~, withoul proper differcnlilll co-efficicnls, i.e., wil hoUI Ihe de ri\llllives ['(x) , t(! '(x) of which, in their pa rt. Ihey would he symbolic expressiollS. They appear before us as ready-made dilTerenlill1 symbols. whose real \lalues resemhle Shlldows, the bodies L"'Orresponding 10 which lire to be sought out. Thus the tas k. 31 ha nd lilerall y took a turn. The symbolic diffferentilll co-eCficicnls became start;/f!; poin/.f in Ihe full sense of the words. Their cquivalenl$ - the differential co-efficients proper or, Ihe corresponding de rived runelions'" arc still 1 be found out. Thcreby Ihe intiative hn s shi Oed from the righl 0 hAnd pole 10 Ihe leO. Since this inversion of method emerged (rom the algebraic mO\lement of Ihe function U:, its basis is thereby algebrllic ·". -Ed.. ** In the drafl : "save a few exceplions~. -:- EO.



Evidently, this is no t the si mples t expression o f the eq uation A), since all of il<; te rms
co ntain the com mon denomi na tor dx. Discarding this co mmo n denomin ator, wc get

B) d (uz) or dy =zdu + utlz. In B) all the traces of its ori gin from A) has vanishccJ . 1l1at is why, it is correct, in that si tuation whcn" a nLl z are dependen t upon x, as we ll as then, whcn they a rc o nly in le rdcpcndcntZI - independent o f any relation with x w hatsoever. From the very beginning it is a symbolic eq ua tio n and ca n, fro m the very beginn ing, serve as a sym bolic o pera tio na l equation. Finall y, it asserts that, if y - 21/ e ll'; i.c. t Y = the produc t o f Rny number ofva riahlcs, then dy = the s um of those products, in each of w hich, onc of the multipliers is by turns cons idered to be a variilblc, o thers - cons tm ts. However, fo r o ur purposes - na mely, fo r fu rther inves tigations in to the di ffe re ntia l o f y ge ne rally - the form B) won't do. That is why , lf wc put u _x 4 , z-~+ aJ?, the n [we can operate furth er, as fo llows: ]
d". 4~ dx • dz .. (J.? + 2ax) dx, as it has been shown earlier fo r equatio ns with on ly o nc dependent va riable. Let us put these va lu es o f du and dz in the equation A). The n :

. 2ax) A) ti.l_ (' + ax') 4x'dx +.\.. (:lx' +dx dx '. dx x dx consequent ly,
~ ..
(x 3 + ax 2 ) 4x 3 + x4 (3X2 + 2ax),
tha l is w hy
(3x 2 +

dy -/(x' + ax')4x' + x' 2ax»)dx. The expressio n w ithin brackets is the firs t deriva tive of uz, bu t since uz - f (x), its derivat ive ... J'(x). Pulling the la Uc r in pl ace of the algebra ic func tion, wc get dy - [,(x) dx. We have a lready obt:lined the sa me res ult fro m an a rbitra ry equatio n w ith o nl y o nc independent va riable . fo r exa mple:



~ - mx·- I -


dy- [,(x)dx. Ge nerally speaking, we ha ve: if y .. [ (x ), the n, irrespecti ve of the fact whe the r this fun c tio n o f x is cert.'lin initial function in x o r whethe r it conta ins dependent va riabl es , [it is ] always [the <ase th, t J dy - d[(x), alld d[(x) - ['(x )dx, such that B) dy ... ['(x)dx is the universal form of the d ifferentia l of y. The same could .have been shown, at o nce, also in the ins tanee whe n f(x) has the fo rm f(x, z), i.e., when it is a fun c tion of two variables, indepelldcnt of ea2il olher. But tha t is unnct.:essa ry for our purposes.

ON TIlE DlffEltEN'llAI .


1) J'he differential dy - ['(x)dx at first looks more suspicious than the d ifferentia l coefficient

fro m which it is deduced .



~ the

numerator and the denominator arc insepa rably connected with eac h other;

in dy - ['(x) dx they loo k separated, so that the co nclusio n s uggests itself, that this is o nly a disgu is.ed expression for

O-['(x) - O or 0-0
with which "there is nothing to be done".

A French mathematician of the first third o f the 19th century - Bou charlat, who, like the "elegant" Frenchman 22 known [to you], but in an en tirely different manncr, has clearly connected the di fferential method with th e a lgebra ic method o f L1grange, says:
If, for example, ~ .. 3x2, then



in o ther words

~ or , rathe r, its va lue 3x2 is the differential

coeffic ie nt of the fun ction y. Since ~ is thus a symbol, represe nting the limit 3x '\ dx s hould

a/ways have stood· under dy. But, to facilitate the algebraic operations we cons ide r ~ to
be an ordinary fraction and

~ .. 3x2

to be an o rdinary equation; freeing it



deno minato r we get as the result : dy _ 3x2dx, w hich is called the dirferentia l of y"23. Thus, in o rder to ~ facilik1te algebra ic o perations" a fa lse formu la introduced, chris tening, it as the "differential ", In reality th e case is not so fraudulent.. In is deliberately


U the numerato r is inseparable from the

denominator. But w hy? Because only in th e unseparated form do they express a relation, in this case the ratio

y, - y j(x,) - [(x)
xl-x x l-x reduced to its absolute minimum 2\ where the numerator has become zero, beca use the denominator has. Separated, they are both zeroes and that is why they lose the ir sy mbolic mean in g, their se nse. But as soon as xl-x - 0 obk1ins in dx a C rm wh ic h una llc rab ly o '" III the draft : "ternllined", -Ed,
•• In the draft: "In Ihe form ~". -Bd.




p resents it as a van ished difference of the independent variab le x, and conseq uentl y. also dy as a van ished d iffere nce of the fu nction of x or, of the dependent variable y. such a separation

becomes an enti rely perm issible ope rat ion. W herever dx now st.1nds, s uc h a cha nge of position Icaves the relation o f dy 10 it, untouched. Thus dy - [,(x)dx appears to us as another form of

and is always replaceable by the lattc r2S • 2) T he differential dy - j'(x)dx was obtained by direct algcblaic deduction fro m A) (sec I t 4), But algebraic deduc tion o f eq ua tion A) has already show n that, the d iffe rent ial symbo ls, in the g iven insta nce the symoo lic differentia l coeffi cie nts - in itia lly orig ina ting o nly as the symbolic expressions fo r algebra icall y ca rried out processes o f diffe rentia tion - necessa rily lurn inlo independe nt sta rling po ints, in lO symbols of opera tions, w hic h s till rema in to be carr ied o ut, o r inlo opc ratiomll symbols. In conseque nce, Ihe symbol ic equal io ns whic h eme rged along algebraic lines, a lso turn inlo sy mbolic opera tional equa tio ns. Th us we have a double right to consider dy - f'(x)dx 10 be ,I sym bo lic operationa l equa tion. Moreover, wc now know a priori, that if in

y - f(x) [and J dy. df(x) the d iffe rential opera tion indicated by d[(x) is to be performed upon [(x), lhen lhe resu lt w ill be dy _ [,(x)dx and that hence, we fi nally obtain

But [it happens} only fro m tha l moment, when the differentia l begins 10 fu nction as the sta rting point of calcu lus, when lhe invers ion of Ihe algebra ic method of d iffe rentiation is completed, and hence the differen tia l calcu lus itself appears as an altogcther special mode, a specific way, of reckoning with lhe variable quantities. To make it mo re g raphic, I sha ll put forward the sum tota l of the algebra ic method applied by me, substituting moreover, o nl y the determina te algeb raic e xp ress io ns in x by the ex pression [(x) and designating the "preliminary derivative" (see the first mss·) by [ I (x), as

distinct from the [inal "derivative" ['(x) Now, ;[ f (x), y, f(x,) - y" [ then J f(x,)-f(x) - y, - y 0' 6y, f' (x) (x, -x) . y, - y 0' 6y. T he prelimina ry de riva tive /1 (x), j ust li ke its multiplie r X l- X, must·" co nt.1 in expressio ns in Xl and x, save the sofe exception,whcre [(x) is an initial func tio n of firsl power

Now, putting

(x) • y, - y o,.!£·
xl - x




-x -0 in

• See :" On The Concx:pl OrThe Derived Function" ··'n the draft; ~mllst as a rule ".- FA.

I PV,I9 J.




and finally:

(X), wc ge t : or !!Y. dx'

1'(x) - Q o

/'(x) dx _ dy or dy - /,(x) dx. The differential Of y is thus the final poin t of algebraic development : it becomes the sta rting point of d ifferential calcul us, now moving upon its own ground. Here dy, considered in an iso lated manner, Le., without its eq uivalen t the differentia l pa rt 26 o f y - at o nce pla ys the same role, which I!y played in the algebraic method, and dx - the differential part of x - plays the same role, which I! x playcd there. Had we freed

~ - I' (x)
fro m its denom inator, [we wou ld have got]:

I) lJ.y-I '(x) lJ.x.
Conversely, starting from the di fferen tia l calculus as a ready-made, scparate means o f computation - and such a sta rting point was, in its turn, derived algebraically - wc at once begi n with the differential exp ress ion o f the equat ion I), namely with:

11 ) dy - /' (x) dx. 3) Si nce the sym bolic equatio n of th e differentiltl appears .already in the a lgebraic
trea tment of the most elementary functions with onl y onc dependent va riab le, it may seem that, the invers io n of method too, could have been carried through in a manner, which is much eas ier tha n what took place in the case of y= UZ. Th e mos t elementa ry fun c tions a re functions of the first power:

a)y -x, which gives the differential coefficien t

*" _

1, hence the differentia l dy - dx.

b) Y -x± ab , which g ives the diffe rentia l coeffic ient !!Y., _ 1, hence again the diffe rential 'x dy- dx.
c) y - ax, w hic h gives the differential coeffidcnt Let us consider (he c:imp lest inslllnt"l' rsub a)1There: y - X, .1 I - XI ; YI - Y or lly - Xl - X or I! x.

~i a, hence the differential dy = adx.

I) Yl-Y or~lJ.lJ.x- t;hcnccals\ldy -I!x.


If, now, in .!\.t we pu t llx


-x or


-x ,. 0, then:







1 ; hence

d)' ""

dx .

From the outset, as soon as wc obtain I ), Le.,

~~ ""

1, wc arc forccll to ope rate further on

the left hand side of the eq uation, s ince the right hand s ide is occupied by the constant 1. But with this the inversion o/method, which throws the initiative from the right hand side 10 the left, appears, as if from the very beginning, proved once and for all, in fact, as the first word of thc.[new]algcbraic method ilself. Let us L'lkc a close r look at the issue. Th e actua l result was:

11) ~ Ol"*_l.


Since both I) a nd assumption Xl-X - 0 ThaI apart, operati ng side there is "nothing

U) leads 10 onc and the same result , we C:ln choose between them. The is unnecessary in all cases, and is hence also an arb~trary op~ratio n. further upon 11), Slarting from its left hand side, s ince on the righ t hand to do", we get:

The fin al conclusion would be




~ ... 0, i.e., the me thod by which ~ was obtained , was wrong.

At the first s tep it does not give us anything new, and at th e second leads already to nothing27 • Finally, we know from algebra, that if the rig ht hand sides of two equatio ns are identical , then their left hand sides also must be identical. Hence it fo llows tha t,

dy I1x But since x, and depending on it y, arc both va riable magnitudes, so tJ. x, while remaining a finite difference, may, however, decrease infinitely; in other words, it may approach zero as elosely as onc wishes, Le., may become infinitely sma ll ; ~o may tJ.y, which depends
upon it. From


~ - t~

it follows tha t

~ does not

in fact designate the extravagant

~ , but

conversely, it is the ceremon ial dress-coat for

when the laller functi ons as the ratio of

infinitely small differences, i.e., [fu nctions] differently from the usual way of calculating difference::;. But the differential dy _ dx is, in ilS turn, bereft of all sense, or rather, has exactly only that much sense, as much wc have discovered in both the differential parts, by analysing


. If we take the lalteronly in the value attached to it 28, then it is possible to perform wonderful operations with the differential, as is shown, for example, by the role of atb:. in the definition



of the sub-tangent to the parabola, for which an actua l entry into the nature of dx and dy is not at all necessary, 4) Before passing over, to section III), where a very brief draft outline of the historic cou rse of development of the differential calcu lus will be g iven, lel us exa mine onc more example of the algebraic method , applied so far, For a clear cut chllraclerization of it, I shall place the concrete function on the left hand side, which is alwa ys the side of initiative, since, we write from left to right; hence also the general equation:

xm+Pxm- 1 + etc, + Tx + U ... 0, and not

, ,.'

0- xm + Pxm- l + etc, + Tx + U,
Suppose, that the function y and the independent variable x have been separated and that they are situated in two equat ions, of which the first presents y as the function of Ihe variable U, 'and H seco nd ..:. 11 as the function of le and suppose, Ihat the sY;lIbolic' differelitial coefficient common to both the equatiolls, is required 10 be found 29, Let : 1) 3112 _ y, 3u, 2 _ YI; then 2) X 3 +ax2 • 11, x,J+ax I 2 • u," At first, from equation 1) wc gel:




"-., '

' 3u l '2 - "3u 2 - Yl -


3 (u l 2 - /1 2) .. Yl - Y, 3 (u l + u) (u l - U ) - YI - y, 3 (Ill + U") .. y,:- Y or


If now wc put in the left hand side u l
3(u + u) ..

3 (Zu)



- 11 ,

so Ihal uI - u _ 0, then





Let us insert in place of 11 its value x 3 + ax2, then:

3) 6 (x3 + ox') _

Ex.. dll

Now let us turn to equation 2), then:

xi + ax1-xJ (x~ _Xl)

ax2 _1I 1 _ u,
.. UI -11, 11 1 -11,

+ a (X1-X2)

(XI-X) (x~

+ XIX + X2) + a (XI -x)(x l +x) -



u\ - U (Xf+x\x+x2)+a(x\+x)- - XI-X

or~' uX
Xl -


Suppose on the left hand side of the equation
(X2 +xx +X2) +a (x+x) _ du.

x, then

XI -

x - 0, and hence



. . du 4) 3x2 +2ax_ dx'
Now if we multiply the equations 3) and 4),thcn:

5) 6 (x' + OX2)(Jx2 +:Iax) -

d, du du' di -




Thus, the operationa l formula

d.J' d.J'

/IX- fIij'/IX



has been found algebraicall}'.1t is variables.

at limes suilablc also fo r the cquntions with t\\"o inucpcndcnt

It will be obvious from the following example, that now no slc ig bt of hand is necessary for giving a general shape" 10 the developments pbscrvcd in the concrete functions.

Lel : 1) y-/(u ).

y, - I(u,).

y, - y - I(u,) - I(u).

u, - U - q> (x,) - q> (x), 2) u - q> (x). From the difference sub 1) it follows that

--y, - y
u\ U

I(u,) - I (u)
"l - U


dl(u) du" (fU"'

But since dI(u)" f' (u) du, therefore

!!.l_ ['(u) du ,
du du'




From the difference sub 2) it follows that "I - u _ cP (XI) - cP (x) du _ ~ xl-x X l - X ' dx dx'


bu t since d cp (x) du _ <p ' (x) dx ,


'(x ) dX,thcrefore





'!l:: -

q> '(x).

Let us multiply the equations 3) and 4), then : dydu dy l l , , 5) Tu' Ox or Ox - f (11). q> (x), and

this is what was req uired to be demonstrated ,

N.lII The end of this second installment will follow after I look over John L1nden in the Museum32.







As soon as wc set ahout diffcrcntialing [(II, z) l = uz 1. whe re the va riables It a nd z arc both. functions of x ,wc gct-as dislinctfrom thccn rlicr instances,where th ere was o nl y o nc dependent variable, namely y - the di fferent ia l express ion on both skies, namel y:

ill Ihe first jllstance :

=·Z - +IIdx clx ill:
ill the second, briefly:




dy .. Zdfl + udz .
The Jalter has not yel aW.incd thal form, whic h is ob ta ined in the case wilh OIlC de pe ndent

va ri,lble ; for example, in dy _ lr/aX"' - 1dx. Si nce here !!l'..dd l it once g ives us [,(x) .. max", -I , x which. is free from dilTc rcn tia l s ymho ls. Such :t form has no place in dy .. zdu + udz. In the eq uatio ns with o ne dependent va riable wc have seen once and for a ll , how the functions de rived fro m Ilhe fun ctions in I x - as in the above men tioned ins llmce of x'" - <Ire obtaincd throug h ac tua l di ffef.cntiat ion [ suppos ition of difference ] ri nd ito; subsequen t removal ,tnd,

how along with this eme rgc... the sy mbolic equ ivalent fo r the derived the s ubstitutio n of

functio~ ~ - ~. Here


in pl ace of ~ is no t o nl y pcrm iss ihlc, but also in evitabl e, s ince in

its virgin primitive form proper give 0 = O. However, he re


is eq ual to a ny magnitudc, in so far as ~ - X must tl lw:lYs cert<l in entirely de fined particular vlt lue, as

o 0 appea rs as equal to

equtl l to IIIX",-l ,a nd hy itself, it is thcsymho lic rcs ull of those oper<llio ns, by means of w hich Ihis value is ded uced from x"'. And it is presentcd in E!ldd' in the capaci ty of suc h a resu lt. x dv 0 Consequently, he re d;( - 0) has been s hown in its eme rgence as the sy mbo lic value o r, as the diffe ren tial express io n o f the a lready reduced [de ri ved] f'(x), and no t co nversely, no l asf'(x) obtained through the symbo l -1x. B ut at the same ti me ha vi ng once obtained this result, a nd hav ing thu s found oneself already on the gro unds of differentia l calculus , converse ly, if fOf. examp le, X'". J(x). Y is required to be di ffe rent iated, then we know beforehand that dy _ /1tX'" - ldx

dX· ,1IX",·I.




Consequcn tl y, here we proceed from the symbol; it ;.ppears as nothing more than thc resu lt o f a deduction from thc functio n of x, but it is alrcmfy a ~}'lII holic (!xpr(!~.\·i()JlJ\ ind icatin g which operations arc to be carried olltllpo n /(x) li.lT Oh't:ti ning the real value of


i.e., o f

r(x). In the first instance,

~ or ~

is obtained as th e symbo lic equivalen t of [,(x),

(l1~d in on.Jc r ~,

to revea l the emerge nce of


it is essential to beg in w ith this; in the second instance,

r(x ) is obtained as the real va lue of the symbol !!J. . However, s ince the sy mbols I


dx 2

e tc. bec<l me operationa l formu];i s of the dilTeren till l calc u l u s·~6, they can also appellr in

the right haml side of the equatioll, in the capacity of such formulae, as has lllready happened in the simplest insl.t nCe of dy _ r(x) dx. If, as disti nc t fro m the fact tha t such an equa tion Il ppea rs in the given instance i n its final from, it does not al

~lIlce g ive us ~ ... r(x) ctc., then

th is signifies Ihal, it is an equation which o nly sy mholicnlly expresses: which operations arc yet to he carried o ut upon definite fUllctions. This is just what t.1kes place also in the s implest instance - d (ill). ~hbrc Il a nd l arc both variables, hut, althe sa me time, these fu and lJ are fun c tions o f onc and Ih e S:i me th ird va riahle, fo r exa mpl e of x 37,

Let us assume, tha t!(x) or y dependent 011 x. Then and, Hence,

= III is to be differentiated, whcre

u and


are hoth




xj .-x · x!-x


k . U, ll-lIl


III lj - U l - l.

(u. - /I) + U (l!



since this is equa l to


_ , ,~z~,_-_, , _z ,~ _

- z - - + ,, - IX I -X
X l -X

II I - Il

Zl - Z


I f, o n the rig ht hand s ide,
Xl -

x beco mes = 0, or
i.e. ,
U 1- U


becomes = x, then

Il t ':"U- O,

and,zl -z " O,

i.e. ,


-z; from this we ge l

!!1. -z- +udu dz
dx dx


and hence

d (uz) o r dy .. WU + udz. In respec t of Ih is di lTc re ntia tio n o f IlZ il is necessa ry to no te Ih il l, as distin ct fro m our ea rlier ins umces, w he re we had ollly olle dependent variable, here the d iffe rent ial sym bo ls a re fo und, at ()nce o n bOlh the s ides o f the equatio n, namely;
i,1 the first instance:

El.. _ z du + It dz . dx dx dx'

ill the second :
d (uz) o r dy - zdu + udz, wh ic h also has a form different fro m the o ne obt<tined in the case w he n there was o nc ind epende nt v<lri il ble, ns, for examp le, whcn wc had dy .. J'(x) dx; sin ce he re di vis io n b y dx at o nce g ives us ~ .. f'(x): as a s pecia l exp ress ion for the de ri va tive of the fun ctio n o f x, Ihis

J'(x) is free from symbo lic co -e ffici en L it 'i;

h ll S

no place in dy .. zt/u + fl dz.

It has been s hown for th e [unc tio ns with ollly one dependent variable: how from a ce rtai n fun c tion of x , fo r example, from f (x ) _ xm, a second fun ction o f x, J' (x) or, in the given ins tance mx",-I, is deduced, through authentic differentiation and it.\· subsequellt remo val and
ho w from this ve ry process, a t the same time e merges the symboli c equivalent le ft hand s ide o f the eq uat ion, fo r the de rived func tio n. Furthe r, he re Ihe suppos itio n of

% ~, in the -


was no t o nl y pe rm issihle, h ut ma thema ticall y

necessa ry, s in ce in its v irgin pri mitive fro m

proper ~' can assume an y nume rical va lue, s ince

~ - X nlwnys necessari ly

gives 0 = O. He re - appea rs as the symho lic eq uivale nt of some o .



entirely dete rm inate real value, for eX;lInple, of IIU.... - I ahove; and it itself appears on ly <"IS the result of the ope rations by mCims of whic h Ihis va lue was deduced fro m x"'; as such a
, result, it is consolidated in the fo rm 11.. .

Consequently, here, whe re

!!l (_

Q) has heen shown in il'i e merge nce,/ '(x) is not obla ined 0
is obta ined as the

through the symbol El"d' , but, conve rsely, the diffe rential express io n !!ldd


symbolic equivnlent o f the a lrcady derived function of x. But as soon as th is resul t is obtllined, wc cil n operate in the reverse direction. If some /(x) , fo r examp le x"', is requ ired 10 be differen tiilted, the n fi rs t of a ll we see k the vll lue o f dy dy and ri nd tha t dy - mx",-I dx, whence- _ 111.1:", -1. dx Here the symbolic expression figures as the slmling point and Iwel a rc al ready operatin g on the proper grounds of differential ca lculus. in other wo rds,

~ etc.

alread y serve us as

formulae, indica ting:
to which of the d ifrerentitl l operHtio ns, already know n to us the fu nc tion of x is 1 be 0 suhjected. In Ihe riT insta nce st the second !.!x., (_


Q) 0

was obtained as the symbolic eq uivalent for [,(x) , in

['(x) is sought and found as the real va luc of thc sym bo ls

1x, ~~


Bu t if these symhols <llrcndy serve as operational formu lae o f the di rrerentia l ctllcul us, then, as such. they can a lso a ppear in the right ha nd s ide of the eq ua tion, <IS it hlls alrclldy hapiX! ned in the sim plest inst<"lncc of dy - /'(x) (Jx. lf a s imila r eq ua tion, in il"i fi na l fo rm, can nol a t o nce be reduced into

signifies that thc gi.ven cquation only symbolical ly exprcsses: w hich operations arc to be ca rri ed ou t, whcn determinate /unC.' tiol!!,' occupy th e place of Ihe ind etermi nate Is ig ns of thc functionsJ. The simplest instance, where this happens, is (J (uz), where It and z me bolh va riahles, but both arc atlhc SlIme time functio ns or o ne and the same third va riahle, for example, of x. If the process o f dirrerentin lion at once lea ds us to


J'(x) elc., i.e., into some rea l value, as in the sim pl esl insUl nce, th en th is

!!.l - zdu +udz dx ·


(scc its origi n in note book J, repented in p.lO of this note book) [ PV.43] . then it s ho uld not be forgo\lcn~ tha t here u [l nd z arc hoth variables dependent 0/1 x, as is y, whic h depends o n x

ON '11 11: DlFI'EREN'J1AL

only h('(':III'';c it depends on z find 11. In Ihe cilseof {JIlt! dependent variable we have the laller in' the 'ymbolic ·side. But now we have two vuillbles It and z in the right llltnd s ide, both independenl of y, but bo th dependent on x, and their character, las J vnriahlcs dependent on
' t , till dz x, st;m ds out Inh e sym b0 I'IC co-c rr'IClents co rrcspon d'Ing to them - x ' -Ix ' d ,

If dependent vilriables appear also in the right hand side then, that is why, they must also of necessity st.1 nd out as symbolic differe ntial co-efficients in that s ide.
From the equation

!!1. .. Z dll + 11 dz
dx dx dx

it follows Ihflt :
d (uz) o r dy .. Wit + lIdz.

But this equfltion on ly indicates the operations which <I re req uired to be carr ied out, as soon as It and z are given as determinate functions of x. Fo r exa mple, had the simplest inst.'l nce been

u:-ax, z .. bx,

d (uz) or dy .. bX'adx + ax·lxlx. Dividing both skies by dx wc gct:

¥X .. abx + bax .. 2abx

!!2d - ah + ba - 2nb. 2



Had we taken from the very beginning the product
y or

QX'bx .. abx2


o r y .. abx2

dv {/2v ::.1- .. 2ahx ;..;.....L .. 2ab 'dx 'dx 2 .

As soon as a formula, for example like [w - 1Zl equa tio n -


is obta in ed, it becomes clear, that this is the sy mbolic expressio n

which ma y he called a general operational equation -

of the diffe rential operations to be carried oul. I f, for eX:lmple, we take the exp res.<;ion y

~; ,

where y is the o rdina te, and x is the :lhscissa, then this is the general symhol ic expression for ' the s ubtangent to any curve Oust ns d (uz) _ zdll + Ildz is the same for the differentiation of the product of any two variables, dependent upon onc and the samc third vari:lbl e). But so long as we keep this expression as it is, it does nol give us anything more, though we may visualize, that dx is the differential o f absc issa, and dy - the differential o f ordinate.



In order to obtain· some pos iti ve result wc must first o f all t.'lkc an cqu<lti on o f some determinate cu rve, w hich would g ive us a determinate va lue for y in x, and Ihut is why also for dx, s uch as, for example, the eq uation o f o rd inary parabola : y ~ _ (lX. DilTcrentiating the lalter, we ge l 2ydy - adx;

hence, dx

-~. Substituting

this determinate vlllue of dx in the genera l fo rmula o f s ub tange nt

dx Y- wc gel d)'
2J'dy Y a _ ~ _ 1l:
and since)'2 - ax lthis}



- - - 2x



which is the value of th e subtangent to the ordin<l ry porabo la. Thus, this value is equa l 1 0

twice that of the abscissa .
But if we d es ig nate the subta ngcn t by

rllen the general equatio/l Y

~; -


merely gives

us ydx _ i:dy. That is why from the point ofv;ew of differential calculus(with the exceptio" oJ Lagrange) most oJren the question was: /howl to filld out Ill(! real value oJ ~. It may be s hown, th :l tthis difficulty Illready revea ls itself, if we suhs titutd in plll ce of Eldd e tc. . x
· · t helf primary f ro m 0 ; then

0 11. -z-+udu dz
dx dx

takes the fo rm of

0- z·O + /l'0'
Th is is a correct equation. But it leads




u.~ nowherc further than [te lli ng] that, these three ~

emerged fro m different differential co-cffiCie nts, Ilnd of the di ffere nces of the ir e merge nce no thing remnined. However. it should he remembered that:

1) in the instance of o ne independent variable, a lrcady in the first expositio n, at (irst we obta ined

~ or;j; - [,(xl, hence, dy - [,(xl dx .
But, s ince





d)' _ Oand dx ... O,



Howeve r, hy transforming !!xl cnnvcniely into its indeterminate expression commit a positive mistnke, si nce here



here we

~ is fo und me rely as the symholic equ iv,lI e nl of the real

value of f'(x) and is as such consolid;IICd in the cxpression;;, hcnce, also in cl)' ... f'(x) dx.

ul - U . du " 0 2) - - turns Inlo -,- ur IIIto - ' because 0




becomes equal


x, or XI

- X -

0, thus, foc

- - what we
X I -X

111 - fl


on ce get is

110 1 0,

0 0 hut -0. But ge nera ll y spea king wc know, that -o may

lls.sume any value Rnd th Rt in detecminate inst.1 m;es it attains a specia l value, ob L1inllhle if in place of u so me determinate function o f x is PUI; that is 10 say, wc nOI o nl y ha ve the right

dll bul Ih· must be uo ne, slII ce ·' . trans f mm -0 t hmug h d' IS



llt) \


b -d du



d -dz f· . h . ,- Igurc In L c given

inslance only as symhols of the differential operations to he c(1rried Ollt" IButJ so long as we do nol proceed furlher than the resu lt

f:!x. - z-+u- ' "" dx dz dx dx

dy .. zdu + udz,
my these -1 -,- • du and dz re mnin as inderterminatc li S is the O· w hic h C;lII assume < value. -' t:x (X 3) Even in nrdinHry algchrll
value, just becllUse

du dz


~ C;1I\

Ilppcar;"ls a fnt.m of the expressions having a certa in 'rea l
" x2 ___ a2 aSSlfme thllt - - -

~ c~ n be the symbo l of Il ny magnitude, Fo r exam"plc,
X2 -


is given, Let us put, x .. a, thcn x - a .. 0 and x 2 _ a 2, that is why

a2 .. 0, Hence, wc get,

so far , the result is co rrect, hut though
x Z _ (12

o can al so have allY value, it wo uld he wrong to assert

o n thnt " ground that, - - - has no real valuc,

Hav ing facto rised x2 - a2 into il<; factors, wc ge t (x + a) (x - a); that is



- - - - (x+a)· - - -x+a;

x'_a 2




X .. a, a nd thill is w hy x + a '" a + (I_ 2a;\S. If wc had a term nf the form P(x - tl) ill an onlin ary algehraic equa ti o n, lhen. wh e n x-a, Le. , x-a-O, wc would necessarily have P (x-a)-P·O-O; and al so subjec t 10 th e sa me presuppos itions P (X2 - ( 2 ) .. O. Fa ctorisa tio n o f x2 - (11 into the factors (x + a) (x - a) woukl not introduce any change into this, fo r P(x + a) (x - a) .. P(x + a)'O- 0 ,However, fro m this it does nol at all follow Iha t, if hy supposing x .. a wc o bt.1in a le rm

hence, if x - a .. 0, then

o f the type

P.(*} then iL.. value is necessari ly equal 10 zero.
ca n


Clln assume any va lue, since ~ .. X alwa ys gives us 0 .. x·a .. 0 ; hut jus t beca use

lake any va lue, it shou ld not necessarily be equal tu zero, and if we are aware of its emergence Ihen as soo n as some reil I val ue hides be hind il, the laller ca n also be found o ut. Thus, for examp le in p. - - - ; if
x2_ a 2



- a, x -am 0 and, hence, also x 2 _


x 2 - a2 _ 0,

the n

p ,x2 _a 2 - p.Q.
' 0 Though th is result loo was ohtai ned in a manner whic h is ma lh ema tic:tl ly full y correct, it wou ld, however. he mathematically no less wro ng to assume wi thou t furth er


thai, p.


0, s in ce from Lhis suppositio n it w(Hlld foll ow,


% is

unconditionally incapable of assuming IlIIY vll lue o th er than ze ro, a nd Iha l, hence,

p·o, p·a.
Further, it would be necessary to investigate, whether ur not any other result may he obtai ned by faclOrising X2 - a 2 into its f;Jctors (x+a), (x - a) ; actually Ihis fa c tnrisH tio n turns the give!) exp.ression inlo


x-a p·(x+u)·--- P·(x+a)·t,


and [if I x -


then also in to p.2a o r into 2Pu. More so, whe n we operate w ith the v(lriahlcs19 ;

Ihen it is nol only righl, but a lso absolutely necessa ry to co nsolidate th e emerge nce of through. Ihe differential sy mbo ls

?, (t':'Y, etc., for wc h;lVC proved beforehand




tha t, they

emerge as symbolic equivalenL" of Ihe func tions deri ved from the vm iablcs sul'ljecled to the determinate processes of di fferen tiation. Thus. ir primarily they arc rcs ulL-; of the e lapsed prol.:c ss~<; of differentiation, then, just hy vi rtue of thllt, they Cll n also play <In ill verse roleth;'ll of the symbols of those operatio ns . to whid the variables arc hut supposed to he



subjected, i.e., [the role] of operational !>ymbols, figuring by now not as resu lts, but .IS points of departu re - and herein Ijes their essential role in the differential calculus. rn the capacity of s imila r operatio nal symbols they themselves can become the content of the equa tio ns involving the different varia bl es (in the case of implicit functions, (rom the very beginning, at th e right hand sidc [of the equation] s ta nds 0, and all the dependent and independe nt va ria bles, along with their co-e fficients, arc s ituated on the left). Tha t is how the matter stand s in the equat ion d (uz) !:!1.. zdu udz dx ordx-dx+dx' When disengaged from what has been sa id earl ier, the functions z and u, dependent upo n x, themselves appear here aga in as invariables, but each o f them is endowed with the capacity
of bei ng the multip! ier of the symbol ic difrcrential co-e ffi cient of the other.

Hence this eq uation has only the sign ificance of some genera l equa tion, ind ica tin g th rough symools : which opera tions are to be carried Ollt, if u and z a rc correspondin g ly g iven as dependent va riab les of two determinate fun ctio.ns of x. On'ly when u and z are [some] determinate function s of [xl ma y the expressions du .. dx

(_Q) 0

dz an d dx ( - '0) an, he nce, aIso 0 d

III (0) dx - 0

" \ -' 0 " "" turn " 0"I.e. , Ihc va ue 0'" 0 IS not anticipated mto ,

beforehand but must iL<;c]r appear as the conseq uence of determinate equations exp ressi ng functional dependence. If, for example, !l "" x3 + ax 2, then

Q ... du ... 3xl + 2ax

dJ u _ 6 ' ' O d x .3

(Q) _

(Q), = d'u = 0 o dx " " 0 I.e., m t h" I " s\a ncc a'" 0. asl lll

0 d' (-o),- "1' _

6<+ 2a



The essence of this entire history consis ts of the following: he re, throu gh the very differentiat ion we get the differential co-efficients in their symbolic form as results, as va lues [of th e symbol]


in the differential eq uation, namely, in the equa tion :

d (uz) !!y.. dll dz dx or dx - z-:J; +

u-;;; x l -x

u - u But we know that u = some determinate fun ction of x, for example f (x). That is why - '- .

in its differential symbo l ~ , is equa l 1 f'(x), i.c., the firs t derived function o r f(x). Exactly in 0


MAl' li!MAT1CAL MANUS CI{11 y rs

. the sa me way z _ cp (x), and t hat IS

'k . dz W hY [ I CWISC -, _ ql' ( ) ' X, I.C., t hC ITSl


d ' ve d runchon . crl

of q> (x). But the initia l equation itse lf g ives us neither 11, nor z in the fro m o f a determ inate functi on o f x, as, for example, wou ld bc, u _xm, Z _ Vi .

It gives u and z only as general c.xprcssions for any two functions o f x, whose prod uct is to be differentiated. This equation says that if the prod ucl of any two fun ctions ofx represe nted by th e expression Ul is req uired to be difrcre nliatcd, then at first the corresponding rea l val ue of the sy mbolic
differential co·cfficicnt


Le., let us say, the first deri ved function of ['(x) is to be found
= =

ou l, and this value is to be multiplied by cp (x) of :; is to be found out and multiplied by [(x)

z, there upon in the sa me way, the real va lue

u; fina ll y, the 'two products so ob tained are

to be added. Here the operations of differential calculus arc assu med to be already known. Thus. the given eq uation onl y symbolica ll y indicates the operations to be carried out, <; and along with this the symbolic differential co-effi cien L

~: ,~;

bcco me here the symbo ls

of those differential opera tions, which remai n still to be carried out in each co ncrete insta nce, whereas ~nitially they themselves were deduced as sy mbolic formula e of the di ffere ntial operations already ca rried oul. As soo n as they atta in such a character, they themselves can become the content of differential equations, as for examp le in Tay/or 's Theorem:

Yl " Y+~h + etc.
But even in that case, it is, anyway, also merely a general symbolic operational equation. Differentiation of uz is of interest, beca use it is the simp lest in sta nce, wherein - as distinc t from the development of s uch insta nces, where the independent variable x has onl y one dependent variable Y - the very applica tion of the original method leads 10 Ihe emergence of differential symbols, also in the right hand s ide of the equa tion (its developing express ion), that is why here they appea r at the same time as opcra tional sym bols and as s uch become the co ntent of the equation itself. This role, in wh ich they indica te the operations to be carried oul and that is why serve as the starting point, is the ir characteristic role, already operative in the ground proper of differential calculus; but there is no doubt that, none of the mathematicians paid any attention to this turning point, to this role inversion, and what is more, none of them proved its necessity in any absolutely eleme ntary differential equa tion. Onl y this is mentioned as a fact,.that while the inventors of differential calcu lus and the majority o f their fo llowers make differential symbols the point of departure of calculus, Lagrange conversely takes algebraic ded uction of the real 40 functi Qns of the independent variables as his starting point, and makes the differential symbols purcly symbolic expressions o f the derived fun ctio ns.



Returning once more to d (uz) we get at first, resulL of the differential operation itself: dv 'du dz z dx +u dx .


a result o f the suppos itio n

-x - D, as a


Since here the denominators are one and the sa me, we gel

dy - zdu + udz as the redu ced expression. This corresponds to the fact that, in the case o f o nly one dependent
variable o n the left hand side we had


and as its symbolic expression we had

~ ... f'(x) ,

in the capacity of the symbolic express io n fo r the derived functi on of x, i.e., for f'(x) (for example, for mO).",,-I, which is the/'(x), if OX'" - I(x» and hen ce, only as the res ult [wc had]

dy - /'(x) dx
(for example,: _ max"' -I, dy .. maxm - 1 dx, which is the differential of the function y) (the latter, we can at once conversely turn into : ... max",.-I). But the instance

dy .. zdu + udz is different further owing to the fact that, the differentials du, dz here stand on the right hand side, as operational symbols, and dy is determined o nly after th e operations ind icated by them a rc completed .

u - f(x) and z - 'I' (x), then we know that for du we get

du - /,(x) <Ix
and [for dz]

dz - 'I"(x) <Ix.
He nce,

dy - 'I' (x) f'(x) dx + f(x) 'I"(x) dx and ;;; - 'I' (x) /'(x) + f(x) 'I"(x) .
Thus, in the first instance, at first the diffe rent ial co-efficient

~ - /'(x)

was obtained ,

and there upon the differential

dy - /'(x) clx.
In the second In at first the differential, and there upon the differential co-efficient


the first instance, where the differential symbols themselves appea r only out of the

" opera tions ca rried out upon f(x), the re at fi rst the derived function co-efficien t, is to be found OUI, so Ihll l opposite it appeared
and only after it has been found ou t,





~,as i l'> s ymbolic expression,

the differential

dy - ['(x) dx
he deduced.

Conversely for dy - zd" + udz. Since here du, dz figure as operational symbols, and besides indica te those operations which
we have already learnt

to carry oU l in the differential calcu lus , so, for sea rching the real value

Of1; we must First of all change u and z into their v<1 lues in x, in every co ncrete instance,

in order to find o ut

dy _ 'I' (x)l'(x) dx + [(x)<p'(x) dx, and on ly further division by dx g ives us the rea l value of

~The sa me holds for

<p(x) I'(x) +[(x) <p'(x) .

du dz dy tFy dx' dx' dx' dx 2 etc. and for all the morc co mpl ex formula e, where the d;jJeremial symbols themselves appear as the content of the general symbolic operationa l equations.

We began with the algebraic deduction of/,(x), to reveal the emergence o f its symbolic
di fferentia l exp ressio n


. ; , and to thus lay


its meaning at the same time .

Conversely, now wc must


from the sy mbolic differential co-efficicn ts


or :

la ken as given formu lae, in order to find out their co rrespond ing rca l equ iva len ts f '(x ), cP '(x). And bes ides Ihese di fferent modes o f interpreting the differential calcul us , ema nating from different poles a nd , produc ing two differe nt historical sc hools, do not e me rge here from changes in our subjective method, but a TC produ ced by the nature o f the function IIZ under cons idera tion . Wc treated it just th e same as wc did the functions o f x w ith on ly onc indepe ndent va riable, when we proceeded rrom th e right hand pole, and o pe ra ted upon it algebra ically . ' don' t think tha t any mathematician has proved or e ven noted the necess ity o f this tra nsition rrom the fi rst (historica ll y, the second) algebraic mettiod. They were l OO absorbed with the material of th e calculus, to do this. In fac t wc see that in the equation

1; emerged

o o



zdu +u E~
dx d x

from the process of deduction occuring upon

in the right

ha nd

s ide,

absol ute ly in the sa me way as it happened earlier, [or the func tions o f x with only one dependent va riable; bu t on the other hand, the differentia l sy mbols dill , ddZ , appear, in the ir lX x tu rn, 1 be included in/ 'ex) itself or in the fi rst deriva tive of IIZ . Owing to this they appea r 0 as e lements of the eq uiva le nt of El . Th us, the sy mbolic differenti al co·effi cients the mse lves, l
lX .

in thei r turn , already became the subj ect malter or COll fellt o f the diffe rentia l ope ration, instead o f riguring, as before, merely as its symbolic results. Here we have two moments. Firstly, along with the va ri ables themselves, th e sy mbolic differentia l co·e fficic nts in the ir IUrn become contentful elements o r the ded uction, [they . become1the objects of differentia l operations . Secolldly, formul ation o f the question so turns ro und, tha t instead o f secking the sy mbolic express ion for the real diffe re ntial co·erficients (for J'(x)), the real differenti al co-efficient is sought fo r its symbolic express ion. Along with these two mome nts , a th ird a lso is given at the sa me lime : namely, the symbolic differe ntia l co~e ffi c i e n ts no lo nger appea r as sy mbolic results of the di rfere nt ia l o perations carr ied Oll t upon real runc tions of x, but, conversely lthey] now play the role of s ymbols indicating those di fferent ia l o pera tions, whic h mus t be ca rried out ove r the real fun ctions o f x, Le. {they ] thus become o pe rational symbols. In our case, wh ere



!!1.. ·

du dz z - +,, -



we could have operated further, had we known no t only that z an d

fire both functions o f

x, but also if, as in the case of y - X"', the rea l va lucs of u and z were g iven in x as, for


u-Vi, zThus ~. :


+ 2ax2,

in fact play the role of indicators o f the opcnl tions, the mode of ca rrying out

which is supposedly well known for all such func tions of x, which arc sub." tituted in place of u a nd z . c) Tbe equation obtai ned is not simply it symbolic operationa l equation, but is on ly a preparatory symbolic operational equation. Since in !!l.. · z - +,, -dz du [I)J dx dx dx the denominator dx is present in every term in both the sides, the reduced expressio n for th is equation will be : 11 ) dy or d (uz) _ zdu + udz. This equation immediately says Iha t, if the produc t of two arbitra ry variables a re to be di ffe rentiated (in fu rther app lication it may be generalised for the product of any number of variables), the n each of the factors is to be multiplied by the differential of the o ther multipl ier a nd the two produCL'i so obta ined arc to be added . Thus the first o perational equation dv du dz Z+II dx dx dx becomes super fluous as a prepara tory equat io n - if the product of two arbi trary va riables is to be differentiated - for it has fulfilled ils role, nam ely: 10 prov ide th e gene ral symbo lic operat ional ·formula, leading directly to the goal.


And he re it shou ld be noted Ih at, the method of in itia l algebraic deduction again turns into its o pposite. The re, first of all we obtained fly - y\ - Y as a symbol correspondi ng to I(x ,) - I(x), where both [( (x,) and J(x) ] are o rdinary algebraic exp ress io ns (s ince f(x) and

. . . lb· . ) f( XI ) were give n In th ' e lorm 0 fd e terrnmatc age ral c f unctions 0 f x. Fur! her f(x,) - f(x) was x l -x


in the;: form of


a nd s ubsequently J'(x) (the first derived Junction of I(x») -


the form of

1;, and o nly from the final equation for the differential co-efficient ~ - J'(x)

we obtained the differcntial
dy . I'(x) tix. Conve rsely, th e eq uation obtained above gives us the differentials dy, dz, du as starling points. Namely, if we subs titute for u and z some determinate algebra ic func tion of x, which we s ha ll designate o nly as

u - [(x)
then we get
dy - <p (x) d[(x) +[(x) d <p (x), and these d symbols ind ica te only the differentiation w hich is yet 1 be carried out. Result of 0
Ihis diffe re nt iation ass umes the general for m: d[(x) - ['(x) dx and d <p (x) ~ <p '(x ) dx. Thus, dy - <p (x)[,(x) dx +[(x) <p '(x) dx. Finally. a nd


<p (x),

;j; - <p (x) ['(x) +I(x) <p'(x).
He re, where the differential already plays Ihe role of a ready-made opera tional sy mbol, wc deduce the differe ntial co-cffic icnts fro m it, while in the initial algebraic development, conversely, the diffe rentia l was obtained from the equation for the differential co-efficienls. Let us co ns id er the very differential, as obta ined in its s imples t form, namel y. as obta ined from a func lion of the fi rst power;

y- ax,



whence the differenti al dy - adx. This equation, connecting these two differentials appears to be much morc dubious , than the equa tion for the differe ntial co-efficient

o dx ' from which it was deduced. Si nce dy .. 0 and dx - 0, dy .. adx is identica l with 0 .. o. But, nevertheless, we have the full right to use dy and dx in place of the extinct - bu t fixated in their act o f extinc tion with the help of these symbols - differences y, - y, XI - x.
So long as we do not proceed furth e r than the express ion dy .. adx or, genera lly, dy - I'(x) dx, it is noth ing but a mere record in ano ther form of the fact that

Qor!!t .. a

;j; - [,(x) ,
which = a in ou r case, owing to which we always have the opportunity, to again trans form it into this lalle r form . But this possibility of transformation already makes it an opera tiona l sy mbol. We see at once that, if we find dy .. f'(x) dx as a resu lt of the processes of differentiation, then we shou ld onl y divide both the s ides by dx to find out the differe ntial co-efficients.


f'(x), i.e. ,



Thus, for exa mple, in y2 _ ax, d (Y'). d (ax), 2ydy . adx. This latte r equation fo r the differentials gives liS two C(lIla lions for difrcrcntial co-erricicnts namely:

!!l • .E....


ddx ..


But 2ydy - adx gives us, and also, immediately, the value


for d.x\ which, for

example, having been put into the general formula for sublangclIl Y

~; ,

helps us lastl y 10

obtain 2x, the abscissa doubled, as the value of the subtangcnt to the o rdinary parabola.

Npw let us take an example in which the symbolic express ions serve as



operational formulae of the calculus from the very beginning amI, co nsequently, the real value of the symbolic differential co-efficien t is sought; and after that wcs haJl give the oppos ite elementary algebraic exposition. 1) Let the dependent function y and the independent variable x be con nected nbt by the onc and ·the on ly equa tion, but let them he so connected thaty figures immediate ly as a function of the variable u in some first equation, and /l immediately figures as a function of the variable x in some second equation. The task is : to find Ollt tile real value of the symbolic differential


y. [(11),


At first 1) y .. f(u) gives:

<Ix. 1i.J!!l _ ['(11) dll _ ['(11).
tlu du du dll . d'P (xl. 'P '(x) dx. q> '(x) . dx dx dx


d\! dll = .- • du dx

['(11) . q> '(x).


<Ix du • <Ix .
du dx consequently



['(11) . q> '(x).
y _ 31l2 ,

Example. If a)


u - x1 + ax2,

ON Til E DrFFElU!N'llfo.L


then according to the formula

!!J: _ d (3u'L
dll du

6u (_ I'(u) );

but the equation b) gives rthe value 1u ""


+ ax?, If we put th is value of u in 6u , then

!!J: _ 6(x' + ax' ) (_ I'(u) ) .
du Further, du dx - 3x'+2ax(- q>'(x)).

=. - or = - 6(x' + ax' ) (3x' + 2ax )(- f (u)· 'I' '(x)). dll dx dx
2) Now let us take as our initial eq uatio ns, those which are contained in the last example, fo r developing them according to the fi rs t, algebraic mode. a) Y_ 3u2 , b) u - x 3 +axl , Since y - 3ul, Y1 - 3U,2 and YI - Y _ 3(u l '2 - U "" 3 (u l - a) (ul + a). 2)
He nce, YI-Y
u 1 -u

Co nsequen tly. dv du dv


- - .. 3 (Ill + a).
Ill "

If now it is supposed that u, -11- :0 and conscquently, 3 (u + u) .. 611, Let us put in place of u its value from the equation b); then

11, th en 3 (u, + 11) turns into


6(xJ + axl ).

Furthe r, since Il_X3 + ax 2,

Il l - X I J

+a.t l

.. ( X I ;\

consequ ently, III - l l - ( X I 3 + OX I ?) - (x 3 + ax2) hence,

_x3 ) -a(x, '2_x'2 ),

UI - U -(X l -X) (X , 2+XIX +X2) +a(x\ -x)(X 1+x);
"l - El

- - .. (X\2 +X\X + Xl) +a(x l + x). xl - x

If now it is s upposed that x, - x .. 0, consequently, XI" x, then and ,
a(x\+x)- 2ax.

Xl 2

+ Xl X + Xl _ 3x2

du Consequently, dx .. 3x2 + 2ax.



Now multiplying both the functions of the right hand s ide, we shall gel
6(x3 + ax2) (3x 2 + 2ax),

1 which corresponds on the left hand side 0

!!l . du _ !!l
dll dx dx'

Le., the same as before.
We shall put the determinate fun ctions of the variable on the left hand s ide, a nd the

functions dependent upon it on (he right, so that the difference in the modes of deductio n comes out more clearly, since, thanks to the general equation, where on the right hand side sta nds o nl y zero, wc have become accustomed to cons ider th at the initiative lies on the left hand side. Co nseque ntly

a) 3112 • Y

b) x 3 +ax2 _


Since 3112 .. Y then, 3(Il I 2 _1l2) .. YI_ y, or,
3(1l\ - u ) (u I

+ Il)" Yl - y,

3(1I! + Il ) ..

If now U 1 - u and, consequently

III - Il '"

0, then we ge l

+ u) or 611"!lx· du

Let liS put in 6u the va lue of U fro m the equation b), the n

6(x' + ox2) _
Further if xl + ax2 .. u, then X I 3 + aX 1 :2 .. and



X l 3 +axj 2 _ .x3

-ax1 ", / \ -/I;

hence (X,3_X3) + a(x\ 2 _Xl ) - Il l -Il . Expanding into factors: (XI-X) (Xll+XIX +X2J + a(xl -x) (XI +x) .. u 1-




(X1 2+X.x+x2)+a(xl +X)- - - , xl-x
Ul - U


XI - X

and conseq uently, XI

- X ""

0 then

dll 3x2 +2ax - dx'

Multiplying the two derived funct ions we shall get : 6(xl + ax2) (3x2 + 2ax)

-;l; ,

and, putting it in the usual order, dv dll dv = . - _ .::..L _ 6(X3 + ax2) (}x2 + 2ax) . du dx dx It st.1nds to reason all by itself, tha t ow ing to ilS cumberousness, llnd often also due to (i lS] difficulty, the expa nsion of the firs t difference !(x 1) - [(x) in to such terms, each of which co ntains the factor XI - x, the latter method can not be com pared (I S an instrument of computation), with the onc historica lly formed long ago. But on the other h(lnd, in the latter, onc ma y proceed from dy, dx,


as given opera tional

formu lae, whercas in the former their emergence is visible, which is clearly algebr<lic.1 <lm not asserting anything more thnn this. How were the starting points for the differential symbols as operational formulae obtained in the [historicallyl first method? With \he hclp of secret or evident meta physica l pres uppos itions, which in their turn lea d to me taphy sica l, non-mathematical consequences: what happens is a forcible destruction of certain magniludes, blocking the path of deduction, [w hich] , however, whe re generated by those very presuppos itions. In order 10 show the di ffere nce of the methods emana ti ng from opposite poles, in the light of a historica l examplc, I have compared - as instantiated above - the situat ion of d(lIz), as per Newton and Leibnitz on the one hand , with that accordingto Lagrange, on the other. 1) Newton . Firs l of all, wc are told, that if th e va riables grow, then x,y etc. dc.... igna te the speed of their fl ow, in other wo rds, lI es ignate the correspond ing growth o f the [va riablci] x,y etc. Further, si nce the numerical magnitudes of all possible quan tities may be rep resented by straighllines, the ge nera tell momellts or infinitely small qualltilie~ are equal to th ~ product of the speeds X, y etc. and an infinitely small put of time 't , in course of whi ch llley last, co nsequently, [they arc]- in, y''t 42.


If now we co nsider the diffcrc" nlial of y in iL<; general form dy - [,(x)dx, the n, here wc a lready have in fro nt of liS the purt.: sy mbolic opera tio nal equatio n even in that case, when J'(x) is a constant from the very beginning as in dy _ d(ax). adx. This baby rcxprcssion]

Q or !f1. ~ ['(x) looks more s uspic ious, than iL<; mother. For in

El "" Q tile del/omillator dx . dxO and (he IIIl1ner(Jlor are inseparably connected; in dy - f'(x)dx. they arc visibl y separated,


so that the fo llow ing conclus io n thrusts itself: dy _ f'ex) dx is only a masked expression for o _['(x)' 0, consequently o ..s D, and with this "nothi ng ca n be done", Morc subtle a nalysts belonging to o ur century. fo r example, like the Frenchman Bo ucha rla t, a lso smelt that here something was wrong;. He says: "For example in ~ ". 3x2, i.e., ~ or more


rightly, its value 3x2 is

tbf~ differe ntial
conside r

co-e ffi c ient of th e fu nction y. Since

symbol representing th e li'mit 3X2, dx must always stand below dy . But in order to facilitate


is thu s the

algebraic operations,


!!I to

be an ordinary frll c tion ,a nd dy .. 3x2 -


to be an

ordinary equation. Freei ng it from the denominator dx, we get· as the res ult dy .. 3x2dxa nd this express ion is ca lled the differential of y "43, Thus, in order to . "facilitate algebraic operations\ we introduce a false formul a. tn rea lity the case is nOI like tha t. In


(striCtl y speaking, we s hould write


the ra tio of the

minimal express ion . for )'1 - y. i.e., fo r f(x!)-f(x) or , for the increment 0 f(x), and of the minimal exp ress ion for XI - X, Le., fo r the incremen t of the independe nt variab le x, assumes such a form, wher/c in the numerator is inseparab le from the denominator. Out why? So that


is preserved as I.he ratio of extinct differences. But as soon as


-x .. 0 obtai ns in dx a

form, which shov#s it to be the ext inc t difference of [the variable] x, and so y!- y .. 0 a lso comes forth as dy, the separation of the numerator from the denominator becomes a n ent irely pcrm issiJble operation. Now wherever dx may be s ituated, its connectio n with dy is not af[ected by fjuch change o f place. Consequen tl y, dy .. df(x) - f'(x) dx is on ly ano ther expression for

~ _ J'(x)],

which must appear at the cnd, so that a free [ from the multiplier

dx]f'(x) could be obtained. Incide ntally, the rollow ing example shows, how rar lIseru l this formula dy "" ~lf(x) becomes at once, as an operatiollal formula: y2 _ ax, dry) - d(ax) , 2ydy- a dx, he nce,

Putti ng this value o f dx in the general formula o f the subtangcnt y dx , wc get






ON 'nu: Oll'I'ERI;Nl1AL




a _ 2y'dy _ .?t

dy ady and since y2 _ ax,
SO [

2y' a

j_Zax _ 2x •0 a
so~e sense, it has to be supposed

thus 2x , i.e., double the abscissa of the ordinary parabola , is the value of its subtangent. Howcver, if dy .. df(x) is considered to be the firstsL1rting point, wh ere from only subsequently


itself is deduced, then, so that this differential of y has

that the differential particles dy, dx arc symbols having a definite purport. Had such a presuppositon not been generated by mathematical meL1physics, but, for example, if it had to be deduced immediately from some function of the first power like y .. ax, then, as we saw earlier, it would have led us, to
YI - Y -


a, which turns into

EXdxd . .

a . But from here

nothing definite can bc extracted a priori. Since

At - a,

exactly in thc sa mc way as

~ .. a, and s ince it is true that II x,

lly arc term ina l differences or increments, but terminal

differences or increments with limitless c.1pacity to decrease, so with equal success they ma y present themselves as dy, dx and as infinitely small magnitudes which arc as proximate to zero as possible and, as magnitudes emerging as a resu lt o f actual equalisat ion of zero and XI - xand, consequently, of YI - Y land zero]. In both thc cases, the resu lt on the right hand side remains one and the same, so long as it is not assumed in this side that XI .. x, that is to say, XI - x .. O. That is why, on the othe r hand,. this equalisation with ze ro wou ld appear 1 be as arbitrary an hypothesis, as is the assumption that dx, dy arc infinitely small 0 magnitudes. I s hall briefly show the historical course of development sub IV), in th e light of the example d(uz). However, before that, sub IIl)44 I shall give one more example, which will at first be invesligated on the bas is of a symbolic calculus, with the help of some rcady·made operational formulae, and after that it will be presented algebraically. Wc have already s hown upto sub 11) that, even when applied to such elementary functions as the product of two va riabl es, the lauer method, with the help of its proper resu lts, perforce gives the starting point for a method, which ope rates from the oppos ite pole.
Ad IV. Finally (according to Lagrange), it should be noted further that, the limit or the limiting value, which is already met with sometimes in place of the differential co-efficient of New ton, is still deduced by him from purely geometric rcprcsenL1tions, and it plays a prominent role .ill date. Do the symbolic express ions figure therein as the lim its ofJ'(x), or, conversely. does " (x) figure as the limit of the symbol, or [Whatever] , do both figure as limiL~? This :"'ltcgo ry, which has found wide use in [mathema tica l] analysis, mainly in tha t of Lacroix,



acquires an impo rtant s ig ni fica nce as a subs titute ior the catego ry o f "minimal express io n" eilherof the deriva tive in contras t to the "primary de rivative", orof the ratio Yl - Y , as soon


as the application o f ca lculus to the c urves is at iss ue. I1 is easie r to represent it geometrically. and that is w hy it is to be met with already in Ilhe writ ings of ] the ancient geometers. Fo r some of o ur co ntemporaries the lim it is still hidd en, ow ing to the fa ct that the differentia l pa rticles a nd d ifferential co-cfficicnts express o nl y approximate valucs 4.5 •

additionally on the diffcrcnth,.ion of IIZ 41. 1) In the las t ma nuscript, while developing d(uz), it was essential fo r me 1 show in 0 applica tio n to the equ atio n du dz dv A) ..::.t.._z _ +u _ , dx dx dx that the a lgebra ic method here applied itself turns into the di ffe rentia l me thod, ow ing to the fac t tha t it develops insid e the deriva tive, i.e., o n the right hand side [we have ] the symbolic difJ,!rential co-effic ients w itho ut the corresponding equivalent real co-efficienlS; alo ng with this, these sy mbo ls, as such, become independent starting POiI/IS, a nd are given in the ready-made form o f operational formulae . For this purpose the fo rm o f the equation A) turned out to be even mo re s uitable, as it
permits a compa rison of [the express io ns} ~, : obta ined w ithin the deriva tive/'(x), with diffe re ntia l


standing opposite [them ] o n the le ft ha nd side, wh ich is the symbolic

co -efficient fo r /'(x), and that is why constitutes its symbolic, equivalent. Concerning the cha racter of du , dz as operational fo rmulae, I have limite d myself to dx dx indicating. that fo r these symbolic diffe re ntial co-e rcicicnts any "derivative" may be found o ut as their real value, if in pla ce of u any f (x ), fo r example, )x2, is put, ,rod in place o f z any cp(x), for exa mple, Xl + ax2 • However, I could have a lso ind icated the geome tric applicat ion o f these operational

0 formulae, since, fo r exa mple, y dx serves as the general formula f or subtangerlls 1 curves, dy
with z du • u dz , s ince all of the m a re products o f a dx dx variable and a symboli c differential co-effi cient. And finall y. it ma y be no ted furth er, that y - IlZ is the simplcst elemcntary fun ction (here y is y l and uz is the s impl est form of the seco nd po.wcr), upon which o ur theme ma y be deve loped. w hich is, in fo rm , e nt irely

id~ntica l



3) Since the si tuation of dE. is converse in relation to d(lIz) -


here multiplication, there

division -

it seems natural for the algebraically found operational formula d (uz) _ zdu + udz

to be utilized immediately for finding out d ~ . That is what I shall do, so that the difference


between the method of immediate deduction and Ihe simple application of some result of differentiation obt.1ined earlier . - wh ich is, in its turn, an operational formula - comes oul clearly.
11 a) y .. -;


b) u-yz. since
11 y--,

u yz--·z- u.


Thus, u only formally masque rades as the product of two multipliers. However, thcreby the problem is in actuali ty already solved, for the problem of differentiating a fraction ha s turned into thc problem of di fferentiat ing a product, for which we have a magic formu la in our pocket. According to this formula: c) du .. zdy + ydz. Wc at once observe ,lhat the fo rm of the first term on the right hand side, namely, of zdy, is such, th at it must quietly remain in its post till the last minute, si nce tha t task is to find oul the differential of y (


). Le., to express it in [terms of] the differentials o f u and z. On

the other hand, for Ihls very reason ydz should be shifted to the left hand side. That is why: d) du - ydz - zdy.

If now wc put the value of y namely E.. • in ydz, then





that is why

zdu - udz -zdy.


Now the moment of fre e ing dy from its sleeping partner z has arrived, and wc. gel

zdu - udz - dy- d _ . 11







l ·"

." i I
,~ ,~..':."I •


.•_- --- -i.'.

~ -.

i'. ,

! J ' ..... -' r 1.... J- .-~ . .,..".-\. t ..._-!'4"" -l·.-,. ' ,'"

" ---


I ,...,--.


f .. . .

.••.-1 : ' \ •.

.. ,.


., ~. '.•.

.- -----

~ '. '

.. -


,~, \~- ~ ~~.:




> • ' . : .. ,..:.

n· ',.


~ --- - . -



I • -





-;- .•
' ~ 41'.


'P-"' ....... '

~ . .....





l--.• ,

1- . ' \

... __ J

~ \


' ~

' --- - --

- ' " f'oJ-


, _",,- ,-.1


PIIOTO<..:OI'Y Of A I'AOF..OF TtH! NOTI: nOOK EN·lTll. EO · U lCON'IlNUI\110N OF A). 11-.

·A PA GE OF THE NOTE n OO K (I\'TITLED ~ B (C ONT I NUATI ON Of' A) 11" 511 1) Newton, b . 1642, t 1727. "P"i1o:wphilll! 1 1lIlImllis ",.il1cipia lIIathell/o l i('lI". puhl i!'.hed in 1687. Bk. I., Lemma XI, SdlOlia. Bk. 11 . Bk. If. Lemma 11 , after Pl'Oposit;()11 VII 51 . .. Analysis per (JIUllllilt.J/ltlTl .'(!I'ies, f!f/xio// e.· etf..'. ~ , wr illcn in 1665, puhlblh;J in t 7 11 ·~ ~ . \ \ 2) L.eiblli/z. 3) Tay/or (J .Broo k). h. 1685, t 173 1, publis hed in 171 5 ~ 17 : ,. /l.Jet/wdu ,· iIlCI'(!fI/(!lI/nrtllll \

MacL atlrill (Colifl ), h . Hi98 , .;. 17-16.

15) J ohn L al/dell .


6) d 'Alemhel'l, b. 1717, 'j' 1783. "Traile de j7ui(/e .\ " J 74-1 5.'.

7) Elller ( LcnnhanJ) . Ib.1 1707, 'j' 1783.
~ /lI lr(}(II/Clio

ill ol/a/)'sill ill[illit(Jrum\ Lau!ot:1llllc. 1748.

dilfcl't!lIIialis", 175.1 (P. I, t:h. JIl t:. 8) Le/grange, h. 1736. "The'orid des liJlK/ ioll s tllwlyliqlles" ( 1797 and IS I3) Introduction) . 9) Pois.wJ/1 (Den is, Simcnn). b. 1781, 'f 1840.
10) Lap/(Ice ( P. Sim oll, Marq ui:c; de), h. 174<). t 182.1.

~ /nstiflltjon e:) calclIli

11 ) Mo/glint "Le~'olls de ca lcul dijJi!relllief el de (',Ih'ul illlegrul" f<\



Newtoll : b. 1642, "t 1727 (at (hI.! age of 1015). "Philosopltia/! /u/llIralis pr;!!c;";(I matltematica" (first puhlishctl in IfiH7. SCJ! Le"1I110 I allu Lemma XI. Sdwlia). Then I.:spccially: "Amdysis per qllulIlifulIIlII serie.\~ jlUX;OIlI!.\" elc," first puhlished in 1711, but writl~n in 1665. whereas Lcihnitz made similar discoveries fo r Ihe first time in 1676.
Leihlfilz : h.1646,


1716 (al the age of 7U).

LtlKI"tUlKI! : h. 173(;, wns already lIcnd during Ihe rule emperor (Napoleon I) , inventor of the methot! of variflliOfIS. "Tht!oriti des Jm/(.:Iioll .~ Ollfl/YfiqllL'.\·" (1 7<.)7 and \ 8 13). ...


t/'Alemberf : h. 1717, t 171U (at the age or 66). "Trtlile de fluides", 1744 .
1) Newtoll. Speeds, or t1uxinns , for example off"/! I'ariable,,, x,y cH:. arc lIcsignnlcd hy y ch;, I f, for ex .. mplc u <lntl x llntl a re i/lterre/II/"d maK/lillldt!~· (flUt!lIt.';), Kt!IU!rtllt!d h>: continuous


motioll, then il antl.r dcsionHh: thc spectls of their im:rcmcnt and, consequently.!;. i~ the ratio ~ x
of th e spcetls. with which their incre me nt is gcneratctl. Since the nume rical magnitutles 1)1' ;d~ssihle quantities mily he represented hy straight I ines, SI) the mO/lle/la·, or infinitely small parL<.; of the generated magnitudes the produc ts of their speeds ;tnd of the infinitely SIll,III parts (If [iml,;, in cntl r~e of which [hese !'JlCeds lasl SiJ, such Ihal, if"t tlcsignales this infinill:ly sl1lall part uf lime, then the muments of the m:lgnitullcs x Hntl y arc correspondingly represcnteJ by T.r ;lIltl Tjr. Fur eXlImpk )' = I/Z ; if wc designltle the spectls of innement of the 1ll00gnttutlcs <;t1rrespondingly hy j', i, il thc n their moments will bc 1:Z, "til, and wc "hall get:



J' hence,


Y + "ty - (11 + til) (z + tz) .. IIZ + 1ft: + nit + "t~ili


ty _IrtZ + nil + T2ili .
T is infinitdy s m:lll , so it vanishes all hy itse lr. and even more cumpletely vanishes as lhe product, corresrnnlling nol In the infinitely sma ll segment of time"t, hut to its :;ct.:o ntl power. ( I r. for example,


"t~ iIZ,

"t -



"t~ - 1 million x 1 million ·




Thus, wc gt.:t

)' -IIZ+ 211,

. .


or lhe /luxi<l of y _ IlZ is liz + ill 51


2) Leihnilz. Surrnsc the differential of IIZ is rcquiretl to he fountl out. turns intn

+ dll, Z -

into z+dz .
.. IIZ + udz + zdll + (itulz .

!IZ + d (IIZ) _ (1/

+ du) (z + dz)

If from this the given magnitude IIZ is suhtractetl then IIdz + zdll + dlulz will remain as the increment, cl" dz - the protluct uf infinitely small cllI and infinitely small dz - is an




infi nitesimalofscconcJ order and vanb.hcs as compared
That is why
'_ • '1' ~ , : •~

I{l th{~

infini lcsimals Ill" fir:-I order utlz



d (~IZ) - 1U1. + zdll ~. 1

S tales lhc' iask in
y - J(x),


general from as follows: Lcl

the value determined.

of YI - Y



the magnitllde "

. ()'. 0 vanishes, Le., tIl e value , 1 .- . , IS 0

' ~I) •




Newton llnll Lcibnilz as well as the majority of their s uccessors., oper,lle upon the ground
of d iffere ntial calcu lus ['rom the very beginning. and Ih a t b why the differe ntia l expressions fit once se rve them liS operati onal formulae for sC!trching the real c qlllv;d c nl~<;. 'The whole issue is this: with the trans formati o n of the indcp ~ cnl variahle x in to ·x l• the depend e nt

variable turns into )'1' but X I -x is of nccessity c411a l 10 some <.Iiffc rcnec, for cxamp le ·". This is containcd in thc very concept nf illl: vari:lblc. Hnwcvcr fruiTI Ihis it doe~ .iiol ~It all fo llow, that this differencc, which is C4Ual '!<j ',Ix, is a valli~hing Ini agnitudc'l, i.c~ , in rc:ll ity it = O. It may prcsent itself :\ Iso mi;1 finite d iffcre nce. If wc ai... uiTIe befo re lian<.l , ihat the incrc:lsingx turns into x (Ncwwn's 't pl<lys no mic in his analysis of the bas ic 1 lnct io l1 s \ IInd perhnps that is why it has been omillcd(~l) or, ns pe r Lc ibni tz, into'· x '~ dx. then the <.I iffe ren liai expressions <It once turn in to opcfiltiona I symbols, without f II Tlhe r adva nee of tlicir nlgebraic desccnt.


Ad [PI 1S· (Newton).
T nke the Ncwto nian initin l eq uation fo r the prod uct llz, w hich has to be dirfercnti<l te<.l. Th cn

Y + "()' - (1/ + in ) (= + i "( ) Having cas t away 1; -as he him se lf gladly docs, as he cxpands the firs t dilTc rcn lin l eq uatio n YIll,


wc shall gel:

.y +}' - (11 + it) (z + i) ....:.· · .. y+ y _IIZ + 11 Z + Z 11 + Jl Z, · IIZ - IIZ + z It + 11 Z. .. Y+)'Conseq uently, s ince
• See I'V, 49,51.

, .




11 ~





+ ilZ .

ON· n lE IIISTOI{Y 0 1' DI I'FI.;RENTli\I.. CA1 .CULllS


dis~arded lerlll I1

And in order to ohlain Ihe ~o~ rct:l result il Z~ o m 9 fro.m ?

z has 10 he disc:lrded. ·

But where did Ihe rorcibly

... That is very s imple :· the main p(Y is' ·lhis, that the difi"e n:ntillls o f y in the form of inl )" of 11 in the form of illtnd of 2 in the form of Z Olrc Introduced frollY the ve ry beg inning, by definition, as existing side by s ide with the v. lriabl cs, from which they come into bei ng, : ItS independent of them, and arC·Tlo t in troifuced malhemOl l iCOl lly at all. C?,n the one ha nd , wc sce, of what bcnefi.' is this presup posed exis te nce of d,y , dx or i" as soo n as· the ya riPlhles grow, I am only to s ubSli tute in the al gebraic fllnction, lhe binomials y + i', x + etc., and after Ihat they arc only to ·be ma noe uvred as o rdinary algebraic magnitudes-o



Thus for example, hav ing y - ru, I gel

y+y - ax +ux ; '
thus, he nce

y-(/x+y .. ax
y '" ox.
. .



Thu!"> , I a t o nce ge l the rcs ull : differential of Ihe de pe ndent va riable is eq ual 10 the inr.:n:me n{ of rllw fUl1l.:t illn I llx, i.e., {IX is equal 10 Ihe real value deduced/mln (IX, (/ (lhClI here it is a conslant, is aedden l.l1 ;lnd does no t change the general chnracter of the res ult, ~ in ce only this cond itio n is ohliga tory, thnt the variahle x is ~ ilLlnt cd here in th e firs l power) [multiplied hy il. If I generalise Ihis result 61, the n I knuw LthatJ y =f(x), for il s ig nifics, that y is dependent upo n Ihe va ri;lhl c x . If the magn itude derived from f(x), i.e., the real elemenl o f the increme nt, is ~a ll cd J' (x), then the general rcsu h will be

j-/, (.,) x.
Th us, it is known lu mc hcfo rt:h:tnd, thall he equivalenlo f the dil"fcrcntia l of the dcpcn uent va rill hie y is cq u;tI to th(~ fir:-. t de rived fu nclio n accord ing to Ihe independent v;. riablc multiplied h y its dilTercntial, i. e., hy dx or


Thus, in general , if

y - f(x),
the n

")' -1' (x) "x.

.y .. the renl clH.:ffidt:llt in x (excl uding the case, where fact that x enters in tu the first power), multip lied hy i
But Y -


ctl n~ la nl appears , ow ing to thl

;. ;.: '

at o nce gives..,. ..



n a nd gene rally


~ - /, (x ).
Thus two furthe r developed o perational formula e arc fo und ror the differen tia l, and for Ihe diffe rential ~o-errident. forming the basis of {he e nt ire difrere ntial ~alculus.



A pil rl from I his. ge llc ral] Y spc.l! king, thanks to the (/ prio!'i supposition of the t1i ]Terelllia Is elc., as imJepc ndc nL isol:I ICd, incrc lllc nls o r x and y. " g rc~11 advllntllgc is obl1l incu . pe rmitti ng the di lTc rcnli,1I c;lIc ulu s 1 express Idl func tions of the varil1hlcs in 0

d.. , dy etc. or

.r. )'

diffe rent ia l fm ms, fro m the very beginning. S ince 1 developed the ~J:'lsic fun<:lio ns o f the va riables, like

ox:!: h, x),.:!, .x". lI'~. log x

as well" " :!.. , ,·II!tnc nt,.ry c ircu i:'T fun c tion s alo ng this path , I can , w hile scarch'i ng d)'.

th em jUq l il..e t ill' Ilw lt ipl icalion tab les o f arilhmctic. But now if wc look 01\ th e oppos ite si/..lc o f th e a rfa ir, wc sha ll al mu:e o hscrvc, that the e ntire inili,,1opcr:ltio n is m:tth ~ m:l(i" .. ll y w ron g.



T ake the simpl est eXllmplc : y "" ):2. If x grows, then it obtains some inde te rminate inc re ment " ; owing 10 this)', the variahle depe nde nt on il, also obt:tins ;tn iml c te rminat~ in c reme nt k, and wc s hall hilve -

y + k .. (x+ 11

F_ X + 2hx + ,,: 1

for mula provided by th e binomiallthco rc m\. Hence

y + k _ x 2 or Y + k- y .. 21u: + h!
consequen tly,

k _ 2ft.\"+ Hav ing div ided bot h the sirJes by 11. wc gel

0' + k) - Y


k -;;-2\"+ 11.

Now assuming" = 0, wc s ha ll ha ve

On the o the r hand,


2,"+11 ... 2r +0 .. 2r.
: h ut s ince y turned inlo y + k u nl y because

x tlLrned in lO

x + 11, so Y + k again turns jn to y whe n It tu rns in to 0, 011 the stre ngth of w hich x + h aga in
becomes x + O. i.e" x. Hcnce, k nbo hecomes () 1 ~ 1nd
form of ".r o r l' . T hus wc get .1 (.x x

~. w hic h ma y be pr~sentcd now in the

o or o

l .. 2r x

I f in y + k _x 2


2hx + h2 0 r (y + k) -y .. 21u" + 11"2

[wc assu me Ih[ll h O (h turns in lo Ihe sym ho l clr o nly heciluse, in its ini ti.II form , it was J supposed to he equa l 10 0), then \....c s ha ll ge t k .. [) + n .. 0, and thc sole res ult ohtained by liS is hul a n assertio n of our s uppositio n, that y s im ply hCl'omcs y + k. w he n x becumes x + If, .. .. hence, when x + 1I .. x + O- x. the n y+ k ... y, o r k .. 0, But by no mea ns do wc get, after Newto n,


k- 2r dx + dxdx
or, in Ncwtn niit n notatio ll



h turns into X, nnd on the strength o f th;lI, k. - inlo j', o nl y s inl'c " has gone down in to hell Ih ro ug h 0, Le., since the differe nces X I - X (o r (x+h)-x), and Ihal is why a lso y,-y ( .. (y + k) - y ), arc reduced to thcir absolutc minimum expressions: x - x "" 0 and y - y .. O. In so far liS Newton ge L Ithe llifferentials l from the increments o f the var iables x, y e tc., no t <;
with the help of m;tth e malk"al uedIH:tion , bul al once pUl<; th e s tamps o f differe ntial s .r, .i' e tl·., over the inncml'nis, these incremenL~ ca nno t hl~ O. fur u therwise the result wll uld be !lull, :-.i lll"e, expressed a lgebra ica ll y, the s upposition that these in cre men ts arc equal to zero, fro m the vt,.: ry begi nning. is l<lnla mU Unl tn s up posi ng at \lIICC " .. n, and that b why k .. D, as ;Ibuve, in the equa tion


(y + k) - )' .. 2ltx + 112

and hCIlI.:e, It)()htaini ng in Ihc 1:ISI inSl<I IICC\)ro (J. The s upposi tion that 11 '" 0 is i mpefmis~ihlc before the firs t derived function of x, il) the giw n case 2x, is !"reell from the Illttlliplic l " by di vi~ i H n . and th us
- 1 _ _....:... .. 2r


v - \'


is oh tained .
Onlv aflrr thi:, nwy the rin<ll diffcrelH:e he rcmuved. Th a t is why, in till: d ificrc nliall'O(;ITil:ic nl way the

!.!l. 2r ,L,

he initially c.xpandcd 61• hd"nre wc I.:an ubt;d n the differenti;1I
cl)' - 2r(Jx.
el~c 10 do, hUllO prcsen t lhc incremenL,

T htl~, Ihe rt:: rcm<lins nothing
~mal t

!1ll:,).!!1 iUtdc~ I tllH.lln regis te r the m, as slIch, as illllepelldt'lI( heill~s, for exampl e , in th!.! :-.ymlw ls _ .i' e tc ., or fit·,d), letc J. Out in fi nitcl y small magnitudes arc ;l h-,n m;tgnitmk s. as a rc t,

uf "as infinitely

thl; infinitel y hig (the wnrd infini tely (s mall) :-, ig niCics on ly the rHl.: l that it i!> indefinitel y snlllll); that is why . Ih ese dy. dx e\(.:. ur j:. X !e tc l 11 1." 0 fi gure ill Ihe CO IllP U!;tlinll ; I ~ ord inary nigdml ic mllgniLlH.ks. lIud in the l'4 uatinn rcu lIt"l'd ahove
(y + k) - Y o r

k .. 2wlx + "x"x,

thc te rm d\" dx h.ts as mud rig lit tucxis l, as has 2.rdx. But most astonishi ng is that argume nt, by wh ic h this te rm is forci bl y Gis t a w ay, na mely, n n thc s trc n.glh u f Ulilis ing the relativ ity of the cnnn.:pt infinitely ~11l<l1 1; lirt/x is discarded hCclUse it is infini lely sma ll as compa red 1( 1 dx, a nd l'l) n Sl~ qIl C l1tl }', a lso as comrarcd 1 2xdx nr lr.r. Or, if in 0


. - . Y - I l l +ZJI + lIZ, (the ;tlldl'ntll it: is uis~::tnlc d in view 0 1" its infinite slllJllncss in comparison wilh If:! or ;:/I, the n ()1I 1y lhe me ntion o f tIll,: fa c l, th;lt in o ur cyes I;;: + ZII has all ;Ipprnxima tc \"alul·. (.:oncc ivably as prnxill1:Hc tu the exac t (value 1as p o~~ihle . may serve as a math(' ma lil'al .i ll ~ tiJ"i cal i(ltl
f(lf this. Wc meet with the same Iype of mant.c uvre, ; d~11 in the ord ina ry a i.!!c hra. Du I. lIl1.:n wc fa ce 1111 eVen g reater mir:t l·lc: ()wing t(llhi~ rlH:thl,d. wc get, for Ihe ucrivcd function (inl x,



by 110 means an ,lpprtlx imaIC, hu t'ln ent irety exact value (1 IHHI ~ h , as alwvc . it is corred only sy m bo lic,lI ly), as in the pamplc 2\.\" + .~..i:. Hen' discarding _i..l-.


a nd


. ..... .

j; - 2r.i: is oblai ll c~

wbic h is the correct ·fir:;;t . derived function of X2, as"it is p roved. already in the bfno mial [theo reml·
8 ilt this m intc:lc Is no . miracle at all. COll versely. it wo uld h;f"C h~cll a' mlradc, ha ~ 'the fo rc ibl e casting away of ii 1101 ginm all eX(lct rew!, . Fo r wll(l/ is {/i.\"Cl//'dl!d ' j".\, bi" .\"aml! mistake ill computalioll , which, however, was tin; unavoidahle conseque nce o r th e mclhl)d,
pc rmitl ing the inlrouuctioll of ;111 indctcrminalc illCfCmcpl 7 for cxanlplc " . {I f the v:l ri abl c at o nce as the d j'rfcrcn t i:d dx o~ i, :IS a rc;u.ly -rmH.lc opcralit',!wl ~y'I1;tHil amf th llS of im, el.l iately m obt:t i n i ng 'the d j rrerell li;r I C:I lI; u I us as ,HI imlepclllk nt Illea n~ of t:omptlta tillfl. lIisti Ilt:nrum the o rllinaryal!!cbra ,



.. ,,-.,

Th e r.:olt r ~c ()j' the algebraic mcthou tI~cJ by us nwy he ucpielcd i n lhe gene ral from as und er. Iflex) is given, then at f irst the "preliminary derivative" is CXPllllllcd , w h ich wc sha ll

call ['(x) :

6'; ,


or :\_ ""

/1 (x),

this equiltion it follows tha t;

t.J' - I'(x)t.x,
T hus, lrl SO ;

t.I(x) - I '(x)"x (s; ncc)' -I(x)), Isol t.J'-t.I(x), Supposi ng XI -x'"' 0, anJ r.:Ouscqllcnlly. ;lIso
)' ) - y"O, wc gC !



;". ,i
__ f __


-," ; !'I

1 1 2)

-d" - [,(x), dx


(/J' hence, ;tl so

f' (x) (/x,


(/[(.,) -['(x) (/x (, ;nl'c y - [(x), d)" . (/[(xi).






Since we have a lready expanded

1) 11/(x)- /'(x)l1x,
we see that

2) d/(x) - f'(x)dx is o nly the d ifferential expression for 1)

1) If x turns into XI' then

A) x l -x-6x;
hence the foll owing conclusions: Aa) 6x-x,-x ; a) x l -6x-x; 6 x, the difference between XI and x- expressed posilively- is conseque ntl y, the illcremellt of the va riable x, beca use, if it is taken, conversely, away from XI' then the latter returns 10 its initial co nditio n, to x. Hence the difference may be expressed in two ways: immediately, as the difference between the increased variable a nd its co nditio n prior to in crease - and this is its n egative expression; and poSi tivel y. as th e increment ·, as the result: as Ih~ increment of x to tha t conditio n of it, when it does not increase furth er, and Ihis is a pos itive expression. We s hall sec la te r, what ro le this two· fold understanding plays in the history o f calcu lus. (2» ) b) x,-x+l1x.
XI is inc reased X itself, its growth is no t separa ted from it ; Xl is the ent irely indeterminate fo rm of its inc rease; this fo rm distinguishes the increased x, i.e., XI from its initial fo rm prior to increase, fro m x, but it does not distinguish X from its increment, as such. Owing to this the relatio n of XI and X may be expressed o nl y nega tivel y, as a difference, as XI -x. As opposed to th is, in Xl - X + 6 X :

1) The difference is expressed positively, as the increment of x. 2) Tha t is w hy its inc rease is exp ressed not as a difference, but as the sum of it in its initial condition + its increment. 3) T echnically speaking, from a monomial X turns into a binomial. a nd wherever in the ini tial functio n X is met with. in some power, there in place of the increased X appears the binomial, consisting of x itself alld its illcrement ; genera lly (speaking] in place of X'" the bin omial (x + h,/". Thus. expansion of the increase of [the va riab le ] x in reali ty beco mes a case of s imple application of the binomia l theorem. Since X co mes fo rth as the first, a nd 6. x - as the second term of th is binomia l - wh ich is indicated by their very interrelat ion. in so far as X must have existed prior to the emergence o f its increment !lx, so in reali ty only a function of x is being deduced with the help of the binomial, mea nwhi le d X fi gu res s ide by side as a multiplier w ith increasing powers; and herein 6x in its first power, i.e., 6xI, must appear


Here Marx has written is pencil


or decrease


. -




in the second term of the expans ion as the multiplier of the first deri ved function of xl>

deduced with the hel p of the bino min ltheo rcm. This is obse rved at o nce, whcnx is g iven in ilS second power. x 2 turns into (x + t:.X)'2, which is nothing else but the mll /liplicarioll o f x + .:l x by itself, [and which J gives x2 + 2x 8 x + II x2, i.e., the first term mus t be the ini tia l function of x, and the first derived fun ction of X2, i.e., in the given case [2J x form s the second term with the multiplier .1. Xl ; this [multiplier] appears in the first term o nl y as I1xO - l. Thus, the derivative is found not through differentiation , but by applying the billominl theorem i.e., lhro u~ multiplication, and bes ides, beca use the inc rement XI figures from the very beginning as a binomial , as x + 11 x . 4) Though in x+Ax, asa magnitudcAx is as indeterminate, as is the indetermi nate variable x itself, nevertheless, 6.x is determinate, as distinct fro m the part ic ular magn itude x, as the foetus beside its own mother before she became pregnan t x + 11 x d oes no t s impl y inde te rmin ately express th e fact th at, as a variable x has increased, it also expresses how much x has increased, namely, by t:J. x.
5) When the derivative is fo und by applying the binomia l theorem, Le., by substi tuting x + AX for.t in the determina te powe r [of the va riabl eJ x, then x never appears as XI; the entirf} .. expans io n moves around the incremcn t t:J. x. Only o n the left hand side, when in

y,' -Y[h e" IIlcrcmcnt t

1 !lx


into zero, does!l X fina ll y appear again as equal to XI -x,

s uch that

YI - Y

>'1 - Y

Thus , the positive s ide of the equalisatio n of XI-X with zero, namely , thc turning of XI into x, can no where appear in the expansion in so fu as XI' as s uch, never fig ures on that side, where the expandcd series is situa ted; thus the rca l secret of differential ca lculus remains unrevealcd.

6) If Y - f(x) and Yl - f(x + A x), then we can say, that in this meth od, lhe expansion of Yl 'he problem of searching the derivative.

c) x+.1.x-x\ (hen ce also,y+6.Y-YI). Here.1.x may appear only in the fo rm of .1. x - XI - x, i.e., in the negative form o f a differen.ce between XI and x, and not in the positive form of an increment of x. as in -':1 - x + .1. x. 1) Here t!:le increased x, i.e., XI is distinct"from itself, from what it wa s prior 10 the increase, Le., from x. but XI does nor appear as x in creased by 6. x ~ tha t is why, in fa ct XI remains as indeterminate as x. 2) Further, just as x enters into an initial functi on, so does Ihe increased XI - entcr into the initia l fun ctio n transformed by the increase. Thus, for exampl e, if x appears in the

Ma rx wrOle in pencil : • ( -

t;) .. -

Ed .



fun ctio n x-J, then XI appears in the function X I] ' While a t first we substitute x by (x + dX) in the initia l fun ction, the deriva tive is furni shed by the binom ial in an entirely read y-made form , tho ugh e ndowed with the multiplier dX and appearing as the leader of the other te rms in x with the multipliers dX 2 e tc.; now from this immediate form of the mo nomia l XIJ, of the augmented x, we may immed iately deduce as littl e, as [may be deduced} from x-J. However, he reby the difference X I 3 - x 3 is given. W c know from algebra , thatall differences of the form X3 _ a3 are divis ible by (x - a), i.e., in the given case by Xl -x . That is why when we divide X I3 - Xl by Xl - x (in place 0 1 multiplying, as before, (x + d x ) by itself, as many limes, " S many are the unil~ in the index of power), we ob tain [prelimin arily] an expression o f the form (XI -x)P irrespecti ve of the fa ct, whether the ini tiill funct ion of x is a polynomial, (Le., co ntains X in various powers), o r, as in our example, a 1110nomial. In th e cou rse of division th is (x , - x) becomes the denominator for Yl - Y in the left ha nd side, and, thus, there eme rges YI - Y Xl


the ratio of the d iffere nce of the fun ct io n to the difference of the independent

variable x in its abstract difference fo rm. Expansion of the di fference between the fun ctions expressed inxl' and those expressed in x, in to such terms, each of which has the multiplier Xl - x, may, in view o f the characteristics of the initial function of x, demand grea ter or lesse r algebraic manoeuvres; perhaps, it is a demand wh ich is not always fulfilled as eas il y, as in the case of x l 3 _X3 . But this cha nges nothing in thc method. Where, owing to its own na tu re, the in itial function does not permit a direct expansion [of the difference] [(Xl) - f(x) in (Xl - x) P, as it happe ned for f(x) .. ItZ (two variables dependent upon x), there [the expression]
(XI -

x) appears [in the 1multiplier x

,~ x . Further,

when after the transfer of Xl - X to the left hand side, through the divisio n of both the s ides by it , Xl - X still remains in P itselr (as, fo r example, while dcducing the derivative of y - aX, then we find

y,-y {(X,-X)- l - - - a'~ (a - 1) + 2 X I -x l '
and there the supposition that

Ca -

) 1)2 + etc. ,

-x .. 0 g ives

'" a~ {(a - 1) - : - 1)2 + ·Ha - 1P - etc. } ). Ha
This, as in the example jllSl cited, ma y happen always, only if the suppos ition of XI - x equal to zero, leading to its disappearancc, always left positive results in its place. In other words, these x, - x, still remaining in P, cannot be con nec ted with the o ther ele ments of the express ion P as multiplie rs (as ml1itipiicators). In the opposite case, P could be represented as P _ P (Xl - x) a nd , it means, that in so fa r as XI - X was already assumed to be equa l to zero, as p' 0 ; this would s ignify that P _ 0 63



When y - xl, and y, again into

the first finite diffe rence


x3 is, conseque ntl y. expanded

1\ - y - (x, - x) P,

1, - Y _ P o

The express io n P, presenting ilSelf as it combination of Xl and x, is cq~ltil to f l- the derivative of the first finite difference; hence, Xl -x is excl uded . as arc the high er powers of it (XI -x)2 e tc. Owing to this, in the given case, Xl and x ca n o nly combine in pos itive x expressions,l ikcx,+x; XIX, --1,VX j X etc. Hcnce,i fn owwc assume thill xl-X, then these x expressions wi ll co rrespondingly turn into 2 x, X2, ! or 1, ID or x e lc., and o nly on the left x hand side, where XI -x form s the denominator will 0 appear, and conseq ue ntl y, a lso the symbo lic differential co-effi cient etc.

1) Mystical differential calculus. Xl _ X + l!J. x nl once turns into XI - X + dx or x + where dx is postulated by a mct.'lphysical explmtatioll. At first it exists, and is expla ined o nl y
subseq uently.


But even then y, - y + dy or YI - Y + y. From this arbitrary postulation it follows, that x + I:!. x or x + the terms in x and i::J, x, which, for examp le, were obtained side by side with the first derivative. must be removed by jugglery, so that a correct result may be obt.ai ned e tc. etc. S ince, upon actua l substan tiatio n, the differential ca lc ulus proceeds from th is last resu lt, namely, from the differential particles, which arc
in the expansion of the binom ial


antic ipated, and no t deduced, but premised with Ihe he lp o f an elucidation, so

symbolic differential co-efficient, is also ollticipateclby this elucidation. If the increment of x is equal to fl x, and the increment o f the variable depende nt upon it is equa l to fly, then it stands to reason all by itself, that





~ expresses the

ratio of Ihe increments

of x andy. But that flx figures in th e denominator, i.e., the increment of th e independent variable stands in the denominator, and not, conversely, in the numerator, is a consequence of the fact, that the final result of th e development of differential forms th emselves , namely, the diff(!relltial, is also given already before hand, by the premised different ial pa rticles. Let us consider Iht' simp lcf,t relation between the dependent variable y and the independent variab le X, 3!'o \11)' - x . In this case it is known that dy - dx or thaty _ x . But since we seek the derivative of the independen t [varillble I x, here which so bo th the sides must b ~ divided by or dx 64, ;lnd hcncc



d . El or .r. dx x


Thus, we know once and for all, that in the symbolic differential co-efficient, increment lof the independent variable J must be situated in the denominator, and not in th e numemtor. But now for the functions of x in the second degree, the derivative is at once soug ht wi th the help of the binomial theorem, [prov iding the expans ion, in which] the derivative appears in a ready-made form illready in the second term with the multiplier dx or X, i.e. , with the increments in first power + the te rms to be discarded. However, Ihis trick is, though unco nsciously, mathematically correct, since it on ly clim inates that mistake in compu tation, which emerged at the very beginning, from the initial tricks. Only
XI - X

+ fl x is to be transformed into

so that thcn \\.'" can lord ove r this differential binomial, just as [we dol over the ordinary binomials, which would be very comfortable from the technical point of view. The only question which may st ill be raised is as follows: why the terms block ing the path are forcibly eliminated? It has been assumed 1 be well known, that they sta nd in our path 0 and, that, in reality, they do not belong to the derivative.

' ..

x,-x+dx or into x+x,



The an . . wer is very simple; it has bee n found out experimenta lly. Not on ly for many more complex functions of x, includin g those in Ihcir all1l1ylical forms, like the equa tions for c urves etc., were th e actual deri vatives long si nce well known, bu l this was also discovered
imm ediately in th e fi rst poss ible experimen tal so lu tion, namely, upo n co nsideration o f the

simplest algebraic ftlnClions of the seco nd degree, for example: y _Xl , Y + dy - (x + dx)2 _ x 2 + 2xdx + dx2 , Y + Y (x + x)2 _ x 2 + 2.U + X _ l, If f rom both the sides the initi al function x 2 (y _ Xl ) is subtracted , then dy _ adx + dxl ,

y- 2xX+xx ;
discarding the las t terms from both Ilhe right hand 1s id es, wc sha ll get: dy - 2xdx,

.y - 2l:i,

and, further.

!!l _2x

l' _ 2x.

But from (x + a)2 il is known , that x 2 is th e first term , :wd 2xa - the second ; if this expression is divided by a, as we have divid ed above 2xdx by dx or 2xX by X. then we would get ~,as the first derivative o f x 2 , as the accretion in x 65, which the bi nomial added to X2. Thus, for seek in g the dt, rivative they had to discard dx2 or xi, not to speak of the fact, that there was nothing 1 be done with dx2 0 r xx in itself. 0 Thus, alrea dy at the second step along the path of exper imenta tion, Ihey inev itably arrived al th e conclus ion, thaI, not o.nl y for obta ining the correc t result, but also for obtaining any result at all , it is essential to disca rd dx2 or xx. But on the other hand , in 2xdx + dx 2 or 20· + they had before them a correct ma thematica l expression (the second and the third term) of the binomial (x + dx )2 or (x + X)2, Tha t this mathematically correct result is based upon all equally marhemalically wrong presllPposition at the very foundation, thal s upposed ly, from the very beginningxl -x - .6 x is nOlhingelse but XI -oX - dx or this they did not know 66 , In other words, that ve ry IC~UIt could have been obtained and proposed in the mathematical world, not wi th the help {1 [ j ugglery, but with algebra ic operations of the s implcst type , Th us, they themselves believed in the mysterious character of the newly discovered ca lc ulus, whic h provided correct (and more over in the geometr icu l appl icat ions, rea ll y astonishing) res ults by a posi tively in correct mathematical procedure, They were thus self· mystified, valued the new discovery all th e higher, enraged the c rowd of old orthodox mathematicians all the more, and thus call ed forth the cry of o pp o~ ition ; it aro used an echo even in the lay world, and that is necessa ry for paving the path for some th ing new.





2) Rational ditl'crcntial cakulus. d'Alcmbcrt starts directly from the starling point of Newton and Leibllilz : Xl'" X + dx. But he lit once makes a fundamental co rrection: Xl =- X + 6. x, i. e., x + an indetermillate, but first of all afillite illcrement. This he calls h. With him, the transformation of this h or 6. x into dx (likc all Frenchmen he uses the Leibnitzian notations) takes place only as the last result of the development or at least just at the eleventh hour, while with the mystics and the initiators of calculus it appears as the sta rting point (d' Alembert himself opcr;'lles from the symbolic side, bUI before that side turns into a sy mbol). By this a t once a two fold result is obta ined 67. a) Ratio of the differences

[(x+") -[(x)


+") - /(x)
Xl - X

has as the starting point of its own formation 1) [thcdiffcrencelf(x+h)-f(x),which corresponds to the algebraic function given in X, obtained, when in the initial function of [the variablel X, for example, in x 3, x is substituted by that very x with its increment, i.e., by x + 11. This form (- Yl - y, if Y "" fex» is the form of the dif/raellce of fUllctions, which is required by the development, so that the increment of the functio n in the ratio may be transformed into the increment of the independent variable; hence, it plays a real role, and not purely a nominal onc, as with the mystics. For, if I have with the la ttcr

f(x+h) - (x + hP =x3 + 3x2/t + 3xh 2 + 11 3, the n I know beforehand, that the oppos ite s ides of the equality f(x+ h) - f(x) _x 3 + 3x 2h +3xh2 +,,3 -x3, are reduced to increments. This may not have been written, s ince in the second side [R .H.S] I sce, that of the increment of [the function] x 3 .. the next three te rm ~, just as in J(x + 11) - [(x), there. rem.<tins only the increment of the [function] f(x), i.e., dy. Thus , the first difference equation again, beforehand, plays only a vanishing rolc. The increments beforehand sL'lnd oppos ite each other on both the sides and if I have them, then from the definitions of dx and l dy I can conclude, that !!1..d or ~ is the ratio ctc. Hence , in order to (orm El.dx or ~, I do not x x x need the first difference, obtained through the subtraction of the in itial function in x, from the changed (by the substitution of x by X + h) function (from the increased function). It is essential for d'Alembert to hold fast to this difference, because the process of development must emerge from it. That is why in place of the positive expression of difference, i.e., in p.lace of the increment, the negative expression of increment, i.e., namely, the difference I(x + 11) - f(x) comes to the fore, in the left hand s ide. And of this stressing of the difference in place of the increme nt (the Ouxions of Newton), we at least have a presentiment in the Leibnitzian notation of dy, as opposed to the Newtonian y .

2) f( x +") - f(x) - }x'1> + 3x'"


Dividing both the sides by 11, we get



f( X + h) - [(X) _ 3x2 + 3xh + ,,2
Here in the left hand side


[(H") -[(x) .!(H" )-[(X) . , d . IS .ormc , II x1-x appea ring. thus, as the derived ratio of fillite differences, whc rc:l.s for the mystics it was a ready-made ratio of increments, provided by the ddinitions of dx or x and dy o r y. 3) Now assuming" - 0 or Xl - X, i.e., Xl - x - 0 in
[( X+ " ) -

[(x) .!( H " ) - [(x)

wc thereby trans form

x, - x

this expression into


; s imultaneously with this, owing to the

transformation of It into 0, the terms 3xh + 112 also turn into zero, moreover, by a correct

mathematical operation. Hence, now they are removed wi thout a trick. We ge l :


o dv 0 or ';b: - 3x' - ['(x).

x + It; since in place of x 3 I (x + hP g ives

The latter ca me into being, as with the mystics, as already given, when x turns into x3 + 3x2h + etc., wherc 3x2 already appears in the second term of the series as the co-efficient o f h in first degree. Thus, the conclusion is the same as with Leibnitz and Newton, however, here the entirely ready·madc derivative 3x2 is disentangled fro m its su rround ings. stric tl y algebraically. This is no development, but rather the disentanglement of f'(x), here of 3x2, freed from its multiplier 11. and from th e other terms marching in a row along with it. But what has really been developed, is the left symbolic side, namely, dx. dy and their ratio, the symbolic differential co·efficicnt ~ -


(more correctly,


% ~). which, in its turn, again ca lled forth a coup le of metaphysical horrors, -

though this time the sy mbol hJIS been wormed out mathematically. d' Alemberl tore orr the shroud of mystery from the differential ca lculus, and thereby took a great step forward . However, in spite of the appearance of his "Treatise on the liquids" alrc"dy in 1744 (see: p. 15 *). the method of Leibnit7. prevailed in France for many more years. There is hardly any need to point out, that Newton ruled in England till the first decades of the 19th century. But here \00, as in France earlier, the d'Alcmbcrtian foundation - with certain modification s - prevailed till the presen t moment. 3) Purely algebraic differential calcu lus. Lagrange, "Theory ofanalyticalfullcliolls" (1797 and 1813). As in 1) and 2). [here Jilso] the first starti ng point was the increasing x, if y or [(x)- etc., the n Yl or [(x+dx) as in the mystical method. and Yl or f(x+lJ) ( - [(x + A x)) - as in the rational. This binomial starting point at once gives us a binomial expansion on the other s ide, for example:


Sce PV, 66 . -E<!,



+ 111."("' - lit + etc. ,

mxm -I in an entirely ready-made rorm.

where the second term mx"'- III already gives thc unknown .rea l difrcrential co-crricic nt '.

a) f(x + Jr) st.anding on the Icft hand sidc is rclatcd the ;;~p~il~C~ , ~cries s tanding opposi te it, as soon as x + h is substituted in plaec of x in' the glvenl rn';lilil I"unction. just as in algebra the IIIlexpallded general e.i:pression, and first 'or all, the ' ve:t{'HJRomial, is rdated to the corresponding expanded series, as in ' ,";T'


(x+ hP _ x3 + 3X?f1 + etc.,
(x + hP is re lated to the expa nded seric... x 3 + 3x'll + etc" cqu'ivalcnt 10 it. Thcreby iL f ",cl f(x + h) appears in the same algebraic correlation (o nl y in appl icatioll to varii,blcs), in which, in the whole of a lgebra, the genera l cxpression rinds itself to its expansio n, -rls, fo r exam ple, in
a . x x2 x.l - - - I + - + - 2 + - + elc.,

a -x




_a_ is related to the e)q,andcd



1 + etc:, o r <IS in

s in(x+h) - sinx nis !J+ cosxsin h" sin (x + /I) is related to thc expansion s tanding oppos ite it. d'Alembert s imply algebraicised (x + dx) or (x +x) into (x + 11), he nce also f(x + 11), from y + dy, y + L1grange imparted a purely a lgebraic character to the eTlt.ire ex pressio n, having co untcrposed 10 it, as a general IlIlexpall ded expre$sioll, the ex panded series, which must be deduced from it . b) In the rirst method 1), as well as in the rationa l 2), th e unknown real co-efficien t is ma nufactured in a ready -made form by the [use ofJ the binomial th eorem, and is met with already as the seco nd term or the expanded series, thus, in the term necessa rily cont.1ining h'. Consequently, as in 1), so also in 2), the entire furthe r course of di ffere ntiation is a luxu ry. T hat is why. let us cast aside th is useless ba llast. From the binomilll expansion wc know once Ilnd for all, that the firs t rea l co-efficient is Ihe multiplier o f h, the second co-c ffic ient - tha t of h2 elc. These real differential co-erficicnls are nothing hut successive binomial developmcnts of the derived jUllctiolls from IIIe illitial fUlZctioll in x (;md the introductio n o[ this category of derived fUllctiolls is one of th e most important [aC hievemen ts]). Concerni ng the separatc difrerential forms, we know that, tu IUrns into dx, 6.y - into dy, tha t Ih e first


derivative find s symbolic express ion in the form of !ill ,the second de riva tive, the co-efficient



~lrl_ in the form of ~ etc. Hence" thanks

to the sy mm ctri es, we can present the results

obtained by us pu rely algebraica ll y and at thc same time in tht\ form of th ei r sy mbolic difrerential equivalents. Of the differential calculus proper the nomenclature alone re ma ins. Under such circumsL1nces, the en tire task is in essence reduced to : find ing out the (algebraic) methods "of expanding all types o f func tions of x + h according 10 increasi nc integral powers of h, which cannot be done in many cases without [recourse to ] highly c umbersome opera tions"68,



Thus far there is nothing in ugrangc, which could no t have been obta ined

directl y

proceeding from the method o f J 'A lcmhcrt (for the laLter method also conL.1ins, only in 11

corrected form, the entire co urse of deduction of the mystics) . c) But consequently, in so far as the expansion of y, or (x + 11) ... e tc., appears in place of the earlier differential calculus [[and the reby. in rea lity, clearly comes forth the secret of those methods, which proceed from y + dy or y + Y. x + dx or x + X, na mely, that their ac tual expansion is based upon the application of the binomial theorem, ill so far as, from the very beginning they present the increased x, as x + dx, the incrcascdYl -asy + dy, tra ns forming thereby the mono mial into a bi no mialll, the Ifoll owi ng] tas k e merges: s ince in f{x + 11) we have a functionofx witho ut power, only its gellerallmexpandedexpressioll, the general, Le., s uitable also fo r the function s of x of any power, series of expansion is to be algeb raically deduced fro m this very uncx panded express ion . Here, for the purpose ofa lgebricising the differential calculus, L'lgrange takes that theorem of Tay/or, as his immediate s t.'lfting point, which has outlived the New/onialls alld New 1Of1 69 , In reality this most gene ral and mos t co mprehensive theo rem, is also at the sa me time the operationa l formula of differentia l calculus, na mely, expressed in sy mbolic differential co-efficients, the expanded series for : y\ o r f(x + h), Le.,

y, or f(x+h)dx <ix' [2) <ix' [2-3) dx' [2'3-4 ) d) Here the investigations o n the theorems of MacLaurin and Taylor arc to be insertcd 7o . e) The Lagrangian a lgebraic expans ion of f{x + 11) into its eq uival ent se ries,
_ y .(or f(x)) + El h +!!2 ~ +!!2.~ + E:J!. --..!L + ....

s ubstitutes the Taylorian


etc. and retains them onl y as

the sy mbolic differential

express ions of the algebraica ll y derived fun ct io ns of x. (This is to be s ubsequently developed further 71 .)

c) Continuation orp.2S* Initially we have XI - X - !! x as an expression of the difference Xl - X ; "ere the difference exists only in its difference form (analogously, w hen y is dependent upon x, wc often write y \ - Y ). Assuming Xl - X - /j. x, wc thereby impart upon the difference, an expression which is already different from itself . We express, though in an indeterminate [orm, 'he value of this difference as something different from the difference o f magnitudes itsel r . Thus, for example, 4 - 2 is the pure express ion of the difference between 4 and 2 ; but 4 - 2 = 2 is the difference expressed through 2 (on the right hand side) : a) in a pos itive form, hence, no morc as a difference; b) the subtraction executed, the difference computed, and 4 - 2=2 gives us 4= 2+ 2. Here the second 2 appears in the posi tive fo rm of all increment of the i"itial2, thus, in a form, which is directly opposed to the form of difference. ( Exactly in the same way a - b _ c, a _ b + c, where c comes forth as an incrcmcnt of b , same also for X I - X - d X, XI - X + !J,. x, where 6. x figures immed iately as an incremcnt of X .)

Thus the simple initial assumption of XI - X - !J,. x - someth in g. puts somcthi ng else in place of the form of difference, namely, the form of sum X I -x+!J,.x; along wi th this Xl - X, expressing only a difference, [bccoqJesl the equiva lcn t value of this difference, the magnitude 6. x. Also in the same way, from Xl - X - !J,. X we obtain Xl -!J,. x - x Here, again we have the form of difference in th e left hand s ide, bu t as the difference between increased XI and its incremen t proper, a ppearing beside it independently. The difference between it and the increment of x, equal to !J,. x, is now a difference, already expressing - though in an ind eterminate form - a determinate value of x. But i[ we proceed from the mystical diHerential ca lculus, where XI - X at once appears as Xl - X - dx, and if at first dx is corrected into 11:X, then we proceed from X l - X - A x ; hence, from XI - X + A x; bu t this ca n, in its turn, be again transformed into x + A X . ·xl • so that the increase of x again attains the indeterminate form XI ' and, as such, immediately appears in the calculus.Th is is the st.1rting point of our algebra ic method. d) From these si mpl e differences in form, we at once, and immediately, obtain that fundamental difference in th e treatment of calculus, which we cha racterised in particular (see the correspond ing separate sheets)n , while analys ing the method of d 'Alembert. Here I shall limit myself to ~t;)me remarks of a genera l character. 1) If the difference Xl - X (and hence also YI - y) appears at once as its oppos ite, as the sum Xl - X + 11 x. and that is why the magnitude of its value inSL"ln tly assumes the positive form of the ;,rcrement A x, then if in the illitial fUllctioll in x, in place of x everywhere we substitute x + A x, then a binomial series of a determinate degree is required to be expanded and, the expans ion of XI is reduced to an application of the binomial theorem. The binomial theorem is nothing but a general express ion for the binomial of first degree multiplied w ith itself
• See : PV, 71 ·72 .-Eel .



m number of times. ThaI is why, if wc at once present a differellce liS ils opposile. as 11 sum, then multiplication becomes the method of expanding Xl [or] (x + A x). 2) Since in the genera l expression Xl -x + I::r.x, the difference XI - x given in the positive form of !J. x, i.e., in the form of an illcrement, is tile latter or the secolld term of the expression, so x becomes the first, and 6. x - the second term of the initial function in x, when the laltcr.appears as a function in x + A x. But we know from the binomial theorem, that the second term figures on ly as a multiplier in increasing degrees beside the first term, and besides as such that the multiplier of the fi rst express ion containing x (of a determinate degree of the binomial) is (6 x) 0 _ 1, the multiplier of the seco nd term is (6 x)"that of the third (6x)2 etc. Thus, in the positive form of an increment the diffe rence, appears only as a multiplier, and besides at first really as a multiplier in the second term (since (6.x)O -1) of the expanded binomial (x + 6 x)"'. 3) On the othe r hand, if we consider expans ion of the functions according to' x ·itself, then the binomial theorem gives us for this first term, here for x, the derived functions according to this x- onc after the other. For example, if we have (x + 11)4, where, in the algebraiC binomial" is considered la he a known, and x - an unknown magnitude, then we get

l + 4ih + etc. 4x 3 which stands in th e second term, and has as multiplier h in the first degree, is hence the first derived function of x or, algebraically speaking: if we have th e IIIIexpm1ded bi1lomial expression (x + /1)4, then the expanded series gives us as the first addition to .x4 (as ils accretion), 4x3 , which appears as the co-efficient of ". If x is a varia,ble ,nnd we hn ve I(x) -.l.'4, then the very increase o f the latter turns this [cxpressionl intof(x + h) or, in the first form, into
" • f(x+6.x)-(x+Ax) . - x 4 +4x3 6.x+ etc . .x4, ·which was obtained by us, in the ordinary algeb raic binomial (x + h)\ JIS the fifst term of the binomial[expansionJ , now appears in the binomial expression of the variable x, in (x + A x)", as a reproduction of the initial function in x, bc[ore it incrcased and became (x + A x). From the very nature of the binom ia l theorem it is clear beforehand, that if I(x) -x· turns into [(x + 11) - (x + 11)., then the first term in fthe expansio n of] (x + 11)4 is equal to x4, Le., it must be equal to the initial fu nction ·in x; (x + 11)4 must conL'lin both the initial function in x ( here X4 ) + all the terms (lcquired by .x4, while it was turned into (x + 11)4, hence, the first term lin the expansion I of the binomial (x + h)4 [is th e initial function]. 4) Further, the second term of the binomia l expans ion 4x·~h instttntly giv.cs us: the first derived function of X", namely, 4x3, in. an elltirely ready-made form. Thus this d.erivative . was obtained through the expansion of "

f(x+ ~x) - (X+ ~x)'; it was obtained owing to the fact that, from the very beginning the difference XI -x was presented as its opposite, as the sum x +.0. x. Thus, th e binom ial expansion of/(x + .6. x) or YI' obta ined fromf(x) through the increase of x, provides us the first'.derivative, the co-e fficien t of h ( " the binomial series), and besides in already at the beginning of the binomial expansion, in its second term. Hence, the derivative is not at all obtained through differentiation, but with the he lp of th e expansion of I(x + It) or Yl into some determinate expression, obtained by s impl e multiplication.



Thus, the corn er-sto ne of this method is the expans ion of the indcterrnin;lIc expressio n f(x + II x) or YI , in to a determinate binomial fo rm , and by 110 mea ns the cxpnnsion of Xl - X, and hence, a lso o f Y\ - Y or f(x + h) - f(x) as d ifferences. 5) The sole d iffere nce equation, which is met with in this me thod , consis ts of the. fact that . s in ce we ins ta ntly get; 2 1:J.x2 + 4x6.x l + 1:J.x4, f(x + 6. x) - (x + II x)~ -x4 + 4Xlllx + 6x so, when we write; X4 + 4x3.1. x + 6x2 II X2 + 4x6. x3 + II x4 _ x 4, Le., in the e nd , we again substract the initia l function x4, w hich is the beg inni ng of the series; we have before us a n illuemellt, which the initial fu nction in x obtained through binomial expansion. That is wh y, Newton.also writes like th at. Hence, wc have the increment
4i Ilx+6i .1.·i + 4x ll i + I1 x\ i.e. the incre ment o f the in it ial functio n in x.That is why, in the opposite side we don't need a difference expression af any kind. The in crement of x co rresponds 10 the increment of y, as y or f(x) - x4. Not fo r nothing Newton at onee writes:

dy, fo r himy- 4xx etc. 6) Now the enti re further development cons ists of freeing the completely ready-made de rivative 4x 3 from its multiplier 6. x and from the neighbo uring terms, of disenta ngling it from its surroundings. Thus, this is not a methad of development, but o f disengagemellt.



e) Dif1~renliallon or/ ex) ( as a general expression). We note at first, tha t the co ncep l of "derived function" for the successive rea l eq uiva lents of the sy mbo lic diffe rential co-efficie nl'i, which was quite unknow n to those w ho fi rst discovered the differenctial calculus and to their firs t successors, was in fact, fo r the first lime, iiltroduced by Lagrange. In [ the writings of ] the earl ier[lluthors ] only the dependent variable, fo r example y, fi gures as the fUllction af x, wh ic h fully correspo nd s to the initial algebraic.: meaning of fth e wordl func tion, app lied at first to the so ca ll ed indeterminate equations, where the numher of the unknowns is greater than the number of eq uations, and thus, where, for example, y t:lkes d ifferen t va lues depending upo n the different values pu t in place of x. Whereas in Lagrange the initia l function i!) a de termina te algebraic expression o f x, whieh is to be di fferentiat ed; hence, if y o r f(x) - x4, th en .x4 is lhe initial function , 4xJ - the first derivative e tc. That is why, tQ avoid confusion, wc s hall call,y the dependent [variable]. or f(x) - thefunctioll of x, the initia l fun c tio n, in the Lagrangian sense - the initial [lIl1clion ill x, correspondingly the "deri vatives" arc fun ctions ill x . In lhe a lgeb ra ic method, where we at first eXPlllldf I - the preliminary derivative or [the ratio] o f finite differences a nd, o nly fro m tha t, the fiMl de rivat ivef', we know be forehand, that f(x) - y, hence: a) Ilf(x) - 6y, and tha t is why conversely also, l1y -llf(x). What is now 10 be developed firs t of ali, is llf(x), the value of the fini te diffe rence o f f(x). Wc find that:



(x) -

~ rx ' '



~ rx - f






That is, also
!> y -

1 '(x) !>X, 1 '(x ) !>x.

ands incell y- 11[(x),so
!> I (x) -

Further, the unfo lding of the diffe rent ia l expressio n, which in the rinal count gives us

dl(x) - J'(x)dx,
is simpl y the differe ntial expressio n of the fini te difference unfo lded earlie r. In the usual method



dl(x) - J'(x)dx

is no t a t a ll expa nded, but . scc above , the full y rcad y-made!'(x) furnished by the bino mia l (x + tJ. x) or (x + dx) o r, is o nly disengaged from its multiplier and fr0':fl the accompanying terms


Discovery of the binom ial theorem by Newton ( in its applicatio n to tbe po ly no mial), also gave rise to a revol utio nary trans formation in the whole o f algeb ra - firs t of all, because it made the genera/theory of equalions poss ible. But th e binomial theorem is al so an imporklnl fo undati on of th e differential ca lculus and lhis is defi nitel y recognised by the ma thcma lici<lTls, especiall y from the time o f Lagrange. Even a cursory g lance s hows th at, with the ex:ception of the c ircu lar functions emanating from trigo nometry, all diffe rentia ls of the monnmials li ke X"'. a:r, log X e tc., arc
deduced only with the help of the binomial
lheor~m 74.

Now it has even beco me a fashion to show in the tex.tbooks that, as the bi nom ial th eorem ca n be deduced from Taylor's a nd MacLau rin's theorems, so also conversely?5. However. nowhere, not even in L1grange - whose th eo~y of derived functions provided a new basis for the differential ca lcul us, is this connection between the binomial theore m and the two o thers, laid ba re in a ll its virgi n simplicity, and here, as everyw here, it is important to s trip the veil o f secrecy from sc ience. Tay lo rs theorem, whic h is historically prior to MacL:lurin's tbeo~e m , gi:ves l~ - unde r definte presupposi tions - a sequence of sy mbolic exp ressions fo r all the:fun c tions of x, when x is incresed by a pos itive or negative increment IJ 16, Le., generally for f(x ± h), indica ting that series of differential opera tions,by means o( which f(x ± h) 'may b1 expanded. Thus, what is a t issue here, is the expllnsion of any f Ull ctioll of x, as SOOIl ds x changes. . In contrast to this MacL:lUrin gives - also under deterll}inatc assumptio ns - for every fUllction of X t the genera l expansion of this very fun c tio n ofX, also in a series of symbolic expressions, indic~ tjng how it is easy to expa nd , with the help o f the differential calculus, those [unctions, the algebraic expansions o f which arc often very c umbersome and difficult. But the expansion of any fu nc tion of x signi fies no thing other tha n obtaining constallt junctions combining with [the powers of ] the independent variable x 71, since the expansion of the ve ry variab le was, as it were. iden tica l with its variation. i.e., with the objec t o f Taylor's theore m. Both of these theo rems arc colossa l ge nera lisations in which the differential symbo ls themselves become the content of the equation. l ns tead of actua ll y success ively deduced functions of x. the derivatives are presented on ly in the form of thc ir symbo lic eq uivale nts. each of which, independently of the type of the functions f(x) o r f(x+h) , prescribes some operat iona l stategy to be carried ou l. Thus, two rormula ~ arc obtained ; they are, with certa in restrictions, applicable to all particular fun ctions of x or x + 11.

Tay lor's formula:
dv d 2y 112 f(x+h) o'y - y+="+ 1 dx dx2 1·2 MacLaurill 's/ormula:




dx 3 1·2·3

h4 +ctc tfx4 1·2·3·4 .

f(x) or y .. (y) +

(~)f + (d~n ;; + (~:;) ] ~'3 '+ (~) 1';~'4




Even at a first glance it is visible thn t, histo rically, as well as Lh eorct icnlly, here it IS already assumed, that the arithmelic(o/ what may be cll ll ed) the differential calculus, i.e. ,Ihe deve lopment of its bllSic ope r;Hio ns, is bo th Iw:lilable and well know n. This .sho uld not be (o rgo tton latter on, whe n I shalt assume this acqua int fl IH.:e.

M aclaurin 's theorem may be viewed as a parliclI/ar i"stance or T"y lo( ' s theo rem. In Tay to r's [theorem J we have:



d, cl ", y,'" f(x+h) .. f(x) o r Y + 1;, 11 +"2 cl 'y 112 + elc.+ 1:2.3 ........ ./1 d;:- h " + elc. dx1




in f(x+h) and, also o n the right hand side, in Y o r [(x) and, ill its derived [unctions,

symbolically derived in th e fo rm o f ~ ,


etc ., wc ass ume tha t x ... 0, !.lIch tha i, nil these

functions will no mo re contain anything o the r than a revers,,] of the cvnst.'l lll c le mcnt o r x 78 , tben

[(h) - Y +(<!x.) h + dx

(<0.);" dx2 ~


(<!!x) 1.2. 3 dx3 ;"

+ e tc.

Then y] - f(x + 11) - f(O + 11) wi ll be that very ftlnction o f I! ,which y .. I(x) i:;, in respect of

x, (or 11 enters into [(11), jus t asx does into/(x), and (y) into

(i.1) eLc.dx

[lll;(cinl :lll tmce o(

the variable x has van ished . Tha t is why, on both the sides wc can pll t x instc;:d of h, find thcn we get:

I(x) - (y)


x' I (O)+(1t)x+(~) - + elc.+(dd;Y) 1·2

";-':'2:'.;;-"'-- + etc. .1 " /1

Or, as is usually written:

I(x) - 1(0) + !'CO»: +/,,(0) 12 + /,,'(0) 1.2.3 +
as, (or example, in the expansion of f(x) o r (c + x)'" :
(c + 0)" - I(O) .~




m (c + 0)'.... 1 x ... me""'] x - ['(0) x etc.
Afterwards, in the trans iti on to Lagrllnge, I shall no more especially dwe ll upon the theorem of MacLau rin, wh ich is on ly a particula r in stan ce o f Taylor's theorem. He re, let us only note further that like Taylor' s theorem, it Cllso has its own so ca lled "exceptions".In the fo rme r, the exceptions always a rise out of the irra tiona lllll lure o f the cons tant function , in the la Uer - (rom the similar nature o f the variable fUlIction 79.



Now o nc ma y ask o neself: is n't the case like this, that Newto n havi ng disclosed to the world onl y his results - as he does for example, in the most difficult instances of "Arithmetica universals" - quietly extracted both Taylo r 's and MacLaurin 's theorems, for his persolltl\ use, from the binomialthcorcrn alrea dy discovered by him ? T o this it ma y be s<lid with full confidence: tha t no, he was not onc of those, who would give his pupils the opportunity to appropriate s uch a tliscovery·. In reali ty he was s till loo nbso rbcd with the e labo ration of those very differential opera tions, which were already assumed to be well known and avai lable to Taylor and MacLauri n. Th is is testified by the first elementa ry form ul ae of his calc ulus. Clea rl y, Newton initially approached the m Cro m the points of departure of mechanics, and no t from those belonging 1 pure analys is. 0 On the other hand ,Taylor .md MacL1urin operated upon the basis o [ d ifferentia l ca lculus itself, fro m the very beg inning o f their work; and that is w hy, nothing pro mpted the m to seek the simplest possible algebraic points of departure of this calculu s; th e more so, ns the controversy among the fo ll owers of Newton a nd Le ibnitz revolved aro und the definitions of thl! ready·made fo rms o f en1culus, just discovered by an abso l utc ly specia l kind of mat hemntical discipline, [forms], which nre as far away as the stars in heaven, by way o f o rdinary algebra. The connection o f their respective illitial equations wit h the binomi(li theore m, was, fo r them, in some wa y selr·evident. Bu t by far this con nection wns not understood by them, in a manner in which, [or exa mple, it is unders tood while d ifferentiatin g xy or x/y, that these ex pressions arc g ive n by o rdina ry a lge bra .. The real, a nd accordingly the simples t, interconnection between the new a nd the old , is alwa ys discovered only when this new itselr already allnins its final form, and it ma y besaid, that in the differentia l calcu lus this rc turn(tak ing) backwards was carried o ut by the theorems o fTayl or and MacLaurin. That is why, the idea o( leading Ih e different ia l calculus on to a strictly algebraic fo undation, was co nceived o nly by ulgrange. Pe rhaps in (his respect he was p receded by Joh/f Laffdefl , the m id· 18th century English mllthematician, in his "Residual A nalysis". But be fo re fo rming a final op inio n on this, I mus t (irsto t' a ll , go thro ugh this book in the Museum.

Lagrange proceeds fro m th e a lgebra ic founda tions o [ Taylor's theorem, Le., from the mos t ge neral fo rmula of differen tia l ca lculus. Rega rding the ini tial equation of Taylor

Yt o r f(x+h)- y or f(x)+Ah+BI?+CIt + e te .
• The publication of the eight volumes oC the mathematical manuscripts oC Newton edited by 0.1'. Whitcside et of (1967.1981 ) ha~ changed our ide~s on this issue. Newton did discover the expansions of Tay to r And MacLauTin.-Tr.




only the foll owing is to be noted: 1) This series is no t at all proved ;f(x + h) is not a binom i:1i of a llY definite degree; f(x + 11 ) is rathe r an indefinite gene ral ex press io n for every fu nc tion (of the variable] x, this lx] increases by the pos itive o r negative increment h ; thm; f(x + h) includes ill itself fun ctio ns of x of every degree, but at the sa me tim e it exclmles every definite degree of that very series of expans ion. Tha t is why, Tay lo r pu iS "+ elc." :lIlhc cnd of the series. Bul it should be proved further, that the rule of expa nsion into a series, true fo r th e definte fun c tions of K, subject to increment - independentl y of th e facI, whether they arc now presenled as a fi nite equation 80 or as an infinte series - can be unco nd itio nally extended to the indefinite ge neral [(x), and tha t is why, also to the eq uall y indefi nite and generalf (xl) o r f(x + 11 ).

2) This equatio n is translated into the differcntial longuage with the he lp o[ a do uble diffe rentia tion of YI - first in respect of 11 as variable <lnd x as constant, and the n in respect o f x as va riable and h as constanLThus two equatio ns arc o btai ned, of which the first s ides [L.H.S.] a re identical, whereas the seco nd sides (R .H.S. l a rc different in form . Bli t in o rder 10 eqmllise the indeterm ina te eo-e[fjcients of th ese second s ides, wh ic h are, all, in point of fac t , functions of x, it is assumed fu rther - and this is indispensa ble - U the separa te nIt co-efficienL<; A, B e tc . arc -- though in determinate, [stillJ finite magnitude... , and I it is to bel a lso [assumed] that the multipliers" acco mpanying them increase in jntegral and positive [Jowers 81 • Even if it is assumed - which W:1S in reality 11 0t the case - tha t Ta ylor proved all thcse for f(x + 11) , in so far as x in f(x) remains gel/era I, then from this it s till does not at all follow, tha t it holds good even then, when the fun ctio ns o f x aSSUllle defi nte particular values. Conversely, the latter can be incompatib le with the transfo rmations [effected] with the help of his series
Y1 - y+ ::..L It+:::........Lh + e lc. dx dx?
dv d 2v

In brief: the conditions or assump tions, included in the unp roved init ial equa tion o f Tayl or, arc co nta ined, it goes without s<lyi ng, also in the theorem
Y1 _ Y + !!x. h dx

+!!...1.. ,,2 + etc ., 2


deduced from it. That is why it is not applicable to certain functions of x, which co ntradict these assumptions. He nce the so-called exceptions to the theorem, Lagrange bases the initial eq uatio n upo n nlgebraic foundations, and shows at th e same time, by its very developme nt, to which parlicu luar instances, contradic ting its gelleral cha racter, Le., the general, indeterm inate c haracter of the fun ctions o [ x, it is inapp licable, owing to this cha racter of theirs.

N) 1) Th e g.reat merit of La gran ge lies not on ly in laying the founda tions of Taylo r's theo rem and diffe renti al calculus in genera l th roug h a purely algebraic ana lysis. but in partic ular <llso in the introduction of the ve ry concept of derived functions, which <1 11 the s uccessors of him have in fae l used in some way or the o ther, tho ugh without e .... er


mentioning it. But he does nOL confin e himself to th is alone. He g ives a ptITcly a lgebnl ic expans ion of all possible func tions of (x + h), in ascend ing integra l pos iti ve powers of", a nd then ch ristens a ll the co-cffi c icnts tlltlS obtai ned, with the names o f diffe rentia l cal culus.AII si mplicities and short cuts, which the differentia l ca lculus itself allows (Taylor's theorem and others). thereby s uffer a damage and are very often repla ced by Hlgcbraic cperations of a much more cumbersome and comp lica ted character. 2) So far as it is a quest ion o f pure analysis, Lagrll nge is in [act free of all that appe ars to him as metaphysical transcendcnce in Newton's Ouxions, Lc ib ni tl.'s infinitesi mal s o f various order, the theory of limits of van ishing tnllgnitudes, the subs ti tution of the sy mbol


("" ;i;)

in place of the differcntilll co-efficients etc. However, thercby hc hi mself is not

deterred from cons tantly usi ng ol1e o r the olher of these "me tap hysica l " no tions, whi le he applies his lheory 10 curves etc.

Thus, ifin Taylor's
for (x + Il)'" theore m ~,

1) for certai n speci/ic!orm.... o f the bino mi;1i thcorcm,whcrc

under the supposition that

is an illtegral alld positive power, and that

is why the multip liers in" a rc equal to lil, hi, 11 2, h3,etc. - it is accepted, that h fcntcrs into] an ascending. positive and integral power, then it is la lso ] accepted, 2) Ihal as in the algebraic bino mild theorem of a general fo rm, the derived /ucriolls v/x are dete rminate. in as m uch as [lheY1 afC finite junctions ill x. But a third cond ition is added 10 this. The derived fun ctions (fo r exampl e, h 1Ij,), onl y o f x may turn into 0;+ 00, - 00, and" It] ma y ;llso become _ h- l or when the variable x lakes a parlicular value, for example x _ a 83, Let US sum up w hat has been stated : Taylor's theorem is generally <JpplieabJe to the expans io n in se ries of [those] functions in x, in w hich x becomes equal to x + If o r, increases, turning into XI from X, onl y if: 1) the independe nt varibale x retai ns the genera l indeterminate from of x, 2) the in iliai function in x is itself decomposable, th.oug h differentiation, in to a series of de tc rm inatt' ano, in so far as it is so, of finite derived fun c tions in x with the correspon ding multipliers 11 in ascendi ng, pos itive and integra l powers, i.e., hi, 112, 113 etc. But in other words, all these conditio ns are but express ions of the fact tha I, this theorem is merely the binomial theo rem with illtegra/ alld positive indexes of power, translated into the language of differential calculus. Where these conditions are not fulfilled a nd, hence,Tay/or's theorem is /lot applicable, there appears that [situation1, which comes fo rth in the differential calculus as"exceptiolls" to this theorem. But the biggest mistake of Tay lo r's theorem is not these particular excep tions to its applicability, but that gellera /mistake, which consists of the (act tha t


y - [(x) [and ] y, = [(X+ iI),
which are o nl y symbolic expressio ns of binomials o f some powerS-, turn iu to such expressions, in which f(x) is a fun ctio n of x, which includes a ll powers in itself a nd tha t is why, it itself has 110 power, s uch that YI - f(x + It) also in cludes in itself a ll powe rs and itsel f has no power, appea ring as it were, as an unexpalldable general expression for any function of the variable x, when the lauer increases. That is why, that series of expansioll , which serves as an expa ns io n of this f(x + 11) without power, namely, y -All + Bh 2 + Clt3 + etc., includes in itse lf all the powers, whe reas it iL<;elrhas no power. This lea p (rom the ordinary algebra, a nd besides with the help of ordiflOlY algebra, into the algebra of variables, is accepted as an accomplished facl; it is no t proved nnd , first of all, it cOllfradic l~' all the rules of ord inary algebra, whe re y - f(x) and YI - f(x + 11) can never have th is mea ning.

In o the r words: not only is the initial equation

YI o r f(x+/l)- y o r f(x)+AII+BII +Ch +Dh + Ell + etc. 1101 proved, bu t co nsciously o r unconsc ious ly - the substitut ion o f variables in pl ace of the cOllstan ts, is also assumed. Th is co ntradicts all the rules of algeb m, since algebra, and
he nce also the algeb raic binomial, admits only constants, and besides constants of merely







two kinds - known and unknown. That is why, the deduction of this equaLio n from algebw rests upon a fraud.
However, if in fact Tay/or's theorem - the except io lls Lo whic h have hard ly any significa nce Jor applications, since actually they arc confined to s uch fun ctions in X, which are undiffer.entiable 85,i.c., do not at all yield to a treatment with the means of differential calculus - in parctice showed itself 1 be Ihe most comprehensive, the mosl 0 gcncn~ l and fruit[ui operational formula o f the whole of calculus, then it is on ly due to the accomplishment of that entire task, which arose, from the school of Newton to which he [Ta ylorJ belonged, and generally, from the entire Ncwtono-Lcibnitzian period of the developmet of differential calculus, which from its very first step elic its correct result from mistaken premises.

Lagrunge gave us the algebra ic proof o f Taylor's theorem, Hnd genra lly speaking based it upon his algebmic method of differential ca lcu lu s . If I write the historical part of this manuscript 86, then I shall dwell upon this in detail. Here - as a freak oJhistO/y - ! only mention thai, L1grange never returned, to that which unconsciously served as the ba is of Taylor, i.e., 1 the binomial theorcm, and besides in its 0 si mplest form, where it [i.e., the binomimal] cOnsiSl'i of only two magnitudes (x + a) or, here (x + It), and has positive integral index of power.
Further, in a much lesser measure does he return fllrther b<lckward and ask himself the question as to why th e Newoni<lll binomial theorem translated into the differential form, and a t the same time forcibly freed from its algebraic conditions, appears as the all comprehens ive general o perationa l formula of the diffcrential ca lculus, based upon it .The answer is simple: bec:wse from the very beg inning Newton assumes that Xl -x = dx and, hence Xl = X + die Thus the expansion o f the differel1ce instantly turns into the expa nsio n of a Slim, into an expansion of the binomial (x + dx) (wherein we ent irel y digrcss from the [act that it should have been written as Xl - x'" 11 X or 1/) (hence, XI'" X + 6. x or x + 11). Taylor merely developed this basis or the system into its most general and comprehensive form, which, generally speaki ng, became possible, for the firs t time, when all the fundamental operat ions of differential calculus were already discovered, because what meaning would his etc. have, if for all the important fuctions in already obtained?

their corresponding

2, d ' y

ix, ~/:{

etc. were not

Conversely, Lagrange immediately sides with Tay/or's theorem - na turally under such circumst.'lnces, where , on the onc hand, thc sllccessors of the epoch of Newton-Lcibnitz furnished him with thc already co rrected vcrsion [of the formula] Xl -X "" dx, that is, also: Yl - y., [(x + It) -f(x) and, on the othcr hand, having just algebdcised Taylor's formu la, he constructed his own theory of "derived" JUllctions. [[ Thus did Fichtc side with Kant, Schclling - with Fichte and, Hegel with - Schelling, wherein neither Fichte, nor Schelling, nor Hegcl did investigate the general basis of Kant, of idealism in general; or else they could not have developed in further.J]


I) x 3 ; a) (x+hP", x J +3/u2 +3h2 x+h J b) (x+ hP- Xl . 3hx2 +3h2 x+h 3 ':1_2 ':I_I I c) (x+hP- Xl .. ..u+..u I+I ' . h
Whe n h becomes
~+~ - ~

=0, then


or - 0 -


0 0

or dx and the right ha nd s ide .. 3x2,



Ex. _ 3x'


y .. xl; y, _ y, - y-


XIJ _X3_(XI-X)(x ,2+x,X+X2);

- - or:::.L .. X2 + XX+X2 · XI-X dx • 3xl .

y, - Y


11) If wc assu me that xl-x- 11 . then,
1) (x, -x ) (x, ' +X,X+X2)_ hex, 2 +X,X +X2);

- 1 - .. xr+xrX +x2. ,
In 1) the co-efficient of It is 110t a ready-made derivative, like f' above. but the division of both the s ides by h does no t g ive ~. but gives

2) hence, y, - y

t ; thal is w hy

II H , on the o the r hand , in I c), i.e., in

I:J. Y or : ; "" xr + X,X+X2

etc. elc.

[(H iI) - [(xl y,-y .. 3x2 + 3xll+h2, " or iI



we start from the supposi tion that, on the right hand s ide, the value of the terms 3xh + 1/2 diminishes furth er and fu rther, commensurately with the dimunition of the value of" BII, and he nce, the value of the entire right hand side, 3x2 + 3x1l + 11 2, becomes morc and more proximate to the value of ltl, then, howeve r, it should be added that : it [tliis proximation] does happen, without ever conciding with it [3xl J. Thus,)x2 becomes the value to which the se ries ltl + lfll + III constantly approx imates, never attaining it , and what is more, consequently, never going beyond it. In th is sense )x2 becomes the limiting va lllc 89 o f the series }x2 + 3xh + It2. On the oth er hand, the magn itude Y1 - y ( or Yl - Y) also gelS diminished all the morc, when 1 I xl-x the denom inator h gets diminished 90. But s ince YI

J: Y is the equivalent of 3x2 + 3xh + 11


so the limiting value of this series is

also its proper limiting value - in that very se nse, in which it serves as the limiting value o f the series equivalent to it. However, as soon as we assume that!J _ 0, in the right hand s ide, the terms , which made 3x2 the limit of its va lue, van ish; now 3x2 is the fi rs t derivative of x 3 and , hence - [,(x) . As f'(x) it shows thai, from it, in its turn,f "(x) may be derived ( in the given case, which - 6x) etc., that, co nsequently, the increment f'(x) or 3x2 is not equal io the sum of the possible increments of the expanded I (x) - x3 • Had I (x) itself been an infinte series, Ihen, o f course, so wo uld have been the series of all poss ible increments ob~ined from it.Sut in Ihis sense the expanded series of ,increments , as soon as I stop it abruptly, would be the /imitillg value of its expansion, eonsequenlly, here the limiting value, is the limit in that usual algeb ra ic or arithemtic sense, according to which the expanded part of an infinite decimal frac tion is the limit of its possible expansion.This limit is sufficient for practical or theoretical considera tions.Th is has nothing in common with the limiting va lue in the first sense. . Here, in the second sense, the limiting value call be iflcrellsetj,. at will, whereas there (the value of the expression J ca n on ly diminish . Further, so long as h only diminishes
YI - Y _ YI - Y



can only approximate the expression ~; the latter is the limit, which this ra tio ca n never attain and what is more rcan never] cross, in so far a,s value
!H ,


may be consid,cred as its limiting

But as soon as - 1 ,

y,-y .

turns mto


0 - dx ' the


latter ceases to be the limiting Talue of

Yl/~ Y ,for this laller [exp ress ion]

has itself vanished into its limit 92. In respect of its earlier



MANU~C lturJ'S

form YI - Y or y, - y it ca n onl y Gc sn id, that ~ 'is its absolutely minimal expression, Xl -x w hich, iSQlatedly cons idered, is no expressio n at all , it has no val ue; but now )x2, i.c.,


f'(x) stands opposite the express io n ~ (or

~) as its real cquvalent.Thus, in the equati on

~ or ~)




neither of the two sides is the lim iti ng va lue o f the othe r.They a rc s itua ted , not in a limiting relation 10 each o ther, but in an equivalence relatioll. If I have % 2, then ne ither is 2 the limit o f ~ , ..

nr o'1-

the limit of 2. It would be a

banal tautology to asse rt, that th e val ue of any magnitude is equal to the limit o f its value. Thus, perhaps the concept o f limiting value has been incorrectly interpre ted , and is constan ll y so interpreted. In application to the differential equations93 , as a means preparatory to the supposition of xt-x or h .equa l to zero and, to make the latter more graphic, it is infantile; its emergence s hould be sought in the first myst ical a nd mystificatory method o f ca lculus . In applica tio n, however, of the differential equations to curves etc., it actua ll y serves the purpose of ge moelrically graphic representation.

Let us compare the method d'Alembcrt with the a lgebraic onc 9., I) f(x) or y.x'; a) f(x+h) o r Y,- (x+h)3- x l +3x2h+3xh2 +h3 b) f(x+") -f(x) or Y1-Y'" 3X2h+3xhl+h3;


c) [ex + y) - [(x) or y, - y "" 3x2 + 3>.:11 + 112 ;
" i f h - 0, then : o dv d) 0 or It



11 ) f(x) or y. x' ;
a) [(Xl) or y, -Xl 3; b) [(x 1)-/(x) or Y1-Y X,3_X 3 =(X , -X}(X,2+X j X+X 2);
X}2+X,X+X 2,


f(x,) - f(x)

y, - y or --,",
XI - X

When x, becomes - x, then X I - x = 0, hence: o dv d) - or ~_ (X2 +XX+X2) .. ]x2,



In bo th [the methods ] one and the same [thing happens] : if the independent va r iable x increases, then the dependen t variable y also inc reases. Everything is reduced to the manner of expressing the increase of x. When x beco me x, • then xl-x - tix - ;, (an inde te rminate, infinitely diminishablc difference, which however, always rema ins fini te )9'. !:J. x o r h is the increment, by which x has increased, for : a) X I - X +!:J. x, but also, conversely, b) x+!:J.x or x+lI-xp Di ffe rentia l calc tll us histor ically starl,> from <I), i.e., rrom (the pos itio n I tha i, the difference negatively, as the difference 6. x, the seco nd - pos itively, as the increment 11) exists independel1t1y along wi th the magni tude x, of which it is the increment, and hence, whic h il expresses as il1creasd, and inc reased by h. With this, from the very beginning an advantage is gained, wnich - in consonance with the express ion of the initial functi on of the v<lriable, as soo n as the la tter increases - is exp resscd in binomia ls of determinate power, and that is why, from the very beginning, the binomia l theorem beco mes appl icable to it. Actually, al ready in Inc' genera l left hand s ide, wc have thc binomia l, namely x + !:J.x, [s uch that f(x + 6. x)] or y\ - e tc.
6. x o r the incremen t h (both express one and the same th ing, the fi rst -

Mys tical d iHercntia l ca lculus at o nce turns: x +!:J.x into (x + dx) or, according to Newton, 0 in to x +.t 96. Owing 1 this, also o n the right a lgebra ic side, we at o nce get the binomials x + dx or x +.t, which a re then treated as o rdinary binomials . Instead of being derived ma thematica lly , the transformation of 6.x into dx o r x is assumed a priori .. that is why, afterwa rds, the mystical rejection, of certain terms of the expanded binomials, becomes poss ible.



d 'Alembert starts from (x + dx) • but corrects this express ion, c ha nging it into (x + .6. x), and correspondi ngly into (x + h) ; now a development becomes indispensab le, with the help of w hich A x or h turns into dx , but the entire develo pment, w hich actuall y ta kes place, is reduced to this. Whether onc Sk1 rts incorrectly from (x + dx) or correctl y fro m (x + It ), the substitution o f this inde te rm inate binomial in the given algebraic [powered ] funct ion o f x . turns it into a binomia l o f some determinate power, j ust as in I a), in place of Xl there appears (x + hP. bes ides in the binomial - whe re, in onc case dx, and in the other h. figurcs as its last term, and hence. also in the expans ion o f this binomial - o nl y in the fo rm of a multiplie r, ex terna lly attached to the fun c tions to be derived, with the he lp of the bino mia l. Th at is wh y already in I a) we find the first derivative o f x 3 in a ready- made fo rm , namely 2 as a co-e ffic ient in the second term o f the se ries, e ndowed w ith the multiplie r h. From 3x Ihis moment 3x2 _ ['(x ) remains invariable. Th is deriva tive is in no way obta ined as a result of some p rocess o f differentiation, but from the very beg inning, it is g iven by th e bino mial theorem, a nd bes ides, beca use, from the very beginn ing we presented the increased x in the fo rm of the binom ia l x + Il x ... x +" , i.e., as x increased by 11 . Now the w ho le task consists o f freeing no t some merely embryon ica Uy ex isting[,(x), bu t an entirely ready-made o ne, from its multi plier 11 and from the Olhcr ne ighbouring tc rms. Conversey in n a), the increased XI enters into the algebraic fu nct ion exactly in that fo rm, in which initialy x e ntered into it; x 3 turns into XI 3 . Thus the derivative f'(x) can be obtai ned o nly as a resull o f two successive d ifferent ial opera tions, and besid es, [opera tions] of e ntirely differe nt character. In the eq ua tion I b), tho ugh the difference / ex + It) - f(x) or YI - y, also paves the way (or the appea rence o f symbolic di ffe rentia l co-efficient, this d iffe rence does not introd uce a ny change in the rea l co-efficient, it is only sh ifted fro m the second place in the series to the firs t, and tha t is why it becomes poss ible to free it fro m h. In 11 b) we get the express io n of di ffe rences in both the s ides; in the algebra ic s ide, the d iffere nce is so expanded , tha t (Xl - x) appea rs in the fo rm of a multiplier of some derived fun ction in X and Xl' ob ta ina bl e by dividing x{- xl by XI - x. Onl y the presence o f the differe nce x~-x3, made its expa nsion into two fa cto rs poss iblc.$ in ce xl-x- h, so the m ult ip liers, into w hi ch xj_ x3 is expa nded, co uld a lso be w ritter n in the fo rm o f h (x~ +X) x + x 2). He re in emerges the novelly, which disting uis hes it fro m 1 b). As a multiplier itl the preliminary derivative, h itself is deduced only w ith the help o f an expans ion o f the di fference xl _X3 in to a product of two multipliers, w hereas h as a m ultiplier in the "de riva tive", as it itself is in I a), already ex ists in the read y-made fo rm, even before an y di ffere nce w hatever w as fo rmed. That lhe indeterm ina te increment o f x into XI atttai ns bes ide X the solitary form o f the m ultiplier h, is implied in 1) from the very beginning; in 11) however (since XI - X - /I), it is proved ded uctively. Tho ug h in I), o n the o nc ha nd h is indete rm inate, howeve r, o n the other hand, it is determinate a ll the sa me, in so far as the indete rm inate increment o f x al ready appears as an independent magnit ude, by which x has increased, a nd which, that is w hy, as s uc h appears bes ide it.

D' ALEMI3I;RT'S M[!1l10D


Further in I c) ['(x) is frced from its multiplie r" ; in th c left hand s ide we get Yl-Y . . . I [ (x) . I - '-1- 0' . [(H h) - f ' I.e., somc expression 0 r thc d'rrcrc nha 1coe rr"IClcn l , stl'11 r'mite. But we ge t it on the other s ide, whcn in [(x + I~~ - [(x) wc assumc h _ 0, conscquently wc turn it into

~., ~

. In I d), on thc onc hand wc get the symbolic diffcrential co·e fficients ,

and on the other,!'(x), already existing in a ready- made form in I a), now frecd from its neighbouring tcrms, and it fi gures alone in the right hand sidc. Positive devclopment L,1kes place only in the left hand s ide, for it is he rc, that the symbol ic differential co·efficicn l is obtaincd. In the right hand s ide thc dcve lo pmcnt is confined only 10 freeing j'(x) _ 3x2 - which was found a lready in I a) with thc' he lp of the binomial- from its initial accompaniments. In the right hand sid c, the turning of h into 0 or XI - X - 0 has only Ih is nega tive purport . Conversely, in 11 c) a t first, some preliminary derivative is obtai ned by div iding both the sides by XI - x( - 11). Finally, in 11 d) the pos itive ass umpiion of XI - x gives us the final derivative. But this assumption of XI - x, at the same time stands for the ass umption of X I - x - 0, and owing. to this, in thc Icft hand sidc the finite rat io YI - Y is turned into.Qo XI -x
XI - X -


5!x. dx

In 1) thc search for the "der ivative" is as littl e feli c it ated by the assumption 0 or 11 - 0, as it was in thc mystica l differential method. In both the cases, the acco mpanying terms are removed from the path ofJ'(x) - emergen l at oncc in a ready·made form . Now this remova l is mathmati c.1 l1y correct, there it was done by a coup tI'eta t.

Let us operate according to the method of d' A lembcrl : a) /(U)98 or y .. 3u2 ; b) I(x) or u _ x3 +ax'2. y'" 3u2, flu) - 3u2 , flu 11) - 3(u +11)"
~+~~OO - ~+~-~ - ~+w+w - ~-~+w




(here the derived [ullctioll is given by tile binomialllieqrem ill a ready-made form - ill the form of th e co-efficie"t of 11),
flu + 11) - flu) _ '6 3/ h u+ I.

with th e help of this divi sion/,(u) .. 6u, given already in a ready-made form in (2), is freed from its multiplier" : ' flu + 0) -flu) _ 6 If u,
- - • then - -

y, - y

u 1 -u

0 0

"£ - 6u.

Here, if we put the value of u from the cquati0f! b). wc sha ll have

du Si nce in a) y is differentiated in respect of u ,so
(u l

!!x. - 6(.<



u) .. h , or " .. ({l!



because, u is the independent va riable. Thus,

(This is obtained from [(u) or y -3u2). [Now wc shall operate with b); according to the same method, namely :] b) I(x) or . u _ x3 +ax2, I{x + 11) - (x + liP + a(x + hF, I(x + h) - I(x) - (x + hP + a(x + IIF _x3 - ax'1. _ x3 + 3x'1.11 + 3.xII'1.+ h3 x 3 + {+ ax'1. + + all'1. - ax'1. .. .. (3x'1. + lax)" + (3x + a) 11'1. + 11 3, [(x +J;! -[(x) .. 3x'1. + "2ax+ (3x+ a)h + 1l'1..


r[ now we assume that h .. 0, then in the second side [R.H .S.l

0' ALEMI3ERT'S M[lTt (00


o o or

du dx _ 3x2 +2ax.

But the derived fun cl iol1 3x2 + 2ax is already conL'l ined in a ready-made form in f(x + 11) - (x + hP + a(x + 11)2, s ince thc latter gives, XZ + 3xlll + 3xh2 + 113 + ax2 + 2axh + a1l 2, hence, x3 + ax2 + (3X2 +2ax) 11 + (3x + a) 112 + 113. H already appears as the ready-made coefficient of h. Hence, this derivative is not obtained throughoiffercntiation; but owing to thc incremen t of I(x) into/ex +11), Le., of x 3 + ax2 into (x + hP + a (x + 11 )2. H is obta ined simply owi ng to the fac t, that with the transformation of x in tox+ h, on the other side we obta in the binomials x -to It in determinate powers, besides th e second term, with the multiplier h. contains Ihe derived funct ion of u or J'(u) in a ready-made form. All further procedu res lead on ly to the freeing of J'(x) given from th e very beginning, from its coefficient proper jl. and from all the other remaining terms. The equation f~(cx-'-+-,-,h:-)--<f-,(x,,-) _ e ,c.

has a two-fol d s ignifi ca nce: firstly. it allows us to obtain the nUlllera tor of the firs t side [L.H.S .J in the form o f a difference of the values] of lex). [Le .• } at first as equal to A/(x); in the second s ide [R.H .S. } il gives onl y an algebraic adva nta ge, permitting the remova l of the initial function x3 + ax2 etc., given in x, from the result of fulfilling the ope rations in (x+hp+a(x+ h )2.


But let us proceed further. For a) we got

!!1.. _6(X3 + ax2),
du and for b) du dx - 3x2 + 2ax. Multipl ying
du dx

¥u by du wc got d.x'
,let us put the val ues obtai ned for

<Ix . du _ <Ix
d.x •
i.e. , the unknown[so ughtJ . Here, in place o[ ~ and : them and we s hall get

~ _ 6(X3 + ax2) (3X2 + 2ax),



a nd, generally spea king , if wc have;
d" d"II' dll Y -f(lI) , =."'-""- II - f(x) , dx du du'

-.= dx'

the n,

!!i.. . du
du dx


<Ix . "fJIIl. <!fJE. .
dx du dx

If in the equatio n a) we ass ume that If - u l affair takes the foll ow ing form:

u, a nd in the eq uatio n b) " - xl - x, the n the

Y o r f(lI ) - 311' .
feu + (u l

u» - 3(/1 + (u l - u»


3u2 + 6u (u\ - u) + 3(u 1 - u)2·,
- 11) -

feu + (u 1 - u» - feu) - 3u2 + 6u (u l - u) + 3(u, - u) (u l


u, - u

f(1I + (11, - 11)) - f(") - 611 (11, - 11) + 3(11, - 11)' .
f",(_ _ " "", (11 ~ 1 +(,--'.1_-.:.. ))_-;..'",.:.) ' - 6u + 3(u 1 - u).


He nce, [if 1

in the first term 11 , -


0, then

i'X -6u+ 0-6u. d 11

Th is shows tha i, if from the very beg inning/(u) turns into/(u + (u\ - u», such that in the second s ide rR .H.s.J. its increment appears in the form of th e positive second term of the determinate binom ial , then th e second term, which has as its multiplier (u l - u) o r If accord ing to th e binomial theorem, instan tly s hows the unknown coefficient. If the second te rm is a polyn oq1ial, as we sce in X3 + ax2, turning into (x + hP + a(x + 11)2 o r in
(x + (XI - X»3 + a(x + (XI _ X»2,

then for obtaining the co-efficient of Iz, o r of XI - x, only the terms with XI - X (or h) in the fi rst powe r arc requjred to be written down - and the co-e ffi cient is ready. This result s hows: 1) that if, in d'Alembcrt's expans ion, in place of x l - X - h, conversely we put h - XI -X, then, by this absolutely nothing is changed in the method itsel f, on ly the peculiarity o f this method is revea led more c lea rl y. It consists o f the fa c t that, with the he lp of f(x+h) o r !(x+(xl-x» in pl ace of the ini tia l fun ctio n in the algehraicexpress ion on the second side, in the given instance in place of 3u2, the binomials are obtained insta ntly . The seco nd te rm with the multiplie r h or Xl - x, thus Obtained, is the ready-made first derivative o f the fun c tio n. Now the task co ns ists of free ing it from It or XI - X, which has already been made easy. The deriva tive is already presen t in a ready-made fo rm ; hence. it



is not sought by assuming Xl -X - 0, but is freed from ils multuplicr (XI -x) and from others, Just as it is obt.1ined, by s imple multiplica tion (binom ial cxp:lIlsion) as the second te rm [with the multip lier] Xl - X, (so J is it freed, in the fin a l count, from the Jallcr, through a division of both the sides by XI -x, The intervening ope rali ons co nsis t of an expansion of the equation [(x+h)-[(x) or [(X+(XI-X)) - [(x)-[····]. This eq uation is nccesary only to force the disappearance of the initial fUllction in the second side {R.H.S.}, s ince theexpa nsionof[(x+h) inevi tably co ntains/(x) along wi th its binomially expanded increment. Thus, these rtenns, co rresponding to the initial fu nctio n 1arc removed from the second sid e [R .H.S.]. Consequently, what happens, for example, in
(x + 11)3 + a(x + 11)2 _x3 _ ox?, consists of the removal of the first lerms x 3 and ax2 from the binomials (x + hP + a(x + h)2 ;

thus, we obtain, the ready -made derived function endowed with the multiplier h o r Xl -x as the first term of the equation. In the second side [R.H.S.]. Ihe first differentiation is nothing but a simple sublraclion of the initial function from its increased expression; hence, it gives us the increment, by which it has increased ; besides, its first term, endowed with the multiplier 11, is alrc.a dy the ready-made derived fun ction. The other terms cannot contain anything else, apart from the co-eWeients of JJ2 or (x l -x)2 etc.; the first division by X I -x in this and in th e other side lowers the ind ices of power of the latter by o ne unit; bes id es the first term will appear without h . 2) The difference from t-hc method of [(X l) - [(x) = etc., co nsists of the fact that, if, for example, we get [(x) or u - X3 + tu: 2, when [(Xl) or "l - Xl 3 + OX 12- [then] the first increment of the variable x. by no means gives us a ready-made /,(.1.'), from the very beginn ing [by fo rming the difference/ex,) - f(x) we get


/(xl)-[(x) or " 1 - I _X,3+ ax ,'_(r+oxl) . Here the issue is not One of again removing the initial futl ction,sincc Xl 3 + aX 1 2 does not contain X3 and ax2 in any form . Conversely, the first ' difrerence equa tion gives us a certain moment of developmen t, namely, the transforma tion of each of the two initial terms in the difference [of the powers] of X l and x. Namely:

(u l

- IlJ., (XI 3 -r)

+ a(xl 2 _x2).

XI -

Now it is already clear, that if in each of these two terms wc again isolate the multiplier x., then as coefficients of XI - X we shall get functions in XI .tnd x, namely:
[(Xl ) - /(.1.') or
U1 -


(X l -

X) (XI 2 + XIX +X2) i ' a(x l - X)
- X,

Having divided this, and hence also the left hand side by XI
[(XI) - [(x)
14 or

+ x). we s ha ll get




Wi th the help of this divis ion we obtained the preli mi nary derivative. Each of its parL"i contains te rms with XI' He nce , we may fina ll y obta in the firs t fun c tion in x, s ubject to deduction, on ly having put
XI-X, hence xl - x - O. Then
X 1

2_X2, XIX_X2

and, hence,
(xI2+xr+x'2 ) _ 3x2 and x I +x-x+x - 2x,

a(2<) - 2ax.

In the othe r [side] the result is E1J9. _ du _ Q.




Hence, here the derived function is obt,lined onl y by assuming XI ""X, i.c., XI -x". O. [The equal ity] XI - x gives the rina l determinate result in the form of a prope r function of x. But XI - x also gives Xl - X _ 0, and that is why at the same li me, a long with this dete rm inate result, in the other s id6 [it] gives liS the sy mbolic (exp ress ion 1

Q or



It could have been sa id earlier that : i.n the end we must get the derivative in Xl a nd x. It ea n only be transformed into a derivative in x, as soon as wo:! put XI - x, but 10 ass ume xl - x is the sa me th ing as assuming Xl -X - O. This turn ing into zero, pos itively exp ressd in the formula X I - X, 'is essential for turn ing the derivative into a fun ction o f x, whereas the negative form of XI - x-a must give us the symbol.

3) Eve n if this treatment of x, where its increment, for example, XI - X - 11 x or It, is not introduced along with it independen tl y. was a irelldy known, even then it is highl y likely - a nd after see in g [the works of 1J . L1nden in the Musellm , I shall be able to convince myself about il - that all the same, its essentia l distinc tion from the other trea tmenLo; could not be unde rstood. The differe nce of this method from [the method of JLagra nge cons ists of this: in the given me thod a prqper differentiation is ca rried out, on the s trength o f which the differentia l expressions appea r also in the sy mbolic s ide, whereas with him the deduction does not present the differentiation algebraically, but it algebraica lly deduces the functions im mediately from the binomial, and their differen tia l fOrlll is introduced only for the purpose of "symmetry", since from the differentia l calculus it is well known that, the first deriva tive -

~ , a nd the s~ond - ~ etc.




It seems that fo r the period prior 10 the 60s of the last century there He no well co nneded mathematical manuscripts of M~rx. In some nole books of excerpts on political CCOllOmy. there IIrc scparnle pIIges containing mathematical calcur~lion.', Bm even there, whe re the note book has the dating in Marx 's hand, i t is difficul t 10 ascertain the lillle of these calcula tions. I1 is qui te
possible that certain blank pages were ten in n note book 'lil(.I, Marx I~ler on used this blank space of an old nole book, for mathematical c~!culaliOl1s. The rollowing mmlUscripls consist of such pages containing calculations. T hey do not contain HUY lex!.

S.U.N. 14 7
I1 is 11 nole book wi th excerpts on rolilieal economy (from Shut?, List Ociander and Ricardo). dated 1846. On the lll.'.t pages(64.71) of this Mtc book there are ~olne ~tgebmie e~lcu l alion s re lated to the generalisntion of the concept of power in the c~~es oi fnu.;tionIlJ nnt! neg<ltive indices, to Ihe exponcntial fuoclion aod logarithms, to COlnbinaloriCl; nod, Ihc binomill l of New ton. In these sheets the re are no lexts in words.

S.U.N.2 1(1
It is a note hook on political econom),.containingexccrpts rrom Kenn)"s book. Since the excerpts are from a book, which was published in 1846, so, in 11l1)' case, Ihi~ note book CM not be dated earlier than that year.

On the sheets 12-17 there Me mathemlliiclIl calculations. '111ei r content is not very clcar. At fi rs t we find an equali ty

10; 2 ~ ( 10 ~ 31): (2 ~ ~), and a sys tem of two equnlions 10:2:( 1O~!):(2t !), ! t ! .. 4,




connected with it. Solution of the system turns the first equlltion exactly into the equa lity cited above. FUrther, {x + a )6 and (x + a)5 arc expanded acco rding to Newton's binomial. There are other systems of equations with two or thrce un knowns, of some sort (it is difficult to say of wha t sort). On sheet 16 the re arc two diagrams : of a ci rcle and, appllrenll)" of a parabolll. lIere also we have equations or the straight line ~nd Ihe circle, and some arithmetical calculations, which continue in sheel 17 ( in particular, divis ion orthe numbe r 15911729 by 2 ; of theobtili ned result, i.e., of 7955864 b)' 4; oflhe numbe r 1988%6, obtained HS a result orthat div ision, by 75 11 95; it is difficult to rollow the calcul~tion rurther). Thus, it is clear, thlll Marx by ch~nce ret~ined these calcula tions. Here Ihey are bei llg mentioned only to make Ihe picture complete. S .U.N. I052 We ru.ve in view sheet No. 36 of the note book cntilled "M", containing the " I ntroduct i o n ~ and index of seven no!t" books of preparatory work, fo r thc book ·Critique o f Po lilieal Economy". This note book has the dates: 23/VIII and IX/1857, first half of J unc 1858.



' 09

T his sheet contains certain calculations, hl\vjng in view some exp~!Isions in series, IInd solu tio n of the problem oC puning n arithmetic means between the numbers nand b (at fi rst genera ll y. and then, when a. 1. b _ 23 and n. 10).

Sheets 15 and 17 of the above mentioned note book containing the tllematic indexes of the note books ,. VII re lated 10 Ihe preparatory 'NOrk leading to Ihe book "Crilique of Political Economy· . Apparently hlllf of it initiulJy remained unused. Ifere wc have: on sheet 15 geometrical drawings : of a

IInd n trillllgle;

on sheet 17 - fractional indices of power and logarithms. two triRngles and a square, divis ion of trianglcs with a common vertex ~t some internlll point. In manuscript 497. we find, for the fi rst lime, an well ordered text with historico-mathernatical contents .

Among ,he photocopies of a note book containing extracts on the history of technology, tllken dow n by Marx in September-October 18SI,there lire three sheets: 19·21 ( in Marx 's numeration pp. 10. 11) , containi ng nOles taken from some parts or the bonk : l ,II .M. Poppe, "Geschichtc der Mathemalik seil derlihestcn bis auf die neueste Zci'". Tiibingen.18~8(J.H.M. Poppet "l listory of Mathematics from the most ancie nt to the most modern lime', Tubingen, 1828}. '11lis note is a very short description of the introduction 10 this book and of some informiltions aboulthe histo ry o f pure and applied m~themi1tics. To give an idea or what, namely, drew Marx 's ottcntion in Poppc's book, here we rep roduce Marx's text in full .

Introduction. The method by whi ch the an c ient Egyptians dete rmined Ihe heig ht of pyramids in terms o f the length of their s hadows, itsel f shows how in compl ete was the mathema tics of the Chaldeans and the Egy ptians. The Grec ks a re ou r teachers in ma thema tics. Plato inve nted geometrical analysis. Euclid, 284 B.C., s tudied in Athens, under the Plalo nists. After him little has c hanged in e lementary geomelry. Roman mathematicians we re mere tra nslators and commentators of the ce lebra led Greek a uthors. Towards the 7th century Ihe mathematica l sciences flouris hed in lite countries under Arab ru le, and later on, in those under the Pe rsians. The Moors brought them to Spain, and from there, they spread into the res t o f Europe. In the 10th , lllh , 12th and 13th centu ries mathe matics found its refuge o nly with Ihe Arabs.Astronomy was espec ially cultivated by Ihe m. They translated Eucl id, Apollonios, Arc himedes a nd others. Roger Bacon in the latter half of 131h centu ry (1-14).
T he numbers (1.14) indicate Ihe corresponding plIges of Poppe's booK. The extracts that fo!low have been subdivided, as in the book into two p~rts: History of Pure and of Applied Mathematics. However, Marx look a more or Icss detailed note, of only a part related 10 the history or arit hmetic o r "the art of counti ng". On this we read in the manuscript;

F irs t Pa r t. History of Pure Ma th ematics. 1) His tor y of' AI'ilhm etic, or the art of countin g. The Phoenicians . Eve n the mosl anc ien t people, to the exclusion of the Chinese and the Tat.1rs, counted in tens. To all appearance, it was suggested to Ihem by the fingers on bOlh the



hands. The le tters of their alphabe t served them as numerical signs. Differe nt powers of tens were distinguished by strokes, as with the Greeks, or by suitable combinations of letters, as with the Romans. The so-ca ll ed Arabic numerals are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It is one of the most beautiful discove ries. By us ing them, the bigges t number elm be writlen down with the help of zero and de finite place ind ica tions. It came 1 Europe in the 10th o r 11th century. 0 through the Arabs. Even Archimedes had 10 deal with very big numbers, for this he applied orders of ten thousand, o r myriads. But with this he could not carry Qu t the co mputa ti on o f the circu mference of a circle further than the limits of 3~ to ~. tak ing the d iameter of a c ircl e as the un it. Initia lly the Arabic numerals and their place values were lIsed only by the mathema ticians, in no way were they used in ordinary life. In the 15th ce ntury even in the source materials, these numer.Us were still very rare: till thcn most often the Roman nume rica l symbols were used . Arabic numera ls bec.1me more common place, o nl y from the middle of the 16th ce ntury . In (he 15th cen tury these numera ls were more to be seen on stones, than on parchment. They still remained nearly unused in printed publications. fn the o lder printed books even the year is a lmost always indica ted in words or by Ro man letters. Thus, in Roman times and later on even the small computations, for examp le, agricultural o r commercial calculations, were ca rried out not with the help of numerals but, with pebbles and other ana logous symbo ls o n the computation-board. On it, a few paraJlellines were drawn; and there onc and the sa me pebble or some other symbol on the first line s ignified units, on the second - tens etc. Ancient number games. S uperst itio ns. As, also, in more recent times, especia ll y in the 16th century. Discovery of the Pythagorean!> : a multiplica tio n tabl e (true, very inconvenie nt and cu mbersome), polygona l-pyramidal etc., trivia l and corporea l numbe rs in genera l ; and also calculation of musical ratios. The Greeks knew the four operations of arithmetic, as well as the properties of geomet rical ratios and proportions, arithmetic a nd geometric progress io ns and, the doctrine of those magnitudcs, whose ratio ca n not be exactl y expressed in numbers. And also th e means of extracting the quad ratic and th e cubic roots. Towards th e cnd of the 16th ce ntury . ex tra ction of roots - a lso approximate whcn they are irration al - was ca rried forward furth c r than the way it was done ea rlier, when si mpl y the fractions attached to the w ho le numbers indica ting the root, were considered enough . For this Simon Stewin used decimal frac tions. Naming and designating powers created a lot of trouble in the ancie nt period ... Partnership rul es etc., were no t rare in the 16th cen tury. At tha t time began the comp utatio n, of compound interests on capita l... It appears that in 1731 Graumann first discovered the chain rule .... The Rule of False Position was used, w he n algebra was s till no t well know n or was hardly used.


Logarithms. In 1614 the Scotlander 10llal1n Napier gave the· world its first logarithmic tables. These were imp roved upo n by Briggs. His logarithmic tables were published fo r the first lime in London in 1624. Count ing machines. Already from the beginning of the 16 th century text books of arithmetic appeared in very large nu mbers. Span iard Juan de Ortega ...... Adam Riese (15-19).
Here it is not deH, I'IS \0 whl'lt these numbers 15-19 signify. In Poppr's book, these pagescontl'lin two intrOductory parl'lgraphs of the first part of the book . Marx did not take any note from these



pagcs. The aforcmenlio ncd part of the nOles is relaled 10 §§ 19-51, pp. 19·51 of Ihis book. The laller part of the noles proceeds in [he following order:

2) History of Geometry. Fo r its emergence Geometry is indebted to the a rt of measuring fields. Thales. Pythagoras. Oenopides of Chios. 500 B.C. Invenlor of some s imple geometrica l problems. Hippocrates of chios. 450 B.C., was the first to discover the equivalence of certain spaces enclosed by curves and o thers enclosed by stra igh t lines. Plato, 400 S.C. Upto Plato's time the circle was the only curve investigated in geometry. He introduced the co nic sect ions (ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas). their inven tor proper was Menac hmus. Later on Arista us wrote 4 books and Apollonios 8 books o n the same. EudoxlIs o f Cilldus. Euclid, 300 B.C. Archimedes, 250 B.C ..... Towards the end of the t 7th century a new epoch began in geometry. It occu rred in connection wi th the discovery of the analysis of the in fi nite, by Newto n a nd Le ibnitz.
From [he next. 3rd. section of the book (pp. 99.118) Marx took down onty the heading.

3) History of practical geometry in particular.
From the 4th section (pp. 118-128) apart from the heading.

took down only a sentence.

4) History of trigo flOmetry in partjclIlar. In the Orient tablcs of tangent'; ex is ted before the
Europeans had them.
Notes from the 5th section (pp. 128-162) of I'oppe's book, taken by
M~ rx

reads :

5) History of Algebra and Analysis. Greek Diophalltus is co nsidered to be the inventor of a lgebra, because of his studies O ll equations. The Arabs knew it a t the beginning of the 10th centu ry. In the 16th centu ry the Italians were ahead ofothers. Towards the end of the 16th ce ntury the Frenc hman Fra n)o is Vieta [introduced] the genera l art o f calcula ti o ns with letters. End of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century is the· brig htest period of ma thema tics, thanks to Newton, Le ibni tz, Bernoulli ete.
From the second part of the book (pp. 165.568). Marx took nole only of the beginning (pp. 165-166.170).

Second Part. History of applied mathematics. 1) History of the science of mechanics. Statics or the s tudy of equ ilibrium of so lid bodies;
mecha nics, o r the study of movement of solid bodi es; hydrostatics, o r the study of equilibrium of liquids, flowing substa nces; hydraulics, or the s tudy of movement of liquids, flowing substances; aerostat ics, o r the s tudy of equ ili brium of air like substances; pneuma ti cs, or the study oC movement of a ir like substances; atomometry, o r the study of eq uilibrium and movement of vaporous substances. During the last 150 years these sciences produced more results, than in the previous 1000 years. From the very beginn ing people [must have possessed] some natural mechanics. Archimedes conducted the fo llowing invest iga tio ns with the balance: if both the a rms of a ba lance arc of the same length, then for const ituting an equilibrium, the weights lying on both the pans of the ba lance must also be equal; if one a rm is longer than the other, as in the case of the so-called s teel ya rd, then the weigh t a ttached to the lo nger arm, must be less than th at attached to the other - in that ratio, by which the longer [arm] is lengl he ir tha n the shorter one. Thus, he arrived at the conclusion, about the balances with uneq ual arms : that for equilibrium to t.1ke place, the two weights,



suspended from the unequal arms of such b;lIanccs, mllst be inversely proportiollal. The entire theory of lever and of all machines based on it, is included in this rule.
There arc no original oommcnls of MarK in Ihis manuscripl. Bill he did ~ 101 of work 1 collect 0 those informations on th e hislory of mathematics And mechllnics from I'oppc's book, which were of inleresl to him.

From Marx's ]Cller to his un cle, Lean Philips dHlcd th e 141h of April 1864 (vide, Works, V. 30, pp. 538.539) (Eng. cd. V. 41, pp. 514.516) we learn, that Marx was specially interested in the history of arithmetic and especially in the computing instruments. In this lettcr wc find [hal in the British Museum M~rx was s tUdyin g Ihe old classi c of 130ctius (480-524 C.E.) ~ Dc i I1stitutionc arithmcticac·. even before it W/lS republished anew by Fricdlein in LeilYl.ig, in 1867. In th is JcUer he writes, that he also used somc other works a nd compared them with Boctius' book. A comp1lrison of this lellef of Mllrx, with IUI excerpt taken form Poppe's book "H istory or Mathematics ... • on sheet 3 of the note book of cxtracts, carrying th e heading "Diversa (I R67-69t, shows that Poppe's book: was, in any case, one of those ~o ther writings" which he had read al ready by '864. This extract from Poppc's book is being reproduoed below in full. Numerals within brackets indicate Marx 's page number, as well as the pa ragraph number of Poppe's book.

A t the time of the Romans a nd even late r, never were the ordinary calculations, for example in domestic affa irs and trade, carried out with the nume rals, These were conducted w ilh stones and analogous sy mbo ls on the counting board. On this board certain parallel lines were drawn ; and there one and the same stone or other materia l symbol indica ted the un its on the first line, tens - on thc sccond, hundreds - in the third, thousands -:- on the four th etc. (even now the Chinese use s ueh coun ting boards) (22). The Pythagorean multiplica tion table was still very inconvenient and cumbersome because in part it consisted or spec ial signs, a nd in part - the lellers of the Greek alphabet





infinitely small, it coi nc ides with the corresponding part of the curve ilsc:1 L Consequen tly, I can consider m"R la be a That is why

l1 (triangle), and the 11 mllR and A mTP arc simi lar trian gles.

dy (= fiR) : dx (= mR) = y (= mP) : PT (which) is the Sub-1.1ngcnl «(or the (nngen! Tn).

Hence, the subt.:mgent PT =


And this is the gel/eral differential equation ro r any point

of tangency of allY curve. If I am now required 10 operate further with this equation and to determine wi th its help, the magnitude of the sub-tangent PT ( on having the latter, it remains for me only to connect the points T and III with. a straight line, and the tangellt is obtained). then I must know the specIfic character oJ the curve. In keeping with its character (as a parabola, ellipse, cissoid 9h etc.) it will have a determinate general equation for its o rdinate and abscissa al any point, w hic h is well known from the algebmic geometry. If, for example, the curve mAD is a pa rabol a, then I know thaly'l (y is the o rdin:ttc of any arbitrary pOint)= ax, where a is the parameter of the parabola and x is the abscissa corresponding 10 the ordinate y.

If I put this value of y in the equation PT = y d/X , then , consequently, I must

first seek dy, Le., find out the differential of y (an expression, w hich reprcscn ts its infinitely small increase). If y2 ... ax, then 1 known from the differential ca lculu s, that {I (y2). d (ax) ( it stands to reason, that I mus t differentiate both the parts of the equation) g ives 2ydy .. adx (d everywhere designa tes the differelltial). Hence, dx - J:f!!.l, If I put this value of dx in the formula PT _ Yddx , then I sha ll get





PT- 2y'dy



(s ince y2 .. ax )

2ax - - -- Lx.

Or: the s ubtangent at any point III of the parabola = twice the abscissa of the same point. The differential values arc cancelled in the operation .

(A plHmdix 10 11 Ictt el" to E ngcls)
S,U.N. I nz

This -Appendix" to a letter to Engcls bclongi llg to the cnd of 186S.beginning of 1866 (vide, ME<"'W(E). 42, 208.210), is the first text with ~ proper m~thernatical content within the
manuscripts of Mnrx. The IcHer il~clr hns not reached us. In Ihis ~ppcndix Mllr.~ explains the

essence of the differential calculu.' to !.lngels, in the light of Ihe problem of langcnt 10 the paraoola. Marx's source is the third volumcofa book by Abbe Sauri (pp. 13-14); Souri, ffCOU ,..f compfe/ de mQtlrtJmu'ique~·. Paris, 1778. Ilere differentiation is understood exactly along the lines
of LcibnilZ.

During my last Slay in Manchester [from October 20lh to early November 18651 onc day you asked me to explain the differcnlial calculus. You w ill be ab le to size up the ques tio n in full, in the light of the (allowing example. The whole of differential calcu lus sprang up, init ially from the problem of constructing tal/gcllts to an arbitrary curve, at any of is points. I wish to expla in the essence of the maller to yOIl in the light of this example.







Let the line nAO be an arb itra ry curve. We do lIor know its nature (whether it is a parabola, ellipse etc.), and at a point III on it a tangen t is req\1ired 10 be drawn.

Ax is the axis. Wc drop the perpendicu lar mP (the ordina te) o n the abscissa Ax. Now assume thalthe point 11 on the cu rve is infinitesimally proximate to the nearby m. If I drop a perpendicular nI', on the axis, then p must be infinitesimally proximate to the point P, and Ill' mllsl be infinitesimlllly proximate to the pHTallcl line mP. Now iet us drop an infinitel y sma ll perpend icular mR upon Ill'. If now you Iilkc the absc issa A P as x ;tnd the ordinate fliP as y, then lip = mP (or Rp), inc reased by the infinitely s mall increment [IIR] , or lllRJ = dy ( the different ia l of y), and mR (Pp) = dx. Since the 11111 part of the tangent is




infinitely small, it coincides with the correspo nding part of the curve iL<;c1f. Conscqucnlly,

I can consider mllR to be a Il (triangle), alld the !1 mllR and Il IIITP arc sim ilar triangles.
That is why

dy (= HR) : dx (

= mR)

= y ( = /liP): PT (which) is the sub- tangent (for the tange nt TO).

Hence, (he subt..1ngen l PT = Y dx, . And this is the general differelltial equatioll for any po int of tangency of allY curve. If I am now requ ired 1 opera te further w ith this equa tion and to 0 determine wilh its help. the magnitude of the sub-tangent PT ( o n Iwving the latler, it remains (or me o nly to connect the points T and m with a straight line, and the tangent is obtai ned), then I must know the specific character of the cu rve. In keepi ng w ith its character (as Cl parabola, e llipse, cissoid 98a etc.) it will have a determinate general equatioll for its ordinate and absc issa at any point, which is well known from the algebraic geometry. If, fo r example, the curve mAD is a parabo la, thcn I know thatyl (y is thc ordina te of any arb itrary point)= ax, where a is the parameter of the parabola and x is the abscissa corresponding to the ordinate y.


If 1 put this va lue of y in the equation PT = Y ~;, then, co nsequ ently, I must


first seek dy, i.e., find out the differentia l of y (an expression, w hich represents its infin itely small increase). If y2 .• ax, then J known from the differential calculus, that d (y2) .. d (ax) ( it stands to reason, that I mus t differentiate both the parts of the eq uatio n) gives 2ydy ... adx (d everyw he re designates the differential).

y Hence, dt - 2rt . If I put this va lue of dx in the formula PT -

j~ . then I s hall gel

PT =





2ax (since yl .. a.:r) ----2<.

Or: the subtangent at any point In of the parabo la = twice the abscissa of the sa me point. The differential values arc cance lled in the operation.

S.U.N. 2759
Advising E"gels to stud y the differential ca lculus, Marl( wrote to him o n the 6th of July 1863, Ihal ~ Saw: for a knowledge ofllu: more ordinary kind 0/ algebra and trigonometry, no prdiminm"y ~·(!ldy is required except Q general familiarity with COllie sections.· (vide, MECW( E), 41, 484).
The pages of his notes on trigonometry and theory of conic sections, which have been preserved, are a testimony to Ihe {act, that Marl( considered s uch 11 preliminary labour essentia l,

for himself 100.
T he fi rst of Ihese notes, rclllled, 10 all app<:<HirnCC, to lhe bcgillning of the 1860s, is devoted 10 11 s ummary of trigonometric formulae. h has been pUllogcthcr according \0 the fi rst volume of SHuri's book (pp. 433-482) and is related to the sections: "On TrigonornetryH (pp. 433.447),"On the solution of triangles" (pp. 448-452), "On the soluti on of oblique·angled trianglts " (pp. 452.482).
Photocopies of tile manuscripts cOntllin 24 s heets: S.I. - Summary of trigonometric formulae, under Marx's heading: "Resume. r . S .2. - Calculation of certain values of trigonometric funct ions under rhe heading : ·Culcullltion

of trigonometrical fun ctions".
Sheets 1 and 2 have not been numbe red by Mane Further on the sheets are numbered by the numerals. from 110 18. wherein some numerals have been repeated. 5.3.- (p. 1 in Mane's numeration) contains 11 very brief description of the section. ~ On Trigonometry· of Sauri " book 5.4.- Carries Marx's heading: "11. Resolution des triungles·. This section conlinues upw the lower part of 5.5 entitled " Resolution des triangles obliqueangJu", This section continues upto s .15 (p. 10 in Mar,,'s numel1ltion). entitled : "Recherches /llterieures trigonometriques". At issue here are: trigonometric fUnctions of mulliple angles , cons tructioll of some formulae with a view to convenient logarithmisation, "impossible" problems in view of the emergence o f imaginary numbers etc. The manuscript comes 10 an cnd in ss. 23-24, with four t~bles of formlll~e for trigonometric functions of multiple angles. This note is very concise in form and contains only thc formul~tions of Iheorerns o r summMies of formullle (without proofs). In spi te of such brcvity, Marx includcd in his note all the qucMio ns of 8n npplicd chara cter from thc sections on Irigonomclry of Sauri's book : mcosurcmenl or the width of a rivcr, of Ihc hcight of 11 tower or mountain, of the distftnce between tWO inllccessibk places, methods of survey for maps and plans etc. The manusc ript con t~inli many drawings; however Mar" executed them only by hand (without th.. help of any dr~wing instrument).

The fi rst notes 011 oommerci~l arithmetic, rel~te(~ to 1869, nrc dislinglli~hcd by 3 characteristic Irait of Mar)!, consisting of the fact Ihal hilving me! with some special questioll, with which he was insufficiently acquainted, MMx considered a special study o[thal question essential for himself.

In the manuscripts 2388 and 2400 wc sce how the study of political economy leads Marx 10 the necessity of mastering lhe technique of sculing lhe bills of exchange, in connection with which, in its lurn, arises the need 10 solve SOme gCllc ral "IYI>CS· of arithmetica l problems. From Ihe days of yore people devised special rules for sol vi"!: these problems - special rules for each type of problem : (simple and complex) rule of three, chain rule, rule of putncrship, rule of mixture etc. And though M~rll was not very fond of arithmetiOlI calcula tions ( in 11. leuer datcd the 30th of mlly 1864, Engels even wrote 10 him regarding his ·nrithmetic~: "you would seen: prefly Iw:lI to hllve ig"ored I it}, if 'he failure to correct tire scu"duloll~' pr;,rtillg errors ill tire figures is a"ytiri"G 10 go by") (MECW(E), 41, 532), he studied 1I11thcsc ru!e~ with unusual patience and integrity, from Fe ller and Odermann's course on commercial arithnletil::, and with grea t care took detailed notes from il.
S.U.N. 2388 30 pages, pp. 109- 139 (ss. 109-139), of the note book containing extrllct5 on Political Economy entitled" 1869, Note book 1", contain Marx's notes on commercial arithmetic. In connection with the study of circulation of capital, Marx took note.,> from G. J. Goschen's "The T heory of the Foreign Exchanges·, on pp. 87-(09 of this note book. While stUdying this book Marx was in need of some special informations rega rding lhe settlement of international bills of exchange, that is why he turned to the section on the sClllement of bills of exchange in the book : F.E. Feller and C.G.Odermann, "Das ganze der kaufmiinnischen Arithmetic·, (" A Complete Course ofCommerdRI Arithmetic"), Lcip-l.ig, 1859, IInd look detailed notes from it. Uaving takcn notes from paragraphS 382-407 ( pp. 3 18-365 of this book), related to the technique of direct settlement of bills of exchanges between cities lmd countries, which hllve an unrnedi~ted exchange relation, Marx interrupts the notes with the words (s. 118): Be/ore pa.l·sinS ow:r to Il rlJitrulion in an indirect way· , an in.rertion(clrai" rule and calculation of percentage.f). After Ihis he referred 10 lhe continulltion of the lelll on p. 135, where the author has gone b.1ck to the c.alculation of bills (Ch. XIV). The insertion is a note taken from the chapters V-X, of that very boo k (§§ 129-316, pp.98-24S) by reller and Odermann. On sheet 127 wc find the following comment of Marx, related 10 the section devo ted 10 the calculation of rebates IInd, expressing his criticalllllitude to the book :

Customary rebates a re pure charlat3 llis m. Be they calculated from 100 or upon 100, they are al ready, before ha nd , added 10 the selling price 99.
At the end ofs. 138 Mllrx's postscript: WContinuu/ion, Note Book 2, 1869 - and, on 5. 139: -Con/en/S " of the no te book from p. 87. Ile re we have the d etailed headings of those pil rts of the books by Goschen, and by Feller and Odermann, from which notes have been taken, as well as indications to the corresponding pages of Marx's note book. In order to give an idea of Ihe contents of this manuscript, he re we reproduce this table of contents ;n full (s. 139). • Tha t is when there is no direct relation or, when bills issued from two points arc exchanged in a third point.






Money Mtlrket Review (1868) and "Economist " (1868): Register oJ cOlltents Goschell : Theory oJ Exchanges. DeJinition Infernalimlal Iffdebtedness Variou s classes of Foreign Bills in which llIfematiollal Irldebl f> t!lIess is ultimately embodied Fltlch aljons ill the price of Foreign b~lIs Illterp~(!/atioll of Foreign Exchanges So called eorreetives of Foreign Exchanges Ca lClllalioll of Bills of Exchange. CalculalUm of Bills Of Exchange jn general CalClllatioll of Parily {COil version illto hard currency! COl/versioll of the Bills of Exchange illlo other rates. Direct Indirect Calculation of Arhilratiolls. D irect In direct Rule of three. Complex rule of three Chain rule Partnership rule RlIle of M ix III re Calculation ofpercelltages Ca/cilia lion of il/teresls Calculatioll of d~rcollllt {rebate} Calculalion of terms

(1' 1'. 87-89)

(90) (90) (90-93) (93-99) (99- 104) (104-109) (l09) (109-110) ( Il O- 1l 2) (11 2-114) ( 1l4-118) (135-138) ( 118-119) (118- 121) ( 121- 123) (123-125) (1 25- 127) (127-13.1) (131-l32) ( 131-134)

From this list wc find that at first Mlloe delllt only with certain "IYpeS· of ~ rithmet ical problems, for [he solution of which, special rules have been proj)Qsed for each "type" .

11 is n big nole book. consisting of l25 sheets with Engels ' SUpct1iCriplion :

1869 1) Co mmcrci:tl C1lcu lations, Note book 11, End. pp. 2) Foster, Co mmerc ial Exchanges, 37·51.




3) Haus ner, Comp. Statistics, 1865. 4) Sadler, Ireland, 1829.
The first 36 pages (ss. 3-38) He continuation of manuscripl2388. lIere, firsl of all the notes from chapter XI V come 10 an cnd and, noles arc taken from chapler XV of the book by Fcller and Oderman n §§ 413·426, pp. 382·400 -1I00U! the calculation of Bills of Exchange, calculations of values of shares and of olher governmcnt papers. Further on, MHX relurns 10 Ihe chaplers XI .XIII. §§ 317-380, pp. 246-318 of this very book - which he skipl>cd earlier - on [he gold and silver contents of the currencies of dif(ercrll counlries. This nole comes 10 an e nd with Ihe notes from chapters XV I - XVIII, §§ 428-471, pp. 402·481. These arc aoou t ClIlculations of weights ,l nd measures, estimll le of commodities and calculation of losses in cases of shipwreck.

Here the following manuscripts are in view : S.U.N. 2760, 2761 S.U.N.2760 It consists of 9 sheets (55.1-9) of notes, taken from: 1. lIymers, "A treatise on conic sections and the application of algebra 10 geometry·, 3rd cd., Cambridge, 1845. 111;5 book was found in Marx 's pcrsonallibrllry. Marx look notcs from rhe first 12 pages of it. These pages nre related 10 the introduction of coordinates; the problem of finding the distance between two poi nts. given their coordinates; the eq uation of the straight line and, the problems of: determining the equatio n of a s traight line , in te rms of Ihe segments cut of[from it by the axes of coordinates and, the equal io n of a straight line passing through one amI two points,tlleir coordinates being given. S.U.N.276 t 5.5 double page sheets of rough notes, on the theory of conic sections , from Sauri's book cited above, volume 2, pp. 2·27, in French and English. S.U.N.2762 4 double page sheets in Frenc.h . Fair notes on the theo ry o f conic sections from the same book: by Sauri. volume 2. pp. 2-2.7.


S.U.N.3704 4 sheets of photocopies; lhe beginning is not there, we have only rp. 3-6 in Mane's pagination. From the content il is clear,that to all appearance, this manuscript is the very firsl note taken from the initial paragraphS o f Boucharlat's text-hook: (" An Elementary Treatise on the Different ial and Integral Calculus" by J .-L l3oucharlal. Trans la ted from French By R. Blakelock:, B.A., Cathar;na Hall , Cambridge-London, 1828). i.e., (this note] is relaled 10 that lime, when Marx, having gal acquainted with the b~sics of diffe rentiftl calculus according 10 Sauri's course, turned 10 8 newe r Irelltise on this C/l leulus by Boue harlal. The preserved sheets of lhe manuscript contain notes from II 5· 18 this text book. The following beginning of page 3 of Marx '5 manuscript indicales thaI, in the missing pages 1-2 notes were lake n from the paragraphs preceeding the fifth onc. I1 reads :

He wou ld say (x+dxP - xl +3x2dx+3x(th-)2 + (dxp. Now, if we sub tract the gfven quantity x 3, there remains 3x 2tb: + 3x(dxF + (dxP ; the two lalter term s disa ppear as in f in ities of the second [and thi rd ] order [s1 and, wc ge t d (x 3) _ 3x2dx, which is the differe ntial of Xl, e.g. =d (x 3), and there is less to be said aga inst this; as in the other equa lion y = etc., x changes independently of y and the changes of y are onl y correlative to lhose of x.





Here Marx co nsiders 1111 eX~lllple, which BOllclmrlnt investigated in § 3 (for llie fllillcxt of Ihis paragraph sce PV, 326·327, \)ot he diffe rentiates it according to Sauri, i.e., using the inf'inilcsimat method of Newton-Leibnit1.. Mllrx's objections 10 il are sliIIlo be met with. It ilppear.>. th:tt the words Mhe would s~y" [Hbovel refer to wh<lt Boucharlat would say, if he would act a<-'Cording to Sau ri . The following ci rcumstance too speaks- in favour of this conjecture: in his critiCltI comments following the eXJ!mples of differen tiation of the functions), _ 11 + 3.~, y _
t1Xl -

b 1 and), - 11 ~.~

(§§ 5-7 According 10 Bo ucha rlat), MilT)( writes (in p.3), taking notes frOIll § () orlhis book;

dx " is itsel fth edifferenlial ofx·. lr we had s:lid from the beginn ing [thnt J wc ca ll the infin itely small increment o f x -dx, the thing was s imple, ns with Sauri. But having introduced 11, and spoken till now of the differential of the algeb ra ic expression of it as the differentia l of the functiony Cv be ing the runction or X, put on thc othcr side of equation), hc wa nts some hocus pocus 1OO• F? r (insta nce l let us have:

Yt-Y y .. X, YI .. X + h, Yt - y - ", - ,- - - 1 ; as h does not enter into the second s ide fR.H.S .] ,
of the equation, we pass to the limit in making Yl - Y or)'1

Y = dy and h inlO dx. And as all

Yt - Y expression of x has disappeared in - ,- - - J, we hHvc not eve n , becomcs dx, and thcrefore YI - Y - dy o r that
It is o nly true in that sense tha t

pretex t to say. that"

o "0 - 1. o 0 .. q,


every quantity q w ha tever, bCl.'a use

0- q.O or 0 = 0 100•
The remaining pari of Ihis manuscript (pp. 4-6 acco rding to Mar)() is a no te tHken frnm §§ 10-18 of that ve ry book or Boocharlat. (For the contents of these pHagraphs see rv, 327-330.) Here it is also evidenl that Marx is s till in favour ofSlluri's method. lbus, in Ihe case of the theorem about the differential of the product of functions, which is proved in Oo ochariat (see § 14 in pp. 329-330) as per Lagrange, Le., formally multiplying the expltOsions
YL _y+Alr+BI?+CI?+etc.,

2 zl _z+A 'h+O'h + C'h J + etc.,

Mar:.;: writes (p. 5 in his pagination):

He develops oul of this d (XYZII etc.), which might ha ve been done much morc si mply and directl y (see Saurt). He says:
Further on, the proof according tn Doucharl~t i~ set forth in full (scc PV, 330) . After this Mnrx adduces a Simpler proof (p.S) from Saur; and notes Ihat [actually speaking DouchHlat also omits Ihe terms with Ihe higher powers of 11. This comment of Marx reads:

Instead of which he might s imply have said:

(z + dz) (y + dy) - zy + dz -y + dy ·z + dz ·dy.



d(zy) -z dy+ydz by sUbtracting the g ive n quantity zyaml suppre!ising dZ'dy; he does the same in suppressing (Bz+AA ' + 8 ' y) h + etc.


Two small pages (two sheets ofphotooopi(5). 11 is a vcry briefnote( almost without word~ , only calculations, very liule explained) taken from §§ 17 1,1 72 ofSauri's book ~COllrs com plct de mlllh ~ matiques · , vol. Ill , pp. 303-304. In Slluri 's course, with these paragraphs begins the sC(:lion : ~Calculus of finite differences." Here Slturi compares the val ues of the variable x :

x+p, x+2p, x+3p, x+4pctc.,

with the values of the "variable magnitude",. :


y, y', y",

y'v e tc.,

nOling herein, Iha t if ,. -xD, then 1111 values of y remain consl~n t (being equal lo onc). And with lhis comment, Marx begin5 his notes. After tha t Marx adduces the following comment of Sauri : if y _ O.t + b , Ihen the series for the y-s will be arith metic; jf y _ (1", then it will be a gl!ometric series; if,. _ •...0

,then it will be harmonic.

Later on the differences between the successiv~ vatues of y-s and the differences of the second and highe r orders (differences between the differences of the firs t, then of the second etc. orders) have been considered. The corresponding notations have been inlroduced :
Dy _ Y - y,

1)1 - y' - I, ....... 1)2 Y - 1)y - Dy _I' - 2y + y. 1)3,. .. I" - 3y' + 3y - y .

With fhi s fhe note abruptly comes to an end.

16 "

S.U.N.388 1

The note book with M ~ rx 's supcn;criplion : "[[ , Begun on M~rch 1878", <::onl;';115 in ils sheets 144·146 (142-144 in Marx's numemtion) extracts from th e book "Das GHllze deT kllu fmfinnische n Arit hmeiic" by Feller and Odcrmllnn( §§ 385 and 382), on mnthcmaliall evaJu~tions of Ihe impact of discount upon Ihe ralC of exchange.

It is a note book with extrllcts on commerc!al arithmetic, in German; 69 sheets. S heets 1·20. Extracts rrom the book by FeJler and OdcrmHnn : OH'plcr IX- on the calcul atio n of di scount, §§ 294-309, pp. 226-238; Chapter X IV- on the calculft lion o[ bills of exchange. §§ 382·418, pp. 320·390.

Sheets 21-22. Extracts from Sauri's book, vol. I, pp. 109·121, on arithmetic and geometric progrcssions . .
S heers 23-54. Extracts from the book by Fel ler and Odermarm : ch~pter VII - on the calcula tion of percentages, §§ 210-260, pp. 162-196 i chapte r VIII - on the calculation of interests, §§ 261 -293, pp.197.227.
S heets 54·69. Extr;::CIS rrom Sauri, vol. I, pp. 109-132, under the ge!lcra l heading givcn by Ma rx : " Insertion (Progression efc.t - on progrcssions /lnd logarithms.

S. U. N. 2763 81 sheets in German and Prcnch.'fbis note book, containing extracts Hnd notes on ma thema tics; is rela ted to a long period of Mane's study of mathematics, starling with Ihe work on SlIuri 's cou rse, drawn up according 1 Lcibnill IInd Newton, ri ght through the wo rks of Newton himsel f (ss. 0 24.28). and uplo a dCliiiled acquain tance (accon.ling 1 the books of Boucharlaland Hind) with the 0 ideas of the "algebraic" differential calculus of Lagrangc (ss. 37-81). LlHer on Marx no more considered these ideas of Lagmngc 1 be suitable as a "basis" I upon which 0 the differential calculus may be constructed (sce the first pari of the present volume). But i n the note book herein described, he still did nol arrive allhi5 conclusion. lHere1 the task remains, first of a ll to look Into the "method of Lagrangc-, according to the sources available to him and, to ascerta in its value and shortcomings. In this connection the qucstion of dating this manuscript is of considerable interest. The answer to this question may throw light also upon the question, as la when, namely. did Marx's own dialectica l understanding of the operalionlll nature of differential calculus finally mature. Unfortunately, a number of difficulties li re connected wi th this [problem of) dating.
ft is clear from certain bibliogl1lphical indications and dates on sheets 33·36, no t related to
mathemalic.~, Ihat those pages of thi s manuscript which arc devoted to Lagrange, were, in any case, wrillen IIfter 1872. It may be said with confidence that they we re writte n before 1881, {the year] with which is associaled Mane's fi rst work "On the Concept of the Derived Function", wherein Marx has al rea dy come out with his own way of treating the basic concepts of differential calculus. However. these boundaries could not be significantly narrowed down. The problem is this: in the last two pages of the note book containing manuscript 2763 (sheets 79·80), under the heading - "Colltinllolion of Qllother 1I0fe book( lit , nex/ fO Kaufmann 1I ) (lust (XIS!:) (sce descriplion of the manuscript.s 3881 and 3888), Marx once more begins to take notes from those paragraphS of Douchllrlal·s book, which arc devoted la !he method of Lagrange. EVidently these noles we re taken not with an intention to criticise LlIgrange. but to look (and besides, surricientJy .sym palhcticllll y) inlo his "method" .!t is true, that Marx soon s topped this note abruptly and crossed it out with ~ pencil. But the note book: - K,aufmllnn W(see manuscript 3881) begins with thc following superscription in Marx's hand ;"BegurI on March J878~. We do not know when it was finished. i 'ote book III (manuscript 3888) follows the no te book"Kaufmann W . Th us, in any CRse, it belongs to a period after MaTch 1878. Further, the continuation of this note book - ils last pages, have becn placed in manuscript 2763. It is natural to th ink: that Ihis continuation could hardly have been writen earlier than 1879.

On the contTllry. the first pagcs of manllscipt number 2763 contain notcs from SlIuri's book. This provi des a basis !o assume that these I)ages could have been written before 1872. From a ll this it is ctel\r thalthis note book is actually related to a sufficiently long span oftimc, in thc course of wh ich Marx's mathematical studies also found expression in certain olher note books. In manuscript 2763 Marx 's own point oCviewon the nature of d ifferentia l ca lculus has sti ll not been formulated; he still, in the main , highly evaluatcs the ~algebraic method~ of Lagrangei however, here we already have a number of Marx 's observa tions regarding the choice and role of the symbols of differential calculus, the dialectic of quality and quantity, ofform and content, of unity and opposition connected with them, and llbout the interrelationship of algebra and mathematical analysi~ the ~a Jgebraic· roots of symbolic differential calculus). l bcse observations



are alre~ tly, in part, a preparatio n towards Ma rx's ~wn conccption, which also begins to take shllpe lit this stage of his matocmati(;;ll studies. MallY of these (ideas] we re later on elHoorated by Marx. In the detailed desc ription of manuscri pt 2763, which follows herein under, Marx's own observations have been brought out in rull .Many such placcs(of the ma nuscript!, as lire not simply extracts, but [his) own IIccount of the noted mate rial, have also been brought fo rt h. Ti !les of 1111 the four par ts of Ihe manuscript helong to Ma rx himself. The sub-litles belong to us.

S heets 1-24 (i n Mnrx's numera tion: ad 1'.1,1-23). ExtTllcts from Sauri 's book "Cours complet de ma tbCmatiqucs·, 1778, voL .11 , pp. 2-49, entitled "Co/li~ Sf!~/io/ls". ' 111s part of the book contai ns the chllpters o n pa r ~bola (pp. 2-12), circle, ellipse IHld hype rbola (pp. 12·34) and, part (pp. 34-49) of the chapter on the IIsymptotes to hYI)Croola and the dilltneters of ellipse IInd hyperbola.The aCCOtUl t still has a very archaic c haracte r. Tho ugh illreildy from the geomelrica l properties of the curves, equations arc deduccd , colll'!ecting the abscissae IInd ordinates of their points, Ihe f;eneral method of coordi nates is s!itlllbsenl. Abscissae and orcJin;'ltcs of a given curve exist in it,just like its axes of symmetry, tangents aRd diamete rs, IInd are defined thro.ugh the lilter. Thus. the ~ordinate of the parabola~ is defined as "Ihe tine I' M . perpendicular to the axis and ending althe pa rabola" (1'.2); the ~abseissaH - as "the part APofthe axis, enclosed between the o rdina te and the point A , where the axis meets the p.1Ta!Jola~ (ibid).The "tangent " is unders tood as a strdight line having one, and o nly one point in common with Il given curve. 'fhe urea of Ihe "semi-parabola" acb (where a - is the vertex of the parabola, c - a point on il, ab-t he abscissa of the point c) is determined in the mode of Archimedes, simplified according to the methods of Newton and Leibnitz (i.e., throug h the "chilrnctcristic triangles" of Pascal and Lcibni t'l. - Ihrough the idenlifica lion of an infinitely small arc of Ihe curve with a segmen t of its langent, of the infi nitely small curvi linea r trapeZiums with rectangles, di ffering from them by infin ilesima ls of the second order). Area of Ihe el lipse is sought diffe rently - by means of the badly [onnulated principle of Cavalieri ; "Sum of all y is equal to the area of the ell ipse" (1" 22)./\ large number of theorems abo ut the diffe renl properties of each of the conic sections, thei r diameters, axes, foci, asymptotes and the olher elements, about the ways of constructing tangents to the m, construction of any numbe r of points on these curves, computation of the a reas connected with them, and others ilTe proved by the usual arguments of elementa ry geometry (I.e., synthetically, and not with the help of calCUlus). It is not possible to extract any general method or principles for systematisi ng the mllterials from this part of the book. Onc may think, that Marx read il, having in view the introduction 10 the English translation of Boucharlat's text book(l828), where the reader has l>ecn specially forewarned, that the main body of the wor k assumes an Hcquaintance "with the elementary principles, relating 1 0 eu r ve5 ~ , llnd under thc .laller, firs t of all, he had in view the conic seclions. In fact, III ready on the 6th of J uly 1863 Marx wrote to Engels. that he had H1\ superfluity of wo rks" on the diffe rential and integral c.alculus and that: ·SII'Ie fo r a knowledge of the mo re ordinary kind of algebra arId trigonometry, no preliminary s tudy is required except a general/amiliar;f}' wiflJ conic sf!clions" (editor's slress) [ MECW(I:0, 41,484 I. 'l11e choice of Slluri's book is natu rally explained by the ract that, at first Marx very much appreciated the simplicity of its mc thoos (see the description of manuscript 3704). IJowever. a closer acquainta nce with the conten t of the section on conic sect i~ns, from which Marx took notes ill great de tai l, must have disappointed him. IInd in fllct, Marx did abruptly s top his notes, from Ihechapter on the asymptotcs to hyperbola IInd the diameters of elli pse and hyperbota - which occllpies pp. 35-68 of Snuri's book - at p. 49 of Ihe book. And later on he look nOles from only onc of Ihe remaining chapters: from t he chapter "On Conie



Sections of Highe r Orders· (~ce below - description of sheets 29+33). Even he did no t have the patience to study all of those large number of particul,u theorems, not connected by any kim] of genera! idea. The content of the laller parts of manuscri pt 2763 ( beginning with sheet 33) shows that, these must have been written after manuscript numbe r 3704, wherein Marx is still in favour of Saud's (i.e., Leibnitz's an d Newton's) method. However, th ere are direct indications in the manuscript to th e effect that sheets 37-81, were, in /lny case, wrillen after 1872, because on sheets 33·36 ( pp. 32·35 in Marx's numeration) Man: provides a list of the (then!) latest books on the histo ry pfGermany. In this lisl Ihere a re pu bl iC(ltions of the years 1866,.1868,1871 and onc o f them: " Von 1806-1 866. Zur Vorgeschichtedes ncucn Deutschcn Reich" von 11 . Langwe rth von Simmem, was published from Leipzig in 1872. It is true, ilmt the sheets 33-36 MC related to Ihal pMt of the ma nuscript, which is sit ua ted (i mmediately) after the last extrads from Sami 's book. Out it is clear, that the pages thilt follow could not have been written befo re 1872. Sheet 1 (ad p.I /lccording to Mont), aUached 10 the beginning of the man uscript, contaillS definitions, which were at firs t omitted by Marx: o flhe "paraoola" (as it was usually done, i.c., through ~focus " an d "direclrix"), of the "a){is~. "diameter H , "tnngent", ·ordinate" and "abscissa", of the ~s ubtan genl", "parameters" of Ihe ax is or diHmeter, "normal ", ·subnormal", ~applica l es to the diame ter"' , "radius-vecto r", and "vertex" - all Ihese speciAlly for the pnrabola. The list comes 10 an end with the following observa tion. which is ootlhcre in Saur;' ] 1 appears, tha t il belongs to Marx himse lf :

From these dala, given by the very co ns truction of the cu rve, fo llows the explanation:




If a point m is given on II curve and I am requircd to draw a tangent through it, then it is 0 clear, that, if I have, corresponding 1 Ih is po int rn, for example, to the point m in the fi gure inserted here, (he subtangellt pt, Le. , the correspondi ng extension of the abscissa aI', then 1 am only to connect the terminal point of the subta ngenl pt, i.e. the point I, with m by a s traight line - and th en, ml is the langent. Further, s ince up is Ihe abscissa, by extending which the subLangenl is obta ined, so mp is the ordinate .
• Wha] we have in view here under ·ordinate • or "applicate (i.e .• 3l1aehed) to the diame ter" - if we speak about it in a more mode rn language - is the ordi ll3tc of a point of a parabola in a system of coordi nates, the o rd inate ax is of which is a tangent at a fixed poi nt m o f the parabola ,and the axis of abscissae - is the diameter passi ng th rough that very point m.-&!.



Since a po int m on a curve is obta ined, co rresponding 1 a g iven abscissa, when Ih ...: cu rve is 0 inle rsectcd by the pe rpe ndic ul ar aris ing fro m the c nd po int o f the ahst"issa, IH.: ncc, a lso, conversely. the straight line jo in ing m w ith p is perpend icular to the ax is. From Ihis it fo llows furth e r, Ih<ll the point m, where the ord ina te, correspond ing to the g iven abscissa intersects the c urve, is the po int in which the t.:'m gcnl. ~crrcspo ndj ng la this o rd ina te, touches the curve. Il is the po int of ta ngency. He nce it fo ll{H\s Iha l: if a given poillt m o f a parabola is its vertex a, then at the same lime it is the po int, where the ordinate, Le. , the perpend icular 1 the a xis, is to be ra ised ; and here in it is thc o nl y po in t, w here (co rrespo ndin g 0 to this o rd ina te) the ta ngent to uches th e c urvc. l-{cnee, Ihis tangelll alld this ordinate coincide: ins tead to two - he re we have the one and only one line, perpendicula r to the ax is a t a. Thus, w hile the tangent beca me infi nitesima l· , abscissa pa t urned into 0, and alo ng w ith this a lso ils ex tensio n, the s ub l.1 ngent, o r, to be more precise, the differe nce be tween the abscissa and the subtangent has va nished, both o f the m have co inc ided w ith th c s tartin g po int of the ord ina te a nd o r th e tangc nt a t a, the diffe re nce be twee n th em has a lso v an is hed ••.
The remai ning part of this seetio!1 is wrillen in French, i.e .• in the la'lgullge of the text booksTudied, Though a large part of this is no mer<: e.~trllcl, but summarized statement of Ihe ma ter!a l noted . However, Ma rx carries out all the calculations in full, the diagrams ( includin8 the high ly intriCllte ones) have been copied (with the designation5 exactly retai ned). This pari of the manuscript does not conlai n any commenlthat is Marx 's own. It comes to an end wilh It diagram related to §55 of Sa uri 's book, left unnoletl, whcre the concept of nadjoining circles" has been introduced. Unde r Ihe diagram, li t the beginni ng of It line the numbe r ~ 1r has been wrillen ( it is the number of the next point of the note) and a blank space has been left. Perhaps, later on something was wri tten the re wilh R pencil. traces of which are now unrecognizable. 111ercby it appears, that fo r some lime Ma rx inte rrupted his mathema tica l studies.


S heets 25·28 in Germa n. Extracts from the works of Newton, .alo ng with Marx's critical observations. 111ese a rc being reprod uced here in fu ll . Marx indicated his own large commenlS by a vertical line on the left. In olhercases it is c\eltr from the context, itS 10 where Marx is enunciltling Newton, Itnd where il is a comment on hi m. r o r a commentary o n this section of Ihe manuscript see :[edilorial]
nole~ 101-107.


( Fro m Newto n's comm unica tio n on "A lia lysis wilb the help of equatiollS with infinite number of terms", addressed to lhe Pres ident of the Roya l Socie ty in Londo n 101, in 1669) .
• Eviden tly, in this observa tion, what is had in view under - tangent-, is a segment of the tangent between Ihe point of tangency and that poinl where the tangent intersects Ihe axis of abscisslt, i.e., (sce Ihe figure) Ihe segment ml , if the points m a nd I are differen t. If m ~n d I coincide, then they do no t univoca lly dete rmi ne a straight line - the tangen t - and. then not the segment nrl is 10 be laken for the "tangent", but Ihe (!"Iire tangent. I1 appears that, he re this is what Marx wanted to say. - &I . .... Thlt t is to say, Ihe diffe re nce between the abscissa of the -starting points" 1/1 Itnd t of Ihe ordi nate and the tltngen\ has va nished : both the points ha ve coincided with a.-Cd.



At issue here a rc the simple curves of the type y .. ax"'/" (whe re, fo r example, [or tne parabola a



p i and x ...It•


x l ).



A B - x, 8 D ,. y, a, b, ca re g ivep. magnitudes, r m, 1l1- whole numbers.
If Y - axW", then the area A BD - - all

m + rl



(This has been pu t forwa rd l02w ithoul proof.) As examp les he g ives:

1)x2 _1.x1 =y; a .. 1, m - 2.


1l ...

1 ; then

1 the area ABD _"j" x3 • 2) If 4

rx '" 4x'2 - y (a .. 4,
the a rea


1. n .. 2), then 8 3 ABD __ xi ]03
In -

3 Th is e nume ra tio n is no t acco mpanied by a ny ki nd of proof: ne ithe r a proof of the genera l theorem, no r a ny explanat io n fo r the examples. Take the first example: y .. x 2 then an clement of the area = ydx .. x 2 dx.
Hence, the a rea

Secolld example: y .. 4x '2 ; an cl emen t of the area .. ydx .. 4x '2 dx ; he nce,
the a rea ... f 4X 2 dx - - 3 2 And generally: if y - ax'1f, then



, ,

-3X2 .


DESCRllynON 01''1'1 Ri Mi\'Il Il:MA'nCAL MANUSCI{WrS

an clement of the area


y tlx =:


dx ;

the area ..

f ax -v. dx :

f ax""dx-

m -+ l

- - - - - -+ n x-.-. m +n m

" ax --;;-



..... ~

Newto n knew from ana lytica l geometry 104, that an clement [oCthe areaJ o f the parabola etc." ydx, i.e., equal to the differential of the unknown curvilinea r arca ; and s ince according to the equalion of the c urve y _ ax""", so th is di fferential . (lJt"I. (Ix, i.c .• equal toy expressed in the abscissa[multiplied by dx]. He knew. [urther, from thal very so urce, that the area is co ns idered to be the infinite sum of these cicmenl'i, i.e., to be

Jax"Y. dx.
He knew further, that the resu lt for x mdx (where m may be any - . only



and 11 are who le

numbers; fo r exa mple w hen n ,.. 1 x % ,



x m) [is] - -1. which gives m+





ax'" dx "" a - - - --a~·I.
m+ 1 m+ 1


However, the di ffe rentiation, fo r example of x"', already showed him, that its di fferent ial is mx",- I dx, i.c., the second term of the binom ial expa ns ion, agai n becomes the first [ and J, thus, gets integra ted accord ing to the formu la: mx ",-hi dx T="---",,i";,., - x' . (m - l + l )dx Hav ing known this formu la, he kn ew from :1 naly lica l geo metry, that it is the integral of y dx, i.e. of the di ffe rentiated function of x in the eq uatio n of the curve 10~ . However, that he co uld not at all cope with the applica tion of integral and differcn tial calcu lus to analytica l geometry, s hows his fo llowing proo f of the gc nerallileorcm, where: 1) the au xiliary c:::J or, morc correc tly, the auxi liary trapezi um is nOl constructed from dxa nd y + dy, but from dx and some height, which is no t the ordina te, that is why [dy] does not van ish when dx wtnishes ; 2) he does not constru ct the curve fro m the equation y - elC., but does it geometrica ll y, assum ing the area to be given ; 3) the height y is fo und with the help o f di ffe re ntiation of the given function of x, and then it is conversely concluded that : if now th e heig ht y .. such and such, then, conversely, if y is given by such an expression, then the arca must be such and s uch. However, he actu all y avo ids integra ti ng or showi ng, how th is inverse process may be accomplished with lh e hel p of calcu lus; 4) in other words he also observed, that the formul a is not enough for all s im plc curves, and (one s hould also write] + C ; in many cases this consta nt is not 0, but mu st be furthe r defined. In the next pagc, we s hall now g ive his so-ca lled proo f, word for word. NO!'1bc ne : Whe ncver he writes 0, 0' etc., we write dx, (Lx' etc.



1) Preparation for tile proof The area to be calcula ted ABD=z;All - x;BD-y; BP - <4; Bk - v; BPKH (v<4) - the ",co BflW; AP -x+ dx ;A5/3 -z + vdx. From the arbitrarily chosen interrelationship ofx and z, I seek y as follows:


2 J A) Suppose z- - x 2 or 3

Z2 _ - X 3.

4 9

Kf-,_ =-iH

Putting x + dx for x and z + vdx fo r z, we get :
4 B) 9" (x + dx)l- (z + v dx)2 ; hence: 4 9" (x3 + )x2 dx + 3xdx2 + dx3 ) _ 4 9" X3 Z2;


+ 2zv dx + v2 dx2.

mut ua ll y curta ili ng these two terms and dividing the res t by dx, we get

4 "9 (3X2 + 3xdx + d.x2) .. 2zv +

v2 dx.


Now ass ume that BP- dx d im inishes in fi nitely and finall y vanis hes , i.e., actua ll y·becomes

o (earlier

he already ca lled it 0); then the terms mu ltiplied by 0 vanis h , and we gel:

'3X2 oa zv.

4 4 C) - . }x2 .. 2zv or - x 2 .. 2zv whence 9 ' 3 ' 2

But now, whe n dx becomes =0, v is equal to y (why? Isn 't v the ordina te. and dx the fun ction of v 1 106) and that is why 2 2 J .. '3 x2 - zv .. .zy - '3 x '2 y. Butif



2 2 J -x2_ -x ~y 3





y - - - - J . x -2- x2 2 3 -<1 x"l

2 -x' 3





[[Thus, wc have found Y. by 1) <lssuming that thcdirrcrcntial rectangle .. ydx,which

by no means follows from the construction, and then the diffcrcnlilllion of ~ x) is obL1ined

from the accepted expression for Ihe area vz .,. ~ Xl ,
Now NeW/Oil Sldds 1

that he ca n illfegrale:

and this must be proved -

"I[ tha t is why (why?), conversely, x i

_ Y (Le., jfwc ha ve the eq uation of the curve), then

thea rea



' 2


Hence, the cou rse of the argument is like this: if the equation for the area is given ,i n
which it is expressed through the abscissa, then I sha ll find oul with the help at' differentiation, . I I . (he equatIOn of tire curve, for exa mple y _ x '2 (perhaps y _ J . x 'l , a nd If I c h:lnge 1 by a or

by some given number, and


by mill [then] I shall get y - (IX;), i. e., a determination of the

ordinate y in terms of the abscissa x. Then I conclude that, conversely. it must also be possible to find oulthe area from the equation of the curve, i.e. by in tegrating. and besides th is area must be lhat only, from which I found
y _axtr.

However, thereby I have s till by no means integrated, allY more than initially obtaining the differentia l of the area ABD directly by differentiatillg the equation of the curve, which, you sce, I, conversely, obtain as th e result 107. However, had Newton thought, that this method, which he ca lls "preparation for the proof", gnve the proo f itself, then he wou Id not have given any kind of proof after this. But this imaginary proof consislS only of the fa ct that, onc and the same thing is repeated in a general algebraic form instead of determinate numbers, i.c., 2 3 n ~M instead of z - -3 x ~ what is assumed is z - - - ax --'-. m+n Now let us get acquainted with the following proof Proof. Now in the general form, when
11 ,.,+,. z- - - ax -;r


(instead of -

~ x ~ ; a general algebraic expression, s ubstituted fo r the
+ 11

numbers), or (it is only

an algebraic simplification, substitution of simpler expressions, in place of which their values may be aga in SUbstituted), or [if] ~ .. c

+ 11- p , [then} when (with the

help of this substitution which does not give any kind of new demonstralive argument, but

"C(}N1CSEC nONS or 1I1GllEn O[WElts'


only repeats the assumplioll in other si mpler des ignations) z ... ex n or z:' '' C" xP, then, if we s ubstitute (just as we did in th e preparation ) x + dx [[he writes as above, x + 0]] [for x ] and z + vdx (for him , as above, x + v 0) or (what is the n reduced to the sa me) z + ydx for z [[ the progress cons ists of the fact that the clement of the c:::::J is defined directly as ydx without furth er ba ll yhoo 1], [we shall getJ

(x P + prt dx + ., ........ ) "" z:' + nz n-t ydx + ....... .

Removing en xP a long with Z" and dividing what remained by dx '" OJ, we s ha ll get c" PX p- 1 '" IIZ 1y _ ylI Z" _ Y" C n ~ nC'--:;;-,
- Z

I then

assuming it to be




or, dividing by en x",

- :':,-y- Cn J...P

en pxp-t

yn Cn>!,
ex i en).'"


px -I ... yn ,whence cx-% ny_px-1cx.,{' _pcx l -t "'pc x '7f! .

. Substituting aga in for p and c , their values, we shall finall y get : y .. ax ".(In fact, herein all m+n - n m m "y - (m + n) - - x-"-, ny .. an.x",y - ox" .) III + fl That is why, if conversely, it is assu med that y .. ax"'" (i.e., the equa tion of the c urve is given), then for z is obt<lined the val ue ~ ax ~, Q.E.D. That is, nothing is proved

but only the "prcpa r<l tion for the proo f" has been repealed in a genera l algebraic from.
Sheet 28 (p. 27 according to Marx) of the man u ~cript contains only one line : " ... but only the ~preparatior. for 'he proof ~ has bet!n rt!peated in a general algebraic fo rm". Rest of the sheet is blA nk. Evidenlly, between this section of the manusc ript and its Jaile r parIS, there was a second break in MarK 's work.

Sheets 29·33. Here MarK returns 10 volume IJ of Sauri's book, but as has been noted earlier, this is no continuation of the note~ from the chapter, from which he was taking notes earlier. He also om its the neX"ttwo chapters, and begins laking notes in full, fro m the chapter "On Conic Sections of Higher Orders" (§§ 91-99, pp. 95-105). In this ch"pter Sa uri considers those curves, whose equaTion has one of the following forms, under a system of coord inates chosen and speciall y indica ted by him. 1) y",u _ x'" (2a -x)~ o r, what is considered by Sauri to be different from it and is hence obtained through a transformalion of the system of coordinates,

y ...... - x"' {a -x)" -"circles of higher ordcrs"(the order is determined by the number m, sequence in the order - by the numbcr n ), § 91;
2) y
no+n _ a '" .r

"-"parabolas of higher orders '., § 92 ;



!!. y • •• ".1" " (11 - :r)'"-"ellipscs of higher o rders", § 93 ;

a ordcrs".§§ 94-95;


1.'.)' _. -x" (u +.t)" o r,

when laken 10 Ihe asymplolcs, K" i

' .. ll"""-"hyperbolall of higher

5) u"- I ), -.1" "' ... bX"-t + aa ...- l

... ... ...

a .. _I k - " paraboloids",§96.

Here, Mfwc nsslImc x 10 be infinite, posilivc or ncgalive, Ihen, disregarding all the terms, which i may be considered BS 0 in compa rison to x .... wc get Ihe ClluRlion y .. " ; ;



(p. 102). In Sauri

Ihe latter sigllirics, fhM when x changes from - 00 10 + 00, then in the C<tSC oral1 odd m [he curve, owing to ils conlinuilY ,must intcrsecllhc .1"- a:'Cis (as the ordin~lc y from being equal to - 00 muSE become equal to ... 00, i.c., from being ncgllljvc must become positive), and besides mus l intersect it

odd numher of times. And Hn~logou~ly when nr is an even number, Ihen the curve must eilher not intersect the x·a:ds al all, or must intersect il even number of limes, HS dislinct from zero. Marx's note comes 10 an cnd with the consequences thl1t follow from here , and arc related to thc number of real and imaginny rools of the equal ions of higher dcgrees(with one unknown x) . This note is very IHconicand does nOI contai n any observ~tion, which is Marx's OWIl. Ilowever, 1111 definitions, diHgrams IInd general assertions of Sauti have been reproduced by Marx in full. That he did not intend to study Sauri's book lIny longer, is c1e~r from the f~ct th~t, he did notlcave any blank space in the last sheet 33 (p. 32 oC Marx ) of lhis note, but began writing he re itself, informations about the lalest books on the hislory of Ge rmany [referred to above], which he found inte rcsting Sheets 34·36. were not numbered by Marx. The following sheet 37 has Marx's number - 33" .That is why to obtain Marx's numeration for the sheets 37-52, onc must subtract four from Ihe archival number of these sheets. later on Marx commits two mistakes in numeration ; he wro te "46instead of "45" lInd "44" instead of ~47" ,and upto sheet 62 the archival number is already 10 more than MHrx's numbf=.

Sheets 37-81, in German; IherellTC English Hnd Frenc h phrase!>. Marx united this enlire pari - more than h31f of the mllnl1scripl- umler the general litle :"A somewhat modified version of th e Lagrangian account of Tay/or's theorem, basing it on a purely algebraic foundafiQn~.l1 5tHt:> (sheets 37·44, Marx's pp. 33.40) with noles from the IlISt chapter of the section on - Differential Calculus" of Bouch~ rl a l'S book entitled ;-00 Lagrange's method of substantialing tbe differential calculus without re(lOurse 10 limils, infinitcsimals or any kind of vanishing quantities- (§§244·250,pp. 168.172, in the 5th Freneh edition in our possesSion). In places this note alternates. with extracts from chapter 5 of J. lIind's " The Principles of the Differential Calculus", Cambridge, 1831, §§95, 96, 99, pp. 120-121,124-129. Herein it acquires 11 systematic character and consists of points, successively numbered 1-9 by Mn rx. All these pagcs of the manuscript have been c rossed out in pencil, with the exception of one place o n sheet 39 (p. 35 according to Marx), put inside a frame by him, where, retu r ning once more 1 the equations y .. f(%") + Ph, p .. p +QII. Q .. q + Rh, ....... , found in Douchllrlat (p. 168), 0 Marx explains (having in view the expansion of their right hand sides in series):

So in each of these equations, only the second term, containing It in its first power, is to be fo und out.

In this conspectus MaTl( pays special allentian to such places of the text-books under consideration, which arc relau~d 10 lhe modes of introduci ng the speci fic. symbolism of differential calculus as per ugrllnge and 10 the evaluation of his method. llere . in places Man.: mentions bis sources IInd quoles from them (within quotation markS). TIIUS, on sheet 41(p .37 acco rding to Marx) we read:

Thus L1grange himself says, that he writes (Lx ins tead of" • for the sake of uniform ity of nolation· . Boucharlat says, that the expression is the symbo l of the operation by which wc obtai n


the coefficient of h in the development of f(x + h), and::Z '


etc. ind icate that if

repeated, the sa me process w ill make known to us the coefficients of the other powers of h. In reality a comparison with Tay tar's formula and the differential ca lculus genera lly s hows that if the development of a proposed fun ction of x + It is by any means cx prc.<;scd in a series ascending by intcgral and positive powers of 11, then the coefficients of III III /in 11 '"2 ' 2.3 ..... , 1.2.3"n ' wil l be so m any Derived FUfl ctions equiva lcnt to the corresponding Differelltial Coefficients denoted by

This place of Marx's nOle is relaled to § 251(pp. 172· t 73 of the 5th French edilion) of 130ucharlal's book. Fo llowing Boucharlat, Marx scts forth furthcr, 115 an example, thc way of seeking s uccessive derivatives of ox", by expanding 0(% + h)- according 10 Ihc binomilllthcorcm and lillting thc b2 b) cocfficients of ", -2 . -23 ctc. , afler which he writes (Sheets 42 , MHrx's p. 38) : l' 1"

Consequently, Ihis method does nol permit expans ion of algebraic and transcendenta l functions with the help of differential calculus, but, converse ly, il is a means, for obtaining from th e algebraic expansion of functions, Ihe expressions for their di fferentials in a ready·made form.
Immediately liner this plHce, there follows an evaluation of Lagrangc's method. It is 11 summi ng up of a parI (§§ 244-25 1) of the Chapter on lagrangc's method in Ooucharlat's book, from which Mllrx took notes learlier] . However, in the 5th French edition of this book in our possessio n, there is no such formul!\lion. It is nOlthere in Hind's book too. (Not excluding the possibility, however, that it may be there in Ihc notes ofG. Peacock to The English Ir~l1slal i on of S.F.Laeroix's book: An clementllrY trealisc on the Dirrercnli~1 and Integral Calculus, Cambrid ge, 1816, (we are of the poSition thlll) this requires to be vcrified.) After this summing up IInd the evaluation o r Lagrange's mcthod contained therein, Mllrx cited the eva luations of Lagrangc's method conlained in the books of Bouchllrlat (§ 252, p. 173, 5th French edition) and Hind (§99, pp. 128-129) ,

* The

words "ror the sake of uniformity of notation" li re thcre in Hind's book, §9S,p.120(in the section on Lagrange's "dcrived fUlJctions").-Ed.


DESCRJP1l0N OF HIE MATI II:MflllCAI. MANUSCRIPTS mentioning the surnHmcs of Ihe authors, within s(luHrc

and quotation marks.

'nlc whole

of Ihis pari of Ihe nOle (sheets 42·43, pp. 38-39) has been crossed out in I>cncil. in lhe ma nuscript.
It is being prcscnled below in full, since il throws some light upon a stage in Marx's plllh. treading whi.ch he arrived I'It his own point of view on the nAture of dirferential calculus. llere (and later on) Marx's square brackets have IJccn changed inlo doublc square bmckcls.

Thus, if in his theory of functions Lagrangc did not do anything mo re than



expansions for functions, till the n a\gcbraiclllly undccomposcd, in order to g ive thereby al so their differential express io n"', then his con lribulionlo differential cal culus is limited to this, that :

1) he a lgebra ically proved the theorem o[Tay/or, which, under certain constraints, may he viewed, in a determinate sense, as the basis of diHcrential calcu lus, [having algebraica ll y proved1 that expa nsion of [(x + h), from which Taylor proceeds [Since here Marx hlld 10 rcpclll,
several times, B few words stllting that ugrange prov~d ~omc lhin galgebraiCl\lIy, one such repetition appears omitted in Ihe manuscript. It had to be restored, though thereby the clause became awkward . Wc note that in a ll the sources used by Marx, Taylor's theorem was proved with the assumption thHIJ(x+Jr) is expanded in a series ofasccnding integral positive powers of Jr. lbal;s why, while speaking abou tlhis theorem, it WitS n31ur31to connect the name of Taylor nOI only wilh its formulation, but also with its proor.(For this In detail . sec PV,333.33S.) However, from Ihis it is already clear, that Ihese observ~tions are nOl, wittingly, mere eJ(tracts rrom the sources of Marx's nOles.-f:.d. ];

2) algebraically proved once and for all, that[(x) or y is the first term of the expa nsion of [(x + It) and tha t the seco nd term, contai ns on ly the first power o f" as well as the coefficient of h. which is the value of the (irst differe ntial coefficien t ~ ,

!!x dx-

the coefficient of h.

and tha t is why the first dirrerential is the second term X dx (instead o[ h ). But proceeding along his own course. Lagrange not only found a new theorem ror the difrerential ca lculus. to whic h his name is attached lNow, in the differential calculus, usually the
theorem on proper value is called "Lagrange's theorem" . iJl the lext books used by Marx(sce, for example, T.G.I-Ia ll. - A trealise on the differential and integr~1 calculus" , London, 18S2,pp. 227.231 ), Ihe formula (expansion in series) for handling functions, carrying his name, and published by him for the !iT'St time in the article "A new method for solving lettered equations wilh Ihe help of series -(Mem. Ac. Berlin. 1768) ( 1770), was called "Lagrllnge's theorem· .-Ed. ] , but, as we sha ll see later on he also provided the differential

calc ulus with its own rationa l basis, having presented the successive coefficients of 11, 112 etc, as the derived functions of x :f'(x) , f "(x) , f'''(x){e lc.). It s hould be mentioned furt he r. that Lagrange designates the .der ived functions dirferently : namely. instead or: •

~~ etc. he writes

y ' , y"etc .

• Under "differential expression" of functions what we have in view here is the eJ(pression (or their differentials o r "differential coefficients", Le., fo r the de ri vatives.-Ed.



[[On the other hand, though in the method of Lagrange "the princ iples of differential ca lculus appear demonstrated in a manner independcnt of evcry considerations of limits, illfinitesimals or evanescent quantities, he is himself hound conskl nll y to have recourse to limits or infinitcsimuls, as soon as he comes to its applications, f.i. the determination of volumes, surfaces, the length of curves, or 10 ob tain the expressions for the sublangents e tc. "(Boucharlat) •. At the same timc "his me thod implies a previous knowledge of the methods of devcloping all kinds of fun ctions of x + h in intcgral ascending pos itive powe rs of h, which is often uttcrly difficult. Meanwhile, MacLlurin 's and Taylor's theorems, wncn once establiShed, enable us to determine, with great case, the developments of many functions, whose expansion by common algebra, would be exceedingly ted ious"(Hind). ]J
The aoove quotation is from point 99,chapter V, pp. 12R-129, of lliml's book. After this (under numbe r "9" , sheets 43-44, pp .•39-40 in the m~nu!icript) Manc look notes from l-l ind (end of § 96. pp. 126-127), ~nd cited il as an e:campte of the proof of the theorem on the first and second differential of Ihe product of IwO functions, by L1grangc's melhod . It sim!,l y consisls of a formal multiplication of the TayJor's seric.scs for these functions andthcn of writing out the



nf 11 and

'~2 as

the first


second derivatives of the product (wilh their


tr~n s lation

into the Leibnitzian language of differential symbols).

M~f.I( :>epar~ted the rest of point "9" from Ihe precceding text by 11 horizont.,1 line (sheet 44,1'. 40 according to MMX) lInu guve it the title ;"ToK'ords equ(Jliolllll, 1'.34 ". "Equlltion lIJ "is obtlli ned by slI!"lituting Ir + i for Ir in theexpHnsion of/(x+/I) into a series of powers of h , which gi ves one .o f the cXllltnsions of I(x + 11 + I) into a series of powers of the two vHiables hand i. TIlen. substituting x + i for x in the eXpansionofj(.l + h) according to the powers of It and. eXJlllllding therein the coefficients of the powers of It accordin g to the powers of i ( in the expMsion for 1 + It) these coefficients arc functions of x ). l3ouch~rlac o bl"ins another expansion for l(x +/I+I) according to the powers of the variables" ~nd i. lIere Marx first of a ll writes out the second expansion. and IIbtuptly stops the conspectus, witho ut proceeding upto equation Ill. What, namely. did not satisfy him in the previous notes (o r in l3oucharlat). remains unclear. However. it is important, that this is put 01" the Lagrangillll explHIlHtion of the connection between the coefficients of the expansion I(x + h) into a series of the powers of i and the successive de riv ed functions of 1(xl. and here Marx gocs over 10 a considerlltion of Ihe corollaries which follow from it.


Here the crossed out part of the manuscript comes to an end. Marx did nOI cross out the following sheets 45-63.

The non-c rosscd-out part of Ihe manuscripl begins as under ( sA5.Mrtnc's p.41) (he re
YI • f(x + h) and. h Is assumed 10 be different from -zcro):

10) If at first we take the L.1grangian expa ns ion as tne pure development of the derived

functions of x,
.. In the 5th French edition of Boucharlat, this is point 252, p. 173.-Ed.



112 113 y, - f(x) (or y) + ['(x) 11 + ["(x) t.2 + ['''(x) 1.2-3 + "',

112 11) Yi - f(x) or y, - y - ['(x) 11 + ["(x) t.2 + f'''(x) J .2.3 + "' ,
( the first difference - 11)')


y, - a x+ ) 11' - -Y f '() f "() 11 + f '''(x - + f w() 11' xx--+'··
2 2·3 2·3·4
and des ignate

y, - Y (i) ---Y 11




- f '() f "() 11 f' ''() -11' + f w() - - + '" x+ x-+ x x 11' 2 2·3 2·3-4


AOer this Marx forms the diffe rence y0_ /,(x) and calls it the second difference of to1 y; ancr that he introduces the function

/:JJ . . y<D~ ['(x). Subtracting ~ 1"(.1") from the laller he gets the

third difference and Ihe functi on

y IlInd y®. ute r on Marx writes OUI the followingcqualities (sh~1 46,p. 42 according to Marx): 1) 11-)' - ,, '"



GJ,_["(x), with which he operates the way he did with

[ '()




,,2 ", '2 -+ [..,() 2'3 +["(x) 2-3'4 + ...• x

2) Yt-f(.t) Itl

t.:M. • .!["(x) +["'() 2'3 +[" (,r)~ + ... , Jr2 /, 2 x 2-3'4

)'\ - f (x)
3) hJ
)'1 - )'


~ ["(.r)






I! (.r)2'N+'" 1

4)-';;:- -h} - -"-'--

1 1 CM. '2 ["(.T) B

[..,( )


(x)2-3 ·4+ ··· ·

Transforming (co rrespond ingly) the left hand parts ortheseequalilies inlo

l(x + II)-I(x)

l(x+II)-f(.f)-f'{xl ll

lex + III - I (x) - J'(x) 11- ~ r(x) /1 2

I(x + /r) - I{x) - f'(x) h -

~ r {.f) 111_ ~f"(x) Jil

[Yl was changed into its value I(x + 11»). and in them formally assuming 11 .. 0 [it is possible
to do this, since it has been assumed that I(x + 11) is decomposable into Taylor's scries, and that is



why hcrc al l Ihc neecssary limits arc meaningful} MHX further accordi ng 10 Marx) :

(shce! ,16, p. ,12

Hence, we ge t :

1) 0 - [,(x ),



o -- -1A a 2·3-I

3)~- 2 31"'(X),
1 etc. e tc.


Wc ge t these dirferent val ucs o f ~ purcly algebra ica ll y. They all eme rge fro m rsucccssive) dedu ction of derivatives fro m the in itial fu nction of x , since f'(x) is the de riv ative o r I (x ), ["(x) - that orf'(x) etc. He nce, w ha t remains of the process itself, is attach in g 10 the s ymbol ~ its vario us values.
However, it is natural that, if a symbol can have different values depending upon the //Icons of its generation, then it can not take the form of a constant, but must contai n variable (p,lrameter:;), indicating whateve r supplementa ry information is, willingly, still necessary, so that its vHI ue may be exactly determined (i n an y case, what is necessary, is 10 know fori!, that concrete process, in which this val ue is formed). (Fo r example, the symbol of derived fundion must contain an indication, thal Ihe prototype func tion and argument, according to which the derivative is soug ht, should be known). If such supplementary information is related to the me(lllS of generating the object, then it is clear,that it must dete rmine this means itself, its difference from the other means, i.e., its qualify. The symbol (2), (3) ...., playing the ro le of the

(t) -

even if it is provided with the indexes (1),

or the numerical parametcr(n) - docs nol satisfy this

demand. The state of affai r is different wi th the symbols.!!.t",d of substituting the symbol


,4, dJ~
'" '"


'1l1~t is why the questitlll

by these symbots -

of the dia lectic of quantity and quality

connected with them - draws the attention of Ma rx , and he specially dwells upon it in shcets 4749(pp. 43·45 in Marx's numeration). Part of this no te, related to the substitution of the symbol

o -0

by the symbol Jx ,was puhhshcd carl icr(in Russian , sce "Pod Znamenem Marxizma", 1933,


No. 1, pp. 21.23) . This note is being presented below, in full.

The ratio


f (x< il) fix ) y, - y ~ or or expresses [the ra tioJ of the h x t -x Xl -x 6.x d irrerence betwee n the ini tia l magnitude of the func tion [(x) and its augmented magnitude [(x + 11) [to It ]. o r the rati o be tween Ihe part by which the runction of x, i.e., [(x) g rew a nd the magni tude o r inc re me nt of the variabl e x, of which it [i,e.[ J is the fun ctio n. This is the ratio of th e dirference of the runction or x 10 the d iffe re nce or the variable x itse lf. [(x< il) - [ (xl



In the numerator we have the difference betwee n the fUll ctions oJ x, in the denominator - the difference between the ini tial and augmented magniludcs of the variable x itself; in the denominator - a measure of the change in x, in the numerator - 11 meas ure of the change of its fun ction. lly is the first difference of y. and A x is the first {Ii/Jerellce of x. If 11 x .. 0, then 6y ., 0, since in so far as x became .. x + 11 x, y became .. YI . Wc see in the first and the second clCprcs.!'ions :

[(H 11) - [(x) .[(H h) - [(xL y, - y • Eh Xj-X x, - x tJ.x'
tha t if If .. 0, the n [CH 0) - [(x) .rCx) - [(x) • .Q o 0 0 It is clear that, as soon as lJ. x or 11 becomes cqua.' to zero, YI - Y or 6y becomes .. O.

Since XI - x .. (x + tJ. x) - x -ll x, as soo n as Il x becomes equa l to 0, so becomes dy. Thus, it is clcar, that here YI - Y or 6.y does not only become 0, but it is also [true] that this happens only as a consequence of the transformation of 6. x into zero or of the equalisa tion XI" X; since XI - x .. 6. x, i.e., (x + 6. x) - x .. 6. x, so the first side [ L.H.S.1 can become zero or x + 6. x can become .. x, o nl y if 6. x becomes O .
Thus, even while the va nishing 6.y displays dependence of the function y upon the va ri able

x, o f which it is the func tion, its final turn ing into 0, its fina l disappearance, itself remains a consequence of the d isappearance of!J. x, which is the increment of the va riable x; dependence
of the function y upon the variable x is retained right upto the nullification But in the expression



this qualitative relatiot! between the fu nctio n ya nd the va riable x,

of which it is the function, has also vanished. In the expression

~ all trace of the qualitative

di ffere nce between the numerator and the denominator, between the fun ction of a variable and the variable itself, has been erased. That is why, in order to express the emergence and meaning of


we put dx. in place

o f the vanishing!J. x, and with it the va nish ing 6.y is now naturally substituted by dy. Hc nce,1; is not only the symbol for bUI it is al the same time also a · symbol of the


process, through wh ich, under given determinate conditions, ~ was obtained from the original
equation, and it


expresses that which


can not express, namely the fact, that the

transformation of ay into 0 fl ows fro m the qualitative relation o f the function y w ith the va riable X, and tha t is w by, the transformation of 6.y into dy is a consequence of the transforma tio n of 6. x into dx. Thus, in the negation is reta ined that quofitolive relation, of which this trans fo rmatio n is the negation 109.

SUBSTITUlINO'llmSYMOOLQ BY nmSYMBOU;!2, . dl~, ~ ETC. o 'x dx dx

On the other hand ,


does. not indicate what vanishes; here only the quantitative s ide is

expressed, namely. that the numerator has vanished, as al so the denominator and thereby the ratio itself vanishes ;thc existing qualitative relalion, owi ng to which 0 of the nume rator is only a consequence of the 0 of the denominator, i.e., the very expression of dependence of the function upo n the variable, of which it is the [unc tio n, is no l expressed [in it]. It is quite
true, that


can express any magnitude, but La the same exten t ca n x express any magnitude;

the particular va lue of


as well as of x, every lime depends upon those determinate

conditions o r functions, in which Ihis


or x

fi g ures, and upo n those determinate

0 conditions, which lead 1 the emergence of a


or to a change in x.

But not o nly did the inves tigation into the process of e mergence of

~ Jead us to the symbol

for the transformatio n of ~ into -0° , but [also Jlo the result obta ining from the. original x tu equation. Namely. this result is :

~ - J'(x), and not ~ We have (see p. 42*):

0, or any o ther arbitrary real value.



o ~ (3)-

0 (1) _ I'(x),



~ (2) ~ o 0 (4) -



1 H4f


etc. etc. Thus, we see that the first real content of the sy mbo l

% equal is

to the firsl derived funcliofl

of x or the function J'(x), and that the further contents, or rca l values of ~ all co nsist o f
determinate functions of thc variable x, deduced from the orig inal function of x, s uccess ively emerging o nc from the other, according to a determinate rule. [[Here we can also say that when

%turns into

0, thereby the differential coefficient as well

as the limit becomes equal to zero. This t..'1kes place, when the process leads to [a s ituatio n] when the variable itself vanishes or becomes equal to some constant. For example, if we had y - f . x [here the abbreviated not.'1tion signifies: y is ;i fun ction of x, graphically coi nc iding with the expression "x"] ,

y, - f·(x+h)


SheeI 46;PV,137 .



[Le., y, graphically coinc ides with the func tion "x + /I" J ' then

YI _/·x+ h[=y+"I;
and whcn If turns inlo 0, here

y,-f·x - y.


-1; lhe re it means: i.e., equal 10 (the derived) function 'iL l dx·

So that ~ - L Here the variable x has vanished.

Jf we substi tute


• the n

¥X -

1, hence

dy ..

dx and 1 .. 1 (si nce !!1..dd - E: .. 1).



o 0 became equal 10 some conslanl.. ..
lor obtaining the second differential; since the increment of the

Let us differcnlialC

const.1n l is equal 10 zero, we shall gel

! (~) -~ .

0 or



Thus, on ly by fixating (in symbols) the qualitative relation within opportunity to fixate (he



~ . we get




~ (3)

~ (4) differing form

the first

%or ~ (1) but

con nected with it and emerging from it s uccessively, to mrlke them symbols of the processes connected amongst themselves in a law governed way, of the processes which give birth to them. [We note that] they themselves express this connection of theirs, through the second side (R .H.S.], whe re th ei r different real values appear, values which have determinate relations among them, and they all emerge at a step eithercloscr or more distant fro m the original functio n of x and the first equation A), in which this initial function slill figures.
Marx now goes over 10 8 discussion oflhe first oflhe fourcquations, ciled above (seep.136), having nOled (allhe bouom ofshcCl49, p. 45 acco rding 10 Marx):

Now we shQuld firs t of all consider the result of the first differentiation, taking into account the second side {R.H.S.) of our equation and the processes which lead to it.
The equalion at issue here is Ihe same expansion of f(x + I.) inlo Taylor's series. Immediately aner these words we find the note cited below (shecISO, p. 46). What is at issue here is the differential liS the principal part of the increment of 8 function 110.

1 f (x + h ) o r y, - f(x) (or y) + f'(x) h + 11"(X) h' + 2 31"'(X) h' + 2'~'4 f

(x) h' + .. ..

As the fi rst tas k wc ta ke away lex) fo rm I(x + h) or y fro m Yt' The n we gel, so lo ng 3sII> 0,

fly _ I'(x) h + .! I"(x) h' + _1 _1"'(x) h' + - .I _ f





(x) h' + ....

Further, for o btaining the ratio o f the d iffe rence between I (x + It) and [(x) 1 the 0 increme nt o f the va riable x (s ince Xl -x - h). wc divide both the sides by It and gel

~ _ I'(x) +.! I"(x)h + _1 1"'(x)h' +__ f w (x)'" +.... _ I fl x 2 23 23~
The division by h, whic h is essentia l fo r obtaini ng the

ratio~ , freed the second term

of the original equation and the first term of lit is new equation from h, in fact it is tha t te rm,
whic h has h as its multiplier, o lLl y in the fi rst power; bu t alo ng w ith this a ll the rem a in ing

terms of the original equatio n also ga l modi fied, so that the mUltiplier h. in each of them, lost its power by 1, suc h that, fo r example, the third term has 11 3- 1 or ,,2 instead of III etc. However, it is important 10 remember, once and for all , that the process of freei ng the second term o f the origi nal equation from the mult ipl ier h, also modifies the remaining te rms. Secondl y, wc see from Ihe equation where Ay appea rs (i.e., the original/ullclioll of X still participates, so long as by - f(x + IL) - f(x)), that the more the magnitud e " diminishes, the lesser hecomes each of the s uccess ive terms, in comparison to the preceed ing ones, such that the fi rst term f'(x)" where f'(x) is acco mpanied onl y by the first powe r oC h, expresses the biggest (part] of the difference between Yl and y, and the smaller h beco mes, the morc does this term become proximate 10 the sum of the partial differences, the su m lolal of which is A or the series fo r l1y , and Ihe less does Ay exceed * f'(x)h.
MaTlt ,J,,,':' nol all the product ['(.r) Ir (or, in another notation /,(x) Ax), the diffcrential. However, we sce , Ih~t he specially 5lresses the role of this product 115 the princil)'11 parll1fthe increment of the fu nction /'(:c), when x is increased by Ir (or Ar). Thus we have a balois for thinking, that Marx had a concept, equivalent to the concept of the differenlial as the principal part of the • Here in the sem.e of -differs from-. In a nu mber of places M ~rx himself s tipulates (see pp.88,9 1,22S·226) the use of the term ~i n cremenl" in the sense in which we now use the term "absolute value of IIn increment", - £d .




increment 01 a fun ction (for what it Calculus of Zeros, p.316) . .


like in Eulcr, scc : Appendi/(, On Lconhard Eulcr's

Discussion of the first

ot the four equations cited above in
. uX

p.136 concludes with the words (sheet

50.p. 46 according Mane):

If h becomes = 0 and that is why

~y -

!!1..dd •


then in the second side [R .H.S.] of the equation

a ll the terms co ntainingh vanish and there re mains only I'(x) as the real va lue of ~. It shou ld be remembered, that

~. f'(x)

was ob tained purely algebraica lly . without recourse 10 the

'differentlal cal culus, and, thal. conversely, rather, the symbolic differential expression



was devel oped fro.:n the algebraic result

~ - /'(x).

There is nol doubt. Ihat it is nol a note. These ate the words of Marx himself. and besides Ihey are such that just as abl;lve, they contain his characteristic ideas, which he developed later on : ideas like the counterposlng of the ~symbolic~ differential up ression against its ~rea l " , "algebraic" value.Having concluded the discussion on the Orst equation, Marx goes over to the next, observing therei n (sheeI SO, p,46 according to Marx) :

There a re two difficuilies here. They emerge, whe n we do not have, as it happened here, these four algeb raic equations side by side, bUl get them though differen tiation .
What, namely, are these two djrficullies? Ills not fully clear. It is true that after this statement Ihe text starts with point a), bullhere is no point b) in the ma nuscript. However, from the contexl it is clear, that what is at issue here are the difficulties, which emerge in the transition (rom the equaUons taken down by Marx, 10 the eqUAtions used in tbe successive search for Ihe derivative of the (11 + 1).lh order C 0) off(x), as Ihejirsi derivative of t he derivative n"it of the n-th order. J udgi ng by the beginni ng of poinl a), by Ihefirsr difficulty connected with such trllnsilion - though it is 5tllllo come - Marx implies the question, as 1 how could h -in 0 connection with the se/lfch for the fi rs t derivative, which WIIS already subjected 10 (as we would say now) • a limiting transition to zero through h- • -lIgain tu rn out to be diffe rent from zero, and be again SUbjected 10 a limlfing transition to zero through h. whi le seeking the second derivative etc. In so fHr as , having explained this, Marx goes over to the general question of reconciling the usual definition of tbe derivative of (n + i)-th order 85 the first derived function of the derivative of the n-th order. with the definition of Ihe expressions

>(x + h) into taylo r's series (see : PV,136), it is nat ural to think Ihat unde r the ~sl:CQnd difficulty· Marx had in view: the question of the connection between the two different definitions of the derivative of (/I + I)-Ih order :1) as the co·efficient of (n: 1)! h .... 1 in the expansion of f(x + /I)
'" In this connection Marx also speaks of the limit (see below , p.144 ).- Bd.


, , ,

, (*) , (*)

etc., through the differences obtainable from the ready.made expansion of





and, 2) as the firs t deriva ti ve of the deri vative of n- th order. To all appeara nce, in the present manuscript, Marl( ~Ii 11 thinks, tha t Lag range not only succeeded in de rivi ng the second of these definitions from the first, but also, conversely, the firs t from the second, Le. , he coul d prove Iheir equivalence. Later on, as we know (see: I'V,80,f3) ~I'urely algebraic difrerenlial ca1cu lus ~), Marx no more thought Ihal Lagrange actually succeeded in putting the differential calculus upon a ' purely algebraic· foundatio n. At the beginning of poin! a) Marx once more wriles out all the four equa tions ci ted above (PV, 136 ), in the following form (sheet 50,p. 46):

1) 2)

1 3.141V ,12 f(x + /.) - f(x) + Jif (x) +'2 h /"(x) + 2.3 11 /"(x) + 2'3'411 f (x) +' "

1 1 fC!1x + 11) .. / '(x) + -2 It!" (x) + -2
2 2-3

J? /'"

(x) + _1_ ,,3 f
IV (x) ... ...•

IV (x)

+ ''',

/l) (x + h) .. ! /,,(x) + _1_ lif"'(x) ... _1_1. 2 f
f0(x+II) _ - I f,,, (x) ... _ I_ If flV(x) ...... 2-3 2'3·4

(Here fG1x + 11) ./1{x ... h) , /!tx ... /I) have been used in a special sense. 1bey designate respeclively : I(x + 11) - f(x) f(x ... h) -/(x) -/' (x) h d an ' I, h2

f(x+ lr )-f(x) - f'(x) h - ~/"(x)1I2 - - - -- _ , . - --"-- - , sce PV,136.) h Having taken note of the fael Ihal , afterwa rds from Ihese cqullions the successive va lues of

(~) , (~) , (~)
as unde r :






were "developed", Marx conlinues (sheet 51, p.47 according 10 Marx)

Hence, here th ere is no algebra ic ground to get aston ished about the fact ,that in 1) h has beel! assumed to be equal to 0 - and that is why all tile terms conta in ing 112, III etc. - in other words, containing the powe rs of " greater than 111- have vanished; that in eq uation 2) th ere aga in appeared, not only 11, but also the ex:tinct terms , and bes ides in a fo rm, to which they were led in course o f obtaining




from equation 1); and that the same

holds good between equations 2) and 3) etc . The suppositio n of 11 - 0 in all the fo ur equatio ns ca n give, in each of them, only di ffe rent results, s ince our f(x), and that means also f(x + 11), is fou nd in each of them in different conditions; all the fo ur equations express f [fun ctions o f] (x + h),but f(x + h)J0 (x + 11), f r:i{x + It ), ffi:t.x + 11) etc. are deduced one from the other under different conditions, a nd that is why these functions arc di fferent from each other.
After this six lines have been c rossed o ut in the manuscript (sheet 51 , p. 47 acco rding to Marx). In them the following no tations have been introduced for Ihe ~di(ferenty-s" : y, y ", y ···etc. - throughp,q,r etc., and a consideration of the exampley ., axl began; however, appa rently,




Ma rx did not plan doing thlll,and went over 1 11 oonsidcra tion of the second difficulty. lIere he 0 writes (sheet SI. p.47):

When in the first equation, wh ich s till conL.1 ins the o rig inal fun ction oex, and that is why also the origina l fun ction f(x + h), as a result of ass uming It eq ual to zero; in conclus io n: in

!!ldd (o r in Yt - Y) o nl y the cocHicicnt o f 11, now remains in its first powe r, however,
x xt-x
freed fro m" [a nd J equal to ['(x) - it is the first derived fun c tion of x; the thing is that, th is is the limit of the variatio n of x in that equation, in which the o riginal Cunction o f x appea rs; meanwhile the assumption that h is equa l 1 zero gives at the same time the 0 o lhe r limits in the derived equations or, what is the same thing, th e other values o f ~. (On the

concept of limit see below.+:.) The internal connection among the different equa tions, each of wh ich starts fro m the res ult o f the preceeding o nc, flow s from the ir structu re, their deriva tio n, and si nce Lagrange elucidated it purely algebra ically, 110 objectio n ca n be raised against it 111 .
But if

objection can be raised


then the second objection also turns out to be seltled.

Actually, one may use the Lagrangilln proof, that the coefficient of n\ h ~ in !he exp:msion of in the series of powers of h. is the n-th derivative-of I (x) - (or obtaini ng this derivative, not wi lh the hel p of thal n-th equality, on the left hand side of which the expressions 1- /I), 1-11) etc. sta nd, but as the lirst derivative is obtai ned. from the expansion of I(x ", h) - but rKl W already from those analogous expansions for f'(x ... /I) , I"(x 1-11) elc., where I '(x 1-11 ) , /, '(x ... h) elc.,are the augmented val ues oflhedcrivcd fU!lclions /'(.t), I "(x), etc., in that very sense in which I(x", 11) is the M ugmented value of the function I(x) . (11 is na tural, lha t these expansions are no more to be written al the same time, since at (irsl /'(x), I"(x), etc. should be found successively.) It is dear, thill this is wha t Marx had in view, when immedi8tely after the place ci ted above he wro te (sheets 51-52, pp. 41·48 according to Marx):

IC.t 1-11),



But, o n the o the r hand, from he re ·it follows that, s ince

these different results

have as th e ir source the connectio n among the equations, derived o nc after the other, then, namely , that is why, we ca n also operate o therwise, since this has already been established .
.IHere whllt is being refe rred to is the Lagrangilln proof, elucidating the con nection ~mong the cocfficients of the expansion of/(.'( '" 11) into a series of powcrs oC b and the successive derived (unci ions of !(x), (see: Appendix p.332). J

. [[ Ins tead of having, for example, 4 eq ua tions for the 4 first differentia1 coefficients at the same time, it is eno ugh to have the result of the firs t, in o rder to obtain the data for the second, and in th e sa me way -the result o f the second, in orde r to deve lop the third from
'" See, footnote in p.142. -Ed.



it, for, namely, because they arc derived onc afte r the othe r, the resul t which gives Ihe first, must give the seco nd etc ... 1]
[In the paragraphomilledbelow,brienyspcaking the issue is th is ttmt: it is enoushtoconsidcr the transition from the coefficient of }, to consider the transition from the coefficient of h to the coefficient of ill since ~ancr thal everything is understandable all by itsel ( for the coefficients of I,), h~ etc.~ J

Hr (x), the first derived function [in1 x (as distin ct from th e original fun ction Iin J x~ Le., f(x»), in other words, the coefficient of Iz in the origina l equa tion, is the new sta rtin g point. Since x is a variable, it mus t permit a new increment wi thin new boundaries. We shall proceed frc;>m this resu lt f' (x) and at first consider it as in indepe ndent fun ction 1inJ x, not recalling , at firs t, its more distan t relations withf(x) andf(x + h) . Then wc shall get: y-I'(x).
1 y, - I' (x + iI) - /' (x) +f" (x) iI + 2f'" (x) iI' + ...•
fly or y, - y - /' (x + iI) -/' (x)

-f" (x) iI +1/''' (x)iI' + ...


~ (or

y, xl-x

Y) -f" (x) +.!. f'" (x)iI +_1 / IV(x)iI'+ ... 2 2·3

Ea rlier the second line appeared as the second equation, lhe first derived equa tion beside the [irst.)]
[Here "ea rlier" indicates those places in the manuscript (sheet 39 and 41, pp. 35 and 37 according to Marx) , which contain the notes of §248 of Boucharlat's book (p l71 o fit~ 51h French edi tion). wherein the Lagrllngi an proof of the connection among the coefficients of the expansio n I (:r+") is given Rnd ro r the successive derivlltives of I(x) the follo wing equations A used: rc f(x+Ia) " /(x)+Iaf'(x)+ terms in /a l , in la' etc. /,(x+Jr) _ /,(.r)+III"(x)+ terms in 111, in la l etc.

f"(x+h) - I"(x)+hf'''(x)+ terms in Ill, in It' etc.
etc. etc. etc.)



~ _ f" (x) or (Y'/~ Y)
(~) , (%)

Here Marx designated the transifion to limit (as 1a ....0) , by placing within brackets an expression, which we wou td have placed after the sign of limit. Late r on he s pcciall y stipulates it (sce PV, 267) .

, ,

Here symbols of the type

.etc. ere simply related to the successive derivlltives.

. . . H ence, now It IS necessary to Interpret t h' IS

~Ol 0


or Ex. - f "() Ifl connect 'Ion dx x .

' W l th


result <;>f the firstf(x + 11), which is its starting poin . f it is considered all by itselr, then, what was true ror the first runction [in] x + h, is absolutely true for it . The difrerence appea rs only the n, when we consider it, not in an isolated way, bu t at the sa me time as the res ult, which we obtai ned as we proceeded from the result f'(x ) of the rirst eq uation.


DESCRllynON 01' 11 lE. MA11n:M"nCAI , MANUSCnll'TS

Having written Ihis, Marx <XInlinucs (sheet 52.11.48 llcoording In MMX) :

Let us take as an example: a (x + 11)"' .. y, ; i.e.,f(x) .. ax'" and y," f(x + h> .. a (x + hY'.
This example (sheets 52-63, pp. 48, 46, 44, 45-52, 52 according 10 MMx) is ve ry convenient, beaJuse in ilthe expansion inlo a series according to the powers of 11 , is given by Ihe hi,nom;a l theorem of Newton, Le., without the help of diffe rential c.1Iculus. IIcre MRTX verifies in detail, 3111h81 he has said above. Thus, for example. having shown sub 1) • that the coefficient of h ( i.e., ma,y ..-I) is actually (the first) deriva tive of ox" in the usual senSe (i.e., it is the limit (lf the ralio
[(:c + Ir) - [(x) as Ir



0). Ma rl( writes further (sheets 53.p. 46, the second 46-111 page IIccording 10

max "'-\ is a pure function of x, 'Yhere in no h ente rs ,just lIS it was the case with ax"'. In both of these expressions x is also the yar iablc, ,lIld th at is why it also admi ts of varia ti on in the second, just as in the first. Thai is why, sub 1 ) we could j us t as well take max"'-' as the starling point, asf(x), as we did in the case ofax'".
After Ihis, M~rx goes through all these details, also for seeking the second deriva tive, stressing , that the sC(:Ond derivative of f(x) - considered as the fitsl derivative o f f'(:c) - herein tlctually tu rns oulto be the second derivDtive of f(:c) and that too in the Lagrangian sense (i.e., the coefficient of 11 212) •

In connection with this, and in addition 10 the foregoing, Marx dwells upon yet another definition of the second , that is, also of the higher order derivatives (and differentials) : through the differences of higher orders. Some of the manuals at Marx's disposal are known to us. In them derivativcs of higher orders have not been defined through finite differences of highe r orders (usually this i~ not done in modern cOurses too). If it is done. liS for examplc. in Lacroix's book (S.F.Lacroix, "Traite du calcul diff\!rentiel et du calcul integral", voU- III , Paris, 1810-1819), then only in Ihe section on "Finite ,Jjtrerences". which Marx did not study at all. (Marx's notes on mathematical analysis - with the exception oflhose from the works of Newton ,seellbove pp.127-l31 - are related [ 0 the section entitled -Differential Calculus".) If we use that definition of the "second difference or A'y ~ . which to all appearance belongs 10 Marx himself, and which he inlrouuced above (see p.136 ). Ihen we get thllt f"(x) is the limit of the ra tio

2~ 2 Y oX

when Ax -O(here " is uesignaled through

Ilx). meanwhile he re for Marx (sheel57, p. 47 according


Mllrx,second lillle "47" for Marx)

f"(:c) is thal ve ry limit of the ratiog, which is cited in the mouem manuals, where

lJ,~ y is


usual difference of second order. The calculations Through which Marx I/lys the founda tion of Ihis conclusion, also indicate the same. These calculations - if carried out with more appropriate notations (Marx's no tation fo r the augmented value of the derivative y' is inappropriale, because, • was adopted to designate the derivative) -look as unde r : Let us have the {ollowing no tations (the symbol::::
Y ::::

reads : designates):

f (.1'),
6y ::: Yt- Y.
6y t ::: Y2 - Yt

Y, :::: /(.1' + Ill.


:;:: 6 Y t -6 Y I let 6x .. 11 bea




And let

"lID x J f "() ..h_O f'(Hh)-f'(x) • I
Let us substitute for the derivative f'(x) its approximatc (Hprc-limit") value: [(x +

(' )

';> -/(.ll .. ~. Thcn analogously f'(x + 11) is substituted by 6.x

[(x + 211) -[Col + 11) .. Yl-YI .. 6.YI and the ratio f' (x +~) -['(x) by h h 6x 6YI-6y 6 2y 6x /lx 6 2y 6.x .. 6.l .. 6. .';" whence Marx draws the conclusion [ see (I)


_l Im 2 f "() .. ,. ~ Thus it is natural 10 think that here Marx used - not in the form of an extract, but a proper account (of) - some other source still unnoticed by us, where the differential calculus has been set forth in closer connection with the calculus of finite differences (as it was done, for example, in Euler, whose "Differential CalculusH even begins with a chapter on "The Finite Diffcrences" ; sce, Institutioncs calculi differentialis eum ejus usu in analysi [initorum ae doetrina serierum, al/ctore Lconhardo Eulero, impensis ~cademiae imperialis scientiarum, J>etropolitanae, 1755), ( there il> a Russian translation: L. Euler, "Differentsial noe ischislcnie M • Moskva-Leningrad, 1949, ch. I ), It is true that, 10 all appearance, Marx could not gel acquainted with Euler's book, though apparently, he'intended to do so. Later on (sheet 57-58, pp, 47-48 according 10 Marx) havi ng done (excluding the definitions through finite differences), what was done for the second derivative, also for the derivatives of third and fourth orders, Marx still fUrther concretises his e)Cample, assuming m .. 3 in the formulae obtained by him, Namely, he writes (sheeI59,p, 49) :

For example, if ins tead of the indeterm inate expone nt or index m we subs titute 3, then we shaH get [ .... ].
In this example, Marx is able 10 complete all the calculations through 10 the cnd (upto obtaining the fourth derivative, equal 10 zero), which he does (sheets 59-63, pp. 49-52, once more 52) first by listing the formulae obtained earlier in a general [arm (in terms of m), and then by assuming in them m=3. Herein Matx especially highlights three circumstances : that 1) the initial function ~nd all its derivatives arc different fUnctions (sheet 62,p. 52),

bUI all the terms, which later on develop independently. and arc differentiated, arc includ ed in the initial function, so that Ihe initial function a lready contains these derivatives in embryo.
2) The successive derivatives are not simply coefficients o( h, h2,

11" . .. in

the expansion of

[(.l +,11), but arc distinguished from the eocftlcicnt of II~ by the multiplier

1'2'~ ... n (sheet 62,Marx's

p.52) . • In the modern courses of mathematical analysis (see, for example, F. Franldin, "Mathematical Analysis", Part I, Moscow, IL, 1950,§93, Finite Differences, pp,150-160) this is proved in a more general form and more strictly (though not constructively"b). -Ed.


3) While obtllining the coefficients of lhe cXJl~n~ion for f(x + 11) (if wc do not have them yet ) along the path of successive differentiation of the illrcady obl" incd terms of fhe cxp,lnsion, it should be remembered,fhM h is considered to' be 11 conslllol (sheet 63,p. 52, MilTX'S second 52-nd

In other words, M:lTX knew beforehllnd lhat,lhc mistakes of calculalion impeding understa nding
mlly be connected with !he lack of auention towards the ex;!c! formulation of the theorem llboul the connection between the derived f UllClions of /(x) and lhe cocf(icicnts of expansion of f(x + It) into a series according 10 the powers of fr.

Following Ihis, lhe notes on sheets 64-68 (pp. 53-57 according 10 Mar,,,) have been str uck out in pe ncil. 111CY contain the following extracts: extracts on ug range's mcthod from Boucharlat's book, pp. 168-17 1 (of the 5th ed. )ancl, exlracts o n Ta ylor 's theorem from lIi nd -s book, pp_ 83-85. He did not strike off the no tes on sheets 69 -77 (1'1'.58-66 according 10 Marx). However, since they contain only the extracts from Hi nd's book, here we limit ourselves to indicating the corresponding pages of the book and lhe titles, under which these extracts have been cited by Ma ne. Sheets 68-7 1 (pp. 57-60 according 10 Marx). Extracts from Hind's book, pp, 86-92. Marx ' s heading: • A. Finding certain limits or Taylor's theorem in its application ,,] 12, Sheets 71-73(pp. 60-62 acco rding to Marx) . Extracts from Hind's book, pp. 96-98, Marx 's ti tle

:"B . Further manipulations with Tay/or's theorem" . .
Sheets 73-77 (pp. 62-66 according to Marx) . EXlracts from Hind's book, pp. 92-96, unde r Marx's heading ;"c. Failure of Tay/or's theorem". Sheets 78 and 79 (upper part) (pp. 67-68 acco rding 10 Marx) contain his own obsctV<ltions. He speciaUy marked them out on 1'.67 (sheet 78) by a line of the formE: in the left hand side. T his section is being reproduced below. The ti tle has been provided by us.

Bc it


(~) I, (§) 2

etc., i.e., that

(~), which we get in the first diffe rentiation, amI
var iable


(~) I etc.,

which appear as a result o f the success ive differentiations, the independent

a ppears there,

w here x appea rs as the

y as the dependent va riable;

consequentl y, where it emerges from [that]

~ /;x

d reduced to EKdx , it is qualitatively different from

~,WhiCh we get th ere, where

x is a constant magn itude, as in the ordinary al gebra.

. ~-~ ~-a)~+~ For exa mple, if we have - - - , then for the lalter we may also write.. ; if x-a x- a x2 _a 2 0 we assume tha t x-a, then x 2 _a 2 _ a2 _a 2 andx-a-a-a; :.-----0; but ildoes


not turn in to

% because

the de nominator = 0, but rather because the nu merator and the



denominator turn into 0 :ltthe same time, when instead of x and x 2 wc substitute their values a a nd a2 11J ... Meanwhile in

[(X+ h) - [(x) _ y, - Y xl-x xl-x the value of the numera tor is determ ined by the va lue of the denom inator and is dependent on it. It is true, that I ca n say : if in the numerator It becomes equal to 0, the n [(x + h) - [(x) _ [(x) - [(x),
and that is why 0 ; but here I can assume that 0, only if Xl - x .. It .. 0, i.e., if x J - x becomes .. x -x .. O. The numerator changes its magnitude, only if the denominator changes its own 114 ..•



On the other hand, in [(x + It) - [(x), without preliminarily assum ing - x, I can not assume that" = O .

Xl -

x .. 0 or

That is why, this qualitative inter-relation between dx and dy does no t exist there, where the numerator is not a function of the variable x, but where x in the numerator and in the denomi nator is onc and the same constant, though unknown and still indeterm inate, but always a conslant magn itude.

x'2_ a2 x'2_a 2 (x-a)(x+a) Further, - - - .. - x + a. And when x _ a, then that is why - -- - 20.





d This 2a is not the limit ofx2 - a in the se nse, as, for example, in !'1.dx - m ; 2a was obtained



by simple division, as the actually obtained value of the fraction

X2 -

a x-a


It is a limit only in that sense, in which the actually ObL'lined value of any numerical ratio is its limit. .


~ .. 2 . ~

is neither> no r < than 2, and in this se nse every equa lity expresses some

limit 115, and even for every consL.1nt quantity, like 3 etc. its limit coincides with its being. 3 is neithe.r 2, nor 4. nor any o ther fract io n in be tween 2 and 4, but is equa l to 2 + 1. o r 4 - l.


is in itself its proper limit. If I express it in the form of a series, then

' 13 1 3 3 3 3 10 0.33' then 3"10+ 100+ 1000+ 10.000+'" 9 10 1 In this case 3 becomes the limit of il~ infinite series.





The next two sheets 79·80 (rp. 68-69) hHVC IIgain been muck out by Man{. lie gave them the heading:

Continuation of

a~o''' er

note book (/11, /lext to Kaufmall ll ll) (lasl page).

These pages have already been referred to( ~ I'V, 123). In addilion to whll\ has been said there we o nly nole Curt her thaI, here Marx puts a number of questions regarding the inilial supposition of Lagrange. Havinp presupposed lhal !(x + hI is equal to !(.l) + PIr, why should J..agtange assume tha t P is a (unctio'! no t only of x, but also of 11, represented in its turn in the form of P - P + Qb, where p is a funclian o nl y of x, but Q - agllin of both x and" 1 Analogously why s hould it be v~lid also for 0 etc., i.e., why should the Lagrangian series be infinite (unboundedly continuous)1 And why must Ihe same hold good fo r lhe series represenling/,(x + 11), f"(x+ 1 ele.1 1) Here Marx's answer to Ihese questions consists of the following; Lagrange's Iheo rem has a general character, i.e., it s~oul d be appliCAble not o.. ly to such functions as f(x), for which f(x + It) is a IXllyno mia l of son)e determina le order relative 10 h, in particular, it mus t a lso be applicahle 10 f"(x + 11) elc., owihg to which Ihe I..agrangian series also appears (in Ihe genera l Cllse) 10 be unboundedly continuous (~infiniteM). This paragraph ( tho ugh s lruck off by M~tx) clearly belongs to Marx himself. It is nol an extract from any source, n<?, even a nole, Ihough it is connected with a desire 10 investigAte tile hazy ideas of Lagrange, oonsif ti ng of cont rlllXlsi ting the "general instance" of an arbitrHY runction 10 some individua l, "particular" functio n. That is why it would have been natural to cile this lext here. However, in so faus, its beginning is situated in another note-book (manuscript 3888). and without this beginning (and what precedes il). the continuation of the tex t is incomprehensible, it will be adduced while describing manuscript 3888.


T he las t, 81-51 shect o[ manuscript 2763 contains on ly a heading : 'Continuo/ion of /Ire fi r-st inside cover (reloted to figure J), which is, apparently, there in the second inside cover. IJcre ma nuscript 2763 comes 10 an e nd .

S.U.N. 3888
Marx gave this nOle book the heading: "/11 n e.'l:( to KoufmQrlll U-, sheets 1-87. Language -German, in places french or English. Since the note book "Kaufmann 11" (manuscript 3881) was used si nce March 1878, the dale of Ihis manuscript can nol be placed earlier Ihan 1878. Immediately under the headi ng of the nole bcok (evidently, o n its inner cover) there is 11 quotation from the book by Feller and Odermann, which runs (shecI2) as under:

Sec p. 185 of the book "Commercial Arithmetic", wherein it is sa id: "However, in o rder to calcu la te the nel profit o r net loss o f an enterprise, it is necessa ry to lake into account, also the interest UPOII file illvcsted capital ( he has in view the capital, in vested in co mmO(.Iilics etc,) durillg the time, in course o/wh ich the latter conl/ot be utilised".
t"~ tim~ · , a re

The words within nrst brackets inscribed by Marx inside the words ~in ... ~slt!d capital dllrinc nott herc in the book. Yet another small difference consists of this: Marx simply wrote "to calculate", instead of "to be able to ealculate~ - which is there in the book .

On sheets .l-ll (above) (in Mllrx's numeration ; 1-22, 22a, 23, 230, 2-27) there are extr~cts from a source unknown to U5 ; on the currencies of different countries, meRns of coinage, weighing ingots etc. It is stili not clear, with whalthe above cited quotatio n is related. AfCer this, under the title ; M /nserliQn", on sheets 31-36 (pp. 27-32 in is a note from two sections of the lext-book by Feller and Odermann ;
~t\) Parln~rsltip M~rx's

numbering) there

rll/e\ pp. 144· 15 1 of the text-book, sheets 31-35 of the manuscript. It is a rule fUr proportiona l division - "simple", which may be "direct" (direclly proportional) and "inverse" (inversely proportional). and "compound" (compounded by some addilion~ 1 conditions imro~cd upon the given ratiO).
This noteconsisl$ mainly of the solution of problems, Rnd contHi nsalmost no expl"natory text from Ihe book. The last problem solved therein (for illustrating the ·compound" rule of partnership) reads: "4 mills must grind a t onc and the !i3me time 2 000 tchetvcriks of grain. How this grain may be divided among them, if mill A grinds 15 tchetveriks in 4 hours, 0 - 16 tchetveriks in 3 hours, C -10 tchetveriks in 3 hours and D - 9tchetveriks in 2 hou rs ? ~( Feller IInd Odermann, p'. 150). Marx adduces In his nOle both the solutions of Ihis problem, consisting of 11 reduction to simple - direct iind inverse - rules of partnership. (The nrst reduction is carried out with the help of the answer to the question : "How much grain docs each of the mills grind in one hour? "The second - by providing an answer 10 the qucstion : "llow many hours lire nccded by each of the mills, 1 grind one tchetverik of grain ?"). 0

"B. Rule of mixTure-, Le., the means for solving the problems of computing : 1) the mean value (of the unit of mix ture according to the · weights· of the components and their quantities), 2) the numerical interrelation among the quanti tics of components of given "weights", necessary for obtaining a mixture of the required ·weight". From this section Marx notes (Sheets 35-36, pp. 31-32 in Marx's numbering) only a part, related to the problems of the nrst tYt>e (pp. 153 -154 of the book). Here, Marx's attention is especia lly drawn to a problem, in which the data about the consumption of tea in England during 1842-1846, is cited: the number of pounds of lea (consumed) and the (mean) price of onc pound of tea in every yea r (is given) - the corresponding m~a n (amount and price) for I year is to be computed. In conn\.'Ction with this problem Marx not only ci tes the entire table oC data and results, found in the text·book, but ~lso writes down (within square brackets) a long comment, in which he !Inlllyscs the dynamics of the process : the course of change


l)ES('RI I¥110N 01' '1111;. MA Tl-IIlMA'IlCAL MANIJSCI{II'TS

of the dala over 5 years, in absolute numbers and percentages, ~nd computcs all of them. On the pages following this (on the lo wer p~rt of sheet 36, sheets 37-39; PI). 32-35 in MlHX'S numbering) we lind a paragraph abou t ci rculatio n of Cilpital ; in lerms of the subject m~lIc r Ih is is related to Ihe 2nd part of volume 11 of "OI]1ila l". The properly mathematical part of Ihis manuscril't sla rls from shecl40 (p.36 in Marx's nu mbering) and continues U]110 Ihe cnd of the nOle book (sheet 87; in Marx's numbering 36·63. 66·73. 76·86, in Ihe pholo copy the !~Sl page is unnumbered). AlmOSl the enlire text of this mn nuser!pt is crossed out in pencil. 1I may be sub·divided inlo the followi ng parts, the oonle nlS of which will be described below in brief. Orlhe comments of Marx,t he smaller o nes have Ix:en ei led in the course of the dcscril>lion ~ nd the bigger oncs have been s pecially separated and ~ re heing separately reproduced below. I IOI<I'ever, from the text of the description thcir reference poi nts will be clear. Some additiona l references precede the tC.>;1 of these comment~ of M~rx .
I. Sheets 40-41 (Marx 's pp. 36.37) . Exlmcts from Ihe inlroduction 10 Ihe big "Trea tise" of Lacroix, whic h Marx begins by exactl y mentioning Ihe source, which he does only in alse of such authors, whose name itself has a significance. In th is manuscript he still mentions Ihe nnmes of Doueharlat and Hind (sce below), bul oftener only for crilicising, and docs so withou t men tioning the source. This part of Ihe manuscri l>l sta rts with a new page (sheet 40, Marx's p. 36), as under :

Lacroix : "Traite du calcul differelltiel et du calcul integral", t I, 1810. IlIlroductioll.
The note consists of the following six points, corresponding 10 points 1-5, 10-11 of Lacroix, pp. 1_7: 13-14, but thei r oontent is given quite brieny . Since at is,~ue here arc Ihe fundamental concepts of "function" IInd "limit", wc shall describe il in greater detai l, as complIred to Ihe other parts of the manuscript. The numbering of the points is according 10 M;lTx. I ) Maf)( gave this point the tille : "Function :1" . It conlainsonly a quot~tio n from Lacroix, cited by MUll: within quotation m~rks . I1 is a definition of fu nction as dcpendcnce (ill exact Gc rman lranslalio n). 2) The second poin t lllso starts with some words which arc tr"nsla tions from Lacroi;c 's Icxl (p. 2) (bu l here il is no more complete and, is without quo tation marks) (sheeI40) :

Consideration of indetermillate equa tions led to a generalisation of thc concept of fun c tion. If it is des ired 1 express, that a certain quantity ca n not be a5>signcd, wilhoul giving, ear/ier, 0 determinate values 1 some olher quantities, which could obta in infinite number of them 0 [s uc h vll lucs} in o nc nnd the same question, then the word, "fun c tion" is used for designating this dependence.
MlIrx nOles this point in grelller detail: here we have all the examples adduced by Lac roix, the definitions of e.l'plicil and implicit functions and the definition of algebraic functiQns, and commenlS (p. 3 of La croix), which reads (sheet 40) :

Amo ng certain quantities equations are not demanded, if onc of them is an implicit func tion of the re mai ning, il is enough, that iL~ value is dependent upon their values; fo r example, in the circle sine is an implicit fun ction of the arc - though no algebraic equation can r.xprcss it, beca use when onc of the two (magniludcs) is definite, so is the other, a nd conversely.
3) Infinite serieses and transcendental funclions (l ike those inexpressible by a finite number of algcbraic terms) (I..acroi)(, 1'1'. 3-4), sheet 40. 4) Convergence IInd divergence orseriescs (Lacroix, pp. 4-5), sheet 40.

A series does nol always give the value of lhe fUllction, to which it belongs; often it moves away from it [th e fun c tion] with an increase in Ihe number of Icrms.


Example :geometric progression ( the series for - ' - ).


5) In order to be able to use the expansion into 11 series, it is enough to know "Ihe ((lW, (lccording 10 which ils lerms ore formed " (Lacroix, p. 5), sheel 41. But if the computation of the approximate value of a function, which isexpa ndable in a series is at issue,then the convergence oflhe series should be carefully checked. And further, in the same place :

... and these calculations may be fully relied upon, onl y ir we are in a pOS Ition to indicate the limits of tire difference, whi ch ma y occur betwee n them and the true val ue.
Unbounded decrease of the ~terms "of a series as the essential sign of its convergence. (And in Lacroix the discussion is about the "terms· of~ series, no t their absolute values, though in the next example - which Marx did not yet note - lacroix proposes" 1 disengage from the sign" of jus t 0 such numbers) . 6) Omi!!ing all Ihe examples cited (and discussed) by Lacroix, Marx goes over to poinls 10-11 of Lacroix (pp. 13.14) and lakes notes brieny under the title :"Limil", shet'! 41. Here (point 10) the concept of limit is introduced in the light of an example: it is about the search for the limit of Ihe fr~ct ion -..E!... when x
x ..

First, the difference belween u and Ihis fraction is computed; Ihen Marx wriles (sheet 41) :

a2 T his difrerence-- beco mes the smaller, the grea ter x is; [;IJ may be made smaller than x+a any g iven magnitude; hence, the proposed fraction may be made as close to a as you p lease, i.c., a is the limit of the function .....!!!..- • relative to indefi nite augmentation or x. Ha
(There is no general definition of timit in lacroix 's "Trea tise". On lacroix's concept of timit. see Appendix, pp 309·311 ). Fro m point I1 Marx took down tho1l pari, where it is said that, if the ratio ax : (a.t +X2) is to be reduced to its "Simplest expression " - ' - , then itlurns out that, liS x

diminishes, not only does Ihis expression more and more approach one, but also turns exactly into I ,when x . O. lIere a question has been raised. Marx states it as follows;

Bul could ox, ax + x 2


s ince they have turned into 0 -

still have a. determin ate re lation?
of the

MllTx wrote down also the answer 1 th is question. It consists of this; "I he r1llio - ' 0

qU8ntities axllnd u.x +x2 can not only alla;n unily, when in it we put x. 0 ,but can also surpass it, when we assume thal.\ is negative" (Lacroix • p.l4) . Wilh this Marx's notes from the "Int roduction" of Lacroix's MTreatise" comes to an end. 11. sheets 42-66 (pp. 38-62 in Mux's numbering). Extracts from the English translation (1828) of the· third French edition of Baucharlat's book, points 3-72, pp. 2-45. This part of the manuscript contains a number of Marx's own obscrvations, Ihe text of which is being rep roduced below. It has been divided by him inlo the following 20 points . (Titles of the points, round in the manuscript , are being reproduced here wilhin quotation marks. Number of thc points and the pages of Ihe English edilion of Boucharlat's book are being indicated by pUlling them wilhin brackets. In the end the sheet number oflhe manuscript is &cing given. I) The derivative and Ihe differential of the funcliony.xl (poinls 3-4, pp. 2·4). For Marx's critical comments on Boucharlal, see r v, 160·161.




2) ""/'lIt: different/ul o/J::: [is equQllo 1dx~, (points 9- 10, pp. 5- 6). After Ibis tille: IlIe /ol/Qwing slmnge wuy", ShCC142 (scc Appendix, pp 328-329).
3) 'nle mClhod of findi ng the dcrivll!ivc as the limit of lhc



r~lio [(x + '~~ - [(.~)

( when "h ,. 0") by

expanding r(x + h) in10 a series according 10 lhe power.; of h (poi nl 13, p. 7). Sheet 42 . 4) Application of this method 10 Ihe diffcrcnliillion of Iwo or more fUIlClions (point 14, p. 8). Sheets 42-43. 5) 01ITcrcnlintion of th e quotient'=' (point 16, p. 9). Slu:cI43.


+ - + - + - + ... and y Z f /I the ,1ssumplion in it of ;( .. y .. z .. f .. u .. ...• and Hl logclhcr chere :lfC III of lhem). Extension to fra ctional ,!nd neg;\tivc powers. Another methnd nf d;lrercnti~ t;on of power (through the eXIl..1nsion u( .r + Ir)"'ncconling to Newton's binom i~1 formulll)(I>oints 17, 19.20, pp. 9-12) .sheets 43-44 (lOp).
xyzlll . ..

6) I)criv~liveo( Ihe l)Ower x'" (Ihrough the cquHIIIY


.. -




7) "On tl.e pri"ciplt: of the melfrO(I Df indeterminall: coeffidcIII$ " ("third ('lot note to th e Engl ish edition of Boueharl~t 's hook, pp. 364-365). Sheet 44.
8) Differentiation of composi te function

26·29, p. 14·17). Sheets 44-45.

9) "Succcssivt: differentiafion"(poinl 30, pp.17-18). Sheets 45- 46{top) 10)
~MacLaurin 's

theorem M(pOillts 31-33, pp. 18·21). Sheets 46-47.

J J) Definition of "transeendentlll qu~ntities H(point 35, p. 22). The entire text of this I>oint, in the English Irllns\ation of Boucharl31's hook, corn;ists of the words: "l"rul!.'icClldental quantities {are! ~-UcJlll$ are affected hy variable indices, losurifhms, sines, CO::iines etc. ~; Marx adduces it in full (save the word "nre", which wc have put within brackets ).,lInd underlines it. Sheet 48.
12) -To differentiate rr" (points 36·37, p.p 21-24). Sheets 48-49.

13) I)if(erentiation of logarit hm (poin t 38, p. 24). Sheets 49·50.
14) "Ti,e arc il' greater than Ille sillt; lIIld less tlwllthe tan.r;l!nt"(points 39-40, pp. 24·25). Thi!sC
are the first words of I>oint 39. In I>oiut 40 the issuc is: the limit of the rlltio sinx (when'\" - 0"). x Sheet SO. (Sec , Appendix, pp. 309.)

15) "Differcntial of the sin~, whose arc is x-(points 41 -43, pp. 25-27). Sheets 50-5116) ~Differenti{/I of cos.\"" (point 44, p. 27). "Differential oftunx~ (point 45, pp. 27.28). H Differential of cot x and sec x" (I>oints 46·47, p. 28). "Diffuentiai of Ihe COl'ua nl x~ (point 48, p. 28). "Differential of versinlls ~(po i nl 49, p. 28). Sheets 51-52.
17) Compendium of formulae for thc differe ntials of trigonometric functions (composed by Marx). Sheet 52. .

1B)"Tay/or's tlreorem • (poin ts 52-60, pp 30·35). Contains two long comments of Marx : a) about Boucharlat's le mma (sce, PV, 161 ), b) collljl.1rison ofTaylo,'s and MacLaurin 's theorems (see, I'V, 161-163). Shcel~ 53-57. 19) ·On the differentiation of eqllations of 2 variables ~ (points 61-68, pp. 35-41). Here the issue is differentiation of the implicit function (iocl uding successive) and complete differential. Sheets 57·62.
After this there lire three insertions in the m3nuscript (on sheet 62) under the titles: "70) ad p. -10, after 7, also 7 a ", "7b)" and ?cr. i-Iere Marx takes note.~ from the points 22-23, 25, the pp.



12-13,omilted earlier_ 7a) is related to the differentiation of ~lInl, 7b) - to the role of the constant liS II mu](iplier (in differentiation), 7c) the slime for the constnnt ns an item. Here Marx pays special attention to a general comment of Oouch~rlltt, which he expresses (mainly in German) as under:

The method for the process of differelltiatioll, consisting, at first of finding Ihe value of YP
and then from there to ob tai nin g YI J~ Y and, then passing on to the limit by making If - 0, is very cllmbersome , when the issue is differentiation of a quantity which contains severa l te rms. Howeve r, if we ca n differentiate each te rm separately, then a simpler procedure is possible owing to the theorem: the differential of a sum of functio ns is equa l to the sum of the differentials of those functions.
(PrOOf of the theorem - which is there in the notes - is given in Boucharl<lt·s book with the help of lhc expansion of the values of [he terms at the "point" x + h in the series ncconling to the powers of h.)
20) ~Melhod of lansents (i.e.; differenlial expressions oflangenls, sublangc'I/s, norma Is, and subnormals of curves)" (points 69-72, pp. 41-45), with Marx's critical comments. Sheets 63-66 (top).

Here Marx did not take notes from the succeeding sect ions, devoted to the other problems of differential geometry, the methods of "reve~ling" the indetermin3neies, the problems of maximum and minimum, and also the different methods of laying Ihe foundations of differential calculus. 111. Sheets 66-75 (pp. 62-63, 66-73 in Marx's numbering, by mistake "66" instead of "64"). Extracts from ch. V of Hind's book: section "Ill. Development of functions etc.", points 69-82, pp. 68-98, with a few omissions. The extracts are related to the theorems ofTaylor and Ma cL~ llIin and they p,·oeeed in the following order (the numbers within square brackets arc ours) :

[lJ Shecl66 (p. 62 of Marx). M<lcLaurin's formula, regarding which Marx writes: Putting u in place of y th e formula of MacLaurill :
It ..,

(u) +

(dU) cO + (tPlI) ~ + (dx") 1·2·3 d' x' dx 1 dx 1·2


+ ...

Hind puts for this

U + u11 + "21.2 + u3 1.2.3 + ... o




[[where the abSllfd Ill' 112 etc. in placeof u' , u" , u'" may g ive rise to misunderstandings, since these sy mbols have an entirel y different meaning in operations with the finite differences]]. He observes first of alllhat, u~f(x) may be expanded according to MacLaurin's form ula, o nly if u represents a function of x, which can be expressed ill ascending and integral powers o/x.
The words underlined by Marx (here ital icised) are important for understanding the subsequent text of the manuscript. [2] Sheets 67-68, Mane's pp. 63, 66. Examples of appliCl'tbility of MacLaurin's formu la (u .v'iX'=T, log.l"). Methods for obtaining the expansions in certain cases of applicability of MacLaurin·s theorem, by representing the functions of u in the form of u -xI"v, where v is a function of x cxpandable according to MacLaurin's theorem . Examples:





rx~, k"'2' v .. Vf=X;


2)" implicit [unctions given by the cqu~lion rill) - /IX) - a.r'I_ 0, k .. I, v is n fUllction definable by the equation avl - xv - a .. O(Hind, POil11 (,9, example 9: points 70-71 , corol lary 1-2; examples \-2, pp. 74-76). (3 ) Sheet 69, Ms rx's p. 67. On obtaini ll!; Ihe expansion into a powered series wilhoul [he help of MacLaurin's theo rem : differentiation of a series wi lh intl.etcrminalc coefficients. Example I - eXp<lnsion of the function Q< "by the method or inde terminate coefficicnls · (Hind, point 72, corroJary 3, pp. 76·77, Marx did not write the remaining 4 cXilmplcs of [his poinl).

Substitution of


~ for obtaining the

expansion in dimi nishing powers of x (ibi d ,second time
T~y l or's

point 72, cor. 4, pp. 81.82).

[4J Sheets 69 (botlom)-70, M ~n: ' s pp. 67-68. Formulation of M~rx begins this section with the words (sheet 69, bottom) :

theorem in lI ind's book.

Hind expresses Tay/or 's theorem as fo llows:
Thus it is clear that Marx does not ascril>c this formulation to Taylor himself, though later on he sometimes so writes, as though he thinks, thll1 if not the formulation, then in any case the proof of Tllylor's theorem, presented in the books of Hi nd IInd Boucharlat, belongs to Taylor himself.
In connection wit h I fi nd 's wOrdS,thM "if 0 function does n01 hllve a rationlll lI!gebrllic form,

then Ihe number of its diffe rentia l coefficients [derivatives] is infinitely large" (t hat is why the series obtained is also~unboundedly continuous~), Marx writes afler the words "if i t doe.~ flol haw: 011 algebraic/arm- :

Hi.e., a lways, w he n [they a re1 transcendental / w /clivIIS (expollelltinl, logarithmic, or trigonometrical') s ince the na ture o f these fun ctions does no t permit t hei r expression by means oJ algebraic expressions 0/ finite IIllmber 0/ terms II
Unbounded continuity of a series is Taylor's series.

by the example of expansion of sin (x + Ir) into

Other examples and the proof of Taylor's Ihoorcm (ana logous to the proof given in l3oucharlat's book, cMlier Marx took de tailed nOles of it and analysed it critically, sce If , 18) ; and here M~rx does not note the corresponding observlltions contained in point 74 of I li nd's book. The section comes to an end with the words (sheet 70, Mafx's p. 68) :

So lo ng as the res ull o f applica tio n o f Taylo r 's theo rem is consid ered onl y as an an aly tica l transform<l tion, irrespective of whether the /l umber of terms are fill ite or infinle, o r else, if Ihe va lue of the fu nc tion is required to he ascerta ined in any particular sta te of the principa l va riable, then it becomes importa nt to rind OUI the limit o/the qualllity,-wliich is omitted by stopping at allY assigned lerm o/fhe development, for exa mple, whe th er the va lue of the omi tted quan ti ty wi ll be grea ter or lesser, tha n the vlll uc o f the I.i miting q uantity. ,.11 w hich wc s topped. ( For exa mp le, w ill the fi rs t term be g rea ter tha n the su m o ( all the rcst ?)
In Hioo's book the correspond ing text follows immediately after the comment on Ihe "unoounded continuity· of Taylor's series, mentioned lloove (point 75, cot. I, pp. 86-87). AJllhe Eoglish words in this extract belong 10 I-find; on Ihe whole il does convey the text of the book exactly, Ihough in Ihe laller words( after those underlined by him) Marx isolated and mentioned the task, which the author attempls to solve laler on . This section of Ihe man uscript contains both the formula lions ofTaylor 's theo rem: [foundJ in pp. 83 and 84 (point 74) of Hi nd·s book, example 3 from this point (p. 86) and, in the beginning of poi nt7S (pp. 86-87).





70 (bottom, under a Hnc) -74 (top), Marx's pp. 68-72.
~ecordi n g

Cases of inapplicability of Taylor's theorem to the [unction f(x + /.), considered Lagrllnge, i.e:, as possible only for some pilrticu!~r vHJues of x. EXHmple
U.X2 -IX-I'


whenx· a ( Hind, point 77, pp. 92-93, upto eXllmple 2). Sheets 70-71. Proof of the fact lhlll in the ~general" cases the exp~nsion into Tayloc's series cannot contain fractional and negative powers of" (according \0 Lagrange) (I-find, point 78, p, 94). Sheets 71-72. Ccrtllin signs, permitting recognition of the existence of such special values of x, for which f(x + Jr) is not expMdable into Taylor's series (1 Iind, pOints 79-80, p. 94 (bottom) -96). Sheets 72-73. Taylor's series giving the expression fo r the increment or a function through its successive di fferentials: 6. u ..

~u + ~~ + 1~~~3 + '''(Hind, po int 81, pp. 96-97).

Use of such an expression for

the increment (in the instance, when the expansion for I(x + d\') 11I.:conJi ng to the powers of dx, is already known) [or finding out the successive derivatives of u in terms of x . Example 1 : 11 ".\"" , where the expansion for (x + dx)'" is obtained according to the binomial theorem. Sheets 73·74. After this having written the heading (sheet 74, Marx's p. 72) :

Deveiopmenl of fu nctions of 2 or more independenl variables 11'" I(x,y, z etc.) or f(u,x,)"z etc.). 0 (Hind, ch. XII, point 256, p. 370), M~rx, however, did no t take notes from this section. IV. Here Marx returns backward, to the fundamental question, which interests him : llbout the nature of the two methods of differentiating, with which l30uchallat stRrtcd «(sec 11 , 1) and 3» and the meaning of the symbols ofdi[ferential calculus. Marx's own comments (sheets 74-75. Marx's pp. 72-73) summing up the "first" method, which has been pla<--ed in the manuscrip t (sheet 74) afte r the number "1)", is being reproducte~ below (sec, PV, J64).
Marx got acquainted with the "second", Le., Lagrange's, method enunciated as per Po;sson, at fi rst in Hall's book (Th. G. Hall, A treatise on the difl'erent;al and integral calculus, 5th cd. (wi lh us), London, 1852). Having taken notes (sheets 75-79{top), pp. 73,76-79,"76"':"- Ma rx's slip of pen) from points 6·10, 13, pp. 2-8 of Hall, contai ning examples of eXpilns;on of f(x + 11) into a series of ascending integral positive powers of hand, Lagrange's "proof" of such expansibility, by the method of indeterminate indices of power (through the representation of f (x + 11 + ") once as I«x + 11) + 11) and next time as f(x + 211», Marx sums up the "second" method (sheet 79, p.79 of Marx). This comment oC MRrx is also being reproduced below (see p. 166). The entirety of this part of the nOle is placed under the title (~heet 75, Marx's p. 73) :

2) In place of the method indicated above, the method of POiSSOIl, etc.
Going over the rules of differentilltion, which must facilitate the task of differentiating and "mllke it a simple algebraic operation" (Hall, p. 7), 1 11 still considers preliminarily, the example ·la of differentiation of the function u ... ha +x(point13), directly using the definition of the deriva tive

as the coefficient of the first power of h in the expansion of I(x + It) and, from there he goes over to its det:inition as the limit of the rati'o f(x + 11) - [(x) . M~rx wrote down this example in full (with all rhe calculations), calli ng herein the second definition Ihe "first" (sheets 78-79, Marx's pp. 1 78-79). ( Herein he obtains the expansion of by "angular" division .)





Here Marx SlOpS hIkin g nOles [rorn lhe beginning of Hall's book (;1pparC!11Iy, he w~s in need of it only to sum up lhe cs~cncc of lhe "second "method of differenlialion -the method of Lagrangc). Further (sheets 80-81, Marx's pp. 80-81) on he takes 1101es from Ihe beginning of chapler VIII of Ihis book (points 95-96, pp. 87-88) under Ihe title (sheet 80, p. 80) : "Function,l" of two or more variables and implicit funclions~ wilh lhe iuSlruction "(cf p. 53 sqq)". Here ( scc 11. 19) it is possible tha! Milrx turned la this chllptcr. because while propagaling Lagrange's method 1 111 wrote -11' in the preface to Ihis book (p.V),lhat irfaT the funclions or one variable both the mcthods(of limils and of Lagrange) ue of equ~1 vlllue, then for the functions of two (or more) v;ui~bl es the expansion of f(y + k, x + h) specifically gives only the complete differential. (Of course Hall had in view the simplicity of the formal tmnsformations.) However, considcr<1blc Simplicity - and especially clarity - w~s not obtained, and, perh~ps, th~' is why Marx did no t take notes from beyond the beginning of Ihis scction, where the expansion of f(x + Jr, y + k) is obtAined from the expansion of f(x + 11, y) when y turns into y + k. V. This part of the manuscript (sheets 81 (bonom) -87, pp. 81-86 and one unnumbered, according to Marx) contai ns a short extract from S~uri's book and a continuation of the notes from Boucharlat (the s1Ime English tmnslation of 1828). Marx summed it up with his comments. Extracts from S3uri (sheets 81-82, Marx's pp. 81·82) are related to the third vo!ume o f this book (PariS, 1778), pp. 3 and 11-12, and contains: a) differenliation of the product xy (sheet 81, bollom). Here, SIJCaking about th e rejection of the product of dx 1Ind dy 8S an infinitesimal of higher order in comparison with dt and dy, Marx adds to Sauri's text :"according 10 Leibnitz" ; b) successive differentiation and then. conversely, the integration of the functions y _ x'" and xy (in the cases, when dx is either 3 constant or it is not). Sheet 82. To the extracts from Boucharlllt, Marx gave the heading (sheet 82) :

"Failure [sf of Tay/or's theorem (continuation of p.69)". Here, the continuation of Ill, [5], sheet 71 is being referred 10. Marx sub-divided these extracts into 5 points, indicated by 1he Roman numerals and thcse are, in their turn, sometimes subdivided inlo sub-points. Wc too sh1l11 be speaki ng of their contents under these numerals ; numbers of the points and pages of the source have been indicated according to the English translation of Boucharlat, and in the cnd the corresponding sheets of the manuscript have been indicated. In the source 1he corresponding U.:xl is printed in brevier. With this Ihe section entitled "Differential Calculus" in Boucharlilt 's Ik>ok comes to an cnd. I. 1)-2). The instance, when for some value a of the variable x the radical vanished in 1(0), but is retained in f(a +.h) (points 253-254, p. 162.). Sheet 82. 3) The general proo f, that if th er('. is a fr1l ctional po wer of" in the expansion for f(a + 11), th en all the derivatives of f(x), starling from some, turn into infinity when x _ a (point 255,. p 163). Sheets 83-84. 11. 1)-2). 'lbe method of obtaining the expansion for I(a + 11) in such cases, not according to Taylor 's theore m (but by a suootitution of x + h in place of x in f(x) and an application, for example, of Newton's binomial theorem). Example: [(x)- 2ax-x2+ a-l."(1-a2.
To find out the expansion of I(a + 11) (points 256-257, pp. 1.64-165). Sheets 84-85. This point of the note comes to an cnd with Marx's words (sheeI85):

It comes to this. that the application of Tay lor's theorem is feasible only upto the n-th

term [[if at all ]] through the application of the expedient means of ordinary algebra, supplemented; this has nothing in common wi th differentia l calculus.



Ill . Lagrange proved that (point 258, p.166: sheet 85) : the development of /(x +Ir) can not contain terms with/ractiollal powers of h, so long as x, as iI happens in ~ gCller;,1 development, remains indetermin{.lfe, Le., does no t obl~in some particular vlllue a. Here, as in the entire text of this part, th~ proof is noted in full : Up(O obtailling a cOlllradiclioll wilh th e assumplion, as writes Marx. In this extract Ma rx very brielly explains the text of the source, where it has only been sllid: "when x remains indeterminate". IV. The same for the negative powers of h (point 259, pp. 166-167). Sheet. 86. V. The same for terms of Ihe type A log 11 (I>oinl 260, p. 167). Sheet 86. Drawing a tine aner this, Marx wri tes furth er under the num ber to Marx) :
~ VI·

(shcet86, p. 86 accordillg

VI. III ge/leral in lhe Lagrallgiall algebraic deduction of Tay/or 's formula or, still more generally, ill the deduClion of his f(x + h) :.-f(x) + ph +ql(2+ rh3 + ... from the very begillning the cases which latler 01/ appear as "Ihe cases of illapplicabililY" of Tay/or's theorem are excluded. (This besides the facl , t/tat it has already been lIoted espec ially sub III (p.SS) and sub IV and V on this page "). a) In L1grange, who ob tains algebraically. ([ and not by app lyi ng the differential ca lculus]] !l1.. !!2 h2 !!!l.. 11 3 f(x + h) - f (x) + dx It + dx'l 1.2 + dx3 t .2.3 + ...

<!1. IS dx .

nO lh·Ing other than a sy mbol of the opera/ion, by which the coefficiellt of h is obtained

in the developmen t of f(x +") ; and once this coefficie nt is found , the expressions


dx2 ' dxJ ctc. mean only this that by repetition of the same process the coefficients of /13 etc. w ill be foun d, but on ly after - in conseque nce of these s uccessive processesthe second term is agaitt and again. reduced 10 a term affected by rile first power of" ; so lhal

we require on ly lo know by the rules of algebra, what ins tances, it we re as ked wha t

~ oughl to be for each function.

If, fo r


is for the func tion X"', Ihen we shou ld have developed
x"'+mx",- Ih+ ... ;

(x + 11)'" by the binom ial theory, which gives
hence, as have

~ must indicate the coefficient of the fi rst power of h in the development, we should

If we are as ked further,what


willbcfor mx," -l [[

~en ce

what dx 2 wil l be [or x'" ]],


we s hall develop aga in by the bi nomia l theory:
-Evidenlly wha t is bci llg referred to here is carrying the proof forward righ t upto the contradiclioll with the -assum ption", which is also considered to be excluding the special cases ; p.85 is also s heel85. - &I.



m (x + " )m_l. mxm- i + In (m
That is why, 1; rormX"'-"

-1)x"' -~ "

+ ".


forx'''=m(m - l) x m -

Thus the w hole thin g is red uced to heing ,Ible to find o ut, by analytical procenes, the developmem of rite different sorts of [unctiolls which algebr(l ca ll pre,w:nI .
In fact with Ihis keenly summed ullcommcnl - saying lhal in essence Lagrangc proved n01hing. as he assun1cd what he wanted 10 prove - this manuscripl comes 10 an cnd. Sheet No. 87 (Ihe
unnumbered page) is full o[ clllculllliollS wilhoul ;IUY order nnd words, Dnd il is many limes crossed




Now wc prc.'Ient MO'Irx's own comments. rnenlioncd in the descriplion of the manuscript. The firs t of them is related 1 L very bl!ginning of !loucharlal's book: (sec 11 , I) and contai ns Marx's 0 he critica l comments, related 10 tile mode o( introducing Ihe concepl or dilTercnl ial in Ihis boo k (sheet 42, Marx 's p. 38),


Y _x 3 ,
YI-(x+ h P,
•• - - .

Yl - X3 + 3x2h + 3xll2 + hJ, YI - J' .. 3x2 11 + 3xll 2 + 1z3,

, YI - Y

3.' +3xh+h2 ; X

if h dim in ishes


0, the n

J~ Y -



hc nce 3x2 is tile limit to which

YI/~ Y

tcnds as h goes

o n dimi nis hi ng ; but the n also

Yt -Y 0 - ,-,- .. 0



"0'" 3x2 ,
This is sti ll in acco rda nce with common algebra, liS ~ can be equal to any qua nt ity, But as


inc re me nt o f the fun ctio n y 0 I - - ' le ncc increment of the va ri,lble x 0 '

~ alllra ce o f Ihe

fu nc tion


well as of the vlHiable x h(ls van ished, so in pla ce o f

% the

expressio n


is subs tituted, reminding liS Iliac the function was y all d the va riable x ; dy and - 3x2 ;

dx are evanescent q ua ntil ies; : of the f unc tion y.

¥X. or rather its value 3x


is the differential coefficien t

lIaving wrillen this Mane. (."Omme nlS (on p, 38):

. .. - Clr . dx 0 I ntro d uctlo n 0 [ e vanescent quull flttes an d all h· ratio <!x.ms lead 0 [ 0 no mo re belo ngs

algebra ; bUI mo re tha n th al : though

"is the symbol which rep resents the limit 3xl "



iUid 16@fld6f@ Hdx ought properly to be always placed under dy", nevertheless, "in order

1 0

"'aeillta{~ 6pe:tiHi6ft§ Itt dlgiltmsH we treat

1; as a commo n frac tion and :

- 3x 2 as <1 common

equation ; and thus by dc'IUitlg Ihe 4 luatlon of its deno minato r - lwe ] obta in dy _ 3x2 dx, H this expression - obtained iti a rather equ lvo4;oUS way - [is) Ihen ca lled the differelltial of flie /WfE!tion}1 (16. f~~ (6l1BwiRg EBtflmcnl of Marx (which he later on struck off by a vertical /lne) is take n from HI HJ)/ illld hi fdlllleu ttS OOl/chlld/II's lemma, with the help of whi ch he (O ouchart~[) proved Taylof/§: iHOOre'o'L fI i~ tHl §h(k!1 Sj (Mnx 's p. 49).


&, H6tJite a iie'k ~ieffietit r!§lllcte Introduced, as compared to wha t precedes. J -/(i)i and wc lid! y, - f(" 11),

Till now, if

tii hefwise~ f:i, (x ... Il)2 could 1101 be treated as a binomial, [a nd] we co uld ,no t ha ve x 2 + 2xii +j;i i but ~ hs:~lr tJppcars in this fo rmula , for the give n mo ment, as (a) constant. [t is separated as an iritlependtlrH magnitude from h 2, r.L Besides x is virtually a flue nt, but it becomes on ly a real fluent in the moment it generates a fluxi on, On the other ha nd h, a fter it has performed its business as" "consta nt" magnitude throug ho ut the binomial ope ration,

[tt€H 1 ,~ ~iI§ tfm [tbe] o nly variable, bUI also its increment h. It is true \lhat1 throug h tile dpefiitlbl1si jh~ liitler Was iflHJlcd so far as fa] co nstant, as a g ive n magnitude, beca use

is immedia tely treated as a variable, it becomes not o nly 0 in

~ (as the deno mina tor

but it figures as an evanescent quantity ~ be ing transfo rmed in

evanescent) and it is o nl y as a ra tio of evanescent [increment of the] function y




)'1,;)' (when" become

evanescent increment" (increment of x) , that Ihis ralio finds its value in a coefficient free of all differenlia l quantities. Bul in what now follows, and upo n which the theorem of Tay tor [is] fo unded, we proceed to ~ till ,now unknown dilemma. Either x is considered as variable, and its increment" as constant, or x is conside red as consta nt and its increment h as variable - in order to prove, that it is the same whether we start from the one view or the oth er 1l7, The questio n seems rather to be whether we bad laid any foundation in tbe precedent development, which would allow us to put s uch a dilemma!]]

The following comment of Marx, devoted to a comparison of the theorems of Tay tor aM MacLaurin is there on sheets 55·56 (Marx's pp. 5 1.52).





f[ The difference between it [Taylor's theore m 1and MacLaurin's theorem: 1) MacL.aurin stnts from y _ / (x). Taylo r 5t.HtS from Yl "" f(x + h) 118,
2) Ma cLaurin rl rrangcs Ihe fu nction /(x) according 1 the powers of x: 0
y - A + Bx+ CX2 + Dx 3 + ...

That equa tion is s uccessively d iffe ren tiated in respect to x; the differential coefficients



e tc. so found (i.e., the values on the other side ( as ~- B + 2Cx + etc.» a rc then reduced 10

their expression w he n x becomes 0 ; so y becomes (Y), ~ beco mes (.~) e tc . a nd these values,

together with the lIumerical coefficients subs tituted fo r the

(Z) .

coefficients in the o rigi nal equation. Thus for instance in the th ird diffe ren tiation, if [we1 put x .. 0, wc get


2 C ,and so C -

~ (~1, also D - (~) 1.~.3 ...

,wh il e in the origi nal development

of y. the factors x, xl, x 3etc., the development of x remains unchanged a nd reappears with the di fferentia l cocfficients. 3) O n the o lher side, Tay/or lI9 starts not from [Ihe fUllction] y ,or y .,. [(x) ]20, but with the function Yl o r Yl - f(x + h). Thc indeterminate coefficients A etc. (unk nown fu nctions of x) are found by differentia ting the p rimitive development o f
f(x+h) or y ]_ y+Ah+Bh2 +Ch 3 + ...

where the factor x does not appea r. In Mac L1urin the va lues of A, 8 etc. in [the J form of differential coefficients, [a re] fo und by successive differentiations of the first eqllafio1!, arranged according to the powers of x, but Tay/or proceeds differently; he differen tiates first (oll ce) ill respect of h, a nd then in respec t of x, so that he gets : dYI 1) - ... and


2)dx - ···;

as these tw o express ions arc equal, acco rd ing to b) (p . 49), the coefficients of the same power

of 11, f ound ill the two different ways, are equated, and then A -


g ives by s ubstitution,

the differential expressiolls, consisting o f s uccess ive ascend ing differentiations without further processes of differentiation having been recurred 1 the powe rs of h, 11 2, h3 etc. 0; play the sam e part as x, Xl e tc. in MacL1 urin 's theorem; x does IlS little appea r for itself as a coefficien t as It in M acLaurin's theorem ; the numerical coef(icients

like~, 2~3' 2.~.4

fo und

by MacLaurin through differentiation and taking the limit arc found by Tay tor, through the equatio n o f the two different expressions found for Ihe coefficients of the same powers of h. JJ



MacLaurin :

y (or f(X))-Y+(~)H1(~)X'+2\(~)X'+
Tay/or .-

Yl ( or f(x +h)y_y +!!.Y. h +!!:l...!£.. +!!:1..L+ ... 2 l

dx . dx 1·2 dx l·2·3 On tbe other s ide of the equation,f(x) co uld s tand instead o f y as the first term, since

y, - f(H h). y - f(x).
MacLaurin's theorem is deduced fro m tha t o f Taylor. Accordi ng to the la lle r, if everywhere ins tead of y we put f(x), then we shall get :

1·2 dxl 1·2.3 If we make x - 0 and represell t, like MacLa,jrln, with the help of brackets, the values of the different coefficients of x, when x ~comes 0, then the form ula of Taylor becomes:
cu cu1

f(x + 10)) _ f(x) + d h + tI'{5x).!!':.. + dlf(x)....!L~, ... f,(x)

(f (x» + (lj(X)') h+ + ... \ dx dx' [ ·2 h enters into f( II ), asx entered into f (x); here we can pu tx for I!, because th rough this cha nge nothing is altered in the differentia l coefficients; then

f (h) -


f(X)-(f(X)) + n~X))H (tI'L\X») ;.~+


which is MacLa urin 's theorem. Ma cLaur;'I 's formula, that of successive differentia tion gellenllised ,- Tay /or's, mo re general, formula for tile developmellt of differellt f U llctions in the form of a series.
00 sheet 64 (MaTlc 's p. 60) afler an extract from Boucharlat (See 11, 20), related 10 the problem of constructing langeol lo a curve, we find the fo llowing comments of Marx :


':,f" - - - - - j t /






{(This second method, where Taylor's theore m is applied, is more complex and more tedious than the first one; apparentl y, in it is circumvented a difriculty. consisti ng of the (act



that the arc MM' coincides lVilllthe chord MM I Iscc figure ) a nd Ihat is why there appears a (riangle, onc of the s ides of whic h is in [,let the arc; rncil llwhilc it is clear that when increment 0 . of the abscissa diminishes, then M ' comes closer 1 M, till the o r(.lina l~ M ' p ' co incides with MP, ilnd hence, the seca nt M M ' also lums 0111 1 be a mere CfJlIll'lltQlion of Ih~ ~'lgl;JJI 0 TM, i.e., SP too co incides with PT. On the o th er hand this cVllsion 1 on ly apparent-, fQr 1> the en tire ruse is reduced to a sim ilnril y o f the 2 triangles , a nd since the two tiides of !he auxiliary tri,1l1gle dx and dy are s ma lle r than a po jn t, so under s uch c ircumstances the re is no need to s t.1nd o n cere mony to ass ume th:l llhc c hord coinc ide:; with the arc and vice versa . This apart, in the fif'§t method lOO co mparison in pairs arises only In app li§iHkm ~o bo th the , cathetus; a nd phantasy may assign the c harac ter of the hypotenuses 121 . 11

Ma rx dcscribes the first method 0 11 s heets 74· 75
( M~rx's

pp. 72·73 ). ror clCpliW.<J!iolll> sce : p. 157.

1) At th e foundation , or althe s tarting point, namely, to find out the difJe reiii:'::! coefficient, we sta rted with the following me thod:

I) y-f(x);

11 ) y, - f(u") ;
If, fo r insta nce

y -f(x) -ax',

YI - f(x + 11) ... a (x + 11)2

YI _ ax2 + 2ahx +ah2 •


)'1 -

y - 2ahx + all 2 .

Dividing both the s ides by 11, we o btained

YI - Y IV) - ,,- - 2ax+ah.
YI - Y is equal to the difference o fY I (inc rement to Y, over Y) , hence - .1.y ;
x + h " X,; h is equa l L the d iffe rence o f a
hence we ca n write instead of
X I'

equa l to 6.x (i.e. = the excess in


over x);

YI /~ Y -

2ax + ah :

V', - - 2ax + all . f>y



!1I~F[ip." f

:r~s '~n n~n4 ~iqF


!9 flU: !it!i/~ diff.£:f.~rJF~ 0.( (liE: ft1~epet!#f'!t variable x. Now assuming" - D, ~~ shall


thi~ eq~a.tion c~rrc.<t~cs !~C ratio of the finite difference oJ the

VI) Q _ .O nv

.. g' '''''

H .!!fill
£1 =111


~ ~yo nd

the limits of ord inary algebra. If, fo r inSlance, wc have:

_. __ . ~• {he' "r I' "'f u", '" . .. x ._ a eauallQ . . X -: 4 !t.... rr ~ A •• 1I x 2 _ Q~ Th'! j~ . .f = Ii H H, ~i ... Rn !heq!her haq~ c~

.. . "



"c c) 'H a} .!'f ::q ) ~ (xta) · ~. n; ," .,
Assu ming on both the sides x {l.


wc shall gFt


20. Since 6. x _ 11, so, if h - 0,

Af =6 i !WH

~~ ~ t?fE9m~.~ fl p~'r

if! r::p,r.~e~9r~~~ 8f

,, -a.i·.;·.~h~n :f:t-ll ~:f: hE nff~ .f~ P :

of !~creasing by It, so YI - Y. when (lY - O. I ~ lhi sformnoth ing [ is l tobedon e with

the equation, which cpntains not even thq ~racc of a function, or of the principal var iable;


exprc;;:': ~,I ~.e factl th: t ~oth ,the differe.l}cc* ~{J ~I)~ A.f h.a~e di~~p,p.eared, but wc want to f~x the character of the lat;lV;: ..~$l t have dlsapJX;<!req ; tM c 'Ya~t ~ rlx f~ern as eyanes~c:;nt !In . " dh . I dx the negation, ~he character or that which is MgatcuJ ;;~._ t at IS w hy we assume 'ix.In pace 0 f

~; instead or!J. we write d, instead or the difrerence its dimiJH.!ti¥E! !~~ differentia l. J:lencc :

;l; -2ax.
~,as soon liS we hilV§ 2{l.f,

This s hows firstly. that the terms, which epmpo.se the rlJtiQM.t; ~¥'lr.&~fF.nh im~ that t~e¥ have in fact disappeared or become -

2ax is therefore the limit of their variations. This differential coefficient has therefore two express ions, the one s h ow in~ the movement

1; .the other showing its value, its limit.
What, after the operatioR1i

.ar~ pcrrorme~: disappears i~ ~~

} - 0 ; and there would be

o nly an error in the calculus, if the y were not rcn:tQved. The only di fficu lty is therefore the dialectic[a11 notion ot'flxing a ra. tio bc~~;::~:' eva nescent quantities, a,!d when this has done its duty, the ratio

(~) disappears

also in the. resull of

the calculus.

On this comment of Marx, sec the description on p. 157 It is on is the same.

79, Marx's page number

The importance of this method appears in the latter ana lytica l operations, and not in the initial o nes, since wc ha ve

1I1-/(X +11) '" u+AII +8112+ Ch) + "', . . . 11 , - U du the Iatter opem tto n, at r'Ifsl conSIsts In -1-,- - dx - A'r wc assume Ihath - O;ifwedonot ,1

assume It = 0, then, in order 1 get rid of B,,2 + Ch) + ... , it is taken as a s mall vanishing 0 [magnitude] in respect of A, meanwhile, here such a representation is absolutely superfl uous. But it is importHnl, that when u ... [(x) and x turns into x + h, [It becomes] = Ill. then

«, -« - f(x + h) - !(x), and this is the difference between the fUllctions o/x + " and of x, which must depend upon 11. the incremeM of x, i.e., the difference III - U , is represented by a series of the form All + Bh2 + Ch] + etc., Le., III - U +Ah +B,,2 + Ch3 + ...•

f(x) +Ah +Bh2 +Ch3 + ...•

~here the powe~s of." ascend.; that t.hes~ !owers hav'c o.. ~~· j:..v,,;/lve indices (and are I~tegers, not fractIOn,s ). that the fl,:::1 term 11W.'"' _ _ u _ J (x); and thatA. tile coefficient of the

fl~st power of h, IS th e .~,..~ ~ ~~JJerential coefficient and All (-Adx)tlle first term of the difference beJw~:;: I and u or betweenf(x + Il) and f(x).


J 'he fundamenlal task of the differential calculus is to find out the values of the coejficiellfs A, B, C. etc.; that is why a differential is the secolld term of tire expansion f(x + h).
Shccts 80-81. Exlracts from the same book of Hall, §§ 95·96, pp. 87-88, related to theexpansion . of functions of certain variables inlo Taylor's series. Sheets 81-82. Extracts from Sal/ri, volume Ill, pp. 3, 11-12, o n the differentiation of product and on repetitive differentiation. Sheets 82-87. Extracts from Doucharfat, §§ 255-260, pp. 176-180, related 10 the cases of inapplicability ofTaylor's formula. In Boucharlat's book Ihis is the last section of the differential calculus.

S. U. N. 3932 This note book: contains notes on algebra (on the general theory of the equations of higher orders). taken mai nly from Lacrobt 's "Elements of Algebra-, (We have the 11-lh f'rcnch edition of Ihis -Eltments d'algebre- l\ rusage de ['(\oo[c centralc des qual re-nations, pM S.P. Lacroi x; Paris, 1815.) " is possible that Ma rx hHd al his disposal a quile exact English translation of Ihis book. Marx look these notes in German, in places we rind English a nd French words and phrases. The re are 93 sheets in Ihis note book . This nole contains a number of Marx's own lengthy comments, from which it is clear, that in il Marx collected materials devoted tQ lhe search for the algebraic roots orlhc differential calculus. 1b81 is why il may be held, that Ihis manuscript belongs to the second half of the 70s, when Marx 's characteristic point of view abo ut the nalu re of symbolic differentia l calculus began to take shape. The structure of Ihis conspectus is quite complex. Macx sub-div'ided it into five p.uts, numbe red them with Romlln numerals and supplied their headings. In consonance with this, we sub-divided our description of this manuscript into five parts and gave them the titles provided in the manuscript. Marx did nol number the first , title sheet. On it is writte n only: "Algebra 1". Then fo llows that part of the note book, to which Marx gave the title ; "I. General th eory of equationfsr· This part occupies the sheets 2-18 (in Marx's numbering pp. 1-17). Marx begins straight off by laking no les from § 178 (pp. 246-247) of Lactoix 's book, wherei n begins the section on the "General Theory of Equations". However, afte r a few lines, in connection with a reference to § 109 of Lacroix's book, containing a short enunciation of the method of solving the quadrati c equations, by adding to its left hand side, till a full square [is formedj , and having fini shed the conspectus of § 178, Marx turns general ly to the section o n quad ratic equations in Lacroix's book. Marx gave poi nt 2) of his conspectus (sheets 2-4, pp. 1-3 accordi ng to Marx), the title : "RooIS of lire equations of second power", Ilere the questions about the number of roots of the quadratic equations and the signs of the roots have been considered (§ 106, p.156, with reference to the "Algebra" of Emily (Emmanucl) Devcley, which Lacroix ci tes in this parag raph); here the (ollowing issues have also been considered : ~ wh en a root ofthe equQ/ions of tIl e second power may become imaginary M (§ 114, pp.166-167 of Lacroix's book); if x _ a is a root of the equation x2 • P X _ q, then the other root is x .. - a - p ( § 116, pp. 168-169). After the quadratic equations Marx wenf over (sheets 4-8, pp. 3-7) 10 the section on equations with Iwo terms, in Lacroix 's book (§§ 156-159, pp. 222-228). Here he took specially elaborate notes from § 159 (pp. 225-228), devoted 10 the roolS of the moth power from unity . Afterwards, following Lacroix, Marx went over (sheets 8-9, pp. 7- 8) to "the equations which can be solved as equations of second power" (§§ 160-162, pp.228-231), Le., to the equations of the formx 2 "' . pX"' - q. Marx omits the section ~ On the Calculus of Radicals" (§§ 163-171, pp.231-239), but specially dwells upon the section entitled. ~Commen l s on cerlain special casesof theCalculus of Radicals" (If 172-174, pp. 239-243). Here (sheets 9-10, pp, 8-9) his attention turns 10 Lacroix's· C{lmment about the so-cal led "paradoxes", connected with the formal transfer of the rules of operations with the roots of real numbers on to the roots of imaginary numbers, in particular to the transrormation.

V=T V-T - v'{-I).(-l) ..

v'[. ~ I,

in connection with which he ci tes !..acreix's reference to BC7.out, according to whom, "when we do not know how the square a1 was formed, and we seek its root, then we must consider both + a



aixl -11, bul when we know beforehand, which of Ihese two qllanlitie5 was multiplied wilh itself in order 10 form Q2,Ihen we musllake namely. it"(pp. 239-240). Marx commenls (ShecI9) :

A~cording 1 Lacroix, this explanatio n of I3czout is e nough (or the eli mination 0 the difficulties in such particular insta nces; concerning the other insta nces. says he, sufficient el ucidatio n is given only by the properties of two-termed equations. Here itself is ci ted an example of the tra nsformatio n: 4Va' V-T _ 4Va .•.;r:1j2 _ 4Va . 4.,r:j:T .4.fii, which is willingly false , since if 4,fQ is a real number, then the imaginary number 4Va ' V-T [urns aul 10 be equal 10 lhe rcal number In this cnnRcction Marx mentions Lacr<iix's explanation, consisling of an instruction to the effect. that in the general instAnce transformations introd uce supernuous roots : there are only two quadratic roots of one, the roo ts of the foudh power are four [in numberJ.




scc:ion b~ the conspectus (sheds 16. j i. i)p.9-1 0) is devoted to the operati6ns with fractional indices (in Lacroi;c '$ book it is §§ 175-177, pp 243.246). Ilere Mar;c especially singles out Lacroix's comments on the Significance of the dcsignations of radi cals, introduced by Descartcs, with the help of [he fractional indices of power. Here Marx writes (~heel 11, Marx's p.IO) :


Calculatio n of the rools with s igns requires a specia l ana lysis and it is clumsy, s ince the sign V, exp ressing the radica ls, has no connection with the ope ration, through which they are obtained. Replacement of this noLltion by that of the fractional indices of power, is a g reat co ntri butio n of Desca rtes. Il faciliL.1tes all operations by its analogy wit" the illtegral indices of power and makes applicable to them the rules, which are applicable to the ca lculations of the latter,
Only after this long digression (shcets 2·11, pp. 1-10) does Marx rClurn (sheet 12, p.ll) to thc ge neral th eory of equations, with which hc began his note book. Here he takes notes (sheets 12 ·18, pp. 11-17) from the secti on on the general theory of equations

(§§ 179-184, pp. 248-256 of Lacroix's book), where the issues arc; the number of divisors of Ihe
first powe r, which an equation may have; formation of an equation through the multiplication of its simple divisors; the relation between the roots and the coefficients of an cquation (t he r~nd8mental theorem of algebra about the existence of roots is only mentioneu, but n ol proved): "'ilh this, the tlrst part of th is note book of Marx comes to an cnd . Marx takes notes, from the next section ofLacroix'sbook,devoled to the elimination of the unknowns from equations of power greater than one, only in the fifth pari of Ihis nOIC book of his. Here (sheets 18·27, pp. 17-26) Marx goes over to that part, which he entitlcd :


Tire first demerr{ary appeamrrce of

~ _ CIO ami Qf~ in ord;rrary algebra. ~

This part contains a selection of ex tracts from Lacroix's "Elements of Algebra" , where the

spcci~1 cases o f the equlltions of first and second powe rs, leading to expressions of th e form ~


are investigated in the light of the examples about the problem of two couri ers (pp.

97- 104, q uoted from Lacroix's book) and Clairaul's problem about th e point. equally j lIumined by two differcnt sources of light (ibid, pp 174-180). In connection with Iheemergence o f the sign co, a plAce from Buler's "Elcmen ts of Algebra- (Lyons edition, 1795, § 293, p. 227) is cited, where the equality -0' • rn is "established" by Euler, through an e;cpansion of the fraclion - ' - inlo an

, -a



irlfjnitc series; wheri a ;o L 't'hls !lxtt" Is Hccompanied by the fo llowing comments of Ma rx, The liet first comment (sited 21. p, :lO}. Vlhleh Mat)( plllccclln a box, is bcing rcproduced below:

It should bc ndied, that In this examp le from the mosl elementary algebra, the difference

b - c ill the denomlllator ail the while diminishes, as b remains conslan', and c alllhe lime
iilcreases i22. The matter is entirely different with [(x + h} - [(x) or with Yt - Y . Actually, I x 1 -x x + h" xi hencexj -'x'" li j kefe.t remains a constant, but 11 alllhe while dimi nis hes, that is why XI aisd dim in ishes :

~y.; g\ves!!tdd In Its minimum Va lue; but Ihistransformation ofl1x into dx, ' xl-x llX x and that is why, of.1.y into d)l, iakes place when x remains constant. That is why, it does not matter a t all, as to whctH~f We Jlil\,C i
YI-Y _

1) :-: .. a ; where bfi the flgllt han.d side, the variable x has completely vanished ( .. xli),


~;- /'(x) + ~ ["(x) h +


III the second case, assuming it = 0 We gel

t!1. _/,(x)
fo r instance,


~~ -

m X"' -i . In both the sides on ly 11 changes, whilcx is not affected, a nd that

is why it remains a constant du ring this op6rafion.1 /I '(t) It

+ e tc.

vanish, since the multiplier

If turns into zero, but J'(x)does no t change, because it dOes not conta in h ; on the other hand, in

j(x+h) -[(x) _ Y - Y I I1x h xl-x
Xl -

x also remains unchanged; the difference

x becomes = 0, since Xl turns into.x, i.e., s ince

It = O. That is why, in 1), for example.f(x) - ax, f(x + 11) - a (x + h) - ax + ah, hence. f(x + 11) - f(x) or y, - Y - ax + all - ax - all. whence, y) - Y or or ~ - a . lE XI -X '




In the right hand side there is no [unction of x, there is only the constant a ; this in no way

-x ow ing 10 the fa ct that" diminishes, i.e., XI constnntly approximates lox. Herein x remains a constant; finally we gel dx in place of 6..t, and Ihat is why also dy in place of fly , whence d '!i'dx '" a instead oC ~ - a. No change occurs in the right hand side, since a is a constant

obstructs the perception of what happens wi th YI - Y , when


-x co nstantly diminishes,


magnitude a nd, Ihat means, il does not co ntain x ; but the same th ing happe ned, when


inlO~ _ [,(x). though here in the

right hand side [wc have ] a func tion of x; however,

the trans fo rmation o f l:J. x into dx nssumcs only a change in xl> Le. , in the c le ment h u~XI' while x remains a constant 123.
Marx 's second commenl (shcCI 23, p.22) is rcla ted to such It n i nst~nce of the problcm of two cou riers, whcn they slart from one point (0'" 0) and move in one direction with the same speed
(b - c). In "pplica tion to lhe illdetcrminancy ~ oblained in this case. Marx writes :

Thus, here, th e expression


fo r the values of x and, of y eq ual to it, is only the symbol

ofan illdetermillate quantity. In olhcrcascs, whe n [he expression ~ has other origin, this symbol
also acquires another meaning.
The follo ..... ing comment of Marx (sheet 23. p.22) is related to Elder's work.

[{In his "Ele ments of Algebra" Eu/er says about the expression ~ .. 00: it wou ld have been

a mistake to think, that an infinitely big number can not increase


(Ea rl ie r he sa id, th at

is obtained by dividing 1 by 0, s in ce

""'"" . -1 - -1 - 1 + 1 + 1 + ... III lIIJlnUU111) -


1- 1



s tands for an infinitely big number, and

~ is, beyond doub t,





2~1 , so it is eviden t, that a number, "\'en

ifil is illfinitely large, can nevertheless become 2,3

or x tim es bigge r. Here, first of all, it.should b~ noted, that %(o r any o ther numerato r with 0 as jts denominato r), expanded into a series, is exactly that, what 1 is beeause.£ - _ 2 - 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... _ 0' 0 2-2 infinitum. Consequently , since the terms in the right hand s ide are eq ual , so




This apart, since


17 1

I I ---o I- I

1 2·1 2 and - - . . -I - I 2{1 - 1) 2- 2

so aga in




may be represented with the same success, as with the ser ies fro m un ity like

- · - - - 1-tl-t1-t ··· o 1-1 ' thro ug h an infin ite series of nu mbers, growing in a ny g iven ratio. Though, he rein , a



de termina te pa rt of o ne infinite series may be equal to


etc., of the determinate part of

ano the r infinite series, but nc.ithe r the fi rs t no r the seco nd determ ina te pa rt, is in allY proportion to the entire illfln i (~ series, and in this case only this much may be said, tha t th e sericses ma rch , to i.~nnity In va rious ratios. J]
Marx's heading of the third part of this note book (sheets 27-34, pp. 26-33) : -Ill. Rudiments of infinite serieses. ·


I,n its, {\I tn , this section is subdivided into two parts. First part : ~A ) Al" 11 preparation for tlris, begin with tlze approximate calculation of roots· (sheets 27-30, pp. 26-29). Selection of extracts from Lacroix ', "Elements of Algebra", §§ 98-104, pp.145-152. This is part or the chapter entitled ·On the equations or second power with one unknown\ in which is proved the theo rem: H The whole numbers, whic h are not squares, have nei the r whole, no r fractio nal ~o ts" and, the followi ng questions are enunciated : "Wha t is incommensurabili ty or irrationali ty·, 'ft How are the radicals, of !he roots 10 be extrac!ed, designated by signs" , "Method of approximate calculation of roo!sft. "Method of abbreviated extracti on of roots by division'" "Method of its (of the process of extrac tion o~ roo ts) unbou nded conti nua tion by ordinary fractions· , "M(llhod of obtaining, ~s far 85 possible. simpler ~pproximate value., of roots from f~ctions, whose terms arc not squares-. ft

Second pa rt : -D) Infinite seriesel'· (pp. 31-34), Selection of extracts from the same book of Lacroix, §§ 235-237, pp. 326-33 1, Concluding paragraphs from the chapter entitled, HOn proportions and progrcssions'-, whe rein, "The division of m by m-I, continued unboundedly· IInd "The. cases in which this qUOTient cO,!lIf:rges and can be tAken as the app roxi mate value of the fraction ~1 ", are considered. Here, a short excerpt from the big "Trea tise" of Lacroi x -


lIS Introduction, pp. 3-6 _ is 8lso included.

On p.30 of the nnle book, there arc IWO short comments of Marx :

-.12, fo und w ith the help of s uccessive divi&,ion, turns o ut to be a n expres." io n thro ugh infinitel y continu ing approximatiofl of the roots, all of which arc o rd ina ry frac tio ns. Thus, the ex trac tio n of irra tional roo l", w ith th e help o f the extraction of roots from successive remainde rs, leads to an infinite seri es. Alread y in the case of a simple approximation of the ordinary frac tion by decim als, we get a n infinite expression, just as in the case of the irrational roots.
T he fourth part of this note book (sheets 35·3B, pp. 34-37) contains short nole of Mar x, reproduced below (it was £i rst published in Russian, in the journal "Voprosy Filosofii" , 1958, No. 11,89.95).




This note is based ufKln informaliolls conlaincd in : 1\) Lacroh.·s ~Trcatisc on uifrcrcnlial and intcgral calculus" (Paris, 1810, vol.!. Ill'. 2.4) and. 13) Eulcr's ~E l cn1ents of Algebra "(Part Two, chaplets I and 11 ).

"IV. On the concel,t of"unctioll" . A) If a problem is generall y dc terminahle m , thcn for ils determ ination as many equations are req uired, as arc the unknown qualZtitie.\· 10 be so ugh t. Tha t is why , all those prob le ms, in whi c h the number o f eq uations given are as man y, as are the unknown quantit ics lU present, belong to the realm of determinate analysis. I( a prob le m does nol furnish as many eq uations, as arc the number of unknown quanti ties lthere), then some of the la tter mus t re main indetermina te and IJIhe discuss ion will now ente r into these]], they a re determined by us arbitrarily. Th,lt is why such probl ems a re called illdeterminate and [they] constitute the subjec t m,[lIer, of a special division of algebra, o f the indeterminate alia lysis. Since in such cases instead of onc or more unknown qu antities some arbitmry numbers arc taken, the problem permits o f different solulions. On the other hand , upon such problems, often condi tions are imposed, so tha t the nu mbers sought for become integral alld positive or at least rational; the reby thc number o f possible sol utions are o fte n reduced to very few; some times their number is infinite, and il is difficult to asce rtain lth emJ; sometim es a so lut ion is not at all possible. a) To find out two positive and whole lIumbers, whose sum = 10, We have before us the problem: 1) x + y-lO, 2) x-IO-y, where y is res tric ted only to this, that it must be an integral alld positive !lumber, rf we assume that y =10, th en we would get x .. to - 10 - 0; but x =0 is excluded, for x too must be an integral and positive number. Thus, the value of y = 10 a lso falls throu gh ; the values of y, which we have the right 1 try, arc possible only within the bounds of 1 to 9. Such 0 limits are possib le for y, thanks to the given conditions of the very problem. On the other hand, already from the first assu mptio n we sec; that y = 10 - whcrein x turns into 0 - is e xcluded . Exactl y in the sa me way if wc put y = t1, then x- 1O-lt -- 1, which contradicts th e condition that, the numbe rs must be positive, But both o f these assumptions, excluded by the problem, show, that the value oJ x dependj' UpOIl the value ofy alld challges a/ollg with the latter; for when y = 10, the n x = 0, and when y = 11, then x ~ - 1. Furthe r operation wi th the equation leads to the sam e thing. The possible values ofy = I, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9; but in that case the corresponding values o f x =9, 8, 7, 6, 5,4, 3, 2, 1, s ince x - 10 - y, ow ing 1 which, whe n y = t then x _ 10 - 1 _ 9 etc. 0 Hence, here th e value oJ the unkllown x depends upon the value of unknowlI y and it always challges depending upon the arbitrarily assigned values oJ Y but never going beyond : the bounds of 1-9, prescribed by the problem. And , name ly, on the basis of this interrelationship in th e indete rminate equations, onc o r these unkllowns, likex here, was at first called afullction

"" - • '-T-M. ';- --" \:-. .


"On the concept of function" . Photocopy of a page from the note book "Algebra In.



f1 of th e other u nknown, success ively o bta ining d iffere nt values i~d,e p~E;tde nl ly of x ]J. In o rdi nary algebra Ihis was the first occas io n o f c haracteri;.; ing ()lie 1l~lk'JOWIl as tlte fUllction of another. Here in , fro m the ve ry beginning " a'bs tr.ac l fro m s uch quantities as a, b, c, I,' ' for in stance from 10 in the af~ rc~~el), i.one~ ~ + y - 10, and dc~in c x pol y as aJunctiotl [o f], y, a f unction of that W~kIl OWlt , upon w~ic?, i ~1~P;t~~S,. ~? r ~. ~,~ ~ 9. i..t u/ready. delerminef/ {l ~~ retains one and the same value in every poss"ible 's olution o f this problem.
of y
o •




f(y ) or x changes its value depend i ng upon the changes a/th e utl~lIown y, of w l\il;=p
a fun ctio n.

it is.

But challges o f y itse lf cons ist o f this, that wit~i~ kno,'t'/n liTl;li ~ qiff~ r~,f\t !J,\l.me r{e al values may be ar b i t ra ~ il y assigned, to it, f~r ~ ~s~nce, ~ h,e a boy~ [men,Ho n e~n Q: ~ i ff1! r!!:ql ~i': t\l es:. If, fo r example, ~e ~~s ig~ -i\t tht: va l ~e ~.l~e~ x_ ' P.-9- ~ i lf~~ ~~cn ' ~ .. l Q- 8 -, ~~\c. Each o f thf',se <trbitrary n~lI1lCnca ! Y{l lucs ..f. from ~ lO ~, so! y~~ the C~ "~tiQ I1 ~ pe rmitting ra r x a valQe, correspo nding t~ a y'<tlup as,s~rqM Y ; ~ Pt wfi~lh er we ass ig n y the value 1, or 8, o r 3, here in y a lways rema ins a' collsta~t ,: Jo y itse lr, no change takes place, w hich would turn it into 2 fro m 1 o r into 9 from 8 ; hence, it is not a variable, tho ugh - within de te rminate

? ,r


we may change its value at w ill . S imilarly, in the expressio n ~ , w here m is 110 1 In - 1 an unknown, as dis tillct f rom y, [and where1 we vary the value o f m at w ill , howeve r; oW,ill&" ~o this m never becomes ( I variable ; it is merely an indeterm inate cons tant, ':V~ ~ch., namcly; owing to this, may a bL'l in arbitrary, and [bes ides1 any a,rb ~tra~y. ~I,lX(l~ricai' value. ~ f we p ut 1Jl-. ~~ limi ts -

m 1 "f " " " In l Ihen - - - - .. 00 ; I wc assIgn m Ihe I]\ln:\c:nq I va \ Ut 3, the"l - - - -2 0

same way the'ullknown x in the;equa\i.l'n x- l Q=. ydi ffers from 10., not" dq~ to the f;tc\ lhal 10 is a consta nt and y a va riab le, bilt bec~~~: 1 ~ is tl~e de~~r~l{~~te C;~{lstan t v<!lllc o f a magnitude, whic h rema ins determinate in every poss ible sp\ ution of this 9qll a lio n, whereas y is indeterminate, but is always also th e constallt value of a I1Iflgnitllde, "ild that is why in the sol utio n of th e equatio n it may be determ inately va ried as 1,2, etc. Tha t is wh y, here, the independent IIl1 kllOWIl Y is no l a variable, in the same meas ure as








" etc. Exact ly. 11'\ th~

in the expression ~; it is not de termined in the same way, as m is na l determin ed in

m- I

respect o f numcr.ical arithm etical va lues; it diffe rs fro m m owing to [t he fac q , 1) that in an algebra ic express io n In , as d istinct fromy, is not an unknown; 2) that the determ inatio n o f the va lue o f so me o ther unknown x, does not depend upon the determ ination o f the value of m. , " I But if we had the equation
In x - -In -


then the va lu e o f x wo uld d cpe n ~ ~p o,n the ~ iffe(C nl num e ri ~a~ val, ~es , which we wo uld ass ig n to m. Thus, we see tha t the concept of fllIlC~{~~t ~s it i~ i1 i a~ l y e m crge~ in illd?term ir!~ re alia lysis, s till had a 'very limited mcan~ng, flp.plica~ l~ Qnli' to de finitc. f~rfl1s, o f equaUO{l~. If now wc re turn to the solution o f t~e eq uil;tio n x - 10 - Y-l lh~n



y = 1,2,3, 4,5,6,7,8,9, x = 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

The last four values of y = 6,7,8,9 gives us for x, its corresponding first values: 4, 3, 2,1. Hence the equal ities arc: 6 + 4 = 10, 7 + 3 = to, 8 + 2 = to, 9 + I = 10. But we get the same 4 cqua lities when y = 1, 2, 3, 4, and x = 9, 8, 6, 5. Thus the prob lem in fa ct admits of on ly 5 diffe rellt solution s: y = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, x =9,8, 7, 6, S. If wc had , for inst,1 11ce, x -~, thcn thc solution would not have diffe red from that of
y- 1

[x - ] ~; the condition that x has m -l


he a pos itive whole number, wo uld nutke the

problem difficult, but would change nothing in the chara cter of the equation . b) If instead of Olle, as above, two equations arc given, then the problem may be illdeterminate, onl y if these two cquI'lt ions co ntain more thnn two unkllowns. Thi~· type of problem [[where onl y the eq uations o f first power are proposed]] is met with in the o rdinary elementary texl-books of arithmetic and is soived with the hel p of the so-ca ll ed Regula Cocci ( fhe Rule or Positioll of Fa lse). For example, 30 persons, me n, women :Ind chi ldre n, s pent SO Sh. in a lavern, wherein every man spent 3 Sh., woman - 2 Sh., and child ~ ISh. How ma"y men, women and children were there? Let the number of mell be

=p, of women = ~ and , of child ren = r ; then we get

1) p+q+r-30; 2)3p+2q+r .. SO;

from hcrc we are required to find out p, q and r in whole alld positive numbers. Equation 1) gives us r ... 30 - P - q ; hence,
h~v in g

put the value of r in the 2nd equation, we s hall get
3p+2q+ 30- p-q _50 ;

that is

q - 20-2p. p+q_ 20-p<30. From the equa tion q - 20 - 2p it fo llows, that if p = 10, then q - 20 - 20 - 0; tha l is why, had we taken a number> 10 in place o f p, then q would ,have been negative. For example, if p = U, then p+ q _ 20- P turns into U + q _ 20- 11, orq .. 20- 22 - - 2 This is excluded . He nce, in place ofp we ca n take all those num bers, which arc not > 10.



Remembering, that p + q < 30, and q .. 20 - 2p [[and that, that is why. when p = 0, = 20]]. wc then geL J 1 answers : p = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, .8 , 9, ID,


q = 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10,8, 6, 4, 2, 0, r = to, 11, 12,13, 14, 15,16,17,18,19.20,
If wc exclude
J)p = O,q= 20, r= 10,

II)p= 10,q=O, r=20, i.e., the first and the last solutions, where s ub I) p = 0, and sub IT) q = 0, then there will remain 9 solutions.

B) 1) Thus, inilially the concept of flll/ction was restricted to those unknowns in the indeterminate equations (i.e., in the equations whose number was less than the number of unknowns entering into them), whose value depend upon the values of the olher unknowns and that is why chalice with different ([either entirely arbilfary, or :irbitrary within certai,l bounds, determined by the very problem}] v(llues, assigned to the olher unknowns.
For instance,

y_ax2 +bx+c; here y is a function of x; in y - axz + bx2 + cz2 • Y is a function of i and z. In the equations a) xl+ y3 - axy, b) Xl + y3 +Zl _ axz+ byz + cxy • 1) x, y and z are, re la tive to b), mutual function s one of the others, 2) [in the first two equations] y is an explicit junction of x or of x and z, since its value is given, when the values of x and z are determined, but in b) y is an implicit junction of x and Z, since even when
they arc known, the algebraic equation still remains to be solved for the determination of y. Thus, the concept of func/ioll, as it was obtained from indeterminate equations, consisted of the following: if the desire was to express [the faclJ that a certain magnitude is indeterminable, without prior assignment oj determinate values to otller magllitudes, which could obtain indeterminate number of such values in one and the same problem, then the word jrmclioll was used for designating that dependence. 2) Later on the concept of junction was generalised; it was extended 10 every algebraic unknown, whose dependence upon indeterminate magnitudes may be expressed by an algebraic equatiOfr. Such functions were called algebraic. Algebraic functions always contain only a determinate number of terms, when these functions are expressed in the ir characteristic form, But, as we saw, proper jraclions 127 can be expllndcd only into infinite sericses; and the concept of function was transferred al so upon the laller, and thereby the path towards the transcendental jUllctiolls was paved; such are the logarithms, which can be expressed only by an infinite number o f roolS 128, as well as the silles and consilles, if they aTe to be expressed in terms o f their arcs.




C) Further gelleralisatioll [consists of Ihis, Ihal il I does Ilot {Jell/and equatiolls among some magniludcs, fo r o nc l or Ihem ! 1 be an implicit [unctioll of Ihe ot he rs ; il is enough Ihilt its 0 value dcpc nd s upon Ihat of the others. Fo r ins t.1n ce, in the circle the sin is an implic it fu nction of t he a rc, though no algehraic equation ca n exprcss this, s in ce o nc o f Ihe Iwo is deter min ed, if the o ther is de te rm ined ,!nd vice versa. ( He rc wc d igress from the radius, beC,Hl se a de finit e arc is not al iss ue 12'1.)

D) The co ncept o f [ullctioll is furthe r developed and it ohtaincd g rcH tcr imporlllncc thanks to the Cartes ia n applica tion o f ldgebra to geo melry, Le., owi ng to Ihe analytical or higher geometry. Th e unkn own qWlOtiticsx, y elc. turn into variables, iI IH e.knowlI - inlo COI/Slanls. .llh
Th e fun c ti on of 11 vllr i;lblc is another variable, whose va lue dHlllges alo ng with tha l o f the firs t, i.e., depends upon it. It has this in common with thc fun ct io ns in indele nninale equation s: wh e n a pnrlicular value of Ihal v:lriable is g ive n, of wh ich it is a functio n, thcn it assumes a corresponding determinate value.
Mllrx jpvt: the followi ng title to the 74 (lnslea d of 77.89}) :

fifth P;Ht of this


(!'<heets 39-93, pp. 38-76.

"V. Elimimlfion of IlIIkno .....n5 form


of power greater flwn one".

Contenlwise il is related. firs l of llll .to Ihe chapler bea ring the S;Jnle headillg ill Lacroix's "Elemenls of Algebrll"(§§ 185·IQ6, pp. 257-27 1). lIowever, si nce in Ihe texl 0[" Ihis ehn pler Ihere arc references 1 the previous chaplers, from which Marx d id n01 I.,kc notes earlier. here the 0 {:onspc:clus Ilcgins with Ihese earlier cw.pters. And since. IlIler on. Marx did not confine himself 1 the chapler on the elimination of unknowns, but included in his noles lhe lwo suC(:eeding 0 Chaplers fmm I.Hcroix·s hook - he divided Ihe entire lext lof this p-1rtJ in ils turn into five pariS, numhered them wi th the Latin lellers A-I':'and provided the titles .'

For the equutions of fi rs! tJOwer·,
Elimination of unknowns from equations of pOIl"U gre(l/tr Ilran one",

o Pint/ins oullhe ,r:rf:("e.~' common measure", n.


"D. Pin t/ins 0111 II,e mlional ilIIII multiple roots of IIl1mericu/eqlllllions ",
"E. Appro.l·inwfe s()/ulion of numt:l"icll/elJUOli()n~'~ .
Part "A." (~ hee t s 3Q·.17. pp. 38-46) con lllins nOles fwm two e;lrlier c hnplers ('I f L;le roi x's book. dcvotcd 1 I) solulion of ~ syslcm of linenr equal ions by slLecessive climillll1i on of the 0: unknowns (§§ 78·1'12. pp. 1 J.l-1 23) , ~nd 2) the genera l formulae for lhe SOllLl10l1s Ilf syMcms llf1inea r equlllions (H 83-89, pp, 123-134). PRrt "13" (s heels 47-52, pp. 016-51) con!ai ns exlrilclS from Iheclwpterentilled "On algcbrHlc rr~ctions· (§§ 4R-50. pp. 67.76) of the s ~ me book of Ulcroix, rel ated to the EuelideM} al !,'Orilhm for fi ndi ng out the grea tCSI l."Ommon measure of two polynomials. In parI "G', having laken notes in poinls 1)-6)(shee1 s52-56. pp. 5 1-55) from Ihe lx:gi nn ing (§§ 185-190.257-262) of the sa me c hapter of l..acroix's 000k..10 which the whole of section V should have been devoted IInd which contai ns the general melhod of findi ng out lhe reso lve nls of the two equations f(x.,.) .. O and g(x,,.) .. O through the me thod of finding oUlthe grea tcst common measure of the polynomials f( x,y) and g (.r, y). right upto thH(1);Hticularexllmple,theanalysisofwhich Lacroix premised byan enunciation of the general method, Milrx writes (sheet 57) :




7) the me thod sub 6) applied to particular equations, can also be appli ed to gen eral equations.
After this generalisa tion follows (s heets 57-58 , pp. 56-57) the insertion adduced belo w, devoted to a s hort s tateme nt of the gene ral theory of equations in terpreted also through the ~ppa ralus of diffe rential calcul us. I1 appears Ihat MacLaurin's · Trca l i~e of Alge bra " served lIS Ihe source of this insertion by Marx.

ON THE GENERAL THEORY OF EQUATIONS Wc no te al first : a) A general equati on like XI! + PX,, -l +Qxn - 2 + R X,, · 3 + ". + Tx + U _ 0, has th e form J(x) - O. If wc consider s uch a po ly no mial ex press ion, not as an equa tio n, but as - its firs t s ide IL.H.S .] - a runctio n of x, the n, w he n x assumes a determ inate va lue, fo r exam pl e, a, fwe get] [(a), ['(a) , ["(a ), ... , f (fI ) (a); the fUl !ctioll X IJO varies [or till! va rious values o[x. Whe n x [a ss umes} a pa rtic ul ar va lue a, and th is particul ar value a turns [(x) into 0, i.e., [(a) - 0, ... the n the va lue a sa tisfies the equatio n~ solves it, or is its root. The in vestigatio n into the roots o f the equ atio n [ (x) <= 0, coi nc ides w ith the expans ion o f the poly no mia l[ (x) into its fa ctors, as the sea rc h for some roo t a o f the equati o n is determined by the corresponding [actor (x - a) o[ the polynomial and vice versa. This is proved by the fa c t that, Taylo r's series is always applicable to s uch a po lynomial. We have f (x) - f(a + (x - a)) - f(a ) + (x - a ) f'( a ) + ... + (x - al". Tha t is why, when [(a )-O, i.e.,when a is a root, then x-a is a [actor; a nd co nversely, w he n x - a is a fac tor, the n [(a) - 0 and a is a root. (3) Every equation Jzas so many roots, as many it has powers. [(x ) - 0 always has one root 131, i. e., a lwa ys has a fa cto r o f the form (x -a), which divides f(x) with out a remainder. The quo tient


Ma X .-

ha s the sa me form as [ (x) , but in power it is lower o nly by one. He nce,

( f)(X( ) ) , and the quo tie nt o f this divis ion is Cl x - a . x-a2 polynom ial of power 11 - 2. Ope ra ting furthe r in the sa me mode we s ha ll fi nally get a quo tient, where x no mo re has a ny power (>.,.() -1), hence,
it mu st ha ve a fa c to r o f the fo rm

_ .;

(x - a,) (x - a, ) ... (x -a)

---,-,-< f-"(x"')- - ; _-, - 1,

f(x ) - (x - a , ) (x - a, ) ... (x - aJ

a p a 2• •• . , a" are the roots of the equa tio n [ (x ) - 0, a nd no other magnitude can be its roo ts, in fa ct , if wc subs titute some o ther magnitude Q fo r x, then



J(Q) - (Q - "I) (Q - a,) ... (Q - a.), w h ich is not = 0, i. e., Q c<ln no t be a rool. y) COllllectioll betweell the coefficiellts of all equatioll alld its rOOls. Let the rooLo; be a, h, e, .... , I; tht!n if we have a gene r<1 1 equation of IH h power, then x" + P l).",-I + P2).",·2 + ... +p" - (x - a) (x- b) (x - c) ... (x -I) <ox" -X,,·I (a + b + e + d + ... ) +

+ x"·2 (ah+ (lC + ... +he + ... ) -x,,-3(abc +(/cd + ... ) + ... + x (-1)" obe .. ,I.
If we des ig na te by L the su m o f a ll the exp ress ions, analogous to that, before w hi c h this sym bol is pu t, then X" + PI x"· 1 + P2 x"·2 + ... + p" _.\'" -X". I L (a) +.\",.2 L (a b) - )..... . L (abe) + 1

... +x (-I)'abe ... I. Thus, in genera l: (- 1 ), Pr - the sum of all products of I'
lI ~ving

roo l.~· :11

finished Ihis insertion, M ~rx con tinues (sheels 58·65, pp. 57.64) the notes from the clwpler on the elimination of unk nowns from Lacroix's book (§§ 19 1-11)6, pp, 262·271). after which he goes over to part V o(his conspectus (sheels 66·82. pp.65.76. 74.78), relnted to the search for the rlllional and multiple roots of numc riCllI equations. This pari conlains noles from the clmpler bcn ring the same he"ding. of l~crojx's bool: (ff 197·210, pp, 271·2RR) , Sheets 74·78 (pp. 73·76,74) contnin the foll(lwing comments of Marx. relnte<!to the connections between IIlgebr~ ~nd di!Teren tiall:illculus :


[[1) We no te firs t, th:lI the gener<1 1 equa tion, w hich is the starting po in t, is x'" + P x,Ift. t + Q X",·2 + ... + T x + U= 0, o r f(x) or y = e lc. Ha vi ng w riue n the eqU:l lion IJ2 in reve rse order, wc s hall gel [(x) or y_U+ T x+ ... + Qx",·l+Px", - I+X"', which cou ltl be w ri tten as : y- A + 8 x + C.r2 + ". +PX", - l +Q x m -! + .. " sud! that this IQ..\"".'J is he re o nl y <1 gc neral lcrm . Th us, the htUer eq uat ion, fm m wh ic h MacLour ill proceeds 1.'\ is not hing but the general eq ua tion o f algebra with olle unknowll, written in the reve rse o rder, because he re wc need the ascendi ng ortler of powers. For the res t the difference consist') only in this, that the se ries for an eq ua tion with power III contlli ns (m + 1) terms, w he rclls he re we have an infini te series 1~4. 2) As reg" rds the ded uc tion of eq ua tio ns from the proposed or ini tia l eq uation U5 , the proced ure is exac tl y th e sa me, as in the d ifre rentia l calcul us, in fac t that is how M aeLallrill co mes fo rth, sllcces~:ively differentiating lhe initial equatjoll Y = .... Thus, this method represents a tra ns la tio n from the language of al gcbr:I, into the language o f diffe rential calcu lus. 3) Lacroix says, that equat ion 2) or (A) J[the first derivative is obla ined by putti ng x for a in



a",·1 + (11/ - I) P am - 2 + (Ill - 2)Q a", - J + ... + T - 0,

wh ich is permiss ibl e, si nce a is onc of the va lues of x m .\."", - l + (m - l)P x"' · 2 + ( 111 - 2)Q x", · 3 + ... + T .. 0

11. is suc h tha t

is directly deducible fro m the in itia l :
X""+ P X"'-I + Q .r'lf-2 + ... +Tx + U ", O, and bes ides such tl at : multiply every term wi th the index o f th at power o f x, which it co ntai ns, a nd the n diminish this index hy o nc. J ust as the equality A 0 is dircclly deduced

from V = 0, so is [he equal ity B
A O logousJy C = 0 from B = 0 etc. <l

= 0 deduced


from A = O. by rcpealing the sa me me thod.

It is not appa re nt, as to what perm its on the basis of ordinary algebra 10 change with th,c help of arb itrary d ivis io n o r multiplica tion, each separate term of the equatio n individ u(l ll y, independen tly o f it<; othe r terms. For examp le, fro m x"', I ma ke m x"' - I, m ulti pl yi ng x'" by m
and by divid ing th:lI byx; in fact, mx", -l ... m :'" ; hence, th ereby I ehnnge th(' [lumcric(l1va lue of this term, w hic h ' wo uld be (l llowed [ to do ], acco rdi ng to a lgcbm , o nly unde r the co nditio n, that I would multiply a ff the terms by m and divide them by x ; the n, inste(ld o f P X", - l, I would ge t as the seco nd term m P x",-i ""'-';-_ _ m P X'" ~ 2

b ut by no mea ns (m - 1) P X", -2 etc. Th us, Ihis metho d co mes forth as Hystcro n Prolcron 1 ~8 . in so fllr as th e diffc re nti"l me thod ha s bcen s il entl y ass umed. [[This comment is fa lse, as La cro ix docS: nOI assert, that he obtains (In identical equatio n w ith the help o f this method, but o nly that in Ihis wny th e power of the equa tio n is lowe red by o nc. However, he knew it o nly fro m the d iffe renti(l i calculus.l ] The p roo f sh o ul d have been alo ng oppos ite lines, so that the d iffe re ntial opera tion was obla ined fro m the a lgehra.ic. f):. X'" + P X"' -l + Q X",- 2 + R xm-~ + ... + T x + V .. 0 ; assum ing x - a + y, we sha ll get (a + y)m +P (a + y)m- l + Q {a + y }",-2 + .... hence, 1) a"' +mam ' y

m (m - 1) + am - 2y2 + .,, +Y" + 1·2


+ Ta+ Ty+ + v -o.

Il · -

CONNEC110NS IJE'IWJ:EN AI.G EIlRA ANI) ])1 1"1'1 :ltI 'NTiA L ('AI.CUi .US


Rend horizoll/ally. in Ihese expressions we h,lve :

1) am + m a"'- I y + ctc , tht.: binomi,tl expansion for (a + YY", substituted in plm:c of A ; .... 2) the binomial expiln~I PII tor P (a + y)"' - 1 ; 3) the slime for Q (a + .1')'. ~; 4) the S<1me for R (a + y)''' - '~;
5) Ihe same for T (a + y) ins iead of Ihe term Tx in Ihe initia l equat ion, rUrther, I have the righlto pl:H.:C U:l t the cnd ni"thc firs t vertical series, since hy llnaiogy with the other terms U is the same coefficient of Y' ( .. 1),

Hence, these results arc oPtained Py a simple applicalioll of the hillomial theorem, when Ih e monomhll x is replaced hy the binomi<1 1 ()' + a). And these results, rend vertically, give liS as the first "t'rit'" lI m + P 0"' - 1 + Q am - 2 + R a m -,l + .. , ,+ Ta + U, whi<..:h in fad coincides with equation I), Ilnly when in place l1f x is substituted unc of its v!llue .. a, Sinn (I is " val ue o f x what n- rn:lins, is

1wherein /(x) .. () j, this series vanishes hy il-;elf or =0,
ma.. -1 y




2 2

(I"' --y2 + ... +),"'+


, (m - 1) (m - 2) + (m - 1) Pa"' -" Y+ PO,,·-J y 2 + ... +
+(m-2)Qam - ~y+2

11 )



QU m - 4 y2+,.,+


+(m-3)Ra", -4 y +

(m -3) (m-4) RlJ"' -.~y2 +.h + 2

If i divide all these terms by ),1.'9,thcn i Sh'l ll get: lI/(m -1) m 2 a - y+ ... +)",, -I + 2 (m - 1) (m - 2) 2) +(m-1)Pa,,, -2 + _ Ptlm -~y+'''+ 2 (1/1 - 2) (1/1 - 3) 3) +(m_2)Qa m - 3 + R l l m - 4 y+'. ' + . 2






S ince he re the first vertical series m (lm-l + (m -.1) Pa m - 2 + (Ill - 2) Q

a", -3

+ (111- 3)R um - 4 + ... + T






contain),. so it must be

=0, in so far :IS iL<; sum together w~th the other vertica l scrieses

= OI~O, i.e., it = 0; intlcpcndclltly of the valuc o f y.

Hcnce, J have,



+ (111- 1) Pa", -2 + (m - 2) Q a,"-3 + (m - 3) R 0," -4 + ... + T - O.

Now comparing the first derivative of equil tion 1) with this, I find:

I) or (V) ;
.. a"'+Pa",-I+Qa", -2 +Ra",-J+ ... +Ta+U _O,

11) or (A); _ In a"' - L + (111- 1) PU", -2 + (m - 2) Qa", · J + (m - 3) R a," -4 + ... + T - O. Here substi tuti ng aga in in I) an d 11) a by x, w hich ca n be done, since a is onc o f the va lues o f x, wc s hall ge l : I) or (V) ; .. X'" +P .1.',"-1 + Qxm - 2 +R .-\"",-.1 + ... + T.1.' + V- 0, 11) or (A) ; "" 111 ..1."",-1 + (m - 1) P X",-2 +{m - 2)Qx'"-~ + (m - 3) R .\__ 4 + ... + T - o.
A com parison of these two equations shows, that in obtainin g (A) from (V) x'" is multiplied by the index o f its power m and from this index itself 1 is s ubtracted; thcrcby x'" turns into m X",-I. I Ireal lhc remaining terms in the sa me way; fo r example, I multiply P .1.'", -1 by tht.: index of the power or x _ m-I; (m - I) P X'" - L is obtained ; then subtracti ng 1 from the index,1 fina ll ygcl (m _ l)Px", -1-L ... (m_ I ) Px", -2 etc . In the sa me way Txtu rns intoT, when I multiply it hy the index of the powcr of x _ I, and s ubtr<1ctl from the index o f its power, thus, getting l ·T Xl- L _ T XJ _ T. Finally V _ U·.1,(J vanishes, when I multiply it by Ihe index o f the power o f x _ o. In obtain ing th is result I do nol s tart from the fllct thHt I can so opera te, hut from this, that A = 0 is deduced fro m V = 0 upon a str ict algebraic found ation; it s hows, that I could have directly ac ted like that 141. Now, concerning the deduction or B = 0 fro m A 0, in so fa r as A = 0, i.e., A vanishes, wc gel as rema inder: .


(lII- l )a",-2 y + ... + ym-l + (m - 1) (m - 2) p am -.• y+ ... + 2) +





am - ' y + ... + 2 -4) + (m-3)(m-4)R a m - ' y + ... +

(11I-2)(11I-3)Q 3) +

CONNEcnON!'. !l1 :'IWl:[N t\1 .W·IlRt\ t\Nl) OlFl'ERJ;N·I1t\I. Ct\t.CUI .US


Since all the terms [ of the first column 1 of the left lutnd side, 1whi<:hl = 0, has 2 as de nom inato r, I can multip ly the ent ire eq ua tion by 2 and thus remove this denominator. Further. since illl the terms wn tain y as the gcnc ral coefficient, I ea n divide the ent ire equat ion by y and thus remove y I from the first ("ol um nl. Then I get III or (B) = - m (m - 1) a lW - 2 + (m - 1) (m _ 2) Pa", -J + (m - 2) (m - 3) Q a," - 4 +

+ (m - 3) (m - 4) R am -~ + ... + 12· 1·SJ.
Agai n subst ituting in this equation Cl by x and by comparing it wi th equfltion 11 ) or (A), wc shall get : CA) - m.1.'",- 1 + (m - 1) P .1.... - 2 + (m - 2)Q.\--3 + (m - 3)R .1.'",-4 + ... + T, (B) - m(m - 1).1.'", -1 +(111_ I) (111- 2) p.\~,, -3+ (m_ 2) (111 - 3)Qxm - ~ +

+ (m - 3) (m - 4) R .1.'''' - S + ... + ( + 2' 1'51. This co mpa rison shows, that B = 0 is deduced from A = 0, in the same way as A = 0 fro m V = 0 142. m.1.'", - 1 is transformed into III (m - 1).1.''''-1, i.e., mx", - I is multiplied by th e in dex of its power m - I , and this ind ex of power is il<;el f diminis hed by I, i. e., .1.'", - 1 is divided by x; wc get:

m(m-l) -x- or m(m-1)xm-I-I""m(m-J)xm -2,
and so with each of the following terms. 125J vanishes, in so far as its coefficien t is xli; it vanishes upo n being multiplied by 0, i.e., by the index 0 of x etc. He nce, the me thod of successive diHerclllialioll, applied in MacLaurin's theorem, is also borrowed from o rdina ry algebra, just like the general form of the fun ction x, from w hic h he sets off a nd which is the general algehraic equatioll with one unknown, differing only in this, that instead l1 f a determinate equatio n lhere] "ppears a po lynom inl express io n o f the gene ral functio n of x in the form of an infinite series.


[f Wh ether I cons ider th e expression x'" + P x... - I + Q x ... - 2 + ... + T x + V,
as eq ua l to 0, o r o nly as a fun ction of x independentl y of its equality wi th 0, the esse nce of the ma tter is not a lte red by this. In both the cases the issue is o nly abou t the generalpolYllomial expression o r this equation 143. JJ T hat MacL1urin inverts 'lEis series, i.e., writes it, beginning not Wilh the fi rst term, bu t wi th the las t, is also no t an arbitra ry and ani(icial mode, bu t is sim ply o<lsed upon the binomia l theorem. If I put a binomia l w ith one unknown in its si mplest fo rm , i.e., x + a in an indete rmihalc power - where x, as well as a may, in their tu rn, represent wha teve r polynomia l cxp;lnsions you li ke - then, if I make x the fi rst term, and a the second, I obl.ilin (x + a)"', a nd he re the expression takes pl ace according to x, meanwhile a fi gures o nl y as the multiplier a, a2 e tc. in diffe rent de rived fun ctio ns of x'" ; and, conversely , if I make a the first term, a nd x the next, i.e., write (a + then I expand am with its derived expressions m am -1 ... In differential calcu lus. when wc s tart from the first polynomial ex pression, the fu nc tio n of x, then a ll further derivatives can generall y figure only as derived fu nctions of the variable x.




Ins teml o f assuming x = a + J, (I S in :Jl gchm, he re, l1t first (x + a) is expanded and thcn it is assumed thnt a _ 0 14 4 . which lends to th e S(Jfne res ull, since in the nlgehraic deduct ion y is afterward s algebraically removed throu gh s uccess ive d ivision o f bo t h the sides of Ihe equation by y w. Separate terms of the alge bra ic equations give us at the sa me ti me the gencral proof of this, that the nex t derived fu nc tio n o f .1- is equa l to m xm - I , that o f /11 X",-I is equal to In (m - 1) X",-2 etc., Le., in essence, [the proo f] of s. lccessive differentia tio n. l

Initial Eqflation of Ma cLaurill :
y - A + Bx + C x 2 + DX_I + ...•

That of Tay/or:

)'1 .. y+A 11 +B 112 + C fl.l + D 114 + ... In both the C!lSCS the issue is the determination of the indeterminate coefficienL<; A, B, C e lc . in the firs t case they are COn SlaIllS, as in Ihc a lgebraic de rivation of the cxprcssion· s V. A etc., a'" + P a"' - 1 + ...• m am - I + (m _ 1) P a"' - 2 + ... ,HC , se rieses acco rding to the powe rs o f thc given value a of the va riable x; ill the seco nd case A, B, C etc. arc indetermi na tc functions of tile variable: x ; but here agai n [ we have] an analogy w ith a lgebra. For the
solution o ( th e general equrlt io ns with two unknowns, we reduce them to the (orm :

1) x'" + P X", -I + Qx", - 2+ ... + Tx + U _ 0,
2) X" + P IX,,-I + Q j X,,-2 + ... + YjX +ZI _ 0;
from them x is eliminated, ri nd for Ihis ) we are required to fi nd ou t the coefficients p, q [e tc. ], PI' ql etc .• containing the func tio ns of Ihe second unknown y, entcring in to the fina l equation I~; only x is to be replaced by 11. so that instead o f x'" + e tc. the fi rst equation IUrned into


f(x) (or y) + P x + Q x 2 + ... )4'


The 11151 parI or Ihe nOle-book "E" . on s heel$ 83-93 (pp. 79-fl9), is the consl>cctus of the chaptet on approximate solution of numeric;!1 equations from Laeroix 's "Elemenls of AI gebra ~ (§ § 2 11222, pp. 289-3 L 2). With this cha pler, the enunciation of Ihe general theory of algebraic equlllions comes tll an cnd. in Ln croix's book. The next chapter of the nook is entitled ;"On proportions and progre.'>sions", and Marx begins his nOle-book "Algebra tl" with its examination (sce, manuscript 3933).

S,U.N.3933 Ma T gave Ihis nOle book the heading "Algebra W . It consist, of92 ~hccls (pp. 1-67,48·72 in x Ma rlt's numbering) . I1 is a continua tion of the note book "Algebra ' "(manuscript 3932). Contcntwise, it has been sub-divided into Ihree parIs; in the first, the nOles taken from Lacroix's "Elements of Algebra" hllve been completed; the second is d evoted., ~peciaJly. 10 Newto n's binomial Iheorem and 1 the questions of oombir;ft lo riO'!,lIcquai nta nce with which is assumed 0

in its proof; in the third, notcs have been lal::en from MacLaurin's "Treatise of Algebra ",

The contcnts of these three parts are as follows, in brief:
I. Sheets 1-25 . Sections VI-V II conla;n notes taken from the ch~ptcrs:~O n proportions and progress ions" , "Theory of exponential, and logarithms", llnd "Questions related 10 iflterc~t (In money", of LlIcroix's book, with insertions (rom other sources.

11. Sheets 26-27. This part of the manuscri pt, afler the first two pages (of Sce/ion VIII), is devoted to ·variaHon" ( Iillear dependence of one mat:nitude upon ano ther, 011 its square, on its roots, upon the product of others elc). It is no mere conspectus, but 11 systematization of a large amou nt of mll terial collected from the most diverse sources.At [irst (sheets 27-38) - as a prepara tion towards the apparatus, necessary for Newton's binomial theorem - questions of combinatorics : tlnite sets of objects ("Co mbinations"), diffefCnt modes of forming combinations (making futllists of combi nations of a determinate type) a nd couming Ihe number of combinatio ns of differe nt types wilhout a preli minary construction of their lists, arc considered. Then fottows (sheets 38-68) Ihe section under the beading :"q The binomial theQrem" . Here,lIt firs t (Sub-section I, sheets 38- 40) malerials, testifying 10 the empirical emergence of the theorem are adduced. After that (sub-section 11 , s heets 41-5 I ) its proof is given for the integral po~itive inde x n of Ihe power of a binomial (with the help of combinotoric.s). Finatt y(in SUb-section Ill, sheets 51-68) under the heading "G~nerQI binomial /heQ~m~, materials related 10 tne generalisation of the theorem for fractional and negative index fI of the power ofa binomial, and to the application of the generalised theorem (or calculation of roots and expansion into serieses, have been collected. Here, amidst the sources apl>ear the classical works of Euler and MacLaurin (in the nOles fornl these works Marx always mentions the names of (heir autho rs), as well as a huge number of various text-books on algebra - English and Ge rma n (apparently, Marx did not think, that it was necessary to remember the surnames of tbeir authors). Among them the re He sueh a othors, w hose names could not be IIscert~ined . Ill. Sheets 68-92. Notes taken from MaeLauri n's "Treatise of Algebra\ chapter XIV of the fint part, and from the first five ehapten of the second part(for the continuation of this conspectus, ~ee manuscript 3934). Here the followi ng questions have been considered : commensurabili ty and incommensurabi lity (Euclid's algoritbm). ~tbe number of foOts , which an equation of any power may have" , symmetric functions, the number of positive (and, correspondingly. negati ve) rools of an equation (Descartes' rule of signs); here speciala llention has been paid to the question of multiple roots of an equlltlon, in so (ar as tbis question is connected with the emergence of de rived functions in algebra. This note contains a large numbe r of Marx's own comments. Now wc shall give a detailed description of this manuscript. Sheet 1 (Marx did not num ber it). On the tille pa ge we read:


Sheets 2-9 (Marx's 1-8). "VI . Proporlionsand ProgressioflS~. Notes from Ihe chapler hearing tbe Sli me liile, of the same book by Lacroix (§§ 223-236, pp. 312-317).





up an cXllmination of the different types of derived proporlions. Marx brieny Ihe conclusion (sheet 3). al which lacroix arrived, as under:

4) What has been sta ted in point'> 1),2),3), in fact contains an extract or the theory uf proportion; the entire doctrine i~' super/luous, since for every propor/ioll, an equailtm corresponding to it may be substituted. A special consideration of proportions IS still utiicful; o nly in so far as it provides an easy transitio n to progrcssions.
While taking noles from Ihe section on progressions, Marx underlined those places ftom u eroix, where the discussion is about~infinitc colltinualion of a series"(p. 326) about that fact, Ihal ~ the expansion
1+-+""2 ctc.





can be considered as the value of the fraction ~ every lime, when it is collycrgent M(pp. m-I 327_328)'·8, and that convergence takes place. only when m>1 . "In illl other cascs[ of continuous division of m by mol} the remainders should nol be neglected, since by their constant increase they prove, [hat the quotients move off more and more form the true value"(p.328).

Sheets 9·25 (Marx's 8-24). "VII. Expcmential magnitudes and logarithms." This section oUhe
note book. begins with notes from the chaplet on the same theme of Lacroix's rook.Taking notes from §§238.250 (pp. 331-346), Marx numbered them (including also a large comment on pp. 337· 344) by the numerals 1-13. It is devoted to the arithmetic Complement of logarithm. § 248 (pp. 342-345; § 12. shcets 13-14 in Marx's manuscript) - Marx's conspectus of this topic is inoomplele. The oonspectus comes to an end with the [ollowing extracl(sheel 14) from Lacroix (p. 344):

Thus, by this operation we turn subtraclion into addition, using, instead of the number to be subtracted, its arithmetic complement.
After this Marx wrote :-[[Furlher on Ihis, in {aUer below·sheet 25, bottom M ; rV,lBB.

In oonneclion with this commcnt, see

In § 13(sheels 14.16), dcyoted 10 thc mode of transition from one system of logarithms 10 any other, Marx alternates the conspectus of the oorresponding paragraph (§ 250) of Lacroix with Ihat from the book: J .Hind, "The Elements of Plane and Spherical Trigonometry", 3rd cd., C,ambridge, 1837, ch VII ," The Calculation of Loga rithms and the Construction of Mathematical Tables", H 162-177. Here Marx's notes do not strictly follow Hind's text. In these notes the discussion is about the different systems of logarithms: decimal (w hich is called tbe "common system oC logarithms or t~at or Briggs"), and natural, which was identified - as was stilllhe case, usually in most of the manuals of 19th century-with that of Napie r. § 14 (sheets 16-19) under the title

·calculation based on rhe No.pierio.n system ., begins with the following comment of Marx.:

a) The starting point is tbe exponential equation y - ax , and the problem is, first of all , to express aX in terms l i.e., positive and integral powers] of a (the base) and x, i.e., the base a nd its exponent, which is the logarithm of y. [n order to ca rry out this trick - OIl tlte basis of ordinary algebra - it is necessa ry first of all, to turn the monom ial a~ into a binomial; and since every magllitude = itself + 1,-1, so nothing prevents [us] from writing instead of the monomial aI, tbe binomial (a +-1-1yor,what is the same, (1 + (a - 1) j"", whe re 1 is the first term of the binomial and (a - 1) is the second. Thus we obtain for a~, a series ill ascendi"g



positive integral powers afx, by applying the binomia l theorem. The problem is so lved by the me thod of indetermina te coefficien ts and their determination with the help of two differe nt express ions for the expans ion in series o f one .1nd the same func tion; the lalte r itself is based, here, upon the fact that f(x) -fez) - f(x + Z)I ~9.
After this Mar.'( lakes det~ilcd noles from Ihe ~ame chapter of Hind's book, now from the very beginning, Le., §§ 160-165, pp. 154-158. This enlire poinl 14 of the manuscript hlls been sub-divided into three points: a), b), c).


In point a), after Ihe cxtracllldduced here, the re is a deduction of Ihe "expon.::ntial theorem", which is usual for the majority of courses on analysis and ftlgebra, of Ihe first half of 191h century:
A2 .~ Alx1 A'x' «"_I +AX+-- + - + ... + 3 + ... I·2 I·23 . 1·2· '''p

(where A_(a_l)_i(U_1)2+-j(a_l)1_ H. )through coefficienTs (sce, editor'S no te 1~~.


me thod


indetermina te

Point b) (shect 18) carries thc hea ding (given by MRrx) : "b) To dedl/ ce from the eqllation y _ a< on expressi:m for x (for t'rl: logarithm) in terms of a and yW. This expression is obtained in the form of a quotient of two logarit hmiC serieses :


(y_1)_~(y_1)1+~(y_ 1 )1_
1 1 1) _ _ (u_l)1+ _(0_1)1_ 2 3

A''" (0_

After this it is said Ihat :

Th is express ion for x has no practical value for arithmetica l calcula tion of x, save (lie case, wllell both the serieses - in H numerator a nd in the denominator - are cOllvergent. Ie
Point c) (sheets 18-19) carries the heading : "c) Calculation of rht! nllmerical value of rht! host! af tire Napil!rian system of logaritlrms w • Thi s point contains the definition of the base e of the natural logllrilhms, 8S such a v~lue of a, wherein A '" 1 ; and, fur ther, it contains ~ calculation of e with the help of the sum of len terms of the series for e, thus obtained from the "exponenti D ltheorem ". MD mentioned this calculation in full,with a mistake in the 6th deci mal rx place: I! '" 2 · 71828276. Presence of the same mistake in the book by Hi nd,quoted above, fina ll y solves the question - which remained open for ~ long time -oflhc unkno wn source of the ~heets 14-19 of manuscript 3933. The issues in § t 5 lire (sheet 19) : nega tive logarithms, logarithms of zero IInd of negatilje numbe rs. The beginning of Ihis paragraph is the conspectus from § 2S I of l.iIcroix 's "Elements of Algebra" (p. 346). In this I'afagrnph Lacfoix explains (it is now commonplace) the meani ng of the words
~ I ogarithm

of zero is equa l to nega tive infini ty", which· we see in many tables ". Having written

down this explanation. M"rx writes further :

Usua ll y il is a rgued like this : 1 1

O-- ",, --a- "' . 00 a"



After this Manc oontinucs :

The equation

-y .. ax or y--a" can not be satisCied either by a positive or by a negative value of x; that is why logarithms o/negative magnitudes can notcxiSI in a system, which has a real magnitude as its base; they are, owing to this, imaginary.
The source of both these pl~ce.<; (they lIrc nol there in Lacroix), is the slime lext book on trigonometry by llind, mentioned above; now it is chapler IV, " The Nature and Properties of Logarithms·, its very beginning: §§ 89·90, pp. 67·68 . however, ItlC beginning of chapter XI (pp. 239-240) of another book by the same author:Thc Elements of A1b>ebra-, 41h cd. Cambridge, 1839, is also contcntwise very close 10 Ihese paragraphs. After this,on sheets 19-20 (Mane's 18-19), the notes from chapter VII COllie to an end . This is the chapter on ~Exponential Magnitudcs and Logarithms "in Lacroix's book . Sheets 20-25 (Marx's 19.24). These are notes rrom the next, the last, chapter of Lacroix's book (§§ 256-262,pp.349·358), under the heading :"16) The theory of geomelricprogressions ond that of logarithms applied to the problems of interest on money· , devoted to these applications. The conspectus collles to an end wi th the following comments

(sheet 25) :



becomes infinite, the n a _ Ar and A _ ~


thcn a becomes a perpelllity ; A is the

present value of this perpetuity. If we represent the gene ral expression rorA in the following form:

-7 { (1 ~ ry.} - ~ 1-

r (1

a+ ry' ,

then we sha ll get the difference between E., the present value of a perpetuity a and the [present] value of an annuity, payable yearly [for n < IX> years, in instalments - a]. Leases are often concluded for a term of 99 years; if we put this number and assume that increase - 5%, Le., r -

2~' then

A - 200 (1- 1 ~5) is obta ined as the present value of

a lease for 99 years; its price difrers from Ihe present va lue of a perpetuity only by
yearly insta lments] of the same amount

1~5 [ in

Sheet 25(Marx's 24) , bottom.· 17) Addition to §12, p. 12 and 13 on arithmetic complement ". However, this add ition, contemplated earlier by M ~rx(see, 1'.186), remains unwritten even here. All the same, apparen tl y, Marx did not renounce his intention to teturn to this question, since part of the page unde r Ihis heading and the who te of next page oC the note book remai ns blank: in the photocopies there is no page m~rked 2S by Marx. Sheets 26-28 (Mllfx's 26-67, 48). For the whole or this part of the manuscript (excluding sheet 68) Marx's nUmerations, and archival numerations coincide. That is why, hence rorth, upto sheet 67, only the a rchival numeration will be mentioned. Section VIII contains materials related to combinatorics and Newton's binomiat thcorem. On the top of sheet 26 we read :

·VUI . (Continuation of the theory of equations see nDle book I, A 1gebrar.

'niH N01]: OOOK •J\LGBBRA Il"


Sheets 26·27. "A) Var;at;on". Under · Varintion" here he considered : the chllnge of some magnitudes proportional 10 others, their product, quotient, squllrc root of thciT products c tc. Thc symbol er is introduced for thc designating the fact Ihal y changc.~ in proportion to :£, IInd it is suggested that the expression y Ot x bc TIllld as:" y varics as x· . Properties of varilltion , like:
ifycr .1' and xot l, lhell yOt l; ifycr .f and xOt l,tlienxOt.fii;

and others, are proved. Examples from geomclry, commercialllrithllle tic(illterest.~ on capital) etc., are ciled. One of the most prob~ble SOurcc.~ lofthis part of the manuscript) appea rs 10 be the book : H.Goodwin, "An Elementary Course of Mllthemlllics\ Call1oridge, 4th cd., 1853 ISl . The beginning of the section on
· vari~tion "

in reality reads as follows :

A) Variation. If a magnitude y depends upon another x, such that, whcn x changes its va luc, n correspond ing ly proporl iona l change o r val ue tnkcs placc in y, thcn il is s<l id, that y varies as x, and fo r th is the symbol oc is IIscd, Le., yoc x. in Euclid VI, 1: "Triangles alld parallelograms oJ the same height (IS do their bases." Ir we double lhe base of a triangle o r of a pa rallelogram, whose height remains the same, the n we sha ll do uble their area,and thci r a rea changes in the ratio in which we change t he base. ThaI is why, fhe area varies as the base, For insulnce,

correspond to each other,

Jor a given height.
In goodwin (§93, p.S9) we read:

· Variation, § 93. If a magnitude y depends upon another .1', such that, when x change lils] v~lue. the v~lue of y changes in the same proportion, then it is ssid, thnt y var;es di,.cctly nsx or in brief, varies as x .
ror example, we know from Euclid VI,I tho1t if wc doublc thc base of 3 triangte, kecping the heighl same,then we shall double the aTCa, IInd thaI, in whatever proportion we change the bnse,lhe ;ltea Changes in the same proportion, hence, we must say, that (for 11 given height) the nrca of it lriangle ~'aril:ls as its ba~·e. The phrllse"y varies as x" is wriHen as : y Ot x" . The theorems in Goodwin's course arc also contenlwise dose to this. Howcver, there is 11 discrepancy between the lext of the manuscript and that of Goodwin's book.l11~t is why, onc may think, that cithcr Goodwin's book was, in facl, not the source book for M~ rx, or, that along with it, Marx had yel olher books at his di~posaL According to the searches conducted ill the libraries of England, the most probable other source in this contexI may be : Th. G. Hall, "The Elements of Algebra", 3rd ed., Cambridge, 1850, §§ 125-127, pp. 149·152, chilptcr IX, "Hatio, Proportion, Variation and Inequalities·. Sheets (27-38). "6) Pernrutot;o/!S, Combinations and Variations" . It is a conspectus of materials on combinRtorics, at least from two sources, thc ide ntity of which could not bc established wilb full ccrlainty. Judging uy the tcrminology used by Mane, the conspectus is in Ihe ma in based on an English sourcc. The coincidence in the sequence of e xposi tion, modes of proofs, terminology and nolations, provides grciltcr ground to IIssume, that tbis source was the same book by lIall, chapter XIII , · Permutations and Combinations·, pp. 209-214. However, within these notes Marx mllkes" big inscrtion (on sheets 31·38) from some o ther, apparently Gcrman, source; Cor our surmises on which, see below (pp.191-192 ). This note begins with the empiric.11 CJ(amination of perm uta lions from two, three, (our and five letters. Then follows (point 2) the definition of the concept ofvarialion oC 11 elements taken r al


a lime; and in point 3) the ir numbe r is calculillcd inductively, for which the symbol IIV r is introd uced (in Hall it is ~Vr)' TIlen the number of pcrmlll.1tions from

elements is obtained lIS

If V n. Then (in point 4). permutations with rcpcliliollS arc considered. I! has been s howfI that the number of such permutations from If elements, among which wc rind a magnitudes o f · one type", fi of another, Y- of a third, is

a " ' 2·1 x


···2·1)( y···2· 1

(in Marx's writings, the "factorial" sign is not there; however, it is not there even in the lext book:: by Pous, published in 1880). In pointS) the combinations from If clemenlS ta ken r at a lime, 3TC considered, for Ihe number of which the sign" C r is introduced, and it is shown tha t

'V, nC,-- -nC(n - r). 'V,
In the next insertion, containi ng new points 1)-5). at fi rst the concepts of element, [orl/l or complex and , doss o[[ornlS have been introduced. Here in the manuscript we read (shect3!);

Things, which are in a defi nite order and arc to be united into a group in this or that way, are ca lled elements, s in ce onl y the order in which they appear, is of importance. 1lnd not their magnitude or peculiarity. Each o f such union o[ so me elements, is called a form or complex. A class of forms is determined by the !lumber of its elements, thus, for example, [the fo rm] 23 14 5 is o r a class higher th an 2 3 5 4.
S ince the properties of the elements are un important, so any element is designated by a numeral or a lelle r of the alphabet,and the problem is raised in this way ;

The ai m o [ the investigations into permutations, combinations and variations is to : a) es tablish strict rules for the generatioll of forms; b) determine the /lum ber 0/ these forms, without lis tin g their tot.'1 lity.
To solve the first of these problems. the forms ArC put in lexicographic order (i.e .• in the a lphabetic orde r. he rei n the numera ls 0,1,2 .... , 9 constitute the alphabet), if the diffe rences of thei r classes are not conside red, and in arithmetic [orderl - in the contrary case. (By "arithmetic · is meanlthe arrangement of forms in the ascending order of their classes, i.e., pr the number of elements in a fo rm; here in, the forms cntering into every class. arc arranged wj thin it lexicographically.) Point 2) is devoted to the solution of both the tasks men tioned above, [or o rdinary permutations and for permutations with repetitions. I lere the symbols like P (1,2.3) and P(a,b,c,c) arc used an d a certain extension of the concept of permutation is spoken of. rega rding which Marx w rites:

Th e concept of permutatioll has been widened - however, it coincides w ith the well knOWll case of mriatioll - when from given eleme nts, by all possible mea ns, some determinate set or them is to be chosen and the la tter is to be placed in all possible orders, fo r exa mple, [or obta ining/ram 11 elemellts, all poss ible arrangements, laking two a t a time.
In point 3) combin3lions are considered. SymbolS like the following arc used:




C ( . C(,S) 3 • C (,3,3,4,).
among which the first designates combinations from five elements, taken three a l a lime. the second - combinations from the same five elements, takcn th ree at a lime, wi th all possible



repetiti ons ( for example, 111,122,124 and others). the third - combinations from four elements 1,2,3,4 taken 4 at a time, besides the numeral 2 is permiHcd to 1>c repeated not more than twice, nle and the numeral 3 - not more than rh rice. " conspcc;Il.!S contains : examples of m~king full lists of all possible combir.~tions of this or that tYI)e; the tormula for the number of combinations from x elements, taken", ~t 11 time; the formula for the number of combinations with repetitions, from If elements, taken", at a lime, under the condition that every clement may be repeated any number of times, not greater than", ; find notes on this, thill the number of such combinMions with re petitions is equal

C.,,:,, _, ( in our notation ).

In point 4) variations have been examined, again, with repetitions or without. The symbolS used liTe analogous to those used for the combinations. We find notations like:



V(I,2 . 3.4,) , V(I,2,3)4.

All form s corresponding to the first nolation are listed. It is proved that, the number of all possible variations wilh repetitions from n elements, taken m at a time, i~ eqUAl to /I "'. To put in modern language, the question of formation of the direct product of some (finite) set of elements, has been specialiy considered and the direct product of the sets ( ~serieses~) : ( 1,2.3,), (1,2), (1,2,3.4,) have been fully listed. It has been proved .that the number of elements of the direct product is equa l to the product of the number oC elements · of the factors~. 11 has been nO:r!d, in particulu, thnt if ~Il the, m "f~ ctors" have the same number of (n) elemen ts. then the number of e lements of their direct product, i.e.,""', coincides with Ihe number of variations with repetitions from n etements taken m at a time, obtained earlier. The (lasl) point 5) ;s devoted to the various modes of forming a given sum by chOOSing some (of the given) "addenda", which, herein, mayor may not be repealed, and by composing lists of the corresponding combinations and variations "of the addenda ". An algorithm has been adduced, answering the question of solvability or unsolvability of the problem and permitting easy 1i~ling of all its possible solutions in a definite order. Here the following symbolic notations 3re found:







9C (1,2,3,4,5),

9C (1,2,3,4,5), 9V (1.2 ,3,4,5) ,9V (1,2,3,4,5)

Here 9 is the given sum of r, 2. 3. 4, 5 - the permissible addenda. whose number must not be greater than three and which (in cases, when 3 stands above the right h~nd side bmcket) may not be repeated more than three limes. In Ihis insertion, there are no English words; contentwise it is close to the ideas wide-spread wilhin Ihe German school of combinlllorial analysis (1Iindcnburg. Eschenbach, Rothe. Kramp'and others) of the first half of 19th century. And this provides the b8si~ to assume, that the source of this insertion is, to all appeHence, German. However, Marx could have al his disposal only such German sources, as were availllble in England. lbe corresponding search in Ihe British Museum and in Ihe other libraries of England has not yet yielded a conclusive result.l·lowever. closest resemblance 10 the text of the insertion contained in manuscript 3933, is observed in tne following books:
1. B . Thiba uI, "Grundriss der allgemeinen Arithmetik order Analysis zum Gebrauch bei akademischen Vorlesungen "rOutlines of general arithmetic or analYSis [or use in aClldemic lectures"), GOttingen, 1809. Chapter 2 of this book : "Firs t principl es of the studies on combinations conlains 8 discussion on demenlS, forms, classes of form$, their lexicographic and a rithmetic o rder and contains the notations
H -



C (1,1,1.2,2,2,3), C (1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5),35 well as algo rithms', similar to

those mentioned in the manuscript, for obtaining all possible combinations of Ihis or that type, and calculation of their 11lImber(withoUI a preliminary compilation of these very combinations). 2. Fr.W.Spehr, HVollsllindiger Lehrbegriff der feinen Kombinationslchre. mil Anwendungen dcrselbcn aur Analysis und Wahrs cheinlichkeilsrcchnung" (" A complete academic conception of the pure studies on combinations, with their application in analysis and calculus of prob<lbilifics"). Braunschweig. 1824, 2nd cd. , 1840. This book is written on the basis of the ideas of Thibaut.The aut hor specia lly stipulates, the merits of Thibaut's notations and, in essencc, considers those very concepts (and in the .same order), whi.:h were mentioned in connection with ThibaUl'S book However, in spite of this quite signiucant similarity of the material and notations, bOlh the books differ from Marx's lext, as regards the style of exposition, as well as in respect of Ihe exarnples:lbat is why, the question of the source of the laner (i.e., of Marx 's text] may slill be considered unsolved. Having finished this insertion, Marx summed up the noted material on combinatorics, commenting first of all (sheeI37),that :

In order not to confuse these 3:Permutatiolts, Combinations and Variations , Permutations shou ld be restricted to Variations of all elements from a given complex of them; and it would be the best thing to consider Variation along with Permutation and after that Combination 153.
After th is, Marx once more brie(1y listed all those results mentioned earlier, which are connected with the number of permutations, variations and combinalions(with repetitions or without), After mentioning the formula for the number oE permutations with repetitions: a times the elements of one type, b times that of the other and c times - of a th ird, of the form:
n(n -1) .. ·3·2·1

Marx makes the following insertion:

[[In the exposition on pp. 31(end) and 32 the concept of permutation "is extended" to prepare the "proof" for determinate instances of variation. This is nonsense 154.] 1
Sheets 38-68, "C) The binomial theorem". These notes were take n from a number of sources, onc of them (apparcotly the same one, to which belongs the insertion on combina torics, pp. 31-38) could not be established.This pari of the note book consists of three sections; Marx indicated them by the Roman numerals I), 11) and Ill) . Section I) (sheets 38-41) carries no heading . It contains notes taken from: MacLaurin's H Treatise oC Algebra", §§ 42-47, pp. 38-42. In this case Manc clearly mentions t~at he is using its 6th edition(London,1796). This edition fully corresponds to the first edition of the boo k at o ur disposal _The conspectus begi ns with the following words of Marx:

1)1) The empirical origin of this theorem is explicitly observable in MacLaurin's AJgebra; in fact, the 'Iatter 15 the first commentary(reinforced by proofs) on Newton's "Arithmetica Universalis", where in application to the most difficult things, results bpve been brought forth without explanations, often in an inaccessible form, not developed and, without proof.

'111£ NOTE BOOK "i\LGEOR/\ 11"


This en]ire seeti"n of Ihis conspeclus is 001 an extrllel from M:lcI. ..1urin, bul M:ux's own exposilion of Ihe noled mllleria l, wherein MM:>: speci~lIy notes thc circumslancc : Ih,ll M ~cL.iltII'in d raws general conclusions, nOI o n the basis of proofs,but mercfy wi th the help of indu('.]ivc gen e ralis~ l ion of observations, rela ted 10 the exp,1llSlon (a + b)6 . a6 + 6a'b+ 15a~b2 + 2Oo l ,,) + I St'?b· + 6(1b' + b6 . Marx stresses lhat Ihe eharncter of these observations is heuristic ~nd commeolS (on Ihe mClhod of searching Ihe coefficien t of Ihe subsequcllt lerm according 10 the coel"ficicnt of Ihl! previous term) (sheet 39):

In the second tcrm the coefficie nt = 6. T his sim ple comp;trison of the second te rm with the fi rs t would onl y show, th at the coe ffi cient of the second term= the power uJ tile first, since we ha ve a 6, it is 6(a Sb) Jor the secOlld term. But if wc compa re Ihe Ihird term with thc second, then the second ten'n = 6«(l ~b) ; Ihe third term = 15 (a 4/)2) .
Adduci ng fu rther, as regards the oOservations, the rule of MneLllurin. suggcsting - with the aim of finding out the coefficient of any lerm according 1 the coefficicnt of the previous 0 one - Ihat wc · d ividc the coefficient of the previous lerm by the index of powcr of the given ternl and multiply the quot ient obtaincd by the index of power of a in the Slime term, incrc;,sed by onc", Marx comments, Ih~ t il would hHve been simplcr to multiply the. quoticnt obt~incd, by the index of power of Q in the previous term. (The words dted within ljuot3tion mil rks h,lVe hee n borrowed by us from MaeUtu rin's "Algebra .. p.40, where too, they Ilave been pu! within quotes. Appare ntly this gives M~rx theoccassion 10 thi nk that they do not belong to M~ cl..au rj n , bUllo Newto n himself, in so far as here. AS elsewhere, whenever Macl ...1urin·s te xt is found within ljUOlalion marks. M:tnt in his conspectus menlious Newton. ln such cases he writes : "according In Newton", "in New/o n", "i.e., New/on".) Concerning Ihe next varagraph. where M.. eLa urin obtains the genera l hinomia l theorem of New ton, by the simple extent ion (lf a rule, vcrified for the exp~nsion (lf the sixth ]lower of the hinomial , to the instance of an arbitrary index of power In, Mne:>: wTites:

Now th is empirical findi ng is gencm li scd.
makes an analogons comment in eonneclion with this, [hnt the nu:nber of te rOls of the eXpllnsion (a + b)" herein turns out 1 be m + I. He wriles: 0
M1 X H

Th is lalte r is also, in fact, obtai ned only by ge neralising the example (a + b)~ .
Lower down, Marx once mo re s t rc~ses this when he "sums lip" as under(shL"Ct 40):

2) We sa w above, that in MacLa urin (i.e., in Newton) the expansion of the binomia l - in connection w ith the investiga tion into the l:ocfficienlS - into the 2nd,3rd,n-th power, gives 2+1, 3+1, generall y 11 + 1 tcrms; this si mple genera lisa tion gives: x (x+ a)2-x2 + 2tlx+ a2 , (x +ap _ xJ + 3ax2 + 3a2 + a3 ; (x + a )2 gives 3 te rms, (x + ap gives 4, and that is why (x + a)~ gives n + J terms.
Sta ting the generat formulal ion of the Newtonian binomial theorem accord ing to Mlle Laurin, MHrx observes tha t in it the gencral lerm is not written :

.... as give n in MacLaurin , with out the general term .
Goi ng over to the generalised rule fo r the expHns;on in power of polynomials Marx writes:

Newton a t once applied the binomial theorem [[which was s tillcm ly a ge ne ra Ji sc~ e mpirical expression,obta ined, whcn instead o( 6, for insta nce, In is put to the polYllomials,





O l~ Ti lE


o f the three terms

In connection with the e xplanation of this rule i l l the light of the exam ple of <:)(1"' 0510 0 in square Q + b + c, as the binomia l (Iu + b I + c), Marx observes:

Il co uld also have bee rl e xpanded as (a + [b + c])2.
Aflcr this there ;s an insertion by Marx (sheet 40). lIs source is no morc lhe ~Trc3 t iscof Algebra"of Maclaurin. Here Mane writes:

This, in genera l, is the first elementary exposition acco rdi ng la New ton. To it, in essence, when it aga;" appears in th e elementary form under the rubric of invol ution · or rise in power, nothing has been added;[it has} s ince then been only so mewhat generalised; suppose, fo r instance, the expa nsion fo r (x + y)6 is 1 be ob tai ned, then : 0 5 ••• X4... x 3 . . . 2 •.• Xl... Xl ( powers of x), x6 . .. x x

y' . .. y l ... y' .. . y' . . . 1' .. . y' .. . y' (powerso!y ), 1. . . 6 . .. 15... 20... 15. .. 6 .. . 1 ( coefficiellts),


general the ,H h powe r of (a


b) or (a ± b'r =

" ,,- 1 _ a" ± -n a,,-I b + _. __
1 1 2


1 2 3 If the terms of a binomial have coefficiell ts li ke, for e xa mple, (20 + 3b)4, the n here tbey may be raised to tha t powe r, in which the term contain ing the given coefficient is ra ised .
He nce,

!!.."-t . n-2 a ,,_31J3 + ..... ± b".

100 4 . • • 80 3 .•• 4a2 .. . 2a 1 .•. (20)0 (3b)'. .. 3b' ... 9b' ... 27b' ... 8 1b' 1 . . . 4 . . . 6 . . . 4 . .. 1 160 4 + 96a 3b + 2160 202 + 216001 + 8 1b" .
Here il is dear Ihllt havi ng take n notes from the old" Treatise~o f MllcLau rin, Marx had 10 tu rn to a source closer to his lime, in order to draw the concl usion that , since the ll li tt le has c hanged in Iile e lementHYexposition of the question. Appare ntly, th is so urce was the book : Hal l, "The Elements of Algeb rlln London, 1840, where at the end of the section 0 11 invol ution there is both the algo rithm fo r rais ing the binom iltl in power. menti oned by Mar x. a nd its application :0 the example (20 . 3b)4. Marx gave section 11 . (sheets 4 1.5 1) the ti tle:
integral ifl dices

The binom ial theorem fo r

positive an d

0/ J'Ow.:r" .This conspectus

is from the second of those two (apparently Ge rma n)

sources, to which the conspectus on combinatorics belongs. The grea ter part o f this !;eaion i.\ devoted to the pro%f the binomilll theore m, in wh ich, a) the conoepls : of "form", "classes o f fo rm ". ·order of forms· . combina tions and variations "with a defini te sum~ ,and b) the no tations:
V ( 1 .2)~.

C( l , 2)".

-Here .is a slip of pen in the manuscript: instead of "i nvolution", th ere is "evo l utjon~. In MacLaurin, th e rise in power is called ~i n vo lu t i on · ,and the o pposite operation - extraction of roots - "evolution". - Ed.



been used; we have already mel willi lhese
'2 •


others in Ihe nOlc:; o n combinatorics (see

pp.190-192 ). The new nOl8lions : C , C, ... , C have also been inlroduccd, for Ihe sum of al l possible produCls, corresponding 10 llll pOl>sibie combina fions from" clemenls,Caken resl>cclively o nc, lwo " ' n HI a lime . lIere, lhe elements ue numbers or IIlph~bctical eXPfcs~i\lns 'If ordinuy ~Igebra; here thc'comhinalions of c le ments hllve 1I1so been oonsidercd:ls prodl1et~. The proof begins wi th a considernli,)n of producls of two, three elc. f~ctors, rcprescnled ;IS Ihc sum of an IITbitTll fy number of addenda. ' In every r~etor) these addend;] nre designated by Ihe numeT!JIs 1,2,3, ...... With the help of the fo rm:l tion of 'varialiorl::1 forms' - (lirect products of those sets of numerals, by which the addenda :Ire numbered in Ihe fa clors - Ihe terms of the producl are put in a definite order. An c..umple of sueh ordering and of the corresponding 1:lble of all"variational fo rms", "re:llisi ng" Ihe lerms of Ihe product : (a + bx + ('.x2) (d + x) (fr _ ,~{2 + '1.1?), have been adduced by MIIT)( in full. u.tter Oil Ihe products of some more special types arc considered. At first, il is cxplalned (with Ihe hel p of Ihe conslTllctio n or "v~ riationnl [orms" fwm the numeral~ 1,2 and, their "re~li~mtions"), Ibat every product of the Iypc
(.1" + a) (x + b) (.l +c) ... (x + k)(.l + f)

is equal to (i f n is the num ber offaetors) X'+U- 1 + U-2 + ... +




+ ... + Cx + C.


Then, the assumplion that all Ihe second3ry terms in the facto rs ue mUluHlIy e(lual, gives Ihe binomial Iheo rem. The usual mode of oonslfucting the tables of binomial CQefficien ts is la ter on ohlfli ncd wi lh the help of multiplication of bolh the sidt:~ of the equal ity
( l + xr- I+A1"+82 + CY' + ··· +M.Y' , by (1 ... .1').

In 11 Ja lter part of the notes, where we find new notations nB (,. .. 0,1,' .. ,11) for Ihe Ilumber of eombinali Olls of n items taken rat a time ' , i.e., for the binomial coefficients, Marx writc~ (l>h(:cI 48i


C) In fu rthe r "comme rcia l" e iaboratiolll hepolVers oJboth the terms of the billomial, like ~ .. d' " . ,,,. . . 11 11 (11 - 1) b" I a" • V ' lig ure as 19n1larles, lInd then CDeJJlClents, Iikc 2 c tC.:t S rno/tlla


In this con nection Marx ma kc.<; Ihe fo llowing comment:

{{Wc no te he re, (hat th e f lll/Cliol/s wilh x n, a long with the derived JUllctions o r differetJIial coeJficienls ded uced fro m them, in the difrerential calc ul us, include within themselves onl y a part of these billomial coefficien ts, fo r example

d _ _ 11.1",,-1 • _(,<)
dx ' here th e di ffe rentia l coeffici ent o r th e fi rs t derivat ive incl udes w it hin ilsclf the ent ire binomial

coef icient f

1', since the la Iter - n,i. c., the nume rica l va lue o f the frac tional coefficient - + ;
f t>, Le.,
in the 2nd differen tia l

where the j,ltle r appears indepe ndentl y, as al(cady in

·such notations, :lnd the entire s lack of formulae connected with chem, contai ned in thi:o. sC<..1io n of Ihe manuscripl, are the re in Ihc book: B.Thibaut, - Grundriss der IIl1gcmeinen Arithmetic ....... ·, Gallingen, 1809,pp. 44 and afte rwards. - Ed.



coeffic ie nt, there o nly the coe fficient derived from the index of power of the functio n enters into the de rivative, but nol the numerica l fractio nal coefficient accompanying it. T hus ; d' (r') d (/I x·- 1 or - - 11 ( 1I - 1) x~-2 - j "(x") 1 dx dx does no t incl ude withi n itself Lagra ngc; thus, not includ ing
1 12
; rather it • wou ld be



as initiall y wro te

_L in I" 1 ·2


~dd'2 x

(!!...) where the frac tiona l coe ffic ient 1·2
T+ I

appears as the deno min ato r o f th e seco nd term (with ) h. as in Taylo r's theo rem.}]
This (laSI) pari of scclion 11) conlains the usual theorems about the propertics of binomial expansions (thll l

B .. n n


lI - r

. Ihal

n B + n H .. (n + 1) B

r+ I

; Iha t the s um of

the binomia l


coefficients for the binomial of power n is equal to 2"; that about raising the power of complex numbers according to the binomial theorem, and others). Marx gave section lII(shcets 51.68) the lille: ffGel1eral binomial/lI eorem". It consists of three parIs: A) H) and ad 0 ). " ar t A) (sheels 51·57) begins with the fo llowing words, relaled 10 its content .

T ha t whal was obtained fo r the binomials with integral alld positive indices, holds good also fo r the binom ials witl: negative and fractional illdices [[a nd the imaginaries, fro m which here we digressed jnitially But in these cases the series becomes infi1lite.


The source of this part of this conspectus, could not be finally established. Apparentl y, here, agai n some English text book on algebra has been used. Extention of the bioomial theorem in Ihe CIISC of the fractiona l and negative indices of power, is carried out with the help of the method of indeterminate coefricients, to which at first the po int 2) of Marx's conspectus was devoted. lIere the proof of univocali ty of Ihe notion of a function in Ihe form of a powered series coincides almost word for word ( right up to a complete identity in no tations), with the one found in the book: Hall, "The Elemeuls of Algebra" , Londo n, 1850,ch.VI II ~T he binomial theorem", p.2 11. Point 3(1) is devoted 10 the applica tion of this method whe n n _{ ( In Ilall's book this example is found in p.223.) Namely. it is assumed Ihat

v'f'+X' _ A -+ Bx ... ex l ... Dx) ... E:c4 ...


Raising both the sides oCthis equality 10 Iheir square, given, then after, the possibility of obtaining a sys tem of equations, determining the coemciellts A ,B ,C " . . , it is consequently observed that they coincide exactly with those which were obtained when the binomial theorem was extended to the case of,. - 'Z' Having noted, tha t (sheet 52):

thus this method may be applied 1 the binomial w ith negative indices, 0
Ma rx we nl over in his conspectus (point 3b», to Ihe proof of the theorem in the general case of fractio nal o r negative (i ntegral and fr~ctio n at) 11 • He rein at firs t it is assumed that


* 'Ibal is, the expre.~sion


I ·2

. '-2. -Ed. 1

11lE NOTE iJOOK "ALGEBRA 11' where Ihc coefficicnts dcpcnd only on /I,but do not depenr.l on x ; then in lhis eql1 11lity x is subsli luted by x + Y , which gives


11+(x+y)J " -

A+8 (x+y)+C(" ayf+D,uy») ~E'("+y)·+F ("l'+Y) ' H"'c.


In Ihe ri gh l hand part the binomial (x + y) is found on ly in integml positive powers, for which Ihe binomial Iheorem is already proved" Using this, the author of the mllnual from which M1IfX tuok no tes, pcrm ils himself (though herein the coefficients tllke the form of infinitc sericses ) to expand Ihe right hand side of the C<juality (2) acco rding to the powers of y "Then having representcd Ihe le ft hand side in the form of 1(1 + x) ... y 1°, he obtains the possibilily of using the method of indclerminatc coefficients , to show, that all the indetermi nate coefficients, A, D , C, D," "" life expressed Ihrough the second coefficient ( through B ) exactly in the same wa y as il h1lppcns in the binomial theorem fo r the integral and positive index n " Finally, with Ihe h.:lp of Ihe same melhod of indete~minat e coefficients it is proved Ihat, just as fo r Ihe fractional, so 1IIso for the neg11live inde x 11 , rhe cquHlily D - 11 holds good" I'arl (A) comes 1 IIIl cnd wilh Ihe appliClltion of Ihe binomial theorem 10 the extractio n of roots 0 of num bers and, to Ihe modes of hastening the convergence of the serieses oblained Ihcrein" Thus, with Ihis ai m V2 is represenled as


¥SO, i.e", as ~(l + 4 9

fra ctions arc Subslituted by decimal fractions, in his notes ma kes an inserlion (placed within a bo:<, in sheets 56-57), devoted 10 the theo ry of decimal fra ctions; conte nlwisc and notation wise it is very close to §§ 38-43 (pp" 27-29) and, later on, 10 § 107 (pp" 72-73) of the book: H " Goodwi n ,~ A n Elementary Course of Mathemali cs~ , Cambridge. 4th cd", 1853" Rega rtl ing the queslion of the source ofseClion Il l, it is essential 1 note thal Ihis section, devoled 0 1 Newlon"s binomial theorem, happens to bea gene r~1 systematisa tion ofa I~Tgeamounl of mat erilt I 0 culled from different books" It is dear Ihat, MaTx did not acciden l ~ lIy 1) begin wilh a non-slrict 0 deduction of this Iheorem (from MacLaurin 's "Algebra "), reduced 1 a simple empi ri cal generlllisalion oC the observations related to the cases when 11 " 2,3"""",6 (where 11 is the index of po wer of the binomial ); 2) locate aner Ihat, a proof, in which it is obtained conver.;ely, as II partic ular instancc of 11 more generallheo rem (aOO ul the producl of binomials of the Iypc (:1' + a), 1 :s i~ /I ) and which Ihus, convincingly teve~ ls the reason of ils validily ; 3) later on go over to Ihe va rious modes of extendi ng the theorem 1 lhe instances of fractional and negative n, 0 encounlering the rein Ihe problematique connected wilh the infini te powered sericscs and Ihe modes of ca lculating Iheir ~sum"; and 4) in spite of his disaffection 1 ari lhmetic -about which 0 Ma rx sa id Ihat he "never felt III home" with il - having met with questions of computational mrtlhcmllli cs, he did not re~ent the la bour of searching for the materia ls, connected wilh Ihe a lgorithms fo r operating wilh the deci mal fra ctions, and made a specia l inserlion in his noles, regarding these algorithms" T stands 1 reason, all by i!Self. Ihat Ihe qUeslions of convergence, and of has tening Ihe t 0 convergence, of an infinite nume rieal series, are also to be met with in Marx-s conspectus, in conncclion with the generalisalion of Ihe biOO{l"lia l theorem"




Since here all the ordinary

With the help o f this theorem approx ima te roolS of any kind may be ex tracted. But the series mus t be so construc ted, th,lt i t coflverged, It means, that the ser ies, which the binom ial theore m gives for the unknown root, converges, i.e", {the sum J of the first term + the 2nd, 3rd etc_success ive terms of the series co ns!.1ntly approximates to the root sought, and ca n be broughl as close as you wish to this quantity, such that taken in abso lute magnitude the m istake becomes sma ll er th an any given positive quan tity, when a su ffi cient number of terms of the series are tRken into co nsidera tion"



lIowever Marx 'S conspectus contains nO crilcrion fo r convergence. This. in spite of the fact that he examined a large numbe r of different lext books On ~lgcbrn. and ·complete" courses of mathematics: English, German and French , which C(Juld be obtained in England in the 60·70$ of the 1 cen tury. I-Io wever. he did not find a text book, whe re questions of Ihis sarI were discussed. 1151 Meanwhile, Marx used such manuals, 8S the highly specialised "Complcmc'l'" of Lacroix to his course on algebra. I1 is Ihis manual Ihat Marx used for the next point of his man uscript.

Part B) (sheets 57-63) consists ef five IlOin!s. The rirs! among them is devoted \0 Eu!er's generalisation of the binomial theorem for fractional and nega t; ~c indices of power_ Its source is Lacroi x's book :"Complement des element~ d'algebre", 4th ed., I'ari~, 1817, § 79. pp . 159-163.

11 starts with the words (sheeI57) :

"1) Euler gave Ihe following general proof of the billomial th eorem".
As Is well known,lhis proof is based on this: Iha! if thc series I +mz +
m(m -I) ~ 2 ;:-+etc. 1·

i$ considered as a new function of m , then the equality
f(m)- f(1I) - f(m + 11)

will express its characteristic property. In Bulcr the proof of this property is restricted to the following words : "Porma tion of the terms or th is product (ofthc series for f( m ) multiplied by the series for f(n)Jmust remain the same, irrespective of what sort of numbers are represcnted by 1he leuers m II nd 11 : integrals or, as you wish ". On this Lacroix comments. that such a proof did not satisfy ma ny mathematicians. In the 7th (posthumous) edition of 1863, after Ihis (pp 151 -1 S3) an in!.lucUve proof was adduced; it says that : the codficients of the prod uct of Ihe 5erieses for f(m) ftnd f( r.) are actually equal to the coefficients of the series for f(m + 11). In the 41h cd., used by Marx, on p.I60, instead of this proof a short explanation of Buler's idea is given. which reads in Marx's conspectus. as under. Having designa ted through P the product of the serieses
f(m) -l+mz+ m{m-I )

1.2 ' z + ··· ,f(1I)- l+n::+ ~2 + ...• \.2 l

Marx wri tes (sheet 57) :

This product se ries


Expanded according to the powers of z, it may be rep resented by the

P - 1 +Az+Bz2 +Cz3 + ... The coefficicntA, B, etc. , of nny term of this se ries depends upon the mode ofjoiniflg the terms oJ both the factors, fro m the first to that, which contains that very power of z . s ince these are the only terms, which participate in the formation of the terms of the product under consideratio n.The mode ofjoifling these terms does not chaffge, independently o f this or that vallle of m and fI; and that is why, if[thc terms of the product] are known in one case, where 111 and" are determinate mtmbers, lhen they are unknown in all tile other.
Having noted, that from tbis follows the necessary coinddence of the coefficienls of the series for the product of f(m) Ilndf(1I), witb the coefficienls of the series for f(m + n), Marx completed the exposition of Buler's proof according to Lacroix. Tben Marx made 11 summa ry of this entire material, by enuncia ting it once more, in a s horter form (sheets 58-60). He has put this summary withIn square bracke ts.

THE NOTE BOOK "ALGEIJRA 11" The fo llowing points 2) ilnd 3) (shect 60) of the conspectus lire devoted to the instances of irralionlll and imaginary indices of power. The source of these points could not be eSlablished (these instances have not been oonsidered in Lacroix). However,lhis source belongs enlirely althe level of 181h cenlury mathematics. Thus the proof of (1 +:) "' .. f(m) when m is an imaginary number (and m m(m-I) 2 wheref(m)iSlhebinomialseriesl+T: + 1.2 :r + ... ),;5 based in it upon the following reasoning: when m is integral and positive wc have
f(mr-[(m)· f(m)--f(m)j {(m ~m+ --· +III)J


m times
j(m)"'_f(m 2 )


m limel>


According 10 Ihe aUlhor, imaginary numbers are mere imaginary objects. Thllt is why the re is nothing 10 prevent us from imagining that, such a rule holds good also for them . But then we shall have (since for negative m the theorem is already proved)
j(V-f).r-f _ j(V-T 2) _ j( -I) _ (1

+zr' ..

(1 +z) r-T. r-r ,

, V-' } I.e /I,m'" ..

( 1 +z )V-r ..r;:r .

By, equally formally, raising the power of both Ihe sides of the f(

cqu~lily by ~, wc sh~11


r-rF' - ( I + z)----w:-;:-- ..


r-T . -r-r

.r-f (I + z)· •

(1 + z).r.:r .. j(-.t=IT.

i.e., Ihe theorm is valid for m .. V-f. lIere Marx abtuptly stopped taking notes. Appa rently, he did nol think thHt it WHS necessary to take down this kind of a "proof", further . Ma rx gave his point 4Xsheets 60-62) tbe hellding :- 4) TranSformation of the binomial series for fra ctional or negative indices of power&. It is devoted 10 the elucidation of the types of coefficienls or an eXpllnsion and, 10 the calculations simplyfying thcir transformation. In point 5) (sheet 63) e ntitled ;-5) t"ambert'sformula /orappraximation Lllm ocr\'s method, of cll1cu!~ting rOOIS of numbers with the help of succcssive approximation, is enunciated. An analogous exposition is found in the courses of :Hind ,"The EJemenls of Algebra", 4th cd., 1839,§259, pp. 230-231 and, lIall, ~lhe Elements of Algebra", 1840, §165, pp. 225-226. However, it apI>Ca r.; that none o[ these courses served li S the source of Ma rx·s conspectus here : Marx's no tlltions and calcUla tions are different.
M ,

The last paft o[section III under the title : -Ad. DJ Something elementary from Euler on binomial theorem "(sheets 63-68) consists of two points. In point I) Marx look notes from §§3S8,3S9(pp. 11 7-119), chapter X I of Euler 's "Elements of Algebm" , devoted to the algorithm of ClIlculating the coefficients of the expansion fo r {a + bt, when n is integral and positive. Here Mar=< also reproduces the corresponding translator's foot-note (on pp. 118-119) from the 1822 English edition of the book: - Elements of Algebra by Leonhard Euler, translated from the French with two notes of M. Bernoulli. .. and the additions of M.de la Grange. 3rd edition, by the Rev. John Hewlet!..:, 10 which is prefixed a memoit of the life and characte r of Euler, by Ihe late Frands Homer, Esq ., M. P., London, 1822". Thai is why, ..... e may think that it was this edition which Mar=< had at his disposHI.



The translator's fool-nateon pp. 118-119
e ' coer"Clenl 0 f a 'b'~'m I e orm 0 r



to Euter's mode of representing lhe

, (n! ) . based on Ihc facllhal the term 0 'b" conta ins p! Il-P ! 11 letters, out of which n! permulalions may be made, such that, all pcrmulations related only 10 the leucrs a (1I1logclhcr there are p of these letters) or only to the letters b (of Ihem allogclher there are 11 - P }.giveollc Hlld the same result. On lhisscore the Iranslalorcommc nls,lhat il is better to use the [ormula for Ihe number of combinalions from 11 elements tak.en p III a time, Le.,
n (n-l) ... ,(n-p-tl) i t hen he I" [ustrale d Ihc apl",callon 0 f Ih,s ~" ' p , binomial cocfficienls [or" equal 10 7 and 4.


rormu "a

or ca ' " aliOS Ihe eu

Having take n down Ihis comment and tben representing the expansion for (a + bt in the form:
a~ ? na" _I -,


b' + It (n _ I ) a" - 2 - b + n(n _ l)(n _ 2) /I~ -] - - + etc., Marx commented (s heet 66):


1' 2 '3

And so after this in Tay/or's theorem there appears as the derived functions o[ x If:

n(n-l)x,,- 2, n(II-1)(n-2)x"-3 •...•

meanw h'l "1 ' le "



Jrl '. 1 . 2 . 3 etc. figure instead of the 2nd term h, i.e .• the denominators,

to be more precise, the fra c tions [the powers of ] h.




1'~' 3 etc. appear as the numerical coefficiellts of

Point 2) has the title: · 2} /rra/ional powers·. It contains notes take n from §§36 1·369 of chapter XII (~Oll representing the irrational powers by infinite serieses~) and §§370,373, in part 1375 of cbapter XIII (~,On the expansion of negative powers") of the same book of Euler. Ma rx sub·divided this poinl, in its turn, into points al, j3) and y). In point a), Va+Jj is expanded accord ing 10 Newton's binomiallheorem (§364) in the form of

~ • .fii ?1.b.fii _1.lb2 .fii +l..!. .~bl ra _.!.J. .~.~ b',IQ 1 3
2 a





+ etc.


In point 13) is considered the case, when a is the square oC a rational number c, Le., when in the righ t hand side of the equality (1) "there is no sign of rool": all terms of the series are rational (§365).Euler's example, wherein the first two terms of this series are used for approximate calcul~tion of ,fO (by the method of successive approximation), was noted by Marx in all its 4801 . details, right UplO the obtaining, for this TOOl, of the approxImate value 1%0' the square of which is greater than the number 6 only by

384~600 (§366).



also contains an

extension of this method for approximate calculation of the roots of any power n ,where n is integral and positive, and a reference - marked by a half box C - to the general method of approximate calculation of roots, published by Halley in the· Philosophical Transaclions~ of 1694. (This reference is found in the foot-note, with whieh Euler brought his chapter XII to an cnd .)

13) (sheel68, Marx's p. 48) with the following comment : Stating all this in the MElements of Algebra", Euler does not specially take up the
Marx completed his poi nt

expansion of (a + b)7r without which he can manage, since (a+brfr _

\y(a+b)"', here he

nlE f'JO'IE UOOK "ALGt;B/M 11"


expands (a + b)'" and

{/(a + b) ; on the contrary,


wc saw, his lllcurclit:al JClhlction provides

a specia l proof ror th e case, when (a + b)'" or [(Ill) Poinl y) is relaled 10
ch~pl er XIII

hinomial Iheorem for thu negative

of Euler's oook, i.e.,

10 Ihe

index of power. Here the coefficienls of the expansion for (0 + ")_J are computed (§373) and. a comment is made to Ihe effect, that the mulliplication oflhe right hand side of Ihe cqUlllity
I l b b l bl b - l M b 6 - - - - -3 - +6--10-+15 - - 21-+28-.









(0 + b)l actu<llly gives the resu!1 1 (as i\ s hould hc, if equality (2) is v~lid, since

- 1 - ) . (a+W- I) . (0'" b)

With this, the section of manuscript 3933 devoled 10 the billomilll lheorcm comcs 10 its cnd. On Ihe last shcel of this section, Marx wrote 48 instead of 68; appilrenll<lY it is a cllse of ~ li p of [)Cn. That is why Ihc numeralion of the shcelS Iha! follow difrer from thilt of Mrtrx by + 20. Sheet 69 ( Marx's sheel 49) begins wilh Ihe following sentences, (:on tentwisc rclalcd only 10 cue of the 1 9ter pages (sheel 73) of the text:

(Pure] imagil/UI)' quantifies. 2 imagi1lary qualllrlie:..·, being mutua fly multiplied, give a real qualllily; but {Ill jmagillalY, multiplied by a real one, always gives all imaginmy quantify.
The entire remaining lext of manuscript 3933 (sheets 68 ·92) is ;1 note IIIken from Mncl.auril"& "Treatise (If Algel,rll· . Mlirx gave it the title; "From M IJcl.lluri" '.~ 11 I[;<:hl"a·'. The con~peclus begins with chapler XlV o f the aforementioncd hook (from the prc\'iolls chAJl I c:r~, devoted to thc Il lgebuie opera tio ns with polynomiRls and In Ih.: ~Olulioll c.f clju3hon~ of ri(~1 find second dc.''!.ree, Marx took nolCS only of the l,rorcmentk~ned §§4247, rcllllcd to Ihe binomi .. l theorem) . Poi nl I) of Ihis note bears the litle ~ Of surds", i.e., lhc same ~s tha\ of III is entjre c hllpler of M a..:L'urin .111c.~ notes hilVe been t... ken from §§92·1()<l {pp. 9·\· 104) lino § 117(p.JOQ) (in Mux's not.:s - I)P.<l9-5 1. sheets 69-71 ) . Here tbe h.~uc... arc; the concepls of commen:;umbil ity and ineommcnsurlIbility; Eucl id's ali,'O ritilm for <;(:arching rhe gfCdlcst common measure; divisibility of num bers, Ihal the quadralic or clliJic WOl (lf il whole number C:,ll only be a whole or irralionl1l number; commensurability in \xlwer alld comple.~ loInds; IInd rhe existence or slIc h pHticular instilrlces, in which tilc I"ruduclS ()r complex surd~ are r~tiunlll. M"cLaurin oosed the proof, that if lhe algorilhrn ror seeking the grelllest common mCllsure of two magnitudcs a :tnd b (b < u}docs no l come to an end, then these rllagllil\!dcs IIrC incomme nsurable, upon the well known proposition I of book X of Euclid's "ElcIIlClllS· . (11 is well known, HmI this proposition - accord ing 10 which, if fro m a magnitude mo re Ih~n hall is subtracted, from the remainder more Ihan its half elc., then upon continuing Ihis process, we may obtain as re ma inder Il magnitude, smaller than any magnitude givclJ in IIdVl\nce - lies at the b<lse of the method of exhaustion, Ihe anc ient fore·runner oC Ihe method of Iimils). Namely, MllcLuurin shows 8t first, Ihat if then bm > c ,owi ng \0 which

-Im, + c( wher.: 0 < c < b and, m is a whole numher).

e <.!./for, in



wo rds,



slIC'.cessi vc

remainders in Euclid's algo rilhm so diminish,that ellch of them turns OUl IO be smaller





of [he pre-pr<:v;ous one. Hence Mnc Llturi n concludes. that [he any mllgnitude given in IIdvancc. rlalc!!. He writes (shecI 69) :


become slnltl!er than

I n Ihis COnle,,;!, there is no reference 1 Euclid in M lIcL<lurin. M arx gi ves Ihis refe rence in his 0

Subtracting Crom any magnitude, more than its half, from the rest more than its half etc., we s hal l arrive a t a remainder < any ass ignable magnitude (Euclid).
In conncclion with whal he read, Marx made [he commenl (which he placed wit hin a box).

wherein he stressed tha I, the inequality c

<1 a

follows from the fact, that c < b and m ~ L [n

adr.lition, Marx adduced a further argument, i n defence ofthis, th al if b is not the common measure

for a and b, Ihen the inequality c < 1. a is strict: 2

But had it been Ihe case that

c .. %, thcna-mb",,%,a -%- mb hence • -- mbor 2


a - 2 mb . wh ich con tradicts what been assumed.
Marx did not take notes from §§ 110-116 •. related to formal tra nsformations of the expressions containing radicals. Having taken notes from § 117 - in. which the problem raised is : to seek [or a given com plex expression, contai ning radicals, an expression o f the same type, which being multiplied by the giver., gives a product, not containing radicals - Marx writes in brllcKets: Wconl;nt/QI,'o n Ill/ er" .I lowcver, this continuation is nOlto be [ound in the liner part of this note: M~rx did not take notes frum the paragraphs oontaining the solution of the problem raised, [or certain particular in~tan<X's . 111en follows the notes from the first five chapters of MacLaurin's -Algebra\ unde r the titJe:"Tlleory 0/ eqllations according to MucLallrin ". The contents of these chapters and of the correspondi ng sections o f Marx's conspectus arc as fo llows . • The issues in chapter 1 arc :"obtaini ng" equations of higher degrees by multiplying some equations of the first two degrees; solution of equations of highe r o rde rs as an inve rse prOblem co n~i s lin g of representing them in the form of products of t he equations of thefirsttwodegreesj and "the nnmber of roots, which an eqnation of any power may have" . Chapler 11 is devoted to the question of connection of Ihe number of chllllges in the


coefficients of an equa tion with the number of its positive and negative(rea l) roots (Dcscartes'

rule 0/ signs) and of the other dependencies between its roo ts and coefficients .
Chftpter 11 1 is abou t the transformation of equations and the removal of their intermediate te rms. In chapter IV the search for the multiple roots of an equation, and in chapter V the boundaries of the roots of an equation, have been discussed. In this note book the conspectus o f chapter V does not come to an end. It contin ues in a new note book (see below mllnuscript 3934). Marx took notes from chapter I (§§l - U ,pp. 131-138) in full (sheets 71·73, pp. 51-53 in Marx's numera tion). MacLau rin begins il (§2) wilh the constru ction of an equation according to ils roots, noting therein, that if all the roots are equal, then the problem is reduced to what has al ready been

TI-IE NOTE 0001<




considered: to involution, i.e., to raising the binomial in power; the o pposi te task of seeking the roots of an eq uation obtained, also tu rns out to bea ease of what has alrclldy been considered : of

evolution, Le., of extracting the root. However, if the roots of an cq\l~tion He equlIl, then we find
ourselves facing a new inverse tas k: solution of equations. In his nOles Marx puts it this way (sheet 71,Marx's p.51):

Or e lse, if the equalions multiplied are different, the equatio ns generatcd thcreby are no t powers [or binomials]; that is w hy, their expansion into tile simple equation, fro m which they arose, is an operat ion different from extractioll of roots and, it has its own name: resolutioll of equatimtS (resolut ion exp resses the same thing as solution).
In this con nectio n Mar" notes below (sheet 72, Marx's p. 52) within squa re brackets:

[[Here it shou ld be no ted, that in applicat io n to equatiol1s wc c hoose a pat h, opposite to that along which wc we nt, expandil1g the bil1omiallheol'em (a nd the theory of combina tio ns, upon w hich it is based) ; in the la te r case we start w ith the binom ials with d iffcren t second te rms, in order 1 go over[to those] , whose bo th terms are sa me; he re we cOlls ider at first 0 (s ub2) a g ive n equation , m ultiplying which, by itsel f, we get an equation o f higher order; and after that we go over to the equations[co rresponding 10 binomialsl, which have the samc unknown, but diffe rent second terms. Since the in itia l equatio ns are so w ritte n thal all the terms nf them arc on o ne side, and on the o ther s ide - 0, so here also, whe n equa tio ns oC higher powers emerge, the issue is, as befo re, only about the multip lica tion of the binomials 2 by 2 . 3 by 3 C lc.11
Dy - multiplication of the binomials· here he means: represen ta tio n of the product
(x 4 t)

(.t - a1 )'"

(x - a.), whcre, at, u: • ... • a., 3rc the roots of the unknown equlltion, in the

form of ~ 1 )Olynomia t, exp.1nded according to the powe r~ of the unknownx. The conspectus of chapter 11 ( MacLauri n, part 11, ch. 11 , §§ 12- 21,pp. 139- 147;shcets 73·76, Marx's pp. 53·56) contains three observations of Marlt, of which the second is of special inlere,~t, since (rom it, it is clear, that Marx hlld some
Lc~ons i nfor m ~tio n

abou I Ihe works of Cauchy.

Unfortunlltely, the source of Ihis information (:Qu ld not l'Ot: established . [Thi s source could be :
Moiglz F., o

de c.11cul difCcrenticl et de clllcul


rtdigtcs d 'a pres Ics mc thodes et les

Ol1vrages publics no te ss ).-Tr. J


inedits de Mr . L.A.Cauehy. 2 vo l. , Paris, 1840 et 1844 . (sec,


66 and

The first observation is related to §§J2-13,which Mac Laurin begins with the consideration of the "product of any num ber of simple
equations ~ ,

in ordet


Ihu5 proceed to the conctusion

thal : I ) the power of the equation th us obtained iscqualto the number of its rools, 2) the number of te rms of the eqUAtion is greater tha n its power by one and, 3) the coeffi c ients of these terms are symmetric [unctio ns of the roots of the multiplied ·si mple· equations (sums of the products .of these rools taken o ne, two c lc. at time, with the signs + or - depending upon the evenness of the number of the factors of the products added) - then 10 extentl it to Hny equation of highe r power, withou t tlwclling upon the question of legi timacy of such e xtention. In this conncdion Marx writes (sheets 73-74,) Marx's pp. 53-54):



[[These two rules, as well as the format io n of coefficien ts a nd lhe c hange of signs, in so far as all these a re deduced from the multi plicat io n o f (x - a) "" O. (x - b) - 0 • (x - c),.. 0 • (x - d) - 0 etc, i.e. from the mUltiplication of the binomials (x - a) , (x - b) , (x - c) , (x - d) etc., are nothing new in comparison 10 the developme nts in the binomial theorem, and correspondi ng ly . to that in the th eory of comb inat ions. ]]
Hellving written, after this, the expressions for the cocffic.:ients of an equation through its roots, Marx made the second comment (sheet 74,Marx's p. 54):

{[Thus emerge the sym metric equations . As many of these can be co ns tru cted, as o ne But from this, it s till by no means follows, that every givcl1 cquation mllst have a root, as MacLaurin, evidently, would have it. The proof late r on proposed by Cauchy , seems doubtfu l. Jl

Marx's third observation (shcet 76, Marx's 1'. 56) is rcliltcd to the Carlesian m!e of signs, connecting the number of changes of signs in the successive coefficients of

equation (with

the independent terms other than zero) with the number of positive roots of the equation. In §19(pp 144-145) MacLaurin formulates this rule liS follows (without stopping to cons ider the "impossible" roots of lln equation, "positive or negative", taking them liS unders tood): "The number of positive roolS of any equation is equal to the numbe r of changes of signs of its term from + 10- or from- 10 +; the remaining roots arc negative". However, he proves the validity of this assertion only for the quadratic and the cubic equations, with the help oflln
corre.~pondjng examin~tion

of the possible particular instances ([or example. when the

equation has the roots n, b, -c (a, b, c > 0) and a + b > c or a + b < c) and by operating upon the inequalities. Herein the equations are so considered, that as if all their roots could only be rea!. In spire of the absence of any kind of reference to the mode of generalising these arguments, MacL1urin concludes his arguments with lhe comment (p. 147)'lhat, "the slime mode of argument may be extended!O tile equations of higher degree, and the rule, mentioned in §19 may be applied to all types of equatiuns" . [n his comments, placed not only within square brackets, but also within a box, Marx re(1ected upon the idea of II general proof of di[ftculty. I-Ie wrote:

rule (formUla ted without the assumption of "positive"

or "negative" complex numbers) in Ihe light of on example, which may be


Suppose f(x) .. 0, where f(x) is a [complete] po lyno mial ; let its signs be + + + + + (1) +
{A polynomial (/o"r" + a!x~-! + . . + an_IX + a" is called "complete", if all its coefficients a re different from zero. We Shll!! be able to ca!! the equation f{x) ... 0 "complete", if fix) is a complete polynomial .]

Let us introduce into the equation a new root m ; then it w ill be necessary to multip ly [(x) by (x - m), and if wc write down o nly the signs obta inab le when multiplied [by -m ], then we shall have (2), j [ m is positive; hencef(x)· (x - m):




If 1I)

+ + + + +
± ±

+ +
± ±

+ + + + ± + ±

+ + +

(l) (2)

;s negative i.e.f(x) is to be multiplied by (x + 111). then (3)

+ +

+ + +

+ +



+ + + + ± +


+ +

(1) (3)


orthe results in J) and IT) with (1) gives
, +

+ ± Depending upon which of the two signs + o r - will take the place of the equi vm:a l s ign ± • we shall get, if wc put for ± here [everywhere J + : (1) + + + + + + (I) ++~++++ + +


+ +



+ +


If wc put [everywhere] - :





in both the cases there will be one challge of sign more sub I) and also in comparison sub 11) [at least] one more continuation of the same sign. a) Hence, eve ry additiona l positive root entails, at least 1 addiliollai change oJ sign, and every additional negative root - at least! additional continuation of the same sign. b) That is why, the number of positive roots of an equation can II0t be more thalllhe number

of challgel' of sign, and the number of negative roots not 'inore than the number of continuations of sign, c) If all lite roots are real, then the number of positive roots= the /lumber of changes ill sigil, and the nu mber of negative roots= the number of continuation of s ig n (co ns tancy
of sign).

box. wc reHd in M(ltx's hHnd, (sheet 76, bol1om):

[,[What has been put wi thin l 1 in this nOle~book, beginning with p .49,under the . titlc"From MacLau rin's Algebra", does nol belong to MacLaurin.Jj
This observa tion, placed inside a box, is clearly of cursory Hod provisional n~lurc . In pMticular, not every thing in it has been stipulated i"; full . However, it is eleHt lhal, lhc.,smallest number of c.hanges in sign as 11 result of the addilion of a positive root (i.e., in inslance I) will lake place. when we s h••lI subslilUle all Kequi vocal- :2: signs everywhere by one and the SHme sign plus or minus ' . Thal is why, even if under such substitutions the number of changes of sign is increasc(] by one HS Hresult, lhen it is incrCIIsed at least by one, ~Iso in the other cases. Thus the .. In the case.... when in some of the places occupied by the signs :2: ,zcroe.... are found, the number of changes in I;ign will not be less, Ihan in the cases when all.1:: signs are changed only by + or only by _. - Ed.


DCSCRIP' nON OF TIlE MAnmMA11CAL MANUSCRIPTS vcriticatiorl conducted by Marx,

quile sufficient. Since the Ilumber of negative roots of the

equation fix) _ 0 is CqUl11 10 the number of posilivc roots of the cquil1ion fe-x) .. 0 and, if it is complete, Ihen every const~ncy of sign in fix) mutua lly univoClllly corresponds 10 Ihe changes of sign in f( -x), and here Marx slUdics only the complete equations, so thcobservatioll within the box is fully valid, also in application to the negative rools, though, apparently, it has been suh~lnnliated directly (in a way armlogous 10 what has been done for the positive rooIS.) In the nexl rmge 57 (Sheet 77) MMx nalurally rclurns once morc to the last poinl of his observation within the box, in connection with the notes of the rule for the tmnsformation of an equation, whose roots differ only in signs, from the roots of a glvcn equation (Milcl ...1urin iilustrMes these roots in thc light of the equation _ rl-xl-19x2+49x-30 _ 0, transformable into


x4-!-xl-19x2-49x-30 _ 0;
sce, ch. Ill , §23, p.148). The

is marked on one side by the sign E . lIere he writes :

[[It is very s imply explained from (point c) placed within [ ] in the previous page. Roots of (1) were + 1, + 2, + 3, -5 ; lhe three positive roots correspond to three changes in s ign in (1), from the first term to the 2nd, from the 3rd to the 4th, and frOIll 41 h 10 5th. To the one negative root -5, corresponds onc constancy of the sign, namely, in the 2nd and the 3rd terms :(-x3 -19x2 ). Challgillg the signs into their opposites we gel the roots - 1, - 2, - 3, 5; that is why, 3 conSl.1. ncy of s igns; onc : (+.l..4 + xl), and 2, na md y : (- 19x2 - 49x - 30); meanwhile for one positive root 5 one ehange of sign, from the 2nd term to the 3rd : (+ x 3 - 19xi ).J]
Chapter III (§§23-32, pp.138-161) contains furthcr rules: for transforming cquations, permitting increase (and correspondingly decrease) in all the TOots oran equation by onc and the same num1)('.f e; "for freeing" an equation of the 2nd (genemlly of any intermediate) term, by multiplying all its rools by a given number, by cha~ging it into an cquiv~lcnt equation. with the coefficient of the old term, equal to one; and "for freeing~ an equ~Tion of fr<lctional coefficients, by changing it into such 11n equation, whose roots are opposite of those of the given. Man: noted (sheets 78-83, Marx's pp. 58-63) all these in fulJ.1t does notcont~in any comment ofM1'Irx (which is not purely computational in character). The matter stands otherwise with ch~plcr IV. Mllrx's interesl in th e algebraic origins of differentilll C!1lculus prompted him to pay special attention 10 this chapter devoted to the algorithms for searching the multiple roots of an equation. The conspectus of this chapTer contains a number of Marx's critical comments. Most of them arc comments in the margins. Such, for instance, are the following: I. MacLaurio reduced the question of searching the multiple roots of ao equation, 1101 equal IQ zero, into the question of searching The mulTiple roots of another equation, equal 10 zero, for this the given equation is transformed, by substituting in it, y -!- e for x. Herein he explain!' that, in order to write the last (frce) term of the transformed cquation, it is cnough to substitute e [or x in the initial equation. Having noted this Marx adds (.o;heet84, Marx's p.64);

[[Le., to make e a rool of x, which M:u.:Laurin does not say.1J
11. MacLaurin explains the rule forohTillning the other terms of the tTilnsformed equation from its free term, lit first only in the light of some examples (without a general formulation) (§34, pp.163-164). After that he writes, that "its proof is easy to generalise" with thc help of the binomial

'1lI!! NOTR OOOK • ALG!!llItA Il"

mnrks)~ "

theorem. Puning the quolllt ion from M;u:Laurin (wi th in quolMion "p.164", Marx commen ts (shcet 84. Mnrx's p. 64):

il1dicating the l').1gc:

(fIn reality he re we do n't havc a ny kind o f proof, only a fa ... 1 i... s lated . 11 is observed when correct comput<ttional opc rations arc performed.}l
Ill. From the following eXlr~CI from his conspectus of ( §36,p. .i"5 of M;;cl..-IIurin ), the characler of Ihis sort of comments of Marx becomcs cspcci;llIy cle~r. Here we reproducc it in [ull (sheet 85, Mafx's p. 68) :

4) Le t us ass ume now, that 2 values of x are cqual 1 each tll her and al so to e. f[ A very 0 helpless expression for the fact, that x has 2 val ues e. 11 the n the 2 va lues of y will be _ 0 in the tra nsformed equation, s ince y . x - It [fit should have been noticed already as the equation in It turned o ut to bc identic<l l with the initiHI onc in x. Fro m the vc ry begin ning it is said that, si nce x - y + e (o r what is the sa me, y .. x - f! ) , thcn x may be equal to e, only if y - O. Tha t is why, if the initial· equal ion has 2 val Llcs e fo r x, then 2 timcs y - O.JJ
Two longer ob:.crvalions of M~,.( ilre of iI di L Tercnt c harncter. T hey come directl y, o ne afte r [he o lhe r, on sheet 87 (~nd end up on sheet 88, Marx's 68,althe topmoslline; in [he photocopy of sheet 87, the numbering in Marx's h~nd i~ not viSible). lIere first of all Milrx ex presses his bewilderment al M!lcLaurin's failure to notice Ihe conneclion between the method of seeking the multiple rools of an equation and diITerentiation . The text is ma rked by E sign on onc side. 1 ·le writes :

[[Most astonishing is the facllhat MacLaurin, who discoverd this method of searching the equal roots oJ (Ill equaliol~ and applied prec iscty the same method in differcntial ca lcu lus for expanding ill series the fun elio n/ (x), given in a gene ral fo rm, ncver eve n mentioned, that he re the rule Jor s uccess ive deductioll o f derived equations has been algebraically proved, so that if the original equation is; I) X4 _ px3 + qx 2 _ rx + s- 0 - J(x),

11 ) 4x' - 3pX2 + u/X - r - 0 - ['(x) ;
!ix2 - 3px + q - 0 - [,,(x);

Il l)

actually 1a2 - 6pJ." + 2q directly divided by 2, gives 6x 2 - 3px+ q ;

IV) ac tually

4x - P - 0 - ['''(x); la - 3p , divided by 3, gives 4x - p;

V) 4(-"') - 4 [ since -'" - 1 J - [W(x) . This last olle is no more all equalioll, but still it is the last product oJ that differelttialion, thorough whieh these equations were algebraically deduced .]]
Marx's second commen t con tains a criticism of a suspected mistake of Mnc Lau rin. The issue is Ihis : it is true Ihatal firs l Mad.aurin did not use general expressions for and only in Ihe light of some examples explai ned his idea , Ihat if the equation
}"' +O ,>",-1+02 }"'·1+ ••.

+u._2 y1 +0._l y+a.- O

has two roots equal to zero ( Mad.aurin wrote "two values· of y , "eqllfll 10 nothing"), then in ils left hand side Ihe polyno mial musl have as factors (y - 0) and (y - 0), i.e., musl be of Ihe form • Here is a slip of pen in fhe manuscript; instead of "initial", he re he wro te "tra nsfo rmed". -



M yl (where /If is 11 pOlynomial). hence it follows Ih:lllhc cocmcicnls a .... J and a. m ust be equal 10

lIowever, in MllcLllu rin's - Al{,"Cbrll " the way in which Ihis idea has been expressed is such, tha t it is no l always dea r to the reader, liS 10 wha t, namely , lhe author wishes 10 say. In applica lio n 10 thcequa lion .r' - pxl "," qr - r_ 0, upon havi ng the mul tiple root x • e(l.c .• w he n th e substi tution x .. y + e i ~ made ) and ge tt ing il trans formed in to 110 equa ti o n wi th the nlU lliplc rool y .. 0 ., MacLllurin write." ;

" In so fa r liS wc

a s~unlC



e, Ihe 111s1 term of the transformed cqua lion, i.e.,
pcnulli nlfllc term, i.e.,

tJ- p~"," qe - r, vanishes. And since the two values uf y vlInish, the

3e1y-2I'Q ... qy will vanish III Ihe same lime, liO that Jc2-2pe i- q-O "(p. 166).

I-Iowever, the words" two values of y vanis h" have no exact meaning. If we impa rt upon the vlHiable y the value zero two limes, then it obtains one va lue (zero), Hnd not two. Instead of s ayi ng that a ( transformed) equation has two "roots· , equlIl to zero (Le., its left hand s ide is ex pa nded into factors, amongst which (y - 0) appears twice), MacLaurin speaks (he re) of two ·values" of y , equal to zero. It is not surprising tllll! such a substitution of the wo rd "root" by the word ·value", would gi ve Mnrx the (wro ng) impression, Ihal MacLaur in simply concludes llooul lhe equa lity of zero wil h the expression 3t:1 -2pei-q from the equality of zero with Ihe expression :k1y _ 2pt:y + qy when)' .. 0, and that MacLa urin made a crude mis take. Ma rx's second comment (sheet 87) shows Ihat he really had such 1111 impression. l ie plllced il within squa re brnckets Ilnd it ;s related to I.he immediA tely next point of MaeLaurin's p.166: "If a biquadratic equa tion is proposed,namely x·1 - px) + q.'(2 §34 is reduced
- I "X

+ s" 0, II nd two of its roots lire

equal, Ihen upon the assu mption that e -x, two of Ihe values of y must vanish and lhe equat ioll in the following form:

lAI issue he re is the equation obtllined upon the substitution of x .. y i- e, from the equation

r - px3 i-qx1- rx +s -0 . ]

y' -

4<1 • -p - 3p<1 - o. I · ql


So that 4e l - 3pe1 + 2qe - r .. 0, or since x .. e,

4x' -3p.r i- 2'lx - r- 0 ".
In his observ ation Marx wrole (the text is marked by a line on one s ide) :

[[That MacLaurin, in his demo ns tra tion, as we saw above, perm illed a c rude blunder, is expressed in s lim by th e racttha t he says : If y k 1kes the va lue 0 second time, then [ra m the re it fo llows, that its first coefficie nt [[ s ince y tiDes no t fi gure in the firs t derived equation, )"'- lJ] is equal 1 zero. This is but playing wilh Ihe wo rd " va lu e~. 0 If in (4& - 3pe"2 + 2qe - r) y, the value o f y ... 0, then it designates, a ccord ing to all the rul es o f d ed uction, tha t we the n have (4e3 - 3pe2+ 2qe - r )· 0, whe re in place o f y its value 0 has been put ; but the reby its coeffic ient vll nis hes, no t beca use it is itself equa l to zero, but because it has a factor 0 ... y. However, wc s ho uld o blain 4e3 - 3pe 2 + 2qe - r _ 0, and that is wh y Ihe equation is to be divid ed by the factor y - 0



(since y _ 0 gives (y - 0) as a factor of the equatio n), i.e ., by y 15S, and thell th e co-cfficient of

y, as a term o f the transformed exp ressio n, w hich _ 0, a lso becomes,., 0, independently of
y !S6, It is understandable, fhat the divisio n by y ill all equati()/I _ 0, where each term has as u factor some power of y, is accomplishuble. But if we divide first time by y , the n y 1>,2! ya wil l be the corresponding fa ctors of th e three remaining terms; if we divide once more by y, then y,y2 wi ll be the fa ctors of the two remain inglcrms; a nd if we d ivide for the last tirh.t by YI then the re remains only y with the coefficient 1. 11
13)' Ihe words "as wc saw above", Marx here indicalcd ~n analogoos commen t, which he made earlier, in connection with the question of the muHirle roots of the c ubic equation ~ qx - r - O(Mnd.aurin, I'arlll, §§33, 36). Transformation of his equation by substituting y +- c: for x, where 11 is H root of the o riginal equation, gives, since p e1 + qll - r .. 0,


yl_yl. 0; +q P ~nd in (;unnection with the comment of Macl.Aurin, that if· two values of y v.1nish then the co-efficien t of y (i n thi! transformeu equation) "also mUSI vHnish" (p.166), M'lr.'( wrote the following (sheet, 85-86, Marx's pp. 65- 66):




e' -



Here 3e'2 - 2pe + q by no means becomes _ 0, because Y has a 2nd vlIlue = 0, fo r lhe equal ity with zero o f the produc t of 3e2 - 2pe + q and 0 [[ this 0", y ]] does not prove, that the cocfrlciertl of 0 is a lso 0, or e lse every thing wo uld be 0, since evcrything be ing mulliplied by 0 beco mes - 0, The ract that some second value of y '" 0, is translated by MacLau rin, as deSignating that the coefficient y must be equal to O!


In Ihe same page, Marx wrote lower down:

I f in an cq up.tion in x o f the 4th power (equation 1) there are two equal roots and e .. x, i.c., x'" y + e - y + x, he nce y - 0, then the two values of y (it should ha ve been said: two coefficients o f l yand J y) must vanish ...
Thus, he re too, Mo1rx raised an objeclion Hgainst MacLllurin 's use of the word "value ". (Equali ly with zero ofa coefficient of y is a

of the fact, thal 0 isa mulliplcrool orthe equation.

and not simply a second "value" of y.) Taking noles from the next, firth chHpter of MacLa urin's "Algebrll",Marx not only completed some calculations omitted by MacLau rin, but also illustrated his arguments by examples, which arc not there in MacLaurin. Thus, M~rx examines the proximation of the boundaries of the roots of an equation, in the tight of the
equ~ 'ion

x 3 _ 2x2 _ 5 _ 0,
which is not there in MacLaurin. That is why, it is nalUral to think, Iha l having read MacLaurin, Marx turned to some other lilerature, conlaining rurlher development of the questions considered by Mllculurin. Marx himself said Ilbout what of the equation.
h~d actu~l!y

happened. Thl.ls on p.64 (sl1eel.84),

althe very beginning of his notes from chapler IV of MacLauri n's book, on the transformation

x 3 _px2 +qx -,. _ 0
by substituting (y ... c) for x, Marx wrote (inside a box):




Successors of MaculUr in inve rted this, substituting in stead of (y + e) (for exmn p\c) (e + y) for x , so Ihat x3 turns into (e + )lp etc. Then in the above mentioned case the original equation is transformed into

- pc?



+ 3e' } -2pe

+3e} ..2 + 3_0. Y _p r Y

Apparently, Hall belongs 10 the rank of ~uch Hsucccssors of MacLaurin~. We already had an encounter with an extract from his "Elementli of Algebra ·, ;n conncClion with th e question offurthcr development of the algorithms of "involution" (raising the l)Ower, see pp.192-1'94 ). Ha ving noted the arguments, with the help of which MacL.IIurill proves, that the greatest absolute magnitude of the negative coefficients of ~In equati on (Hthc greatest negative coefficient ~), raised by onc, is always Ihe uPI>c r boundary of Ihe roOt5 of lhe equ~tio n , which he conducted in the lighl of Ihe example of Ihe cubicequ3tion

xl-,JXZ-qx-r -O
separately for all lhe Ihree cases, when successively p, q or r is this "greatcst negative
coeffjcienl~ , Marx gene ralised Ihis argument, clearly formulaling ils blIsic idea.

This nole book comes 10 an cnd with the following observlllion of Marx (sheet 92; it is no llhere in Macl..aurin);

[[In a complete equation, where not a s ingle tl!Jm is absent and the signs either remain unchanged, or successively lake turns, lihere] every root, ta ken by itse lf [ i.e., as an abso lute magnitude J, must be less than the coefficient p ; for the lauer is the sum of the roots, taken w ith the opposite signs; [or only th e positive (alteration of s igns) o r on ly the negative (constancy of signs) roolS, it is, conseq uently, g reater than eaeh rool.1]

It is a note book 011 algebra. It carries ne special title: and, it is 11 continulItion of ~Algebrll 11- (sce above: manuscript 3933). Sheets \-22; according 10 Mar"'s numbering 1-19, 23-25 . 'nll~ language is German; in places it contains English wo rds and ex press ions. Sheet 1. The notebook begins with the following observation of Marx, which, however, has the character of a summary of the text that follows :

[[5) The search for the real roots of a ll equation by finding lite limits of Ihe roolS has a sense onl y in that case, when the roolS arc irrational, i.c., arc no t whole numbers, and, hence, the values of the roots are represented only approxiinalely. If the equation is ratiol/al or commensurable, i.e., if its roots arc whole numbers, then they must be contained as factors in the la st term of thc equa tion = the product of all th e roots. That is why, this las t tcrm is to be expanded into factors, with the help of the method - explained ea rlier - of deducing from them those, which constitute th e roots. But if the eq uation is incommensurable, then thc following method, adduced by Mac.ulUri n [is to be considered ]. It consists of a transformation of the eqmllion, assuming x", y :t. k, hence y - x + k; here k rep resents the approximate root greate r or lesser th an x ; MacLaurin begins with the latter. Upon substitution of y + k for x, the transformed equa tion also becomes equal to zero, just like the initial onc; further, it is oJthe same degree; depending 0·" whether for X" we write (y + k)" or (k + y)", the last or the first vertical series l!i1 of the transformed equatio n beco mes an equation (where y is a factor only as),O) (it i:s bettcr 1 expa nd 0 it the way Lacraix does - as (k+ yr, s ince in the method of limits, every time you are 0 required to beg in with the term in le, namely : it is to bec3st away as equal 1 zero), in which k enters in the same way, as docsx in the in it ial equation, herc f(k) for J(x) , In fact, in Ih is equa tion k fi gures as a root of the origina l eq uation, for y + k - x j but here y - 0, hence, k .. x . That is why this equation cannot give any othe r limits, apart from the limits o f the equation itself, al ready furnished by the original equation, namely, thc limits o f thc posilive terms (as well as o f the negatives) and the limit 0 158 • JJ
Sheets 2·5, Hnd of the notes from chapter Vof MacLaurin 's "Algebra"(Cor its beginning sce Ihe note book "Algebra n", manuscript 3933). Sheets 5-8, Note5 from Chapter VI of MacLaurin's "Algebra". MHx gave it [he title:"l'JSolurion of ~quations with comm~nsu rab/~ roots". Sheets g.15.Conspcclus of chapter VII of MacLaurin 's" Algebra ". It carries the heading given by Marx: "G) Solutioll of equatiolls by {illding the equations of a lower order, which (lre its divisors". Sheets 15-19. Conspectus of the addition to chapter VII ofMaeL..:lurin 's "Algebra", Marx gave: it the heading : "H) ReiJuction of equations by irrational divisors· .MaTx began this nole with the following comment:

1) This chapter was not written by MacLau rin, bu t by the publishers Hto whom MacLaurin gave the manuscript on completion] ] :..Marlin Folkes (Pres ident of the Roya l SOciety), Alldrew Milellel and Rev, Hill, Chaplain of the Archbishop o f Canterbury. It is an explanation of the "Rule", which Newtoll gave on p. 264 of his Arithmetica UlIiversalis.



In this supplemcntary the issuc is : th e reduction of a n equll li o n of fourth degree + pr + qx:l + r.c + ~' .. 0 to an eq uation of the form
1 (Xl+ lPx+ Q)l ." (lex + 1)2

by finding the s ui table nume ri Cil I v/l lues for k,l , " and nn expression for Q through these numbers, Marx did not lake down the rule, according to which Ihis reduction is Cil tri cd o ut (pp, 213-214), lie directly began his notes from its substantiation, contai ned in p. 218 of MacLaurin's book. M ~rx nOled only the main parI of this sui.JsIl\ntiat ion, ending it with the words (sheets 17-18) :

That is why, if the corresponding values of 11, k, f, Q satis fy 1hese conditions, i.e., if they correspond to each other, then it is proved, that they have been correctly surmised and that by adding 11 (kt + 1) 2 10 the given equation it is comple mented to the sq uare (x 2 + ~PX + Q )2.
After this Mux notoo example 11 from M ~cLaurin (pp, 2 15-2 16), then example I (pp. 2.14 -2 15).1le did not take notes from exa mple III (pp. 21 6·217) and the enti re te)(t thut followed the sul)stnntiation, which is devoted to th e limits or particular instnnces of the rule. But M ~ r)( wrote; #cf further 011 pp. 216·2:!r. Apparently, he intended to return to this topic, once more. He lert three pages blnnk in thi s note hook ~nd continu r. d his notes from p. 23. Sheets 20-22 ( Marx's pp. 23-25). Notes taken from chapter VIII o{ MacLaurin 's ~ Algebra~. Marx gllve it the heading: "I) Solution of equoliOl/S accon/inG 10 Co rdo n '~. rll/e and an(llogy~. From this chapter Marx noted the firs t p,lrt rela ted to Ih~ soluti on of the c ubi c equati o ns and the e)(lraction of cubic. rools. §§ 82 IInd 83 o f chaptcr VI II , cevoted to the soluti on o f th e equati o ns of fou rth degree remains unnoted: here Ihe conspeclUf> of Mlld Jlul"i n 's ~ Al gc bra· abruptly COIllCS \0 an end. Marx never res umed it. S.lI.N.39JS In this archival unit a few smaller manuscripts have been joined together. Contcnlwisc they Me clo.~ to the mate rials noted by Marx in his no te books on algebra (sec manuscripts 3932-3(34). ln all there are 16 sudl s heets.
I . Sheets 1-2. Two sma ll sheets under the ruhri c ·VllI. Calculation of I..ogur;thm.f", l..{)nlentwisc they are dose to § 14 (pp. 15-19 in Marx's num hc ring) o r the no te book "A lgebra W . T hc language is Ellglish. Its source is tilt book: J.Hind , ~The Elements of Planc I"Ind SpheriCil I Trigonomelry K, 3 rd ed., Cambridge, 1837, ch. VII, §§ 161- 165, pp. 154- 159.

2. Sheets 3·6. Four sheels without a common title (mainl y calculations). They contain calculat ion oC the logarithms of numhers, Cillculation (If lhe cha ractcri~lics and manti s~ a ; ~nd furth er, repetition o{ the m~terials of Ihe two previous sheets. l .anguage - English. Its source is th e same book by Hi nd, chapletS: IV, §§ 89· 99 , pp. 67·78 and Vr!, §§ 161 ·177, pp. 154-167 (wi th a few omiSSions). 3. Sheets 7·10. Four cle~rly wrillcn \),1gCS. Marx numbered the m 1·4 . 1ille: · l1u~ D(J(;lrine of CO fllbinalio" .f H • It contains a few basic concepts IInd theorems of elcmen!ary combin6tori cs. I1 is sub-divided into the followi ng parIS: ~Gl!n(!rul· - containing three points :~ 1) The simplest starting poill/~, 2) here th e concepts of form IInd comple)(, higher and lower forms, o rdcr IInd cla ~ses of forms h:lVe been in troduced, 3) (:ontains formulat ion of the problems of combinal o ri c.~. Then follows the parts: ",\ ) Permutation ~ and - 8) Combinution ~. The notations arc the same, as in the Ilote-book "Algebrll l1'"(pp. 27-38 in Marx'S numbering). Language - GermAn; the source hll5 not l>cen established; contentwise it is somewhat proximate to the correspondin g pl'lrag rH phs of: M .AStern, ~ Leh(bucb der algebrllischen AO.l1 lysis· , 1860, and also to th e afore me nt ioned (se<: pp. 191-192) boo Y.~ by U.Thibllut and Fr.W. Spehr.



4. Sheets 11-13. Th ree sheets entitled : ~MctJrod of indctcrminU/c Cpe/ficicn/s.... The method of indeterminate coerricient.~ is formulated and proved, and it is then npptied 10 seeking the expansion of ~ into 8 powered series. Conlentwise, it is rciated to point 3H), secti on Ill , "General binomial Thcorem~ of the note -book "Algebr~ 11 " (sec p. 196). llle source is possibly the same. Thcre is also a great amount of resemblance with the text of pp. 195-196 of Ihe "Algebril" by Wood, in which , on p. 197 the same example of the expansion of ~ into a seri es, has been adduced. Language - German; the first phrase is in Englis h. Only in the first page,the text is in (natural) language; the rest are calculations.
~Po",ers Qnd Roots". Apparently, it is an Insertion to one of the notes on algebra, conlemplated by Marx,si nce it ends with the words:"£nd of tire insertio,,". Here the operations wilh radiCllls, onen represented in the form of fractio nal powers of arguments. have been examined. Language - German.

5, Sheets 14-16. Three sheets , joined by the title :

S.U,N.3999 6 pllges JOllled by the title: "Successive Differentia/ion (according 10 O. W.Hemming, /848, Cumbr;d8e)~. This is a conspectus of some paragraphs of the book: "An Elementary Treatise on the Differential and Inlegral Calculus· , by G'w.Hemming, Cambridge, 1848 (§§ 92 -116, pp. 60-77). The page num bers are according to the second edition o f this book, dllted 1852. Ma rx look notes fro m the following para graphs only:
§ 92. Definition

Ora" independent variable.

§ 94. Successive differentiation.

§§ 96-98. Relations between successive differentials and differential coemcients, when Ihe Independent variable is ge neral.
§ 99. Form the above
v~dilble. relation~

when the quantity (x), under the funct ional sign, is independent

§ 107. To pass from an equation among differentials, with x as an independent variable,to one among differenti/tl coefficients with re.~pcct to x, and the converse.

§§ 108.109.1'0 pass from 11 gene ra l independent variable to x, and the converse.
In Ihese paragraphs, the defin it ions of the independent variable IInd of the general independent variable arc given. Ihe relations ~mong derivatives and differentials are considered, these are connected with invariance o f the differentials of first ord er in respect of the choice of independent variable and the modes of transforming equations in derivatives into equa tio ns in differen tials. and the converse. He rein a variable is called independent if its dirrerential is taken as a constant. If the dependence among variables is given by an equation and no d ifferential Is taken as constant, then Hemming calls it an equation having a genual jndependenl vuriable or says thal the independent variable is general. This conspectus does not contain any comment which is Marx's own. Apparently it was wril1en at the time of writing section I, "Lagrangian deduction (somewhat mOdifieu) of Taylor's theo rem, based upon an algebraic foundation" (of manuscript 4000),ln the second half of the 70s of last century, when MArx took a special interest in the problem of meaning of successive differentiation (sce: I'V, 214). The manuscript is written In English, with a touch of German.

S.U.N.4oo0 48 sheets of a note book (pp. 1·48 in Marx's numbcring).lts contenl corresponds 1 that 0 period of Marx's mathematical studies, when it sIill ~ppellrcd to him Ihal Lagrange's RUempt to CQnslruc l mathematical analysis Hll the theory of analytical functions is concl usive. Evidently, Wilh the aim of investigating the Lagmngiall theory and reveal ing il~ nlgcbraic origins, Mar;.: systematically arranged In this nOle Irook, [he notes from all those sections of the courses of Boucharlal, Ilind, '-lol l, Ilemming. L1croix, MacLaurin and of others AI his disposal, in which Ihe Lagrangian theory or questions related 10 il have been enunciated. Four sections, of this note book, consti tu te ils STelltcr pari (sheets 1-37). Mllrl( tilles !

them the

"I. Lograngian deduction (somewhat modifit:d) of Tay/or's theorem, based upon an algebraic fOlmdulion". Sheets 1-13.

"11, Toylor's theorem, based upon a translatl'on of the binomial theorem frolll the language of algebra into the differential mode of e:rpression". Sheets 14-20.
blfl. Ma cLallrin's tl,earem is also a simple tran slation of the binomial theorem, f,.om the language of algebra to Ilrat of tire differentials", Sheets 20-28.

"IV. Mo,.e on Tay/or's theorem". Sheets 28·37.
Section I consists (If several points, indicated by Latin capital leuers from A) to r). In point A), Lagrangc's attempt- to prove, thlll in general, leave 11 few exceptions, IIn IIrbitrary functio n f(x + III may be expRndcd into 11 series of intcgral positive ascending pOWCIS of fr, has been enunciated according to 130ucharlat (U 244,253, pp. 168·169, 173-175). It was Rn al\Cmpl to show, that in such a gencral case the equality

+ /I) -f(x) +pl! +Qh 1

must occur, whcre p is a function only of x, neither identically equal

ze ro, nor to infinity, and

Q is a function of x and fr, which is represented in its turn as Q - q + Rh where q is 11 function
of x, and R-a function of x and I" represented analogOUSly as R ... r + SII etc. Herein, the altempt to prove, that a multiplier or p can he nei ther a negative power of h, nor logh, is also enunciated. The func tion p is defined as the derivative of f(x) and for it the notatio n f'(x) is introduced. Analogously, in point 13), the derivative of de ri vativCll (successive deri vatives) afe c!efined, and the notations/"(x), f'''(x) . flY (x) etc. lire introduced (following Boucharlat § 248). In poipt

C) the int(lrrelations among the coefficients of the expansion
I(x + h) .. f(x) +ph + qJr2 + ,Jrl + s"~ etc.

and the li\lcccssive derivatives ["(x) , f"'(x) etc. are dete rmined by the method of indeterminate coefficients with the help of the equality

f(x + (h + I)~ .. f«x + i) +/1)
([ollowing Bouc\larlat, §§ 245-247,249,250). In the last of these paragraphs, the notations fpr th~ dl;;rivatives and the differential symbolS have been introduced, Here the enunciation 8S per Doucharlat comes 10 an end. Further on, It has been shown according 10 Hind (§ 97, p. 127) thlllthe LagrHngian derlva\ives arc the limits of the ratios arc

~ when

6.x ..... 0, i.e., they

coefficients," Here Marx wrote (sheet 7) ;

• Boucharl at wrote (I'. 168) that he is modifying 'he method of Lagrange. -



In comparison with the results of differentia l calculus we rind, that f'(x) is the real equivalent for

~,["(x) -

the real equiva lent for


etc, or, conversely,

~, ~~ etc., are

differential expressions for the re:l! differenlial coefficients, i.e., the derived functio ns of x in Lagrange.
After this 'came the following comment of Mane. It has the ChU3Cler of a summary. Contcntwise it is related to §§ 251 and 252 of the text book by 13 0uchar l~1 (save Ihe first phrase, the source of which appears 10 be Hind's book; sce 1).120) .

Lagrange himself says, that dx is chosen instead of h, dx 2 instead of 112 ete. only to estab lish lhe uniformity of notation. Here the express ion


becomes the sy mbol of the operation, through

which the

coefficient of It in the expansion of f(x + 11) is obtained; - : ' : ; etc. indicate, that the same process, being repeated, gives the coefficients of the other powers of h Hence, it is necessary to establish, only as per llle rules of algebra, what the function. For example, what is the


etc. must be for each


for xm? We are required to expand the function

(x + h)m according to the binomial theorem, which gives xm + m.xm - i h + etc. ; since


indicates the coefficien t of the first power of h in this expansion, so dY - mx", - i etc. t <X Hence, the entire problem is reduced to this: 10 expand the different types of [unctions, with thc help of thc analytical processes, which algebra can provide us. Hence the method presupposes an algebraic expansion o[ all these functions and thereby the differential expressions correspo nding to them are obtained. Conversely, in the differential calculus, the differential forms, i.e., the operations indicated by them , serve the search for these functions, along their own short cut path. [[



~, ~

etc, Lagrange also designates the derived functions by y' , y" etc.]]

[[Though in the method of Lagrange the principles of differential calculus are demonstrated independently, free of any reference 10 limits, illfinitesimals and evanescent quantities, however, he is constantly required to have recourse to them, as soon as the issue co ncerns applications, for example, the determination of volumes, surfacc"o;, length of curves, finding the expressions for subtange nts etc. His method assumes an acquaintance with the analytica l methods for expanding all types of functions of x + h in integra l ascending positive powers of h, which he has put fo rward; and often this expansion is quite difficult. That apart,-the theorems of Taylor and MacLaurin, once established, provide, wi th great ease, the means.to expand into series many functions, whose expans ion through the methods of ordinary algebra, may be obta ined along an ex tremely, tiresome and round about path.]]

-I'hotooopy of the first p<lgc of the manuscript entitled "Theorems of Taylor and Maclaurin, firsl systema tisation of the material" _




C) comes to an cnd with the following comme nt of Marx, lIere he obtai ncdJrom Newton 's bi nomiaJ theorem, the derivative for the functi on aX"', utilisi ng T;ty tor's theorem and, conversely, obtained Newton's binomial theorem, with the help of the theorem about the dilTcrenlia l o ( 11 product.

I~oi nt

[[We have jus t see n, that fo r ob taining the expansio n fo r f(x + 11), for example, (o r ax"', it is e no ugh to expand a(x + hyw according to the bino mia l theorem:

mx", - tah, m(m-1)X"' -2·_ ,··· 1· 2
Then wc kn ow that the coefficient of h -


~ , the coe rricient of :~~ .,. ~ elC,

Conversely, once Taylor's theorem is estab lished, it is possible to de(luce the billomial theorem from it,- it may be still easier to deduce it wilh the help of the most elementary differential operations. For instan ce, s ince it has already been demonstrated, that d(xy ) _x dy+ydx. so, in genera l d (xYZt/l) "" x)'zt tlu + yztu dx + ztux dy + tUX)' dz + xyzu dt . Dividing both the sides by xyztu, we shall get

d (xyztu) ,., xyzt du + yztu dx + zlux dy + taxy dz + xyzu dt . xyztu xyztu yztux ztuxy tuxyz xyzut

d (xyztu) ... du + (Lx

+!!l + dz + dt
yz t



Ifnow,x,y,z,t,uaremadcequal to each o ther, and consequcnU y, it is a:-;s umcd, [or ins tance, that they are all equa l to x,a nd thaltheir number is equal to In, then

d (xm) .. m dx



That is,


mx"'dx - mx"' - ldx. x

d (x'") o r dx [uncI ions of X'" may

,py dy - _ mx"' -t and thus f.iX!" m (m - 1).r"'-2 etc. and all [Ine de rivedJ dx be so obtained .]]

Mar}!: gave poi nt D) the title:-D) ApplieQ/iQn of L ugr angt!'s me/hod 10 an elern en/fuy ca.re ~, h conlllins the nOle laken from [he text book hy Hi nd (pp, 126-127), of an example of applic.,lion of Lagrange's me thod Cor finding out the dcrivative of the product o f t....,o functions y and z of the argument;c by representing the


values of J' and z in the form of

y -t ph -t ..l- q1-r2 -t \ .z

+ elC, and z + PIli + /2 1! 111 -t etc, and, for searching the cocHicient of h ( in the firs! degree)
in their product with the help of formal opera tions wi th serieses,




Marx g~vc point E) the heading: "E) More 011 ,he im//(l,I"j'ibility. Ilrot p wo Our that ,. "as f" cgalivt!/, fractional elc. indices ill the gtmerai <!XJH1I1~'i()1I fo r f(.r +J.) where.r;s indelerm in aft:, bUI is a variable, which ca n assume {lny value", In this point, lit fi rst notes are talc.e" fmm § 253 (pp. 173-175) of the text book by Boucharla l, devoted to Ihe proof, thal lhe coeffi cient of " in the lirsl degree may be equa l to ze ro on ly in the pa rticul~r inslances, and then from § 259 (pp. 179-180), containing Ihe LagrHngian proof, that in the expansion of {(.>: + It). h can not enler inlo 11 fractional powcr, since in [hili case the number of different va lues of the cXI)'1n~ion for I (x + It) would be grealer than Ihe nu mber of different val ues of the very expression [(x + 11). On Ihis proor (Bouchar[al mentio ned that it belonged to lagrange) Marx wrote (sheet 9) ;

E.. rlier it was shown. tha t h in ph C;lIlnot have a fra ctional inde x. This could have bee n 1 s hown, in the sa me way, for all [he othe r terms o f the expansion. But Lag range in addition g ives the following interesting proof.
After this point, Marx wrote thc following COlllment, as 3 summing up exercise, and without allY ti tle (sheet 11) ;

Lag range 1) algebraically proves what Taylo r presupposes: tha t so lo ng as x re mains inde te rminate, f(x + It) may always be represented by a n infi nite series"" f (x) + pit + qh'2 + e tc. ; he provides an algebraic basis to the diffe re ntial calculus ; but it is la be used o nly as the s tarting point, s incc it is qu ite poi ntl essly ted ious to develo p algebraica ll y, that which CP. II be attaincd much more eas ily, through the proper methods of d iffere ntia l ca lculus. 2) From the very beginn ing he de monstralcs, Inat the genef:! i series fo r the ex pans ion o f f (x + 11), where x is indetermina te, excl udes a ll those pa rticular ins tances , whe re Taylor's theore m is inapplicable. 3) By introduc ing (he concepl of the derived f tltletiolls of the variable, he, in essencc, gave d i[fe re ntia l calcul us a new be:! ring, removing tllereby a lot of useless d iffic ulties. If in Taylor's theorem it is inscribed that :

f(<<Io )- f (x )+ df (x ) . f:.+ tP f (x) .~+ d' f (x) .~+ ... dx 1 dr'2 1·2 dx) 1·2·3 ' then th is formul a by no means conta ins the concept of derived fun c tions [,(x), f " (x) e tc., and me rely says , that the successive differential operatt.olls took place in respect of one and the same initial l(x ); in it the success ive differenti:!1 coeffic ie nts arc e xp ressed as' the successively derived fU/~diolls of x. On the oth er h and , ~ ~ e n L1 grange writes : f(u 10' 10) - f Ix) + plo + q . T2

10' 1,2,3 ... "' ,

the n there it is ass umed that in

f (x + 11 ) - fIx ) + plo + qlo' + the coefficients P. q e tc., were a lready reduced to the ir values eq ual to f'(x ) , [ "(x) etc. 1S9,
Ihvi ng e xplained in a rew Olore word.~ , tha t sincc LIIgra ngc's argumcnts had a genera l cha racter ( we re related to any runction [(]C)) , they Olay he applied also to the derived funct ions, on which some calcula tion:> in point B) we re based - Marx went over [0 poi nt p), whe rein section I o r this ma nuscript was corn pleted . In it he took no te:! from §§ 8,9 (pp. 4-6) of "A Treatise on thc



Differential and Integral ('..alculus, ~ nd the Calculus of VilriMions· by 111Om:lS G. Hall. ( We. have. its 5th edition, published in 1852.) This conspectus begins with the sentence :

F) Lagrangc's dcmonstratio n, that whcn x is indcte rminatc, thcnf(x + Ir) may bc reprcsented in the form of f(x) + ph + q 112 + etc., has been pla ced at the very begin ning of some of the manua ls on differential ca lcul us, and is dea lt with as follows.
Then follows the demonstration, not on ly -by the melhod of indelerminale coe(fieients, but also ofinde.le.rminate indices of power, th~1 iff(x -t 11) .. u -tA h" ... 11 I!~ -t C h' -t, whe.re a < ~ <Y "', then u "/(x) • a .. t. ~ .. 2 , y .. 3, "' ,

. .; A .. /'(x), B- CM ,C" LJ=l I'; 12
The term Ah is called the differential, and 'he coefficient A - Ihc differential coefficient; for them the usua l nOlalions wt:re inlroduced. Marx adduced Ihis demonslralio n from H all'~ book, pp. 4-7. Namely, Ihal is what is had in view here. As has already been noted, section 11 of lhe ma nuscript was wrillen at 11 time, when to Marx appeared sufficiemly well g rounded the Mproof", given by Lagrange, that in Ihe general case the expansion

f(:e ... Ia )-!(x) "'ph ... q"l+rll}+ "' ,
wherc p, q, r, .... are fun ctio ns of:e, must be valid .This fully corresponds 1 its ti tIe (sce p.214). 0 Here Marx slates the propositi on thilt : Taylor CQ uld proceed to his Ihcorem heuristically by gcncralising Newto n's binomial theorem; hc adduces a number of consideratio ns in support of this proposition and observes al the same time, thft! yel Taylor could not prove the.legilimacy of such generaHsalion.ln all the. manuals at Marx's disposal, Taylor's theorem has been proved in the main identically. Apparently, in this connection Marx Ihoughl.thallhis proof belonged 10 Taylo r himself. (For the de tails of these proofs sce, Appendix. p. 333). Those parts of this section of thc manuscript which Hre not nOles from o ther source~, Me being reproduced below, in full. Immedi ate ly following the headi ng oC section 11 , Marx wrote on sheets 14-17:

A) S oucharlat remarked in the second note (Appendix) to his "Traites du ca/cui di!ferellliel el du calcul integral n : "With the exception of the differen tials o f ci rcul ar functions, wh ic h are eas ily deduccd from the trigonometric formu lae, a ll o ther mOllomial differen tials, like, [or instance, the differentials of xm , ax , log x etc. were obtained wi th the help of the binomial theorem. MacLaurin's theorem was applied for finding oul tlte constant A i l t the formulae for exponential functiolls, but could be managed withou t it Hon this aflerwardsll. Hence it fo llows, that all the principles of differentiatiolt are based only upon l/re binomial theorem "-. Bu t, o n the o ther ha nd, Tay/or established his theorem(wh ich alo ng with MacLaurin 's theorem - the latter in its turn may be represe nted as a particula r instance o f Taylo r's theorem - ha ppens to be of ulmos t importance for the operations of differen tial ca lculus) at a time, whe n not only the bino mia llheorcm was already known, but also the expansio n of the jUllctions of x furni shed by it, through the methods o f differential calculus itself, as well as, the so called elements of differe ntial calculus, which were in ge neral a lready deve loped .
-ThiS Appendix is not there, in the Sth edition of the texl book by Boucharlat enti tled : ~Elemerts de calcuf differentiel el de calcul inliSgral" (P1lri s, 1838). at our disposal. - Ed.



The function f(x + "), in the second side lR .H.S.]. in the s ide o f the developed series, is always represented, in accordance with the binomial theo rem. fby the terms] with faclOrs
hO( .. 1), It, 11 , 1 "3 etc. (with ascclldi1!g integral and positive powers of h. steering clear 1- 2 l" 2 of the negative, fract ional and logarithm ic indices, on wh ich wc shall not be able to dwell here, after covering L'lgrangc's method); the indeterminate coefficients of 1/ in its succcss i*c powers, Le., the diffe reNt successively derived [ullctions of x, or the differential coefficients, natu rally, have different forms , depe nding upon, wha t sort of initia l func tio n [(x) is 'to be expanded - [or inslance, depending upon , whether this runction is x"', or aK, o r logx or sin x or more complcx l60 etc. But, evidently, Taylo r's theorem is based upon the s implest application o r the binomial theorem, Le., [(x) - X"'. T hat is why wc shall expa nd J(x + 11) '" (x + 11)'" according to the bino mi al theorem. Then, ror inst.1nce,
m (m - 1) (x+II)"'.X"'+"u..,.,-I!J+xm- 2 1!2+ ... ""

1·2 1 (111 - 1).\'", -2 11 2 + ... -X'" + "u",- II! +-111

In the thi rd term, Le., in ~ m (m - 1).x"'- 2112 (the same as what Lagrange wrote in the above
mentioned expansion as

~ J" (x)II~.

there is a derivat ive or x, directly deduced rrom Inr" -l,

namely, m (m - l)xm -2; in ordcr to have not hair o f th is runc tio n, but the entire (unction as a whole, it is necessa ry to write here and afterwards m (rn- 1)X"" - 2 112 i.e. , put the numerical 2 1· divisor under 11 2 , 11 3 e te. T hen wc shall have according to the binomia l theorem considering

x as a variable
= [(x)

. X"
m?,-I It m (m- 1)x"' -2" 2

-m?,-I/I _ m(m-l)t"' - 2,2

• ['(x)"






- ["(x)!!... 2

.. d2... ,,2 d 2 .e

3 m (m _ l)(m _ 2}x'" - 3.!!..-

_ m(m-l)(m-2)?,_3(l 2·3 I

.. f "'(x) .!!..2-3


.tx ..!!'... 2·3

m (., - 1) (m - 2) (m _ 3V- 4 - -'2·3'4








Thus, Taylo r already knew, ho w to find cl (xm) calculus, hence ~ or dx d (xm ) dy
m.X,,. -1

= lIn;m -1

dx along the palh of dillerenlia l

and, also fur lher etc.;

~ "" m (m -

1)x", -2

in other words, he knew, that the derived {unct ions ofx deduced wi th the help of the hinomial theorem, arc identical to those which appear as success ivediffe renlial coefficients; he also knew that while findin g out these functio ns throug h diffefential calcul us, h as well as its numerical 1 coe rficients - [ , - 2 etc. disappear; we get the [unct ions In xn - 1, m (m - 1)x", -2 e lc . as the 1,2 [, ,3 res ull<; of diffe rential operations, expressed by



On the ot he r hand, the binomia l theorem shows, that

112 f(u iI) here (x + iI)'" ~ fix) + ['(x)iI + ["(x) [,2 + f"N 1,2-3 +
Hence, in o rder


obtain the proper expansio n of J(x + 11), the second term is to be

' ' t i' ' words, 1 , I 1 etc. w ll h lelf numcflca I mu 1 ' 1'l et~ I tIP 1 1 - extinct in the process of d ifferent iation - are to be restored. Thus, for in stance, when x'" = xl, l(x + fI) .. (x + h)3 _ x 3 + 3x2Jt + 3xh2 + 11 3 . Thus , the derived fun ctio ns of x arc oblained through the bino mia l theorcm, and they turn out to be those functions, which are obta ined through di fferentia tio n : 3x2 _ 3x 2 , 3·2x - 6x, 6.\:° ",, 6.

'l'db y -, t het h'db y -IJ2 iI . mu l tip le If 2e1c., In at her

If wc restore I"
mX" - I ...


h2 - h etc., extmct m d'fferentJatlOn , t hen we S;I II ge t : .. " h 2' 23 I


for 3.~... for 6x ...


m (m - 1).t"'-2 ...
6.\.(1 ([

6x 1J2

= 3xll- ,




(m - 1) (rn _ 2)X", - 3 [or] the third [derivcd] fun c lio n o f (x + hP"
3' 2 ' lx"~

3 (3 -1) (3 - 2)x'-' -


" ' H3 il'Il, --


Hence, J(x+ It) or (x+ h)3 =.i' + 3x2h + 3xh 2 + 113 , In o the r wo rds, lhe result obta in ed, is already known from the binomia l theo re m. Further, as mentioned above, Taylor knew, that the series obta ined throug h the bino mial theore m, starting from th e orig inal '[unction upto its derived fUnctio ns, is represcnte d in the diffe rential [calc ulus] as fo ll ows: xm as f(x) or y, the origina l fun ction; the second func tio n



in the binomia l theorem III X"' -


as the rea l value of the first differential coeffi cient

~; the

third function as the real value of th e second di ffere ntia l coefficien t fo r these func tio ns in
(x + h)'"

~~ e lc. If now I subs titute

+ mxm - 1h + m (m - t )x", -2_ + m (m -1) (m _ 2)x.. - 3- - + ...
[,2 [ ·2·3


their differential exp ressions, and in place of (x + 11)'" put the indeterminate [(x + 11), then I shall gel dx w hich is Ihe theorem of Ta ylor.

f(X+ 11) . f(x) (o r y) + - 11+ -2· - + -3· - - + ...
[[Wc sho uld no te further , that if as the 4th derivative of {x + 11'1" we gel


(fly 112 dx 1·2

dJy dx

11 3 1·2·3

11' m (m - 1) (m - 2) (m - 3)x.. - 4 1.2'3.4 ' whose differential exp ress ion (x + 11)', [it] . 3 (3-1) (3 - 2) (3 - 3)x'-·.3·2-1·0x-'. 0,
being multiplied by

th en for

1 ';'~'4

,i t is again .. 0, so

th~t, in Ih is case, ~ -

O. Thus, here too, the is

biflomiallheorem again 'shows, that as soon as x -

lhe variable in differentia l calculus -

excluded from the derivative and, hence, the latter becomes a constallt, the


co rresponding

to it beco mes - 0 ; i.e., the deduction of the new fun ctio ns of x, and that is the new differentiation, eomes to an cnd .]]
It is liue, that here Taylor's formula was obtained for [(x + 11), only from the most elementa ry a{lplication of th e binomia l theorem, namely by s ubst itut ing x + h for x in x'" and by the: subs€:Qucnt expansion of (x + 11)"'. But th is changes absolutely nothing in the generality of the result, beca use 1) the factors" in the ir ascend ing integra l and positive powers [[ slarting, if yo u wish, from 110 _ 1 for the firs t term of the series of expansion fo r

f{x + h)]] wi ll remain the same, whatever J(x) be ;2)thecoefficients1;,


etc., which

are in reality the symbols of differential operations 1 be carried out, unde rstandably, give 0 different results, depending upon the speci fic character of the o riginal fun ction [(x). It is o nc thing, for instance if [(x) '" ox, another - i fax~ etc. In a ll the cases they g ive f'(x). J"(x) a nd the subsequent derived fu nctions of [(x), a ll of w hich can, in addition, also be obtained algebraically, and again, essentially, on the bas is of the binomial theorem, as Lagra nge showed it in practice. It is true, that [(x + iI) is undetermined, it does no t have a determinate power and that is w hy, it is expanded inlo a n in fini te series. Bu t [(x + 11) [ - (x + 11)"'] remains en tire ly indeterminate and expansiable only into an infin ite series, till m acquires a determ inate va lu e;



that is why,translated into the lang uage of differentia l cl.llculus, it also g ives an infinite series, as is required by the given instance. An authe ntic generalisation of this proof was given only by Lagrange. As we shall sce now, in Taylor, this generalisation has the character of o nly a hypothetjcal assu mption, and , besides, underslandably, he did not investigate tbose conditio ns, which this hypothesis includes within itself. [[A c ursory glance is enough to sce, that if

IIJ f(x+Iol-f(x)+plo+q-H - + ...• 2 2·3 112 hJ - f(x) + [,(x)" + ["(x) H + ["'(x) 1.2.3 +
dy (Fy 112 dJy h3 - f(x) + dx I! + dx2 1.2 + dx3 1.2.3 +


[thenJ the difference f(x + 11) ~ f(x) o r )11 ~ Y is equal to the infinite s um of the de rived [unctio ns o[ x or of the differentia l coeffi cients. All the terms in th e second s ide [R.H.S.1 in the s ide of the deve loped infinite series of the general express ion f(x + 11) sta ndin g in the first side lL.H.S.] - which are connected with f(x) by the + sign, L.1ken lOgcUlCr form the difference between f(x ) and f(x + It ). What co ncerns the infinite series of derived fun ctions o r differential coefficients, is that an (infinitely) overwhelming majority of these functions may in fa ct be represented onl y through an infinite series . Owing to their very nature, the expofle1lfiai, logarithmic and trigonometric func tions ca n no t be represented by algebraic expressions with a finite /lumber of terms 161 . Again, from among the algebraic functions proper, a n overwhelming majority, [fo r example1,

like, _a_ etc., can be represen ted only by infinite serieses . Only o f the


determinate algcbmic fun ct io ns, like, for exa mple, (x + IJ)4, the re arc determinate number [o ther than 01 of d erivatives; ultimately the fun c tion becomes a constant (x is eliminated), that is, {the derivative} is a lso", 0, as it stands 10 reason also (or the ide nticfl l equations [with identica lly equa l s id es). In the rest J'(x),.. 0 (where I' s ignifies all the subseq ue nt f", I'" etc.) does no t designate, that x became equal to 0, i.e., is e liminated, bu t o nl y designates, tha t J'(x) '" 0 is an equation [of determinate fo rm] of a determinate degree: because every equat ion, if both o f its s ides are written o n onc s ide, g ives zero o n the other, and J'(x):z 0 just serves the searc h fo r x, through the fact, that the diffe rential express ion in one s ide becomes its real value, according la Ihe o ther *; in this connection l the equation l l'(x) - 0 plays quite a signi ficant role in the theory of maxima and minima.]] B) Ins tead of dy tJ2y dJy 113 f(x+Io)-f(x) (or y)+-Io+-· - + - 3 · _ - + .. . 2 1·2 dx dx dx 1·2·3


* Evidently, here the intention is to state, that in the equation f'(x) .. 0, the symbolic expressionf'(x) is presupposed by its already substi tuted real value. - Eel.



DE.'iCRWn ON OF 11 lE MA11lEM,,"n CAJ . M,\NlF.;CRW]"$

the theorem is written also as:

f(H h) _ f(x) + ~. J.. +!!:L.l9.. £.. + d' [(xl . ~ + ...


dx l


In full , accordin g to Lagrangc: qh2 r/,3 f(x±h)-f(x),pI<+ ['2' 1.2.3 +
or 112

f(x, h) - f(x) ,['(x)" + [,,(x) [,2 ,['''(x) 1.2-3 +
C) Ins tead o f presenting his theorem as the b inomia l theorem tra ns lated into the language of differen tial calcu lus, T aylar co mm un iC:ltcd il through a hypo thes is, outwardl y obtained wi th the help of a general proof.


1) Let us assume that the function I(x + h) is expanded in ascending, positive and integra l powers of 11 . The n

Yl or f(H") - Y (or f(x» +A" + B'"+C,,' + .. . , where A, B, C etc. arc indetermina te coefficients, unknown functions of x. In fac t, since the equation (p. 15, las tli nc)*
f(x +") - f(x) + ~" +


was fou nd through the binomia l theo rem and the already known results of di fferen tial calcu lus, it was notdifficuit to again substitute the indete rminate coefficients instead

Of ~

e tc., i.e., instead of the differential coefficients or deriva tives; and the method of inde term inate coefficients is often applied in algeb ra, for example, in the expa nsio n of logarithms, like A, B etc., in order to then conversely ded uce from them, with the help of the different ial calculus itsel f, the di fferentia l coe ffi cients, and thereby provide them w ith a general derivation. What Tay lor introduces here independentfy of the diffe rential ca lcu lus, cons ists of just the fact, tha t f(x + h) may be expanded into the seriesf(x) +Ah + ctc.; but for him it is on ly a hypothesis; it was proved fo r lhe firs t time by Lagra ngc. If it is assumed, that he found his theory priva Lim, in the fo rm in which we enunciated it sub Jl A), then the subsequent substitution of A, B, C etc. in place of the der iva tives of x or th eir different ial exp ressio ns - as the sta rting point for the differential operations proper to be · carried out - was not, to be sure, willingly such an intricate affair. 2) Eviden tly. there is only one way[to ensu re1 that the coefficients A, B, C etc. are dete rmined from the equat ion y\ _y +Ah +Bh2 + Ch 3 + ... : to ma ke two ou t o f this one equatio n, whose first s ides [L. H.S.], Le., the unexpanded express ions of the func tions, are one and the same, and the second sides (R. H.S. ]. i.e., the

* Sce, PV. 222 -



terms o/the functioll expanded ill/o a series, assume differe nt forms. Since the two first sides [L.H.S.] are identical, so the second sides [R.H ,S. ] mus t also be identical, hence, the terms with the factors containing h in the same powers (y has the factor 110 - 1) may be equalised.
If differentiation is carried out with the ass umption that, x is a constant and" - a variable, then y disappea rs, since y is a function of x, not containing hJ 3(1d we get A without" (with 11 0 • I). the rcmaining terms give the numerical coe fficients, because hI, 112 etc. have been furnished with the numcrical indices of power. If differentiation is 1 be ca rried out, sta rting 0

from the other 8s5umplion in ascending line as
of the first terms --A + dh

that" is a constant, and x is a variable -

then we shall get ':::

1; + ~ h + etc. The trick of this method is revealed ill Ihe differelltiation
dy, dy --- + dx dx


As soon as


is already themselves.

found , the remaining coefficients,


etc., a.re somehow obtained all by

After Ihis Ihe conspectus (sheets 18-19) is related 1 Taylor's theorem. 1llese notes are laken 0 rto m §§ 55·57 (pp. 34.37) or the text book by Boucherlar (on rhe C(lnrents of these parag raphs, I CC! : Appendix, p. 338). Secllon 11 comes 10 a close with point D) (sheets 19.20).11 ca rri es the title:

-D) flit mod. 01 proving (on t/le basis 01 differential calculus) Taylor 's IheoreM, wherein the indices o/the jj(JWlltIlQ/ h lire also considered as indeterMinale, and or.! souslll/or at Ihe saMe tiM e ....ith Ihe indderMil1(ll1l t;{le/ficients A, B dc. or P,Q, etc. 0/ ,,".
It is a note taken from § 74 (pp. 83·84) of the text book by llind , Section III of this manuscript is devoled (as is evident from the title mentioned above) 10 MacLa url n's thcorem : it proposes thaI, this Ihcorem could have been obtai ned IIt!uristical/y, from Newton's binomial theorem. 1I0wever, here, 1 begin with, Marx stresses nol onl y the 0 resemblance, but also the difference of MacLaurin 's theorem from Ihat of Taylor. The difference, ntlt of all, consists of this,that while in Taylor's theorem the expansion of the function in series l!lke8 place in the neighbourhood or, though fixed, but nevertheless indeterminate (and in that senJ8 tI tllil'lahle ) point ¥ ; in MacLaurin's theo rem it takes place in the neighbourhood of a determinate point O. &0 Ihat all Ihe coemcienls of the expansion are constants (values of the runction and ils derivatives althe poi nt 0). Marx writes :

A) Tay /or's theorem gave the formula permitting the represe ntation of every functio n in x (under the above mentioned cqnd itions). whcn x increases by a positive or nega tive increment h, i.e" when/ex) turns into /(x ± 11), in the form o f a series, whose first term is /(x), and the foll owing terms


etc., having as fa ctors Ir in ascending powers, are the differential




coefficients Dr., 1 be morc precise, the sy mbols indicating, how along the path o f dirrcrentiation, 0 the successive functions of x arc derived, the sum of which , taken together with the ir factors h, 112 etc. = the difference between lex + /I) and I(x). MacLaurill 's theorem must give an expansion in series of (he very functioft in x, as for example, 1 , Y ___ , Y _ (a 2 + bx)'-, y _ (a + x)'" .'

(besides in ascending powers of x). The [ullc tion of x - (a + x)- I or (lP + bx)"'i, or (a + x)'" etc. Since I(x) mu st be expanded in ascending powers of x, so here x plays the same role, as the increment h in Taylor's theorem. It is the second term o f the binomial a nd tha t is why here it appears only as the factor in ascending powers; as there we had hO, hi, 112 here we have x 0 , Xl, x 2 etc. For example, what is aetually developed in Taylor"s theorem, is the first term: the derived functions of the variable x, meanwhile h, the increment, the second term, fi gures only as the factor in ascending powers, beginning with hO - 1. Conversely, likewise figures the variable x in MacLaurin's theorem ; consequently, th rough this th eorem one should oblain the development of the firs t term, wh ich, here, is a constant magnilllde ; the trick co nsists, namely, of this: in order to obtain the algebraic deduction of the constant coefficients, contained in f(x), with the help o f differential calculus ...
Then for obtaining the expansion in powers of x, for (c +x)~ (corresponding to what is obtained according to Macuurin's theorem) with the help of Newton 's binomi~1 theorem, Marx at first writ ~~ the cxpHnsion accordi ng to the lat ter thcorem :


(c +x)"_c" +n c"-lx + etc.,
paying IIttention 10 Ihe fact, that for

(1 )

(x + c)" it would look o therwise:

(x +c)"_x· +nx ·-1c+ etc.


Then he dwells upon an explanation of the sense, in which in Ihe first o f Ihese expansions with Ihe cons/onl coefficients c", n c"-I • ...• the lal1er may be considered as functions. He writes (sheet 21) :

But we shal l ca ll these derivatives, functions of c, in the se nse, in which, if I divide
a 4 by a in the order: - _ a 3,






a2 etc. ,

[then] a3 , a2 , a, ma y be ca lled functions, derived
function of x IInd differentiated it in


0 4.

After this Marx considered the function (c + x)" as respect of x, thus obtaining successively:


(c + .\")~ " y - [(x),

n (c +.\")"_1

-~ .. [,(x),

n (n -1) (c

+x)" -l_ ~ - ["(x)


The n assuming;.: _ 0 in all these eq ualitics. he observed that in consequence the coeffici e nts c ~ , n C~-I , 11 (n - 1) c~-l. etc. of the expansion (1), are obtained (as [(0),1'(0) • ["(0) •...). and concluded (sheets 21.22) :




And thereby, proceeding from Ihe binomial theorem, we oblain the wh ole of such a secret, as MacLaurin's theorem. We note, nevertheless, that in the binomial (c + x)" and ill the derivatives of it, as soon as we proceed 1 ass ume that x - 0 and to thu s obtain the constant c~ wi th its derivatives, 0 it is a matter of complete indifference to us , \.Vhether we write (c + x)" or (x + c)~, s ince in both the cases 0 + c and c + 0 is always - c. But initially it is no t a matter of indifference, in respect of the fact, that x figures as a fa c tor wit/l tlie ascending powers of en e tc., quite like h in Taylor 's theorem.
After this M ~ rX" went over to the proof of MacLaurin's theorem, about which he took notes from Doucharlat's text book. The coTreslX'nding point of the manuscript carries the heading: "DJ MocLaurin '$ account". It s tarts (sheel 22) with the words:

1) Here the equation is independent of the differential ca lcu lus,from which follows, [ (x ) or y_ A +Bx+Cx2 +Dx2 + Ex.4 + " 'UX', (1) (In fact everyth ing is borrowed from algebra, even the successive differentiation etc. ; see the no te book "Algebra 1\ p. 73d, sq.)*
Later on Marx noted § 31 (p. 20.21) of Boucharlat's book in fu ll(on its content, sce: Appendix, pp. 336-337) . Mux fin ished it (on the IlIst line of sheet 22) with che wo rds :

The re is absolu tely nothing here, that was not borrowed from algebra initia l equation and the deductio n of functio ns.

[this includes] the

In point ~2) Examples of application of Mo cL aurin's Theorem - , Marx noted from Bouchllrlal, at fi rst § 34, p. 23, which conta ins an application of MacLaurin's cheorem for the deduction of the binomial theorem of Newlon. He com pleted this conspectus (sheet 23) with the words :

Thus the bino mial theore m
In (m - 1) am -2x2 + ... ( au)"' _ a"'+mam -1x + 1·2 ' is in its turn deduced, fro m the theore m of MacLaurin, deduced from it.

Then follows the notes from I§ 32,33 (pp. 21 , 22) of S ou cha rlilt's book. It con tAins an application of MacLaurin's theorem to the eX"pansion in a series in powers of,r, of the function: y .. -,_ a+> and y .. val . bx . Ma rx took notes of his point")) Failure., of MacLaurin'sTheorem", from Hind's book, from which he nOled, in order of points 1),2), the general considerations About the instances in which Ma cLaurin 's theorem may turn out to be inapplicable (p. 75, § 70); a) the cX"ample of the func tion u .. ~, whcre 8CC!lrding to Hind, the -impossibility of carrying oul the expansion in the form, requi red by the theorem {of MacLaurinj, is indica ted by the symbol r-T, which appears in every term [of the I series- ( Hi nd. p.74); f') the considerations related to the impossi bility of eX" panding logx in a series of powers of x (§ 70, pp. 74 .75); y) the uample of the function u "00. b.""'.c:c 1+ ...• the inapplicabi lity of MacLnurin'a theorem to it is conditi oned by thc presence of fractional and negative powers of.dn its expression (I 70. p. 75); 6) the enmple

* Herc p. 179 and afterwards. -




of the function u .. -Ix - xl. 10 which MacLaurifl's theorem is not di rectly applicable,but for which the expansion in the series
I u _ l.1 _ _ x I I .r1'1 __ x'i'2 __ x l1_
.. '




is obl~ined by representing u in the form of Vx . .;r:x and by expanding v _ to MacLaurin's theorem (§ 71, pp. 75· 76; in Man,', manuscript pp. 25.26).

vr:x according

In connection with the example u .. ~. considered sub a). Marx writes there (in sheel 24 o[the manuscript) :

Since al! the terms in the series o f expa nsion have the factor ¥-T, so with it nothing
can be done; this function may be expanded in "possible expressions"I62, but not in asce"ding

powers a/x, i.e., no t through an app lication ofMacLaurin 's formula. The "distress" is in this, that we can not get rid or V-f, and this [arises) aga in rrom the nature or the nconstant" c le me nt inf(x); name ly, ir in ! (x)-vii:'T we put x-O, th en we sha ll get vCT, and hence, the seco nd s id e (R.H .S. ] must a lso be reducible to V:T, as it happens
in ¥-1 ( l -x-2:-"'3-etc.);irweputherex-O,thenwhatremai ns is v-I ·(1)-v-l.
Marx took notes of point "E) Expansion of d,e function lex) in decreasing. and not increasing powers of the independent variable x· (sheet 27), from § 72, pp. 81-82 of Bind's book. Here, the expansion of the function in






powers ofx is obtained from the expansion in

increasing powers of z, of the function, obtained (rom the given substitution x .. ..!.


In point "F) MucLourin's theorem as a special ittStunce of Tay/or's theorem"(shects 27-28) Marx adduced 11 deduction of MacLaurin's theo rem from Taylo r's theorem, following Boucharlat's (§ 62, pp. 39-40) and Hemming's (I ISO, pp. 107-108) books. Section IV of the manuscript (sheets 28-48) carries Ihe title : ·IV. (More on Taylor's ,heonmr. This section begins wi th poi nt "A) Just as Tay/or's theorem is deduced from tire binomial th eorem, likewise. conversely, the binomial theorem may be deduced from Toylor's t"eorem ~. Here, the example 1 from § 74 of Hind's book is noted,on which the aut hor writes: "This example is a general proof of Ihe binomialtheorem,lhough it is not unusual 10 assume Ihe binomial theorem, which can be established proceeding from the algebra ic principles, for the proof of Taylor's Iheorem~ (1'" 8S). AI first Marx noled sub a) the deduclion of Taylor's theorem from Newton's binomiallheorem, which followed the words quoted above, and Ihen, under the tille : "b) Conversely, tlte deduction of binomiultheorem from Tayfor's tht!orem~, he noted the first pari of this example. Marx gave the next point the litle : "B) Tayfor's and MacLaurin 's tlleorems· (shccl 29). Here Marx at first adduces the initial equations

l)f(x\) or YI .. Y +Ah + Bh2 + CM +DIt· + etc. ;
2)Hl:) or y-A +Bx+ C:c2 +Dxl+U +ete.
of the theorems of Taylo r and MacLaurin, respectively, and then comments:

Regarding the initial equation itself: il is borrowed from o rdinary algebra.
Marx again returns 10 his notes from the chapter on multiple rOO IS, from LacrOlx's "Elemenls of Algebra- IInd Maclau rin's "Treafise of algebra", paying specialllllentio n 10 the fact that; the algorithms for finding out lhe multiple rools, are in facl based upon succes~ive d iffere ntiation. Thus on p. 34 of this manuscript Marx writes :



The only thing that interests us here, is th e loweri ng o f the power of the genera l eq uation by one; carried o ut success ively, it is the al geb raic method of executing the successive differentiation.
Immediately before this we read in the manuscript (sheets 33.34) :

I borrowed the algebraic expansion from the inventor o f MacL·wrin 's theorem himself, i.e., from Colin MacLaurin , 6th edition ("A Treatise of Algehra in th ree parts etc.", London, 1796). The publishe r - Anne Ma cLaurin, MacLaurin's widow. It is a posthumous production. By the way, it is said in the preface that: "Sir Isaac Newtoll's Rules. in his "Aritllmetlea Universalis" , concerning the reso lution of the higher equa tions, and the affections of thei r roots, being, for the most part, delivered without any demorll·lration, Mr. MacLaurin had des igned, that this Treatise should se rve as a Commentary o n that work. For we find all those difficult passages in Sir Isaae's book, whi ch have so long perplexed the s tudents of algebra, clearly explained and demonstrated". Regarding the art of deducing the equations of lower degrees from those of the higher degrees, it is well known that Newton discovered it with the help of differential calcu lus or, co nversely, being the author of the binom ial theorem, he discovered his enti re theory of differentiation with iL help . MacLaurill (Co/in) , born in 1698, in Scotland, died in 1746. .. In 1720 (a t the age o f 22) he published [his llreat ise on curves, which startled even Newton. Ta ylor (J.Brook) bo rn in 1685, in Edmon ton (Middlesex), died in 1731(a t the age o f 46) . He published [his] "Methodus incrementorwn direc:ta et inversa ", London, 171 5·17, which, so to say, is the resume o f his theore m. Apa rt from th is, he also published a number of mathematical and, some metaphysical works.
The direct source of this pMt of section IV of this m~nuscript (sheets 29.37) are §§ 204, 206, 207 (pp. 280·281, 283·285) of Lacroix 's "Elements of Algebra ·. from whic h Marx took notes earl ier, in the note book · Algebra ' ". lIaving written down the equation, subsequentl y obtained by Lacroix from the general equation

x-' +p x---'+Qx- - 1+Rx«-' + ... +Tx + U " O
by substi tuting x .. y + Q , where Q is a mult iple root of the general equation. Ma rx concludes (sheet 37),

This is also exactly the result, that would have been obtained by successive differentiation.
The IlIst 11 pages of the note book (shccts 38·48 of the manuscri pt 4000) contain 8 few observations related to the bi nomial theorem, TI)'lor's series, as well as notes taken from the paragraphs on total differential from Boueharlafs. lIall's and, Sauri 's books. This part of lhe manuscript does not contain any sub·title : Marx only numbered his poin ts. Poin t I begins wi th the wo rds (sheet 38) :

1) The binomial theorem (which can be extended 10 the polyrlOmiab;) is the greatest discovery of algebra proper. Not only did the solution o f the equations of determ inate power, as it happened earlier, become poss ible with the help of this theo rem,but also the general theory of equations.
Aner this Marx adduced MacLaurin's account of the method of obtaini ng the equDtions oChigher o rde rs, by mUltiplying the equations of fil'St degree. Poi nt 2 (sheets 39 and 40) begins with the words:




2) The bino mial theorem not o nly permitted development of the genera l theory o f equations (includi ng those with some unknowns). it also se rved the development o f comhinato rics, theo ry o f trigonometric, exponential e tc. [u nctio ns ; it is the genera l basis o f differential calclIlus; and that is why, the questio n tha t na turall y a rises is : hav ing d iscove red the bi no mial theorem, as well as the diffe rentia l calculus, did no t Newton derive it, or his disciples Tay/or and Mac/aurin (the fo rmer chronologica ll y prcceeds the latter) tho ug h thei r genera lisi ng fo rmulae made thc tech nical application of the d ifferentia l calculus un usua lly easy - d id not they draw thc ir resul ts, eve n if on the quiet, fro m a n applicatio n of binomi al lheorem? *
On sheets 4 1·46 Marx III first took notcs from §§ 63,64 (pp. 40-43) of Doucharlllt's book, devoted 1 the different iation ofequatlons with IwO va riables, and the n fro m §§ 26-28 (pp. 15-18) of the 0 0 same text book, related 1 Ihe diffcrentiMion of composite functions. Aft er th llt Mllrl( returned 10 the differentiation of an equation with diffe rent variables and took notes from §§ 66-68 (pp. 44 .45) of the same book, devoted to the concepts of to la I differential and partial diffe rentials. Ilere Marx Hlso look notes from the concludin g § 70 (pp. 46-47) of this section of DouchHlat's book, related to the differen tiation of inverse funclion, as well as from the Appendix 5 (p. 500) on the SlIme theme. Late r on under the title : ~Allolht!r method for the gt!lI(!ra/ t!ljualioll of differellt varioblt!s · (sheel 46) Marx took notes fro m § 96 (pp, 87) of chapter VIII, "Functions of two or more variables", of 1 ·lall's book. In conclusion he listed the formulae for the first, second and third differentials of the product of two functions, from Sauri's book (volume Ill , p. 3). This manuscript ClIme to an cnd wit h three observations of Marx (on sheets 47,48) under the general title: -Ill respect of Tay/or's theorem alld /"08roIl8e'$ e.~pallsioll (p.l, 29)", The first of the m is devoted to an applica tion of Taylor's theorem to the approximate O1icul8tloo of the increment of a functio n, according 1 Hind (H 81,82, pp. 96-97). 0 The second is abou t the advllntages of the Lagrangian notations for the derived fu nctions. The third gives the gene r~1 characlerislic.\ of the inSlllnces of of Taylo r's theo re m. Marx writes (sheet 48) :


excepl jo ns~)

Il l. The fa ilures (so ca ll ed) of Taylor's series occ ur whe n it ca n no t give the developme nt or the func tion (x + 11); it ha ppens, when thepart;ell/ar value of the fun ct io n is inexpressible in integral and positive powers of h, in combina tion with finite coeDkients.

* On this q uestion see the footnotes on pp, 90, 232 and 333. -


S.U.N.4001 It is a manuscript of 27 sheets, under the general hcalling ;"raylor's tlreorem, }.foeLal/rin "s th eorem and l.agrang;QII th eory of derived Junctions·, (In Marx's numeration pp 1-8 ,5-6,4-5, an unnum bered page, '·20). Apparently this mlllluscript is ft rough drllfl of an intcm.lcd general account of the entire material on Ihis theme, which Mane noted carlier. Evidently. it is related to the 2nd half of the 70s of tne last century. i.c., 10 [hili l)Criod. when Mllrx still defended [he ~algcbrajc~ point of view of I.lIg rllnge. on the na ture of differential CIIlculus. This manuscript has three sections, of wh ich the first tWO have liS their lilies only the Romlln numerals l and 11, and the third carries the title; • Ill. Th e Lagrangion I/leary offuflc/ion.t 8 •

Section I (sheets 1-2) hits been published inful! in the present volume (pp.88-89). Section 11 (sheet 2) begins as under ;


1) Let us t:tke the simplest cxp ression of the binomia l, for instance (x + e)m.S ince x + c - c + x, the numerical valuc of the binomia l does not change at all, whether we write
(x+c}"'o r (c+x)"'. Ncvertheless, the scrieses by wh ich these two identical expressions arc representcd, have different forms. In the firs t case, deriva ti ves of x arc unfolded, whercas

the second term c figures only as a factor in a~cending powers, like Jr in Taylor's series. On the contrary, in (c + x)"', whe re c is the first term, and x is the second, th e derivatives of c are unfolded; whereas the second term x figures onl y a~ a factor in ascending powers, like the var iable x in MacLaurin's theorem .
In conneCfion with the fact, that the expre..<isions in.\', c, and correspondingly in x, h (in transition to x + Jr from x) IIPI}Car here. Marl( laller on (on sheet 5) made the following insert ion regarding Ihis· :

We note here that: in the statemen t of (see p. 3) the binomial cx~ansion we call f(x) , f'(x) etc. the derived functions of x'" ; and this is perm iss ible, since the concept of function at first emerged from [those ) indeterminltte equa tions, where Ihereare morc unknowns Ihan equa tions, and that is why, the va lue of x changes, when, for instance, changes the value of y. Later on the concept of function was transferred to the ullknowns in an equation, without taking s tock of the known magnit udcs, as the lalter appear as const.1 nL-,. Finally, in the calculus of va riables, it is spoken of, for examp le, abou t f(a), when x takes a particular value a. That is why. we ca n, without being confused, spea k about the function s ofx in respect of the binomia l (x + h)/ft, as well as in respect of the binomial (c + x>,," - aboutf(c) and the derivatives!' (c), f"(e) etc.
With the aim of showing how, proceeding from the binomialtheorcm, it is possible to go over 10 such a generalisation of it, which must lead to the Taytor's Iheorem - Marl( begins here (sheets 3-4) with a translation of Newton's binomial formula into the language of differential calculus; Ihis has been don e exaclly in the way it was done in his mllnuscript4000 (sec p. 219). Marx puts this intuitive transition, thi~ conjecture, leading to the funclions of a more general form , from the powered functions (Iel us recall, that for Mllrx, as well /IS for Lagrange, the issue was. s till, ·On 1).2 Marx wrote: +H p. 5· · ·. On p. 5 he made the insertion cited here, after writing: "ad ••• •. It begins wi th the words; "We note here that ". - &I.



In essence, o nl y the ~m~lytical functions of the real v/lriables, i.c., the functions, whic h may be expanded into powered series) as follows (shccI26) :

If now the equatio n has L become general then instead of I(x) " X'" we must put a f(x) .. y. where the variable x has no determinate power, but is capable of any power, so that the function (x + 11)'" takes the general form/ex + h). But what happened in the left hand
side of the equation, must be repeated also in the tight hand side, i.e., wc must strike out the la ucr terms, provided by the power m of the binomial (x + 11)"\ and substitute them by + etc. etc., in order to indica te the possibility of the infinite appearance of the new derived

functions of the gcnernlf(x + 11).
Then wc shall obtain YI or f(x+h} - f(x) or yho+Ah+Bh2+CIz3+DII4+ and this is the bas ic eq ua tion. from which Taylor proceeds for the expos ition o f his theorem. Thus,

y, or f(x+h) - f(x)+

!!.l'. if' v h' cUh+~·\.2+···

Hence, for every given fun ction x,in which x changes, i.e. , turns in to x + 11. we should only compute the differential coefficients ~,~ , ... • Le., the successive derived functions of x, and then restore again the factors

h,..!i!.-. 1·2

etc., extinct in the process of differentiation,

in orde r to obtain the expansion for f(x + h), Thus, TayJor's theorem appea rs as Bsimple translation of the binomial theorem, from the algebraic language into the languag~ oC dlCrctcntllll e~ltulus. Then Marx prefaced tha pMM tlf Taylor's theorem in the gene ral instance, wilh a discussion
once mort! of Iho qu@!l!on, as to whether Newton himself also discovered Tay tor's theorem, proceeding !'mm his binomial theorem.To this and to an analogous question regarding Tay tor Mllt;('s answcr is as under (sheet 5) :

The question arises: did not Newton, hav ing discovered, the binomial theorem, through a secret application of the la tter, also discove r, for his personal use, the theorem of TayJor, which is s uch an unusually simplified application of the dlrferential €a1culus? To this thil negative". In that case hc would have question, onc ought to unconditionally answor made a brilliant display of this finding, Hlld he noticed Ihis simple co nnection, then neither Taylor, nor MacLaurin, nor even Lagrange would have had anything more to discover, and the differential calculus would have, in essence, been completed by him.For, though Tayloc's (a nd correspondingly MacLaurin's) theorem is directly related only to the functions of one and only one independent variable, it remains the basis a lso for the expansion of the (unctions of many variables, given in an expticit, as well as in an implicit form .


• We have indicated earlicr, that the talcrdcvelopments in Newton-s tud i ~ hRve provided il1 flffifjfliillv@ilnSWi:!f to this question. See, PV, p 90, 230 8nd 333. -Tr.



The same is more doubtful in respectofTaylor, who had at his disposal, on Ihe one hand the Newtonian algebra ("Arithmetica Universal is"), and the differential calculus of Newton and Leibnitz on the olher. It is truc, that onc could have said, that in algebra the issue is always only the binomials of a determinate power m, as in (x + 11)"'. whereas f(x + 11) includes every determinate power only as a moment, but abso lutely excludes it as a boundary. However, this retort could have been turned against Tay lor, for the binomial theorem has much greater genera lity, than his theorem. The first permits 11- 1 , h VR , /("!. etc., morc precisely, It in any possible power as factors of the functions of x, whereas Taylor's theorem is app licable (i.e ., does not fail) only if the functions of x arc s uch that, though they are indeterminate and capable of any c hange, I(x) , /'(x) etc. arc all finite expressions (which do not at all lose their variability) and, besides, in the expansion, their factors arc ascend ing, positive and integral powers of h. But Tay lor did not even attempt to demonstrate, that the indeterminate I(x + 11), which admits o f any expansion, can be represented after the pattern of the binomial expansion. He, in fact, arouses suspicion, because, for example, in (x + h)"', where owing to the indete rm inateness of m, the series may be made infinite, he limited himself to writing fo r (x+ h)'" the series I(x) + /,(x)1I + ... + etc., forgelling, therein, that inspite of the endlessness of (x + 11)"', in so far as we left m indeterminate, its cnd is known to us, for the penultimate term ca n contain onl y x, and the last term can on ly be ,to 11'" _ h'" 163 • All the same it appears to me 10 be beyond any dispute, that Tay lor did not have the s lightest idea about this simple con nection between his theorem and the binomial theorem. He acted entire ly on the grounds of differential calculus. without returning to its sources.
Having noled, thal Tl ylof proceeded from the equatio n (A) !(x+h) or Yt - y(or !(x»+.4h-tBh 1 +Chl +Dh4 + .. 'Ctc., and dwelling once more upon the mode of emergence of Ihis type of polynomial in alge bra (in the general theory of equHtions), Marx concludes (sheel 6) :

Tay lor changes nothing in the initial equation obtained with the hclp of the binomial theorcm, apart from making I(x + 1/) bereft o f powers, Ihat is, capabl e of <my expansion , owning to which he also makes the right hand side inaccessible for complet ion with the help of + etc. He uses the binomial theorem (or, what is the same, the general form of an equation with onc unknown, provided), only in so far as it gives him his initial equation, without the proof, which is applied here. The po lynomia l itself is conside red by him from the stand point of differential calcu lus.
After Ihis (sheets 6.7) Mar" staled the proof of Tllylor's theorem according 10 Boucharlal (§ 57, pp. 36-37), which he apparently ascribed to Tay to r himself. Further (sheet 8), he adduced an analogous, but more general proof of Tay tor's theorem, according 10 Hind (§ 74, pp 83-84), where the initial e xpansio n,

Yl - y+ Ph" +Q/JP 't R liT



contains nOI only Ihe indeterminate cocfficienls P, Q, R, S ....... , bul also the indeterminate indices of power 0, p, y, b .... With Ihis point 1) comes to an end .




Point 2) of section 11 (sheet 9) carries the lillc:




With thcllimof

obtaining the induction of MacLaurin's theorem, starling from 11 gcner~lisation of the binomi~1 theorem of Newton, here Marx bcgi ns by IIpplying Ihe 1~t1cr to the expanSion of {c + x)"'. and then substitu tes the coefficients or the powers of:c in this cxpnnsion by indeterminate

coefllcients . Thus having obtained the equation

[(xl" (c+x)" -A xO+B.~ + ex' +Dxl +E r' + .. . + "cx"-1 +.1"',
he concludes fUrlhcr (sheets 26, the insertion "Zu MacLaurin, p.S"):

As earlier, wc can, upon obta ining Ta ylor's [in itial equation j, gene ralise this equation into

f(x) -A + B x + C x2 + ... +ctc. etc. (without comi ng 1 an cnd), and this is the initial equation 0
of MacL1urin.
In this connection Marx specially dwe lls upon the fact, that such an order of arrangement of the te rms of a series is inverse, in resp(~ct of their arransement in the polynomial, representing the left hand side of the general equation or n-th power; and that (sheet 27) thus:

.... we s hall gel rid of the term x n, appropriate onl y for the equations o f a determina te power, which, lill the co nvers io n of the series, formed its first term, a nd hence, which must now be its las t term . It is subs tituted by + etc. With this the polynomia l acq uires that genera l fo rm, which is essential, when we substitute (c +x)n or any other dete rminate fun ction of x by the genera l express ion f(x), where f(x) does not ha ve any power, but includes a ll the powers in its expansion. Then we s hall get the general : f(x) o r y .. A+Bx+CX2+Dx 3+Ex4+ · · the bas ic equa tio n, fro m which MacLaur in begins the e xpositio n of his theorem.
He re the insertion comes to an end. The subsequcnt texl (shect9) reads:

Thus, the start ing point of MacLaurin's exposition
y o r f(x)-A+Bx+Cx 2 +Dx3 +Ex4+ ...

is already an algebraic expression (w ith indeterminate coeffic ients, for the binomial (c +x)n, in which the known c is the first term, and x- the second. Hence, in order to expand any arbitrary function of x, Le., to represe nt it in the form [of a sum] o f the produCl<; of its constant functions and the asce nding integra l powers of x, it is necessary only to translate this algebraic expressio n into the lang uage of differential calculus, i. e., to find Oul the differential sy mbols for the coeffic ients A, B, C, D etc.
Here, as in manuscript 4000, Marx specially deals with the [act, that while in Taylor's .series the coefficienTs are the derivcd functions, in MacUturi n's series the coefficients are constants. Thcn Marx describes as follows, the c ircumstance, where the~e constanls are v~lues of thc derived functions o[x, when x _ 0, and that is why they may be round with the help of different ial calculus:

But here, fro m the very beginning, there a rises a difficulty, w hich is a lien to Taylo r's theorem. With the ·he lp of differe ntial calculus, o nly the functions of the va riables m~ y be obtained directly, w hile wha t is a t issue here is, conve rsel y, the expans ion connected with the variables of constant fu nctions. On the other hand, differentiation is possible, only when x turns into Xl or into x + It, as in Taylor's theorem. The issue here is not about the functions obtained as a result of the change in x thanks to the positive or negative increment, but about the representation of the genera l expression f(x) in an expanded form, with the factors of x in




ascending power, as, for example in [he ordi nary :1 lgcbra , which represents/ex) _ _ a_ with a-x the help of successive divis ion, in the form o f the series

a- x a a2 a3 If now in (c + x)n, wc take x as a vari able and expand this [(x) with the help of the d ifferential ca lcu lus (hence, turn ing [(x) into [(Xl) or into [(x+ 11) etc.), then wc s hall get :
n (c+ x),,-I n (lf-l) (c + x )n-2 -y
- f(x) - ['(x)

l 1 -a- _ 1 + _X + _l X2+_X3 +

-!!l'. -

1·2 n (n -l)(n-2)( l'" 1'2 .3 c+x-

dx 1 d2y 2. dx1 1 d 3y (; dx3

-l -l


["(x ) ["'(x)


etc. Thus all the wh ile wc get new binomials, and not an independe nt ex pans ion o f the cons tant fun ction in c. However, we atta in the ultimate goa l by assu ming in all the binomials x - 0, i.e., a rter wc have already used the va riable for obta inin g an expans ion, we remove it.
The talte r part of poinl 2) is again, as in manusc ript 4000, devoted 10 Ihe multiple rools of Rn algebraic equation . Marx begins it (sheel 11) with Ihe words;

In order to indicate once more the algebraic clemen t of the differentia l calculus, wc shall furth er refer to MacL1 urin 's deduction proper.
Marx complelcs Ihis deduction, consistins of the sellrch for Ihe indclcrmimlle coefficicnlS of Ihe ex,l.,nsion !(Xl or>,.A + Ox + Cr1 + D.rl + elc., with the help of successive diffe rentiation and Ihen with Ihe supposilion of x - O.lhus (sheet 11) ;

Co ncern ing the process o f success ive differentia tion, specia ll y applied here, !it may be sa id] , that Mac La uri n. in his "Algebra"- whic h, in his own wo rds, is, in essence, a co mmenlary o n Newton's "Arithmetica Universal is" - developed th is process purely algebraicall y, namely, in that part, where the success ive lowering o[ the power o f an equation by onc, with the aim of findi ng o ut its multiple roots, as we ll as the detection o f the unknown [roots], have been discussed.
In MacL..aurin·s • Algebra· Ihe melhod of seeking the mUllipte roots has been enunciated only in Ihe tight of the examples of the equations of thi rd and fourth power (see the descriptio n of manu~cript 3933, pp. 206-208). That i~ why, here, ItS in manuscript 4000, Marx enuncialcs this method IIccording to LRCroix 's "Elements of Algebra", where the a1so rithm has a more general character(whe re it has been constructed in appl ica tion to an equa tion of Rn)' power m). Underlining the circumstance, where the result turns out 1 be coincidins with what is obtained by successive 0 dilTerentiation of the initial equ3 lion, Marx explains(sheets 13-14) that coincidence as follows :

Regard ing this algeb ra ic form o f s uccess ive diffe rentiation, it should be noted that: wc get the equa tion as a res ult of the ass umption that x _ y + a, i.e., x - a _ y. If a itself is a root o f the equatio n, then x - a, Le., x - a - 0, hence y - O. In x - a - y the difference between x



and a has been posited, and bes id es, this difference co y. Then, jf x"" a, i.e., [ir] the old difference posited at fi rst, is aga in ta ken llway, then owing to this wc gel a two-C result: o n the one hand a as onc of the rOOISof the equation or a particular value of x; on the other hand, y - O. Thus, the setling up and removal of the difference appea rs, as in the differential calculus, as the suppos itio n, o n the o ne hand, of some thing pos iti ve, and o n the other, as
the supposition o f O.
The last parI of section 11 (sheets 14·16). is devoted IQ MacLaurin '$ theOrem as 3 particu lar instance of Ta)'lor's Ihcmcm.ll has been reproduced in the presenl volume (see, pp.89.90).

Poinl 1) of section III of the manuscrip t carries the title: "Ill. The Lugrang;u n theory of functions" (sheets 16-17). If has also been reproduced in the present volume (see, pp. 90-92). After this, the manuscript contains a detailed ae<:ount (according to Boucharlal, §§ 244-260, pp. 168-180) of the Lagrangian proof, that in the ge neral instana f(x + Ir) c~ n be expanded into a series of integral ascending powers of Jr, and th~t such a series must be that of Ta ylor. Going over 10 the last example, of this part of the manuscript, of an application of Lagrange's method ror finding out the derivative of the product of two functions, Marx writes on sheet 24 :

Before ma king, in co nclusion, a somewhatio ng com me nt o n the method of Lagrange, let us consider at first, the simplest example of its applica tio n. Suppose, fo r instance, that I(x) '" «z is to be differentiated.
Marx's concluding remHb (point 11) (sheets 25-26) have been reproduced in Ihe present volume (see. pp. 91-92)


,. \

S.U.N.4002 Some separate shecls(fouf in all). with Marx's num berin g 1,2 and 1,2, carrying respectively the litles : "Toy/or's T"eorem~ and "I) Taylor 's Th eorem", The contents of both the ptlirs of sheets coincide. Most likely. onc pair of , heels served as the draO for the o.thcr. Conlentwise it corresponds 1 those pa ris of the manuscripts 4000 and 4001, where Taylor's theorem has 0 been obtai ned by induction , from Newton's binomialthcorcm. However, in Ihis connection here il has been said, Ihat :

To all appearance, TayJor did not in fact arrive at his discovery so s imply .

stops sudden ly at the heading : "MacLllurin 's Th eorem ",

{\ few sheets, in the main con taining calculll.lions (in pari also notes), which Mane jotted down, evidently, while reading the text· books by Hind, Boucharlat and o thers; in all 26 sheets ( Marx 's numeration: 1·7, Ill , furth er 6, a page without number, 3·4, again a page without number). Sheets 1·7, entitled : "Lagrunge (Deril1ed Fun ctions)" , numbered 1·7 by Marx, conta ;n: calculations related to §§ 95-97 (pp. 120-127) of Hind's book, in which Lagrange's meehod has been enunciated ; a quotation (with Marx's refe rence to Hind) from § 99, wherein il;s stressed that in practice, the expansion into a series is carried out with the hel p of the usual methods of d ifferential calculus, and noi following Lagrange; and linally, calculati ons, related 10 § 74, to which Marx turned in connection with the reference, found by him in § 96, to an analogous method (of indeterminate indices of power), applied earl (er. Sheets 8 -9, carry the title:-Logrunge's Mt 1hod". It is the beginning of the conspectus of § 244 (pp. 168 -169) of 130ucha rlat's book. The ~ language is English. This no te abrupll y comes to an end with the calculations re lated to an exam61e borrowed from Hall ( p. 3). Sheets 10·18 are related to the instances of applicabi lity of Ta y tor's theorem . The lirst two instances


• •I '-"

, .i i

, ! , • f , ..


y . ;rl + v;r-q and

are from § 77 (pp. 92·93) of lI ind's book;the second two :
1 Y • b+ vx-a and y . - (x - a)


are from § 69 (pp. 52·53) of Hall's book..Sheels 19·22 contai n rough calculations related in the main to the deduction of Newton's binomial theorem wi th the help of Taylor's series. Sheet 24 conlainsextractsland diagrams from § 88 (p p. 111·112) of Hind's book. In th is paragraph Hind attempted to substantia te Newton's method of nuxious wilh the help of the method of '· limits. 0 Sheets 25 and 26, contnin the differentiation of x)' acco rd ing 1 Leibnitz and Poisson; the no tes are taken from Sauri , volume Ill, p. 3 and Hall , p. 4. It is being reproduced here in full :






j):L.eibnitz's method. -xy if/Ix ,y) _ (x. dx) (y. dy) - xy, . df(~ ;y) - xy +x dy + Y dx + dx dy -xy, :. df(x,y)-xdy.ydx.dxdy,


We neglect dxdy as an infinitesimal of 2nd order. (As to this neglecting, the same in Newton, onl y [the J notation [is] d iffcrcn 1.)

:. df(x,y)-xdy.ydx.
2) According /0 Poissoll. If we have yz, then according to the genera l proposition:

y,-y+Ah+Bh 2 + "',
zl-z+A 1 h+B,h 2 + ".

Wc know (rom the same proposition:


dz dx - .A and dx - AI'

Mulliplying the 2 equations: z,y, - zy +Azh + Bzlt2 + ... +AtYh +AA ,h2 + ... + BtYh2+

Hence: zty , - zy
h -Az+A , y+(Bz+AA1+BV')h+ '"

making It - 0:

zV' , -Z)'


-Az+A1y, [and]



- Az+A,y .

Putting in the values orA andA,:

d(zy) _ z(ly+ ydz

164 •

This a nOle book C<1rrying the title "A. I.". (11seems Ih~llhe large Roman numeral I was written later on, in pencil). ln all Ihere are 42llagcs; in Marx's numeration ri rst comes la, then the pages 1·35, lhen pages 37-41, and the IltSlllilgc is without number. 11 is a systematic conspectus of the first three chapters of Hind's book, with a few insertions from l3oucharlat's book. In the nOle book"O(conlinu3Iion of A). II ~ Ma rx already look notes from the fourth chapter of Hind's book, the beginning of which is devoted 10 the differentiation of trigonometric funttions (sce. manuscript 4038). Bul in note book "A. I." Mane anticipates this section in his section IV, containing the noles from chap!crs I and 11 of: Hind, ~The Elements of Plane and Spherical Trigonometry", 3rd. cd., o.mbridge, 1837, pp. 7-46. lie makes Rn aMlogous insertion, devoted to logarithms, in connection with the differentiation of logarilhmic and ellOponential functions.

In section I (sheets 1-3), corresponding to chapter I of Hind's book, devo ted to the "definitions and preliminary observations", M~rllO noted only the eXHmplcs 1-9 of Hind (pp. 20-24), n'u mbering them with Ihe urstsmalllcllers of the Greek alphabet(u - t). In all these ex~mples the deriva tive is sought, proceeding direclly from its defi niti on as the limit or the

~Iast value· of the ratio ~ .

In the examples 0.) and ~), !he func!ions u - ox and u .. a.r1 -1J.x2 + cc - e, respectively, are difFerentiated. Mat)( wrote a note on Ihe mHgins of the example ~) . This example (as it was wrillen by Marx) (sheet 2) and the corresponding note (comment) of Marx is being reproduced here in full.

Il) u _ a.r3_b.r2 +cr _ t'; ul - axIJ-bx\2 +ccl-t'
u 1 - u .. a (.r l ) -x) - b(X]l _x2 ) + C (.1'\ -x) ; u1 - U _ a (XI - x) (.r\2 + .r1x + x 2) - b(~l ' :" x) (XI + x) + cCx I - x) hence :

'.: ., .




6..1' ..

+x)+c .


! If the increment of x be diminished sine limite
.. -d _3ax 2 _2bx+'c;

becomes _ x.




du - 3ax2 d~ - 2b~ dx'+ c dx

13) It s hould be noted that here is a difference fro m a). Thcrc·wc had
why whcn it turns into

~: - a,

and tha t is

~ nothing ~hanges, apart from

the form of thc lcft hand side. In f3)
~ t here".

A slip of pen in the manuscript :"here" has been writlen. where as, il should be




both the sides ; with the decrease of the increment of x si ne lim ite XI becomes ... x, and this gives us at the sa me tim e, in the right hand s ide-the .fi rst derived function of x and in the le ft ' f Q .lI o dll 'd hand S I e t he converSion 6- - Into -d ' fi x x
But whe n

Ih~ n

in rea lity,wegc!·

All O· -------!:J.X xl-x 0
1l 1 - U

so that it is on ly_ "seem i ngl y~managcd with that, which does not linger he rein ; but the adva ntage of elementary deduction consists o f th is, tha t in L~C right hand side 0 is no morc met with as a facto r, ex term inating the determinate ,erms; rather, conversely, it is immediately t detected , that the co nve rs io n o f x J inlo x gives a new func ~ion o f x in the right hand side,
dU meanw hile in the len ha nd 's ide it is s hown, through the conversion of l1u into dx , that this

new func tion is the limi ting and ulti mate va lue of
In the example y), where the function


~·u .

is diffe renlialed directly from the definition of the d~rivative, afler the words:

"If we do the sa me w ith the help of diJJerenlial calculus, then"
Marx adds the deduction of


according to the rule for differentiating the quotient.

In 5ection 11 (sheets 4.13), which is 8 short conspectus of chapter tI ("On the differentiation of algebraic functions of onc independent variable") of Hind's book, Ma rx took down, fo r the most part, only the fo rmulae and examples contained in this chapter, without adducing any proof, not even for the differential of a producl. However, Marx completed the calculations pertaining 10 Ihese examples, in full, sometimes even in gre<lter delail, than did Hind. Bulk of these pages of the manuscript contains only calculations. Conlentwise section 111 (sheets 14·26) is related to chapler III ("On the differcnti~tion of exponential /lnd logari thmic functions of one independent va riable", §§ 34.46) of I-lind's book. Having noted the whole of § 34, in which the derivative of an exponential function is sought with the help of a reference to the fact, thllt "it was demons.! rated in algeb ra", that loga - (a-l)-Z(a-l)z+3(a-lp- .. . . Marx makes an insertion (sheets 14·17) from Hind, ch. VII, pp.154. 159, under the title:"'ns.!rtion from trigonometrical a/Gebra~. Its content in fact coincides - right U the mistake in the sixth plo deci mal place of the expansion for.! -with §§ 13 and 14 of section VII of the manuscript 3933 (~Algebra W ) described in pp. 186·187. At the end of the insertion on sheet 17 Marx wrote: "End of tile insertion ", and then under the heading : ~continuQtion of p. J3(prior fO fhe ins.!rfionr he retumed 10 § 34 of Hind·s book, this time taking notes from it ve ry briefly. After this he look notes from §§ 35·37, and also from example I of § 45 of chapter III of Hind 's book.
1 1

TIlE NO·J1:.nOOK '1\.1.'


In the insertion the serieses ror aY and log,r were oblr.ined by ~Ilplying lhe binomiallheorem. While deducing the derivative of a'; proceeding directly from the dcfinition of the derivative, Ilind used the series for log a. In l30ucharlat ':> book the derivative of Q< was sought wilh the hel p of the expan:>ion of the expression at. ~ into a series in powers of Ir Rnd by looking ro r the coefficient of the firs t power of ft. The laller was derived by using MacLaurin's theorem and lhe metho d of indeterminate coefficient:>. In this connection Marx once again turned his attention to the connection between the methods of differentia l calculus ~n d those used in the courses of algebra. He wrote on sheet 19 :

rf we aga in compare with this, the deve lopment of the same prob lem, resti ng up on the differential ealculus itself, then we shall again observe, how in Taylor 's fi nd MacL.1urin's theorems, a simple trallslation from one mode of expression into another, in which 1) the common bas is, which is also the binomial th eorem, is used by MacLaurin's theorem, for further development, wh ich g ives us f(x) [[in the given ease y - ax]] expanded into a series of integral, positive and ascending powers of x, where, then it is assumed that x - 0, in order to find out tha t which is in fac t required 1 be found out, i.e., the coefficients A etc. , which 0 are [functions] derived from the constan t a. Let us exam ine Ih is deduction.
After this Marx took detailed notes from §§ 36·40 (pp. 24.28) of lloucharlat's book devoted 10 the differe ntiation of the exponential funclion, and then again returned 10 lIind, and aga in took detailed notes from I§ 37·46. Section IV carries the title : "Preliminary recapitulation of Ihe trigonometric developments-. lt is a detailed conspectus from the text book by lI ind, mentioned above and, [ram: Hall Th. G .• "A Treatise o n l'lane Trigonometryft, London, 1833, ch . I. Here the deduction of ord inary trigonometric formulae, required for the differentiation of trigonometric functions, has been discussed. Pages la and 41 of this note book contain the usual proof of the theorem about the differential of product. The content of the last, unnumbered page is rela ted to the next note book entilled:"B (continuation of A). W . It is the beginning of the first drafl of the work on differential . It comes to IIIl end with the words :"Su, furl/ rer note book 11, p.9". This page has been reproduced in the present volume (sec, pp. 40.42).

tl is a nOle book ca rrying the title :"11. Note book r. 18 completed pages. Conspectus of the text books by Boucharlat a nd Hind on differential calculus. Sheets 1-3 begin with the heading :"/.A) Maxima et Minima affunctions of one vuriable ~,thcn follows the Roman numeral "I". Conspectus of §§ 9l-tOl (pp. 64.70), related to the section under the same title, of 130ucha rlat's tex t book (French edition, 1838). Sheets 4-18 begin with the title :"/1. Additionllllyon Ma,rima and Minima". Conspectus of chapter VII (§f 109-120 and 123-124; pp. 147·171, 173-177) of the text book by Hind. From the lasl § 124 Marx notes only example 1; the last three pages (177- 179) ofcha ptcr VII remain un noted.


S.U.N.4038 39 completed pages; il carries the title :"D (Continuation ofA ). IJ- (the large Roman numeral 11. is wrinen in pencil , like the nume ral I in the note book wit h the title -A.I-; scc, the manusc ript 4036).The first pace is unnumbered, then fo llows Mane's numerations pp. 1-37, the last page of the no te book is again unnum1x:red.
Sheet 1 (!In unnumbered page). It contains a name index, years of birth and dea th [of the authors]

a nd the tilles of the classics of differential calculus. Il has been reproduced in the present volume under the title:"A page of the note book entitled -8 (continuation of A). 1I"(sec , pp. 65-66). Sheets 2·8 (Marx 's 1.7), carry the tille: "IV(con fifluafiofl 0/ IV A). Differenli(Jtiofl o{trigonometric functions ·. Marx's conspectus of the paragraphs devo ted to the differen tiation of trigonometric functions, successively fro m the courses of : Sauri (vol. Ill, § 27, pp. 36-37), Ilall (ch. II, §§ 29-31, pp. 18.19), Hind (1) (ch. I, 118, pp. 22.23), Hemming (1Xch. Ill. § 30, p. 23). Hind (ch. IV, I§ 47·48, pp. 46-47) and, l30uc harl at (I§ 43-51,pp. 30- 33). (The notes of interrogation indicate, that the source hAS not been established with com~le te certai nt y.) Marx began his notcs with § 27 ofSauri's book (Sauri sti ll ftdhered to Lcibnit:t's method, and that is why, fo r him si n of an infinitesimally small arc was sim ply equal to the IHC itself). Marx e nunciated this point under the title (p.l):

-8) On;: of 'he simplesl forms of tire account based 011 tITe differl!!nlial calculu s itself - .
In Hall '5 · book(which proceeds from the method of Lag ran ge) the aug mented value of the funct ion u is expressed in the form: d, u+-+U/r1 • · dx on Ihis Marx observes within brackets (sheet 3, point b»:

(Where U is the rep resentative of all furthe r coefficients with higher powers of h) ,
The following method, noled by Marx in point c), is based on the equality
1 - - "'cos- (x +x)
UI -




XI -.t

X l -X



where u '" sinx. Hnd in transitio n to the limit when'¥1 - x . lI ind applied such 11 method in § 18, in the example of the differentiation of the function U '" sin lx, ill ustrating th~ definition of the derivative. Mllrx IIpplied !he same method (or finding out the derivative of the fun ctions U '" sin.tend u '" cosx. Was this paragraph of Hind's book Mll rx's source here or did he have some other source al his disposal? This we oould not ascertain. Further, going over 10 the method enunciated by him in point d), Marx wrote (sheet 4) ;

d) The previo us melhod (c) presupposes the basis of differential ca lculus onl y in Ihe fiffal translatioll into its language, of the resu ll, which is obtained without the help of this calculus.



This happens in yet full er from, in the following method, which proceeds directly from the finite differences, turning into differentials in the end .
Here, the method, utilising the form ula
Sin X + uX

. (

• I -smx " 2 OOS (x. T I slO T ' . Ox . Ox

has been discussed. Having wrillen down this formula, Ma rx continues (sheet 4) :

From the sta nd point o f finite differences it is concluded further that: if the arc 6.x is very small, then cos(x+6.x)_cosx, approximately, and nearly

s'"2 1S

. 6.x.

- 2'



sin(x +6. x) - sin x or IlSinX_2cosX.lI.; _cosx'IlX , nearIY. Translated if/to differential form, it gives d sin x - cos x dx. where Il is s imply s ubstituted by d, and the sign for nearly = by the = sign.
It could not be established, from whe re Marx borrowed this (entirely non.st rict) deduction. In Hemming's book, which also begins with the above mentioned equality, the deduction of the formula Jy .. 005 x dx, where 1 _ s inx, is obtained . by dividing III (Le., 0. sinx) by tu and through a transition to the limit.
Going over to the next (loint Marx wrote (sheet 5) :

e) This (differential) method differs from the prev ious ones, emana ting from differential ca lculus ( i.e., from a) and b». in this th at, the increment is not instan tly cons idered as the differential.
Here Hind's method (§§ 47, 48, pp.46, 47) has been discussed. In this book the function u .. si np, wherep is, in its turn, a function of .%~is differentiated, proceeding from the equality

. 1. .1. 1 sln'2' 1 SIl1'2' --_2cos(p+ - ,) - - • cos ( p . - , ) - 2 1. h ' h 2 h
u , -u


through 8 transition to limi t when /1- O. Here the increments i and Jt of the variables p and x arc in fact not identified directly with the differentials Jp and dx. In that last point C) of this section (rom §§ 43-51 (pp. 30-33) of Iloucharlat's book, notes are taken under the Illle : (Boucharla fJ" (here, elsewhere Marx did not indiCllte his sources). Here the s tarling poinl is the equality


si n (x. It) - sinx • sinxcos h . sinh con - sin x which is tra nsfo rmed into the equali ty si n (x.l1)-slnx


si n llcosx

si nx(cosh-l)








When " _ 0, bOlh lhe terms
to compu te Um

or [hi s equality [urn ;010~. and BoucharlAl ,

wh o is in fac t required

._0 COs ;, r

1 , says iu thi s connecti on (wc reproduce here Marx's nole on sheet 6) :

"1Icoc<:, we musl gjYe this term [COS~ - I} another f orm".
After this l30ucha rlal .ransformcd Ihe expression cos" - 1 inlo
10 limit is cffee.cd by Ihe simple assumpt io n of ,,_ 0 Bm!


. 'h

I and Ihen the Iransitio n

Si~ 0 _ 1.

Sheets 9·16 (Marx', pr.8. 15). The lexl Lx:gins with It reference provided by M8tlc:"(see, th e beginninG of/his i/l nore book I, n:peated on 1'.10 of this note bOQk)~. Ilcrc Marx has in view lhe lasl{unnurnbercd) page of manuscript 4036. This tex t is the first drafl o( M afx's work o n the differential. 1I h ~s becn published in Ihc prescnt volume (pp. 41.52) . It occupies thc fOllowing shects : the last unnumbered pllge of the note book w A.l ~ (the beginning) (s heet 42).(shect 11, p. 10 orthe prcscntnote boo k under th e title:wHere is the be8inning Q/pageS", sheet 12 (p. 11) UplO Ihe words :~/url"UQn p.S /QP Qnd p. 9 w , sheet 9 ( p. 8). Bfler Ihis the remaining part of 'he texl conl inues on sheel 12 (I'. 11 ) , sheet 10 (p.9) and sheets 13-16 (pp. 12-15). Sheets 16-35 ( Marx 's pp. 15-34). Draft s of Ihe essay on differenlial ca lculus. These have been published in the present volume (pp. 64 -86) under Ihe tille : ~On the His tory of Differenli al Calculus". Sheets 36·38 (Marx's pp. 35-37). These pages co ntain th e beginning of a no te, which Marx did not co nt inu e. Hc did no t evcn formulate clearly, what, namely, he wished to say. The beginning of th is note reads (sheet 36):

Irom it the secret of differential calculus can not be extracted directly; it can be found only from the opposite method, where the augmented value of x appears only as XI' Le., the difference rek'tin s its difference-form XI - X , also in the subsequen t deduction. Hence, the secret which remains hidden in the method used by us, is required 1 be revea led, 0
The mean·in g o f th e s ubsequent part of Ihe text is not sufficiently clellr. We may only surmise, what Marl( intended to explain, namely : why, fo r oblaining the derivative, lit first the difference Xl - X d ifferent from 0, is requi red 10 be formed, and then removed. AClually. here considering the function :cl , Marl( at first formed the difference Xl - x2. which is rcpresenled in the form of (x +x) ex- -x). whence dividing both Ihe parts by x -x. he obtained furtherx + x _ 2x. After Ihat he wrote (shee t 37) :

But though till now we deduced correctly : from x2 we went over to the difference x 2 - x2, then obwined (x - x) (x + x) from this difference, and from the latter ":"" the divisor x - x, Le., all the time we have applied only the exp ressio ns derived from the initial X2; however, du ring this time we forgot that x - x - 0 in the expression (x - x) (x + x), that is also in o· (x + x) _ 0, before any further divis ion by x -x may occur. Nevertheless, this development showed us :

'I1IE NOTE IlOOK "J)(CON'nNUATtON 0 1' A), lE"


1) Persis te ntly draw ing upon the treatment of x 2 and Xl , whence also of x ~n dx,lls different magn iludes, that is also of x 2 _x2 and x-x as aClllal differellces, we could find ou t the derivative of x2, namely 2x. But how? 2) After violating all the rules of a lgebra, wc still, in the c nd , trcated x-x in the expression (x - x) (x + x) as an actual difference, Le., acted as if the firs t x is a magni tude different from the second x, and that is why permitted ourselves to divide (x-x) (x +x) by (x - x), [but] as soon as wc ob t.1ined the positive express ion x + x without any o ther factor,a pa rt from I, we sudden ly remembe red that, x and x are no t at all different, but are identical magniludcs and that is why x + x ... It.
Here the note abruptly comes to an cnd. Later, on sheet 38, under the title: "3) ad 10 ".35" the deduction of the derivlllive 2r from Xl, by forming the diffcrences xl- .r- And x -x, wriuen on sheet 36, is repeated (with some olher expressions). The last. unnumbered page of the nOle book (sheet 39). contains on ly some calcul.1lions rchlled 10 the dete rminlltion of the suhtllngent to parabola.


S.U.N. 4040
A double-page writing papcr (pp. 1-3), containing a summary of the formulae of differential ca lculus. Source: I·Hnd's book, chapters I ,U. S.U.N. 4048

Some separllte sheets (10 in all), containing calculations relllted to v~ r ious questions, referred to by Marx in his notes. These sheets do not contain anything new in comparison 10 the nOTes. On one sheet the general equlITions for the curves of ~econd ~nd third o rder have been written.

S.U.N. 4143
A manuscript of 14 pages, Marx f1umbe red them with the small tlllin Lel1crs from a 10
/1 •

Sheets 1·7( M ~rx·s pages a tog). Marx 's nOlesi ll uSlr8tingd ' J\lcmbcrt's method ItS exemplified by [he differentiation of a composite [unction.These have been reproduced in the present volume, under the line: "Analysis of d '" ft:mlxrt 's ml!lllOd in ' he fight of ~t ano/iaer camp/e" (pp. 102-106). Sheets 8-9(Marx's page hi I) carry the heading: "l,agrangc". These s heets contain ca lculations

related 10 the differentiation of the product oflwo fu nctions u and t, according 1 Lagr.. ngc 's method, 0 i.e., by rep resenting the product of the augmented val ues of the [unctions in the form o f the product of two scricscs
I u+ph+-qh1 + ,..

and a sea rch ro r the coefficients or the first power of 11. Source : Hind, § 96 (pp. 126- 127). Sheets 1O. 14(Marx's ( turned over)A: to 1'1 ), devoted tothedifrercnlials of second order. Here the question specially discussed is : how to differentiate ex pressions of the type! '(x)d.\" .Thus o n shects 12 a nd 13 wc read;

x' ,

3x' • /'(X),

6x • I"(X).

I) 3x2 or /,(x).;£' .
If wc proceed from ['(x) as <p (x), i.e., assu me that 'P (x) aforementioned path, wc shall ge t :

thcn mov ing along the

11 ) 6.x - <p' (x)


Here cp is written only to make it di ffe rcnt from the first ['(x).
d (3x2) • d /' (x) • d

(;£') ,

dy. ['(x) dx, d (dy) or d'y. d (J'(x) dx). If dx is a cons tant, the n [it] - d if' (x» dx.

'1i; . d (J'(x)).
Bul d (J'(x)). I"(x ) dx,

:. Z·

["(x) dx


~. ["(x) .

[[If we take 3x2 as the firs t derivative, then it is equal to ['(x) and ~ - ['(x) .
That is why :]J



a) 3x' - f'(x) That is why:

;l;'. Thus, dy - f'(x) dx.

d'y - d (f'(x) <ix) - /"(x) <ix' .
b) 6>:-/,,(x). If dx is taken to be a consta nt, then

d'y - d (f '(x) <ix), !!'1. _ d (f '(x))
.. dx2 dx

but d (f'(x)) - /"(x) <ix.


'fll; -["(x) .
In this method the formula

~ - fl/(x)

is obt.1ined, only owing to the hypothes is, that

d (f '(x) <ix) - d (f'(x)) <ix , i.e" tha t dx is taken as a constant. This account may serve as a proof only if there is no arbitrariness in th e hypothes is that dx was a constant, in the result dy - ['(x) dx, where now dx is not considered as dx - d (J(x)), but as the dirfercntia l of the magnitude x. If it turns out to be a consta nt in the first differentia tion, thcn it so happens a lso in the seco nd,

8 sheets of nOies. MIITX numbered them with Latin tellers from A 10 H. It has [WO paris (A-D

and E-IJ). T hese ha\'c been pUblished in the present volume, under the titles: 0" lire 110t!un;vocality of Ihe fermI; u/imil n and nlimiting value" (pp. 96-98) and Compari.fon of J'Alembt:rl'S me/hod wilh Ihe algebraic me/hod R (pp. 99-101) respectively.

S.U.N.4145 Two sheets of rough notes devoted [a explaining that the difference between the methods of Marx and J'Alembert, is not to besimply reduced 1 lhe [act that, instead of /., Xl -x is written. With 0
this /lim Marx differentiates the runctionf(x) """'. representing al [iTst, its augmented value, in the form off(x + /I). and then in the (orm or /(x+ (Xl -x)). Applying the binomiallhcorem in both

the cases, he obta ins the derivati ve as the coefficiem of !J in Ihe first power, corresponding 1 0 (Xl -x). Mlcr this Marx finds out the deriv3tiveofthesame (unction, representing at first, the difference xIZ-x' in the form of the product (Xl -.T) (XI +x), and then by di v iding it by Xl -X and assuming finally, tha t .T l ":c. In this connection regarding the firsl method Marx observes:

Here we have the desired fun ction 2x at once in the ready- made form, in the first derivative, as the coefficient of (XI - x); it is obt.1 ined direclly with the help of the binomial theo rem.
On the second method Marx wrote an 'incomplete sentence in the margin, after which dots follow:


Hence, when not only X t - x is to be removed, but when the assumption x t - x, or -x - 0, g ive s XI + x - 2x, i.e ., the fun ction 2x is ded uced throu gh the reduction of

(x t -x) x (Xl +x) ...

A manuscript of 9 sheets. II-COnh'lins: a) draft of the manuscript ·On the concept of Ihe derived func ti on" (scc PV, 19·25 IInd the description of manuscript 4147, given bclow). sheets 1-8 (Mux's numberi ng : 1-6, 5 and two pages without number) - the diffcrcn l readings found in different places of the draft 1I1l0 in the fair copy of the publ ished m3nuscrip' • On IlIe concept of derived funclionft. have been inr.iicalcd there in (ool-notes; b) th e observations contai ned on sheet 9 Ihese are bei ng reproduced below, in futl.


It has been shown, for insta nce, that

1) When

we gel




[(x) -X"',

It was shown, that the derived functi on ['(x) o r mxm - I is obtained from the initial
by ass uming XI
- X,


XI - X -


. B ut th· assumption IS
latter we write



XI - X -

0, or



XI - X,

y, - mto -0' an d'ms lea d 0 turns - - y .



r Ihe

~ , in order to indicate the origin

of this


i.e., [10 indicate] what so rt of

'. . . . 0 a ratIO 0 r actua I d' r' I Icrences, m th ' e alorementloned r Y ' -Y . teen d turns mto -0 . case 0 - - , III h


This is all the more validated, owing 10 the fact that as result we get

0- ,nx--' - [,(x),
and in th e left hand side of the equatio n, this res ult


~ was obt.'l incd, thanks to the movement

which ensued from the variable x sl..'l nding on the right hand side.


may be = any magnitude X, as




' Smee h O ,IS . not cqua I to an arb' ere 0 i!fll.ry X, but

- IILX", -I,

so through

may indicate : in consequence of what sort of movements of the independent variable ~ in a



!!l..Jn dx


determinate fun ction/(x), did the symbol



2) However, since the meaning of

!!1. dx'

whose special value naturally changes

depending upon the determinate [orm of/ex) itse lf, has been fixated once and (or all, as soon as wc ope rated on the grounds of differential cal culus; the tusk is lthcrcby J inverted. Namely, the special value of

-1x '

like, for example, mx". -l above, i.e., the derivative to wh ich it

corresponds, is required 1 be found out through differentiation. 0

S.U.N . 4 147 The firs t among Mnrx's works of 1881, on the nature and his tory differential calculus. In it Marx introduced the concept of algebraic differentiation and the corresponding notations for I he process of finding oul the derivative, for a certain class offunelions . It was wriuen in the form ofa leuer to Engels, on 8 sheets of writing 1)'1d, with an envelope attached to il carrying the heading ~For G~n~ror (sheet 9). It has been reproduced the present voiume, undel"' the title · On t/lc concept of the deriW!d junction" (pp. 19.25). On this manuscript also see the Preface and nOle l.

S.U.N. 4 148 Three groups of sheets, photocopies, described below in poinls 11), b) and
this archiva l uni t.

cl, have been united in

e) Photocopies of6 sheets of double page writing papers, sheets 1-14 ( Marx's numbering: 5- 15 ( 14 Iwice).and photocopies or two SC]lMlllc pages 16 and 17. These have been published in the present volume : sheets 1·10 (pp. 5 - ( fi rst) 14) under the title: "Second dra ft " (scc pp. 53·59 and note~l ); sheets 11 · 14 (pp.(second) \4-17) under the ti l le: "l bi rd draft "(see , pp. 60·62). Photocopies of the pages ' .4 of the second draft are missing (see, nole 41 ) . b) Sheets 15·27 (in Marx's numbering : pp.ad 3, once more ad 3, 4-9, unnumbered, 11 -13) - draft of the m~nuscript ·On the dirferen tia' " (see below manuscript 4150). Va riants of parts of this manuscript have bcen indicated in the foot notes 10 it (see, pp. 26-39). The paragraph reproduced below is from the draft. It is absent in m8nu~cript4 1 50. With it poi nt 4) of the draft,corresponding to point 4) of section I of the fa ir copy (sheet 20), comes to an cnd.

The initia l course consisted of Ihis: fo rming Ihe diffe rence !(x t ) - !(x), to obtai n al fi rs t
6[(x ) - 6y.

and then

MM llx


.Ax.., llx

with the aim, of fi na ll y deriving fro m there,the deriva tive

['(x)" ~, bY assum ing YI - y .. 0, toobtain in concl us iondy - [,(x) dx. dy is the /ast sy mbolic res ult of the differe nce- form. Conversely, dy beco mes the sta rling po int, as lly ea rlier. With the help of operatio ns indicated by it ['(x) dx is ob ta ined, and in concl uS'ion wc obtain

!!x. _/'(x )

from dy .. ['(x) dx, mea nwhile, as in the ini tial deduction, dy .. ['(x ) dx, Le., the

di ffere ntial of y, is obta ined as the las t result from

1; .. /'(x).

T his paragraph was written on a separate page,which Marx numbe red wi th the nu meral 6 . Afte r it, there is a sentence on this page, wilh which the next point 5) begi ns.

5) Let us now exa mi o'e the differential dy .. /'(x) dx.
This sentence is not there In the fa ir copy, whe re this point 5) corresponds to point 1) of section 11 . In th is connection it may be men tioned that the remaining pa rt of p.6 of the d raft is blank; in the fai r copy this page is absent. c) Sheets 28-30, arc, content-wise, related to the dirferentiation of the product of two functio ns and to the search fo r the second differential and the second derivative. The sheets not numbered by Ma rx have the character o ~ incomplete fragments. They do no t contain ~nyl h ing new, in comparison to the material [hercin) published.

In Ihe firs t dran , lhe most complete initial plan of this suprlcmcnt to the manuscript "On lhe

differentia)" (scc. the description of the manuscript 4150) has found expression. Apparently it

plays Ihe role of an outline.This <.Iran contains len pages and consists of four sections , with Ihe following titles provided by Man: :
Sheets 1·4. "A) Additionally on fire differentiation af.ry·, p.l beginning of p.4.

Sheers 4·5. "8) Til e equation y2 .. ax" pp.4.S.
Sheets 6-9. "C) Differenlialion of ~ ", pp. 6·9.


Sheets 9-10. "DJ Implicit form". end of p.9-p.lO. In the second draft, sheets 1l·16 (Marx's pp. 1·5 /lnd one page withoulnumber). the first two sections (sheets 1I ·13 ~nd 13-15) have been fair copied. PiTsl of ~II, here MHrx corrected A slip of pen in the title of section A) : slruck oul xy and wrote la. However, here too, we have many cancellations at the end of every scction.·lt shows that Marx was notsalisfied even with this new version. In this connection il is of interest 10 note that in the following two drnOs (third and fourth) these first two sections do not exist at a ll. Apparently, later on Marx dropped the intention of including them in the supplementary. Drafts third and fourth, each contain only twO sections:

~A) Differentiation of!! . , pp. }·3.



Differenriulion of tin implicit function· " cnd of p.3 - p.S .

The third and the fourth drafts contain nearly no cancellation , but a

of rough calcutlllion

regarding the expansion of the fraclion ----l:...... ;nto a series has been appended 10 the third one. y - .1: lIere all the fou r drafts will be described at the same lime. I1 will be based on the four sections projected by Marx in the first draft, bUllhe conlents of each of Ihem will be elucidated, in the main, in accordance with the variant, more carefully edited by Mar.'(. ( Herein all the exisling variants will be adduced in the fool notes or otherwise.) We shall begin wilh seclion A) of the firsltwo drarts. 1'oinl1) of this section has been published in the present volume (sec, p.62 and nOle 47), according 1 the second dtllft, whe re Marx made 11 fai r copy of il . 0 Apparently, in lhe following poinls 2) and 3) Marx wanted to bring to light Ihe following: should we not get rid of the assumption, that the variables u and % lITe both functions of one and Ihe same independent variable x ? Should we not proceed on ly from the presupposition that u and z are interdependent ? In fll CI Matx wrote on Ihis (we quote from Ihe second draft) : • In the third draft : - 8) Differentiation of implicit functions~. Ed.

J)ItArlS 01' AI)[)ITION!'i TO 'OIE.




2) So far as the origin of the symbolic d ifferential coefficien t inside the "de rivative" f'(x) is concerned, d (uz) could also have been expanded, withollt (lte equation
llZ ,

namely, as a func tion


considered in iso lation.

Le t us assume at first, that u and z depend upon x; then


IlZ ;

whe n

x becomes



Tha t is why, subtnlcting a) from b) :
Il lZ 1 - IlZ;

expanded in fa c to rs '"
Zl (Ill - 11)


(Zl -


- X,

since both depend upon x: c)
Zl (Ill - 11)



Il (Zl -



; assuming Xl

Le., x, -

X -




3) We could, finally. develop also without X and assume that Il and z are tnlllllally dependent upon each other.
However, here M ~rx COUld. not PUtllcroSS ihe problem with eX/lclhude, IInd it is possible, Ihal namely thlll is why. later on he refrained from including Ihe seelions A) l!Od B) or the first IWo drafts in his supplemenlto the article ~ On the dirferential~, Section 11) is being reproduced below IIccording 1 the first d raft. where il has bl'en enunciated 0 in greater de lllit. From this draft it is IIlso evident, that ~t that st~ge of his work -to which the manuscripts ~On the concept of the derived function" and ~On the differential" and then the additions to the IlIuer arc related - Marx was first of all interested in the "purely 1Ilgebra ie" with
~spect wh~t

he himself called,

of the differential calculus; nevertheless, he was IIlso preoccupied

the qLlestion of geometrica l application of the lauer (namely. 8S geometrical), To all

appcarencc. initil11ly Mane wished to investigate this question in the first drafts of the supplement to the nlllnuseript ~On the differential" ; but afterwards he decided to postpone it till the completion o f one of the IIIHer "issues~, evidently, he considered the question to be serious enough, so as not to 181k about il in passing, but to devote to it a special enlry, Unfo rtunately, this intention of Mar x could not be aClualised. The text of this section is being reproduced below, in accordance wi th Ihe first draft (Sheets 4-9) :

... Marx's expression "expanded in factors", is related to the transformation of the differences and u%\ - U% inlo the products %1 (u 1 - 11) and u (%, - z).- Bd.

UI%t -

uz 1



D) TH E EQUATI ON y2 _ at 1) If this equa tion is treated as the equation of the pa rabola·, then this object iLself dictates the path •• , demanding that it be turned over. If y2 _ ox, then inevitably a lso:

ox,.,. y2, w here x is the dependen t, and y - the independent va riable. This is the proper
path, since the general formula for sub· tangent to curves _ y


, hence, in the given

particular equation of parabo la dx must finally be expressed in y and then substituted in the general formula.
When divided by a, ox _ y2 g ives : x - L • an equation with one dependent variable in

the first power, a nd bes ides onc of the mos t elemen tary func tions of the independent v<lriablc y. However, wc shall keep it for the subsequent gcomctric application, sinee I persona lly wish to make a few more prefatory general remarks on the method used by me .. •. Now only

2) y2 .. ax wi ll be considered, pu rely analytica ll y.

Yt 2 - axu when x turns into XI. Hence,
YI 2 _ yl_ a (x t

x), (.vI - y) (.vI + y) - a (XI - .\").

If we div ide, in the right hand side, xl-x by ilSelf, then we shall get a·1 - a; in the left

hand s ide :

(Yt -Y) (.vt + y) ; hence x1-x

(Y' -Y) (y, + y) - a. -x

[(1) ]

This first result of ours should not be Ict oul of view, since il vividly shows, that, exactl y as in our very first example, where we had y .. ox and obtained

YI-Y a , x1-x.(here lOO ) the entire differential operation onesidedly occurs in the symbolic [cft hand s ide· .. •.

x .. 0 .. dx, then thereby YI .. y, hence, YI + Y will turn into y + y , into 2y J YI - Y into y - y, into 0, into dy, and
If now in (1), in the left hand side we assumed that
XI .. X,


XI - X _ X -

we get :


~'2y-a .

• In the second draft, here is an addition: ·which has not occurcd yet in thi~ cntry~. - Ed . •• For the solution of the problem of subtangent to the parabola (see, the lext that fOllows). - Ed . ••• This sentence is absent in the second draft. In its stead there we read; • Here we s hall not be concerned with it any more" , - Eel . ..... In its s tead the second draft contains only: "The subsequent differential opera/ion occurs onesidt:dly in the symbolic, i.e., in the left hand s ide". - Ed.


1- ox

The form 2y ~ in no way differs from the fo rms z




clz dx developed sub A) 2), and

that is why, nothing more is required to be sa id about iL~ deduction, in this connection. du dz The difference consis ts of this, that dx' dx arc developments upon uz*, as symbolic differential coefficients; they emerge as mu ltipliers of the dependent variables 11 and z, in the righ t hand side, [whilel operating with y2, we see the reverse: the one and only variable y emerges in the left hand side, as the multiplier of th e differential coefficient

-¥x; this is

explained simply by this (see, above B) 23», that the difference y, - y from the very beginning has as its multiplier (YI + y) , owing to which the assumption that YI - Y must equally give-the positive resu lt 2y, Le., twice the dependent variable y, as well as the negative res ult y, - y_y - Y - dy.

. Sec tion C) of the first draft is devoted to differen tiation of Ihe quotien t - , whi ch Mane carries
out first (in point a», using the .ready+made formula for the differential of the product. In points b) and c) Marx sought Ihe diffe rential of the quotienl ~. wilhout using Ihis formula. Here he proceeds

" ,



;d!.r~clly fro m the definit io n of lhe derivative. Herei n, for w brcvily of proccdure whe lakes


as Ihe

.~.~: B~t~t...~OU ld be a mistake to conclude from this, that the expres~illn for the general ratio of
~cI?en~ence, .of


.'i~dependent variable. and oomme nls (p.9) :

;·ob(ai~e~· ~~~rlier· .~or :ihe symbolic differential coefficient, in its .. .'.


the independent variable x, sla nu ing in th e left hand side, which we finit e form Yt - Y , has in its xt -x


nov( been supplanted by some other form of the ratio of dependence.

Is it not. clea r? J rom this, that, to all appearence, Mar)!: did nOI at all inlend 1 replace the usual 0 malhiimatical , modes . expressing the dependence between variables, by some other (generalised) of , mode of expreSsing thei r ~ interdependence"? . " . In' pa:i nl· .b),. having formed





and ha vi ng

tr ~nsf? rm ed

it into

z (u(- u) -:u (z! -:) .'.' - .. • Marx·then
lZl .



In poinl c), this differential is obtained, starting from the division of the

di ;i~~i~c~ '·~I· - ~
..;.. zJ


Zl - z, Le .• through an initial search for the derivative of the quotien t. This is in f.ul i'agreeme.nl with


In the manuscript. owing to a slip of pen, here we read "xy" . -




Ihe method usually used by Mane Nevertheless, having obtained, in point b).lhe right hand pari of the formula (1), without an initial divi~ion of the difference ...! -~ bY:1 - z. Marx observes (shcet 8):


T he method is absolutely the same, as ea rlier, only in the result the re is something new: the d iffe rence of the indepe nden t variable Zl - Z stands in the numera tor, whereas the posi ti ve expression of eq uality Zt - z sta nds in the denominato r in the form of Z2.
If Marx made R fai r copy of the manuscript 'On Ihe differential". before sending ilia Engcls, then, apparenlly, lhe additions 10 it, were read by somebody (mosl probably by Engels or Moore) whi le Ihese were sliIl in Ihe rough copy-stage (which is the first draft of Ihe supplement). Eviden!ly, Ihe aforementioned place called fo rth some critical comments of the reade r. in a nswer to which Marx wrole the lAst Iwo va ri ants of the supplement. Wherein the seclions C) And 0 ) of the first draft served as the basis, as has already been noted, for the third and fourth d ra fts, whe re they were turned into sections A) and B). Section A) of the 'hird drafl, is devoted to the differentiation of the quotient ~ . " was wrille n




di rec' ly in the form of an answer 10 a critical observation. In his answer, Marx explained, tha t the expression

rdu-udr . u u , obtained by him, was not the derivative of - , but Ihe differentia l d - . r· ;: r

(Let us remember 'hat for Marx - just as it was for Euler, see, Appendix, ~ On Leonhard Eulcr's Calcul us of Zeros" - q uantitatively spea king, a differe ntial was genera ll y equal 10 zero.) In the fourt h draft, which is the edi ted, final, fair·copy-stage oflhe work on the supplements, seelion A) lost the cha rade r of an answer 10 some ailiCII I comments. Thai is why 10 depict Ihe entire course of Marx's work, we shall adduce nol only the lext of this section according 10 the fourth d rafl,but also (in foot nOlcs) all the existi ng differences, from the text o f the lhird draft . Section A) consists of 3 poin ts: 1}, 2). 3). The first two of these are being reproduced here in fu ll. I'oinl 3) is to be found o n p.63 of the present volume, in accorda nce wilh the (hird draft (which is fuller on this point)


1) Let us assume that in



Ihe independen t va riable is z, and u is thc depcndenl va ria ble.

Just for a change, th is time we s hall co nsider the fun ction, g iven in an algebraic form, independentl y of the fo rm o f the eq uation [in the third dra ft, ins tead we read: "For the sa ke o f a change lhis time we s hall co~sider ~ :l:s it function of u and


not connecting it with a

third va riab le, depende nt on

z . in the form

u !


.., .

of iIA eq uation" -


Ed .], whatever that might be

- this can always happen' (aitt6ng the functions given in a" algebraic ,form the re may be expressions conta in ing Jl!n ~5,"cos ines etc., logarithms and exponenti"al expressions like a:r).

U h a ) Z , I"r zgrows " z l , 1 en ' : mlo



b) T; subt ractin g a) from b) : c) z-z;arnvmg at a oo mmon denominato r : a difference of products ] :
" ,






Z" , -

uz l


; expa ndi ng the numerator [into


Z ("1 - u) - U (ZI - z) zz . If nowz l beco mes


-z, hence,z, -z- 0, then" :

e) zdu~"dz [" hence,d ~ _ zdu ~ udz" (3rd draft) -Ed. ] :




This expression seems to be strange. In fact il was obtained at the cos t of a total change in method , for - see d) - Zl - z instead of being in t~e denominator, found itself in the numerator, and d) was turned into its differential express ion e), only ow ing to the fac t that we reduced Zl - z, s ituated in the numerator, into ZI - Z - 0· .. . Th is · apart, though it was assumed, that in ~,

is the dependent va riable, and z-

independent, we would have obl<lined the same result, had we assumed, that in the numerator of the ex pression d) Z (u, - ll) - " (Zl - z)(where the role of Zl - z does not at all differ from the role of ", -" ), " I" U, 11 , - u .. 0 ,a nd that z depends upon u ••••.
It is true th at we ca n so interpret the whole process. In d) the denominator z,z turns into zz, i.e., it is assumed that Zt - Z. tha t is, Zl - z .. 0, where from, on the onc hand, in the num erator Zt - Z turns into dz, on the other, ul - u into du (s ince u depends upon z, i.e. when in the denominator z, " z, then III - U, i.e., uI - U - Il- u .. du).

Thus the method could ha ve been saved in respect of the numerator, however, on ly to give it up fully . Namely , its general res ult , which was [as followsJ : the ratio of dependence of It variable upon another must be represented as dependent, and x - the independent var-iable .

y, - y
x1 - x

, if Y is presupposed to be the

• ~ if z grows into %1' Ihen u into u l ' hence~ (3rd draft). - Ed . •• "If zl becomes _ z, lhen II: ,urns into zz or Zl, z -:_ dz, u l - U _ du, hence :" (3rd dra(J). - Ed . ••• In the Ihird d raft in pl/lce of this paragraph, we read: · Wha t has struck you, is Ihe appea rence of this reSUl t. I suppose this, because otherwise you would nOI have Ihough'that the dirrerenlia,ion or

-!- presented

H peculiar ClIse, in the development of which the method was undergoing som~

modifiCII:tion ". -Ed . •••• This paragraph is abse nt in the third draft. -Ed.

" 33

ZI - Z


[Ins tead o f the last two paras, in the third drafl : "Actua ll y . elz (c) (i n the final form o f (d» , the di ffe rential part icle of the independent var iable z, s tands in the numerator as the mulliplierof 11, while z itself, in the pos itive fo rm o f z2 (in th e rinite fo rm III (d», is situated in the deno minator. Thus , it seems,that wc proceed from th e fi nite ratio sub (d) to its diffe rential express io n s ub (c), assuming sub (d):in the numerator Z ( Il l - u) - 11 (ZI - z), Zl .. z, hence Zl - z .. 0, and Ihis looks like a change in th e method , mo re so , as here in the denominator, instead o f be ing made to represent the removed difference ZI -z .. dz, is rather tu rned from Z II into Z2" . - Ed .J 2) Le t us aga in use the equa tio n fo rm·,

a) y - ~; z

z, z __ c) - - - - - - YI - Y
z\ - Z

z~,z _ _

ZI - Z

ZI - Z


1 ____ 1 z-'--, __ z



uz )



I (z (u I - u) - U (ZI - z» , YI - Y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---"z''''z d) - - Z I -Z Z I - Z.

I[ now we put in th e right hand side ZI -

z, hence, Zl -


0 etc, etc., the n :


(z(/u -udz) ·"""i


dz dz


and ,
I f) dy o r d -" - (z du - u dz) '-, ;



hence :
dY z du-udz


Hence, the diffic ulty a rose onl y fro m this, that the differential occupied the place o ( the differential coefficiellt · ·, Let us co mpare (sce" the previo us ma nusc ript) with what was obta ined w hile differentiating uz :
• In the thi rd draft ; -The secret is explained as soon as we aga in use the initlll form of the equa tion- .
-&I .

• • In the third dra fl : -The riddle was completely solved. The di//uentiol coefficient represen ted s ub e), was obtained also in I) e). and here sub I). the result is IhedifJerentillr. - Ed.

DIFFEREN111\110N OF !!.


and B)dy -z du+udz. dx dx dx The diffe rence between : a) d (uz) - z du +" dz and b) d!!. "" (z du-" dz)· 1 , arises only from the difference 2


!!r. -z-+,,du dz



between the func tions being differentiated.
Sections D) of the fi rst draft and B}of the third and fourth drafts are devoted to the differentiation of an implicit function. In the first d!"ft Mar:< examined the example of finding the derivative of the (unction y (.f). in terms of x, given by the implicit equation of seco nd degree

b yl_ 2yx + - _ 0 • borrowed from


Hind's book (p.23. example 8 ; in I-lind the equation is

:ul -2ux+a1 _O).
In the third and fou rth drafts Marx examined the (unction y (x), given by a n implicit equation of the same type

yl-2p .. O.
Ma rx then expands (in the third and fourth drafts) the obtained result

!!l. _-L.


into a series by division al an angle:
" XX .f1 --"-- - 1+-+-+-+ ... y-x y yl yl 2

and explains , that in the given case he thus obtained,

I I I 2 .. 1+-+-+-+ '"
2 4 8


since it follows from the equation y2 - 2yx _ 0 (when y .. O)that




S.U.N.4150 Marx's second work, of the year 1881, on the nature and histo ry of differential calculus. In it
Marx's own method of
diffc renli~lioll

is IIctualised, using the theorem of the derivative of

product.lt is a manuscript of 13 sheets of writing paper. An envelope (sheet 14 ) with the heading

Frt!d" . was attached to it. 11 has been published ill full in the first parI of the present volume

(pp.26.39),under the link :"011 the differential ", On this man uscript scc also the preface and note n .

S.U.N.4300 8 Sheets of detailed ca lculations, related to the section:" On the method of Lllgrangc, 10 prove the principles of di fferential calcul us without having recourse to limi ts, infinitcsimals or allY other evanescent quantities ", of Bouchllrlat's book.(ln the 5th edition of this book ~t our dispos~l,il is §§ 244-254,pp. 168-176; on its content , see: Appendix," Theorems of Taylo r /lnd MacLaurin IInd LIIgrange's theory of analytica l functions, in the sources consulted by Marx"). Marx systematised the materia l according 10 his own plan. Hedivided it inlO six parts, numbered them with the Roman nume rals I-VI, with additional indexes inside each


It contains no important addition to Bouc hllrlat's account or to Marx's manuscripts 4000 and 4001 (see,the descri ptions in pp.214 and 231 ). That is why, here only the following observation of Marx,is being reproduced. It is of interest from the point of view of his understanding of the "infinity" of a series. Having written in pari 11 the formula

[(x + 11) • [(x) + ph (or (x) lI) + qh2 + ,hl + sh~ + tM +
and having raised the problem of explaining the rule of successive formati o n "of the derived" functions P, q, " s, t etc., starti ng from the initial function /(x), Marxsummed up in thefolJowing words, what he has already done (Sheet 3):

The first result
1) gives at all events, tha t f(x + h ) - f(x) + ph (or f tx>h) + the terms with h2 " h3 •.• . 2) that the series has 110 power, i,e. owing to its own nature, it ca n always be co ntinued.

S.U.N: 4301

In Ihe manuals al Marx's disposal, Tay tor's Theorem was proved in lWO different ways: 1) with the help of the ready-made apparatus of differential calculus, but proceeding from the assumption, that "in the general instance". for any x and 11 • (1)
where A, H, C , .... II TC unknown functi ons of x,to be determined (this was done in the text books by Boucharlal and Hind, with The help of the method of indeterminate coefficients);




method of lagrangc. i,e. without the apparatus of differential calculus, and

conversely. by defining the derivalive as the coefficient orlhe rirsl power of Ir in expans ion (1). and Lagrange wanted 1 substantiate this method ~ purely a lgebraically" (in Hall's book Ihis allempt 0 of Lagrange has been enunciated in a form, which was given 1 it by Pois50n, who allcmpled to 0 complete it). C rilicising the proof of Taylor's theorem, presented in the books of Hi nd and Boucharlat, Mar!t observed (see, PV, 88-92,231-236 and also pp_93-94, 264-301 ) that their initial assumptio n is unfounded. In the present manuscript he gave an account of the proof of Taylor's theorem, acco rding to BouchHlat, but wanted to utilise Poisson's method for substantiating the validity of the initial assumptions of this proof. There are two copies of this manuscript (ooth in English) : a rough, and a [air copy, identical in content. lbe fair copy (pp. 1-4 in Marx's numeratio n) consists of four points, designated by the Roman numerals I-IV, in the rough copy (pp. 1·4 and onc more unnumbered page) the same material has been spl it into five points ( I -V). The content of the man uscript and the quotations from it, are being reproduced below, in accordance with the fair copy. As has already been ind icated, Marx thought, Ihal nol only the formul~tion of Taylor's theorem, but also ifs proof adduccd in the books of Ooucharlat and Hind, belonged to Taylor himself. In none of these books there was any bibliogmphical referencc. Nevertheless, the fact that Marx looked for the title of the corresponding work of Taylor and, speaking of Taylor adduced the [corresponding] bibliographical information, induces us 1 assume thal he wanted to 0 verify this hypolhesis from the primary source, which, unfo rtunately, he could nol manage to

Accordingly, Marx formulates in poinll ,lhe initial assumption of Boucharlat, as follows;

Tay lor's theorem may be considered to be the resume of his "Melhodus incremenlorum etc." (London, 1715-1717). He proceeds from the following suppositioll : If y - f(x) and y, - f(x + iI ), Ihen this latter function may be developed as a series according to the ascending powers of 11, thus: y,-y(or yh O)+Ah+Bh2 +Ch3 +
~ereA, B, C elc. are unknown fun ctions of x .




Tha t is why two proble ms emerge : wc


1 1) prove Ihal 0

val i~ity

of MT~ylor's

SU ppos iTion~,

and 2) find OUI [he unknown coefficients A.

n, C, .....

11 is well kn own Ih lll th e class of functions investigated by the mathematicians of the 18th and the first half of 19th century were such, that it was n.1turall0 ass um e Ihal a [unclion may be represe nted
by It powered series only " in exccpli o nal cases" . Rcferri nt: 1 L ngrangc. who tried 10 pro ve it, L acroix 0

wrote in his hig "Trea tise· (p. 160): "Wilh Ihis aim wc




vcry elegant ana lysis, carried

DUI by Lagraoge in 1772 and enl arged thereupon by the highly s p.'lrKl ing comments o f Poisson".

<10 this connection Lacro ix mentioned in Ihe lis\ of literature. It paper or Poisson, published in the th ird volume of the journal "La Corrcspondance sur L' Eoole I'olylechnique".) Hall began his book following I'oisson. Marx used this book in his poi nt I, devoted 10 substantiati ng "Ta ylor's suppo.~ition". After the arore me ntioncd place Marx writcs :

But Poisson and other French mathematicians have afterwards proved: if y - f(x) and y • ., f(x + 11) the n : Yt - Y or f(x + h) - f(x) is expressible by a series of the form A It +B h2 + C hl + etc" hence:
y,_y+Ah+Bh +CIt +
2 3


the chief object of the differcnlinl cal culus being to find the values of the A, B, C etc. I shall no t give here the general demonstration, but an example.

Then Marx adduces from Hall ( § 7, pp 3.4) an example (No. 3) of the eXPl'nsion of the value of the functio n.
y_ AX"'+BX"+ e~ +


into a series of Ascending powers of 11, when x is substituted by x + 11. Point I comes to an end with the fOllowing observat ion of Marx (sheet 2), related to the adduced "general demo nstration" by Hall :

The demonstration of Poisson etc. offers, moreover, the great advantage that it cannot be given without stating already the cases, in which the se rial development with ascending integra l powcrs of if and unknown or indeterminate functions of x leads to irratio nal res u l L~ - thu s predeterm ining the limits of the applica bility of Taylor's theo rem, its ~o-ca ll ed "failures" .
In points 11 and III Marx gives an accoun t of the second problem, from 13oucha rlat's book : the unknown functions A, 8, C etc. in expansion (I) are soughl thmugh the method of indete rminate coeffi cients. In point 11 the foll owing lemma is noted: - If in a function .y of x, the va ria ble x is changed intox + Ir, then we shall get one and the same differential coeffi cient, irrespective of the fa ct, whether x will bea variable, and /r a constant or /,-8 variabl e, andx a constant· ( Bo ucharlat, § 55, p.34). In point III the equatio ns are written with the help of differentiation first in respect of 11 and then in respect of x, and application of the le mma (q uoted above) ; and from these equations the coefficients A,H,e etc. are determined (see, Appendix, 1'.338). Taylors theorem, thus obtained, is then ap ptied to the search ror the expansion in Taylor's series of the function log (x + 11) (in the draft this example occupies a special point IV). Point III ends with the followin g words of Marx (sheet 4) :



S ince all tmnsce ndenL11 fun c tions of x -exponentia l, logarithmic, trigonomctrical- (in fact aI/funct ions of x save those possess ing a common algebraic for m)- rcruse by the ir nature, their expansion in a fi nite number of algebraic terms, it is self-ev ident that the differential coefficiehts of such fun ctiolls of x can on ly be expressed by an infi nite number of terms, whence it fo llows that the ("orrespo lldillg functions of x + h-o r Tay lor 's ser ies- ca n also in gene ra l be but expressible by fl series of te rms in de fi nite ly conti nued. Tay lor's theorem may also be written · [as1 f(x+h) .. fx+

!!:.!l.il 11 !!.J1.!l

112 !!:..!lE. JJl !!:..Jl..!l h" 1+ dx 2 ~+ d.t;l t ·2·3 + ··· + dx" 1'2·3+

This is without any doubt the fo rmula wh ich has led La gwnge to his theory of functiolls, O the r fe ll ows deno te the successive diffe rent ial coefficic nl<J by P. q. r etc., and write then: h 112 11 3 , f(HIr) - f(x):P1+q 1.2 H 1.2.3 + ...
It is unders ta ndable, that if lex t 11) is expressible in Taylor's series, thenf(...) has derivaTives of any o rder. Lagrange alCempled to prove, Ihal ~ in the general instance- the affair is like this: f(x • 11) is expilnded into Taylor's series, but his s uccessors-au thors oflhe text books used by Marx -did nol al all doubt, that eve ry functio n is differentiable, and besides ~n infinite number of times . From' thei r point of view only 11 polynomial had 11 finite numbe r of de rivatives. It is not surprising, that in this connection Mlt rx made a distinction between two instltnces : func tions expressible by a fini te lieries, and funCTions expressible by an infinite series. In the las t, fo urth point, Marx gltve an Itccount of the theorem on the method of indeterminltte coefficients, fOllowing l30ucha rlat (i n The fifth edi tion of his book, it is the sixth appendix). The followi ng words of Marx precede Ihe demonstra tion of this theorem:

As the merhod of indelermilloftt coefficiell ts is of freque nt use in the differe ntia l ca lculus , shall add a very si mple demo nstration by BOllcharlat (Frenchman).
Thc time of writing this manuscript coul d not be established. Howcver, the re is some ground to assu{J1e, that it was written IIfter the manuscripls 4000 and 4001, but berore manuscript 4302 (see, below). In fact the ideas developed in manuscript 4301 , are ye t 10 be found in the manuscripts 4000 a nd 4001, in whi ch the first results of Ihe work o n the theore ms of Taylor and MacLaurin and LHgrHnge's theory of8n3!yti~al functions have been su mmed up. Theltuempl 10 use the method orLagrange-Poisson, not as something prior to the di ffe rential calculus, but within this very calculus, so as to remove with its help, Ihe inadequacies in The demonSlration of Taylor's theorem, completing the construc tion of differentia l calcutus, happens to be a new one. At the same time, it is evident fro m Marx's last incomptete manuscript, wherein he criticises the M demonstrations". adduced in the books of I-iallltnd Boucharlat, that this a ttempt did not satisfy Marx .

• In the nOTation adopted by Marx. - Ed .

The task of dating this manuscri pt presents no difficulties, since in it Mar" refers to the mllnuscri pts sent 10 Engcls as" in the fi rst two" (this refers to the manuscripts "On the concept of the derived function" and "011 the differential"). Hence il was written, nol earlier tha n 1881, 10 all appearence, in 1882.

This ma nuscript, in 45 sheets, remains o nly in lhe form of a rough draft. and that loO at a very earl y stage of it. Marx retu rn ed many times 10 the beginning and 10 the other places of this manuscript and Ihat is why it does not contain his continuous numbe ring of the p ages. It would be nalural 10 divide it inlo the following parts, for description . I. Sheets 1-4 (in Marx 's Illllllcralio n pp. 1-3 and 4 lines of p. 4). MHX gave this part the title :"Taylo r's Theorem ". 11 . Sheets 4-7 (pp. 4-7) (upto the diagram on p. 7). Title: "Adp.l Additionallyw. 111. Sheet 7 (p.7 under the diagram), begins with the words: "Alllhis beller be so begun" and ends with the indica tion wi thin brackets: "Conlinualion on p. II_N. IV. Sheets 8-9 (pp. 9, 8). Title: "Preliminaries of successive di/ferenlialion (prefafory 10 p. lr. Page 9 ends WiTh the following words within brackets : "Con/in. on previous p. 8" V. Sheet 10 (p. 10). Title : "Ad p. 5" . VI. Sheets 1-18 (pp. 11-17, and once more 17) . Page 11 begins with the words: "Con/in. ofp.

8 and 9 n
VII. Sheets 19-23 (pp. 11·, 11~,117 ·, 118, 119 upper half). Continuation of the text, begun o n p. 7. Page 11_ begins with the heading (in the left upper corner afler a cancellation) : "Ad. p. 11-. VIII. Sheets 23-25 (p. 119 beginning with the tit1e : "Prelude 10 p. 1 ; Taylor 's Theorem ", p.l and an unnumbered page ). Two sheets, on which Marx wrote at the same time, continuing from certain places of p.I inlo the unnumbered page, which he called "Ihe opposile page". " begins with the Roman numeral I, under which he wrote "a)". To "11 appearcnce, it is the number of the fo rmula fo r the cxpansion of (x + 11)$.
IX. Sheets 26-38 (pp. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, again Jr, again i, j , k) . Pagc "a" begins wit h the words: "Ad p.1; Taylor's 11Ieorem". On p. "c" (fourth li ne from top Marx begins a new section unde r the title: "Taylor's Theorem". Page "k" carries the heading: "MacLaurin's Th eorem w .
X. Sheets 39-40 (pp. 0, p). Title: "Successive Differenlialion -.

X I. Sheet 41 (p. s). Title : "Ad p.l (Taylor's Theorem)". XII. Sheets 42-45 . Four separate pages. The first th ree are numbered 1-3 in pencil, the last one is unnumbered. P~ge 1 carries the title: "Towards Taylor's Theorem, p. J". Pa ge 2 has the heading: "Ad. Taylor's Theorem (p.]). Page 3 carries the title: "Ad Taylor's1'Jl. p.l, eq, [Jr, written in pencil .

It is evident from the above list, that Marx returned to the beginning of This manuscript at least 8 times; that is to say, this beginni ng did not satisfy him. So many variants, as well as the fact, that

* 11 ' , prooobly because, by mista k:e Marx took: the previous page lIb to be n6. -Ed.



all of them has the character of rough, unchecked drafts (in plllCCS cont~ining explicitly wrong calculations and conclusions), makes the t ~sk of ascertaining MHX'S intended plan of the manuscript, a difficull one. The text of this manuscript is being rcproduced below almost in full. However, a closer acquaintance with the manuscript, provides sufficient ground, to draw the fo llowing conclusions aoout Marx's ideas and intentions. 1) The unsatisfactoriness of all the modes of substanliating Taylor's theorem, found in the manuals of Boucharlat, Hi nd, lIall and others, was clCllr to Marx . The attempt, contemplated in manuscri pt 4301, 1 correct the deficiencies of Boucharlat's proof.. by substantiating his initia l 0 ass umption, no more satisfies Marx, as he sees, Ihat Boucharlat's inilial assumption is nol at all tenable: nol every function f(x ... h) may be expanded into a series according to the ascending integral powers of 11. 2) That is why Marx thought that Taylor's theorem was obtnined through a generalisation of Newton'S binomial theorem, which permits Ihe expansion of (x + 11-,. into the series indicated. Such a generalisation had to isolate a class of functions 1(X +11), for which this expansion is possible. even if, in its tutn, in a certain generalised sense. But certllin difficullies are connected wilh this sort of generalisation, and Marx highlightcd them. First of all, here a transition (even a "lea p", as Marx Clllls il ) from a finite polynomial to an infinite ( indefinitely continued) series, is essenlial. Further, in the binomial theorem,x + h is a simple sum of arbit rary x and" ; in differential calculus x ... 11 is a mode of expressing (what we would now call) the local change of Ihe variable x • which Marx expressed in his algebraic method of differentiation. wi th the help of the indeterminate difference Xl -X (see, the manuscript ~On the differential ~ , pp.26·39). In this 0 connection Marx had 1 specially ponder upon the diITcrence between the indeterminate differences XI -x, corresponding to .1'1 - .1' , to be "removed" in Ihe process of differentiation 0 (in the transition 1 limit). and the fixated difference I(x", 11) - f(x), by no means in need of such a ·remov~ 1 • (which also is designated by .1'1 - .1'), and which is to be computed (approximately) Ihrough an expansion into the Taylor's series. 3) It is natural that Marx wishes to investigate the confusion generally connected with the concepts of constanl and v~rjable. with the concepts of a function as an analylieal expression (functi ons "i n X ") and a function as a correspondence (fun ctions ·of x"). wi th successive differentiation. Of special interest in this connection is a note, which Marx placed in that section of the manuscript, which is devoted to successive differentiation, and which we marked out under the heading: 0" the word ·Iullctioll~ (see, below p. 268). The draft and fragmentary cha racter of this manuscript makes its reading and description very difficult. The difficulty is the re right from the arrangement of the different parts of the manuscri pt, especially as Marx many times returns to its beginning and to the other parts. AJI corresponding indications provided by Marx have becn laken into account,as fBr as possible. In all the other cases, the lexts hBve been joined together according to Ihe questions considered (but always mentioning the pari number given in the list on p.264, so that the reader may retrieve the content of each of Ihese parts, if she or he so wishes). Some parts of the manuscript, contai ning only calculations (which are, by the way, easier 10 do all by oneself. Ihan to follow the way another person does it) have been omitted. Cerlain explicilly miSlaken places have also been omitted (but the mistakes have been indicated). In consonance with Marx's directions we shall sla rt with part IV (sheet 8), and then proceed to part VI of the aforementioned list.



We know that if we have :y - !(x),thcn d/(x) - f'(x)dx. Hence 1) d !JxX) - [,(x); being differentiated in its turn ['(x) gives d [,(x) - f"(x)dx;

hence: 2) d



) - /"(x); further

d /"(x) "/,,'(x)dx ;

hence: d /"(x) 3) -~ - /,,'(x) ; further: d /,,'(x) - f"(x)dx;


hence: d rl/(x)

- f"(x) etc.

A. The "derived" functions, in their turn, may be considered independcnlly of the entire chain of functions, connecting them with the original function; on the other hand, each of them may be presented also the "derivative" of the previous original function. In this case, those very functions appeared as:


1) y or [(x) with the derivative!'(x). hence, iJS before d1Jxx) - f'(x); this function in itself
- <p (x);

2) y or cp (x) and the one deduced from it: d <p(x) - cp'(x)dx and d

:;x) -

cp'(x); this

function, in its turn, is an independent function, say F (x); 3) y or F (x) and the one deduced from it : d F (x) .. F '(x)dx and d Thus, we have:



) - F '(x) .

1) ['(x) - d!Jxx l
2) df " (x) - d

then we shall have

t};X) ; if here we put the value of [,(x)

d(~l. d(d[(x)).
hence, .


f "(x )_ d(df(x» ' dx2





an expression, wherein we leave the meaning indeterminate. (Con tin. on previous page 8.)







Marx continues this procedure on p.8 (sheel 9). lill be obtllins ;

d (do dod/IX))
Hence •
WI )


dx) dx






WI) d·d·d·df(x) xdx4 .

With this, part IV of the manuscript (lIccording 10 our lisl) comes 10 an end. Part VI on p. 11, is preceded by the words ; ~Contin. of p. 9 and 8"; it begins with a repetition of the entire aforementioned procedure. Then Mllrx writes (sheet t 1) :

We have seen, how these various formulae were obtained in the form of symbolic expressions of derived functions, hence, as the symbols of operations already carried out; and from the earlier account it is understandable, that they become the symbolic operational formulae, formulae. indicating only those operations which are yet to be carried out for finding out the real equivalents corresponding 10 them, or the derived functions. But these formulae themselves are still 10 be analysed in detail. 1) Let us consider, at first, the numerators of the symbolic differential coefficients for [,(x), [,,(x), f"'(x) andfN(x), namely: df(x), d (df(x)) , d (d (df(x))), d (d (d (df(x»))) etc These expressions emerge only because, the various functions appear in the chain of their deduction from the original function and that of one from the other, Le. as successively deducedfunctiolls, each of which always springs from the one immediately preceding it. But they appear in the other equations too, in their turn, themselves as the original functions, Le. irrespective of the chain connecting one with the other and with the initial, original function, which, in its turn, may carry the birth-mark of some other orginal function, of which, initially, it is the derivative. Beyond the mutual connections, these functions appear as follows : for example y or f(x) .. 5 X4 (at the first glance, it is possible to indentify this original function as the first derivative of X S). Hence, x ['(x) - d Ho x' ) or




Let us call this independently appearing derivative q>(x). But still preliminarily the following is to be noted:


'() " x

d dv Y. - Y ~ or~ - -dx dx XI -x


XI .. X ,

since 'the latter will be reduced to

!; thanks to the equalisation

or XI


x ... O.



To fixat e this, we sha ll desig nate the {expression] metamo rphos is, through d turn ed into Thus, we obtained

(YI - Y),
x1 - x

where, consequently,


t~~ "'b:ackets indicate that YI]-x has -Y x

YI - Y , which

has undergo ne this

I'(x) = d[(x) dx

or !£!' _ (Y' -Y).
dx x]-x

But here a few mo re remarks s ho uld be made abo ut the word fUflction .
Since th e fo l lowing insertion is of interest, independently of the question of success ive differentiation, it is being reproduced below in the form of a sepflrilte note (sheets 12 .13).

Initi all y the word "func tion" was introduced in algebra, while inves tigating the so·callcd indete rminate eq ua tions, whose numbe r was less than the numbe r of unknowns entering into them. He re, fo r exam pl e, th e value o f y changes, when in place of x its numerical values, for example, 3, 4, 5 etc ., are subs tituted. Here y is ca lled a fu nc tion of x, because it must su bmit to the latter's command, jus t as every functi onary does, eve n the great Wilhelm I is himse lf dependent on somebody . In consona nce w ith this, in the differentioa l calculus the word "fun ction" was transported with this sense, upon the dependen t va riable, fo r example, upon y. Consequently Y or f(x), i.e., y or 5X4 in our example, s ignified a functi on o f x, and besides it is that function of x, which is given by the dete rminate expression 5x 4 , because the value of Y cha nges a lo ng with the cha nges in the values, which x produces through its own variation, in its own spec ific express ion Sx4. However, whcn Llgra nge introduced lhe definition o f the "de rived" functions, and along with that also the dcfinition of the o rigina l fun ction, from which thcy ha ve been deduced, then th ere arose th e confus io n whi ch con tinues till date . Llgrange's fun c tion entered into all the modern treatises of calcu lus, where, however, the word "fun ction" is used at the sa me time, also in thc prev ious se nse: thus, fo r example, if y - 5 ..\.-'\ then we have : Y o r f(x) , or s till more specifically, y or f(x), or the function 5 X4 - f(x), or 5 r. The confusion may be removed only by reading: y as the function of x, i.e. as dependent upon x in each particular case or as the function of x in its determinate expression 5 x4 , which = the orginai fun ct io n in x : 5 X4 ; exactly in the sa me way in respect of the derivatives : y is always the func tio n o/x, they [the derivatives] are functions in x . In the last sense, the word "functio n" designates for the original function, that algebraic combination, in which x nppears initially, for example, as 5x4 and fo r the derivedfllnctiofl [it deSignates] those new val ues, which appear instead o f Sr, as a res ult of the variations of x and of th e diHerentialio ns co rresponding to them 165. In Lagrange when the expression f(x) sta nds to the le ft of the algebraic expression in x, {the n it] has th e mea ning of only a general and that is why indeterminate expression, s '~nding

o pposite the particu lar 166; a nd f(x + 11) has the meaning of a genera l uncxpandcd expression, standing opposite its deve loped expression, 11 scria l l:xpa nsion, as, fo r examp le , in algebra (x + a)m is the genera l uncxpandcd expression , while on the right hand s id e, on the s ide of seria l expa ns ion, stn nds X'" + etc. This is quite enough and adequate for determina te purposes; nevertheless, wc should no t fail to distinguish the functio ns of x from the functio ns jn x, s ince o nl y from this dis tinctio n does it follow, tha t the func tions of x may have co ncrete exis tence, as distinct fro m fun ctions in x , like, for insta nce, Ihe existence of the ord inate, when x is the abscissa lI.md the orginal func tion in x is simply an expression in x ]] etc.
After th is Mane went over to explaining the meaning of the expressions: d[(x), d(d[(x», d (d (d[(x») etc., placed by 'him in the numerators, i.e. of the differentials, now ofllny order. With this aim , first of all he slJccessively differentia ted the fun ction y -x', IJsi ng for the dcrivalive the new notation (::



=~), introduced

by him, which is also extended to the differential,

designating the differen till l dy thro ugh the difrerence Yr - y , taken within brackets, i.e. thro ugh

-(YI - y)" . If y _ [(x), then Marx writes there upon (Yl - y) - ([(XI) - [(x» o r ano the r method" 13-14) :

as he says , .. in

(Yl - y) - (Hr: + 11) - f(!l», thus subsitituting Xl byx + 11. Here we read (sheets

If we s hall at o nce consider each of the various derived func tions, in its turn, as the o riginal functi on, i.e. independently of the entire ehain of deductio n, then: if wc ha ve

1) y - [(x) - x', the n y, - [(x,) -x,'.
Having designated Yl - Y , when owing to the ract that x - 0 it becomes dy, by [(x,) - [ (x ) XI - x by (XI - x). that is also by
XI -

(Yt - y), and exactl y in the same way
(f(x ,) - [(x)) (xl-x )

,as soon as x,-x becomes .. 0, wc s hall have:

(y, - y) or (f(x,) - [(x)) _ ['(x) _ Sx' (Xl-X) (XI X) o r h

(y, - y)


(f(x,) - [ (x)) - [,(x)(x, - x)


['(x) dx - Sx'(x , - x )



And in ano ther me thod :
(XI-X) dy

(y,-y) or (f(x+ " )- [(x)) _ ['(X) ... 5..{' , .'

and in the same way

(y, - y)


(f(x + ") - [(x)) - ['(x)(x, - x) - 5x'(x, - x)



FUrlher, having designa tged the obta ined derivative S!l~ by w{x), Marx treats it just as the fundion [(x ). Le., just as .~. was trea ted. He repta tes it also fo r the function F(x), obtained by differentiating w). After that he concludes (sheets 14-1S):



We see here, that

\ ) dy or (YI - y) - ([(XI) - [(x»,

2) dyor (YI - y) - (<p(x l ) - <P(X» , 3) dyor (YI - y) _ (F (x l ) - F(x))

elc. or in another mode of expression: t)dyo r (Yl-Y) - ([(<+ ltl-[(x), 2) dyor (YI - y) - (qt(x+ It) - qt(x)) , 3) dyor (YI - y) - (F (x + It) - F (x)) etc., Ihat, hence, dyo r (y, - y) expresses th e removed diffe rence of the different fun ctions a/x, and besides that of the different Junc/ions, obtained in 1).2).3) etc., every time through the differentiation of the respective original func tions in x,
[(x)-x', qt(x)-5"', F(x)-SAx'. Thus, dyor (Yl - y) in 1), 2), 3) has three entirely different values, wh ich arc represented
by the differentials: 1) dyor (YI - y) - ['(x) (XI -x),

2) dy or (YI - y) - 'I' '(x) (XI -x), 3) dy or (YI - y) - F '(x) (XI - x). Converse ly, in the expressions of the symbolic differen tial coefficients I ) ([(XI) - f(x)) 2) ('1'(.<1) - <p(x» 3) (F (XI) - F (x)) , ...
• (XI-X)
II - X




is the same, as in the differentials, where xl - x appears in all the three equations, as o ne and the same factor. But this is self· understood. If we take th e fun ctio ns f'(x) , cp'(x) , F '(x) in the concrete expressions given for the exa mples, then ': \) ['(x) - 5"', 2) qt'(x) - 5'4x', F '(x) _ 5·4·3x'. Though all the three are different functions in x, they all ha ve this in common, that they are fun ctions in one and the same variable x. The y were all obt.1ined through differentiation, namely through the assumption that XI - x, that is XI - X - 0, (XI - x) - dx.
'After Ihis Marx went over to obtaining these ve ry derivatives with the help of the operational fo rmulae of diffe rentia l calculus, Le., he began nOI with the derivatives, but wi th the symbolic fo rmulae of the differentials. Here Marx writes (sheet IS) :

If we now proceed from the operatio nal method , where th e actuall y sy mbolic differen tial, emerging f rom tlte differential coefficients serves as the starting point, in order to find out, co nversely, th ese firs t ones, then, fo r exa mple, \) dy or (YI - y) - ['(x) (XI - x) ; that is why

!!x. or

(YI - y) - [,(x)

-x) .


Exactly in the same way: 2) dy or (Yt - y) - qt '(x)(xt-x); hence

(Yt - y)
( xl-x )

- qt (x) •...


In the differntial (XI -x) or dx appears as a factor of the first derived function in x, in respect of f'(x) , <p'(x) , F '(x) etc. Thus, the latter are obtained only by freeing them from their accompanying multipliers through division, in other words, by dividing (Yt - y) .. dy by (Xl - x) or dx.
Further (sheets 17.18), Marx carries out 1111 these successive differentiatio ns once more for the function /(.r.) ... right upto finding out the third derivative, starting every time with the formula for the difrerential, Le., the formula of the form J(jl(x) .. Ip'(x)dr ( here, in the calculations there arc quite a few slips ofpcn). Summing up, Marx writes (sheet 17):


If we now compare this with the expressions obtai"ed through substitution (p .11 *), then, having equalised the different expressions for the same f'(x) ,J"(x) , f"'(x) theri: and here, or as in our example [the expressions) 5x", 5·4.x-l, 5'4')x' , we shall have: d rlx' d, 1) I'(x) (resp. 5x') -

T -


2) d ('lxJx» - ["(x) (resp. 3) d (d

Hx~ - ~.

<:.{(X))) _["'(x)

(resp. H'3x') _ d£ .

Thus, the expression on the left hand side does not sta nd for any thing other than the fact that, sub 1) the original function is differentiated for tile first time, s ub 2) - for the second time and sub 3) - for the, third time and since we designate this first differentiation by df(x). so wc can designate the' second d(df(x)) by d'f(x). the third d(d(df(x))) by d If(x), wbere d, d '2 , d 3 do not singify any thing apart from the fact that,f(x) is differentiated for the first lime, the resuil thus obtained is again differentiated etc. Thus we obtain: 1) E.ful_ El 2) d' [(xl. Et 3) d' [(xl. Et:. dx dx ' dx2 dx. I dx l dx . Since f(x) - y, we can, everywhere, write in the left hand side y instead of f(x}, and we get: .

1);l; - I'(x) -;l;. 2)

~ - I"(x) - ~. 3) ~ - ["'(x)

-l' .

[In 'each of these equations] the difference between the two expressions is o nly apparent. On the left hand side all the derivatives have been expressed as derivatives of the or igina l function f(x); on the right hand side they have not on ly been expressed as derivatives of the original function, but also each as the derivative of the preceding one .
• sce, PV,267 Ed.


l)But dy . (YI - y) . ([(XI) - f(x)) . df(x), 2) exactly in the


dy' . (YI' - y') . ([ '(XI) - f'(x)). Thus, if sub 1) the sublated difference between the original f(x) and f(x..) is represented, then sub 2) [is rep resented] the sublaied differellce between the first derivative [,(x) and its function ['(Xl)' changed owing to the increment of X to Xl .

d' f(x). d (d ([(x))) does not express anything else; since df(x) is the differential of the original functionJ(x), it
0 is equal 1 ['(x) dx, and that is why d (d lex)) is the differential of the first differential f'(x) dx 0. d (j(x» is the first differential of the original functionf(x). d (d/(x» o r d 2J(x) is the second differentia l in respect of the orginal func tion, but (it is the] first differential in respect of the first differential ['(x) dx, Th. same for d (d (d f(x))) e tc. d (y' dx) is d 2 in respect of y and in the same way d (y" dx 2) is d 2 in respect of dy, hence, d 3 in respect of y, Thus, the most suitab le form is obtained for calcula tion: if f(x) - y, then


.;j;, /"(x) • 'tf; ,/"'(x) • 'tf; ,

Expression of this confusion is a remnan t of the Ncwtono-Lcibnitzian methods amidst the modern ma themat icians, who not only .....
Here part VI (of our list ) breaks off. One may Ihink, that speaking of the confusion, which happens to be the remnant of the methods of Newton-Lcibnitz, Marx hHd in view [the practice of) operating with the expressions of the form

~~ ,as ordinary fractions, when

x is not an independent

vllriable. For Marx the source of information about such confusion could, for example, be Ihe lexl book by Ilemming. In fact Hemming writes (see, the nOle on p. 65) about the notalions : '

~, ... , ~ : "These expressions are sometimes used ins.lead of f'(x) , f"(x) etc. also in


instances, when x is nolan independent variable. But in this case it is clear, that the numerators, no more reprcscnt the successive differentials of y and that these expressions in realily cease 10 be fractions, but become simply symbolS, equivalent to f'(x) , f"(x) , .. , ,f (~~x) -, let us note in this connection, that in the entire lext ci ted, for Marx x is always an independent variable. The account proper of Taylor's theorem begins with part i (in our lis t above sheets 1-4). It is being reproduced below in full. While readi ng this pari, we should remember,that Marx uses the term "ableilen" ("to deduce") in a sense wider than what is in current use; for Marx Ihe derivative is "deduced" from the original fun ction (i.e., obtained from it acco rding to definite rules), Taylor's theorem is "deduoo" from Newton's binomialtheofem (i.e., il emerges as a gcneralisati';:ln of this theorem, herein the permissibility of which is still to be substantiated). '" Here is a slip of pen in the masunscript (and it is repeated below several times): instead of "differential" Marx wrote "derivative", This slip of pcn has been corrected. - &I, •• Here the sentence breaks orr. - Ed.

Let us take III 1) (x + 11)" _ x'" + /fiX .. -1 -" + m(m - 1)x .. - 2112 + m(m - l)(m _ 2)x .. - 3 - - + _ 1 1·2 1·2·3

if' +m(m-l)(m-2)(m-3)x,"-4 ' ' ' + 1234
This is the binomial theorem.

If wc now assume that in (x + 11)"', x is a variable, and h is its increment, then, when" .. 0, (x+ if)" - (x + 0)" -x' . .
That is why. before its increase, the original function in x is X"', or

a) X"' - f(x)-y,
b) (x + if)' - f(x + if) - y,.
That is why the above mentioned equation is transformed into

h 112 ~ 2)f(x+h)or Y1 - )':"'+fnx .. · 11+m(m-l)x",·2'1.'2+m(m-l)(m-2)x", - ll.2.3 +

+m(m-l)(m-2)(m-3).< -- ·


+ ...

If in the right hand side we ass ume that" - 0, then it will become euqal to 0 also in the left hand s ide, and we shall again get y .. X'" or ." [(x) (scc a)). Thus, the first term of the serial expansion for YI or for I(x + 11), is inevitably - f(x) - y.

Hence, equation 2) is transformed into
3) f(x + 11) or YI - Y + ,mm-1


+ m(m - 1)x ... - 2t.2 + m(m - 1)(m - 2)x",-l 1.2.3 +
+ m(m - 1)(m - 2)(m - 3)x ... 4



. If' . + ... . 1234

Regarding the coefficients of h we know that the derivative of x'" _ mx "' -l, the derivative of mx .. -I

m(m - 1) X ",- 2 .

the derivative of m(m - 1) x ... -2

m(m - 1)(m - 2) x ... -3,

the derivative of m(m - 1)(m - 2) x ... _ 3 _ m(m - 1)(m - 2)(m - 3) x" _ 4 etc.

That is why equation 3) is transformed into 4)f(x + /) or y , - y or f() + f'() 1 + f"() if' + f "'() 1.2.3 + f"() 1.2.34 + h' I x x if x!.2 x if' x
But since




[,(x) -

~ • /,,(X) - ~.

["'(X) -

'2 .

["(X) -

d' af. , .. .

and s ince wc may s ubstitute fo r the derived fun ctio ns, thei r symbolic cquivalcnl'i, so :

!!l' iI !!:t iI' !!:t iI' Ii2 iI' 5) [(x+ iI) or y, - [(x) or y + dx 1 + dx' t.2 + dx' 1.2.3 + dx' + ...
and this is the Tay/or's theorem, Le., the general opera tiona l formula for dirrcrnliating every f(x). [when x J increases by a po!)itivc o r nega tive incrcmcnth 161, Herei n it is necessa ry only to represen t y thro ugh the g iven functions in x and , as wc shall unfo ld correspondi ng. dy ([2y . dy ([2y to them dx' dx2 etc., to substitu te the va lues of dx' (/x2 etc. thus obtai ned, in lne above
mentioned fo rmula , having mod ifi ed 112 III multiplicatio n by". M ' 1.2.3 etc. therein, their numerical muhipliers, thro ugh

Fro m the po int of view o f the algebraic method applied by us, this theorem is, till we act in its cha racteristic way, inapplicabl e; though, as has already been sa id, on the basis of the data obta ined w ith the help of this method, it ca n be directly ded uced from the binom ial theorem. That is why, fro m its sta nd point, onl y the fo llowing remarks may be made about this most general and the mos t compreh e ns ive o f all the operationa l equations of differential calculu s: a) To be at all applicable, it requires (sec, equation 4), that the origina l fun ction in x he expandable, not only into a series of determinate, and in this sense fin ite, fun ctions of x, but tha t, apart from it, it sho uld be a series of functions of the indica ted sort, with the faclor h in ascend ing, integral and positive powers. Lower down, we shall aga in return to this . h) From eq uation 5) it fo llows that

[(x + iI) - [(x) or y , - y - dx 11 + dx'


!!:t t.2 + !!:t 11' dx'

iI' Ii2 11' 1.2.3 + dx' + ...

But Y1 - Y is a finite differe nce, - fly, because it is only the difference between f(x) in it~ orig inal condition a nd the same f(x) in its increased form. This difference is not reduced 10 dy. Hence it follows, that the finite difference

y, - y or [(x+I1 )-[(x) is express ible hy a sum of differential coefficients with the fa cto rs h in ascending (integra l
and positive) powers. This s um is the inc remen t attained by the dependent variable y, when x increases by h. But fro m equation 4) it follows, that it does not sign ify anything o ther than the fa ct, that f(x + h) - J(x) (or y, - y) is expressible through the s um of fun ctions with the increme nt h in ascending e tc. powers, deduced from f(x) . But we know that



['(x) _

cJx. -

y, - Y

dx x1-x where it is assumed that x L - x, x,-x that is. also y, - y .. 0, [,,(x) _ (y ') y' _ fr


(x,-x) since xl-x - 0;
J"'(x) -

dx2 '

(y") " d3 - y _!'..:l (x, -x) (}xl

since x,-x-O. etc. If the various derivatives are viewed as functions, successive ly deduced from the original function [(x), then the essence of the matter presents itself like this. But if we consider each of the derivatives on ly in respect of its own immediate original fUllc tion, i.e., in respect of that /(x), from which it springs directly. then we shall gct on ly a series of funct ions/(x) and f'(x). Rot having any [furthe r) connection [among themselves]. but that is only the differential expression Thus for example at first [we have] :
1) fix) -


for each of these differential coefficients.

3X2 -






Xl - X -

0, that is .. dx;


2) f(x)-J-t',

f'(x) - 6x - y, - y,

where x, - x .. O.

that is _




3) f(x)- 6<,

d f'(x)- 6 - y, - Y, where xl-x- 0 , that is- Eldx . xl-x If we adhere to Ihe modes of operations (B), then every time we shall get only fix + h) or y, - fix) + f'(x )h • .
Thus, y \ - Y .. f'{x)1I i.e .• f'{x)lI -

- ~ h. But only this f '(x) , that is also

its syrnbolic equivalcnt ~,


, every time in the other from (B) I) . , B)2)' and (B) !) . YI - y, which .. (

• Since it is clear that here the issue is one of a'pproximale equality, we look the liberty of using here, and later on, the .modern sign of appro ximate equality. - Ed.



- ['(x)II -

~ h,

retains in all the three equations, the same form, but has entirely differellt

values, besides the connecting link between them is so small, as, for example, is that of the orig inal function Xl with a preceding one, from which it is deduced; if, for inst.-tnce, ou r original function was x\ then

(X+II)4_.x4+4.xlh+ ...
.Here the first derivative [,(x) is 4 xl, and we shall get 4 (x +h)l_4xl+

+ 4·3xh 2 + 4 Ill,

Having divided both the sides by 4 we shall have
(x + hP_ Xl + 3 x 2Ji + 3 xh 2 + lil,

where Xl, the original fWlction, from which we proceeded su b b), figures, in ilS turn as the derived flmction. As little it has disturbed us in respect of x 3 sub (8)1)' so li ttle it must disturb us in respect of 3x2 sub (8)2) or 6x sub (8)3)' The "deriva tive" is deduced only relative to that function, from which we proceed, Inking it as the original function. Thus, in mode (8), Y1 - Y is not the sum of derived functions and that is why here it does not suit us. On the other hand, if we turn to (A), where the derived fun ctions are presented as successively derived from the o riginal function and, hence, as a chain of derivatives, then

[(x+")-[(x)or y -Y" El


,,+ !0' -'"+ ... dx21.2

is at the same time a chain of the differences YI _ Y 168 . Here the formula y,-yor [(x+Ir)-[(x)signifies, in respect of Yl - Y, on ly this, that through the successive differentiation of [(x), that is, also of I(x + h), we get this series, whence through differentiation: of YI - Y wc obtai n ['(x)1I or

'1x" + ... ,
~ h+

of (y'), - y' we obtain j"(x)Ir or

of (y"), - y" we obtain ['''(xlI> or




Thus, we treat the original function x [notJ as one simp ly considered by itself, but as one potentially containing all its "derivatives"; owing to this,/(x + h) - f (x) or Y1 - Y too, not only contains Y1 - y, but also (y'), - y' , (y")l - y" etc.



Here we consider th e origi nal fun c tion in x, for example X'" - y, as poten tia ll y co nta ining in ilself a ll the functions ded uci ble from it; tha t is why, [we do the sa me for 1the increme nt f(x + 11) - f (x) or YI - y, 'as exp ressibl e through these derivatives, in pla ce of whic h the re then appear the equ iva lent diffe ren tia l symbo ls, i. e., the sy mbo lic di ffe ren ti al coefficients correspond ing to the m.
After this there are a numbe r of aditions to p. 1 (to ' Taylor's theorem ~) in the manuscript, the fi rs l among which was written in several variants. Towards the end Marx re,wrote it unde r the lille · Prelude to p. ) ". ne re he f!tjscd the problem or transitio n from algebra - whe re x and h are constants , to the differen tial ClIlculus - where each of them may be viewed both as 11 constant and as a va riable, besides every time the sense, in which it is being considered, is to bcspecified. Namely, in this connection Marx also discussed the transilion from the mode of expu$sing the c hanges of the va ri able x through the diffe rence x t -x, to its ex pressio n th rough the sum

x + 11.
All these variants of the first supplement (in our list these li re parts 11. V, III and VII ) are bei ng described below, in Ihe main in the order in which they we re written in succession by Man(. An exception h3s been made fot part V, which is an insertion, made by Marx, to what has been written earlier. Part 11 o f Ihis manuscript (see. the lisl on p. 264) begins as follows (sheet 4) :

Let us take as given, wha t follows be low where (x + lI)l is a n ordin ary b inomia l and that is why x is no Lv iewed as a va riable, that
a) (x + It)··1 or y

" -x-. I + (m + 1) X"- + (m + 1) m.r" - I -112 + 1 1·2

III 11· + (m + 1) III (m -1}x"'-2 1.2.3 + (m + 1) m (m - 1) (m - 2)X"'-3 +
Our me thod perm its di ffe re ntiation of this equation, Le., the acceptance of x as a va riable, whil e h is co nside red to be a constan t, and not an inc rement of x, s ince XI - x ex ists for us only in this difference-form, a nd not as some xl-x +h ,
XI -

x - h a nd, that is why not as

Afler this Marx differentiates the equlI.tion a) (sheets 4-5) "algebraically" ( i.e., by his own me thod) : wherein he al firsl changes x into x, and correspondingly y into y" from the eqUlltion thus obtained he subtra cts equation a) term by term,then takes the common facto rs OUI of the b rackets in each binomial and the n transforms the faclor ,1"t-.l"') into the form

(xt - xP) .. (x, -x) (X,,-I + xt- 2 x + .. . . + X l xP- 2 +.", _1 ) (p .. m, m-I, .... I ), and fina ll y divides both th e sides of the equali ty by x, - x, assumes that .1"( -x and as a result oblalns
" h 'O.~ J .. (m + l )x"'+(m + 1)mx"· 11 +(m+ l)m(m -1)x"'-2 T2 + elc. 0 [t.e .. dx



T hen he di vides \Jolh lhe sides of the obtained cqu~lion by (m + 1), writing therein, the resul t 0 obta ined in the left hitOd sitle in the form of 0 ( )' l-lere sheet 5 (p. 5 in Marx's nume ration) x In + 1 comes to an end. O n sheet 10, unde r the li lle ; "A d. no tation, and observes ; ~ln (Le., in part V of the man uscript) Ma rx returns to the latter O order /0 t!scape fro m th is 0 ( ) etc." After this he transforms the x m +1
p.5 ~

lIraTe mentioned equation into the for m

A) (m + 1)( x'" + mx"'-I h + m(m - l)x"-lTI + ... + ) .. (m + 1l(x + Ill'"



a nd wri tes, al firs t justifying th is transfo rmation:

But we have repea ted this binomia l (x + h)'" (in its unex pa ndcd form) a nd in its serial expa nsion (m + 1) times. The facto r (m + 1) is the umbilical cord, which indicates the o rig in o f . the de rivative from (x + It).. > 1. Exac tly in the sa me way ... the factor (m + 2) wo uld indicate the o rig in o f the derivative from (x + 11).. ·2. If in A ) we strike o ut the faclor (m +' 1), then the binomial independe nt as its initial equa tion (x + 11).. · 1, a nd we shall get :
(x+ h)"' will appear as

B ) (x + It )"' ... X'" + 11lX", - lh + m(m - 1)x"'-2 1.2 + m(m - 1)(m - 2)x",-1 1.2.3 +



+ m(m - l)(m - 2)(m - 3)xm-4


+ .. ,.

T he insertion in p.S, i.e. , part Vends with the wo rds:

Equa tio n A ) g ives us the bino mial (x + 11)", (m + 1) limes, deduced fro m (x + h)"" I. As an exa mple, it is mo re than enough; thus; we proceed to B).
T hus, it is clear, that Mllrx ca rr ied out all these calculations, only for the sake of an example. In one of the l a tt ~r supplements he writes, Ihal he d id it for ohtain ing the expansion of (x + 11)'" with the help of diffe rentiation, though in that case the binomial theorem of Newton, is a ll the same assumed to be already proved, and hesides [proved) for (x + 11) in ils (m + l l·t h powe r. On p.6 of his manuscript, Ma rx went over to the following analysis oflhe equa tion obtai ned by him:

This equation o f m-th degree is one degree lower than the equation o f (m + 1)-th d egree, from w hic h it is derived . Nevertheless we ca n tra nsform y or f(x) in to YI or f (x!) , without hav ing to cha nge the algebra ic compositio n o f the equation by the breadth o f a ha ir. Fo r this it is eno ug h to :

1) put X'" - f(x) o r - y, and here it is all the more justified, s ince a fter the deduc tio n of from X"'.I we a t once represented all the fo llowing func tio ns, a t first as directl y deduced fro m X"', and th en s uccess ively one from the other - that is [represent] all o f them as func tions successively deduced from x"' ; and

2) cons ider 11, which was an ordina ry constant magn itude in the deduction o f o ur eq ua tion, like a in (x + a)" in algebra, as the illcremellt (positive or negat ive) of x. We have




the right to do this also as: Xl - X - 6 x, and this 6x itself, illstelld of se rving , as in our mode, as a s imple sy mbol or a si mple sign fo r the difference of the x-s, i,e., for XL- X , may also be trea ted as the magnitude of the difference Xl - X , (itsel f] as indeterminate as
Xl - X

and, as chang ing as it (this magnitude), Thus, XI - X - tu or = th e indeterminate magnitude h. He nce it follows, that X I ... X + h, and I(x\) or YL turns in to I (x + 11 ). Thus, we get :/ (x)

11' A) f(x + 11 ) or y, - (X+ 11)" . X" +mX"'- l h +m(m - l )x"' -l _+ . . .. *


Ir now we examine both the s ides of this equation, then the left hand s ide shows us, that
X" or [(x ) turned into (x + 11 )'" or into I (x l ) - I (x + 11), as X increased by h, s ince the binomial (x + h )" was obta ined from the monomial X"', wh ich, however. now appears as all express ion o f the variation o f X"', and no I, as in an ord inary binomial (x + a)"', as An expression o f the sum o f two cons t..1nts raised in power. This may be said about the general un exp anded expression (x + 11)" or I (x + h) - YL,

In the expanded serial expression on the right hand s ide, the fi rst term )(" is no more as in the bi nomial theo rem - s impl y the highes t power of the firs t term of the binomial (x + 11)"; it is I(x) , s ince y .. X"', and all the remaini ng terms together rep resent onl y the increment, whi ch [(x) or Y, or x:"' attained, asx increased by /l .
After this Marx o nce more proves, lhat in the given case the fi rSI term of the expansio n of f(."{ + It), is f(x ) or y (in Ihe given casex"'); and then he writes (sheet 7) :

That is wb y, we may write the equation A) also as: III III B) f(x + 11 ) - y, - y + mx" -'II + m(m -1)<"-' 1.2 + m(m - I )(m - 2,,"-' 1.2.3 + We were in need of all these preliminary twists and turns, beca use

our method YI is

represented no t as the s um o f f (x ) + its derived terms, but, co nverse ly as the dirference between [ (XL ) and I (x ), expressed generally throllgh Y1 - A (XL'" - X"') wh ere A may represent an arbitrary co ns tant
169 ,

Th e di ffere ntial method proper proceeds rrom XI

- X -

h (i.e., - 6 x) ; he.nce, XL -


+ h ; that

is wh y Xl fi gures fro m the very beginning as x + h, Le., as a binomial o f the first power, s ince
x + 11 _ (x + 11)1, ow i.ng to which its differential express ion is (x + dx). With the exception

o f the fun ctions in x or the first degree, for alllhe remaining fun ctions in x. as soon as x increases by h, the powers of the binomials arc tha t is why computed, beg inning with the second, and the expansion itself constitutes an application o f the binomia l theo rem LlO ,

* This

has been repeated twice, almost word for wo rd; since at first Marx did not designate the obtained equation by Ihe teller A ) (ro r rurlher reference) ; here only the repetition is being reprodUced. - Bd.



Hence, here it st..mds 1 reason, tha t the first term o f the series, Le., of the binomi,,1 0 expansion _ I(x) or y, a ll the remaining terms afC = the inc rement attained by this function, owing to the fact, that x turned into x and that, hence, the happy expression for the genera l


formul a of the binomial (x + h)" instantly appeared ill the /ol'm a/ the equation B).
T he fact, that though Newton's binomial theorem for (x + "'r was obtained with Ihe help or differentiation, however, it was subject 10 [he supposed validity of this theorem for (x + was not liked by Marx. And he made an allempt 10 substantiate this assumptio n. The lower hal f of page 7 (part III in ou r list) constitutes Ihe beginning of this ~uempt. T his beginning is being reproduced below, in full (sheet 7) :

hr·\ .

All this be better begun as under : Suppose that given:

[(xl-x', [(x,)-x,·.
We have s hown ea rlier (sce the firs t manuscripl lll), Ihat if/(x) .. X", I(x,) -XI'", {then]
YI - Y - I(x , ) - I(x) - xt'
- ;C" - (XI -

x) (XI", -I

+ XI,"-lX +XI," - lX l + X/,-4X l


+ upto the m-Ih term xl'"-"X,"-l).
Div id ing this by
XI - X (XI

-x), we sha ll get

y, - y [(x,) - [(x) - - or -(x .. -I +·· ·+X"-"X-- I).
XI - X



-x, hence


-x-O, we get

dy ([(x,) - [(x)) -or _mxm - I d.x (x, - x) .

Jus t as the fi rst derivative of X'" was obta ined, so may we obt.1 in all the latter. All o f them are found through one alld the same melhod, based on the algebraic presupposition, that a difference of the form x.... - a'" is always div isibl e by x - a and, he nce, ca n always be represented as (x - a) P. (Continuation on p. 11-) .
1I is dirficultlo undeMitand [he content of pari VII (sheets 19-23 in our lisl) Ihat follows. Only this much is clear, that having (ound the suc«ssive derivatives y " y", ... of y .. X"', Marx wanted somehow to subSlantiR te the necessity: 1) of multiplying y , y', y", " ', respecti ve ly by ,,0, hi, 11 2, "', 2) of dividing the obtained products, beginning wilh y'Jr, by 1,1'1,1 '2·3, .... respectively, Ind 3) finally of adding all these quotients in o rder 1 thus obtAin the expansion 0 for (x + h)"', wi thout leaning upon Newton's binomial theorem. But Marx could nO I realise this inlention l7l, and later on he turned away from both the variants of the supplement to p.l, contemplated by him. 'IlIal is why, those portions of parI VII are being reproduced below, which are of independent interest.



The first among them is related 10 Mane 's subslallliali on of lhe fact, tllal for IIn integral and posilive m, (x + 11)'" must be expandable in a series accordillg to the powers of If. Marx justifies it as follows (sheet 20):

Wc know from algebra, that in the binomial (x + 11)" (- (a + c)", for ins tance, where m is an integral, posi tive ind ex of power) expressions in x have as thei r multipliers, the la tter term of the binomia l, here h, in ascending powers, [si nce ) (X+h)6 [L i] (x + h) (x + h) (x + 11) (x + h) (x + Il) (x + 11). Here, whether x is a va riable, or an unknown algebraic constant, o r even an unknown like a in (a + 11)6, the latter, in the given case the constant term h in ascending, integral and positive powe rs U' (_l), h', h 2 etc., will always be (under the given conditions) made multipliers of the successive express io ns [in xl, which are obtained for x, as constants in a lgebra, through succes ive multiplication by itself, but which appear as functions of the variable x, while differentiating the intermediate "derivati.ves".
Here we shall also reproduce Marx's general comments on the modes of expressing Ihe changes of variables in the "algebraic' method of differentiation,which Marx placed in p. 11·, in connection with the ques tion of the value of the constant as an item or a faclor in 5uch difTerentation (sheet 19).

Notabene: he re Il is introduced, not only in the beginning,as an ordinary constant, li ke (x + a)6, (x + C)6, (a + 0)6, (a + h)' in algeb ra; it must always remain a conslant and, o n
the basis of the algebraic method of differentiatio n adopted herc, by itself it can a va riable, nor the increment of a variable, since in this method of differentiation, the of the independent variables XI -x (accordingly that of the dependent variables f(x , ) - f(x») remains always in this initial form of illlnd, hence, Xl -x, as well as neither be difference Y I - Y or Y, - y, can

never be assumed to be equal to some value of the difference, -l1x or h, and hence, can never be represen ted in the form of x, - X _ tu or h, x, - X + tu or - x + h. nor can

Y, . YI - Y become -Ily or le. If we write --Y or ~ as an equlva Ient of the preliminary x,-x I!J.x

derivative, then for us these are o nly signs for the indeterminate XI -x and Y, - Y and not [fixated] values of differences, s uch that XI - x - l1x, as the value of an indeterminate difference, o r Yl - Y -l1y, as just the same. In the entire deduction [of the derivative] from f(x) , the augmented X always figures as XI and, on the other hand, the augmented Y - as Y I ' that is why, they can not at the same time figure as x + I1x and y + I:!.y.
Having turned away from both the variants of lhesuppleme ntto p.I, Marx decided to substantiate the Iransition from the "algebraic- form of Newton's bioomialtheorem to its "differenti al"form,in another way _ The following pari (pari VIII according to our list) of the manuscript is devoted 10 this. It is being reproduced here in full. Here, under the liut e: ·Prdude to p.l; Tayfor's Tlleorem ", Marx begins with the formula

I) Y, or /(x+II) .. (.ull)"'_
.. x'" + nu'" - 1 _

h Il' + m{m - l)x'" - 2 -112 + m(m - ' 1 )(m - 2)x"'-l _ _ + .. . . + X"-" h", I 1·2 1'2-3

and writes about it a few lines below (sheet 23) :




Considering sub I) the equation y\ - X'" + etc., to be independently appearing, we can prima facie take it as an ordinary algebraic exp ression of a binomial of the si mplest form (x + 11)" _X'" + etc., and, namely. the same in integral and positive power, as it was assumed from the very beginning about the index of power m. Wc shall, al first, take it in this form as the point of transition 1 the differential melhod,whcre it is assumed that Xl - X _ It [[hence, 0 alsoYI - y - k, if it su its]J, that is Xl - x + h. This g ives us theopporlunity of direct [transition to the differential method1 from the method applied so fa r, where XI -x, Yt - y, appear only in this universal form of their difference and where, also, as soo n as o n the right hand s ide of the equation, x increases, it appears only as X I ' i.e., in the same indeterminate form, as the initial x, and neve~ turns into XI - X + I1x or X + It. But it would be a mistake to think, thJlt it was possible to act along the opposite path, i.e., 10 assume, conversely , that h _ X I - x, and to pass over from the differential method to ours.
We reproduce below the whole orthe remaining text or part VII! (according 1 our list) in full 0 (sheets 24-25) :


I){-(x-+ h)' -

h2 III h~ + 5x 4h + 5·4x} - + 5·4· 3x1 - - + 5·4· 3· 2x + III 1-2 1-2-3 1-2-3- 4 -

This is an ordinary algebraic equa tion;on the onc hand, the unexpanded general expression of the binomial of two constants X and h. namely. in the left hand side (x + 11)' ; on the olher, Ihe seria l expansion,attained through the binomial theorem in the right hand side. If in the general expressio n (x + 11)' we put h - 0, then instead of (x + 11)' we sha ll get (x + 0)' - x'. If now wc consider x as a variable, then x' will be a determinate function j" x, namely f(x), but x' is a lso a function of x, because the value o ff (x) changes with the variations of x; thus, now, viewing this function as a function dependent on x, wc call it y ; and the express ion f(x), when it is taken in the sense of this dependence, is equivalent 10 y. On the o ther hand, since x' _ f(x) , (x + 11)' turns into f(x + h) or YI' Thus, in place of I)a) we get:
y o r f(x) - x'.

Ill ' 11' Y1 or f(x + h) - (x + h)l - r + 5x4h + 5·4r 1.2 + 5·4·3xl 1.2.3 + .... + Ill.
If we again put h _ D,then this series is reduced to r; in the left hand side f(x + 11) is reduced to f(x) or Y1 to y. That is why, we have: Y o r f(x) - r . If we substitute this value of x' in the equation I)a), then it turns into equation b)"[see, below). The first term of the series,in the ordinary binomial expa nsion of two constants remains in its own place in the first term, but it changes its character completely. It is no more the first term [of the elCpansio n}of the o rdina ry binomial (x + h)', but [it is] the prototype function of the va riable x - namely, r before it turned into f(x + 11), and hence r too turned into (x + h)' .
"After "b)" in the manuscript at first there was written : "(see,the opposite pagey. Part or this statement was later on struck out. - &I.



Thus, now the eqation has the form:

h' 3 b) y, or f(x + h) • Y or f(x) + 5<'h + 5·4<' -h' + 504'3<'-2 + 5·4-)·2< h ' ). 2 + h' ,. 1· . . U·3-4 . (
On the other hand,from b) it follows that: .,l ii'! /1 2 11) h4 c) y, - y or [(x + /I) - [(x) - Srh + S·4x' 1.2 + 5·4·3x2 1.2.3 + S43·2x 1,2.3.4 + h'.
.• '

Thus, at one stroke, having turned the rirst term xl into f(x), the whole of the remaining bionomial series, beginning with its second term, was also turned into a series of terms, constructed from the successiv[y derived functions in x. All the 11, /1 2 , III etc., which accompany these "derived" functions as multipliers, now turn into differen t powers of the difference between xland x or between (x + 11) and x - since XI - x - 11, or x, - x + 11 - from being th~ second terms of the ordinary binomial (x + 11)'. because «x + 11) - x) _ " is a differen ce, which emerges owing to the fact that the variable x grew into XL or x + h, Thus, the entire series is now the difference between the original function in x and the fWlction ofx grow" into (x + 11). This difference may also be positively represented as an incremen t, which the original function in x obtained, as x increased into Xl or x + 11. Thus, thanks to a very simple manoeuvre the entire serial expansion of (x + h)', a) from the binomial expression of two consta nt magnitudes, turned into a series, whose rirst term is the original function of the variable x, and all the remaining terms are the sum of increments, attained by this original function,owing to the fact that, from f(x) it has turned into f(x + 11). Hence, all these increments spmng up from its movement,and not as terms of an ordinary algebraic binomial expansion. Whence follows(see above) equa tion c). [b)] However, the suppos ition of h _ 0 served us, not only in the metamorphosis of the ord inary binomial of two constants into the expansion for the function of one variable x, when this va riable increases, from the very beginning it also indicated the method to be applied,!n order, on the onc hand, to free the ready-made successive derived functions in x from their surro undings, wherein they are s ituated in the seria l expansion, and on the other,to produce the corrcspending symbol ic differential coefficients. A) It beca me possible to put the first term of the series xl - f(x), beca use: 1) it itsel[ · has the factor hO- I, i.e., is free from h, and 2) the supposition of h - 0 has already removed all the remaining terms and,thus the entire series has been reduced to r . Tha\ . i~ why, so that the derived fu nctions Sr, S·4x' etc. found themselves in a condition analogous to xl, they are to be : 1) successively freed from the multipliers 11, 112 etc., which is possible on ly through success ive division by Jr, and 2) when a "deriva tive" is freed from 11. Le., turns out to be freed as a "derived tt function, then it is nccessary, as it was with the first term. to assume that h - 0, Le., 'to preliminarily remove, at the same time, all its collateral terms from the path; and the entire series is reduced to a freed "derivative", as it happened with the first t erm l7l.



B) Th e suppos itio n of If = 0, in the ope rat ion with the first term o f the series turned the left hand s ide, Crom /(x + 11) or YP into f(x + 0) o r y, in other words into f(x). But as the derived

functions may be freed from thei r multipliers h only through a division by h, this divisio n
produces in the left hand side

y, -y) [(x + 11) - [(x) ( - --x or It . x,
Hence, when, in the right hand s ide It turns into D, so as to reduce the entire se ries into a freed "de riva tive", then the left hand side inevitably assumes the fo rm

X, - y



o or

[(H 0) - [(x)

o o

Thus, the suppos itio n o f h ""' 0 generates, in the left hand s ide, the symbolic differential coefficient o f the "derived" fun ction in x. Hence, now, it is proved, that the fi rst operation,through which it is established that the fi rst term of the se ries - [(x) or y, g ives two things at o nce: 1) transforma tio n o f the ordinary binomial (x + hP = xl + etc., into [(x + 11) - [(x) + a series of func tions ' '-'ith the mult ipliers h , 112 etc., deduced from [(x), i.e., wi th the powers of the increment, which the independent variable x o~tains, when from x it turns into Xl ' i.e., when it obtains th e incremen t ,, Xl -


2) the method. which frees the ready-made "derived" fun ctions in x, as suc h (in fact it is obtained through the ex pans io n of the o rdinary binom ial of the two constan ts x and h), and, along with this, counterposes them oppos ite the ir symbolic differential express io n. Thus, we can, now, aga in return to the business.


[){(x + h )~ _ x~ + 5x4h + 5·4x)- + 5·4·3x 2 - - + 5·4·3·2x h' 11'
1·2 1·2·3


+ h~.

In fact, so far, in this manuscript only the other mode of representing the bionomial theorem of Newton, has been discussed, i.e., ils translation, from the language of algebra to the language of differential calculus and, correspondingly the serial expansion of (x i- If)'" (m - integral and positive) accord ing to the powers of If. But even in its formulation without the residual term, Taylor's theorem is vlllid fo r a much wider class of functio ns, the transition 10 which is connected wit h the transition from a finite polynomial to an infinite series. Marx discusses this transition, in one more addition to p.l of the malluscript, which follows the "Prelude" . He re he specially dwells upon the difficulties, connected with the extension of the expallsion obtained for (.r i- If)'" (when m is integral and posi ti ve) to a wider class of fUllcrions . This addition is being reproduced below in full. With th is begins part IX of the malluscript (according to our list) (Sheets 26-28).

Wc deduced the initial equat ion

1) (x+It)", .. X"'+.'rum-1h+·······
itself, through differentiation from the equation



+(m + 1).\-""'11 + ...

But thus wc took the same binomial theorem as the already g iven sta rting point : we simp ly look as the start ing point, the binomial (x + 11) in its (m + I)-Ih power, so as to obtain through differentiation the binomial (x + lI)m, so Ihat it could appear through differentiation, as the given starting po int. But the algebraic binomial is related only to the binomials o f a determinate power. From the point of view of algebra . these arc based only o n constan t magnitudcs, x + It itself is the binomial of first power = (x + h)l. Wc can continue the series obt.1 ined for (a + If)'" as far as we wish, and designate this con tinuatio n through + ,as it happens in eq uatio ns 3) and 4) ., because m is an algebraic magnitude with an indeterminate numerical va lue; but this is no hindra nce to the rinitude of the series. We can also write it with a begin ning and an end:
x'" +mx",-lh + .... + InXh",-l +ltm.

Here y\ or f(x + h), which we use in the differential calculus, is and remains o nly a symbo l for the binomial (x + Iz) of a determinate though. arbitrary power. Thus, only formally, through the interruption with + etc., do we get an infinite se ries, whereas in fact it is expressible, as in the generalised fo rm, with 11 beginning and an end, with the intermediate + etc., in the middlc. But this is not all . Coefficients of the functions hO ( or 1), hI, 1{2, 11 3etc. show that we reprcsented (x + II)m as expanded in integral, positive and ascending [powers of h]. Thus we have put at the base, not on ly an algebraic [binomial), and tha t is why, essentially, some power of a given binomial, bula special fo rm of the binomial theorem proper. This apa rt, we should not forget, that for obta ining 11 s impl y as a multiplier of the functions in x, we chose the form (x + a)m (si nce in an a lgebraic binomial h is a constant, analogo us to a), where x is the first term, and h - the la tter, instead of the form (a + x)m, where they stand in the inverse order.

It is true that we co uld also have stmtcd from a binomial with negative or fractional power,

-m or lE. , and thereby co uld have obtained an infinite series.

But in this case too, not to speak o f the other limitations, which will be sta ted later o n, on ly a binomial of some determinate power is aga in put at the base, s ince -m or m are

a lso determinate powers, just like m. Even in this case, the infinite series is a n expa ns io n of some general expression in a determinate power (li ke (x + h)-m, (x +11)7., Wn a determinate]] though negative or fractional [[ power]].
• See. PV. 273.



Here, the y10r [(x + 11), obt<lincd by us, ;lI ways remains only the symbol of a b inomial o f

some power: positive, negative or fractional; that is, here the series corresponding 1 such 0 Yt or I(x + 11), is also no thing but a generalised expression of a power of the binomial, [it iSJ in fact only the generalised expression of an example of a binomial of some determinate
algebraic for m. Perhaps, this deficiency ma y be avoided. Il may be possible for us to gel rid of this limitation of the algebraic binomial. having recourse to the algebra ic method of indeterminate coefficients. At fi rst wc shal l t<l ke the expression in equation 2) back to its initia l

algebraic form, namely from:
2) [(x+h)
or YI_ X"'+I1tx"'-I!!.+m(m_I)x",-'2!L+ 1 1·2

h' +m (m - 1}(m - 2) X ",-3 _ _ + ...

[to J 2a)f(x+h)
or YI_ +


(mc rn - I) x "'-'2) 112+ (rn(11I - 1·2-3 - 2) x "'_3) 113 + ... 1)m(m 1·2

Here the functi ons no mo re appea r as integral [lInetions the case in the binomial expansion, as 2 1·2-3 6

they appear, as it was initially

x"'+mxm-i h+.!m(m_1)x...-2 /12+ _ 1_ (or !)m(m_l)(m_2)XIlt-3/i3+ .....

and this has been indicated [above] throug h the brackets. After th is formal modification, consisting of the fact, that 11,112 ,113 , etc. are freed from their denominators, and functions in x are represented in that form, wh ich th ey had in their initial algebraic deduction, where o nly the second term m,X m_I appears as an integra l fun ction, the third as half of the integra l fun ct ion m(m - t) x etc., we subst itute the functi ons of x by the inde term inate coefficients A ,B ,C etc. and obtain for 3) (and hence, also for 4»


f(x+II) or YI -[(x) or y+AII+Bh 2 +Ch3 +Dh +EI/'+'"

Here A, B . C ,D, E etc. appear as fu nctions of x (co mpare 2a», which, however, are yet to be found o ut. This apart, the ser ies in itself may be continued as far as one wishes. And now it can no morc be reduced to a series, whose end, like its beginn ing will also lend itself to determination, since we can go on writing at our will, as far as Fh 6 + Gh 7 etc. etc., making the
_1_ , 1 ,wh ich give away their origin, invisible in the 2 1·2·3 1·2-3-4 indeterminate coefficients At B Ct D, E, F etc., along with the derived functions themselves. While th is manoeuvre is ca rried out in the ri gh t hand side, in the left f(x + h) or y, turns from th e symbol of a binomial of some power, into a genera l unexpanded expression of this infinite ser ies, not having any power, though it does include every power.

numerica l coefficients




I(x) is [[a}} function of [[a)] variable x, open to infinite expans ion ;I(x + If} is the gene!al unexpanded expression of Ihis fun ction [of] x, when the latter turns inlo x + h from x. Fu rther, it is understandab le in respecl of the equation
1-2 that fo r the func tio ns [,(x), I" (x) [etc. ] we may not as simply s ubstitute lhcir sy mbolic 0 equivalents, as it happens in equation 4), but that (these equivalents] are yet 1 be found ou t through differentiation 17.5.
The section of the manuscript, which follows this addition, and which is devo ted to a critique of the proors of the theorems of 'raylor and Macu urin, as th ey were known to Marx , s how th at according to t.:1arx the Justification of this enti re manoeuvre was not at all selr-evidcnt. Thi~ section bcgins 8S follows (shcct28) :

3) y,

or f(x+h)-y+f' (x)h+f" (x)!l...+---,

Taylor's ini tial equation is : I ) Y1 or f(x+h) _ y+Ait+ Bh 2 +CIt 3 +DIt 4 +Eh s + ... To obta in the opportunity to work wi th this theorem, it is necessary to use the manoeuvre based on the same bi nomial [theorem], cons isting of an applica tion of this ·.:heorem 10 a polynom ial expression, th rough its representa tion in the form of a binomial. Let us take as an example (x + a)2, and write (x + a + b)2 instead of Ihe latter. We can expand it : as «x + a) + bP or as (x + (a + b))2; in the first case we shall have: (x+a+b)'- (x+a),+2(x+a)b+b' ; in the seco nd case:
(x + a + bP - x2 + 2t (a + b) + (a + b)2 . T he importa nt thing in this example is the fact, that between the two right hand s ides there is onl y a fo rmal, though wittingly merely formal, diffe rence; however, from the very beginning their identity is demonstrated through the identity of the left hand sides. Having then written: "And now to bu.siness·, Marx went over to an account of the proof of
Taylor's thcorem, according to Boucharlat. As we al ready know( see, for example, Appendix pp. 337·338) in Doucharlat's book this proof is preceded by a Icmma (§§ 55, 56, pp. 34-36), asserting that
d[(:x + Ill



d[(x + III dh

Marx begins with this lemma. HaVing given an account of its proof according to Boucharlat, Marx comments (sheet 29) : "11 could hQve luen proved much more simply". The explana tion that follows is so sketchy, that here one can only surmise about the course of Marx's thought. Wc shall hazza rd below one such conjecture. In o rde r to prove that the equality



df(x ... 11) .. d[(:c ... 11) dx dl!
holds, one may argue as follows. If wc attribu te to x the augmented va lue
Xl .. 11


,then x ... 11 turns

and [ (x ... 11) into l(xl ... Jr) , and we shall ha VC'
~1 _ [(x I '" 11) ..

I(x'" 11) ..


XI x

!(x, ... h) -/ (H 11) (x, +11) -(x+h)


.y(.\" ... Ii)

I(x", hi ) - 1(·"1'+ Jz)


", -I!

lex ... hI)" f(;u 11)
(x +",) (x +h)

If now 1 facilitat e the argument wc substitu te x ... " by l (this MRrx himselr did nOI do). then 0 we s hall always hllve Ihe op portunity to represent the augmented value of l , i.e. <:'1 in the fo rm of .1't "'''. 8S weUu in the form o f

x'" h • . lIerei n bolh Ihe ratios

I(x] ... 11) .. f(lt'" III and I(x'" h t ) .. f(:{'" III (xl +/il-(x ... lr) (x +11,) (x+h) may be represented as

I, -z
Ind bot h will be equal 10 one a nd the same "preli mina ry· deri va tive according 10 z for I(z) (i.e., for I(x + 11) . if the taue r exists. Whence the correctncss of equation (-) follows ve ry easily. The crux of th e affll ir is IIgain the fact, that z, - z may be represe nted bo th in the {arm of Xl -x, as well as in th~t of h, - 11 . so th at Xl X ..

11, - h. The following words of Marx (s heet

29), go to show that the a forementioned conjecture really co rr es po nds to Marx 's ideas:

Since we have two expressions for th e sublated diffcrcnce (XI -x) , name ly (X I -xl and (h , - 11 ) [ ... J, it is clear that these two are only formally different forms, of one and the same sublated difference, which are mutually equa l 116.
The explanatio n omitted here, was placed by Marx wi thin bracke ts. It contains such a slip of pen, which co uld not be removed with o ut so me so rt of conjecture. Further, Marl{ analogously trea ts the ·proof" of Taylor's theorem acco rdin g 10 Bouc hllrlat. whi ch is based on this lemma ; al first he e nu ncia tes Ihis proof and then criticises it . Bo ucharlat"5 proof (see. § 57. pp. 36-37) consists o f Ihis ; at first the afo rementio ned eq uation I) is differentiated in respect of I. and in re..<;peCI of

which gives the equations


dy, . -;n; '" A+2Bh+3Ch1 +4DIIl + 5tll• + ... .•
_ to


dIJ dA dB dC dD dE =- +_h+_h2+ _ "J+_I, • • ~h l • ..... ; dx tt, Jx dx dx dx

referring 10 the lemma, owing 10 which


'" 1; ,Boucharlallhen equalises the coefficients of the same

powers of h in the equations 11) and Ill). and thus obtains Taylor's Iheorem in the form of the equa ti on




T hen Marx criticises Ihis entire procedure as IlIlder (sheet 30) :

The qu estion arises, how we could transform formula l), an algebraic binomial the si mplest form (x + 11)"', masked by indeterminate coeffi c ients, into IV) ?

Didn ' t that adroit manoeu vre - which consisted of : first differentiati ng I) accordi ng to 11, and then acco rding to x, and thus obtaining fo r YI two differential equati ons, the general ex pressions [i n the le ft hand sides] of wh ic h



~~ are identical

and that is w hy the

res pective serieses of expansio n are equivalent, ow in g to which their separate terms may be equated with each OIher - have a decis ive significance here ? Not at a ll.. The criterion indi cat ing which functions of x in the two equations may be equated, is given by the factors 1-fJ (= I ), hi, hl,It), 114 etc. Only those functions may be equated whose factors happen to be the same powe rs of h, But where from did we get these very fact ors ItD, hi ,Ill, 11), etc" stipulating the whole process? The ini tia l equation I) is like thi s:
YI= yho+Ahl+Bhl+ChJ+Dh·+Ehs+ .....

It is true, that we have disgui sed the fun ct io nsr(x) ,j"(x) ,r"(x) , etc. derived from the binomial, in the indeterminate coefficients A , B , C. D, E etc. However, we remember about the latter that they are a fter all functions of x, o r else we cou ld not ha ve d ifferent iated them, ne ither ( accordi ng to) x, nor [according to] h; but in our equation we grabbed the factors hO, hi, h 1, h) etc. in (their] pristine virg in fo rm , as they were g iven to us by the bi nom'ial theorem; and by not fastening them in the equation by <lny trick, with the two identica l but formally differe nl translations of equati on I) into differential forms, we could not seduce anybod y.
After this Marx went over to discussing the attempts to prove, by the method, not only of indeterminate coefficients A., 8, C. but also of indefinite indices of powers a, ~,y ; ... of Ir , • that 11 must enter into the expansion of /(x+h), into a series according to the power of h, namely in the same way, as it has been 'presupposed in equation 1. Here he adduces Ihe proofofTaylor's theorem according to Hind (sce, Hind, §74, pp. 83·84) and criticises it. Since.m aquaintance with this proof is required, for understanding Marx's critique of it, its account, as given in the manuscript (sheets 3 1.32), is being reproduced below in full.

This is still more vividly striki ng in the later attempts to give the differential deductio n from I) suc h a fo rm, where in not only would the functions of x, but al so the powers of h, appear to be found through differentiation. Name ly, here the init ial equation is written as : la) y= y+ Ah (l+8h 13 +Ch Y + Dh t.+··· And then we get:

1) !!1.J..= a.Ah a - l + pBh ~r+yCh ~I+ BDIl6 -1+ ....• dh




dx dx dx dx dx dx Then we argue as follows: the icrt hand sides of both 1) and 2) arc equal, hence, their serial expansions too arc equivalent, and their correspondingly analogous terms may be equated;
that is Why; in the first place, a All «-I -



dv ciA,,, de,y - =+ - , + -dB h 11 +- , + -dD h II +".

~ . But since ~ has the muilip lier 1 ( ... h 0), so

It n-I must be _ hO, and, hence, a-l- 0, that is, a _ ' 1.

Thus we have killed three birds with a single shot: 1) since a - 1, so now wc know, that in the initial equation Ah <l .. All' = All ; 2) thereby the values of the indeterminate indices of power f3, y, () etc. in h 11, "Y • It II ete:, have also been potentially given to us; 3) since

a Ah a-I



i.e., nAh (1.-1


l' Ah l - I


A , so A

-1; .

Th c seeon d act

H .. f equatmg IS as f ollows: . h pB ... dA ha . Hence, ,H dx I
1> 1


," I

th · at IS

j3 - 1 - a; but since a". I, j3 - 1 ,., I, i.e., j3 ... . 2 and j3Bh

- 2Bh

2- 1

- 2Bh .

Now wc know firstly, that in the initial equation la) we can put Bh 2 instead of Bh P ; hence, it is deduced, and not assumed from the ve ry beginning. Secondly, that f3Bh 1>-1 ... : and B ""

h ~ turns into 2Bh "" :

h (since h

(l ""


he~ce, 2B =


~ .:

; if here we substitute the value of A , then


1. . .!L (!!l'.) _ 1..!!'r .
2dxdx 2dx2

There is no need to extend it further.
it is true, that Marx's critici,m of this proof is based on a misunderstanding. that I(x + h) may be expanded into a series "according to the integral, positive powers of " " (see, Hind §74, p.83), and in fact in this presupposition it is that if the coefficient of la l(k> 0) is not identically equal to zero, then the coefficients of hi , la l , .... ,11- 1 also can not be identically equal 10 zero. (The fact is this, ihat Hind also presupposes, though tacitly, that the coefficients of h a, II ~, h 1.... . are "finite ", Le., are different from 0, as well as from 00). However, this proof is highly slipshod in f9rm and may give rise to the impression : aL if: following Lagrange. the author wants to demonstrate the expansibility (~in the general instance ~) of every I(x + III inl0 a series according to the powers ''0. 111. ,,1 .... ; namely, thus did Marx understand it . Apart from this, Hind no where verifies the validity of the initial presupposition (regarding the properties of the indices, of power
I! may appear, Hind assumes and ascending demonstrated,


fJ, y , ... .) for any concrete functi o n. Le .• as such, no where does he find it necessary. In sum, Marx has rightly reproached Hind, by saying, that he merely created an appearence of greater generality for his formUlation of Taylor's theorem. According to Marx, Uind did not in vain directly formulate his initi81 assumption, that he is going prove Taylor's theorem for the functions l(x+II), permitting its representation in the "binomial form", I.e., as
ICx + hl + I(x) +Ah i' B1I2 + ...



The enli rety of Marx's criticism of Ilind is being rcproduced here in full (sheels 32·33)

Th is improved and more prete ntious version of Taylor's expansio n comes to fo llowing. The equalisa tion of the firs t terms of both the equa tions, is the key to it all ! a A ll
a-I -



and since ~ has as its multiplier /to, then 11 a-I must be .. hO, and, hence,

a - 1 - 0, i.e., a _ 1 and a All a-I _ Ah I-I But let" , in the in itial equation


a be a nega tive magnitude (a nd an indeterminate a may be any thing, as it is indicated by the binomial theorem in its general account), thcnAh turns intoAII and aA II a - I into ft I -a Ah - - • Now if we put a- 1, as it follows from the aforementioned accoun t, then _o. Ah - a - I .. _ Ah - I - 1 _ _ AII - 2 •
(I -(I

Since Marx did not have a sign for absolute magnilude, to express that a is a neg8live number, he substitutes a by - a, where the laller a is positive..

Hence, according to our previous argument, we must conclude, that si nce

fIl. _ fIl. x 1 dx dx

(or" 0)

so it must be th at h -2 _ h 0; Le., - 2 _ 0, or, in other wo rds, s ince


11 0 .,. - a All - I-I, so

it must be that 11 - I- I .. 110 and, hence, - 1 - 1 .. 0, wh ich results in - 1 .. + 1. However, th is ridiculous result onl y demonstrates, that we quietly proceeded from the presu ppos ition, that h !' is only a masked express ion fo r hi, i.e., we presupposed the equali ty a .. + 1, and our intention of not onl y es tabl is hing the ex pans ibility into a seri es with the factors 11 0, 11 I, h 2, ,, 3 etc., but also of ded ucing the correspo ndi ng nume rica l powers of h : 1 , 2, 3 , etc. , th rough di ffe rentiation, from the indeterminate indices of power a, f3 , y etc., was from the very beg inning a thoroughgoing fraud. Further, in All a could be less than 1, and then a - 1 would also be a proper fraction, so tha't the general express ion [for the powe r o f 11 ] would be o f the form It "';•. Exactly in the sa me way a could also be (irrational] .

Here instead of an irrational a , Marx wro te log h, and it is not clear whether it is mean t as the i/1du of the power of h, or as the power h ..

However, herei n the initial equa tion
Yl- Y +Ah

+Bh 11 + Ch T+ DII 6 + ...

is either only an improved mask for h i , It 2, It 3, borrowed fro m the lIlinomial, ' or if we actuall y consider a, for example, to be a simple general symbol o f the index of power, i.e. in all poss ible for ms of a, then the terms of the two equa tions deduced through di rferentiation, are not to be equa ted, Le., they arc not worth a fa rth ing.
t:The sense here is: "let us consider an instance, whon ". -Ed .



But we do know, that there exist functions of x, which, when x increases by h, give nega tive or fractional powers of the laller. Hence, the result, consists of this : that the [multipliers] or th e different s,uccessive derived functions in x, borrowed from the binomial, namely," 0, h i , ,, 2 etc., must remain presuppossed; that we got them through the binomial, and not through diffcrenti,'lI development; that, consequently, the binomial form, where fro m to proceed, is fully determined, where the multiplier h is expa nded in illtegral, positive and ascend ing powers".
Marx contin ues his eriliquc further. Now he dwells upon the question of exprcssing Ihe indeterminale coeffi c ients A, B, C, D etc., thro ug h the derived funcli o ns of {(x) and, correspondingly, upon the inslances, where (according to Marx) a - finite" derivll tive does not exist. He writes (pp. 33-34) ;

But this is nol all. Even with the derived functions in x (sec, 3» J'(x) , ["(x) etc., disguised in the indeterminate coefficients A, B, C, D etc, the affa ir is not fully Kosher"·. There we deduced : f'(x)

- ~ , but there we also had [(x) - x"', thanks to which

J'(x) .. m x "'-I, i.e. like all the function s in x, deduced latter on with the help of the binomial, f'(x) was a determinate and fi!lite expression in x ; and, we note, that the initial functions. which are expa nded with the help of the binomial, always have, in their general form . a

x"'-a'" Whichever way the derived fun ctions might be represented: through a finite or an infinite series, each term of such a series is determinate and, to that extent, a finite expression in x. For example, in x 4 (or x"') 4x 3 (or nu "' ~ l ) is a determinate and finitc expression, which does not in any way in nuence its possibility of being expanded as a runction in the variable x. Owing to the fact th at x again turns into x + 11, 4x 3 is tranformed into 4(x + liP , though 4x 3 is a determinate express ion, and is to that extentfini/e. The same for X3 a X X2 - - - 1+ - +-+-+··· 2 a -x a a a3 ,xx'x' ' ,r Eh term 0 rh e senes, -, "2"' -, etc., ' f imtlc, ecause determmate, f i ' ac t IS a " b IInctlOn 0, x, a a a besides it is a matter of total indifference, whether I find the series by dividing a by a a - x or, through a shorte r route - by successive differentiation or__ ,

determ inate power, as for instance, when f(x) _ x "', as well as, when it ..



a -x

But when we subs titute the indeterminate coefficients A, B , etc., in place or f'(x) , ["(x) etc., we face the same dilemma, as in hO," 1, h 2, etc" i.e., for the multipliers of the
• Here an expansion of the form f(x + h) • A +BII + CII + DII J + "., is called the "binomilll Conn". ' -Ed . • • Marx used this word ironica lly. In ancient Hebrew it means: strict observance of the reli gious prescription, prohibiti ng the use of one and the· same utensils for meat and milk products. Evidently, here Marx wishes to stress, that even from the point of view held by the au thor, the arguments given herc arc unsatisfactory. -Ed.



derived functi ons in Taylor's initial equation, as a whole transferred from a special form of the binomial. Either A • B, C etc, are indeterminate coefficients - only the other names of the determinate and to that extent ~fini(e " derivedfullctiolls if! x, borrowed from the binom ial, or as general symbols fo r the derivedfullctiolls in x,A, B , C etc" must be the sy mbo ls of the derived fun ctions, not only when the latter are determinate and finite, but also when they are - 0, - co, or _ - 00, And we already know, that in fac t such is the case,
Since in the following pages of the manuscript (pp, i, Jr, again i), Marx sums up all that he has already said a bout Taylo r's theorem (sheets 34-36) and gives a general o utline of .his attitude to Lagrange's atte mpt to substantiate the initial assumption, upon which the demonstration of Taylor's theorem is built, as per the oooks of Boucharlat, Hind etc. - the lext of these pages of the manuscript has already been reproduced in the first part of the present volume (see,. pp. 93-94 and note 82). After Ihis Marx went o ver to a more detailed account of Lagrange's TayJor's theo rem . He wrote (p. i continued and p. i); (sheets 36-37) : demonstration of

If we take Taylor's initial formula:



Y1 or f(x+h) _ f(x)+Ah+Bh +Ch 3 +Dh 4 +Eh s +,."

then we can write it as :
- f(x) + h

CA +B"+ Ch l +Dh 3 +Eh 4 +FII 5 + ....).

If we call the entire expression within the brackets P , then


y, or !(X+ hl - !(xl + Ph.

Lagrange says, that this is the express ion, to which the ent ire serial expa nsion mus t be reducible, as soon as the variable x turns into x + 11 and, hence, [(x) turns into [(x + 11) j because, putting h - 0, we shall get f(x + h) "" f(x) , in other w ords,f(x + 11) is conversely reduced to its original express ion. Thus, it demons trates to us, that in the serial expansion off(x + 11), i~ first term must be - f(x) or y. Let us now consider Ph more closely:
Ph _ h (A + Bh + Ch 1 +Dh l +Eh 4 + ... );

hence , P _ A + (B + CII + Dh 2 + Eh 3 + ... ) h.
If we designate this A by p and tb~ expression in brackets by Q, then p _ p+Qh. If we now substitute this value of P ,.. p+Qh in 1) !(X+ hl - !(xl + Ph, then wc shall get: !(x + hl - !(xl + (p + Qhl h - !(xl + ph + Qh';




2) f(x + h) - f(x) + ph + Qh'.
lagrangc at first cons iders onl y the seco nd term ph. Since p has h, o nly

a multiplie r

outside itself (as distinct from Q, which aga in incl udes the function h within i/selfl, and since in general, apart from x and 11, wc do not have the other for ma tive e lements in the
series, so p must be a function of x, besides its first derivative is the mini mal expans ion of I(x). Then he demonstrates tha t, p can nol be .. 0 or co a nd ca n not have the mulLiplier h with negative or fractional indices of power 177, The grea tness of this proo[ lies in the following: just as in [(x) the variable x is indeterminate and general, i.e., it never takes any particular va lue - a 178 etc., and relains the capability of any increment. so does f(x + con taining Ihis x in its serial expansion and in the general rule of expansion. exclude all particular in~ta n ce~. which appear in Ta ylor as its failures. [[ Anoltrer s trea k of its greatness lies in this. that the theory of derived functions, which is interwoven into the serial expansion of/ex + h). is at once app lied, conversely. fo r more exact determination of the terms of this seril;S. But here I shall not enter into the details. J1

h ,.

Thus. till now we had : f(x + h) - f(x) + ph (or I'(x)h) + ... Having analysed Qlt l in detail. we sec that it .. (B + Ch +D/{l +E1I3 +Fh4 + ,.. ) Ill ..
_ B1I2 +hl(C + DII + EII2 + ... ).

If we designate B by q and the expression included withi n brackets by R. th en Qh 2 _ (q + Rh)h2; he nce, Q .. q + Rh . Having substituted this expression in 2). we sha ll get :
f(x +h )-f(x)+ph + (q +Rh)h', f(x + h) - f(x) +ph + qh' + Rh' , arguing further in the same way, we sha ll get: R - r+ Sh. S-s+TII.···. f(x + h) - y (or f(x)) + ph (or I'(x)h) + qh' +rh' + sh 4 + ... 3)

This series can not be concluded. because every time a new expression will be obta ined : after the last S .. s + Th. an analogous T .. t + Uht where U again incl udes within itself the functions of x and h. 1)lus, this mode of expansion excludes any fin al completion of the series. whatever tha t might be.
We do not have the pages I , m, and /I of the manuscripT al our disposal, and we do not know whether Marx had them o r not. Page k begins with a Hne and then Comes the following section, devoted to MacLauri n's theorem·. Here Marx writes (sheets 38) : -This page of the manuscript was crossed out in pencil. -Ed .


I) I(x + It) or [(Xt) a YI is expanded according to Taylor's theorem; according to MacLaurin's - I(x) or y, i.e., the function of x itself, is required to be expanded, not algebraically, but with the help of differential calculus; thus, in fact, it does not stand for anything other than the [assertion] that, the COl/slant coefficient of the [powers of ] x must be found through differentiation. 11) If wc have a binomial. for example (x + C)4 , then its expansion may be written in two forms, depending upon, which term x or. c, is taken as the first or as the lattcr : a) (x + C)4;' X4 + 4x 3c + 6J?c'J. + 4xc 3 + c4 , b) (c + X)4 _ c4 + 4c3x + 6C 2X2 + 4Cf + X4 • In a) the function in x appears as expanding in series, and c in. ascending, integral and non-negative'" powers, i.e., cO, Cl, c2 etc. appear simply as factors. In b), conversely. the function in c appears as expanding in series, and x in ascending etc. powers, as factors. Evidently, equation b) is equation a) inverted, because, reading equation a) from right to left, I get 4 3 22 c + 4c x + 6C X + 4a? + X4. Thus, if Taylor's initial equation is:
a) YI'" Y + Ah + Bh2 + Ch + Dh4 + ... ,

then, having designated c4 by the letter At 4cJ by B, 6c 2 by C and 4c by D, [we shall obtain MacLaurin's equation]: f3} y ... A +Bx+ cx2 + D.I + .. In a) the indeterminate coefficients A , B, C etc. are functions of x, in functions of the constant c.

f3} -

they are

Ill) A) Y m [(x) or (c _ cm + mcm~lx + m(m-l) Cm-2X2 +


+ m(m-l) (m-2)c'-' x' + 1·2·3 + m(m-l) (m-2) (m-3) Cm-4X4 + ... 1·2·3-4 Since only the variables can be differentiated, the expansion of the constant coefficients of the function [of] x through differentiation presents itseIr as a contradictio in adjecto --. But we shall do what we did with Taylor's theorem. Ir we assume that x", 0, then y or [(x) - (c +x). turns into
-In the manuscript: "positive". -Ed. -- Here it means: finds itself in contradiction with the very definition of differentiation. Ed.



+ 0)" - co. Since we have thus found the m-th power of c or cm assuming x- 0 in (c+xl", ana logously. all derivatives of C'" may also be so found: we shall seck the derivative through the differentiation o f (c + and then assume that x .. 0; hence, as y or I(x) - (c +xl"
y or 1(0) or (c +x)" - (c



!lx .. dx

m(c + X).... I ;

if here we put x .. D, then (c + x)m-l turns into (c + 0)"-1 _ ,"C'"-1 - ['(0).

In the same way we s hall success ively o btain the

le n~ s

of the series.

Hence, we get:
I(x) - 1(0) +

J' (O)x + /,,(O).£. + /",(0) L


+ ...

.- (y)o + (~)o

/2 (;S):, +
dx 3

+_1 (~)x' + . . + 1-2~u (:t),



x" •

where the brackets ( )0 indicate that, these symbolic differential coefficients correspond to the "derived" functions, in whic h it has been assumed that x .. O.
Here, part IX of the manuscript (scording 10 our list) comes to 'an end.
SucussiveDiffuenliation" (pp. 0, p; sheets 39-40). Then fo llws pari X. I1 carries the ti tle: M lIere Marx returns to the question: how, after having the expansion orf(x +Je) according to the powers of h, one is to extract from it the s uccessive derivatives of f(x). by forming the differences f(x + h) - f(x), then dividing them by " (~freei n g" the first term of the expansion of difference from the factor h ) and, finally by assuming tha t h • O. He has already considered this question earlier, so far only in application [0 the firs t derivative, (see, p. 283 and note m). Now Marx examines the same question for successive derivatives. The issue is this: how, afte r already having the seria l expansion of f(x + h) accordi ng to the powers of h, these may be utilised for extracting from it, all the derived functions of /(x), in Marx's words ~ potentially ~ contained in it. With Ihis aim in view, Marxcarrics out those veryope rationswi lhf'(x + h), which were discussed above. in respect of /(x + le). However, while obtaining the expansion for f'V: + h), from theexpans~on of Iv:+h) , Marx commits a mistake in calculation, which he himself notices later on. Since he discusses the same question once more, in the supplement to p.l , which follows (pari Xl in our list), and besides does so in 8 considerably clearer form, only this supplement is being reproduced below (Sheet 41). Since this supplement also contains that very error in calculation (leadi ng 10 8



silUalion where the derivatives appear to be coinciding with the coefficients of 11 in Iheexpansion of 1(X + 11». we omit here the latter part of this supplemcnnl (10 p.I). It will not be difficult for the readers 10 complete these omitted calculations themselves.



Y, or [(x+ 11) or (x + Jr)"-

... Jr ( .~-, - + 11' .. x• + 1TU.~-, - +mm- 1) A. 1 1·2

+ m(m - 1) (m _ 2) X",-3 + . 1·2·3
Jr' + m(m - l)(m - 2) (m - 3)x!"-4 - 2 3 + ... 4 1· ..
Putting h .. 0 I we shall get
[(x) - <". Thereby the riddle is already solved. The fi rst term [ of the expansion for] (x + 11)'" ,Le., X'" is not considered as the first term of a binomial expansion, but rather as the given function of the variable x, which, in the given insta nce, is X"'. Thus, the entire expression in the left hand s ide s ub I) minlls X'" itself, appears as produced by the fact that , in X'" the variable x grows and turns into x + h, and thereby x'" turns into (x + h'r' or into what we have written [above). But the method, through which tile successive "derived" functions already cOlltained in the series are sought, as such, in the system. where XI is treated as x + h, follows from the very first operation, through which we found XIII .. f(x) j as ilS multiplier x'" has only 110 (or 1); that is why, when we assume that h .. 0, the other terms which have" as their multiplier, disa ppea r; and only X'" remains as the equivalen t of y" when it has again turned intoy. Thus must the other functions of x be success ively freed from their h, and then it must be assumed lhat" .. O. As in the first operation, by equating h with zero,f(x + It) was turned into ,f(x + 0), i,e., inlof(x) so also now, lhrough an analogous operation in the left hand side, we obtai~ the form of symbolic differential coefficient corresponding to it. Since y,( or [(x+iI))- y(or[(x)) + mx!"-'II +
_....... 2 ,,2




• I' y, - y ( or [(x - iI) - [(x)) _ mx!"-'h + m(m - 1) x!"-' -'- + ... 1'2 Dividing both the sides by h. we shall get




(or [(u I~~ -

f(x)) _

Jr2 - mx .... , + m (m - I) x-2 - " + m (m - 1) (m - 2)x",-J - - + ... 1-2 1-2-3 Here ,nx"'-! pla ys the sa me role as x'" ea rl ier ...
In pari XII of the manuscri pt Marx again (for the lasl time) returns 10 p.!. Considering Taylor's theore m 10 be the most genera l operational formula of lhedifferential calculus, logically as well as his torically obta ined through Ihe latter, he proposes Ihll l it is essential to start wilh Ihe dcduclion of the binomiallheorem, wi th the means of the re'ady-made different ial calculus, Le. , wilh [he help of the operational formulae of the talle r. Wit h Ihis aim in view in the fragment ~TowarJs Tay/or's theorem_ p.l ~. he firs t of all obtllins the derivative ofr" (fo r integral and positive m), using the fo rm ula for the differential of product. Then he demonstrates this fo rmuta by the me thods of New ton·Leibn itz, eviden tl y. thinking, that since we have al ready operated upon the grounds of diffe rential calcul us, in other words. substanlia led its methods, we may now use the methods of Newton and Leibnitz too : that is, we may consider them sufficientl y substantiated. In the fragme nt "Ad Taylor's Th eorem (p. J)" which fo llows, Marx compa res Ihe successive de rivatives of X" thus obtai ned. with tile coefficients of the powers of h in the expansion of (x+ hY" acco rding to the binomial theorem and reveals, whe rein lies their differences. We recall, tha t d ue 1 an error in calculation, notwithstandi ng the faet that Marx knew them well and 0 and note 11'_ Marx did not notice these differences in wro te about them ea rt ier-see, p. 286 parts X and XI of the manuscript. Thar is why, it may be thought, that the aim of the present fragment was: removal of this error. Both the fragments are being reproduced below, in full (sheets 42.43).

If (x + h)'" -x '" +m.x "'-lh + m(m-l ) x ",-2 112+ ... [1 -2J • then the diffe re ntial ca lculus has already proved , independently o f Taylo r, that if I(x)- x·• then

~ or /'(x) _ mx ",-1 ,

£li or

["(x) - m(m - I) X"


etc. But how? As an example let us take th e prod uct of the variabl es xz. If they va ry, then this product tums into (x + dx) (z + dz), which in a certain sense I is a binomial ofsecond degree and which differs from (x + a) (x + a) or (x + a)2 onl y in fo rm, in this, th at instead of th e first (x + a) we have (x + dx) , and (x + dz) - instead of the second (x + a), that is why instead o f x 2 + ax + ax+aa we get xz+ zdx +xdz+dxdz; havingtaken away xz fro m here, we have zdx + xdz + dxdz ; having s truck out the last term, we get




zdx + xdz.

Since, it is obtaincd through the binomia l that d(xz) .. zdx + xdz, it may be appl ied to the product of any number of variables, for example:

d (xzuv) .. zuv dx + X liV dz + uzx dv + XZ\l du . xzuv XZU V XZIIV xzuv xzuv After cancellation we shall get: d(xzllvt. dx + dz + dv + du xzuv x Z V 11' d(x") _ dx + dx + dx + dx _ 4dx x4 x x x x x'
d(X4) .. 4 dx . x~ .. 4xJdx


d(X") _ dy .. 4xJ *, x ' dx dx lmaginc, that in the formation of the product, not 4, but m variable factors x z u v t y etc, took part ; the n '

d(x"') .. mdx , X'" x ' he nce:
d(x m)_
,/IX m -

X '

d(x "') .. mx ",...Idx


d(x-) (_ dx dx

El) _





d x " m(m - 1) x ",-'2 etc.

Hence, it was obtained only owing to the fact that d(x y) - ydx + xdy, found w ilh the help of the binomial, was applied as an operationa l formula.

Regarding equation IV)
YI - Y ( or [(x» + f'(x) IJ. + ["(x)


j{ +





+ [ V(x)

h + ... 1-2·3-4·5

* The

lasl two lines we re written on the ri ght hand s ide, in Marx's hind, in pencil.-Ed.



etc. have been 1 1 demonstrated, it is truc, also differentially·; but the numerical fa ctors 1'2' 1.2.3'

it could be said, lh~ l [the cqulIlilics] ['(x) _ mx.m-I . fIr x .. m(m - 1) x

etc. have simply been borrowed from the binomial theorem. For our purposes herein lies crux of the affair; and this crux is no morc astonishing than the circumstance, th at companions of these fun ctions, beginning with the second term, the coefficients of functions Ir . 11 3 , 11". 115 etc., in ascending powers, remain direct ly derived "from binomial theorem". m{m-l}'" (In - r - 1) The genera l binomial coefficient 1.2. r (the same, as the one for


the the the the



combinations from m elements, taken r at a time, without repetitions). which is, as in our case, when r - m ( r ca n never be greater than 111 ), 111(111-1)'" (m - (111 - 1)) _ In (m - 1) (111- 2) '" 2· 1 1·2···", 1·2·" m proved through combinatorics; the binomial theorem itself, for integra l and positive powers, is only a particular application of it ( the number o[ combination s divided by the number o[ permutatiofls). But, for the differential method , where XI - x +". [(XI) _ f(x + IJ) etc., it i.s important, that what is given by the binomial theorem turn ou t to be deduced in the differential calculus itselr. However, s uch deduction, as we saw it whil e obtaining mx m-I from x m e tc., by the means of differential calculus, can, in its turn , be actualised, upon the found ations ofbin omiai theo rem . alone.
The las!

of part XII (in out list, sheets 44-45), differs even in form from the rest of

manuscript 4302. It is wrillen on seperlte sheels, not lengthwise, bUI across the sheets and contains only some inoomprehensible calculations, in places repeated twice. Thi s fragment carries the title:

-Ad Tay/or's Th., p.l, #!q. llr . But neither p.l, nor the equation III ( Roman "I" and . II1 ~ ) could be found in the manuscript. The aHempt to identify equa tion III with equation 3) on p. 1 (PV, 287) does not lead us anywhere. The fragment begins with the formula
I)y! or (x ... h) .. .. y +Ah+Bh ~+Ch)+Dh~+E,,3+ etc.,

in which, then, h + z is substituted in place of 11. The purpose of this substitution is not at all clear : in any case it was done nOI to seel:. the coefficients A , B, C. etc. of the binomial expansion, since the binomial theorem of Newton, is already assumed to be I:.nown it has been applied even in the expansion of (x + h + z'j. The remaining calculations are equally incomprehensible. They are not accompanied by any explanation. That is why, this entire fragment is not bei ng reproduced. In spi te of its incompleteness and draft character, manuscript 4302 is of unquestionable interest.
It alone finally permits us to ascertain Marx's points of view on the natu re ofdifferenli al calculus

prope r, o n the concept of function, on the means of mathematical representation of motion, on • That is, not thro ugh Halgebraic · differentiation, but with the help of the operational formulaeofthe differenti al calculus. - Bd.



the methods of Ne wton and Leibnitz. on Lagrnngc's thcory of analytical functions, on the deficie ncies of thc

at Marx's

dispos~1 ~nd,

especinlly, those of the proofs of laylor's

theorem given in these books, on that method of proving this theorem, which appeared to bc t he corrcct one, to Marx himself. It is clear from the manuscript that this proof, should have begun. according to Marx, from the particular case of the powered function x"and it should have been then extended to any function f(x), having thc "binomial form ", Le., 10 such , that f(x ... h) - A ... Bh ... Ch 2 ... .. .,

( I)

where A , B, C, etc., are functions only of x . From this expansion Marx furthe r extracted the successive derivatives of /(x) , "contained already in it, in a ready-made form " , and thus obtained Taylor's series from series (1). We nole Ih8t such a proof of Taylor's theorem with the corresponding speCifications, concerning thc rcgions of conve rgence of the scri eses fo r f(x ... 11), f'(x ... 11) etc - is provided also in the modern courses of mathematical analysis and, especially, in those of the theory of sericscs • .

'" See, for example, 1) CP. Natansoo, Pn:izvcdliye. inlcgrdly i riady (DeriVllti\U, integrals ani serieses), in the "Erltsildopc'da derrentamoi matematiki", wI. rn, M .' L, 1952, Ill. 347-348, 4SS-4S7 and 469-470 (Taylar's thoorcm for the function x k,

theorems of term by term differentiation of a powered series and, Taylor's series); 2) K. KlloPP, Theorie und Anwendung der unendlichen Reihen (Theory and IIppliC.'ltion of infinite series ), 2nd ed., Berlin, 1924, pp. 173-174. -Ed.


At first wc s hall give an account of the definition of "lifT!il~" (togeth er wi th the· examples expl ai ning it), as well as o f the modes of using the word "limit", con tained in the courses of Hind a nd Bo ucharlat. Marx had these books and studied them c riti ca lly . This account w ill give the reader, who is accustomed 1 the mOdern use of the term "li mi t" in 0 mathematics, an opportun ity to correctly understand Marx's critical remarks rega rding Ih is concept, and his special way of interpreting it. H ind's book was written accord ing to d'Alembcrl's method, i.e., in it the de rivat ive was defined thro ugh the concep t of limit. Thai is w hy. the introd uctory chapter of the book is devoted to the "me thod of limits ". Howeve r, ne ither this chapter, nor any other place in the text-boo k conta ined any definition of "limit". There wc find o nly the definitions of "limilS" of a var iable, in some sense of the exact upper a nd lower boundaries of the sel of its values. (In pa rticular, this set could also conta in an "in fin itely large" value of the va riable. designated by the s ign 00. But the rule for operati ng wi th this s ign has not been specified : the concept of absolute magnitude is not present there, the signs + 00 and - 00 arc also absent, it has been considered to be simply self-evident, that fo r any a i2: 0, 00 + a .. 00, that for any "finite" (Le., different from 0, as well as from (0) a, a·
As 10 what the function is 00 _ 00

and E.. _ 0.)

il is possible on ly to su rmise, from the examp les. The cOQ cepl . o f limit has in fact been silentl y introd uced in the in troductory c hap tc r- we s uspcct- thro ug h the iden tifi cation of the limit of a function (at a point, coinc iding with the exact upper or lower bound of a set of values of the arg ument) with one of the two " limits " (with th e exact upper o r exact lower bound) corresponding 10 the set of values of a fun c tio n. In so fa r as only monotonic or piecewise monotonic fun ctio ns have been co ns ide red in Hind's book, such a "limit", in practice, turned o ut to be coincid ing with (one-s ided) lim it in lhe more common place sense of the word. And Hind in fa ct used it in this sense, throughou t the rest of his book. However, he used it in such a manner, that this concept, which was supposed to "improve" upon the method of actual infinitesimals, to wi t, fa iled to a Uain th is goa l, and turned ou t, in general, to be redundant. In fact, Hind cou ld, of course, have substituted the searc h for one-s ided limit of a piecewise monoto nic function f(x), determinate at the inte rval (a, b), when, fo r example. x tends to + a, by the solut io n of the two fo llowing problems: 1. To find out the number a, so that when a < x < a, the function is monotonic (in the wider sense. Le., non-di minishing or non-increasing; let us assume for the sake o f definitiveness, that herein the functi on turned o ut to be mono lonically no n-di minishing). 2. To find o ut the exact, in ou r assumption lower, bound of the set of values of the func tion, at the interva l (a, a), Le., fo r a < x < o. It is clear; that it w ill be theLimf(x) sought. But Hind did no t proceed that way. Following Newto n (see, Appe nd ix, "O n the Lemmas of Newton cited by Marx", pp .313 ~ 315), he treated limit as something actua l. Le., as the "last"·




value of the fun ction, for the "las t" va lu e of the argument. In other words, he was in searc h of Lim I (x) as the exact lower bound of the val ues of the func tion, not in the in te rva l

a < x < a, but in the segment a:s; x:s; a, i.e., he assumed that the "last" va lue o f l ea) has some
how already been determined , a ll by itself; and in that case " the ent ire procedu re described above los t all sense: the number a could be taken for et, and the exact lowe r bound of the set o f va lues of the fun ction, consisting o f onl y one number lea) co uld be sought and tha t would turn out to be the same/ (a). Apparently. Ihis is wha t Ma rx wa nted to say, when he remarked; having Hind's de fin itio n in view, tha t the re is no se nse in trea ti ng 3x2 as the limiting va lue of the same 3x1, when x lends to zero, cha racterising th is sari of treatment as "banal tautology" (sce, pp. 96-98 a nd notes 90.92), and whe n he ca lled, Ihe actual approach 10 limit - the presuppos ition, that a fun ction ac tua ll y attains its limiting value, as its "las t" value for the "last" va lue of the a rgume nt - in gene ral "infantile\ the e mergence of which "s hou ld be so ught in the fi rst mystica l a nd mystifi ca tory me thod of calculus"(see, p. 98 ). The fact tha t the actual approach to limit by no means solved the probl ems co nnected with the actua l infin ites ima ls, becomes especia lly dear, when the "last" val ue of the argument has 0 to be "infinitary".Thus, in particular, when the sequence {an} is at issue, then the limit has 1 be that te rm of this seque nce, in whic h" _ 00, i.e. , the limit is consid ered as the end (the last te rm) of the infinite ( i.e" endless) seque nce of terms, It is hardly su rprisi ng, that a concept like the "actua l lim it" appea red to be no more clea rer, than the concept of the "actua l in fi nitesima l", wh ich Marx ca lled "mystical". It is well known , tha t the defin ition o f the limit of a fun ction, without presupposing the completion of Ihe infinite numbel of steps, and permiuing an exact formula tion in the te rminology of va riab les and of pa rameters, having only finite values, fin all y e ntered into mathematical use onl y from Ca uchy's ti me, to be more precise, onl y from the 70s of the las t century. But eve n at that time, it was not full y clear to the authors o f many tex t books, which were in wide use, that the limit is not to be interpreted actuall y; that evcn in those cases, where the func tion is continuous at a poin t a, i.e., when the lim it of the fu nction f (x) as x - a equalsf(a), it must turn out la be equal tof(a) , namely. under thc condition, that though x tends as close to a as possible, nevertheless it never reaches a. In connection w it~ Ma n 's mathema tical man uscripts, it is of special imporL1 nce to us, that if the value o f f (a ) is no t defin ed, an d th e limi t of f (x) ex ists w hcn x - 0 (correspondingly, whe n x tends to + a or to - a), the n it is possible s imply to rede fin e the fun ction f (x ) at the point a, having assumed, according to the defini tion, that f (a) is equal to this limit. Su ch a rede finit ion of the value of a func ti on is ca lled its redefinition at continuity. In tha t case, the limit of the fun ction f(x) as x - 0, will be the value o f the function already re-defin ed at x - a. This, howcver. has nothing in common with the treatme nt o f the va lue off(a ) as the univocally defined value o f the fun ctio n I (x) itself, but attainable onl y at the end of an infinite process of approxi ma tion o f x to a, as fa r as possible. Na mely, s uch a redefiniti on"a t continu ity" , Marx had in view, appa rently, whe n he ca llcd the limit of the ra tio

~ as 6. x 6x


0, the "a bsolu tely mi nimal expression" of this ratio (see, p. 97);

ON lllE CONCEl~ r O I' ' UMIT'


evidently, herein, for the sake of clarity it is held, that the limit of this ratio as 6. x -+ 0 and subject to the condition, thallhere exits

number a, such that for 0 <!l x < a, the ratio ~


decreases with the dimunition of !lx,ln fact, !..acroix used Ihis very mode of rede(ining functions, in his cxamples(see below, pp. 310-311). But while constructing analysis, Lacroix proceeded from Leibnitz's metaphysical "principle of continui ty", which he used as a self-eviden t axiom; hcnce he did nolconsider any other redefinition of the values of a function, at all possible. Sce pp. 28-29 and note 18, on the fact that to all appearence, Marx also admitted of the other modes of redefining the ratio

~ o.x

when !l x ... fly - 0 .

Now we shall give an account of those statements o'f Hind, which may be of use while studying Marx's manuscripts. The aforementioned conclusions follow from these statements. Hind's introductory chapter: "On the method of limits", begins with definition 1. which reads: "Limits of the quantities, which admi t of changes in their magnitude, are such magnitudes, between which are iqcluded all the va lues, which it may have, in all its changes; beyond which it may never go and from which it may be made to differ by a quantity, lesser Ihan any, which may be indicated in finite lerms" (i.e" without using the signs IXl and O. - Ed.) (sec, Hind, p.l, our italics. - Ed.). A series of examp les followed this definition; however, in them the dcfinilion was not used even once in a clea r form : not even once was it demonstrated, that th e "limits" indicated by the au thor, do actually satisfy the demands, formulat ed in definition 1. The first of these exnmples reads: "The quantity ax, where x admits of all possible values from zcro, or 0 to infinity, or 1Xl, becomes 0 in the first insL. nce and <X) in the las t; and, hence, the limits of the algebraic 1 expression ax are 0 and 00: the first is called the lower, and the last the upper Iimit "(ibid). (Evidently, here it has been assumed that a > 0.) This very first exa mple mus t have led the reader to bewilderment. In fact, how to make the quantity ax, other than 1Xl, a "quantity, lesser than any, which may be indicated in finite terms "? For Hind, it is evident, tha t so long as x remains a finite magnitude, the difference <X) - ox is equal to 00. If x _ 00, then also ox _1Xl and the difference 00 - IXl is undefined. In the second example (one should think, of course, under the same conditions relative to

x and a) the lower and upper limits of the expression ox + b, were found ; these turned out,
rcspectively to be b and infinity. In th e third example the lower limit

£ of the fraction a

b + b was found through the simple x+ a


substitution 0[0 in p'la ce of x in the expression of this fraction, the upper limit ~ was obtained



by SUbstitu ting


in place o f x in the fraction - - . Here it was not explai ned : under what o


sort of condi tio ns in respect of a and b, the v:llucs found arc actually the lowe r and upper

limits (respcctively).Thcrc is nol even a hinllo th e effect that, it should be verified whethe r
or not these va lues at all satis fi ed the g iven definition of "li mits" (to be su re, in particu lar,
abou t the monotonic nature of the function considered). As though the reader "was prepared" to fi nd out the limit of a funct ion by subs tituting in its expression (or in its transfo rmed

expression, not bereft of meaning, also in that case, whcn the expression di rectly giv ing the function is indetermina te). the li miting va lue of the argument. We a re reproduc ing bela:w, in full, the fourth and the s ixth examp les, as well as the example special ly marked ou t in poi nt 2 of the in trod uctory ch<lpter - in which a gradua l transition takes place, from the concepts of lower and upper lim its of a function to a concept of l imit which is closer to the customa ry onc; and Hind e xplaincd the actua l c haracter of the latter. From these accounl'i it will also be sufficientl y clear: how far confused, in genera l, is H ind's account of this section o f limits.

o 0 "Ex. 4. Sum of Ihe geometric series a + - +"2 etc., con tinued upto the n-th term, is



expressed by the quantity

a(-'--I) OX(I -1.) x


now, if

11 '"

0, then,evidently, the lower limit ... 0 ;but if n ... oo " then

2. x'

becomes equal to

0, and that is w hy the upper limit is ...!!£; it is usually called the su m of the series, con tinued x-I upto infinity H(p.2).(Herc, of course, it has been silently assumed that the argument o f the


ox(t- ~)
x -1


11 ;

a and x are such pa rameters, that a> 0, x> 1.)

"Ex. 6. If a regula r polygon is inscribed in a circle and the number of its sides is successively doubled, then it is evident, that its perimeter will more and mo re approach equality with the per ip hery of the circle and that fina ll y, their difference must become less than any quantity whatsoever; tha t is why, it is clear that the c ircumference of the c ircl e is the li mit of the pe rime te rs of polygo ns n(pp. 2-3).Here, one of the "limits" of Ihe sequence cortdidered, is no more spoken of, no l even its upper limit - as was natural, follow ing definitio n 1, hut simply the limit, and that too in its usual sense.


"2, To prove that the limits of the ratios occflring between sine and lan of an arc of a cire/e, and th e arc ilself, are ratios of equality, Let p and p I be the perimeters o f two right polygons with 11 s ides, the first is inscribed in; and the seco nd is circumscribed about a circle with radius 1 and circum fe rence

.. 6 '28318 etc. _ 21t; then (trig.)
~ p .. 2n s in ~ and p ' _ 211 t.1n -;






~ 21. sin n .. cos-, ~


lan -




and if it is ass um ed th at th e value of


is indefinitely increasi ng, then the value

of cos ~ is 1 and that is why p .. p '; but, evidently, the periphery of the circle lies be tween
p and p I, and that is why in this case it is equal to either of them; hence, in this presu ppos ition the n·th part of the perimeter of the polygon is equal to the ,Hh part o f the periphery o f the

circle, i.e.,
' - 2112 It . It It 2 Sin" - - - tan - ,or smI-t - - - tan ' IIn n nn

o r the sin and th e lan of an arc of a circle, in their last or limiting condition find themselves in a ratio of equality with the arc i~e lf"(p .3). Here the word "limil"(" lim ilS") is met with only in the formulation of the theorem, but, in order to unders t.1nd this formulation, it became necessa ry 10 surmise from the proof, that the issue here is about the usual limit of the ratio s in x and tan x, when x tends to O.



However, in this case Hind 's proof is hardly sa tisfactory, even for his tim e. From it o nl y this much follows, that the author wished to obt.1in the equality
. l lth sm - t l - - tan -,wen n_oo, - t 11 n n


But, asserting, that for n -


cos ~ - 1, he used the fact that!! .. 0, when n .. co; but in that



'~'OOd case sm - = s m .., an tan -~ .. tan 0 .. 0, Le. ,for ob taining the equalities (1) , from


which, in themselves, incidentall y, the theorem about the limit of the ratio si n x when x x - 0, does not at all foll ow, The arguments through which the author arrives at these equalities, are not at all required ,



In fact it remains inco mprehensible, how such a confused nccount could pretend 1 be 0

o ne abo ullhc essen tial adva ntage of the enunc iated method of limits, inte rpreted ac tuall y. in compariso n to the me thod of actua l infinitcs imals, in the given case 1 the simple identifica tio n 0
o f the in Cinites imlll arc of a circle, with its chord.

In the text-book by Boucha rlat (sce, Boucharlat, p. VII) too the method of limits, was considered to be mo re precise than the method of infinites imals:"co rrccling, that which may be imperfect in the latter". However, in Boucha rlal's book, there is no a tte mpt to define, the mcaningoflhccxprcss ion to "te nd (oscme lim it" (how o nc may make sure, tha t suc h a nd such magnitude may tend to s uch and s uch limit). The concept of limit - also "actual" - appeared in it, firs tly in connection wi th the sea rch for the derivative of the fun ctio n y ... x 3. We s ha ll reproduce it in full , s ince Marx 's critica l remarks in the manuscript 011 the Iloll-flltivocality of Ihe terms "limit"olld "limiting value", are rela ted 1 it. 0 "While exa mining the seco nd term of the equa tion

y' - y - 3x2 +3xh+h2

y : y

we find , tha t this ra tio dimin is hes a long wi th the dim unition of" a nd Iha l, when Ir becomes zero, this ratio is reduced to 3x 2. Hence, the term 3x 2 is the limit of the ratio it te nds to this te rm , when wc compel" to diminish. is reduced to ~,and, hence, equation (::!) turns into




In so far as, in the presuppositio n that" .. 0, th e increment of the magnitude y also becomes



There is nothing absurd in this equation, because algeb ra teaches us, that

o "0 may represent

a ll sorts of quantities. We may nole,tho ugh, th at since by dividing both the terms ofa fra ction by onc a nd the sa me number, its va lue is affected in no way a nd that, consequently, it may remain the sa me, even when its terms arrived at the last stage of sma llness, i.e., turned. into zero" (pp. 2-3).
It is also of impo rtance to note, fo r underst.,nding the aforemen tioned manuscript of Marx, tha t in Bo ucharlat's account Ihe limiting transition from an equali ty of the for m

:~ -

III (Xl' x) (where y - I(x)

to a n equali ty of the form


f'(x), appeared to have

been actualised separately, in the left hand and right hand sides of the first of these equ lities: from : ; to


and from

et> (Xl' x)

td f'(x).

(Herein, by the limil of the ratio


(correspo nding ly,


he had in view an expression of the form

~, turning into El) <Ix'



Thus, ha vi ng obtained the equa lity

Y - 1 ,w hile searching fo r the differen,tial of x,
' Yinto ~


Bouc harlat concluded; HS incc the quantity h does not en ter in to the second term of this equa tion, we.see, that in order to go over to the limit, it is enough to change which


giv~S;i; -

1 M (p.6).

Boucharlat trea ted the inSi.1nCe of the limit tu rning to be equa l to zero, as o nc indicating the non-existence of limit. Thus, investigating the derivative of y _ b a nd having obtained the eq uality

~ ...

0 , he concluded, that "neither is there a limit, nor a differential" (p.6).

Boucharlat.. in essence, obta ined the limit of the ratio

Si~x as x -

0, the way Hind did,

tho ugh in a mo re access ible form . At first he demonstrnted - approx imately in the way it is now done in the text-books - that the "a rc is grea ter than the sin and smaller tha n the tangent"{p.29). But herein, it was not even mentioned, that hence it follows, that si nx - - - <sinx<sinx -tanx

s inx

(0 <X'< -")' 2

i.e., tha t the ratio
~ From

Si~x lies between cos x and

1. In stead like Hind , Boucharlat wrote:

what has been said above, it follows thalthe limi t of the ratio o f sin to the arc is

one; for when the arc " .... becomes zero, owing to wh ich the sin merges with the tan , the n the sin merges all the more with the arc, whic h is placed between the tan a nd the sin ; he nce, . s in" s in It in the instance of limi t we have - - or, better stili , - , -'" 1" (p.29). The fact, that when h I arc . sin 11 0 11 ... 0, the ratio -,,- "turns" into 0' Le., beco mes in general indcterminate, a nd the conclus ion made th c rc ~po n, onl y to the effect that "the s in merges with the arc", when the la tter turns into 0, did not disturb Boucharlat either, as it did not dis turb Hind . The informations provided here, on the treatment of the concep t of limit in the books of Hind and Boucharlat, arc, to all appearence, enough for understanding those places in the manuscript 011 the lIoll -univocality of the terms "Iimit" and "/imiting value", in which Marx cri ticises these au thors for their actua l approach to li mit (notcs9()-92 a re related to these places). For undersk1 ndin g the other places of the manuscripts, characterizi ng Marx's rela tion to the more modern treatments of limit, informations regarding the trea tme nt of this concept in the other sources a t Marx's disposal, a re essential. He re first of all a mention must be made of Lacroix's la rge "Treatise" on the differential and integral calculus, 1810.



Following Lcibnitz. l"'<ICro ix tho ught, that every func tion is subordinate to the "rule of continuity" in its c hanges, and tha llh c transitio n 1 the limit is an express io n o f this rule, "Le. , 0 of the rule, which is l)bcycd by motion in its linear descriptio n and according to which, th e success ive poi nts o f o ne and the sa me curve fo ll ow each othe r, w itho ut any intcrva l"{p .XXV). But s ince c hange of magnitude can no t be s tudied without a considera tion

of its two di fferent va lues, between which, wiUingly, there is an interval, so the rul e of co ntinuity must be exp ressed as foll ows: "the sma ller this interval , the closer arc we 1 0 th is rule and on ly the limit correspo nds to it fu lly" (ibid). This role of con tinuity. in' Lacroix's mathema tica l analysis, explains' why he fo und it expedie nt "to use the method of limi ts" (p. XXIV), while construc ting a systemati c course of mathematical ana lysis. Lacroix thought, that the c9 ncepts of "infi nite" and "infin ites ima l" are defi ned only negatively, i.e., as "excluding every bound, in the se nse o f greatness as well as in that of sma llness, which gives on ly a number of nega lio ns, but wou ld never form a posi tive concept(p.XIX). In a foo t-no te in this page he adds: "The infinite is essentially that, about which it is asserted, that its bounds les limites can no t be atL1 ined by any indicated va lue of it". In o the r words, Lac roix did not ad mit of any actual infinity: ne ither the actually infinitely la rge, nor the ac tually infinitely sma ll. Lacroix introduced the concept of "limi t" as follows : "Let us consider at first a very s im ple fun ction ~, in which we assume tha t x is pos itive

a nd inde (initely inc reasing; the resu lt



obtained by dividing both the terms of this

fractio n by x, evidently shows that the function always remains less than a , but that it constan tly app roaches a, s ince the!!.. part of its denomina tor diminishes · more and more a nd, x may be made as sma ll as one wishes. The difference between a and the proposed fraction, which may in general be expressed through ox a2 x+a x+a' becomes as sma ll , as great x is, and can be made smaller than any given magnitude, however small , so tllat the proposed fraction may come as close to a as we wish : hence, a is the limit


. of the functi on ~. in respect of an indefinitely increas ing x.

The properties just fo rmulated, also include the true meaning, which sho uld be a ttributed to the word limit, so as to include in it, a ll that may he required here" (pp. 13-14). In Lacroix there arc no assumption s abo ut the monoto nic or piece-wi se mo notonic funct ions. And usuall y his limi t is not one-sided: the va riab le ca~ approach its limiting va lue, in any way. In place of the concep t of absolute magni tude Lacroix uses, tho ug h not systematica ll y, the express io n "magn itude without sign", however, its meaning sti ll remains imperfect. He also s tresses, that a fun ction may no t only ~It tai n its limiting value, but also



"c rossfl it, may , in gc ne ral, osc illate itwund it. But Lac roix still did not ex plicitly formulate the bounds, consisting o f the fact, that while ,lpproilching its lim iting value u, the argument in respect of which the trans ition to limit ulkes pla ce, it is not assumed to be allaining a, i.e. , that the limit is not und erstood actually. Since the fun c ti ons with which he was concerned, were continuous, i.e., the limi ts considered by him coi ncided with the values of the functio n fo r the limiting value of the argument, he so metimes pe rmitted himself to spea k, as would speak a person who thinks, thnt in the lim iting trans iLion, the npproach of th e argument to: its limiting value must bc co mpl eted in its a ttainmen t of this value. It should also be mentioned, that La croix used onc Hnd the sa me word limite for designating limit - the term , which, as wc saw, he unde rstood in a mu ch more genera l and precise sense, close to its modern meaning, as compa red to Ihe meaning which Ihis concept had in the text-books o f Hind and Boucharlat, criticised by Marx, as well as for designating the approximnlc va lues of function s, in cerL1in cases . All thcse informations on the concept of limit in L1croix's large "Treatise" - which, as we know, Marx always used as the most reli able (from among those at his disposa l) source o f information on the bas ic concepts of ma thematical analysis, like the "function", "limit" etc. - are, apparently, e nough fo r underst.1nding what Mnrx had in view, when he briefly observed, abou t the co ncept of limit in Lacro ix 's trcntisc, that "th is ca tegory, which has found wide use in [mathema tica ll annlysis, mainly in thal of Lacroix, acquires an important Significance, as a suns ti tu te for the category of "minimal expression" (pp.61-62). First of all it is clear, that Marx in fac t understood the concept or "absol utcly minima l cxpress ion", used by him; in connec ti o;\ with the "non-u nivocality" of the te rm "limit ", in that very sense, in whiCh wc now undcrstand the concept of limit It is also clea r, that he foresaw, thallater o n when Lacroix's unders tanding of the concept of limit will, evidently, full y supplant the less sa tisfactory concept of "limit ", then that will make the introduction of a s pec ial new - concep t of "ailso lute ly minimal exprcssion M unnecessary. In other words Lacroix's concep t of limit will be a substitute for the latter. In connection with the j us t-referrcd paragraph o f Marx's manuscript nnd also some oth er places in it, we s hou ld perh,tps adducc L'lgr<lnge's words regarding the concept of limit, from his introduc tion to the "TIlCory of Anal ytical Functions" (Lagrange 's Works, vo l. IX, Paris, 1881). Speaki ng o f Euler's and d'Alemberl's a ttempts to view the infinitesimal differences as absolute zeros, only the ratios of which actunlly e nter into the calculus, wh ich are, bes ides, viewed as the limits either of the fin ite differences or of the indefinitely large (limes 011 illdrffillies) differences, Lagrange wrote: "But it should be noted, tha t this idea, though in itself valid, is not clear e nough to serve as the [initial] principle o f a sc ience, whose trus tworthiness is to be based on being obvious, and especialy owing to the fact that it is heing proposed as the first [prinCiple] "(p. 16). Lower down he observes - in connection with the Newtonia n method of th e ultimate ratios of evanescent quantities - that "this method, like the method of limi ts, about which we spoke above, and which is in essence on ly its algebraic translation, has a big deficiency, in that it considers quantities in such R condition, wh j!n they cease, so to say, to be quantities; for, though wc very well understand the ratios o f two quantities, tilllhey remain finite. reason



fa ils to connec t any dear and precise idea with these ratios, : \S soon as its te rms, the o nc and the o ther, allne same time become zeros" (p.18). And here L...1grangc wcnt over to th e attempts of the "sk ill(u! English geo me te r" Landen, to cope with these di fficult ies. He highl y evaluated these ntlc mpts, though he thought that Landen's method was loo cumbersome (scc, Appendix. "The Res idual Analysis" of John Landcn) . About himsel f L....'grangc wrote, tha t even in 1772 he held: that the theory of serial expans io n of functions con tains the true princ iples o f diffe rentia l ca lculus, freed from all considerations of in rLnitcsimals o r limi ts"{p. 19). Thus, it is clear, that L1gra ngc did nol consider the method of limits to be mo re perfect, than the me thod of actua l infinitesimals, and that this idea of his was connected with the fact, that the limit d iscussed in analysis, was also understood actually : as the "final" value of the function fo r the "final" ("eva nescent") va lue of the a rgu ment.


Marx me ntio ned, in;l sepa ra te s heet att:l chcd to the ro ugh dran of his essay o n the his torica l course of deve lopmen t of the di ffe rential calculus: the scholia to Lemma XI of the 1st book and, lemma 11 of the 2nd boo k of Newton'S " Princip ia ", devoted to - the bas ic concepts of ma thema tica l a nalys is, used by Newto n - the co ncepts of limit and moment. In ob ta in ing (the scho lia) to lemma X I of the firs t boo k of his "Principia Mathc matica Philosoph ia Naturalis", Newto n attempted to expla in the co ncepts of "l imiti ng ra tio" and "limiting s um " wi th the help of very no n ~ prec i sc con sidera tio ns o f an o nto log ical cha rac ter, "metaphysica l, no n-ma thc mtical assum ptio ns ", as Marx c harac te rised them. Name ly. Newto n writes: "An o bjection is raised, tha t the "limiting ra tion does no t ex ist for eva nescent quanlities, for the ralio which th ey have be fore disappea rence, is no t limiting, a nd a fte r , disappearence, the re is no ratio. But under such stra ined a rgume nts it will appea r, th at fo r a body reaching some place, w here movement s to ps, there ca n not be a ~ Ijmitjn g " speed, fo r the speed which the body has curlie r, be fore it had reached this place, is no t "limiting", and whe n it has reached there, there is no speed. The answer is s imple: by "limiting" speed s ho uld be unders tood th at with wh ich a body moves, ne ithe r before reaching the ex treme place, where movement ceases, no r a fter tha t, but when it arri ves there, i.e., na me ly, that speed, possessing w hich the bod y arrives at the extreme place a nd w he re in the moveme nt stops. Just like th is, wha t mus t be understood by the Iill},oiting ratio of evanesce nt qua ntities, is the ratio of quantities no t be fore th cir disppea rence, and no t a fter, but while they arc d isappearing. Exactly in the same way, the limit ing ra tio of emergent q ua nti ties is tha t wi th which they are bo rn . The limit ing sum of e mergent or evanescent quantities constitutes the ir sum , w hen they, by inc reas ing o r dec reas ing, o nl y begin or cease to be. There exists sllch a limit, w hic h a s peed may a tlain a t th e end of a movement, bu t ca nno t cross - it is the limitin g speed. S uch is the reason fo r the existence o f the limit of em erge nt or eva nescent qu antities a nd proportio ns" (I. Newton, Meta maticheskie Nachala Natura lno i Filoso fii. Trans lated by A. N. Kry lov. T ra nsact io ns of the Ni ko laevsky Naval Academy, Sa nkt-Pete rburg, 1915 , p. 64). In modern math ematics the "speed of a body ata give n mo me nt 1 is de fin ed through the 0", ma thema tica l concept of lim it, a nd it may lead to ma ny observations, including those hav ing an o ntologica l cha racter, in fa vo ur of the na turalness of this de fini tion. However, the naturalness of the de finiti on of th e specd, of a body at a g ive n moment t D , throug h so me lim it of a ratio of evanescent quanti ties cannot as yct serve, eithe r as a proo f of the fac t, that the correspo nding limit ex ists, or mo re so, as a justifica tio n fo r de fini ng this limit as the "ratio o f so me quan tities, no t be fo re the ir disappeare nce, and no t a fter, but while they are disappearing" , i.e., as a ra lio of zeros, Ihe va lue of w hich (the ra tio) m ust somehow be defined, as a body must have a velocity also at that mo ment, when it a rrives at tha t extreme place, where moveme nt s to ps. It is clear, however, that from suc h a "de fini tion", the mea ns of mathe ma tical compu tation of lim it, is no t 10 be extracted and tha t, here, in fa ct we have a c ircle befo re us : the speed at the moment t D is in fa ct understood as a limit, conversely,the limit is de fined thro ugh the speed at the momen t t", the ex is tence of which in this case,does in fact appear as a "metap hysica l, no n-ma thematical assumptio n" (consis ting of the fact, tha t the reOecti on is assumed to be the object reflected upo n : an abstrac t mathe ma tical co ncept fo rmed by o ur tho ug ht for cognitive purposes is taken to be a reall y existing ideal object).




Lemma II o f the second book o f the "Mathe matic;11 Princ ipl es o f Na lural Philosophy" ( ibid, pp. 296-298) contains the fo llowi ng expla nation o f the co ncep t of "moment" (or in finitesima l) : "Here l co ns ider ... quantities as indete rminate and chang ing and, as though inc reasing or diminishing out of conSlanl movement o r n ow, and by the wo rd moments I un derstand the ir

inst.1 nl increases or decreases, such that th e increases arc co ns idered as pos itive, or add able
mome nts, the decreases - as subtractable, or nega tive. But wc must sec to it, that the finite particles a re not take n fo r th ese. Fin ite pa rticles a rc not mome nts, but arc the mselves quantities o rg inating fro m the mo ments. Th is s hou ld imply, that this is o nl y the ba re ly emergent beginning o f fi n ite mag niludes. That is w hy in this le mma, magnilUdes o f the mome nts a rc neve r co ns idered , but o nl y their initial ratios arc considered . The same is obta ined, if ins tead o f the moments we ta ke e ither the speeds o f the in creases o r that o f the decreases, o r any othe r finit e qUfl nl iti cs w ha tsoeve r, but proportiona l to these s peeds" (ibid , pp. 296-297). It is natural, that Marx wou ld firs t of all be interes ted in this explanatio n - in w hich New ton aga in had reco urse 1 the "meL'lp hysica l, non-mathema tical assumpt ions", this 0 time abou t the essence of t.he d iffe rentials (" momentsM). But th is lemma co uld. also have drawn his attentio n, because it con tains Newton's well known attem pt to prove the fo rmu la fo r the diffe rential of the product of two funct io ns, w ithout hav ing recourse to the d is missal of the infinitesi mals o f higher o rders. This ( uns uccess ful ) attempt co ns is ts o f th e follow ing. Let A

fu nc tion f(t) a t the point to' B



a be the va lue o f the

b - the value o f the fun ction g(J) at the sam e po int to ,

a and b - the in cremen ts respectively o f the func tio nsf a nd g, at the segment [to, 'd. (He rein belo w we s hall a lso des igna te them by llf a nd Llg respectively.) T hen the incre ment o f the prod uct f (t). gel ) at the segment [to, tll is

i.e., Ab +Ba, w h ic h Newto n takes as the diffe re ntia l (" moment") o f the prod uct o f th e f unc t io ns f and g a t the poi nt to' B ut here Ab + Ba, is no t f(to) Llg + g (to) 1lJ, but



16[) 6g

+ ( g(1 0) + 16g)


Le.,il differs rrom[(l o)

6g + g (10) 6f by Ihal ve ry

magni tude Llf 'Ilg, the dismissa l of w hich, Newton wa nted to avoid. However, b y identify ing Ab + Ba with f( t 0) Llg + g (t 0) Ilf , Newton carr ied o ut, namely, this ve ry dismissal (t ho ug h silently).
As it ap pea rs from the fi rst d ra fts o f his work o n the di ffe re ntial (see, PV, 4 1 ). Ma rx at first wa nted to throw l ight upon the historica l co urse of the developme nt of differential calculus, by us ing the his to ry o f the theo rem abo ut the diffe rential o f a product as an example. There is, tha t is wh y. no do ub t abou t the fact, that lemma 11 mus t have drawn Marx"s atten tio n in this connection.



As the sources from which Marx took his extracts,do not specia ll y mention lemma Xl of the first book and lemma 11 of the second book of the "Principia", there is all the ground to think,that Marx singled them out, having turned directly to Newton's "Principia", Since the definition of the lim it of the ratio of evanescent quantities through the speed of a body at a given moment to' does not con tain the means of computing this lim it, Newton in fact could not use this definition for such computa tion, For that he had 10 use some other presuppositions about the limi ts,permitting the reduction of the computation of the limits o f ratios o f evanescent quantities into the computa tion of such limits, whose numerical value was fully and besides, quite naturally. determinate. The role of such a presupposition plays first of all : Newton's lemma I, in the first section of the first book of his "Principia" : "On the method of first and last ratios, through which the following is proved". In his comme nts on the his tory o f differential calcu lus, Marx mentions this lemma along with the sc hol ia 10 lemma XI (see, PV, 67). Lemma I states: "The quantities as well as the ratios of quan tities, which in the course of any finite time consta ntly tend to equal ity, and before the end of Ihis time come closer to each other - close r than any given diffe rence - will be equal at the limit" (I. Newton, Matematicheskic Nachala Naturalnoi Filosofii, SpB., 1915, p. 53). However, in the proof of this lemma, the existence of lim it itS actually att,linable at the end of the interval of time considered , was in fact silently presupposed. In fact this proof consisted of denying the fact,that the value of the quantities attained "at the end of this tim e"(thcir "limits") may differ from each other. Thus, Newton always understood limit actually and that is why he hardly surpassedin respect of ma thematical exact itude and validity - the Lcibnitzian actual infillitesimals o r the moments corresponding to them, which, as is well known, Newton too used in practice.



An acquainta nce with Eulcr's attempt to co nstruct the differential calc\lIl1s as a calculus of zeros, is cssctHiai for undcrsl<lnding those places of Marx's manuscripts, where in the ratio is viewed as a mlie of zeros, as something exactly equal 10 the vltlUC or the derivative of for example, wh ile equating

y in respect o f x for any value of the varillble x, and at the sa me time as somet hing wi th

which o nc ma y operate as o nc does with the ord inary fractions the product

~~ . ~:

with the "fraction"


("cancelling" dv). T his attempt should be

highlighted a lso in conn ec tion with th e fact, th at in the list o f lilcralurC,:ltlac hcd to the drafts of his essay on the his tory of d ifferential ca lculus (scc, PV, 66 ), Marx made a specia l mention of chapter IIf of Elder's "Differen tial Calculus", devoted to an account o f this attempt. Furthe r, it is also imporulnt, in view of the fact, that Marx ca llcd Eulcr's calcul us "rationalist". The "Differential C1lcu lu s"o f the great mathematician,member of the Academy of Science o f Pcte rburg,Leonhard Eule r,was published by the Academy of Pcterburg,in 1755. This work is based on an allempt to conside r the differentials as exactly eqlla l to zero in magnit ude,b ut at the sa me ti me also as different zeros: zeros wi th "histories" of their origins, fix ated in the d ifferences o f nolat ion (dx, dy etc.),which permilS them to be considered as such ze ros, whose ratio

~,whercy - f(x). is distinguished by the fa c t that it

is the derivative

f'(x) and, th at it may be operated upon as an ordinary fraction. Eu lc r undertook this attempt with the aim of freeing mltthematical analysis from the treatment of differe n tin ls as actuully infinitesima l magnitudes, having [In explici tl y contradic tory character (being in <I cerl.1in sense, both zeros and not-zeros at the same lime). Euler thought, the assertion to the effect that "pure reuson recogn ises the possibility o f the thousandth parI of a cubic foot of matter to be bereft o f all extens ion", to be "quite insurricient" ( in the given context it means "impermissible", see: L. Eulcr, Differentiul Calculus, M.- L., 194Q, p. 90). "An infinitesimal quantity is nothing but an evanescent o nc, and that is w hy it is exactly equa l to zero. This is in agreement with that definition of the infinites imals,acco rding la which they arc s maller than all possible givcn quant ity. In fact, if a quantity is so small, that it is sma ller than any possible given quantity, then, wittingly, it canno t hut bc equa l to ze ro; for had it not been equa l 10 ze ro, then it would be possible to posit a quantity cqual to it, but that will co ntradict the presuppos ition. Thus, if someone as ks, what is an infinitesimal in mathematics, then we shall a nswer, that it is exactly equal 10 zero. Hence, this concept has no secrets hidden in it, the likc of which arc usua ll y attached with it and which makes the infinitesima l ca lcul us highly suspicious in the eyes of many" (ibid. p.91). Since a simp le assertio n of the identity of the diffcrentials with zeros, does not as yet produce thc differentia l calculus, Euler introd uced "different" zeros, ins talling two typeS'o f cquations fo r them: "arithmetic" and "geometric" . In the "arithmetic" sense all zeros arc equal to c(lch other, and fo r an a no t equa l to any zero. a + 0 is always equal to a,





ind epende ntly of w hat sorl of "zero" is lidded 10 a. In the "geome tric" sense o nl y Iwo such zeros are equal to each other, the "rati o" o r which is equ al to onc. He re Eul e r· does no t explain , wllltt he me.lOS by the "ratio" of two ze ros. Onl y this much is clear, that he ex tcml ed Ihe usun l properties of th e ratios o f magnitudes o the r tha n zero, upon these "ratios" <l nd , thllt by the ra tio of two "zeros": dy and dx, he in fact understood tha t whic h is expressed as Lim

tr..-o l! x


in the lang uage o f modern mathematical a na lysis. And

that is why. Elder 's theory of "ze ros"eould no t free mathema tica l analysis from the need of introdu c in g the co ncept of limit (and the diffic ulties co nnec ted with this concept). In so fa r as Elde r's leros could be different "zeros" (in the "geo metric" sense no t equal to one l1n o the r), it was necessary to have different sig ns fo r them. Eulcr wro te: "Two zeros may have a ny geometric relation between them,th ough fro m the arithmetic point of vie w Iheir rela tio n is that o f equa lity. Thu s, in so far as th ere may be a ny rat io be tween zeros, different sym bols ha ve been used o n purpose, to ex press these different ratios. especially when the geometiic ratio of two dirferen t zeros, is requ ired to be de fined. But in the calculus of in fi nitcs ima ls, only the ratio o f different infinites imals is soug ht. Tha t is w hy, if we do no t use di ffe re nt s igns fo r them, then there will be a g reat confusion and the re will be no way out of it" (p. 9 1). If by so inte rpre tin g dx and dy as ttdiffcrcnt " zeros, whose ratio is equa l to [,(x ). we go over fro m

1; "" [,(x) to (Jy .. [,(x) dx , then we o bt.1in a ~ equl1 li ty , whose le ft
w he re y - [(x), is considered eq ua l to o nc, eve n ir ['(~) .. 0 are

hand s ide and

ri ght hand s ide arc equa l to each a the l. both in the "a rithmetic"a nd in the "geometric" sense. In fact, in the le n as we ll as in the right ha nd side "zeros" w iJI s tand , and, as it has already been noted,all zeros are mu tua ll y eq ual in the "a rith me tic" sense. Since the ratio o f dy to dx is eq ua ted f ully w ith [,(x) - i.e., in the "arithmetic" as well as in the "geometric" sense rthe ratio for

(1;) :[,(x),

I. a nd

the rul es

ope rating with o rdi na ry r<lti os

ex te nded upo n the "ratios" o f zeros , we ge t

dy : ['(x ) dx -

(~) : ['(x ) .. 1, or, in oth er words, dy nnd

[ '(x) dx arc equal to cl.ch othe r, in the

"geo metric" sense too. To a ll appearence, it is namely this "complete" equivalence o f the cquali ties

7x -['(x)

and dy - f'(x) dx, no t onl y in th e sense o f the poss ibility of trans it ion rro m one o f them to the other, but also herein (a nd o wing to th is),in the trea tment of the "rat io" o f the "diffe rential particJcs"dy a nd dx as an ordin ary ratio (as a fra c tio n). in spite of the fac t,th at as "dif(e rential particl es" dy and dx a rc zeros ("differe nt" zeros, to be des ig nated dirrerentl y)- whic h Marx had in view,wh en he transformed the [irst o f these cqualilies into the seco nd (sce, PV, 69 ). Fo r mo re de ta iled informations abo ut Eule r's zeros and the histo ry o f ideas co nnected with the m the reader may re fer to : A.P. Jusc hkewi tsch, Eul e r und La grange tibe r die



Grundlagen der Analysis, in Berlin, 1959, pp. 224-244.

Sammelband zu Ehren des 250 GeburlS tages Lconard Euiers,

Here we sha ll limit ourselves to two more remarks of Euler. These m,IY be of use while studyi ng Marx's manuscripts. The first onc is rela ted to the concept of the differential as the principal part of the increment of a function. This concept played an impo rtant role in mathematica l analysis, especiall y in its applications. Euler introduced it as follows: "Le t an increment obtai ned by the variable x, be very small, so that in the expression (for the increment Ily of the fun ction y of x, Le., in J P IV ... Q w2 + R w3 + etc.·, the te rms Q w2 + R wJ, and more so the rest, become so s mall ,tha t in an expression,where a great exactitude is not required, they may be negleeted,in comparison to the first term. Them, having found out the first differential Pdx. wc know, of cOllrse only approximately, also the first difference, for it will be equal to Pw; this is of grea t he lp in many cases, where analysis is applied to solve practical problems" (ibid, p. 105). In other words,having substituted in the expression of the differential of the function yof x (Le., in Pdx, where P is the derivative of y in respect of x)the differential dx,equa l to Euler's zero,by the finite increment IV of the variable x,we sha ll get thllt very concept of the differen tial as the principal part of the increment o f a function, which is the point of departure of the modern courses of mathematical analysis. There is an analogous concep t of the differential as the principal part of the increment of a fun ct ion in Marx's manuscripts (see, description of manuscript 2763, pp.141-142). Another remark [of Eul~r} is associated w ith the question of choice of notations, specific to the diffe rential calculus, i.c., for the differentials and derivatives. Above all what is of interes t here is the fact that Euler interpreted Newton's pointwise nota tions as signs of differentials (and not of derivatives). In fact he wrote: "The name "nuxia", which was in it iall y used by Newton to designate the speed of increment, was by analogy trans ferred to the infinitesinal increments, which a quantity admits,when it, as it were, nows" (p.103). And lowe r down there we read: "The differentials, which they (the English-Ed.) ca ll nuxia , are designated by the poi nts adopted by them, which they put over lette rs, so that y designates for them the first nuxia of y. y- the second,)i'- the th ird nuxia etc." However, Euler was not satisfied with this mode of notations, and he continues: "Since the mode of designation depends upon will,these not.1tions may not be rejected , if the number
• Euler's ~Dir[erentia l Calculus" began with Ihe calculus of finite diHercnces and the theorem, which i[ reads : M the variable:! admils an increment, equailo w. Ihen some funclion of)( emerging as a result of this inCNlment may be expressed as P '" + Q ",2 + R ..) + etc., wherein, this expression is ei ther fini te,or il cominues endlessly · (p. 103, see also, p. 61). The proof of this theorem was b~sed upon the fact,thM the class of functions herein considered by Euler consisted of powered functions, polynomials and clcmenlllry Iransccndental [unctions,expanded in intinite powered serieses; he permitted himself to Ireat them as finite polynomia ls.





of points is not large, so that they may be ea sil y co unled. However, if many points are 10 be s uperscri bed, then Ih is mode creates great confus ion and a lot of disco mfiture. In fac t, the tenth

differential or the tenth nuxia, may thus be des ignated extremely awkwardly as: ji; whereas our mode of des ig na tion d JOy ,is easily und ers tood . There are occasions, when differentials of much higher and even indeterminate orders are requ ired to be expressed; in such cases the English mode w ill become most unsu itable "(pp.103-104). Marx also spoke of an analogous identifica tion (in certain cases), by Newton and his successors of the "nuxia" X, y etc.with the "momenlS" (i.e., differentials) 'ty etc. (where "t is "an infinitesimal part o f time"). Here Marx observed, that "Newton's "t plays no role in his analysis of basic functions and perhaps that is why it has been omilLed" (p. 68). and that Newton himself gladly casts away "t (ibid) . In co nsonance with this, when Marx spoke of the method of Newton, he also used such expressions, as "the differentials o f y in the form of y, of u in the form of and of z in the form of i (sce, p. 69). We also no te that Marx especially s tressed the advantage of the Leibnitzian sy mbols of differential ca lcu lus, over the symbols adopted by New ton and his s uccessors (sce, p.79).




In a number of M:trx's mathematical manuscriplS wc find a mentio n of Marx's intent ions to get acquainted with the works of Jo hn Landcn, in the Britis h Museum (sce fo r instance, p. 39) Marx saw in Landcn, a possible p,redccessor o f Lagrangc, who strove to re turn 10 th e strictly algeb raic fo und:1 Lions o f th e differential ca lcu lus (p. 90). and assumed, that Landen's method must have been ana logo us la the method of "algebraic diffcrcntiillion" proposed by him; but he had doubts, as la whether Landen understood the essential difference of this method from those

of the others. To get convinced about the fairness of these assumptions, M;ux wanted to scc i,n the Museum, "Th e Res idual Analysis" of Landen.
Marx could have o btained informations about this book, from two sources at his disposal: Hind 's book (2nd cd., p. 128) and Lacroix's hig "Treatise" (vo\. T pp. 239-240). Incid cnL.1 J1 y, , these two sources arc a lmos t indentica l, as Hind, in essence, on ly translated the corresponding place from Lacro ix, into English. In Hind we read: "However the idea o f constructing a calculus of this type [Le., differen tial calculus] upo n purely a lgebra ic foundations was, apparen tl y, first conc ievea by Jo hn Landen, the fam ous English mathematician, whose creativity no uris hed in mid 18th century . The first task o f his "The Residual Analysis" was 10 obta in a n algebraic expansion o f th e diffe rence of two identical functions of x and x I, divided by the difference of these very magniludes, or fin expansion of the express ion [(Xl~ - [(x), and to find o ut, what is x -x called the special value of the resu lt obta ined, when x' is assumed to be - x and when, that is why, all trace of the divisor x' - x has already va nished". (In lacroix more perecisely : "... when this quotient [(x') - f(x) / x' -x} is already so o btained, that in it no trace of the divisor x' - x is re tained , [then 1in it, it is assumed that x' - x, so that the ul timate a im of the calculus cons ists of arriving at a certain jpecia l value o f the above mentio ned ratio".) To all appearence, Ma rx could not rea lise his intention of going through Landen's book in the British Museum . However, an analysis of the content of this book fully confirms tbe aforementioned assumptio ns of Marx, wbich he himself co nsidered to be "highly likely ". Thecomplc tc titl c ofLandcn's book is : The ResidualAflalysis, a new branch of the a lgebra ic art, of vcry extensive use, both in Pure Mathematics, and Natural Philosophy, Book I. By John Larlden. London, printed fo r the au thor, and sold by L.Haws, W.Clarke, and R.Collins, a t the Red Lio n in Pater-noster Row, MDCCL XIV. Its preface begins with the words: "Hav ing remaincd busy for sometime past with a new and simple method of invest igations on the binomial theorem, with the help of a purely algebra ic process, I wished to examine, whether the mea ns wh ich helped me to inves tigate this theorem, may turn out to be of use fo r investiga ting o the r theorems, and I soon found, Ihata compu tatio nal technique based on those means, may be applied in many investigations ... I named this special technique - the Residual Analysis, since in all those investigatio ns, where it is a pplied, the



principal means, through which we arrive at the desired conclusions, are such quantities and algebraic expressions, which the mathematicians call the residuals". Later on the author criticised Newton's calculus of Iluxions and Leibnitz's analysis of infinitesimals, because these are based upon the introduction of some unjustified new "principles" into mathematics. He thought, these are the explanations of the values of the new terminologies, introduced into the theory with the help of, in reality non-existent but nevertheless assumed (to be self- understood), imaginary movements and figurative conritfuous flows, which do not bring into mathematics any clear and precise idea, but compel us to talk, for example, about such - at least incomprehensible - things, like the speed of time, speed of speed etc., which are not even necessary for the explanations (and that is why, conversely, these are not capable of serving as the means for defining certain exact mathematical concepts) - [such are the new "principles"] of Newton's calculus of fluxions. In Leibnitz's analysis of infinitesimals, he considered, the introduction of the infinitesimal magnitudes and of the magnitudes infinitesimally smaller, than the infinitesinal magllitudes unjustified as new "principles"; their dismissal (when obtain.ing of approximate results are not at issue) is "a very unsatisfac.tory (if not erroneous) mode oC getting rid of such quantities" (p. IV). Landen proposes, that mathematics is not in need of such principles, which are alien to it, and that his "Residual Analysis", "not admitting of any principle, apart from those, that are accepted in Algebra and Geometry since antiquity", "is no less useful (if not morc), than the calculus of flux ions or the differential calculus" (p. IV). The starting point of un.den 's residual analysis is the formula (1) a' _ _ _- If _ a' - I+ ar- 2b+ ... +17- 1 a-b (r is an integral and positive number), and the following formulae deduced from it, and with its help:
m m

1+ - + m-I _ v7




l' +. + .





T+ r+



... + w





-.,. -w -.,.
m m

w w 1+-+ -



--v-1 'W





r+ r






... + w


l!::.!i!! ,




(where m and r are integral and positive numbers, .:


corresponds to our (:)


Landen obtained the derivative of the powered function x', for an integral and fractional (pos itive or negative) index of power P, as a "special vatue~ of the ratio x!-xt

I when X _XI ,that even when x -XI X - Xl' the strength of the equalilics, corresponding to the formulae (I), (2) and (3), were retained. -XI'

when x

In other words, he so redefi ned the ratio



Landen designated the "special value of the ratio Y - Yl (where Y - [(x), Yt - !(x l » when


x .. XI' through [x": y].

He carried out the trans ition 10 the irrational index of power, in the light of examples; to begiri with, by finding out the "special value" of the ratio of

when v .. w (i.e., the derivative v- w in respect of v) in two different ways: once according to fo rmula (2), fo r m .. 4 and

v~ - w~,

r - 3; nexllime, according to the same formula, but -

~since~ - 1'3333 etc."



applied to the pairs: (m-13333, r-lOOOO), (m - 133333, r ... lOOOOO) etc. Landen escaped from the difficulties connected with the fact, that this process is infinite, by observing, that the "u ltimate va l ue~ of
1+1+1+1 1+1+1+1

(13 333 etc. times) (10000 etc. times)

is cv iden t1y equal to ~, the magnitude, from wh ich [the number J 1·333 etc. was obla incd (by

division)" (p. 7) .

• To obtain formula (2), using (1), it is enough to note that
v'-w' .. v -w v -w v-w


. . ............ - , - , . .


-w '" .. v'-w'

_ ~.(v')-(w')
V -W ' ... ..



Formula (3) is easily deduced from formu la (2) . In fact

(vw)' (v - w)

(vw)' (w - loll




..fi "'1'4142 etc., treating it according r to the second mode, i.e., as he himself observed, "approximately", but so that, every time it may be made "more proximate"; he again concluded, that the "ultimate value" of
After Ihis he went over to that insL1nce, where
In ...

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 ... (14142 etc, times) 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 ... (10000 etc, times) "is equal to..fi, the magnitude from which [the numberJ 1·4142e!c. was obtained (by extracting 'he roo,)" (p. 8).
It is not surprising that Landen could not construct his "Residual Analysis " without falling back upon the concept of limit, in some form. However, he spoke of limit, precisely in the manner of Newton, treating limit as the "ultimate value" (as the end) of an infinite (i.e . endless) sequence. Naturally, he did not use this definition in practice, but he had to have recourse to such means of precisely estimating the approximations and convergence (or divergence) of the processes for attaining them successively. which were prompted by the concrete content of the problems considered by him. Like the other mathematicians of his time, Landen thought that it was possible to freely use the divergent serieses in formal transformations of expressions with the help of infinite serieses, if the latter play, therein , only the role of an intermediate stage in the transformation. If a series must express the value of some magnitude to be computed, then, for it to be used, the series must be converge nt. Here Landen did not think, that it was necessary to explain, what he meant by convergence (or divergerlce) of a series, but having expanded a function into a series (with the help of some formal transformations), he usually indicated the radius of convergence of the series thus obtair-ed, and also mentioned the methods, permitting an "improvement" upon its convergence (its substitution by another series, which converges "fas ter" to the same limit). Thus, among the "principles", which "were accepted in algebra and geometry since antiquity", Landen, evidently counted some forms of transitions to the limit, with which he could somehow cope in practice (when approximate calculation was at issue). But he did not have a precise general concept of "convergence" and "li mit". Nor did he have the methods for computing the limits (or detecting their absence), applicable to a sufficiently large class of expressions. That is why Landen sought such a definition of the derivative (of the "special value"), which would directly contain within itself an algorithm for finding it.

Like Newton, herein, he too, discussed the functions of x as certain analogies of the concept of real number. Just as every natural number may be considered as a sum (finite or infinite) of the powers of base 10; each being multiplied by one of the numbers 0, 1, 2, .'" 9, so also every function of x, according to Newton, must be representable in the form of a sum of the (finite or infinite) powers with base x, each belRg multiplied by numbers (coefficients) - i.e., in the form of a powered series. (The series was considered to be "representing"the g iven functi o n, given with the help of a finite Halgebraic" expression, if it was obtained through formal transfo rmations from the expression, which posed the function. Thus, the series 1 1 + x + x 2 + ,., + x" + ... is considered to be "representing" the function -1 ,in so far as it




could be obtained by dividing 1 by (l - x) according to the method of dividing the polynomials.) That is why the problem of finding out the derived function of f(x) could be represented as 0 reducible 1 an analogous task for xP and to the problems: having known the derivatives of summands (or factors) , of having to find out the derivative of the sum (or product). These are the problems which Landen solves firs t of all in his "Residual Analysis". Extension of these methods to the functions of several vari:tblcs and partial derivatives of different orders entail a number of technical diffic ulLies and L1ndc n managed Lo cope w ith the m with the help of sometimes very clever - formal calcu lat!ons. Herein, it was usually presupposed silently, that a fun ction is ullivocally represented by its corresponding powered series, i.e., if two powered sericses must represent one and the same function of x, then the coefficients of the identical powers in them must be equal (hence the wide use of the method of so-called "indeterminate coe fficients"). As an example, illustrating the application of these methods by landen, we s hall adduce here a proof of Newton's binomia l theorem in the general instance of a n a rbitra ry real index of power of the b ino mial - as proposed by Landen (with certain speci fication s now in use ). Landen 's proof may also be of interest to us, as Marx attached a special importance to this theorem of Newton, first of all in connection with the theorems of TayJor and MacLaurin (see, PV, 88 & 93). Let .

where p is any real number, A I , A 2 , A), A4 are indeterminate coefficients, assumed 10 be not dependent upon x. Assuming x - 0 in both the parts of the equality, wc shall get AI - a'. Differentiating the equality (1) in respect of x, term by lerm (of course, Landen did not speak of the derivatives according to x, but spoke of the corresponding "special valucs M, which he could already find out for A r, where A does not depend on x and, for any real r) we shall have p(a+x), -1-A2+ 2A.1x+3A4x2+ ...


Now multiplying both the sides of equality (1) by p, and of equali ty '(2) by (a + x), we shall get, further,

( I' )

p(a+x)'. aA 2 +




x2 +


whence, owing lO the presupposed univoca lity of the expansio ns of the expression pea + xY' in series, according to the powers of Xt

p-I ---za-A
or A 4 3a

pep-I) ,_,




p-2 .p(p -J)(p-2)aH A

. , .......................................... . ................................ .




i.e., (a + x)p- at' +E. ap - t + P(P- 1)
1 1-2


+ p(p - 1)(P- 2)

(JI' -J

r + ...

and this is the binomial theorem of Newton. Th ough Jo hn La nden's res idual analys is did not become a wo rking in st rument of mathematicia ns : Lande n's notatio ns were very cumbersome, and - perhaps that is why - he did no t arrive at the theorems o f Taylor and MacLa urin ; it sho uld not however be thought, that the works of La nde n did not exert any innuence upon the development of mathematics. Landen himself wrote, that a number of theorems from his "Res idua l Analysis", "drew the attention of Mr. De Moivre, Mr. Stirling and of the other prominent mathematicia ns"{p.45). Lacroix informs us in his "Trea tise" (vol. I, p. 240), that he used Landen's methods in the "Supplements to the Elements o f Algebra" for proving the binomial formulae, and for serial expans ion of the exponential and logarithmic functions. However, appare ntl y, it was Lagrange who drew Lacroix's attention 1 Landen, upon whose 0 "Theory of An alyti cal Functions" Lacro ix based his "Trea tise". Lagrange wrote, in the introduction to his book, referring to the di fficulties bedev il ing the bas ic concepts o f Newton's analysis, that : "To get rid of these difficulties, a skilful Englis h geometer, hav ing made impo rta nt d iscoveries in analysis, recen tl y proposed to change that method of n ux ions. which was so far steadfastly followed by all the English geometers, by another purely analytica l method, which is analogous to the differential method, but in which, instead of usi ng o nly the infin ites imals or the d ifferences of variable quanti ties eq ual to zero, at first the d ifferent values o f these quantities are used, which arc then mutually equated with each other, since with the help of div is ion, the factor - which this equalisation would lurn into zero - is fo rced to d isappea r. T hus the in fi nites imals and the eva neseent quantities are actua ll y gol rid of ; but the methods and appl ica tions of calculus become complicated and less natura l, and one mus t agree to it, that this mode of making the principles of differential calcul us more precise, robs it of its basic adva ntage - the s im plici ty of method and the ease of ope rations". (Apart fro m the "Residua l Analys is", L'lgrange also refers to Landen's"A discou rse of the res idual analysis", published already in 1758; sce, "Oeuvres de Lagrangen, T. IX, Pa ris, 188 1, p,I 8). Apparently, Lagrange's afore mentioned observa tion is connected with the fact, that Landen used highly cumbersome nota tions and hence could not arrive at th e concept of differential and at a calculus operating with differential symbols. In contradistinction to Lagrange, Lacro ix observed, that La nden's method may "in essence, be reduced to the method o f limits" ("Treatise .. ", p. xvn ).

From among the boo ks o n math e ma ti ca l analysis a t Marx 's dis posa l, apparently, Boucharla t's "Elements of differential and integra l calculus" is of the g reatest significance, for an understanding o f Marx's ma thematica l manuscripts. Marx ga l acquainted with it, through the English transl ation of its third French edition (of 1826). This translation was d one by Bla kelock and it was published in 1828. This text boo k enjoyed great popularity a nd saw many editio ns. In 1881, its 81h editio n was publis hed in Paris, with no les by M.P. Laurent.lI was a lso translated into a numbe r of fo reign languages, including Russia n. An alumnus of the Polylcchnic.11 School, professor of "transcendental " (higher) mathematics, a uthor of a number of texts books of mathemat ics and mecha nics, Boucharlat, Jean-Louis (1775-1848) was a t the same time a poet and was, from 1823, professor of literature in the Athcneum of Pa ris. It seems that the literary merit and clarity of expos ition of this book also furthered its popularity in a large way. Thus it is clear that, Marx was not accidentally drawn to Boucharlat 's co urse. At the same time, in sp ite of its au thor's pretentions abou t the grea ter s trictness o f the exposition and a lso to the e ffec t, that he has managed to improve upon the ftalgebraic ft me thod of lagrange, with the help of the theory of limits (sce, introduction to the 5th edi tion, 1838, p. VIH), the mathe matical level of this course was no t very high. Even in its,5th ( 1838) editio n, and no t only in the 3rd - the English transtation o f which was used by Marx, the concepts of variable, func tion, deriva tive and different ia l were ind rod uced as fo llows .: ft l, It is said, that a variable is a function of another variable, whe n the first is equal to an analytical expression, cons titued out of the second; for example, y is a fun c tion of x in the foll owing equations :

3, Let us now takc the eq uation y_x 3 and assume, tha t y turns into y', when x becomes x
y' - (x+ h>' and, ca rrying ou l the indicated operation,

+" ;


hence, we have

·Marx not only took notes from this text book . in a number of places of his manuscripts and pOlemised against its author about his basic me thQdological uircctions, but also put in H lot of labour for the [actual verification of thel an er. That is why, it is hardly possible to do without an acquaintance with this text-book. liere we shall give a detailed accou nt of the first twe nty paragraphS of this book. These paragraphs are specifi c for this book, and Marx's critical observations arj: especially directed towatus them. Wherever in the man uscripts, an acq uai ntance was requireu of these pilragraphs. there a menlion has been made of the corresponding pages of the appendix, containing their account. - Ed.



y , _ Xl + 3x211 + 3xll2 + 113 ;

if from this equa tion we subtract equation (I), then we shall have y' - y _ )x2 + 3xll2 + hl , 11 and, dividing by h,

, Y I~ Y -

3x2 +3xll +

"2 .


Let us see, what this result teaches us : y' - Y is the increme nt of the fun ction y. when x obtains the increment h. that is why this difference y' - Y is the difference between the new condition of the variable magnitude y and its in it ial condilion. On the other hand, s ince the increment of the variable x is 11, it follows that, the expression


is the ratio of the increment of the function y to the increme nt o f the va riable x.

Examining the second element of equation (2), we see that this ratio diminishes along with the dimunition of" and that, whcn h becomes zero, this ratio turns into Jx2. Hence. the term Jx2 is the limi t of the ratio

L..:...l ; it tends to this term, when we compel

x to.diminis h.


4. Since in the presupposition, that" - 0, the increment of y also becomes zero, so turns into


that is why from equation (2) we get

Q - lx' . o
there is nothing absu rd about this cquation, si nce algebra teaches us that


o '0 can represent

any magnitude whatsoeve r. On the other hand it is clear, that sin ce the division o fbolh the terms of a fracti on by o ne and the sa me number does not change th e value of the fra ction, we may conclude, that the s mallness of the terms of a fractio n does not in the leas t innucence its value and that, hence, it may remain the same even when its terms atta in the last stage of s mallness, i.e., turn into zero . The fraction


in equa tion (3) is a symbol, that has substituted the ratio of the increment

of the function to the increment of the variable; since in this symbol no trace of this variable remains, we shall

~epresent it by ~ ; then

1; will remind us that, y was the function, and x ---':'

the variable. But due to this, dy and dx will not cease to be zeros, and we shall have

dy _ lx' <Ix .



~ to be more precise, its value 3,r is the differentia l coefficien t of the function y. dx'
We note, that si nce ~ is a s ign, representing the limit
)x2 (

as is shown by equation (4»,

dx must a lways be under dy. However, to faci litate algebraic operations, here we must get rid of the denomina tor in eq uation (4), a nd we shall get dy dx. Th is express ion ]x2dr is called the dirferen tial of the fun ction y" (pp. 1-4). In §§ 5-8 Bouc harlat finds out the dy for


y _ Q+ 3x', y- 11- '" , Y - (x' - 20') (x' - 3a').


I.n a ll these cases the expression for the augmented value of y , Le., (in the notations of Boucharlat) for y', is equa l to f(x + 11), if Y - f (x) is rep resented in the form of a polynomial, ordered according to the powers of h (with coeffi c ients in x), after which the ratio




eas ily repese nted by a poly nomial of the same kind . The assump tion o f h - 0 in the latte r gives

~, the multiplication of which by dx comple tes the sea rch for the express ion o f the diffe re nt ial

"9. The express ion dx itsel f is the differen tial of x, for let y;< x, then y' _ x + h, hence,

y' - y - "and, that means,


1. Since Iheq uantity h does not e nter in to the second e lement

of th is equation, we see that for the trans ition to limit, it is eno ugh to change ~.mto ~ ' " dx which w ill give

1; - 1 , hence, in our supposition,

dy-fix". " 10. We s hall also fi nd, tha t th e diffe rential of ax is adx; but if we had y - ox + h, we would a lso have got adx as the different ial, whe nce it fo llows, that the cons ta nt b (not accompany ing the variable x) gives us no tcnu when differentiated, or, in other words has no differential a t all. However, we may note, that if y _ b, then before us we have the case, where a is zero in the

equa tion y - ax + b and where, tha t is why, since


a is


reduced to


0, the re is

neither a limit, nor a differe ntial " (p. 6). Thus we see tha t in Boucharlal's book : 1) There is no definiti on e ither of the limit, or of the derivative and the differe ntial. All these concepts a re only explained in the light of examples, and besides onl y such, th at the ra tio [(x + h/~ - [(x) is represented in the form of a polynom ial , ordered according la the powers of 11, with coeffi cients in x . Herein, the search for tbe li mit o f this ratio when h - 0 is trea ted as the assumption of Ir _ 0 in the polynomial obtained. The questions, as to whe the r there a re other



instances, and whether it is possible to "differentiate" in those cases, and if possible, then how, are not even mentioned here. 2) The transition from the derivative

1; ..

qJ(X) to the differential dy .. qJ(X) d.x is considered

to be an illegitimate operation, carried out only with the aim Qf "facilitating" algebraic calculations. 3) From (A) [(u ';~ - [(xL <p(x. h) • when "" 0, it is concluded that also when" .. 0 , i.e., when [(x + h/~ - [(xl loses its meaning (turns into

~), the equality (A) retains its strength, Le., we must get

o 0 - cp(x. 0).


In other words, it is held, that <p(x, 11) must be defined (a nd continuous) at It .. 0 and that the equaltiy (B) logically follows from the equality (A) (though the expression ~ is devoid o f any sense). 4) The equality of zero with the limit or the differenlial is evaluated as a tes timony to the crfect, that "there is neither a limit, nor a differential", though at the same time dy and dx are always zeroes (if qJ (x) .0, then the differential - equal to cp(x)·Q - exists; if qJ(x) _ 0, then it does not). But, evidently, here the question, as to which of the zeroes are considered to be "existing", and which are not. does not even arise. It is not surprising, that Marx was not satisfied with such a mode of trea ting the basic concepts of differential calculus. And in fact, even his first co nspectus o f the initial paragraphs of Boucharlat's book (sce, PV, 153) contains critical remarks directed at its author. But what Marx especially did not like, is the fact, that a basic concept of difrcrcntial calculus -" the concept of difJerential - turned out to be unsubst.1 ntiated and its introd uction was justified only by saying, that it "facilitates algebraic operations" (see, the manuscript "On the Differential", p. 33) ' § 11 of Boucharlat's book is devoted to the observa tion, that "sometimes the increment of the variable happens to be nega tive; in that case it is necessary to substitute x by x - h and to operate as earlier". Thereby in the example y _ - a.x3, it is obtained that dy _ - 3ax2clx, and the following conclusion is drawn: "we sec, that it is reduced to the presupposition of a negative dx in the differential of y, computed under the assumption o[ a positive increment" . But for Boucharlat clx is Q. Howeve r, the question as to what does a "negative zero" mean did not dawn on him. (In the manuals of that period the concept of "absolute magnitude" was no t present.) Since the [ollowing three paragraphs 12-14 are especially characJeristic of Boucharlat's book and s ince a number of places of Marx 's manuscripts arc related to them, here th~ir text is . being reproduced in [ull. 42



"12. Before proceeding farther,wc shall make an important observation, namely . that if in a n equation, the second term of which is a fun ction of x a nd, that is why. whic h ma y be represented by us in the ge neral form of y - f(x) , we supstitute x by x + 11 and. having then ordered it acco rding to the powers of It, obtain the expa nsion y' - A +Bh + Ch 2 + Dh3 + ctc., (C) the n we must always have y _ A. In fa c t, if we put h - 0, then the second eleme nt is reduced to A; as to the first clement, since wc marked y by a stroke only 1 indicate that y has undergone 0 a definite change, w hen x turned into x + If, it suits us to remo ve ,the stroke of y, when h w ill be zero, and the equation (C) is then reduced to

y-A .
"13. This w ill give us the opportunity to generalise the procedure of differentia tion. In fact, if in the equation y _ fx, in wh ich we ma y cons id er the expression represe nted throughfx to be known, we substi tuted x + 11 for x and, having ordered it according to the powers of h, we co ul d then obtain the foll owing expansion : y' - A +Bh + Ch 2 +Dhl + etc., or, better still, if according to the previous paragraph [we obta ined]. y' .. y +Bh + CII2 + etc. , then we s hall have y' - y -BII +Ch 2 + etc., whence,



T-B+Ch + e tc.
and, in transition to the limit.

~ .. B. This teaches us, that the differential coeffi cient is equal

to the coefficient of the te rm. co ntain ing the fi rst power of It. in the ex pans io n of f(x + 11). ordered according to the ascending powers of It. • "14. If in stead of one fu nc tion y. c hanging its cond itio n due 1 the increment imparted by 0 the vadable x, which it contains, we have two fu nctions y and z of the same variable x and a re able, in partic ular, to find out the differentials of each of these functions, then it will be easy to deduce from there the differential of the product zy of these func tions. through the follow ing proof. In fact, if we put x + h for x in y and in z, then we shall have two expansions, which, having been ordered according 10 the powers of It. may be represented as :

y '_y +Ah+Bh2 +clc., z'_z+A'h+B'h2 +ctc.,
in trans ition to the limit, we shall find:

(5) (6)

!!x . A


dz_, A


multipl ying the equations (5) and (6), each by the other, we sha ll get



ty' _ zy + AzlI + Bzfl2 + etc. + +A 'yfl +AA 'h2 + etc. + + B 'yh2 + etc.,



J~ZY -Az +A 'y + (Bz+AA ' + B'y)1I + etc.;

in transit ion to the limit and indicating which expression is to be differentiated by a point, we s hall get

d·ro 't'-A z+A 'y;
putling in place of A and A ',their values given by equations (7) we shall have :

!!:!x_zdy+y dz dx dx dx' and, remov ing the common divisor dx,
d.zy _ zdy+ydz.

Thus to qbL.1 in the differential of the product of two variables, it is necessa ry only to multiply each o f them by the differential of the other and to add these products". In § IS this rule is used la find out the diffc:rential o f the product of three variables, in § 16 for f'l btaining the differential of the quotient I. z In § 17 the differential of the power y _ x"'. for an integral and positive' m, is obtained from the formula (9) d· xyztu etc. ' dx. !!l dz dt du - -+ + - + - + - + etc. xyztu etc. x y z t u by assuming that x, y, Z, t, u etc, are equal to x and L.1king their number to be m . § 18 contains a formulation of the rule for differentiating power. In § 19 this rule is demonstrated for fra ctional and nega tive indices of power, through formal operations with the signs of differentials (permitting reduction of the problem into instances already conSidered). In § 20 th e differential of power is obtained directly, with the help of the expans ion of (x + 11)'", according to the binomial theorem of Newton. In the third ed ition of Boucharlat's book, th e English translation of which was used by Marx, there was a note (Note 2), the beginning of which figured under the titl e: "Considera tions, demonstrating that the principles of differentiation are ba sed upon the bionomial theorem ", Since this no te especially drew the attention of Marx, here we reproduce its text : "W Ilh the exception of the differentials of circular fun ctions, which, as we saw, arc easily found w ith the help of trigonometric formulae, all the other one· term differentials, like, for exa mple, the differentials o f the functions x'", tr etc" were deduced from the binom ial theorem -



alone. It is true, th at while definin g the constants A in the exponential formulas, we had recourse to Mac Laurin's theorem, but we could have done without it". Later on it has been show n, how, namely, this could have been done, with the help o f fo rmal cal culations in vo lving infiniteserieses- but these ca lculations arc not atall subs tantiated ,from the modern po.int of view. After that Boucha rla t concludes: "Hence, it follows, that all the principles of differentia lion arc base~ upon the binomial theorem alone; and since this theorem was demons trated w ith all poss ible strictness, in the Eleme nts of Algebra , we may concl ude, that o ur princi ples rest upon a solid bas is". Thus, it is clear, that Boucharlat held the point oCview of "algebraic" differe ntial calculus of Lagrange, which he attempted to imp'rove, with the help of the concept oClimit. However, his "improve ment" amou nted to this, that while Lagrange wanted to avoid us ing the still uns ubs tanti ated concept of limit, and defined the derivative of Ix s imply as the coefficie nt of the firs t power of It in the expansion ( 1) f (x +It) - f (x)+AIt+Blt2+Ch 3+ "', where A , 8, C, .... are funct ions in x, Boucharlat "divi ned " the same derivative ("di fferential coefficient") through a tra ns ition to limit, consis ting only of the fa ct, that he assumed , that h - 0 in the expans ion
(2) - A + BII + Cl I' + '" h ' which he obtained purely formally from the expansion (1). Herein, Boucharlat did not give any defin ition of the concept of "limit" or any interpreL'l lion of the latter. He confin ed himself to the hints , that th e limit is the last value of the vari able indefinitely tending towards it (Le., without ha ving a last value). It is not surpris ing that such a de[in ition of the concept of limit co uld not satis fy Marx.

1(" h) - [(x)

1) These theore ms a nd L..1gra ngc 's theory o f analytica l fu nctions especia lly. dre w Marx 's 0 a tte nlio n. Quite a few of the mosl important ma nuscripts a rc devoted 1 them (see , ma nuscripts 4000, 4001, 4300, 430 1, 4302). For an understand ing of these manuscripts a nd , especially for an unde rstanding of the criticism to which Marx has subjec ted th e proof of Tayloc's theore m, as it was fo und in the manuals a t his disposa l, an acquainta nce with these proo fs and with the corresponding ideas of Lagrangc, is a must. Ho wever, be fore we pass over to the m, let us d well a little upon the his to ry of the theories of Taylo r a nd MacLa urin *. Ta y lo r' s theo re m is co nta ined a s the 7 th pro pos itio n, in th e book : "Mcthodu s incre menlo rum direcla et inversa", by the English mathe matic ia n Brook Taylor (1685·1731). It was published in London, in the year 1715. Alread y in 1712, Taylo r in fo rmed his teacher J . Macbin abo ut th is result in writing. Condo rcet was the firs t to call it "Taylo r's theorem" in 1784, in his a rticle "Approx imatio ns", in the 1st vol ume of the French Encyclo paedia (Encyc lopedic mc thodique). In 1786, Simo n Lhuilier a lso used this na me in the book "Exposition e leme nLaire des principes des cal culs superieure", which rece ived a prize of the Acade my of Sc ie nces of Berlin (the theme was proposed by the Academy fo r a competition) . Since the n th is theorem entered into a ll the ma nuals of mathematical analys is and was never called o therwise. Ho wever, now it is known tha t the Scottish mathematician Ja mes Grcgo ry (1638- 1675) was in possession of it already in 1671/72". Bo th Gregory a nd Tay lo r arrived at "Ta ylo r's theo rem", proceeding from the finite di ffe re nces. While so doing, Taylor delibera tely set be fore himself the direct tas k, of exa mining the highly co nfused account given by Newto n, of his interpo la tion fo rmula . He obta ined his theo rem, by firs t assign ing a (finite) increment, other than zero, to the independent variable, and then - after a number of trans fo rmations - by turning the la Iter into zero, "by dividing it into an infinitely large numbe r of pa rts ". If we s ubstitute the e xceptio nally cumbe rsome notatio ns of Taylo r by more modern ones, the n its proo f w ill look like this. Let y - I(x ), whe re x is a va riable, which c hanges, as he says, "uniforml y", i.e., by s uccessively obtaining the values x, x +,6, x, x +2,1,x , ···. x + /lAX - x+h. And let the co rrespo nding va lues of [(x) be y ( or Yo) . YI ' Y2 ' ... Y~. Let the s uccessive diffe rences
• Here Ihe following books serve u our sources : M. Canlor, Vorlesungen uber Geschichte de r MllIhema tik, 2nd ed., vol. lII , pp. 378-382; D. D. Morduhai-Bol lovsky, Kommenta rii k ~ Me t od u raz nosliei", i n the bk.: iS8ac Newlon, Malematicheskie rabo ty, M.·L., 1937, pp. 394 ·396, M.Ya. Vygotlsky, Fs tupitclnoe slovo k "Differenlsialnomu ischislcniu " L. Eu lera, in the bk.: L. Eulcr, Differentsialnoe isehislcnie, M.-L., 1949, pp. 10-12; G. Vi leilncr, Is toriya matematiki 01 Dekarla do serediny XI X stolelia , M. , 1960, pp. 138-140; O. Becker und J.E. Horman n, Geschichtc der Mathemalik, Bonn, 1951, pp. 200-201, 21 9; G. G. Tseiten, ISlorlya malcmatiki v XVI i XVII ve kah, M.-L. , 1938, pp. 4 12, 445; ' D. J. Struik, Kratkii ocherk iSlori i malematiki, M., 1964, pp. 153·1 54. For a futl er treatment, see: M. Ca ntor 's book, pp. 378-382. - £d .. • * Now we also know Ihat Newlon himsel f was in possession of the Ihcorcms ~of Taylor and MacLauri n". On this see; Yu.shkf:lJ;chA .P., Mathematics and its History in Retrospective 11 Special Supplemenl to the preseol volume, part three, firs l article. - Tr.



(d iffere nces of the First order) between YA + I and Yk (k - 0, 1, ·· ·," - 1) be l1y. l1y" ...• AY,,_I ; the differences between these differences (differences o f the second order) :
4 2y . 6 1Yl ' "', 112y" -2 etc. For the sake of visua l cla rity let us write all this in the form of the following circuit:

x y Ay



x + 3l1x

x+ nAx

y, Ay, A'y A'y

y, Ay,
111 YI



6 ' Y,,_2 113Y,, _3

Then it is c lear, Ihat

........... . ................ . ................................. ... ....... , .....
Hence we get further:

1,-Y+ l:!y ; Y2 - YI + .6.YI' l1y, - fly + 112 • y Yl - Y2 + 6Y2' I1Y2 - Ay, + ,6,2 YI'

.1.2y, _ 6,2y + 113y,

f(x+ Ax) - y, - y + Ay , f(x + Ux) - y, - (y + Ay) + (Ay + A'y) _ y + Uy + A'y, f(x + 3Ax) - Y, - (y + Uy + A'y) + (Ay + A'y) + (Aly + A'y) - y + 3Ay + 3A2y + A'y,

................ . ................. . . . ................. . .......................
Havi ng noticed the general regularity, Taylor co nsequentl y concludes, that
!(x+n6.x) - y+tl6.Y+t'26.2 y+
n(n-1) ,,(n-l)(n - 2)

1.Z,36.ly+ "'+6. ny,


and this is the interpolation formula of Newton (for interpolating through equal intervals). Its resemblance with Newton's binomial theorem, above a ll the fact that the coefficie nts of the expansion according to 6.y, 6. 2 y,' ", 6."y are exactly the same, is quile evident. Assuming n 6.x - h (in Taylor it is v, not 11). we shall have:

n" J!... 6.x


1-" - 6. x • n _ 2 _" -6 . x ' · n _ (n _ 1) _ h - (n11.- x1) 6. x . 2d x ..... 6.x

Putting these va lues of n, (n - 1), (n - 2), "', in formula (1) Taylor obta ined (in ou r notations) :

I) I ~ h (h - A x) ~ h (h - A x)(h - U x) A'y f( X +I -Y+I6.X + 1·2 llx2 + 1·2·3 6.xl +
wherein he did not write out the last term



"(" - 6X) (" - UX) - - - (" - (n - 1)6X) 6'Y 1·2 ... " t!.¥." .

Then he imagined h to be fixated, n actually infinitely large, and I:J. x to be an actual infinitesimal ("zero"), thinking, that herein to Leibnitz),

~ turns inlo the first


d y (Eldx


:~ -

into the second Ouxion y


according to Lcibnitz) etc. Thereby

formul a (2) turned into

. 112 . III f(x+") - Y +y" +Y- + jI- - - + 1-2 1-2-3 Le., into Taylor 's series. Thus, even after beginning with the finit e differences and only then "removing" them, Tay tor s till operated entirely in the style of Newton and Leibnitz with the ac tual infinities, actual infinites imals and the symbolic formulae of the ca lculus of nuxions, without pondering upon whether these have any "real equivalent" or not, and of course, without caring for the convergence of the series thus obtained (and besides, namely, for f(x + h) . Here it should also be mentioned, that though Taylor was an ardent supporter of Newton in the cQntroversy with Leibnitz, which is why he did not use the notations of the latter and no where referred to him , it was not accidental, that still Euler enunciated his proof in the Leibnitzian lan guage·. As has been observed by O. O. Morduhai-Boltovsky , in essence, fa ylor approached the Newtonian nuxions from the Lcibnitzian, and not the Newtonian side, namely, from the finite differences (see, the "Kommentarii" mentioned above, p. 396). Regarding the history of MacLaurin's theorem, it should be noted, first of all, that it is already there in Taylor, in the form of a particular instance of his theorem, when x - O. It is
true, tha t in contrast to MacLa urin, who obtained the expansions for a~, sin.:!., cos.:!. already



known at that time , more simply with the help of this theo re m, Taylor nowhere uses "MacLaurin's series". Furthe r, in con nection with the manuscripts of Marx, who specially observed , that he borrowed the "a lgebraic expansion" directly from MacLaurin himself, it should be mentioned, that the demonstration of MacLaurin's theorem given in the text-books of Boucharlat and Hind (through the method of indeterminate coefficients), in fact belonged to MacLaurin himself. Suc h a direct borrowing from the author, whose name the theorem carries, could of course have taken place, also in ' he case ofTaylor's theorem. The bibliographical list, which Marx composed in connection with his preparatory s tudies for the his torical essay, is to all appearance, a testimony to the effect, that Marx int" nded to get acquainted with Taylor's work in the origina l ; but this wish o f his remained unfulfilled. 2) In acco rda nce with the orde r in which Marx criticises the de monstration of Taylor's theorem in manuscript 4302, we shall begin with Boucharlat's book (J .-L. Boucha rla t, Ele mens
• Euler demonstrated Taylor's ·theorem as per Taylor as well . See, L. Eul er, DiITerential calculus, ch. lIT ("On finding out the finite dirrerences"). §§ 44·48, pp. 240·241. - Ed.



de calcul differentiel, 5th cd., Paris, 1838; Marx had an English translation of another edition of it). Having enunciated in § 30 (pp. 19-20) the question of successive differentials - where, incidentally, having obtained 6a as Ihe third derivative ofaxl , he observes (p. 20): "Here we can no more differentiate, as 6a is a constant n - Boucharlat goes over 10 MacLaurin's theorem (§ 31, pp. 20-21). In his book the demonstration of MacLa urin's tbeorem precedes that of Taylor's theorem (the laller is demonstrated in §§ 55-57, pp. 34-37). As has already been observed, Boucharlat demonstrated MacLaurin's theorem according to MacLaurin himself. However, he did not read latter's work. In fa c t, in the note to the title "MacLaurin's theorem n, Boucharlal wrote: nAs Peacock has observed, this theorem was a lready discovered by Stirling in 1717 and hence, before MacLaurin made use of itn, and as has already been mentioned, MacLaurin fully acknowledged, that the theorem was already there in Taylor. In Boucharlat's demonstration, no where are the questions of legitimacy of his assumptions, not those aboullhe convergence of the se rieses under consideration, raised in any to speak way. Here we are giving an almost word for word translation of Boucharlat's demonstration of MacLaurin's theorem. "Let y ~e a function of x; let us expand it in respect o f x and suppose that y-A +BX+CX2+Dxl+Ex4+ etc.; (16) we shall get, by differenliating and dividing by dx:




!!l. !!l.

dx' dx 3--

2C + 2·3D x + 3·4£ X2 + etc., 2·3D + 2·3·4£ x + etc.

......................................................... , ........ "
We shall designate by (y) thaI, which turns into y, when x - 0, by (¥X}hat, which turns into by

...... ... .

~, when x -


(~) that, which turns into ~ ,when

x- 0;

..... . . .. .... , . . . ............ , ......... . . . .............................. . . . .. .
the preceding equations will give us

(y) -A,



(~) - 2C, (~)

- BD;

whence we shall extract

1 1 A _(Y),B- dx 'C- 2 dx' ' D - 2-3 dx' ;
substituting th ese values in equation (16), we sha ll have

!il' . ( ) _ (!!l.)




y _ (y)


(5Y.) X +! (!!5!.) X' + _I (!!5!.) X' + ....' dx 2 (/X, 2-3 (/xl


and this is MacLaurin's formula". In the following §§ 32-34 (pp. expansions are found for 21-23), in accordance with MacLaurin's formula,


.-!...-., y _-./a2 +hx . y - (a +xr. o+x

Thus, in the third example, the binomial theorem is deduced from MacLaurin's theorem. In the first appendix of the 5th edition of Boucharlat's book, which we have, entitled "Demonstration of Newton 's formula with the help of differential calculus", a direct proof (by the same method of indeterminate coefficients) of Newton's binomial theorem (for integral .and positive indices of power) has been given, with the help of successive differentiation. It reads as under. then from it he obtains the expansion of Boucharlat begins with the expansion of {l +

(a +

xr, necessary Cor him, by SUb~tituting z _.!. He said, let
. 0


(1 +zr-A +Bz+Cz2+Dz3+Er+ ... Assuming z - 0 , he gets A-I and, hence,


{1 +z)"' .. 1 + Bz+ CZ2 +DZl +Ez4 + ... Differentiating both the sides of this equation in respect of z, he gets further m (1 + Z)",-l. B + 2Cz + 3Dz2+ 4Ez3 etc. Referring to the fact, that this equation occurs for any Z, Boucharlat assumes that z - 0 and thus obtains m-B. Differentiating once more and again assuming z - 0 ,he obtains m(m-I)-2C, whence c_m(m-I)




and after that he concludes : "All the remaining coefficients are so defined, and by substituting their values in equation (1), this equation is turned into

m (m -I)(m - 2) 1.i.jzl+ etc." (pp. 491-492). . z2 + 12 3) Boucharlat also proved Taylor's theorem by the method of indeterminate coefficients. Therein he not only aSSumed, that every function' of some variable may be expanded into a series, according to the powers of any of these variables, but also thought, that this expansion must be unique, i.e., the coefficients of any two such expansions (in respect of the powers of one and the same variable) must be equal. This will give him the opportunity of applying the method of indeterminate coefficients.
(1+z)"'-1+mz+ In order to get such an opportunity, i.e., of being able to equate the coefficients of two expansions of one and the same function, Boucharlat begins with a lemma, stating that the

m (m -I)




derivatives of f(x + 11) in respect of x, and in respect of h, 3rc equal. Since in manuscript 4302 (see, p. 287) Marx expressed dissatisfactio n w ith the demonstration of this lemma in Boucharlat's book, and since pp. 41-42 (see, note 117) of manuscripl3888 cannot even be understood without an acquaintance with Ihis demonstration, here wc reproduce it in full. §§ SS (pp. 34-35) is devoted to it. wherein we read: "If in a function y of x • the variable x changes into x then wc get onc and the same differential, both wheri x is a variable, and" - a constant, and when If is a variable, and x -

+" .

a constant.

If to prove Ihis, in the equation y - Ix wc substitute x XI· for X, wc shall have Yl - Ix l ; the differentia l of f XI will be equal 10 some other function of Xl' represented by CflXt and multiplied by dx, hence, dYI - CPXI (/xl or, if we subs titute for Xl' its value x + h, dy, - 'I' (X+ h) d (X+ h). But the only change, which fhe hypothesis, thatx is a variable and h is a constant, introduces into this differentia l, is related only to the factor d (x + Ir), which is reduced to dx, when x is a variable, and h - a constant; hence, in that case we have dy, - 'I' (x + h) dx • whence dy, dx -'I'(x+ h) .

+" -


Conversely, if we make x a constant, and h a variable, then the factor is reduced to .dll, and we shall have
dY I - III (x + 11) dh ,

that is, dy, dh -'I'(x+h); equating these two values of cp (x + h) , we shall get
dYt dYl" dx - dh .


In the following § 56 Boucharlat extended this lemma to the derivatives of higher orders and, in § 57 demonstrated Taylor's theorem with its help. The words with which he begins Ihis "demonstration", speak of what be thought to be - as Marx calls it - his "initia l equation" (37), applicable to any function. He begins : "Lety be a fUnction of x + Ir ; let us assume, that when we expand this function according to the powers of h, we shall have

Yl - Y + All + 2BII2 + 3ell) + etc., where A, B, C, ... are unknown functions of x, whic h arc to be dclcrmined M •


Differentiating equation (37) in respect of la and in respect of x and baving thus o btained
• Though Boucharlat used the Lagrangian notations for the derived functions, he designated the augmented values ofx andy (Le., (x + h), andf(x + h» by x' , /. We have changed these notations intoL, and y,. - 'Ed.



dy, dlt -A + 'lE1t + 3Clt 2 + etc., dy, dy dA dB d:c - dx + dx 11 + d:c h2 etc.,
Boucharlat then equated, referring to the lemma , Ihe coefficients of the same powers of It in the last two equations and thus obtained the expressions for the coefficients A, B, C, ... , required by him, through y and its successive derivatives. Marx gave an account of this demonstration in manuscript 3888 (sheets 54-55, pp. 50-51 in Mane's numeration), where he compared it with the aforementioned proof of MacLaurin's theorem. In manuscript 4302 he criticised this demonstration, mainly for its unsubstantiated initial assumptions. The §§ 58-61 (of Bourcharlat's book) contain examples of expansions of [(x + 11) according to Tay lor's formula, for the instances, where [(x) is Vi, sinx, cosx, logx. The question of convergence of the se rieses obtained, is not even mentioned anywhere. The cases of inapplicability of Taylor's series, have been considered only in the last paragraphs, printed in brevier, of the first part of the book (devoted to the differential calculus). The final § 62 of the section on Taylor's theorem and its applications, is devoted to a deduction of MacL3urin's theorem from TayJor's theorem . A full account of tbis deduction has been given by Marx in manuscript 3888 (see, sheets 55-56; pp. 51-52 in Marx's numeration).



1 This manuscript was completed by Marx in 1881, fo r Engcls. This is the first work in the cycle of manuscripts planned by Marx, devoted to a systematic account of his ideas on the nature and history of differential ca lculus. In this article he introduced his concept of algebraic differentiation and the corresponding algorithm for finding o ul the derivative for certain classes of functions. The envelope. attached to this manuscript,carries the heading in Marx's hand: "For the General". That is how Engcls was called by the Marx family. for his a rticles on military affa irs.
Upon getting acquainted with this manuscript, Engels wrote to Mane his Icuer dated the 18th of August 1881 (sec, K. Marx and F.Engeis,works ,voI.35 ,pp.16-18) [and, special supplement to the present volume, partone,letters (excerpts). fifth le tter - Tr.J. The present text follows the fair copy made by Marx. Some of the materials preparatory to it (drafts and supplements),are being published in p.248 of the present volume. Variations in the text,along with the ir unpublished rough drafts have been indicated in the foolnotes.A part of this manuscript was at first published in 1933, in Russian Lranslalion,in the co llection "Marksizm i estestvoznanie" [Marxism find Natural Science), M .. Partyzdat, 1933,pp. 5-11,and in the journal "Pod Znamenem Marksizma" [Under the Banner of Marxism),No.l,l?33,p.15ff.

The German (origina l) has been published for the first time in the 1968 edition. - Tr. 2 In order to avoid confusion over the notations of derivatives, here and everywhere afterwards in analogous situations,Marx's notatio ns x' , y', ... for the new values of variables. have been substituted by
XI' YI' ...

The sources used by Marx,did not as yet have the concept of absolute value.That is why Mane often (apparently,for the sake of determinateness) considered o nl y the increase in the value of the variable,but somet~mes(see,for example, PV, 88, 274 ) he also spoke of an Mincrease of x "by the positive or negative increment h ".

3 In keeping with the terminology adopted in the sou rces used by Marx,by difference,is meant, always, a difference o ther than zero. 4 In every equality Marx distinguishes two sides (now called: two parts) and the right, which do not always play a symmetrical role in his writings.


the left

On the left hand side of a~ equaJily he often places two different,but synonymous expressions, joining them by the connective l'or". 5 In the mathematical literature at Marx's disposal,the term "limit" (of a function)did not have an univocal meaning. Most often it was understood as the va lue of a function,actuallyauained by it at the end of an infinite process of approximation of the argument to its limiting value (see,Appcndix,pp. 303·305). Marx's manuscript devoted to a criticism of these s hortcomings, ent itled On the lIoll-ullivocality of the



terms "limit" and "limiting value", has come down to us only in the form of a roug h draft (see,pp. 96-98 ).
In the present manuscript, Marx has used the term "limit" in a special sense: as an expressio n,rede fini ng those values of the argument, in w hich it is not de fin ed. Fo r Marx, such expressions,in need o f redefin ition,were the ratios

~~ (when tJ. x =0, tmning into
of "re moved,or


a nd


interpre ted as the sy mbolic express ion for the ratio

extinct,diffe rences", i.e., fo r


In applica tion to the ra tio

~, M arx

unde rstood

"limit" - in so me connection w ith the de finitio ns of this concept in Hind and Lacroix (sec,Appcndi x,pp. 303-305) - as an exp ression identicall y equal 1 this 0 ratio,when I1 x

0, but redefining it at continuity,whe n it turns into


Hence ,he re

the "limit" had to be the "prelimin ary deriva tive" (on this sce, p. accordance with this Marx writes (on p.21) (rega rdin g the


and note 1).In


t; ,

w here

y_ax 3 +bx z +cx_e ) :
" The preliminary "deriva tive" a (x,'2+ XIX + X '2) + b (XI + x) + c is he re the limit of the ratio of finite differences,i.e., however small we may take· these di ffe rences to be,the value of


w ill be give n by tltis "derivative" ". Lowe r down (sce,p. 21-22) Marx

spea ks abo ut the fact, tltat the assumption XI - x, i.e., 6. X minim al value ",wh ich gives the "fin a l derivative".

O kes this limit to its ,"la

Analogously, by the "lim it of a ratio of differentials", in th is ma nuscript Marx understands the "real "("a lgebraic",see: no te 6) expressio n,giving the va lue of this ra tio, in o ther words,the derived fun ction. However, e lsewhere Marx writes,tha t in Ihe equa tion

!; .. f'(x)

" neither of the two sides, is the limiting value o f the

o ther.They are situa ted, no t in a limiting relation 'to each other,b ut in an equivalence relation "(sce, p. 98 ). But here the concept of "limit"("limiting va lue") has been used in ano the r sense: it is closer to the concept,w ith w hich we a re now accustomed. In a sense,even more close to the modern concept of limit,Ma rx u se~ the te rm "absolutely minimal express io n "(see, p. 97); abo ut which elsewhere (see, pp . 6 1-62) he wrote,that the category of limit,in the sense which Lacroix impa rted to it and in w hich it has an important s ig nifi ca nce fo r mathema tica l analysis, is a substitute fo r it (for Lacroix 's definitio n see, Appendi x, pp. 309-3012 ). 6 By "a lgebra ic" Marx unde rstood any exp ress ion, not conta ining the symbols of the derivatives and the dirrerentialS.S uch an use of the term "algebraic express io n", was characteristic of the mathematical literature of ea rl y 19th century.


Marx often made a distinction between the concepts: "func tion of x" an(j "fu nction in x", Le., between a function as a correspondence and a fu nc tion as an ana lytical expressio n (see,p. 269). In the present manuscript he did not stric tly adhere to this dis tinction, a nd after:- spoke s imply of the "fun ctio n x", perhaps, beca use he always had in view only the functions, given by some "a lgebraic exp ression". He indicated the correspondence, the value of the dependent variab le y in respec t of the va lue of the independent variable x, with the he lp of the equation y - [(x),where y is th e dependent variable, and I(x) is the analytical express ion . cons idered in respect of the appearcnce of the va riable x in it. 7 The essence of Marx 's method of algeb raic differentiation consists of this: he redefines the ratio
f(x,)-f (x)


of the finite differences (having a mean ing onl y when XI" x) a l continuity for Xl - x. With this aim in view he seeks the fun ction <p(x l , x), Whic h coincides with the ratio (1). when Xl" x . and. which is continuous when Xl - x. a function <p(x l , x) Marx calls: the preliminary derived function o[ the [un ction [(x ), and he ca lls the fun ct ion <p(x, x),otitaincd from qJ(x l , x) by. assum ing XI - x: tile deriva tive o[ the [unction [ (x). If the latter ex ists (whic h is the case for the class of func tions here considered ), then it coincides with the modern concept of the derivative :
S~c h

Urn I(x" - I(x) _ f'(x).
;',_;' Xj-X

At the sa me time Marx was aware of those functi ons for whic h the o peration of different ia tion was not defined (sec, PV, 93-94 ). 8 Here Marx reproduced a formal expansion of a function into a series,keeping aside the questions of co nvergence of the series obtained and of coinc ide nce of the values of the fun ct ion w ith the limi ts of partia l summalions.This was characteris tic of the ma thema tica l books at his disposal. 9 :. - a symbol,that has been s ubstitu ted by the word "hencc ",in written proofs.Now Ihis symbol is not in use. 10 The tex t of the entry entitled: "Additionally",consists of the contents of a separate sheet appended to the manuscript.It has its own independent page numbers: 1 and (on the other s id e) 2. 11 To a ll appearence, by fi nite difference equ3 lion,Marx implies an express ion of the form [(XI) - [(x) _ (XI - x) cp(x j • x). See, note 7.


12 Here S.Moore wrote in pencil : "That is not the case, these fa ctors are XI -x - 1. Xl -x- 2 etc,", Apparenlly,hcrc Marx did not mean the fa ctor (XI-X), but the expression (Xl - x) and wanted to say, that the turning into zero of the difference XI - x, reta ined in the expression of the preliminary d c ri vativ~,docs not rob the latter of its meaning. 13 This manuscript also belongs to 1881.The envelope attac hed 10 Ihis manuscript carries the heading: "11 . For Fred ". Marx called it the "second instalment" (scc,p. 39). In it he continued to give an account of his conclus ions, at which he arrived in the process of his mathematica l studies . Engles showed this manuscript to S. Moo re and sent latter's comments to Marx with his own letter dated the 21st of November 1882 (see, Works, vo1.35, pp . 92-93 ; and specia l s upple ment to the present volum e, part one, letters (excerpts), sixth leuer - Tr.). Th is manuscript "On the Differential" was published for the first time, in part, in Russian,in 1933: in the collection "Marxism and Na tu ra l Scie nce", pp.16-25, and in the journal "U nder the Banner of Marxism", 1933,No. 1. 14 Thus, he re Marx assumes, th ~ t the func tions u and z arc given by, as it will be clear from what follows, the equations u _ f(x) and z = <p(x), where f(x) and q>(x) arc expressions" in the variable x ". They are dif(erentiable functions of x. This situation, where for the justification o f the theorem about the differe ntial of the produ<!t of two no other information is required about the form o f th e functions f(x) and <p(x) apart from this, find s its refl ection in Marx's picturesque exp ress ions about



"shadows without the bodies which have cast them, symbolic differential coefficients without rea l differential coefficie nts. i,e., without the corresponding equivalent "deriva tives"" (see,p. 30). Ma rx also speciall y stipul ated them in the drafts of his work on the differential .He re,as well as everywhere later o n,Marx's brief notation dllZ, has been substituted by the nota tion d(llz). 15 That is from the symbolic express ions signs of derivatives and dif rentials.
s p~ci fic

to the differential ca lculus : the

16 In the literature of the- 18th-19th centuries, the derivative was o fte n call ed the "differen tial coefficient ", having,evidently, in view the definition of the derivative as the coefficient of first power of the increment h of thc independent va riab le x in the expansion of f(x + h) into a se ries according to the powers of 11. The adjective "real " i~ associated with the fact,that in the expression for f'(x) there are no sy mbols specific to the differential c:a1culus. 17 The mode of expression,according to which,as a result of multiplication by zero "the variables z and u themselves become equal to zero" , is explained by the fac t,that even during Ma rx ·s time, the . representation of mathematical operations over numbers



as something w hich c hanges those very numbers, was wide spread: addition of the positive number b to a "increases the number a", multiplica tio n of a by 0 "turns the number a into zero" e tc.On ly in the 20th centu rY, these representa tions were subjected to [greater] scientific specification. 18 Apparently the words ftas we can arbitra ri ly start the nullification either from tbe numerator o r fro m the denominator ",signify that the redefiniti o n of an expressio n of the form

~f~I, whic h a t x .. 0 turns into ~ and that is w hy loses mean ing,may be carried

out differentl y for x .. O. If,while redefining, we wish to retain that property of the ordinary fraction according to which,when the numera to r is equa l to zero,i t is itself equal to zero,the n the value Of~ must be O. 1n that case "to start nullification the denominato r " also means: la posit


as equal to zero.I n so for as a fra c tio n with

o as its o as

denomina to r does not exist, "to start nullification from Ihe denominator" ca n no more mean: to retain,while redefining,some property of the ord inary fraction with its de nomina to r. But if,whe n x III a,

~~~~ .. q:J(x) and

tp(x) is continuo us a t tbe as equal t9 q:J(a), hav ing to this the numerator

point a (Le., Lim <p(x) - t:p(a», then it is natural thus retained,a lso for x .. a, the equality


t~ posit ~:~

~~~~ .. <p(x) . If due

turns in to zero, as a resu lt of the fact, that the denominator was made equal to zero,then the words "to start null ification from the denominator" may na turally be interpreted as s ig nifying: to redefi ne in the afo rementio ned ma nner, Le. , "by the . continuous approach ". In the books used by Marx ,even in Lacroix's big "Trea tise", retentio n of the equality

~ .. W(a)

for /(0) _ g(a) _ 0 was considered, in general, to

be independent of a ny "arbitrariness" whatsoever: it was an inevitabl e co nsequence of the metaphys ica l law of continuity "of all that is real", 19 Here is a slip of pen in the text: instead of x .. a, here he wrote x2 .. a2• Apparently. instead of co rrecting it, Moore made the follow ing insertion in pe nc il : .. and si nce
x2 _ a2 ,x .. ± a, [tha t is w hy P(x + a) ] .. 2Pa o r 0 ". However, such a n interpretation

does not fit into the entire context.
20 H ere M arx ca I1s t he

.!!Y. express ion dx'

0 b· d talOe

· .. m th e tranSlhon f rom the

f··te 1nl

differences to th e d e rivative, tile correspondmg to

symbolic differential expression for



[(X\ )-[(X)) . x1 - x




21 To all appca rcnce,what is being discussed here is the case,when the cho ice of the independent variab le is not so fixed, that any onc of the variables u and z may be tnken as the ind ependent variable. In general,if u and z may be viewed as function s formed from onc and the same independent variable, then the choice of the value of onc from u, z determines the value of the independent variable, nnd that is, also the value of the othe r.In other words,here we have in view the invariance of the symbolic operational equation obtained,in respect of the choice of the independent va riable. 22 Apparently the words "to you", in the phrase "known to you" (rct.1ined in the draft) were dropped while copying.ll may be assumcd,lhat here the French mathematician L.B. Francoeur is being referred to. Engcls wrote to Man, about him in his letter dated the 30th of May 1864 (see,Works,Eng. cd.voI.41,p.532). The word "elegant" within quotation marks is related to Engels ' comment : "some one very elegant" - and expresses Engels' ironical attitude 10 the person being referred to. Like Boucharlat, Francoeur too - but somewhat differently - tried to connect Lagrange's "algebraic" method (see,p. 33) with Lcibnitz's differential calculus, which operated with the symbols for the differential.Marx's ironical "clearly" refers to the way this was done,by Boucharlat, as well as by Francoeur.The first one did it to cxt),by deliberately "facilita tc algebraic operations" (sec,the next paragraph of the L introducing a y..'rong formula; the second person asserted, that the differential to is a sy nonym for the derivativc and diffcrs from it on ly in notation", and accordingly wrote there itself,that "the derivative of x is x' - 1, or dx - 1" (sec, L.B.Ft:ancoeur, vol n, p.253). 23 The text within quotation marks is a translation from J .-LBoucbarlat 's book, pA. the 5th edition of 1838,of

24 Evidently by the expression "reduced to its absolute minimum ", what is meant here is: the redefinition of the said ratio by the cont inuous approach,when Xl - X, i.e., in essence,the transition to limit when Xl - X • 25 See, Appendix, "On Lconhard Euler's Calculus of Zeros". 26 Here Marx is making a disti nction between the differential particlcs dx and dy appearing as the "sublated " differences .1. x and .1.y, and the differential dy, defined by the equality
dy - ['(x)dx .

The lattcr may be treated as an operationa l symbol permitting the derivative f'(x) to be found ou t,in accordance with the differentials dy and dx already found, in transition to the equality






equ iva lent 10 (1) (scc,note 24). 27 Ma rx's argument against treating the inversion of method,as orig inating a lready in the "algebraic" differentiation of the simplest functions o f first power,consislS of the following: 1) the step of assumi ng XI _ x is unnecessary,as here the preliminary derivative already coincides with the fina l onc, i.e., the specificity of the "a lgebraic" method of differentiation is not revealed; 2) a n extens ion of the observations regarding the differentiation of the functions of the first power on to the general instance cou ld lead to the clearly false conclus ion, that all the derivatives of higher orders, starting with the second, must be equa l to 7..ero. 28 That is, if we co ns ider Newton. 29 Tha t is,if the derivative ofy in respect of x is to be found,considering y as a function of x, jointly given by the equations:

~ as a

ratio o f infinitcsimals,as it was done by Leibnitz and

1) y .. 3u 2 • 2) u .. x l +ax 2 • 30 Here Marx assu mes, that the right to operate with the differentials,in the manner
of operating w ith the ordinary fractions, has already been established (see,pp.32-33, and also Appendix,pp. 327-328). 31 Here, in the manuscript Moore made the following remark in pencil: "O n p. 12(5) this is proved for the concrete case there investigated. S hould it no t have been proved also for the general case, and should not its validity be assumed 1" This remark is based on a m isunderstanding. The "developments observed in concrete functions" consisted of the fact, that as a result of their differentiation the symbolic expressions of the form

~ and ~ , were obtained.Since

Marx had already assumed the right to

operate with such expressions,in the manner of operating with ord inary fractions,it was natural [fo r him] to observe in conclusio n,that

t!x. du


dx - dx·


32 Marx did not w rite Ihis section Ill , apparen tl y, because he could not actualise his intention of look ing up J.Landen's book in the British Museum (see,Appendix,p.320) 33 Unde r this title ,three drafts o f the different sections of the work "On the Differentialand a few drafts of the additions to it,have been jo ined together. For g reater details sec, PV, 241, 244, 251, 252. 34 This draft has been taken from the notebooks,to which Marx gave the titles "A.I" and "B (continuation of A).Il"(see,PV,241,244). It begins on the last page of the note-book "A.I. fl(not numbered by Marx) and is spread over different places in the



note-book "B"(which Marx indicated by special marks). A part of Ihis draft was published for the first time in 1933, in Russian (sce,"Pod Znamencm Marksizma", No. l ,as well as "Marksizm i eSlcstvoznanic", pp.34-43). 35 Marx everywhere calls an expression containing the symbols dx. dy etc.,which are specific to the differential calculus symbols real. sy mbolic (as dis tinct from the algebraic, see containing the said note 6). He calls an expression of the same function, not

36 Here those sy mbolic expressions arc called operational formulas of the difrercnlial
calculus, which indicate (sce, in the text below): which operations are to be carried out upon definite functions, for obtaining the real value of this or that derivative. 37 Here no te-book "A.I" comes to an end. At the end of this page,it is written in Marx's hand: "see,further note-book II,p.9".It refers to the note-book "8 (continuation of A)". 38 On the character of this sort of rederinition by the continuous approach and about the possibility of other rederinitions, sa tisfy ing this or that demand, ~ee note la, as well as the Appendix, pp. 304-305 . 39 That is , when we go over from the region of ordinary algebra to that of the functions (dependent variables). for which the ratio

f(x,) ~'j(x)

Xl = X,

turning into the indeterminate form



is to be redefined.

40 Usually Marx calls the expressions, not containing the symbols specific to the differential calculus _ "a lgebraic" (see,note 6) or "real" (see,note 2). 41 Manuscripts of the second and third drafts are available only in contain many cancellations are missing (that is why we begin it with a dotted line). With certain cuts,these two drafts were published for the first time in 1933,in Russ ian ("Pod

rough copies. They

and insertions. The first four pages of the second draft

Marksizma", No. 1, and also "Marksizm i estestvoznanie",pp.26-34).

Sce, "Preliminary drafts and variants of the manuscript on the differential", point

a), p. 250.
42 This entire paragraph (starting from the words "if the variables grow") is Marx's translation,into German, of the corresponding place of Hind's book (sce, T.Hind, 2nd ed.,Cambridge, 1831, p.l08). Here the second draft comes to an end.




this paragraph Marx left about half· a page blank ; apparen tl y, not finding

the essential informations in Hind ,hc sctlls idc his intended investiga tion, evidently, having decided to return to Hlater on. The materials abo ut the differentia tion of prod uct by Leibnitz's and Lagrangc's methods were available in the text·books by Hind and Boucharlat (sce, Appendix, pp.329-330). However, these text-books did not throw any light upon Newton 's method. 43 Th is quotation is from BoucharJat's book (sce, the 7th ed. of his book, Paris, 1858,pp. 3·4). 44 Here Marx reso rted to a somewhat different numera tion of the sections of his work. ft differs from what he did earlier. . He wanted to place in section Ill , the materia l that was placed in section 11 of the second draft.In section IV, he wanted to throw ligh t upon thc histo rica l course of the development of differential calculus with the hclp of the example of the his tory of the theorem of differential of a product. 45 In con nection with th is paragraph see: note j ; the Appendix prov ided to the effect,that
~ On

the concep t of "lim it"

in the sources co nsulted by Marx", pp. 309·310 (where informations have been in Boncharlat 's book both the sides of the equality

1; - ['(x) were treated as limits); pp. 310-312 (where the concept o f limit has been
discussed according to

big "Treatise" of Lacroix and Marx's wo rds in the

present paragraph about this concep t ha ve been referred to ). ft is still no t c1ear,what Marx had in view,when hc trea ted the symbolic expression as the limit of f'(x).(Perhaps he had only that s ituation in view,where the derivative is obtai ned by assuming
XI -

x. Le., when the numerator and the denominator of the ratio


attained their limiting values "zero", and that is why the expression f'(x) had to co rrespond not to

&. Ax

but to

d Eldx


About Marx's reference to Lagrangc's

relation to Newton's understanding o f the concept of lim it, sce there, pp. 311-312. 46 Marx intended to make so me additions to the manuscr ipt "On the Differentia l". Four drafts of these have been preserved (for the details see,PV, 252-259, w here a number of fragments from these drafts,have been reproduced).These dra ft are incomplete in nature; and here we reproduce only two relatively unbroken (and comprehensible) fragments out of these. 47 Marx gave this heading to section A) of the second draft of his supplements to the manuscript " On the Differential ". Here only its point 1) is being pub.lished. It contains a brief resume of his principal work on the differential. The important addition



here is the reference to the geometric application of the operational formulae. For the details see, PV, 252. 48 This is § A) of the third draft . The title belongs to Marx.Here on ly its point 3) is being published . In it Marx gives an account of an example of the applica tion of the theorem about the differential of a product, as an operational formula for seeking the differential of a quotient ( in his characterist ic litera ry manner). 49 Marx finis hed his manuscript "On the Diffe rential " with a promise to w rite a spccial section, devoted to the historica l course of development of the differential calculus. In the drafts, preceding this letter, he expressed an intention to throw some light upon thc history of differentia l calcu lus through the example of the history of the theorem on the differential of product. To all appcarence, none of th ese intentions was actua lised in fu ll. On ly som~ rough drafts, conta in ed in the note-book "8 (contin uation of A)" have been preserved. Th ere they alternate with the ca lculations ca rried out by Ma rx in connection with his work on the differential. In accordance with Marx's initial in tensions, these drafts begin w ith a discussion of the methods of Newton and Leibnitz, in the light of the exa mpl e of the theorem on the differential o f a product. Then follows on ly thc begin ning of the unfinished section devoted to d'Alembert's method.Later on Marx went over to a more detailed discussion and criticism of the methods of Newton and Leibnitz, in general. This leads him to a general periodisation of the history of differential calculus.
It is divided into there periods: 1) the mys tical differentia l ca lcu lus of Newton and

Le ibnitz, 2) the rational differe ntial calculus of d' Alembert and , 3) the purely algebraic differentia l calculus of Lagrange.The second pa rt of th e preserved drafts of the essay on the history of differential ca lculus, cons ists of a discussion of the characteristics of this third period. Appa ren tl y, Marx wa nted to develop th is part as the third lelter to Engels. The concl uding part of these drafts of historicaJ character, is devoted to a more det.1i1ed account of th e genera l ideas conta ined in the first part. Save some o mitted paragraphs, thesc are contentwise related to the work "O n the Differcntial"; these drafts arc being pub lished here in full. 50 In a number of cascs th is bibliographical list, co ntains references to those places o f the quoted source, in which the bas ic concepts and methods have been discussed. The text-books at Marx 's disposal do not conta in these references. That is why it may be assumed, that these places were picked out by Marx, after he went through them in the corresponding wotks (eviden tly, in the British Museum). The fa ct that Marx put the name of John Landen within a box,ind icates that he specially wanted to get acquainted with J .Landen 's "The Resid ual Anal ysis". For the details sec, Appendix, pp. 320-325. It is not known, from where Marx collected the years of birth and death, mentioned in the list .On ly this much is clear,that this source was silent abou t Lagrangc's year of dcath.




In the scholia (0 lemma XI of the first book of "Principia Mathematica" and in lemma 11 of its second book, Newton explained the bas ic concepts of differential calculus, correspond ing to our concepts of the "derivative" and the "differential". For the deta ils of these lemmas of Newton, sec: Appendix, pp . 312·314:

52 For Marx's conspectus o f this wo rk(along with his critical remarks) sec: pp.126·131 of the present volume. 53 d' Alembert's "Traite de nuides " does not contain any material on the basic concep ts of differential calculus. d' A1embert's ideas on the basic concepts of d ifferential calculus are to be found in his essays in the Encyclopaedia and in the "Opusculcs mathema tiqu es". It is not clear as to what namely drew Marx's attention to d 'Alembe rt 's "Traitc de nu ides" . 54 The th ird chapter of part I of L.Euler's "Differential Calculus"is devoted 10 the question "o f infinities and infinitesimals". For the details see, Appendix, pp. 3 15·318. 55 Abbe Moigno composed this book,"lI ccording to the methods and works of Ca uchy, published and unpublished" . The first volume of Moigno's "lectures" were p ublished in 1840 ,the second volume - in 1844. 56 This conclusion (according to Newton) requires explanation : "Since the numerical magniludes o f all poss ible quantities may be represented by straight lines", so that the change of every magnitude may be represented in the form of a rectilinear movement w ith variable speed . And since in co urse of an infinites imal interval of lime, the speed of movement may be considered to be unchanging, so the path traversed by a point,corresponding to this interval of time (that iS, lhe corresponding change in our magnitude), is equal to the derivative of this speed (fluxion ) during the infinitesimal interval of time "t. That is why the "moments, or infinitely sma ll parts of the generated magn itudes = the products of their speeds and of the infinitely sma ll parts of time". On the metaphysical character of Newton's attempts to s ubstantiate the concepts of "fluent", "fluxion" and "moment", corresponding to our concepts of "function","deriva tive" and "differential" , which were defined in the ~ermino l ogy of mechanics, see: Appendix, pp. 313·315. 57 [n note 49 it has been pointed out that Marx still wished to return to the history of development of the differential calculus, in the light of the his tory of the theorem on the differe ntial of product That is why he left a blank space after the incomplete extract from Hind's book. Here, after repeating once more the same extract, the theorem o n the differential of produ cl- treated according to Newton - is enunciated as an example. (In Hind' ~ book, this theorem consti tutes exa mple 3, o n p. 109). 58 In Hind's book the theorem on the differential of product bas not been used to illustrat~ the method of Leibnitz. That is why Marx turned to Boucharlal's book. Th e present para graph is an extract fro m his book (see, Boucharlat, p. 165).



59 This sentence is (rom the text-book by Hind quoted above (Hi nd, p. 106 ). However, Mane did no t further enunciate Hind's account of the theorem on the differential of product. After this, in Mane's note-book there are 5 pages (pp. 16-20), which wc have dropped. These are in the main full of calculations, related to the theorems about the differentiation of the quotient and of the composite func lion,and also to the solution of the problem of the tangent to a curve, taking the parabola y2 _ ox, as an exa mple. Wc have reproduced on ly the comments, written on the blank spaces on pp. 16-18, in which Marx stressed the fact, that Newton and Leibnilz bega n directly with the operational formulae of differential calculus. Then under the rubric "Ad Newton" Marx criticised these methods of Newton and lcibnitz, s tressing that s uch methods,in sp ite of a number o f their advantages, inevitably entail the introduction of actual infinitcsimals and the difficulties co nnected with them. Here again,the theorem about the differential of product has been used as the main example. 60 By X, z Newton and his successors usually designated the ra te of change (fl uxion) of tbe variables x, y, z (fluent ), i.e., the derivatives of x, y, z in respect.of the 'tY, they indicated the "moments", variable,play ing the role of "time"; by co rresponding to the Leibnitzian differentials or infinitesimal incremcnl<;. However,the notations X, were often used by the Newtonians also (or the "moments" or differentials (see, Appendix, pp. 318·3 19).




y. z

61 Here the following h