The aim of this paper is to give a full exposition of Leibniz’s mereological system. My starting point will be his papers on Real Addition, and the distinction between the containment and the part-whole relation. In the first part (§2), I expound the Real Addition calculus; in the second part (§3), I introduce the mereological calculus by restricting the containment relation via the notion of homogeneity which results in the parthood relation (this corresponds to an extension of the Real Addition calculus via what I call the Homogeneity axiom). I analyze in detail such a notion, and argue that it implies a gunk conception of (proper) part. Finally, in the third part (§4), I scrutinize some of the applications of the containment-parthood distinction showing that a number of famous Leibnizian doctrines depend on it.

In the early nineteenth century, a series of articles by Laplace and Poisson discussed the importance of ‘directness’ in mathematical methodology. In this thesis, we argue that their conception of a ‘direct’ proof is similar to the more widely contemplated notion of a ‘pure’ proof. More rigorous definitions of mathematical purity were proposed in recent publications by Arana and Detlefsen, as well as by Kahle and Pulcini: we compare Laplace and Poisson’s writings with these modern definitions of purity and show how the modern definitions fail to grasp some more nuanced aspects.

The Hilbert program was actually a specific approach for proving consistency, a kind of constructive model theory. Quantifiers were supposed to be replaced by ε-terms. εxA(x) was supposed to denote a witness to $\exists xA(x)$ , or something arbitrary if there is none. The Hilbertians claimed that in any proof in a number-theoretic system S, each ε-term can be replaced by a numeral, making each line provable and true. This implies that S must not only be consistent, but also 1-consistent ( ${\Sigma}_1^0$ -correct). Here we show that if the result is supposed to be provable within S, a statement about all ${\Pi}_2^0$ statements that subsumes itself within its own scope must be provable, yielding a contradiction. The result resembles Gödel’s but arises naturally out of the Hilbert program itself.

The use of the symbol $\mathbin {\boldsymbol {\vee }}$ for disjunction in formal logic is ubiquitous. Where did it come from? The paper details the evolution of the symbol $\mathbin {\boldsymbol {\vee }}$ in its historical and logical context. Some sources say that disjunction in its use as connecting propositions or formulas was introduced by Peano; others suggest that it originated as an abbreviation of the Latin word for “or,” vel. We show that the origin of the symbol $\mathbin {\boldsymbol {\vee }}$ for disjunction can be traced to Whitehead and Russell’s pre-Principia work in formal logic. Because of Principia’s influence, its notation was widely adopted by philosophers working in logic (the logical empiricists in the 1920s and 1930s, especially Carnap and early Quine). Hilbert’s adoption of $\mathbin {\boldsymbol {\vee }}$ in his Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik guaranteed its widespread use by mathematical logicians. The origins of other logical symbols are also discussed.

The way Leibniz applied his philosophy to mathematics has been the subject of longstanding debates. A key piece of evidence is his letter to Masson on bodies. We offer an interpretation of this often misunderstood text, dealing with the status of infinite divisibility in nature, rather than in mathematics. In line with this distinction, we offer a reading of the fictionality of infinitesimals. The letter has been claimed to support a reading of infinitesimals according to which they are logical fictions, contradictory in their definition, and thus absolutely impossible. The advocates of such a reading have lumped infinitesimals with infinite wholes, which are rejected by Leibniz as contradicting the part–whole principle. Far from supporting this reading, the letter is arguably consistent with the view that infinitesimals, as inassignable quantities, are mentis fictiones, i.e., (well-founded) fictions usable in mathematics, but possibly contrary to the Leibnizian principle of the harmony of things and not necessarily idealizing anything in rerum natura. Unlike infinite wholes, infinitesimals—as well as imaginary roots and other well-founded fictions—may involve accidental (as opposed to absolute) impossibilities, in accordance with the Leibnizian theories of knowledge and modality.

We outline a personal, professional, and scientific biography of Anatole Katok.

The symmetries between points and lines in planar projective geometry and between points and planes in solid projective geometry are striking features of these geometries that were extensively discussed during the nineteenth century under the labels “duality” or “reciprocity.” The aims of this article are, first, to provide a systematic analysis of duality from a modern point of view, and, second, based on this, to give a historical overview of how discussions about duality evolved during the nineteenth century. Specifically, we want to see in which ways geometers’ preoccupation with duality was shaped by developments that lead to modern logic towards the end of the nineteenth century, and how these developments in turn might have been influenced by reflections on duality.

In Baghdad in the mid twelfth century Abū al-Barakāt proposes a radical new procedure for finding the conclusions of premise-pairs in syllogistic logic, and for identifying those premise-pairs that have no conclusions. The procedure makes no use of features of the standard Aristotelian apparatus, such as conversions or syllogistic figures. In place of these al-Barakāt writes out pages of diagrams consisting of labelled horizontal lines. He gives no instructions and no proof that the procedure will yield correct results. So the reader has to work out what his procedure is and whether it is correct. The procedure turns out to be insightful and entirely correct, but this paper may be the first study to give a full description of the procedure and a rigorous proof of its correctness.

Jean Nicod (1893–1924) is a French philosopher and logician who worked with Russell during the First World War. His PhD, with a preface from Russell, was published under the title La géométrie dans le monde sensible in 1924, the year of his untimely death. The book did not have the impact he deserved. In this paper, I discuss the methodological aspect of Nicod’s approach. My aim is twofold. I would first like to show that Nicod’s definition of various notions of equivalence between theories anticipates, in many respects, the (syntactic and semantic) model-theoretic notion of interpretation of a theory into another. I would secondly like to present the philosophical agenda that led Nicod to elaborate his logical framework: the defense of rationalism against Bergson’s attacks.

Bernard Bolzano (1781–1848) is commonly thought to have attempted to develop a theory of size for infinite collections that follows the so-called part–whole principle, according to which the whole is always greater than any of its proper parts. In this paper, we develop a novel interpretation of Bolzano’s mature theory of the infinite and show that, contrary to mainstream interpretations, it is best understood as a theory of infinite sums. Our formal results show that Bolzano’s infinite sums can be equipped with the rich and original structure of a non-commutative ordered ring, and that Bolzano’s views on the mathematical infinite are, after all, consistent.

After the publication of Begriffsschrift, a conflict erupted between Frege and Schröder regarding their respective logical systems which emerged around the Leibnizian notions of lingua characterica and calculus ratiocinator. Both of them claimed their own logic to be a better realisation of Leibniz’s ideal language and considered the rival system a mere calculus ratiocinator. Inspired by this polemic, van Heijenoort (1967b) distinguished two conceptions of logic—logic as language and logic as calculus—and presented them as opposing views, but did not explain Frege’s and Schröder’s conceptions of the fulfilment of Leibniz’s scientific ideal.

In this paper I explain the reasons for Frege’s and Schröder’s mutual accusations of having created a mere calculus ratiocinator. On the one hand, Schröder’s construction of the algebra of relatives fits with a project for the reduction of any mathematical concept to the notion of relative. From this stance I argue that he deemed the formal system of Begriffsschrift incapable of such a reduction. On the other hand, first I argue that Frege took Boolean logic to be an abstract logical theory inadequate for the rendering of specific content; then I claim that the language of Begriffsschrift did not constitute a complete lingua characterica by itself, more being seen by Frege as a tool that could be applied to scientific disciplines. Accordingly, I argue that Frege’s project of constructing a lingua characterica was not tied to his later logicist programme.

Hermann Weyl was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, with contributions to many branches of mathematics and physics. In 1918, he wrote a famous book, “Das Kontinuum”, on the foundations of mathematics. In that book, he described mathematical analysis as a ‘house built on sand’, and tried to ‘replace this shifting foundation with pillars of enduring strength’.

In this paper, we reexamine and explain the philosophical and mathematical ideas that underly Weyl’s system in “Das Kontinuum”, and show that they are still useful and relevant. We propose a precise formalization of that system, which is the first to be completely faithful to what is written in the book. Finally, we suggest that a certain set-theoretical modern system reflects better Weyl’s ideas than previous attempts (most notably by Feferman) of achieving this goal.

Gödel’s ontological proof is by now well known based on the 1970 version, written in Gödel’s own hand, and Scott’s version of the proof. In this article new manuscript sources found in Gödel’s Nachlass are presented. Three versions of Gödel’s ontological proof have been transcribed, and completed from context as true to Gödel’s notes as possible. The discussion in this article is based on these new sources and reveals Gödel’s early intentions of a liberal comprehension principle for the higher order modal logic, an explicit use of second-order Barcan schemas, as well as seemingly defining a rigidity condition for the system. None of these aspects occurs explicitly in the later 1970 version, and therefore they have long been in focus of the debate on Gödel’s ontological proof.

A theory of magnitudes involves criteria for their equivalence, comparison and addition. In this article we examine these aspects from an abstract viewpoint, by focusing on the so-called De Zolt’s postulate in the theory of equivalence of plane polygons (“If a polygon is divided into polygonal parts in any given way, then the union of all but one of these parts is not equivalent to the given polygon”). We formulate an abstract version of this postulate and derive it from some selected principles for magnitudes. We also formulate and derive an abstract version of Euclid’s Common Notion 5 (“The whole is greater than the part”), and analyze its logical relation to the former proposition. These results prove to be relevant for the clarification of some key conceptual aspects of Hilbert’s proof of De Zolt’s postulate, in his classical Foundations of Geometry (1899). Furthermore, our abstract treatment of this central proposition provides interesting insights for the development of a well-behaved theory of compatible magnitudes.

We give a personal (and we hope, not too idiosyncratic) view of how our subject of probability theory has developed during the last half-century, and the author in tandem with it.

This paper is an edited version of a talk given in Sheffield as part of the celebration of fifty years of the Applied Probability Trust and its journals. I sought to sketch the background to the Trust's formation in the development of different applications of probability during the previous century, and to draw lessons for the future of the discipline and therefore of its journals.

Formulae for ζ(2n) and Lχ4(2n + 1) involving Euler and tangent numbers are derived using the hyperbolic secant probability distribution and its moment generating function. In particular, the Basel problem, where ζ(2) = π2 / 6, is considered. Euler's infinite product for the sine is also proved using the distribution of sums of independent hyperbolic secant random variables and a local limit theorem.

The primitive finite permutation groups containing a cycle are classified. Of these, only the alternating and symmetric groups contain a cycle fixing at least three points. This removes a primality condition from a classical theorem of Jordan. Some applications to monodromy groups are given, and the contributions of Jordan and Marggraff to this topic are briefly discussed.

In this article we show that the Czech mathematician Václav Šimerka discovered the factorization of $\frac{1}{9} (1{0}^{17} - 1)$ using a method based on the class group of binary quadratic forms more than 120 years before Shanks and Schnorr developed similar algorithms. Šimerka also gave the first examples of what later became known as Carmichael numbers.