Researcher profile

Karin U. Katz

Karin U. Katz contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2013arXiv

Is mathematical history written by the victors?

We examine prevailing philosophical and historical views about the origin of infinitesimal mathematics in light of modern infinitesimal theories, and show the works of Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, Cauchy and other giants of infinitesimal mathematics in a new light. We also detail several procedures of the historical infinitesimal calculus that were only clarified and formalized with the advent of modern infinitesimals. These procedures include Fermat's adequality; Leibniz's law of continuity and the transcendental law of homogeneity; Euler's principle of cancellation and infinite integers with the associated infinite products; Cauchy's infinitesimal-based definition of continuity and "Dirac" delta function. Such procedures were interpreted and formalized in Robinson's framework in terms of concepts like microcontinuity (S-continuity), the standard part principle, the transfer principle, and hyperfinite products. We evaluate the critiques of historical and modern infinitesimals by their foes from Berkeley and Cantor to Bishop and Connes. We analyze the issue of the consistency, as distinct from the issue of the rigor, of historical infinitesimals, and contrast the methodologies of Leibniz and Nieuwentijt in this connection.

preprint2011arXiv

Cauchy's continuum

Cauchy's sum theorem of 1821 has been the subject of rival interpretations ever since Robinson proposed a novel reading in the 1960s. Some claim that Cauchy modified the hypothesis of his theorem in 1853 by introducing uniform convergence, whose traditional formulation requires a pair of independent variables. Meanwhile, Cauchy's hypothesis is formulated in terms of a single variable x, rather than a pair of variables, and requires the error term r_n = r_n(x) to go to zero at all values of x, including the infinitesimal value generated by 1/n, explicitly specified by Cauchy. If one wishes to understand Cauchy's modification/clarification of the hypothesis of the sum theorem in 1853, one has to jettison the automatic translation-to-limits.

preprint2010arXiv

Relative systoles of relative-essential 2-complexes

We prove a systolic inequality for the phi-relative 1-systole of a phi-essential 2-complex, where phi is a homomorphism from the fundamental group of the complex, to a finitely presented group G. Indeed we show that universally for any phi-essential Riemannian 2-complex, and any G, the area of X is bounded below by 1/8 of sys(X,phi)^2. Combining our results with a method of Larry Guth, we obtain new quantitative results for certain 3-manifolds: in particular for Sigma the Poincare homology sphere, we have sys(Sigma)^3 < 24 vol(Sigma).

preprint2010arXiv

Zooming in on infinitesimal 1-.9.. in a post-triumvirate era

The view of infinity as a metaphor, a basic premise of modern cognitive theory of embodied knowledge, suggests in particular that there may be alternative ways in which one could formalize mathematical ideas about infinity. We discuss the key ideas about infinitesimals via a proceptual analysis of the meaning of the ellipsis&#34;...&#34; in the real formula .999... = 1. Infinitesimal-enriched number systems accomodate quantities in the half-open interval [0,1) whose extended decimal expansion starts with an unlimited number of repeated digits 9. Do such quantities pose a challenge to the unital evaluation of the symbol &#34;.999...&#34;? We present some non-standard thoughts on the ambiguity of the ellipsis, in the context of the cognitive concept of generic limit of B. Cornu and D. Tall. We analyze the vigorous debates among mathematicians concerning the idea of infinitesimals.