Matematics 3MH project:

Tangents, mechanics & infinitesimal sizes

Ana Martinez de los Rı́os, Lorric Ziegler,
Simon Eiriksson & Sara Arklint
April 19, 2005
Contents
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Scientific revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Revolution of astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Mechanics and mathematics 5

2.1 The cycloid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Descartes 6
3.1 Given the curve we get. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Problems with the method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Fermat 10
4.1 What the text says . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.1 Maxima and Minima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2 Tangent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3 Center of Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 The ideas behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1 How to find the maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2 How to use the method for other problems . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 Why it works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1 The method for finding maxima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.2 The method for finding tangents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5 Descartes and Fermat 18

6 Invention of the Calculus on its way... 19

6.1 Hudde and Sluse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2 Gregory and Barrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2.1 Fundamental theorem of calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2.2 Translation into modern notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3 Back to the historical connection with Leibniz and Newton . . . . 24
6.4 And finally on the scene: Leibniz and Newton... . . . . . . . . . . 24

2
1 Introduction
In the XVII century all of Europe is going trough a period of change, not only
in its way of living, but also, and even more deeply, in its way of thinking. A
big demographic, economic and political crisis happened in these years, whose
biggest evidences were the 30 years war (1618-1648), different civil and rural
revolts, the revolution and change of government in England, the expansion wars
carried out by Louis XIV (1638-1715), etc. The absolutism seemed to be so
much reinforced by this crisis that the XVII century has been presented as the
apogee of absolutism. The religion at this time is marked by the answer of the
Catholic Church to the Lutheran Reformation, with the Trento’s council. The
change is noted in all aspects of life, politics, science, religion, art. . . It’s the age
of rationalism and big thinkers. In the frame of politics is produced a transition
from the metaphysical and theological concept of the natural right, to a rational
concept. As well as the economics ones, the causes of this revolution are closely
connected to the progress of science and the discovery of new lands. The rights
kept separated of religion, and politics became independent of theology.

1.1 Scientific revolution

The first half of the XVII century is very important in the history of scientific
thoughts, because the new science is born. A modern, experimental and quan-
titative science that was to be developed in the following centuries. In order to
give an example let us look at what Galileo writes in “Saggiatore” (1623): “The
book of nature is written in the language of mathematics”. The new concept
of nature, of the world, is a coordinate set of measurable phenomenon. And if
the concept of nature is modified, also the scientific investigation of it must be.
The new study of the world is through the underlying mathematical structures
of nature. Trying to find out, through theoretical analysis, the real structures
of the world. This new scientific philosophy brought a systematic change of the
questions about Nature and its criterions to accept the conclusions. The universe
began to be seen as a big automatic machine. The importance of the mathemat-
ical precision in science, as much in the calculus as in the observations, involved
the invention of some new tools, and the improvement of some other ones: In
1610 a microscope was invented, 1603 Galileo improved the telescope, and in 1640
the barometer.

1.2 Mathematics
The development of other mathematical ideas at these times was highly connected
to the new conception of science. They turned to be the language of modern sci-
ence and its progress conditioned mathematics very much. There were born,
or renewed, different fields of mathematics: algebra, number theory, probability

3
calculus, projective geometry, infinitesimal calculus. . . The development of the
astronomy with its need of using and working with huge magnitudes and the
requirement of simplifying the calculus that the astronomic functions bring in-
volved the birth of the logarithms, invented by John Napier around 1614. There
were two principal ways of the mathematical activity in the XVII century. The
first one, based on “La Géometrie” (1637) of Descartes, was the introduction of
the analytic geometry. The second one was the invention of infinitesimal quan-
tities, with the publication in 1635 of “La Geometria” of Bonaventura Cavalieri.
We cannot forget the birth of number theory, and the application of algebraic
process to geometry and the creation of a new geometry, the projective geometry
by Gerard Desargues.

1.3 Mechanics
The science of mechanics was born in the XVII century. Its initiator was Galileo
(1564-1642). This new science essentially studies the laws of falling body and
the solution of the problem of the movement of a projectile without any resis-
tance of the environment. He experimented with a ball falling through a lightly
inclined plane and could establish the law of falling bodies, which says that the
distances are related with the square of the time. It is a new conception of
gravity in opposition with Aristotle’s conception. While Aristotle’s explanation
of the acceleration of the falling bodies is causal and qualitative, Galileo’s con-
ception comes from observation in different experiments, it is more quantitative.
He arranged to establish a law that defines the space in function of the time,
and he wanted to find out how to deduce this quantity logically from a simple
mathematical ratio. Galileo was creating the needed link between mathematics
and movement. In relation with the problem of the projectile, Galileo solved it
with the composition of motions, proving that the trajectory of projectile and
composition of horizontal and vertical movements is a parabola. If we take a look
further in the project, we’ll meet with Roberval and the cycloid, an example of a
curve obtained by composition of two motions. The method he uses for finding
the tangent is just adding the velocities of the two motions, isn’t it pretty related?
The ideas and the works of Galileo in mechanics were prolonged and well spread
by his disciples, among which is Torricelli. In mechanics also Descartes made
some important advances. His theory was very different from the other ones.
His mechanic lied on the construction of a complete system where a universal
mechanism explains all the phenomenon of the visible world. Descartes’ work is
the most important one in mechanics until the “Principia” of Newton. Although
the importance of Descartes’ work, the link between Galileo and Newton will be
set in by Christian Huygens’ work (1629-1695) . The most important of his work
was the discovery of the laws of centrifuge force.

4
1.4 Revolution of astronomy
The XVII century was a golden age for astronomy. An age when the conception of
Copernicus, which he had defended along the XVI century, will be confirmed and
completed. The characters that opened the door of the astronomy revolution
of the XVII century, were Kepler and Galileo. Johannes Kepler’s (1571-1630)
most important work was the establishment of the laws of gravitation of the
planets around the sun. As Kepler, Galileo was convinced of the exactitude of
the Copernican system. He studied the sky and his observations made clearer the
falseness of the sky immutability conception of Aristotle’s. He was able to give a
very good descriptions of the moon relief and some others discoveries, thanks to
a lens he had built in 1609. The culmination of the astronomy revolution of the
XVII century was represented by Newton works. He developed completely the
calculus of centripetal forces, deducted the movement of the planets, etc. He also
gave to astronomy a new instrument of observation: the reflexion telescope.

2 Mechanics and mathematics

In early XVII century different mathematical problems related to calculus were
considered. Many of the problems aimed at the question about finding the tan-
gents to different curves. As curves had different definitions, some of the proposed
methods for finding tangents were attached to the different definitions. The math-
ematicians of these days began to think deeper about the meaning of curves seen
as moving points along the time. Thus it became of importance to investigate
some properties of curves, as the tangent gives us information about the direction
of the movement of the point. To this Gilles Persone de Roberval (1602-1675)
contributed in 1637 by giving a method for finding the tangent to the cycloid.

2.1 The cycloid

The cycloid is defined by giving a point A on a circle placed on a line. When
”rolling” the circle along the line the point A is moved and the trajectory is then
defining the cycloid. See figure 1. Roberval defines it in a bit different way, such
that the trajectory is given by moving the circle along the line (without ”rolling”
it), and then moving the point around the circle with the same speed as the circle
is moved. To find the tangent he simply adds the velocity vector of the circle-
movement to the vector of the point-movement-on-the-circle. If one for instance
wants the tangent at time R one draws the line R2 R1 and the tangent of the
circle R2 U such that R2 R1 = R2 U . Then one gets the parallelogram R2 U V R1
and the diagonal R2 V is the tangent to the cycloid. See figure 2 Roberval does
not give a proof for the construction, but in modern language it is obviously right
that when adding the vectors you get the tangent. The idea of simply adding

5
 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 A5
A4

A3

A2

A1

Figure 1: The cycloid as a point A on a rolling circle C

U V
B
D
R2
R1

A R C

Figure 2: The tangent to the cycloid as the sum of two motions

the vectors originates from the Greeks (Archimedes used kinematic concepts On
Spirals) and was exploited by Galileo and Torricelli.

3 Descartes
When Descartes in 1637 published his book La Gometrie he included a method
for finding a normal to a given curve. What Descartes wanted was to investigate
how different curves intersect with each others. He wanted to find the intersection
angle between curves by finding straight lines which are normal (perpendicular)
to the curves in the intersection point. Then he claimed that the intersection be-
tween two such straight lines will have the same angle as the intersection between
the two curves. Therefore he tried to make a method for finding such a normal
to a curve in a given point.

6
 The idea of the method is to find a circle that touches the curve in a single
point and then, as the radius of the circle is the normal to the circumference of
it, we have the normal to the curve in the touching point.

3.1 Given the curve we get. . .

Assume we are given a curve E, given by the equation f (x, y) = 0, of which all
points are drawn relative to a line GA (that is, in modern terms the horizontal
axis and later, as we will see the point A plays the role as a general reference
point, that is origo) and a circle centered in a point P on GA, such that it touches
the curve in exactly one point C 1 .
By defining the radius of the circle s = P C, the ”function value” y = M C,
the ”evaluation point” x = M A2 and the distance between the center of the circle
and A, v = P A, one gets by the Pythagorean theorem the following equation:
y 2 + (v − x)2 = s2
And thus by solving this equation in x and y we get
√
y = s2 − v 2 + 2vx − x2 and
p
x = v + s2 − y 2

Now, to find the desired point P , given the curve E, the point C and the
line of reference AG, assume that we have a point P on AG. Then P and C
determines a circle with P as its center and P C as radius. If the curve E cuts
the circle in anotherppoint than C, the equation for√the curve f (x, y) = 0, with x
substituted by v + s2 − y 2 or y substituted by ps2 − v 2 + 2vx − x2 will have
2 2
p for instance x by v + s − y in f (x, y) we get an
two roots. By substituting,
equation fe(y) = f (v + s2 − y 2 , y) = 0 in only one variable to solve for. If the
circle cuts the curve once, the equation must have one (double)root. Thus, what
we are looking for is to determine the coefficients s, v such that the equation
(with the substitutions) has a (double)root in C.
The way he shows the correspondence between the normal and the double
root is by assuming that a point P on AG gives a circle that cuts the curve in C
and another point C 0 . See figure 4. Then:
but if this point P be ever so little nearer or farther from A than
it should be, this circle must cut the curve not only at C but also
1
Descartes does not define the curve by a function, but he thinks of the points on the curve
as solutions to some equation(s). What we mean by f (x, y) = 0 is that a point Q is on the
curve iff the line AG has distance y to Q and the projection M of Q on AG has distance x to
A.
2
In [1] the x and y are swapped, but as it fits better into the modern notation to have x on
the horisontal axis and y on the vertical axis we have chosen to do so.

7
 E
C
6

?
P M A
 -
 x -
v

Figure 3: Finding the normal in C by finding the point P

in another point. Now if the circle cuts [the graph], the equation
involving x and y must have two unequal roots.

E
C0

0
A P P
0
G
Figure 4: If a point P is chosen different from P

The equation he refers to is the one determining the intersection between the
circle and the curve. Thus he does not really give a proof, but rather an intuitive
description of how it works. One can surely imagine curves not necessarily cutting
the circle twice. Later he claims that when moving the point P such that the
two roots gets closer and closer, they actually coincide, and in that situation the
curve touches, not cut the circle in the desired point:

The nearer together the points C and [C 0 ] are taken however,

the less difference there is between the roots; and when the points

8
 coincide, the roots are exactly equal, that is to say, the circle through
C will touch the curve [E] at the point C without cutting it.
One may note that when writing this he is actually using the concept of
infinitesimal, but as we will see later it is not so. To find the point P such that
there is a double root in C one only uses the usually algebraic methods, but the
quote tells us that the idea to the method arrived from the notion of moving
points toward each others along a curve.
Lets say for instance, that the curve is given by the equation f (x, y) = x−y 2 =
2 3
0 and we wantp to find the normal to a point (x0 , x0 ). Then we must investigate
fe(y) = v + s2 − y 2 − y 2 = 0 or fb(x) = x − s2 + v 2 − 2vx + x2 = 0. If fb(x) is
to have a double root it must be on the form fb(x) = (x − x0 )2 = x20 − 2x0 x + x2
where x0 is the root. Therefore we have these three equations, as the coefficients
must be the same:
s2 − v 2 = x20
2v − 1 = 2x0
1=1
The second equation tells us that v = + x0 and thus the slope of the normal must
√ √ √
be − x0 /(v − x0 ) = 2 x0 and the slope of the tangent must be −1/(−2 x0 ) =
√
1/(2 x0 ). If fb(x) had been of degree greater than two we would be unable to
compare the coefficients directly, but we would know that fb(x) would have a
double root in x0 and thus be on the form fb(x) = (x − x0 )2 p(x) where p(x) would
be some polynomium with degree two less than fb(x). Hence we could compare
the coefficients, and hopefully solve the system of equations for v or s.

3.2 Problems with the method

The method Descartes proposes in La Gometrie is characterized by the fact that
it apparently does not depend on the use of infinitesimals. Even though he were
quite acquainted with the use of infinitesimals4 he considered the use of finite
algebraic methods to be of better quality. As he writes in La Gometrie 5 ,
Any problem in geometry can be reduced to such terms that a knowl-
edge of the length of certain straight lines is sufficient for its construc-
tion.
he believes that he can translate all geometric problems into algebra, and as he
writes in another passage its seems like he believe that all geometric problems
can be solved by use of finite algebraic methods:
3
x0 is of course relative to the point A and the line AG
4
The origins of infinitesimal calculus p. 163
5
La Gometrie book I

9
 . . . This is my reason for believing that I shall have given here
a sufficient introduction to the study of curves when I have given a
general method of drawing a straight line making right angles with a
curve at an arbitrarily chosen point upon it. And I dare say that this
is not only the most useful and most general problem in geometry
that I know, but even that I have ever desired to know.

There is however a few problems in his method. If the curves gets just a little bit
complicated, the equations grow explosively and sometimes it is not even possible
to solve them.
For example the curve defined by f (x, y) = y 3 − x = 0 gives serious trouble.
by substitution one gets these two equations to work with:
√
s2 − v 2 + 2vx − x2 (s2 − v 2 + 2vx − x2 ) − x = 0
p
y 3 − v + s2 − y 2 = 0

These are not polynomials so it becomes impossible to solve for s or v in them

using Descartes method.

4 Fermat
To solve any problem Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665) transforms it into the question
of finding the maximum or minimum of a polynomial. Then he uses his method of
adequating to find an equation that describes the maximum and thereby the solu-
tion to the problem. It is when adequating Fermat uses the concept of movements
and infinitesimals.
Source 1 consists of two letters. Both letters were sent to Father Marin
Mersenne. The first letter was sent in January 1638 and was intended for
Descartes. The second letter was sent in April 1638 and was intended for Rober-
val, but Father Mersenne also told Descartes of its contents.
We have divided the first letter in two parts so that the source is in three
parts: Maxima and Minima (from January 1638), Tangent (January 1638) and
Center of Gravity (April 1638).
After explaining what the text actually says, we will try to figure out what
the ideas behind the methods are and why the methods work.

4.1 What the text says

4.1.1 Maxima and Minima
Fermat didn’t think of it as functions so when we write f (a) it is not to be thought
of as the function value in a but as an algebraic expression involving a.
Fermat first explains how to find the maximum, and then he gives an example.

10
 Let a be any unknown of the problem (which is in one, two, or
three dimensions, depending on the formulation of the problem). Let
us indicate the maximum or minimum by a in terms which could be
of any degree.

After reading the examples, it is possible to understand what Fermat means.

The problem in question can be of one, two or three dimensions, and one has
to restate the problem as a question of finding the maximum of some fraction of
polynomials f (x) = p(x)
q(x)
.
Fermat continues with a description of how to find the maximum of this poly-
nomial. He does not explain why the method works, he only says the following:
Let a be the point where the maximum is attained; adequate f (a) and f (a + e),
remove common terms and divide through by e as many times as possible; then
remove the terms still containing e and put the remains equal to each other.
Let us look at the example Fermat gave, and perhaps it will be more clear
what the method is:
A line segment AC is to be divided in a point E such that the product of the
two lengths AE and EC becomes as large as possible. See figure 5.

A a E b−a C

Figure 5: Dividing a line segment

Let E be the point that gives the maximum product. Fermat denotes AC
by b and AE by a so that the maximum is a(b − a). Then he looks at another
division of the line segment: a + e. The two products are then adequated and the
calculations made:

a(b − a) ∼ (a + e)(b − (a + e))

ba − a2 ∼ ba − a2 + be − 2ae − e2
0 ∼ be − 2ae − e2
2ae + e2 ∼ be
2a + e ∼ b
2a = b

So the maximum appears in a = 2b . Fermat did not use “∼” but wrote “adequate”
(adégaler).

11
4.1.2 Tangent
Fermat then uses his method to find the tangent of a curve. He looks at a parabola
given by f (x, y) = 0 with f (x, y) = x − y 2 , and wants to find the tangent in a
point B. See figure 6.

B
O

C I D E
| {z }
e
| {z }
| d {z }
a

Figure 6: Finding the tangent to the parabola in B by determining a.

Let the tangent be given and let E denote the point where the tangent in-
tersects with the diameter of the parabola. Let D denote the point where the
parabola intersects with its diameter.
Fermat then looks at another point O on the tangent. Let C denote the
projection of B onto the diameter, and I the projection of O. The distance CI
is then the e from before.
Fermat has to make the problem of finding the subtangent CE into the ques-
tion of finding a maximum. He then establishes the following inequality:
CD CE 2
> .
DI EI 2
When establishing the inequality Fermat gives actual arguments:

CD = CB 2

because B is on the parabola, while

DI < OI 2

12
because O is exterior to the parabola. The two triangles BCE and OIE are
similar, so
CB CE
=
OI EI
and thereby
CD CB 2 CE 2
> =
DI OI 2 EI 2
follows.
After having established the inequality, Fermat adequates the two sides

CD CE 2
∼
DI EI 2
and does the following calculations where a is the length of the subtangent CE
and d is the length of CD:

d a2
∼
d−e a2 + e2 − 2ae
da2 + de2 − 2dae ∼ da2 − a2 e
de2 + a2 e ∼ 2dae
de + a2 ∼ 2da
a2 = 2da
a = 2d

Fermat gets the result a = 2d which is in fact correct.

Later on we will try to explain why he does what he does.

4.1.3 Center of Gravity

This time Fermat looks at a figure in three dimensions, a parabolic conoid, and
he wants to find its center of gravity.
The situation is as sketched on the figure, where O the center of gravity is
to be found. E is the center of gravity of the smaller conoid BAR, and M the
center of gravity of CBRV . See figure 7.
Denote b := AI and a := A =. e := N I so that OM → OI as e → 0 (this
follows from the fact that M lies between N and I).
Fermat knows from among others Archimedes certain properties of centers of
gravity:

•
AI AN
=
AO AE
• M lies between N and I because of a property of the figure CBRV

13
 A

b
E
O
N
B R
e M
C V
I

Figure 7: Finding the center of gravity O of a paraboloid.

• A consideration of equilibrium gives the following equation concerning also

the areas:
OE CBRV
=
OM BAR
From Archimedes it is also known that
CAV IA2
= .
BAR AN 2
Because M lies between N and I, we get that OM < OI. This inequality is to
be adequated. OI = b − a, and Fermat then does some calculations to determine
OM :
AI
From AO = AN
AE
we get that AE = a(b−e)
b
and thereby OE = AO − AE = ae b
.

14
 Now CAV − BAR = CBRV so we get that
ae
b OE
=
OM OM
CBRV
=
BAR
CAV BAR
= −
BAR BAR
IA2
= −1
AN 2
b2
= −1
(b − e)2
b2
= −1
b2 + e2 − 2be
2be − e2
=
b2 + e2 − 2be
which leads to the equation

b2 ae + ae3 − 2bae2
OM =
2b2 a − be2
From adequating OI ∼ OM and doing calculations similar to those of the
two previous examples, Fermat gets the result 2b = 3a.

4.2 The ideas behind

Fermat got the idea for the maximum-method from x 7→ x(b − x). Then gener-
alized the algorithm.

4.2.1 How to find the maximum

According to Katz the idea behind the method of adequating is the following:
considering for example a second degree polynomial, there are always two so-
lutions to a given function value. See figure 8. By setting the function values
equal each other and dividing through by the difference of the roots, Fermat
obtains an equation describing the correspondance between the two roots. For
f (x) = x(b − x) he gets x1 + x2 = b. When approaching the maximum function
value, the two roots approach each other. In the maximum they are equal, so x1
is the maximum point when b = 2x1 .
This is where the infinitesimals appear. As the difference between two roots
that are in fact the same since they have moved towards each other. Later on,
and in our text, Fermat describes it by e and lets e be the distance a point is from
the point of maximum a. When adequating he says that f (a) and f (a + e) are

15
 x1 x2 a a+e

Figure 8: Finding the maximum

very close: they are adequated f (a) ∼ f (a + e), and then he divides through by e
before removing remaining appearences of e and putting the two equal. Fermat
sees no problem with this because the two values f (a) and f (a + e) are much
closer to each other than e is to zero: as Kepler states it
Near the maximum, the drecrements on both sides are initially im-
perceptible.6

4.2.2 How to use the method for other problems

To solve other sorts of problems, Fermat restates the problem so that it is a
problem of finding a maximum. Let us look at the example with the tangent.
We will then explain how we think that Fermat thought of it.
For all points O on the tangent, we have the inequality
CD CE 2
> ,
DI EI 2
of course as an equality presicely when B and O are equal.
P Noticei
that to obtain
k k
P this i
inequality, we need the curve to be of the form
ai x = y or x = ai y . I.e. first the curve has to be of the form f1 (x) =
f2 (y), and second e.g. f1 must satisfy that
f1 (a) f1 (c) a c
= if = .
f1 (b) f1 (d) b d
In Fermat’s proof this is needed when he goes from
CB CE CB 2 CE 2
= to = .
OI EI OI 2 EI 2
Whether the equality is actually needed, we will discuss in a later section.
Let f (O) be the expression

CE 2 CD
−
EI 2 DI
6
Katz p. 470

16
which is of course entirely depended upon O. We see now that f (O) attains its
maximum in B. And that this maximum is 0.
Using the method to find the maximum, one would adequate

CE 2 CD
− ∼0
EI 2 DI
and then do some calculations ending up with an equation determining the max-
imum point B, i.e. an equation determining d by a. So in a way Fermat does
it the other way arround since it is a he is to determine. The method works,
however, because not two points on the upper half of the parabola have the same
subtangent.
Notice that Fermat does not look at f (d + e) but f (O) where O is B moved
on the tangent by e which is not the same as O + e.
Finding the center of gravity, Fermat uses the same approach. This time
finding the maximum of OM − OI.

4.3 Why it works

First a disclaimer: we are not saying that Fermat was looking at the derivatives
of functions. This is not how he thought of it and therefore it would make no
sense to claim that he looked at it without knowing what it was.
However, we can use the concept of derivatives to understand why his method
worked.

4.3.1 The method for finding maxima

To find a such that f (a) is the maximum, this is what Fermat does:

f (a + e) f (a)
lim = lim .
e→0 e e→0 e
That is he sets f 0 (a) = 0 and then gets an expression that determines a.
Notice also that what Kepler said about

Near the maximum, the drecrements on both sides are initially im-
perceptible

is in fact that the slope of the tangent is zero in the maximum.

4.3.2 The method for finding tangents

Now let f (x) = x2 . The equation Fermat solves is then

df (a − e) (d − e)f (a)
lim = lim .
e→0 e e→0 e

17
Doing some calculations, we get df 0 (a) = f (a). √
Now placing the origo
√ so that
√ B has√coordinates ( √d, d), the √ tangent through
0
B is given by y = f ( d(x
√ √ − d) + f ( d), i.e. y = 2 d(x − d) + d. So a can
be determined as a = 2 d d = 2d.
Now, which functions satisfy that a = f 0 (f −1 (d))f −1 (d) exactly when df 0 (a) =
f (a)? These are the functions that Fermat’s method works on.

4.4 Summary
To solve any problem Fermat transforms it into the question of finding the maxi-
mum or minimum of a polynomial. Then he uses his method of adequating to find
an equation describing the maximum and thereby the solution to the problem.
Notice the idea of a point moving on the curve. When the method is used to
find tangents, it is a point on the tangent that moves towards the tangent point.

• Infinitesimals as the difference between a double root and itself, or rather

as the difference between a point and a point that is very close to it;

• How it is proved: Idea from second degree polynomial expanded. No proof

for adequation but ’normal’ proofs for transformation of the problems into
a maximum-problem. He does not prove his method but gives examples to
show how it works and that it works;

• The method for finding maxima is very efficient with a lot of polynomials.
The tangent method has a few demands to the polynomial f (x, y) = 0 of
the curve.

5 Descartes and Fermat

We have met in the two previous sources with the fathers of analytic geometry,
Descartes and Fermat. Both mathematicians studied the hidden analysis in the
geometry of ancient Greeks through Viète, and also both of them developed the
use of algebraic methods to solve geometrical problems, introducing coordinates,
in the sense of lengths of lines. We must ask you to stop and think for a while,
if you haven’t already done, about the mechanical point of view of their geome-
try. They define the curves as points moving along the time, and develop their
ideas from this view. Of course this idea of moving points has always existed,
Euclid defined his curves in the same way, but Descartes and Fermat gave to this
mechanical view a lot of importance. For example Descartes just accepted the
curves which could be traced by some continuous movement generated by some
machines he imagined. There’s even lots of examples of tools designed by him
for drawing such curves. Although Fermat also paid a lot of attention to the me-
chanical component of geometry, it is more obvious and important in Descartes

18
geometry. He didn’t even accepted curves which had not been described by some
movement first, while Fermat, once he had adopted algebra to geometry, defined
them in terms of equations. Descartes always described first the movement and
then he introduced the equation.
This view of moving points brought the idea of infinitesimal. Making points be
nearer and nearer is just making two movements be closer, what looks like a young
differentiation. And maybe you think that Descartes didn’t use infinitesimal, as
we have said he expressed his rejection to infinitesimal, and he didn’t work with
them as an explicit tool, as Fermat did, but the truth is that he developed his
method from a reasoning based in this infinitesimal, in this idea of moving points
along a curve, making them be very close to each other. So the question is:
infinitesimals as an explicit tool or just as a way of thinking? and we take the
risk and we go a little further, Is it really different?

6 Invention of the Calculus on its way...

As shown in the precedent sections, Descartes and Fermat didn’t really establish
another important and perhaps most fundamental part of calculus, namely the
relation between areas and tangents. Before having an overview of the evolution
that followed, one could ask why they failed being the real inventors of calculus.
Fermat didn’t ask himself the “right” questions 7 . He however was the first to
have the idea of a slight variation of variable and to see the advantage of infinites-
imal methods. Nevertheless the notion of limit is absent and his equations are
always approximate. Descartes distinguished between precision and approximate
methods, and situated infinitesimal methods in that later category. He therefor
avoided using this idea and based himself on more secure foundations with the
use of agebraic and mechanical conceptions. One can say in a way that he bet-
ter saw the risks of such methods, because there was definitely a lack of clear
theoretical basis at that period for infinitesimal reasoning.

6.1 Hudde and Sluse

Some years later the study of Fermat, Descartes and Roberval led two math-
ematicians Johann Hudde (1628-1704) and Ren Francois de Sluse (1622-1685)
to new simpler algorithms in the 1650’s. Hudde improved the way of finding
double roots of polynomials in Descartes’ method: if f (x) = a0 + ... + an xn has
double root α, and let (p, p + b, ..., p + nb) be an arithmetic progression, then
pa0 + (p + b)a1 x1 + ... + (p + nb)an xn (= pf (x) + bxf 0 (x) in modern notation) has
also a root α. He often used it with p = 0 and b = 1.This method appeared in
van Schooten’s 1659 edition of Descartes’ La Gometrie. Sluse discovered a way
7
For instance he wanted to find the subtangent and not the slope of a tangent of a curve,
and he rectified curves pointwise, he didn’t think of any function

19
of finding tangents of the polynomial f (x, y) = 0, which can be found in a letter
to Henry Oldenburg. They provided thus general algorithms for curves given by
polynomial equations. However this improvement in the computations wasn’t
acompanied with any change in the way of thinking, neither of infinitesimal nor
of the inverse relation between tangents and areas.

6.2 Gregory and Barrow

Without providing the adequate tools necesary for a correct definition and for
the optimal use of it, two mathematicians showed a clear link later on: James
Gregory and Isaac Barrow (1630-1677). James Gregory was dealing with arc
lengths, but here we’ll focus on Isaac Barrow’s point of view. The fact that
helped him establishing this link was that he always thought of curves as a kind
of motions of physical objects. Glueing together two concepts gave him the idea
of the “fundamental theorem of calculus”, namely viewing the area under the
velocity curve as the distance covered, which is based on Oresme and Galileo,
and viewing the slope of the tangent of any curve as a velocity, his own idea. In
the proposition 11 of lecture X in his Geometrical Lectures, he gives a proof of
the fundamental theorem for any monotonely increasing curve:

6.2.1 Fundamental theorem of calculus

I R

P D
V

G E

Figure 9:

See figure 9. First take any curve ZGE whose perpendicular ordinates con-
tinually increase (V Z < P G < DE) and consider its “integral” V IF , that is: if
R is given, then the area V DEZ should be equal to DF · R.

20
 DE R
See figure 10. Now the claim is that if DF
= DT
then T F is the tangent at F

D
V
T
Z

Figure 10:

of V IF .
See figure 11. To prove it, take any point I on the curve V F (first between V

I
K

T P D

Figure 11:

and F ). We get:

LF DF
= (similar triangles)
LK DT
DF DE
= (by the claim)
DT R
See figure 12. Which gives
RLF = LKDE

21
 F

K L

T D
Figure 12:

But R · LF = R(DF − DL) = R(DF − IP ) = R · DF − R · IP which by definition

of the curve V F is equal to area V DEZ − area V P GZ = area P DEG.
See figure 13. So LK · DE = area P DEG < DP · DE because it’s an increasing

P D
V

G
E

Figure 13:

curve. Hence LK < DP = LI.

Now if I is on the other side of F , one gets (not proved in Barrow’s paper)
LK > LI.
See figure 14. So the line T F is entirely below the curve V F except at F where
it touches it, which means that it’s its tangent at F .

6.2.2 Translation into modern notation

See figure 15. Let’s call the curve f (x), its integral F (x) and the tangent t(x).
We have
Z
1 x
F (x) = f (y)dy
R 0
F (x0 )
t(x) = (x − a) = F 0 (x0 ) · (x − a)
x0 − a

22
 I
L
K

T D

Figure 14:
y

F (x)

t(x)
a x0 x

−(1 + f (x))

Figure 15:

But Barrow proved R · F (x0 ) = f (x0 ) · (x0 − a), which means

F (x0 ) 1
F 0 (x0 ) = = f (x0 )
x0 − a R
which is nothing else than the first statement of the fundamental theorem of
calculus Z x
( f (y)dy)0 = f (x)
0

23
6.3 Back to the historical connection with Leibniz and
Newton
In the proof he doesn’t need anymore to describe a curve by motions or in an
algebraic way. He just states pointwise the existence of such a height, which, as for
the length DT , relies on the completeness of R. As important and fundamental
his results might be, Isaac Barrow wasn’t able to translate these results into a
method of computation which could have been used for until then unsolvable
problems.

6.4 And finally on the scene: Leibniz and Newton...

The four mathematicians previously discussed played a very important role in
the development of differential calculus, since both Newton and Leibniz highly
based themselves on the work they accomplished, it’s obvious that they owe a
very great deal to these immediate predecessors. Their studies represent the re-
sult of a century of hard work and the basis of our current knowledge.
During his stay in Paris from 1672 to 1676, Leibniz was shown by Christian Huy-
gens van Schooten’s version of La Gometrie and the work of Pascal involving the
differential triangle.
Newton was at Cambridge in the same period where Isaac Barrow held his Geo-
metrical Lectures 8 and self-studied all these mathematicians of the 17th century.
Both of them accomplished four tasks:

• they developed general concepts related to extrema and areas

• they introduced their own notations and algorithms allowing an easy use of
the different concepts

• they understood and applied the inverse relationship between tangents and
areas

• they used the concepts on difficult problems

References
[1] Descartes; source 3

[2] W. W. Rouse Ball, Primer of the history of Mathematics, second edition,

1903.

[3] Carl B. Boyer, The history of the calculus and its conceptual development,
second edition, Dover publications 1959.
8
We don’t know exactly if Newton actually followed any of Barrow’s lectures

24
[4] David M. Burton, The history of mathematics, an introduction, third edition,
McGraw Hill, 1997.

[5] C. H. Edwards, The historical development of the Calculus, Springer Verlag,

1979.

[6] , Victor J. Katz, A history of mathematics

[7] Paolo Mancouso, Philosophy of mathematics and mathematical practice in

the seventeenth century, Oxford University Press, 1996

[8] J. F. Scott, A history of mathematics, from antiquity to the beginning of the

nineteenth century, Taylor & Francis, 1958

[9] www.artehistoria.com

25