Leibniz's Observations on Hydrology: An Unpublished Letter on the Great Lombardy Flood of 1705

Although the historical reputation of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) largely rests on his philosophical and mathematical work, it is widely known that he made important contributions to many of the emerging but still inchoate branches of natural science of his day. Among the many scientific papers Leibniz published during his lifetime are ones on the nascent science we now know as hydrology. While Leibniz's other scientific work has become of increasing interest to scholars in recent years, his thinking about hydrology has been neglected, despite being relatively broad in extent, including as it does papers on the ‘raising of vapours’ and the formation of ice, as well as the separation of salt and fresh water. That list can now be extended still further following the discovery of a previously unpublished letter of Leibniz's on the causes of the devastating Lombardy flood of October and November 1705. This letter, which will be the focus of our paper, reveals the depth of Leibniz's understanding of key hydrological processes. In it, he considers various mechanisms for the flood, such as heavy rains on high ground, underwater earthquakes, and a mountain collapse. Over the course of the paper we examine each of these mechanisms in depth, and show that Leibniz was in the vanguard of hydrological thinking. We also show that the letter contains one of the first scholarly attempts to apply aspects of the still-forming notion of the hydrological cycle to account for a flood event.     

Thomas Harriot’s optics,between experiment and imagination: the case of Mr Bulkeley’s glass

Some time in the late 1590s, the Welsh amateur mathematician John Bulkeley wrote to Thomas Harriot asking his opinion about the properties of a truly gargantuan (but totally imaginary) plano-spherical convex lens, 48 feet in diameter. While Bulkeley’s original letter is lost, Harriot devoted several pages to the optical properties of “Mr Bulkeley his Glasse” in his optical papers (now in British Library MS Add. 6789), paying particular attention to the place of its burning point. Harriot’s calculational methods in these papers are almost unique in Harriot’s optical remains, in that he uses both the sine law of refraction and interpolation from Witelo’s refraction tables in order to analyze the passage of light through the glass. For this and other reasons, it is very likely that Harriot wrote his papers on Bulkeley’s glass very shortly after his discovery of the law and while still working closely with Witelo’s great Optics; the papers represent, perhaps, his very first application of the law. His and Bulkeley’s interest in this giant glass conform to a long English tradition of curiosity about the optical and burning properties of large glasses, which grew more intense in late sixteenth-century England. In particular, Thomas Digges’s bold and widely known assertions about his father’s glasses that could see things several miles distant and could burn objects a half-mile or further away may have attracted Harriot and Bulkeley’s skeptical attention; for Harriot’s analysis of the burning distance and the intensity of Bulkeley’s fantastic lens, it shows that Digges’s claims could never have been true about any real lens (and this, I propose, was what Bulkeley had asked about in his original letter to Harriot). There was also a deeper, mathematical relevance to the problem that may have caught Harriot’s attention. His most recent source on refraction—Giambattista della Porta’s De refractione of 1593—identified a mathematical flaw in Witelo’s cursory suggestion about the optics of a lens (the only place that lenses appear, however fleetingly, in the writings of the thirteenth-century Perspectivist authors). In his early notes on optics, in a copy of Witelo’s optics, Harriot highlighted Witelo’s remarks on the lens and della Porta’s criticism (which he found unsatisfactory). The most significant problem with Witelo’s theorem would disappear as the radius of curvature of the lens approached infinity. Bulkeley’s gigantic glass, then, may have provided Harriot an opportunity to test out Witelo’s claims about a plano-spherical glass, at a time when he was still intensely concerned with the problems and methods of the Perspectivist school.     

Spectacles improved to perfection and approved of by the Royal Society

The letter sent by the Royal Society to the London optician, John Marshall, in 1694, commending his new method of grinding, has been reprinted, and referred to, in recent years. However, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the method itself, the letter and the circumstances in which it was written, nor the consequences for trade practices. The significance of the approval by the Royal Society of this innovation and the use of that approbation by John Marshall and other practitioners are examined. Gaps in existing accounts of Marshall's method are partly remedied by supplementing surviving written materials with accounts of contemporary, and present-day, trade practices based on his method. The reasons why Marshall and his contemporaries failed to record his method and specify his improvements are discussed. The reactions of the Spectacle Makers' Company and its more prominent members, both to the innovation itself and to the Royal Society's letter, are analysed. The impact of the new technique on contemporary and later opticians is described.     

An unpublished autograph by Christiaan Huygens: His letter to David Gregory of 19 January 1694

A letter written by Christiaan Huygens to David Gregory (19 January 1694) is published here for the first time. After an introduction about the contacts between the two correspondents, an annotated English translation of the letter is given. The letter forms part of the wider correspondence about the ‘new calculus’, in which L'Hospital and Leibniz also participated, and gives some new evidence about Huygens's ambivalent attitude towards the new developments. Therefore, two mathematical passages in the letter are discussed separately. An appendix contains the original Latin text.     

On the history of the isomorphism problem of dynamical systems with special regard to von Neumann’s contribution

This article reviews some major episodes in the history of the spatial isomorphism problem of dynamical systems theory (ergodic theory). In particular, by analysing, both systematically and in historical context, a hitherto unpublished letter written in 1941 by John von Neumann to Stanislaw Ulam, this article clarifies von Neumann’s contribution to discovering the relationship between spatial isomorphism and spectral isomorphism. The main message of the article is that von Neumann’s argument described in his letter to Ulam is the very first proof that spatial isomorphism and spectral isomorphism are not equivalent because spectral isomorphism is weaker than spatial isomorphism: von Neumann shows that spectrally isomorphic ergodic dynamical systems with mixed spectra need not be spatially isomorphic.     

Three unpublished letters to Charles Darwin: the solution to a ‘geometrico-geological’ problem

While Charles Darwin wrote his Observations on South America, he often sought the advice and help of other scientists in solving specific problems. Three letters that the Cambridge geologist and mathematician William Hopkins wrote to Darwin exemplify such aid. In these letters Hopkins was able to show Darwin how he could calculate the position of the sedimentary beds on the Chonos Archipelago, which Darwin had visited. In his first letter Hopkins sent a solution, part of which eluded Darwin. Darwin's letters to Hopkins have not yet been found, but two additional letters gave Darwin the solution he was looking for.     

`Nature is the Realisation of the Simplest Conceivable Mathematical Ideas': Einstein and the Canon of Mathematical Simplicity

Einstein proclaimed that we could discover true laws of nature by seeking those with the simplest mathematical formulation. He came to this viewpoint later in his life. In his early years and work he was quite hostile to this idea. Einstein did not develop his later Platonism from a priori reasoning or aesthetic considerations. He learned the canon of mathematical simplicity from his own experiences in the discovery of new theories, most importantly, his discovery of general relativity. Through his neglect of the canon, he realised that he delayed the completion of general relativity by three years and nearly lost priority in discovery of its gravitational field equations.     

Heuristic analogy in Ars Conjectandi: From Archimedes' De Circuli Dimensione to Bernoulli's theorem

This article investigates the way in which Jacob Bernoulli proved the main mathematical theorem that undergirds his art of conjecturing—the theorem that founded, historically, the field of mathematical probability. It aims to contribute a perspective into the question of problem-solving methods in mathematics while also contributing to the comprehension of the historical development of mathematical probability. It argues that Bernoulli proved his theorem by a process of mathematical experimentation in which the central heuristic strategy was analogy. In this context, the analogy functioned as an experimental hypothesis. The article expounds, first, Bernoulli's reasoning for proving his theorem, describing it as a process of experimentation in which hypothesis-making is crucial. Next, it investigates the analogy between his reasoning and Archimedes' approximation of the value of π, by clarifying both Archimedes' own experimental approach to the said approximation and its heuristic influence on Bernoulli's problem-solving strategy. The discussion includes some general considerations about analogy as a heuristic technique to make experimental hypotheses in mathematics.     

Newton's early computational method for dynamics

On December 13, 1679Newton sent a letter toHooke on orbital motion for central forces, which contains a drawing showing an orbit for a constant value of the force. This letter is of great importance, because it reveals the state ofNewton's development of dynamics at that time. Since the first publication of this letter in 1929,Newton's method of constructing this orbit has remained a puzzle particularly because he apparently made a considerable error in the angle between successive apogees of this orbit. In fact, it is shown here thatNewton's implicitcomputation of this orbit is quite good, and that the error in the angle is due mainly toan error of drawing in joining two segments of the oribit, whichNewton related by areflection symmetry. In addition, in the letterNewton describes quite correctly the geometrical nature of orbits under the action of central forces (accelerations) which increase with decreasing distance from the center. An iterative computational method to evaluate orbits for central forces is described, which is based onNewton's mathematical development of the concept of curvature started in 1664. This method accounts very well for the orbit obtained byNewton for a constant central force, and it gives convergent results even for forces which diverge at the center, which are discussed correctly inNewton's letterwithout usingKepler's law of areas.Newton found the relation of this law to general central forces only after his correspondence withHooke. The curvature method leads to an equation of motion whichNewton could have solvedanalytically to find that motion on a conic section with a radial force directed towards a focus implies an inverse square force, and that motion on a logarithmic spiral implies an inverse cube force.     

Radical mathematical Thomism: beings of reason and divine decrees in Torricelli’s philosophy of mathematics

Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647) is perhaps best known for being the most gifted of Galileo’s pupils, and for his works based on indivisibles, especially his stunning cubature of an infinite hyperboloid. Scattered among Torricelli’s writings, we find numerous traces of the philosophy of mathematics underlying his mathematical practice. Though virtually neglected by historians and philosophers alike, these traces reveal that Torricelli’s mathematical practice was informed by an original philosophy of mathematics. The latter was dashed with strains of Thomistic metaphysics and theology. Torricelli’s philosophy of mathematics emphasized mathematical constructs as human-made beings of reason, yet mathematical truths as divine decrees, which upon being discovered by the mathematician ‘appropriate eternity’. In this paper, I reconstruct Torricelli’s philosophy of mathematics—which I label radical mathematical Thomism—placing it in the context of Thomistic patterns of thought.     

The collaboration of Emil Artin and George Whaples: Artin’s mathematical circle extends to America

In his biography of Emil Artin, Richard Brauer describes the years from 1931–1941 as a time when “Artin spoke through his students and through the members of his mathematical circle” rather than through written publications. This paper explores these seemingly quiet years when Artin immigrated to America and disseminated ideas about algebraic number theory during this time in his collaboration with George Whaples, a young American mathematician who had just completed his Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin. The main result of their work is the use of the product formula for valuations to come up with an axiomatic characterization of both algebraic number fields and algebraic function fields with a finite field of constants. These two families of fields are exactly the fields for which class field theory is known to hold. We situate their mathematical work in the broader context of algebraic number theory and their lives within the broader historical context.     

Instruments of Music,Instruments of Science: Hermann von Helmholtz's Musical Practices,his Classicism,and his Beethoven Sonata

The young Hermann Helmholtz, in an 1838 letter home, declared that he always appreciated music much more when he played it for himself. Though a frequent concert-goer, and celebrated for his highly influential 1863 work on the physiological basis of music theory, Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen, it is likely that Helmholtz's enduring engagement with music began with his initial, personal experience of playing music for himself. I develop this idea, shifting the discussion of Helmholtz's work on sound sensation back to its origins, and examine the role of his material interaction with musical instruments and music itself. In his sound sensation studies, Helmholtz understood sound as an external, physical object. But Helmholtz also conceived of sound in musical terms. Further, Helmholtz's particular musical tastes as well as his deeply personal interaction with musical instruments allowed him to reconcile his conception of sound as physical object with his conception of sound as music. Helmholtz's physiological theory of sound sensation was both the product of and constitutive of how he heard and created sound. I argue that Helmholtz himself was the embodied reconciliation of his physiological theory of sound sensation and his belief that musical aesthetics were historically and culturally contingent.     

Babbage’s guidelines for the design of mathematical notations

The design of good notation is a cause that was dear to Charles Babbage’s heart throughout his career. He was convinced of the “immense power of signs” (1864, 364), both to rigorously express complex ideas and to facilitate the discovery of new ones. As a young man, he promoted the Leibnizian notation for the calculus in England, and later he developed a Mechanical Notation for designing his computational engines. In addition, he reflected on the principles that underlie the design of good mathematical notations. In this paper, we discuss these reflections, which can be found somewhat scattered in Babbage’s writings, for the first time in a systematic way. Babbage’s desiderata for mathematical notations are presented as ten guidelines pertinent to notational design and its application to both individual symbols and complex expressions. To illustrate the applicability of these guidelines in non-mathematical domains, some aspects of his Mechanical Notation are also discussed.     

Becker–Blaschke problem of space

In a letter to Weyl, Becker proposed a new way to solve the problem of space in the relativistic context. This is the result of Becker׳s encounter with the two traditions of thinking about space: Husserlian transcendental phenomenology and Blaschke׳s equiaffine differential geometry. I reconstruct the mathematical content of the Becker–Blaschke solution to the problem of space and highlight the philosophical ideas that guide this construction. This permits me to underline some common properties of Riemannian and Minkowskian manifolds in terms of an unusual notion of isotropy. Finally, I will use this construction as a support to analyze several philosophical differences between Weyl׳s and Becker׳s proposals.     

Book Review: Current Perspectives in the History of Science in East Asia,edited by Y. S. Kim and F. Bray

In 1670, the Bolognese mathematician Pietro Mengoli published his Speculationi di musica, a highly original work attempting to found the mathematical study of music on the anatomy of the ear. His anatomy was idiosyncratic and his mathematics extraordinarily complex, and he proposed a unique double mechanism of hearing. He analysed in detail the supposed behaviour of the subtle part of the air inside the ear, and the patterns of strokes made on the eardrum by simultaneous sounds. Most strikingly, he divided the musical octave into a continuous set of regions which he colour-coded to show their effects on a listener. His work did not find its way into the mainstream of seventeenth-century mathematical studies of music, but when examined in its context it has the potential to shed light on that discipline, as well as being of considerable interest in its own right. Here, I focus on the anatomical and mathematical basis of Mengoli's work.     

Antoni van Leeuwenhoek and measuring the invisible: The context of 16th and 17th century micrometry

This article explores the impact of 16th and 17th-century developments in micrometry on the methods Antoni van Leeuwenhoek employed to measure the microscopic creatures he discovered in various samples collected from his acquaintances and from local water sources. While other publications have presented Leeuwenhoek's measurement methods, an examination of the context of his techniques is missing. These previous measurement methods, driven by the need to improve navigation, surveying, astronomy, and ballistics, may have had an impact on Leeuwenhoek's methods. Leeuwenhoek was educated principally in the mercantile guild system in Amsterdam and Delft. He rose to positions of responsibility within Delft municipal government. These were the years that led up to his first investigations using the single-lens microscopes he became expert at creating, and that led to his first letter to the Royal Society in 1673. He also took measures to train in surveying and liquid assaying practices existing in his time, disciplines that were influenced by Pedro Nunes, Pierre Vernier, Rene Descartes, and others. While we may never know what inspired Leeuwenhoek's methods, the argument is presented that there were sufficient influences in his life to shape his approach to measuring the invisible.     

Some observations of Leonardo,Galileo, Mariotte and others relative to size effect

A letter in which astronomer John Flamsteed expounded his unusual views about the causes of earthquakes survives in a number of drafts and copies. Though it was compiled in response to shocks felt in England in 1692 and Sicily in 1693, its relationship to the wide range of comparable theories current in the later seventeenth century must be considered. Flamsteed's suggestion that an ‘earthquake’ might be an explosion in the air was linked with contemporary thinking about the roles of sulphur and nitre in earthquakes underground, and in combustion, respiration, and other processes. It reveals his concern with subjects other than astronomy and the influence of his continuing contact with members of the Royal Society; it also offers an early example of how seventeenth-century work on sulphur and nitre prepared the way for ‘airquake’ and electrical theories associated with the London earthquake of 1750.