Talk:The Analyst

message: Prof. Grabiner offers this statement without supporting argument.  The word essential is misleading because she refers (presumably) to the essence of Berkeley's argument, not the essence of calculus.  I believe her point is that the mathematical practices of the time were not rigorous by Euclidean standards, although even this is debatable and she make no attempt to convince us of a claim made in passing.  To say that the bishop was essentially correct would mean that calculus is essentially flawed.  I agree that it is possible to interpret Berkeley as only criticizing the subject as practiced and not in essence.  Moreover, I personally agree that this is his main point.  I will point out, however, that he often refers to the calculus as 'impossible to understand', not poorly understood.  His argument that the infinitesimal method was inherently contradictory has been refuted by so-called non-standard analysis.  Therefore, in this crucial point, his 'correctness' is debatable at best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.100.49 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the wrong place to litigate this. Best to do it in some academic journal. FWIW, mathematicians remain "religious" to this very day: Calculus has been reduced to limits, but this requires things like the continuum hypothesis (CH) or the axiom of choice (AC). Non-standard analysis requires ZFC. Listen to how mathematicians talk about AC: they talk about "believing that AC is true", as if belief was sufficient to make it true. In this sense, the foundations remain "religious" and it seems unlikely to me that further research in foundations will not reveal yet more things that are believable but not provable. (this is my belief.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of Berkeley having been 'essentially correct' 

message: The summary of Sherry's paper is very misleading.  It summarizes only one part of the paper, there are other criticisms he discusses.  We need to improve this, but I am refraining from a simple undo. Thenub314 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherry and Jesseph are among the leading experts on Berkeley.  They both say there were two criticisms: the logical one and the metaphysical one.  Authors writing general history of math books don't always look at the details the way the experts do. It is pretty clear that in case of conflict between Jesseph/Sherry as opposed to a fat history book spanning numerous centuries, the former are more reliable.  Tkuvho (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said nothing about "fat history book[s]".  I said our summary of his paper was misleading.  I have tried to improve it. Thenub314 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Sherry. 

message: Most of the references here would be more readable as inline citations; with the added benefit that then you autogenerate links back from the reflist to where those refs are cited in the article.  Worth converting?  I haven't looked into how and where harvard citation style are used elsewhere; nor time right now, so I'm making a note here.   – SJ + 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine. I am not much of an expert on references so I leave this up to you. Tkuvho (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd use of /harv/ ref style 

message: "Berkeley sought to take mathematics apart" - Did he? He certainly concentrated on taking apart the then foundations of calculus: "...the Object, Principles, and Inferences of the Modern Analysis". Of which, of course, Edmund Halley (he of the "offhand comment mocking" Berkeley's Alciphron) was a notable practitioner. See the first words of The Analyst:  "Though I am a Stranger to your Person, yet I am not, Sir, a Stranger to the Reputation you have acquired, in that branch of Learning which hath been your peculiar Study;"
Perhaps this needs to be made clearer? CatNip48 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've changed it from "mathematics" to "calculus" as I see this was already the line taken in the second paragraph in the lead! CatNip48 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsequently, I have altered the wording in the lede a little from: "The book is a direct attack on the foundations of calculus" to: "The book contains a direct attack on the foundations of calculus". Because the former wording seems to me to give the false impression the purpose of the book is a critique of calculus. Whereas it is motivated by religious concerns and is an attack on certain atheists. Bishop Berkeley was, in modern terms, saying "Get your tanks off my lawn!" CatNip48 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background and purpose