The Claremont History and Philosophy of Mathematics Seminar meets on Mondays from 3:004:00 pm in Parsons 1289 on the Harvey Mudd College Campus. Click here for a map of the campus.
Parsons 1289 is on the first floor of Parsons. Parking is available in the lot off Foothill just east of Dartmouth. You may enter the Parsons door right off the parking lot by making the first right turn at the corridor and continuing on for about 50 feet. The room is on the right side of the corridor just before you leave the building by another exit/entrance.
Claremont Colleges Faculty can park in the HMC parking lot and visiting speakers will obtain a parking pass for the day.
For more information about the Seminar, or to suggest speakers, contact Jemma Lorenat,
Date  Speaker  Title and Abstract 
Monday January 23 3:00 pm 
Organizational Meeting 
Discussion of future speakers, readings, themes. 
Monday February 6 3:00 pm 
Reading Discussion

Frege Reading: Paolo Mancosu, ``Grundlagen, Section 64: Frege's Discussion of Definitions by Abstraction in Historical Context'' History and Philosophy of Logic, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2015) pp. 6289 
Monday March 6 
Janet Beery University of Redlands 
Navigating Between Triangular Numbers and Trigonometric Tables: How Thomas Harriot Developed His Interpolation Formulas By 1611, Thomas Harriot (15601621) was developing constant difference interpolation methods, work that culminated in 1618 or later in his unpublished treatise, "De numeris triangularibus et inde de progressionibus arithmeticis: Magisteria magna," in which he derived symbolic interpolation formulas and showed how to use them to interpolate in tables. The interpolation formulas that appear in Harriot's surviving manuscript work vary in notation, structure, and method of application. In this presentation, we will use these largely undated manuscripts to show how Harriot may have developed and refined his methods over time. 
Monday March 20 
Brittany Carlson UC Riverside 
Victorian Puzzle Addiction: "The Final Problem" as a Mathematical Puzzle This talk examines the social conditions leading to the popularity of the Sherlock Holmes canon and the Victorian fascination with puzzles found in both detective fiction and recreational mathematics. This paper argues that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Final Problem," uniquely functions as both detective fiction and a mathematical puzzle, forcing its audience to think beyond the text to derive a solution to what game theoretical scholars term the "HolmesMoriarty Paradox." In "The Final Problem," Holmes and Moriarty allegedly arrive at their untimely deaths, with no witnesses, at Reichenbach Falls. The "HolmesMoriarty Paradox" arises out of this tension at Reichenbach Falls when the audience is confronted with the question of who will prevail and how: Professor Moriarty, who is an unstoppable evil genius, or Sherlock Holmes and his untouchable facilities of logic. Since many Holmes fans have become accustomed to observing his methods, they do not actively use them and generally react in one of two ways. Logicians, mathematicians, and puzzle enthusiasts can approach "The Final Problem" as a puzzle, similarly to those found in both mathematical and popular Victorian publications. However, the vast majority of the Victorian readership is distressed by Holmes's death, suffers media withdrawals from the Holmes canon, and do not make attempt to solve this puzzle. This paper also examines a game theoretical solution to "The Final Problem," which is statistically inconclusive; thus frustrating the majority its audience, since a clear and logical solution cannot be deduced even with the help of advanced statistical methods. This paper further asserts that although Conan Doyle attempts to transcend the bounds of the short story genre with a witty paradoxical puzzle to distract his fans from the loss of Holmes, it is a failure, forcing Conan Doyle to eventually revive him in "The Empty House." 
Monday April 3 
Reading and discussions

Reading: Eugene Wigner, ``The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences'' Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1960) 
Monday April 17 
Audrey Lackner UC San Diego 
Visualizing Mathematics: Visual Aids in The Elements and the Hierarchy of Disciplines Visual aids to Euclid's Elements were considered so integral to the text that already in the first printed edition (1482) Erhard Ratholdt went to great lengths to include numerous diagrams despite the challenges of including illustrations in the early years of printing. Since diagrams were considered essential, over the years many publishers of The Elements relied on very similar images. Despite similarities between diagrams in various editions, the images in The Elements present arguments that go beyond the illustration of the geometric proofs. In the sixteenth century, visual aids in The Elements became part of arguments about the status of mathematics within the hierarchy of disciplines. In this talk, I will examine the treatment of diagrams in three versions of The Elements published in the 1570s to show how visuals created different visions of mathematics and its value. Sir Henry Billingsley, an English merchant who published a version of The Elements in 1570, used images to emphasize the physical nature of geometry by providing diagrams that were physical instances of the entities studied. He saw mathematics as a useful study of concrete bodies. Federico Commandino, an Italian humanist whose version of The Elements was published in 1570, emphasized the abstract by using diagrams to illustrate universal concepts and principles. He saw mathematics as a noble study of universal truths. Christopher Clavius, the mathematics teacher at the Jesuits' Collegio Romano, published his version in 1574 in which he used diagrams to draw connections between the physical world and the conceptual world. He treated mathematics as a bridge between concrete bodies and abstract ideas. 
Monday May 1 (in Parsons 1265) 
Norton Wise UCLA 
On the Narrative Form of Simulations

Date  Speaker  Title and Abstract 
Monday September 19 3:00 pm 
CalTech 
The Newtonian Origins of Experimental Error 
Monday October 10 3:00 pm 
Pitzer College 
Title: Charles Newton Little, America’s First Knot Theorist Abstract: The modern theory of knots, a subfield of topology, arose in the latter half of the 1800’s after Lord Kelvin proposed that atoms were “knotted vortices in the ether.” This led the Scottish physicist Peter Guthrie Tait to begin tabulating knots, a laborious task in which he was later joined by C.N. Little and Thomas P. Kirkman. Over a period of about 40 years, the three men created a list of all alternating knots with 11 or less crossings and all nonalternating knots to 10 crossings. While they could be sure that their tables listed, in theory, all possibilities, they had no proof whatsoever that their tables did not contain duplications. This would have to wait until well into the 20th century with the development of algebraic topology. In this talk I will review the early history of knot theory with a focus on the life and work of C.N. Little. 
Monday October 24 3:00 pm 
Reading discussion

Karine Chemla's Introduction, "Historiography and History of Mathematical Proof: A Research Programme," in her edited volume, The History of Mathematical Proof in Ancient Traditions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. 
Monday November 7 3:00 pm 
Jeremy Heis University of California Irvine 
Why Did Geometers Stop Using Diagrams? 
Monday November 21 3:00 pm 
Reading discussion

David Hilbert's
Grundlagen der Geometrie (The Foundations of Geometry)
trans. E. J. Townsend, Open Court Press, La Salle, 1950. 
Monday December 5 3:00 pm 
John Mumma Cal State San Bernardino 
Geometric diagrams and the logical form of the parallel postulate 
Date  Speaker  Title and Abstract 
Friday January 29 3:00 pm 
Organizational Meeting 
Discussion of future speakers, readings, themes. 
Friday February 12 3:00 pm 
Judy Grabiner Pitzer College 
Lagrange, Geometry, and Society For a long time, Euclid's geometry was seen as a model not only of how to reason, but of how to achieve certainty and truth. Is it? Were "Euclideans" like Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Lagrange, Voltaire, and Kant intellectual imperialists who misunderstood the nature of mathematics in general and space in particular? Did flaws in Book I of Euclid's Elements lead to General Relativity, surrealist art, conventionalism in mathematics, and multiculturalism? I'll describe how my own work on Lagrange unexpectedly forced me to grapple with these important questions. 
Friday February 19 
Kevin Lambert CSU Fullerton 
Counting on Power: George Peacock, Augustus De Morgan and the Circulation of Mathematical Knowledge between Britain and South Asia The object of this paper is to explore how English mathematician Augustus De Morgan's relationship to two books can tell us something about how both British and Indian mathematics was shaped as knowledge circulated between England and India during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The first book is Yesudas Ramchundra's, A Treatise on Problems of Maxima and Minima, Solved by Algebra, whose English publication De Morgan superintended. The other is a book De Morgan authored, Arithmetical Books from the Invention of Printing to the Present Time. The connection between them will be traced through George Peacock's investigation of the history of arithmetic in 1820s Cambridge. East India Company officers such as Henry Thomas Colebrooke provided important resources that Peacock would use to construct a world history of arithmetic that situated counting practices from a variety of times and places around the world into a progressive history culminating in European symbolic algebra. Peacock's subsequent philosophy of algebra, I will argue, directly informed the theoretical practices of a second generation of British mathematicians such as Augustus De Morgan, who in turn promoted the development of India mathematics. De Morgan's interest in the history and future of Indian mathematics, I hope to show, will bring us back to Ramchundra. 
Friday March 4 
Ted Porter UCLA 
Madness, Data, and Heredity Gregor Mendel's initial articulation of hybrid genetics cannot have been a purely empirical discovery. But most work on human heredity through about 1880 came down to data gathering, to which measures and indicators of association or correlation began later to be applied. When statisticians, biologists, and psychiatric researchers took up this study, they discovered that the institutions to which they looked for data were already at work trying to create a science from their numbers. That problem defines the historical topic or our discussion, the cultivation of data where explanatory hypotheses were generating more trouble than satisfaction. 
Friday April 1 
17th century readings and discussions part one readings will be posted 

Friday April 15 
17th century readings and discussions part two: Hobbes 
Reading: Douglas M. Jesseph, ``Of analytics and indivisibles: Hobbes on the methods of modern mathematics'' Revue d'histoire des sciences, Vol. 46, No. 2/3 (1993) pp. 153193 
Friday April 29 
Tom Archibald Simon Fraser University 
Abstract mathematics and axiomatization in mid20th c. America: Halmos, Dieudonné, and Measure.
Invented by Henri Lebesgue in 1901, the idea of measure and its application to integration was transformed over the next 50 years by many writers for a variety of purposes, and touches every corner of mathematical analysis. In keeping with the general trends toward axiomatics and abstraction, these new approaches aimed at theories that would have wide applicability and generality. But, as is often the case for mathematical tools, disagreement arose concerning the "best" definitions and the most important areas of application. In this paper, sparked by a reading of critical book reviews by Paul Halmos and Jean Dieudonné of work in this field, we examine divergent views on the nature and purpose of abstraction. Our examples will include work by Halmos' mentor John von Neumann, as well as the larger Bourbaki group of which Dieudonné was an important member. 
Friday May 6 
Jed Buchwald CalTech 
The Newtonian Origins of Experimental Error 