dc.rights.license | CC-BY-NC-ND | |
dc.contributor.advisor | Blasjö, Viktor | |
dc.contributor.author | Pel, Bram | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-04-03T09:02:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-04-03T09:02:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2025 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/48728 | |
dc.description.abstract | In the early 19th century, a series of articles by Laplace and Poisson discussed the importance of ‘directness’ in mathematical methodology. In this thesis, we argue that their conception of a ‘direct’ proof is similar to the more widely contemplated notion of a ‘pure’ proof. More rigorous definitions of mathematical purity were proposed in recent publications by Arana and Detlefsen, as well as by Kahle and Pulcini: we compare Laplace and Poisson’s writings with these modern definitions of purity and show how the modern definitions fail to grasp some more nuanced aspects. | |
dc.description.sponsorship | Utrecht University | |
dc.language.iso | EN | |
dc.subject | The thesis investigates a discussion on `directness of proof' between Laplace and Poisson, and compares this concept of directness to modern notions of mathematical purity. | |
dc.title | A Remarkable Artifice: Laplace, Poisson and Mathematical Purity | |
dc.type.content | Bachelor Thesis | |
dc.rights.accessrights | Open Access | |
dc.subject.keywords | Purity; Mathematical Purity; Topical Purity; Operational Purity; Laplace; Poisson; Complex Analysis; Complex Numbers; Integration | |
dc.subject.courseuu | Wiskunde | |
dc.thesis.id | 5595 | |