Mathematical conquerors, Unguru polarity, and the task of history

Abstract

We compare several approaches to the history of mathematics recently proposed by Blasjo, Fraser--Schroter, Fried, and others. We argue that tools from both mathematics and history are essential for a meaningful history of the discipline. In an extension of the Unguru-Weil controversy over the concept of geometric algebra, Michael Fried presents a case against both Andre Weil the "privileged observer" and Pierre de Fermat the "mathematical conqueror." We analyze Fried's version of Unguru's alleged polarity between a historian's and a mathematician's history. We identify some axioms of Friedian historiographic ideology, and propose a thought experiment to gauge its pertinence. Unguru and his disciples Corry, Fried, and Rowe have described Freudenthal, van der Waerden, and Weil as Platonists but provided no evidence; we provide evidence to the contrary. We analyze how the various historiographic approaches play themselves out in the study of the pioneers of mathematical analysis including Fermat, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy.