Hankel’s principle as an anti-Kantian program

Abstract Hankel used his principle of the permanence of formal laws (PFL) as a guide for the extension of number systems and as a necessary condition for the legitimacy of their formal theories. He acknowledged that these applications have important limitations, evidenced by the extension to hypercomplex numbers and by what he saw as the unavoidable inconsistency of a formal theory of irrational numbers. Yet, intriguingly enough, he remained fully committed to the PFL. I argue that this was due to his understanding it as an expression of a conservative strategy, inherited from Peacock and Hamilton, which permits the revision of the basic laws of arithmetic if there are reasons for revision that are found, upon deliberation, to outweigh the reasons for their preservation. Then I discuss criticisms by Schubert and Pringsheim, who reformulated the PFL to align it with their own anti-revisionary conservative strategy, at the cost of relinquishing parts of modern mathematics. I conclude by emphasizing the deep philosophical difference between these kinds of conservatism in mathematics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Published
2026-07-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-026-00382-y
Primary Topic
History and Theory of Mathematics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Hankel’s principle as an anti-Kantian program

Iulian D. Toader
Archive for History of Exact Sciences
History and Theory of Mathematics
article

Hankel’s principle as an anti-Kantian program

Iulian D. Toader
article en

Abstract

Abstract Hankel used his principle of the permanence of formal laws (PFL) as a guide for the extension of number systems and as a necessary condition for the legitimacy of their formal theories. He acknowledged that these applications have important limitations, evidenced by the extension to hypercomplex numbers and by what he saw as the unavoidable inconsistency of a formal theory of irrational numbers. Yet, intriguingly enough, he remained fully committed to the PFL. I argue that this was due to his understanding it as an expression of a conservative strategy, inherited from Peacock and Hamilton, which permits the revision of the basic laws of arithmetic if there are reasons for revision that are found, upon deliberation, to outweigh the reasons for their preservation. Then I discuss criticisms by Schubert and Pringsheim, who reformulated the PFL to align it with their own anti-revisionary conservative strategy, at the cost of relinquishing parts of modern mathematics. I conclude by emphasizing the deep philosophical difference between these kinds of conservatism in mathematics.

Archive for History of Exact SciencesVol. 80(1)
University of Vienna (AT)
Austrian Science Fund, Universität Wien
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
History and Theory of Mathematics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Hankel’s principle as an anti-Kantian program — Iulian D. Toader · Archive for History of Exact Sciences (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS