Abstract:Leibniz's mathematical texts are a perfect example of a type of historical document that is extremely difficult to deal with in the context of an editorial enterprise: the draft. The tables in Leibniz's mathematical manuscripts are a particularly good example of these difficulties, as they are equivocal sources containing many implicit operations. The publication of these texts raises the question of the nature of these signs and the economy of implicit relationships between their various components. Peirce's semiological approach provides the philosophical ground for these reflections, while Michel Serres's structuralism is a fertile source of inspiration. The digital tool holds much promise for many issues, including the particular difficulties of tables. We will show that it can be implemented by different computer structures which largely determine the way the historian conceives them a priori but also the way the reader receives them a posteriori. Finally, the tables are the simple case that founds a general problematic on the interpretation of many manuscripts and allows us to study the problem of the writing process at its root.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper mainly discusses the use of tables by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in his mathematical practice in the 17th century and the challenges it poses for digital humanities research. The author points out that Leibniz, in addition to being a master of mathematical symbols, also considered tables as an important tool in his thinking. The paper focuses on Leibniz's early use of tables during his time in Paris, particularly how he viewed tables as one of the two pillars of the art of invention.
The article analyzes two different methods of table practice: the computational method and the encyclopedic method. The computational method views tables as algorithmic tools, while the encyclopedic method sees them as a comprehensive listing of concepts. Leibniz's early work with tables was more focused on calculation, but as he developed, tables gradually became a medium for accumulating knowledge and constructing a universal scientific framework.
The paper discusses Leibniz's table practice through the study of his "difference triangle," which is a tool for analyzing the progression of series. The author distinguishes between the "list of lists" strategy and the "double-entry table" strategy, both of which generate the same table but have different philosophical and editorial significance. Furthermore, the paper explores the construction of a historical chronicle of tables, highlighting the importance of dynamic writing practice, and illustrates how table layouts can change with variations in interpretation and strategy using a dice probability problem as an example.
Finally, the article mentions a new semantic approach to tables, known as graphicacy, and discusses the boundary between text and image in the context of charts. The opinions of William Mitchell and Michel Serres are cited, emphasizing the role of charts as an interface between reason and material expression. The article points out that Leibniz's table practice combines symbolism and imagery, providing a new perspective for understanding his early ideas.
In conclusion, this paper aims to address the origins, significance, and challenges of Leibniz's table practice, and through in-depth research, it reveals the important role of tables in Leibniz's philosophical and mathematical explorations.