GERDES, Paulus. The Philosophical-Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx On Differential Calculus

Copyright © 2014 by Paulus Gerdes
www.lulu.com
http://stores.lulu.com/pgerdes
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pgerdes
2
Paulus Gerdes
The philosophic-mathematical manuscripts of

Karl Marx
on differential calculus:
An introduction.
3
Author: Paulus Gerdes
Title of the new English-language edition (2014):

The philosophic-mathematical manuscripts of Karl Marx on
differential calculus: An introduction
First English-language edition (1985):

Marx demystifies calculus, Studies in Marxism, Vol. 16
MEP Publications, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Translation into English from the Portuguese: Beatrice Lumpkin;
Bibliographic research for the translation: Gordon Welty;
Cover design: Peggy Lipschutz.
Original Portuguese-language edition (1983):

Karl Marx: “Arrancar o véu misterioso à matemática”
TLANU-Brochure No. 5, Department of Mathematics and Physics,
Faculty of Education, Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo,
Mozambique
Latest Portuguese-language edition (2008):

Os manuscritos filosófico-matemáticos de Karl Marx sobre o cálculo
diferencial. Uma introdução
Distribution: http://stores.lulu.com/pgerdes
Or search ‘Paulus Gerdes’ on the webpage www.lulu.com
Copyright © 2014 by Paulus Gerdes

[email protected]
4
CONTENTS
Page
Presentation 9
Acknowledgements 12
1 Marx the mathematician? 13
2 Why did Marx study mathematics? 15
2.1 To avoid computational errors 15
2.2 Soothing effect of mathematics 16
2.3 Twofold purpose 17
3 Still so little known? 20
3.1 Best known works 20
3.2 The History of the Mathematical Manuscripts 21
4 Manuscripts: Contents and background 25
4.1 Contents of the Manuscripts? 25
4.2 Why was Marx interested in the foundations of 26
differential calculus?
4.2.1 Calculus did not drop out of the sky... 26
4.2.2 A challenge ... “to strip away the veil of mystery” 28
4.3 Marx’s research on the history of mathematics 31
4.3.1 The “mystical” calculus of Newton and Leibniz 31
4.3.1.1 Refuting the attacks of idealists 39
4.3.1.2 Without artificial premises 41
4.3.2 The “rational” differential calculus of 43
D’Alembert and Euler
4.3.2.1 How to remove the veil of mysticism 44
from calculus?
4.3.2.2 The zeros of Euler 46
4.3.2.3 Marx’s main criticism 47
4.3.3 The “purely algebraic” differential calculus of 48
5
Lagrange
5 The dialectical method of Marx 53
5.1 A real development 56
5.2 Negation of the negation 59
dy 61
5.3 Symbolic equivalent
dx
5.4 Inversion of the method 63
6 The significance of the Mathematical Manuscripts 67
! the development of mathematics
6.1 Karl Marx and 67
6.1.1 Refinements of the concepts of calculus in the 68
nineteenth century
6.1.1.1 Integrals, infinitely small quantities, and 69
the limit
6.1.1.2 Function, continuity, differentiability, 71
real numbers
6.1.2 Original contributions 74
6.1.2.1 Rediscoveries 74
6.1.2.2 Discoveries 77
6.2 Philosophic problems of mathematics 78
6.2.1 Only one science 78
6.2.2 Symbolization and terminology 78
6.2.3 Algorithms 79
6.2.4 Reflection of the real world in mathematics 80
6.2.4.1 Achilles and the tortoise 81
6.3 Influence of mathematical thought on other works of 85
Marx?
7 Source of inspiration 87
7.1 On the negation of the negation in mathematics 88
education
7.1.1 A student-teacher dialogue 89
7.1.2 What constitutes discovery? 91
6
7.1.3 Other examples 94
7.1.3.1 In elementary algebra 94
7.1.3.2 In geometry 95
7.1.3.3 In trigonometry 97
7.1.3.4 In calculation of limits 99
7.1.4 A method for discovery of new results 100
8 The Sun Appears 103
Bibliography 105
Additional bibliography (2008) 110
Books in English authored by Paulus Gerdes 113
7
Cover of the original Portuguese-language edition of 1983
8
PRESENTATION
In March 1983 the Eduardo Mondlane University organized a

seminar on the then significance of Karl Marx’s works to celebrate the
centennial of his death. It took place in Maputo, the capital of
Mozambique. I had the honor to present, in the amphitheater of the
Faculty of Medicine in the city center, some reflections of Karl Marx
about mathematics, in particular, his considerations about and
preoccupations with the foundations of differential calculus. My
presentation included an introduction to the reasons for and contents,
methods, and meaning of the mathematical manuscripts of Marx. In
the same year, the journal TLANU, published by the Department of
Mathematics and Physics of the Eduardo Mondlane University,
published an extended version of my lecture as a book, entitled Karl
Marx: “Arrancar o véu misterioso à matemática.” In that version I
also included a reflection on “negation of the negation” in mathematics
education.
The book generated interest both in Mozambique and elsewhere.
Two years later, the Marxist Educational Press published, in the USA,
an English-language edition, based on the translation by Beatrice
Lumpkin.
Already more than thirty years have passed. During these years I
have dedicated my research mostly to a field nowadays called
ethnomathematics, the study of the development of mathematical and
mathematic-educational ideas and practices in diverse cultural, social,
political and historical contexts. One may ask if there exists some
relationship between ethnomathematics and the reflection on the
mathematical manuscripts of Karl Marx. An answer may be found in
the words of Arthur B. Powell and Marilyn Frankenstein in their book
9
Ethnomathematics: Challenging Eurocentrism in Mathematics
Education (1997). In the section concerning interconnections between
culture and mathematical knowledge, they include the paper “Marx
and Mathematics” (1948) by Dirk Struik (1894-2000). In their
introduction to Struik’s paper, they state that Marx tried to analyze
differential calculus as rooted in a cultural praxis – the conceptual and
mathematical description of dynamics, of motion and of change – in
the light of another cultural construction – dialectics – that was part of
the philosophical and ideological perspective of a identifiable cultural
group (Powell & Frankenstein, 1997, p. 124). The same geometer and
historian Struik wrote, already 104 years old, the foreword to the
English language edition of my book Awakening of Geometrical
Thought in Early Culture, where he stresses my dynamic
approximation of the historic process of acquiring mathematical ideas,
in general, and geometric ideas, in particular.
More than thirty years have passed since the first edition of this
book. The book belongs to my youth; today I would have written it
most probably in a different way... Both the global historic context
changed significantly as I matured in my research, reflections, and
experiences. I did not try to rewrite the book, as there are other, more
urgent challenges. The new edition of the book consists of the
reproduction of the translation of 1985. I introduced some minor
changes to the translation. The epilogue has been shortened. Some
bibliographic references have been added.
Paulus Gerdes
February 27, 2014
References
Gerdes, Paulus (2003), Awakening of Geometrical Thought in Early

Culture, MEP Publications, Minneapolis, 184 pp. (original:
1985) (Preface: Dirk J. Struik) (New edition: Ethnogeometry:
Awakening of Geometrical Thought in Early Culture, ISTEG,
Boane [distributed by Lulu Publishers]).
10
Powell, Arthur B. (1986), Marx and Mathematics in Mozambique.
Review: Paulus Gerdes, Marx demystifies mathematics, Science
and Nature, Nos. 7/8, 119-123.
Powell, Arthur B. & Frankenstein, Marilyn (Eds.) (1997),
Education, SUNY, New York, 440 pp.
Struik, Dirk (1948), Marx and Mathematics, Science and Society, Vol.
12, No. 1, pp. 181-196 [reproduced in: Powell, A. B. &
Frankenstein, M. (Eds.) (1997), pp. 173-192].
Acknowledgements (1983)
I thank colleagues Horst-Eckart Gross (Bielefeld, Germany),

António Mussino (Roma, Italy), Ronald Schlauch (Magdenburg,
Germany), Dirk J. Struik (Belmont, USA), Chrit van Ewijk (Utrecht,
Netherlands), Hans Wussing (Leipzig, Germany), and Leonid
Zimianin (Minsk, USSR), for the information and documents they sent
me.
Acknowledgements (1985)
My thanks go to Beatrice Lumpkin (Chicago, USA), who

translated this work from Portuguese to English and to Erwin Marquit
(Minneapolis, USA) for editing the English-language edition. I am
also indebted to Walter Purkert (Leipzig, Germany) for his helpful
suggestions.
11
Translator’s note (1985)
Bibliographic research for this translation was contributed by

Gordon Welty, who located many of the English language sources for
the Marxist classics quoted by Gerdes. In some cases there are slight
differences in Gerdes’s rendition of quotations from Marx’s
Mathematical Manuscripts and those appearing in the English
translation by C. Aronson and M. Meo (London: New Park
Publications, 1983). Such differences are due in part to Gerdes’s use of
the original German whereas Aronson and Meo worked from the
Russian translation.
Gerdes’s use of “provisional derivative” instead of “preliminary
derivative” for the German “vorläufig Abgeleitete,” however, is a
matter of choice, to emphasize the true development that takes place
during the process of differentiation. Gerdes’s choice of subscripts is
also retained here with x0 and x1 rather then the x and x0 used by Marx.
Material appearing inside square brackets has been inserted
either by the author – (P.G.), the translator – (B.L.), or the
bibliographer – (G.W.)
Beatrice Lumpkin
12
The philosophic-mathematical manuscripts of Karl Marx
Chapter 1
MARX THE MATHEMATICIAN?
It was the winter of 1974. In one of those small, progressive

bookstores – The Old Mole – that I customarily frequented as a student
in Nijmegen (The Netherlands), I had just noticed a new book. Only
one copy was on the shelf. There, all by itself, was the book
Mathematical Manuscripts by Marx – by Karl Marx, the founder of
‘scientific socialism’?
To what extent did this great fighter for the cause of liberation of
the proletariat dedicate himself to mathematics, “the queen of the
sciences”? Karl Marx? No! That was not possible! Maybe it was
another person of the same name, a coincidence, like the Marx
Brothers of comedy. I was ready to leave the store, into the icy wind,
but I hesitated.
Wait! Marx, mathematics...?
Then I remembered that some months ago, in studying the Pre-
capitalist Forms of Production, I had felt that Marx’s reasoning was as
clear and as logical as mathematics itself. Also, I remembered that
much of the structure of the first volume of Capital was deductive.
I returned to leaf through the book, and read the preface
attentively. Yes, it was none other.
It was he, the founder of historic and dialectic materialism. But
how is it that he also contributed toward overcoming the crisis in the
foundations of differential calculus? Was his solution of the crisis the
method we associate with the names of Cauchy, Dedekind,
Weierstrass, Cantor...? And why had I not learned about it. I had
already finished my university studies in the foundations of
mathematics and logic...?
13
Paulus Ge rdes
I bought the book and left The Old Mole, warmed by the fire of a
series of new questions: Why did Marx dedicate himself to study and
research in mathematics? What role did his analysis play in
mathematics, in philosophy, in ...?
This was my first contact with the Mathematical Manuscripts of
Karl Marx, published in the so-called “free world” only 100 years after
it was written...
I will never forget that winter of 1974.
14
Chapter 2
WHY DID MARX STUDY MATHEMATICS
2.1 To avoid computational errors
After the defeat of the 1848-1849 revolutions, Marx, without

interrupting his political work, devoted his attention mainly to
theoretical development, in particular, economics. During the process
of working out the theory of surplus value in detail, he sighed and
exclaimed:
“Diese verfluchten falschen Rechnungen soll der
Teufel holen. Aber never mind. Começons de
nouveau.” 1
Translating this mixture of “linguistic internationalism” (German,
English, French) is almost impossible – he so forcefully intoned the
beauty of each tongue. However, let us try:
“These damn errors of calculation, to the devil with
them. But never mind. We must begin again.”
It was precisely to enable to deepen his research in economics
that, in the 1850s, Marx studied not only the history of technology,
agronomy, geology, ... ,2 but also mathematics. In a letter dated
January 11, 1858, Marx wrote to his devoted friend Frederick Engels
(1820-1895):
“In elaborating the principles of economics, I have
1 Marx, 1974a, p. 280.

2 Stepanova, 1979, p. 63. See also Fedoseyev et al., 1974, p. 260.
15
Paulus Ge rdes
been so damnably held up by errors in calculation that
in despair I have applied myself to a rapid review of
algebra.” 3
This is the reason why Marx undertook a systematic study of
mathematics while exiled in London, more than 20 years after he had
finished secondary school with a grade of “good” in mathematics, at
Trier, his native city in Germany. 4 Studying algebra in the same year
of 1858, Marx developed some original ideas about possible
generalization of the concept of powers, described in some of his
notebooks for preparation of Critique of Political Economy. 5 The
study of algebra was followed by analytic geometry and differential
calculus. 6
2.2 Soothing effect of mathematics
In one of the first biographies of Karl Marx, Franz Mehring

(1846-1919) wrote:
“Marx also sought intellectual recreation on quite a
different field, namely mathematics. Particularly in
times of mental anguish and other sufferings, he
would seek consolation in mathematics, which
exercised a soothing effect on him.” 7
In his letter to Engels, dated November 23, 1860, when his wife
was suffering from smallpox, Marx exclaimed:
“Writing articles is almost out of the question for me.
The only activity, which can help me maintain the
necessary peace of mind is mathematics”. 8
3 MEW, 1961, vol. 29, p. 256; Marx & Engels, 1983, vol. 40, p.
244.
4 Struik, 1948a, p. 181; 1975, p. 139; Kennedy, 1977, p. 305.
5 Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 21.
6 MEW, 1961, Vol. 20, p. xvi.
7 Mehring, 1962, p. 505.
8 MEW, 1961, Vol. 30, p. 113.
16
In another letter to Engels, dated July 6, 1863, we read:
“My free time is dedicated to differential and integral
calculus. By the way – I have a superabundance of
publications on this subject and will send you some if
you would like to begin a study of this discipline. I
think it’s almost necessary for your military studies.
Besides, this constitutes a much easier part of
mathematics with regard to the purely technical
aspects, easier than, for example higher algebra.” 9
In the 1860s, Marx was deeply involved in the organization of
working people. 10 In 1864 he founded the International Working
Men’s Association, the first international organization of the
proletariat. At the same time he finished the first volume of Capital,
in which he demonstrated that the fall of capitalism was inevitable.
But his physique could not always sustain such titanic theoretical and
practical work. Many times sickness kept him in bed, since he was
living under very difficult material conditions. More than once, for
example, in a letter of May 20, 1865, Marx pointed out the of
mathematics as a diversion:
“In the hours in-between – when I can’t write
constantly – I dedicate myself to differential calculus,
dy
. I don’t have patience to read anything else. All
dx
other reading makes me return to the table to write.”
11
!
2.3 Twofold purpose
In the last 15 years of the life of Marx, his scientific work became
continuously more extensive and encyclopedic. He continued his
preparatory studies for Volumes II and III of Capital. He was
9 MEW, 1961, Vol. 30, p. 362.

10 See, for example, Stepanova, 1979, p. 85, or Fedoseyev et al.,
1974, pp. 360-62.
11 MEW, 1961, Vol. 31, p. 122.
17
Paulus Ge rdes
studying not only all new publications on capitalist economy, but also
the problems of agriculture, the agrarian question in Russia, and the
impetuous development of capitalism in the United States of America.
He dedicated himself to the history of the people of the world,
geology, physiology, physics, and, in particular, mathematics. 12
About this dedication to mathematics, Paul Labérenne observed:
“Toward the end of his life, Marx made a very deep
study of higher mathematics. His two-fold objective
was to put into algebraic form the economic laws he
had enunciated in Capital, and to study some of the
modes of argument of mathematical analysis from the
viewpoint of dialectics”. 13
In the opinion of Sofia Yanovskaya (1896-1966), the main reason
for Marx’s continued attention to mathematics was his desire to
deepen his analysis of political economy. 14 Even so, he always was
led to higher mathematics. For example, in 1869, in analyzing the
circulation of capital, Marx made a number of purely mathematical
commentaries in his summaries of the book by Feller and Odermann,
All About Commercial Arithmetic.
The French socialist Paul Lafargue (1842-1911), son-in-law of
Marx, emphasized that Karl Marx:
“... found in higher mathematics dialectical movement
in its most logical form, and at the same time, its
simplest form. In his opinion, a science was really
developed only when it successfully made use of
mathematics”. 15
In this way, Marx consciously anticipated the possibility of
applying mathematics to raise the scientific level of political economy.
12 MEW, 1961, Vol. 19, p. vi.

13 Labérenne, 1971, p. 58.
14 Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 21.
15 Cited by Rieske & Schenk, 1972, pp. 481-82; see also Molodschi,
1977, p. 85; and Thiel, 1975, p. 74.
18
16 In a letter written to Engels, dated May 31, 1873, Marx gave an
example of this line of thought:
“You know those tables that show prices, discount
rates, etc., etc. Their changes during the year, etc. are
represented by zigzags, ups and downs. In analyzing
the crises, I tried several times to calculate these up
and down movements as irregular curves. And I
thought it was possible to determine, in this way, the
principal laws of crises mathematically (and I still
think it’s possible with sufficiently sifted material)”.
17
16 Cf. Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 22; Endemann “Einleitung”

(Introduction) in Marx, 1974b, p. 15; and Ponzio in Marx, 1975,
p. 33.
17 MEW, 1961, Vol. 33, p. 82.
19
Paulus Ge rdes
Chapter 3
STILL SO LITTLE KNOWN
3.1 Best known works
What are the best known works of Marx? No doubt, Capital is

the best known, or more exactly, the first volume of Capital. Only the
first volume of Capital was published during the lifetime of Marx, in
1867. The manuscripts for the other volumes remained unfinished
because illness frequently kept Marx from his worktable. Frederick
Engels managed to guarantee the necessary supplementary material
and edited the second and third volumes in 1885 and 1894,
respectively. The fourth volume, Theories of Surplus Value, was
published only in 1905 under the editorship of Karl Kautsky (1854-
1938).
Aside from Capital, the works of Marx initially better known
were probably those published during his lifetime, such as The Holy
Family in 1845 and the Communist Manifesto in 1848, both written
together with Engels, and his books The Philosophy of Poverty or the
Poverty of Philosophy and Critique of the Gotha Programme, which
were published in 1847 and 1875, respectively.
Other works appeared only after his death. When The German
Ideology was written in 1846, no publisher could be found … (It was
first published in 1932). Even less known are the unfinished
manuscripts of Marx. He was prevented from finishing the second
part of Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy by
developments on the international scene, especially the Austro-Italian-
French war of 1859. This intense political work was not the only
factor. His extremely high standards as a scientist allowed him only to
20
publish when he was certain of the quality and depth of his analysis.
His personal suffering – poverty, misery, death of three children in the
first years in London – did not allow him to finish many of the
manuscripts. Included in this group of unfinished manuscripts are his
mathematical manuscripts. 18
In the preface of the second edition of Anti-Dühring (1885),
Engels writes:
“Since Karl Marx’s death, however, my time has been
requisitioned for more urgent duties, and I have been
compelled to lay aside my work. For the present I
must … wait to find some later opportunity to put
together and publish the results which I have arrived
at, perhaps in conjunction with the extremely
important mathematical manuscripts left by Marx.” 19
Engels never got the chance. 20 The results of which he spoke
were brought together and published under the title Dialectics of
Nature, only in 1925 in Russian, in German in 1927, and in English in
1940. Nor did he succeed in editing the Mathematical Manuscripts.
3.2 The history of the Mathematical Manuscripts
The German social-democrats inherited the documents of Marx

and Engels. One of them, Mehring, the biographer of Marx mentioned
above, wrote:
“Engels and Lafargue both contend that he made
independent discoveries in this field [mathematics –
P.G.], but this is beside the point here, and
mathematicians who went through his manuscripts
after his death are reported not to have endorsed this
opinion.” 21
18 See, for example, Ivanov, 1979, p. 192.

19 Engels, 1962, p. 19.
20 See, for example, Stepanova, 1977, p. 194; also Ilyichov et al.,
1977, p. 308; and Fedoseyev et al., p. 547.
21 Mehring, 1962, p. 505; Mehring, 1974, p. 275.
21
Paulus Ge rdes
Already, in a letter to Engels dated November 22, 1882, Marx
had observed that Samuel Moore, the jurist, who among his friends
was the best versed in mathematics, did not understand it. 22 These
German social-democrats were not capable of a good understanding of
the role of dialectics in mathematics and nature. 23 And this is the
main reason for such late publication of Dialectics of Nature – also of
the Mathematical manuscripts – a lack of understanding of dialectics.
24
This understanding first arose when some Russians indicated the
fundamental significance of the philosophical works of Marx and
Engels, in particular Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), in his Materialism
and Empirio-Criticism (1908).
At the International Congress on the History of Science and
Technology that took place in London in 1931, Professor Ernst
Kol’man (or Colman) (1893-1979), of the Institute of Mathematics and
Mechanics of Moscow, 25 gave a list of the unpublished works of Karl
Marx on mathematics, natural science and technology, and on the
history of these disciplines. 26 In Kol’man’s talk at this Congress
analyzing the “Crisis in Mathematical Science,” he declared:
“The hitherto unpublished writings of Karl Marx,
dealing with mathematics and its history, ... are of
tremendous methodological importance.” 27
A first partial publication of the Mathematical Manuscripts
appeared in 1933, in the Soviet journal, Under the Banner of Marxism,
for the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Marx.
This publication immediately awoke the interest of specialists. In
1935, Valerii I. Glivenko (1897-1940) published a comparative
22 MEW, 1961, Vol. 35, p. 114.

23 Struik, 1948a, p. 195; Struik, 1975, p. 141; MEW, 1961, Vol. 20,
p. xxii.
24 To understand some of the causes of this failure to comprehend
dialectics, see Lenin, 1961, Vol. 38, pp. 180, 362.
25 Labérenne, 1971, p. 65.
26 See Kol’man, 1931b, pp. 233-35.
27 Kol’man, 1931a, p. 227.
22
analysis of the concepts of the differential in the works of Marx and
those of the famous French mathematician, Jacques Hadamard (1865-
1963). 28 In 1947, another Soviet, Levan P. Gokieli (1901-1975)
published a monograph about the Mathematical Manuscripts of Marx.
29 The first author in the “West” to write about the mathematical
manuscripts of Marx, is the North American mathematician of Dutch
origin, Dirk-Jan Struik (1894-2000). 30 He wrote a paper entitled
“Marx and Mathematics,” which appeared in the journal Science and
Society, in 1948.
At that time, the complete publication of the mathematical
manuscripts was not yet possible. The manuscripts needed to be
deciphered. It was necessary to put the papers in chronological order
and to separate notes on books studied by Marx from his analysis and
commentary. To succeed in this separation, it was imperative to
procure and investigate the sources that Marx had used in his studies.
This work of chronological ordering, deciphering, and classification
was completed by a team of Soviet scientists A. S. Ryvkin, Konstantin
A. Rybnikov (1913-2004) 31 and others, under the direction of Sofia
A. Yanovskaya (1896-1966) (born in Poland), with the aid and advice
of Academicians Andrey Kolmogorov (1903-1987) and Ivan
Petrovsky (1901-1973). 32 This persistent labor of many years was
crowned by the complete publication of the Mathematical Manuscripts
of Marx in 1968, at the same time in German and Russian, for the
commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx.
Other editions followed. A German version was partially re-
edited in 1974 in the Federal Republic of Germany. 33 In the same
28 Glivenko, 1934, pp. 79-85; cf. Struik, 1948a, p. 194; Struik,

1975, p. 155.
29 Gokieli, 1947. Cf. Struik, 1977, p. 242.
30 Kennedy, 1977, p. 304.
31 Ph.D. thesis (1954) on the mathematical research of Karl Marx.
See, for example, Miller, 1969, p. 649.
32 Yanoyskaya, 1969, p. 35.
33 Marx, 1974b, edited by Endemann.
23
Paulus Ge rdes
year, the University of Beijing put out a Chinese translation. 34 An
Italian translation appeared in 1975. 35
The publication of the Mathematical Manuscripts stimulated
many articles of analysis and debate by, among others, Miller, Rieske,
Schenk, Kennedy, Yanovskaya, Matarrese and Ponzio. In the Second
Summer Conference on the History of Mathematics, held in 1978 in
Liepaya in the Soviet Union, the philosopher-mathematician Vladimir
Molodschi (1906-...) presented a communication entitled “The
Mathematical Manuscripts of Marx and the Advances in the History of
Mathematics in the USSR.” In his paper, Molodschi pointed out that
study of the Mathematical Manuscripts had an inspiring influence on
the birth and development of the Soviet school on the history of
mathematics. 36
The Mathematical Manuscripts is still not well known to the
general public because this work is still very “young,” since little time
has passed since its publication after a century of gestation.
34 Gu Jin-yong, 1976, p. 132.

35 Translated and edited by Matarrese and Ponzio, 1975.
36 Demidov & Volodarsky, 1980, p. 74.
24
Chapter 4
MANUSCRIPTS: CONTENTS AND BACKGROUND
4.1 Contents of the Manuscripts?
The mathematical manuscripts that Marx left to posterity

consisted of thirty-one elaborate calculations, notes on arithmetic,
algebra, analysis, and geometry, and nineteen sketches and
independent mathematical studies, in a total of almost one thousand
pages. In addition, there was preserved a series of applications of
mathematics to problems of political economy: differential rent, the
process of circulation, surplus value, profit, and the problem of crises.
37
These studies varied from provisional notes to complete
manuscripts ready to be published. They include the solution of
algebraic equations of higher degree, series (especially divergent
series), analytic geometry, and differential calculus. 38
The major part of his studies was given to investigation of
differential calculus. 39 As we will see, this was not by chance.
Once convinced of the immense applicability of differential and
integral calculus and having collected all available material on the
concepts and basic operations of differential calculus, Marx proceeded
with his profound, critical analysis. He succeeded in completing two
research studies “On the Concept of the Derivative” and “On the
37 Kol’man, 1931a, p. 234.

38 Struik, 1948b, p. 184; Struik, 1975, p. 142.
39 Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 175.
25
Paulus Ge rdes
Differential.” His studies on the “Historical Development of
Differential and Integral Calculus” remained unfinished.
I will limit myself here to a review of the manuscripts on the
essence and history of differential calculus, since these are generally
considered the most original and stimulating of the mathematical-
philosophical writings of Marx.
In the following paragraphs I will describe in broad outline the
development of differential calculus so that we can better appreciate
the significance of Marx’s contributions to the foundations of calculus
and the period in which he worked.
4.2 Why was Marx interested in the foundations of differential

calculus?
4.2.1 Calculus did not drop out of the sky...
In Dialectics of Nature, Engels praised the discovery of

differential and integral calculus, or the calculus of infinitesimals, as
follows:
“Of all theoretical advances there is surely none that
ranks so high as a triumph of the human mind as the
discovery of the infinitesimal calculus in the last half
of the seventeenth century.” 40
This triumph was no accident.
The invention of calculus, much as the birth of all modern
science, followed closely the birth of capitalism. The great
renaissance of commerce and industry in Europe, accompanied by the
rise of the capitalist class in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth
centuries, began to exercise a tremendous influence on mathematics.
With the discovery of analytic geometry and the function concept and
the invention of calculus, mathematics was transformed from a science
of constant quantities to the mathematics of varying quantities.
The introduction of mechanical tools of production, from
windmills and cranes to water pumps and machines to drill stones, the
40 Engels, 1964, pp. 271-72; Engels, 1974b, p. 286.

26
development of oceanic navigation, new military techniques, and the
natural sciences in general demanded new knowledge – necessitating
means of analyzing and calculating motions (projectiles, free fall,
planetary motion, accelerated motion, etc.). The mathematics of
varying quantities constituted the mathematical response to this
external stimulation, further enriched by the study of problems arising
from the technical, inner development of mathematics, such as the
study of abstract curves and surfaces, including the so-called tangent
problem. 41 The mathematics of varying quantities represents the
response of mathematics to a profound problem – the analysis of
motion.
The socioeconomic pressure to discover adequate mathematical
methods makes it easy for us to understand that the invention of
calculus could not have been the work of one or another isolated
genius. It should be pointed out that calculus was the culmination of
the work of four generations of mathematicians: the Italians Federigo
Commandino (1509-1575), Luc Valerio (1552-1618), Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642), Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598-1647), and Evangelista
Torricelli (1608- 1647); the German Johann Kepler (1571-1630); the
Swiss Paul Guldin (1577-1643); the Belgian Grégoire de Saint-
Vincent (1584-1667); the Dutchman Christian Huygens (1629-1695);
the Frenchmen Antoine de Lalouvère (1600-1664), Giles de Roberval
(1602-1675), and Pierre Fermat (1601-1665); the Englishmen John
Wallis (1616-1703) and Isaac Barrow (1630-1677); the Scott James
Gregory (1638-1675); the German-English Nicolaus Mercator (1620-
1687); and outstandingly, the Englishman Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
and the German Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716). It was through joint
work and mutual discussion 42 that they created the differential and
integral calculus which, in the words of the physicist John D. Bernal
(1901-1971):
“... may be considered, as much as the telescope, an
essential instrument of the new science.” 43
41 For an introduction to the relationships between the internal and

external factors in the development of mathematics, see Gerdes,
1981, pp. 30ff.
42 See, for example, Wussing, 1979, pp. 161-62.
43 Bernal, 1971, Vol. 2, p. 484.
27
Paulus Ge rdes
This mathematical “telescope” rapidly won new successes in
astronomy and practical applications (however, still on a scale limited
in accord with the interests of the absolutist, feudal state) such as
artillery, construction of fortifications and hydraulics (water wheel,
turbines, shape of ship hulls, etc.)
4.2.2 A challenge ... “to strip away the veil of mystery”
Karl Marx was convinced of the vast applicability of differential

and integral calculus. He continued to be impressed by the notable
successes referred to earlier. However, in studying the available
manuals, written under the direct influence of the great mathematicians
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, particularly Newton,
Leibniz, Euler, D’Alembert, and Lagrange, 44 Marx found the
interpretations of the basic concepts of derivative and the differential
mysterious, very diverse, and contradictory:
• Is the derivative based on the differential or vice versa?;
• Does the differential remain a small constant, or does it tend to
zero, or is it equal to zero?
Marx became aware of the challenge. Referring to the need to

place calculus on correct foundations, he said that it was necessary:
“... to remove the veil of mystery from the methods of
infinitesimals.” 45
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, work in the
foundations of calculus was retarded in comparison with the headlong
development of the content of mathematics. 46 The mathematicians
of that period calculated the length of arcs of curves, considering them
as the sum of an infinite number of infinitely small line segments:

45 Marx, 1974b, p. 130; Marx, 1975, p. 153.
46 Molodschi, 1977, p. 162.
28
An arc of the curve
The arc approximated by line segments
The arc approximated by smaller and smaller

line segments until there is an “infinitely great
number of infinitely small line segments.”
The same mathematicians succeeded in determining the area of

the plane figure, interpreting it as the sum of an infinite number of
infinitely small rectangles.
29
Paulus Ge rdes
A plane figure
The plane figure approximated by smaller and

smaller rectangles... etc. until there is the “sum
of an infinite number of infinitely small
rectangles.”
These are “very fine examples of dialectics.” 47 But what is their

foundation? How can we interpret the infinitely large or the infinitely
small?
These and many other fascinating successes of differential and
integral calculus promoted the blind faith, which led Engels to observe
in his Anti-Dühring:
“With the introduction of variable magnitudes and the
extension of their variability to the infinitely small and
infinitely large, mathematics, usually so strictly
ethical, fell from grace; it ate of the tree of knowledge,
47 Labérenne, 1971, p. 67.

30
which opened up to it the career of most colossal
achievements, but at the same time the path of error.
The virgin state of absolute validity and irrefutable
proof of everything mathematical was gone forever;
the realm of controversy was inaugurated, and we
have reached the point where most people
differentiate and integrate not because they understand
what they are doing but from pure faith, because up to
now it has always come out right.” 48
4.3 Marx’s research on the history of mathematics
4.3.1 The “mystical” calculus of Newton and Leibniz
It was the analysis of the mechanics problem of velocity

movement that brought Newton to the discovery of differential
calculus. Leibniz arrived at the notion of derivative, the basic idea of
all differential calculus, from geometric considerations. 49
Let us follow the road of Leibniz: How can one construct the
line tangent to a curve at the given point?
curve
tangent
at point M
M
48 Engels, 1962, p. 123; Engels, 1974a, p. 112. Compare MEW, Vol.

20, p. 81 [See also Lenin, 1960, Vol. 38, p. 117: “Hitherto the
justification (of the infinite in mathematics) has consisted only in
the correctness of the results … and not in the clearness of the
subject.” – G.W.]
49 For the relation between these two points of departure, see, for
instance, Piskounov, 1979, chap. 3.
31
Paulus Ge rdes
When we know the slope of the required tangent line, 50 we can
easily construct the tangent line. Now the question arises as to how
one determines the slope. Let us look at a concrete example to see
how Leibniz proceeded.
y 3
y=x
50 Given a system of Cartesian coordinates, then the slope of a line is

tan α, where α is the angle between the positive x-axis and the
line.
y
_
x
slope = tan α
32
3 3
Consider the function y = x , that is, f(x) = x , and the graph of
this function in a system of Cartesian coordinates [This is an example
used by Marx – B. L.].
Let M be the point on the curve that corresponds to a given value
of x, let us say x0.
M
y
0
x
x0
What will be the slope of the tangent at M? Or tan µ = ...?
33
Paulus Ge rdes
y
M
y
0
µ
x
x0
Let M1 be a point on the curve, very close to M. M1 corresponds

to a value of x, let us say x1. We have:
3
y1 = (x1)
y 3
y=x
M1
y1
M
y
0
x
x0 x1
34
Thus, the secant MM1 is very close to the tangent line at M. And
the slope of secant MM1 is also very close in value to the slope of the
tangent line at M.
Mathematicians of the seventeenth century, such as Leibniz,
advanced their argument in the following manner:
Let M1 be a point “infinitely close” to M.

(1) Under this assumption, secant MM1 coincides (!) with the
tangent line at M and the slope of the tangent line is equal to the
slope of secant MM1.
Let us calculate the slope of secant MM1. Let MA be parallel to

the x-axis, as shown in the following figure.
y
M1
y1
M
y A
0
x
x0 x1
Or enlarging one part of the figure:
35
Paulus Ge rdes
M1
dy
M µ
A
dx
B C
x
x0 x1
Thus we have angle M1MA = angle MBC = µ.

So tan µ = tan (∠ M1MA) and:
| M1 A |
tan (∠ M1MA) =
| MA |
|M1A| is equal to the “infinitely small difference” between y1 and

y0, and for this reason Leibniz!called it “differential of y” or briefly
dy. In the same manner, |MA| equals the “infinitely small difference”
between x1 and x0 and was called the “differential of x” or just dx.
With these symbols, we have:
| M1 A | y "y dy
tan µ = tan (∠ M1MA) = = 1 0=
| MA | x1 " x 0 dx
For M1 to be “infinitely close” to M, we have x1 “infinitely close”

to x0, and y1 “infinitely close”
! to y0. !Or, to use!the terminology of the
seventeenth century, the differentials dx and dy are “infinitely small.”
But what is “infinitely small”?
Let us calculate the quotient of the differentials dy and dx.
36
We have dx = x1 – x0, which means x1 = x0 + dx, and
dy = y1 – y0, where
3 3
y1 = (x1) = (x0 + dx) =
(2) 3 2 2 3
= (x0) + 3(x0) .dx + 3x0.(dx) + (dx) .
3
Taking into account y0 = (x0) , we can write:
2 2 3
y1 = y0 + 3(x0) .dx + 3x0.(dx) + (dx) ,
2 2 3
that is, dy = y1 – y0 = + 3(x0) .dx + 3x0.(dx) + (dx) .
And, dividing both members by dx we get:
dy 2 2
= 3(x0) + 3x0.dx + (dx) .
dx
Now, following Leibniz, we can suppress the terms on the right

2
(3) containing
! dx and (dx) since they are “infinitely small.” Thus,
dy 2
= 3(x0)
dx
dy 2
or, for any value of x, = 3x .
dx
Based on the successes of applications of differential calculus,
!
dy
Leibniz and his successors knew that not only the final answer of
! dx
2
= 3x of our example was correct, but also that the same method
always resulted in correct formulas.
But this differential calculus, approached in this !
way, is very
“mysterious”, in the opinion of Marx:
“... giving correct results by means of positively false
mathematical procedure.” 51
51 Marx, 1974b, p. 119; Marx, 1975, p. 138.

37
Paulus Ge rdes
To obtain the correct formulas of differential calculus, the
“infinitely small quantities” are sometimes “juggled away” or “forcibly
suppressed”, 52 or, so to say, treated as zeros (dx = 0):
dy 2 2 2
= 3(x0) + 3x0.dx + (dx) = 3(x0) [see (3)],
dx
and sometimes treated as quantities different from zero (dx ≠ 0):
3 3 3 2 2 3
y1 = (x1) = (x0 + dx) = (x0) + 3(x0) .dx + 3x0.(dx) + (dx)
!
[see (2)]. 53
Note that if in (2) dx had been treated as equal to zero, this
“...leads to literally to nothing” 54 :
3 3 3 3
y1 = (x1) = (x0 + dx) = (x0 + 0) = (x0)
In this way:
3 3
dy = y1 – y0 = (x1) – (x0) = 0,
which has the result:
dy 0
= (!!???).
dx 0
Because of this contradictory and mysterious treatment of
“infinitely small quantities,” Marx used the term “mystical” 55 in his
historical analysis! of the! differential calculus of Newton and Leibniz,
thus characterizing the “infantile disease of infinitesimal calculus.” 56
52 Marx, 1974b. p. 118; Marx, 1975, p. 136.

53 Cf. Ruzavin, 1977, p. 137.
54 Marx, 1974b, p. 53; Marx, 1975, p. 45; also Marx, 1983, p. 3
[This volume is C. Aronson and M. Meo’s translation of part of
Marx, 1968, with additional material. – G.W.]
55 Marx, 1974b, p. 117; Marx, 1975, p. 135.
56 Thiel, 1975, p. 73.
38
4.3.1.1 Refuting the attacks of idealists
Obviously Marx was not the first to criticize the naïve opinions of
Newton and Leibniz. The founders themselves already had their
doubts.
Traditional mathematicians did not accept the new differential
calculus. Philosophers and even poets, such as Jonathan Swift (l676-
1745) in his Gulliver’s Travels, 57 criticized the new calculus.
Idealists did not hesitate to exploit the philosophical, logical-
mathematical weaknesses in the foundations of differential calculus. 58
The Irish bishop-philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753) perceived
the indeterminate and ambiguous nature of the “infinitely small
quantities,” and in his pamphlet, The Analyst, launched an attack on
the progressive mathematicians: Who believes in this “staggering”
differential calculus has no reason at all for not believing in God ... 59
Here he referred to the fact that many of those mathematicians
who accepted differential calculus were atheists and interpreted
mathematics in a spontaneous, materialist form as a science that
describes the proprieties of real quantities that exist outside of human
consciousness. These same mathematicians connected the concepts of
“infinitely small” and “infinitely large” to the recognition of a material
substance and its unlimited divisibility. Thus behind Berkeley’s
negative attitude toward differential calculus was his desire to refute
atheism and materialism.
Others, already convinced of the practical value of calculus, tried
to take advantage of its growing prestige. However, their objectives
were similar to those of Berkeley.
57 Wussing, 1979, p. 199; see Swift, 1938, p. 199.

58 Ruzavin, 1977, p. 136.
59 Wussing, 1979, p. 200; Ruzavin, 1977, p. 136; Struik, 1948a, p.
197. [In his Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), Berkeley
criticized Leibniz’s doctrine of infinitesimals, especially as it was
compatible with – if not conducive to – materialism and atheism;
see George Berkeley, 1949, Vol. 2, pp. 102-03. In his Analyst
(1734), he turned his criticism towards Newton’s conception of
fluxions; see Berkeley, 1949, Vol. 4. – G.W.]
39
Paulus Ge rdes
Instead of ridiculing certain difficulties in the treatment of the
“infinitely small” or “infinitely large,” as Berkeley had done, the
Italian priest, Father Guido Grandi (l671-1742), utilized these
difficulties in a clever way. 60 For example, Grandi claimed that a
paradox resulted from the summation of the following infinite series:
1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + ... = ...?
Blind application of the rules for finite sums gave on the one
hand:
1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + ... =
= (1 – 1) + (1 – 1) + (1 – 1) + (1 – 1) + ... =
= 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +....=
=0,
and on the other hand:
1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 +... =
= 1 – (1 – 1) – (1 – 1) – (1 – 1) – (1 – 1) –... =
= 1 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –...=
= 1.
Thus, according to Grandi, we have 0 = 1. According to the
priest, this demonstrates the possibility that God had created the world
(=1) out of nothing (= 0)!
Knowing of these idealist attacks, 61 Karl Marx felt obliged to
deepen his analysis of the “mystical differential calculus” of Leibniz
and Newton in order to provide a materialist foundation for
infinitesimal calculus.
60 Struik, 1948a, p. 126; Molodschi, 1977, p. 169; Wussing, 1979, p.

199.
61 Marx, 1983, pp. 91-94; Marx, 1974b, p. 119; Marx, 1975, p. 138.
40
4.3.1.2 Without artificial premises
In his 1791 book, Reflections on the Metaphysics of Infinitesimal

Calculus, 62 the French mathematician and revolutionary Lazare
Carnot (1753-1823) explained the correctness of differential calculus
as the result from mutual cancelling of errors made in the deduction of
the theorems. It may appear that Marx agreed with Carnot:
“... The sleight of hand [by filling in dx = 0 – P.G.] is
unwittingly mathematically correct because it only
juggles away errors of calculation arising from the
original sleight-of-hand” [meaning dx as an infinitely
small difference, in place of Δx, a finite difference. –
P.G.] 63
When dx is not an ordinary difference of two quantities, that is,
when dx is not an ordinary number, how can we justify the use of the
rules for ordinary numbers? This was a pertinent question, which
Marx posed. In our example, how can we justify the application of the
binomial expansion of Newton:
3 3 2 2 3
(a + b) = a + 3a b + 3ab + b in:
3 3 2 2 3
(x0 + dx) = (x0) + 3(x0) .dx + 3x0.(dx) + (dx)
if dx is not an ordinary number? 64
Here Marx touches on a characteristic 65 common to all attempts
to provide a rigorous foundation for differential calculus – a part of
higher mathematics – in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is
the transfer of principles and propositions of elementary mathematics
62 Wussing, 1979, p. 223 [See also Lenin, 1960, Vol. 38, p. 118:
“Characteristic is the title – Carnot, Reflections sur la
Metaphysique du calcul infitesimal!” – G.W.].
63 Marx, 1983, pp. 84, 92; Marx, 1974b, p. 118; Marx, 1975, p. 136.
See Marx, 1974b, p. 111; Marx, 1975, p. 128.
64 Actually, we say, “If dx is not an Archimedean number.”
65 Molodschi, 1977, p. 162.
41
Paulus Ge rdes
66 to new branches of mathematical research without argumentation or
justification. Such an example is the treatment of the series
1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 - 1+ ... = ...,
that we met in an earlier paragraph.
According to Marx, it is erroneous to treat, right from the start,
the finite difference x1 – x0 or Δx, the increment of the variable x, as an
“infinitely small quantity”, dx.
“The arbitrary supposition, x1 – x0 = dx results in
the need … to juggle away the terms in dx in the
3
binomial expansion of (x0 + dx) in order to get the
correct result.” 67
The question arises, why this juggling act?
“Why the violent suppression of the terms standing in
the way? That specifically assumes that one knows
they stand in the way ...” 68
How can we know which terms stand in the way? Marx
concluded that this is possible only when we know in advance what
dy 2
the result should be – in our example = 3x – and simply look for
dx
some justification to make the result plausible. 69
Summing up, we can say that Marx considered the differential
calculus of Newton and Leibniz ! to be mystical because they had
introduced the differentials dx and dy in a metaphysical manner, 70
that is to say, as infinitely small quantities, 71 without having clarified
66 In Engels’s terminology, this is the “nieder” [i.e., “lower,”

“inferior”] mathematics; see Engels, 1964, p. 26; see also Engels,
1962, p. 167.
67 Marx, 1974b, p. 117; Marx, 1975, p. 135.
68 Marx, 1983, p. 92; Marx, 1974b, p. 118; Marx, 1975, p. 136.
69 Cf. Struik, 1948b, p. 188; Struik, 1975, p. 147.
70 Marx, 1983, p. 91; Marx, 1974b, p. 117; Marx, 1975, p. 135.
42
their origin and development nor having analyzed the nature of their
specific properties.
Now how can the foundations of calculus be established without
recourse to artificial assumptions, such as quantities, which appear (dx
≠ 0) and disappear (dx = 0), and without sleight-of-hand? 72
4.3.2 The “rational” differential calculus of D’Alembert and Euler
The second important stage in the development of the methods of

differential calculus, according to Karl Marx, was the differential
calculus of the Frenchman Jean D’Alembert (1717-1783) and the
Swiss Leonhard Euler (1707-1783). At the same time as we observe
the hundredth anniversary (1983) of the death of Karl Marx, we could
commemorate the bicentenary of the deaths of D’Alembert and Euler.
It would not be in vain!
Euler, alone, left to posterity 886 books and articles. He was
probably the most productive mathematician to date ... 73 D’Alembert
and Euler achieved, in the words of Marx,
“... enormous progress in removing the veil of
mysticism from differential calculus.” 74
71 Initially, Marx himself still used terms such as “infinitely close,”

“infinitely small,” etc. See his letter to Engels, written towards
the end of 1865 or the beginning of 1866; MEW, 1961, Vol. 31, p.
165.
72 Some scientists explained the infinitesimals or infinitely small
quantities in terms of the dialectical nature of opposites – at the
same time equal to zero and different from zero. Yanovskaya
called these scientists pseudo-Marxists because they forgot that
dialectical materialism does not recognize static contradictions (=
0 and ≠0), but only contradictions connected with motion. See
Kennedy, 1977, p. 310.
73 Struik, 1948a, p. 120.
74 Marx, 1974b, p. 122; Marx, 1975, p. l41; Struik, 1948b, p. 189.
43
Paulus Ge rdes
For this success in “removing the veil of mysticism from
differential calculus,” Marx called the differential calculus of
D’Alembert and Euler “rational.” 75
In what way was it rational? In what way was it a step forward?
4.3.2.1 How to remove the veil of mysticism from calculus?
Newton and Leibniz took as their point of departure:

x1 = x0 + dx
where dx was an “infinitely small quantity” whose nature had not been
clarified. D’Alembert immediately introduced a “fundamental
correction,” 76
x1 = x0 + Δx
where Δx was any finite increment. Thus, Δx was an ordinary
[Archimedean – B.L.] number and all the rules of algebra could be
applied to it, in particular, the Newton binomial expansion. In this
manner, continuing with our example, we have in the case of the
3
function y = x :
3 3 3 2 2 3
y1 = (x1) = (x0 + Δx) = (x0) + 3(x0) . Δx + 3x0.( Δx) + (Δx) .
Since Δy is the increment of the function y, corresponding to the
increment Δx of the independent variable, we have:
3 2 2 3 3
Δy = y1 – y0 = { (x0) + 3(x0) . Δx + 3x0.( Δx) + (Δx) } – (x0) =
2 2 3
= 3(x0) . Δx + 3x0.( Δx) + (Δx) .
In forming the quotient of the increment of the function and the
increment of the independent variable, we get:
"y 2 2
= 3(x0) + 3x0.Δx + (Δx) .
"x
75 MEW, 1961, Vol. 35, p. 114.

!
76 Marx, 1983, p. 121, Marx, 1974b, p. 119; Marx, 1975, p. 138;
Struik, 1948b, p. 188-89.
44
Now substituting x1 = x0 in this equation, or Δx = x1 – x0 = 0 and
consequently,
3 3 3 3
Δy = y1 – y0 = (x1) – (x0) = (x0) – (x0) = 0,
we obtain:
0 2
= 3(x0) .
0
0 2
Or, for any value of x: = 3x .
0
0 ! dy
Instead of here D’Alembert and Euler write . Thus:
0 dx
! dy 2
= 3x .
dx
The
! final result is the same as that ! obtained by applying the
mystical method of Newton and Leibniz. However, as Marx observed,
dy ! 2
the conclusion = 3x is reached by a “correct mathematical
dx
operation”, meaning that the terms
2
3x0.Δx and (Δx)
!
were “removed without trickery.” 77 For this reason, the conclusion is
rational. 78
Nevertheless, what interpretation can be given to the differentials,
dx and dy, which appeared so suddenly at the end – exactly, to use an
apt metaphor of Marx – “just before closing hour” (“knapp vor
0
Torschluss” in German). 79 And what monster is this ?
0
77 Marx, 1974b, p. 121; Marx, 1975, p. 140.

!
78 D’Alembert’s method, still based on Newton’s vague limit
concept, was improved at the end of the eighteenth century and
the beginning of the nineteenth century by the Frenchmen J.
Cousin and S. Lacroix, and by the Russians S. Gurjew and P.
Rachanov. See, for example, Molodschi, 1977, p. 172.
79 Marx, 1974b, p. 120; Struik, 1948b, p. 189.
45
Paulus Ge rdes
4.3.2.2 The zeros of Euler
dy
In accord with the appearance of in his method, Euler
dx
considered all the differentials equal to zero: 80
dx = 0 and dy = 0.
dy 0 !
Then we have = . But how can we divide 0 by 0? How
dx 0
could this be possible? 81
12
The expression = 3 means that 12 = 4 × 3 and that there exists
! ! 4
no number different from 3 such that 4 times that number equals 12.
In general, division of two numbers is defined in the following
manner: !
a
= c means that c is the unique number such that a = b × c.
b
Taking this definition into account, we ask, what can be the
0 0
significance of . We conclude that = c means that c is the unique
! 0 0
number such that 0 = 0 × c. But we have 0 × 1 = 0, 0 × 2 = 0, 0 × 3 =
0, 0 × 4 = 0, etc., or c=1, 2, 3, etc. In other words, the number c is not
0
unique,
! as required by the definition
! of division. This means that
0
does not exist, as every student learns in secondary school these days.
Yes, arithmetically 0 cannot be divided by 0, Leonhard Euler
said, but … !
Skillfully, in his book, Differential Calculus of 1755, he
introduced other “zeros,” “zeros in the geometric sense,” 82 still
speaking in terms of “infinitely small quantities.”
“There exists an infinity of orders of infinitely small
quantities, although they are all equal to zero. But
80 Cf. Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 478.

81 Cf. R. R. Struik, 1974.
82 Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 479.
46
they must be distinguished among themselves when
we observe them in their mutual proportions that can
be explained by geometric ratios.” 83
However, what is meant by a “geometric ratio of two zeros” is
not very clear in Euler’s writings. 84 Because zeros are geometrically
different, they must be distinctly symbolized as dx, dy, etc. Euler
calculated with his “zeros,” that is to say with his differentials,
according to special rules:
a + dx = a,
2
dx + (dx) = dx,
a dx + b.dx = a dx , etc.,
where a and b are ordinary numbers.
Here Marx expressed a series of doubts. When these so-called
zeros
! are characterized
! by their proportions, how can we speak of dx in
isolation and calculate with it as a + dx = a, etc. 85
dy 0
“In = , numerator and denominator are
dx 0
inseparably bound together.” 86
4.3.2.3 Marx’s main criticism

! !
It was Marx’s opinion that D’Alembert and Euler had not yet
perceived the profound dialectics of the process differentiation. 87
Their method is formally correct. 88 However, the final result,
83 Cited in Struik, 1948a, p. 125.

84 In fact, D’Alembert’s and Euler’s method anticipates Cauchy’s
definition:
dy "y
= lim .
dx "x #0 "x
85 Marx, 1974b, pp. 62, 67; Marx, 1975, pp. 60, 66
86 Marx, 1974b, p. 98; Marx, 1975, p. 109.
! 1969,
87 Cf. Yanovskaya, ! !
p. 32.
47
Paulus Ge rdes
dy 2
= 3x in our example,
dx
3
is already known as the coefficient of Δx in the expansion of (x + Δx)
in powers of Δx:
! 3 3 2 2 3
(x + Δx) = x + 3x . Δx + 3x.(Δx) + (Δx) .
dy
That is to say, is already present before of the differentiation, or
dx
"y
before the calculation of and the substitution Δx = 0. Hence,
"x
! “... the derivation is therefore essentially the same as
that of Leibniz and Newton”, 89
! 2
but with the improvement that the derivative, in our example 3x , is
liberated 90 or separated (“losgewickelt” in the original German),
from the other terms in a strictly algebraic form, without any juggling
away. However, according to Marx, the derivative must be developed
(“entwickelt” in German), as we will see in the paragraph about
Marx’s own contribution to the solution of this problem.
dy 2
When is already known in advance, in our example, 3x , as
dx
3
the coefficient of Δx in the expansion of, (x+Δx) in powers of Δx,
dy
why not immediately define as the coefficient of Δx in that
! dx
expansion?
4.3.3 The “purely algebraic”

! differential calculus of Lagrange
dy
Why not immediately define as the coefficient of Δx in the
dx
expression of y1 or f(x0 +Δx) as a sum of powers of Δx?
!
89 Marx, 1974b, p. 121; Marx, 1975, p. 140; Struik, 1948b, p. 189.
90 Marx, 1974b, p. 128; Marx, 1975, p. 149.
48
This is precisely what the Frenchman Joseph Lagrange (1736-
1813) did in his famous handbook, Theory of Analytic Functions. The
subtitle of his book already indicates Lagrange’s objective:
“Theory of analytic functions, including the principles
of differential calculus, freed from any contemplation
of infinitely small quantities, of quantities that
disappear, of limits and fluxions, and reduced to
algebraic analysis of finite quantities.” 91
3 3
Pursuing the example, y = x or f(x) = x , we have
3 3 2 2 3
f(x+Δx) = (x + Δx) = x + 3x . Δx + 3x.(Δx) + (Δx) .
2
Lagrange called 3x , the coefficient of Δx is this expansion, the
1
derivative, labeling it as f (x):
1 2
f (x) = 3x .
Introducing the derivative in this manner, Lagrange avoided the
dy
differentials dy and dx, and the quotient of differentials . In
dx
Lagrange’s opinion, an expression of the type f(x+Δx) could be
expanded (almost) always in a series of the type:
2 3
f(x) + p(x) . Δx + q(x) . (Δx) + r(x) . (Δx ) + ...!,
where p, q, r, etc. are new functions in x, “derived” from the initial
function f(x). 92
Summing up Lagrange’s argument as follows: 93
f(x+Δx) – f(x) = 0, when Δx = 0.
This implies that f(x+Δx)-f(x), considered as a polynomial in Δx, is
divisible by Δx-0, that is, by Δx (Bézout’s theorem). Let p(x+Δx) be
the quotient. Then:
f(x+Δx) – f(x) = p(x+Δx). Δx , that is:
f(x+Δx) = f(x) + p(x+Δx). Δx.
91 Wussing, 1979, p. 224.

92 Cf. Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 33.
93 Cf. Miller, 1969, p. 655.
49
Paulus Ge rdes
In turn, repeating the same reasoning:
p(x+Δx) – p(x) = q(x+Δx). Δx,
q(x+Δx) – q(x) = r(x+Δx). Δx, etc.
Substituting in
f(x+Δx) = f(x) + p(x+Δx). Δx,
we get
f(x+Δx) = f(x) + {p(x) + q(x+Δx). Δx}.Δx =
2
= f(x) + p(x).Δx +q(x+Δx).(Δx) =
2
= f(x) + p(x).Δx + {q(x)+r(x+Δx). Δx}.(Δx) =
2 3
= f(x) + p(x).Δx + q(x).(Δx) + r(x+Δx).(Δx) =
2 3 4
= f(x) + p(x).Δx + q(x).(Δx) + r(x).(Δx) + s(x).(Δx) + ...
Lagrange called the function p(x) the first derivative function,

1
using the notation f (x), as in our example.
Lagrange’s method constituted an improvement, according to
Karl Marx, because, basing itself on algebraic operations, it
“... freed itself from anything resembling
metaphysical transcendence,” 94
meaning that it was free of infinitely small quantities, of quantities that
0
appear (dx ≠ 0) and disappear (dx = 0) and of .
0
However, observed Marx, Lagrange did not prove that every
function could be expanded in such a power series (called Taylor
series): !
2 3 4
f(x+Δx) = f(x) + p(x).Δx + q(x).(Δx) + r(x).(Δx) + s(x).(Δx) + ...
How can we be sure that the sum, possibly infinite
2 3
f(x) + p(x).Δx + q(x).(Δx) + r(x).(Δx) + ...
94 Marx, 1974b, p. 135; Marx, 1975, p. 159; Kennedy, 1977, p. 308.

50
really exists? 95 To prove that the sum exists requires the concept of a
limit, precisely what Lagrange wanted to avoid, a non-algebraic
concept. 96
For Marx, Lagrange’s proof did not recognize the specific
character of differential calculus and appeared
“... to base itself on a delusion,” 97
substituting variable quantities for constants.
And, in the bargain, Lagrange continued to utilize in practice the
method of Leibniz that he had criticized – for example, in the study of
curves. 98
For this reason, Lagrange did not succeed in his attempts to
reduce differential calculus to algebra.
Lagrange, conscious that his method was inadequate, took the
initiative in 1784, as president of the Academy of Berlin, to launch a
contest for clarification of the following questions: 99
1. How can one explain that so much important knowledge arises
out of the contradictory, basic hypotheses of differential
calculus?
2. How can one find a basic concept, both clear and correct, that
could be substituted for the concepts of infinitely small and
infinitely large, without requiring complicated and lengthy
calculations?
Marx, probably unaware of the contest, accepted the challenge.

He, himself, tried to provide a better foundation for differential
95 In other words, how can we be sure that this power series is

summable?
96 See Boyer, 1960, pp. 533-34; Miller, 1969, p. 658.
97 Marx, 1974b, p. 137; Marx, 1975, p. 162.
98 Actually, as we know since Cauchy, there were the same
mathematical shortcomings in Lagrange’s attempt to prove
expansibility. See, for example, Boyer, 1960, pp. 533-34; also
Molodschi, 1977, p. 206.
99 Wussing, 1979, p. 223 etc.; Miller, 1969, p. 655.
51
Paulus Ge rdes
calculus. In this attempt, as we shall see in the following chapter, he
deepened his critique of the differential calculus – “mystical,”
“rational” and “purely algebraic.”
52
Chapter 5
THE DIALECTICAL METHOD OF MARX
In one of his last letters to Marx, Engels characterized the

principal distinction between the old methods for foundations of
differential calculus and the method of Marx in the following manner:
“... you let x0 move to x1, meaning you let it really
vary, 100 while the others start with x0 + Δx, which
always represents strictly a sum of two quantities, but
never a variation of a quantity.” 101
3 3
Let us see by use of concrete example y = x , or f(x) = x , how
Marx did indeed let the quantity x vary.
When the independent variable x increases [or decreases] from x0
to any value x1, the dependent variable y varies from y0 to y1. Now
taking the quotient of the finite differences y1 – y0 and x1 – x0, we
have
"y y "y (x1 ) 3 " (x 0 ) 3
= 1 0 =
"x x1 " x 0 x1 " x 0
On factoring the numerator
3 3 2 2
(x ) – (x ) = (x1 – x0) . {(x1) + x1.x0 + (x0) },
! 1 ! 0 !
we see that:
100 The author’s emphasis.

101 MEW, 1961, Vol. 35, p. 112.
53
Paulus Ge rdes
"y (x1 " x 0 ).{(x1 ) 2 + x1 .x 0 + (x 0 ) 2 } 2 2
= = (x1) + x1.x0 + (x0) ,
"x x1 " x 0
and
"y 2 2
! ! = (x1) + x1.x0 + (x0) .
"x
2 2
The expression on the right, (x1) + x1.x0 + (x0) , Marx called the
provisional derivative (or preliminary derivative).
!
What happens when the variable x1 goes back to x0?
a) To the right:
2 2
The expression (x1) goes back to (x0) ; the expression x1.x0
2
goes to x0.x0, or (x0) . Thus on setting x1 = x0, the provisional
derivative is transformed from
2 2
(x1) + x1.x0 + (x0)
to
2 2 2 2
(x0) + (x0) + (x0) , that is, to 3(x0) .
2
The expression 3(x0) is called the definitive derivative,
abbreviated as f1(x ).0
Thus, the definitive derivative is
“... the provisional derivative reduced to its absolute
minimum value.” 102
What happens at the same time on the left side?
102 Marx, 1974b, p. 55; Marx, 1975, p. 49. Use of the term
“minimum value” presupposes, in our example, that the variable
x (positive) had been increased from x0 to x1. If it had decreased,
we would have had to say, “maximum value.”
54
b) To the left:
x1 goes back to x0, and finally becomes equal to x0. After x1 has
reached x0, we have:
x1 – x0 = 0 ,
which implies that
Δx = x1 – x0 = 0.
What about Δy?
3 3
Δy = y1 – y0 = (x1) – (x0) .
3 3
When x1 becomes equal to x0, we have (x1) = (x0) .
3 3
Then (x1) – (x0) = 0, and Δy = 0.
"y 0 0
Thus, the left member, is transformed in . Again ?
"x 0 0
0
“Because, in the expression , any vestige of its
0
origin, and
! of its significance !has disappeared,
! we
dy
substitute for it , where the finite differences,
dx
!
x1 – x0, or Δx and y1 – y0, or Δy, appear as
symbolized, 103 as abolished differences.” 104
! dy
We need not be afraid of the expression , observed Karl Marx:
dx
“... the symbolic misfortune occurs only on the left-
hand side, but it has already lost its terror, as it
appears now only as ! the expression of a process that
103 Author’s emphasis.

104 In German, “aufgehobene;” Marx, 1974b, p. 53 (Marx’s
emphasis); Marx, 1975, p. 4
55
Paulus Ge rdes
already has shown its real content on the right-hand
side of the equation.” 105
c) Final result
In this manner we get as the well-grounded, final result in the

case of our example:
dy 2 dy 2
= 3 (x0) , or more generally: = 3x .
dx dx
For any function, we have:
dy
= definitive derivative,
! dx !
dy
abbreviated as = f1(x).
dx
Now let us analyze,
! more closely, some aspects of Marx’ method.
5.1 A real development !
Leibniz and Newton used as their point of departure x1 = x0 + dx.

D’Alembert, Euler and Lagrange began with x1 = x0 + Δx. 106 By
starting with the sum x0 + dx, or x0 + Δx, they treated dx, or Δx, as a
quantity distinct and separate from x0, or, as Marx wrote, as a
“... fetus …, before it had been fertilized.” 107
Why did he say, “before it had been fertilized”?
3
Let’s return to our example y = x . In the old methods we have:
105 Marx, 1974b, p. 55; Marx, 1975, p. 50. See also Struik, 1948b, p.
191. Marx’s method treated the differential quotient as a function
of two variables x0 and x1 and defined the definitive derivative as
the extension of this function at the critical point x1 = x0.
106 Frequently, they write h instead of Δx.
107 Marx, 1974b, p. 114; Marx, 1975, p. 131.
56
3 3 3 2 2 3
(x1) = (x0+ Δx) = (x0) + 3(x0) .Δx + 3 x0.(Δx) + (Δx) ,
2
where the definitive derivative 3(x0) as we saw earlier has already
appeared as the coefficient of Δx, that is, before differentiation, before
"y
the calculation of y1 – y0, x1 – x0, and of , and the substitution,
"x
Δx = 0.
2
In the method of Marx, the definitive derivative 3(x0) appears
! when x has returned to x . Then,
for the first time only at the end 1 0
2 2
when x1 = x0 anew, the provisional derivative (x1) + x1.x0 + (x0) is
2
transformed to 3(x0) . Here, the definitive derivative is the end result
of the process differentiation. 108
Consider another example.
2
Let y = x + 4x. Let us compare the method of Marx with an
earlier method, that of D’Alembert and Euler: 109
D’Alembert’s and Euler’s Method
2
y1 = f(x0+ Δx) = (x0+ Δx) + 4(x0+ Δx) =
2 2
= (x0) + 2x0.Δx + (Δx) + 4x0 + 4Δx =
2 2
= (x0) + 4x0 + (2x0 + 4) . Δx + (Δx) .
2 2 2
Δy = y1 – y0 = {(x0) + 4x0 + (2x0 + 4) . Δx + (Δx) } – {(x0) + 4x0}
2
= (2x0 + 4) . Δx + (Δx) .
"y
= (2x0 + 4) + Δx.
"x
0 dy
Set Δx = 0; then = 2x0 + 4, or = 2x0 + 4.
0 dx
!
108 Or “differential process;” Marx, 1974b, pp. 52, 53, 56, etc.;
Marx,
! 1975, p. 48!etc.
109 The others are essentially equal to this.
57
Paulus Ge rdes
Marx’s Method
2 2
y1 = (x1) + 4x1 and y0 = (x0) + 4x0 .
2 2
Δy = y1 – y0 = {(x1) + 4x1} – {(x0) + 4x0} =
2 2
= {(x1) – (x0) } + 4(x1 – x0) =
= (x1 + x0) (x1 – x0) + 4(x1 – x0) =
= (x1 – x0) (x1 + x0 +4).
"y y1 " y 0 (x " x )(x + x 0 + 4)
= = 1 0 1 = x1 + x0 +4.
"x x1 " x 0 x1 " x 0
0
When x1 = x0, we obtain = x0 + x0 + 4 = 2x0 + 4, or
! ! 0
dy
= 2x0 + 4.
dx
!
In the first method, the derivative 2x0 + 4 appears immediately,
! from the outset, “the fetus before it was fertilized”:
2 2
y1 = (x0) + 4x0 + (2x0 + 4) . Δx + (Δx) .
However, in the second method [Marx’s method – B.L.] it is

“really differentiated.” 110
In the first method, there is only a separating out of the future
definitive derivative from the other terms. In the second method, there
takes place a true birth, verifying a true development.
In Marx’s opinion, the line of thought of D’Alembert and the
others did not correctly represent what happens when a function is
differentiated, that is, when the derivative is determined. 111 It was
110 Marx, 1974b, p. 151; Marx, 1975, p. 181.

58
this essential shortcoming that Marx intended to overcome with his
method.
5.2 Negation of the negation
Marx explained differentiation as a dialectical process, referring

in particular to the negation of the negation.
In varying x, letting x increase (or decrease), from x0 to x1,
whichever, x becomes different from x0. In other words, we ‘negate’
x0. This is the first negation.
2
In the concrete example y = 5x we have:
2 2 2 2
Δy = y1 – y0 = 5(x1) – 5(x0) = 5{(x1) – (x0) } =
= 5(x1 + x0)(x1 – x0).
"y 5(x1 + x 0 )(x1 " x 0 )
And = = 5(x1 + x0)
"x x1 " x 0
We have come to the provisional derivative 5(x1 + x0).
Now let x1 return to x0, that is, negate the fact of x1 being
! !
different from x0. Thus we obtain the definitive derivative:
f1 (x0) = 5(x0+x0) = 5(2x0) = 10x0.

This phase of development represents the second negation, the
negation of the first negation. 112
When we negate a first negation, that is, when we put x1 = x0, we
did not return to the starting point. We did not return to the original
2
function f(x) = 5x , but arrived at a new function, derived function,
f1(x) = 10x. In it x1 has not disappeared. As Marx pointed out:
“The quantity, x1, originally introduced by varying x,
does not disappear; it is only reduced to its limit
value”, that is, to x0. The quantity x1 “... remains an
element introduced in the original function that
112 Cf. Kennedy, 1977, p. 311.

59
Paulus Ge rdes
furnished the definitive derivative by means of
combinations, in part with itself, in part with x0 ...”
113
The first negation was not negated in just any manner.
Had the first negation been negated immediately, without taking
into account the quotient of Δy and Δx, what result would have been
obtained?
2
Let us consider the case of y = 5x .
2 2
We have y1 – y0 = 5{(x1) – (x0) }.
Now when x1 goes back to x0, what happens? Put x1 = x0. On
2 2
one side we get x1 – x0 = 0 and on the other side y1 = 5(x1) = 5(x0) =
y0, or, y1 – y0 = 0.
2 2
Thus, y1 – y0 = 5{(x1) – (x0) } is transformed to 0 = 0.
Negating the first negation in this manner does not lead to any
result. Referring to this last type of simple procedure, Marx
emphasized:
“The entire difficulty in understanding the differential
operation (as in that of any negation of the negation
whatever) lies precisely in seeing how it differs from
such a simple procedure and therefore leads to true
results.” 114
113 Marx, 1974b, pp. 54-55; Marx, 1975, p. 49. Also, cf. Engels’s
letter to Marx, August 18, 1881: “After the function has passed
through the process from x0 to x1 with all its consequences, x1 can
be quietly allowed to become x0 again. It is no longer the old x0,
which was only variable in name; it has passed through real
change and the result of the change remains, even if we liquidate
it again … .” (MEW, 1961, Vol. 35, pp. 24-25). Cf. Struik,
1948b, p. 192.
114 Marx, 1974b, p. 51, Marx, 1975, p. 46. Cf. Kennedy, 1977, p.
309.
60
Later, in discussing the Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx
as a source of inspiration for new research, I will return to the question
of how to negate, of how to negate the first negation.
dy
5.3 Symbolic equivalent
dx
3 3
In our example, y = x , or f(x) = x , we obtained as an end result:
dy 2
! = 3x .
dx
2
At the right, we have the definitive derivative 3x .
On the left of this definitive derivative appears
!
0 dy
“... its double, , or as symbolic equivalent.” 115
0 dx
0 dy 2
On the other side, or has in 3x its
0 dx
“real!equivalent.”
! 116
dy
In !place !of , we could have chosen another symbolic
dx
equivalent, such as y’ and y'x , which we find in differential calculus
books, 117 or even
! y x
y y y
D
y
x
! x
, , , x , etc.,
if we wish to invent new symbols.
dy
The first reason to choose as our symbol is historic,
dx
continuing the tradition begun by Leibniz. This does not imply that
!
115 Marx, 1974b, p. 61; Marx, 1975, p. 58.
116 Marx, 1974b, p. 61; Marx, 1975, p. 58.
117 For example, Piskounov, 1979, p. 74.
61
Paulus Ge rdes
dy
the interpretation of remains the same. Marx rejected equally
dx
dy
Leibniz’s concept of as the quotient od two “infinitely small
dx
dy
quantities” !and Euler’s idea, to consider in the sense of a
dx
dy
“geometric ratio
! of two zeros.” Nothing mysterious, is only a
dx
symbolic notation for the definitive derivative.
!
Tradition could never constitute a sufficiently strong reason to
dy
continue the symbolic notation . The ! fundamental reason is
dx
practical. 118 In practice, it was verified that the choice of the symbol
dy
in the form of a quotient greatly facilitates calculations. For
dx !
example, in determining the derivative of a composite function y =
f(u), where u = g(x), we use:
dy dy du 119
= . ,
dx du dx
a rule which is analogous to the multiplication for fractions:
a a c
= .
! ! !b c b
and therefore easy to remember.
! ! !
118 Cf. D’Ambrosio, 1975, p. 34: “This notation attributed to

Leibniz, although much used and certainly practical, has the
serious inconvenience of ‘tempting’ the beginning student of
dy
calculus to ‘simplify’ things and treat as dy divided by dx,
dx
which does not make sense!”
119 Marx, 1974b, p. 95; Marx, 1975, p. 105.
62
!
5.4 Inversion of the method
Marx was very interested in knowing just where the specific

nature of differential calculus showed itself? In what respect did
differential calculus differ from “algebra”? Where and how did the
transition from algebra to differential calculus take place?
In other words, where did the qualitative leap from the
mathematics of constant quantities to the mathematics of varying
quantities take place?
dy
We saw that Marx obtained = definitive derivative, or briefly,
dx
dy
= f1(x), as the final result of an algebraic process, that of
dx
dy
differentiation. The differential
! symbol emerged as the symbolic
dx
equivalent of the definitive derivative.
!
dy
Now, once remained the well-grounded result of a real
dx !
change, it became subject to new calculations, those of differential
calculus. 120 One of the first formulas of this new calculus that Marx
deduced and analyzed is the formula for the calculation of the
! of a function y that can be written as y = uz, as the product
derivative
of two functions u and z in x:
dy du dz
= z. + u.
dx dx dx
2 3
Let us look at a concrete example. Let u = 2x +3x and z = x – x.
What is the derivative of the function y = uz, or
! !y = (2x2+3x)(
! 3
x –x) ?
du
Following the indicated formula, it is necessary to determine
dx
dz dy
and in order to find afterwards. This is a new situation. The
dx dx
!
! !
120 Cf. Struik, 1948b, p. 194; Struik, 1975, p. l54
63
Paulus Ge rdes
du dz
“symbolic values” and are given, and the task is to find their
dx dx
“real values.” 121
In our example we get:
! !du dz 2
= 4x+3, and = 3x – 1.
dx dx
Substituting in
dy du dz
= z. + u. ,
! dx ! dx dx
dy 2
we get = z(4x+3) + u(3x – 1).
dx
2 3
Noting that u =!2x +3x!and z = x!- x, we see that
dy 3 2 2
! = (x -x)(4x+3) + (2x +3x) (3x – 1) =
dx
4 3 2 4 2 3
= 4x +3x -4x -3x+6x -2x +9x -3x =
4 3 2
= 10x +12x -6x -6x.
du dz
Here and serve as a starting point. They indicate the
dx dx
operations to be carried out with the functions u and z. Thus the
du dz
symbols , , etc., initially the result of the process of
dx dx
! differentiation,
!
“... become inversely (“umgekehrt”) symbols of a

! ! process yet to be performed on the variables, thus,
operational symbols (“Operationssymbolen”), which
appear as points of departure rather than results, and
this is their essential use (“Dienst”) in differential
calculus.” 122
To facilitate calculations, we can change the forms:
121 Marx, 1974b, p. 76; Marx, 1975, p. 80.

122 Marx, 1974b, p. 84; Marx, 1975, p. 91.
64
dy
dy= f1(x).dx in place of = f1(x)
dx
d(uz) du dz
and d(uz) = z.du + u.dz in place of = z. + u. ,
dx dx dx
Marx pointed out that these changes
! are only of form, not content: in
dy = f1(x).dx, the differentials dy and dx appear separated, but are
indeed as inseparably connected! as numerator
! and the ! denominator in
dy 0 123
= .
dx 0
Already we are in the terrain of the new calculus:
“... to start out from the moment, in which the
! ! differential [dx, dy, du, etc.] functions as the point of
departure of calculus, shows that the inversion of the
algebraic method of differentiation is completed, and
that differential calculus itself appears as a totally
distinct and specific method, with values that vary.”
124
Thus, Marx succeeded in indicating the exact moment of the
qualitative leap from algebra (elementary mathematics) to differential
calculus, or from mathematics of constant quantities to the
mathematics of varying quantities.
123 Marx, 1974b, p. 98; Marx, 1975, p. 109.

124 Marx, 1974b, p. 69; Marx, 1975, p. 68.
65
Paulus Ge rdes
Cover of the 1985 edition
66
Chapter 6
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
MATHEMATICAL MANUSCRIPTS
At the end of chapter 3, we had already referred to the influence

of the Mathematical Manuscripts on the development of the history of
mathematics as a scientific discipline. Now, what is the place of Marx
in the history of mathematics itself?
6.1 Karl Marx and the development of mathematics
At the end of the paragraph about the historical, mathematical

investigations of Marx, we saw that Lagrange, conscious of the
inadequacy of his foundations of differential calculus, launched a
contest, in 1784, to obtain clarification of the basic concepts of
infinitesimal calculus.
Marx accepted the challenge and ‘won.’ He succeeded in giving a
dialectical foundation for the differentiation of a whole class of
functions. Exiled in England, and out contact with professional
mathematicians, it was difficult for him, if not impossible, to know of
the work done by mathematicians on the European continent who had
also accepted Lagrange’s challenge. 125
I will briefly summarize the main line of this research to enable
us to evaluate better the role of Marx’s inquiries.
125 Struik, 1948b, p. 187; Struik, 1975, p. 144; Yanovskaya, 1969, p.

25.
67
Paulus Ge rdes
6.1.1 Refinements of the concepts of calculus in the nineteenth
century
The French Revolution (1789) and the Napoleonic period created

extremely favorable conditions for the development of mathematics,
particularly in France, where there was the greatest ideological break
with the passed era. 126
A whole series of new technical and scientific problems arose
from the Industrial Revolution, such as the problem of construction of
machine parts, transmission of force, friction, precision mechanics,
and energy. This brought about a closer linkage between physicists
and a number of mathematicians with material production. 127 At the
same time, the concentration of workers in growing industrial cities
gave rise to problems of supply of food, water, home heating
materials, etc., and problems street lighting, construction of buildings,
etc. The resolution of these and other problems – to service the
process of capitalist production – obliged the natural sciences and
mathematics to develop in a corresponding direction.
y
f(x)
x
a b
Newton-Leibniz Theorem: Barred area = F(b) – F(a),

where F(x) is a function for which f(x) is the derived function.
126 Struik, 1948a, p. 139.

127 See Wussing, 1979, p. 226.
68
6.1.1.1 Integrals, infinitely small quantities, and the limit
Mathematicians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

almost always succeeded in calculating the integrals they came across,
using the fundamental theorem of Newton-Leibniz. Integration was
only the inverse process of differentiation. 128
At the end of the eighteenth century, the situation began to
change. The impetuous increase of steam-powered machinery opened
new areas for application integral calculus. It was necessary to
elaborate more general and more rigorous methods. The problem of
the attraction of a material point by a body of given mass led to the
concept of the triple integral. The problem of the spread of electric
charges on the surface of a conductor led to the concept of surface
integral. These new integrals could not be calculated in the same
manner as those met earlier. Already in these examples integration
was not the simple inversion of differentiation.
Thus, it became necessary to develop foundations for the concept
of the integral [definite integral], independently of the concepts of the
derivative and the differential. 129 The Frenchman Augustin Cauchy
(1789-1857) was the first to succeed in defining the concept of the
integral independently from differentiation. 130 The German Bernhard
Riemann (1826-1866) and the Frenchman Henri Lebesgue (1875-
1938) generalized the same concept. Cauchy had perceived that for
such a definition it was necessary to consider an “infinitely small
quantity,” not – as the earlier mathematicians had done – as a fixed,
but small number, or as zero – in the case of Euler – but yes, as a
variable. In Cauchy’s words:
“On says that a variable quantity becomes infinitely
small when its numerical value decreases indefinitely
in such a way as to converge towards the limit zero.”
131
128 Perhaps this was the reason that Marx almost never applied
himself to problems of integral calculus.
129 Molodschi, 1977, p. 192.
130 See, for example, Boyer, 1960, p. 564.
131 Cited in Boyer, 1960, p. 563.
69
Paulus Ge rdes
In this context, Cauchy, and independently of him, the
progressive Czech priest, Bernhard Bolzano (1781-1848), succeeded
in sharpening the concept of the limit. Wrote Cauchy,
“When the successive values attributed to a variable
approach indefinitely a fixed value so as to end by
differing from it as little as one wishes, this last is
called the limit of all the others.” 132
The German Karl Weierstrass (1815-1897) perfected this
definition, introducing the so-called delta-epsilon terminology 133 that
is used today in our university courses:
A function y = f(x) tends to the limit b (briefly y → b)
when x tends to a (briefly, x → a), if for each positive
number ε, no matter how small, one can indicate a
positive number δ such that for all x different from a,
where the inequality |x – a| < δ holds, then the
inequality |f(x) – b| < ε is satisfied. 134
If b is the limit of the function f(x) when x tends to a, one writes:
lim f(x) = b.
x "a
In this way we have also gained a new foundation for the concept of
the derivative: 135
!
f1(x) = lim
"y
! "x #0 "x
f (x + "x) # f (x)
= lim
"x #0 "x
dy "y!
or = lim .
dx ! "x #0 "x
!
!
! !
! 132 Cited in Boyer, 1960, p. 563.
133 Originally η – ε
134 See, for example, Piskounov, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 37.
135 Also dialectics. See Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 29.
70
6.1.1.2 Function, continuity, differentiability, real numbers
The concepts of integral, of infinitely small quantities, and of the

limit were not the only ones, which required greater precision and
more rigorous definition in the nineteenth century.
For the mathematicians of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, motion without velocity and curves without tangents
appeared unnatural. 136 Then, geometrically, it was obvious that
6y
I
6x
x
x x +6x
0 0
when Δx tends to zero, Δy also tends to zero; point B moves along the
curve in the direction of A. And when Δx becomes equal to 0, secant
AB coincides with the tangent AT.
They did not have a single doubt. Each function was continuous
(without gaps or leaps), because it represented the motion of an object.
Each function was differentiable (meaning at each point of its graph, a
tangent line could be produced).
These ideas, apparently so natural, were surpassed in the
nineteenth century.
136 Molodschi, 1977, p. 183.

71
Paulus Ge rdes
To solve the basic equations of his Analytic Theory of Heat
(l822), the French mathematical physicist, Joseph Fourier (1768-
1830), used series known as trigonometric series: 137
1a +a1cos(x)+b1sin(x)+a0cos(2x)+b2sin(2x)+a3cos(3x)+...
0
2
It was verified that not only the known continuous functions 138
!could be represented by a trigonometric series, but also, for example,
‘functions’ corresponding to the following graphs:
At points A and B a unique tangent does not exist!

y
A B C
x
0 2/ 4/ 6/
and
y
x
0 2/ 4/ 6/
The function is discontinuous at x=2π, x=4π , etc.
The success of the Fourier series in physics brought

mathematicians to acceptance of these new graphs as well, as graphs
137 See, for example, Molodschi, 1977, p. 196; Boyer, 1960, p. 598-
99.
138 Periodic.
72
representing functions. These functions are not differentiable at some
points (1st graph), or not continuous at some points (2nd graph).
In 1837, the Frenchman Lejeune Dirichlet (l805-1859)
formulated a definition, which broadened the concept of function:
“if a variable y is so related to a variable x of that
whenever a numerical value is assigned to x, there is a
rule according to which a unique value of y is
determined, then y is said to be a function of the
independent variable in x.” 139
Thus, the concept of function was liberated from the geometric
and mechanical ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
becoming an instrument more and more applicable to more branches
of science. Independently of Dirichlet, the Russian Nikolai
Lobatchevsky (1793-1856) reached a definition of the concept of
function almost equal to that of Dirichlet. These definitions
constituted only the first step in the generalization and extension of
concept of function.
In extension, the German mathematicians Hermann Hankel
(1839-1873), Richard Dedekind (1831-1916), 140 and Georg Cantor
(1845-1918); the English logicians, Augustus de Morgan (1816-1871),
141 and Charles Peirce (1839-1914); and the Italian, Giuseppe Peano
(1858-1932), made fundamental contributions. 142
In 1834, Bolzano discovered a continuous function that was not
differentiable at any point. At none of the points of its graph does there
exist a tangent line, incredible as this appears! Here it is interesting to
note that Marx, without knowing about this work on the European
continent, also reached the conclusion that it was necessary to separate
differential calculus from geometric representation. 143
139 Cited in Boyer, 1960, p. 600.

140 The concept of mapping.
141 The concept of relations.
142 See, for example, Wussing, 1979, pp. 229-30.
143 See Engels’s letter dated November 22, 1882, in MEW, 1961,
Vol. 35, p. 114.
73
Paulus Ge rdes
This necessary separation obliged the mathematicians to think
more clearly about the quantities they used in their theories, in
particular, about different number systems. In the 1870s, in the same
period in which Karl Marx elaborated the principal part of his
mathematical manuscripts, the Frenchman Charles Méray (1835-1911)
and the already mentioned Germans Weierstrass, Dedekind, and
Cantor achieved great successes in the foundations of the theory of
irrational and real numbers. In this context, Cantor developed the
important theory of infinite sets.
6.1.2 Original contributions
I have already referred to the fact that the French Revolution and
the Napoleonic period created extremely favorable conditions for the
development of mathematics. Particularly, in France, and a little later
in Germany, there took place major economic and political changes in
the transition to a new capitalist structure. In England, although it was
the heart of the Industrial Revolution, mathematics remained sterile for
some decades. 144 Even in 1917, the well-known English specialist in
number theory, Godfrey Hardy (1877-1947), wrote that he felt like a
“missionary” on introducing the methods of Weierstrass, Dedekind,
and Cantor in England. 145
6.1.2.1 Rediscoveries
In this respect, the British island, with its Newtonian tradition

deeply rooted in national chauvinism, was retarded in relation to the
European continent. So it is understandable that it was practically
impossible for Marx to have known modern tendencies in the
differential and integral calculus. 146 And so it could happen that
144 Struik, 1948a, p. 139.

145 Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 25.
146 Cf. Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 476; Struik, 1948b, p. 187; Struik,
1975, p. 144.
74
some independent discoveries of Karl Marx constituted, in reality,
rediscoveries.
Let us look at some examples.
(a) Like Fourier, Bolzano, etc., Marx perceived the necessity of
separating calculus from its geometric representation.
(b) Marx discovered a dialectic method to lay the foundation for
the differential calculus, as we saw in chapter 5. As to the purely
mathematical aspect, the self-taught Englishman, John Landen, had
developed a method similar to that of Marx in 1764. Marx wanted to
study the work of Landen, 147 but could not find Landen’s book in the
libraries. Therefore, the discoveries were independent.
Marx’s foundation for the derivative is valid for a whole class of
functions. 148 The method cannot be used for all possible functions
f(x). We now know that such general methods cannot exist because the
method presupposes the possibility of really carrying out the division
of f(x1) – f(x0) by x1 – x0, which is often not possible.
(c) Cauchy introduced the concept of “infinitely small” as a
variable. With this concept, the differentials dy and dx become
variables, with dy a variable that depends on the independent variable,
dx. This idea is also expressed by Marx in his manuscript On the
differential, 149 in which he interprets the differential dy as the
principal (linear) part of the increment ∆y, according to the
Academician Andrei Kolmogorov (1903-1987).
Let us look at a diagram to get an initial, intuitive idea of what is
meant by dy as principal part, or linear of the increment ∆y:
147 Marx, 1974b, p. 151; Marx, 1975, p. 181.

148 See, for example, Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 26.
149 Marx, 1983, pp. 14-33; Marx, 1974b, pp. 60-74; Marx, 1975, pp.
57-74, and, in particular, in one of his letters to Engels, MEW,
1961, Vol. 31, p. 165.
75
Paulus Ge rdes
y Tangent line
at point A
y +6y dy
}
0
tan α =
I
_
} dy
6y
dy
"x
y
0 =
dx
_
x !
x x +6x
0 0
6x = dx !
150
This interpretation of the differentials dy and dx, according to
Kolmogorov, corresponds
“completely to that stated in our modern textbooks
and was absent from the texts studied by Marx.” 151
150 Consider the function y = x; the tangent coincides with the graph
of the function itself.
Then in this case, dy=∆y. But y = x. Thus, it follows that dx =

dy
∆x. In general, we have tan α = .
"x
dy
Now with dx = ∆x, it follows that tan α = .
dx
See, for example, Piskounov, 1979, pp. 118-123.
!
151 Cited in Kennedy, 1976, p. 492.
76
!
6.1.2.2 Discoveries
dy
In Karl Marx’s method, appears as the expression of the
dx
dy
process of differentiation; is the symbolic equivalent of the
dx
dy
definitive derivative. !Once it appears, can figure as a operational
dx
symbol, that is, to indicate what operation is to be performed with the
!
function y = f(x). Kolmogorov, one of the greatest mathematicians of
the twentieth century, founder of the axiomatics of probability theory,
observed in 1954: !
“In an especially detailed manner, Marx analyzed the
question of the content of the concept of the
differential. He proposed the concept of the
differential as a “operational symbol,” anticipating an
idea that came forward again only in the 20th century.”
152
Here, Marx surpassed the mathematicians of the nineteenth
century. It was in 1927 that the Frenchman Jacques Hadamard (1865-
1963), obviously unaware of the work of Marx, showed the operator
role of the differential. 153
His fellow countryman, Maurice Fréchet (1878-1956), extended
this concept of the “differential operator,” or “differentiation
operator,” 154 to “functional analysis.” Functional analysis constitutes
one of the principal branches of twentieth century mathematics. 155 K.
A. Rybnikov pointed out, in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, that:
“The concept of the differential as an operational
symbol, first discovered by Karl Marx, acquires ... a
particular significance in the contemporary
152 Cited in Kennedy, 1976, p. 492.

154 For its properties, see, for example, D’Ambrosio, 1975, pp. 48,
51, etc.
155 For an introduction, see I. M. Gel’fand, 1977.
77
Paulus Ge rdes
generalizations of the concept of the differential in
functional analysis.” 156
With the analysis of operational symbols by Marx, we are already
entering the terrain of philosophy.
6.2 Philosophic problems of mathematics
The German philosophers, Günter Rieske and Günter Schenk, point

out that the Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx contain:
“… many observations on questions of the philosophy
of mathematics that are still being discussed today.”
157
And “… a series of correct observations, solutions and
embryonic solutions, methodological and philosophic
analyses that have a lasting value for similar research
in these days.” 158
6.2.1 Only one science
Marx took a stand against the idea of “the mathematics” [as

plural – B.L.]. Newton, Leibniz, and others had considered differential
calculus with its special quantities as separate from algebra. For
Marx, mathematics is a single science. 159 The autonomy of its
branches is relative. The autonomy of differential calculus is
displayed in its specific terminology and symbolization.
6.2.2 Symbolization and terminology
Differential calculus is distinguished by its specific symbols and

terminology, concepts such as “differential,” “infinitely small
quantities,” symbols such as
156 Cited in Kennedy, 1976, p. 492; see also Kennedy, 1977, p. 314.
157 Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 475.
158 Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 479.
159 Cf. Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 481.
78
2 n d 2 y dy "z
dx, dy, d y, d y, , , , etc.
dx 2 dx "x
In the past (Leibniz, Euler, etc.), the differentials were considered as
quantities of a very particular nature. Presently, this is not so. The old
symbols and terminology!are maintained,
! ! although the corresponding
concepts never have had any meaning. How could this have
happened?
The best answer even today, according to the philosopher
Yanovskaya, is found in the Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx.
160 Marx understood that the essence of the problem is shown in the
operational role of the symbols of differential calculus. He clearly
showed why it is necessary to introduce new symbols:
* to avoid the continued repetition of the same process of
calculation;
* to reduce a complicated problem to simpler problems – for
example, by means of the formula:
d(uz) du dz
=z +u
dx dx dx
as we saw.
6.2.3 Algorithms
! ! !
The method of differentiation discovered by Marx indicates, in

his own words, the “actual process” of determining the derived
functions. In place of “actual process,” we now use the term
“algorithm.” Thus in the opinion of Marx differential and integral
calculus must be constructed on the base of the theory of algorithms.
161 This idea implicitly conveys a critique of the limit concept of
Cauchy-Weierstrass, as not algorithmic. The definition of Cauchy-
Weierstrass furnishes only a pragmatic criterion 162 to verify whether
or not a given value is really the limit (of a function, of a sequence,
160 Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 26.

161 Cf. Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 27.
162 Struik, 1948a, p. 191; Struik, 1975, p. 153.
79
Paulus Ge rdes
etc.). It does not supply any method for determining the referred
value.
Here, in speaking of the significance of the algorithms for
mathematics, we already touch on one of the great debates of the
twentieth century between the diverse currents in the philosophy of
mathematics (logicism, formalism, intuitionism, constructivism, etc.).
163 The development of the theory of algorithms, together with the
theory of recursive functions, is fundamental for advances in the use of
computers.
6.2.4 Reflection of the real world in mathematics
In his method of foundations of differential calculus, Marx shows

that in the transition of the provisional derivative
y1 " y 0
= f1(x0)
x1 " x 0
to the definitive derivative
dy
= f1(x0)
! dx
we really have to substitute x1 = x0, and therefore:
“x1 – x0 = 0 in the rigorous mathematical sense,
!
without stories of a mere infinite approximation.” 164
In other words, for Marx x1 does not tend to x0, Δx does not tend
to zero without knowing whether or not it reaches 0, but Δx becomes
equal to 0. In this manner, Karl Marx takes a position contrary to
those mathematicians and philosophers who interpret Cauchy’s
definition in terms of “Δx tends to 0,” leaving open the question as to
whether or not Δx becomes equal to 0.
163 See, for example, Ruzavin, 1977, p. 139 and chapters 7, 8 and 9
in the book by Molodschi, 1977.
164 Marx, 1974b, p. 54; Marx, 1975, p. 49.
80
6.2.4.1 Achilles and the tortoise
Here we are faced with one of the most important questions of

the dialectical nature of motion, the focus of the debate since the
Greek Zeno of Elea (490-430 B.C.) formulated his famous logical
paradoxes, for example, that of Achilles and the tortoise.
The hero Achilles, a very fast runner, bets on a race with a
tortoise who is given a head start.
I Z
0 0
When Achilles, leaving from point A0 arrives at the initial

position of the tortoise T0, the tortoise would already have
advanced a bit, say, to point T1.
I Z Z
0 0 1
=
I
1
81
Paulus Ge rdes
When Achilles covers this distance, from A1 to T1 (A1= T0, the
initial position of the tortoise), the tortoise will have advanced a
little more, say, to point T2.
I Z Z Z
0 0 1 2
= = =
I I I
1 2 3
And so it continues, with the result that the speedy Achilles never
could overtake the slow tortoise, according to Zeno.
The distance between Achilles and the tortoise, initially |A0T0|, later
|A1T1|, |A2T2|, |A3T3|, |A4T4|, etc., becomes smaller each time, tending
to zero. But does the distance ever become equal to zero?
The mathematicians and philosophers who base themselves on
the Cauchy-Weierstrass definition of limit leave open the question
whether or not ∆x becomes equal to zero. For them it appears to be
only a question of our will whether or not Achilles catches up to the
tortoise. It is this hidden voluntarism that Marx implicitly criticizes.
In reality, Achilles is capable of overtaking the tortoise; the
distance between the two will at one time be equal to zero. Therefore
the limit will be reached. Or, in the case of the process of
differentiation, the occurrence of ∆x = 0 takes place objectively, and
dy
the limit is reached.
dx
We can verify that Marx demanded maximum clarity of thought
in interpreting the formal apparatus of the symbols (in this example,
!∆x only tends to 0, or becomes equal to zero), pointing out as a
82
materialist that mathematics can be significant and relevant only when
it reflects processes of the real world. 165
Thus x1 really has to become equal to x0, meaning that x1 – x0, or
∆x, is equal to 0, for this corresponds to motion in the real world.
With the paradox “Achilles and the tortoise” and others, Zeno
tried to show that motion cannot be explained under the hypothesis of
the infinite divisibility of space and time. This hypothesis, so
important and necessary in the construction of mathematics (for
example, in the construction of the set of real numbers), is an
abstraction of such order that it cannot be justified by empirical
experience. The philosopher Ruzavin points out:
“The idea of infinite divisibility of objects and figures
is an abstraction. It simplifies and schematizes real
processes and thus contradicts experience.” 166
To resolve the paradox, because in reality Achilles is capable of
overtaking the tortoise, we must find a method, also abstract, to
calculate the distance traveled by Achilles to reach the tortoise, that is,
to calculate the infinite sum of
|A0A1| + |A1A2| + |A2A3|...
in order to know when Achilles reaches the tortoise (What is the finite
distance to be covered by Achilles?)
In other words:
“We have to eliminate an abstraction [the infinite
divisibility – P.G.], with the aid of another [infinite
sum – P.G.],” 167
that is, with the aid of the abstraction of the sum of an infinite series to
be able to reflect the real world in mathematics.
165 Cf. Struik, 1948b, p. 193; Struik, 1975, p. 154. Marx’s thinking
implies both a critique of “formalism” and of “empiricism” in the
interpretation of mathematics. See, for example, Rieske &
Schenk, 1972, p. 481.
166 Ruzavin, 1977, p. 131.
167 Ruzavin, 1977, p. 131. This is an excellent example in
mathematics of the negation of the negation.
83
Paulus Ge rdes
On this question, Lenin writes in his Philosophical Notebooks,
“The question is not whether there is movement but
how to express it in the logic of concepts.” 168
With his method of differentiation, Karl Marx succeeded in
expressing fundamental aspects of motion in the real world. Similarly
Lenin analyzed it later, reflecting on the arguments of Zeno:
“Movement means to be in a given place and
simultaneously not be in it. It is the unity of
discontinuity and continuity 169 of space and time that
makes motion possible.” 170
Marx understood this “to be in a given place and simultaneously
not be in it,” in his method of differentiation: x1 moves away from x0
(“not to be in a given place”), and x1 goes back to x0 (“to be in it”).
The dialectical character of Marx’s method, for example, the law
of the negation of the negation, reflects in thought, the objective
dialectics of motion in the real world. Yanovskaya says that the study
of the Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx is fundamental, to an
understanding of the concept of a variable, 171 and how motion is
introduced into mathematics.
Now we can better understand why the great theoretician and
leader of the working class, Karl Marx, was so interested in the
foundations of calculus, perceiving that it dealt with:
“… the most profound kernel of the dialectical
process, with the essence of change.” 172
How can we change the world, consciously transform the world,
construct a new world free of exploitation of people by people, without
understanding the essence of change?
168 Cited by Ruzavin, 1977, p. 132. Cf. Lenin, 1960, Vol. 38, p. 256.
169 This is the Law of the Unity of Opposites; see Lenin, 1960, Vol.
38, p. 258; also see Hegel, 1955, Vol. 1, p. 270.
170 Lenin, 1960, Vol. 38, p. 259; Hegel, 1955, Vol. 1, pp. 273-4; Cf.
Rosental & Iudin, 1977, Vol. 5, p. 208.
171 Yanovskaya, 1969 , pp. 27-28.
84
Marx’s analysis is pertinent, alive, and timely. This is why the
Soviet academician, Boris W. Gnedenko, advised the philosophers and
mathematicians to connect the study of the most recent developments
in mathematics with the study of Dialectics of Nature, by Engels; the
Philosophic Notebooks of Lenin; and the Mathematical Manuscripts of
Marx, in order to be able to:
“find new paths for the solution of a whole series of
principal questions which are met on the frontier
between mathematics and philosophy.” 173
Such questions include: the relation between mathematics and
material reality; the role of the axiomatic method in mathematics; rigor
in the foundations of mathematics; the content and significance of
symbolic mathematics; the problem of infiniteness (actual, potential,
or a unity the two?); the question of mathematical truth; the struggle of
opposites: discrete and continuous, concrete and abstract, finite and
infinite.
6.3 Influence of mathematical thought on other works of Marx
The preoccupation of Marx

“with mathematics exerted a lasting and profound
influence on all his work,” 174
concluded the philosophers Rieske and Schenk. This is to be expected
when one takes into account the profundity, clarity, and originality
with which Marx investigated the foundations of differential calculus.
However, exactly what influence did mathematical thought have on
the other works of Marx? Here we are up against the problem of time.
“Unfortunately, the influence of the ‘mathematical
mode of thought’ on the work of Marx almost has not
yet been investigated.” 175
173 Cited in Paul, 1976, p. 849. For an analysis of these questions,

see, for example, the books by Heitsch, Molodschi, Ruzavin, and
Thiel and the articles by Alexandrov, Labérenne, and Paul.
174 Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 475.
175 Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 482.
85
Paulus Ge rdes
This can be explained by the “youth” of the Mathematical Manuscripts
of Marx, published as a whole for the first time only in 1968.
In this context, the only studies, which the above-mentioned
German philosophers refer to are those of J. Zeleny, and of V.
Vazjulin on the logic of Capital. 176 The only article of Jindrich
Zeleny, which I have managed to find to date is The Concept of
Science in Dialectical Materialism, in which he analyzes the
mathematical thought in Capital. This article shows that the author did
not yet know the Mathematical Manuscripts of Marx. On the other
hand, it appears that Rieske and Schenk did not know of the study, On
the So-Called Definition through Abstraction, published in 1935 by
Sofia Yanovskaya, the scholar who has already been mentioned as the
principal editor of the Mathematical Manuscripts of Marx. This state
of affairs shows, once more, that we are just at the beginning of
research about the influence of “the mathematical mode of thought” on
the other works of Marx.
However, Rieske and Schenk, Yanovskaya and Wolfgang Segeth
have already arrived at a first, common conclusion: the concept of
“value” in Capital, as well as the concept of the “differential” in the
Mathematical Manuscripts, are developed by means of the so-called
“definition by abstraction,” based on an “equivalence relation,” 177
such as the definition of the natural number concept by Cantor. 178
176 Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 483 [See also Zeleny, 1980, pp. 100-
02 – G.W.].
177 See Yanovskaya, 1980; Rieske & Schenk, 1972, p. 482; Segeth,
in: Klaus & Buhr, 1976, Vol. 1, p. 452; also Marx, 1974b, p. 141;
Marx, 1975, p. 170.
178 See Gerdes, 1980; Yanovskaya, 1980.
86
Chapter 7
SOURCE OF INSPIRATION
In Dialectics of nature, Friedrich Engels observed:

“The turning point in mathematics was Descartes’
variable magnitude. With that came motion and hence
dialectics in mathematics, and at once, too, of
necessity the differential and integral calculus...” 179
Here, Engels conceived of dialectics as
“... the science of the most general laws of all motion.
This implies that its laws must be valid just as much
for motion in nature and human history as for the
motion of thought.” 180
Applying this conceptualization, we can interpret Engels’s
observation in the sense that mathematics, through differential and
integral calculus, became capable for the first time of reflecting, in one
of its methods, motion in nature.
I am of the opinion that Engels’s observation should not be
interpreted in the narrow sense that mathematical thought, in itself,
was not dialectical before the discovery of differential calculus. Not
so at all, because thought itself is a form of motion. With good reason,
Engels also affirmed in Anti-Dühring:
179 Engels, 1964, p. 262; MEW, 1961, Vol. 20, p. 522; Engels,
1974b, p. 274; cf. Alexandrov, 1977, p. 51.
1974b, p. 286.
87
Paulus Ge rdes
“Men thought dialectically long before they knew
what dialectics was, just as they spoke prose, long
before the term prose existed.” 181
Immediately, Paul Labérenne added:
“And what is true for people in general, is perhaps –
in the case of dialectics – even truer of
mathematicians.” 182
Now two apparently unconnected questions arise:
1) How to learn to think dialectically?;
2) What dialectical instances do we find in mathematics, including
elementary mathematics?
These two questions, once fully analyzed – an analysis enriched
by study of the Mathematical Manuscripts of Marx – will constitute an
incentive to work out new methods of teaching mathematics.
Application of dialectics may improve the quality of teaching, as I will
try to show from my personal experience.
I must limit myself to my own personal experience since to date
I have not found any publication about the relevance of the
Mathematical Manuscripts of Marx to the teaching of mathematics.
7.1 On the negation of the negation in mathematics education
In October of 1982, there took place in Paramaribo, capital of

Suriname, the “Conference on Mathematics for the Benefit of the
Caribbean People.” At this conference, I gave a talk entitled
Mathematics in the Service of the People. In the talk, I distinguished
between individual and collective strategies to reinforce the self-
confidence of students in their creative powers, a strategy in which
dialectic reasoning played an extremely important role.
With the purpose of analyzing this role, I shall start with a
dialogue between teacher and students.
1974a, p. 179.
182 Labérenne, 1971, p. 67.
88
7.1.1 A student – teacher dialogue
How can we calculate the derivative of the function

y= x , where f : " + # " ?
Using the method of Marx, the students know that it is necessary
to first find the provisional derivative:
! !
y1 " y 0
=?
x1 " x 0
Observing that y = x , we have y1 = x1 , and y0 = x0 .
Thus:
!
y1 " y 0 x1 " x 0
! != .
!
x1 " x 0 x1 " x 0
How can we divide x1 – x 0 by x1 – x0 ?
Caiado suggests:
! x1 –! x 0 = x1 " x 0 …
Is that true? 9 - 4 = 9 " 4 , or, 3 – 2 = 5 …?
! !
No! No!
! ! !
Another idea?
! Square
Pedro: ! it:! !
2
( x1 – x 0 ) = ...
That won’t work? Why?
Luisa: Use different notation:
! ! 1 1
x1 – x 0 = ( x1 ) 2 – ( x 0 ) 2
How should we continue?
1 -1
Victor: We know =2
! !2 ! !
Thus:
1 1 -1 -1 -1
2 2
(!x1 ) 2 – ( x 0 ) 2 = (x1) – (x0) = ((x1)2 - (x0)
2
)
89
! !
Paulus Ge rdes
Is that correct?
The last step is wrong too? What is the problem? ...
Why did Pedro wanted to work with squares?
2 2
( x1 ) – ( x 0 ) = x1 – x0 .
That’s right.
Or, if we could transform the numerator
! ! 2 2
x1 – x 0 to ( x1 ) – ( x 0 ) ,
it would be easy to carry out the division by x1 – x0.
Now how can we get
! ! ! 2 ! 2
( x1 ) – ( x 0 ) ?
2 2
In general, how can we go from b – c to b – c ?
2 2
b !– c = ... !
?
2 2
b – c = (b – c) . ... ?
2 2
b – c = (b – c) . (b + c)
Can we use this?
Now each student tries on his or her own and gets:
x1 " x 0 ( x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 )
= =
x1 " x 0 (x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 )
( x1 ) 2 " ( x 0 ) 2
= =
(x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 )
! !
x1 " x 0 1
= = .
(x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 ) x1 + x 0
!
in this way we obtain the provisional derivative:
1
! ! x1 + x 0
!
90
Now by moving x1 back to x0, the students easily find the derivative
(putting x1 = x0)
1 1
f1(x0) = =
x0 + x0 2 x0
Or, in general:
1
f1(x) = .
! !2 x
These are only some parts of the dialogue between the teacher
and students in the process of collective discovery. Let us analyze this
discovery process more closely.
!
7.1.2 What constitutes discovery?
In our example, the discovery was crystallized at the moment

when we wrote
x1 " x 0 ( x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 )
=
x1 " x 0 (x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 )
To go from the right member to the left member of this equality
is trivial. Just divide the numerator and the denominator by the
common ! factor x1 + !x 0 . However, we did not go from the right to
the left, rather from the left member to the right. And the transition
from left to right was not at all trivial, not tautological. To go from
left to right we multiplied numerator and denominator by x1 + x 0 .
! !
Why by x1 + x 0 and not by some other factor?
By virtue of having multiplied both numerator and denominator
by the same factor x1 + x 0 , in reality we!multiplied
! the whole
!quotient
! by 1:
x1 " x 0 x1 " x 0 x1 + x 0
.1= . =
! x1 "!x 0 x1 " x 0 x1 + x 0
( x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 )
=
(x1 " x 0 ).( x1 + x 0 )
! ! !
In other words, we wrote:
91
!
Paulus Ge rdes
x1 + x 0
1= .
x1 + x 0
Again, the transition from right to left is trivial. But not from left
to right – this transformation is not only formal, not just a change of
form. For any number!t different from 0 it is true that
t
1=
t
The discovery is realized, the creative moment is expressed, the
decisive advance is achieved, exactly at the moment we chose
!t = x1 + x0 .
With another choice for t we could not have moved forward easily!
The choice for t reflects the understanding of the content and of the
context: ! !
Only by multiplying x1 – x 0 by x1 + x 0 is it possible to
perform the division by x1 – x0 as we have seen in the above
paragraph.
The form chosen
! for
! t reflects
! the understanding
! of the context, of
the objective, which is possible to reach. In brief, it reflects an
understanding of the content of the process of transformation.
On multiplying the numerator by x1 + x 0 , we negate the value
of the quotient
x1 " x 0
.
! x1 "!x 0
To reestablish equilibrium we must negate the first negation,
multiplying the denominator also by x1 + x 0 . Or, in abbreviated
form, by writing, !
x1 + x 0
1=
! !...
we are negating the 1. Overcoming, (“aufhebend” in German),
abolishing this first negation, we divide on the right by x1 + x 0 :
!
92 ! !
x1 + x 0
1= .
x1 + x 0
x1 + x 0
Out of its context, the equality 1 = is vacuous, sterile. But
x1 + x 0
!
in its context, by reflecting the understanding by the mathematical
subject of the contents of the process of transformation, the same
equality is extremely fertile.
!
The first negation expresses a deep understanding of the
transformation process: where it takes off and where – in what
direction – we want to go. In this example, the second negation is an
immediate consequence of the first, required algebraically to
reestablish the equality.
Summarizing, we can reach the conclusion that the essence of the
discovery lies in understanding the necessary process of algebraic
transformation, a dialectical process that is characterized by the
“negation of the negation.” As Engels explains:
“And so, what is the negation of the negation? An
extremely general – and for this reason extremely far-
reaching and important – law of development of
nature, da history, and thought, a law which ... holds
good in the animal and plant kingdoms, in geology, in
mathematics, in history and in philosophy...” 183
183 MEW, 1961, Vol. 20, p. 131; Engels, 1974a, p. 177; Engels,
1962, p. 193. I adapted the translation (Engels, 1974a, p. 177).
The original translation says, for example, that dialectics “has
application … in mathematics,” etc. This suggests that dialectics
comes from outside nature, meaning ideas transplanted to nature.
Understood thus, dialectics would be only subjective. “Has
application to” hides an idealist point of view, conscious or
unconscious of the translator.
93
Paulus Ge rdes
7.1.3 Other examples
In this section I would like only to briefly indicate some other

examples of the law of the negation of the negation in mathematical
thought.
7.1.3.1 In elementary algebra
How can we obtain the general formula for the solution of second
degree equations?
2
x + px + q = 0.
Transform the left member so that it becomes a perfect square:
2 2
x + px + ... = (x + …) ,
2 p2 p 2
x + px + = (x + ) .
4 2
p2 2
By adding to the left, we are negating x + px. In order not to
4
2
! again, but this time, the p :
! we negate
violate the rules of algebra,
4
2 2
! 2 2 p p
x + px = x + px + – .
4 4
p2 p2 !
Or briefly stated, 0 = – . In this way, the equation
4 4
2 ! !
x + px + q = 0,
is transformed to
! !
2 p2 p2
x + px + – + q = 0,
4 4
and:
p2
(x + p )2 – + q = 0,
! !2 4
or,
p2
(x + p )2 = – q.
! ! 2 4
94
! !
And thus, with
p p2
x + =± "q,
2 2
we obtain the solutions of the initial equation:
p p2
! x!= - ± "q.
2 2
p2 p2
The discovery was crystallized at: 0 = – .
4 4
! ! p2
In general, we have 0 = k – k. The choice of k = reflects profound
4
comprehension of the dialectical process
! ! through which the equation
must pass in order to be solved.
7.1.3.2 In geometry !
How to construct the midpoint of a segment? Will it be a

construction within the segment? Without leaving the segment?
What are the given facts we already know? Where does the
concept of the midpoint arise? It does appear in the concept of
median. What do we know about medians? The three medians of a
triangle intersect at the unique point. Can we use this? No ...
What else do we know? In an isosceles triangle, the bisector of
the vertex angle coincides with the median produced to the base:
C C
A D B A D B
When AC = BC and ∠ACD = ∠BCD , then AD = BD.
95
Paulus Ge rdes
Is this information applicable to our problem?

Let’s try. We have the segment EF
E F
and construct an isosceles triangle, EFG, with this segment as base:
G
E F
We construct GH, the bisector of angle EGF:
G
H
E F
GH is also the median relative to base EF. Therefore H is the

midpoint of EF.
96
By constructing the isosceles triangle EFG, we “left” the segment
EF, meaning, we negated it. By returning to the segment EF, through
the bisector GH (= median GH), we negated “having left” the segment
EF, that is to say, negated the negation.
Neither the first negation nor the second were accidental. They
reflect a profound understanding of the process needed to reach the
objective. By this negation of the negation, we did not return to our
point of departure, the segment EF in itself, but to its midpoint H, as
we intended.
7.1.3.3 In trigonometry
First example
How can we obtain a formula for the tangent of the sum of two
angles, knowing the formulas for the sine and the cosine of the sum of
two angles:
tan(α + β) = ...?
sin(! + " )
tan(α + β) = =
cos(! + " )
sin(! ).cos(" ) + cos(! ).sin(" )
=
cos(! ).cos(" ) ! sin(! ).sin(" )
t
Now, multiplying the quotient by 1 in the form , where t =
t
1
, we easily get the formula:
cos(" ).cos(# )
tan(! ) + tan(
!" )
tan(α + β) =
1! tan(! )tan(" )
!
Why do we choose
1
t= ?
cos(" ).cos(# )
1
Did it fall from the sky? Clearly the choice of t = was
cos(" ).cos(# )
based on an understanding
! of the process of negation of the negation
needed to reach the objective of tan(α + β) expressed in terms of
tan(α) and tan(β).
!
97
Paulus Ge rdes
Second example
How do we get a formula for the tangent of half an angle?
!
tan( ) = ... ?
2
!
sin( )
! 2
tan( ) =
2 !
cos( )
2
t
At this point, multiply the quotient by 1 in the form , where
t
" !
t = 2 cos( ) [An alternative is t = 2 sin( ) !], and obtain the
2 2
intermediate result: !
! !
! 2sin( ).cos( )
!
tan( ) = 2 2 = sin(! ) .
2 ! !
2 cos2 ( ) 2 cos2 ( )
2 2
"
In the denominator, still appears. How can this be avoided?
2
Here we find that, in place of a process of transformation of the
t
type 1 = , another type is needed. Knowing that
t !
"
2 cos2 ( ) – 1 = cos(α)
2
!we write:
" "
2 cos2 ( ) – 1 + 1 in place of 2 cos2 ( ) ,
! 2 2
In other words, we use the equality 0 = -1+1. This is the second time
that we encounter a negation of the negation. After this we easily
arrive !
at the result: !
! sin(! ) sin(! ) sin(! )
tan( ) = = =
2 ! ! cos(! ) +1
2 cos2 ( ) 2 cos2 ( ) !1+1
2 2
98
7.1.3.4 In calculation of limits
How can we determine the following limit

x
lim 1! e ?
x "0 sin(x)
x
Do we know limits, as x → 0, for any expressions with 1 – e or
sin(x) ? A student remembering that
!
lim sin(x) = 1,
x "0 x
sin(x)
can negate the denominator sin(x) with , and afterwards negate
x
x 1
the negation by!multiplying the numerator 1 – e by . Briefly,
x
1
x 1! e x
through multiplication by 1 in the form , the expression is
1 sin(x)
!
x
transformed to:
1! e x
!x .
sin(x)
x
Taking into account
x
lim 1" e = -1 and lim sin(x) = 1,
x "0 x x "0 x
1! e x
we conclude that lim exists and is given by:
x "0 sin(x)
!
! ! 1" e x
x lim
lim 1! e = x!0 x =
"1
= -1.
! x "0 sin(x) sin(x) 1
lim
x!0 x
Here it is interesting to note that there is another road, opposite to
this one that students can take. If they! happen to recall that
! 99
Paulus Ge rdes
x
lim 1" e = -1
x "0 x
1" e x
they can initiate the process from the numerator by taking as the
x
! 1
first negation (multiplying
! by ), and then negate the negation by
x
1
multiplying the denominator by . !
x
!
7.1.4 A method for discovery of new results
!
In the above paragraphs, I gave some examples of the law of
negation of the negation in mathematical thought. Almost all the
examples were selected from elementary mathematics to be more
accessible to a larger public. In higher mathematics, the law of the
negation of the negation appears perhaps even more frequently, and is
more profound. But this is not the subject, here.
The academicians Kolmogorov, Alexandrov, and Schnirelman,
recognized many times that they enjoyed advantages in making
mathematical discoveries because of their knowledge of dialectics. 183
The advantages, which result from knowledge of dialectics must not
and cannot be a right reserved for great mathematicians only.
It must not constitute an elitist right, but a right of all. True
understanding of the law of the negation of the negation serves,
according to the philosopher Günter Krober, as a method of
discovering new results. 184 All students can master this powerful
method! But this depends on the methods of teaching.
In the example I gave of a dialogue between the teacher and the
students, the students learn to discover. They understand that
“mathematics does not fall from the sky,” but is the fruit of human
labor. They understand the non-tautological nature of mathematical
knowledge. By discovering collectively and reflecting on the
183 Labérenne, 1971, p. 67.

184 Klaus & Buhr, 1976, p. 857.
100
dialectical process of discovery, all students increase their creative
capacities, individual and collective. All gain in self-confidence. 185
The method of dialogue described here was born in the process of
teaching itself, enriched by the inspirational study of the dialectical
foundations of the differential calculus by Karl Marx. In conclusion, I
would like to point out that the Mathematical Manuscripts of Marx
constitute a source of inspiration to elevate the quality of mathematics
education, to make the science of mathematics more accessible to all
students – a source of inspiration still almost untouched.
185 Here one can verify elaboration and convergence with a

dominant tendency in progressive mathematics education – the
discovery or reinvention method. See, for example, Gerdes,
1981b.
101
Paulus Ge rdes
102
Chapter 8
THE SUN APPEARS ON THE HORIZON
“Now the sun is rising. So the time has come for me

to go for a walk. For the time being, I shall not
continue to work in mathematics, but later, at an
opportune moment, I will return to speak extensively
about the distinct methods of differential calculus.”
187
Thus, in that cold and cloudy winter, on November 22, 1882,
Marx, full of so many new ideas, interrupted his letter to Engels. A
few months later, on March 14, 1883, death deprived him of the
opportunity to elaborate his thoughts about mathematics, deprived him
of that opportunity to develop even further his creative potential.
He died.
No. Only interrupted – his unfinished mathematical work
remains an extremely stimulating force for the furthering of new
investigations in history, mathematics, philosophy, economics, and
education, for new investigations, both necessary and original.
The mathematical work of Karl Marx constituted an integral part
of his whole revolutionary work. He saw the necessity of
understanding motion, just as much in society as in nature and thought.
He understood that the class struggle is the motor force of historical
motion, that is, of history. He understood that the struggle of
opposites is also the motor of development of ideas, including
mathematics.
187 MEW, 1961, Vol. 35, p. 114.

103
Paulus Ge rdes
Regarding mathematics, the negation of motion has been
expressed since Plato in two interconnected ideas:
* Mathematics is ahistorical and eternal;
* Only an elite, an intellectual aristocracy, can “learn”
mathematics.
By studying the mathematical investigations of Karl Marx, we

can deepen our understanding of dialectical motion in mathematical
theory, of its interconnections with the development of society. We
can develop – and this is my main thesis – ideas about the dialectics of
the process of learning mathematics, and in this way develop better
methods to
“strip away the veil of mystery from mathematics.”
May 5, 1983
104
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexandrov, A. D. (1974) [Also spelled Aleksandrov – B.L.],

Mathematik und Dialektik, in: M. Otte (Ed.), Mathematiker über
die Mathematik, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 47-63.
Alexandrov, A. D. (1977), A general view of mathematics, in:
Mathematics: Its Contents, Methods, and Meaning, The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1-64.
Alexandrov, A. D., Kolmogorov, A. N., and Lavrent’ev, M. A. (Eds.)
(1963), Mathematics: Its Contents, Methods, and Meaning, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Berkeley, George (1949), The Works of George Berkeley (A. A. Luce
and T. E. Jessop Eds.), Thomas Nelson and Sons, London (8
volumes).
Bernal, John D. (1971), Science in History, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass. (3 volumes)
Boyer, Carl (1960), A History of Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Colman, Ernst. See Kol’man, E.
D’Ambrosio, Ubiratan (1975), Cálculo e introdução à análise, Editora
Nacional, São Paulo.
Demidov, S. S. & Volodarsky, A. I. (1980), Second Summer
Conference on the history of mathematics in the Soviet Union,
Historia Mathematica, New York, Vol. 7, 71-75.
Endemann, Wolfgang (1974), Einleitung, in: Marx (1974b), pp. 15-50.
Engels, Friedrich (1962), Anti-Dühring, FLPH, Moscow.
105
Paulus Ge rdes
Engels, Friedrich (1964), Dialectics of Nature, Progress Publishers,
Moscow.
Engels, Friedrich (1974a), Anti-Dühring, Edições Afrodite, Lisbon.
Engels, Friedrich (1974b), Dialéctica da Natureza; Editorial Presença,
Lisbon.
Engels, Friedrich (1983), Elogio fúnebre a Karl Marx, Notícias,
Maputo, 17/03/83, p. 3.
Fedoseyev, P. N., et al. (1974), Karl Marx: A Biography, Progress
Publishers, Moscow.
Gelfand, I. M. (1977), Functional analysis, in: Mathematics: Its
Contents, Methods, and Meaning; The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Vol. 3, pp. 227-262.
Gerdes, Paulus (1980), Sobre a origem histórica do conceito de
número, Ciência e Tecnologia, Maputo, No. 1, 53-57.
Gerdes, Paulus (1981a), A ciência matemática, INDE, Maputo.
Gerdes, Paulus (1981b), Tendências no ensino da matemática, Ciência
e Tecnologia, No. 3, 64-69.
Gerdes, Paulus (1982), Mathematics for the Benefit of the People,
CARIMATHS, Paramaribo.
Glivenko, V. I. (1934), Ponyatie diferentsiala u Marksa i Adamara,
Pod znamenem markizma, Vol. 5, 79-85.
Gokieli, L. P. (1947), Matematischeskie rukopisi Karla Marksa i
voprosy obosnovaniya matematiki, AN gruzinkoj SSR, Tbilisi.
Gu, Jin-yong (1976), Der grosse Beitrag der altchinesischen
Mathematik zur Weltkultur, in: W. Ruppert, Mathematik in
China; China Forschungs Institut, Vienna, pp. 116-134.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1955), Lectures on the History of Philosophy,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (3 volumes).
Heitsch, Wolfram (1978), Mathematik und Weltanschauung;
Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Ilyichov, L. F., et al. (1977), Frederick Engels: A Biography, Progress
Publishers, Moscow.
Ivanov, Nikolai; Karl Marx, pequena biografia; Nóvosti, Moscovo,
1979.
106
Janovskaja, S. A. See Yanovskaya, Sofia A.
Kennedy, Hubert (1976), Review. Karl Marx’ Mathematische
Manuskripte. Karl Marx’ Manoscritti Matematici, Historia
Mathematica, New York, Vol. 3, 490-494.
Kennedy, Hubert (1977), Karl Marx and the foundations of differential
calculus, Historia Mathematica, New York, Vol. 4, 303-318.
Klaus, Georg, and Buhr, Manfred (1976) (Eds.), Philosophisches
Wörterbuch, Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig.
Kol’man, E. (1931a), The present crisis in the mathematical sciences
and general outlines for their reconstruction, in: Science at the
crossroads [Papers presented by the Delegates of the USSR to
the International Congress of the History of Science and
Technology, London, 29 June to 3 July 1931 – G.W.], Kniga,
London, pp. 215-229.
Kol’man, E. (1931b), Short communication on the unpublished
writings of Karl Marx dealing with mathematics, the natural
sciences and technology and the history of these subjects, in:
Science at the crossroads, Kniga, London, pp. 233-235.
Labérenne, Paul (1971), Mathematics and Marxism, in: F. Le Lionnais
(Ed.), Great currents of mathematical thought, Dover
Publications, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 58-68.
Lenin, V. I. (1960), Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
Vol. 38.
Lenin, V. I. (1975a), Karl Marx e o desenvolvimento histórico do
marxismo, Edições Avante, Lisbon.
Lenin, V. I. (1975b), Materialismo e empiriocriticismo, Editorial
Estampa, Lisbon.
Marx, Karl (1968), Mathematischeskii Rukopisi, Nauka, Moscow (Ed.
Sofia A. Yanovskaya).
Marx, Karl (1972), Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, International
Publishers, New York.
Marx, Karl (1974a), Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie,
Dietz Verlag, Berlin.
Marx, Karl (1974b), Mathematische Manuskripte, Scriptor Verlag,
Kronberg (Ed. Wolfgang Endemann).
107
Paulus Ge rdes
Karl Marx (1975), Manoscritti Matematici, Dedalo Libri, Bari (Trans.
and ed. Francesco Matarrese and August Ponzio).
Marx, Karl (1983), The Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx, New
Park Publications, London, 280 pp. (Trans. C. Aronson and M.
Meo)
(available at the webpage: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/
works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/index.htm).
(MEW) Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1961), Marx-Engels Werke,
Dietz Verlag, Berlin, Vols. 19, 20, 30, 31, 33, 35.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick (1983), Collected Works,
International Publishers, New York.
Matarrese, Francesco (1975), Çalcolo, logjça formale e dialettica delle
lorme, in: Marx (1975), pp. 5-22.
Mehring, Franz (1962), Karl Marx: The Story of His Life, University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Mehring, Franz (1974), Karl Marx, vida e obra, Editorial Presença,
Lisbon.
Miller, Maximilian (1969), Karl Marx’ Begründung der Differential-
rechnung, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule für
Verkehrswesen Friedrich List, Dresden, Vol. 16, 649-659.
Molodschi, W. N. (1977), Studien zur philosophischen Problemen der
Mathematik, Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin.
Mullin, A. A. (1979), Review of Ruzavin’s “Die Natur der
mathematischen Erkenntnis,” Mathematical Reviews, 1979, Vol.
58, p. 712.
Paul, Siegfried (1976), Die Bearbeitung philosophischer Probleme der
Mathematik in der Sowjetunion, Deutsche Zeitschrift für
Philosophie, Vol. 8, 847-862.
Piskounov, N. (1979), Çálculo diferencial e integral, Edições Lopes
da Silva, Porto.
Ponzio, Augusto (1975), Matematica, diallettica ed economia politica,
in: Marx (1975), pp. 23-38.
Rieske, Günter and Schenk, Günter (1972), Marx und die Mathematik,
Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Vol. 4, 475-483.
108
Rosental, M. and Iudin, R. (1977) (Eds.), Dicionário filosófico,
Editorial Estampa, Lisbon.
Ruzavin, G. I. (1977), Die Natur der mathematischen Erkenntnis.
Studien zur Methodologie der Mathematik; Akademie-Verlag,
Berlin.
Stepanova, Eugueniia (1977), Friedrich Engels. Pequena biografia;
Edições Avante, Lisbon.
Stepanova, Eugueniia (1979), Karl Marx. Pequena biografia; Editorial
Avante, Lisbon..
Struik, Dirk (1948a), A concise history of mathematics, Dover
Publications, New York (Reprint 1967).
Struik, Dirk (1948b), Marx and Mathematics, Science and Society,
Vol. 12, 181-196.
Struik, Dirk (1975), Marx und Mathematik, Materialien zur Analyse
der Berufspraxis des Mathematikers, Vol. 16, 1975, 137-158
(German translation of 1948b).
Struik, Dirk (1977), Geschiedenis van de wiskunde, SUA, Amsterdam.
Struik, Dirk (1980), Why study the history of mathematics?, The
UMAP Journal, Vol. 1, 3-28.
Struik, Ruth Rebekka (1974), Some remarks on the concept of limit,
in: Cohen, Stachel, Wartofsky (Eds.), For Dirk Struik, Scientific,
historical and political essays in honor of Dirk J. Struik, Reidel,
Dordrecht.
Swift, Jonathan (1938), Gulliver’s Travels, Ronald Press, New York
(ed. A. E. Case).
Thiel, Rainer (1975), Mathematik, Sprache, Dialektik, Akademie
Verlag, Berlin.
Wussing, Hans (1979), Vorlesungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik;
Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin.
Yanovskaya, Sofia A. (1969), Karl Marx’ “Mathematische
Manuskripte,“ Sowjetwissenschaft, Gesellschaftwissenschaft-
liche Beiträge, 20-35.
Yanovskaya, Sofia A. (1980), Über die sogenannte Definition durch
Abstraktion, Materialien zur Analyse der Berufspraxis des
Mathematikers, Bielefeld, Vol. 24, 155-204.
109
Paulus Ge rdes
Zeleny, Jindrich (1973), Het wetenschapsbegrip van het dialekties
materialisme, in: Marxistiese kennistheorie, Nijmegen, pp. 34-
42.
Zeleny, Jindrich (1980), The Logic of Marx, Rowman and Littlefield,
Totowa NJ.
Aditional bibliography (2008)
Alcouffe, Alain (1985), Les Manuscrits Mathématiques de Marx,

Economica, Paris.
Alcouffe, Alain (1987), Le calcul différentiel, les mathématiques et les
économistes du XIX°: K. Marx et H. Laurent, lecteurs de
Boucharlat, Revue Sciences et Techniques en Perspective, Vol.
XIII.
Blunden, Andy (1983), Review: The Mathematical Manuscripts of
Karl Marx, Labour Review.
Dauben, Joseph W. (1998), Marx, Mao and Mathematics: The Politics
of Infinitesimals, Documenta Mathematica, Extra Volume ICM
III, 799-809.
Flores, Fernando & Natiello, Mário (2006), La filosofia matemática de
Karl Marx en los manuscritos de 1881. Un esbozo, Revista
Brasileira da História da Matemática, Rio Claro, Vol. 6, No. 12,
111-125.
Gerdes, Paulus (2003), Awakening of Geometrical Thought in Early
Culture, MEP Publications, Minneapolis, 184 pp. (original in
German: 1985) (Foreword: Dirk J. Struik) [New edition:
Ethnogeometry: Awakening of Geometrical Thought in Early
Culture, ISTEG, Boane & Lulu, Morrisville NC, 2014].
Glivenko, V. (1935), Der Differentialbegriff bei Marx und Hadamard,
Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, 102-110.
Kline, George L. (1950), Review: L. P. Gokieli, On the Problem of the
Axiomatization of logic; L. P. Gokieli, The Mathematical
Manuscripts of Karl Marx and Problems of the Foundation of
Mathematics, Journal Symbolic Logic, Vol. 14, No. 4, 243-244.
110
Kol’man, Ernst (1983), Karl Marx and Mathematics: on the
‘Mathematical Manuscripts’ of Marx, in: Marx (1983), pp. 217-
234 (original in Russian, 1968).
Kol’man, Ernst & Yanovskaya, Sofia (1983), Hegel and Mathematics,
in: Marx (1983), pp. 235-255 (original: 1931).
Marx, Karl (1987), Manuscritos matemáticos, Edicións Xerais de
Galicia, Vigo, 140 pp. (Pres. and comments: Xenaro Garcia
Suárez)
Marx, Karl (1994), Mathematical Manuscripts (in Bengali), Viswakos
Parisad, Calcutta (Org. and trans. Pradip Baksi)
Matthews, Peter H. (2002), The Dialectics of Differentiation: Marx’s
Mathematical Manuscripts and Their Relation to His
Economics, Middleburg College Working Paper Series.
Meo, M. (1986), Review: Paulus Gerdes, Marx demystifies
mathematics, Ganita Bhârati, Vol. 9, No. 1-4, 78-79.
Molodschi, Vladimir (1982), The mathematical manuscripts of K.
Marx and the evolution of the history of mathematics in the
USSR (in Russian), Istoriko-Matematiceskie Issledovanija,
Leningrad, Vol. 26, 9-17.
Olesko, Kathryn (1984), Review: The Mathematical Manuscripts of
Karl Marx, Isis, Vol. 75, No. 1, 233-234.
Powell, Arthur B. (1986), Marx and Mathematics in Mozambique.
Review: Paulus Gerdes, Marx Demystifies Mathematics, Science
and Nature, Nos. 7 / 8, 119-123.
Powell, Arthur B. & Frankenstein, Marilyn (Eds.) (1997),
Education, SUNY, New York.
Radice, Lúcio Lombardo (1972), Presentazione a Dai manoscritti
matematici di Marx, Critica marxista, Quaderni, No. 6.
Ruccio, David F. (1991), The Merchant of Venice, or Marxism in the
Mathematical Mode, Social Scientist, Vol. 19, Nos. 1 / 2, 18-46.
Smith, C. (1983), Hegel, Marx and the Calculus, in: Marx (1983), pp.
256-270.
111
Paulus Ge rdes
Struik, Dirk (1948), Marx and Mathematics, Science and Society, Vol.
12, No. 1, 181-196 [reproduced in: Powell, A. B. &
Frankenstein, M. (Eds.) (1997), pp. 173-192].
112
NAME INDEX
Achilles (and the tortoise): 81- Cauchy, Augustin (1789-1857):

3 13, 47, 69, 70, 75, 79-80,
Alcouffe, Alain: 110 82
Alexandrov, Alexander D. Cavalieri, Bonaventura (1598-
(1912-1999): 85, 87, 100, 1647): 27
105 Commandino, Federigo (1509-
Aronson, Charles D.: 12, 38, 1575): 27
108 Colman: see Kol’man
Barrow, Isaac (1630-1677): 27 Cousin, J.: 45
Berkeley, George (1685-1753): D’Alembert, Jean (1717-1783):
39-40, 105 28, 43-5, 47, 56-8
Bernal, John D. (1901-1971): D’Ambrosio, Ubiratan (1932-
27, 105 …): 62, 77, 105
Bézout, Étienne (1730-1783): Dauben, Joseph: 110
49 Dedekind, Richard (1831-
Blunden, Andy: 110 1916): 13, 73-4
Bolzano, Bernhard (1781- de Lalouvère, Antoine (1600-
1848): 70, 73, 75 1664): 27
Boyer, Carl B. (1906-1976): de Morgan, Augustus (1816-
51, 69, 70, 72-3, 105 1871): 73
Buhr, Manfred: 86, 100, 107 de Roberval, Giles (1602-
Cantor, Georg (1845-1918): 13, 1675): 27
73-4, 86 de Saint-Vincent, Grégoire
Carnot, Lazare (1753-1823): 41 (1584-1667): 27
113
Paulus Ge rdes
Demidov, Sergei S.: (1943-…) Gnedenko, Boris V. (1912-
24, 105 1995): 85
Descartes, René (1596-1650): Gokieli, Levan P. (1901-1975):
87 23, 106, 110
Dirichlet, Lejeune (l805-1859): Grandi, Guido (l671-1742): 40
73 Gregory, James (1638-1675):
Endemann, Wolfgang: 19, 23, 27
105, 107 Gross, Horst-Eckart: 11
Engels, Frederick (1820-1895): Gu, Jin-yong: 24, 106
15, 16, 19, 21, 26, 31, 42,
43, 53, 60, 73, 75 85, 87-8, Guldin, Paul (1577-1643): 27
93, 103, 105-6, 108 Gurjew, S. : 45
Euler, Leonhard (1707-1783): Hadamard, Jacques (1865-
28, 43-7, 56-7, 69, 79 1963): 23, 77
Fedoseyev, P. N.: 15, 17, 21, Hankel, Hermann (1839-1873):
106 73
Feller, Friedrich: 18 Hardy, Godfrey (1877-1947):
Fermat, Pierre (1601-1665): 27 74
Flores, Fernando: 110 Hegel, Georg W. F. (1770-
1831): 84, 106, 111
Fourier, Joseph (1768-1830):
72, 75 Heitsch, Wolfram: 85, 106
Frankenstein, Marilyn (1947- Huygens, Christian (1629-
...): 9-11, 111-2 1695): 27
Fréchet, Maurice (1878-1956): Ilyichov, L. F.: 21, 106
77 Iudin, R.: 84, 109
Galilei, Galileo (1564-1642): Ivanov, Nikolai: 21, 106
27
Janovskaja, S. A. See
Gel’fand, Israel M. (1913- Yanovskaya, Sofia A.
2009): 77, 106 Kautsky, Karl (1854-1938): 20
Gerdes, Paulus (1952-…): 27,
Kennedy, Hubert (1931-…):
86, 101, 106, 110
16, 23, 24, 43, 50, 59, 60,
Glivenko, Valerii I. (1897- 76-8, 107
1940): 22-3, 106, 110
Kepler, Johann (1571-1630):
27
114
Klaus, Georg: 86, 100, 107 Mehring, Franz (1846-1919):
Kline, George L.: 110 16, 21, 108
Kol’man, Ernst (1893-1979): Meo, Michael: 12, 38, 108, 111
22, 25, 107, 111 Méray, Charles (1835-1911):
Kolmogorov, Andrey (1903- 74
1987): 23, 75, 77, 100, 105 Mercator, Nicolaus (1620-
Krober, Günter: 100 1687): 27
Labérenne, Paul (1902-1985): Miller, Maximillian: 23-4, 49,
18, 22, 30, 85, 88, 100, 51, 108
107 Molodschi, Vladimir (1906-
Lacroix, S.: 45 …): 8, 24, 28, 40-1, 45, 51,
69, 71-2, 80, 85, 108, 111
Lafargue, Paul (1842-1911):
18, 21 Moore, Samuel: 22
Lagrange, Joseph (1736-1813): Mullin, A. A.: 108
28, 48-51, 56, 67 Mussino, António: 11
Landen, John (1719-1790): 75 Natiello, Mário: 110
Lebesgue, Henri (1875-1938): Newton, Isaac (1643-1727):
69 27-8, 31, 38-42, 44-5, 48,
Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1646- 56, 68-9, 78
1716): 27-8, 31-2, 35-40, Odermann, Carl: 18
42, 44-5, 48, 51, 56, 61-2, Olesko, Kathryn: 111
68-9, 78-9
Paul, Siegfried: 85, 108
Lenin, Vladimir (1870-1924):
22, 31, 41, 84-5, 107 Peano, Giuseppe (1858-1932):
73
Lipschutz, Peggy: 4
Peirce, Charles (1839-1914):
Lobatchevsky, Nikolai (1793- 73
1856): 73
Petrovsky, Ivan (1901-1973):
Lumpkin, Beatrice (1919-…): 23
4, 9, 11-2, 33, 44, 105
Piskounov, Nikolai S. (1908-
Marquit, Erwin: 11 1977): 31, 61, 70, 76, 108
Marx, Karl (1818-1883): 9, etc. Plato (427-347 BC): 104
Matarrese, Francesco: 24, 108 Ponzio, Augusto: 19, 24, 108
Matthews, Peter H.: 111
115
Paulus Ge rdes
Powell, Arthur B. (1953-…): 9- 63, 67-8, 74, 77, 79, 83-4,
11, 111-2 109, 112
Purkert, Walter: 11 Struik, Ruth: 46, 109
Rachanov, P.: 45 Swift, Jonathan (l676-1745):
Radice, Lúcio: 111 39, 109
Riemann, Bernhard (1826- Thiel, Rainer: 18, 38, 109
1866): 69 Torricelli, Evangelista (1608-
Rieske, Günter: 18, 24-5, 46, 1647): 27
74, 78, 83, 85-6, 108 Valerio, Luc (1552-1618): 27
Rosental, M.: 84, 109 van Ewijk, Chrit: 11
Ruccio, David F.: 111 Vazjulin, V.: 86
Ruzavin, Georgii I.: 38-9, 80, Volodarsky, A. I.: 24, 105
83-5, 108-9 Wallis, John (1616-1703): 27
Rybnikov, Konstantin A. Weierstrass, Karl (1815-1897):
(1913-2004): 23, 77 13, 70, 74, 79, 82
Ryvkin, A. S. : 23 Welty, Gordon: 4, 12, 31, 39,
Schenk, Günter: 18, 24-5, 46, 41, 86
74, 78, 83, 85-6, 108 Wussing, Hans (1927-2011):
Schlauch, Ronald: 11 11, 27, 39-41, 49, 51, 68,
Schnirelmann, Lev (1905- 73, 109
1938): 100 Yanovskaya, Sofia (1896-
Segeth, Wolfgang: 86 1966): 16, 18-9, 23-4, 43,
47, 49, 67, 70, 74-5, 79,
Smith, C.: 111 84, 86, 107, 109, 111
Stepanova, Eugueniia: 15, 17, Zeleny, Jindrich (1922-1997):
21, 109 86, 110
Struik, Dirk-Jan (1894-2000): Zimianin, Leonid: 11
10-1, 16, 22-3, 25, 28, 39,
40, 42-5, 47-8, 56, 58, 60, Zeno of Elea (490-430 B.C.):
81-4
116
Books in English authored by Paulus Gerdes
# Ethnogeometry: Awakening of Geometrical Thought in Early

Culture, 220 pp. ∗
# Geometry from Africa: Mathematical and Educational
Explorations, The Mathematical Association of America,
Washington DC, 210 pp.
# Ethnomathematics and Education in Africa, 270 pp. *
# Women, Culture and Geometry in Southern Africa, 276 pp. *
# Otthava: Making Baskets and Doing Geometry in the Makhuwa
Culture in the Northeast of Mozambique, 290 pp. (color) *
# Lusona – Geometrical Recreations from Africa: Problems and
Solutions, 216 pp. (color) *
# Sona Geometry from Angola: Mathematics of an African
Tradition, Polimetrica, Monza, 232 pp.
# Sona Geometry from Angola: Volume 2: Educational and
Mathematical Explorations of African Designs on the Sand, 220
pp. *
# Drawings from Angola: Living Mathematics, 72 pp. (Children’s
book) (color) *
# Mathematics in African History and Cultures. An annotated
Bibliography (co-author Ahmed Djebbar), African Mathematical
Union, 430 pp. *
# History of Mathematics in Africa: AMUCHMA 25 Years (co-
author: Ahmed Djebbar), African Mathematical Union (Volume 1:
1986-1999; Volume 2: 2000-2011), 924 pp. *
# African Pythagoras: A Study in Culture and Mathematics
Education, 124 pp. (color) *
∗ Distribution: www.lulu.com/spotlight/pgerdes (available in print

and as eBooks)
117
Paulus Ge rdes
# Tinhlèlò, Interweaving Art and Mathematics: Colourful Circular
Basket Trays from the South of Mozambique, 132 pp. (color) *
# Hats from Mozambique, Associação Índico, Maputo, 52 pp.
(color) *
# Sipatsi: Basketry and Geometry in the Tonga Culture of
Inhambane (Mozambique, Africa), 422 p. & Sipatsi Images in
Colour: A Supplement, 56 pp. *
# Adventures in the World of Matrices, Nova Science Publishers
New York, 196 pp.
# African Basketry: A Gallery of Twill-Plaited Designs and
Patterns, 220 pp. *
# Lunda Geometry: Mirror Curves, Designs, Knots, Polyominoes,
Patterns, Symmetries, 198 pp. *
# The philosophic-mathematical manuscripts of Karl Marx on
differential calculus: An introduction, 116 pp. *
# Enjoy puzzling with biLLies, 248 pp. *
# More puzzle fun with biLLies, 76 pp. *
# Puzzle fun with biLLies, 76 pp. *
# The Bisos Game: Puzzles and Diversions, 72 pp. *
# Geometry and Basketry of the Bora in the Peruvian Amazon, 176
pp. (color) *
# 1000 Doctoral Theses by Mozambicans or about Mozambique,
236 pp. *
# African Doctorates in Mathematics: A Catalogue, African
Mathematical Union, Maputo, 383 pp. *
118
119
Paulus Ge rdes
120

GERDES, Paulus. The Philosophical-Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx On Differential Calculus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GERDES, Paulus. The Philosophical-Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx On Differential Calculus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GERDES, Paulus. The Philosophical-Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx On Differential Calculus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © 2014 by Paulus Gerdes

The philosophic-mathematical manuscripts of

Title of the new English-language edition (2014):

First English-language edition (1985):

Original Portuguese-language edition (1983):

Latest Portuguese-language edition (2008):

Copyright © 2014 by Paulus Gerdes

Books in English authored by Paulus Gerdes 113

In March 1983 the Eduardo Mondlane University organized a

Gerdes, Paulus (2003), Awakening of Geometrical Thought in Early

I thank colleagues Horst-Eckart Gross (Bielefeld, Germany),

My thanks go to Beatrice Lumpkin (Chicago, USA), who

Bibliographic research for this translation was contributed by

It was the winter of 1974. In one of those small, progressive

2.1 To avoid computational errors

After the defeat of the 1848-1849 revolutions, Marx, without

1 Marx, 1974a, p. 280.

2.2 Soothing effect of mathematics

In one of the first biographies of Karl Marx, Franz Mehring

9 MEW, 1961, Vol. 30, p. 362.

12 MEW, 1961, Vol. 19, p. vi.

16 Cf. Yanovskaya, 1969, p. 22; Endemann “Einleitung”

3.1 Best known works

What are the best known works of Marx? No doubt, Capital is

3.2 The history of the Mathematical Manuscripts

The German social-democrats inherited the documents of Marx

18 See, for example, Ivanov, 1979, p. 192.

22 MEW, 1961, Vol. 35, p. 114.

28 Glivenko, 1934, pp. 79-85; cf. Struik, 1948a, p. 194; Struik,

34 Gu Jin-yong, 1976, p. 132.

4.1 Contents of the Manuscripts?

The mathematical manuscripts that Marx left to posterity

37 Kol’man, 1931a, p. 234.

4.2 Why was Marx interested in the foundations of differential

4.2.1 Calculus did not drop out of the sky...

In Dialectics of Nature, Engels praised the discovery of

40 Engels, 1964, pp. 271-72; Engels, 1974b, p. 286.

41 For an introduction to the relationships between the internal and

4.2.2 A challenge ... “to strip away the veil of mystery”

Karl Marx was convinced of the vast applicability of differential

Marx became aware of the challenge. Referring to the need to

44 Struik, 1948b, p. 185; Struik, 1975, p. 143.

An arc of the curve

The arc approximated by line segments

The arc approximated by smaller and smaller

The same mathematicians succeeded in determining the area of

The plane figure approximated by smaller and

These are “very fine examples of dialectics.” 47 But what is their

47 Labérenne, 1971, p. 67.

4.3 Marx’s research on the history of mathematics

4.3.1 The “mystical” calculus of Newton and Leibniz

It was the analysis of the mechanics problem of velocity

48 Engels, 1962, p. 123; Engels, 1974a, p. 112. Compare MEW, Vol.

50 Given a system of Cartesian coordinates, then the slope of a line is

What will be the slope of the tangent at M? Or tan µ = ...?

Let M1 be a point on the curve, very close to M. M1 corresponds

Let M1 be a point “infinitely close” to M.

Let us calculate the slope of secant MM1. Let MA be parallel to

Or enlarging one part of the figure: