The History of Differential Equations, 1670–1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differential equations have been a major branch of pure and applied mathematics since their inauguration in the mid 17th century. While their history has been well studied, it remains a vital field of on-going investigation, with the emergence of new connections with other parts of mathematics, fertile interplay with applied subjects, interesting reformulation of basic problems and theory in various periods, new vistas in the 20th century, and so on. In this meeting we considered some of the principal parts of this story, from the launch with Newton and Leibniz up to around 1950. ‘Differential equations’ began with Leibniz, the Bernoulli brothers and others from the 1680s, not long after Newton's ‘fluxional equations’ in the 1670s. Applications were made largely to geometry and mechanics; isoperimetrical problems were exercises in optimisation. Most 18th-century developments consolidated the Leibnizian tradition, extending its multi-variate form, thus leading to partial differential equations. Generalisation of isoperimetrical problems led to the calculus of variations. New figures appeared, especially Euler, Daniel Bernoulli, Lagrange and Laplace. Development of the general theory of solutions included singular ones, functional solutions and those by infinite series. Many applications were made to mechanics, especially to astronomy and continuous media. In the 19th century: general theory was enriched by development of the understanding of general and particular solutions, and of existence theorems. More types of equation and their solutions appeared; for example, Fourier analysis and special functions. Among new figures, Cauchy stands out. Applications were now made not only to classical mechanics but also to heat theory, optics, electricity and magnetism, especially with the impact of Maxwell. Later Poincaré introduced recurrence theorems, initially in connection with the three-body problem. In the 20th century: general theory was influenced by the arrival of set theory in mathematical analysis; with consequences for theorisation, including further topological aspects. New applications were made to quantum mathematics, dynamical systems and relativity theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".