The Problem of the Invariance of Dimension in the Growth of Modern Topology, Part I

Author(s): Dale M. Johnson

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 2 (21.V.1979), pp. 97-188
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133541 .
Accessed: 13/07/2012 14:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Archive for History of Exact
Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org
 The Problemof theInvarianceofDimension
in theGrowthofModernTopology, Part I
Dale M. Johnson

Communicated
by H. Freudenthal

Dedicated to Hans Freudenthal

Introduction 97
Chapter 1. Ideas concerningDimension beforeCantor 100
Chapter2. Georg Cantor's 'Paradox' of Dimension 131
Chapter3. Early Effortsto Prove the Invarianceof Dimension,1878-1879 .... 146
Chapter4. The Rise of Point Set Topology 163
Bibliography 178

Introduction

Die hohe Bedeutungbestimmter Problemefür

den Fortschrittder mathematischenWissen-
schaftim Allgemeinenund die wichtigeRolle,
die sie bei der Arbeitdes einzelnenForschers
spielen,ist unleugbar.. . . Wie überhauptjedes
menschlicheUnternehmenZiele verfolgt,so
braucht die mathematischeForschung Pro-
bleme. Durch die Lösung von Problemen
stähltsich die Kraftdes Forschers; er findet
neue Methoden und Ausblicke, er gewinnt
einen weiterenund freierenHorizont.
- Hilbert, 'Mathematische Probleme'
(1900: 253-254J1
1 References
suchas 'Hilbert ... (1900: 253-254/denoteitemsin thebibliography
and page numbersor sectionsin theseitems.I have used thissystemof references
The quotationfromHilbert maybe translated
throughout. as follows:
Thegreatsignificance ofspecific fortheprogress
problems ofmathematics in general
and the important role whichtheyplay in the workof individualresearchers is
undeniable.... Justas everyhumanundertaking towardsgoals,so mathemati-
strives
cal researchneedsproblems. The powerof theresearcheris tempered through the
solutionof problems;by themhe discoversnew methodsand pointsof viewand
opensup a widerand moreexpansive horizon.
98 D. M. Johnson

Problems,above all, motivatethe progressof mathematicsand one of the

most interesting groups of problemsin mathematicssurroundsthe apparently
simple idea of dimension.Indeed dimensionis not so simple an idea afterall.
For in 1877 when Georg Cantor showed that the points of geometrical
figureslike squares, 'clearly 2-dimensional',can be put into one-one cor-
respondencewiththepointsof straightline segments,Obviously 1-dimensional',
he therebyrenderedthe 'simple' idea problematic.Difficultiessuch as this one
which Cantor uncovered demand explanations. In the past they have fed
mathematicianswitha wide varietyof challengingresearchproblems.The long
termresulthas been the developmentof an entirebranch of topology: dimen-
sion theory.
Topological dimension theoryhas a long and fascinatinghistoryand, in
essence, three problems have been fundamentalto its growthinto a mature
theory:(1) the problem of definingthe concept of dimensionitselfand some
closely related concepts, such as the concept of curve; (2) the problem of
explainingthe numberof dimensionsof physicalspace; and (3) the problemof
provingthe invarianceof the dimensionnumbersof mathematicalspaces under
some restrictedtypeof mapping.The firstand thirdproblems,mathematicalin
nature,have been the most importantdirect influenceon the growthof the
topological theoryof dimension.The second, a problem of physics or cos-
mology,has providedan indirectbut significant motivationforthe development
of the theoryfromoutsidethe domain of mathematics.Let us look a littlecloser
at thesethreeproblemswhichhave formedthe basic problemcore of dimension
theory.
The definitionproblemhas ancientrootswhichcan be detectedin some brief
passages in the writingsof Greek philosophersand mathematicians.However,
dimensiontheoryis primarilya modernsubject; its main historicalrootsstartin
the nineteenthcentury.At the verybeginningof that centuryBERNARD BOL-
ZANO examined several facets of the definitionproblem and proposed some
interesting tentativesolutionsto it. I have dealt withBolzano's contributions
elsewhere (1977). AfterBOLZANO a few nineteenth-century mathematicians
took up the definitionproblem,but theydid not resolve it verysatisfactorily.
Interestin theproblemarose throughthe creationof the mathematicaltheoryof
higherspaces and multi-dimensionalgeometriesand the consequent method-
ological changes in the whole field of geometry.In the twentiethcentury
Henri Poincaré was the firstto constructa definitionof dimension,one based
on 'cuts' (1903, 1912). It was soon criticisedby L.E.J.Brouwer who replacedit
by an improvedversion(1913). In the early 1920's Paul Urysohn and then
Karl Menger published independentlyof one anotherfurtherdefinitionsof
dimension which turned out to be equivalent and which progresseda step
beyond Brouwer's definition.These definitionsof Brouwer, Urysohn, and
Menger became the foundationfora wide-rangingtheoryof dimensionwhich
began a rapid developmentin the twenties.
The cosmological problemof explainingthe dimensionnumberof physical
space, like the definitionproblem, arose in the speculations of the ancient
Greeks,and over the centuriesmany thinkershave puzzled over it. In modern
times Immanuel Kant considered it in his very firstpublished work. For
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 99

PoiNCARÉthisproblemwas thechiefmotiveforhis proposinghis cut definition

of dimension.There can be littledoubt that this problemhas had a significant
role in the developmentof the mathematicaltheoryof dimension.
The originof the invarianceproblemhas a precisedate, 1877,the year when
Georg Cantor discovered- to his own astonishment! - that geometrical
figuresofdifferent dimensionnumberscan have theirpointsarrangedin one-one
correspondence.Cantor's paradoxical result is a direct blow to our naive
concept of dimension.When he and Richard Dedekind discussed it in an
exchange of letters,they formulatedthe invariance problem for dimension,
that is, the problem of showing that for certain continuous mappings di-
mension remains an invariantconcept. Solution of the invariance problem
quickly became regardedas the way to resolve Cantor's strangeresult. As
soon as Cantor publishedhis paradoxical correspondencein 1878 a numberof
mathematicianstriedto demonstratethe invariance,but the problemproved to
be refractory. Giuseppe Peano dealt another blow to the naive concept of
dimension in 1890 whenhe publishedthe firstexampleof a space-filling curve,a
continuousmapping a of line segment onto an entiresquare. By the turn of the
present century still no one had found a general proof of dimensional in-
variance.Withhindsightwe can see whytheproblemwas so difficult to solve. At
the time therewere virtuallyno adequate tools forthe task. Topology was a
young subject.At last L.E.J. Brouwer achieved success by constructing a full
and rigorousproof in 1910, which was published in 1911. Two years later he
published anotherproof which he rested on his definitionof dimension.Un-
doubtedlythe key to Brouwer's success was the new and fruitful ideas thathe
himselfintroducedinto topology.
The two problemsof definingdimensionand provingits invariancewerethe
primaryinfluenceson the creation and growthof modern dimensiontheory.
They are the centralfociof its history.However,the problemof explainingthe
dimensionnumberof space was also at times a motive fromoutside mathe-
maticsforthe theory'sdevelopment.Otherproblemsas well had some influence
on its developmentand, when the theorycame to maturityin the 1920's,further
problemsbecame thecentreof attention.Yet in theperiod up to about 1925 the
twinproblemsof definitionand invariancewere the centralmotiveforceswith
the cosmologicalproblemas a pervadingbackgroundforce.
In the presenthistoricalwork I shall be concentratingon the invariance
problem,althoughat timesthe othertwo problemswill of necessitycome to the
fore.The presentwork takes dimensiontheoryfromthe time beforeCANTOR,
whenit consistedof a fewlooselyconnectedideas and theories,to 1913,theyear
whenBrouwer publishedhis second invarianceproof.Chapter 1, a preludeso
to speak, is devotedto the pre-Cantorianideas. Then chapters2 through7 take
the historyof the invarianceproblem fromits conception to its solution by
Brouwer. Chapter8 ties up some loose ends,gives a glimpseof later develop-
ments,and thendraws some conclusionsabout the history.The presentpart I
consistsof chapters1-4; chapters5-8 will constitutepart II.
In thisworkI examinethe mathematicsof dimensionin considerabledetail.
I think the topic deserves a full history.The mathematical ideas remain
importantto us and some of thegreatestmathematiciansof the latterhalfof the
100 D. M. Johnson

nineteenthand the firstpart of the twentiethcenturieshelped develop them.

Moreover, the rise of dimension theorycoincides with the early growth of
topology.Indeed duringthe period underreviewthe two subjectswere in strong
interaction.Dimensionproblemswerepartlyresponsibleforthebirthof modern
topology.Some of the best-knownearly topologistswere also concernedwith
the problemsof dimension,for example, Cantor, Schoenflies, Poincaré,
and Brouwer. So the historyof dimensiontheorythrowsa greatdeal of light
on the historyof topology. Hence, it is worth while to look closely at the
developmentof the former.

Acknowledgments

I wishto thankeveryone whohas helpedmeto completethepresent history.

I wouldespecially
liketo thankDr. Walter P. van Stigt forall hishelp.It was he
whouncovered importantmaterialrelatedto myhistory whichbelongsto theBrouwer
Nachlass.He has been of the greatestassistanceto me in the transcription and
ofDutchmanuscripts
translation and in manyotherways.
Aboveall I wishto thankProfessor Dr. Hans Freudenthal forgenerously offering
me expertadviceand criticism on thehistory. thatI should
I thinkit is appropriate
dedicatethisworkto himas a smalltokenofmyappreciation.
Finally,I wouldlike to thankthe Royal Societyand theHatfieldPolytechnic for
theirgenerousgrantswhich enabledme to visit
Holland and theUnitedStatesto gather
materialand carryoutmyresearch.

Chapter1. Ideas concerningDimensionbeforeCantor

My aim in thischapteris twofold. FirstI wishto describesomeimportant

Greekideasabout dimension. Without doubttheseare significant whenviewed
in relationto the modern development of dimension theory. Second I wantto
the
examine origins of theoriesof and
hyperspaces higher-dimensional geome-
tries.In thesetheoriesand the accompanying changesin the philosophyof
geometry liesthemostimportant background to Cantor's discovery thatfigures
ofdifferingdimensions can be putintoone-onecorrespondence.
We look to the Greeksforthe principalancientsourceof the scienceof
mathematics. Modernpractitioners of the sciencehave a continuing debt to
theseancientphilosophers and mathematicians forits fundamentals. Hence,it
maycomeas no surprise to discoverthatwe can followtherootsofdimension
theory backto them.To be sure,theGreeksdid notformulate a detailedtheory
of dimension.Nevertheless, theythought and argued about the conceptual
problemsinvolvedin dimension and so produced ideas and informal theories
whichhave had a lastinginfluenceon generations of mathematicians, including
somein ourowncentury. Aristotle, Euclid, and Ptolemy all thought about
dimension. But evenbeforethesementhe oldestsect of mathematicians, the
Pythagoreans, grappled with dimension-theoretic problems in the context of
theircosmogony. Thus fromthe mistsof earlyPythagoreanism to twentieth-
 Dimension
andModemTopology 101

centurytopology therestretches a threadofgeometrical ideasconcerned withthe

1
conceptofdimension. Let us beginbyexamining theGreekendofthisthread.
Whentrying to solvetheirfundamental cosmogonical problemofexplaining
the generation of physicalthingsfromnumbers(i.e.,the positiveintegers) in
accordancewiththeirdistinctive mathematical philosophy, the earlyPytha-
goreansdescribed howthebasicgeometrical figures,thepoint,line,surface, and
solid,couldbe producedfromnumbers as an intermediate stagein thegenetic
process.It was naturalforthe Pythagoreans to touchupon the dimension
conceptat leastincidentally, inasmuchas theirproblemand resulting theory
involveda discussionof thingshavingdifferent dimensions.Accordingto
modernscholars2we mustdistinguish twoversions oftheintermediate stage,an
olderone and a morerecentone whichprobablyconstituted an improvement
on thefirst.Although theevidenceforthesepre-Socratic theoriesis fragmentary,
themodernrationalreconstructions ofthemdo seemconvincing.
Let us have a look at theprimitive versionof theintermediate stage.The
mostpertinent evidencecomesin the following fragments. First there is an
extensivepassage on the Pythagorean ideas in Theologumena Arithmeticae, a
passage which is ascribed to Speusippus3 (Thomas (1939:80-83)):
For 1 is a point,2 is a line,3 is a triangle and 4 is a pyramid;all theseare
elements and principles ofthefigures liketo them.In thesenumbers is seen
the firstof the progressions, thatin whichthe termsexceedby an equal
amount,and theyhave 10 fortheirsum.In surfaces and solidsthereare the
elements - point,line,triangle, pyramid.... The sameresultis seenin their
generation. For thefirstprinciple ofmagnitude is point,thesecondis line,
thethirdis surface, thefourth is solid.
Supplementing thistextare two passagesreferringto the Pythagoreans
from
Aristotle (Metaphysics, VII.2, 1028bl6; XIV.3,1090b5;quoted in Guthrie
(1962:259)):
Some thinkthatthelimitsofbodies,suchas surfaceand lineand pointor
unit,are substances,
ratherthanbodyand thesolid.
Thereare somewho,becausethepointis thelimitand endofa line,theline
of a surfaceand thesurfaceof a solid,hold it to be inescapablethatsuch
naturesexist.
The intermediate
stageof thetheorymaybe describedmorefullyas follows.4
Thereis a progression
frompointto lineto surface
to solidwhichis thepattern
1 I do notclaimto be an expert
on Greekinvestigations thedimension
concerning
concept,butI hopethatthefollowing constitutes
an improvement
ofmynote4 in
(1977:266-267).
2 I am relying on Kirk/Raven(1957:253-256) and Guthrie (1962:
particularly
256-265).
3 Speusippuswas theson of Plato's sisterand his immediatesuccessoras head of
theAcademy. He was stronelv
influenced bv Pvthaeorean ohilosonhv.
4 I am
Kirk/Raven(1957:254-256) and Guthrie (1962:259-262). Cf.
following
thediscussionofSextus Empiricus(1936: 346-347).
102 D. M. Johnson

of generation. In particular, we have the special figures, the point, the line
segment,the triangle, the tetrahedron,and these are associated with the numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, in arithmetic progression. In fact, the geometrical figures can be
described by the minimum number of independent points required to contain
them: one or the unit for the point itself,two for the line segment, three for the
triangle, and four for the tetrahedron. According to the passages from Aris-
totle the key concept is limit (or extremity,boundary).
The neo- Pythagorean author NICOMACHUS of Gerasa (ca. A.D. 100) pro-
vides an embroidered account of the old Pythagorean theory in his Introduction
to Arithmetic.In this later account the dimension concept is explicitly named
((1926), quoted in GUTHRIE (1962:261)):
Unity, then, occupying the place and character of a point, will be the
beginning of intervals and of numbers, but not itselfan interval or a number,
just as the point is the beginning of a line, or an interval,but is not itselfline
or interval. Indeed, when a point is added to a point, it makes no increase,
for when a non-dimensional thing is added to another non-dimensional
thing, it will not thereby have dimension. ... Unity, therefore, is non-
dimensional and elementary,and dimension firstis found and seen in 2, then
in 3, then in 4, and in succession in the following numbers; for 'dimension' is
that which is conceived of as between two limits. The first dimension is
called 'line', for a line is that which is extended in one direction. Two
dimensions are called 'surface', for a surface is that which is extended in two
directions. Three dimensions are called 'solid', for a solid is that which is
extended in three directions.

The point, then, is the beginning of dimension, but not itselfa dimension, and
likewise the beginning of a line, but not itselfa line; the line is the beginning
of surface,but not surface, and the beginning of the two-dimensional, but not
itself extended in two directions. Naturally, too, surface is the beginning of
body, but not itselfbody, and likewise the beginning of the three-dimensional
but not itselfextended in three directions. Exactly the same in numbers, unit
is the beginning of all number that advances unit by unit in one direction;
linear number is the beginning of plane number, which spreads out like a
plane in more than one dimension; and plane number is the beginning of
solid number, which possesses a depth in the third dimension besides the
original ones.
In the second passage NICOMACHUS describes a strong link between the
dimensions and the Pythagorean figuratenumbers, the latter in a sense being a
part of Greek geometrical algebra.
The primitive theory of the intermediate stage might be described as static.
There is no indication of how generation is accomplished in the sequence, point,
line, surface, solid. Indeed the static concept of limit is the basis of the
explanation. In what seems to be a later Pythagorean theory5 we find a more
5 Guthrie
(1962:262) casts some doubt on whetherthis theoryis really Pytha-
gorean.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 103

dynamicexplanationof generation,for the key concept is motion. This later

theoryis succinctlydescribedin two passages, one fromAristotle (On the
Soul, 1.4,409a4; quoted in Kirk/Raven (1957:254)):
For theysay that the movementof a line creates a plane and that of the
point a line; and likewisethe movementsof unitswill be lines.For the point
is a unithavingposition.
and one fromSextus Empiricus (1936:346-349):
But some assertthat the body is constructedfromone point; forthis point
whenit has flowedproducesthe line,and the line whenit has flowedmakes
the plane, and this when it has moved towards depth generatesthe body
whichhas threedimensions.But thisview of the (later) Pythagoreansdiffers
fromthatof the earlierones. For theselatterformedthe numbersfromtwo
principles,the One and the IndefiniteDyad, and then,fromthe numbers,the
pointsand the lines and both the plane and the solid forms;but the former
build up all of themfroma singlepoint. For fromthisthe line is produced,
and fromthe line the plane, and fromthisthe body.
In this unifiedmotion theoryof generationthe basic geometricalsequence,
point,line segment,triangle,tetrahedron, is replacedby the sequence,point,line
segment,square, cube. This more advanced theoryis usually called the fluxion
theory.It has had a profoundimpacton latermathematicians, such as NEWTON
and Riemann (see below).6
Moving on to the timesof Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and Euclid (ca. 300
B.C.) we findthe followingdefinitionsconcerningthe basic objects of geometry
in Euclid's Elements(Euclid/Heath (1926:1,153; 111,260)):
Book I
1. A pointis thatwhichhas no part.
2. A lineis breadthlesslength.
3. The extremitiesof a line are points.
5. A surfaceis thatwhichhas lengthand breadthonly.
6. The extremities of a surfaceare lines.
Book XI
1. A solid is thatwhichhas length,breadth,and depth.
2. An extremity of a solid is a surface.
We may distinguishtwo rudimentary 'theories'of dimensionsuggestedby these
definitions:a directtheorygiven by definitionsI.I, 1.2, 1.5, and XI.l and an
indirecttheoryhintedat by definitions1.3, 1.6, and XI.2. Following his usual
way of compromise,Euclid presentsboth theories,although other sources
separatethem.
The firsttheorysuggestsa directlink betweenthe basic geometricalfigures
and dimension.The definitions
in effectnominateand enumeratethedimensions
6
Cf.Kirk/Raven(1957:254-255) and Guthrie (1962:262-265). I am not con-
vincedbyGuthrie's explanationofwhythemotiontheorywas proposed.On thelater
ofthefluxion
influence theorycf.Evans (1955).
104 D.M.Johnson

of thevariousfigures.Pointshave no dimension('no part'); whilelineshave one

('length');surfaces,two ('lengthand breadth');and solids,three('length,breadth,
and depth').7 However, Euclid only touches on the concept of dimension
implicitly.Neitherdoes he provideany explanationof the concept,nor does he
use any generaltermforit. Hence, thesedefinitions hardlyadd up to a genuine
theory of dimension.
In the Topics (VI.5, 142b22-29; VI.6, 143bll-144a4; see Heath (1949:87-
91)) Aristotle by implicationcriticisesthe main definitions of Euclid's direct
theory because of their negative character.He gives his own directtheoryof
dimensionbased on the notionsof divisibility and continuity(linkedconceptsin
his system)in On the Heavens (I.I, 268a4-13, 268a20-268b5) and Metaphysics
(V.6, 1016b23-31;V.13, 1020a7-14) (cf. Heath (1949:159-160, 206-207)). He
even has a special termfordimension.Part of the passage in On theHeavens is
of special interest(Heath (1949:159)):
Of things constitutedby nature some are bodies and magnitudes,some
possess body and magnitude,and some are the principlesof thingswhich
possess these. That is continuouswhich is divisible into parts continually
divisibleand that which is divisibleeveryway is body. Of magnitudethat
which(extends)one way is a line,thatwhich(extends)two ways a plane, and
that which(extends)threeways a body. And thereis no magnitudebesides
these,because thethreedimensionsare all thatthereare,and thriceextended
means extendedall ways.For, as the Pythagoreanssay,the All and all things
in it are determinedby three things; end, middle and beginninggive the
numberof the All, and thesegive the numberof the Triad.
In thistextAristotle explicitlyadopts a Pythagoreanmetaphysicalargument
for the 3-dimensionalityof physical bodies,8 althoughthe argumentis hardly
convincing.The factthat ARISTOTLErelieson Pythagoreanideas suggeststhat
possiblytheseearlierphilosopher-mathematicians took an interestin thisspecial
problem of dimension. According to SIMPLICIUS in a commentary on
Aristotle's work, Ptolemy (ca. A.D. 150) later wrote an entire book On
Dimensionin whichhe put forwarda betterargumentforthe 3-dimensionality of
bodies and the universe(Thomas (1941:410-413)). Unfortunately Ptolemy's
book is not extant.9
Euclid's indirecttheory,comprisedin his subsidiarydefinitions1.3,1.6,and
XI.2 and based on the concept of extremity, has an affinitywith the modern
recursivedefinitionof dimension using the concept of boundary. Euclid's
subsidiarydefinitionssuggesta progressionfrompoints to lines to surfacesto
solids,or more accurately,the reverseprogression.In moderndimensiontheory
7 The Euclideandefinition fromthe
of point seems to have derivedultimately
Pythagorean one: thepointis a unit The
(monad)havingposition. property of no
having
oftheunit.However,Euclid does notsay anything
partis liketheindivisibility about
position.Cf.Euclid/Heath (1926:1, 155-157).
8 We would in a moreabstractwaythatit is an argument forthe3-dimension-
say
alityofspace.
9 For a
historyof the problemof explainingthe threedimensionsof space cf.
Whitrow(1956) and Jammer(1969: 174-186,205-207).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 105

a set or space is η-dimensionalaccordingto a recursivedefinition, wherebyη is

theleast integerforwhicheverypointhas arbitrarily small neighbourhoodswith
boundariesat most(n- l)-dimensional(and the emptyset is assigneddimension
- 1). Creators of the modern theory,such as PoiNCARÉ and Menger, have
stressedthe connectionbetweenthe modernand Euclidean definitions, but I do
not thinkwe should read too much of the moderntheoryinto the ancienttexts.
The ancientmathematiciansdid not operate withgenuinerecursivedefinitions,
even iftheirprogressionshave a semblanceof recursion.
According to Heath (Euclid/Heath (1926:1,155-156)) the subsidiary
definitionsare older than Euclid's main ones and he points to a passage in
Aristotle [Topics,VI.4, 141b20; Heath (1949:85-86)) in which the philos-
opher speaks of the formeras the definitions.Moreover,Aristotle gives us a
supplementto them(Metaphysics,XI.2, 1060bl2-17; Heath (1949:224)):
If we suppose lines or what immediatelyfollowsthem(I mean the primary
surfaces)to be principles,theseare at all eventsnot separable substancesbut
are sectionsand divisions,the one of surfaces,the otherof bodies (as points
are of lines); theyare also extremities
or limitsof the same things;but all of
themsubsistin otherthings,and no one of themis separable.
Thus the various geometricalobjects can be sectionsand divisionsas well as
extremitiesof the nexthigherones in the hierarchy.
Aristotle is, in fact,critical of all the definitionsdependent upon the
conceptsof extremity and division(Topics,VI.4, 141b21; Heath (1949:85-86)):
All thesedefinitionsexplainthe priorby means of the posterior,fortheysay
thata pointis an extremity of a line,a line of a plane,and a plane of a solid.
To Aristotle's mindthe progressionfromsolid down to point,fromposterior
to priorin the older definitions,
is mistakenand so theseare unscientific.
In spite of Aristotle's criticismof the logic of the extremitydefinitions
these are the most interestingfromthe moderndimension-theoretic viewpoint.
The downwards progressionfrom solid to point is what makes them seem
recursiveto us. Heath remarks(1926:1,155-156) that Plato may well have
been an object of Aristotle's criticism.Going beyond this criticism,we may
look fortheoriginsofthe Euclidean extremity definitions.
It seemsverylikelyto
me thatultimatelythesederivefromthe firstPythagoreantheoryof generation.
In thattheorythe essentialconceptwas limitor extremity and, in particular,the
line segmentwas viewed as dependenton its two endpoints.10I would conjec-
turethatthereis an indirecthistoricallink betweenthe veryearly Pythagorean
theoryand the extremity definitions.It would certainlybe interesting to trace
this link furtherthrough the intermediategenerationsof philosophersand
mathematicians.11 However,it seems clear to me thatjust as the early Pytha-
goreans sought to explain the generationof physical thingsthroughnumbers
thenpoints,lines,surfaces,and solids, the later extremity definitionsconstitute
an attemptto explain the connectionsamong the geometricalfiguresand to

10See thetexts thoseofAristotle.

quotedabove,especially
Thistaskis beyondthescopeofthepresent work.
106 D. M. Johnson

explain in a rudimentary way the dimension concept. Thus I think the ancient
origins of dimension theory lie in a cosmogonical theory aiming at explaining
the beginnings of physical things.
From the briefhistoryjust given it should be clear that the Greeks had wide-
ranging interests in problems connected with dimension. On the cosmological
side their speculations went from the Pythagorean theories of generation to
Ptolemy's proposed demonstration that there are not more than three dimen-
sions. On the more mathematical side there is the evidence collected in the
Euclidean definitions. Let me sum up the main theories. The direct theories of
Euclid (naming the dimensions of geometrical figures)and Aristotle (based on
divisibility and continuity) do not offer much information on the dimension
concept itself. However, the indirect extremity theory found in Euclid and
Aristotle is much more explanatory. It tells us how the geometrical figuresare
connected by dimension. With hindsight we recognise something of the modern
theory in this. It seems likely that this theory goes back to the earliest
Pythagorean cosmogonical theory. Of course, this latter theory was intended as
an explanation, specifically of the beginnings of physical bodies and indirectlyof
dimension itself.The later fluxion theory is similarly explanatory.
Both the Greek extremity theory and fluxion theory have been very in-
fluential. Not surprisinglywe find Isaac Newton (1642-1727) calling upon the
motion theory as a support for his fluxional principles of the calculus. In his
Tractatus de Quadratura Curvarum (dating from 1693; firstpublished in Latin in
1704) he begins by relying on its ancient authority (1964:141):

I don't here consider Mathematical Quantities as composed of Parts ex-

treamlysmall,but as generated by a continualmotion.Lines are described,
and by describingare generated, not by any appositionof Parts,but by a
continualmotionof Points.Surfacesare generated by themotionof Lines,
of
Solidsbythemotion Surfaces, Anglesby theRotation oftheirLegs,Time
a
by continualflux, and so in the rest.These Géneses are foundedupon
Nature,and are everyDay seen in themotion ofBodies.
And afterthismannerthe Ancientsby carrying moveablerightLines
along immoveable ones in a Normal Positionor have taughtus
Situation,
theGénesesof Rectangles.

Laterin theeighteenthcentury we findthetwoGreektheoriesgivenan airingin

the greatEncyclopédie of Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert
articlesof the subsequent
(1751-80) and again in the collectedmathematical
Encyclopédie Méthodique. Mathématiques ( 1784-89 ).12 In his article 'Point'
d'Alembert (1717-1783)gives most prominenceto the extremity theory,
becausehe espousedan abstractionist philosophyof geometry.Only3-dimen-
merelyexistby abstraction
sionalsolidsreallyexist;points,lines,and surfaces
and are theboundaries of their
respective However,
figures.
higher-dimensional
he quite naturallyincludes a statementof the fluxiontheory(1751-
80: XII,871):
12 See the articles'Dimension', 'Point', 'Ligne', 'Surface','Solide', and 'Géométrie'.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 107

Si l'on se représentequ'un pointcoule, il traceraune ligne; & une ligne qui

couleroit engendreroitune surface,&c. Cette manière de considérer la
générationdes dimensionsou des propriétésdes corps,paroîtêtrele premier
fondement de la Géométriemoderne,c'est-à-dire, de la Géométrieanalytique
qui faitusage du calcul différenciel
& intégral....
(If one representsa point as flowing,it will trace a line; and a line which
flowswill engendera surface,etc. This way of consideringthe generationof
dimensionsor the propertiesof bodies can be the firstfoundationof modern
geometry,i.e., of the analytical geometrywhich uses the differential and
integralcalculus. . . .)
In the nineteenthcenturythe Greek theoriescontinuedto attractthe attention
of certain mathematicians,for example, Bolzano and Riemann.13 I have
alreadymentionedthat PoiNCARÉ and Menger in the twentiethcenturyhave
looked back to the Greeks for the original source of dimensionideas. Thus
throughoutthe entire historyof mathematicsthe ancient knowledge about
dimensionhas been a part of geometricalthinking.
I shall now turnto the historyof theoriesof abstractspaces having dimen-
sions greaterthan three,the subjectof the second part of thischapter.The main
historyof such theoriesstartsin the 1840's and '50's with the publication in
rapid succession of works by Grassmann, Cayley, Riemann, and several
others.The theoriesin theseworksclearlydemonstratedthat geometryand its
spaces ought to be separatedfromthe usual physicalspace of our perception.
Moreover,theyforceda radical change in the philosophyof geometry.These
changesin geometryand its accompanyingphilosophyare an essentialpart of
the trend of arithmetisationof the nineteenthcentury.They form a prime
backgroundto Cantor's paradoxical discoveryabout dimension. Yet even
before1840 we finda long prehistoryof hyperspacesscatteredin many sources
whichis intrinsicallyinterestingand worthyof our attentionfirst.
In a fewGreek mathematicalworks thereare traces of higher-dimensional
thinking.Recall that in Greek geometricalalgebra as, forexample,expounded
by Euclid one has linear,square, plane, and solid numbersand magnitudes.
Given this geometricalview of quantitythere is an automatic prohibitionto
multiplying,say, rectangularby square quantitiesto get a 4-dimensionalquan-
tity,since space is apparentlyat most 3-dimensional.Nevertheless,the later
mathematiciansHeron and Diophantus of Alexandriadid such calculations
in their works. In the case of Diophantus' algebra he specificallyin-
troduced higher-dimensionalunknowns: δυναμοδυνοίμις (dynamodynamis,
square-square) for χ4, δυναμόκυβος(dynamocubos,square-cube) for x5, and
κυβόκυβος (cubocubos, cube-cube) for x6. Seemingly commentingon these
developments,Pappus (ca. A.D. 300) says in connectionwiththe famouslocus
problemof fiveor six lines (Thomas (1941:600-603)):
. . . since no figurecan be containedin more than threedimensions.It is true
that some recent writers have agreed among themselvesto use such
13
Cf my(1977) and below.
108 D.M.Johnson

expressions, but they have no clear meaning when they multiply the rectan-
gle contained by these straight lines with the square on that or the rectangle
contained by those.
Thus Pappus' advice is negative: stick to tradition and avoid the impossible! In
any case it does not seem likely that Heron or Diophantus really conceived
of a geometrical space of four or more dimensions. Instead they occasionally
just abandoned the tradition of geometrical algebra.
Avoidance of the impossible is characteristic of the prehistory of higher
spaces. In the fourteenthcentury when NICOLE Oresme (13237-1382) proposed
a theory dealing with the quantitative measure or graphical representation of
the intensities of qualities in things in his Tractatus de configurationibusqualita-
tum et motuum(probably composed in the 135O's), he expressly denied the need
to consider a 4-dimensional space even though his ideas led in that direction. In
chapter 4 of part I of his magnificent work (Oresme/Clagett (1968:172-
1 77j) graphical representations of intensities of qualities in various geometrical
subjects are introduced. For a point subject a line segment will represent a
quantitative measure of a quality of that subject. A bounded surface will
represent the measure of a quality in a linear subject, while a bounded solid will
do for a planar subject. In the case of a solid subject Oresme suggests that it be
broken into an infinitesequence of surfaces, each with a solid 'graph', such that
the graphs interpenetrate or are in mathematical superposition. However, he
asserts categorically that this representation does not take place in the fourth
dimension, since that does not exist and cannot be imagined. Nevertheless,
Oresme in effecthas described a 3-dimensional image of a 4-dimensional solid.
In all probability this was the firsttime that anyone did so.14
Following the lead of Diophantus' algebra, many Arab and early Western
algebraists spoke of supersolid magnitudes, although they did not intend to
introduce spaces of dimensions greater than three. A noteworthy remark on this
tradition comes in Michael Stifel's (ca. 1487-1567) commentary to Chris-
toff Rudolff's Coss (algebra) (Rudolff/Stifel (1553-54 .folio 9)). Stifel
points out that whereas in geometry we cannot progress beyond the 3-dimen-
sional cube or solid, in algebra we can indeed have a progression (through
multiplication) which goes beyond the cube to a 'solid line' ('corporliche lini',
which is 4-dimensional), a 'solid surface' ('corporliche superficies', 5-dimen-
sional), and so forth.In this possibility lies the great advantage of algebra over
geometry. Pure algebra can break the bonds of the ancient geometrical for-
mulation of the subject. However, a centurylater the Englishman John Wallis
(1616-1703) inveighed against the mixing of any geometrical terms or ideas with
algebra in his important Treatise (1685: 126) :15
For whereas Nature, in propriety of Speech, doth not admit of more than
Three (Local) Dimensions, (Length, Breadth and Thickness, in Lines, Sur-
faces and Solids;) it may justly seem very improper, to talk of a Solid (of
three Dimensions) drawn into a Fourth, Fifth,Sixth, or furtherDimension.
14 Euclidis in Oresme/Clagett
Cf. Oresme's earlierQuaestionessupergeometriam
(1968:530-531. 544-547).
15
Cf. (1685:103).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 109

A Line drawninto a Line, shall make a Plane or Surface;thisdrawninto

a Line, shall make a Solid: But if this Solid be drawn into a Line, or this
Plane into a Plane, what shall it make? a Piano-plane? That is a Monsterin
Nature,and less possible than a Chimeraor Centaure.For Length,Breadth
and Thickness,take up the whole of Space. Nor can our Fansie imaginehow
thereshould be a FourthLocal Dimension beyondtheseThree.
Wallis' more forcefulwords carry the same message as Pappus' of many
centuriesbefore.
Notwithstanding Wallis' rhetoricand good commonsense a fewmen in the
seventeenthcenturydared to conceive of the geometricalfourthdimension.No
less than Descartes and Pascal were among theirnumber,although they
only flirtedwith the concept (see Wieleitner (1925) forreferences). In quite
anotherspherethe CambridgePlatonistHenry More (1614-1687) was attrac-
ted by the idea of a fourthdimension,since it provided a place for spirits
(Spissitudo essentialis), as he describes in his EnchiridionMetaphysicum
(1671:384). In the nineteenthcenturyJ.K.F. ZÖLLNER(1834-1882) held a view
similarto More's thatled to some amusingconsequences.16
Around the middle of the eighteenthcenturya more serious view of the
possibilityof higher-dimensional spaces began to take shape. IMMANUELKant
(1724-1804) touched upon the possibilityof a science of hyperspacesin his very
firstpublication,Gedankenvon der wahrenSchätzungder lebendigenKräfte...
(1749). In this work dealing mainlywiththe celebratedquestion of vis viva11
Kant examinesthe cosmological problem of the 3-dimensionality of physical
space, but he feelsunable to provide an absolutelyconvincingexplanationfor
this factof nature.Nonethelesshe conjecturesthat it is probablyexplained by
the inverse-squarelaw governingthe forcesbetweensubstances(masses) in the
universe.However,in anotherpossible worldthisspecial law of action could be
so thatto coverall possibleworldsone would need a generalscienceof
different,
spaces of diversedimensions(1749: 13) = (1929: 12):
Eine Wissenschaft von allen diesen möglichenRaumes-Arten,wäre ohnfehl-
bar die höchsteGeometriedie ein endlicherVerstandunternehmen könnte.
Die Unmöglichkeit,die wir bey uns bemerken,einen Raum von mehr als
drey Abmessungenuns vorzustellen,scheinet mir daher zu rühren,weil
unsere Seele ebenfallsnach dem Gesetze der umgekehrtendoppeltenVer-
hältnissder Weiten die Eindrücke von draussen empfangt,und weil ihre
Natur selber dazu gemachtist, nicht allein so zu leiden,sondernauch auf
diese Weise ausser sich zu würken.
(A science of all these possible kinds of space would undoubtedlybe the
highestenterprisewhicha finiteunderstandingcould undertakein the field
of geometry.The impossibility, whichwe observein ourselves,of represent-
ing a space of more than threedimensionsseems to me to be due to the fact
that our soul receivesimpressionsfromwithoutaccordingto the law of the
16On More
cf.Jammer(1969:180-181). On Zöllner's viewscf.his (1878) and
Klein (1926:169-170).
1' Hankins does notdiscussKant's work.
Cf.Hankins (1965). Unfortunately
110 D.M.Johnson

inversesquareofthedistances, and becauseitsnatureis so constituted that

not onlyis it thusaffected but thatin thissame mannerit likewiseacts
outsideitself.)
In the centurybeforeKant both Galileo and Leibniz had discussedthe
problemof space'sthreedimensions.18 Kant was thenextimportant philos-
opherto grapplewiththedifficult problem.That his thoughts on thesubject
led himto conceiveofa scienceofw-spaces was certainlyprophetic.
In bothhisprecritical and criticalperiodsKant had a continuing interestin
philosophical problemsaboutspaceand geometry. One mayrecallhispenetrat-
ing observation in his essay'Vom den erstenGrundedes Unterschiedes der
Gegendenim Räume'(1768) thatin our3-dimensional worldthereexistbodies
whichare similarand havethesamedistancesamongall theirrespective parts,
and yettheycannotbe madedirectly congruent by superposition on thesame
space. The leftand righthands give a simpleexampleof this paradoxical
phenomenon. We know,unlikeKant, that in 4-space this will no longer
happen.Finally,beforeleavingKant, we shouldnotethatforhimgeometry
was primarily a scienceof space as we know it. Althoughhe had some
conception other,more abstractgeometries,
of as clearlyevidencedby his
prediction of a science ofη-spaces, he still
mainlythought ofgeometry as linked
to physicalspace.
Justa fewyearsafterKant speculatedabouta geometry ofhyperspaces in
hisfirstpublished work Jean d'Alembert inserteda more concrete suggestion
of a space of morethanthreedimensions intohis article'Dimension'in the
Encyclopédie (1754)(Diderot/d'Alembert (1751-80:IVJ010)):
J'aidit... qu'il n'étoitpas possiblede concevoir plusde troisdimensions. Un
hommed'espritde ma connoissance croitqu'on pourroit cependant regarder
la duréecommeune quatrièmedimension, & que le produitdu temspar la
soliditéseroiten quelquemanièreun produitde quatredimensions /cetteidée
peut être contestée, mais elle a, ce me semble,quelquemérite, quand nece
seroitque celui de la nouveauté.
(I have said ... that it is not possibleto conceiveof morethanthree
dimensions. An intelligent manofmyacquaintance believesnevertheless that
one can regardtimeas a fourth dimension, and that theproduct of time bya
solid in thisway will be a product of fourdimensions; thisidea can be
disputed, but it seems to me to have some meriteven this
though mayonly
be thatofnovelty.)
Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736-1813)later followedin the spiritof this
suggestion, whenhe assertedin his Théoriedesfonctions analytiques(1797:223)
thatmechanics couldbe takento be a geometry offourdimensions, employing
x,y,z as coordinates forspace and t forthefourth dimension oftime.Thusby
theendoftheeighteenth century sometrulygreatthinkers had pronounced on
of
thedesirability considering hyperspaces, although no one had yet fashioned a
genuine science of such unimaginable geometrical objects.
18Cf.Whitrow(1956)andJammer
(1969).
 Dimension
andModemTopology 111

The nineteenth centurysaw the development of the theoryof higher-

dimensional spacesand geometry to maturity. However,as alreadymentioned
thisdid notreallybeginuntilnearlyhalfwaythrough thecentury. Duringthe
firstfortyyearscontributions to the subjectwerestillsporadicand not well
publicised.In his summary'Essai' on imaginaryquantitiesin Gergonne's
AnnalesJean Robert Argand (1768-1822),aftersketching a theoryin three
dimensions,suggests the possibility of extensions to higherdimensions
(1813:146). Yet he never producedanything beyond thisbrief remark.Both
Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi (1804-1851)and George Green (1793-1841)
used η-dimensional generalisations in the courseof theiranalyticalresearches
(e.g., Jacobi (1834), Green (1835)). For example,Green, afterreducingthe
physicalproblem of the attraction of ellipsoidswithvariabledensitiesto
mathematical analysis, =
says(1835) (1871: 188):
The originalproblembeingthusbroughtcompletely withinthe pale of
analysis,is no longerconfined as it wereto thethreedimensions ofspace.
Thenceforth he developshis theorems of analysisquitenaturally in a space of
arbitrary finitedimension.
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855)was the mostsignificant mathema-
ticianto considerthegeometry ofhyperspaces duringthefirst fortyyearsofthe
nineteenth century. However,he publishedlittleon the subjectand eventhe
notesand letters, whichonlycame to lightafterhis death,probablydo not
represent thefullscope of his thoughts on thismatter.Nevertheless, thehints
thatwe do haveindicatea lifelong interest in multi-dimensional spacesand it is
clearthathisinterest was relatedto manyofhisotherconcerns in mathematics.
It is appropriate forus to regardGauss' thoughts on hyperspace as a bridge
betweentheprehistory oftheconceptand itsmaturedevelopment. He thought
oftenand deeplyabouttheabstractfoundations ofgeometry and his lastwork
dealing with higherspace (1850-51) falls within the initialperiodof mature
growth of multi-dimensional geometry.
The earliestrecordofGauss' knowledge ofhigherspacescomesfrom1816
in a letterof Friedrich Ludwig Wächter to Gauss of 12 December(see
Stäckel (1901), Gauss (1917:481-482)).Thisletterrefers to a conversation
whichWächter had withGauss duringAprilof thatyear.It demonstrates
Gauss' (as well as Wachte r's) early understanding of multi-dimensional
analyticgeometry. Wächter specifically mentions infinite-dimensional spaces
as well as finite-dimensional ones, so he and Gauss were apparantlywell
advancedin thetheory.
We findGauss' mostimportant referencesto theproblemofdefining 1-,2-,
and η-dimensional manifolds (Mannigfaltigkeiten) in his twoworksof 1831on
thetheory ofbiquadratic residues:'Theoriaresiduorum biquadraticorum. Com-
mentatiosecunda' (1832) = (1863:93-148) and especiallythe accompanying
'Selbstanzeige'(1831) = (1863' 169-118). The reference to higher-dimensional
developments consistsof a
just single remark. One of Gauss' concernsin these
worksis the 'metaphysics', i.e., foundations, of the complexnumbersystem.
Although he describes the usual planarrepresentation of complexnumbers,
feeling even as late as 1831 that this number systemneededsome sort of
112 D.M.Johnson

justificationby means of a geometricalmodel (1863: 109-110,174), in his

'Anzeige'he putsmoreemphasison an abstractapproachto the'truemeta-
physicsof imaginary quantities'(1863: 175-178).He onlytreatsthe complex
('Gaussian') integersin detail but presumably an extensionto all complex
numbers can be madeeasily.The kernelofGAUSS'abstracttheory springsfrom
hisobservation thatnumeration consistsin a setofrelations. Ifwe havea linear
sequenceof objects,it is therelationsamongthemand theirinverserelations
thatareimportant. Fromthesewecan pickan origin, derivetheinverse units+ 1
and - 1,and thenobtaintheusualintegers. Ifwe havea sequenceofsequences
or,in otherwords,a manifold oftwodimensions, we mustexaminetherelations
betweenone sequenceand an immediately neighbouring sequenceand thence
derivetheinverseunits+ i and - i and thenall thecomplexintegers. In this
way we abstract the complexintegers from a twofold variety sequenceof
of
sequences.
For Gauss then,numbersystems in themostpropermathematical senseof
thetermare aboutrelations, theircomparison and 'numbering', and notabout
the objectsnumbered.But to see theserelationsintuitively we need to use
geometrical models. The plane, a well-understood manifold of twodimensions,
servesthispurposeforthecomplexnumbersystem. Gauss regarded histheory
ofcomplexquantities as a wayofclearingup the'mysterious obscurity'falsely
attributedto theimaginary numbers. His abstracttheoryis a genuineancestor
oftherigorous logicaltheories ofnumbers proposedduringthelatterhalfofthe
nineteenth century.
At theveryend ofthe'Anzeige'GAUSS(1863:178) mentions manifolds of
morethantwo dimensions, but he does not discussthem.However,it seems
certainthathis specifictheoryforthe complexintegersand 2-dimensional
manifolds is relatedto a moregeneraltheory ofmanifolds whichhe held.Sucha
generaltheory would cover hypernumber systems and η-dimensional manifolds
and wouldconstitute a branchofabstractgeometry. We finda briefindication
ofthemoregeneralscopeofsucha theory in a letterofGauss to Hansen of11
December1S25(1929:8):
Ich habe mich!in diesemHerbstsehrvielmitder allgemeinen Betrachtung
der krummen Flächenbeschäftigt, welches[sie] in ein unabsehbares Feld
führt.... JeneUntersuchungen greifentiefin vielesandere,ichmöchtesogar
sagen,in die Metaphysik der Raumlehreein,und nurmitMühe kannich
michvon solchendarausentspringenden Folgen,wie z.B. die wahreMeta-
physikdernegativen undimaginären Grossenist,losreissen. Der wahreSinn
des ]/- 1 stehtmirdabei mitgrosserLebendigkeit vor der Seele,aber es
wirdsehrschwersein,ihnin Wortezu fassen, die immernureinvages,inder
Luftschwebendes Bildgebenkönnen.
(DuringthisautumnI have concernedmyself verymuchwiththegeneral
consideration of curvedsurfaces, whichleads into an immensefield....
Thoseinvestigations penetrate deeplyintomanyothers, I mayevensayinto
themetaphysics of
of thetheory space, and only with difficultycan I tear
myself away from such resultsarisingtherefrom, as, for example,the true
metaphysics ofnegative and imaginary quantities. The truemeaningof"j/-Ï
 Dimension
andModemTopology 113

standsveryvividlybeforemysoul,butit willbe verydifficult to putit into

words,whichcan onlygivebuta vaguefleeting image.)
It is clear that Gauss' ideas on curvedsurfaces,negativeand imaginary
quantities,and manifolds and spacewereall linked.
During the last yearsof his lifeGauss did explicitly considerarbitrary n-
dimensional manifolds in his lectures,'Über die Methodeder kleinsten Qua-
drate',deliveredduringthewintersemester of 1850-51.Concerning thecontent
of thesewe have the recordsof his studentAugust Ritter (1826-1908)(in
GAUSS(1917: 469-482))}9 From theserecordsit is easy to see whyGAUSS
chose abstractmanifoldsor analyticspaces of η dimensionsas the natural
vehicleforhis investigations into the methodof least squares.Such spaces
involvea generalised analyticgeometry basedon η variablecoordinates and the
usual Euclideanmetricwhichcan be appliedto the solutionof the minimum
problem.
Gauss' ideason multi-dimensional spacesbringus closeto hisphilosophical
thoughts on geometry. The 'Anzeige'of 1831and theletterto Hansen of 1825
give definitesignsof his abstractview of the subject.Thereare further in-
dicationsofthisviewfromthelatterpartof his life.In his Jubiläumsschrift of
1849,'Beiträgezur Theorie der algebraischen Gleichungen' =
(1850) (1876:71-
102), containing his important revisionof his veryfirstattemptto provethe
fundamental theoremof algebra in his InauguralDissertation of 1799, he
excuseshimselffora relianceon geometrical reasoning20 (1876:79):
Ich werdedie Beweisführung in einerderGeometrie derLage entnommenen
Einkleidung darstellen,weiljene dadurchdie grössteAnschaulichkeit und
Einfachheitgewinnt. Im Grundegehörtaberdereigentliche Inhaltderganzen
Argumentation einemhöhernvon Räumlichem unabhängigen Gebieteder
allgemeinen abstracten Grössenlehre an, dessenGegenstanddie nach der
Stetigkeit
zusammenhängenden Grössencombinationen sind,einemGebiete,
welcheszur Zeit nochwenigangebauetist,und in welchemmansichauch
nichtbewegenkannohneeinevonräumlichen Bildernentlehnte Sprache.
(I shall represent the proofin clothingborrowedfromthe geometry of
position,becausethisyieldsthe greatestlucidityand simplicity. However,
thereal contentof theentireargument belongsfundamentally to a higher
domainof the generalabstracttheoryof quantity, independent of spatial
things, whosesubjectis thecombinations ofquantitiesconnected according
to continuity; a domainwhichat thistimeis stilllittlecultivated, and in
whichone cannotexpressoneselfwithouta languagebased on spatial
images.)
The viewof an abstractgeometry divorcedfromspatialintuition expressedin
thispassagemustbe relatedto Gauss' longstanding desirefora development of
'geometriasitus'(see StäCKEL (1922-33:46-49)). At the end of his lifehe
persistedinhishopefora flowering ofthissubject,as Walter Sartorius von
19 also Dedekind
Cf. (1931:293-306).
20This is relatedto certaincomplexfunctions.
geometrical
reasoning
114 D.M.Johnson

Waltershausen has reportedfromconversations

whichhe had withGauss
duringhislastyears,1847-1855(1856:88):
... eine ausserordentliche Hoffnung setzteer aber auf die Ausbildung der
Geometria situs,in derweite gänzlichunangebaute Felder sich befanden, die
durchunserngegenwärtigen Calcul noch so gut wie gar nichtbeherrscht
werdenkönnten.
(... yethe held an extraordinary hope forthe development of geometria
situs, in which there might be extensivebut entirelyuncultivated fieldsthat
couldhardlybe controlled by our presentmethods.)
GAUSSthusconnected abstractgeometry withgeometria situs- topology, as we
wouldcall it. He publishedvirtually nothingon thissubject,nor did he even
writemuchdownon it. Yet he had a visionofitsimportance. It remainedfor
othersto transform thisvisionintoa reality.21
To be sure,GAUSSfeltit was necessary to relateabstractgeometry to the
concretegeometry22 ofphysicalspace.Abstract geometry is concerned withn-
dimensionalmanifoldsin general,while spatial geometry has a special 3-
dimensional manifoldforits subject.He thoughtthatour knowledgeof this
specialmanifold is notentirely a priori(lettersto Bessel, Gauss (1900:200-
201)). Consequently, he did not subscribeto Kant's viewofspace as an outer
form of our intuition and said so on a numberof occasions(Gauss
explicitly
(1863:177) 1900:224)). He believed thatspace is real and our knowledgeof
space is at least partlyempirical. One could even provethis factfromthe
writings of Kant himself:23
In spiteofthefactthatGauss disagreedfundamentally withKant on the
natureofspaceand geometry, itis possiblethathe borrowed one thingfromthe
of
greatphilosopher Königsberg: theword 'Mannigfaltigkeit' ('manifold').This
wordand therelatedterm'Mannigfaltige' occurfrequently in Kant's writings,
especiallyin the CritikderreinenVernunft. PerhapsGAUSSdecidedto use the
Kantianterm, althoughnotin thewayKant employed it.In Gauss' papersthe
term'Mannigfaltigkeit' denotesthemostgeneralobjectsofgeometry. After him
and hissuccessorRiemannit becamewidelyusedbymathematicians.24
Gauss' generalattitudetowardsgeometry marksthe beginning of a new
philosophical viewof the subjectwhichbecameestablishedduringthe nine-
teenthcentury. For him geometry in largepartbecamefreedfromphysical
space.On one levelitbecamea branchof'puremathematics'. One mayrelyon
21For commentson Gauss' workin topologyand the foundations of complex
numberscf. Stackel (1922-33:46-68), Fraenkel (1920), Schlesinger (1922-33:
53-57,202-210).See Gauss (1917:106-107,396-397,407-412,436-437).
LLWe would
say, applied geometry.
23 Cf.Gauss (1863:177) and Schlesinger (1922-33:177-181).
24Stallo
(1960: 268-269) suggeststhatGauss borrowedtheterm'Mannigfaltig-
keit'fromHerbart, who uses it in his metaphysical works.However,I can findno
evidencethatGauss evertookan interest in Herbart's philosophy. it
On thecontrary,
seemsmuchmorelikelythatGauss borrowed thetermfromKant, whomhe criticised.
thatGauss borrowedtheterm;I cannotfindany
it is onlya conjecture
Nevertheless,
to confirm
directevidencein Gauss' writings thathe tookit fromKant.
 andModemTopology
Dimension 115

spatialintuition and images,but in thefinalanalysisthesecan be eliminated

fromabstractgeometrical theories.While GAUSS cannot be said to have
completely envisagedthepurelylogicaltreatment of geometry, so masterfully
advocatedat theendofthecentury by theItalianschooland Hilbert, he did
see the subjectas encompassing muchmore than the metricalrelationsof
physicalspace.His notionof η-dimensional manifolds as wellas his theoryof
non-Euclidean geometry werea partofthisview.As we shallsee in a moment,
Gauss' philosophical viewsaboutthenatureofgeometry weresoonto influence
theyoungRlEMANN.
A hostof workspublishedduringthe 1840'sand '50's dealingwithhyper-
spacesmarkthe beginnings of the maturedevelopment of multi-dimensional
geometry. A wide of
variety algebraic,analytic, and geometrical problems
spurredmathematicians to considersuch spaces.25The mathematicians who
startedto grapplewiththeproblemsofhyperspace geometry at this timewere
Arthur Cayley (1821-1895),Hermann Grassmann (1809-1877),Julius
Plücker (1801-1868), Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789-1857), JamesJoseph
Sylvester (1814-1897), Ludwig Schläfli (1814-1895), and Bernhard Rie-
mann (1826-1866).Most ofthesemensimplyintroduced hyperspaces through
η-foldsystems of coordinates and theninvestigated the metricand projective
geometry oftheresultingcoordinate spaceswithanalytictechniques. In hisfirst
paperon thesubject,'Chaptersin theAnalytical Geometry of(n) Dimensions'
(1844) (readin 1843),theyoungCayley proceedsin thisway.In thispaperas
elsewhere he is notconcerned withgivingan explanation ofthepossible'meta-
physics'of higherspace.26Cauchy's very short'Mémoire sur les lieux
analytiques'(1847), in a similarveinto Cayley's firstpaper,merelydefines
some geometrical termsforη-dimensional analysis.Presumably following the
lead ofCayley, Sylvester beganto workwith^-dimensional spacesin 1850
(1850) (1851) (1851a) (etc.).In one ofhisearlypapershe makesthefollowing
apposite methodologicalremark justifyingthe geometryof w-spaces
(1851a: 120) = (1904:219):
If theimpressions of outwardobjectscame onlythrough thesight,and
therewere no sense of touch or resistance, would not space of three
dimensionshave been physicallyinconceivable? The geometryof three
dimensions inordinary parlancewouldthenhavebeencalledtranscendental.
Butin verytruththedistinction is vainand futile.
Geometry, to be properly
understood, mustbe studiedundera universal pointofview;every(eventhe
mostelementary) proposition mustbe regarded as a fact,and butas a single
specimen ofan infiniteseriesofhomologousfacts.
In thisway only(discardingas but the transient outwardformof a
limitedportionof an infinite systemof ideas,all notionof extensionas
essentialto the conceptionof geometry, howeverusefulas a .suggestive
we
element) mayhope to see an
accomplished organicand vitaldevelopment
ofthescience.
25 Segre
Cf. (1921) foran encyclopedicviewofthemathematicsandan overviewof
thehistory
ofhyperspaces.
Cf.also his(1904).
26Some of Cayley's other
papers on the subjectare (1846) (1846a) (1854)
(1870).
116 D.M.Johnson

George Boole (1815-1864)subscribed to muchthesameviewas Sylvester,

as shownin a briefnotein hisLaws of Thought (1854: 175).
Ludwig Schläfli, proceedingalong the same methodological path as
Cayley, Sylvester, and Cauchy, wroteone ofthemostextensive accountsof
the metricalgeometry of η coordinatespaces duringthe years 1850-1852:
Theoriedervielfachen Kontinuität
(1901). However,he ranintodifficulties with
thepublication ofthisimmense work, so thatit was not publishedin itsentirety
untilafterhisdeath (cf.(1950:388-390)). The excerpts whichdid appearsoon
aftercomposition (1855) (1858-60) unfortunately did notattractmuchatten-
tion.
Julius Plücker's mode of introducing hyperspaces was quite different
fromthe methodsof Cayley, Cauchy, Sylvester, and Schläfli. In a
remarkin his SystemderGeometrie des Raumes... (1846: 322-323) he shows
how to create a 4-dimensional geometryin ordinary3-dimensional space
a
through system of linecoordinates.
Straightlinesin ordinary spacedefined by
fourparameters becomethe elementsof a hyperspace. This innovativeand
distinctlygeometrical wayofintroducing higherspacesthrough basicelements
otherthan pointsgave PLÜCKERan entireprogramme of researchwhich
culminated in hispostumously-published Neue Geometrie des Raumesgegründet
aufdieBetrachtung dergeradenLinieals Raumelement (1868) (1869).
I now wishto considerthe workof Grassmann and Riemann in more
detail,becausetheirphilosophicalattitudesto the foundations of hyperspace
geometrytypifysome of the essentialchangesin ideas concerningspace,
geometry, and dimensionwhichweretakingplace aroundthe middleof the
nineteenth century.
Die lineale Ausdehnungslehre
(1844) of HERMANNGRASSMANNhas often
beencriticised forits difficult
'metaphysical' style.Unquestionably themathe-
maticaltheorycontainedin the book is much obscuredby the cloak of
philosophy whichsurrounds it.PerhapsGrassmann's father influenced theson
in hisgeneralphilosophical viewofmathematics a littletoo strongly.27 Possibly
his theologicalstudiesat BerlinUniversity had a detrimental effecton his
mathematical ideas.Indeedhe acquiredhis mathematics withoutthebenefit of
formal universityinstruction.It did
certainly not aid the firstreaders ofhis book
thatGrassmann choseto fithis originalmathematical theoryintoan unclear
philosophical framework, an all-too-metaphysical framework in the German
Partlyforthis obscurity
idealistictradition. in presentation he failedto gain
earlyrecognition for'hisnew'theoryofextension' and a muchdesireduniversity
post.Even the revisedversionof his book (1862), farless impregnated with
philosophy, did not win him fullsuccessand praisefromthe mathematical
community. However,in spiteof the apparentbad features of his mixtureof
philosophy and mathematics in theAusdehnungslehre we mustrecognise a most
valuablephilosophical element, givingus a clear signof the attitudesof some
mid-nineteenth-century mathematicians to and
geometry hyperspaces. It seems
thatit was partlyforthiselementthatGauss was able to givea measureof
praiseto Grassmann's work,forthereis a markedaffinity betweenGauss'
27Cf.Schlegel (1878),whosuggests tome.
thisexplanation
 andModemTopology
Dimension 117

ideason themetaphysics ofcomplexquantities and thephilosophical tendency

towardsabstraction ofGrassmann's book.28
Whenattempting to placehisnewtheory ofextension amongthemathemat-
ical sciences,Grassmann expressesthe key philosophical judgmentof his
Ausdehnungslehre -that the theory is logically separate from geometry
(1844: Vorrede,Einleitung) = (1894: 10-11,22-32). Up to thetimeof GRASS-
MANNvirtually all mathematicians and philosophers29 lookedupon geometry
as a scienceconcernedwithphysicalspace and therefore derivedfromour
knowledge of the external world and limitedto the threedimensions of space.
Butin theAusdehnungslehre Grassmann conceivesofmathematics as a science
ofpureformsofthought, logicallyindependent of experience.30
The theoryof
extensionas a branchof puremathematics withcontinuousquantitiesas its
subjectmatteris divorcedfromspatialintuitions and freefromtheconstraints
of3-dimensionality. Underthisviewittranscends traditional
geometry, whichis
only a smallapplication of the much more generaltheory ofextension.Thusin
an abstractofhisworkhe writes( 1845) = ( 1894:297).

MeineAusdehnungslehre bildetdie abstrakteGrundlageder Raumlehre

(Geometrie),das heisst,sie ist die von allen räumlichenAnschauungen
gelöste,reinmathematische Wissenschaft,derenspecielleAnwendung auf
den Raumdie Raumlehre ist.

es nun,dass die Sätze der RaumlehreeineTendenz

Dadurchgeschieht
haben,die in ihrvermögeihrerBeschränkung
zur Allgemeinheit auf drei
Dimensionen keineBefriedigung sondernerstin derAusdehnungsleh-
findet,
re zur Ruhekommt.

(My theoryof extension formstheabstractfoundationof thetheoryof

i.e.,
space (geometry), it is a puremathematicalscienceindependentof all
whose
spatialintuitions, to is
specialapplication space geometry.

Thusitis thecase thatthetheorems ofgeometrytendtowardsgenerality,

in
but virtue oftheir to
limitation threedimensions
thisgenerality
cannotbe
achieved;it can be achievedfirst ofextension.)
in thetheory

Although Grassmann's stylemaybe somewhat opaque,hislineofthought is

transparent.
Ausdehnungslehre,or abstractgeometry, is not confinedto our
knowledge of physicalspace,but is priorto suchknowledge. It comesbefore
physicalmagnitude.Furthermore, it is evenpriorto numberand arithmetic
as
such,although abstractconcepts of number and are
magnitude immediately
derivablefromthe continuousquantitieswhichare the subjectmatterof the
28See the letterof Gauss to Grassmann, dated 14 December1844,in Gauss
(1917:436-437).
29Gauss and thenon-Euclidean
geometers excepted.
30Note thatGrassmann took a This was a
viewof mathematics.
psychologistic
commonviewin thenineteenth
century,butit is nowmuch discredited.
118 D.M.Johnson

theory. Starting fromthisassumption aboutpriority, we can envisagegeometry

31
developing towardsitsnaturalgenerality accordingto itsowninternal logic.
Consequently, in his Ausdehnungslehre Grassmann goes beyondthe or-
dinary 3-dimensionalspace to treat higher-dimensional abstract spaces
(1844: §§13, 14, 16) = (1894: 46-49, 51-53). His definition of such spaces is
basedon an analogywiththeancientfluxion theory ofthegeneration offigures,
a a a
whereby movingpointgenerates line, moving produces surface, line a etc.
Strictly speaking, he tries to draw a sharpboundary between this 'concrete'
motiontheoryand his own abstracttheory, althoughI do not thinkwe can
regard this as
attempt very successful. When considering thegeneration of an
extension-form offirst order(Ausdehnungsgebilde ersterStufe),he conceivesan
abstractelement(Element, likea geometrical point)undergoing changes(Aen-
derungen, like the motion of a point)in a specified direction, thereby producing
thefirst-order form(likea straight linesegment) (1894:48):
UntereinemAusdehnungsgebilde ersterStufeverstehen wirdieGesammtheit
der Elemente, in die ein erzeugendes Elementbei stetiger Aenderung über-
geht ....
(We understand by an extension-form offirstorderthetotality of elements
intowhicha generating elementpassesthrough continuous change... .)
The totality ofall suchpossibleelements extendedalongone dimension is then
a systemor domain (System,Gebiet) of firstorder(like an infiniteline).
Proceedingto higher-order forms, he thinksof two distinctand independent
changesoperating on an element. First one changeproducesa first-order form
fromtheelementand thenthesecondchangeproducesa sequenceof(parallel)
forms. The infinite set of elementsthusgenerated is a systemof secondorder.
Withadditionaltypesofchangesit is possibleto derivesystems ofthird, fourth,
... , and anyfinite order.
AlthoughGrassmann was a founderof modernvectoranalysis,we may
well findit difficult to look upon his definition of systemsof finiteorder
- presumablyfinite-dimensional vectorspaces- as veryrevealing.He must
havehad a hardtimetrying to puthis'inductive'definition ofhisfundamental
spacesintowords,sincehe could findhardlyanything morethantheancient
fluxiontheoryto relyupon. However,in the secondeditionof his workthe
definition of nth-order domains is significantly improvedand much more
straightforward (1862: §14) = (1896: 16). A domainof nthorderis simplyde-
pendenton coordinates associatedwithη units(unitvectors).
Bernhard Riemann'sprincipalstatement concerning thedomainofhigh-
er-dimensional geometry is his celebrated Habilitationsvortrag, 'Über die Hy-
pothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen'. Like Grassmann Rie-
mann unfortunately couchedhis workon hyperspace in rathermuddyphilo-
sophicallanguage.Yet in spiteoftheobscuring modeofexpression thislecture,
delivered in 1854butnotpublisheduntil1868afterhisdeath,is wellknownfor
31Klein (1926:177-178)emphasises themethodological theviewsof
linkbetween
Grassmannandthemathematicians (suchas Hilbert)whodeveloped
logicaltheories
ofpure(nonmetrical)
geometry at theendofthecentury.
 Dimension
andModemTopology 119

its profoundideas, so tightlypacked into its two dozen paragraphs:the

generalisation to η dimensions of Gaussiancurvature, thefoundations of' Rie-
mannian'geometry and theellipticvarietyofnon-Euclidean geometry, and the
discussionof therelationship betweenpuregeometry and physicalspace. We
nowrecognise in RiemAnn'sshortworktheseedsfora tradition whichled to
themathematics behindEinstein'stheory ofrelativity.
For thepresentdiscussionwe needonlybe concerned withthefirstsection
ofthelecture. It is in thissectionthatRiemanntriesto explainhisnotionofan
tt-dimensional manifold. Whenthe lecturewas firstpublishedin 1868,philo-
sophers took most interest in thissection, becausethetreatment ofthemanifold
concept in it is In the
largelyphilosophical. fact, philosophers quicklymade
objections to Riemann's unclear methods and Yet
presentation. thereis a key
point in the first section which all the early readers of the publishedlecture
failedto grasp.Riemann primarily aimedat defining η-dimensional manifolds
as topological objects. His fundamental concern was or
topology, analysissitus,
as he wouldsay. Withtopologyin its infancyit is not surprising thatearly
readersdid not understand Riemann's aim. Stillit is worthwhileforus to
examinethisveryearlystatement of a topologicalprogramme, especiallyin
orderto understand someofthedifficulties facedbyevena greatmathematician
whenpresenting originalideas.
No doubtpartofthedifficulty withRiemann'spresentation was theresult
ofthehastypreparation ofthelecturewhichwasenforced on him.How he came
to lectureon thefoundations ofgeometry forhishabilitation to Privatdozent is a
curioustale,worthrepeating (Dedekind in Riemann (1953: 547-549)).32 By
theend of 1853 Riemann had finished and submitted his Habilitationsschrift,
'ÜberdieDarstellbarkeit einerFunctiondurcheinetrigonometrische Reihe';the
Habilitationsvortrag stillhad to be arranged.Concerning theprospectsforthis
hewrotetohisbrother Wilhelm on 28 December1853(Riemann(1953:547)):
MitmeinenArbeiten stehtes jetztso ziemlich;ichhabe Anfangs December
meineHabilitationsschrift abgeliefert und musstedabei dreiThematazur
Probevorlesung vorschlagen, von denendanndie Facultäteineswählt.Die
beidenerstenhatteichfertig undhoffte, dassmaneinsdavonnehmen würde;
Gauss aberhattedas drittegewählt, undso binichnunwiederetwasin der
Klemme,da ichdiesnochausarbeiten muss.
(My workis nowprogressing tolerably well;at thebeginning ofDecemberI
submitted myHabilitationsschrift and besides had to proposethreesubjects
forthetriallecture, fromwhichthefaculty couldthenchooseone.I had the
firsttwocompleteand hopedthattheywouldchooseone ofthem;Gauss,
however, chosethethirdand so nowI am in something ofa quandary, since
I muststillworkthisone out.)
PoorRiemann! Gauss passedoverthefirst twoofthesuggested themes, oneon
thehistory oftherepresentation offunctions bytrigonometric the
series, second
on thesolutionoftwoequationsoftheseconddegreein twounknowns, in order
32RichardDedekind's'Bernhard Riemann's LebenslaufinRiemann (1953:539-
558)is thestandard biography of Riemann; cf.Freudenthal(1975a).
120 D. M. Johnson

thathe mighthear somethingon the foundationsof geometry,a subjectclose to

his heart.33During the firstpart of 1854 Riemann was ill much of the time; he
overworkedand suffered fromthe inclementweather.It was not untila fortnight
afterEaster thathe began to preparehis triallecturein earnest,but nevertheless
it was completeby Whitsuntide.The preparationtimewas certainlyremarkably
short,whenwe considerthestatureofthefinalproduct.Gauss himselfwantedto
examinetheyounggeometer,but he was in poor health.Many even thoughthis
deathwas imminent.So he asked that RlEMANN'slecturebe postponeduntilhis
own health mightimprove and Riemann accepted the inevitabledelay. But
then withoutwarningGauss decided to let Riemann give the lecture,as the
lattertold his brotherin a letterof 26 June1854 (1953: 548):
Da entschlosser sich plötzlichauf mein wiederholtesBitten,„um die Sache
vom Halse los zu werden",am Freitag nach PfingstenMittag das Collo-
quium auf den anderen Tag um halb elf anzusetzen und so war ich am
Sonnabend um eins glücklichdamit fertig.
(Then suddenly,aftermyrepeatedrequests'to take the yoke frommyneck',
he decided at noon on the FridayafterWhitsunto set the colloquium forthe
next day at 10.30 and so on Saturday at one o'clock I was fortunately
finishedwithit.)
Afterthe lecture,which was given so suddenlyon the 10th of June,Gauss
highlypraised Riemann's workto the physicistWilhelm Weber on theirway
back to the facultymeeting.He expressedhimselfwith unaccustomedexcite-
ment on the depth of Riemann's thought. In the eyes of the Prince of
Mathematiciansthe youngman was a success.
Consideringthe way it was prepared,we mustconclude thatthe lecturewas
only an extendedsketchof Riemann's geometricalideas. Moreover,insofaras
he had to deliverit to the entirePhilosophicalFaculty of Göttingen,he needed
to tryto make his ideas clear to nonmathematicians (Dedekind in Riemann
(1953: 549)). Probably if he had had time in his brieflifeto reviseand expand
the lectureforpublication,he would have expressedhimselfdifferently on many
matters.As it was, his only furthertreatmentof part of the material of the
lecture was in his Paris Academy essay of 1861 (1953 : 391-404).34 Thus
his friendDedekind almost certainlypublished a work which Riemann
himselfwould have preferred to put into a betterform.It was, of course,wise for
Dedekind to publish the original lecture,but we must be prepared for its
confusionsand infelicitousexpressions.
The overall themeof Riemann's Habilitationsvortrag (1868) = (1953:272-
287) is to determinethe logical relationship between geometryconceived,more
of
or less, as a discipline 'pure mathematics' and its application to physical
space. Within the scope of this theme he examines three special problems.The
firstof theseis the importantone forus (1953:272):
Ich habe mirdaher zunächstdie Aufgabegestellt,den Begriff einermehrfach
ausgedehnten Grosse aus allgemeinenGrössenbegriffen zu construiren.
33 Cf.Riemann(1953: Nachträge,
112).
34 the aus derAnalysisSitus'(1953:479-482).
Cf. 'Fragment
 Dimension
andModemTopology 121

placeI havethussetmyself
(In thefirst thetaskofconstructing
theconcept
ofa multiply extended fromthegeneralconceptsofmagnitude.)
magnitude
Riemann thoughtthat a clarification of the notionof multiplyextended
magnitude was a crucialprerequisite forimproving our understanding of the
relationshipofgeometry to theconceptofspace.Containedin hisdiscussionof
η-foldmagnitudes givenin sectionI of his lectureis an informal theoryof
topologicalmanifolds and dimension. He intendedthistheoryto serveas a
generalframework ('Vorarbeit', 'preparation')forcontributions to analysissitus.
A statement of thisintention is tuckedaway in a footnote at the end of the
published versionofthelecture(1953: 286).35
When embarkingon his discussionof the generalnotionof manifold,
Riemannaskstheindulgence ofhisaudience,for- as he putsit- thedifficulty
lies morein thephilosophical natureof thesubjectand he is notpractisedin
such investigations(1953:273). He claimsbesidesthattherewas littleback-
ground for him to relyupon- onlya fewremarks in papersofGAUSSand some
philosophicalresearches ofHerbart. He explicitlycitesthosepapersofGauss
whichhe founduseful:'Theoria residuorum biquadraticorum. Commentatio
secunda' (1832) = (1863: 93-148), the accompanying 'Selbstanzeige'(1831)
= (1863: 169-178),and theJubiläumsschrift of 1849,'Beiträgezur Theorieder
algebraischen Gleichungen' (1850) = (1876: 71-102).ThusGauss' hintson the
abstractand geometrical foundations of the complexnumbersystem, on the
definitionof2- and higher-dimensional manifolds, and on thebroaderneedto
developthe subjectof analysissitus36werea directstimulusforRiemAnn's
ideas about manifolds. In his discussionRiemann goes so faras to borrow
someexpressions fromGauss. In thecase ofthereference to Herbart's works
he does notsaywhichhe foundhelpful. However,it is knownthatthisGerman
philosopher had a significant, if(as we mightbe inclinedto think)detrimental
influence on theyoungmathematician. Let us thenhave a brieflook at this
influence.
Whilea university studentRiemann took a specialinterest in thephilos-
ophy of Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841). In his biography Dede-
KINDreports thatduringthreesemesters at Göttingen fromEaster1849through
1850Riemannattendedsomephilosophical lectures and,in particular, madea
study of Herbart's thought (Riemann (1953:544-545)). In some fragments
whichRiemann leftamonghis papersthereis ampleevidenceof Herbart's
influence on his thoughtsabout psychology, epistemology, metaphysics, and
naturalphilosophy (1953:509-538).It is evenpossiblethathis difficult 'meta-
physical'styleofwriting derivedpartlyfromHerbart. Unfortunately hisstyle
oftenfollowsthe exampleof the worstGermanphilosophical tradition.Yet,
whileHerbart's ideaswerethestarting pointforhisown,he did notremaina
Herbartian. In the end he criticised Herbart and developedhis own philo-
sophicalviewpoint, as an undatedfragment in hisNachlassreveals(1953: 508):

35Manyapparentlymissed thisstatement
ofintention.
Forexample,
inhisEnglish
translation
Cliffordfailstoincludeit.
36Seethediscussion
above.
122 D. M. Johnson

Der Verfasserist Herbartianerin Psychologieund Erkenntnisstheorie

(Me-
thodologieundEidolologie),HerbarťsNaturphilosophieunddendaraufbezüg-
lichen metaphysischenDisciplinen (Ontologie und Synechologie)kann er
meistensnichtsich anschliessen.
(The author is a Herbartianin psychologyand epistemology(methodology
and eidolology),but for the most part he cannot subscribe to Herbarťs
natural philosophyand the related metaphysicaldisciplines(ontologyand
synechology).)
Herbart was Kant's successor at Königsberg,but he developed his own
distinctphilosophy.He also taughtat Göttingenfrom1833 until his death in
1841, hence his spiritualinfluencethereover RlEMANN.Stronglyinterestedin
mathematicsthroughouthis career,Herbart propoundedan extensivephilos-
ophy of space and geometryin his works on psychologyand metaphysics.
Judgingby the statementof RlEMANN just quoted, we can assume that
Herbart's psychologicaltheoryof space and geometryhad moreinfluenceover
Riemann's ideas than his metaphysicaltheory.However,afterexaminingthe
Habilitationsvortragfortracesof Herbart's philosophy,I thinkthatthe general
views of Herbart exerted greater influenceon Riemann's philosophico-
geometricalideas than specificpoints of doctrine.37
The most importantstatementsof Herbart's philosophy of space and
geometryoccur in his two treatisesPsychologieals Wissenschaft(1824) (1825)
and AllgemeineMetaphysik,nebstden Anfängender philosophischen Naturlehre
(1828) (1829), ponderousworksin theGermanmetaphysical In the
tradition.
firstHerbart investigates originsof our ideas of 'sensible'
thepsychological
space(sinnlicherRaum)(1824: §100) = (1890: 409-420) (1825: §§109-116,139,
=
143) (1892: 86-112,191-193,222-224). An essentialpartof his doctrineis
thatouridea ofspaceis butone exampleofa sequenceor sequence-form (Reihe,
Reihenform). We can also regardtime,the colours,and the musicaltonesas
sequences,thoughnot all as linearsequences.Sensiblespace is a sequenceof
sequencesof sequences;hence,it is 3-dimensional. This characterisationhas
somesimilarity to GAUSS'theoryof2- and higher-dimensional manifolds in his
'Anzeige'of1831.Riemannseemsto havebeenattracted to Herbart's theory
of sequence-forms,as is evidentwhenhe too comparesthemulti-dimensional
spacecontinuum withthecolours.Moreover, Riemann,likeHerbart, is very
muchan empiricist in hisviewsaboutspace.
In hisAllgemeine Metaphysik underhis'Synechologie' Herbart proposesa
metaphysical theory spaceand geometry
ofintelligible (1829: DrittesAbschnitt)
= (1893: 110-186). In his systemsynechology is one of the fourbranchesof
metaphysics and concernsthe theoryof the continuous - the continuousas
exhibitedin time,space, matter, and motion.By tryingto resolvethe con-
tradiction in
inherent the conceptof thecontinuous (synechology'sbasic prob-
lemor pseudoproblem he
!), successivelyconstructsthe line,theplane,
straight
and geometricalspace. In effectthe resultingphilosophyis a defenceof
37On Herbart'sinfluence
overRiemanncf.Erdmann(1877:29-31)and Rus-
sel (1897:14-15,62-63).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 123

traditionalEuclideanism,but Herbart is often wrong in his mathematics

- even accordingto the standardsof his day. In particular,he gives a meta-
physical proof of the impossibility of 4-dimensional intelligible space
(1893:152-153). ObviouslyRlEMANNdid not relyverymuchupon Herbart's
metaphysics. However,theprogrammeof constructing thegeometricalobjects of
various dimensionsand the view of themas sequencescertainlyhad an impact
on RlEMANN,when he was tryingto definehis manifoldsin a recursiveor
inductivemanner.
Apartfromthe backgroundresearchesof Gauss and Herbart, Riemann's
own work in mathematics,especiallyin the theoryof complex functionsand
algebraicfunctions, musthave motivatedhis attemptin the Habilitationsvortrag
to provide a possible frameworkfor contributionsto analysis situs througha
definitionof manifold.His investigationsin complex functiontheoryas pre-
sented in his Dissertation,'Grundlagen füreine allgemeineTheorie der Func-
tionen einer veränderlichencomplexenGrosse' (1851 ) = ( 1953: 3-48), had led
him to considerthe topologyof surfaces,i.e.,2-dimensionalmanifolds,and so it
was natural for him to contemplatea study of the general case. Thus in his
lectureof 1854 he brieflyrefersto his own special way of dealing with multi-
valued analytic functions - by means of RlEMANN surfaces- in order to
persuadehis listenersthata topologicaltreatmentof manifoldsis importantand
even necessaryforan understanding and further developmentof some parts of
mathematics.In his magnificent papers collectivelyknown as his 'Theorie der
Abel'schenFunctioned(1857) (1857a) (1857b) (1857c) = ( 1953:88-144),
published threeyears afterdeliveringthe lecture,RlEMANNprovides a fairly
clear statementof his conceptionof topology(1953:91):
Bei der Untersuchung der Functionen,welcheaus der Integrationvollständi-
entstehen,sind einige der analysissitus angehörigeSätze
ger Differentialien
fastunentbehrlich.Mit diesemvon Leibnitz,wennauch vielleichtnichtganz
in derselbenBedeutung,gebrauchtenNamen darfwohl ein Theil der Lehre
von den stetigenGrossen bezeichnetwerden,welcherdie Grossen nichtals
unabhängigvon der Lage existirendund durcheinandermessbarbetrachtet,
sondern von den Massverhältnissenganz absehend, nur ihre Orts- und
Gebietsverhältnisseder Untersuchungunterwirft.

(In the investigationof functionswhich arise fromthe integrationof total

several theoremsbelonging to analysis situs are almost in-
differentials
dispensable.With this name, used by Leibniz, thoughperhaps not entirely
with the same significance,one may be permittedto denote a part of the
theory of continuous quantities which considers such quantities not as
existingindependently of theirposition or measurableby one another,but,
on the contrary,whichinvestigatesonly theirlocal and regionalproperties
entirelydivorcedfrommeasure-relations.)
With thisbackgroundin mind we may proceed to examiningthe details of the
firstsection of his lecture,tryingto give a sympatheticreadingto some of his
obscureexpressions.
When attempting to constructthe conceptof a multiplyextendedmagnitude
124 D. M. Johnson

(mehrfachausgedehnteGrosse) fromgeneralconceptsof magnitude,Riemann

has a greatdeal to say about the conceptof manifold(Mannigfaltigkeit). A close
readingof the textshows thathe regardsthe manifoldconcept as more general
than the conceptof magnitude.Most of his earlyexpositorsand criticsdid not
recognisethis importantpoint, probably because it is not declared explicitly.
Jacobson (1883) was an exception. By tryingto say somethingabout the
conceptof manifoldapparentlyRiemann was struggling to definea notionlike
our modern topological manifoldor even our general topological space, al-
thoughin his workthereremainsan implicitlink betweenhis manifoldconcept
and the narrow domain of algebraic functions.In general his results on
manifoldsare not fullysuccessful.
Riemann speaks of discreteand continuousmanifoldswith elementsand
points as correspondingspecialisations(Bestimmungsweisen) (1953: 273-274).
In essence the discretemanifoldsare quantifiedby the integers.However,it is
the continuousmanifoldswhich are of prime interestto him. But in tryingto
capture theiressential nature he gets mixed up with philosophical termsand
outmodedscholasticmethodsof concept analysis.Perhaps it is best to say that
his discussionis just a reflectionof his poor philosophicaltrainingat Göttingen
and the pernicious influenceof Herbart. His distinctionsdo not seem to
work.38
Riemann suggeststhatin mostexamplesmanifoldsare measuredquantities,
i.e., magnitudes.In this case measure consists in the superpositionof the
magnitudesto be compared.However,thereare importantexamples when this
methoddoes not apply. He says (1953:274):
Fehlt dieses,so kann man zwei Grossen nur vergleichen,wenn die eine ein
Theil der andern ist, und auch dann nur das Mehr oder Minder,nichtdas
Wieviel entscheiden.Die Untersuchungen, welche sich in diesem Falle über
sie anstellenlassen,bilden einen allgemeinenvon Massbestimmungenunab-
hängigenTheil der Grössenlehre,wo die Grossen nichtals unabhängigvon
der Lage existirendund nicht als durch eine Einheit ausdrückbar,sondern
als Gebiete in einerMannigfaltigkeit betrachtetwerden.

(In the absence of this,two magnitudescan onlybe comparedwhenone is a

part of the other;in whichcase also we can only determinethe more or less
and not the how much. The researcheswhichcan in this case be instituted
about them form a general part of the science of magnitude in which
magnitudesare regardednot as existingindependently of positionand not as
expressiblein termsof a unit,but as regionsin a manifold.)
This is the main passage in which Riemann points to the science of analysis
situs. It is very similar to the one quoted above fromhis work of 1857 on
Abelian functions.It is clear that he is referringto topological manifolds,
because he immediatelycites the cases of multi-valuedanalyticfunctionsand
problemsrelatedto complex analysis.The Riemann surfacesare uppermostin
38 ofStallo (1960:259-279)and Russell (1897: 13-16,
thecritiques
Cf.especially
63-70).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 125

his mind. Althoughhe uses the term'Grosse', it is apparentthat he does not

mean 'magnitude'in the usual measuredsense,but ratherin the sense of general
and not necessarily metrical extension. Perhaps he could have used
Grassm Ann's term'Ausdehnung',but givenit a broaderconnotation.
Riemann chooses to examine only two aspects of his general topological
manifolds.He offersa constructionmethod for producingmulti-dimensional
manifoldsand a reductionmethodfordetermining pointsin such manifoldsby
sets of quantities,i.e.,real numbercoordinates.
Riemann's constructionmethod is hardly more than the ancient fluxion
theoryextendedto η dimensions(1953:275). His descriptionhas somethingof
theformof an inductivedefinition. The truecharacterof a simplyextendedor 1-
dimensionalmanifold(eine einfachausgedehnteMannigfaltigkeit) is that con-
tinuousprogress(motion; stetigerFortgang)is only possible in two directions,
forwardsand backwards(termsborrowedfromGauss). If we suppose that an
entiresimplyextendedmanifoldpasses over into a series of such manifoldsin
point-to-pointcorrespondence,then we obtain a doubly extended (2-dimen-
sional) manifold.This constructionis exactlyanalogous to the ancientidea that
a continuouslymovingline produces a surface.In generalwe can continuethe
process to give an η-fold or η-dimensionalmanifold. Riemann concludes
(1953:275):
Wenn man, anstatt den Begriffals bestimmbar,seinen Gegenstand als
veränderlichbetrachtet,so kann diese Constructionbezeichnetwerden als
eine Zusammensetzungeiner Veränderlichkeitvon n+ 1 Dimensionen aus
von η Dimensionen und aus einer Veränderlichkeit
einer Veränderlichkeit
von Einer Dimension.

(If instead of consideringthe concept as determinable,one considers its

objects as a variable, then this constructioncan be described as a com-
position of a variable of η + 1 dimensionsfroma variable of η dimensions
and a variable of one dimension.)

Judgingby this passage, one will probably conclude that Riemann has only
succeeded in makingthe simple and intuitivefluxiontheoryquite opaque. His
philosophicalexpressionsdo not add much clarityto his thoughts.Yet perhaps
we can sympathisewithhis struggleto make his topological objects abstract.
In orderto show how to reduce the positionsin an η-dimensionalmanifold
to the determinationof η real quantities,Riemann reversesthe construction
process (1953: 275-276). He assumes that there is a 1-dimensionalmanifold
which we can use as a device to determinethe positions of points in a given
η-dimensional manifold:a 1-dimensionalmeasuringstick,so to speak. A pointon
the 1-manifoldis takenas theorigin;otherpointson it are assignedappropriate
distancesfromthe origin.Correspondingto any givenpoint on the 1-manifold,
we assigna wholesetofpointsin theη-manifold in sucha waythatdifferent points
on the 1-manifoldcorrespond to distinct submanifoldsof the n-manifold.
Expressingthisidea in the language of functiontheory,Riemann says that we
take a continuousfunctionof positionswithinthe n-manifold to values on the 1-
manifold,assumingthat the functionis not constantover an entire(n-dimen-
126 D.M.Johnson

sional?)39 regionof the manifold.Accordinglyeverysystemof pointsforwhich

the functionhas a constantvalue formsa continuoussubmanifoldof fewerthan
η dimensions,in fact,of n- 1 dimensions.As the functionvalue on the 1-
manifoldchanges these (n- l)-dimensionalmanifoldspass over continuously
into one another.Hence, we may thinkof one of them as the original(n- 1)-
manifoldfromwhich the othersproceed,such that each point on the original
manifoldcorresponds(in a one-one onto manner)to a distinctpoint on each
image manifold.This correspondenceis part of the constructionprocess. RlE-
MANNcasually mentionspossible exceptionalcases, i.e., singularitiesin the cor-
respondence;he is apparentlythinkingof branchpointson a RlEMANNsurface.
In fact,most of his ideas about the functionalreductionof manifoldscan be
relatedto complex,or even algebraic,functions.
The processjust describedshows thatwe can reduce the determinationof a
position in an rc-manifold to the determinationof a number and an (n- 1)-
manifold.Continuingthe process, we see that a point in an η-manifoldcan
normallybe determinedby η real numbers:xl9 x2, ... xn. However, RlEMANN
assertsthatsometimesη steps/numbers will not sufficeto determinea point in a
manifold.Here we have infinite-dimensional manifolds,and he mentionsfunc-
tion spaces as examples!
In briefRlEMANNcharacterisesan η-dimensionalmanifoldas a 1-parameter
familyof (n- l)-dimensionalmanifolds.His manifoldsare Euclidean in their
smallestparts and even globally Euclidean (apart frompossible singularities
which he decides to ignore in his lecture).He assumes differentiability in the
later sectionsof the Habilitationsvortrag,so apparentlyRiemannianmanifolds
are intendedto be differentiable manifolds.40
CertainlyRlEMANNsought a manifoldconcept of great generality.Nev-
informalexplanationsare fraughtwithseveraldifficul-
ertheless,his all-too-brief
ties.For example,whatare we to understandby'continuity'or theimplicituse of
motionin his abstractcharacterisation?He does not tell us. One may suppose
thattheseconceptsare to have the informalmeaningscurrentaround 1850. Not
surprisinglylatermathematiciansfollowingthecriticalprinciplesofthearithmet-
isation programme,especiallyas laid down by Weierstrass, found it neces-
saryto probe more deeplyinto thesevague pointsin Riemann's lecture.
On a veryprofoundlevel thereis a serious problemrelatedto Riemann's
entireapproach. Ultimatelyhe linkshis basic topological objects withnumbers
and coordinate systems.In other words, a Riemannian manifold is always
reducibleto a 'number-manifold'('Zahlenmannigfaltigkeit', a termoftenused
by Lie and Klein). Consequently,when tryingto constructa frameworkfor
nonmetricalanalysis situs, he nonethelessseems to fall back on concepts of
measurementand ordinary analytic geometry.In this way 4ie appears to
completea logical circle.If the coordinatesof the pointsin a manifoldare given
by the usual Euclidean distance measure, then a specificmetric is already
39 or,as we mightsay,itmustcontain
theregionmustbe η-dimensional
Presumably
an openset.
40Enriques (1898) attempts Riemann'stheoryof manifolds
to reconstruct and
dimension.
 Dimension and Modem Topology 127

assumed for the supposedly nonmetrical structure. How can he then go on to

consider differentpossible measure-relations in the second section of his lecture?
At the heart of this logical problem is a deep issue in the foundations of
geometry of which Riemann's later followers and critics became acutely aware:
for example, Felix Klein (1897 ) = ( 1921:388-389) and Bertrand Russell
(1897:30-33).^ Towards the end of the nineteenth century mathematicians
discerned a directly related problem in the case of projective geometry, osten-
sibly nonmetrical. They wondered: Is it really permissible to use a coordinate
system, normally defined by a metric, to study this geometry in a purely
projective way? Klein pointed the way to a solution avoiding the vicious circle,
through von Staudt's quadrilateral construction. By means of this construc-
tion we can avoid the usual metric. We can coordinatise the structures in-
vestigated in projective geometry in such a way that their points are consistently
assigned numbers by convention without bringing in a metric.42 By analogy
what Riemannian manifolds need is a method for arbitrarily assigning coor-
dinates consistent with the topologies of their structures.In his work Riemann
gives no indication of such a method, although he most probably thought of his
coordinates as arbitrary.43 They constitute parametrisations of the manifolds.
Still, the solution by arbitrary coordinates is only a partial one. What we find
conspicuously lacking in Riemann's work is the notion of a topological
mapping. For modern mathematicians topology is inseparable from homeomor-
phisms. Riemann never contemplated these in his programme of analysis situs.
In a broader context mathematicians working towards the end of the
nineteenth century began to feel the need for a deeper analysis of the foun-
dations of nonmetrical geometry,in particular, of topology. Klein especially saw
the logical difficultyin basing geometry on number-manifolds and pressed for a
solution (1897 ) = ( 1921 : 388-389).** In effectthis difficultywas the immediate
motivation for the development of the concept of a topological space by
Hilbert (1903), Weyl (1913), and Hausdorff (1914). With respect to
Riemann and his much earlier work, we must conclude that he did not found
the subject of general topology, but only groped towards it.45
In spite of the multiplicity of obscure points in Riemann's entire Habili-
tationsvortrag, the work became quite significant in the development of
geometrical thought after it was published in 1868. It was primarily Hermann
von Helmholtz (1821-1894) who made mathematicians and philosophers
aware of Riemann's brilliant ideas. Since about 1866 Helmholtz had been
working on a philosophico-geometrical problem closely related to Riemann's,
41
Cf.Lie/Engel(1893:394-395,486).
42
E.g.,cf.Russell (1897:118-119,123-126) foran exposition of thissolutionto
theproblem.
43
Perhapshe had in minda generalisation of Gauss' 'arbitrary'
parametric coor-
dinatesforsurfaces
as presented in the' Disquisitiones
générales circasuperficies
curvas'.
44
Cf.Lie/Engel(1893:535-537).
*3Thus Riemanns mainachievements in theHabilitationsvortrag
reallyhe in the
secondandthirdsections. His ideason differential
geometry areespeciallyimportantand
soon afterpublicationof the workothermathematicians began investigatingthem
further.
128 D. M. Johnson

but derived from a differentsource.46 When reading accounts of RlEMANN's

work in two obituaries by Ernst Schering, Helmholtz was surprised- and
- to find that RlEMANN had previously explored fundamental ques-
dismayed
tions about space and the geometrical axioms. He quickly obtained a copy of
the Habilitationsvortragfrom SCHERING. Shortly thereafterhe presented a paper
to the Naturhistorisch-medicinischer Verein at Heidelberg on 22 May 1868
(1868-69) and he sent a further paper to the Königliche Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften at Göttingen, which was presented on the third of June. The
second paper, 'Über die Thatsachen, die der Geometrie zum Grunde liegen'
(1868a), is his most important on the subject.
In very general terms RlEMANN and Helmholtz had attacked the same
problem, the so-called Riemann-Helmholtz (afterwards Riemann-Helm-
holz-Lie) space problem. However, closer analysis shows that Riemann had
started from a far more general position, a position which we would characterise
as partly topological. Indeed Helmholtz' much more widely-read and in-
fluential papers tended to conceal the deeper springs of RlEMANN's thought.47
Because of Helmholtz' greater influence virtually all nineteenth-centurythink-
ers lost sight of RlEMANN's general topological basis. In his second paper of
1868 Helmholtz simply reduces Riemann's discussion of η-dimensional man-
ifolds to a succinct assumption or axiom which declares that η real-valued
continuous coordinates determine the points in such manifolds (1868a: 197-
198). Anyone reading Riemann and Helmholtz on manifolds must regard
the latter's account as simpler and clearer.
Afterthe burst of activity on higher-dimensional geometry of the 1840's and
'50's numerous mathematicians proceeded with furtherdevelopments.48 They
investigated hyperspaces both from an analytical and more purely geometrical
direction. Most attention was given to rc-spaces of the Euclidean linear type,
'homoloidal spaces', like Grassmann's domains. Hence during the final third
of the nineteenth century hyperspaces became a commonplace in mathematical
works. Following GAUSS and RlEMANN many employed the term 'Man-
nigfaltigkeit'('manifold', and in French, 'variété'), but giving it a great diversity
of meanings. In his Erlanger Programm Felix Klein (1849-1925) prominently
uses the term to referto the basic abstract spaces underlying his group-theoretic
definitions of geometries (1872: §10, Note IV). Mappings or transformations
are also, of course, a feature of Klein's approach to geometry,something which
was lacking in Riemann's analysis situs. Karl Weierstrass (1815-1897)
commonly used the term 'Mannigfaltigkeit' in his lectures on multi-variable
analysis (1927:55-60) (cf. PiNCHERLE (1880)). He treated his rc-foldmanifolds
as arithmetical continua (Euclidean spaces) founded on a logical theory of the
real numbers and he introduced basic analytical concepts such as limit point,
continuum, and interior in order to develop analysis rigorously. In this work lies

46 Helmholtz' source was the problemof spatial perceptions

physio-psychological
(1868a: 193). On Helmholtz' lifeand work cf.Koenigsberger (1902-03) (1906); see
especially(1906:254-266).
47
Cf. Weyl (1923) and Freudenthal (1960).
48
Cf. Segre (1921).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 129

the true originof general or analytictopology.Cantor, takinghis cue from

Weierstrass, then employed the term 'Mannigfaltigkeit'and the related
topological concepts. However, in several of his importantcontributionsthe
termmerelymeans an arbitraryset of numbersor points; it can even mean just
an abstractset (Menge). It was only at the veryend of the nineteenthcentury
and thenin the firstyearsof the twentieththata fewmathematiciansstartedto
propose rigorousdefinitionsof the topologicalconceptof manifold.WALTER
von Dyck, Henri Poincaré, Hermann Weyl, and L. E. J.Brouwer were
the principalcreatorsof this formaldevelopment.Nevertheless,thereis some
historicaljustice in linkingRiemAnn's earlier 'primitive'ideas with the def-
initionsof theselatermathematicians.
The publicationsof Riemann and especiallyHelmholtz initiateda wide-
rangingphilosophicaldiscussionof the natureof space and the foundationsof
geometryincludingits non-Euclideanand multi-dimensional branches.In the
1870's and '80's the Germans were the most active participantsin this dis-
cussion,while in the 1890's the French took the leading role with Bertrand
Russell as a misguidedEnglish contributor.49From the beginningphilos-
ophers stronglycriticisedRlEMANN'sentire way of proceedingand implicit
philosophy,especiallyhis startingpoint: coordinatisedmanifolds.The whole
gamut of philosophical positions fromempiricismto idealism, in particular,
Kantianism,was representedin the discussion.Helmholtz was the principal
empiricist;his student,Benno Erdmann, expanded upon his philosophyat
greatlengthin the book Die Axiomeder Geometrie(1877). Apartfroma certain
amountof almostinevitablepolemizing,on the whole the standardof argument
in thisdiscussionwas high.
The rapid developmentsin geometryforcedphilosophersto see the science
in a new light.It became clear that many significant branchesof geometryhad
to be separatedfromthe notionof space. Physicalspace could no longerbe the
ultimatefoundationforthe entirediscipline.Philosophersand mathematicians
thus spoke of 'metageometry'and 'géométriegénérale'. Geometrypresenteda
more abstract face. To be sure, the geometryof our space still remained
uppermostin the minds of many philosophers.If Erdmann or RUSSELL
discussedthe axioms ofgeometry, in the finalanalysistheywereconcernedwith
those assumptionswhichcharacterisethat 3-foldmanifoldwhich is our space.
The more radical split betweenpure geometryas an uninterpreted deductive
system and applied geometry as a way of modellingphysical space did not
become fullyunderstooduntil afterthe later work of PASCH and the Italian
school and the publicationof HlLBERT'sGrundlagender Geometrie(1899).
The approach to higherspace throughcoordinatemanifoldsand analytical
methodsbegun by geometersof the mid-nineteenth centurypresentsus with a

49 Russell
(1897:54-116) givesa goodcriticalreviewof philosophies
of geometry
fromKant to 1897.Erdmann(1877: 17-33) also presents a review,coveringa shorter
periodof time.For references to the vast philosophicalliteratureconcerning the
problemsof geometry and space thatwas generated principally
by thepublicationsof
Riemannand Helmholtz and also thenon-Euclidean geometers consultthebiblio-
ofHalstead (1878-79) and Sommerville(1911).
graphies
130 D.M.Johnson

definitehistoricalindicatorof the developingcleavage betweengeometryand

space. Abstract spaces took on a fundamentalsignificance;'space' became
arithmetised. This developmentin geometryis part of the trendof nineteenth-
centuryarithmetisation (cf. Klein (1895) = (1922: 232-240)). The application
of the new rigorous theories of real numbers (proposed around 1870) then
brought about a synthesisbetween the programmesof arithmetisationin
analysis and in geometry.Geometrico-mechanicalcontinuitybased on the
intuitiveidea of motionwas therebyreplacedby analytically-defined continuity.
With Weierstrass and Cantor multi-dimensional coordinatemanifoldsbe-
came fullyarithmetised.
Nearer the end of the century,however,a trendcontraryto the analyticone
developed. Several mathematiciansargued that geometryought to be con-
structedas a pure autonomous science and not on the basis of number-
manifolds.This is the axiomatic-deductive trend.From it arose the criticismof
RlEMANN,Helmholtz, and Lie for basing geometryon Zahlenmannigfaltig-
keiten,because ultimatelysuch a use appears to complete a vicious circle.
Hence, mathematiciansinitiateda deeper analysisof the foundationsof geome-
try which had importantconsequences for the subsequent developmentof a
genuinelynonmetricaltopology.50RlEMANN(and others)had triedto develop
thissubject,but withoutsuccess.Only in thetwentieth centurycould thissubject
grow accordingto its naturalprinciples.
To conclude this chapter let me turn specificallyto the impact of the
proposal and growthof analytical theoriesof hyperspacesand n-dimensional
manifoldson ideas of dimension itself.Without doubt the growth of these
theoriesmade the dimensionconcept more easily comprehensible.Implicit in
themis whatwe mightappropriatelycall the coordinateidea of dimension.This
is the simple,naive idea that the dimensionof a space is merelythe unique
number of coordinates needed to determinea point in that space. Strictly
speaking,neitherGrassmann, nor Riemann, nor Helmholtz ever espoused
thistheoryof dimension,fortheyassociated continuityand even differentiability
with theirabstract spaces. Yet it must be admittedthat they were not very
definiteabout theircontinuityand differentiability assumptions;GRASSMANN
and Riemann really thoughtof continuityin terms of the ancient fluxion
theory.However,whenGeorg Cantor probeddeeperinto thecoordinateidea
of dimensionand discoveredhis paradoxical resultshowingthatthe simpleidea
is untenable,he forced mathematiciansto take a freshlook at dimension.
Cantor's work could only have taken place in the contextof the development
of arithmetisedhyperspaces.His discovery,the subject of the next chapter,is
inconceivablewithoutthe priorgrowthof such ideas.
50Thisdeaperanalysisalso affectedthedevelopmentofLie grouptheory. Alongside
the deeperanalysisleadingto nonmetrical topologysome mathematicians developed
metricalideas relatedto topologyfurther. and
Thus workin thecalculusof variations
functionalspaces motivated Fréchet to put a
forward theoryof (E) classesor metric
spaces(thelatterbeingHausdorff's term)(1906).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 131
'
Chapter2. Georg Cantor's Paradox' of Dimension

In 1877 Georg Cantor (1845-1918)1discoveredto his own amazement

thatthepointsofa unitlinesegment can be putintoone-onecorrespondence
withthe pointsof a unitsquare or moregenerally withthe pointsof a p-
dimensional cube.Thiscounterintuitive resultimmediately calledintoquestion
the concept of dimension. Was it well-definedor even meaningful in mathe-
matics?Cantor's discovery markstheoriginofthemostimportant problemof
the
dimension, problem ofitsinvariance.Is dimension invariantwith respectto
any classof This
mappings? problem drove mathematiciansto conduct a search
foran invarianceprooffordimension, a searchwhichlastedforover three
decades.WithoutquestionCantor's discoveryand the closelylinkedin-
varianceproblemtogether have been thesinglemostimportant cause forthe
growth of modern topologicaldimension theory.In thischapterwe shall see
how Cantor arrivedat his surprising resultand examinetheimplications of
hisfind.2
Cantor's work on set theoryarose out of his investigations into the
uniquenessof representing a function by a trigonometric series.3In 1874 he
publishedhis firstpurelyset-theoretic
paper,'Über eine Eigenschaft des Inbe-
allerreellenalgebraischen
griffes Zahlen'(1874), in whichthereare proofsthat
theset of real algebraicnumberscan be conceivedin theformof an infinite
sequence
M
ω1,ω2,...,ων,...
{i.e.,thesetis countable,abzählbar,to use Cantor's laterterm),whilethesetof
all realnumbers cannotbe givenin theformofan infinite sequence(i.e.,theset
is uncountable, unabzählbar).4In fact,he provedthelatterresultin thestronger
form:foreverysequenceof real numbersand everyintervalof thereal linea
numbercan be determined in theintervalwhichis not in thegivensequence.
Throughthemediumof theseresultshe saw a cleardistinction betweentwo
typesofinfinite setsofnumbers on therealline.It wasthenperfectlynaturalfor
himto wonderwhether thereare othertypesofinfinitesets,sayfortheplaneor
forhigher-dimensional spaces.
Cantor discoveredthe resultsof his paper of 1874 late in 1873,as his
withRichard Dedekind (1831-1916) 5
correspondence clearlyshows.The
lettersfromCantor to Dedekind between29 Novemberand 27 December
revealjust howquicklyhe wrappedup his investigations (Cantor/Dedekind
(1937:12-20)).
1 The standard
biographyof Cantor is Fraenkel (1930). Cf. Meschkowski
(1967) and Grattan-Guinness(1971). I understand thatProf.J.W.Dauben intends
to publishor has recently publisheda biography of Cantor, althoughI have notyet
seenit.
2 The materialin this
chapterhas also beencoveredby Dauben (1974). However,
myapproachis somewhat and I believeI haveaddedsomenewinsights.
different To be
sure,the storyof Cantor's paradoxicaldiscovery is a crucialpartof the originsof
topologicaldimension theory and mustbe includedin a fullhistory.
3
Cf.Dauben (1971).
4 Cantor's term'abzählbar'first
5 For appearsin his(1882).
biographicalmaterialon Dedekind cf.Landau (1917) and Dugac (1976).
132 D.M.Johnson

Cantor had met Dedekind by chance in Gersau during a trip to Switzer-

land in 1872 (Fraenkel (1930: 196)), and the famous exchange of letters which
ensued6 has become an invaluable source of information about the motivation
for the mathematical work of these two men. One can almost see Cantor in the
act of creating set theory and topology through his letters to DEDEKIND.
7
Having investigated the power or cardinality of two important linear sets,
the real algebraic numbers and the real numbers, he turned to an examination of
higher-dimensional sets. In a letter to Dedekind dated 5 January 1874 he posed
a new research question (Cantor/Dedekind (1937:20)):
Lässt sich eine Fläche (etwa ein Quadrat mit Einschluss der Begrenzung)
eindeutig auf eine Linie (etwa eine gerade Strecke mit Einschluss der
Endpunkte) eindeutig beziehen, so dass zu jedem Puncte der Fläche ein
Punct der Linie und umgekehrt zu jedem Puncte der Linie ein Punct der
Fläche gehört?

(Can a surface (perhaps a square including its boundary) be put into one-one
correspondence with a line (perhaps a straight line segment including its
endpoints) so that to each point of the surface there corresponds a point of
the line and conversely to each point of the line there corresponds a point of
the surface?)
This problem is basic to the growth of dimension theory. From the start
Cantor was convinced of the importance and difficultyof his research ques-
tion. He realised that some, indeed most, would regard a negative answer to it as
so obvious that a proof would hardly be necessary. When he discussed it with a
friendin Berlin some time during the firstpart of 1874, the friendexplained that
the matter was absurd, so to speak (Cantor/Dedekind (1937:21)):
... da es sich von selbst verstünde, dass zwei unabhängige Veränderliche sich
nicht auf eine zurückfuhrenlassen.

(... since it is obvious that two independent variables cannot be reduced to

one.)
In relating this encounter in a letter of 18 May 1874, the young Cantor sought
Dedekind's reassurance that he was not chasing after a delusion ! However, we
know that he was not deceived. Even in posing his research question he
introduced something quite new and important into thinking about dimension.
to the dimensionoffiguresand spaces.
He relatedmappingsand correspondences
in cardinality.
For Cantor thiswasa naturalrelationbecausehe wasinterested
In thiswayhe was led to a noveltreatmentof thedimensionconcept,having
consequences.
surprising
We have no recordof Dedekind's initialreactionto Cantor's research

6 The has recentlybeen rediscovered;cf. Kimberling (1972),

correspondence
Grattan-Guinness(1974), Dugac (1976).
7 Cantor firstbeganto use the term'Mächtigkeitin a letterto Dedekind ol
20June1877(Cantor/Dedekind(1937:25)) and thenin his(1878).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 133

problemand, moreover,no writtenrecordof exactlyhow Cantor dealt withit

fromMay 1874 untilApril1877. No lettersconcerningthe matterhave come to
lightcoveringthis period; probably nothingon the subject was written.It is
likelythat he only worked intermittently on his researchproblem frommid-
1874 to mid-1877 and indeed withoutsuccess. However,he persistedin regard-
ing it as important.For example, when he attended the Gaussjubiläumin
Göttingenon 30 April1877,the one-hundredth anniversaryof Gauss' birth,he
told various colleagues (among them Heinrich Weber and Rudolph Lip-
SCHITZ) of his problem,which he felt was fundamentalto geometry.Again
most of these colleagues thought the answer was obvious; a one-one cor-
respondencebetweengeometricalfiguresof differing dimensionsis not possible.
Still Cantor feltthata proofwas needed.
Subsequent to the GAUSS Jubilee in April CANTOR switchedhis line of
attack,employingtheusual strategyofthemathematicianwhichadvisesthatifa
proofof a conjectureseemsdifficult to findthentryto finda counterexample.In
a letter to Dedekind of 20 June1877 there is a positive solution to the
problem! In this letterhe firststateshis solution in geometricalterms,namely
(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:25)):
... dass Flächen, Körper,ja selbst stetigeGebilde von ρ Dimensionensich
eindeutigzuordnenlassenstetigenLinien,also Gebildenvon nureinerDimen-
sion, dass also Flächen, Körper, ja sogar Gebilde von ρ Dimensionen,
dieselbeMächtigkeithaben,wie Curven....
(... thatsurfaces,solids, even continuousfiguresof ρ dimensionscan be put
into one-one correspondencewithcontinuouslines,thus figuresof only one
dimension;therefore, thatsurfaces,solids,even figuresof ρ dimensionshave
the same power as curves. . . .)

ImmediatelyCantor saw his resulton the equal poweror cardinalityof sets of

various dimensionsas a criticismof some assumptionsabout dimensioncom-
monly held by geometersof his time. They casually spoke of simplyinfinite,
twofold,threefold,... p-foldinfinitefigures;theyeven regardedthe infinity of
pointsof a surfaceas the square of the infinityof pointsof a line or the infinity
of points of a solid as the cube of the infiniteset of points of the line. Such
thoughtswere prevalentat the time.However,Cantor changed the situation
entirely.He injectedhis new ideas about mappingsand correspondencesinto
thinkingabout dimension.Consequently,his proposedproofof equal powerwas
to be an attack on the foundationsof geometry,on the very concept of
dimensionwhichgeometerswere usinguncritically.
However,in theletterofJune20thCantor presentsa demonstration whichis
arithmetical,not geometrical,in character. First of all, he claims that all
(connected)figuresof the same dimensionnumbercan be mapped analytically
onto one another.By 'figures'he seems to mean just a varietyof relatively
simplegeometricalones, forotherwisethe claim would amount to a verybroad
generalisationof the 2-dimensionalRiemann mappingtheorem.But surelyhe
does not intendto make such a generalisation, forhe musthave been well aware
134 D.M.Johnson

of the virtualimpossibilityof provingsuch an extreme- and false- generali-

sation.8
Yet Cantor is reallyinterestedin figuresas sets of points and of different
dimensions. He tries to show that systems of values (xl9x2, ...xp), where
0^x/ = l, can be put into one-one correspondencewithvalues of a variable y,
O^y^ 1. We mightstatethismore simplyby sayingthatthe aim is to show that
the pointsof a unitp-dimensionalcube can be put into one-one correspondence
withthe pointsof a unitline segment.Cantor's techniqueof proofrestson his
assertionthateverynumberx, 0 = x = 1, can be representeduniquelyin the form
decimal expansion:
of an infinite
1 1 1

where the a's are digits,0, ... 9. Using simple decimal expansions instead of
writingCantor's equivalentdecimal series,we can writeρ decimal values for
each point of the p-cube:
χ1=0.α11α12...α1ν...,
χ2= 0.α21α22...α2ν...,

=
*Ρ 0.αρ1αρ2...αρν...
and a singledecimal foreach value of y:

Now the x's and the y can be put into correspondenceaccording to the
followingequations:
P(n-l)p+l =ain> ß(n-l)p+2=IX2n> '"
= ··· Ρ(«-1)ρ + ρ = αρη·
β(η-1)ρ + σ (χση'·>

oftheχ decimalsto yielda y numberso that:

We havea kindof'interlacing'

y='0.otlia21... αρ1α12α22 ... αρ3... .

... αρ2α13α23
a y numbercan be 'unlaced'to giveχ numbers.
Conversely,
Dedekind quicklyrespondedin a letterofJune22ndwithan objectionto
Cantor's proof.FirstDedekind assumedthatCantor, by requiring infinite
decimalexpansions, wishedto excludedecimalnumberswithtrailing0's. Of
9's (withthesingleexception
course,thesecan alwaysbe replacedwithtrailing
For example,thefinite
ofthenumber0 itself). decimal
0.3000... =0.3
8 The Dirichlet Principle,
whichRiemann used in his proofof the conformai
mappingtheorem criticised
(1953:40-42), was severely byWeierstrass (1870) (which
wasnotprinted until1895).Around1870H.A.Schwarz and C.Neumann thentriedto
provethe mappingtheoremwithoutthe Dirichlet Principle.Cantor musthave
knownabouttheseimportant mathematicaldevelopments,so thatitis highly
improbable
theorem
thedifficult
thathe wouldwishto generalise without anyproof.
 Dimension and Modem Topology 135

can be replaced by the infinitedecimal

0.2999....
With this assumption Dedekind's objection amounts to the following. Take the
simplest case when we lace up two real numbers, χ and y:
x = O.(x1oí2 ... αν ...,
y= 0.ßxß2...ßv...
to derive a third number z:
z = 0.y1y2...yv...,
where
7ΐ=αΐ> ?2=01> 73=α2> );4 = /Ϊ25···);2ν-1=αν, ?2ν=βν···
Now ifwe takea specific
ζ number:

0.478310507090α70α80α90...αν0...,
thentheunlacingprocesswillyielda y number,

y= 0.730000...,
whichdoes nothavetherequiredinfinitedecimalform.Moreover, theinfinite
decimalformforthis3/numberdoes notcorrespond ζ number.
to thespecified
In general,
thereare infintely
manyoftheseζ numberswhichyieldinadmissible
χ or y decimalnumbers.Dedekind concludedthisletterwiththe sentence
(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:28)):
Ich weissnicht,ob meinEinwurfvon wesentlicher
Bedeutung fürIhreIdee
ist,dochwollteichihnnichtzurückhalten.
(I do not knowwhether myobjectionis of essentialsignificance
foryour
I did notwantto holdit backfromyou.)
idea; however,
Cantor's replywas swift.In a card postmarked 23.6.77, the day after
Dedekind wrotehis objection, he acceptedthecriticism as a criticismof the
proofbutnotofthetheorem itself.
Cantor felthisresultcouldbe salvaged.His
immediate reactionwas to claimthathe had 'proved'morethanhe intended.
As given,his interlacing processbringsa systemof realvariablesxl5x2,... xp,
withO^x^l, intocorrespondence witha variabley. Now thevariabley does
not take on all valuesin the unitinterval, but onlycertainvaluesy' which
excludethose suggestedin Dedekind's objection,viz.,those with certain
patterns of0's. In hispostcardCantor suggests thatto fixup hisproofall that
is neededis to showhow to bringthe y' into one-onecorrespondence with
anothervariablet whichtakeson all realvaluesbetween0 and 1.
As it turnedout,Cantor was notimmediately able to repairhis proofas
suggestedin his postcard.9Instead in a letterof just two days later
9 In itis quiteeasytofixup Cantor'sfirst Wemerely block0's with
reality proof.
nonzero to eliminate
digits thedifficulty
whichDedekindpointed out.Thusweblock
theexample ofDedekindas follows:0.47831|05|07|09... . We thentreatblocksas
singledigitsforinterlacing and unlacing.
136 D.M.Johnson

(25 June 1877) he presented Dedekind with a completely new proof, which,
though overcoming Dedekind's objection, is not nearly as simple as the earlier
proof. He must have been anxious to see his research problem through to an
acceptable conclusion. In the letterhe puts his theorem as follows (Cantor/De-
DEKlNDfi 937: 29 j):

(A) „Eine nach ρ Dimensionen ausgedehnte stetige Mannigfaltigkeitlässt sich

eindeutig einer stetigenMannigfaltigkeitvon einer Dimension zuordnen, oder:
(was nur eine andere Form desselben Satzes ist) die Puncte (Elemente) einer
nach ρ Dimensionen ausgedehnten Mannigfaltigkeit lassen sich durch eine
reelle Coordinate t so bestimmen, dass zu jedem reellen Werth von t im
Intervalle (0... 1) ein Punct der Mannigfaltigkeit, aber auch umgekehrt zu
jedem Puncte der M. ein bestimmter Werth von t im Intervalle (0...1)
gehört."

((A) A continuous manifold extended in ρ dimensions can be put into one-

one correspondence with a continuous manifold of one dimension, or (what
is only the same theorem in a differentguise) the points (elements) of a
manifold extended in ρ dimensions can be determined by one real coordinate
t so that to every real value of t in the [closed] interval (0...1) there
corresponds a point of the manifold and also conversely to every point of the
manifold there is a definitevalue of t in the [closed] interval (0 ... 1).)

To prove the theorem Cantor begins by using the fact that every irrational
number e between 0 and 1 can be represented by a unique infinite continued
fraction:

e= -
=(α1,α2,...,αν,...),
0L1+
a2+
1
av+...
wherethea's are positiveintegers.Sincewe do nothavethedifficultywith0 as
withdecimalnumbers, it is now possibleto salvagetheinterlacing
argument.
Thusifwe haveρ irrational numbers between 0 and 1,represented
bycontinued
fractions:
^1=(α11,α12,...,α1ν,...),
£2=(α2ΐ>α22>···>α2ν>···)>

=
^ρ (αρ1>αρ2>···>αρν>···)>

numberδ, 0 < ô < 1:

theseto deriveanotherirrational
thenwe can interlace

d = (ßi9ß2>-~>ßv9'~)>

to theequations:
according
··' P{n- 1)ρ + σ = αση> ··· Pnp^^pn'
P(n-l) p+ 1 =αΐπ>
 Dimension and Modem Topology 137

Consequently, ρ irrational numbers can be interlaced to make one irrational

number and, conversely, one irrational number can be unlaced to give ρ
irrationals.
The problem of giving a correspondence between points of the unit segment
and points of the p-cube is now driven back to the problem of showing that
there is a one-one correspondence between the set of irrational numbers in the
unit interval and the set of all numbers in that interval, i.e., the problem of
proving (Cantor/Dedekind (1937:30)):

(B) „Eine veränderliche Zahl e, welche alle irrationalen Zahlenwerthe des

Intervalles (0... 1) annehmen kann, lässt sich eindeutig einer Zahl x, welche
alle Werthe dieses Intervalles ohne Ausnahme erhält, zuordnen."

((Β) Α variable number e which can take all irrational number values of the
[closed] interval (0...1) can be put in one-one correspondence with a
number χ which takes all values of this interval without exception.)

For us the proof of this theorem is not difficult,but for CANTOR, the firstto
explore the unknown territoryof infinite sets, one-one correspondences, and
cardinality, the proof did not come easily. The proof given in his letters to
Dedekind of 25 and 29 June 1877 is far from simple. However, it does reveal to
us how he firstgrappled with the problems of the cardinality of infinitesets.
To demonstrate (B) CANTOR begins by considering the rational numbers in
the closed interval [0, 1] 10 given in the form of a sequence:

rl5r2,...,rv,...
and an arbitrarily chosen infinite sequence of irrational numbers εν from the
interval [0, 1] which obey the conditions that εν<εν+1 (monotonically
increasing) and lim εν= 1. The sequence of rational numbers and the sequence
of irrational numbers can easily be put into one-one correspondence in the
obvious way: rv corresponds to εν. On the basis of this correspondence we
immediately have a correspondence between the real numbers of the unit
interval minus the rationals (i.e., the irrationals e) and the numbers of [0, 1]
minus the irrationals εν and so theorem (B) is reduced to (Cantor/Dedekind
(1937:31)):
(C) „Eine Zahl /, welchealle Werthedes Intervalles(0... 1) annehmenkann
mit Ausnahmegewisserεν,die an die Bedingungengebundensind: εν<εν+1
und limεν= 1 lässt sich einer stetigenVeränderlichenχ eindeutigzuordnen,
welchealle Werthedes Intervalles(0... 1) ohne Ausnahmeerhält."

((C) A number/ whichcan take all values of the interval(0... 1) with the
exceptionof certainεν,whichare bound by theconditionsεν<εν+1 and Ηηιεν
= 1, can be put into one-one correspondencewith a continuousvariable χ
whichtakes all values of the interval(0... 1) withoutexception.)

10It is convenient
to use themodernterminology
and symbols,
(x,y),[x,y],(*,)>]>
for
[x,y), open, and
closed, intervals.
half-open
138 D.M.Johnson

Reducing theorem (B) to (C) simplifies the task of findinga correspondence.

The irrational numbers εν just break up the unit interval [0, 1] into infinitely
many subintervals. The firstof these is half-open and the remaining are open
intervals; additionally, there is the single point 1:

[0,ε1),(β1,ε2),...(εν,εν+1),...,1.

These can be lined up with the complete closed interval [0,1]. Thus towards the
end of his letter of 25 June CANTOR says the proof of (C) is to be carried out by
successive applications of (Canto r/Dedekind (1937:32)):

(D) „Eine Zahl y, welche alle Werthe des Intervalles (0... 1) mit alleiniger
Ausnahme des Werthes 0 annehmen kann, lässt sich einer Zahl χ eindeutig
zuordnen, welche alle Werthe des Intervalles (0 ... 1) ohne Ausnahme erhält."

((D) A number y which can take all values of the interval (0... 1) with the
single exception of the value 0 can be put into one-one correspondence with
a number χ which takes all values of the interval (0 ... 1) without exception.)
Hence we want to show that the half-open interval (0, 1] can be put in one-one
correspondence with the closed interval [0, 1], Cantor's proof of (D) proceeds
by means of a complex diagram defining a curve (Cantor/Dedekind
(1937:32)):

0 b b} b2b3bitp

The curve consists of the parallel segmentsab,a'b' ,a"fe",..., excluding the

endpointsb9b',b",..., plus the point c. The lengthsare definedas:

õp=pã=l; ob='' bbl=i; b1b2=±; b2b3=^...;

 Dimensionand ModemTopology 139

Clearlythecurvemaps theclosed unitinterval[0, 1] on thex-axisonto thehalf-

open unitinterval(0, 1] on the y-axis.
The curveand theorem(D) do not quite completethe proofof (C), because,
first,(D) needs to be generalisedto intervalswith arbitraryendpoints and,
second,it is necessaryto show the relatedresultthatan open intervalcan be put
into correspondencewitha closed interval.Cantor soon realised the need to
fill out his proof of (C) and sent a completionto Dedekind in a letterof
29 June.In thishe makesheavyweatherof thecompletion(Cantor/Dedekind
( 1937: 34-37))}1 Yet we mustrememberthat in this workhe was firstcoming
to grips with correspondencesand cardinal equivalences, a subject he was
'creatingout of nothing'.
During the summerof 1877 Cantor wrote out the resultsthat he had
communicatedto DEDEKIND in a paper, 'Ein Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeits-
lehre' (1878). In the course of writingthispaper he discovereda much simpler
proofof his main theorem(B) and told Dedekind of it in a letterof 23 October
1877. The proofof thistheorem,thatthe irrationalnumbersin the unitinterval
(denotedby the variablee) can be put into one-one correspondencewithall the
numbersof the unitinterval(variablex' or in Cantor's notation:

is simplycarriedout as follows(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:40-41)). Let φν be

the generalmemberof the sequence of all rationalnumbersin [0, 1] and let ην
be the generalmemberof a sequence of irrationalnumbersin the same interval,

l/2

all the othervalues of the interval[0,1], exceptthose

Also let h represent
representedbyφν and ην.Then:
11 thecompletionof(C) is accomplished
as follows.Firstwe can generalise
Briefly
theorem(D) to intervalswitharbitrary endpointsin a trivialway by usinglinear
substitutions
(theorem(F), Cantor/Dedekind (1937:35)). Secondwe can provethe
followingtheorem withthehelpof(F) by aligningappropriateintervals(Cantor/De-
dekind (1937:35)):
(G) „Eine Zahl w, welche alle Werthe des Intervalles(a... β) mit Ausnahme der
beiden Endwertheα,β erhält,lässt sich einerveränderlichenZahl u eindeutigzuord-
nen,die alle Werthedes Intervalles(α . . . β) annimmt."
((G) A numberw whichtakes all values of the interval(a ... β) withthe exceptionof
the two endpoints α,β can be put into one-one correspondencewith a variable
numberu whichtakes all values of the interval(a ... β).)

Finallywe can arriveat a one-one correspondencebetweenall the intervals

[0,ε1),(ε1,ε2),... (εν,εν+1),
...,1
and the entire closed interval [0, 1] by using theorem (G) to give correspondences
between(εl9e2) and [εΐ5ε2],(ε3,ε4)and [ε3,ε4],...(ε2ν_ΐ5ε2ν)
and [ε2ν_1,ε2ν],
... .
140 D. M. Johnson

x = {Mv>0v}>
e = {Mv} = {M2v-l>>/2v}·
But
h~h; ην~η2ν-ι1 </>v~>hv·
Hence,it followsthat
x~e.
Whatan elegantproof!
Havingmade the paradoxicaldiscovery that1- and p-dimensional figures
can be putintoone-onecorrespondence, Cantor was quickto drawout some
mathematical and philosophicalconsequencesof his unexpectedfind.In his
correspondencewithDedekind we get the firstreactionsof the two mento
Cantor's result.In thelastparagraphs ofhisletterof 25 June1877(Cantor/
Dedekind (1937:33-34)) he remarksabouttheimplications ofhis discovery.
He says thathe has followedwithinterest the efforts
of GAUSS,RlEMANN,
Helmholtz, and othersdirectedtowardsunderstanding the foundationsof
geometry,but his resulthas now made himdoubtthe validityof theirwork
(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:33)):
Dabei fielmir auf,dass alle in dieses Feld schlagenden Untersuchungen
voneinerunbewiesenen
ihrerseits Voraussetzung ausgehen,die mirnichtals
vielmehr
selbstverständlich, einerBegründung erschienen
bedürftig ist.Ich
meinedie Voraussetzung, dass eineρ fachausgedehnte stetigeMannigfaltig-
keitzur Bestimmung ihrerElementeρ von einanderunabhängiger reeller
Coordinaten bedarf,dass dieseZahl der Coordinaten füreine und dieselbe
Mannigfaltigkeitwedervergrössert nochverkleinertwerdenkönne.
(It strikes takenup in thisfieldbeginfortheirpart
methatall investigations
froman unprovedassumption whichdoes notappearto me to be obvious,
but ratherseemsto need a proof.I mean the assumptionthata p-fold
extendedcontinuousmanifoldrequiresρ independent real coordinatesfor
thedetermination ofitselementand thatthisnumberofcoordinates can be
neither increasednordecreasedforone and thesamemanifold.)
We haveseenthatat first he had thoughtthatthisassumption ofgeometers was
correct, but he had differedfromthemin thathe had thoughtit requireda
rigorousproofand so persistedin trying to findone. However,he was com-
pletelysurprised whenhe finallyfounda counterexample: the assumptionis
false.A p-foldmanifoldcan be 'coordinatised'by a singlecoordinate.He
ascribedthis strangeresultto the 'wonderful powerin the usual real and
he
irrationalnumbers'.Moreover, recognised that his resultcan be easily
extendedfromp-dimensional manifolds to infinite-dimensional as-
manifolds,
suming that theirinfinitely
many dimensionshave the form of a simpleinfinite
sequence(i.e.,thatthedimension is countablyinfinite).
Cantor's letterends withthe following paragraph(Cantor/Dedekind
(1937:34)):
Nunscheint dassalle philosophischen
es mir, odermathematischen Deductio-
nen,welchevonjenerirrthümlichen VoraussetzungGebrauch machen,unzu-
 Dimension
andModemTopology 141

Vielmehr
lässig*sind. wirdderUnterschied, welcherzwischenGebildenvon
verschiedenerDimensionszahlen liegt,in ganz anderenMomentengesucht
werdenmüssen, als in derfürcharacteristisch
gehaltenenZahl derunabhän-
gigenCoordinaten.
(Now it seemsto me thatall philosophicalor mathematical deductions
whichmakeuse of thismistakenassumption are inadmissible.
Ratherthe
distinction ofdifferent
whichexistsbetweenfigures dimension numbers
must
be soughtin entirely aspectsthanin the numberof independent
different
whichis normally
coordinates, heldto be characteristic.)
So he sawhisresultas a directand devastating blowto the'coordinateconcept
ofdimension'. Anotherdimension conceptis needed.
Dedekind responded to Cantor's observations as wellas to hisproof,first
in a postcard(now lost) and thenmorefullyin a letterof thesecondofJuly.
Dedekind had goneoverthesecondproofand reported thathe couldfindno
mistakes.However,he was not able to agreewithCantor's readingof the
consequencesof his theorem.In spite of the theoremor ratherbecause of
considerations occasionedby it,he stillaffirmed his conviction(Cantor/De-
DEKIND(1937:37)):
... dassdie Dimensionenzahleinerstetigen Mannigfaltigkeitnachwievordie
ersteundwichtigste Invariantederselben ist....
(... thatthedimension
numberofa continuous
manifold is nowas beforethe
first and mostimportant
invariant
ofa manifold
... .)
In the lightof Cantor's paradoxicalresultthe constancyof the dimension
numbercertainly requiredproof,and as longas thisproofwas lackingdimen-
sionalinvariance was in doubt.But Dedekind was convincedthata proofis
possible.
In his important letterof July2ndhe goes on to givea verypenetrating
explanationofthemathematical situationsurrounding dimension and Cantor's
result.Givingthebenefit of thedoubtto earlierwriters and thereby possibly
deferring to his friendRiemann, now deceased,he says thatthesewriters
clearly(!) madetheimplicit butquitenaturalassumption that,whengivinga
newcoordinate system to thepointsofa continuous manifold,one assumesthe
newcoordinates are continuous functionsoftheold coordinates, so thatwhatis
continuously connectedaccordingto the firstcoordinatesystemis also con-
nectedaccordingto the second.In consequence,Dedekind arrivesat the
following theorem (Cantor/Dedekind (1937:38)):
Gelingtes, eine gegenseitige eindeutigeund vollständige Correspondenz
zwischen den Puncteneinerstetigen Mannigfaltigkeit A vona Dimensionen
einerseitsundden Puncteneinerstetigen MannigfaltigkeitΒ von b Dimen-
sionenandererseits herzustellen,so ist diese Correspondenz selbst,wenna
undb ungleich sind,nothwendig einedurchweg unstetige.
(If one succeedsin settingup a one-oneand completecorrespondence
betweenthepointsofa continuous manifold A of a dimensions on theone
142 D. M. Johnson

hand and the points of a continuousmanifoldΒ of b dimensionson the

other, then this correspondenceitselfmust necessarilybe discontinuous
throughoutifa and b are unequal.)
In his letterDedekind probablyimputestoo muchto the 'implicitassump-
tions' of previousgeometers.Surely Cantor's paradoxical discoveryforceda
new understanding of dimensionand the basic assumptionsof geometry.Indeed
the resultdrove Dedekind to conjecturea new theorem,which in realityis a
very good statementof the invarianceof dimensiontheorem.This is a very
apposite conjecturefor Dedekind to make. As we shall see the conjectured
theorembecame the centralissue in the subsequentdevelopmentof dimension
theory.Unfortunately Dedekind himselfhad no proofof it.
In his letterDedekind tries to give a specificexplanation of Cantor's
correspondenceresult on the basis of his conjecturedtheorem.Concerning
Cantor's firstattemptusing decimal expansions, Dedekind claims (albeit
somewhathesitantly;see Cantor/Dedekind (1937:38)) that if it had been
possible to complete the directinterlacingcorrespondencefromthe p-dimen-
sional cube to all the pointsof the unitsegment,thenthe correspondencewould
have been continuous.This claim is wrong,as a quick inspectionof even the
incompletecorrespondencebased on decimals shows.12However, he gives a
good explanationof Cantor's second way of settingup a correspondence.He
asserts that the correspondencebetween irrational numbers based on con-
tinuedfractionsis continuousand this is indeed correct.13But thenCantor's
extramachineryto extendthe correspondenceto includethe rationalsmakes it
thoroughlydiscontinuous.
At the end of his letterDedekind warns Cantor not to polemize openly
against the original 'article of faith' of manifoldtheoryunless he (Cantor)
examinesthe conjecturedinvariancetheorem.Clearly Dedekind did not read
the same significanceinto Cantor's counterintuitive discoveryas Cantor
himselfhad. In Dedekind's eyes the task now was to save dimensionby means
of an invarianceproofand not to criticisethedeficienciesof theinvestigationsof
previousgeometers.I thinkDedekind is a littleoverprotectiveof the 'great
men' of the past. In effecthe counsels a search for 'hidden lemmas' in the
writingsof earlier mathematicians.On the other hand, his topological under-
standingof the geometricalsituation is very acute; his idea of dimensional
invariancebased on continuityis full of insight.He appears somewhatblinded
to what is new in his own thinkingby his refusalto take a more criticalattitude
to the growthof mathematics.
12For of the unitsegmentwiththe
example,if we considerthe correspondence
squareand consideron thelinethepoint0.5= 0.4999... and anypointcloseto 0.5 but
slightly
greaterinvalue,theninthecorrespondence thesepointsareunlacedtogivepoints
in thesquarewhichare farapart.So thepartialcorrespondence is notcontinuousin the
sensein whichDedekind thought ofit,viz.,in thesensethatnearbypointsare mapped
to nearbypoints.
13In fact,thecorrespondence betweentheirrationals is bicontinuousand,hence,a
homeomorphism. However,dimensional invariance prohibitstheextension of thisho-
meomorphism to include
the rationals.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 143

Cantor swiftlyrespondedto Dedekind's lettertwo days lateron July4th.

In his replyhe immediatelyconcedes Dedekind's pointsover theinterpretation
of the correspondenceresult.He says that he overstatedhis case and did not
intendto criticisethe concept of p-foldextendedcontinuousmanifoldas such,
but only to clarifyit. He did not intend to deny the 'definitenessof the
dimensionnumber',but onlythe invarianceof the numberof coordinates,which
some authorsseemedto accept too easilyas the same as thedimensionnumber.
So to Cantor's mind coordinate dimensionis not viable in mathematics.It
must be distinguishedfromsome other notion of dimension,not yet made
explicit.
Cantor readilyaccepted Dedekind's conjecturedinvariancetheoremas a
possible way out of the difficulty over dimension,but, of course,he wanted a
proof. In his letterhe immediatelypointsto some apparentdifficulties likelyto
be encounteredin any attemptto demonstratethe conjecturedtheorem.In the
firstplace he forseesa problem in definingthe concept of continuous cor-
respondencein fullgenerality;yetall hangs on such a definition.In the second
place he recognisesthat theremay be some difficulties with the approach to
dimensionnumberthroughan invarianceproofif we take into account figures
whichare not continuousthroughout(i.e. in modernterms,not connected),but
which may reasonablybe assigned a dimensionnumber.This latter point is
deep. Not only does Cantor thinkan invarianceproofis required,but also he
hintsat the need foran independentdefinitionof dimensionto cover arbitrary
figures(or, as we would say now, arbitrarypoint sets). At this stage in their
critical discussion of the dimension problem we can see that CANTOR and
Dedekind achieveda veryhighlevel of understanding and insight.
Cantor's importantpaper,'Ein Beitragzur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre' (1878),
writtenduringthe earlysummerof 1877 and publishedin the followingyear,is
an exposition of his discoveries about correspondenceand dimension and
incorporatesall his resultslargelyin the formin whichhe had relatedthemto
Dedekind. However,certaingeneralpointsare emphasisedin the paper. From
the beginninghe uses the term'Mannigfaltigkeit' ('manifold')to mean virtually
any 'well-defined' set of elements;so we are nearlyin the realm of generalset
theory. He devotes the firstfew to
paragrahs a delineationof his idea of power
(Mächtigkeit) based on one-one correspondence,giving definitionsof equal
power (gleiche Mächtigkeit; or äquivalent), lesser and greater power, and
providingseveral significantmathematicalexamples. He emphasisesthe sharp
distinctionbetween the power of finitesets and the power of infinitesets.
The conceptof powerforfinitesets is equivalentto thatof positivewhole num-
ber,so thattwo finitesets are of equal power ifand only iftheyhave the same
numberof elementsand a propersubset(Bestandteil)of a finiteset always has
smaller power than the set itself.However, the situation is fundamentally
different forinfinitesets. An infiniteset can be put into one-one correspondence
withcertainof its infinitesubsets,and Cantor gives the simpleexample of the
sequenceofpositiveintegersand thesequence ofpositiveevenintegerswhichcan
be put into one-one correspondenceand whichare therefore of equal power.
Althoughin his paper Cantor brieflydeals with sets of the power of the
positiveintegers,sets of the smallestinfinitepower (i.e., countable sets),he, of
144 D. M. Johnson

course,concentrateson thepowerof'so-called continuousη-foldmanifolds'(i.e.,

the power of the continuum).Near the beginningof the paper he mentions
Riemann, Helmholtz, and others14who firstdealt withmanifolds,but after
the discussion in the correspondencewith DEDEKIND his criticismof these
writersis toned down. He only pointsto the 'tacit' assumptionof most of these
thatthebasic correspondenceof the elementsof an rc-dimensional manifoldwith
η real coordinatesmust be continuousand promisesin a footnoteto returnto
thismatteron anotheroccasion. In fact,a yearlaterhe did considerthe matter,
the fundamentalproblem of dimension. Then he launches into his demon-
strationthat the elementsof an η-foldextendedcontinuousmanifoldcan be
determinedby a singlecoordinateor, more specifically, thatthe points of an n-
dimensionalcube can be put into one-one correspondencewiththe points of a
unit line segment.Thus all continuous manifoldshave the same power. His
proof is essentiallyas he communicatedit to Dedekind. However, one very
importantnew thingis added at the end of the paper: a mention-the firstby
Cantor - of the celebratedcontinuumhypothesis!Here he formulatesit by
sayingthat the infinitelinear manifolds(i.e., sets of real numbers)divide into
two classes according to whetherthey can be broughtinto the formof the
sequence of the positiveintegersor into the formof the real numbersin the unit
interval.In otherwords,thereare only two powersof infinitelinear sets. In the
naturalway to statethe continuum
lightof his recentdiscoveriesit is a perfectly
hypothesis.Thus farhe had foundonlytwo kindsof infinitesets even among the
Η-dimensionaland infinite-dimensional manifolds.15
CANTORsubmittedhis paper to Crelles Journal(Journalfür die reineund
angewandteMathematik)on 11 July1877. It is well knownthathe feltfrustrated
by delays with its publication (Fraenkel (1930:198), Grattan-Guinness
(1974:111-113)). BORCHARDT,the managingeditor of the journal, seemed to
impede its progress;as he learned fromhis old friendLampe who dealt with
printer'sproofsforthe journal, BORCHARDTput otherpapers submittedlater
beforeCantor's in the order for publication.16Afterthree monthshe com-
plained to Dedekind and sought his advice about publishingthe work as a
separate pamphlet.DEDEKIND thoughtthis was not a wise course, when he
considered his own difficultieswith publishinghis pamphlet Stetigkeitund
irrationaleZahlen. Finallyin NovemberCantor heard thathis 'Beitrag' would
be publishedafterall.
In his biographyof Cantor Fraenkel (1930: 198) suggeststhatKronec-
KER may have had a hand in the delay over publicationin Crelle,althoughthe
14He also mentions Rosanes, Liebmann,and Erdmann.
15In the we know
paperhe impliesthathe has a proofofthehypothesis.However,
thathe struggledformanyyearsto finda proofand in theendfailedto findone which
him.
satisfied
16However, whenone looksat thesubmission datesofthepapersin the84thvolume
oftheJournal, ofCantor's paperwas scarcely
one realisesthatthepublication delayed
at all. Nevertheless,therecertainlywas some difficulty with the paper. Dugac
(1976: 122-123,125) seemsto thinkotherwise,buthe does nottakeaccountof a letter
fromCantor to Dedekind of10 November1877(Grattan-Guinness(1974:112)).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 145

evidence is not clear on this point.17Whateverthe case may be, Cantor's

paper certainlyoffereda surprisingand counterintuitive resultin the emerging
fieldof set theory.It seems the editorsof thejournal, most probablyincluding
Kronecker, doubted the validityof Cantor's (admittedlylong) proofof the
result.However,iftheywerenot able to detecta specificerrorin the proof,they
still must have foundthe resultunsatisfactory. To them it was a monsterand
accordinglyto be rejected!
To conclude this chapter I shall sum up the achievementsconcerning
dimensionwhichCantor and Dedekind made up to 1878. Priorto theirwork
Riemann and Helmholtz, among others,had put forwarda very informal
theory of continuous manifoldsor η-dimensionalgeometricalobjects which
included an implicitdefinitionor theoryof dimension.Riemann and Helm-
HOLTZ only intendedtheir theoryof manifoldsand dimension as a general
frameworkfor theirinvestigationsinto geometry.Objectivelyone cannot but
regardthe theoryas vague in its mathematicaldetails(see chapter1).
A fewyears afterthe appearance of the publicationsof Riemann, Helm-
holtz, and othernineteenth-century mathematicianswith an early interestin
multi-dimensional geometry Cantor approached the basic concept of dimen-
sion froma positionoutsideof geometry,fromthe point of view of his workon
one-onecorrespondences and power,hence,fromtheviewpointof the set theory
he was in the midstof creating.Consequently,he broughtan entirelynew set-
theoreticapproach to problemsof geometry.Afterhis initialstumblingsover a
proof,he was able to demonstratethat a p-dimensionalcube can be put into
one-one correspondencewith a unit line segment,certainlya surprisingand
counterintuitive result. Apparentlythe editors of Crelles Journalfound this
resultbizarre.They wishedto ignoreor rejectit; to use Lakatos' (1976) term,
theywere monster-barrers. In contrast,Cantor took the bull by the horns.
Initiallyhe read into his result a strongcriticismof the dimension concept
implicitin the work of Riemann, Helmholtz, and others: the concept of
dimensionbased on the numberof coordinatesneeded to determinea point.
Dedekind, while acceptingCantor's counterintuitive resultwhole-heartedly,
did not read the same message in it. He immediatelysaw a way out of the
difficultythroughcontinuity and gave credit to the older geometersfor this
means of escape fromthe consequencesof Cantor's result.To a certainextent
it is truethat Riemann and Helmholtz includedcontinuity(and differentia-
bility)in theirconcept of dimension.However, I thinkDEDEKIND imputeda
littletoo much to theirinformaltheory.He wantedto find'hidden lemmas' in
the workof thegreatmen of the past. SurelyCantor's discoveryput an entirely
new light on the coordinate theory of manifolds and dimension. A fresh
examinationof thevague informalconcept of dimensionwas now an absolute
necessity.Dedekind even realised this: he quickly saw that a proof of some
kind of theoremabout dimensionalinvarianceincorporatingthe idea of con-
tinuitywas needed. Hence, he came to state veryclearlythe crucial problemof
dimensionwhichthe paradoxical correspondenceresultforcedupon mathema-
17 Dugac
(1976:125) citesevidenceto thecontrary.
146 D.M.Johnson

ticians. At once Cantor accepted that Dedekind's reading of the problem

situation was better than his own initial one. However, he also recognised
possible difficultieslurking in the background of the proposed dimensional
invariance theorem. In fact, the subsequent history of the search for a proof of
invariance of dimension has shown that the theorem was far easier to state than
to prove. Nevertheless, with hindsight we can see that Cantor and Dedekind
pinpointed the sensitive spot in the problematic notion of dimension.
The critical discussion which Cantor and Dedekind had concerning the
dimension problem was unquestionably of a very high standard. They clearly
discerned the problems involved in the situation and immediately sought to
explain the difficulties.Above all their attempted explanation of the paradoxical
result was acute and must be admired. In this way Dedekind was led to
formulate very succinctly the next problem to be tackled after Cantor's
important discovery. Should we not look upon the Cantor/Dedekind dis-
cussion as a paradigm for good critical discussions of mathematical or scientific
problems?

Chapter3. Early Effortsto Prove theInvarianceof Dimension,1878-1879

The publicationof Cantor's 'Beitrag' towardsthe beginningof 1878

immediately causeda flurry ofmathematical activity.The objectivenowwas to
of the
save the concept dimension; paradoxicalcorrespondence had to be
is to
explained(one tempted say,explainedaway).During the months Julyto
October1878,whenCantor's paperhad barelyleftthepresses,fivemathema-
ticiansattempted to demonstrate the invarianceof dimensionthrougha con-
siderationof continuity- just as Dedekind had suggestedin his lettersto
Cantor. ThesewereJakob Lüroth, Johannes Thomae, Enno Jürgens,
Eugen Netto, as wellas Cantor himself. Thenduring1879bothJürgens
and Cantor came back to the problem.Jürgens publisheda muchfuller
accountofhissolutionand Cantor gavean entirely newand generalapproach
to dimensional invarianceafterdiscussing itin correspondence withDedekind.
These earlyefforts towardsshowingdimensionalinvarianceof 1878-79were
onlypartially Lüroth and Jürgens (and also Cantor in his first
successful.
work of 1878) only aimed at demonstrating invarianceforlow dimension
numbers.The proofs,thoughinteresting, are extremely complex.Thomae,
Netto, and Cantor all triedto provedimensional invariance but
generally,
subsequentcriticism has revealedflaws in theirproofs. Without doubt the
greatestdifficulty which all these mathematicians came up against was the
primitivestate of topology.Topology, at least the part which we now know to
be mostrelevant, was virtually nonexistent at the time.The proofsfromthis
periodmainlyuse methodsof real analysisand simplegeometry, since the
topological tools were not yet available.These tools were only createdin the
laterdecadesofthenineteenth century and the decades
first of the twentieth
(see
chapter4). Thus we cannot entirelyblame the mathematicians ofthis periodfor
theirlackofcompletesuccess.Yet itis worthwhileexamining thisearlyworkto
 Dimension and Modem Topology 147

see how these mathematicians struggled with a difficultproblem. In the history

of mathematics 'failures' can be interesting.1
JAKOB LüROTH (1844-1910) 2, in 1878 a young professor at the Technische
Hochschule in Karlsruhe, was the first off the mark to make a contribution
towards solving the dimensional invariance problem. He had a paper presented
to the Physikalisch-medizinische Sozietät in Erlangen as early as 8 July 1878. In
this brief note there are proofs of dimensional invariance for two special cases
only. Later in his career he returned to the problem and extended his results.
These later contributions date from 1899 and 1906. In all of his papers
LÜ ROTH's procedure is to assume that there is a one-one continuous cor-
respondence between coordinate or number manifolds Mm and Mn, with n<m,
and then to show that this assumption leads to a contradiction by deducing that
the correspondence cannot be one-one. In his note of 1878 he does this for
the cases n = 1 and η = 2, while in his note of 1899 he extends his results to η = 3.
Finally in a long paper of 1906 which appeared in Mathematische Annalen he
collected all his results and presented them in a more complete form.
Let us look at some of the details of LÜ roth's firstnote 'Ueber gegenseitig
eindeutige und stetige Abbildung von Mannigfaltigkeiten verschiedener Dimen-
sionen aufeinander' (1878). Letting xl,x2,...xm denote the coordinates of
points χ of the m-dimensional manifold Mm and 3Ί,)>2>··· )Ή denote the coor-
dinates of points y of the η-dimensional manifold Mn, with n<m, we assume
that there is a one-one correspondence between points χ and y and that the
correspondence is continuous. We can think of each y coordinate, yi9 as a
function of the coordinates of x.
The proof for the case n = ' and m^2 is easy. First let the coordinates
x3, ... xmin Mm all be constant so that we consider only a plane section of Mm.
Moreover, let x1=rcos6 and x2 = rsin0, where r is small, so that we just
consider a little circle in this plane section. Let A and Β be any two points on
this circle, for which yx has the values a and b, respectively. Since y1 is a.
continuous function of points on the circle, yt must take the value '(a + b) at
least once on each of the two arcs from A to Β according to the intermediate
value theorem and, hence, it must take this value at least twice on the circle. But
this result contradicts the supposition that the functionj^ is one-one. According
to LÜROTH (1878:191) Cantor discovered this same simple proof and told
him of this fact in a letter.
The mathematicians trying to prove dimensional invariance at this time
commonly used the intermediate value theorem as an important element in their
proofs. We can formulate the theorem, which goes back as far as BOLZANO
(1817) and Cauchy (1821:460,463), in the following way:
Let y = f(x) be a continuous real function defined on an interval of R (the
real numbers). If the function takes two values f{x1)^¥f{x2) at two points

1 The materialcoveredin this

chapterhas also been dealt withby Dauben (1975).
However,Dauben's paper lacks some topologicalinsights.For example,he does not give
Jürgens' workon domain invarianceits properdue.
2 For
biographical material on Lüroth cf. Brill/Noether (1911) and Voss
(1911).
148 D. M. Johnson

x1,x2,xl <x2, in the interval,thenforany numberc between/(xx) and/(x2)

thereexistsx3 such thatxl<x3<x2 and/(x3) = c.
In the argumentgiven above LÜROTH used the theoremin a more general
version for a continuous functiondefined on the arcs of a circle. Others
employed versions of the theoremcoveringcontinuous functionsdefinedon
curvesor arcs of curves.In generalthe mathematiciansof this timerecognised
- somewhatvaguely- the topological significanceof thistheorem.We now see
the intermediatevalue theoremas a special case of a theoremon connectedness:
If the mapping/: X -> Y is a continuousmappingfromthe topologicalspace
X to the space Y and X is connected,thenf(X) is also connected.
To be sure, the mathematiciansof about 1880 did not possess anythingas
generalas this theorem.However,theychose the special case, the intermediate
value theorem,as the best tool available for attackingthe problem of dimen-
sional invariance.3
Returningto LüROTH's note of 1878, we findthat his proof forn= 2 and
m^3 is considerablyharder.The rest of his note is devoted to it (1878: 191-
195). The bare bones of the proof are as follows.First of all we confineour
attention to a 3-dimensional section of Mm by holding the coordinates
x4,x5, ... xmconstant.We take two pointsof thissection,A and B, forwhichyl
has different wherewe assume a1>b1. LÜROTH
values, ax and bl9 respectively,
considersthe spherewithdiameterAB and thinksof it as a globe representing
the surfaceof the earthwithA as the North pole and B, the South pole. Under
this representation we regardyx and y2 as functionsof position on this globe.
The objectiveof the proofis to show thatthereare two pointson the globe for
whichyi9y2take the same pair of values. Hence, the correspondenceis not one-
one.
Because of the continuityof the functiony: it is possible to describecircles
around the poles A and Β so that the variationof the functionis less than δι
=±(aí-bí) withinthese circles; that is, in the circlearound A yl>aí-ô1 and
in the circle around Β y1<bl+ ôlt Thinkingof the sphere as a geographical
globe, we give it lines of latitudeand longitudeso as to divide it up into 2q2
surfacepieces.4 If we take q equal to some minimalp9 then the two sets of
triangularpieces close to the North and South poles, describingtwo circular
regions,fall withinthe circles around the poles. Beginningfromthe circular
region coveringthe North pole, we can constructa surfaceover the pole for
whichy1^cl=^(al+bl) by adding littlesquare geographicalregionswiththis
so
property long as they are connected on their sides with regions already
added. We are interestedin the southernmost boundaryof thiscoveringsurface:
it is a connectedpath, having no self-intersections and consistingof pieces of
meridiansand parallel circles,and it goes around theNorthpole, touchingevery
meridianas it passes.
3 Thereis an excellentpaperby H.Hopf (1953) on thedeepertopologicalsignifi-
canceoftheintermediate valuetheorem.
4 To oftheglobewe needq - 1 parallelcirclesoflatitude(rather
givethissubdivision
thanq circlesas givenin Lüroth (1878)) and 2q equidistantmeridians oflongitude.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 149

We can carryout the constructionjust describedforeveryq of formp, 2/?,

4p, ...2fp,..., therebyderivingcoveringsurfacesRO9Ri9R29... with southern-
most boundarycurvesGO9Gl9G29.... Since each surfaceRt includes its prede-
cessors,theboundarycurvesG( in generalapproach the south or at least do not
go north.Hence, we can always finda boundarycurvesuch thatthe pointsof it
and all succeeding curves in the sequence are less than a prescribedsmall
distancefrompointsforwhichy1<cl.
Similarlywe can constructconnectedcoveringsurfacesand boundarycurves
Ft around the South pole for every q with form 2lp. In constructingthese
surfacescoveringthe South pole we join littlesquare regionson the sides of
previouslyadded regionsunderthe conditionsthat none of these touch any of
the curves Gk and that each of the resultingboundary curves Ft does not
intersectitself.With increasingindex the curves Ft proceed northwardsor at
least not southwardsand theirpoints come as close as we please to points of
surfacesRk forsufficiently large k. Yet the curvesFtand Gkdo not intersect,so
that betweeneach pair of these thereis a ring or 'stream' around the globe
whose 'banks' do not cut one another.
If foreach Ft we considerits northermostpoint lyingon the 0° meridian,
thenwithincreasing/thesepointsproceed northand approach a limitposition
C. There is a similarlimitposition D on the 180° meridian.LÜROTH claims
withoutproofthatyi=cl forthesepoints.Hence, we have points on Opposite
sides' of the globe withthe same yt value cx. Supposing that the functiony2
has value a2 at C and value b2 at D and settingc2=|(a2 + b2),LÜROTHgives in
the remainderof his paper a lengthyproof that thereare two distinctpoints
withinthe ringswiththe same yl9y2values, cl,c2. Consequently,he concludes
(1878:195):
... wennauf einerKugel zwei eindeutige und stetigeFunctionengegeben
sind,so gibtes stetsWerthe, welchegleichzeitig von beidenFunctionen in
zweiPunkten derKugelangenommen werden ....
(... ifon a spheretwosingle-valuedand continuous aregiven,then
functions
thereare alwaysvalueswhichare takensimultaneously bybothfunctions in
twopointsofthesphere... .)
Hence,we mustconcludethata one-onecontinuous correspondence betweena
manifold Mm,m>2, and a manifold M2 is notpossible.
LÜroth's proofwithits stronggeometrical flavouris quite interesting.
Moreover, the tools of real analysis-are used fairlycarefully to prove the
existence ofthetwopointson thespherewiththesamepairof values.5
WhenLÜROTHreturned to the problemof dimensional invariancein his
further note of 1899 witha proofforthe case n= 3 and m^4 (1 899), he
generalised thebasic idea of his earliernote.Additionally, in thenewcase he
employedGauss' integralfor the linkingof two curvesin space (Gauss
(1867:605)), althoughhe did not use thisimportant topologicalidea in any
brilliant way.In generalhe foundit extremely difficultto extendhis workto
higher-dimensional casesand as a resulthisproofin 1889muchmorecomplex.
5 Bylaterstandards ofrigoursomeaspects oftheproof areopentocriticism.
150 D.M.Johnson

In a sense his MathematischeAnnalenpaper (1906), in whichhe set out proofs

in full for all the cases he had consideredearlier,is an admission of defeat.
LÜROTH was convincedthat his basic idea fora proofcould be extendedto a
generaldemonstrationof dimensionalinvariance,but he could not see how to
make the extension.His 'geometricalintuition'did not permithim any insight
into the generalcase.
At virtuallythe same time as LÜROTH was firstprovingspecial cases of
dimensionalinvariance,Johannes Thomae (1840-1921)6, a prolificwriterof
mathematicalbooks and papers and then ordentlicher Professorat Freiburg,
triedto prove the invariancein fullgenerality.He presenteda note (1878) to
the Königliche Gesellschaftder Wissenschaftenat Göttingenin August 1878,
just a month after LüROTH's firstnote. His general proof is based on an
assumptionfromanalysis situs 'against whose generalvaliditytherecan be no
real objections'7 (1878:466-467):
Eine zusammenhängendecontinuirlicheMannigfaltigkeit Mn von η Di-
mensionenkann durcheine oder mehrereMannigfaltigkeiten von η - 2 oder
wenigerDimensionen(Mv,Mý,,M'v',, ...; v,v',v",... ^ η - 2) nichtin getrennte
Stückezerlegtwerden.
Dabei muss allerdingsvorausgesetztwerden,dass nichtdie Anzahl der
Mannigfaltigkeiten Mv,Mý,,M"„,... in jedem noch so kleinenStücke einer
continuirlichenMannigfaltigkeitvon n- l Dimensionen abzählbar unend-
lich gross sei.

( A connectedcontinuousmanifoldMn of η dimensionscannotbe divided

into separatepieces by one or severalmanifoldsof η - 2 or fewerdimensions
(Mv,M;,,M;',,...;v,v',v-,...^n-2).
However, it must be assumed that the number of manifolds
MV,M'V,M'v'„,... in each small region of a continuous manifoldof n- 1
dimensionsis not countablyinfinite.)
Briefly, Thomae's proofrunsas follows.We suppose thatthereis a one-one
continuouscorrespondencebetweenmanifoldsMm(withpoints χ having coor-
dinates xl9x2,...xm) and Mn (with points y having coordinates y1,y2>··-yn'
m>n, and consider just one coordinate yt as a continuous functionof
x1,x2, ... xmfora bounded regionof Mm. If A and Β are points of this region
givingmaximumand minimumvalues a and b to yl9then,by a generalisationof
the intermediatevalue theoremwhich Thomae assumes as proved,on every
curve connectingA and Β there is á point for which yi=c, c being an
intermediate value betweena and b. Tnview of his main topological assumption
he concludes that the infiniteset of points for which y^=c must form a
continuous(i.e., connected)manifoldof η - 1 dimensionsin at least one place.
Hence, a continuous function}^ of a manifoldMm of m dimensionstakes a
certainvalue along a continuousmanifoldMm_1of m- 1 dimensions.Similarly
6 On Thomae'slife H. Liebmann
cf. (1921).
7 In the
originalGerman:'derenallgemeiner keineerheblichen
Giltigkeit Bedenken
entgegen stehendürften'.
 Dimension
andModemTopology 151

a continuous function y2 of a manifoldof m- 1 dimensions takessome fixed

valuealonga manifold Mm_2ofm-2 dimensions, and so on. In theend theη
functions yl9y29 ···yn°f pointsin someregionofMmtakeat leastone system of
valuesin a continuous manifold ofm- η dimensions. Thusthereis a fixedy in
Mncorresponding to infinitelymanyχ pointsin Mmand thecorrespondence is
certainly not one-one.
Thomae musthavederivedhisfundamental topologicalassumption froma
on
fragment analysis situs by RiEMANN (1953:481) (cf.Cantor/Dedekind
(1937:44)). Riemann'sseparation property fordimension is indeedinteresting.
Something like it figures in thelater history of dimension theory beginning with
POINCARÉ and Brouwer.8 However,Thomae's contemporaries werequickto
pointout thatthe separationproperty was no less in need of proofthanthe
invarianceof dimension.At a sessionof the 51stVersammlung Deutscher
Naturforscher und Aerzteheld in Cassei in September1878 LÜROTHrightly
criticisedThomae's 'proof of dimensionalinvariance,declaringthat the
separationproperty and invariancewereon the same footingwithrespectto
their importanceand difficulty of proof (cf. JÜRGENS(1878: 139-140)).
Thomae's 'proofwas a nonstarter.9 Still,in defence ofThomae itis significant
thathe chose to put the problemof dimensionalinvariancesquarelyin the
domainofanalysissitus.
At the same sessionof the Versammlung DeutscherNaturforscher und
heldon the13thofSeptember, Enno Jürgens (1849-1907) 10sketched
Aerzte,
an alternative proofforthe 2-dimensional case of invariance(1878). A year
laterhe published a fullversionofhisproof.JÜRGENS was hardlyan important
figure in nineteenth- century mathematics. The bibliography ofhis publications
containsonlyeightitems.During1873and 1874he had studiedat Berlin,where
he developedan interest in function theorythrough Weierstrass. The latter
advisedhimto go to Halle University forhis habilitation, wherehe remained
from1875until1883.Halle was,of course,Cantor's university, so it is not
surprising that JÜRGENS became interested in the problem of dimensional
invariance. The endproduct ofhis investigations was a proofwhosemethodis
especiallyinteresting in thelightoflaterdevelopments. Unfortunately he chose
to publishthe fullversionof his alternative proof in a separatepamphlet,
Allgemeine Sätze überSystemevonzweieindeutigen undstetigen reellenFunc-
tionenvonzwei reellenVeränderlichen (1879), with the result that it cannot
havereceivedwidecirculation.
The mostsignificant feature ofJÜRGENS' proofofthe2-dimensional case of
dimensional invariance is thefactthathe laid itsfoundation on a rigorous proof
of the invariance ofdomainfortheplane.He was the firstmathematician to
discernthe close connection betweendomaininvarianceand dimensionalin-
8 A versionofitisprovable inmodern dimension theories;
e.g.cf.Hurewicz/Wall-
man(1948:48).
9 Lüroth also criticised
Thomae'sassertion
thatthepointsetforwhichyi=c must
(n- l)-dimensional
forma connected manifoldinat leastoneplace.Cf.also Cantor/De-
dekind(1937:44).
10 On Jürgens'lifecf.Krause (1908).
152 D.M.Johnson

variance-an importantobservationwhich gave him a betterinsightinto the

problem situationthan his contemporariespossessed.11JÜRGENS'planar do-
main invariancetheoremis a littlemore generalthan usual (1879:3):
Wenn zwei unabhängigereelle Veränderlichexx und x2 als rechtwinklige
Punktcoordinatenin der Ebene aufgefasstalle Stellen im Innerenund auf
einem Kreise durchlaufen, wenn von ihnenzwei andere reelleVeränderliche
yl und y2 eindeutigund stetigabhängen und dabei dasselbe Werthepaar
yl9y2zu einerendlichenAnzahl von Werthepaarenxx,x2 gehört,so enthält,
indem auch die Veränderlichenyx und y2 in einer zweiten Ebene als
rechtwinkligePunktcoordinatenangesehen werden,der von den Punkten
y1,y2 gebildete Theil dieser Ebene ein zweifach ausgedehntesStück der
Ebene, etwa die ganze Fläche eines Kreises,in sich.
(If two independentreal variables xx and x2, thought of as rectangular
coordinatesin the plane, rangeover all pointsin the interiorand on a circle,
and if two otherreal variables yt and y2 are single-valuedand continuous
functionsof them wherebythe same value pair yl9y2 belongs to a finite
numberof value pairs x1?x2,then,whenthe variablesyx and y2 are thought
of as rectangularcoordinatesin a second plane, the part of this latterplane
formedby the points yi9y2 containsa twofoldextendedpiece of the plane,
say the entiresurfaceof a circle.)
The usual domain invariancethoremis a corollarydeduciblefromthistheorem.
Jürgens' demonstrationof the theorem is complicated and a little
clumsy. Nevertheless,it is an adequate proof based on Weierstrassianε, δ
methodsof real analysis.Because of the importanceof domain invariancein the
historyof dimensiontheoryand topologygenerally,it is worthwhile having a
closer look at the proof(in (1879:3-9)).
Let αΐ5α2denote the centreof the given circularregionin the x1?x2 plane
and let Al9A2 be the correspondingyi,y2 point. Because the point Al9A2
correspondsto only a finitenumberof x1?x2 points,theremust exist a circle,
say withequation
(1) (χί-α1)2^(χ2-α2)2 = ν'

withinthe given circularregion none of whose points is mapped to the point

Al9A2. Let ρ be the minimumvalue whichthe expression

(*) +V(yi-Ai)2+(y2-A2)2

takes forpoints on circle (1). If R is a positivenumber <p, then everyradius

emanatingfromαΐ5α2to a point on the circumference of circle(1) has a point
whichis mapped by yi9y2 to a point whichis at a distanceR fromA1,A2 - a
fact guaranteedby the intermediatevalue theorem.Thus we findthat on the
circle
(2) (>/1-,41)2+(>/2-^2)2 = R2
11Dauben
(1975) does notmention
thisimportant
point.
 Dimension and Modem Topology 153

(where ηΐ9η2 are the coordinates for the second plane) there are infinitelymany
points that are images of points of the surface within circle (1). JÜRGENS' first
objective is to show that these yl9y2 points fill up an entire connected arc of
circle (2).
In order to achieve this objective he borrows LüROTH's method of carto-
graphical subdivision and divides the surface of circle (1) into Aq2 little ele-
ments.12 We are only interested in those elements all of whose points are
mapped to yx,y2 points which lie within circle (2). Provided q is sufficiently
large, all the little elements around al9a2 will be of this type. As LÜROTH
(1878) did we construct a surface within circle (1) by successively adding
elements of the appropriate type to those around al9a2, provided they are
adjacent on a side to previously added elements. We end up with a surface F all
of whose points are mapped to y^y2 points within circle (2). Jürgens is
concerned with the outermost boundary C of F and he takes the trouble to
prove that the curve C traces a continuous circuit around the point al9a2. C has
the property that its points are mapped to points y1,y2 which are less than
distance R from Al9A2, but within a well-defined small distance of its points13
there are points with images at a distance ^R from Al9A2.
For an appropriate sequence of increasing g's we derive a sequence of curves
C1,C2,..., such that each curve encloses its predecessors unless they coincide.
Any limit point of the curves Ct (i.e., a point x1,x2 which comes arbitrarilyclose
to points of the curves Ct) falls within circle (1) and for it the expression (*) has
the value R. The objective is to show that the yl9y2 images of these limit points
form a whole connected arc on circle (2). JÜRGENS achieves this firstobjective
by giving a rigorous limit argument based on the yl9 y2 images of the curves C{
and the intermediate value theorem.
In the firstpart of his proof he only required that the radius R of circle (2) be
less than p. Consequently, he really showed that the image points yl9y2 fill up a
connected arc on every circle with centre Al9A2 and radius <p. JÜRGENS'
second objective is to show that these arcs fill up an entire piece of surface. This
he accomplishes through a modified limit argument, hence, completing his
demonstration of the invariance theorem.
JÜRGENS' argument, though of a high standard of rigour, is not very
attractive. Its complicated applications of methods of Weierstrassian analysis do
not reveal in a clear way why the theorem should work. Moreover, it is difficult
to imagine extending the argument to higher dimensions. For us, having the
advantage of several more generations of mathematical experience, the proof
lacks topological insight. Of course, we cannot blame Jürgens for not using
mathematical tools which did not exist at the time. We must give him credit for
his skillful handling of the tools he did have at his disposal. A significant
feature of his proof is its dependence upon the intermediate value theorem, a
theorem with topological import concerning connectedness. As we have seen
LÜROTH and Thomae also employed this theorem in their arguments. Thus all
these mathematicians recognised an importance in this quasi-topological result.
12 Jürgens uses - 1
q equidistantconcentriccirclesand 4q radii at equal angles to
obtain thissubdivision.
13 distance + l).
(r/q)(n/2
154 D.M.Johnson

In his pamphletJÜRGENS(1879:9) gives an alternativeway of expressing

his result:the systemof image points yl9y2 of the circularregion in the first
plane mustcontainan interiorpointin the second plane. However,thisdoes not
mean thatinteriorpointsof the regionin the firstplane are necessarilymapped
to interiorpointsin the second. A simpleexample- a circlefoldedalong one of
itsdiameters- showsthatthisneed not be thecase. In thisexamplesome interior
pointsbecome boundarypoints.Yet the JÜRGENStheoremdoes guaranteethat
thereare interiorpointsarbitrarilyclose to images of interiorpoints.Motivated
by these he
considerations, strengthens the conditionsof his theoremin orderto
prove the usual domain invariance theorem for the plane as a corollary
(1879:11):
Wennzweieindeutige undstetigereelleFunctionen vonzweireellenVerän-
derlichen dasselbeWerthepaar nichtwiederholt annehmen,soentsprichteiner
innerenStelledes Gebietesder unabhängigen Veränderlicheneine innere
StelleimGebietederabhängigen Veränderlichen.
(Iftwosingle-valued and continuousrealfunctionsoftworealvariablesdo
nottakethesamepairofvaluesmorethanonce,thento an interior pointof
thedomainoftheindependent variablestherecorresponds an interiorpoint
in thedomainofthedependent variables.)
In otherwords,a one-onecontinuousmappingof a regionin one plane to
anothertakesinterior pointsto interiorpoints.Moreover,as JÜRGENS adds
(1879:11) the inverse mapping must be continuous: so in modern terms we
havea topological(i.e.,one-onebicontinuous onto)mapping.
It is an easy stepto deducetheinvariance of dimensiontheoremforη= 2
fromtheplanardomaininvariance theorem (1879:17-18). JÜRGENS expresses
theformer theorem in thefollowingway(1879:17):
Raumes,welchereine Kugel ganz
Kein Theil des dreifachausgedehnten
kannaufirgendeinenTheilderEbeneeindeutig
enthält, undstetigabgebil-
detwerden.
(No partofthreefold extended spacewhichcontainsan entirespherecan be
mapped ontoany partof theplane valuedand continuous
in a single- way.)
For theproofsupposethatwe can mapa spherecontinuously ontoa partofthe
plane and assumethat the mapping is one-one.14 Then an equatorialplanar
sectionofthespherewillbe mappedontoa partoftheplanein sucha waythat
interiorpointsare mappedto interior points.Hence,thecentreof thesphere,
a1,a2,a3, whichis an point theequatorialplane,willbe mappedto
interior in
an interiorpoint,Bl9B2, in the image plane. But thenpointsnot in the
equatorialplane but close to a1,a2,a3 cannotbe mappedto pointsclose to
14Theassumption thatthemappingis one-oneis a slight ofJürgens'
simplication
argument. thatthemapping
He onlyassumes isofthetypedescribedinhisfirst
theorem,
viz.,thatthemappingissuchthateachimagepointcorresponds toatmostfinitely
many
preimage points.
 Dimension and Modem Topology 155

Β ί9Β2 - contrary to the assumption of continuity. Thus from this contradiction

the invariance of dimension for dimension two follows.15
Following close on the heels of the contributions of LÜROTH, Thomae, and
16
Jürgens, Eugen Netto (1846-1919) completed a general proof of dimen-
sional invariance in October 1878 which was published in Cr'elles Journal at the
very end of the year. NETTO is best remembered for his contributions to the
development of group theory; his textbook Substitutionentheorie und ihre An-
wendungauf die Algebra (1882) is a minor classic in the subject. From 1866 until
1870 he had studied at Berlin under the great masters Kummer, Kronecker,
and Weierstrass ; Weierstrass had been the chief examiner for his disser-
tation. During the '70's he was a teacher at the Friedrich-Werder'sches Gym-
nasium in Berlin. While there he wrote his paper on dimensional invariance,
virtually his only contribution to Mannigfaltigkeitslehre.
Netto's 'Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre' (1879), setting out his attempt
to prove dimensional invariance in general, is an important paper for its time.
Even though the attempt fails, it possesses interesting facets. NETTO put the
problem firmly in the realm of topology and in a much better way than
Thomae had. In particular, Netto's topological concepts are largely borrowed
from Weierstrass, who used them in function-theoreticwork.
Netto's proof is inductive. He starts by examining the three simplest cases
(1879:264-265). First, a one-one correspondence between a 1-dimensional
manifold, a line, and a 0-dimensional manifold, which he takes to be a single
point, is obviously not possible. So clearly a one-one correspondence between a
manifold Mn(n^l) and Mo is impossible. Second, a correspondence between
manifolds Mn(n^2) and Mx is not possible either. Suppose we can map a 2-
dimensional manifold M2 one-one continuously onto a simple manifold Mt.
Consider a simple closed line 91 in M2 and its image A in Mt. Since A cannot
be a point, NETTO asserts it must be a certain piece of the line Ml9 although it
cannot be the entire line. Consider an interior point of A. In order to pass from
this point to a point not belonging to A, we must pass over one of the boundary
points (Grenzpunkte) of A, say a1. Let ax correspond to a1 in M2. Now in M2 in
order to pass from points of 51 to points not belonging to this figureit is by no
means necessary to pass through ax. But given the continuous correspondence,
it should be necessary. Hence, the supposed correspondence between M{ and
M2 is impossible, and also one between Mx and Mn(n>2). Third, consider the
possibility of mapping a continuous threefold manifold M3 one-one con-
tinuously onto a continuous twofold manifold M2. Choose a surface 31 in M3
which will be mapped to a surface A in M2. Surface A will be bounded by one
or more curves α1,α2, ... such that it is impossible to go from a point of A to a
point not in A without passing through one of these curves. Yet the correspond-
ing curves ai9a29... in 91 do not have this bounding property. It is always

15 Jürgens
(1879) containsanotherinterestingapplicationof his main theorem:a
proofof the fundamentaltheoremof algebra. The connectionbetweenthistheoremand
domain invarianceis now well known.
16 On Netto's life Biermann
cf (1974).
156 D.M.Johnson

possible to go froma point of a surfacein space immediatelyto a point not on

the surface.Hence, a correspondencebetweenM2 and Mn(n^ 3) is not possible.
The modern topologistwill certainlyfindthe proofsabove unsatisfactory.
Indeed theyare not proofsat all fromour standpoint.Netto just accepts ideas
and factsrelatedto theJordan curvetheorem(1887) and itsanalogues forother
dimensions.Yet in his defencewe should recognisethat he displays a good
intuitiveunderstandingof the topological situation,althoughhe expressesno
need to prove his most significantassumptionsabout separation.It must be
emphasisedagain thattopologywas in a veryprimitivestatewhenNetto wrote
his paper. He could only indicate the topological problem situationwithout
reallyprovinganythingas we would expecttoday.
In his paper Netto proceeds to the inductivestep of his generalinvariance
proof,tryingto demonstratethe impossibilityof a one-one continuousmapping
froman w-dimensional manifoldMn onto an (n- l)-dimensionalmanifoldMn_i.
His demonstrationcontinuesthe line of thoughtof his firstthreecases whichhe
connectswiththe followingprinciple(1879:265):
In einerMannigfaltigkeitvtenGrades wirdjedes Gebilde vtenGrades durch
ein anderes von geringeremGrade begrenzt; in einer Mannigfaltigkeit
(v-hl)ten Grades falltjedes Gebilde vten Grades mit seiner Grenze zu-
sammen.
(In a manifoldof vthdegree [i.e., dimension] everyfigureof vthdegree is
bounded by anotherof lesser degree; in a manifoldof (v + l)thdegree every
figureof vthdegreecoincideswithits boundary.)
In tacklingthe generalcase he clearlyrecognisesthe need to definerigorously
the geometrico-topologicalconcepts to be used. Hence, he adopts Weier-
strassianneighbourhoodtopology,althoughhe does not creditWeierstrass
To be sure,thesetopologicalideas werethebest tools whichNetto
explicitly.17
had available. His use of themprobablyconstitutesthe most importantfeature
of his entirepaper. Thus he gives reasonable definitionsof interiorpoint (ein
Punkt im Innern)and boundary point (ein Punkt auf der Grenze) and takes
connectednessin the Weierstrassiansense thata figurewill be connectedifevery
pair of points of it can be joined by a line belongingentirelyto the figure.
Unfortunately these basic tools fromgeneral topology were quite insufficient
means forNetto to constructa cogentinductivestep forhis proof.
JÜRGENSwas veryquick to detect an importanterrorin Netto's general
invariance proof. He included a very astute criticismof the proof in his
pamphlet of 1879 (1879:17), which appeared a few months after Netto's
paper. Having provedthe 2-dimensionaldomain invariancetheoremhimself,
JÜRGENSrealised quite correctlythat NETTO merelyassumedthe general in-
varianceof domain theoremin his proof.For example,in his thirdspecial case

17
Cf. Weierstrass (1894:70-71,83-84)(1880:721) = (1895:203) (1927:56-58),
Pincherle (1880:234-237). In my opinion Dauben (1975) wronglycredits these
topological ideas to Netto. Weierstrass certainlyused such ideas in his lectures
around 1879. However, in the case of connectednessNetto's definitionappears to be
slightlymore generalthan thatof Weierstrass.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 157

he took it forgrantedthatthe surfacein M3 will be mapped to a surfacein M2

whichpossesses interiorpoints.Yet only a proof of somethinglike JÜRGENS'
planar domain invariancetheoremwill guarantee that this is the case. Con-
sequently,JÜRGENSwas fullyjustifiedin furthercondemningNetto's proof
(1879:17):
istnurdannrichtig,
... der... Inductionsschluss wennauchdie Unmöglich-
keiteinereindeutigen undstetigen
Abbildung einerstetigenMannigfaltigkeit
uterDimension Theileinerzweiten
aufeinenunstetigen Mannigfaltig-
stetigen
keitnterDimension, d.h.aufeinenTheilohneinnerePunkte,nachgewiesen
wird.
(... theinductionstepis thenonlycorrectiftheimpossibility of a single-
valuedand continuous mapping[of thetypeJürgens had considered]of
a continuous manifold ofthenthdimension ontoa discontinuous partof a
secondcontinuous manifold of thenthdimension, i.e.,ontoa partwithout
interior points,is also proved.)
JÜRGENS, equippedwith a demonstration of a special domain invariance
theorem, had a good insight into the close connectionbetweenanyattempt to
prove dimensional invariance in generaland theinvarianceof domain.18
DuringthetimethatLüROTH,Thomae, Jürgens,and Netto werebusily
trying to provedimensional invariance in thelastmonthsof 1878,Cantor did
notremaininactiveovertheproblemto whichhis ownparadoxicaldiscovery
had givenbirth.Severaltimesinhiscorrespondence he gentlyurgedDedekind
to prove the conjectureon the invarianceof dimensionwhichDedekind
himself had put forward. But Dedekind did not seemto have the timeor
inclination to thinkabout a proof(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:37,40,41,42),
Grattan-Guinness (1974: 111)). Cantor also keptup withthepublications
on thesubjectand citedall thathad appearedthusfarin a letterto Dedekind
of the 29thof December1878.Yet he was not completely satisfied
withthe
published proofs(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:43)):
... es scheintmirjedochdie Sachenochnichtganzfertig zu sein.
gestellt
(... it seemsto me,however, thatthesituation is stillnotentirelyresolved.)
Netto's proofinterested him most,undoubtedly because it was the only
reasonably good attemptat a generalproof.Nevertheless, it did notmakehim
feelthattheproblemwas solved,as he admittedin a letterof 5 January 1879
(Grattan-Guinness (1974:114)):
... so dankenswerth auch diesermitScharfsinn unternommene Beweisver-
such mirerscheint, so kannich dennochgewisseBedenkenan demselben
nichtverscheuchen undfurchte, dass es nureinVersuchist,derzurKlärung
überdie Sacheabergewissbeitragen würde.
(... No matterhowcommendable thispenetrating
attempt at a proofappears
to me, I stillcannotbanishcertaindoubtsabout it and I fearthatit is
18Jürgens
(1899:52-53) also containsthiscriticism.
158 D.M.Johnson

only an attempt,which nonethelesswill certainlycontributeto clarifying

the situation.)
In view of these lingeringdoubts he presentedhis own proof of dimensional
invarianceto Dedekind in a letterdate 17 January1879.
In his letterCantor expressesthe theoremto be proved in the following
terms(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:45)):
Eine stetigeΜμ und eine stetigeMv lassen sich, falls μ<ν, nicht stetigso
einanderzuordnen,dass zu jedem Elementevon Μμ ein einzigesElementvon
Mv und zu jedem Elemente von Mv ein oder mehrereElemente von Μμ
gehören.
(A continuous [i.e., connected] Μμ and a continuous Mv, in case μ<ν,
cannotbe put into continuouscorrespondencewithone anothersuch thatto
each elementof Μμ therebelongsa singleelementof Mv and to each element
of Mv therebelongs one or more elementsof Μμ)

He claims thathe had a proofof thisforover a year,but previouslyhad serious

doubts about its validitysince it depends upon a multi-valuedcorrespondence.
Only now has he resolvedthe doubts in his own mind.19
Cantor's proof is complex (Cantor/Dedekind (1937:44-46)). It pro-
ceeds by inductionon v. Accordingto him thetheoremis obvious forν= 1, since
like Netto he thinksof Mo as a singlepoint.For the inductionstep we assume
the case ν= η - 1 and tryto deduce the case ν= η. To this end we suppose that
therecan be a continuousmany-onecorrespondenceas describedbetweenΜμ
and M„, μ<η. Cantor's objective is to show that this suppositionleads to a
clash with the intermediatevalue theorem. As we have already seen the
intermediatevalue theorem figuresin nearly all the dimensional invariance
proofsfromthe years 1878-1879.Cantor's intentionis to use the theoremin a
modifiedform,as the 'Jordan-Brouwer separationtheorem'forthe simple
case ofthehypersphere. Taking a distancefunctionfromthe centreof thehyper-
sphererelativeto its surfaceso thatpointswithinhave a negativedistance,while
points outside have a positive distance,and points on the sphere have zero
distance,we derive the resultthat a connectedfigurewith points on both the
inside and outside must cut the sphere.This resultfollows,since a continuous
functionwitha positiveand a negativevalue musthave a zero in between.
For the main body of Cantor's prooflet a and b be two interiorpoints of
-
Μμ withA and Β the correspondingpoints of Mn. In Mn constructan (n 1)-
dimensionalsphereKn_l around A sufficiently small to exclude £, while in Μμ
constructa sphereΚμ_ί around a sufficiently small so thatit excludes b and so
thatits image in M„, a figureGß__l (whichis (μ- l)-dimensionalby theinductive
hypothesis),lies within
entirely Kn_1. The latterconditioncan be metaccording
to Cantor because of the continuityof the correspondence.Lettingζ be the
19Cantor's invariance by a counterex-
'theorem'as statedabove can be falsified
curve.However,Peano's examplewas notpublisheduntil
ample:Peano's space-filling
elevenyearslaterand by thentheproblemsituation in topologyand dimension theory
had changedconsiderably.Cf.chapter4.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 159

point (of Gll_l) correspondingto an arbitrarypoint z of Κμ_ί9draw a straight

line segmentfromA to ζ and extend it so that it cuts the sphere Kn_1 in a
determinedpointZ. Carryingout thisconstructionwithrespectto all pointsζ of
Κμ_χ furnishesa continuouscorrespondencebetween points ζ of Κμ_χ and
certainpointsΖ of Kn_1.The pointsΖ cannot cover all of Kn_l9forotherwise
the inductivehypothesiswould be contradicted.Hence, theremustbe a point Ρ
of Kn_l whichis not a Z point.If we draw segmentAP, it does not touch the
figureGfi_1.Moreover,ifwe connectΡ to the point Β lyingoutside Kn_1by a
curve,thenwe obtaina connectedline APB whichhas no pointin commonwith
G/l_l. But this line correspondsto one or more curves in Μμ which run
continuouslyfroma to b and accordingto Cantor's intermediatevalue/sep-
aration theoremthese curves must cut the sphere Κμ_ι. However, it is im-
possible forthe curvesto cut Κμ_χ,since theycorrespondto line APB which
does not cut Gfl_l.Thus by reductioad absurdumthe resultfollows.
Two days afterCantor wrote out his proof (i.e., 19January)Dedekind
responded with two specificobjections (Cantor/Dedekind (1937:46-48)).
Firstit is conceivablethata point ζ of Gll_l correspondingto a point ζ of Κμ_χ
is A, sinceseveralpointsof Μμ can correspondto one and thesame pointof Mn.
In thiscase the image Ζ would be indeterminate. Dedekind immediatelysaw a
way out of this difficultyif it is assumed that the numberof points a' in Μμ
which correspondto point A in Mn is finite. Under this assumptionwe can
make thesphereΚμ_γsufficiently small to excludetheotherpointsa'. However,
ifthe numberof correspondingpointscan be infinite, thenhe could see no exit
fromthe difficulty and, moreover,he thendiscerneda second difficulty. Accord-
ingto Cantor theline APB correspondsto one or morecontinuouslinesin Μμ
going froma to b. But ifΒ can correspondto infinitely manypointsb' thenhe
was doubtfulabout the existenceof a particularline froma to b whichhas the
image APB. Hence, what concernedDedekind most was the possibilityof an
infinitemany-onecorrespondencein Cantor's proof.
Beyond his specificcriticismsDedekind had some interestingprogram-
matic ideas about Mannigfaltigkeitslehre or Gebietslehre
(his preferredterm).In
his letter he calls for a more rigorous developmentof the subject, saying
(Cantor/Dedekind (1937:47)):
... es wäre sehrverdienstlich,
wenn diese ganze ,Gebietslehre'ab ovo darge-
stellt würde, ohne die geometrischeAnschauung zuzuziehen, und dabei
müsstez.B. der Begriffeinervon dem Punctea nach dem Puncte b innerhalb
des Gebietes G stetigführendenLinie rechtbestimmtund deutlichdefiniert
werden.
(... It would be very meritoriousif this entire 'domain theory' were
developedab ovo withoutbringingin geometricalintuitionand in doingthat,
e.g., the concept of a line proceedingcontinuouslyfromthe point a to the
point b withinthe domain G would have to be definedquite definitely and
precisely.)
Is this not a proposal fora programmeof topologybased on arithmeticalor
analyticalprinciples?Indeed Dedekind's remarkforeshadowsthe subsequent
160 D. M. Johnson

developmentof point set topology which Cantor above all initiated (see
chapter4).
In his letterDedekind praises Netto's paper, sayingNetto's definitions
forma good kernelfor furtherdevelopments.At the same time he reveals to
Cantor some of his own attemptsto elaboratethe basic conceptsof the theory
of domains. He seems to be referring to a littlepaper, ' AllgemeineSätze über
Räume', probably writtenin the early 1870's but not published until 1931
(1931 : 353-355). This paper is certainlybrief;it containsjust a fewtheoremson
open sets(Körper) and theirboundaries(Begrenzungen).In his letterDedekind
tells Cantor that his motivationforwritingsuch a paper was to shore up the
DiRlCHLET Principle for a contemplatededition of Dirichlet's lectureson
potentialtheory.He thoughtthat an analytictheoryof domains could be used
to avoid Weierstrass' devastatingcritique(1870).20
Cantor partlyanticipatedthe objectionswhichDedekind includedin his
letter.This is evidenced by a postcard of 20 January(Cantor/Dedekind
(1937:48)). There Cantor suggeststhat it would be betterto think of the
correspondenceas proceedingfrompointsA and Β of Mn to pointsof Μ μ.If we
considerjust one of the points a correspondingto A and yet all of the points
b,b',b''... correspondingto B, then the sphere Κμ_γ around a can be made
sufficiently small so thatall pointsb9b',b"9...will falloutsideΚμ_1.21According
to Cantor this is possible because of the continuityof the correspondence
which preventsthe points b,b'b''... fromcoming 'infinitelyclose' to a. Now
therecan be no doubt thatone of the curvescorrespondingto APB goes froma
to at least one of the points ft,6',fe", ... thus cuttingthe sphere Κμ_γ. Hence,
Dedekind's second objectionis overcome.
When Cantor heard fromDedekind, he was not immediatelysure how to
overcome the firstobjection (Cantor/Dedekind (1937:49)). Yet he was
certain that he did not want to limit his theorem to finite many-one cor-
respondenceswiththe consequentloss of generality.Then a littlewhile laterhe
founda way around the firstobjection.This discoveryled him to writeout a
fullerversionof his proof in a paper which was presentedto the Königliche
Gesellschaftder Wissenschaften at Göttingenon 12 February1879. Having only
recently been elected a CorrespondingMember of the society,he felt the
society's Nachrichten was a good mediumforpublication.In this paper,'Über
einen Satz aus der Theorie der stetigenMannigfaltigkeiten' (1879), his theorem
appears in a slightly more general form (1932: 136):
Hat man zwischen zwei stetigen Gebieten Μμ und Mv eine solche Abhän-
gigkeit, dass zu jedem Punkte ζ von Μμ höchstensein Punkt Ζ von Mv, zu
jedem Punkte Ζ von Mv mindestens ein Punkt ζ von Μμ gehört,und ist ferner
diese Beziehung eine stetige,so dass unendlichkleinen Änderungenvon ζ
unendlichkleine Änderungenvon Ζ und auch umgekehrtunendlichkleinen
20In the end someoneelseeditedDirichlet's lectures,
viz.,P. Grube (P. Lejeune
Dirichlet, Über Kräfte,die im Verhältnis
umgekehrten des Quadratesder Entfernung
Dedekind continued
Leipzig,1876and 1887).However,
wirken, working outhisideason
topologyin anotherpaperofabout1892,published
analytic in (1931: 356-370).
21We stillinsurethat to Κμ_γfallswithinKn_i.
corresponding
Gfl_1
 andModern
Dimension Topology 161

Änderungen von Z unendlich kleineÄnderungen von z entsprechen,so ist

μ^ ν.
(Ifone has a correspondence betweentwocontinuous domainsΜμ and Mv
suchthatto eachpointζ ofΜμat mostone pointΖ ofMvcorresponds and
to eachpointΖ ofMvat leastone pointζ ofΜμcorresponds, and further if
thisrelationis continuous so thatinfinitely smallchangesofΖ correspond to
infinitelysmallchangesofζ and also,conversely, infinitelysmallchangesofζ
correspond smallchangesofZ, thenμ^ v.)
to infinitely
Thefactthatinthisversionofthetheorem CANTOR justassumesthatthemany-
one correspondence fromΜμ to Mv is partialdoes notaffect theproofin any
His
way.22 publishedproof is in essence the same as the one he communicat-
ed to Dedekind by letter.It differs onlyby including attemptsto overcome
Dedekind's two objections.The secondobjectionis dealt within the way
suggested above.Withregardto thefirsthe becameconvincedthathe could
the
ignore possibility thatpointsζ maycoincidewithA (inasmuchas someof
theďs associatedwithA maybe on thesphereΚμ_ί).We stillgeta continuous
correspondence betweenthosepointsofΚμ_1whichhavecorresponding points
in Mnandyetare notmappedto A and certainpointsZ' on Kn_l.We can still
formthelineAPB in Mn.It corresponds to a continuous domainΝ in Μμ that
runsfroma to one or moreoftheb's associatedwithΒ and thathas no pointin
commonwithKfl_1.IndeedΝ includesno a pointsevenifsomeofthesehappen
to be on Κμ_ί9becausethe line APB does not returnto A afterleavingA.
Hence,whenit cameto publication Cantor had no qualmsaboutthevalidity
ofhistheorem and proof.
In spiteofCantor's convinctions hisfinalproofis stillopento criticism; it
is flawed.Dedekind put his finger on a sensitive place in theproofwhenhe
drew attentionto the possibilityof an infinitemany-onecorrespondence,
especially inhissecondobjection. In thiscase he wondered whether therewould
always be a curve leading from a to b corresponding to APB. However,when
Cantor's paperappearedno one redeveloped or continued thelineofcriticism
whichDedekind had putto Cantor in theirprivatecorrespondence. It seems
thepaperof 1879attracted littleattention.It was notuntil1899thatJÜRGENS
publisheda directcriticism of Cantor's proofin a reviewof the problem
situationconcerning dimensional invariance(1899:53). He refuted the inter-
mediatevaluetheorem upon which theproof is based the
byproviding following
counterexample. Considerthemappingfrompointsχ in theopeninterval (1,2)
to all irrationalnumbers y forwhich3/8x<y<5/$x. In an intuitive sensethis
function is continuous, althoughas JÜRGENS pointedout thereare difficulties
withdefining continuityformulti- valuedfunctions.23 Yet theintermediate value
theoremdoes not hold,becausey does not take therationalvalues.Further-
more,ifwe considertheimagesoftheinterval (1,2),thereis no continuous path
stretching froman imagepointofan χ closeto 1 to an imagepointofan χ close

22Notethatin thisversionofthetheorem he has nowspeltouttherequirement that

hiscorrespondencebe continuous
in bothdirections,
i.e.,thatitbe bicontinuous.
ZJTo be sure,Cantor did notreckonwiththesedifficulties
explicitly.
162 D. M. Johnson

to 2. However,Cantor requireda similarpath in his proof,since he reliedon

the existenceof a continuouspath froma to one of the ft'scorrespondingto the
line APB. JÜRGENS'counterexampleshows that such a path need not exist.So
Cantor's prooffails.
From our presentvantage point the attemptedproofs of dimensional in-
variance put forwardduring 1878 and 1879 do not appear very satisfactory.
Having the greatbenefitof hindsight,we can see thatthe mathematiciansof the
period were strugglingto subdue a difficult problemwithinadequate weapons.
Fully developed topological methods and ideas were not available to them.
Their best means of attack lay in analysis.Indeed with only these means they
handled theirproblemveryskillfully. It must be conceded that the standardof
rigour and critical argumentamong them was high,given the povertyof their
methods.Of course,some topological ideas were implicitin the Weierstrassian
analysisof theirday. For example,therewere reasonable definitionsof interior
point, boundary point, and connectedness.Also they could and did use the
intermediate value theoremtogetherwithits implicationswitha certainamount
of topological understanding.Yet we can see that the mathematiciansof 1878-
1879 frequently feltthe need to go beyond the slendermeans at theirdisposal.
The generalproofsof Thomae and Netto give evidenceof thisfact.However,
theircontemporaries quicklysensedthelack of rigourin theseproofs.They soon
realisedthatmuch more was requiredto make themcogent.
In my judgment the best proof of all fromthis period is JÜRGENS'.His
linking of a demonstrationof the planar domain invariance theorem with
dimensional invariance gave him a deep insightinto the problem situation.
Unfortunately he was not a first-class
mathematician, so thathe was not able to
develop his importantline of thoughtinto more general results.He was no
Brouwer. Perhaps if he had chosen a better way of publishing his re-
search,his work mighthave receivedmore attention.Then othersmighthave
taken it up and developed it further.
It is clear that around 1880 adequate topological tools in mathematicswere
badly needed. The attemptsto prove invarianceprovidedsome motivationfor
these to be fashioned.Other parts of mathematicscried out fortheirdevelop-
ment.Dedekind's letterto Cantor of 19 January1879 is a definiteexpression
of the need fora fullprogrammeof analytictopology.Thus, beforeconsidering
later efforts towardssolvingthe dimensionalinvarianceproblem,we musttake
account of the earlierdevelopmentof point set topologyin the nextchapter.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 163

Chapter4. The Rise of Point Set Topology

By the 1880's mostmathematicians thought thatCantor's paradoxabout

dimension had beenexplainedawayby eitherNetto's or Cantor's proofof
dimensional invariance. JÜRGENS was virtually theonlyone to voice dissent,
but his acutecriticism of the Netto proofwentlargelyunnoticed. The con-
sensuswas thatthe invarianceproblemfordimensionhad been solved.For
example,we findFelix Klein drawingattentionto Cantor's paradoxical
resultin his important littlebookletof 1882,ÜberRiemanns Theoriederalge-
braischen Funktionen undihrerIntegrale( 1882) = ( 1923:527), but he was not
overlyconcerned aboutthedifficulties thatit presented. Indeedhe was examin-
ing Riemann's function theory on the intuitivegeometrical level.Walter von
Dyck (1856-1934)in hisfirst zur
'Beiträge Analysis situs' pointedto theresult
of Cantor, but thenhe immediately held up Lüroth's special proofand
Cantor's generalproofof invarianceas guarantees forthesoundnessof the
dimension concept(1888:457-458). In a short paperpublishedin 1887GlNO
Loria (1862-1939)describedthe situationconcerning dimensionand its in-
varianceforan Italian readership. In the paper he summarised Cantor's
correspondence resultbetweentheunitintervaland theunitcube of η dimen-
sions and thenrepeatedNetto's generalinvarianceproof(1887)} Hence,
amongmathematicians thegenerally heldopinionduringthelasttwodecadesof
thenineteenth century was thattheinvariance of dimension had beenproved.
This opinion is echoed in Arthur Schoenflies' Encyklopädiearticle,
'Mengenlehre', submitted in November1898 (1898:187). However,fromour
vantagepointwe knowthatthesituation withregardto dimensional invariance
was notas satisfactory as it thenseemedto most.
It was a revolution whichchangedattitudes to thedimension problem -a
revolution in topologybroughtabout by the rise of the theoryof sets and
particularly thetheory ofsetsofpoints.Pointsettheory (Punkt mannigfaltigkeits-
lehre) is the creation of one man: GEORG CANTOR. Althoughhe did not
contribute verymuchto topologydirectly, hispointsettheory addedan entirely
new perspective to topologicalthinking. Today we regard dimension theory
primarily as a branchofset-theoretic topologyand so thedevelopment ofpoint
settheory eventually had themostprofound effecton thesubject.In thischapter
we mustgo beyondtheconfines of thehistoryof dimension theoryand take
accountoftheriseofsettheory and pointsettheory.
Cantor publishedhismostimportant investigations intothetheoryofsets
ofpointsin a seriesofsixpapersentitled 'Ueberunendliche, linearePunktman-
nichfaltigkeiten'(1879a) (1880) (1882) (1883) (1883a) ( 1884') = (1932: 139-
246).Thesebrilliant papersconstitute the'quintessence ofCantor's lifework' (as
Zermelo has said in Cantor (1932:246)). Muchofthematerialconcerns the
founding ofthetheory oftransfinite cardinalsand ordinals.However, Cantor's
mainobjectof studyis linearpointsetsand pointsets in the n-dimensional
arithmetic continuum (Euclideanη-space)and theirproperties. The resulting
1 Cf.alsotheinvariance
proofsofF.Giudice(1891)andM.Del Giudice(1904),
which,
however,arenotverysuccessful.
164 D.M.Johnson

theorybecame the basis forpoint set topology.The fundamentalconceptis that

of limitpoint (Grenzpunkt;or in later terminology, Häufungspunkt:accumu-
lation point): a point ρ is a limit point of a set Ρ if every neighbourhood
(Umgebung) of the point, however small, contains several points of the set
(1932: 149) (cf. (1872) = (1932: 98)). The fundamentaltheoremis the so-called
Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem,used by Weierstrass in his lecturesand
knownto Cantor fromthese,whichstates(1932: 149) thateveryinfiniteset of
pointsin a bounded regionof η-space possesses at least one limitpoint.2From
this fundamentalconcept and theoremflow all of Cantor's deep point set-
theoreticconcepts. Among these are the notions of a derived set (abgeleitete
Punktmenge, Ableitung)(1932: 98, 139-140), an everywhere dense set in a given
interval(überall-dichtein einemgegebenenIntervallePunktmenge)(1932:140-
141), an isolated point set (isoliertePunktmenge)(1932:158), and a nowhere
dense set (in keinem Intervalle überall-dichtePunktmenge)(1932:161). By
introducingthese notions CANTORopened up a whole new world of ideas for
the emergingfieldof topology.
As an example of his procedure let us see how Cantor investigatesthe
concept of continuumin the tenthsection of his Grundlageneinerallgemeinen
Mannigfaltigkeitslehre (1883a). Cantor was very proud of his definitionof
continuum(1883 a) = (1932 : 190-194) as he feltit solved an ancientproblemof
both mathematicaland philosophicalimportance.In the Grundlagen he giveshis
solutionwithinthe scope of the '^-dimensionalplane arithmeticspace G„' ('der
/t-dimensionale ebene arithmetische Raum', i.e.,η-dimensionalEucludean space),
consistingof the set of all value systems(points)

(x1'x2'... K)
of real numbersxř(underthedefinition of Cantor) providedwiththe usual
Euclideanmetricor measureofdistancebetweenpoints.The questionthenis:
Whenis a setofpointsofGna continuum or a continuousset?
In orderto answerthisquestion,CANTORfirstintroduces theconceptofa
set
perfect (perfekte Punktmenge): a set
perfect is one whichis withthe
identical
derivedset,
setofall itslimitpoints,i.e.,itsfirst
S = S(1),
and henceis identicalwithits derivedsetsof all orders.Veryperceptivelyhe
set neednot be densein anyintervaland in a footnote
realisesthata perfect
(1932:207) he givesthe classicexampleof a nowheredenseperfectset,the
famousCantorternary set or discontinuum:theset of all real numbersofthe
form

can onlytakethevalues0 and 2. Cantor thenintroduces

wherethecoefficients
the conceptof connectedness(zusammenhängende Punktmenge).Previously
2 Cf.Bolzano (1817)andWeierstrass(1927:56).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 165

Weierstrass had used the notionthata set is connectedifeverypair of points

of it can be joined by a polygonalpath in the set.3However,Cantor wanteda
concept withinthe domain of his new theoryof sets. A set Τ is connectedin
Cantor's sense if for every pair of points í, ť of Τ and every given
arbitrarilysmall numberε we can choose a finitenumberof pointstl912,... tvin
Τ such that the distancesttu tít2, ί2ί3,...ίνί' are all less then ε. This form
of metricconnectedness,sometimescalled the propertyof being well-chained,
remaineda part of point set theoryfora long timeafterCantor, until Riesz,
Lennes, and Hausdorff put forwardthe 'modern' concept of connectedness
in the firstyearsof the twentiethcentury.
Finally Cantor assertsthat a point set of Gn will be a continuum(Kon-
tinuum)if it is both perfectand connected.In a footnotehe adds (1932:208)
the definitionof a semicontinuumas an imperfectconnectedset of the second
numberclass (Xj) withthe propertythateverypair of pointscan be joined by a
completecontinuum.He boasts thathis conceptionof continuumis superiorto
those of Bolzano and Dedekind, although his criticismof the Bolzano
notion is foundedon a misunderstanding of Bolzano's ideas.4 In any case,
Cantor's new set-theoretic idea of continuumwas of major significancein the
early developmentof analytic topology. It constituteda new insightinto a
traditionalinformalconcept.
In the course of analysingthe continuumconcept Cantor asserteda false
proposition(1932: 193) whichthe ScandinavianmathematicianIVAR BENDIX-
SON (1861-1935) swiftly criticised.5The revisionof the offendingpropositionled
Cantor to define the extremelyimportantnotion of a closed set (abge-
schlosseneMenge) (1932:226): a closed set is one whichcontainsall of its limit
points. On the other hand, a dense-in-itselfset (in sich dichte Menge)
(1932: 228) is one whichis containedin its set of limitpointsor its firstderived
set. A perfectset is thenboth closed and dense-in-itself.
When investigatingthe concept of continuum,Cantor (1932: 207-208)
notedthathis notionwas independentof the idea of dimension.He promisedto
take up the problem of definingthe dimensionconcept for continua,but he
neverdid. Perhapshis mentalillnesspreventedhim fromdoing so. Nevertheless,
he had a clear interestin the definitionproblemfordimensionmotivatedby his
own paradoxical discovery.
Cantor's imaginativeideas had the most profoundeffecton the growthof
mathematics.Analystswere the firstto see theirusefulness.Point set theory
offeredwonderfulnew instruments for a detailed studyof the nature of func-
tions, with the resultthat the growthof real and complex functiontheorywas
greatly accelerated in the yearsafterthe publicationof Cantor's greatpapers.
Applications of the Cantorian toolkitto the fundamentalnotions of geometry
came a littlelater. Giuseppe Peano and Camille Jordan were among the

3
Cf.Weierstrass (1895:203) (1927:57). However,
he onlydefined
connectedness
in conjunction
withhisconceptofcontinuum (connected
openset).
4
Cf.my(1977:283-284).
5
During1883Cantor and Bendixson had a substantial concern-
correspondence
ingthedifficulty.
Cf.Bendixson(1883).
166 D. M. Johnson

firstto take the Cantorian ideas into the domain of geometry, so their work
became a vital background to the development of point set topology.
Among topologists Camille Jordan (1838-1922)6 is best known for his
celebrated theorem on closed curves in the plane. He firstenunciated this result
in a 'Note' at the end of the firstedition of his Cours d'Analyse. In order to
understand why JORDAN wanted to state and prove this theorem, we must
consider a few aspects of his analysis text.7
The differences between the first and second editions of Jordan's Cours
ď Analyse could hardly be greater. In terms of the state of mathematics and
standards of rigour of the 1880's and '90's the editions are worlds apart.
Jordan's attempt to prove the curve theorem is bound up with these differ-
ences. The firstedition, published in three volumes between 1882 and 1887, is
very much a Cours ď Analyse de l'Ecole Polytechnique (1882) (1883) (1887). It
is not a research treatise, but a textbook for students with an emphasis on
methods. However, in the 'Preface' JORDAN writes (1882:v):

Nous avons apporté un soin particulier à l'établissement des théorèmes

fondamentaux. Il n'en est aucun dont la démonstration ne soit subordonnée
à certaines restrictions. Nous nous sommes efforcé d'apporter dans cette
discussion, parfois délicate, toute la précision et la rigueur compatibles avec
un enseignement élémentaire.

(We have taken particular care in the establishing of fundamental theorems.

There is none for which the demonstration has not been subordinated to
certain restrictions. We have tried to bring into the discussion, at times
delicate, all the precision and rigour compatible with an elementary edu-
cation.)
In spite of this declaration of intended rigour8 the first Cours is virtually pre-
Weierstrassian on the fundamentals of analysis. Of course, JORDAN was well
aware of the new Weierstrassian ideas, which by the 188O's were having a
powerful impact in France, but apparently he did not wish to expose his
students to their full force. Nevertheless, in order to assuage his conscience
about matters of rigour Jordan appended a 'Note sur quelques points de la
théorie des fonctions' at the end of the last volume of the first edition
(1887 : 549-615). In this place he revises proofs of the main text according to the
highest standards of rigour then current. It is in this 'Note' that the closed curve
theorem firstappeared.
The second edition of the Cours, published between 1893 and 1896, contrasts
markedly with the first in content and style. In 1883 Jordan succeeded
LlOUVlLLE to the chair of mathematics at the Collège de France; he had been
suppléant to Serret at the Collège since 1875. At this ancient institution he
could lecture on his own research interestsand this fact is reflectedin the second
edition of his book. It should really be entitled Cours d'Analyse du Collège de
6 The standardbiographyof Jordan is Lebesgue (1926).
7 I intendto examinethe
originsof the Jordan curvetheoremmore fullyin a future
paper. Guggenheimer (1977) has analysed some of the historyof the theorem.
8 Jordan's declarationharksback to the openingof Cauchy s Cours d Analyse.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 167

France,forit more accuratelydescribeshis analysislecturesat the Collège than

at the École Polytechnique.9It is muchmore a researchtreatise;the standardof
rigouris farhigher.Jordan incorporatesthe materialof the earlier'Note' into
the main textof the firstvolume and includesmuch new researchmaterial.10
fromthe firstto
The curve theoremis a part of this radical transformation
the second editionand, in particular,it is connectedwithproofsof Cauchy's
integraltheoremin complex analysis.In the firsteditionJORDAN(1884:275-
277) proves the Cauchy theoremin much the same way as Cauchy himself
had done in 1825- by a variationalcalculus techniqueshowingthat the first
variationof the integralis zero. This proofhardlycomes up to standardsbeing
expectedin the 1880's,when quite a fewmathematicianswere scrutinisingthe
theoremand subjectingit to furtherproof analysis, although it is probably
sufficientfora studenttext.11However,in the 'Note' Jordan reexaminesthe
Cauchy theorem,statingit in the followingform(1887:605):
Soit C une lignecontinueferméeet sans pointsmultiples,ne contenantà son
intérieuraucun pointcritiquede la fonction/(z). L'intégraleJ/(z) dz, prisele
long d'une ligneferméeet rectifiablequelconque Κ intérieureà C, est nulle.
(Let C be a closed continuousline withoutmultiplepoints,not containing
any criticalpoints of the functionf(z) on its interior.The integralj/(z) dz,
takenalong any closed and rectifiableline K, is zero.)
From the very statementof the theoremone can discern that Jordan had
himselfsubjectedthe theoremand its proofto a detailedanalysis.For example,
simpleclosed lines or curves,whichare assumed to have interiors,figurein the
restatementof the old theorem.Moreover,in the 'Note' he provides his own
definitionof rectifiability
(1887: 594-598), whichhe immediatelylinkswithhis
earlierdefinedconceptof a functionof bounded variation(1881). He also takes
the trouble to prove the existence of the integral of a complex function
(1887:603-605).
Thus whilepreviousmathematicians hardlysaw the need to prove the
obviouslytruestatement thata simpleclosedcurvedividestheplane intoan
insideregionand an outsideregion,Jordan required a proof,
and a lengthy
one
at that (1887: 587-594),as a consequenceof his analysisof the CAUCHY
theorem.12In the'Note' he defines
a curveas thesequenceofpointsrepresented
bytheequations
x=f(t), y=<t>(t'
9 The studenteditionsof Jordan's
analysiscoursesat the École Polytechnique
revealthathe nevertreatedanalysisthereas rigorously as in his publishedsecond
edition.The secondeditionowes muchto a coursewhichhe gave at the Collègede
Franceduringtheyear1891-92entitled, 'Principesdu calculinfinitésimal'.
ιυLebesgue makesthepointofthisparagraph.
(1926) essentially
11
Probablythemostimportant newproofoftheCauchy theorem to appearduring
the188O'swas Goursat (1884). Thisled to hiscelebrated improvement ofthetheorem
(1900).
12Bolzano was
actuallythefirstto statetheJordan curvetheorem and he did so
manyyearsbeforeJordan,buthe gaveno proof.Cf.my(1977).
168 D.M.Johnson

where / and φ are functions of the parameter t. If the functions are continous,
the curve is said to be continuous and if they have a common period, the curve
is said to be closed. If for certain distinct values of t within the period the values
of χ are the same and the values of y are the same, then the closed curve has
multiple points. However, Jordan only considers continuous closed curves
without multiple points, i.e., simple closed curves, and so states the theorem
(1887:593):
... toutecourbecontinueC divisele plan en deuxrégions,
l'uneextérieure,
l'autreintérieure,cettedernièrene pouvantse réduireà zéro, car elle
contient un cerclede rayonfini.
(... EverycontinuouscurveC dividestheplane intotwo regions,theone
exterior, theotherinterior; thelattercannotbe reducedto zero,becauseit
containsa circleoffinite radius.)
Jordan's proofis based on polygonsapproximating the curveC fromthe
insideand fromtheoutside.He assumesthetheorem forsimplepolygons, i.e.,he
assumesthat a polygonwithoutmultiplepointsdividesthe plane into an
interior and an exterior region.First,accordingto JORDAN we can construct a
simplepolygon Ρ which approximates C to of
anydegree accuracy. Then he
offers a wayto construct simplepolygonsS and S' fromΡ whichare insideand
outsideof C, respectively. These approximateC and containit withinan
annularregion.Indeedan entiresequenceof interior polygonsS, Sl9 ..., each
insidethe next,and an entiresequenceof exteriorpolygonsS' S'l9..., each
outsidethe next,can be constructed. These approximateC withincreasing
accuracy and corresponding pairs form smallerand smallerannularregions
whichsqueezedownto C. Hence,thetheorem followsaccordingto Jordan.
Latergenerations of mathematicians have cometo regardtheclosedcurve
theorem partofelementary
as a difficult topology.As a first attempt Jordan's
proofis quite good, althoughit was not manyyearsbeforemathematicians
began to pointout flaws.13Arthur Schoenflies was the firstcritic,but
initiallyhe only criticisedthe prooffor its complication. He followedhis
criticism witha proofofa lessgeneralversionofthetheorem - a proofwhichis
not completely adequate (1896). Schoenflies was also the firstto draw
attention to thetopologicalsignificance oftheresult.Jordan was interested in
thetheorem foritsimmediate in In
applications analysis. fact, thereason why he
employedpolygonalapproximations in theproofis to be foundin his appli-
cationof the resultto the Cauchy integraltheorem.For thattheoremhe
wanteda polygonal pathofintegration on theinterior ofthesimpleclosedcurve
(1887:605). Yet even if JORDAN did not fullyunderstand the topological
significance of the closed curvetheorem, in the end we must credithimwith
stating and trying to prove something ofgreat importance.
13Itisnowwellknown thatthemethodofpolygonal isaninefficient
approximations
of
way proving theJordan curvetheorem.Veblen(1905) the
initiated method
direct of
thetheorem;
proving ofJordan'sproof
cf.Brouwer(1910g).Earlycriticisms aretobe
foundin: Schoenflies(1896),Veblen (1905),Ames(1905),Schoenflies(1906)
(1908:169) (1925). Cf.Guggenheimer(1977).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 169

Mathematiciansthinkingabout the dimensionalinvarianceproblem soon

realisedthat the JORDANcurve theoremcould be usefulto them,because they
perceivedthatan η-dimensionalgeneralisation - the theoremthatstatesthatan
-
(n l)-dimensionalsphere and its homeomorphsdivide an rc-spaceinto two
regions- yields an η-dimensionaldomain invariance theorem and then the
invarianceof dimension.However,no one genuinelyunderstoodthe difficulty of
proving an η-dimensional Jordan separation theorem untilBrouwer.
In the firstvolume of the second edition of his Cours ď AnalyseJORDAN
includeda slightlyrevisedproofof the curve theorem(1893:90-100). This is
wheremost mathematiciansfirstcame across the theorem.He also included a
fullsection(1893:18-31) on Cantorianset theory,incorporatingmaterialfrom
a researchpaper on the integralof the previousyear (1892). He based the set
theoryon η-spaces provided with an écart (distance measure).14Within the
sectionon set theorythereis a new definition of connectedness(d'un seul tenant)
(1893:25): a set is connected if it cannot be separatedinto severalclosed sets.
This definitionis equivalentto Cantor's inasmuchas Jordan only considered
closed and bounded {i.e.,compact) sets. In this special case it is also equivalent
to the usual definition(due to Riesz, Lennes, and Hausdorff). Jordan's
overallcontribution to pointset topologywas substantial,althoughhe only saw
the subject in the context of analysis. Numerous mathematiciansread the
second Cours ď Analyse and throughit learned about the set-theoreticfoun-
dations of modernanalysis.
Giuseppe Peano (1858-1932)15 was in many ways Jordan's rival in
mathematics.Peano and Jordan separatelyattackedthe problemsof measure
and integration, but theirresultswere remarkablyclose (Peano (1887), Jor-
dan (1892)). They proposed similar definitionsof rectifiability(JORDAN
(1887:594), Peano (1890b)), althoughPeano's is somewhatmore general.It
is interesting to findan earlycriticismby Peano of a resultin thefirsteditionof
Jordan's Cours.The disputeover Jordan's mistakeoccupies severalpages of
the 1884 volume of the NouvellesAnnalesde Mathématiques.16 From the point
of view of the developmentof topologyboth saw the importanceof applying
Cantorianset theoryto intuitivegeometricalideas.
Peano's exampleof a space-filling curve,a curvewhichcoversall the points
of a square (1890), is the most spectacular example he ever devised. It
completelyupset the 'geometricalintuitions'of the mathematiciansof the day.
It is not known preciselyhow Peano came to devise such a counterintuitive
curve,but we can see that much of his earlierwork of the 188O'swas directed
towardsá criticalappraisal of commonly-held mathematicalnotions.His analy-
sis textCalcolo Differenziale e Principiidi Calcolo Integrale(1884) abounds with
examplesdemonstrating the need to revisethe fundamentalsof the subjectthen
taken for granted.In his ApplicazioniGeometrickédel Calcolo Infinitesimale

14Jordan's écartidea seemsto have been an sourceof inspiration

for
important
Fréchet whendefining theconceptof(E) class(metricspace)in (1906).
15Peano
(1973) containsa goodbiography byH.C. Kennedy.
16
Cf. NouvellesAnnalesde Mathématiques (3)3(1884),45-47, 153-155,252-256,
475-482.
170 D.M.Johnson

(1887: 152-259) Peano devotes a chapterto the studyof geometricalmagni-

tudes,givingdefinitions of the interiorand exteriormeasureof linearsets,plane
areas, and spatial volumes.One would expectthat the curveboundingan area
would contributenothingto the measure of that area, i.e., that the curve itself
could be squeezed withinan arbitrarilysmall region. However, taking a set-
theoreticview,Peano realises that the interiorarea and the exteriorarea of a
planar region can be different. Possibly these ideas motivated Peano's in-
of
vestigation planar curvesdefined by continuousfunctions.
In the shortpaper 'Sur une courbe,qui remplittoute une aire plane' (1890)
Peano defineshis curvein a purelyanalyticway withoutreference to geometri-
cal considerations.This procedure accords with his critical 'antigeometrical'
attitudeto analysis. For the constructionwe considerχ and y as continuous
functionsoftheparametert in theinterval[0, 1]; as numbersbetween0 and l,x,
y, and t are given ternary(base 3) representations.17 The aim is to put the
ternary fractions
t = 0.ala2a3...,

intocontinuous
pointsoftheunitinterval,
representing withthe
correspondence
fractions
ternary
x = 0.b1b2b3...,
y= 0.c1c2c3 ...,

pointsin the unit square.To achievethis aim we let ka (the

representing
'complementofď) denotethedigit2 - a, wherea is one ofthedigits0, 1,or 2.
Thus
kO= 2, fcl= l, k2 = 0.

knais theresultofapplying theoperationk ηtimesto a and ithas thevaluea, if

between
η is even,and ka, ifη is odd.The correspondence t and(x,y)is givenby
thefollowing equations:
&i=«i, cx=ka'a2,
-
ο2 κ α3, l-2~k a4>
d3 - k a5, C3 - K a6»

Irfl2+«4H '-α2η-2η η Ir«l+a3 + (-«2M-1/J

n~K a2n-l> Cn~K U2n'

It is easy to see that everypoint of the square is coveredand that the

correspondence is continuousby the veryway the ternaryrepresentation
proceeds.In his paperPeano briefly indicateshowthecorrespondence can be
generalisedto the cube.In fact,extendingit to an η-cubeis notdifficult.
Although Peano described hiscurveanalytically, soon afterthepublication
ofhispaperHilbert (1891) presented a geometrical methodforconstructing a
curve
space-filling as thelimitof a of
sequence polygonalpaths. LaterSCHOEN-

17Peano carefully a numeral

between
distinguishes andthenumber it represents,
buttosimplify I havenotemphasised
theexposition thisdistinction.
 Dimension
andModemTopology 171

FLIES (1900:121-123) and the American mathematicianE.H.MOORE

(1900: 77) showedhowto 'visualise'a construction
of Peano's originalexam-
ple.The basicfigure
is thefollowing:

ι ι ι ι ι ι ι ι ι ι
0 123456789

As thefirst stepoftheconstruction we dividetheunitsquareinto9 subsquares

and draw a polygonalline (corresponding to the unitsegment)throughthe
square,as shownin the figure.In the secondstep we subdivideeach small
squareand drawsimilarpolygonallinesin each.Ifwe continuein thismanner,
thelimitcurveis Peano's example;theentiresquareis covered.
Peano's curvewas a secondblowto thenaiveconceptof dimension after
Cantor's one-onecorrespondence, forit providesa continuous mappingbe-
tweena 1-dimensional objectand a 2-dimensional one.However, Peano himself
was quick to explainaway the difficulty. Because some numbershave two
distinctternary representations,certainpointsof thesquareare coveredtwice
and certainothersare coveredfourtimesby thecurve.ThusthePeano curve
describesa continuous, but not a one-onecorrespondence. Peano interpreted
thisfactas a confirmation of Netto's proofof the invarianceof dimension,
whichis citedin his paper.Hence,we see thateven Peano, usuallya very
perceptive detected
critic, no flawin theearliergeneralinvariance proofs.
HlLBERTin his paper(1891:461) notedthatit is possibleto devisespace-
curveswhichcoverthepointsof thesquareat mostthreetimes.Much
filling
laterLebesgue foundthatit is not possibleto give such curveswiththe
pointscoveredat mosttwice.He discerned in thisfacta keyto provingdimen-
sionalinvariance ! (See chapter7.)
Peano's 'curve'clearlydemonstrates thattheusualwayofdefining a curve
through a pairofcontinuous functions ofa parameter leadsto counterintuitive
results.Presumably no one wantsto thinkof a squareas a curve.It is not
surprisingthatPeano's exampleimmediately capturedtheattention ofmathe-
maticians and soontheywereproposing newdefinitions ofthecurveconceptin
orderto excludethePeano monsters. Thisworkmarksa starting place in the
of
history topological curve a
theory,subjectclosely relatedto dimensiontheory.
Jordan,however, neverpubliclyrecognised Peano's strangeresult.In thefirst
Cours(1887:587) he had definedcurvesthrough continuous functions
and in
172 D.M.Johnson

subsequenteditionshe neverbotheredto changehis old definition. Moreover,he

had an interestin determining when a closed curveencloses a well-defined area
in the sense of measure theoryand proved in the 'Note' (1887: 599-600) that
the area will certainlybe definedin the case of a rectifiablecurve.A fewyears
later in 1894 he asked the followingquestion in Π Intermédiaire des Mathéma-
ticiens(1894a):
Pourrait-on signalerunecourbe
x=f(t), y=<Kt)
(f et φ étantdes fonctions dontl'airefutindéterminée?
continues)
(Can one describea curve
x=f(t), y=<i>{t)
(/ and φ beingcontinuous functions)forwhichthearea is indeterminate?)
Peano (1896) responded to Jordan's questionbypointing to hisspace-filling
curve.If we take any arc of the curveand connectthe endpointswithan
ordinarycurveso as to give a closed curve,thenwe have a curvewithan
interior less thanits exteriorarea. But Jordan neveracknowl-
area strictly
edgedPeano's responseand did not alterhis definition of continuouscurve
in thethirdeditionoftheCoursd'Analyse.
Peano's spectacular exampleis butone in a longlistofstrangecurvesand
pointsetswhichruncounterto 'naive geometrical Set theoryhas
intuition'.
beenthemainbreeding groundforsuchexamples.Two otherstriking entriesin
thislist may be mentioned. In 1903 William Osgood (1903) and Henri
Lebesgue (1903-05) each an
published example of a Jordan curve (i.e.,a
simple closed a
curve)possessing positive exteriormeasure,i.e., the curve itself
has a measurablearea. This curveis evenstranger thantheone whichPeano
suggestedin his responseto Jordan's question,because it has no multiple
points.In 1910 L.E. J.Brouwer (1910d) publishedthe firstexamplesof
indecomposable continuaand curveswhichdividetheplaneintothreeor more
regions but which are thecommonboundaries ofall theregions.One mightsay
thatintheyearsaround1900settheory breda plethoraoftopologicalmonsters.
An earlycatalogueof theseis containedin the firstbook in Englishon set
theory, William H. and Grace Chisholm Young's Theory of Setsof Points
(1906).18Of course,formathematicians welltrainedin Cantorianmethodsthe
monsters becamemanageable, indeedfriendly,and theyguidedthewayto quite
a fewnewresults. Thuspathological odditieswerean important spurto growth
in set-theoretictopology.
Giventhewealthof resultsfromthepapersof Cantor and manyothers,
certainmathematicians recognisedtheneedforan entireprogramme ofexplo-
rationin set-theoretictopology. At the FirstInternational Congress Mathe-
of
maticians, held in Zürich from 9 to 11 August1897, Adolf Hurwitz (1859-
1919) sketched such a of
plan investigation (1898). In his lecture reviewing
18Cf.Schoenflies(1906a).
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 173

progressin analytic functiontheory Hurwitz (1898: 101-104) tries to de-

terminethe precisedomain of validityof the C auch y integraltheoremand in
so doing pointsto the importantwork of Jordan. He asks the highlyrelevant
generalquestions(1898: 101):
... was ist eine einfachgeschlosseneLinie, was ist eine Linie, insbesondere
eine geschlosseneLinie überhaupt,und sind alle oder nurgewissegeschlosse-
ne Linien in dem Ausspruchdes Cauchy'schenSatzes zulässig?
(... What is a simple closed line, what is a line,especially,a closed line in
general,and are all or only some closed lines admissiblein the enunciation
of the Cauchy theorem?)
In attemptingto grapple with these questions he puts them into the general
contextof the topologyof closed sets. In a way similarto Cantor's definition
of cardinalsand ordinals,we can assign closed point sets to classes: each class
containingthose sets which can be mapped one-one continuouslyonto one
another.The sets in each class will be called 'equivalent'. Then (1898: 102):

Diese Einteilungder Punktmengenin Klassen bildet ... die allgemeinste

Grundlage der Analysissitus. Die Aufgabe der Analysis situs ist es, die
Invariantender einzelnenKlassen von Punktmengenaufzusuchen.
(This distributionof point sets into classes forms ... the most general
foundationof analysis situs. The task of analysis situs is to search forthe
invariantsof the singleclasses of point sets.)
Hurwitz gives a specific example: a geometrico-set-theoretic definitionof
Jordan's idea of a simple closed curve,as a point set (in the plane) which
belongsto the class of the boundaryof a square. In essence,he statesthe Klein
ErlangerProgramm(1872) foranalysis situs in a sharperformby placing the
centralprobleminto the framework of point set theory.
Hurwitz never contributedto the programmeadumbratedin his Zürich
lecture.It was Arthur Schoenflies (1853-1928)19 who firstembarkedupon
such a programme.At the turnof the centurySchoenflies was the foremost
propagandistforCantor's set theory.He wrote the articleon 'Mengenlehre'
forthe Encyklopädieder mathematischen Wissenschaften (1898) and composed
Berichte(1900) (1908) on progressin the fieldin responseto a commissionby
theDeutscheMathematiker- Vereinigung.As notedabove he was thefirstmathe-
matician to draw attention to Jordan's curve theorem by suggestingits
topologicalsignificance and givingan alternativeproof.
There is a short early paper by Schoenflies, 'Ueber einen Satz der
Analysis Situs' (1899), in which he reproves the planar domain invariance
theoremin the formulation(1899:282):
... dass das umkehrbareindeutige und stetige Abbild der Fläche eines
Quadrats wiederein einfachzusammenhängendesFlächenstückist, dass es
19Thereis little materialon Schoenflies. However,cf.Bieberbach
biographical
(1923).
174 D.M.Johnson

nämlich aus der Gesamtheit aller Punkte besteht,die dem Innern einer
geschlossenenCurve angehören.
(... that the one-one continuousimage of the surfaceof a square is again a
simplyconnectedpiece of surface,viz.,that it consistsof the totalityof all
pointswhichbelong to the interiorof a closed curve.)
At the time this paper was presented(13 January 1900) SCHOENFLIESwas
unawareof Jürgens' proofof 1878-79 of thissame result.However,in contrast
to Jürgens' way of proceeding Schoenflies relies heavily on Jordan's
demonstrationof the curve theorem.20At the end of his paper he deduces the
special case of dimensional invariance from the planar domain invariance
theorem(1899:289-290). For this he uses a theoremof Cantor (1882:117)
= (1932: 153) to the effectthat a collection of closed planar surfaces(having
interiorpoints) for which no two have interiorpoints in common is at most
countable.The goal is to show that a 3-dimensionalor an w-dimensional cube
cannot be mapped in a one-one continuous manner onto a planar surface.
Suppose such a mapping is possible. Then by the domain invariancetheorem
parallel square slices of the cube will be mapped onto simplyconnectedregions
bounded by Jordan curves, with interiorpoints correspondingto interior
points.Because the mappingis one-one,the images of the square slices cannot
overlap. But as there are uncountablymany square sections we have a con-
tradictionwithCantor's theorem.21In thelast paragraphofhis paper Schoen-
flies suggeststhat his method of proof for domain invarianceis capable of
generalisationto arbitraryspaces; he hardlyrealises the difficultiesof such a
generalisation.
It was around 1902 thatSCHOENFLIESbegan an intensiveand rapid develop-
ment of a programmeof set-theoretictopology. In that year he published a
paper containinga statementand proof of a converse of Jordan's theorem
(1902). This little paper led to three long 'Beiträge zur Theorie der Punkt-
mengen' (1904) (1904a) (1906) (cf. (1908a)), having as theircentral theme
thetopologyofclosed curvesand simpleclosed curvesin theplane. The opening
paragraphof the first'Beiträge' paper sets the scene (1904:195):
Als eines der allgemeinstenProbleme aus der Theorie der Punktmengen
kann man die Aufgabe bezeichnen,die grundlegendenSätze der Analysis
Situsmengentheoretisch zu formulieren und zu begründenund die Beziehun-
gen darzulegen, die zwischen den mengentheoretisch-geometrischenund den
analytischenAusdrucksweisen derselben Begriffe und Sätze obwalten. Die
paradoxen Resultate, wie sie z.B. in der eineindeutigenAbbildung der
Continua und in der Peanoschen Kurve vorliegen,haben die naivenVorstel-
lungender AnalysisSitus gründlichzerstört.Um so mehrmuss man verlan-
gen,dass die MengentheoriewiederumErsatz schafftund die geometrischen
Grundbegriffe in einer Weise definiert, die ihnen ihrennatürlichenfürdie
Analysis Situs charakteristischen Inhalt wieder zurückgibt.Ist auch die
20 two
Cf. subsequent proofsbyOsGOOD(1900) and Bernstein(1900).
21
Cf. a similarearlierproof of Milesi (1892); criticisedby Schoenflies
(1908:165).
 Dimension and Modem Topology 175

vielgeschmähte Anschauung keine Quelle des Beweises, so scheint es mir

doch - wenigstens im Gebiet der Analysis Situs - ein Ziel der Forschung
zu sein, den Inhalt der geometrischen Definitionen mit dem Anschauungsin-
halt in Übereinstimmung zu bringen.

(As one of the most general problems of the theory of point sets we can point
to the task of formulating and establishing the fundamental theorems of
analysis situs set-theoreticallyand setting forththe relationships which exist
between the set-theoretico-geometricand the analytic modes of expressing
these concepts and theorems. The paradoxical results, as they occur, e.g., in
the one-one mapping of continua and in the Peano curve, have completely
destroyed the naive ideas of analysis situs. All the more we must demand
that set theory provide a substitute and define the basic geometrical concepts
in a way that gives back to them their natural content characteristic of
analysis situs. Even if the much maligned intuition is no source of proof, it
still seems to me that it is a goal of research to reconcile the content of
geometrical definitionswith the content of intuition- at least in the domain
of analysis situs.)
When submitting his first'Beiträge', SCHOENFLIES put the following method-
ological point into the accompanying letter to his friend HlLBERT (letter of 28
April 1903) :22
Wir stehen mit dem, was den Inhalt der Analysis Situs ausmacht, grossenteils
noch auf dem Boden der Anschauung, die zugleich als Beweisgrund dienen
muss. Aber es dürfte nötig sein, auch auf diesem Gebiet nach grösserer
Exactheit zu streben, und seine Sätze aus den geometrischen und mengen-
theoretischen Grundtatsachen abzuleiten. Dies allmählich zu tun, ist mein
lebhafter Wunsch. Ich habe wieder Lust bekommen, hierüber intensiver zu
arbeiten, und hoffe,es wird mir mit der Zeit gelingen.

(With regard to what constitutes the content of analysis situs, to a large

extent we still rely on intuition which at the same time must serve as a basis
of proof. Yet it may be necessary to strive for even greater exactness in this
domain and derive its theorems from geometric and set-theoreticfundamen-
tals. It is my keen wish to do this at last. I have felt like working on this
more intensivelyand I hope that I shall succeed in time.)
Schoenflies was certainly aware of the difficulties of 'naive geometrical
intuition' and sought to put topology on a sound, purely set-theoretic footing.
However, in view of the fate which befell his theory the methodological remark
in the letter to HlLBERT has an ironic ring.
In executing his programme SCHOENFLIES had most success with the
converse to the Jordan curve theorem. For this he introduced the concept of
accessibility (Erreichbarkeit), at first implicitly (1902) (1904), then explicitly
(1904b) (1906). If M is a connected domain (open set) and t is one of its
boundary points, then we say that t is accessible from M if for every point m of
22 This letter is in the Hilbert Nachlass in the NiedersächsischeStaats- und
Göttingen(signature:Hilbert 355, no. 15).
Universitätsbibliothek,
176 D.M.Johnson

M there is a simple path (einfacher Weg) in M leading from m to t (1906: 296-

297 ).23 The example that motivates Schoenflies' definitionis the curve sin-,
χ
- 1^x^+1, together withitslimitpointson they-axiswhichlie between- 1
and + 1. The pointson they-axis,- 1<y < + 1,are notaccessiblefroman open
domainsurrounding thecurve.However,Schoenflies recognised thatall the
points ofa Jordan a
curve,i.e., homeomorphic image of a are
circle, accessible
fromboththeinterior domainand theexterior domainand thatthisfactis the
keyto givinga converseto Jordan's theorem. In Schoenflies' terminology a
closed curveis a boundednowheredenseperfectconnectedpointset which
dividesthe plane into two connecteddomainshavingthe pointset as their
commonboundary(1904a: 146-147) and a simpleclosed curveis a closed
curvewithall ofitspointsaccessiblefromeachofthetwodomains(1904: 217)
(1906: 305). ThentheconverseoftheJORDAN curvetheorem statesthatevery
simpleclosedcurvecan be mappedin a one-onecontinuous mannerontothe
pointsofa circle(proofsin (1902) (1904) (1906)). Thisresultis thehighpoint
ofSchoenflies' topologicalinvestigations.
Schoenflies gatheredtheresultsof his 'Beiträge'seriesand otherpapers
(1907) (1907a) intothesecondpartofhisBericht fortheDeutscheMathemati-
ker-Vereinigung: Die Entwickelung der Lehrevonden Punktmannigfaltigkeiten
(1908). In his eyeshe had completeda beautiful chapterin topology, meeting
thehigheststandardsof set-theoretic rigour.However,it was scarcelya year
afterthe appearanceof this'completemanual' of planaranalysissitusthat
L. E.J.Brouwer delivered a resounding critiqueofthetheorythrough a setof
ingenious counterexamples (1910d).1Af Nearly all of the theory of closed curves
suffered destruction. Only the converse to the Jordan theorem based on
accessibilityescaped unharmed. It turned out that the topology ofthe plane was
moresubtlethanSchoenflies had everimagined.
In spiteoftheBROUWER critiquewe stillmustrecognise SCHOENFLIES as a
pioneer. He strove fora high standard of rigour and had a good set ofCantorian
tools to aid him in thisstruggle. He also had some good insightsinto the
pathology ofcurves.However,manytimeshe was carelessand disorganised in
his research. 'Chaotic' is not an unfairdescription forsomeof his books and
papers.More importantly, we now knowthatthebackboneof his topological
investigations,polygonalapproximations, is a veryinefficient device.Thusin the
end theworkof SCHOENFLIES in topologyhas beencompletely overshadowed
bythatofBrouwer and others.
To concludethischapterI shouldlike to describethe problemsituation
concerning dimensional invariance aroundthebeginning of thetwentieth cen-
tury. As noted above,after the intensive work of 1878-79 most mathematicians
forgot abouttheproblemduringthelasttwodecadesofthenineteenth century;
theysimply believed that it had been solved by Netto and CANTOR. However,
23In thisdefinition pathwhichdoesnotcrossitself.
a simplepathisjusta polygonal
It mayhaveinfinitely is an
manyedges,in whichcase theonlylimitpointofthevertices
endpoint.
24 also Denjoy (1910).
Cf.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 177

JÜRGENShad neverbeen convincedby the earliergeneralproofsand so in 1899

he published his note on 'Der Begriffder η-fachenstetigenMannigfaltigkeit'
(1899) in whichhe thoroughlycriticisedthe old proofsand therebyreopened
the generalproblem.Jürgens was acutelyaware of the difficulties in proving
the invarianceof dimension.As one of the major stumblingblocks he discerned
the difficulty of providingan adequate definitionof continuousconnectionand
small displacement(stetigerZusammenhang; kleine Verschiebung)for man-
ifolds,i.e., the propertyof nearness of points in manifolds.Thus he saw the
need fora betterdefinitionof the verynotion of continuousmanifold.This is a
problemwhichBrouwer laterattackedand solved (see chapters6 and 7). In a
sense, only afterthis problem had been solved can we assign a dimension
numberto a manifoldand then consider the invarianceproblem. Related to
these questions is the problem of assigningdimensionnumbersto arbitrary
subsets of a manifold.JÜRGENSrealised that, apart from associating the
numbers1 throughη to most subsets as theirdimensionnumbers,there are
certainsubsetsforwhichthe notion of extensionis inapplicable.He thoughtof
thesesetsas consistingof infinitesystemsof separatepoints;we would call them
O-dimensional. By thusrecognisingthe existenceof O-dimensionalsets,however
vaguely, he was able to criticisethe proof of Netto (see chapter3) and also
clarifythe generaldefinitionproblemfordimension.Overall in his shortarticle
JÜRGENSput the problemsof dimensioninto sharperfocusand so preparedthe
way for the work of the twentiethcenturytopologists.In particular,he em-
phasisedthe close relationbetweendomain and dimensionalinvariance.
In the same year as JÜRGENSpublished his criticalnote JACOBLÜROTH
returnedto the invarianceproblem and proved another special case (1899).
Then a fewyearslaterhe broughttogetherall of his results,fullyworkedout,in
a final contributionto the subject (1906). In the second part of his Bericht
SCHOENFLIES(1908:164-168) drew attentionto the open problemof dimen-
sional invariance,whichjust a fewyears beforehe had consideredclosed. He
suggestedin the second Berichtthat the best way to tackle the problemwould
be througha generalproofof domain invariancein η dimensions.
Solutionsto theproblemsof dimensionaland domain invariancewereall the
more urgentat this time,because mathematicianswere recognisingtheirrel-
evance to certain'higher' branches of mathematics.Robert Fricke (1861-
1930),the experton automorphicfunctionsat the beginningof the centuryand
co-author with Klein of the classic treatise on the subject (1897) (1912),
underlinedthe pressingneed to solve these problems,fortheirsolution would
help to shore up the continuitymethod of proof employed in the theoryof
automorphicfunctionsand in uniformising analyticfunctions.25 PoiNCARÉand
Klein had firstintroducedthemethodin the 1880's,but by about 1900 Fricke
became convincedthatit requiredfurther justification.In a lecturedeliveredto
the Third InternationalCongressof Mathematiciansheld in Heidelbergduring
August 1904 Fricke declared that the developmentof the theoryof automor-
phic functionshad come to a virtualstandstillover this difficult point (1905).
25
Cf. the detailsin Fricke (1913:445-452). Also cf.Freudenthal's historical
remarksin Brouwer (1976:572-573)and theremarks ofKlein inhis(1923: 731-741).
178 D.M.Johnson

The methodwas used forprovingsome fundamentaltheoremson the existence

of inversefunctionsto the automorphicfunctions(the so-called linearpolymor-
phic functions).The leading idea of the methodwas to compare two manifolds
of equal dimension,one of all the groups or fundamentaldomains of a given
signatureassociated witha set of automorphicfunctionsand the otherof all the
related Riemann surfacesof the same signature.The dimensionof the mani-
foldswas determinedby countingthe parametersgivenin the signature.Hence,
the method partly rested on the simple coordinate or parameter idea of
dimension.In the lightof Cantor's paradoxical discoveryFricke saw that it
was not completelyrigorous.Domain or dimensionalinvariancewas needed in
some form.Althoughhe did not expect that the continuitymethod would be
invalidatedover thispoint,he wantedto see a fulltopologicalfoundationforthe
fundamentalexistencetheorems.When he had struggledearlierto obtain partial
proofsof the existencetheorems(1904), he had been reassuredby Schoen-
flies' proofof the planar domain invariancetheoremthat fullrigourcould be
attained. Consequently,at Heidelberg he urged set theoriststo bring the
problemsof domain and dimensionalinvarianceto a satisfactory conclusionby
proving the general η-dimensionalcases.
We can now see thatat the startof the twentiethcenturythe problemof the
invarianceof dimension was wide open; it begged for solution. To be sure,
mathematiciansexpected a positive solution. The rapid developmentsin set-
theoretictopologyseemedto give stronghintstowardsthisend. The theoryhad
become a very helpful tool for clarifyingthe basic notions and difficulties
surroundingthe problem.Partial solutionsalso seemedto open up the way to a
full solution. Undoubtedlythe most promisingroute appeared to be through
invarianceof domain. Yet in spite of the hopefulexpectationswhichmathema-
than
ticiansheld at the time,the road to success turnedout to be more difficult
imagined,as we shall see in the ensuingchapters.

Bibliography

Ames,L.D.
(1905) 'An Arithmetic TreatmentofSome Problems in AnalysisSitus'.Am.J. of
Math.27 (1905),343-380.
Argand, Jean Robert
(1813) 'Essai surune manièrede représenter dans les
les quantitésimaginaires,
constructions Annalesde Math,puresetappliquées
géométriques'. 4 (1813-
14),133-147.
Bendixson,Ivar
(1883) 'Quelquesthéorèmesde la théoriedes ensemblesde points'.ActaMath.2
(1883),415^29.
Bernstein,Felix
(1900) 'Ueber einenSchönflies'schenSatz der Theorieder stetigen Funktionen
zweier reellerVeränderlichen'.Nachrichtenvon der K. Ges. der Wiss.zu
Göttingen.Math.-phys.Kl. (1900), 98-102.
BlEBERBACH, LUDWIG
(1923) 'ArthurSchoenflies'. derD.M.-V.32 (1923),1-6.
Jahresbericht
 Dimension and Modem Topology 179

Biermann, Kurt-R.
(1974) 'Eugen Netto'. DictionaryofScientificBiography.Ed. C.C. GlLLlSPlE.New
York. Vol. X, p. 24.
Bolzano, Bernard
(1817) 'Rein analytischerBeweis des Lehrsatzes,dass zwischenje zwey Werthen,
die ein entgegengesetztes
Resultatgewähren,wenigstenseine reelleWurzel
der Gleichung liege'. Abhandlungen der K. BöhmischenGes. der Wiss.5
(1818).
Boole, George
(1854) An Investigationof theLaws of Thought, on whichare foundedthe Mathe-
maticalTheoriesof Logic and Probabilities.London.
Brill, Alexander von/Noether, Max
(1911) 'Jakob Lüroth'.Jahresberichtder D.M.-V. 20 (1911), 279-299.
Brouwer, L.E.J.
(1910d) 'Zur AnalysisSitus'. Math. Annalen68 (1910),422-434.= (1 976:352-366).
(1910g) 'Beweis des JordanschenKurvensatzes'.Math. Annalen69 (1910), 169-175.
= (1976:377-383).
(1976) CollectedWorks.IL Ed. H. Freudenthal. Amsterdam.
Cantor,Georg
(1872) 'Über die Ausdehnungeines Satzes aus der Theorieder trigonometrischen
Reihen'.Math. Annalen5 (1872), 123-132.= (1 932: 92-101).
(1874) 'Über eine Eigenschaftdes Inbegriffes aller reellenalgebraischenZahlen'.
J.fürdie r. unda. Math. 77 (1874), 258-262.= (1932: 115-118).
(1878) 'Ein Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre'. J. fir die r. und a. Math. 84
(1878),242-25S.= (1932: 119-133).
(1879) 'Über einen Satz aus der Theorie der stetigenMannigfaltigkeiten'. Nach-
richten von der K. Ges. der Wiss. zu Göttingen(1879), 127-135.
= (1932:134-138).
(1879a) 'Ueber unendliche,linearePunktmannichfaltigkeiten Γ. Math. Annalen15
(1879), 1-7.= (1932:139-145).
(1880) 'Ueber unendliche,linearePunktmannichfaltigkeiten 2'. Math. Annalen17
(1880), 355-358.= (1932:145-148).
(1882) 'Ueber unendliche,linearePunktmannichfaltigkeiten 3'. Math. Annalen20
(1882), 113-121.= (1932. 149-151).
(1883) 'Ueber unendliche,lineare Punktmannichfaltigkeiten 4'. Math. Annalen21
(1883), 51-58.= (1932:157-1 64).
(1883a) 'Ueber unendliche,lineare Punktmannichfaltigkeiten 5'. Math. Annalen
21 (1883), 545-591.= GrundlageneinerallgemeinenMannigfaltigkeitslehre.
Leipzig.= (1 932: 165-208).
(1884) 'Ueber unendliche,linearePunktmannichfaltigkeiten 6'. Math. Annalen23
(1884),453-488.= (1932:210-244).
(1932) Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen undphilosophischen Inhalts.Ed.
E.Zermelo. Berlin.(Reprinted:Hildesheim: 1962.)
Cantor, Georg/Dedekind, Richard
(1937) Briefwechsel Cantor-Dedekind.Eds. Ε. Noether & J.Cav ailles. Paris.
Cauchy, Augustin Louis
(1821) Cours d'Analyse de l'École Royale Polytechnique.l.re Partie. Analyse
algébrique.Paris.
(1847) 'Mémoire sur les lieux analytiques'.ComptesRendusheb. des Séances de
ΓAcadémiedes Sciences24 (1847), 885-887.= (1 897: 292-295).
(löV7) Oeuvrescompletes.(I)X. Pans.
180 D.M.Johnson

Cayley, Arthur
(1844) 'Chapters in the AnalyticalGeometryof (n) Dimensions'. The Cambridge
Math. J. 4 (1844), 119-127.
(1846) 'Sur quelques théorèmesde la géométriede position'. J.fu'rdie r. und a.
Math. 31 (1846), 213-227.
(1846a) 'Sur quelques propriétésdes déterminantsgauches'. J. fur die r. und a.
Math. 32 (1846), 119-123.
(1854) 'An IntroductoryMemoir upon Quantics'. Phil. Trans,of the R. Soc. of
London 144 (1854), 244-258.
(1870) Ά Memoir on AbstractGeometry'.Phil. Trans,of the R. Soc. of London
160(1870), 51-63.
Dauben, Joseph W.
(1971) 'The TrigonometricalBackground to Georg Cantor's Theory of Sets'.
ArchiveforHistoryof Exact Sciences7 (1971), 181-216.
(1974) 'Denumerabilityand Dimension: The Origins of Georg Cantor's Theory
of Sets'. Rete 2 (1974), 105-134.
(1975) 'The Invarianceof Dimension: Problemsin the Early Developmentof Set
Theoryand Topology'. Historia Mathematica2 (1975), 273-288.
Dedekind, Richard
(1931) GesammeltemathematischeWerke.II. Braunschweig.(Reprinted: New
York: 1969).
Denjoy, Arnaud
(1910) 'Continu et discontinu'. ComptesRendus heb. des Séances de ΓAcadémie
des Sciences 151 (1910), 138-140.
Diderot, Denis/ d'Alembert, Jean le Rond (Editors)
(1751-80) Encyclopédie,ou DictionnaireRaisonné des Sciences,des Arts et des Mé-
tiers,par une Société de Gens de lettres.Paris.
Dugac, Pierre
(1976) RichardDedekindet les Fondementsdes Mathématiques.Paris.
Dyck, Walter von
(1888) 'Beiträgezur Analysissitus Γ. Math. Annalen32 (1888), 457-512.
Encyclopédie
(1784-89) EncyclopédieMéthodique.Mathématiques.3 vols. Paris, Liège.
Enriques, Federigo
(1898) 'Sülle Ipotesi ehe permettonol'Introduzione délie Coordinate in una
Varieta a più Dimensioni'. Rendicontidel Cire. Mat. di Palermo 12 (1898),
222-239.
Erdmann, Benno
(1877) Die Axiomeder Geometrie.Eine philosophische Untersuchungder Riemann-
Helmholtz" sehenRaumtheorie. Leipzig.
Euclid/Heath, Thomas L.
(1926) The ThirteenBooks of Euclid's Elements.Second ed. 3 vols. Cambridge.
(Reprinted:New York: 1956).
Evans, Melbourne G.
(1955) 'Aristotle,Newton,and the Theory of Continuous Magnitude'. J. of the
Historyof Ideas 16 (1955), 548-557.
Fraenkel, Abraham A.
(1920) 'Zahlbegriffund Algebra bei Gauss Γ. Nachrichtenvon der Κ. Ges. der
Wiss.zu Göttingen. Math.-phys.Kl. Beiheft(1920), I^t9.
(1930) 'Georg Cantor'. Jahresbericht derD.M.-V. 39 (1930), 189-266. (Abridged
versionin Cantor (1932:452-483)).
Fréchet, Maurice
(1906) 'Sur quelques pointsdu Calcul Fonctionnel'.Rendicontidel Cire. Mat. di
Palermo22 (1906), 1-74.
 Dimensionand ModemTopology 181

Freudenthal, Hans
(1960) 'Die Grundlagender Geometrieum die Wendedes 19.Jahrhunderts'.
Math.-phys.Semesterberichte
7 (1960),2-25.
(1975a) 'GeorgFriedrichBernhardRiemann'.Dictionary ofScientific
Biography.
New York.Vol. XI, pp. 447-456.
Ed. C.C. GiLLiSPiE.
Fricke, Robert
(1904) 'Beiträgezum Kontinuitätsbeweise der Existenzlinear-polymorpher
Funktionen auf RiemannschenFlächen'.Math.Annalen59 (1904),449-
513.
(1905) 'Neue Entwicklungen überdenExistenzbeweis derpolymorphen Funktio-
nen'. Verhandlungendes dritteninternationalenMathematiker- Kongresses
in Heidelbergvom8. bis 13. August1904. Leipzig. Pp. 246-252.
(1913) Funktionen
Automorphe mitEinschlussder elliptischen
Modulfunktio-
nen'. Encyklopädieder mathematischen
Wissenschaften.
Leipzig. 11(2) (B4).
Pp. 349-470.
Fricke, Robert/Klein,Felix
(1897) überdie Theorieder automorphen
Vorlesungen Functionen.I. Leipzig.
(1912) Vorlesungenüber die Theorie der automorphenFunctionen.II. Leipzig,
Berlin.(Actually in threeparts:1901,1911,1912).
published
Gauss, Carl Friedrich
(1831) 'Theoriaresiduorumbiquadraticorum.Commentatio secunda'.Selbstan-
gelehrteAnzeigen(1831).= (1863: 169-178).
zeige. Göttingische
(1832) 'Theoriaresiduorum Commentatio
biquadraticorum. secunda'.Commen-
tationessocietatisregiaescientiarum recentiores
Gottingensis 7 (1832).
= (1863:93-148).
(1850) 'Beiträgezur Theorieder algebraischen
Gleichungen'.
Abhandlungen der
4 (1850).= (1876: 71-102).
K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttinnen
(1863) II. Göttingen.
Werke.
(18Ô7) Werke.V. Ciöttingen.
(1876) Werke. III. ZweiterAbdruck. Göttingen.
(1900) Werke. VIII. Göttingen.
(1917) Werke.X.l. Göttingen.
(1922-33) Werke. X.2.Göttingen.
(1929) Werke. XII. Göttingen.
Giudice,Francesco
(1891) 'Sulla Corrispondenza di Mat.29 (1891),163-
tradue Iperspazii'.Giornale
171.
Giudice,Modestino del
(1904) 'Sulla Dimostrazione di un Teoremafondamentale di Geometriaanalíti-
ca'. Giornale di Mat.42 (1904),97-102.
GOURSAT, EDOUARD
(1884) 'Démonstration du Théorèmede Cauchy.Extraitd'unelettreadresséeà
M. Hermite'.ActaMath.4 (1884),197-200.
(1900) 'Sur la Définition
généraledes Fonctionsanalytiques,
d'aprèsCauchy'.
Trans,of theAm.Math. Soc. 1 (1900), 14-16.
Grassmann,Hermann
(1844) Leipzig.= (1 894: 1-292).
Die linealeAusdehnungslehre.
(1845) 'Kurze Uebersicht
über das Wesender Ausdehnungslehre'.
Archivder
Math, undPhys.6 (1845), 337-350.= (1894: 297-312).
(1862) Completelyrev.ed. Berlin.= (1896).
Die Ausdehnungslehre.
(1894) Gesammeltemathematische undphysikalische Werke.1.1. Leipzig.
(1896) Gesammeltemathematische undphysikalische Werke.1.2. Leipzig.
182 D.M.Johnson

Grattan-Guinness, Ivor
(1971) 'Towards a Biographyof Georg Cantor'. AnnalsofScience 27 (1971),345-
391.
(1974) 'The Rediscoveryof the Cantor-DedekindCorrespondence'.Jahresbericht
der D.M.-V. 76 (1974), 104-139.
Green, George
(1835) On the Determinationof the Exteriorand InteriorAttractionsof Ellip-
soids of Variable Densities'. Trans,of the CambridgePhil. Soc. 5 (1835),
395-430.= (1871 : 185-222).
(1871) MathematicalPapers. Ed. N.M.FERRERS. London.
Guggenheimer, H.
(1977) 'The Jordan Curve Theorem and an Unpublished Manuscriptby Max
Dehn'. Archivefor Historyof Exact Sciences 17 (1977), 193-200.
Guthrie, W.K.C.
(1962) A Historyof GreekPhilosophy.I. Cambridge.
Halstead, George Bruce
(1878-79) 'Bibliographyof Hyper-Space and Non-Euclidean Geometry'.Am. J. of
Math. 1 (1878), 261-276, 384-385; 2 (1879), 65-70.
Hankins, Thomas L.
(1965) 'Eighteenth-Century Attemptsto Resolve the Vis viva Controversy',Isis
56 (1965), 281-297.
Hausdorff, Felix
(1914) Grundzügeder Mengenlehre.Leipzig, Berlin.(Reprinted:New York: 1949,
1965).
Heath, Thomas L.
(1949) Mathematicsin Aristotle.Oxford.
Helmholtz, Hermann
(1868-69) 'Über die thatsächlichenGrundlagender Geometrie'. Verhandlungen des
naturhistorisch-medicinischen Vereinszu Heidelberg4 (1868), 197-202; 'Zu-
satz'. Ibid. 5 (1869), 31-32.= ( 1883: 610-617).
(1868a) 'Über die Thatsachen,die der Geometriezum Grundeliegen'.Nachrichten
vonder K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttingen(1868), 193-221.= (1883: 618-639).
(1883) Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen. II. Leipzig.
Herbart, Johann Friedrich
(1824) Psychologieals Wissenschaft neu gegründetauf Erfahrung, Metaphysikund
Mathematik.Erster,synthetischer Theil.Königsberg.= (1890: 177-434).
(1825) Psychologieals Wissenschaft neu gegründetauf Erfahrung, Metaphysikund
Mathematik.Zweyter,analytischerTheil.Königsberg.= (1 892 : 1-338).
(1828) AllgemeineMetaphysik,nebstden Anfangender philosophischen Naturleh-
re. Zweyter,systematischer Theil.Königsberg.= (1 893:1 -388).
(1829) AllgemeineMetaphysik,nebstden Anfangender philosophischen Naturleh-
re. Zweyter,systematischer Theil.Königsberg.= (1 893: 1-388).
(1890) SämtlicheWerke.V. Langensalza.
(1892) SämtlicheWerke.VI. Langensalza.
(1892a) SämtlicheWerke.VII. Langensalza.
(1893) SämtlicheWerke.VIII. Langensalza.
Hilbert, David
(1891) 'Über die stetige Abbildung einer Linie auf ein Flächenstück'. Math.
Annalen38 (1891), 459^60. = (1935: 1-2).
(1900) 'Mathematische Probleme'. Nachrichtenvon der K. Ges. der Wiss. zu
Göttingen. Math.-phys.Kl. (1900), 253-297.= ( 1935:290-329).
 Dimension and Modem Topology 183

(1903) 'Ueber die Grundlagender Geometrie'.Math. Annalen56 (1903),381^22.

(1935) Gesammelte Abhandlungen. III. Berlin.
Hopf, Heinz
(1953) 'Vom Bolzanoschen Nullstellensatzzur algebraischenHomotopietheorie
der Sphären'.Jahresbericht der D.M.-V. 56 (1953), 59-76.
Hurewicz, Witold/Wallman, Henry
(1948) DimensionTheory.Rev. ed. Princeton.
Hurwitz, Adolf
(1898) 'Über die Entwickelungder allgemeinenTheorie der analytischenFunk-
tionenin neuererZeit'. Verhandlungen des ersteninternationalen Mathemati-
ker-Kongressesin Zürichvom9. bis 11. August1897. Leipzig. Pp. 91-112.
Jacobi, Carl Gustav Jacob
(1834) 'De binis quibuslibetfunctionibus homogeneissecundiordinisper substi-
tutioneslinearesin alias binas transformandis, quae solis quadratis varia-
biliumconstant;una cum variistheorematisde transformatione et deter-
minationeintegralium multiplicium'.J.fiirdie r. unda. Math. 12 (1834), 1-
69.
Jacobson, J.
(1883) Die Axiome der Geometrieund ihr „philosophischer Untersucher"Herr
BennoErdmann.Königsberg.
Jammer,Max
(1969) ConceptsofSpace. The Historyof TheoriesofSpace in Physics.Second ed.
Cambridge,Mass.
Johnson, Dale Martin
(1977) 'Prelude to Dimension Theory: The GeometricalInvestigationsof Ber-
nard Bolzano'. Archivefor Historyof Exact Sciences 17 (1977), 261-295.
Jordan, Marie Ennemond Camille
(1881) 'Sur la série de Fourier'. ComptesRendusheb. des Séances de ΓAcadémie
des Sciences92 (1881), 228-230.
(1882) Cours ď Analysede ΓEcole Polytechnique. I. Paris.
(1883) Cours d'Analyse de VÉcole Polytechnique. II. Paris.
(1887) Cours ď Analysede l'Ecole Polytechnique. III. Paris.
(1892) 'Remarques sur les intégralesdéfinies'.J. de Math, pures et appliquées
(4)8(1892), 69-99.
(1893) Cours ď Analysede VÉcole Polytechnique. I. Second, éd. Paris.
(1894) Cours ď Analysede l'Ecole Polytechnique. II. Second éd. Paris.
(1894a) 'Question 60'. L'Intermédiaire des Mathématiciens1 (1894), 23.
(1896) Cours d'Analysede l'Ecole Polytechnique. III. Second éd. Paris.
Jürgens, Enno
(1878) 'Über eindeutigeund stetige Abbildung von Mannigfaltigkeiten'. Tage-
blatt der 51. Versammlung DeutscherNaturforscher und Aerzte in Cassei
1878. Pp. 137-140.
(1879) AllgemeineSätze über Systemevon zwei eindeutigenund stetigenreellen
Functionenvonzwei reellenVeränderlichen. Leipzig.
(1899) 'Der Begriffder w-fachenstetigen Mannigfaltigkeit'.Jahresberichtder
D.M.-V. 1 (1899), 50-55.
KANT, IMMANUEL
(1749) GedankenvonderwahrenSchätzungder lebendigenKräfteundBeurtheilung
der Beweise derersich Herr von Leibnitzund andereMechanikerin dieser
Streitsachebedienethaben, nebst einigen vorhergehendenBetrachtungen,
welchedie Kraftder Körperüberhauptbetreffen. Königsberg.
184 D.M.Johnson

(1768) 'Von dem erstenGrunde des Unterschiedesder Gegenden im Räume'.

WöchentlicheKönigsbergscheFrag- und Anzeigungs-Nachrichten 6-8
(1768).
(1929) Kanťs InauguralDissertationand Early Writings
on Space. Ed. and trans.
J. Handyside. Chicago, London.
KlMBERLING, CLARK H.
(1972) 'Emmy Noether'.Am.Math. Monthly79 (1972), 136-149.
KiricG.S./RavenJ.E.
(1957 ) The PresocraticPhilosophers.Cambridge.
Klein, Felix
(1872) Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrischeForschungen.(Das
ErlangerProgramm).Erlangen.= (1921 : 460-497).
(1882) Über RiemannsTheorieder algebraischenFunktionenund ihrerIntegrale.
Leipzig.= (1923 : 499-573).
(1895) 'Über Arithmetisierung der Mathematik'. Nachrichtender K. Ges. der
Wiss.zu Göttingen. Geschäftliche Mitteilungen (1895), 82-91. = (1 922: 232-
240).
(1897) 'Gutachten,betreffend den drittenBand der Theorieder Transformations-
gruppen von S. Lie anlässlich der erstenVerteilungdes Lobatschewsky-
Preises'. Bull, de laSoc. phys.-math. de Kasan (2)8 (1897), 1-27.= Math.
Annalen50 (1898), 583-600.= (1 921:384-401).
(1921) Gesammeltemathematische Abhandlungen. 1. Berlin.
(1922) Gesammeltemathematische Abhandlungen. II. Berlin.
(1923) Gesammeltemathematische Abhandlungen. III. Berlin.
(1926) Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. I.
Berlin.(Reprinted:New York: 1967).
KOENIGSBERGER, LEO
(1902-03) HermannvonHelmholt z. 3 vols. Braunschweig.
(1906) Hermannvon Helmholtz.Abridgedand trans.F.A.Welby. Oxford.(Re-
Drinted:New York: 1965).
Krause, M.
(1908) 'Enno Jürgens'.Jahresbericht der D.M.-V. 17 (1908), 163-170.
Lagrange, Joseph Louis
(1797) Théoriedesfonctionsanalytiques.Paris.
Lakatos, Imre
(1976) Proofsand Refutations.The Logic of MathematicalDiscovery.Cambridge.
Landau, Edmund
(1917) 'Richard Dedekind'. Nachrichtenvon der K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttingen.
Geschäftliche Mitteilung(1917), 50-70.
Lebesgue, Henri
(1903-05) 'Sur le Problème des Aires'. Bull, de la Soc. Math, de France 31 (1903),
197-205; Correction.Ibid. 33 (1905), 273-274.= (1973: 29-35).
(1926) 'Notice sur la vie et les travauxde Camille Jordan(1838-1922)'. Mémoires
de ΓAcadémiedes Sciencesde ΓInstitutde France (2)58 (1926), xxxix-lxvi.
(1973) Oeuvresscientifiques. IV. Geneva.
Lie, Marius Sophus/Engel, Friedrich
(1893) Theorieder Transformationsgruppen. III. Leipzig.
Liebmann, Heinrich
(1921) 'JohannesThomae'. Jahresbericht der D.M.-V. 30 (1921), 133-144.
LORIA, GlNO
(1887) 'La Definizioni di Spazio a η Dimensioni e l'Ipotesi di Continuità del
nostraSpazio secondo le Ricerchedi Giorgio Cantor'. Giornaledi Mat. 25
(1887), 97-108.
 Dimensionand Modem Topology 185

Lüroth, Jakob
(1878) 'Ueber gegenseitigeindeutigeund stetigeAbbildungvon Mannigfaltigkei-
ten verschiedenerDimensionen aufeinander'.Sitzungsberichte der phys.-
med.Sozietätin Erlanzen10 (1878), 190-195.
(1899) 'Über gegenseitigeindeutigeund stetigeAbbildungvon Mannigfaltigkei-
ten verschiedenerDimensionen aufeinander(Zweite Note)'. Sitzungsbe-
richteder phys.-med. Sozietät in Erlamen 31 (1899), 87-91.
(1906) 'Über Abbildungvon Mannigfaltigkeiten'. Math. Annalen63 (1906), 222-
238.
Meschkowski, Herbert
(1967) Problemedes Unendlichen. WerkundLeben Georg Cantors.Braunschweig.
Milesi, Luigi
(1892) 'Sulla impossibile coesistenza délia univocità e délia continuité nella
corrispondenzaehe si può stabilirefradue spazi continuiad un numéro
différente di dimension!'.Rivistadi Mat. 2 (1892), 103-106.
Moore, Eliakim Hastings
(1900) 'On CertainCrinklyCurves'. Trans,of theAm.Math. Soc. 1 (1900), 72-90;
Correction.Ibid., 507.
More, Henry
(1671) EnchiridionM etaphy sicum: sive,de rebusincorporeis Succincta& luculenta
Dissertado.London.
Netto, Eugen Ε.
(1879) 'Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre'.J. für die r. und a. Math. 86 (1879),
263-268.
Newton, Isaac
(1964) MathematicalWorks.I. Ed. D.T. Whiteside. New York, London.
NlCOMACHUS of GERASA
(1926) Introduction to Arithmetic.Trans. M.L.D'Ooge New York.
Oresme, Nicole/Clagett, Marshall
(1968) Nicole Oresme and the Medieval Geometryof Qualities and Motions.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Osgood, William Fogg
(1900) 'Ueber einen Satz des Herrn Schönfliesaus der Theorie der Functionen
zweier reellerVeränderlichen'.Nachrichtenvon der K. Ges. der Wiss.zu
Göttingen. Math.-phys.Kl. (1900),94-97.
(1903) Ά JordanCurve of Positive Area'. Trans,of the Am.Math. Soc. 4 (1903),
107-112.
Peano, Giuseppe
(1887) ApplicazioniGeometriche del Calcolo Infinitesimale.Torino.
(1890) 'Sur une courbe, qui remplitune aire plane'. Math. Annalen36 (1890),
157-160.
(1890b) 'Sulla defïnizionedell'area d'una superficie'.Attidélia AccademiaNazio-
nale dei Iincei,Rendiconti.Cl. di scienzefisiche,mat.e naturali(4)6 (1890),
54-57.
(1896) 'Réponse 60 (C. Jordan)'.EIntermédiaire des Mathématiciens 3 (1896), 39.
(1973) SelectedWorks.Trans,and ed. H.C.Kennedy. London, Toronto.
PlNCHERLE, SALVÁTORE
(1880) 'Saggio di una introduzionealla teoria délie funzionianalitichesecondo i
principudel Prof.C. Weierstrass'.Giornaledi Mat. 18 (1880), 178-254,
317-357.
Plücker, Julius
(1846) Systemder Geometriedes Raumes in neueranalytischerBehandlungsweise,
186 D.M.Johnson

insbesondere die Theorieder Flächen zweiterOrdnungund Classe enthal-

tend.Düsseldorf.
(1868) Neue Geometriedes Raumes gegründetauf die Betrachtungder geraden
Linie als Raumelement. Erste Abtheilung. Leipzig.
(1869) Neue Geometriedes Raumes gegründetauf die Betrachtungder geraden
Linie als Raumelement. Zweite Abtheilung. Ed. F. Klein. Leipzig.
Riemann, Georg Friedrich Bernhard
(1851) Grundlagen fureine allgemeineTheorieder Functioneneinerveränderlichen
comvlexenGrosse.Inauguraldissertation. Göttingen.= Π 953: 3-45 ).
(1857) 'AllgemeineVoraussetzungen und Hülfsmittel fürdie Untersuchungvon
Functionen unbeschränktveränderlicherGrossen'. J. fur die r. und a.
Math. 54 (1857), 101-104.= (1953:88-91 ).
(1857a) 'Lehrsätze aus der analysis situs fürdie Theorie der Integralevon zwei-
gliedrigenvollständigenDifferentialien'. J.furdie r. unda. Math. 54 (1857),
105-110.= (1953: 91-96).
(1857b) 'Bestimmung einer Function einer veränderlichencomplexen Grosse
durchGrenz-und Unstetigkeitsbedingungen'. J.furdie r. unda. Math. 54
(1857), 111-114.= (1953:96-1 00).
(1857c) 'Theorie der Abel'schenFunctionen'.J.fur die r. und a. Math. 54 (1857),
U5-155. = ( 1953: 100-142).
(1868) 'Über die Hypothesen,welcheder Geometriezu Grunde liegen'. Abhand-
lungender K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttingen13 (1868), 133-152.= (1 953: 272-
287).
(1953) Gesammelte mathematische Werkeundwissenschaftliche Nachlass. Nachträ-
ge. New York. (Reprint of editions of 1892 and 1902).
RuDOLFF,Christoff/Stifel, Michael
(1553-54) Die Coss Christqffs Rudolffs mitschönenExempelnder Coss DurchMichael
StifelGebessert und sehr gemehrt. Königsberg.
Russell, Bertrand A.W.
(1897) An Essav on theFoundationsof Geometr v. Cambridge.
Sartorius von Waltershausen, Walter
(1856) Gauss zumGedächtniss.Leipzig.
Schläfli, Ludwig
(1855) 'Réduction d'une IntégraleMultiple,qui comprendl'arc du cercleet l'aire
du triangle sphérique comme cas particuliers'.J. de Math, pures et
appliquées(1)20(1855), 359-394.= (1 953.164-190).
(1858-60) On the Multiple Integralydxdy ...dz, whose Limits are p1=a1x + b1y
+ ---+h1z>0, p2>0,...,p„>0, and χ2+ y2+ ···+ζ2 <1'. QuarterlyJ. of
pure and applied Math. 2 (1858), 269-301; 3 (1860), 5Φ-68, 97-108.
= (1953:219-270).
(1901) 'Theorie der vielfachenKontinuität'.Neue Denkschriften der allgemeinen
schweizerischen Ges. für die gesamtenNaturwiss.38 (1901).= (1950: 167-
392).
(1950) Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen. I. Basel.
(1953) Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen. II. Basel.
Schlegel, Victor
(1878) HermannGrassman.Sein Leben undseine Werke.Leipzig.
SCHLESINGER, LUDWIG
Gauss (1922-33: Abh.2).
(1922-33) 'Über Gauss' Arbeitenzur Funktionentheorie'.
SCHOENFLIES, ARTHUR
(1896) 'Ueber einen Satz aus der Analysissitus'. Nachrichtenvonder K. Ges. der
Wiss.zu Göttingen. Math.-phys.Kl. (1896), 79-89.
 Dimensionand Modern Topology 187

(1898) 'Mengenlehre'.Encyklopädieder mathematischen Wissenschaften. Leipzig.

IÍA5). Pd. 184-207.
(1899) 'Ueber einen Satz der Analysis Situs'. Nachrichtenvon der K. Ges. der
Wiss.zu Göttingen. Math.-phys.Kl. (1899), 282-290.
(1900) 'Die EntWickelungder Lehre von den Punktmannigfaltigkeiten. Bericht,
erstattetder Deutschen Mathematiker- Vereinigung'.Jahresberichtder
D.M.-V.8 (1900).
(1902) 'Ueber einengrundlegenden Satz der AnalysisSitus'. Nachrichtenvonder
K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttingen.Math.-phys. Kl. (1902), 185-192.
(1904) 'Beiträgezur Theorie der PunktmengenF. Math. Annalen58 (1904), 195-
234.
(1904a) 'Beiträgezur Theorieder PunktmengenIF. Math. Annalen59 (1904),129-
160.
(1904b) 'Ueber die geometrischen Invariantender Analysissitus'. Nachrichtenvon
der K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttingen.Math.-phys. Kl. (1904), 514-525.
(1906) 'Beiträge zur Theorie der PunktmengenIIF. Math. Annalen62 (1906),
286-328.
(1906a) 'Die Beziehungen der Mengenlehrezur Geometrie und Funktionen-
theorie'.Jahresberichtder D.M.-V. 15 (1906), 557-576.
(1907) 'Ueber den allgemeinstenBegriff der ebenenstetigenKurve'. Nachrichten
vonder K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttingen. Math.-phys. Kl. (1907), 28-49.
(1907a) 'Über den allgemeinsten Begriffder ebenenstetigenKurve. Zweite Mittei-
lung'. Nachrichtenvonder K. Ges. der Wiss.zu Göttingen. Math.-phys.Kl.
(1907),299-320.
(1908) Die Entwickelung derLehrevondenPunktmannigfaltigkelten. Bericht,erstat-
tetder DeutschenMathematiker-Vereinigung. ZweiterTeil.Leipzig.
(1908a) 'Bemerkungzu meinemzweitenBeitragzur Theorie der Punktmengen'.
Math. Annalen65 (1908),431-432.
(1925) 'Über das eineindeutigeund stetigeAbbild des Kreises (Jordankurve)'.
Jahresbericht der D.M.-V.33 Ü9251 147-160.
SEGRE,CORRADO
(1904) 'On some tendenciesin geometricinvestigations'.Bull, of the Am. Math.
Soc. 10(1904), 442-468.
(1921) 'Mehrdimensionale Räume'. Encyklopädie der mathematischenWis-
RPnRchaňen. Leirma. 'Χ'(Ί' (C1Y Pn. 769-972.
Sextus Empiricus
(1936) AgainstthePhysicists.AgainsttheEthicists.(AdversusMathematicos.ix, x,
xi). Trans. R.G. Bury. Cambridge,Massachusetts;London.
SOMMERVILLE, DUNCAN M.V.
(1911) BibliographyofΝ on-EuclideanGeometry includingThe TheoryofParallels,
theFoundationsof Geometry, and Space of η Dimensions.London.
Stäckel, Paul
(1901) 'FriedrichLudwig Wächter'.Math. Annalen54 (1901),49-85.
Gauss (1922-33:Abh.4).
(1922-33) 'Gauss als Geometer'.
St allô, Johann Bernhard
(1960) The Concepts and Theories of Modern Physics. Ed. P.W.Bridgman.
Cambridge,Massachusetts.(Firsted. 1881).
Sylvester, James Joseph
(1850) 'Additions to the Articles,"On a New Class of Theorems", and "On
Pascal's Theorem"'.Phil. Mag. (3) 37 (1850), 363-370.= (1904:145-1 51).
(1851) 'On CertainGeneral Propertiesof Homogeneous Functions'. Cambridge
and DublinMath. J. 6 (1851), 1-17.= (1904: 165-180).
188 D.M.Johnson

(1851a) 'An Enumerationof the Contacts of Lines and Surfacesof the Second
Order'. Phil. Mag. (4)1 (1851), 119-140.= (1904: 219-240).
(1904) CollectedMathematicalPapers. I. Cambridge.
Thomae, Johannes
(1878) 'Sätze aus der Functionenthéorie'.Nachrichtenvon der K. Ges. der Wiss.
zu Göttingen (1878),466-468.
Thomas, Ivor (Editor and Translator)
(1939) Selectionsillustratingthe Historyof GreekMathematics.I. London; Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts.
(1941) Selections illustratingthe History of Greek Mathematics.II. London;
Cambridge.Massachusetts.
Veblen, Oswald
(1905) 'Theoryof Plane Curves in non-metricalAnalysisSitus'. Trans,of theAm.
Math. Soc. 6 (1905), 83-98.
Voss, A.
(1911) 'Jakob Lüroth'. Sitzungsberichte der math.-phys. Kl. der K. Bayerischen
Akademieder Wiss.zu München(1911), 21-33.
Wallis, John
(1685) A Treatiseof Algebra,Both Historicaland Practical.London.
Weierstrass, Karl
(1870) 'Über das sogenannteDirichleťs Princip'. Read to the K. Preussische
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin on 14 July 1870, but not pub-
lisheduntil(1895:49-54).
(1880) 'Zur Functionenlehre'.Monatsbericht der K. Akademieder Wiss.zu Berlin
Í1880). 719-743.= (1895 : 201-223).
(1894) MathematischeWerke.I. Berlin.(Reprinted:Hildesheim: 1967).
(1895) MathematischeWerke.II. Berlin.(Reprinted:Hildesheim: 1967).
(1927) MathematisheWerke.VII. Berlin.(Reprinted:Hildesheim: 1967).
Weyl, Hermann
(1913) Die Idee der Riemannschen Fläche. Leipzig,Berlin.
(1923) Mathematische Analysisdes Raumproblems. Berlin.
Whitrow, Gerald J.
(1956) 'Why Physical Space has Three Dimensions'. BritishJ. for the Phil, of
Science6 Ü9561 13-31.
WlELEITNER, HEINRICH
(1925)'Zur Frühgeschichteder Räume von mehrals drei Dimensionen'. Isis 7
(1925),486^89.
Young, William Henry/Young, Grace Chisholm
(1906) The Theoryof Sets ofPoints.Cambridge.(Reprinted:New York: 1972).
Zöllner, Johann Carl Friedrich
(1878) 'On Space of Four Dimensions'.QuarterlyJ. ofScience8 (1878),227-237.

The HatfieldPolytechnic
Hatfield,Hertfordshire
England

(Received November27, 1978)