On Geometry (1750-1759)

"Show all these fanatics a little geometry, and they learn it quite easily. But, strangely enough, their minds are not thereby rectified. They perceive the truths of geometry, but it does not teach them to weighp robabilities. Their minds have set hard. They will reason in a topsy-turvy wall all their lives, and I am sorry for it." (Voltaire, "Philosophical Dictionary", 1764)

"We admit, in geometry, not only infinite magnitudes, that is to say, magnitudes greater than any assignable magnitude, but infinite magnitudes infinitely greater, the one than the other. This astonishes our dimension of brains, which is only about six inches long, five broad, and six in depth, in the largest heads." (Voltaire, "Philosophical Dictionary", 1764)

"The scientific part of Arithmetic and Geometry would be of more use for regulating the thoughts and opinions of men than all the great advantage which Society receives from the general application of them: and this use cannot be spread through the Society by the practice; for the Practitioners, however dextrous, have no more knowledge of the Science than the very instruments with which they work. They have taken up the Rules as they found them delivered down to them by scientific men, without the least inquiry after the Principles from which they are derived: and the more accurate the Rules, the less occasion there is for inquiring after the Principles, and consequently, the more difficult it is to make them turn their attention to the First Principles; and, therefore, a Nation ought to have both Scientific and Practical Mathematicians." (James Williamson, "Elements of Euclid with Dissertations", 1781)

"[…] we are far from having exhausted all the applications of analysis to geometry, and instead of believing that we have approached the end where these sciences must stop because they  have reached the limit of the forces of the human spirit, we ought to avow rather we are only at the first steps of an immense career. These new [practical] applications, independently of the utility which they may have in themselves, are necessary to the progress of analysis in general; they give birth to questions which one would not think to propose; they demand that one create new methods. Technical processes are the children of need; one can say the same for the methods of the most abstract sciences. But we owe the latter to the needs of a more noble kind, the need to discover the new truths or to know better the laws of nature." (Nicolas de Condorcet, 1781)

"[…] direction is not a subject for algebra except in so far as it can be changed by algebraic operations. But since these cannot change direction (at least, as commonly explained) except to its opposite, that is, from positive to negative, or vice versa, these are the only directions it should be possible to designate. […] It is not an unreasonable demand that operations used in geometry be taken in a wider meaning than that given to them in arithmetic." (Casper Wessel, "On the Analytical Representation of Direction", 1787)

"An ancient writer said that arithmetic and geometry are the wings of mathematics; I believe one can say without speaking metaphorically that these two sciences are the foundation and essence of all the sciences which deal with quantity. Not only are they the foundation, they are also, as it were, the capstones; for, whenever a result has been arrived at, in order to use that result, it is necessary to translate it into numbers or into lines; to translate it into numbers requires the aid of arithmetic, to translate it into lines necessitates the use of geometry." (Joseph-Louis de Lagrange, "Leçons élémentaires sur les mathématiques", 1795)

"So long as algebra and geometry proceeded separately their progress was slow and their application limited, but when these two sciences were united, they mutually strengthened each other, and marched together at a rapid pace toward perfection." (Joseph-Louis de Lagrange, "Leçons élémentaires sur les mathématiques", 1795)

"The algebraic analysis soon makes us forget the main object [of our researches] by focusing our attention on abstract combinations and it is only at the end that we return to the original objective. But in abandoning oneself to the operations of analysis, one is led to the generality of this method and the inestimable advantage of transforming the reasoning by mechanical procedures to results often inaccessible by geometry. Such is the fecundity of the analysis that it suffices to translate into this universal language particular truths In order to see emerge from their very expression a multitude of new and unexpected truths. No other language has the capacity for the elegance that arises from a long sequence of expressions linked one to the other and all stemming from one fundamental idea. Therefore the geometers [mathematicians] of this century convinced of its superiority have applied themselves primarily to extending Its and pushing back its bounds." (Pierre-Simon Laplace, "Exposition du system du monde" ["Explanation on the solar system"], 1796) 

"There exists a manner of viewing geometry that could be called géométrie analytique, and which would consist in deducing the properties of extension from the least possible number of principles, and by truly analytic methods." (Sylvestre-François Lacroix, "Traité de calcul differéntiel et du calcul intégral", 1797-1798) [first use of the "analyic geometry" expression)

[…] the way in which I have proceeded does not lead to the desired goal, the goal that you declare you have reached, but instead to a doubt of the validity of [Euclidean] geometry. I have certainly achieved results which most people would look upon as proof, but which in my eyes prove almost nothing; if, for example, one can prove that there exists a right triangle whose area is greater than any given number, then I am able to establish the entire system of [Euclidean] geometry with complete rigor. Most people would certainly set forth this theorem as an axiom; I do not do so, though certainly it may be possible that, no matter how far apart one chooses the vertices of a triangle, the triangle's area still stays within a finite bound. I am in possession of several theorems of this sort, but none of them satisfy me." (Carl F Gauss, 1799) [answer to a letter from Farkas Bolyai in which Bolyai claimed to have proved Euclid's fifth postulate]