718 CLASSICS OF MATHEMATICS
method of superposition, still common
in many high school textbooks.
The Playfair parallel postulate appears
as the only postulate in Group IV; it is,
of course, equivalent to Euclid's parallel
postulate. Using the postulates of the
first three groups one can prove that
there is at least one line through the
given point A and not intersecting the
given line m.
The first postulate of the last group
(the postulate of Archimedes) corre-
sponds to the familiar process of es-
timating the distance from one point of
a line to another by the use of a measur-
ing stick; it guarantees that if we start at
the one point and lay off toward the
second point a succession of equal dis-
tances (equal to the length of the
measuring stick) we will ultimately pass
the second point. Upon this postulate
can be made to depend the entire
theory of measurement and, in particu-
lar, Euclid's theory of proportion. The
final postulate (the postulate of com-
pleteness) is not required for the deriva-
tion of the theorems of Euclidean
geometry, but it makes possible the es-
tablishment of a one-to-one corre-
spondence between the points on any
line and the set of all real numbers, and
is necessary for the free use of the real
number system in analytic, or coordi-
nate, geometry....
NOTE:
1. David Hilbert, The Foundations of
Geometry, trans. by E. J. Townsend (Chicago:
The Open Court Publishing Company, 3rd
edition 1938).
EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY
Chapter IX
The Early 20th Century to 1932
Section C
Selected Topics: The Development of General Abstract Theories
HENRI (LEON) LEBESGUE (1875-1941)
One of the leading mathematicians
of the early 20th century, Henri
Lebesgue was born into a middle
class family near Paris, France. His
father worked in typography and his
mother taught at an elementary
school. The parents both had intellec-
tual interests that led them to have a
substantial library in their home, and
the intellectual ability of young
Lebesgue quickly became apparent
to his teachers. Following the early
death of his father, local philanthropy
made it possible for him to continue
his education.
Lebesgue began higher education
at the Ecole Normale Superieure
where he studied from 1894 to 1897.
Paul Langevin taught him the physical
sciences, and the student displayed
an independent, critical mind that led
him to question the statements of pro-
fessors. From 1897 to 1899 he worked
in the library of the Ecole and pub-
lished four papers. One of these, "Sur
une generalisation de l'integrale de-
finie" ("On a Generalization of the Def-
inite Integral," 1900), contained the
famous definition of what has come to
be known as the Lebesgue integral.
He also provided a simpler proof of
Weierstrass' approximation theorem
and studied functions without deriva-
tives. Hermite and others, who con-
sidered such functions scandalous,
719
criticized his innovative studies of
them. Lebesgue taught and continued
his research at the Lycee Centrale in
Nancy from 1899 to 1902. The results
of this research on the theory of inte-
gration appeared in his doctoral dis-
sertation, "Integrale, Longeur, Aire"
("Integral, Length, Surface"), which
was presented in 1902 at the Sor
bonne.
The first two university appoint-
ments of Lebesgue were at Rennes
(1902-06) and at Poitiers (1906-10).
While at Rennes he twice gave the
Cours Peccot at the College de
France, the first on his new integral
and the second on trigonometric
series. The two resulting mono-
graphs-Lecons sur /'integration .
(1904) and Lec,ons sur les series trig -
onometrique (1906)-made his ideas
better known just prior to their wide-
spread acceptance and development.
In 1910 he moved to the Sorbonne. He
was maitre de conferences (lecture
master) in mathematical analysis until
1919, when he became professeur
d'application de la geornOtrie a
/'analyse. In 1921 he was appointed
professor at the College de France
and the next year was elected to the
Paris Academie des Sciences. In
1930 he was elected a foreign
member of the Royal Society of Lon-
don.

720 CLASSICS OF MATHEMATICS
Lebesgue's election to the Paris
Academie marks a dividing point in
his career. By then he had published
nearly 90 books and articles mainly
on the theory of integration, the struc-
ture of sets and functions, calculus of
variations, theory of surface areas,
and dimension theory. Based on this
work, his reputation had steadily
grown and he had received numerous
honors, including Prix Ponce let
(1914), Prix Saintour (1917), and Prix
Petit d'Ormoy (1919). He remained ac-
tive after 1922, but his writings re-
flected broadening interests in
pedagogical and historical questions
as well as in basic geometry. He ad-
vocated teaching mathematics in a
simple, genetic style that drew upon
the history of ideas. He stated that the
role of the teacher in class was "to
think in front of his students" and that
students "gain nothing from a solution
that is satisfying from the logical, but
not from the human point of view." He
upheld the cumulative, historic
character of mathematical research,
writing in the preface to his Lessons
on Integration (1928): "In order to do
useful work it is necessary to march
along paths opened by previous
workers; acting otherwise, one runs
too great a risk of creating a science
without links with the rest of mathe-
matics."
The outstanding contribution of
Lebesgue to mathematics was the
theory of integration that now bears
his name. At the close of the 19th cen-
tury, mathematical analysis was effec-
tively limited to continuous functions
because the Riemann method of inte-
gration applied only to continuous
and a few discontinuous functions.
While still a university student,
Lebesgue drew upon Rene Baire's
study of discontinuous functions,
Camille Jordan's measure-theoretical
treatment of Riemann's integral, and
Emile Borel's definitions of measure
and measurability to formulate a new
theory of measure and to frame a new
EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY 721
Radon achieved a notable generaliza- search. Such theories have applica-
definition of the definite integral which
tions in harmonic analysis (general-
generalized the Riemann integral tion when he defined the Lebesgue-
Stieltjes integral in 1913. The devel- ized Fourier analysis), ergodic theory,
(1854). The basis for its generality is spectral theory, and the theory of
that a Lebesgue integrable function opment of abstract theories of meas-
ure and integration has come to probability.
does not have to be continuous nearly
everywhere (except on a set of meas- dominate recent mathematical re-
ure 0). It needs only to have pointwise
convergence. The Lebesgue integral
is a major achievement in modern real
analysis. It is the standard integral of
mathematical analysis today and will 131. From "The Development of the Integral
surely hold this position well into the
future. Conc-pt" (1926)*
Importantly Lebesgue recognized
that his new integral was an analytical HENRI LEBESGUE
tool capable of overcoming theoreti-
cal difficulties that had beset
Riemann's theory of integration, most Leaving aside all technicalities, we teristic of modern mathematics. Cauchy
notably those concerning Fourier are going to examine the successive defined continuous functions and their
analysis and the fundamental theorem modifications and enrichments of the integrals in about the same way as we
concept of the integral and the appear- do today. In order to arrive at the inte-
of the calculus, f ba f' (x)dx = f(b) - ance of other notions used in recent re- gral of f(x) it suffices to form the sums
f(a).
search on functions of a real variable. (Fig. 1)
In Fourier analysis Lebesgue proved Before Cauchy there was no defini- S = If( 0(x,+1 - (1)
that for any bounded series of tion of the integral in the modern mean-
Lebesgue-integrable functions term- ing of the word "definition." One which surveyors and mathematicians
by-term integration is permissible merely said which areas had to be have always used to approximate area,
(this is not always valid for Riemann- added or subtracted in order to obtain and then deduce the integral f a f(x) dx
integrable functions) and that if a the integral" a f(x) dx. by passage to the limit.
trigonometric series can represent a For Cauchy a definition was neces- Although the legitimacy of such a
bounded function, that series is the sary, because with him there appeared passage to the limit was evident for one
Fourier series of the function. In the the concern for rigor which is charac- who thought in terms of area, Cauchy
late 19th century, mathematicians had
with increasing frequency identified
functions with bounded derivatives y
that are not integrable in Riemann's
sense. For these functions the funda-
mental theorem was meaningless.
Lebesgue proved that these difficul-
ties with bounded derivatives disap-
peared when his new integral was
applied. He thereby provided the "al-
most everywhere" version of the fun- x
damental theorem of the calculus. 0
In other mathematical research,
Lebesgue coined the term "summa-
ble," made progress in the theory of FIGURE 1
multiple integrals, and derived his
pavement theorem, which is signifi-
*Source: This translation of "Sur le developpement de la notion d'integrale" is taken from
cant in topology. With others he also part II of Henri Lebesgue, Measure and the Integral, edited with a biographical essay by
endeavored to generalize and extend Kenneth 0. May (1966), 177-183. It is reprinted by permission of Holden-Day, Inc.
his theory of integration. Johann
 722 CLASSICS OF MATHEMATICS
had to demonstrate that S actually
tended to a limit in the conditions he
considered. A similar necessity appears
every time one replaces an experimen-
tal notion by a purely logical defintion.
One should add that the interest of the
defined object is no longer obvious, it
can be developed only from a study of
the properties following from the defini-
tion. This is the price of logical progress.
What Cauchy did is so substantial
that it has a kind of philosophic sweep.
It is often said that Descartes reduced
geometry to algebra. I would say more
willingly that by the use of coordinates
he reduced all geometries to that of the
straight line, and that the straight line, in
giving us the notions of continuity and
irrational number, has permitted algebra
to attain its present scope.
In order to achieve the reduction of
all geometries to that of the straight line,
it was necessary to eliminate a certain
number of concepts related to geome-
tries of several dimensions such as the
length of a curve, the area of a surface,
and the volume of a body. The progress
realized by Cauchy lies precisely here.
After him, in order to complete the
arithmetization of mathematics it was
sufficient for the arithmeticians to con-
struct the linear continuum from the
natural numbers.
And now, should we limit ourselves
to doing analysis? No. Certainly, every-
thing that we do can be translated into
arithmetical language, but if we re-
nounce direct, geometrical, and intui-
tive views, if we are reduced to pure
logic which does not permit a choice
among things that are correct, then we
would hardly think of many questions,
and certain concepts, for example, most
of the ideas that we are going to exam-
ine here today, would escape us com-
pletely.
For a long time certain discontinuous
functions have been integrated.
Cauchy's definition still applies to these
integrals, but it is natural to examine, as
did Riemann, the exact capacity of this
definition.
If fi and 3 represent the lower and
upper bounds of f(x) in (xi, xi+j), then S
lies between
S= - xd and S = Z 7,(xf+1 xd.
Riemann showed that for the definition
of Cauchy to apply it is sufficient that
S S= 1(f; f;)(xr +1 x,)
tends toward zero for a particular se-
quence of partitions of the interval from
a to b into smaller and smaller subdivi-
sions (xi, Darboux added that
under the usual operation of passage to
the limit S and S always give two defi-
nite numbers
f a f(x) dx and Ja f(x) dx.
These numbers are generally different
and are equal only when the Cauchy-
Riemann integral exists.
From a logical point of view, these
are very natural definitions aren't they?
However, one can say that from a prac-
tical point of view they have been use-
less. In particular, Riemann's definition
has the drawback of applying only
rarely and in a sense by chance.
It is evident that breaking up the
interval (a, b) into smaller and smaller
subintervals (xi, xi+ 1) makes the dif-
ferences fi fi smaller and smaller if f(x)
is continuousTand that the continued re-
finement of the subdivision will make S
S tend toward zero if there are only a
few points of discontinuity. But we have
no reason to hope that the same thing
will happen for a function that is discon-
tinuous everywhere. To take smaller
intervals (xj, xi+j), that is to say values
of f(x) corresponding to values of x
closer together, does not in any way
guarantee that one takes values of f(x)
whose differences become smaller.
Let us be guided by the goal to be
attained-to collect approximately
equal values of f(x). It is clear then that
we must break up not (a, b), but the
interval (f,f) bounded by the lower and
upper bounds of f(x) in (a, b). Let us do
this with the aid of number yi differing
EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY
among themselves by less than e. We
are led to consider the values of f(x) de-
fined by
Yi < (x) <Yi+i
The corresponding values of x form a
set E. In Figure 2 this set Ei consists of
four intervals. With some continuous
functions it might consist of an infinity
of intervals. For an arbitrary function it
might be very complicated. But this
matters little. It is this set E1 which plays
the role analogous to the interval (xi,
x1+1) in the usual definition of the inte-
gral of continuous functions, since it
tells us the values of x which give to f(x)
approximately equal, values.
If ni is any number whatever taken
< yi+i, the
between yi and vi+j, yi <
values of f(x) for points of Ei differ from
-fj; by less than E. The number 71; is going
to play the role which f(ed played in
formula (1). As to the role of the length
or measure xi+j x; of the interval (xi,
xi+j), it will be played by a measure
m(E;) which we shall assign to the set E1
in a moment. In this way we form the
sum
S = Imm(E,). (2)
Let us look closely at what we have just
done and, in order to understand it bet-
ter, repeat it in other terms.
The geometers of the seventeenth
century considered the integral of f(x)-
the word "integral" had not been in-
Yi + 1
711
0
FIGURE 2
723
vented, but that does not matter-as the
sum of an infinity of indivisibles, each
of which was the ordinate, positive or
negative, of f(x). Very well! We have
simply grouped together the indivisibles
of comparable size. We have, as one
says in algebra, collected similar terms.
One could say that, according to
Riemann's procedure, one tried to add
the indivisibles by taking them in the
order in which they were furnished by
the variation in x, like an unsystematic
merchant who counts coins and bills at
random in the order in which they came
to hand, while we operate like a
methodical merchant who says:
have m(E,) pennies which are worth 1
I
m(E,),
I have m(E2) nickels worth 5 m(E,),
I have m(E3) dimes worth 10 m(E3), etc.
Altogether then I have
S=1 m(E,) + 2 m(E2) + 5 m(E3) + .
The two procedures will certainly
lead the merchant to the same result
because no matter how much money he
has there is only a finite number of
coins or bills to count. But for us who
must add an infinite number of indivisi-
bles the difference between the two
methods is of capital importance.
We now consider the definition of the
number m(E1) attached to E1. The anal-
ogy of this measure to length, or even to
a number of coins, leads us naturally to
say that, in the example of Fig. 2, m(E;)
 724 CLASSICS OF MATHEMATICS EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY 725

will be the sum of the lengths of the four
intervals that make up E1, and that, in an
example where Ei is formed from an in-
finity of intervals, m(E1) will be the sum
of the length of all these intervals. In the
general case it leads us to proceed as
follows. Enclose Ei, in a finite or de-
numerably infinite number of intervals,
and let h, 12, . be the length of these
intervals. We obviously wish to have
m(E,) < I, + + .
If we look for the greatest lower
bound of the second member for all
possible systems of intervals that cover
this bound will be an upper bound of
m(E1). For this reason we represent it by
m(E1), and we have
construct sets Er which are now sets of
points in the plane and no longer on a
line. To these sets we must now attrib-
ute a plane measure, and this measure
is deduced from the area of rectangles
a < x < 0; y < y < 8
in exactly the same way as the linear
measure was derived from the length of
intervals. Once measure is defined,
formula (2) gives the sums S from which
the integral is obtained by passage to
the limit. Hence the definition that we
have considered extends immediately to
functions of several variables.
Here is another extension which
applies equally well regardless of the
number of variables, but which ex-
l'Ecole Polytechnique, Vol. I, but with this
modification, essential for our purpose, that
we enclose the set E, to be measured in
intervals whose number may be infinite,
while Jordan employed only a finite number.
This use of a denumerable infinity in place of
a finite number of intervals was suggested by
the work of Borel, who himself had utilized
this idea in order to get a definition of meas-
ure (Lecons sur la theorie des fonctions).
I
2. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 132, 1900, pp.
1025-1028. Definitions equivalent to that
given here have been proposed by various
authors. The most interesting are due to W.
H. Young, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London,
204, 1905, pp. 221-252, and Proc. London
Math. Soc., 9, 1911, pp. 15-50. See also, for
example, the notes of Borel and M. F. Riesz,
C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 154, 1912, pp. 413-
415, 641-643.

plain only in the case where it is a ques-

m(E,) < m(E).
If C is the set of points of the interval
(a, b) that do not belong to E1, we have
similarly
m(C) < m(C).
Now we certainly wish to have
m(E,) + m(C) = m [(a, b)] = b - a;
and hence we must have
m(E,)> b - a - m(C).
The inequalities (3) and (4) give us
upper and lower bounds for m(Ei). One
can easily see that these two in-
equalities are never contradictory.
When the lower and upper bounds for
Ei are equal, m(E1) is defined, and we
say then that Ei is measurable.'
A function f(x) for which the sets Ei
are measurable for all choices of yi is
called measurable. For such a function
formula (2) defines a sum S. It is easy to
prove that when the yi vary so that E
tends toward zero, the S tend toward a
definite limit which is, by definition,2
f a f(x) dx.
This first extension of the notion of
the definite integral led to many others.
Let us suppose that it is a question of
integrating a function f(x, y) of two vari-
ables. Proceeding exactly as before, we
(3) tion of integrating f(x) in the interval (a,
b). I have said that it is a question of
summing indivisibles represented by the
various ordinates at points x, y = f(x). A
moment ago, we collected these indivis-
ibles according to their sizes. Now let
us merely group them according to their
signs. We will have to consider then the
set EP of points in the plane whose ordi-
nates are positive, and the set Er, of
points whose ordinates are negative. As
(4) I recalled at the beginning of my lec-
ture, for the simple case where f(x) is
continuous, even before Cauchy's time
one wrote
f a f(x) dx = area (Er) - area (E).
This leads us to assert
f a f(x) dx = ms(E1,) - ms(E),
where m, stands for a plane measure.
This new definition is equivalent to the
preceding one. It brings us back to the
intuitive method before Cauchy, but the
definition of measure puts it on a solid
logical foundation.
NOTES
1. The definition of measure of sets used
here is that of C. Jordan, Coors d'analyse de