See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265122546

Malmsten’s proof of the integral theorem - an early Swedish paper on

complex analysis

Conference Paper · January 2003

CITATIONS READS

0 408

1 author:

Kajsa Bråting
Uppsala University
61 PUBLICATIONS 407 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kajsa Bråting on 29 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Malmsten’s Proof of The Integral
Theorem
-an Early Swedish Paper on Complex Analysis

K AJSA B RÅTING
We consider the Swedish mathematician C. J. Malmsten’s paper “Om
definita integraler mellan imaginära gränsor ” from 1865. In his paper, Malm-
sten gives a proof of the Cauchy integral theorem where the limits of in-
tegration are complex numbers. The aim of this report is to capture the
techniques that Malmsten made use of in his proof and to get a glimpse of
the mathematical concepts at this time, especially those which weren’t fully
investigated and thereby gave rise to challenges for mathematicians.

Introduction
During the eighteenth century mathematicians in Uppsala were mainly astronomers,
physicists or theologians. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1820s that Uppsala, as well as
Lund, got its first pure mathematicians. Maybe this was a natural ongoing pro-
cess toward specialization. It could also have been due to the fact that rumors
of great works of Euler, d’Alembert, Lagrange and Laplace had now reached the
universities of Scandinavia (Gårding, 1994). In Uppsala, at the time, a new genera-
tion of talented mathematicians appeared. Among the most prominent were Adolf
Fredrik Svanberg (1806-1857), Emanuel Gabriel Björling (1808-1872) and Carl
Johan Malmsten (1814-1886).
Malmsten grew up in Uddetorp, not far from Skara in Sweden. In 1833 he
began to study mathematics at Uppsala university, where in 1839 he received a
doctoral degree. In competition with E. G. Björling, Malmsten became professor
of mathematics in 1841 (Gårding, 1994). During the 1840s Malmsten wrote many
remarkable papers and became, after Samuel Klingenstierna (1698-1765), the first
Swedish mathematician who not only followed the development of mathematics of
his time, but also contributed to it (Gårding, 1994).
In his own mathematical research, Malmsten took an active part in analysis, al-
gebra and probability theory. In a summary of Malmsten’s mathematical research,
Gösta Mittag Leffler (1846-1927) emphasizes his calculation of the remainder term
in Euler’s “summation” formula, as well as his solutions of certain differential
equations (Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, 1987).
In 1859 he was appointed minister without portfolio and in 1866 county gover-
nor of “Skaraborgs län”. In the course of time Malmsten regretted that he had given
up science for politics (Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, 1987).

FAUVELIAN CONNECTIONS 135

KAJSA BRÅTING

The paper “Om definita integraler mellan imaginära gränsor” was written af-
ter Malmsten’s years as professor (1865). A few years later the Cauchy integral
theorem, as well as the whole theory of analytic functions, would provide a lot of
problems for the mathematicians in Uppsala. It also gave rise to their own interpre-
tations of the theorem.
To give background for Malmsten’s paper, and to see how far the development
of complex analysis had reached at this time, we begin with a short history of
the field of complex analysis. Subsequently, a summary of Cauchy’s proof of the
integral theorem will be presented, before the exposition of Malmsten’s paper.

A short history of complex analysis

It took quite a while before the mathematicians began to accept the complex num-
bers as independent mathematical objects. One of the reasons might have been the
relatively late entrance of negative numbers on the mathematical scene (Sjöberg,
1998). In fact, mathematicians didn’t accept negative numbers as roots of equa-
tions until the sixteenth century.
As soon as mathematicians were able to solve third- and fourth-degree equa-
tions, another problem arose. In Cardano’s (1501-1576) formula (for solving third-
degree equations) square roots of negative numbers sometimes appeared, which
was confusing at that time.
During the eighteenth century the development of complex analysis acceler-
ated. An entirely new theme was the use of complex values of an independent
variable. The leading man in this work was Leonhard Euler (1707-1783).
In the very first pages of the first volume of his Introductio in analysin infin-
itorum (1748), Euler asserted that a variable can assume any value whatsoever,
including an imaginary one. For example, in order to clarify that “a function of
a variable quantity is itself a variable quantity,” he asserted that there is no value
which the function is not capable of assuming, “since a variable quantity also in-
cludes imaginary values” (Bottazzini, 1986). In the work of Euler the theory of
elementary functions of a complex variable received a full development and was
perfected by the middle of the eighteenth century (Kolmogorov, 1996).
Euler established that the equation ∂u/∂x = ∂v/∂y is the condition under
which v dx + u dy is the exact differential of some function. In connection with
problems in fluid mechanics Jean d’Alembert (1717-1783) was the first to arrive at
the system of equations

∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v
= , =−
∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x
(today known as the Cauchy-Riemann equations). D’Alembert, and after him Eu-
ler, obtained pairs of solutions of this system as the real and imaginary parts of
(what we today would call) an analytic function f (z) = u + iv of a complex vari-
able.

136 Study the Masters

 Malmsten’s Proof of The Integral Theorem

In Euler’s work on integral calculus he established the equality

  
f (z)dz = (udx − vdy) + i (vdx + udy),

where f (z) = u + iv. Only the concept of integrals of functions of a complex

variable computed along some curve was lacking to see here the Cauchy integral
theorem that the integral is independent of the path of integration.
The first explicit and systematic geometric representation of complex numbers
as directed line segments and the corresponding interpretation of operations on
them occur in a 1799 paper by the Norwegian surveyor Caspar Wessel (1745-
1818). But Wessel’s work went completely unnoticed until it was rediscovered
a hundred years later and republished in a French translation (Bottazzini, 1986).
Other roughly contemporary publications had also gone unnoticed, for example,
by abbot Adrien Buée (1748-1826) in 1806, and that of the Swiss Jean-Robert Ar-
gand (1768-1822) (Bottazzini, 1986).
However, in the first quarter of the nineteenth century many mathematicians
came very close to the geometric representation of complex numbers. The concept
of complex numbers as points of a plane received general recognition after 1831,
when Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) published the paper “Theoria residuorum
biquadraticorum”.
Cauchy had a completely different approach explaining the foundations of the
theory of complex numbers. In his Analyse algébrique (1821) complex quantities
were introduced in a formal manner. He classifies most “imaginary expressions”
(i.e., complex numbers) and “imaginary equations” (i.e., equalities containing com-
plex numbers) as symbolic expressions.
It wasn’t until 1847 in the paper “Mémoire sur les quantités géométriques”
(1847) that Cauchy replaced the imaginary expressions by the geometrical inter-
pretation. It is curious that when Cauchy had proved the theorem that the integral
is independent of the path of integration (see below) he still emphasized that
√ imag-
inary numbers “do not refer to anything and have no meaning. The sign −1 is in
a way only a device, a tool for computation...” (Kolmogorov, 1996).

Complex integration
At the beginning of the eighteenth century mathematicians began to operate with
complex-valued functions. These were always separated into a real and an imag-
inary part, so they could be treated like real-valued functions. As an example of
an early use of complex-valued functions, Leibniz (1646-1716) as well as Johann
Bernoulli (1667-1748) evaluated the real integral

dx
ax2 + bx + c
by splitting up the integrand into two partial fractions and then performing the inte-
gration. The fact that if the roots to the equation ax2 + bx + c = 0 are complex, the
denominator will also be complex, didn’t stop them from performing the integra-
tion in the same way as if the denominators were real (Sjöberg, 1998). However,

FAUVELIAN CONNECTIONS 137

KAJSA BRÅTING

the integration of the partial fractions resulted in logarithms of complex numbers,

which gave rise to problems. Eventually, these problems were solved by the well-
known formula of Euler, namely;

log z = log r + i(ϕ + 2πn) (n  Z).

But yet another problem arose when mathematicians had to deal with integrals such
as  z 1

f (z)dz,
z0

where f is a complex-valued function and the limits of integration are complex.

Cauchy was the one who came up with the theory of complex integration in
his pamphlet “Mémoire sur les intégrales définies, prises entre des limites imagi-
naires” from 1825 (see below). Nevertheless, it seems that the theory had already
been known to Gauss. In a letter he had written to his friend Friedrich Wilhelm
Bessel (1784-1846) in 1811, but not published until 1880, one can read that Gauss
already knew about the “integral theorem”. At the end of the letter he says “This
is a very beautiful theorem, for which I will give a not difficult proof at a suitable
opportunity.” But Gauss never proved the theorem.

The Cauchy Integral Theorem

Cauchy, along with his contemporaries - Gauss, Abel (1802-1829) and Bolzano
(1781-1848) - belong to the pioneers of the new insistence on rigor in mathematics.
The eighteenth century had been essentially a period of experimentation. When
they worried about rigor, as Euler and Lagrange occasionally did, their arguments
were not always convincing (Struik, 1987). Cauchy, Gauss, Abel and Bolzano are
often called the first truly modern mathematicians (Belhoste, 1991).
At the beginning of his pamphlet “Mémoire sur les intégrales définies, prises
entre des limites imaginaires”, Cauchy presents the definition of integrals between
complex limits. He defines
 X+iY
f (z)dz (1)
x0 +iy0

as the limit (or one of the limits) of sums of the form

S = [(x1 − x0 ) + (y1 − y0 )i]f (x0 + iy0 )

+[(x2 − x1 ) + (y2 − y1 )i]f (x1 + iy1 )
+ . . . +
[(X − xn−1 ) + (Y − yn−1 )i]f (xn−1 + iyn−1 ),

where the sequences

(x0 , x1 , . . . , xn−1 , X) , (y0 , y1 , . . . , yn−1 , Y ), (2)

are both monotonic (either increasing or decreasing) and the differences xk − xk−1
and yk − yk−1 converge to zero as n increases indefinitely.

138 Study the Masters

 Malmsten’s Proof of The Integral Theorem

One can note at this stage that Cauchy is not constructing the integral along a
definite path, but merely has successive sequences of points running from x0 + iy0
to X + iY ; presumably this is one reason why he uses the phrase ’one of the limits’
(Smithies, 1997). The requirement that the sequences should be monotonic seems
to have been carried over almost automatically from his definition for functions of
a real variable (Smithies, 1997).
Cauchy then suggests a procedure for constructing such sequences. He writes
x = ϕ(t) and y = ψ(t) where ϕ(t) and ψ(t) are functions that are monotonic and
continuous for t0 ≤ t ≤ T , satisfying the conditions ϕ(t0 ) = x0 , ψ(t0 ) = y0 and
ϕ(T ) = X, ψ(T ) = Y. Observe, that by choosing ϕ and ψ he has constrained
himself to one class of sequences (i.e., what today would be called a path) and
hence only one limit. After that, Cauchy indicates the integral (1) by A + iB and
substitutes for x and y the functions of t that were defined above. Thus, he gets the
integral of the form
 T
A + iB = [ϕ (t) + iψ  (t)]f [ϕ(t) + iψ(t)]dt
t0

which, by setting ϕ (t) = x and ψ  (t) = y  can be written

 T
A + iB = (x + iy  )f (x + iy)dt.
t0

At this stage Cauchy states his integral theorem as follows:

“We now suppose that the function f (x + iy) remains finite and continuous
whenever x remains between the limits x0 and X. In this particular case we can
easily prove that the value of the integral (1), that is to say, the imaginary expression
A + iB, is independent of the nature of the functions x = ϕ(t) and y = ψ(t).”
Thus, we can see that Cauchy has reduced an integral between complex limits to
an integral of a complex-valued function between real limits. The usual formulation
can easily be obtained if we observe that the functions x = ϕ(t) and y = ψ(t) can
be thought of as the parametrical equations of a curve in the complex plane joining
the points x0 + iy0 and X + iY. But, as mentioned above, Cauchy didn’t have a
geometrical interpretation of complex numbers at this time.
The hypotheses for f (z) - that it is finite and continuous - is however insuffi-
cient. In fact, Cauchy tacitly assumes and implicitly uses both the existence and the
continuity of f  (z). This is due to Cauchy’s conviction that a continuous function
is always differentiable and that its derivative can be discontinuous only at points
where the function itself is discontinuous (Kolmogorov, 1996).
Later Cauchy considers this proof to be not rigorous enough. Instead he uses
the techniques of calculus of variations. Given a curve

(x(t), y(t)) (3)

Cauchy considers a second curve

(x(t) + u(t), y(t) + v(t)), (4)

FAUVELIAN CONNECTIONS 139

KAJSA BRÅTING

where u(t) and v(t) vanish when t = t0 , T and takes an infinitesimal step towards
it;
(x(t) + εu(t), y(t) + εv(t)). (5)
Now he wants an expression for the difference between (3) and (5). As the incre-
mental integrals can be seen as functions of ε he considers all but the first term in
an expansion in a series of powers and finds that the coefficient of ε disappears as
seen below. The coefficient of ε is
 T
[(u + iv)(x + iy  ) + (u + iv  )f (x + iy)]dt.
t0

Then, by integrating by parts, Cauchy shows that the first term of the integrand is
equal to the second term taken negatively.
From this he concludes that if we give x and y successive increments of first
order whose sum is a finite non-zero increment, then the corresponding increment
of the integral must be of the second order and therefore vanish (Smithies, 1997).

Malmsten’s paper: “Om definita integraler mellan imaginära

gränsor ”
In his paper, Malmsten begins with a summary of Cauchy’s proof of the integral
theorem (where the limits of integration are complex numbers). Then Malmsten
finds some insufficiencies in that proof and says that he wants to prove it anal-
ogously to Cauchy’s proof of the integral theorem for definite integrals taken be-
tween real limits. Cauchy’s motivation when constructing this proof was “it seemed
to me necessary to demonstrate in general the existence of the integrals or primi-
tive functions before making known their various properties.” This closely matches
Malmsten’s approach.

The insufficiencies in Cauchy’s proof according to Malmsten

At the beginning of his paper, Malmsten is questioning some parts of the proof of
Cauchy’s integral theorem. The first insufficiency concerns Cauchy’s substitution
of x and y. Malmsten writes
“Onekligen förefaller det också något oegentligt, att, på samma gång man bör
fasthålla x och y:s fullkomliga oberoende af hvarandra, supponera dem vara func-
tioner af en och samma variabel t, nämligen x = ϕ(t), y = ψ(t). Härigenom,
äfven om man sedermera lyckas bevisa att värdet på integralen är af functions-
formerna ϕ och ψ helt och hållet oberoende, kommer dock icke sjelfva bevisningen
att framträda med den styrka och tydlighet, som vore behöfligt.”
Malmsten criticizes Cauchy’s method of considering only all sequences fol-
lowing a given parameterization, i.e., the two functions ϕ and ψ. Although Malm-
sten acknowledges that the resulting integral won’t depend on these functions, he
doesn’t think that this method of proof is rigorous enough. Instead he considers

140 Study the Masters

 Malmsten’s Proof of The Integral Theorem

all sequences (i.e., all sequences of all possible paths) of the Riemann sum Sn (see
below) in the limit at once.
Then Malmsten explains the way Cauchy uses the technique of calculus of vari-
ations to prove the theorem. However, Malmsten points out some insufficiencies
in this part as well. In fact, he criticizes the step where Cauchy moves the deriva-
tive operator inside the integral, a technique that wasn’t proved valid for complex
valued functions.

How Malmsten Proves the Existence of the Integrals

The most significant part of Malmsten’s paper is Theorem II. In this part Malmsten
shows the existence of the integrals, i.e., the path-independence. Note that this
theorem considers only real numbers. In the next theorem Malmsten easily applies
it to complex numbers.
Malmsten assumes p(x, y) and q(x, y) to be two continuous functions from x0
to X and y0 to Y and lets x1 , x2 , . . . , xn−1 , y1 , y2 , . . . , yn−1 be values between
x0 and X, y0 and Y . Then Malmsten constructs the sum

Sn = (x1 − x0 ) · p(x0 , y0 ) + (y1 − y0 ) · q(x0 , y0 )

+(x2 − x1 ) · p(x1 , y1 ) + (y2 − y1 ) · q(x1 , y1 )
+ . . . +
+(X − xn−1 ) · p(xn−1 , yn−1 ) + (Y − yn−1 ) · q(xn−1 , yn−1 ).

With the condition

∂p(x, y) ∂q(x, y)
= , (6)
dy dx
Malmsten claims that as n → ∞ and the differences

x1 − x0 , x2 − x1 , . . . , X − xn−1 , y1 − y0 , y2 − y1 , . . . , Y − yn−1 (7)

decrease indefinitely,
 X  Y
lim Sn = p(x, Y )dx + q(x0 , y)dy,
x0 y0

 X  Y
= p(x, y0 )dx + q(X, y)dy,
x0 y0

i.e., lim Sn is independent of n as well as of the choice of the values in (7).

In short, the last expression says that the limit of any sequence, following the
conditions described above, is equal to the integrations along two specific paths,
i.e., from one corner of a rectangle to the opposite via the contours clockwise re-
spectively counter clockwise.
Malmsten’s approach is to treat the terms of the sum Sn by replacing them with
approximate integrals and error terms. This new sum has the property of being two
telescoping sums which in the limit becomes the clockwise integration above. The
counter clockwise integral is reached via a similar approach.

FAUVELIAN CONNECTIONS 141

KAJSA BRÅTING

In more detail, the sum can be written as

r=n

Sn = [(xr − xr−1 )p(xr−1 , yr−1 ) + (yr − yr−1 )q(xr−1 , yr−1 )] ,
r=1

and each term can be rewritten as

(xr − xr−1 )p(xr−1 , yr−1 ) + (yr − yr−1 )q(xr−1 , yr−1 ) =

 xr  xr−1  yr
p(x, yr )dx− p(x, yr−1 )dx+ q(x0 , y)dy+(xr −xr−1. )λr +(yr −yr−1 )σr ,
x0 x0 yr−1

where λr and σr are error terms approaching 0 in the limit. To prove this equality
Malmsten makes several calculations with Riemann sums, makes use of the mean
value-theorem for integrals and uses expression (6) in differential form. He does
use the fact that the functions are continuous, although he doesn’t mention (or
realize) it. For instance he writes
“Men nu är tillika
 yr

(yr − yr−1 )[q(x0 , yr−1 ) + γr ] = q(x0 , y)dy + (yr − yr−1 )σr
yr−1


(der σr convergerar mot 0 på samma gång som differenserna (17)), hvilket insatt...”

This equality can be achieved by applying the mean value-theorem for integrals
to the right hand integral and using continuity for the function q when substituting a
value c (from the mean-value theorem for integrals) between yr−1 and yr for yr−1 .

Consequently this gives rise to an error term that is added to σr producing a new
error term γr which converges to 0 in the limit. This is only one of several passages
where “common knowledge” theorems together with the conditions of the proof
are used.
Although Malmsten had come up with the condition (6), he didn’t use it in
Green’s formula. Probably he didn’t know about it, even though it was published
by W. Thompson (Lord Kelvin) in Crelle’s Journal in 1850 (Bottazzini, 1986). In
fact, George Green (1793-1841) had published it, at his own expense, as early as
1828 (Bottazzini, 1986). But the fact that Green was a physicist, together with
a lack of communication, may have been one reason why the theorem remained
unknown for more than 20 years.
In the next part Malmsten uses Theorem II twice in a proof of a similar theorem
for complex valued functions. I.e., he shows that the sum

Sn = (z1 − z0 )f (z0 ) + (z2 − z1 )f (z1 ) + . . . + (Z − zn−1 )f (zn−1 ),

where z = x + iy and
f (z) = ϕ(x, y) + iψ(x, y), (8)

142 Study the Masters

 Malmsten’s Proof of The Integral Theorem

(f synectic) as n → ∞ and the differences z1 − z0 , z2 − z1 , . . . , Z − zn−1 decrease

indefinitely, is independent of n as well as of the values z1 , z2 , z3 , . . . , zn−1 . To
prove this Malmsten constructs the sum Sn = Pn + iQn where

Pn = (x1 − x0 ) · ϕ(x0 , y0 ) − (y1 − y0 ) · ψ(x0 , y0 )

+(x2 − x1 ) · ϕ(x1 , y1 ) − (y2 − y1 ) · ψ(x1 , y1 )
+...
+(X − xn−1 ) · ϕ(xn−1 , yn−1 ) − (Y − yn−1 ) · ψ(xn−1 , yn−1 )

and
Qn = (x1 − x0 ) · ψ(x0 , y0 ) + (y1 − y0 ) · ϕ(x0 , y0 )
+(x2 − x1 ) · ψ(x1 , y1 ) + (y2 − y1 ) · ϕ(x1 , y1 )
+...
+(X − xn−1 ) · ψ(xn−1 , yn−1 ) + (Y − yn−1 ) · ϕ(xn−1 , yn−1 )

and applies Theorem II.

It is notable that Malmsten calls the function (8) synectic, which is another ex-
pression for analytic. This term was sometimes used by Cauchy. Malmsten defines
a synectic function to be continuous, monodromic, and monogenic. By reading
Malmsten’s paper one can understand the meaning of the expression monogenic,
namely that it is the same as satisfying the Cauchy-Riemann equations. However,
the expression monodromic can’t be understood by reading Malmsten’s article, but
it seems to have been a relatively frequently used term at this time. In Étude des
fonctions d’une variable imaginaire (1856), where Charles Briot (1817-1882) and
Jean-Claude Bouquet (1819-1885) give the first systematic exposition of the theory
of functions of a complex variable as it had been set out by Cauchy, the definition
of the term monodromic is
“...si la fonction u prend la même valeur au même point, quel que soit le chemin
suivi pour y arriver, sans sortir de la portion du plan considérée, M. Cauchy dit
que la fonction est monodrome dans cette portion du plan.” 1
An analogous interpretation of a monodromic function is “a (single-valued)
function defined in a finite portion S of the complex plane where the function al-
ways takes the same value at one and the same point P in S, whatever path z may
take within S to arrive at P (Bottazzini, 1986).

The Various Properties of the Integral

In the next section of the paper, Malmsten wants to show the various properties of
the integral (1), analogous to what Cauchy had shown for definite integrals taken
between real limits. Malmsten writes
“Sedan vi nu i föregående theorem visat, att limes för den bildade summan,
dvs Sn endast är beroende af functionsformen f och af gränsvärdena x0 , y0 och
X, Y, kalla vi - analogt med hvad som skett för definita integraler mellan reella
1 Briot, C. Bouquet, J. (1856). Etude des fonctions d´une variable imaginaire. Journal de l´école

impériale polytechnique, Tome XXI, p. 85-131, Paris.

FAUVELIAN CONNECTIONS 143

KAJSA BRÅTING

gränsor - nämde limes för definita integralen af f (z) mellan gränsorna z0 och Z,
och beteckna  
Z X+iY
lim Sn = f (z)dz = f (z)dz.
z0 x0 +iy0

From this definition Malmsten shows that the following properties holds;
 z0
f (z)dz = 0, (9)
z0

 n
 
Z  zk
f (z)dz = f (z)dz , (10)
z0 k=1 zk−1
 z0  z1
f (z)dz = − f (z)dz. (11)
z1 z0
It is notable that Malmsten doesn’t say anything about the property that the inte-
gral depends linearly on the integrand. Maybe this is due to the fact that Cauchy
didn’t mention this property either in his treatment of definite integrals between
real limits.
Now Malmsten defines
 z
F (z) = f (z)dz (12)
z0

and shows that F (z) is synectic in the same domain as f (z). This is analogous to
what Cauchy showed for definite integrals between real limits, namely that F (z) is
differentiable in the same domain as f (z).
The last property to show is
F  (z) = f (z). (13)
Here Malmsten uses expression (12) and puts
 z+δ
F (z + δ) − F (z) = f (z)dz
z

and then uses an earlier corollary (about weighted mean values) to get
F (z + δ) − F (z) = δf (z + α) · θ · epi ,
where α is a “mean quantity” to 0 and δ (and therefore converges to 0 at the same
time as δ) and θ · epi converges to 1 at the same time as δ converges to 0. From this
formula he gets
F (z + δ) − f (z)
lim = F  (z) = f (z).
δ
Hence, by proving the existence of the integral (1), and then showing that the
properties (9)-(13) hold, Malmsten has completed his proof of the integral theorem
(for integrals where the limits of integration are complex numbers) analogous to
how Cauchy proved the integral theorem for integrals between real limits.

144 Study the Masters

 Malmsten’s Proof of The Integral Theorem

Final Remarks
Malmsten left Uppsala at the end of the 1850s to get into politics (see above). His
successor Herman Daug (1828-1888), whose mathematical research mostly con-
cerned differential geometry, didn’t have much influence (Gårding, 1994). Instead,
in the 1870s, mathematical education and research in Uppsala came to be charac-
terized by Göran Dillner (1832-1906), who had a great interest in Cauchy’s works
on analytic functions. But Dillner’s lack of knowledge of analysis resulted in a rel-
atively unprofessional way to do research (Gårding, 1994). However, via Mittag-
Leffler, who came under the influence of Karl Weierstrass (1815-1896), the theory
of analytic functions got cleared up. In fact, it was in Germany, with Bernhard Rie-
mann (1826-1866) and Weierstrass, that the theory of complex functions followed
an autonomous path of development that went far beyond what had been set out by
Cauchy (Bottazzini, 1986). Thus, the intuitive comprehension of analytic functions
that had characterized the early nineteenth century now became rigorous.
Malmsten wrote his proof of the integral theorem some years before the break-
through of Weierstrass’ strict analysis, and therefore his statement of the proof
doesn’t reach present-day standards. However, it seems it kept up to the standards
of his time. The merit of Malmsten is to have sorted out condition (6), even if
he didn’t use it in Green’s formula. The proof also shows Malmsten’s ability to
treat inequalities as well as Riemann sums (Gårding, 1994). Furthermore, it is said
that Mittag-Leffler, who at the beginning of his career had been one of Malmsten’s
students, complained that Malmsten’s proof, as well as his own, didn’t end up in
“Enzyklopädie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften” (Gårding, 1994). Maybe this
was due to the fact that Malmsten’s successor Daug didn’t continue the research in
the theory of analytic functions.

References
Belhoste, B. (1991). Augustin-Louis Cauchy. A Biography. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bottazzini, U. (1986). The Higher Calculus: A History of Real and Complex Analysis from
Euler to Weierstrass. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gårding, L. (1994). Matematik och matematiker. Matematiken i Sverige före 1950. Lund:
Lund University Press.
Kolmogorov, A.N., Yushkevich, A.P. (1996). Mathematics of the 19th Century. Basel:
Birkhäuser Verlag.
Malmsten, C.J. (1865). Om definita integraler mellan imaginära gränsor. Kungliga Svenska
Vetenskaps-akademiens Handlingar. Bandet 6. N:o 3.
Sjöberg, B. (1998). Från Euklides till Hilbert: historien om matematikens utveckling under
tvåtusen år. Åbo: Åbo Akademis förlag.
Smithies, F. (1997). Cauchy and the Creation of Complex Function Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Struik, D. (1987). A Concise History of Mathematics. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, Band 25. (1987). Stockholm: Norstedts Tryckeri.

FAUVELIAN CONNECTIONS 145

View publication stats