
by-product of his Method of Maxima/Minima. He
wrote to Mersenne: “ . . . in order to properly graph
the [conchoid], it is appropriate that we investigate the
points of inflection, where the curvature becomes con-
cave or convex, or vice versa. This question is elegantly
resolved by the Method of Maxima/Minima by virtue of
the following general lemma.” Fermat continued by
asserting that among all tangents to the conchoid, the
tangent at the inflection point is distinguished by mini-
mizing the angle θ made with the positive x-axis. This is
the same thing as minimizing tan(θ) 5 f
0
(x). Because
Fermat’s Theorem gives (f
0
)
0
(x) 5 0 as a necessary
condition for this minimum, Fermat had, in effect, dis-
covered a necessary condition for (x, f (x)) to be a point
of inflection, namely f
00
(x) 5 0.
Fermat’s Principle of Least Time
Although Fermat had little interest in physics, he did
turn his consideration to one particular question in
optics. Therein lies another bitter dispute with Des-
cartes. This particular quarrel be gan with an early
correspondent of Fermat, Jean de Beaugrand. Beau-
grand’s major work, G
´
eostatique (1636), had received
severe criticism from Descartes, who wrote
“Although I have seen many squarings of the circle,
perpetual motions, [etc.] . . . I can say nonetheless
that I have never seen so many errors combined in
one postulate. I can therefore conclude that the
contents of G
´
eostatique are so irrelevant, ridiculous,
and mistaken, that I wonder if any honest man has
ever troubled himself to read it.”
Beaugrand retaliated by circulating three pamph-
lets in which he charged Descartes with plagiarism.
Also, using his position as Secr
´
etaire du Roi, Beaugrand
obtained a printer’ s copy of Descartes’s La Dioptrique
prior to its publication. Beaugrand distributed copies in
the hope that embarrassing prepublication criticism
would ensue. Fermat was one of the recipients.
In an April or May 1637 commentary on La
Dioptrique, Fermat drew attention to errors that Des-
cartes had made in his derivations of the Laws of
Reflection and Refraction. Descartes was not pleased.
The situation between the two grew more tense when,
after reading La G
´
eometrie, Fermat sent Descartes
documents that established his priority in the matters of
analytic geometry and the tangent problem.
Eight years after the death of Descartes, in 1658,
the edito r of the Letters of Descartes, Claude Clerselier,
found two letters from Fermat among the papers of
Descartes. He asked Fermat for copies of any other
letters that he might have sent to Descartes. Because
Fermat had only written the two that had been found,
he interpreted the request to be a reopening of the
optics controversy.
Fermat argued that there were three fundamental
flaws that invalidated Descartes’s treatment of refraction:
Descartes did not understand what a valid demonstration
should be, Descartes had not argued consistently even
within his own incorrect logical framework, and Descartes
had based his derivation on the patently false notion that
the denser is the medium, the easier is the passage of light
through it. Experts warned Fermat to be more cautious:
experimentation confirmed the Law of Refraction that
Descartes had published.
At about this time, Fermat received the Trait
´
edela
Lumi
´
e of Marin Cureau de la Chambre (1594, Mans -
1669, Paris). In it was a derivation of the Law of
Reflection based on the method of minimiz ation.
Suppose that a ray of light emitted from A is reflected
by the straight line ECF and arrives at B, as in Figure 2.
The law of reflection states that the angle of incidence
ACG equals the angle of reflection GCB. Cureau
derived this from the postulate, that light travels from
A to EF to B in the least distance. That is, for any other
point D on EF, AC 1 CB , AD 1 DB. This inequality
follows easily from classical geometry.
Fermat saw that, if he reformulated Cureau’s
principle as a least
time postulate, then he would be
able to apply calculus to the more complicated phe-
nomenon of refraction. With refraction we suppose
that the points A and B are in different media, sepa-
rated by boundary EF as in Figure 3. Light travels with
speed v
A
in the medium containing point A and with
speed v
B
in the medium containing B. The Law of
Refraction asserts that
sin ðαÞ
sin ðβÞ
5
v
A
v
B
A
DEC
G
u
i
u
r
B
m Figure 2
372 Chapter
4 Applications of the Derivative