  Procedures relying on infinitesimals in Leibniz, Euler and Cauchy have been
interpreted in both a Weierstrassian and Robinson's frameworks. The latter
provides closer proxies for the procedures of the classical masters. Thus,
Leibniz's distinction between assignable and inassignable numbers finds a proxy
in the distinction between standard and nonstandard numbers in Robinson's
framework, while Leibniz's law of homogeneity with the implied notion of
equality up to negligible terms finds a mathematical formalisation in terms of
standard part. It is hard to provide parallel formalisations in a
Weierstrassian framework but scholars since Ishiguro have engaged in a quest
for ghosts of departed quantifiers to provide a Weierstrassian account for
Leibniz's infinitesimals. Euler similarly had notions of equality up to
negligible terms, of which he distinguished two types: geometric and
arithmetic. Euler routinely used product decompositions into a specific
infinite number of factors, and used the binomial formula with an infinite
exponent. Such procedures have immediate hyperfinite analogues in Robinson's
framework, while in a Weierstrassian framework they can only be reinterpreted
by means of paraphrases departing significantly from Euler's own presentation.
Cauchy gives lucid definitions of continuity in terms of infinitesimals that
find ready formalisations in Robinson's framework but scholars working in a
Weierstrassian framework bend over backwards either to claim that Cauchy was
vague or to engage in a quest for ghosts of departed quantifiers in his work.
Cauchy's procedures in the context of his 1853 sum theorem (for series of
continuous functions) are more readily understood from the viewpoint of
Robinson's framework, where one can exploit tools such as the pointwise
definition of the concept of uniform convergence.
  Keywords: historiography; infinitesimal; Latin model; butterfly model
