Shortly after his work on the foundations of geometry David Hilbert turned his attention to finding a suitable statement of the Dirichlet principle, from which to prove the Riemann mapping theorem and vindicate the topological program for complex analysis. Based on comments made in letters to Frege a major motivation for Hilbert's foray into geometry and independence proofs was to investigate the Archimedean axiom. Specifically, Hilbert mentions (to Frege) Dehn's dissertation on the Archimedean axiom and Legendre's theorem. This leads me to think that conformal mappings were on Hilbert's mind and to guess that Weierstrass's counterexample somehow concerned the Archimedean property. But I can't find anything in the secondary history/philosophy of math literature that quite puts all the pieces of the puzzle together--that Weierstrass had a counter-example is mentioned but details are skirted--and qua philosopher I'm bumping up against my mathematical horizons in piecing it together myself.



What was Weierstrass's counterexample to the Dirichlet Principle?
Weierstrass simply observed that not every problem in the calculus of variations would have a solution. He considered the example
$$D[y]=\int\_{-1}^{1}x^2\left(\frac{d y}{dx}\right)^2dx\to \min,$$
where the functional $D[y]$ is minimized over continuous functions having piecewise continuous first derivatives in $[-1,1]$ and satisfying the boundary conditions
$y(-1)=0$, $y(1)=1$. He proved that although there is a minimizing sequence $y\_n=y\_n(.)$ which makes $D[y\_n]$ arbitrarily small, the minimal value of zero is never actually attained. 


Weierstrass's example called into question the *a priori* validity of Dirichlet's principle. However, it did not completely refute the specific applications of Dirichlet's principle to boundary value problems for Laplace's equation developed by Green, Dirichlet, Riemann and others. It simply implied that the particular result required by Riemann would need a formal proof, which Riemann had not provided. For that reason some people refer to this example as Weierstrass's critique rather than Weierstrass's counterexample.


The story is briefly discussed in [*"A History of Analysis"*](http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CVRZEXFVsZkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+history+of+analysis&source=bl&ots=ibDC2FGy1i&sig=frWcc8aQWudQ9weQCKHMmUm6mKo&hl=en&ei=Eke3TLTOHcvFswbrw-iSCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) edited by Hans Niels Jahnke. 


