Talk:Leibniz and Newton calculus controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject History of Science | (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
[edit] How do we know that Newton discovered it besides his word
I know there are Newton followers who claimed that Newton shared the calculus with them before Leibniz's discovery. Besides their word it there any proof? Who were these people? I have never seen any solid evidence that clears Newton's name beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not steal the calculus from Leibniz and would like toknow if such evidence exists beyond his word and the word of some of this followers (who already were proven to be unreliable during the nasty dispute).
The more I learn about Newton, it seems that he might have stolen just about everything he is credited with. Does anyone have a list of his discoveries that are not shrouded in controversy?
It is so obvious that Liebniz discovered calculus. He is being surpressed by monoply men, because him, and Bernulli, knew besler, who invented a free energy wheel, which Liebniz wrote that it worked. SlickWillyLovesSex (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merger
Pls discuss at Talk:Calculus controversy: Newton v. Leibniz. Cheers, JackyR 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Invented vs Discovered
It is a question that had been the cause of a major intellectual controversy over who first invented the calculus...
I believe that the word invented should be replaced with discovered. I am under the impression that most mathematicians believe that mathematics is not "invented" by human inteligence. Rather, it is revealed or discovered by it. G9615111 02:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Isaac Barrow
What about him? It was my impression that he discovered what is now known as the "fundamental theorem of calculus", and he was Newton's advisor.Likebox 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"That document was thoroughly machined by Newton." What does this mean? Please clarify. Xxanthippe 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC).
[edit] References, please!
An article on such a controversial subject matter, needs more direct references to sources. Also, the language needs to be way more NPOV. --24.86.252.26 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] new evidence is a hoax
I removed the following from the article. It's a hoax.
- Article on new evidence found An article on new correspondence found very recently between Leibniz and Newton which could potentially rewrite the history presented above. A book and more scholarly articles is forthcoming on this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.252.26 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is incredibly biased
I vote that the neutrality of this article be reviewed due to severe bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismaster (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I Removed "If science worked then as it does now..."
I removed the statement: "If science worked then as it does now, Leibniz would be considered the sole inventor of the calculus since he published first." since
1. It is not true as for example in US in case of patent priority disputes who publishes first is not relevant the only thing that matters is who had the idea first and all evidence is taken into account.
2. Even if it were true it would be irrelevant to the article since science did not work then the way it does now.
3. The whole idea that publication date should decide on such matters is silly as there are many inventors who never publish and by that rule they could never claim any inventions.
Enemyunknown (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Leibniz discovered calculus
IT is so true. It is sited in many mathmatics sourcebooks. Newton was a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaveEtherSniffer (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Archimedes developed calculus
So this news should be added eventually: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/8974/title/A_Prayer_for_Archimedes —Preceding unsigned comment added by P1415926535 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- This article is strictly about the Leibniz / Newton priority dispute. There are other articles more relevant to your concern (e.g., Archimedes Palimpsest and History of calculus). — Myasuda (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Science News article linked to above seems highly misleading. It says:
-
- The researchers have discovered that Archimedes was working out principles that, centuries later, would form the heart of calculus and that he had a more sophisticated understanding of the concept of infinity than anyone had realized.
It's just as if that was not known until after the book was sold in 1998 and the researchers referred to here started work.
It is true that they have found things that were not previously known. But the fact that Archimedes anticipated calculus, and many of the details of how he did that, were universally known long before that. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Review of Bardi's The Calculus Wars
In light of the "excoriating" and detailed review of Bardi's book in the latest AMS Notices (see Blank, Brian E. (2009), "Book Review: The Calculus Wars", Notices of the American Mathematical Society 56 (5): 602–610, http://www.ams.org/notices/200905/rtx090500602p.pdf), it may be worth re-examining any of the article's information that was pulled from this text and it might be worth removing Bardi's book as a reference for this article. Of note, the book review mentions this Wikipedia article (see the last page) and laments the fact that there is no distinguishing between the authoritative reference (Hall's book) versus the non-authoritative reference (Bardi's book). — Myasuda (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- After checking the article history, I've removed all references to Bardi. The sentence to which Bardi was referenced has been in place at the article's inception. The references to Bardi were added by Nousernamesleft (talk • contribs • logs) on February 16, 2008 with no article content specific to Bardis book being added. If in-line cites are needed in this article, Blank's AMS Notices review (link provided above) provides an excellent overview of the controversy as well as a list of quality references. — Myasuda (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
