So I was wondering, who do you all think should get the credit for Calculus? While we credit Newton for it (at least in standard academia) we actually use the notation for calculus that Leibniz developed.

Also if this should go in babbling, just feel free to toss it there.

__________________
Proud to be a DBZ Uncensored Forum veteran

as long as it works

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

Good question--I've heard two scenarios from different sources, and would like to know how it really happened. One source told me that the two men developed Calculus totally independently and essentially simultaneously...that it was an idea whose time had come. I've also heard implications that Newton became aware of Leibnitz's work, and quietly stole it. In either case, I recall that there was a competition to solve a mathematical problem afoot at the time, and this new form of math was essential to get the right answer. Nothing like a good prize competition to spur human ingenuity...

Contemporary historians of mathematics seem to agree that both developed calculus fairly independently.
The fact that they had markedly different approaches to it (fluxions for Newton, differentials for Leibniz) suggests the same.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Seems they really developed it independendly. And when they learnt of each other, it seems Leibniz handled the case better than Newton.

Funnily, Leibniz worked for the Duke of Braunschweig-Luneburg in Hanover, who later became King Georg I. of England. Despite Leibniz' pledges, he was left behind in Hanover, as the quarrel between Newton and Leibniz had become a matter of national pride.

Leibniz' notation proofed to be much more usuable than Newton's dot-notation and so, because those on the island stuck to Newton's, continental calculus flourished, the d outplayed the .

This changed, when in the early 19th centure, in Cambridge a society was formed "to introduce the principles of pure d-ism in opposition to the dot-age [pun intended] of the University".

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

The book "A History of the calculus and its conceptual Development" gives a good, if overly drawn out, explanation of the whole matter. I voted for both, although this doesn't do justice to all the people who laid the groundwork. The development of the Calculus did not start nor end with Newton and Liebnitz. It would be another 200 years before all of the theoretical justification for the "method of fluxions" or differentials would be completed. It all depended on exactly the definition of a real number and a continuous function. If these definitions seem obvious, then try making sense of these 28 pages

I do feel that Newton in his lifetime gave Liebnitz the shaft, although Liebnitz got his revenge from the grave when the English refused to use his superior differential notation and as a result, for the next 2 centuries were left far behind the rest of the continent in mathematical prowess.

Are there any fields of mathematics where the mathematicians are looking for a better notation of their problems? As the d-ism vs dot-age example shows, a good notation is a powerful tool.

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

The problem is that nobody knows that the current notation is inferior until some genius improves upon it. Two examples that come to mind are Vectors and determinants. The equations of orbital mechanics are rather cumbersome unless you use vector notation. You get the same results, but it is much easier with vectors. The same holds true with determinants, although an example eludes me at the moment. I will check some of my math books when I get home and pad my post count with an example later.

Very true. Here's another more recent book that tells the story of the creation of calculus, although it's about mathematics in general: A History of Mathematics: An Introduction, by Victor J. Katz.

The cross product formula for 3-dimensional vectors, and the formula for the curl of a 3-dimensional vector field, are much easier to grasp with determinant notation, although purists frown at those formulas since they "aren't really determinants".

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Thanks for indulging me with discussion. I first learned about this calculus discrepency in a 17th Century philosophy class where as part of the general overview of Leibniz at the beginning this was mentioned. My instructor also went on to say that when Leibniz went to I guess Cambrige to argue this, Newton was the chair of the department so it was of course, no surprise at the end result. Maybe I'll pick up one of these books to read later on when I have more time even if I don't strictly speaking, known calculus very well.

__________________
Proud to be a DBZ Uncensored Forum veteran

I've always heard that Newton came up with it first, but Leibniz' notation was superior. I voted for Newton simply because of the time issue, though I'm sure you could really argue either side.

Incidentally, I think there is increasing evidence that Archimedes at least knew about infinitessimals, or something related. There was a recently discovered document of his that showed he was able to calculate an infinite sum. Also, Kepler came really close was he was investigating the volumes of various solids.

Archimedes used infinitesimals as an informal heuristic, as did other authors after him, and probably most ancient Greek mathematicians. However, he was not able to put them on a solid theoretical framework, and for that reason he never used them in rigorous proofs.

Kepler used infinitesimals to solve particular problems, but Newton and Leibniz were the first to come up with a general method for the manipulation of infinitesimal quantities.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

All I have to say is that, while both came up with the idea, Liebnitz's notation alone has proven significantly more useful.
(My calculus teacher pulled up this thread on the projector at the end of class. My honor compelled me to vote )

<3 to the Math,
Kate

__________________
I have seen the life on this planet.
That is why I am looking elsewhere.

(X-Files)

There is a summary here.

It's my understanding Newton had the basics down sooner than Leibniz. I thought much, much sooner, but maybe not.

Newton worked with limits and practical applications; Leibniz more abstract.
Newton, apparently, was the first to state the fundimental theory, and first to apply integration and differentiation.

Since the two wrote to each other, Leibniz was accused of plagarism, but exonerated after his death.

It's a tough call. Leibniz was actually first to publish (1684) with an explanation in 1686; vs. Newton's 1687 publication.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Probably the best (and best known) example of the usefulness of good notation is the development of Feynman diagrams. Things were very ugly in the physics world before that, with very complicated math required to solve simple problems. Now we can just draw a bunch of arrows and see results almost immediately.

I would really like to see shorthand notations for a lot of values that can't be solved analytically, but whose numerical approximations are accurately known. There are a lot of integrals that come up all the time, and the answer is always the same, but there are no standard names for those values. They're not as useful as pi, perhaps, but I still think that they deserve some recognition. (Something like integral( e^(-x^2) ) from 0 to infinity is a good example.)

For calculus, I think that credit should be shared by more than just those two. Like pretty much every other discovery (relativity, for instance), there was a lot of existing knowledge just sitting there already, waiting to be formally put together. Kepler should get a little credit. Archimedes probably should, too. And many people after Newton and Leibnitz should also be recognized.

As to Newton publishing after Leibnitz, that's probably just because Newton hated publishing, and probably would never have published anything if people hadn't constantly pushed him to do so.

Yes. The story of Hooke's bet with Halley (and a 3rd person) regarding Kepler's elliptical orbits is very interesting, if not amusing. Supposedly, Halley asked Newton why planetary orbits were elliptical, and Newton said it was becasue he had calculated them. However, Newton could not find his work. He was encouraged to get busy writting. The result was Principia. At least, that's how I heard it.

Apparently, Newton's work went back to 1666 (where he had notes from his legendary apple event), though he did not publish Principia till 1687.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Isn't this one just the square root of pi over two?

[whinge]Credit? How about "Blame" instead? Calcuseless was the most miserable 4 quarters I had in college, not to mention precalcuseless in high school before, and a quarter of diffy scr..., er, Q, afterwards. It was required for my major (CS) and I've never used it since.[/whinge]

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684