Who first invented calculus - Newton or Leibniz?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Model != World?
Next: If Gauss Put His FFT On His Web Page It Wouldn't Have Had To Be Rediscovered In WWII
From: Tonico on 7 Jan 2010 04:49 On Jan 7, 11:30 am, karl <oud...(a)nononet.com> wrote: > chazwin schrieb: > > > On Jan 5, 3:36 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > >> It matters not. The Calculus was not philosophically rationalized until > >> quite recently. Regardless, it was perfectly useful until then, and > >> remains useful today. > > >> For the obsessive of the 'Inductive Reasoning' thread - eat your hearts > >> out. > > >> Back to the subnect, it was found that Leibniz's approach was more > >> useful, fewer hacks, more direct. Leibniz wins. > > > Leibniz was a better publicist, whilst Newton was a loner and recluse. > > That is why we tend to use his notation. > > There is evidence that Leibniz stole the idea on a trip to England, > > and Newton accused him of that. > > I ask again: Where is your evidence? > Provide it or concede that you are a nonsense talker! The only comment I can offer in this tasty discussion is the next two pretty well-based historical facts: (1) Newton was a weirdo and a rather not-so-nice person, to say the least, and (2) Leibnitz is one of the greatest minds this poor humanity of ours has spawned in the last 6,000 years. From the above it seems to be a sound hypothesis that Newton did not develop completely his idea until he heard/read that the kraut Leibnitz already published something very similar to what he had been working with the last years, and then he rushed to the editor's house. Tonio
From: Larry Hammick on 7 Jan 2010 07:40 "M Purcell" [ Les Cargill [ But Newton was an alchemist. They were like that, according to what I've been told. ] Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same. I suspect it's a human thing and still seems applicable today with the contraversy over global warming, industrial and national secrets, government grants, ect. ] LOL. Just yesterday I was clashing with a rabbinically bearded astrophysicist about biodiversity.
From: Les Cargill on 7 Jan 2010 19:07 Larry Hammick wrote: > "M Purcell" > [ > Les Cargill > [ > But Newton was an alchemist. They were like that, according > to what I've been told. > ] > Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same. I > suspect it's a human thing and still seems applicable today with the > contraversy over global warming, industrial and national secrets, > government grants, ect. Apparently, one of Micheal Crichton's final books was on the very subject of DNA being intellectual property. The hepatitis C virus is *owned*. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2663847011110488414# "History In the mid 1970s, Harvey J. Alter, Chief of the Infectious Disease Section in the Department of Transfusion Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, and his research team demonstrated that most post-transfusion hepatitis cases were not due to hepatitis A or B viruses. Despite this discovery, international research efforts to identify the virus, initially called non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANBH), failed for the next decade. In 1987, Michael Houghton, Qui-Lim Choo, and George Kuo at Chiron Corporation, collaborating with Dr. D.W. Bradley from CDC, utilized a novel molecular cloning approach to identify the unknown organism.[41] In 1988, the virus was confirmed by Alter by verifying its presence in a panel of NANBH specimens. In April of 1989, the discovery of the virus, re-named hepatitis C virus (HCV), was published in two articles in the journal Science. [42][43] Chiron filed for several patents on the virus and its diagnosis.[44] A competing patent application by the CDC was dropped in 1990 after Chiron paid $1.9 million to the CDC and $337,500 to Bradley. In 1994 Bradley sued Chiron, seeking to invalidate the patent, have himself included as a co-inventor, and receive damages and royalty income. He dropped the suit in 1998 after losing before an appeals court.[45][46]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C > ] > LOL. Just yesterday I was clashing with a rabbinically bearded > astrophysicist about biodiversity. > > -- Les Cargill
From: M Purcell on 7 Jan 2010 20:12
On Jan 7, 4:07 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Larry Hammick wrote: > > "M Purcell" > > [ > > Les Cargill > > [ > > But Newton was an alchemist. They were like that, according > > to what I've been told. > > ] > > Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same. I > > suspect it's a human thing and still seems applicable today with the > > contraversy over global warming, industrial and national secrets, > > government grants, ect. > > Apparently, one of Micheal Crichton's final books was on > the very subject of DNA being intellectual property. > The hepatitis C virus is *owned*.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2663847011110488414# > > "History > > In the mid 1970s, Harvey J. Alter, Chief of the Infectious Disease > Section in the Department of Transfusion Medicine at the National > Institutes of Health, and his research team demonstrated that most > post-transfusion hepatitis cases were not due to hepatitis A or B > viruses. Despite this discovery, international research efforts to > identify the virus, initially called non-A, non-B hepatitis (NANBH), > failed for the next decade. In 1987, Michael Houghton, Qui-Lim Choo, and > George Kuo at Chiron Corporation, collaborating with Dr. D.W. Bradley > from CDC, utilized a novel molecular cloning approach to identify the > unknown organism.[41] In 1988, the virus was confirmed by Alter by > verifying its presence in a panel of NANBH specimens. In April of 1989, > the discovery of the virus, re-named hepatitis C virus (HCV), was > published in two articles in the journal Science. [42][43] > > Chiron filed for several patents on the virus and its diagnosis.[44] A > competing patent application by the CDC was dropped in 1990 after Chiron > paid $1.9 million to the CDC and $337,500 to Bradley. In 1994 Bradley > sued Chiron, seeking to invalidate the patent, have himself included as > a co-inventor, and receive damages and royalty income. He dropped the > suit in 1998 after losing before an appeals court.[45][46]" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C > > ] > > LOL. Just yesterday I was clashing with a rabbinically bearded > > astrophysicist about biodiversity. There has been a long standing contraversy over proprietories of the Icelandic health database; http://www.archives.is/index.php?node=174 They have information that could help in the fields of genetics, medicine, and population studies but how do you compensate for personal information? |