Favorite Scientists

[BruceH]

Gotta have Richard Feynman in there.

Strongly recommend his autobio, Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!...

I like Richard Feynman quite a bit, if not for anything else then the Feynman integral. A couple of great bios on him is Genius (Pantheon) and The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford). Gleick's 'Genius' is easier to read then Mehra's 'Drum,' which goes into the physics and math in more detail.

I recall the Gleick book to be a very good read.

No love for Niels?

Bohr was obviously a great physicist and great interpreter of abstract results, but in my view not quite a revolutionary in the field. He definitely makes the short list (most Nobel winners do, I suppose), but not, IMO, the REAL short list.

You say you want a revolution? (Ary?)

[BruceH]

Of course, Darwin's always right up there. Ya gotta love Darwin. Unless you're a religious fundamentalist kook.

[BruceH]

James Clerk Maxwell.

Max Planck.

[J Larsen]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

Edited May 25, 2007 by J Larsen

[J Larsen]

James Clerk Maxwell.

Max Planck.

Yep, they have to be in the mix. Maxwell really paved the way to all the field theory that came after him, and Planck was arguably the first to conceive of the principles behind modern (by which I mean non-classical) physics.

[Brownian Motion]

Anyone watch "The Ascent of Man"?

[AndrewHill]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.'

Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work.

Food for thought.

[AndrewHill]

Gotta have Richard Feynman in there.

Strongly recommend his autobio, Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!...

I like Richard Feynman quite a bit, if not for anything else then the Feynman integral. A couple of great bios on him is Genius (Pantheon) and The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford). Gleick's 'Genius' is easier to read then Mehra's 'Drum,' which goes into the physics and math in more detail.

I recall the Gleick book to be a very good read.

No love for Niels?

I think I read it in a matter of days. I just couldn't put it down.

Some love for Bohr. He changed Rutherford's model of the atom, which altered our understanding of atoms at the time.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Holy Ghost

[J Larsen]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.'

Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work.

Food for thought.

It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself).

The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed.

I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors.

[connoisseur series500]

Anyone watch "The Ascent of Man"?

I liked the show so much, I bought the book...and read it!

[AndrewHill]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.'

Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work.

Food for thought.

It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself).

The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed.

I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors.

Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took.

edited for spelling.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Holy Ghost

[porcy62]

What about this guy? Though not my favorite one, I bet that at Pentagon they still miss him.

[J Larsen]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.'

Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work.

Food for thought.

It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself).

The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed.

I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors.

Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took.

edited for spelling.

Got to run to make the Rivers show, but a couple quick points:

Liebniz published the foundations of calculus about 10 years before Newton.

The RAS, of which Newton was the most influential member at the time, was very obviously biased against Liebniz.

Limits and multi-variance are neither mutually exclusive nor related, nor are they defining features of calculus. Newton built up calculus from the principle of flux, whereas Liebniz used a loose form of differentials, which was not made rigorous until Cauchy came along a couple hundred years ago and defined differentials in terms of limits (in addition to doing some other seriously important work, esp w/ regards to extending the notion of calculus to complex numbers). Limits appeared in neither Newton nor Liebniz's work, and as such neither formulation was really rigorous by the standards of modern mathematics.

I suppose part of this debate comes down to your definition of stealing when it comes to intellectual property. Newton certainly went to great length to ensure that Liebniz was not allowed his share of the credit, which to me is stealing in this context.

Edited May 25, 2007 by J Larsen

[GregK]

My favorite scientist is ME.

[Chuck Nessa]

My favorite scientist is ME.

We be doomed!

[AndrewHill]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.'

Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work.

Food for thought.

It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself).

The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed.

I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors.

Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took.

edited for spelling.

Got to run to make the Rivers show, but a couple quick points:

Liebniz published the foundations of calculus about 10 years before Newton.

The RAS, of which Newton was the most influential member at the time, was very obviously biased against Liebniz.

Limits and multi-variance are neither mutually exclusive nor related, nor are they defining features of calculus. Newton built up calculus from the principle of flux, whereas Liebniz used a loose form of differentials, which was not made rigorous until Cauchy came along a couple hundred years ago and defined differentials in terms of limits (in addition to doing some other seriously important work, esp w/ regards to extending the notion of calculus to complex numbers). Limits appeared in neither Newton nor Liebniz's work, and as such neither formulation was really rigorous by the standards of modern mathematics.

I suppose part of this debate comes down to your definition of stealing when it comes to intellectual property. Newton certainly went to great length to ensure that Liebniz was not allowed his share of the credit, which to me is stealing in this context.

Point one: no, they arrived at their respective findings nearly 10 years apart. Newton arrived at his findings somewhere between 1665-66 whereas Leibniz arrived at his findings around 1673-6. Leibniz published his dissertation first in 1684-6, whereas Newton published in 1687.

point two: that may be true; he also held the chair of philosophy at Cambridge at the time and his influence may have been felt through and through in the Academy.

Point three: just citing examples to show that there was some difference in the direction of their work. Yes Newton worked more with the finite and with a fluxational calculus but he also dealt with limits. I can cite where that is stated if necessary. Yes, Leibniz dealt more with the infinite.

Point four: I can't verify if Newton was the one who barred Leibniz credit. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that the Academy awarded co-credit for their work, and in that regard, they share that intellectual property. I don't recall reading anywhere that Newton 'stole' from Leibniz, but I can cite several instances where Leibniz was accused of plagerizing Newton's work, which we all know now is just nonsense.

[Chuck Nessa]

Yet no person denies the discoveries of Herman Blount and Don Herbert.

[Dan Gould]

I can't believe no one's cited this guy:

You think Newton could have kept that radio working all those years?

[Kalo]

I can't believe no one's cited this guy:

You think Newton could have kept that radio working all those years?

Not so hard being the smartest guy on that island.

[J Larsen]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.'

Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work.

Food for thought.

It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself).

The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed.

I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors.

Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took.

edited for spelling.

Got to run to make the Rivers show, but a couple quick points:

Liebniz published the foundations of calculus about 10 years before Newton.

The RAS, of which Newton was the most influential member at the time, was very obviously biased against Liebniz.

Limits and multi-variance are neither mutually exclusive nor related, nor are they defining features of calculus. Newton built up calculus from the principle of flux, whereas Liebniz used a loose form of differentials, which was not made rigorous until Cauchy came along a couple hundred years ago and defined differentials in terms of limits (in addition to doing some other seriously important work, esp w/ regards to extending the notion of calculus to complex numbers). Limits appeared in neither Newton nor Liebniz's work, and as such neither formulation was really rigorous by the standards of modern mathematics.

I suppose part of this debate comes down to your definition of stealing when it comes to intellectual property. Newton certainly went to great length to ensure that Liebniz was not allowed his share of the credit, which to me is stealing in this context.

Point one: no, they arrived at their respective findings nearly 10 years apart. Newton arrived at his findings somewhere between 1665-66 whereas Leibniz arrived at his findings around 1673-6. Leibniz published his dissertation first in 1684-6, whereas Newton published in 1687.

point two: that may be true; he also held the chair of philosophy at Cambridge at the time and his influence may have been felt through and through in the Academy.

Point three: just citing examples to show that there was some difference in the direction of their work. Yes Newton worked more with the finite and with a fluxational calculus but he also dealt with limits. I can cite where that is stated if necessary. Yes, Leibniz dealt more with the infinite.

Point four: I can't verify if Newton was the one who barred Leibniz credit. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that the Academy awarded co-credit for their work, and in that regard, they share that intellectual property. I don't recall reading anywhere that Newton 'stole' from Leibniz, but I can cite several instances where Leibniz was accused of plagerizing Newton's work, which we all know now is just nonsense.

This is getting beyond silly, but I think your dates are off on Newton (I don't think he published the full theory until the turn of the 18th century).

You are absolutely wrong about limits. Neither Liebniz nor Newton used limits in developing calculus (they were both dead nearly a hundred years before they were rigourously defined by Wasserstein). Liebniz and Newton used the concept of infinitesimally small positive quantities, but this is NOT a limit and, in the absence of the concept of a limit, is not a mathematically rigorous concept. An analogy would be that inifintesimals in the 17th century were on about as firm of ground as dirac delta functions are today - ie they aren't. That doesn't mean people don't use them or that they aren't useful, but the theory to support them isn't there.

It is not difficult to verify that Newton was behind (or at minimum materially supportive) of efforts to discredit Liebniz and brand him a plagerist - which resonates with his alleged campaign against Hooke (and Flamsteed, who helped with the Principia, for that matter).

This kind of shit really followed Newton around. Neither Newton nor Leibniz was dumb, but they aren't making my favorites list.

Finally, let it be known that Newton's notation completely sucked.

Edited May 26, 2007 by J Larsen

[AndrewHill]

How can you people ignore Isaac Newton? I mean, that fig thing alone was pure genius...

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing...

I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler).

There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.'

Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work.

Food for thought.

It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself).

The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed.

I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors.

Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took.

edited for spelling.

Got to run to make the Rivers show, but a couple quick points:

Liebniz published the foundations of calculus about 10 years before Newton.

The RAS, of which Newton was the most influential member at the time, was very obviously biased against Liebniz.

Limits and multi-variance are neither mutually exclusive nor related, nor are they defining features of calculus. Newton built up calculus from the principle of flux, whereas Liebniz used a loose form of differentials, which was not made rigorous until Cauchy came along a couple hundred years ago and defined differentials in terms of limits (in addition to doing some other seriously important work, esp w/ regards to extending the notion of calculus to complex numbers). Limits appeared in neither Newton nor Liebniz's work, and as such neither formulation was really rigorous by the standards of modern mathematics.

I suppose part of this debate comes down to your definition of stealing when it comes to intellectual property. Newton certainly went to great length to ensure that Liebniz was not allowed his share of the credit, which to me is stealing in this context.

Point one: no, they arrived at their respective findings nearly 10 years apart. Newton arrived at his findings somewhere between 1665-66 whereas Leibniz arrived at his findings around 1673-6. Leibniz published his dissertation first in 1684-6, whereas Newton published in 1687.

point two: that may be true; he also held the chair of philosophy at Cambridge at the time and his influence may have been felt through and through in the Academy.

Point three: just citing examples to show that there was some difference in the direction of their work. Yes Newton worked more with the finite and with a fluxational calculus but he also dealt with limits. I can cite where that is stated if necessary. Yes, Leibniz dealt more with the infinite.

Point four: I can't verify if Newton was the one who barred Leibniz credit. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that the Academy awarded co-credit for their work, and in that regard, they share that intellectual property. I don't recall reading anywhere that Newton 'stole' from Leibniz, but I can cite several instances where Leibniz was accused of plagerizing Newton's work, which we all know now is just nonsense.

This is getting beyond silly, but I think your dates are off on Newton (I don't think he published the full theory until the turn of the 18th century).

You are absolutely wrong about limits. Neither Liebniz nor Newton used limits in developing calculus (they were both dead nearly a hundred years before they were rigourously defined by Wasserstein). Liebniz and Newton used the concept of infinitesimally small positive quantities, but this is NOT a limit and, in the absence of the concept of a limit, is not a mathematically rigorous concept. An analogy would be that inifintesimals in the 17th century were on about as firm of ground as dirac delta functions are today - ie they aren't. That doesn't mean people don't use them or that they aren't useful, but the theory to support them isn't there.

It is not difficult to verify that Newton was behind (or at minimum materially supportive) of efforts to discredit Liebniz and brand him a plagerist - which resonates with his alleged campaign against Hooke (and Flamsteed, who helped with the Principia, for that matter).

This kind of shit really followed Newton around. Neither Newton nor Leibniz was dumb, but they aren't making my favorites list.

Finally, let it be known that Newton's notation completely sucked.

You're right, it is getting silly. But I will agree that yes, Newton's notation was beyond rediculous. Leibniz's notations are very user-friendly. But I'm going to have to say that I admire Leibniz very much, not only as a mathematician but as a philosopher as well. Ok. That's it.

[Epithet]

What you guys need is a calculus ratiocinator.

[J Larsen]

Ha!

BTW, last word on this: I once heard a theory that Leibniz modeled the elongated S integral symbol on the cut-out of a Stradivari violin he had seen. Kind of cool theory, whether or not it is true (or even has substantial basis).

[AndrewHill]

Ha!

BTW, last word on this: I once heard a theory that Leibniz modeled the elongated S integral symbol on the cut-out of a Stradivari violin he had seen. Kind of cool theory, whether or not it is true (or even has substantial basis).

Funny enough, my old calculus textbook has a picture of one half of a violin on the cover (the James Stewart 4th edition).

[BruceH]

What about this guy? Though not my favorite one, I bet that at Pentagon they still miss him.

You mean Teller? What a dick.