Talk:Leibniz and Newton calculus controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[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?

[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)