3 ms·

> du Chatelet redid Newton’s equations using Liebniz’s formulation of calculus. Newton did not use equations in his book, it was all done geometrically and wit

by nyc111 7y ago

> du Chatelet redid Newton’s equations using Liebniz’s formulation of calculus. Newton did not use equations in his book, it was all done geometrically and with proportions.

acqq 7y ago
> Newton did not use equations in his book Correct, in the sense that there's no explicit equality sign and the left and right side of the expression. There are expressions though (I see them e.g. in Book II). But what surely nobody would find there is calculus as we know it today, all explanations are indeed geometrical there. So rayner's claim "Newton used a geometric formulation of calculus" can be accepted (although the "calculus" was not explicit at all, but just a hidden "guiding line"), and even more that it was an immense work reinterpreting Newton's ideas to something easier to follow and prove (to those equipped with the knowledge of Leibniz's notation). From the article we comment: "du Châtelet took the idiosyncratic mathematical proofs relating to the laws of attraction that had been most scrutinized by Newton’s critics and recast his geometrical equations into integral calculus." Her "commentary" should surely be considered one of fundamental "On The Shoulders of Giants" set of texts. (Btw: it's "Leibniz" or "Leibnitz". The "ie" is a sure typo.) (One more warning, as if the other reactions weren't enough: the page on the site is structured so that when seen in Firefox reader view (at least in my case) one gets a totally different story! (the one from here: https://narratively.com/the-secret-revenge-of-an-assault-survivor/ https://narratively.com/the-secret-revenge-of-an-assault-sur... I haven't analyzed how that substitution happen). The story should be about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89milie_du_Ch%C3%A2telet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89milie_du_Ch%C3%A2telet )

by nyc111 7y ago

> du Chatelet redid Newton’s equations using Liebniz’s formulation of calculus. Newton did not use equations in his book, it was all done geometrically and with proportions.

acqq 7y ago

> Newton did not use equations in his book Correct, in the sense that there's no explicit equality sign and the left and right side of the expression. There are expressions though (I see them e.g. in Book II). But what surely nobody would find there is calculus as we know it today, all explanations are indeed geometrical there. So rayner's claim "Newton used a geometric formulation of calculus" can be accepted (although the "calculus" was not explicit at all, but just a hidden "guiding line"), and even more that it was an immense work reinterpreting Newton's ideas to something easier to follow and prove (to those equipped with the knowledge of Leibniz's notation). From the article we comment: "du Châtelet took the idiosyncratic mathematical proofs relating to the laws of attraction that had been most scrutinized by Newton’s critics and recast his geometrical equations into integral calculus." Her "commentary" should surely be considered one of fundamental "On The Shoulders of Giants" set of texts. (Btw: it's "Leibniz" or "Leibnitz". The "ie" is a sure typo.) (One more warning, as if the other reactions weren't enough: the page on the site is structured so that when seen in Firefox reader view (at least in my case) one gets a totally different story! (the one from here: https://narratively.com/the-secret-revenge-of-an-assault-survivor/ https://narratively.com/the-secret-revenge-of-an-assault-sur... I haven't analyzed how that substitution happen). The story should be about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89milie_du_Ch%C3%A2telet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89milie_du_Ch%C3%A2telet )