/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8532406

How to steal from Leibniz and not get laid.

Do you think he knew what 2+2 equaled?

Given that Cauchy brought up the newer and correct definition of a limit, I consider him to have known nothing.

>>8532432
lol but look at this Broo
0/0 is whatever I want lmao
this is math

>>8532406
He knew the basics, but that's about it.
Many people around here will not like this, but remember that Newton was a physicist who did math; not the other way.
Newton discovered calculus as a tool to understand gravity and the laws of motion. This is why his Principia Mathematica are much more philosophical than a mathematics textbook.
Leibniz, on the other hand, developed a more developed system notation (yes, I know that Newton did too). His books on calculus are much more based on proofs, conjectures, and theorems.

If it had been a one on one duel about solving a derivative/integral, Leibniz would win.

>>8532517
>Newton was a physicist who did math
Wrong. He was an alchemist who did physics, who also did math.

>>8532406
Coming up with something in math is 1 billion times harder than learning it.

>Develops calculus independent from Leibniz, as well as the theory of gravity based on very little evidence and requiring the development of many new maths, allowing him to account for orbits, the behavior of the moon and of the tides
>What a fucking idiot he didn't even rigorously define limits like Cauchy over a hundred years later

You realize people had no concept of inertia before him? The idea that "objects tend to travel in a straight line" and "an object will keep going until acted on" was, at best, hinted at with Descartes. Newton brought clarity out of thousands of years of intuitionism.

>>8533755
Galileo had a good understanding of inertia before him

>>8533872
Yeah but Galileo didn't get hit on the head by an apple, okay?

>>8532406
>how much did he actually know?
How would you even quantify this in the first place?
How much calculus do you know, OP?

He probably knew a mix of some simple calculus and some difficult calculus.

Id go on a limb and say he may have known some very simple differential equations methods and some of the topics taught in a calc 1 course.

>>8532406

Newton is overrated.

>>8533908
>being that guy

>>8533872
You are semi right.
Galileo knew inertia the same way that popsci knows quantum mechanics.
They know the name, a couple of aanecdotes, and... that's all.
Galileo never framed his ideas in a mathematical structure (with the exception of the pendulum), much less with calculus.
As such, his work had limited applicability.
Galileo is best as a symbol of science, not as an actual discoverer.

>>8533658
he was trying to synthesize a gf from the philosophers stone

Less than my professors, more than a first grader

>>8532487
>this is math