[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 84 KB, 478x358, 1382760457000.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11853000 No.11853000 [Reply] [Original]

Who invented calculus?

>> No.11853007

>>11853000
Newton and Liebnitz probably.

>> No.11853013

>>11853000
einstein :^)

>> No.11853039

>>11853007
Newton couldn't do the math. We don't know the names of the others because Newton was an incel with no friends.

Newton was bad at math.

>> No.11853080

>>11853039

Yeah, no.

>> No.11853092

>>11853039
Newton notation for calculus is concentrated autism, and it's good evidence that he came up with it. Only a reclusive incel with no communication skills and who rejects any feedback would come up with something like it.

>> No.11853097

>>11853092
he abandoned calculus in his later life anyway to seek the "pure greek geometric method of analysis" which he thought was superior to the modern symbol pushing on some kind of mystical level lol. what an incel

>> No.11853105

>>11853000
I guess you meant "who discovered calculus".

>> No.11853121

>>11853105
no, he means who invented calculus because math is a tool to support the real sciences that people care about. mathers are nerds, chemists get all the hot babes

>> No.11853126

>>11853092
based and factpilled

>> No.11853310

>>11853092
based

>> No.11853330
File: 308 KB, 660x438, 61637975-6CAC-4190-AF6C-454A554B286C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11853330

>>11853000
The Asians

>> No.11853340

>inventing math

>> No.11853368

>>11853092
>and it's good evidence that he came up with it.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Newton was a fraud who paid others to complete the math.

>> No.11853398

>>11853000
Weierstrass, Cauchy, Bolzano, and Riemann all have good claims to discovering it.

>> No.11853449
File: 69 KB, 959x538, brain war.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11853449

>>11853039

>> No.11854650
File: 74 KB, 400x382, 1502064524501.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11854650

>>11853449
I already have the phenotype, not autist can stop me

>> No.11854662

Math isn’t invented, it’s discovered, while newton is credited with “discovering” calculus he was only rediscovering for Europeans what had been known to the Egyptian and Nubian kingdoms millennia ago

>> No.11854681

>>11854662
Cope. Math is only useful and true when it's been put into rigorous statements. Founders of real analysis like this >>11853398 anon said have more of a claim to discovering it than Newton or some ancient civilization dicking around with cuneiform.

>> No.11855053

>>11853000
it was me

>> No.11855220

Bronze age greeks.

>> No.11855240

>>11853000
Liebniz notation is the best.

>> No.11855522

me

>> No.11856987

>>11853000
* discovered

>> No.11857023

>>11853121
>no, he means who invented calculus because math is a tool to support the real sciences that people care about.

Calculus existed before humans figured it out, humans just eventually found it.

I've never understood why humans think we invented everything, and that everything revolves around us and everything belongs to us. We're the only species on this planet who acts like this.

The natural laws of the universe (like calculus) always existed, humans just got lucky and eventually realized it was there.

>> No.11857094

>>11853105
More like "introduced." Chances are the discovery portion was done by some unknown(most likely Kerala's school of astronomy/math from India) vendor from which both Newton/Liebnitz sourced from.

>random indian school
Aka the famous school founded by the famous Madhava, one of the greatest mathematicians of India at the time.

>> No.11857114

>>11857094
Also the fact that Trig was largely discovered/invented in India as well by another Indian mathematician, Aryabata. Some math history might mention this guy's contribution.

>> No.11857250

>>11853330
source?

>> No.11859271

>>11854662
>>11854681

These two posts simultaneously get a lot wrong and a lot right. So, let's parse the content of the two and correct each. The former post will be labeled A, and the latter B, for convenience.

A correctly states that math is discovered, and not invented. This is to A's credit.
Unfortunately, A then incorrectly states that Newton "merely" re-discovered knowledge which he attributes to the ancients, which they did not in fact posess. Euclidian and Archemedian approximation by method of exhaustion, although a step in the right direction, was never carried through to its limit-point, to give precise answers for the area question. And no, don't bother bringing up volume formulae for pyramids and cones, notwithstanding that Euclid XII.10 is one of the more pertinent and impressive results on this head, actually giving a precise and correct relationship. Thus we proceed to B.
B begins with a generally agreeable statement. A science with any claims to exactness must provide exact answers on what it claims to treat. If it can't do so, then it fails at its purpose and is therefore void. Still, B makes a wrongheaded rhetorical choice by placing Newton/Leibniz around the same territory as our we wuz Nubians et al. No, B, Newton and Leibniz provided correct results despite lack of rigor. And no, this defense does not contradict the above similar point about the ancients, because Newton and Leibniz provided demonstrations which were later renovated by 19th century gang and put on more solid ground. To underline, THEY MANAGED TO PROVIDE EXACT AND CORRECT ANSWERS DESPITE GAPS IN RIGOR. Because they had the requisite insight. This is the reason why they are properly and jointly credited.

I am happy to have put right these confusions.

>> No.11859289

>>11853097
>to seek the "pure greek geometric method of analysis"
He had a point. An Englishman would much rather use a Greek method than a French one.

But jokes aside, Descartes' analytic geometry was rather insipid to people who actually cared about geometry. Which is how a few centuries later you get autists like Jakob Steiner who focused exclusively on synthetic geometry at the expense of all else.

>> No.11859299

>>11853000
>Who invented calculus?
Unironically Eudoxus, even before Archimedes.

>>11857023
>The natural laws of the universe (like calculus) always existed
So far as we we know, the universe may very well not be continuous. Calculus is all about offering decent approximations, it's not about figuring out how Nature really works.

>> No.11859317

>>11859271
>Euclidian and Archemedian approximation by method of exhaustion, although a step in the right direction, was never carried through to its limit-point, to give precise answers for the area question.
What are you talking about? Archimedes knew that pi starts with 3.14, which is the basic approximation we use even today. His method of exhaustion offers an algorithm to calculate even more digits of pi, to any degree of precision you want. Sure, his algorithm was rudimentary but even if nowadays we can calculate thousands of digits of pi in a second using a computer, nobody can offer "precise" answers (as you put it) to the area question because pi is irrational so good luck finding out all of its digits.

>> No.11859320

>>11853000
I did!