Leibniz Integral Rule: Pupularised by Feynman and now called Feynman's trick. Also it is my unerstanding/opinion that Leibniz had a much greater and deeper understanding of the calculus techniques than Newton had. And hence his techniques were and are much more comprehensible than Newton's flux theories.IMHO Newton derived on some techniques he needed for his planetary calculations. Leibniz was doing math "inventions". On a large scale the same, but on technique level a lot more refined.
I really hate it when people, especially physicists and mathematicians, don't give Leibniz the credit he deserves for inventing calculas, and only give it to Newton. Although we have nearly conclusive evidence that both scientists have invented calculas independently, most of the form used now is attributed to Leibniz not Newton.
Newton is inarguably the true founder of calculus and Leibniz, while contributing lots in this field, merely implemented the broundbreaking ideas that Newton had sent to him in a letter called Epistola Prior years before Leibniz "discovered" calculus. In that letter, Newton lays out literally all the core aspects of calculus -- the concept of infinite series and how they can be used to compute areas under curves, the "method of fluxions" which dealt with rate of change of quantities, and his work on the inverse problem of tangents, which is equivalent to integration in Calculus. Leibniz did great things in bringing these ideas to paper (as did Newton independently) but for him to take credit for these insanely original and intelligent ideas is simply fraud.
Calculus was developed in India and while both Leibniz and Newton gave it form and used it in different ways. Leibniz calculus was better formed and so Newton stole the credit as was common in England. Newton is not the father of calculus and he also stole the laws of motion from India.
Leibniz visited England and had many pieces of information that he likely based calculus on, come on, you really think 2 people by coincidence discovered the same thing within just a few years of each other, that no one else came up with in thousands of years of human mathematics? It's just like when the Wright Brother's wing designs got stolen or when some of Tesla's inventions were stolen, there are only some rare cases of the same invention or technique being done at the same time, but because we have a backwards peer review system that prioritizes who published first, Leibniz got credit for it, recently some notes have been discovered that directly show how Leibniz used Newton's work to create his version of calculus
Today we use the elegant and compact notation of Leibniz, which does not reference any of Newton's convoluted fluxion derivations. I guess being head of the Royal Society has its perks.
Team Leibnitz all the way. Newton had the power to erase his contributions from history and has allegedly done this before. So I'm siding with the underdog.
Leibniz did something much worse to Newton: With his Monadology, he objected Newton's axiom "actio = reactio". He said there is no reactio. For example, if something moves, it does so because this was imprinted in it, as a "prestabilized harmony". Leibniz did have a point, and his monadologic view is legit because it is free of any inconsistencies, but in the end we will have to concede 50% of being right to each of them.
Newton's work wasn't published because the Royal Society blew all their money on a book reviewing the history of fish. He got it published from a donor many years later.
There ought not be any "controversy" here. LEIBNIZ invented calculus and differential equations as we know them today, and as they are taught today, including the notations we use. The Newton crowd should get used to it.
Whilst I think this is a great video and gets a lot of the fundamentals across. I think theres a key thing that needs to be discussed here. Newtons 'Principia' actually did not have any calculus in it and actually was very sparse in methodology (perhaps mirroring the ancient Greek way of keeping one's method to himself- we know he read the likes of Pappus and Euclid so this could be a reason as to why he didnt publish much of his earlier work until much later.) Leibniz's work was published "first" but at this point Leibniz and Newton had conversed via letter about calculus (see Newton's coded message to Leibniz) which is the true origin of the priority dispute. [you can see the stuff about Newton and the Greeks in Guicciardini's work in 'the Oxford Handbook of the history of mathematics'. Note this is not to dispute Newton's importance to calculus, I'm just very pro both of them being credited lol
Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). It is imperative to consider why and how it is that there is something instead of nothing ON BALANCE. WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Consider INSTANTaneity. Excellent. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Leibniz gets my respect more now, He done stuff in electronics which I like, developed more or less the language for electronics (binary) has a brand of biscuits for himself, and played a role in calculus. Totally underrated.
Barrow, Fermat, Descartes, Cavalieri, Barrow and others had laid the foundations of calculus in the generation before Newton and Leibniz. Neither should be called the father of calculus. Building this branch of mathematics was the collaborative effort of many people over many hyears.
This conflict were just a battle of prestige of England and HRE, their pride because of Principia and scientists and mathematicians were tools for their "prestige"
Without exception, the calculus that all students learn in schools is Leibniz’s calculus. That makes Leibniz the world’s calculus teacher. I have never seen Newton’s fluxion in any textbooks. In England they teach Leibniz’s calculus in schools.
Would there have been a controversy at all if Newton had not gone so far out of his way to defame Leibniz? Aren't mathematicians generally much more willing than Newton was to acknowledge the contributions of others? Also: after Newton had stopped smearing Leibniz (because he [Newton] died), Voltaire ridiculed him with the character Dr Pangloss in his novel Candide. Candide is a great little book, but it becomes somewhat less funny when you read Leibniz. I suspect that Voltaire's image of Leibniz was mostly second-hand. It's difficult for me to believe that Voltaire would not have been greatly impressed if he had actually read a great deal of Leibniz' work. Newton, and then Voltaire: quite a devastating (and THOROUGHLY unfair) one-two punch to Leibniz' reputation.
Well it’s Leibniz calculus that is more taught. The centuries have certainly recovered his reputation. However let’s not forget the man’s own words: “Taking mathematics from the beginning of the world to the time when Newton lived, what he had done was much the better half.” - Leibniz
I support Newton. He is the best physicist and mathematician. But I am a little biased since I was born on the same day as newton and developed my mathematics during the other well-known virus, CORONAVIRUS.
This is just dead wrong. Leibniz stole the core idea of Newton, and while he made significant contributions, implementing the groundbreaking ideas of Newton and calling it his own is in fact fraud in my opinion. Look at the contents of Epistola Prior that Newton sent to Leibniz in the 1660s before Leibniz did calculus, it literally lays out the core idea of calculus.
When there is peace coupled with abundant crop yields due to abnormally temperate growing seasons... it is like Star Trek's post scarcity future. If the Romans were not at the peak of their colonialism they would have not killed Archimedes. He would have been allowed to formalize Calculus. It would be a much different world than it is now.
What a typical Yankee myopic point of view. The British were not behind Europe after Newton the truth is that Newton's laws were to difficult for Europeans to understand Southey junked them and used Galileo instead. I am sorry but I cannot substantiate anything you have said and you have even neglected to mention the sole point of their controversy, that being the differentiation of time. Do you know what time is ? Ask anyone lol. Afternote. What is confusing you is tha Newton's 3 laws were also too difficult for Cambridge and had to be taught elsewhere . HP take note.
LOL @ Guy in this video: "Hey! I have the most horrible microphone ever, and don't even realize it, plus I am just reading stuff I don't care about! That's why I'm just going to read this lame script into this lame microphone and put it on RU-vid."
@dafuqawew It's not like 2010 was a time when microphones were mostly all bad. Maybe you are thinking of 1910. If you want a good book for an intro and history, the best is probably: "Calculus the Easy Way". It's a paperback book.
@dafuqawew You misunderstand. The book I mentioned is very entertaining. Don't cancel books until you know what they contain. That book is jam-packed with entertainment value and fun visual.
Yes. Also, Leibniz was a much, much nicer person. If Newton had never attacked him, I don't think there ever would have been a calculus controversy. Leibniz found it easy to share credit and recognition. Newton found it impossible.
@@stevenbollinger9776 However a Man called Kaill attacked Leibniz and show Newton a Anounimus difamation writed by Leibniz, then Newton became so angry Because this.
Ancient India was the first inventor of calculus.........thehinduforum.com/index.php?threads/isaac-newton-%E2%80%93-the-calculus-thief-western-steal-from-vedic-india.2406/
