Talk:Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy

message: There is mention to "#5" in the section "The quarrel", however the list stops at #4. Was a fifth point of contention removed at some point? Does it need to be re-added, or does the section need to be edited to no longer address it?
B-Con (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The 5th point in "The quarrel"

message: People keep adding (me one of them) and removing the xkcd reference.  Please explain why it doesn't belong in the "In Popular Culture" section here so it doesn't keep getting added and removed. Freddicus (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: xkcd

message: 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?
It is so obvious that Liebniz discovered calculus. He is being surpressed by monoply men, because him, and Bernulli, knew besler, who invented a free energy wheel, which Liebniz wrote that it worked. 
SlickWillyLovesSex (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we know that Newton discovered it besides his word

message: Pls discuss at [[Talk:66.108.248.77 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
replies: text: Anything one imagines is real, if and only, if it is well-defined. So, the awareness of knowledge itself is derived from imagination, and if it must be imagined, then it follows it has always existed. Therefore, knowledge is discovered, never invented. As the saying goes: There is nothing new under the sun. From this one can logically infer that future inventions have always existed. It's just that we have not the time to imagine them all. 60.1.53.197 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented vs Discovered 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Isaac Barrow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References, please! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  new evidence is a hoax 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not only is it biased, it's no longer relevant. The first rigorous formulation of calculus appeared in 2002. 
60.1.47.118 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is incredibly biased 

message: I removed the statement: "If science worked then as it does now, Leibniz would be considered the sole inventor of the calculus since he published first." since
1. It is not true as for example in US in case of patent priority disputes who publishes first is not relevant the only thing that matters is who had the idea first and all evidence is taken into account.
2. Even if it were true it would be irrelevant to the article since science did not work then the way it does now.
3. The whole idea that publication date should decide on such matters is silly as there are many inventors who never publish and by that rule they could never claim any inventions.Enemyunknown (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Removed "If science worked then as it does now..." 

message: IT is so true. It is sited in many mathmatics sourcebooks. Newton was a fraud.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaveEtherSniffer (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Leibniz discovered calculus

message: In light of the "excoriating" and detailed review of Bardi's book in the latest AMS Notices (see ), it may be worth re-examining any of the article's information that was pulled from this text and it might be worth removing Bardi's book as a reference for this article.  Of note, the book review mentions this Wikipedia article (see the last page) and laments the fact that there is no distinguishing between the authoritative reference (Hall's book) versus the non-authoritative reference (Bardi's book). — Myasuda (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After checking the article history, I've removed all references to Bardi.  The sentence to which Bardi was referenced has been in place at the article's inception.  The references to Bardi were added by  on February 16, 2008 with no article content specific to Bardis book being added. If in-line cites are needed in this article, Blank's AMS Notices review (link provided above) provides an excellent overview of the controversy as well as a list of quality references.  — Myasuda (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of Bardi's The Calculus Wars 

message: At least some of this article appears to have been copied word-for-word from the entry 'Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz' in W. W. Rouse Ball's A Short Account of the History of Mathematics.  The first sentence, at least, is substantially plagiarized ('The last years of Leibniz's life, 1709–1716, were embittered by a long controversy with John Keill, Newton, and others, over whether Leibniz had discovered calculus independently of Newton, or whether he had merely invented another notation for ideas that were fundamentally Newton's') and subsequent fragments seem to have started out that way and been edited or augmented in the meantime ('The ideas of the infinitesimal calculus can be expressed either in the notation of fluxions or in that of differentials...'). Leftwinglocker (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a template. But the article needs a lot of work to remove the plagiarism entirely. Adpete (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is from 1908. One option might be to have a disclaimer such as used for the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica? Fotoguzzi (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portions of text copied from WW Rouse Ball 

message: Isn't there an undisputed(or at least well known and documented) case where Leibniz plagiarized Spinoza?  That seems to substantially undermine any assumption of good faith on Leibniz's part. 75.84.186.29 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoza 

message: Both Newton and Leibniz were wrong, so it does not really matter. The first rigorous formulation of calculus occurred in 2002. 
60.1.44.71 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It does not matter any more.