Talk:Lagrange's formula

message: When I see Lagrange, I immediately associate that name with the great master Joseph Louis Lagrange. He died in 1813, about thirty years before Hamilton defined his "quaternion product", from which Gibbs extracted his "cross product" and "dot product". 
Paradox. However, I see in this article that some Lagrange paradoxically was dealing with the triple cross product and the squared magnitude of the cross product. If that Lagrange is the famous Joseph Louis Lagrange, he defined the triple cross product two generations earlier than the simple cross product was defined by Gibbs and one generation before Hamilton used it as a component of his quaternion product! 
Reference. I have searched "Vector Analysis", a book published in 1901 by Wilson (Gibbs's student). The entire book is available on line here. The triple product expansion is explained, but Wilson doesn't attribute it to Lagrange.
Questions.
* Was there some other Lagrange in the history of mathematics (I doubt it)? Or were both Hamilton and Gibbs just using a "product" or set of operations which was already known and studied by Joseph Louis Lagrange, one generation earlier? 
* If you live or work in a university campus, or you have old math textbooks, would you mind to check what is the oldest book which calls "Lagrange's formula" the triple product expansion, and see if the book explains why?
Please see the history section in the article about cross product, and the relevant discussion.
Paolo.dL 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did know about determinants, though.--Lionelbrits 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drats, I was thinking of the other triple product.--Lionelbrits 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How could Lagrange know the cross and dot product? 

message: * I proposed deletion of this article.
* Fresheneesz and Neparis both suggested redirection. 
* Silly rabbit supported deletion since he doubts this term is sufficiently widely used to deserve a separate article (see Talk:Cross product). 
* Salix alba removed my proposal of deletion, because he believes the problem is too complex to be decided that way.
I think the best compromise is to redirect. I did it. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot. Sorry i was being lazy. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: In trying to find some google references to the formula it seems there are a number of other thing which have been referred to by this name:
*Lagrange polynomial see Lagrange Formula
*Lagrange inversion theorem see 
Maybe a disambig page might be more suitable. --Salix alba (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree it should be a disambiguation page. In any case, the current redirect seems inappropriate, as the Lagrange interpolation formula appears to be a more common meaning. --Zundark (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. However, I suspect that the author of Lagrange formula may use "Lagrange formula" in lieu of the more common (polynomial interpolation in) "Lagrange form". I would not trust an internet page as a reliable source (even a book may contain mistakes...) I agree about the disambiguation page. Paolo.dL (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiple formula, disambig?