Content deleted Content added
Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 90:
:: Newton and Leibnitz `screwed around' with this, and I doubt they could be called `clumsy'. Berkeley was a crap philosopher I agree. He had very strange beliefs especially where science was concerned. In particular he believed that science should be concerned purely with observing and cataloguing the world, and that under no circumstances should any attempt be made to explain it. For this reason he hated the success of Newton who was very good at explanations. He also thought that science was 'getting uppity' and trampling on the toes of religion. His article "The Analyst" was nothing short of a full blooded attack on mathematics and science. He found one weak point in the calculus and exploited it for all he was worth. Much as I dislike the motivations and philosophy of the man, the weakness he pointed out was real enough, although in my opinion the retreat to formalism which it caused was an overreaction.
[[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]
::: Thanks for the info. It is interesting. I wouldn't call them clumsy at all. Btw, it's nice to see that we agree on many things. (Regarding Berk and the reaction.)-[[User:Kevin_baas|kb]]
* You might be right about the explanation of differentiation. I felt that something needed to be said - a one sentence brief description of some sort. But it is really hard to write a good one. If you can write a better one - go for it.
Line 97 ⟶ 99:
:: What do you think is missing. [[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]
::: A decent-size section which explicitly shows the relationship. Something akin to my "proofs" you were refering to earlier. You asked what from the old should be added back in...
:::Also, the first two formulas that aren't indented, that's been distracting. I don't know what it is exactly, maybe it's just indenting, maybe putting the discriptions before, maybe I just don't like seeing formulas so small being so prominent.
:::Very minor; I don't care, really: I'm not used to the dot. Is it really better to have it, or to omit it? I think it's clearer without, but that's probably because I'm more acquanted with it's abscence. But then again, that's because it usually is absent. If, by itself, it's affect is purely a conditioned effect, then I would argue that it's omission is more clear, simply because it's one less symbol. -[[User:Kevin_baas|kb]]
| |||