Literally one of the most based people who walked on this planet and you still haven't read (about) him.
>>23619087Any good resources you recommend for reading up on this guy that isn't a highschool text book?
>>23619103William Harper, George Smith, Howard Stein
>>23619103depends what level you want to go to>beginnernewton's notebook by joel levy. introduction to newton and his ideas in two page chunks>intermediatenever at rest by richard westfall. classic biography of newton that covers not only his science but also his more oddball shit like alchemy. but it is a bit dated, need to read it together with more up to date sources>advancedthe motherfucking principia. all three volumes. in the original latin
>>23619087He stole everything from Leibniz btw nand Leibniz had the better notion of relativity of space and time before his classical Newtonian idea gained popularity
>>23619183Howard Stein is amazing
>>23619103Isaac Newton by James Gleick. You can read it in an afternoon.
>>23619273Lmao even if this was true, he stole from leibniz changed the notation to serve his purpose and developed a mathematical framework for mechanics using his new notation, that is still a work of genius. I think you need a lesson in physics 101 before spouting bullshit about things you don't understand.
>>23619273If you cannot distinguish between relativism and relationism, then please don't write anything about Newton. Or kill yourself.
>>23619275He's universally based.
Taking advantage of the thread to ask for alike recommendations on the very based man on pic related.>>23619216>WestfallHis biography on Newton seems really great and authoritative. Thanks a lot for that.
>>23619273>2000+24>newton vs leibniz debate is still going on
What gets me is how losers on the internet will defend this dead man by telling other anons to kill themselves. It's bizarre. Like he's a religious icon or something or worthy of being immortalized because he laid the foundations of modern physics.
>>23619585lol, forgot pic...... not posting who it is out of shame of being associated with a retard like me :(
>>23619629Nobody gives a fuck. You're not that important. Just post the pic.
>>23619632
>>23619273Maybe in philosophy they're close but mathematically there's just no comparison between Leibnitz and Newton. Everything Newton touched he advanced. Leibnitz is primarily known for his notation, and for articulating some quasi-mathematical ideas that later mathematicians would develop into their own theories (e.g. in non-standard analysis, maybe topology at a stretch). Newton solved all the great open problems of his day. Even if he had stolen calculus from Leibnitz (he didn't; the key ideas were in the air for a while) only Newton realized the degree to which it could be leveraged, and it's Newton's work Euler and the other great mathematicians of the next century built on, not Leibnitz's.
>>23619273I don't know why leibniz fags think that scifags refuting their claims about newton stealing, makes leibniz less of a genius. They were both remarkable minds in their own right but had vastly different motivations. Two men with such profound minds existing at the same time with relative proximity to each other in both interest and geography is nothing short of a miracle, that's what we should be celebrating not these petty juvenile debates.
>>23619684But Euler and others elaborated Leibniz's algebraic understanding of analysis, not Newton's geometric understanding of it. Also Leibniz's work is the source of many of the ideas that would later crystallize as the Erlanger Programm. Leibniz was definitely a conceptual revolutionary in many respects. In philosophy, mathematics and beyond.
>>23619713It's not like newton never had the same understanding, he was just motivated by something else. Leibniz tried tricking newton once if you recall and newton also developed the clearly agebraic taylor series to calculate pi more precisely. These vs debates are retarded because they don't achieve anything other than show a difference in interests rather than ability.
>>23619087He lied about gravity. There is no such thing.
>>23619713When I think of Euler I think first of all of his incredible work with power series, a tool of course due to Newton. True, his perspective is algebraic, but that's something he inherited from the Bernoullis, not Leibnitz;. Or take Euler's work on variational problems, where he's explicitly expanding on Newton. Honestly I'm not sure how you get from Leibnitz to Erlanger, could you say more about that? As far as I know Newton was, practically, a much stronger geometer than Leibnitz. I can point to e.g. classification of curves or employing coordinate geometry. As usual Leibnitz produced some very suggestive-sounding ideas and did a good job organizing existing knowledge and terminology in geometry, but where are the tools? where are the theorems?
>>23619762Wasn't Leibniz the pioneer of the algebraic approach, though?Regarding the Erlanger Programm: Leibniz was a pioneer of symmetry arguments. He famously employed them, e.g. in his debate with Clarke. His points about the unreality of space and time are also based on similar considerations. Identity of indiscernibles is nothing but a symmetry principle.To be clear: I am not defending the claim that Leibniz was a better mathematician than Newton, only that he was a very different ("conceptual" is perhaps the appropriate word) in his approach and therefore it's hard to compare their contributions. Many of Leibniz's ideas only took off after ~200 years.
>>23619338I read that one and Loren Eisley's, fwiw
>>23619103
>>23620133Absolutely based. To supplement his reading I suggest he read pic rel after
