Calculus was invented by Isaac Newton
another llm win
>>16916154No it wasn't.
>>16916160Yes it was, did you not read the OP?
>>16916154Leibniz did it better.
Calculus was discovered.Much like the Americas.
newton <- wallis, descartes, barrow, fluxionsleibniz <- huygens, cavalieri, barrow, notationscommonalities, archimedes, kepler/cavalieri, fermatit's easy for people to ignore history, but really it doesn't matter
reinvented
>>16916154You misspelled Fermat
>>16916154it was actually "invented" by Weierstrass, Newton and Leibniz merely discovered it.
What does calculus look like in binary?
>>16916224Weierstrass completely mangled it beyond recognition, what are you smoking? Calculus was already solved by Lagrange. He built it from the ground up as an extension of algebra with no mention of limits, differentials or the infinitely big or small. The losers at the time objected because of muh pathological functions and convergence issues, but all of that was a nothing burger because the algebra of jets puts it on rigorous footing. Weierstrass and to some degree Cauchy set the math and physics community back 200 years with that epsilon delta mumbo jumbo that requires the most crazy leaps of logic mankind has ever seen. I repeat, all of physics can be handled rigorously with formal power series (Lagrange) and the theory of Jets.Ironically, Cauchy who was critical of Lagrange's conclusions, single-handedly built complex function theory that absolutely vindicated Lagrange since every thing he wrote held perfectly in the complex domain. Even better, potential theory contains the principle of least action which was the starting point of Lagrange (Mécanique Analytique) and from which he extracted the math/algebra. Dunno if people realized it, but we spent the last 200-300 years circling back to Lagrange. That 2-3 century detour due to the math formalists was a damn crime.
Whose notation do we use?
>>16916154apparently, ancient egypt had something integration-like, computing the volume of a pyramid. there's a papyrus with "scribe training exercises" including that from around 1850 bc. i think it indicates it was copied from something much older
>>16916224Trvth nvke
>>16916417LOL. What a completely retarded take. There's no hope for /sci/ There's more intelligent life in the swamps of Florida
>>16916388kinda funny how much ancient greeks and egyptians invented cool math shit but the romans couldn't invent anything
>>16916417By the time Weierstrass came with the epsilon delta formalism, Euler, the Bernoullis, Lagrange, Laplace, etc. solved all of math and physics. You’re a cretin of the highest order.
>>16916486those midwits couldn't even solve the 3 body problem
>>16916493There is no general solution. You have a 18x10 system, it's underdetermined. A-are you ok sir?
>>16916213>it's easy for people to ignore history,You mean like what you have done?
>>16916474>romansi sure don't know, wasn't there. but they seem to excel at putting stuff to use. it seems everybody owes a lot to egypt, everybody's inventions appeared after visiting alexandria. could be copypasta. especially the hydraulic shit, pumps, screws, ruina montium. we'll never know
>>16916474they invented living in people's heads rent free
>>16916523midwit spotted
>>16916245>that requires the most crazy leaps of logic mankind has ever seen.It's not that bad.> all of physicsThere's lots of stuff where intuition goes to shit though, scattering theory is pretty hopeless from a series expansion pov.> complex function theory that absolutely vindicated Lagrange since every thing he wrote held perfectly in the complex domainabsolutely nailed that one though, hard agree.
>>16916523Similar statements were made in search for the cubic formula.
>>16916638I think what that anon meant was "we do not have a general solution" not "there will never be a general solution"
>>16916638Eh.. that's exactly why the n-body problem can't be solved: Symmetries. The reason the cubic has a solution is because it belongs to [math]S_{3}[/math]. Likewise for physics, the reason you can find the trajectory of a ball thrown from the surface of the earth at any angle is because the system has 4 symmetries (and 3 degrees of freedom). If you had less than 3 symmetries, you couldn't solve it. That's what happens with the 3-body problem. You get 18 degrees of freedom but only 10 symmetries.
>>16916715I'm not that anon, just reading threads on /sci/, and wanted to say thank you for this explanation, this was very intuitive for me to understand the relationship between freedom and symmetry. It's kind of a profoundly interesting relationship actually. Again, thank you for exposing me to it.
>>16916790It's profoundly misinformed is what it is.Number of symmetries vs number of degrees of freedom has nothing to do with it.
>>16916797You don't know physics (or math for that matter)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrable_system>In mathematics, integrability is a property of certain dynamical systems. While there are several distinct formal definitions, informally speaking, an integrable system is a dynamical system with sufficiently many conserved quantities, or first integrals, that its motion is confined to a submanifold of much smaller dimensionality than that of its phase space.Symmetry == conserved quantity (Noether's theorem). Dimension of submanifold (n) <= dimension of phase space (2n) - number of symmetries (n). This is what it means to be integrable/superintegrable.If you scroll down it tells you in plain english what this means for a system to be exactly solvable.>In physics, completely integrable systems, especially in the infinite-dimensional setting, are often referred to as exactly solvable models.Anything else you want to contribute?
>>16916200And like the Americas, Newton raped and murdered the natives of Calculus
