Priority

[flexibeast]

New research has found that a group of scholars in south-west India identified infinite series centuries before Leibniz and Newton. Infinite series are an important component of calculus, the discovery (from the mathematical Platonist perspective) or invention of which was the subject of much controversy in the 17th century. Isaac Newton claimed that he discovered it first under the name 'fluxions'; Gottfried Leibniz, who called it 'calculus', begged to differ. The dispute developed nationalist overtones, with some people supporting either Leibniz or Newton based not on the evidence but on their own national sympathies. Eventually the Royal Society of London established an inquiry into the matter, and produced a report in which it declared Newton should be given priority. This conclusion was no surprise, however, given that Newton himself wrote the committee report. :-P Wikipedia has an article describing the details of the sorry saga. It was a fairly ugly affair in the history of science, and stands in stark contrast to the story of what happened when Alfred Russel Wallace¹ and Charles Darwin independently developed the theory of evolution by natural selection: in an act of grace that is characteristic of Darwin, he agreed to Wallace's essay on the matter being presented to the Linnean Society of London with a rider noting Darwin's priority.

---

1. Wallace's other main claim to fame was his discovery of the Wallace line in South-East Asia.
 

Comments

[happyevilslosh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that that's quite correct. From what I understand Newton's method of fluxions had no tie ins with infinite series, the reason that Leibniz' notation was superior, as Newton's also involved ending up/starting with indeterminite expressions of the form 0/0.

Also since Newton came up with calculus several years before Leibniz I see no reason he shouldn't be given credit. Having said that Leibniz gets credit for doing it in a way that makes sense. :P

in a similar vein did you know Pythagoras' theorem was common knowledge at the time of Pythagoras and had in fact been used for the preceeding two hundred or so years?

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Newton's method of fluxions had no tie ins with infinite series, the reason that Leibniz' notation was superior, as Newton's also involved ending up/starting with indeterminite expressions of the form 0/0.

*nod* Good point - hence Berkeley's withering comment about ghosts of departed quantities. :-) Thanks for the catch. :-)

Also since Newton came up with calculus several years before Leibniz I see no reason he shouldn't be given credit. Having said that Leibniz gets credit for doing it in a way that makes sense. :P

Indeed; and then, too, there's the question of the extent to which we should honour someone who hoarded knowledge instead of sharing it with peers . . . .

in a similar vein did you know Pythagoras' theorem was common knowledge at the time of Pythagoras and had in fact been used for the preceeding two hundred or so years?

i didn't, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. :-)

[happyevilslosh.livejournal.com]

Indeed; and then, too, there's the question of the extent to which we should honour someone who hoarded knowledge instead of sharing it with peers . . . .

There is also the argument of publish or perish. *shrug*

[surreal-angela.livejournal.com]

From what I understand Newton's method of fluxions had no tie ins with infinite series, the reason that Leibniz' notation was superior, as Newton's also involved ending up/starting with indeterminite expressions of the form 0/0.

The theory of fluxions itself had no tie in with infinite series, but Newton did 'develop' it at much the same time as a tool for his fluxions theory, and it was all written up together in the one paper. (I'm reading his biography for uni at the moment).

[happyevilslosh.livejournal.com]

Ah interesting. I was not aware of that. Cheers. :)

[surreal-angela.livejournal.com]

No worries!! :-)