Timeline for Was the early calculus inconsistent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2014 at 11:57 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | ... this question (response to @Ben) | |
| Apr 2, 2013 at 10:09 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
provided modern translation of claimed inconsistency
|
| Mar 23, 2013 at 20:11 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @Ben Brown: As you point out (with sources), the received historical scholarship views the early calculus as inconsistent. There is an opposing minority view, including the article by Vickers. A sought to formulate my question in a balanced way as I don't happen to believe that I have a monopoly on historical truth. The question led to a fruitful discussion as evidenced by the 7 answers given. The issue of (in)consistency of the early calculus is merely the tip of the iceberg; many other issues were raised at... | |
| Mar 22, 2013 at 17:02 | comment | added | Ben Braun | I have mixed feelings about this entire thread. On the one hand, I am now aware of various papers written by katz et al. I have previously read a lot of Dunham, Grabiner, etc, and it is good to see a counterpoint to their position. However, I feel that the question was posed by katz merely as an excuse to give the above answer (with a personal citation). katz's previously closed post supports this. I find this frustrating, and it dampens my interest in katz's papers. If this is the case, I hope katz will take a different approach in the future. If not, I'll be glad to hear otherwise. | |
| Mar 22, 2013 at 9:04 | history | answered | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |