Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 3, 2018 at 9:39 comment added Jules Lamers @FrancoisZiegler Nice, and cool that this notation survived in e.g. our notation for square roots
May 2, 2018 at 14:38 comment added Francois Ziegler @JulesLamers Yes, it’s a vinculum.
May 2, 2018 at 11:54 comment added Jules Lamers Just to be absolutely sure: is the bar here used to group together symbols, just like we do with parentheses nowadays?
Sep 22, 2014 at 3:50 history edited Francois Ziegler CC BY-SA 3.0
added 518 characters in body
Sep 21, 2014 at 15:52 vote accept CommunityBot moved from User.Id=21349 by developer User.Id=322028
Sep 21, 2014 at 15:36 comment added user9072 @BenCrowell The mentioned source, with the error you asked about, gets dated between end of October and November 11th (both 1675). I do not know why you think this is that fuzzy. The end of Oct based on the fact that some notation is used already that was introduced then, and before November 11th due an error being present there (the one you ask about) that was recognized as such at least by Nov 11th. And, yes, AFAIU it is a draft. Anyway, the claimed error seems to be there as an error.
Sep 21, 2014 at 13:48 comment added user21349 KConrad's comment says that on Nov 11, 1675, "He asked himself if (uv)′=u′v′ and quickly dismissed it by the example you gave: u=v=x." Is that correct? Your answer makes it sound like the dates are all much fuzzier, perhaps by years, and we have no way of knowing whether it took Leibniz five minutes or a year to discard the hypothesis. Am I correct in understanding that this was all material from an unpublished personal notebook?
Sep 21, 2014 at 5:00 history edited Francois Ziegler CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 2 characters in body
Sep 21, 2014 at 4:38 history answered Francois Ziegler CC BY-SA 3.0