Timeline for Did Euler prove theorems by example?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 at 11:06 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Mar 20 at 10:56 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 434 characters in body
|
| Mar 20 at 1:50 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Apr 25, 2017 at 16:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 25, 2017 at 21:01 | |||||
| Nov 3, 2016 at 14:56 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 61 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2016 at 13:33 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 129 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Oct 20, 2016 at 16:58 | vote | accept | Mikhail Katz | ||
| Jun 28, 2016 at 13:13 | answer | added | Amir Asghari | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 21, 2016 at 8:40 | answer | added | Henk Koppelaar | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 8:20 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 293 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2016 at 7:45 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @MikhailKatz I understand, and retract my comment on subjectiveness of the edited material. I personally still think that the question is lengthy and not very readable, though, but that may just be my bias. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 6:50 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @FedericoPoloni, what is the "subjective material" you mentioned? I mostly quoted authors, following a request by fellow editors here. If the quoted authors are being subjective, this is not my fault. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 6:49 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | ...Similar remarks apply to looking for modern notions of convergence in Euler. He dealt with infinite objects like the binomial expansion of $(1+\epsilon)^N$ where $N$ is an infinite number, while realizing perfectly well the difference between this and finite binomial expansions. | |
| Jun 19, 2016 at 6:49 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @FranzLemmermeyer, I appreciate your parenthetical remark "like everybody else at the time", and would even extend it further in time; Gauss for example did not have set-theoretic foundations, and yet nobody would make a comment about his foundations being "dreadfully weak" as Gray did about Euler. The procedures in Eulerian calculus can be sound even without a set-theoretic justification thereof. This is a point we made in detail in our recent study of Euler. Faulting Euler for lack of modern foundations comes at a high price in anachronism... | |
| Jun 18, 2016 at 18:54 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 18, 2016 at 13:51 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | -1 after the edits which make the question 2x longer without making it clearer and add lots of subjective material that seems out of place inside a question. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 13:11 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | @Mikhail: Jeremy Gray doesn't write an article about Euler if he has an attitude of general disdain for his work. I have the highest respect for Euler's work and still agree that he didn't have much of a foundation for his calculus (like everybody else at the time). I also cannot see what is wrong with Ferraro's remark: a distinction of finite sums and series requires the notion of convergence, which Euler did not formally define. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 9:03 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 291 characters in body
|
| Jun 17, 2016 at 8:19 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | OK @eins6180 I added another one. Does that convince you? | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 8:18 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 855 characters in body
|
| Jun 17, 2016 at 8:10 | comment | added | eins6180 | @MikhailKatz: What about one convincing example for a start? | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 7:59 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 268 characters in body
|
| Jun 17, 2016 at 7:19 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @FranzLemmermeyer, let me know how many examples you want. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 22:04 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I mean, it's been a long time since I did my History A-Levels, but if I had tried a sentence like "It seems to me that this passage from Fraser is symptomatic of an attitude of general disdain for the great masters of the past. Such an attitude unfortunately is found among a number of received historians" I'm pretty sure I'd have lost marks in my essay, for failing to give details or context of my source evaluations | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 22:03 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I echo @FranzLemmermeyer's comment. Have you actually asked some historians of mathematics? (It's a bit outside Jeremy Gray's chronological and subject-specific expertise but it would be worth asking him.) | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 20:00 | answer | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | timeline score: 30 | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 19:42 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | "Such an attitude unfortunately is found among a number of received historians." I don't see you presenting any evidence for this. | |
| S Jun 16, 2016 at 19:24 | history | suggested | Bakuriu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed "italics quotations" to actual quote-blocks
|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 19:11 | comment | added | Xantix | "Le parole di Fraser colgono un aspetto poco indagato della matematica dell'illuminismo" could be translated as "Fraser's words capture an aspect of Mathematics during the Enlightenment which has not been deeply studied" ... so, I wouldn't say from this sentence that Ferraro endorses the position, just reporting its existence during the 1650's - 1800's. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 19:01 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 16, 2016 at 19:24 | |||||
| Jun 16, 2016 at 15:46 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 15:33 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 52 characters in body
|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 13:40 | answer | added | Willie Wong | timeline score: 38 | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 12:45 | history | asked | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |