Timeline for Which edition of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica of Isaac Newton would you recommend to me?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 2018 at 20:24 | comment | added | lcv | @AsafKaragila Sure, I now understand (and agree with) your comment. In general I think reading classics is great, also for learning, as long as they share a large fraction of nowadays "notation" (intended in general sense). There are also many examples where the "classic" paper is much clearer than the modern wannabe exposition (an example is the adiabatic theorem in quantum mechanics). | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 20:13 | comment | added | user21349 | One big problem with the Principia is that it uses an impoverished set of mathematical tools. He didn't use algebra or calculus because his audience didn't know algebra or calculus. For example, that makes the proof of elliptical orbits extremely lengthy (dozens of pages IIRC), whereas a modern proof using freshman calculus can be a couple of pages. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 15:47 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @Timothy: Well, (1) it's a mathematics website, not a physics website; and (2) it's not the first time I see people online saying that they want to study mathematics from "the masters", and while it's true the OP did not say why they are searching for a copy, I would find it a bit odd to use that as a tool for learning English (I mean, it would be fine if your native tongue is Latin, I guess), I'm just using my experience to deduce this. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 15:44 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @AsafKaragila : What makes you think that gmorkk is trying to learn mathematics from the Principia? I interpreted gmorkk as saying that he's just learning English. Also the Principia contains a lot of physics, not just mathematics. | |
| S Mar 29, 2018 at 11:39 | history | suggested | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar corrections
|
| Mar 29, 2018 at 11:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 29, 2018 at 11:39 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2018 at 9:07 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @lcv: There's often this feeling—especially by amateur or beginning mathematicians—of "reading the masters". But mathematics is not philosophy. Nor it is physics. It is different from anything else. It's not new points of view vs. old ones, or ultimately personal opinions. In mathematics, it's the same material, chewed and regurgitated from modern points of view, in modern language. Reading "classics" should be done, but only after you have the knowledge from the modern point of view. For historical perspective. Not in order to learn from it. | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 9:01 | comment | added | lcv | @Asaf Can you elaborate why? | |
| Mar 29, 2018 at 5:27 | comment | added | Red Banana | It's not what you asked but is related (and interesting): Arnold's Newton's principia read 300 years later | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 23:49 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | I would recommend you skip it entirely. | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 19:41 | answer | added | Stopple | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 18:52 | answer | added | Robert Bryant | timeline score: 23 | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 17:56 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 28, 2018 at 23:08 | |||||
| Mar 28, 2018 at 17:31 | answer | added | Piotr Hajlasz | timeline score: 11 | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 17:26 | answer | added | roy smith | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 17:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 28, 2018 at 17:37 | |||||
| Mar 28, 2018 at 17:09 | history | asked | Davide | CC BY-SA 3.0 |