Timeline for Reference request: Dictionary of the Leibniz notation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S May 12, 2022 at 2:40 | history | bounty ended | Michael Hardy | ||
| S May 12, 2022 at 2:40 | history | notice removed | Michael Hardy | ||
| May 12, 2022 at 2:39 | vote | accept | Michael Hardy | ||
| May 7, 2022 at 6:41 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 2 | |
| S May 7, 2022 at 5:50 | history | bounty started | Michael Hardy | ||
| S May 7, 2022 at 5:50 | history | notice added | Michael Hardy | Draw attention | |
| May 2, 2021 at 17:28 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @EFinat-S : Maybe something I said above in comments can be made clearer: It is precisely the fact that there are such great differences as the one example that you cite that is the occasion for this question. | |
| S Apr 7, 2021 at 17:04 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Apr 7, 2021 at 17:04 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Mar 30, 2021 at 15:29 | history | bounty started | Michael Hardy | ||
| S Mar 30, 2021 at 15:29 | history | notice added | Michael Hardy | Draw attention | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 17:42 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @EFinat-S : As far as I know, I did. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 17:39 | comment | added | efs | "At any rate what I had in mind has more to do with what Leibniz and Robinson have in common". If you have that in mind, well, ask that. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 17:31 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @EFinat-S : "Abuse of notation" is a bit of jargon that mathematicians use too much. I wonder whether there are any "abuses of notation" that are not in fact good notation. They are called abuses only because codified formalisms do not countenance them. The possibility that those formalisms are less than the whole truth should be considered. At any rate what I had in mind has more to do with what Leibniz and Robinson have in common. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 17:24 | comment | added | efs | My intention was not to offend you. Also, I'm not a native speaker of english, so it is sometimes difficult to make me understand. Perhaps its the phrase "gets used" what does not seems clear (at least to me): historically? formally? simply as an "abuse" of notation? | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 17:19 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @EFinat-S : Well, you've managed to surprise me at least. That there are great differences among those something I had to be acutely aware of in order to think of asking this question. And if I were to specify something like either the original usage of Leibniz or the formalization by Robinson, etc., then nothing would be left of the question at all. It's as if you had told someone who's driving to a destination that it's possible to run the car's engine without going anywhere, so why not do that instead? | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 15:09 | comment | added | efs | At least for me, the question is not clear since there is a distinction between, for example: the original notation used by Leibniz; the formalization of this notation (Robinson et al.); the derived notations inspired by the concept of differential in other branches, etc. Perhaps you could be more specific in what aspects are you interested about this. | |
| Aug 10, 2020 at 0:11 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @CarloBeenakker : Do you have any guesses as to what someone might find unclear about this? | |
| Aug 9, 2020 at 20:08 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 28, 2020 at 3:02 | |||||
| Aug 9, 2020 at 19:51 | comment | added | LSpice | It's also clearly not research level (although lots of also clearly-not-research-level historical questions do well on MO anyway). | |
| Aug 9, 2020 at 19:46 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | from what I read on MSE it was closed as not being clear enough --- I'm not sure that asking the same question here will be helpful. | |
| Aug 9, 2020 at 19:38 | history | asked | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |