Timeline for In what ways did Leibniz's philosophy foresee modern mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2013 at 8:09 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 18, 2013 at 8:04 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 18, 2013 at 8:03 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 10, 2011 at 5:17 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 9, 2011 at 2:13 | answer | added | tomcuchta | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 21:38 | history | edited | Will Jagy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
after reopen
|
| Nov 8, 2011 at 21:27 | history | reopened |
Jacques Carette Dan Petersen Neil Strickland Joel David Hamkins Will Jagy |
||
| Nov 8, 2011 at 20:17 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | @Pete: Will do. see tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1204/… | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 19:49 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Jacques: unfortunately you started the thread as a "feature request", which has for some time been a singularly unfortunate category as we are not capable of implementing any changes on the current platform. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread whose primary focus is the issue of closure of this question? | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 19:39 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | I started tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1203/… on meta as a pre-emptive attempt to get this question to stay open, but apparently I have failed. Hopefully we can get more people interested in the philosophy of mathematics to re-open this. | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 19:30 | history | closed |
Simon Thomas Todd Trimble Alain Valette Andrés E. Caicedo Qiaochu Yuan |
not a real question | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 19:25 | comment | added | Jim Conant | I can't resist mentioning Neal Stephenson's series of novels "The Baroque Cycle," for an interesting take on both Newton and Leibniz. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 19:10 | answer | added | Charles Matthews | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 18:12 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | I see this question has 4 votes to 'close'. I really wish I could pre-emptively vote to "not close" this question! While this is meta-mathematical, shouldn't this also be of interest to research mathematicians? | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 16:21 | comment | added | user37691 | @Todd Trimble: I am trying to remember if it might had been related to logic, probability, computer science or even category theory. If I could have remembered anything concrete regarding either the philosophical ideas or parts of modern mathematics, I would have searched the Web instead of asking this question. I think it is likely that someone will see this question and reply with a few or even a half dozen points and maybe even an in depth explanation. The only problem I can think of regarding the question is that it wouldn't be easy to falsify. | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 14:53 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | @Daniel Geisler: Maybe you could say which readings of yours have led to this perception, or which of Leibniz's philosophical ideas you are referring to, or which parts of modern mathematics were foreseen in his philosophy. This question is way too vague as it stands. | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 14:36 | answer | added | Margaret Friedland | timeline score: 28 | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 14:34 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | For what its worth, Leibniz has an extensive Wikipedia entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 14:26 | comment | added | user37691 | François, I appreciate your concern about the subjectivity of the question. I believe that the question already deals with the issue in that I explain that this is a perception I have gained from reading. I actually have little insight on or opinion of Leibniz's work. Also I realize that the most appropriate framework for evaluating someone's work is in the context of their own life time. That is in part why I am fascinated with the idea that the significance of a mathematician is still being pondered and reassessed almost three hundred years after he died. | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 13:56 | comment | added | François Brunault | To be clearer, I think a less subjective question would be : In what ways did Leibniz's mathematics foresee modern aspects of mathematics ? | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 13:47 | comment | added | François Brunault | The statement that someone (even Leibniz) foresaw parts of modern mathematics is potentially controversial because of its subjectivity. I think most historians of mathematics now insist on the fact that the works by earlier mathematicians should also be studied from the point of view of that time, before extrapolating possible connections. | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 12:20 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | It's as with Nostradamus: the more vague your predictions are, the more can be read into them. | |
| Nov 8, 2011 at 8:23 | history | edited | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
tweaked one of the tags
|
| Nov 8, 2011 at 8:18 | history | asked | user37691 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |