Difference between revisions of "Talk:1153: Proof"
(Created page with "Integral calculus will solve the paradox only on the assumption that space is continuous. If space is discrete, solution lies in probability nature of quantum mechanics. The a...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Integral calculus will solve the paradox only on the assumption that space is continuous. If space is discrete, solution lies in probability nature of quantum mechanics. The arrow paradox, meanwhile, is based on incorrect assumption: uniform motion is normal and selfsustainable and doesn't need to be explained (as proved by Newton). Also note that mentioning Leibniz without mentioning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Newton Newton] might have some significance, as both are claiming to develop integral calculus. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | Integral calculus will solve the paradox only on the assumption that space is continuous. If space is discrete, solution lies in probability nature of quantum mechanics. The arrow paradox, meanwhile, is based on incorrect assumption: uniform motion is normal and selfsustainable and doesn't need to be explained (as proved by Newton). Also note that mentioning Leibniz without mentioning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Newton Newton] might have some significance, as both are claiming to develop integral calculus. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | Actually Newton discovered (devised the mathematical method of) fluxions which is similar, but not as elegant, as calculus. He got miffed (and the British science establishment on his behalf) that Calculus was a rip-off. Newton did not publicise his fluxions as he firstly thought that they were a 'fix' that having found a solution needed to be shown by Euclidean Geometry. Secondly it have him an analytical edge over his contemporaries that he did not want to give up. Interestingly it can be shown that Pythagoras used an integration technique to calculate his formulas for the circle and sphere families, but worked it out the hard way! --[[Special:Contributions/90.197.0.66|90.197.0.66]] 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2012
Integral calculus will solve the paradox only on the assumption that space is continuous. If space is discrete, solution lies in probability nature of quantum mechanics. The arrow paradox, meanwhile, is based on incorrect assumption: uniform motion is normal and selfsustainable and doesn't need to be explained (as proved by Newton). Also note that mentioning Leibniz without mentioning Newton might have some significance, as both are claiming to develop integral calculus. -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Actually Newton discovered (devised the mathematical method of) fluxions which is similar, but not as elegant, as calculus. He got miffed (and the British science establishment on his behalf) that Calculus was a rip-off. Newton did not publicise his fluxions as he firstly thought that they were a 'fix' that having found a solution needed to be shown by Euclidean Geometry. Secondly it have him an analytical edge over his contemporaries that he did not want to give up. Interestingly it can be shown that Pythagoras used an integration technique to calculate his formulas for the circle and sphere families, but worked it out the hard way! --90.197.0.66 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
