I invented calculus!

jokes on you i dropped out of high school

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbut it is

Did Newton support the Whig party?

if it's made up shit then how come leibniz discovered the same exact thing at the same moment while being thousands of miles away ?

Go to bed Leibniz.

The core of calculus is the invention of the mathematical function, and the representation of said function as a graph, in particular as a way of modeling a physical process.

This way of thinking is a massive paradigm shift. What Newton or Leibniz did was merely expand on that and create a writing system for it. But the true inventor of calculus is Nicole Oresme.

>Ajahn Sucitto explains the first part of this passage as follows: {{In The Discourse That Sets Turning the Wheel of Truth, the Buddha’s teachings were set rolling and produced a great light. It’s a light that is said to have radiated through the ten-thousandfold world system: from the twenty brahma realms of the highest divinities all the way down through the eight hells. Even down there, according to the accounts, it was a great moment too. In those places of utter gloom, there was an illumination by which the poor wretches could see that there were other beings in the same predicament. By the standards of those places, this was a burst of light. For a moment, some sense of not being alone in the mess lessened the intensity of it. Others have been here, and are here, now. It’s good to remember this. This light has this broad focus and also is long lasting. It continues to shine today. Once again, if we translate cosmological events into events in consciousness, the light that we’ve seen glowing throughout the discourse is the light of wisdom.[13]}}
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta

The sun, too, shines into cesspools and is not polluted.

Diogenes

>I found a way to find the slope at any point on a graph of a function, and the area beneath the graph as well.

Something like that probably.

Mathematics is just an expression of reality, there is nothing intrinsic or real about numbers, they are just nicely attributed to substantive phenomena that we perceive.

Math's is not discovered, it's contrived, I know it's easy to get hypnotised by it's elegance and coherency but that doesn't make it "real" in the same way heat or mass or electricity is real.

Newton would agree with this.

Ancient greeks used a form of calculus to get to an approximate measure of pi

Thanks for the tip m8 I love medieval science. But I'm not sure Newton and Leibniz merely >expand on and create a writing system for this Oresme, or that they even new about him. All my sources say they invented something completely new. I'll have to check it out.

Math is not an expression of reality. Math is an expression of our collective human understanding of reality. Our model of reality and our math is tied together these days but it wasn't always the case.

And confusing our model and the math as property of reality is a basic error in cognition.

>there is nothing intrinsic or real about numbers
>Math's is not discovered, it's contrived

Yeah, totally. I drove 1000 miles with half a gallon of gas once because there's nothing intrinsic or real about numbers and I contrived a different math.

Oresme is generally considered the greatest scientific mind of the Middle Ages, I'm pretty sure Newton and Leibniz knew about him lol. Regardless they certainly knew about the concepts of mathematical functions which they built their work on.

Don't be obtuse. It's not real in the same sense that a physical phenomena is, it's a language we devised in order to describe those phenomena. It's real, just not in the same way.

>Its real, just not in the same way
Both are "real". One is physical, other is abstract.

Numbers and maths aren't the superficial culture specific symbols used to represent numbers and maths. The symbols refer to something. The thing they refer to is the thing that's real and discovered, not invented.

>Numbers and maths aren't the superficial culture specific symbols
It actually is. Not only is number and symbols cultural specific, the way we use our brain to symbolize numbers and calculate differs from culture to culture. Its only due to multiculturalism in some countries of today's world does the system seem more "universal".

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022111406251

>a physical phenomena

The singular of phenomena is phenomenon.

what was it that made him the greatest scientist to date? His wizard powers? His faith in god? Why is he so special?

he was born into the upper class at a time when being a scientist was now acceptable and simply refined the ideas of past men from lower classes yet took credit for them all

math is not real, you can't touch numbers you can't feel division!

...

Read the paper you brainlet.

None of that paper argues there isn't an underlying reality of numbers and maths that different cultural symbols refer to. You can have different symbols and different approaches to calculating and still have an underlying reality of numbers and maths. The symbol "3" isn't the same as the number it refers to. The thing in common between 3 apples, 3 hours, and 3 volts exists and is not a symbol. No matter what symbols you want to use to refer to that thing in common between 3 apples, 3 hours, and 3 volts, you'll need to come to terms with that thing and handle it truthfully and correctly or else you'll end up with answers to your calculation attempts that no longer match reality.

Literally cultural relativism.

The paper argues otherwise.

One of the tribe literally has no clear distinction in numbers. There's the supposed "1, 2, and many" distinction. However when analyzed further, the tribes can't even distinguish between 1-2 in many cases. In another tribe, the number is whatever the tribal leader says, not "3 apple, 3 hour, and 3 volts" as you believe it to be.

That falls into the case of:

>handle it truthfully and correctly or else you'll end up with answers to your calculation attempts that no longer match reality

Just because some people or cultures aren't in touch with the reality of numbers and maths doesn't make that reality stop existing. A blind man not seeing a sunset doesn't disprove the sun.

Abstract objects aren't spatio-temporal objects though (If you don't believe me, please show me where exactly I can find Green's theorem). So how do we know they exist? Also, how do we know that mathematicians are correct when they state theorems concerning these abstract objects if they don't take up space or have a physical manifestation?

>how do we know they exist?

^This, seriously. Try to get 1000 miles out of half a gallon of gas. There's your evidence maths exist. It's not arbitrary. Your computer wouldn't let you communicate with us right now if it weren't for the reality of maths. You can't just slap together machinery or the code that runs on it with your own alternative maths and expect it to work the same as if you applied a correct understanding of actual maths.

Ultimately, our understanding of universe and understanding of existence/reality is at fault.

Conceptual things obviously exist, as we are disusing the very nature. However its placement in a purely spatio-temporal universe may be either impossible or the nature of conceptual things itself needs rework.

It is though.