The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » calc_reform

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Pascal and Uhl
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Mark Bridger

Posts: 22
Registered: 12/6/04
Pascal and Uhl
Posted: Jan 2, 2002 9:01 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (1.0 K)

Both Blaise and Jerry are, of course, absolutely correct, and Bill's derivation is, as I said, very clever and elegant (though what *are* its implications for calculus, reformed or otherwise?). I was simply replying to the claim that the quadrature didn't involve either infinitesimals or limits.

It is not clear what future there is in a project which would attempt to do large parts of calculus without mentioning the word limit. (I am not implying that Bill advocates such a project.) That one can do small parts may be true, but to what end? Calculus is generally about limits.

Newton himself, in the Principia, seems to have had a crisis of nerve, and tried to present geometric instead of "fluxion" (calculus) arguments. This resulted in a basically unreadable treatise; furthermore, few people know or even care that he did this, and rightfully so.


Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online at Yahoo! Greetings.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.