Hacker News Reader

It's too bad Newton wasn't as succinct.

There is another post in response to this comment containing four full paragraphs explaining why Newton wasn't succinct, but the post is now marked as dead. If anyone familiar with the Leibniz vs Newton history wants to turn showdead on in their HN settings and read the post, I'd appreciate commentary on its accuracy and origins (and, perhaps, an explanation of why it was killed).

I'll taks a stab at guessing the killing: parent^2 was being facetious and a lengty serious answer was not considered appropriate. I am mostly guessing though, and I don't think it should have been killed.

Based on my reading of Jim Gleick's biography Isaac Newton and my background as a theoretical physicist, I believe your comment is essentially accurate. In particular, Newton's desire to connect calculus with Euclidean geometry is certainly correct. As you note, the Principia eschews calculus in favor of geometric arguments: Newton used calculus for his private calculations and then translated the results into more conventional geometry to meet his audience's expectations. I'm not sure about the religious aspect, but Newton was privately a heretic (he believed in a unitary god—an awkward belief for a professor at Trinity College), so he definitely knew how to placate the religious authorities. Finally, the Leibniz anecdote is new to me, but it sounds plausible.

In any case, I don't think your comment should have been killed.

I believe your comment is essentially accurate.

I can't take credit for the comment. It was posted by HN user korch. I only wanted to know if it was correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com