Why are we talking abou history.
Why are we talking abou history.

c03n3nj0 said:
History isn't boring, in fact, it's my favorite class. |
hmm RPG fan?

| killeryoshis said: Why are we talking abou history. Are we that bored. |
Forum Rules under Substance:
"No posts specifically to to say that a poster or the thread sucks, either with words or pictures."

killeryoshis said:
hmm RPG fan?
|
Yes, although I haven't playe many RPGs... >_>
Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."
tarheel91 said:
No, not really. Only tiny bits and pieces of Calculus were developed before Newton. Most of it was pretty narrow in scope and had limited applicaiton. Newton and Leibniz created almost everything we use in Calculus today. I don't think you'd suggest that the person who got the first dot to recognize imput to move around the screen was the first creator of video games. That's only one tiny component of it all. By the way, I'm simply regurgitating what my physics teacher told me; she happens to have her Masters in applied mathematics and physics. |
Not the same thing.
Lets say I write a fictional book that mentions "There Space Man Jones met a Kalzarian once."
Then someone else wrote a spinoff about many the Kalzarians and created an elaborate backstory for them a history... made them more then a name.
Who "invented" the Kalzarians?
I did.

tarheel91 said:
Forum Rules under Substance: "No posts specifically to to say that a poster or the thread sucks, either with words or pictures." |
I didn't say it sucked i'm just wondering why we r talking about this. That won't be fair. Curiousity
can't get me in trouble.

Kasz216 said:
Not the same thing.
Then someone else wrote a spinoff about many the Kalzarians and created an elaborate backstory for them a history... made them more then a name. Who "invented" the Kalzarians? I did. |
However, Kalzarian is central to everything that guy made, and you came up with it. Again, the smalls parts of Calculus invented before 400 A.D. were pretty narrow in scope and not really core to anything. Sure, figuring out a way to find the area in a circle in a manner similar to the concept of integrals is cool, but that's hardly central to calculus as a whole. Important too is that Newton didn't build off their ideas. He invented calculus wholely on his own as a response to the limitations existing mathetmatics was placing on his experimenting in physics.

tarheel91 said:
However, Kalzarian is central to everything that guy made, and you came up with it. Again, the smalls parts of Calculus invented before 400 A.D. were pretty narrow in scope and not really core to anything. Sure, figuring out a way to find the area in a circle in a manner similar to the concept of integrals is cool, but that's hardly central to calculus as a whole. Important too is that Newton didn't build off their ideas. He invented calculus wholely on his own as a response to the limitations existing mathetmatics was placing on his experimenting in physics. |
I don't think it is important that newton didn't build off their ideas/
Afterall... another example. I find a coin from an ancient civilization.
Another guy later finds a city for said civilization not knowing i found the coin.
I still was the one that discovered that civilization.
Others long uncovered the first parts of Calculus before him. Which is another issue by the way. Calculus wasn't invented it was discovered. Like how atoms weren't invented by anyone... they were discovered.

Kasz216 said:
I don't think it is important that newton didn't build off their ideas/ Afterall... another example. I find a coin from an ancient civilization. Another guy later finds a city for said civilization not knowing i found the coin. I still was the one that discovered that civilization. Others long uncovered the first parts of Calculus before him. Which is another issue by the way. Calculus wasn't invented it was discovered. Like how atoms weren't invented by anyone... they were discovered.
|
I guess we define discovery/invention differently. I don't think you discovered that civilization. A coin is hardly a civilization and can't tell you much about it.
It's harder to say whether you invent or discover in math. The fact that you can go several paths to reach the same conclusion makes it more like inventing to me, but I see your point because the relationships are there, we just have to discover them. However, you can look at every invention like that. The potential for lightbults was always there, someone just had to discover that if you ran electrical current through a highly resistant piece of wire in a piece of glass, it emitted light in a usable manner.
@killeryoshi: Don't even try. You asked the question as if we shouldn't be, as if history was something not worth discussing (i.e. stupid). Then, you added to that by suggesting that history sucked so much you'd only discuss it if you were bored.
