Wolfire Games Forums

h2ostra wrote:No, you will be subjected to the annoyingness of my choices.

...Or I will just be ignored altogether...

Ow, fuck, my eyes!

RobLikesBrunch wrote: "If you would know shit about calculus, you would know that" there is significant evidence that the two developed calculus independently with Leibnitz starting with integration and Newtown starting with derivation. Then, of course, you may know that the two are tied together via the FTC.

"Today the consensus is that Leibnitz and Newton independently invented and described the calculus in Europe in the 17th century." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibnitz_a ... ontroversy

Sorry, did you just quote wikipedia as a reliable source in an argument about historical accuracy of primary sources? How far gone are you?
To illustrate that you should not trust wikipedia on such things here is the article on calculus in the German wikipedia. Care to search for Newton's name in there? He is not mentioned once, Leibnitz's is of course. Which further shows the fact that the Germans are pushing their own researcher Leibnitz, despite him playing only a significant role by stealing Newtons results. In only a few decades time Newton's contribution will be utterly forgotten, if it goes on like this.

Ragdollmaster wrote:ITT Renegade_Turner proves once again to be awesome while Assaultman67 flounders around on the floor entangled in his e-pen0r. Tokage and RobLikesBrunch prove to be awesome in varying degrees. But Tokage, you basically said, "You are wrong. Your method is wrong. Newton."

Ragdollmaster, who made you the judge here? Kids should stay out of adults' discussions, that they apparently don't understand. I never said "your method is wrong". Apparantly, the method used (logical calculus) is sound and complete. No surprise here, Leibnitz stole it from Newton after all.


Also, 2 pages in one night? Wow, I should stop sleeping

tokage wrote:

RobLikesBrunch wrote: "If you would know shit about calculus, you would know that" there is significant evidence that the two developed calculus independently with Leibnitz starting with integration and Newtown starting with derivation. Then, of course, you may know that the two are tied together via the FTC.

"Today the consensus is that Leibnitz and Newton independently invented and described the calculus in Europe in the 17th century." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibnitz_a ... ontroversy

Sorry, did you just quote wikipedia as a reliable source in an argument about historical accuracy of primary sources? How far gone are you?
To illustrate that you should not trust wikipedia on such things here is the article on calculus in the German wikipedia. Care to search for Newton's name in there? He is not mentioned once, Leibnitz's is of course. Which further shows the fact that the Germans are pushing their own researcher Leibnitz, despite him playing only a significant role by stealing Newtons results. In only a few decades time Newton's contribution will be utterly forgotten, if it goes on like this.

Ragdollmaster wrote:ITT Renegade_Turner proves once again to be awesome while Assaultman67 flounders around on the floor entangled in his e-pen0r. Tokage and RobLikesBrunch prove to be awesome in varying degrees. But Tokage, you basically said, "You are wrong. Your method is wrong. Newton."

Ragdollmaster, who made you the judge here? Kids should stay out of adults' discussions, that they apparently don't understand. I never said "your method is wrong". Apparantly, the method used (logical calculus) is sound and complete. No surprise here, Leibnitz stole it from Newton after all.


Also, 2 pages in one night? Wow, I should stop sleeping

Just Google Newton vs. Leibniz for god's sake and you'll get the same answer. Even on oh-my-god so reliable .edu pages (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1375.htm "They accused Leibniz of plagiarism, a charge that falls apart when you trace the details."). Wikipedia is plenty reliable and I'm simply not willing to argue with someone who resorts to the classic PSH YOU'RE QUOTING WIKIPEDIA WHICH IS, LIKE, UNRELIABLE AND OBVIOUSLY CAN'T BE USED TO PROVE ME WRONG...BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, I'M, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, MORE RELIABLE.

Wikipedia says so, numerous other sites say so, my Harvard calculus teacher who attended MIT says so...and if you had even read the Wikipedia article, you'd realize that it cites quotes from several books. Let's see. Trust you, or trust Harvard preceptor + mathematics textbooks (even my calc book confirms this (Stewart's))+ .edu websites. Tough choice, isn't it?

Further more, about that "we'll forget about Newton" bullshit. Controversy results in increased significance--so the very fact that there exists some discrepancy results in the direct mention of the two individuals involved in the controversy. Many great mathematical who weren't subject to controversy are forgotten (even ones that are more recent...no one who isn't a math major knows who Betrand Russel is or Wittgenstein despite their major roles in the field)--so the very fact that we still hear about Leibniz and Newton suggests the direct opposite of your claims. And outside of their mathematical discoveries, Leibniz still lives in his Philosophy and Newton remains the father of Physics. So to even mention that Newton is going to be "forgotten in the next few decades" is just fucking ridiculous.

RobLikesBrunch wrote: Just Google Newton vs. Leibnitz for god's sake and you'll get the same answer. Even on oh-my-god so reliable .edu pages.Wikipedia is plenty reliable and I'm simply not willing to argue with someone who resorts to the classic PSH YOU'RE QUOTING WIKIPEDIA WHICH IS, LIKE, UNRELIABLE AND OBVIOUSLY CAN'T BE USED TO PROVE ME WRONG...BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, I'M, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, MORE RELIABLE.

Wikipedia says so, numerous other sites say so, my Harvard calculus teacher who attended MIT says so...and frankly, I trust the latter over you.

Wow, resorting to strawman arguments, twisting what the other person said, implying that I shouted like crazy and reference of a higher authority, that has no substantial proof, because I can't verify if you are really in Harvard or not. You must be seriously cornered to resort to such methods. Also quoting miles and miles of text just to hide that the own argument is just of miniscule substance is kind of ridiculous, too.

My first point wasn't "wikipedia is unreliable", I said wikipedia only compiles secondary sources into an encyclopedic entry. My claim before that was, that the primary sources (German history books) were tampered with to boost Leibnitz in comparison to Newton, so the secondary sources, on which wikipedia relies, already had to compromise and give both credit effectively rewriting history.

I then went on to show that Germans still favor Leibnitz over Newton by showing that Newton wasn't even mentioned in the German article, to enforce my claim that the Germans have a considerable interest in making their own researchers more important than Newton. You could call it a conspiracy, but actually it isn't really a conspiracy, but just normal rivalry between countries in the 17th and 18th century up until now.

Edit: Just to note, he edited the post after I quoted so there is the discrepancy.

tokage wrote:

RobLikesBrunch wrote: Just Google Newton vs. Leibnitz for god's sake and you'll get the same answer. Even on oh-my-god so reliable .edu pages.Wikipedia is plenty reliable and I'm simply not willing to argue with someone who resorts to the classic PSH YOU'RE QUOTING WIKIPEDIA WHICH IS, LIKE, UNRELIABLE AND OBVIOUSLY CAN'T BE USED TO PROVE ME WRONG...BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, I'M, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, MORE RELIABLE.

Wikipedia says so, numerous other sites say so, my Harvard calculus teacher who attended MIT says so...and frankly, I trust the latter over you.

Wow, resorting to strawman arguments, twisting what the other person said, implying that I shouted like crazy and reference of a higher authority, that has no substantial proof, because I can't verify if you are really in Harvard or not. You must be seriously cornered to resort to such methods. Also quoting miles and miles of text just to hide that the own argument is just of miniscule substance is kind of ridiculous, too.

My first point wasn't "wikipedia is unreliable", I said wikipedia only compiles secondary sources into an encyclopedic entry. My claim before that was, that the primary sources (German history books) were tampered with to boost Leibnitz in comparison to Newton, so the secondary sources, on which wikipedia relies, already had to compromise and give both credit effectively rewriting history.

I then went on to show that Germans still favor Leibnitz over Newton by showing that Newton wasn't even mentioned in the German article, to enforce my claim that the Germans have a considerable interest in making their own researchers more important than Newton. You could call it a conspiracy, but actually it isn't really a conspiracy, but just normal rivalry between countries in the 17th and 18th century up until now.

Edit: Just to note, he edited the post after I quoted so there is the discrepancy.

I searched everywhere in your previous entry for "Wikipedia only compiles secondary sources into an encyclopedic entry" but couldn't find it. I then searched for that mention of "primary sources" but all I found was this:

"Sorry, did you just quote wikipedia as a reliable source in an argument about historical accuracy of primary sources? How far gone are you?
To illustrate that you should not trust wikipedia on such things here is the article on calculus in the German wikipedia. "

I think this shows that you're arguing that somehow you were citing a primary source--SOMEHOW--and then were saying I'm an idiot for using Wikipedia as an example of how what you said was erroneous (which was apparently a primary source)....and then you presume that the lack of Newton's mention on Wikipedia means that German history books were edited in such a way that they favor Leibniz?

WHAT?

You also completely circumvented the original issue--I just proved you were incorrect in your claims, and you chose to banter on about Germany favoring Leibniz?

h2ostra wrote:No, you will be subjected to the annoyingness of my choices.

...Or I will just be ignored altogether...

Damn, that really is fucking annoying yellow.

We have to arrange a mathoff to solve this debate! (aw shit son!)

First question!

Using Laplace transformations, solve:
x''+x'+x=1, x'(0)=x(0)=0
Show your work!

You can't argue in the internet, especially about intelligence.

nutcracker wrote:You can't argue in the internet, especially about intelligence.

You're arguing that you can't argue about intelligence, which is arguing about intelligence.

RobLikesBrunch wrote:

nutcracker wrote:You can't argue in the internet, especially about intelligence.

You're arguing that you can't argue about intelligence, which is arguing about intelligence.

Man, be precise. In fact, he is arguing about arguing on the internet.
You really should consider reading the posts of others more carefully.

I'll show you what I mean. A quote from my first post in this thread

tokage wrote:[...] Leibnitz just plagiarized Newton's results and in an effort of Germany to get back at England got away with it in German history books. And now he is even credited for it by people like you.

Here I state, that Leibnitz is held by you as the 'father of calculus' despite the fact that Newton invented it first. And I also explain why it comes to this. Namely, German historians preferred that a German invented it and wrote that into history books.

Then you come back into the argument with a wikipedia quotation. To which I replied

tokage wrote: Sorry, did you just quote wikipedia as a reliable source in an argument about historical accuracy of primary sources? How far gone are you?

I assumed you know how the wikipedia works, they rely on "respectable" secondary sources to back up their entries, because primary sources are no indication of the truth of the matter (anyone could write a primary source) and basically everyone can edit the wikipedia. Now this kind of works to prevent simple hoaxes, but is no defense against a whole country of primary and secondary sources, Germany trying to get advantage of England during the trade and intellectual property wars of the time of the industrial revolution.
In summary, your wikipedia quotation didn't refute my point. It just illustrated, that historians had to compromise on the two claims stemming from contradictory primary sources.
I am sorry, I assumed you would know this. You tried hard in your previous posts to give you an air of intellectuality. Glad you admit, that it was just for show.

My second point actually included that the wikipedia itself is unreliable. You really should admit that though, even wikipedia does(here, second paragraph). But that wasn't the actual point, it mainly illustrated that even now Germans swipe Newton under the table in favor of Leibnitz.
Curious, you know... you always try to attack a grossly simplified version of my second point, if I make two. Still going for the low-hanging fruit all the way...

nutcracker wrote:You can't argue in the internet, especially about intelligence.

It's like being in the special olympics. Even if you're the best, you're still retarded.
/old quote

RobLikesBrunch wrote:

Assaultman67 wrote:If you have the time, and the attitude to purposefully go out and cause conflict ... that's pretty synonymous with "you are a piece of shit" ... lol

The real question is where do you draw the line between trolls and people who like to tease? ... hmm indeed ...

Stop utilizing your moral-based bullshit as an argumentative tool. Any sort of intellectual conversation usually involves conflict and to conclude that the best possible world is one of pure agreement and optimism is absolutely idiotic and absurd. Way to be Leibniz's successor...although he, unlike yourself, was highly intelligent and is the father of calculus--he was just a tad misguisded.

Fuck you and your stupid bullshit and your moral unrighteousness. You're the type of guy that spews out shit like "OH THAT WAS RUDE. HOW BAD OF YOU" -- completely fixed on the social conventions & notions that you're subject to rather than recognizing and understanding the shaky and ludicrous foundation they're based upon and exploiting to your advantage & only when necessary.

I made this entire thread into a jpeg and put it as my desktop background. Beautiful. Just beautiful. Please, keep going, while I jack off in the corner.

Armored_Wolf wrote:Damn, that really is fucking annoying yellow.

God, yes.