Talk:Arithmetica Universalis

This article can be expanded. Something that has close to 300 Google Print hits and over a hundred Google Scholar hits  surely can be covered more extensively then in one screen stub-lenght article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk  01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I won't push the issue, but I seriously don't think that this article is going to get significantly expanded. From WP:STUB:


 * A stub is an article that is too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that even a longer article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub. Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Internet search or a few minutes in a reference library. 'An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub.''

'''
 * First of all, this article is 10 sentences long- for a relatively obscure topic I think it puts it out of stub range. Secondly, I seriously doubt that anything significant could be added by a person not familiar with math and math history- I guess this article could talk a bit more about the math in the Arithmetica, but it's going to involve technical stuff. It's not a big deal though- I just think that if it's a stub now, it's going to be a stub forever. Borisblue 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some articles remain as stub for years, but eventually everything seems to be expanded. My rule of thumb is if I can see the main body (w/out lists and such) in one screen, it is a stub - and that has never failed me. For expantion, in addition to what you mentioned, I am sure more can be written about how and when Newton wrote the text, the relationship between Newton and Whiston, could Newton have really afforded to buy the copies, how is the book viewed by today mathematicians...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason WP:STUB doesn't assign absolute values for stubs (e.g. stubs are articles that contain this many words etc) is that some articles may be covered more comprehensively than others. Thus, A page-long article on World War II say should qualify as a stub, whereas a page-long article on Gazerbeam is probably already too long. Can you expand the article significantly? If it really is a stub that should be possible even with very little effort and very little expertise, per the WP:STUB guidelines. Again, is no big deal, stub/no stub is an aribitrary distinction. Borisblue 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I unstubbed - not merely a couple of sentences and I want to put it on DYK--A Y Arktos\talk 10:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It would take an expert to expand this article reliably. I've been studying the Arithmetica Universalis for a few weeks and there's nothing I could add to this. I wanted to say this to let other editors know this is not a stub article. FYI, I'm a math student interested in the history of math. 74.105.169.173 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Jordan

Imaginary Roots
Does anyone know what algorithm Newton devised? -- GWO


 * After some googling, I can report that the rule is too awkward to state in the article (or on this page). I'll add a little more info to the article to make it easier for people who want to search for more information.
 * Preceding unsigned comment by 70.244.107.188

Inexplicability
Does anyone know why Newton was unsatisfied with the Arithmetica Universalis? --Smajie

I was wondering the same thing! --Rev. Austin 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably had to do with the fact his Optics and Principia were so widely accepted. His book on mathematics, the area he was suppose to be so highly qualified didn't compare with the other texts. I could be wrong. That or he was only unhappy with the English translations. It is possible that Newton did not want his texts in English because of the fear for his life. Newton wanted to associate himself with a different class of men than those who would have wanted his head at that time. It is very likely he did not want anything to do with the re-translation of his books because he wanted to keep them purely in Latin.

As for the book itself, I am not sure. I haven't gotten a chance to read my copy cover to cover. I've only skimmed it, so I can't be sure as to it's quality. I think it's possible that since Newton was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematicks he would be the man who needed to be most knowledgeable about mathematics and if his book did not stand up to his Principia he would be the laughing stock of the scientific community and in very great risk of life and limb. But that's just my opinion. I think if the book is not equal with the Principia it is a direct result of the Principia and Optics. Newton spent all his time on that, and little working on his math book. Time will tell, but I think that's the most logical reason if he did not like the book in general.

-Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown --Dragoon91786 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Newton not credited author...
I have an issue with the article. Someone put that the English translation and the second Latin edition do not credit Newton as the author. Now, I may be a bit daff, but the last time I check, the English translation does credit Newton as the author. I'm currently looking at a PDF of the original Universal Arithmetick and I quote:

''Universal Arithmetick: Or, A Treaties of Arithmetical Composition and Resolution. Written in Latin by Sir Isaac Newton. Translated by The late Mr. Ralphson; and Revifed and Corrected by Mr. Cunn. To which is added, a Treaties upon the Measures of Ratios, By James Maguire, A. M. The whole illustrated and explained, In A Series of Notes, By the Rev. Theaker Wilder, D. D. Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. London: Printed for W. Johnston, in Ludgate-ftreet, MDCCLXIX.''

Now in this it cleary states that Newton is indeed the author. I admit I haven't read the Latin translation, but this book cleary states than Newton is indeed the author, so can someone please correct this error. Thank you. I don't feel correct in changing it, because I'm an engineering major, but would someone who is more qualified than me confirm this and make the appropriate changes. Thank you.

-Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown --Dragoon91786 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a revised, expanded edition published half a century after the original English translation, when Newton was safely dead. It has no bearing on the claims in the article. Algebraist 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arithmetica Universalis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004805/http://www.centre.edu/web/library/Newton_two.pdf to http://www.centre.edu/web/library/Newton_two.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)