Talk:Method of Fluxions

POV
" Newton's fluxion method, in contrast, is characterized by a clumsy notation that is inferior to that of Leibniz, and difficult to understand and work with. "

I'm not too sure if this phrase is a little to Hostile, perhaps it requires some softening?

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1836?
Why is the term "1836 Books" listed in "Categories", and why does reference to this article appear there? --Sukkoth 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Newtons honesty?
If there are any historians out there, please try to answer this. What evidence is there that Newtons book was completed 1671 beside his word? Newton seems to have managed an effective retcon of history by claiming "I invented this before Leibnitz, I just did not publish it" and then being the chair of the group that gave him priority, 50 years after the fact. His credibility should be severly questioned and that has never been done since he was Newton... Obbas (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * there are surviving documents which prove newton developed the basis for differential calculus as early as 1666, many years before Leibnitz. You can read historians work on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.18.92 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 April 2015

Class
Newton, Isaac. The Method of Fluxions. London: n.p., 1736. Print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bran4232 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fluents
"fluents was his term for integral calculus"

This does not seem to be quite correct. A fluent is a continuous function and its rate of change is its fluxion. Finding a fluent from its fluxion involves an integral of course, but that does not mean that fluent is synonymous with integral. See here. SpinningSpark 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias against Newton
I have attempted to clean up some obvious bias against Newton on this page. Surviving documents prove that Newton developed the basis for differential calculus before Leibniz, not after--the vast majority of historians agree on this point. Newton also published his findings in part at-least only nine years after Leibniz and not fifty years, to state that Newton published his first descriptions of differential calculus some fifty years after Leibniz is total historical nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.18.92 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 April 2015

SPLIT: Is this page about the original book or the english translation?
The paragraph mentions the book was written by newton, the infobox mentions the author is newton, no mention of a translator, but the language in the infobox says it's in english. It's hard to tell whether Newton wrote this book in english or if it's just a translation. We should probably add the original title in the lead sentence: De Methodis Serierum et Fluxionum--TZubiri (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)