User talk:91.64.37.35

November 2021
Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse.   DVdm (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you please re-read the sentence before and after my edit (diff), and tell me what exactly is not constructive here? I am genuinely baffled by both your revert and your comment. Cheers, --91.64.37.35 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I picked the wrong template. I should have gone for the error template. The phrase "priority could have practical importance" is meaningless in this context. The original phrase ("practical importance could have priority") was correct, meaning that practical importance takes precedence (or has priority) over, for instance, theoretical or esthetical importance. - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering, but I very much disagree. The section we are discussing is about priority, that is the topic. Your explanation makes a little bit of sense in the abstract, but it fails to contribute concretely to the topic of priority, as discussed in the article. Remember, the article is about Newton and Leibniz and their quarrel about calculus. What does practical importance (as contrasted with theoretical or æsthetic importance) have to do with the priority dispute between Leibniz and Newton? I completely fail to see this. I am happy with the sentence to be struck completely from the article, but in its present (reverted) form, I really truly don't get what it means, which is why I assumed it was jumbled. Look at it again in context (I bolded the disputed sentence).

The discoverer, in addition to acquiring fame, was spared the need to prove that his result was not obtained using plagiarism. Also, practical importance could have priority if it was associated with the invention of new technical devices. A widespread strategy of attacking priority was to declare a discovery or invention not a major achievement, but only an improvement, using techniques known to everyone and therefore not requiring considerable skill of its author.
 * In its current (reverted) form, in this one sentence, "priority" switches from topic to comment for one sentence, then (as in the rest of the section), becomes topic again. Even in the best case, this is non-standard and very confusing. Furthermore, can you explain in what way your interpretation of this sentence ("practical importance takes precedence (or has priority) over, for instance, theoretical or esthetical importance", 13:38) manages to advance our understanding of "Scientific priority in the 17th century" (section heading of the section we are discussing)? I fail to see this. Thank you very much. --91.64.37.35 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any problem with the current phrase. Best is to go to the article talk page and see what other contributors say. You can point to this little discussion here. - DVdm (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey,, your answer feels underwhelming, but, well, your call. I will take it to the talk page.--91.64.37.35 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)