Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Euler

Expand Messages
  • John
    Today was Euler s Birthday. What a genius! I very seldom post here, as I do not have the training, and thus cannot speak the lingo demanded. This gap saddens
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 15 4:11 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Today was Euler's Birthday.

      What a genius!

      I very seldom post here, as I do not have the training, and thus cannot speak the lingo demanded.

      This gap saddens me greatly, amd makes maths a bit of a closed shop.

      But at least once a fortnight, I read all the posts here, knowing I cannot join in the converstion, but I am able to glean the gist of what is going on, and the ideas behind it.

      Euler, I believe, great and magnamimous man that he was, would have given me the time of day. He was very good at simplifying and explaining things.

      I am amazed that he is not held in even higher esteem than he already is.

      So many fields of research, and such insight.

      Pity there were not more men like him.
    • djbroadhurst
      ... Thanks, John, for that tribute. Everyone has his/her favourites. After 1600, my favourite mathematicians are Newton, Euler, Gauss, and my favourite
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 28 11:10 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
        "John" <mistermac39@...> wrote:

        > Today was Euler's Birthday.
        > What a genius!
        ...
        > Euler, I believe, great and magnamimous man that he was,
        > would have given me the time of day. He was very good at
        > simplifying and explaining things.
        > I am amazed that he is not held in even higher esteem
        > than he already is.
        > So many fields of research, and such insight.
        > Pity there were not more men like him.

        Thanks, John, for that tribute.

        Everyone has his/her favourites.

        After 1600, my favourite mathematicians are
        Newton, Euler, Gauss,
        and my favourite physicists are
        Newton, Maxwell, Einstein.

        Some people might choose Riemann instead of Euler,
        some might choose Dirac instead of Maxwell.
        (It's hard to keep Newton out of either list, even
        though he was not a particularly likeable person.)

        Best wishes

        David
      • Paul Leyland
        ... I d put Feynmann in the physicist list, in place of either Newton or Maxwell. Mathematicians would definitely have Godel instead of Newton, though Hamilton
        Message 3 of 10 , May 2, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 2013-04-28 at 18:10 +0000, djbroadhurst wrote:

          > After 1600, my favourite mathematicians are
          > Newton, Euler, Gauss,
          > and my favourite physicists are
          > Newton, Maxwell, Einstein.
          >
          > Some people might choose Riemann instead of Euler,
          > some might choose Dirac instead of Maxwell.
          > (It's hard to keep Newton out of either list, even
          > though he was not a particularly likeable person.)

          I'd put Feynmann in the physicist list, in place of either Newton or
          Maxwell.

          Mathematicians would definitely have Godel instead of Newton, though
          Hamilton also has a strong claim IMAO
        • Alexander
          How about Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger?
          Message 4 of 10 , May 9, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            How about Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger?
          • WarrenS
            ... --somewhat sadly, I ve read very little by either Newton or Maxwell. Recommend anything? Or perhaps it is best to avoid reading them directly since
            Message 5 of 10 , May 10, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > After 1600, my favourite mathematicians are
              > Newton, Euler, Gauss,
              > and my favourite physicists are
              > Newton, Maxwell, Einstein.

              --somewhat sadly, I've read very little by either Newton or Maxwell.
              Recommend anything?

              Or perhaps it is best to avoid reading them directly since everything has been redone way clearer by others?
            • djbroadhurst
              ... I have studied Motte s translation of the Principia and was struck by this: http://www.isaac-newton.org/scholium.htm ... Hitherto we have explain d the
              Message 6 of 10 , May 10, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                "WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:

                > somewhat sadly, I've read very little by either Newton or
                > Maxwell. Recommend anything?

                I have studied Motte's translation of the Principia and was
                struck by this:

                http://www.isaac-newton.org/scholium.htm
                ...
                Hitherto we have explain'd the phenomena of the heavens and
                of our sea, by the power of Gravity, but have not yet
                assign'd the cause of this power. This is certain, that it
                must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very
                centers of the Sun and Planets, without suffering the least
                diminution of its force; that operates, not according to the
                quantity of surfaces of the particles upon which it acts,
                (as mechanical causes use to do,) but according to the
                quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and
                propagates its virtue on all sides, to immense distances,
                decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the
                distances.
                ...
                But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of
                those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no
                hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc'd from the phenomena,
                is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether
                metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or
                mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
                ...

                Clerk Maxwell's paper:
                A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field,
                Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 155 (1865) 459-512,
                is frankly amazing.

                > Or perhaps it is best to avoid reading them directly since
                > everything has been redone way clearer by others?

                Many people think that and are the poorer for it. Sometimes,
                it takes my breath away that the likes of Newton, Maxwell,
                Einstein, Euler and Gauss could be so prescient.

                I do not include any of the multitude of parents of quantum
                theory (Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Tomonaga,
                Schwinger, Feynman, Dyson) in my list of top 3 physicists.
                Nor would any of them dare to do so. Quantum mechanics and
                quantum field theory were corporate creations.

                To Newton, Maxwell and Einstein belongs the almost sole
                glory of capturing the essentials of mechanics,
                electromagnetism and relativity, respectively, in a handful
                of ideas and equations of great power and persuasiveness.

                On the other hand, quantum theory grew, fitfully and
                confusedly, out of the puzzlings of many persons.
                Of these, Dirac came the closest to emulating Newton,
                Maxwell and Einstein. Though even Dirac might have
                shuddered at that comparison.

                David
              • Jack Brennen
                David, wonder if you would agree that no physicist has a wider gap between his contribution (huge) and his fame (minor) as Oliver Heaviside... Heaviside should
                Message 7 of 10 , May 10, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  David, wonder if you would agree that no physicist has a
                  wider gap between his contribution (huge) and his fame
                  (minor) as Oliver Heaviside...

                  Heaviside should be right up there with the great
                  physicists of all time.



                  On 5/10/2013 4:49 PM, djbroadhurst wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                  > "WarrenS" <warren.wds@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >> somewhat sadly, I've read very little by either Newton or
                  >> Maxwell. Recommend anything?
                  >
                  > I have studied Motte's translation of the Principia and was
                  > struck by this:
                  >
                  > http://www.isaac-newton.org/scholium.htm
                  > ...
                  > Hitherto we have explain'd the phenomena of the heavens and
                  > of our sea, by the power of Gravity, but have not yet
                  > assign'd the cause of this power. This is certain, that it
                  > must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very
                  > centers of the Sun and Planets, without suffering the least
                  > diminution of its force; that operates, not according to the
                  > quantity of surfaces of the particles upon which it acts,
                  > (as mechanical causes use to do,) but according to the
                  > quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and
                  > propagates its virtue on all sides, to immense distances,
                  > decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the
                  > distances.
                  > ...
                  > But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of
                  > those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no
                  > hypotheses. For whatever is not deduc'd from the phenomena,
                  > is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether
                  > metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or
                  > mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
                  > ...
                  >
                  > Clerk Maxwell's paper:
                  > A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field,
                  > Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 155 (1865) 459-512,
                  > is frankly amazing.
                  >
                  >> Or perhaps it is best to avoid reading them directly since
                  >> everything has been redone way clearer by others?
                  >
                  > Many people think that and are the poorer for it. Sometimes,
                  > it takes my breath away that the likes of Newton, Maxwell,
                  > Einstein, Euler and Gauss could be so prescient.
                  >
                  > I do not include any of the multitude of parents of quantum
                  > theory (Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Tomonaga,
                  > Schwinger, Feynman, Dyson) in my list of top 3 physicists.
                  > Nor would any of them dare to do so. Quantum mechanics and
                  > quantum field theory were corporate creations.
                  >
                  > To Newton, Maxwell and Einstein belongs the almost sole
                  > glory of capturing the essentials of mechanics,
                  > electromagnetism and relativity, respectively, in a handful
                  > of ideas and equations of great power and persuasiveness.
                  >
                  > On the other hand, quantum theory grew, fitfully and
                  > confusedly, out of the puzzlings of many persons.
                  > Of these, Dirac came the closest to emulating Newton,
                  > Maxwell and Einstein. Though even Dirac might have
                  > shuddered at that comparison.
                  >
                  > David
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > The Prime Pages : http://primes.utm.edu/
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • djbroadhurst
                  ... Agreed. My father was an electrical engineer and thought that the British have a class snobbery against practical thinkers. In France, on the other hand,
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 11, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                    Jack Brennen <jfb@...> wrote:

                    > David, wonder if you would agree that no physicist has a
                    > wider gap between his contribution (huge) and his fame
                    > (minor) as Oliver Heaviside...

                    Agreed. My father was an electrical engineer and thought
                    that the British have a class snobbery against practical
                    thinkers. In France, on the other hand, the Grandes Ecoles
                    made sure that good maths and physics was done by people
                    trained and recognized as ingenieurs.

                    David
                  • j_chrtn
                    ... Not to minimize the work of such a genius that was Einstein what about Lorentz and Poincaré s contributions to special relativity? And as a mathematician,
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 11, 2013
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > To Newton, Maxwell and Einstein belongs the almost sole
                      > glory of capturing the essentials of mechanics,
                      > electromagnetism and relativity, respectively, in a handful
                      > of ideas and equations of great power and persuasiveness.
                      >

                      Not to minimize the work of such a genius that was Einstein what about Lorentz and Poincaré's contributions to special relativity?
                      And as a mathematician, Poincaré probably ranks in the top of the list close to Euler and Gauss.

                      Among my favorite mathematicians is also Galois: I can't hardly imagine the work he would have achieved if he did not die (stupidly) at only 20.

                      JL
                    • djbroadhurst
                      ... Agreed. But Einstein s claim in general relativity far outweighs Poincaré s in special relativity. David Hilbert is another example of proxime accessit .
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 11, 2013
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
                        "j_chrtn" <j_chrtn@...> wrote:

                        > And as a mathematician, Poincaré probably ranks in the top
                        > of the list close to Euler and Gauss.

                        Agreed. But Einstein's claim in general relativity
                        far outweighs Poincaré's in special relativity.

                        David Hilbert is another example of "proxime accessit".

                        > Among my favorite mathematicians is also Galois:
                        > I can't hardly imagine the work he would have achieved
                        > if he did not die (stupidly) at only 20.

                        Also agreed. It shames me that I have not yet mastered
                        what he did in those brief years. Like Eric Temple Bell
                        I regret his early demise.

                        David
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.