悬赏 20 个论坛币 已解决
I have long ago thought that the first principles and rules of the method of Fluxions stood in need of more full and distinct explanation and proof, than what they had received either from their first incomparable author, or any of his followers; and therefore was not at all displeased to find the method itself opposed with so much warmth by the ingenious author of the Analyst; and had it been his only design to bring this point to a fair issue, whether a demonstration by the method of Fluxions be truly scientific or not, I should have heartily applauded his conduct, and have thought he deserved the thanks even of the Mathematicians themselves. But the invidious light in which he has put this debate, by representing it as of consequence to the interests of religion, is, I think, truly unjustifiable, as well as highly imprudent.
...represents the disputes and controversies among mathematicians as disparaging the evidence of their methods: and ... he represents Logics and Metaphysics as proper to open their eyes, and extricate them from their difficulties. ... If the disputes of the professors of any science disparage the science itself, Logics and Metaphysics are much more disparaged than Mathematics, why, therefore, if I am half blind, must I take for my guide one that can't see at all?
多谢
最佳答案
liupeng_0501 查看完整内容
我很久以前认为微分的基本原理和方法规则需要建立在更加充分和明确的解释和证明上，而不是来自任何一个不可比的作者，或者他的任一个追随者;也不会对从方法本身反驳的如此温和的作者的巧妙分析感到不快; 并且唯一的设想是把这点当成一个公平的问题，不管微分分析范式是否是真正科学的，我应该热诚赞许他的品行，而且认为他应得到感谢不仅仅作为数学家本身。 但是他通过代表它宗教利益的结果，使这种辩论的易引起反感，我认为是确实 ...
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
