greatest accomplishment mathmatically?

[pokerchap]

proof?

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Agreed. Leibniz's treatment of classical mechanics is also the standard we pretty much still use. Both were brilliant thinkers, but Leibniz was truly on a different level."

I'm sorry this is so wrong I want to vomit. Newton's version of calculus is the one we use today. Newton discovered GRAVITY dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he didn't generalize his second law in the same way Leibniz had done. He simply gave a linear relation between the force exerted on an object and its acceleration (F=ma as you may remember from high school). Leibniz was insightful enough to generalize a force to simply be any time varying change in momentum (F=dp/dt.) This is the way we still think about forces today; Newton, surprisingly in his published principia, used very little calculus and relied more heavily on geometrical reasoning, which we do not use today. As far as Newton "discovering" gravity, the concept of gravity as a force falls out of Leibniz's F=dp/dt, as a consequence of any object under the influence of gravity having a nonzero value for dp/dt, automatically showing there MUST be a force to allow that to happen, we just call it "gravity."

[/ QUOTE ]


He didn't discover gravity - gravity is self evident. He discovered the mathematical model for gravity, which is only "mostly correct".

Einstein discovered the more correct mathematical model for gravity.

Paul Dirac and John von Neumann modeled things that were really small, and

Edward Witten tries to tie the loose ends together with strings...


Film at 11.


AB

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

151

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Agreed. Leibniz's treatment of classical mechanics is also the standard we pretty much still use. Both were brilliant thinkers, but Leibniz was truly on a different level."

I'm sorry this is so wrong I want to vomit. Newton's version of calculus is the one we use today. Newton discovered GRAVITY dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he didn't generalize his second law in the same way Leibniz had done. He simply gave a linear relation between the force exerted on an object and its acceleration (F=ma as you may remember from high school). Leibniz was insightful enough to generalize a force to simply be any time varying change in momentum (F=dp/dt.) This is the way we still think about forces today; Newton, surprisingly in his published principia, used very little calculus and relied more heavily on geometrical reasoning, which we do not use today. As far as Newton "discovering" gravity, the concept of gravity as a force falls out of Leibniz's F=dp/dt, as a consequence of any object under the influence of gravity having a nonzero value for dp/dt, automatically showing there MUST be a force to allow that to happen, we just call it "gravity."

[/ QUOTE ]


He didn't discover gravity - gravity is self evident. He discovered the mathematical model for gravity, which is only "mostly correct".

Einstein discovered the more correct mathematical model for gravity.

Paul Dirac and John von Neumann modeled things that were really small, and

Edward Witten tries to tie the loose ends together with strings...


Film at 11.


AB

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooo, are you agreeing with my stance that Leibniz is underrated, orrr just trying to namedrop a few physicsts you may know of? Also, I never attempted to claim that either "discovered" gravity. I was just saying that all both of them managed to do was come up with an operational definition of force, whereby gravity was a consequence of said definition.

[sharky21222]

funny,but i will keep using my commas,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[SNOWBALL]

I would say my greatest mathematical accomplishment was when I was listening to bright eyes on WMP, and 4 songs I wanted to hear came on conscecutively. Shuffle play luckboxing FTW.

[SNOWBALL]

My second greatest mathematical accomplishment was when I had sex with this girl, and 3/5 of her friends. There's a decent chance I'll get my hands on one of the 2 that I missed out on, but I'll be 7 years too late. Does that still count?

[ASPoker8]

[ QUOTE ]
funny,but i will keep using my commas,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[/ QUOTE ]

ban

[Flavor Slave]

[ QUOTE ]
Kill yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh no you didn't.

[sharky21222]

ty for posting this,8 million -1 ,the odds would go down considerably due to the competition,probably around 2 million -1 and i should have posted greatest accomplishment mathmatically for poker,so just by the math and numbers,what were the odds of chan in his 3 wsop championship run,what were the odds of raymer winning and them making top 100,and what were the odds of harrington making 3 final tables?i know there are a lot of variables when calculating all this but maybe you can run some numbers just for fun