Which is smarter Leibniz or Newton? Please state the reason.

I feel that Leibniz is smarter, after all, Leibniz published calculus first, and Newton later said that he had studied it a long time ago, but he just didn't publish it. It is only Newton's one-sided statement, and it is not convincing.

It has been argued that Leibniz's greatest contribution was not the invention of calculus, but the invention of mathematical notation used in calculus, since the notation used by Newton is generally considered to be worse than Leibniz's.

Leibniz was involved in more than 40 fields such as law, mechanics, optics, and linguistics, all of which had outstanding performances, which were not comparable to Newton's. He, along with Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, are considered the three greatest rationalist philosophers of the seventeenth century. Leibniz's work in philosophy, while foreseeing the birth of modern logic and analytic philosophy, was also clearly heavily influenced by the scholastic tradition, which applied more first principles or a priori definitions than experimental evidence to derive to conclusions.

Leibniz also made significant contributions to the development of physics and technology, and developed concepts that would later cover a wide range of topics, including biology, medicine, geology, probability theory, psychology, linguistics, and information science. Leibniz left a legacy in political science, law, ethics, theology, philosophy, history, and linguistics.

How to determine the thing of intelligence, if you are referring to the absolute value of modern IQ, then you can't calculate it. However, Newton's emotional intelligence was higher, and he mixed better than Leibniz, but it is said that he always suppressed and excluded Leibniz, and although Newton summed up the law of gravitation, he later stubbornly believed that this force came from God.

Newton, there are more cattle in the same era as Newton, and Newton is the one who everyone knows the most. You and others mention Leibniz, and a few of them know.

No suspense: Newton!

Reason 1: Newton's overall contribution is more influential, which can be seen from the popularity of the two.

Reason 2: After spending a few months solving the problem of the fastest line, John Bernoulli deliberately did not publish it in order to pretend to be forced but challenged all the people at the time, and Newton, who had been away from mathematical physics for many years and was over half a hundred years old, made it in one night, and although Jacob Bernoulli and Leibniz also made it, it took a long time.

Reason 3: Newton's other contributions to mathematics are listed as one of the three greatest mathematicians of all time, and Leibniz had no other major mathematical achievements.

Reason 4: Newton's invention of calculus is evidenced by many earlier manuscripts, and the whole ins and outs can be glimpsed in Newton's law. Leibniz did have the conditions and possibility to read Newton's earlier letters, and although he improved the notation, he did not use the calculus as Newton.

Leibniz was smarter.

Newton was stupid by an apple.

Newton, because Newton discovered gravitation.

Finally found a soulmate! I think there's something wrong with Newton's character, and the reason why he wants to have such a high reputation, I personally think it's possible that he used his president of the Royal Society to suppress others, and he had a lot of controversy with a lot of people.

I think he's a scientist, but he's more likely also a politician and a conspirator.

Gottfried? William? Leibniz (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz) is the son of a philosophy professor in Leipzig, Germany, the great philosopher, mathematician, logician, historian and linguist of the German Enlightenment, known as the last generalist in German and European history Leibniz is very versatile in history few people can compare with him, his works include mathematics, history, language, biology, geology, mechanics, physics, law, diplomacy and other aspects.

There should be Leibniz's esoteric philosophy in philosophy and logic, where the concept of the possible world is used to express modal assertions.

In philosophy, the term "modality" encompasses ideas such as "possibility", "necessity" and "contingency".

Talking about the possible world is very common in contemporary philosophical discussions (especially in the English-speaking world), albeit with great controversy.

Newton's philosophical thought is basically spontaneous materialism, and he acknowledges the objective existence of time and space.

Like all great figures in history, although Newton made great contributions to mankind, he could not be immune to the limitations of the times.

For example, he regarded time and space as things that are separate from moving matter, and proposed the concepts of so-called absolute time and absolute space. He attributed the temporary inexplicable phenomena of nature to God's arrangement, and proposed that all planets began to move under the action of some external "first impetus of the rolling source".

Newton was not only a great mathematician but also a physicist. Just from the "Apple Story" that we often hear, we know how famous he is. He also basically established the theoretical framework of "classical mechanics". It can be regarded as very "powerful".

Leibniz was not weak, he was the most important German natural scientist, mathematician, physicist, historian and philosopher, a rare scientific genius, and the founder of calculus along with Newton. He was well-read, dabbled in encyclopedias, and made an indelible contribution to enriching the treasure trove of scientific knowledge of mankind.

But Newton is more famous.

You can take a look at their introduction on the encyclopedia.

The significance of the Newton-Leibniz formula is that it links the indefinite integral with the definite integral, and also provides a perfect and satisfactory method for the operation of the definite integral. Here's how the formula works:

We know that the definite integral of the function f(x) over the interval [a,b] is expressed as:

b (upper limit) a (lower limit) f(x) dx

Now let's take the upper bound of the integral interval as a variable, so we define a new function:

x) = x (upper limit) a (lower limit) f(x) dx

But here x has two meanings, one is to represent the upper limit of the integral, and the other is to represent the independent variable of the integrand, but it is meaningless to take a fixed value of the independent variable of the integrand in the definite integral. In order to represent only the change in the upper limit of the integral, we change the independent variable of the integrand to another letter such as t, so that the meaning is very clear:

x) = x (upper limit) a (lower limit) f(t) dt

Let's look at the properties of this function (x):

1. Define the function (x)=

x(upper limit) a(lower limit) f(t)dt, then '(x)=f(x).

Proof: Let the function (x) obtain the delta δx, then the corresponding function increment.

= (x+δx)- x)=x+δx(upper limit) a(lower limit) f(t)dt-x(upper limit) a(lower limit) f(t)dt

Obviously, x+δx(upper limit) a(lower bound) f(t)dt-x(upper limit) a(lower limit) f(t)dt=x+δx(upper limit) x(lower limit) f(t)dt

And δ =x+δx(upper limit) x(lower limit)f(t)dt=f( )x( Between x and x+δx, it can be deduced from the median theorem in the definite integral, or you can draw a graph by yourself, and the geometric meaning is very clear. )

When δx tends to 0, that is δ tends to 0, it tends to x, and f( ) tends to f(x), so there is lim

x→0φ/δx=f(x)

This is also the definition of a derivative, so we end up with '(x)=f(x).

2. b (upper limit) a (lower limit) f(x) dx = f(b)-f(a), f(x) is the original function of f(x).

Proof: We have proven '(x)=f(x), so (x)+c=f(x).

But (a)=0 (the integral interval becomes [a,a], so the area is 0), so f(a)=c

So there is (x)+f(a)=f(x), when x=b, (b)=f(b)-f(a), and (b)=b(upper limit) a(lower bound) f(t)dt, so b(upper limit) a(lower limit) f(t)dt=f(b)-f(a).

Write t as x again, and it becomes the formula at the beginning, which is the Newton-Leibniz formula.