Leibniz Integral Rule: Pupularised by Feynman and now called Feynman's trick. Also it is my unerstanding/opinion that Leibniz had a much greater and deeper understanding of the calculus techniques than Newton had. And hence his techniques were and are much more comprehensible than Newton's flux theories.IMHO Newton derived on some techniques he needed for his planetary calculations. Leibniz was doing math "inventions". On a large scale the same, but on technique level a lot more refined.

I really hate it when people, especially physicists and mathematicians, don't give Leibniz the credit he deserves for inventing calculas, and only give it to Newton. Although we have nearly conclusive evidence that both scientists have invented calculas independently, most of the form used now is attributed to Leibniz not Newton.

Leibniz is the GOAT of calc.

Newton is inarguably the true founder of calculus and Leibniz, while contributing lots in this field, merely implemented the broundbreaking ideas that Newton had sent to him in a letter called Epistola Prior years before Leibniz "discovered" calculus. In that letter, Newton lays out literally all the core aspects of calculus -- the concept of infinite series and how they can be used to compute areas under curves, the "method of fluxions" which dealt with rate of change of quantities, and his work on the inverse problem of tangents, which is equivalent to integration in Calculus. Leibniz did great things in bringing these ideas to paper (as did Newton independently) but for him to take credit for these insanely original and intelligent ideas is simply fraud.

Is mathematics invented or is it discovered?

Calculus was developed in India and while both Leibniz and Newton gave it form and used it in different ways. Leibniz calculus was better formed and so Newton stole the credit as was common in England. Newton is not the father of calculus and he also stole the laws of motion from India.

Leibniz visited England and had many pieces of information that he likely based calculus on, come on, you really think 2 people by coincidence discovered the same thing within just a few years of each other, that no one else came up with in thousands of years of human mathematics? It's just like when the Wright Brother's wing designs got stolen or when some of Tesla's inventions were stolen, there are only some rare cases of the same invention or technique being done at the same time, but because we have a backwards peer review system that prioritizes who published first, Leibniz got credit for it, recently some notes have been discovered that directly show how Leibniz used Newton's work to create his version of calculus

Thank for enlightening me on this controversy. It was well presented and unbiased.

Today we use the elegant and compact notation of Leibniz, which does not reference any of Newton's convoluted fluxion derivations. I guess being head of the Royal Society has its perks.

Team Leibnitz all the way. Newton had the power to erase his contributions from history and has allegedly done this before. So I'm siding with the underdog.

Leibniz did something much worse to Newton: With his Monadology, he objected Newton's axiom "actio = reactio". He said there is no reactio. For example, if something moves, it does so because this was imprinted in it, as a "prestabilized harmony". Leibniz did have a point, and his monadologic view is legit because it is free of any inconsistencies, but in the end we will have to concede 50% of being right to each of them.

Newton's work wasn't published because the Royal Society blew all their money on a book reviewing the history of fish. He got it published from a donor many years later.

There ought not be any "controversy" here. LEIBNIZ invented calculus and differential equations as we know them today, and as they are taught today, including the notations we use. The Newton crowd should get used to it.

Whilst I think this is a great video and gets a lot of the fundamentals across. I think theres a key thing that needs to be discussed here. Newtons 'Principia' actually did not have any calculus in it and actually was very sparse in methodology (perhaps mirroring the ancient Greek way of keeping one's method to himself- we know he read the likes of Pappus and Euclid so this could be a reason as to why he didnt publish much of his earlier work until much later.) Leibniz's work was published "first" but at this point Leibniz and Newton had conversed via letter about calculus (see Newton's coded message to Leibniz) which is the true origin of the priority dispute. [you can see the stuff about Newton and the Greeks in Guicciardini's work in 'the Oxford Handbook of the history of mathematics'. Note this is not to dispute Newton's importance to calculus, I'm just very pro both of them being credited lol

Loved it ❤

Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). It is imperative to consider why and how it is that there is something instead of nothing ON BALANCE. WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Consider INSTANTaneity. Excellent. By Frank Martin DiMeglio

Newton is the father of calculus

"The marble index of a mind , wandering on strange seas of thought, alone" (WW)

Leibniz gets my respect more now, He done stuff in electronics which I like, developed more or less the language for electronics (binary) has a brand of biscuits for himself, and played a role in calculus. Totally underrated.

Love Newton and Leibniz both

Mine mine

wrong. 1700bc had the earliest recorded calculus.

Thank you!

the school system is a constraint to our abilities.

Madhava of Kerala invented calculus 2 ce before Newton was born....!!

Thanks, really neat! Nice!

Barrow, Fermat, Descartes, Cavalieri, Barrow and others had laid the foundations of calculus in the generation before Newton and Leibniz. Neither should be called the father of calculus. Building this branch of mathematics was the collaborative effort of many people over many hyears.

Both Newton and Leibniz were integral to the development of calculus. I don't think you can differentiate between the two.

This conflict were just a battle of prestige of England and HRE, their pride because of Principia and scientists and mathematicians were tools for their "prestige"

Without exception, the calculus that all students learn in schools is Leibniz’s calculus. That makes Leibniz the world’s calculus teacher. I have never seen Newton’s fluxion in any textbooks. In England they teach Leibniz’s calculus in schools.

Discoveredddd *

Would there have been a controversy at all if Newton had not gone so far out of his way to defame Leibniz? Aren't mathematicians generally much more willing than Newton was to acknowledge the contributions of others? Also: after Newton had stopped smearing Leibniz (because he [Newton] died), Voltaire ridiculed him with the character Dr Pangloss in his novel Candide. Candide is a great little book, but it becomes somewhat less funny when you read Leibniz. I suspect that Voltaire's image of Leibniz was mostly second-hand. It's difficult for me to believe that Voltaire would not have been greatly impressed if he had actually read a great deal of Leibniz' work. Newton, and then Voltaire: quite a devastating (and THOROUGHLY unfair) one-two punch to Leibniz' reputation.

I support Newton. He is the best physicist and mathematician. But I am a little biased since I was born on the same day as newton and developed my mathematics during the other well-known virus, CORONAVIRUS.

auctioneer speed....slow down

www.pallikkutam.com/edu-landscape/madhava-the-kerala-mathematician-who-devised-calculus-ahead-of-newton-leibniz-

SIR ISAAC NEWTON

Leibniz is incredibly underrated. He actually knows what he talks about, most likely borrowing from the Hermetic tradition

When there is peace coupled with abundant crop yields due to abnormally temperate growing seasons... it is like Star Trek's post scarcity future. If the Romans were not at the peak of their colonialism they would have not killed Archimedes. He would have been allowed to formalize Calculus. It would be a much different world than it is now.

Leibniz' notation is what is used today

What a typical Yankee myopic point of view. The British were not behind Europe after Newton the truth is that Newton's laws were to difficult for Europeans to understand Southey junked them and used Galileo instead. I am sorry but I cannot substantiate anything you have said and you have even neglected to mention the sole point of their controversy, that being the differentiation of time. Do you know what time is ? Ask anyone lol. Afternote. What is confusing you is tha Newton's 3 laws were also too difficult for Cambridge and had to be taught elsewhere . HP take note.

LOL @ Guy in this video: "Hey! I have the most horrible microphone ever, and don't even realize it, plus I am just reading stuff I don't care about! That's why I'm just going to read this lame script into this lame microphone and put it on KZbin."

Now if only the US could do the same and accept the metric system.

Thank God India is referred

European enlightenment 😆

What a dork.

Both men were genius. However Leibniz produced more materials in all subjects and was much more prolific.

How about Madhava

Everything was invented and discovered in ancient India... stop your lies......

Ancient India was the first inventor of calculus.........thehinduforum.com/index.php?threads/isaac-newton-%E2%80%93-the-calculus-thief-western-steal-from-vedic-india.2406/

To me this proves one thing, which is that mathematics is the language of the universe or as Galileo put it, "the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics". The fact that 2 guys in 2 different parts of Europe came to the same conclusions (using different notations) about the same mathematical concept is astounding.