Talk:Isaac Barrow

Untitled

An earlier version of this article was taken from the Rouse History of Mathematics, as marked up by Dr. David R. Wilkins, with permission: see article.

This article could do with some mathematical proof-reading for correctness.

Infobox

The infobox on this page has been removed. Please discuss for and against removal. To remind you what it looked like, here is a sample:

Please discuss to reach a consensus bunix 12:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox looks good idea to me. JackyR | Talk 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has been two weeks since it was intially removed. This has now allowed adequate time for free discussion. So far the discussion has supported the box and there have been no arguments against posted here. Therefore I am now reinstating the box. In future, please can removers of large chunks of info always go to the discussion page first before removal, as per wiki policy. Immediate removal without discussion is only justified for vandalism and wiki violations. bunix 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Discovery of FTC

Where the hell is Isaac Barrow's discovery of the fundamental theorem??? He's the father of calculus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I just edited to adress this concern. While Barrow did discover the FTC, sometimes things are named for people who extended the scheme. For example, while Dirac discusses the path integral first, Feynman developed it to the point where it was useful. In this regard, Barrow is like Dirac and Newton like Feynman.Likebox (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

lectures on archimedes

The page states that Barrow "lectures for 1667 were published in the same year, and suggest the analysis by which Archimedes was led to his chief results." Does anyone have any additional information on this? Are the 1667 lectures online? Tkuvho (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegations by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Hi,

User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr disagrees that James Gregory had influenced Isaac Barrow, however I provided a very robust document that was a 1916 translation of his work, which clearly showed high praise for Gregory's work. It seems this user is just against establishing this relationship for some reason. It shouldn't be a surprise that Barrow had respect for gregory, and was influenced by his work, yet Bryn Mawr just can't let it go. I provided sources, and they try to claim a translated document from over 100 years ago, showing mutual respect, is somehow original research. It is not original research at all. Calling "the most learned man" is one of the highest compliments a scholar could pay another when using their work. I'm seeking moderation because the user may risk violating the 3RR, and I feel what I've provided is quite compelling. I would have to dig a little more, but I find a translated primary source document containing such a phrase as the most compelling piece of evidence. Secondary accounts often are less convincing.
Here is some secondary analysis showing the impact of Gregory's work. Secondary analysis such as [1] (page 4, footnote 11) also refers to the quote I've used, but builds on it slightly more by also mentioning Gottfried Leibniz' praise of Gregory's work. So we can see that the work of Gregory impressed both Leibniz and Barrow. To suggest such esteemed scholars (of almost 400 years ago) use phrases like "the most learned man" or "elegant theorem by Gregory" (quite the compliments) without being influenced by them (where such influence is in the form of using their work, at the very least) is unreasonable. I just do not know what the editor wants, and it feels like the evidence provided was sufficient. I will try to find more sources but I do not know how what is already provided isn't sufficient to constitute as evidence for influence.
Here is a letter by a prominent publishing intermediary (between Gregory, Barrow, and Newton) John Collins addressed to Gregory [2] While the letter itself is somewhat mundane (he met Sir Isaac, had dinner, Sir Isaac said Opticks was going to continue where Reverend Barrow left off, and that Collins needn't ask about Sir Isaac's publishing commitments because Reverend Barrow said the Lucasian chair had such requirements already), it establishes that, while communication was slow at the time, Collins was clearly acting as a facilitator. Thus, the work of Gregory clearly had an influence on Barrow given that the publisher was writing about their progress to the former. Trying to find more.

Here is another secondary source, The Historical Development of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus And Its Implication in Teaching:

Apparently, Fermat reduced a problem of rectification by connecting tangents and the question of quadratures. Surprisingly, for all his deft use of infinitesimals in a variety of areas, he still failed to recognize this critical relation, denying himself the honored title of “true inventor of the calculus” (Boyer, 1959). The man first overtly aware of generality of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was James Gregory in 1668, exerting a significant influence on Isaac Barrow’s work.

So I have to ask, why is Fountains of Bryn Mawr picking a fight over something that seems to be the consensus? Note: I am not talking about assigning priority/credit for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (which is clearly a bit more involved), but the influence of their investigations on eachother's work. Clearly assigning priority of the fundamental theorem is difficult because their collaboration (facilitated by Collins where appropriate) muddled the "who did what" part.
Found probably the most definitive scholarly literature on this issue, however, again, I must emphasise that the focus of these scholars is much more than that:

Barrow's heavy "borrowings" include his restatement of "Gregory's generalization of Wren's proof of a construction for the tangent at a general point on a cyclid arc," as well as his appropriation of Gregory's "rectifying transformation," the basis of the Scot's involutio and evolutio method. Even barrow's most famous achievement--the proof for the inverse nature of differentiation and integration--was now reinterpreted as a "neat amendment of Gregory's generalization of Neil's rectification method." - Mordechai Feingold

If you dig further into that cited passage, you will find references to DT Whiteside who argues this line of thinking. However, again, we are not discussing priority of the fundamental theorem, nor are we discussing originality. What we are discussing is whether it is reasonable to infer that Gregory's work influenced Barrow, and given the in-depth analyses of these scholars (admittedly focusing on originality and priority for the fundamental theorem of calculus), it is hard to argue against, at the very least, the idea that Gregory's work did influence Isaac Barrow. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia somewhere. We do not "establishing .... relationship", that is a job for reliable secondary sources. These edits[3][4] were reverted because they were interpretations of primary sources. Despite the opinion of the adding editor that this is a "very robust document", its not ours to judge, a reliable secondary source has to make that judgement. The guideline at Template:Infobox scientist on the influences/influenced parameter also states "Unless the scientist was clearly building on an earlier work, avoid adding influences that were only via study, as such influences are generally too many and hard to separate. Only list influences who are notable enough to warrant their own wiki article." Again, we don't judge that, there should be extensive secondary sources on this influences/influenced such as sections in several reliable text books on the subject, i.e. extensive coverage. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a published chapter of PhD Dissertation, which was communicated by Dt Whiteside:

In the summer of 1670 GREGORIE discovered a second, much more powerful method of tangents, which has to be viewed against the background of ISAAC BARROW'S 1670 Lectiones Geometricae. In July 1670 GREGORIE received from JOHN COLLINS a copy of BARROW'S book fresh from the printer, On September 5 he wrote back:
"I have read over Mr Barrow's Lectures with much pleasure and attention, wherein I find him to have infinitely transcended all that ewer [sic] wrote before him. I have discovered from Barrow his method of drawing tangents together with some of my own, a general geometrical method, without calculation, of drawing tangents to all curves, and comprehending not only Barrow's particular methods, but also his general analytical method in the end of the 10th lecture. My method contains not above 12 propositions."(page 102)

- James Gregory

Apart from the pieces of evidence produced above, other considerations support the reconstruction of GREGORIE'S techniques offered here. As we have seen, no calculus techniques are needed to explain GREGORIE'S series expansions. This is consistent with GREGORIE'S admiration for BARROW'S Lectiones Geometricae and with the content of the mathematical notes exchanged between GREGORIE and BARROW. (page 136)

If this reference above is not the type of "smoking gun" that demonstrates the collaborative relationship between Gregory and Barrow, where the influence of the former on the latter is on display, I don't know what is. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

with all due respect Fountains of Bryn Mawr, please spare me your superficially impartial response. On Gregory's page there are numerous (7) references around the statement that Gregory was acknowledged by Barrow to have produced the earliest rudimentary form of the fundamental theorem of calculus. This is no small acknowledgment because this theorem became central to Isaac Barrow's study. It is so central to his study that it's the ONLY entry under Barrow's "known for".

You then defer to the Wiki statement "Unless the scientist was clearly building on an earlier work, avoid adding influences that were only via study, as such influences are generally too many and hard to separate. Only list influences who are notable enough to warrant their own wiki article."

You do realise the "earlier work" is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which Gregorie established, and Barrow continued, right? This invalidates your use of this quote because (I'm going to drop my claim into the first part of the quote you've used, just so we're clear that this statement doesn't apply): "Isaac Barrow was clearly building on an earlier work [of James Gregory's, involving the Fundamental theorem of Calculus]". This cannot be any more clear than it is already is... 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you still have not filled in the primary claim "Isaac Barrow was primarily influenced by James Gregory" and "the person James Gregory primarily influenced was Isaac Barrow". Can you supply a reference directly supporting that? We are talking basic WP:V here re: "providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" Of the 7 references you note to 4 have nothing to do with the claim (they were there before the Barrow mention was added), two redundantly repeat the same claim (Barrow acknowledging Gregory's theorem), and one mentions Barrow and Gregory on the same page with many other thinkers. Cherry picking and repeating the same noted cross contributions and acknowledgments by Barrow and Gregory does not support the above statements, they are actually supported by some reliable secondary source making those statements. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you haven't done anything to refute my claims.

Bryn Mawr started this edit-war by first requiring a good source. I then produced such a source, which was a translated text from 1916 where Barrow pays high praise to Gregory and refers to his work. They reverted again, this time using the argument:

The guideline at Template:Infobox scientist on the influences/influenced parameter also states "Unless the scientist was clearly building on an earlier work, avoid adding influences that were only via study, as such influences are generally too many and hard to separate. Only list influences who are notable enough to warrant their own wiki article." Again, we don't judge that, there should be extensive secondary sources on this influences/influenced such as sections in several reliable text books on the subject, i.e. extensive coverage. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of using "the lede gives seven citations that support Barrow's acknowledgment of Gregory being first to publish a rudimentary form of the fundamental theorem of calculus" as my main argument to invalidate the need for secondary sources (again, because Barrow's work was primarily about the Fundamental theorem, and only Gregory preceded him in studying this specific concept), I entertained Bryn Mawr by procuring many secondary sources. Such effort on my behalf demonstrates a good faith effort to address the (invalid) concerns of Bryn Mawr, because again: Barrow's work on the fundamental theorem of calculus was building upon the work of Gregory, who he acknowledged was "first" (Barrow would be "second", by this measure).

I have called for additional people to comment, and notified User:TransporterMan (@TransporterMan:) about the failure to procure a productive discussion in which Bryn Mawr provides _some_ evidence that AT LEAST instills doubt in this claim. TransporterMan: can we please speed this up? I really think the references provided (especially the last few) are quite good, but given that the person who disagrees is representing a "prestigious" academic institution that was once home to Emmy Noether, I do not think this individual is going to "back down". They understand their institutional reputation is somewhat at stake here, especially with a "no name loser from Canada" (my words, not theirs) giving them a lesson on "it's not the institution one attends, but the work they produce".

They have not even read ANY of the content I've cited because, as I suggested before this entire exchange began, they are not going to accept anything other than "their way", which was to remove the justified insertion of Gregory as an influence on Barrow. It is unacceptable to expect the most productive contributors to this site to tolerate reversions that are borne out of bias instead of facts. It is the second time I've experienced "being right" (and providing the appropriate facts) and have had to continue a conversation that I felt was over.

I looked at their edit history, and in my opinion they haven't even demonstrated sufficient understanding of mathematics to truly comment on this issue. Being that it was incumbent upon me to make my case, I looked past it and did just that; for any observer to suggest that I did not "focus on the material" before "focusing on the user" would be disingenuous. The works I've provided (especially the published stuff) comprehensively study the originality/priority of the Fundamental Theorem, and in doing that, discuss the interactions between contributors such as Barrow, Newton and Gregory.

If you compare my edit history with Bryn Mawr, you will see that their edits are usually on the periphery. My edit commentaries may be occasionally excessive, but I stick to the facts and provide "meaty" additions in mathematics. Bryn Mawr user has not even provided any evidence they have an understanding of the issue being discussed, which I feel would help them understand why Barrow was influenced by Gregory.

It is unfair to expect those who invest the time and effort to improve this site, to have their voice erased because those without similar merit change the goalposts. I don't have time to read or edit pages of "richest people" or other meaningless things like Bryn Mawr. I'm here to stick to the facts, and when other users take bigger bites than that which they are capable of masticating, it is hard to "hold back". It is reminiscent of the edits on another page, where it was deemed that my arguments were correct but my edit was reverted because User:Floquenbeam wanted to exercise their authority. Where is Bryn Mawr's evidence to provide an alternative theory? Why aren't they being held accountable for prolonging of a discussion to which they've added little, but contested much? Do they feel that "I go to the school that Emmy Noether attended" is a sufficient basis to present arguments that not only change upon presentation of solid evidence, but are light on facts?

It is getting increasingly tiresome to have make a case to an editor whose opinion is not going to change, regardless of the facts provided. This is the second time I've experienced this, and I think it will be my last because the system is not conducive to correctness. Expecting someone to "eventually agree", in light of the facts provided, has proven futile twice now. Previously, a physicist User:Ymblanter was brave enough to agree with me and support my claim. This time I may not get any such support, yet provided a stronger case than the reverter. You are going to lose good editors on this site if you allow conduct like this to continue. It's not helpful to building an informative encyclopedia.174.3.155.181 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Support inclusion. Based on these sources, Gregory was clearly an important influence on the development of Barrow's mathematical thinking, indeed, perhaps the most important. In contrast, the other two people listed under "Influences", Gilles Personne de Roberval and Vincenzo Viviani, appear merely to have been professors he worked under; the article gives no evidence that they were particular influences. (WP does not normally list people as influences merely because they were professors under which a person had at some point studied.) Secondary sources are preferable, especially when the primary sources disagree or are inconclusive, but in this case that is not a problem. (Note: evidence for Barrow's appreciation of Gregory's work, on the other hand, is not sufficient to establish influence.) HGilbert (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in influences/influenced but should be mentioned in the body. Despite the adding editor wanting to blow this up into an edit war and going personal immediately and continually on the talk page (somebody needs to read WP:TPG) there is clear merit to adding Barrow to the body. Mentioning in the lead is contrary to WP:LEAD, not covered in article. We have one noted instance of influence with no reference to whether this "influenced the scientist significantly", criteria at Template:Infobox scientist for influences/influenced inclusion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Abstain This is storm-in-teacup stuff. There seems to be general agreement on the plausibility of the influences; the disagreements are mainly about where and how it is OK to mention it (body-or-lede etc) I don't see anything wrong with its appearing in the table, except that it is not supported in context (yes, it is ref'd, but that is not enough to be of use ti the casual reader). If there is a case for influence one way or another, put it coherently and in context into the body. Create a special section on influence if you like. But in its current form this is just a waste of time and goodwill. JonRichfield (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The above discussion is practically unreadable, not helped by off-topic impugning of motives muddled layout and what seem to be unsigned posts. The disagreement seems to focus on whether the influence is sufficient to include in the info-box/lead. The argument for seems synth-y but it is too hard to find clearly what that argument is. I am not voting since it is just unreasonable to expect RfC commenters to wade through a sea of what is more argumentation than argument. Suggest you close and try again. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Abstain This discussion is not of a sufficient standard to form any meaningful view. It should be closed with no consensus for change. Naturenet | Talk 17:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Like other commentators I'm struggling to parse exactly what the dispute here is over. In the future, please spend some time discussing your disagreements and seeking to clarify or narrow them before resorting to an RFC. However, some general principles: if we don't have a reliable secondary source that says "A was influenced by B", we should refrain from saying that "A was influenced by B". We generally shouldn't use primary sources; I think they can be allowed if their meaning is extremely obvious (e.g. if an author writes in the foreword to their book "I am greatly indebted to X whose work forms the basis of my own", it's okay to quote that)–but if there is any doubt about the correct interpretation of a primary source, we must defer to reliable secondary sources rather than seeking to solve those doubts ourselves. If we have a reliable secondary source which says this, we can cite it, but should refrain from making a stronger claim than the cited source actually supports; for example, we should not say "A was primarily influenced by B" if the source doesn't actually use the adverb primarily (or some of form of words with an obviously similar meaning.) SJK (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Too long; didn't read. Anup [Talk] 10:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Try asking a civil concise question rather than posting an angry wall of text. Maybe I will read and parse later. Not now. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Include the sourced connection, but not a claim of "influenced", without clear sources for that more specifically. It's original research to translate editorial praise into direct absorption of influence. I have a great deal of respect for the music of Marvin Gaye, but he would not be any kind of influence on my industro-metal band, for example.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion i put a decent amount of time into finding good sources, and to have someone close it before my vote is counted (whilst the opposition's is) feels disingenuous, especially since the opposition put no work into providing evidence countering the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Support Inclusion i put a decent amount of time into finding good sources, and to have someone close it before my vote is counted (whilst the opposition's is) feels disingenuous, especially since the opposition put no work into providing evidence countering the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

it is offensive, and consequently frustrating, that User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who has not shown any understanding, respect OR appreciation, of the *actually* RICH History of Calculus, continues to act as an authority on this matter when their pretentiousness is palpable with each piece of text.

• it was claimed User:S Marshall "gave very clear reasons for the edit in talk", which were Procedurally speaking, the only way I could decide to include that sentence in the infobox would be if I could find a clear consensus in favour, and I'm afraid it's not possible to find that consensus in the discussion below.

my edit prior to Mawr's reversion clearly stated that I had, per User:S Marshall's protocol, taken it to his talk page. however, given i was absent for the vote that he clearly stated motivated his action, i have reverted it until he & i have a discussion.

• if he is unsatisfied with the sources i will try and find more to accommodate him, but let the process play out. i will have more confidence in his decision than your eager reversions. i think this is a completely acceptable course of action given my absence (for which i apologise) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked for the RFC, you got an answer. Your opinion was well known and even if you inserted it again under "votes" it would make no difference --- "when there is no consensus among editors at RfC, the status quo ante applies". Rejecting community input, tendentious editing, ignoring WP:TPG, and other WP:DISRUPT is probably going to lead somewhere else fast. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Please note this edit. For the time being, the correct place for further discussion of this issue is the administrators' noticeboard which is here. The time allotted for the RfC has expired, and you are all respectfully advised not to make any further edits to it here.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Barrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226042236/http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Barrow.html to http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Barrow.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Death

Barrow died at the age 46. It would be worth mentioning what he died from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.99.110 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)