Apologies to J.J. Lodder

[Mack A. Damia]

"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"

This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver
Expert with Catawiki Auction House:

Dear Mr Procter,

Thank you for question. In the 2nd half of the 20th century the Dutch
firm Gerritsen has invented a process to make silver cutlery with
(almost) pure silver (999/1000). So these 999/1000 silver cutlery sets
do exist, but are not as common as 925/1000 or 835/1000 cutlery sets.
I assume this is the case, because they are less durable (softer
silver).

I don´t think there will be a problem with knives with silver filled
handles though, because often the silver handles are filled (with
cement or resin) and have a steel core of the blade.
Please see this lot for example for spoons, forks and knives marked
with 999: https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/19974219

I hope to have informed you sufficiently.

Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
Dennis van Kampen
Zilverexpert / Silver Expert

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"

Accepted of course, but not really needed.
It really was a tricky question.

This whole discussion is a fine example
of what Flaubert called 'les idees recu'. [1]
Like absinthe being extremely poisonous, causing madness even,
since 'everybody' knew so. (one of his examples)

Some things are 'true' because everyone says so,
and because 'everyone' -says- that they are a (scientific) fact.
Like the sun turning araound the earth, or silver...
Others are true because because they really are a 'scientific fact'
Like a perpetuum mobile being impossible.
All fine, but how do you see the difference?

This is one of the places where a genius or an inventor may step in.
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.
Or Mr Gerritsen, ignoring communis opinio that
pure siver cannot have any practical uses beyond ingots, medals, etc.
BTW, I have never held any 999 silver in my hands,
I just happen to know that it exists.

The fate of those brave pioneers who dare to ignore 'les idees recu'
varies enormously.
Some become famous, or rich, others are forgotten.
At least Gerritsen managed to keep his factory in business with it,
for another decade at least.

You may have noticed I have been doing just the same:
anything called 'reactionless drive' or 'free energy' is nonsense,
even when experimental verification is claimed.

BTW, jumping back, not just silver, all kinds of antiques are 'out'.
Shops are closing all over the place, or are marginally hanging on,
hoping for better times.

If you want to buy Dutch antiques this is the time,

Jan

[1] Flaubert's Dictionaire des Idees Recus has much in common
with Ambrose Bierce's Devil's dictionary.
Bierce just ridicuculed, Flaubert ridiculed by pretending
wholehearted agreement, and by exaggeration.

Post by Mack A. Damia
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver
Dear Mr Procter,
Thank you for question. In the 2nd half of the 20th century the Dutch
firm Gerritsen has invented a process to make silver cutlery with
(almost) pure silver (999/1000). So these 999/1000 silver cutlery sets
do exist, but are not as common as 925/1000 or 835/1000 cutlery sets.
I assume this is the case, because they are less durable (softer
silver).
I don´t think there will be a problem with knives with silver filled
handles though, because often the silver handles are filled (with
cement or resin) and have a steel core of the blade.
Please see this lot for example for spoons, forks and knives marked
with 999: https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/19974219
I hope to have informed you sufficiently.
Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
Dennis van Kampen
Zilverexpert / Silver Expert

[soup]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.

The number of qualifiers that are added to that never ceases to amaze me
the first HEAVIER THAN AIR, MAN CARRYING , CONTROLLED, POWERED, RISE OF
GROUND (though a catapult and rail system was used) SUSTAINED flight.
New qualifiers are added every time more research into early aviation
turns something up.

Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time' was
a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation it is just that they had
the best publicity at that time.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.

The number of qualifiers that are added to that never ceases to
amaze me the first HEAVIER THAN AIR, MAN CARRYING , CONTROLLED,
POWERED, RISE OF GROUND (though a catapult and rail system was used)
SUSTAINED flight. New qualifiers are added every time more research
into early aviation turns something up.
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time'
was a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation it is just that
they had the best publicity at that time.

It's not just aviation. The same applies to a great many inventions.
Often you can't pin down who should get the credit for a new invention,
or for that matter a new theoretical development, because there are
multiple plausible candidates.

A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

Typically the new invention or idea appears at a certain time because
"it was in the air" at that time. The time was right for it because all
the prerequisites had finally been satisfied.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time'
was a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation...

This is true.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup
it is just that they had the best publicity at that time.

This is outrageously wrong. They had the best *invention*, and they
worked on it for 5 more years after it first flew, with *no* publicity
other than an initial press release that most papers ignored, until
they were ready to demonstrate publicly that it was ready to be sold.

Post by Peter Moylan
It's not just aviation. The same applies to a great many inventions.
Often you can't pin down who should get the credit for a new invention,
or for that matter a new theoretical development, because there are
multiple plausible candidates.

True. The star examples are computers and television.

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it...

You mean he's the one that English people remember. To be fair, he was
also the world's leading physicist at the time.

Post by Peter Moylan
there was at least one other person who developed it, apparently
independently.

Yes, Leibniz deserves equal credit for calculus, and he developed a better
notation for it too.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan

[ ... ]

there was at least one other person who developed it, apparently
independently.

Yes, Leibniz deserves equal credit for calculus, and he developed a better
notation for it too.

Even in kinetics (where it might be applicable) Newton's dot notation
is hardly ever used. Leibniz's notation is not just better; it is much
better.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan

[ ... ]

there was at least one other person who developed it, apparently
independently.

Yes, Leibniz deserves equal credit for calculus, and he developed a better
notation for it too.

Even in kinetics (where it might be applicable) Newton's dot notation
is hardly ever used. Leibniz's notation is not just better; it is much
better.

After immense progress of mathematics in the 18th century
(mostly on the contenent) Leibniz' reputation suffered
because of the rigourist fashion in the 19th century.
Narrow-minded mathematicians like Cauchy and followers
couldn't find a way to make infinitesimals rigorous,
so they insisted that everyting with infinitesimals
had to be scrapped and reinvented in their prefered style.

Then, around 1950 Abraham Robinson invented 'non-standard analysis',
which justifies infinitesemals (and infinite numbers) rigorously.

So Leibniz stands vindicated, and the derivative is once again

df
---- ,
dx

With df and dx infinitesimal, and ---- being really division.
The two approaches have been proven to be fully equivalent.

It will filter down into highschool textbooks in another century or so,
(mathematicians *are* conservative) because calculus with infinitesemals
can be made far more intuitive than all that limit stuff,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time'
was a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation...

This is true.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup
it is just that they had the best publicity at that time.

This is outrageously wrong. They had the best *invention*, and they
worked on it for 5 more years after it first flew, with *no* publicity
other than an initial press release that most papers ignored, until
they were ready to demonstrate publicly that it was ready to be sold.

Post by Peter Moylan
It's not just aviation. The same applies to a great many inventions.
Often you can't pin down who should get the credit for a new invention,
or for that matter a new theoretical development, because there are
multiple plausible candidates.

True. The star examples are computers and television.

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it...

You mean he's the one that English people remember. To be fair, he was
also the world's leading physicist at the time.

Still a very Anglosaxonian way of presenting what actually happened.

Jan

[occam]

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus. The
secretive and vengeful Newton - who sat on his rather unfathomable
formulation for years - may have had the idea earlier, but we only have
/his/ word for it. In case you are in any doubt about his diva-like
vengeful behaviour, you do well to read up on his actions against other
contemporaries such as Robert Hooke and John Flamsteed.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus. The
secretive and vengeful Newton - who sat on his rather unfathomable
formulation for years - may have had the idea earlier, but we only have
/his/ word for it. In case you are in any doubt about his diva-like
vengeful behaviour, you do well to read up on his actions against other
contemporaries such as Robert Hooke and John Flamsteed.

I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

[occam]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

...plagiarising John of Salisbury, same as when he later plagiarized
Leibnitz? Do I win a coconut?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

...plagiarising John of Salisbury, same as when he later plagiarized
Leibnitz? Do I win a coconut?

Not yet. Only after you spell him as Leibniz,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

...plagiarising John of Salisbury, same as when he later plagiarized
Leibnitz? Do I win a coconut?

Jerry probably expected his sentence to be completed with "... standing
on the shoulders of giants."

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

...plagiarising John of Salisbury, same as when he later plagiarized
Leibnitz? Do I win a coconut?

Jerry probably expected his sentence to be completed with "... standing
on the shoulders of giants."

Correct.

[occam]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

...plagiarising John of Salisbury, same as when he later plagiarized
Leibnitz? Do I win a coconut?

Jerry probably expected his sentence to be completed with "... standing
on the shoulders of giants."

Correct.

Well Jerry, we don't always get what we expect. I was expecting a Remain
vote. Instead, I got Brexit. You were probably not expecting... but you
git him anyway.

Summary: No coconut for me.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

...plagiarising John of Salisbury, same as when he later plagiarized
Leibnitz? Do I win a coconut?

Jerry probably expected his sentence to be completed with "... standing
on the shoulders of giants."

Correct.

Well Jerry, we don't always get what we expect. I was expecting a Remain
vote. Instead, I got Brexit. You were probably not expecting... but you
git him anyway.

I'm the guy who said, "The party of fiscal responsibility will never
nominate a man who took companies into bankruptcy."

Post by occam
Summary: No coconut for me.

Just as well.

[LFS]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

So when Newton used the trope, he was...

Indeed.. And Google Scholar invites us to do so every time we use it.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original...

But was Gerald Holton's variation (below) original?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original...

But was Gerald Holton's variation (below) original?
--
Mark Brader "...we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
Toronto with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."

It is.
His original text is
===
As a result of the phenomenally rapid change and growth of physics, the
men and women who did their great work one or two generations ago may be
our distant predecessors in terms of the state of the field, but they
are our close neighbors in terms of time and tastes. This may be an
unprecedented state of affairs among professionals; one can perhaps be
forgiven if one characterizes it epigrammatically with a disastrously
mixed metaphor; in the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit
side-by-side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
====
(Gerald Holton, 'On the Recent Past of Physics',
American Journal of Physics (1961), 29, 807) [unverified]

Alas, it's over, except for Gerald Holton, now at 96.
All the giants he sat side-by-side with are dead,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original...

But was Gerald Holton's variation (below) original?
--
Mark Brader "...we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
Toronto with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."

It is.
His original text is
===
As a result of the phenomenally rapid change and growth of physics, the
men and women who did their great work one or two generations ago may be
our distant predecessors in terms of the state of the field, but they
are our close neighbors in terms of time and tastes. This may be an
unprecedented state of affairs among professionals; one can perhaps be
forgiven if one characterizes it epigrammatically with a disastrously
mixed metaphor; in the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit
side-by-side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
====
(Gerald Holton, 'On the Recent Past of Physics',
American Journal of Physics (1961), 29, 807) [unverified]
Alas, it's over, except for Gerald Holton, now at 96.
All the giants he sat side-by-side with are dead,

I was glad he called it a "a disastrously mixed metaphor" himself.
Otherwise someone would have needed to point it out. In Mark's version
it just looked like a spectactorily bad bit of writing.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader "...we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
Toronto with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."

I was glad he [Holton] called it a "a disastrously mixed metaphor"
himself. Otherwise someone would have needed to point it out.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

In Mark's version it just looked like a spectactorily

Is *that* supposed to be a joke?

bad bit of writing.

Is *that*?

(Shakes head.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader "...we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
Toronto with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."

I was glad he [Holton] called it a "a disastrously mixed metaphor"
himself. Otherwise someone would have needed to point it out.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Of course not: what's funny about it?

Post by Mark Brader

In Mark's version it just looked like a spectactorily

Is *that* supposed to be a joke?

Of course not: what's funny about it? "Spectactorily" was the wrong
word, but you could surely understand what was meant.

Post by Mark Brader

bad bit of writing.

Is *that*?

Of course not: what's funny about it?

Post by Mark Brader
(Shakes head.)

[Mark Brader]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader "...we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
Toronto with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."

I was glad he [Holton] called it a "a disastrously mixed metaphor"
himself. Otherwise someone would have needed to point it out.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Of course not: what's funny about it?

I couldn't see anything, but it didn't make sense that you could be serious.
Holton's line is a *delightful* mixed metaphor.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader "...we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
Toronto with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."

I was glad he [Holton] called it a "a disastrously mixed metaphor"
himself. Otherwise someone would have needed to point it out.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Of course not: what's funny about it?

I couldn't see anything, but it didn't make sense that you could be serious.
Holton's line is a *delightful* mixed metaphor.

Maybe you should write to him and tell him that, though he himseld
called it disastrous.

[HVS]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader "...we are now uniquely privileged to sit side
by side Toronto with the giants on whose shoulders
-- Gerald Holton

I was glad he [Holton] called it a "a disastrously mixed metaphor"
himself. Otherwise someone would have needed to point it out.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Of course not: what's funny about it?

I couldn't see anything, but it didn't make sense that you could be
serious. Holton's line is a *delightful* mixed metaphor.

Maybe you should write to him and tell him that, though he himseld
called it disastrous.

Do you not think he's being ironic?

I took "disastrously mixed" to be a self-deprecating way for Holton to let
the reader know that he's really rather pleased with his turn of phrase.

(Which he should be -- like Mark, I thought it was delightful.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

'Alea iacta est' isn't too long winded either.
(but he may not really have said that either)

The Romans were great admirers of the Spartans,
and their laconic utterances.
(where is Helen when we need her?)
There must be other examples, [1]

Jan

[1] Cicero, known for his eloborate orations,
is also supposed to have said 'vixerunt',
which is even shorter.

[CDB]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that 'he had been
standing on the shoulders of giants' because Hooke was
physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of
giants started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said
"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on
the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and
farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener
vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and
borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of
centuries later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it
didn't lend itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare
exception (if he really said it).

'Alea iacta est' isn't too long winded either. (but he may not really
have said that either)
The Romans were great admirers of the Spartans, and their laconic
utterances. (where is Helen when we need her?) There must be other
examples, [1]

"Et tu, fili?" True, he was pressed for time.

[1] Cicero, known for his eloborate orations, is also supposed to
have said 'vixerunt', which is even shorter.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that 'he had been
standing on the shoulders of giants' because Hooke was
physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of
giants started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said
"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on
the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and
farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener
vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and
borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of
centuries later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it
didn't lend itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare
exception (if he really said it).

'Alea iacta est' isn't too long winded either. (but he may not really
have said that either)
The Romans were great admirers of the Spartans, and their laconic
utterances. (where is Helen when we need her?) There must be other
examples, [1]

"Et tu, fili?" True, he was pressed for time.

And he probably never said that either.
(but it is a running gag in Asterix)

Jan

[CDB]

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that 'he had
been standing on the shoulders of giants' because Hooke
was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders
of giants started with Newton, but actually John of
Salisbury said it in 1159, and he didn't claim the idea was
original to him: "Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to
dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out
that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but
because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic
shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of
centuries later. Besides, from what I remember of studying
Latin it didn't lend itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi,
vici" was a rare exception (if he really said it).

'Alea iacta est' isn't too long winded either. (but he may not
really have said that either)
The Romans were great admirers of the Spartans, and their
laconic utterances. (where is Helen when we need her?) There must
be other examples, [1]

"Et tu, fili?" True, he was pressed for time.

And he probably never said that either. (but it is a running gag in
Asterix)

Humans are story-telling animals. I have also heard that he said it in
Greek: "Kai su, huie". Death a la mode.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by CDB

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that 'he had
been standing on the shoulders of giants' because Hooke
was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders
of giants started with Newton, but actually John of
Salisbury said it in 1159, and he didn't claim the idea was
original to him: "Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to
dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out
that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but
because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic
shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of
centuries later. Besides, from what I remember of studying
Latin it didn't lend itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi,
vici" was a rare exception (if he really said it).

'Alea iacta est' isn't too long winded either. (but he may not
really have said that either)
The Romans were great admirers of the Spartans, and their
laconic utterances. (where is Helen when we need her?) There must
be other examples, [1]

"Et tu, fili?" True, he was pressed for time.

And he probably never said that either. (but it is a running gag in
Asterix)

Humans are story-telling animals. I have also heard that he said it in
Greek: "Kai su, huie". Death a la mode.

Quite possible. Those classical Romans did speak their Greek.
(they could afford to buy a Greek slave as house teacher)

Caesar probably spoke Greek with Cleopatra,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by CDB

Post by CDB

The Romans were great admirers of the Spartans, and their
laconic utterances. (where is Helen when we need her?) There must
be other examples, [1]

"Et tu, fili?" True, he was pressed for time.

And he probably never said that either. (but it is a running gag in
Asterix)

Humans are story-telling animals. I have also heard that he said it in
Greek: "Kai su, huie". Death a la mode.

The version I read was "You two brutes". Possibly Mad magazine.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by CDB

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that 'he had been
standing on the shoulders of giants' because Hooke was
physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of
giants started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said
"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on
the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and
farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener
vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and
borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of
centuries later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it
didn't lend itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare
exception (if he really said it).

'Alea iacta est' isn't too long winded either. (but he may not really
have said that either)
The Romans were great admirers of the Spartans, and their laconic
utterances. (where is Helen when we need her?) There must be other
examples, [1]

"Et tu, fili?" True, he was pressed for time.

[1] Cicero, known for his eloborate orations, is also supposed to
have said 'vixerunt', which is even shorter.

I take issue with Athel. Latin is brill for pithiness. Terse verse.
General Napier's apocryphal report "Peccavi" is well-known.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

[RHDraney]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

The state motto of New Mexico is "crescit eundo" = "it grows as it
goes"....damn silly thing to make into a motto....r

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

The state motto of New Mexico is "crescit eundo" = "it grows as it
goes"....damn silly thing to make into a motto....r

Lucretius thought it important.

[occam]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

The state motto of New Mexico is "crescit eundo" = "it grows as it
goes"....damn silly thing to make into a motto....r

It would be a better fit for Mexico city (and its marijuana exporting
cartels). They grew it, and it went ... to the USA, Canada. What could
be more apt?

[Ken Blake]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

The state motto of New Mexico is "crescit eundo" = "it grows as it
goes"....damn silly thing to make into a motto....r

And New York State's motto is even pithier: Excelsior.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by RHDraney

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

The state motto of New Mexico is "crescit eundo" = "it grows as it
goes"....damn silly thing to make into a motto....r

And New York State's motto is even pithier: Excelsior.

I hope it comes with a banner, with a strange device.

And considering mottoes, Canada could try E Pluribus Unum, Eh?

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by RHDraney

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

The state motto of New Mexico is "crescit eundo" = "it grows as it
goes"....damn silly thing to make into a motto....r

And New York State's motto is even pithier: Excelsior.

Funny thing, I was singing "The Egg" to myself only yesterday, after not
having thought of it for years.

Post by Paul Wolff
I hope it comes with a banner, with a strange device.
And considering mottoes, Canada could try E Pluribus Unum, Eh?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

This kind of 'tile wisdom' can be pithy in any language,

Jan

[RHDraney]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Huh? Latin is the pithy language par excellence. That's why your
common or garden motto is always in Latin. Per ardua ad astra,
dum spiro spero, labor omnia vincit, etc.

So, "if you want to be pithy, use Latin"?...

That'll do for a lex pollicis....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

Not one for pithiness, that John of Salisbury.

They didn't do pithiness in 1159. It came to be approved of centuries
later. Besides, from what I remember of studying Latin it didn't lend
itself much to pithiness. "Veni, vidi, vici" was a rare exception (if
he really said it).

Writing materials were very expensive. You can be sure the original mss.
were crawling with contractions.

I think you'll find that in facing-translation Latin editions, the English
is consistently longer. The first Loeb that came to hand was a Cicero, and
I was reminded that all the footnotes (both kinds) are under the Latin,
and if there happen to be no notes on an opening, the Latin is leaded out
to fill the page.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

It's giants all the way down,

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

It's giants all the way down,

<snort>

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

For years I thought the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants
started with Newton, but actually John of Salisbury said it in 1159,
and he didn't claim the idea was original to him: "Bernard of Chartres
used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He
pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not
because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are
lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic shoulders".

It's giants all the way down,

<snort>

+1 snort

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus. The
secretive and vengeful Newton - who sat on his rather unfathomable
formulation for years - may have had the idea earlier, but we only have
/his/ word for it. In case you are in any doubt about his diva-like
vengeful behaviour, you do well to read up on his actions against other
contemporaries such as Robert Hooke and John Flamsteed.

I have heard the anecdote that Newton said that
'he had been standing on the shoulders of giants'
because Hooke was physically a small man,

[continued, found it]
Newton was really someone who liked to rub it in.
The 'shoulders of giants' quote is from a letter to Hooke,

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

Post by occam
The
secretive and vengeful Newton - who sat on his rather unfathomable
formulation for years - may have had the idea earlier, but we only have
/his/ word for it. In case you are in any doubt about his diva-like
vengeful behaviour, you do well to read up on his actions against other
contemporaries such as Robert Hooke and John Flamsteed.

[occam]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

Yet, all those sources acknowledge that it is Leibnitz's formulation
(and notations) in which modern calculus is couched. Not fluxions and
fluents.

Here is an easy quote from Wiki (and others do exists):

"The priority dispute had an effect of separating English-speaking
mathematicians from those in the continental Europe for many years. Only
in the 1820s, due to the efforts of the Analytical Society, did
Leibnizian analytical calculus become accepted in England. Today, both
Newton and Leibniz are given credit for independently developing the
basics of calculus. It is Leibniz, however, who is credited with giving
the new discipline the name it is known by today: "calculus". Newton's
name for it was "the science of fluents and fluxions".

Although the statement is neutral and does not lean one way or the other
- in keeping with Wiki style - I'd bet good money on Leibnitz.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam
The
secretive and vengeful Newton - who sat on his rather unfathomable
formulation for years - may have had the idea earlier, but we only have
/his/ word for it. In case you are in any doubt about his diva-like
vengeful behaviour, you do well to read up on his actions against other
contemporaries such as Robert Hooke and John Flamsteed.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

Yet, all those sources acknowledge that it is Leibnitz's formulation
(and notations) in which modern calculus is couched. Not fluxions and
fluents.
"The priority dispute had an effect of separating English-speaking
mathematicians from those in the continental Europe for many years. Only
in the 1820s, due to the efforts of the Analytical Society, did
Leibnizian analytical calculus become accepted in England. Today, both
Newton and Leibniz are given credit for independently developing the
basics of calculus. It is Leibniz, however, who is credited with giving
the new discipline the name it is known by today: "calculus". Newton's
name for it was "the science of fluents and fluxions".

What does it matter what they call it?

AmE "phonemic," BrE "phonematic." AmE "Slavic," BrE "Slavonic." So what?
Eng. "cuneiform," Ger. "Keilschrift." So what? ("Nail-writing" was tried
for a few weeks in the 1840s. It didn't catch on.)

Post by occam
Although the statement is neutral and does not lean one way or the other
- in keeping with Wiki style - I'd bet good money on Leibnitz.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

Yet, all those sources acknowledge that it is Leibnitz's formulation
(and notations) in which modern calculus is couched. Not fluxions and
fluents.
"The priority dispute had an effect of separating English-speaking
mathematicians from those in the continental Europe for many years. Only
in the 1820s, due to the efforts of the Analytical Society, did
Leibnizian analytical calculus become accepted in England. Today, both
Newton and Leibniz are given credit for independently developing the
basics of calculus. It is Leibniz, however, who is credited with giving
the new discipline the name it is known by today: "calculus". Newton's
name for it was "the science of fluents and fluxions".

What does it matter what they call it?
AmE "phonemic," BrE "phonematic." AmE "Slavic," BrE "Slavonic." So what?
Eng. "cuneiform," Ger. "Keilschrift." So what? ("Nail-writing" was tried
for a few weeks in the 1840s. It didn't catch on.)

Indeed, the name alone isn't that important. This is more so:

| [Leibniz'] contribution was to provide a clear set of rules for
| working with infinitesimal quantities, allowing the computation of
| second and higher derivatives, and providing the product rule and
| chain rule, in their differential and integral forms. Unlike Newton,
| Leibniz paid a lot of attention to the formalism, often spending
| days determining appropriate symbols for concepts.

| Leibniz developed much of the notation used in calculus today.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

Yet, all those sources acknowledge that it is Leibnitz's formulation
(and notations) in which modern calculus is couched. Not fluxions and
fluents.
"The priority dispute had an effect of separating English-speaking
mathematicians from those in the continental Europe for many years. Only
in the 1820s, due to the efforts of the Analytical Society, did
Leibnizian analytical calculus become accepted in England. Today, both
Newton and Leibniz are given credit for independently developing the
basics of calculus. It is Leibniz, however, who is credited with giving
the new discipline the name it is known by today: "calculus". Newton's
name for it was "the science of fluents and fluxions".

What does it matter what they call it?
AmE "phonemic," BrE "phonematic." AmE "Slavic," BrE "Slavonic." So what?
Eng. "cuneiform," Ger. "Keilschrift." So what? ("Nail-writing" was tried
for a few weeks in the 1840s. It didn't catch on.)

| [Leibniz'] contribution was to provide a clear set of rules for
| working with infinitesimal quantities, allowing the computation of
| second and higher derivatives, and providing the product rule and
| chain rule, in their differential and integral forms. Unlike Newton,
| Leibniz paid a lot of attention to the formalism, often spending
| days determining appropriate symbols for concepts.
| Leibniz developed much of the notation used in calculus today.

In my experience, both in physics and in teaching introductory
calculus (last summer), both Leibniz's d notation and Newton's dot
notation for the derivative (and primes instead of dots) are still
in use. Integrals are always written with d's. I'm certainly
willing to believe that Leibniz introduced some things that Newton
missed.

Babbage was in favor of "the principles of pure D-ism in opposition
to the /Dot/-age of the university," but I don't think purity has
been achieved.

[Quinn C]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

Yet, all those sources acknowledge that it is Leibnitz's formulation
(and notations) in which modern calculus is couched. Not fluxions and
fluents.
"The priority dispute had an effect of separating English-speaking
mathematicians from those in the continental Europe for many years. Only
in the 1820s, due to the efforts of the Analytical Society, did
Leibnizian analytical calculus become accepted in England. Today, both
Newton and Leibniz are given credit for independently developing the
basics of calculus. It is Leibniz, however, who is credited with giving
the new discipline the name it is known by today: "calculus". Newton's
name for it was "the science of fluents and fluxions".

What does it matter what they call it?
AmE "phonemic," BrE "phonematic." AmE "Slavic," BrE "Slavonic." So what?
Eng. "cuneiform," Ger. "Keilschrift." So what? ("Nail-writing" was tried
for a few weeks in the 1840s. It didn't catch on.)

| [Leibniz'] contribution was to provide a clear set of rules for
| working with infinitesimal quantities, allowing the computation of
| second and higher derivatives, and providing the product rule and
| chain rule, in their differential and integral forms. Unlike Newton,
| Leibniz paid a lot of attention to the formalism, often spending
| days determining appropriate symbols for concepts.
| Leibniz developed much of the notation used in calculus today.

In my experience, both in physics and in teaching introductory
calculus (last summer), both Leibniz's d notation and Newton's dot
notation for the derivative (and primes instead of dots) are still
in use.

Even as good German schoolchildren we were using primed functions, and
were warned against taking dy/dx literally (JJ has commented on that.)
But Wikipedia tells me that this notation goes back to Lagrange.

Post by Jerry Friedman
Integrals are always written with d's. I'm certainly
willing to believe that Leibniz introduced some things that Newton
missed.
Babbage was in favor of "the principles of pure D-ism in opposition
to the /Dot/-age of the university," but I don't think purity has
been achieved.

In my understanding, D-ism entails that the gods of calculus won't ever
tell us the right answer. They made it, now it's our problem. Sensible
approach, actually.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by occam

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus.
Although Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one
other person who developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

Yet, all those sources acknowledge that it is Leibnitz's formulation
(and notations) in which modern calculus is couched. Not fluxions and
fluents.
"The priority dispute had an effect of separating English-speaking
mathematicians from those in the continental Europe for many years. Only
in the 1820s, due to the efforts of the Analytical Society, did
Leibnizian analytical calculus become accepted in England. Today, both
Newton and Leibniz are given credit for independently developing the
basics of calculus. It is Leibniz, however, who is credited with giving
the new discipline the name it is known by today: "calculus". Newton's
name for it was "the science of fluents and fluxions".

What does it matter what they call it?
AmE "phonemic," BrE "phonematic." AmE "Slavic," BrE "Slavonic." So what?
Eng. "cuneiform," Ger. "Keilschrift." So what? ("Nail-writing" was tried
for a few weeks in the 1840s. It didn't catch on.)

| [Leibniz'] contribution was to provide a clear set of rules for
| working with infinitesimal quantities, allowing the computation of
| second and higher derivatives, and providing the product rule and
| chain rule, in their differential and integral forms. Unlike Newton,
| Leibniz paid a lot of attention to the formalism, often spending
| days determining appropriate symbols for concepts.
| Leibniz developed much of the notation used in calculus today.

In my experience, both in physics and in teaching introductory
calculus (last summer), both Leibniz's d notation and Newton's dot
notation for the derivative (and primes instead of dots) are still
in use.

Even as good German schoolchildren we were using primed functions, and
were warned against taking dy/dx literally (JJ has commented on that.)
But Wikipedia tells me that this notation goes back to Lagrange.

Education involves lying in didactically justfied ways.
'Differentials don't exist' is on the same level
as 'centrifugal forces don't exist.
Telling the kiddies to much at once only serves to confuse them.

As it went, real working mathematicians (as opposed to math teachers)
never gave up on differentials, despite all the bans of rigourists.
Much of modern mathematical physics is differential geometry,
so 100% Leibniz. Newton is a footnote at best.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Jerry Friedman
Integrals are always written with d's. I'm certainly
willing to believe that Leibniz introduced some things that Newton
missed.
Babbage was in favor of "the principles of pure D-ism in opposition
to the /Dot/-age of the university," but I don't think purity has
been achieved.

In my understanding, D-ism entails that the gods of calculus won't ever
tell us the right answer. They made it, now it's our problem. Sensible
approach, actually.

No problem, 'The Supreme Fascist' restricts his efforts at frustradion
almost exclusively to number theory.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

For discovery, yet.
For the rest, Leibniz really *is* the father of modern day calculus.
OTOH, nobody touches the pile of shit that Newton produced.
It is of hstorical interest only,

Jan

[occam]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam
This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

For discovery, yet.
For the rest, Leibniz really *is* the father of modern day calculus.
OTOH, nobody touches the pile of shit that Newton produced.
It is of hstorical interest only,

Just to make sure as to what you are referring to as 'shit'. Are we
talking about his occult studies? Alchemy; Biblical studies (calculating
the end of the world based on 'facts' in the bible); his studies of the
chronology of historical event, etc? Pile of shit indeed.

P.S. I see that his predicted end of the world was "...not earlier than
2060". Hmm, we'll be lucky of Brexit is resolved before then. After that
date, it will probably not matter.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by occam

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam
This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

For discovery, yet.
For the rest, Leibniz really *is* the father of modern day calculus.
OTOH, nobody touches the pile of shit that Newton produced.
It is of hstorical interest only,

Just to make sure as to what you are referring to as 'shit'. Are we
talking about his occult studies? Alchemy; Biblical studies (calculating
the end of the world based on 'facts' in the bible); his studies of the
chronology of historical event, etc? Pile of shit indeed.

No, I was talking about Newton's version of the calculus.
It was a dead end, unusable for advanced work.
Even now it takes a mathematician of the highest caliber (Chandrasekhar)
to read it and to understand what Newton may have meant.

Post by occam
P.S. I see that his predicted end of the world was "...not earlier than
2060". Hmm, we'll be lucky of Brexit is resolved before then. After that
date, it will probably not matter.

You'll be on your third Brexit by then.

Newton predicted planetary perturbations.
He was not capable of handling those correctly.
(shitty mathematics redux)
He believed that these planetary perturbations
would grow linearly with time, or in other words,
that the solar system is highly unstable.
Hence Newton believed that the solar system
needs frequent divine interventions
to put the planets in the right orbits again.

Newton regarded this theism as a great advantage of his theory,
and contrasted it favourably with Descartes 'atheistic' universe,
which did not need divine intervention.

Of course all this was based on Newton's faulty mathematics.
Better equiped continental mathematicians, first Lagrange,
later Laplace succeeded in handling the perturbations correctly.
They showed that Newton's instabilities do not in fact exist.

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

For discovery, yet.
For the rest, Leibniz really *is* the father of modern day calculus.
OTOH, nobody touches the pile of shit that Newton produced.
It is of hstorical interest only,

It did allow him to show that an inverse square law was compatible with
an elliptical orbit.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

This is not my understanding. Leibnitz, who independently developed his
own calculus, is acknowledged as the father of modern day calculus.

A very Continental way to put it. I've always seen Newton and
Leibnitz given equal credit.

For discovery, yet.
For the rest, Leibniz really *is* the father of modern day calculus.
OTOH, nobody touches the pile of shit that Newton produced.
It is of hstorical interest only,

It did allow him to show that an inverse square law was compatible with
an elliptical orbit.

Newton did much more than that.
First he solved the easy problem:
an inverse square law gives elliptical orbits.
Next he also solved the far more difficult direct problem:
Elliptical orbits imply an inverse square law.

So Newton showed that the inverse square law
is necessary and sufficient.
This was perhaps his greatest achievement,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
For the rest, Leibniz really *is* the father of modern day calculus.
OTOH, nobody touches the pile of shit that Newton produced.
It is of hstorical interest only,

It did allow him to show that an inverse square law was compatible with
an elliptical orbit.

Newton did much more than that.
an inverse square law gives elliptical orbits.
Elliptical orbits imply an inverse square law.
So Newton showed that the inverse square law
is necessary and sufficient.
This was perhaps his greatest achievement,

And he did it using his own brand of differential calculus.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
For the rest, Leibniz really *is* the father of modern day calculus.
OTOH, nobody touches the pile of shit that Newton produced.
It is of hstorical interest only,

It did allow him to show that an inverse square law was compatible with
an elliptical orbit.

Newton did much more than that.
an inverse square law gives elliptical orbits.
Elliptical orbits imply an inverse square law.
So Newton showed that the inverse square law
is necessary and sufficient.
This was perhaps his greatest achievement,

And he did it using his own brand of differential calculus.

Perhaps it is better to say differential reckonning.
Newton never invented the calculus.

You may say Newton was too brilliant for his own good.
He just solved those problems in his own clever ways.
Leibniz otoh not only solved a lot of problems,
he also invented 'the calculus' that alllowed ordinary mortals
to solve problems involving differentials by just applying his rules,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.

The number of qualifiers that are added to that never ceases to
amaze me the first HEAVIER THAN AIR, MAN CARRYING , CONTROLLED,
POWERED, RISE OF GROUND (though a catapult and rail system was used)
SUSTAINED flight. New qualifiers are added every time more research
into early aviation turns something up.
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time'
was a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation it is just that
they had the best publicity at that time.

It's not just aviation. The same applies to a great many inventions.
Often you can't pin down who should get the credit for a new invention,
or for that matter a new theoretical development, because there are
multiple plausible candidates.
A famous example is the invention of the differential calculus. Although
Newton gets the credit for it, there was at least one other person who
developed it, apparently independently.

That's a very Anglosaxonian way of presenting what actually happened.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.

The number of qualifiers that are added to that never ceases to amaze me
the first HEAVIER THAN AIR, MAN CARRYING , CONTROLLED, POWERED, RISE OF
GROUND (though a catapult and rail system was used) SUSTAINED flight.
New qualifiers are added every time more research into early aviation
turns something up.
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time' was
a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation it is just that they had
the best publicity at that time.

That's unjustified. there were others, but they were all failures.
The Wrights succeeded because they made a systematic study of it.
(building a wind tunnel, testing profiles, studying stability,
experimenting and measuring with kites, and so on)
They also were the first to invent efficient propellors,
and the first to build a usable aero engine.

That 'hotbed of invention in the world of aviation'
didn't start until the Wrights had shown the world
(by demonstrations) that it could be done succesfully.
And even then much of that 'invention' was just a rip-off.
(aileron control, propellors, etc.)

The qualifiers are justified because the Wrights
did have an impressive list of 'firsts'.
They deserve all the credit they get,

Jan

[soup]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.

The number of qualifiers that are added to that never ceases to amaze me
the first HEAVIER THAN AIR, MAN CARRYING , CONTROLLED, POWERED, RISE OF
GROUND (though a catapult and rail system was used) SUSTAINED flight.
New qualifiers are added every time more research into early aviation
turns something up.
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time' was
a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation it is just that they had
the best publicity at that time.

"Best" is obviously the wrong word to use possibly 'loudest' is better

Post by J. J. Lodder
That's unjustified. there were others, but they were all failures.

"Failures" yeah rite.

Post by J. J. Lodder
The Wrights succeeded because they made a systematic study of it.
(building a wind tunnel, testing profiles, studying stability,
experimenting and measuring with kites, and so on)

Yeah, like the basics of aerodynamics don't date back to Aristotle, the
father of modern aerodynamics (named the basics; lift drag thrust
weight), George Cayley, was about at the end of 18th~start of 19th
century.

Post by J. J. Lodder
They also were the first to invent efficient propellors,
and the first to build a usable aero engine.

Usable aero engine?
The first powerplant for aerial use was patented (and flew a non-man
carrying aircraft ) in 1848

Post by J. J. Lodder
That 'hotbed of invention in the world of aviation'
didn't start until the Wrights had shown the world
(by demonstrations) that it could be done succesfully.
And even then much of that 'invention' was just a rip-off.
(aileron control, propellors, etc.)
The qualifiers are justified because the Wrights
did have an impréessive list of 'firsts'.
They deserve all the credit they get,

They were not the first to fly :-
See Montgolfier .

They were not the first to fly heavier than air :-
See Percy Pilcher, Otto Lillenthal.


They were not first to fly a powered heavier than air craft :-
See Félix du Temple, Gustave Ponton d'Amécourt .

As each of these pioneers come to the fore there is an addition to the
qualifiers of what the Wrights were first at.

Stop press There are several claims that someone else was the first
(heavier than air controlled, mancarrying etc) flight :-

Clemnt Ader , Gustave Whitehead, Richard Pearce et al


One of the reasons given was that the Wrights were virtually silent for
five years after the 'first flight' which was NOT covered by any of the
press at the time .

There is even a claim by Santos-Dumont that as the Flyer did not have
wheels (it used a launching rail with catapult) it did not take off
under its own power so shouldn't be considered as the first.

I do not want to denigrate the Wrights at all I just wish more people
would understand they were not the 'be all and end all'.

[Ken Blake]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.

The number of qualifiers that are added to that never ceases to amaze me
the first HEAVIER THAN AIR, MAN CARRYING , CONTROLLED, POWERED, RISE OF
GROUND (though a catapult and rail system was used) SUSTAINED flight.
New qualifiers are added every time more research into early aviation
turns something up.
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time' was
a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation it is just that they had
the best publicity at that time.

"Best" is obviously the wrong word to use possibly 'loudest' is better

Post by J. J. Lodder
That's unjustified. there were others, but they were all failures.

"Failures" yeah rite.

Post by J. J. Lodder
The Wrights succeeded because they made a systematic study of it.
(building a wind tunnel, testing profiles, studying stability,
experimenting and measuring with kites, and so on)

Yeah, like the basics of aerodynamics don't date back to Aristotle, the
father of modern aerodynamics (named the basics; lift drag thrust
weight), George Cayley, was about at the end of 18th~start of 19th
century.

Post by J. J. Lodder
They also were the first to invent efficient propellors,
and the first to build a usable aero engine.

Usable aero engine?
The first powerplant for aerial use was patented (and flew a non-man
carrying aircraft ) in 1848

Post by J. J. Lodder
That 'hotbed of invention in the world of aviation'
didn't start until the Wrights had shown the world
(by demonstrations) that it could be done succesfully.
And even then much of that 'invention' was just a rip-off.
(aileron control, propellors, etc.)
The qualifiers are justified because the Wrights
did have an impréessive list of 'firsts'.
They deserve all the credit they get,

They were not the first to fly :-
See Montgolfier .
They were not the first to fly heavier than air :-
See Percy Pilcher, Otto Lillenthal.
They were not first to fly a powered heavier than air craft :-
See Félix du Temple, Gustave Ponton d'Amécourt .
As each of these pioneers come to the fore there is an addition to the
qualifiers of what the Wrights were first at.
Stop press There are several claims that someone else was the first
(heavier than air controlled, mancarrying etc) flight :-
Clemnt Ader , Gustave Whitehead, Richard Pearce et al
One of the reasons given was that the Wrights were virtually silent for
five years after the 'first flight' which was NOT covered by any of the
press at the time .
There is even a claim by Santos-Dumont that as the Flyer did not have
wheels (it used a launching rail with catapult) it did not take off
under its own power so shouldn't be considered as the first.
I do not want to denigrate the Wrights at all I just wish more people
would understand they were not the 'be all and end all'.

They weren't even the "be ginning."

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
Like the Wright brothers, ignoring, or not knowing about 'proofs'
that powered flight must be impossible.

The number of qualifiers that are added to that never ceases to amaze me
the first HEAVIER THAN AIR, MAN CARRYING , CONTROLLED, POWERED, RISE OF
GROUND (though a catapult and rail system was used) SUSTAINED flight.
New qualifiers are added every time more research into early aviation
turns something up.
Not at all meaning to deride the Wrights it's just that 'that time' was
a hotbed of invention in the world of aviation it is just that they had
the best publicity at that time.

"Best" is obviously the wrong word to use possibly 'loudest' is better

??? The Wright brothers did just the opposite.
They did all they could to -discourage- journalists
from visiting and reporting,
until they a really flying plane. (their Flyer III, version 2, 1905)

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
That's unjustified. there were others, but they were all failures.

"Failures" yeah rite.

Post by J. J. Lodder
The Wrights succeeded because they made a systematic study of it.
(building a wind tunnel, testing profiles, studying stability,
experimenting and measuring with kites, and so on)

Yeah, like the basics of aerodynamics don't date back to Aristotle, the
father of modern aerodynamics (named the basics; lift drag thrust
weight), George Cayley, was about at the end of 18th~start of 19th
century.

Sure, no lack of theory, the problem was making it work in practice.
It takes a wind tunnel rather than talk.

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
They also were the first to invent efficient propellors,
and the first to build a usable aero engine.

Usable aero engine?
The first powerplant for aerial use was patented (and flew a non-man
carrying aircraft ) in 1848

For some values of 'usable'.
Those powered dirigibles never succeeded
in going against even mild winds.
Lift and drag, thrust and weight.

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
That 'hotbed of invention in the world of aviation'
didn't start until the Wrights had shown the world
(by demonstrations) that it could be done succesfully.
And even then much of that 'invention' was just a rip-off.
(aileron control, propellors, etc.)
The qualifiers are justified because the Wrights
did have an impréessive list of 'firsts'.
They deserve all the credit they get,

They were not the first to fly :-
See Montgolfier .
They were not the first to fly heavier than air :-
See Percy Pilcher, Otto Lillenthal.

Yeah rite, flying down.

Post by soup
They were not first to fly a powered heavier than air craft :-
See Félix du Temple, Gustave Ponton d'Amécourt .
As each of these pioneers come to the fore there is an addition to the
qualifiers of what the Wrights were first at.
Stop press There are several claims that someone else was the first
(heavier than air controlled, mancarrying etc) flight :-
Clemnt Ader , Gustave Whitehead, Richard Pearce et al
One of the reasons given was that the Wrights were virtually silent for
five years after the 'first flight' which was NOT covered by any of the
press at the time .

See above.

Post by soup
There is even a claim by Santos-Dumont that as the Flyer did not have
wheels (it used a launching rail with catapult) it did not take off
under its own power so shouldn't be considered as the first.
I do not want to denigrate the Wrights at all I just wish more people
would understand they were not the 'be all and end all'.

No, 'merely' the first to build a practical usable plane,

Jan

[soup]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Yeah rite, flying down.

In what way?
Slope soarers can go up you know. Pilcher/Lillenthal could be considered
to be slope soaring but even modern gliders can use thermal lift to go up.
All 'planes have to go down (well ish I suppose they could go up to land
at high altitude airports) to land

Post by J. J. Lodder
No, 'merely' the first to build a practical usable plane,

First (with all the qualifiers) arguably, but hardly practical.

It could only carry one person (the pilot) and no passengers or cargo.

Their 'plane needed a whopping great tower and rail system to launch it
They used wing warping for control, a system that was all but abandoned
until modern computers grew powerful enough to use it.

Indeed can think of no mainstream aircraft that use it but there are
bound to be some research/prototype craft that use it.

There first flights were VERY short[1] , first one being less than the
wingspan of an (even early) 747 .

[1]Can that be considered 'sustained' or as 'the tower/rail system
heaved it into the air then a powered glide to land'.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
Yeah rite, flying down.

In what way?

With respect to the surrounding air of course.

Post by soup
Slope soarers can go up you know. Pilcher/Lillenthal could be considered
to be slope soaring but even modern gliders can use thermal lift to go up.
All 'planes have to go down (well ish I suppose they could go up to land
at high altitude airports) to land

You may as well claim to have invented an anti-gravity device
when you step into an elevator.

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
No, 'merely' the first to build a practical usable plane,

First (with all the qualifiers) arguably, but hardly practical.

Agreed, for their Flyer I. It could only fly in ground effect.
Their Flyer III was fully practical.
It could climb out of ground effect, and was fully manoevrable.
(such as capable of banked turns)
It could have been used for military observation for example.

Post by soup
It could only carry one person (the pilot) and no passengers or cargo.
Their 'plane needed a whopping great tower and rail system to launch it

Sure, jets from an aircraft carrier don't 'really' fly either,
until you put them on a runway on the ground..

Post by soup
They used wing warping for control, a system that was all but abandoned
until modern computers grew powerful enough to use it.

The Wrights also patented other ways to do it,
such as hinged surfaces.

Post by soup
Indeed can think of no mainstream aircraft that use it but there are
bound to be some research/prototype craft that use it.
There first flights were VERY short[1] , first one being less than the
wingspan of an (even early) 747 .
[1]Can that be considered 'sustained' or as 'the tower/rail system
heaved it into the air then a powered glide to land'.

You don't really understand flight, eh?
Their rail system did not 'heave their plane into the air'.
It gave it the needed *horizontal* speed.
In other words, ir saved on a runway.

Jan

[soup]

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't really understand flight, eh?

Probably better than you.

I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory'
but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

Here's NASAs take on 'the longest way around'
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

I have read a (tongue in cheek ) paper from Aerodynamasists
in which they lay out how lift is generated by lift demons and thrust
pixies. If you accept the fact that pixies and demons exist
there 'theory' can not be disproved.


http://messybeast.com/dragonqueen/liftdemon.htm

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't really understand flight, eh?

Probably better than you.
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.

Easy win. That is indeed what I think.

Post by soup
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory'
but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

There is no point in telling me about the mistakes of others,

Jan

[soup]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't really understand flight, eh?

Probably better than you.
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.

Easy win. That is indeed what I think.

Post by soup
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory'
but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

There is no point in telling me about the mistakes of others,

But I am not telling you about the mistakes (mistakes or lies to
children?[Google it]) of others (well not directly) I am telling you
about your mistakes.

If you are wrong about where lift 'comes from' couldn't you also be
wrong about aviation's history?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't really understand flight, eh?

Probably better than you.
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.

Easy win. That is indeed what I think.

Post by soup
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory'
but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

There is no point in telling me about the mistakes of others,

But I am not telling you about the mistakes (mistakes or lies to
children?[Google it]) of others (well not directly) I am telling you
about your mistakes.

Message-ID ?

Post by soup
If you are wrong about where lift 'comes from' couldn't you also be
wrong about aviation's history?

Indeed, *IF*.
Since I didn't say anything about --where lift 'comes from'--
I can't have been wrong about it.

And for you too:
in usenet discussions you should react to --quoted-- text,
instead of your inventions of what I might have said.

Jan

[soup]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't really understand flight, eh?

Probably better than you.
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.

Easy win. That is indeed what I think.

Post by soup
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory'
but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

There is no point in telling me about the mistakes of others,

But I am not telling you about the mistakes (mistakes or lies to
children?[Google it]) of others (well not directly) I am telling you
about your mistakes.

Message-ID ?

Not required the phrase 'lies to children' is what was to be Googled.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup
If you are wrong about where lift 'comes from' couldn't you also be
wrong about aviation's history?

Indeed, *IF*.
Since I didn't say anything about --where lift 'comes from'--
I can't have been wrong about it.

Erm "That is indeed what I think "
is that not saying you think you know where lift comes from?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder
You don't really understand flight, eh?

Probably better than you.
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.

Easy win. That is indeed what I think.

Post by soup
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory'
but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

There is no point in telling me about the mistakes of others,

But I am not telling you about the mistakes (mistakes or lies to
children?[Google it]) of others (well not directly) I am telling you
about your mistakes.

Message-ID ?

Not required the phrase 'lies to children' is what was to be Googled.

Do your own googling, instead of commanding others to.

Post by soup

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by soup
If you are wrong about where lift 'comes from' couldn't you also be
wrong about aviation's history?

Indeed, *IF*.
Since I didn't say anything about --where lift 'comes from'--
I can't have been wrong about it.

Erm "That is indeed what I think "
is that not saying you think you know where lift comes from?

Yes, I think I do, but as I have not told you
(or anyone else in this forum) what I think about it
you cannot have any idea at all about me being right or not about it.

Your behaviour is bizarre in the exteme.
You argue that I may be wrong on a subject I have said something about
by insinuating that I may be wrong on a subject
that I have said nothing about, because others have been wrong about it.

Could you try to make just a tiny bit of sense?

Jan

[soup]

On 14/01/2019 08:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Yeah Yeah Yeah whatever you say you are right I am wrong.

Now do you feel better?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by soup
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory' but
no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

You seem to be hinting that the well-established equations of fluid
mechanics, in particular Bernouilli's equation, are wrong. I see no
evidence that "no-one knows".

Post by soup
Here's NASAs take on 'the longest way around'
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

That only says that naive interpretations are wrong. It says nothing
about the beliefs of people who know what they are talking about.

[pensive hamster]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is generated.
Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around theory' but
no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

You seem to be hinting that the well-established equations of fluid
mechanics, in particular Bernouilli's equation, are wrong. I see no
evidence that "no-one knows".

Post by soup
Here's NASAs take on 'the longest way around'
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

That only says that naive interpretations are wrong.

It says rather more than that.

It says the "Longer Path" or "Equal Transit Time" theory does not
explain why "There are modern, low-drag airfoils which produce
lift on which the bottom surface is actually longer than the top. This
theory also does not explain how airplanes can fly upside-down
which happens often at air shows and in air-to-air combat."

It doesn't say that Bernouilli's equation is wrong, it says "... This part
of the theory attempts to provide us with a value for the velocity over
the top of the airfoil based on the non-physical assumption that the
molecules meet at the aft end. We can calculate a velocity based
on this assumption, and use Bernoulli's equation to compute the
pressure, and perform the pressure-area calculation and the answer
we get does not agree with the lift that we measure for a given airfoil.
The lift predicted by the "Equal Transit" theory is much less than the
observed lift ..."

Post by Peter Moylan
It says nothing
about the beliefs of people who know what they are talking about.

NASA probably do have some idea what they are talking
about.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by pensive hamster

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is
generated. Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around
theory' but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

You seem to be hinting that the well-established equations of
fluid mechanics, in particular Bernouilli's equation, are wrong. I
see no evidence that "no-one knows".

Post by soup
Here's NASAs take on 'the longest way around'
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

That only says that naive interpretations are wrong.

It says rather more than that.
It says the "Longer Path" or "Equal Transit Time" theory does not
explain why "There are modern, low-drag airfoils which produce lift
on which the bottom surface is actually longer than the top. This
theory also does not explain how airplanes can fly upside-down which
happens often at air shows and in air-to-air combat."

That's a straw man. When has anyone seriously proposed the idea of
"equal transit time"? I classify that with the naive interpretations.

Post by pensive hamster
It doesn't say that Bernouilli's equation is wrong, it says "... This
part of the theory attempts to provide us with a value for the
velocity over the top of the airfoil based on the non-physical
assumption that the molecules meet at the aft end. We can calculate a
velocity based on this assumption, and use Bernoulli's equation to compute the
pressure, and perform the pressure-area calculation and the answer we
get does not agree with the lift that we measure for a given
airfoil. The lift predicted by the "Equal Transit" theory is much
less than the observed lift ..."

Post by Peter Moylan
It says nothing about the beliefs of people who know what they are
talking about.

NASA probably do have some idea what they are talking about.

As does everyone who has studied fluid mechanics.

[pensive hamster]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by pensive hamster

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by soup
I am willing to bet you even think you know how lift is
generated. Yes there is a part of it from the 'longest way around
theory' but no-one knows how lift is generated in totality.

You seem to be hinting that the well-established equations of
fluid mechanics, in particular Bernouilli's equation, are wrong. I
see no evidence that "no-one knows".

Post by soup
Here's NASAs take on 'the longest way around'
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

That only says that naive interpretations are wrong.

It says rather more than that.
It says the "Longer Path" or "Equal Transit Time" theory does not
explain why "There are modern, low-drag airfoils which produce lift
on which the bottom surface is actually longer than the top. This
theory also does not explain how airplanes can fly upside-down which
happens often at air shows and in air-to-air combat."

That's a straw man. When has anyone seriously proposed the idea of
"equal transit time"?

NASA says it is "one of the most widely circulated, incorrect
explanations":

"The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely
circulated, incorrect explanations. The theory can be labeled the
"Longer Path" theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory. The
theory states that airfoils are shaped with the upper surface
longer than the bottom. The air molecules (the little colored balls
on the figure) have farther to travel over the top of the airfoil than
along the bottom. In order to meet up at the trailing edge, the
molecules going over the top of the wing must travel faster than
the molecules moving under the wing. Because the upper flow is
faster, then, from Bernoulli's equation, the pressure is lower. The
difference in pressure across the airfoil produces the lift."

Post by Peter Moylan
I classify that with the naive interpretations.

Post by pensive hamster
It doesn't say that Bernouilli's equation is wrong, it says "... This
part of the theory attempts to provide us with a value for the
velocity over the top of the airfoil based on the non-physical
assumption that the molecules meet at the aft end. We can calculate a
velocity based on this assumption, and use Bernoulli's equation to compute the
pressure, and perform the pressure-area calculation and the answer we
get does not agree with the lift that we measure for a given
airfoil. The lift predicted by the "Equal Transit" theory is much
less than the observed lift ..."

Post by Peter Moylan
It says nothing about the beliefs of people who know what they are
talking about.

NASA probably do have some idea what they are talking about.

As does everyone who has studied fluid mechanics.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Mark Brader]

Post by soup
One of the reasons given was that the Wrights were virtually silent for
five years after the 'first flight' which was NOT covered by any of the
press at the time .

More exaggeration. It was front-page news in the Virginian-Pilot (of
Norfolk). Most *other* papers didn't mention it.

[soup]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by soup
One of the reasons given was that the Wrights were virtually silent for
five years after the 'first flight' which was NOT covered by any of the
press at the time .

More exaggeration. It was front-page news in the Virginian-Pilot (of
Norfolk). Most *other* papers didn't mention it.

Did you note the "virtually" in there?
Also "all" was the wrong word (mea culpa) perhaps 'most' should have
been used.

[Mark Brader]

Post by soup

Post by Mark Brader

Post by soup
One of the reasons given was that the Wrights were virtually silent for
five years after the 'first flight' which was NOT covered by any of the
press at the time .

More exaggeration. It was front-page news in the Virginian-Pilot (of
Norfolk). Most *other* papers didn't mention it.

Did you note the "virtually" in there?

Did you note that that was not the part of the sentence I was criticizing?

Post by soup
Also "all" was the wrong word (mea culpa) perhaps 'most' should have
been used.

Thanks.

[Default User]

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?


Brian

[bill van]

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?
Brian

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should recognize
the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly paying attention now.

bill

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by bill van

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should recognize
the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly paying attention now.

One can even be aware of its tedious existence without having followed it at all.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should recognize
the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly paying attention now.

One can even be aware of its tedious existence without having followed it at all.

Much like <insert name of popular entertainer, or TV programme here>.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should recognize
the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly paying attention now.

One can even be aware of its tedious existence without having followed it at all.

Much like <insert name of popular entertainer, or TV programme here>.

Oo! Oo! Beyoncé; Game of Thrones.

The acute accent was supplied by AutoCorrect. I wish I could discover how to
turn off AutoCorrect.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should recognize
the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly paying attention now.

One can even be aware of its tedious existence without having followed it at all.

Much like <insert name of popular entertainer, or TV programme here>.

Oo! Oo! Beyoncé; Game of Thrones.
The acute accent was supplied by AutoCorrect. I wish I could discover how to
turn off AutoCorrect.

But AutoCorrect is correct. Bouncy does have the accent. It's Can Ye (Credit It)
that doesn't.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Default User
Are we supposed to know what this references?

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should recognize
the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly paying attention now.

One can even be aware of its tedious existence without having followed it at all.

Much like <insert name of popular entertainer, or TV programme here>.

Oo! Oo! Beyoncé; Game of Thrones.
The acute accent was supplied by AutoCorrect. I wish I could discover how to
turn off AutoCorrect.

But AutoCorrect is correct. Bouncy does have the accent. It's Can Ye (Credit It)
that doesn't.

I could have typed the e-acute myself. AutoCorrect makes it very difficult
indeed to talk about the high front tense vowel I, because the moment it
sees a space or a comma, it capitalizes it, turning it into the lax vowel.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by bill van

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should recognize
the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly paying attention now.

One can even be aware of its tedious existence without having followed it at all.

Much like <insert name of popular entertainer, or TV programme here>.

+1, where "popular" means "popular in places where I don't live", and
"TV programme" similarly.

[Default User]

Post by bill van

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen,

Are we supposed to know what this references?

If you followed the discussion that has been going on for several days
between Jan and Mack about the purity of silver, yes you should
recognize the reference. If not, I don't know why you're suddenly
paying attention now.

Because a new thread was started. Which is why I asked about it.


Brian

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Default User

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver

Are we supposed to know what this references?

Of course you are, and not just supposed to.
By nonexistent Committe order
everyone must read all of alt.usage.english

In this case in particular the Re: British expressions quiz thread,

Jan

[Tak To]

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver
Dear Mr Procter,
Thank you for question. In the 2nd half of the 20th century the Dutch
firm Gerritsen has invented a process to make silver cutlery with
(almost) pure silver (999/1000). So these 999/1000 silver cutlery sets
do exist, but are not as common as 925/1000 or 835/1000 cutlery sets.
I assume this is the case, because they are less durable (softer
silver).
I don´t think there will be a problem with knives with silver filled
handles though, because often the silver handles are filled (with
cement or resin) and have a steel core of the blade.
Please see this lot for example for spoons, forks and knives marked
with 999: https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/19974219

Uh? I thought all along that the disagreement was about the
stiffness of flatware made *entirely* from 999 silver. Who
cared about flatware that is merely clad or plated with 999
silver?

Btw, he did not mention the tines of the forks. Do they have
steel cores as well?

<Alert TMI>

I was hoping that someone would post the yield strength of 999
silver and other materials. Alas, no one has done that. So
here we go:

(Root URL is http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?
For the webpage of specific material append "id=..." to the
root URL. Unit is MPa.)

<pre>
Ag 999 54 id=commercially_pure_silver
Ag Sterling 124 id=sterling_silver
Cu 999 55 id=cast_copper_c80410_copper [1]
Cu 9995 62 id=cast_copper_c80100_copper
Cu 9999 69 id=wrought_copper_c10100_oxygen-free_electronic_copper
Steel .08%C 165 id=carbon_steel_sae_1006 [2]
Steel .90%C 540 id=carbon_steel_sae_1090 [3]
</pre>

[1] Various sites quote a very different figure for the yield
strength of copper: 33 MPa. In fact, the follow Wikip article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)
has two figures for copper, 33 and 70!
[2] the steel with the lowest carbon content on that site
[3] closest to 1095, one of the most popular steels for making
knives in the series /Forged in Fire/

Based on these figures I would say 999 silver is not particular
suitable for flatware if it is the only material.

</Alert>

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by Tak To

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver
Dear Mr Procter,
Thank you for question. In the 2nd half of the 20th century the Dutch
firm Gerritsen has invented a process to make silver cutlery with
(almost) pure silver (999/1000). So these 999/1000 silver cutlery sets
do exist, but are not as common as 925/1000 or 835/1000 cutlery sets.
I assume this is the case, because they are less durable (softer
silver).
I don´t think there will be a problem with knives with silver filled
handles though, because often the silver handles are filled (with
cement or resin) and have a steel core of the blade.
Please see this lot for example for spoons, forks and knives marked
with 999: https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/19974219

Uh? I thought all along that the disagreement was about the
stiffness of flatware made *entirely* from 999 silver. Who
cared about flatware that is merely clad or plated with 999
silver?

I do not understand his comments about this, and I am not going to
challenge him. Is he talking about "silverplate"? In the listing?

What mattered to me was that he verified J.J's claim that Gerritsen
had invented a way to use pure silver for tableware, and I pooh-poohed
the idea; hence, my apology.

There doesn't seem to be any text, etc. describing this "way". Maybe
that is why the line didn't go anywhere and was discontinued. Full of
dents and scratches....

Is the silver industry a matter of Dutch pride? That might explain a
lot.

Post by Tak To
Btw, he did not mention the tines of the forks. Do they have
steel cores as well?
<Alert TMI>
I was hoping that someone would post the yield strength of 999
silver and other materials. Alas, no one has done that. So
(Root URL is http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?
For the webpage of specific material append "id=..." to the
root URL. Unit is MPa.)
<pre>
Ag 999 54 id=commercially_pure_silver
Ag Sterling 124 id=sterling_silver
Cu 999 55 id=cast_copper_c80410_copper [1]
Cu 9995 62 id=cast_copper_c80100_copper
Cu 9999 69 id=wrought_copper_c10100_oxygen-free_electronic_copper
Steel .08%C 165 id=carbon_steel_sae_1006 [2]
Steel .90%C 540 id=carbon_steel_sae_1090 [3]
</pre>
[1] Various sites quote a very different figure for the yield
strength of copper: 33 MPa. In fact, the follow Wikip article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)
has two figures for copper, 33 and 70!
[2] the steel with the lowest carbon content on that site
[3] closest to 1095, one of the most popular steels for making
knives in the series /Forged in Fire/
Based on these figures I would say 999 silver is not particular
suitable for flatware if it is the only material.
</Alert>

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by Tak To

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver
Dear Mr Procter,
Thank you for question. In the 2nd half of the 20th century the Dutch
firm Gerritsen has invented a process to make silver cutlery with
(almost) pure silver (999/1000). So these 999/1000 silver cutlery sets
do exist, but are not as common as 925/1000 or 835/1000 cutlery sets.
I assume this is the case, because they are less durable (softer
silver).
I don´t think there will be a problem with knives with silver filled
handles though, because often the silver handles are filled (with
cement or resin) and have a steel core of the blade.
Please see this lot for example for spoons, forks and knives marked
with 999: https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/19974219

Uh? I thought all along that the disagreement was about the
stiffness of flatware made *entirely* from 999 silver. Who
cared about flatware that is merely clad or plated with 999
silver?

I do not understand his comments about this, and I am not going to
challenge him. Is he talking about "silverplate"? In the listing?

There is nothing to understand. Tak To is spouting nonsense.

Post by Mack A. Damia
What mattered to me was that he verified J.J's claim that Gerritsen
had invented a way to use pure silver for tableware, and I pooh-poohed
the idea; hence, my apology.

You did the right thing about it.
When an 'idea recu' is challenged,
and the subject interest you, you should investigate,
to falsify or verify.
Unfortunately the far more common attitude
is to poohpooh the evidence,
or even to retreat in denialism.
How can contrary evidence exist when 'everyone' knows
it can't exist?

Post by Mack A. Damia
There doesn't seem to be any text, etc. describing this "way".

Of course not. Gerritsen invented a way to do it.
Why publish the howto, when it is your family secret
that your family business is/was based on?

Post by Mack A. Damia
Maybe
that is why the line didn't go anywhere and was discontinued. Full of
dents and scratches....

Certainly not. 999 tableware fetches good prices at auctions,
more so than lower grades.
Higher grade silver, and there is far less of it.
One factory for a decade or so, against hundreds of silversmiths
making just the same model for more than 300 years.

Post by Mack A. Damia
Is the silver industry a matter of Dutch pride? That might explain a
lot.

No, nothing special. Just like in other countries.
Silver tableware has always and everywhere
been a status symbol of the rich,
because it had a direct equivalent in silver coins.

As already noted elsethread, silver tableware is 'out'.
At auction it fetches somewhat more than the metal value.

Jan

[Tak To]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by Tak To

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver
Dear Mr Procter,
Thank you for question. In the 2nd half of the 20th century the Dutch
firm Gerritsen has invented a process to make silver cutlery with
(almost) pure silver (999/1000). So these 999/1000 silver cutlery sets
do exist, but are not as common as 925/1000 or 835/1000 cutlery sets.
I assume this is the case, because they are less durable (softer
silver).
I don´t think there will be a problem with knives with silver filled
handles though, because often the silver handles are filled (with
cement or resin) and have a steel core of the blade.
Please see this lot for example for spoons, forks and knives marked
with 999: https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/19974219

Uh? I thought all along that the disagreement was about the
stiffness of flatware made *entirely* from 999 silver. Who
cared about flatware that is merely clad or plated with 999
silver?

I do not understand his comments about this, and I am not going to
challenge him. Is he talking about "silverplate"? In the listing?

There is nothing to understand. Tak To is spouting nonsense.

So what is the meaning of his comment that you think is so
obvious? Specifically, are there material other than 999
silver in those knives and forks to make them stiff?

[Quinn C]

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by Tak To

Post by Mack A. Damia
"Apologies to J.J. Lodder"
This message receved this morning from Mr. Dennis Van Kampen, Silver
Dear Mr Procter,
Thank you for question. In the 2nd half of the 20th century the Dutch
firm Gerritsen has invented a process to make silver cutlery with
(almost) pure silver (999/1000). So these 999/1000 silver cutlery sets
do exist, but are not as common as 925/1000 or 835/1000 cutlery sets.
I assume this is the case, because they are less durable (softer
silver).
I don´t think there will be a problem with knives with silver filled
handles though, because often the silver handles are filled (with
cement or resin) and have a steel core of the blade.
Please see this lot for example for spoons, forks and knives marked
with 999: https://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/19974219

Uh? I thought all along that the disagreement was about the
stiffness of flatware made *entirely* from 999 silver. Who
cared about flatware that is merely clad or plated with 999
silver?

I do not understand his comments about this, and I am not going to
challenge him. Is he talking about "silverplate"? In the listing?

The listing didn't say "plate", but it didn't say "massive" either. And
when I asked about other listings that specified "999 silver handle",
JJ answered: "Of course, for dinner knives the blades are stainless
steel."

So I still have no clear idea about the composition of knives and forks
simply labeled "silver 999". It seems to be an incomplete description,
and most of the argument probably arose from different ideas about
that.

The quote from Mr. Van Kampen's doesn't clarify it to me, either. Quite
the opposite, by introducing the possibilities of cement or resin
inside.