Klaus_Hoffmann said:
If possible i would like to write some arguments supporting my ideas
1) Upto 1800 (but some exceptions) many math problems involved Calculus II or Algebra (without groups and similar) as you will have seen through the forum many users claimed having 'discovered' identities involving \zeta (s) and prime-generating functions.. many of them proved by Euler or others, --> If a problems involves 'simple' math anyone can give the solution)
2) Many recent theorems or proofs of 'Poincare Conjecture' (Perelman) or 'Fermat theorem for every n>3' (Wiles) involved hard math , that is not avaliable for many of us, however the math at Newton's time was easier to understand and work with, you and me can understand reading a book the Zeta regularization (Ramanujan sum), or Borel resummation.. but i really believe that there will be only a few people understanding Cohomology, Diff. Geommetry or C*-Algebra and Functional Analysis.
3) Are Newton an Einstein really GENIUSES?.. calculus had been previously defined and invented by others such us Fermat ( a lawyer ¡¡) Leibniz,Gregori,Descartes... and SR was also 'invented' by Poincare, Lorentz, MInkowski, Hilbert himself even derived Field equation with a Variational principle
1) Re discovery is not pointless and IMO, actually can show signs of mathematical insight. If someone is able to rediscover a certain theorem and prove it, without knowledge of the theorem, then they have 'original' though, using the word in the sense of using new ideas to the student.
2) What basis do you have to make your comments? In Newton's time, Calculus would definitely have been a daunting concept for the people of the time. (This point is good because it relates to the thread). The only reason it seems easy to us now because of so many people making the calculus more rigorous etc etc. The concept of a limit would have been difficult back then, as would operations with differentials and a seemingly unintuitive Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, especially with the integral not even being defined properly yet.
3) Genius is opinion, but there is so much else wrong with that point. Since when did Fermat invent and define Calculus? Fermat contributed to certain ideas that are now linked with Calculus, but so did the Islamic Scholars, Ancient Greeks, Descartes, Kepler, Roberval, Hudde and Sluse. (The last 3 names are not really known because their methods of finding tangents were for specific cases and complex, soon to be made obsolete by Calculus). However it was Newton and Leibniz who related all of these problems back to one field of mathematics, and did even more. (I believe Leibniz did develop it independently, but definitely later than Newton).
And Special Relativity was not invented by those people..Lorentz definitely made his transforms, but Pioncare contributed to differential geometry. Just because that is used in SR does NOT mean he contributed to the Theory. Not to mention, you make it obvious you just shove out any names you can think of when you hear SR, as Minowinski only invented the convenient co-ordinates to work with in SR, which is not inventing SR. Also, he did after SR was published. And the whole theory is not based on a single Variational principal, so Hilbert did contribute but not as much as you wish to make it seem.
PS. To your last Post, you don't sound too believable mate. No one mentioned an "eljose", just Jose...
And Yes, QG and RH require more powerful mathematical tools than previous theories. But It seems to me you know nothing of physics..which requires physical evidence and observation to bring about a need for a theory. QG is not purely mathematical, it needs physical observations which could not be made many years ago. Heck, we didn't even know about quarks 30 years ago.
And it surprises me that you know RH needs very powerful mathematical tools, because you still try to attack it with techniques that I can understand (which means its far too simple).
