![]() | A fact from Arithmetica Universalis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 April 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article can be expanded. Something that has close to 300 Google Print hits ( [1]) and over a hundred Google Scholar hits ( [2]) surely can be covered more extensively then in one screen stub-lenght article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It would take an expert to expand this article reliably. I've been studying the Arithmetica Universalis for a few weeks and there's nothing I could add to this. I wanted to say this to let other editors know this is not a stub article. FYI, I'm a math student interested in the history of math. 74.105.169.173 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Jordan
Does anyone know what algorithm Newton devised? -- GWO
Does anyone know why Newton was unsatisfied with the Arithmetica Universalis? --Smajie
I was wondering the same thing! -- Rev. Austin 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It probably had to do with the fact his Optics and Principia were so widely accepted. His book on mathematics, the area he was suppose to be so highly qualified didn't compare with the other texts. I could be wrong. That or he was only unhappy with the English translations. It is possible that Newton did not want his texts in English because of the fear for his life. Newton wanted to associate himself with a different class of men than those who would have wanted his head at that time. It is very likely he did not want anything to do with the re-translation of his books because he wanted to keep them purely in Latin.
As for the book itself, I am not sure. I haven't gotten a chance to read my copy cover to cover. I've only skimmed it, so I can't be sure as to it's quality. I think it's possible that since Newton was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematicks he would be the man who needed to be most knowledgeable about mathematics and if his book did not stand up to his Principia he would be the laughing stock of the scientific community and in very great risk of life and limb. But that's just my opinion. I think if the book is not equal with the Principia it is a direct result of the Principia and Optics. Newton spent all his time on that, and little working on his math book. Time will tell, but I think that's the most logical reason if he did not like the book in general.
-Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown -- Dragoon91786 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an issue with the article. Someone put that the English translation and the second Latin edition do not credit Newton as the author. Now, I may be a bit daff, but the last time I check, the English translation does credit Newton as the author. I'm currently looking at a PDF of the original Universal Arithmetick and I quote:
Universal Arithmetick: Or, A Treaties of Arithmetical Composition and Resolution. Written in Latin by Sir Isaac Newton. Translated by The late Mr. Ralphson; and Revifed and Corrected by Mr. Cunn. To which is added, a Treaties upon the Measures of Ratios, By James Maguire, A. M. The whole illustrated and explained, In A Series of Notes, By the Rev. Theaker Wilder, D. D. Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. London: Printed for W. Johnston, in Ludgate-ftreet, MDCCLXIX.
Now in this it cleary states that Newton is indeed the author. I admit I haven't read the Latin translation, but this book cleary states than Newton is indeed the author, so can someone please correct this error. Thank you. I don't feel correct in changing it, because I'm an engineering major, but would someone who is more qualified than me confirm this and make the appropriate changes. Thank you.
-Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown -- Dragoon91786 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arithmetica Universalis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Arithmetica Universalis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 April 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article can be expanded. Something that has close to 300 Google Print hits ( [1]) and over a hundred Google Scholar hits ( [2]) surely can be covered more extensively then in one screen stub-lenght article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It would take an expert to expand this article reliably. I've been studying the Arithmetica Universalis for a few weeks and there's nothing I could add to this. I wanted to say this to let other editors know this is not a stub article. FYI, I'm a math student interested in the history of math. 74.105.169.173 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Jordan
Does anyone know what algorithm Newton devised? -- GWO
Does anyone know why Newton was unsatisfied with the Arithmetica Universalis? --Smajie
I was wondering the same thing! -- Rev. Austin 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It probably had to do with the fact his Optics and Principia were so widely accepted. His book on mathematics, the area he was suppose to be so highly qualified didn't compare with the other texts. I could be wrong. That or he was only unhappy with the English translations. It is possible that Newton did not want his texts in English because of the fear for his life. Newton wanted to associate himself with a different class of men than those who would have wanted his head at that time. It is very likely he did not want anything to do with the re-translation of his books because he wanted to keep them purely in Latin.
As for the book itself, I am not sure. I haven't gotten a chance to read my copy cover to cover. I've only skimmed it, so I can't be sure as to it's quality. I think it's possible that since Newton was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematicks he would be the man who needed to be most knowledgeable about mathematics and if his book did not stand up to his Principia he would be the laughing stock of the scientific community and in very great risk of life and limb. But that's just my opinion. I think if the book is not equal with the Principia it is a direct result of the Principia and Optics. Newton spent all his time on that, and little working on his math book. Time will tell, but I think that's the most logical reason if he did not like the book in general.
-Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown -- Dragoon91786 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an issue with the article. Someone put that the English translation and the second Latin edition do not credit Newton as the author. Now, I may be a bit daff, but the last time I check, the English translation does credit Newton as the author. I'm currently looking at a PDF of the original Universal Arithmetick and I quote:
Universal Arithmetick: Or, A Treaties of Arithmetical Composition and Resolution. Written in Latin by Sir Isaac Newton. Translated by The late Mr. Ralphson; and Revifed and Corrected by Mr. Cunn. To which is added, a Treaties upon the Measures of Ratios, By James Maguire, A. M. The whole illustrated and explained, In A Series of Notes, By the Rev. Theaker Wilder, D. D. Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. London: Printed for W. Johnston, in Ludgate-ftreet, MDCCLXIX.
Now in this it cleary states that Newton is indeed the author. I admit I haven't read the Latin translation, but this book cleary states than Newton is indeed the author, so can someone please correct this error. Thank you. I don't feel correct in changing it, because I'm an engineering major, but would someone who is more qualified than me confirm this and make the appropriate changes. Thank you.
-Christopher M. Vanderwall-Brown -- Dragoon91786 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arithmetica Universalis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)