Re: The Hesthenes proposal and all that

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Why discuss? Or why within?  In the latter case, that's the context in
which, as I understand it, it was proposed.  John Denker insists on using
it in the 4-d context which, in the context of introductory physics
teaching, is quite another matter.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno wrote:

> Jack Uretsky wrote:
>
> >         I am going to give the Oersted lecture a careful reading before
> > giving my explanation of what Hesthenes is proposing.  I have, however,
> > done a bit of historical research and found that he seems to be reviving a
> > controversy that was settled a century ago.  I quote from Chap. 32, Sec. 5
> > of Kline's "Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times."
>
> Yes. The root of GA is there.
>
> >         I expect to discuss Hesthenes proposal strictly within the
> > confines of 3-dimensional introductory physics.
>
> Why?
>
> Arnulfo Castellanos-Moreno

--
        "What did Barrow's lectures contain?  Bourbaki writes with some
scorn that in his book in a hundred pages of the text there are about 180
drawings.  (Concerning Bourbaki's books it can be said that in a thousand
pages there is not one drawing, and it is not at all clear which is
worse.)"
                                        V. I. Arnol'd in
                                Huygens & Barrow, Newton & Hooke