Re: [Phys-L] Conceptual Physics Course

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 05/14/2012 08:13 AM, curtis osterhoudt wrote:
> Your statement about Newton distrusting algebra for various reasons
> intrigues me. Do you have a source for that statement?

Any such statement is at least two jumps removed from making
sense.

I don't care whether it is well-sourced or not, because this 
is exactly the sort of thing that gives "appeal to authority" 
a bad name.

> It doesn't accord with most that I've read about or by him.

Quite so.  

For one thing, Newton knew more algebra than you and me put 
together.  He contributed advances to the body of knowledge 
on algebra.  He used algebra continually.

Secondly, even if Newton had "distrusted" algebra, who cares?
Newton was wrong about a lot of things, including astrology
and alchemy.  Also, he tended to get involved in disputes, and
was quite capable of twisting the facts to support his side of
the argument.

========

We all agree that algebra should not be used to the /exclusion/
of more sophisticated techniques, as Newton well knew.

It sounds odd to say it, but it's true:  Compared to Cartesian 
geometry, Euclidean geometry is simultaneously 
 -- more concrete, and
 -- more abstract.

HOWEVER, to use this as a pretext for trying to do physics
without algebra is nonsense.  Taking an argument for "algebra
plus" and turning it into "algebra minus" is utterly perverse.