If David Skalansky Did Not Exist :

If David Skalansky did not exist, would we be forced to create him?

And by this, what I really mean to ask is, is it possible that any scientist, statician, 'founder' of any idea, concept or device did not exist, would it be possible that their idea, concept or device would never exist? Is Newton neccessary? Or Eucilid? Or Marx/Lenin/Adam Smith/Keynes

Also, how much were these men a product of their times and the stage in scientific thought at the moment, and how much were they 'ahead of their time'?

I would give 20:1 odds that calculus and general reletivity were destined to have been found by now

And by that I mean, go back in time 600 years and 'turn a leaf over in a forest', then see what happens for the next 600 years

[ QUOTE ]
If David Skalansky did not exist, would we be forced to create him?



[/ QUOTE ]

Is David Skalansky the same for you as he is for me? So if we had to create him how different would he be

[David Sklansky]

"I would give 20:1 odds that calculus and general reletivity were destined to have been found by now"

Calculus is a billion to one. General (not Special) relativity, I'm told, is MUCH less of a favorite if Einstein never existed. Perhaps under 20-1.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Calculus is a billion to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first read this it seemed like a vast overstatement. But when you consider how few really intelligent people in the world prior to the past century had the opportunity for a great education or just the money and leisure to educate themselves, then it is easy to see how the level of knowledge in various fields in history was in fact more likely to stagnate at a certain level than to advance.

[kpux]

[ QUOTE ]
Calculus is a billion to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. So many people got so close. Too many people like Archimedes, Fermat, and Isaac Barrow have existed, that undoubtedly someone would have figured it out even if Newton and Leibniz did not exist.

[ QUOTE ]


Calculus is a billion to one. General (not Special) relativity, I'm told, is MUCH less of a favorite if Einstein never existed. Perhaps under 20-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I'd probably agree with the calculus odds there, especially since Leibniz discovered it independently if I remember correctly. But I'm not admitting wrongess here, I just stated what odds I'd give /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

As for Gen Rel, I think I heard some where that some other dude actually found the equations before Einstein did by like 3 days, but he didn't want to take credit since Einstein came up with the idea and told this guy what it was and what he was searching for mathematically. Can anyone verify this? This is just a vague memory from my gen rel class

So I'm sticking to ~ 20:1, although it sounds like we're in the same ballpark anyway

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calculus is a billion to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. So many people got so close. Too many people like Archimedes, Fermat, and Isaac Barrow have existed, that undoubtedly someone would have figured it out even if Newton and Leibniz did not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that is exactly what David is saying. It is a billion to one that it would have been discovered.

[goofball]

Newton did a LOT more than invent calculus. The sum of his achievments is still a huge favorite to be discovered anyway, but not as quickly and perhaps not as elegantly.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If David Sklansky did not exist, would we be forced to create him?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, I hear that the possibility of more Sklanskys will be used by supporters of Roe vs Wade in the coming battle.

...I know, I know.

[Darryl_P]

I think he's saying that if Newton had never lived, the probability that calculus would still exist today is 99.9999999%

I agree it's more than 99.99% in any case.

[RJT]

Off the subject of the OP:

Ironically (ironical - relative to your joke here), David S. has written one of the finest statements I have read of reasons against abortion. Perhaps, the ONLY intelligent one I have ever read.

Btw, I am not a pro-lifer in the traditional sense – that is, I stay out of the discussion - the subject is way to complex for me.

My main argument against it is a rhetorical question. If there is nothing wrong with it, why do so many (all?) have such a hard time dealing with the decision when they are placed in the situation? If it is so simple, why don’t folk deal with the "procedure" like they would (the procedure of) having a tooth pulled?

Way off topic - sorry - by no means meant to hijack the thread.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calculus is a billion to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. So many people got so close. Too many people like Archimedes, Fermat, and Isaac Barrow have existed, that undoubtedly someone would have figured it out even if Newton and Leibniz did not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky was saying that it's a billion to one favorite...

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how much were these men a product of their times and the stage in scientific thought at the moment, and how much were they 'ahead of their time'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Multiple independent discovery is extremely common in science and mathematics. My favorite example is the HOMFLY polynomial, which is a knot invariant that was discovered by no less than 5 separate groups of mathematicians independently at the same time ("HOMFLY" is the initials of most of them).

[kpux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calculus is a billion to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. So many people got so close. Too many people like Archimedes, Fermat, and Isaac Barrow have existed, that undoubtedly someone would have figured it out even if Newton and Leibniz did not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky was saying that it's a billion to one favorite...

[/ QUOTE ]

Iiiii'm dumb.