{"title":"从伽利略到拉普拉斯的第二定律(牛顿的理解)","authors":"Bruce Pourciau","doi":"10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Newton certainly regarded his second law of motion in the <i>Principia </i>as a fundamental axiom of mechanics. Yet the works that came after the <i>Principia,</i> the major treatises on the foundations of mechanics in the eighteenth century—by Varignon, Hermann, Euler, Maclaurin, d’Alembert, Euler (again), Lagrange, and Laplace—do not record, cite, discuss, or even mention the <i>Principia</i>’s statement of the second law. Nevertheless, the present study shows that all of these scientists do in fact assume the principle that the <i>Principia</i>’s second law asserts as a fundamental axiom in their mechanics. (For what that second law asserts, we rely on Newton’s own testimony.) Some, like Varignon and Hermann, assume the axiom implicitly, apparently unaware that any assumption is being made, while others, like Maclaurin and Euler, assume the axiom explicitly, apparently unaware that the assertion assumed is the second law as Newton himself understood it. But in every case these scientists employ the principle asserted by the <i>Principia</i>’s second law <i>fundamentally</i>, unaware that they should be citing <span>Neutonus</span>, <i>Prin., Phil. Nat. Math</i>., Lex II.\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50982,"journal":{"name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Principia’s second law (as Newton understood it) from Galileo to Laplace\",\"authors\":\"Bruce Pourciau\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Newton certainly regarded his second law of motion in the <i>Principia </i>as a fundamental axiom of mechanics. Yet the works that came after the <i>Principia,</i> the major treatises on the foundations of mechanics in the eighteenth century—by Varignon, Hermann, Euler, Maclaurin, d’Alembert, Euler (again), Lagrange, and Laplace—do not record, cite, discuss, or even mention the <i>Principia</i>’s statement of the second law. Nevertheless, the present study shows that all of these scientists do in fact assume the principle that the <i>Principia</i>’s second law asserts as a fundamental axiom in their mechanics. (For what that second law asserts, we rely on Newton’s own testimony.) Some, like Varignon and Hermann, assume the axiom implicitly, apparently unaware that any assumption is being made, while others, like Maclaurin and Euler, assume the axiom explicitly, apparently unaware that the assertion assumed is the second law as Newton himself understood it. But in every case these scientists employ the principle asserted by the <i>Principia</i>’s second law <i>fundamentally</i>, unaware that they should be citing <span>Neutonus</span>, <i>Prin., Phil. Nat. Math</i>., Lex II.\\n</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archive for History of Exact Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archive for History of Exact Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00407-019-00242-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Principia’s second law (as Newton understood it) from Galileo to Laplace
Newton certainly regarded his second law of motion in the Principia as a fundamental axiom of mechanics. Yet the works that came after the Principia, the major treatises on the foundations of mechanics in the eighteenth century—by Varignon, Hermann, Euler, Maclaurin, d’Alembert, Euler (again), Lagrange, and Laplace—do not record, cite, discuss, or even mention the Principia’s statement of the second law. Nevertheless, the present study shows that all of these scientists do in fact assume the principle that the Principia’s second law asserts as a fundamental axiom in their mechanics. (For what that second law asserts, we rely on Newton’s own testimony.) Some, like Varignon and Hermann, assume the axiom implicitly, apparently unaware that any assumption is being made, while others, like Maclaurin and Euler, assume the axiom explicitly, apparently unaware that the assertion assumed is the second law as Newton himself understood it. But in every case these scientists employ the principle asserted by the Principia’s second law fundamentally, unaware that they should be citing Neutonus, Prin., Phil. Nat. Math., Lex II.
期刊介绍:
The Archive for History of Exact Sciences casts light upon the conceptual groundwork of the sciences by analyzing the historical course of rigorous quantitative thought and the precise theory of nature in the fields of mathematics, physics, technical chemistry, computer science, astronomy, and the biological sciences, embracing as well their connections to experiment. This journal nourishes historical research meeting the standards of the mathematical sciences. Its aim is to give rapid and full publication to writings of exceptional depth, scope, and permanence.