fluxions

Economics, for instance, has been stuck since Marshall[1] in Newton's method of fluxions/ Liebnitz calculus.

Ah, thank you for the clarification -- yes, Newton loved his fluxions, didn't he?

Newton's fluxions and y-dot (a dot over the y) notation are largely forgotten.

I was wondering what this Fergola would have thought about Newton and his geometrical method (fluxions)!

The standard method humans use to catch a ball is stabilization at a few updates every second, while the classic method used to tract the trajectory of a ball is newton's method of fluxions.

Infinitesimals and fluxions relied on the idea that they were so small this wouldn’t work and therefore they didn’t fit the definition of real numbers.

Has some interesting history - apparently Newton developed three versions of his calculus: infinitesimals (geometric approach), fluxions (kinematic approach) and 'prime and ultimate ratios' (algebraic).

While calculus hasn’t changed for techniques known at the time, fluxions aren’t supported as a method and symbology while a derivation of liebnitz’ notation is.

It is often claimed that an insistence on teaching calculus with Newton's fluxions instead of Leibniz' infinitesmals held back research in England for a long time.

The Newton/Leibniz calculus dispute a generation or so earlier was pretty major, with Newton defending his deductive geometrical method of fluxions against Leibniz's more algebraic concepts.

Newton understood calculus through the idea of fluxions.

Newton finished his Method of Fluxions in 1671.

Bishop Berkeley's famous comment about "ghosts of departed quantities" was a criticism of fluxions, not infinitesmals.

Newton didn't call his baby "Newton-tech", he called it Fluxions.

The original version of Calculus by Newton used "fluxions".

They used intuitive ideas of “fluxions” and “infinitesimals” which were replaced with limits because “Sure, it works in practice.