Colin MacLaurin Quotes

But, because the Method of Infinitesimals is much in use, and is valued for its conciseness, I thought it was requisite to account explicitly for the truth, and perfect accuracy of the conclusions that are derived from it; the rather, that it does not seem to be a very proper reason that is assigned by Authors, when they determine what is called the Difference (but more accurately the ) of a Quantity, and tell us, That they reject certain Parts of the Element, because they become infinitely less than the other parts; not only because a proof of this nature may leave some doubt as to the accuracy of the conclusion, but because it may be demonstrated that those parts ought to be neglected by them at any rate, or that it would be an error to retain them.

If an Accountant, that pretends to a scrupulous exactness, should tell us that he had neglected certain Articles, because he found them to be of small importance, and it should appear that they ought not to have been taken into consideration by him on that occasion, but belong to a different account, we should approve his conclusions as accurate, but not his reason. This method, however, may be considered as an easy and ready way of distinguishing what Parts of an Element are to be rejected, and which are to be retained, in determining the precise Fluxion of a Quantity, or the rate according to which it increases or decreases.

Though there can be no comparison made betwixt the extent or usefulness of the antient and modern Discoveries in Geometry, yet it seems to be generally allowed that the Antients took greater care, and were more successfull in preserving the Character of its Evidence entire.

We shall not consider any part of space or time as indivisible, or infinitely little; but we shall consider a point as a term or limit of a line, and a moment as a term or limit of time: nor shall we resolve curve lines, or curvilineal spaces, into rectilineal elements of any kind.

After I saw that so much had been written upon it to no good purpose, I was rather induced to delay the publication of this Treatise, til I could finish my design.

I perceived that some Rules were defective or inaccurate; that the Resolution of several Problems which had been deduced in a mysterious manner, by second and third s, could be completed with greater evidence, and less danger of error, by first Fluxions only; and that other problems had been resolved by Approximations, when an accurate Solution could be obtained with the same or greater facility.

In the method of indivisibles, lines were conceived to be made up of points, surfaces of lines,and solids of surfaces; and such suppositions have been employed by several ingenious men for proving the old theorems, and discovering new ones, in a brief and easy manner. But as this doctrine was inconsistent with the strict principles of geometry, so it soon appeared that there was some danger of its leading them into false conclusions: therefore others, in the place of indivisible, substituted infinitely small divisible elements, of which they supposed all magnitudes to be formed; and thus endeavoured to retain, and improve, the advantages that were derived from the former method for the advancement of geometry.

The science being now vastly enlarged, and applied with success to philosophy and the arts, it is of greater importance than ever that its evidence be preserved perfect.

In delivering the principles of this method, we apprehend it is better to avoid such suppositions: but after these are demonstrated, short and concise ways of speaking, though less accurate, may be permitted, when there is no hazard of our introducing any uncertainty or obscurity into the science from the use of them, or of involving it in disputes.

He considered magnitudes as generated by a or motion, and showed how the velocities of the generating motions were to be compared together. There was nothing in this doctrine but what seemed to be natural and agreeable to the antient geometry. But what he has given us on this subject being very short, his conciseness maybe supposed to have given some occasion to the objections which have been raised against his method.

A <small>LETTER</small> published in the year 1734, under the title of first gave occasion to the ensuing Treatise; and several reasons concurred to induce me to write on this subject at so great a length. The Author of that Piece had represented the as founded on false Reasoning, and full of Mysteries. His Objections seemed to have been occasioned in a great measure, by the concise manner in which the Elements of this Method have been usually described; and their having been so much misunderstood by a person of his abilities, appeared to me a sufficient proof that a fuller Account of the Grounds of them was requisite.

Several Treatises have appeared while this was in the press, wherein some of the same Problems have been considered, though generally in a different manner. I have had occasion to mention most of them in the last Chapter of the second Book; but had not there an opportunity to take notice, that the Problem in 480 has been considered by Mr. Euler in his Mechanics.

Besides an answer to ... the Author concealed his real name... a second, by the same hand, in Defense of the first, a Discourse by Mr. Robins, a Treatise of Sir Isaac Newton, with a Commentary by Mr. Colson, and several other Pieces, were published on this Subject.

In most of the instances wherein my conclusions did not agree with those given by other Authors, I have not mentioned their names.

Nature … has made it impossible for us to have any communication from this earth with the other great bodies of the universe, in our present state; and it is highly possible that he has likewise cut off all communication betwixt the other planets, and betwixt the different systems.… We observe, in all of them, enough to raise our curiosity, but not to satisfy it … It does not appear to be suitable to the wisdom that shines throughout all nature, to suppose that we should see so far, and have our curiosity so much raised … only to be disappointed at the end … This, therefore, naturally leads us to consider our present state as only the dawn or beginning of our existence, and as a state of preparation or probation for farther advancement.…