Page 1 of 4

Centre for advanced studies in pure and applied Mathematics

Invention of Calculus

Muhammad Awais & Saif-ur-Rehman

Technical Writing and Presentation Skills

Ma’am Faiza Sattar

23rd November, 2022

Invention of Calculus

Like most discoveries, calculus was the culmination of centuries of work rather than an instant
epiphany. Mathematicians all over the world contributed to its development, but the two most
recognized discoverers of calculus are Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Although
the credit is currently given to both men, there was a time when the debate over which of them
truly deserved the recognition was both heated and widespread.
As the renowned author of Principia (1687) as well as a host of equally esteemed published
works, it appears that Newton not only went much further in exploring the applications of
calculus than Leibniz did, but he also ventured down a different road. Leibniz and Newton had
very different views of calculus in that Newton’s was based on limits and concrete reality, while
Leibniz focused more on the infinite and the abstract (Struik, 1948). However, regardless of the
divergent paths these two scholars chose to venture down, the question of who took the first step
remained the primary issue of debate.
Unaware that Newton was reported to have discovered similar methods, Leibniz discovered
“his” calculus in Paris between 1673 and 1676 (Ball, 1908). By 1676, Leibniz realized that he
was onto something “big”; he just did not realize that Newton was on to the same big discovery
because Newton was remaining somewhat tight lipped about his breakthroughs. In fact, it was
actually the delayed publication of Newton’s findings that caused the entire controversy. Leibniz
published the first account of differential calculus in 1684 and then published the explanation of
integral calculus in 1686 (Boyer, 1968).
Newton did not publish his findings until 1687. Yet evidence shows that Newton discovered his
theories of fluxional calculus in 1665 and 1666, after having studied the work of other
mathematicians such as Barrows and Wallis (Struik, 1948). Evidence also shows that Newton
was the first to establish the general method called the "theory of fluxions" was the first to state
the fundamental theorem of calculus and was also the first to explore applications of both
integration and differentiation in a single work (Struik, 1948). However, since Leibniz was the
first to publish a dissertation on calculus, he was given the total credit for the discovery for a
number of years. This later led, of course, to accusations of plagiarism being hurled relentlessly
in the direction of Leibniz.
There was speculation that Leibniz may have gleaned some of his insights from two of Newton's
manuscripts on fluxions, and that is what sparked his understanding of calculus. Many believed
that Leibniz used Newton's unpublished ideas, created a new notation and then published it as his
own, which would obviously constitute plagiarism. The rumor that Leibniz may have seen some
of Newton's manuscripts left little doubt in most people’s minds as to whether or not Leibniz
arrived at his conclusions independently. The rumor was, after all, believable because Newton
 Page 3 of 4

had admittedly bounced his ideas off a handful of colleagues, some of who were also in close
contact with Leibniz (Boyer, 1968).
It is also known that Leibniz and Newton corresponded by letter quite regularly, and they most
often discussed the subject of mathematics (Boyer, 1968). In fact, Newton first described his
methods, formulas and concepts of calculus, including his binomial theorem, fluxions and
tangents, in letters he wrote to Leibniz (Ball, 1908). However, an examination of Leibniz'
unpublished manuscripts provided evidence that despite his correspondence with Newton, he had
come to his own conclusions about calculus already. The letters may then, have merely helped
Leibniz to expand upon his own initial ideas.
The question of the date at which these extracts were made is therefore all important. It is known
that a copy of Newton's manuscript had been sent to Tschirnhausen in May, 1675, and as in that
year he and Leibniz were engaged together on a piece of work, it is not impossible that these
extracts were made then. It is also possible that they may have been made in 1676, for Leibniz
discussed the question of analysis by infinite series with Collins and Oldenburg in that year, and
it is a priori probable that they would have then shown him the manuscript of Newton on that
subject, a copy of which was possessed by one or both of them. On the other hand, it may be
supposed that Leibniz made the extracts from the printed copy in or after 1704. Leibniz shortly
before his death admitted in a letter to Conti that in 1676 Collins had shown him some
Newtonian papers, but implied that they were of little or no value, - presumably he referred to
Newton's letters of June 13 and Oct. 24, 1676, and to the letter of Dec. 10, 1672, on the method
of tangents, extracts from which accompanied the letter of June 13, - but it is remarkable that, on
the receipt of these letters, Leibniz should have made no further inquiries, unless he was already
aware from other sources of the method followed by Newton (Ball, 1908).
While Newton had many allies, rallying in his favor, Leibniz had only one: John Bernoulli, who
in a letter, tried to cast doubt upon Newton’s credibility. When Bernoulli was later asked to
comment on the letter, he denied ever writing it, which caused Newton to aver: I have never
grasped at fame among foreign nations, but I am very desirous to preserve my character for
honesty, which the author of that epistle, as if by the authority of a great judge, had endeavored
to wrest from me. Now that I am old, I have little pleasure in mathematical studies, and I have
never tried to propagate my opinions over the world, but I have rather taken care not to involve
myself in disputes on account of them (Ball, 1908).
In 1715, just a year before Leibniz death, the Royal Society handed down their verdict crediting
Sir Isaac Newton with the discovery of calculus. It was also stated that Leibniz was guilty of
plagiarism because of certain letters he was supposed to have seen (Ball, 1908). It later became
known that these accusations were false, and both men were then given credit, but not until after
Leibniz had already died. In fact, the controversy over who really deserved the credit for
discovering calculus continued to rage on long after Leibniz’ death in 1716 (Struik, 1948).
Newton and his associates even tried to get the ambassadors of the London diplomatic corps to
 Page 4 of 4

review his old manuscripts and letters, in the hopes that they would endorse the finding of the
Royal Society that Leibniz had plagiarized his findings regarding calculus. Another argument on
the side promoting the idea of Leibniz as a plagiarist was the fact that he used an alternate set of
symbols. Leibniz specifically set out to develop a more meticulous notation system than
Newton’s, and he developed the integral sign ( I ) and the 'd' sign, which are still used today
(O'Connor, 1996). However, this action was argued by many to be merely a way for Leibniz to
“cover his tracks” so as not to get accused of stealing Newton’s material (Boyer, 1968). The fact
that the method was more efficient was considered to be an ancillary benefit. The fact is that
Leibniz sent letters to Newton outlining his own presentation of his own methods, and these
letters focused quite stringently upon the subject of tangents and curves. Because Newton had
been approaching calculus primarily in regards to its applications to physics, he purported curves
to be the creation of the motion of points while perceiving velocity to be the primary derivative.
Conversely, the calculus of Leibniz was applied more to discoveries in geometry made by
scholars such as Descartes and Pascal. Since "Leibniz' approach was geometrical," the notation
of the differential calculus and many of the general rules for calculating derivatives are still used
today, while Newton's approach, which has in many aspects, fallen by the wayside, was
"primarily kinematical" (Struik, 1948).
Despite the ruling of the Royal Society, mathematics throughout the eighteenth century was
typified by an elaboration of the differential and integral calculus in which mathematicians
generally discarded Newton's fluxional calculus in favor of the new methods presented by
Leibniz. Nevertheless, in England, the controversy was viewed as an attempt to pilfer Newton's
glory simply because of international egotism. Consequently, as a matter of “national pride”,
England refused to teach anything but Newton’s discoveries of geometrical and fluxional
methods for over a century. So, while other countries were integrating various findings that
occurred over time and were progressing in their discoveries, England remained essentially
stagnant in the realm of mathematic discovery. In fact, it wasn’t until 1820 that England finally
agreed to recognize the work of mathematicians from any other countries (Ball, 1908).

References
Ball, R. (1908). A Short Account of the History of Mathematics.

Boyer, C. (1968). A History of Mathematics: 2nd Edition. New York: New York: John Wiley and Sons.

O'Connor, J. (1996). The Rise of Calculus. Scotland: St Andrews.

Struik, D. (1948). A concise History of Mathematics. New York: New York: Dover Publications,Inc.