My guy you know lots of people in here have read Feynman right? You should cite him instead of pretending you were clever enough to come up with the analogy yourself.
Quite the contrary. I expect majority of HN readers to know the quote, base 0 if you will, and not harbor thoughts that by having read it they are a part of an exclusive club.
Channeling Good Will Hunting much huh? Most HN'ers would have watched that too.
I have no idea what you're trying to say - it is generally understood everywhere in the world (ie all forms of human culture) that it's pathetic to pass off someone else's insights as your own.
> You can still find citations of those papers to this day.
That's not what I contested. What fraction of people who use differentials in their published work still cite Newton or Leibnitz was the point. You can count number of such citations in last 10 years of say neural nets literature, or applied maths literature and report. Thats plenty of use.
Citations to their differential calculus that are still made are mostly in the context of history of math.
Seems numeracy or comprehension is not your strong point. LOL.
> What fraction of people who use differentials in their published work still cite Newton or Leibnitz was the point
Those papers were written in the 1600s. "The character of physical law", the essay you're ripping off, was written in 1964. 100% papers from the 1960s are cited every single time the techniques are used.
You are as tedious as the original refrain I was complaining about (which is not at all ironic). What's most tedious is you're not actually a mathematician but presume to speak for them.
Channeling Good Will Hunting much huh? Most HN'ers would have watched that too.