Do we read the Principia in college physics classes

No, i never read that book in a physics class, i never even heard of it, it probably wasn't that important

>>8347576
Actually got that from my granma for my birthday last year, interesting read but for the most part just over explanations of concepts youll understand well enough. I mainly have it as a bit of a "I've read principia"

>>8347595
If you are not sarcastic, that is Newton's book. The one with:
>Gravity
>Calculus
>Laws of motion

No big deal

However, it is written in Latin and notation is strange.

>>8347576

OP's pic related is the most important book named "Principia". However there are a few other books with Principia in the title.

In 1910, 1912 and 1913, Whitehead and Russell published a completely different, much larger three-volume text on the foundations of mathematics, simply called Principia Mathematica (without the other two words attached). It had a very cumbersome notation, and the overall project was later BTFO by Gödel (insofar as proving that the project must necessarily remain incomplete) and criticised by Wittgenstein, but PM is still acknowledged to be a historically important work for its scale, ambition, and (apparently) getting certain things right, in spite of being doomed to incompleteness.

There is also a book on ethics titled Principia Ethica, by G.E. Moore, a contemporary of Russel's.

Finally, there is a meme-joke-religious text titled Principia Discordia, thrown together in the 60s.

>>8347576
Nigga why would you read a 300 year old book? Specially when not only Newton's notation was adopted by literally no one, but also everything he did was re-made using actual mathematics and not just elementary geometry + intuiton + luck.

Fuck.

>>8347576
>Do we read the Principia in college physics classes
No we don't because unlike philosophers we don't see value in going throught the process of re-learning inefficient busted shit.

And before you go on about learning the thought process of Newton, this has no value. Looking at the methods of scientists past and applying them will only give you the same results those scientists got. Being a successful physicist involves using new methods.

>>8347686
so newtons book wasn't important?

>>8347706
It was important in his time. It is literally useless nowadays because nothing he says in that book has relevance today.

Go find a .pdf of it and scroll through it. You will find random geometric constructions and you will be asking yourself what the fuck does this have to do with calculus?

Answer: nothing.

Newton's calculus is not the calculus we do today.

>>8347706
keyword being was.
It was important, it isn't now.
There are better books.
That being said I think it's worth reading if you like the older perspectives


>>8347686
>elementary geometry + intuiton + luck.
That's why it's fun :^)

>>8347616
If you're gonna read it, I'd suggest using one of the nicer translations like
Chandrasekhar - Newton's Principia for the Common Reader

>>8347576
>>8347686
>>8347704
My college actually is having me read Principia right now.

>>8347718
>That's why it's fun :^)

OP is going to spend a year learning useless knowledge.

Like reading Euclid's Elements. Sure, you are going to learn geometry but what is the point of learning pre-set theory geometry.

Because of this I like to think of these people as being wrong. As in, Newton was wrong about calculus because he didn't use analysis and Euclid was wrong about geometry because he didn't know set theory.

They made some things that resembled the set theory and analysis approach we use today but those were but mere images of the true geometry and calculus we have today.

In other words. OP, don't read a book that is wrong about literally everything.

>>8347739
set theory is way overrated.
you can make mathematical arguments without proving it down to the lowest level.
Your way of thinking sounds really rigid and boring.

>>8347748
>set theory is way overrated.

Set Theory is everything that makes me whole.

>you can make mathematical arguments without proving it down to the lowest level.

Set Theory is not about proving shit down to the lowest level, specially in other fields.

I just meant that planes, lines, spaces, n-spaces, segments, etc. are sets of points and can be trated as such.

So many proofs are made so easy with set theory.

For example: Prove in 3 dimensional space, 3 planes can all intersect at a single point.

desu I have no idea how you would do this without set theory, which is why by today's standards anything that Euclid argumented for was unrigorous garbage.

>>8347763
>set theory is everything that makes me whole.
Same