an update on the newtonian fig (boring time)
This is exceedingly obvious (to nerds), but I know how I want to do both the Fig Newton and the Liebniz cookies: differences in notation!
The simplified history lesson here is that Newton and Liebniz developed calculus simultaneously, in opposite directions (one dealt with the infinity that is constant growth, one dealt with the infinity which is increasing tininess.) They each developed a system of notation for their new science. Liebniz pretty much ended up winning, since we use d’s and lowercase Greek deltas to talk about calculus these days. But Newton has his own notation, the cornerstones of which are “dot x” and “dot y”, x’s and y’s with little round hats. I am going to make a delicious fig-filled Italian cookie dot x style, and I am going to do it with nerdy pizzazz!
making practical use of my college education, part one.
I am on a quest for the Fig Newton. Not the cookie, but a Newton-themed dessert made with figs. Later, I want to move on to a vegan Leibniz cookie (the best of all possible cookies), maybe some Huygens (a little cake boat, perhaps), and on from there. But for now, the primary goal is a Fig Newton.
Unfortunately, in my thinking about illustrating the inverse square law of universal gravitation, I ended up with something that looks like Newton, but is really more of a Fig Archimedes. It’s that whole problem with living in earthly gravity rather than in perfect absolute space. So I’m thinking I may attack this problem from a more calculus-focused direction. I know it might step on the Leibniz cookie’s toes, but priorities are priorities.
