Don’t mess with a genius (2010)(shreevatsa.wordpress.com)
shreevatsa.wordpress.com
Don’t mess with a genius (2010)
https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/dont-mess-with-a-genius/
170 comments
I wonder where that comes from (is it apocryphal?) as prior to Hansard - which itself is not always verbatim and is the body that records the daily goings-on in the Houses of Parliament - there was very little documented on what was actually said in Parliament - let alone who said it.
It's a nice anecdote if nothing else.
It's a nice anecdote if nothing else.
Ah good point. As someone with a hair trigger for misattributed quotes I should have been more suspicious.
I dug deeper in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37517597 — it's mentioned in many books, but Newton's very thorough biographer Richard Westfall authoritatively says “According to a story that rests solely on anecdotal authority, he spoke only once”. So in fact we can be fairly confident it's only an anecdote and nothing more.
> I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered around me.
What a great quote
What a great quote
Very sad.
There have been a great many minds that have tortured themselves over pondering the things we don't even blink an eye at today.
We admire and idolize those who found the pretty pebbles that light up the shore today, and yet I'm sure many of them would have eagerly traded places just to see what continued to take shape.
It's sad, though also a reminder of just how much is easily taken for granted.
There have been a great many minds that have tortured themselves over pondering the things we don't even blink an eye at today.
We admire and idolize those who found the pretty pebbles that light up the shore today, and yet I'm sure many of them would have eagerly traded places just to see what continued to take shape.
It's sad, though also a reminder of just how much is easily taken for granted.
To me it sounds more like standing in wonder at how vastly much more he could never have lived long enough to understand. It doesn't strike me as sad, but humble, and appropriately so.
Newton, humble?
That business about pebbles is Newton showing off. Calculus is Latin for small pebble.
That business about pebbles is Newton showing off. Calculus is Latin for small pebble.
Newton may have been rough/arrogant with other people, but this is entirely consistent with being humble in the face of the mysteries of the universe etc — there is nothing in his biography to suggest otherwise.
In fact, you can see hints of it even in this quote: “I don’t know what I may seem to the world” — suggests that he thinks of himself in an exalted position wrt the world (= other people, in this context), but a little boy wrt Nature. Something like: I am a little boy collecting pebbles on the shore, while everyone else is a senseless baby not even close to the ocean.
In fact, you can see hints of it even in this quote: “I don’t know what I may seem to the world” — suggests that he thinks of himself in an exalted position wrt the world (= other people, in this context), but a little boy wrt Nature. Something like: I am a little boy collecting pebbles on the shore, while everyone else is a senseless baby not even close to the ocean.
This is not sad at all. The sense of childlike wonder and intellectual humility were essential to the great minds of history. If you feel like you’re getting a handle on things remember this quote and who said it. It is as true today as it was then and we could all benefit by remembering it.
Another fascinating thing about the Newton story is its parallels to Archimedes and the "eureka" moment. Both stories involve the most famous physicist of the day being asked to protect the integrity of royal gold. (Archimedes was asked by the king of Syracuse to detect whether a goldsmith had been adding baser metals to an offertory gold crown.) And both involve famous scientists bending the rules of evidence and procedure to catch a thief – in Archimedes' case, the modern consensus is that simple water displacement would not be sufficient to distinguish pure gold from a gold/silver alloy.
Wikipedia has a good paragraph on this. It describes a very cool alternative method that has higher accuracy, and according to Galileo it's probable that Archimedes used this method:
> The story of the golden crown does not appear anywhere in Archimedes' known works. The practicality of the method described has been called into question due to the extreme accuracy that would be required to measure water displacement. Archimedes may have instead sought a solution that applied the hydrostatics principle known as Archimedes' principle, found in his treatise On Floating Bodies: a body immersed in a fluid experiences a buoyant force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces.[34] Using this principle, it would have been possible to compare the density of the crown to that of pure gold by balancing it on a scale with a pure gold reference sample of the same weight, then immersing the apparatus in water. The difference in density between the two samples would cause the scale to tip accordingly.[12] Galileo Galilei, who invented a hydrostatic balance in 1586 inspired by Archimedes' work, considered it "probable that this method is the same that Archimedes followed, since, besides being very accurate, it is based on demonstrations found by Archimedes himself."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Archimedes'_princip...
> The story of the golden crown does not appear anywhere in Archimedes' known works. The practicality of the method described has been called into question due to the extreme accuracy that would be required to measure water displacement. Archimedes may have instead sought a solution that applied the hydrostatics principle known as Archimedes' principle, found in his treatise On Floating Bodies: a body immersed in a fluid experiences a buoyant force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces.[34] Using this principle, it would have been possible to compare the density of the crown to that of pure gold by balancing it on a scale with a pure gold reference sample of the same weight, then immersing the apparatus in water. The difference in density between the two samples would cause the scale to tip accordingly.[12] Galileo Galilei, who invented a hydrostatic balance in 1586 inspired by Archimedes' work, considered it "probable that this method is the same that Archimedes followed, since, besides being very accurate, it is based on demonstrations found by Archimedes himself."
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Archimedes'_princip...
> then immersing the apparatus in water
I'm having trouble picturing what's going on here. I'm not sure what the apparatus is. The best I can figure, it's two containers of water with the reference gold in one and the crown in the other. However, this wouldn't be any different than just weighing the two pieces of gold (which are already known to be the same mass). I tried searching for "hydrostatic balance," but nothing relevant to this came up. Since you seem to understand this, would you mind explaining (or pointing to an explanation of) Archimedes's probable solution?
I'm having trouble picturing what's going on here. I'm not sure what the apparatus is. The best I can figure, it's two containers of water with the reference gold in one and the crown in the other. However, this wouldn't be any different than just weighing the two pieces of gold (which are already known to be the same mass). I tried searching for "hydrostatic balance," but nothing relevant to this came up. Since you seem to understand this, would you mind explaining (or pointing to an explanation of) Archimedes's probable solution?
Sure! (My explanation is basically equivalent to the combined explanations by @mafuy and @malcolp, but I'll post it anyway.)
The idea is to balance a scale with the crown on one side and an equal mass of gold on the other side (no water yet), and then submerge the entire scale in water. Now there will still be the same mass on each side, but there will additionally be a buoyancy force on each side proportional to its volume. So if the volume of the crown is different from the volume of the reference gold, the buoyancy forces will be different and the scale will tip.
The idea is to balance a scale with the crown on one side and an equal mass of gold on the other side (no water yet), and then submerge the entire scale in water. Now there will still be the same mass on each side, but there will additionally be a buoyancy force on each side proportional to its volume. So if the volume of the crown is different from the volume of the reference gold, the buoyancy forces will be different and the scale will tip.
The apparatus is the scale, on which the crown and the gold were placed. They balance out when it is in air. They do not (for a fake crown), when the scale is submerged in water.
Thanks for answering. I'm not even an amateur in physics, so forgive me for this elementary follow-up question. Why does it not balance in water? It would seem to me that the same weight it on each side of the scale, so the same force is pushing down on each side of the scale.
You're right there is the same force pushing down on each side. But there's also an additional force in water pushing up. It's called upthrust. It's equal to the weight of displaced water. If the densities are different the samples with the same weight will have different volumes and different upthrusts.
This can be quite a useful phenomenon practically. Anyone who has learned to scuba dive will know that if you take a deep breath in from your air tank you increase your volume without changing your weight and will be able to slightly change your bouyancy and float upwards or downwards without moving your limbs. Submarines also use the same phenomenon.
This can be quite a useful phenomenon practically. Anyone who has learned to scuba dive will know that if you take a deep breath in from your air tank you increase your volume without changing your weight and will be able to slightly change your bouyancy and float upwards or downwards without moving your limbs. Submarines also use the same phenomenon.
> Submarines also use the same phenomenon
For clarity, the submarines fix their voice but adjust their weight by pumping or flooding their ballast tanks
For clarity, the submarines fix their voice but adjust their weight by pumping or flooding their ballast tanks
> Why does it not balance in water?
Technically, it doesn't balance an air either, but it's just harder to notice the effect.
For an exaggerated example, imagine a 1-kg cube of styrofoam and another 1-kg cube of steel, each placed on opposite trays of a balance-scale.
The scale will be truly balanced in vacuum, and in air will appear balanced to the unaided human eye.
However when you submerge the entire system underwater, the differences will be shockingly visible... especially when the styrofoam floats up and off the scale entirely! It isn't because of negative mass or negative weight, just buoyancy that can no longer be ignored.
By conducting the "weighing" experiment again in a denser fluid (water) any subtle differences in density/ displacement become easier to measure.
Technically, it doesn't balance an air either, but it's just harder to notice the effect.
For an exaggerated example, imagine a 1-kg cube of styrofoam and another 1-kg cube of steel, each placed on opposite trays of a balance-scale.
The scale will be truly balanced in vacuum, and in air will appear balanced to the unaided human eye.
However when you submerge the entire system underwater, the differences will be shockingly visible... especially when the styrofoam floats up and off the scale entirely! It isn't because of negative mass or negative weight, just buoyancy that can no longer be ignored.
By conducting the "weighing" experiment again in a denser fluid (water) any subtle differences in density/ displacement become easier to measure.
That is not how a balance scale works. The two sides balance, because the weigher makes them balance. That can be done in a vacuum, air, or water.
The trick being described has the weigher balance the scale in air, with unknown mass A and some mass of gold B. The two sides are equal in weight in air, different from mass. Then the entire balance system is submerged. The difference in density of A and B, and therefor volume, leads the balance to become unbalanced.
It would be wise to add mass to the lighter side to try and measure how imbalanced. I would bet most adulterants are about half the density of gold or less. In g/cm3: Gold is 19.3, silver 10.5, lead 11.3, copper 9.0, nickel 8.9.
The trick being described has the weigher balance the scale in air, with unknown mass A and some mass of gold B. The two sides are equal in weight in air, different from mass. Then the entire balance system is submerged. The difference in density of A and B, and therefor volume, leads the balance to become unbalanced.
It would be wise to add mass to the lighter side to try and measure how imbalanced. I would bet most adulterants are about half the density of gold or less. In g/cm3: Gold is 19.3, silver 10.5, lead 11.3, copper 9.0, nickel 8.9.
> That is not how a balance scale works. The two sides balance, because the weigher makes them balance.
I think you're confusing the tool-calibration step with the actual measuring. As long as a scale is built symmetrically, an empty scale will read as balanced in any environment. Both sides are made from the same materials with the same densities and displacements etc.
Once you apply the dissimilar samples (such as a known 1kg mass of styrofoam versus a known 1kg mass of steel) it will cease to read as perfectly even, because the air-buoyancy of the samples will be different. Perhaps not enough to see easily, but it's there.
____
It may help to consider that for this experiment we do not actually need to see an "equal" weight-measurement from any kind of scale. What we're actually trying to check is that the readout doesn't change when swapping the surroundings from air to water, ex:
I think you're confusing the tool-calibration step with the actual measuring. As long as a scale is built symmetrically, an empty scale will read as balanced in any environment. Both sides are made from the same materials with the same densities and displacements etc.
Once you apply the dissimilar samples (such as a known 1kg mass of styrofoam versus a known 1kg mass of steel) it will cease to read as perfectly even, because the air-buoyancy of the samples will be different. Perhaps not enough to see easily, but it's there.
____
It may help to consider that for this experiment we do not actually need to see an "equal" weight-measurement from any kind of scale. What we're actually trying to check is that the readout doesn't change when swapping the surroundings from air to water, ex:
diff_air = weight(real_gold, air) - weight(suspicious_crown, air)
diff_water = weight(real_gold, water) - weight(suspicious_crown, water)
assert(diff_air == diff_water, "Error, density mismatch detected")
> ... consider that for this experiment we do not actually need to see an "equal" weight-measurement from any kind of scale.
Ah, you seem to be assuming that the mass of the crown is known and an equivalent mass of gold can be produced.
> What we're actually trying to check is that the readout doesn't change ...
I'm not sure what you mean by readout. If one side is A and the other B the balance only has three readings, A>B or A=B or A<B.
Typically I would expect the crown to be put on one side of a balance. Then the weigher would search for the amount of gold that makes the balance, well, balance (A=B). In effect the weigher chooses diff_air==0.
> A good counterfeiter will ensure diff_air==0
I don't see how the counterfeiter has any influence on diff_air, since the mass is not known beforehand.
Your equations seem correct.
Ah, you seem to be assuming that the mass of the crown is known and an equivalent mass of gold can be produced.
> What we're actually trying to check is that the readout doesn't change ...
I'm not sure what you mean by readout. If one side is A and the other B the balance only has three readings, A>B or A=B or A<B.
Typically I would expect the crown to be put on one side of a balance. Then the weigher would search for the amount of gold that makes the balance, well, balance (A=B). In effect the weigher chooses diff_air==0.
> A good counterfeiter will ensure diff_air==0
I don't see how the counterfeiter has any influence on diff_air, since the mass is not known beforehand.
Your equations seem correct.
> Ah, you seem to be assuming that the mass of the crown is known and an equivalent mass of gold can be produced.
The first is effectively true because you can weigh the crown in air, which for goldish-density crownlike objects is so relatively thin that you'll get similar results to doing the comparisons in vacuum.
The second assumption of a reference-sample was explicitly stated earlier in the thread, inside the Wikipedia quote.
> I don't see how the counterfeiter has any influence on diff_air, since the mass is not known beforehand.
The crooked crown-maker already knows (A) how much true-gold mass their customer is expecting them to deliver and (B) they have many opportunities to mass-measure and adjust the profitably-adulterated not-quite-pure-gold object they are creating.
The first is effectively true because you can weigh the crown in air, which for goldish-density crownlike objects is so relatively thin that you'll get similar results to doing the comparisons in vacuum.
The second assumption of a reference-sample was explicitly stated earlier in the thread, inside the Wikipedia quote.
> I don't see how the counterfeiter has any influence on diff_air, since the mass is not known beforehand.
The crooked crown-maker already knows (A) how much true-gold mass their customer is expecting them to deliver and (B) they have many opportunities to mass-measure and adjust the profitably-adulterated not-quite-pure-gold object they are creating.
You should use "/" instead of "-" in your equations. If you have two objects of the same density but with different sizes, the ratio of their (apparent) weights will be the same in air and in water, but the difference will be different!
Wait what? Are you saying that the story (Archimedes invents theory of density, proves the crown is fake) is really Archimedes invents density, but then proves the fakery by ... finding the spare gold in the guys kitchen or something?
I'm flabbergasted. I can of course believe it's true. I just never thought to question it.
I'm flabbergasted. I can of course believe it's true. I just never thought to question it.
I figured it was Archimedes invents theory of density, then he or someone else invents anecdote to show its use, anecdote actually wouldn't work though but theory of density still good so people use it.
[deleted]
I always wondered how he measured the displacement accurately enough.
You simply should use a vessel which gets narrower to the top.
If you put the crown, the water level rises.
The smaller the cross section of the vessel the more the height has to increase to amount the volume.
We’re talking about clay pots here. How would you get the crown into the narrow opening? If you have two containers, one for displacement, the other for measurement, you would lose far more water in the pouring than the precision required.
Here is an idea: I can imagine a vessel that looks like an elongated tetrahedron upside-down with one of the isosceles faces open and the point below it beveled to enable it to balance in two positions, position 1 with the long end slightly higher than the short end, and position 2 with the long end exactly the same height as the short end. Start in position 1, fill with water, place the crown to overflow it’s volume, then remove the crown, tip the vessel to position 2, mark the extent (rather than the height) of the water on the elongated end, repeat with the gold, compare.
This could be improvised with something like a large urn and a block to lift the long end a little bit. I’m still not sure about the precision of the overflow and dripping off the water.
Here is an idea: I can imagine a vessel that looks like an elongated tetrahedron upside-down with one of the isosceles faces open and the point below it beveled to enable it to balance in two positions, position 1 with the long end slightly higher than the short end, and position 2 with the long end exactly the same height as the short end. Start in position 1, fill with water, place the crown to overflow it’s volume, then remove the crown, tip the vessel to position 2, mark the extent (rather than the height) of the water on the elongated end, repeat with the gold, compare.
This could be improvised with something like a large urn and a block to lift the long end a little bit. I’m still not sure about the precision of the overflow and dripping off the water.
Old school liquid thermometers demonstrate this beautifully.
I assume he used a mechanical balance to measure the equal weight of gold. Couldn’t he then just submerge the balance?
If the method from the story doesn’t work, is it possible that it was just a plausible-sounding cover for the actual method that they wouldn’t have wanted to disclose?
If the method from the story doesn’t work, is it possible that it was just a plausible-sounding cover for the actual method that they wouldn’t have wanted to disclose?
[deleted]
While appreciating his genius let's also remember that even Newton himself couldn't resist FOMO and lost substantial money when a bubble burst [1]. Goes to show he was a human after all.
[1] https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/73/7/30/800801/Isa...
[1] https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/73/7/30/800801/Isa...
There was a linked quote on that. "I can predict the movement of stars, but not the madness of men"
Truly a great quote and still so valid today.
Truly a great quote and still so valid today.
ANDROMACHE. Doesn't it ever tire you to see and prophesy only disasters?
CASSANDRA. I see nothing. I prophesy nothing. All I ever do is to take account of two great stupidities: the stupidities of men, and the wild stupidity of the elements.
— Jean Giraudoux, French (1882-1944)
CASSANDRA. I see nothing. I prophesy nothing. All I ever do is to take account of two great stupidities: the stupidities of men, and the wild stupidity of the elements.
— Jean Giraudoux, French (1882-1944)
Reminds me of Einstein's "Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe"
(attributed to him, anyway)
(attributed to him, anyway)
Reminds attributed to Heisenberg -
“When I meet God, I’m going to ask him two questions: why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he’ll have an answer for the first.”
“When I meet God, I’m going to ask him two questions: why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he’ll have an answer for the first.”
Probably thought he could time the market. Everyone makes that mistake...
its worse than that. He pulled his money out because he (correctly) thought it would end badly, making a large profit.
But it just kept growing and growing. He eventually bought back in, and that was right at the peak before the crash, so he lost a lot.
But it just kept growing and growing. He eventually bought back in, and that was right at the peak before the crash, so he lost a lot.
This is almost like how it went for me, early Bitcoin "investor". Still managed to make some speculative profit though, take that, Newton!
This story is about his anti counterfeiting exploits though, which usually requires skills not necessarily related to intellect. he was dutiful and unforgiving which is why he had some level of success in it. Same reasoning applies to his investments tanking, it's a different skillet and far more unpredictable.
This is mentioned in the linked story.
Newton's obsession with counterfeiters never made sense to me until I read Neal Stephenson Baroque Cycle. He makes a good case for tying it with Newton's prior alemetical pursuits.
I don't think it was an obsession. It was personal with Chaloner, because Chaloner called Newton a fraud.
Newton was dutiful, honest and smart.
Newton was dutiful, honest and smart.
He was also petty and vindictive. As shown by using his status in a long running attempt to ruin Leibnitz's reputation over the invention of calculus.
What does "alemetical" mean?
> alemetical
I'd say, "disparaging against the Germans" or "repulsed by confederations" ('Alemanni' ∩ 'emetic').
If somebody is proficient in Arabic, maybe 'emetic' (after article "Al-") makes sense also outside IE...
I'd say, "disparaging against the Germans" or "repulsed by confederations" ('Alemanni' ∩ 'emetic').
If somebody is proficient in Arabic, maybe 'emetic' (after article "Al-") makes sense also outside IE...
OP possibly meant alchemical? Can't seem to find anything for almetical.
Damn autocorrect! Also, I was amused that the parent's question is Google's current second result.
As far as I can see, it's not_a_word.
*alchemical
This is almost like a real-life version of Sherlock Holmes and maybe a slightly discount version James Moriarty
I have a dim notion that Sir Isaac also had quite the feud with Leibniz, is that also a wildly entertaining story like this one? And if so what’s the best telling?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Clarke_corresp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Clarke_corresp...
Awesome thank you for the links.
As an American English-speaker I think my ostensible tribal obligation is to call it a tie at worst and take Sir Isaac’s part by default, but Wikipedia seems to be going out of its way to avoid concluding that Leibniz got there first: I’m curious if Germans have a different view than us in the Empire or it’s former colonies.
It seems a tough case to make that Newton wasn’t the more influential thinker overall, but on Calc I-IV? Lot of claims about stuff that he “decided not to publish”.
As an American English-speaker I think my ostensible tribal obligation is to call it a tie at worst and take Sir Isaac’s part by default, but Wikipedia seems to be going out of its way to avoid concluding that Leibniz got there first: I’m curious if Germans have a different view than us in the Empire or it’s former colonies.
It seems a tough case to make that Newton wasn’t the more influential thinker overall, but on Calc I-IV? Lot of claims about stuff that he “decided not to publish”.
Indeed. To add to this - first to develop or not, Leibniz published first, and Newton's shameless unfounded accusations against him cannot be reasonably defended. I don't see any pro-Newton arguments in this situation besides "tribal obligations" that you mention.
In the realm of calculus Leibniz is far more influential - his notation, for instance, is so superior that English mathematicians rejecting it arguably led to the stagnation of the field in England. And of course it is far more prevalent today.
In the realm of calculus Leibniz is far more influential - his notation, for instance, is so superior that English mathematicians rejecting it arguably led to the stagnation of the field in England. And of course it is far more prevalent today.
IIRC Newton also exploited his role as President of the Royal Society to attack Leibnitz. Just because he was a genius, doesn't mean that he wasn't also an arsehole. Maybe if he was was a more mellow and less driven, he wouldn't have been the genius he was.
Leibniz certainly has a profile closer to that of Thomas Young: a polymath with a name far less known to general public.
Great references!
I'm pretty sure I used to own a book called The Newton-Leibniz Correspondence, being a collection of letters. But my search-foo has failed to turn it up.
Is it possible you were thinking of this book?https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9780719006692
Not quite the same thing, but has quite a few references to Newton contained within the pages. Perhaps enough to mix it up in your memory.
Not quite the same thing, but has quite a few references to Newton contained within the pages. Perhaps enough to mix it up in your memory.
> Newton saw what was happening ... and somehow intimidated and pushed Neale aside in a bloodless coup, and took over the Great Recoinage himself.
Or more charitably, Neale didn't fight too hard for his prerogatives when he saw that one of the most competent men in the history of western civilization was trying to solve his biggest problem.
Or more charitably, Neale didn't fight too hard for his prerogatives when he saw that one of the most competent men in the history of western civilization was trying to solve his biggest problem.
> when he saw that one of the most competent men in the history of western civilization
The thing, this is only decidable in hindsight. Many a confident person has declared themselves to be "the most competent" and proven to be... not that.
(competence & confidence are perhaps entirely uncorrelated)
The thing, this is only decidable in hindsight. Many a confident person has declared themselves to be "the most competent" and proven to be... not that.
(competence & confidence are perhaps entirely uncorrelated)
Good management gets out of the way of its star worker.
Especially when getting in their way gets you hung drawn and quartered
"Hung" is what you do to a side of beef. TFA said it right; criminals were hanged.
"You will be taken from this place to another place, and thence to a place of execution, where you will be hanged by the neck until dead."
The penalty for common traitors was to be hanged, drawn and quartered. The hanging was not until death; after dangling for a while, you were cut down and your limbs were attached to horses, which were then driven apart, causing all of your joints to be dislocated. You were then cut into four pieces, which were carried to the corners of the realm, and displayed as a warning to others not to engage in treason.
High-born traitors had it easy; they had the privilege of being beheaded instead. If they were lucky, they got a skilled executioner, who could strike off their head with a single blow. Lady Jane Grey was not lucky.
"You will be taken from this place to another place, and thence to a place of execution, where you will be hanged by the neck until dead."
The penalty for common traitors was to be hanged, drawn and quartered. The hanging was not until death; after dangling for a while, you were cut down and your limbs were attached to horses, which were then driven apart, causing all of your joints to be dislocated. You were then cut into four pieces, which were carried to the corners of the realm, and displayed as a warning to others not to engage in treason.
High-born traitors had it easy; they had the privilege of being beheaded instead. If they were lucky, they got a skilled executioner, who could strike off their head with a single blow. Lady Jane Grey was not lucky.
Pedantry will get you hung
Of course they were hanged, quartered and their pieces hung.
I mean, one is already dead after hanging; everything else is just some extra burden on state finances. Your body will become dust anyway, quartered or not quartered.
Being hanged didn't make you dead. Not reliably. It's kind of a science; what happens when you drop depends on your weight, and the length of the drop. If you're too heavy, or the drop is too long, then your head gets yanked off, which is generally considered a bad result. On the other hand, if you're light or the drop is too short, you get slowly strangled, which is also an undesirable outcome.
So sometimes hangees would pay people to swing from their ankles after the drop, until they were really dead.
For hanging, drawing and quartering, you weren't supposed to die from the hanging bit.
[Edit] The quartering part wasn't some kind of superfluous state expense; it was the whole point of the exercise. HDQ was only performed rarely - it was reserved for the (commoner) leaders of rebellions against the monarch. Common criminals were just hanged.
So sometimes hangees would pay people to swing from their ankles after the drop, until they were really dead.
For hanging, drawing and quartering, you weren't supposed to die from the hanging bit.
[Edit] The quartering part wasn't some kind of superfluous state expense; it was the whole point of the exercise. HDQ was only performed rarely - it was reserved for the (commoner) leaders of rebellions against the monarch. Common criminals were just hanged.
Amen
I've heard it said that Newton was one of very few (maybe the only?) Wardens to not pardon a single counterfeiter and stay their execution.
Sounds quite bad. Smells of corruption. At some point Chaloner (correctly) accused the persons running the Royal Mint of Counterfeiting, obviously furious the Mint the Newton suddenly finds witnesses (from other convicts) and evidence that Chaloner is a counterfeiter! and Chaloner end up:
“Twitching and writhing, on the hangman’s rope while being disembowelled.”
A small inaccuracy: the South Sea Bubble was not the first speculation bubble. Tulip Mania took place almost a century earlier.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
It's buried in the wikipedia article, but these stories of tulips being a giant society collapsing bubble "come from propaganda pamphlets published by Dutch Calvinists worried that the tulip-propelled consumerism boom would lead to societal decay."[1]
“There weren’t that many people involved and the economic repercussions were pretty minor,” Goldgar [author of "Tulipmania" and a professor of early modern history at King’s College London] says. “I couldn’t find anybody that went bankrupt. If there had been really a wholesale destruction of the economy as the myth suggests, that would’ve been a much harder thing to face.”[1]
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...
“There weren’t that many people involved and the economic repercussions were pretty minor,” Goldgar [author of "Tulipmania" and a professor of early modern history at King’s College London] says. “I couldn’t find anybody that went bankrupt. If there had been really a wholesale destruction of the economy as the myth suggests, that would’ve been a much harder thing to face.”[1]
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...
>the world’s first stock market crash
If this was the pitch for a movie, it would be turned down on account of being too unbelievable.
Neal Stephenson already wrote a few books about it
When I first read Quicksilver I assumed that Newton as Warden of the Coin was one of the speculative fiction parts of the story. Nope, he was indeed involved heavily in improving the state of the art in authentic money.
I'm surprised he didn't get more negative attention from counterfeiters. But then once you get one hanged, and drawn and quartered, maybe they realize this cat has claws and they should leave it alone.
I'm surprised he didn't get more negative attention from counterfeiters. But then once you get one hanged, and drawn and quartered, maybe they realize this cat has claws and they should leave it alone.
I love the last line, “If you doubt that such a man could exist, this monument bears witness”
After « Abraham Lincoln: vampire hunter », the new thriller « Detective Newton: Warden of the Mint »
Paging Christopher Nolan.
Oh hell no, give the story to a director who can actually create a movie with good dialog and character development.
Genuine question: is that up to the director or to the authors of the script?
Nolan is a screenwriter too, he usually writes and directs his own movies, often times with the help of his wife Emma Thomas.
And John Madden (Shakespeare in Love).
[deleted]
Honestly, this reads like something by Terry Pratchett, and probably inspired him.
> To avoid issues of jurisdiction he got himself appointed Justice of the Peace for nineteen counties surrounding London.
Sounds like the persona of Sherlock Holmes from the original stories, just with a (slightly) different focus.
Exactly maybe but I don't know Conan Doyle knew about this
[deleted]
Locke was really involved in the recoinage. It was an important moment in the history of capitalism in terms of the ideology of money. See https://newtonandthemint.history.ox.ac.uk/great-recoinage/re...
If you like this I would recommend Neil Stephenson's Baroque cycle series of books.
It is historical fiction, but I very much like the narrative style.
It is historical fiction, but I very much like the narrative style.
he also invented milled edges, which arguably did even more to preserve the coinage: https://www.perthmint.com/news/collector/coin-collecting/how...
It’s an idea that goes back to at least the Romans, but Newton attracts attribution like Mark Twain. (Referring to Roman serrate-edge coins)
> attracts attribution like Mark Twain
Well put!
Well put!
[deleted]
Newton has a fair claim to be the greatest genius that every lived, with his hugely influential work on gravitation, law of motion, optics, calculcus and more. But he also spent a huge amount of time and energy on bible studies and alchemy. I wonder what other areas of science and maths he might have discovered without those distractions?
Spending time on alchemy is, to me, symptomatic of a curious mind that was open to experimentation where his peers might reject things altogether on presuppositions.
If he had no been that easily distracted by weird things I expect he would have pushed the envelope of knowledge significantly less.
If he had no been that easily distracted by weird things I expect he would have pushed the envelope of knowledge significantly less.
A curious person finds treasures in one of three rooms they searched. Obviously they should have ignored the other two from the get go.
I think Newton was curious about everything around him, and a lot of it paid off.
I think Newton was curious about everything around him, and a lot of it paid off.
Neal Stephenson's great trilogy The Baroque Cycle does a great job at depicting this facet of Newton.
> the only thing ever recorded spoken by him is a request to close the window
Does anyone know where I can find this?
Does anyone know where I can find this?
The Wikipedia entry for Newton mentions this and cites Michael White's book from 1997 - The last sorcerer.
In that he states
"Newton was an MP for almost exactly one year, but he seems to have contributed nothing personally to the proceedings of the new parliament. He reported back to the Vice-Chancellor faithfully and in minute detail, but according to one anecdote, which may or may not be true, he said only one thing during the year-long proceedings. Feeling a draught down his back, he asked a nearby usher to close an open window."
But there is no other reference in that book to where that came from.
Official records of what was and what as not said in Parliament didn't really come into the public until Hansard (circa 1800) there is 'WIlliam COBBETT's parliamentary history of England : from the Norman conquest, in 1066, to the year, 1803' which has been a reference before the 1800's and you can find a copy of that on the Internet Archive
https://archive.org/details/pp809777_0001/mode/2up
There is one reference to the string 'Newton' in that search but it is just a name of a borough.
In that he states
"Newton was an MP for almost exactly one year, but he seems to have contributed nothing personally to the proceedings of the new parliament. He reported back to the Vice-Chancellor faithfully and in minute detail, but according to one anecdote, which may or may not be true, he said only one thing during the year-long proceedings. Feeling a draught down his back, he asked a nearby usher to close an open window."
But there is no other reference in that book to where that came from.
Official records of what was and what as not said in Parliament didn't really come into the public until Hansard (circa 1800) there is 'WIlliam COBBETT's parliamentary history of England : from the Norman conquest, in 1066, to the year, 1803' which has been a reference before the 1800's and you can find a copy of that on the Internet Archive
https://archive.org/details/pp809777_0001/mode/2up
There is one reference to the string 'Newton' in that search but it is just a name of a borough.
It's apocryphal, found in Bartlett's Book of Anecdotes etc. Levenson's book (which BTW has a lot more of interest beyond whatever I put in the blog post) cites two sources for this point:
• Richard Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (1980), p. 483
• A. Rupert Hall, Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought (1992), p. 231
I looked up both those books and both of them call it an anecdote.
Westfall:
> There is no way to pretend that Newton played a leading role in its deliberations. According to a story that rests solely on anecdotal authority , he spoke only once; feeling a draft, he asked an usher to close a window . It is not merely anecdotal that none of the surviving accounts of the Parliament contain any record of his participation in its debates. Only to a limited extent do we know where he stood on the great issues the Convention Parliament decided.
Hall:
> An anecdote records Newton's only utterance in the House of Commons: feeling a draught, he requested that a window be closed. However, anecdote may be erroneous. Since Newton asked leave to bring in a Bill to confirm the charters and privileges of the University of Cambridge, he must have made some remarks, however terse.
• Richard Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (1980), p. 483
• A. Rupert Hall, Isaac Newton: Adventurer in Thought (1992), p. 231
I looked up both those books and both of them call it an anecdote.
Westfall:
> There is no way to pretend that Newton played a leading role in its deliberations. According to a story that rests solely on anecdotal authority , he spoke only once; feeling a draft, he asked an usher to close a window . It is not merely anecdotal that none of the surviving accounts of the Parliament contain any record of his participation in its debates. Only to a limited extent do we know where he stood on the great issues the Convention Parliament decided.
Hall:
> An anecdote records Newton's only utterance in the House of Commons: feeling a draught, he requested that a window be closed. However, anecdote may be erroneous. Since Newton asked leave to bring in a Bill to confirm the charters and privileges of the University of Cambridge, he must have made some remarks, however terse.
Thanks for the great write up! I’d watch this as a series or movie
World's greatest detective? Independently wealthy?
(2010) -But a great story.
2009.
Levenson's book publish date.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0151012784/exectoda-...
Levenson's book publish date.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0151012784/exectoda-...
I think you mean (1696)...
Well, no, the article was not written in 1969. The year of events described is irrelevant.
>Well, no, the article was not written in 1969.
I think you mean (1696)...
I think you mean (1696)...
Oops, yes.
[deleted]
So, if someone with Newton’s caliber gets suckered into losing a lot of money in a market bubble (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company, note that it was a slave trading company), what hope is there for the rest of us?
It's like those optical illusions that you can't stop seeing even through you know your eyes are lying to you. Our brains are just wired to leave us vulnerable to certain cognitive biases and errors and while we can try to increase our awareness of those vulnerabilities we can't get rid of them.
To make it worse, scammers and corporations spend massive amounts of time/money researching how to best exploit those weaknesses and so the moment our guard is down any one of us could fall for one of their traps. We're all basically one bad day away from being suckered into losing money on something. Nobody can be hypervigilant all the time and a person like Newton probably had a lot on his mind.
To make it worse, scammers and corporations spend massive amounts of time/money researching how to best exploit those weaknesses and so the moment our guard is down any one of us could fall for one of their traps. We're all basically one bad day away from being suckered into losing money on something. Nobody can be hypervigilant all the time and a person like Newton probably had a lot on his mind.
There is a great solution for this. Just neither become possessor of any large amount of wealth.
It is notable that Newton had no experience of trading companies.
He was good at things he dealt with personally.
Nullius in verba and all that.
He was good at things he dealt with personally.
Nullius in verba and all that.
I'm reminded of Michael Larson, the guy who successfully hacked Press Your Luck, racked up over $110,000 while on the show, and then lost it all in bad real estate deals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Larson
If you find yourself in a lot of money, your best bet is a diversified portfolio of stable, slow-earning assets. Newton was brilliant, but not immune to the tantalizing excitement of "striking it rich" with a big investment. You might say... he pressed his luck.
If you find yourself in a lot of money, your best bet is a diversified portfolio of stable, slow-earning assets. Newton was brilliant, but not immune to the tantalizing excitement of "striking it rich" with a big investment. You might say... he pressed his luck.
Maybe just because you're smart about some things doesn't mean you know everything?
Success in speculative enterprises is only remotely correlated with intelligence, or even competence.
I like the quote from the "Margin Call" movie. It's about hearing the music stop. That is, mostly just blind luck.
I like the quote from the "Margin Call" movie. It's about hearing the music stop. That is, mostly just blind luck.
Well, he was also a lifelong celibate.
The source of all his power.
And?
[deleted]
This is mostly a copy of Levenson's 2009 article, submitted a day ago.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37493372
https://www.executedtoday.com/2009/03/22/1699-william-chalon...
I found this interesting:
> Newton did not expect as Warden to have to chase crooks; when he found out that was part of the job he wrote a rather whiny letter to the Treasury to see if he could wriggle out of the duty.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37493372
https://www.executedtoday.com/2009/03/22/1699-william-chalon...
I found this interesting:
> Newton did not expect as Warden to have to chase crooks; when he found out that was part of the job he wrote a rather whiny letter to the Treasury to see if he could wriggle out of the duty.
This is not a copy of Levenson's 2009 article. This is a copy of Levenson's 2009 book (the good parts) (as mentioned in the first sentence), that I wrote as a blog post in 2010 before returning the book to the library, and which someone else submitted to HN today probably after I mentioned it in a comment on another post about another counterfeiter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37490644
The facts are the same (researched by Levenson), but the words and presentation/storytelling are different, surely? You can see that Levenson and I chose somewhat different parts of his book to emphasize. I wouldn't have been surprised even if we had chosen the same parts, because obviously I think the ones I chose were the good parts :-)
The facts are the same (researched by Levenson), but the words and presentation/storytelling are different, surely? You can see that Levenson and I chose somewhat different parts of his book to emphasize. I wouldn't have been surprised even if we had chosen the same parts, because obviously I think the ones I chose were the good parts :-)
the words and presentation/storytelling are different, surely?
I spent a few minutes comparing the two articles because I'm a doofus and hadn't noticed the author of the post (you) had replied. But now that I've done this pointless bit of work, can confirm - the topics are similar but they focus on different facts and even time periods. One is very much not a copy of the other.
I spent a few minutes comparing the two articles because I'm a doofus and hadn't noticed the author of the post (you) had replied. But now that I've done this pointless bit of work, can confirm - the topics are similar but they focus on different facts and even time periods. One is very much not a copy of the other.
OK, apologies. I guess I was a little peeved that Levenson's own article didn't get many upvotes. (Though I wasn't the submitter)
No problem :) Mysterious are the ways of upvotes. It's not entirely random—I would expect a post from ciechanow.ski to be reliably upvoted—but there's a fair amount of chance (which is why there's a manually curated "second-chance pool"). I don't know how Levenson's article didn't get more attention.
It is a stunning coincidence that it was posted just yesterday though; as far as I can tell there's no connection between that article being posted (given that it got hardly any attention) and “The Greatest Counterfeiter” being posted (which led to my comment).
It is a stunning coincidence that it was posted just yesterday though; as far as I can tell there's no connection between that article being posted (given that it got hardly any attention) and “The Greatest Counterfeiter” being posted (which led to my comment).
Interjection: I've been reading through your WordPress, and I really enjoyed your commentary on Sanskrit literature!
The juxtaposition of Sanskrit amongst Python and maths makes for a very pleasant reading experience.
The juxtaposition of Sanskrit amongst Python and maths makes for a very pleasant reading experience.
Thank you. I don't know how deep you want to go into Sanskrit literature, but if you liked the blog posts, you may also enjoy my friend's posts/essays on Sanskrit literature (I had a small part in proofreading and making some minor edits), mostly written during 2012–2015: https://sadasvada.com
Sadāsvāda looks amazing. Thanks for this! I have very little Sanskrit proficiency, but I enjoy reading it (or at least, well-transliterated Sanskrit) all the same.
[deleted]
>The Warden of the Mint, with a salary of 400-odd pounds a year
$91,000 a year
$91,000 a year
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men
Many will find this relatable.
Many will find this relatable.
I particularly enjoyed his modest self-eulogy:
> I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered around me.
> I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered around me.
I'm not sure Newton was known for his modesty. Even his famous quote:
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Is interpreted by some as a snide dig at his shorter rival, Hooke.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Is interpreted by some as a snide dig at his shorter rival, Hooke.
I wonder what Newton would think of what we've built
"You've split atoms, reached the moon, and yet the very force that keeps your feet on the ground remains a riddle? Perhaps society's attention is too often pulled away from the fundamental questions by trivial distractions."
I actually could see it being the opposite. Perhaps he'd be gratified and exultant to see that we took all his silly theoretical musings about calculus and gravity and created real world impact.
"My humble scribblings have led to technologies that reach the stars and devices that fit in the palm of your hand? How gratifying to know that you've taken the seeds of my theories and grown a veritable forest of innovation! Well done, future humans, well done indeed!"
Physics had no major discovery for a while. Its stagnating with huge gaps in theory
Or, worse, what we have destroyed
[deleted]
Except self described economists of course
[deleted]
Does this cause anyone else to be more suspicious of Newton's achievements and the history books, given that he at one point had accrued enough power to have his rivals drawn and quartered?
Now, I have less respect for Newton than ever before. That essay repeats the details of the smear job against Newton's rival in earnest, and parrots his praises, with zero sense of irony or context with respect to how history is formed. Reminds me strongly of Thomas Edison, prominent scientist with suspiciously high political standing and personal fortune.
No one can contest this now, the histories are 300 years old. What no one can contest in good faith is that, "The winners write the history books".
Now, I have less respect for Newton than ever before. That essay repeats the details of the smear job against Newton's rival in earnest, and parrots his praises, with zero sense of irony or context with respect to how history is formed. Reminds me strongly of Thomas Edison, prominent scientist with suspiciously high political standing and personal fortune.
No one can contest this now, the histories are 300 years old. What no one can contest in good faith is that, "The winners write the history books".
I don't think this is a reasonable understanding of the story. Chaloner cannot be called “Newton's rival” in any usual sense of the word: he was born destitute, turned to various horrifying crimes from a young age, was barely educated, was arrested multiple times even before his story overlapped with Newton's in any way, etc. He died only because his crime was a serious one, falling under the category of “high treason”. And for his part, Newton hardly had accrued enough power despite all his mathematical and scientific achievements — this job was obtained with great effort late in his life, and his (small) fortune came from his job's salary.
Regarding “context with respect to how history is formed”, I think this is best done by reading more primary sources, and not forming a quick opinion (as you seem to be doing, from a blog post). This is what the author of the book has done. From his article at http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/03/22/1699-william-chalone... —
> Some historians, notably Frank Manuel, have speculated that Newton pursued this work with implausible eagerness, out of a kind of frustrated blood lust born of his abandoned and unhappy childhood. This seems to me to be nonsense. The specific historical context matters here: Newton did not author the bloody code, nor did he send everyone he could to the gallows. Rather, the record of his depositions shows him to be simply a relentless practical man doing his job. He used little fish to catch big fish, and at least some of those low on the ladder received their escape from the gibbet. What you can see here, surprisingly, is the birth of a modern idea of a civil service. The Warden -– even Isaac Newton — was simply a man in a job doing the functions of that job, which included organizing the investigation and prosecution of counterfeiters.
> […] Newton did not expect as Warden to have to chase crooks; when he found out that was part of the job he wrote a rather whiny letter to the Treasury to see if he could wriggle out of the duty. When he found he could not, he responded as he always had to the job at hand.
Regarding “context with respect to how history is formed”, I think this is best done by reading more primary sources, and not forming a quick opinion (as you seem to be doing, from a blog post). This is what the author of the book has done. From his article at http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/03/22/1699-william-chalone... —
> Some historians, notably Frank Manuel, have speculated that Newton pursued this work with implausible eagerness, out of a kind of frustrated blood lust born of his abandoned and unhappy childhood. This seems to me to be nonsense. The specific historical context matters here: Newton did not author the bloody code, nor did he send everyone he could to the gallows. Rather, the record of his depositions shows him to be simply a relentless practical man doing his job. He used little fish to catch big fish, and at least some of those low on the ladder received their escape from the gibbet. What you can see here, surprisingly, is the birth of a modern idea of a civil service. The Warden -– even Isaac Newton — was simply a man in a job doing the functions of that job, which included organizing the investigation and prosecution of counterfeiters.
> […] Newton did not expect as Warden to have to chase crooks; when he found out that was part of the job he wrote a rather whiny letter to the Treasury to see if he could wriggle out of the duty. When he found he could not, he responded as he always had to the job at hand.
If you study the details of his youth, etc, you will learn that he lived in obscurity for many, many years, toiling alone on the most difficult questions of the time.
His "political standing" was a result purely of his scientific achievements and a general consensus of his high ability within scientific circles. He took great pains to reduce the number of acquaintances he had rather than increase them.
I think Newton was more right than wrong in the beliefs he took seriously (even outside the narrow confines of "science"). He was anything but naive. This doesn't mean he never lied; it just means that he lied way less compared to average standards for humanity.
His "political standing" was a result purely of his scientific achievements and a general consensus of his high ability within scientific circles. He took great pains to reduce the number of acquaintances he had rather than increase them.
I think Newton was more right than wrong in the beliefs he took seriously (even outside the narrow confines of "science"). He was anything but naive. This doesn't mean he never lied; it just means that he lied way less compared to average standards for humanity.
One should always be suspicious of achievements in history books!
Newton could be an unmitigated shit. He has feuds with lots of people, including Hooke, Leibniz & Flamsteed. Not to mention that he rounded up the poor and convicted them of counterfeiting for possession of coins, rather than making them.
he also had a heretical secret life, properly into alchemy and other (for the time) wildly fantastical beliefs. Ones I suspect, but cant prove, he would have exploited should they have belonged to his rivals.
Mark Steele covers him here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CQenuI_zsw (its the radio version)
Newton could be an unmitigated shit. He has feuds with lots of people, including Hooke, Leibniz & Flamsteed. Not to mention that he rounded up the poor and convicted them of counterfeiting for possession of coins, rather than making them.
he also had a heretical secret life, properly into alchemy and other (for the time) wildly fantastical beliefs. Ones I suspect, but cant prove, he would have exploited should they have belonged to his rivals.
Mark Steele covers him here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CQenuI_zsw (its the radio version)
If this story makes you lose respect for Newton rather than gain some,
then I'm sorry but I'm not sure your respect means a ton.
Newton was 55 already at this point, and it is but a tiny excerpt from his life.
then I'm sorry but I'm not sure your respect means a ton.
Newton was 55 already at this point, and it is but a tiny excerpt from his life.
For that matter no one's respect really means much however you look at this particular excerpt, not sure what you trying to say with this line of argument
That "rival" got a whole bunch of innocent people hanged.
What a weird criticism. This story, well amusing, is a funny footnote at best. It could be 100% a fabrication and it wouldn't really affect newton's story at all.
That's not to say i disagree about history being written by the winners and all the potential pitfalls that entails. This story just isn't relavent to what newton is known for.
That's not to say i disagree about history being written by the winners and all the potential pitfalls that entails. This story just isn't relavent to what newton is known for.
Sorry, Foucault was an ignorant quack. Everything is about power, only in the mind of a pathological psychopath. Someone leading a long, prestigious and rich life is evidence of competence.
Besides, the historical record when it comes to Newton is pretty clear. His personal abilities could hardly have been faked, and he had a personality pretty much opposite to a con man.
Besides, the historical record when it comes to Newton is pretty clear. His personal abilities could hardly have been faked, and he had a personality pretty much opposite to a con man.
The Greatest Counterfeiter (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37490644 - Sept 2023 (26 comments) - (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499206)
Normally we downweight follow-ups but this is too good. Even the parentheticals are good ("the only thing ever recorded spoken by him [in Parliament] is a request to close the window)".