English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this article I expose the criticisms presented by George Berkeley, philosopher and Bishop of Cloyne, to the notion of fluxon that Newton introduces in his development of differential and integral calculus. In his proposal Isaac Newton considers that one can speak of two types of points: the points without dimensions and those that arise from the movement and that may have some kind of metric, it is thanks to the existence of the latter that Newton can perform the calculation of the fluxion even when at the end of the procedure, consider it again as a point without dimensions. Once exposed Newton’s proposal on fluxions, I will present Berkeley’s critique of various conceptual and methodological elements of his predecessor’s work. Finally, I will offer some conclusions about the validity of the criticism of the Bishop of Cloyne to Newton.

La crítica de Berkeley al Cálculo de Newton [Berkeley’s critique to the Newton’s calculus]