1.

The calculus controversy (German: Prioritätsstreit, "priority dispute") was an

argument between the mathematicians Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz over
who had first invented calculus. The question was a major intellectual controversy, which
began simmering in 1699 and broke out in full force in 1711.

2. In the XVII century, as at the present time, the question of scientific priority was of great
importance to scientists. However, during this period, scientific journals had just begun to appear,
and the generally accepted mechanism for fixing priority by publishing information about the
discovery had not yet been formed.

Among the methods used by scientists were anagrams, sealed envelopes placed in a safe
place, correspondence with other scientists, or a private message.

3.

Newton described his version of differential calculus as 'the method of fluxions'. He

wrote a paper on fluxions in 1666, but like many of his works, it was not published
until decades later.

His magnum opus Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (Mathematical principles of

natural philosophy) was published in 1687. This work includes his theories of motion and
gravitation, but does not include much calculus explicitly — although there is some
explanation of calculus at the beginning, and Newton certainly used calculus to formulate his
theories.

Nonetheless, Newton's 'method of fluxions' did not explicitly appear in print until 1693.

4.

Leibniz, on the other hand, published his first paper on calculus in 1684 — and claimed to
have discovered calculus in the 1670s. From the published record, at least, Leibniz seemed to
have discovered calculus first.

The earliest use of differentials in Leibniz's notebooks may be traced to 1675. He employed this
notation in a 1677 letter to Newton. The differential notation also appeared in Leibniz's memoir of
1684.
5.

The claim that Leibniz invented the calculus independently of Newton rests on the basis that
Leibniz:

1. published a description of his method some years before Newton printed anything on
fluxions,
2. always alluded to the discovery as being his own invention (this statement went
unchallenged for some years),
3. enjoyed the strong presumption that he acted in good faith, and
4. demonstrated in his private papers his development of the ideas of calculus in a manner
independent of the path taken by Newton.
6.

According to Leibniz's detractors, the fact that Leibniz's claim went unchallenged for some years
is immaterial. To rebut this case it is sufficient to show that he:

 saw some of Newton's papers on the subject in or before 1675 or at least 1677, and
 obtained the fundamental ideas of the calculus from those papers.
No attempt was made to rebut #4, which was not known at the time, but which provides the
strongest of the evidence that Leibniz came to the calculus independently from Newton. This
evidence, however, is still questionable based on the discovery, in the inquest and after, that
Leibniz both back-dated and changed fundamentals of his "original" notes, not only in this
intellectual conflict, but in several others.[13] He also published "anonymous" slanders of Newton
regarding their controversy which he tried, initially, to claim he was not author of.[13]

7.
If good faith is nevertheless assumed, however, Leibniz's notes as presented to the inquest
came first to integration, which he saw as a generalization of the summation of infinite series,
whereas Newton began from derivatives.
However, to view the development of calculus as entirely independent between the work of
Newton and Leibniz misses the point that both had some knowledge of the methods of the other
(though Newton did develop most fundamentals before Leibniz started) and in fact worked
together on a few aspects, in particular power series, as is shown in a letter to Henry
Oldenburg dated 24 October 1676, where Newton remarks that Leibniz had developed a number
of methods, one of which was new to him.[14]
 Both Leibniz and Newton could see by this exchange of letters that the other was far along
towards the calculus (Leibniz in particular mentions it) but only Leibniz was prodded thereby into
publication.

8.
The quarrel was a retrospective affair.
At first, there was no reason to suspect Leibniz's good faith. In 1699, Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a
Swiss mathematician known for his work on the zodiacal light problem, accused Leibniz
of plagiarizing Newton.[16] It was not until the 1704 publication of an anonymous review of
Newton's tract on quadrature, a review implying that Newton had borrowed the idea of the
fluxional calculus from Leibniz, that any responsible mathematician doubted that Leibniz had
invented the calculus independently of Newton.
With respect to the review of Newton's quadrature work, all admit that there was no justification
or authority for the statements made therein, which were rightly attributed to Leibniz. But the
subsequent discussion led to a critical examination of the whole question, and doubts emerged.
Had Leibniz derived the fundamental idea of the calculus from Newton?
The case against Leibniz, as it appeared to Newton's friends, was summed up in
the Commercium Epistolicum of 1712, which referenced all allegations.
This document was thoroughly machined by Newton.

9.
Considering Leibniz's intellectual prowess, as demonstrated by his other accomplishments, he
had more than the requisite ability to invent the calculus. What he is alleged to have received
was a number of suggestions rather than an account of calculus; it is possible, since he did not
publish his results of 1677 until 1684 and since differential notation was his invention, that
Leibniz minimized, 30 years later, any benefit he might have enjoyed from reading Newton's
manuscript.
Moreover, he may have seen the question of who originated the calculus as immaterial when set
against the expressive power of his notation.
In any event, a bias favoring Newton tainted the whole affair from the outset. The Royal Society,
of which Isaac Newton was president at the time, set up a committee to pronounce on the priority
dispute, in response to a letter it had received from Leibniz.
10.
That committee never asked Leibniz to give his version of the events. The report of the
committee, finding in favor of Newton, was written and published as "Commercium Epistolicum"
(mentioned above) by Newton early in 1713.
But Leibniz did not see it until the autumn of 1714.
The prevailing opinion in the 18th century was against Leibniz (in Britain, not in the German-
speaking world).

Conclusion
Today the consensus is that Leibniz and Newton independently invented and described the
calculus in Europe in the 17th century.

Nobody came out of the dispute well. Both Newton and Leibniz were capable of incredible
mathematical discoveries, but their dispute demonstrated they were also capable of some rather
less impressive behaviour.