The new title isn’t accurate either. She didn’t produce a translation, she produced a commentary. It included substantial original work addressing the 60 years of criticism of Newton’s theories. Moreover:
> du Châtelet took the idiosyncratic mathematical proofs relating to the laws of attraction that had been most scrutinized by Newton’s critics and recast his geometrical equations into integral calculus.
This is an important point vis-a-vis the history of calculus. Newton used a geometric formulation of calculus. The continent, meanwhile, and eventually everyone else, use Liebniz’s formulation of calculus. That engendered a something of a divide that kept people on the continent from crediting Newton’s work. In addressing criticisms of Newton’s work, du Chatelet redid Newton’s equations using Liebniz’s formulation of calculus. It’s not necessarily click bait to say that was transformative, given that a lot of subsequent development of calculus and physics happened in France.
Correct, in the sense that there's no explicit equality sign and the left and right side of the expression. There are expressions though (I see them e.g. in Book II).
But what surely nobody would find there is calculus as we know it today, all explanations are indeed geometrical there.
So rayner's claim "Newton used a geometric formulation of calculus" can be accepted (although the "calculus" was not explicit at all, but just a hidden "guiding line"), and even more that it was an immense work reinterpreting Newton's ideas to something easier to follow and prove (to those equipped with the knowledge of Leibniz's notation).
From the article we comment:
"du Châtelet took the idiosyncratic mathematical proofs relating to the laws of attraction that had been most scrutinized by Newton’s critics and recast his geometrical equations into integral calculus."
Her "commentary" should surely be considered one of fundamental "On The Shoulders of Giants" set of texts.
(Btw: it's "Leibniz" or "Leibnitz". The "ie" is a sure typo.)
> du Châtelet took the idiosyncratic mathematical proofs relating to the laws of attraction that had been most scrutinized by Newton’s critics and recast his geometrical equations into integral calculus.
This is an important point vis-a-vis the history of calculus. Newton used a geometric formulation of calculus. The continent, meanwhile, and eventually everyone else, use Liebniz’s formulation of calculus. That engendered a something of a divide that kept people on the continent from crediting Newton’s work. In addressing criticisms of Newton’s work, du Chatelet redid Newton’s equations using Liebniz’s formulation of calculus. It’s not necessarily click bait to say that was transformative, given that a lot of subsequent development of calculus and physics happened in France.