>>13186782>>13186767>da vincit. pop sci faggot
Da Vinci was just an artist who dabbled in math, philosophy, and science. He wasn't really amazing at these subjects. In fact, he wasn't even really an expert. He was just generally competent. He basically contributed nothing outside of the world of art. He did do some very minor work on geometry, but other people would doing way more advanced stuff. This was around the time that mathematicians were beginning to explore ideas that would lead to quadratic reciprocity and it's generalizations, galois theory, and non-euclidean geometries. Da vinci was not involved with any of this work. I have browsed some of his work, and it's clear he was interested in math and science, and he was following the latest development, but he was not involved with actual research or writing or generating new theory. A big part of why he gets so much credit from normies is that he just recorded everything and documented it meticulously. This included everyday news, scientific developments, and the shit he was working on in art. This included documenting tons of shit about mathematics and science, but that's literally all he was doing - documenting and recording interesting findings and the latest scientific trends. He was more akin to an encyclopedist than a practicing scientist. Like Pliny or Diderot.
He was simply a very educated man and an artist, but it's kind of a stretch to call him a scientist, and he has had virtually no impact on the development of mathematics, philosophy or empirical science. For instance, Tartaglia, who lived around the same time has had a much greater impact on actual math and science. Luca Pacioli is another example, and so is Copernicus. A bit later you had Saccherri.
>>13188252I agree that Wittgenstein should be on such a list (along with Leibniz, Hilbert, Plato, and Euler), but you're misinformed if you think of Da Vinci as a mathematician. He was first and foremost an artist, and primarily a painter.
