Are those just there because of calculus? that's doubly unfair if so. Unfair beacuse there is a huge amount of work that went into those besides simply calculus, and unfair for all those who contributed to calculus before him.
Frankly, I wouldn't even attribute CS to him, he did have a mechanistic view of logic, but that alone doesn't strike me as revolutionary, it was the age of mechanical machines after all, somebody was bound to apply the idea to symbolic manipualation. CS's father on the engineering side is Babbage, it's father on the mathematics side is Russel or Turing.
Everything you assume is false. I'm refering to the fact he came up with the modern concept now known as energy, which he called vis viva. Why are you making things up, he didn't have a mechanistic view of logic, he invented the concept of possible worlds, but for CS what is important is his side project of charachteristica universalis and his introduction of binary formalization.
>he came up with the modern concept now known as energy, which he called vis viva
I forgot that, but crediting relativity and nuclear physics to Conservation Of Energy still feels like a big stretch to me. Maybe Thermodynamics.
>he didn't have a mechanistic view of logic, he invented the concept of possible worlds
I'm not sure I understand why those two things contradict each other. He envisioned a machine doing reasoning, that's a "mechanistic view of logic" in my book. How is possible worlds related to that and why are they in tension in your opinion ?
>charachteristica universalis and his introduction of binary formalization
Fair enough, those two things are fairly radical for his time and very CSy. But neither is original to him, his charachteristica universalis is based on a misunderstanding of chinese ideographs, and there were people contemporary to him like John Wilkins who worked on very similar things ('philosophical languages'), the idea was in the air at the time.
The binary numerals were also inspired by certain chinese texts, and some claim[1] that he plagiarised them outright from contemporaries. All said and done though, I don't think binary numbers are that important or fundamental to computers, only the idea that numbers (and abstract ideas in general) can be operated on purely syntactically without the slightest clue as to their meaning, and still yield useful results; This is an idea much older than Leibniz. Also Babbage managed to design a perfectly good computer on base-10, and binary was just one system among many in the 1940s.
The paper you link is like garbage, there are plenty of resourcces that are intellectually honest.
Leibniz did take binary form I Ching, where it was used to formalize bones thrown on turtle shells for fortune telling, to consider this 'plagiarism' is idiotic.
The mathematics of CS is mainly logic, for which Gödel isn't essentially the leading light. Very important theories he contributed, but they don't necessarily define logic. I'd be more inclined to attribute to Russell or any of his influencers (like Frege).
