Talk:Josip Plemelj

Untitled (2002--2003)
I have to say that I personally love the use of the Tehoma font and the color at the right places. However, I do need to warn the authors of this page that this font, and the use of text color in this manor is not exactly consistant with the mass majority of articles. There is going to be somebody in the near future that will just delete the Tehoma font along with many of the color tags. This will not be me, but I can almost quarantee somebody else will. maveric149


 * I did it. --Zundark, 2002 Feb 26


 * Thanx for that :-(, but you also had moved all necessary colours and special symbols as greek letters are. But anyway Zundak thank you very much on correcting the semantics of English language. I must say this is all trully mine translation from scratch and please consider this. Yes I know about Tahoma tags. I was intended to keep them for a while and after that I was going to remove them as you had. (I will correct backwards your thoughtless proceeding just to keep all coloured up. After all you stole me that time, ha, ha, but you corrected my Enlish and we are even. I honour you with one good ale). --XJam, 2 Tuesday [2002.02.26]


 * Sorry about removing the Greek letters - I just did a global search and replace. But you should not do Greek like that - use Unicode, as you did for Slovenian letters (or, perhaps better, use the HTML character entity references - see Greek alphabet for a list). Also, the colours were not necessary, and should not be put back in. --Zundark, 2002 Feb 26

The last 5 figures are not reproduced on my browser. The earlier ones are beautiful! Vignaux


 * I have fixed this bug - it was because I have uploaded *.gif's and *.jpg's in upper case. Therefore all figure with *.GIF and *.JPG can be moved from Wikipedia server. (I can't do this). You should try now see them. --XJam, 2 Tuesday [2002.02.26]

Why are all the titles of books and papers in this article given in three languages? Only the original title and an English translation should be given. I would guess German was the original language, in which case all the Slovenian titles should be removed. --Zundark, 2002 Feb 26


 * Who says that? Consider that Slovene readers would read this article too. And if someone doesn't know for example one of the other language in a couple - he has to search all around. There won't be many such cases but with Plemelj's contributions to mathematics I can not play. What kind of original language you mean? Plemelj is Slovene and he just went through some Austrian and German schools. His original language is Slovene - I cannot change that. You should read some of his "original" works and you'll know why. His style is worth something. Should I translate Burning Spear's lyric from his native and original Jamaican English to Swahili and back forth. Mathematics (and Plemelj's one for shure) is like a poetry, right... Yes this differs from Wikipedia "unwritten" rules, but hey... And finally thank you again Zundak for all your efforts with editings. I owe you now 2 ales. --XJam, 2 Tuesday [2002.02.26]


 * If the original titles were Slovenian, then remove the German titles. (However, I have difficulty in believing that he did his thesis at Vienna in Slovenian.) --Zundark, 2002 Feb 26

I've moved the images around -- hope you like it! I put the 90th birthday one at the top because it's a good one to start with -- it shows him as he was when he was more famous (I think). After that they are in chronological order. -- Sam
 * It looks fine. I just put back on the first place his student's photo, because it shows the dawnings of his great mathematical and life career. Thank you also for all your other copy-editings. He is not as famous as he should be even today. --XJam 15:11 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I was looking for the mispeeling "untied" and found this:

He untied also Galois proof that modular equation can not be lowered.

This makes no more sense with "united" than with "untied". What is it supposed to mean? -phma
 * It was meant to be untied -- to untie or to solve. I've changed it to 'to solve' since it is not understood as it was mentioned to be. We untie a knot or a puzzle, sort of speaking.

Axel your correction of a sentence:
 * I found in it a task: draw a triangle if we know one length of an angle symmetrical from one point, perpendicular on this symmetrical from the other point and an angle by the third different solutions.

seems incomplete to me. I guess it would rather be:
 * I found in it a task: draught a triangle if we know one length of an angle symmetrical from one point, perpendicular on this symmetral from the other point and an angle by the third different solutions.

Yes, 'to draw' means really to draw something, but here I've used a verb 'to draught' meaning to construct something... Now your sentence means something else. Please correct it again. --XJam 14:49 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I still don't understand this sentence:
 * construct a triangle if we know one length of an angle symmetrical from one point, perpendicular on this symmetrical from the other point and an angle by the third different solutions.

What kind of triangle am I supposed to construct? What is the length of an angle? What is an angle symmetrical from one point. What is "the other point"? What are "the third different solutions"? AxelBoldt 02:32 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * I shall look again to the original text and try to figure this sentence out.

A couple of things: Can we cut down the graphs just slightly? They make the page slop over into the right margin. Do we really need four pictures of this gentleman? It seems a little like overkill. -- Zoe
 * I can down the graphs only if I resize them. After that they won't be so sharp I guess. I think it would be better if they are made again - but this takes time. Good math pictures probably also take a lot of space (and time). I am holding to the saying that one picture worths hundred words. If there are any upper limits about pictures of any person, we can put some out here also. They do not bother me anyway. And also this date style is strange for me irrespective of Wikipedia style. I've found in other encyclopedias mostly style like this: name, born, place, state, died, .... But I can't argue all the time. You can do that on your own. I've invested quite a lot in this article already. I have to work on its structure still. But I guess it is at least pretty informative. --XJamRastafire 08:21 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * The date format is standard for Wikipedia. -- Zoe

Cleanup
I've made a start on cleanup, as requested by the cleanup tag.

The corresponding article on fr.wiki is a nice target, which was based on this one, but is a lot more streamlined and flows rather better.

Still more to do, if anyone wants to take this up. Jheald (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Plemelj's geometrical constructions
I'm writing regarding copyright issue about Plemelj's geometrical constructions. I just inform here that whole quotations are my linear literal translations from Slovene source, which is given. At the time of writing that, I think Wikipedia did not have such restrictions. First about the source. It was published (first in Slovenia) in the OMF 1992, and as it is noted there – that was a publication in unchanged form of Plemelj's talk, which he gave in 1949 at 1st Congress of Yugoslav Societies of Mathematicians, Physicists and Astronomers in Bled. Text was firstly published, as it is mentioned by source investigation, in 1951 in Belgrade [Prvi kongres matematičara i fizičara FNRJ - Naučna saopštenja i obavještenja 1951, 1–6]. If you think that the whole text is just a speech Plemelj gave at this congress, and do you think that text that was translated (not the whole of course) is really an example of extensive quotation and that "the quote is too lengthy for current copyright policies". My opinion is that it is not, although it take really 3 pages on 170 × 238 mm format at the OMF. I also think that current solution was a bit 'harsh'. So what it is to be done? Together with a whole text also accompanying diagrams were removed from article. All three diagrams are original works from me, based on printed diagrams – is redrawing such diagrams also a copyright issue? My propose is this: to return/restore (at least in suitable form) meaning of quotations, and (at least one) of mentioned diagrams (which might also be turned from original GIF to SVG format btw). Would that be all right? I plan also to add some material regarding his constructions of regular heptagon, according to his and Hladnik's report(s). --xJaM (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)