Talk:Leonhard Euler/Archive 2

Lutheran or Calvinist?
This needs to be cleared up. The lead says he's commemorated in the Lutheran calendar of Saints, and the infobox says he's calvinist. Frankly, I've seen the sources go both ways, and I advocate replacing all incidences of Euler's religion with the wonderfully vague "protestant". Borisblue 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally a good suggestion, but in this case, "Calvinist" is correct: E.T Bell's "Men of Mathematics" (Penguin, 1953) says Calvinist, as does the "Eulogy" by the Marquis de Condorcet (1783). Ioan James' "Remarkable Mathematicians" (Cambridge University Press, 2002) says Evangelical Reformed (= Calvinist) Radagast3 (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading about Euler's religion, and he appears to have gone to the French reformed church when he lived in Berlin, which was a Calvinist church. 99.233.20.151 (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Logarithm of negative numbers?
Perhaps I don't understand something, but as far as I know, there is no definition for Log(z) if z is on the negative real line. I thought this was the reason why Log(z) is not analytic on any disk that contains a piece of the negative real line or zero. Rocketman768 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, this talk page is for discussions on improving the Leonhard Euler article. The kind of question you have, you can pose at the mathematics reference desk. Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical formula formatting
There's a formula in the "Personal philosophy and religious beliefs" section that needs help in my opinion. I changed the formatting slightly to make it at least readable (it wasn't before), but it seems to me to be the sort of thing that would benefit from being in LaTeX format. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that, so that's why I'm mentioning it here. I hope someone can (and will) do better with it than I have. Thanks. -- edi (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The original version of this section had the formula in Latex, but I understand why it was changed- it messes up with the line formatting a bit. I've changed it back however, I think it looks better in Latex.Borisblue (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

German pronunciation
German being rhotic, wouldn't the final R be pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be a huge nerd, but I've been trying several sources to find the true (Swiss?) German pronunciation of his name - by standard German phonology today it would correspond more to the standard English pronunciation. I know a few mathematicians who find this a nice point of snobbery, but even the most knowledgeable disagree. He was Swiss German, and if his ancestry was Swiss French this would complicate matters. Being a name, the pronunciation may not even hold to any standard dialectal form. Could someone more educated give a better source and explanation?

Affine Geometry?
Affine geometry is a fundamental tool in computer graphics, which in turn has had huge impact in the film industry, advertising, etc. Given that Euler invented it, its omission from the article is surprising. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A comprehensive list of Euler's contributions would be horrendously long. We're talking about a guy who is probably the most prolific scientist ever. I'm not an expert of on the subject, but I don't think affine geometry is as significant as a lot of the other contributions listed. Borisblue (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of those statements is completely justifiable. Euler did not 'invent' affine geometry - he partially clarified a few basic ideas that were swimming around at the time, but he didn't axiomise it or anything, and the work was built over centuries, its modern meaning only being defined in the 19th century. He coined the term 'affine', but I think that was it - and coining a name for something is certainly no the same as inventing it! If he had 'invented' it, it would certainly be one of the most significant contributions. I think it merits a mention of Euler in the 'Affine geometry' article, but not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.86.95 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Power series
The power series for the exponential function with real x was discovered by Newton and Leibniz around 1676 but only indirectly, via inverse power series of the log function. Simonov46 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Euler's middle name
In the past three years, I’ve seen all over the Internet Euler’s middle name, “Paul,” in his full name. Does anyone know how this started? In other words, does anyone have a printed source that says “Leonhard Paul Euler” prior to 2007? Giftlite (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

English pronunciation
I know the first paragraph doesn't exactly align with WP:MOS, but I've decided it's more important to place an explicit note about the pronunciation in the main text in an attempt to decrease the number of times that it's changed by well-intentioned but misinformed editors. I'll work on finding a source to cite for the assertion that it's "generally considered incorrect"; I'd appreciate it if everyone would please allow me a little time to do that before changing or removing it. Thanks. -- edi  (talk)  17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added two refs. Feel free to replace them by better ones. Radagast3 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you!  I won't have time to look around until the weekend, so it's great to have this done.  I'll have a closer look in a few days, but I'm confident that yours are fine.  Thanks again! :) --  edi  (talk)  03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we get a better source for this? I don't mean to be a pain, but this is a featured article, and almost all the other sources we use here are from peer-reviewed journal articles, or other rock-solid sources. Surely there's something better than a parenthetical note on a random website? Borisblue (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added references to three major English dictionaries, these are as authoritative sources as one can get. — Emil J. 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the issue though- the statement "the common English pronunciation /ˈjuːlər/ EW-lər is incorrect.[7]" references a random website. I think this should be removed unless something better pops up. Borisblue (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget about the random website. The pronunciation /ˈjuːlər/ is not listed among acceptable variants by major English dictionaries, hence it is, according to said dictionaries, incorrect. What do you want more sources for? — Emil J. 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just didn't like the fact that a random website is appearing in the references list for a featured article. I gather that by your "forget the random website" comment that you agree, so I'll remove it.Borisblue (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How foreign names are anglicized is more a matter of convention than of "correct" vs. "incorrect". The question is just, which pronunciations can we list as referenced in dictionaries. These dictionaries are just descriptive, i.e. they don't make statements about correctness, they just record common usage. People worrying about correct pronunciation should probably settle for the native one. --dab (��) 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * /ˈɔɪlər/ in English and [ˈɔʏlɐ] in German

this is silly. It is /ˈɔɪlər/ in both English and German, and phonetic [ˈɔʏlɐ] would be one possible rendition of phonological /ˈɔɪlər/ in German. --dab (��) 08:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Greatest of all time?
The article states that Euler "... is considered by some to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century, and arguably the greatest of all time", however it presents no justification nor references to those unproved statements. The first part ("preeminent ... of the 18th century") at least could be justified by historical evidences, but the latest phrase ("arguably the greatest of all time") would deserve serious references to support it. As far as I am aware of, Gauss, Newton and Archimedes have been widely cited as the three greatest mathematicians ever, Euler maybe coming right next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffel (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's practically a direct quote of the citation given to the American Mathematical Monthly. Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Would Euler have been Swiss-French or Swiss-German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woscafrench (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't "Euler" a German name? Other than that, I haven't a clue. Borisblue (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Euler was a native of Basel, a state of the Old Swiss Confederacy. There was no division of "Swiss-French" vs. "Swiss-German" in his day, so the question is a bit of an anachronism. --dab (��) 10:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Euler was Swiss, and his first language was German, as was that of at least most of his family. Therefore, he was Swiss German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.138.31 (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Facilitated the use of differential equations
What does this mean: "He also facilitated the use of differential equations, in particular introducing the Euler–Mascheroni constant"? How did does one "facilitate" in this contet and why would the gamma constant help? Echigo mole (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Music Theory Start Class
Just clarifying why this is start class - there is only a small sentence on his applications of his math in music. The idea is to hopefully expand on this part of the article. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

LaPlace quote translation
While the quote in the footnotes uses the word "maître" which can mean either 'master' or 'teacher', I agree that 'teacher' is a more faithful translation in this context. However, 'c'est notre maître à tous' unambiguously means 'he is the teacher/master of us all', not 'he is our master in all things', which would involve 'en tout' rather than 'à tous'. In modern French, this is a very fundamental distinction, and having read French works from the period, I highly doubt the meanings have changed any time recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.228.210 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation of LaPlace quote
It's a relatively minor point, but the correct translation of 'C'est notre maître à tous' can only be "he is the master of us all" or "he is the teacher of us all". It is not clear which is better, since the dual denotation creates connotations different from either English word. However, it is certain that 'à tous' means 'to us all'. 'In all things' would be 'en toutes choses' or possibly 'en tout' for short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpoly (talk • contribs) 00:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed one of the translations; whatever the merits of either having two is redundant. Since the title of the book cited is Euler: The Master of Us All| probably that should be the preferred translation. The word master has connotations of teacher in English as well, for instance as the root of schoolmaster. It would be nice to have a direct cite for the quote itself, too often when you try to trace this kind of thing it turns out to be a misquote of a paraphrase of something someone else thought he heard somewhere.--RDBury (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just did a quick look on Google books and the earliest cite for the quote I found was here dating from 1846 some twenty years after Laplace died. I can't determine the author since the scan for that page is unreadable, but it's stated (if you can trust my rather weak translation skills) as a personal recollection rather than as coming from something more reliable like a letter that someone might have a copy of. So the statement is definitely attributed (by someone) to Laplace but it goes a bit far to say for sure that he actually said it.--RDBury (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The author is Guglielmo Libri (see, e.g., -- especially the footnote). &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This in turn cites WikiQuote (which would have been worth a try if I'd thought of it).--RDBury (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Beware of double standards
This article calls Leonhard Euler a Swiss mathematician rather than a Russian-German mathematician, and calls Nikolaus Fuß a Russian mathematician rather than a Swiss mathematician. A change of the latter attribute was rejected (see recent entries in the change log) — should a change of the former attribute therefore be contemplated?

Personally I have no preference. Here's the background:

Leonhard Euler was born (1707) and educated (he studied Mathematics with Johann Bernoulli) in Switzerland, went to Russia in 1727 to become the successor of Nikolaus II. Bernoulli and later of Daniel Bernoulli at the academy in St. Petersburg. In 1734 he married the daughter of a Swiss painter working in St. Petersburg. From 1741 to 1766 he worked at the Prussian academy in Berlin and then returned to Russia to work at the St. Petersburg academy until his death in 1783.

Nikolaus Fuß was born (1755) and educated (he studied Mathematics with Johann II. Bernoulli) in Switzerland, went to Russia in 1872 to become Leonhard Euler's secretary in St. Petersburg, married a granddaughter of Euler in 1784, became permanent secretary of the Russian academy in St. Petersburg in 1800, and died in St. Petersburg in 1826.

It shouldn't matter that they are mathematicians of a very different standing — so where is the decisive difference? 217.184.105.96 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Literary References on Euler's Work
> hrv. p: Posljednji teorem Nakladnik: Izvori, Zagreb
 * engl. The Last Theorem by Sir Arthur C. Clarke and Frederik Pohl

Citat: "Eulerova revizija Goldbachove pretpostavke, na primjer. Ona je pravo blago. 'Svi pozitivni, parni, cijeli brojevi veći od četiri mogu biti izraženi kao zbroj dva prim broja.' Šest je tri plus tri, osam je pet plus tri, deset je pet plus pet ili sedam plus tri, kako hoćete. Svatko to razumije! Samo što to nitko, još, nije dokazao." (str. 182) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.210.215 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like WP:trivia of no weight which should not be included. Has a secondary source remarked on the connection or is the usage particularly important in some way? Why would you consider these of any note? p.s. Fermat and Euler were two different people. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Apocryphal Story
The article now has a dubious story about Euler offering up a non sequitur in a religious debate. At the end of the telling, the same anecdote is dismissed as apocryphal. That being the case, I see no reason for the story even to appear here. Are there any objections to deleting it?--Geometricks (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion, it is such a well known story that its apocryphal nature is worth a mention, (like the explicit reference to the incorrect pronunciation of Euler's name), also it fits nicely into the section on Euler's religious beliefs. So I'd say keep it. Pnels081 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll leave it alone.--Geometricks (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe could we explicitly state that the story is apocryphal at the beginning of the story? Maybe list the story under an apocrypha section, as in the Joseph Louis Lagrange article? The fact that the anecdote is likely false seems like a side note that I think many people might ignore.MedicineMan555 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find that fine. Only one thing. For the sake of neutrality we shouldn't say "It is apocryphal!" but, you know, a more neutral thing like "it is beleived to be apocryphal" or something like that. Unless it is unanimously accepted among the reliable sources that it is.  franklin   01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely unanimously accepted that the story isn't true. It is also a very prominent anecdote, so I feel it deserves a mention in the article. Borisblue (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article should emphasize, underline, that Euler's formula (a + b^n / n = x) makes no sense. It is math gibberish. Someone in talk pointed out that the formula is a non-sequitur; perhaps preferable is the more direct statement that Euler's formula is gibberish. Several student's have asked in Yahoo Questions what the formula means and several people have attempted an answer when clearly no answer is possible.StevenTorrey (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The story as written does not explain what action Euler took in order to make the court burst into peals of laughter. It is confusing and incomplete. Perhaps another line to explain Euler's actions?74.69.21.23 (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC){BartDurkin]


 * I agree. The story as written here does not make any sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocyril (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy birthday!
lol

My friend Walt says you do not look a day over 290.

-- Dominus 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! Cheers to The Euler on his 300th! What can I say that hasn't already been said...you're the shit, Euler!--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone with "edit" permission please remove the note about being cited with a "google doodle." It's a cute tribute and all, but on the scale of Euler and his work, being given a nod by Google is a little trivial. When Zamboni was given a google doodle, for example, that's appropriate to include in his bio. But for a giant of physical science and mathematics, google is just a blip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.174.29 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013
There is a possible error in the first equation in the "Analysis" section (for ex). The first term in the expansion is just 1, not 1/O! Is the convention 0! = 1 universally accepted?

Evitz (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since 0! = 1, it follows that 1/0! = 1. So the equation is fine as it's presented. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit sexist...
So the Leonhard Euler entry includes this:

"Euler was born on April 15, 1707, in Basel to Paul Euler, a pastor of the Reformed Church. His mother was Marguerite Brucker, a pastor's daughter."

My concern is, do we write all entries with such a 19th Century sexist slant? He was born to only his father? His mother isn't even included in the sentence about his birth. I can understand such a writing style if this were written at the time of Euler's birth, but I think, here in the 21st Century, we might show a little more respect to his mother, and in the sentence about his birth we not treat the woman as an afterthought, as if her only contribution was as his wet nurse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.37.52 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was intended as a libel, but regarding the style of writing I agree with you. I merged both sentences together. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment
The listing of this book in the lede is utterly undue. Murray's view of Euler is utterly non-notable. If a case can be made for including this material, it should be made on the talk page, not through edit warring. aprock (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously Euler's influence on mathematics is a relevant subject. Human Accomplishment measures this quantitatively.Miradre (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it is you who started reverting in order to remove the material without taking it up on talk.Miradre (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD I reverted content that did not merit inclusion. It still does not merit inclusion.  Murray's view is utterly unremarkable and undue. aprock (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I quote from WP:BRD "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the change" and "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." So you should not really have continued reverting after your first revert.Miradre (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the book. Why is the book "unremarkable and undue"? It is certainly a notable quantitative way of measuring influence that has been cited by many other researchers.Miradre (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your content because Murray's view of Euler not notable at all. aprock (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be just your personal opinion. The book is cited by many peer-reviewed papers and books.Miradre (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means, provide a source that specifically singles out and discusses Murray's view Euler. aprock (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No such requirement in WP policies. The book is notable. There is no requirement to have another source paraphrasing the book's contents in order to be able to use it.Miradre (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy you're looking for is WP:UNDUE. See also WP:TRIVIA. aprock (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing there that is required to have another source paraphrasing something one wants to cite from a WP:RS. The WP:RS is enough by itself. That is the book is not notable seems to be your personal opinion; the book is cited by many peer-reviewed papers and scholarly books. Euler's influence on mathematics is of course not trivia.Miradre (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You've provided zero sources here. There is nothing to talk about. aprock (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A Google Scholar search gives 133 citations of the book (+44 from another version).Miradre (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So? No one is arguing that there shouldn't be an article for that book. aprock (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So we have WP:RS which discusses Euler's influence on mathematics which is certainly relevant for this article.Miradre (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about using the book as a source for the article. We're talking including discussion of the book in this article. aprock (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We are discussing if we should include the quantitatively determined estimate of Euler's influence on mathematics from this WP:RS.Miradre (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Until you come back with secondary sources indicating that Murray's particular view of Euler is notable, including discussion of his book in the article is undue.  When you produce some secondary sources, this conversation can continue, until then there is nothing left to say.  fin. aprock (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no policy requiring such a secondary source paraphrasing and endorsing a WP:RS on a specific issue in order to cite the WP:RS. A WP:RS stands by itself. If you claim that there is such a policy, please give a quote with a link.Miradre (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are having your usual bouts of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. You are free to use the book as a source.  Discussing the book in the body of the article another matter. aprock (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I have still not heard any policy demanding a secondary source for citing a WP:RS. There is no such policy. Again, give a quote with a link to this supposed policy. Furthermore, I am not suggesting discussing the book; I am using it as a source to discuss Euler.Miradre (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference to this book, here and elsewhere, is wholly inappropriate spamming of wikipedia by Miradre. Charles Murray's book is not a scholarly book on the mathematical achievements of Euler. There is no generally accepted quantitative evaluation of mathematicians, just Murray's personal statistical assessment, which in the academic world carries no weight whatsover (although it might have some comical value). Mathsci (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Human Accomplishment is a scholarly, quantitative book that includes a measure of Euler's influence on mathematics. A Google Scholar search gives 133 citations of the book (+44 from another version). Your personal opinion on the other hand is unsourced.Miradre (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a scholarly book from the point of view of the history of mathematics. Charles Murray does not have the expertise required to assess Euler's contribution to mathematics. Miradre, your edits to this article were silly and amateurish spamming. You are wasting other editors' time. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is accepted as a scholarly book regarding the influence of individuals on science and arts. Desist from further incivility.Miradre (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Murray's statistical evaluation is not accepted by scholars in the history of mathematics: I would say it is completely ignored as a gimmick. WikiProject Mathematics does not quite work in the way you imagine: my assessment of that source as inappropriate and undue carries quite a lot of weight. If you can cite any serious mathematical university text which refers to Murray and his assessment of Euler, I would be interested. If you make silly and amateurish edits, they will be described as such. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You give no sources; I have given sources. Again, there is nopolicy requiring such a secondary source paraphrasing and endorsing a WP:RS on a specific issue in order to cite the WP:RS. A WP:RS stands by itself. If you claim that there is such a policy, please give a quote with a link.Miradre (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have to provide sources in saying that the book of Charles Murray is not a WP:RS in this context. Charles Murray is not a recognized authority within the history of mathematics, no matter how much you choose to wikilawyer about that point. But we can take this to WikiProject Mathematics if you like. Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one source regarding mathematical achievements citing the book: .Miradre (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An Evolutionary Perspective on Sex Differences in Mathematics and the Sciences. Why aren't more women in science? That is a psychology article not a scholarly article/book on the history of mathematics or Euler. Please stop wasting time. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it up at the Wikiproject. I have provided sources for the book being a WP:RS. You have not provided any for your views.Miradre (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have provided none at all in the context of the history of mathematics with specific reference to Euler. In that sense your edits at the moment have degenerated to WP:TROLLING. Please try to make edits that are more sensible and/or professional. This is a featured article. Any attempts to reinsert this material will undoubtedly be reverted; they would also probably result in you being reported at a noticeboard for tendentious editing. Mathsci (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. I have asked at the Mathematics Wikiprojekt for further feedback.Miradre (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the book could be cited but the way it was put in gave it undue prominence. No mention of the author or book should be in the main text. The figures are no better than any other survey and looking at the results I would say a number of different categories are wildly out including the maths one. The usual thing is to adjust the parameters of what you are measuring so as to correspond with the preference order of a survey rather than say your figure s better irrespective. The categorization also strikes me as a bit problematic but that's a general problem. Overall you don't get better info on the top results by doing a wide survey than a focused one. Anyway irrespective of my feelings about it how it was pout in made it look like promotional material for the book rather than anything about Euler. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I would say that a very important aspect is that it is not an ordinary survey and seems more credible than an ordinary survey. The wikilink gives the reader the possibility to judge the value of the ranking and methodology for themselves.Miradre (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic is Euler and the survey is very minor in that context, his reputation does not depend on that survey and nothing about its methodology is of relevance to his reputation. It's just another citation. I would expect its correlation with the opinions of experts to be not exactly impressive. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for other surveys the source and methodology is usually briefly mentioned. Take Newton: "Newton remains influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society (formerly headed by Newton) asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein. Royal Society scientists deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution.[62] In 1999, an opinion poll of 100 of today's leading physicists voted Einstein the "greatest physicist ever;" with Newton the runner-up, while a parallel survey of rank-and-file physicists by the site PhysicsWeb gave the top spot to Newton.[63]"Miradre (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They have some relevance to the topic. This person has none. His opinion has no weight in the context. And even if he tried to make out that it was scientific it is still his opinion in that he chose the methods and sources and what to measure and how to get the results. If you check Google nowadays you will see they say their results are their opinion not something scientific. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics -- My opinion: the reference to Charles Murray's book is silly trivia and distracts from the main subject. What Murray thinks about Euler is surely not one of those key, important things that one would like to find out from the introduction to an article about Euler; the preceding paragraphs (which state the fields on which Euler had an impact, and give the views of actual mathematicians about Euler's impact on mathematics) make the point far better.  This makes me the 4th person to take this position; so far you have found no one who agrees with you.  I think it's time to give it up. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for you input. Not sure if Dmcq still thinks the book would be acceptable as a source if not mentioning the book itself, as initially stated, but I will not argue further for inclusion.Miradre (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to it being a citation at the end of 'He is considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century, and one of the greatest of all time'. There's other stuff that could be used for that as well but it is as good as any I guess. Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a response to the very first post in this thread. When in doubt, let's not put it in. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Over 1000000 views
This was viewed over a million times yesterday. Any idea why? Tkuvho (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC) The answer seems to be Google Doodle. Tkuvho (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How'd you figure? Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning in the "categories" links
I did some cleaning in the "categories" links. I removed some unjustified links, sometimes in contradiction with other links. (1) Euler was Swiss and was not Russian (although he lived a large part of his life in Russia). So I removed the categories [Category:18th-century Russian mathematicians], [Category:Russian physicists], [Category:Russian music theorists], [Category:Russian people of Swiss descent], which are unjustified, especially since he is already in the categories [Category:18th-century Swiss mathematicians], [Category:Swiss mathematicians], [Category:Swiss physicists] [Category:Swiss music theorists], [Category:Swiss emigrants to the Russian Empire]. (2) I removed the category [Category:Swiss expatriates in Russia], which is redundant with [Category:Swiss emigrants to the Russian Empire]. (3) I removed [Category:Honorary Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences], which is either in contradiction or redundant with [Category:Full Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences]. Sapphorain (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Underemphasis - Physics
I see NO mention of the Euler-LaGrange equation which is of fundamental importance for Lagrangian Physics (Mechanics). It is fair to say that Newtonian, Hamiltonian, and LaGrangian Physics are three (complementary) bases of (Classical) Physics, such an important foundational tool should certainly be mentioned in any biography about one of the developers, shouldn't it? More generally used mathematics should be given prescedence over trivia (more specialized, of interest only to fan-boys&girls)? I am not familiar enough with the development of the equation to add anything myself. My gosh, where would the application of the calculus of variations be without it? Why is an engineering equation the first sentence of the Physics and Astronomy section??173.189.75.163 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

TYPO in footnote, in the
In the article, near the end of the, (under "Notes"), there are two sentences, and the second one says "He is listed by an academic genealogy as the equivalent to the doctoral advisor of Joseph Louis Lagrange.[1]".

The problem is, in the footnote. The footnote says:"Leonhard Euler at the Mathematics Genealogy Project"; but it is coded using a macro, that ("via" the use of the ref "name" mathg), amounts to this:   ...which displays as this:

...which is NOT the "MathGenealogy" entry for Leonhard Euler (that would be "38586", not "17864"). It is the "MathGenealogy" entry for "Joseph Louis Lagrange".

There are various ways that this could be remedied ... either change the name (it probably "defaults" to the name of this article ... but there might be an "optional" parameter, to the "MathGenealogy" macro or 'template', to over-ride that...) ... OR, to just change the number.

IMHO, the simplest (and best) solution, would be to just change the number -- from "17864" to "38586".

Thus:

However, never having (yet) edited this article, (or else I've forgotten), I would like to get consensus first before proceeding. Tacit consensus (consisting of "NO REPLIES at all") [or, only replies ridiculing the hesitancy] will be interpreted (by me) as a special case of that (kind of [sufficient]) consensus.

Any advice, or other comments, would be appreciated. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of religious beliefs from lede
Euler's religious beliefs have been removed from the lede, see diff. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, which was a section on 'personal beliefs', therefore a mention in the led is appropriate. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It does need to be proportionate compared to his other contributions, which is only briefly mentioned in the lede. This is why I do not think the religious part is relevant enough. Smk65536 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Euler is the only mathematician to have two numbers named after him"
Feigenbaum constants? Double sharp (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Paul Erdős ? (Erdős constant, Copeland-Erdős constant, Erdős-Borwein constant, Mayer-Erdős Constant). And there are probably others. Sapphorain (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Legend...
"famous legend[63] inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religion" etc is a lengthy paragraph about an incident that according to all available evidence, did never happen, and in contrast, falsifies the relation between Euler and Diderot that was cordial despite their different philosophical view. In my view, it does not merit more text than a few words debunking the legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.73.244.218 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonhard Euler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520092329/http://www.leonhard-euler.ch/ to http://www.leonhard-euler.ch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonhard Euler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210125807/http://www.visualstatistics.net/Statistics/Euler/Euler.htm to http://www.visualstatistics.net/Statistics/Euler/Euler.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonhard Euler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513144319/http://portail.mathdoc.fr/cgi-bin/oetoc?id=OE_EULER_1_2 to http://portail.mathdoc.fr/cgi-bin/oetoc?id=OE_EULER_1_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2018
To improve English usage, change "reminding his interest for the Seven Bridges of Königsberg (see above). The device knew a renewed interest..." to "recalling his interest in the Seven Bridges of Königsberg (see above). The device drew renewed interest..." Isoper (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! Also, I believe your account is now autoconfirmed - you should be able to edit semi-protected articles yourself going forward. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Mechanical Engineering
Euler made important formulae for the buckling of colums which are not dicussed here.
 * You are free to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:50CF:B190:E3A6:2BD6 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I may have spotted an error in "Eyesight deterioration" section
It is stated in the article that an operation was attempted a few weeks after the discovery of the cataract. However I found conflicting information in these sources: http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Euler.html https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/57/1/158/278749

Edit: two more sources: https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/wxg/EulerLect.pdf https://books.google.rs/books/about/Euler.html?id=x7p4tCPPuXoC&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.46.4 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Who do I belive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.46.4 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"pi" is not a difference, it's a ratio.
Please correct the following sentence: letter "pi" to denominate the Archimedes constant (difference of a circle's perimeter and its diameter) It should rather be: letter "pi" to denominate the Archimedes constant (ratio of a circle's perimeter to its diameter) Mechlia (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

FA concerns
Looking at this as part of WP:URFA/2020, a sweeps to ensure that older FAs still meet FA standards. I have some concerns with WP:FACR #1c. There's a good bit of uncited text, and the length of the further reading compared to the number of sources used has me concerned about "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". However, as I have pathetically little comprehension of heavy math, it is hard for me to really assess this article. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

was euler really doing 'physics'?
Euler is described as a physicist in the lead paragraph, but can his predecessors', contemporaries' and own contributions be considered as mathematics when compared to the modern definition of physics? just throwing this out there.

i mean, yes of course he used mathematics to give us some insightful and invaluable explanation for a physical phenomenon.

but i don't think this warrants automatic categorisation under physics since this website has pages explaining and describing the delineation of modern physics from classical physics.

a good example of modern physics is the Lorentz transformation. it has been accepted as the cornerstone of physics for a century now.

i note that even when The Greats met the highest burden (mathematical proof) contributing to our understanding of physical phenomena using mathematics.

physics has not been required to meet this level of proof for some time, at least since the time of maxwell and faraday.

should we remove the description of 'physics' in the lead for The Greats who are known for their contributions to mathematics, since latter entails the former when considering the burden they met? 198.53.108.48 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Short answer: No. The longer answer: Euler came from a time when there was much less of a distinction between mathematics and physics. But our article details many contributions that, today, would clearly fall on the physics side of the line, including in particular his work on optics and the nature of light, his astronomical calculations, and his modeling of inviscid flow. If he had done nothing else than these things, he would have been very significant purely as a physicist. He is arguably more significant as a mathematician, but that does not invalidate his work as a physicist. Also, as a side note, I think it is somewhat disruptive to set this up as a formal RFC with zero prior discussion at a time when the article is actively being reviewed through FAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

my bad. i thought this is how it's done. how else do you draw others into the conversation? i assumed people don't just go to the talk page.

i agree with your line of thinking, but i still think you're not addressing the burden of proof, which is central (in my view) to the distinction between physics and mathematics.

i'm not saying he didn't do physics. i said the way these people did physics compared to what we call physics today, it is not the same. it's much more rigorous than physics. it's more mathematics than physics (TODAY). all i'm asking is if the mention of 'physics' necessary in the lead, given the modern definition and burden of proof when contrasted with their time.

i mean, i could say Euler's identity is the most important formula in physics (i disagree w/ feynman that its euler equation), but it's obviously mathematics, right?

look i get what you're saying: it's obvious that, back in the day, they didn't make such distinction. you could argue the physical phenomena were the motivation of much of the mathematics we have today. i agree. but back in their day they had hard rules.

you adhere to these very hard rules (mathematical rigour) everyday when partaking in your field, dr eppstein. i believe adhering to this rigour is a source from which many mathematicians derive significant (and deserved) gratification. it is the reason they don't abuse math and run to the media claiming they've done something important. i believe you are taking that for granted. if you asked euler today if what we consider as physics, is physics, he would simply guffaw and go back to work due to the lack of rigour.

that's why i ask if it's fair. he's obviously more of a mathematician than a physicist. there ain't no argument about that CUH

edit: one more thought dr eppstein... what i'm saying is this: physicists had the gall to claim Newton & Co's work 'only went so far'. we created the term 'classical physics' to delineate the work of Euler (predecessors, contemporaries, himself) from Lorentz ('modern physics').

the physicists should now lie in the grave of their own creation. if you think physicist should stick, we should call The Greats 'classical physicists'. after all, 'it only went so far' right? the nerve of these people, really. who are they to say The Greats' work had limitations? yet they wanted to high jack Riemann's life's work because it fit their agenda, and yet claimed it too was 'not general enough' so they slapped on the relaxation of PSD and called it a generalisation. are these guys for real? The Greats notion of computation was spending so many weeks writing on hundreds of pages by hand. and how precious was their time? how many people wanted them to do things? give me a break! limitations. please!

the disrespect. it makes me sick. i demand some kind of distinction be drawn, be it small or large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * all i'm asking is if the mention of 'physics' necessary in the lead The answer to this question is "yes, because this is an accurate summary of a substantial and well sourced portion of the article." How you personally feel about physics, Lorentz, rigor, Feynman, ... is not particularly relevant. --JBL (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

🤗 🤗 🤗 🤗 thank you for reading it. just for the record, i wasn't taking a shot at Feynman. i was just saying i disagree that euler's formula is more important than the identity, even if the latter is merely a pi-substituted version of the former.
 * i just get upset when self-described physicists act like they're the equivalent of mathematicians.

i mean no disrespect to the great experimental physicists who inspired me (lead by rutherford) and had the luxury of ignoring all of the topics that fire me up.

in my view, The Greats are classical physicists. they're not physicists as we know them now. don't you think it's a reasonable distinction that we can accommodate. this proposition came to me after reading dr eppstein's response — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk)
 * Complaints about physicists in general aren't a relevant topic for this talk page. This isn't a discussion forum, it's a place to come to consensus about proposed modifications to the article. - Astrophobe  (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * don't you think it's a reasonable distinction that we can accommodate No, because WP:OR is a policy. --JBL (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If the question of this RfC is "should we remove the description of 'physics' in the lead", my answer is definitely not. Euler was certainly more famous for his mathematical work than for his contributions to physics, but his contributions to physics were clearly notable and worth mentioning in the lead paragraph. --Slashme (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

New items for Euler in WD
Hi, I created an item for his dissertation: Q108315244 which you can use in the infobox instead of hard-coded text if you want.--So9q (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021
Original: discovering that the sum of the numbers of edges and faces minus vertices of a polyhedron equals 2 Correction: discovering that the sum of the numbers of edges and faces SUBTRACTED FROM number of vertices of a polyhedron equals 2 Reason: V − E + F, from the Wikipedia page of Euler Characteristic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_characteristic Current page says E + F - V which does not equal to 2. Mojtaba Mohammadi (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggest rearranging personal life
Under Personal Life, suggest putting Eyesight Deterioration before Death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Done.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia
I am working on uploading a recording of this article to the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia. ScientistBuilder (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)ScientistBuilderScientistBuilder (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Lagrange Points
Euler's work on the theory of the Lunar motion deserves explicit mention. I believe that it started around the 1760s. He showed the properties of the L1 & L2 points of the Sun-Earth system, where a Moon of Earth could (ignoring stability) reside. The point L3 is obvious by hindsight from, but not mentioned in, that work; but an an object there could not have been either considered as our moon or even seen. So Euler did not discover L3.

I have read and translated (into English) E.304 : Considerationes de motu corporum coelestium (Considerations on the motion of celestial bodies). E.327 : De motu rectilineo trium corporum se mutuo attrahentium (On the rectilinear motion of three bodies mutually attracted to each other). They should be on the WayBack Machine; start at www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/euler000.htm - E.327 should be properly displayed. But E.304 has equations and in-line maths in MathJax.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is currently a paragraph on celestial mechanics that this could slot into as a sentence or clause (probably not more than that, though, due to the great significance of so many of Euler's contributions). Do you have publications by other people that could be used as a source for Euler's contribution to this topic? ——David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * See (Current Issue: Volume 1, Issue 2 (2021) https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/euleriana/ - Bistafa has (at least) commented on one of those cited papers and translated the other - obviously Euler's writings are sufficent ... . A search for Euler archive will find much, including the Eneström Index. Search for Sylvio R. Bistafa Euler!


 * The cited euler000.htm links to my translation of Lagrange's famous                                             Essai sur le Problème des Trois Corps.


 * As I recall, most Web publications on the Lagrange Points are either highly technical or simple but incorrect.


 * Actually, a link to Wikipedia's Lagrange point article should serve for those wishing to know more - "Working on the longitude determination problem, Euler found Lagrange Points L1 & L2."? (L3 was off-topic for him.)

94.30.84.71 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Euler's own writings are not sufficient. See WP:SECONDARYSOURCE. We need other people to have specifically described the significance of Euler's efforts in this direction. The technical details are less critical. Bistafa's paper is such a source, but does not support what you want to say. Bistafa writes "the three collinear Lagrange points (L1, L2, L3) are generally also attributed to Leonhard Euler (1707-1783), because, as we shall see below, the developments in two of his publications, allow the determination of the positions of the three masses in a collinear configuration". That appears to suggest that Euler wrote an equation whose solutions give these points, but did not actually find the solutions to his equation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly the discovery of L3 is commonly attributed to Euler; and Euler may well have realised in his own mind that L3 must exist. But Euler was only studying the behaviour of our Moon (useful for navigation, and thefore valuable).  An object not revolving around us cannot be considered to be an additional or alternative moon of ours.


 * I have just reviewed my translation of E.304, without finding ano reference to a body behind the Sun; it indubitably predicts L1 & L2. Also my translation of E.327, which treats of three bodies moving along a straight line and what is needed for the ratios of their separations to remain constant.  In that paper Euler considered only rectilinear motion. Therefore, it may suggest, but it does not predict, L1, L2 and L3.


 * Certainly, it is correct to say that it is generally believed that Euler found L1, L2, L3; but it is misleading for Wikipedia to imply, based on those papers, that Euler actually found the counter-Earth position L3. I read the titles of all of the papers in the Enestrom Index; no other paper seemed likely to be relevant.


 * 94.30.84.71 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement about function notation
The article says (3rd paragraph of opening section): first employing the term f(x) to describe a function's y-axis,

That statement does not use standard terminology. A better way to say it is: first employing the notation f(x) for the value of the function f evaluated at x,

I could not make this change because the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:12A8:8300:1071:1719:1465:F5E5 (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I copyedited that paragraph. I also don't see a good reason for boldfacing the mathematical notation in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Euler GDR stamp.jpg

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Leonhard Euler_-_edit1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 15, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-04-15. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 16:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)