Talk:List of misnamed theorems

Important information for prospective editors of this list
This is the section in which the originator of this list tries to provide useful information/advice for prospective editors. See sections below for discussion of other topics. ---CH 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What each item in this list should contain
Please try to follow the model of the entries I wrote. For each item on the list, if possible cite the original works, and be sure to cite one carefully chosen modern work discussing the historical flummox. The intention is certainly not to try to provide an exhaustive bibliography, only to provide verification for the claims and to help interested readers find more citations (a modern history of mathematics paper will almost certainly have many relevant citations, both period and modern). ---CH 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What items are suitable for inclusion?
It would be a good idea to ask in the section below, since your information might be incomplete or wrong! (Particularly if you lack an up-to-date citation from the literature on the history of mathematics!). ---CH 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Common syntax errors
The syntax is unforgiving, and even one error anywhere will typically destroy the entire page, so please be careful.
 * 1) Don't forget to add immediately after each citation template.
 * 2) Cite subsequent citations to the same paper by using.
 * 3) The in the "References" section is not optional.

Please ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates or Village pump (technical) if you get into trouble. Good luck.---CH 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates
Here are some models for using common citation templates:

*
 * Book:


 * Article in a research journal:

*

* gr-qc/0004016
 * arXiv eprint (since published):

*
 * arXiv eprint (unpublished):

* See section 2-5.
 * Article in a book:


 * Biography in the MacTutor archive:

*
 * Article at the Living Reviews website:

These have the following effects:


 * gr-qc/0004016
 * See section 2-5.
 * gr-qc/0004016
 * See section 2-5.
 * See section 2-5.

Thank you for your cooperation! ---CH 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematically add information contained in this list to linked articles
This is a bit of a long-term project. I intend to create a new article (complete with nifty illustrations) of the nifty Cramer's paradox, and I also need to cancel the redirect and create a new article for Pólya enumeration theorem, since the whole point of that theorem (and most of the work in proving it!) involves giving the sizes of the fixsets in terms of the cycle structure from the Pólya cycle index polynomial (which arises from an action by a group, not to the abstract group, of course). ---CH 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What about physics?
I do not know if you want to include physics, but consider the Lorentz contraction (so called at Special relativity) which was first discovered by FitzGerald. Lorentz acknowledged FitzGerald's priority, but who cares? JRSpriggs 09:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to include physics (create your own list for that!). But see Lorentz gauge for another example :-/ ---CH 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should these be added to the list?
Asking first might be a good idea, as discussion below suggests. ---CH 21:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Abel's theorem
I don't have a reference, but the theorem that the general solution of a polynomial equation of degree 5 or higher is inexpressible with radicals is often cited as "Abel's theorem", and was anticipated by Paolo Ruffini; see Abel-Ruffini theorem. -- Dominus 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an excellent reference:
 * (reprint of earlier and valuable book).
 * However, Ruffini did not even come close to proving the theorem, so Tignol ascribes it to Abel, as does, AFAIK every historian. ---CH 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pell's equation
Pell's equation is so-named because Pell wrote up the solution that was discovered by Lord Brouncker, and Euler got them confused. -- Dominus 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I even used Pell's equation in my diss, but had forgotten that this has long been on my little list. ---CH 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Zorn's lemma
Was anticipated in various forms by Hilbert, Minkowski, and Kuratowski; I do have a reference for this, but I can't post it here until Monday. -- Dominus 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that Kuratowski had previously used something which turns out to be logically equivalent to Zorn's Lemma, but AFAIK the modern statement is in fact due to Zorn. The proof of the equivalence of these various forms (probably by Kelly and others) is not trivial, so I would oppose adding these as instances of misnomers.  ---CH 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to :


 * Rubin and Rubin do a careful job of disinguishing the various maximal principles of interest to us here. The specific principle formulated by Zorn is listed as principle M3. . . . Note that M4 simply implies M3, since the hypothesis of the latter is at least as strong as that of the former. . . . The one who perceived an even more general pattern was Kuratowski, who in 1922 stated and proved M4 and then related the earlier work mentioned above.


 * So the statement M3 that was actually proved by Zorn in his 1935 paper was certainly anticipated by Kuratowski in 1922.


 * However, Zorn himself did not state or prove the theorem that is commonly known as "Zorn's Lemma". Rather:


 * A paper on abstract Riemann surfaces by S. Bochner in 1928 made use of a "mengentheoretischer Hilfssatz" which is almost what Rubin and Rubin call M1 . . . the form M1 is the statement most often referred to as "Zorn's Lemma". Zorn himself has acquiesced to the prevailing terminology.


 * So at least according to this paper (which also quotes Zorn's original definition), the modern statement is very much not due to Zorn.


 * Hope this helps. -- Dominus 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor style concern
It looks very odd to see sentences that say see [1] for a readable description. It might be better if the sentence read: so-and-so wrote a readable description.[1] Also note that refmarks should generally be after punctuation according to WP:FN. Gimmetrow 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, point taken, I might try to change all that tommorrow. I haven't used this particular style of footnoting since high school, which might explain my faltering attempts to use it gracefully here. (In latex, the analogous constructions might be more graceful for an AMS style article).---CH 08:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite statements
There's a couple of indefinite statements in the article that could do with being made definite. Namely: Mike Peel 08:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "The first rigorous formulation and proof seems to be due to Theodore P. Hill in 1988."
 * "The statement may have been made first by Isaac Newton in 1665."
 * "In Europe, it seems to have been rediscovered by Fermat"


 * It may take me some time, but I'll try to find a more graceful way to convey that history of mathematics is fraught with errors even when it comes to the facts of the matter, much less the infinitely more important task of placing original papers in their contemporary context. ---CH 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fermat
I once heard that Fermat's Last Theorem was called a theorem even before it was proven (i.e. when it was a conjecture). Is that notable?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Frobenius
I found a good proof of the citation here not sure about the name though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.134.28 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Student's t-test
See Student's t-test. Might be different to others in this list because Gosset's employers insisted he deliberately hide his identity. (Chorleypie (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Merge with "List of examples of Stigler's law"
Should this page be merged into the more exhaustive list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler%27s_law

If the goal is to limit the list here to mathematical theorems, then maybe we should consider renaming the list to something like "List of misnamed mathematical theorems"?

I would also consider changing "misnamed" to "misattributed". Abandeali (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why "misnamed"?
"misnamed" suggests that there is a correct name for these theorems. There is also an underlying assumption that theorems ought to be named for their discoverers. Almost all of these theorems have perfectly good reasons why they carry the names they do; this list suggests that these names are wrong, simply because someone has a belief about how theorems ought to be named. if I knew how to nominate articles for deletion, I would put this article up. 199.17.27.67 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Totally agreed. For example, the first entry on Benford’s law cites sources which show that Benford didn’t discover it first. To infer then that “The theorem is named incorrectly” involves a normative claim of how theorems ought to be named that isn’t stated in any of the sources, and is a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. I suspect that most of the items on the list have the same problem. Nukeychess (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)