Talk:Olga Ladyzhenskaya

--Akrasia25 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Advisor
from AMS notices:

In October 1943 she finally became a student at Moscow State University and graduated in 1947. During these years, I. G. Petrovskii was her adviser. At  that   time she was st rongly  influenced by Gelfand’s seminar.

In 1947 Olga married A. A. Kiselev, a Leningrad resident, so she moved there, with a recommendation from Moscow State University to the graduate school of Leningrad State University (LGU). At LGU S. L. Sobolev was appointed to be her scientific adviser.

Sasha (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sasha,
 * thank you for evidencing grounds for the citation: as in the case of the entry about Olga Oleinik, I haven't accurately read all the sources yet. However, let me point out a detail: wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the academic_advisor field of the Infobox scientist template? It seems to me that Ivan Petrovsky was her doctoral, i.e. candidate of science, advisor while Sergei Sobolev advised her in later stages of her career: am I wrong? Let me know. Best, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniele,
 * what I understood from the source is that she transferred from Moscow to Leningrad in the middle of her graduate studies. But perhaps I am wrong, we can check the other sources.
 * Sasha (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sasha,
 * Ok, let's freeze the Infobox scientist as is now: we'll check later how the things are. As my parents always say "One issue a time". Daniele.tampieri (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sasha,
 * I've checked some sources and it seems to me that you were right: Sergei Sobolev should be credited as her "PhD" advisor, while Ivan Petrovsky should be credited as an earlier advisor. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniele,
 * I still think mentioning two advisors is better. I have just opened one of her first papers, "On the uniqueness of the solution of Cauchy's problem for a linear parabolic equation" (1950, submitted in 1948), and in the second paragraph it says:

В связи с этим И. Г. Петровским была поставлена за­дача распространить результаты А. Н. Тихонова на такого рода систе­мы. Мне удалось это сделать для случая одного уравнения.
 * In free translation:

In this connection, I.G.Petrovsky posed the problem to extend the results of A.N.Tikhonov to systems of this type. I managed to do it for the case of one equation.
 * I.e. some of her first problems were posed by Petrovsky.
 * Sasha (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sasha,
 * you're right: let's keep the mention of the two advisors: while reading carefully all sources, we'll surely manage to describe precisely her academic career, clarifying the exact roles of all players. By the way, I apologize for not being too much present on the Wiki recently: I've a new job and I'm very busy. :-D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All this information is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.50.107 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Influenced
Hi Daniele,

should what is now in the "influenced" line of the infobox be in the "known for" line?

Sasha (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sasha,
 * I did it. Correctly speaking, she is known for her contribution in those fields (and obviously influenced their development), therefore the parameter 'known_for' is more appropriate for listing her contributions. She surely influenced indirectly also other areas with her policies in research and teaching: however, I am not aware of surveys article tracing her influences, and I've not read accurately all references in order to know all the opinion of her (scientific) biographers about this point. Sorry for the delay in my answer, and nice to hear from you. :-D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniele,
 * I thought "influenced" was for people (see e.g. Juergen Moser). But then I thought that perhaps the conventions prescribe something different (that's why I left a note for you here instead of changing it myself).
 * Sasha (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

 * Clearly there aren't enough references.
 * Much of the information seems to be wrong or misleading. The article implies she didn't go to university until after Stalin's death in 1953. This is contradicted by this source, which says she completed her PhD in 1951 and began teaching at the University of Leningrad in 1950. It also says her father was denounced in 1937, not 1939. This should be checked.
 * There is a lot of language that is not neutral. I will try to fix that up.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "She continued to teach after the collapse of the Soviet Union" - but why wouldn't she???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've updated the article to reflect the source you provided and removed the template.  Yeah, I didn't think much about the collapse line.  That could be changed. Dan Bloch (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed the line about the collapse. Dan Bloch (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks to Google for prompting this improvement. The references are probably OK...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Due to Google Doodle on March 7, 2019, I (username Alisonb13) found this info which could be added, by a more experienced editor, to the Wikipedia article to include names of parents: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=Hi2BXOWjEImiswWikKCICw&q=Olga+Ladyzhenskaya&oq=Olga+Ladyzhenskaya&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i131j0i3l9.3157.3157..3421...0.0..0.130.130.0j1....1..0....1..gws-wiz.0iqqV6ry19I

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonb13 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
116.68.123.77 (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Google Doodle
Is it relevant to have Google Doodle mentioned among Honours ? Somehow I find it trivializing - awards and honours should include only prizes awarded by societies etc. - Shayak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.201.197 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is trivializing - and not very notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed "Honours" to "Recognition", which is slightly better. The real problem here is that Ladyzhenskaya's article is so short that none of her more significant honors (or recognitions) are mentioned, making it look strange. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking through a few examples in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=Google+Doodle&namespace=0, mentions of Google Dooble seems more common to be in a Legacy section but are sometimes in an Honors section. Regarding notability: are you arguing that all of those hundreds of links aren't notable? Bennetto (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, in 10 years time no one will care about the Google Doodle on 7 March.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019
Reference is needed for the claim Olga Ladyzhenskaya was the first to provide rigorous proof for the convergence of finite difference method applied to PDE 'Navier Stokes'. The PDE doesn't converge globally. Please provide the date and the reference to her proof. Warrior4just (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a fact tag to that sentence. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Xappie.com
I highly doubt Xappie.com is reliable, especially in this context. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 21:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)