User talk:NikolaiLobachevsky

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Heading
I think that there should be an article on Wikipedia about "Deutsche mathematik", the movement in Nazi Germany founded by the mathematician Ludwig Bieberbach, a notorious charlatan, to reject normal math, which was viewed as to "Jewish" and replace it with "Aryan" math. Does anyone else agree with me. User:NikolaiLobachevsky 1/18/2007 20:50:16 (UTC)

What is a fact?
Hi, NikolaiLobachevsky!

You have been rather busy lately, adding an astounding amount of statements, on Pythagoras, Platon,... and also on a couple of modern mathematicians, whose mathematic you seemingly consider as fairly worthless, since you consider them as antisemites.

I tried to follow your edits on Pythagoras, and found absolutely no sources. Are you planning to provide them?

By the way, do you consider the 'pythagorean theorem related' Mesopotamian cuneiform tables as recording 'Pythagorean triplets'; or do you consider them as on a too different format to be considered as such; or were you not aware of them?

About Bieberbach and Brouwer: I think that when a scientist provenly has done bad things, this should be mentioned; if they were rather bad things, like participating in the antisemitic prosecution under the Nazis, it should take up a rather important part of their biography. However, I think it is rather dangerous to judge their scientific results by even such inhuman criminal behaviour; with some exception for 'scientifically valid' results achieved by unethical methods (e.g., by vivisection on persons declared 'subhumans'). I do not know, but have heard that some medical 'research' of such kind performed during the Reich has gon into the body of medical knowledge actually used to-day; and if this is true, I find it rather problematic. Do you know anything about this?

On the other hand, I have no problems in considering e.g. Heisenberg's indeterminism as an important piece of useful science, and Heisenberg as an important physicist; although I also detest him for the person he was and the things he did. I think that it would be a rather bad mistake to question Heisenberg's relation because he was a (willing and active) nazi. And I do not think that Wikipedia articles should play down those results on other grounds than scientifical. Our readers simply have to learn that whether a result is scientifically valid or not does not necessarily have to do with the 'greatness of heart and spirit' of its discoverer.

Now, as for Bieberbach and Brouwer, I checked those links I found when I looked at the history pages and other recent edits you are doing. There were few references; but for Bieberbach I think they were quite enough to qualify your claim as to the man's antisemitic character - always assuming that the source itself has checked its sources with reasonable care. On the other hand, the link you added for Brouwer definitely didn't support your claims. This is what your reference says. (My bold-facing added, in case you tend to read just one sentence and miss the rest...)


 * Further controversy arose due to his actions in World War II. Brouwer was active in helping the Dutch resistance, and in particular he supported Jewish students during this difficult period. However, in 1943 the Germans insisted that the students sign a declaration of loyalty to Germany and Brouwer encouraged his students to do so. He afterwards said that he did so in order that his students might have a chance to complete their studies and to work for the Dutch resistance against the Germans. However, after Amsterdam was liberated, Brouwer was suspended from his post for a few months because of his actions. Again he was deeply hurt and considered emigration.

Now, again, this depends on whether the source you provided states thing correctly; but if it did, then the guy was nothing remotely alike to Bieberbach or Heisenberg. If it is true that he (a) was actively supporting the resistance movent and (b) actively helping Jewish students, then his explanation for asking the students to comply with the demands of the occupation forces openly (and continue to support the resistance movement covertly) get somewhat more credence than the general excusing defences collaborators came up with after the war, doesn't it.

If on the other hand yoyr source is wrong and you actually have verifyable information to show that Brouwer not at all or not essentially supported the resistance or the Jewish students, then you should provide these links.

In either case, you should explain your scientific criticism on scientific ground. You call Bieberbach a 'charlatan'. this is a rather strong word, which usually implies that the person has done no scientifically valid contributions during his career (since you characterise the person, not the work; and from scientific, not political, ethical, or juridical point of view). You attack Brouwer's intuitionism with a couple of sweeping statements; and again I suspect that it is the picture of Brouwer as an antisemitic collaborator that influences your statements on his mathematics. Possibly, you are completely right about Bieberbach, or possibly not; it really doesn't matter for the evaluation of his earlier mathematics (but you have all right to condemn any kind of outspoken 'Aryan mathematics' as charlatanism, even in case it should contain mathematically sound results). Possibly, you are completely wrong about Brouwer; you are, to judge from your own source; or you may be right; but it doesn't matter and shouldn't matter a bit when judging his intuitionism. Unless, of course, you can show that Brouwer actively promoted his intuitionism as a kind of Aryan mathematics, or anything similar (and in that case you really have some source investigation to do), you should discuss the intuitionism on its own merits.

You are not at all treating intuitionism in similar manners you treat other mathematical ideas; and you should stop making a dustinction of this kind. If your source is wrong but instead you are right, and Brouwer was an antisemite, then this is important to add to his biography - with correct sources this time, not sources stating the converse. Even in that case, you have to evaluate intuitionism and constructivism on their own merits.

Now, I've written quite a lot; but very far from the amount you've written - in most cases without giving your sources - today. I hope you read it and think about it. Above all, I hope you do not behave like a certain former Texan governor, who made a good bit of his career by showing a rather tough view to criminals. In fact, he made it fairly clear, that when it came to really, really bad crimes, there should be no possibilities for convicts to avoid being executed, just because there was some kind of legalistic defence, like the guy being illegally arrested, or incidently being completely and totally innocent of the crime for which he was executed. People sometimes react this way, and consider any 'argument for the defense' as negating the absolute severity of the crime.

I repeat: If Brouwer was helping the resistance movement and Jewish students, and did nothing to support the nazis, except asking his students to sign a paper in a situation when they would get in severe troubles (and have less chances for supporting the resistance if they didn't), then you're wrong to call Brouwer antisemite, not because antisemitism can be defended, but because he wasn't one. If on the other hand he was an antisemite, this is of considerable interest, and should clearly be written in our articles. In either case, Brouwer's intuitionism (like heisenberg's relation of udecidability) sjould be judged on its own merits.

Yours, --JoergenB 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I did provide a source for my edits on Pythagoras, the source was a book called Pythagoras, His Life Teaching, and Influence, I put that in parantheses as the source, that is obvious. As for my edits criticising Bieberbach in order to appease I have decided to delete my comments about him in the history of mathematics article and delete the Deutsche mathematik article that I wrote. 1/19/2007 0:1:24:59 NikolaiLobachevsky

I have to admit that some of what I wrote was stupid and you were right to criticize it but there other things I wrote that were good. I have deleted the material I wrote that was stupid. I deleted the exaggerations about L.E.J. Brouwer's German sympathies. But Ludwig Bieberbach is another, he was a complete charlatan, anyone who could that "German" math is different from other maths is a crackpot. NikolaiLobachevsky 1/19/2007 0:1:47:19 (UTC) I will get sufficient sources for what I have written that I chose to keep within the next six days. NikolaiLobachevsky 1/19/2007 0:1:51:29 (UTC)

Style note
Hi. Just a note. On Wikipedia, one should use lowercase for section headings, per WP:MoS. So, one should write

== Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry ==

rather than

== Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry ==

A small thing, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Geometry
Hi. Thank you for your effort, but I removed the section titled

== Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry ==

you added to Geometry. I think it was not the right way to start that article, and it does not read well. There's more to geometry than the Euclidean vs Non-Euclidean thing. Non-Euclidean geometry was already mentioned in that article, at the right place in the history section.

I wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The history section is a good place to discuss the subject, but there also needs to be a section that explains an important non-historical aspect of the two geometries: the difference between the CONCEPTS of Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry, the section probably should have been placed after the history section I admit. But there needs to be a portion of the article that deals purely with the difference between these concepts without discussing the history, although of course the history is an important aspect to. Also nowhere in the article was an adequate description of what Euclidean geometry means and what non-Euclidean geometry means and what the differences between them are offered.

NikolaiLobachevsky 0:1:00:26 29/1/2007 (UTC)


 * But you're too focused on non-Euclidean Geometry, Mr. Lobachevsky. :) I don't say it is not important, but it is not only Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometries which exist around. If you read that article, you will see that it mentions algebraic geometry, differential geometry, geometry and topology etc.


 * Perhaps more should be said about Non-Euclidean geometry. I don't mind of course, as long as things are kept in perspective. Perhaps a section after the "Contemporary Euclidean geometry" section would work? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention was not to promote non-Euclidean geometry, it was to explain the differences between the concepts. I actually think the article is to biased in favor of non-Eucldean geometry because in its section on the study of contemporary Euclidean geometry it treats as if it were dying out whereas in fact it is still the form of geometry taught in public schools and is still the form of geometry preffered by most mathematicians and scientists. NikolaiLobachevsky 1:50:48 1/29/2007  (UTC)

On the other hand I also have admit that some of my contributions to Wikipedia have been bad, but I still think this one was right. NikolaiLobachevsky 1:55:38 1/29/2007 (UTC)


 * Again, my primary issue was with where you placed the text. Feel free to add it back. I will correct things if necessary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the section and placed it in between the section about the history of geometry and the section about contemporary geometers. I also rephrased my first sentence to make clear that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry were merely the two dominant forms of geometry and that they were not the only ones. Is this good. NikolaiLobachevsky 02:09:07 1/29/2007 (UTC)


 * I read the section. I must tell you, in spite of your efforts, it reads poorly and it feels out of place. I don't know good enough of the topic, but something must be done about it. If it does not get fixed soon I may delete it again, since the article looks better without it. Sorry. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Abacus
History shows you changed it to a "digital calculator" from a "calculation tool." This is obviously incorrect.

It is a digital calculator in the since that it calculates and it is a digital device because the numbers on the rod only have meaning when they are all the way up or down, there is no meaning for a bead that is partway up or down, therefore it shifts between discrete states as a digital device instead of varying continuously as an analog device does. --NikolaiLobachevsky 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with your definition, I don't think it is appropriate to list this as part of its description, as "digital device" or "digital calculator" can be easily confused with an electronic calculator. I've since added this on the talk page asking for thoughts. FDR changed it back to "digital calculator," but I will refrain from changing it unless an admin feels otherwise.


 * Because a shovel doesn't actually do the digging, it's known as a tool. In other words it just helps to dig the hole. It's the same for an abacus. It doesn't actually do the calculating, that's left up to the abacus operator. See Not a calculator That's my feeling anyway. :) --Dataryder 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been determined that the Abacus is not a digital calculator and has since been changed back to calculation tool. Should you feel strongly about your case, please provide insight on the discussion page: Not a calculator  Your track record however, is not pleasing to the eye, so please brush up on neutrality of articles before editing in the future.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)