Revision as of 04:49, 22 July 2011 editMiradre (talk | contribs)9,214 edits →Removing Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:54, 22 July 2011 edit undoAprock (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,805 edits →Removing Charles Murray's Human AccomplishmentNext edit → | ||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
::So? No one is arguing that there shouldn't be an article for that book. ] (]) 04:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | ::So? No one is arguing that there shouldn't be an article for that book. ] (]) 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.] (]) 04:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | :::So we have WP:RS which discusses Euler's influence on mathematics which is certainly relevant for this article.] (]) 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 the article. ] (]) 04:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:54, 22 July 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leonhard Euler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Leonhard Euler is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 11, 2006. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 15, 2007. |
Mechanical Engineering
Euler made important formulae for the buckling of colums which are not dicussed here.
Happy birthday!
Happy 300th, Herr Euler!
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)
Expressions That May Lead to Confusion
Section 2.1 Mathematical notation, line 3: He also introduced ... the letter e for the base of the natural logarithm (now also known as Euler's number)
Section 2.5 ... describing numerous applications of ... Euler numbers
It is hard to distinguish between Euler's number and Euler number. Although there are seperate pages devoted to the two concepts, this may still lead to confusion for beginners and those who use English as a foreign language. Shouldn't there be "see also" links behind both expressions?
-- User:Dale Zhong 14:59, 7 July 2007 (GMT+0800)
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)
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)
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)
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 (𒁳) 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)
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?
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." 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)
- 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)
- That wasn't the issue though- the statement "the common English pronunciation /ˈjuːlər/ EW-lər is incorrect." references a random website. I think this should be removed unless something better pops up. Borisblue (talk) 23:12, 29 August 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 (𒁳) 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- /ˈɔɪlər/ in English and in German
this is silly. It is /ˈɔɪlər/ in both English and German, and phonetic would be one possible rendition of phonological /ˈɔɪlər/ in German. --dab (𒁳) 08:59, 11 June 2010 (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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
- The policy you're looking for is WP:UNDUE. See also WP:TRIVIA. aprock (talk) 04:09, 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)
- By all means, provide a source that specifically singles out and discusses Murray's view Euler. aprock (talk) 03:58, 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)
- I reverted your content because Murray's view of Euler not notable at all. aprock (talk) 03:52, 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)
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 the article. aprock (talk) 04:54, 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)
- So? No one is arguing that there shouldn't be an article for that book. aprock (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Top-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- FA-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class history of science articles
- High-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- FA-Class mathematics articles
- Top-priority mathematics articles
- FA-Class physics articles
- High-importance physics articles
- FA-Class physics articles of High-importance
- FA-Class fluid dynamics articles
- Fluid dynamics articles
- FA-Class physics biographies articles
- Physics biographies articles
- FA-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance FA-Class Russia articles
- FA-Class Russia (science and education) articles
- Science and education in Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- FA-Class Switzerland articles
- High-importance Switzerland articles
- All WikiProject Switzerland pages
- FA-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- FA-Class Christian theology articles
- Low-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- FA-Class Saints articles
- Low-importance Saints articles
- WikiProject Saints articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- FA-Class education articles
- Mid-importance education articles
- WikiProject Education articles
- FA-Class Systems articles
- Mid-importance Systems articles
- Systems articles in visualization
- WikiProject Systems articles
- Selected anniversaries (April 2007)