Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Not done I don't see how this is "inappropriate" or "disrespectful" - and we don't seem to have any other copyright-free photos. Arjayay (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: There are no other copyright free images to replace the present image of the subject. If you have some better copyright free images of Hewitt, please upload them on Commons and re-open the request. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk!06:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please restore section on "Inconsistency Robustness"
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hewitt is a founder of the field of Inconsistency Robustness, which he defined to be "information system performance in the face of continually pervasive inconsistencies---a shift from the previously dominant paradigms of inconsistency denial and inconsistency elimination attempting to sweep them under the rug" . Currently he is Board Chair of the International Society of Inconsistency Robustness, past Program Chair of Inconsistency Robustness 2011, and current Program Chair of Inconsistency Robustness 2014.
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. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this was a problem, but I've restored the content and updated some of the references - it is a significant part of his research, so I'm very happy to see it included. Plus it is an exciting field in its own right. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Currently, Professor Hewitt is most famous for his work on the Actor Model and Inconsistency robustness.
The board at iRobust is very prestigious.
64.134.19.160 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite INDEPENDENTRELIABLESOURCES to back up your request, as clearly this article has had issues over the use of non-independant sources in the past. - Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@64.134.221.195: Firstly, please calm down, as you seem upset. As Arjayay has requested you to do, please provide independentreliable sources, as the current reference appears to be first party. There's no reason to be upset; Bilby has already supported your change - it's just that additional verifiability of the information being added is required to meet Misplaced Pages standards. No one is saying he's not important, just back it up with reliable sources. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Why was the above suggestion deleted? As requested, the person provided links to the field of Inconsistency Robustness including the scientific society and conferences with highly prominent scientific leaders. Just because Professor Hewitt is involved doesn't mean that they are not reputable.167.220.25.17 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: We can only fulfill an edit request when there is no lack of consensus and there are enough details and reliable sources to support the request and the request doesn't obviously violate any Misplaced Pages policies. The fact that the original request was to restore something implies there was a lack of consensus about having that content in the article. As soon as the request was satisfied by Bilby, it was reverted by Arthur Rubin, which again says there is a lack of consensus here. Please try to form a consensus before reactivating the template. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's discuss it. I heard that Arthur Rubin has a personal thing against Professor Hewitt because of previous interactions between the two. So maybe Rubin should recuse himself because of some Misplaced Pages policy? 76.14.40.188 (talk)
Not done "I heard that .. " is not what we would consider a reliable source. Please stop reactivating the ESP request until you have reached consensus. Arjayay (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
If Rubin recuses himself (as seems proper), does that establish consensus?
According to the links listed above, the Inconsistency Robustness community is incredibly prestigious. 76.14.40.188 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd guess many of the opposes come from people with no idea of who Professor Hewitt is. I certainly don't, nor do I care all that much. Thanks for your interest in developing the English Misplaced Pages! — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
If anything, the problem is due to Professor Hewitt and his students dislike for me and my attempts to maintain Misplaced Pages standards. I see no reason to recuse unless Professor Hewitt agrees to the conditions set for his return to editing, and to inform those editing on his behalf to agree to the conditions. — Arthur Rubin(talk)22:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
What is the dispute? iRobust is a perfectly respectable independent scientific society with a highly prestigious board.
50.131.224.36 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do Misplaced Pages internal conflicts matter so much?
The suggested change to restore the section would improve the article and consequently improve Misplaced Pages.
What is the substantive problem? 167.220.25.17 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, please stop activating that template. There is no consensus for this change. Without consensus, the volunteers servicing the template cannot implement the requested change. Turning the template back on repeatedly is merely disruptive. Follow the dispute resolution path to settle this dispute. Older and ... well older (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Please restore Professor Hewitt's graduate students to infobox
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The list is currently in the body of the article, so I don't have any major problem with adding them to the infobox. However, I'm not sure that it is best to have them in both places. Did you wish to include them in both? - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
You have been playing games with the anons above because you know the change that that the change that that they have been requesting is exactly the one in the following diff: requested changes
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. — {{U|Technical 13}} 12:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Correct. It wasn't an edit-protected request, it was a request to nullify the previous edit-protected requests as being made by a banned editor. I've reverted the suggested changes so far made by Bilby; unless independent sources can be provided for the value of "inconsistency robustness", it doesn't deserve a paragraph here. — Arthur Rubin(talk)10:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)s
It's interesting that Arthur Rubin considers himself to be an expert on Inconsistency Robustness.
Professor Hewitt is one of the world's foremost mathematicians. In his dissertation, together with Mike Paterson, he proved that recursion is more powerful than iteration. Most famously, he proved that the current understanding of Gödel's second incompleteness result is inaccurate . Like many mathematicians today, he often publishes in arXiv. .
If Misplaced Pages did not have such an intense grudge against Professor Hewitt, this information would appear in his Misplaced Pages article.
I agree. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages has figured out another way to insult Professor Hewitt by listing him in Category:Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles!
107.193.184.20 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"Dissertations" are not "with" someone else. The first IP's phrasing is questionable, at best. (For what's it worth, my dissertation was in generalized recursion theory and universal algebra. As for "the current understanding of Gödel's second incompleteness" theorem, there is no evidence he has done anything but redefined terms used in the theorem.
Most reputable mathematicians rarely post in arXiv.
It's disputed whether "Inconsistency Robustness" is a field of mathematics; if it is, he is a mathematician. (I would put it in "philosophical logic", rather than "mathematical logic".)
That being said, he's of "unknown importance" only because no one has entered the "s&a-priority" field in{{WikiProject Biography}}. I'll take care of that.
The result that recursion is more powerful than iteration was included in Professor Hewitt's dissertation with Paterson on the thesis committee. The result was published in their famous joint paper "Comparative Schematology."
Some famous mathematical theorems are published *only* in arXiv. Increasingly, prominent mathematical results are published in arXiv to establish a priority date
Obviously, you are unaware that Inconsistency Robustness is a field of research that includes mathematics as just a part. As a mathematician, Professor Hewitt specializes in the Foundations of Computer Science.
The short form is that Professor Hewitt has *refuted* Gödel's second incompleteness result. However, it is possible to quibble. Over the years, Gödel's position waffled on the applicability of his result as follows: 1) Principia Mathematica as the foundation of mathematics provided that it is consistent, 2) Every consistent formal system containing first-order Peano Axioms 3) In opposition to Wittgenstein, just the system of first-order Peano axioms .
But the common understanding that Gödel proved that "mathematics cannot prove its own consistency" is inaccurate. In fact, mathematics proves its own consistency by a very simple proof published by Professor Hewitt.50.131.244.2 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, would you stop linking to irobust.org and ir14.org, which never support what you are saying. Even if Inconsistency Robustness "contains" mathematics and Hewitt is an expert, it would not necessarily mean that Hewitt is an expert in mathematics. I see we disagree about arXiv; in most cases, a "priority date" is not really of value, even to administrators. If someone wants to get his/her proofs out before publication, arXiv is useful, but most serious mathematicians would not use it until checked for accuracy, which normally requires peer-review. I would like to see "Comparative Schematology", but it seems not to be in even my local university libraries. It seems obviously false, but I have asserted a similar result for the use of "goto" vs. structured programming; that a program with goto's can be simulated by a structured program, but the program length is exponential in the number of "goto"s. But I digress. I also would like to see Hewitt's proof that mathematics "proves" its own consistency; I'm pretty sure he has redefined "proof" or "consistency", but it's possible the details would be useful.
I googled "Comparative Schematology" and immediately found the article at the top published by ACM.
Probably the reason that people referred to is that this is the location of the refereed article. (All the experts are on the program committee.)
Some very important mathematical theorems are published only on arXiv. e.g., Priority is extremely important. That is why the Princeton people published their new homotopy type theory results in arXiv. Tree-killing journals are too slow! As for reliability, experts don't rely on the dubious blessing of some tree-killing journal. However, journals are still of some importance in tenure and promotion cases.
The folks at Stanford have leaped so far ahead of the rest of us that we are secretly jealous and struggling to catch up. Professor Hewitt is probably the top mathematician in his field.50.242.100.195 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Would someone other than Hewitt and his students please comment here? I still see no basis for the assertion that Hewitt is a mathematician. His thesis is clearly in computer science, rather than recursion theory. I could be wrong, but his thesis is not available online.
"Comparative Schematology" is a field of (some subject); there are so many papers with that title that it is difficult to be sure which is which. The one by Hewitt and Paterson is not available online.
Priority is extremely unimportant, at least in the fields of mathematics I am familiar with and to the math departments I am familiar with. Perhaps it matters in Hewitt's field—which, logically is therefore not mathematics. — Arthur Rubin(talk)07:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)is
This is hilarious! I wonder who the knowledgeable anon is up in Fenton? But, hey, I bet the Stanford people are appreciative of the complement!
Meanwhile, Arthur Rubin is perpetually challenged finding things online ;-) You can easily find the following:
Comparative Schematology
Author: Paterson, Michael S.; Hewitt, Carl E.
Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/5851
Date Issued: 1970-11-01
Abstract:
While we may have the intuitive idea of one programming language having greater power than another, or of some subset of a language being an adequate 'core' for that language, we find when we try to formalize this notion that there is a serious theoretical difficulty. This lies in the fact that even quite rudimentary languages are nevertheless 'universal' in the following sense. If the language allows us to program with simple arithmetic or list-processing functions then any effective control structure can be simulated, traditionally by encoding a Turing machine computation in some way. In particular, a simple language with some basic arithmetic can express programs for any partial recursive function. Such an encoding is usually quite unnatural and impossibly inefficient. Thus, in order to carry on a practical study of the comparative power of different languages we are led to banish explicit functions and deal instead with abstract, uninterpreted programs or schemas. What follows is a brief report on some preliminary exploration in this area.
Let me rephrase that. The 441-page paper is not available online. The 8-page paper linked to above is not available for free online, and it appears not to be close enough to a field I've worked it to justify paying the $15. Hewitt could send me a copy, as it appears he has found my E-mail address. (If not, any of you with a real editor account could send me his E-mail address.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)16:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
(Reply to interpolated comment by 64.134.237.58.) So my search skills are not the best. That is an interesting paper, on the border between "theoretical computer science" and "recursion theory" (part of mathematical logic). It's possible that if the "basic functions and predicates" in the schema were replaced by oracular operations then P and R might be considered legitimate concepts in recursion theory, and S might be a concept in generalized recursion theory. The authors appear to go to great effort to avoid the well-known "oracle" concept, though. — Arthur Rubin(talk)01:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Recursion theory oracles are irrelevant to the Hewitt and Paterson article. Uninterpreted procedures are closer to uninterpreted predicates in logic. 50.242.100.195 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. Thank you for demonstrating that Hewitt is not a mathematician, or at least has no idea of the basics of recursion theory. From the point of view of programs, machines, or schema, there is absolutely no difference between an oracle and an uninterpreted predicate. (There is a difference in aspect, but not really in kind; Hewitt is looking whether two programs have the same result for all instantiations of the oracles, while more "traditional" recursion theory asks what can be computed from a particular instantiation of the oracles.) And the difference between "iteration" and "recursion" depends strongly on the particular abstract computing model. Even with that model, with "push" and "pop" operations, there may very well be no difference, and with the appropriate pairing representation, "push" (S1 ← (X1, S1) ) and "pop" (X1 ← first(S1) , S1 ← second(S1)) are simple operations. — Arthur Rubin(talk)06:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Why does Misplaced Pages allow Arthur Rubin to defame Professor Hewitt with disinformation? For example, Professor Hewitt studied recursion theory with Hartley Rogers while doing his Ph.D. in mathematics at MIT. 107.193.184.20 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many old-time recursion theorists like Arther Rubin do not understand abstraction in Computer Science. Of course, it is recursion theorems about oracles that are irrelevant to the Hewitt and Paterson article. From the viewpoint of modern Computer Science (based on many-core architecture), Rubin's "push/pop" model is a clumsy, non-abstract, uninteresting model of computation. Rubin seems to have missed the whole point of why the Hewitt & Paterson result is justly famous. 64.134.236.244 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, then, I have two points. As the particular abstract model of computation appears to allow arithmetical operations, and "push" and "pop" can be simulated with arithmetical operations, and "recursion" can be simulated with "push" and "pop", the proof that P<R fails. I'm not saying the result necessarily fails, because I haven't gone through the necessary analysis, but both "examples" of schema in R alleged to be not in P are, in fact, inP. However, even if P<R is true in that particular abstract model of computation, is it true in other abstract models of computation? If not, it shouldn't be of interest even to computer scientists, and certainly is not of interest to mathematicians. — Arthur Rubin(talk)07:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Computer scientists know very well that recursion is more powerful than iteration. The achievement of Hewitt and Paterson was to successfully formalize and prove the theorem. They successfully avoided the problem of using clumsy, artificial, inefficient arithmetical constructs to simulate control structure. 50.131.244.2 (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Computer scientists know very well that recursion on almost all (single-threaded) real computers is implemented by iteration. It appears I have come to the conclusion that the Hewitt-Paterson paper is incorrect in mathematical models of computation, admitting the possibility that there are non-mathematical models in which it is accurate.
It seems strange that although Arthur Rubin claims to be a mathematician, he cannot understand the elementary theorem of Hewitt and Paterson. 107.193.184.20 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand the elementary unproved result of Hewitt and Paterson. The so-called proof requires a step which is not true unless the abstract computing model is incomplete unreasonable (i.e., it cannot compute even some primitive recursive functions). If you find incomplete abstract computing models interesting, that it is another matter. — Arthur Rubin(talk)07:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Arthur, the proof of the Hewitt&Paterson theorem is valid. You should ask a mathematician to explain it to you. Also, it would help if you learned a little Computer Science to understand why the theorem is famous. 64.134.237.44 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious why the theorem would be important, if true, and if applicable to "reasonable" (I'll explain the pun, later, if anyone is interested, but the term "reasonable" in the title of my Ph.D. thesis is the meaning intended) models of computation. It may even be accurate in abstract models of computation where not even recursive will model an actual programming or recursive function theory. — Arthur Rubin(talk)21:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Mathematics self proves its own consistency
Professor Hewitt has proved that "Mathematics self proves its own consistency."
The proof was published here. (Arthur Rubin was looking for this reference.)
It will be presented at IR'14. 50.242.100.195 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. By changing the rules of logical derivation, one can obtain any result. The question is, is "direct logic" a useful "model" for mathematics, as opposed to being a useful model for computing. — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Classical Direct Logic is the most powerful available logic for mathematics incorporating capabilities that are not available in first-order logic including the ability to easily reason about its own inference capabilities and to accurately model Peano natural numbers and real numbers. Complaints similar to yours were made when Arabic numbers and then imaginary numbers were introduced into mathematics. 64.134.236.244 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to hear from someone other than Hewitt and his students. I said that already, but there seem to be no such people willing to state that Hewitt's results have meaning. As for "accurately model" .... it depends on what you mean by "accurately". As it seems to produce different results than standard first-order logic or intuitionistic logic, the question of being "accurate" is the wrong question. A correct question is: Is it useful? I have not seen an attempt at an answer. — Arthur Rubin(talk)06:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason that the Stanford people invented inconsistency robustness was to make useful theories of practice. (A single inconsistency destroys the usefulness of a classical theory.) 50.131.244.2 (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
As for "Arabic numbers" (whatever that means), there was no change of meaning in that introduction, although it allowed significant text compression. Imaginary numbers are different, but few doubt they are useful. Few doubted they were useful even when first introduced. — Arthur Rubin(talk)07:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Imaginary numbers were defined in 1572 by Rafael Bombelli. At the time, such numbers were regarded as fictitious or useless, much as zero and the negative numbers once were. Many mathematicians were slow to adopt the use of imaginary numbers, including René Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory. 50.131.244.2 (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This raises the question whether Arthur Rubin is a mathematician. For example, when did he last publish an original mathematical theorem? Also, when did he last give a talk at a professional meeting?
Professor Hewitt will deliver the following refereed papers at the upcoming conference :
Inconsistency Robustness in Foundations: Mathematics self proves its own Consistency and Other Matters
A relevant question is: When did any mathematician last deliver a "refereed paper" at a conference? In my experience, conference talks may relate to past and future refereed papers, but a mathematician does not present a "refereed paper" at a conference. Again, it may be different in computer science. Then again, the poster is obviously one of Carl's students, and may not actually know anything what Carl is doing.
My qualifications as a mathematician are irrelevant to this article; you may bring up the matter on Talk:Arthur Rubin, if you feel it appropriate, and you do it within Misplaced Pages guidelines, so it would not result in an IP block of your institution.
Students at Stanford work very closely with Professor Hewitt. Consequently, some of them are experts on mathematical theorems that he has published recently. 107.193.184.20 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is that Arthur Rubin was once a mathematician, however, unfortunately not a good one although a long time ago he did well on a mathematical competition. 50.242.100.195 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
So, you have not presented evidence that math conferences have "presentations of refereed articles". You are presenting evidence that Carl is not an active mathematician; perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote.
The consensus of Carl's students is that "Arthur Rubin was once a mathematician, ...." Misplaced Pages consensus appears different. Similarly, consensus of Carl's students is that Carl is a mathematician. I'm still not sure. He does have a Ph.D. in mathematics, but the subject is in computer science. Perhaps there wasn't a computer science degree at MIT in 1971.
Almost all his results presented as being in mathematics actually make no sense in mathematics, although they may make sense in computer science. His results on direct logic are in the realm of mathematical logic, so I suppose he must be considered a mathematician. However, I have seen no evidence that there is a concept of soundness which applies to direct logic. Logic without soundness is a "word" (symbol?) game. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 06:42, 16 July 2014
A proof that non-deterministic polynomial time computation is not equivalent polynomial time computation would be of interest mainly for the proof technique. For Computer Science, the crucial aspect is Hewitt's theorem that concurrent computation can be exponentially faster than lambda calculus computation.64.134.223.48 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The soundness theorem of Direct Logic is that if a proposition Ψ of mathematics about sets over the natural numbers is provable, then Ψ is true in the standard model of sets over the natural numbers (i.e., ⊢Ψ implies ⊧Ψ). 171.64.70.20 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you claiming that, solely because Carl is a computer scientist, he is a mathematician? Or that all "useful" math is computer science? I'm sure that neither of those statements is mainstream, even among computer science experts.
False, for appropriate definition of "almost all". At least, not in my fields of expertise, including questions such as P = NP. Of course, most of my fields aren't considered practical.
Interesting, if true. Needs an interpretation of the "⊢" symbol in the language of direct logic, which does not appear to be the obvious interpretation.
Misplaced Pages has compiled quite a record of prejudice against Professor Hewitt
Misplaced Pages has compiled quite a record of prejudice against Professor Hewitt (almost on a par with antisemitism that Einstein faced back in Germany). 50.131.244.2 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
For the benefit of Hewitt's students, see Godwin's law. For the benefit of others, note that Carl is the only person who has published comments about Misplaced Pages's criticism of Carl. — Arthur Rubin(talk)07:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin is pleased that more people have not protested Misplaced Pages's record of prejudice against Professor Hewitt.
Very few people in Germany protested when Jewish professors were dismissed from German universities. Does Godwin think that it is better to forget or to deny? 50.131.244.2 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I note that only Carl, himself, thinks that Misplaced Pages is prejudiced against him. If there were others, the fact might be notable.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
As illustrated above, Arthur Rubin has repeatedly insulted Professor Hewitt. It is not clear why Misplaced Pages has allowed his unacceptable behavior to continue.171.66.221.130 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Is Hewitt more like Einstein or more like Bozo the Clown? I don't think he's much like either. For those who do not understand English, the statement is a parable, justifying the statement "not all who are laughed at are geniuses", and implying that Hewitt is not a genius, even though his actions on Misplaced Pages and his importance in many of the fields in which you (the floating IP who replies to himself, or possibly one or more of Hewitt's students) claim to be important are questioned by a few active Wikipedians, including me.
I've given my professional opinion as to some of Hewitt's work — mostly, that it doesn't appear accurate, treated as being in the field it appears (to me) to be in. Hewitt may claim it's in a different (non-mathematical) field. If so, my opinion may be irrelevant, even though accurate. — Arthur Rubin(talk)10:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
No idea about mathematics, but in computer science he's generally looked upon as one sharp cookie. I've never interacted with him (nor do I particularly desire to), but I do use some derivative of his work each and every day of my working life. So, since we're flattening this argument to a single dimension, I'd vote for closer to Einstein rather than Bozo the Clown. I don't think that's a stretch. Brycehughes (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I can respect that. It still leaves open the question of whether he is a mathematician, as opposed to a computer scientist. I've never claimed to be a computer scientist (a programmer, yes). I don't really see where Hewitt claims to be a mathematician. I would be interested to know if you know enough about his work in "direct logic", or in his statement that "recursion is superior to iteration" (which is false in mathematical algorithm theory), to know whether the work is useful. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Outrageous that Misplaced Pages continues to allow insinuation that Professor Hewitt is "Bozo the Clown"
It is outrageous that Misplaced Pages continues to allow the insinuation that Professor Hewitt is "Bozo the Clown." Does Misplaced Pages not care a whit about its reputation?
Meanwhile, Arthur Rubin (who has not be active professionally for decades) cannot understand the famous theorem by Hewitt and Paterson even though it is very simple. However, Arther is doing a good job of bullying Misplaced Pages editors like Brice Hughes (see above).
On the other hand, Professor Hewitt recently served as Program Chair of a very important scientific conference at Stanford. See IR'14 with links to important videos
It appears the anon still can't read. And I understand the famous result of Hewitt and Paterson is not mathematical; and is incorrect when interpreted as a theorem in (generalized) recursion theory. Considering Hewitt's expertise in computer science, I decline to make a professional statement as to whether it makes sense in computer science and is accurate and/or proved when interpreted in that field. The fact that the argument in the paper presented here appears to me to be obviously wrong doesn't mean that it is obviously wrong, only that it is obviously mathematically wrong. However, assuming the person or persons behind the IPs qualify as even a student of Hewitt's work, he/she/they should be able to refute the arguments I gave, rather than merely deny them; but neither the argument nor the refutation really should be on this page, or probably anywhere on Misplaced Pages. — Arthur Rubin(talk)14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does Misplaced Pages continue to allow Arthur Rubin to insult Professor Hewitt?
The famous article by Hewitt and Paterson has a simple mathematical proof of the mathematical theorem that recursion is more powerful than iteration given the appropriate premises as setting. Their theorem is universally accepted with the exception of one outlier: Arthur Rubin (who has done nothing professionally for decades). Exactly what problem does Arthur Rubin see with their simple elementary mathematical proof?
Guys... chill. This talk page has been viewed 180 times over the past 30 days. Assuming a 2:1 views to people ratio, which is probably far too low, then that would be about 90 people who *may* have bothered to read the preceding conversation. And how many of those people would not have already have a previously formed opinion on Hewitt and his work? I'm sure that is far lower still.
Nobody is going to remember Carl Hewitt based on a conversation on a Misplaced Pages talk page where somebody insinuated that there may be some tangental relationship between Carl Hewitt and Bozo the Clown. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill, and as a result simply baiting Arthur Rubin to respond each time. Keep going and maybe he'll come up with some new "insult". Are you going to then spawn a new conversation about that? Ad infinitum? Relax, take a breather, and focus on finding reliable sources that support your assertions, and then start talk page conversations about those. This is an encyclopedia. Brycehughes (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
What seems to be happening is that people in the research community hear that Misplaced Pages is bad-mouthing Professor Hewitt. So they hop over here to register a complaint. This will continue until Misplaced Pages shapes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.184.20 (talk • contribs) 17:50, August 24, 2014
No, Hewitt has wandered into a dark place. It's likely he'll recover, if he looks at Misplaced Pages articles on other subjects.
I suspect that it's the same person (or possibly two or three) people complaining, not new people. I've noticed that none of these "people in the research community" want to identify where in the research community they are located. My bet is Hewitt's office, although it's possible that some new people read Hewitt's essay on Misplaced Pages, and believe it without doing any "research". — Arthur Rubin(talk)00:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've explained the problem with the proof. But neither the proof nor my refutation has a place on Misplaced Pages, regardless of who is correct. — Arthur Rubin(talk)00:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Everyone here seems to have given up contributing to Misplaced Pages. No one gives Arthur Rubin any credence to the point that they are completely uninteresting in responding to what he has to say even though it is obviously nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.208.130 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any recent history of disruptive editing of the article or of insults about Professor Rubin, only of disruption of this talk page. I see reasonable edits by User:Arthur Rubin and by User:Brycehughes and unreasonable edits to this talk page by IPs, making unsubstantiated allegations of insulting the subject of the article. What if anything is the issue, other than that unregistered editors want to start a war over possible stale edits? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Please delete this article to save us further misery.
The article is incredibly obsolete because it has been locked against editing for years.50.131.244.2 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
That was caused by constant vandalism. If you want to request an edit to this page, you can do so. The article simply cannot be deleted for that reason only, as there are plenty of other semi-protected pages. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Another reason to delete is that the talk page is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages because of Arthur Rubin continually insulting Professor Hewitt.50.131.244.2 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Home page
Professor Hewitt's home page is at
21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.209.130 (talk)
Professor Carl Hewitt is the creator (together with his students and other colleagues) of the Actor Model of computation. The Actor Model and Actor programming languages influenced the development of the Scheme programming language and the π calculus, and inspired several other systems and programming languages. The Model is in widespread industrial use including eBay, Microsoft, and Twitter. For his doctoral thesis, he designed Planner, the first programming language based on pattern-invoked procedural plans.
Professor Hewitt’s recent research centers on the area of Inconsistency Robustness, i.e., system performance in the face of continual, pervasive inconsistencies (a shift from the previously dominant paradigms of inconsistency denial and inconsistency elimination, i.e., to sweep inconsistencies under the rug). ActorScript and the Actor Model on which it is based can play an important role in the implementation of more inconsistency-robust information systems. Professor Hewitt is an advocate in the emerging campaign against mandatory installation of backdoors in the Internet of Things.
Professor Hewitt is Board Chair of iRobust™, an international scientific society for the promotion of the field of Inconsistency Robustness. He is also Board Chair of Standard IoT™, an international standards organization for the Internet of Things, which is using the Actor Model to unify and generalize emerging standards for IoT. He has been a Visiting Professor at Stanford University and Keio University and is Emeritus in the EECS department at MIT.
Regarding the lock status this article has had for years and seeing how there is the same, small number of actors always playing the Talk Page field, something must be done about this article sooner rather than later. FYI, I was drawn into this article by this source:186.120.130.16 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Established Misplaced Pages editors, including me (I — someone help me with the grammar), have been trying to remove spam by Professor Hewitt and/or his students for years. An honest statement would be that Professor Hewitt has been feuding with Misplaced Pages for years. — Arthur Rubin(talk)09:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of furthering mankind's self-knowledge, can we have mention of how he was blocked from Misplaced Pages? Fortuna12:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
My impression is that this was removed due to concerns with WP:BLP. I think that User:SlimVirgin would know more, if you inquire on her user page. — Carl (CBM · talk)
I was just about to add it based on a smattering of sources: , for example. I think it's fine by WP:BLP for being reliably sourced: it's reasonably shown by sources that his disruption is ongoing, and that he is notable for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I still think that SlimVirgin would have a better historical perspective on this. I vaguely remember it has come up before, but I wasn't really involved and don't have the details at hand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I was able to find some background in the talk archive of this page, and I agree with what several people wrote there, that there is no need to mention the ban in the main article, because it is a very insignificant aspect of his scientific career. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, one newspaper article (and a book written by some prominent Wikipedians) isn't enough to justify including this in the article. On a separate note, this article seems to have been accumulating quite a bit of citation spam again... —Ruud20:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Home page
Please correct Professor Hewitt's home page to be the following:
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
Partly done: I've removed the current link as I agree that one was not correct but I'm pretty hesitant to use a Google+ page as a "official site". It'd be akin to using a Facebook page as such Cannolis (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hewitt uses Google to host his website. It's free!
Not done I don't see how this is "inappropriate" or "disrespectful" - and we don't seem to have any other copyright-free photos. Arjayay (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: There are no other copyright free images to replace the present image of the subject. If you have some better copyright free images of Hewitt, please upload them on Commons and re-open the request. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
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. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: I've removed the current link as I agree that one was not correct but I'm pretty hesitant to use a Google+ page as a "official site". It'd be akin to using a Facebook page as such Cannolis (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)