Talk:David Hilbert/Archive 1

message: Did Hilbert show the equivalence of the matrix and wave formulations of quantum mechanics? Wasn't it Schrodinger?
I thought Schrodinger did, in a paper with the title "The equivalence of the matrix quantum throry and mine" (or something very like that). E4mmacro 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reid quotes Hilbert saying something like "If those guys had listened to me last time they were hear, they would have discovered the equivelence sooner."  I'm away from my library at the moment, so I may be misquoting, but I'm pretty sure this is correct. John (Jwy) 09:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schrodinger or Hilbert? 

message: Can you believe it! An arbiter reverted my dispute header 1 minute!!! after my having placed it there, due to my lethargy in leaving a comment. Sorry, I was occupied repairing the article at that time ;) The section in question was heartilly POV, but certainly should not have been deleted. I reworded to a version I hope all reasonably informed persons can accept. Sam Spade 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats part of it, yes. I think you can find the rest if you compare versions. Sam Spade 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: ;I think the old wording was better, actually. This section should add something about Hilbert's final mathematical activities, of course. Charles Matthews 07:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good lord!!! This fellow is thorough all right.
Sam Spade trying to push his whitewash of all mention of the possibility that someone Jewish might have atcualluy accomplished something  positive (even MANY JEWS might have accomplished somehting poisitve ar the same time----OHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!) even into the mathematics and science artciles??!! Good grief. The latest debate over at Adolf Hitler concerns whtehr AH was actually...heaven's forfend....a dictator!! I hate conspiracy theories, but this place often makes me wonder.--Lacatosias 11:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy NPOV, Batman! 

message: :I really wouldn't use "milk-and-water" with anything related to Bourbaki's work, as its exact formalism, structure and style is the spirit of Hilbert's program (as the page later states), is that term really necessary? 
:(DO).
::Don't get confused with the two - Bourbaki only absorbed some of the Hilbert spirit (not much interest in logic and physics ... ) Charles Matthews 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  § Side note, "Bourbaki group adopted a milk-and-water version of.." 

message: I've updated the introduction to mention physics, but not to be as specific.  The detail is only a few lines lower. I think the introduction reflects the man more - my reading: he didn't particularly "like" physics, per se. John (Jwy) 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I've revereted to Jwy's version. Paul August ☎ 21:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some insight as to why this issue might be important to someone, see Talk:Henri_Poincaré. John (Jwy) 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I was not particualrly impressed to be honest with you. I tried to integrate the two version. But see what you can make out if it.--Lacatosias 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification of the above: I meant that I was expecting much more from the Italian version because it  is listed as a Featured Article. But it turned out to be somewhat too short and oddly worded in places. But I  thought it might be of some use anyway.--Lacatosias 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definately an improvement here.  I've been meaning to add more in a similar fashion.  I plan to work up a paragraph or two on "Hilbert and Physics."  The Reid has some good stuff on that.  When I have time!  Thanks a whole lot.  Despite your reservations about it, I think the article is better! John (Jwy) 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated from Italian version... 

message: I'm not too happy with the discussion here, because the comments on formalism seem to me too 'primitive'. Just copying what it says about formalism in older texts on the philosophy of mathematics is not good enough, for an article on Hilbert. In fact probably all the articles on formalism require serious work (formalism is a thing like modernism, deserving proper scholarly discussion, and yet here we get something about as subtle as the equation "modernism = abstract art"). Charles Matthews 08:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section is superficial and strikes me as more of a dictionary definition than a real discussion of the meaning and importance of formalism. The difficutly is to try to be scholarly while remaning accessible to general readers. There is a similar problem with logicism; it's a failed program to reduce math to logic. Godel proved it wrong. Not quite that simple.--Lacatosias 10:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 23 Problems

message: Why is it being censored that Hilbert did claim priority ?  -- Thorne's quote is WRONG.  -- Hilbert claimed priority for example in Mathematische Annalen in 1924.  -- Why does it get reverted when I insert it ? -- NO CENSORSHIP ! -- Licorne 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are Hilbert's Claims of Priority Reverted ?

message: Winterberg's article does not just say that the missing part of the proofs contained the Field Equation, Winterberg shows how the Field Equation is STILL present in the proofs, on the existing pages, in various equivalent mathematical forms.   --THAT is Winterberg's main point and it should not be censored. -- Licorne 03:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Winterberg being Reverted ?

message: Alvestrand said above that it is impossible to see what Hilbert meant in that quote about posterity.  -- So, Alvestrand why did you still not delete it ? ? ? ?  PLEASE EXPLAIN. Licorne 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This incessant "PLEASE EXPLAIN" behavior is highly incivil. Please refrain from re-posting the same question within minutes of having already posted it. --Fastfission 02:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is gone, I'm glad. Licorne 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alvestrand says it is Impossible to see what Hilbert Meant

message: In the section on General Relativity and Posterity, why is Hilbert's 1924 claim of posterity being refused by you Alvestrand ? ? ? PLEASE EXPLAIN. Licorne 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Hilbert's 1924 Claim of Posterity Being CENSORED

message: A crucial point in Dr.Winterberg's paper is that the Field Equation is STILL THERE in the proofs, in equivalent mathematical forms, such as the variational principle itself.  --  WHY is this CENSORED by you Fast fission ? ? ? --- Licorne 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your presentation of Winterberg's article was twisted and deliberately shown out of context and with total lack of exact quoting, typical for you Fastfission.  -- I see Winterberg's article  is no longer mentioned there at all now, so is moot point. -- Anyone you don't like you call a crank.  I see you  try to make Winterberg out as  a LaRouchie -- that is WRONG  and he could even sue you I would think. Licorne 03:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast fission, do not CENSOR Dr.Winterberg

message: As I suggested I would, I have replaced the priority section with a Hilbert and Physics section.  I welcome comments and edits but please allow some discussion before reverting, should you be inclined.  There are obviously differences of opinion here.  My basic desire is to make this a Hilbert page and I have gone back an re-read the Reid book and have presented a section that describes his interaction with physics faithfully as I understand it from there.  I hope we can more the discussion of prioity to the appropriate page. John (Jwy) 02:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks pretty good -- a definite contribution. I think we should probably include something on the field equations, but should not let them detract from the article as a whole here. --Fastfission 02:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilbert's 20 November paper must indeed be included.  He presented the Field Equation with variational principle to complete GR, before Einstein.  --Please write it up in the page, I'm waiting. -- Also mention there the link to Einstein-Hilbert action where it says Einstein was unable to do it.  Also mention Hilbert's 1924 claim of priority, to counterbalance Thorne's imbalanced quote.  -- All this is necessary.   Licorne 03:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ANYONE WHO CAN READ GERMAN CAN TELL YOU, it is plain in Hilbert's own words, Einstein in his later publications finally arrived at the equations of MY THEORY.  -- Fastfission what does is mean ?  - Stop playing games ! -- And the other source is plain as day Einstein was UNABLE to do it -- Stop your filthy games ! -- Can't you read  English ? ? ? Licorne 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  A labor of love:  my favorite mathematician.  The reference is there, is it not?  I recommend it for anyone who has a real interest in the man.  It was not intended for mathematicians, so you can imagine it doesn't go in to great detail on the proofs or even some of the definitions.  With some math background, I found that frustrating at times, but its a quick, interesting read. John (Jwy) 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it now. Don't know how I missed it.... thanks! --Alvestrand 08:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilbert and Physics

message: Why are there no dates given in the article?  November 20, 1915 should be there I believe.   Also, Hilbert's paper  in 1916 and again in 1924 twice claimed priority for the theory, which contradicts Reid's claim in your article. 67.78.143.226 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe details of the dates and priority are irrelevant to this particular article.  There is no sign that Hilbert made a huge deal of the issue, so neither should we. John (Jwy) 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates and what they mean are disputed. They belong on the dispute page. Hilbert made a major contribution, and that needs highlighting. Focusing on dates doesn't help that. --Alvestrand 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why No Dates Given ?

message: No Dates ?  - What kind of Encyclopedia is THAT ? ? - HA HA HA.  -- Hilbert published it on  November 20, Einstein republished it five days later.  - Folsing says it just like that in his  biography  of Einstein, in all bookstores.  -- What is wrong with Wikipedia ?
Also, you say you don't want to discuss priority ?  - Well then remove from the article your false sentence that says Hilbert credited Einstein. -- Hilbert in fact on at least two occasions called it MY THEORY, so your sentence with Thorne and Reid is FALSE, remove it. 
Also, the friction over priority  was solely on Einstein's part, it is wrong not to say this. -- Einstein wrote  the nasty  letters, not Hilbert. -- Licorne 13:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are unhappy with Wikipedia, I'm sure there is information on Hilbert in many of the other encyclopedia's out there.  And the article doesn't say he ALWAYS credited Einstein, just that later he did.  John (Jwy) 16:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect as usual. -- Hilbert both earlier and  later always claimed priority, just look at the dates: Meine Theorie in 1916 to Schwarzschild, and Meiner Theorie again in 1924. Licorne 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, if you are unhappy here, why not just go somewhere else? You know that the White Nationalist Wiki has articles more in your style at it, and you could happily write whatever you want without being "CENSORED" as you put it.  --Fastfission 17:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't you insert some hard dates into your phoney encyclopedia, such as November 20, 1915, the final discovery and completion   of General Relativity. --Licorne 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughing Out Loud !

message: It's all my fault, folks!! If I had known that this endless controversy would explode as a result of my translation from the Italian version which contained a two or three line section  defending the priority of Einstein, I would not have done it. Good grief!!  What can I tell you? Just revert to the version before my edit of last week (or whwnever it was). This page seemed almost completely untouched in those days. Now, it's starting to look like the Adolf Hitler talk page!!--Lacatosias 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't blame yourself. Licorne has been beating up on the page since December 28. --Alvestrand 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And You deserve it Alvestrand.-- Put some dates into the article why not ? --Licorne 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's all MY Fault!! 

message: Whenever Thorne is quoted that Hilbert supposedly credited Einstein, it should always be there immediately added that Hilbert  twice called it my theory, in his 1924 paper and in his 1916 letter to Schwarzschild. Licorne 13:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss the priority issues on the Relativity priority dispute page. --Alvestrand 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, BUT Then you remove Reid's quote !  -  Fair is Fair !  Licorne 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No: I vote for a direct quote from Reid re this issue. Put a full quote in a footnote and call it a day. As I was working on another page I read the Reid quotes last night, and read them again. And again. And the quotes confirm that Hilbert was gracious and granted Einstein all priority-- the ideas were Einstein's. That was Hilbert's nature, to support and assist when he could. And the mathematicians of Göttingen were dazzled, fascinated, by Einstein. Maybe Hilbert could help with the nasty math ... but, hey, the ideas were Einstein's. Because that's (a lot of) what mathematicians do: invent tools for scientists and engineers. And that's what Hilbert did: invent tools: I've used Hilbert's work (analysis) all my professional life. In the spirit of the Reid text-- and you have to read most of Reid to get this-- Einstein was a student under Minkowski, and Minkowski was Hilbert's main buddy until poor M. died of appendicitis. Minkowski would joke about Einstein not attending his lectures-- that's why he was so good at physics. That's the spirit of those times, jocularity plus serious effort. Hilbert paid close attention to what Einstein was doing, but didn't do much more than assist from the background. Hilbert's fundamental interest was the "foundations" of mathematics, not physics.wvbaileyWvbailey 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your fairy tales are contradicted by the fact that Hilbert at least twice called it MY THEORY, both in his 1924 paper and again in a 1916 letter to Schwarzschild. -- MY THEORY, do you understand that ? ? Plain enough, and it contradicts Reid's fairy tales. -- That's why Hilbert's clear claim of priority belongs in the article, to contradict Reid. -- Licorne 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "My theory" doesn't mean anything out of context, and doesn't mean a whole lot unless he openly accused Einstein of plagerism, which it doesn't seem he did. More personally, your emotional, capitalized, over-italized posts fail to turn me to your side at all. Ranting less might encourage people to consider the content of the your posts.--Prosfilaes 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MY THEORY, he said it Twice.  -- Tell me what does MY THEORY mean to you ? ? -- You should be ashamed of yourself. -- Tell me what does is mean ?-- Licorne 05:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what my theory means out of context. I don't even know which theory he was talking about. If Hilbert really wanted to claim credit, Hilbert surely would have said clearly that Albert Einstein stole the theory of relativity from him, in those words.--Prosfilaes 04:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does is  mean ? Licorne 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thorne's Quote

message: I propose a vote to keep the discussion (and edits) of all matters relating to priority disputesre special relativity,general realtivity and field equations to the purposely contructed and appropriately named page Relativity priority disputes. This debate absolutely need not spill over on to every  physicist and mathematician biography which encompasses the last one and a half centuries. Furthermore, there must be severe consequences  for those who violate the consensus opinion on this matter.
:Note that Licorne is already the subject of an ArbCom case. --Alvestrand 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't know this. You referred me to something called "Requests fot comment". Is that part of the ArbCom process? I wans't sure what that was.--Lacatosias 09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: replying offpage - not relevant to Hilbert. --Alvestrand 10:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created a new page Relativity Priority Disputes, am putting some rough-draft stuff in it. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: woops. Too late smart. Didn't see the Relativity priority dispute page. Now we have two of them. So be it: "Life is tough, and then we die." Maybe morph this into a Hilbert vs Einstein page with more about the tensor calculus or whatever it was that Hilbert beat him out at. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a redirect (but left the source, so that you can copy/paste) - please help us make one page as good as possible! --Alvestrand 17:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry 'bout that. I moved the stuff out of the "redirect" onto the "Talk" page of the "relativity priority dispute". So the redirect page is "clean" I think. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, are you trying to poke fun at me or something because I mistyped the link earlier? It's up in my first edit For and is now blue which means that there is already such a page. Don't create another one!!--Lacatosias 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No fun was intended. I even went searching and didn't see the page. Oh well, if someone wants to "kill it" go ahead okay with me. I've got no stake in this. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I strongly suggest that, before fiddling here, correspondents/editors read Reid in its entirety. Especially read her Preface: in the 1960's Reid had at her disposal a wealth of direct interviews and information from people who worked with and knew Hilbert personally, including Max Born. Reid is no slouch: and her sister is Julia Robinson, a renowned mathematician. wvbaileyWvbailey 15:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilbert's MY THEORY kills Reid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk • contribs) .
I don't think the newest permutation of information should be in the introduction - it was just not that big a part of Hilbert's total contribution.  If others detect a consensus on this, I enourage editing the introduction to reflect this consensus. John (Jwy) 15:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you stop yelling and sign your posts, I'd be more inclined to discuss things with you.  But my inclination to do so has grown quite thin. John (Jwy) 17:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be fair now and give Hilbert his credit due. 66.194.98.232 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: *For. --Lacatosias 08:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a new page Relativity Priority Disputes, am putting some rough-draft stuff in it. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: woops. Too late smart. Didn't see the Relativity priority dispute page. Now we have two of them. So be it: "Life is tough, and then we die." Maybe morph this into a Hilbert vs Einstein page with more about the tensor calculus or whatever it was that Hilbert beat him out at. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a redirect (but left the source, so that you can copy/paste) - please help us make one page as good as possible! --Alvestrand 17:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry 'bout that. I moved the stuff out of the "redirect" onto the "Talk" page of the "relativity priority dispute". So the redirect page is "clean" I think. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, are you trying to poke fun at me or something because I mistyped the link earlier? It's up in my first edit For and is now blue which means that there is already such a page. Don't create another one!!--Lacatosias 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No fun was intended. I even went searching and didn't see the page. Oh well, if someone wants to "kill it" go ahead okay with me. I've got no stake in this. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For

message: HYPOCRITS ! -- VIPERS ! -- PHARISEES !   -- You say you don't want priority disputes, and that you simply want it stated on Einstein's page that he did this and that.  -- Well why then shouldn't it be on Hilbert's page, in the Introduction, that Hilbert did this and that ?   --Hilbert discovered the Field Equation to complete General Relativity, a published fact, why do you revert that, you HYPOCRITS !  You  double  standard HYPOCRITS ! --Licorne 13:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: I've removed the section in the introduction as to his greatest contribution.  I would say his greatest conribution to theoretical physics is more in providing the mathematical rigor and tools described in Hilbert-Courant.  I have my opinion about the field equation priority, but that is not part of my choice to edit this item here.  John (Jwy) 10:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I strongly suggest that, before fiddling here, correspondents/editors read Reid in its entirety. Especially read her Preface: in the 1960's Reid had at her disposal a wealth of direct interviews and information from people who worked with and knew Hilbert personally, including Max Born. Reid is no slouch: and her sister is Julia Robinson, a renowned mathematician. wvbaileyWvbailey 15:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilbert's MY THEORY kills Reid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk • contribs) .
I don't think the newest permutation of information should be in the introduction - it was just not that big a part of Hilbert's total contribution.  If others detect a consensus on this, I enourage editing the introduction to reflect this consensus. John (Jwy) 15:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you stop yelling and sign your posts, I'd be more inclined to discuss things with you.  But my inclination to do so has grown quite thin. John (Jwy) 17:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be fair now and give Hilbert his credit due. 66.194.98.232 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greatest

message: ===Reid's Quote is out of Context===
Reid's quote is out of context.  When you look at the whole context along with quotes of Hilbert regarding his own priority, Reid becomes neutralized.  Reid's quote should be removed, unless the whole context is further developed there. Licorne 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reid is an idiot his dates are even wrong, get  rid of him. Licorne 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be her. Perhaps there are inaccuracies - I wouldn't know. But you're not making a great case for your own attention to detail. Charles Matthews 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard of Reid, and clearly missed nothing. Licorne 14:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reid is an idiot. Hurling insults too now, eh, Popcorn? Enough, the temptation is too strong!!--Lacatosias 14:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any biographer who can't get dates right is an idiot, and it doesn't look good for wikipedia either ! -- Licorne 14:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In order to make it easier for people to group over Licorne's several rants, I've made them subsections of one section. The issues don't belong here anyway - if anywhere, they belong on the "dispute" page. See poll. --Alvestrand 07:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't remember saying anything about these dates. I think you are going by the submission dates, not the dates the papers appeared ("were made public"), which is ok. And I think there are conference talks mixed up with journal papers, and I haven't tried to sort it out at all. If someone could construct a list of the important dates (as dot points) that might clatify it. I do know that Hilbert's paper as published is different from the proofs dated sometime in Dec 1915. If the journals then used the current practice of giving two dates, received x, in revised form y, for both Hilbert's and Einstein's paper we would have more information. But I don't think it is very important. E4mmacro 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macrossan you know Reid's dates are wrong, why don't you speak up ? -- Licorne 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yelling about Reid and Wikipedia's Incompetence

message: Reid's quote is out of context.  When you look at the whole context along with quotes of Hilbert regarding his own priority, Reid becomes neutralized.  Reid's quote should be removed, unless the whole context is further developed there. Licorne 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reid is an idiot his dates are even wrong, get  rid of him. Licorne 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be her. Perhaps there are inaccuracies - I wouldn't know. But you're not making a great case for your own attention to detail. Charles Matthews 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard of Reid, and clearly missed nothing. Licorne 14:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reid is an idiot. Hurling insults too now, eh, Popcorn? Enough, the temptation is too strong!!--Lacatosias 14:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any biographer who can't get dates right is an idiot, and it doesn't look good for wikipedia either ! -- Licorne 14:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reid's Quote is out of Context

message: Please give here Reid's supposed evidence that Hilbert credited Einstein.  -- There is NONE. -- So remove Reid's reference he is wrong.-- Licorne 01:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What did Reid say ?

message: LOL -- What a disgrace ! -- Reid says Einstein had the field equation on November 11, which is ridiculous, Einstein had the WRONG equations at that time, Einstein didn't have  the right field equations until November 25, everyone knows that, except the wikipedia editors who are clearly incompetent, along with the idiot Reid ! -- Licorne 04:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ha Ha !  -- Reid Doesn't Even Have the Correct Dates !

message: Fastfission you can't even get your dates right yet ?  How long have you been on this project ?  You call yourself a historian ? -- LOL --  And get rid of your Reid his dates are wrong can't you see that ? -- Licorne 05:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to make it easier for people to group over Licorne's several rants, I've made them subsections of one section. The issues don't belong here anyway - if anywhere, they belong on the "dispute" page. See poll. --Alvestrand 07:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fastfission  Can't You Get Your Dates Right by Now ?

message: Michael Macrossan can't you get your dates straight by now ?  --  Einstein did NOT have the Field Equations on November 11.  -- Don't you know that ? ! -- Einstein never had the right equations until after Hilbert made them public on November 20. -- Licorne 13:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember saying anything about these dates. I think you are going by the submission dates, not the dates the papers appeared ("were made public"), which is ok. And I think there are conference talks mixed up with journal papers, and I haven't tried to sort it out at all. If someone could construct a list of the important dates (as dot points) that might clatify it. I do know that Hilbert's paper as published is different from the proofs dated sometime in Dec 1915. If the journals then used the current practice of giving two dates, received x, in revised form y, for both Hilbert's and Einstein's paper we would have more information. But I don't think it is very important. E4mmacro 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macrossan you know Reid's dates are wrong, why don't you speak up ? -- Licorne 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macrossan Can't You Get Your Dates Right by Now ?

message: One thought I've had is to contact Reid (given we don't have to raise her from the grave)-- as of 1995 she was still writing. She will probably have some background information not in the bio. Anybody have any suggestions for an efficient way to do this? e.g. to write the publisher seems like a probable dead end(?) Any academic folks out there have any contacts they can use?  wvbaileyWvbaileyWvbailey 15:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why contact her? Because Licorne is ranting on and on about her, like he has about every author who disagrees with him? Licorne not only does not understand, but would not support if he did, our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE, and will not accept anything anyone says if they don't agree with him. There is no need to cater to his nonsense; it would be a waste of Reid's time, and a waste of time for us, because that isn't how content is determined on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her dates are wrong, they are contradicted by Kip Thorne's quote in reference 9 on the Einstein page. -- Why not put correct dates ! --67.78.143.226 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly, why bother (drag Reid in)?  I suspect she will be called an idiot and get yelled at as well (I wrote this a few days ago and didn't post it - looks like I was right).  It is better to argue in a way that will get respect of the community and make the Hilbert page better reflect the man than to get sucked into debates about details that don't belong on the page (I must say, a very difficult thing to avoid).  If Hilbert and Einstein were in a race to a finish line, it is only because Einstein identified WHERE the finish line was.  Hilbert might be a faster runner (i.e. mathematician), but he was not the navigator (physicist).  He would be running fast, but without Einstein (or some other such figure) he would not be working on those equations in the first place.  His biggest contribution in this area (IMHO) was to allow Physicist to run almost as fast as himself (i.e. the mathematical tools he provided).  I believe it is in this sense that Hilbert gives his kudos to Einstein's "great idea" as I quoted from Reid.  To have the Hilbert page fail to reflect this would be letting both great men down. John (Jwy) 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without Grossmann, Einstein would have had nothing. -- Hilbert COMPLETED  the theory, which is all that matters in scientific discoveries. Licorne 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact Constance Reid for assistance here? 

message: Licorne added the following text (subsequently reverted):
:Albrecht Folsing(1998) in his biography Albert Einstein wrote (p.375) that Hilbert had concerned himself intensely with physics for a number of years, and Folsing added,
::What must have irritated Einstein was that Hilbert had published the correct field equations first - a few days before Einstein.
For the record here is the complete context in from which these quotes were taken.
:During the decisive phase Einstein even had a congenial colleague, though this caused him more annoyance than joy, as it seemed to threaten his primacy. "Only one colleague truly understood it, and he now tries skillfully to appropriate it."29 he complained to Zangger about what he evidently regarded as an attempt at plagiarism. This colleague was none other than David Hilbert, with whom, as recently as the summer, Einstein had been "absolutely delighted." What must have irritated Einstein was that Hilbert had published the correct field equations first—a few days before Einstein.
:Einstein presented his equations in Berlin on November 25, 1915, but six days earlier, on November 20, Hilbert—had derived the identical field equations for which Einstein had been searching such a long time.31 How had this happened?
:David Hilbert had concerned himself intensively with physics for a number of years; had read everything about electrons, matter, and fields: and in this context had invited Einstein to Göttingen toward the end of June 1915 to lecture on relativity theory. Einstein had stayed at the Hilberts' home, and one must assume that the week he and Hilbert spent together would have consisted of dawn-to-dusk discussions of physics. They continued their debate in writing, although Felix Klein records that "they talked past one another, as happens not infrequently between simultaneously producing mathematicians."32 Hilbert was in fact aiming at greater things than Einstein: at a theory of the entire physical world, of matter and fields, of universe and electrons—and in a strictly axiomatic structure.
:In November, when Einstein was totally absorbed in his theory of gravitation, he essentially corresponded only with Hilbert, sending Hilbert his publications and, on November 18, thanking him for a draft of his treatise. Einstein must have received that treatise immediately before writing this letter. Could Einstein, casting his eye over Hilbert's paper, have discovered the term which was still lacking in his own equations, and thus "appropriated" Hilbert? This is not really probable: Hilbert's treatise was exceedingly involved, or indeed confused—according to Felix Klein, it was the kind of work "that no one understands unless he has already mastered the whole subject."33 It cannot be entirely ruled out that Hilbert's treatise made Einstein aware of some weakness in his own equations. Nevertheless, his eventual derivation of the equations was a logical development of his earlier arguments—in which, despite all the mathematics, physical principles invariably predominated. His approach was thus quite different from Hilbert's, and Einstein's achievements can, therefore, surely be regarded as authentic.
:For a few weeks relations between Einstein and Hilbert were clouded; at least, we know that Einstein was convinced that his Göttingen lectures and some of his other thoughts had—perhaps inadvertently—been plagiarized by Hilbert. It may well be, though, that he was somewhat mollified when he saw the printed version of Hilbert's treatise, since Hilbert, in the very first sentence, paid tribute to "the gigantic problems raised by Einstein and the brilliant methods developed by him for their solution,"34 which represented the prerequisites of a new approach to the fundamentals of physics. Thirty years later, Einstein told his assistant Ernst Straus, who in turn after another thirty years told Abraham Pais, that "Hilbert had sent him a written apology, informing him that he had 'quite forgotten that lecture.' "35 If that is what happened, then it must have satisfied Einstein, for just before Christmas he wrote to Hilbert: "There has been between us something like a bad feeling, the cause of which I don't wish to analyze further. I struggled against a resulting sense of bitterness, and I did so with complete success. I once more think of you in unclouded friendship, and would ask you to try to do likewise toward me. It is, objectively speaking, a pity if two fellows who have worked their way out of this shabby world cannot find pleasure in one another."36 The reconciliation worked so well that no one else seems to have noticed any friction, and a legend arose that there had never been anything but friendly feelings between Einstein and Hilbert.37 Hilbert, like all his other colleagues, acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory.
Paul August ☎ 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Folsing is just trying to be nice - In fact, everyone knows that the Field Equation is the theory itself ! -- that's why Corry made such a big deal out of some mutilated printers proofs. Licorne 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless, Folsing's quote is still pertinent to Hilbert and the field equations, and should not be reverted. Daniela Wuench's quote was also reverted, that is CENSORSHIP in action by wikipedia. -- Meanwhile wikipedia allows Reid's quote which contains incorrect dates.  Einstein did NOT present correct field equations on Reid's November 11 date, it is a dishonest lie by wikipedia to allow that date of November 11. -- Macrossan knows this, and where is he now ? --Licorne 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the full quote Paul, very illuminating. Is this sentence wrongly quoted: "we know that Einstein and Hilbert was convinced that his Göttingen lectures and some of his other thoughts had—perhaps inadvertently—been plagiarized by Hilbert." Should it be "we know that Einstein was convinced that his Göttingen lectures and ...."? I don't why I am supposed to know the truth about this subject, on which I have said nothing except that I haven't looked into it. E4mmacro 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. You are right about my mistranscription. I've corrected it above. Paul August ☎ 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Einstein submitted several versions of his paper, one of which was submitted on November 11. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well Reid could be confused about the relative (no pun intended) significance of the four papers presented at the Prussian Academy, incorrectly picking out the Nov 11 paper, but I take her point to be that, although the field equations were not presented by Einstein in their fully correct form, until the 25th, the earlier versions of the equations were already, at least as presented on the Nov 18th, sufficient (according to Folsing) to correctly explain the perihelion precession of Mercury and to give the correct figure for the bending of light, by gravity. One wonders how history would have judged the situation if Einstein's Nov 18th paper had been, for awhile, the last word on GR, with the corrected equations only discovered some years later. My guess is that the "birth" of GR would have been dated from Nov 1915.  Paul August ☎ 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am sure you are right. But of course there will be hair-splitting about the exact date if we say "in a series of four papers Nov 4, 11, 18, 25, Einstein presented the final form .." E4mmacro 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folsing quotes  

message: But it does appear from Folsing that Einstein did not publish the correct field equation until Nov 25, 1915. What exactly is Reid saying about Nov 11? E4mmacro 05:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein submitted several versions of his paper, one of which was submitted on November 11. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well Reid could be confused about the relative (no pun intended) significance of the four papers presented at the Prussian Academy, incorrectly picking out the Nov 11 paper, but I take her point to be that, although the field equations were not presented by Einstein in their fully correct form, until the 25th, the earlier versions of the equations were already, at least as presented on the Nov 18th, sufficient (according to Folsing) to correctly explain the perihelion precession of Mercury and to give the correct figure for the bending of light, by gravity. One wonders how history would have judged the situation if Einstein's Nov 18th paper had been, for awhile, the last word on GR, with the corrected equations only discovered some years later. My guess is that the "birth" of GR would have been dated from Nov 1915.  Paul August ☎ 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am sure you are right. But of course there will be hair-splitting about the exact date if we say "in a series of four papers Nov 4, 11, 18, 25, Einstein presented the final form .." E4mmacro 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nov 11 and 25

message: Jagdish Mehra 1974 Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation, Reidel.  Mehra states that Hilbert claimed priority and Mehra cites as evidence Hilbert's 1924 words, Einstein in his later publications finally arrived at the equations of my theory.
- As if we need Mehra or anyone else to tell us what my theory means,  But wikipedia editors don't understand what is means !
Licorne 23:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jagdish Mehra says Hilbert Claimed Priority

message: Why did you revert Professor Mehra ? ?   -- Licorne 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John (Jwy) Explain Yourself

message: It should be present somewhere in the Intro the two words Field Equation. Licorne 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, unless it is in the context of how he helped other physicist in their work in general.  The field equations themselves are not the key point of Hilbert's legacy directly, its his help to the physicists in general that should be hightlighted. John (Jwy) 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilbert understood GR better than Einstein.  Einstein confusedly called it general relativity, Hilbert correctly called it the theory of gravity.  Hilbert was a thousand times more of a physicist than Einstein. Einstein struggled for years thinking there existed a general principle of relativity, which Hilbert knew did not exist.  Einstein was a lousy physicist who got his incomplete equations from Grossmann.  Hilbert straightened them all out on the Physics, which Einstein never understood. Licorne 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's where our fundamental disagreement is.  Hilbert was a mathematician.  Einstein a Physicist.  The method of thinking and processing in those fields is different.  Mathematics is a tool for the physicist, but it is not in itself physics.  From my reading, Hilbert would be (hopefully good naturedly) insulted if you called him a physicist.  I feel you are trying to use this page to trash Einstein, not to accurately represent Hilbert.  I'm not necessarily taking issue with the facts you present, just that the overall impression based on the facts selected should be "this is Hilbert" and not be "Einstein was a lousy physicist."  We already acknowledge in the article that Einstien was not a brilliant mathematician.  John (Jwy) 15:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilbert was the greatest PHYSICIST of the twentieth century, after Poincare's death. Licorne 15:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmation: we have a fundamental disagreement here. John (Jwy) 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you know about physics ? Licorne 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough. Where are your citations that Hilbert is the best physicst of the twentieth century? John (Jwy) 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough ? You mean nothing. Licorne 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant enough.  I just don't know how to answer your question otherwise - or why I need to.  John (Jwy) 16:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Licorne 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hilbert did what Einstein never could, and Hilbert knew what it  was, which Einstein never did.  --  Hilbert was the PHYSICIST, Einstein is  a media clown, and a plagiarist who always seemed to find the right equations days or months after others.  -- Licorne 16:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't getting anywhere at the moment:  Hilbert admitted he wasn't a good physicist, he needed help with it.  Few call him one of the leading physicists.  And please stick to discussing the content as per WP:ATTACK.  Its the Hilbert article, not the Jwy article. John (Jwy) 17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did Hilbert ever say that ?  What is your source with precise quote - don't put words in Hilbert's  mouth. -- It was rather Einstein who admitted he blundered as a so called physicist. -- Einstein constantly had his foot in his mouth, unless he was plagiarizing others. Einstein was no physicist at all, just a plagiarist. Licorne 22:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Two Words ''Field Equation'' belong in the Intro

message: I just quickly read the link provided by Jwy re WP:ATTACK. It's too bad that the anonymity of the 'net allows this. In my prior life, we had to sit across from one another and debate, for hours and hours, to reach consensus. It's really hard to shout in someone's face in the presence of others. Sometimes the debates got a bit hot, but we always reached consensus and ate supper together after. My advice to Jwy et. al. is to do what we did with my kids when they were misbehaving: send them to their rooms, and especially: not to engage. Just don't engage. It's been good sport to watch this, but it's gone on long enough, methinks. Move to arbitration? Vote? wvbaileyWvbailey 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't hold your breath.  --  or  rather, please do. Licorne 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring is necessary, the above exchange is not so good 

message: Hilbert's page is turning into a priority disputes page, so let's do the same thing on Einstein's page !  -- Licorne 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said no plagiarism discussion, but there is a very simple answer to your question as to how Hilbert could have plagiarised Einstein (I am NOT saying he did at all). Einstein sent Hilbert his paper of Nov 25, containg the explicit field equation in terms of the Ricci tensor and Riemann curvature scalar. This equation was not in Hilbert's printer proofs of Dec 6, as you sometimes seem to know. Hilbert made a few changes in the final paper, which is diffferent from the proofs), one of which was to derive Einstein's equation from his (Hilbert's) variational form of Nov 20 (making a few assumptions abotu how to disentangle his, Hilbert's, electromagnetic part from the gravity part). Some people (CRS I think) claimed Hilbert plagiarised Einstein in that process - I think the consensus is they are wrong on that point, but neverthelss it was POSSIBLE as far as the dates go. Though CRS were wrong on the second claim (i.e. we almost all agree that Hilbert did not plagiarise Einstein), the consensus is that you are wrong if you claim that Einstein plagiarised Hilbert - "any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step towards his field equations from Hilbert's note [Nov 20] is now definitely precluded" (T. Sauer, Archives for the History of the Exact Sciences, v53, p529) and see also the paper by Todorov who concurs with this. E4mmacro 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One fallacy, the field equation is STILL THERE IN THE PROOFS. Licorne 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Priority Disputes

message: Where we are quoting Folsing, we should write it as Folsing does:  On page 375 Folsing writes that Hilbert was on 20 November and FIVE DAYS LATER on November 25 was Einstein.  -- Since Folsing wrote it that way for emphasis and since we are quoting Folsing there, we should stick with Folsing's FIVE DAYS LATER.  --  Licorne 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Folsing is a professional writer and that is how he wrote it see his page 375.  -- He wrote it that way because it is important and not just another date.  -- The words to complete make clear the importance and should be there as well.  --  You always want to muddy the waters to cover for Einstein, but we should be clear. Licorne 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We see below that you admit you are mistaken about five days. Folsing actually wrote that Hilbert had published six days previously, as quoted by user Paul August here. You don't actually have a copy of Folsing, now, do you? E4mmacro 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: final form describes the field equations, to complete refers to the theory. Licorne 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Folsing wrote it as  ''FIVE DAYS LATER''. "six days earlier"

message: Please  avoid words like plagiarism or priority on Hilbert's page please. -- It is not done on Einstein's page and does not belong here either. Licorne 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Plagiarism Discussion Here Please

message: Licorne, Please leave your rubbish about the same equations out. You have already agreed above that Einstein's form of the explicit field equation is NOT in Hilbert's proofs. That is, you wrote above that "Winterberg clearly states that the particular form of the field equation which you have reproduced is not in the proofs".  No one now disputes that Einstein's equation can be derived from the variational form, but the fact is that Hilbert did not do this in his Nov 20 proofs (as Winterberg agrees, except he imagines the equation was in the missing page). After seeing Einstein's Nov 25 paper Hilbert changed the proofs to derive the explicit field equation (from his variational method) so that he could check it against Einstein's. He added this explicit, derived equation (still not quite the same as Einstein's, there are some assumptions requried to make them the same, see the footnote in the article if you  haven't butchered it yet). Hilbert said it seemed to be the same as Einstein's, something he didn';t say in the proofs because he didn't write the equation. He also added more credit to Einstein in the final versiont than was in the proofs. Say Hilbert's variational equation is superior if you like, but don't say it is the same. That is a false statement, or at least a biased POV statement. Could it be that you are trying to build a plagiarism case against Einstein? E4mmacro 00:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am precisely quoting Folsing page 375, Five days later Einstein prresented the identical equations.  -- You cannot argue with that, a solid recognized published source.  Licorne 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you keep reinserting this, I have placed a disputed tag. Other authors disagree, after having seen the printer's proofs. E4mmacro 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO published sources disagree with Winterberg. That is all that counts. Published sources, not you. --Licorne 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Todorov and Sauer are two published authors, and according to you Winterberg is another, which show that Folsing is wrong. Hilbert and Einstein did not publish identical equations. The Einstein field equation was not in the proofs - it was derived fro0m the variational equation after Dec 6, 1915.  E4mmacro 08:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not the same equation

message: Licrone's claim (in the footnote) that 20 missing lines from the proof are a crucial part of the proofs is POV. Based on guesswork as to what is missing. Most authors think a trivial equation is missing; conspiracy theorists think the explicit Einstein field equations were in the missing part. I could write non-crucial part is missing, but didn't, because that is POV. Claiming it is a crucial part is POV. E4mmacro 03:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously have not studied Friedwardt Winterberg's published article. Licorne 03:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "crucial part" is clearly POV. Would "non-crucial part" be POV? E4mmacro 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't even matter, because the field equation is STILL THERE.  -- Read Winterberg's published demonstration of this simple fact. Licorne 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Winterberg clearly states that the particular form of the field equation which you have reproduced is not in the proofs" (Licorne, not so long ago). But thanks for agreeing that the word crucial should be deleted. E4mmacro 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BUT he adds that equivalent forms are STILL THERE, which is all that matters.  -- Don't you know ANYTHING about math ? -- Licorne 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: E4, the fact that a quarter of a page is missing is certainly important. It means that some speculation is required to exclude the possibility that these lines contained the explicit form of the field equations. Not mentioning this to the readers of their paper is certainly a case of bad scholarship on part of CRS. And the fact that historians of science specializing on Einstein tend not to disagree openly is easily explained by the fact that Renn and Stachel control a significant part of the academic jobs for the subject. People from the outside, but still with the qualification to form their own opinion of the subject show a stronger tendency to disagree. --De kludde 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not have noticed that I had already added a footnote saying some people claim the missing 10 lines on one page are important. The proofs are available in facsimile form, as far as I know. Saying the missing lines are either cricial or non-crucial is defintely POV and the word "crucial" had to go, which is what we were dicussing. I think that turning this into an attack on the academic integrity of Stachel and others has no place on the Hilbert page. We can discuss my opinion on all this on my talk page, or your talk page, if you like. E4mmacro 00:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing 20 lines not a crucial part 

message: The sentence is "The resulting differential equations of gravitation are, it seems to me, in agreement with the broad theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". This looks like a dodgy translation to me. The German text is now also given in the footnote (everything becomes longer when you have to prove Licorne's rubbish is rubbish). It appears Licorne's translation is trying to suggest Hilbert was accusing Einstein of (what I wonder?). Hilbert's comparison with Einstein's field equation is not in the proofs, therefore it was added after Dec 6, 1915. I assume that even Licorne does not think Hilbert wrote this on Nov 20, and was anticipating that Einstein was going to write a similar equation later. I agree that Hilbert was refering most probably to the fourth of Einstein's Nov 1915 papers, the one of Nov 25 which contains the final explicit form of Einstein's field equation (but he could be refering to all the four papers of Nov 1915 and "later" means recently or "not those in 1913 or 1914).  It was because Hilbert had seen Einstein, Nov 25 1915, that Hilbert then derived the explicit field equation from his variational form so as to compare them. Bring on the request for arbitration. E4mmacro 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What your opinion is does not matter. -- Winterberg is the published source on this, not you. Licorne 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Later papers" changed to "papers subsequent to mine" 

message: This is fairly close to vandalism, Licorne. My source for Hilbert inviting Einstein to Gottingen to give six 2-hour lectures is Sauer (1999). Furthermore, Sauer mentions that Hilbert in 1912  “sent Einstein a postcard asking for offprints of [Einstein’s] papers [on kinetic theory]. Some time later [Hilbert] sent Einstein a copy of his just published book on integral equations, and then invited [Einstein] to come to Gottingen … Einstein declined saying he had nothing new to say and that he was also too busy”. Sauer is a well–researched and foot-noted paper. It is probably not in Bjerknes, so I guess you haven’t read it, but there are links on the dispute page to it. What is your source for claiming Einstein went to Hilbert for help? E4mmacro 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My source is Folsing, also Einstein-Hilbert action. Licorne 04:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If that is true you may add it but you need quote a source for it first.  - Also, Don't delete that Einstein sought Hilbert, which we have from Folsing. Licorne 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave the source above (Sauer 1999) and you might also notice above (where Paul August gave us an extensive quote from Folsing) that Folsing says the same thing: "David Hilbert had concerned himself intensively with physics for a number of years; had read everything about electrons, matter, and fields: and in this context had invited Einstein to Göttingen toward the end of June 1915 to lecture on relativity theory. Einstein had stayed at the Hilberts' home, and one must assume that the week he and Hilbert spent together would have consisted of dawn-to-dusk discussions of physics". Doesn't eaxactly sound like Einstein sought Hilbert's help. Could it be you do not have Folsing's book, but merely a few excerpts from it?  E4mmacro 05:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Around 375, ask Paul, he has it there. Also read Einstein-Hilbert action it is there too. Licorne 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Becuase Grossman was unable to figure it out for Einstein, Einstein sought the help of the famous Gottingen mathematicians Felix Klein and David Hilbert. Inspired by Mie's theory, Hilbert was already working on a unified theory of gravity. (Winteberg 2003, p 718)
Sauer (1999) refers to the evidence (letters from Hilbert to Einstein) which refutes this. Hilbert was spured by Einstein/Grossmann "Ouline" papers and invited Einstein to Gottigen (as we also know from Folsing). Winterberg doesn't know or mention that Einstein gave 12 hours of lectures at Gottigen in June-July 1915 at Hilbert's request. This unsourced statement (slur) by Winterberg suggests that the refereeing system at Z. Naturforsch is worse than wikipedia. Such a  statement here would immediately generate requests for soruces. E4mmacro 09:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious and well known. Einstein  sought Hilbert to find the solution. All of Einstein's papers before November 25 were filled with errors, he obviously needed help of Hilbert, which is obviously what then happened. Look at the history of Einstein-Hilbert action I never touched it.  It is there because it is well known that Einstein could not do it, all of Einstein's papers were wrong before November 25.Licorne 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More rubbish Einstein: sought Hilbert to solve his problem

message: For what it's worth here is the quote, which I have already provided above:
:"Einstein presented his equations in Berlin on November 25, 1915, but six days earlier, on November 20, Hilbert—had derived the identical field equations for which Einstein had been searching such a long time."
This is from:
* Albrecht Folsing: Einstein; Ewald Osers (Translator), Penguin (Non-Classics); New Ed edition (June 1, 1998). 
I don't find the exact quote "five days later on november 25 Einstein presented the identical equations" anywhere in the above, which is searchable online here.  For example searching for "November 25 Einstein" gives these these search results. Note that this edition is a translation from German into English. I don't have ready access to the German (1993) edition. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Folsing's biograpghy was first published in the USA by Viking Penguin 1997. Published by Penguin Books 1998. According to Todorov it was published before CRS "belated decision". E4mmacro 11:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CRS  IS  MOOT  POINT,  KAPUT. Licorne 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The exact quote? 

message: This has been extensively discussed, but since I added the dubious tag, I collecet the links here.
#later authors contradict Folsing on "exact equations". Sauer (1999), working from the printer's proofs, is enough to make Folsing account (not based on printer's proofs) dubious.
#not the same equation
#Difference explained in footnote, which Licorne has changed in two places (added "integral" and the 1924 reference).
E4mmacro 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THE  PROOFS  ARE  KAPUT. Licorne 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "identical equations" is dubious 

message: Do not red tag gratuitously, you need specific SOURCES that state specifically what you claim. Licorne 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. Breaking 3RR definitely is, so I've blocked L again William M. Connolley 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEED  SOURCES,  SOURCES,  SOURCES !

message: Macrossan you are purely speculating and POV, in fact Hilbert never anywhere specifically pointed at the explicit  field equation to compare it with Einstein's.   --  That is False, and just your POV.
What Hilbert said in that quote was general, he said these equations are equivalent to Einstein's later theory.  So correct the text.-- Fat fission has a fit when I do it, because he is a narrow minded bigot. Licorne 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in the process of edithing this in and Fastfission beat me to it, but:  Please leave your opinions of the people involved out of this discussion, it is counter-productive to the collaborative basis of the Wikipedia project.  If you are not a believer in collaboration, you are in the wrong place.  You should be able to make your point without attempting to tear other people down. John (Jwy) 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have toned down the business of Einstein and Hilbert.  This page is here to talk about Hilbert's accomplishments, which include the Einstein-Hilbert action.  The EFE business is a distraction IMO.  I also have trouble awarding priority to Hilbert when he chose not to claim it himself.  (There usually is a good reason for that.) --EMS | Talk 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you will get much complaint here about not awarding Hilbert priority.  The key proponent of that will be gone for quite a while, it seems.  My concern is that the article will remain too defensive as a result of recent hassles in that area and include too much on the priority issue.  Even with your recent update, it still feels that way.  But I'm a bit exhausted by recent events to try anything different right now.  If you are just getting here, consider yourself lucky.  Just take a look above and at the page history if you want to understand what I mean... John (Jwy) 05:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Before 1997, "the commonly accepted view was that David Hilbert completed the general theory of relativity at least 5 days before Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on this theory on 25 November 1915. Hilbert's article, bearing the date of submission 20 November 1915 but published only on 31 March 1916, presents a generally covariant theory of gravitation, including field equations essentially equivalent to those in Einstein's paper" (Corry, Renn and Stachel, 1997). Since the discovery of printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper of Nov 20, dated 6 Dec 1915, which show a number of differences from the finally published paper, this 'commonly accpeted view" has been challenged.
The commonly accepted view by physicists anyway, see Hawking and Thorne who can be quoted out of context of course, was that GR was always Einstein's even if Hilbert wrote the field equatiosn first and independently. The page now reflects the view that Corry et al are correct, that the discovery of the printer's proofs changes everything. I agree with that view. But the page makes it seem the recent controversy is about someone giving Hilbert credit where he had never been given credit before. E4mmacro 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm okay with that.  I've been so focussed on keeping Hilbert from being lauded as the Physicist of the Century that I have been blind to subtlies less than that.  John (Jwy) 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macrossan Hilbert never ''Compared'' that

message: : Einstein changed his mind when it was realized that his initial field equations could only be solved by T_{\mu\nu} = \mathrm{constant}, meaning that the mass-energy denisty of the unverse has to be constant.  (So the density of air, rock, vaccum, etc. had to be the same.)  Let's just say that this is not compatible with observation.  So Einstein went looking for an enabling modification, and found it in a contracted Bianchi identity which suggested adding the - (1/2) R g_{\mu\nu} term to the field equations.  Could he have obtained this term from Hilbert?  Possibly, but lacking a solid assertion of that from Hibert himself I have no good reason to assign him even that much credit.  BTW - I do not like this business to trying to reassign credit for general relativity from Einstein.  I see a controversy here that rightfully was Hilbert's to persue.  That he did not speaks strongly against it (although the use of the action principle he did take credit for without objection from Einstein, with this most likely being the meiner Theorie referred to below.)  Also kindly be aware that much work on reassigning credit from Einstein was done under the auspices of Nazi Germany and its anti-semitism, and that all efforts like yours are tainted by it. --EMS | Talk 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meine kleine Note über die Grundgleichungen der Physik haben Sie wohl erhalten. Ich möchte Sie nur darauf aufmerksam machen, dass die Forderung Determinante g=|g_{\mu\nu}|=1 ganz willkürlich und daher überflüssig ist. In meiner Theorie kommt dieselbe gar nicht in Frage. -De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Einstein changed his mind

message: Congratulations! The Good article nomination for  has passed. Many thanks to all who were involved in the creation of this article. 
However, there are a few things that could be improved upon:
*The sentence in the intro paragraph "He is one of the founders of proof theory, mathematical logic, and the distinction between mathematics and metamathematics, and warmly defended Cantor's set theory and transfinite numbers." should be rephrased (it sounds awkward right now) 
*There are too many header2 sections at the bottom. Consider grouping them all together under one section, (make them all header3 sections), or merging them into one single section. (fixed John (Jwy) 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has passed 

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 06:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations