Talk:Hermann Weyl

message: I replaced this sentence.  It didn't sound right to me:
: In 1913, Weyl published Die Idee der Riemannschen Fläche which unified analysis, geometry and topology in the standard model.
-- Walt Pohl 01:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In this uncertain world, there is one thing certain: there will never be an English translation of The Idea of Riemannian Surfaces available at a reasonable price to anyone who wants to read it.Lestrade (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: George Polya and Weyl, during a mathematicians gathering in Zürich (February 9, 1918), made a bet concerning the least upper bound property. This discussion was on the completely vaguenes of the concepts concerning the construction of the real numbers, sets, and countability [and that the phrases of the least upper bound property is false]. What was in debate was that it may be irrelevant asking about truth of the least upper bound property, other than the basic assertions of Georg Hegel. When the friendly bet ended, the individuals gathered cited Polya as the victor (with Kurt Gödel not in concurrence).
If it's true, it needs to be more specific about the basic assertions of Georg Hegel.  Note that neither Polya or Weyl were intuitionists so I doubt very much that any of them doubted the validity of  the construction of the real numbers.  This sounds very suspicious to me, and unless some reference is provided I think this paragraph should be removed.  Moreover, the least upper bound property is not vague; by then it had been well established (for at least 50 years).  CSTAR 19:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumbled on this discussion and wondered what on earth the issue had to do with Hegel. I assumed the reference to Hegel was just an error, but I followed the links and found an explanation.  In the 'wager' the notoriously obscure philosophy of Hegel was being used as a paradigm case of something too vague to be understood.  So the implication was that the LUB property was as hopelessly vague as Hegel. If they had waited a few years they might have used Heidegger as the paradigm instead!81.146.36.56 (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Old thread

message: The page states moved to a position closer not only to Hilbert but to that of Ernst Cassirer. Weyl however rarely refers to Cassirer, and wrote only brief articles and passages articulating this position. Do we have any sources for this?  If Weyl rarely refers to Cassirer, how do we know he moved closer to his position?  Tkuvho (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassirer 

message: The Foundations of Mathematics section dates Weyl's quote, "Mathematics with Brouwer gains its highest intuitive clarity..." to 1949, although it was present in the original 1927 version of Philosophie der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft. Is there any evidence of Weyl's attitude toward intuitionism that can better support the article's claim that, "By 1949, Weyl was thoroughly disillusioned with the ultimate value of intuitionism"? 155.101.16.251 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later attitude on Intuitionism? 

message: Especially in the first few sections of this article, there is a lot of irrelevant information. Why? In many cases, this could be deleted or reduced to footnotes -- or reduced to a small section at the end.47.215.183.159 (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant information