Talk:List of scientific laws named after people

message: Many of the things listed on this page are equations, functions, etc., (e.g., Schroedinger equation, Riemann zeta function) not scientific laws (e.g., Newton's Law of Cooling) or mathematical theorems (e.g., Abel's Theorem).  Should such eponymous equations---which may define laws, but are themselves NOT laws---be removed?  --Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Equations too, or just laws?

message: If Noether's theorem is included, should we include Pythagorean theorem and all the hundreds of theorem's named after people that are already Wikipedia articles? Michael Hardy 01:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Noether's theorem is a scientific law whereas Pythagorean theorem is a mathematical one. I'm not very clear with the science vs. mathematics distinction when its comes to laws and theories. For that matter I'm not clear on the distinction between the terms "law", "theory", "theorem", "rule", "principle", "axiom", et. al. Confused Jay
I think it might be more useful if mathematical theorems had a page of their own, if for no other reason than space. Perhaps the cases can be discriminated on something like this basis: the Pythagorean theorem is established by a proof, and is part of an abstract system, plane geometry. The physical laws are established and confirmed by experimental measurements on real things, and they are subject to refinement and possible repudiation. I see that there is some confusion in nomenclature, for instance, Bernoulli's law is sometimes Bernoulli's principle and sometimes Bernoulli's theorem. 
AJim 02:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the other geometry-related laws? Olin 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pythagorean theorem]] (Mathematics - plane geometry)

message: What about Curie's law? Ross 200805
: "Magnetization is proportional to the applied magnetic field divided by temperature." - Yes ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Curie's law]]?

message: If a lens is not parallel to the film: the lens-plane, film-plane and the plane of objects in focus all intersect at one line.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scheimpflug principle]]? (Photography - geometric optics)

message: Asimov's laws of robotics come from science fiction and are not science, which is to say that they originated in science fiction and are applied primarily within science fiction.  But on top of that, they are not scientific in the way that almost all of these other laws are:  empirical or logical principles that have been proven.  Rather, Asimov's laws are specifications for how robots *should* behave, or how a human designing a robot might *want* robots to behave; they are laws the same way that it's a law that you can't cross the street except at corners.  Even the Three Laws of Robotics article does not attempt (much) to claim that they are scientific laws.  For these reasons I think the entry should be removed from this article, and I will do so if I don't hear back within a week or two.  Motorneuron 10:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asimov's Laws of Robotics are not science 

message: If no one objects, I'm turning this into a category. Isopropyl 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: The table lists a mixture of empirical laws and theoretical laws.  Shouldn't there be two tables? DFH 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical and theoretical laws 

message: Why is Titius-Bode included here? It would appear to fail the tests at Physical law. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a law has to explain and predict. exceptions of law decrease it's value, credibility, and application partially. not wholly. Bohr's atomic theory has also been problematic in explaining the electron's path. but we don't throw it away. and we use it in electromagnetics.Saeed.Veradi (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titius-Bode "law" 

message: Perhaps Moore's law would be better described as "Material science" because it's about transistor fabrication technology. Peter 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore's law 

message: Should there be a consistent capitalization of the word "law" in the name of the law? - Bevo 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Because tags like law, theorem, ... have been used inacurately throughout the history Saeed.Veradi (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "law" in the names of these laws? 

message: Missing from the list is a theorem of the Sun's radiation flux. It was defined c. 2004 and overlaps across the categories of cosmology, astronomy and astrosphysics 
center|400px
See also:
::* Computational proof by User:Gilgamesh007 and
::* Consensus of the Ahad Radius on the Sun's talk page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.214.12 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahad's Sphere of the Sun 

message: I think it would be easier to sort which articles are here if we just go for statements that contain the word "law", independent of their nature. If not every time this article is going to find new cases and nuances that have not been thought before. --MaoGo (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep only the ''laws''