Jump to content

Talk:Emmy Noether

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleEmmy Noether is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 4, 2008.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
June 22, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 21, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Emmy Noether (pictured) was called "the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began" by Albert Einstein?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 23, 2017, and July 26, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

WP:URFA/2020

[edit]

I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, and initiative to review older featured articles to ensure that they still meet the featured article criteria. After reviewing this article, I have some concerns:

  • Many sources listed in "Additional sources" are not used as inline citations in the article. Should they be reviewed and used?
  • There is a huge "External links" section. Is anyone interested in going through this, using the useful sources and deleting what is not necessary?
  • There are many uncited sections throughout the article, and the orange banner above "Contributions to mathematics and physics".

Is anyone interested in resolving these, or should this article go to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the first two are related to the FA criteria. External links are not mentioned in the criteria and general references, while rare in contemporaneous editing, are not prohibited. Wikipedia:When to cite leaves room for many claims to be sourced generally but not inline.
It seems to me that there are four types of statements not followed by a small blue superscript:
  1. Content clearly found in most biographies of Noether, including many listed sources: In 1919 the University of Göttingen allowed Noether to proceed with her habilitation. These could easily be given inline citations but may not need them.
  2. Content that is sourced, but not with a small blue superscript: Although the results of Noether's first epoch were impressive and useful, her fame among mathematicians rests more on the groundbreaking work she did in her second and third epochs, as noted by Hermann Weyl and B.L. van der Waerden in their obituaries of her.
  3. Content that is mathematical/technical, where different citation styles are used to the rest of Wikipedia, such as: An example of an invariant is the discriminant B2 − 4 A C of a binary quadratic form. See Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge. Some of this may still need inline citations.
  4. Content that (while true) is not sourced and probably needs rewriting, and possibly also an inline citation: This phase marks the beginning of her engagement with abstract algebra, the field of mathematics to which she would make groundbreaking contributions.
I'm not going to be able to tackle this article myself any time soon, but I wonder if what it needs is a once-over by someone who is both a mathematician and a Wikipedian. — Bilorv (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Following up with this: Do you think this still needs a mathematician-inclined editor to take a look? Do you think this should go to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's any more likely to get the right attention at FAR, but yes, this needs a mathematician to look at. It would be a shame if this was delisted but I still can't commit to any help, regrettably. — Bilorv (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: We have a couple of math-specialist editors that watch FAR. Would you be interested in nominating this article there? That way you can better explain your concerns with this article. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

[edit]

Leaving notes here as they come up. Haven't found a citation for §University of Erlangen: "In 1910 and 1911 she published an extension of her thesis work from three variables to n variables", but Dick p. 20 could at least support her giving a lecture to the DMV on the topic in 1909. Rowe 2021 talks a bit abstractly about her work during this period on that topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on the article. I don't have a book citation for what you're looking for but the paper for this work can be found in the article Emmy Noether bibliography.
The external links for the 1910 announcement of the paper is this this (pp. 101-104). The link for the 1911 paper is this (pp. 118–154). Sgubaldo (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hopeful to find a secondary source mention, but that's a good backup. Wouldn't add them myself, since the German is a bit outside my capabilities. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kosmann-Schwarzbach, Yvette; Schwarzbach, Bertram E. (2011). The Noether Theorems: Invariance and Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century. Sources and Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences. New York: Springer. p. 44. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87868-3. ISBN 9780387878683. In her next article, 'On the theory of invariants of forms of n variables' [1911], which had been announced the year before its publication (Noether [1910]), she extended the arguments of her thesis to the case of forms in n variables. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No luck yet on the "This phase marks the beginning ..." tag in §University of Erlangen, but Dick and Rowe at least seem to dance around it, and I could probably come up with a solidly sourced similar phrase. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went through Rowe 2021, Rowe & Koreuber 2020, Dick 1981 to try and find a source for the phrase 'Her family paid for her room and board and supported her academic work' but couldn't find anything. There's plenty showcasing how she wasn't paid until 1923 but nothing specifically on her family financially supporting her. I finally found something in Page 99 of Emmy Noether: The Mother of Modern Algebra by Margaret B. W. Tent. I'm a little wary of using it a source, however, as it's aimed at young teenagers and the author creatively makes up conversations between historical figures. Does anyone know of a better source or would it be better to just remove the statement entirely? Sgubaldo (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be content with removing that. We can always restore it if a source turns up that is less marginal. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert responded with indignation, supposedly

[edit]

The current article has a sentence starting

  • Hilbert responded with indignation, supposedly...

with a footnote undermining the quotation. If the quotation is not reliable it should not be used; if it is reliable it should not be qualified in a footnote. The exchange can be summarized rather than quoted if that is all the references support. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hilbert quotation in its current form is only used by Kimberling's source. The rest quote a slightly different statement and/or say that the bathhouse quote (which was first told by Weyl in his memorial address) hasn't been authenticated.
It could be changed to something like: "Hilbert, who believed Noether's qualifications was the only important issue and that the sex of the candidate was irrelevant, objected with indignation and scolded those protesting her habilitation.[1][2]"?
Perhaps with "His objection is often said to have included the remark "After all, we are a university, not a bathhouse.",[3][4] though the utterance of this statement has not been authenticated.[2][5]" in a footnote.
Sgubaldo (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Sgubaldo (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a rewrite along those lines. It's too famous a quip to be omitted entirely. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you for the rewrite. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
excellent thanks.  Done Johnjbarton (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to algebraic variety?

[edit]

@XOR'easter: § Contributions to mathematics and physics contained the text and the algebraic varieties, removed by permalink/1254174065. Could that have been a typo for and the algebraic invariants? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Feel free to rework that sentence if you so desire. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block quote in Emmy Noether#Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics)?

[edit]

I was going to add a footnote[a] to in § Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics) and realized that there is a block quote with two[6][7] citations. Which is correct? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The nomenclature differs anong authors.

References

  1. ^ Rowe & Koreuber 2020, pp. 75–76.
  2. ^ a b Dick 1981, p. 32.
  3. ^ Kimberling 1981, p. 14.
  4. ^ Weyl 1935.
  5. ^ Rowe & Koreuber 2020, p. 75.
  6. ^ Stewart 2015, p. 183.
  7. ^ Gowers et al. 2008, p. 284.

Weyl obituary

[edit]

In 1935, Hermann Weyl subnitted an obituary to the New York Times, which they refused to print on the grounds that nobody had ever heard of him. There is an apocryphal story that Albert Einstein's "In the judgment of the most competent living mathematicians," was a slap at the NYT for being ignorant of Weyl's prominence. If there is an online copy og Weyl's obituary of Emma, I believe that it would be appropriate to cite it and quote a couple of paragraphs. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page 263 of Rowe, 2021 says
There is another reason to entertain these speculations, and this concerns the obituary article that appeared in the New York Times on May 5, 1935, signed by Einstein. An oft-repeated story about this piece is that the author was actually Hermann Weyl, but since the journalists who handled these matters had never heard of him, they asked for something from his super-famous IAS colleague. Such stories are usually difficult to refute, and something like this may well have happened. But in this particular instance, surviving textual evidence makes clear that Einstein wrote the obituary in question, or to be more precise, he drafted a German text (Fig. 9.2), which served as the basis for the published obituary. Since it appeared rather late, some three weeks after Noether’s death, it seems entirely plausible that Weyl might have submitted an obituary to the New York Times, only to have it rejected.
Sgubaldo (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emmy_Noether&oldid=1256181253"