Talk:John von Neumann/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John von Neumann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd URL was still live; 1st was replaced by direct link to AMS's Bocher prize reciepient list--Qcomp (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Macrae book

I came across a review of Macrae's biography of JvN here. I'm not proposing citing the review in the article or using anything from it directly, but I remember forming similar impressions of the book (i.e. mostly negative) when I looked at it a few years ago, so am posting the link here in case anyone wants to see it. It does seem to me that the wiki article has similar issue of being too full of breathlessness about how smart vN was. That said, it's missing one of the best stories so I'll try to research and post it in the next week or so, for possible use in the article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ulam profile

This is a very good biographical source that doesn't seem to be used in the article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cancer

http://www.math.berlin/mathematiker/john-von-neumann.html says:

John von Neumann starb am 8. Februar 1957 im Alter von 53 Jahren an Krebs – die Krankheit war offenbar durch seine Teilnahme an Nukleartests ausgelöst worden.
(tr.) John von Neumann died on 8 February 1957 at age 57 from cancer -- the illness was apparently caused by his participation in nuclear tests .

I had been wondering about this and am interested to know whether any of the full-length biographies of von Neumann say anything about it. If it's reasonably attested we should put it in the article. I think it's generally accepted that Feynman got cancer that way. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Macrae doesn't mention the issue, as far as I can find from twenty minutes of flipping through the relevant chapters. And anyway, it would just be speculation—it's usually impossible to identify the origin of a particular cancer. The same is true for Feynmann. The hypothesis you give is not mentioned in his WP article, probably because there's no citable evidence for it. So perhaps you should change your idea of "generally accepted" to something like "often speculated," in Feynmann's case. Eleuther (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Macrae's book! Obviously I wouldn't want to say anything like "generally accepted" about either Feynman or von Neumann's cancer without a decent source. But I think "generally accepted" is a meaningful term that sits between "often speculated" and "scientifically proven" in its level of how convincing people consider the available evidence to be. There's enough available data about radiation and cancer that you can compute some conditional probabilities and assign a likelihood to the proposition that someone who worked at Los Alamos and later died of cancer in fact got the cancer from there. If you get p > 0.5 then I'd say that's already stronger than speculation, and if p>0.75 I'd say that can be summarized as "probably true". I do remember hearing things like that from people who worked with Feynman. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this subject came up on the talk page before: Talk:John_von_Neumann/Archive_2#Nuclear_tests_and_cancer where someone cited a mention of the issue on p. 231 of Macrae's book. It also says that von Neumann attended a nuclear test post-WW2, which I had wondered about. I think the latter is worth mentioning in the article assuming it's documented. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I would reply, but I generally don't conduct conversations with IP addresses. Eleuther (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Beautiful evening clothes

Could we get a better citation about Hilbert's supposed question regarding von Neumann's tailor? Von Neumann's 1925 PhD was issued in Hungary and it's unlikely that Hilbert would have travelled there, though it's conceivable that von Neumann actually defended the dissertation in Germany. Ulf Hashagen's article (cited in the refs) about von Neumann's 1927 habilitation process is detailed and should be used more in the article (it's written in German but Google Translate does a somewhat useful job on it). I don't think the Hilbert quip would have taken place during that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards taking this story out due to not believing it. I've looked at Dyson's book and while it's very interesting and worth using in the article, it has many small errors and this gives the impression of being one. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Should von Neumann be categorized as a combustion scientist?

Recently an IP added the category "Combustion scientists" to the article. I reverted, since I saw nowhere in the article a mention of combustion science, or of von Neumann being a combustion scientist. After a discussion on my talk page User talk:Paul August#Combustion scientist (copied below), in which Eleuther, cited this text from the article "the discovery of the classic flow solution to blast waves, and the co-discovery of the ZND detonation model of explosives. During the 1930s, Von Neumann became an authority on the mathematics of shaped charges," Eleuther restored the category here. However I don't believe that being an authority on a certain branch of mathematics, however applicable to "combustion science", necessarily makes one a combustion scientist. I'd like to know what other editors think. Paul August ☎ 10:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I too would like to see a source naming von Neumann a combustion scientist. I am not convinced that combustion science actually is a field of research that existed during von Neumann's lifetime. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The article is already a sufficient source. (Fluid dynamics section) "Von Neumann's other contributions to fluid dynamics included the discovery of the classic flow solution to blast waves, and the co-discovery of the ZND detonation model of explosives. During the 1930s, Von Neumann became an authority on the mathematics of shaped charges." (As an aside, having one of the basic models (ZND) in a field named for you should be sufficient by itself.) (Manhattan Project section) "Beginning in the late 1930s, von Neumann developed an expertise in explosions—phenomena that are difficult to model mathematically. During this period, von Neumann was the leading authority of the mathematics of shaped charges." (etc.)
From the first sentence of the WP article on Detonation: "Detonation ... is a type of combustion involving...". The article on Combustion also lists detonation as a form of combustion. Chapter 9 of Macrae (The Exploding Calculator, 1937-43) is organized around some of von Neumann's important contributions to this area of science. (Please read.)
The anachronistic insistence, here, on a source that describes von Neumann with the exact, recently-minted term "combustion scientist," seems to me to verge on a form of trolling, i.e., an attempt to stir up a lot of pointless commotion where none is warranted. I agree that the term "combustion scientist" doesn't seem to have been common in von Neumann's day, when physics had not yet been sliced and diced into the modern plethora of specialities. But if you're going to set up a category with that name, today, it's clear from material already in the article that von Neumann should be in it, because of his basic and wide contributions to the science of combustion/detonation. No further source is needed. Indeed, I would say the opposite---if you want to exclude von Neumann from the category, you would need to supply a source justifying the fairly outre assertion that von Neumann's basic work in this field does not belong to the science of combustion. Eleuther (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Your repeated efforts to derail a thoughtful and substantive discussion with insults and personal attacks is really regrettable. Your comments would be more persuasive if you struck those portions entirely. --JBL (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, JBL, consider me rebuked. I'm not sure what part of that you found to be an insult, however. Is it the word anachronistic? I don't mean anything insulting by it, I'm just using it with the neutral, technical meaning of something that's out of its own time. So a source containing the exact term "combustion scientist" is something that almost certainly cannot be found, because that particular term was not in use at the time. Thus, requiring the exact phrase in a source, by requiring something impossible, just seems to be an arbitrary attempt to shut the discussion down, without saying anything thoughtful or substantive, i.e., anything that has to do with the meaning of the words involved, or the actual history. Or so it seems to me. Eleuther (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Combustion science is bordeline WP:MADEUP. We need sources for that reason. WEIGHT/FRINGE Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Copied discussion from User talk:Paul August#Combustion scientist

I notice that you reverted an anonymous editor (not me) who added von Neumann to the category of combustion scientists, for lack of a source. But where, exactly, do you expect a person to place a citation, if the only thing an edit does is to add a category template? I personally found the edit to be quite reasonable when I first saw it a few days ago. Macrae's chapter 9 (The Calculating Exploder, 1937-43) has a lot to say about von Neumann's work on combustion and explosions, etc., for various government agencies. And of course, von Neumann's work on the implosion method of the plutonium bomb is quintessentially about (very rapid) combustion. So, while I will not try to revert you on this myself, I think you might want to think about putting the edit back. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If no mention of combustion science is made in the article, then I don't think the category belongs. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
From the article (Fluid Dynamics section) -- "the discovery of the classic flow solution to blast waves, and the co-discovery of the ZND detonation model of explosives. During the 1930s, Von Neumann became an authority on the mathematics of shaped charges," etc. Is this not sufficient? Eleuther (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see is some reliable source calling von Neumann a "combustion scientist", and some mention of that in the article, before adding that category. Just because someone does work related to combustion, it doesn't necessarily make them a combustion scientist. Paul August ☎ 16:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've evidently encountered yet another Wikipedian-who-is-never-wrong. Discussion closed, you're not worth talking to further. Eleuther (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
To be more precise (sorry to revive this), you seem to be saying that a scientist such as von Neumann, who made basic and authoritative contributions to the science of combustion, should not be considered to be a combustion scientist, because there is no cited source that explicitly calls him a "combustion scientist." Is that right? That's nonsense. It's just you, floundering around to find a way to avoid admitting you make a mistake. Eleuther (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I would settle for a cited source which says he did combustion science. I don't know anything about "combustion science", I'm a mathematician. And I think of von Neumann as primarily a mathematician, whose mathematical work has many applications to many fields, but that doesn't make him a practitioner of each of those fields. That's just my opinion, though. I'm often wrong, and I might be wrong here. You have a different opinion. But really, neither of our opinions matter. What matters is what reliable sources say. And as an aside please stop with the personal attacks. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, stupid-head, I will stop with the personal attacks. The article already describes some contributions to the science of combustion, as I already pointed out. So there's no need for another source. Instead, I think you would need to provide a source to the effect that being an "authority on the mathematics of shaped charges" does not constitute a contribution to combustion science. By this I mean some source other than your own acclaimed ignorance of the matter (I don't know anything about "combustion science"). Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

[END OF COPIED DISCUSSION]

Discussion

  • Category:Combustion scientists was created on 2 April 2018 so it is a new and untested category. I cannot find a suitable Combustion science article to show there is a topic that requires categorization, although articles such as The Combustion Institute confirms the obvious, namely that scientists study combustion. Wikipedia's categorization procedures are not easy to understand, but it is hard to see how WP:CATDEF would be satisfied for von Neumann. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. In general, I think it is unusual to describe applied mathematicians as working in the field to which their mathematics is applied. Some other inclusions in the category are also odd, which maybe also points to an unclear definition of the field; Svante Arrhenius, for example? --JBL (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes; we do not categorize Einstein as a nuclear scientist. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that there's such a thing as a combustion scientist or that we need a category for it, but von Neumann (besides being a mathematician) had a degree in chemical engineering, that was relevant to the explosives work that he did for the Army. I believe I can source that from Dyson's book "Turing's Cathedral" if anyone cares. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
No need, the degree in chemical engineering is already in the article, in the section University studies, sourced to Wigner. Eleuther (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Lol, "95 Combustion Scientist jobs available on Indeed.com."[1] Maybe more relevant, there's a journal "Combustion Science and Technology" associated with the Combustion Institute.[2] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Combustion science looks like a manufactured pseudodiscipline. Von Neumann was not a "combustion scientist". He had no certifications or degrees in that branch of applied science, so we leave it out. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like the category has other bogus entries too. Antoine Lavoisier, combustion scientist? Wow. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, one of the things Lavoisier is best known for is the discovery of oxygen, and showing that combustion involves oxygen combining with other substances, and elucidating many other things about the process. In the info box of his WP article, the first item in the "Known for" section is Combustion. Indeed, he is basically the founding father of the science of combustion. Can you clarify why you think it's bogus for him to be in this category? You seem to be setting a fairly high bar. Eleuther (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Asking for evidence that "combustion science" is a recognized division of the applied sciences, to which von Neumann and Lavoisier are generally recognized as belonging (by membership for instance to a National Academy of Combustion Scientists) is not an unreasonable standard for inclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, SB, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Can you please spell it out in shorter sentences? There are no such national academies, nor have there ever been, as far as I can tell from a Google search. Also, why do you think that combustion science must necessarily be a division of the applied sciences? Certainly it also has a fundamental side. This is the side where Lavoisier and von Neumann made their main contributions, along with most of the other scientists who are already in the category. The division between fundamental and applied science only really arises after a discipline has reached a certain level of maturity. But even then, why do you think a scientist can't be an applied scientist in a particular area, without being a member of an academy or institute that has the name of that area in its title? That seems to be a very bureaucratic way to think about science, in my humble opinion. Eleuther (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Since you apparently agree that there are no national academies of combustion scientists, I am puzzled why you think the professional designation should be applied to the article subject. I assume you have evidence that he applied this designation to himself, or that others have described him as such. If so, please add the sources to the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, SB. In ordinary English usage, "combustion science" is a synonym for the science of combustion, just as "lunar geology" is a synonym for the geology of the moon. Similarly, "combustion scientist" is a synonym for a scientist who studies combustion. You seem to be intent on ignoring these synonym relationships, and treating "combustion science" and "combustion scientist" as some kind of key words, that must be reproduced exactly in a source, in order for the source to be acceptable to you. But that's not the way the language works. It's also not the way the basic logic works. I think you would understand the issue better if you gave a little more attention to the ordinary usage of the terms. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
So it's a WP:MADEUP term, and we are supposed to put people into the category based on original research. That doesn't seem to be compatible with WP:CATDEF, which requires that the categorization of the subject as a "combustion scientist" is commonly aND consistently aplied by reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, SB, it's not made-up. It's an established English term meaning a scientist who has contributed to the science of combustion. Quoting WP:MADEUP here seems to be off-topic. WP:MADEUP refers to "things you and your friends made up," not to phrases that already have an established meaning. Also, no WP:OR is involved here, since sources connecting von Neumann to combustion science are already present in the article in several places. Finally, WP:CATDEF requires a lot of things, but it does not require the exact name of the category to appear in a source, in order for the source to be relevant. That requirement seems to be an product of the idea (unsourced and contrary to ordinary English usage) that the term "combustion scientist" is some kind of keyword, that must appear in exactly that form. Eleuther (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that we're free to make up our own divisions of the sciences, based on common English words, and then categorize people regardless of whether reliable sources place those people into those categories. You're entitled to that opinion, but I strongly disagree with this interpretation of core Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventimg divisions of the sciences, or of promoting divisions someone else may have made up, by retroactively placing scientific luminaries in those categories. Since there is no consensus to include the category, it should be left out. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, SB. I'm not saying anything like that at all. I wish you would respond to my actual words. Let me try to spell it out as plainly as I can. First, the category already exists. I didn't create it. You may object to it, but this is not the place to debate that issue. If you feel strongly about it, I recommend you nominate the category for deletion, so the debate can occur in an appropriate place, where all the interested parties are able to participate.
Second, given that the category exists, how should we interpret the words in its title? The simple and obvious answer, I think, is that we should interpret them in the same way as we would anywhere else, such as when reading a book. Thus, in ordinary usage, the term "combustion scientist" has many synonyms and paraphrases, such as "a scientist who has made significant contributions to the study of combustion." So, a source to the effect that a scientist made significant contibutions to the field (for instance) should be sufficient. However, you (and others) seem to be saying that, because the term occurs in a category title, it must be interpreted in a much more restrictive way, as something like "a person with a certificate or membership card with the exact term combustion science printed on it." I have already invited you to give a source for this requirement (other than your own impassioned prose), and I repeat the invitation now.
Third, the category already has about fifty members. Most (all that I've checked, anyway) seem to have been added by the same anonymous editor who created the category, so the selection gives a good indication of the editor's intention for the category. It's clear that this editor did not intend the category in the restrictive sense you're advocating, which would eliminate most of its existing members. Rather, the category seems to be intended for something like "scientists who have made significant contributions to the study of combustion," as I've already suggested. Now you may of course argue (and probably will) that the creator's intentions are not normative for a category, and that the category itself is not legitimate, and so on, which you may do. However, such an argument is out of place here. It should be part of an AfD discussion for the category itself, or something like that.
I have also looked over the talk pages and edit histories of a substantial number of the articles in the category. Nowhere have I found any other sign of controversy about the category. So the question naturally arises, why all this brouhaha here? Why aren't you over on Lavoisier and Bunsen, reverting their inclusion in the category with equal passion? Can you please say something about this? Yours, truly, Eleuther (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I think probably some scientists are described by reliable sources as combustion scientists, but von Neumann isn't one of them based on my own attempts to find sources. Despite continued attempts to claim otherwise, our policies and guidelines are very clear on the requirement for sources that specifically address the categorization. And yes, there is a huge difference between calling someone a "combustion scientist", since this suggests a WP:FRINGE division of the sciences which is not widely recognized, and saying that the subject is a scientist who (among a great many other things) studied phenomena related to combustion. You would have us elide that important distinction. I imagine this category might be WP:DEFINING for some of its member articles, but isn't for this one (among several other obvious ones). You can go over to WP:CFD, or start an RfC, but the response will likely be the same. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I invite your comments (and those of any remaining watchers) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_29#Category:Combustion_scientists. Eleuther (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

His work in combustion science in the section on fluid dynamics, several citations are given there. Then, in the section on the Manhattan project his role is explained, primarily it is about combustion science, several more sources are cited there. All that seems pretty much like what a combustion scientist does. Attic Salt (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence that combustion science was a recognized division of the sciences during von Neumann's lifetime. (I am not convinced that it is a widely recognized division even now.) But since you feel that it is so self-evident, I'm sure it should be no problem to find a source that directly and explicitly supports categorizing the subject as a "combustion scientist". Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Computing

This section contains the following sentence:

The electronics of the new ENIAC ran at one-sixth the speed, but this in no way degraded the ENIAC's performance, since it was still entirely I/O bound.

There is no antecedent for "one-sixth the speed" in the article - one-sixth the speed of what? Possibly of the analog differentiators Aberdeen Proving Grounds was using prior to ENIAC to compute their trajectories? I don't know the answer, but the original author must have had something in mind.

Lewis.barnett (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not know, but I guess, one-sixth the speed of the old ENIAC, since in the same paragraph I read: "Complicated programs could be developed and debugged in days rather than the weeks required for plugboarding the old ENIAC." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I remember something about this. They modified ENIAC so you could program it with a telephone dial instead of moving wires around on a plugboard, slowing it down but making programming and debugging much more convenient. Best source is probably Goldstine's book cited in the article. You could also look at the article history to see if some context got edited out of that section. That happens all the time. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Philadelphia Experiment

Do you think they'd let us write that he faked his death so that he could participate in the Philadelphia experiment in 1983? JustinJ108 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Illness and death

The illness and death section is ... odd; for some reason it concerns itself almost entirely with von Neumann's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). --JBL (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove "Known For" collapsible list on desktop

I've read this article many times over the years on my desktop and never noticed the "Known for" list as it's always hidden.

I had a look today on my mobile, which doesn't support collapsible lists, and was blown away by how much von Neumann has really contributed to the world. It's truly astonishing.

Out of respect for von Neumann and to improve the awareness of his vast contributions, can I ask that we remove the collapsible aspect of his "Known for". It seems unfair that people who contribute the most to the world are penalised by having none of their contributions shown. Especially with the "Known for (show)" being so subtle it's astonishingly easy to miss. If we must collapse this list, can we at least show the first N items and then a "show more" ? Just make sure von Neumann's collapsed "Known for" is no shorter than anyone elses non-collapsible "known for" list. E.g. If Einstein has 15 and his list is non-collapsible, von Neumann's collapsible must have at least 15 on show when it's collapsed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StandingOnShouldersOfGIants (talk • contribs) 12:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I disagree with this change. The full list is unwieldy and too long, and puts the bottom part of the info-box way out of view. The info-box is the wrong place for such large amounts of text. You may think the meaning of the word [show] is subtle and obscure, but in fact it's a very plain word. Users who have navigated Wikipedia for any amount of time will have encountered [show] many times. In addition, it's colored as a link to hint that you should click it. I disagree with the idea of disfiguring the info-box just because one user was being obtuse about the plain meaning of such a plain word, and had apparently not yet understood the common use of [show] as a control all over Wikipedia. Eleuther (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I've used Wikipedia for 14 years, I'm native English and it isn't a problem with understanding the word itself. It's as I described above; the word is short and easily missed when looking at the article. Someone coming to this article will be unlikely to click "Show" (even if that 4 letter word did catch their eye) as they won't be aware there is good reason to show the impressive list of contributions this person has given to the world. It's hiding his greatest achievement so those lucky enough to flick by this article will require additional luck to see why this is one of the world's greats. As mentioned above, Einstein has all 15 of his on show. So I suggest we make the first 15 visible and have a "show all 87". For someone who's main reason for having his own Wikipedia page is that he's made over 87 contributions to this world and have this key criteria hidden away to make way for all the less important facts such as how he died and what university he went to seems very wrong. So wrong, after 14 years I created an account and spent 6 hours learning and applying the wiki syntax just for this one edit. On a mobile the full list is always visible. This problem I'm attempting to fix effects Desktop only. After viewing this article countless times over many years, I never once experienced the awe of seeing the full list until I viewed it on my phone for the first time last month. I'd spent years knowing John Von Neumann was famous, bumped into his various contributions through day to day life and came to read about him on this article many times wondering why I knew him so well. This one time I saw his complete list was a true epiphany and something I was quite upset by having not seen till now (as you can tell). I simply ask you this: Why should we hide away the contributions of those who have the contributed the most? If someone can, please leave the first 15 (as you see on Einstein's page) and then a collapsible "show all 87" StandingOnShouldersOfGIants (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the code example Boris, much appreciated. I wanted to do it myself but took long enough to figure out how to do what I had done already. The wiki syntax is quite different to my usual language styles (C++, Javascript). Now the last question, why is this chat using nested bullet points for replies when all the others use plain tabs :D StandingOnShouldersOfGIants (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Why bullets indeed? I do not know. Ask Eleuther. Maybe he'd like to shut you with bullets?   :-)   Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Woo woo

Article says "The 'projective measurement' scheme introduced by von Neumann, led to the development of quantum decoherence theories.[94]" cited to this chunk of woo woo (see the table of contents in the pdf). If von Neumann anticipated decoherence I'd like to hope there is a better source. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Replaced "woo woo" source with request for source.—Myasuda (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Medium article

[3] Biographical article about von Neumann in Medium.com "Cantor's paradise" section. Not that great an article imho: hagiographic, draws on the Macrae biography a lot and probably on Wikipedia too, but has some stuff that we don't, and some good photos. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC) HN thread about above article: [4] 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Article concerns

I intended to read the article with the reader's cap on but didn't get past the lead.
  • The first paragraph in the lead contains the unsourced "He integrated pure and applied sciences." Considering the number of papers the subject published (60 in pure mathematics, 60 in applied mathematics) it would seem logical. If sourced it would seem this content would be better placed in the second paragraph with a clear connection to content found in the body.
  • I made a correction by removing a double link in the same paragraph.
  • I am in the middle of something so hid an unsourced (uncited and tagged) lead quote for possible sourcing. WP:Verifiability states, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material (bold emphasis mine). B-class articles require reliable sourcing and a tagged uncited quote would be considered controversial. I am not even sure a quote in the lead serves the article justice with so much other important content in the body that could be better represented. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The lead summarizes which of that content is most important, and the quote summarizes which he thought was most important. It was very easy to source; did you even try searching Google Scholar for it? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello David, not wanting to get into some condescending dialog but, you apparently missed "I am in the middle of something". The quote was tagged since 2020 and a part of verifiability (aside from quotes to be sourced) is "WP:UNSOURCED", "WP:CHALLENGE" and "WP:BURDEN" (also referred to as "WP:PROVEIT" so take your pick, along with another policy called WP:No original research. The article is listed as a good article with 2,003 editors and 864 watchers, and I assume at least some of them are regulars to the article, yet it had an issue not even a B-class should have. The traffic shows to be 57,924 pageviews in 30 days so no telling how many since tagged. Maybe all the other editors were just too busy.
Since you did add a source in the same edit that you reverted, it actually wasn't a revert (which would be improper without adding a source since my actions were justified) but a solution to a problem and should have been just a seperate edit maybe even with a courtesy thanks for calling it to attention. It is perplexing why you didn't just do so (even foregoing any thanks), saving me consternation, but I am glad you did provide the easily found source. It saves me from a revisit that I had planned, and is why I hid the quote in the first place instead of just removing it. Have a great day., -- Otr500 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

ERROR

The description of the minimax theorem for game theory is wrong - very wrong. The theorem is NOT about games of perfect information. It IS about complete information games. It IS about finite games - games where each of the two players has only a finite set of strategies to choose from. It is NOT about infinite games, which require more assumptions in order to guarantee the theorem's conclusions. Von Neumann and Morgenstern did NOT generalize the minimax theorem to more players in 1944. In fact it is false for more than two players. One obvious way to see this is to note that any n-player game becomes an n+1 -player zero sum game upon addition of a dummy player who has only one strategy and whose payoff in any game state is minus the sum of the the others' payoffs. A generalization of one aspect of the minimax solution was demonstrated in a class of games by Nash. It is a little disturbing that such gross errors have persisted so long. Perhaps readers just come to this article for the biographic information, and read no further. 132.236.193.70 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Eugene Wigner's quote on JvN w/ regards to topology and number theory

In the article the following appears, ""Eugene Wigner wrote that "Nobody knows all science, not even von Neumann did. But as for mathematics, he contributed to every part of it except number theory and topology. That is, I think, something unique."[235]"". The source is correct, however I dispute the validity of the quote itself. Wigner gave several similar statements in various places (see [0] for example) about it but the problem with this specific version of it is that it is factually wrong (which is strange because he was friends with JvN).

Von Neumann early in his career did indeed publish a couple papers on various topics in number theory, for example his paper "Zur Prüferschen Theorie der idealen Zahlen" [1], which if I correctly remember deals with a part of the ideal theory of Ernst Kummer which later kinda died out as a research field. Searching this paper on Google shows that it appears in several number theory textbooks which should make it pretty obvious it belongs to number theory. Another one, "Ein System algebraisch unabhängiger Zahlen" [2], likewise with the previous example, a Google search for the paper title in either German or English shows that it once again belongs to number theory. There is at least one other paper he wrote on geometric number theory but it is pretty clear von Neumann did indeed publish on number theory.

The second subject, topology, is a bit more tricky. While in the second paragraph of the article it does say JvN contributed to topology as one of the many mathematics fields, I'm not sure I necessarily agree, as he didn't publish much *specifically* on topology. His work did require extensive knowledge of general topology (for example [3]), but the only paper which I would characterize as belonging specifically to topology is "On Complete Topological Spaces"[4]. JvN never published in algebraic topology or differential topology & manifolds, and only on a small section of general topology.

Overall, while you could argue that JvN didn't contribute to topology, he clearly did to number theory, and thus Wigner's quote is wrong. Additionally I believe that topology should be removed from the part of the second paragraph of the article that lists mathematics fields JvN contributed to. Are there any objects to any of this?


[0]: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-07791-7

[1]: https://zbmath.org/?q=an%3A52.0151.02

[2]: https://zbmath.org/?q=an%3A54.0096.02

[3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1968692

[4]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1989693

STEMster42 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes & References

The 'Notes' part of the article seems to mix short and long references. Given that a number of sources are repeatedly cited across many pages, I believe the shortened footnote style [0] would be the best option for the article. If someone could move many of the sources given in the 'Notes' section into the 'References' section and then give shortened references in the format of [0] in the 'Notes' section that would be great. It would also be nice if the named references could be cleaned up as many of the current names aren't very clear to what they refer to.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Shortened_footnotes

STEMster42 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Subdivision of mathematical works

I notice recently that the Wikipedia article has many of the section headings changed and content moved around, primarily by User:Guillermind81. I believe this is a bit questionable but I wanted to have a discussion on it rather than change things willy nilly. The main reason is that much of von Neumann's work particularly on the applied side is hard to break up into sections like physics or applied math or defense work. For example, his work on quantum logic originated in trying to create a basis for physics theories, but taken on its own it's more closer to the field of pure mathematics in logic or algebra. The 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification classifies it under mathematical logic and quantum theory, with the lattice portions also coming under algebra. Another example is his defense work, much of it was involving around fluid mechanics, computing, or solving various physics and engineering problems where he made fundamental contributions, which would come under the aforementioned sections rather than be one on their own. In this sense perhaps it would be better for the section to be renamed to consulting and keep the technical work to other sections and only focus on consulting in the business sense. A final example I can quickly give is on weather systems and meteorology, which again are heavily related to von Neumann's various works on fluid mechanics. His work here on for example establishing numerical meteorology programs mostly occurred while he was a consultant to the US government. Any comments on this would be appreciated. STEMster42 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi,
I appreciate your comments and apologize for not opening up for discussion earlier. For the most part, I agree with your assessment of von Neumann's work. I'm no expert on mathematical subject classification but I do know that von Neumman was more of a mathematician than anything else. My only reason to change section headings was that you ended up with a long, long section under mathematics and the rest basically got lost, and I felt this could be an obstacle for non-experts who want to become familiar with von Neumman's work. I had no other agenda other than making the article more accessible, but I am ok with your suggested scheme should the other editors agree with it. Thanks. Guillermind81 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi again,
Looking at how it (the article) was before you made your changes, I'll try split it into 'Mathematics', 'Physics' and 'Economics'. Effectively it would remove the applied mathematics section and place its items into the aforementioned three. If you wouldn't mind checking it afterwards to see if you're okay with the changes, that would be great, especially since it would likely make the 'Mathematics' section a bit longer than it is currently. As a side note, are there any opinions on the suitability of the subsection 'Weather systems and global warming' in the 'Computer Science' section? It is strange to me because they don't have much to do with computer science beyond the fact they involve computers, it would likely be something closer to applied mathematics or physics, so perhaps we should keep an applied mathematics section? Or we could move it to the physics section. Additionally, some of the content in the 'Computer Science' section could just as easily belong to a section named something like 'Theoretical Biology' or the such, things like cellular automata and the universal constructor are of the field of artificial life, which is a mix between CS and Theoretical Bio so I can understand if opinions are that it stays in the same place. Cheers. STEMster42 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll be happy to go over your changes. I think we should wait to see how those sections look before we work on the "Computer Science" section (to make sure they "flow"). Thanks. Guillermind81 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Recognition and Legacy

Currently there exists two sections 'Recognition' and 'Legacy' which in my view broadly refer to the same thing. Under recognition there exists 'cognitive abilities' and 'eidetic memory' while under legacy exists 'mastery of mathematics' and 'honors and awards'. Surely how your mastery of mathematics is known and the honors and awards you receive are a part of your recognition? Previously, and I'll page User:Guillermind81 again because he made some of these changes, mastery of mathematics was under the 'Mathematics' section and 'Honors' was a separate section with the others being the same. My suggestion would be to merge the mastery of mathematics and honors and awards subsections into the recognition section and perhaps rename it 'recognition and legacy' or something like that. A boundary between the two is difficult because while the legacy of a person generally refers to them being known *after death*, recognition could refer to them both while living and after they die. If there is a legacy section it should strictly be for legacy after death, although in my view it would be easier just to have it all under one section.

EDIT: I would also like to add I plan to have a section on his personality, and potentially a subsection on his mathematical personality, however I am unsure of how it could differ/relate to the section on his mastery of mathematics. Perhaps mathematical personality would refer to *how* he did his mathematics while mastery of mathematics would focus on the end product of his mathematical abilities? If anyone has any pointers it would be helpful thanks. STEMster42 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Career and Private Life

I was reading the Career and Private Life section, and was confused when it said, "On New Year's Day 1930, von Neumann married Marietta Kövesi," and, "In 1930, before marrying Marietta, von Neumann was baptized into the Catholic Church." Was he baptized and married on the same day? If so, it should specify that, maybe something like, "In 1930, just before... ." If not, What's going on? Thanks. Bobby Neir (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting question. The first quote is accurate to the source of it. For the source of the second quote, Bochner's biography page 446, it only states that he was baptized in 1930, and doesn't connect it to his marriage to Marietta which is mentioned only on page 445 (it says he married her before coming to Princeton in 1930), so the phrasing isn't entirely accurate for the second one. For a review of other sources:
Bhattacharya's recent biography says he was married on New Year's day 1930. Dyson's "Turing's Cathedral" says they married in 1929 without being more specific. Dyson also says they arrived in Princeton in February 1930. Israel and Gasca's "The World as a Mathematical Game" says they married before leaving for Princeton in 1930, adding "On this occasion von Neumann converted to Catholicism." (page 15). Poundstone's "Prisoner's Dilemma": "This religious confusion would follow von Neumann through a life that would include a nominal conversion to Catholicism at the time of his first marriage and essentially agnostic beliefs for most of his adult life" (page 11). It also adds on page 17 that "His financée, daughter of a Budapest doctor, agreed to marry him in December. Mariette was Catholic. Von Neumann accepted his wife's faith for the marriage." Ulam's and Halmos' obituaries both mentions their marriage being in 1930. Hargittai's "The Martians of Science" says: "Just before leaving for Princeton, von Neumann went to Budapest and married Mariette Kövesi at the very end of 1929. She was Catholic and the von Neumann family had converted to Catholicism in 1929" (page 81).
Unfortunately from this it isn't exactly clear when exactly he converted and when he married because the sources conflict but it's pretty safe to say it was between December 1929 and January 1930. It's also possible it was on the same day. STEMster42 (talk) STEMster42 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

John Patterson Mayberry

Since there was a recent edit regarding John Patterson Mayberry I thought I would a small comment in case in comes up again in the future. Although on his Mathematics Genealogy Project page[0] his adviser is listed as von Neumann there is reason to doubt this claim. His thesis title is listed as "Abelian Branched Coverings of Knots". To check this, we can look at an obituary of his[1] which says his thesis was on topology (knot theory). We can also look at papers that reference the thesis, for example[2] which on reference 19 states it as his 1955 Princeton PhD thesis. Thus we can be satisfied that this is accurate. However, looking at von Neumann's publications[3] there is nothing on low-dimensional topology or knot theory. Von Neumann himself admitted that he did not feel comfortable with it (evidence given on the main article under the "Mastery of mathematics" heading) so it would be very surprising that he would advise a PhD thesis on it, especially when Princeton at the time already had world leaders in topology, in particular Norman Steenrod, who would be far more suitable for this role. Also to note by the 1950s he was far more involved in military consulting as you can see under the "Consultancies" heading rather than academic work. This also reflects in his publication list which has significantly dried up by this time.

[0]: https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=115078

[1]: https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/st-catharines-on/john-mayberry-6115813

[2]: https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1982-271-01/S0002-9947-1982-0648083-1/

[3]: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/9789812831088_bmatter STEMster42 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead is way too long

It does not adequately summarize the body of the article. Thenightaway (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  • It's simultaneously inadequate and too long? EEng 18:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed Von Neuman cannot be easily summarized. He touched almost everything. The Lede is at par with JVN. The first two paragraphs are excellent. Limit-theorem (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_von_Neumann/Archive_3&oldid=1217247425"