Talk:Scottish Book

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Solved / unsolved ?[edit]

Which problems are solved already ? (Where?) Which are open ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.180.192.165 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow one of the links and see for yourself; this might be worth adding to the article if we were to describe the problems in any detail. PJTraill (talk) PJTraill (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Scotland?[edit]

A rather obvious question is entirely unaddressed in the article: why was it called the Scottish book? Mais oui! (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of writing, this is explained in the second sentence of the first paragraph. PJTraill (talk) PJTraill (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John von Neumann[edit]

I think it would be worth mentioning about John von Neumann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.81.172.134 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of writing, he is listed as a member of the school or contributor to the book. Or is something else wanted? PJTraill (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of last entry: "other sources give March 1941"[edit]

Shouldn't it be simple to look up the date of Steinhaus' last entry, and how could "other sources" be relevant when speaking about an entry in a specific notebook? :frown: — MFH:Talk 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This parenthetical remark was added in the version of 2011-08-26T10:05:52 by User:Volunteer Marek, who added most of the original content. On the referenced page, http://www.day.kiev.ua/294878/, which redirects to https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/society/scottish-book-lvivs-mathematical-relic, an article on the Scottish Book by Yurii Raikhel from 1 April, 2010, we read “The first record was made on July 17, 1935, and the last one on March 31 (according to Ulam, on May 31), 1941”. In the referenced PDFs both of the handwritten original (https://web.archive.org/web/20180428090844/http://kielich.amu.edu.pl/Stefan_Banach/pdf/ks-szkocka/ks-szkocka1pol.pdf) and of Ulam’s typed translation (https://web.archive.org/web/20180428090844/http://kielich.amu.edu.pl/Stefan_Banach/pdf/ks-szkocka/ks-szkocka3ang.pdf) the date is clearly given as 31 May, 1941. Looking at previous problems to check the dates, I see in the manuscript (M) and Ulam’s translation (U):

188: M: 27/XI 1940 / U: February 22, 1940
189: M: 31.1.1941 / U: (date omitted)
190: M: 4 (¿russian?) 1940 / U: September 4, 1941
191: M: ¿kwiecień? 1941 / U: April, 1941
192: M: maj 1941 / U: May, 1941
193: M: 31 / 5 / 1941 / U: May 31, 1941

My impression is that Raikhel must have misread the manuscript, although it seems clear enough. I think this is good enough, and I have removed the remark about March. PJTraill (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit eight years ago so I have no idea what the basis for it was, possibly the sources you mention. I'm fine with removing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Volunteer Marek: PJTraill (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]