Talk:David Hilbert/Archive 1

empty message

Non-zero sized reply is requested when trying to delete a message.

Is it possible to fix the picture formatting on this page? Why is the picture so far to the left?

Seems like some kind of bug. Adding caption text seems to have made the bug go away. -- Curps 19:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could somebody please provide basic glosses of the German terms within the article (Zahlbericht, Grundlagen der Geometrie) for us peasants? Looks like these might be book titles but I have no way to know.

Um, thanks.

---

Which of these problems are solved and which are not ? --Taw

The "Further information" section has a link to a site with that kind of information. --AxelBoldt

---

Shouldn't the 23 problems be on a separate page ? They are a subject of interest in themselves, and need not take up 50% of Hilbert's biography.

FvdP 17:22 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. AxelBoldt 00:27 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

Done. FvdP 22:48 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Beautification

I figured Hilbert deserved to have his page organized to look a little nicer. Hopefully if anyone has time, they can add a few more lines to his biography. Perhaps Early Life, and Education.

Schrodinger or Hilbert?

Did Hilbert show the equivalence of the matrix and wave formulations of quantum mechanics? Wasn't it Schrodinger?

I thought Schrodinger did, in a paper with the title "The equivalence of the matrix quantum throry and mine" (or something very like that). E4mmacro 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Reid quotes Hilbert saying something like "If those guys had listened to me last time they were hear, they would have discovered the equivelence sooner." I'm away from my library at the moment, so I may be misquoting, but I'm pretty sure this is correct. John (Jwy) 09:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy NPOV, Batman!

Can you believe it! An arbiter reverted my dispute header 1 minute!!! after my having placed it there, due to my lethargy in leaving a comment. Sorry, I was occupied repairing the article at that time ;) The section in question was heartilly POV, but certainly should not have been deleted. I reworded to a version I hope all reasonably informed persons can accept. Sam Spade 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• (scratching head) Just what is the POV you've eliminated? One suggesting that it was unfortunate that the Nazis purged German academia of Jews? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats part of it, yes. I think you can find the rest if you compare versions. Sam Spade 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the old wording was better, actually. This section should add something about Hilbert's final mathematical activities, of course. Charles Matthews 07

11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh good lord!!! This fellow is thorough all right.

Sam Spade trying to push his whitewash of all mention of the possibility that someone Jewish might have atcualluy accomplished something positive (even MANY JEWS might have accomplished somehting poisitve ar the same time----OHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!) even into the mathematics and science artciles??!! Good grief. The latest debate over at Adolf Hitler concerns whtehr AH was actually...heaven's forfend....a dictator!! I hate conspiracy theories, but this place often makes me wonder.--Lacatosias 11:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's last years all about Jews?

What's up with all the Jewish nonsense? The article goes as far as stating the all/most the eminent faculty were Jewish, which entirely an arbitrary POV. Only two of the DOZEN(out of 200+ faculty) were of any true eminence/importance. Further, it doesn't explain what the hell the comments are even doing on a PAGE ABOUT DAVID HILBERT.

I will continue to remove any mention of Jews on the page, as there appears to be no logical reason for it to be included.

I think you have no comprehension of the history, for example that relating to Hermann Weyl. More could be said about Hilbert's final years, clearly. But cutting out the quotes from the Constance Reid biography supporting what is said here is quite wrong. Charles Matthews 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For example, this quote from an online biography of Paul Bernays, Hilbert's collaborator in logic : When the Nazi regime made its directive against Jews in 1933, Bernays lost his post at Göttingen. Hilbert kept him on as his private assistant for several months but soon he was forced to leave Germany. He was still a Swiss citizen so a move to Zurich was not too difficult.

Now, tell me again this has nothing to do with Hilbert. Charles Matthews 22:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

§ Side note, "Bourbaki group adopted a milk-and-water version of.."

I really wouldn't use "milk-and-water" with anything related to Bourbaki's work, as its exact formalism, structure and style is the spirit of Hilbert's program (as the page later states), is that term really necessary?

(DO).

Don't get confused with the two - Bourbaki only absorbed some of the Hilbert spirit (not much interest in logic and physics ... ) Charles Matthews 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Complimentary Intro

The first sentence talks very highly of him, while not providing justification for what is said:

"David Hilbert [...] is recognized as one of the most influential mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries. His own discoveries alone would have given him that honor, yet it was his leadership in the field of mathematics throughout his later life that distinguishes him."

I appreciate his great impact, however most modern mathematicians I've talked to have never even heard of him, and I'm only familiar because of interests in quantum computing (I'm a theoretical physicist). That aside, articles on people like Paul Dirac and John Von Neumann, who I'd argue have had much more significant contributions, are a lot more reserved in their superlatives.

The influence can hardly be argued. Dirac is one reason people use Hilbert space, and von Neumann another. I don't know which mathematicians you talk to, but history is clearly not their strong suit. Charles Matthews 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably most clear is his Problems which pointed the way for much of the century's work. Maybe the intro needs to be tweaked, but I agree with Mr. Matthews about the mathematicians you've spoken to. Hilbert is one of the giants who's shoulders they operate on - perhaps down a few layers! John (Jwy) 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right... I initially misinterpreted "leadership", but see what's meant by it with his problems.

Also I didn't mean to say "most" mathematicians I talked to - just the few I've mentioned him to. Admittedly they work in different fields, but it was just my way of gauging his "popularity" (and yes, I'd also agee that popularity isn't the primary way someone's impact should be measured).

My initial comment was simply sparked after reading the intro and thinking the superlatives sounded somewhat unsubstantiated. Please feel free to disregard what I said - I have no claims to being an authority on Hilbert.Tomatoman 01:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem - my reading his biography doesn't make me much of an authority either, but If it wasn't obvious to you what his contribution was, then the intro wasn't doing its job and we should fix it! When I get some time, I'll be back! John (Jwy) 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"most modern mathematicians I've talked to have never even heard of him..." Boy, my jaw is still hanging down to the ground, so excuse any typos. I'm glad to hear it was just a couple (or a few?) that you asked. With all due respect, you really need to find better sources of mathematical history. I know of not a single mathematician that I think would not know of Hilbert. Basically the core graduate math curricula would cover the basic tools of analysis due to Hilbert. Those going to some advanced topics in algebra, would quickly hear of some famous Hilbert theorems in number theory and algebraic geometry. Those that go onto geometry/topology related studies would quickly find Hilbert had been there before them. And of course, Hilbert was very important to the Bourbaki movement and played an important role in setting forth problems that greatly influenced 20th century mathematics. Any physicist versed in general relativity would know of him also. This is just the stuff off the top of my head. He truly was a giant. --C S (Talk) 05:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But like I said, if you don't get that impression from reading the introduction, then we haven't done our job. I've updated it so I hope it does, but feel free to improve (although we don't want to move the whole article into the first paragraph!). John (Jwy) 18:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I provided some amusement :). In my defence, the few people I've mentioned him to are into complex analysis, where I'd imagine his influences are buried more deeply than they are in algebra. But yes, what I wanted to say was - I really like the intro now! It is indeed good to point out his areas of work to someone who may be unfamiliar with his work. Tomatoman 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (a Wikipedia newbie trying to give some constructive criticism, due to inability to produce anything better for now...)

At the risk of adding to the absue of the dead horse, I thought I'd share the following I found as I was researching my last addition (below): '"Indirectly, Hilbert exerted the strongest influence on the development of quantum physics at Göttingen," Heisenberg was later to write. "This influence can only be fully recognized by one who studied in Göttingen during the twenties. Hilbert and his colleages created an atmosphere of mathematics, and all the young mathematicians were trained in the thought processes of the Hilbert theory of integral equations and linear algebra that each project belonged in this field could develop better in Göttigen than any other place. It was an especially fortunate coincidence that the mathematical methods of quantum mechanics turned out to be direct applications of Hilbert's theory of integral equations. . ."' Reid (1996) p. 183

Hilbert's three questions he posed in 1928 international congress

I have been confused about the historical origins of "The Decision Problem", a phrase either coined by or attributed to, David Hilbert. This references a biography of Allen Turing written by Hodges

• Hodges, Andrew, Alan Turing: The Engima, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1983 (1st edition). Cf Chapter "The Spirit of Truth"

He turn references the Hilbert biography by Constance Reid, 1970 edition.

According to Hodges, Hilbert presented three questions to the "international congress" [of mathematicians] in 1928 the third of which became known as "the decision problem", formally as "the Entscheidungproblem". This is the question that Church and Turing answered with their proofs a few years later.

Hodges says that "In 1928, none of these questions was annswered.... In 1900 Hilbert had declared ... 'in mathematics there is no ignorabimus'; and when he retired in 1930 he went further:[30 Hodge is quoting from Reid here:]

"...The true reason, according to my thinking, why Compte could not find an unsolveable problem lies in the fact that there is no such thing as an unsolvable problem. [I have quoted only a section of the longer quote in Hodges]

"It was a view more positive than the Positivists. But at the very same meeting, a young Czech mathematician, Kurth Godel, announced results which delivered it a serious blow." [Hodges p.91-92]

I want to add something to clear this confusion up. Comments? wvbaileyWvbailey 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the question goes back to Hilbert's problem No. 2. I'm don't remember the 1928 stuff, I'll pull out my copy of the biography tonight and see what I find. John (Jwy) 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought so too but I've been informed that Hilbert's 2nd and the Entscheidnungsproblem are two different "questions", and the history seems to show that is true, at least so far... And, slightly different topic, any idea who originally coined the phrase "the halting problem"?? Thanks.wvbaileyWvbailey 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The only part of the 1928 presentation that I found mentioned in the Reid (1996) is that he ". . .added to the problem of consistency anther problem, that of the completeness of the formal system." p.189.

Introduction

I've updated the introduction to mention physics, but not to be as specific. The detail is only a few lines lower. I think the introduction reflects the man more - my reading: he didn't particularly "like" physics, per se. John (Jwy) 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifics are crucial here, do not delete them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 21:31, January 31, 2006.

They are further down in the article. John (Jwy) 21:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I've revereted to Jwy's version. Paul August ☎ 21:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For some insight as to why this issue might be important to someone, see Talk:Henri_Poincaré. John (Jwy) 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Translated from Italian version...

I was not particualrly impressed to be honest with you. I tried to integrate the two version. But see what you can make out if it.--Lacatosias 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of the above: I meant that I was expecting much more from the Italian version because it is listed as a Featured Article. But it turned out to be somewhat too short and oddly worded in places. But I thought it might be of some use anyway.--Lacatosias 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is definately an improvement here. I've been meaning to add more in a similar fashion. I plan to work up a paragraph or two on "Hilbert and Physics." The Reid has some good stuff on that. When I have time! Thanks a whole lot. Despite your reservations about it, I think the article is better! John (Jwy) 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The 23 Problems

I'm not too happy with the discussion here, because the comments on formalism seem to me too 'primitive'. Just copying what it says about formalism in older texts on the philosophy of mathematics is not good enough, for an article on Hilbert. In fact probably all the articles on formalism require serious work (formalism is a thing like modernism, deserving proper scholarly discussion, and yet here we get something about as subtle as the equation "modernism = abstract art"). Charles Matthews 08:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section is superficial and strikes me as more of a dictionary definition than a real discussion of the meaning and importance of formalism. The difficutly is to try to be scholarly while remaning accessible to general readers. There is a similar problem with logicism; it's a failed program to reduce math to logic. Godel proved it wrong. Not quite that simple.--Lacatosias 10:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert certainly operated a two-level approach: you think about mathematics in 'Cantor's Paradise', in which set theory supports conceptual thinking; and you then have a lower-level formal mathematics beneath that. Beating him with the formalist stick is really like saying that there is no difference between any programmer, and someone who writes machine code, because in the end it is machine code that is executed. He was operating without a 'compiler' concept (which he'd probably have rejected as too like the intuitionists), and his thoughts on some things were broken. But 'Hilbert the formalist' basically demeans him. Charles Matthews 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Priority

The priority issue is much too prominent, whichever way it leans. I don't particularly care which of these two geniuses got across the finish line first. Hilbert apparently didn't care too much to debate it that much. If I get around to writing a "Hilbert and Physics" section, I plan to reduce this to something like: "Hilbert discovered the field equations for general relativity about the same time as Einstein (for a discussion, see Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories)." In the context of an article about Hilbert, that's about all we need about that subject (IMHO). John (Jwy) 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate - I'd include a mention that he in fact corresponded extensively with Einstein about the issue; in my opinion, the amateur historian's focus on "priority" is doing a disservice to the importance of cooperation. --Alvestrand 07:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a fascinating topic. But the truth is that, probably, as in so many other cases, we will never really get to the bottom of it. Perhaps some day, some historians willfind the missing pice of the puzzle, etc.. But I agree with the two statements above. Hoverem it seems that one particular indivual is extremely insistent on emphasizing Hilbert's priority here in this artcile reagrdless of consensus. --Lacatosias 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne for details. I have no reservations about reverting his edits when I think they misrepresent the facts; in the end, I think the only defense Wikipedia has against this kind of behaviour is that there are more of us than there are of him; we can revert his edits without getting into trouble with WP:3RR. That said, when he does edits that respect facts and consensus, I have no reservations about leaving them in - but given past behaviour, I'm not giving him much benefit of the doubt. --Alvestrand 08:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne has tried to reinstate the same POV changes without discussion. I have reverted. This just to let everyone know. His behavior has also provoke me to add my name to the requests fot mediation.--Lacatosias 16:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

VERY MISLEADING ! -- Thorne's quote claims Hilbert did not claim priority which is WRONG -- Hilbert did in fact claim priority, and I put a link to a wikipedia article that has all the quotes of Hilbert where he did clearly claim priority, I will put the link back once more, please do not delete it. -- Also, in Winterberg's article the most important point he makes is not in guessing what was in the missing part, but rather in pointing out that the Field Equation is still there on the other pages in equivalent forms. I will insert it once more please do not delete it. Licorne 20:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote of Hilbert properly says in his later, not latest. --Also, it does then no longer logically follow that Hilbert plagiarized Einstein - that sentence is therefore untrue and should be deleted. - This explained in the WIKI article in detail, which I inserted. Licorne 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just repeating - the Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories article has the Hilbert quotes you're pointing at in full, they do not show clearly that Hilbert claimed priority to the equations, and clearly show that he credited Einstein with the GR theory. The quote is a fact; your interpretation is a POV. --Alvestrand 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert called it MEINER THEORIE -- How clear could he be ! -- Can't you read English ! -- See the source I inserted for all the occasions Hilbert clearly claimed priority ! -- No doubt about it ! -- MEINER THEORIE ----Licorne 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point the wise man tells the readers to go read the disputes page and form his own opinion on what Hilbert meant. Asking whether you can read German would be insulting. --Alvestrand 20:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

MEINER THEORIE -- don't you think a two year old could understand that ! -- Licorne 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"My theory" could mean "the theory I was working on while you were working on yours." It might mean nothing about priority. This > 2 year old mind (with some german) doesn't see it your way. John (Jwy) 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is Einstein finally arrived at the equations of my theory in his later publications. -- Clear enough for you ! -- Mathematische Annalen,92,p.2,1924. --And see the source I inserted in the article for more such quotes by Hilbert claiming priority. --Licorne 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There is still room for interpreting the German and the intent of the sentence differently. And I really don't know why I entered into this part of the debate and I don't feel you are attempting to see from my point of view even temporarily. What I am more interested in is that it is not of primary importance to the David Hilbert page that the details of this prority dispute be of prominence. In the end, it was not an issue for Hilbert and he contributed so much otherwise that it does him a disservice to spend so much of the page addressing this issue. Perhaps is should be addressed in detail, but not here. John (Jwy) 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, our friend De kludde is stating the same things over at the White Nationalist Wiki that you are stating here. That's a really good primary source. Nevertheless, I'm copying his claims over to the "Disputes" page, and trying to match them up with the real sources. All disputes belong on the disputes list... --Alvestrand 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

White Nationalist Wiki ? -- Where do I find that, what is it ? -- And what disputes list ? -- Where is De Kludde posting ? -- Licorne 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the Wiki you just pointed the Hilbert article to: WN Wiki. Didn't you check out its front page? For entertainment, read this article.

For "disputes list", it's the usual - Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. --Alvestrand 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see. Well that WN WIKI article I posted is still valuable for sources, I like it still for sources. -- As for that disputes page I am not interested, just hard facts, dates and sources, that's all I want or need. -- Licorne 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You think the White Nationalist Wiki is reliable suource of factual information regarding a scienitific priority dispute between one of the most famous and important Jewish person in the history of the world and a great mathematician of German descent??? I almost threw up just looking at the site. My second instinct was to shoot myself immediatelely since there is absolutley no hope for the human species. Horrifying!!--Lacatosias 09:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They did have good sources, and don't be so narrow minded. 66.194.104.5 16:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Iìm sure that you could have found the same good sources elsewhere if they really were such. I don't conuslt the Ku Klux Klan if I want to learn about black history and I don't consult a bunch if German neo-nazi's if I want to find good sources about any scitnfific dispute, thank you very much. There is a substantial distinction between open-minded tolerance and credulousness. If somone tells me it my be a nice refreshing experinece to drink this cup of arsenic, i doesn't follow that I am

not tolrane to new tastes in food if I don't drink it.--Lacatosias 16:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was it all reverted out, and with no explanations ? ? -- I had inserted sources and quotes of Hilbert claiming priority -- WHO DID THAT AND WHY ? ? -- Licorne 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are Hilbert's Claims of Priority Reverted ?

Why is it being censored that Hilbert did claim priority ? -- Thorne's quote is WRONG. -- Hilbert claimed priority for example in Mathematische Annalen in 1924. -- Why does it get reverted when I insert it ? -- NO CENSORSHIP ! -- Licorne 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Winterberg being Reverted ?

Winterberg's article does not just say that the missing part of the proofs contained the Field Equation, Winterberg shows how the Field Equation is STILL present in the proofs, on the existing pages, in various equivalent mathematical forms. --THAT is Winterberg's main point and it should not be censored. -- Licorne 03:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Page should look Questionable, not Hilbert's

Wikipedia is obviously biased. Einstein's page should look questionable, not Hilbert's. Those chopped up printer's proofs prove NOTHING. - And they are just printer's proofs. -- And the Field Equation is STILL THERE on the still existing pages. -- So it is Einstein's page that should look terrible, not Hilbert's.

(unsigned comment by User:Licorne)

Could you possibly be reasonable about this? I see no reason for us to get confused about Einstein's physical theory, which he spent many years getting into mathematical form, and Hilbert's contributions to the mathematical formulation of it, whicb was only possible after all that had happened. It appears that Hilbert was quite scrupulous at the time, about all that. Which is not the slightest reason for any denigration of Einstein. Charles Matthews 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact it was Grossmann who did the work for Einstein.

Einstein never even understood the physical theory, he kept calling it a General relativity, when it is really only a theory of Gravity, as Hilbert and many others always tried to correct him. 66.194.104.5 16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Now,if what you are saying is true here, this is truly an extraordinary revolution in our undettanding of scientific histiry. Congratulations!!! Now go and write a book about it and get it published and peer-reviwed by professional historians of science (I am not one I must admit) and change humanities view of Enstein, Grossman and Poincare forever. Why are you so fixated on trying to get this stuff into Wikipedia?? Answer: because anyone can edit it and it's almost impossible to get banned from this place. Why don't you try the Encylopedia Britannica??--Lacatosias 17:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you think you can stand in judgement over Einstein's insight, 90 years later, we really don't need this discussion in relation to Hilbert, do we? Charles Matthews 16:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected /semi protected

The page has been protected. What shall we do with it?

I propose (as I did above) that we replace the priority section with "Hilbert and Physics" and describe his contributions in that area (considerable, although not always intentionally physics) and reference the priority debate article in passing and be neutral in our description about it here. John (Jwy) 16:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

At the same time Licorne got banned for 24 hours. But he went on editing as User:66.194.104.5. That may be why the article was protected?

Agree that the general relativity section should be replaced - one that says "Hilbert got interested in the problem, he communicated extensively with Einstein, he did some heavy lifting in the mathematics side of things, he and Einstein both published the equations, see [dispute] for details" would be much more NPOV (and IMHO much more of a credit to Hilbert) than what's there now. --Alvestrand 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the basic idea I had. I'm re-reading Reid to get some ideas. Its been a while - I'm realizing this time through how thin it is on the mathematical details, but at least I'll get some of the general idea. May take some time, but maybe I'll start a draft here in Talk Space in the mean time. No doubt about it, Hilbert was an amazing man. John (Jwy) 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a fairly complete timeline of events on Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories and History of general relativity - you might want to check out those. (even though I've done a lot to help gather the info, I think it's reasonably NPOV to say that it's an useful collection of facts...) --Alvestrand 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll use those for one source of key points of his physics-related work, but will simply reference those articles when I get anywhere near a priority issue! John (Jwy) 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem that lead to protect was Licorne. Since I banned him (and one probable sock) I don't think full protection is needed so I've put it down to semi (on the offchance of more socks). I'm going offline for the night, but I'm sure Charles can intervene as needed... William M. Connolley 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Thanks! --Alvestrand 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, hopefully we can avoid a protect war over this. I semi'd; Splash put it back to full; I've now removed the prot entirely. Hopefully peace will ensue... William M. Connolley 12:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly an editorial dispute, to which WP:SEMI says "...is also not an appropriate solution to editorial disputes of any kind" specifically because it can (implicitly or otherwise) have the effect of inhibiting one party to the dispute and not another. The message on my talk page says "this is not an edit war (in my opinion), it's a POV pusher", which is almost the definition of an editorial dispute! Semi is for dealing with vandalism. POV-pushing needs to particularly bad if we are to call it vandalism: if we are, then a block for it ought to be appropriate outside of the 3RR. That doesn't seem to be the case here, since 3RR was relied upon for the block. If someone is circumventing a block, I suppose that rises to the level of bad-faith editing warranting semi protection, but only for the duration of the 24hr block. After that, Licorne is as entitled to be able to edit the article as anyone else, and the semi protection would have to be restored to full. It's not ok to use semi to target one, non-vandal editor. That sort of problem is for what we have dispute resolution (which I know is already in use here). It's currently unprotected; if it is reprotected, it should be fully protected if noone is circumventing blocks. -Splash^talk 14:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert quote regarding Einstein

Please be clear in the article, that Hilbert quote which seems to give priority to Einstein is taken out of context. What Hilbert did is he added the line to his final paper of 1916 to recognize that Einstein published the Theory on 25 November, and that Einstein's equations matched his (Hilbert's) own equations of 20 November. This is NOT AT ALL giving priority to Einstein as your article mistakenly implies ! -- (Einstein never presented the correct equations before 25 November) -- Licorne 13:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, have you heard of the theory that we use the Talk pages to discuss and resolve difficulties, particularly of wording? So that there can be consensus. Rather than try to insist and impose, by editing and making some rather aggressive comments? This is not my theory, by the way. I claim no priority for it. Charles Matthews 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is why I posted it here. Licorne 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The point in contention is that:

• a) there's no way to know whether Hilbert had the correct equations on November 20 - opinions differ, and people have published on various sides of the issue
• b) there's no way to know exactly what Hilbert had in mind when he wrote his sentence

What Charles is trying to suggest is that you write "Here is what I propose to write" FIRST, get clarity that there's consensus that it's reasonable, and THEN post it into the article. Your edit of today [1]represents your own POV about what Hilbert intended, and what the consensus on Winterberg's theory is - so I have reverted it. Again. --Alvestrand 15:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you believe there is no way to know what Hilbert meant by the sentence, then delete it. I prefer you keep it, it is Hilbert claiming priority. That is more reasonable than the opposite which the wikipedia article is implying. Why would Hilbert publish something if Einstein had already done it ? Your explanation makes therefore no sense whatsoever. Also the published record says Hilbert did publish the Field Equation on 20 November. Corry's proofs are destroyed by Winterberg whose sentence which I added you keep deleting, that Winterberg's article demonstrates that the Field Equation is still there in the proofs. NO ONE now challenges that Hilbert was first on 20 November. Corry can find NO publisher to accept his rebuttal. Winterberg stands. Do not again delete the conclusion of Winterberg's paper, which I will reinsert. Also Hilbert presented the Field Equation in recorded conference at Goettingen 20 November, first, before Einstein, and the publication date recognizes that in refereed article, Hilbert's final paper. Licorne 15:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I make it clear that threats like I will reinsert are simply not acceptable? Edit warring is considered extremely negative. That is, if the point you are trying to make is not generally accepted, you must engage with others, and clarify the issues. Don't just rant on about the background to this. Propose a wording, here, for others to comment on. Charles Matthews 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I answered his question and showed how it should properly therefore look. Licorne 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Everyone always agreed Hilbert had the Field Equation on 20 November, until Corry came up with these proofs, but Winterberg showed the Field Equations are STILL THERE in the proofs, so do not delete Winterberg's conclusion, this is the whole point of his article so should not be censored. Licorne 15:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of trying to agree on an interpretation of the sentence here, would anyone object to a version of the article without it? I will carve some time out tonight (West Coast US time) and edit in a proposed section of the article as I've suggested above, replacing the current Einstein section. John (Jwy) 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was unable to carve all the time I had hoped. I was going fine in my reading until I hit 1912 when it seems Hilbert turned Physicist and there I'm trying to summorize a bunch of stuff. I will get at it again tomorrow after some sleep. Apologies. To repeat my intention in respect to our favorite subject: I intend to mention that Hilbert and Einstein produced their results in parallel at about the same time, but will leave the discussion of priority to the other article. John (Jwy) 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That sentence was a clear claim of priority by Hilbert for himself. But since people want to twist it into something else, I just knocked it out. Better just to forget it if it causes conflicts, so forget it please. --If you are looking for another place where Hilbert also claimed priority it is in Mathematische Annalen, 92, p.2, 1924, where Hilbert wrote Einstein in his later publications finally arrived at the equations of my theory. --Use that if you want. I had put it in myself but some jerk keeps deleting it with no explanation. Licorne 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is very encouraging. People did not read the sentence by Hilbert the way you wanted them to, and therefore you deleted it, and instead reinserted the POV statement about Winterberg "proving" that your viewpoint was right. I'd prefer the previous version. --Alvestrand 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To John, do not delete the Einstein section without first proposing your ideas here. -- We might find your proposal to be nonsense. Licorne 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't come well from you, my friend. You have very clearly been asked to work on drafting something here. If you continue with language like jerk and nonsense, you'll have to take the consequences. The implications of ignoring policy on civility and edit warring are serious, and pushing a point of view into an article against others' wishes is also contrary to everything the editing process is supposed to achieve. Charles Matthews 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

DO YOU or anyone else object to my inserting the quote from Mathematische Annalen ? ? ? Licorne

I will respectfully follow the usual procedure (including the procedure you follow) of updating the article and allowing other editors to update it. I have every intention of minimizing the amount of "nonsense." I hope you will refrain from quick judgements and allow some discussion of it among the other editors before reverting it, should that be your inclination. I am hopeful you will NOT be so inclined. John (Jwy) 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

HELLO JOHN, I am right here -- What do you propose ? ? ? Licorne 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[2] John (Jwy) 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean ? ? -- Please type it out here what you propose, I'm here waiting. Licorne 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It means 1) I've already proposed what I plan to do and have referenced that above, 2) I have a life beyond Wikipedia that needs attending to until this evening and 3) I guess I wasn't clear, I plan not to discuss the priorty debate in this article whatsoever. John (Jwy) 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked above, but your intentions are not at all there clear. Please state here what you propose. Licorne 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my inserting the quote from Mathematische Annalen ? ? ? If so, say why. Licorne

I would prefer it not. I would prefer the priority debate not go on in this article. John (Jwy) 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends on context. If you insert the quote from 1924 (it's on Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories, with discussions around it), that should not be a problem in itself. If you insert a claim that this quote "proves" that Hilbert claimed priority, that's a non-consensus POV, and should be reverted. I also, like Jwy, think that harping on the priority subject obscures the value of Hilbert's contribution - Hilbert's contribution would be a much better focus for the article. My opinion, other editors may think differently. --Alvestrand 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC

I'm not saying it proves anything, just that it is a relevent quote in a section entitled General Relativity and Priority is it not. Licorne 21:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The section is entitled General Relativity and Priority -- should that be renamed ? ? or else Hilbert's claim of priority belongs there does it not. Licorne 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on this were expressed here. John (Jwy) 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please rephrase your proposal here now. Licorne 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I renamed it that only a few days ago, to clarify what was actually in the section at the time. There should be more, clearly, than the 'case' on priority; which, as a discussion, is much more to do with trying to understanding the background on Einstein, than anything much about Hilbert. From the Hilbert aspect, one can see that Hilbert had been trying to axiomatise other parts of physics, and the physicists (as usual) weren't that interested. Then Einstein comes along - well known to the Göttingen folk from the previous decade when he had 'consulted' Minkowski - and Hilbert finds it remarkably easy to get up to speed with some cutting-edge physics. He intuits a variational principle, discovers that it is what Einstein had been working on, as matter of mathematical equivalence. I can't imagine for a moment that he thought he had priority on the physics; he was not a physicist, for one thing, and also the atmosphere of high-level research is fundamentally one of respect for the pioneer work of others.

So, I'm not impressed with your lawyer's case on this: the 'evidence' is not much to do with Hilbert. But in any case this section needs expanding backm in time, to fill in the Göttingen development of mathematical physics that meant that Einstein might have had a reason for being there at all in 1915. Charles Matthews 21:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And Licorne, if you make 25 edits to a talk page in a day without coming up with a form of words, there's something wrong with your approach, isn't there? Charles Matthews 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

TO ALL OF YOU : What are you proposing to add ? ? ? Please be specific. Licorne 22:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WHO JUST NOW reverted that quote back in ? ? IDENTIFY YOURSELF IMMEDIATELY. -- Alvestrand said it is impossible to see what Hilbert meant by the quote so it was DELETED. -- WHO PUT IT BACK ? ? ? -- IDENTIFY YOURSELF --Licorne 00:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted you because you 1. cluttered things up with non-clarifying and non-NPOV additions about the Winterberg article and 2. replaced a sentence about Hilbert claiming to credit Einstein (which, whether this is the case or not, is certainly something a number of historians have mentioned, and whether it needs clarification/qualification/citation or not, should not simply be deleted) with your same tired rag about the "my theory" bit, which nobody but you seems to think should be the final word on the subject, especially not in the way you have written about it.

Also, you can easily see who reverted an article if you click on the "History" link at the top of the article.

Lastly, if Alvestrand wants it to be edited in a way, let him edit it that way himself. As in this situation and others, you seem to enjoy taking an interpretation of another editor and trying to use it by itself to get articles you way. My experience of you doing this on the Poincaré talk page (invoking the "intentions" of Macrossan) is that you are usually not doing it in good faith. I imagine that is how everyone else views it as well. So you might as well not do it -- it doesn't help you case, it doesn't convince anyone, and it makes you look dishonest. Just a tip.

In this case, I see nothing above by Alvestrand which would justify the edits you made in the slightest. He seems to me to be saying that the priority dispute should not overburden the article. Using that as a justification to remove a line which you don't like, and to replace it with two paragraphs of a POV that you do like, is clearly silly. But again, if Alvestrand wanted to do that, it would be up to him to do it -- you should not feel the need to personally interpret his will into the article! In fact, I imagine he probably does not want you to do so. --Fastfission 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand says it is Impossible to see what Hilbert Meant

Alvestrand said above that it is impossible to see what Hilbert meant in that quote about posterity. -- So, Alvestrand why did you still not delete it ? ? ? ? PLEASE EXPLAIN. Licorne 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This incessant "PLEASE EXPLAIN" behavior is highly incivil. Please refrain from re-posting the same question within minutes of having already posted it. --Fastfission 02:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote is gone, I'm glad. Licorne 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Hilbert's 1924 Claim of Posterity Being CENSORED

In the section on General Relativity and Posterity, why is Hilbert's 1924 claim of posterity being refused by you Alvestrand ? ? ? PLEASE EXPLAIN. Licorne 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast fission, do not CENSOR Dr.Winterberg

A crucial point in Dr.Winterberg's paper is that the Field Equation is STILL THERE in the proofs, in equivalent mathematical forms, such as the variational principle itself. -- WHY is this CENSORED by you Fast fission ? ? ? --- Licorne 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• You know, nobody at all is fooled by the "CENSORED!" talk that you seem to think is convincing. It really does make you look like a complete crank at this. If you have any intention of being taken seriously, here or elsewhere, I suggest you learn how to be a bit more persuasive in communicating with others. As for the specific bit -- I simply reverted the otherwise problematic edits you made, I did not go over them in detail. I don't trust you to summarize articles correctly, given your history of misquoting and quoting out of context, for one thing. I don't think the reference to Winterberg which is currently there is deficient for the moment, and the world will not end if your more extreme edits are delayed a bit longer. Ease up and calm down. --Fastfission 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your presentation of Winterberg's article was twisted and deliberately shown out of context and with total lack of exact quoting, typical for you Fastfission. -- I see Winterberg's article is no longer mentioned there at all now, so is moot point. -- Anyone you don't like you call a crank. I see you try to make Winterberg out as a LaRouchie -- that is WRONG and he could even sue you I would think. Licorne 03:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert and Physics

As I suggested I would, I have replaced the priority section with a Hilbert and Physics section. I welcome comments and edits but please allow some discussion before reverting, should you be inclined. There are obviously differences of opinion here. My basic desire is to make this a Hilbert page and I have gone back an re-read the Reid book and have presented a section that describes his interaction with physics faithfully as I understand it from there. I hope we can more the discussion of prioity to the appropriate page. John (Jwy) 02:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks pretty good -- a definite contribution. I think we should probably include something on the field equations, but should not let them detract from the article as a whole here. --Fastfission 02:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's 20 November paper must indeed be included. He presented the Field Equation with variational principle to complete GR, before Einstein. --Please write it up in the page, I'm waiting. -- Also mention there the link to Einstein-Hilbert action where it says Einstein was unable to do it. Also mention Hilbert's 1924 claim of priority, to counterbalance Thorne's imbalanced quote. -- All this is necessary. Licorne 03:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

John suggested and did it, now I will do as I have suggested. Licorne 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just because you suggested it (as you have again and again and again) does not mean it satisfies any of the concerns about it. The 1924 bit is so tenuous it is not worth mentioning unless you have a good, reliable, mainstream secondary source which makes that interpretation of it. The Einstein-Hilbert action part does not say "Einstein was unable to do it" in a unilateral sense -- it refers to the reason why Einstein originally collaborated with HIlbert on the question, it does not speak to the resolution of it at all. You're being sloppy beyond all excuses. And Thorne's quote is not even in this article. --Fastfission 05:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

ANYONE WHO CAN READ GERMAN CAN TELL YOU, it is plain in Hilbert's own words, Einstein in his later publications finally arrived at the equations of MY THEORY. -- Fastfission what does is mean ? - Stop playing games ! -- And the other source is plain as day Einstein was UNABLE to do it -- Stop your filthy games ! -- Can't you read English ? ? ? Licorne 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

John, I think this new section is absolutely great! The only thing missing is the citation data for Reid's book in the "references" section, I think. Now we just have to make sure Licorne doesn't POV it to death... --Alvestrand 06:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! A labor of love: my favorite mathematician. The reference is there, is it not? I recommend it for anyone who has a real interest in the man. It was not intended for mathematicians, so you can imagine it doesn't go in to great detail on the proofs or even some of the definitions. With some math background, I found that frustrating at times, but its a quick, interesting read. John (Jwy) 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it now. Don't know how I missed it.... thanks! --Alvestrand 08:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why No Dates Given ?

Why are there no dates given in the article? November 20, 1915 should be there I believe. Also, Hilbert's paper in 1916 and again in 1924 twice claimed priority for the theory, which contradicts Reid's claim in your article. 67.78.143.226 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe details of the dates and priority are irrelevant to this particular article. There is no sign that Hilbert made a huge deal of the issue, so neither should we. John (Jwy) 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The dates and what they mean are disputed. They belong on the dispute page. Hilbert made a major contribution, and that needs highlighting. Focusing on dates doesn't help that. --Alvestrand 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud !

No Dates ? - What kind of Encyclopedia is THAT ? ? - HA HA HA. -- Hilbert published it on November 20, Einstein republished it five days later. - Folsing says it just like that in his biography of Einstein, in all bookstores. -- What is wrong with Wikipedia ?

Also, you say you don't want to discuss priority ? - Well then remove from the article your false sentence that says Hilbert credited Einstein. -- Hilbert in fact on at least two occasions called it MY THEORY, so your sentence with Thorne and Reid is FALSE, remove it.

Also, the friction over priority was solely on Einstein's part, it is wrong not to say this. -- Einstein wrote the nasty letters, not Hilbert. -- Licorne 13:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with Wikipedia, I'm sure there is information on Hilbert in many of the other encyclopedia's out there. And the article doesn't say he ALWAYS credited Einstein, just that later he did. John (Jwy) 16:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect as usual. -- Hilbert both earlier and later always claimed priority, just look at the dates: Meine Theorie in 1916 to Schwarzschild, and Meiner Theorie again in 1924. Licorne 21:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you are unhappy here, why not just go somewhere else? You know that the White Nationalist Wiki has articles more in your style at it, and you could happily write whatever you want without being "CENSORED" as you put it. --Fastfission 17:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you insert some hard dates into your phoney encyclopedia, such as November 20, 1915, the final discovery and completion of General Relativity. --Licorne 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's all MY Fault!!

It's all my fault, folks!! If I had known that this endless controversy would explode as a result of my translation from the Italian version which contained a two or three line section defending the priority of Einstein, I would not have done it. Good grief!! What can I tell you? Just revert to the version before my edit of last week (or whwnever it was). This page seemed almost completely untouched in those days. Now, it's starting to look like the Adolf Hitler talk page!!--Lacatosias 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame yourself. Licorne has been beating up on the page since December 28. --Alvestrand 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And You deserve it Alvestrand.-- Put some dates into the article why not ? --Licorne 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thorne's Quote

Whenever Thorne is quoted that Hilbert supposedly credited Einstein, it should always be there immediately added that Hilbert twice called it my theory, in his 1924 paper and in his 1916 letter to Schwarzschild. Licorne 13:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the priority issues on the Relativity priority dispute page. --Alvestrand 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, BUT Then you remove Reid's quote ! - Fair is Fair ! Licorne 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No: I vote for a direct quote from Reid re this issue. Put a full quote in a footnote and call it a day. As I was working on another page I read the Reid quotes last night, and read them again. And again. And the quotes confirm that Hilbert was gracious and granted Einstein all priority-- the ideas were Einstein's. That was Hilbert's nature, to support and assist when he could. And the mathematicians of Göttingen were dazzled, fascinated, by Einstein. Maybe Hilbert could help with the nasty math ... but, hey, the ideas were Einstein's. Because that's (a lot of) what mathematicians do: invent tools for scientists and engineers. And that's what Hilbert did: invent tools: I've used Hilbert's work (analysis) all my professional life. In the spirit of the Reid text-- and you have to read most of Reid to get this-- Einstein was a student under Minkowski, and Minkowski was Hilbert's main buddy until poor M. died of appendicitis. Minkowski would joke about Einstein not attending his lectures-- that's why he was so good at physics. That's the spirit of those times, jocularity plus serious effort. Hilbert paid close attention to what Einstein was doing, but didn't do much more than assist from the background. Hilbert's fundamental interest was the "foundations" of mathematics, not physics.wvbaileyWvbailey 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your fairy tales are contradicted by the fact that Hilbert at least twice called it MY THEORY, both in his 1924 paper and again in a 1916 letter to Schwarzschild. -- MY THEORY, do you understand that ? ? Plain enough, and it contradicts Reid's fairy tales. -- That's why Hilbert's clear claim of priority belongs in the article, to contradict Reid. -- Licorne 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"My theory" doesn't mean anything out of context, and doesn't mean a whole lot unless he openly accused Einstein of plagerism, which it doesn't seem he did. More personally, your emotional, capitalized, over-italized posts fail to turn me to your side at all. Ranting less might encourage people to consider the content of the your posts.--Prosfilaes 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

MY THEORY, he said it Twice. -- Tell me what does MY THEORY mean to you ? ? -- You should be ashamed of yourself. -- Tell me what does is mean ?-- Licorne 05:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what my theory means out of context. I don't even know which theory he was talking about. If Hilbert really wanted to claim credit, Hilbert surely would have said clearly that Albert Einstein stole the theory of relativity from him, in those words.--Prosfilaes 04:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What does is mean ? Licorne 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote

I propose a vote to keep the discussion (and edits) of all matters relating to priority disputesre special relativity,general realtivity and field equations to the purposely contructed and appropriately named page Relativity priority disputes. This debate absolutely need not spill over on to every physicist and mathematician biography which encompasses the last one and a half centuries. Furthermore, there must be severe consequences for those who violate the consensus opinion on this matter.

Note that Licorne is already the subject of an ArbCom case. --Alvestrand 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know this. You referred me to something called "Requests fot comment". Is that part of the ArbCom process? I wans't sure what that was.--Lacatosias 09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

replying offpage - not relevant to Hilbert. --Alvestrand 10:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For

• For. --Lacatosias 08:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Justification: This is absolute, uncontrollable anarchy. One particalr individual is incessantly trolling and vandalizing this page, that of Einstin, Poincaré, etc, etc, in order to promote an extraordinarily tiny minority point of view. People have been banned outright for similar, or much less irresponable behavior ( see the case of User:EffK).
• For. --Alvestrand 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. A new page is a great idea. Put a link on the Hilbert, Einstein etc. pages with an explanatory footnote. Ferchrissake this is just an encyclopedia entry-- not all the POV's can be presented in detail. If a scholarly article on this submitted to and accepted by e.g. The American Scholar then this legitimize would the issue. wvbaileyWvbailey 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created a new page Relativity Priority Disputes, am putting some rough-draft stuff in it. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

woops. Too late smart. Didn't see the Relativity priority dispute page. Now we have two of them. So be it: "Life is tough, and then we die." Maybe morph this into a Hilbert vs Einstein page with more about the tensor calculus or whatever it was that Hilbert beat him out at. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in a redirect (but left the source, so that you can copy/paste) - please help us make one page as good as possible! --Alvestrand 17:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I moved the stuff out of the "redirect" onto the "Talk" page of the "relativity priority dispute". So the redirect page is "clean" I think. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you trying to poke fun at me or something because I mistyped the link earlier? It's up in my first edit For and is now blue which means that there is already such a page. Don't create another one!!--Lacatosias 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No fun was intended. I even went searching and didn't see the page. Oh well, if someone wants to "kill it" go ahead okay with me. I've got no stake in this. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Against

HYPOCRITS ! -- VIPERS ! -- PHARISEES ! -- You say you don't want priority disputes, and that you simply want it stated on Einstein's page that he did this and that. -- Well why then shouldn't it be on Hilbert's page, in the Introduction, that Hilbert did this and that ? --Hilbert discovered the Field Equation to complete General Relativity, a published fact, why do you revert that, you HYPOCRITS ! You double standard HYPOCRITS ! --Licorne 13:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Greatest

I've removed the section in the introduction as to his greatest contribution. I would say his greatest conribution to theoretical physics is more in providing the mathematical rigor and tools described in Hilbert-Courant. I have my opinion about the field equation priority, but that is not part of my choice to edit this item here. John (Jwy) 10:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I strongly suggest that, before fiddling here, correspondents/editors read Reid in its entirety. Especially read her Preface: in the 1960's Reid had at her disposal a wealth of direct interviews and information from people who worked with and knew Hilbert personally, including Max Born. Reid is no slouch: and her sister is Julia Robinson, a renowned mathematician. wvbaileyWvbailey 15:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's MY THEORY kills Reid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think the newest permutation of information should be in the introduction - it was just not that big a part of Hilbert's total contribution. If others detect a consensus on this, I enourage editing the introduction to reflect this consensus. John (Jwy) 15:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MANY CONSIDER IT HIS GREATEST CONTRIBUTION, IT ABSOLUTELY BELONGS IN HIS INTRO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk • contribs) .

If you stop yelling and sign your posts, I'd be more inclined to discuss things with you. But my inclination to do so has grown quite thin. John (Jwy) 17:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's be fair now and give Hilbert his credit due. 66.194.98.232 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yelling about Reid and Wikipedia's Incompetence

Reid's Quote is out of Context

Reid's quote is out of context. When you look at the whole context along with quotes of Hilbert regarding his own priority, Reid becomes neutralized. Reid's quote should be removed, unless the whole context is further developed there. Licorne 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Does this here just mean that you think Reid is incorrect or that the quote taken from Reid is misleading about what Reid meant? --Fastfission 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reid is an idiot his dates are even wrong, get rid of him. Licorne 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be her. Perhaps there are inaccuracies - I wouldn't know. But you're not making a great case for your own attention to detail. Charles Matthews 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of Reid, and clearly missed nothing. Licorne 14:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reid is an idiot. Hurling insults too now, eh, Popcorn? Enough, the temptation is too strong!!--Lacatosias 14:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Any biographer who can't get dates right is an idiot, and it doesn't look good for wikipedia either ! -- Licorne 14:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What did Reid say ?

Please give here Reid's supposed evidence that Hilbert credited Einstein. -- There is NONE. -- So remove Reid's reference he is wrong.-- Licorne 01:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Did Reid actually write that ! That Einstein had the field equations on November 11 ? -- Reid is totally incompetent if he did ! -- Einstein did not have the correct equations until 25 November everyone knows that, see Folsing for example for the proper dates.

Also that schoolboy quote from Reid does not make a hill of beans ! - That's not a recognition of priority ! -- Yes Einstein and Grossmann worked hard but they couldn't get it right. -- Hilbert got it right, on 20 November, see Folsing for precise dates, not Reid who is incompetent. -- Licorne 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha Ha ! -- Reid Doesn't Even Have the Correct Dates !

LOL -- What a disgrace ! -- Reid says Einstein had the field equation on November 11, which is ridiculous, Einstein had the WRONG equations at that time, Einstein didn't have the right field equations until November 25, everyone knows that, except the wikipedia editors who are clearly incompetent, along with the idiot Reid ! -- Licorne 04:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission Can't You Get Your Dates Right by Now ?

Fastfission you can't even get your dates right yet ? How long have you been on this project ? You call yourself a historian ? -- LOL -- And get rid of your Reid his dates are wrong can't you see that ? -- Licorne 05:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to make it easier for people to group over Licorne's several rants, I've made them subsections of one section. The issues don't belong here anyway - if anywhere, they belong on the "dispute" page. See poll. --Alvestrand 07:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan Can't You Get Your Dates Right by Now ?

Michael Macrossan can't you get your dates straight by now ? -- Einstein did NOT have the Field Equations on November 11. -- Don't you know that ? ! -- Einstein never had the right equations until after Hilbert made them public on November 20. -- Licorne 13:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember saying anything about these dates. I think you are going by the submission dates, not the dates the papers appeared ("were made public"), which is ok. And I think there are conference talks mixed up with journal papers, and I haven't tried to sort it out at all. If someone could construct a list of the important dates (as dot points) that might clatify it. I do know that Hilbert's paper as published is different from the proofs dated sometime in Dec 1915. If the journals then used the current practice of giving two dates, received x, in revised form y, for both Hilbert's and Einstein's paper we would have more information. But I don't think it is very important. E4mmacro 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan you know Reid's dates are wrong, why don't you speak up ? -- Licorne 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Contact Constance Reid for assistance here?

One thought I've had is to contact Reid (given we don't have to raise her from the grave)-- as of 1995 she was still writing. She will probably have some background information not in the bio. Anybody have any suggestions for an efficient way to do this? e.g. to write the publisher seems like a probable dead end(?) Any academic folks out there have any contacts they can use? wvbaileyWvbaileyWvbailey 15:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why contact her? Because Licorne is ranting on and on about her, like he has about every author who disagrees with him? Licorne not only does not understand, but would not support if he did, our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE, and will not accept anything anyone says if they don't agree with him. There is no need to cater to his nonsense; it would be a waste of Reid's time, and a waste of time for us, because that isn't how content is determined on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Her dates are wrong, they are contradicted by Kip Thorne's quote in reference 9 on the Einstein page. -- Why not put correct dates ! --67.78.143.226 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, why bother (drag Reid in)? I suspect she will be called an idiot and get yelled at as well (I wrote this a few days ago and didn't post it - looks like I was right). It is better to argue in a way that will get respect of the community and make the Hilbert page better reflect the man than to get sucked into debates about details that don't belong on the page (I must say, a very difficult thing to avoid). If Hilbert and Einstein were in a race to a finish line, it is only because Einstein identified WHERE the finish line was. Hilbert might be a faster runner (i.e. mathematician), but he was not the navigator (physicist). He would be running fast, but without Einstein (or some other such figure) he would not be working on those equations in the first place. His biggest contribution in this area (IMHO) was to allow Physicist to run almost as fast as himself (i.e. the mathematical tools he provided). I believe it is in this sense that Hilbert gives his kudos to Einstein's "great idea" as I quoted from Reid. To have the Hilbert page fail to reflect this would be letting both great men down. John (Jwy) 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Without Grossmann, Einstein would have had nothing. -- Hilbert COMPLETED the theory, which is all that matters in scientific discoveries. Licorne 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing quotes

Licorne added the following text (subsequently reverted):

Albrecht Folsing(1998) in his biography Albert Einstein wrote (p.375) that Hilbert had concerned himself intensely with physics for a number of years, and Folsing added,

What must have irritated Einstein was that Hilbert had published the correct field equations first - a few days before Einstein.

For the record here is the complete context in from which these quotes were taken.

During the decisive phase Einstein even had a congenial colleague, though this caused him more annoyance than joy, as it seemed to threaten his primacy. "Only one colleague truly understood it, and he now tries skillfully to appropriate it."²⁹ he complained to Zangger about what he evidently regarded as an attempt at plagiarism. This colleague was none other than David Hilbert, with whom, as recently as the summer, Einstein had been "absolutely delighted." What must have irritated Einstein was that Hilbert had published the correct field equations first—a few days before Einstein.

Einstein presented his equations in Berlin on November 25, 1915, but six days earlier, on November 20, Hilbert—had derived the identical field equations for which Einstein had been searching such a long time.³¹ How had this happened?

David Hilbert had concerned himself intensively with physics for a number of years; had read everything about electrons, matter, and fields: and in this context had invited Einstein to Göttingen toward the end of June 1915 to lecture on relativity theory. Einstein had stayed at the Hilberts' home, and one must assume that the week he and Hilbert spent together would have consisted of dawn-to-dusk discussions of physics. They continued their debate in writing, although Felix Klein records that "they talked past one another, as happens not infrequently between simultaneously producing mathematicians."³² Hilbert was in fact aiming at greater things than Einstein: at a theory of the entire physical world, of matter and fields, of universe and electrons—and in a strictly axiomatic structure.

In November, when Einstein was totally absorbed in his theory of gravitation, he essentially corresponded only with Hilbert, sending Hilbert his publications and, on November 18, thanking him for a draft of his treatise. Einstein must have received that treatise immediately before writing this letter. Could Einstein, casting his eye over Hilbert's paper, have discovered the term which was still lacking in his own equations, and thus "appropriated" Hilbert? This is not really probable: Hilbert's treatise was exceedingly involved, or indeed confused—according to Felix Klein, it was the kind of work "that no one understands unless he has already mastered the whole subject."³³ It cannot be entirely ruled out that Hilbert's treatise made Einstein aware of some weakness in his own equations. Nevertheless, his eventual derivation of the equations was a logical development of his earlier arguments—in which, despite all the mathematics, physical principles invariably predominated. His approach was thus quite different from Hilbert's, and Einstein's achievements can, therefore, surely be regarded as authentic.

For a few weeks relations between Einstein and Hilbert were clouded; at least, we know that Einstein was convinced that his Göttingen lectures and some of his other thoughts had—perhaps inadvertently—been plagiarized by Hilbert. It may well be, though, that he was somewhat mollified when he saw the printed version of Hilbert's treatise, since Hilbert, in the very first sentence, paid tribute to "the gigantic problems raised by Einstein and the brilliant methods developed by him for their solution,"³⁴ which represented the prerequisites of a new approach to the fundamentals of physics. Thirty years later, Einstein told his assistant Ernst Straus, who in turn after another thirty years told Abraham Pais, that "Hilbert had sent him a written apology, informing him that he had 'quite forgotten that lecture.' "³⁵ If that is what happened, then it must have satisfied Einstein, for just before Christmas he wrote to Hilbert: "There has been between us something like a bad feeling, the cause of which I don't wish to analyze further. I struggled against a resulting sense of bitterness, and I did so with complete success. I once more think of you in unclouded friendship, and would ask you to try to do likewise toward me. It is, objectively speaking, a pity if two fellows who have worked their way out of this shabby world cannot find pleasure in one another."³⁶ The reconciliation worked so well that no one else seems to have noticed any friction, and a legend arose that there had never been anything but friendly feelings between Einstein and Hilbert.³⁷ Hilbert, like all his other colleagues, acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory.

Paul August ☎ 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing is just trying to be nice - In fact, everyone knows that the Field Equation is the theory itself ! -- that's why Corry made such a big deal out of some mutilated printers proofs. Licorne 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, Folsing's quote is still pertinent to Hilbert and the field equations, and should not be reverted. Daniela Wuench's quote was also reverted, that is CENSORSHIP in action by wikipedia. -- Meanwhile wikipedia allows Reid's quote which contains incorrect dates. Einstein did NOT present correct field equations on Reid's November 11 date, it is a dishonest lie by wikipedia to allow that date of November 11. -- Macrossan knows this, and where is he now ? --Licorne 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote Paul, very illuminating. Is this sentence wrongly quoted: "we know that Einstein and Hilbert was convinced that his Göttingen lectures and some of his other thoughts had—perhaps inadvertently—been plagiarized by Hilbert." Should it be "we know that Einstein was convinced that his Göttingen lectures and ...."? I don't why I am supposed to know the truth about this subject, on which I have said nothing except that I haven't looked into it. E4mmacro 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You are right about my mistranscription. I've corrected it above. Paul August ☎ 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nov 11 and 25

But it does appear from Folsing that Einstein did not publish the correct field equation until Nov 25, 1915. What exactly is Reid saying about Nov 11? E4mmacro 05:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein submitted several versions of his paper, one of which was submitted on November 11. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

These are the four consecutive Thursdays nights at the Prussian Academy: Nov 4, 11, 18 and 25. According to Todorov (link on "dispute page"), the first rejects his formulation of 1914, the second (i.e. Nov 11) rejects the first (i.e Nov 4) and starts anew (actually it seems Einstein returned to his and Grossmann's $R_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }$. The fourth (i.e. Nov 25) rejects the first two and contains the right equation $R_{\mu \nu }=\kappa \left(T_{\mu \nu }-Tg_{\mu \nu }/2\right)$. So Nov 11 seems to be a special case $T=0$. It is possible that Reid is confused on this point, but I would like to know if she has some more information not known to Todorov. E4mmacro 18:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Reid could be confused about the relative (no pun intended) significance of the four papers presented at the Prussian Academy, incorrectly picking out the Nov 11 paper, but I take her point to be that, although the field equations were not presented by Einstein in their fully correct form, until the 25th, the earlier versions of the equations were already, at least as presented on the Nov 18th, sufficient (according to Folsing) to correctly explain the perihelion precession of Mercury and to give the correct figure for the bending of light, by gravity. One wonders how history would have judged the situation if Einstein's Nov 18th paper had been, for awhile, the last word on GR, with the corrected equations only discovered some years later. My guess is that the "birth" of GR would have been dated from Nov 1915. Paul August ☎ 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure you are right. But of course there will be hair-splitting about the exact date if we say "in a series of four papers Nov 4, 11, 18, 25, Einstein presented the final form .." E4mmacro 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I think Reid could be deleted, I agree absolutely with Jwy (and everyone except Licorne) that this page should not be a priority dispute page. E4mmacro 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jagdish Mehra says Hilbert Claimed Priority

Jagdish Mehra 1974 Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation, Reidel. Mehra states that Hilbert claimed priority and Mehra cites as evidence Hilbert's 1924 words, Einstein in his later publications finally arrived at the equations of my theory.

- As if we need Mehra or anyone else to tell us what my theory means, But wikipedia editors don't understand what is means !

Licorne 23:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NO CENSORSHIP ! -- Why is Mehra being reverted ? ? -- And Why does wikipedia use incorrect dates from Reid to pretend that Einstein had discovered the theory first ? ? -- Wikipedia WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE !

Licorne 03:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

John (Jwy) Explain Yourself

Why did you revert Professor Mehra ? ? -- Licorne 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No explanation, so I'll restore it. Licorne 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

physics tutor ? Who ?

Who was the supposed physics tutor of Hilbert ? Why is it in quotation marks ? Who is being quoted there ? What is the reference for this claim ? Licorne 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary that everyone should be using, its well documented in Reid. I don't have the book with me at the moment. It is in quotes because it was a role, not an official title. The first one was a professor hired from Munich, I don't have the name. But it is very clear from every source I have seen that Hilbert was not a physicist and needed help understanding it. That is an important fact to include in this article. John (Jwy) 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it's Alfred Landé.

After Ewald left Göttingen, Sommerfeld sent Alred Landé to serve as Hilbert's physics assistant." (p. 133

But in December 1914 he volunteered for the Red Cross for two years, then was drafted. (Reid p. 140-141).

"When Hilbert heard his assistant was going to leave him, he was most annoyed." (p. 141).

But who was his assistant between Dec 1914 and Nov 1915? Reid doesn't say. Maybe no one because of the war: "... it seemed to those few students who where left that the "living pulse" of physical research was at their finger tips" (p. 141) Emmy Noether appeared in this approximate time, and helped Hilbert and Klein with "... their work on relativity theory"(p. 143), but that's all I can find in Reid.wvbaileyWvbailey 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference in question is about 1912. Somewhere there is a statement about "getting someone from Munich." It might be Erwald himself, in this case. Thanks for looking. I won't be in proximity of my Reid until Sunday. John (Jwy) 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It was Ewald: "When Ewald returned to Gottingen in the spring of 1912, he was welcomed as "Hilbert's physics tutor." (p. 129) wvbaileyWvbailey 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite Hilbert-Einstein

The article now says

In 1915 Hilbert and Einstein both arrived at the necessary field equations to complete General Relativity (the Einstein-Hilbert action), Einstein on November 11 and 25, then Hilbert on November 20, 1915. According to Hilbert biographer, Constance Reid, despite the "remarkable coincidence",

Hilbert freely admitted, and frequently stated in lectures, that the great idea was Einstein's. "Every boy in the streets of Göttingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein," he once remarked. 'Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians".1

Albrecht Folsing(1998) points out that it was Hilbert who first presented the correct field equations, on 20 November 1915, a few days before Einstein.

For more see relativity priority dispute.

I propose replacing all the above with something like this

Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures in June-July 1915 on the general principle of relativity (the equivalence principle). The exchange of ideas prompted a "race" to the final form of the field equations of General Relativity (the Einstein-Hilbert action). On November 20, 1915, Hilbert presented these^note in Göttingen, five days before Einstein presented them to the Prussian Academy in Berlin on November 25. According to Folsing (1998) Einstein was at first convinced that his Göttingen lectures and some of his other thoughts had been plagiarized by Hilbert, but by Christmas, Einstein had been molified. According to Hilbert's biographer, Constance Reid,

Hilbert freely admitted, and frequently stated in lectures, that the great idea was Einstein's. "Every boy in the streets of Göttingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein," he once remarked. 'Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians".¹

Despite the amicable outcome, and the general acceptance by the physics community that Einstein is the author of General Relativity, there have been recent attempts to generate a priority dispute (see priority dispute page).

With the following new footnote:

^noteThe almost complete set of printers proofs (dated Dec 5?) of Hilbert's paper recording his Nov 20 lecture are now available and these show that Hilbert made considerable changes at the proof-reading stage. It appears Hilbert did not explicitly state the field equations in these proofs, although he did state the generally covariant action principle from which they could be derived. Sauer (1999) says that Hilbert was at first led astray by Einstein's "casuality principle" (dating from the Einstein-Grossman papers 191??) and formulated a non-covariant lfield equation in the proofs. See priority dispute page.

The footnote is perhaps too long, and the last sentence about Sauer probably should be on the dispute page. If anyone agrees in general with the above, maybe we could refine it here (although I hope Licorne will not be offended if I don't extend that offer to him, because we can guess what sort of changes he will want). Dates need checking etc. And then consider putting it in the article. BTW, I don't claim any special knowledge about this - just from reading the discussions here. E4mmacro 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would stiffen the summary sentence of the body quote:

That Einstein is the author of General Relativity is accepted by the physics community. (Attempts to generate a priority dispute are described on the priority dispute page). wvbaileyWvbailey 20:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would find a more neutral phrase than "a 'race' to a final form'. Who knows what their frames of mind were? We just know from the (common, the conjunct of) facts at hand that they were working toward a common outcome. And was Einstein "convinced"? "Suspicious"? adjectives/adverbs are hazardous. "Believed"? Hemingway would have hunted for an action verb here. Or alternately "When in doubt, cut it out" wvbaileyWvbailey 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Folsing relies on the "nostrification" letter for his claim Einstein was "convinced". But we could say "thought". E4mmacro 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"thought" is good. Also, another alternative is to quote directly from the source(s), and leave the interpretations to the readers. Actually I prefer this approach-- adds credence. Of course, a weirdo (my father-in-law calls them weirdies, and apparently this is an accepted but old usage) might argue that the choice of quote slants the article, but hey, every weirdo (weirdie) needs his day too.wvbaileyWvbailey 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the changes as described, although they seem to bring more of the dispute to this page than I would do myself. John (Jwy) 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

To John: THIS IS NOT A PRIORITY DISPUTE PAGE. Licorne 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of a "race" (either, I wrote this before I saw Wv's comment above). This implies to me that both Einstein and Hilbert were hurrying to publish before the other. I've seen no evidence for this. Also in the summary it is not just the physics community who accepts Einstein's authorship is it? Nor should that community's opinion be necessarily definitive, versus say historians. Paul August ☎ 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was Einstein who was engaged in the "race", realising that Hilbert once he started thinking about it could easily "beat" him, because of Hilbert's mathematics. I thought I saw somewhere in these pages or the links that Einstein did learn that Hilbert was working on it. But how would you say it? E4mmacro 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I might rewrite that sentence to read something like:

The exchange of ideas perhaps lead to the final form of the field equations of General Relativity (the Einstein-Hilbert action).

Paul August ☎ 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I now see in Sauer (Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. v53,529-575, 1999) that Sauer thinks Hilbert engaged in a race as well. "In his letter Einstein alluded to this consequence by pointing out that, by this hypothesis, gravitation must play a fundamental role in the constitution of matter. But this touched on what Hilbert saw as his own original insight. Aloarmed, Hilbert decided to take action. He announced a lecture on the fundamental equations of physics in the Gottingen Mathematical Society ..." (Sauer 1999, p 542). E4mmacro 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To John, you already just rewrote that whole section now you want to do it again ? And this is NOT a priority dispute page here. Licorne 21:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I was happy with my rewrite, but others (including yourself) were not. I'm willing to have it adjusted (note: I'm not suggesting the change here, I just said I was comfortable with it). As the edit page says: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. John (Jwy) 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Irony! It was Licorne insistence on getting rid of the Nov 11 date (and the apparent contradiction between Reid and Folsing) that prompted my propsoed re-write. And I did want to suggest that generating a priority dispute nearly 100 years later is pretty silly. E4mmacro 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Priority issues again!

For the footnote how about:

^NoteThe almost complete set of printers proofs (dated stamped Dec 6) of Hilbert's paper recording his Nov 20 lecture are now available. It appears Hilbert originally gave a non-covariant field equation, but did state the generally covariant action principle from which the correct field equation was derived in the (extensively?) revised paper published in March 1916.

I think this is a correct statement of what is actually in the proofs we have (open to correction of course). Here, I wouldn't like to see conjectures and possible reconstructions about what might have been in the missing half page of the proofs. BTW, am I right in supposing Hilbert gave a lecture on Nov 20, then submitted these proofs for publication, as the "paper from his lecture", or is Nov 20 the date of submission to a journal, or is the journal just the record of lectures at some Institute at Gottingen University? E4mmacro 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For the latest see Winterberg's abstract from 2005 at http://www.geocities.com/aps_abstract The field equations are still there, in the proofs, in various equivalent forms, although the explicit trace term expression was cut off by someone, it makes no difference, the field equations are still there. Licorne 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that sounds like the second part of the proposed footnote is correct (the proofs contain the generally covariant action principle), and do not explicitly contain the correct field equation. How about the first part, the proofs contain a non-covariant field equation (as Todorov says)? Todorov gives a reason why Hilbert did not derive the correct equation (when he could have from the action-principle). And I would say it makes a big difference. E4mmacro 06:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You did not read very closely the abstract. It says THE FIELD EQUATIONS ARE STILL THERE. The field equations can be written in various equivalent forms. Whoever naively cut off the familar form with the explicit trace term was not knowledgeable enough to cut off the field equation in its other equivalent expressions. That is what the abstract says, go read it again more carefully, read Winterberg's full article closely. If you were a physicist I wouldn't have to be explaining this to you. This is why Winterberg has destroyed Corry, Corry has no reponse acceptable for publication anywhere in any journal. So I wouldn't even bring it up in Hilbert's article anywhere, because Corry is now a moot point. The only place Corry might now fit would be in a history of disputes section, because Corry is now past history in the dust bin. The only reason I posted the abstract was for your personal information since you apparently didn't know what had happened with all that, Corry is over. --Licorne 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I had read Winterbergy before and didn't think it worthwhile reading him again, prefering a source not involved in the Cory-Winterberg clash. I actually got my information from Todorov, so perhaps you would like to go read Todorov where he explains why Hilbert went off on a wrong track in the printer's proofs and did not derive the correct field equation. Another view: "These proofs .. do not yet contain the explicit form of Einstein gravitational field equations in terms of the Ricci tensor and its trace, the Riemann curvature scaler" (T. Sauer in a Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. v53, pp529-575, 1999) - I think we both agree on that. Hilbert's published paper was very different from the printer's proofs, it was extensively revised. Everyone (perhaps not you) agrees with that. Wikipedia should not really be interested in your guess about what was contained in 1/3 of a page that is missing. But more on the dispute page, if you like. E4mmacro 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sauer did NOT say the field equations are not there in other forms, which is what Winterberg demonstrated. Sauer does not contradict Winterberg at all. So you're wrong about Sauer. As for the Russian I'm not sure where in his writings you are speaking of, you're not very specific where, but I'm sure you're wrong again there too as usual. - In fact I have Todorov's paper and there is no such thing as you are claiming there at all, you're just a liar.

- The field equations are STILL THERE IN THE PROOFS. -- Licorne 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is only because I trust no one takes you seriously that I don't mind if you call me a liar. But the diplomatic thing would be to say I am mistaken. I am refering to Einstein and Hilbert: the creation of general relativity, I. T. Todorov (2005). On page 13 he writes

After formulating the generally covariant action principle he [i.e. Hilbert] appeals, in his original text [i.e the printer’s proofs], to Einstein’s long-promoted “causality principle” and restricts the general covariance by a (non-covariant formulation of) the energy momentum conservation law. Only at the stage of proof reading does Hilbert suppress all extra conditions and recognize the unqualified physical relevance of the covariant equation. ([comments by me in square bracket]).

This says to me that Hilbert wrote the wrong field equation in Nov 20 (even though he could have but didn't derive the correct one). He got the wrong equation because of what turned out to be an incorrect physical assumption. But hey, he was a mathematician, not a physicist. E4mmacro 02:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not a physicist, you're not reading that passage correctly at all. I figured as much.

Actually what you said was that I was just a liar, not that I wasn't reading the passage correctly. I guess your written apology is in the mail? E4mmacro 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a little of each. Licorne 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You are saying you still think I am just a liar? E4mmacro 03:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a combination of blindness, self delusion, and lying to yourself, yes. Licorne 04:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

One day you might give us your idea of what makes someone a physicist. E4mmacro 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

- The Field Equations are STILL THERE IN THE PROOFS. --Licorne 02:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be no reason to shout about this. All you have to do is say what equation number or what page, line etc, the field equation $R_{\mu \nu }=\kappa \left(T_{\mu \nu }-Tg_{\mu \nu }/2\right)$ appears in the proofs. Or if you are not talking about that equation say so. People like Todorov and Sauer can't seem to find it. People like you and Bjerknes and Winterberg seems to be able to find it, or perhaps imagine it was in the missing piece of the proofs. The question of whether it is or is not in the remaining proofs should be a simple matter of fact. E4mmacro 04:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You are way behind the times. Winterberg published the equation line numbers you are asking me for, in his 5 June 2003 article in Z.Naturforsch, you need read his article for your answer, it is also in Bjerknes' second book in detail. http://www.xtxinc.com I don't know if you are just playing dumb or really are that stupid, but Winterberg clearly states that the particular form of the field equation which you have reproduced is not in the proofs, probably cut off, but it doesn't matter because Winterberg's whole demonstration is that the field equation in its various equivalent forms is STILL THERE. --Licorne 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That November 11 date should still be removed, it is wrong and embarrassing I should think for wikipedia. In addition, Reid's supposed quote of Hilbert is just an unfounded rumor. Where does she say it came from ? Nowhere ? -- At least Folsing's quote is there to keep facts straight. --Licorne 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this whole section to the priority dispute page? I assume you have noticed that if Todorv is right then Winterberg is wrong and Bjerknes plagiarism case crumbles. E4mmacro 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you are misreading Todorov. Licorne 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Two Words Field Equation belong in the Intro

It should be present somewhere in the Intro the two words Field Equation. Licorne 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, unless it is in the context of how he helped other physicist in their work in general. The field equations themselves are not the key point of Hilbert's legacy directly, its his help to the physicists in general that should be hightlighted. John (Jwy) 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert understood GR better than Einstein. Einstein confusedly called it general relativity, Hilbert correctly called it the theory of gravity. Hilbert was a thousand times more of a physicist than Einstein. Einstein struggled for years thinking there existed a general principle of relativity, which Hilbert knew did not exist. Einstein was a lousy physicist who got his incomplete equations from Grossmann. Hilbert straightened them all out on the Physics, which Einstein never understood. Licorne 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's where our fundamental disagreement is. Hilbert was a mathematician. Einstein a Physicist. The method of thinking and processing in those fields is different. Mathematics is a tool for the physicist, but it is not in itself physics. From my reading, Hilbert would be (hopefully good naturedly) insulted if you called him a physicist. I feel you are trying to use this page to trash Einstein, not to accurately represent Hilbert. I'm not necessarily taking issue with the facts you present, just that the overall impression based on the facts selected should be "this is Hilbert" and not be "Einstein was a lousy physicist." We already acknowledge in the article that Einstien was not a brilliant mathematician. John (Jwy) 15:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert was the greatest PHYSICIST of the twentieth century, after Poincare's death. Licorne 15:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation: we have a fundamental disagreement here. John (Jwy) 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you know about physics ? Licorne 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough. Where are your citations that Hilbert is the best physicst of the twentieth century? John (Jwy) 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough ? You mean nothing. Licorne 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant enough. I just don't know how to answer your question otherwise - or why I need to. John (Jwy) 16:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Licorne 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert did what Einstein never could, and Hilbert knew what it was, which Einstein never did. -- Hilbert was the PHYSICIST, Einstein is a media clown, and a plagiarist who always seemed to find the right equations days or months after others. -- Licorne 16:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't getting anywhere at the moment: Hilbert admitted he wasn't a good physicist, he needed help with it. Few call him one of the leading physicists. And please stick to discussing the content as per WP:ATTACK. Its the Hilbert article, not the Jwy article. John (Jwy) 17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did Hilbert ever say that ? What is your source with precise quote - don't put words in Hilbert's mouth. -- It was rather Einstein who admitted he blundered as a so called physicist. -- Einstein constantly had his foot in his mouth, unless he was plagiarizing others. Einstein was no physicist at all, just a plagiarist. Licorne 22:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FACTS ARE FACTS -- Hilbert discovered the field equations and correctly called it his Theory of Gravity. -- Einstein republished it five days later and mistakenly called it general relativity, the proof that Einstein never understood it. Licorne 15:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring is necessary, the above exchange is not so good

I just quickly read the link provided by Jwy re WP:ATTACK. It's too bad that the anonymity of the 'net allows this. In my prior life, we had to sit across from one another and debate, for hours and hours, to reach consensus. It's really hard to shout in someone's face in the presence of others. Sometimes the debates got a bit hot, but we always reached consensus and ate supper together after. My advice to Jwy et. al. is to do what we did with my kids when they were misbehaving: send them to their rooms, and especially: not to engage. Just don't engage. It's been good sport to watch this, but it's gone on long enough, methinks. Move to arbitration? Vote? wvbaileyWvbailey 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm just waiting for Licorne's existing arbitration case to go through and for him to get perpetually banned from all of this. His contributions are simply not helpful, and his manner is well out of line. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Licorne if you'd like to contribute. --Fastfission 04:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. -- or rather, please do. Licorne 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Priority Disputes

Hilbert's page is turning into a priority disputes page, so let's do the same thing on Einstein's page ! -- Licorne 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not just state facts ? Licorne 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How could Hilbert have plagiarized Einstein, when Hilbert published first ? -- Usually it's the other way around ? Licorne 02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You said no plagiarism discussion, but there is a very simple answer to your question as to how Hilbert could have plagiarised Einstein (I am NOT saying he did at all). Einstein sent Hilbert his paper of Nov 25, containg the explicit field equation in terms of the Ricci tensor and Riemann curvature scalar. This equation was not in Hilbert's printer proofs of Dec 6, as you sometimes seem to know. Hilbert made a few changes in the final paper, which is diffferent from the proofs), one of which was to derive Einstein's equation from his (Hilbert's) variational form of Nov 20 (making a few assumptions abotu how to disentangle his, Hilbert's, electromagnetic part from the gravity part). Some people (CRS I think) claimed Hilbert plagiarised Einstein in that process - I think the consensus is they are wrong on that point, but neverthelss it was POSSIBLE as far as the dates go. Though CRS were wrong on the second claim (i.e. we almost all agree that Hilbert did not plagiarise Einstein), the consensus is that you are wrong if you claim that Einstein plagiarised Hilbert - "any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step towards his field equations from Hilbert's note [Nov 20] is now definitely precluded" (T. Sauer, Archives for the History of the Exact Sciences, v53, p529) and see also the paper by Todorov who concurs with this. E4mmacro 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One fallacy, the field equation is STILL THERE IN THE PROOFS. Licorne 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing wrote it as FIVE DAYS LATER. "six days earlier"

Where we are quoting Folsing, we should write it as Folsing does: On page 375 Folsing writes that Hilbert was on 20 November and FIVE DAYS LATER on November 25 was Einstein. -- Since Folsing wrote it that way for emphasis and since we are quoting Folsing there, we should stick with Folsing's FIVE DAYS LATER. -- Licorne 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the clumsy style of your writing (who said I was quoting Folsing for the dates?) that I object to. Puting a date AND five days later is redundant. If want five days later then delete the date 25 Nov, but I would leave the date and assume anyone knows that Nov 25 is 5 days later than Nov 20. Similar ugly writing style is where you say "final form" and "to complete" in the same sentence. You insert redunancies which sound like you are trying to ram some opinions down the reader's throats (which I guess you are). A bad style, in my view. E4mmacro 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing is a professional writer and that is how he wrote it see his page 375. -- He wrote it that way because it is important and not just another date. -- The words to complete make clear the importance and should be there as well. -- You always want to muddy the waters to cover for Einstein, but we should be clear. Licorne 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We see below that you admit you are mistaken about five days. Folsing actually wrote that Hilbert had published six days previously, as quoted by user Paul August here. You don't actually have a copy of Folsing, now, do you? E4mmacro 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

final form describes the field equations, to complete refers to the theory. Licorne 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No Plagiarism Discussion Here Please

Please avoid words like plagiarism or priority on Hilbert's page please. -- It is not done on Einstein's page and does not belong here either. Licorne 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened on November 20?

Issue moved to Talk:Relativity priority dispute.

Not the same equation

Licorne, Please leave your rubbish about the same equations out. You have already agreed above that Einstein's form of the explicit field equation is NOT in Hilbert's proofs. That is, you wrote above that "Winterberg clearly states that the particular form of the field equation which you have reproduced is not in the proofs". No one now disputes that Einstein's equation can be derived from the variational form, but the fact is that Hilbert did not do this in his Nov 20 proofs (as Winterberg agrees, except he imagines the equation was in the missing page). After seeing Einstein's Nov 25 paper Hilbert changed the proofs to derive the explicit field equation (from his variational method) so that he could check it against Einstein's. He added this explicit, derived equation (still not quite the same as Einstein's, there are some assumptions requried to make them the same, see the footnote in the article if you haven't butchered it yet). Hilbert said it seemed to be the same as Einstein's, something he didn';t say in the proofs because he didn't write the equation. He also added more credit to Einstein in the final versiont than was in the proofs. Say Hilbert's variational equation is superior if you like, but don't say it is the same. That is a false statement, or at least a biased POV statement. Could it be that you are trying to build a plagiarism case against Einstein? E4mmacro 00:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am precisely quoting Folsing page 375, Five days later Einstein prresented the identical equations. -- You cannot argue with that, a solid recognized published source. Licorne 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you keep reinserting this, I have placed a disputed tag. Other authors disagree, after having seen the printer's proofs. E4mmacro 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

NO published sources disagree with Winterberg. That is all that counts. Published sources, not you. --Licorne 03:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Todorov and Sauer are two published authors, and according to you Winterberg is another, which show that Folsing is wrong. Hilbert and Einstein did not publish identical equations. The Einstein field equation was not in the proofs - it was derived fro0m the variational equation after Dec 6, 1915. E4mmacro 08:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing 20 lines not a crucial part

Licrone's claim (in the footnote) that 20 missing lines from the proof are a crucial part of the proofs is POV. Based on guesswork as to what is missing. Most authors think a trivial equation is missing; conspiracy theorists think the explicit Einstein field equations were in the missing part. I could write non-crucial part is missing, but didn't, because that is POV. Claiming it is a crucial part is POV. E4mmacro 03:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have not studied Friedwardt Winterberg's published article. Licorne 03:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"crucial part" is clearly POV. Would "non-crucial part" be POV? E4mmacro 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter, because the field equation is STILL THERE. -- Read Winterberg's published demonstration of this simple fact. Licorne 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Winterberg clearly states that the particular form of the field equation which you have reproduced is not in the proofs" (Licorne, not so long ago). But thanks for agreeing that the word crucial should be deleted. E4mmacro 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

BUT he adds that equivalent forms are STILL THERE, which is all that matters. -- Don't you know ANYTHING about math ? -- Licorne 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, the fact that a quarter of a page is missing is certainly important. It means that some speculation is required to exclude the possibility that these lines contained the explicit form of the field equations. Not mentioning this to the readers of their paper is certainly a case of bad scholarship on part of CRS. And the fact that historians of science specializing on Einstein tend not to disagree openly is easily explained by the fact that Renn and Stachel control a significant part of the academic jobs for the subject. People from the outside, but still with the qualification to form their own opinion of the subject show a stronger tendency to disagree. --De kludde 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You may not have noticed that I had already added a footnote saying some people claim the missing 10 lines on one page are important. The proofs are available in facsimile form, as far as I know. Saying the missing lines are either cricial or non-crucial is defintely POV and the word "crucial" had to go, which is what we were dicussing. I think that turning this into an attack on the academic integrity of Stachel and others has no place on the Hilbert page. We can discuss my opinion on all this on my talk page, or your talk page, if you like. E4mmacro 00:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Later papers" changed to "papers subsequent to mine"

The sentence is "The resulting differential equations of gravitation are, it seems to me, in agreement with the broad theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". This looks like a dodgy translation to me. The German text is now also given in the footnote (everything becomes longer when you have to prove Licorne's rubbish is rubbish). It appears Licorne's translation is trying to suggest Hilbert was accusing Einstein of (what I wonder?). Hilbert's comparison with Einstein's field equation is not in the proofs, therefore it was added after Dec 6, 1915. I assume that even Licorne does not think Hilbert wrote this on Nov 20, and was anticipating that Einstein was going to write a similar equation later. I agree that Hilbert was refering most probably to the fourth of Einstein's Nov 1915 papers, the one of Nov 25 which contains the final explicit form of Einstein's field equation (but he could be refering to all the four papers of Nov 1915 and "later" means recently or "not those in 1913 or 1914). It was because Hilbert had seen Einstein, Nov 25 1915, that Hilbert then derived the explicit field equation from his variational form so as to compare them. Bring on the request for arbitration. E4mmacro 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What your opinion is does not matter. -- Winterberg is the published source on this, not you. Licorne 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What was the reason for your eccentric translation? Inserting "later than mine"? E4mmacro 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

More rubbish Einstein: sought Hilbert to solve his problem

This is fairly close to vandalism, Licorne. My source for Hilbert inviting Einstein to Gottingen to give six 2-hour lectures is Sauer (1999). Furthermore, Sauer mentions that Hilbert in 1912 “sent Einstein a postcard asking for offprints of [Einstein’s] papers [on kinetic theory]. Some time later [Hilbert] sent Einstein a copy of his just published book on integral equations, and then invited [Einstein] to come to Gottingen … Einstein declined saying he had nothing new to say and that he was also too busy”. Sauer is a well–researched and foot-noted paper. It is probably not in Bjerknes, so I guess you haven’t read it, but there are links on the dispute page to it. What is your source for claiming Einstein went to Hilbert for help? E4mmacro 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My source is Folsing, also Einstein-Hilbert action. Licorne 04:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your reason for deleting the sentence saying Hilbert invited Einstein to Gottinger to talk on General Relatuivity theory? E4mmacro 05:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is true you may add it but you need quote a source for it first. - Also, Don't delete that Einstein sought Hilbert, which we have from Folsing. Licorne 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave the source above (Sauer 1999) and you might also notice above (where Paul August gave us an extensive quote from Folsing) that Folsing says the same thing: "David Hilbert had concerned himself intensively with physics for a number of years; had read everything about electrons, matter, and fields: and in this context had invited Einstein to Göttingen toward the end of June 1915 to lecture on relativity theory. Einstein had stayed at the Hilberts' home, and one must assume that the week he and Hilbert spent together would have consisted of dawn-to-dusk discussions of physics". Doesn't eaxactly sound like Einstein sought Hilbert's help. Could it be you do not have Folsing's book, but merely a few excerpts from it? E4mmacro 05:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And what is the page where Folsing says Einstein couldn't find the field equation and sought Hilbert's help? E4mmacro 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Around 375, ask Paul, he has it there. Also read Einstein-Hilbert action it is there too. Licorne 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I will ask Paul. I take if from that you do not have Folsing. And BTW, there is no source for the statement on the Einstein-Hilbert action page. Was it you who wrote it there as well? E4mmacro 07:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that Winterberg (2003) makes the same, or similar unsourced assertion (with an extra bit we have also heard from Licorne before)

Becuase Grossman was unable to figure it out for Einstein, Einstein sought the help of the famous Gottingen mathematicians Felix Klein and David Hilbert. Inspired by Mie's theory, Hilbert was already working on a unified theory of gravity. (Winteberg 2003, p 718)

Sauer (1999) refers to the evidence (letters from Hilbert to Einstein) which refutes this. Hilbert was spured by Einstein/Grossmann "Ouline" papers and invited Einstein to Gottigen (as we also know from Folsing). Winterberg doesn't know or mention that Einstein gave 12 hours of lectures at Gottigen in June-July 1915 at Hilbert's request. This unsourced statement (slur) by Winterberg suggests that the refereeing system at Z. Naturforsch is worse than wikipedia. Such a statement here would immediately generate requests for soruces. E4mmacro 09:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious and well known. Einstein sought Hilbert to find the solution. All of Einstein's papers before November 25 were filled with errors, he obviously needed help of Hilbert, which is obviously what then happened. Look at the history of Einstein-Hilbert action I never touched it. It is there because it is well known that Einstein could not do it, all of Einstein's papers were wrong before November 25.Licorne 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing on the Field Equation, page 375

Folsing page 375 Five days later Einstein presented the identical equations. Licorne 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan has NO justification to red tag Folsing a recognized published source. --Licorne 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In the quotes from Folsing given by user Paul August above we have "Hilbert published the correct field equations first - a few days before Einstein did" and we also have "but six days earlier, on Nov 20, Hilbert had derived the identical field equations". Your quotes of Folsing are a bit free-form? Did Folsing say what Paul August says? And also say "Five days later Einstein published the identical field equations". Can you check your source for us?

My justification for doubting Folsing's account is based on Todorov and Sauer, both published after Folsing, both of whom have seen the printer's proofs to which Folsing appears to make no reference. Can you check if Folsing refers to the printer's proofs, or perhaps the CRS paper or any earlier ones where the discovery of the printer's proofs was announced. If he doesn't know of the printer's proofs then of course he makes a mistake - he assumes that everything in the published paper Mar 1916 was in the lecture of Nov 20 1915. We know for a fact that that is not the case - extensive changes were made after Dec 6 1915. I don't have Folsing and I am beginning to wonder what you are quoting from. E4mmacro 06:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the printer's proofs are now a MOOT POINT, Winterberg ended it. Forget the printer's proofs will you please get that into your head. Corry is a MOOT POINT now. Licorne 07:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware that "moot" means debateable, undecided, open for discussion. I think you meant something else. E4mmacro 07:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the precise question here on Folsing's quotes, Paul and I agree don't we ? Licorne 06:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain. You put Five days later Einstein presented the identical equations as a quote from Folsing. Paul August does not reproduce that sentence. It turns out you presented a paraphrase as a quote. I am wondering if you have a copy of Folsing. The question is "Do you have a copy of Folsing?" E4mmacro 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The second question was "Does Folsing refer to the printer's proofs?". Thanks. And the answer to that question is independent of your opinion of the relevance of the printer's proofs. E4mmacro 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing could care less about those printer's proofs, they are over, a moot point. Folsing said what I posted already, five days later on november 25 Einstein presented the identical equations is to within a word's breath of what he said. Paul has it there get him to put it here, page 375. -- Put it here Paul, we are waiting, page 375.Licorne 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the references in this article, Folsing's book was published in 1998. The original "belated decision" article was published in 1997, and Winterberg's article was published in 2002. So in 1998, the printer's proof thing was very recent news, and we do not have any documentation that the "belated decision" conclusions were challenged at that time. But now, this discussion too needs to move to the disputes page. --Alvestrand 07:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Winterberg was 2003, and there is no dispute. The proofs change NOTHING, they are over, Winterberg finished them. Over Kaput, get it ? Licorne 07:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Kaput! That is the word you were looking for. "Moot" means something quite different. I think the printer's proofs are at least a moot point. E4mmacro 08:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is with a perverse sense of irony I step in to defend Licorne on one point: see the comment at the end of the Moot article about UK/USA linguistic nuance. John (Jwy) 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I learned something, there. I wonder if the American usuage came about from a confused association with the word "mute". Just a linguistic/phonetic stab in the dark? E4mmacro

MOOT definition deprived of practical significance.

OK, sorry Licorne. You were speaking American as you have a right to, I guess. Amazing that the word has opposite meanings on two sides of the pacific and atlantic. E4mmacro 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul August has not the guts to post Folsing's quote here. Macrossan is there not a library at your school ? -- I'll tell you what, I in fact already posted Folsing's quote identical equations, now you go double check it at your library if you still doubt it. Then take off that red tag. -- Licorne 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan you have no right to red tag quote of Folsing identical equations, page 375. Licorne 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I said above I doubt the truth of what Folsing said. I know what he wrote from Paul August's quote above. I am saying later published authors, who have read the printer's proofs, contradict Folsing. They say Einstein did not publish the "identical equations". Folsing made a mistake because he did not have the information this later authors have. Folsing is dubious. E4mmacro 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU to criticize Folsing, a published source. Licorne 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The exact quote?

For what it's worth here is the quote, which I have already provided above:

"Einstein presented his equations in Berlin on November 25, 1915, but six days earlier, on November 20, Hilbert—had derived the identical field equations for which Einstein had been searching such a long time."

This is from:

• Albrecht Folsing: Einstein; Ewald Osers (Translator), Penguin (Non-Classics); New Ed edition (June 1, 1998). ISBN 0140237194

I don't find the exact quote "five days later on november 25 Einstein presented the identical equations" anywhere in the above, which is searchable online here. For example searching for "November 25 Einstein" gives these these search results. Note that this edition is a translation from German into English. I don't have ready access to the German (1993) edition. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing's biograpghy was first published in the USA by Viking Penguin 1997. Published by Penguin Books 1998. According to Todorov it was published before CRS "belated decision". E4mmacro 11:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

CRS IS MOOT POINT, KAPUT. Licorne 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"identical equations" is dubious

This has been extensively discussed, but since I added the dubious tag, I collecet the links here.

1. later authors contradict Folsing on "exact equations". Sauer (1999), working from the printer's proofs, is enough to make Folsing account (not based on printer's proofs) dubious.
2. not the same equation
3. Difference explained in footnote, which Licorne has changed in two places (added "integral" and the 1924 reference).

E4mmacro 20:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE NO SOURCES - You have no explicit sources that contradict Folsing, NONE. Licorne 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

KIP THORNE page 115-117 He states that Hilbert did have the correct field equations on 20 November, agreeing with Folsing. There is only one correct field equation, whether you write it E=mc2 or m=E/c2 it is the identical equation, got it now Macrossan ? -- Licorne 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Licorne 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Kip Thorne was writing before the printer's proofs were discovered. He thinks the whole paper was written on Nov 20, which we now know is not the case. E4mmacro 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

THE PROOFS ARE KAPUT. Licorne 21:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Went to Hilbert to solve his problem

Winterberg (2004) (is 2003 a preprint?) is not a valid source to say Einstein went to Hilbert to solve his problems. Winterberg merely made the assertion and gave no reference, no evidence. It was a gratititous slur, the sort of thing one shouildn't find in a Journal. We have the historical reseachers, Folsing and Sauer who contradict this slur. Hilbert sought Einstein, because Hilbert wanted a problem in physics to work on. E4mmacro 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You better watch yourself son or you'll find yourself in a courtroom. Licorne 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, I thought we have had that before, but could not find the precise location in this vast discussion. This is what Einstein wrote to Hilbert on November 15: Your analysis interests me tremendously [....] If possible, please send me a correction proof of your study to mitigate my impatience. I am quoting from BNjerknes here, but have seen the German text in the Collected Papers and think Bjerknes' English translation is OK. So, while Einstein apparently did not ask Hilbert to solve the problem, he certainly asked to be given the solution once Hilbert had obtained it. --De kludde 00:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I my opinion that is a long way from "going to Hilbert for a solution of the problem". The two had been exchanging letters for some time on the topic. The missing letters from Hilbert probably also say, send me your results, don't you think? Perfectly normal. The point is that that exchange started in June-July 1915 because Hilbert was looking for a physics problem and invited Einstein to Gottingen. Winterberg's statement denigrates Einstein, in my view. He first says "Grossmann couldn't solve the problem" so "Einstein went to Hilbert". He cites not a single piece of evidence for either assertion. He must have written it in a moment of carelessness, I guess. E4mmacro 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, are you suggesting that Hilbert did send him a correction proofs of his study before Nov 25 (i.e the same as the proofs of Dec 6). Is there any hard evidence that he did. Hilbert spoke on Nov 16, unpublished, so content unknown. He handed his Nov 20 munscript to the printers (Gott. Academy) on Nov 19, and spoke on Nov 20 to Aacdemy. So there were 3 days to refine the talk Nov 16 for his talk on Nov 20. He sent Einstein something on Nov 19 (I think we have a letter from Einstein acknowledging something) - do you think he wrote the maunscript twice, once for the printer, once for Einstein? E4mmacro 01:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, it was not a gratuitious slur, it was an accusation for which he cited no reference and presented no evidence. E4mmacro 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Winterberg is a published source you have no right to censor a published refereed SOURCE. Licorne 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to Sauer and Folsing, they are my sources for saying Hilbert went to Einstein, not the other way round. E4mmacro 21:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Their quote may be true as well, there is no contradiction. Licorne 21:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne and Folsing quotes

As it is relevant to this discussion, I've copied the following from my talk page. Paul August ☎ 05:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(Start of copied text)

Hi Paul, Licorne has quoted Folsing (on the Hilbert page) for a claim that in 1915 Einstein went to Hilbert for help because Einstein couldn't derive the correct field equations. This appears on the Einstein-Action page as well (unsourced). Other sources, including Folsing himself, say that Hilbert invivted Einstein to Gottingin in June-July 1915 for one week of lectures on general relativity. It was Hilbert who went to Einstein, looking for a physics problem to solve. Licorne probably doesn't have a copy of Folsing (he couldn't tell the page number where Folsing says Einstein went to Hilbert for help). Can you sort it out, with your trusty copy of Folsing? Also, good to know is whether Folsing is aware of the printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper. He seems to make no reference to them and therefore makes some mistakes, as far as I can see. Thanks. E4mmacro 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I'll see what I can find. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as to why Einstein went to Göttingen (in June 1915), here is what Folsing has to say (p. 364):

… Einstein accepted an invitation to go to Göttingen for a week, where, at the request of David Hilbert and Felix Klein, he presented his generalized relativity theory in six two-hour lectures. Hilbert—who, after Poincaré's death, was unquestionably the worlds foremost mathematician—had since the winter semester of 1914–1915 devoted a seminar to the fundamentals of physics and in this context had dealt in particular with the theories of Gustav Mie and Albert Einstein.

Later (p. 369) Folsing writes about Einstein's view in the Spring and Summer of 1915, that he had already successfully completed his theory of general relativity. Folsing quotes Einstein, in May:

…general theory of relativity … To have now really reached that objective is the greatest satisfaction of my life …

Folsing continues:

… his obvious confidence was based on his presentation of the theory in the comprehensive article published six months earlier in the Proceedings of the Academy: The formal Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity. All the evidence of the next few months serves to show that, throughout the summer, he believed that in that article he had accomplished something like a definitive version of the theory. By the end of June, the mathematicians at Göttingen had "understood every detail"; and two weeks later he already had "the intention to write a special little book as an introduction to the relativity theory, its treatment aiming from the outset at a general theory of relativity" At the end of August, he was rather proud that he had "completely convinced"⁴ Felix Klein and David Hilbert in Göttingen.

He goes on to say that Einstein's confidence was further bolstered by experimental confirmation for the bending of light by gravity, quoting Einstein as saying in May that his theory had been "brilliantly confirmed"⁷. Finally Folsing writes that:

It was probably after his return from his trip to Switzerland [September] that Einstein had to get used to the idea that his formulas for gravitation could not be correct. At the beginning of October he realized "that my previous argument was deceptive."⁸

So, it seems to me, that Folsings view is inconsistent with the idea that Einstein when to Göttingen for help.

As regards to the newly discovered printer's proofs, I find nothing to suggest that Folsing was aware of them. Hope this all helps.

Paul August ☎ 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(End of copied text)

Thanks, Paul. But I don't see why you say the above is consistent with "Einstein went to Gottingen for help". It seems he went to Gottingen (by invitation) thinking he had finsihed (didn't need help). It seems to me that after he returned from Gottingen (June-July) he became worried about this theory. No one is doubting that the exchange of ideas at Gottingen helped them both. Just objecting to Winterberg's negative statement "Einstein couldn't solve it so he went to Hilbert for help", i.e. just another cheap shot. E4mmacro 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm … I wrote "inconsistent" ;-) Paul August ☎ 23:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. We agree. :) E4mmacro 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NEED SOURCES, SOURCES, SOURCES !

Do not red tag gratuitously, you need specific SOURCES that state specifically what you claim. Licorne 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think removing disputed/dubious tags placed by other editors is againsta wikipedia policy. E4mmacro 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Breaking 3RR definitely is, so I've blocked L again William M. Connolley 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan Hilbert never Compared that

Macrossan you are purely speculating and POV, in fact Hilbert never anywhere specifically pointed at the explicit field equation to compare it with Einstein's. -- That is False, and just your POV.

What Hilbert said in that quote was general, he said these equations are equivalent to Einstein's later theory. So correct the text.-- Fat fission has a fit when I do it, because he is a narrow minded bigot. Licorne 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Licorne, please read our policy on No Personal Attacks. --Fastfission 00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was in the process of edithing this in and Fastfission beat me to it, but: Please leave your opinions of the people involved out of this discussion, it is counter-productive to the collaborative basis of the Wikipedia project. If you are not a believer in collaboration, you are in the wrong place. You should be able to make your point without attempting to tear other people down. John (Jwy) 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have toned down the business of Einstein and Hilbert. This page is here to talk about Hilbert's accomplishments, which include the Einstein-Hilbert action. The EFE business is a distraction IMO. I also have trouble awarding priority to Hilbert when he chose not to claim it himself. (There usually is a good reason for that.) --EMS | Talk 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you will get much complaint here about not awarding Hilbert priority. The key proponent of that will be gone for quite a while, it seems. My concern is that the article will remain too defensive as a result of recent hassles in that area and include too much on the priority issue. Even with your recent update, it still feels that way. But I'm a bit exhausted by recent events to try anything different right now. If you are just getting here, consider yourself lucky. Just take a look above and at the page history if you want to understand what I mean... John (Jwy) 05:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The page ignores the fact that the view of Hilbert-Einstein has changed over the years. I wrote on the dispute page

Before 1997, "the commonly accepted view was that David Hilbert completed the general theory of relativity at least 5 days before Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on this theory on 25 November 1915. Hilbert's article, bearing the date of submission 20 November 1915 but published only on 31 March 1916, presents a generally covariant theory of gravitation, including field equations essentially equivalent to those in Einstein's paper" (Corry, Renn and Stachel, 1997). Since the discovery of printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper of Nov 20, dated 6 Dec 1915, which show a number of differences from the finally published paper, this 'commonly accpeted view" has been challenged.

The commonly accepted view by physicists anyway, see Hawking and Thorne who can be quoted out of context of course, was that GR was always Einstein's even if Hilbert wrote the field equatiosn first and independently. The page now reflects the view that Corry et al are correct, that the discovery of the printer's proofs changes everything. I agree with that view. But the page makes it seem the recent controversy is about someone giving Hilbert credit where he had never been given credit before. E4mmacro 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I've been so focussed on keeping Hilbert from being lauded as the Physicist of the Century that I have been blind to subtlies less than that. John (Jwy) 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Priority dispute resurfaces on Hilbert page

E4, you wrote on my user talk page that "And yes, perhaps Science should never have published the CRS paper in the first place" so some comment about why you changed your mind about it might be in order (my political views should have nothing to do with it, if you are an honest researcher). Also, the article now claims that "Hilbert gave credit to Einstein for introducing the field equations" in the 1916 version of his article. He never did such a thing. Also, I am not even sure that Sauer makes such a claim. Your Sauer quote in footnote 2 is on p. 51 of the pdf version of Sauer's preprint published on arxiv.org. A page before Sauer writes "But, in the published version, he explicitly gave Einstein credit for the introduction of the metric tensor ..." whereas you wrote "In the final form of that article, published on March 31, 1916, Hilbert gave credit to Einstein for introducing the field equations" which I could not find in Sauer's article. Could you give the page number for the arXiv pdf file? -De kludde 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

De kludde, I don't understand your comment about the CRS paper. It seems to have nothing to do with the rest of your comments. I think it was user EMS who wrote the credit to Einstein bit - take it up with him. The Sauer quote was put there by me, before EMS made his changes. I have no interest in splitting hairs over this anymore. E4mmacro 00:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for wrongly attributing this edit to you. I have replaced "field equations" by "metric tensor" in the section on Hilbert and Physics, reverting the change made by Ems57fcvam, as it is this what Hilbert actually did and what Sauer claims. I will put a NPOV-section template on this section if Ems57fcvam restores this wrong claim without explaining from what page of Sauer's (or Hilbert's) paper he is quoting. I also mentioned Hilbert's November 16 letter to Einstein, as people who read about "exchange of ideas" might be interested in knowing what Einstein may have learned from Hilbert. -84.16.234.153 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

De kludde (84.16.234.153) you have inserted your one sided view of the priority dispute into Hilbert page. To correct you, and balance it, it will just get longer and longer. This is not the place for it, and we have been thru it all before. Should I re-insert the fact that Hilbert's proofs had a non-covariant theory (four extra equations taken to satisfy the causality principle, following Einstein from the 1913 papers). This is to balance any suggestion that Einstein learned about a non-covraiant theory from Hilbert in the Dec 16 or 17 letter (which we do not know the contents of, we only know Einstein's criticism of it)? Should I re-insert all the arguments? No! this is not the place for them, and not the place for your one-sided view. How about you see if you can cut down your assertions to nothing more than "a few people are now engaged in a priority dispute", without slipping in your side of the argument here? E4mmacro 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words De Kludde, the following sentence from you should be deleted: "He [Hilbert] also explained his theory in a letter to Einstein, who confirmed the arrival on November 18, a week before Einstein submitted his field equations article." Reasons for deletion: (1) we do not KNOW what Hilbert sent Einstein on 16 or 17 Dec, no record of it is known and the reader might be confused into thinking Hilbert sent an explantion of his revised theory as published in 1916 (which is what everyone thought before the proofs were discovered) (2) there is no need to repeat "week before Einstein submitted" - you are running your priority argument on the Hilbert page, trying to bias the reader in one direction. One could also say the perfectly true statement, "Hilbert received Einstein's detailed criticism of his original theory on Nov 19, on the same day Hilbert submitted his manuscript to the printer, so Hilbert had a chance to revise his theory before speaking the next night (Nov 20)". I wouldn't say that because the insinuation is pure speculation, but if there happened to be anyone who had some grudge against Hilbert they could say it and you would see how worthless that sort of thing is. I think your speculations about "Einstein the plagiarist" are of the same kind. The Hilbert page is not the place for this. E4mmacro 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, an "exchange of ideas" (original formulation in the article) goes in both directions, so the reader might be interested in what Einstein may have learned from Hilbert. The November 16 letter is in my opinion the most important piece of information which went from Hilbert to Einstein. And of course we DO KNOW that it was a description of his work, although the details are impossible to reconstruct with certainty unless the letter resurfaces. But we do know from Einstein' response ("Die Schwierigkeit bestand nicht darin allgemein kovariante Gleichungen für die $g_{\mu \nu }$ zu finden") that it contained covariant field equations, so the only possibility is that Hilbert only sent Einstein the action functional or that he miscalculated its derivative to something like ${\sqrt {g}}R_{\mu \nu }.$ CRS seem to be trying to insinuate this, but they never proved it. -De kludde 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I am not going to start an editing war about this part of my edit. My threat to use NPOV-section applied to possible restoration of the patently false claim that Hilbert gave Einstein credit for the field equations. I don't think this part my edit amounts to hair splitting, as the entire discussion goes about the field equations and not the introduction of the metric tensor. -De kludde 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your assertion "Hilbert received Einstein's detailed criticism of his original theory on Nov 19, on the same day Hilbert submitted his manuscript to the printer, so Hilbert had a chance to revise his theory before speaking the next night (Nov 20)", I have the following remarks. First of all, this only germane to the November 20 talk/manuscript, not the November 16 talk, from which Baade took notes which Einstein received. Born's comment (I have now learned from Einstein and Freundlich that you have tackled gravitation; ... Einstein himself told me that he has also solved the problem, however his consideration looks to me like a special case of yours.) was prompted by Baade's notes. Also, we know for sure what Einstein's November 18 letter contained, because it is preserved in its entirety. It contains the assertion that what Hilbert sent on November 16 is, as far as Einstein can see, equivalent to the November 4/November 11 Einstein theory. This is of course false, unless Hilbert miscalculated the derivative of his action functional. It also contains the criticism that Hilbert did not work out the Newtonian limit. This something which Einstein himself did not do on November 25, so I would dismiss it as irrelevant. A correct theory of course has to contain Newton's as a limiting case, but why should Hilbert bother about something which was not a priority for Einstein's publication? And of course Hilbert did not react to this criticism, so your remark ("Hilbert had a chance to revise his theory") is not just "pure speculation" but patently false as he did not revise his theory accordingly. I also think your other remarks are incorrect or miss the point, but don't have the time to discuss this now. -De kludde 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you think "my" assertion is ridiculous. That was the point - to show the sort of unsubtantiated conclusion jumping I think you indulge in, always thinking the worst of Einstein. You do NOT know for sure that Einstein was wrong to say what Hilbert sent him was the same as Einstein's work, because you don't know what Hilbert sent him; you have assumed that Einstein was wrong. If you made the opposite assumption that Einstein was correct in what he wrote to Hilbert (something Hilbert could easily check) then you have to revise your ideas of what you think Hilbert sent him or what Einstein and Hilbert would mean by equivalent. How do we know, btw, what Baade's notes contained, and how do we know Einstein received them and when he did (what is the reference?). E4mmacro 08:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, I really don't understand your argument. Firstly, your argument was provably unfounded and not just a speculation. Concerning Hilbert's November 16 letter, that is of course lost but we still have indirect evidence. Einstein's November 18 response makes it clear that Hilbert sent Einstein some system of field equations, either in explicit form or as variational derivative. Einstein's November 26 letter to Zangger, accusing Hilbert of attempted nostrification (a brazen lie) would be difficult to explain if Einstein really believed Hilbert's system to be equivalent to his November 4/Nov. 11 theory. Why should Einstein worry about Hilbert publishing something he had published earlier? In particular, given the fact that Einstein had realized this theory to be untenable? Finally we have couple of May 1916 letters between Einstein and Hilbert, starting from document 221 in the Princeton edition, where Einstein asks Hilbert for help in reading his paper. There is nothing in this exchange of letters which indicated that Einstein felt inadequately informed by the November 16 letter, eg nothing like:

• Dear Dave, I see you have replaced $[{\sqrt {g}}R]_{kl}={\sqrt {g}}R_{kl}$ from your letter by $[{\sqrt {g}}R]_{kl}={\sqrt {g}}(R_{kl}-{\frac {R}{2}}g_{kl})$ in your paper. This is really not a gentlemanly way of acting!

or

• Dear Dave, I now see that I was wrong about assuming that $[{\sqrt {g}}R]_{kl}$ from your postcard is ${\sqrt {g}}R_{kl}$ from my November 11 theory. But you really contributed to this misunderstanding by not calculating $[{\sqrt {g}}R]_{kl}$ for me ...

which one expect if the formulation of the field equations in Hilbert's paper was seriously different from the November 16 letter.-De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While this is a side note, I would also like to point out that Einstein was informed about Axiom III dropped in the final version by Hilbert's November 13 letter (document 140 Princeton edition), which mentions the additional four equations. This means that the fact that Hilbert originally had four additional equations which he finally dropped was known before CRS (and of course this may have inspired them to look for the printer proofs), but apparently this was not so important to Einstein. He does not mention it in the 1916 letters. -De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the information about Hilbert's November 16 letter provided by Einstein's correspondence, we also have Born's November 23 letter to Hilbert. This was discovered by Sommer, who pointed out its relevance to Wuensch. I quote and translate from p. 73-74 of her book:

Von Einstein und Freundlich hörte ich jetzt, daß Sie die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben; auch konnte ich einen kurzen Auszug Ihres Vortrages in der mathematischen Gesellschaft einsehen, den Dr. Baade an Freundlich gesandt hatte. Ich glaube, danach den Gedanken verstanden zu haben, da ich die Mieschen Arbeiten gut kenne; aber ich bin begierig, Genaueres zu wissen und möchte Sie herzlich bitten, mir einen Abdruck zu senden, sobald Ihre Arbeit erschienen ist. Einstein selbst sagt, er habe das Problem ebenfalls gelöst, doch scheint mir seine Betrachtung ein Spezialfall der Ihrigen.

I have now learned from Einstein and Freundlich that you have tackled gravitation; moreover I was able to have a look at a short excerpt from your talk which Dr. Baade had sent to Freundlich. I believe I have understood the idea, because I have a good knowledge of Mie's work, but I am eager to learn more and would like to ask you to send me a copy of your paper when it appears. Einstein himself told me that he has also solved the problem, however his consideration looks to me like a special case of yours.

Note that Freundlich was Einstein's close collaborator during this time, for which Wuensch quotes Einstein's letter to Sommerfeld, document 186. -De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on this evidence, my speculation that Einstein had Hilbert's field equations before November 25, that they were equivalent to the ones Einstein published as his own, and that Einstein was aware of this fact, is really not so unfounded. At least the evidence supporting this theory is far better than for your patently false claim about Einstein's November 18 letter and its influence on Hilbert. If you disagree, would you be so kind to give your theory explaining all this evidence? I only ask for a consistency proof, it should explain why Einstein and Born reacted the way they did without assuming that Einstein had the correct field equations from Hilbert, but you don't have to prove that it is the only possible theory. But it would nice if your theory explains why Einstein changed his mind about his Nov. 4/11 theory on Nov. 17 or 18 (which is obvious from his Mercury paper), the day when Hilbert's letter arrived. Or do you want to dismiss this as a strange coincidence?-De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An interpretation

I don't think it is necessary to jump to De kludde/Sommer/Wuensch's conclusions:

1. Born said he Einstein's GR was a special form of Hilbert's theory because Hilbert had said he combined Mie's electrodynamics and Einstein's general relativity. I don't see that Born had full knowledge of each paper and had made a detailed comparaison. Born's comments are based on notes of Hilbert's work and hearsay from Einstein.
2. On Nov 18 Einstein was due to give his 3rd scheduled talk. I doubt very much that having recived Hilbert's postcard on the morning of Nov 18 he changed his theory and calculated the correct perihelion advance for Mercury all in one day.
3. There is no evidence that Freundlich showed whatever he was sent to Einstein - it is just an assumption, assuming the worse about Eisntein.
4. Einstein can say Hilbert tried to steal his theory for many reasons - it does not follow that he wouldn't say this unless Hilbert had a 100% correct theory on Nov 20. Look at it from Einstein's point of view (i.e. don't always assume the worst about Einstein). Einstein announced he was giving four lectures on GR. He told Hilbert he had now assumed that the trace of the energy tensor was zero. According to Sauer, this was uncomfortable for Hilbert since it was dangerously close to what Hilbert was working on - a combined electromagnetic gravity theory, and for electromagnetism the trace of the energy tensor is zero. Hilbert then announced his talks of Nov 16 and Nov 20. Hilbert sends Einstein his results, explaing the requirement for four extra conditions, violating general covariance but supposedly satisfying "causality". Einstein saw in this exactly (or very close to) what he and Grossman had done and also very close to what he had said in his lecture at Gottingen. Einstein feels aggreived and indicates this to Hilbert. There is no requirement that Hilbert must have explained a generally covraiant theory to Einstein (sonmething contradicted by the proofs of his paper). I have direct knowledge of one case and have read of other cases that people who publish things second are resented by those who published first - the second publication is very often easier to understand and gets all the credit (the first steps are the hardest and messier and often not so well expressed). Any simultaneous or near simultaneous publication of similar material is a threat to the other. One can say that Einstein had no right to be aggrieved if Hilbert publishes his own work just when he hears that Einstein is going to publish, but it is a fairly normal reaction for one who has worked on it for four or five years laying all the groundwork and who then explains all that groundwork to Hilbert at Hilbert's invitation. Hilbert is embarassed adds the references to and praise of Einstein, and invites Einstein to be a corresponding member of the Gott. Math Soc. In other words, Hilbert, rather than Einstein, is the one trying to avoid a scandal and Einstein is mollified and makes his peace with Hilbert. Einstein is happy to acknowledge that Hilbert has a neat way of deriving the equations. I believe the above is a possible explanation - it is one that assume the best, rather than the worst, of Einstein. One biographer of Einstein claims that a colleague of Einstein's at Princeton had discussed it with Einstein, and was told by Einstein that Hilbert had apologised and told Einstein that he (Hilbert) had completely forgotten "that lecture" (meaning I assume, one of the Gottingen lectures of June 1915).
5. I have said what I think "meiner theorie" means on the relativity dispute page, under that heading "What is meiner Theorie".

Why Einstein changed his mind

Einstein changed his mind when it was realized that his initial field equations could only be solved by $T_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm {constant}$, meaning that the mass-energy denisty of the unverse has to be constant. (So the density of air, rock, vaccum, etc. had to be the same.) Let's just say that this is not compatible with observation. So Einstein went looking for an enabling modification, and found it in a contracted Bianchi identity which suggested adding the $-(1/2)Rg_{\mu \nu }$ term to the field equations. Could he have obtained this term from Hilbert? Possibly, but lacking a solid assertion of that from Hibert himself I have no good reason to assign him even that much credit. BTW - I do not like this business to trying to reassign credit for general relativity from Einstein. I see a controversy here that rightfully was Hilbert's to persue. That he did not speaks strongly against it (although the use of the action principle he did take credit for without objection from Einstein, with this most likely being the meiner Theorie referred to below.) Also kindly be aware that much work on reassigning credit from Einstein was done under the auspices of Nazi Germany and its anti-semitism, and that all efforts like yours are tainted by it. --EMS | Talk 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You may of course look for other evidence. For instance, Wuensch quotes the following letter from Hilbert to Schwarzschild, dated February 26, on p. 83 of her book: -De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Meine kleine Note über die Grundgleichungen der Physik haben Sie wohl erhalten. Ich möchte Sie nur darauf aufmerksam machen, dass die Forderung Determinante $g=|g_{\mu \nu }|=1$ ganz willkürlich und daher überflüssig ist. In meiner Theorie kommt dieselbe gar nicht in Frage. -De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I highlighted meiner Theorie because this may be the source you need for the dispute page. This means that you are perhaps able to find more indirect evidence in the papers or letters of Schwarzschild. But I don't know if it can be established which version of the paper Schwarzschild had received. -De kludde 16:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone move it all to the priority disputae page? That is the point of that page. Not here. E4mmacro 20:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved them, including the notes, to Talk:Relativity priority dispute. This page simply mentions that they worked together and the results were made available. Those that care about the details can look at the dispute page. John (Jwy) 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has passed

Congratulations! The Good article nomination for David Hilbert/Archive 1 has passed. Many thanks to all who were involved in the creation of this article. However, there are a few things that could be improved upon:

• The sentence in the intro paragraph "He is one of the founders of proof theory, mathematical logic, and the distinction between mathematics and metamathematics, and warmly defended Cantor's set theory and transfinite numbers." should be rephrased (it sounds awkward right now)
• There are too many header2 sections at the bottom. Consider grouping them all together under one section, (make them all header3 sections), or merging them into one single section. (fixed John (Jwy) 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC))
• There are not enough inline citations throughout the article. (The amount of references makes up for it to some extent)

--SomeStranger^(t) 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 06:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)