Talk:Leonhard Euler

Mechanical Engineering

Euler made important formulae for the buckling of colums which are not dicussed here.

Happy birthday!

Happy 300th, Herr Euler!

My friend Walt says you do not look a day over 290.

-- Dominus 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! Cheers to The Euler on his 300th! What can I say that hasn't already been said...you're the shit, Euler!--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Expressions That May Lead to Confusion

Section 2.1 Mathematical notation, line 3: He also introduced ... the letter e for the base of the natural logarithm (now also known as Euler's number)

Section 2.5 ... describing numerous applications of ... Euler numbers

It is hard to distinguish between Euler's number and Euler number. Although there are seperate pages devoted to the two concepts, this may still lead to confusion for beginners and those who use English as a foreign language. Shouldn't there be "see also" links behind both expressions?

-- User:Dale Zhong 14:59, 7 July 2007 (GMT+0800)

Lutheran or Calvinist?

This needs to be cleared up. The lead says he's commemorated in the Lutheran calendar of Saints, and the infobox says he's calvinist. Frankly, I've seen the sources go both ways, and I advocate replacing all incidences of Euler's religion with the wonderfully vague "protestant". Borisblue 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally a good suggestion, but in this case, "Calvinist" is correct: E.T Bell's "Men of Mathematics" (Penguin, 1953) says Calvinist, as does the "Eulogy" by the Marquis de Condorcet (1783). Ioan James' "Remarkable Mathematicians" (Cambridge University Press, 2002) says Evangelical Reformed (= Calvinist) Radagast3 (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading about Euler's religion, and he appears to have gone to the French reformed church when he lived in Berlin, which was a Calvinist church. 99.233.20.151 (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Affine Geometry?

Affine geometry is a fundamental tool in computer graphics, which in turn has had huge impact in the film industry, advertising, etc. Given that Euler invented it, its omission from the article is surprising. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A comprehensive list of Euler's contributions would be horrendously long. We're talking about a guy who is probably the most prolific scientist ever. I'm not an expert of on the subject, but I don't think affine geometry is as significant as a lot of the other contributions listed. Borisblue (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of those statements is completely justifiable. Euler did not 'invent' affine geometry - he partially clarified a few basic ideas that were swimming around at the time, but he didn't axiomise it or anything, and the work was built over centuries, its modern meaning only being defined in the 19th century. He coined the term 'affine', but I think that was it - and coining a name for something is certainly no the same as inventing it! If he had 'invented' it, it would certainly be one of the most significant contributions. I think it merits a mention of Euler in the 'Affine geometry' article, but not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.86.95 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Logarithm of negative numbers?

Perhaps I don't understand something, but as far as I know, there is no definition for Log(z) if z is on the negative real line. I thought this was the reason why Log(z) is not analytic on any disk that contains a piece of the negative real line or zero. Rocketman768 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this talk page is for discussions on improving the Leonhard Euler article. The kind of question you have, you can pose at the mathematics reference desk. Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical formula formatting

There's a formula in the "Personal philosophy and religious beliefs" section that needs help in my opinion. I changed the formatting slightly to make it at least readable (it wasn't before), but it seems to me to be the sort of thing that would benefit from being in LaTeX format. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that, so that's why I'm mentioning it here. I hope someone can (and will) do better with it than I have. Thanks. -- edi (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The original version of this section had the formula in Latex, but I understand why it was changed- it messes up with the line formatting a bit. I've changed it back however, I think it looks better in Latex.Borisblue (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Would Euler have been Swiss-French or Swiss-German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woscafrench (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "Euler" a German name? Other than that, I haven't a clue. Borisblue (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Euler was a native of Basel, a state of the Old Swiss Confederacy. There was no division of "Swiss-French" vs. "Swiss-German" in his day, so the question is a bit of an anachronism. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Euler was Swiss, and his first language was German, as was that of at least most of his family. Therefore, he was Swiss German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.138.31 (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

German pronunciation

German being rhotic, wouldn't the final R be pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be a huge nerd, but I've been trying several sources to find the true (Swiss?) German pronunciation of his name - by standard German phonology today it would correspond more to the standard English pronunciation. I know a few mathematicians who find this a nice point of snobbery, but even the most knowledgeable disagree. He was Swiss German, and if his ancestry was Swiss French this would complicate matters. Being a name, the pronunciation may not even hold to any standard dialectal form. Could someone more educated give a better source and explanation?

English pronunciation

I know the first paragraph doesn't exactly align with WP:MOS, but I've decided it's more important to place an explicit note about the pronunciation in the main text in an attempt to decrease the number of times that it's changed by well-intentioned but misinformed editors. I'll work on finding a source to cite for the assertion that it's "generally considered incorrect"; I'd appreciate it if everyone would please allow me a little time to do that before changing or removing it. Thanks. -- edi(talk) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added two refs. Feel free to replace them by better ones. Radagast3 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you! I won't have time to look around until the weekend, so it's great to have this done. I'll have a closer look in a few days, but I'm confident that yours are fine. Thanks again! :) -- edi(talk) 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could we get a better source for this? I don't mean to be a pain, but this is a featured article, and almost all the other sources we use here are from peer-reviewed journal articles, or other rock-solid sources. Surely there's something better than a parenthetical note on a random website? Borisblue (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added references to three major English dictionaries, these are as authoritative sources as one can get. — Emil J. 10:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue though- the statement "the common English pronunciation /ˈjuːlər/ EW-lər is incorrect.[7]" references a random website. I think this should be removed unless something better pops up. Borisblue (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget about the random website. The pronunciation /ˈjuːlər/ is not listed among acceptable variants by major English dictionaries, hence it is, according to said dictionaries, incorrect. What do you want more sources for? — Emil J. 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I just didn't like the fact that a random website is appearing in the references list for a featured article. I gather that by your "forget the random website" comment that you agree, so I'll remove it.Borisblue (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How foreign names are anglicized is more a matter of convention than of "correct" vs. "incorrect". The question is just, which pronunciations can we list as referenced in dictionaries. These dictionaries are just descriptive, i.e. they don't make statements about correctness, they just record common usage. People worrying about correct pronunciation should probably settle for the native one. --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

/ˈɔɪlər/ in English and [ˈɔʏlɐ] in German

this is silly. It is /ˈɔɪlər/ in both English and German, and phonetic [ˈɔʏlɐ] would be one possible rendition of phonological /ˈɔɪlər/ in German. --dab (𒁳) 08:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Power series

The power series for the exponential function with real x was discovered by Newton and Leibniz around 1676 but only indirectly, via inverse power series of the log function. Simonov46 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apocryphal Story

The article now has a dubious story about Euler offering up a non sequitur in a religious debate. At the end of the telling, the same anecdote is dismissed as apocryphal. That being the case, I see no reason for the story even to appear here. Are there any objections to deleting it?--Geometricks (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion, it is such a well known story that its apocryphal nature is worth a mention, (like the explicit reference to the incorrect pronunciation of Euler's name), also it fits nicely into the section on Euler's religious beliefs. So I'd say keep it. Pnels081 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it alone.--Geometricks (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe could we explicitly state that the story is apocryphal at the beginning of the story? Maybe list the story under an apocrypha section, as in the Joseph Louis Lagrange article? The fact that the anecdote is likely false seems like a side note that I think many people might ignore.MedicineMan555 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find that fine. Only one thing. For the sake of neutrality we shouldn't say "It is apocryphal!" but, you know, a more neutral thing like "it is beleived to be apocryphal" or something like that. Unless it is unanimously accepted among the reliable sources that it is.  franklin  01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely unanimously accepted that the story isn't true. It is also a very prominent anecdote, so I feel it deserves a mention in the article. Borisblue (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Euler's middle name

In the past three years, I’ve seen all over the Internet Euler’s middle name, “Paul,” in his full name. Does anyone know how this started? In other words, does anyone have a printed source that says “Leonhard Paul Euler” prior to 2007? Giftlite (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Greatest of all time?

The article states that Euler "... is considered by some to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century, and arguably the greatest of all time", however it presents no justification nor references to those unproved statements. The first part ("preeminent ... of the 18th century") at least could be justified by historical evidences, but the latest phrase ("arguably the greatest of all time") would deserve serious references to support it. As far as I am aware of, Gauss, Newton and Archimedes have been widely cited as the three greatest mathematicians ever, Euler maybe coming right next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffel (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's practically a direct quote of the citation given to the American Mathematical Monthly. Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment

The listing of this book in the lede is utterly undue. Murray's view of Euler is utterly non-notable. If a case can be made for including this material, it should be made on the talk page, not through edit warring. aprock (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Euler's influence on mathematics is a relevant subject. Human Accomplishment measures this quantitatively.Miradre (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is you who started reverting in order to remove the material without taking it up on talk.Miradre (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I reverted content that did not merit inclusion. It still does not merit inclusion. Murray's view is utterly unremarkable and undue. aprock (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I quote from WP:BRD "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the change" and "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." So you should not really have continued reverting after your first revert.Miradre (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the book. Why is the book "unremarkable and undue"? It is certainly a notable quantitative way of measuring influence that has been cited by many other researchers.Miradre (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your content because Murray's view of Euler not notable at all. aprock (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be just your personal opinion. The book is cited by many peer-reviewed papers and books.Miradre (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By all means, provide a source that specifically singles out and discusses Murray's view Euler. aprock (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No such requirement in WP policies. The book is notable. There is no requirement to have another source paraphrasing the book's contents in order to be able to use it.Miradre (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy you're looking for is WP:UNDUE. See also WP:TRIVIA. aprock (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing there that is required to have another source paraphrasing something one wants to cite from a WP:RS. The WP:RS is enough by itself. That is the book is not notable seems to be your personal opinion; the book is cited by many peer-reviewed papers and scholarly books. Euler's influence on mathematics is of course not trivia.Miradre (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You've provided zero sources here. There is nothing to talk about. aprock (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search gives 133 citations of the book (+44 from another version).[1]Miradre (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So? No one is arguing that there shouldn't be an article for that book. aprock (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So we have WP:RS which discusses Euler's influence on mathematics which is certainly relevant for this article.Miradre (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about using the book as a source for the article. We're talking including discussion of the book in this article. aprock (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing if we should include the quantitatively determined estimate of Euler's influence on mathematics from this WP:RS.Miradre (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Until you come back with secondary sources indicating that Murray's particular view of Euler is notable, including discussion of his book in the article is undue. When you produce some secondary sources, this conversation can continue, until then there is nothing left to say. fin. aprock (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no policy requiring such a secondary source paraphrasing and endorsing a WP:RS on a specific issue in order to cite the WP:RS. A WP:RS stands by itself. If you claim that there is such a policy, please give a quote with a link.Miradre (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are having your usual bouts of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. You are free to use the book as a source. Discussing the book in the body of the article another matter. aprock (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I have still not heard any policy demanding a secondary source for citing a WP:RS. There is no such policy. Again, give a quote with a link to this supposed policy. Furthermore, I am not suggesting discussing the book; I am using it as a source to discuss Euler.Miradre (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The reference to this book, here and elsewhere, is wholly inappropriate spamming of wikipedia by Miradre. Charles Murray's book is not a scholarly book on the mathematical achievements of Euler. There is no generally accepted quantitative evaluation of mathematicians, just Murray's personal statistical assessment, which in the academic world carries no weight whatsover (although it might have some comical value). Mathsci (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Accomplishment is a scholarly, quantitative book that includes a measure of Euler's influence on mathematics. A Google Scholar search gives 133 citations of the book (+44 from another version).[2] Your personal opinion on the other hand is unsourced.Miradre (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a scholarly book from the point of view of the history of mathematics. Charles Murray does not have the expertise required to assess Euler's contribution to mathematics. Miradre, your edits to this article were silly and amateurish spamming. You are wasting other editors' time. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is accepted as a scholarly book regarding the influence of individuals on science and arts. Desist from further incivility.Miradre (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Murray's statistical evaluation is not accepted by scholars in the history of mathematics: I would say it is completely ignored as a gimmick. WikiProject Mathematics does not quite work in the way you imagine: my assessment of that source as inappropriate and undue carries quite a lot of weight. If you can cite any serious mathematical university text which refers to Murray and his assessment of Euler, I would be interested. If you make silly and amateurish edits, they will be described as such. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You give no sources; I have given sources. Again, there is nopolicy requiring such a secondary source paraphrasing and endorsing a WP:RS on a specific issue in order to cite the WP:RS. A WP:RS stands by itself. If you claim that there is such a policy, please give a quote with a link.Miradre (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to provide sources in saying that the book of Charles Murray is not a WP:RS in this context. Charles Murray is not a recognized authority within the history of mathematics, no matter how much you choose to wikilawyer about that point. But we can take this to WikiProject Mathematics if you like. Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is one source regarding mathematical achievements citing the book: [3].Miradre (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An Evolutionary Perspective on Sex Differences in Mathematics and the Sciences. Why aren't more women in science? That is a psychology article not a scholarly article/book on the history of mathematics or Euler. Please stop wasting time. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to take it up at the Wikiproject. I have provided sources for the book being a WP:RS. You have not provided any for your views.Miradre (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You have provided none at all in the context of the history of mathematics with specific reference to Euler. In that sense your edits at the moment have degenerated to WP:TROLLING. Please try to make edits that are more sensible and/or professional. This is a featured article. Any attempts to reinsert this material will undoubtedly be reverted; they would also probably result in you being reported at a noticeboard for tendentious editing. Mathsci (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil. I have asked at the Mathematics Wikiprojekt for further feedback.Miradre (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the book could be cited but the way it was put in gave it undue prominence. No mention of the author or book should be in the main text. The figures are no better than any other survey and looking at the results I would say a number of different categories are wildly out including the maths one. The usual thing is to adjust the parameters of what you are measuring so as to correspond with the preference order of a survey rather than say your figure s better irrespective. The categorization also strikes me as a bit problematic but that's a general problem. Overall you don't get better info on the top results by doing a wide survey than a focused one. Anyway irrespective of my feelings about it how it was pout in made it look like promotional material for the book rather than anything about Euler. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I would say that a very important aspect is that it is not an ordinary survey and seems more credible than an ordinary survey. The wikilink gives the reader the possibility to judge the value of the ranking and methodology for themselves.Miradre (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic is Euler and the survey is very minor in that context, his reputation does not depend on that survey and nothing about its methodology is of relevance to his reputation. It's just another citation. I would expect its correlation with the opinions of experts to be not exactly impressive. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, for other surveys the source and methodology is usually briefly mentioned. Take Newton: "Newton remains influential to scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society (formerly headed by Newton) asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein. Royal Society scientists deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution.[62] In 1999, an opinion poll of 100 of today's leading physicists voted Einstein the "greatest physicist ever;" with Newton the runner-up, while a parallel survey of rank-and-file physicists by the site PhysicsWeb gave the top spot to Newton.[63]"Miradre (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

They have some relevance to the topic. This person has none. His opinion has no weight in the context. And even if he tried to make out that it was scientific it is still his opinion in that he chose the methods and sources and what to measure and how to get the results. If you check Google nowadays you will see they say their results are their opinion not something scientific. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics -- My opinion: the reference to Charles Murray's book is silly trivia and distracts from the main subject. What Murray thinks about Euler is surely not one of those key, important things that one would like to find out from the introduction to an article about Euler; the preceding paragraphs (which state the fields on which Euler had an impact, and give the views of actual mathematicians about Euler's impact on mathematics) make the point far better. This makes me the 4th person to take this position; so far you have found no one who agrees with you. I think it's time to give it up. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for you input. Not sure if Dmcq still thinks the book would be acceptable as a source if not mentioning the book itself, as initially stated, but I will not argue further for inclusion.Miradre (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection to it being a citation at the end of 'He is considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century, and one of the greatest of all time'. There's other stuff that could be used for that as well but it is as good as any I guess. Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

facilitated the use of differential equations

What does this mean: "He also facilitated the use of differential equations, in particular introducing the Euler–Mascheroni constant"? How did does one "facilitate" in this contet and why would the gamma constant help? Echigo mole (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Music Theory Start Class

Just clarifying why this is start class - there is only a small sentence on his applications of his math in music. The idea is to hopefully expand on this part of the article. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

LaPlace quote translation

While the quote in the footnotes uses the word "maître" which can mean either 'master' or 'teacher', I agree that 'teacher' is a more faithful translation in this context. However, 'c'est notre maître à tous' unambiguously means 'he is the teacher/master of us all', not 'he is our master in all things', which would involve 'en tout' rather than 'à tous'. In modern French, this is a very fundamental distinction, and having read French works from the period, I highly doubt the meanings have changed any time recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.228.210 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation of LaPlace quote

It's a relatively minor point, but the correct translation of 'C'est notre maître à tous' can only be "he is the master of us all" or "he is the teacher of us all". It is not clear which is better, since the dual denotation creates connotations different from either English word. However, it is certain that 'à tous' means 'to us all'. 'In all things' would be 'en toutes choses' or possibly 'en tout' for short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpoly (talk • contribs) 00:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed one of the translations; whatever the merits of either having two is redundant. Since the title of the book cited is Euler: The Master of Us All| probably that should be the preferred translation. The word master has connotations of teacher in English as well, for instance as the root of schoolmaster. It would be nice to have a direct cite for the quote itself, too often when you try to trace this kind of thing it turns out to be a misquote of a paraphrase of something someone else thought he heard somewhere.--RDBury (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Just did a quick look on Google books and the earliest cite for the quote I found was here dating from 1846 some twenty years after Laplace died. I can't determine the author since the scan for that page is unreadable, but it's stated (if you can trust my rather weak translation skills) as a personal recollection rather than as coming from something more reliable like a letter that someone might have a copy of. So the statement is definitely attributed (by someone) to Laplace but it goes a bit far to say for sure that he actually said it.--RDBury (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The author is Guglielmo Libri (see, e.g., [4] -- especially the footnote). — Myasuda (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This in turn cites WikiQuote (which would have been worth a try if I'd thought of it).--RDBury (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)