Talk:David Hilbert/Archive 3

Physics and Hilbert

Crossed out : "Hilbert and his students supplied significant portions of the mathematical infrastructure required for quantum mechanics and general relativity. " Unreferenced. Disputed.

Sigh. I keep coming back every couple of years to see if David's article has been cleaned up. I've commented before. This article was obviously written by a mathematician, guessing new PhD. Sorry to be that blunt. I am pretty certain no Physicist wrote what I crossed out. In any event I like mathematicians, they help me with my homework and tell me interesting things (when they aren't just babbling incoherently). They are honored philosophers in my book, and David Hilbert was (according to mathematicians) one of the greatest mathematician of the last century and his mathematics also really helped formalize some of the language of physics, which physicists would no doubt acknowledge. Which is why I weep to see claims that Hilbert also invented relativity, quantum mechanics, and the pop-up toaster when we all know from an impeccably authoritative article in the wikipedia that Charles Strite invented the pop up toaster in 1921, Erwin Schrodinger won the Nobel prize for his work in quantum mechanics in 1933, and no one on the planet besides a lunatic fringe doubts that the core genius of insight of relativity, first in special, then another incredibly eclipsing triumph in general relativity, was attributable directly to Albert Einstein. Himself. And despite the mathematical brilliance of Hilbert and his capable physics tutors, and despite that he could undoubtedly "do" physics problems, I think I can still have a doubt whether he ever actually 'got' physics, or ever really wanted to. The revisionist history that has Hilbert at the center of the universe is misguided, and need I say false? In particular, I have several quantum mechanics books at my disposal and Hilbert is a mere footnote, how could he be at the "essential core" of the field. Enough! David Hilbert may be honored without also dishonoring him. Accurately portray his contributions, and none will doubt his excellence, nor the quality of a wikipedia article.

I have crossed out a mere sentence. There are a few others but I will in due course return to review comment and complete an edit. The sentence could be revised to an acceptable form, but perhaps it is what the author was actually trying to say that is the real problem, not the wording he used to say it. == --Pie are round (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence does not imply Hilbert "got" physics nor that he should get Einstein or Schrodinger's Nobel prizes. As described in the Physics section, the "pure" mathematics he was mostly responsible for were put to use by his students (Weyl, Courant and von Neumann) and others in important ways for modern physics. Perhaps "required for" is too strong. "important for" may be more appropriate. This is supported by Reid.

I am not one to put Hilbert too far into the Physics mainstream as some do. I can point you to some quite extreme comments from someone attacking me from the other side. But lets give Hilbert his due. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

=

The sentence says what it says and implies what it implies. I have stated my concern, and am obliged to be be blunt here. You (Jwy) have reverted my edit despite that I have reasonably set out a serious objection. People could still read it, but know there was an objection. Your action was high-handed, and overly defensive, as more properly you should have left it until a disagreement could be resolved. This may indicate you have become too enbroiled and vested in this position and article to continue as a credible and objective editor. As for Reid as a source, he is a biographer, not a brain surgeon, so let us regard his opinions on brain surgery accordingly, thus evade risk of lobotomy at the hands of the unqualified. In any event a naked, vague, and unreference assertion a biographer supports something is not convincing evidence he either supports it, nor offered persuasive reasons for any support he may have given, nor was even qualified to have a credible opinion on the thing.

In my opinion the article (in parts) suffers from a lack of objectivity and scholarship, and that sentence is just one example. Others have shown their concerns about the article as well, and it is clear this holds the article back from greater acceptance. I am less critical than some, but in my opinion the writing of the disputed sentence indicates a profound lack of understanding of the subject to which it pertains, the English language and the meaning of words, and perhaps even the concept of what it means to know something. It is profound, not minor. Your reversion under these circumstances indicates you don't recognize or respect that, that we are not going to agree. However, resoluton might still be possible.

Of course Hilbert may have what he is due, I do not deny him that, but who decides what is due is not a few, or just you. Frankly I am old enough and trained enough to know that despite the bayings of a few crackpots (and irrespective of who is "right") Hilbert is not credited by the vast majority of authority with the development of the physics of either relativity or quantum mechanics, and that view is supported by overwhelming evidence. To say Hilbert is responsible likens to saying Marlowe wrote Shakespeare, (or more insultingly that such works were mere grammar). The Marlowe (or Hilbert) conjecture, for that is all it is, may provide for an amusing, even interesting controversy and debate which can have benefit to society, but it is not elevated to the level of general acceptance whatever the truth of it. It is not "knowledge", and to claim it is knowledge is not "scholarship", it is "brain damage".

Albert and David were both luminaries in their fields, but they were not on the same level, and its not even a matter of close. David lit up mathematics with his intellect, but Albert lit up the universe with his. All the science of all the philosophers of mankind, the ideas of the most brilliant minds of all ages swept into a malestrom of reconsideration by a simple thought in the mind of one who could finally work out and understand its significance. No, that is not the same level at all. I deny it is. Lorentz, Poincaire? So? Is Shakespeare nothing because all the words were already invented? No, that completely misses the nature of what we call genius. Anyway, controversy can be properly treated in a demarcated section setting forth an objective view of both sides. That would seem better. I personally have long held a conjecture that Klaatu actually visited Earth in 1904 and for some twisted alien reason picked a patent clerk to impart to the world the science we needed to destroy ourselves. Bates had it wrong, for who needs a race of Gnut super robots to merely destroy a species as stupid as mankind! Just tell us how and we'll handle it! So I hope we can include that conjecture in this lively wikipedia "debate" over the discovery of relativity.

The article needs a haircut to trim away some of its ragged edges. This has been mentioned before but stubbornly ignored. Yet the question here is not "who invented relativity or quantum mechanics" but is instead whether, in the face of objection, the questioned sentence meets the standards of the wikipedia. I say it does not and propose the following revision, which I think is true but still compromise, and offered on the proviso you can provide a citation which actually supports it.

" Hilbert and his students supplied developed significant portions of the a mathematical infrastructure required for useful to the fields of quantum mechanics and general relativity. (Citation?) He is also known as one of the founders of proof theory, mathematical logic and the distinction between mathematics and metamathematics. (Citation?) " Pie are round (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, Mr. Pie. I didn't touch your edits. Please have a look at the history of the article. It appears your change had not been made when you wrote your comments above. I don't mind bluntness, but your tone is overly personal and confrontational. You act as if I have been stonewalling you for months when I have just now heard from you. I work (and have worked) very well with people who assume I am interested in a better Wikipedia. No one has questioned this sentence before, as I remember (in fact, to the contrary, I've fought off those trying to make an Einstein out of Hilbert). Excuse me, but I'm going to take a break and then reread your comments when I am less annoyed and can have a productive discussion with you. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means, take a break, calm yourself, return another day. This problem is long-standing and it will not crush the world to give it thought. I made a strikethrough of a sentence, and an accompanying comment, and the strikethrough was quickly reverted, it appeared by you. You included a comment in response and that was courteous of you and I regret if my blunt comments in response caused annoyance. However I also made an alternative proposal which appears also to have been promptly reverted, without comment or explanation, by Will BeBack. That could be an abuse. So perhaps I will also break before inquiring further about it. The future of Wikipedia depends on many things, courtesy and cooperation are among these. So I will offer this: The POV of the sentence in question cannot be reasonably considered neutral when it is demonstrably false. It is demonstrably false, in this case, when it fails to achieve general acceptance in the relevant !scientific! community.

You should trust me when I suggest the disputed sentence doesn't pass that test. More, acceptance by the mathematics community (which I also doubt) is not pertinent. But this problem should also be a grave warning, for if the standard of removal is that something must be provably false, the Wikipedia will be useless to everyone. And if the answer to every proposal for change is a revert, then it will never improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pie are round (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A train ride sufficed to calm me down sufficiently. Apology written (in parallel) on your talk page and thank you for yours. Its unclear to me how much of the Wikipedia guidelines you are aware of, as they may become important in further discussion. My apologies if you are already familiar. The Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion are not "truth," unfortunately (but understandably, how does one determine that in such a forum), but verifiability and the ability to find appropriate sources for them. And I think Will BeBack was attempting (although he might correct me) to handle the article in a more standard way - if there is an issue, tag it so it is understood to be contested and discuss it on the talk page. He obviously saw that this discussion was going on (he moved it down here!).

But back to the text. My understanding is this: modern physics depends on some intense mathematics, a rigorous basis of which can be traced back to Hilbert. I'm not saying he is responsible for modern physics, but that he (and his followers) provided tools critical to its efficient development. If I understand it properly, our disagreement is how important these tools are. Is that fair? If that is the issue, then we can look for sources that support our positions. If not, let's figure out more precisely where we stand. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I will look for citations for the marked sentences and provide them, probably adjusting the sentences because I agree the current statement of their influence on the development of the physics is too strong. I am having trouble finding older discussions of your concerns on this talk page or its archive, so if you have further specific objections/suggestions, please re-iterate them here (or provide a reference). BTW, the article Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics focusses (appropriately) on the physicists' steps in developing quantum theory, but Hilbert was a major force behind the movement to "the use of abstract mathematical structures, such as infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and operators on these spaces" that are the tools still used. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What shall we play for? Quatloos? Your approach is conciliatory but still seems to misapprehend the posture of the thing. My position is I do not support the assertion, I challenge it, and that it must be removed or revised unless it is properly supported. It is my claim the sentence is argumentative, it is disputed, it is unsupported by appropriate authority, it is a substantial misrepresentation by overstatement, not mere polite puffery or praise. The fact that it is unsupported is an indicator there may not be any proper support. The emperor has no clothes. He must be arrested, for the law of clothes must be obeyed.

In addition, I do not claim to be prepared to support a lesser or less controversial version. It may be you do not support this version either. Indeed "We" may not have a disagreement of substance beyond some unsupported reversion of edits by two editors, which could raise some concerns. However, in a helpful spirit I offer further insight. Here the especially argumentative words I see are "the" and "required". Revising these may help it escape the axe. Depends, it still wobbles. Certainly Hilbert did labor productively in the applied mathematics OF QM and relativity (and other subjects). He wrote a book, actually an authoritative treatise, on the subject. (Math texts, not physics texts). Yet I caution that while novel formulation of Newtons's laws of motion in formal evening attire of a newfangled calculus may make someone a great mathematician, even the new darling of physics, it does not automatically make them a Physicist, nor entitle them to credit for Newton's laws, nor to a completely delusional claim that the new math is "required". So we ask who claims that sentence is correct, and beyond that what credible and authoritative support do they have for it?

As to crediting Hilbert as a substantial force behind the movement to "the use of abstract mathematical structures, such as infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and operators on these spaces"... I kinda like that, thats more like it, and think it likely so and supportable. I have no objection to properly crediting Hilbert for his work, I personally think it was way cool, actually. Why else would I have come here? So I think you are on the right track on that. Look, consider what might appear in an academic text. A Mathematician writing a text who extended his claims improperly into an area not within his recognized expertise had better be right or he will be denounced and humiliated. This tends to keep such works properly closeted, thus maintains the aura of authority. Alas, Wiki doesn't work that way, huh? So it only has us for help. These controversies are unnecessary if care is taken. That is what is needed here. --Pie are round (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Walter Isaacson's 2007 biography of Einstein Einstein: His Life and Universe, Simon and Schuster -- has an entire chapter titled "General Relativity" pp. 189 - 224. Hilbert makes his entrance on page 212 during the meeting of Einstein with Hilbert at the U of Gottingen. What then follows is a complicated dance as both men tried to "solve the Entwurf equations". The necessary formulas had come from some guy named Besso, and Einstein had been fiddling with them since 1913 but WWI intruded. Then errors were discovered by Einstein in Besso's treatment. The saga of Einstein and Hilbert goes from pages 212 to 221. Einstein "reached back to the Riemann and Ricci tensors that Grossmann had introduced him to in 1912 . . . this method got him much closer to the correct solution, but his equations on November 4 were still not generally covariant. That would take another three weeks" (p. 215). Hilbert found the same flaws in the Entwurf equations (p. 216). On page 221 the author asks "So who actually deserves the primary credit for the final mathematical equations?" He states "It is fair to say that both men -- to some extent independently but each also with knowledge of what the other was doing -- derived by November 15 mathematical equations that gave formal expression to the general theory." There's more on pages 222ff. As this is a complicated dance, I'd suggest all interested parties should read this chapter. The "facts" are that Einstein wasn't the level of a mathematician of Riemann, Grossmann, Besso and Hilbert, and he had to rely to some degree on the work of the first 3. While the race with Hilbert panicked him and energized him, the assertion that Hilbert's mathematics informed Einstein's seems dubious. The question has more to do with priority than influence. At least that's per my quick re-reading of this. BillWvbailey (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Yet my take is that it is interesting speculation by Isaacson, perhaps sufficient to raise a controversy in a footnote, but otherwise somewhat intangible. It shows Hilbert engaged on the math problem. The Physics was all Einstein. Yet It might be suffice to raise a note in the Wikipedia. But Science doesn't claim Einstein was a superior mathematician. It claims him as one of the greatest scientists to ever have lived. Of course Einstein needed help with the math, do you have any idea how HARD the problem of gravity was??? It ATE lesser men. Einstein was urged not to work on it for fear it would consume unproductively the greatest scientific mind on earth. Oh please let him work on things that are possible! But Einstein was determined, so if I were in charge I swear to you I would have fed him as many David Hilberts as he could consume in some faint hope it would somehow help him in his work. Someone imagines Hilbert on this level? Oh, Puleeeeze. I know, I know, David could do the math. David was brilliant, but the great weight of authority, with very good reason, assigns to Einstein and Einstein alone these most significant scientific achievements. Remember Albert was already acknowledged BY HIS PEERS, as one of if not THE greatest scientist in the world, and that was in 1906 at age 26. And all that was BEFORE general relativity. Yet all that washed away and credit given to Hilbert based on speculation by Issacson, and not merely that, speculation that even if it were entirely taken in Hilberts favor would NOT be sufficient to attribute Relativity to Hilbert. Only the most biased and uncritical view could reach such result.

Again, physics is science, and math is not. If Hilbert wants credit for science, let him do some. (Snarky.. but point made. David didn't care about physics, David loved mathematics! Isn't that obvious? And he was determined to make it helpful and useful to science. And he did. Science loves David, so it is painful to speak so disrespectfully of him just to clear up some sillyness.) In any event, I find the above offered support of the disputed sentence unpersuasive. I think it IS unpersuasive to any critical thinker.--Pie are round (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In much of this, you are preaching to the choir. My intent with the sentence in dispute (I believe I wrote it) was NOT to imply that Hilbert had priority over Einstein, that he was a Physicist or any such thing. I think Mr. Bailey was around when we were attempting to keep that kind of thing out of the article (Licorne anyone?). My intent was to credit Hilbert for the ever-present operators (bra and ket) and the analysis tools that led to Hilbert space - certainly not inconsequential to modern physics - and on his direct influence on the mathematics of those that worked with him and moved on to Physics fame. Pie was correct in one way - I've been so involved in the article that I did not see that that sentence could be interpreted that way. So can we focus on getting a sentence (or two) that reflects that rather than arguing the unintended meaning of the existing sentence? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes we may do that. You are slow to confession, my dear fellow. But you have also born the brunt of criticism probably more due others than yourself, so have already paid a sufficient price. Hilbert is not the only page with this kind of problem. Yet here may be the source of the problem perpetuation. We've covered relativity, but I will also offer concerning quantum theory that I'm sitting here with an undergraduate quantum physics book on my lap which devotes 3 pages to Hilbert at about page 300 (and a footnote somewhere near page 100). 300 pages of quantum theory, that is, of physics, with only incidental mention of Hilbert. Earlier works, for example the venerable "Quantum Chemistry" by Eyring (1944) mentions David not even once in 400 pages. It appears David is not acknowledged by these authorities as "required" for development or study of quantum mechanics either. Thus it is necessary to phrase your proposition substantially differently to bring it into conformance with a heavy weight of scientific authority.

I have proposed something already, but my revision is minimalist and as a result poor, and I would say it might be better done if replaced entirely with something fresh. As the author of the offending sentence you have first privilege at revision. It will be my privilege to return to praise your effort. You have offered several things already that have promise, but might be generalized to avoid jargon and impart the sence of it. Heres something fun... all the vector spaces of quantum mechanics are Hilbert spaces. It says nothing much but is true (by definition) and sounds interesting and can get a reader into an explanation of the relationship between the mathematics of David Hilbert and the physics of quantum mechanics. Just an idea. Simpler is better though. Anyway, I'm not familiar with your background so will, because we are now singing in the same choir, simply defer to your lead.--Pie are round (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One word? You changed one word? Well, that is a beginning, but that miserly change is not the true path to accolades and praise. So please advise me you are still working on it in good faith, and I will give you some time, for let me assure you there still remains an open and serious dispute of POV and factual accuracy of this article.--Pie are round (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your precise issue with the current sentence? In the mean time, I'm looking for citations. It might be better to make sure we have the Hilbert and Physics section clear first as this is intended only to be a summary of that. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You might review my earlier suggestions, which were still inadequate but dropped the temperature somewhat. The problem is not merely how you are saying it, but what you seem to be trying to say. Hilbert is not credited with either relativity or quantum mechanics, and his math is not critical (in the sence you imply) to either field. You must be able to articulate accurately the relationship between Hilbert's work and those fields, which is not entirely easy and you have not done it. Anyway, go more carefully. Don't try to restate what is controversial, rather be a scholar, concentrate on what is indisputably so. Get a credible authority to back up what you say, then say it. Beware absolutes and hyperbole, seek language that is unambiguous and not susceptible to an erroneous meaning (ie both errors were in the orig sentence). Just start over, and go more slowly. --Pie are round (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am taking your advice and going more slowly, but am continuing to research - delving into the history of mathematics and the development of integral equations. Again, I don't think the sentence impllies credit for relativity or quantum mechanics (maybe in the context of looking for a precedence dispute it might appear to be there). My understanding is that his work in formalizing and developing the theory of integral equations and linear operators is used extensively in those fields. If you agree, feel free to adjust the sentence accordingly. What I am looking for is a sentence that summarizes his contribution that is expanded in the section below. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

More slowly is fine, but still 'deliberate speed'. However, while this has gone on for some time I'm not prepared to allow the sentence to stand as it is while it is under this dispute. I suggest we mark the sentence as disputed and under review to signal to readers it has been questioned and point to this discussion. Remember you have not supported your assumption and I have stated it is not accurate. May I suggest you be given the courtesy to do that edit in some reasonable manner, but promptly. I do not intend to let this go indefinitely, there are other things to do, and the only reason you are getting this courtesy is .. I'm a softy at heart and would rather teach than crowbar into submission, assuming there is hope. Yet if at any time communication breaks down or I percieve stone-walling or bad faith, or academic inadequacy that is profound and stubbronly adhered to, then I will cut losses and ask bluntly your intentions/progress, and request a response before further action. In the meantime I am willing to provide further specific and general assistance on this subject.

May I suggest that (the article) says things about Hilbert which overstate the case while completely overlooking some of the really wonderful things that make Hilbert a great man. Wonderful things right smack in front of the nose! I'll get to that maybe later. But this is a critical and serious problem at the foundation. For present this: you will not find the answer to this problem in "history" of the integral equations, but in better understanding the nature of how science and mathematics relate, (and also in how society decides things). In any event, if you are trying to prove physics uses calculus then why not credit Leibniz with relativity, or even better (giving you the fish eye) Newton! In fact, shouldn't Newton be given credit for Hilbert spaces too? Let's resolve to call them Newton spaces! Do you see the problem?

Rather find an authority IN PHYSICS that credits Hilbert with something IN PHYSICS, and not some bizarro whackout like Shockley or something, someone who speaks on behalf of an accepted view in the scientific community. Somebody solid and not a showman. I doubt you will find support for your present contention but you might find something else good you can use. Look, then if unsuccessful, concede so we can move on. --Pie are round (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't look to other editors here to be teachers, but collaborators, people who try to understand the processes here, read, answer questions asked (where appropriate) and contribute to the text. The statements are already marked so as to indicate they are questionable. While I have not been completely satisfied with the article for quite a while, this sentence has stood without major objection by knowledgeable colleagues for some time. I still don't see where we are claiming that Hilbert is responsible for quantum physics or relativity. Can you explain how you get that impression? (John User:Jwy talk) 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it at all? What's this "the mathematical infrastructure" you speak of that connects science to math? Did you mean "a mathematical infrastructure"? Even if the latter were arguably true of quantum mechanics how is it so for relativity? Simply, what authority do you have in support of your statement? That is the question. (I told you, say what is indisputable, not merely fringe arguable.)

The statement was challenged as a gross misstatement and misleading. You have made some changes to soften it, but it is still unsupported. I keep gently chiding you to look for some support that I don't expect you to find. In fact the entire article has been excoriated repeatedly for lack of scholarship (references), and it is perhaps time for someone to start being concerned about WHY that is. Yet the subject (Hilbert) is too important to simply delete. This is one of the most important mathematicians of the last century! Yet at least one reviewer said retention was a tough call. I'm trying the alternative.

Willful blindness is no argument either, it is stonewalling. This isn't about me proving to you what you cannot see. You are either academically trained or you are not. Perpetual motion keeps coming up a lot too, but such a machine STILL violates the laws of thermodynamics and has no mainstream scientific support. Perhaps you "see" that, or perhaps not. However, the (orig) sentence would most definitely NOT stand up to publication peer review, and any one of your "knowledgeable colleagues" would and should be professionally embarrassed to be confronted with it, so don't mention them by name (it might be slander, which would violate wiki rules)). The view taken is a fringe minority view (of long standing, held by Hilbert himself), it has been FORMALLY (I repeat, FORMALLY) discredited, but apparently still taught in whispers by young and misguided math teachers, and Wikipedia seems to be the only other place on earth it can still find some refuge, where it is fiercely and stubbornly defended. But all that might also be why you cant find mainstream citations in support. The sentence is unsupported, does not meet wikipedia standards and, if you cannot correct its deficiencies with authoritative sources, should be removed.

I personally think you can find some mainstream support for a something not the same but kinda similar, but use authority and take care not to to state something that violates the laws of thermodynamics (or some other mainstream philosophical principle). But hurry up.--Pie are round (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. "The sentence now reads: Hilbert and his students contributed significantly to establishing rigor and some tools to the mathematics used in modern physics.[citation needed]" I think that probably passes even without a citation, just my humble opinion. It might be it could be made somewhat stronger with citation. In the meantime I think it passes.

Next consider the part in Physics that says: "Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures in June-July 1915 on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity.[26] The exchange of ideas led to the final form of the field equations of General Relativity, namely the Einstein field equations and the Einstein-Hilbert action. In spite of the fact that Einstein and Hilbert never engaged in a public priority dispute, there has been some dispute about the discovery of the field equations." This contains a biased conjecture and the thrust of the paragraph is to communicate, by innuendo of justaposition, that Hilbert was a significant contributor or originator of the field equations. I think it fair to say that (whoever actually did the field equations, and it might have been Klaatu for all I know) the overwhelming mainstream view is that Einstein is credited with both the theory and the field equations. Normally an unbiased scholarly article would present the mainstream view while mentioning the alternate view in a balanced manner. I do not believe that paragraph achieves the correct balance. What is your view of it? --Pie are round (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed something of a compromise. We had someone who felt very strongly that Einstein didn't do anything and was trying to use this page to support that view of the universe (um, parallel universe). He left in an amazing flameout and is banned permanently. I think it fair to point to the dispute page, but would have no problem toning it down some. Let's not remove Hilbert from it completely - the meetings did take place and apparently Einstein worry about Hilbert's progress spurred him on. Feel free. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 06:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only path you can take here is to assemble your wording from the existing sources. Isaacson makes it very clear that Hilbert, rather than collaborate, decided to beat Einstein to the equations. Hilbert worked independently, uncooperatively, and at a furious pace. Both arrived at the equations at the same time, within days, if not hours.

When Hilbert first learned about Einstein's travails, he had a choice of behaviors -- either collaborate, or not collaborate. He chose the later. Although I'm an engineer by trade (and collaboration was foreign to me because industry competitors do not collaborate) I've done field work with evolutionarory biologists and witnessed how collaboration works. I was amazed at the ethics behind it -- when confronted with a potential competitor's (aka collaborator's) daunting task you make time in your own work and lend a hand. Often a biologist in the field will collect for another scientist; the collector may be a second author on resulting paper. In the words of those who knew him, Hilbert was something of a shit. Here are some interesting quotes to be found in Reid about Hilbert's character:

"Then in December 1914, although still not drafted, Lande decided to volunteer for the Red Cross. When Hilbert heard that his assistant was going to leave him, he was most annoyed. To Lande, his response was another example of his extreme egocentricity:

"'He thought only about mathematics; and since he was considered, now that Poincare was gone, the greatest mathematician of the time, he thought every ease was due to him, from his wife and everybody else. He squeezed me out for my physics. That was all I meant to him.'

"(To Lande's teacher Sommerfeld, however, Hilbert's 'naive and imperative egoism' was always 'egoism in the interest of his mission, never of his own person.')" (Reid, p. 141)

That's a hell of a justification for bad behavior: "It's all about the mission, not about me." Anyway, we know that Hilbert took an interest in physics because one of his 20 problems was to "axiomatize physics":

"Hilbert was now primarily interested in the fundamental problems of physics . . . it was Hilbert's opinion, according to Debye, that Maxwell's equations did not attack the essence of the problem of the structure of matter -- at that time the electron was the only known fundamental particle -- and that equations were needed from which it should follow that such a particle exists./In their daily sessions, Lande was presenting to Hilbert 'in a distilled form for mathematicians' the quantum mechanics of randomly scattered events, [etc -- the quote above re Lande and the Red Cross follows]" (Reid p. 140).

The quote of Lande's follows, then: "Just before Christmas, Lande left Gottingen . . ./ In Gottingen,in the the weekly Hilbert-Debye seminars, it seemed to those few students who were left that the "living pulse" of physical research was at their fingertips. The work of Einstein as he pressed forward toward a general theory of relativity was followed with great interest. Also followed was the work of others who were trying to reach the same goal . . . in his own investigations he was able to bring together Mie's program of pure field theory and Einstien's theory of gravitation. At the same time, while Einstein was attempteing in a rather roundabout way to develop the binding laws for the 10 coefficients of the differential form which determines gravitation, Hilbert independently solved the problem in a different, more direct way./Both men arrived at almost the same time at the goal. .../It was a remarkable coincidence . . . but even more remarkable, according to Born (who was now in Berlin with Einstein), was the fact that it led, not to a controversy over priority, but to a series of friendly encounters and letters./Hilbert freely admitted, and frequently stated in lectures, that the great idea was Einstein's." (p. 141 Reid)

Isaacson agrees with all the above, as best as I can determine. He gives other evidence that they remained on friendly terms. But about all this lack of collaboration, Einstein had this to say

"'The people in Gottingen,' Einstein once wryly observed, "sometimes strike me, not as if they want to help one formulate something clearly, but as if they want only to show us physicists how much brighter they are than we." (p142, Reid)

If that last quote doesn't sum it up, I don't know what does. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

=

Welcome to the discussion Mr. Bailey. I take it you have been lurking. Thank you for your comments. I find myself in sympathetic tune with the Einstein comment you just quoted, for Einstein's character included not only high intelligence but, in my view, scrupulous honesty and generosity of spirit which transcended personal interest. So if he said it, it was probably so. We also have enough indications of the Germanic Herr Docktor-Professor Hilbert's approach to appreciate Einstein's comment. But while it is proper to explain and understand the actor's personalities as context for events of the times, that is not where I would focus us on this edit. Here we have not the responsibility to resolve a controversy, but to place it in balanced perspective. On the merits I do not think it disputed that the mainstream view credits Einstein alone. Yet no one exists in a vacuum and there is evidence that others, including especially Hilbert, were perhaps hard on Einstein's heels for the development of the field equations. As to priority, and while some still disagree, most were convinced by the 1999 SCIENCE article by Stachel et al concluding that, based on archived dated galley proofs, that Hilbert's article submitted 5 days before Einstein's publication contained equations that were not generally covariant and which did NOT include the explicit form of the field equations of general relativity. In short, the moving finger had written, and moved on... Hilbert was wrong, Hilbert was late. Still, there remains some dissent, so it is the responsibility of this article to fairly set out the existence of both mainstream and of dissent. Remembering however that as this is the Hilbert page some enthusiastic emphasis of Hilbert's role might be understandable, even though such mention might prove objectionable on the Einstein page.

Therefore, if we are in general assent that the proper balance is emphasis (mainstream) Einstein/ dissent (minority) Hilbert, and that the paragraph in question misses that balance, then we have reduced this to a word-smithing problem. Let us then take a day to consider edits and return here with proposals for revision. --Pie are round (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Side comment to Jwy... our dissenters are sometimes an annoyance, but also precious. They challenge us to ask questions, they challenge us to answer questions. We cannot forget they are, in the end, an engine that powers us to inquiry. I despair to lose a dissenter. Still not all dissent is intelligent dissent, nor are all forums proper for giving it free rein.--Pie are round (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While my preferred style is less confrontational, I generally agree. But few were disappointed to see [guy] go. What you have stumbled upon here (precisely the things you have been "snarky" and "chiding" about) were exactly those things that I was overly accommodating with him about. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to snivel Jwy, its unbecoming, besides my words are here for all to see, with context. Anyway I didn't suggest to accomodate dissent, just to listen with open mind, and that does not require us to accomodate what is plainly not correct. I have presented you with some arguments you may use next time to aid keeping the view more balanced against a forceful dissent. In any event I have not lost faith in you as editor of this work, not at all, so having said our say lets set that aside and do the editing job together and to our best, as should be done.--Pie are round (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--

(1) Hilbert's character is apropos to this bio, and his behaviors do inform his relationships with others such as Einstein. As we have the sources to back up assertions (such as: Lande's take on him as "extreme egocentric", etc) we can add them to the bio. But, with regards to physics . . .

(2)What exactly were the contributions of Hilbert to physics? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question -- I honestly don't know the answer. Maybe a physicist-historian who knows can list/itemize them together with the sources that support the list. This would be very useful. How about his mathematics students? Did any of them make a difference (really, truly?) to physics? Names of physicists show up -- like Born, Deybe and Lande, but how does that make Hilbert a contributor (other than merely tangentially). Minkowski might be one "contribution". Unfortunately the Reid bio is not indexed excepting with the names of the participants; there's no subject-index. If I have names I can look them up in Reid. [I seem to remember reading that he did some popular writing re physics in the 1910-1920 years]. Are there any other biographies out there worth looking at? All the other bios that I have -- Einstein's and Godel's (I don't have Brouwer's, and he falls into the mathematician/logician's realm, as does Godel) -- treat Hilbert only tangentially. My primary sources such as van Heijenoort have to do with mathematics and logic also, so are of limited use. I don't think of Hilbert as a physicist or scientist. But I've been wrong many times before. BillWvbailey (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am doing that work now, lugging my math history book about (weighs more than my laptop) and cherry picking the Hilbert pages. The main "inspiration" for the changed paragraph in the lead is the Courant book, but the review of the history book is proving useful. It looks like he had important contributions to the theory around differential equations that I think are pertinent here. I will have to run that by you more physics-oriented sorts when I have completed this work. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

John and Bill, you may call me Pie. Let us limit our present objective to tweeking that paragraph in some manner or replace it with something along the mainstream/dissent line regarding the field equation controversy. We should avoid adding much material to it. I'm also looking at some sources. Einstein and Hilbert avoided a priority dispute during their lives, and we should consider that model as we try to assure that Hilbert's activities are also given fair recognition. We check each other to assure what is done is correct and may stand. I propose we take a day or so to consider then propose our edits or ideas here. --Pie are round (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Interim report. I have been reviewing contentions concerning the priority claims on the field equations. I'm having some difficulty finding a case on behalf of Hilbert that isn't highly speculative, with reasoning connected very tenuously. There is no persuasive evidence that Hilbert produced the correct (accepted) field equations prior to Einstein's publication, although it seems clear he was working on the problem. There is speculation (based on a theoretical possibility) that he might have produced the equations somewhere, but the 1997 Stachel article is a convincing rebuttal of that specific contention. Stachel also tends to rebut a contention that Hilbert provided Einstein with the field equations in letter (gone missing). There is no evidence of any kind that Hilbert ever, from 1915 to his death claimed priority for the equations, and there is at least one post-publication statement from him crediting Einstein. I have been reviewing the Wikipedia controversy page, but find it generates more heat than light. At present I am not very enthusiastic about writing something here representing that a priority claim has some substance when I am having such difficulty finding any substance. Still, I wish to continue another day of review. --Pie are round (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interim report. Now Reviewing Todorov's 2005 paper. Back tomorrow. --Pie are round (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by Pie are round

I've moved this from the article page here - this is where such things are normally discussed and fixed up. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Proposed Redaction -Priority Dispute - Under Review 3Apr09)

Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures in June-July 1915 on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity. The exchange of ideas led to the final form of the field equations of General Relativity, namely the Einstein field equations and the Einstein-Hilbert action. In spite of the fact that Einstein and Hilbert never engaged in a public priority dispute, there has been some dispute about the discovery of the field equations.

(Proposed Alternative - Priority Dispute - Under Review 3Apr09)

Albert Einstein is credited with the development of the physical theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity and with the development, in November 1915, of the field equations (Einstein Field Equations) which describe the general theory. Yet the fall and winter of 1915 were witness to collegial exchanges between Hilbert and Einstein concerning development of the field equations, and events of the final days of November have given rise to debate and dispute over which of these two men first cast the field equations into final form.

The controversy over priority for the field equations focuses attention on a lecture of November 20, 1915 in Göttingen where Hilbert derives the correct field equations from the variational principle by assuming general covariance (Einstein-Hilbert Action), yet while giving full credit to Einstein. [ref Todorov ] The mathematical derivation is clearly the work of David Hilbert, not of Einstein who has taken a different path to the field equations [ref Norton]. During their lives Einstein and Hilbert were cordial and never engaged in a public priority dispute over the field equations, indeed Hilbert always publicly credited Einstein. [ref Todorov ] Yet since 1971 a controversy and lively discussion has continued, documenting many facts and events leading up to finalization of the field equations of General Relativity, and illuminating David Hilbert's part in the great achievement. (Relativity_priority_dispute)

(End Alternative -Priority Dispute - Under Review 3Apr09) (proposal by 76.191.132.120)

I believe the original more appropriate and expect User:Pie are round's update to be even better. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems 76.191.132.120 might be Pie. I'm surprised. How lively is the discussion? (John User:Jwy talk) 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer the original. The new edit is making a bit too much of fuss about the incident, which is better treated in the Relativity priority dispute page. --Salix (talk): 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Salix alba. This is a bio about Hilbert, not Einstein. That Hilbert horned in on Einstein's efforts at the last second is about as incontrovertible a fact as there can be in biography . . . and that more than one person who knew Hilbert (at that same time) thought him to be self-absorbed and full of himself -- see the powerful quotes out of Reid above, in particular the one from Einstein himself. We're trying to develop a bio of the man Hilbert with all his good and bad points laid out and backed up with sources. Any extension of the priority-dispute stuff, cut down, could be put into a footnote, which is about all it deserves. What I still want to know is what were Hilbert's contributions to physics. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the author of the proposal, and thank you all for your responses. I agree with all three of you, my proposal has missed the mark. Yet the original paragraph is, in my view, also quite unacceptable and must at least be revised. There is a discussion and debate between serious scholars concerning Hilbert's role in the final stages of development the field equations, so I conclude that sufficient to merit mention on these pages. While I personally do not find any argument in favor of Hilbert persuasive, that does not mean the controversy is not in good faith, even interesting. But in my view the EFE was a physics problem, and only incidentally a math problem.

On my proposal I think you all see the problem, stated by Salix, that an introduction of the controversy calls for a concise statement describing it, but any such statement will itself be controversial, and may even give undue weight to the controversy itself. It should be up to those involved in the debate to decide specifically what they are actually arguing about, if anything. Yet that is still muddy. In consequence, my own second paragraph cannot state an unbiased case, it cannot be fixed, and it must fall.

Bill has also stated objection to my first sentence. I am not married to it. Yet I seek two points on this edit, (1) that by way of introducting the controversy it be made crystal clear that the mainstream view credits Einstein fully with the EFE and (2) that a debate on the point of the field equations exists. The whole matter could be handled in a footnote in the article just like that, as Bill suggests, and I would probably pass it. I encourage your further proposals. --Pie are round (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Crickets chirping....). Surely the gentlemen have proposals that would suit them and would still meet my suggestion that the stated paragraph was objectionable? Or possibly someone is wishing to defend the paragraph containing, among other problems, the doubtful phrase "exchange of ideas led to the final form of the field equations"? If you please, what would you gentlemen support along the lines of an alternative?--Pie are round (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I have not responded to your questions because they are not directly pertinent to this edit, nor so simple to answer. But let me instead simply ask you this: What Physics do you claim David Hilbert did? Explain.--Pie are round (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what physics he contributed. The section isn't well enough written and supported with enough sources for me to tell. Apparently he contributed some mathematics as in "mathematical methods" or "mathematical tools" to "the cause", and some of his students were involved in the cause. He was interested in physics and had his "tutor(s)", whom he seems to have mal-used (quotes above). It would seem that, ultimately, his contributions were indirect in the form of his mathematics, which is certainly okay, and perhaps via presenting a forum or encouraging his students, and perhaps via popularization. Here's some names (many his contemporaries) from my undergrad 4th-term physics text whereas I see Balmer series, Bohr atom, Boltzmann distribution, Bragg condition, Coulomb scattering, Compton scattering, Rutherford, Debye length, Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac, Maxwell, Fermi energy, Lorentz, Fourier series, Hamiltonian operator, Heisenberg principle, Hellmann-Feynman theorem, Helmholz equation, Laplacian operator, Larmor radius, Laue diffraction, . . . and I'm only up to "L" in the index. But there's no Hilbert. Amazyingly, he's not listed in my advanced calculus text either, where I find such things as (from K through M) Kronecker integral, Jacobi determinant, Lagrange, Laguere, Laurent, Legendre, Leibnitz, Liebmann, Liouville, Maclaurin, Minkowski inequality.... I had never heard of Hilbert until I got involved in researching the origins of "the halting problem"; Hilbert's name kept appearing in my cc of Martin Davis's original papers The Undecidable. Here he was referenced as the source of an axiomatization of mathematics. (It turns out that I do find him mentioned in my Kemeney 1958 "Finite Mathematical Structures", once on page 104, in regard to "Cardinal numbers", infinite sets, Cantor, etc). Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Real life has intervened in my efforts to research this material and to improve the section, but my initial looks (and the original intent of the section) is along the lines of what you describe: a lot of the mathematics, linear operator methodologies and differential equation techniques owe something to Hilbert. I continue to explore as real life allows. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful!! My heart soars like a hawk to be among such fellows. During this time in 1916 when Einstein and Hilbert pondered great thoughts of physics and mathematics from safety and the dizzying heights of academic privilege and prestige, one hapless L. Wittgenstein, later to be a pathetically unsuccessful elementary school teacher, was a soldier in the trenches of WWI. The great Einstein has by this time astonished the world by eclipsing all of physics before him. He has swallowed Newton entire. But for the hapless Wittgenstein there is no privilege, and to escape the horrors of the Russian front he scribbles out his random thoughts and stuffs the papers in his rucksack. In 1918, as a prisoner of war, there he was again, the tragicomic scribbler. What a pathetic LOSER! Hardly anyone has ever heard of him, or ever will. Well, Bertrand Russell might have heard of him, even considered his thinking of "supreme philosophical importance". So then Albert has swallowed all physics, David Hilbert has swallowed all mathematics, and now Ludwig has swallowed everything (philosophy). Who then is the greater? Let us resolve not to debate who is greater but rather to honor them for what they have clearly done. That is greatness enough for mortal man. (Bill, I think you have answered your own question. If someone wishes to say different, let them step forward with references.) --Pie are round (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I found, in Marsden 1973 Basic Complex Analysis on page 422 (and earlier as an exercise in a chapter on residues and definite integrals) something called the Hilbert transformations: "Historically, the Hilbert transforms were the forerunners of a series of such relations called dispersion relations. They were first observed to hold for the complex dielectric constant as a function of incident frequency by H.A. Kramers and R. de L. Kroniz in 1924. Since approximately 1950, they have been systematically studied and applied to the scattering amplitude T(ω) and to quite general classes of scattering problems for which this amplitude is defined" (italics added). I don't see either Kramers or de L. Kronig in Reid's index. His name does not appear in my Kreider 1966 An introduction to linear analysis, nor in my Cunningham 1965 Complex Variable Methods in Science and Technology.

In my son's undergrad text Anton 1973-2000 Elementary Linear Algebra in the chapter on "Orthonormal Bases, Gram-Schmidt Process; QR-Decomposition" p. 305 there's a picture and a tiny bio: "Erhardt Schmidt (1876-1959) was a German mathematician. Schmidt received his doctoral dissertation from Gottingen University in 1905 where he studied under one of the giants of mathematics, David Hilbert. He eventually went to teach at Berlin University in 1917, where he stayed for the rest of his life. Schmidt made important contributions to a variety of mathematical fields, but is most noteworthy for fashioning many of Hilbert's diverse ideas into a general concept (called a Hilbert space), which is fundamental in the study of infinite-dimensional vector spaces. Schmidth first descdribe the process that bears his name in a paper on integral equations published in 1907" (italics added, p. 305). Bill Wvbailey (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a stab at the paragraph:

Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures in June-July 1915 on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity.[1] Hilbert delivered a lecture of November 20, 1915 where he derives the correct field equations and Einstein published the final form of the Einstein field equations on November 25, 1915. In spite of the fact that Einstein and Hilbert never engaged in a public priority dispute, there has been some priority dispute about the discovery since 1971.

Hopefully this has the relavant fact and keeps speculation to a minimum, I would be inclined to keep exchange of ideas or similar phrasing to indicate some level of interaction between the two.--Salix (talk): 07:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources, some indication that there was strong competition as well might be in order. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

==:: Thank you Salix, John, but I'm not fully content with Salix proposal. The 'exchange of ideas' phrasing is argumentative, for what 'ideas' were or were not 'exchanged' seems to be the subject of the dispute. We inflame the dispute. Also, please review my comments critical of my own effort, for this still does not place the controversy in sufficient context, and as I explained that may not be possible here in Hilbert. We must be mindful that HS student come here for their homework, (even though they are told not to. KIDS!), and we should take care over accuracy (scholarship) and balance. For starters Salix's fails to make clear that (1) Einstein is credited with the EFE, (2) there is still some scholarly dispute over whether Hilbert has actually produced the correct the Hilbert action derivation by Nov 20, 1915 (or by March 1916 in a publication), (3) that the Einstein-Hilbert action is a mathematical derivation which already assumes GR, or (4) that in any event Hilbert apparently already has Einstein's equations by Nov 20. The dispute is a quagmire, probably meritless except as a academic exercise, and I'm nearly to the point of proposing it be stricken entirely. As a consequence of (1) - (4) the proposal appears not properly balanced, and it may not be possible to do that here in Hilbert. Still, I would like to see Hilbert credited with that brilliant bit of math in the EH action (Ahhh, how wonderful... David is without doubt the MASTER mathematician!) , yet without overemphasizing a questionable and conjectural dispute, or sullying Hilbert's reputation with claims even he didn't make during his life. Perhaps you will reconsider my earlier first paragraph starting with "Albert Einstein is credited...", inserting perhaps credit for the _publication_ date of the EH action derivation (march 1916 if it can be confirmed), and concluding by acknowledging the discussion over 'over which of these two men first cast the field equations into final form'. (My proposal second paragraph was even more problematic, if that is any consolation.) Thank you for your proposal. --Pie are round (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I have seen no responsive reply to my proposal. While I agree some mention of Hilbert's role in GR is proper I have been objecting to the neutrality of the disputed paragraph, and an editing process has failed to resolve the matter. I am now obliged to call for removal of the second and third sentences, and because the first sentence stands naked, propose removal of that also. Some replacement might later be found. --Pie are round (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine if it goes now. Perhaps put the priority dispute as a see also. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bill. I am removing the paragraph for present, the priority dispute is linked at bottom, yet I am still interested in at least particularly crediting Hilbert for the Einstein-Hilbert Action, which even if it were based on Einstein (as Hilbert acknowledged on the Dec 6 dated proof), is still an outstanding and noteworthy accomplishment, its own advancement of the art (mathematics). --Pie are round (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel a rant, for Hilbert is brilliant. Everyone knows it, nobody doubts it. Physics has benefited from his interest in the field, and from his MANY accomplishments of scholarship, insight, teaching, leading , stimulating, promoting, provoking, enraging, intimidating, coercing, cajolling himself and others to high accomplishment, particularly bending mathematics to the service of physics. We smirk now at reports of his occasional (pervasive) hubris, but look what he could DO with it! Why, I would make him famous in Physics just for sponsoring Emmy Noether! Yet here we are, instead of honoring him properly, we struggle to fix the consequences of this INCREDIBLY STUPID priority dispute. I begin to wonder if this dispute is more a foible of Einstein detractors than Hilbert promoters, for it harms Hilbert more than Einstein. If so, why must it be?--Pie are round (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, for various reasons, much of the article is a contentious mess, and even what is right or properly said is oft not adequately referenced. Sigh. So Bill I have reviewed your previous remarks of March 25 above, find I myself more sympathetic to those comments, and have now independently inspected Issacson's analysis and further reviewed Ivan T. Todorov's contentions. While I previously accepted Tordorov (arguendo - for the sake of argument on the side of crediting Hilbert) I now find certain of Todorov's assertions concerning November 20, 1915 inadequate, even disturbingly overstated, and regret to report I am no longer having warm thoughts concerning his credibility. If I were him I might even be a little concerned about how far I had "pushed the envelope". I reserve conclusion, but get concerned about relying on a source when I get that "itchy" feeling. I reviewed your Issacson quote in context and that appears quite skillfully and properly balanced, and raises no such alarm bells. Issacson is a pro. Perhaps you have an idea proposing, from the perspective of your quotes of Issacson, some statement crediting Hilbert with the EH Action? It is worth some comment. Do you maintain the same objections? Perhaps we could jointly reconsider something along this line? --Pie are round (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been in California for a week. Now I'm back.

Proposed Apr 9, 2009, fiddled with by wvbailey on 15 April 2009 (these are "the facts" but 1st paragraph seems a bit wordy. Maybe put the first-paragraph details in a footnote). Additions/emendations on 16 April by wvbailey, then struck out. See the latest, below:

"Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures (June-July 1915) on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity (Isaacson 2007:212). Einstein afterwards reported himself to be "quite enchanted with Hilbert" (Isaacson 2007:212). Hilbert was also enchanted (Isaacson 2007:213), "so much so that he soon set out to see if he could beat Einstein to the goal of getting the field equations right" (Isaacson 2007:213). But Einstein's approach was flawed -- he reworked it over the summer, abandoned it by October, but by 4 and 11 November made presentations (Isaacson 2007:214). Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen on the 11th, but Einstein declined, and Hilbert went ahead and presented on the 16th "an axiomatic solution to your great problem" (Isaacson 2007:217). Einstein's letter of decline "did not hide his anxiety" (Isaacson 2007:217), but in this same week he successfully computed the previously unexplained advance of the perihelion of Mercury. (Isaacson 2007:218). On the 19th Hilbert congratulated Einstein on his perihelion calculations, but on the 20th Hilbert went ahead and published his "The Foundations of Physics". However, flaws in this paper required Hilbert to make corrections that he submitted to the publisher on the 16th, and in the meantime Einstein presented on 25 November the correct results in his final lecture "The Field Equations of Gravitation" (Isaacson 2007:219). "During the mens' lives neither engaged in priority dispute for the field equations; however since 1971 there has been some discussion about the events of the final days of November 1915 and over which of these two men first cast the field equations into final form. (Isaacson 2007:221) In 2007 the noted Einstein biographer Walter Issacson reviewed the evidence and observed: "It is fair to say that both men -- to some extent independently but each also with knowledge of of what the other was doing -- derived by November 1915 mathematical equations that gave formal expression to the general theory . . . Einstein seems to have published the final version of these equations first. And in the end, even Hilbert gave Einstein credit and priority." While in December Einstein expressed to Hilbert his awareness of "a certain ill-feeling between us" (Isaacson 2007:222), they "were soon friendly again . . . By February Einstein was even visiting Gottingent again and staying at Hilbert's home" (Isaacson 2007:222). (footnote: "Hilbert freely admitted, and frequently stated in lectures, that the great idea was Einstein's./'Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four dimesional geometry than Einstein," he once remarkd. 'Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians'" (Reid 1996:141-142, also Isaacson 2007:222 quoting Thorne p. 119). But Reid also offers Einstein's riposte: "'The people in Gottingen,' Einstein once wryly observed, 'sometimes strike me, not as if they want to help one formulate something clearly, buit as if they want only to show us physicists how much brighter they are than we.' (Reid 1996:142)). --Pie are round (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

modified by Bill Wvbailey (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work! It does look good. But, does the first paragraph contradict the Isaacson quote in the second? Hilbert Nov 20th, Einstein 25th? I'm confused - am I missing something. But if Isaacson's quote is the general understanding of what happened, perhaps just it or a paraphrase belongs here, with footnotes/references to the dispute page? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your criticism is justified. I've had to go back to Isaacson . . . Here is the quote:

" . . . Hilbert presented a version of his equations in his talk on November 16 and a paper that he dated November 20, before Einstein presented his final equations on November 25. However, a team of Einstein scholars in 1997 found a set of proof pages of Hilbert's article, on which Hilbert had made revisions that he then sent back to the publisher on December 16. In the original version, Hilbert's equations differed in a small important way from Einstein's final version of the November 25 lecture. They were not actually generally covariant, and he did not include a step that involved contracting the Ricci scalar, into the equation. Einstein did this in his November 25 lecture. Apparently, Hilbert made a correction in the revised version of his article to match Einstein's version. His revisions, quite generously, also added the phrase "first introduced by Einstein" when he referred to the gravitational potentials. ¶ Hilbert's advocates (and Einstein's detractors) respond with a variety of arguments, including that the page proofs are missing one part and that the trace term was either unnecessary or obvious. ¶ It is fair to say that both men -- to some extent independely but each also with knoweldge of what the other was doing -- derivied by November 15 mathematical equations that gave formal expression to the general theory. Judging from Hilbert's revisions to his own page proofs, Einstein seems to hav pulbished the final version of these equations first. And in the end, even Hilbert gave Einstein credit and priority" (Isaacson 2007:221)

What needs to be added is the fact that Hilbert's Nov 20th paper required corrections that he submitted to the publisher on the 16th, and in the meantime Einstein published the correct results in his lecture of the 25th. I'll save this and then mull it some more. Bill Wvbailey (talk)

-- Second try:

"Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures (June-July 1915) on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity (Isaacson 2007:212). Einstein afterwards reported himself to be "quite enchanted with Hilbert" (Isaacson 2007:212). Hilbert was also enchanted (Isaacson 2007:213), "so much so that he soon set out to see if he could beat Einstein to the goal of getting the field equations right" (Isaacson 2007:213). But Einstein's approach was flawed -- he reworked it over the summer, abandoned it by October, and in a frantic race against Hilbert he delivered in November three lectures (4, 11, 18 November) with his final results in the 4th lecture on the 25th. In the meantime Hilbert presented his equations in a paper and lecture on the 16th and sent a copy to Einstein. But this paper had flaws that Hilbert emended and returned to the publisher that same day (the 16th). Hilbert sent to the publisher a second paper he dated the 20th and titled it "The foundations of physics". But in the meantime Einstein delivered on the 25th his final lecture "The Field Equations of Gravitation"(Isaacson 2007:214-221)[insert footnote]

"[footnote: Isaacson summarizes the events this way: "Einstein also took time off from furiously revising his equations to engage in an awkward fandango with this erstwhile friend and comptetitor David Hilbert, who was racing him to find the equations of general relativity" (p. 216). Einstein learned that Hilbert had "figured out the flaws in [Einstein's] Entwurf equations" (p. 216), but Einstein stated he had figured this out too, and sent Hilbert a copy of his 4 November lecture. On the 12th Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to hear a paper he would present on the 16th, but Einstein declined on the 15th, and Hilbert went ahead and on the 16th presented "an axiomatic solution to your great problem" (p. 217). Einstein's letter of decline "did not hide his anxiety" (p. 217), but in this same week he successfully computed the previously unexplained advance of the perihelion of Mercury and presented this in a lecture on the 18th (p. 218). That same day (the 18th) Einstein received Hilbert's paper (the one Hilbert presented on the 16th). But this paper had flaws that Hilbert corrected and returned to the publisher on the 16th. On the 19th Hilbert congratulated Einstein on his perihelion calculations. Hilbert submitted to the publisher a paper he had dated November 20 and titled "The Foundations of Physics". In the meantime Einstein presented on 25 November the correct results in his final lecture "The Field Equations of Gravitation" (p. 219).

"During the mens' lives neither engaged in priority dispute for the field equations; however since 1971 there has been some discussion about the events of the final days of November 1915 and over which of these two men first cast the field equations into final form. (Isaacson 2007:221) In 2007 the noted Einstein biographer Walter Issacson reviewed the evidence and observed: "It is fair to say that both men -- to some extent independently but each also with knowledge of of what the other was doing -- derived by November 1915 mathematical equations that gave formal expression to the general theory . . . Einstein seems to have published the final version of these equations first. And in the end, even Hilbert gave Einstein credit and priority." While in December Einstein expressed to Hilbert his awareness of "a certain ill-feeling between us" (Isaacson 2007:222), They "were soon friendly again . . . By February Einstein was even visiting Gottingent again and staying at Hilbert's home" (Isaacson 2007:222). [insert footnote]

"[footnote: "Hilbert freely admitted, and frequently stated in lectures, that the great idea was Einstein's./'Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four dimesional geometry than Einstein," he once remarkd. 'Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians'" (Reid 1996:141-142, also Isaacson 2007:222 quoting Thorne p. 119). But Reid also offers Einstein's riposte: "'The people in Gottingen,' Einstein once wryly observed, 'sometimes strike me, not as if they want to help one formulate something clearly, buit as if they want only to show us physicists how much brighter they are than we.' (Reid 1996:142)).]

This "fandango" is really, really confusing. I've gone back and tried to make sense of it, again (I've spent hours on this). There are two papers -- the one Hilbert presented in his lecture of the 16th (the lecture Einstein declined to attend) and Hilbert sent to Einstein (who got it on the 18th), then a second "final" paper sent to the publisher on the 20th. This first paper has the flaws in it that Hilbert corrected and sent back to the publisher on the 16th. BillWvbailey (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I have been away, but now have reviewed your heroic effort above and have again considered the idea of what part of this "controversy" belongs in the Hilbert biographical article. Your proposal satisfies scholarship and POV requirements. I know you are attracted to this clash of personalities between the two men, and the drama it creates in the "race" for GR. I like the story too. But I think this is not the place for such detail, a summary paragraph without that clash or footnotes would serve better.

Make no mistake, I'm a Hilbert fan, David was a great man with great virtues and also great flaws. Yet here the question in my mind is still whether there actually exists a bone fide dispute, or whether its just a great story. The former should be noted here, while the latter should be left to the biographer. As to the first, remember, it is always possible to fabricate a controversy out of nothing but artful innuendo and obscure language, evading what is really at issue. Serious people have little time to engage in such sillyness, although sometimes do so for fun. But this isn't "fun", for (as you are seeing) this "debate" has such tenuous actual legitimacy that it is worth little more than mention.

It is claimed by proponents that Hilbert should be given priority for first writing the field equations. In my view that claim is not merely insufficiently supported, it is most probably false. Persuasively to the contrary, Hilbert himself clearly gave credit to Einstein. Otherwise Hilbert did likely stimulate Einstein into a final push to complete the field equations, but cannot be credibly said to have either written the field equations first, or contributed anything to the physics. Hilberts "action" derivation is 'ingenious' and 'important', and is certainly Hilbert's creation, but is pure mathematics, not physics, and the evidence is that it was actually produced AFTER Einstein decided the final PHYSICS.

At bottom this is a biographical article in the wikipedia on David Hilbert, not a debate or story forum. Alas, large portion of the entire article, starting with the first sentence, fails miserably on POV and scholarship. Your proposal does not fall into that trap, thankfully. Yet here we might credibly say IN SUM that Hilbert was communicating with Einstein and also interested in and working on the field equations. All scholars seem to agree to that much. It also seems plain that Hilbert's activities and communications stimulated Einstein to press forward to complete the field equations, and that Hilbert also contemporaneously derived a form of the field equations from a mathematical construct now known as the Einstein-Hilbert Action. In the end, Einstein is credited with the field equations which completed General Relativity, which Hilbert himself acknowledged, yet David Hilbert's collegial interaction with Einstein in the final months of 1916 certainly had an impact on the development of the field equations, and provides interesting insight into the lives and interactions of these two giants of their respective fields.

To the above extent I concur with your proposed changes, but would encourage more summary and a trim of the "fandango" by the two men, which I do not take as proper for the wiki article. Thank you for you diligent effort. --Pie are round (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I also appreciate the effort, but think the "fandango" might belong in the dispute article and keep the current wording here:

In 1915, Hilbert had several interactions with Einstein and both worked on key general relativity equations. Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures in June-July on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity.. Both published related results that year. While they did not engage in it themselves, since 1971 there have been discussions about priority.

When anyone has time, we can expand the article here to improve the coverage of Physics and personality. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see you have included the edit. I should mention that on 4 Apr I suggested: "Yet I seek two points on this edit, (1) that by way of introducing the controversy it be made crystal clear that the mainstream view credits Einstein fully with the EFE and (2) that a debate on the point of the field equations exists." Your edit has satisfied the second point, but due to ambiguity the first is not done fully to my satisfaction. Rather than insisting on a clear statement of attribution to Einstein, let me offer up a middle ground. Alternatively may I draw particular attention to my last two sentences, which might serve as a replacement to your last sentence.

By 1907 Einstein had framed the fundamentals of his great theory of gravity, but then struggled for nearly 8 years with a confounding problem of putting the theory into final form. [citation] By 1915, Hilbert had become particularly interested in general relativity, and invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures on the subject.. Einstein accepted and stimulated by an enthusiastic reception at Göttingen, particularly by David Hilbert, thereafter began collegial exchanges with Hilbert concerning the field equations. [Citation] Einstein pressed forward and within a few months, Nov-Dec 1915, had published "The Field Equations of Gravitation" (see Einstein field equations ), and nearly simultaneously David Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", a mathematical derivation of the field equations (see Einstein–Hilbert action ). Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory, and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives. [Citation] However, since 1971 there have been some spirited and scholarly discussions about which of the two men first presented the now accepted form of the field equations (see priority ). --Pie are round (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jwy (John) I see you have been actively editing the disputed paragraphs during discussion without discussing the changes. The earlier readaction had been agreed to and you simply circled around and reintroduced the old problems while we were discussing them and without consensus. I am again redacting the objectionable sentences, and if you reintroduce them or redact my edit without discussion, I will take umbrage. We have been two weeks on this and I have extensively explained and have been most patient, but now plainly state that any sensible review would overwhelmingly conclude the priority dispute, while interesting, is not actually bone fide. It is a fraud, plain as paste, based on an obfuscation of the distinction between the two men's separate work, which they themselves had no trouble distinguishing in the slightest. The debate does have some redeeming interesting aspects, though, so harsh judgements are not called for. But fostering misinformation (fraud) is not the Wiki charter. Therefore your sentences reintroduced over objection must go. Now please comment substantively on my above proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pie are round (talk • contribs) 06:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. If you follow the history of the article (have you watched the page or clicked on the history tab?), I was reacting to someone who had placed a reference to the priority dispute in the lead - which I think neither of us wants. I thought it small and reasonably neutral (it says "equations" not "theory"), but agree it could be stronger in its support of Albert. But the more we put about it, the more out of proportion it is, so I'm hoping for something short. Maybe something like "While Einstein is almost universally credited with the theory," I don't have time to do better at the moment. I'll be back. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

--- Pie's proposal pruned and wordsmithed:

By 1907 Einstein had framed the fundamentals of his great theory of gravity, but then struggled for nearly 8 years with a confounding problem of putting the theory into final form [citation: Isaacson 2007:218]. By early summer 1915, Hilbert's interest in physics had focused him become particularly interest on in general relativity, and he invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures on the subject.. Einstein accepted, and Stimulated by his enthusiastic reception at Göttingen , particularly by David Hilbert Einstein engaged Hilbert throughout the summer in collegial exchanges with Hilbert him concerning the field equations. [Citation: is this true about the correspondence?? I can't find in in Reid or in Isaacson explicitly. How much correspondence was there?] Einstein pressed forward and within a few months by early November Nov-Dec 1915 had published "The Field Equations of Gravitation" (see Einstein field equations ), and Nearly simultaneously David Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", a mathematical derivation of the field equations (see Einstein–Hilbert action ). Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory, and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives. [Citation: Isaacson quote inserted here as a footnote] However, since 1971 there have been some spirited and scholarly discussions about which of the two men first presented the now accepted form of the field equations (see priority ).

The above bothers me in that it doesn't make clear that Hilbert was truly racing Einstein rather than collaborating. The word "stimulated" bothers me; it should be more to the tune of "panicstricken" [cf Isaacson p. 213: at the top of the page "Einstein was confronted with two distressing discovereies: that this Entwurf theory was indeed flawed, and that Hilbert was racing feverishly to come up with the correct formualtion on his own"]. At least this should be made clear in a long footnote that I can cobble together from my previous work. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Wvbailey (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. "Panic stricken" is conceivable, and certainly dramatic Bill... and it may be true, and it seems also a little more than obvious that there was some er... competition(?) rather than just collegial collaboration, but I think panic overstates what can be shown rather than what Issacson speculates. Let the reader look it up in Issacson and decide. Let us here state what will not be seriously disputed or viewed as hyperbolic. Einstein wrote about Hilbert stating his enthusiasm about the Gotteingen lectures and Hilbert. I can find a quote if needed . His "stimulation" may reasonably be inferred from that and other communications , the fact that he started work again on the problem after being stuck (ie indecisive), the proximity in time to the Gottingen visit, and his subsequent communications about how hard he worked (he was completely consumed). I am not married to the word "stimulated", so another might be chosen, but "panic-stricken" might just be a little over the top, maybe? I'm not finding any objection to your edits otherwise. No objection to a footnote if it is short (an extended footnote should go to the priority page or to the Einstein page). I'm still a bit uncomfortable with my last sentence in particular 1) think "spirited" might be struck, and 2) am not happy about my characterization of the priority dispute as about "who first presented"... I'd almost just have it be a priority discussion about the field equations, and leave it there. Perhaps you, Bill, or you John, might take a whack at it with a machete to see what can be done with it? Also, can one of you pros archive the prior discussion before we started with physics. This is now 100 Kb long? Just a thought. --Pie are round (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the size makes it out of proportion to the rest of the article, but see some of it is for the citation comments. Its okay, but smaller would be better if you can figure a clean way. For the panic phrasing, how about something along the lines of "Very aware that Hilbert was making progress on the problems, Einstein redoubled his own efforts. . ." if the exchange stuff can be cited. A little weaselly as it implies but doesn't state the cause and effect there, but ... what do you think? (John User:Jwy talk) 06:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe borrow Isaacson's word "distressed" (and cite it). Let's see if I can prune some more:

By 1907 Einstein had framed the fundamentals of his theory of gravity, but then struggled for nearly 8 years with a confounding problem of putting the theory into final form . By early summer 1915, Hilbert's interest in physics had focused him on general relativity, and he invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures on the subject.. Einstein received an enthusiastic reception at Göttingen . But over the summer, "distressed" to learn that Hilbert was making progress on the problems, Einstein redoubled his own efforts, and by late November 1915 had published "The Field Equations of Gravitation" (see Einstein field equations. Nearly simultaneously David Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", a mathematical derivation of the field equations (see Einstein–Hilbert action ). Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory, and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives (see more at priority ).

Notes

I've embedded the footnotes so it looks huge in editable form. Wvbailey (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I've added the "reflist" so you can see the quotes, but this also has the footnotes from earlier revisions. Wvbailey (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly looking more impressive. Nice work. I expect to have other comments but life requires my attendance today and a bit, so I will be absent at least 24 hours, I think. Quickly, Bill the edits and footnotes are very nice, nice job, I chuckle because you obviously LIKE the fandango... but the footnotes ARE quite lengthy, and please verify you have not gone over "fair use", I don't say you are not OK or offer opinion, but suggest review footnotes to assure no complaint. John, I'm not as concerned with length as with misleading brevity, but appreciate we have had to expand, but see it as basically necessary - if we are to say anything, we must say what is essential. Remember also, when we infer motivations to others (and cause-effect based on motivations) we can run quickly into POV concerns... (biographers have license to do it, but encyclopedias must have a care). I think I may have some other tweaks, and a question or two, but will need time to return. Thank you both for some very constructive editing. --Pie are round (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2, 2009 . Archived prior discussion, see link at top. Moved Comments to bottom. No sub changes.--Pie are round (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Bill you asked about correspondence - see Todorov for some of it. I'm looking at " But over the summer, "distressed" [11] to learn that Hilbert was making progress on the problems, Einstein redoubled his own efforts, " and would suggest "Over the summer Einstein learned that Hilbert was also working on the field equations. By late November...". Also, let us take particular care to refrain from entering the priority debate here. Who published what and when, and whether it was correct or not, whether Hilbert's work is "physics", and even what is meant by "priority dispute" are all matters in discussion/dispute. Who was "distressed" or "attempting to horn in" or such requires analysis of motivations and is inherently suspect under neutral POV. Those wanting the biograpers insight should read the biography where it is proper to engage in such conjecture. Thank you for your consideration. --Pie are round (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Its been 24+ hours with no responsive comment. I'm proposing the paragraph we are working on with the sabove sentence change and without footnote 12 and with the "riposte" sentence of footnote 13 omitted. I believe this satisfies our objectives without intruding into the quagmire of a priority dispute. It may not be perfect but I propose to commit these changes unless there is responsive reply/objection within 24 hours. Thank you. -Pie 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My neurons work very very slowly. Please post your proposed wording here, first. Thanks. Wvbailey (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Old engineers never die, Bill, their neurons just fade away. Here are the specifics. The result is a compromise, a bit choppy and lacking literary note, but mainly avoids the priority dispute while mentioning it in context. I wish we could escape this priority crap and instead emphasize what an extraordinary achievement this really was, and that both men were operating on a plane very 'far above the shabby world' indeed (Einstein's letter of Dec 1915 to Hilbert). --Pie are round (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By 1907 Einstein had framed the fundamentals of his theory of gravity, but then struggled for nearly 8 years with a confounding problem of putting the theory into final form . By early summer 1915, Hilbert's interest in physics had focused him on general relativity, and he invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures on the subject.. Einstein received an enthusiastic reception at Göttingen . Over the summer Einstein learned that Hilbert was also working on the field equations and redoubled his own efforts. During November 1915 Einstein published several papers culminating in "The Field Equations of Gravitation" (see Einstein field equations. Nearly simultaneously David Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", an axiomatic derivation of the field equations (see Einstein–Hilbert action ). Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory, and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives (footnote) (see more at priority ).

Footnote: Since 1971 there have been some spirited and scholarly discussions about which of the two men first presented the now accepted form of the field equations. "Hilbert freely admitted, and frequently stated in lectures, that the great idea was Einstein's./'Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four dimensional geometry than Einstein," he once remarkd. 'Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians'" (Reid 1996:141-142, also Isaacson 2007:222 quoting Thorne p. 119).

Optional Footnote: Todorov EINSTEIN AND HILBERT - THE CREATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY (2005) concludes: "Einstein and Hilbert had the moral strength and wisdom ... to avoid a lifelong priority dispute (something in which Leibniz and Newton failed). It would be a shame to subsequent generations of scientists and historians of science to try to undo their achievement."

I think your proposed text and the first footnote is fine and propose it be included in the article; I'd leave the second footnote out (it sort of rubs salt in the wounds). Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Salt? Wounds? Is someone wounded? Come on Bill, this whole article is a bleeding sore and the priority dispute is just one raw point. The best that can be said is, this article isn't as bad as some. I know you are not a Hilbert advocate in the dispute, Bill, but I remind (any other readers) that Todorov is at GOTTINGEN, and transparently a HILBERT advocate in the debate, and if he says it would be a "shame to subsequent generations" to persist, then I would take that counsel seriously. Einstein did what Einstein did, and Hilbert did what Hilbert did, and one is credited for the one thing and the other credited for the other, and those who are capable of understanding the difference can tell there is a difference, and those who cannot or will not understand the difference have some other apparent agenda in mind. I hope that was plainly enough said. I think David Hilbert was a great man and I'm very happy to celebrate David Hilbert's many extraordinary accomplishments, including the Einstein-Hilbert Action... but as for the priority dispute, phooeee, I feel a shame upon me. Out damn spot!

Having said that, and in spirit of consensus, and to avoid inflaming the debate by rubbing "salt" into the "wound", it is agreed the Todorov footnote will not be included in the edit. I propose that you are the more advanced editor, Bill, and respectfuly request that you now make the edit. For Reference: Ivan T. Todorov, Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at Gottingen (2005) "Einstein and Hilbert: The Creation of General Relativity" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504179[ref Todorov ] Norton, J. D. (1989) "How Einstein found his Field Equations, 1912-1915", in Howard, D. and Stachel, J., eds. (1989) Einstein and the History of General Relativity, Birkhaeuser, 1989, 101-159. [ref Norton]. --Pie are round (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the "priority-dispute" article and the "action" article so I can't comment on whether or not any of what we've dug into would be applicable to one of those. (I wish there were some good biographies of Hilbert out there . . . I think we're having problems with this article because our sources are so limited.) Let's wait a little while for Jwy or others to respond before we (me is okay) inserts it. Maybe Todorov deserves a brief footnote mention as in "see more at Todorov [etc]". Bill Wvbailey (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and offer. It has been more than a month on this set of very limited edits and the current proposal has been on the table for at least 3 days. Jwy (John) and others know the discussion is proceeding on this point and have the opportunity to comment or to monitor even if they have no comment, and Jwy (as prior editor) has a special responsibility to participate and comment. We may give some some more time to respond but then let us proceed.

You do not need training on GR to understand academic credibility, or that we are only saying what MAINSTREAM EXPERTS have said, and we have cited sufficient authority and can provide more if needed. I have been critical of the biased and unscholarly work product on this article, and (after several years being "disappointed") decided to finally extract myself from my own incredibly important belly-button musings to attempt to encourage a step up from that state of affairs. The bias has been the real problem, and the big clue to that was the lack of properly cited authority . This is not the only article with such problems, even the Einstein-Hilbert Action article starts out by proclaiming Hilbert first proposed it, BUT then cites no authority (to his paper) supporting the assertion. Such naked proclaimation is not scholarship, it is ... something else. Yet despite many similar and painfully evident problems here, we have gone slowly, in baby steps. At some point, my friend, and respectfully, it is time for us to walk upright. --Pie are round (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My general inclination, as I've hinted, is to have as little about the priority dispute on this page while giving some credit to Hilbert; the idea being most people coming to the page will assume Einstein's priority and think little more about it. If they do have further interest, they can go to the dispute page. Thus, if it was up to me, I would drop the footnotes here and make sure the dispute page contains a full explanation. But I don't have much trouble with keeping them as is if you and Bill truly believe otherwise. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First foot note looks good to me. Second one seems to be overplaying it and there certainly no need to bring in Newton vrs Leibniz. --Salix (talk): 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt comments John and Salix. John, your "hints" are not adequate commentary, and when you finally state your arguments they are transparently at odds with Wiki policy. I hope you now see that. Wiki is not a propaganda machine. I give you the benefit of good faith but strongly urge you, in future, to voice your arguments clearly, so they may be reviewed and answered, rather than simply seem to be acting obstructively.

Concluding... The Todorov footnote is to be omitted from the edit, the other footnote allowed. A debate upon those points may still be reserved (by whoever) for some other occasion. This is Wikipedia and fringe views are not to be given prominance, not directly and not by artful innuendo or misdirection, so to avoid ambiguity Einstein is to be clearly credited here for the field equations and GR, not Hilbert. The minority view may be mentioned as a priority dispute, not as a prominent position. Hilbert may be credited for what Hilbert has done, but that must be stated with clarity and cited with mainstream support. I believe the given proposal, while far from perfect, still meets these objectives, if not perfectly then at least acceptably as a compromise, it maintains a mainstream neutral posture, acknowledges a minority view, declines to inflame a dispute, and provides sufficient reference for the reader to look further. Discussion may still continue, but (unless someone promply yells STOP) let the consensus change now be committed to the article. Bill has agreed to do the honors. Thank you gentlemen for your constructive comments on my proposals.--Pie are round (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit has been included. Thanks to Jwy, Salix, Wvbailey for a productive conclusion to this edit. Thanks, Bill, for making the addition. There is clearly more work to do, but it is my intension to archive this discussion and start a new discussion page, and thereafter to adjorn, at least for a time, to my belly button to ponder the meaninglessness of blue. --Pie are round (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

May 7, 2009 Editing session Hilbert/Physics/Relativity with Jwy, Salix, Wvbailey, Pie are round, concluded with the revision of a paragraph under category "Physics" concerning Einstein, Hilbert, and the 1915 development of the field equations of General Relativity. --Pie are round (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)