| Revision as of 14:15, 27 July 2007 editElectrodynamicist (talk | contribs)86 edits →Another Serious Omission - No mention of Poincares Importance In The Philosophy Of Science← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:19, 27 July 2007 edit undoElectrodynamicist (talk | contribs)86 edits →Shortcomings sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| I agree with the above comment. I think this should be rewritten or retitled. The shortcomings you cite seem to be disagreements and differences of opinion. Such instances are common, but do they deserve the attention which you give to them? Cantor's work was, and still is, controversial. Is it a shortcoming of Poincare to disagree with his conclusions? I don't think so. It refleccts a philosophical difference, not a shortcoming. | I agree with the above comment. I think this should be rewritten or retitled. The shortcomings you cite seem to be disagreements and differences of opinion. Such instances are common, but do they deserve the attention which you give to them? Cantor's work was, and still is, controversial. Is it a shortcoming of Poincare to disagree with his conclusions? I don't think so. It refleccts a philosophical difference, not a shortcoming. | ||
| ==Serious Omission? No mention of Poincare's 1904 Paper On The Principle Of Relativity== | |||
| I could not find any mention of 1904 paper on principle of relativity. If there I apologise, but it seems to me this is a critical step forward in the history of special relativity and I could not easily find it. Is it there?] 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | I could not find any mention of 1904 paper on principle of relativity. If there I apologise, but it seems to me this is a critical step forward in the history of special relativity and I could not easily find it. Is it there?] 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:19, 27 July 2007
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 Archives |
|---|
Toulose's observartions
I deleted the part in Toulouse's characterization where it commented on Poincaré having a brilliant memory. As brilliant as Poincaré was, it seems counter intuitive to what Poincaré has written about himself and it's the first time I've read such claim. Even with the , I think it's deeply misleading. Bashi 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Too much about Einstein?
The page has too much about Einstein, don't you think? As though someone was trying to push a priority dispute. I agree that E = mc^2 has to be explained (and Einstein's different result explaned) but what about the mention of general relativity at the end (it is much better than it was). But there is far too much about a superceded theory of gravity; we still haven't got from Licorne the references for Poincare's gravity theories and only have his paraphrase of Langevin. Licorne never seemed to give a straight answer about what works of Poincare Langevin refered to - they are not in the reference list. Poincare in Science and Method (1908) mentions ONLY a theory of gravity by Lorentz, as though he is ashamed of his own efforts in 1906. If Poincare's gravity theory remains in the page, which we might surmise Poincare wouldn't like, we need just say it is outdated since 1915. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4mmacro (talk • contribs) 05:45, March 12, 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree that, in the scope of Poincare's body of work, and even in comparison to what he achieved before Einstein on Special Relativity, the gravity work is overblown. I don't see it ever mentioned (unlike the growing recognition of his work on SR - which was never really a secret to the experts), while Nordstrom and Lorentz are often mentioned for SR compliant gravity work. I would agree with a stripped down discussion of this, with a single concluding observation that such efforts were supplanted by GR (no real need to even mention Einstein). My rework of the prior GR paragraph was with the philosophy " if this is here, let's make it reflect consensus opinion", but I agree it isn't really needed at all. --Pallen 17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is ridiculous. Now that the neo-Nazi is gone, can we get rid of most of it? –Joke 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Every now and then I come back to ask to make this article focus on Poincare's contributions in a straightforward way; IOW, I agree. Harald88 01:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is a disgrace! There are some very interesting points about his life, but it's all about relativity. I think this was a small part of his career. It seems that the article has been hijacked by physicists and disregards all his advances in mathematics. GeometryJim 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages way: don't hesitate to add more about mathematics if you like. Harald88 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Last Universalist
I was reading through the archives of the talk discussion here and an issue that hasn't been resolved yet is the mention of M. Poincaré as the "last universalist". This title is so vague as to be meaningless. Some give the title to John von Neumann (as was mentioned earlier), and others say that even Carl Gauss wasn't a "true universalist" (whatever that means) and give the title of "last universalist" to Gottfried Leibniz.
So can we refrain from making vague claims like "last universalist" and just call him a polymath? That should be enough of a title for any mathematician. --Wild rabbit 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering if someone could mention at least a few Poincare's decision-failures? Just so that readers can acquire a more balanced view of his interactions in society. For example, this person was particularly short-sighted when it came to assessing his peer's work, i.e. Georg Cantor's (look it up on wikipedia), and even of a particularly brilliant pupil, Louis Bachelier. (Bernstein, 1996, p.199) This way readers are better informed to this man's skills in decision-making, and how his interests in his own success in fields of novel application may have influenced his judgement on research more relevant to the general population. -- mariabrenna
3-body problem
Hello
I just corrected an error about the 3-body or n-body problem. Poincaré did not prove that this problem cannot be solved, indeed Sundman found such a solution. Oub 10:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC):
Asymptotic expansion
The Asymptotic expansion article mentions that it is also called a Poincaré expansion. I would like to see a mention about his contribution to Asymptotic expansions. Remi Arntzen 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What religious belief did Henri Poincare have?
From his writings I would say he was agnostic or deist but cannot find a source to confirm this. Does anyone know of one? The scientist infobox has a field for religion but its been left blank. Lumos3 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- If his religion is not known (or hard to research), it's not notable. Just because this #@!&$ infobox has a field for religion doesn't imply the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of scientists must be mentioned. --Pjacobi 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Work on relativity
In line with the statement from the Mathematics Wiki project ( see top of this page) I intend to remove the majority of the section Work on relativity , which has become overlong and disproportionate, to a sepeate article entitled Henri Poincaré and relativity. I will leave a synopsis here. Any comments? Lumos3 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The relativity section is not that long given its importance. Why not just build up the mathematics sections more instead. 67.8.115.243 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- His contributions to physics are as improtant as his contributions to mathematics. However, there is a matter of maximal article length. If the mathematics sections are build up more, the article will become too long. It is OK to split a section off to its own page as long as it is briefly summarized with a clear link to the spinned off article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles
- Harald88 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no problem of maximal article length. Einstein's article is far longer, and that does not seem to be a problem at all ! Just build up Poincaré's math section a bit, there's plenty of room. 67.8.115.243 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Height
Poincare seems to have been very short and lightly built. Exact information is hard to find. The photograph in the main article
of Poincare and Marie Curie suggests that he was shorter than she was.
Shortcomings section
This section could be a personal essay. Please supply citations to the published authors who say these things. Without them it will be deleted. Lumos3 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the citation on the page? E.g., Bernstein?
I agree with the above comment. I think this should be rewritten or retitled. The shortcomings you cite seem to be disagreements and differences of opinion. Such instances are common, but do they deserve the attention which you give to them? Cantor's work was, and still is, controversial. Is it a shortcoming of Poincare to disagree with his conclusions? I don't think so. It refleccts a philosophical difference, not a shortcoming.
Serious Omission? No mention of Poincare's 1904 Paper On The Principle Of Relativity
I could not find any mention of 1904 paper on principle of relativity. If there I apologise, but it seems to me this is a critical step forward in the history of special relativity and I could not easily find it. Is it there?71.251.178.128 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean Lorentz's paper of 1904 or Poincare's paper of 1905, both are mentioned in the relativity section. Lumos3 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This would be the St Louis address.71.251.178.128 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Another Serious Omission - No mention of Poincares Importance In The Philosophy Of Science
There does not appear in this article an appreciation of the importance of Poincare's publications in the philosophy of science. In that field, his three volumes The Value Of Science. are viewed as important in the foundation of the philosophy of science. This needs to be included in the article. Poincare's scientific conventionalism is an important contribution to this field.Electrodynamicist 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class France articles
- Unknown-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- B-Class physics articles
- Unknown-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Unknown-importance
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- High-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class mathematics articles
- Top-priority mathematics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Unknown-importance Philosophy articles