Talk:Emmy Noether/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Please find a much clearer phrase than "breaks off"

In the section Ascending and descending chain conditions, this passage appears:

"A Noetherian module is a module in which every strictly ascending chain of submodules breaks off after a finite number. A Noetherian space is a topological space in which every strictly increasing chain of open subspaces breaks off after a finite number of terms; this definition is made so that the spectrum of a Noetherian ring is a Noetherian topological space."

The term "breaks off" is neither standard mathematical language, nor standard English.

It is an idiomatic phrase that has several meanings. Although English is my first language, there is no meaning of "breaks off" that makes sense to me here.

Does this mean "becomes constant" ? If so, why not say that???

I strongly suggest that someone knowledgeable about algebra rewrite this passage using a far, far clearer word.Daqu (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to clarify. Ozob (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sexist passage

I'm new to this, so forgive me if this isn't the correct protocol. But I think it's worth talking about excising a rather sexist passage in the "Lecturing and Students" subsection. The passage in question reads: "Mostly unconcerned about appearance and manners, she focused on her studies to the exclusion of romance and fashion. A distinguished algebraist Olga Taussky-Todd described a luncheon, during which Noether, wholly engrossed in a discussion of mathematics, "gesticulated wildly" as she ate and "spilled her food constantly and wiped it off from her dress, completely unperturbed".[51] Appearance-conscious students cringed as she retrieved the handkerchief from her blouse and ignored the increasing disarray of her hair during a lecture. Two female students once approached her during a break in a two-hour class to express their concern, but they were unable to break through the energetic mathematics discussion she was having with other students.[52]"

This kind of comment (aside from being of little biographical value) doesn't appear on the pages of similarly eminent male figures (Einstein, Hilbert, Weyl, etc., even though Einstein attained folk-hero status in part because of his unconventional appearance). Its inclusion here is an example of how women—even a woman as accomplished and influential as Noether—are always judged relative to some conventional notion of femininity and beauty. It's ironic because the behavior of Noether's being described shows that these conventions were wholly unimportant to her, and she'd rather just focus on mathematics. Lucasdunlap (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the passage as being more a condemnation of the expectations placed upon her and the attitudes of others. Her reaction to (or, more accurately apparently, dismissal of) these things is an important part of her biography. Male mathematicians did not face such difficulty, so its not appropriate to have such passages in their articles. It SHOULD be re-written to steer clear of the interpretation you take from it - not removed. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that the interpretation of the passage that you suggest is there, but the anecdotes cited don't seem to me to rise to the level of important biographical information. The last sentence, for example, is a description of an instance where two students tried to tell her that her hair looked disheveled, but she didn't care because she was having a conversation about math with other students. There are, of course, important biographical details that are implied by the passage (e.g. she never married, there are no records of any romantic relationships), and maybe something about her personality shines through in the anecdote about wiping the food on her dress.
But I'm less convinced that the fact that others held her to contemporary standards of femininity is an important detail about her. There doesn't seem to be any evidence (at least none cited in the passage in question) that she deliberately rejected these standards (or even that she was aware that she was transgressing them). If she had explicitly said something about rejecting certain gender-based mores, then I think that these anecdotes could potentially serve as evidence for her views. But there doesn't seem to be any anything I'm aware of that suggests that this is the case. Lucasdunlap (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
And furthermore, if the passage is to be understood as a condemnation of the attitudes of others, then it seems like it's a statement of an editorial judgment, which shouldn't appear among Noether's biographical details. Lucasdunlap (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a few women who knew Noether left any kind of memoirs of her. Olga Taussky-Todd knew her the longest of any woman mathematician, and left the longest and the best memoirs. All noted that Noether was difficult in various ways, and I believe Taussky-Todd (who was a lifelong feminist) does a brilliant job of conveying her admiration together with the difficulties of being a woman student of Noether. Picture yourself a woman student in 1920s Germany in front of the only woman lecturer in the department as she does these things. Many biographies of Noether try to avoid sexism by only quoting men who knew her and neglecting the women's testimony. I think that is a mistake. Colin McLarty (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, Lucasdunlap, but your comments show a number of severe misconceptions. Please try to distinguish documentation of sexism (which is our job) from endorsement of sexism in Wikipedia's voice. The passage you quote is attributed, and not presented in Wikipedia's voice. You can argue about its relevance, or notability, but asking whether it contains 'editorial judgement' or whether it is 'sexist' is completely beside the point.
I would also question your attitude, which to be smacks of blatant sexism. So a passage about weird behaviour in an article about a woman is sexist, while exactly the same description in an article about a goofy male scientist would somehow not be sexist? Because it is more normal for men to behave in a goofy manner? How is that implicit judgement anything other than sexist, namely on the part of the editor making this distinction (viz.: you)? --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You know, Dbachmann I read this article and thought that the paragraph should be omitted as well based on the observations that Lucasdunlap made. It's why I went to the "talk" page because I THOUGHT IT WAS SEXIST AS WELL. Your response to A REASONABLE REQUEST that was made politely and with good argument and intent on the part of Lucasdunlap was flippant, crude and "smacks" of somebody with an axe to grind. In other words, what the hell is your problem? Hopefully you've been relegated to some dustbin and are NO LONGER an editor for Wikipedia because frankly you stink, buddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dbachmann: per above IP comment. 220 of Borg 14:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the rest of the paragraph "to the exclusion of romance and fashion" is sexist, unattributed editorialising. I deleted it in advance of further discussion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The "exclusion of romance" could be cited to an astonishing passage in Weyl's eulogy where he opines she had no erotic feeling. "Sexist" is an understatement for this projection on Weyl's part, though Weyl probably qualifies as a Wikipedia Reliable Source. And Taussky-Todd tells of being rebuked by Noether for buying a new dress. So these are sourceable. Overall I think Hroðulf did well to remove the phrase though, as too little valuable. Colin McLarty (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

MINT spam

Icannot find how you list a journals book publications there are 1 or 2 books in a year from 1997-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHEname (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes. Please do not spam Wikipedia with your own publications. If that's a significant part of Noether's legacy, provide third-party sources discussing it on the talk page. Huon (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Best article

Wow! This is the best article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. My congratulations to the editors who made it. Thetootpoem (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Did Ernst Fischer really "introduce" Noether to Hilbert's work?

Under the heading Teaching: University of Erlangen, the third paragraph says: "During the 1903–04 winter semester, she studied at the University of Göttingen, attending lectures given by astronomer Karl Schwarzschild and mathematicians Hermann Minkowski, Otto Blumenthal, Felix Klein, and David Hilbert." Then, however, the seventh paragraph begins: "According to Hermann Weyl, Fischer was an important influence on Noether, in particular by introducing her to the work of David Hilbert."

Clearly, this real, or perhaps merely apparent, disparity needs clarification. Could this brilliant woman in 1903–04 attending lectures of David Hilbert not be considered to have "introduced" herself to the work of David Hilbert? The author of the seventh paragraph needs to explain what work of Hilbert's she wasn't already aware of and, if indeed she wasn't, why that was the case.--Wikifan2744 (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

First, as to a Reliable Source, this is what Weyl says. More fully, Noether in 1903 almost certainly did not study Hilbert's work beyond whatever lectures of his she attended, and when she finished her dissertation in 1908 she showed no interest in or knowledge of Hilbert's work on that subject even though her advisor Gordan had already published improvements on Hilbert's approach to it. What her own published statements show is that Fischer put her on the path of her first work using Hilbert's ideas (and even then she cites Weber's algebra textbooks more than Hilbert's original papers). If someone wants to re-write the sentence using this info, then be bold. Colin McLarty (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2.1 University of Erlangen

Quotation: 

One of only two women students in a university of 986, Noether was only...

986 is typo. What is the correct year? Thank you! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a year, it's a number of students. Why do you think it is a typo? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, now I understand my error. Thank you very much! My student translated this fine article into Russian for Russian Wikipedia. Now I am reading attentively the source English text and correcting her translation. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

purported american citizenship

There is a clear consensus not to call Emmy Noether an American because no reliable sources have been presented her to describe her as American. Editors also noted that she was born in and spent most of her life in Germany and she spent only two years in the United States. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hi guys, given the recent addition by User:Look2see1 of the categories "american x", i thought it'd be good to take this to the talk page.

can anyone provide some proof that Emmy Noether was an american citizen, not simply a resident who was there to teach?

i'm not disputing the possibility she was an american, but it just seems weird for someone to add those categories without proof. google's first few pages don't really turn up anything incontrovertible to support this idea, either.

hopefully those who are well-versed in this area can shed some light.

thanks 174.3.155.181 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the article, she came to the U.S. in late 1933 and died in April 1935. That was not enough time to become a U.S. citizen. The current requirement is "You have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meet all other eligibility requirements."[1] and I'm pretty sure that was the case in the 1930's as well.--agr (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I undid Look2see1's edit - admittedly before reading the above talk - thinking that "American x" needn't imply formal US citizenship. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert my edit. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: it's cool, i'm not too aversed to the categorisation, i just would like to see some sort of evidence. i don't think it's fair to the Germans to call her american if her citizenship doesn't necessitate it. she was a great mathematician, and there is no question that she made Bryn Mawr famous; that in itself is more than any american citizenship could achieve. i just think we should respect the country from where she originates, unless there's evidence that suggests she wanted to be remembered as american (citizenship). i would even accept quotes as a primary source, as long as it's in her own words.
just to add a little more to the conversation: i don't think she did have american citizenship. it says here that she took the position at Bryn Mawr because all Jewish instructors were fired. again, i'm not seeking to antagonise americans here, but i think it's only fair that we honour the nation she was from (regardless of the strife that resulted in her ouster). i remember her as the robin (if the great hilbert was batman):

"Meine Herren," countered Hilbert, "I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her admission as a Privatdozent. After all, the Senate is not a bathhouse." Noether's application was rejected, but Hilbert arranged for her to stay at Göttingen by having her lectures announced under his name.

- David Hilbert[1]

References

  1. ^ here
i mean, we can keep it as it is if some people are fervent about calling her american, but we should honour her german ancestry too in my opinion. i am sure some americans would argue the germans have such a wealth of top-tier math talent that they could "spare" one or two, but given that she's a female i'm not so inclined to offer the great Emmy Noether as one of them. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Given that she wasn't in the United States for very long, it seems inappropriate to call her American. Plenty of academics visit other countries, sometimes staying for as long as Noether was in America or even longer; we don't thereby claim they identify with their host country. I think the only way we could sustain this categorization is if we had some reliable source that said she identified herself as American. And it's certainly possible that she did, but right now we don't have any evidence. Ozob (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
aight @Jochen Burghardt and Ozob:, going to revert. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I reorganized the categories without adding or removing any. I put her status as a women mathematician and physicist first. For what it's worth, her German citizenship was withdrawn under the 1935 Nuremberg Laws.--agr (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Comment, just to point out that 'nationality' is normally citizenship when the person became notable, with any necessary qualifiers, ie a well known 'Austrian', becomes a German born in Austria, Hitchcock becomes a British filmaker who took US citizenship in 19XX, T. S. Eliot becomes an American-born British poet etc. I don't know if that helps you to resolve this issue, since the doubt appears to be whether she was ever naturalised, but the 'Hitch' model would seem to apply. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(Addressing RFC notification) re: "if we had some reliable source that said she identified herself as American." - one possible proof is to find out whether she applied for citizenship. If not, it is reasonable to assume she was a short-term visitor. On the other hand, Given the times and her ethnicity, it is just as well reasonable to assume hardly she was happy with her German citizenship. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The first several descriptions of Emmy Noether I found do not describe her as being American. Are there good sources describing her as American ? Einstein is not described as American, despite receiving citizenship and living in the US for 15 years. “WarKosign” 06:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • She was born in, and spent by far the largest part of her life in Germany. The fact that she spent 2 years in America doesn't make her an "American mathematician". I was born in South Africa, and lived there until I was 40, and I've been in Bavaria for almost 3 years. I'm going to apply for permanent residence tomorrow, but calling me a "German scientist" would really not make sense. I'm a South African scientist living in Germany. --Slashme (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if she did sufficient significant work under that citizenship, but, for all practical purposes, not American. - DVdm (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict of Interest

Three editors here have a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.51.158 (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Who? Evidence? Proposed consequences? - DVdm (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
See the efforts of Staszek Lem, Ozob and Paul August. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.51.158 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Evidence? Proposed consequences?
Also, please have a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and specially at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. - DVdm (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a conflict of interest? Ozob (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see why too, but perhaps 86.160.51.158 confuses his personal interest with someone else's lack of interest? - DVdm (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emmy Noether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmy Noether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmy Noether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmy Noether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Emmy Noether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need to explain what a group/ring/Galois group is?

It seems out of place. A person reading this article should either already know what those things are, or be able to look them up somewhere else. I don't see why this article needs to include a review on undergraduate abstract algebra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.4 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but if the long passage is deleted, it will be put back in by one of Emmy's supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:5D5F:74A7:5132:B100 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I will give you the names in advance, if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:5D5F:74A7:5132:B100 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I very much liked the section "Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics)" There is not currently a Wikipedia topic "basic introduction to abstract algebra". Apart from a couple of mentions of Noether, this section was an excellent introduction to the area. I suggest that it should be preserved but would be more generally useful as a stand-alone article.

Osen unreliable

This article has approximately 10 footnotes (some repeated multiple times) sourced to Osen 1974. Osen was not careful about the provenance of her claims and cannot be considered a reliable source; see Talk:Hypatia for a more detailed discussion of this issue. Can we work to eliminate this reference and base everything on better sources, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Also there are about 20 broken harv links in the footnotes. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture: emma noether young .jpg ?

emmanoetheryoung.jpg

via: https://lincolnphysics.blogspot.com/2014/03/emmy-noether-mathematician-theorist.html
Join physics teacher James Lincoln as he puts on a very visual display to demonstrate that standing waves really aren’t “standing” at all. Using fluorescence and strobe lights with a standing wave maker machine, Lincoln takes you from 1 st through 5 th harmonics to show the nature of nodes and antinodes.
???——Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

the Gasthof Vollbrecht Photograph

Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emmy_Noether/Archive_3&oldid=1220721724"