Talk:Stephen Wolfram/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personal attacks

Remember the Holy Roman Empire? All you had to know about it was, it wasn't holy, it wasn't Roman, and it wasn't an empire. Now think about a New Kind of Science. Now you're getting it.

(attribution of the above seems to have been mislaid among all the edits)

Actually this is an interesting comparison. We've all heard that about the Holy Roman Empire; but:

• During the chaotic feudalism of the Dark Ages, many people were desperate to restore the relative peace and prosperity of the Roman Empire-- even thought the Roman Empire still existed, until the fifteenth century, headquartered in Constantinople, instead of Rome, which had been conquered by Vandals. Reuniting former provinces of the Western Roman Empire, and restoring some elements of Roman Law and culture generally, was Roman, also, if not headquartered in Rome.
• At the time, decree by the Pope was considered Holy.
• Charlemagne kicked many butts, he ruled some areas by conquest, not merely inheritance. So yes it was an empire, and it was hugely larger than the feudal fiefdoms that predominated the political landscape of the day.

So it's not as simple as it seems-- in a second order, even the criticism that the term "Holy Roman Empire" is not as simple as it seems, is not as simple as it seems. But now, here, we're talking about such things as algorithm complexity and marketing psychology. Which of those things is simple? Pete St.John 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL PERSONAL ATTACKS HAVE BEEN PURGED FROM THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE:

Concerning the recent edits on this page, it is simply not the case that existing complexity researchers have been following the same research agenda that Wolfram advocates in the NKS book. They do not systematically enumerate each and every computational system of some particular class, and run them to see what they do. Usually they have an agenda - eg, artificial life, "emergence" , evolution, whatever -- just go to the complexity page to see the mishmash of things that fall under the complexity umbrella. Usually, they either use mathematical methods, or do computer simulations on systems that are more complicated that those in NKS. This is not what Wolfram advocates at all.

---

many people have been studying cellular automata for many decades. And complexity theory is *centrally about* the notion that simple rules generate complexity, with low-dimensional pattern formation.

It is nice that wolfram has enumerated all the cellular automata - but that is hardly a new kind of science.

There are *thousands* of research articles on cellular automata.

Duracell 17:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Complexity theorists typically do not systematically enumerate every computational system of a particular class, simply exploring it to see what they do.

Complexity theorists typically have a specific agenda, for instance artificial life, or the behavior of some specific natural or social system -- in contrast to studying simple computational systems in their own right, for their own sake.

Complexity theorists, when talking about abstract systems, typically rely on mathematical methods rather than exhaustive, very simple computer experiments.

Who is the last complexity theorist to have enumerated all 4096 s2k2 Turing machines (or some similar system) and classified their behavior? What complexity theorist concentrates on computational systems for their own sake, without biasing their research to topics like genetic algorithms, pattern recognition, artificial life, etc, etc? What complexity theorist has the goal of experimentally mapping the computational universe rather than trying to deductively come up with a mathematical equation or theorem about some limited class of systems? Finally, are these all the same person, or scattered items with no overall intellectual framework to tie them together?

I know about the thousands of papers on cellular automata And some of them are actually good. But what defines a field is not only its subject matter, but how the subject is studied and the principles that drive the field's intuition. Its like saying biology and cooking are the same because they can both talk about vegetables.

Your assertion that complexity theory is "centrally" about simple rules leading to complexity is a piece of wishful rhetoric. If complexity theory was truly based on this phenomena, why do they not systematically enumerate (and experimentally study in detail) the very simplest rules possible and see what novel behaviors unfold from them? This is the scientific philosophy of studying simple programs. this is a fruitful enterprise potentially on par with a physics or a mathematics,

24.61.40.124 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"eight hallmark signs of crank science"

What are the eight hallmark signs of crank science? If no reference is provided, then this should be deleted.

---

The hallmarks of crank science are listed in the article crank (person). Ones that in my opinion apply to Wolfram are:

• Grandiose claims for the validity and scope of the theory
• Stated belief that a conspiracy by the scientific establishment is hindering uptake of the theory
• Direct communication of the idea to the media, typically holding a press conference before going through the usual peer review process of publishing in scholarly journals

These ones are pretty obvioius. One might also add:

• Comparison of the originator with Einstein, Newton, Galileo, or Copernicus

Certainly, popular media coverage of Wolfram's "New Kind of Science" was full of comparisons of him to Newton and Einstein, though I do not know if he himself has made or directly encouraged those comparisons (he certainly doesn't discourage them). --GaeusOctavius 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets look at these more carefully:

• Grandiose claims for the validity and scope of the theory

True. Wolfram's claims are far-reaching and he is upfront about it.

• Stated belief that a conspiracy by the scientific establishment is hindering uptake of the theory

False. In recent public appearances Wolfram has stated that he is quite pleased how his ideas are being taken up.

• Direct communication of the idea to the media, typically holding a press conference before going through the usual peer review process of publishing in scholarly journals

False. Many of the core ideas in the book were in fact published by Wolfram in the 1980s. Something like the Principle of Computational Equivalence, which is new to the book, is known as a conjecture supported by known evidence; things like it get published all the time.

• Comparison of the originator with Einstein, Newton, Galileo, or Copernicus

This is hard to interpret the original meaning of this claim. I'll give this a .5 .

Given that we are batting 1.5/8, I am going to remove the material on crank science. Folks, just cause you read it on the internet doesn't mean that it is true. Point to some published review that calls wolfram a crank, rather than a random internet diatribe, and I will take it more seriously.

---

There is voluminous documentation of Wolfram's crank-like behavior on the web. You can start here [1] if interested. The entry in the article appropriately states these as allegations of critics and not fact. Censorship of views one does not like is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

---

I agree that censorship is not the wikipedia way.

However, this "other people say" thing is a classic smear tactic. Given that any reasonable person would agree that 2 and 3 are on their face false, this line of criticism basically boils down to "criticism for ambitious self image" , which is already covered in that paragraph. This is a strike against it in my book.

Furthermore, generally speaking, the space afforded to a topic should be proportional to its importance. If there was a significant community that believe this "crank" nonsense, then one could make an argument for including it. But this is a **very** minority view, held by a few people (such as that author of that url) who often feel personally threatened or offended by some aspect of Wolfram -- often not even the scientific content aspect. The overwhelming majority of published reviews (both positive and negative) treat it as a legitimate scientific work, and attempt to engage its results and ideas. That is just a fact.

I will add the following paragraph as an attempt to include this information.

"A handful of very vocal critics--almost without exception self-published online rather than in peer-reviewed journals--have pointed to Wolfram's ambition as a proof that he is a crank. Supporters find this ironic and misguided because Wolfram's central point is that it is essential that we approach computation with very straighforward, transparent experiments that can be verified by anyone."

---

I am a reasonable person and I do not agree that 2 and 3 are false on their face. Nobody has claimed Wolfram was not a legitimate scientist in the 1980's, but alot of time has passed since then. If the best defense of an alleged pseudoscientist or crank is published work from two decades ago, that says a lot.

John Hagelin is another example of a former scientist who once had a legitimate record of publication. Now he is an advocate of Yogic "flying". Is he a crackpot? Hell yes! Have any of his fellow physicists ever called him a crackpot in a refereed publication? Hell no!

Any reasonable person will recognize the absurdity of denigrating critics of a non-peer-reviewed work, simply because their criticisms are themselves not published in peer-reviewed journals.

---

Well, reasonable and *informed*.

Concerning 2: He's said things are going very well at many recent public appearances, for instance http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/conference/speakers.php#StephenWolframAbstract .

Concerning 3: The core of the book is about 1) simple, sytematic computer experiments, 2) their relationship to nature, and 3) philosophical underpinnings like computational irreducibility - all ideas that Wolfram and others published about before. It is utterly misleading to compare this to a case where the "new" research bears no relationship to the old, reputable research. Of course scientists won't say that Hagelin is a crackpot - why would they write papers about meditation in physics journals.

I believe it is absurd to complain about others not being peer reviewed, when one himself is not being peer reviewed. For instance, there are many basic factual - let alone conceptual - errors in many NKS reviews (there seems to be a correlation between the number of errors and the negativity of the review).

I do believe the new formulation on the "con" side is more or less acceptable. I have heard no "pro" wolfram person say that he is too brilliant to be peer reviewed, so I will change the straw man into something sensible about the ideas being a direct outgrowth of earlier research.

rumor of stolen work?

I heard back in my math department from a professor a while back that most of the original work on mathematica was done by some other mathematicians, then wolfram did some trick with stock options, moved the ip to another company, and shafted them. is there any citable source that can confirm the existence of this rumor? anyone know the names of these other scientists? Dsol 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please email the professor in the math department for details, if he/she is where you heard it. GangofOne 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Theo Grey, who still works at Wolfram Research, says in his online bio that he "Co-founded Wolfram Research, Inc with Stephen Wolfram and 4 others." I believe (but can not find references) that those others include mathematicians Henry Cejtin, Igor Rivin, Dave Bowman, and Daniel Grayson, and that they were largely responsible for early development of Mathematica.

It was rumored that some disagreement existed among the early developers about credit and compensation (especially in the form of stock options), which revolved around intellectual property issues (ironic considering Wolfram's earlier legal wranglings with Caltech over SMP).

However, I highly doubt that there will ever be a citable source. The matter was rumored to have been legally resolved, and I'd be surprised if gag orders and other legal restrictions weren't in place.

20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

• Paragraph 6, line 1: Change “The initial reviews” to “The reviews”. Why? Because the way it is written implies only initially were there negative feelings.
• Paragraph 6, line 3: Delete “its ambitious self-image” and replace by “lack of correctness”. i.e., the work was criticized for being wrong, not because SW is ambitious.

Looks like both of these have been fixed at this point. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Assertions in need of references

It would help a lot to get references for the following.

1. Often described as a child prodigy ... Who describes him as such?
2. he published an article on particle physics at age 15 ... Presumably it will be easy to get a citation for that. Actually a list of all of his peer-reviewed publications would be interesting.

    available here in his 'Scrapbook'           http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/particle/75-hadronic/index.html
     "Hadronic Electrons" S. Wolfram, Australian Journal of Physics 28 (1975) 479-487.
     includes as a citation [24] Wolfram, S. (1975). Eton College Preprints, January and March.
     I find Wolfram a source of some amusement, so I note that here http://www.stephenwolfram.com/scrapbook/internals/page1/6.html
  he spent the summer when 12 summarizing someone elses book. With lots of diagrams!

1. He received his Ph.D. in particle physics from Caltech at age 20 ... We should get a citation for that too.
2. ... and joined the faculty there. This is a big one. What, exactly was his position at Caltech? Post-doc, lecturer, adjunct professor, tenure-track, what? Which classes did he teach?
3. Richard Feynman considered him to be phenomenally brilliant and would "use him to bounce ideas off of". This is another big one. How do we know this -- did Feynman write somewhere "Wolfram is phenomenally brilliant" or is that an extrapolation? Did Feynman say "I used to bounce ideas off him" or did someone else claim Feynman did that?
4. Wolfram won the MacArthur award. Was his award for his work on some particular topic? If so the topic should be mentioned here.
5. He developed a computer algebra system at Caltech, but the school's patent rules denied him ownership of the invention. This is another big one. The system is question was called SMP, we should say that. Wolfram wasn't the only developer; there were at least a few more people. We need to mention those other people and clarify their roles and Wolfram's. Was he the primary designer, project manager, primary coder, what? Wolfram had a dispute about ownership of the system, although I would be surprised if patents had anything to do with it (copyrights more likely). Wolfram eventually settled with Caltech; we should try to find out what the terms of the settlement were. Caltech and/or Wolfram licensed SMP to a commercial venture, although I don't know if we want to go into that here.
6. He left for the School of Natural Sciences ... When was that, exactly? We should attach dates to other events as well.

Stephen Wolfram is fairly controversial; it would help readers at large a lot if we could pin down some details here. There's more, but I'll let that be enough for now. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I added some links to the high-energy physics literature database where appropriate, and added {{fact}} tags in some other places mentioned above. Josh Thompson 01:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out the fact tags. Isn't it reasonable that if someone starts publishing papers in theoretical physics at the age of 16 (and has written something like 20 papers by the age of 20) that they will be described as a child prodigy? It's not a controversial claim. The claim that he was widely regarded as a "wunderkind" (wonder child, child prodigy) is made in the Kolata article, as well as the information about him joining the Caltech faculty (as, I assume, a research associate, not a lecturer), which is available in almost any biographical information about him -- e.g. his personal timeline on his own website. 137.82.188.68 05:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned about the 'Caltech faculty' part (but I haven't read the Kolata article yet so I will do that before making any more edits to the page). But his personal bio does not say he was on the Caltech faculty (it explicitly states he was a Professor at UIUC). Random internet biographies do say it, but I'm inclined not to believe them. I think you are probably right about "research associate" (postdoc). Some institutions (eg Harvard) blur the distinction between the two, but in general a postdoc is not faculty. Josh Thompson 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course a postdoc is faculty and staff, it is not less than any other position, it may only mean it is not a permanent research position, Science reports more than 40% first authors in the journal are postdocs, by the way... Most, if not all postdocs I know of are either mentioned as faculty or staff. 86.181.206.154 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Page 2 of his "Scrapbook and Timeline" on his web site Page 2 of Wolfram's scrapbook reproduces both his Caltech student card and his faculty ID card, annotated (click on image) "becoming a professor." "Research associate" (or some similar Caltech designation) isn't synonymous with "post-doc"; Wolfram was definitely more than a post-doc. I don't think he was giving lectures to undergraduates, though. 137.82.188.68 04:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More than a post-doc? guys, stop the b.s. and learn a bit of what post-doc really means... is just a full-time research job for traditionally a fixed period of time, sometimes permanent, period.86.181.206.154 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying about the meaning of research associate, but it doesn't matter--the ID card that says "Faculty" is good enough for me. Maybe I'll add a citation to that to the article when I get a chance. Josh Thompson 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-restraint and improved readability

Recent edits to this page by Wolfram detractors are making the text unreadible and incomprehensible.

Ample space is dedicated to criticism.

Nevertheless, passages that even attempt to present the basics of Wolfram's argument have been defaced, resulting in content that is neither informative, nor readable, nor even presenting a single coherent opinion whatsoever.

I am going to fix some of this nonsensical editing.

• Perhaps grabbing some text or linking directly to A New Kind of Science would be helpful? 128.195.108.92 05:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting approach. I'll think about it

Continued vandalism of this page

I've reworked sections of this page to properly include both pro-wolfram and anit-wolfram sentiments.

Now, a few individuals have been systematically deleting the pro-wolfram content (while letting the anti-wolfram side stand). Worse, they continue to do so without making any comments as to why these deletions are justified. Besides deleting pro-wolfram comment, they've been litttering the page with highly opinionated and non-factual nastly little comments.

Besides being childish and petty, this is a blatant violation of the wikipedia NPOV policy and should be considered vandalism. If it continues stronger measures will have to be taken.

Feynman's opinion of Wolfram

Feynman did have a high opinion of Wolfram -- among other evidence Michelle Feynman's comments and the letter of recommendation Feynman wrote for the MacArthur Foundation in her recent selection of Feynman's letters, Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track -- and the reason this is not "puffery" is because if Richard Feynman knew you and your work in mathematics/theoretical physics/computer science and thinks you are very smart then it is likely that by human standards you are indeed very smart. It is like Eugene Wigner's oft-quoted comment that he was never in the same intellectual class as John von Neumann -- the opinion of a highly-qualified observer who was not given to hyperbole. Similarly, if Mikhail Baryshnikov (sp?) had ever remarked of someone that "they moved very gracefully" I would consider this suitable to put in an encyclopedia article about that person. 137.82.82.137 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. The puffery in question is this magazine piece [2], which claims that Feynman said nice things about Wolfram, but has no references itself. If you can find a suitable quote in Feynman's letters, feel free to paste it into the article -- with a reference, of course. The value of Feynman's opinion is not in question. 64.48.192.67 06:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

O.k.. (Same as 137.82.82.137 above.) I'm quite familiar with Wolfram's career and have seen Feynman's (and Murray Gell-Mann's) praise of him repeated in many sources (possibly beginning in the initial news articles in Science and Physics Today ca. 1982/1983 reporting on Wolfram's conflict with Caltech over SMP, but I don't have these at hand). Since I regarded Feynman's high opinion of Wolfram as beyond dispute for an informed observer (nyah, nyah) I charitably assumed that the objection was to the praise per se -- as many people do object to Wolfram's abjuration of false modesty regarding his own intellectual powers. 142.103.168.16 04:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave the whole Feynman opinion/Wolfram thing alone for a while since it's getting to be a major drag. I deleted both sentences. The second sentence meta-commenting on Feynman's "accuracy" is deeply disingenuous since it is Feynman's informed opinion on Wolfram's work as he knew it then that is at issue, not any prediction of his future. I think the person adding this meta-comment probably got that prediction wrong, too - Feynman predicted (in a letter which is displayed on Wolfram's personal website under Scrapbook) that Wolfram would not be happy *organizing* and *administering* a research group in academia -- and Feynman was absolutely right about this! 142.103.168.24 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How did it work? Did Feynman think people were very smart if they published work he had done ONLY in the last 10 years or something? And then, not quite as smart if you're publishing stuff he had done 20 years earlier and all that?

Let's leave Murray Gell-Mann's praise out of it. He's been known to throw his weight behind a dim post-doc with a nice pair of tits.88.110.112.62 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

References

The explicit reference to the Science (AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Science weekly magazine -- the U.S. equivalent of the British Nature, with both research publications and science news and science politics) magazine article on the Wolfram/SMP/Caltech controversy is the 27 May 1983 (Vol. 220, No. 4600) issue, pgs. 932-934, a "News and Comment" section article titled "Caltech Torn by Dispute Over Software" by Gina Kolata. 137.82.188.68 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence with parenthetical comment "perhaps more accurately: viewpoint of patents/copyrights asserted after the fact" is a deliberately (and I think, rather nicely) calibrated summary of the Kolata article describing an intrinsically POV dispute between Wolfram and the Caltech administration. I personally think one could with some justice delete the "perhaps" -- Caltech admitted they had no explicit rules governing the situation, and created explicit rules because of the SMP dispute, but the Caltech administration's position was that Wolfram was violating the tacit rules or spirit of Caltech or some such that Caltech faculty were supposed to intuit. So the "perhaps" gives some weight to that view. "Allegedly" is certainly not appropriate. If someone disagrees, could they please do so AFTER READING THE KOLATA ARTICLE and not merely on their own preferences of literary style? 137.82.188.68 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is one of POV. When I read "perhaps more accurately" it gives me the impression that Wikipedia has some kind of opinion as to what is accurate. Strictly construed, that's not what we're supposed to be finding out. We're supposed to be giving space to both possible views without trying to say anything about whether either one is accurate. The Kolata article could be complete gibberish (or the most brilliant piece on the Wolfram controversy), but I don't think we should make the slightest hint of a judgment on the subject. I'm not even really sure what is wrong with the word "allegedly." (Why is it "certainly not appropriate"?) Best, Pennsylvanian 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Because, entirely contrary to the implications of "allegedly" (allege: "to make a mere assertion without any proof") the facts of the case were not in dispute by either party. 137.82.188.68 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the facts of the case weren't in dispute, then why was there "legal wrangling"? If you want, we could expand this section so as to describe exactly what happened. As it stands, it seems like we're saying "Caltech and Wolfram agreed that Caltech didn't have a leg to stand on, but they tried to grab his patents anyway." (Which may be an accurate description of the facts; I would just like to see the facts themselves.) Pennsylvanian 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then read the Kolata article. I am dead set against expanding this section; it would have to be a paraphrase of Kolata anyways. The sentence, taken as a whole -- with the essential qualifier "perhaps" -- is in my considered opinion a nice brief summary. You are responsible for your own misinterpretations but I reject your edits based on ignorance. It is fairly common in commercial/contract law for disputants to agree on the essential facts but argue (or more precisely, have lawyers argue for them) that the law favors their interpretation of the facts. (E.g. "D: yes we didn't make the delivery on the agreed-upon date, but it was due to an Act of God so we are not liable. P:No, it was a reasonably forseeable risk, not an Act of God, and we were severely damaged by your non-delivery.")

137.82.188.68 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any of the things you mentioned. My point is, I come to this article, I see something that seems to take a clear side of one debate, which appears POV. I understand what you're saying about contract law, but I don't believe that Caltech agreed that it was basing its case on a "viewpoint asserted after the fact," which is how the article has it right now (I believe that Caltech argued that there was some idea of how patents were to be used beforehand, which seems like a viewpoint they *claimed* had been asserted—tacitly—before the fact). I understand that you would want to summarize, but I think it might serve the best interests of readers looking for the exact facts to even paraphrase the Kolata article. Is there any reason not to give the facts? Is there any reason not to paraphrase (or even quote) the article? I'm not saying that your summary of the article is wrong. I want to completely disabuse that notion. I'm just saying that there may be people like me who come here and wonder what the whole story is behind it and whether it is or isn't POV. Pennsylvanian 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

George Costanza!

Wow -- Wolfram sure bears a striking resemblance to Seinfeld's George Costanza. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.27.181 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

How so? (I'm not really sure I understand your analogy)

He refers to a character in an American television show, here's a picture of the actor Jason Alexander in that role. There's some resemblance. I don't think that's the solution to our fair-use issue :-) Pete St.John (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StephenWolfram-wolframscience-media-page.jpg

Image:StephenWolfram-wolframscience-media-page.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To me it's ironic that we lost that image; it's unimaginable to me that WR would complain. I had just assumed that someone more hip to Fair Use provisions would take care of this. Pete St.John (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

23rd of Turing

It looks like the 16-year old was NOT in error on the universality of that particular 2,3 Turing machine. According to Wolfram's comment on the FOM mailing list (may not yet be visible due to moderation delays) the criticism of proof did not find an actual error, but rather questioned some wide generalizations, which Mr. Wolfram thinks are still acceptable corner-cuts to solve the problem. So it is just a matter of opinion, but one must admit that there is no mathematical exactness and consesnus on some details of Turing machines. 82.131.210.162 11:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Smith relaxed the requirements, and the committee awarding the prize decided to accept that relaxation. It's trivial for any computer to solve difficult problems if it has infinite input (your pet rock can solve the Travelling Salesman Problem if all possible solutions to all possible problems are presented to it as input data), so the original challenged posed by Minsky required finite input. Smith used infinite but "repetitious" input data. So the Wolfram machine is NOT proven Universal by the original Minksy definition, but IS proven Universal by a wider, weaker definition accepted by the Committee, so the kid gets to keep his money. Pete St.John 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion does not belong in the Stephen Wolfram bio because it cannot be sourced to standards required for bios of living persons. Email discussion groups and Slashdot are not acceptable BLP sources. There are other pages more appoproriate. --69.124.63.234 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is current news, and the expert testimony of professional mathematicians, including the informative sur-rebutal from Wolfram Research, is in electronic form, particularly, email on publically accessible lists. Hopefully the issue will settle down and the news item will turn into mere scholarship, citing books instead of email. In the meantime, simply ripping out the contraversial part is disinformative. Please discuss these things here in the talk page before editting; in particular, cite specific wiki guideline documents so we can assess their suitability to this particular case, if you believe the guidelines justify removing topical material. Pete St.John 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 6 different pages on which this information appears. Two of them are biographies. Please observe BLP. --69.124.63.234 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted at the Talk pages of both Requiemdirge and User:69.124.63.234. If there is a better place for this material (e.g. under "Turing Machines") then we can put a link in the Bio article to the technical article (since people are looking at the bio article for recent news). I'm happy to organize the material in better ways, to reference better documents, and in general, clear the air. But simply deleting the material is not satisfactory to me. Also it's really not necessary. The actual statement of the actual theorem (that the paricular algorithm satisfies Universality in the case of infinite but patterned input data) is not very important to most people, but if it is misquoted (so as to appear a falsehood, as it did to the original critic) then the reputations of Ron Graham and Dana Scott (among others) are unnecessarily tarnished (as reviewers of the contest process). None of us wants that; Graham is as cool as people get. So instead of deleting the clarification, please IMPROVE the clarification. Pete St.John 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: In the material you restored, why is it that Smith claims things, but Pratt finds them? Shouldn't both verbs be "claim"? Organizational suggestion: when the material exists to adequetely source the debate, which I'm sure it will, the debate should probably have its own entry.--69.124.63.234 15:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

oh I agree completely. I didn't write the "claim" line. The problem is in glossing the actual statement of the theorem. The actual theorem, from the contest submission, is (I presume) completely correct. But the announcement didn't quote the actual statement (which presumably was too technical) but used the term "Universal" without modification. If the announcement had been "Universal, relaxed to include infinite but highly restricted input sets..." then, imo, Pratt would never have objected, but the announcement would have been inferior as a headline. Pete St.John 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've written a synopsis of the contraversy, as I understand it, in my user space, a synopsis. In particular, unlike a Wiki article, it includes my opinion that 1) Wolfram is too self-promotional for the tastes of many scientists (d'uh) and 2) the basic science is pretty good, just not as earth-shaking as the self-promotion makes it sound. So in particular, I think this newsy item is a good thing to address in the bio article; Wolfram's public relations persona is I think very important to his overall notability. Wolfram is the "rich, self-promoting mathematician" not the "dry, introverted, mathematician" of great fame but less specificity. Young people who want to suceed with advancing technology should really think about this.Pete St.John —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest moving the section on the minimal Turing Machine and prize -- which I think perfectly fine -- to the A New Kind of Science article, with a sentence or two mention in the A New Kind of Science section in this Stephen Wolfram article. I think it is consistent with the basic decision to split off the detailed discussion of ANKOS into a separate article. 137.82.188.68 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Erdos Number

The category "Erdos Number" has been deleted (by people that I can't categorize humanely at this moment) and a bot has deleted the references (see Erdos Number). In particular, the Category reference "Erdos Number 2" has been deleted from this page. Unfortunately, the google key "Wolfram Erdos" returns many hits on account of the Wolfram site. I hope that somebody familiar with the literature can find the reference for the coauthor shared by Wolfram and Erdos, and restore the item to the page (I just made new brief sections for it in the articles of mathematicians familiar to me. I didn't hunt up shared coauthors, but if someone questioned Carlitz, which would just be silly, I'd be willing to.) Pete St.John 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer: I found the following collaboration path on Mathematical Reviews

MR Erdos Number = 2 Stephen Wolfram coauthored with Andrew M. Odlyzko MR0742194 (86a:68073) Andrew M. Odlyzko coauthored with Paul Erdös1 MR0535395 (80i:10077)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newsciendfsdfs.jpg

Image:Newsciendfsdfs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that to me, this is a bit harsh. Let's grant, for the sake of arguement, that Wolfram is some amount of self-promoting. It's really unlikely that that anyone at Wolfram would complain about the picture (but they might, maybe he seeks personal privacy). Just imagine how difficult it would be to sue about a picture of a self-promoting celebrity whose company promulgates the picture itself. So I would have just posted the request that the pic should be accompanied by a fair-use rationale, rather than delete it summarily. But this will come out in the wash later and the article will be a tiny bit more robust from it, so I've no beef. Although I thought this came up before. Pete St.John (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads as if it was written by a publicist. Deego (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but all in all I consider the article within the broad bounds of neutrality. However, I do prefer your wording, "claims..." in the book, so I won't revert the NPOV tag myself. There has been alot of effort here to cope with the great scope of the topic, and the controversies, so really I advocate pointing things out here first, and pulling the trigger second, just out of respect for all the effort. Pete St.John (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deego went through a number of Wolfram Research related and other software related pages over a short period of time making similar complaints generally lacking specifics. If you look back over the history of the page, you will see evidence of serious edit-warring at times. This is not a page that has been left to someone's PR department, but one that has received much collaborative effort.

Lacking specifics from Deego, I propose we close the NPOV discussion. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't find it to be too POVish. The only problem I have is the phrase: ...which continues to extend the program and market it with success. If that can be rephrased to be more neutral I can find no other problems. Dr.K. (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding "marketing with success": as we do, in fact, suspect that Wolfram is financially viable, it would make sense to me if we looked for a citation instead of extracting the wording. It does matter to people that Mathematica is a going business concern, i.e. will upgrades be available later? Will supprt be available later? If a software company is going belly up, nobody wants to use it. That matters to the users/customers, and prospective users, not just to the company and it's shareholders. So I'd just look for a citation (and certainly it's reasonable to expect Pleasantville to be able to find one :-) Pete St.John (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Citation is the key. I rephrased it only as a stopgap measure. Also since business is subject to cyclical ups and downs we can update the citation of this success claim periodically. Dr.K. (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

well the usual way to do that would be to just flag the item "needs citatin", but this is fine. A small thing. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I didn't want to remove one tag and then just add another since I also had other reasons regarding the phrasing. I am happy with the phrasing as it stands now because it is immune from cyclical stock variations, sounds less like a brochure and it is more fit to be inside an encyclopedia. Anyone interested in the stock performance of the company can always check NASDAQ or Dow Jones. Only after I saw your comments I conceded that if anyone wants to check periodically the stock market it wouldn't be such a bad idea. But in retrospect it is good now as it stands anyway because profitability is something elusive and constantly changing. I don't think we should aim to capture the stock market as is done in a business report. Dr.K. (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes now I see it more clearly. It would be very confusing to the reader to check one day and see the phrase marketing with success and then come back sometime later and see the success section gone because the profits disappeared. And that doesn't include the case(s) when the stock/profits go back up and the phrase appears or disappears again according to stock market whims. Let's leave it like it is. Dr.K. (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with it as is, but it would be OK to me if something were added about sales-to-date (or seats licensed); e.g. "McDonalds and its franchises have conducted over one billion retail transactions" (from the familiar "Billions served") would be OK because the cummulative number of transactions can't go down; the statement will still be true after they reach a Trillion, although someone could update it also. I think it's important that, say, an article about IBM mention somehow that IBM is huge; that's important, whether you like IBM or not. I don't know how big Wolfram is, but presumably fairly, by the standards of math software. I think they have a bigger user base than MACSYMA :-) Pete St.John (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sales to date is immune to variations so it is no problem at all. Current company size is also a great idea. Size matters for companies. No problem with mentioning it. It would also be interesting to see a comparison with good old MACSYMA. Great program. Thanks for reminding me :-) Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Message boards used as source text for Turing Machine section??

It seems that internet message boards were used as "sources" for the whole Alex Smith controversy in the Turing Machine section at the end of the article. I personally don't think this is proper in the form of citations, and I think it should either be removed or re-cited. It is certainly not very encyclopedic in terms of citations. 24.98.18.211 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It was news at the time (that is, changing daily); and the posts cited were by acknowledged professionals. It will be awhile before the Smith paper gets formal peer review and publication (if ever). Pete St.John (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

mathematician or physicist?

Recently an editor changed Wolfram's profession entry from "mathematician" (which he called "ludicrous") to "physicist". I am not sure myself what single term would be best, but in this case (and many others, in cross-disciplinary areas) there is ample justification for more than one:

1. Anyone with a PhD in Physics from Oxford may call himself a physicist if he wishes, as far as I'm concerned.
2. Anyone who writes mathematical software used by large numbers of professional mathematicians may call himself a mathematician. Also, Software Developer. Probably Computer Scientist also.
3. Theoretical physicists may call themselves mathematicians and mathematical physicists may call themselves physicists, if they wish. Stephen Hawking is a professor of ...mathematics, not physics, but it's OK to refer to him as a physicist.

Wolfram is a mathematician, an applied mathematician, a software developer, a publisher, a businessman, and the greatest self-promoter west of Donald Trump. The man wears many hats. No need to be possessive about one's own particular hat. I don't have a PhD but I've published and presented seminars and am a mathematician; not a great or famous one, but I'm still part of the clan. To Wolfram's credit he's sucessful with more than one of those hats. Also, back in the day it was perfectly normal for scientists to write their own models, that's what FORTRAN was for and that's how I became a software developer. Some of the most contributory computer scientists are physicists. Pete St.John (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Do read the first paragraph of the article. Regards, Saiva suj 12:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiva suj (talk • contribs)

I just did and out of the five topics listed as part of his life's work, four are mathematical in nature. Dr.K. (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the primary predicate nominative? Śaiva Sujīt (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardly so. But I do think you missed the comments above and cannot accept the fact this guy has made his living out of mathematical topics. Tunnel vision is of no help here. Dr.K. (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He's a trained physcist, a wealthy businessman, and a software developer. Since the physics is theoretical and the software is mathematical, he has plenty of cred to call himself a mathematician if he wants. Everyone calls Hawking a physicist (mathematics professor) and Fermat a mathematician (practicing lawyer). Credentials matter, practice matters, contributions matter. I can't believe I'm accusing someone of elitism :-( but there's more than one way to claim association with the tribe, and the tribe welcomes many. Pete St.John (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My points exactly. Also nice way of not accusing anyone of elitism. Dr.K. (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I once said (in an elevator) that teaching trigonometry (there, in college) wasn't a job for mathematicians but for educational psychologists. The Director of Undergraduate Studies was in the elevator and said, "you're an elitist". Later at the MOO I became PowerElite so sure :-) I'm quite elitist...for a guy with one published paper. Yet I'm welcomed by the tribe. (Another tribe pays my salary, though) Pete St.John (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Śaiva Sujīt (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Residence

At the request of the Office of Stephen Wolfram, I have removed the listing of his residence from the info box. His office has requested that his residence not be listed on this page. The claimed residence was unsourced in any case, so it's removal should not cause a problem. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policies regarding this, but 1. Who received that request? You? Who are you? 2. How is this request relevant to the content of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.52.189 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shalizi criticism

I removed (again) the section on Shalizi criticism. My reason is that it is not an appropriate source for WP.

The reference is to a piece of writing on Shalizi's personal webpage. As far as I can tell it has never been published in an established jourunal or magazine. The only connection I can see between Shalizi and Wolfram is that they both worked at the same institute at some point. Shalizi seems to have no special expertise in law, which is the basis of the criticism.

I don't see why this writing should be any more relevant than if I wrote a diatribe of my opinions on Wolfram on my own page and linked to it.

Perhaps others disagree.

Kipper100 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen's Childhood

Hi, I just finished reading "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell, about how people with superior smarts/skills usually get a hand up in some way early on, or end up being lucky at just the right time for success.

Is there anyway to find out more about Stephen Wolfram? Specifically, his childhood? He received a PhD at 20 - why didn't his brother also get a PhD at 20? How did he learn particle physics at that young an age? Was he surrounded by physics books? Did he have physics tutors? Has he ever written an autobiography, or has anyone biography-ed him? I would be curious if anyone could dig deeper about what made Wolfram such a success. Thanks.

I would like to second this plead/question. Thank you as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.130.197 (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nova Spivack

Nova Spivack's quote that Wolfram Alpha can be as important as Google is the weaseliest worded one I've read for quite some time. Just the mere fact that Wolfram Alpha exists is enough for that quote to be 'true'. My torn gumboot 'can' be as 'important' as Google. We shall not go into who in the world is Nova Spivack or why is what he thinks -um- important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chengiz (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Objection

The article claims erroneously, "Wolfram, Smith, and others disputed Pratt's claim on the same discussion group." Wolfram has never disputed my claim, so I would appreciate it if the article got its facts straight here. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam

Much of the article is spamming, coming from Wolfram himself, via Steven Levy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It sure looks that way to me!88.110.112.62 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Digital Universe

In A New Kind of Science, did Wolfram conclude that "the universe is digital in its nature" or that it is heuristic to act as if the universe is digital in its nature?Lestrade (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

File:Stephen Wolfram PR.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Stephen Wolfram PR.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 7, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-10-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Stephen Wolfram (born 1959) is a British scientist and the chief designer of the Mathematica software application and the Wolfram Alpha answer engine. Wolfram showed a propensity for the sciences from a young age, writing a dictionary of physics at age 12 and publishing his first scientific article at age 15.Photo: Stephen Faust

NPOV again

I agree with the previous comments that this article could have been written by a publicist. Nearly all the article is a list of accomplishments, touting how young the subject was when he did various things, and points asserting how important and influential the subject is. It would be more well-rounded if it included some public criticism. Reading the A New Kind of Science article, it sounds like reception was largely negative, and there are more criticisms floating around elsewhere. The fact that none of this is mentioned in this article is definitely a neutrality problem. -- Beland (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is also an interesting controversy on Rule 110 regarding suppression of publication (by other scientist) of a proof of a conjecture made by Wolfram. His company was involved in a lawsuit; it would be interesting to know what his personal role or reaction was. -- Beland (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get the wrong impression when I made additions to the article (mostly last summer). It's true I may have been over-optimistic, but I also agree any criticism would make a needed balance. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Parents and grandparents

I certainly agree that it is interesting to know the intellectual context in which Wolfram was raised. His parents' activities are interesting for that. However, going into the details of his mother's dispute with her publisher and Levi-Strauss about her translation (even in a footnote) is simply not relevant to Wolfram himself. If she is notable enough, start an article about her. Similarly, his father's unpublished books really don't belong in this article. All the above is even more so for his grandparents. --Macrakis (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much detail, and am intending to prune it. Really, his mother ought to have her own entry, and some of what is there should move to Kate Frieldlander's entry. (I disagree about the possible relevance, since the intellectual climate described puts his career and point of view in a very different light. However, Sybil needs her page where these fascinating bags can be unpacked.)--Pleasantville (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Remaining NPOV Issues?

What are the remaining NPOV issues/citation issues that need to be resolved? --Pleasantville (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Early Life

I was confused by the Early Life Section but I think I have finally deciphered it.

I think it would be helpful if the events in Hugo's life were described in the order in which they happened, i.e.: born in Bochum, emigrated at age 15, became a manufacturer and author. The present order is unhelpful. At present it seems he became a manufacturer, then emigrated at the age of 15. Surely not as precocious as that?? Budhen (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Wolfram. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728072503/http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0504.html?printable=1 to http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0504.html?printable=1

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) 14:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This reads like it was written by Stephen Wolfram

EDIT: This is my first post to a talk page and I didn't realize this was already pointed out!

Notably lacking any reference to criticisms of "A New Kind of Science" (see "Reception" section of the book's own wiki), or any explanations as to why the book was controversial, or indications as to how the book's project (starting a new kind of science) is fairing, all of which are important to understanding the reality of Wolfram's career and all of which reflect negatively on said career, I think it's fair to guess this article was written by someone biased towards maintaining Stephen Wolfram's public image.

The article excludes his flaws (brash arrogance, grandiosity, failing to follow scientific methodology), his failures (not starting a paradigm shift, as he describes it [seriously]), and instead includes only his accolades and his own vision of his project's future (and tidbits like "he was a wunderkind," a description of his "personal analytics" (his own catchphrase)). All of this is suspicious and constitutes poor encyclopaedic omissions.

I have eliminated some of the spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.179 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Much more needs to be done. Reading it makes me slightly ill. EEng 04:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Each program in effect defines a virtual world, with its own special story — and Wolfram Tones captures it as a musical composition. " ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Clerx (talk • contribs) 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

+ gave up on this guy.

Do your own homework, see that people attempted to change but it was always reverted back via third party folks that got paid for writing. What is a socketfarm? How can you hire these people? Ask SW he will know best. I gave up on sw (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

COI

Avaya1 seems to have a Conflict of Interest.

possible additional ref

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.109.221.132 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)