Mathematician talk:Bronisław Knaster

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Why is historical accuracy unimportant in the mathematician bios? There are many, many cases of theorems named after people who are known not to have discovered them, or who are not known to have discovered them. The matter is perhaps most muddled in the realm of maximal principles, where writers admit to randomly assigning the names Zorn, Hausdorff, and Kuratowski to related principles at whim, since they were all working on such things. Shouldn't we be able to say Theorem $X$ was discovered by mathematicians $Y$ and $Z$, but named after mathematician $W$? --Dfeuer (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have information to add which embellishes the existing information then feel free to add it, but it would be preferable to add invocations of the "accuracy" template for actual mathematics (i.e. proofs, definitions, etc.) only.
If you have knowledge about the lives and activities of mathematicians, share it or source it, but posting up a message saying "that's not right" doesn't help. By the time you've explained what's wrong and what its required correction needs to be, you might as well have written it yourself. Else we'll be in the same mindset as a teacher at grade school who keeps bouncing an essay back to be rewritten and I for one am not going through that again. --prime mover (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Which reminds me: your information about the K-T Theorem must come from somewhere? --prime mover (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I will add Tarski's paper. I haven't yet searched for a solid source for the name of the theorem, but the theorem itself is in the paper. --Dfeuer (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)