Timeline for Mathematical research interrupted by a war
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2017 at 22:06 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @მამუკა ჯიბლაძე: I agree with what you wrote, and don't think anything should be changed. I just wanted to emphasize that Teichmuller was not only a victim of the war but also one of those who made it possible. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 15:56 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @AlexandreEremenko Thank you very much! The whole story is indeed way more dramatic and controversial than I would have ever imagined, and I admit I should know it beforehand. I am not sure whether I will be able to alter my answer appropriately. Let me add though that I still believe the essence and the message of it remains the same: yes, Teichmüller's actions most likely destroyed lots of possible fascinating contributions to mathematics, both his and, as I now see, others too. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 14:49 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @მამუკა ჯიბლაძე: There are many sources. Type "Teichmuller and Landau" on the Google. Landau was dismissed as a result of Teichmuller's actions. | |
| Dec 18, 2017 at 5:42 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @VictorProtsak Thank you very much, I will study it with interest. The only information I had was that Wikipedia page that I linked to, now I will study these sources with great interest. But independently of that, - why do you conclude from my answer that I misunderstood Teichmüller's role in any way? | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 23:14 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I have included a specific reference dealing with Teichmüller's actions in my answer. But really, I cannot fathom how one can in good faith misunderstand Teichmüller's role after reading or even simply browsing through Segal's book which allegedly served as a basis for this answer. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 15:32 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @AlexandreEremenko Sorry but your first two statements, regardless of being arguable or not, I think are not related in any way to the question or to my answer. As for the rest, I must admit I am completely ignorant about his actions against other mathematicians and became very interested to learn about it. Do you know any text to read about it? | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 14:21 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @AlexandreEremenko I do not know much about Teichmuller, but the aim of my question was to blame the idea of fragmentation of science into "national sciences", not to blame concrete persons. I agree that this doesn't remove the responsibility of concrete people, but in my opinion, the first step - the idea of fragmentation - inevitably leads to the situations where people, being blinded by this idea, become moral monsters. The choice of axioms is more important than deduction of corollaries. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 14:01 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | On my opinion, Teichmuller, an active Nazi, cannot be represented as a "victim" of the war. He's got what he deserved. His actions before the war harmed other mathematicians, and he was clearly one of those responsible for this war. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 11:22 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @SergeiAkbarov Yes it is sort of opposite side of your question - what I had in mind is that a moral monster might contribute to mathematical knowledge and it would not be rejected. More precisely, it could not be rejected. And vice versa - mathematicians might readily benefit from the mathematical work of those whom they (rightly or erroneously) consider evil in some other respect | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 11:20 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | Mamuka, this is strange for me: "from another it is maybe very good since it shows complete independence of development of mathematical knowledge from moral dilemmas" I would say, the dependence is obvious. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @SergeiAkbarov Exactly. And what is even more dramatic is that if, say, while he was able to think about mathematics, Teichmüller would encounter the work of, say, Schauder or Leray, he would probably study it with interest, appreciate and benefit from it researchwise, maybe not worried at all about their suffering. Of course one can never prove whether this would be so or not, but what I want to point out is that while this is very bad from one point of view, from another it is maybe very good since it shows complete independence of development of mathematical knowledge from moral dilemmas. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 11:02 | comment | added | Sergei Akbarov | @NeilStrickland this is actually a part of what I had in mind: the idea of separation inevitably leads to the horrors like this, it makes people, even talented ones, enemies. So I think, Teichmüller is a good illustration, among many others. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 10:45 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | I realize this stance may be disputable but what I think is clear is that my post answers the question as well as any other answers might: it is about the unhappy destinies of mathematicians during the war, and illustrates very well that war kills science. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 10:30 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | From this point of view maybe one can even say that his destiny is more tragic than of those passively caught in the war - since one of the factors that systematically destroyed possibility of his further work was acting from inside himself. | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 10:27 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @NeilStrickland I believe this is a highly nontrivial matter to discuss. When I said about WWII brutally interfering in Teichmüller's work in several ways, I also had in mind the interaction between his "real life part" and his "mathematical part", which should obviously be highly nontrivial, although fortunately none of it can be traced from studying his mathematical contributions. For example I believe one might guess from the excerpt above that among most crucial things which made his further mathematical work impossible were consequences for his decisions of his understanding of patriotism | |
| Dec 17, 2017 at 9:39 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | It is relevant context here that Teichmüller was apparently virulently antisemitic and an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. He should be distinguished from people who were more passively caught up in the war. | |
| S Dec 17, 2017 at 8:47 | history | answered | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Dec 17, 2017 at 8:47 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by მამუკა ჯიბლაძე |