Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss

Gauss and practical astronomy

The first five sections of the present text deal with Gauss‘ research on the orbits of minor planets, esp. Ceres and Pallas, and his masterpiece „Theoria motus..“. This is standard in Gauss biographies. As it is stated in the text, Gauss' most relevant astronomical activities were finished in 1818, when the new observatory had just gone ready for working. In the following time he mainly cared for geodesy and geophysics, as this were quite usual tasks for astronomers in this time.

But we should not forget that Gauss cared for practical astronomy, too, after 1818. He made a lot of observations and published them rapidly, otherwise the observations would be of low value for other astronomers. In the Collected Work Volume VI we can find the great number of these short communications. But those were standard results, comparable to those of other observatories, not spectacular ones. This may be the reason why biographers tend to ignore them.

Thus I am glad to see, that the last section covers the practical part of astronomical acticity. But I have some objections, the wording seems too "sensational" for me.

1.	"As early as 1799 he did some important work, recorded in entry 97 of his diary, on determining the lunar parallax in any place on Earth by reducing it to a collection of useful formulas, which improved the accuracy of the method of determining geographical location by observing the position of the Moon."

The diary note from 8 April 1799 is: „Formulas novas exactas pro parallaxi eruimus.“ That’s all, and that should not be overinterpreted in that way that he had produced complete new knowledge. His formulae novae were transformations of formulas yet in use by others (Bohnenberger, Lexell), so Gauss decided to keep them for his personal use only and not to publish them, for he presumed them already been published anywhere.

2.	"Later on, he attached importance to revising the values of fundamental astronomical constants, and thereby worked on diverse topics such as the precession and nutation constants, the obliquity of the ecliptic, the proper motion of the Solar System, constructing better stellar aberration tables, as well as the evaluation of the effect of atmospheric refraction on apparent star positions."

What does it mean:"attended importance" and "worked on"? Which results, where published resp. which unpublished papers? Gauss attended, of course, importance to it in his correspondance with Bessel on these subjects. It is widely seen by astronomical historians, that it was Bessel who finally gave the best values for the mentioned astronomical constants in his Fundamenta Astronomiae in 1818. And this corresponds with Brendel‘s view.

So I want to propose a modified text in this way:

"Even early in 1799, Gauss dealt with determination of longitude by use oft he lunar parallax, for which he developed more convient formulas than those were in common use. After his appointment as director of the Göttingen observatory he attached importance to the fundamental astronomical constants in correspondance with Bessel. Gauss himself provided tables for nutation and aberration, the solar coordinates, and refraction." Dioskorides (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have modified it following the previous proposal. --Dioskorides (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else notice the signature has got a lil integral? 73.202.158.240 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Gauss in MacTutor

MacTutor is a useful encyclopedia of biographies. Some months ago, I have removed the MacTutor Gauss article from the external link collection. Why? I found a lot of errors, here there are:

• the school anecdote: is given as a proved fact
• Gauss discovered Bode's law: Bode's law, the Titius–Bode law, was discovered in 1772.
• "Gauss's teacher there was Kästner": right, but misleading, he was not the only one, e.g. Heyne, Lichtenberg.
• "Bolyai [was his] only known friend": In the Wikipedia article I have given other names.
• "They [Bolyai and G.] met in 1799": right, but this was their last meeting, they met first in 1796
• "left Göttingen in 1798 without a diploma": misleading, as if he had finally broken off his studies
• "returned to Brunswick where he received a degree in 1799": definitely no! Which degree? The stories is correctly told in the next sentences, the doctor diploma from Helmstedt University.
• "began corresponding with Bessel, whom he did not meet until 1825": Gauss and Bessel met in 1807, 1810, 1825, and 1842.
• "he went on making observations until the age of 70." Right, but longer, thus misleading. His last observation was with 74.
• "Berlin University" must be replaced by "Prussian Academy", these were different institutions.
• "Minna and her family were keen to move there": I would like to read a reliable proof for this.
• "In 1837, Weber was forced to leave Göttingen": no, he was dismissed, but went on working with Gauss very intensively. He left Göttingen voluntarily in 1842.

Errare humanum est, and nobody is perfect, but this is too much. And worse, there are 67 references at all, but I cannot find one single inline-reference, so we can't see, whether this errors are MacTutor-made or yet in the sources. We could not produce a WP-lemma in this way, and thus the MacTutor text cannot be a reference for it. And in addition, I think it's not useful for readers, if they find facts different in the external links than in the Wikipedia text. Dioskorides (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ambigeous Referencing

Referencing to Gauss' writings is a special problem. For example this paper:

• 1841: "Intensitas vis magneticae terrestris ad mensuram absolutam revocata". Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Recentiores. 8: 3–44. Original (from 1832)

He wrote this in 1832, and presented it to the Royal Academy at its session on 15 December 1832, see the subtitle of the publication Commentatio auctore Carolo Friderica Gauss in concessu Societatis MDCCCXXXII Dec. XV recitata This first publication is part of the series with full title Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Recentiores Volumen VIII ad a. MDCCCXXXII - XXXVII; it's edited Gottingae MDCCCXLI. So we have a text of 1832, published in 1841 in the issue of a series for the years 1832–1837.

If we refer to it in the text in the form ...Gauss (18xy), what could "xy" be: Gauss (1832), Gauss (1832-1837), (Gauss 1837), or Gauss (1841)? When I prepared the text, I have seen a certain text with different years in the different sources several times. This may cause confusion.

In the "Selected Writings" chapter I give at first the year of editorial publication, with a link to the digitalized Collected Works. We usually refer to the written text, and it is often necessary to make clear, when his contemporaries could get notice of it. But if we write: "Gauss developed his ideas on magnetism in 18xy", we should take the earliest year for xy, otherwise it were wrong. So, when necessary, I gave the early year in brackets at the of the source, and, in addition, a link to the original per, too, so anyone can check the dates. Dioskorides (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carl Friedrich Gauss/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dioskorides (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Broc (talk · contribs) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for the work on the page. I'm starting a GA review and will post updates below. Broc (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Broc: Many thanks to you for starting the review (Sorry for my late answer, the last days I had a short stay in Romania without Wikipedia :) ) I know this work will be a considerable challenge. And we should remember, it's not "my" text, it's the community's text, following the Wikipedia regulations. I am responsible for about 70% of the text, a colleague from Israel contributed most of the mathematical parts (I will inform him about the review).

Thanks for your clear list of items at the bottom. There I find some of the weak points of the texts that I had already seen, but I tried to avoid too many changes on the previous authors' work, written before I started my work. I am quite confident that we can solve the weak points. And I think the requested citations can mostly be found easily. I estimate I will need about one week.

And thanks for the corrections you have already made. --Dioskorides (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Review summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   some unclear sentences as mentioned below, but generally good

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   WP:PUFFERY in many sections.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   all good

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   26 citation needed and 6 failed verification

   C. It contains no original research:

   generally ok but pointed out one passage in the comments below

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   generally yes, but a couple captions should be improved, and some images are in unrelated sections

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   putting on hold for now, if issues are fixed, it can be promoted. Broc (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

• You mention Gauss is referred to as "Prince of Mathematics". However, this is never mentioned in the article.

Content/prose review

• Section "professor in Göttingen": the section title mentions he got a professorship in Göttingen but this is nowhere mentioned in the prose.
• In the same section, it is also unclear what happens to him after becoming director of the observatory: does he stay in this role until he dies?
• "German academic mathematics were in a poor condition": do you mean that mathematics was in a poor condition, or that mathematicians were in a poor condition? either way, the sentence is not correct as it is.
• The same sentence as above requires an inline reference, or could be rewritten to show that this was only Gauss' point of view.
• "His interest in practical applicability, [...] qualified Gauss [...] as a typical applied mathematician of the century of enlightenment. [...] mathematics without defined links to practical purposes, and thus showed himself as a pioneer of what was later called "pure mathematics"." This part seems a bit WP:OR, I read the introduction of Klein, p. 5-6, as well as Dunnington, p. 217 and couldn't find anything in this sense. Suggestion: remove or cite appropriately.
• "His personal diary indicates that several mathematical discoveries may be found by him years or decades before contemporaries firstly published on them." the verb tenses do not match (may have been found), one cannot "find" a "discovery" imho, and it's unclear who "contemporaries" are. Our contemporaries or his? "first published them" instead of "firstly published on them".
• "but the "Collected Works" contain a considerable literary estate, too." What does this mean? The "Collected Works" have not been mentioned until now. What are they?
• Paragraph starting with "Though Gauss is seen": lots of WP:PUFFERY scattered throughout. Same as for the paragraph starting with "In his inaugural lecture".
• You mention "Gauss did not write any textbooks" but two paragraphs above you mentioned "short glosses in his own textbooks". Which one is wrong?
• MOS:DASH, you are using a mix of en and em dash throughout the article. Please choose one style.
• "The years since 1820 were evaluated as a": evaluated by whom? Worth specifying in the prose, especially if you're adding a direct quote afterwards.
• I think the paragraphs starting with "in his inaugural lecture" are strictly biographical, and maybe should be moved to the section "Professor in Göttingen" instead of the "Personality" section.
• "like an Olympian sitting enthroned on the summit of science". If you put a direct quote, you should mention who said it.
• Section "the private man": should the son be referred to as "Eugene" throughout the page, as this is the name he used for most of hist life?
• "to be true quite literally": tautology. I don't think "quite literally" adds anything to the sentence.
• "Gauss's" or "Gauss'"? I would prefer the second one, but the use is mixed throughout the article. Please choose one and stick to it.
• arc measurement: perhaps worth mentioning what it is. I added a wikilink, but a small explanation would perhaps be helpful to the reader.
• WP:PUFFERY in section "theory of errors"
• One key differential geometric conception: "key" according to whom? did not escape his mind sounds like WP:PUFFERY. More importantly and it is very likely that: again, according to whom?
• His earliest "serious" encounter with topological notions who defines it as "serious"? why is it in quotes?
• he helped spread the new mathematical ideas by demonstrating how they illuminate and shorten the solution of small mathematical problems what does this mean? Which new mathematical ideas? What does it mean that an idea illuminates or shortens a solution? This introductory paragraph is so generic I would rather remove it.
• he was a vivid spirit in applying complex numbers this sounds like WP:PUFFERY. How about he applied complex numbers
• discovered a surprising result about the computation of area of pentagons which result? why not explain it in a sentence? avoid "surprising".
• section geomagnetism: Gauss' "obvious" interest needs to be rephrased or referenced.
• the part regarding the Magnetical Association is unclear at best. What is meant by "Humboldt was helpful to organize" and what do the British dominions have to do with the observatories? You mention that "this" (unclear what, the letter?) led to a global program called Magnetical crusade but you don't say what it was about. However, you mention a very specific aspect when you say The dates, times, and intervals of observations were determined in advance – but which observations are you referring to?
• Finally 61 stations participated in this global program. "Finally" as in "after a long time" or as introduction of the last point of the paragraph?
• magnetic Force why the capital letter?
• Gauss' first and last business in mechanics concerned the earth's rotation. that "first and last" needs a source, or you can just remove it.
• "Anectodes" section: are you sure this is the best way to present it? (the answer can be yes!) See WP:TRIVIA.

Sources review

• Added {{cn}} as I couldn't verify in the source Eberhard August Wilhelm von Zimmermann was his teacher
• Added {{cn}} as this event is not mentioned in the sources used or would benefit from an inline reference "Gauss depicted him in a drawing showing a lecture scene where he produced errors in a simple calculation."
• The award of the doctorate in absentia might require an inline reference, tagged as {{cn}}
• Failed verification tag: prince-primate Dalberg gave him 1000 francs, but who paid his war contributions was Laplace (or at least so the source says). This part needs to be rewritten.
• Failed verification tag on the children names: I found no evidence of Wilhelm being called William, and Eugene's birth name is not Eugen. I also have doubts on who was nicknamed Minna: the second wife or the daughter?
• Citation needed on the dislike of teaching by Gauss. Especially if you write "it was well known", a reference is needed.
• Citation needed: Dunnington, p. 94-95 only mentions his grief after the wife death but does not mention he never fully recovered from the depression.
• Disquisitiones Arithmeticae. You write The entries in Gauss' Mathematical diary indicate that he was busy with the subject of number theory at least since 1796., but Bachmann, used as source, starts his introduction as In der Vorrede zu seinem Werke setzt Gauss den Beginn seiner Beschäftigung mit dessen Gegenstände in den Anfang des Jahres 1795. [...] Schon vorher hat Gauss sich viel mit rechnerischen Versuchen beschäftigt [...] bereits [...] als 15 jähriger [...] mit einer der der verzwicktesten Aufgaben der Zahlentheorie, der Frequenz der Primzahlen. From the source it seems he was dealing with number theory since much earlier.
• A detailed study of previous researches showed him that some of his findings had been already done by other scholars. a detailed study by whom? please add reference
• Spot check of refs 114, 115 (on the eight unpublished chapter of the Disquisitiones): ok Y
• Spot check of ref 130 (Ranjan 2021): ok. ISBN and volume number were missing. Y
• Having chosen not to publish these results... needs an inline reference. Tagged with {{cn}}
• Danish prize with essay on conformal mappings needs reference, tagged accordingly
• Spot check of ref 140 (Monna 1975): ok. Please fix CS1 error in {{cite book}}
• Spot check of ref 146 (Cooley Tukey 1965) and 148: all good Y
• Spot check of ref 150 (Olesko 2005): ok Y
• Spot check of ref 162 (Hill 1882): ok Y
• One {{cn}}, one {{failed verification}} in the "theory of errors" section
• One {{failed verification}} in the "arc measurement" section
• Spot check of ref 210 (Epple 1998): ok Y
• Spot check of ref 229 (Reich 2011) and 230: ok Y
• citation needed on the Magnetical Society
• One {{cn}} in section "Optics"
• Section "honours and awards": many awards are missing an inline reference, and some references do not verify the statements! This section needs major sourcing improvements

Images

• German stamp commemorating Gauss' 200th anniversary: the complex plane why in that section and what does the complex plane have to do with Gauss? the caption should explain it
• Gauss' seal why is it interesting? how is it related to the paragraph?
• Carl Friedrich Gauss 1803 by Johann Christian August Schwartz why is this portrait in the "Astronomy" section? Explain the relation in the caption or move/remove the image
• Lithography by Siegfried Bendixen (1828) how is this related to non-Euclidean geometry?
• Gauss bust by Heinrich Hesemann (1855) why is this in the "minor mathematical accomplishments" section?

Images

• German stamp commemorating Gauss' 200th anniversary: the complex plane: perhaps worth explaining in the caption why it is in the section of the Disquisitiones and what has the complex plane to do with Gauss' work.