Talk:Edward Kasner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kasner, in addition to inventing and popularising some silly names for numbers, was a mathematician who did research. Here are some places to start in learning about him:
- Mathematics Genealogy Project - four of his students' names, theses, and students
- dynamical trajectories in space (Duke Math. J. 10 (1943), no. 4, 733–742) - some of his work, available from most college campuses; three of his articles published by Duke were cowritten with John De Cicco: a favorite student?
- Wolfram's Mathworld, of course
- |googol@everything2, which suggests the purpose of googol.
That's all I found that was interesting. Good luck.
[edit] Someone clean up this mess!
I have the feeling this article doesn't quite match the standards of other wikipedia articles. I would love to clean up this article myself, but I have no knowledge of mathematical history, let alone on Edward Kasner! Maybe someone could even just point out a good source to me, from which I can improve this article; if you don't agree with me on this article requiring a clean-up, tell me. As I was saying, it's just my opinion/feeling. vilem 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
First, noticing that an article is sub-standard needn't have anything to do with detailed knowledge of the subject's academic specialty (and usually doesn't). Secondly, it is in fact sub-standard in certain respects (English style, etc.), but I don't know if that's what vilem had in mind. Thirdly, your unexplained reverting of my edits, without even the courtesy of edit summaries, returned the plain falsehood that Kasner coined the term "Googol"; his own account makes clear that his nephew coined the term, and that he first used it in print. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your highly pedantic comments fail to improve the article. To assert Kasner's generosity of attribution to his nephew changes the fact that Kasner coined the term "googol" is patently silly; and calling it a "falsehood" demonstrates that your comments cannot be accepted as either encyclopedic or serious.--Lance talk 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you first read WP:OR and WP:CITE (not to mention WP:NPA). then come back and we can discuss the matter sensibly. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)