Talk:John von Neumann/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Childhood

The information given about von Neumann's childhood seems anecdotal and probably exaggerated. For instance, the claim that he brought two books to the bathroom in case he would finish one seems like either a joke or more of a statement about how long he took to shit... he wasn't a speed reader, after all. Does anyone have sources for the claims made in this section? (Like that he learned analysis at age 8 and was doing graduate level work at age 12.)

I'm not sure about what exactly a "von Neumann Machine" is, officially. I've found some websites which describe it as a type of computer architecture (eg [[1]] and [[2]]), and I've found others which describe it as a conceptual self-replicating machine (eg, [[3]], [[4]]) Perhaps this is a case where von Neumann came up with two separate ideas and people took to calling them by the same name? -BD

If a person likes to read while in the bathroom, and that person is almost finished with a book, then that person will bring a second book. After finishing the first book, the second book can be started. Is this so strange?Lestrade 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The main characteristic of a von Neumann machine is that its operations occur in a strict series. Only one operation is performed at a time. There are no parallel operations occurring. This can be detrimental if there is a problem with the active operation. When such a problem occurs, then the machine ceases to function altogether.Lestrade 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I knew the term only in the first meaning, but looking through a Google search, it seems that a sizeable minority of writers also use it in the second meaning. Maybe this second group is confused, but I'm not sure. --AxelBoldt

If its alright with you guys I'll clear up some misconceptions about Neumann's Computer, while I am no expert in his field I have learned a few from my father and grandfather. My grandfather worked closely with Neumann on the Manhattan project and was given one of a dozen first print Computer in the Brain (not the ones you see for sale that where filtered by gov.). The Neumann computer was not just a replicating computer, it was a supposed design for a thinking computer (we all think of them as AI's, but Neumann's was apparently ifinitly more complex). Apparently most of the copies have been lost to time, my families however was stolen shortly before my grandfather's death (a long twenty something years of suffering through the effects of the radiation.) Your personal computer is also considered a Neumann computer although it is not in the true sense of the idea, its operation is based on Neumann's proprosal.

---

It is claimed that Johnny could by age six, divide two 8 digit numbers in his head, but this is contradicted by his close friend Eugene Wigner, who says that Johnny Von Neumann wasn't so good at arithmetic. See the very last paragraph of | Interview with Eugene Wigner

The eight-digit number claim is made in this reference: Poundstone, William. Prisoner's Dilemma: John von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb. 1992. And that link is dead.

Blackspotw (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, I believe the term is being used to describe two different contributions by von Neumann, one in computer architecture and the other in automata theory.

Isn't the concept in computer architecture the Von Neuman Architecture, while the Automaton is the Von Neuman Machine? (That would make a machien based on the VNA a Von Neuman machine (note capitalisation), I guess.)

Should we note (the claim) that the VNA was merely publicized by VN, but was developed by people from the Moore group? (Aliter)

---

I thought there were initially five faculty in the Institute of Advanced Study, not four. viz., Einstein, Von Neumann, Weyl, Veblen, and Alexander. --Dominus 04:56 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

See John L. Casti's book, The One True Platonic Heaven for a list of those first appointments. John von Neumann was the first tenured appointment to the IAS.William R. Buckley 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Richard Rhodes, in "Dark Sun," said JvN died of brain cancer. It's very sad, if true.

This too is discussed in the Macrae biography. William R. Buckley 07:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was bone cancer, that likely began in the clavical. At some point, I will obtain the specific text from Macrae's biography, and post the relevant details. No, there will be no direct copying, so no copyright infringement.William R. Buckley 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

His death can actually be attributed too a car accident during his last session of lectures before his death, the name of the university escapes me but I remember there was a article about the acccident. His weakened state after the accident led to his quick death from cancer.

I've never heard that. But if you can cite a credible source, it should be added.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

"Max Neumann, born 1870, arrived in Budapest in the late 1880s" [5]. So where's Max born? Austria? --Menchi 03:11, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Max is described as a Hungarian Jew, I believe. From the top of my head, I can't say whether A-H at that time was already a double monarchy, but in any case we could indicate the area as Hungaria. Aliter 03:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why should you use your brain when you have Wikipedia? But, anyway, he was born in the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy; if you tell me the city he was born, I tell you which part it was. And anyway his name was Neumann Miksa originally (in Hungarian), and Kann Margit was his wife. --grin 10:37, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is known to contain incorrect information. Miksa was the father of Janos. The birthplace of Janos is given in the Macrae biography. William R. Buckley 07:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? Because my memory is large enough to not need swapping out when browsing in lots of windows at the same time. Nevertheless, the above was written on a rather narrow time-slice.

But on the subject of Miksa: As Hungaria was somewhat sovereign in 1870, a Hungarian jew would stem from Hungaria, not Austra. The problem with the place of birth is that all J.Neumann bibliographies start with Max arriving in Budapest. Before that all I know is that he attended a "Catholic provincial high school", and the year of his birth.

What is curious is that http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00204/00204b.html which is the John Von Neumann collection], in the Center for American History (U of texas), apparently has a picture of Miksa's tombstone, and because of that(?) gives 1873 as year of birth. Either the year is not very readable on the picture, or Miksa already had that concept of a personal truth that is so apparent in his son's character.

I'm beginning to wonder about Max. Arrived in Budapest as a youngster from somewhere else, with as most noted skill a fluency in German. Is Jewish, which allows him access to the banking circles, but doesn't actually practice the faith. Lies about his age to be concidered old enough to be independent/accepted? Might all be very innocent and explanable, and yet ... . (I wonder how common the name Neumann was in Hungaria in around 1890.) Aliter 15:38, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In the Vietnamese wiki the same this page (http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann). They translated like this: John von Neumann (Neumann János; 28 tháng 12, 1903 – 8 tháng 2, 1957) là một nhà toán học người Hungary . That means he is a Hungarian mathematician (I think they hate the US :-)) Also the Nationality they make him a dual-nationalities: US-Hungary. So either English page or Vietnamese page is wrong. I have posted my discussion there but it seems no one cares. Please check it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.90.243 (talk) at 2007-10-10T15:54:30

Neither page is incorrect. The gist of it is that von Neumann was a Jewish Hungarian during a period of history in which Hungary was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and that he subsequently emigrated to the United States and obtained citizenship there. It is certainly not incorrect to call him a Hungarian mathematician. Even once he had been naturalized in the U.S., his colleagues would have called him--and he would have called himself--Hungarian. Robert K S 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A similar concept is that American's in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere in the New World) tend to recognise the nationality of their ancestors when referring to themselves. For instance, Irish Americans are those who have ancestors from Ireland. This distinction tends not to be recognised for Americans of English and French ancestry. Thus, their are Chinese Americans, and Japanese Americans, and Vietnamese Americans, and Iranian Americans. For some groups, these identities are strongly held. For others, they are less important. It is true also that some national identities are not well mixed with the suffix *American*. I suspect that Hawaiians would not refer to themselves as Hawaiian Americans. William R. Buckley 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it (the Vietnamese page) should be “a Hungarian American mathematician” or “a Hungarian born American” (in Vietnamese: một nhà toán học người Mỹ gốc Hungary or một nhà toán học người Mỹ sinh ra ở Hungary) because anyways he had chosen to be an American, contributed to the US and he was an American when he died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.90.243 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A good choice is "a Hungarian born American mathematician." William R. Buckley 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll want to hypenate any two-word phrase used as an adjective, hence "a Hungarian-born American mathematician". Robert K S 05:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Names

Why is Neumann's birth name listed as Neumann János Lajos Margittai? And his parents as Neumann Miksa and Kann Margit? I've never heard that Hungarians place the family name before the personal name.

Hungarians always place the family name first: in his native land, the composer of Mikrokosmos was called "Bartók Béla" (not the other way around) and there is a street in Budapest named that after him. I think that Margittai is an Hungarian semi-noble title incorporated into the family's name, like Freiherr in German names. It means "of Margit" but I don't know if that has anything to do with anything. I think that Margit is an island in the Danube but I dunno if that's related. Phr 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

General-word titling of nobility/gentry -like von/freiherr in German- is nonexistant in Hungarian. Ennoblement was marked by adding the name of land (really or symbolically) given, to the original name. In this case margittai Neumann = Neumann of Margitta ("-i" is a semantic sign). Using "-y" instead of "-i" (same pronunciation) in the noble part of the name and leaving the original part has approx. the same meaning (fyi in this case von Neumann would be Margittay János). /text corrected/

And Margittai is definitely wrong as being part of his birthname. It was added to the family's name in 1913 as part of the ennoblement. MK2 23:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

János is the Hungarian equivalent of John and it is his original given name. Hungarians have always placed their family names first. Same as to the original name of Wolfgang Kempelen, creator of the chess automaton, whose original Hungarian name is Kempelen Farkas, in this order.

American Stamp

Gave a quick cursory look at the article, but I saw no mention of the commemorative stamp issued May 2005 by the United States Postal Service. The Feynman article has already been updated with that information.

http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/postal_store_non_ssl/display_products/productDetail.jsp?OID=4849367 *This is the stamp to be added to the article--nixie 03:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added a section and the image to the article. Can you upload the other stamps, so we can add them to the other articles? Paul August ☎ 21:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

background

does anyone else find "Hungarian-American-German-Jewish" a little excessive ?

haha, I noticed that too, I was just about to post the same thing. Although I think we should keep it as he was infact Hungarian, Jewish, German and American.

I have to question the description of how von Neumann died (of cancer). As a mathematician, I have many, many times heard that he died in, or as a result of, an automobile accident. I have even heard details of the supposed accident. At this instant I don't have a reference. But can someone point me to a reference that says he died of cancer? (Perhaps he *had* cancer, but still died in an accident?) Daqu 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See the notes at the top of this page for starters. Other presumably-reputable sources are easy to find on the net, like [his bio at the National Academy of Science] which says "In 1955 he was named a Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission, a position he held up to his death from cancer in 1957.". RossPatterson 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

order of names

This article uses a confusing mixture of order of names. Sometimes the given name is first sometimes the surname. This is very confusing. --MarSch 3 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Well I think "Neumann János" is the normal Hungarian order, but I've changed it to "János Neumann", since this is normal order in English. I think I've fixed all the inconsistencies. Did I miss any? Paul August ☎ 02:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

VON Neumann?!?

Hi!

I am amazed at this "von" thing... his NAME is Neumann János, a hungarian name. As far as I am concerned, he was many times quoted with "von", but that was actually a MISTAKE, since his name resembles that of the German names, though he himself is hungarian. So... I am well aware, that all around the world his name is meant to be with "von", but I have been thought in school that that is a mistake that everyone makes. So who is making the mistake? -The problem with the argument that I am putting forward, is that it is hard to dispute, since no matter how many books you list that name him with "von" in the middle, that might only be an error. The way to defeat my argument is to show an example where Neumann actually singned his name with "von" in the middle. I would be amazed, if you found that...

PS: I am not changing the naming in the article(though I would happily do that), since I am sure most of you are absolutely sure that he is named with "von" in the middle. I sincerely think that all of you are wrong.

--Msoos 13:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

He used the name "von Neumann" himself. See http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Von_Neumann.html or any of the books that he wrote, like Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (ISBN 3-540-59207-5, ISBN 0-691-08003-8, ISBN 0-691-02893-1). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention his joint work with F. Murray on algebras of operators (now called von Neuman Algebras).--CSTAR 15:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

PS I wonder if Msoos isn't thinking of Carl Neumann.--CSTAR 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite certain, and in the United States he sometimes used John Von Neumann with a capital V. But see his publisher's listing http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7802.html. Septentrionalis 22:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Msoos is also forgetting that in 1903 much of Budapest was bilingual.... Septentrionalis 01:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

His authority file at the Library of Congress knows the following forms of his name:

• Johann von Neumann (on Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, 1932)
• Dzh. (Dzhon) Fon Neiman - the romanized form of what appeared on Teoriia igr i ekonomicheskoe povedenie (also romanized), 1970
• János Neumann
• John von Neumann

--Hoziron 02:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only is "von Neumann" correct as his name for the reason given above, but also the proper indexing under categories would be under "V" rather than under "N" (most categories do not and should not separate uppercase from lowercase, so the "v" or "V" question is irrelevant to this indexing). Gene Nygaard 13:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Where would you alphabetize Friedrich von Schiller? Septentrionalis 16:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Under Shiller, the name normally used when referred to by surname. Of course, his name wasn't an American name; that's the most significant difference. Gene Nygaard 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as E. I. du Pont is indexed under "D" and included in Category:DuPont. Gene Nygaard 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In the United States, we don't have titles of nobility and the like. So there really is an "American name" distinction. You can choose to include things like "von" in your surname or not, but if you do include it, it is part of your name, and that's the way you are going to be listed in the phone book and everywhere else where listings are made alphabetically. Gene Nygaard 16:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It would perhaps help if those posting knew the origin of the name "von Neumann" and that information is available, from a number of sources. First, Jansci's (his nickname, as given by his family) father purchased the title "von" as was the custom of the day. That the construction is as would be the case for a German junker in no way implies that Jansci was German. Further, the "von" is properly spelled with a lower case "v" and the construction of Neumann Janos is the typical form for Hungarians, of surname followed by given name (last name, then first name), not unlike the construction of Chinese names; hence, Mao Zedong is, in the western world, Zedong Mao (see the Wikipedia page on Mao). A very good biography of von Neumann is that written by Norm Macrae, and I recommend it to all who have posted to this discussion page. William R. Buckley 07:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally thought the Macrae biography was terrible and that von Neumann gets a much better treatment (though less detailed) in H. H. Goldstine's The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann. Note Goldstine was a close associate of JvN. Phr 23:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be a note of self-serving nature but, I have received email from the son of Macrae, and he reports that the survivors of John von Neumann are quite happy with the Macrae biography. I would be happy to forward to any interested party a copy of the email.William R. Buckley 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Macrae book has a number of problems, lousy writing being the most irksome but least defective among them. Heims [6] (strangely not yet mentioned in the further reading for this article) is better in most respects, but incomplete as a biography. A thorough and truly complete biography of von Neumann has never been written, and it is a shame. While the sentiments of friends and family members are sometimes useful in evaluating a book, they can't be counted on to be the last word. This is, of course, the principal strike against the Goldstine book as well. (But Goldstine isn't intended to be a von Neumann biography, so it doesn't even really belong in this discussion.) Robert K S 09:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many mentions of von Neumann within the pages of interviews. I ran across some site recently but, forget the URL at the moment. The point is that many of the personal anecdotes recorded in these interviews would be a fine place from which one might obtain consensus among editors respecting article content. William R. Buckley 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a linguistic issue. I understand his family is from Germany and had the von before going to Hungary. In Hungarian there is not really a place for the von part and hence it was simply omitted. This is no reason for not using it abroad. Also, 'von' has been commonly used in the names of the Hungarian nobility when used in the German-speaking area. E.g. the novelist Vaszary Gábor's novels have appeared in Germany under the name Gábor von Vaszary.Koczy 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the section below titled "Nationality at birth" and you will come to know of von Neumann's ancestry. His family is not from Germany. The use of "von" over "margittai" was by personal election of father Miksa. Further commentary may be found below, respecting the proper division between Austria and Hungary in 1903. These details are raked over repeatedly, and mostly due to ignorance of details on the part of editors; much discussion appears here on the talk page. Please, editors, read the talk page to ascertain known facts and agreed editorial decisions before altering article content. William R. Buckley 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that the Hungarian Wikipedia article respecting von Neumann should label him as Margittai ... and if so, what about the election of Miksa? My personal preference is to call a person the name by which they choose to be known. This will generally be the name by which the person is known to his or her mother. I think the differences are more cultural, not so specifically linguistic. Perhaps Miksa made an election repeated by few other Hungarians. Should it be so difficult to express his nobility in his native Hungary in the manner of his choosing, even if it is unusual? William R. Buckley 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I read this article in the hope I would find out how he pronounced his name. Did he say /Noyman/ or /Newman/ or something else? The sites I've found say /Noyman/. Would this be different in the original Hungarian? Myrvin (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons

An extraordinary man... if you scratch somewhat deeper in any natural (and not only natural) science, his name will pop up. We should note though that von Neumann advocated nuclear attack against USSR - at least I've heard something like that on TV! -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 22:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This too, that von Neumann advocated pre-emptive attack on the USSR, is reported in the Macrae biography. William R. Buckley 07:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but so did Bertrand Russell at one point!!--Lacatosias 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe Bertrand Russell never used game theory and massive amounts of logic to "prove" to and lobby others that bombing the Russian now was the best possible strategy. --80.43.60.43 15:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Politics and social affairs (Collaborationism)

I'm not sure what "collaborationism" is, but it's use seems to be less a fact and more an unattributed opinion. Any idea what it means or why its there? Coleca 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Neumann elv (Neumann mashine)

Some of you asked about , what is a neumann mashine is really like. I'll tell you, since i learned it :) It will be hard to understand, if you dont know nothing at all about computers. So. Neumann said these "rules": 1) Stored program: The commands has to be stored in the memory in numeric code, the same way, as the data.

Ill describe this one :) So, this means, the program has to be stored in the memory in a code, that the processor can undestand, so it will know what to do, if he get that command. (Sry, but ill try the best :) )

2)Binaric system: We have to use binaric system for the data and programs.

this means, they use binaric system, because, its the most easyest. for example, if we would use decimal system, for the computer, a single power-spike could cause the computer to crash. The binaric system is the most stabile for the computer.

3) Processing unit: We need a processing unit, that can make difference between a command, and data, and can do the commands, by itself.

i think i dont have to write what is this :)

4)Arithmetic-logic unit (ALU): We need a unit, that can do the basic logic operation, and the arithmetic operation(summation, and so on).

5)Peripherys: We need in and output units, which contact the computer with the user.

(keyboard)

if you have more questions, feel free to ask :)

Voodo

What about serial and parallel processing? Does the von Neumann machine perform one processing operation at a time or does it perform more than one at a time?Lestrade 12:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

In the contemporary vernacular, a von Neumann machine is known as an SISD processor, for Single-Instruction, Single-Data. The Cray is by comparison an SIMD processor, for Single-Instruction, Multiple-Data. These are thus also known as, respectively, serial and parallel processors. SISD is most properly known as the von Neumann architecture. SIMD is most properly known as the Harvard architecture. The term von Neumann machine is a bit vague, as some have taken it to refer to the Universal Constructor. However, I believe that a thorough historical review will show that the von Neumann machine is the processor, not the self-replicator. This is perhaps a task that ought be performed, with reported results, so that future editors of the relevant von Neumann articles can get the nit-picky details accurately reflected in article text. William R. Buckley 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So, with vN SISD architecture, the machine processes one datum at one time. With Harvard SIMD architecture, however, the machine processes more than one datum at one time, but only with a single instructional operation. Both architectures can only perform one instruction at one time. Both are Single Instruction (SI) architectures. While the instruction is processing, no other instructions are being processed.Lestrade 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

As far as I know SISD and SIMD concepts are orthogonal to the Neumann architecture and to the Harvard architecture: the Neumann machine handles data and algorith the same way, while in the Harvard arhitecture data and algorithm are stored in different memory units. So you cannot write a self modifying program on Harvard arhitecture (or you have to be tricky and swap the memories), while the Harvard arhitecture is more suitable for signal processing, because it can read the data and the program instruction concurrently. --Zslevi (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bomb stuff

A lot of the information about Von Neumann's work on the bomb was just incorrect. The most important error was the identification of the Fuchs-Von Neumann patent as being about the fission weapon -- it was clearly about the fusion bomb, as the Herken reference given clearly says. How someone can go to the trouble of a citing a specific page number but getting the actual information completely wrong is beyond me... sigh... ---Fastfission 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.5 assessment

I'm not too familiar with von Neumann's life, but this article appears to be fairly complete to me, and it includes at least some references (though more would be better). As such I have given it an assessment of "A-Class". Could someone familiar with the subject please check that this is reasonable, and if not please adjust it in the Version 0.5 template (e.g., change A to B). Many thanks, Walkerma 03:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC) In response to this request, a detailed article review was given by William R. Buckley here, this could be very useful to those interested in improving the article. Walkerma 03:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations to all to all who have collaborated on this one!! Good work. I can't make any assesment becasue I contributed a fairly subtantial amount myself. I will seek out more sources, refernces and we should try to make this an FA at some point if possible through peer-review, etc..--Lacatosias 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, there are numerous small errors in the material and several large omissions. Joseph Grcar 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews

It's a very interesting and nice article about Von Neumann. I think it has a promise to pass GA qualification. However, there are some technical issues here, mostly related to the Manual of Style:

1. The lead section is full of specialized terms, unfamiliar to common readers. Having too many specific terms does not create interests in reading the whole article. Per WP:LS: in general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. The lead section should introducing and explaining the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.
2. I think the lead section can be expanded further into 2-3 paragraphs. The first one explained about Von Neumann himself, his most notable contributions to the world, but not too much detail. Paragraph two summarizes his scientific career, the last paragraph can explain about his non-scientific career that gives some controversies about him, e.g. his political affairs, CIA consultant, etc. That will create some interest feeling about Von Neumann both for scientists and non-scientists readers.
3. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), do not overlink to unnecessary articles, unrelated to the subject. I see some of this. For example, wikilink to bank, to years, etc.
4. I see references of this article in the References section, but I don't see their usage in the article. I don't see any inline citation refer to the References section. I think the editor should point out which statement was taken from which reference. This is required to ensure the verifiability of this article. Please read WP:CITE, how to make an inline citation.
5. To make reading this article easier, could the editor consider to make more structure of this article, rather than one level headline? For example, put Achievements as a section and as its subsections are: Logic, Economic, Quantum Mechanics and Computer Science.
6. In the Logic section, the introduction of it somehow too specific for common readers. It is hard to discern what it is all about, because all of sudden there are names never mentioned before and terms never introduced before. Perhaps you can put {{see also}} tag to point to Logic or History of Logic article, so that reader who want to read more about logic can refer to that articles. It is better to point directly what von Neumann has contributed in the field of Logic.
7. It is also the case in the Quantum Mechanic section. Perhaps changing prose of the articles can make it easier to understand and go directly to what the subject of this article, i.e. about von Neumann and his contributions. Do not go too deep into specialized terms in other field. Just point to a certain Wikipedia article about that field with appropriate template, so that curious readers can go to that article.
8. Mathematical formulations are also placed inappropriately. Please consider whether mathematical equations are really necessary and can make the article about von Neumann biography stronger, rather than confusing the reader.
9. I think the best example is the Economics section, where the editor points directly to what von Neumann has contributed to this field.
10. My last comment is about picture. If editor can find more pictures related to von Neumann's contributions in different fields: logic, quantum mechanics, etc., rather than just his pictures, then it would make this article more interesting to read.

This is part of GA process and I hope this article will pass GA qualifications. — Indon (reply) — 09:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Indon--very thorough.

1. I cannot advocate any revision to the introduction. It is both concise and complete. I remember being impressed by how good it was the first time I've read it--it manages to cover all of von Neumann's variegated career. I understand the chief concern is that the names of the oft-multisyllabic topics upon which von Neumann left his mark (not actually "specialized terms" as you put it) may put off readers that are younger or less familiar with scientific fields, but each of them is wikilinked to further explanation, and any reduction of this list might lead to something oversimplified, along the lines of "he was, like, totally sweet at math 'n' science 'n' stuff."
2. Von Neumann's "political affairs" do not belong in the introduction. While he was known to have some intense political feelings as captured in a select few quotables, these did not translate into political activities; von Neumann was a consultant in all sorts of fields, but not much of a politician or activitist.
3. If you see something that seems "overlinked" then just be bold and take out the link. Most wikilinks do more good than harm.
4. Many of the references duplicate material, making it difficult to cite individual facts in the article to one source or another. A more evolutionary approach to this policy would be to wait for "citation needed" tags to appear in the article as the result of inquiries of skeptical wikipedians, and source those most controversial facts, rather than haphazardly inserting citation references, leaving an article unnecessarily littered with them.
5. It probably could use some better structure, preferably with the topics arranged in an order that corresponds chronologically to the shifting of von Neumann's focus. As such, it would start with quantuum theory and set theory, on to game theory/economics, move to hydrodynamics, atomic physics, then to computer science, and finally to automata. (Now that I look at it, it already is in this order.)
6. Concur.
7. Concur.
8. The only equations that stand out are in the quantum mechanics, and they do occur without much explanation as to their relevance. This is an area for improvement for which qualified people should step forward.
9. Okay.
10. As famous as he was, von Neumann didn't have a lot of pictures taken of him. (He was apparently captured on motion footage only once--or at least only one example survives, a television program from the 1950s.) The best examples of von Neumann with his "work" are pictures of him with computing machines, but they're all posed pictures. Second-best examples are of him in very large group shots at scientific conferences. Most of the rest are portraits. A picture of von Neumann at the blackboard (a la many of the pictures of Einstein) would be ideal. Robert K S 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Indon about the introduction. It is not that there are too many wikilinks, only that they are too dense. It may help to think of the lead as summarizing the content of the article rather than the career of von Neumann (a subtle distinction). Concerning images, I think it would be better to add images related to his work, rather than more pictures of him. I also think it is a strength of the article that it does touch upon the mathematics and other technical aspects of his contributions. Geometry guy 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the infobox

A user removed the JvN infobox, calling it "silly". For my own edification, what was the problem with the infobox, and why was it removed? For my part, I thought it brought needed structure to the article front.

It is redundant. An encyclopedia article is written in prose. --Pjacobi 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be redundant, but it assists in the useful organization of a large amount of information in a small space, providing easier comparisons. Is the infobox for Tyrannosaurus also silly? As for encyclopedias needing to limit themselves to prose--what is this, 1910? Hyperlinks, pictures, graphs, sparklines, interactive applets, and yes, infoboxes are all part of the information age experience that is Wikipedia. Robert K S 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientic classification at species-articles is structured enough to make presentation in a box sort of reasonable. This doesn't hold for biographies. --Pjacobi 13:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it such a momentous matter, one way or the other? How about trying to help address some of the more serious concerns listed above and stop arguing about infoboxes?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which more serious concern did you have in mind? Robert K S 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Based on GA reviews and responses given, I failed this article of GA for the following reasons:

1. Well written? — need major improvements
   • As I have mentioned in the previous thread, that the prose is not clear for common readers. This article requires pre-requisite of certain knowledge for a reader to understand. For example in the logic section, where readers have to know a priori about set theory.
   • Prose for specialist readers is also found in the Quantum Mechanics and Computer Science sections. Necessary technical jargons should only be briefly explained and wikilinked.
   • Mathematical equations are not properly and briefly explained. Although one of the editor have answered that "The only equations that stand out are in the quantum mechanics, and they do occur without much explanation as to their relevance.", but this is not about quantum mechanics. It's about Von Neumann.
   • Also that the mathematical equations do not make this article stronger, but rather confusing.
   • Lead section should be reshaped to give a summary about von Neumanns, including his political involvement in nuclear missiles and the cold war. Also specialized terms should be minimized in the lead section, per WP:LS.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable? — need improvements
   • Again, based on the previous reviews, inline citations are needed for a biography article, to satisfy the verifiability.
   • Some sections do not cite any sources.
   • One of the editors simply said that inline citations can be given for a skeptical wikipedians. This is totally wrong, as an article is read not only by a wikipedian.
3. Broad in coverage? — need improvements
   • Please focus on the subject, i.e. about Von Neumann. I see in the Logic and Quantum Mechanics sections, editors give too many unnecessary theory about logic and quantum mechanics. Just point with {{see also}} to a more detailed explanation for curious readers.
4. Neutral point of view? — need improvements
   • In the Politic and Social Affairs section, his controversy of being involved as the scientific mind behind the cold war is not presented.
   • There is a statement that he was violently anti-communist, but no further explanations about this.
   • I see some POV tones, such as the velocity of his own intellect.
5. Article stability? — passes
6. Image? — need more illustrations about von Neumann's major inventions

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. — Indon (reply) — 13:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nationality at birth

In 1903 Hungary was a sovereign kingdom (monarchy) within the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy alongside the Austrian monarchy. There was no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian nationality, subjects were either Austrian or Hungarian. Having been born in Budapest, the capital of Hungary, John Neumann was unquestionably Hungarian at the time of his birth. I have corrected the lead article. Bardwell 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk Project

I added a section about von Neumann and the Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project. Feel free to add/erase/delete, but i feel something belongs here about him and those two experiments.

Which Civil War

In the first paragraph in the Biography section, it says he was an expert on the "Civil War." Could someone specify which civil war this was? Picaroon9288 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no event in Hungarian history which is known as a "civil war". The author probably means the USA civil war. This should promptly be precised by someone who is able to check the fact. 84.1.197.74 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First, civil war it is not, Civil War it is, as it is a title, and this title is the name by which the American civil war is known by the general public in the US. Von Neumann's memory is a well annecdoted fact, including a thorough knowledge of the American Civil War. I'll correct the hotlink. William R. Buckley 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Second, if you remove US and American from a google search on "civil war", you get a variety of otherwise named civil wars: English, Spanish, Chinese, Finnish, etc. Though the search could be more thorough, there does not appear to be many other wars known as the civil war for any other people. This designation, the use of a general term for a specific case, of the civil war being the American Civil War does seem to be represented within the pages of the web. William R. Buckley 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is Herman Goldstine who reports that von Neumann amused himself by becoming an expert on the battles of the American Civil War, as he had earlier become an expert on the royal houses and battles of the Turkish empire. Some of the best biographical material about von Neumann can be found in "The computer from Pascal to von Neumann" by Goldstine who of course knew von Neumann personally. Goldstine by the way reports that von Neumann had perfect eidetic imagery, that is, he had a photographic mind so powerful that he apparently remembered any written document he ever laid eyes on. Goldstine says he once tested von Neumann by asking him to recite the first 50 pages of A Tale of Two Cities. ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ... Can you go on?) Joseph Grcar (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cantor "invented" set theory?

I don't think Cantor invented set theory. If anybody did, wasn't it Boole?

Set theory does not equal to the combinatorial concept of sets. It is, roughly speaking, a discipline to approach infinite magnitudes in a mathematically sound way. Georg Cantor clearly made the breakthrough in this area, after millennia of disinterest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.1.197.74 (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Nash studied with Von Neumann?

What is the source for that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.49.151.75 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I've removed John F. Nash from the list of von Neumann's students. Nash was supervised by Albert Tucker. According to Nasar's biography A Beautiful Mind, Nash's only discussion with von Neumann about his equilibria work was disappointing (von Neumann dismissed his result as trivial). Of course, Nash was influenced strongly by von Neumann's ideas and work (like countless other mathematicians).

An early draft of the script for the Beautiful Mind film featured von Neumann as a character (I believe von Neumann's name was misspelled), but was cut prior to filming. I've never been able to unearth this draft and so cannot offer more details about the portrayal; I would appreciate being contacted if anyone can point me in the direction of a copy. Robert K S 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Von Neumann had no students during most of his carreer because the Institute for Advanced study is not a degree-granting educational institution --- no one was a "professor" there. He did have postdocs. I do not know how Halperin got to be his student; perhaps he was left over from the short time when von Neumann was a part-time professor at Princeton before his IAS appointment. Joseph Grcar (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

50-year von Neumann box

According to the Wolfram source [7]:

"It is now fifty years since John von Neumann's death ... and his daughter tells me that in fact "The Big Box opening turned out to be a Big Bust". Apparently she and her children and their grandchildren had assembled ... only to discover that it was all a big mistake: the box was actually not John von Neumann's at all! So I suppose we will have to work a little harder to plumb more of John von Neumann's final character..."

Since the box wasn't his, I've removed the section. It would just clutter up the article with no payoff or significance. Robert K S 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation

The ability of anyone to alter Wikipedia does not extend to justification for so doing. The fact of von Neumann's religious association is explicated elsewhere, and the game playing that I see (over when he converted to catholocism) is misguided at best. This articles biography provides some detail on the issue. Perhaps review of the various book biographies of von Neumann would help to settle this debate. More to the point, why not ask his daughter. It is not as if she is incommunicado - I've received email from her - quite nice of Dr. Whitman to respond, actually. If anyone is to give the facts, it is likely she. William R. Buckley 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading tells me that von Neumann converted as a condition of marriage. After all, what catholic girl wants to be excommunicated for marrying outside the religion. Isn't that a percept of Roman Catholocism? Maybe it is a percept that once applied, like when von Neumann got married, and no longer is an issue. William R. Buckley 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What is in the heart is another matter. For von Neumann, the conversion may only have been perfunctory, becoming true only upon his deathbed request for a priest. William R. Buckley 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Methinks that much of the wrangling over wording of the remarks about von Neumann's religious convictions falls into the category known as POV. William R. Buckley 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd that proud Jewish people have exclusively claimed Von Neumann as their own little prize. Certainly he had prominent Jewish ancestry. It is also a fact that he had, for lack of better terms, ethnic Christian ancestry (after all, what is a "wealthy, non-practicing Jewish family"?). Neumann's family, as is the case with many modern day mixed-faith/ethinic households of Jewish/Christian origins, celebrated aspects of both religions' holidays. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Von_Neumann.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.90.86 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

University of Pázmány Péter?

Péter Pázmány (Pázmány being the family name, Hungarian order: Pázmány Péter) was actually a person, whose name the university bore the time Neumann attended it. Therefore 'University of Pázmány Péter' looks quite funny for a native Hungarian, and may be somewhat misleading. 'Pázmány Péter University' or 'Péter Pázmány University' would probably look better. 84.0.216.194 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PAGE RENAME IS NEEDED!

Greetings!

We are from Hungary and we have never heard John's name like this with the "von" tag in it... So we wonder if it would possible to rename the page to John Neumann(physicist). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chympy (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi! You might be interested, instead, in editing the Magyar version of this page.[8] In English contexts, John von Neumann is the most familiar name for this individual. Robert K S 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with one reservation. The difference in popular name usage between cultures is likely to be a valuable item of interest to article readers. So, while we would not want to alter article title, the point should find mention within article text. William R. Buckley 19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Universal constructor.

Frankly, I do not like the wording which I added respecting this concept - universal constructor. Perhaps it should be - universal construction. This however conflicts with a mathematical notion of the same name - universal construction - which then acts as a redirection to the page - universal property. William R. Buckley 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Birth city flag

There seems to be some contention about using the Austrian flag to represent Austria-Hungary in the infobox under von Neumann's birth city. Despite the fact that Budapest is in present-day Hungary, using the Hungarian flag is certainly no more appropriate, as Hungary did not exist as a sovereign entity in 1903, and the present-day Hungary flag represented, at that time, a faction that was in opposition to the official state. I see several alternatives:

• Reach consensus to use the AUS flag, since it is the one that most resembles the Austria-Hungary flag.
• Find and use an Austria-Hungary flag, if one exists, and create one, if it doesn't; at thumbnail resolution, however, it may be indistinguishable from the AUS flag.
• Use no flag.

Comments? Suggestions? Robert K S 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the Austria-Hungary flag and made the replacement. Hopefully this will be satisfactory. Robert K S 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this: In 1903 Hungary was a sovereign kingdom (monarchy) within the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy alongside the Austrian monarchy. There was no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian nationality, subjects were either Austrian or Hungarian. Having been born in Budapest, the capital of Hungary, John Neumann was unquestionably Hungarian at the time of his birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.112.193 (talk) at 2007-05-05T13:29:37

I don't know what you mean by "nationality": JvN was born a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While JvN would, of course, be described as "Hungarian" and not "Austrian" or as any of the other groups represented in the Empire, I still object to using the present-day flag of Hungary to represent a 1903 birth nationality. I hope you see and can agree that is prima facie inaccurate. Robert K S 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to replace the present day hungary flag to that official flag which was used by Hungary in the monarchy. Do you agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.112.193 (talk) at 2007-05-05T13:43:17

Info Box tweek

I changed the notable student to the one that has a Wiki article. Maybe if that other fellow gets an article we can add him back? I also removed the bit about the ritual circumcision. Born to non-practicing Jewish family seems to sufice. Can't wait to discuss this one :) Cheers, --Tom 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"his father purchased a title"?

I object to the claim that John von Neumann's father "purchased" a title in 1913. Titles of nobility in the Austro-Hungarian empire were conferred by the head of state ONLY. In the case of a Hungarian citizen in 1913, this would have been the Habsburg monarch Francis Joseph I. in his role as Apostolic King of Hungary. While considerable fees were involved for anyone petitioning for a title of nobility (e.g. for processing the application, issueing the diploma, drawing up of heraldic devices, etc.), it was never formally possible to obtain a title simply by "buying" it from anyone as the article suggests. Saying that John von Neumann's father was granted a title of nobility in 1913 and that the family was thereafter entitled to the style of "von" would undoubtledly describe the situation better. 193.170.52.70, 20:26, May 20, 2007 (UTC)

First, identify yourself. It is quite difficult to communicate with anonymous persons. William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Second, cite your source. You make assertions but, you do not demonstrate that your assertion is correct. William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Third, do review the available literature. The book by Macrae clearly states that John von Neumann's father purchased a title. William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have obtained the copy of Macrae's book. On pages 57 and 58 of the 1992 first edition as published in the United States by Pantheon Books is described the ennoblement. Macrae reports that Max Neumann was "rewarded with hereditary nobility" and that "Ennoblement was not an unusual reward for prominent bankers and industrialists during those last years of the Austro-Hungarian empire." So, purchase was not made with cash. Instead, it was with loyal service. William R. Buckley 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We will correct the article. William R. Buckley 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no complaint with your objection, per se; your justification for this objection is clearly lacking. William R. Buckley 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Others will appreciate that the MacTutor references, and their supporting content found at St. Andrews University, specifically states that the ennoblement was purchased. This point should perhaps be researched further, to clarify the disparity of sources. I prefer the Macrae biography as it is reported to be well appreciated by von Neumann's family. William R. Buckley 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Prodigy stuff

I trimmed the early prodigy stuff a bit unless we can find sources for it. --Tom 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the Macrae bio. Robert K S 23:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say there is no source does not mean that others have not earlier given a source. Don't remove material simply due to your ignorance of the topic. Rather, question first; act later. William R. Buckley 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but thats how I work since I am just plain ignorant. Whats your excuse??--Tom 12:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with fair disclosure. The point is that you assume the lack of a source, and act. What is best is to question the issue in the talk pages, get a reply, and move forward. There are two ways that Wikipedia can work; by consensus, and by discontent. Simply removing material without knowledge of the issue is likely to get article content wrong. Moreover, why spend time undoing error which is repeatedly introduced by editors new to a topic? Discussion on the talk pages first is, in contemporary parlance, an issue of best practices. Also, you are not assuming good faith, and take too personally the word *ignorance*, a term which is not necessarily derogatory. William R. Buckley 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Tom 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference Checklist

It occurs to me that editors might be well served with a checklist against which statements in an article are linked to a correspondingly authoritative reference. Is this something that other editors find appealing? William R. Buckley 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Economics

I believe the economics section should be expanded to discuss von Neumann-Morgenstern utility a little more given its massive importance in that field Canking 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: Up until the 1930s economics involved a great deal of mathematics and numbers, but almost all of this was either superficial or irrelevant. It was used, for the most part, to provide uselessly precise formulations and solutions to problems which were intrinsically vague. seems too opinionated for an encyclopedic entry without the support of any footnotes. I am not doubting that it might not contain a hint of truthiness, but it is rather controversial to imply that the majority of economc academia was worthless prior to von Neumann's work. It does not belong in a serious piece on this man's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrvnk (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Photon transmission

"But if the third filter is added in between the other two, the photons will indeed pass through." Not necessarily: if the middle filter has its polarization axis parallel to those of either the first or the third then the photon will not pass through. Is this correct? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Further to my comment above, the effect discussed does not need quantum mechanics for its explanation. It is explained entirely on the basis of elementary classical optics. A double application of Malus' Law (see Polarizer) shows that the transmitted light intensity is proportional to (Sin(theta) times Cosine(theta)) all-squared, where theta is the angle between the polarization axes of the first and middle polarizers. The transmission is zero when theta is an integer multiple of Pi/2. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

I placed a note about this matter on the user page of the person who apparently posted the material but have had no response. I intend to delete the misleading paragraph in the article. Any comments? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

"witnessing of atomic explosions, an activity for which he had a penchant"

Did von Neumann witness more than one atomic bomb test? Where were the others? The assertion that his cancer was "possibly" from witnessing such tests (or whyever) should be attributed, else it is unencyclopedic speculation. Robert K S (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the South Pacific, specifically Bikini. I will enter biographical sources in the next couple of days... be patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing Personality

A month or so ago certain personal information was deleted from this article on the basis that it was "gossipy". While I admitt that the info in question was badly placed within the article as a whole, I disagree with its removal. Von Neumann was an interesting personalty, quite apart from his scientific accomplishments (as attested to by the prominence of such material in his biograhies, as well as reminiscences of those who knew him). As in articles on Einstein and Feynman (both also interesting "characters") such information ought to have its place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You also have source for that information? Squash Racket (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence as of March 1st, 2008 in the personality section about the Los Alamos secretaries is a little odd. The newly added reference for that is to a book (which expectedly I don't have a copy of), however there is a book preview on Google. Unfortunately, the pages that the reference points to are in a set of 4 pages that were removed from the preview. Can anyone verify that this reference is indeed valid? The reference cites pages that are not in the Los Alamos section of the book according to the table of contents (assuming the version on Google books is the same one here). Dwr12 (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, here I guess is a good reason to review my copy of the Macrae text. Give me a few days, and I will provide the answer. I will get this quote, and also the relevant quotes regarding cancer and the religious request. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote from p. 153 of the Macrae biography is

"His relationship with women remained clumsy through out his life. He was liked by all the women who really knew him, but those who merely encountered him sometimes thought him creepy. When he was preoccupied, he used to stare at women's legs unconsciously and rudely - just as, when driving an automobile, he might stare at but not see the road ahead. At Los Alamos the secretaries had desks that were open at the front. Some of them stuck cardboard there because, they said, "Johnny had a habit of leaning forward, muttering, and peering up their skirts." William R. Buckley (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

JvN Personality (exchange copied from my user talk page)

Please read some of the books (there are many listed) on this subject before making uninformed deletions.24.148.1.17 (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you make a contested claim about a topic, it is your responsibility as an editor to provide the reference which supports the claim. Making a blanket statement "read some of the books" is a pretty silly way of evading this editorial responsibility.--CSTAR (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor who made the deletion without first reading those listed references is the person who has the burden of proof. If you can't be bothered to read the listed references, then you shouldn't be editing. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On another note, there is a tendency for some to include, and others exclude, explicit presentation of von Neumann's off color humor. I propose that a separate article be constructed related to this kind of humor, and therein might be listed such personalities as are known to engage such humor. Though the mention of this tendency is made in the JvN article, it is perhaps too much detail to also put specific examples therein. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Last Rites.

For those of you who are not in the know, read the Macrae biography. Therein, you will find the statement that von Neumann asked for and received the last rites. To the person who called for a citation, I suggest you read all of those already listed in the John von Neumann article before claiming that citations have not been given. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for citation re last rites, rather communion i.e. Eucharist.RandomTool2 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever the details of the request, the point is that in Macrae it is listed. This goes to the point made one item up, regarding the obligation of editors to know the material before editing. I do not know exactly the details of the Macrae text, having read it some number of years ago. It is in my library, so upon necessity, I might review; until I do, I will not edit discussion of von Neumann's request for a priest. I would argue that those who have made recent edits on the topic should review the mentioned text, and correct any excess they imposed upon article content. The article has had from time to time employed various expressions to describe the case of request, and any obtained benefit. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just reviewed the Macrae book yesterday (I too read it a few years back) in order to correct some nonsense editing which was going on yesterday. The term "Eucharist" was inserted into this article for the first time yesterday. This, as I am sure you know, is different from last rites. I only deleted "Eucharist" and left the reference to last rites in place since I could find no reference to the Eucharist either in Macrae or in any other book I have.RandomTool2 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is good reading, and though some find other biographical works on von Neumann to be better than Macrae, I do not recall coming to know of any strong complaints, particularly regarding the factuality of content. Indeed, I have had some correspondence with Macrae family members, who report that the von Neumann family are happy with the Macrae biography of von Neumann. And, actually, I am not knowledgeable of the details of Catholic tradition. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found Macrae's biography to be absolutely awful. Macrae's not a mathematician, and this comes across clearly in his poor exposition of Von Neumann's mathematical and other technical work. Furthermore, his depiction of JVN came across as an uncritical glorification (perhaps one reason why certain members of the Von Neumann family might allegedly have been happy with it -- or maybe they were just being nice), and he exhibits what I would contend is below average scholarship. Nearly all of the anecdotes are derived from other literature that I've read (journal articles, book excerpts, magazine obit articles from 1957) . . . which he fails to footnote, so it's unclear to most readers when he's just spinning yarn. The only area where Macrae may have added to my biographical knowledge of JVN was certain portions of his early childhood (and this info may have been pulled this from "John von Neumann - As Seen by his Brother", which I have not read). He also copied the game theory example from Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" without modification, which is one area where you'd think he could have contributed some insight (being an economist). I also found his distortions of Bertrand Russell and Norbert Wiener to be offensive. Please do not recommend this remarkably poor work. Go to the original sources instead. — Myasuda (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While your contribution is welcome, it is a bit thin. You remark of complaints with the content of Macrae, and suggest other sources are better but, you do not give these sources. This leaves us in no better position than to use Macrae. I am familiar with some content from other sources, online and otherwise, like Goldstine's The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann, and Burks work. Perhaps is would be good for a group of us to construct such a complete publications list for references to von Neumann's personality. Of course, his daughter is available by email, and one might ask her about the assertions one gives on this page. Is it not Numsgil who reported news of correspondence with Marina von Neumann Whitman over some *time capsule* recently opened? William R. Buckley (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the list under "Further Reading" is fairly good in terms of source material, but I can add to it if you wish. However, when you say "This leaves us in no better position than to use Macrae" I'm not clear on whether you're referring to the last rites topic in isolation or more generally. With respect to Von Neumann's last days in the hospital, what Macrae reports may be accurate, but since he doesn't footnote his text it's impossible to tell whether it's from a text source or an interview unless you've seen the quote before. That makes using Macrae as a source problematic and largely unnecessary (he certainly didn't know JVN personally and he doesn't understand JVN's work, so nothing in the biography wrt JVN is original with him). I do know that Heims' somewhat controversial book "John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: From mathematics to the technologies of life and death" discusses Von Neumann's last days, and his biography is well-footnoted. So, you might look there for more information (it's been decades since I read it, so I can't be more precise than this). Heims may have been using Wigner as a source, since Wigner characterizes Von Neumann's last days in much the same way in the MAA video on Von Neumann. — Myasuda (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I think I was mistaken above -- upon reflection, I think it was Teller rather than Wigner who commented on JVN's last days, so Teller might have been the person whom Heims quoted. Per the time capsule comment above, there's an addendum at the bottom of the page at [9] that may be pertinent. — Myasuda (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, adding to the list would be a good idea, I think. A well gathered collection of sources for biographical details, popular or not (e.g. Macrae is one which is perhaps not popular), would certainly help those who are serious about the content of this article. We could include also the works of Poundstone, The Recursive Universe and The Prisoner's Dilemma. I have once crossed a set of interviews with period scientists, like Bethe, Wigner, Veblen, and so forth. I might have a name or two confused but, the website was a well-spring of data respecting the personalities of a great many scientists. I'll try to find this source again. William R. Buckley (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable starting point for references would be the union of the current Further reading section with the list of references at [10]. To this, I would add the high level but still informative Life Magazine article "Passing of a great Mind" from February 25, 1957 (I have not seen its RAND anecdote given elsewhere) and (just for kicks -- not for this article's content), the quaint Good Housekeeping article "Married to a Man Who Believes the Mind Can Move the World" from September 1956, which has a nice interview with Klara Dan. Actually, since I mentioned the Life Magazine article above, I re-read it just now (I have a copy), and it states that "After his arrival in the U.S. he had been baptized a Roman Catholic. But his divorce from Mariette had put him beyond the sacraments of the Catholic Church for almost 19 years. Now he felt an urge to return. One morning he said to Klara, "I want to see a priest." He added, "But he will have to be a special kind of priest, one that will be intellectually compatible . . . After a few weeks Von Neumann began once again to receive the sacraments." This would have been in 1956. — Myasuda (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. Paul Halmos gives some commentary too, in the book Operator Algebras, Quantization, and Noncommutative Geometry: A Centennial Celebration Honoring John Von Neumann and Marshall H. Stone; see the first article - The Legend of John von Neumann. It is in this book, previewed on Google, that the phrase "received the sacraments" is used. William R. Buckley (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant text from Macrae is:

"In this period Johnny returned to the Catholic faith that had also been significant to his mother after the family's conversion in 1929-1930. There are those who say he took instruction from the Catholic priest at the hospital mainly because the priest was an educated man, to whom Johnny could talk of classical Rome and Greece better than he could to the soldiers on guard. But Johnny had earlier said to his mother, 'There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't.' He also admitted jovially to Pascal's point: so long as there is the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers, it is more logical to be a believer at the end." —Preceding unsigned comment added by William R. Buckley (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether I care to enter the above discussion of "Macrae vs Not Macrae", but has anyone noticed that Macrae contains at least one "urban legend" which is given as an actual incident. This is the story he relates about von Neumann interviewing someone in his home, and there being a dog present - a dog which it turns out belongs to neither man.RandomTool2 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There are so many reasons to avoid Macrae as a reference (your example being one more), I'd recommend replacing any footnotes in the article that refer to Macrae's book with an alternative source. By his own admission (page 138 of his book), Macrae last took a course in high school mathematics around the age of 15. This, plus his choice to avoid any in-text citations (something that should give all Wikipedia editors pause per WP:CITE), make him singularly unqualified to write a biography on a prominent mathematician. — Myasuda (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not that committed to the Macrae text. The point is, it is generally available, and other sources are obscure. The magazine references above are a welcome addition to the list. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

capitalization

Why is the "margittai" title capitalized in the article? The Hungarian article mostly omits the title altogether, but at the one place in section 1 where it does not, it is spelled as "margittai Neumann János". — EJ (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be written like in the Hungarian article as you can see in the first line of that Hungarian source. Squash Racket (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eötvös Loránd University

A change made earlier today was reverted by RandomTool2 with the explanation that the change was "nationalistic garbage". I don't understand how it was either nationalistic or garbage. The actual change was from "Budapest University" to "Eötvös Loránd University" in the displayed part of a link, with the target of the link being "Eötvös Loránd University" (unchanged). Roger Hui (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think RandomTool2 was wrong, Eötvös Loránd University is the name of the university in question. It is sometimes referred to as Budapest University or University of Budapest which is not very correct, as there are many universities in Budapest, although only the Eötvös is scientific. Kope (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at article about University in question. When JvN entered its name was U of B. It was not renamed "Eötvös Loránd University" until 1950. If Wikipedia article is in error well then, "never mind".RandomTool2 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. So it was, after all, nationalistic garbage. Kope (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The ominous sentence is this:He received his Ph.D. in mathematics (with minors in experimental physics and chemistry) from the University of Budapest at the age of 22. By then the university was named Péter Pázmány University, not University of Budapest. Kope (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ede or Edward Teller

It seems that there is an edit war going on (e.g. this edit): Should we refer to the article about Teller as Edward Teller (as he is known in English-speaking countries), or Ede Teller (redirect; his Hungarian name). Or "Teller Ede"?

I think "Edward" is more appropriate in the English language wikipedia.

Austrian (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Such info regarding Teller's name should be - and is - in the article devoted to him. One of the goals of these articles should be clarity for their intended readership.

I will change it back (again) from the edits by the anonymous person who seems to have an "Ede" fixation.RandomTool2 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ede and Edvárd (Edward) are not interchangeable in Hungarian (his name was not Teller Edvárd, but Teller Ede), but Edward Teller is the version more used by English sources. I corrected some other names too to the version known/used in the English-speaking world. Squash Racket (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is not that names have to be Anglicised for the English version, but rather that Teller, as a public personality, chose to be known as Edward.RandomTool2 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Teller is known universally in the western scientific community as Edward. His Hungarian name is referred to in his own article. That will suffice. The edits of 91.120.173.195, which originate from Hungary, may be appropriate for the Hungarian Wiki, not the English one. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC).

The point for Enwiki is that names have to be Anglicised for the English version, see for example this discussion about non-English tennis players' biographies. It's usually difficult to find out about the motive behind using an Anglicised name, in Enwiki the most widely used name in English is used (if no dispute arises). For example The Guardian mentions him by his original name, but Edward Teller is simply more used in English sources. Squash Racket (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that names "have to be Anglicised". As Elliot says "The naming of cats is a difficult matter" - and it's the same for humans. Paul McCartney is James Paul McCartney, and Ringo Starr is Richard Starkey. A standard way to cope with these differences is to put part of the name in parentheses. So: (James) Paul McCartney or Richard (Ringo Starr) Starkey - or some variation. Ede Teller can be Ede (Edward) Teller or Edward (Ede) Teller, the first time he is mentioned. Myrvin (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what is done in the article on Edward Teller. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

The whole question of Anglicization seems to me, in Teller's case, to be beside the point. He was a very "public" scientist who went by the name of "Edward". Like a stage name, or a pen name, this is the name by which he would be most readily recognized by the reader.RandomTool2 (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuchs the spy

The text says: "He then collaborated with spy Klaus Fuchs on further development of the bomb". I don't think there should be a suggestion that he knew Fuchs was a spy - which is the way I originally read this. I think you should remove the word 'spy', and then maybe follow it with a sentence saying that Fuchs was eventually found out to be a spy. Myrvin (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the von Neumann article, not the Fuchs article. Unless Fuchs's being a spy was relevant to the Fuch-von Neumann collaboration, the detail is best excised. Readers can presumably learn the details proper to Fuchs's biography at his own article. Robert K S (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Put a lock on it?

Given the relentless vandalism of this page by the IP user in Hungary, would it be a good idea to request that a lock be placed on the article for a certain period of time so that only registered, good-faith editors who have previously made edits to it would be allowed to continue making edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTool2 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur on this request. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, the behavior of the anonymous editor at IP address 91.120.171.155, were it to be consistent, would have the name of John von Neumann changed to Johnny. Or, perhaps better, to Jancsi, or even to János. The quality of Wikipedia is adversely affected by these anonymous edits. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.RandomTool2 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets retarded americans rule who have no scientist so they have to steal them from other countries. Arrogant dushbags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoEdward (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeated reversions of so minor a detail as the naming of an individual, naming which is in a fashion consistent with those cultural norms that apply to Wikipedia articles assigned to cultural classes (like the English version of Wikipedia, as opposed to other-language versions, like that for the Magyar) make impossible all other forms of article improvement. There are consensus mechanisms to avoid these kinds of editorial wars. Also, I would argue that it was European bigotry which brought such notable scientists as von Neumann to the United States, as opposed to the asserted theft of same. William R. Buckley (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do offer this olive branch. Find me a publication of Dr. Teller, as published within the English speaking world, where the by-line gives the name Ede Teller, and I will change my position on the proper naming of this individual within the English version of Wikipedia. William R. Buckley (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? One anomalous data point does not a standard make. Robert K S (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the likelihood of a contrary datapoint? Frankly, I think that no such example exists. Further, such a challenge, stated so provocatively, is very likely to exhaust all possible examples, and those who devote time to identification of such a counter-example; i.e., the effort will be a very good waste of their time. William R. Buckley (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but our interest is in writing the best possible encyclopedia articles, not posing provocative challenges with the intent of wasting editors' time. Best leave well enough alone: your opinion should stay where it is because it was right to begin with, not because an "opponent" hasn't chanced upon a lonely counterexample, something that should not be convincing withal. Robert K S (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I should think that the occasional provocation might jog those ill disposed into proper comportment, which is clearly to the benefit of Wikipedia, and those editors who tire of reversion wars. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert War

This needs to stop. I call on the editor at address 91.120.140.2 to stop reverting those corrections to this article, such as have been made by RandomTool2, Xxanthippe, and a good number of other editors. Your actions are that of a vandal, since you have not worked to gain consensus, and instead alter the article to impose your will against the wisdom of many others. I do call on an administrator to protect this article against the edits of 91.120.140.2 William R. Buckley (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll second this, although I would apprise any administrator of the fact that the vandal in question uses multiple (similar) IP addresses, as well as the User name NoEdward.RandomTool2 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is time for another period of protection. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC).

Right. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 10:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While we are at it, can we find some means (consistent with other well-regarded biographical articles) to address this concern for naming that will get us all, antagonist too, satisfied? How can, or should, *Ede* be made a component of the English language article without diluting the emphasis he himself put upon using the name *Edward* in the greater Anglo-American cultural realm. I should think that we may retain the high standards of this article while incorporating some suitable mention of the controversial point. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider sufficient having "Teller Ede" at the very beginning of the Edward Teller article. Roger Hui (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK but, lets look at alternatives. Would it be possible to create a pop-up window to highlight the alternate name, and direct the reader to the Teller biography article. William R. Buckley (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the "Ede Question" is not this guy's only issue. He would designate von Neumann as a Hungarian mathematician despite the fact that von Neumann spent NONE of his professional life in Hungary - but rather in Germany and the U.S.. "NoEdward" is a crank with a nationalistic axe to grind - pure and simple!RandomTool2 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I recognise the multitude of issues presented. Yet, the problems of a crank notwithstanding, it is always a good idea to improve the article about which we all care deeply. I tend to work against Roger Hui in that more detail is better, and it seems that he feels following links is the better approach - I'd add material about Ede to von Neumann, while Hui says follow the link to Edward Teller, and learn about the distinction by reading that article. Maybe Roger has the better approach. Has this issue been previously discussed? If not, then we should debate the issue, and come to some consensus, to give guidance in the future. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For my part I can see only two items involving Teller which might be reasonably be included in an an article whose subject is, after all, von Neumann - items which are not incuded already. Namely:

1) That they attended the same Gymnasium in Budapest. And,

2) That their shared right wing militaristic views might both have their source in the turbulence of Hungarian politics in the decade following WWI (this is suggested in the Teller article but not in the von Neumann). RandomTool2 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all we use IP address cause the Hungarian Wikipedia user does not work here, we have to create a new user for some reason, and we didnt bother to create an account here. But if want names Im Jani-wan, and if you wanna check, I work on this page, when I have time: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Cubs What an arrogant assumption to think that there is only one guy who changed the name to Ede. And everyone is a vandal, who doesnt agree with you. The consensus? What consensus? How many Hungarians voted? Zero! Anglo-American cultural realm? Two things: 1. If only americans would read this site it would be fine. But the english language Wikipedia is used by the whole world to find information. So this site can not be Anglo-American only! 2. It was the cold war, the Soviets invaded Hungary, and became an enemy of the US. (despite that the people of Hungary fighted for their freedom but were brutally massacred by the mighty Red Army). And it was McCarthyism that time in the US. You know what it meant to anyone with a sligthest suspition of being a communist. So Teller as a Hungarian obviously didnt want to answer those questions, what kinda name is EDE, so he went by the name Edward. Who could blame him. But he never changed his name to Edward. He is only known as Edward. And only in America. By the way, the last time he appeared in the TV in Hungary he was still EDE. He didn't say Im Edward now. So I suggest using EDE and Edward as well, in some way, where he is mentioned.

Well, now who is presumptuous? And, it is English, not english. IIRC, the Cold War began in or after 1948. To boot, by reading the Edward Teller article, Teller entered the United States in 1935, well before the start of World War II, and consequently long before the start of the Cold War. Your knowledge of Teller errs; Teller entered the United States long before communism afflicted Hungary. Hence, your argument regarding Teller not wanting to answer questions is specious. McCarty was in the 1950s, not the 30s and 40s.

You might give some reference regarding Teller's last visit to Hungary. In what year did this visit occur?

Your statement of wanting to use Ede and Edward is inconsistent with your propensity to delete Edward in favor of Ede. Your inconsistency is very telling.

The one olive branch you offer is the first response you give to my many earlier suggestions. As for the problem of an account, create one on the English language Wikipedia site. There is no value to hiding your identity. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your knowledge of the word consensus also errs; one does not achieve consensus by voting. Indeed, voting implies the antithesis of concensus. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, your complaint of presumptuousness regarding the ability of others to discern between one and multiple editors on the basis of one IP address is unreasonable. Since only one IP address is used, and since the nature of edits from this one IP address are remarkably consistent, it is reasonable for one to assume the uniqueness of identity of the editor involved. Again, create an English language Wikipedia account, and that way no-one will assume that two editors are one. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Do you have any evidence that he officially changed his name to Edward? Do you have any evidence that he changed his name to Edward in 1935? Or used it before WWII?

2. I did not delete Edward. Actually I did not change anything. It was someone else.

Then you take things personally, that do not apply to you. Wear the shoe only if it fits. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

3. I did not hide my identity. It is several rows up here. Dont know about the others.

3. "Since only one IP address is used, and since the nature of edits from this one IP address are remarkably consistent, it is reasonable for one to assume the uniqueness of identity of the editor involved." I checked the last couple of IPs who changed it to Ede, and its definitely not one IP address. 91.120.168.136 91.120.138.180 91.120.143.117 YOu are not very knowledgeable. I'll explane it to you.

The comment about one person was derived from comments by RandomTool2. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Those numbers mean that the users use the same network. In HUNGARY. And while the first two numbers (91.120) are the same, the last two numbers are different for every host in a LAN network that can provide service for ca. 65000 users at the same time.

4. Creating an account just for this takes too long, and makes no sense. By the way one individual could create multiple accounts so I dont see your point.

This is a specious argument. Creating an account takes no more than a few minutes, if that much. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

5. I exactly know what consensus is. But just for you, it means "közmegegyezés". I bet, you can't even read that properly. My english is way batter than your Hungarian.

6. Voting, or just telling what is my stand point is irrelevant cause its basically the same in this case, so you just tryin to be a smartass. By the way how could this be a consensus, if some Hungarian users complained about this?

No suggestion that consensus exists. Your complaint means that consensus should be obtained. However, your demeanor demonstrates that consensus will not be obtained. Consensus is largely a measure of compromise, and you have acted without compromise. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kedves ismeretlen! Hadd hivjam fel figyelmededet, hogy a Wikipédián a tiednél lényegesen kultúráltabb ls udvariasabb légkör uralkodik, légy szives alkalmazkodj hozzá, légy rövid, tárgyszerű és ne harapj. Nem kell rögtön konfrontativnak lenni. Te nem vetted észre, de vitapartnereid sokkal nyitottabbak feléd, mint gondolod.

1. Nem kell bizonyitani, hogy Teller hivatalosan felvette az Edward nevet. E lexikonban nem anyakönyvi néven szerepelnek az emberek, hanem az általában legismertebben. Mellesleg atért valószinű, hogy Teller útlevelében azon a néven szerepelt, ahogyan cikkeit, könyveit aláirta.

2. Ha vetted volna a fáradságot és két percet a szabadidődből és bejelentkezel, akkor most nem kellene védekezned az ellen, hogy ezt vagy azt a változtatást Te tetted. Ha nem jelentkezel be, ez ismételten elő fog fordulni.

3. Ha jól látom, legalább egyszer törölted az Edward nevet. Mellékesen nem igaz, hogy "az USÁban ezen a néven ismert", a világon mindenütt, kivéve Magyarországot, igy ismerik.

4. Két harmadik pontod van.

5. Légy szives segitsd ezt a projektet okos, tájékozott észrevételeiddel, tudásoddal, munkáddal. Üdvözlettel: Kope (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Én rávilágitottam néhány dologra, hozzátenném hogy normális hangnemben, erre azonnal nekem ugrott az ember, mert nem illett bele az elképzelésébe.

Az nálad lehet hogy kultúrált udvarias légkör, ha valaki megpróbál valamihez érdemben hozzászólni, de nem tetszik a valakinek, és az azonnal beleköt, nálam nem az. Az hogy valakit vandálnak nevez teljesen alaptalanul nálad lehet hogy kultúrált udvarias légkör, nálam nem az. Az hogy valakit megrágalmaz, csak azért mert az neki úgy kényelmes, nálad lehet hogy kultúrált udvarias légkör, nálam nem az. És szerinted mi a nyitottság? Amit irtam arra a válaszának az volt a lényege hogy hülye vagyok.

2. Mint azt kifejtettem nincs értelme.

3. Annak elfogadása hogy nem kizárólag amerikára korlátozódik az angol nyelv használata, nem követel különösen nagy műveltséget, de ha valaki képtelen kilépni a saját korlátolt világából, és nem érdekli semmi, az nem fogja ezt fel. Sajnos úgy tűnik itt ilyen emberek is vannak.

3. Megint két harmadik pontom van! Na és. Ez megint csak egy korlátolt kötözködés.

4. Rosszul látod.

5. És akkor már nem is kell korrigálni semmit sem amit valaki egyszer rosszul megcsinált. Az úgy egyszerűbb. Gratulálok.

6. Abban a hitben voltam hogy azt teszem. Úgy látszik csak úgy lehet hozzájárulni ha valaki egyetért. A különvéleményeket elüldözik.

7. Válaszolni nem muszály. Nem hinném hogy folytatni kivánok egy meddő vitát. Vitatkozzatok azokkal akik átirták a cikket Edére. Ennyi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.137.37 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Egyetértek. Nem értem miért nem képesek az amerikaiak megérteni, hogy Ede, de úgy ismert mint Edward. Meg sem próbálnak együttműködni. I agree. I dont see what the americans cant accept that his name was Ede, but was known as Edward. They don't even try to cooperate.

Let me repeat. Teller's name is Teller Ede in Hungary and Edward Teller anywhere else. It was chosen by him. I am not suggesting that you should use Edward when speaking in Hungarian. There are many cases that a person has different names in different languages. And please change your tenor. It does not help the work. Kope (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am much appreciative of your comments, especially in that they assist to bring together two opposing groups. Clearly, not all Hungarian editors of Wikipedia are divisive, regarding the naming of Ede (Edward) Teller. Thank you for this assistance. William R. Buckley (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality designation and Edward Teller name dispute

Now, see what has been done. Remove the protection, however slight, and the article suffers. All because one individual does not wish to participate in common. This one individual would rather be divisive, and the article suffers. This absolutely must end. It is not in the best interest of all who use Wikipedia for bickering to be the means of article development. The only alternative is to have the larger force of hands, to quickly key correction into the article, once for every miscreant alteration; a boring existence for editors. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This, of course, envisages a long, pitched battle, leading to a win by needless exhaustion. I should think it much easier to debate before altering article content, and to resolve the controversy by consensus. In the background, I hear others saying that yes, it would be nice but, no, the antagonist is unwilling to cooperate. Thus, protection. Is this the only possible intervention? No higher ideal holds in Wikipedia? William R. Buckley (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am perfectly happy with designation "Hungarian-American", although I would just like to point out to the IP, if he reads these discussions (which I doubt), that when one becomes a naturalized citizen of the U.S. (as both von Neumann and Teller did) that they "de facto" renounce their prior citizenship - it is not an option. RandomTool2 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters for this article, but the statement of renunciation in the citizenship oath is just a formality of language and cannot be described as a "de facto" anything. There is no law compelling a person to give up a former citizenship. Notably, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger retains his Austrian citizenship. Robert K S (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. RandomTool2 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a slight change, offering a compromise, and seeking comment. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is "Edward (Ede) Teller" a different person than "Edward Teller"? If not, the (Ede) is superfluous and confusing. Teller's original name can be found at his article. Robert K S (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Robert K S. The well-meaning compromise is not acceptable. In view of the situation that has developed the article needs permanent protection against vandalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Why is it not acceptable? A little discussion goes a long way to establishing consensus. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not acceptable because it pointlessly and jarringly goes counter to the well-established convention found universally on Wikipedia: people can be referred to their most common unambiguous names. Assigning them additional names beyond what is needed to make them unambiguous is a faulty signal to the reader that there is actually some other person who is not the commonly known person (in this case, that there is an Edward Teller who is not Edward Teller). Robert K S (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me verify. Does this convention *require* that persons be referenced within Wikipedia *only* by their most commonly recognised name within some culture (i.e. American society)? I would certainly hope this is not the case, for many people are known by a variety of names; a good example is Ronald Reagan, who is also known as The Great Communicator, which is certainly less than a name given at birth (like that of Teller). How are these second and third and ... names to be handled within Wikipedia?

By the way, to our Hungarian friend(s); this is the way that consensus arrives - reasoned and congenial discussion. Thanks, Robert. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. "The Great Communicator" was a nickname for President Reagan, not his most common unambiguous name. This nickname is properly mentioned in the article Ronald Reagan as being a nickname associated with him, but Reagan should not be identified or addressed as "The Great Communicator" in other articles. Robert K S (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if only a political snub, Reagan was widely known during his presidency by this nickname. While I have not looked, I would expect the title to be listed within any Ronald Reagan article found within Wikipedia. William R. Buckley (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an assumption being made by some on this page that the many obsessive vandalistic edits of the article originate from Hungary. With the anonymity allowed by Wikipedia and by the web in general (proxies, anonymisers etc.) this might not be the case. It is possible that the edits originate from a source hostile to Hungary that is trying to bring that country into disrepute by associating it with vandalism. I have no evidence for this, of course, but it is a possibility. Whether or not this is the case, as a visitor to and an admirer of that estimable nation, I urge other editors to prevent its reputation being tarnished by refusing to tolerate the vandalism that has been plaguing the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC).

There is specific mention above, in section Revert war, of some persons from Hungary, and that they are those with concern in this matter. Your point is, however, well taken. William R. Buckley (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, my only concern is to get all parties talking, finding consensus, and avoiding these wars. William R. Buckley (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian

Actually "margittai etc etc" is the birth name of von Neumann. The Hungarian name of his, i.e., the name he is and has been called in Hungary is always Neumann János. Kope (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification regarding JvN's proper name in Hungarian. William R. Buckley (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

??? Kope (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reference" section

Since this section is largely redundant with the bibliography, and seems to be a relic of early versions of the page, would it be a good idea to merge it into the bibliography? RandomTool2 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Both sections have common material, and all is clearly reference of bibliographic nature. So, it is probably to the betterment of the article if these two sections were merged. William R. Buckley (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer Science

The computer science section does not do justice to von Neumann's contribution.

Regarding the "first draft" report, von Neumann was in contact with many people working on automated calculating machines besides the group at the Moore School. One of his duties at Los Alamos was to scout out more effective computing methods, so he was able to travel even during the war to examine new technologies whether at Harvard, Western Electric, or wherever. Moreover, von Neumann moved in intellectual circles that the other calculator builders could not imagine. For example, he took part in gatherings organized by Norbert Wiener and others at which the ideas that eventually became cybernetics were discussed. It is partly for this reason that the first draft is couched in anthropomorphic terminology: e.g. "memory" rather than "storage." For further example, von Neumann was well acquainted with Alan Turning and would be among the few if not the only one of those working on automated calculators who understood the concept of a universal machine in 1945. Von Neumann brought all of these ideas together in what was a remarkably prescient document. The next time you buy a memory stick for you computer or or a memory card for your camera, remember it is because of von Neumann that it is called "memory."

With the flawed example of the ENIAC before them and the first draft in hand, several groups around the world set out to build computers in 1946, von Neumann among them. Having funded his computer project at the IAS by what today would be considered research grants, von Neumann mollified his sponsors by producing a series of extraordinarily influential reports on the design and use of the computers that would be built. Here is where the basic fetch-and-execute cycle is clearly explained, where von Neumann designed a widely imitated instruction set, originated the flow chart as a programming aid, and where he introduced the idea of a library of programs for which he coined the name "subroutine." These reports and the actual wiring diagrams of the IAS computer were distributed around the world with notices that the contents were in the public domain. The many early computers (literally, "von Neumann" machines) that were build from them created a community of researchers building machines using a common architectural terminology and even largely the same instruction sets --- before 1950. There was much to be done after 1950, where most computer history begins, but it can all be traced back to von Neumann and the IAS plans and reports.

Joseph Grcar (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As there remains controversy on the significance of von Neumann's contributions to the mechanics of automatic computation, review of the contributions of earlier workers (Zuse, Atanasoff, and Babbage come immediately to mind) should ensue versus the points discussed in this section. What I have been able to extract from the historical record accords well with the notion that von Neumann made all (or nearly all) of the significant suggestions regard machine construction and operation. Yet, it may be that other, earlier researchers provided the first use of these concepts of machine construction and operation. So, can we together get the specific references, review their content, and settle (at least for Wikipedia) the debate over who contributed what? William R. Buckley (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"The next time you buy a memory stick for you computer or or a memory card for your camera, remember it is because of von Neumann that it is called 'memory.'"—This ascription smells highly suspect. The earliest computer memories (Atanasoff's capacitor drum, Eckert's mercury delay line, and CRTs) were conceived as direct analogues of the human memory inasmuch as their regenerative functions copied the human method of memory jogging ("loaf of bread, stick of butter, dozen eggs, loaf of bread, stick of butter, dozen eggs..."). I don't have time to scour my notes on this but I would be very surprised if there didn't exist written examples of computer memories referred to as such predating von Neumann's invitation to see the ENIAC. Even the concept of a "hierarchy of memories", sometimes attributed to von Neumann, was realized in the ABC and the ENIAC (and probably numerous other non-electronic machines). The idea that memory would have otherwise been called only "storage" is prima facie silly, and not only because early memories didn't have very much storage to show for them.

"what today would be considered research grants"—This remark puzzles me, as it makes it sound like von Neumann invented research grants, which of course were a cherished institution long before his day.

"for which he coined the name "subroutine.'"—Many machines predating von Neumann possessed subroutine capability (the ENIAC, Bell Labs Model V, Babbage!) and if von Neumann coined the term, it would be nice to have some sourcing on this, as it is usually attributed to Wilkes, Wheeler, and Gill.

"widely imitated instruction set"—It would be interesting to construct a cladogram of instruction sets; my understanding is that nobody ever built commercial computers using the von Neumann instruction set and that it died out quite early, i.e., that it was only "widely imitated" to the extent that the rest of the IAS-type computers imitated everything else about the IAS machine.

That modern computing is somehow wholly indebted to von Neumann is one POV. That it would have evolved pretty much the same (and equally as quickly) without his interest in the subject is another POV. The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in the center, but what seems most seems evident to me is that his lending of his reputation and his academic-governmental-political power to early computing projects constituted the more meaningful contribution to the field than his publications. Von Neumann undoubtedly did make a number of original contributions to the field but I don't think (m)any of the items you mention are among them. Robert K S (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The first use of the word "memory" in the context of calculating machines was by von Neumann in the first draft report of 1945. The report has been reprinted in Aspray and Burks, "Papers of John von Neumann on Computing and Computer Theory," MIT Press, 1987. The report was never finished. A more readable and similar document that also uses the word "memory" is Burks, Goldstine, and von Neumann, "Preliminary discussion of the logical design of an electronic computing instrument, part I volume 1," IAS research report 1946 reprinted in John von Neumann collected works, ed. A. H. Taub, Macmillan, 1963). I am not aware of any published accounts of electronic calculating machine designs prior to these reports by von Neumann. Atanasoff and Berry, and Eckert and Mauchley to my knowledge never published contemporary descriptions of their work. I respectfully submit that, to attribute the modern concept of random access computer memory to them, based on the machines they produced, is an anachronism. The A-B machine recorded intermediate results on paper cards that had to be reentered. The ENIAC consisted of (the equivalent of ) 20 accumulators which passed numbers among them through patch cords that had to be rewired to alter the data paths. ENIAC also had a bank of rotary switches that could be used to enter tables of constants. None of these manners of storing numbers is equivalent to the random access memory that von Neumann described. 24.4.185.41 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In the 1940s it was still unusual for an academic to obtain large sums of money from the federal government for speculative research. The National Science Foundation was of course created for this purpose but only in the 1950s. For example, Atanasoff got his funds from the Carnegie foundation and they only gave him a few thousand dollars. 24.4.185.41 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The concept of a subroutine is described using the word "subroutine" in Goldstine and von Neumann, "Planning and coding of problems for an electronic computing instrument, part II volume 3," IAS research report, 1948 (reprinted in John von Neumann collected works, ed. A. H. Taub, Macmillan, 1963). The concept was indeed discussed in greater length three years later but did not originate in Wilkes, Wheeler, and Gill, The preparation of programs ..., Addison-Wesley, 1951. 24.4.185.41 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In the 1940s there simply are no other publications about electronic computers except von Neumann's. If you believe to the contrary, then please cite a specific example. An example of the von Neumann instruction set that survives pretty much unchanged to this day is the bit shift operation, which first appeared in Goldstine and von Neumann, "Planning and coding of problems for an electronic computing instrument, part II volume 2," IAS research report, 1947 (reprinted in John von Neumann collected works, ed. A. H. Taub, Macmillan, 1963). 24.4.185.41 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"In the 1940s it was still unusual for an academic to obtain large sums of money from the federal government for speculative research."—That depends on what you mean by "speculative". Certainly the Moore School was securing large grants for research (on radar, on mine detection, for the ENIAC, etc.) throughout WWII, and war-related research was big business for academia in those days. I'm not sure work on the IAS machines could be characterized as "speculative" inasmuch as the principles of electronic computing had been well-established and disseminated by 1946.

It's the word "random" that makes your assertion about von Neumann's contribution to memories correct. The rewritable, refreshable memories conceived by Atanasoff and the ENIAC group were serial access; the use of a cathode ray tube for random access is very possibly (though not definitively) attributable to von Neumann. (To my knowledge, no one else ever claimed it; such was not the case for the stored-program concept.) Incidentally, I didn't find the use of the word "memory" in either the Mauchly-Atanasoff correspondence or the Eckert magnetic calculator disclosure. That said, it would take a more thorough search, or the same pronouncement made by a published authority, to convince me that the original instance of the word "memory" as applied to computers occurs in the First Draft.

"In the 1940s there simply are no other publications about electronic computers except von Neumann's. If you believe to the contrary, then please cite a specific example."—The Moore School Lectures, given in 1946, were published in 1949.

By the way, please do not break up the comments of others by interspersing them with your replies. When paragraphs are left unsigned, it makes it difficult to tell who said what. Robert K S (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John von Neumann/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lead needs expansion (and less dense linking). Issues of sources need addressing. Geometry guy 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)