Talk:Joseph-Louis Lagrange/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

comments

lagrange did some crazy math problems ". It was Lagrange who developed the Mean Value Theorem. "

I don't like this in the first paragraph. It makes it look as if the mean value theorem was his most important work. Can it pleased be moved lower down in the article ? Theresa knott 14:33 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is a work in progress. Everything but the first paragraph is cut and pasted. If you know of something LaGrange did, then add it in. Also, some argue that the MTV is the most important theorem in calculus. Pizza Puzzle

Can you tell me why you keep in spelling his name LaGrange, rather than Lagrange? See this search http://www.google.com/search?q=lagrange%20site%3A.fr for how the French spell it (and they should know) and this one http://www.google.com/search?q=mathematician+lagrange for the mathematician. Notice how all of the few mis-spellings are on U.S. sites, but the consensus on both sides of the Atlantic by a large margin is "Lagrange". -- The Anome

According to the MacTutor article, he sometimes signed his name Lodovico LaGrange, in his youth. So it's not really a misspelling as such, although obviously we shouldn't use it. --Zundark 10:40, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

2 years later... I am reading the book Disquisitiones Arithmeticae and Gauss spells 'La Grange' and 'La Place', but it's the only place I have seen them spelled this way. -ReiVaX 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I was watching Star Hunter and they mentioned Lagrange points. Something about orbiting planets. ??? -gbleem

See Lagrangian point. (This was hard to find from the article, so I'll add it as a see-also.) --Zundark 10:40, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Number Theory at risk

I wonder what makes The theory of numbers neglected (in "the neglected but singularly fascinating subject of the theory of numbers").

"Considered the greatest mathematician of the 18th century..." What about Euler? It has to be a close call anyway. And who is doing this considering?

Actually I'd say that the theory of numbers is not neglected. The Riemann hypothesis, for example, has had a huge amount of work done on it. And I agree, Euler was probably the most important mathematician in the 18th century, and one of the most influental ones ever. --Ignignot 18:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

24.253.120.206

A user at 24.253.120.206 has been performing many edits recently, which have been largely to restructure the article and add links. If you are performing so many edits, would you mind both signing in, and using the preview button more? --Ignignot 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

M.A.T.H (Mathmaticians and Their History)

Surely the above text is superfluous? Tricky 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Isoperimetrical problem

Although Lagrange contributed to a solution of the tautochrone problem, the problem referenced in the article is intended to be the isoperimetrical problem. In fact, the biography is entirely based on `A Short Account of the History of Mathematics' (4th edition, 1908) by W. W. Rouse Ball. --68.224.247.234 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lagrange indeed solved the isoperimetrical problem. The citation for this is already provided — refer to `A Short Account of the History of Mathematics' (4th edition, 1908) by W. W. Rouse Ball, which is listed in the references. --68.224.247.234 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, so the isoperimetrical problem article needs to be updated to remove the claim that Jakob Steiner solved it, right? Does the book you mention give a reference to a paper that Legrange published? Primary sources are always nicer to have. I guess I'm concerned that some of these old books just repeat incorrect information and/or represent national biases about who should be credited. Wrs1864 23:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cut Paste

Middle section is from here: http://lagrange-bio.net/stuff.html I do not know about the copyright of the page Nzv8fan 03:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Greatest of C18?

"... arguably the greatest mathematician of the 18th Century"!? is anyone forgetting Euler? is there really argument about this? -Storkk 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

People seem to be agreeing with me (3/3 in talk page) that there's not much argument that Euler was the greatest of the 18th C. I've waited a while for any dissenting opinions, so i'll now try to restructure it. --Storkk 15:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this claim is From `A Short Account of the History of Mathematics' (4th edition, 1908) by W. W. Rouse Ball, the source for nearly the entire article. I also have other references that support this claim. In fact, Euler was considered and, thus, the word "arguably" was inserted in contrast to the references aforementioned. --68.224.247.234 22:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly was User:Storkk has just said. --Taraborn 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I sort of knew that this article had been in less than ideal shape, but it was only after incorrect claims from it started to penetrate other articles in Wikipedia that I was forced to act. Just a word of caution: as everyone must realize, Rouse Ball was a popular writer, not a professional mathematician or historian of science. Morever, his account of Lagrange's life seems to be highly emotionalized and exaggerated (perhaps, ironically, given that Lagrange himself was reputed to be rather reticent). Anyway, I have initiated a big clean-up project by removing the most egregious claims and irrelevant gossip and focussing more on the scientific contributions. Arcfrk (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lagrange Multipliers

On p. 149 in A history of analysis, by Hans Niels Jahnke, it is implied that Lagrange formulated his method in a publication of 1788, not of 1804 as the article now states. It seems that would make it some of his Work in Berlin, rather than France. I'll try to revisit this when I have some time, but that may take a couple years. Charles Moss (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! If you have the exact quote, why don't you add it to the article now, together with the reference? The current passage is a leftover from Rouse Ball, and I wouldn't trust any claim that he made. Arcfrk (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On second reading, what's stated in the article now may not be incorrect. Perhaps Lagrange did first formulate this method in the context of problems of variational calculus with integral constraints in his publication of 1804. The bit I'll trying to work into the article is the following.

Lagrange presented a way of making this elimination [of variables which depend on other variables] easier in the Méchanique analitique. This device is now known as the method of Lagrange multipliers (Lagrange 1788, 44–58 and 225–232).

— Hans Niels Jahnke, A history of analysis (p. 149)

Charles Moss (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ack! The next paragraph states

The Lagrangian equation of motion and the method of Lagrange multipliers are important contributions to theoretical mechanics. However, they appear in both the 1780 memoir on the libration of the moon and in the Méchanique analitique as tools to make possible an application of the quasi-algebraic method of undetermined coefficients to the general equation expressing the principle of virtual velocities, in order to deduce from it the equations of motion for any system of bodies.

— Hans Niels Jahnke, A history of analysis (p. 149)

so it seems that even as early as 1780 the method of Lagrange multipliers was published. Charles Moss (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Prizes and distinctions

I would like to see explicit links to the works which won each Prize and mention of any sharing. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

References - Giuseppe Luigi Lagrangia

• [1] Encyclopedia of Space and Astronomy.
• [2] The Facts on File Space and Astronomy Handbook.
• [3] The Grip of Gravity: The Quest to Understand the Laws of Motion And Gravitation.
• [4] Analisi matematica. Dal calcolo all'analisi.
  "Il simbolo f fu introdotto da Joseph Louis Lagrange (nato Giuseppe Luigi Lagrangia a Torino nel 1736...)"
• [5] Solar Sails: A Novel Approach to Interplanetary Travel.
  "Italian mathematician Giuseppe-Luigi Lagrangia (who worked in France for 27 years) discovered that there exist regions in space where the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Earth mostly cancel each other out..."

The list is endless... --Aries no Mur (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your list can be endless, but contains no biography of the scientist, only scientific handbooks. The version "Lagrancia" comes from the "Enciclopedia Italiana" and is written by Luigi Pepe, who is the main Italian biographer of Lagrange. That said, you cannot simply take away a referenced information from Wikipedia without discussing it on the talk page and adding another reliable source (after the discussion). Doing that is simply not allowed, and takes you straight to an administrator and possibly to WP:AN3, the end of the whole story being most probably an edit block. Now, I propose to write the two Italian versions, each with a reliable reference. You should find for "Lagrangia" one which is possibly not a mathematics or physics handbook. Alex2006 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The two forms of the name :

Giuseppe Luigi Lagrangia [6]

Giuseppe Luigi "Lagrancia" [7]

"White paper" (I disagree with you). Greetings --Aries no Mur (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Earnestly speaking, I heard Lagrancia for the first time when I was reading the article of Pepe. :-) The problem is that an encyclopedia must be based upon the sources, and we have to use them also when they don't coincide with our belief or knowledge. A last word about Lagrange "Italian" name(s): I strongly suspect that both versions have been Italian "inventions" of the nationalistic - fascist period. Although he was without any doubt Italian, his family was of French origin, and in Piedmont of the 18th century (basically a bilingual italian-french society) there was no reason or need to italianize his family name. But only his baptism certificate could answer this question. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (Edit )

Ok. Greetings --Aries no Mur (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Article currently has "(often known as Giuseppe Luigi Lagrangia in the scientific literature) [2]", in which [2] refers to "Encyclopedia of Space and Astronomy.". Often in the Italian literature, perhaps; but this is English Wikipedia, and the form is not used in English scientific literature. The author of [2] has manifestly not read/understood Lagrange's "Essai sur le Problème des Trois Corps", so he should not be trusted on other matters, and the article should not cite [2]. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference currently shown as [5] here is said to say "there exist regions in space where the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Earth mostly cancel each other out", which in context is rubbish. Whoever wrote that is not to be trusted. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Lagrange or Lagrangian Points

Lagrange did not discover the Lagrange Points; my authority for that statement is his "Essai sur le Problème des Trois Corps", which is the only thing in the "OEuvres Complets" (at Gallica) that deals with the situation. Those who want to write about Lagrange's work should first read and understand Lagrange's work.

The aim of the "Essai" was to win the 1772 Prize on the Theory of the Moon, whch means the deviations of the Moon's position from an elliptical orbit around the Earth.

Lagrange did, in a subsidiary Chapter of the "Essai", discover the two constant-pattern solutions of the general three-body problem. From that to the Points is a trivial step; but it is a step which Lagrange did not take. The Points are rightly named in his honour, since his work explains them. When objects at Sun-Jupiter L4/L5 were discovered in the early 20th century, it should rapidly have been realised that Lagrange had provided a ready-to-hand explanation. It would be of interest to know who first named the Points, and when.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Founders of Classical Mechanics: Joseph Louis Lagrange

"The Founders of Classical Mechanics: Joseph Louis Lagrange" links to '404 not found'. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

hyphen

Should his name be "Joseph-Louis" or "Joseph Louis"? The article title has no hyphen but the lede uses the hyphen. If there's an inconsistency, it should be stated as such in the article. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters. —GoldRingChip 01:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither nor. His name was Giuseppe Luigi Lagrange (please look here). He was Italian, his grand- grand father came from France. Alex2006 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Gallica-Math: Œuvres complètes, Tome 14, page 286, letter from Lagrange on 1765-03-30 should be considered definitive for what Lagrange wanted then to be called. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k229949x/f298, "Joseph-Louis Lagrange". He had long ago abandoned Italian forms, and had stopped including "de" at or before the Revolution - "de" may have reappeared when he eventually became a Count. Moreover, "Joseph-Louis Lagrange" seems to be the most common form in reputable use. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, I read 1795-03-30. Or are you talking about another letter? Alex2006 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"... while Euler is there"

"It seems to me that Berlin would not be at all suitable for me while M.Euler is there."

This quote is a little puzzling, especially in view of all the support that Euler had given him: Was the idea that Lagrange was being modest and claiming that he didn't deserve to be in the same city as the esteemed Euler? Or was it due to competitiveness or personal discord? Either the quote should be lengthened or some more context should be given. The fact that no reference for the quote is currently given aggravates the situation. - AlanUS (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidental

Someone want to tell me what relevance his eye color and height are to his life? Or that "Due to thorough preparation, he was usually able to write out his papers complete without a single crossing-out or correction."? The "incidental" section is a pure WP:TRIVIA section, and should not be there at all. None of it seems relevant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you expect a serious discussion on the matter if you remove the section from the article? It is your personal opinion that the "incidental" section should be removed. Others might think differently (as did the referenced authors cited in the section). Please wait for a consensus. Cordially. Sapphorain (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "personal opinion", it's an editing guideline and common sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of some information: asking for other users' views

User:TenPoundHammer recently removed two pieces of information from the article, claiming it was "irrelevant trivia". These had been on the page since at least June 2011, and probably since much before that date. (I precise I didn't include them).

That this is "irrelevant trivia" is TenPoundHammer's private opinion. My opinion is different.

But once a section is deleted, one has of course to go on the history of the page to judge for oneself, and this is not very practical.

Since User:TenPoundHammer refuses to leave the items on the page until a consensus is found, I am reproducing the deleted items here.

• He was of medium height and slightly formed, with pale blue eyes and a colorless complexion. He was nervous and timid, he detested controversy, and, to avoid it, willingly allowed others to take credit for what he had done himself.
• Due to thorough preparation, he was usually able to write out his papers complete without a single crossing-out or correction.

The two citations were referenced; they are excerpts from "A Short Account of the History of Mathematics" by W.W. Rouse Ball.

My opinion is that information on the physical appearance and the character of a great mathematician is not "irrelevant trivia". And that information concerning one professional ability he possessed is not either "irrelevant trivia".

I just should like to add the following. I think it is a very bad habit to unilaterally delete whole sections from a page without discussion and without asking for a consensus. It is a bad habit from a lambda wikipedia user, it is unforgettable from an experienced editor, who should know better. Sapphorain (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The WP:TRIVIA guideline (mentioned above) asserts that miscellanea should not be deleted, just that it is better integrated with the rest of the text rather than collected into a Trivia section.

The article is about Lagrange the man, not his works, and so any personal attributes are relevant.

The source, Rouse Ball, clearly thought these facts to be of sufficient note to merit mention.

I very nearly reverted this deletion immediately, but then thought I'd wait to see what others thought about it. --catslash (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not trivia at all, but useful info about Lagrange as person. Other articles, as the one about Enrico Fermi, which just reached FA status, have also similar info (see here in the box). I thinks that the info should re-added, maybe changing the paragraph title. Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph title should be changed: any suggestion? Sapphorain (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

An elegant solution would be to do like in Fermi's article: insert the citation in a box on the right. Otherwise, the title of the paragraph could be "Personality". Alex2006 (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I put the two Rouse Ball's excerpts in a box, just under "Biography".Sapphorain (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well done, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Il cognome come è scritto nell'atto battesimale

Il matematico Joseph-Louis Lagrange venne battezzato cinque giorni dopo la sua nascita nella Chiesa consacrata ai Santi : Eusebio e Filippo Neri, in Torino.

Nell’atto battesimale trascritto nei registri della Chiesa di San Filippo e attualmente depositati presso la Parrocchia di San Tommaso in via Pietro Micca, è riportato quanto segue:

Lagrangia Giuseppe Lodovico, figlio del signor Giuseppe Francesco Lodovico e di Teresa Grosso giugali Lagrangia , nato il venticinque gennaio dell’anno millesettecentotrentasei, fu battezzato il 30 gennajo seguente. Padrino fu il sig. Carlo Lagrangia e Madrina l’ill.ma contessa Anna Caterina Rebuffi di Traves

Firm. Padre Carlo Boscallis della Congregazione dell’Oratorio di S. Eusebio.

Lagrange fu chiamato “Luigi” come il suo bisavolo che nel secolo precedente (1651) aveva lasciato la Francia di Luigi XIV (mentre era reggente Anna Maria Maurizia d’Asburgo) e si era stabilito a Torino, al servizio di Carlo Emanuele II di Savoia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgvongoeden (talk • contribs) 23:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)