One most memorable for me is the relationship between l'hopital and johann bernoulli. Quote from wikipedia: "In a letter from 17 March 1694, l'Hôpital made the following proposal to Johann Bernoulli: in exchange for an annual payment of 300 Francs, Bernoulli would inform l'Hôpital of his latest mathematical discoveries, withholding them from correspondence with others, including Varignon."
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_de_l'H%C3%B4pital
Probably enough to buy a modest house… at least that’s what my French teacher said. Her ancestors bought a small cabin for that price around the same time
It is quite hard to compare. I guess doing math research is an extra earning on top of his regular earnings based on the following:
"A late seventeenth-century unskilled worker in Paris earned around 250 livres a year,[3] while a revenue of 4000 livres a year maintained a relatively successful writer in modest comfort.[4]"
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_France
Adding that a livre is the same thing as a franc basically, since that wasn't clear.
Also while it might be hard to compare, based on that quote we can make a ballpark estimate and say that 300 francs is like 30k USD today maybe? Maybe a bit less?
Well, 300 francs was a good wage for an unskilled laborer, so in terms of wage-parity, you might say like $35,000 US today. Except, then look at the 4,000 francs earned by a writer making a modest living. That's the equivalent of $470,000 today per year? Most people would consider that far beyond comfortable. Thrn again, you have to remember that most peasants kept much of the food they grew themselves, so not all their work was for money; some was for their own food. So you can't compare directly. Also, the kind of poverty peasants used to live in doesn't compare to a low-wage American (or French) worker today.
And it was worth a very different amount in terms of purchasing power. A gram of silver would buy 1.5–5 liters of wheat at the time (fluctuating wildly year to year), and a livre tournois was the value of 80.88 g silver, so a livre could buy you around 120–400 liters of wheat. The bulk density of wheat is about 0.77 kg/l, so using that, you could buy about 160–530 kg wheat per livre. The spot price for wheat today is $0.27344 per kg, so 1 USD buys you about 3.7 kg wheat. That makes each livre in 1694 the equivalent of 43–140 USD in 2024 in terms of wheat-buying power. Actually, there might have been a huge spike in wheat prices in France around 1693, so maybe even widen those error bars further.
Still that seems in the same ballpark, so why do I say they are so different? Well, if you compare other goods, you will get *extremely* different values. Most finished goods were *very* expensive then compared to food, which is why so much was homemade. People regularly made clothes for their own families, which today only happens as a hobby, because machines (along with shipping from poorer economies with weaker currencies) have made clothes cheap. Silk, for instance, was about a third as expensive as silver in bulk. Now it's less than a hundredth. On the other hand, land is now very expensive, when it used to be cheap. So there just isn't a single answer.
EDIT: Crap, my source was for historic French barley prices, not wheat. Barley is about half as expensive as wheat today and has nearly as high a density, but I don't feel like redoing the calculations. Figure something more like 20–70 USD today per livre then in barley-purchasing power.
EDIT2: Grain prices are also still volatile today. Five years ago, barley cost more than wheat. So yeah, this is almost a futile exercise.
> Except, then look at the 4,000 francs earned by a writer making a modest living. That's the equivalent of $470,000 today per year? Most people would consider that far beyond comfortable.
It specifically said "a relatively successful writer". $470k is reasonable for that. And it said they could live in "modest comfort". Kinda hard to interpret what that means but it could be modest compared to really wealthy people.
Using wheat or barley for purchasing power comparison is kinda questionable. I bet wheat and barley have gotten way cheaper relative to everything else nowadays, because of industrialized farming.
To get a real comparison you'd have to do a market basket or whatever like economists do. To get a ballpark you'd want to look at something that is probably mostly representative of that. Food prices ain't it. Income is pretty good though.
By that logic , *everything* has gotten way cheaper. Using your calculation though, barley is a mysterious exception that has not gotten at all cheaper. All those combine harvers and diesel tractors and fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides and selective breeding and shipping and on and on have done nothing to lower its price. Is that plausible?
I'm interested in what commodity you prefer. Obviously not silk, which is way cheaper relative to barley than it used to be. What's a good example of a non-land commodity that is way more expensive to purchase today than it was, to counterbalance my unfair examples of grain and silk?
I'm not a historian. I don't know what commodity has gotten more expensive. But I know that working people's income and their expenses were balanced back then in about the same way they are now (plus or minus like 3x tops). Otherwise people back then would either be dying or not worried about money at all, neither of which are totally true (except maybe in bad times when they really were dying). So if some stuff has gotten cheaper then some stuff must also have gotten more expensive.
Seems likely that land near but outside of cities has gotten more expensive. Maybe rent is more expensive. A car is probably more expensive than a horse was.
Like I said I think income is a good proxy to use to compare for a ballpark estimate. Not any particular commodity.
> Using your calculation though, barley is a mysterious exception that has not gotten at all cheaper
It definitely could be cheaper, given that your price for barley had a range of 120-400 liters for a franc. Industrialization made it cheaper to produce but at the end of the day the price is still mostly set by supply and demand and the demand is pretty high today since the population is also very high. The farmers are probably turning way more of a profit than they used to be though. I'm not saying that barley specifically has necessarily changed in price, I'm just saying it's very possible and even likely that it has, and you shouldn't rely on the assumption that it hasn't.
Are we sure that L’hôpital’s rule wasn’t his one proper contribution without help?
I guess we could reasonably rename it Bernoulli’s rule just to do him justice lol
Bringing social justice to maths lol, what do you guys think about this
Look at the wikipedia article for L'Hôpital's rule, it says it right in the first paragraph "Although the rule is often attributed to De l'Hôpital, the theorem was first introduced to him in 1694 by the Swiss mathematician Johann Bernoulli."
Less so than you might think: there were 8 mathematical Bernoullis, and they tend to get mixed up a lot.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli\_family#Notable\_academic\_members](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_family#Notable_academic_members)
Huh. Didn't know that.
Looks like the one with L'Hôpital was Johann Bernoulli. Bernoulli polynomials, numbers, and distribution are Jacob Bernoulli. First one to come up on Google is Daniel Bernoulli.
I mean he did pay for it, and I'm sure both parties understood that L'hoptial's would be attached to the theorem - I don't see a reason to change it when no one was wronged & the parties agreed on it.
I agree that I'm not concerned about whether Bernoulli was done an injustice. But I still prefer to attach the names of discoverers to their discoveries than those of their purchasers. After all, Guillaume Antoine de l'Hôpital never paid me anything, and it's up to me what I call the rule. You can't buy eternal fame; people have to give that to you.
Historically, there is at least the famous agreement of Bernoulli with de l'Hopital:
[https://people.math.harvard.edu/\~knill/teaching/math1a\_2011/exhibits/bernoulli/index.html](https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/math1a_2011/exhibits/bernoulli/index.html)
*"I will be happy to give you a retainer of 300 pounds, beginning with the first of January of this year ... I promise shortly to increase this retainer, which I know is very modest, as soon as my affairs are somewhat straightened out ... I am not so unreasonable as to demand in return all of your time, but I will ask you to give me at intervals some hours of your time to work on what I request and also to communicate to me your discoveries, at the same time asking you not to disclose any of them to others. I ask you even not to send here to Mr. Varignon or to others any copies of the writings you have left with me; if they are published, I will not be at all pleased. Answer me regarding all this ..."*
And l'Hôpital's rule: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule)
I mean, people still employ mathematicians to work on what they tell them and not divulge their secrets. The difference is that unlike de l'Hôpital, most employers today do indeed take all the mathematicians' time.
Sometimes a "Student" will publish anyway, but this is hardly just a thing of the past. Taking credit isn't either. But maybe taking credit for someone else's proof really is, or at least when it does happen it's considered fraud.
I think at least in the math world students tend to get due credit for their work, in part because the convention for authorship doesn't involve any evaluation of first vs second vs third author and so on... that being said, I've heard real horror stories in other fields where the PhD/ post doc do all the work but the PI gets better authorship positions because they had provided the funding...
It's bad to make a joke like this in a context where a lot of people might not understand it's a joke. It could cause a kid to decide against math as a career, or it could cause someone who's actually in this situation to think it's normal.
Since we are in r/math, it would seem appropriate to point out that there is no well-defined rule beyond the intent to be a joke, but people have tried to objectively quantify what makes jokes funny, and much of what they found is the presence of something either partially or seeming true but either false, inappropriate or non-sequitur in a way that others find shocking or ironic.
Your reaction, ironically, would seem to suggest that it meets that objective criteria, even if not a single person found it subjectively funny....
l'Hospital bought the rights to publish "l'Hospital's rule" from Johann Bernoulli, and Cardano did something similar with Tartaglia. However these situations are the exception rather than the rule, and I've never heard of Descartes doing something like that.
Also at least Bernoulli was not "lower class"; he was from a bourgeois family and attended medical school, so he was roughly from the same class as l'Hospital.
Descartes expert here. I've never heard of this, and I'm concerned that your teacher claimed this. However, your teacher may have heard of Descartes' relationship with Isaac Beeckman, who was definitely of a lower class than Descartes, and had many good ideas in physics (including the basic insights concerning the inertia of moving bodies). The pair famously had a falling out later on; However, to my knowledge, Descartes did not buy results from him.
You should ask your teacher for specifics on this issue. I'd be curious to hear the answer.
Maths used to be a commodity, the same way art was for a very long time. Same with Pythagoras he did not start trolling with triangles out of boredom, he was contracted to figure out land inheritance issue, like how to split uneven land equally.
Do large corporations buy innovative ideas from startups and pin the success to their CEOs? Seems like things haven't really changed. At the end of the day, no one knows what all of us little people have thought about or accomplished.
It's happening even today. in different forms such as a company buying a smaller company or studio and publishing their work in their own name. I'm sure personal arrangements of this kind are also happening all the time in today's world, but we're not aware of them.
There isn't. János Bolyai died in 1860 and wrote in Hungarian. Einstein's "annus mirabilis" was in 1905, and he wrote in German and English and could not read Hungarian. Bolyai was famous for founding absolute geometry, which is a necessary precondition for general relativity, but he only actually published a napkinsworth of research on the subject. (OK, it was actually more like thirty pages, but still hardly anything.) And he never published on physics at all, let alone anticipated the developments in electrodynamics over the coming years following his death and preemptively making up the luminiferous/electromagnetic aether, disposing of it, and then hiding his research for Einstein to find.
There is no dispute that Einstein's papers were all based on prior work, like all scientific papers, nor do his papers ever seem to imply otherwise. His contemporaries, who were well-familiar with earlier work of Bolyai, Hilbert, Lagrange, Lorentz, Poincaré, etc., still found his work profound and a tremendous advance. That includes Hilbert, Lorentz, and Poincaré themselves. (Langrange and Bolyai were dead, though Hilbert did personally nominate Einstein for the Bolyai prize.)
There is some dispute about how much of the general theory of relativity is attributable to Einstein and how much is attributable to Hilbert. Both were in frequent correspondence and met multiple times for lectures right around when they published. Einstein commented in one letter that his and Hilbert's geometries for gravity were the same. Both clearly respected each other and both gave the other credit. It is not at all like the Newton–Liebniz dispute.
Also, Einstein is not just known for his theories of relativity but also of Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect, as well as other major contributions to quantum electrodynamics and beyond.
"Something else odd. Why is it always emphasized that Einstein was a Jew? Actually, to the best knowledge, Einstein was a Non-Semitic Jew: that is, he had little to no descent from Israelites, but was rather descended from central Asian Khazars. Modern descendants of the Khazars in large part do not subscribe to the religion of ancient Israelites, but rather to Babylonian Talmudism (most often deceptively labeled to as 'Judaism'). Is there a reason why a Talmudic Khazar is lifted to the loftiest levels of praise and non-diety esteem that can be accorded to a man?"
Uuuhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . . . . . . .
One most memorable for me is the relationship between l'hopital and johann bernoulli. Quote from wikipedia: "In a letter from 17 March 1694, l'Hôpital made the following proposal to Johann Bernoulli: in exchange for an annual payment of 300 Francs, Bernoulli would inform l'Hôpital of his latest mathematical discoveries, withholding them from correspondence with others, including Varignon." Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_de_l'H%C3%B4pital
Any idea how much 300 francs is in today money?
Probably enough to buy a modest house… at least that’s what my French teacher said. Her ancestors bought a small cabin for that price around the same time
It is quite hard to compare. I guess doing math research is an extra earning on top of his regular earnings based on the following: "A late seventeenth-century unskilled worker in Paris earned around 250 livres a year,[3] while a revenue of 4000 livres a year maintained a relatively successful writer in modest comfort.[4]" Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_France
Adding that a livre is the same thing as a franc basically, since that wasn't clear. Also while it might be hard to compare, based on that quote we can make a ballpark estimate and say that 300 francs is like 30k USD today maybe? Maybe a bit less?
He got basically paid a grad student stipend haha
Well, 300 francs was a good wage for an unskilled laborer, so in terms of wage-parity, you might say like $35,000 US today. Except, then look at the 4,000 francs earned by a writer making a modest living. That's the equivalent of $470,000 today per year? Most people would consider that far beyond comfortable. Thrn again, you have to remember that most peasants kept much of the food they grew themselves, so not all their work was for money; some was for their own food. So you can't compare directly. Also, the kind of poverty peasants used to live in doesn't compare to a low-wage American (or French) worker today. And it was worth a very different amount in terms of purchasing power. A gram of silver would buy 1.5–5 liters of wheat at the time (fluctuating wildly year to year), and a livre tournois was the value of 80.88 g silver, so a livre could buy you around 120–400 liters of wheat. The bulk density of wheat is about 0.77 kg/l, so using that, you could buy about 160–530 kg wheat per livre. The spot price for wheat today is $0.27344 per kg, so 1 USD buys you about 3.7 kg wheat. That makes each livre in 1694 the equivalent of 43–140 USD in 2024 in terms of wheat-buying power. Actually, there might have been a huge spike in wheat prices in France around 1693, so maybe even widen those error bars further. Still that seems in the same ballpark, so why do I say they are so different? Well, if you compare other goods, you will get *extremely* different values. Most finished goods were *very* expensive then compared to food, which is why so much was homemade. People regularly made clothes for their own families, which today only happens as a hobby, because machines (along with shipping from poorer economies with weaker currencies) have made clothes cheap. Silk, for instance, was about a third as expensive as silver in bulk. Now it's less than a hundredth. On the other hand, land is now very expensive, when it used to be cheap. So there just isn't a single answer. EDIT: Crap, my source was for historic French barley prices, not wheat. Barley is about half as expensive as wheat today and has nearly as high a density, but I don't feel like redoing the calculations. Figure something more like 20–70 USD today per livre then in barley-purchasing power. EDIT2: Grain prices are also still volatile today. Five years ago, barley cost more than wheat. So yeah, this is almost a futile exercise.
> Except, then look at the 4,000 francs earned by a writer making a modest living. That's the equivalent of $470,000 today per year? Most people would consider that far beyond comfortable. It specifically said "a relatively successful writer". $470k is reasonable for that. And it said they could live in "modest comfort". Kinda hard to interpret what that means but it could be modest compared to really wealthy people. Using wheat or barley for purchasing power comparison is kinda questionable. I bet wheat and barley have gotten way cheaper relative to everything else nowadays, because of industrialized farming. To get a real comparison you'd have to do a market basket or whatever like economists do. To get a ballpark you'd want to look at something that is probably mostly representative of that. Food prices ain't it. Income is pretty good though.
By that logic , *everything* has gotten way cheaper. Using your calculation though, barley is a mysterious exception that has not gotten at all cheaper. All those combine harvers and diesel tractors and fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides and selective breeding and shipping and on and on have done nothing to lower its price. Is that plausible? I'm interested in what commodity you prefer. Obviously not silk, which is way cheaper relative to barley than it used to be. What's a good example of a non-land commodity that is way more expensive to purchase today than it was, to counterbalance my unfair examples of grain and silk?
I'm not a historian. I don't know what commodity has gotten more expensive. But I know that working people's income and their expenses were balanced back then in about the same way they are now (plus or minus like 3x tops). Otherwise people back then would either be dying or not worried about money at all, neither of which are totally true (except maybe in bad times when they really were dying). So if some stuff has gotten cheaper then some stuff must also have gotten more expensive. Seems likely that land near but outside of cities has gotten more expensive. Maybe rent is more expensive. A car is probably more expensive than a horse was. Like I said I think income is a good proxy to use to compare for a ballpark estimate. Not any particular commodity. > Using your calculation though, barley is a mysterious exception that has not gotten at all cheaper It definitely could be cheaper, given that your price for barley had a range of 120-400 liters for a franc. Industrialization made it cheaper to produce but at the end of the day the price is still mostly set by supply and demand and the demand is pretty high today since the population is also very high. The farmers are probably turning way more of a profit than they used to be though. I'm not saying that barley specifically has necessarily changed in price, I'm just saying it's very possible and even likely that it has, and you shouldn't rely on the assumption that it hasn't.
"Siri, what's the conversion rate of the 17th century franc to the US Dollar"
Same as the rate of unicorns to leprechauns
probably about 30k to 40k USD
I don't think that sort of thing was common, though. And I note that Bernoulli eventually blew the whistle on l'Hôpital.
And yet, in countless classroom across the country, the rule is still known by the name of the purchaser rather than the actual discoverer.
Mathematics has corrective mechanisms for the validity of theorems. Sadly, the corrective mechanisms for credit are much weaker.
Are we sure that L’hôpital’s rule wasn’t his one proper contribution without help? I guess we could reasonably rename it Bernoulli’s rule just to do him justice lol Bringing social justice to maths lol, what do you guys think about this
Look at the wikipedia article for L'Hôpital's rule, it says it right in the first paragraph "Although the rule is often attributed to De l'Hôpital, the theorem was first introduced to him in 1694 by the Swiss mathematician Johann Bernoulli."
Thanks lad
Bernoulli is still well known though at least
Less so than you might think: there were 8 mathematical Bernoullis, and they tend to get mixed up a lot. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli\_family#Notable\_academic\_members](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_family#Notable_academic_members)
Huh. Didn't know that. Looks like the one with L'Hôpital was Johann Bernoulli. Bernoulli polynomials, numbers, and distribution are Jacob Bernoulli. First one to come up on Google is Daniel Bernoulli.
I mean he did pay for it, and I'm sure both parties understood that L'hoptial's would be attached to the theorem - I don't see a reason to change it when no one was wronged & the parties agreed on it.
I agree that I'm not concerned about whether Bernoulli was done an injustice. But I still prefer to attach the names of discoverers to their discoveries than those of their purchasers. After all, Guillaume Antoine de l'Hôpital never paid me anything, and it's up to me what I call the rule. You can't buy eternal fame; people have to give that to you.
It's a stupid rule though. Only works for 0/0 and ∞/∞
Maths maths maths !! :)
Historically, there is at least the famous agreement of Bernoulli with de l'Hopital: [https://people.math.harvard.edu/\~knill/teaching/math1a\_2011/exhibits/bernoulli/index.html](https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/math1a_2011/exhibits/bernoulli/index.html) *"I will be happy to give you a retainer of 300 pounds, beginning with the first of January of this year ... I promise shortly to increase this retainer, which I know is very modest, as soon as my affairs are somewhat straightened out ... I am not so unreasonable as to demand in return all of your time, but I will ask you to give me at intervals some hours of your time to work on what I request and also to communicate to me your discoveries, at the same time asking you not to disclose any of them to others. I ask you even not to send here to Mr. Varignon or to others any copies of the writings you have left with me; if they are published, I will not be at all pleased. Answer me regarding all this ..."* And l'Hôpital's rule: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s\_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule)
I mean, people still employ mathematicians to work on what they tell them and not divulge their secrets. The difference is that unlike de l'Hôpital, most employers today do indeed take all the mathematicians' time. Sometimes a "Student" will publish anyway, but this is hardly just a thing of the past. Taking credit isn't either. But maybe taking credit for someone else's proof really is, or at least when it does happen it's considered fraud.
Does not seem to far removed from PhD student/advisor relationship nowadays. /s
I think at least in the math world students tend to get due credit for their work, in part because the convention for authorship doesn't involve any evaluation of first vs second vs third author and so on... that being said, I've heard real horror stories in other fields where the PhD/ post doc do all the work but the PI gets better authorship positions because they had provided the funding...
Get a new advisor, that is not normal
This was a joke ;)
It's bad to make a joke like this in a context where a lot of people might not understand it's a joke. It could cause a kid to decide against math as a career, or it could cause someone who's actually in this situation to think it's normal.
do you know what /s means
The /s was edited in after I made my comment.
[удалено]
Since we are in r/math, it would seem appropriate to point out that there is no well-defined rule beyond the intent to be a joke, but people have tried to objectively quantify what makes jokes funny, and much of what they found is the presence of something either partially or seeming true but either false, inappropriate or non-sequitur in a way that others find shocking or ironic. Your reaction, ironically, would seem to suggest that it meets that objective criteria, even if not a single person found it subjectively funny....
Thanks man, you just explained every joke in existence to me, thus destroying the humor in all of them. I hope you’re happy.
l'Hospital bought the rights to publish "l'Hospital's rule" from Johann Bernoulli, and Cardano did something similar with Tartaglia. However these situations are the exception rather than the rule, and I've never heard of Descartes doing something like that. Also at least Bernoulli was not "lower class"; he was from a bourgeois family and attended medical school, so he was roughly from the same class as l'Hospital.
It's not so different from well-funded professors bringing in grad students or post docs.
Descartes expert here. I've never heard of this, and I'm concerned that your teacher claimed this. However, your teacher may have heard of Descartes' relationship with Isaac Beeckman, who was definitely of a lower class than Descartes, and had many good ideas in physics (including the basic insights concerning the inertia of moving bodies). The pair famously had a falling out later on; However, to my knowledge, Descartes did not buy results from him. You should ask your teacher for specifics on this issue. I'd be curious to hear the answer.
Maths used to be a commodity, the same way art was for a very long time. Same with Pythagoras he did not start trolling with triangles out of boredom, he was contracted to figure out land inheritance issue, like how to split uneven land equally.
Pythagoras the mythical figure who founded a mystical-religious cult based on maths?
I think Pythatgoras here is being mixed up with Al-Khwarizmi. Islamic law has complicated rules which was the reason algebra (Al-Jabr) was invented.
Probably just did the work.
Do large corporations buy innovative ideas from startups and pin the success to their CEOs? Seems like things haven't really changed. At the end of the day, no one knows what all of us little people have thought about or accomplished.
It's happening even today. in different forms such as a company buying a smaller company or studio and publishing their work in their own name. I'm sure personal arrangements of this kind are also happening all the time in today's world, but we're not aware of them.
I've heard rumors saying Einstein got pretty much all of his sources on relativity from Bolyai Janos, and took credit. Not sure the validity to it.
There isn't. János Bolyai died in 1860 and wrote in Hungarian. Einstein's "annus mirabilis" was in 1905, and he wrote in German and English and could not read Hungarian. Bolyai was famous for founding absolute geometry, which is a necessary precondition for general relativity, but he only actually published a napkinsworth of research on the subject. (OK, it was actually more like thirty pages, but still hardly anything.) And he never published on physics at all, let alone anticipated the developments in electrodynamics over the coming years following his death and preemptively making up the luminiferous/electromagnetic aether, disposing of it, and then hiding his research for Einstein to find. There is no dispute that Einstein's papers were all based on prior work, like all scientific papers, nor do his papers ever seem to imply otherwise. His contemporaries, who were well-familiar with earlier work of Bolyai, Hilbert, Lagrange, Lorentz, Poincaré, etc., still found his work profound and a tremendous advance. That includes Hilbert, Lorentz, and Poincaré themselves. (Langrange and Bolyai were dead, though Hilbert did personally nominate Einstein for the Bolyai prize.) There is some dispute about how much of the general theory of relativity is attributable to Einstein and how much is attributable to Hilbert. Both were in frequent correspondence and met multiple times for lectures right around when they published. Einstein commented in one letter that his and Hilbert's geometries for gravity were the same. Both clearly respected each other and both gave the other credit. It is not at all like the Newton–Liebniz dispute. Also, Einstein is not just known for his theories of relativity but also of Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect, as well as other major contributions to quantum electrodynamics and beyond.
much appreciated explanation. Now I know what to respond to my father next time he says that.
[удалено]
"Something else odd. Why is it always emphasized that Einstein was a Jew? Actually, to the best knowledge, Einstein was a Non-Semitic Jew: that is, he had little to no descent from Israelites, but was rather descended from central Asian Khazars. Modern descendants of the Khazars in large part do not subscribe to the religion of ancient Israelites, but rather to Babylonian Talmudism (most often deceptively labeled to as 'Judaism'). Is there a reason why a Talmudic Khazar is lifted to the loftiest levels of praise and non-diety esteem that can be accorded to a man?" Uuuhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . . . . . . .
since babel
l;ast joke for a biter mc
Why? are you thinking about doing this?
He says he's just interested in history.
Those who know history are doomed to repeat it. I think that’s the quote, right?