Talk:E. H. Moore

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Redundancy of one of Hilbert's betweenness axioms

I believe the part about E.H. Moore proving one of Hilbert's axioms was redundant is incorrect. When I studied under R.L. Moore, it was common knowledge that it was he who accomplished that. The Wikipedia article on R.L. Moore concurs:

When E. H. Moore (no relation), who headed the Department of Mathematics at the University of Chicago, and whose research interests were on the foundations of geometry, heard of Robert's feat, he arranged for a scholarship that would allow Robert to study for a doctorate at Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._L._Moore

The article on Robert Lee Moore lists a detailed obituary as a reference, which says that both Moores proved the redundancy independently of each other: [1]. I'll fix the E.H.Moore article. Since you seem especially interested in the R.L.Moore article, I would suggest that you adjust the R.L.Moore article accordingly. In particular, consider using <ref> with cite to explicitly associate statements in the article text with the appropriate references. See this article for an example. In general, please do not justify edits by "common knowledge", find and cite other sources than Wikipedia instead.

Every finite field is a Galois field

What is this supposed to mean? As far as I know, the terms "finite field" and "Galois field" are synonymous, and the link to Galois fields does not clarify this. 68.219.169.27 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)plclark[reply]

BibTex entry for general analysis

I don't have time to Wikify this, but it should be useful: @InCollection{moo10,

 title={Introduction to a Form of General Analysis},
 author={Moore, Eliakim Hastings},
 pages={1--150},
 BookTitle={The {New Haven} Colloquium},
 Note={Lectures delivered before members of the {American Mathematical Society} in connection with the summer meeting held~5--8 {S}eptember~1906},
 editor={Moore, Eliakim Hastings and Wilczynski, Ernest Julius and Mason, Max},
 year={2008 [1910]},
 publisher={American Mathematical Society},
 edition={2008 Reprinting of 1910 {New Haven: Yale University Press} (ISSN 0065-9258)},
 series={American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications},
 volume={2},

ISBN-10={0-8218-4591-8}, ISBN-13={978-0-8218-4591-2}, ISBN={0-8218-4591-8, 978-0-8218-4591-2}, }

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]