Talk:Gabriel Kron

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

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

There is a great deal to say here.

I wonder if anyone else is reading this tho....?

Keithbowden 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kron was a genius. I don't know why the article says "rediscovered"

though, that makes no sense. It's not really Kron's problem that computer

scientists or whoever don't read his books and papers. It's not like

they have been lost or something.

To think how much effort is being wasted by presenting relativity and other

useless psychedelic fluff as definitive applications of tensor calculus in our

universities, when we should be teaching Kron's methods. A very good

introduction to Kron can be found in Keller's Mathematics

of Modern Engineering vol 2, 1945 starting on p95. The book is

available on Internet Archive. Korkscru (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they independently discovered it again. "Rediscovered" is correct UK English for this. I don't know if they say it differently in the US. Kron certainly did not consider relativity to be "useless psychedelic fluff". It did in fact lead to the Dirac equation, antimatter and QED which is the basis of modern Physics. :-)) Keithbowden (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these requests for citations seem rather silly. Isn't it obvious that the Science of Parts and Wholes is related to solving problems by Tearing them up into subproblems? I'm not sure what kind of citation that needs. Keithbowden (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Tidied up the lede section. Added a subsection titled "Method of Tearing". Reworked the Reference section. --BwB (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history is worth digging through

Several editors have made large edits over the past several years, essentially re-writing large parts of the article in the process. It would be worthwhile to go back through and see if anything of value was lost.

It would also be worthwhile to see if the article's point of view was changed without justificaiton. While I'm sure every Wikipedia editor thinks that their own point of view is neutral, when two editors clearly write from a different point of view, the community needs to decide if the change was for the better. Did the article go from "bluntly neutral to whitewashed puffery" or did it go from "unfairly maligning to neutral"? As with any biography, the answer will depend on what the world, as a whole, has already said about this person.

I won't prejudice other editors by including a list of diffs, but when I looked, there were several "single editor runs" of edits where each run added or removed over a thousand characters. These are good places to start. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]