Talk:Henri Poincaré/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Toulouse's observations

I deleted the part in Toulouse's characterization where it commented on Poincaré having a brilliant memory. As brilliant as Poincaré was, it seems counter intuitive to what Poincaré has written about himself and it's the first time I've read such claim. Even with the [citation needed], I think it's deeply misleading. Bashi 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is well-known and cited by several biographers that Poincare could instantly recall ANYTHING he'd ever read. When Henri said his memory was "bad," he apparently meant his ability to remember to do important things like make a note of where he left his keys or wallet last. Kamandi 27 July 2007

Last Universalist

I was reading through the archives of the talk discussion here and an issue that hasn't been resolved yet is the mention of M. Poincaré as the "last universalist". This title is so vague as to be meaningless. Some give the title to John von Neumann (as was mentioned earlier), and others say that even Carl Gauss wasn't a "true universalist" (whatever that means) and give the title of "last universalist" to Gottfried Leibniz.

So can we refrain from making vague claims like "last universalist" and just call him a polymath? That should be enough of a title for any mathematician. --Wild rabbit 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if someone could mention at least a few Poincare's decision-failures? Just so that readers can acquire a more balanced view of his interactions in society. For example, this person was particularly short-sighted when it came to assessing his peer's work, i.e. Georg Cantor's (look it up on wikipedia), and even of a particularly brilliant pupil, Louis Bachelier. (Bernstein, 1996, p.199) This way readers are better informed to this man's skills in decision-making, and how his interests in his own success in fields of novel application may have influenced his judgement on research more relevant to the general population. -- mariabrenna

3-body problem

Hello

I just corrected an error about the 3-body or n-body problem. Poincaré did not prove that this problem cannot be solved, indeed Sundman found such a solution. Oub 10:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC):

Asymptotic expansion

The Asymptotic expansion article mentions that it is also called a Poincaré expansion. I would like to see a mention about his contribution to Asymptotic expansions. NormDor 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What religious belief did Henri Poincare have?

From his writings I would say he was agnostic or deist but cannot find a source to confirm this. Does anyone know of one? The scientist infobox has a field for religion but its been left blank. Lumos3 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If his religion is not known (or hard to research), it's not notable. Just because this #@!&$ infobox has a field for religion doesn't imply the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of scientists must be mentioned. --Pjacobi 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

His religion box now says that he was a Catholic until 1872, but it doesn't say what happened, what he became, or even cite a source. Details, please? 98.27.48.230 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Work on relativity

In line with the statement from the Mathematics Wiki project ( see top of this page) I intend to remove the majority of the section Work on relativity , which has become overlong and disproportionate, to a sepeate article entitled Henri Poincaré and relativity. I will leave a synopsis here. Any comments? Lumos3 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The relativity section is not that long given its importance. Why not just build up the mathematics sections more instead. 67.8.115.243 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

His contributions to physics are as improtant as his contributions to mathematics. However, there is a matter of maximal article length. If the mathematics sections are build up more, the article will become too long. It is OK to split a section off to its own page as long as it is briefly summarized with a clear link to the spinned off article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles

Harald88 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem of maximal article length. Einstein's article is far longer, and that does not seem to be a problem at all ! Just build up Poincaré's math section a bit, there's plenty of room. 67.8.115.243 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Height

Poincare seems to have been very short and lightly built. Exact information is hard to find. The photograph in the main article

of Poincare and Marie Curie suggests that he was shorter than she was.

Actually, they seem to about equally tall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.7.219 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Shortcomings section

This section could be a personal essay. Please supply citations to the published authors who say these things. Without them it will be deleted. Lumos3 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the citation on the page? E.g., Bernstein?

I agree with the above comment. I think this should be rewritten or retitled. The shortcomings you cite seem to be disagreements and differences of opinion. Such instances are common, but do they deserve the attention which you give to them? Cantor's work was, and still is, controversial. Is it a shortcoming of Poincare to disagree with his conclusions? I don't think so. It reflects a philosophical difference, not a shortcoming.

I agree. Since it is not a shortcomming but a counter-position. It is not a shortcoming of Poincare, instead it is a deliberate criticism that he levels against people like Cantor. Such criticism is his primary thesis, and what he warned against: the quantification of such things as economic models. (His 19th century language and heridity make the language of his criticism overly gentlemanly rather than as pointed as it needed to be for later generations.) And he was not alone in such criticism, and is not alone in this criticism today. The fact that such methods are widely used, or even that such methods have been awarded Nobel status, has little to do witht he fact that they are in fact, almost entirely erroneous in practice, incapable of prediction, and descriptive of past activity rather than of future performance. The popularity of these methods is a function of the increasing size of government and monetarism (something that requires too long an explanation for this forum) and is not in fact, a descriptoin of what people actually do in economic cooperation. Popularity is a measure of religious devotion. Not a measure of it's performance. Had Hayek bothered to debunk Keynes, an effort he did not expend, simply because he considered it an obvious error(an error in prediction on his part), since none of the originators of economic thought that it was a quantitative rather than qualitative science, we would be studying poincare, rather than keynes. Ergo, the section should be entitled "criticisms", it should list a citation, and should include some counter argument such as I state above, since it is only a criticsm, not a shortcoming, and in fact, it is demonstrable, perhaps overwhelmingly so, that such criticisms have a higher density of false content than does Poincare's position. -Curt Doolittle 11/24/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.195.135 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious Omission? No mention of Poincare's 1904 Paper On The Principle Of Relativity

I could not find any mention of 1904 paper on principle of relativity. If there I apologise, but it seems to me this is a critical step forward in the history of special relativity and I could not easily find it. Is it there?71.251.178.128 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Lorentz's paper of 1904 or Poincare's paper of 1905, both are mentioned in the relativity section. Lumos3 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be the St Louis address.71.251.178.128 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Serious Omission - No mention of Poincares Importance In The Philosophy Of Science

There does not appear in this article an appreciation of the importance of Poincare's publications in the philosophy of science. In that field, his three volumes The Value Of Science. are viewed as important in the foundation of the philosophy of science. This needs to be included in the article. Poincare's scientific conventionalism is an important contribution to this field.Electrodynamicist 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

British English

I contend that the English spelling used in this article should be British English since Poincare was French and British English spelling is the form used throughout the modern EU of which France is a part. Lumos3 08:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I contend you should take the stick out of your "bum" and use it to draw an accent mark on the "e" at the end of his name, especially since it actually affects the pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is still true; but it certainly is true for the time of Poincare, so I agree. Harald88 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Boltzmann

I have read somewhere that Poincaré was the biggest responsible for the initial refutation of the Boltzmann theories. This refutation would be connected to the Poincaré recurrence theorem.

Boltzmann died just a few years before Poincaré. Does anybody know if he heard of his suicide, and gave any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerneck (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Inertia of Energy section is unsourced

The second paragraph of the 'Inertia of Energy' section is unsourced and its conclusion is simply 'original research' by whomever wrote it. Poincaré clearly stated that energy does indeed have an 'effective mass', which is indeed not real mass. Poincaré is therefore correct here that the usual interpretation of Newton's law does appear to be violated. The second paragraph should therefore be amended, it is incorrect and simply 'original research' by someone who is misconstruing Poincaré's words. I took the liberty of amending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk)

I took the liberty of rolling back your edits. They are neither uncontroversial nor backed by sources. Please cite sources, and distinguish between what Poincaré thought and what current physics thinks; your edits make it sound as if you draw a distinction in current fact between "real" and "effective" mass, not just in Poincaré's writings - current thinking is that there is no such distinction. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This IP was previously used by User:Licorne. I'm assuming it still is. Banned. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Every physicist in the world knows that there is 'real' mass and 'apparent' or 'effective' mass, such as in the well known Pound-Rebke experiment. Whoever wrote this section is trying to make it look like Poincare didn't understand this. Furthermore, Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 was erroneous and solved nothing at all, as H.E.Ives published in his famous paper in the 1950's. So the section needs be rewritten by a real physicist, not a layman.67.78.143.226 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the papers of Popper, Holton, Miller, Janssen and most importantly Darrigol (for the inertia of energy). The claims of Ives, Whittaker, Keswani etc. were debunked by those authors.--D.H (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Licorne, please don't use the library for your POV-pushing. It hurts other people. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Local

In the paragraph entitled "Local time", Poincare's opinions are falsified, to put Einstein in a good light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Poincare meant an obviously arbitrary convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.197.48 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless

Poincare said, "There is no actual infinite; the Cantorians have forgotten this, and they have fallen into contradiction." A Google search will produce a couple of citations. This means that most or all of the work of Godel and Georg Cantor is meaningless verbiage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.252.72 (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference in the article entitled Actual infinity.

Godel was telling us about Cantor in 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.167.214 (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It might mean that Poincare thought so. It's not what he said according to the citation. Neither does him saying so make it true. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to quote Poincare's actual French. I agree, that it has been

translated variously. There are no contradictions in finite set theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, I have added a citation to the footnote in Van Heijenoort's book. Anon 86.137, please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~)? See your talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

very different research agendas

I object to the edit that says that Poincare and Einstein had "very different research agendas". What is the difference? Says who? And what is the disagreement with Einstein? Einstein always said that moving clocks showed apparent time.

at this point, I assume Galison and Kragh as per the reference, but would have to check. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it helps to say that there were disagreements, unless it more specifically describes the disagreement. In fact Poincare and Einstein said practically the same thing on these matters. Roger (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lorentz does not say that he admitted a mistake. He does credit later work, but that does not mean that his own work was a mistake. Roger (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll mark it for a source. it is sourced, but interpretation of primary sources is a bit problematic here. I'll wait for others to pipe in. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not sourced. The article includes the quote from Lorentz, but it is a mischaracterization of the quote to say that Lorentz admitted a mistake. Roger (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

a)Unfortunately, User:Schlafly refuses to read the works of the relevant historians of science. See Talk:Relativity priority dispute#Undue weight?. On the contrary, he claims that "historians did not say that" - and try to push the agenda that "Poincaré is the discoverer of SR".... See also his last edits in History of special relativity (which I reverted).
b)The entire part containing the citations of Lorentz and Poincaré is original research. But on Wikipedia we have to use secondary sources, so I deleted those comments. --D.H (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to argue that historians said that Poincare and Einstein had "very different research agendas", then who said it? Just what was the difference in their agenda? And who said that moving clocks showing apparent time is contrary to Einstein? Where? Roger (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

See Poincare, "Science and Hypothesis", English translation, 1905, page 90. "2. There is no absolute time. When we say that two periods are equal, the statement has no meaning, and can only acquire a meaning by a convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) See http://www.archive.org/stream/scienceandhypoth00poinuoft#page/n5/mode/2up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Portrait in Bio Box

I find the new portrait rather unusual , undignified and gawkish. It looks like he's been taken by surprise in a flash photograph by an early paparazzi. It also has no date or provenance. I am returning to the established image which was an approved image from the front of Poincare's last book. Lumos3 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

about shortcomings

Poincare was Bachelier's thesis director He was the only one (or one of the only ones) to appreciate his works though he may have said what is written So it wasn't really a shortcoming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.56.82 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have heard "POIN care" more than once, and it might be nice if English-speakers used the something closer to the correct French, which is more like "Pwoin-ka-RAY." This is of course in IPA pronunciation, but this is inaccessable to most readers. If you look at WP:PRON, it allows for additional phonetic rendering besides IPA:

For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as proh-nun-see-ay-shən may be used, as may US dictionary-style transcriptions such as prō·nŭn′·sē·ā′·shən, but only in addition to the IPA. All of these should link to an explanation of the symbols, which are not universally understood.[1] For other languages, only the IPA should be used, as respellings are inadequate to convey them.

. I suggest that this be done for Poincaré, since his name is so frequently mauled by Anglophones. I think this is not a case of "other languages", but rather a case of how English speakers should attempt to say the name in English. It may not come out perfectly French, but at least it will be an improvement on POIN care. SBHarris 01:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopedia. There should be a pronunciation suitable for English speakers. French IPA seems obscure to me. Not many even know what that is. Roger (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

French IPA?What is that? Do you perhaps mean IPA that has been exactly created for people speaking various languages(including the notoriously incosistent and problematic in pronunciation English one),to create a standard, to know how to correctly-properly pronounce words?? ;-) Thanatos|talk 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Career Section

Further research on Poincare's career is necessary for this article. Poincare served as an editor of various journals of mathematics, such as L'Enseigement Mathematique. Considering the scholarly nature of Henri Poincare, this would help others locate articles written in part by Poincare but attributed to "The Review Board", as well as understand another component of Poincare's career. Thelema418 02 December 2011 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelema418 (talk • contribs)

Too much about Einstein?

The page has too much about Einstein, don't you think? As though someone was trying to push a priority dispute. I agree that E = mc^2 has to be explained (and Einstein's different result explaned) but what about the mention of general relativity at the end (it is much better than it was). But there is far too much about a superceded theory of gravity; we still haven't got from Licorne the references for Poincare's gravity theories and only have his paraphrase of Langevin. Licorne never seemed to give a straight answer about what works of Poincare Langevin refered to - they are not in the reference list. Poincare in Science and Method (1908) mentions ONLY a theory of gravity by Lorentz, as though he is ashamed of his own efforts in 1906. If Poincare's gravity theory remains in the page, which we might surmise Poincare wouldn't like, we need just say it is outdated since 1915. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4mmacro (talk • contribs) 05:45, March 12, 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that, in the scope of Poincare's body of work, and even in comparison to what he achieved before Einstein on Special Relativity, the gravity work is overblown. I don't see it ever mentioned (unlike the growing recognition of his work on SR - which was never really a secret to the experts), while Nordstrom and Lorentz are often mentioned for SR compliant gravity work. I would agree with a stripped down discussion of this, with a single concluding observation that such efforts were supplanted by GR (no real need to even mention Einstein). My rework of the prior GR paragraph was with the philosophy " if this is here, let's make it reflect consensus opinion", but I agree it isn't really needed at all. --Pallen 17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is ridiculous. Now that the neo-Nazi is gone, can we get rid of most of it? –Joke 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Every now and then I come back to ask to make this article focus on Poincare's contributions in a straightforward way; IOW, I agree. Harald88 01:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace! There are some very interesting points about his life, but it's all about relativity. I think this was a small part of his career. It seems that the article has been hijacked by physicists and disregards all his advances in mathematics. GeometryJim 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia way: don't hesitate to add more about mathematics if you like. Harald88 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest farming out all that nonsense on relativity to a subarticle "Poincare and special relativity" or some such thing. Adding similarely detailed accounts of his mathematics to this article would make it way too long. The main article on someone as important as Poincare should be more of a summary of subarticles than anything else.--85.177.158.10 (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Article should be expanded - but the section on Einstein are points of general interest and offer a rare insight on Poincare's character. OrenBochman (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate quote regarding Bachelier?

The quote in the article regarding Bachelier's thesis (Henri_Poincaré#View_on_economics) is inaccurate and should probably be fixed or removed. Sure, it's quoted faithfully from Bernstein's book . . . but Bernstein's "translation" seems to be at best a loose paraphrasing and summary rather than an actual translated quote from Poincaré's report, since the full translation given in the appendix to the article "Louis Bachelier on the Centenary of Théorie de la Spéculation" (Mathematical Finance, Vol.10, No.3 (July 2000), 341–353) [1] does not seem to contain all that Bernstein wrote. I'd recommend excising the quote completely. Opinions? — Myasuda (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest removing the whole section, as it is refuted by your source. Roger (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This sentence needs a verb.

The term "topology" (instead of previously used Analysis situs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.102.17 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What is "their research" in this context?

Sub section Astronomy and celestial mechanics:

... In them, he successfully applied the results of their research ...

I find "their research" confusing. Does it refer to the two papers (but papers can not do research)? Or perhaps the authors of the two papers (but Poincaré could be the only author of both papers)? --Mortense (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at what's about Poincaré on Stillwell's page 254, I think that should rather be "the results of his research...". I haven't made the change yet, but FWIW, I have added the book cite ([2]) with a direct pointer to page 254. There's another reference to the book in the article. I'll see if I can find the corresponding page. - DVdm (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Religion

The article stated that he became an agnostic and was critical of religious dogmas. The link to the claim that he criticized religious dogmas was broken. There were two references to his supposed agnosticism. The first did not state that he was agnostic on the existence or non-existence of God. The section in question was talking about philosophy of science. The other reference is inaccessible and did not contain a page number.

Crosland's Science Under Control: The French Academy of Sciences 1795-1914 p.198, identifies Poincare as belonging to the Academy's 'Committed Catholics.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akasseb (talk • contribs) 04:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

dear User:Coldcreation, please do not disingenuously claim that a "talk" is required when this very point has been discussed before. The sources provided by User:Illuminus Knight and his sockpuppet User:DeusVox000 are insufficient. The edit comment has demonstrated as such. Poincaré was not an atheist. Just because someone raised as some variant of Christianity (whether that be Roman Catholic, Anglican, etc) rejects that denomination, along with others, due to some well-justified reasons, it does not make them an atheist. This point seems to be lost upon those insistent upon trying to push their agenda. Personally speaking, my "religion" does not have any relation to Christianity (or Hinduism/Islam) and I do not see how one refuting specific denominations means they are atheist. David Hilbert (among others), rejected his denomination and was still considered an agnostic. To suggest that something similar isn't the case here is not realistic and suggests you are pushing an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.217.189.229 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the source provided in the original discussion was sufficient, User:Coldcreation User:Illuminus Knight (and sockpuppet User:DeusVox000). As you can see here it clearly states:

"Less extreme than Cauchy, and perhaps Duhem, was a second group of Academicians, who might be described as 'committed Catholic'. This rather arbitrary label might be attached to men like J. B. Dumas, Le Verrier, Lapparent and Henri Poincaré."

This source is inarguably of higher quality than any of the three provided by User:Illuminus Knight (and sockpuppet User:DeusVox000 and other IP address), User:Coldcreation. Further, none of the sources coem close to stating "Henri Poincare was atheist"; instead, they suggest he had issues with denominations of Christianity (as it seems every great mathematician has, which is OKAY ["even if" you're a christian]). Further, your suggestion that the talk page was required when I originally stated that it was discussed, and that the proof provided in that discussion was stronger than anything that was provided, is disingenuous. You should have looked at the discussion prior to stepping in, because User:Illuminus Knight (and sockpuppet User:DeusVox000 & IP adress) did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.217.189.229 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). I have also repaired the archive. When you copy archived discussions back to here, please don't forget to remove the threads from the archive. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Since his atheism is not specifically mentioned in the sources, I removed the term from the article. The rest is fine and well documented. Coldcreation (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems it is easy for those who are lazy to consider Henri Poincaré an atheist. It seems real mathematicians, who are ALWAYS the foremost among the skeptics, that dig further will find that no credence to the claim of "Poincaré was an atheist". Looking at what seems to be the most definitive biography on Poincaré here, it seems anything but that:

"In our shortcomings, the loftiness of our ideal will sustain us. We may prefer another, but, after all, is not the God of the scientist the greater the farther he withdraws from us? It is true that He is inflexible, and many souls shall be sorry for it; but at least He does not share our pettiness and mean rancor as does too often the God of theologians."

So while Poincaré have rejected his denomination of Christianity, and likely multiple walks of faith, it did not mean he rejected God altogether. It meant that he, again, like other great mathematicians (including Laplace and d'Alembert) had experiences with their denomination of Christianity, all of which (likely) shared one thing in common: the specific experience that caused the ambivalence to their respective denomination of Christianity likely lacked a rigorous explanation that would be on par with Mathematical rigour (the type of rigour they prefer in rational discourse). Given that even the best religious scholars do not compare to the finest mathematicians, such ambivalence is completely understandable. As you can see, his own words conclusively demonstrate a belief in "God"; that "God", however, may not be associated with a single faith. I will now try to sign my post187.217.189.229 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't speak French Google translate this: Coldcreation (talk)

J'ai demandé à M. H. Poincaré quelles étaient ses opinions sur les questions les plus Courantes. Au point de vue religieux, il croyait au moment de sa première communion, puis, progressivement, le doute est venu et, vers l'âge de dix-huit ans, il a cessé de croire. Il est pour la libre pensée, pour le droit de rechercher et de dire la vérité, et, pour cela, opposé à l'intolérance cléricale". Toulouse, 1909, p. 143. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0759v1.pdf

Uh, okay? Just because you're french, does not mean you know more than me about Poincaré (who I admit, know very little about. I do not idolise mathematicians. I idolise contributions). You do know he was a mathematician, right? You do realise that mathematics is, essentially, a separate language? Now, from what I see, a conclusive biography published states he believes in God. He rejects religion because he, as i've stated directly above before you decided to get mouthy (with something that, legit, sounds like "KESKA SAI, I AM FARENCH. I KNOW MOAR ABOUT EEM DAN A YOU"), found shortcomings with the explanations provided by the text. He, like Hilbert, realised that many religions exploit the belief in a Higher power for the purposes of self-enrichment. control is often the best way to self-enrichment, and religions often provide a tidy vehicle for control and self enrichment. His quote said he encouraged free thought and telling the truth, which was in opposition to the clerical thought. where in that does it mean he does not believe in God, or some form of Christianity?

He, like the Great Ones (i said Hilbert earlier), believed that any movement representing or claiming to be communicated by God should have rigorous explanations that are on par with Mathematical rigour. Ultimately, what I wanted to get across is that the quote I shared from this conclusive biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.217.189.229 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Translation: "I asked Mr. H. Poincare what were his opinions on most common questions. The religious point of view, he believed at the time of his first communion, and then, gradually, doubt came and, around the age of eighteen, he stopped believing. It is for free thought, for the right to search and tell the truth, and for that, opposed clerical intolerance." Bold added. Toulouse, 1909, p. 143. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0759v1.pdfColdcreation (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I do not dispute the stopped believing part, but stopped believing in the God as ascribed by his current denomination(Catholicism?) is not the same as stopped believing in God entirely . It is quite clear from the quote in the biography that he was rightfully dissatisfied with different denominations of Christianity using their faith for self-enrichment. The quote from the biography clearly states a belief in God. He criticises the aforementioned denominations of Christianity's theologians for using religion to demonstrate pettiness and sanctimony (that the theologians themselves are oblivious to).

What is new with this idea? There is nothing about atheism or disavowing religion. Religion in his time was used as a broad form of control (and it still is), which (still, to some extent, i guess) involves repression of free thought and telling the truth (to advance political agendas).

I am not sure if one could interpret a belief in rigorous science as a religion, but if one could: clearly Poincaré yearned to be among this religion's prophets.

Many denominations of Christianity have left its followers feeling dissatisfied and embittered, but do not confuse the political aspect of religion with the intended moral aspect. Poincaré was clearly among those who rightfully observed that there are many-a-landmine in many denominations of Christianity [mr GLOBAL ECKANAMY comes to mind]), and refused to be associated with such pettiness and mean rancor. I don't blame him.

poincair is a confirmed Christian

bImo Lebesgue > Poincaré lol (just imo ofc).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.217.189.229 (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 

a brief aside User:Coldcreation. I both appreciate and understand your frustration with believers in religion, and it is not my intent to invalidate those feelings. It's just that Poincaré did not have as much free time as Laplace (or d'Alembert) to gleefully toil and whine about this issue of "is there is a God?".

Anecdotes suggest that Laplace changed mind all the time; that's how much time he had on his hands. I don't blame him. he's Pierre[-fucking]-Simon Laplace!. However, respectfully, Poincaré is no Laplace (it's hard to be The Man).

Surely you appreciate that History has taken both the time and care to streamline and nuance his perspectives on his faith so they can be put alongside his non-trivial mathematical contributions. He is a giant, and let us respect him that way. Let us not reduce these men to discussions over whether they are believers in Jesus of Nazareth. I think they would want us to look at their work (as the wikipedia entry did, before User:Illuminus Knight and wp:sockpuppet User:DeusVox000) unwarranted insertions).