Talk:Michael Spivak

Dead? (2006 rumor)

I heard that he was murdered a few years back.

Definitely false, see further down Phr (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

this article is totally plagiarized from this link:

http://michael-spivak.brainsip.com/

Nope. The note at the bottom of that URL reads:

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Michael Spivak".

--Gruepig 07:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew wrote: Why cannot I find a single photo of this guy??

I probably have some photos of him in storage. I'll put one up if I can find them (not real soon). I'll try to check out the murder rumor tomorrow (removed from the article for now). Phr (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I just put up a crappy one that I got from him. I'll dig around for a better one sooner or later. Phr (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Calculus by Michael Spivak

This book, in my opinion, is for students who appreciate the beauty of mathematics, one of the few absolutes in this world. The best word to describe this book is "unique". Its the first of its kind that most students will encounter in their lives. It will most likely be confusing for beginners, and some might even find it useless as application is largely excluded.

Sadly, the author's intentions seem to be violated, as students always are required to rush through material. Proofs are often memorized instead of being understood.

Book wrong, no such thing as interesting or appealing or pleasant or important or more or not etc, or that about simple or not, math is just a tool, ceptuxthesx, any be any intx etc no matter what. no such thing as embarax or ricx etc. say, claim/can say claim any no matter what — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendl (talk • contribs) 17:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This book is widely used at the first year university level.

Why is the book referred to as 'perhaps even misleadingly titled"? It's titled Calculus, and it's a calculus textbook. Relevence to science and engineering has nothing to do with whether something is a calculus text. 161.184.180.8 03:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it makes it appear to be merely an ordinary calculus text, whereas it takes a quite unusual approach. Michael Hardy 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mention should be made of the unusual approach, but I don't think it should refer to the title as misleading. The approach is unexpected, but it has nothing to do with the title. 161.184.196.167 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nathan Jacobson's "Basic Algebra 1" and "Basic Algebra 2" are algebra textbooks (graduate level). Some people would think they're misleadingly titled since they sound like high school books. Spivak's calculus book is maybe comparable to Tom M. Apostol's book and also to Richard Courant's book, which I think were both similarly titled "Calculus" and I'd describe it as a calculus book that's more theoretical than most, but not misleadingly titled. I will try to rewrite that section of the article later. Does anyone here have a copy? Mine is long gone. Phr (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Godsfantasy: I have :-). Calculus (Third Edition) - Michael Spivak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsfantasy (talk • contribs)

There already is another article on Spivak's book, Calculus. Why not let that article talk about the book instead of this one?

Rumor is false

I'm on the phone with him right now. He is fine. Phr (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Clean Up

Please do not revert the article back to its original form this time. It suffered from some severe structural problems and terrible writing. I've cleaned it up a bit and made it a tad more concise. CDiPoce 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Pigs

Why is there a link to Vincent Lefèvre's site at the bottom of the page? The page, while amusing, mentions Spivak once, and does not really count as an external resource for us to know more about Michael Spivak. weixifan (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Long list of what?

I think details about his "Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry" would be far and away more interesting and informative than a list of places and courses that use his textbook "Calculus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.199.242 (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Employers?

This article is deficent in that it doesn't mention where MS did his work. Can anyone help? Or, perhaps I can see what I can come up with.. --Philopedia (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsources information in Writing section

There are a lot of unsourced statements in this section, most of them fun facts/miscellanea. In the course of cleaning up this section, I have moved most of these into footnotes 8-10 (because they are amusing, and should be kept if verified).

However, if no source other than word of mouth can be found, they don't meet the criteria for verifibility and should eventually be removed, especially because they concern a living person.

Alsosaid1987 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Spivak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120903133348/http://www.math.hc.keio.ac.jp/coe/videos/spivak2004/ to http://www.math.hc.keio.ac.jp/coe/videos/spivak2004/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Dead? (2020)

I haven't been able to find any sources for Michael Spivak's date and place of death (I would have expected at least a newspaper obituary). The only source given is a death verification letter, but obtaining one isn't easy if you don't live in the US. Are we entirely sure that this source is legitimate (and not, e.g. a death verification letter for someone else named Michael Spivak)? Edderiofer (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the death claim should be removed from the article until there's some verifiable source. There should at least be some notice in a mathematical publication about it somewhere. Otrebus (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thought so; WP:BDP agrees that it should be removed, so I've removed it. If anyone can later find a more reliable source for this, they can feel free to add it back in with that source. Edderiofer (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Mike Spivak was a good friend and colleague for over 40 years. His partner, who handled his business and personal affairs, did not publish a newspaper death notice nor let anyone know of his passing. I hired a Houston private investigator in August 2021 to find Mike's whereabouts, which turned up nothing. The investigator suggested I request a Verification of Death letter from the State of Texas which I did --- and found that he had passed away almost one year earlier. A group of Mike's colleagues and I will be publishing a memorial to him in the AMS Notices sometime early next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bix17 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

When the memorial is published in a reliable source, then the article can be updated. Your personal knowledge on the subject and primary sources cannot be used as verification per policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing Mike Spivak's page last month to show his date of death was the first time I have used WikiPedia. My colleagues who are working with me on a tribute to Mike all refused to use WikiPedia, so I gave it a shot. Based on this experience and all the doubt about my source, which took a lot of time to secure, I will not be contributing to WP again. You might want to look at your policy about proof of death coming from a "verifiable source" such as a math journal --- I asked the editor of the AMS Notices tribute we are writing how she would verify Mike's death and she sent a copy of the same Verification of Death letter from the State of Texas I provided her (and you). So it seems there is no way that a journal, or a friend and colleague of Mike's such as myself, can furnish a verifiable source in the case of Michael David Spivak, which means he will be forever alive on WP. Bix17 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on information that is published in reliable sources (i.e. a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). If we didn't have such policies, it would be possible for any single individual with access to a computer to add incorrect and/or unverifiable material to any article. Once the tribute is published it would be acceptable as a reliable source and the article can be updated accordingly. This also holds true if confirmation of Michael Spivak's death is published in any reliable source prior to the tribute you are a party to. I'm sorry that your Wikipedia experience has been frustrating, but I would hope that reading through the various policies and guidelines provided (e.g. WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V) would help you understand that we require a high-standard of sourcing to protect our article subjects and their families from the inclusion of potentially false and damaging material. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

OK fellas, there is now a reliable source giving Spivak's death as October 1, 2020 --- see and (TUGBoat, the TeX User Group journal has been around since 1980). Please add this appropriately so the article on Mike Spivak can be reverted to the version with his death date. (I could try this myself, but cannot remember how to use all the meta-tags etc. which would take a lot of time.) Thanks. Bix17 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added a citation to Barbara Beeton's obituary in TUGBoat and edited the death dates. I note as well that Beeton refers to Spivak's personal use of the Spivak pronouns, although she reports that he did not claim to have originated them. Fiske (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Mike Spivak would have howled with glee if he knew that after his death he was briefly resurrected in Wikipedia --- for lack of a source of his death date. Bix17 (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Photo from 1974

The lighthearted photo of Michael Spivak, which had been on this page for a long time, was commented out on 10 September 2021 and not replaced by another image. I have restored that photo. The image shows a sense of playfulness, which is also apparent in some of his written work. (The image also demonstrates substantial flexibility -- did he do yoga?) If there's a reason to remove this photo, please clarify on this page (and, ideally, provide another image). Fiske (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Good call to restore the playful photo. Mike Spivak was a brilliant person, never full of himself, and his conversations contained seemingly offhand humorous remarks, many of which on further consideration were amazingly insightful. (Mike was always physically fit --- did ballet lessons and gym workouts.) Bix17 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fiske 1. The photo of Spivak bending over, taken from Spivak's side, doesn't give the slightest idea of what he actually looked like.

Isn't that the purpose of photos in biographical articles?

2. The photo makes him look like a goofball. (Why is he in such a weird position?)

I think he deserves better.

3. Googling his name, and looking for images, there are a number of possibilities.

I don't know their copyright status.

Or whether they are really him.

If someone could check those two issues, and find a photo that actually shows his face, I think that would really improve the article. KHarbaugh (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are several excellent photos of Mike in the June/July 2024 AMS Notices obituary of him, which show what he actually looked like.

Could one of them replace the goofball photo of him kissing his foot?

I don't know enough to make that replacement myself. KHarbaugh (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Pronouns

We don't generally use nonstandard pronouns in Wikipedia's voice (except singular they). Did Spivak consistently use or request e, em for personal use, or was that a one-off for the Teχ book? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(This is in relation to Special:Diff/1060623078 by User:TheLadyGuinevere and Special:Diff/1060631701 by User:Dirkbb, who beat me to the revert.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 18:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)