Jump to content

Talk:Vladimir Varićak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defaultsort

[edit]

I put "Varicţak" under DEFAULTSORT to ensure it will be sorted after "Varicu", but before "Varić" or "Varid". Č is a separate letter in Croatian, it does not depict a C with a diacritic; just like Y shouldn't be sorted under I or X under CS. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misuse the undo button. If you think that is the correct defaultsort key, change it to that. Do not remove categories or otherwise damage the article. JackSchmidt (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a small aside: accent versus diacritic: č says č is a c with a caron on top, and caron says a caron is a diacritic. However, this may not affect the defaultsort, since Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Other exceptions only recommends removing accents and separating ligatures. So, I don't think it recommends the č to c conversion.
Out of curiosity, are you separating a ligature, or just trying to make it come near "Varic"? In other words, why use "cţ" (t-comma)? JackSchmidt (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I accidentally reverted another of your edits. In the Croatian alphabet, Č and Ć are letters separated from C and sorted as such (unlike Ä and A in German which are considered the same and sorted together). I use ţ and ˙ for the purpose of sorting only, since I obtain them by pressing Alt+0254 and Alt+0255, respectively. Alt+0256 gives the same as Alt+0000. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make any sense to sort it as "cz" ("Variczak")? This would avoid any non-ascii unicode characters in the defaultsort (so prevent people like me and Paul A. from "correcting" it) while still sticking it at the end. The letter itself is basically a "ch" sound right (like Czech or Čech, note how both have Forefather Čech)? I think "cz" is bound to cause less confusion, and in some loose sense is correct. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I'll abide by that. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

A move to correct spelling (Vladimir Varićak) is requested. Evidence:

I'm sure more examples could be found. GregorB (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the publications by him ([1], [2]) use "Varićak". Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources in the article concerning relativity (Miller, Sauer, Walter) use Varičak, not Varićak - but I'm not an expert in that language... --D.H (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article gets it wrong, at least in the Sauer case: PDF at arxiv.org uses "Varićak". (I've changed the spelling in the article to reflect the spelling used by respective sources.) I don't know about the other two. Google Books search finds both spellings. Still, as duly noted by Jafeluv above, all three of his publications that could be found online (dated 1903, 1908 and 1912) use "Varićak", strongly pointing to this spelling as correct. GregorB (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sauer you are correct. However, Miller (on p. 249) and also Walter in a paper which can be downloaded here ("The non-Euclidean style of Minkowskian relativity") use Varičak. Maybe we should mention both versions in the article lead...But if you like to rename the article, no problem. --D.H (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be mentioned in the article lead by all means - although Google Books puts it at 97-3 in favor of "Vladimir Varićak", "Vladimir Varičak" spelling is apparently not that rare. GregorB (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it to Vladimir Varićak as requested. Please update the lead of the article, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked with a Serb who confirmed the spelling Varićak and the pronunciation 'Varichak' with the stress on the i.JFB80 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical insight

[edit]

Currently the article claims that Varicak's contribution to kinematics "did not lead to any new physical insight". Arnold Sommerfeld also wrote on the hyperbolicity of the kinematic space, and Scott Walter's article (1999) recounts the link made between relativity and hyperbolic geometry. This meagre interpretation of the fact that these men related the abstract study of pure mathematicians to the new view of space and time puts a damper on science. We should celebrate Varicak's insight and see it as a scientific advance rather than brush his work off as insignificant. Statements like the one quoted evidence a point of view that excludes the supporting role that many scientists have made with their papers that are not frequently cited.Rgdboer (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DH for the "did not lead" edit. Yet I see Scott Walter had a similar comment, amazingly after writing what is now quoted in the article. He considers pressures on Minkowski to avoid too much mathematics. Since relativity is mathematical physics the trend to ever deeper analysis is irresistable. The identification and description of "kinematic space", which Walter traces from Minkowski through Herglotz, Klein, and Sommerfeld to Varicak, is a physical insight itself.Rgdboer (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a correction to the above contributor: Arnold Sommerfeld did not write on the hyperbolicity of the kinematic space, he gave a interpretation of the Einstein addition formula in terms of a velocity triangle on a sphere of imaginary radius (Phys. Z 1909). Varicak reinterpreted this in hyperbolic space. I also thank you for the "did not lead" edit. Varicak did much more than merely rewrite formulae using hyperbolic functions as Scott Walter's article implies. If you actually read Varicak's work (difficult!) you will see that he gave a fundamental reformulation of the whole basis of special relativity using hyperbolic space. The importance of his work is only now being slowly realized after 100 years. It certainly does lead to a new physical insight.JFB80 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated some papers of Varićak into English and put them on Wikisource (s:Author:Vladimir Varićak). --D.H (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That will certainly help readers with limited German. I have added a reference to a 1965 biographical paper by Kurepa which lists all of Varićak's work. It is in Serbian. Is there any chance of a translation for Wikisource ?94.66.34.50 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this list was published in 1965, it is certainly not in the public domain in the US and cannot be put on Wikisource (a publication date before 1923 is required). BTW: I only translate German texts. --D.H (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of information, does not the 1923 rule apply only to exact reproduction of the original work? As I understand, a translation is considered a new creation and so, in principle, could be published even if it refers to a recent article. Is that not so? JFB80 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as it is a derivative work. See s:Wikisource:Copyright policy#Translations or recordings of a source work. --D.H (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walter's comments

[edit]

I dont think Scott Walker's comments should be given such a prominent place because what he says is very much a personal and biased view intending to show that Varićak's work is but a slightly different version of that of Minkowski (supplemented by a little trigonometry). It is not based on an actual reading of Varićak's work and is just not accurate. Would anyone care to comment? JFB80 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walter is a contemporary writer that has perspective on both hyperbolic geometry and relativity. His comments are valuable since they show the singular status of Varićak as a mathematical physicist in his time.Rgdboer (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But they do not show the singular status of Varićak and do not describe his unique contribution. You remarked above that the article claims that Varićak's contribution to kinematics did not lead to new physical insight and in a similar spirit Scott Walker's comments imply that it was all done by Minkowski - very conjectural because Minkowski made no mention at all of hyperbolic (i.e. Lobachevskian) space. And the comments merely credit Varićak with "recapitulating" a variety of Minkowski's results using hyperbolic functions again implying nothing new. Which results could they be? Minkowski's results were mainly in electromagnetic theory while Varićak was concerned with optics, The comments are misleading and could be put into the talk page. JFB80 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Walter is a well-know historian of science, who commented extensively on Varićak's model. Is there another reputable secondary source, pointing out his "unique contribution" and "singular status"? --D.H (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of another reputable secondary source so that is why it is left to people like myself with an interest and some experience to comment. What makes Varićak's work special is that he was the first to understand and demonstrate that the phenomena and formulae of special relativity follow from the assumption of a hyperbolic instead of Cartesian space. That is remarkable and fundamental and something still not generally known or accepted.. I should add that I find Scott Walter's paper excellent in other respects, especially for the historical references, but that should not make it immune from criticism.JFB80 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Varićak&oldid=1205224366"