6 ms·

The more I hear about Stephen Wolfram's schemes to name things after Stephen Wolfram, the more admirative I grow of Nicolas Bourbaki and wished he were publishi

by ridaj 4y ago

The more I hear about Stephen Wolfram's schemes to name things after Stephen Wolfram, the more admirative I grow of Nicolas Bourbaki and wished he were publishing amazing math software these days.

froh 4y ago
You've sent me down an interesting reading path, about a group of mathematicians working under the pseudonym "Nicolas Bourbaki" and lo and behold they do even have a web site these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://www.bourbaki.fr/ https://www.bourbaki.fr/ Now how does that relate to Stephen Wolfram?
- Cyph0n 4y ago
  A group of mathematicians operating under a pseudonym is basically the exact opposite of a single mathematician naming everything after himself.
  - emteycz 4y ago
    Only until the pseudonym becomes famous and it's basically the same thing.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      The difference is capitalism. The name has some prestige, but it would be difficult for "Nicolas Bourbaki" to leverage "his" mathematical fame to accumulate wealth in a way that allows "him" to advocate a particularly fringe theory of, say, virology. Wolfram, on the other hand, can leverage Mathematica to get rich, and use his riches to continue to push NKS, despite zero (or less) interest from physicists.
      - emteycz 4y ago
        Nobody has to listen to Wolfram. Close his graphomaniac blog and forget about him. On the other hand, academic credit (not merit) will get you much further than money in many cases - and the lack of it (while not lacking merit) is a serious impediment on the progress of many scientific projects. The difference? Socialism. Wolfram uses his own taxed income to further his goals, while meritless scientists use the broken system of academia and the income from taxes (that should've been used to further real science) to accomplish theirs.
        morelisp 4y ago
        Bourbaki's academic credit doesn't get Bourbaki grants.
        emteycz 4y ago
        It does. The people assigning grants know and will take it into account.
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  The joke is that the discoveries attributed to “Stephen Wolfram” are actually the work of multiple people, none of whom are actually named that.
  - ace2358 4y ago
    I mean, I studied maths and physics at uni. My recollection is that science is littered with things named after specific people when in actual fact multiple people put in hours and hours of work to making these discoveries. But only one name gets slapped on it. ‘Maxwell’s’ equations are a great example. Calculus is also a prime example (d/dx f(x) vs f’(x)). I’m pretty sure Gauss was a fantastic mathematician, but too much is named after him and a lot of recognition taken away from others who greatly contributed. It’s not a new phenomena. I don’t think it’s great for things to be named after specific people at any point history, but it’s happened before and it’ll continue to happen.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      John von Nuemann comes to mind, Edison of course... seems history is written by the patent submitters
      - scoot 4y ago
        And Charles Darwin (about 600 years late): https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/resources/timeline-of-evolutionary-theory/ https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/resources/timeline...
      - copperx 4y ago
        > John von Nuemann Are you saying that some of the work attributed to Neumann was not his? Are there any examples?
        jazzyjackson 4y ago
        The famed "von Neumann" architecture refers to a write-up he was asked to do to update the Army on progress on the ENIAC. He didn't even intend to publish it, the ENIAC was classified, it was Goldstine that published it with their names on it. See the "controversies" section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_of_a_Report_on_the_EDVAC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_of_a_Report_on_t... The book "Pioneer Programmer" by ENIAC programmer Jean Jennings Bartik goes into detail about the egos at play in taking credit for the work done by Eckert & Mauchly.
anyfactor 4y ago
Why didn't a group like this emerged in software? My opinion is that you obviously don't pay for free and/or open software with money but you do pay with the fatigue of bearing the creators ideological and personal whims. Software requires maintenance and support. It is not a do it once and do it perfectly. Also let's not forget about us the users who constantly attempt to dictate the path the software is heading. If you can take away the criticism, maintenability and support commitment, you can create Bourbaki-esque softwares. Case in point - GNU utilities like cat, ls, sed etc.
- williamstein 4y ago
  I tried to start a group like this for mathematical software: https://trac.sagemath.org/#AccountNamesMappedtoRealNames https://trac.sagemath.org/#AccountNamesMappedtoRealNames
- renox 4y ago
  Freax
- carlob 4y ago
  Possibly Satoshi Nakamoto?
  - froh 4y ago
    I just hope they have deposited some post mortem disclosure somewhere...

by ridaj 4y ago

The more I hear about Stephen Wolfram's schemes to name things after Stephen Wolfram, the more admirative I grow of Nicolas Bourbaki and wished he were publishing amazing math software these days.

froh 4y ago

You've sent me down an interesting reading path, about a group of mathematicians working under the pseudonym "Nicolas Bourbaki" and lo and behold they do even have a web site these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://www.bourbaki.fr/ https://www.bourbaki.fr/ Now how does that relate to Stephen Wolfram?

Cyph0n 4y ago
A group of mathematicians operating under a pseudonym is basically the exact opposite of a single mathematician naming everything after himself.
- emteycz 4y ago
  Only until the pseudonym becomes famous and it's basically the same thing.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    The difference is capitalism. The name has some prestige, but it would be difficult for "Nicolas Bourbaki" to leverage "his" mathematical fame to accumulate wealth in a way that allows "him" to advocate a particularly fringe theory of, say, virology. Wolfram, on the other hand, can leverage Mathematica to get rich, and use his riches to continue to push NKS, despite zero (or less) interest from physicists.
    - emteycz 4y ago
      Nobody has to listen to Wolfram. Close his graphomaniac blog and forget about him. On the other hand, academic credit (not merit) will get you much further than money in many cases - and the lack of it (while not lacking merit) is a serious impediment on the progress of many scientific projects. The difference? Socialism. Wolfram uses his own taxed income to further his goals, while meritless scientists use the broken system of academia and the income from taxes (that should've been used to further real science) to accomplish theirs.
      - morelisp 4y ago
        Bourbaki's academic credit doesn't get Bourbaki grants.
        emteycz 4y ago
        It does. The people assigning grants know and will take it into account.
pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
The joke is that the discoveries attributed to “Stephen Wolfram” are actually the work of multiple people, none of whom are actually named that.
- ace2358 4y ago
  I mean, I studied maths and physics at uni. My recollection is that science is littered with things named after specific people when in actual fact multiple people put in hours and hours of work to making these discoveries. But only one name gets slapped on it. ‘Maxwell’s’ equations are a great example. Calculus is also a prime example (d/dx f(x) vs f’(x)). I’m pretty sure Gauss was a fantastic mathematician, but too much is named after him and a lot of recognition taken away from others who greatly contributed. It’s not a new phenomena. I don’t think it’s great for things to be named after specific people at any point history, but it’s happened before and it’ll continue to happen.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    John von Nuemann comes to mind, Edison of course... seems history is written by the patent submitters
    - scoot 4y ago
      And Charles Darwin (about 600 years late): https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/resources/timeline-of-evolutionary-theory/ https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/resources/timeline...
    - copperx 4y ago
      > John von Nuemann Are you saying that some of the work attributed to Neumann was not his? Are there any examples?
      - jazzyjackson 4y ago
        The famed "von Neumann" architecture refers to a write-up he was asked to do to update the Army on progress on the ENIAC. He didn't even intend to publish it, the ENIAC was classified, it was Goldstine that published it with their names on it. See the "controversies" section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_of_a_Report_on_the_EDVAC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_of_a_Report_on_t... The book "Pioneer Programmer" by ENIAC programmer Jean Jennings Bartik goes into detail about the egos at play in taking credit for the work done by Eckert & Mauchly.

anyfactor 4y ago

Why didn't a group like this emerged in software? My opinion is that you obviously don't pay for free and/or open software with money but you do pay with the fatigue of bearing the creators ideological and personal whims. Software requires maintenance and support. It is not a do it once and do it perfectly. Also let's not forget about us the users who constantly attempt to dictate the path the software is heading. If you can take away the criticism, maintenability and support commitment, you can create Bourbaki-esque softwares. Case in point - GNU utilities like cat, ls, sed etc.

williamstein 4y ago
I tried to start a group like this for mathematical software: https://trac.sagemath.org/#AccountNamesMappedtoRealNames https://trac.sagemath.org/#AccountNamesMappedtoRealNames
renox 4y ago
Freax
carlob 4y ago
Possibly Satoshi Nakamoto?
- froh 4y ago
  I just hope they have deposited some post mortem disclosure somewhere...