Talk:Errett Bishop

Recent additions on views of classical mathematics.

I believe some comments here are unnecessarily peacockish. For example the statement "(this was 45 years ago)" seems little more then to point out how incorrect he was. And phrases such as "linguistic innovations by Bishopian constructivists" reads as if it is intended to be derogatory. Further it leaves the reader very unclear if this is something Bishop said, or if it is by another mathematician working in his style of constructivism. If it is the latter why is it in the section about Bishop's views? Thenub314 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right, we should simply include the year in which he made this comment, which is 1968 (see Bishop, E.: Mathematics as a numerical language. 1970 Intuitionism and Proof Theory (Proc. Conf., Buffalo, N.Y., 1968) pp. 53--71. North-Holland, Amsterdam.) Tkuvho (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As you know, Bishop created a school of mathematics (which in my opinion was a very good thing) and also influenced the attitude of his followers to classical mathematics (less good, in my opinion). Terminology used by Bishopian constructivists is part of his legacy as much as the "limited principle of omniscience" of his. Tkuvho (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And what makes comments by Richman appropriate here. There is no evidence, as the cited source points out that Bishop used such language. Thenub314 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As a second question, do any of the current articles discuss Bishop predicting the demise of classical mathematics, and if so where? Thenub314 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you contest the fact that Richman is a Bishopian constructivist? As far as Bishop's comment to the effect that "very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist, etc.", it can stand on its own, but it was also cited in the Intellectica text. Tkuvho (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not contest anything about Richmann. Rather I question the appropriateness of including his remarks here. Simply because someone Richman practices the same style of mathematics doesn't make the comments that he makes in any relevant on the page about Bishop.

I found the appropriate place in the intellectia article, which does not seem to support what is written here. Firstly that section of the paper is primarily concerned with Billinge's work about Bishop. Secondly, it does not say he predicted, it simply quotes his work, stating that something possibly could happen is different then predicting it will. Secondly Katz&Katz did no one use language like "imminent demise", he does seem to suggest it might cease to be an independent discipline, but there is no discussion as to when this might occur. As I said above, as put together these comments seemed to be aimed at showing Bishop was incorrect. Thenub314 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My recallection is that the exact quote is "very possibly". I am in favor of including a direct quote. The section containing Richman's remark is concerned with Bishopian constructivism. There is little doubt that Bishop is the creator of Bishopian constructivism. Tkuvho (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no debate about the style of constructivism Richman worked in, though by and large it is not referred to as "Bishopian". That is beside the point, Richman's comments don't have a place on a biography page about Bishop, because it has nothing to do with Bishop or his work. I will include the exact quote in the quotes section. Thenub314 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Richman's remark is typical of the school Bishop created, and I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned here as part of Bishop's influence. Tkuvho (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As written there is nothing biographic about the nature of the comment. Worse it is peacock terms in it such as "linguistic innovations". The comment may be appropriate for a page on debates or controversies over constructive mathematics, but as it seems very out of place here. Thenub314 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you can delete it if it bothers you. Tkuvho (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

1985 reference

Rather than quoting the full volume by Rosenblatt, we should cite the specific article by Bishop in this volume. I think that's the traditional procedure. Tkuvho (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That was how I added in Warschawski, which is in the same volume. I can get it out from the library again and fix it, if you don't have it handy. Thenub314 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotes about early upbringing.

I question validity and relevance of the reference to Bishop's supposed fundamentalist Protestant upbringing. His father was not particularly religious, and in any case died when Errett was 4 (not 5). His mother was nominally Catholic, but in practice had very little patience for religion. The reference itself, buried in a paywalled website, refers to a private conversation. I'm not saying it's false, but memory is a funny thing and context matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.248.2.107 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Army service

Recommend adding rank and positions held (military occupational specialty or branch) if ascertained in reliable sources. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)