Talk:Felix Hausdorff

Poor English

Much of this reads like something written by a native German speaker. Needs thorough revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.251.158 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Hausdorff was still working mathematically at these increasingly difficult times", "He worked tirelessly", "He was selflessly supported" these phrases should be reworked, they are not neutral. Olivier Diotte (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The advantage of a cliche is that no-one expects them to be too precise. Alternate phrasing often carries more specific implications and then you're in trouble with [citation needed], because there's precious little comprehensive information available from such a turbulent time. Thinking English readers won't read "selflessly" as POV in this context. Here's my picture: Guy with his own acid reflux problem shows up, pays your bills, while nobody even pretends to discuss brotherly reparations "someday". Does charity ever come in any flavour more vanilla than that?

"increasingly difficult times" lies far closer to euphemistic understatement than POV. How about "as the genocidal noose of national psychosis tightened around Felix and family"? You know things are really bad when you're watching the Seventh Seal and you find yourself wishing you were Antonius Block (who might actually have won his chess game, had he kept his mouth shut).

"tirelessly" is a hall of fame cliche in English, yet like a cockroach in dystopia, continues to endure. It's practically unkillable. Let's try every bug spray from a well-stocked pantry. "kept his nose to the grindstone" (was his work actually a grindstone?), "burned the candle at both ends" (he even had candles, and wasn't he sleeping well?), "maintained an outward appearance of industry" (just an appearance, or the real thing?), "proceeded apace" (proceeded where, exactly, with what pace, exactly?), "maintained normalcy" (bollocks to you), "persevered in his [work, research, teaching duties] with his habitual industry" (does this sound less POV?), "with customary drive and determination" (now we're experts on matters of "custom"), "remained productive" (and produced what, exactly, for whom, exactly?), "continued to work hard" (by intensity or duration or both?), "clung to his academic routine like a good Protestant should" (might be cultural issues in that one, even before addressing the cadence from Winston tastes good like a cigarette should).

Empty set detected. Pedantic "should" arrested. — MaxEnt 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? He was Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.251.158 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What does Hausdorff being jewish have to do with the criticism? 2601:243:CA00:9240:29C8:5D3:DA70:7442 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Re Drug-related deaths & suicides

This: "On the night of Sunday 25 January all three took barbiturates. Both Hausdorff and his wife Charlotte were dead by the morning of the 26 January." is from this: MacTutor History of Mathematics entry for Hausdorff

Michael David 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting him in the category makes him look as if he had died of an overdose of recreational drugs. I don't see how the fact that he used pills rather than a pistol matters. Hasdrubal 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When the term ‘recreational’ is used in conjunction with a drug it means the drug is being used for a purpose other than for which it was prescribed. I, personally, wouldn’t categorize a drug taken with the intention of committing suicide as being ‘recreational’, but, whatever you want to call them, in the case of Hausdorff, we are stuck with the fact that this way the way he chose to commit suicide. Therefore the cause of death must be Categorized as being ‘drug-related’. I don’t believe this portrays him as a ‘recreational drug user’ but, rather, as a person who wasn’t reached in time.

Michael David 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the text about his suicide, and the Categories, and there's no way to know that he tooks drugs for the specific purpose of dying. The impression is that he became a drug addict because of depression, and then he (and the two women) commited suicide by other means. The text should be explicit about his method of suicide - or the drug cathegories should be removed. Albmont 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose 'impression'? This is a meaningless assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.251.158 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Frishauf My mother's mother was Edith Pappenheim, Charlotte (Lotta's) Hausdorff Pappenheim's sister. Felix, Charlotte, and Edith committed suicide as letters between Edith and Lotta and my mother (now in the posession of the Hausdorff Institute) affirm, because they were tipped off that they were being relocated to an "old age home" that was code for Auchwitz. I realize this information is primary source and therefor not a suitable referece for Wikipedia, but the Instittute will be publishing the letters with historical interptation by experts in the coming years. See the German edition of Wikipedia for more info. In the meantime, it is ridiculous to even infer that recreational drug use or treatment for depression had anything whatsoever to do with these deaths. —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but I think you mean 'imply', not 'infer'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.251.158 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"His" son?

It says that Hausdorff's library was sold by "his" son. I presume that this is referring back to the previous paragraph and talking about the son of Hausdorff's lawyer, but only because the article earlier claims that Hausdorff's only child was a daughter. Anyone who missed that would assume it was talking about the son of Hausdorff. Is my interpretation correct?MathHisSci (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sentence needs rewriting

In the paragraph "Hausdorff's general products and powers of cardinalities had led him to the concept of partially ordered set. The question of whether any ordered subset of a partially ordered set is contained in a maximal ordered subset was answered in the positive by Hausdorff using the well-ordering theorem. This is the Hausdorff maximal principle. It follows not only from the well-ordering theorem (or from the (equivalent to this) axiom of choice), but it is, as it turned out, even to the axiom of choice are equivalent.[12]", I believe the last sentence (marked in boldface) is incoherent and should be rewritten. (I do not know enough about the subject to do it myself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llsalcedo (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)