Stanisław Ulam has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lemberg belonged to Austria Empiry (not to Poland) in those days and Ulam was US citizen. 82.82.126.128 15:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ulam was a member of Lvov school of Polish mathematician, with Stefan Banach and Hugo Steinhaus. Yes, he was Jewish and he emigrated to USA. This doesn't change the fact, that he was born in Poland, learn in Poland, contributed his work in Poland. AM
I read "Dark Sun" several times. As I recall, Ulam proposed a staged thermonuclear design which used the neutron flux from the primary to compress the secondary. Teller pointed out the X-rays got to the secondary faster, which forced using them for compression, instead of neutrons. The "sparkplug" fission component added compression from the center of the secondary. -- MWS 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I've seen this before, and it's a neat sequence. I don't remember a proof of this conjecture, however. If there is a proof, it would be nice to see a sketch of it. If there is no proof, that would also be nice to know. (Maybe it's just really obvious, and I'm obtuse.) As far as I can tell, one wants to keep going until a power of two is reached or number known to result in a power of two is reached. How does this preclude cycles and divergent sequences? Coleca 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I notice that the "theorem" has been deleted. I don't know if it's something that belongs in an enyclopedia, but arguing that it's just a conjecture is not sufficient justification. Coleca 08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a second Ulam's conjecture which is in graph theory. It's on wikipedia as the Reconstruction conjecture-- Syd Henderson 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I would request anyone who supports the present spelling to read Ulam's autobiography: Adventures of a Mathematician. His usage in English is Stanislaw and he spelled Stanislaw Mazur with an unmodified l. His friends called him Stanislaw, or Stan; his own usage seems to have been S. M. Ulam. This would be acceptable as a compromise, but it is not the most common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ulam's contributions to mathematical models in theoretical biology should not be overlooked.
Here is a typical excerpt from a review of his work in the field.
In a paper with T. F. Smith, Myron Stein, and William Beyer, Ulam carries out an investigation of the reconstruction of evolutionary trees based on 33 species of the protein complex known as Cytochrome-C from 33 extant plants or animals. A distance metric between these similar proteins is calculated by a mathematical theory (discussed elsewhere). Hypothetical evolutionary trees are then constructed by use of linear programming methods. Agreement of the trees with generally accepted evolutionary trees was reasonably good.
These results helped evolutionary biologists resolve uncertainties regarding the placement of problematic species on the evolutionary tree. By comparing which species had the most similar forms of Cytochrome-C, evolutionary biologists were able to establish which species were most closely related on the evolutionary tree. Mathematical models such as those crafted by Ulam and his collaborators exemplified the power, utility, and importance of mathematical modeling in unifying the fields of molecular biology and macro-evolution.
the comment was:
(Note: Sakharov's role as an independent discoverer has been called into question as of Dec. 29, 2008 [1].)
I removed it because it isn't really relevant to this article, at least in its present form. Also, it appears from the NY Times article itself that "Sakharov's role as an independent discoverer has been called into question" before. Still, something about this may belong somewhere—just not here, I think. Very interesting subject. False vacuum ( talk) 22:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I noticed an editor added a great section of material on Fission and explanations.
Unfortunately this was more on the theory of fission, and its explanation, than on Ulams work and so I had to remove a lot of it. I did retain some material and moved it to the section "Manhattan Project" to better explain how Ulams work led to the project. This also needs a lot of citations as, if it was the case that the Manhattan project relied on his work as heavily as claimed, then that should be supported by quotes or refs.
I have tagged the artice with a number of cn's as there is a need for showing the sources of those specific points. If he indeed was the first to realise something or the one that started something it should be stated as such with a ref and possibly a quote or two
thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The section on Ulam and the Manhattan Project contains the following paragraph:
When a single neutron collides with a uranium nucleus, in nuclear fission experiments, the final products are fission fragments and "new" neutrons. If a target-mass of solid uranium is bombarded with neutrons those "new" neutrons might collide with other uranium nuclei and again cause those nuclei to fission. Ulam realized that,[citation needed] if the target-mass was sufficiently large, a chain reaction would occur and fission could be either continuous—or even more importantly it could increase exponentially. This last statement is just plain wrong - Leo Sziliard is the inventor of the chain reaction. Sziliard actually applied for a British patent in the 30's. Sziliard and Fermi actually received a patent for the controlled release of nuclear energy in a pile post WWII. [4]
It seems clear from another article [1] that the injected comment "This last statement is just plain wrong..." is factually correct but unhelpful. It would be useful for someone with expertise on this subject to correct this section. Jylothr ( talk) 06:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It is clear from Richard Rhodes's "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", which contains copious references, that Leo Szilard is credited with the idea of the nuclear chain reaction. Wikipedia's own article on Szilard goes into this in some depth. The attribution to Ulam is wrong and should not be allowed to stand. Simply removing this part is better than leaving it there if no one will edit it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.116.22 ( talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the following material is only remotely related to the subject of the article, I have moved it from the body of the article to the talk page. Deer*lake ( talk) 15:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC) See 68.51.72.248
Corrections and additions to the 1990 Dover paperback reprint. Page 4, paragraph 4: In 2008 it was shown by Oliveira e Silva that Goldbach's conjecture is correct for all even numbers less than 120,000,000,000,000,000. Page 4, last paragraph: As of 2011 there is still no quadratic polynomial p(x) with integer coefficients such that the set {p(n) : n = 1,2,3,...} is known to contain infinitely many prime numbers. Page 8, first paragraph: As of 2011 it is still not known whether Euler's constant is rational, algebraic, or transcendental. Page 128, paragraph 6: Fermat's last theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles in 1995. Page 130, last paragraph: Hilbert's tenth problem was solved in 1970. There can be no algorithm that determines whether a general Diophantine equation has a solution. The problem is undecidable.
On 12 April 2012, an anonymous editor rewrote the lead paragraphs of this article. The new material is full of factual errors, misplaced emphasis, and non-standard English.
Some examples of errors:
Ulam escaped from Warsaw
In 1939, Ulam left Lwów, not Warsaw, to return to his position at Harvard after a summer visit with his family. Coincidentally, the war started shortly after he left.
Ulam was invited by John von Neuman to join and participate in …….. the Manhattan Project
It was Hans Bethe, not von Neuman, who invited Ulam.
… co-invented the Monte Carlo method of computation with the von Neuman
Ulam is universally credited with inventing the method. He did not "co-invent" it.
Examples of misplaced emphasis:
the professor of Mathematics at the University of Florida
the faculty of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison
These relatively insignificant academic positions do not belong in the lead paragraph, which leaves out his major position at Colorado.
Examples of non-standard English.
... in an amid fear of Holocaust
… was placed in Los Alamos National Laboratory
… relating the pure and applied mathematics, most notable of his works includes the [[Ulam spiral]
Consequently, I am restoring the lead paragraph to its previous version. Deer*lake ( talk) 13:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
His name was Stanisław Ułam, was it not? The l's are eł's not el's and they are both pronounced "w" in Polish and certainly were by Ułam. So it would have been STAN-is-wah OO-wam. Ułam's colleages used to ask him what the line or bar through the l in his last name was, and he used to say it stood for " l over 2π." (Like a reduced constant; a little physics joke). S B H arris 00:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 09:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Stanislaw Ulam →
Stanisław Ulam – His American name was "Stan", so if article uses his Polish name it should be Stanisław instead of Stanislaw.
konrad (
talk) 22:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find such an institution mentioned in any books other than the source. Ditto for Polish National Wood Industry Council. Can I ask that someone add Polish names of those organizations? The translations may be mangled (I cannot find anything relevant searching Polish sources). I also think that the original, not Englicized, version of the name Michael should be used, i.e. Michał, as seen for example in Adam Bruno Ulam (2001). Understanding the Cold War: a historian's personal reflections. Transaction Publishers. pp. 388–. ISBN 978-1-4128-4065-1. Retrieved 18 May 2013.. That source seems to be provide more information about Ulam family, which may be notable, sadly I cannot access the preceeding page, but it does imply that our article may be confusing Michał Ulam with Szymon Ulam? The section is reproduced verbatim from Adam Bruno Ulam (2000). Understanding the Cold War: a historian's personal reflections. Leopolis Press. pp. 5–6. Retrieved 18 May 2013., in a chapter "Ulam family of Lwów". -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Some interesting claims from pl wiki that would be worth adding here for completeness, referenced of course:
Also, while the Polish article doesn't say so, a good article should clearly state from where he received his PhD. Also, who was his supervisor? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dictioneer ( talk · contribs) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at a GAN review, so patience is appreciated.
The references passed the mechanical check with few problems. In going through the refs, here are the corrections and changes I would suggest:
This generates a warning ref check. The simple technical solution substitutes URL= http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/15 for http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v15/i6/p240_1
However, even the corrected link is too technical for the general reader – I think either of the two alternatives listed below would be fine, and leave it to someone more expert as to which would be more appropriate. Either URL change should be accompanied by the corresponding journal reference (e.g., CHAOS, etc.).
The reference appears genuine, but points to an inappropriate website. Substitute http://www.aulam.org/anxious2.htm#volsky for current URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/300PolishSquadron/message/3289?var=1 and update the corresponding reference in the note.
I would replace this reference and slightly reword the paragraph it supports: The Monte Carlo method has become a ubiquitous and standard approach to computation, and the method has been applied to a vast number of scientific problems. [1] In addition to problems in physics and mathematics, the method has been applied to: finance, social science, [2] environmental risk assessment, [3] linguistics, [4] radiation therapy, [5] and sports, [6]..
Next, in the references section, replace MONTESEARCH with MONTEALAMOS [1]
Dictioneer ( talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Before the recent flurry of edits, which began on 13 May 2013, the article contained two sections of quotations by and about Ulam. There were 14 quotations, documented by 8 distinct references. Both sections have been deleted. I find it hard to believe that nothing from this material should be included in a good article about Ulam. Deer*lake ( talk) 18:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Note 35 ref name=MIKEDEATH does not appear adequate to support the sentence, and the sentence appears to be unnecessary. Recommend deleting, but some form of rewording might also work.
Note 17, name=MCKIBB, does not appear to support the paragraph that references it. Recommend its removal or use in some other part of the article. The statement is adequately supported by fn 5, name=VITA.
Also suggest shorter wording, something like: Knowing nothing of the area, he borrowed a New Mexico guide book. On the checkout card, he found the names of his Wisconsin colleagues, Joan Hinton, David Frisch, and Joseph McKibben, all of whom had mysteriously disappeared. [7]
Dictioneer ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
In 1951, after controversy over credit for the H bomb developed, both Teller and Ulam left Los Alamos, which is an indication of their states of minds. The original paragraph stating this has been removed, which leaves dangling the first phrase of Fermi-Pasta-Ulam problem Deer*lake ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Dictioneer ( talk) 03:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Dictioneer ( talk) 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not a fan of infoboxes and consequently not very familiar with best practice. I've had a look at the MOS and think these consistent with its guidance, but nonetheless consider the following changes as open to discussion.
Dictioneer ( talk) 00:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
The process did improve some aspects of the article. For example the current photo in the info box is better than the original Los Alamos badge photo.
However, I am not sure that the overall article is better than it was on 11 May 2013. With little explicit reference to the good article criteria, and with virtually no attention to the preservation of content, an inexperienced and uninformed reviewer made numerous suggestions of deletions and arbitrary stylistic changes, which descended to the level of changing single words. These were slavishly implemented by the nominator. The result is a pallid recapitulation of standard information about Ulam that does not do justice to his vibrant personality.
Some examples of content that did not survive the review are:
Deer*lake ( talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
During his whole mathematical life he excelled not only in proving interesting and deep theorems but perhaps even more in inventing new and stimulating problems and conjectures. (p. 447, last paragraph, ref=ERDOS)
Dictioneer ( talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There's been a recent change [3] to the article, adding what appears to be accurate, relevant, and interesting detail to the Teller-Ulam design section: "Ulam had used his expertise in Combinatorics to analyze the chain reaction in deuterium, which was much more complicated than the ones in uranium and plutonium, and he concluded that no self sustaining chain reaction would take place at the (low) densities that Teller was considering.<*ref*>Lecture by Stan Ulam in Denton, Texas, at a Conference on the History of Applied Mathematics, in the late 1970's.<*ref*>"
The citation looks shaky to me. I assume this is fine for an article at GA status, but I doubt it would survive FAC, which I understand is where it may go in the not-too-distant future. I came up with an alternative that appears to support the text:
Title: The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power; edited by: Peter Galison, David J. Stump; Chapter 5: Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone; page: 135; author: Peter Galison;publisher = Stanford University Press; date = 1996
url= http://books.google.com/books?id=2HEYgFz_kioC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135
It was posted by an IP user, that's why I'm bringing it here. If anyone has a better citation, be old and add it; otherwise I’ll add this one to the article next week. Dictioneer ( talk) 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stanislaw Ulam. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Stanisław Ulam has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lemberg belonged to Austria Empiry (not to Poland) in those days and Ulam was US citizen. 82.82.126.128 15:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ulam was a member of Lvov school of Polish mathematician, with Stefan Banach and Hugo Steinhaus. Yes, he was Jewish and he emigrated to USA. This doesn't change the fact, that he was born in Poland, learn in Poland, contributed his work in Poland. AM
I read "Dark Sun" several times. As I recall, Ulam proposed a staged thermonuclear design which used the neutron flux from the primary to compress the secondary. Teller pointed out the X-rays got to the secondary faster, which forced using them for compression, instead of neutrons. The "sparkplug" fission component added compression from the center of the secondary. -- MWS 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I've seen this before, and it's a neat sequence. I don't remember a proof of this conjecture, however. If there is a proof, it would be nice to see a sketch of it. If there is no proof, that would also be nice to know. (Maybe it's just really obvious, and I'm obtuse.) As far as I can tell, one wants to keep going until a power of two is reached or number known to result in a power of two is reached. How does this preclude cycles and divergent sequences? Coleca 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I notice that the "theorem" has been deleted. I don't know if it's something that belongs in an enyclopedia, but arguing that it's just a conjecture is not sufficient justification. Coleca 08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a second Ulam's conjecture which is in graph theory. It's on wikipedia as the Reconstruction conjecture-- Syd Henderson 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I would request anyone who supports the present spelling to read Ulam's autobiography: Adventures of a Mathematician. His usage in English is Stanislaw and he spelled Stanislaw Mazur with an unmodified l. His friends called him Stanislaw, or Stan; his own usage seems to have been S. M. Ulam. This would be acceptable as a compromise, but it is not the most common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ulam's contributions to mathematical models in theoretical biology should not be overlooked.
Here is a typical excerpt from a review of his work in the field.
In a paper with T. F. Smith, Myron Stein, and William Beyer, Ulam carries out an investigation of the reconstruction of evolutionary trees based on 33 species of the protein complex known as Cytochrome-C from 33 extant plants or animals. A distance metric between these similar proteins is calculated by a mathematical theory (discussed elsewhere). Hypothetical evolutionary trees are then constructed by use of linear programming methods. Agreement of the trees with generally accepted evolutionary trees was reasonably good.
These results helped evolutionary biologists resolve uncertainties regarding the placement of problematic species on the evolutionary tree. By comparing which species had the most similar forms of Cytochrome-C, evolutionary biologists were able to establish which species were most closely related on the evolutionary tree. Mathematical models such as those crafted by Ulam and his collaborators exemplified the power, utility, and importance of mathematical modeling in unifying the fields of molecular biology and macro-evolution.
the comment was:
(Note: Sakharov's role as an independent discoverer has been called into question as of Dec. 29, 2008 [1].)
I removed it because it isn't really relevant to this article, at least in its present form. Also, it appears from the NY Times article itself that "Sakharov's role as an independent discoverer has been called into question" before. Still, something about this may belong somewhere—just not here, I think. Very interesting subject. False vacuum ( talk) 22:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I noticed an editor added a great section of material on Fission and explanations.
Unfortunately this was more on the theory of fission, and its explanation, than on Ulams work and so I had to remove a lot of it. I did retain some material and moved it to the section "Manhattan Project" to better explain how Ulams work led to the project. This also needs a lot of citations as, if it was the case that the Manhattan project relied on his work as heavily as claimed, then that should be supported by quotes or refs.
I have tagged the artice with a number of cn's as there is a need for showing the sources of those specific points. If he indeed was the first to realise something or the one that started something it should be stated as such with a ref and possibly a quote or two
thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The section on Ulam and the Manhattan Project contains the following paragraph:
When a single neutron collides with a uranium nucleus, in nuclear fission experiments, the final products are fission fragments and "new" neutrons. If a target-mass of solid uranium is bombarded with neutrons those "new" neutrons might collide with other uranium nuclei and again cause those nuclei to fission. Ulam realized that,[citation needed] if the target-mass was sufficiently large, a chain reaction would occur and fission could be either continuous—or even more importantly it could increase exponentially. This last statement is just plain wrong - Leo Sziliard is the inventor of the chain reaction. Sziliard actually applied for a British patent in the 30's. Sziliard and Fermi actually received a patent for the controlled release of nuclear energy in a pile post WWII. [4]
It seems clear from another article [1] that the injected comment "This last statement is just plain wrong..." is factually correct but unhelpful. It would be useful for someone with expertise on this subject to correct this section. Jylothr ( talk) 06:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It is clear from Richard Rhodes's "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", which contains copious references, that Leo Szilard is credited with the idea of the nuclear chain reaction. Wikipedia's own article on Szilard goes into this in some depth. The attribution to Ulam is wrong and should not be allowed to stand. Simply removing this part is better than leaving it there if no one will edit it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.116.22 ( talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Because the following material is only remotely related to the subject of the article, I have moved it from the body of the article to the talk page. Deer*lake ( talk) 15:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC) See 68.51.72.248
Corrections and additions to the 1990 Dover paperback reprint. Page 4, paragraph 4: In 2008 it was shown by Oliveira e Silva that Goldbach's conjecture is correct for all even numbers less than 120,000,000,000,000,000. Page 4, last paragraph: As of 2011 there is still no quadratic polynomial p(x) with integer coefficients such that the set {p(n) : n = 1,2,3,...} is known to contain infinitely many prime numbers. Page 8, first paragraph: As of 2011 it is still not known whether Euler's constant is rational, algebraic, or transcendental. Page 128, paragraph 6: Fermat's last theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles in 1995. Page 130, last paragraph: Hilbert's tenth problem was solved in 1970. There can be no algorithm that determines whether a general Diophantine equation has a solution. The problem is undecidable.
On 12 April 2012, an anonymous editor rewrote the lead paragraphs of this article. The new material is full of factual errors, misplaced emphasis, and non-standard English.
Some examples of errors:
Ulam escaped from Warsaw
In 1939, Ulam left Lwów, not Warsaw, to return to his position at Harvard after a summer visit with his family. Coincidentally, the war started shortly after he left.
Ulam was invited by John von Neuman to join and participate in …….. the Manhattan Project
It was Hans Bethe, not von Neuman, who invited Ulam.
… co-invented the Monte Carlo method of computation with the von Neuman
Ulam is universally credited with inventing the method. He did not "co-invent" it.
Examples of misplaced emphasis:
the professor of Mathematics at the University of Florida
the faculty of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison
These relatively insignificant academic positions do not belong in the lead paragraph, which leaves out his major position at Colorado.
Examples of non-standard English.
... in an amid fear of Holocaust
… was placed in Los Alamos National Laboratory
… relating the pure and applied mathematics, most notable of his works includes the [[Ulam spiral]
Consequently, I am restoring the lead paragraph to its previous version. Deer*lake ( talk) 13:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
His name was Stanisław Ułam, was it not? The l's are eł's not el's and they are both pronounced "w" in Polish and certainly were by Ułam. So it would have been STAN-is-wah OO-wam. Ułam's colleages used to ask him what the line or bar through the l in his last name was, and he used to say it stood for " l over 2π." (Like a reduced constant; a little physics joke). S B H arris 00:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 09:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Stanislaw Ulam →
Stanisław Ulam – His American name was "Stan", so if article uses his Polish name it should be Stanisław instead of Stanislaw.
konrad (
talk) 22:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find such an institution mentioned in any books other than the source. Ditto for Polish National Wood Industry Council. Can I ask that someone add Polish names of those organizations? The translations may be mangled (I cannot find anything relevant searching Polish sources). I also think that the original, not Englicized, version of the name Michael should be used, i.e. Michał, as seen for example in Adam Bruno Ulam (2001). Understanding the Cold War: a historian's personal reflections. Transaction Publishers. pp. 388–. ISBN 978-1-4128-4065-1. Retrieved 18 May 2013.. That source seems to be provide more information about Ulam family, which may be notable, sadly I cannot access the preceeding page, but it does imply that our article may be confusing Michał Ulam with Szymon Ulam? The section is reproduced verbatim from Adam Bruno Ulam (2000). Understanding the Cold War: a historian's personal reflections. Leopolis Press. pp. 5–6. Retrieved 18 May 2013., in a chapter "Ulam family of Lwów". -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Some interesting claims from pl wiki that would be worth adding here for completeness, referenced of course:
Also, while the Polish article doesn't say so, a good article should clearly state from where he received his PhD. Also, who was his supervisor? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dictioneer ( talk · contribs) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at a GAN review, so patience is appreciated.
The references passed the mechanical check with few problems. In going through the refs, here are the corrections and changes I would suggest:
This generates a warning ref check. The simple technical solution substitutes URL= http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/15 for http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v15/i6/p240_1
However, even the corrected link is too technical for the general reader – I think either of the two alternatives listed below would be fine, and leave it to someone more expert as to which would be more appropriate. Either URL change should be accompanied by the corresponding journal reference (e.g., CHAOS, etc.).
The reference appears genuine, but points to an inappropriate website. Substitute http://www.aulam.org/anxious2.htm#volsky for current URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/300PolishSquadron/message/3289?var=1 and update the corresponding reference in the note.
I would replace this reference and slightly reword the paragraph it supports: The Monte Carlo method has become a ubiquitous and standard approach to computation, and the method has been applied to a vast number of scientific problems. [1] In addition to problems in physics and mathematics, the method has been applied to: finance, social science, [2] environmental risk assessment, [3] linguistics, [4] radiation therapy, [5] and sports, [6]..
Next, in the references section, replace MONTESEARCH with MONTEALAMOS [1]
Dictioneer ( talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Before the recent flurry of edits, which began on 13 May 2013, the article contained two sections of quotations by and about Ulam. There were 14 quotations, documented by 8 distinct references. Both sections have been deleted. I find it hard to believe that nothing from this material should be included in a good article about Ulam. Deer*lake ( talk) 18:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Note 35 ref name=MIKEDEATH does not appear adequate to support the sentence, and the sentence appears to be unnecessary. Recommend deleting, but some form of rewording might also work.
Note 17, name=MCKIBB, does not appear to support the paragraph that references it. Recommend its removal or use in some other part of the article. The statement is adequately supported by fn 5, name=VITA.
Also suggest shorter wording, something like: Knowing nothing of the area, he borrowed a New Mexico guide book. On the checkout card, he found the names of his Wisconsin colleagues, Joan Hinton, David Frisch, and Joseph McKibben, all of whom had mysteriously disappeared. [7]
Dictioneer ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
In 1951, after controversy over credit for the H bomb developed, both Teller and Ulam left Los Alamos, which is an indication of their states of minds. The original paragraph stating this has been removed, which leaves dangling the first phrase of Fermi-Pasta-Ulam problem Deer*lake ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Dictioneer ( talk) 03:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Dictioneer ( talk) 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not a fan of infoboxes and consequently not very familiar with best practice. I've had a look at the MOS and think these consistent with its guidance, but nonetheless consider the following changes as open to discussion.
Dictioneer ( talk) 00:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
The process did improve some aspects of the article. For example the current photo in the info box is better than the original Los Alamos badge photo.
However, I am not sure that the overall article is better than it was on 11 May 2013. With little explicit reference to the good article criteria, and with virtually no attention to the preservation of content, an inexperienced and uninformed reviewer made numerous suggestions of deletions and arbitrary stylistic changes, which descended to the level of changing single words. These were slavishly implemented by the nominator. The result is a pallid recapitulation of standard information about Ulam that does not do justice to his vibrant personality.
Some examples of content that did not survive the review are:
Deer*lake ( talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
During his whole mathematical life he excelled not only in proving interesting and deep theorems but perhaps even more in inventing new and stimulating problems and conjectures. (p. 447, last paragraph, ref=ERDOS)
Dictioneer ( talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There's been a recent change [3] to the article, adding what appears to be accurate, relevant, and interesting detail to the Teller-Ulam design section: "Ulam had used his expertise in Combinatorics to analyze the chain reaction in deuterium, which was much more complicated than the ones in uranium and plutonium, and he concluded that no self sustaining chain reaction would take place at the (low) densities that Teller was considering.<*ref*>Lecture by Stan Ulam in Denton, Texas, at a Conference on the History of Applied Mathematics, in the late 1970's.<*ref*>"
The citation looks shaky to me. I assume this is fine for an article at GA status, but I doubt it would survive FAC, which I understand is where it may go in the not-too-distant future. I came up with an alternative that appears to support the text:
Title: The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power; edited by: Peter Galison, David J. Stump; Chapter 5: Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone; page: 135; author: Peter Galison;publisher = Stanford University Press; date = 1996
url= http://books.google.com/books?id=2HEYgFz_kioC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135
It was posted by an IP user, that's why I'm bringing it here. If anyone has a better citation, be old and add it; otherwise I’ll add this one to the article next week. Dictioneer ( talk) 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stanislaw Ulam. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)