Tragic Deaths of Three Great Scientists

roohi:

Just to let you know that I appreciated your feedback.

Mohammad Gill

Mr. Gill,

Thanks for writing about Hypatia ... in the atmosphere we live in now it`s worth reminding people that religious fanaticism can touch all religions.

(As you well know) Hypatia was not just a scientist but a neo-platonist philosopher at a time when christianity and ``paganism`` were in a death struggle. Her death has implications beyond science ... and many of her students were prominent christians who used the philosophical concepts learned at her feet in their christian theology. BTW I find the parallels between neo-platonism and upanishadic vedanta very interesting ...

Anyway, thought I`d mention another intriguing woman of mathematics from our part of the world ... Lilavati of Ujjain ... she was the daughter of Bhaskaracharya the head of the astronomical observatory in Ujjain in the 12th century. This kid was obviously smart as a whip because his manual on arithmetic is named after her (all the problems are addressed to her) not any of his sons, good for her I say!!

Fuji - Come on, you`re being a snobby scientific show-off on the one hand and accusing Hypatia/scholars of being ``disjointed`` with society on the other hand ... and she was very popular in Alexandria by many accounts, and even if she was why not, does that make the barbarism of her death commonplace to you? How in the world did you subject yourself to something as simple minded as Cosmos anyway?

Romair #22

{{The lives of famous scientists make more interesting reading than the scientific problems they tackled.}}

Debatable. Nevertheless ...

{{What about the famous lawyer Fermat and his even more famous theorem, which was recently solved by Wiles. Fermat wasn`t even a mathematician.}}

Fermat wasn’t a ‘professional’, in the sense of making his living from mathematics … there were essentially no professional mathematicians in his time and clime; that had to wait for perhaps another fifty years. He was one of the most gifted amateurs in history.

{{How did Fermat die? Is he the one who died in a sword fight, thereby never getting a chance to publish his famous proof?}}

No, Fermat appears to have had a pretty conventional and uneventful life in the ‘real world’. He died at a mature age. He ‘published’ very little in his lifetime. In those days publication usually meant communicating your results via letters to your peers, or to a person who served as central repository of mathematical correspondence, a role played by the priest Marin de Mersenne. In any case, Fermat probably never had a proof for the most famous theorem that bears his name, as he claimed in the margin of his copy of Diophantus. He did prove lots of far more accessible results.

Fermat’s contemporary Descartes is known to have dueled with swords in between developing his algebraicisation of geometry. The famous mathematician who died tragically young at 21 as the result of a duel (with pistols, not swords) was Evariste Galois. Niels Henryk Abel, who contributed to the same field as Galois, also died young. And then there is Srinivasa Ramanujan, who died of tuberculosis in his early thirties.

Perhaps it’s better to die while young and at the height of your powers than to linger on for years or decades after your brains have turned to mush!

Dear Romair:

Thanks for your interest in the article. You mentioned Fermat in your post and his famous theorem, which had defied the mathematician for nearly three hundred years. I had described a brief history of this theorem in my article ``Three Hard Questions and Quest for their Solution,`` Chowk.com, January 4, 2003. The article did not particularly deal with Fermat`s life story. His life story is described in several books on the history of mathematics.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Interesting article.

The lives of famous scientists make more interesting reading than the scientific problems they tackled. At least, that is what I always discovered. The university I attended actually offered a history course on the lives of famous scientists.

What about the famous lawyer Fermat and his even more famous theorem, which was recently solved by Wiles. Fermat wasn`t even a mathematician. BBC did an excellent documentary on it.

How did Fermat die? Is he the one who died in a sword fight, thereby never getting a chance to publish his famous proof?

There is a professor at Univ. of Toronto, Stephen Cook, who is the winner of the Turing Award (named, obviously after Turing, and considered by many to be the Nobel Prize of Computer Sciences).

inna lillah-e- wa inna elahe rajeoon

The news do arrive late in Pakistan.

Freethinker: We do NOT see each other eye to eye on the very essense of free thinking and I have openly disagreed with you several times on that. And, that`s fine! On the current subject, I see your dedication and devotion and I have my respect for you in that regard. I like the way you state your perspectives.

On Iqbal: I think you completly misunderstood my stance on Iqbal. And, that`s where I have some *issues* with your line of thought. I have read him wayyyyyyyyyy back. And, I certainly appreciated his choice of words and flow. At that time, I was not pragmatic enough to see through the idealistic and perfecrt world he weaved. I had my own poetical world. So it was fun to add the flavor from here and there :) Now, as an adult, I do NOT agree with some of his core philosophies. I would NEVER base anything in life on those. Period! But, childhood likings and associations have their own place. It does NOT mean that you should hold on to all of them till your end. On the flip side, it also does not mean that you should discard them. I believe in moving on and growing up.

There is one thing I missed here and I would like to point that out. Reading something is very different from being able to associate with what the writer is saying. Every poet and writer impacts you in a different way at a different stage of your life. It`s real important to have the awareness. My 100 cents!

I am not going to come back to this board for further tete-a-tete. Laiken, I would look forward to your contribution on the subject of ``Introspection and Freethinking``.

Happy 4th of July!

Take Care.

ZahraJ:

Thank you for your advice. I usually give the benefit of doubt to the other party.

Regarding your comments ``I do not agree with 75 % of things you have said under the umbrella of `freethinking`...``, it`s okay. Freethinking is freethinking and not conformity with the others ` ideas willy-nilly. But disagreement just for the sake of disagreement or just for the heck of it or to score points, is against the spirit of freethinking, in my book. You know it`s not usually easy to move away from `group thinking`, the ideas and beliefs you are born with or born into, and the traditional thinking. One has to work hard to find reasons why you should think differently.

For example, I think I know that you love Iqbal`s poetry and thought. I have been reading him since childhood. In due time I could understand his poetry and could find faults with his thoughts. I worked very hard to understand his philosophy. I read his ``Lectures`` several times, each time making some progress over the last time. When finally I had gained confidence, I realized much of his philosophy, in fact whole of it, is metaphysics. Many Pakistani philosophers have said it`s difficult to understand Iqbal`s philosophy. I realized, there is very little in it to understand. He has woven the webs and woofs with impressive words without saying much which is rationally meaningful. Now here you may disagree with me; you`ve your own perception of Iqbal which is as good as mine as far you personally are concerned. I came to my conclusion after a very hard study of his works. That is my own perception.

You`ve every right to disagree with me as I have already said. Freethinking is a natural gift, a godsend, so to say; we have a thinking mind, we should not close it. I think therefore I am.

wishing you very well,

Mohammad Gill

#14: [unfortunately it is clear that chowk editors either lack the knowledge or unwilling to put the effort required to vet submissions.]

Why do not you care to submit something worthwhile ? I am sure chowk editors would love to entertain your ideas. After all, they have been kind to many.

Freethinker:

[I think I should stop here before I go overboard and expose myself to further criticism. ]

With due respect, I would like to be a little harsh here. I do not agree with 75% of things you have said under the umbrella of ``free-thinking`` but I certainly acknowledge and appreciate your dedication to the subject under discussion. In fact, I love the cute icon under Science and Sciencibility and I am very happy to see you there.

In the real world, you will never be able to win the hearts and minds of all. And, please do not even try to take that route, since it will make you lose your own uniqueness and vigor. Should you care if anyone gets a headache or heartache after reading about the article under discussion? Well, I would not give two hoots. If someone wants to write a rejoinder, let them take the route. Your advice was right on the money! Basic courtesy and kindess pays off most of the times provided you are interacting with civil men and women, but other times you should just ignore. It`s evident that some interactors have resentment to see you spearheading the corner of Science and Sciencibility and contributing on a regular basis. Let them burn and disintegrate in their own negativity. My two cents!

Take Care.

Dear fuji:

You`re welcome. There is nothing personal in it. I have wondered occasionally that some very knowledgable people visit Chowk and some time they write also but if they care to write about science topics, it`ll be so much more interesting. I do not know what your specialization is. But if such people come out of their ivory towers and write on Chowk on somewhat more challenging topics, they`ll be doing a great public service. The Muslim world is so much behind in the scientific field. Chowk is read not only in the U.S. and other western countries, but in Pakistan also. So if some interest is generated in the scientific field in Pakistan, it should be great.

One of my articles which I had published at The Pakistan Link was posted on a science web page in Pakistan. The article was not all that great but it underlined the need for development of science in Pakistan. That at least showed that people appreciate such papers.

I do not consider myself a reformer, per se, and my ego is well in control but these considerations aside, there is a need for writers who should write to popularize science. I think I should stop here before I go overboard and expose myself to further criticism. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

dear mr. gill,

thank you for taking my sharp critique very kindly. i do respect what you`re doing, and see the value in it. i do get to be abrasive once in a while, so i apologize for that. i hope you continue your work and contribution to chowk.

all the best from the curmudgeon!

Dear warpster:

I appreciate objective comments and the suggestions for improving quality. I am learning new things all the time. In real life, the response and reaction from the readers is varied and different. I usually feel sorry and deficient if any of my pieces fails to touch a chord. I am sorry if this paper went astray and wobbling. Probably, I am the one who empathaized with my subjects more than the readers. Selection of the three scientists for the paper was just personal and largely arbitrary. This didn`t mean that they somehow suffered more than numerous others. And from personal point of view, I don`t know others sufficiently well to write about them.

First time, when I read about Turing`s fateful death (several years back), it shocked me. I had come across bits and pieces about Hypatia, here and there, and she intrigued me in a different way. Another woman comes to mind, Albert Einstein`s first wife. Her son from Einstein, Hans Einstein, was a civil enineer who did pioneer work in sediment transport in rivers. Hans wanted to find out if her mother had factually contributed to the development of Theory of Special Relativity which was published by his father. He asked several of his physicist friends to dig out. No evidence could be found to support Hans` conjectur; Theory of Special Relativity was exclusively Albert`s work. Such tid-bits and anecdotes interest some readers while others may find them trivial. Life is a mixed bag of everything.

Thanks for your feedback.

Mohammad Gill

mr gill

with all due respect, this piece lacks coherence and seems little more than a cut and paste job. Reliance on sources does not a coherent essay make. Yes, there are tidbits here and there but even for a reader such as I am (very far from being a physicist but having studied the topic briefly in university) is far from satisfactory.

unfortunately, on the plus side, I`d have to say there are far worse submissions (the recent one on bogus spirituality springs to mind) in Chowk. I appreciate your intent and sincerity but if you could get some informal feedback from people who are willing to review it (prior to chowk submission), it could make the product more palatable.

unfortunately it is clear that chowk editors either lack the knowledge or unwilling to put the effort required to vet submissions.

I agree that fuji was abrasive but it does seem he has valid points. maybe fuji can write a piece and enhance the intellectual level :-)

#11: An unpleasant and incoherent post.

Freethinker:
[ It will be much productive and generally beneficial if you and other specialists find time to write better and more knowledgeable papers and publish them on Chowk because there probably is suitable readership here which will appreciate such works and be grateful for your efforts. ]

Good advice!

Dear Mr. Fuji:

Apparently, the papers that I have published at Chowk were not suitable for you and others who have superior knowledge in the areas in which I wrote. But every one is not so well-informed as you are; many others did like what I wrote. For the sake of clarification, I didn’t read Carl Sagan for my information on Hypatia; had I known that he had written about her, I sure would have used that source also. For the sake of readers’ information, I provide the reference which I use in compiling a paper. I do admit, my knowledge in the areas outside of my specialty is second-hand. My work may appear trivial to those who have first-hand knowledge in these areas. My papers are not meant for those specialists.

Let me explain why I do what I do. I have mentioned at other places and on other occasions also that professionally, I am a civil engineer. For nearly thirty to thirty five years, I didn’t do anything but hydraulics. I have published some modest original work in hydraulics in refereed research journals; so writing and publishing is nothing new to me. Chowk is not the only venue where I have published my work. I have published work on some other websites also which are much more critical and demanding before they accept a paper for publication.

For example, I submitted one of my papers on a philosophical topic for publishing on a website which as a matter of routine policy, accepted papers only after obtaining peer reviews from specialists. They got my paper reviewed by one of the professors of philosophy and after some adjustments, the paper was accepted and published. Even then, my paper may be of only marginal interest to those who are experts in the field. Such experts don’t have to read my papers and get irritated.

Reading is my pastime and I enjoy sharing whatever modest knowledge I acquire with other non-specialists. This is how I am going to spend my retirement which is due next year. So you should bear with me or else avoid reading my work.

Without continuing any further, all that I can say is that if you and others of superior knowledge find my papers too simplistic and naïve, you should not waste your time in reading them. They are not meant for you. It will be much productive and generally beneficial if you and other specialists find time to write better and more knowledgeable papers and publish them on Chowk because there probably is suitable readership here which will appreciate such works and be grateful for your efforts.

In the end, I like to thank you for sharing your frustration with me and other readers; I wish I was less irritating to you. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

i read stuff from mr. gill once in a while, but this is the last straw.

like others this article is very inane and childish. what is the big deal here? carl sagan sensationalized the story of hypatia in cosmos ( and that is probably where this writer got the story from and added his own bit of tear-jerking pathos to it). scientists, like other people, have perished in all sort of ways, in wars, through disease, murders, suicides, etc. etc. how is the death of any one of these folks more tragic? wasn`t copernicus` death tragic (not being able to talk about his life work), or ibn-sina`s (running from one place to another), or einstein`s (his hopes of elegant unified theories dashed), or galois (killed in a stupid duel over a girl). why do you need to sensationalize for the sake of doing it?

hypatia was killed because she like other scholars had become too disjointed and separated from the society she was a part of. there was a problem in the way classical scholarship had evolved to pursue abstract ideas and not for the general benefit of the society. did anyone discuss her arrogance or the complete isolation of the cadre of scholars from the rest of the humanity? was the issue entirely because of suppression of ideas?

did the writer have the intelligence to understand what the society at that time was generally going through? no, because the sorry sources he copied the passages from do not discuss it.

boltzmann, now what is unusual about a genius having psychological problems? is he the first or the last to go through that? so what exactly is the point of feeling sorry for a suicidal psycopath who happened to be good at physics?

btw, this whole thing of boltzmann`s equation being one of the most beautiful equations in physics is another whole lot of crock, which comes directly from a popular science book written by some english major.

if the writer, mr. gill, really knew what he was talking about he would have pointed out that there a fundamental difference in the two equations. boltzmann`s equation is a definition: the elegance lies in identifying W. einstein`s equation is a derivation, a logical result of the principles of relativity. (why didn`t you pick the definition of the partition function as a contender for this ``beauty prize``? )

but since this is chowk, we should stay at the surface level now shouldn`t we...

the previous articles by the author are similar. he goes through previously published articles/books or broadcast shows, copies stuff indiscriminately, throws in his blend of spice and voila we have another intellectual tear-jerker CHOLLYWOOD (chowk + hollywood) release. why don`t you just write about what you really know as opposed to have memorized from popular science books.

as usual intensely frustrating for someone who happens to know what mr. gill writes about.