Talk:Laurence Monroe Klauber

Ulam's spiral

Since user Number9111 did not remove the statement attributing the discovery of Ulam's spiral to Klauber, it may be that what he/she objects to is its characterization as an "important discovery in mathematics". Ulam's spiral appears not to have received a great deal of attention from professional mathematicians, although it is frequently mentioned in popular mathematics articles about prime numbers. This may be because number theorists regard the spiral as merely a visualization of phenomena that had long been known, or it may be because proving theorems about it is just too hard. If Number9111 is reading this, perhaps he/she can explain.

I should add that, although I am the person who added the mention of Klauber to the Ulam spiral article, I am a bit dissatisfied at not having a reference to Klauber's actual paper. The only source I have attesting to its existence is Ed Pegg Jr.'s Math Games article, which does not provide a reference. Will Orrick (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have an approximate date as to when Klauber might have discovered Ulam spiral, let me know. Klauber's journals are currently being transcribed at San Diego Natural History Museum and he'd be likely to have mentioned it there Isara (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Math Games article by Pegg states that Klauber presented his paper to the Mathematical Association of America in 1932. It would be great if you could find more information about this. Will Orrick (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Check this out: reference to the paper about the "triangle of primes" being received favorably by Prof. E.T. Bell, December 28, 1931 and this, reference to the paper December 31, 1931. There are further references in the 1932 journal as well. I couldn't find earlier references in 1931, but I didn't read thoroughly. I spoke with Margaret Dykens, the Library Director at the San Diego Natural History Museum. She said they have all of Klauber's papers, including that specific one. Those have not been digitized, but if you contact her and request it, she should be able to digitize it for you. Isara (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Found the reference to the talk itself. March 26, 1932 "Read mathematical paper at the meeting of the Mathematical Assn. of America at State College this afternoon." Isara (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. It's a bit surprising that he refers to a "triangle of primes", although a two-dimensional spiral of any shape should give a pattern similar to what one sees in the Ulam spiral. I'm very curious now what his exact construction was. I will write to Maragaret Dykens as you suggested. Will Orrick (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My objection was only at the claim that "Klauber .. may have been the first to make an important discovery in mathematics."

I might be misinterpreting the sense of what you are trying to say, but if the statement is taken at face value then it is untrue. The first 'important' discoveries in mathematics were certainly made before Klauber's time! If you could clear up the confusion or just leave that bit out then I would have no objections. Number9111 (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Your objection wasn't at all what I had imagined. I had thought the dispute centered around whether Klauber's discovery was "important", and not whether it was the first important mathematical discovery ever. There seem to be different possible interpretations of the sentence in question. The ambiguity stems from the different ways in which the indefinite article "an" can be used. I'm certain that the author of that sentence meant "He ... may have been the first to make a (particular, but not yet identified to the reader) discovery in mathematics" and not "He ... may have the first (ever) to make (any) important discovery in mathematics". I have to say that the second reading did not even occur to me, but this might just be due to my particular point of view. If many other readers are likely to interpret it as you did, perhaps the sentence should be modified slightly.

I'm still concerned that "important" may be an exaggeration, since I'm not yet convinced of the significance of Ulam's spiral to the mathematical research community. (Although it's relatively famous, as mathematical discoveries go.) Will Orrick (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)