Talk:List of scientific laws named after people

Summary of previous Talks

by Saeed.Veradi (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

feel Bold to Edit it

Distinction Between tags

to me tag means: the type of a sentence from Scholastic view

like: law, theory, theorem, rule, principle, axiom

this is a brief answer to Confused Jay (look below). I'v studied this separation frequently, seriously, and scientificly for 7 years Saeed.Veradi (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

some meanings in language

law = a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present. (oxford dictionary)

theory (1)a guess or assumption (2)an organized and classified set of facts and explainations

rule = a claim proved using experiment or ...

some meanings defined in "logic"

Definition (has lots of meanings and types in classic logic)

some meanings defined in "Mathematical logic". see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective#Introduction

Definition = A Biconditional Statement (if and only if) that we accept as True

Axiom = A Material implication statement (if...then) that we accept as True

Theorem = a statement that we proove it's Truth

Equation = a statement containing equal sign

some meanings that are/were popular among scientist, but has no exact definition

principle = (1)any True and very fundamental statement (2)method (3)a Theorem that provides a method

no refrence. I collected a list of about 130 principles and Thought about their similarities and reached to this conclusion

Examples that shows tags has not been used very accurately and based on "standard" among scientists:

• Bernoulli's law / Bernoulli's principle / Bernoulli's Theorem -- AJim

Controvercies

Should Statements that may define laws, but are NOT laws Themselves, be removed? --Kaiserkarl13

• Schroedinger equation --Kaiserkarl13
• Riemann zeta function --Kaiserkarl13
• Newton's Law of Cooling --Kaiserkarl13
• Abel's Theorem --Kaiserkarl13
• Pythagorean theorem (Mathematics - plane geometry)
• Asimov's Laws of Robotics -- Motorneuron

Should Statements that are NOT laws be added?

• Noether's theorem -- Michael Hardy
• all the hundreds of theorem's named after people that are already Wikipedia articles -- Michael Hardy
• geometrical laws
• Linus's law
• Ahad's Sphere of the Sun

Is it a law?

• Curie's law -- Ross 200805

Yes! "Magnetization is proportional to the applied magnetic field divided by temperature." --

• Scheimpflug principle

195.137.93.171

No it's a geometry theory

• Titius-Bode "law"

Although it is partically wrong, yes.

• Moore's law? Computer science

No. it's a statistical research that predict's a human trend for a while. not the world's trend

Can parts of the science be perfectly distinguished? 'Computer Science' could straddle the line? --195.137.93.171

3000 years effort have made it possible. specially in the most general fields. including Computer science. see: Map of science

Suggestions

separation of Mathemathics and Scientific Statements. the one's that are prooved by experiment are Scientific. the ones that are prooved by math reasoning are mathematical. -- AJim

What about the one's that has both proofs?

if it needs a fundamental physics rule and can't be prooved without it, then it's a derived rule (not fundamental rule), and must be placed in rules. not theorems.

Example: Math can proove that "work" (in physics) is a function of path. but if we use the first law of thermodynamics, math can proove it is a function of point in "adiabatic process". with other formulated observations, math can proove that "work" of gravitational, electrical, and some spring Forces are also a function of point.

if it can be prooved for a meaningless parameter, but it is correct for meaningful physical parameters, then it's mathematical.

Example: the basic Equation of Fluid Dynamics can be prooved using mathematics only, but it is true for Energy, Mass, Force, Momentum, ...

Geometrical theorems are also mathematical. because geometry have advanced so much, that describes without needing shapes. yet shapes are still very usefull for understanding.

info merged from List_of_eponymous_laws must be moved to correct place --Henrygb. see:[1]

Summarized Talks

Equations too, or just laws?

Many of the things listed on this page are equations, functions, etc., (e.g., Schroedinger equation, Riemann zeta function) not scientific laws (e.g., Newton's Law of Cooling) or mathematical theorems (e.g., Abel's Theorem). Should such eponymous equations---which may define laws, but are themselves NOT laws---be removed? --Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem (Mathematics - plane geometry)

If Noether's theorem is included, should we include Pythagorean theorem and all the hundreds of theorem's named after people that are already Wikipedia articles? Michael Hardy 01:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Noether's theorem is a scientific law whereas Pythagorean theorem is a mathematical one. I'm not very clear with the science vs. mathematics distinction when its comes to laws and theories. For that matter I'm not clear on the distinction between the terms "law", "theory", "theorem", "rule", "principle", "axiom", et. al. Confused Jay

I think it might be more useful if mathematical theorems had a page of their own, if for no other reason than space. Perhaps the cases can be discriminated on something like this basis: the Pythagorean theorem is established by a proof, and is part of an abstract system, plane geometry. The physical laws are established and confirmed by experimental measurements on real things, and they are subject to refinement and possible repudiation. I see that there is some confusion in nomenclature, for instance, Bernoulli's law is sometimes Bernoulli's principle and sometimes Bernoulli's theorem. AJim 02:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apparently this includes info merged from List_of_eponymous_laws [2] --Henrygb 01:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that the Pythagorean theorem I added to the list does not belong to the category of scientific laws, so I remove it. --Anastasios 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the other geometry-related laws? Olin 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting trying to draw a line between Maths & Science : 'Computer Science' could straddle the line ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Linus's law?

i don't realy think i would call this a scientific law. Anyone care to comment? (mind you the whole use of the term law in science is archaic anyway) Plugwash 16:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds has two:

"Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."

"All of our motivations fall into three basic categories : 'survival', 'social life', and 'entertainment'."

Generalisations - not falsifiable ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Curie's law?

What about Curie's law? Ross 200805

"Magnetization is proportional to the applied magnetic field divided by temperature." - Yes ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Scheimpflug principle? (Photography - geometric optics)

If a lens is not parallel to the film: the lens-plane, film-plane and the plane of objects in focus all intersect at one line. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Asimov's Laws of Robotics are not science

Asimov's laws of robotics come from science fiction and are not science, which is to say that they originated in science fiction and are applied primarily within science fiction. But on top of that, they are not scientific in the way that almost all of these other laws are: empirical or logical principles that have been proven. Rather, Asimov's laws are specifications for how robots *should* behave, or how a human designing a robot might *want* robots to behave; they are laws the same way that it's a law that you can't cross the street except at corners. Even the Three Laws of Robotics article does not attempt (much) to claim that they are scientific laws. For these reasons I think the entry should be removed from this article, and I will do so if I don't hear back within a week or two. Motorneuron 10:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)motorneuron

Category

If no one objects, I'm turning this into a category. Isopropyl 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You really should, I don't see a reason for it to be an article. Rend 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Empirical and theoretical laws

The table lists a mixture of empirical laws and theoretical laws. Shouldn't there be two tables? DFH 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Titius-Bode "law"

Why is Titius-Bode included here? It would appear to fail the tests at Physical law. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because a law has to explain and predict. exceptions of law decrease it's value, credibility, and application partially. not wholly. Bohr's atomic theory has also been problematic in explaining the electron's path. but we don't throw it away. and we use it in electromagnetics.Saeed.Veradi (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Moore's law? Computer science.

Moore's law

Perhaps Moore's law would be better described as "Material science" because it's about transistor fabrication technology. Peter 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of "law" in the names of these laws?

Should there be a consistent capitalization of the word "law" in the name of the law? - Bevo 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Because tags like law, theorem, ... have been used inacurately throughout the history Saeed.Veradi (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Description

Will someone please add descriptions of these laws to the table so those of us who want a quick reference sheet can have them on hand? It would be appreciated, thanks. --Aaron Kinney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.165.224 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not. It needs hagh skill and high knowledge. and It can be more easily vindilised. besides, it is a list. It is already TOO SHORT. the task will prevent the expansion of the list and instead, expands explainations; because people will think that they have to write explainations.

Ahad's Sphere of the Sun

Missing from the list is a theorem of the Sun's radiation flux. It was defined c. 2004 and overlaps across the categories of cosmology, astronomy and astrosphysics [3]

File:Ahad sphere solar illuminance2.jpg

See also:

• Computational proof by User:Gilgamesh007 and
• Consensus of the Ahad Radius on the Sun's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.214.12 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep only the laws

I think it would be easier to sort which articles are here if we just go for statements that contain the word "law", independent of their nature. If not every time this article is going to find new cases and nuances that have not been thought before. --MaoGo (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)