>
> I agree that mathematicians often treat history with contempt, not in
> the sense of explicitly scorning it - indeed the opposite, an invoking
> of 'history' may occur - but in the sense of lack of historical rigour,
This past two weeks I came in contact with a highly respected U.S.
mathematician. He spoke on Galois and spoke with contempt about a book on
Galois. He admitted that he had never even seen the book, but rather was
quoting from a journal article he read. I was much dismayed. We students of
mathematics history are told to go to primary sources and yet this gentleman
was satisfied with criticizing a book that he had never even seen. Well,
"ole" Karen gave him the book to look over. I think he was surprised that
the article he had read and quoted from misrepresented the book. However,
the eminent mathematician did say his mind hadn't changed. I replied that I
wasn't concerned about what he believed about the Galois book; I was
concerned that he made statements without even reading the book.
For some reason, I don't believe that my story above is an isolated incidence.
Karen Dee Michalowicz