Hilbert in my View

A project under construction

Franz Rothe
Department of Mathematics
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
frothe@uncc.edu

December 28, 2012

Allhilbert\allhilbert.tex

Contents

I Biography 2
1 Hilbert’s life 3
1.1 Life at Königsberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Wife and child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Life at Göttingen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 The Göttingen school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Later years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Work 7
2.1 Hilbert’s Basis Theorem and Zahlbericht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Foundations of Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 The Paris Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Mathematical Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 ”Foundation of Physics” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Priority remains unclear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1
 2.7 Reactions to Hilbert’s work in General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 International congress in Bologna 1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9 Concluding remark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

II Some Reflections 16
1 Der Annalenstreit 17
1.1 Mathematische Annalen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2 Hintergrund des Annalenstreites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.3 Der Annalenstreit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.4 Literatur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2 The Einstein-Born letters 20

2.1 Born’s letter from 1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 Comment by Max Born himself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 The Born Einstein Letters 1916-1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3 Confirmation of Gravitational Waves 25

Part I
Biography

2
1 Hilbert’s life
Born: 23 Jan 1862 in Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia)
Died: 14 Feb 1943 in Göttingen, Germany

1.1 Life at Königsberg

Hilbert, the first of two children of Otto and Maria Therese (Erdtmann) Hilbert, was
born in the Province of Prussia —either in Königsberg (according to Hilbert’s own
statement) or in Wehlau (known since 1946 as Znamensk) near Königsberg where his
father worked at the time of his birth.
In the fall of 1872, he entered the Friedrichskolleg Gymnasium (Collegium frideri-
cianum, the same school that Immanuel Kant had attended 140 years before), but after
an unhappy time he transferred in fall 1879 to the more science-oriented Wilhelm Gym-
nasium. After graduating from the gymnasium in spring 1880, he entered the University
of Königsberg, the ”Albertina”.
One of Hilbert’s friends there was Hermann Minkowski —two years younger than
Hilbert and also a native of Königsberg. Minkowski was so talented he had graduated
early from his gymnasium and had begun his studies in Berlin for three semesters. In the
spring of 1882, Hermann Minkowski returned to Königsberg and entered the university.
”Hilbert knew his luck when he saw it. In spite of his father’s disapproval, he soon
became friends with the shy, gifted Minkowski.”
In 1884, Adolf Hurwitz arrived from Göttingen as an extraordinarius, i.e. an asso-
ciate professor. An intense and fruitful scientific exchange between the three began and
especially Minkowski and Hilbert would exercise a reciprocal influence on each other at
various times in their scientific careers. Hilbert obtained his doctorate in 1885, with
a dissertation Über invariante Eigenschaften spezieller binärer Formen, insbesondere
der Kugelfunktionen (”On the invariant properties of special binary forms, in particu-
lar the spherical harmonic functions”), written under the supervision of Ferdinand von
Lindemann.
Hilbert was a member of staff at Königsberg from 1886 to 1895, being a Privatdozent
until 1892, then as extraordinary professor for one year. In 1893 he was appointed a full
professor, and remained at the University of Königsberg until 1895.

1.2 Wife and child

In 1892, Hilbert married Käthe Jerosch (1864–1945), ”the daughter of a Königsberg
merchant, an outspoken young lady with an independence of mind that matched his
own”.
While at Königsberg they had their only child Franz Hilbert (1893–1969). Franz
would suffer his entire life from an (undiagnosed) mental illness, his inferior intellect

3
a terrible disappointment to his father and this tragedy a matter of distress to the
mathematicians and students at Göttingen.

1.3 Life at Göttingen

In 1892 Schwarz moved from Göttingen to Berlin to occupy Weierstrass’s chair, and
Klein wanted to offer Hilbert the vacant Göttingen chair. However Klein failed to
persuade his colleagues. So Heinrich Weber was appointed as chair. Klein was probably
not too unhappy when Weber moved to a chair at Straßburg (now Strasbourg) three
years later. Indeed, on this occasion he was successful in his aim of appointing Hilbert.
So, in 1895, as a result of intervention by Felix Klein on his behalf, Hilbert was appointed
to the chair of mathematics at the university of Göttingen. He continued to teach and
do research at Göttingen for the rest of his career.
Hilbert’s eminent position in the world of mathematics meant that other institutions
would have liked to tempt him to leave Göttingen. In 1902, the University of Berlin
offered Hilbert the chair held by Fuchs. Hilbert turned down this offer from Berlin, but
only after bargain with Göttingen and persuade them to set up a new full professorship
to bring his friend Minkowski to Göttingen. Sadly, Minkowski—Hilbert’s ”best and
truest friend”—would die prematurely of a ruptured appendix in 1909.

1.4 The Göttingen school

At the University of Göttingen, Hilbert was surrounded by a social circle of some of
the most important mathematicians of the 20th century, such as Emmy Noether and
Alonzo Church. John von Neumann was his assistant.
Among his 69 Ph.D. students in Göttingen were many who later became famous
mathematicians, including the famous world chess champion Lasker, Ernesto Zermelo,
Otto Blumenthal (1898), Felix Bernstein (1901), Hermann Weyl (1908), Richard Courant
(1910), Erich Hecke (1910), Hugo Steinhaus (1911), Wilhelm Ackermann (1925), Carl
Gustav Hempel.
The Göttingen atmosphere implied a constant discussion and adoption of new ideas,
techniques, and problems that had originally been created or suggested by others, either
at home or outside. Whenever they appeared to be fruitful and relevant, they were
immediately absorbed and became current concerns of the local community and put
to use for resolving open problems. Dirk Struik reports from his days as a student in
Göttingen the following incidence happening to Hilbert:
Once a young chap, lecturing before Hilbert’s seminar made use of a theorem
that drew Hilbert’s attention. He sat up and interrupted the speaker
to ask: ”That is a really beautiful theorem, a very beautiful theorem.
But who has thought it up?” The young man paused for a moment in
astonishment and then replied: ”Aber Herr Geheimrat, you have thought
it up yourself!”

4
Hilbert’s response upon hearing that one of his students had dropped out to study
poetry:
”Good, he did not have enough imagination to become a mathematician”.
In 1930, the Mathematical Institute in Göttingen was opened by Hilbert and Courant in
its new building which had been constructed with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Between 1902 and 1939 Hilbert was editor of the Mathematische Annalen, the leading
mathematical journal of the time.
Hilbert received many honours. In 1905 the Hungarian academy of sciences gave a
special citation for Hilbert.

1.5 Later years

The relations between German and French mathematicians were still strained as a result
of World War I. Hilbert looked for occasions to apply some balm to the relations. For
example in 1926, plans had been made for publication of a volume, commemorating
Bernhard Riemann’s hundredth anniversary. Hilbert intended to include a paper by Paul
Painlevé. This important French mathematician had fiercely denounced the German
scientific community, but Hilbert and others felt that Painlevé had later been able to
move beyond these feelings. But Brouwer who was a chief editor of the mathematical
annales, too, objected. The essentially democratic setup of the journal’s operation led
to the volume being issued without any French contributor.
From this point, Hilbert made efforts to remove Brouwer from the board of the
journal. Einstein, whom Hilbert had earlier put on the board, too, clearly stated his
strict neutrality. Einstein wrote to Brouwer and Blumenthal:
”I am sorry that I got into this mathematical wolf-pack like an innocent
lamb. . . Please allow me therefore, to persist in my ’Muh-noch-Mäh’ po-
sition and allow me to stick to my role of astonished contemporary.”
Finally, the solution was to dissolve the old editorial board and form a new one—but
with the crucial difference. On the new cover for 1929, there would only be Herausgeber
and no Mitarbeiter. In this way, it came out as just a major change in policy, rather
than an act against one of the editors, —Brouwer.
To the international congress held in Bologna, German mathematician were invited,
for the first time after the war. They had not been invited to the congress in Straßburg
1920 nor to Toronto in 1924. Hilbert, the leader of the German delegation, spoke on
the fundamentals of mathematics.
At a symposium on the foundations of mathematics in Königsberg in 1930, Rudolf
Carnap, Heyting, and Johann von Neumann presented papers on logicism, intuitionism,
and formalism, respectively. Ever since then, there has been a tendency to characterize
the crisis of foundations as a struggle among these three. The city of Königsberg made
him an honorary citizen on the occasion of his retirement. His address ended with six

5
famous words showing his enthusiasm for mathematics, and his life devoted to solving
mathematical problems:—

We must know, we shall know.

The day before Hilbert pronounced these phrases at the 1930 annual meeting of the
Society of German Scientists and Physicians, Kurt Gödel —in a roundtable discussion
during the Conference on Epistemology held jointly with the Society meetings— tenta-
tively announced the first draft of his incompleteness theorem.
In 1934 and 1939 two volumes of Grundlagen der Mathematik were published which
were intended to lead to a ’proof theory’, and leading to a direct check for the consistency
of mathematics. Gödel’s paper of 1931 showed that this aim is too ambitious and
impossible.
Hilbert lived to see the Nazis purge many of the prominent faculty members at
University of Göttingen in 1933. By the time Hilbert died in 1943, the Nazis had
nearly completely restaffed the university, inasmuch as many of the former faculty had
either been Jewish or married to Jews. Those forced out included Hermann Weyl,
who had taken Hilbert’s chair when he retired in 1930, Emmy Noether and Edmund
Landau. One who had to leave Germany, Paul Bernays, had collaborated with Hilbert
in mathematical logic, and co-authored with him the important book Grundlagen der
Mathematik (which eventually appeared in two volumes, in 1934 and 1939). This was a
sequel to the Hilbert-Ackermann book Principles of Mathematical Logic from 1928.
About a year later, Hilbert attended a banquet and was seated next to the new
Minister of Education, Bernhard Rust. Rust asked, ”How is mathematics in Göttingen
now that it has been freed of the Jewish influence?” Hilbert replied, ”Mathematics in
Göttingen? There is really none any more.”
Hilbert’s funeral was attended by fewer than a dozen people, only two of whom were
fellow academics, among them Arnold Sommerfeld, a theoretical physicist and also a
native of Königsberg. The epitaph on his tombstone in Göttingen contains the famous
lines he had spoken at the conclusion of his retirement address to the Society of German
Scientists and Physicians in the fall of 1930:

Wir müssen wissen. Wir werden wissen.

News of his death only became known to the wider world six months after he had died.

6
2 Work
2.1 Hilbert’s Basis Theorem and Zahlbericht
Hilbert’s first work was on invariant theory. In 1888, he proved his famous Basis Theo-
rem. Twenty years earlier Gordan had proved the finite basis theorem for binary forms
using a highly computational approach. Attempts to generalize Gordan’s work to sys-
tems with more than two variables failed since the computational difficulties were too
great. Hilbert himself tried at first to follow Gordan’s approach, but soon realized that
a new line of attack was necessary. He discovered a completely new approach which
proved the finite basis theorem for any number of variables with an entirely abstract
method. Although he proved that a finite basis existed, his methods did not construct
such a basis.
Hilbert submitted a paper proving the finite basis theorem to the well-known journal
Mathematische Annalen. However, Gordan was the expert on invariant theory for Math-
ematische Annalen and he found Hilbert’s revolutionary approach difficult to appreciate.
He refereed the paper and sent his comments to Klein:—
The problem lies not with the form . . . but rather much deeper. Hilbert
has scorned to present his thoughts following formal rules, he thinks it
suffices that no one contradict his proof . . . he is content to think that
the importance and correctness of his propositions suffice. . . . for a
comprehensive work for the Annalen this is insufficient.
However, Hilbert had learnt through his friend Hurwitz about Gordan’s letter to Klein
and Hilbert wrote himself to Klein in forceful terms:—
. . . I am not prepared to alter or delete anything, and regarding this paper,
I say with all modesty, this is my last word so long as no definite and
irrefutable objection against my reasoning is raised.
At the time Klein received these two letters from Hilbert and Gordan, Hilbert was an
assistant lecturer while Gordan was the recognized leading world expert on invariant
theory and also a close friend of Klein’s. However Klein recognized the importance
of Hilbert’s work and assured him that it would appear in the Annalen without any
changes whatsoever, as indeed it did.
Hilbert expanded on his methods in a later paper, again submitted to the Mathe-
matische Annalen and Klein, after reading the manuscript, wrote to Hilbert saying:—
I do not doubt that this is the most important work on general algebra that
the Annalen has ever published.
In 1893 while still at Königsberg Hilbert began a work Zahlbericht on algebraic number
theory. The German Mathematical Society requested this major report three years after
the Society was created in 1890. The Zahlbericht (1897) is a brilliant synthesis of the

7
work of Kummer, Kronecker and Dedekind but contains a wealth of Hilbert’s own ideas.
The ideas of the present day subject of ’Class field theory’ are all contained in this work.
Rowe, in [18], describes this work as:—

. . . not really a ”Bericht” (report) in the conventional sense of the word,

but rather a piece of original research revealing that Hilbert was no mere
specialist, however gifted. . . . he not only synthesized the results of
prior investigations . . . but also fashioned new concepts that shaped the
course of research on algebraic number theory for many years to come.

2.2 Foundations of Geometry

Hilbert’s work in geometry had the greatest influence in that area after Euclid. A sys-
tematic study of the axioms of Euclidean geometry led Hilbert to propose 21 such axioms
and he analyzed their significance. He published Grundlagen der Geometrie in 1899,
putting geometry in a formal axiomatic setting. It was a major influence in promoting
the axiomatic approach to mathematics—indeed one of the major characteristics of this
science throughout the 20th century. The Foundations of Geometry have continued to
appear in new editions, the 14th edition has appeared in 1999.

2.3 The Paris Problems

Hilbert’s famous speech The Problems of Mathematics was delivered to the Second
International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris. Several versions of the talk appeared
in print, and they were all longer and more detailed than the actual talk. Hilbert’s
famous 23 Paris problems have challenged—and still today challenge—mathematicians
to solve fundamental questions. Many of the problems were solved during this century,
and each time one of the problems was solved it was a major event for mathematics.
It was a speech full of optimism for mathematics in the coming century and he felt
that open problems were the sign of vitality in the subject:—

The great importance of definite problems for the progress of mathematical

science in general . . . is undeniable. . . . as long as a branch of knowledge
supplies a surplus of such problems, it maintains its vitality. . . . every
mathematician certainly shares . . . the conviction that every mathemat-
ical problem is necessarily capable of strict resolution . . . we hear within
ourselves the constant cry: There is the problem, seek the solution. You
can find it through pure thought. . .

Hilbert’s problems included the continuum hypothesis, the well ordering of the reals,
Goldbach’s conjecture, the transcendence of powers of algebraic numbers, the Riemann
hypothesis, the extension of Dirichlet’s principle and many more. The list shows that
Hilbert’s mathematical horizons were unusually. Nevertheless, of course, important

8
contemporary fields of research were left out. Especially two major contemporary open
problems, Fermat’s last theorem and Poincaré’s three-body problem, were mentioned in
the introduction, but not counted among the 23 problems.
Finally, there exists a tentative 24th problem that was not published as part of the
final list of Hilbert’s twenty-three problems, but was included in David Hilbert’s original
notes. Hilbert’s 24th problem asks for a criterion of simplicity in mathematical proofs
and the development of a proof theory with the power to prove that a given proof is the
simplest possible. The 24th problem was rediscovered by the German historian Rüdiger
Thiele in 2000. Rüdiger Thiele’s paper [?] gives the full text from Hilbert’s notes:

The 24th problem in my Paris lecture was to be: Criteria of simplicity, or

proof of the greatest simplicity of certain proofs. Develop a theory of
the method of proof in mathematics in general. Under a given set of
conditions there can be but one simplest proof. Quite generally, if there
are two proofs for a theorem, you must keep going until you have derived
each from the other, or until it becomes quite evident what variant con-
ditions and aids have been used in the two proofs. Given two routes, it is
not right to take either of these two or to look for a third; it is necessary
to investigate the area lying between the two routes.
Attempts at judging the simplicity of a proof are in my examination of
syzygies and syzygies between syzygies (see Hilbert 42, lectures XXXI-
IXXXIX). The use or the knowledge of a syzygy simplifies in an essential
way a proof that a certain identity is true. Because any process of ad-
dition is an application of the commutative law of addition etc., and
because this always corresponds to geometric theorems or logical con-
clusions, one can count these [processes], and, for instance, in proving
certain theorems of elementary geometry (the Pythagoras theorem, the-
orems on remarkable points of triangles), one can very well decide which
of the proofs is the simplest.

2.4 Mathematical Physics

Today Hilbert’s name is often best remembered through the concept of Hilbert space.
Irving Kaplansky explains Hilbert’s work which led to this concept:

Hilbert’s work in integral equations in about 1909 led directly to 20th-century

research in functional analysis—the branch of mathematics in which func-
tions are studied collectively. This work also established the basis for his
work on infinite-dimensional space, later called Hilbert space, a concept
that is useful in mathematical analysis and quantum mechanics.

Making use of his results on integral equations, Hilbert contributed to the development of
mathematical physics by his important memoirs on kinetic gas theory and the theory of

9
radiations. Together with Richard Courant, he wrote the two volume book on methods
of mathematical physics.

2.5 ”Foundation of Physics”

Hilbert’s work ”Foundation of Physics” from November 1915 makes him the co-discoverer
of the relativistic theory of gravitation. Like in the foundations of geometry, he stresses
the axiomatic point of view, from which his derivation of Einstein’s field equation of
general relativity proceeds. The other most important source of Hilbert’s approach is
Gustav Mie’s attempt to generalize electrodynamics. In the publication of 1916, Hilbert
puts Einstein first, then Mie:

The tremendous problems formulated by Einstein, as well as the penetrating

methods he devised for solving them, and the far reaching and original
conceptions by means of which Mie produced his electrodynamics, have
opened new ways to the research of the foundations of physics.
In what follows I would like to derive—in the sense of the axiomatic method—
essentially from two axioms, a new system of fundamental equations of
physics that display an ideal beauty, and which in my opinion simulta-
neously contain the solutions to the problems of both Einstein and Mie.

Hilbert does not mention the contribution of Max Born, who clarified the ideas of
Gustav Mie how to generalize electrodynamics, and put them in the form of a variational
principle for a system with infinitely many degrees of freedom—as a generalization of the
well known variational principle for the Lagrange function in Hamiltonian mechanics.
The derivation of Einstein’s field equation from the variational principle for the
Einstein-Hilbert action is still the most clear and simple approach to general relativity. It
is used in the physical literature, too. Hilbert submitted his article on 20 November 1915,
five days before Einstein submitted his article containing the correct field equations. In
the printed version of his paper, Hilbert added a reference to Einstein’s conclusive paper
and a concession to the latter’s priority:

The differential equations of gravitation that result are,

in my view, in accordance with those of Einstein’s recently presented, im-
portant works on the general theory of relativity.

In his original talk of November 1915, Gustav Mie’s contribution to Hilbert’s approach
was even mentioned before Einstein’s. But soon Hilbert recognized Einstein’s prior-
ity as the first researcher who completely understood the physics of general relativity.
Nevertheless, the paper expressed in the conclusion far reaching hopes:

. . . not only our conception of space, time and motion have been modified
from their foundation in the direction suggested by Einstein, but I am

10
 also convinced that starting from the basic equations established here, the
innermost—and so far concealed—processes occurring inside the atom
will be finally illuminated. In particular, a general reduction of all phys-
ical constants to mathematical ones must be possible, and with it the
possibility must be brought closer, that the principle physics be trans-
formed into a science of the kind of geometry: this is certainly the greatest
glory of the axiomatic method that, as we see in this case, makes use of
the powerful tools of analysis, namely, the variational calculus and the
theory of invariants.

Hilbert’s hopes that his ”foundations of physics” would and could achieve what his has
done to geometry with his foundations back in 1899 turned out to be an exaggeration.
Hilbert’s talk of 1924 stresses again the central role of the axiomatic analysis, but now
with a more cautious attitude:

I am convinced that the theory I present here contains an enduring core,

and provides a framework within which there is enough room for future
construction of physics in the sense of a field-theoretical unifying ideal.
In any case, it is epistemologically interesting to see how the few simple
assumptions that I express axioms I, II, III and IV suffice to reconstruct
the whole theory.

In his 1915 talk, Hilbert had expressed the opinion that electrodynamics is a phe-
nomenon derived from gravitation. In the 1924 version, this connection is formulated
more cautiously:

This is the exact mathematical expression of the connection (Zusammen-

hang) between gravitation and electrodynamics that dominates the entire
theory.

In the version published in the Mathematische Annalen (1924), instead of Hilbert’s

irrepressible optimism, we find a short and very cautions opening:

Whether the field-theoretical unifying ideal is indeed a definite one, or what

additions and modifications will eventually be necessary in order to allow
for the theoretical foundation of the existence of negative and positive
electrons, as well as the logically consistent construction of the laws that
are valid inside the atom—to answer these questions remains a task for
the future.

2.6 Priority remains unclear

Hilbert said in the introduction of his presentation November 1915:

11
 The far reaching deliberations and original conceptions by means of which
Gustav Mie produced his electrodynamics, and the tremendous problems
formulated by Einstein, as well as the penetrating methods he devised for
solving them, have opened new ways to the research of the foundations
of physics.
In what follows I would like to derive—in the sense of the axiomatic method—
from three axioms, a new system of fundamental equations of physics that
display an ideal beauty, and which in my opinion simultaneously contain
the solutions to the problems posed.

Many have claimed that in 1915 Hilbert discovered the correct field equations for general
relativity before Einstein, but never claimed priority. The article [11] show Einstein’s
article appeared on 2 December 1915 but the proofs of Hilbert’s paper (dated 6 December
1915) do not contain the field equations.
As the authors of [11] write:—
If Hilbert had only altered the dateline to read ”submitted on 20 November 1915,
revised on [any date after 2 December 1915, the date of Einstein’s conclusive paper],”
no later priority question would have arisen.

2.7 Reactions to Hilbert’s work in General Relativity

Here are some samples of the reactions to Hilbert’s work in physics and indications
of the further development during the time 1915-1924. Thus we can understand the
shifting attitude of Hilbert seen above. On November 23, 1915, in a letter from Berlin,
Max Born reported to Hilbert he had heard from his Berlin friends that Hilbert had
”already cleared up gravitation”, and asks for an offprint of Hilbert’s paper. Born’s
letter contains a first noteworthy comparison of Einstein’s and Hilbert’s work:

Einstein himself says that he has already solved the problem. But it seems
to me that his considerations (which I know only from conversation) are
a particular case of yours.

An openly critical judgement of Hilbert’s work on the foundation of physics is given by

Einstein in a letter written to Hermann Weyl in November 1916. Here Einstein stated
his opinion very clearly:

Hilbert’s assumption about matter appears childish to me in the sense of

a child who does not know any of the tricks of the world outside. I am
searching in vain [in Hilbert’s approach] for a physical indication that the
Hamilton function for matter can be formulated from the ϕν ’s without
differentiation. At all events, mixing the solid considerations originating
from the relativity postulate with such bold, unfounded hypotheses about
the structure of the electron or matter cannot be sanctioned. I gladly

12
 admit that the search for a suitable hypothesis, or for a Hamiltonian
function for the structural makeup of the electron, is one of the most
important tasks of the theory today. The ”axiomatic method” can be of
little use here, though.

Hermann Weyl notes in the edition of Raum-Zeit-Materie from 1923:

In his first communication [November 1915], Hilbert formulated the invariant

field equations, simultaneously with Einstein, and independently of him,
but in the framework of Mie’s hypothetical theory of matter.

In 1921, the young Wolfgang Pauli wrote his Enzyklpädie Artikel, at the initiative of
Arnold Sommerfeld. This is one of the most significant and influential early accounts
of the history of general relativity. Felix Klein took an active role in advising Pauli on
the contents. Klein insisted to clearly state Hilbert’s effort in the physics of gravitation.
We read in Pauli’s article:

At the same time as Einstein, and independently, Hilbert formulated the

generally covariant field equations. . . . His presentation, though, would
not seem to be acceptable to physicists, for two reasons. First, the ex-
istence of a variational principle is introduced as an axiom. Secondly,
of more importance, the field equations are not derived for an arbitrary
system of matter, but are specifically based on Mie’s theory of matter.

Max Born has written in his letter to Einstein (number 45) from April 7th, 1923:

. . . I hear that you have a new theory about the connection between gravita-
tional and electromagnetic fields, which allegedly points to a relationship
between gravitation and the earth’s magnetic field. I am very curious.
Most of what is published about relativistic problems leaves me cold. I
find Mie’s pulpy effusions horrible.
Hilbert follows all this halfheartedly, as he is completely preoccupied with
his new basic theory of mathematics and logic. What I know of it seems
to me the greatest step forward imaginable in this field. But for the time
being most mathematicians refuse to recognise it.
. . . Yours Max Born

Here is the comment by Max Born himself:

The rumour about Einstein’s new investigation, in which he attempted the

unification of his theory of gravity with Maxwell’s theory of the electro-
magnetic field, proved to be correct. At that time he began his often
repeated, although unavailing, attempts to develop a unified field theory
along these lines.

13
 Hilbert’s efforts to find a new basis for mathematics enthralled and fasci-
nated me to begin with. Later, I was no longer able to follow. I had
some correspondence with Einstein about these problems, when they be-
came the cause of dispute between Hilbert and the Dutch mathematician
Brouwer (letter number 58).
Edward Nelson from Princeton University (nelson@math.princeton.edu) has recently
made the following comment:
In strong contrast to the other great scientific debate of the twentieth cen-
tury, that between Niels Bohr and Einstein, the debate between Brouwer
and Hilbert was acerbic, with uncollegial words and acts, primarily on
the part of Hilbert It strikes me as a curious historical fact that Bohr
persuaded physicists, who used to study the real world, to give up their
belief in the objective reality of the physical world whereas mathemati-
cians, who study an abstract world that we ourselves create, followed
Hilbert (who was a Platonist at heart) in refusing to abandon our belief
in the objective reality of mathematical entities.
In 1934 and 1939 two volumes of Grundlagen der Mathematik were published which were
intended to lead to a ’proof theory’, and leading to a direct check for the consistency
of mathematics. Gödel’s paper of 1931 showed that this aim is too ambitious and
impossible.

2.8 International congress in Bologna 1928

In 1928, to the international congress held in Bologna, German mathematician were
invited, for the first time after the war. They had not been invited to the congress
in Straßburg 1920 nor to Toronto in 1924. Hilbert, the leader of the German delega-
tion, spoke on the fundamentals of mathematics. The second of Hilbert’s twenty-three
problems posed in his 1900 paper asked for a proof of consistency for the axioms of arith-
metic. He had devoted a great deal of thought and effort to this topic over the years.
Unlike several of his younger colleagues, he was convinced that it was possible to find
an demonstration, beyond any debate, showing that mathematics formed a complete
and consistent whole. Returning to the foundations of mathematics, Hilbert added two
more basic questions, bringing the number to three:
• First, is mathematics complete, in the technical sense that every statement (such
as ”every integer is the sum of four squares”) could be either proved, or disproved.
• Second, is mathematics consistent, in the sense that the statement ”2 + 2 = 5”
could never be arrived at by a sequence of valid steps of proof.
• And thirdly, is mathematics decidable? By this he meant, did there exist a definite
method which could, in principle, be applied to any assertion, and which was

14
 guaranteed to produce a correct decision as to whether that assertion was true.
(Hodges, Turing: The Enigma, 1983, 91).

Three years later, the Czech mathematician Kurt Gödel published ”Über formal un-
entscheidbare Sätze der Principia mathematica und verwandter Systeme I” (Monatshefte
für Mathematik und Physik 38 [1931]: 173-98), in which he answered the first two of
Hilbert’s questions in the negative: mathematics was neither complete nor consistent.
Hilbert’s third question, known as the Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem), was
addressed independently in 1936 by Church, Post, and Turing each of whom presented
proofs that mathematics was also not decidable; Turing’s proof involved the creation of
his hypothetical ”universal computing machine” (Turing machine).

2.9 Concluding remark

Hilbert contributed to many branches of mathematics, including invariants, algebraic
number fields, functional analysis, integral equations, mathematical physics, and the
calculus of variations. Hilbert’s mathematical abilities were nicely summed up by Otto
Blumenthal, his first student:—

In the analysis of mathematical talent one has to differentiate between the

ability to create new concepts that generate new types of thought struc-
tures and the gift for sensing deeper connections and underlying unity.
In Hilbert’s case, his greatness lies in an immensely powerful insight
that penetrates into the depths of a question. All of his works contain
examples from far-flung fields in which only he was able to discern an
interrelatedness and connection with the problem at hand. From these,
the synthesis, his work of art, was ultimately created. Insofar as the cre-
ation of new ideas is concerned, I would place Minkowski higher, and of
the classical great ones, Gauss, Galois, and Riemann. But when it comes
to penetrating insight, only a few of the very greatest were the equal of
Hilbert.

Remark. Sources for this essay are the book [?] of Leo Corry,
David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918).
The Born-Einstein Letters 1916-1955, with the subtitle Friendship, Politics and
Physics in Uncertain Times.
The Born-Einstein Letters [?] are a superb collection of letters, never written for
publication.
I have used the article of J. J. O’Connor and E. F. Robertson, July 1999 and internet
sources as

http://www.answers.com/topic/david-hilbert#ixzz1mTbbmzDH

15
Part II
Some Reflections

16
1 Der Annalenstreit
1.1 Mathematische Annalen
1
Die Mathematischen Annalen (abgekürzt Math. Ann. oder Math. Annal.) sind eine
mathematische Fachzeitschrift. Die Zeitschrift wurde 1868 durch Alfred Clebsch und
Carl Gottfried Neumann begründet und galt für viele Jahrzehnte als eine der weltweit
hochrangigsten Fachzeitschriften für Mathematik. Die ersten 80 Bände 1868–1920 er-
schienen im Teubner-Verlag, danach wurde die Zeitschrift vom Julius-Springer-Verlag
fortgeführt. Bis in die 1960er Jahre erschienen die Zeitschriftenbeiträge im Wesentlichen
in deutscher Sprache, heute jedoch auf Englisch.
Zu den Herausgebern zählten international hoch angesehene Mathematiker:
Alfred Clebsch (1869–1872), Carl Gottfried Neumann (1869–1876), Felix Klein (1876–
1924), Adolph Mayer (1876–1901), Walther von Dyck (1888–1921), David Hilbert (1902–
1939), Otto Blumenthal (1906–1938), Albert Einstein (1920–1928), Constantin Carathodory
(1925–1928), Erich Hecke (1929–1947), Bartel Leendert van der Waerden (1934–1968),
Franz Rellich (1947–1955), Kurt Reidemeister (1947–1963), Richard Courant (1947–
1968), Heinz Hopf (1947–1968), Gottfried Köthe (1957–1971), Heinrich Behnke (1938–
1972), Max Koecher (1968–1976), Lars Grding (1970–1978), Konrad Jörgens (1972–
1974), Fritz John (1968–1979), Peter Dombrowski (1970–1983), Louis Boutet de Mon-
vel (1979–1983), Wulf-Dieter Geyer (1979–1983), Elmar Thoma (1974–1990), Win-
fried Scharlau (1984–1990), Hans Grauert (1963–1991), Heinz Bauer (1971–1992), Hans
Föllmer (1990–1993), Friedrich Hirzebruch (1961–1996), Reinhold Remmert (1970–1996),
etc.

1.2 Hintergrund des Annalenstreites

Schwerwiegende Differenzen zwischen den Professoren der damals führenden mathema-
tischen Institute in Göttingen und Berlin führten Ende der 1920er Jahre zu einem ern-
sthaften Konflikt unter den Herausgebern der Zeitschrift, der als Annalenstreit bekannt
wurde. Mehrer Ursachen kamen zusammen:

• Rivalität zwischen den Instituten in Göttingen und Berlin;

• Fachliche Streit über die Grundlegung der Mathematik. Der von Luitzen Egbertus
Jan Brouwer begründete Intuitionismus (in Berlin) stand dem Formalismus von
David Hilbert oder Richard Courant in Göttingen gegenüber.

• Unterschiedlichen politischen Auffassungen der Beteiligten. Die in Berlin hauptsächlich

von Ludwig Bieberbach vertretene deutsch-nationale Gesinnung stand der poli-
tisch liberalen Haltung der Göttinger Mathematiker gegenüber.
1
aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie

17
 • Die Frage der Teilnahme oder Boykott des ersten internationalen Mathematik-
erkongress in Bologna.
Viele deutsche Wissenschafter in der Weimarer Republik waren nach der schmerzhaften
und für viele unerklärlichen Niederlage im Ersten Weltkrieg von Nichtakzeptanz der
eigenen schwachen Regierung und von einem enormen Nationalstolz geprägt. Sie sahen
die Wissenschaft als geeignetes Mittel an, die ”Stärke Deutschlands” aufzuzeigen.
Als 1928 erstmals nach dem Krieg wieder deutsche Mathematiker zum Interna-
tionalen Mathematikerkongress in Bologna eingeladen wurden, 1920 in Straßburg und
1924 in Toronto war das nicht der Fall gewesen, kam es zu einer neuen Auseinanderset-
zung zwischen der nationalen Fraktion um Bieberbach und Brouwer und der liberalen,
nicht streng deutschnationalen Seite um David Hilbert und seinen Göttinger Kollegen.
Bieberbach war der Meinung, man sollte dem Kongress fernbleiben, zum Einen, weil
er vermutete, dass das ”Conseil International de Recherche”, welches der deutschen
Wissenschaft nicht gerade positiv gegenüberstand, an der Organisation des Kongresses
beteiligt war.
Außerdem stand ein Ausflug ins ”befreite Südtirol”, das durch den Krieg an Ital-
ien gefallen war, auf der Tagesordnung, für einen national denkenden Menschen wie
Bieberbach eine Beleidigung höchsten Ausmaßes.
Hilbert, Courant und weitere Göttinger befürworteten die Teilnahme, die Berliner
Mathematiker um Bieberbach lehnten sie ab. Ihnen schwebte von jeher eine Zusamme-
narbeit zwischen Mathematikern, auch international vor. So führte Hilbert mit seinen
Göttinger Kollegen Landau und Courant die deutsche Delegation beim Mathematik-
erkongress an, während aus Berlin um Bieberbach keine Mathematiker teilnahmen.

1.3 Der Annalenstreit

Dies führte in der Folge auch zum so genannten Annalenstreit innerhalb der DMV. Schon
1925 verhinderten die Mitherausgeber der Zeitschrift ”Mathematische Annalen” Ludwig
Bieberbach und der Holländer L.E.J. Brouwer die vom geschäftsführenden Herausgeber
Otto Blumenthal beabsichtigte Aufnahme von einigen französischen Beiträgen in einen
Riemann-Gedenkband.
Nach dem Kongress von Bologna setzte Hilbert durch, dass Brouwer nicht länger
als Mitherausgeber der Annalen fungieren sollte, indem ein neuer Vertrag mit dem
Springerverlag geschlossen wurde. Demzufolge sollten nur noch Hilbert, Blumenthal
und Hecke als Herausgeber auf der Titelseite geführt werden. Bieberbach und Brouwer
protestierten bei Ferdinand Springer, allerdings erfolglos, worauf sie ihm mangelndes
Nationalgefühl vorwarfen.
Die Geschehnisse innerhalb der DMV während des Nationalsozialismus hängen eng
mit Machtkämpfen in der Vereinigung während der Weimarer Republik zusammen.
Rückblickend zeigt sich, dass bereits lange vor der offiziellen Machtergreifung durch den
Nationalsozialismus bereitwillig nationale Gründe für die Durchsetzung eigener fachpoli-
tischer Interessen herangeführt wurden.

18
1.4 Literatur
Heinrich Behnke: Rückblick auf die Geschichte der Mathematischen Annalen In: Math.
Ann. 200 (1973), S. I-VII.

http://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/home/loewe/2007-08-I/L12.pdf

http://www5.in.tum.de/lehre/seminare/math_nszeit/SS03/vortraege/de-math/

http://www.survivor99.com/pscience/2006-6/philosophy/
Folder%20%20of%20Logic/luitzen_egbertus_jan_brouwer.htm

19
2 The Einstein-Born letters
2.1 Born’s letter from 1928
Institut for Theoretical Physics of the University Göttingen, Bunsenstr. 9
20 February, 1928

Dear Einstein
After consultation with Harald Bohr, who is in Göttingen this term, I want to write
2
to you about a matter which is—strictly speaking—none of my business, but which
nevertheless has caused me alarm and uneasiness on many occasions. I am referring to
the Hilbert and Brouwer affair. Up to now I have merely followed if from a distance,
and have only recently been initiated into all the details by Bohr and Courant.
In this way I learnt that you remained neutral with regard to Hilbert’s letter to
Brouwer, on the grounds that one should permit people to be as foolish as they wish.
I find this quite reasonable, of course, but you seem not to be quite in the picture on
some points, and so I want to write briefly and you about it. There will probably be a
conference soon at Springer’s about the matter, and Bohr told me that he considered it
very important for the inner editorial staff to present a united front.
I would therefore ask you please to maintain your present neutrality, and not to take
any action against Hilbert and his friends. It would help to restore my peace of mind,
as well as Bohr’s and that of many other people, if you could write a few words to me
about this.
I would like to tell you briefly why this business interests me. It only matters to
me because I am worried and concerned about Hilbert. Hilbert is seriously ill, and has
probably not very long to live. Any excitement is dangerous for him, and means losing
some of the few hours left to him in which to live and to work.
He still has, however, a powerful will to live, and considers it his duty to complete
his new basis for mathematics with whatever strength left to him. His mind is clearer
than ever, and it is an act of extreme callousness on Brouwer’s part to spread the
rumour that Hilbert is no longer responsible. Courant and other friends of Hilbert’s
have frequently said that the sick man should be protected against any excitement,
and Brouwer has misrepresented this to mean that one should no longer take Hilbert’s
actions and opinions seriously.
Hilbert is quite in earnest about his proposed action against Brouwer. He talked to
me about it a few weeks ago, but only in quite general terms and without going into any
detail. In his opinion Brouwer is an eccentric and maladjusted person to whom he did
not wish to entrust the management of the Mathematische Annalen. I think Hilbert’s
evaluation of Brouwer has been shown to be correct in view of Brouwer’s most recent
actions. In my experience, Hilbert’s judgment is almost always clear and to the point
in human affairs.
2
This the letter number 58 from the collection [?]

20
 I have followed the previous history of the whole business, including the quarrel
about the visit to the Congress in Bologna, from a distance only. But I do know that
the visit to this Congress was a heavy burden to Hilbert anything of this kind meant a
tremendous exertion for him because of his illness.
Hilbert is not politically very left-wing; on the contrary—for my taste and even more
for yours,—he is rather reactionary. But when it comes to the question of the intercourse
between scientists of different countries, he has a very sharp eye for detecting what is
best for the whole. Hilbert considered—as we all did—that Brouwer’s behavior in this
affair, where he was even more nationalistic than the Germans themselves, was utterly
foolish.
But the worst of it all was that the Berlin mathematicians were completely taken
in by Brouwer’s nonsense. I would like to add that the Bologna business was not
the decisive factor — only the occasion for Hilbert’s decision to remove Brouwer. I
can understand this in Erhard Schmidt’s case, for he always did lean to the right in
politics, as a result of his basic emotions. For Mises and Bieberbach, however, it is a
rather deplorable symptom./ I talked to Mises about it in August, during our journey to
Russia, and he said right at the beginning of our discussion that the people in Göttingen
were blindly follow9ng Hilbert, and that he was probably no longer responsible.
Thus the allegation about Hilbert’s weakened mental power was made even then. I
then immediately broke off my discussion with Mises, for I do not consider him significant
enough to allow himself the liberty of passing judgment on Hilbert.
I also enclose a paper which Ferdinand Springer sent to Bohr and Courant. This
shows that Brouwer and Bieberbach have threatened to denounce Springer as lacking
in national feeling, and that they would do him harm if he remained loyal to Hilbert. I
need not tell you what I think of such behaviour.
Forgive me for bothering you with so long a letter. My only desire is to see that
Hilbert’s earnest intentions are put into effect without causing him any unnecessary
excitement. I would have no objection to your showing this letter, or part of it, to
Schmidt, if you consider it correct. As an old friend of Schmidt’s I believe that it is
possible to negotiate successfully with him even if he is of a different opinion.
I hope that you yourself are feeling much better now. I get news of you from time to
time in Margot’s letters to my wife. Those two are very close friends indeed, and suit
each other.
I myself am busy completing a book on quantum mechanics, which i have been
writing for the last year. Unfortunately I have overtaxed my strength a little in doing
this, and will probably have to go on leave for a time during January. It is really not at
all easy to find the time and strength for that kind of work, on top of all the lectures
and other professional duties.
With kindest regards, also from my wife to yours
Yours Max Born

21
 Figure 2.1: Einstein has nicknamed this dispute the ’frog-mouse battle’

2.2 Comment by Max Born himself

Harald Bohr, a bother of the physicist Niels Bohr, was a notable mathematician who
frequently visited us in Göttingen.
David Hilbert, my revered teacher and friend, was then—and still is—considered to
be the foremost mathematician of his time. At that time he was busy trying to find
sounder logical foundations for mathematics, in order to eliminate the intrinsic contra-
dictions found by Bertrand Russell and others in the theory of infinite sets, without
sacrificing any previous mathematical knowledge.
This led him to consider true mathematics as a kind of logical game with symbols,
for which arbitrary axioms are found. The latter, however, should be applied by a
‘metamathematics’ based on evident, real conclusions. Brouwer rejected this concept of
mathematics, and suggested another, termed intuitionism. The two ways of thinking
differed in one essential result. Hilbert’s concept justified the so-called existence proofs,
whereby the existence of a certain number or a mathematical truth is deduced from the
fact that to assume the contrary would lead to a contradiction.
Brouwer, however, postulated that the existence of a mathematical structure could
only be taken for granted if a method could be found that would actually construct it.
As it happened, many of Hilbert’s greatest mathematical achievements were precisely
such abstract proofs of existence, which for some time had not only been accepted by
the mathematical world, but had been celebrated as great feats.
It is therefore no wonder that Brouwer’s behavior greatly upset Hilbert, and that he
expressed his opposition in no uncertain terms; whereupon Brouwer replied with even
greater rudeness.
To make matters worse, a political quarrel broke on top of the scientific one. After
the 1914-1918 war, ‘International Unions’ had been founded for all principal branches
of science; the Germans, however, had been excluded from them. The hatred directed

22
against Germany gradually diminished, and at the time this letter was written (1928)
the German mathematicians were about to be admitted to the ‘International Union for
Mathematics’, on the occasion of a large mathematical congress at Bologna.
But a group of ‘national’ German mathematicians protested against this; they felt
that it would not be right to join the Union without further ado—after having been ex-
cluded for such a long time—and that one should protest against it in Bologna. Three
important Berlin mathematicians were amongst the leaders of this movement: Bieber-
bach, who was a good analyst; von Mises, a research worker of some significance, who
was also concerned with theoretical physics; and Erhard Schmidt, the most outstanding
of the three. Schmidt and I (Max Born) had been friends ever since student days and,
although politically we were poles apart, we always remained on the best terms. But
the Dutchman Brouwer was more nationalistic than all these proved to be.
Hilbert went to Bologna, despite his grave illness, and faced his adversaries. As
far as I can remember, he got his way and the germans joined the Union. But the
whole business had annoyed him so much that he expelled Brouwer from the manage-
ment of the Mathematische Annalen. This started a new storm amongst the German
mathematicians. But Hilbert finally got the upper hand.
The whole affair was, strictly speaking, no concern of mine. But, as I said in the let-
ter, I was moved to intervene by my anxiety about the state of Hilbert’s health. Hilbert
suffered from pernicious anaemia, and would no doubt have died within a short time
had not Minot in the United States discovered the specific remedy, a liver extract, just
in time. This was not yet commercially available, but the wife of the Göttingen mathe-
matician Edmund Landau was a daughter of Paul Ehrlich, the founder of chemotherapy
and discoverer of Salvarsan. It was due to his good offices that Hilbert was able to
receive regular supplies of the extract and so to live for many more years.
I doubt whether my letter to Einstein had any influence on the course of the great
mathematical quarrel.
As for the further development of the fundamental problems of mathematics, Brouwer
had many supporters to begin with, including some important ones such a Hermann
Weyl. But gradually Hilbert’s abstract interpretation was, after all, realized to be by
far the more profound. Things took a new turn when Gödel discovered the existence of
mathematical theorems which can be proved to be incapable of proof. Today, mathe-
matics is more abstract than ever, and exactly the same is true for theoretical physics.
The journey to Russia I mention was a kind of wandering physicists’ congress, or-
ganized in Leningrad by Joffé, who has been mentioned before. It began in Leningrad,
and was continued first to Moscow and then in Nizhni-Novgorod; there the participants
boarded a Volga steamer and travelled down river, stopping at all the large towns en
route to continue the congress. The whole thing was very fascinating and stimulating,
but extremely fatiguing. I went as far as Saratov, and from there returned to Germany
by train.
The book about quantum mechanics I mentioned at the end of the letter was written
in collaboration with Jordan over a period of several years.

23
2.3 The Born Einstein Letters 1916-1955
Friendship, Politics and Physics in Uncertain Times
Einstein, Albert; Born, Max;
Thorne, Kip S.; Buchwald, Diana Kormos; Heisenberg, Werner
ISBN-10: 1403944962 ISBN-13: 9781403944962

The highlight of this book by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Born (1882 to
1970) is the letters he and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein (1879 to 1955)
exchanged between the years 1916 and 1955. These letters (that were never meant to
be published) show the human side of these brilliant physicists.

24
3 Confirmation of Gravitational Waves
”Hier eine Methode zum indirekten Nachweis von Gravitatioswellen mittels eines Pulsars
in einem Doppelsternsystem.” Genau! Ich durfte einem Vortrag von Joe Taylor (er
erhielt 1984 den Nobelpreis für Physik für genau diesen Nachweis) im Januar 2009
in HH life zuhören. Der Nachweis funktioniert so: Wenn 2 Pulsare sich umkreisen
so werden große Massen sehr schnell bewegt. Dies ist eine Voraussetzung f’ur einen
erfolgversprechenden Versuch des Nachweises. Im Nenner für die Berechnung der Stärke
der Gravitationswellen steht nämlich die Lichtgeschwindigkeit in 5. Potenz! Die Zahl
wird also sehr klein. Wenn sich die Entfernung der Pulsare verkleinert so wird dem
Doppelsystem Energie entzogen, genau wie der ISS beim Flug um die Erde. Bei der
Raumstation geschieht dies durch Reibung an den obersten Schichten der Atmosphre,
beim Doppel-Pulsarsystem durch Abgabe von Gravitationswellen. Taylor gelang die
haargenaue Vermessung des Orbits und die Quantifizierung des Energieverlusts. Er
konnte die Entfernungsverkleinerung mit der Vorhersage durch Einstein vergleichen und
kam auf die vorhergesagten Werte. Er konnte damit die qualitative und quantitative
Bestätigung von Einsteins Gleichungen für die Gravitationswellen führen und zeigen,
dass die Physik wie wir sie kennen auch in tausenden Lichtjahren Entfernung unter
extremen Bedingungen funktioniert. Das war einen Nobelpreis wert. Ich bin voller
Bewunderung!

25