Dear Colleagues, I think that it may be time to patch the GiNaC web page. The passed months showed that the situation is much more complicated and dangerous than we may think back in March. Current information flows are full of fakes, manipulations and war-time propaganda. The sequence of events will be a subject for heated debates for decades to come. Yet, I cannot see a side which is advocating an end of the war unless it will be their complete victory. Deaths and suffering of Ukraine population are not considered as an obstacle towards the designated goals. Thus I propose to delete the following sentences from the statement: "We must make the Russian government understand the value and prospect of peaceful cooperation and end this war now." Also I propose to leave the previous sentence "We strongly support the call for peace in Ukraine." but without the link in it. In my opinion, the quoted letter is not free from a bias which reduces the peaceful call in the sentence. Alternatively, we may delete the whole statement all together. Calling for peace we shall do the first step ourselves by not taking a side in the ongoing war. Best wishes, Vladimir -- Vladimir V. Kisil http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~kisilv/ Book: Geometry of Mobius Maps https://doi.org/10.1142/p835 Soft: Geometry of cycles http://moebinv.sourceforge.net/ Jupyter notebooks: https://github.com/vvkisil?tab=repositories
On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 10:07:53 +0000, "Richard B. Kreckel" <kreckel@in.terlu.de> said:
RK> Dear Vladimir, RK> You made a very good point. I hope you appreciate the slightly RK> modified version. Thank you! RK> -richard. RK> On 07.03.22 00:33, Vladimir V. Kisil wrote: >> I was always admired by the careful and considerate approach of >> GiNaC team to code alterations. It is well justified in >> complicated systems since a single human can easily oversee some >> important connections and unintentionally break functionality. >> >> Being busy with our various duties we may not have enough time to >> follow all world events in their historic development and may >> have limited resources to analyse evidences as carefully as we >> try to do this in science or coding. >> >> Being a citizen of Ukraine I am willing to stop casualties of >> peaceful residents and enormous destruction to their life. But I >> believe this requires an appeals not to Russia only. There are >> many countries deeply evolved in this conflict and most of them >> are only supplying massive warfare to fuel it even >> further. People in Ukraine are suffering because THEIR LIVES ARE >> NOT MATTER to anyone at all. >> >> If you wish to raise a voice on this very hot and controversial >> situation you may want to be as careful as you usually do >> applying a patch. >> >> Best wishes, Vladimir
Dear Vladimir, Personally, I respect your fair call for neutrality in this horrible civilizational disaster. But I also think there is a delicate balancing act between *neutrality* and *objectivity*. On 9/27/22 16:20, Vladimir V. Kisil wrote:
[...] Current information flows are full of fakes, manipulations and war-time propaganda. The sequence of events will be a subject for heated debates for decades to come.
There is certainly misleading information both on the western (uncensored, free, and competitive) media and on the Russian (censored, oppressed, and state-dictated) media. But to equate these two would clearly mean to sacrifice one's objectivity to neutrality!
Alternatively, we may delete the whole statement all together. Calling for peace we shall do the first step ourselves by not taking a side in the ongoing war.
As scientists, our influence on the course of events is limited. Yet, not to speak up would mean to relinquish all influence. (Overly pathetic example: If the "Göttingen 18" hadn't spoken up in 1957, Germany would have developed nuclear weapons.) Hence, deleting the statement altogether would IMHO be faint-hearted. I re-read our statement carefully and found the first paragraph neutral – it merely sets a backdrop. The second paragraph then supports a call from Russian fellow scientists – among them at least one Fields medalist. Recall that their plea was squashed a few days later by authorities. (It has since been published abroad.) I suppose we all agree that shutting up a scientific community is unacceptable. In this conflict, suppression of speech happens objectively unilaterally. Striving for neutrality we could do two things: Replace "the Russian government" by "everybody". In addition, we should add a link to this non-Russian scientists' call for peace: <https://www.mpg.de/peace-declaration-nobel-prize-laureates>. (I am aware that it is also not "neutral".) That would be my candid proposal. All my best, -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <https://in.terlu.de/~kreckel/>
Dear Ginac people, I think one should also call for an end of the aggressive war of Azerbaijan against Armenia, where Erdogan initiated and supports the next genocide at Armenian population one hundred years after the first one, and Germany again is calm, as 100 years ago, because Azerbaijan delivers gas to EU - better we should freeze rather then support this genocide invisible to most of us. A corresponding call would fit well to the Ginac web page. All the best Markus Am 06.10.22 um 01:36 schrieb Richard B. Kreckel:
Dear Vladimir,
Personally, I respect your fair call for neutrality in this horrible civilizational disaster. But I also think there is a delicate balancing act between *neutrality* and *objectivity*.
On 9/27/22 16:20, Vladimir V. Kisil wrote:
[...] Current information flows are full of fakes, manipulations and war-time propaganda. The sequence of events will be a subject for heated debates for decades to come.
There is certainly misleading information both on the western (uncensored, free, and competitive) media and on the Russian (censored, oppressed, and state-dictated) media. But to equate these two would clearly mean to sacrifice one's objectivity to neutrality!
Alternatively, we may delete the whole statement all together. Calling for peace we shall do the first step ourselves by not taking a side in the ongoing war.
As scientists, our influence on the course of events is limited. Yet, not to speak up would mean to relinquish all influence. (Overly pathetic example: If the "Göttingen 18" hadn't spoken up in 1957, Germany would have developed nuclear weapons.) Hence, deleting the statement altogether would IMHO be faint-hearted.
I re-read our statement carefully and found the first paragraph neutral – it merely sets a backdrop. The second paragraph then supports a call from Russian fellow scientists – among them at least one Fields medalist. Recall that their plea was squashed a few days later by authorities. (It has since been published abroad.) I suppose we all agree that shutting up a scientific community is unacceptable. In this conflict, suppression of speech happens objectively unilaterally.
Striving for neutrality we could do two things: Replace "the Russian government" by "everybody". In addition, we should add a link to this non-Russian scientists' call for peace: <https://www.mpg.de/peace-declaration-nobel-prize-laureates>. (I am aware that it is also not "neutral".)
That would be my candid proposal.
All my best, -richy.
Dear Richard, Thanks for considering my proposal. I am not challenging your right to believe that there is a drastic different between "uncensored, free, and competitive" and "censored, oppressed, and state-dictated" medias. Although being able (and actually addicted to) monitor English-/Russian-/Ukrainian- language sources for decades I have some doubts in it. I am admitting, that German media may be more balanced (possibly, with some skill to read between the lines). Furthermore, I am not impressed by references to opinions of Nobel prize or Field medal winners. These people get their recognition for a very specific skills to think about "spherical cows in vacuum", which are quite far from the discussed topic. Also, if you wish to make a balanced picture through celebrities' links, why not to add a recent twits by Elon Musk https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577839258714476544 I am more motivated by the Markus' comment on heartbroken Azerbaijan-Armenia fighting—another ethnic/nationalist-driven conflict (with much of external influence and economic interests), which would not be possible unless the free democratic West had crashed the evil totalitarian USSR in 90-es. The "end of history" kick-started numerous ugly stories. Let us look at the map of the current armed conflicts causing deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts I have the some questions: * Why we shall single out only some (e.g. Ukraine(NATO)-Russian or Azerbaijan-Armenia) wars on GiNaC page? * Why did we not protest the military invasions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria in the past? * Why a fight for democratic values is always a neighbour of gas/oil sources or pipelines? Because I do not see satisfactory answers to above questions I am advocating to replace the second paragraph by something completely geographically-neutral an politically-unbiased like this: "The GiNAC team supports peaceful international collaboration and non-for-profit knowledge dissemination, which shall benefit the whole humankind. Let's make science, not war!" Otherwise, any call for a peace from one's fighting trench seems to be insincere. Any of us who has some more specific views and wishes may easily find numerous other venues to express and actively support corresponding agendas. Best wishes, Vladimir -- Vladimir V. Kisil http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~kisilv/ Book: Geometry of Mobius Maps https://doi.org/10.1142/p835 Soft: Geometry of cycles http://moebinv.sourceforge.net/ Jupyter notebooks: https://github.com/vvkisil?tab=repositories
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 01:36:22 +0200, "Richard B. Kreckel" <kreckel@in.terlu.de> said:
RK> Dear Vladimir, RK> Personally, I respect your fair call for neutrality in this RK> horrible civilizational disaster. But I also think there is a RK> delicate balancing act between *neutrality* and *objectivity*. RK> On 9/27/22 16:20, Vladimir V. Kisil wrote: >> [...] Current information flows are full of fakes, manipulations >> and war-time propaganda. The sequence of events will be a subject >> for heated debates for decades to come. RK> There is certainly misleading information both on the western RK> (uncensored, free, and competitive) media and on the Russian RK> (censored, oppressed, and state-dictated) media. But to equate RK> these two would clearly mean to sacrifice one's objectivity to RK> neutrality! >> Alternatively, we may delete the whole statement all >> together. Calling for peace we shall do the first step ourselves >> by not taking a side in the ongoing war. RK> As scientists, our influence on the course of events is RK> limited. Yet, not to speak up would mean to relinquish all RK> influence. (Overly pathetic example: If the "Göttingen 18" RK> hadn't spoken up in 1957, Germany would have developed nuclear RK> weapons.) Hence, deleting the statement altogether would IMHO be RK> faint-hearted. RK> I re-read our statement carefully and found the first paragraph RK> neutral – it merely sets a backdrop. The second paragraph then RK> supports a call from Russian fellow scientists – among them at RK> least one Fields medalist. Recall that their plea was squashed a RK> few days later by authorities. (It has since been published RK> abroad.) I suppose we all agree that shutting up a scientific RK> community is unacceptable. In this conflict, suppression of RK> speech happens objectively unilaterally. RK> Striving for neutrality we could do two things: Replace "the RK> Russian government" by "everybody". In addition, we should add a RK> link to this non-Russian scientists' call for peace: RK> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpg.de%2Fpeace-declaration-nobel-prize-laureates&data=05%7C01%7CV.Kisil%40leeds.ac.uk%7Cfc11309bba184d798de208daa72a6f85%7Cbdeaeda8c81d45ce863e5232a535b7cb%7C1%7C0%7C638006097946428219%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nPB2hjvAvK8HCS0yMUoCJBLtB50SvXAIWU6RgZ7JA5Y%3D&reserved=0>. (I RK> am aware that it is also not "neutral".) RK> That would be my candid proposal. RK> All my best, -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 01:50:11 +0200, "Markus M. Knodel" <markus.m.knodel@gmx.de> said:
MMK> Dear Ginac people, MMK> I think one should also call for an end of the aggressive war of MMK> Azerbaijan against Armenia, where Erdogan initiated and supports MMK> the next genocide at Armenian population one hundred years after MMK> the first one, and Germany again is calm, as 100 years ago, MMK> because Azerbaijan delivers gas to EU - better we should freeze MMK> rather then support this genocide invisible to most of us. A MMK> corresponding call would fit well to the Ginac web page. MMK> All the best MMK> Markus
participants (3)
-
Markus M. Knodel
-
Richard B. Kreckel
-
Vladimir V. Kisil