Talk:List of misnamed theorems

(Sorry, I am not sure what the guidelines are to edit and do not have much time) I just want to point out that a theorem is said to have been proved by Borel in 1872, which is impossible (or, let us say, rather unlikely) since Borel was born in 1871? ~2025-36198-23 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It has been proposed in this section that List of misnamed theorems be renamed and moved to List of theorems not named after their original discoverers. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

List of misnamed theorems → List of theorems not named after their original discoverers – It is a matter of opinion whether any particular theorem is misnamed. There are complex historical reasons that many of the theorems on this list are currently named for people other than their first originators, as was pointed out previously on this talk page. Therefore, I am proposing a move to a more neutral title. ~2026-19062-44 (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 07:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I think "originators" would be better than "original discoverers". One doesn't really discover a theorem - one might discover a mathematical fact and express that in a theorem, but the theorem is the method of applying the fact to other areas of mathematics, not the fact itself. Apart from that, I would support the basic principle of the request. Tevildo (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Support a change but oppose proposed change as this wording would unfortunately lead to the scope of the list being expanded way beyond what was intended, as any theorem that does not bear the name of a person would end up on this list. It does need to be renamed though, as "misnamed" implies either that a mistake is being made in using the name, but certain things are named after the people who popularized them rather than the person who invented/discovered/was the origin of them. Unless there is a source that says people are using the name because they mistakenly think the person it's named after was the originator or alternatively that the naming was originally motivated by the person it's named after being the originator when they are in fact not, as opposed to being motivated simply by them being the person most strongly associated with the theorem, it would be a bit WP:OR to call it a "misnamed" theorem.

I've tried to come up with alternatives but it gets a bit hard to accurately name the article in a concise manner.
List of theorems named after people other than their originators - would be accurate but is very wordy.
List of theorems whose names are misnomers
List of theorems with misnomer names
List of misnomer theorems
List of mathematical misnomers - This is my preference. It would perhaps slightly expand the scope of the list, but I don't think it would be by much at all. It also shouldn't be that much of an issue as the list currently doesn't have anywhere near what could be considered too many entries. I would be happy to hear input on this. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparlay${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 14:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Don't like the current title, but think the proposed title is worse. It is even less neutral, as it seems to claim to know the truth of who was the originator, which for many cases here is a matter of opinion or interpretation. The most that can be said is that these are disputed names. The current title "List of misnamed theorems" is simply a more concise version of "List of allegedly misnamed theorems". I don't think much is gained by going into contortions over the perfect title, when the lede can explain more patiently these are all allegations. Walrasiad (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  How about "List of misnomer theorems" or "List of mathematical misnomers"? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparlay${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 17:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Even more confusing. "Misnomer" just means "misnamed", so no gain there. And a "mathematical misnomer" seems to be about mathematical objects not theorems, or a mathematical method of determining misnomers (whatever they are). The current title is clearer. Walrasiad (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I actually think misnomer's slightly different connotations help here, as misnomer, apart from being used in an identical sense to misnamed, is also often used to refer to anything that has a misleading or confusing name, while misnamed is essentially only used to say that there was an error in naming. I think misnomer captures it better.

Also I am aware that mathematical misnomer could be construed as also including mathematical objects; I'm okay with that. As I said
It would perhaps slightly expand the scope of the list, but I don't think it would be by much at all.
I don't think it's warranted to force a separate list to be created for mathematical objects with odd or confusing names in addition to one for theorems. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 23:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding objects takes this article in a different direction. I'd prefer to keep it to people's names. I'm still not convinced about "misnamed" or "misnomer" as being a bit too NPOV. How about "List of theorems with disputed names"? or "disputed authorship" or "disputed origin"? "Disputed", "conflicting", "uncertain", or even "misleading", is less definitive a value judgment than "misnamed" or "misnomer". Walrasiad (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Better List of theorems of disputed provenance as there is a growing sense of provenance in science. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I oppose the current title and any other title that judgmentally implies that a theorem ought to be named after the person who thought of it first (i.e., "misnamed" or "misnomer"). "Disputed provenance" is probably also not good because there is no dispute about some of these – some theorems are simply primarily known as the "Smith theorem" even though everyone who has studied the provenance acknowledges that some other person came up with the idea earlier. We should not use a title that implies that this should not happen. It is simply the way things are. Topics sometimes have common names that aren't based on provenance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your argument. But not sure what you are proposing. Are you suggesting this article shouldn't exist? Not even as a curiosity? Walrasiad (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying the article should not exist. I'm just saying we shouldn't have title that implies that a theorem ought to be named after the person who thought of it first. So "misnamed" and "misnomer" and "disputed" all seem like poor candidate names. I also don't like "misleading". The phrase "named after people other than their originators" seems fine. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Lists and WikiProject Mathematics have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support. This is a better title than the current one, more compatible with OR/etc, and the inclusion criteria is more clearly delineated. There is a whole ontological can of worms whether a theorem is "discovered" or "originated", etc. To my read "discoverers" is just fine, and certainly better than "misnamed". I say move the page to the obviously better title, and let the pedants have it out after the fact. For the record, "disputed provenance" is also better than the current title, but I think may be too soft to be workable. Anyone closing this discussion is free to take this as support for that name in the alternative, if there is any "no consensus" doubt. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Both the current title and the proposed title are not very neutrally worded, the former in implying that being named after someone else is incorrect and the latter in making a possibly-disputed judgement about who the original discoverer was. But don't we already have a very similar list with a less fraught name at List of examples of Stigler's law? Maybe we should consider a merge rather than a rename? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The current name is not very good (POV, indeed downright judgmental). The proposed new name is long, awkward, and inviting of disputes about who counts as the "original discoverer". Is an observation without a full proof, or a proof of only a special case, an original discovery? Merging to List of examples of Stigler's law seems better than either keeping the page at the current title or moving it to the proposed new one. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)