688 DOCS.
645,
646
NOVEMBER
1918
5)
Now
Bouvpuv
again
has
the
desired
vector
character,
which
thus
brings
the
proof
to
an
end.-
I
chose
the
designations
Auv
and
B°uv
in order to allow
the
close
relation
with
formulas
(8), (9),
and
(10)
of Hilbert’s first
note[5]
to
stand
out.-Hilbert’s
results
agree
with
mine
so
long
as
K
+ L
are
substituted
for his
H.[6]
However,
he
provides
these
results
in his note
even
before
he
specifies
H in this
way.
There
are
strong
doubts about
whether
the
results
are
correct in
this
generalization–
whether Hilbert
had not
originally developed
them
only
for
K
+
L
and
had
just
put
them
in
the
wrong place
later
during
revision.
Of
course,
I
am
eager
to
hear
what
you say
to these considerations.
My
form
of proof is admittedly
not
pretty,
because
the
execution
of
(4)
requires
too much
mechanical
computation.
But
a
scoundrel
offers
more
than
he has.
Very
truly
yours,
Klein.
646. To
Felix Klein
[Berlin,
8
November
1918]
Highly
esteemed
Colleague,
Thank
you very
much for
the
transparent
proof,
which
I
understood
complete-
ly.[1]
The
fact
that
it
cannot
be
performed
without
calculation does not
detract
from
your
entire
analyses,
of
course,
since
you
do
not
make
use
of
the
vector
character
of Ea.-
In
the
whole
theory,
one
thing
still
disturbs
me
formally, namely,
that
Tuv
must
necessarily
be
symmetric
but
not
tuv,
even
though
both
must
appear
equiv-
alently
in the conservation
law.
Maybe
this
incongruency
will
disappear
when
“matter”
is
included,
not
only
superficially
as
it has been
up
to
now
but
really,
in
the
theory.
The
logically so
fine
approach by Weyl,
which would achieve
this,
unfortunately
does not
seem
to
me
to
provide
the
solution,
for
physical
reasons.[2]
With thanks
and
my
best
regards, yours
very truly,
A.
Einstein.
Previous Page Next Page