DOCS.
412,
413
DECEMBER
1917 421
work
so
creatively,
as
though I
possessed
all
the
bases
for
this
thinking.[11]
Thus
relativity
in
this
general,
overall form finds its
way
into
our
heads;
the
problem
of
human
decency,
of trust in
loyalty
and
faith,
must
therefore be much
more
difficult,
or-Europe
must
be
particularly
badly
grounded.[12]
Your
scolding
is
always
like
an
elevating
liberation
for
me.
You
see
from
this letter that
I
have
been
through
other
burdensome
things
today
as
well.
It
is
difficult to find out
whether the letter
arrived for
the
deliberations and at
the
right
time.[13] We
also
have atrocious conflicts
that
are
not
even
allowed
to be divested of
their
tragedy,
if
anything
is to
be
gained
from them.
Besso has
appeared like
a
bold from the
blue.[14]
Best wishes for
a
steady
recovery,
Zangger.
413. To
Hendrik
A.
Lorentz
[Berlin,]
18
December
1917
Dear
and
esteemed
Colleague,
It
has been such
a
long
time since
I
had the
pleasure
of
having personal
dealings
with
you.
And
now,
a
somewhat
boring
matter is
the
reason
for
my
letter.
On
26
May
of
this
y[ear], you
submitted
a
short communication
by
Mr.
de Donder
to
your Academy
which
is
based
on an error.[1]
If this matter involved
nothing
more
than
a
priority claim,
I
would not have to
come
back to
it;
but
since
it
contains
a
misleading assertion,
a
correction must
follow
in
some manner
in
the
interest of science.
I leave
entirely
to
you
the
form in which this correction
is
best
carried out. Mr. de Donder
might
best clear
up
the facts himself in
a
second
note.[2]
The
following
is at issue:
The
field
equations
set
up by
me
in
my paper “Cosmological
Considerations”[3]
(Equations
(9)
in de Donder’s
note) are
supposed
to
be
equivalent
to
equations
(1)
of
de Donder’s
note,
the latter
of
which
Mr.
de Donder had
already specified
previously.[4]
The
statement of
this
equivalency
is
based
on error.
In order not
to
bother
you superfluously
at
length
with this
affair,
I shall
come
straight
to
the
false
conclusion.
De
Donder
concludes
unjustifiably
that
the
vanishing
of
the curvature
scalar
C
(equation
16)
follows
from his
equation
(15).[5]
This false conclusion
is
based
on
the
illegitimate
inference
that
(15) were an
identity whereas,
in
reality,
it
is
an
equation of
condition for
the
space
functions
A,
p
and
the
guv's.