544 DOCS.
525,
526
APRIL
1918
525.
From Hermann
Weyl
Zurich,
27 April 1918
Esteemed
Colleague,
Thank
you sincerely
for
your
hail of
messages;[1]
I
hope
nonetheless
that
it
will
not
flatten
my young seedlings entirely!
You
are
undoubtedly
right
with
your objections
to
the last
pages
of
my book; indeed,
I
even see
that
the
solution
corresponding
to
a
point
mass
demands not
only
a
“mass horizon”
but
a
per-
meation
of
mass covering a complete cap
that
is
larger
than half
of
the
world.[2]
I
am
making changes
as
best
as
I still
can;
you
will
see
them
on
the
printer’s
proofs.
I
am exceedingly grateful
to
you
for
having pointed
out
this
error
to
me.-
On
the other
hand, I
do
not
grant you your objection
to
my theory
of
electricity
and
gravitation.[3]
I
am
formulating my reply
to it in
a
separate
communication
so
that
you
can poss[ibly]
present
it to
the
Academy.
Should
objections again
be
raised,
I
would
like to
refrain from
publication
in
the
Academy’s
Berichte.
I
regret
very
much
having
caused
you
such
trouble
with
the
paper;[4]
please
do not
hold it
against me!
(Through
illness
I
was
prevented
from
replying
for
a
couple
of
days.)
With thanks
and best
regards,
ever
yours,
H.
Weyl.
526. From Hermann
Weyl
Zurich,
28
April
1918
Esteemed
Colleague,
Here
is
my reply
now
to
your objection
that
ds2
absolute has
a
real
meaning.[1]
I
hope
the fact
that
I
am
not
receptive
to
your objection
is not
based
solely
on
egoistical
and mathematical infatuation
with
my theory.
Various
things
might
still be
added,
but the
reply
has
anyway
become somewhat
lengthy already,
and
the
essentials have
surely
been said. If
you
are
convinced
by my response (which
I hardly
dare
to
hope,
though),
I
naturally
also
am agreed
not to have
this
“addendum”
printed
along
with
it
if
you
consider it
better and the
Academy
consents. If
the
Academy
is prepared
to
accept
the
paper
with
this
addendum, I
am
then
likewise satisfied.[2]
Should
you
consider it called
for,
finally,
to
clarify
the
controversial
question some
more through
written
discussion before
publication
(which
is
unfortunately
considerably hampered by
the
censorship delays),
I
am
quite
prepared to
do
that
as
well.
But if
you are
entirely agreed
to
present
the
paper
once
again
and
it
then
again
encountered
rejection,
I
would
request
that