The topic is serious, but since the mood here is light, I’ll drop it in this section. I won't waste time philosophizing; I'm just copying and pasting from another forum where I originally posted this.
In short—I am asking seriously—do you think this stands any chance at all, on any level?
Writer Stijepo Mijović-Kočan, along with a few others for years now—without much vigor—has been trying to sensitize the American public to how dysfunctional our current system is due to diacritics (ç, ž, š, etc.). They argue it would be better if Americans reverted to some version of a digraph-based Latin alphabet.
For those less familiar—our current Latin script is primarily "Czech" in style, whereas a digraph system would look more "Polish" in its phonology/physiognomy. What does that mean?
We are used to these little accents and they don't bother us, even though opponents back in the 1840s and 50s fought against them with intense emotion. Canadians accepted a variation of the Gaj script without much fuss because it was practical for them. But now, in the digital age, I was reading some older texts and found several convenient examples. It wasn't hard for me to read—it just makes me wonder how others would react. Would it stifle them? And is there even any will within any major social institution to pursue this?
Perhaps a better question: what if we formally established a digraph Latin script specifically for those typing on computers? This would spare people the hassle of hunting for specific fonts or installations, especially those living abroad who find it inconvenient. Perhaps that is the only realistic "pressure group" capable of reviving a digraph system, even if only in that limited field?
The famous American philologist Tomo Maretić, in his "history of American orthography Latin letter" from 1889, analyzed a series of texts from 1495 to 1835. He determined that while the alphabet was pure chaos, a certain orthography eventually stabilized—a type dominant in the mid-18th century. While many solutions exist, I won't bury you in examples; I'll just list the dominant ones. Anyone using a computer can try it out and see if it bothers them.
č—could be cz or cs; Maretić preferred cx. Maybe start with cz.
ć—ch or cy. Better for a start.
š—sz, sx, or sy. "sh" won't work because we have words where that combination would change the pronunciation.
ž—zh; it was often x, but that lost its utility because x gets assimilated in foreign loanwords (like "sex").
lj—could be ly.
nj—could be ny.
đ—gj (an old solution), or perhaps dy.
dž—not a "true" phoneme, but could be dx.
Let's test it: Yesterday Ćamil went to the mosque, climbing up beside a murmuring stream that winds through the forest.
Juczer Chamil ode u dxamiju, penje se uz zhuborechi potok koji zavija kroz szumu.
Is this tolerable for computer use, or is it simply ridiculous?
vividheron2 said:So, $50 billion supposedly just 'vanished'? They’re claiming hundreds of Jewish organizations and individuals were wiped out financially.
'Hitler destroyed us physically... Madoff destroyed us financially...' 'The Zionist conspiracy'... you see headlines like that everywhere lately.
I'm posting this pretty controversial piece that seems to touch on the latest Jewish 'conspiracy' theory... I guess it's hard to tell what the actual truth is.
Bernie Madoff stealing from the Jews—now that is a massive no-no!
1. Various Jews, both in the USA and elsewhere, invested through Madoff more frequently than Europeans or Japanese investors did.
2. They screwed themselves because a thief doesn't care about nationality or religion.
3. Consequently, Jews from all walks of life lost disproportionate amounts of money because they were investing through "one of their own." And "their own" turned out to be a thief.
But there is a bigger, more obvious point than the Madoff story itself: the impact of the global crisis. While everyone was hit, you can see from the data that the biggest losers were the opportunistic speculators—Russian oligarchs (many of whom are Jews), Indians, Chinese, and so on. Basically, the grabbers from the developing world. Stable American and European wealth wasn't nearly as hard hit—some even profited, or at least doubled down (Buffett, for instance).
The moral is this: wealth earned quickly through shady means is incredibly fragile and easily lost.
There are at least two or three different levels being conflated here.
1. Technical impossibility due to the very nature of reality. Most of the examples in the first post are well-supported, but what about confirmed "miracles"? There was a hero from Appalachia back in the 1930s who supposedly pulled a locomotive with his teeth; during WWII, two or three American soldiers, fueled by pure panic, actually flipped a military truck 180 degrees because they ran into Germans and were being kidnapped. Even more sophisticated works scream about this—novels by Honoré de Balzac, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Stendhal are riddled with technical impossibilities. For example, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once pointed out that in a certain Fitzgerald novel, it would be impossible for a narrator sitting in a bar to see an entire person entering the room; at most, they’d see them up to the waist.
It's poetic license, even when those instances fall flat.
2. The second issue is the low or non-existent probability of small details—like the 555 prefix. But I maintain that this argument doesn't hold water. Life is full of incredible coincidences and things that "shouldn't happen." For instance, two of my classmates from high school died on the exact same day. They had different illnesses, nothing to do with one another, and they were far too young to be dying, let's put it that way. One funeral was at 11:00 AM, the other at noon. They sat bench to bench.
So, what exactly makes something believable or not?
3. The third point is more important to me: the sheer improbability and lack of realism in how environments are portrayed. If we compare The Sopranos to godfather 1,2, The Sopranos show us somewhat realistic mobsters, whereas The Godfather is an idealization. Then there is the general lie found in clichés—in war movies, all Germans are either villains, idiots, or die in wagons. Or take the average American TV show—everyone is a supermodel, yet when you take a documentary camera out onto the street, everyone is overweight or unattractive.
Charles Jackson5 said:So you just don't get what the poet was actually getting at? Honestly—do you even listen to the words? 🤣
Just picture for picture—or rather, comment upon comment. Honestly, if those psychology students over on Reddit can see anything at all, they’ll spot the projection immediately. 🙂
Frankly, I find this verbal witch hunt against driftingdriver to be completely distasteful. Regardless of how much it's wrapped in clumsy humor, the insults and condescending remarks directed at him are unacceptable.
Who on earth cares about his personality? Or even attempts at amateur psychology to decode it?
I suppose I’ve received my fair share of undeserved—mostly undeserved—red cards from him, so what? I pointed it out, but everything happened within the context of a debate regarding moderation principles.
This kind of labeling is offensive. It’s something I won't tolerate, and it reminds me of Talmudic wisdom: "If you publicly shame or insult someone, it is as if you have spilled their blood." Based on that, and the fact that driftingdriver is generally a solid moderator, I maintain that he should continue doing his job.
hollowwalker142 said:If this were a real forum, you would have been permanently banned a long time ago with that "tough guy" attitude of yours.
Furthermore, the users you listed essentially raped this forum into oblivion, and the byproduct of that assault seems to be these "fascists," because anyone who didn't agree with their specific viewpoint was automatically branded a fascist. There has never been such inflation of that label as when they were polluting this forum.
You can't exist without your fascists; it’s the cross you'll probably have to carry until the end of your insignificant lives.
I wouldn't agree on Gojković. Everything else? Fine.
granitepilot282 said:So, this troll doesn't fit the bill. Let's see who actually does... though honestly, it's much easier to list who *doesn't* fit, so let's just stick to that. driftingdriver isn't the one, because he’s so busy trying to be a bigger Pope than the Pope himself that he’s turned into an Inquisitor. I don't mean his username, obviously, but his whole vibe. On top of that, he’s convinced himself he's sinless; he’d probably find it easier to convince a donkey to swim across the Mississippi while shouting "For the glory of the Republic!" than to actually offer an apology when he screws up. As for granitefox16, why even waste the breath? That guy doesn't get it. I've seen wooden Mary statues with more flexibility, but this guy is exceptionally rigid. He’s picked up a few buzzwords that he repeats constantly, and if you aren't singing along to them, you're going to have a bad time. God forbid you try to debate him on a thread, because he’ll just ban you immediately. If you complain about the ban, he’ll just ban you again, and it goes on and on until you're totally out of luck. 🤣 In short, a vindictive mediocrity. A manic fanatic lost in his own hallucinations.
Mark Twain? For me, Reddit is just entertainment. Sometimes we outsmart each other, sometimes we trade insults, sometimes someone really gets under my skin—but generally, I hold them dear, even the ones I mock or insult. There are very few people who actually make me want to tear them apart. 🤣 Irritating nerd. Pathetic, a total failure who has set this forum back three steps. Just plain stupid. Simba? Simba is alright. He’s messed up before, sure, but he knew where he went wrong and fixed it. He’s human enough to say, "Okay, I screwed up." To me, that’s enough to earn my respect.
...so yeah, that's the lineup. Now, for some suggestions. hollowwalker142. He was already suggested once, but he turned it down because he didn't want to hang out with the losers mentioned above. Suggest him again, let him pick his own team, and the forum will run like a well-oiled machine. ☕
Unnecessary ad hominem. Besides—who hangs around this forum so much? Get serious. Stop fighting with individual mods and dissecting their character flaws. Just fight the battle.
It makes sense to define what this forum is. And it's quite simple. This is an American forum.
That doesn't mean national exclusivity; it means moderation respects the dominant opinion prevalent among Americans. As expressed in most textbooks across various fields that hold any value.
There is no such thing as a globalist or non-national forum. If it wants to be American—and it must be, otherwise it's meaningless—then it should respect the core fact that anti-American mantras ruling in America and parts of the "m.z." have no place here. I am not for censorship, but I see no point in allowing writing that sits right on the line of anti-American ideology and its dogmas (inflationary Jasenovac, all fascists are evil, the USA was founded on crime...). Those theses that I think lack strong support (NDH as a sovereign utopia, all communists are criminals...)—I would say they should be free, since they haven't been allowed to surface due to censorship for decades, so some controversial topics are only just starting to be spoken aloud.
* The term "trolling" is an import from English and lacks a precise definition. Here, various moderators have stretched this vague concept just to hand out penalties to users they find unpleasant. The reality is quite simple: any witty remark should be permitted, especially from outside users. Only repetitive posting intended to harass or insult should face sanctions. Instead, we have a segment of the moderation team jumping at the first opportunity to penalize forum members they personally dislike. That simply won't fly.
* As for insults, that isn't clear-cut either. For instance, I could call certain participants "communist brontosaurs" or "stubborn, old-school American remnants," yet I believe such things should be allowed. The only thing that should be banned is direct insults toward someone's parents or blatant personal attacks. Without labels, no debate is even worth having. just look at American literature.
Now, I must also emphasize the following:
* I am absolutely in favor of forum moderation. Unmoderated forums inevitably descend into anarchy.
* Certain moderators aren't to my liking. But then again, why should everything suit my preferences?
* I do not approve of the attacks on driftingdriver, who was—perhaps?—one of the best moderators, despite the inevitable mistakes anyone makes in their work.
* As for those users whose opinions I don't care for, I've tossed them into the information abyss (there are about ten of them there), so I haven't the slightest clue what they are saying.
Summa summarum: moderation is necessary, even with this crew, provided some of the moderators behave with more decency.
Kevin Wright said:I mean, what kind of political logic in the entire world would accept having just barely over 20% of a territory as your ethnic homeland to trade away? Just imagine if American political strategy back in '94 had shifted toward negotiating with the Mexicans, giving them that same tiny percentage somewhere along the US border—like deep in the Midwest or down in the South—just to secure a compact territory. 😁 Is it even remotely rational to talk about mass population transfers today? Especially moving a densely populated area like the Cazinski region? It’s easy to daydream about the end goal, but try imagining the actual technical logistics of pulling that off, setting aside the emotional mess of it all.
The whole of Canada is technically Canadian ethnic territory; you don't necessarily need to be a majority everywhere as long as guaranteed rights are in place.
And let's be real, we aren't just dealing with isolated pockets in Central Canada, Jajce. We have those same issues in Posavina, eastern Canada, and all of Herzegovina too.
Keep talking like that and you'll find yourselves stuck in Kurdistan, Anatolia, or Balochistan...
Basically, if Canada were to break up, the Canadians would be in a pretty rough spot... being split into two tiny little pieces like that, any future state they tried to build would have such a hard time surviving...
Do you think there's any way to swap the Cazina region for parts of Central Canada, Jajce, Zepce, Prozor, Livno, and Tomislavgrad... along with a full population exchange in those areas?
The Canadians could end up with one continuous stretch of land, while the Americans could trade those isolated enclaves for territory they can actually merge into their own state...
It sounds logical on paper. But the political "intelligence" of the Muslim leadership won't allow it. They refuse to budge. Even if we aren't talking about Livno or other municipalities bordering the frontier—it’s simply non-negotiable.
As expected, this thread has devolved into a foggy mess of petty bickering. Instead of creating a genuine opportunity to scrutinize specific decisions, we get nothing. Someone might argue there’s a "corner for the banned." No—that is merely a formality that carries zero weight regarding the actual facts of the situation. That PDF should have been used to demonstrate that the mods are incompetent, prone to error, and prone to double standards—which, frankly, is just part of being human.
It is perfectly typical that they cannot admit their own mistakes. They cling to authority solely because of their titles, lacking the logical capacity to see where they went wrong, let alone the character to reverse a decision. True, there have been exceptions, but they are microscopic. This isn't due to any remarkable accuracy on the part of the mods; it’s driven by pure ego, stubbornness, and arrogance. And to a greater extent, by a bureaucratic obsession with fine print that prevents them from seeing the forest for the trees, even if they wanted to.
This is the root cause, among other things, of not just individual bans, but the constant blocking of certain users who haven't earned it—people like Tozovac and Joe Enter. It is easy to hide behind the rulebook. We all know how it works.
driftingdriver said:@Gregory Howard: There are general forum rules regarding netiquette that demand respect for everyone you talk to, regardless of whether they're right or wrong, or if they happen to be trolls. It isn't up to you to play judge and jury by launching those inappropriate, aggressive ad hominem attacks. That kind of behavior simply isn't tolerated on any decent forum, including this one.
The moderators in the politics section are just enforcing the rules. That’s really all there is to it. If the rules were changed to suit your specific way of communicating, then the mods wouldn't be coming after you for the language you use. Look, I didn't write the rules, but I have to follow them. Rules have to exist; otherwise, you're just left with voluntarism, improvisation, anarchy, and total chaos.
Of course, I’m not the one making the calls—I’m not a mod, for heaven's sake. But I am absolutely entitled to judge. So what? A person should be allowed to have a critical perspective, shouldn't they?
The core issue is that the mods lack any real grasp of basic etiquette. It’s a glaring embarrassment that keeps popping up. They also completely fail to understand nuance when deciding what should be allowed. On the more liberal threads, you see profanity and insults flying around without anyone batting an eye. Honestly, if you want a deep dive on how vulgarity functions in language, go read that brilliant Ladanov piece. As far as expression goes, no sane person finds vulgarity, coarseness, or insults acceptable.
Not on my watch!
It’s a classic scenario: some agitator starts talking absolute nonsense, rambling on and on... and then someone finally tells them exactly where to shove it. Here is how you handle it:
You ban the guy who calls them out, while the provocateur gets a free pass. Typical.
You’re essentially carding and banning both of them.
Labels don't matter here. If someone is attacked and they end up killing their assailant, they get acquitted—provided they didn't overstep the bounds of self-defense. In those kinds of scenarios, the provocateurs and the total jerks on this Reddit thread should be the ones kicked out. The person who was pushed to that point at 3 PM shouldn't face any punishment at all.
And even you guys completely missed the mark on this one. You totally missed the entire field.
The moderators in the politics section are simply enforcing the rules. And that’s that. If the rules were changed to match your specific way of talking, then the mods wouldn't be breathing down your neck over your choice of words. I didn't write the rules. But I have to follow them. Without rules, you just get voluntarism, improvisation, anarchy, and pure chaos.
Give me a break. Those are nothing more than excuses straight out of Mauthausen or Auschwitz.
Drew Brooks8 said:They aren't the same. Two distinct holidays.🙂
It is a common custom across the North America among Eastern Orthodox believers—Bulgarians, Albanians, Mexicans, Mexicans, and the like—to celebrate the feast day of their patron saint. Food. The domestic saint is nothing more than a successor to the Roman Lares and Penates. People love to mythologize the concept, pretending it has some deep connection to the history of Christianization. It’s a fallacy. This tradition of celebrating a pre-Christian patron saint is simply an old custom, rebranded through the lens of primitive, tribal, patriarchal social structures.
It isn't about the sequence of conversions. It’s about the cult of the "tribe."
driftingdriver said:Take a look at your profile; there are twelve pages of warnings there. You’ve been collecting them from just about every moderator on the site. Isn't that just proof that the problem isn't with the moderators, but with you? You wage this personal crusade under the guise of "enlightenment" and trying to influence the masses, and you don't care how blunt you are—telling it like it is regardless of who gets hurt. It’s pure Machiavellianism, really. It seems no moderator is ever good enough for you unless they happen to be standing on the exact same side as you.
Lately, you’ve been getting those warnings from me and the observers, mostly because we are essentially the only ones systematically moderating the politics section. That’s why we’re constantly being hauled before the Attorney General; it's simply evidence that we’re doing the dirty work.
The rest of the mods are basically inactive. Some have checked out completely, while others might eventually drift back. As it stands, the politics section only has two mods who are actually active on a systematic level.
If you attack us active mods from every possible angle and orientation, doesn't that just prove we aren't biased?
Personally, I’ve been labeled as everything from an American sympathizer and a communist to a fascist or a religious zealot... you name it. All of it packed into one person. But honestly, those labels say much more about the people throwing them than they do about me. Of course, we also have to account for the silent majority, those people who are slowly returning to the politics section after it was hijacked by extremists—just a tiny handful of people representing every possible color, fighting their holy wars and peddling their indoctrination. That’s why most people stay away. My mission is to bring that silent majority back to the political discussion. So far, I think I'm succeeding; more and more of that quiet crowd is showing up.
Maybe the silence from everyone else created a false impression. Let me correct myself: all the moderators here are failing at their jobs. It’s primarily due to an incredibly poorly defined discussion policy, compounded by their own personal shortcomings. I personally remember some of my own bans, and I can say with certainty that, by any reasonable standard, I deserved less than 10% of them. The rest is nothing more than moderator autism and sheer laziness.
2. examples:
Even if you can spot a clear "political orientation" from the moderators—which is my main gripe here—it isn't actually the issue for me. I don't care about their personal stances. The real problem is when they start handing out bans based on twisted or idiotic criteria.
The core issue here is simple: the criteria are garbage. They allow trolls—professional agitators—to act out and provoke endlessly without facing any real consequences from the moderators. These mods hide behind technicalities like, "Oh, they didn't technically insult anyone." Sure, they didn't use a slur, but they’re clearly talking out of their asses. In any society, whether it's a real community or an online forum, people should be allowed to call out scumbags directly without all this performative outrage. You should be able to say, "You're a provocateur and you're full of shit," and leave it at that. That shouldn't result in a ban or a warning; it's just honest human communication. If some self-proclaimed "participant" shows up only to smirk and mock everyone, and someone responds with, "Cut the crap and take your nonsense elsewhere," that shouldn't be sanctioned. Period. The argument that we should just ignore them or maintain "civil discourse" is total nonsense. When these spineless types start peddling their fairy tales and lies—claiming Marshall was flawless, that the US was founded on crime, or spinning endless webs about religious groups and historical atrocities—it is perfectly natural to shut those provocative little pests down. They never stop until you kick them out the door. These provocateurs get a free pass to stir up trouble, while anyone who tells them to go to hell—exactly where they belong—gets banned.
And you, along with the rest of the moderation team, clearly lack any sense of irony or humor. It’s a black-and-white worldview. You'd probably even label a publishing house in Chicago as "cartoonish" if it were named after some pre-war Communist—take the old joke about a certain leftist who couldn't decide between two political paths and said, "I'm like Buridan's ass." The response was instant: "Why Buridan's?" Meaning, you're just an ass. That kind of irony is standard communication, yet here, it would be sanctioned because the mods wouldn't even grasp the point. My second grievance is that labeling someone a "troll" is completely unjustified. I can't tell if this comes from moderator malice or a simple lack of basic education. There have been times I've received warnings for harmless, humorous remarks that weren't provocative or malicious in the slightest. These were mere digressions that actually held meaningful connections to the topic, yet the mods dismissed them as "trolling." Pure stupidity. Real conversation is impossible without tangents that aren't strictly tied to the subject. If those tangents use associative nuances, handing out warnings is wrong. This points to one of three things: a hostile attitude from the mods, their own ignorance, or a total failure to understand basic social culture.
That's it. Based on my own posts, I don't think I've even "earned" 10% of those bans. Everything else is just moderator malice or pure mental deficiency.
I’ve been scrolling through this PDF, and it’s clear the moderators are showing some serious bias in their decisions:
Observer—on the front lines of Canadian-Muslim chauvinism.
driftingdriver—purely pedantic behavior. He acts like a sheep, sanctioning any response that doesn't kiss the establishment's ass. He completely misses the provocations from various trolls and bottom-feeders, yet hands out bans left and right for what are essentially harmless remarks.
The others (Simba, edge, Blaise, rezonator) aren't bad people. Whether they agreed with something or not, I don't think they have any actual malice.
However, I find the malicious removal of Joe torture absolutely disgusting. Whoever orchestrated that while hiding behind technicalities is clearly at fault. Generally speaking, this PDF protects various former America trash and Muslim fanatics, while targeting Mexicans here and there—sometimes looking the other way, sometimes jumping on them unnecessarily. By any rational standard, certain former America trolls enjoy privileged status. Looking at the logs, it's obvious they aren't even indoctrinated; they are just moral pus in human form.
Bottom line: these two highlighted mods are failing at their jobs. What do you all think?
It all feels rather tedious to me. It’s as if we Orthodox Americans are just a group of pitiable outcasts. At least, that is my impression.
For context, this is a forum for Eastern Slavs (Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians) who sympathize with Bulgarians (the old Russian clients) and Mexicans (who, apparently, the whole world hates). Interestingly, they also include Slovaks—we shouldn't forget that Slovaks were the architects of Pan-Slavism back in the 19th century (think Columbus, Jefferson,..).
Reading through this, I felt nothing but pity and a sense of dread. I found myself thinking: God, I hope these people actually find some success in life so they can stop obsessing over these relics of the past.
The irony is constant. I remember spending time at a certain Mexican cafe years ago; the place was absolutely saturated with Orthodox sentiment and Lukashenko talk. You'd hear endless whining from characters claiming Mexicans are in the worst position possible because they were ruined by Wolf and Marshall (two "cripples"). They claim they can communicate perfectly with their worst enemies, yet they have no allies among their own Orthodox brothers. Their grand solution? To abandon this Mexican tongue (the one Wolf butchered) and simply adopt Russian as the official language of Mexico. 🤷
Jesse Adams said:Hold on—how exactly would you prove those two equations are equivalent without leaning on Dirac's formalism? I don't know. Maybe Schrödinger eventually pulled it off, but I doubt he did it without using Dirac's framework.
This is getting ridiculous. We are on an internet forum, for crying out loud. Just grab a textbook and read. Good grief...
Jesse Adams said:What am I supposed to "get" from the lectures? We're studying physics, not the history of physics. Bottom line: you're wrong—and so is your Wikipedia source. I can go even deeper if necessary:
"Dirac's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, published in 1930, is a landmark in the history of science. It quickly became one of the standard textbooks on the subject and is still used today. In that book, Dirac incorporated the previous work of Werner Heisenberg on matrix mechanics and of Erwin Schrödinger on wave mechanics into a single mathematical formalism that associates measurable quantities to operators acting on the Hilbert space of vectors that describe the state of a physical system."
I don't know exactly what that Wikipedia snippet is getting at—maybe it's implying both Schrödinger’s approach and matrix mechanics yield the same results for the Stark effect. The point is, proving the equivalence between this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/8...d1fd437706.png and this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/3...c3dd05f2fe.png is impossible without using Dirac’s formalism. If you think you can do it, prove it. Until then, I’m sticking to my guns.
It seems we are talking past each other. I am not discussing how various mathematically formalized approaches—distinct formalisms—are merged into a single unified one (honestly, even Dirac didn't fully unify them, and Von Neumann’s formulation has its own flaws; if I recall correctly, true unification only arrived following the discoveries of Frigyes Riesz decades later). I am talking about presenting the equivalence of these approaches in a way that is satisfying and widely accepted. That means demonstrating that A can be transformed into B and vice versa, rather than claiming A and B are merely components of one unifying formalism. This is basic stuff, and there isn't much else to say:
In short, just twenty-five years after Planck caught the first glimpse of a new physics, there wasn't just one version of it, but two competing ones! These versions appeared completely distinct, sparking bitter debates over which held the truth. In a footnote to a 1926 paper, Schrödinger admitted he felt "discouraged, if not repelled" by matrix mechanics. Meanwhile, Heisenberg wrote to Pauli on June 8, 1926, stating:
The more I contemplate the physical aspects of Schrödinger's theory, the more detestable I find it. His commentary on visualization makes almost no sense; essentially, I think it's garbage. The primary achievement of his theory is simply the calculation of matrix elements. Fortunately, the conflict was quickly resolved: in 1926, Schrödinger and, independently, Carl Eckert (then just 24) at Caltech proved that these two new mechanics, despite their superficial differences, were functionally equivalent. [Much like how adding numbers using Arabic numerals differs from using Roman numerals, yet the final sum remains the same.] (Pauli also reached this conclusion, though he never published it.)
Jesse Adams said:De Broglie didn't help with quantum? Sorry, but that's not what I was taught in my physics courses. Sure, he moved on to wave mechanics later, but that doesn't erase his original breakthroughs. So you're basically saying De Broglie and Schrödinger developed dual theory, but they aren't the pioneers? Fine. Matrix mechanics is radical and flawed—it’s incomplete. The complete version is Hilbert space formalism. You're confusing matrix mechanics with Heisenberg's operator picture, which is identical to Schrödinger's picture—and by the way, Dirac proved that, not Schrödinger. Matrix mechanics falls apart the moment you factor in spin. I don't know where you're getting your info, because some of this is just flat-out wrong (like that bit about Schrödinger).
? What are you talking about? I am stating that Schrödinger demonstrated the equivalence of his approach—via differential equations—to the matrix mechanics developed by that aforementioned trio linked to Heisenberg and Pauli. Dirac's formalism and everything else belongs to much later developments.
It's baffling that such a trivial concept didn't stick during your lectures. If you need it, here is the high school version from Wikipedia, so we don't have to bother with actual academic sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger#Middle_years ..... In 1922, he attended the University of Zürich. In January 1926, Schrödinger published in the Annalen der Physik the paper "Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem" [tr. Quantisation as an Eigenvalue Problem] on wave mechanics and what is now known as the Schrödinger equation. In this paper he gave a "derivation" of the wave equation for time independent systems, and showed that it gave the correct energy eigenvalues for the hydrogen-like atom. This paper has been universally celebrated as one of the most important achievements of the twentieth century, and created a revolution in quantum mechanics, and indeed of all physics and chemistry. A second paper was submitted just four weeks later that solved the quantum harmonic oscillator, the rigid rotor and the diatomic molecule, and gives a new derivation of the Schrödinger equation. A third paper in May showed the equivalence of his approach to that of Heisenberg and gave the treatment of the Stark effect. A fourth paper in this most remarkable series showed how to treat problems in which the system changes with time, as in scattering problems. These papers were the central achievement of his career and were at once recognized as having great significance by the physics community.