text:
Talk:David Hilbert

Untitled
ARCHIVED: May 7, 2009 Editing session Hilbert/Physics/Relativity with Jwy, Salix, Wvbailey, Pie are round, concluded with the revision of a paragraph under category "Physics" concerning Einstein, Hilbert, and the 1915 development of the field equations of General Relativity. --Pie are round (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Goedel
This claim, previously present on this page, is obviously false:

 * Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that even elementary axiomatic systems such as Peano arithmetic are either self-contradicting or contain logical propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove.

If we take the axiomatic system, and extend it by adding a single new axiom, which says that the logical proposition is true, then the extended system immediately proves the logical proposition in question, directly from the new axiom. The extended system may have become inconsistent, but in that case it proves every proposition, including the one under question.

When we do this, a new Goedel sentence can be formed in the extended system, which in its turn cannot be proven within the extended system (but is provable in an infinitude of other, yet-more-extended systems). And so on ad infinitum.

I believe the correction I just made in the page is strictly correct, but would like checking by a professional mathematician:

 * Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that even elementary axiomatic systems such as Peano arithmetic are either self-contradicting or contain logical propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove within that system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5808:B368:0:6D2F:CF23:9832:A61B (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hilbert in the 1930's
Hilbert is said to have made a pro-Nazi remark in the 1930's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.179.195 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * That has been suggested before, but I've never seen any sources of it. Do you have a good source? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * See Constance Reid's biography, mentioned in the "Secondary Literature". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.232.88 (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a plebiscite in Germany on the 19/8/1934. A pro-Hitler declaration appeared in a German paper,
 * made by German scientists, on the previous day. Unfortunately, I have no access to copies of German newspapers, going back to
 * 18/8/1934.See http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505235 Hilbert is not mentioned as being one of those refusing to make a
 * pro-Hitler declaration.
 * The link didn't work for me -- the paper doesn't exist? Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that the link does not work directly. Search arxiv.org for "Ivan Todorov" and you might find his paper on Heisenberg. A PDF is involved, which might account for the difficulty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WERNER HEISENBERG mentions Hilbert directly only as Courant's colleague. I couldn't see any indirect mention, although I may not have read closely enough.  Since it appears to be a notable exception when a professor avoided the Hitler salute, I suspect Hilbert participated in that - but that is as notable as saying he kept his job.  But thanks for pointing to that site.  A lot of good information there.  (John User:Jwy talk) 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See "Hilbert" by Constance Reid, published by Springer-Verlag, in 1996. On page 207 it says, "An election was scheduled for August with the alternatives, yes or no. The day before the election, the newspapers carried a proclamation announcing that Hitler had the support of German science. The list of signatures included the name of Hilbert. Whether Hilbert actually signed the proclamation is not known." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.69.11 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I think the same passage appeared in the 1970 edition of the biography of Hilbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.69.11 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An uncertain signature among a long list that did not reflect (as it indicates later in the paragraph) his apparent core beliefs does not, in my opinion, warrant mention here unless the context is made very clear - which would take some careful research and writing. There is no sign that he was an active supporter of the Nazis.  That someone in Germany didn't resist openly is not really notable.  Resistance seems to have been rather limiting in many ways - and he did complain about the loss of his Jewish colleagues.  (John User:Jwy talk) 19:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Often accused
Hilbert was often accused of being a *** by the Nazis, because of his name "David". He seems to acquired the name from Lutheran ancestors, who often used Hebrew names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.200.201 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Early accounts and connections
It seems that emitting his ancestry and speaking about "Hebrew names" without giving any proof, the interest in Greek Philosophy and Thimaeos in particular, a central topic studied by the first and second generation of assimilated Jews in Germany, raises the suspicion that actually Hilbert (and Heisenberg !) where actually of self-denied Jewish descent. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

At the time it was considered common knowledge. See here page 423. It seems the writer is saying that it seems to be only an impression.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hilbert's alleged anger
Numerous wiki pages are assorted with an allegation that Hilbert got angry when he heard of Goedel's work. The main source for this seems to be the somewhat sensationalistic biography by Reed. Such an allegation is not very informative, and I suggest we delete it thoughout. It is particularly irrelevant in the context of the debate against Brouwer, and gives the impression of a gleeful editor siding with Brouwer propagating this information throughout Hilbert-related pages. Tkuvho (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a little bit of research on Hilbert's reactions here. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Indeed, the discussion there reveals that the only source for the alleged anger is Reed's personal recollection of a conversionation with... Bernays. Reed's sensationalistic dramatisations have no respectable source and should be deleted.  Please log in and you agree we can delete this unreliable material.  Tkuvho (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

finiteness theorem
http://people.math.jussieu.fr/~harris/theology.pdf tell a somewhat different version of the "theology" story. Parking it here for now. I'll add something about it to the article unless someone gets to it before I do (please feel free). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Is COLIN MCLARTY's piece published? Why does it appear in pdf form at Harris's page?  What's the relation between Harris and McLarty?  If this has been published, it is yet another "dramatic" distortion of history perpetrated by Reed and Eric Temple Bell.  This should certainly be clarified. Tkuvho (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The article will appear in the book "Circles disturbed: the interplay of Mathematics and Narrative", edited by Apostolos Doxiadis and Barry Mazur, Princeton University Press, 2011. Harris was at the meeting where I presented the paper, and he put up the pdf because the book is not out yet.  It is based on comments by Hilbert, and Felix Klein and others close to the event. You could especially look at Gerhard Frei editor, "Der Briefwechsel David Hilbert Felix Klein (1886--1918)",  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Goettingen, 1985.

 * Also, I am unsure who this Reed is. Should it be (Constance) Reid?Colin McLarty (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange gender issue in the introduction??
"the first of two children and only son of Otto and Maria Therese (Erdtmann) Hilbert"

OK what is that supposed to be? Why is it significant that the second child was a female, is it that the Hilberts only had one 'good one'? Ridiculous sentence. 89.241.33.79 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno, making the change. A13ean (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very common form in encyclopedic entries :P Jorgen W (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is really somehow derogatory to know that his sibling was a sister? Colin McLarty (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume someone paraphrased a very old biography without thinking about it. a13ean (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with here. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Logically, if he is the only son of a couple with two children, the other is female. Shrugs. Nerd271 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ignorabimus
"Ignorabimus" is translated as "we cannot know" but it means "we will not know". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Significant nuances to the English translation are not conveyed in the literal interpretation. This leaves the reader uninformed about the true meaning of the debate between Hilbert and du Bois-Reymond. As it is commonly stated in many English sources, it has the flavor of an interrogation. Definitely not the idea Hilbert intended to be conveyed to his audience of educators and mathematicians.

Hilbert's quote calls to mind the educational ideals described by Wilhelm von Humboldt, as well as the self fulfilling actualization that good education brings. This link to the greatness of the German educational tradition is missing in the literal translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 * As Wikipedia editors, we do not do our own direct translations nor do we attempt to correct what we might think of as common misunderstandings. In order to bring up this view of Hilbert's quote, you must find and cite a reliable secondary source that discusses this issue. We can then point to and possibly explain (but not amplify) this point of view. Material that is not grounded in good references is subject to being reverted; which might seem like an unfair and somewhat nasty procedure, but it is how we keep Wikipedia from degenerating into a collection of personal blogs. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 * The English text is a literal translation of the German text. There is no mention of educational ideals or Humboldt in either of them. Both convey exactly the same nuances. (However, I cannot assess the Latin text.) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I find it hard to believe that they "both convey exactly the same nuances" or even how one would confirm that. But it doesn't matter for the immediate discussion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying: legalistic arguments aside, you're missing the actual point of the translation, and robbing future generations of the greatness of Hilbert's work. If you read yourself, Hilbert's 1930 speech, you will notice that significant ideas are missed in a literal translation into English. This is a fact with ANY literal translation from one language to another. Each language has its own idioms, or ways of speaking, which are of different forms. The translation into colloquial English is not quite correct. The way it appears to speakers of English is very negative towards speakers of Germans. This is an image I think you would not want to convey, as it is not quite correct. It fails to convey the full beauty of the German language as Hilbert speaks it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For a fuller view of the inter-relationship between English and German, and especially German intellectual development in all areas, I suggest, "The German Genius" by Peter Watson. He speaks specifically, in the introduction, of how, many people revert to stereotypes, when discussing German history, and this is an obstacle to understand the great contributions that German Science has made to World History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hilbert's greatness lies in the fact that he encouraged many scientists throughout the world to not accept arbitrary limitations, but to investigate wholeheartedly, and find answers. And these answers are well within human ability to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

While I applaud your rigor, I was deeply moved by the true meaning of Hilbert's words, which are not fully translated into English. Future generations, and people around the world, could greatly benefit, by the very positive image of German Science that Hilbert portrays. His speech has the beauty and poetry that, as English speakers, we proverbially attribute to French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

As an example, I would suggest examining the literal and meta-linguistic interpretation of koan 7 of the Mumonkan. There is clearly more than one meaning to the concept of "rice bowl." It would not be a stretch to state that Hilbert was aware of such things.

 * I would suggest you channel your energy, perhaps, into expanding the article itself with further information (from reliable sources) about how Hilbert epitomizes "German Science" as you describe. A footnotes to translations won't do this justice anyway!  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Atheism
I've removed one of the references for Hilbert's atheism as the quote appears to be a response to Kroenecker's "God invented integers" approach, not a statement of Hilbert's more general religious stance - and is a primary source. The remaining reference is a bit dubious. Most of the references in it are from Wikipedia and there is no reference for the atheism statement. If it were "famously atheist," we should be able to find a better reference. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The two references just added have the same issue. They discuss Hilbert's refusal to include God in his discussion of mathematics (and geometry), but do not indicate he did not believe in God. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think 4 citations more than suffice to make the claim that Hilbert was an atheist. These citations are created by academics from universities, not some random user making questionable claims. You could send an email to these academics to ask for clarification to these articles as you wish. I posted links to these citations in order for skeptics to look at these citations for themselves. Anyway, a person does not have to deny the existence of God in order to become an atheist. Just because a person doesn't explicitly states that he/she is an atheist does not mean he/she is not an atheist. American physicist, Steven Weinberg states this comment about scientists who don't call themselves atheists: "Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists.". This statement can be also applied to mathematicians as well. Hilbert, as a mathematician, was known to be against intuitionism of any kind and demanded rigorous proofs for any claims whatsoever. (Read the wiki article, Brouwer–Hilbert controversy for more details.) Whether in terms of mathematics or theology. Here is one example, "Also, when someone blamed Galileo for not standing up for his convictions Hilbert became quite irate and said, “But he was not an idiot. Only an idiot could believe that scientific truth needs martyrdom; that may be necessary in religion, but scientific results prove themselves in due time." - David Hilbert. Anton Z. Capri, Quips, quotes, and quanta: an anecdotal history of physics (2007), page 135. If a person does not have proof of any kind to their claims, it does not make any sense to believe in it. This is what most atheists' stance is in terms of theology. For example, Richard Dawkins himself, has said before that he was an agnostic. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic. Daily Mail.co.uk] However, that does not rule out the fact that he stills considered himself to be an atheist. Just because a person is unsure about the existence of God, doesn't forbid the person to not believe in him as well. For example, I'm unsure about the existence of the Tooth fairy, however, due to lack of any evidence for this entity, I don't tend to believe in it. If there is evidence (or proof) of a statement or claim, a scientist may be more likely to believe in it. Ninmacer20 (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one of the four quotes you list indicate explicitly that Hilbert was an atheist. The statement needs to be more explicit in the sources.  I could argue against the conclusions you derive from them, but since since the conclusions are not explicit in the source, they are original research and should not be included here.

Alright, I made a mistake by labeling him an atheist considering two of those sources are considered "original research". After finding an another source and based on his other statements, I think it's safest to say that he was an agnostic. I'll leave it as that. Ninmacer20 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Note also, that Hilbert was a supporter of Cantor, who believed in a deep connection with set theory, and what one might call the higher power and beauty of the universe. Hilbert's quote, "Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können.", leads one to think that he was deeply sympathetic to such a view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hilbert's Son's Mental Illness
I would like to know more about Hilbert's son's mental "illness." It sounds like his son was mentally handicapped which I don't think is considered mental illness.

The whole phrasing and description seems imprecise and awkward and I think could be improved if more information is available.

Hilbert was a great man and I take his biography seriously -- please help with this.--Jrm2007 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

changing "one of the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries." to ",along with Hermann Minkowski, is the most influential and universal... "
pls? i shouldn't even have to ask, given what i've done and the reliance on his work. i'd be nowhere if roweis didn't make the method, if david hilbert didn't study the peano curve/arithmetic, if hermann minkowski didn't study the geometry of numbers.

hilbert and minkowski must go down as THE MOST influential mathematicians of the 19th and 20th centuries. can't see how the generality of their work, especially with the unbelievable geometric interpretations, this isn't true.

just sayin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Entscheidungsproblem?
Why is there a whole page devoted to the Entscheidungsproblem and then no mention of it on here? He is the person directly related to that said thing. I would have thought that a large amount of people only know of him because of the Entscheidungsproblem - especially within the computer science community.--81.103.229.191 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, this is a fair point and i hope someone else will add more about it. however i wanted to take this time to inform you about the controversy surrounding some of Hilbert's best work, given it implicitly accommodates Cantor's work. if you read Controversy over Cantor's theory, you'll see that many people were upset. even though those (like Kronecker and Poincare) who refuted Georg Cantor's theory were inferior mathematicians to Hilbert, there are many so-called mathematicians today chasing the dead ends they set out. it has snowballed because of the persistence of Foundational crisis in Mathematics. i agree there should be more, but we're going to have to wait until Hilbert's work is appreciated the way it should be. along with Hermann Minkowski, Constantin Carathéodory and Andrey Kolmogorov, David Hilbert reigns as one of, if not THE, premier mathematician of his era.

174.3.155.181 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

An excellent, and very valid point, if I may say so. The topic known as "Hilbert's Problems" might more beneficially be called, "Hilbert's 23 Open Questions." This conveys the true flavor of his ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab3517 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on David Hilbert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seas.harvard.edu/courses/cs121/handouts/Hilbert.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517092213/http://www.ags.uni-sb.de/~cp/p/hilbertbernays/goal.htm to http://www.ags.uni-sb.de/~cp/p/hilbertbernays/goal.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514013255/http://www.gresham.ac.uk:80/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=628 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=628

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

50 kilometers
There are about 50 kilometers between Znamensk and Kaliningrad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.233 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hilbert is said to have been born in both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.233 (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is unclear whether Hilbert was born in Königsberg (today called Kaliningrad) or Wehlau (Znamensk), so the article mentions both possibilities.  Yes, they are about 50 km apart.  Certes (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Correspondence with Einstein
This article does not appear to mention Hilbert's correspondence with Einstein. Vorbee (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that the German article on Hilbert doesn't either. Conversely, correspondence with Hilbert is mentioned neither in the English nor the German article on Einstein. - Do you have some source? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Metamathematics
The "distinction between mathematics and metamathematics" isn't a major innovation by Hilbert. In particular, the cited source doesn't claim Hilbert invented it. The distinction between physics and metaphysics, wherever you want to draw it, was already of long standing in Hilbert's time. These are my reasons for removing this dubious assertion from the lead, where it is clearly being given too much importance. Eleuther (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:David Hilbert


text:
Distributism

Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. Developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon Catholic social teaching principles, especially those of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It has influenced Anglo Christian Democratic movements, and has been recognized as one of many influences on the social market economy.

Distributism views laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, due to their extreme concentration of ownership. Instead, it favours small independent craftsmen and producers; or, if that is not possible, economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organisations, as well as small to medium enterprises and vigorous anti-trust laws to restrain or eliminate overweening economic power. Christian democratic political parties such as the American Solidarity Party have advocated distributism alongside social market economy in their economic policies and party platform.

Overview
According to distributists, the right to property is a fundamental right, and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible rather than being centralised under the control of the state (statocracy), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Therefore, distributism advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership. Cooperative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to creating a just social order.

Distributism has often been described in opposition to both laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative. Furthermore, some distributists argue that state capitalism and state socialism are the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state. Thomas Storck argues: "Both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernising and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life." A few distributists, including Dorothy Day, were influenced by the economic ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his mutualist economic theory. The lesser-known anarchist branch of distributism of Day and the Catholic Worker Movement can be considered a form of free-market libertarian socialism due to their opposition to state capitalism and state socialism.

Some have seen it more as an aspiration, successfully realised in the short term by the commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses). However, proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the long-term historical viability of distributism. Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, two of distributism's earliest and strongest proponents.

Background
The mid-to-late 19th century witnessed an increase in the popularity of political Catholicism across Europe. According to historian Michael A. Riff, a common feature of these movements was opposition to secularism, capitalism, and socialism. In 1891 Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum novarum, in which he addressed the "misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class" and spoke of how "a small number of very rich men" had been able to "lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself". Affirmed in the encyclical was the right of all men to own property, the necessity of a system that allowed "as many as possible of the people to become owners", the duty of employers to provide safe working conditions and sufficient wages, and the right of workers to unionise. Common and government property ownership was expressly dismissed as a means of helping the poor.

Around the start of the 20th century, G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc drew together the disparate experiences of the various cooperatives and friendly societies in Northern England, Ireland, and Northern Europe into a coherent political theory which specifically advocated widespread private ownership of housing and control of industry through owner-operated small businesses and worker-controlled cooperatives. In the United States in the 1930s, distributism was treated in numerous essays by Chesterton, Belloc and others in The American Review, published and edited by Seward Collins. Pivotal among Belloc's and Chesterton's other works regarding distributism are The Servile State and Outline of Sanity.

Private property

In Rerum novarum, Leo XIII states that people are likely to work harder and with greater commitment if they possess the land on which they labour, which in turn will benefit them and their families as workers will be able to provide for themselves and their household. He puts forward the idea that when men have the opportunity to possess property and work on it, they will "learn to love the very soil which yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of the good things for themselves and those that are dear to them". He also states that owning property is beneficial for a person and his family and is, in fact, a right due to God having "given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race".

G. K. Chesterton presents similar views in his 1910 book, What's Wrong with the World. Chesterton believes that whilst God has limitless capabilities, man has limited abilities in terms of creation. Therefore, man is entitled to own property and treat it as he sees fit, stating: "Property is merely the art of the democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven. But because he is not God, but only a graven image of God, his self-expression must deal with limits; properly with limits that are strict and even small."

According to Belloc, the distributive state (the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production". This broader distribution does not extend to all property but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, and so on. Distributism allows society to have public goods such as parks and transit systems. Distributists accept that wage labour will remain a small part of the economy, with small business owners hiring employees, usually young, inexperienced people.

Redistribution of wealth and productive assets
Distributism requires either direct or indirect distribution of the means of production (productive assets)—in some ideological circles including the redistribution of wealth—to a wide portion of society instead of concentrating it in the hands of a minority of wealthy elites (as seen in its criticism of certain varieties of capitalism) or the hands of the state (as seen in its criticism of certain varieties of communism and socialism). More capitalist-oriented supporters support distributism-influenced social capitalism (also known as a social market economy),  while more socialist-oriented supporters support distributism-influenced libertarian socialism. Examples of methods of distributism include direct productive property redistribution, taxation of excessive property ownership, and small-business subsidization.

Guild system
Distributists advocate in favour of the return of a guild system to help regulate industries to promote moral standards of professional conduct and economic equality among members of a guild. Such moral standards of professional conduct would typically focus on business conduct, working conditions and other issues in relation to industry specific matters such as workplace training standards.

Banks
Distributism favours cooperative and mutual banking institutions such as credit unions, building societies and mutual banks. This is considered to be the preferred alternative to private banks.

Human family
G. K. Chesterton considered one's home and family the centrepiece of society. He recognized the family unit and home as centrepieces of living and believed that every man should have his property and home to enable him to raise and support his family. Distributists recognize that strengthening and protecting the family requires that society be nurturing.

Subsidiarity
Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function that a smaller unit can perform. In Quadragesimo anno, Pope Pius XI provided the classical statement of the principle: "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do".

Social security
The Democratic Labour Party of Australia espouses distributism and does not hold the view of favouring the elimination of social security who, for instance, wish to "[r]aise the level of student income support payments to the Henderson poverty line".

The American Solidarity Party has a platform of favouring an adequate social security system, stating: "We advocate for social safety nets that adequately provide for the material needs of the most vulnerable in society".

Politics
The position of distributists, when compared to other political philosophies, is somewhat paradoxical and complicated (see triangulation). Firmly entrenched in an organic but very English Catholicism, advocating culturally traditional and agrarian values, directly challenging the precepts of Whig history—Belloc was nonetheless an MP for the Liberal Party, and Chesterton once stated, "As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals".

Distributism does not favour one political order over another (political accidentalism). While some distributists such as Dorothy Day have been anarchists, it should be remembered that most Chestertonian distributists are opposed to the mere concept of anarchism. Chesterton thought that distributism would benefit from the discipline that theoretical analysis imposes and that distributism is best seen as a widely encompassing concept inside of which any number of interpretations and perspectives can fit. This concept should fit a political system broadly characterized by widespread ownership of productive property.

In the United States, the American Solidarity Party generally adheres to Distributist principles as its economic model. Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam view their Grand New Party, a roadmap for revising the Republican Party in the United States, as "a book written in the distributist tradition".

The Brazilian political party, Humanist Party of Solidarity, was a distributist party, alongside the National Distributist Party in England, and the Democratic Labour Party in Australia.

E. F. Schumacher
Distributism is known to have influenced the economist E. F. Schumacher, a convert to Catholicism.

Mondragon Corporation
The Mondragon Corporation, based in the Basque Country in a region of Spain and France, was founded by a Catholic priest, Father José María Arizmendiarrieta, who seems to have been influenced by the same Catholic social and economic teachings that inspired Belloc, Chesterton, Father Vincent McNabb, and the other founders of distributism.

Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic
Distributist ideas were put into practice by The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic, a group of artists and craftsmen who established a community in Ditchling, Sussex, England, in 1920, with the motto "Men rich in virtue studying beautifulness living in peace in their houses". The guild sought to recreate an idealised medieval lifestyle in the manner of the Arts and Crafts Movement. It survived for almost 70 years until 1989.

Big Society
The Big Society was the flagship policy idea of the 2010 UK Conservative Party general election manifesto. Some distributists claim that the rhetorical marketing of this policy was influenced by aphorisms of the distributist ideology and promotes distributism. It purportedly formed a part of the legislative programme of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement.

Current

 * Australia – Democratic Labour Party
 * Romania – Pirate Party Romania
 * United Kingdom – National Distributist Party, British National Party, National Front
 * United States – American Solidarity Party
 * Mexico - Nationalist Front of Mexico

Historical

 * United Kingdom – Distributist League (1926–1940), Third Way (1990–2006)

Historical

 * Herbert Agar
 * Hilaire Belloc

 * L. Brent Bozell Jr.
 * Cecil Chesterton
 * G. K. Chesterton
 * Seward Collins
 * Dorothy Day
 * Adam Doboszyński
 * Peter Maurin
 * Horacio de la Costa
 * J. P. de Fonseka
 * Eric Gill
 * Douglas Hyde
 * Gustavo Corção
 * Saunders Lewis
 * Vincent McNabb
 * Arthur Penty
 * Hilary Pepler
 * Óscar Romero
 * William Purcell Witcutt
 * Dorothy L. Sayers
 * J. R. R. Tolkien

Contemporary

 * Dale Ahlquist
 * Phillip Blond
 * Allan C. Carlson
 * David W. Cooney
 * Charles A. Coulombe
 * Sean Domencic
 * Bill Kauffman
 * Race Mathews
 * Joseph Pearce
 * Juan Manuel de Prada
 * Douglas Rushkoff
 * John Sharpe
 * Albert Bikaj
 * John C. Médaille
 * Richard Williamson

Key texts

 * Rerum novarum (1891), papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII.
 * Quadragesimo anno (1931), papal encyclical by Pope Pius XI.
 * Centesimus Annus (1991), papal encyclical by Pope John Paul II.
 * Evangelii gaudium (2013), apostolic exhortation by Pope Francis.
 * What's Wrong with the World (1910) by G. K. Chesterton ISBN 0-89870-489-8 – eText.
 * The Outline of Sanity (1927) by G. K. Chesterton.
 * Utopia of Usurers (1917) by G. K. Chesterton.
 * The Servile State (1912) by Hilaire Belloc.
 * An Essay on The Restoration of Property (1936) by Hilaire Belloc ISBN 0-9714894-4-0.
 * Jobs of Our Own (1999) by Race Mathews ISBN 978-1871204179.

title: Distributism


text:
Talk:Danewerk

To JHK on Danewerk, I have a lot of reading material for you : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16071c.htm Roskilde http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13542a.htm Schleswig http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16070b.htm Ribe Ripen http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16001a.htm Aarhus http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07141b.htm Harald Bluetooth http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07121b.htm Hamburg http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal5349 H. Bluetooth (Jomsburg=Jomsborg=Jumne(Danish)= near Wollin, Pomerania) 823 Danish chief Harald Klack went to imperial Ingelheim and he and entire retinue were baptized by Louis the Pious.

Gorm the Old fought, was subdued by Otto I the Great, son Harald Bluetooth pledged allegiance to Otto I. He had to find rescue in Jomsburg from his son. Jomsburg was destroyed by Danes ca 1040. (Later Wollin and Pomerania).

Danewerk, Dannewerk was started around 600 (till 1200) to ward off Slavs .Of course the heathen Danes (Vikings) also used it. It was still used in 1800.

user:H.J.

Actually, Danewerk was me. But your date range is well out. The wall was definitely in use at the time of Charlemagne although whether or not it was complete is in dispute; it was breached during the Slavic destruction of Hedeby which was early 12th century: this kind of implies that it was on its last legs at this point. (and yes I know about the Schleswig-Holstein wars hence the reference to Austrian/Germanic destruction of a major viking strongpoint). But the real reason it was built was to keep those pesky Franks out! sjc

Yep, Dahmus's Dictionary of Medieval Civilizations - a low-level, but reasonably recent resource I happen to have a copy of in my office, gives 808 as the date for the wall. --MichaelTinkler --- I believe your are all due for a little visit at the site and do a little digging on your own. See the websites from the Museum I put on (date 650-1200 and still digging) user:H.J.

 * HJ, I would like to clarify something here: when I ask for sources, I am not looking for an Internet search.  There is no regulation on the internet as far as what people can or can't say; there is no peer review to ensure accuracy.  You can't trust much on the web, unless you know the source.  Also, different search engines find different things -- some require sites to register with them, for example, before they will show the site in a search.  Wikipedia is in many ways an exception from the inaccuracy rule -- but only because there are casess where many people have an interest and knowledge on a specific subject and so try to keep it clean. To me, sources are scholarly texts and articles and, more importantly, primary sources.

 * As for the encyclopedia entries on the web that you cite as evidence, I'm not sure I understand why you've cited them. All they really are are descriptions of bishoprics...the fact that one is in Schleswig Holstein NOW, for example, doesn't mean S-H existed in the 9th century...  Could you please explain on this page how the websites you want us to read support your argument?  Thanks! JHK

 * HJ: your unhelpful and presumably ideologically motivated contributions are not at all appreciated - if I wanted to pepper articles with seemingly arbitrary links I would have done so from the outset.

 * The C14 dating of the Danewerk definitely puts it inside the 8th/10th century range and is consonant with all reliable sources. I have a number of Danish friends who have done serious research into the Danewerk and none of them have ever suggested that it was anything other than what the original text stated that it was. For example, Annales Regni Francorum, a fairly reliable primary source,in annotating the raid by the Danish King Godfred on the German Baltic town of Reric makes explicit note of the fact that work is being performed on the ramparts of the Danewerk in 808. Later additions to the works, such as King Valdemar's brick wall in the 1160s are a peripheral addition and not wholly consonant with the central purpose for which the wall was built, the restraint of Frankish and German invaders. sjc

You have removed the links to the Danewerk and Dannewerk town and museum, which states the dates from 650 to 1200 ,after the latest archealogical digs at the sites.

You (several wikipedians) are bringing text from hundreds of years old books, yet you (several wikipedians) claim constantly that todays historians do not go by any older books, maps anything that is not by 20/21st century English/American language speaking historians approved. You (several wikipedians) constantly discredit older sources, often the only ones available.

Be consistant !!!! user:H.J.

 * This was done to prevent the unholy clutter of linkages which you seem hell-bent on bringing to every page. We are writing an encyclopaedia here, not a search-engine. I have to say, that as far as historical method is concerned, we (and I speak here collectively for the vast majority of Wikipedia historians) are obviously all wrong and you are right. Or is it, I wonder, the other way around? The Danevirke museum (which I have been to) and its site are all very interesting, but frankly these are loose and approximate dates, and have, shall we say, a certain agenda of their own. However, the oldest Carbon-14 dated wood in the main rampart, the oldest part of the wall is only late 7th century. It is unlikely that any part of the wall is older than this; if you find anything that counter-indicates this then please let the world know. Otherwise, leave well alone. sjc

 * H.J. -- we are being consistant. We are asking you use your sources critically, as we do.  Some are more reliable than others.  Unfortunately, many of the sources you have chosen are not the most reliable sources for what you are trying to prove.  If you read carefully what we've tried to explain about sources, you'll see that no one has made a blanket statement that all old sources are wrong.  Most of our criticism has been about maps and secondary sources -- most of us know and use primary sources pretty often. JHK

 * sjc and [JHK Then we do agree that it was started between 650 and the end of the 7th century ? ?

650 is stated by the museum,that is why I did put up the museum website, which has been taken off. To me it does not make much difference, but for the point of accuracy, as always ponted out by wikipedians , I need to bring this to attention, when I know of a different date. user:H.J.

 * No, some, i.e. a little wood has been C14 dated to the end of the 7th century. This does not mean it was put there then, or that the wall per se was erected then. In fact, it was probably salvaged from earlier works which were not the Danewerk. Most of the wood is mid - late 8th century, a much more likely date for the Danewerk's construction. sjc

Another question to sjc. The year 808 is the year that Charlemagne made an arrangement with the Abodrites and took off Saxons from Jutland and south, to give to Abodrites for their cooperation with him again the Saxons who fought against Frankish take-over/Christianization attempts. I cannot find the material on this again. Do you have a source on this ? user:H.J.

 * You might start with the principal primary source Annales Regni Francorum which details the struggles between Godefrid and Charlemagne and the consequent hostage exchanges. This is kind of basic stuff, if you're even remotely into this period. sjc

---
 * I will point out that from a Frankish point of view the Saxons were rebelling rather than resisting expansion. The Saxons had been tributary to the Merovingian Frankish kings through most of the 7th century, so the Carolingian Franks saw them as breaking their obligations.  Despite the idea that all relationships involved forced Christianization, the Franks were willing to accept tribute from pagans - they *did* object to people killing missionaries.  That, of course, was the Frankish p.o.v. - not necessarily true, but worth mentioning, since HJ's approach is from the Saxon p.o.v.  All these histories are very complex. --MichaelTinkler

--- To MichaelTinkler How died early Saints become saints ? They were looking forward to the according to them "only worthwhile cause of death- martyrdom". One's people's freedom fighter was/(still is) another's saint. Read Saxon history Widukind, Wittekind and Charlemagne etc. Saxons did get help from Danes, the "still heathen" ones. Read the 'Northern Crusades", by Eric Christiansen, Penguin Books and Saint Adalbert of Prague etc etc. These missionaries by itself may have been "harmless" and "only chopped down the oaktrees", but to heathen natives these were the most sacred places,taboo to none-believers. Chopping down an oaktree was equivalent to burning down a church. (By funny coincedence , the town of Fair Oaks, CA has an ordinance that you cannot chop down an oak tree. Oak trees are sacred to native Americans as well).

To the point of Saxons having been tribuaries to Merovingian Frankish kings. The Bohemian and Poljanen dukes had also pledge allegiance to the kings/emperors and thereby received landliens as dukes. That did not keep them from trying to keep and claim it all for themselves. You are right about the complexity. user:H.J.

 * I think when we use the word saint, we are using it in a very strict sense of someone canonized by the Church (Catholic, since there was no other). And I think you're just a bit off as to your freedom fighter analogy.  There was no real nobility to any of these Germanic peoples, just attempts to take over as much territory as possible -- the way leaders stayed in power was by giving the spoils of war to their warriors.  As for another's saint, I think you mean martyr.  Very different.  Also not really appropriate in this context, but that's the proper English phrase.
 * As for "landlien" (not an English term, but I know what you are trying to say), I think it would be a good thing if you could give dates with examples -- for instance, the Merovingians were much earlier than any Frankish-Bohemian relations (if you are talking about Carolingians and not the Ottonians or later Emperors. There are so many changes over time as to how the rulers of Francia and its successor kingdoms dealt with their neighbors that these blanket statements are really confusing.  You should know, though, that most treaties between the Eastern Carolingians and their eastern neighbors (Ottonians, as well, I;m fairly sure) were TRIBUTARY.  This is very different than granting an area as a fief.  Yes, the "foreign leaders had to swear allegiance -- in exchange for which they were allowed to stay on as leaders in thier "own" areas in exchange for a yearly sum.  I say "own" because often a leader of, say, the Sorbs got to be a leader because he sided with the Franks and the Franks supported his leadership. JHK

-- To JHK, Yes martyred. When you look at the early Saints, they declared that they wished to be martyred. It was one of the pre-requesits for later being declaired a saint. samples St Boniface - St Adalbert, St Brun and many others (A Catholic can tell you many more). And yes, just as the Germanic Cherusker under Arminius and I am sure other people ( just take Jews in 60 AD and Britains) did not join the Roman Empire of their own free will, the still remaining Free Germanic people had no wish to be taken over by Catholic Franks either, thereby loosing independence and having to turn over land to the pope and emperor. user:H.J.

 * It was NOT one of the prerequisites. Let me note that you added Saint Adelaide of Italy (not martyred).  The general use of martyrdom ended in 313 with the Peace of Milan.  Later martyrs (like those you list, Adalbert, Boniface) did occur, but they were the exception.  Your repeated complaint about 'turn over land' shows that you do not understand medieval politics or land tenure.  Your repeated use of the term loan or lien shows the same. Now your insistence on martyrdom as a pre-requisite for sainthood shows that your aren't even being careful enough to remember your own work from this weekend. --MichaelTinkler.

-- To MichaelTinkler
 * Thank you for the official information on Saints.I knew that there were many more, all in reference to early Saints in connection with take-over of Germanic tribes, but can/'t think of all the names.This is just in general, not as a specific entry I want to make.I did not have any intention to go into details on this, as I wrote someone else does have the knowledge on this subject ,I do not.Apparently you do not understand the turn-over or take-over land policy.

Taking on Christianity, being baptized, meant, that it was now either papal or imperial property. All "heathen" land was considered "Herrenloses Land", land without an overlord and property of the empire. The monks and bishps, archbishops were the government in many places, except in the imperial cities, which had self-government, each city had their own seperat Stadtrat , city council and right to mint coins , wage wars, hold court. The citizens, the members of a guild, like, carpentrers, bakers, shoemakers, whatever had to furnish so many men to the city army. The cities had to protect themselves, therefore they formed these different alliance leagues to aid each other, when attacked.

Overall, very complex and no matter what words you use, someone else can always point to other words being used as well. Anyway, when I mention Saints, then I do this only because somewhere it states, that this person has been canonized. Otherwise I would not even mention it. Now I have spend too much time on this martyred and Saint subject, which I had no intention of spending any time on. Enough of this. user:H.J.

 * Sorry, H.J., but NONE of the early saints WANTED to be martyred, as far as we know. They CHOSE martyrdom over denying their Christian belief.  As for Boniface, I've read EVERY primary source that deals with him (at least every Latin one, including his  Vita and every citation in every annal and history of the period and every Papal letter still extant.  In none of these documents does it say he wanted to be a martyr.  Being slaughtered by the heathen was just a normal risk associated with the job.  I'm sure that, given the choice, Boniface would have preferred to continue to preach, convert, and play politics.   Also, I'm not sure what Arminius had to do with anything -- he kicked Varus' Roman butt, after all.

 * (cutting in) H.J.'s suggestion is at least a common one - I've heard similar claims elsewhere. If it is a misperception, we should probably explain why somewhere, and give references to when the misperception arose, etc. If we don't already... Martin 16:05 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Finally, I have to disagree with you. Michael is correct and you really DON't understand medieveal landholding.  You blithely mix places and times and make generalized statements that you think are true.  You seem to understand that this is very complex, but don't seem to want to take the time necessary to apply those complexities to individual situations. You keep talking about papal and imperial property as if this were the norm before about the 11th and 12th century -- even then, you are talking about an ideal situation, not necessarily reality.  For the years up to about 1100, that just isn't true.  What we have is a bunch of Germans and Slavs of different varieties trying to grab as much land as they could.  With the Carolingians and their heirs, Christianity played a big part because 1) the Carolingians were very pious, by and large, 2) Christianity meant papal support, and 3) it's easier to have everybody in your kingdom believing that their oaths all count the same and believing that God supports the king.  I've known Michael for close to 15 years, and he knows his stuff -- he's one of the most natural scholars I've ever met -- if he says something, you can be assured that it's because he's studied it carefully over a long period.  You might actually think about that fact -- or at least letting us know what valid sources you've used, so that we can speak as equals. JHK

title: Talk:Danewerk


text:
Dehydroepiandrosterone

Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), also known as androstenolone, is an endogenous steroid hormone precursor. It is one of the most abundant circulating steroids in humans. DHEA is produced in the adrenal glands, the gonads, and the brain. It functions as a metabolic intermediate in the biosynthesis of the androgen and estrogen sex steroids both in the gonads and in various other tissues. However, DHEA also has a variety of potential biological effects in its own right, binding to an array of nuclear and cell surface receptors, and acting as a neurosteroid and modulator of neurotrophic factor receptors.

In the United States, DHEA is sold as an over-the-counter supplement, and medication called prasterone.

As an androgen
DHEA and other adrenal androgens such as androstenedione, although relatively weak androgens, are responsible for the androgenic effects of adrenarche, such as early pubic and axillary hair growth, adult-type body odor, increased oiliness of hair and skin, and mild acne. DHEA is potentiated locally via conversion into testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in the skin and hair follicles. Women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), who have a non-functional androgen receptor (AR) and are immune to the androgenic effects of DHEA and other androgens, have absent or only sparse/scanty pubic and axillary hair and body hair in general, demonstrating the role of DHEA and other androgens in body hair development at both adrenarche and pubarche.

As an estrogen
DHEA is a weak estrogen. In addition, it is transformed into potent estrogens such as estradiol in certain tissues such as the vagina, and thereby produces estrogenic effects in such tissues.

As a neurosteroid
As a neurosteroid and neurotrophin, DHEA has important effects in the central nervous system.

Androgen receptor
Although it functions as an endogenous precursor to more potent androgens such as testosterone and DHT, DHEA has been found to possess some degree of androgenic activity in its own right, acting as a low affinity (Ki = 1 μM), weak partial agonist of the androgen receptor (AR). However, its intrinsic activity at the receptor is quite weak, and on account of that, due to competition for binding with full agonists like testosterone, it can actually behave more like an antagonist depending on circulating testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels, and hence, like an antiandrogen. However, its affinity for the receptor is very low, and for that reason, is unlikely to be of much significance under normal circumstances.

Estrogen receptors
In addition to its affinity for the androgen receptor, DHEA has also been found to bind to (and activate) the ERα and ERβ estrogen receptors with Ki values of 1.1 μM and 0.5 μM, respectively, and EC50 values of >1 μM and 200 nM, respectively. Though it was found to be a partial agonist of the ERα with a maximal efficacy of 30–70%, the concentrations required for this degree of activation make it unlikely that the activity of DHEA at this receptor is physiologically meaningful. Remarkably however, DHEA acts as a full agonist of the ERβ with a maximal response similar to or actually slightly greater than that of estradiol, and its levels in circulation and local tissues in the human body are high enough to activate the receptor to the same degree as that seen with circulating estradiol levels at somewhat higher than their maximal, non-ovulatory concentrations; indeed, when combined with estradiol with both at levels equivalent to those of their physiological concentrations, overall activation of the ERβ was doubled.

Other nuclear receptors
DHEA does not bind to or activate the progesterone, glucocorticoid, or mineralocorticoid receptors. Other nuclear receptor targets of DHEA besides the androgen and estrogen receptors include the PPARα, PXR, and CAR. However, whereas DHEA is a ligand of the PPARα and PXR in rodents, it is not in humans. In addition to direct interactions, DHEA is thought to regulate a handful of other proteins via indirect, genomic mechanisms, including the enzymes CYP2C11 and 11β-HSD1 – the latter of which is essential for the biosynthesis of the glucocorticoids such as cortisol and has been suggested to be involved in the antiglucocorticoid effects of DHEA – and the carrier protein IGFBP1.

Neurotransmitter receptors
DHEA has been found to directly act on several neurotransmitter receptors, including acting as a positive allosteric modulator of the NMDA receptor, as a negative allosteric modulator of the GABAA receptor, and as an agonist of the σ1 receptor.

Neurotrophin receptors
In 2011, the surprising discovery was made that DHEA, as well as its sulfate ester, DHEA-S, directly bind to and activate TrkA and p75NTR, receptors of neurotrophins like nerve growth factor (NGF) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), with high affinity. DHEA was subsequently also found to bind to TrkB and TrkC with high affinity, though it only activated TrkC not TrkB. DHEA and DHEA-S bound to these receptors with affinities in the low nanomolar range (around 5 nM), which were nonetheless approximately two orders of magnitude lower relative to highly potent polypeptide neurotrophins like NGF (0.01–0.1 nM). In any case, DHEA and DHEA-S both circulate at requisite concentrations to activate these receptors and were thus identified as important endogenous neurotrophic factors. They have since been labeled "steroidal microneurotrophins", due to their small-molecule and steroidal nature relative to their polypeptide neurotrophin counterparts. Subsequent research has suggested that DHEA and/or DHEA-S may in fact be phylogenetically ancient "ancestral" ligands of the neurotrophin receptors from early on in the evolution of the nervous system. The findings that DHEA binds to and potently activates neurotrophin receptors may explain the positive association between decreased circulating DHEA levels with age and age-related neurodegenerative diseases.

Microtubule-associated protein 2
Similarly to pregnenolone, its synthetic derivative 3β-methoxypregnenolone (MAP-4343), and progesterone, DHEA has been found to bind to microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP2), specifically the MAP2C subtype (Kd = 27 μM). However, it is unclear whether DHEA increases binding of MAP2 to tubulin like pregnenolone.

ADHD
Some research has shown that DHEA levels are too low in people with ADHD, and treatment with methylphenidate or bupropion (stimulant type of medications) normalizes DHEA levels.

G6PDH inhibitor
DHEA is an uncompetitive inhibitor of G6PDH (Ki = 17 μM; IC50 = 18.7 μM), and is able to lower NADPH levels and reduce NADPH-dependent free radical production. It is thought that this action may possibly be responsible for much of the antiinflammatory, antihyperplastic, chemopreventative, antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic, and antiobesic, as well as certain immunomodulating activities of DHEA (with some experimental evidence to support this notion available). However, it has also been said that inhibition of G6PDH activity by DHEA in vivo has not been observed and that the concentrations required for DHEA to inhibit G6PDH in vitro are very high, thus making the possible contribution of G6PDH inhibition to the effects of DHEA uncertain.

Cancer
DHEA supplements have been promoted in supplement form for its claimed cancer prevention properties; there is no scientific evidence to support these claims.

Miscellaneous
DHEA has been found to competitively inhibit TRPV1.

Biosynthesis
DHEA is produced in the zona reticularis of the adrenal cortex under the control of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and by the gonads under the control of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). It is also produced in the brain. DHEA is synthesized from cholesterol via the enzymes cholesterol side-chain cleavage enzyme (CYP11A1; P450scc) and 17α-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase (CYP17A1), with pregnenolone and 17α-hydroxypregnenolone as intermediates. It is derived mostly from the adrenal cortex, with only about 10% being secreted from the gonads. Approximately 50 to 70% of circulating DHEA originates from desulfation of DHEA-S in peripheral tissues. DHEA-S itself originates almost exclusively from the adrenal cortex, with 95 to 100% being secreted from the adrenal cortex in women.

Increasing endogenous production
Regular exercise is known to increase DHEA production in the body. Calorie restriction has also been shown to increase DHEA in primates. Some theorize that the increase in endogenous DHEA brought about by calorie restriction is partially responsible for the longer life expectancy known to be associated with calorie restriction.

Distribution
In the circulation, DHEA is mainly bound to albumin, with a small amount bound to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG). The small remainder of DHEA not associated with albumin or SHBG is unbound and free in the circulation.

DHEA easily crosses the blood–brain barrier into the central nervous system.

Metabolism
DHEA is transformed into DHEA-S by sulfation at the C3β position via the sulfotransferase enzymes SULT2A1 and to a lesser extent SULT1E1. This occurs naturally in the adrenal cortex and during first-pass metabolism in the liver and intestines when exogenous DHEA is administered orally. Levels of DHEA-S in circulation are approximately 250 to 300 times those of DHEA. DHEA-S in turn can be converted back into DHEA in peripheral tissues via steroid sulfatase (STS).

The terminal half-life of DHEA is short at only 15 to 30 minutes. In contrast, the terminal half-life of DHEA-S is far longer, at 7 to 10 hours. As DHEA-S can be converted back into DHEA, it serves as a circulating reservoir for DHEA, thereby extending the duration of DHEA.

Metabolites of DHEA include DHEA-S, 7α-hydroxy-DHEA, 7β-hydroxy-DHEA, 7-keto-DHEA, 7α-hydroxyepiandrosterone, and 7β-hydroxyepiandrosterone, as well as androstenediol and androstenedione.

Pregnancy
During pregnancy, DHEA-S is metabolized into the sulfates of 16α-hydroxy-DHEA and 15α-hydroxy-DHEA in the fetal liver as intermediates in the production of the estrogens estriol and estetrol, respectively.

Levels
Prior to puberty in humans, DHEA and DHEA-S levels elevate upon differentiation of the zona reticularis of the adrenal cortex. Peak levels of DHEA and DHEA-S are observed around age 20, which is followed by an age-dependent decline throughout life eventually back to prepubertal concentrations. Plasma levels of DHEA in adult men are 10 to 25 nM, in premenopausal women are 5 to 30 nM, and in postmenopausal women are 2 to 20 nM. Conversely, DHEA-S levels are an order of magnitude higher at 1–10 μM. Levels of DHEA and DHEA-S decline to the lower nanomolar and micromolar ranges in men and women aged 60 to 80 years.

DHEA levels are as follows:
 * Adult men: 180–1250 ng/dL
 * Adult women: 130–980 ng/dL
 * Pregnant women: 135–810 ng/dL
 * Prepubertal children (<1 year): 26–585 ng/dL
 * Prepubertal children (1–5 years): 9–68 ng/dL
 * Prepubertal children (6–12 years): 11–186 ng/dL
 * Adolescent boys (Tanner II–III): 25–300 ng/dL
 * Adolescent girls (Tanner II–III): 69–605 ng/dL
 * Adolescent boys (Tanner IV–V): 100–400 ng/dL
 * Adolescent girls (Tanner IV–V): 165–690 ng/dL

Measurement
As almost all DHEA is derived from the adrenal glands, blood measurements of DHEA-S/DHEA are useful to detect excess adrenal activity as seen in adrenal cancer or hyperplasia, including certain forms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome tend to have elevated levels of DHEA-S.

Chemistry
DHEA, also known as androst-5-en-3β-ol-17-one, is a naturally occurring androstane steroid and a 17-ketosteroid. It is closely related structurally to androstenediol (androst-5-ene-3β,17β-diol), androstenedione (androst-4-ene-3,17-dione), and testosterone (androst-4-en-17β-ol-3-one). DHEA is the 5-dehydro analogue of epiandrosterone (5α-androstan-3β-ol-17-one) and is also known as 5-dehydroepiandrosterone or as δ5-epiandrosterone.

Isomers
The term "dehydroepiandrosterone" is ambiguous chemically because it does not include the specific positions within epiandrosterone at which hydrogen atoms are missing. DHEA itself is 5,6-didehydroepiandrosterone or 5-dehydroepiandrosterone. A number of naturally occurring isomers also exist and may have similar activities. Some isomers of DHEA are 1-dehydroepiandrosterone (1-androsterone) and 4-dehydroepiandrosterone. These isomers are also technically "DHEA", since they are dehydroepiandrosterones in which hydrogens are removed from the epiandrosterone skeleton.

Dehydroandrosterone (DHA) is the 3α-epimer of DHEA and is also an endogenous androgen.

History
DHEA was first isolated from human urine in 1934 by Adolf Butenandt and Kurt Tscherning.

title: Dehydroepiandrosterone