AI 中文总结
本文基于原始文献，指出 Lorenz 与 Lorentz 之间关于规范条件的优先权争议因未明确归属对象而无效，并区分了导出关系、施加限制与命名规范三种行为。
AI 中文摘要
关于条件 div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 的归属问题，自 1938 年以来一直作为 Ludvig Lorenz 与 Hendrik Lorentz 之间的优先权争议而被讨论。本文认为，该问题的性质有所不同，且讨论之所以未能终结，是因为从未明确所归属的对象究竟是什么。通过参考 1867 年论文的三个版本以及另外六份原始文献，本文证明，在单一名称之下实际上涵盖了三个可分离的行为：导出势之间的关系、将其作为对容许势的限制条件加以施加，以及将其命名为规范。本文进一步证明，在 1867 年论文的三个版本中均未出现“势”一词，磁场在该论文中并未作为理论量出现，而且如今用于描述该论文的词汇是在该论文写成之后才进入文献的。结论是，在未指明所归属的是三种行为中的哪一种的情况下，将两个名称对立起来的做法是不成立的。
英文摘要
The attribution of the condition div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 has been under discussion since 1938 as a question of priority between Ludvig Lorenz and Hendrik Lorentz. This work argues that the problem is of a different nature, and that the discussion does not close because it has never been specified what is being attributed. Drawing on the three versions of the 1867 paper and on six further primary sources, it is documented that three separable acts have been designated under a single name: the obtaining of the relation between potentials, its imposition as a restriction on the admissible potentials, and its denomination as a gauge. It is further documented that in none of the three versions of the 1867 paper does the word potential appear, that the magnetic field does not figure in it as a quantity of the theory, and that the vocabulary in which that paper is described today enters the literature after it was written. It is concluded that the disjunction between the two denominations, posed without specifying which of the three acts is being attributed, is ill formed.
Comments13 pages. Also available at OSF: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/2WYG8 v2: added URLs to
