User talk:Tsirel

Welcome!

Hello, Tsirel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Large deviations ...

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I forgot to say, thanks for the new Large deviations of Gaussian random functions. If at some point you want to get to know other people who contribute to math articles, our main discussion forum is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

I have a small note. You can also use subpages as sandboxes, if, for example, you want to work on many articles at the same time. For example, User:Tsirel/Sandbox, User:Tsirel/Article 1, User:Tsirel/Probability space, etc. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I do. It helps. Boris Tsirelson 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics talk page.

May I ask you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#(Superquantum) non-locality and perhaps comment? --Pjacobi 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did. Boris Tsirelson 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Typo redirect Schroeder-Bernstein theorem for measurable speces

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Schroeder-Bernstein theorem for measurable speces, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Schroeder-Bernstein theorem for measurable speces is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Schroeder-Bernstein theorem for measurable speces, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it was myself, who wished it to be deleted.Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Turkic languages Krull dimension GNU Hurd Émile Borel Data set Exotic probability Computation Apastamba Location-scale family Alfréd Haar Doob-Meyer decomposition theorem Edwin Thompson Jaynes Mathematical statistics Upper and lower probabilities William H. Jefferys Alfred Enneper Kuiper's test Ray Solomonoff Boris Vladimirovich Gnedenko

Cleanup Hitchhiking ZigBee S matrix Merge Dutch book Conditional expectation Degenerate distribution Add Sources Mathematical analysis Continuous probability distribution If and only if Wikify Gradience Logical possibility Spread betting Expand Pareto distribution Pearson distribution Type-2 Gumbel distribution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: list of probability topics

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Schramm–Loewner evolution maths rating

I have promoted the article to "Mid" based on your comment at Talk:Schramm–Loewner evolution. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice; thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

E(X^2)-E(X)^2

Privet Boris, It's mentioned in our preprint on arxiv. Katzmik (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please offer your expertise.

Archived: User:Tsirel/MHP#Monty Hall — 2009 Feb.

Potential new section for Monty Hall problem

Archived: User:Tsirel/MHP#Monty Hall — 2009 Feb.

Is this a valid unconditional proof of the Monty Hall Problem?

Archived: User:Tsirel/MHP#Monty Hall — 2009 Feb.

Just One More Thing...

Archived: User:Tsirel/MHP#Monty Hall — 2009 Feb.

Stability

Hello. I noticed you commented once on the Stability (probability). We have also the article on stable distributions. A merger has just been proposed, see the talk page. Your input would be welcome. ptrf (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your bot

Good work with that trial. Incidentally, it'd be neat to know how you thought the trial went. I can't see any major problems myself, but obviously, I know very little about your area of expertise, so it'd be great if you could just say "It all went to plan" or "I encountered a few problems but...". A minor, trivial thing, but you'd be surprised how many complaints only arise 6 months down the line when records have been lost ;) Anyhow, keep up the good work! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very much appreciated. If it's OK with you I think I would prefer to issue another 7 day trial, rather than jump straight to approved. Would that be fine? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the compliment. The same to you (I mean, "keep up the good work"). Hopefully, my poor English does not disturb you too much :) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, there are English people who speak much worse English than you (some of the crap on new page patrol!). Anyhow, you should find a trial materialising on that BRFA in the next 5 minutes. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice; thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Biography

Hello, I am interested to add your birth data in the He-wiki. david1955 (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

May 4, 1950; Leningrad. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you david1955 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Tsirel I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CataBotTsirel has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice; thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Submitted for your comments

In response to your comments in an AfD discussion on the "infamous principle of indifference", I've written some comments here. What do you think? (You can put your comments below mine on that page.) Michael Hardy (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Disinformation from Israeli intelligence

I'm talking about this statement you added (quite some time ago) to Regular conditional probability:

... the underlying measurable space of any standard probability space is Radon (if its topology is chosen appropriately).

I'd say you were ignorant, but I'm not going to insult your intelligence. This type of thing does not help people who are trying to learn math on Wikipedia. Deepmath (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I know I hardly take hints and understand humor. Could you please be more explicit? What exactly is bad in that phrase? Is it wrong? Or rather true but unwanted in Wikipedia? Why?

2. Look closely at the history of that article. I did not add the phrase. Someone else wrote its first part, which was incorrect, and I have corrected it adding the second part.

3. Your word "disinformation" astonishes me. What is the reason for such crude word here? Is it a semi-personal attack (on the Israeli intelligence)? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

rABBI. Deepmath (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't also trashed the history of that article. Look at the history of the talk page, too. Deepmath (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I am utterly puzzled. What do you mean? What else are my crimes? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda Leib Tsirelson

I discovered your great uncle after reading a responsum that cited a ר"י צירלזאהן. a (שו"ת חלקת יעקב חו"מ סיםן ל"ד) After cleaning up his page a little I clicked on some of the links and came upon you. Fascinating.--Danthecan (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I see, you have some knowledge about the Rabbi. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ending the Monty Hall problem Morgan Emphasis

Archived: User:Tsirel/MHP#Monty Hall — 2009 Dec.

Proposed deletion of Catalog of articles in probability theory

The article Catalog of articles in probability theory has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non standard article, with non standard editing rules and techniques. Seems to fundamentally break several core policies. It is also self/wikipedia referential in the lead.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Verbal chat 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Catalog of articles in probability theory

I have nominated Catalog of articles in probability theory, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog of articles in probability theory. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Verbal chat 11:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A deletion discussion

Polynomially reflexive space has been proposed for deletion. I suppose you are a pretty good person to ask about the notability of this topic. (The reason for proposal was lack of any references; I don't like this way of proceeding. There is now a reference. I would still like to know whether this is a good topic for the encyclopedia.) Charles Matthews (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll think a bit. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be (a) expanded and made less technical, and (b) merged to something broader.

I just did (a), to some extent.

About (b): maybe, into Polynomials on vector spaces? For now it is purely algebraic. However, the good Vector space article contains analytic sections; also "Polynomials on vector spaces" could do. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Probability theory,absolutely continuous

Hi, could we discuss your undoing my change to the article Probability theory? My opinion still stands, I did not understand your comment. Here is, again, my reasoning:

"The existence of a derivative almost everywhere is a properity of absolutely continuous functions, not its definition." Quiet photon (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, I shall not object to your change. On the other hand, the phrase "its derivative exists and integrating the derivative gives us the cdf back again" is one of several equivalent definitions of absolute continuity. True, it is not the definition given in "absolutely continuous". However, this definition is more relevant to "Probability theory". This is why I did not see anything wrong with the old phrase in the article. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I did not know these were equivalent definitions. Do you have any kind of reference for that, or can explain? I am somewhat new to the field of probability theory so I learn as I go, and point out difficulties I see on the way. Not knowing much about absolutely continuous functions bar the basic definition and basic properities the formulation in the article seems confusing to me, and the mentioning that the property only holds almost everywhere lacks completely. My edit was very rudementary in the hope, that somebody with experience in the field would take the time to improve this forumlation. Quiet photon (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something should be done; I'll think. However, "Probability theory" is not the best place for technical details. We should look at such articles as Continuous probability distribution. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, everything is already written in Absolute continuity. That is a rather good article, but maybe it can be made still better. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, to some extent. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your great work, this article really helps now. In Probability theory one could still add that the derivative only exists almost everywhere. What do you think? Quiet photon (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you like it. You are welcome to improve anything. But, once again, "Probability theory" is probably not a good place for technicalities; it should be a wide-scope overview. You may say that anyway it must be correct. Well, maybe a reasonable compromise exists. When needed, we put links to more special articles. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you think an article about the relation of probability measures on $(\mathbb {R} ,B)$, cumulative distribution functions and probability density functions could or should be written? Quiet photon (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We already have Probability distribution; isn't it the right place for all that? Probably for now it does not satisfy you. It attracts, naturally, many non-mathematicians interested in applications rather than theory. But anyway, you can participate, improving it. Otherwise, I do not know, which title will you give to the new article. And note that it is not a good idea, to create a "parallel" article conforming to your taste; probably it will be called "content fork" and deleted (or merged to the existing article). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Codomain of a random variable: observation space?

(From Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_59)

The technical term "observation space" for codomain of a random variable was used by User:Winterfors on 14 Feb 2008 in Bayesian experimental design, then by User:3mta3 on 7 May 2009 in Probability distribution, by an anon on 26 Aug 2009 in Random variable, and by User:Stpasha on 27 Nov 2009 in Probability density function. Now User:WestwoodMatt and a `random passerby' are unhappy with it, see Talk:Probability distribution#Observation Space.

As far as I understand, the term is used mostly by non-mathematicians, and its use in such articles as random variable is a bit off-label. On the other hand, it could be rather convenient here. Maybe we should mention it, but use sparingly.

However, the very idea to define a random variable as a measurable map from a probability space to an arbitrary measurable space could be a WP:POV. Maybe some sources use such terminology, but not the mainstream. Checking four books, "Probability: theory and examples" by Richard Durrett, "Probability with martingales" by David Williams, "Theory of probability and random processes" by Leonid Koralov and Yakov Sinai, and "Measure theory and probability theory" by Krishna Athreya and Soumendra Lahiri, I observe in all the four cases that a random variable is a measurable map from a probability space to the real line. More general objects are called random vectors, random functions and, most generally, random elements (of a given measurable space).

Any opinions, please? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My immediate reaction, then, is to do one of two things:

a) Find a way of rigorously defining "observation space" with the caveat that it is generally used as an imprecise concept;

b) Define "random variable" without using "observation space", and also indicate that it can be defined in two ways:

i) The "usual" way, that is, as a map to the real line;

ii) In a more general way that is rooted in measure space concepts, in which the image of the random variable is a more general measure space - and providing a link to the explanatory definition that specifies that a real line is an instance of a measure space, thus showing that the more specific is an instance of the more general. I see that's sort of already been done, but I believe it could be made more rigorous and precise.--WestwoodMatt (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article on Bayesian experimental design, I used the term "observation space" in the sense "the set of all possible observations", which if you define the observation as a (conditional) random variable will be its codomain. In the context of Bayesian experimental design the alternative term "data space" is often used, but I prefer "observation space" since "data" is more ambiguous than "observation".

I think the term is appropriate in the article on Bayesian experimental design, but not in the articles Probability distribution, Random variable or Probability density function since these describe more general cases not necessarily relating to the probability of making a particluar observation.

-- Winterfors (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Enflo

Dear Professor Tsirelson,

Would you look at the recent edits at Per Enflo, many by a user named "EdStat" (whose has recently returned from a suspension for sock-puppetry). Many of EdStats comments use phrases from the discussion about the article on an applied statistician, Shlomo Sawilowsky. This editor has a history of attacking other editors as WikiWarriors and charging them (and perhaps me) with anti-semitism.

Also, in general, the article on Per Enflo could use review from a functional analyst, which I am not.

This is a waste of your time, of course, but you have identified yourself and made so many pro bono contributions, that I thought you could be helpful. Perhaps you could suggest another editor to help with the Per Enflo article.

Sincerely,Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, I am not a useful person for this case. First, I never participated in biographies (well, almost never; I did a bit for Chatterjee and some others, just because all mathematicians were asked to help urgently to save them from deletion); I have no idea what is usual and what is not when writing bio; and I am hardly interested in these things. Surely Per Enflo is quite notable; but I see that no one doubts it. Second, the first years of my academic career I dealt with Banach spaces indeed, but it was about 40 years ago, and since then I never returned to this topic. About suggesting another editor, you'd better write a note on the talk page of Wikiproject Mathematics. Sorry. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is perfectly understandable. You accomplished enough in your initial contributions that you have left BS space theorists wanting more! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Peaceful Coexistence of the Monty Hall Problem Solutions

Hello Boris,

I have offered two versions of a 2-row table in support of the 'you always get the opposite if you switch' solution to the MHP.

Would you be kind enough to read this section only of the talk page, and offer your comments/criticisms of the table?

Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. To my amusement, a number of people like to spend (a large portion of) their life to MHP. What could I say to them? I do not belong to the club. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am glad I bring you amusement! I respect your decision, of course. But in answer to your question, you needn't say anything, beyond your criticism of the table in regards to probability.

Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you at least a little bit curious? You know all about the professional controversies. I claim this 2 row table in support of 'you always get the opposite' ends them. Period. Forget the Wikipedia part. Don't you have a scientific curiosity? It's part of your curriculum, isn't it? Glkanter (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I'll try it. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Distortion problem

Hi Boris, Any chance you would be willing to have a look at the recent addition to Hilbert space on the so-called "distortion problem" (diff)? As it is presently written, the paragraph is clearly out of place. In fact, I'm skeptical that the distortion problem is high-profile enough to be mentioned in the main article on Hilbert spaces, but I'll defer to your judgment. Do you have any sage advice on what to do? Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why skeptical? It is a bit advanced, yes, but it takes several lines of the long article, and it deserves its place, I believe. It is the tip of an iceberg, in fact. And, why "clearly out of place"? It is related to a large stream of research in Banach spaces theory. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad that you hold a different opinion. Allow me to clarify my own. I'm not opposed to including research-level content in the article, but it needs to be written in a way that readers can understand and appreciate its significance. Currently, the paragraph builds absolutely no context for the result that it quotes, and so seems "out of place" as it is currently written. Regarding the large stream of research that this is clearly a part of, if we could somehow emphasize that aspect of things, I think it would be an improvement. Indeed, this is part of the reason that I thought you should be consulted on the matter. But I'm out of my element when it comes to such things: I don't really get anything out of the articles cited. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. Then maybe move that staff into a new stub article and let it grow there in an indefinite future. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Svante Janson

Hi Boris. I saw that you'd cited a paper by Svante Janson, for whom an article was created this week. I've tried to add secondary references. Perhaps you could help with a photo, either your own or from Allan Gut, etc.? (It's possible the page could be nominated for DYK, but this would have to be done quickly.) Of course, your comments and corrections would be valuable. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do not know him personally. But if you just want a photo, probably you could send an email to Janson. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference

You are probably better placed than me to find a reference for this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did; please look. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

170,000 words on a single talk page

I mean Talk:Monty Hall problem, archives 16-21. These 170,000 words were added during three months. Did you know?.. I wonder, is it a record?

In particular, the word "door" occurs 1888 times; "solution" 852 times; "probability" 789; "problem" 780; "conditional" 507; "2/3" 230.

Not sure whether this is WP record, but it is probably the most contested/debated math article. However imho it is likely to assume that various hot topic in the of social sciences/economics/philosophy/religion/politics/climate sciences. It was reported in the press that the German WP created a book length discussion page for some TV tower (mainly arguments about its exact name and categorization (view tower versus tv/broadcast tower). I think as far as neverending (and mostly unproductive) discussions are concerned there might be a large number of articles competing for the top.

regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: We probably could ask somebody with toolserver access to run a query for the largest discussion pages or firectly file a request [1].--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff! You may want to include results from the Arguments page and the Mediation page for the whole picture. Glkanter (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sobolev space

Hi Boris, I visited recently the entry on Sobolev spaces which I did not liked very much for the choice of developing the theory on the unit circle (?!?) and on the ball (?!?). There is a new user that is doing a good job, motivating his choices: I wrote you since I saw that you criticized the contents of the entry in its talk page, and the new structure seems to be an improvement (or at least a standard treatment :D). Daniele.tampieri (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. My understanding of this matter is so-so. I've visited it as a reader (rather than a potential contributor or critic). I did not found the needed detail, and wrote a remark. I have no opinion about the choice of developing the theory on the unit circle, is it good or bad. And now I do not need that space. --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Another mathematician for your collection

User:DoronZeilberger is Doron Zeilberger.  :-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Boris, I saw your name within the editors of the new Springer Ecyclopaedia: well done, and good work! Daniele.tampieri (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe that is the right wiki for me. Well, the name is not itself a good work, but hopefully my articles will be (and two already are?) useful for mathematicians. Others will find them too hard, alas. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Mathematics'

Hi. The article 'Mathematics' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Theory_(mathematics

• You added this in June 2010.
• The bot tested this link on 29 March, 31 March, 2 April, 10 April, 17 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please disregard this message. My bot made a mistake in this case---the reference is fine. Sorry about the trouble. Blevintron (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)