User talk:R.e.b./Archive 6

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Schur class may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carathéodory's extension theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Measure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carathéodory's extension theorem may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the subset of <math>\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})</math> defined by the set of all half-open intervals [a, b) for a and b reals. This is a semi-ring, but not a ring. [[Stieltjes measures]] are defined on
• For the first example, take the algebra generated by all half-open intervals [''a'',''b'') on the real, and give such intervals measure infinity if they are non-empty. The Caratheodory

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hardy–Littlewood tauberian theorem may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

q-Hahn polynomials

Looks like this article is still under construction... (Btw, the new drafts namespace might be useful for that kind of thing.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decomposable measure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tonelli's theorem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On your recent election to the academy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was set up to advise the president on science, but apparently he now just reads wikipedia. r.e.b. (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Deletion Nomination

An article in which you have contributed extensively to, Ree groups, was nominated for deletion (not by me). Out of custom, I wanted to let you know. Feel free to contest the proposal using the link I posted above! Cheers! :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 03:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Petersson algebra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• φ is an order 3 automorphism. Define the new product of ''x'' and ''y'' to be φ({{overline|''x''}}))φ²({{overline|''y''}}). WIth this new product the algebra is called a Petersson algebra.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Issue with Kostka Polynomial Page

Hi R.e.b. I think there's a problem with a formula on the Kostka Polynomial page. You've added most of the content to that page, so I was wondering if you could look at it. (See my addition to the talk section.) Thanks! Ahhoefel (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gödel operation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constructible set (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Transue

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on William Transue requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

here is a secondary ref: [1] Sasha (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Source

Do you remember any reference for "BN-pairs can be used to prove that most groups of Lie type are simple." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=(B,_N)_pair&oldid=12627231) where that theorem is used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deruser1930 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bourbaki, Nicolas (2002). Lie Groups and Lie Algebras: Chapters 4–6. Elements of Mathematics. Springer. p. 24. ISBN 3-540-42650-7. r.e.b. (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the usage, not the proof of the criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deruser1930 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mahlo cardinal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mahlo cardinal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ω-bounded space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long line. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Gosselin

The article Richard Gosselin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A single-digit h-index showing a likely failure of WP:PROF#C1 and no other evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. The only source is a database entry on his Ph.D. thesis, no good sources could be found elsewhere, and even his employer's web site has no nontrivial information about him. Most of the information in this very short article cannot be verified by reliable sources. There are no incoming wikilinks of any note.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of set theory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Constructible set and Suslin theorem. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrew Ogg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ogg's formula. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glossary of set theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s and 4 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{defn|no=1|A [[successor cardinal}} is the smallest cardinal larger than some given cardinal}}
• {{defn|no=1|A [[successor ordinal}} is the smallest ordinal larger than some given ordinal}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Esenin-Volpin's theorem

In this article, could you add a definition of "weight"? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of notation used in Principia Mathematica may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {term|typically}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Example at quasi-category

Hello! I wanted to add a concrete example to quasi-category about topological spaces and homotopies. My quasi-category would have the topological spaces as objects (0-simplices), continuous maps as morphisms (1-simplices), and the 2-simplices would be homotopies from gf to h, where f:X→Y, g:Y→Z and h:X→Z. I'm not sure how to easily describe the higher simplices though. Do you know how to do it? Or is this not a natural example? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be able to take the topological nerve of the category of CW complexes as an example. I don't know offhand if you can use topological spaces instead of CW complexes. And I might have misremembered as this stuff is rather confusing, so anything I say needs to be confirmed in a reliable source before using it. r.e.b. (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The category of topological spaces is definitely an (∞,1)-category. There are different models of such categories, one of which is 1-categories enriched in simplicial sets or equivalently spaces. And the category of topological spaces is obviously a category enriched in spaces. To see what the simplicial structure on this category is you could trace the equivalence of quasicategories and topological categories, but surely the answer will just be that the n-simplices are homotopies between (n-1)-simplices, no? -lethe ^{talk +} 00:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

$S^{r+q}/S^{r}\times S^{q-1}=S(S^{r}\times S^{q-1})$

Hi r.e.b.. In J-homomorphism, it is claimed that $S^{r+q}/S^{r}\times S^{q-1}=S(S^{r}\times S^{q-1})$. Is this correct? For example, taking r=1, q=1, it seems to me that $S^{2}/S^{1}\times S^{0}$ is a wedge sum of three 2-spheres, while $S(S^{1}\times S^{0})$ is two 2-spheres joined at their north and south poles. The former is simply connected and the latter is not, so they are not homotopy equivalent. Have I made a mistake? -lethe ^{talk +} 00:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Should be fixed now. r.e.b. (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, r.e.b. The new version agrees with how I understood this map. I also think there should be a way to say it that something that looks more like what you had originally, maybe it's what you had been going for? Tell me if the following sounds right: an element of $SO_{q}$ can be regarded as a linear map on the unit ball $D^{q}\to D^{q}$. Therefore from $\pi _{r}(SO_{q})$ we derive a map $S^{r}\times D^{q}\to D^{q}$.

In general the join $X*Y$ decomposes as $CX\times Y\cup X\times CY$, where C denotes the cone construction. In the case of spheres, we have $S^{r+q}=S^{r}*S^{q-1}=S^{r}\times D^{q}\cup D^{r+1}\times S^{q-1}.$ This decomposition may also be understood as $S^{r+q}$ is the boundary of $D^{r+q+1}=D^{r+1}\times D^{q}.$ Then there is a natural map which contracts the copy of $D^{r+1}\times S^{q-1}$ inside $S^{r+q}$ to a point: $S^{r+q}\to S^{r+q}/(D^{r+1}\times S^{q-1})\cong S^{r}\times D^{q}$. Composing these maps and identifying the boundary of $D^{q}$ to a point gives the desired map $S^{r+q}\to S^{q}$.

This construction of the J-homomorphism is more or less the version in Ravenel's green (red?) book. It also shares some similarity to what you had written on the page originally, so I wonder if it's what you had in mind. In any case, it is of course the same thing, just with a more explicit description of the Hopf construction. The current version which outsources some of the lifting to the Hopf construction page looks good to me. Cheers. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot remember exactly what I had in mind, but probably I just absent-mindedly wrote down the product instead of the sum of the two spaces. One can fix my mistake by contracting each of the 2 spaces to points instead of contracting their product, which seems sort of equivalent to what you wrote (up to some homotopies). But it seemed cleaner to move this to a separate article on the Hopf construction.r.e.b. (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Example at quasi-category

Hello! I wanted to add a concrete example to quasi-category about topological spaces and homotopies. My quasi-category would have the topological spaces as objects (0-simplices), continuous maps as morphisms (1-simplices), and the 2-simplices would be homotopies from gf to h, where f:X→Y, g:Y→Z and h:X→Z. I'm not sure how to easily describe the higher simplices though. Do you know how to do it? Or is this not a natural example? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be able to take the topological nerve of the category of CW complexes as an example. I don't know offhand if you can use topological spaces instead of CW complexes. And I might have misremembered as this stuff is rather confusing, so anything I say needs to be confirmed in a reliable source before using it. r.e.b. (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The category of topological spaces is definitely an (∞,1)-category. There are different models of such categories, one of which is 1-categories enriched in simplicial sets or equivalently spaces. And the category of topological spaces is obviously a category enriched in spaces. To see what the simplicial structure on this category is you could trace the equivalence of quasicategories and topological categories, but surely the answer will just be that the n-simplices are homotopies between (n-1)-simplices, no? -lethe ^{talk +} 00:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To be more explicit, the singular simplicial set functor carries topological categories to simplicially enriched categories, and is a quillen equivalence. So we have objects topological spaces, and a simplicial set of morphisms between spaces which are just singular maps into the hom-space with the compact-open topology. Then the homotopy coherent nerve functor takes simplicially enriched categories to quasicategories, and is a quillen equivalence. So the simplices are just coherent homotopies, in the simplicial sense, between strings of composable maps. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like I edited a reply to this talk page while it was archived. Sorry, if the conversation is over then please re-archive it. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ackermann coding

Hey, I disagree with the merge of Ackermann coding into the the BIT predicate article. Actually, I think the problem is that the original article gradually deteriorated (removal of the logic stub category, removal of the precise mathematical formula, etc.) until it is hardly recognisable as a mathematically-logical topic, and now it's been turned into some sort of programming topic. You'll see what I mean if you look at one of the original revisions of the article. Do you mind if I restore it as its own article and clean it up? Vegard (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ackermann coding" and "BIT predicate" are two names for the same thing so I'm not sure why you want two separate articles on this topic. I also cannot see that anything significant was removed from either article. You could ask user:David Eppstein if you want a third opinion. r.e.b. (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For creating and expanding many articles on mathematics. You have done a great work! Thank you very much. Leeuwe (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ikeda–Miyawaki lift

fyi.... you created a redirect to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of class field theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dirichlet's theorem. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symbol (number theory), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norm residue symbol. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Univalent foundations tags

You removed the tags from Univalent foundations with the comment, rm inappropriate tags: an expert writing in his area is not a wp:COI, and the subject is probably unavoidably technical.

Note: VV is User:Vladimirias

As for the too tecnnical tag, there are certainly other WP articles on mathematics equally or even more technical. The problem with the HoTT/UF pages at present is that there are statements made without sufficient explanation and which therefore only make sense to an expert who already knows them. But to add the necessary explanation would make the article unduly long and perhaps even more technical. I do not know what the solution of this problem is.

As for the COI tag, I agree that an expert writing in his area is totally appropriate, so long as he is careful to write from a NPOV. My concern is that VV is not doing this. He has a lot at stake and does not seem (to me) to mind slanting the history to magnify his own role. If internal evidence shows that he has misstated facts (something which I attempted to document), NPOV would certainly follow.

WP:COI contains the statement. "You should not ... edit articles about yourself..." I documented several cases in which VV has done this. I did this to support the contention that VV is not writing from a NPOV.

"Citations should ... should not place undue emphasis on your work." I tried to demonstrate that this was also the case. Perhaps I failed to do it.

I will not tag the article again. I just want to register my viewpoint.--Foobarnix (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sarti surface

The article Sarti surface has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Based on a single uncited and primary source, with no secondary sources that cover it in-depth, and no explanation within the article for the significance of the topic, this is insufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be a shame to delete this article. If you could say a little more about why it is significant–an example of an algebraic surface having a maximum number of ordinary double points (discovered so far)–that might help. Here are a couple of links that could also possibly help - Home page of Alessandra Sarti, Wolfram Mathworld page on Sarti Dodecic. The CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics also discusses the Sardi surface.--Foobarnix (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of algebraic geometry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramification. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

t' Hooft and asymptotic freedom

I noticed that back in 2007, you added a reference to an unpublished talk by t'Hooft at Marseilles in 1972 [2] to the article on asymptotic freedom. Did you mean reference 1972c in [3] ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds plausible. r.e.b. (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What was your original source? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot remember what source I used, but the paper

• D.J. Gross (1998). "Twenty Five Years of Asymptotic Freedom". Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements. 74: 426–446. arXiv:hep-th/9809060. Bibcode:1999NuPhS..74..426G. doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(99)00208-X.

discusses t'Hooft's comments.r.e.b. (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

ambiguity?

I think you may be the one who wrote the following:

The Jacobian conjecture for any given characteristic 0 field k is equivalent to the Jacobian conjecture for k the field of complex numbers.

I can think of at least two ways to interpret this:

• Pick any field of characteristic 0; it doesn't matter which one. The conjecture is true of that field if and only if it is true of the field of complex numbers.
• Suppose it is the case that for any field of characteristic 0, no matter which one, the conjecture holds. Then it holds for the field of complex numbers. And conversely. (The first sentence is an overly complicated and less clear way of saying that it's true of _every_ such field.)

In the first version; "any" is in effect the same as "some", i.e. at least one, and in the second version "any" would in effect mean "every". I don't know which is intended. Could the sentence be rephrased a bit? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work in the article Hyperbolization theorem. KindleinKrüger (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy number listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kennedy number. Since you had some involvement with the Kennedy number redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

de:Mejer Felixowitsch Bokschtein

In your English version (Meyer Bockstein) you gave 2 May 1990 as date of death. Do you remember where you found this? Kindest regards, --Drahreg01 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot remember. It was probably some www page, but all the ones I can find now seem to be copies of the wikipedia article. r.e.b. (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Aleph number

Re your revert: My edit summary was "who knows whether it was on purpose or not?" Do you have a response to that? Otherwise the qualifier "by accident" seems to be undue speculation. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem not to have checked the source for this statement. r.e.b. (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. But I don't think the fact that the symbol was inconsistently printed in one particular paper is worthy of being mentioned in the article. If you can find a nice, reliable source that says that aleph was often misprinted by accident, I'll be a lot happier. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ‎Martin Billik

The article ‎Martin Billik has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of templates

Why did you remove the No footnotes and Underlinked templates from Frobenius's theorem (group theory)? You did not provide a reason in the edit summary. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The templates you added were both inappropriate. For example, the article uses Harvard style references rather than footnotes. If you do not know what these are you should not be adding "no footnotes" templates to articles. r.e.b. (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Expand language}}

FYI... On History of arithmetics, you used the {{Expand language}} template. Right at the beginning of the doc page, it says, "should not be placed on article pages directly". Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Table at pointclass

Hi R.e.b. Nice table. Have you finished? I would put ellipses at the bottom, so as not to imply that projective exhausts all the pointclasses. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm finished for the moment. r.e.b. (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the notation Σ¹₀. Are you sure this is standard? I would probably call it Σ⁰_<ω or some such, if I've understood what you're getting at. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a special case of the standard notation Σ^m_n which allows at most n quantifiers of order m+1 and arbitrarily many quantifiers of order at most m. r.e.b. (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense if you read it that way, but I'm not sure that your precise formulation of Σ^m_n is actually standard, especially for n=0. Is this attested in Moschovakis, for example? --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

But Σ⁰_ω is a perfectly good alternative name which should probably be added to the table. r.e.b. (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Σ⁰_ω is something different; it means (let's take the boldface case for simplicity) a countable union of sets each of which has finite Borel rank (but where the sup of their ranks may not be finite). That's a strictly larger class than Σ⁰_<ω. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I misread the definition of the Borel hierarchy. r.e.b. (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, on the lightface side, the iteration through recursive ordinals exhausts the hyperarithmetic sets, and there's no way I know of to iterate past ω₁^CK. --Trovatore (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably not Bishop Berkeley, right?

I'm guessing Berkeley cardinals were not named after someone named Berkeley but after the location of the university where they were conceived. Either way, if you know about this, could you add that to the article? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your great work. Erlanger Programm (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

orphan

Hello.

This edit created an orphan, i.e. no other articles link to that one. Are there other articles that should link to it? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Uniform polyhedron

Thanks for your edits. You made an edit here Uniform polyhedron with the edit summary "Copy edit (major)"... but this was not copy editing, which means correcting or improving the English writing without changing the substantive meaning. Without looking carefully at the paragraph I was tempted to revert, as "Please explain changes on talk page", because you were changing the numbers. However, as far as I can see, you were simply correcting the arithmetic of how many were newly discovered... so in cases like this, please use an edit summary like "Correcting the arithmetic", "Sorting out the numbers" etc etc. This would make it easier for people who are checking edits for vandalism.

Incidentally, the previous edit to Systole you gave the same summary: this is copy editing, though I'm not sure I agree it is the best way to write it. Is there some history of people being very silly as a result of believing it to be a fraction? Unless so, the current version seems unduly hysterical to me. I understand the basic problem: I find myself answering questions on Music stack exchange about the difference between 3/4 and 6/8 time, to which there are always a number of answers which are wrong in the obvious way. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dual q-Hahn polynomials

The article Dual q-Hahn polynomials has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Looks like a under construction article which was never finished.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salix alba (talk): 16:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It now on AFD. It also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Families of polynomials.--Salix alba (talk): 15:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Non rigorous results

Hello as the primary contributor to Glossary of string theory I wonder if you would like to comment at Talk:Edward Witten/Archive1#Non rigorous results. Solomon7968 06:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi, I wonder if you are interested in contributing/finding material similar to the insightful quote(s) you added to Invariant theory. So take this as a invitation to our sister project Wikiquote. You may find some starting redlinks to contribute at q:Combinatorics. Solomon7968 11:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Witt vector cohomology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Witt ring. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, R.e.b.. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Wholeness axiom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wholeness axiom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wholeness axiom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Maass wave forms

Hi, I'm SamHolt6. R.e.b., thanks for creating Maass wave forms!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Reviewed. Needs some footnotes, and could be seen as too confusing for the average reader.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

SamHolt6 (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation requested

Hi,

hope I'm doing this right and you're seeing this as a message.

If I've done this correctly, you've edited the page "Ordinal Arithmetic" on July 20, 2014 (compare versions, adding this statement:

Jacobsthal showed that the only solutions of α^β = β^α with α≤β are given by α=β, or α=2 β=4, or α is any limit ordinal and β=εα where ε is an ε-number larger than α.), adding the following statement:

Can you provide a reference for this statement? I've looked at two Jacobsthal papers on ordinals (the ones that seem to be cited a lot and the only ones I could find), namely
'Ueber den Aufbau der transfiniten Zahlen' (Mathematische Annalen 66) and
'Zur Arithmetik der transfiniten Zahlen' (Mathematische Annalen 67)
but cannot find said result in those.

Thanks Feel free to email me at username@gmail.com Georg.anegg (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. The proof is in 'Vertauschbarkeit transfiniter Zahlen' (Mathematische Annalen 64) (1907) FULL ARTICLE Georg.anegg (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, R.e.b.. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links to Hecke algebra

Can you clear up which sense of Hecke algebra is intended in T. A. Springer and Brandt matrix? Cheers! bd2412 T 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Stroke

Mary and John, and then Richard and Christine, passed on the message to Addenbrookes. Did Ursula and you pass on the message? I am out of danger, just a little verbal confusion which are straightforward to correct. Some of the first vocabulary that I found (initially just only two letters) were aided by Picu and Ionna. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Tertiary constraint listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tertiary constraint. Since you had some involvement with the Tertiary constraint redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Quaternary constraint listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quaternary constraint. Since you had some involvement with the Quaternary constraint redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

M22 graph listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect M22 graph. Since you had some involvement with the M22 graph redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fyodor Zak

The article Fyodor Zak has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. » Shadowowl | talk 20:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jean Arbault for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean Arbault is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Arbault until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"Collapse forcing" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Collapse forcing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Collapse forcing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Maaß form" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maaß form. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 15#Maaß form until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dispersive PDE Wiki

Template:Dispersive PDE Wiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hog Farm _Talk 05:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Etale theta function" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Etale theta function and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29#Etale theta function until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Conway's game of life in reverse" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Conway's game of life in reverse and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 24#Conway's game of life in reverse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eisenstein–Kronecker number

The article Eisenstein–Kronecker number has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to demonstrate notablility

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Homotopy groups of spheres

Homotopy groups of spheres has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia page about the elliptic Legendre relation

Good morning, user R.e.b.!!

Now I created a proof for the Legendre's relation of the complete elliptic integrals of first and second kind. I mean this equation: K*E' + E*K' - K*K' = pi/2 you know already. Hopefully you accept my proof, I entered in your Wikipedia article of the Legendre relation. I put a lot of effort into the creation of this proof. And therefore I hope, that there is nothing missing. Of course I will look for suitable references. But I can assure you and swear that this does not fall into the category of original research because this is exactly the way, mathematicians as Adrien Marie Legendre found it out themselves. And I explained all their results in an even more accurate way at many positions. Can the formulas remain as they are currently written down? Do you accept my mathematical formula sequences in this article? Hopefully I have really derived these formulas thoroughly enough in your eyes. If any problems arise, I sincerely request that you tell me what problems might appear. But for the first one, I think I am completely done with the writing of all these formulas and the text. That is why I ask you all the more that you could take a look at this article. I am very curious how you will rate this article in its current form. And I really hope everything is all right there. Please check it out! Have a nice day!! Yours faithfully and sincerely!! Lion Emil Jann Fiedler also known as Reformbenediktiner Reformbenediktiner (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Coprimary" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Coprimary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Coprimary until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Coprimary module" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Coprimary module has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7 § Coprimary module until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Green star (astronomy)

The article Green star (astronomy) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There are no green stars, and this is not controversial. A few tidbits from this page (e.g. the Sun's green flash) are interesting but already covered elsewhere, where they better belong, while the rest is essentially a conversation between non-expert armchair enthusiasts.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Green star (astronomy) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green star (astronomy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green star (astronomy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Complete ring" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Complete ring has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 6 § Complete ring until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"Bessel potential space" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bessel potential space has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 23 § Bessel potential space until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)