User talk:Boris Tsirelson

Miscellania

thanks! MarcoRiccardi 19:02, 14 January 2012 (CET)

Hi Boris, I have seen you editing Limit theorems. Since I have developed some software to automatically remap the references and to find the MR and Zbl links: Should I give it a try for this page and you check correctness?

It definitely saves time. If you agree: I usually combine the references if there are several ones (and also try to integrate comments into the text or make it another paragraph). Should I do the same in this case? --Ulf Rehmann 18:34, 6 March 2012 (CET)

I never object to any improvement of any article. And, in terms of Wikipedia, I am never the owner of an article (unless we introduce such notion); authorship on a wiki is collective (unless the contrary is explicitly stated). Yes, I know you have, and use, such a software. Very nice. I just added MSC to "Limit theorems" (as well as to many other articles). Hopefully my edits do not hinder your program. Please do. --Boris Tsirelson 19:30, 6 March 2012 (CET)

Thanks, I know your ideas concerning wiki, but since this software is just in test state, I'd like to get your cooperation. So one item was not found at all, two other were doubled (as there is part one and two, an additional info which may be helpful to readers). In case you find an instance by hand in MR/Zbl which wasn't found by my program please let me know. Sometimes this happens because a title or something else was misspelled.

Yes, I see. Well, I know Paulauskas personally; he was misspelled. But I wonder, why MR states 1989 but ZBL states 1987 for that book. --Boris Tsirelson 20:54, 6 March 2012 (CET)

It could be an error, or there was a reprint. --Ulf Rehmann 22:41, 6 March 2012 (CET)

About the doubled MR, I am afraid, it is more puzzling than helpful; if indeed the other volume is helpful, it should be included into the bibliography (not necessarily as a separate item). In fact, I did so in "Measure space#F". --Boris Tsirelson 20:59, 6 March 2012 (CET)

This probably depends on the situation. Sometimes errata are detected that way. --Ulf Rehmann 22:41, 6 March 2012 (CET)

I also wonder why the book by Petrov appears twice on ZBL, as "Akademie-Verlag" and as "Springer". --Boris Tsirelson 21:04, 6 March 2012 (CET)

At that time Germany had been (strictly!) divided, and one company did sell in the east, the other in the west. Look at the review: Springer sells for 92 'DM', while Akademie sells for 92 'M' (two different currencies). Zentralblatt was used in both parts, hence they advertised both editions.

But it happens very often that different editions or reprints are mentioned. The worst thing is quoting Bourbaki, where much more reprints and translations exist and are in use than can be documented in either MR or Zbl. --Ulf Rehmann 22:41, 6 March 2012 (CET)

And about "Yu.V. [Yu.V. Prokhorov] Prohorov" I'd prefer "Yu.V. Prokhorov [Prohorov]" or just "Yu.V. Prokhorov". --Boris Tsirelson 21:07, 6 March 2012 (CET)

There are different name transcription conventions for various languages (depending on both the 'from' and the 'to' language). The purpose here is just to uniquely identify the publication. It could be that the author is addressed that way in the document (book). --Ulf Rehmann 22:41, 6 March 2012 (CET)

Collaboration

Thanks for correcting my silly mistakes in the Absolutely convergent series page! It was a first test to see how things function here :-). I work in partial differential equations and a lot of my research is in Geometric measure theory. I am wondering whether you would like to join forces in reviewing some of the pages in measure theory. Camillo 11:32, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

Sure. Measure theory was for now the topic of my contributions here. Not geometric one, though.

By the way, we could mention on the "Absolutely convergent series" page that these series may be also thought of as a special case of Lebesgue integration, — for the case of a counting measure (consisting of atoms of mass 1 each). --Boris Tsirelson 13:07, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

Good suggestions. Let me know if you want me to do it or you will.

Well, let me try. --Boris Tsirelson 19:31, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

I did; please look. --Boris Tsirelson 20:49, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

Today I modified Convergence of measures and Radon measure and created Riesz representation theorem. They are rather small entries, so I did not feel the urge of structuring them as nicely as you did with the pages you contributed to. I can however easily switch them to a more structured style as the one you are using, if you think it improves them substantially.

As far as I know, Ulf does not want to impose any uniform style on all authors. --Boris Tsirelson 19:31, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

I can only concur with such a decision. But for now we two seem to be the only ones making changes to the measure theoretic entries and it takes a little effort to make them more uniform. Since you're a much better mathematician than I am and you have much more wiki experience than I do, I leave it to your judgement. Ubi maior, minor cessat. Camillo 19:48, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

We all are just volunteers here. --Boris Tsirelson 20:53, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

I plan to work 3-4 hours per week on the Encyclopedia (I must set un upper limit: this stuff is addictive and hence dangerous for people like me :-)). Camillo 17:41, 21 July 2012 (CEST)

Hello Boris. I have written the page Atom: for the part on measure algebra I just refer the reader to Measure algebra, but maybe you prefer to add something more. Also, I have redirected the pages Non-atomic measure and Atomic distribution to Atom and created a page Jordan decomposition (of a measure). But these are just proposals: I am not sure such solution is the optimal one... Camillo (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2012 (CEST)

---

Hello, Boris. I see you have made a note to yourself that "Cullinane diamond theorem" needs attention. I agree. In particular, I did not know how to make the images display well when I first posted the article (and still don't know). --M759 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2013 (CEST)

Let us continue on the talk page there. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2013 (CEST)

Franklin system

Thanks for your reaction/correction! I am new at EOM, I just discovered yesterday that it is also a Wiki! I have seen that some help is needed about TeX conversion. I may do some, but this seems a bit delicate: it seems hard not to make a few mistakes when converting. I have to get informed first. Bdmy (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2013 (CEST)

Nice. You could also look at Talk:EoM:This project#Our major contributions (if you did not yet). --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2013 (CEST)

Usage Statistics

Hi Boris, it seems our usage is getting pretty strong recently, do you have any clues for that? --Ulf Rehmann (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2017 (CET)

Wow... Mysterious. No clue. Could it be that out server did not count them correctly from Sep 2015 till Oct 2016 (roughly)? Some problematic version of Mediawiki in that period? Anyway, I am glad to see the old good 50 points a month again. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2017 (CET)

Well, the following table of recent total views/visits was communicated to me by Springer:

	Mar-16	Apr-16	May-16	Jun-16	Jul-16	Aug-16	Sep-16	Oct-16	Nov-16	Dec-16	Jan-17	Feb-17	Total
Page Views:	69,006	73,389	75,615	73,593	59,162	70,174	91,338	107,340	114,109	109,304	124,288	129,104	1,096,422
Visits:	44,178	47,068	50,640	49,291	39,201	46,380	63,299	75,441	79,054	69,864	78,680	95,981	739,077

Any comments? --Ulf Rehmann (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2017 (CET)

Let me add that the data have been obtained by the maintainers of the server, as well as by Google Analytics. --Ulf Rehmann (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2017 (CET)

This table looks good. But my data are taken from Special:PopularPages. Could it be that this page did not work properly? But not only this special page is suspicious, but also counts in the footers of articles, according to the first paragraph in User:Boris Tsirelson#Notes to myself. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2017 (CET)

Interesting. I'll have a look on that (as my time permits). --Ulf Rehmann (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2017 (CET)

Regretfully, after the upgrade we do not have "Special:PopularPages", and so, I cannot continue this kind of statistics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2017 (CEST)

From Alireza Badali

Dear Professor Boris Tsirelson, I would ask your agreement about the noun Tsirelson-Badali lemma and another problem is one time you said Am I using number theory properties and lemmas and I said about logarithm function in the prime number theorem but however I'm new in elementary number theory and without any cognition to another number theory seasons like analytic number theory or modern number theory, but I didn't see any useful proved theorem or lemma for Goldbach's conjecture and Polignac's conjecture and I think I still should continue my previous way namely real analysis, but what's your idea am I in true way although I think I can with proof by contradiction from TB lemma be success. Yours Sincerely Alireza Badali 17:16, 4 September 2017 (CEST)

About "Tsirelson-Badali lemma": no, as far as I know, mathematicians do not give their names to their results. Rather, if a result of mathematician X becomes famous enough, other mathematicians start to call it "X lemma" or something like this.

About "I didn't see any useful proved theorem or lemma for Goldbach's conjecture": yes, this is why it is a hard problem! As far as I see, your "real analysis" can only deduce one property of a given subset of natural numbers from another property of this set. It cannot deduce the "Goldbach property" of the set of prime numbers from (say) the property \(p_{n+1}/p_n\to1,\) since the former just does not follow from the latter. That is: some subsets have the property \(p_{n+1}/p_n\to1,\) but do not have the Goldbach property. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (CEST)

For each subsequence in $\Bbb N$ like $\{a_n\},\, a_{n+1}/a_n\to 1$ or $\infty$ but Bertrand-Chebyshev theorem says $p_{n+1}<2p_n$ so \(p_{n+1}/p_n\to1\) so \(p_{n+1}/p_n\to1\) isn't an important property on prime numbers to the extent that it results prime number theorem instead logarithm function as an inverse of $f(a)=a^n$ results prime number theorem! Alireza Badali 14:15, 6 September 2017 (CEST)

?? Clearly, $p_{n+1}<2p_n$ does not imply $p_{n+1}/p_n\to1$. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (CEST)

Since for each subsequence in $\Bbb N$ like $\{a_n\},\, a_{n+1}/a_n\to 1$ or $\infty$ & $\frac {p_{n+1}}{p_n} \lt 2$ implies $p_{n+1}/p_n\to1$, because each subsequence of $\Bbb N$ is a polynomial, but factorial function is a polynomial too, of course I forgot write for sequences that $\exists j\in \Bbb N,\, \forall i\ge j,\, a_{i+1}\gt a_i$ Alireza Badali 14:15, 6 September 2017 (CEST)

Goldbach conjecture is truth and it is an equivalent to induction axiom and natural numbers definition and formula of prime numbers(it is a new definition of natural numbers so it results formula of prime numbers simply) but it is higher than natural number concept as a factorization to primes. Alireza Badali 14:15, 6 September 2017 (CEST)

?? Sorry, I do not find any sense in these words. "Goldbach conjecture is truth"? No one knows; and I am pretty sure that you do not know, too. "Is an equivalent to induction axiom"? "New definition of natural numbers"? What the hell could this mean? Do you work within the mathematics as is universally accepted, or do you invent a new, completely different sort of mathematics? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (CEST)

Yes, these are obvious! each odd number is sum of three primes (Goldbach's weak conjecture has been proved by Peruvian mathematician, Harald Andrés Helfgott) and if each even number be sum of two primes so from prime numbers we can make all natural numbers and it means a new definition of natural numbers and with this overview to numbers we can do each work like those! Alireza Badali 14:15, 6 September 2017 (CEST)

But what do you mean of subset in "can only deduce one property of a given subset of natural numbers from another property of this set" I work on whole natural numbers in Goldbach conjecture(because I believe it is truth) not some subsets locally. Alireza Badali 15:46, 5 September 2017 (CEST)

I mean the same as before (recall the past). I asked you: "QUESTION 1. I guess that you start with the set of all prime numbers and construct from it a set of real numbers (or several sets of real numbers, or sets of pairs of real numbers, or triples, etc). Then you prove some properties of these new sets. And finally you deduce the needed property of the set of prime numbers (the twin prime conjecture) from a property of a new set. IS MY GUESS TRUE?" And you answered: Yes. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (CEST)

Now I understand you mean exactly, and I need to a theorem a combine of number theory and real analysis but till now I have found nothing and this will be latest step for our work. Alireza Badali 14:15, 6 September 2017 (CEST)