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 have proved Polignac's conjecture is truth but I don't know how I can record it in scientific assemblies so may you do it for me, I thank you so much.

Yours Sincerely, Alireza Badali Sarebangholi

Alireza Badali 12:58, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

Not clear what do you mean. Should I get your proof directly from you via telepathy? No, sorry, I have no telepathic ability. Another possible way is suggested by the 20 questions game. I'll ask you questions, you'll answer, and hopefully, after many (maybe 20, maybe not) questions and answers I'll be able to guess your proof.

But first I want to discuss the twin prime conjecture instead of Polignac's conjecture. Having a proof for Polignac's conjecture for all n you surely can take n=2 and get a proof of the twin prime conjecture, which is also important, but simpler. OK?

So, here is 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? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

Yes and members in $L_1$ are corresponding to prime numbers as multiplication and sum. Alireza Badali 18:44, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

Nice. QUESTION 2. I guess that you use the fact that the set of prime numbers is infinite, and the property \(\frac{p_n+1}{p_n}\to1\) where \(p_n\) is the n-th prime number. Is my guess true?

QUESTION 3. Do you use any other properties of the set of prime numbers? Please list all the properties used in your proof. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

No, generally my theories are topological further and I don't know analytic number theory and Prime Number Theorem, and $L_1$ is a proper subset of $S_1\times S_1$ but when we go from $y=0$ toward $y=x$ in a place all members of $S_1\times S_1$ become members of $L_1$ and into a rectangle $L_1$ is dense but into this rectangle $a-b=0.2\times 10^{1-k}$ results a proper subset of $L_1$ has twin prime numbers forever. Alireza Badali 19:30, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

Sorry, now I do not understand. I wonder, what is the true generality of your result. It should apply to every subset of natural numbers that has the properties that you use in the proof. If you use no properties at all, then your result must apply to EVERY subset of integers (not just the set of primes). Does it? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

What should apply to every subset of natural numbers? Alireza Badali 19:59, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

If a proof does not use any properties of a subset, then it applies to every subset. Probably your proof does not apply to every subset. But then it uses some properties. And you do not tell me, which properties. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

In other words: where in the proof (and how) do you use the fact that these are PRIME numbers, not another kind of numbers? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

In still other words. Imagine a person that does not know the meaning of the word "prime number" (maybe he thinks it means "square number", or something). If that person will read your proof, will he understand it? If "yes", then your proof is so general that it applies also to (say) square numbers. If "no", then at some moment in your proof the true meaning of "prime" is used somehow. But you write "I don't know analytic number theory and Prime Number Theorem". Well, do you know at least something about prime number? No, this is not the right question. The right question is, do you use in your proof at least something about prime number? You cannot deduce something from nothing! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

Maybe this property: $\forall (a,b)\in L_1, \, \exists k,t \in \Bbb N,\, a-b=2k\times 10^{-t}$ that $a\times 10^t$ & $b\times 10^t$ are prime numbers and of course prime numbers properties and prime number theorem previously has been used by you for proving the Nanas lemma.

But do you doubt about correctness theorems $3,4$?

And also I am seeing this message on my desktop so if you receive each irrelevant words please ignore it. Alireza Badali 21:57, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

Aha! "prime numbers properties and prime number theorem previously has been used"! This is what I asked. You know, I did not see your proof of twin conjecture, and cannot know whether it uses "Nanas lemma" etc. Please consider the whole proof, with all your lemmas needed. It seems to me that "Nanas lemma" uses ONLY fact that the set of prime numbers is infinite, and the property \(\frac{p_n+1}{p_n}\to1\) where \(p_n\) is the n-th prime number. This is why I asked Question 2. But you also write "prime numbers properties and prime number theorem". What do you mean? Please reconsider your answer, and do not assume that I know which lemmas are used this time. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

Dear Professor Boris Tsirelson, it's too late in Iran and I am going to sleep because I can't continue please forgive me and also my Internet is ending after $11$ hours and I'm so busy Friday so I should buy Internet Saturday and Saturday afternoon I'll come back to you with proof of theorems $3,4$, and again please forgive me for this. Alireza Badali 23:17, 24 August 2017 (CEST)

No problem. It is not urgent. Do it when it is convenient to you. No need to apologize.

About this message: also, no problem. And no need to publish the image file. "Edit conflict" appears often on a wiki, it just means that we both want to edit the same page at the same time, which is technically impossible. In this case one of us, started later, gets "edit conflict". Sometimes me, sometimes you. When I get it, I just make a copy of my new text (since I do not want to type it again), cancel the edit, and try again a bit later. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2017 (CEST)

Dear Professor Boris Tsirelson, one of my big nodus and difficulty is mental calculus and I had proof of theorems $3,4$ in my mind but now I recall them please give me a bit time, and I think multiplication operation is a point in normal definition of prime numbers so logarithm function as a inverse of $a^n$ has some prime number properties that has been applied in prime number theorem. Alireza Badali 09:07, 25 August 2017 (CEST)

Mathematics is hard. And well-known open problems are extremely hard. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2017 (CEST)