Talk:Alexander S. Kechris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement origin[edit]

"He has made major contributions to the theory of Borel equivalence relations and the theory of automorphism groups of uncountable structures"

What supports this statement?--93.86.33.191 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Karp price convincing enough? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 
Well, Harrington–Kechris–Louveau (the empty gap between R and E0) is pretty much the beginning of the study of Borel equivalence relations as a separate topic, and Classical Descriptive Set Theory was probably the main book reference prior to Gao's Invariant Descriptive Set Theory. I admit I don't know where to find a specific cite for the claim. The automorphism-group stuff I don't remember much about; did I write that? --Trovatore (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not: this diff. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hard to remember sometimes, and I was too lazy to check the history. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ Boris Tsirelson. Thank you. Fair enough for the first part of the statement. How about "and the theory of automorphism groups of uncountable structures", the second part?--93.86.33.191 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert here; Trovatore should know more. Indeed, now I wonder, why "uncountable"? It seems, Kechris investigated countable... About uncountable, I see arXiv:1111.4995 by Dana Bartosova (2011), generalizing results of Kechris et al from countable to uncountable. Hmmm. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave the statement unchanged. Maybe, the person who entered this statement might be back and provide the answer.--93.86.33.191 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher?[edit]

Mathematician - yes, but philosopher? I do not see sources supporting this claim.--93.86.33.191 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]