User talk:Bdmy

I started here with a contribution to the Vitali covering theorem. Bdmy (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And to my talk page ;-). Thanks for pointing out the error. I have corrected the statement. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't hesitate to post a message on my talk page if you have any questions or further concerns. Some of the mathematicians here generally lurk in a neighborhood of Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics. Best regards and thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is a standard navigation and welcome template, in case you need it:

Welcome!

Hello, Bdmy, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Excellent work.

It is nice having a fellow analyst around. In my brief time here I have had to correct many outrageous claims, ones that were defended vigorously by some editors. I am gald that I have had to "swallow crow" a few times when I realized your being much more careful than I. I wanted to give you my personal, and enthusiastic, welcome to Wikipedia. And should I find myself in France, I will not forget about that drink I owe you. Thenub314 (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bdmy (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the work on Hardy spaces. (and I apologize for any outrageous claims I might have made -- its so much easier to make these, than to be right.) linas (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TeX formulas

This has happened before, and its a server issue. One of the texvc servers might be down, or one of the caches might have crashed. Usually the problem only lasts a couple of hours. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourier transform

Hey, I left a comment for you on the talk page. I am glad you looked at the article. If you look at the before and after of the edit I point to you'll see I tried hard to improve the article. I was away when you originally left it and did not notice it there until now. Thenub314 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arzela

Yes, the new version is better. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourier series

Dear Jackzhp, I you want to make changes to a stable article like Fourier series, please place a message on the discussion page before, or at least, leave a message on this talk page to explain your changes. There was no clear reason to prefer your version rather than the one that was there for some time already. Bdmy (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC) --Bdmy (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear professor,

"The infinite sum ... is the Fourier series for ƒ on the interval [−π, π]." The sentence is not right, how can a sum is a series. Again, "If a function is square-integrable on the interval [−π, π], then the Fourier series converges to the function at almost every point." Again, the sentence is not right since if the series is just a sum, then how can we talk about convergence? It should be the version I did:

"The sum FN=... forms the Fourier series {FN} for ƒ on the interval [−π, π]." "If a function f is square-integrable on the interval [−π, π], then the Fourier series {FN} converges to the function f at almost every point in the interval [−π, π] as N->infinite."

To me, it seems that it is unbelievable that you are a math professor for the reason that you prefer the previous version, rather than the version I proposed. I am sorry. Looking forward to see your response. (Please just leave it in your talk page!) Jackzhp (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jackzhp, I am not the author of this sentence "The infinite sum ...", I just want to say that

it looks OK to me
you should have posted a message similar to the above on the talk page, rather than modifying the article without consulting.

Concerning the real matter of your question: there are abuse of language that are common in math articles. You seem to refer to a narrow acception of the word series; it is usual to call series, either the formal sequence of partial sums, or the sum of the series. It would be possible to rewrite the section in the direction you suggest (but not quite in your way), but most math-editors would, I believe, find it useless.

Let me, as a much older (I presume) person than you, give you a piece of advice: On one hand, don't believe that math. professors (or even mathematicians) necessary are right and know the truth (I am sure you can follow this part); on the other hand, don't think that others are necessarily ignorant.

Finally, be sure that I am not angry when people don't take me seriously. My students do it all the time.

With best wishes, --Bdmy (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As my personal opinion, I would say my version is pretty accurate, and much better than the previous one, and I don't believe it is useless. Would you please refine the article a little bit? I am looking forward to see it. with best regards. Jackzhp (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jackzhp,

I didn't change the text of the article, but I posted a message on the talk page. You may want to add to this post. I know that a reasonable person (hence, not me) cares about this article, but this time of the year is not only devoted to math... Be a little patient. Bdmy (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topological vector spaces

Hi, I have replied to your query at Talk:Topological vector space. Thanks for spotting the obvious mistake. I don't know why I had accepted the previous edit at face value. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete metric spaces

Yes, I should have been clearer. My intention was that a natural thing to use is the family of seminorms

p_{n}(f)=\sup _{x\in [a+1/n,b-1/n]}|f(x)|.

This gives C(a,b) the "topology of compact convergence". Maybe I will say something like this in the article. At any rate, I didn't like how the article immediately jumped from concrete examples of complete metric spaces (like Rⁿ) to very abstract ones like Banach spaces and Frechet spaces in the Examples section. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

compact operator on Hilbert space

hello, just wanted to say that your recent attention to compact operator on Hilbert space is appreciated. Mct mht (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kondrakov theorem

Thank you for spotting the error. I have fixed the statement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now I have adjusted the statement from sources. Of course, the case that was in the article now follows easily from the critical case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the help. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Banach space may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haar wavelet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lorentz space 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Interpolation space 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Interpolation space 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Absolute convergence 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reflexive space 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Banach space 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention... (if you are still here)

This is probably a good question to you: Talk:Schauder basis#Schauder basis versus topological basis. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]