Talk:Tomek Bartoszyński

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Notability

Notability of this mathematician have been question (by an anonymous user) with this comment (see history): notability - the article seems like vanity press - a lot of categories, no real references (MathGenealogy is open for submissions to anybody), polish page seems to have the same problem. Link to CV?? According to

WP:ACADEMIC, one of possibility to show the notability is by showing he has published a highly-cited scholarly works. I think that scholar google search [1] suggests that this condition is fulfilled in his case. --Kompik (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Most of the professors at our math department in backwater Poland have ~100 results in Google Scholar, yet they aren't even on the Polish Wikipedia. I doubt results from Google Scholar < 500 can be any reason to fulfill Condition 1 of

WP:ACADEMIC --78.8.146.214 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I still believe, that he should be included. Although I do not work in that area, I think that his work on set theory of the real line is influential. It might be good idea to ask someone who works in some related area, I think User:Trovatore is good in set theory and forcing. To be honest, I do not know what a standard procedure in notabilty disputes looks like. --Kompik (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the criteria don't include Bartoszyński, then the criteria need to be changed. He's an important figure in set theory and at NSF. --Trovatore (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomek's paper "Additivity of measure implies additivity of category, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 281(1984), no. 1, 209--213" was the first to show that there is (in ZFC) an asymmetry between measure and category. Before that essentially everybody believed that no such asymmetry exists (cf Oxtoby's book Measure and Category), and in my very personal opinion, Tomek's result shook the world and initiated the research that quickly led to Cihon's diagram, among others. Kope (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for his contributions to set theory of the real line?

A quote from Komjath's review of his book, which could support this point:

This monograph, written by two prominent members of that group (and dedicated to Saharon Shelah, the single most important researcher of the field), is an essentially complete, no-nonsense presentation of the state of the art of this topic.

Peter Komjath (1997). "Review: Tomek Bartoszynski, Haim Judah, Set Theory. On the Structure of the Real Line". J. Symbolic Logic. 62 (2): 321–323.

--Kompik (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

I am not familiar with the current standards for notability, but there are at least three reasons why this bio may be of interests to the readers:

(1) his monograph is a standard reference in Set Theory of the Reals (203 citations found in MathSciNet)

(2) his research influenced the field tremendously in the past and he is still quite active and

(3) every US logician/number theorist/etc applying for NSF grants is likely to interact with him.

Now, I am not sure if the number of results/hits in Google Scholar is a good measure for pure mathematicians (not yet, at least). Citations showed by MathSciNet are better - and there we see that his work "is cited 331 times by 154 authors" and that is a pretty good score as far as pure matrhematics is concerned, even after subtracting the 203 citations for the monograph.

Best,
Andrzej Roslanowski
Omaha, NE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.252.16 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I 'refactored' this comment; it is still part of the same discussion on notability. --Aleph4 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tag removed

I removed the tag, because several editors who are quite knowledgable in set theory have pointed out that Bartoszynski is in fact highly cited and his work is influential. I do not understand this comment in the IP's summary: "Link to CV?". Would removing the link improve the article?

Btw, the same IP editor 78.8.146.214 (talk · contribs) (which may or may not be the same person) also asked for references/sources on Ryszard Engelking's notability. --Aleph4 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]