bio  website  people.brandeis.edu/~jbellaic 

location  Stony Creek, ÉtatsUnis  
age  
visits  member for  4 years, 1 month 
seen  33 mins ago  
stats  profile views  11,621 
Professor of Mathematics at Brandeis University
1h

comment 
Arthur's refinement of parameters for unitary automorphic representations
Something to say, certainly, but I don't know exactly what. At first glance, local Apackets are much less well behaved than local Lpackets. For instance they are not necessary disjoint (that is a representation may belong to several different local Apackets) and there is no clear specification in Arthur conjecture what part of the admissible dual is covered by the union of all local Apackets, except that the representations that are local components of discrete automorphic representations should belong to at least one Apacket. 
5h

awarded  Revival 
12h

answered  Arthur's refinement of parameters for unitary automorphic representations 
Oct 6 
comment 
Why do roots of polynomials tend to have absolute value close to 1?
I'm sorry, but with all due respect for the other contributions to this site of the OP and most answerers , this is definitely not a great question. It is not precise, does not admit any definitive answer, and is kind of trivial: Henry's comment already demystifies it completely, and Joseph Van Name shows that it's juts a very simple exercise in complex analysis. Yet another example of the stack exchange system gone crazy. 
Oct 4 
comment 
Has philosophy ever clarified mathematics?
... understand the same rules in the same way? What I mean is that Wittgenstein puts into question not only the feasibility of Hilbert's finitist program of fundations in mathematics (as Gödel's theorem) does, but the very meaning of such a program. 
Oct 4 
comment 
Has philosophy ever clarified mathematics?
I don't think I agree with the interpretation of Wittgenstein's argument as having to do with undecidability. Wittgenstein' criticism is more fundamental (and perhaps therefore less interesting from a mathematical point of view): take some proposition perfectly decidable, with a complete and valid proof in a given systems of axioms. What do you do if someone tells you: "I understand the system of axioms, but I don't think this proof proves the proposition according to the rules we agreed on". Well, surely he must have misunderstand these rules, but how do we ensure that he and me... 
Oct 4 
revised 
About the Dimension of a complete local ring
texified the text. 
Oct 1 
comment 
Has philosophy ever clarified mathematics?
I agree with Waldemar. Berkeley did not influence Weierstrass directly, but he put in the minds of all mathematicians the idea that there was a foundational problem in the work of Newton and Leibniz. Without him, most lesser mathematicians (that is, almost all) would have wrongly believed that whatever difficulties they might have with foundations of calculus were due to their own limitations. Berkeley spurred a desire for laying down strong foundations for calculus for generations of mathematicians, and many tried with no or only partial success before the final push of Bolzano & Weierstrass 
Sep 30 
awarded  Explainer 
Sep 30 
awarded  Popular Question 
Sep 27 
revised 
Holomorphic cusp forms and cohomology of GL(2,Z)
added 11 characters in body 
Sep 27 
answered  Holomorphic cusp forms and cohomology of GL(2,Z) 
Sep 26 
reviewed  Leave Open Irreducible action of an algebraic group 
Sep 25 
comment 
Galois groups and prescribed ramification
Pablo: I don't know. 
Sep 25 
revised 
Galois groups and prescribed ramification
added 310 characters in body 
Sep 24 
awarded  Enlightened 
Sep 24 
awarded  Autobiographer 
Sep 24 
awarded  Nice Answer 
Sep 24 
answered  Galois groups and prescribed ramification 
Sep 24 
awarded  Electorate 