@JakubKonieczny "May I suggest that the feelings of Ukrainian mathematicians should be given a higher priority than the feelings of Russian mathematicians at a time like this?" Any Russian mathematician with any decency would object to it being held in Russian as well. So it's a question of whether the feelings of the Russian mathematicians who lack basic decency should take precendence.

@user334725 "Even when countries are at war, there can be what might vaguely be called "cultural exceptions" to border controls." If the Russians had any respect for international norms, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

I don't think the issue for Ukrainian mathematicians is so much whether they'd be let in, so much as the Russians can be trusted to let them leave.

"A admits a choice function is ∏A∖{∅} is non-empty." is -> if? And I have trouble seeing how an infinite set can be the union of two sets of strictly smaller cardinality.

Does this construction depend on Choice?

Shouldn't it be "No, my yacht was not larger than it is"?

It doesn't make sense to say that $n$ depends on neither $c$ nor $b$. If you were to word it as "Does there exist an $n$ such that for all $b,c$, there exist a polynomial of degree $n$ such that ..." Also, your first condition can almost be simplified to "the absolute value is strictly increasing".

It seems to me that there is a quantifier missing for $n$. Is it implied to be the universal one?

You seem to be treat $A+B$ as being $\{a+b:a \in A,b \in B\}$. I think that deserves being made explicit.

@BlueRaja What do you mean by that? Do you mean that his work, without this regularization, was insufficient for a scholarship?

Seems to me that $\theta$ should be listed in the restrictions. You shouldn't rely on the title of the question for relaying crucial parts of the questions.

You might want to put a carriage return after the equal sign to force all of the RHS to be on one line. And does "It's this expression for any real λ or x" mean "It's this expression if λ is real or x is real" rather than "It's this expression if λ is real and x is real"?

@Joshua Did you produce a proof that if a proof that proof of X must exist must exist exists, then X must exist?

@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine $p_1=2$ is unnecessary only if one treats the null product as being 1.

Given that this algorithm is defined in terms of the set of prime numbers, it seems to me that there is little sense in which it "produces" the prime numbers.

Note also that given any measurement process, and any $t$, there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such if $10-\epsilon < x<10$, it will take more than $t$ seconds to determine that $x<10$.