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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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)
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)
Thanks. Hard to remember sometimes, and I was too lazy to check the history. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@ 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?--184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
We can leave the statement unchanged. Maybe, the person who entered this statement might be back and provide the answer.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)