Thank you very much for the kind words. I also want to apologize for responding to your post after so much time: in the past I used to read (and post comments in) blog post more frequently, but these days I have a hard time to find time for this task, as well as for many other ones [one of the reasons is that I need to write reviews to MathSciNet đ ]. Finally, it is an opportunity to me to inform you about the existence of something which seems to be a mistake in the list of corrections to your book (the details are planned to be sent to your email address soon).

Thanks again and best regards.

]]>BTW, some other talks that I remember walking out from saying “wow, was that one of the best in my life” are by H. Brezis (on index in spaces of non smooth functions), A. Shalev (on commutators in finite groups), A. Lubotzky (on all kinds of everything) and A. Naor (on connection between theoretical CS and physics). It is interesting that I remember the sensation I had and the charisma of the speaker better than the content. So maybe they weren’t the best?

Talks that have significantly affected my research direction were given by Agler and Arveson. Those are talks I came out of saying “I am going to work on THAT topic” (and then I did). Of course, those were not meant for a general mathematical audience, so they were less designed to be entertainment.

]]>That was a mistake in the exercise, thanks (now fixed. That part of the exercise was not important for the rest of the proof). I *do* want simple sets to be unions of closed sets, otherwise the proof won’t work – having the finite intersection property will not imply non-empty intersection.

Orr ]]>