Dear Andrei Petrovich!

We have no need to convince ourselves of significance of the Urgench Symposium you organized:

it’s clear to us as it is. To make it clear to others it is important to publish a kind of “minutes” (even

a scientific report is less important – in the sense of summing up scientific results it is more

important to publish the Proceedings). I am enclosing the draft of a minutes which is to be published

in “Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsia” journal with me and you as co-authors. My intention is

to get this text back signed by you together with some revisions mentioned below.

As you will see, the “protocol” nature of the report is apparent in citing full program (even with

session hours), participants’ titles and so on. I reckon it necessary to once publish these formal data

(and thus make them go down in history and not only in folk-lore). A great deal of this information

is simply irrelevant to the scientific report for “Uspekhi Matematicheskih Nauk”. It is clear that the

enclosed text doesn’t call off or substitute for other possible reports of the same or another genre.

Counting upon your solidarity and kindness, I ask you the following favor to do the following:

1.  At page 5 line 3 from the top fill in the title of T.R. Rashidov, if you know it (he was the

chairman at the TV show you participated in and is seems to be an Academician-secretary of

something).

2.  At the same page 5 fill in or just delete a comment on Kaufmann (do I spell his German name

right?)

3.  Check the last day morning session program (public session). I quote this program from the text

delivered to me by S.B. Pokrovsky, and the text seems to be drawn before the session. It is unclear

whether the program was actually fulfilled: some presentations seem to be canceled or substituted.

Did the concluding remarks planned by you and Knuth take place? 

4.  Check the Russian titles of all presentations. These titles are the product of my translation from

English – maybe not always felicitous. Obviously, one must consider authentic the titles in the daily

programs and not in the abstracts (where they are often different). In particular, I am especially

uncertain about the Russian titles of talks by Buda (I offered two versions – select one of them or

give another one), Kapitonova and Paterson.

5.  Check everything in general.

As you may remember, as far back as in Urgench I expressed a desire to publish a report in NTI

with you as one of co-authors. At that time you – being well-disposed in general – answered that

you would not write it yourself and have nobody to force to do it. I understood that for me there is

no alternative but to write it myself. Relying upon your co-authorship I took the liberty of bluntly

borrowing from your texts (about desert wind and other passages dear to my heart) and laid stress on

objectivity in describing your role in symposium organization. Evidently, I will try to take into

account all your requests and corrections.

I was expecting to see you November 1^st at Briabrin thesis defending session, but, unfortunately, the

same day at 15.00 I have to be present as an official opponent for another Ph.D. thesis on the history

of mathematics. I am awaiting to receive from you the enclosed draft with your remarks (and

hopefully with your signature) in the form best suitable for you – by mail or upon our encounter in

Moscow: if you will not come by November 1^st I would like to express my firm belief that the

meeting will still take place. In any case please send me a few words by mail.

                                                                                                                            Yours, V. Uspensky

October 18, 1979