# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• a brief table of entries related to $n$-spheres, to be !include-ed into related entries, for ease of hyperlinking

• a stub, for the moment just so as to make links works

• a stub entry, for the moment just in order to make some links work

• a stub entry, for the moment just so as to make some links work

• brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

• Updated the webpage link. He has been at Lille for some time.

• starting something. Not done yet but need to save

• starting something

• the keyword “cobordism theory” used to redirect to the entry cobordism. While often the latter term is used as shorthand for the former, the entry “cobordism” is really just about the basic notion of cobordisms between manifolds, so redirecting “cobordism theory” to there wasn’t satisfactory.

So I gave it an entry in its own right, added a little Idea-section briefly surveying the scope of cobordism theory proper, copied over the relevant references:

Then I included (in that entry directly and into related entry as a “floating table of contents”) a list of pointers to related entries:

• some minimum

• seeing Eric create diffeology I became annoyed by the poor state that the entry diffeological space was in. So I spent some minutes expanding and editing it. Still far from perfect, but a step in the right direction, I think.

(One day I should add details on how the various sites in use are equivalent to using CartSp)

• added a brief historical comment to Higgs field and added the historical references

• I have removed the following discussion box from stuff, structure, property – because the entry text above it no longer contained the word that the discussion is about :-)

[begin forwarded discussion]

+–{: .query} Mike: Maybe you all had this out somewhere that I haven’t read, but in the English I am accustomed to speak, “property” is not a mass noun. So you can “forget a property” or “forget properties” but you can’t “forget property.”

Toby: Well, ’property’ can be a mass noun in English, but not in this sense. Also, if we were to invent an entirely new word for the concept, it would surely be a mass noun. Together, these may explain why it's easy to slip into talking this way, but I agree that it's probably better to use the plural count noun here. =–

[end forwarded discussion]

• Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

• Created the page to fix some links.

• brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references