Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Added a budget of links from the FAQ to the Eunuch-Code Data-Bank.
For some odd reason, the TOC generator is not picking up the first heading — ???
I'm not sure why the TOC isn't picking up the first heading (does it on other pages), but from a page layout point of view, the TOC should come after the title. In this case, the first heading (Frequently Asked Questions) should be viewed as the title and thus not something that occurs in the TOC.
Can't be bothered to slurp back through the history to see who complained about the lack of mathlap and its friends, but it's installed now.
does it on other pages
No, it doesn't, which is why Urs writes a # Contents # header for it to eat.
Looking at the HowTo where the first header is included in the table of contents, I suspect that the TOC command does not include top level headers. Some experimentation needed here, I deem.
I think that it doesn't include a # header if there is only one such header on the page. If there are multiple # headers, then it includes all of them (eg SEAR), but probably if there is only one # header it assumes that to be a page title and thus not necessary to include in the contents.
Maybe it has something to do with Russell's ParaTocs …
OK, so we included a contents header why? Ah, because the contents won't show up at all if there is no header before them!
So is this an argument for making our headers start with ## instead of #, with a header # Contents to be ignored?
So contents are included with:
# Contents
* tic
{: toc}
I've gotten tables of contents without a header before them.
I'm thoroughy confused then. Do you know an example?
See differential logic.
Thanks, Jon. That doesn't match my experiments at the Sandbox; I'm officially confounded.
Use the source, Luke:
# If there is only one big header, then assume
# it is the master
if s.section_children.size == 1
s = s.section_children.first
end
The WebTeX link on the itex reference card is broken and I couldn't find a WebArchive copy — is there a replacement link?
Two things:
The FAQ contains guidance saying that if you have a question about something on the nlab, you should put a query block on that page. I think this guidance is outtdated, and David Roberts seems to agree. The FAQ should probably updated to say something more appropriate here.
This came up in a MathOverflow meta discussion about revising a MathOverflow help page which was even more out of date. That help page has a funny little proviso in it, which says:
MathOverflow is not the appropriate place to ask somebody to write an expository article for you. If you want somebody to write an article about some subject, you should make a stub on Wikipedia, make a query block on nLab, or make a request on PlanetMath.
Now, I’m not really sure, but it’s possible that all 3 of those suggestions are a bit disingenuous – if you really want somebody to write an article for you, I’m not sure there’s anywhere on the internet where ye can ask and receive like this. But anyway, what I want to ask here is:
Should the MathOverflow help page suggest that somebody looking for an exposition of a math topic somehow bring this up on the nlab / nforum rather than MathOverflow?
If so, what is the best way to suggest somebody make such a request on nlab / nforum?
Thanks for the alert. I didn’t even remember that this FAQ exists.
Regarding the item “Where do I ask a question?” (here): I have now removed most of what it said (it had more suggestions, which were all long outdated) and just left a pointer to the Forum.
I am not sure that we need to be more specific about the kind of question. If somebody really wants to ask that someone else writes an exposition for them, let them try, why not.
Fragen kostet nichts. as they said in the country I was born in. (Not sure if they still say it, asking questions is becoming increasingly discouraged there.)
1 to 16 of 16