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.
Created an entry for this.
I’ve adopted the existing convention at nLab in the definition of (which is also the definition I prefer).
Since the opposite convention is used a lot (e.g. by Lurie), I’ve decided it was worth giving it notation, the relation between the versions, and citing results in both forms. Since I didn’t have any better ideas, I’ve settled on .
I suppose citations should be to tags rather than proposition numbers. I’ll change it when I can edit the page again.
(Thanks for fixing my typo in that link!)
I find that, in the bulk text, it’s more natural for the reader to refer to proposition numbers instead of tags, since the former is meant for humans to read, the latter more for computers.
But probably the tags are guaranteed to be stable over time, while the proposition numbers might not be. In general at least. In the case of Kerodon I would still be amazed, but not surprised, if the material emerges all in perfect order right away, like Athena from Zeus’ forehead.
Something weird is going on with the formatting. \overline{…} is only producing a tiny overline, rather than one spanning the word.
It looks fine on my system. Maybe you could isolate a minimal example in the Sandbox.
I forgot to follow up on this. I’ve created an example at Sandbox. On my computer, I only get a one character wide overline (over the “y” in “Tiny”), rather than something spanning the entire text. I’ve tested using both Edge and Opera. As mentioned in my previous comment, this looked fine when I originally created the page, and I think I first noticed it behaving badly around the time I made the comment.
I see. On my system this comes out fine with Firefox, but broken in the way you describe with Edge and Chrome.
I’ll raise this point to the technical team now.
1 to 11 of 11