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.
An anonymous coward put something blank (or possibly some spam that somebody else blanked within half an hour) at Hausdorff dimension, so I put in a stub.
Also a stub at Lebesgue measure, which has many incoming links.
Again, I could fill this in some more, but I’m worried it won’t be from the right POV. I don’t want to make more work for others, but I’d like to contribute more than just quantum stuff. Any thoughts?
@Ian #3: That kind of thing is a perfect example of what the nForum is good for. If you have some ideas, test them out here. The nLab is not necessarily the best testing ground. Once something is fairly polished here, it is a simple matter of copying and pasting the source to the nLab. in fact, someone else may even do the copying and pasting.
I think that it’s reasonable to fill in the basics of the standard material, as you are now doing. The things that I might caution against are:
There is stuff that I’ve been wanting to put there, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet; I finally created the page anyway because I got tired of seeing links to it. For example:
So you can do that too if you want, or not.
OK, thanks. I know my CTC entry was not of good quality, but there had been some complaints about my quantum entries (which were just standard from my POV) so I am still a bit fuzzy about what constitutes quality and what doesn’t (particularly in light of the fact that Eric liked my Lebesgue measure entry). But I’ll figure it out eventually.
But I’ll figure it out eventually.
I think Toby already explained it:
- unusual interpretations that aren’t grounded in the nPOV, which I think may have been what caused trouble in the past (^_^)
I’m pretty sure you would agree that you have certain opinions on certain areas of physics that are neither mainstream nor nPOV. There was no opinion expressed at Lebesgue measure so it seemed like a perfectly good nLab entry.
It is probably even “ok” to express a non-mainstream non-nPOV opinion occasionally on the nLab, but it should be done carefully and clearly marked as such. These things can become magnets for crackpots. Probably best to avoid it.
Right, but Urs and David specifically singled out some of my quantum entries (quantum channels I think?) and I never offered an opinion there. I simply stated it the way it is used. That’s the essence behind my confusion. But, like I said, I’ll figure it out eventually.
It’s probably hard to believe, but I really have very few opinions about anything in physics other than the fact that it’s all a bunch of imperfect models designed to explain empirical data.
I’ll grant that the Caratheodory extension theorem looks very much like a completion process, which of course can be understood universally.
I’ll grant that the Caratheodory extension theorem looks very much like a completion process, which of course can be understood universally.
Cool. So I am developing some nSense (or just 1Sense or sense) :)
1 to 10 of 10