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.
I added into Online Resources (btw, people, let us please include the link to the page commented in Latest Changes in any discussion thread which mentions it, if possible, in view of possible future automatic searchability or automatic backlinks from nLab) the link to Category List archive under Forums. It is on a blog site, so it may be classfied as blog, but I kept it as forum. Others may have intelletcual reason to change my classification.
About David, 1: why they don't promote you there ? They should, in view of your dedication to category theory !
why they don’t promote you there
If David wants to join he should email us. Same for everyone else. In the end only Jacques Distler can add (or remove) authors from the nCategoryCafe, though.
@ Zoran
Definitely the categories list is a forum that should be listed. I put in a link to the homepage for the list itself, along with your link to the Gmane archives.
I don’t suppose anybody knows any other archive for the list, hopefully one that’s threaded?
Thankyou, Zoran. Your vote of confidence is heartening, as sometimes I don’t feel like I’m much of a category theorist! And thanks, Urs for #3. I may just do that at some point.
By the way, I am (probably) the original guilty party that mixed up the Davids. It was nothing more than a careless mistake on my part. For what it is worth, I also think David Roberts would make a good addition to the list of authors :)
@ Eric:
So it appears. But the edit was still an improvement; before none of the links had descriptions, and now they all do!
As announced in http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Mathforge/nForum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1926, I have added top page math resources linked from contents. Math resources points to MO question on math resources, to a top page of links at AMS and at the 3 pages: math blogs (former Online Resources which redirects now there as quoted in Baez’s Notices survey! lab elfs could you check for web-cash bug if it happened in renaming), math institutions and math archives. This network is now a nice directory for everyday’s work.
lab elfs could you check for web-cash bug if it happened in renaming
You can check for yourself just by following your link above to Online Resources; you only have to ask a lab elf for help if that link doesn’t take you to the new page. It seems to be fine (possibly because a lab elf already fixed it, possibly because there was never a problem).
Well, in the moment of renaming the old and new versions are anyway the same. The differences come up later. So you are saying I should test by artificially additionally changing the new page and then reverting it back if it is OK ? Well, OK. Thanks.
Test by clicking the link and seeing what URI you really end up on. So click the link to http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Online%20Resources and discover that you end up on http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/math+blogs really. So the redirect works; the cache bug is not present.
OK, that is much simpler, I was stupid! I thought there are two possibly inconsistent copies, but it did not occur to me to look at the generated title, but only displayed content (which was incosistent in past cases of cache bug, the essential features which I remember).
A new blog Holomorphusion (commutative algebra and algebraic geometry) reported at math blogs.
A new blog Holomorphusion
Looks to me like the author(s) of this should be typing this into wiki-entries, not blog entries. This is encyclopedic/textbook material.
I removed the links to Academic Blog Portal at math blogs as that site and list do not function any more for some reason.
MahOnline link does not seem to work any more. It is the only item in the strange category “collections” in math blogs. Even if functional it was too small so far to warrant for the introduction of a category in the list. So I suggest removing the category.
I added a note that the site is currently down. I wouldn’t want to remove a dead link until we give it a chance to come back to life, since that sometimes happens. But we should mark them, with a date.
Still why having a separate category ? I’d erase the category and put the link under one of the other categories.
Which category? It’s different from everything else; it’s supposed to be something like our page math blogs itself.
It should be on math resources instead of math blogs; that’s the problem. I’ve moved it.
In the entry math blogs, mathonline bogus link makes a paragraph dedicated to the category collectioins which has no single other functional item. So I-d like to move the bogus link into some of the larger categories.
It’s not a bogus link; it’s a dead link. It certainly used to work, people praised it when it worked, and I hope that it works again. It makes no sense to move it to an inappropriate category, dead or alive.
However, there is an appropriate category for it, which we didn’t see at first because it’s on a different page, and I have already moved it there.
I disagree that math resources is the appropriate page for this. I created it with lots of thought as just the TOP LEVEL DIRECTORY for the pages with lists of resources which are in detail listed in the Lab. It is created like the redirect page for the four major subcategories we have (and which I created as such, where math blog is the descendant of former Online Resources)
math blogs – (short name for the) list of online communities like blogs and wikis (“Online Resources”) and few alike categories
math institutions – links to main institutions and societies and to lists of more institutions
math archives – links to archives of writings in areas of relevance to the nlab
Hence it is well thought that all the micro-items from other sites will be in one of the above pages and the top page would not be changed until in exceptional cases. I have put however one external link to official and huge directories of immense amount and diverse/universal context of standard information – math on the web resources formerly of AMS and exceptionally only a link to MathOverflow question which also is of universal nature and covers tens of categories of content, and is also maintained by a large community. If something is just a specialized site with limited contributions than it should go to one of the other pages which are for the individual items, not into the top directory. If we start put the leaves of the tree to the base (the top level page in the big scheme) than we loose the systematics.
Urs has added to math resources also parellel “physics resources” and philosophy what is also orthogonal to the original scheme in which math resources meant all three categories. He also listed the page only under mathematics toc. It is hard not to repeat theoretical physics institutes under mathematics and so on, so separation is not beneficial I think, so far. It just complicates maintaining the lists, and I do not see somebody enthusiastic about doing it. For example, nobody created a page which will be dedicated only for mathematics links. For example nobody created a special page for LaTeX resources and for theoretical computer science resources which are also under the scope for math blogs for example. The fact that the mantra at the time of creation of the Lab is to dedicate to triple math, physics, philosophy is not to be taken so literally. There are other areas, and not all in this 3 areas is interesting to us. So it is not right to have the general resource page narrowed to mathematics. “math” is just a mnemo for the central content (we could put content but this would be more misleading) but includes everything.
MathOnline is (or was, and hopefully will be again) a large list like the one produced by the MathOverflow question. Maybe it fits better in math resources by individuals? It was maintained by an individual at an individual’s domain, although written (at least partially, I’m not sure how much) collaboratively.
math resources by individuals is not about individual-maintained blogs etc. but about the repositories of material about the math of a single author. For example, Shellah’s archive may be collectively maintained, but it is about papers of a single person. I think we should prefer there only important authors and sizeable collections for the Lab I think, otherwise it will water down into million mathematician’s webpages without use and completeness. On the other hand, he blogs and wikis are relatively rare so I think we should list them all under math blogs, even those with very low activity (particularly because the math is fragmented into areas so if one looks at one area one finds only a handful blogs).
Hi,
I am very busy with something else and can’t follow this here in detail. I just spotted my name coming up:
Urs has added
If I broke some pattern that you intended, can you fix it? I won’t mind. But maybe for it not to happen again, maybe you can add a sentence that makes the intended pattern clearer (in case you haven’t already).
Nothing is here urgent. Let it be the way it is. Some time in future we can discuss architecture of this set of entries in person.
math resources by individuals is not about individual-maintained blogs etc. but about the repositories of material about the math of a single author.
I see what you mean. Yeah, it doesn’t fit there.
Added a link to The Assayer which is a catalogue listing a number of mathematics books available online for free, as well as in other fields.
I added the link to amazing video archive
Archive for Mathematical Sciences & Philosophy
to math resources (and to our page list of mathematical software. I moved the link to Wolphramalpha from math archives to list of mathematical software.
New wiki link at math blogs aka Online Resources main page:
It is the main subcollection from a bit larger wiki http://subwiki.org which has also non-science things like markets section but also a bit of topology.
I should add Scott Morrison’s Mathematics Literature Project, when I get time (apologies, but none now)
Added to math blogs,
Added the MLP, as I promised in #32. (note if Googling: you will not find this by searching for ’MLP’ :-)
Well, a lot of people do think that mathematics “is magic”.
I read somewhere a reference, from towards the end of the Middle Ages, in which the word mathematician was replced by magician. It was about the time that the Abacus was going out. (I cannot remember the details!)
It's from the beginning of the Middle Ages rather than the end, but there's St Augustine's
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.
which is really referring to astrologers.
Perhaps we should put that quote high up in the n-Lab pages as a warning. ;-)
in which the word mathematician was replced by magician
mathemagicians…
1 to 39 of 39