Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexFollowing on the heels of [mathoverflow](http://mathoverflow.net) and [mathunderflow](http://math.stackexchange.com) comes the latest in the long line of question-and-answer sites based on the [stackoverflow](http://www.stackoverflow.com) model. This one is for TeX and LaTeX related questions, so potentially of use to all mathematicians whatever their categorical invariant. Learn more at: <http://tex.stackexchange.com> (and it has a "meta" site: <http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com>).

   Following on the heels of mathoverflow and mathunderflow comes the latest in the long line of question-and-answer sites based on the stackoverflow model. This one is for TeX and LaTeX related questions, so potentially of use to all mathematicians whatever their categorical invariant.

   Learn more at: http://tex.stackexchange.com (and it has a “meta” site: http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com).

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexPS Any chance of a mention for this on the nCafe?

   PS Any chance of a mention for this on the nCafe?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexSo MathOverflow is based on Stack Overflow but is not affiliated with it, while the Mathematics Stack Exchange (which you call ‘mathunderflow’ above) is a competing beta that *is* affiliated with Stack Overflow? I don't want to get too off topic, but can you point me to why this happened?

   So MathOverflow is based on Stack Overflow but is not affiliated with it, while the Mathematics Stack Exchange (which you call ‘mathunderflow’ above) is a competing beta that is affiliated with Stack Overflow?

   I don’t want to get too off topic, but can you point me to why this happened?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexIt's a bit complicated, but I'll have a go. Let me start by saying that MathOverflow and MathUnderflow[1] are _not_ in competition. MathOverflow is (as I'm sure everyone here is aware) targeted at research-level mathematics; MathUnderflow is for _anyone_. The short story is that sometime last year, the people behind StackOverflow decided to try to find new arenas where their software would work. The original idea, called StackExchange 1.0, simply involved people signing up to run websites based on the model of StackOverflow but on different topics. One of these is MathOverflow. However, there wasn't much by way of vetting and lots of the projects didn't get very far. MathOverflow is by far the most successful of these first-round sites. So the StackOverflow crew took a long hard look at it and decided on a different way of setting up the sites. It's a little complicated, but basically involved ensuring that there was a core in place before it went properly "live". That's known as StackExchange 2.0. That's the set-up that MathUnderflow and the TeX site are set-up with. There's a possibility that MathOverflow will migrate to this set-up, but as not all the changes are to do with software, there's no move to do so as yet. So, all of MathOverflow, MathUnderflow, and tex.SE are based on and affiliated with the StackOverflow team; none are in competition (indeed, the presence of MathUnderflow takes a bit of pressure off MathOverflow), but the underlying software is a bit different on MathOverflow to the other two. [1] MathUnderflow is not it's real name. It doesn't have a proper name yet, but it's unlikely to be MathUnderflow. Nonetheless, people from MathOverflow like to call it that.

   It’s a bit complicated, but I’ll have a go. Let me start by saying that MathOverflow and MathUnderflow[1] are not in competition. MathOverflow is (as I’m sure everyone here is aware) targeted at research-level mathematics; MathUnderflow is for anyone.

   The short story is that sometime last year, the people behind StackOverflow decided to try to find new arenas where their software would work. The original idea, called StackExchange 1.0, simply involved people signing up to run websites based on the model of StackOverflow but on different topics. One of these is MathOverflow. However, there wasn’t much by way of vetting and lots of the projects didn’t get very far. MathOverflow is by far the most successful of these first-round sites. So the StackOverflow crew took a long hard look at it and decided on a different way of setting up the sites. It’s a little complicated, but basically involved ensuring that there was a core in place before it went properly “live”. That’s known as StackExchange 2.0. That’s the set-up that MathUnderflow and the TeX site are set-up with. There’s a possibility that MathOverflow will migrate to this set-up, but as not all the changes are to do with software, there’s no move to do so as yet.

   So, all of MathOverflow, MathUnderflow, and tex.SE are based on and affiliated with the StackOverflow team; none are in competition (indeed, the presence of MathUnderflow takes a bit of pressure off MathOverflow), but the underlying software is a bit different on MathOverflow to the other two.

   [1] MathUnderflow is not it’s real name. It doesn’t have a proper name yet, but it’s unlikely to be MathUnderflow. Nonetheless, people from MathOverflow like to call it that.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexAsk and ye [shall receive](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/08/latex_overflow.html).

   Ask and ye shall receive.