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 definitions 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 k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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. • CommentRowNumber101.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 22nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI like the idea of trying it out using the existing technologies. (I also like allowing negative signatures.) The one thing I'm worried about is changes: say someone submits a proof for signing and it gets signed by a few people, then someone else comes along and changes the proof? Or less radically, one person is reading something to sign it and notices some easy-to-fix errors and goes ahead and fixes them. How does that interact with the signature process?

   I like the idea of trying it out using the existing technologies. (I also like allowing negative signatures.) The one thing I’m worried about is changes: say someone submits a proof for signing and it gets signed by a few people, then someone else comes along and changes the proof? Or less radically, one person is reading something to sign it and notices some easy-to-fix errors and goes ahead and fixes them. How does that interact with the signature process?

2. • CommentRowNumber102.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeSep 22nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's why I would say that we should take snapshots. If something's worth signing, it's worth preserving _in it's current form_. We don't want that to disrupt the natural evolution of the pages, but on the other hand if something's been signed then perhaps there should be a hesitation before changing it. The only way I can think of of having both is to take a snapshot of the thing to be signed. Also, maybe "ready to be signed" is not the first step. Maybe, "I'm thinking of this being signed" is the first step. That goes in the "discussions on signing" section. Then those who think that they would consider signing the thing can take a first look at it and comment on whether or not they could sign it. After a short time period, it could then move to "ready to be signed" if no-one has any improvements to make. If we're seriously thinking that this could be peer review done right (I certainly am), then it should feel formal and shouldn't be a casual thing to do. When I sign a page, or request a page to be signed, I should be doing so as a Professional Mathematician.

   That’s why I would say that we should take snapshots. If something’s worth signing, it’s worth preserving in it’s current form. We don’t want that to disrupt the natural evolution of the pages, but on the other hand if something’s been signed then perhaps there should be a hesitation before changing it. The only way I can think of of having both is to take a snapshot of the thing to be signed.

   Also, maybe “ready to be signed” is not the first step. Maybe, “I’m thinking of this being signed” is the first step. That goes in the “discussions on signing” section. Then those who think that they would consider signing the thing can take a first look at it and comment on whether or not they could sign it. After a short time period, it could then move to “ready to be signed” if no-one has any improvements to make.

   If we’re seriously thinking that this could be peer review done right (I certainly am), then it should feel formal and shouldn’t be a casual thing to do. When I sign a page, or request a page to be signed, I should be doing so as a Professional Mathematician.

3. • CommentRowNumber103.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't like the fact that taking a snapshot would cause there to be two copies of the material. Would they be interconnected in any way? I've been hoping that Peer Review Done Right would apply to The nLab itself, rather than to some "nJournal" made up of material copied from the nLab at various points in time. The reason I liked the idea of including signed objects from separate pages is exactly that, as you say, it would make for a hesitation before changing that object, but wouldn't disrupt the natural evolution of the rest of the page(s) on which it appears. I don't quite understand why we would want the *same* bit of serious mathematics to be signed in one state but also continue to "evolve naturally" in a different copy. > it should feel formal and shouldn't be a casual thing to do I agree, but since we are signing much smaller "bits" of mathematics than any ordinary journal article, it should also be easy to do a lot of them.

   I don’t like the fact that taking a snapshot would cause there to be two copies of the material. Would they be interconnected in any way? I’ve been hoping that Peer Review Done Right would apply to The nLab itself, rather than to some “nJournal” made up of material copied from the nLab at various points in time.

   The reason I liked the idea of including signed objects from separate pages is exactly that, as you say, it would make for a hesitation before changing that object, but wouldn’t disrupt the natural evolution of the rest of the page(s) on which it appears. I don’t quite understand why we would want the same bit of serious mathematics to be signed in one state but also continue to “evolve naturally” in a different copy.

   it should feel formal and shouldn’t be a casual thing to do

   I agree, but since we are signing much smaller “bits” of mathematics than any ordinary journal article, it should also be easy to do a lot of them.