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 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 sheaves 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.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThis is to continue the general discussion on [this thread](http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Mathforge/nForum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2080).

   This is to continue the general discussion on this thread.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexA general point (but particularly aimed at Tim), if there's something that one does that doesn't look right, but it's not obvious how to correct it, please bring it to our attention here and make it obvious that it's a question of formatting. Then someone can take a look at it there and then and see if there's something obvious to correct it.

   A general point (but particularly aimed at Tim), if there’s something that one does that doesn’t look right, but it’s not obvious how to correct it, please bring it to our attention here and make it obvious that it’s a question of formatting. Then someone can take a look at it there and then and see if there’s something obvious to correct it.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
   • (edited Nov 11th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexGood point. Toby's comment has helped me get the Definitions looking better in various places. One point that I have asked is about arrow heads in SVG. My Inkscape files have the arrow heads but they are not there on the final version on the screen here. (They are still in the file but do not show.) Thanks.

   Good point. Toby’s comment has helped me get the Definitions looking better in various places.

   One point that I have asked is about arrow heads in SVG. My Inkscape files have the arrow heads but they are not there on the final version on the screen here. (They are still in the file but do not show.)

   Thanks.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexUrs wrote [here](http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Mathforge/nForum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2080&Focus=18166#Comment_18166) >so that it is possible to have a computer program scan the Lab for, say, all theorems and proofs asserting existence of limits in some categories That sounds like it will take quite a bit of work on our part to formalise the structure of proof environments! Is there anything that we could do to help with that? (The next question is to consider whether ii's reasonable to do that, but I'd rather see the answer to the first question first.)

   Urs wrote here

   so that it is possible to have a computer program scan the Lab for, say, all theorems and proofs asserting existence of limits in some categories

   That sounds like it will take quite a bit of work on our part to formalise the structure of proof environments! Is there anything that we could do to help with that? (The next question is to consider whether ii’s reasonable to do that, but I’d rather see the answer to the first question first.)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Is there anything that we could do to help with that? Yes, put the proof-environment not too far from the theorem-environment that it refers to, so that a computer program has a chance to decide correctly what the proof refers to.

   Is there anything that we could do to help with that?

   Yes, put the proof-environment not too far from the theorem-environment that it refers to, so that a computer program has a chance to decide correctly what the proof refers to.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeNov 20th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItex>Yes, put the proof-environment not too far from the theorem-environment that it refers to, so that a computer program has a chance to decide correctly what the proof refers to. Normally, it comes directly afterwards, of course. But sometimes we may want to put it in an appendix (or another page). Idea: Try to write the environment +-- {: .proof} ###### Proof of Theorem \ref{foo} blah, blah =-- if it's not directly below the proved theorem but on the same page, or +-- {: .proof} ###### Proof of [Theorem 3](page name#foo) on [[page name]] blah, blah =-- if it's on a different page (although now you have to fix the theorem number by hand). A well designed computer program should be able to track those down.

   Yes, put the proof-environment not too far from the theorem-environment that it refers to, so that a computer program has a chance to decide correctly what the proof refers to.

   Normally, it comes directly afterwards, of course. But sometimes we may want to put it in an appendix (or another page).

   Idea: Try to write the environment

   +-- {: .proof}
   ###### Proof of Theorem \ref{foo}
   
   blah, blah
   =--
   

   if it’s not directly below the proved theorem but on the same page, or

   +-- {: .proof}
   ###### Proof of [Theorem 3](page name#foo) on [[page name]]
   
   blah, blah
   =--
   

   if it’s on a different page (although now you have to fix the theorem number by hand).

   A well designed computer program should be able to track those down.