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
   • CommentTimeMar 1st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexThere was a short article on the arXiv today about collaborative mathematics in the internet age. The article itself, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5720>, is rather short and doesn't contain all that much detail. It points to a website [Liber Mathematicae](http://www.libermath.org/), which is also rather short and doesn't contain all that much detail! Indeed, they appear to have 2 articles at present. I'm not sure if there's anything to say on this at present, so this is just "For Your Information" than anything else.

   There was a short article on the arXiv today about collaborative mathematics in the internet age. The article itself, http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5720, is rather short and doesn’t contain all that much detail. It points to a website Liber Mathematicae, which is also rather short and doesn’t contain all that much detail! Indeed, they appear to have 2 articles at present.

   I’m not sure if there’s anything to say on this at present, so this is just “For Your Information” than anything else.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 1st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI do like the formatting and typesetting of the online articles that they have. This reminds me of a discussion we had a long while back: I believe what I like of their formatting compared to ours is that it somehow looks more structured, gives more hold to they eye. Maybe I am wrong, but that's my gut impression. For instance, simply the presence of the vertical colored margin, trivial as that is, goes a long way, I think. At the Springer Online Dictionary they have this, too. I feel that this makes for good web layout.

   I do like the formatting and typesetting of the online articles that they have.

   This reminds me of a discussion we had a long while back: I believe what I like of their formatting compared to ours is that it somehow looks more structured, gives more hold to they eye. Maybe I am wrong, but that’s my gut impression.

   For instance, simply the presence of the vertical colored margin, trivial as that is, goes a long way, I think. At the Springer Online Dictionary they have this, too. I feel that this makes for good web layout.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 1st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItex$n$Forum effectively has a line as well. Are you comparing Liber Mathematicae with $n$Lab in fact ? I have posted a link to Liber Mathematicae into wikis-section of [[math blogs]].

   $n$Forum effectively has a line as well. Are you comparing Liber Mathematicae with $n$Lab in fact ? I have posted a link to Liber Mathematicae into wikis-section of math blogs.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 1st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Are you comparing Liber Mathematicae with nLab in fact ? Yes, I am looking at the two online published articles that they currently have and comparing their layout with that of the nLab pages. I am thinking that there is something about their layout that is an improvement over that of the $n$Lab pages. I am not sure exactly what it is. But I guess it is that their layout provides more structure for the eyes.

   Are you comparing Liber Mathematicae with nLab in fact ?

   Yes, I am looking at the two online published articles that they currently have and comparing their layout with that of the nLab pages. I am thinking that there is something about their layout that is an improvement over that of the $n$Lab pages. I am not sure exactly what it is. But I guess it is that their layout provides more structure for the eyes.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 1st 2011
   • (edited Mar 1st 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexWell, their font is much smaller and I find it less readable. Having smaller font allows for margin. I like the $n$Lab, as it is, some formulas are really long and introducing even a small margin could be very problematic on small screens and, even much more, on printers. My taste is on the compact side (that is why I do not like too many subsections, titles and toc, at least in short texts); though too small font in html can be hard to read, while allowed in pdf and other more optimized formats. I guess you like the fresh view, and after so many hours of $n$Lab your eyes may be tired a bit with hundreds of $n$Lab views in your memory :)))

   Well, their font is much smaller and I find it less readable. Having smaller font allows for margin. I like the $n$Lab, as it is, some formulas are really long and introducing even a small margin could be very problematic on small screens and, even much more, on printers. My taste is on the compact side (that is why I do not like too many subsections, titles and toc, at least in short texts); though too small font in html can be hard to read, while allowed in pdf and other more optimized formats. I guess you like the fresh view, and after so many hours of $n$Lab your eyes may be tired a bit with hundreds of $n$Lab views in your memory :)))