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. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2011
   • (edited Aug 23rd 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI could not find a better title, for the new entry, unfortunately: [[opinions on development of mathematics]] (should be mainly bibiliography entry). I need some place to start collecting the titles which talk about generalities of mathematical development, what is important, what is not. This is relevant for but it is *not* philosophy. Not only because of traditional focus of philosophy on "bigger" things like true nature of beings, meaning, ethics, cognition and so on, but more because the latter is very opinionated in the usual sense, even politics. Though we should of course, choose those which have important content, it is useful to collect those. We can have netries like math and society, even math funding for other external things of relevance, eventually. This was quick fix as I have no time now.

   I could not find a better title, for the new entry, unfortunately: opinions on development of mathematics (should be mainly bibiliography entry). I need some place to start collecting the titles which talk about generalities of mathematical development, what is important, what is not. This is relevant for but it is not philosophy. Not only because of traditional focus of philosophy on “bigger” things like true nature of beings, meaning, ethics, cognition and so on, but more because the latter is very opinionated in the usual sense, even politics. Though we should of course, choose those which have important content, it is useful to collect those. We can have netries like math and society, even math funding for other external things of relevance, eventually. This was quick fix as I have no time now.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI made it [[opinions on the development of mathematics]] for grammatical reasons, but why not just [[development of mathematics]]? That page could have the same opinions, as well as any accepted facts that there might be. I expect that David Corfield will disagree with you about what philosophy is, but then he disagrees with other philosophers too, at least when it comes to philosophy of mathematics.

   I made it opinions on the development of mathematics for grammatical reasons, but why not just development of mathematics? That page could have the same opinions, as well as any accepted facts that there might be.

   I expect that David Corfield will disagree with you about what philosophy is, but then he disagrees with other philosophers too, at least when it comes to philosophy of mathematics.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexThere is nothing to disagree -- there are many reasonable different notions and not that many names for notions. I prefer that it is not too inclusive as then it becomes misleading. I know that grammatically in text one writes the, but in the titles people often skip it, but you can keep it with your vision, you though more on that. I did not want the development of mathematics as this would be suggesting a historical issue. I meant something what would be more precise "the development and current state of mathematics". Opinions suggest that we cite mutually inconsistent and possibly controversial (but ideally with nontrivial content, wit, aesthetics, new points, good authorship) literature rather than that we offer our own viewpoint (that is what I could foresee, I may be wrong in my low expectations).

   There is nothing to disagree – there are many reasonable different notions and not that many names for notions. I prefer that it is not too inclusive as then it becomes misleading.

   I know that grammatically in text one writes the, but in the titles people often skip it, but you can keep it with your vision, you though more on that.

   I did not want the development of mathematics as this would be suggesting a historical issue. I meant something what would be more precise “the development and current state of mathematics”. Opinions suggest that we cite mutually inconsistent and possibly controversial (but ideally with nontrivial content, wit, aesthetics, new points, good authorship) literature rather than that we offer our own viewpoint (that is what I could foresee, I may be wrong in my low expectations).

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexOne usually only drops "the" at the beginning (as in my suggested title). People certainly could interpret "development of mathematics" in a narrow historical sense, but an article with a range of opinions to start with would set the trend for future writers. But perhaps [[development and current state of mathematics]] would be better.

   One usually only drops “the” at the beginning (as in my suggested title).

   People certainly could interpret “development of mathematics” in a narrow historical sense, but an article with a range of opinions to start with would set the trend for future writers. But perhaps development and current state of mathematics would be better.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeAug 24th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI like your new proposal.

   I like your new proposal.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeAug 24th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexAll right, then I'll move it and leave the others as redirects.

   All right, then I’ll move it and leave the others as redirects.