Not signed in (Sign In)

# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

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

• Sign in using OpenID

## Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 24th 2013

created volume, just for completeness

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeJan 24th 2013

The integral of measure without integrand is the measure of the particular set itself. So in the formalism of a measure space which is here put forward the definition explains simple by complicated, I mean there is no need for integral at all if we have a measure given.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeJan 25th 2013

Yeah, this page is not really saying anything to me. If I wanted to write it, I would just gut what's there now and write something fresh. But I don't want to write it now!

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 26th 2013

I think I’ll stop announcing stub entries here on the $n$Forum. I kept thinking that it is decent practice to flag the creation of every single entry here, even if most minor. But from the reactions I gather it doesn’t have the indended effect on readers. And I can see how it can be confusing. So I’ll stop doing it.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJan 26th 2013

Please reconsider, Urs. Except for the most minor changes (like fixing typos), announcing latest changes really is the decent and proper thing to do, and I think it would set a bad precedent to depart from this practice.

I’m not sure what you mean by “intended effect”, or what was wrong with the reactions you did get. (Maybe the tone?) Anyway, it would be good to discuss what it is that you want or expect.

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeJan 26th 2013
• (edited Jan 26th 2013)

It is irrelevant if it is a stub or not, of being minor edit or not, but weather we agree on content or not. Integrand is 1, so the integration is supefluous, integral defined by complicated procedure reduces just to a measure. So what I wrote in 2 is natural scientific discussion and I find it strange to be labelled as “reaction”. How should we agree on the content (and help building it!), if we do not discuss it, but rather label the attempts to discuss disagreed points as “reactions” ?

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeJan 27th 2013

You do great work, Urs, but if sometimes you do something that somebody else think is poorly done or not even worth doing, then simply not telling anybody about it isn't going to help.

Add your comments
• Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
• To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

• (Help)