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.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJun 29th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI've recently been seeing some formatting in nLab articles that looks a tad unusual to me, and thought I'd bring it up (and sorry to come off as criticizing here). In [[vanishing at infinity]], the definitions look like this: > **Definition.** The map $f\colon X \to Y$ __vanishes at infinity__ if: > * for every [[neighbourhood]] $N$ of the [[basepoint]] in $Y$, > * there is [[compact subspace]] $K$ of $X$ such that: > * for every $x$ in the [[exterior]] of $K$ in $X$, > * $f(x)$ belongs to $N$. This looks unusual to me because ordinarily I see bullets used to itemize things (like a list of properties, or equivalent conditions) that are on a "grammatical" par, so to speak. Here what we have are bullets that are used to separate premises from conclusions. The other day, when I saw this, I was actively confused by this, and made a change (it was mainly to correct an actual mathematical mistake). I think I understand the appeal of creating line breaks to separate premise from conclusion, but using bullets and indented bullets for this purpose strikes me as strange. Maybe it's just me. A more traditional bulletless rendering without line breaks, at the opposite typographical end, might be > **Definition.** The map $f\colon X \to Y$ __vanishes at infinity__ if for every [[neighbourhood]] $N$ of the [[basepoint]] in $Y$, there is a [[compact subspace]] $K$ of $X$ such that $f(x)$ belongs to $N$ whenever $x$ lies in the [[exterior]] of $K$ in $X$. and there is plenty of room in between these two approaches that one could experiment with. Just want to know what people think. By no means do I wish to be insistent.

   I’ve recently been seeing some formatting in nLab articles that looks a tad unusual to me, and thought I’d bring it up (and sorry to come off as criticizing here).

   In vanishing at infinity, the definitions look like this:

   Definition. The map vanishes at infinity if:

   • for every neighbourhood of the basepoint in ,

   • there is compact subspace of such that:

     • for every in the exterior of in ,

     • belongs to .

   This looks unusual to me because ordinarily I see bullets used to itemize things (like a list of properties, or equivalent conditions) that are on a “grammatical” par, so to speak. Here what we have are bullets that are used to separate premises from conclusions. The other day, when I saw this, I was actively confused by this, and made a change (it was mainly to correct an actual mathematical mistake).

   I think I understand the appeal of creating line breaks to separate premise from conclusion, but using bullets and indented bullets for this purpose strikes me as strange. Maybe it’s just me. A more traditional bulletless rendering without line breaks, at the opposite typographical end, might be

   Definition. The map vanishes at infinity if for every neighbourhood of the basepoint in , there is a compact subspace of such that belongs to whenever lies in the exterior of in .

   and there is plenty of room in between these two approaches that one could experiment with.

   Just want to know what people think. By no means do I wish to be insistent.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 30th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI agree with you. I like your traditional way better.

   I agree with you. I like your traditional way better.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 30th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexFeel free to change it!

   Feel free to change it!

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 1st 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexOne could also indent each of these four lines one tab farther than the last, to show the appearance of the quantifiers. I agree that the current version reads oddly.

   One could also indent each of these four lines one tab farther than the last, to show the appearance of the quantifiers. I agree that the current version reads oddly.