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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJan 6th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI get a 504 Gateway Timeout when trying to access <https://ncatlab.org/nlab/authors?page=5>. Curiously, pages 1--4 work fine.

   I get a 504 Gateway Timeout when trying to access https://ncatlab.org/nlab/authors?page=5. Curiously, pages 1–4 work fine.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 6th 2016
   • (edited Feb 5th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't know. But I regularly get "502 Bad Gateway" errors when opening and saving $n$Lab pages. Consistently so when asking for [https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/n-stack](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/n-stack).

   I don’t know. But I regularly get “502 Bad Gateway” errors when opening and saving $n$Lab pages. Consistently so when asking for https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/n-stack.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI don\'t know what\'s been done in the meantime, but both of these work for me now, and very quickly too. (The latter is an ambiguous redirect, but both possible targets work fine.)

   I don't know what's been done in the meantime, but both of these work for me now, and very quickly too. (The latter is an ambiguous redirect, but both possible targets work fine.)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry for this off-topic, but to Toby: are you still using the email address that begins with the letters 'eb'? I mailed something to you a few weeks ago.

   Sorry for this off-topic, but to Toby: are you still using the email address that begins with the letters ’eb’? I mailed something to you a few weeks ago.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI get the bad gateway when I click on the link in #2, but #1 is ok.

   I get the bad gateway when I click on the link in #2, but #1 is ok.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI think that you\'re referring to the address that I use for the nlab-talk Google group. I mean to respond to that! The quick answer is that, yes, there are a lot of constructivists that eschew formalism, including Brouwer and Bishop, but they're not the ones coming to constructivism via category theory or mathematical logic.

   I think that you're referring to the address that I use for the nlab-talk Google group. I mean to respond to that! The quick answer is that, yes, there are a lot of constructivists that eschew formalism, including Brouwer and Bishop, but they’re not the ones coming to constructivism via category theory or mathematical logic.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks! It seems to me such a corrective to Carl's comment might be called for; not sure. (To all: I'm referring to a comments made by Carl Mummert at MathOverflow [here](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/228697/constructive-compactness-for-countable-models#comment564974_228697), saying roughly that constructive mathematicians tend to shun formalization. Something about that didn't sound completely accurate to me, so I emailed Toby for his opinion. Again, sorry for the off-topic interjection.)

   Thanks! It seems to me such a corrective to Carl’s comment might be called for; not sure.

   (To all: I’m referring to a comments made by Carl Mummert at MathOverflow here, saying roughly that constructive mathematicians tend to shun formalization. Something about that didn’t sound completely accurate to me, so I emailed Toby for his opinion. Again, sorry for the off-topic interjection.)

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexRead in isolation, the comment does sound wrong, but since it was a response to a comment about Bishop's constructive math it makes some more sense. On the other hand, I think the people who call the latter "BISH" do generally tend to have a particular axiomatization in mind. And to be honest, I feel like the constructive mathematicians who shun formalization are a dying breed, although my experiences are of course biased.

   Read in isolation, the comment does sound wrong, but since it was a response to a comment about Bishop’s constructive math it makes some more sense. On the other hand, I think the people who call the latter “BISH” do generally tend to have a particular axiomatization in mind. And to be honest, I feel like the constructive mathematicians who shun formalization are a dying breed, although my experiences are of course biased.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeMay 20th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI never got back to that stuff about Carl\'s comment, but I think that, in context, the replies already made on MO are sufficient.

   I never got back to that stuff about Carl's comment, but I think that, in context, the replies already made on MO are sufficient.