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.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJan 13th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItex[[contractible object]] redirected to both [[sufficiently cohesive topos]] and [[contractible space]]. Since neither or these really seemed to fit, I removed both of them. (And then I put a link to [[contractible object]] in [[sufficiently cohesive topos]], but [[contractible space]] doesn\'t have a place for one.) By the way, how long has it been true that if you follow a link that has more than one redirect that you get a warning about this?

   contractible object redirected to both sufficiently cohesive topos and contractible space. Since neither or these really seemed to fit, I removed both of them. (And then I put a link to contractible object in sufficiently cohesive topos, but contractible space doesn't have a place for one.)

   By the way, how long has it been true that if you follow a link that has more than one redirect that you get a warning about this?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJan 13th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIt didn't used to be true. I'm glad it is now!

   It didn’t used to be true. I’m glad it is now!

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJan 13th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI spell your first sentence ‘It didn\'t use to be true.’, although I still pronounce that ‘use’ with a hard ‹s› (that is /s/ rather than /z/), so pronounced the same as if it were a noun. Since the /t/ that ends ‘used’ would elide with the /t/ that begins ‘to’, the pronunciations would be almost the same, but I think that the vowel in ‘use’ is longer than in ‘used’ (an allophonic difference).

   I spell your first sentence ‘It didn't use to be true.’, although I still pronounce that ‘use’ with a hard ‹s› (that is /s/ rather than /z/), so pronounced the same as if it were a noun. Since the /t/ that ends ‘used’ would elide with the /t/ that begins ‘to’, the pronunciations would be almost the same, but I think that the vowel in ‘use’ is longer than in ‘used’ (an allophonic difference).

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJan 14th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexLooks like [some people](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8816/whats-the-negation-of-i-used-to-be-surely-not-i-didnt-used-to-be) are on your side, but [other people](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2756) spell it my way, and [we are gaining ground](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=didn%27t+used+to%2Cdidn%27t+use+to&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdid%20not%20used%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdid%20not%20use%20to%3B%2Cc0). (-:

   Looks like some people are on your side, but other people spell it my way, and we are gaining ground. (-:

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJan 14th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexI remember being picked up in my Ancient Greek class for failing to translate a negated imperfect as 'used not to'. Strange how these things stay with you.

   I remember being picked up in my Ancient Greek class for failing to translate a negated imperfect as ’used not to’. Strange how these things stay with you.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2017
   • (edited Jan 16th 2017)
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThat Google n-gram is weird, because you clearly told it to look for ‘didn\'t’, but it came back with ‘did not’. Anyway, I have, as of last year, become a reactionary, believing that modern culture is degenerate and corrupt, so anything that switched over in 1975 was clearly correct before.

   That Google n-gram is weird, because you clearly told it to look for ‘didn't’, but it came back with ‘did not’.

   Anyway, I have, as of last year, become a reactionary, believing that modern culture is degenerate and corrupt, so anything that switched over in 1975 was clearly correct before.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJan 16th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIf you actually search for the ngrams yourself, it pops up an informative box saying > Replaced **didn't used to** with **did not used to** to match how we processed the books. which suggests that they did some expansion of contractions on the corpus before searching. Apparently this box doesn't appear when I link directly to the results however.

   If you actually search for the ngrams yourself, it pops up an informative box saying

   Replaced didn’t used to with did not used to to match how we processed the books.

   which suggests that they did some expansion of contractions on the corpus before searching. Apparently this box doesn’t appear when I link directly to the results however.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJan 17th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI figured that it did something like that, but it\'s nice that it told you so.

   I figured that it did something like that, but it's nice that it told you so.