Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I applaud that you invest energy into this!
A general hint on hyperlinks:
For making general hyperlinks at the nForum appear, type
[link text](url)
while making sure that below the edit pane you have selected “Markdown+Itex”
For links to entries on a web belonging to the nLab, you may also type
[[webname:entryname]]
for instance
[[homotopytypetheory:Homotopy+theory+in+HoTT]]
produces
Homotopy+theory+in+HoTT (homotopytypetheory)
Finally, if the entry is on the main nLab web, you may omit the webname
and just type
[[James construction]]
to produce
Do you mean would such a page be welcome on the nLab rather than the HoTT web? I’d say certainly yes. One advantage is that you wouldn’t have to worry about filling in basic links, such as to torus.
Perhaps we might look to rationalize our pages here. We have related pages:
The homotopytypetheory web isn’t usually discussed at the nForum, and most of its contributors won’t see messages here.
You might wonder if it’s worth the effort. The web only has 62 pages compared to over 13000 here. But, of course, if you want to develop it as a purely HoTT wiki, then I can’t think any one will want to stop you.
Let’s do make sure to at least have links between the entries.
I just did some cross-linking for Hopf fibration:
the beginning of Hopf fibration (homotopytypetheory) now reads as follows:
In classical algebraic topology (nlab) we have four Hopf fibrations (nlab) (of spheres):
while the end of Hopf fibration (nlab) now has this line:
For more discussion in homotopy type theory see also at
Alizter, I have another request: Please try to provide decent references.
Currently at Hopf fibration (homotopytypetheory) it has the following:
- For Lumsdaine gave the construction in 2012 and Brunerie proved it was correct in 2013.
- For Buchholtz and Rijke solved this early 2016 through a homotopy version of the Cayley-Dickson construction
This is bad style. One would never cite in such a sloppy way in a research article, and for a good reason.
Re #6, there’s plenty of sympathy expressed through nLab pages to the thought that homotopy theory is more basic than its classical manifestation. Entries often include sections expressed in HoTT, see for instance at infinity-action.
It would be great to have a HoTT section at torus.
I have harmonized the formatting of the citation to Buchholtz-Rijke 16 now.
This makes me realize that the homotopytypehteory web does not share with the main nLab the functionality that anchor targets get highlighted in gray, so that one maydiscern which reference is actually being pointed to. Does anyone know how to copy that functionality over?
After some thinking I think I agree that it is a pointless and wasteful endevour to develop the HoTT wiki outside of nlab. So I propose the following: I currently have written a few HoTT wiki pages that I think can be merged into their main nlab counterparts.
I think that’s a great idea.
As for bad style, I had copied that from the open problems page on the HoTT wiki.
Right, lots of people do that; sorry for targeting that complaint at you.
What I am trying to express is that it is good to aim for formatting of wiki-pages which is on roughly the same level as one would adopt in research articles. On the nLab have learned this the hard way ourselves, with early entries later feeling like an embarrassment when the public perception of the wiki had grown.
BTW, the problem with the link in #16 is a spurious whitespace after the colon. It needs to be
[[homotopytypetheory:James construction]]
instead of
[[homotopytypetheory: James construction]]
I think this is not the place to discuss or decide the future of the homotopytypetheory web, such as whether it should be merged into the main nLab web, because the people that it was created by and for do not, by and large, frequent this forum. Please raise that question somewhere else such as the HoTT mailing list, before taking action on it.
Alizter, the H-space on the hoomotopytypetheory wiki has almost no content, beyond a telegraphic definition. The Idea-section there I had just added a few minutes back. So there would not be much to be merged in this case.
Re #19, yes, I was just giving reasons why Alizter might prefer to devote his energy to the nLab over homotopytypetheory. It’s not up to us to merge the two webs.
You asked the HoTT mailing list about splitting up the open problems page in particular. But in #12 you called it a “pointless and wasteful endevour” to write pages on the homotopytypetheory wiki rather than on the main nlab, which is a different question. What led you to that conclusion?
On first thought, I rather like the idea of having (for instance) two separate pages H-space (homotopytypetheory) and H-space (nlab) (interlinked of course), because they are really about different things that have been given the same name, connected by the interpretation of homotopy type theory into classical homotopy theory. I often find that nLab pages become rather unwieldy and hard to navigate when they try to explain on one page many different things that have the same name in different contexts.
Just a quick suggestion. I think it would be very useful to include code (in as many languages as possible, but at least Coq and Agda) encoding the definition at H-space (homotopytypetheory).
On a different note, I can treat the HoTT wiki in the same way as the main nLab with regard to forum announcements, etc, should people wish.
1 to 24 of 24