5697 $n$Lab pages at the moment. Edit: 5700 pages by 310 authors - Last Update: October 5, 2011 21:49:14.

]]>We are at 5612 pages, so 5555 is not that much of a good target any more :) Maybe 5678 or 6000 may be more realistic.

]]>5500 pages by 300 authors

It would be nice to make a new “digest” blog post. But I don’t feel that I have the time to look into this at the moment. If however anyone feels like writing something, I’d be happy to forward it to the blog. We could aim for 5555 entries.

]]>5500 pages by 300 authors - Last Update: August 22, 2011 22:51:48

Last Document: noncommutative Fourier transform Created by Zoran Škoda (161.53.130.104)

I wanted to create quantum group Fourier transform as it is related to something I am doing right now in research. But I have a sanitary problem which happened in my appartment over the weekend and will have to cut some hours from work tomorrow and go early home tonight. So I created first the page noncommutative Fourier transform on another topic, closer to other users of $n$Lab to make easier the disambiguation and will leave more ambitious (from the point of my own intentions in $n$Lab) “quantum group” case for later (probably not this week, I am likely out of any work later part of the week).

]]>It looks good. Let us hope that we get some more contributions.

]]>Thanks!

]]>OK. It’s up at the Cafe.

]]>OK I changed all to $n$Lab. Edit: including in the title where I avoided LaTeX $n$.

]]>I think it may be cumbersome to post it on Sunday early morning. Regarding that we passed 4500 and are in the expectation of the weekend, I would ask a volunteer to post it now and inform others of the move. Unless of course, somebody wants to work more and add another few paragraphs, say on recent content highlights. If not, we could make a content announcment in something like the Christmas nLab Digest which may be posted one or two weeks before Christmas if people decide so (like the Christmas colloqiua in the universities do).

I rewrote the first sentence, I hope it is grammatically correct now. I was writing consistently $n$lab in the post, some prefer $n$Lab, it is up to you if you like to change it (or if you like me to change it).

]]>Good job Zoran. So is there a preference as to when to post it? The birthday itself? And who’s going to post it?

]]>Grammar correction the the first clause:

The $n$-Category Lab wiki was created with its first entry on November 28, 2008 02:18:19;

(There are other mistakes typical of you in the rest of what you’ve written, but I don’t think that they matter very much. However, the first sentence is more important.)

]]>Looks good to me. Thanks for writing this.

]]>Some improvements to 27 are just entered.

]]>Hmm, above stub about organizational entries already hit the size limit for comment in nForum. In any case I am tired for today. Maybe somebody would like to add several paragraphs about some highlights in content or we may do that in next digest, say the Christmas Digest of nLab which may be quite soon.

]]>**Over 4500 entries in the nLab and its 2nd birthday!**

Guest post by Zoran Škoda (list additional names if apply)

The first entry of the *n*-Category Lab wiki appeared on November 28, 2008 02:18:19 marking the creation of the *n*Lab; hence this Sunday morning it is 2 years old! Three days before the birthday its nominal count of pages reached 4500. This may be a proper moment to celebrate its wide usability already at its tender age and even more to invite people to use it more, and if possible to contribute. Like in our earlier update from May, we would like to point to some highlights in $n$Lab. But I somewhat run out of steam to dwell this time on the content and will rather outline some improvements in the *content organization* of the $n$Lab which may make it more attractive to you.

In my impression, in its first year, the $n$Lab was focused on our daily research needs and central areas of our interest: category theory, including higher, topoi, homotopy theory, topology, sheaves, stacks, simplicial objects, descent, cohomology (including differential), foundations and categorical aspects of physics. I have received signals from some users of $n$Lab that they do not contribute because they “do more concrete things”, say Lie algebras, representation theory, mathematical physics and so on and feel not to write about categories. But this is misunderstanding: more stuff in related areas is *very* welcome and we *need* contributors telling us the story in nearby areas of algebra, mathematical physics, differential geometry and so on (of course, not that far area that we can not understand, appreciate and connect to).

Regarding that we started in a bit self-centered areas of *categorical mathematics* it was difficult, in the first year, for a newcomer, to navigate through *n*Lab and find out what interesting (s)he can find there. Hence, in the last several months large activity was centered not only in creating new content but also around new lists/tables of pointers of content in particular fields of interest. In this vein, Urs has been very enthusiastic in adding floating tables of contents. For example, each entry in topos theory, e.g. subobject classifier has a floating table of contents for Topos theory on its right-hand side. It is a pull-down menus which helps you navigate through entries in the subject of the particular table. Even the HomePage uses one floating table, to help the newcomer, and there are top level tables for mathematics and for physics. One can navigate top-down to some subsubjects from there.

Another organizational change in the last about a year is that most discussions which would earlier take place in query boxes in $n$Lab entries shifted to the nForum, which is well structured for many-purpose activities, thanks to the software and maintenance care of Andrew Stacey. Some of the discussions are about spams, bugs, writing, future policies and software, while some are about mathematical research, where Todd, Toby, Urs, Domenico, Jim, Tim, Mike, John, David and others explain extensively each others their insight. Some of the longer among such discussions happen in Atrium section, especially under Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy.

I have personally made effort to connect $n$Lab to the external sources of information and replaced previous Online Resources page by a network of several resource pages including:

- top page math resources
- page math blogs (previous Online Resources) with list of blogs and wikis
- page math institutions with a selected list of top world institutes and links to AMS-maintained and some other lists of math societies and departments
- page math archives with a list of main archives of online content in areas of our interest; with few exceptions (like MathSciNet), subscription sites are avoided and free archives preferred
- page math resources by individuals where there are some extremely rich pages of individuals in the
*prime*areas of $n$Lab (there are hundreds of pages on individual mathematicians in $n$Lab, here we list just few particularly useful links) - page books and reviews in mathematical physics with selected list of major research level books in mathematical physics

While in the first year the physics entries were dwarfed by the mathematical part of $n$Lab, now we do have a non-negligeable physics content. We recommend an outline of the nPOV in physics in the entry (mainly by Urs Schreiber)

Some picture of $n$Lab’s physics content can be accessed from the links at the top page physicscontents.

]]>As a newcomer to cafe posting, I assume that links in the form … work from top posts in cafe.

Should work, yes.

]]>I will not take any responsibility as there is lots of uncertainties about my urgent activities in next few days. But maybe I will be able to do something. I just submitted one paper of mine, but there are 4-5 activities still of importance till next Monday…

]]>I won’t have much time for celebration activity, but it would be nice if we had some kind of post to the Café. Maybe somebody feels like compiling something.

]]>4470 entries and six non-full days before the birthday – close to 4500

]]>4351 I note there are a lot of new entries recently!!! :-)

]]>There really is one thing worth discussing: whether induced topology should redirect to subspace topology or to weak topology. If (as the former article suggests) that term is used primarily for the subspace topology, then leave it as it is (redirecting to that article). However, if (as the latter article suggests) that term is often used for any weak topology, then it probably should really redirect to the latter.

In the latter case, an alternative is to give induced topology its own article explaining how it’s used. But then weak topology is also used in special cases.

Speaking of which, I added a paragraph on the meaning in functional analysis.

]]>It did look ironical. But what with the triple question marks and “Nm”s with which people communicate, it’s perhaps safer to act dumb sometimes. ;-)

]]>