[HN Gopher] The Stacks Project: A Wikipedia of algebraic geometr...
___________________________________________________________________
The Stacks Project: A Wikipedia of algebraic geometry (2022)
Author : gone35
Score : 98 points
Date : 2024-04-13 19:29 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (news.columbia.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.columbia.edu)
| eimrine wrote:
| I would like to see better quality of graph pictures.
| 48864w6ui wrote:
| Why don't you make some?
| barfbagginus wrote:
| What do you mean by better quality of graph pictures? If you're
| talking about 2D string diagrams/box and wiring diagrams/ or
| functorial box/tube diagrams a la Meilles or McCurdy, I agree!
| If there is something else you have in mind, I am curious!
|
| Can you give me some examples of articles we could improve, and
| describe what you'd like to see?
| eimrine wrote:
| For example, I want to see any text on the picture named "An
| alternative visualization of how the Cohen structure theorem
| and related concepts intersect. " Seems it has to be a way to
| see high-res but a click doesn't work.
| defrost wrote:
| Those PNG thumbnails don't have any higher resolution,
| they're literally there as examples of what users of The
| Stacks Project produce as visualisations using the lemma
| tags:
|
| https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tags
|
| So to create your own visual you'd pull the metadata and
| create a graph on concepts that link to (say)
| https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/032A
| ykonstant wrote:
| Better quality than this?! Can you link to a picture you think
| is lacking?
| eimrine wrote:
| https://news.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/styles/cu_crop.
| ..
|
| I do not see a way to observe higher resolution picture of
| this
| jacoblambda wrote:
| Oh those images aren't from the project itself. The news
| article just uses some pictures from some of the blog posts
| that are at a meta level about the project. From a reverse
| image search that specific image can be found on this post:
|
| https://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Edejong/wordpress/?m=201204
|
| Specifically this image I believe:
|
| https://www.math.columbia.edu/~dejong/wordpress/wp-
| content/u...
|
| The other images seem to be from the project author's home
| page:
|
| https://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Edejong/
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _The Stacks Project, a new model for organizing and visualizing
| mathematics_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30222302 -
| Feb 2022 (24 comments)
|
| _Stacks project hits 5000 pages_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11054837 - Feb 2016 (1
| comment)
| jessriedel wrote:
| > And it's de Jong's exacting standards that also set the Stacks
| Project apart from other crowdsourced publications on the web.
| "Johan gets very mad when I call it Stackopedia," said Kedlaya.
| "He reads every line that goes in."
|
| > The one-editor model allows the Stacks Project to maintain one
| voice and a high level of quality control. But unlike the peer-
| reviewed literature that it attempts to corral into one place,
| the Stacks Project is designed to evolve. Long after de Jong is
| gone, this accumulation of knowledge will continue to grow.
|
| Is there any path to this scaling beyond one contributor? It
| sounds like after de Jong stops contributing it will just become
| frozen.
| ccppurcell wrote:
| OEIS is perhaps the best model. I'm not sure if Neil Sloane
| looks at every sequence that goes in but he approved my
| entries. It's now in a trust and will definitely continue once
| he stops contributing.
| jessriedel wrote:
| Are there any specific lessons you think would apply to a
| collaborative encyclopedias of scientific topics? It seems to
| me that OEIS can only scale because it enjoys some of the
| same advantages as Wikipedia: the individual articles are
| highly compartmentalized (non-leaky abstractions), and there
| is very little need for adjudication of technical disputes.
| These would not apply to Stack Project or other comprehensive
| technical encyclopedias.
| nyc111 wrote:
| The title says "A wikipedia of algebraic geometry" but the site
| is organized more like a book not like Wikipedia. Do we know what
| publishing platform he is using?
| nyc111 wrote:
| "As we build theory we adhere to the following basic rules: [...]
| (5) every statement explicitly states all of its assumptions..."
|
| This is great, but is it possible?
| pfortuny wrote:
| Yes, through nomenclature. Algebraic geometry has a lot of
| terms. Almost anything having two properties gets a name.
| ykonstant wrote:
| My favorite example of mathematical typesetting on the web. I
| sent them some emails asking for directions to mimic their design
| for my personal webpage, but did not get any replies. My crude
| attempt at web mathematics in that style is here:
| https://ykonstant1.github.io/power-draft.html
|
| But I would love if they made a tutorial or blog post describing
| in simple terms how to get a design like that going; many many
| professors could incorporate that and make mathematical resources
| much easier to access for students. I always have an online Class
| Diary for my classes, and my students would love to have rendered
| equations directly in the webpage.
| bonefolder wrote:
| Stacks project is available on github, so in theory (if you're
| bored enough) it should be possible to reverse engineer their
| design from their make-project file
| https://github.com/stacks/stacks-project/blob/master/documen...
|
| At a high level they use plastex
| https://github.com/plastex/plastex to convert latex to html
| (you seem to be using pandoc?) and so can control the rendering
| to any fine accuracy they want. I liked this general style as
| well, so I tried using plastex but couldn't get my head around
| it and so started using LateXML
| https://github.com/brucemiller/LaTeXML
|
| My usecase: I wanted to have a "dependency graph" of lemmas to
| make it easier to see proofs without having to jump back and
| forth through a pdf, and this was sort of similar to lean
| formalization blueprint graphs
| https://teorth.github.io/pfr/blueprint/dep_graph_document.ht...
| (which also uses plastex) but without the lean parts. There's
| still a lot of work to be done, but I think I have a pretty
| okay implementation using latexml which meets 50% of my
| requirements for now, so I'm happyish
| https://texviz.arsricharan.in/ghrss24/
| librasteve wrote:
| i wonder if you can train an ai on this?
| hzay wrote:
| Does anyone know if there's something similar for plain old
| geometry? I need some proofs beyond basic ones (for ex, I need to
| know how to find out intersection points of 2 rotated ellipses on
| Cartesian space).
| generationP wrote:
| The Stacks project is meant to be a comprehensive Bourbaki-style
| textbook, not an encyclopedic survey, so the Wikipedia comparison
| is a miss. (The WP has a textbook level of detail on some topics,
| with proofs and examples, but these are few and far between and
| come from enthusiastic editors going above and beyond the WP's
| declared goals.)
|
| Stacks is _not_ finished, however -- still a lot of "Proof.
| Omitted.". From what I understand, the goal is to fill them all
| in (otherwise there would be references to the literature in
| their stead), but ultimately it is still mostly a one-person
| project (see https://github.com/stacks/stacks-
| project/graphs/contributors ).
|
| I once filled in one of those missing proofs, only to see Johan
| replace it by a much better one that I would never have thought
| of. And this was (for him) a technical lemma, not one of the
| crown jewels of the project. His dedication to the project is
| truly incomparable to anything except Bourbaki and Serre. And the
| usefulness of the work extends far beyond algebraic stacks, just
| like Bourbaki is much more than a textbook on Lie algebras.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-14 23:02 UTC)