« first day (2637 days earlier)      last day (657 days later) » 

4:31 AM
A new tag was created by C.F.G and added to five questions.
Q: Reference request : Study of Differential topology post Milnor's book

user90041I am just about to finish my study of Milnor's book 'Topology from the Differentiable Viewpoint' and I really love the subject. I would like to continue my study of Differential Topology and am looking for some good references. What are the canonical choices of textbooks for this subject ? I am a...

Q: Lemma about Brouwer degree in Milnor's book

Ishan BanerjeeIn Milnor's book "Topology from the Differentiable Viewpoint", He states the following lemma: Let $M, N$ be oriented $n$ manifolds, with $M$ compact and $N$ connected. Let $f : M \to N$ be a smooth map, and $y$ a regular value of $f$. Also, suppose $f$ can be extended to $F : X \to N$ where X is...

Q: Problem in Milnor's proof of h-cobordism theorem

Chi Cheuk TsangMilnor's 'Lectures on h-cobordism theorem' Theorem 7.6 ("Basis Theorem") reads Suppose $(W;V,V')$ is a triad of dimension $n$ (ie. a cobordism $W$ between $V$ and $V'$) possessing a Morse function $f$ with all critical points of index $\lambda$ and on the same level, and let $\xi$ be a gradie...

Q: Problem 5 of Milnor's "Topology From The Differentiable Viewpoint"

user255306I'am trying to come up with a solution to the referred problem which, by the way, states the following: If $m<p$, show that every map $M^m\to S^p$ is homotopic to a constant map. From the chapter, you may (must) assume $M$ is a compact (and, may be, boundaryless) smooth ($=C^\infty$) manifold (...

Q: Unreadable lines of Milnor's book

C.F.GWhat are the (exact sentence of) Unreadable lines of the following images of Milnor's Lecture on h-cobordism theorem? (pages number: 28, 30, 15 respectively)

In this case there are multiple books - but still, those discussions seem related to me.
1 hour later…
6:03 AM
The idea of creating a tag concerning a specific author seem to be even worse then a tag on a specific text. All the objections in the linked meta posts above still applies, and such a tag provides very little information. (Think of a tag about Serge Lang or Bourbaki for example)
2 hours later…
8:20 AM
Since you have mentioned , I'll just mention that there used to be such tag on this site (and there still is such tag on MO).
However, the intention was not that this tag should be about books by Bourbaki, more about Bourbaki-style mathematics.
There was a post in the tag management thread and also some discussion mostly scattered in comments and in this room.
1 hour later…
9:27 AM
I have checked which users were adding the tag. If there were some rather experienced users among them, it might be useful to consult them before removal.
The user Beska has taxonomist badge for this tag. AFAICT hanugm is the only user who added this tag to more than 10 questions.
It was probably created in May 2017.
@Did Since you are among the users who are active in probability-related tags and you were also active in some tag-related discussions on meta, I wanted to make sure that you know about the plans to remove the tag (to be more precise, to merge it into ).
Just in case you have some input on that.
A: Tag management 2019

quidFollowing an earlier discussion I approved a synonym elementary-probability to probability. Likely down the road a merge will happen. The main reasons are: we do not separate tags by level, and in this case there even is probability-theory that is an "advanced" tag so that further separation...

9:53 AM
Only now I noticed that (according to his profile) Did was last seen on Mathematics in February. So the above ping was a bit pointless.
3 hours later…
1:03 PM
Q: The incorrect tag description of [pochhammer-symbol]

BlrpThe tag description: The Pochhammer symbol is the notation used for rising and falling factorials. The $q$-Pochhammer symbol is the $q$-analog. To be a $q$-analog, the $q$-Pochhammer symbol must equal the original expression (rising or falling factorial) as $q \rightarrow 1$ (or at least $q...


« first day (2637 days earlier)      last day (657 days later) »