« first day (1623 days earlier)      last day (2344 days later) » 

user131753
8:16 AM
@ToddTrimble: Very recently, I came to know about this ncatlab article on algebraically closed fields and there has been some confusion regarding how to interpret the article. Would you mind to take a look here and let us know if we were missing something?
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
11:40 AM
@user170039 Thanks for bringing this to my attention, but I think you must have been looking at some nLab page other than the one you pointed me too, because I'm not seeing those statements. BTW, for anyone who spots an error, the optimal thing to do is to go to the nForum (alas, one has to register, but that takes mere seconds IIRC) and bring it up there. We are eager to correct errors.
 
user131753
12:26 PM
@ToddTrimble: I see. Thanks for the response.
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
12:53 PM
@user170039 Actually, I did now see where there was a mis-statement (apparently not due to me, but not that matters much) in the description of the theory ACF, which I've corrected. Maybe you and your interlocutor can take a look and see whether it seems okay now.
But may I say that I really think your interlocutor is overreacting. It would be better to give the benefit of the doubt that nLab authors are not completely incompetent, but to treat the matter as a simple easily corrected slip that somehow got in. Akin to telling someone, "your shoelaces are untied", as opposed to "don't you even know how to tie your shoes?".
 
user131753
1:09 PM
@ToddTrimble I think I agree with you mostly. In fact, if you follow my responses closely, you would see that regarding the article, I thought that it is good to "treat the matter as a simple easily corrected slip that somehow got in". However, is it not the case that in the following "where the tuples $\overline{a}$ range over all finite $(n+1)$-tuples of elements with $n \geq 1$ such that $a_n \neq 0$" $n\ge 0$ instead of $n\ge1$?
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
The point of $n \ge 1$ is so that we're discussing non-constant polynomials, $n$ being the degree.
 
user131753
@ToddTrimble: Oh. I see. Extremely sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
And yes, reading the discussion now, your own tone was even-handed. Actually, an even better approach for your correspondent is to go right in and fix mistakes directly, and announce the edit at the nForum. These things should be dealt with calmly and matter-of-fact-ly.
@user170039 Here's a little excerpt that I hope your correspondent will read and take into his or her heart: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/About#what_the_lab_is_not
 
user21820
user21820
1:32 PM
@ToddTrimble: If you read my messages, it stated clearly my purpose:
> My point is not that such webpages are totally useless, but that we cannot take anything at face value.
This is purely a matter of fact.
The only reason I mentioned that example was that someone had gone to that very webpage, assumed it was correct, and posted a question to me asking why C(t) is a model of ACF[0]. I quickly discovered via Google that the nLab article and that person confirmed it was the source of the wrong idea. So that example was not meant to single out nLab.
Moreover, I totally disagree that this is a simple easily corrected slip that somehow got in.
@ToddTrimble In particular, the latest revision is still technically wrong; it should not say "(n+1)-tuples of elements" but rather have quantifiers in the axiom itself. It simply does not make sense to take elements (from where?) to form a first-order theory.
Indeed, the article looks like it does not actually know how to tie its shoes, although it thinks it does...
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
2:10 PM
@user21820 We'll have to agree to disagree about this being a case of a slip. Your technical note is correct (thanks) and I've fixed it. But your last sentence to me is pretty aggressive, don't you think?
In future, please just fix any mistakes you see in the nLab directly (it's a wiki after all) and report your good deed to the nForum.
 
user21820
user21820
@ToddTrimble Hmm you started the shoe tying analogy, don't you think? I didn't say anything against you, so why did you think it was directed at you?
@ToddTrimble I don't like registering for anything, so just too bad about that.
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
@user21820 It looks like it was directed at me since I had made the last edit to which you responded. I don't have more time for this now, but I'll just mention that to edit the nLab wiki doesn't require registration.
 
user21820
user21820
@ToddTrimble I didn't even look to see who was the last editor. Like I said, it was merely an example, not meant to single out any one webpage as compared to others. Anyway I have just looked at the fixed version and it is now much better. I did not know that editing needed registration. I will next time edit out any mistakes I see.
*editing did not need registration.
@ToddTrimble: For some reason, I am unable to edit the page to improve the second paragraph after that. If you agree, please change it to:
> We can additionally specify a characteristic $p$ to obtain $\mathsf{ACF}_p$ by either adding the axioms $\{ 1 \ne 0 , 1+1 \ne 0 , \cdots \}$ to get $\mathsf{ACF}_0$ or adding the axiom $\underbrace{1+\cdots+1}_\text{$p$ terms} = 0$ to get $\mathsf{ACF}_p$ (where $p$ is prime).
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
2:32 PM
@user21820 I agree with that suggested edit. The nLab has had some weird technical (software) issues that may have interfered with your attempt. Users have been advised to clear out their cookies and see if that works...
 
user21820
user21820
@ToddTrimble Thank you. Can you just make that edit for me? I don't want to fight software issues for such a simple thing.
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
Just to clarify (and not to prolong an argument): when I said "last edit", I meant the one I made today in response to this discussion, soon before you sent your technical note. It sounded to me very much like you were suggesting that I still didn't know how to "tie my shoes" so to speak, hence "aggressive". Anyway, let's move on; yes, I'll perform the edit.
 
user21820
user21820
@ToddTrimble Understood. Thanks.
 
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
2:47 PM
In case you're wondering, the \underbrace command in the nLab article didn't work as expected. (Not all LaTeX commands are supported.) But that's a small thing which we'll get sorted out. Thanks again for the constructive comments.
 
user21820
user21820
@ToddTrimble Interesting. Not using the same MathJax library as StackExchange?
 
 
1 hour later…
Todd Trimble
Todd Trimble
4:04 PM
@user21820 Fixed now, using an \underset command. The software requirements are given here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/HomePage#SoftwareRequirements
 
 
2 hours later…
user21820
user21820
6:23 PM
@ToddTrimble Ah I see it's using MathML not MathJax. Thanks!
 
 
5 hours later…
Arrow
Arrow
11:51 PM
Hello,
Forgive the basic question, but do Grothendieck fibrations preserve limits? The fourth property [here on the nlab](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+fibration#properties) seems to imply this: limits upstairs are constructed using limits downstairs and limits in a suitable fiber, and they seem to be preserved by construction...
 

« first day (1623 days earlier)      last day (2344 days later) »