« first day (1622 days earlier)      last day (1781 days later) » 

Mike Miller
Mike Miller
00:37
@AaronMazel-Gee the movie adaptation does a very good job of feeling pynchonesque and reflecting the book given the time constraints; it's worth a watch when you finish the read
it's at the start but i keep the line about 99c-any topping pizza bookmarked for a laugh
Reuben Stern
Reuben Stern
00:57
@AaronMazel-Gee great! I may think some more about this stuff myself, once I finish a painfully-long history paper...let me know if you find anything out about it!
 
2 hours later…
Qiaochu Yuan
Qiaochu Yuan
03:25
hey, random question, i just received an email inviting me to become a reviewer for zentralblatt. anyone have any thoughts about this?
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
03:40
I suppose the paper to review was attached to the email. Or was it just invitation to become reviewer?
 
2 hours later…
Qiaochu Yuan
Qiaochu Yuan
05:44
just an invitation to become a reviewer
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
I just checked also my past email to see whether my recollections are correct.
When I was first contacted by ZBMATh I also got a paper to review and some TeX-files where to fill it in. (And I was asked whether I am willing to write the review.)
It seems that Zentrelblatt has several offices in various countries. I was contacted by Slovak Zentralblatt (Bratislava).
So maybe other offices (or units or whatever is the correct terminology) have different customs.
The main thing I disliked about writing ZBMATH review is that it's done in amstex and it was not clear to me which macros I am allowed to use and which not.
I got also some TeX-files which I was supposed to use whether the file compiles is and is displayed properly. So preamble and all such stuff was already filled in, I was supposed to change only the part with the review.
But I realized that some macros which I saw in other reviews when searching ZBMATH were displayed properly there but did not work with the example files they've sent me.
TL:DR; I found the instruction regarding which (ams)tex macros are allowed a bit confusing.
But again, maybe this will be different for ZB unit that contacted you. (And the fact that there are various ZB unit is probably also explanation why some of them also add a paper when they contact a potential reviewer for the first time. And, obviously, some of them ask first whether you're willing to review for them.)
@QiaochuYuan This is probably clear to you if you are at least a bit familiar with Zentralblatt, but I'll mention this anyway. This is different from the review of a paper when it is submitted for a journal. What is expected from you is to write some short summary which will be then published on zentralblatt website. Similar as MathSciNet/MR.
And also one important difference is that the name of a reviewer is publicly visible.
I have seen some reviews which were very good - sometimes it is obvious that the reviewer has much better insight into the area than the authors and comments from the reviewer might help a lot to get idea what the paper is about and even help when reading the paper. But I have seen also reviews which were more-or-less just copy of the abstract of the paper.
 
6 hours later…
Denis Nardin
Denis Nardin
12:05
@AliCaglayan I mean p-adic integers
 
1 hour later…
Rune Haugseng
Rune Haugseng
13:07
What is the relation between the classical notion of a twisting cochain (between a coass. coalgebra and an ass. algebra) and an ass. algebra in the twisted arrow category of chain complexes (as in Lurie's construction of the bar-cobar adjunction)? They seem tantalizingly close, but don't quite match up...
 
2 hours later…
Justin Noel
Justin Noel
15:01
What is known about F(K(C_p,2)_+, S)? For example, do we know whether or not it is connective?
Reuben Stern
Reuben Stern
15:44
Let O be an operad in a symmetric monoidal category C, and D be a category over O. In what sense can we consider D as a category enriched over some category formed from O? I don't think it's true that D is a category enriched over Alg_O(C).
 
3 hours later…
Tyler Lawson
Tyler Lawson
18:45
@JustinNoel here is what I tried. You can take the bar construction {* <- BC_2 <- B(C_2 x C_2) <- ...} for K(C_2,2), take function spectra out to S, and hit the whole thing with the Segal conjecture. That gives you some kind of cosimplicial diagram whose homotopy is (stable homotopy groups of spheres) tensored with -- up to completion -- the diagram of Burnside rings of the cyclic groups (C_2)^p.
It appears to have a ton of cohomology, but the Segal conjecture is true so I guess all bets are off as to what actually happens
 
3 hours later…
Nicholas Kuhn
Nicholas Kuhn
21:27
Justin: The Spanier-Whitehead dual of K(C_p,2) is a point! This was proved by Chun-Nip Lee (a student of Gunnar Carlsson, now not in academic math): see Thm 2.5 in On Stable Maps From Eilenberg-Maclane Spaces to Classifying Spaces
Chun-Nip Lee American Journal of Mathematics Vol. 114, No. 2 (Apr., 1992), pp. 405-412. One analyzes things the way Tyler suggests, and the calculations mirror the calculations that these same Eilenberg-MacLane spaces are acyclic in K-theory.
 
2 hours later…
user685252
user685252
23:23
@AaronMazel-Gee Thanks for sharing!
yesterday, by Aaron Mazel-Gee
let me use this as a springboard to strongly encourage everyone (who needs to grade things) to use Gradescope: https://gradescope.com/
it's really fantastic. it saves tons of time, the students get a much clearer picture of the rubric and where/why they lost points, you can grade at home in pajamas instead of staying at the department til 1am with your fellow graders...
:-)

« first day (1622 days earlier)      last day (1781 days later) »