The discussion highlights the absence of a dedicated forum section for specific math textbooks, despite previous mentions of such a feature. Participants express a desire for sections that focus on specific questions about individual textbooks, rather than general discussions about their merits. The idea is that these sections could serve as a practical alternative to collaborative study groups that often fail to materialize. There is also a consideration of the administrative challenges involved in creating these sections within the forum software. Overall, the consensus suggests that having dedicated spaces for textbook discussions could enhance user engagement and utility.
I recall posts in the math section that indicated that there was some some section of the forum devoted discussions of specific textbooks. This morning, I don't see any convenient way to navigate to such a section. Is there one?
With the disclaimer that I myself have no plans to work my way through any of the famous math textbooks, I'll make the following observation. It would be nice to have sections devoted to specific questions about specific textbooks (as opposed to discussions about the general merits of the book). Periodically, one sees threads on math forums with the theme "Anybody interested in forming a group to work our way through [famous book name]?". I don't recall examples where such groups materialized - at least within math forums. A section devoted to a specific book wouldn't exactly be a collaborative group, but I think it would be the best practical imitation of such a group. (Perhaps other science forums have sections devoted to particular books. Do they?)
One can argue that any specific question about material in a textbook can be answered from a broader perspective of general knowledge about the subject and that this broader perspective is the "best" answer. (Nothing practical can be decided without considering Philosophy and that's one philosophical point of view.) But just from the point of view of having a popular forum, I speculate that sections for discussing the specifics of particular books would be useful. (I don't mean than a book section should be created on every request by users. The moderators will know the books that are most often mentioned.)
I don't know how forum software works, but I imagine that creating sections for each particular book would be an administrative headache. So perhaps the place to start is in requesting features that would make the task easier from the company that writes the forum software.
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia.
Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now.
Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over.
Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one).
Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text.
Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures.
Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...