Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Insights Mathematical Quantum Field Theory - Geometry - Comments

  1. Nov 26, 2017 #21
    PDF conversion won't work because it won't render the latex. I'll have to find a friendly print option.
     
  2. Nov 27, 2017 #22

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    This brings up again my older suggestion to allow also to reach in Insight articles as pdf. Then the author can choose his or her preferred way of writing (LaTeX or even, horribile dictu, Word & Co) and provide a well readable and printable pdf. In the best of all worlds one should have both the pdf and the html version.

    I think a way to provide the latter, using LaTeX should be the following: One types LaTeX and at the end translates via query replace to the format (I still don't know what it is, mathjax, WordPress, or something else?) of the Insights editor. The only quibble is that one has to provide also a list of private macro definitions used in the LaTeX. So it's perhaps a bit of cumbersome work to get the final Insights html version to look right.
     
  3. Nov 27, 2017 #23
    I fully agree with the suggestion by vanhees71. It would be very nice if at least some of the Insight articles could be read as pdf, at least the ones containing many equations.
     
  4. Nov 27, 2017 #24
    This is not easily possible as the latex is rendered by the web browser
     
  5. Nov 27, 2017 #25

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    At the very least, I know how to produce a readable single-file pdf from my source, formatted as web-display, but readable. I'll provide that when the series is finished.

    But I am also in contact with people who think about looking into proper LaTeX conversion of my source. With a little luck, this will work out.
     
  6. Nov 27, 2017 #26
    I am far from an experienced senior like you guys, but wouldn't it be a good idea to put these articles on the arXiv and link to them?

    I don't think that means downplaying PhysicsForums; on the contrary if the article's headers clearly mention the link to PF I think it could be great publicity for the forum.
     
  7. Nov 27, 2017 #27

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That might be an idea. But if the goal is to make publicity for PF, maybe that would better be served if PF is the exclusive host of this material?
     
  8. Nov 27, 2017 #28

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I agree. Your work is to the benefit of this heterogenous community and we should keep it here. I see arxiv as a repository for research paper drafts. Your notes are singular (in the sense that the material in them is nowhere else to be seen), so this part of research work is retained, but, unless you plan to sell this material to Springer Verlag, we would like to have it here. Indeed, a pdf with active links to your encyclopedic website would be ideal, as it would offer immediate, unlimited offline access to the contents. I told you, I plan to print them, study them and store them in my physical library alongside other teasures.
     
  9. Nov 27, 2017 #29
    Obviously we cherish our Insight authors and their unique contributions to our community. But just to be clear, our authorship guidelines do grant authors the freedom to publish elsewhere after publishing on PF. :smile:
     
  10. Nov 28, 2017 #30
    Below definition 1.6 (bundles) it shows: [tex] fb_2 \circ f = fb_2 [/tex] and it should be [tex] fb_2 \circ f = fb_1[/tex]

    Also in definition 1.7 (sections) it shows: [tex]fb \circ f = id_X[/tex] and it should be [tex]fb \circ s = id_X[/tex]
     
  11. Nov 28, 2017 #31

    Urs Schreiber

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks! Fixed now.
     
  12. Nov 28, 2017 #32
    By the way Urs, I am just starting to review this fantastic series of yours on mathematically rigorous Relativistic Perturbative Quantum Field Theory, and I think it is one of the best things that has happened on physicsforums in a long time, so thank you dearly for that! ( and keep them coming! )
     
  13. Nov 28, 2017 #33

    strangerep

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Heh, great to hear. Maybe one day you can explain it in simpler terms to the rest of us rubes. :confused:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted