# The Mathematician’s Homepage — can it be more?

Yesterday I went on a rant about Keith Devlin’s homepage and twitter. That was, like all rants, a little unfair on him. I guess idols are always more disappointing. However, although the rant was triggered by that one tweet it had been building up over the last week because I was writing a longer piece for various reasons. So here it is.

I’m enamoured with mathematical blogs. Ever since we started mathblogging.org, I browse through a lot of blog posts each day and I’m thrilled: the creativity and quality of their content is simply amazing, every day.

## Old-school is just old

And yet, hardly any mathematician I personally know keeps a blog. But almost all of them keep a homepage. And usually it is abysmal.

You probably know what I’m talking about. All those handwritten html pages from the late 90s using all sorts of html-evils that have long been discarded (tables, frames, puffy cloud mosaic gif backgrounds).

If you’re lucky, the homepage will have a cv, some self archived papers (ranked by vanity impact factor of the journals) and possibly teaching material, if you’re unlucky, papers are posted as an impossible to compile TeX variant and not stored on the arXiv (“’cause it’s too hard…”). If you’re really out of luck, you’ll find bizarre personal interests, genealogies, baby pictures and breakfast habits.

Of course, you can get away with almost anything if your content is fantastic (cf. Doron Zeilberger). But most people’s websites are a complete waste and an insult to anyone visiting them.

Why such harsh words?

An elementary web design paradigm says there are only two scenarios: either you want to reach your visitor or your visitor wants to reach you. If a page is designed under the first scenario, it must draw the visitor in, usually with clear, simple design that immediately conveys to the visitor why they should spend more time on your page. Under the second scenario your visitor wants something from you. Then, and only then, can you ask them to ‘work harder’, jump through some menus, wade through long content etc.

So the criticism is simple: these old-school homepages follow the second scenario where they should follow the first. And this is, whether intentional or not, an unnecessary insult.

## The true social network is the www

Ever since I read this quote (I think it was on netzpiloten.de but had no luck googling…), I cannot get it out of my head:

“The true social network is the world wide web.”

What a statement! Read it again.

“The true social network is the world wide web.”

I cannot get enough of it. One more time.

“The true social network is the world wide web.”

The thing is, I truly believe this.

Instead of centralized, company controlled social network we need to take charge of our online identities and set up our personal websites to serve as a hub for our exchanges with other people, online and offline. That way, we are in full control of what we share with whom and for how long.

I’m intentionally phrasing this very abstractly because there is neither a simple nor a permanent solution. Whatever technology can be used for this right now, it will most likely be obsolete in 5 years. But one thing is clear: we need more advanced tools than mere handwritten html (unless you are an hmtl5 wizard).

## Technology independence

The best reason for switching from some external social network to your own page running a modern web technology is independence. You’re in full control of your data, you’re in full control of your technology. Whatever technology you choose, you’ll never have to be locked in again. Given an open source technology you can upgrade to whatever, whenever — no more begging some company to implement a feature. You find a better technology, you switch; no harm done.

Take me as an example. I started with a shitty html website on my university user page, ripping off a senior colleague’s page, replacing his name, office etc. with mine. After a while I added a simple oddmuse wiki on the side for teaching and organizing research notes. After a while, I started a blog on blogspot.com using tex4ht to create mathml-driven posts. After a while blogspot didn’t cut it anymore (MathJax came out but its cdn didn’t exist), I switched to a “static blog generator”, jekyll, and MathJax, hosted on my personal domain. After a while I changed the server from a regular web host to Google’s app engine (for convenience and speed). And soon I’ll be switching to wordpress the server will then be using BitNami on Amazon’s web service.

As harsh as I put it above, I actually think the authors of most handwritten html pages feel the same way about technology lock-ins as I do. It’s only that they’re experiencing a completely different kind of lock-in: laziness. It can be hard to switch to something new. I can almost hear them… “I can control everything through my beloved vim/emacs”. It is a lot like saying: I can typeset my mathematics so beautifully using movable types in my garage, why would I use a computer system like TeX…

In other words technology independence also requires a conviction to improve and change the technology. This might, in fact, be the bigger problem.

## The scientific “community”

The reason to switch is easy: Scientists and especially mathematicians stand to gain incredibly from a modern homepage with modern web technology because it has reached a level that enables us to make the “scientific community” a (virtual) reality.

The term “community” always struck me as inappropriate. The closest I ever felt to being part of a community was as a student in the early years of getting my Diplom. I was part of a cohort of fellow students, meeting many times a week, exchanging ideas, working on problems, helping each other out scientifically and also spending quality social time together.

The classical German PhD model I suffered through is the opposite, really. It was following the master/disciple model, in effect isolating a PhD candidate from almost everyone outside their work group. Creating and investing in a community was essentially discouraged. For example, I remember the opposition we encountered when we started a What-is-Seminar in Berlin; professors either ridiculed or directly opposed the idea of a grad-student-only seminar aimed at building a better community among PhD students across research areas. Well, the seminar is still going strong even after the original organizers left Berlin.

The point is: the scientific community is not anywhere near to being a reality. Beyond the dominant “community” that are personal friendships and collaborations, it is a weird combination of short visits (say, to give a talk at a seminar), conferences and a dysfunctional publish-or-perish system.

In short, scientific-social connections are not transparent, difficult to keep running and depend on pedigree more than shared interests. There is no such thing as a real community because people are, in general, not connected to each other. Communication among researchers, the quintessential part of community is severely lacking.

## Making scientific community a reality

The web, on the other hand, is the perfect tool to communicate and connect. Using modern web technology you can keep track of content, activities, meet up for text, audio and video interaction. You can communicate any level of research activity, from teaching to schedules to explanatory text to collaborations to real time interaction. Any variant, any speed any combination.

The web is the true social network since it allows but never forces you to be connected, and the immersion into the social interaction can be varied to any degree you feel comfortable. The technology for this is freely available (free as in freedom) and it only keeps getting better and better.

What is lacking is only the number of researchers taking the web seriously, taking themselves on the web seriously.

The advantage for mathematicians lies in the much higher potential compared to the natural sciences. Due to the abstract nature and the mostly text driven research, mathematicians have been using the net to for as long as it exists. From mailing lists to arXiv.org from Mathscinet to Mathoverflow, the net is not only an essential but, more importantly, an established tool. And yet, the developments of the last decade seem not to have caught on; blogging, video sharing, social networks and microblogging are used by very few researchers in their research related activities.

## The potential of WordPress

The question becomes: How can we convince a significant amount of researchers to take their online identity into their more active hands? For this we need a technology that is reliable, simple to set up and customize. Right now, I think content management systems are the best technology available; and my favorite is WordPress.

WordPress is usually not considered a CMS, but a blogging engine. Yet, it has developed into a versatile tool that can take things far beyond mere text publication. It’s power is its open source nature and the simplicity of extending it via plugins — of which there are a countless number. On top of that, there is the WordPress For Scientists group that focuses on researcher relevant developments.

The reason to prefer a blogging engine is simple: everybody supports trackbacks. Trackbacks are a very old feature amongst blogging engines. The basic idea is as follows: if you’re writing a blog post and somebody else picks up the topic and writes about it, it would be nice for you to know about this, to know that you have, in effect, inspired somebody to be creative. Since the second author will usually link to your post when picking it up, the blogging engines developed trackbacks as a way to exchange this information automatically. That is, the first blog would be informed automatically via the webserver of the second blog’s trackback mechanism that a certain post was picked up by somebody else.

For a scientist, this is, of course all too familiar, since the today’s publication metrics feature citation indices heavily. Of course, the average number of readers of a scientific paper is 5 (and the median is 1) and those readers will most likely not cite the paper.

But this low number does not mean much in terms of the scientific community. Often reading a paper will lead to a conversation with other researchers, most likely a short talk in your local seminar and definitely some rewriting on the reader’s part; so the reach is much higher. And yet, this information is neither available nor considered significant at all, even though it is a much bigger part of “doing research”.

After all, research is about failing. We read a paper, we rewrite it to make it understandable, we try to apply what we learn from it to other problems. And almost all the time, nothing comes from it. This failure has no place in our shiny-new-results journal tradition (please don’t think I don’t know that there are historic reasons for the current system. I do know; it just does not make it less bad now).

So, as a researcher, I dream of an online community that allows me to collect all interactions with my research: reading, criticizing, bashing, ranting, re-writing, improving, destroying. And a community that values my own activities.

## Are we there yet?

Coming back to WordPress and trackbacks, their potential becomes clear: making use of trackbacks and other linkback technologies could be the key for scientific communication online. Yes, there isn’t yet a perfect technical solution, yes it requires an effort on.

But if we started to use wordpress and regular trackbacks to publish our research activities right now, we all could already gain a huge part of the kind of information we keep wasting in the current system. We could get a chance to learn, improve, defend, humble or enjoy our own research together with everybody else. As a community. Finally.

| |

# Preprint ‘On strongly summable ultrafilters’

I have just uploaded a preprint titled On strongly summable ultrafilters to the arXiv. Let me give a short account of what it’s about.

In the preprint I extend a theorem orginally due to Neil Hindman and Dona Strauss. The theorem shows that certain ultrafilters can only be written as sums in the (so-called) trivial fashion. On the one hand, this property is quite unique and I find it algebraically fascinating. On the other, the existence of the ultrafilters in question is independent of ZFC, so set theoretic interests are immediate. Let’s start with the ultrafilters.

## Strongly summable ultrafilters

Among the idempotent ultrafilters on $\mathbb{N}$ a certain type is quite special. To define it, we only need to know what an FS-set is.

For a sequence $\mathbf{x}$ in $\mathbb{N}$, the set of all (distinct) finite sums is
${FS}( \mathbf{x}) = \{ \sum_{i \in s} x_i : \emptyset \neq s \subseteq_f \omega \}$
Then $p\in \beta \mathbb{N}$ is called strongly summable if it has a base of FS-sets.

By the Galvin-Glazer Theorem, any set in an idempotent ultrafilter contains an FS-set. The difference to arbitrary idempotent ultrafilters is that strongly summables have such a set in the ultrafilter itself! So in measure theoretic terms, not only does every measure 1 set contain an FS-set, but one of measure 1. As a comparison, the very important minimal idempotents can never be strongly summable; in fact strongly summable ultrafilters are at the other end of the spectrum — they are what is called strongly right maximal idempotents.

In other words, what selective ultrafilters are for Ramsey’s Theorem, strongly summable ultrafilters are for Hindman’s Theorem. Unlike idempotent ultrafilters strongly summable ultrafilters might not exist, since their existence implies the existence of P-points in $\beta \mathbb{N}$. But under rather weak assumptions (like CH or weak forms of Martin’s Axiom) they do exist.

## Union Ultrafilters

There is an equivalent notion, union ultrafilters, see here. In the preprint, as always, it’s hard to speak about the one without the other.

Denote the non-empty, finite subsets of $\omega$ by $\mathbb{F}$ (with semigroup operation $\cup$). In what follows a sequence $\mathbf{s}$ in $\mathbb{F}$ is always assumed to have pairwise disjoint elements.
The FU-set (generated by $\mathbf{s}$) is the set of all finite unions, i.e.,
${FU(} \mathbf{s} ) := \{ \bigcup_{ i \in v} s_i : v \in \mathbb{F} \}.$
A union ultrafilter on $\mathbb{F}$ is an ultrafilter with a base of FU-sets.

### Trivial sums

As mentioned, the main result in the preprint is about writing ultrafilters as sums. Any idempotent ultrafilter can be written as a sum in many ways, most trivially as $p+ p = p$. However, since $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is a left ideal in $\beta \mathbb{Z}$, there is another way by means of integers.

If $p \in \beta \mathbb{N}$ is idempotent and $z \in \mathbb{Z}$, then
$(p+z) + (p-z) = p + p + z – z = p.$
This is simply due to the fact that the integers still commute with everything in $\beta \mathbb{Z}$.

Let’s say that an (idempotent) ultrafilter $p$ has the trivial sums property if this is the only way to write is as a sum, i.e.,
$(\forall q,r\in \beta \mathbb{N}) q+r = p \Rightarrow (\exists z \in \mathbb{Z}) q= p+z, r = p -z.$

This property fascinates me for many reasons. One easy but equally fascinating consequence is that the maximal group of such an idempotent $p$, i.e., the maximal subgroup of $\beta \mathbb{N}$ with identity $p$ (which is the same as the union of all such subgroups), is just $p + \mathbb{Z}$. This is fascinating since it is the minimal case — the famous Theorem by Yevhen Zelenyuk showed that there are no finite subgroups in $\beta \mathbb{N}$.

In contrast, minimal idempotent ultrafilters have huge maximal groups. In fact, those always include a copy of the free group on $2^{2^\omega}$-many generators! That is mind-bogglingly big, so in comparison the integers are really very minimal. And on top of everything it is also open whether any ultrafilters with a maximal group isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ exist in ZFC

### Using union ultrafilters

I gave a simplified version of the main theorem here. For this consider the very natural map $f: \mathbb{F} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}, s \mapsto \sum_{i \in s} 2^i$.

Theorem If $u$ is a union ultrafilter, then $f(u)$ has the trivial sums property.

In fact, the theorem in the preprint does a bit more. You see, such an $f(u)$ contains $FS ( \mathbf{x} )$ for a sequence $\mathbf{x}$ with disjoint binary support — simply because that’s what happens to pairwise disjoint sets under $f$.

Now if you take any other divisible sequence $\mathbf{a}$, i.e., with $a_n | a_{n+1}$ for all $n$ (and assume for convenience that $a_0 = 1$), then just as in the binary situation, we have a unique representation for every natural number by means of $\mathbf{a}$.

Then we can formulate the full theorem from the preprint.

Theorem If $p$ is strongly summable and contains an FS-set for a sequence with disjoint support in the $\mathbf{a}$-representation, then $p$ has the trivial sums property.

The original theorem by Neil Hindman and Dona Strauss (also to be found in their book, chapter 12) showed that the trivial sums property holds for strongly summable ultrafilters with special properties. These included the restriction that the strongly summable ultrafilters must have a base of FS-sets coming from divisible sequences. In particular, these strongly summables will contain the FS-set for a sequence with disjoint support for a divisible sequence (just for the sequence itself), i.e., the result in the preprint entails the original result.

To see that it is a little bit more general, you need to know another concept, additive isomorphism. To keep it short, let’s just state it for strongly summable ultrafilters.

Two strongly summable ultrafilters $p_0, p_1$ are additively isomorphic if there are ${FS(} \mathbf{x} ) \in p_0$, ${FS(} \mathbf{y} ) \in p_1$, such that the map $\sum_{i\in s} x_i \mapsto \sum_{i \in s} y_i$ is well defined and maps $p_0$ to $p_1$ (so in particular, $p_0 \cong p_1$ in the usual sense).

In their original paper, Neil Hindman and Dona Strauss give a beautiful example of a strongly summable ultrafilter that does not concentrate on FS-sets from divisible sequences (this is done using unordered union ultrafilters) — and no additively isomorphic copy does. However, every strongly summable is additively isomorphic to one as in the result from the preprint. Hence the result is a little bit stronger.

(Un)fortunately, the trivial sums property is not transferred via an additive isomorphism, so one open question is whether all strongly summable ultrafilters have it. Although I included some evidence in the preprint towards believing that all strongly summables have it, I hope that it is not the case, simply because I hope that a counterexample would be a new kind of strongly summable ultrafilter. Of course, the big question is whether any other idempotents have this property! In particular, if there might exist such examples in ZFC.

The proof in the preprint follows the same strategy as the proof of the original theorem by Neil Hindman and Dona Strauss. So the main task (or rather the initial observation that got me thinking about their proof again) was to overcome some of the restrictions on the strongly summable ultrafilters. Besides the ones already mentioned, there was another technical condition in the original result, a strange combinatorial property which I prefer to think about in terms of union ultrafilters.

An ultrafilter $u$ on $\mathbb{F}$ is special if for every infinite $L\subseteq \omega$ there exists $X \in u$ such that $L \setminus \bigcup X$ is infinite.

In other words, $u$ is able to ‘miss’ any infinite set by a large amount. The counterpart for strongly summable ultrafilters (which was already considered by Hindman and Strauss) is more complicated to write down, but suffice it to say that the two are equivalent. The key is that for union ultrafilters this property is not special at all.

Theorem Every union ultrafilter is special.

The proof is not very complicated, it involves a standard parity argument that often appears when arguing with union ultrafilters (and then you just have to look carefully to see that you’re done).

But now this strange and difficult extra condition from the original result by Neil Hindman and Dona Strauss is suddenly available for free.

The final result is derived in essentially two steps. There is a bit of technicality involved, but I think nothing really complicated (to read).

Fixing some divisible sequence $\mathbf{a}$, let’s call the support of a number in the representation via $\mathbf{a}$ the $\mathbf{a}$-support. Then it roughly proceeds as follows.

• Show trivial sums for the ultrafilters that contain the set of multiples for each member of $\mathbf{a}$.
• This essentially reflects from a simple observation: if two elements with $\mathbf{a}$-support sufficiently far apart have their sum in an FS-set with disjoint $\mathbf{a}$-support, then they must both be in the FS-set already.
• Finally show that any sum equal to the strongly summable is essentially only possible by integer translates of ultrafilters that contain these sets of multiples.

In this tricky final part the specialness condition comes into play. It is used to create an FS-set that has a lot of ‘holes’ in the $\mathbf{a}$-support. This makes it impossible for a single number to translate infinitely many numbers into that FS-set (as happens in a sum of ultrafilters all the time) simply because you would need too much ‘carrying over’ when translating/adding.

Well, of course that’s only a vague description of the proof, but the preprint should have enough details.

## Questions

The most important questions I have already asked. Does every strongly summable have the trivial sums property and are their other ultrafilters with it, maybe even in ZFC? A result by Neil Hindman and Dona Strauss shows that all strongly summable ultrafilters have a maximal group isomorphic to the integers. It is still unkown if any other ultrafilters carry this property. So I think there is still a lot to be learned about this property.

# Tools for your online collaboration

So the winter school in Hejnice ended two weeks ago is long past — and despite my intentions I did not find the time to blog. This is primarily a sign of the quality of the winter school, both scientifically and socially. I do admit I spent the lunch breaks walking in the beautiful surrounding mountains instead of blogging…

Anyway, on the last evening of the winter school a couple of people gathered together to exchange tools for collaborating via the intertubes. I volunteered — also with the upcoming third Young Set Theorists meeting in mind — to make the discussion available online. Of course, the title refers to this wonderful paper by Goldstern and Judah which taught me the little bit of iterated forcing that I know.

For now I will restrict myself to freemium services. Of course, this is an open list — drop me a comment to add to this list (hm, a google wave would be better, right?).

Phones

A much better tool than a phone is? A videophone! (especially for handwaving arguments). Namely, skype comes to mind, but there are alternatives like tokbox or google talk which are web based. With possibly lower video quality they offer other useful things like actual video conferences (whereas skype restricts you afaik to 1-1 video calls) and invitation by link. There are also numerous true VoIP/SIP clients like Ekiga. But they may have the need for some firewall configuring. For more general information, check out wikipedia.

Whiteboards

But what good is a (video)phone if you cannot write on a blackboard together? In any serious mathematical discussion, notation will become an issue sooner or later. A simple, but bandwidth friendly and flash based whiteboard is scriblink — just go to the site and give your partner the invitation link. An alternative is dabbleboard which offers some shape recognition and also allows multiple pages in the free version and — most importantly — PDFs as background images. However, it is a little heavy on the bandwidth, especially latency which often annoys my voip connection.

Of course, if you want to use an online whiteboard efficiently you need some kind of tablet to write with. I personally have been very happy with a graphics tablet, a Wacom Bamboo to be exact. You can get tablets for 40€ and lower in Germany, but prices will differ regionally. Of course, I also use my Gigabyte M1028T tablet pc — although its tablet functionality is basic (no pressure sensitivity, only moving by clicking) making writing with it less suitable for real note taking — see the PDF section below.

Instant Chat, Online Docs and Google Wave

Personally, I have not used instant messaging for mathematics so far — video phones seem better. However, Pidgin has a LaTeX plugin to display basic TeX code. This is of course a useful feature. I’ll come back to the general problem of displaying mathematics on the web later.

I feel I must also mention Google Wave and its competitors. These are powerful tool mixing mail, chat, wikis and collaborative document editing. I have not tried any of these yet but if there’s someone to collaborate with it’s worth a try.

PDFs I — what you can do with them

PDFs is the somewhat dominant standard for (compiled) TeX documents (sorry, dvi and ps fans). Besides the next section there is another aspect which makes them worthwhile — PDF annotation. If you are like me and like to take your notes with you (for all those typos and indices that drive you mad in some papers) there is nothing better than annotating a PDF directly — especially if you invested in a (graphics) tablet.

My favourite is the open source Xournal with excellent tablet support on both linux and windows. Alternatives are Jarnal (which also works as real time whiteboard) and (for Mac users) Skim.

Although it does not quite fit in here (or anywhere): if you feel that PDFs are inadequate to present mathematics, why don’t you take a look at prezi? It offers a different angle on presentations altogether. I sometimes dream of having a prezi like ability to zoom into papers or rather proofs giving me details where I want them and letting me quickly browse through the main ideas dynamically whenever I choose to…

PDFs II — Personal online libraries

It is convenient to store papers and other materials online. If you cannot set up a decent sftp or a version control system on your university’s server, you might want to try dropbox or teamdrive. If you frequently use public computers you might want to use something more web based like google documents or the very pretty isssu that I use from time to time on this blog.

Community Sites

Of course, all science is community driven but I think (pure) mathematics could profit more from an online community than any other science or (liberal) art. The biggest player is certainly facebook — which already has a group for, of course, the winterschool itself. Facebook attracts academia (as opposed to myspace), hence it is the more obvious place to connect — this does not mean that you shouldn’t worry about its privacy settings or rather the partial lack thereof.

On the other hand, there are a couple of science focused community sites, among them researchgate which offer science specific tools like (p)reprint lists, online references, database searches etc. This might be better for purely professional intent but I have no experience using it.

A young and incredibly successful new site is mathoverflow — a mathematical version of the great stackoverflow. You can ask and answer questions of all sorts in a very efficient manner — just don’t get lost in all the fun.

Databases

Of course the mother of all things is the arXiv — do I need to explain it? And then there are Google’s products scholar and book search. A somewhat different database is gigapedia where you can easily search for books and find free ones. In all things beware of legal issues though.

LaTeX or displaying mathematics on the web

Of course mathematicians are used to LaTeX. On the web the best way for displaying mathematics is (from a web standards point of view) mathml. The problem is that mathml is a) too difficult to write as code directly, b) difficult to view since not all browsers view them correctly and from a visually impaired point of view it seems to be a disaster, too (see the discussion on Terry Tao’s blog) and c) it is difficult to convert back to LaTeX.

There are numerous workarounds. On the one hand you can (as I do) use tex4ht to convert LaTeX to mathml. Of course, as my blog shows this is a rather tedious thing if you do not have (or want to have) control over the webserver. Alternatives are jsMath which might be superseded by mathjax. If you have a wordpress blog you can (even on your free account on wordpress.com) use this plugin — which converts basic LaTeX commands into (rather ugly) PNGs.

The winner for best practices with mathml, I think, is the n-Category Cafe. Besides being a very active group blog they have developed impressive technologies such as mathml inclusion, the LaTeX dialect itex, the itex capable instiki with itex2mml to convert tex to mathml on the fly and all of this available in the comments, too.

Blogs, blogs, blogs

Almost last but in no way least, there are blogs.  This would be worth an independent post and there are plenty of examples for this, but here we go.

They come in all colours, for an impressive list go here. Also, go to any of those blogs and check their blogroll to find many more mathematics blogs. If you don’t understand what blogs are good for you might read John Baez’s article. To name a few contenders for ‘most influential mathematical blogs’: What’s new with Terence Tao, the most active single user blog I know, Timothy Gowers’s Weblog and Gil Kallai’s Combinatorics and more.

Of course, they are the ones that got me started with reading math blogs, but it’s the small blogs that got me hooked. The diversity is a challenge (I don’t understand half of what I read) but blogs form the best mathematics newspaper out there.

Polymath

At the moment the most hardcore project when it comes to online collaboration is clearly Polymath. With one paper on the arxiv, two projects finished and three projects going it is the perfect show case. Driven by the “big three” — Tao, Gowers, Kallai — one may argue that their power makes sure that it works (and is protected from theft). Polymath is an exemplary web project. It follows Jeff Jarvis’s rule and shows the synergetic behaviour of web projects — using multiple technologies at once: there’s the blog for the main discussion, but also the authors individual blogs used partly to organize. Finally there’s the wiki for fixing proper definitions and notational issues and finally they frequenly use mathoverflow to recruit new people by e.g. singling out distinct partial or dervitative questions.

But I believe it shows a glimpse of the future of mathematics. On the one hand, many problems have become too complex to be tackled by a single person or research group. On the other hand, although the techology might change considerably in the future, the idea of having researchers on all levels collaborate — with every contribution being valued — could be a prototype that values many soft skills, be it good writing, accessible presentation, social skills for bringing conversations to converge productively, taking a bird’s view of the process to assist or acquiring empirical experimentation and implementation. It is also a very flexible approach where people can help as much or as little as they find the time for while (with proper support like Gower’s current EDP posts) still being able to follow the flow and ideally being able to change their level of involvement as they please.\

That’s all for now. Let me know what I forgot.

2010-02-15

Unicode characters

There was also a question regarding unicode characters and the like (instead of mathml). I just found this chart via mathoverflow — maybe it helps.

2010-02-17

Feeds in either Real simple syndication (RSS) or Atom from are worth mentioning on its own. As a tool for 1-to-infinity communication it’s an important technology for collaboration. You’ll find feeds for all kinds of newssites and blogs, but also for each section of the arxiv. To read feeds you can use lots of different programs and web based services.

Video sites

Videos of research level mathematics are pretty rare. There is the archive of the MSRI and singular popular mathematics gems like Gowers’s talk on multiplication. Also, you should check out MIT’s impressive youtube channel.

To put up a video you don’t need much these days, so it’s strange that there’s not more around — especially since (pure) mathematics seems easier to share than, say, complicated science experiments. There are too many free video sites out there. Next to the already mentioned youtube I would point out the science video site SciVee (with its strong, yet somewhat expensive premium service) and Vimeo with its focus on original content.

Reference management

Thanks to David for reminding me that I forgot one aspect of pdf management — reference management (see the list on wikipedia). Now there are many programs out there to get your citations, i.e., your BibTeX files organized. But there are also programs that connect the citations with the pdf, offer online database searches, tags, pdf annotation and social networking ideas.

A big list can (once again) be found on wikipedia. To present a few. I personally use referencer but David also mentioned Mendeley in his comment which has an impressive list of features including online access and social network aspects and I’ll probably try it out. To give credit where it is due a few of these programs name Papers as inspiration which unfortunately is Mac only. With a different flavour there are the web-only Zotero, a powerful Firefox addon, and I, Librarian, a groupware tool.