3 ms·
> I've even turned to SEP for mathematical concepts (to the extent it covers math), for example, because there is no free authoritative resource in that field.
by furyofantares 11y ago
> I've even turned to SEP for mathematical concepts (to the extent it covers math), for example, because there is no free authoritative resource in that field.
Does http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ not do the trick for what you were looking into?
- hackuser 11y agoI use MathWorld too but it's limited for my purposes, which includes conceptual understanding: Its articles tend toward strict definitions and not concepts, some terms I lookup are omitted, and unless you already are familiar with the term defined then it can be hard to comprehend. Compare, for example: * http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModelTheory.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModelTheory.html * http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/ EDIT: Replaced the examples with better ones
- brobdingnagian 11y agoScholarpedia is another good and authoritative source. The articles are typically written by the person who created the concept, or an active authority: http://www.scholarpedia.org http://www.scholarpedia.org
- kensai 11y agoIndeed, one of the most authoritative sources. They should expand the fields treated, imo.
- zkhalique 11y agoHow does mathworld stack up against wikipedia for Math? I often wondered this.
- hackuser 11y agoHere's a review of Wikipedia's math articles by a mathematician: http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/10/20/elementary-mathematics-on-wikipedia-2/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/10/20/elementary-mathematics-... If you don't already know what you are reading, you can't distinguish knowledge from nonsense.