6 ms·

Show HN: Discover the World of Mathematics

108 points by CatsAreCool 7y ago

gus_massa 7y ago
The front page is too empty. You must add some links to popular topics (quadratic equation? topology?) and some link to random topics. Something like the Wikipedia main page. There is an error in https://mathpendium.org/view/5e33c092981ec41bc6b27939 https://mathpendium.org/view/5e33c092981ec41bc6b27939 (two missed $ and the rendered is unhappy with \subset) Can I edit without an account? Please. I'm too lazy to create one :) . I guess it's a tradeoff between spam and making it easy to make small contributions.
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. Yes, it seems I need to redesign the site to make it easier to navigate and feel less empty. I like your suggestions about adding popular topics. Thanks for letting me know about the error. Right now Mathpendium has around 1000 entries, and so it is easy for some errors to slip through the cracks. I was debating about whether or not to require an account to make a contribution. As you mentioned, making an account helps decrease the chance of spam. However, I am open to allowing anonymous contributions, and it is good to know that others would appreciate that.
throwaway5752 7y ago
I just searched for "game theory" and got no results which is jarring even though I understand why. Indexing LaTex snippets has its use but is too far removed from higher level concepts to be generally useful. Mathworld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ http://mathworld.wolfram.com/) had a huge number of high quality, high level articles. It would be very interesting if the top-down and bottom-up approaches respectively between the two could be combined. If Eric Weisstein (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/author.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/author.html) is out there reading, thank you for your work. I can't believe the longevity and quality of Mathworld.
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree that Mathworld is great. Mathpendium is not meant to replace sites like Mathworld, but to work with them. I think this is something I need to make more clear on the site. That is, sites like Mathworld are great for finding information and an overview about a topic. For example, it is a great place to learn about what a solvable group is. Mathpendium, on the other hand, is designed to help you if you only want a concise definition of a solvable group, want to find all theorems that describe when a group is solvable, or find all conjectures related to solvable groups. That is, Mathependium is used for when you want to get a list of all theorems related to a topic, with links to other sides for a deep dive or overview. In a sense, theorems are the tools of mathematics, Mathpendium is a toolbox that helps you find those tools, and each item on the site has links to other sites to learn more about the tool.
  - hatmatrix 7y ago
    So Mathpendium is geared more toward the practicing mathematician?
    - CatsAreCool 7y ago
      It is more like a reference and a jumping point to books and articles. After understanding the general ideas of a topic it lets you dive deeper. It is definitely targeted towards professional mathematicians, but also those learning math that already have an overview of a topic and want to dive deeper.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    > Yes, I agree that Mathworld is great. Slighty OT but, Apart from the fact that it looks and feels like 2006 (that latex renderer is so, so horrible, it's a distraction), and that you can't copy anything meaningful out of it, Mathworld is great. But honestly, as of 2020, I would have thought we'd have much better tools to learn a domain as thoroughly defined as mathematics (interactive, intuitive, etc etc etc). As it stands, it's still really hard without a teacher, but it shouldn't: a rich web experience with text as a basis should be able to produce at least as good understanding as a video (whose only major difference is voice). I'd expect to be able to hover over anything and get a tooltip definition, be able to move things in equations and sliders for constants to see real-time graphs or limits or edge cases etc; with formulas that self-update in real time. I mean, it's a poor state of affairs that the combined body of mathematicians on Earth still haven't come up together to find a way to explain and teach mathematics at least as well as a freaking catalog website can show and sell products. It's not that hard to leverage decent frontends... I love your efforts because I think they're truly headed in the right direction; we need so many more of these tools, innovation on the way to building an actual "base of mathematical knowledge" that's not Wikipedia (too general) nor Matlab (too specific) nor YouTube (good thing but not enough). Back on topic: - are you considering a public-facing API? - I think "discover" (in your title) is misleading and explains some slightly harsh reactions here (failing to honor a promise is really bad marketing). I'd suggest something more like "pro tools for pro math", I mean make the promise that it's a tool for people who already know these things, who don't "discover" but rather "reference", "recall", sort of a modern lookup table. Like, say I've forgotten formula or theorem X, I'd really value being able to get that info as fast as possible.
pjmorris 7y ago
I searched for 'logic' and 'proof', and all I got was a request to consent to their use of cookies.
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Interesting. The consent for use of cookies dialog should appear the first time you open the site. After agreeing to the use of cookies, the dialog shouldn't be displayed anymore. If you don't mind me asking, what browser and system are you using?
  - pjmorris 7y ago
    Chrome/OS X. I didn't agree to the cookies, and wouldn't do so until I was satisfied that the site was of interest and value. Give people a chance to test drive it before requiring consent.
jonplackett 7y ago
When I landed on the front page i thought it hadn't loaded properly. Had no idea what to do. Is this just for people who already know lots about math? If so maybe that's why I didn't get it.
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. Yes, it seems others too have felt the home page was hard to navigate because it was too empty. I will explore ways to make it more clear how to use the site. I'm thinking perhaps a list of categories to explore (calculus, real analysis, abstract algebra, etc.) could be helpful if one doesn't have a specific term to search for.
  - mkl 7y ago
    Do entries have categories? Searching for e.g. "calculus" only brings up one result. I think the home page needs to say what the site is for and what kinds of things are on it, otherwise we have no idea what to search for. Maybe start with something in the search box and the results already below?
klundqist 7y ago
"probability" search term doesn't give a useful result. How is data fed into the system?
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  The system is mostly fed by user contributions. Better communicating this is something I need to improve on the site.
martopix 7y ago
Category -> search -> no results found.
yori 7y ago
Are you using MathJax to display the equations? Why do I not get the MathJax context menu when I right-click on the equations?
- mkl 7y ago
  It's using Katex, which is smaller and faster: https://katex.org/ https://katex.org/
  - CatsAreCool 7y ago
    Yes, I'm using katex because I found the API easier to work with.
    - yori 7y ago
      Are you rendering the LaTeX on server-side or on client-side using JavaScript? I am asking these questions because I find MathJax code in your website: <script type="text/plain" cookie-consent="strictly-necessary"> window.MathJax = { tex: { inlineMath: [['$', '$'], ['\$', '\$']] }, svg: { fontCache: 'global' } }; </script> <script type="text/javascript" id="MathJax-script" async src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mathjax@3/es5/tex-svg.js"> </script>
      - CatsAreCool 7y ago
        Actually, that code should be deleted. At one time, I was experimenting with MathJax but don't use it anymore.
obscura 7y ago
Long equations break out of the content box. E.g., view/5e33c093981ec41bc6b279b7
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. This is a known issue, but I am working on other higher priority issues at the time.
bovermyer 7y ago
I searched for "voronoi" and got no results. I don't know if this is because the site doesn't have any content about voronoi polygons, or if search is broken. I assume it's the former. That then leads me to ask - how do I discover what content the site has, and what content is it likely to have in the near future?
- r-zip 7y ago
  There appears to be quite a lot of missing (basic) content. Try searching "Cauchy-Schwarz" (or its variants). Nothing. Same for "Fourier".
  - CatsAreCool 7y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. The site's growth model more like Wikipedia's growth model in that it grows by user contributions. This is something that I need to better communicate on the site and explains why the site currently has some content, but not others.
oefrha 7y ago
I’m not convinced about the usefulness of this format, but I’ll reserve judgement for now. However, one thing I’m almost certain is that categorization and navigation by topic is a must-have; serendipity just doesn’t cut it (unless you have made some truly groundbreaking advancements in search). Btw, I searched quite a few keywords in algebraic geometry and found nothing; maybe you could look into converting the Stacks project (they even have an API[1]) into your format and contemplate usefulness in the process. Another meta suggestion: IMO knowing who you are is usually pretty important for establishing trust in academic circles. Maybe link to your personal homepage on the about page? Right now all we get is a project-specific email so you’re basically anonymous. [1] https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/api https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/api
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. I have a lot of feedback on the need for searching by topic, and it us something I will add. Also, I can add a bio page about myself.
breck 7y ago
> What if you could easily answer the question "what is everything currently known in mathematics." I love this. I work on this problem a lot. More generally of the form "what is everything currently known in X"? I would love to be able to make statements like "I am familiar with X/Y/Z% of the nodes in Computer Science/Medicine/Arrested Development Season 2". I would love it if the abstract idea of the "dent" (http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/) a researcher makes could actually be concretely measured as nodes added/updated/subtracted from some corpus of knowledge. Have you thought about moving the content to a git repo and allowing people to contribute via a pull request?
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Yes, the goal is to help people know what is known in an area. I will update the docs to make this more clear. I am open to supporting pull requests, but my thoughts were that the custom user interface Mathpendium has allows for an easier contribution process.
mr_gibbins 7y ago
It's a little lacking in content. I searched for 'Bernoulli' and came up with nothing, so widened this to 'probability' and nothing still. It would benefit from some kind of taxonomy on the front page to give an indication of what content areas are available.
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. I have learned that I need to add a way to view things by category. Also the site is grown similar to Wikipedia with user contributions, which is why there isn't as much content now. This is something I need to better communicate on the site.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

108 points by CatsAreCool 7y ago

The front page is too empty. You must add some links to popular topics (quadratic equation? topology?) and some link to random topics. Something like the Wikipedia main page. There is an error in https://mathpendium.org/view/5e33c092981ec41bc6b27939 https://mathpendium.org/view/5e33c092981ec41bc6b27939 (two missed $ and the rendered is unhappy with \subset) Can I edit without an account? Please. I'm too lazy to create one :) . I guess it's a tradeoff between spam and making it easy to make small contributions.

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, it seems I need to redesign the site to make it easier to navigate and feel less empty. I like your suggestions about adding popular topics. Thanks for letting me know about the error. Right now Mathpendium has around 1000 entries, and so it is easy for some errors to slip through the cracks. I was debating about whether or not to require an account to make a contribution. As you mentioned, making an account helps decrease the chance of spam. However, I am open to allowing anonymous contributions, and it is good to know that others would appreciate that.

throwaway5752 7y ago

I just searched for "game theory" and got no results which is jarring even though I understand why. Indexing LaTex snippets has its use but is too far removed from higher level concepts to be generally useful. Mathworld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ http://mathworld.wolfram.com/) had a huge number of high quality, high level articles. It would be very interesting if the top-down and bottom-up approaches respectively between the two could be combined. If Eric Weisstein (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/author.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/author.html) is out there reading, thank you for your work. I can't believe the longevity and quality of Mathworld.

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree that Mathworld is great. Mathpendium is not meant to replace sites like Mathworld, but to work with them. I think this is something I need to make more clear on the site. That is, sites like Mathworld are great for finding information and an overview about a topic. For example, it is a great place to learn about what a solvable group is. Mathpendium, on the other hand, is designed to help you if you only want a concise definition of a solvable group, want to find all theorems that describe when a group is solvable, or find all conjectures related to solvable groups. That is, Mathependium is used for when you want to get a list of all theorems related to a topic, with links to other sides for a deep dive or overview. In a sense, theorems are the tools of mathematics, Mathpendium is a toolbox that helps you find those tools, and each item on the site has links to other sites to learn more about the tool.
- hatmatrix 7y ago
  So Mathpendium is geared more toward the practicing mathematician?
  - CatsAreCool 7y ago
    It is more like a reference and a jumping point to books and articles. After understanding the general ideas of a topic it lets you dive deeper. It is definitely targeted towards professional mathematicians, but also those learning math that already have an overview of a topic and want to dive deeper.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  > Yes, I agree that Mathworld is great. Slighty OT but, Apart from the fact that it looks and feels like 2006 (that latex renderer is so, so horrible, it's a distraction), and that you can't copy anything meaningful out of it, Mathworld is great. But honestly, as of 2020, I would have thought we'd have much better tools to learn a domain as thoroughly defined as mathematics (interactive, intuitive, etc etc etc). As it stands, it's still really hard without a teacher, but it shouldn't: a rich web experience with text as a basis should be able to produce at least as good understanding as a video (whose only major difference is voice). I'd expect to be able to hover over anything and get a tooltip definition, be able to move things in equations and sliders for constants to see real-time graphs or limits or edge cases etc; with formulas that self-update in real time. I mean, it's a poor state of affairs that the combined body of mathematicians on Earth still haven't come up together to find a way to explain and teach mathematics at least as well as a freaking catalog website can show and sell products. It's not that hard to leverage decent frontends... I love your efforts because I think they're truly headed in the right direction; we need so many more of these tools, innovation on the way to building an actual "base of mathematical knowledge" that's not Wikipedia (too general) nor Matlab (too specific) nor YouTube (good thing but not enough). Back on topic: - are you considering a public-facing API? - I think "discover" (in your title) is misleading and explains some slightly harsh reactions here (failing to honor a promise is really bad marketing). I'd suggest something more like "pro tools for pro math", I mean make the promise that it's a tool for people who already know these things, who don't "discover" but rather "reference", "recall", sort of a modern lookup table. Like, say I've forgotten formula or theorem X, I'd really value being able to get that info as fast as possible.

pjmorris 7y ago

I searched for 'logic' and 'proof', and all I got was a request to consent to their use of cookies.

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Interesting. The consent for use of cookies dialog should appear the first time you open the site. After agreeing to the use of cookies, the dialog shouldn't be displayed anymore. If you don't mind me asking, what browser and system are you using?
- pjmorris 7y ago
  Chrome/OS X. I didn't agree to the cookies, and wouldn't do so until I was satisfied that the site was of interest and value. Give people a chance to test drive it before requiring consent.

jonplackett 7y ago

When I landed on the front page i thought it hadn't loaded properly. Had no idea what to do. Is this just for people who already know lots about math? If so maybe that's why I didn't get it.

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, it seems others too have felt the home page was hard to navigate because it was too empty. I will explore ways to make it more clear how to use the site. I'm thinking perhaps a list of categories to explore (calculus, real analysis, abstract algebra, etc.) could be helpful if one doesn't have a specific term to search for.
- mkl 7y ago
  Do entries have categories? Searching for e.g. "calculus" only brings up one result. I think the home page needs to say what the site is for and what kinds of things are on it, otherwise we have no idea what to search for. Maybe start with something in the search box and the results already below?

klundqist 7y ago

"probability" search term doesn't give a useful result. How is data fed into the system?

CatsAreCool 7y ago
The system is mostly fed by user contributions. Better communicating this is something I need to improve on the site.

martopix 7y ago

Category -> search -> no results found.

yori 7y ago

Are you using MathJax to display the equations? Why do I not get the MathJax context menu when I right-click on the equations?

mkl 7y ago
It's using Katex, which is smaller and faster: https://katex.org/ https://katex.org/
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Yes, I'm using katex because I found the API easier to work with.
  - yori 7y ago
    Are you rendering the LaTeX on server-side or on client-side using JavaScript? I am asking these questions because I find MathJax code in your website: <script type="text/plain" cookie-consent="strictly-necessary"> window.MathJax = { tex: { inlineMath: [['$', '$'], ['\$', '\$']] }, svg: { fontCache: 'global' } }; </script> <script type="text/javascript" id="MathJax-script" async src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mathjax@3/es5/tex-svg.js"> </script>
    - CatsAreCool 7y ago
      Actually, that code should be deleted. At one time, I was experimenting with MathJax but don't use it anymore.

obscura 7y ago

Long equations break out of the content box. E.g., view/5e33c093981ec41bc6b279b7

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback. This is a known issue, but I am working on other higher priority issues at the time.

bovermyer 7y ago

I searched for "voronoi" and got no results. I don't know if this is because the site doesn't have any content about voronoi polygons, or if search is broken. I assume it's the former. That then leads me to ask - how do I discover what content the site has, and what content is it likely to have in the near future?

r-zip 7y ago
There appears to be quite a lot of missing (basic) content. Try searching "Cauchy-Schwarz" (or its variants). Nothing. Same for "Fourier".
- CatsAreCool 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. The site's growth model more like Wikipedia's growth model in that it grows by user contributions. This is something that I need to better communicate on the site and explains why the site currently has some content, but not others.

oefrha 7y ago

I’m not convinced about the usefulness of this format, but I’ll reserve judgement for now. However, one thing I’m almost certain is that categorization and navigation by topic is a must-have; serendipity just doesn’t cut it (unless you have made some truly groundbreaking advancements in search). Btw, I searched quite a few keywords in algebraic geometry and found nothing; maybe you could look into converting the Stacks project (they even have an API[1]) into your format and contemplate usefulness in the process. Another meta suggestion: IMO knowing who you are is usually pretty important for establishing trust in academic circles. Maybe link to your personal homepage on the about page? Right now all we get is a project-specific email so you’re basically anonymous. [1] https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/api https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/api

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback. I have a lot of feedback on the need for searching by topic, and it us something I will add. Also, I can add a bio page about myself.

breck 7y ago

> What if you could easily answer the question "what is everything currently known in mathematics." I love this. I work on this problem a lot. More generally of the form "what is everything currently known in X"? I would love to be able to make statements like "I am familiar with X/Y/Z% of the nodes in Computer Science/Medicine/Arrested Development Season 2". I would love it if the abstract idea of the "dent" (http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/) a researcher makes could actually be concretely measured as nodes added/updated/subtracted from some corpus of knowledge. Have you thought about moving the content to a git repo and allowing people to contribute via a pull request?

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Yes, the goal is to help people know what is known in an area. I will update the docs to make this more clear. I am open to supporting pull requests, but my thoughts were that the custom user interface Mathpendium has allows for an easier contribution process.

mr_gibbins 7y ago

It's a little lacking in content. I searched for 'Bernoulli' and came up with nothing, so widened this to 'probability' and nothing still. It would benefit from some kind of taxonomy on the front page to give an indication of what content areas are available.

CatsAreCool 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback. I have learned that I need to add a way to view things by category. Also the site is grown similar to Wikipedia with user contributions, which is why there isn't as much content now. This is something I need to better communicate on the site.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]