Timeline for Meaningful review of Moriwaki's "Arakelov Geometry"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2015 at 15:45 | comment | added | Dan Abramovich | The review is now published as MR3244206. Hopefully it shows what I meant. I did get help with (1), (2) and (3) from several colleagues by email correspondence. I was disappointed with math overflow. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 4:14 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I can understand why some think it's an unusual request, but I think it's fine for this question to stay open. Particularly in asking for classroom experiences: gathering and assessing a spectrum of opinion here might lead to valuable information for potential users of the text. Also, something about the fact that the OP (who's a full professor at Brown) is asking under the spotlight of MO, together with the tone of his comments, gives me confidence that he will treat and acknowledge answers with propriety, and only wishes to perform his task honorably (and intends to read the book through!). | |
| May 3, 2015 at 21:09 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| May 3, 2015 at 19:56 | comment | added | Dan Abramovich | I do want to clarify something that my original post may have left unclear - I do have some time to complete reading the book at the level of detail required for mathscinet. I was hoping for something better (and requiring MORE work) | |
| May 3, 2015 at 19:55 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 4, 2015 at 5:21 | |||||
| May 3, 2015 at 19:45 | comment | added | Jason Starr | Dear MO community: I deleted my earlier comment. It was pointed out by evgeniamerkulov that it comes across as threatening. I do think that, before reviewers ask the community for help publicly in writing a review, they should first check with the editors. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 19:39 | comment | added | Jason Starr | I look forward to reading your e-mail. As evegeniamerkulova points out, I may have misunderstood what you are suggesting. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 19:31 | comment | added | Dan Abramovich | You are welcome to do so. I sent you a detailed answer on the substance on email. As to form, I must say I don't care. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 19:31 | comment | added | evgeniamerkulova | @Jason. OP said had not read the book THROUGH. That is not reason to decline. He never said he would not read book contrary to what you write. Also sentence "Shall we ask the editors of MathSciNet what they think?" is threatening and very unfriendly. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 19:08 | comment | added | Dan Abramovich | Jason - I thought this would be a common response. I disagree. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | Jason Starr | If you have not read the book, and if you are not going to read the book (but rather ask the MathOverflow community for their advice), why don't you just decline to write a MathSciNet review? If there are MathOverflow users who are familiar with the work, you could suggest those people as alternate reviewers. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | Fan Zheng | So the reviews on Mathscinet are written by someone who hasn't read the book? | |
| May 3, 2015 at 18:53 | review | First posts | |||
| May 3, 2015 at 19:19 | |||||
| May 3, 2015 at 18:48 | history | asked | Dan Abramovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |