Timeline for Errata database?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2020 at 6:18 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https
|
| Aug 27, 2015 at 13:20 | comment | added | Conrado Costa | @Suvrit I agree, the purpose is to discuss issues and typos on books and published articles. What happened to math errata database proposal? | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 13:32 | comment | added | Suvrit | @ConradoCosta this site might be valuable, but a bit tricky if people end up discussing "work officially under review" and not yet published. In some sense, if Mathscinet would have a "discussion" facility available, that would nail this problem proposed in your area51 proposal... | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 11:46 | comment | added | Conrado Costa | @Suvrit I am proposing some site on the lines I think you were aiming at. Please check it out to see if it is valuable area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/90443/math-review | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 9:55 | comment | added | Suvrit | Yeah, I myself have been vacillating for more than a month; yesterday a colleague of mine expressed strong interest in such a site, which impelled me to write this response. I think, because making errata lists is soooo boring (at least for me), such a stackexchange might not be sustainable....especially because the original authors might be either dead, or somehow otherwise indisposed to responding. Hmmm.. | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 1:48 | comment | added | Ross Churchley | Man, I'm really going back and forth on this one. On the one hand, a StackExchange/MathReviews/arXiv/"errata-base" hybrid site sounds awesome. On the other hand, how would that even work? | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 0:32 | history | answered | Suvrit | CC BY-SA 2.5 |