0
$\begingroup$

I just received: this article from Quanta Magazine and have a question about this paper to which they link.

What is the significance of the date on the first page?

Has the paper been hacked?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ That is curious. The observation is that arxiv v1 of Higher Topos Theory (dated August 2, 2006) compiles with a date of April 1, 2019 on the front cover (although the watermark still shows the correct date for the submission). With a date of April 1, maybe it is a vestige of some kind of April fools prank? It would be an elaborate and esoteric prank if it were one... $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 2:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A bit mysterious, but there is a book with that title and that author published. In the arxiv version he talks about the seemingly endless process of revision. Lurie is the real thing, borrow the book if curious $\endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 2:12
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ My guess: the date is inserted into the file with the latex \date{\today} command, and the displayed date is the last time the arXiv compiled the document. This is a common issue with papers on the arXiv (and why it is a good practice to hard-code your dates on them). $\endgroup$
    – Andy Putman
    Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 2:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
10
$\begingroup$

I downloaded the source code of Lurie's paper and compiled the TeX file. The date shown on the first page is today's date (inserted by default since no date is specified). So this would confirm Andy Putman's suggestion that April 1, 2019 is the date the paper was last compiled at arXiv.org. ArXiv removes compiled versions of papers after some time, so apparently this paper from 2008 had not been accessed recently.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think it's unlikely that Higher Topos Theory hadn't been accessed recently on the arxiv (although it's conceivable, since it's well-known that Lurie maintains a more up-to-date version on his website) -- but it's quite reasonable to suspect that this particular version of the paper hadn't been accessed recently (the discrepancy appears on v1 but v4 has the correct date -- I haven't checked the intervening versions). Incidentally, there was good reason to link to v1, since the news article in question was discussing precisely the fact that v1 was much shorter than later versions. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 13:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .