Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012

    Gluing construction of initial data with Kerr-de Sitter ends

    Julien Cortier (Submitted on 16 Feb 2012)

    We construct initial data sets which satisfy the vacuum constraint equa- tions of General Relativity with positive cosmologigal constant. More pre- silely, we deform initial data with ends asymptotic to Schwarzschild-de Sitter to obtain non-trivial initial data with exactly Kerr-de Sitter ends. The method is inspired from Corvino’s gluing method. We obtain here a extension of a previous result for the time-symmetric case by Chru'sciel and Pollack.

    • Comments: 27 pages, 3 figures
    • Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
    • MSC classes: 83C05
    • Cite as: arXiv:1202.3688v1 [gr-qc]

    Submission history

    From: Julien Cortier [view email]

    • [v1] Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:19:50 GMT (79kb)
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012
    • (edited Feb 18th 2012)

    Recently John said in Quick, easy and fun solutions

    People seem to get frozen in indecision when contemplating big serious changes to the current journal system. The consequences are too huge. So, I’m thinking we could hasten the evolution of good ideas by doing something quick, easy and fun. Something that’s not too painful to set up. And something that we use because we enjoy it, not because it’s good for us.

    I’m imagining something like this:

    A system linked to the arXiv, which looks a lot like the arXiv: one page per paper. If you click to download the paper you get sent to the arXiv. But you can also comment on the paper, and/or give a simple ’rating’, on a scale from 1 to 5.

    Let me humbly submit that Andrew’s software used to power Math 2.0 here can already serve a large part of such a purpose “as is”. The above is an example (taking the first article from recent GR-QC). Comments on the paper can proceed in the obvious manner.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012

    Eric, I think I see what you’re doing, but I don’t think this is the place for it. As far as I’m concerned, this site is for the discussion of mathematics publishing, not for commenting on mathematics (or physics) papers.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012

    Hi Tom,

    What I am doing is trying to demonstrate that a lot of what I see people wishing for in these threads is already available in front of their very eyes by way of this very forum. If an idea such as this sticks, it is not a massive effort to spin off yet another forum like this one if desired.

    On the other hand, I don’t see why this forum cannot be used for the very purposes we are discussing and the distinction among posts can easily be handled via different categories. We now have:

    • General
    • Technical
    • Journals
    • Peer Review

    Why not add

    • Articles

    ? It is easy to filter categories if you are not interested in seeing everything being posted.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2012

    Eric wrote:

    Let me humbly submit that Andrew’s software used to power Math 2.0 here can already serve a large part of such a purpose “as is”. The above is an example (taking the first article from recent GR-QC). Comments on the paper can proceed in the obvious manner.

    I agree. Since I’m no good at programming, if I were alone in trying to set up a ’selected papers network’ I’d just try to persuade Andrew to set up another forum of this type, with me as moderator, and start using it.

    However, some people like Chris Lee and Marc Harper, who are actually good at programming, actually plan to create a system that’s better adapted to the job. So, I’m going to help them.

    I don’t think the idea of using this forum to discuss papers is any good. The problem is not so much that it’s inherently a bad idea: it’s simply that nobody here wants to do it (except perhaps you). That sounds like a circular argument, and it is, but it’s still valid.