The Stacks Project


Tag: 06LB

This tag has label introduction-section-attribution, it is called Attribution in the Stacks project and it points to

The corresponding content:

1.2. Attribution

The scope of this work is such that it is a daunting task to attribute correctly and succinctly all of those mathematicians whose work has led to the development of the theory we try to explain here. We hope eventually to generate enough community interest to find contributors willing to write sections with historical remarks for each and every chapter.

Those who contributed to this work are listed on the title page of the book version of this work and online. Here we would like to name a selection of major contributions:

  1. Jarod Alper wrote \hyperref[guide-section-phantom]{Guide to Literature}.
  2. Bhargav Bhatt wrote the initial version of \hyperref[etale-section-phantom]Étale Morphisms of Schemes}.
  3. Bhargav Bhatt wrote the initial version of More on Algebra, Section 14.11.
  4. Kiran Kedlaya contributed the initial writeup of Descent, Section 31.4.
  5. Algebra, Section 9.26 and Injectives, Section 18.6 are from The CRing Project, courtesy of Akhil Mathew.
  6. Alex Perry wrote the material on projective modules, Mittag-Leffler modules, including the proof of Algebra, Theorem 9.92.5.
  7. Alex Perry wrote \hyperref[formal-defos-section-phantom]% {Formal Deformation Theory}.
  8. Thibaut Pugin, Zachary Maddock and Min Lee took course notes which formed the basis for \hyperref[etale-cohomology-section-phantom]Étale Cohomology}.
  9. David Rydh has contributed many helpful comments, pointed out several mistakes, helped out in an essential way with the material on residual gerbes, and was the originator for the material in More on Groupoids in Spaces, Sections 56.8 and 56.11.

\section{Attribution}
\label{section-attribution}

\noindent
The scope of this work is such that it is a daunting task to attribute
correctly and succinctly all of those mathematicians whose work has led
to the development of the theory we try to explain here. We hope eventually
to generate enough community interest to find contributors willing to write
sections with historical remarks for each and every chapter.

\medskip\noindent
Those who contributed to this work are listed on the title page of the book
version of this work and
\href{http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tex/CONTRIBUTORS}{online}.
Here we would like to name a selection of major contributions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Jarod Alper wrote
\hyperref[guide-section-phantom]{Guide to Literature}.
\item Bhargav Bhatt wrote the initial version of
\hyperref[etale-section-phantom]{\'Etale Morphisms of Schemes}.
\item Bhargav Bhatt wrote the initial version of
More on Algebra, Section \ref{more-algebra-section-formal-glueing}.
\item Kiran Kedlaya contributed the initial writeup of
Descent, Section \ref{descent-section-descent-universally-injective}.
\item Algebra, Section \ref{algebra-section-oka-families}
and Injectives, Section \ref{injectives-section-baer}
are from
\href{http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~amathew/cr.html}{The CRing Project},
courtesy of Akhil Mathew.
\item Alex Perry wrote the material on projective modules,
Mittag-Leffler modules, including the proof of
Algebra, Theorem \ref{algebra-theorem-ffdescent-projectivity}.
\item Alex Perry wrote
\hyperref[formal-defos-section-phantom]%
{Formal Deformation Theory}.
\item Thibaut Pugin, Zachary Maddock and Min Lee took course notes
which formed the basis for
\hyperref[etale-cohomology-section-phantom]{\'Etale Cohomology}.
\item David Rydh has contributed many helpful comments, pointed out several
mistakes, helped out in an essential way with the material on residual gerbes,
and was the originator for the material in
More on Groupoids in Spaces, Sections
\ref{spaces-more-groupoids-section-finite} and
\ref{spaces-more-groupoids-section-etale-localize}.
\end{enumerate}



\input{chapters}
    

To cite this tag (see How to reference tags), use:

\cite[\href{http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/06LB}{Tag 06LB}]{stacks-project}

Comments (2)

Comment #165 by Evelyn Mitchell on February 28, 2013 at 2:52 am UTC

The references to the sections don't resolve to a tag.

"Jarod Alper wrote \hyperref[guide-section-phantom]{Guide to Literature}", for example, should refer to http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/chapter/73 but, doesn't. Chapter 73 is all of the "Guide to Literature", but doesn't have a whole chapter tag.

How have you resolved that problem before?

Comment #167 by Johan (site) on March 9, 2013 at 11:56 am UTC

Yes, you are right. Luckily there is only one place where this precise problem happens, and it is in this section. I'm going to ask my people if we can find a better solution. We'll get back to you.

Technical discussion: Strictly speaking the chapters don't have tags themselves, but each chapter has a "phantom section" which does have a tag. I introduced these tags for exactly this reason: to be able to refer to chapters by cross-file links. Unfortunately, references to these phantom sections do not look good in the pdfs, because phantom sections do not get a number (and they shouldn't), or on the web site. See 01DX. In fact, this is currently the only one such reference. In the introduction (see above) we used the hyperref construction because it looks better in the pdf, but it doesn't work in the website, and actually I think it isn't the correct solution either.

Conclusion: What is a good way to introduce references to chapters that works both in the pdf versions (book or split out chapters) and on the web-site?

Add a comment on tag 06LB

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the lower-right corner).




In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following box. So in case this is tag 0321 you just have to write 0321. This captcha seems more appropriate than the usual illegible gibberish, right?