10 replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citationa Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

9 replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1][1], [2][2], [3][3], [4][4], [5][5], [6][6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

8 added update 4
source | link

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

I am writing my bachelor's degree thesis and have used a number of Math SE (and a Physics SE) question as references. My thesis supervisor is a bit unsure how appropriate this is. I used them mainly not to find other (maybe printed) references for the proofs I wanted references for. So I was wondering: how common is it for math papers/books to use SE references? Is it appropriate for my thesis?

Update

Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. [1] is one I may decide not to include because it might happen that the part where it is cited is cut out of the thesis. [2] (spectral theorem) is a typical example of what I mean: I wouldn't include that in the thesis, since it should be known from Linear Algebra (isn't to me, but anyways), and my thesis is a Geometry thesis. [3] (closed unit ball of Hilbert space is weakly sequentially compact) is another typical "immense" proof which I surely wouldn't include in the thesis, because of its length, and because my thesis is about symplectic geometry and only uses this to prove an existence result for periodic orbits of Hamiltonian fields on strictly convex hypersurfaces of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. Still, I would like to reference a proof of these. I could reference a book, but it would have the disadvantage that the proof has bits spread out over various chapters for [2], and that some results are in another book for [3]. I might well include [4]. I believe I will find [5] in Rudin, it's bound to be there somewhere after all. As for [6], the only reason I have that reference is that my supervisor told me not to make the thesis too "heavy" and to remove that proof (and those of 4 other related results, plus another proposition that says a bilinear form induces an isomorphism from the space to the dual).

Update 2

The above are all my Math SE citations. There is also a Physics SE citation which is a self-answer about the physical meaning of the Lagrangian -- well, the action actually. This in turn contains a link to a Feynman pdf, which is very authoritative. However, I would like to keep the citation to the self-answer and the other answers.

Update 3

Just replaced [5] with Rudin, with precise reference to theorem 3.11 on pp. 67-68. Saving all other links as htmls on my computer in a sec.

Update 4

[1] integrated into thesis; [2] turned to appendix; [3] is too long to turn into an appendix, and no book has such completeness on this, so finding references in books would require tons of references and require the reader to have 3-4 books and look for the results in each of them to piece the proof together, absolutely unacceptable; [5] cfr [1]; [6] removed from thesis because the part that called it has been removed. A few others also removed and integrated into thesis or made to vanish completely. Physics.SE reference kept, I do not know where to look to find what those answers contain. This is my "compromise", let's see what my supervisor says.

7 deleted 1 character in body
source | link
6 added update 3
source | link
5 fixed Physics SE link: missing http:// made it non-clickable
source | link
4 added update 2
source | link
3 added update
source | link
2 edited tags
| link
1
source | link