11
$\begingroup$

This question from 2016:

Some possible mistakes in Bott and Tu

contains a list of what the OP suspects to be errors in a famous book. The OP explains for each point their reasoning as to why they think these are errors and asks for clarification. It was recently edited and a point was added. Specifically the point 0) was added to the list.

I'm not sure, should this edit be rolled back?

On the one hand the question does act as a sort of errata for the book, adding to which might be helpful. But on the other hand the question is personalised to the OPs concerns, and resolved issues are not "removed" from the list, so using this question as a depository of typos found by anybody seems incorrect. Further the added error is a triviality, which gives a bad first impression of the OP and of the value of their questions, which is problematic since this point was not actually a question from the OP.

$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ I would roll the edit back. Based on the tone of the question and the (rather good) answer I feel that that edit, without proper attribution, is almost fraudulent $\endgroup$ – postmortes May 29 at 12:29
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I have rolled back the edit. Judging by votes people seem to agree with you (and I agree also). $\endgroup$ – s.harp May 29 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you say triviality? I hardly believe this is a triviality for beginners. I view calling that a triviality as a professional chess player calling center control a triviality: Sure it's trivial for them but not trivial if you just start playing chess (and have no analogues to other games where the "center" of those games requires control. Example of such game includes basketball). $\endgroup$ – Selene Auckland May 31 at 11:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know anything about the rules of having a community wiki answer where we include some of the (confirmed) errata, @postmortes and s.harp? $\endgroup$ – Selene Auckland Jun 2 at 4:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Selene I expect 'triviality' is used because anyone mathematically mature enough to read Bott&Tu is not a beginner. The book starts off with De Rham cohomology after all. $\endgroup$ – postmortes Jun 2 at 6:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Selene: your other comment might be better asked as a question here, but I think there's no problem at all with creating a community wiki to list confirmed errata like that. I'm almost certain we have a few, but I can't search at the moment to confirm that for you. UPDATE: found one on MO for a reference: mathoverflow.net/questions/42241/errata-for-atiyah-macdonald $\endgroup$ – postmortes Jun 2 at 6:27
  • $\begingroup$ @postmortes Thanks! So how do I do that? $\endgroup$ – Selene Auckland Jun 2 at 6:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SeleneAuckland when you create your question there should be a little checkbox in the bottom right corner to make it community wiki. Tick that before submitting the question. You might want to add a big-list tag to it since it's what an errata essentially is. In the question be clear about which book it's for, and you might want to provide a little background as to why you're creating it (no good errata elsewhere, book popular for teaching or self-learning, etc.) And then provide the first answer with your own found-errors :) $\endgroup$ – postmortes Jun 2 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ @postmortes Done. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Selene Auckland Jun 2 at 10:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .