stacks-project VS github-orgmode-tests

The Stacks project is meant to be a comprehensive Bourbaki-style textbook, not an encyclopedic survey, so the Wikipedia comparison is a miss. (The WP has a textbook level of detail on some topics, with proofs and examples, but these are few and far between and come from enthusiastic editors going above and beyond the WP's declared goals.)

Stacks is not finished, however -- still a lot of "Proof. Omitted.". From what I understand, the goal is to fill them all in (otherwise there would be references to the literature in their stead), but ultimately it is still mostly a one-person project (see https://github.com/stacks/stacks-project/graphs/contributors ).

I once filled in one of those missing proofs, only to see Johan replace it by a much better one that I would never have thought of. And this was (for him) a technical lemma, not one of the crown jewels of the project. His dedication to the project is truly incomparable to anything except Bourbaki and Serre. And the usefulness of the work extends far beyond algebraic stacks.

Personally, I love the Stacks Project webpage (https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/); they way it is laid out, the font, the seamless integration of LaTeX in the test (https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0A2U) has made me rethink mathematical text for the web.

For algebraic geometry, there is the Stacks project online, which builds up all mathematics needed to understand algebraic stacks, from foundations. This time, foundations truly mean its basic axioms. Everything is proven except maybe with a few exceptions in the introduction, and everything has links. As such, it is a monstrously large project (the pdf-version is around 7500 pages iirc). This one is I think among my suggestions closest to what you had in mind. The only thing is that it again only focuses on one area of math.

Some famous collaborative books: * https://github.com/HoTT/book * https://github.com/OpenLogicProject/OpenLogic * https://github.com/stacks/stacks-project * http://math.uchicago.edu/~amathew/cr.html

There is not really one good reference for algebraic geometry (even the EGA, SGA, FGA series, and that's assuming you can even plough through them all), but the Stacks Project (https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/) is at least very good for CAG.

The Stacks Project is a massive project covering algebraic geometry. The nLab is a wiki that covers a staggering amount of material from its own, rather specific, point of view.

Well, I talked to a friend who knows a lot of AG. He recommended "learning some things in topology like model categories" and discouraged learning about infinity categories without other stuff. Also, if you're interested in stacks, try the Stacks Project?

- or to visualize and use it as a personal partner.

There's already a ton of open-source UIs such as Chatbot-ui[3] and Reor[4]. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Personally, I haven't been consistent enough through the years in note-taking.

So, I'm really curious to learn more about those of you who were and implemented such pipelines.

I'm sure there's a ton of really fascinating experiences.

[1] https://orgmode.org/

literate config (using ORG mode)

Obligatory reference to Emacs Org-Mode [1].

Author's approach is basically Org-Mode with fewer helpers.

Org-mode's power is that, at core, it's just a text file, with gradual augmentation.

Then again, Org-Mode is a tool you must install, accessible through a limited list of clients (Emacs obviously, but also VSCode), and the power of OP's approach is that it requires no external tools.

[1] https://orgmode.org

This reminds me a lot of [Org Mode](https://orgmode.org/). Do you have plans to add other org-like features, like evaluating code blocks? I don't personally see myself moving away from org-mode, but it would be nice to have something to recommend to people who are reluctant to use emacs, even if it's only for a single application.

If you want to spare a couple of detours, you probably could start with Emacs Org-mode according to Greenspun's eleventh rule: "Any sufficiently complicated PIM or note-taking program contains an ad hoc, informally specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Org mode."

Wow, no one has recommended Org mode (https://orgmode.org). I started using Emacs nearly 20 years ago specifically because of Org. I use Org for all my static sites, note taking, to-do lists and calendar. Org has a lightweight markup language that has far more features than Markdown (e.g., plain text spreadsheets!), but the markup isn't visible to the extent that Markdown is in most editors. Emacs with Org files behaves almost like a WYSIWYG editor. For example, links in Org files are clickable and their URLs aren't visible unless a cursor is hovered over them. I'm an obsessive note-taker with more than 6,000 Org files in my personal knowledge base and none of the dozens of other note-taking apps that I've evaluated comes even close to Emacs with Org. But to be fair, I create content on Linux only so support for mobile devices doesn't matter to me.

By the way, I think it's hilarious that you mentioned Dreamweaver, dv35z, because I experimented with using Dreamweaver for note-taking in the 90s! I still have a few HTML files that include notes I took back then using Dreamweaver. Needless to say, I definitely prefer Emacs with Org!

Just another reason for one to get into org-mode[1] and org-roam[2].

Combine this with the concept of Zettelkasten[3] and you have a wonderful way to organize and store all your notes and writings, and even a way to know at what point you should move your idea from analog to digital (based on it's maturity, e.g. "evergreen state").

1. https://orgmode.org/