# User talk:Lasserempe

#### Welcome

Welcome to ProofWiki! Since you're new, you may want to check out the general help page. It's the best first stop to see how things are done (next to reading proofs, of course!). Please feel free to contribute to whichever area of mathematics interests you, either by adding new proofs, or fixing up existing ones. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me, or post your question on the questions page.

Here are some useful pages to help get you started:

- Recent Changes - To keep up with what's new, and what's being added.
- Main Page talk - This is where most of the main discussions regarding the direction of the site talk place. If you have any ideas, please share them!

Hey, I'm following behind and adding links to definitions on the proofs you've put up where I think they should go, but you'd have a much better sense of what should have a definition page. With this in mind, I would suggest that you put in links to anything you think should have a definition when you make a page. Thanks. --Cynic (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only definitions but also any results that are used in the course of derivation of some proof however obvious they may be. You don't need to prove them immediately, as long as there's a link to those results that someone can go into later and fill in that detail. --prime mover (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. You may see this differently, but it isn't always clear what will be the best way to make links. For example, when talking about conformal metrics, should the link be to a general concept, one that only applies to Riemann surfaces, perhaps more specialized ones ...? This will become clearer as these concepts get added to ProofWiki. (As things are, the article itself clarifies what is meant, by the way, so that there should be no confusion hopefully.)

I realize there is a fine line here, and I will try to add links as they seem reasonable, but my overall feeling is that this is something that will sort itself out over time. As ProofWiki grows, these concepts will be added, people will read the proofs and add required links, extra explanations etc. That is one of the nice things about the format.

I do know this is one of the issues with adding some more advanced results before all the foundations are laid. But I do think it is actually productive to do so. If there are enough things in an area on here that are not easily available online, or maybe even in textbooks, this may well draw the attention of graduate students or researchers in the area, who will then no doubt be able to improve what is already written.

This being said, the proofs I've provided today for results on extremal length already provide more details than are given in Ahlfors's book. (The book is brilliant if you already have an idea of what things are about, but it can be quite difficult to use as an introductory text.)

Over time, I *do* intend to come back and improve things further. However, I would like to spend more time on pressing ahead and adding some more proofs so it's possible to get to some more interesting results. -- lasserempe 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In reply to:

- For example, when talking about conformal metrics, should the link be to a general concept, one that only applies to Riemann surfaces, perhaps more specialized ones ...?

Depends on what's being said. If what you're proving relates (to get back to first-grade examples) directly to real numbers, but that's a specialized instance of a more general result on metric spaces, then make a link to a real number proof. No doubt there will be a generalization realized later on. But don't worry so much about what it's going to link to, just put [[Of course, all widgets are spanner-shaped]] and when someone comes along to this in future they'll then go and add the proof [[Shape of Gadgets#Widgets]] or whatever the master proof actually is.

Note there's a "special pages" link (see links down lhs) inside which there's an option to display all these unwritten pages. every so often someone goes through (hi) and scans these for as-yet unwritten stuff which can be tackled based on what we've currently got up to. And there's also a "stub articles" link for pages which have been started but the writer hasn't got round to actually finishing (either because there's something more interesting to do, or (ahem) because it's beyond the writer to actually manage to work the proof out). In any case, beware of those saying "work in progress" unless they haven't been touched for a few weeks, because the writer is probably planning on getting back to them and may feel pre-empted to find it's already been done.

Carry on with the advanced stuff, but beware that some of us up-and-coming autodidacts believe that *everything* should ultimately be within reach, as long as there's a chain of links to explain what the concepts are.

In reply to:

- people will read the proofs and add required links, extra explanations etc.

... if they know what those links and explanations are. Not everything's that easy to access. I rest my case on the topic of providing links. --prime mover (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)