The front page is too empty. You must add some links to popular topics (quadratic equation? topology?) and some link to random topics. Something like the Wikipedia main page.<p>There is an error in <a href="https://mathpendium.org/view/5e33c092981ec41bc6b27939" rel="nofollow">https://mathpendium.org/view/5e33c092981ec41bc6b27939</a> (two missed $ and the rendered is unhappy with \subset)<p>Can I edit without an account? Please. I'm too lazy to create one :) . I guess it's a tradeoff between spam and making it easy to make small contributions.
I searched for "voronoi" and got no results. I don't know if this is because the site doesn't have any content about voronoi polygons, or if search is broken. I assume it's the former.<p>That then leads me to ask - how do I discover what content the site has, and what content is it likely to have in the near future?
I just searched for "game theory" and got no results which is jarring even though I understand why. Indexing LaTex snippets has its use but is too far removed from higher level concepts to be generally useful. Mathworld (<a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/" rel="nofollow">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/</a>) had a huge number of high quality, high level articles. It would be very interesting if the top-down and bottom-up approaches respectively between the two could be combined.<p>If Eric Weisstein (<a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/author.html" rel="nofollow">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/about/author.html</a>) is out there reading, thank you for your work. I can't believe the longevity and quality of Mathworld.
> What if you could easily answer the question "what is everything currently known in mathematics."<p>I love this. I work on this problem a lot. More generally of the form "what is everything currently known in X"?<p>I would love to be able to make statements like "I am familiar with X/Y/Z% of the nodes in Computer Science/Medicine/Arrested Development Season 2". I would love it if the abstract idea of the "dent" (<a href="http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/" rel="nofollow">http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/</a>) a researcher makes could actually be concretely measured as nodes added/updated/subtracted from some corpus of knowledge.<p>Have you thought about moving the content to a git repo and allowing people to contribute via a pull request?
I’m not convinced about the usefulness of this format, but I’ll reserve judgement for now. However, one thing I’m almost certain is that categorization and navigation by topic is a must-have; serendipity just doesn’t cut it (unless you have made some truly groundbreaking advancements in search). Btw, I searched quite a few keywords in algebraic geometry and found nothing; maybe you could look into converting the Stacks project (they even have an API[1]) into your format and contemplate usefulness in the process.<p>Another meta suggestion: IMO knowing who you are is usually pretty important for establishing trust in academic circles. Maybe link to your personal homepage on the about page? Right now all we get is a project-specific email so you’re basically anonymous.<p>[1] <a href="https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/api" rel="nofollow">https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/api</a>
When I landed on the front page i thought it hadn't loaded properly. Had no idea what to do.<p>Is this just for people who already know lots about math? If so maybe that's why I didn't get it.
It's a little lacking in content. I searched for 'Bernoulli' and came up with nothing, so widened this to 'probability' and nothing still.<p>It would benefit from some kind of taxonomy on the front page to give an indication of what content areas are available.