Start a hangout

## Profile

David Roberts

Works at NCVER

Lives in Adelaide, Australia

19,073 followers|1,753,547 views

AboutPostsCollectionsPhotos

## Stream

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -*I am reminded that, in a conversation unrelated to the Elsevier policy change, a librarian told me recently that her campus Counsel’s Office had told her that she should treat the repository as an extension of faculty members’ personal sites.*

-http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2015/05/29/a-distinction-without-a-difference/

So when a certain publishing company says you can post an article on your website now, but not in the repository until the embargo is up, just point to this.

cc +Alicia Wise

1

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -A nice gentle introduction to the ideas of structure in some aspects of physics, as captured by category theory.

This paper will appear as a chapter in the book

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/11/categories_for_the_working_phi.html

for some details. +Michael Shulman 's chapter is here:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/04/a_synthetic_approach_to_higher.html

+David Corfield mentions his chapter here:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/04/the_structure_of_a.html

and links to a pdf (see the sentence "I thought I’d write out a note explaining this point of view, and it can be found here") that may have nontrivial intersection with his chapter.

+John Baez has four posts at the Café discussing what was going to be his chapter, before deciding to decline:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_1.html

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_2.html

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_3.html

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_4.html

This paper will appear as a chapter in the book

*Categories for the Working Philosopher*, seehttps://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/11/categories_for_the_working_phi.html

for some details. +Michael Shulman 's chapter is here:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/04/a_synthetic_approach_to_higher.html

+David Corfield mentions his chapter here:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/04/the_structure_of_a.html

and links to a pdf (see the sentence "I thought I’d write out a note explaining this point of view, and it can be found here") that may have nontrivial intersection with his chapter.

+John Baez has four posts at the Café discussing what was going to be his chapter, before deciding to decline:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_1.html

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_2.html

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_3.html

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/02/concepts_of_sameness_part_4.html

Abstract. I review some recent work on applications of category theory to questions concerning theoretical structure and theoretical equivalence of classical field theories, including Newtonian gravitation, general relativity, and Yang-Mills theories.

5

4 comments

+John Baez I see. I'll edit the post.

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -Feeling a bit of imposter syndrome, at the moment...

6

16 comments

+Allen Knutson for jobs, or feelings of being an imposter? (is there an ironic grin emoji?)

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -**Mathematics in PeerJ Computer Science and open refereeing**

Probably the closest thing to a mathematics paper (well, it

*is*a mathematics paper, really) we'll see in the +PeerJ stable, for now. I'm hanging out for when they start an actual mathematics journal. But I would hope there would be proper MathML support in browsers, and decent encoding of diagrams, equations etc, rather than the junk you usually get in publishers' HTML offerings.

Most importantly, see the open referee process at work here: https://peerj.com/articles/cs-2/reviews/. In this instance the referees chose to be anonymous, but putting one's name on a review is also possible. Personally I like this latter option, since it builds social capital, and encourages more constructive reviews.

My new paper «More ties than we thought» has been published on PeerJ Computer Science.

6

1

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -11

2

2 comments

David Roberts

+

1

2

1

2

1

+Daniel Mee this article offsets all the news reports on Nash that played up actors' responses and made a hash of describing even the most basic and understandable part of his work :-)

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -This post assumes familiarity with the Landweber exact functor theorem, elliptic genera, and bordism theories. An ongoing desire of mine is to geometrically approach elliptic spectra. Note that I'm not talking about geometric cocycles for tmf. I'm talking about the vague goal of understanding ...

6

2

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -Some good comments here, especially the closing paragraphs.

How big are the "megajournals" compared to arXiv?

I use data from the article

[1] Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? by Bo-Christer Björk https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981 , table 3

and the arXiv monthly submission rates

[2] http://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

To have a clear comparison I shall look at the window 2010-2014.

Before showing the numbers, there are some things to add.

[3] Have we reached Peak Megajournal? http://svpow.com/2015/05/29/have-we-reached-peak-megajournal/

I invite you to read it, it is interesting as usual.

Counting articles is a very lossy compression technique, which associates to an article a very small number of bits.

I indulged into this activity because of the discussions from the G+ post

[4] https://plus.google.com/+MariusBuliga/posts/efzia2KxVzo

and its clone

[4'] Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/

These discussions made me realize that

I invite you to go and read all, but I cite two revealing comments:

(a) +Michael B. Eisen , comment in [4] (I don't know how to give the link to the comment, you'll have to use the link to the post) which replies to this part of one of my comments:

[me] " I am not arguing with your other writings, but this title looked to me misleading. From the post I learned about stuff which puzzled me in the past, for example why the non-symmetric definition of green vs gold OA from wikipedia: "The two ways authors can provide open access are (1) by self-archiving their journal articles in an open access repository, also known as 'green' open access, or (2) by publishing in an open access journal, known as 'gold' open access." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access ."

[Michael Eisen, my boldface] "There's a confusion of terminology here. Although the terms are not used consistently,

(b) +Stevan Harnad , comment https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/#comment-11025 at the post [4']

[my boldface] "Virtually all arxiv deposits are submitted to and eventually published in refereed journals, Both the pre-refereeing preprint and the refereed postprint are shared on Arxiv.

Both (a) and (b) are very far from reality, because arXiv is not only a repository where people put things which are either pre*print* or post*print*, but something more: a model of scientific communication which works because we need it, which does not need publishers to function.

ArXiv say in their whitepaper: http://arxiv.org/help/support/whitepaper

[my boldface]

"The e-print repository

From [1] the total number of articles per year for "megajournals" is

2010: 6,913

2011: 14,521

2012: 25,923

2013: 37,525

2014: 37,794

2015: 33,872

(for 2015 the number represents "the articles published in the first quarter of the year multiplied by four" [1])

ArXiv: (based on counting the monthly submissions listed in [2])

2010: 70,131

2011: 76,578

2012: 84,603

2013: 92,641

2014: 97,517

2015: 100,628 (by the same procedure as in [1])

This shows that

- it is not a publisher

- does not ask for APC

- it covers fields far less attractive and prolific than the megajournals.

And that is because:

- arxiv answers to a real demand from researchers, to communicate fast and reliable their work to their fellows, in a way which respects their authorship

- also a reaction of support for what most of them think is "green OA", namely to put their work there where is away from the publishers locks.

I use data from the article

[1] Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? by Bo-Christer Björk https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981 , table 3

and the arXiv monthly submission rates

[2] http://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

To have a clear comparison I shall look at the window 2010-2014.

Before showing the numbers, there are some things to add.

**1.**I saw the article [1] via the post by +Mike Taylor[3] Have we reached Peak Megajournal? http://svpow.com/2015/05/29/have-we-reached-peak-megajournal/

I invite you to read it, it is interesting as usual.

**2.**Usually, the activity of counting articles is that dumb thing which is used by managers to hide behind, in order to not be accountable for their decisions.Counting articles is a very lossy compression technique, which associates to an article a very small number of bits.

I indulged into this activity because of the discussions from the G+ post

[4] https://plus.google.com/+MariusBuliga/posts/efzia2KxVzo

and its clone

[4'] Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/

These discussions made me realize that

**the arXiv model is carefully edited out from reality by the creators and core supporters of green OA and gold OA**.I invite you to go and read all, but I cite two revealing comments:

(a) +Michael B. Eisen , comment in [4] (I don't know how to give the link to the comment, you'll have to use the link to the post) which replies to this part of one of my comments:

[me] " I am not arguing with your other writings, but this title looked to me misleading. From the post I learned about stuff which puzzled me in the past, for example why the non-symmetric definition of green vs gold OA from wikipedia: "The two ways authors can provide open access are (1) by self-archiving their journal articles in an open access repository, also known as 'green' open access, or (2) by publishing in an open access journal, known as 'gold' open access." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access ."

[Michael Eisen, my boldface] "There's a confusion of terminology here. Although the terms are not used consistently,

**in most usage "green open access" refers specifically to the practice of publishing a paper in a subscription journal and then making the paper freely available in an archive. Thus placing preprints in arXiv prior to publication is not green OA - it is something else**. Indeed the origins of "green" in "green OA" refer to the green light given by publishers to allow versions of their articles to be posted. For example, Harnard - undoubtedly the biggest proponent of green OA - makes it clear that the subject of his efforts is articles that appear in peer-reviewed journals. Hence my usage of the term green OA to apply specifically to the subset of efforts to make works freely available that employs the "parasitic" model - I was in no way criticizing arXiv - which is doing things the way they should be done. "(b) +Stevan Harnad , comment https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/#comment-11025 at the post [4']

[my boldface] "Virtually all arxiv deposits are submitted to and eventually published in refereed journals, Both the pre-refereeing preprint and the refereed postprint are shared on Arxiv.

**Arxiv is simply an access-provider, just as an institutional repository (IR) is. The only difference between an IR and Arxiv is that the IR is hosted by the author’s institution and Arxiv is hosted by Cornell. Otherwise they are absolutely identical, for both preprints and postprints. Same is true for deposits on authors’ personal websites**."Both (a) and (b) are very far from reality, because arXiv is not only a repository where people put things which are either pre*print* or post*print*, but something more: a model of scientific communication which works because we need it, which does not need publishers to function.

ArXiv say in their whitepaper: http://arxiv.org/help/support/whitepaper

[my boldface]

"The e-print repository

**has transformed the scholarly communication infrastructure**of multiple fields of physics and plays an increasingly prominent role in a unified set of global resources for physics, mathematics, computer science, and related disciplines.**It is very firmly embedded in the research workflows of these subject domains and has changed the way in which material is shared, making science more democratic and allowing for the rapid dissemination of scientific findings**. [...] Most scientists and researchers who post content on arXiv also submit their work for publication in traditional peer-reviewed journals. However, famously reclusive Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman's 2003 decision to post his proof of the 100-year-old Poincaré Conjecture solely in arXiv underscores the repository's importance and its role in transforming scholarly communication."**Now, let's see those numbers. Just how big is that arXiv thing compared to "megajournals"?**From [1] the total number of articles per year for "megajournals" is

2010: 6,913

2011: 14,521

2012: 25,923

2013: 37,525

2014: 37,794

2015: 33,872

(for 2015 the number represents "the articles published in the first quarter of the year multiplied by four" [1])

ArXiv: (based on counting the monthly submissions listed in [2])

2010: 70,131

2011: 76,578

2012: 84,603

2013: 92,641

2014: 97,517

2015: 100,628 (by the same procedure as in [1])

This shows that

**arXiv is 3 times bigger than all the megajournals at once**, despite that:- it is not a publisher

- does not ask for APC

- it covers fields far less attractive and prolific than the megajournals.

And that is because:

- arxiv answers to a real demand from researchers, to communicate fast and reliable their work to their fellows, in a way which respects their authorship

- also a reaction of support for what most of them think is "green OA", namely to put their work there where is away from the publishers locks.

1

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -To satisfy my curiosity, I'd like to know if natural categories of Fréchet manifolds are essentially small.

http://mathoverflow.net/q/207830/4177

#mathoverflow

http://mathoverflow.net/q/207830/4177

#mathoverflow

1

2 comments

+Andrew Stacey hmm, OK, thanks for the reference. Is there an innocuous, say topological, condition that all smooth Fréchet mapping spaces have that general Hilbert spaces don't? Conditions like separable are too closely linked to cardinality for these purposes, if mapping spaces are even separable. (I need an uncountably-indexed disjoint union of spaces built from path spaces, so that rules out second countability immediately.)

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -*Elsevier's new sharing policy allows you to share how much you love Elsevier's new sharing policy, provided love is not final typeset vers.*

https://twitter.com/FakeElsevier/status/601869211988840448

Ah, so much fun...

“Elsevier's new sharing policy allows you to share how much you love Elsevier's new sharing policy, provided love is not final typeset vers.”

4

2

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -This proposal could do with some more questions/upvotes:

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/70511/sage

Note that if a question already has 10 upvotes, please don't vote for it, since you need to use your five votes where they'll make a difference: at present we need 11 more questions with a score of 10 or more to move to the next phase

cc +Sage Mathematical Software System

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/70511/sage

Note that if a question already has 10 upvotes, please don't vote for it, since you need to use your five votes where they'll make a difference: at present we need 11 more questions with a score of 10 or more to move to the next phase

cc +Sage Mathematical Software System

5

3

4 comments

Add a comment...

### David Roberts

Shared publicly -I haven't said so explicitly so far, but I should let people know my current job is (again) outside of academia. I may get back in, so to speak, depending on various grant applications, or the availability of a geographically suitable job and my chances therewith.

I've got even more projects on the go or in the pipeline than last time I found myself in this position, so I have no shortage of things to squeeze into my spare time. Maybe I'll live blog the development of one or two to push myself to keep them rolling.

My latest dream is to bring together the sort of analysis one finds in gauge theoretic geometry, and higher geometry (for instance geometric string structures on manifolds). I have some small examples and potential leads, but I'd be interested to hear of others' ideas in this area.

I've got even more projects on the go or in the pipeline than last time I found myself in this position, so I have no shortage of things to squeeze into my spare time. Maybe I'll live blog the development of one or two to push myself to keep them rolling.

My latest dream is to bring together the sort of analysis one finds in gauge theoretic geometry, and higher geometry (for instance geometric string structures on manifolds). I have some small examples and potential leads, but I'd be interested to hear of others' ideas in this area.

13

5 comments

Mike Stay

+

1

2

1

2

1

+David Roberts Thanks. I hope it goes well for you.

Add a comment...

Work

Employment

- NCVERpresent
- University of Adelaide2012 - 2015

Basic Information

Gender

Male

Relationship

Married

Story

Tagline

Mathematician, among other things.

Introduction

I live in Adelaide, Australia.

I am a pure mathematician who works on category theory and a smattering of related fields such foundations and higher geometry.

I works as a data analyst, of sorts, at the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (all views expressed here are my own).

I am a visiting fellow in the School of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Adelaide.

My nLab page: http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/David+Roberts

I am a pure mathematician who works on category theory and a smattering of related fields such foundations and higher geometry.

I works as a data analyst, of sorts, at the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (all views expressed here are my own).

I am a visiting fellow in the School of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Adelaide.

My nLab page: http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/David+Roberts

Places

Currently

Adelaide, Australia

Links

YouTube

Contributor to

- MathOverflow (current)
- nLab (current)
- nForum (current)
- Math2.0 (past)