Thuses

At Thuses, we believe in the following principle:

Each post should be a little nugget of knowledge or insight that you bring to the math community.

We understand that this principle may be interpreted in many different ways, and therefore, it is important that we give concrete examples of posts that we welcome at Thuses:

1. As mathematicians, we all know the feeling when reading a paper and encountering mathematical statements that the author(s) claim to be “clear” or “immediate,” but in reality are not. Therefore, we welcome any post that elucidates non-trivial details in math papers.
2. By extension, posts on different methods to prove existing results in the literature are also very much welcomed at Thuses. In many situations, it turns out that a different take on an existing result leads to new and interesting math.
3. Math results/proofs that are known to experts but have never been written anywhere, e.g. “folklore math,” are welcome at Thuses.
4. Finally, we welcome any post on math at the graduate level and above. You are free to decide on what you think is appropriate, as long as it adheres to the principle stated above. However, there are caveats (see point 7 below).

The following are examples of posts that are not appropriate at Thuses:

5. Questions with well-defined answers, e.g. homework questions, reference requests, or “How do I solve X?” There are websites for dealing with such questions, e.g. math.stackexchange or mathoverflow.net.
6. Posts on undergraduate level math, e.g. “Introduction to Group Theory” or “Introduction to Real Analysis.” There are many books/notes/lecture videos out there on these topics.
7. By extension, even though we generally welcome posts on math at the grad level and above, we do not welcome posts on elementary graduate level math topics, e.g. “Introduction to Scheme Theory.” We stress however that even then, there is a lot of ambiguity on what “elementary” means. For instance, a post on an example of a scheme without closed points is certainly “elementary” but would definitely be acceptable. On the other hand, a generic post on the foundations of scheme theory that is a repackaging of Hartshorne/Ravi’s notes is not, as this violates the principle above.