Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

November 15, 2018

Magnitude: A Bibliography

Posted by Tom Leinster

I’ve just done something I’ve been meaning to do for ages: compiled a bibliography of all the publications on magnitude that I know about. More people have written about it than I’d realized!

This isn’t an exercise in citation-gathering; I’ve only included a paper if magnitude is the central subject or a major theme.

I’ve included works on magnitude of ordinary, un-enriched, categories, in which context magnitude is usually called Euler characteristic. But I haven’t included works on the diversity measures that are closely related to magnitude.

Enjoy! And let me know in the comments if I’ve missed anything.

Posted at November 15, 2018 12:31 AM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/3074

3 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

Re: Magnitude: A Bibliography

One notable feature: of the 38 papers listed, 100% of them are on the arXiv.

Posted by: Tom Leinster on November 15, 2018 12:55 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Magnitude: A Bibliography

Splendid thanks! I was just trying to cobble something together yesterday for my PhD student from various Café posts.

Posted by: Simon Willerton on November 15, 2018 8:17 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Magnitude: A Bibliography

Nice idea! I hadn’t been aware of all of these.

Have you considered annotating them in any way? It’s not always the case that a paper’s most important contribution (in retrospect) is apparent from its abstract, so a sentence here or there about what an article establishes might be helpful. This thread could be a good place to gather suggestions for that, too.

(Unfortunately for me, I’ve only ever published/posted things about the diversity measures, rather than magnitude proper, so I can’t use this as an opportunity for self-promotion.)

Posted by: Blake Stacey on November 16, 2018 8:04 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment