EoM is nice but also pretty concise. The point I’m trying to make all along is that, for a number of “classical” subjects, OUGM provides longer narratives that fit nicely in between the PCM (where many articles are fairly concise but typically longer than, say, in EoM) and the (lighter) textbooks for students. By the way, if you know of other books that fit roughly the same niche as OUGM (essentially, the books for mathematicians who need to grasp the basics of some subfield which is new to them), please share the info.

]]>If breadth of coverage is required, then the student could try the two volume ‘Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics’ (MIT Press), an English translation of a two volume work originally published by the Mathematical Society of Japan. Concise entries, though; more a ‘dictionary’ than an ‘encyclopedia’.

Similarly, Springer provides online access to their Encylopedia of Mathematics and its Applications at

It is a translation of ‘Matematicheskaya entsiklopediya’ originally published in the Soviet Union, and subsequently extended with supplements up to 2002. Again, broad coverage, but concise articles, less verbose than PCM.

We’re in agreement about the idea of multiple options.

]]>Sure! I didn’t say OUGM is **the only** option but rather **an** option 🙂 although perhaps it is, as a whole, a bit less uneven than (the totality of) math Wikipedia entries. But, as I have already said in the post, the main problem is OUGM just doesn’t cover many subjects at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics

(Another possible use for such sources is to brush up on the material that you’re supposed to know, but don’t.)

]]>