A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
{
"ostatus": "http://ostatus.org#",
"atomUri": "ostatus:atomUri",
"inReplyToAtomUri": "ostatus:inReplyToAtomUri",
"conversation": "ostatus:conversation",
"sensitive": "as:sensitive",
"toot": "http://joinmastodon.org/ns#",
"votersCount": "toot:votersCount"
}
],
"id": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136440496928890",
"type": "Note",
"summary": null,
"inReplyTo": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/ykonstant/statuses/112132880453705661",
"published": "2024-03-22T00:11:31Z",
"url": "https://mathstodon.xyz/@jsm28/112136440496928890",
"attributedTo": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/followers",
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/ykonstant"
],
"sensitive": false,
"atomUri": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136440496928890",
"inReplyToAtomUri": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/ykonstant/statuses/112132880453705661",
"conversation": "tag:mathstodon.xyz,2024-03-21:objectId=89813587:objectType=Conversation",
"content": "<p><span class=\"h-card\" translate=\"no\"><a href=\"https://mathstodon.xyz/@ykonstant\" class=\"u-url mention\">@<span>ykonstant</span></a></span> For formalizing Appendix A in isolation, yes, piecewise linear would suffice, and for more general spectres in the second paper, piecewise 𝐶¹ would suffice. The goal of my formalization is to get everything into either mathlib or the mathlib archive, which means doing it in appropriate generality rather than just more limited versions needed for a particular application. For example, if anything depends on the basic division of the boundary of a tile (in a locally finite tiling by closed topological disks) into vertices and edges - Statements 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of Tilings and Patterns - then those should be formalized in general, not just for tiles with well-behaved boundaries.</p>",
"contentMap": {
"en": "<p><span class=\"h-card\" translate=\"no\"><a href=\"https://mathstodon.xyz/@ykonstant\" class=\"u-url mention\">@<span>ykonstant</span></a></span> For formalizing Appendix A in isolation, yes, piecewise linear would suffice, and for more general spectres in the second paper, piecewise 𝐶¹ would suffice. The goal of my formalization is to get everything into either mathlib or the mathlib archive, which means doing it in appropriate generality rather than just more limited versions needed for a particular application. For example, if anything depends on the basic division of the boundary of a tile (in a locally finite tiling by closed topological disks) into vertices and edges - Statements 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of Tilings and Patterns - then those should be formalized in general, not just for tiles with well-behaved boundaries.</p>"
},
"attachment": [],
"tag": [
{
"type": "Mention",
"href": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/ykonstant",
"name": "@ykonstant"
}
],
"replies": {
"id": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136440496928890/replies",
"type": "Collection",
"first": {
"type": "CollectionPage",
"next": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136440496928890/replies?min_id=112136448081213342&page=true",
"partOf": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136440496928890/replies",
"items": [
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136448081213342"
]
}
},
"likes": {
"id": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136440496928890/likes",
"type": "Collection",
"totalItems": 0
},
"shares": {
"id": "https://mathstodon.xyz/users/jsm28/statuses/112136440496928890/shares",
"type": "Collection",
"totalItems": 0
}
}