Skip to main content

Timeline for Is the Jaccard distance a distance?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 19, 2021 at 0:20 comment added darij grinberg Fixed both grammar and a minor oversight ($r$ can be 0).
Jan 19, 2021 at 0:17 history edited darij grinberg CC BY-SA 4.0
added 49 characters in body
Nov 22, 2018 at 19:55 comment added Suvrit I had added the comma not for grammatical reasons, but for focusing the reader to pause after having read the "definition" (notice :=) of $\delta$. If I had written $\delta = $, then I would not have placed that comma (a partial violation of grammar, for reasons of indicating a focus / pause).
Nov 22, 2018 at 18:22 comment added Qfwfq @LSpice: Now that I read better, yes, I agree: the comma shouldn't be there. But the user Gabriel Fair made a similar comment directly on the OP, where the punctuation after the formula was ok, so I guessed his doubts were about what I said in my previous comment.
Nov 22, 2018 at 18:04 comment added LSpice @Qfwfq, I think that explanation doesn't work here, since the comma doesn't belong in a plain English sentence either; one wouldn't say "then delta, is a metric".
Nov 21, 2018 at 23:51 comment added Qfwfq @Gabriel Fair 2017: English sentences, whether or not containing mathematical formulae, are still English sentences, with punctuation working as usual.
Oct 26, 2017 at 1:05 comment added Gabriel Fair oh, thanks. I'm a beginner and I saw the same thing on the wikipedia page and I was very confused.
Oct 25, 2017 at 0:46 comment added Suvrit I see, it looks visually a bit unfortunately placed; it's just a punctuation after the equation; I don't want to edit the answer just to add a tiny bit more space between the equation and the comma though.
Oct 25, 2017 at 0:16 comment added Gabriel Fair What does that prime (comma) character mean in the denominator of your corollary equation?
Jul 3, 2015 at 13:39 history answered Suvrit CC BY-SA 3.0