Timeline for Should one use "above" and "below" in mathematical writing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2010 at 14:08 | comment | added | B. Bischof | @Pete this is the second time I have heard this connection, in this exact same context! Wonderful both times. | |
| Aug 12, 2010 at 12:18 | vote | accept | Spiro Karigiannis | ||
| Aug 11, 2010 at 15:43 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | Pete, your connection between the numbering of all equations in a mathematical paper and the violation of Chekhov's admonition is absolutely brilliant in its unexpectedness. Kudos! | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 15:25 | comment | added | Donu Arapura | I also think this is an interesting suggestion. However, picking up my copy of EGA at random, I see there is an equation (7.7.1.1) followed by paragraph (7.7.2).... This is both a good thing and a bad thing. | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 15:24 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | (cont'd) Perhaps in today's world, we could do away with equation numbers and use some sort of hyperlink technology to refer to equations. This would not work on paper, of course; but on screen you would not even have to visually decorate the hyperlinks. It's enough that when hovering the mouse over the words referencing the equation, the hyperlink is highlighted. Of course, this would mean having to come with possibly baroque ways to refer to some equation. | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 15:19 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | Pete, I agree that numbering all equations results in a somewhat unsightly paper -- which is also the main reason that I used to number only the equations I referenced, and would in fact use tricks such as "the equation above",... to avoid referencing them. There's something to be said about an equation being displayed without the company of some 'noncanonical' natural numbers. However, in the end and after some soul-searching, the above argument won out. Your second point would become moot if everyone followed this advice, though :) | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 15:05 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Sorry, my allusion above was pretty diluted (as well as mispelled). I meant this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 15:02 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | This is interesting advice. The reasons I might not do this seem quite subjective: 1) too much use of numeration in a paper gives it a kind of bureaucrtic feel [we could just number every line, right?], and 2) as Spiro describes, when I see a number next to an equation, that makes me think it is important and going to be used later. A numbered equation which is never cited again feels a little like an unfulfilled Chekovian promise. | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 15:02 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | Excellent point. I never number all of my equations, because I want the reader to know which equations are the important ones at a glance. But now that I think about it, maybe the less important ones should not be displayed to begin with. | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 14:40 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | You're welcome. I'm just passing on the advice. I had never thought about it before either. | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 14:10 | comment | added | Spiro Karigiannis | Thanks, José. I actually never thought of that. It makes very good sense. In part, I was comparing equations to citations. I know it's definitely not acceptable to put a paper in your bibliography that you don't cite somewhere in the text, so I was applying the same rule to equations. But your point is going to make me think hard about what to do next time. I know that I need to get creative to describe where a mistake is in an unnumbered equation when I write a referee's report. | |
| Aug 11, 2010 at 14:04 | history | answered | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | CC BY-SA 2.5 |