Timeline for Treating citation numbers as objects [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2020 at 22:56 | history | closed |
Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Philippe Gaucher Timothy Chow Dag Oskar Madsen CommunityBot |
Duplicate of Is it acceptable to use the citation references like [1] or [Joh] as nouns in mathematical writing? | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 17:55 | comment | added | Massimo Ortolano | Related on Academia: academia.stackexchange.com/q/49487/20058 | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 14:30 | comment | added | StefanH | What about an "indirect citation", like "[...] it is known that in every right-angled triangle, the squares of the catheti summed equal the square of the hypotenuse [1]. By this fact [...]"? It is somehow placed like a footnote, I actually like it. | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 14:21 | comment | added | Taladris | It would have been great if the guideline had justified its recommendations. Some of them are absolutely pedantic. For example, I find it a bit dumb to recommend using "zero" instead of "root" for polynomials. Nothing wrong with the word "zero" but when using Descartes' Rule of Signs (for example), one has to speak of "positive zeros" or "negative zeros", and sometimes of "nonzero zeros"! An alternative is welcome. | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 12:07 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @AriBrodsky : \dots usually works but not always. To make its decision, it looks at the following character, which does not always tell it the correct thing to do. | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 10:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 6, 2020 at 23:02 | |||||
| Oct 6, 2020 at 10:27 | comment | added | Ari Brodsky | Though that guide has some useful tips, there are other things wrong with it. Instead of 4.15, just use \dots (from amsmath). | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 4:39 | comment | added | Fred Rohrer | I always use the "wrong" variant, as it seems the only grammatically reasonable thing to do. Why would one write something that is treated like footnotes not as footnotes? | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 4:39 | comment | added | bof | If that was the worst thing mathematical writers did wrong, their papers would be a lot more pleasant to read. | |
| Oct 6, 2020 at 1:12 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Oct 6, 2020 at 0:36 | comment | added | David Handelman | I think this style guide instruction is unacceptably pedantic. | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 23:03 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Related: mathoverflow.net/q/247743 and mathoverflow.net/q/237946 | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 20:13 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Oct 5, 2020 at 19:31 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | In my experience, these journal style guides are largely ignored. | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 18:02 | comment | added | LSpice | This seems like fussy advice. [1] stands for "Adler - Refined anisotropic K-types" (in most of my papers, anyway); setting up this correspondence is what the bibliography is there to do. Thus, "In [1] …" means "In Adler - Refined anisotropic K-types …", which is very near being perfectly grammatical. Let anyone who has a problem with it fuss over splitting infinitives instead. | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 17:43 | comment | added | Ira Gessel | I will go even farther and say that in my opinion there's nothing wrong with using a citation number as an object of a preposition. | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 17:36 | comment | added | YCor | Many articles are more or less sloppy indeed, so I'd say the bare fact that (1) and (2) among your examples are common shows you won't be blamed for writing this, but doesn't make it good usage. I think these are good recommendations in general. Some editors/publishers follow this rule. Of course, when [1] is quoted repeatedly, it's a good reason for quoting them once and for all. Another case is a sentence where the "abuse" is understandable: "Similar problems have been considered in [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23]." which would be lengthy otherwise. | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 17:24 | answer | added | David White | timeline score: 26 | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 17:20 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | It's just sloppy writing,"abusive" seems much too strong a qualification. I do think "In Ref. 1..." is OK, as equivalent to "In reference number 1..." | |
| Oct 5, 2020 at 17:12 | history | asked | Pietro Paparella | CC BY-SA 4.0 |