Benjamin Schultz wrote: >The precedent of CFJ 1810 is relevant only to the extent of the >correction of the published results. CFJ 1851 being on the initial >publication, I don't see how 1810 applies. I'm still going over >1711, though.
CFJs 1711 and 1810, while directly concerned with correction of published results, largely hinge on how much is allowed to be implicit and the degree of hoops through which it is acceptable to require readers to jump in order to resolve the implicitude. You need to abstract a bit, but if you can find principles there then they will be directly relevant to CFJ 1851. -zefram
