On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Pierre<pierre.guil...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP> > Of course this is just silly (as grammar (typography?) rules can > sometimes be), as a 178-cocycle is a nightmare to write down, and i'm > not even sure what to make of n-cocycles where n isn't defined yet. > For the record though, i think what i've said is correct. At least > i've recently finished an article for which the co-author made change > all the 2-cocycles into two-cocycles, so i guess he was pretty serious > about that. When writing prose, some people (including me) consider it good form to spell out whole numbers from 0 to 10, inclusive. Hence I'm not at all surprised that the co-author mentioned above wrote "two-cocycles" instead of "2-cocycles". For a whole number greater than 10, I wouldn't bother with spelling it out. Writing "12-cocyle" is OK, but "twelve-cocyle" looks horrible to some people who consider it as departing from good style. -- Regards Minh Van Nguyen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
