Er, I know it looks strange, but the (pedantically) correct spacing of
the em dash is to have no spaces around it.
See, for example:
http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/091502.htm
On Aug 9, 2:08 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks everyone. I posted a new version here:
>
Thanks everyone. I posted a new version here:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/papers/oscas/oscas-ams-notices.pdf
On 8/8/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really think some kind of a closing, final sentence/statement needs
> to be placed right before the "full disclo
I really think some kind of a closing, final sentence/statement needs
to be placed right before the "full disclosure." I'd try and come up
with something but I'm exhausted right now.
- Robert
On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:03 PM, David Joyner wrote:
> Hi:
>
> The version at
> http://sage.math.washing
Strangely, Google Groups converted my em dash into a regular dash. The
em dash character can be easily found elsewhere, though.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EM
Other minor English usage suggestions:
(repairs: em dash, em dash spacing, and run-on sentence)
"various mathematical facts - no code is given, and the programs
are proprietary software some of which only run on hardware many
years out of date."
->
"various mathematical facts-no code is given.
I have been resisting a mention of this, but I finally gave in:
Do you think "the second author" is a bit awkward, especially right
after mentioning a bunch of mathematical software? It is possible that
readers could become confused.
Ways to deal with this:
1. Use "Your second author... " or "On
Minor fix on page 2:
"We probably will believe her, but she knows that she will be required
to produce a proof if required."
should probably be
"We probably will believe her, but she knows that she will be required
to produce a proof if requested."
--Mike
On 8/8/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I think saying that Mathematica is the company that made that claim
about needing to know about internals is incorrect since Wikipedia
says that Mathematica is produced by Wolfram Research.
On 8/8/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> The version at
> http://sage.math.washington
