Content deleted Content added
more talk |
Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 97:
:: What do you think is missing. [[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]
::: A decent-size section which explicitly shows the relationship. Something akin to my "proofs" you were refering to earlier. You asked what from the old should be added back in...
:::Also, the first two formulas that aren't indented, that's been distracting. I don't know what it is exactly, maybe it's just indenting, maybe putting the discriptions before, maybe I just don't like seeing formulas so small being so prominent.
:::Very minor; I don't care, really: I'm not used to the dot. Is it really better to have it, or to omit it? I think it's clearer without, but that's probably because I'm more acquanted with it's abscence. But then again, that's because it usually is absent. If, by itself, it's affect is purely a conditioned effect, then I would argue that it's omission is more clear, simply because it's one less symbol. -[[User:Kevin_baas|kb]]
| |||