in light of that recent, small bit of good news, i'm now re-reading an old manuscript of mine from .. well, i'd rather not say .. and getting it type-set for publication.
the discussion is technical, but it's really clear; then again, maybe i'm too used to these kind of details by now. they are all carefully present in the write-up, though. not to make too much of it, but the discussion almost has a nice flow to it.
that said, i think i'm a lot looser with my writing now and perhaps less careful .. which is a bad thing. i guess we all pick up bad habits as we get older. 7-:
the discussion is technical, but it's really clear; then again, maybe i'm too used to these kind of details by now. they are all carefully present in the write-up, though. not to make too much of it, but the discussion almost has a nice flow to it.
that said, i think i'm a lot looser with my writing now and perhaps less careful .. which is a bad thing. i guess we all pick up bad habits as we get older. 7-:
// added: 6 june 2013 @ 15:09 EEST
ye gods: under the journal's formatting guidelines, the manuscript is 38 pages long!
years ago i thought it would be "cheating" to split it up into two papers. my original intention was to (A) solve a special case of a conjecture, and so doing (B) build up the basics of a theory, which might actually be useful someday. at the time, however, i doubted that each piece could stand on its own ..
.. but now i'm not so sure. the proof of that special case takes 10 pages on its own, so it would have been fine to write a short note and cite it in the other part; that way, the theory-building part of the paper would be justified (but only that it would not be in the same writeup).
[sighs]
oh well; it's too late now. after five years of waiting, i just don't care anymore about what might have beens ..
years ago i thought it would be "cheating" to split it up into two papers. my original intention was to (A) solve a special case of a conjecture, and so doing (B) build up the basics of a theory, which might actually be useful someday. at the time, however, i doubted that each piece could stand on its own ..
.. but now i'm not so sure. the proof of that special case takes 10 pages on its own, so it would have been fine to write a short note and cite it in the other part; that way, the theory-building part of the paper would be justified (but only that it would not be in the same writeup).
[sighs]
oh well; it's too late now. after five years of waiting, i just don't care anymore about what might have beens ..
No comments:
Post a Comment