If/when the question is asked, did the editor mess with the text? I want the answer to be unequivocally no.
There is an example in the paper which indicates which way Ken himself would have gone. In section 5.4, there was a quote from Professor Blaauw. http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm#5.4 ...learning the language pays of in and outside the field of computer design. Obviously, it should have been "pays off". The way Ken solved this problem, was: ...learning the language pays of (sic) in and outside the field of computer design. By the way, I consider it the case that Ken worked with one armed tied behind his back, or at least had a couple of fingers tied together. Specifically, I believe a large number of expressions would be slightly simpler if the index origin were 0 instead of 1. And, as mentioned several days ago, further simplifications obtain if he had # instead of just rho. ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Watson <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 14:12 Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Notation as a Tool of Thought To: General forum <[email protected]> > There are two papers of interest - the original for historical > purposes and > the corrected one from which people learn. There are three ways > you might do > it: 1) publish both papers 2) publish the original paper with > errata updates > 3) publish the revised paper with notification of the > corrections made. > > Those who wish to learn from the paper are likely to be more > numerous - so > you must publish the corrected paper - way 2 is an > unsatisfactory solution. > However, you have way 1 or way 3 from which to choose. > > Don Watson > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Devon McCormick" <[email protected]> > To: "General forum" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:12 PM > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Notation as a Tool of Thought > > > > In general, I agree with Harvey that it makes sense these days > to do > > things > > the other way around. Hey, it's kind of like the "better > ideas" of doing > > away with order-of-operations or programming notationally > rather than > > lexically: you're bound to get resistance. > > > > However, in this case, particularly for my purpose of linking > to the > > original Turing Award lecture, I agree with Roger that keeping the > > historical document "as-is" makes more sense. > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Roger Hui > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I want to be as faithful to the original as reasonable; > >> therefore, I am sticking to the current errata arrangement. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Hahn, Harvey" <[email protected]> > >> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:33 > >> Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Notation as a Tool of Thought > >> To: General forum <[email protected]> > >> > >> > Roger Hui wrote: > >> > |The wrong symbol for floor was in the original paper > >> > |and is noted in the Errata section. > >> > > >> > Errata/Corrigenda sections were obviously necessary in print > >> > publications because you can't change the printed page, > but, for > >> > pete'ssake, we're now in an online world, and distributable > >> > documents should > >> > have the correct versions within them. Why promulgate > >> > errors?? There's > >> > enough of that on the Internet already! For repristinators > >> > who want to > >> > recreate the original error-filled document for themselves, > >> > reverse the > >> > print-world process and have an "Errors Corrected" section > (containing>> > the print errors) at the end. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
