Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
On 2/3/23 10:16, Pavel Sanda wrote: Riki, wouldn't it make sense to delete the whole theorem style "acknowledgement" extension from LyX? Jürgen had proposed removing it, but adding relevant code to local layout if it's detected. That would be fine with me. Riki -- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
> On Feb 3, 2023, at 9:06 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:55:09AM -0700, Hal Kierstead wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:34:19AM -0700, Hal Kierstead via lyx-users wrote: I use this for most papers in the sense (a). Why delete it? Note that ???Acknowledgment??? is suggested in the amsthm instructions???just like ???Lemma". >>> >>> Ha :) >>> Can you point me to any paper of yours, where this is used? >> >> See attachment, just before the references. Of course, in the end the >> journal uses their own style. >> Hal > > No, this is misunderstanding. > You use Acknowledgments in the traditional sense as unnumbered section at the > end of the paper. > What I'm talking about is that we currently also offer numbered > "theorem-style" acknowledgments, > i.e. you could have it multiplte times as many subsections in the paper. > > I don't think anyone uses it and we based it on amsthm package manual section > 4.2, which > even AMS folks regard as a mistake. > > Pavel Sorry Pavel, it was a misunderstanding. Hal -- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:55:09AM -0700, Hal Kierstead wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:34:19AM -0700, Hal Kierstead via lyx-users wrote: > >> I use this for most papers in the sense (a). Why delete it? Note that > >> ???Acknowledgment??? is suggested in the amsthm instructions???just like > >> ???Lemma". > > > > Ha :) > > Can you point me to any paper of yours, where this is used? > > See attachment, just before the references. Of course, in the end the journal > uses their own style. > Hal No, this is misunderstanding. You use Acknowledgments in the traditional sense as unnumbered section at the end of the paper. What I'm talking about is that we currently also offer numbered "theorem-style" acknowledgments, i.e. you could have it multiplte times as many subsections in the paper. I don't think anyone uses it and we based it on amsthm package manual section 4.2, which even AMS folks regard as a mistake. Pavel -- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:34:19AM -0700, Hal Kierstead via lyx-users wrote: > I use this for most papers in the sense (a). Why delete it? Note that > ???Acknowledgment??? is suggested in the amsthm instructions???just like > ???Lemma". Ha :) Can you point me to any paper of yours, where this is used? Pavel -- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
> On Feb 3, 2023, at 8:16 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 04:13:32PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As you might know, LyX features a theorem type "Acknowledgment" via the
>> "AMS extended" theorems modules. This is a question for people using
>> this.
> ...
>> (a) expressing gratefulness (credits, as in the "Acknowledgment" section of
>> books or articles),
>> (b) expressing respect ("In acknowledgment of his special merits he was
>> appointed as honorary conductor of the orchestra"),
>> (c) the act or fact of accepting the truth or recognizing the existence of
>> something ("acknowledgment of a mistake"),
>> (d) a confirmation ("I have received no acknowledgment")
>
>
> So this is what we got as an response from AMS tech support:
>
>> An "Acknowledgment" theorem type is not implemented in the amsthm package.
>> The confusion probably comes from an entry in the amsthm documentation,
>> amsthdoc.pdf, where "Acknowledgment" is listed as a theorem heading that's
>> normally associated with the Remark style. Admittedly, this should not have
>> been included in the documentation, but the person who originally put it
>> there was thinking of case (a). In our publications, we treat these types of
>> Acknowledgments as an unnumbered section appearing at the end of the article,
>> so we do not recommend doing this as a theorem type. We will probably remove
>> this from the next version of the documentation.
>
> I actually looked at our latex source and it seems we are defining this
> ourselves :)
> \theoremstyle{remark}
> \newtheorem{acknowledgement}[thm]{\protect\acknowledgementname}
>
> Riki, wouldn't it make sense to delete the whole theorem style
> "acknowledgement"
> extension from LyX?
>
> Pavel
> --
> lyx-users mailing list
> lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
I use this for most papers in the sense (a). Why delete it? Note that
“Acknowledgment” is suggested in the amsthm instructions—just like “Lemma".
The \theoremstyle command
The amsthm package supports the notion of a current theorem style, which
determines what will be produced by a given \newtheorem command. The three
theorem styles provided—plain, definition, and remark—specify different degrees
of visual emphasis corresponding to their relative importance. The details of
this typographical treatment may vary depending on the document class, but
typically the plain style produces italic body text, while the other two styles
produce roman body text. These default settings are provided:
• plain : italic text, extra space above and below;
• definition : upright text, extra space above and below; • remark : upright
text, no extra space above or below.
If no \theoremstyle command is given, the style used will be plain. To specify
different styles, divide your \newtheorem commands into groups and preface each
group with the appropriate \theoremstyle. Some examples:
\theoremstyle{plain}% default
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}
\newtheorem*{cor}{Corollary}
\newtheorem*{KL}{Klein’s Lemma}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{defn}{Definition}[section]8
Using the amsthm package
4.2
Number swapping
\newtheorem{exmp}{Example}[section]
\newtheorem{xca}[exmp]{Exercise}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem*{rem}{Remark}
\newtheorem*{note}{Note}
\newtheorem{case}{Case}
The following list summarizes the types of structures which are normally
associated with each theorem style.
plain
definition
remark
Theorem, Lemma, Corollary, Proposition, Conjecture, Criterion, Assertion
Definition, Condition, Problem, Example, Exercise, Algorithm, Question, Axiom,
Property, Assumption, Hypothesis
Remark, Note, Notation, Claim, Summary, Acknowledgment, Case, Conclusion--
lyx-users mailing list
lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 04:13:32PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As you might know, LyX features a theorem type "Acknowledgment" via the
> "AMS extended" theorems modules. This is a question for people using
> this.
...
>(a) expressing gratefulness (credits, as in the "Acknowledgment" section of
>books or articles),
>(b) expressing respect ("In acknowledgment of his special merits he was
>appointed as honorary conductor of the orchestra"),
>(c) the act or fact of accepting the truth or recognizing the existence of
>something ("acknowledgment of a mistake"),
>(d) a confirmation ("I have received no acknowledgment")
So this is what we got as an response from AMS tech support:
> An "Acknowledgment" theorem type is not implemented in the amsthm package.
> The confusion probably comes from an entry in the amsthm documentation,
> amsthdoc.pdf, where "Acknowledgment" is listed as a theorem heading that's
> normally associated with the Remark style. Admittedly, this should not have
> been included in the documentation, but the person who originally put it
> there was thinking of case (a). In our publications, we treat these types of
> Acknowledgments as an unnumbered section appearing at the end of the article,
> so we do not recommend doing this as a theorem type. We will probably remove
> this from the next version of the documentation.
I actually looked at our latex source and it seems we are defining this
ourselves :)
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{acknowledgement}[thm]{\protect\acknowledgementname}
Riki, wouldn't it make sense to delete the whole theorem style "acknowledgement"
extension from LyX?
Pavel
--
lyx-users mailing list
lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
Am Mittwoch, dem 01.02.2023 um 16:13 +0100 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: > If you use or are familiar with the Acknowledgment theorem type: what > are its general purposes, or how do you use it? Clarification comes from AMS technical support (thanks Pavel for approaching them): An "Acknowledgment" theorem type is not implemented in the amsthm package. The confusion probably comes from an entry in the amsthm documentation, amsthdoc.pdf, where "Acknowledgment" is listed as a theorem heading that's normally associated with the Remark style. Admittedly, this should not have been included in the documentation, but the person who originally put it there was thinking of case (a). In our publications, we treat these types of Acknowledgments as an unnumbered section appearing at the end of the article, so we do not recommend doing this as a theorem type. We will probably remove this from the next version of the documentation. Thanks, Brian Bartling So we shouldn't have implemented this theorem type at all, but now that we have it, we will treat its semantics as proposed by Brian. -- Jürgen -- lyx-users mailing list lyx-users@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
On 2/1/23 14:37, Andrew Parsloe wrote:
On 2/02/2023 4:13 am, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Dear all,
As you might know, LyX features a theorem type "Acknowledgment" via the
"AMS extended" theorems modules. This is a question for people using
this.
The issue appeared on the developers list that none of us is actually
sure about the function of this theorem type. This is a problem with
regard to translation into other languages, as "acknowledgment" can
mean different things, among them
(a) expressing gratefulness (credits, as in the "Acknowledgment"
section of books or articles),
(b) expressing respect ("In acknowledgment of his special merits he was
appointed as honorary conductor of the orchestra"),
(c) the act or fact of accepting the truth or recognizing the existence
of something ("acknowledgment of a mistake"),
(d) a confirmation ("I have received no acknowledgment")
Depending on the meaning, the term needs to be translated differently
to some languages. Currently, it is translated in the same way than the
Acknowledgment sections in articles (meaning [a]), and we have serious
doubts whether this is appropriate.
If you use or are familiar with the Acknowledgment theorem type: what
are its general purposes, or how do you use it?
Thanks,
My reading of amsthdoc.pdf, Section 4.1, is that Acknowledgment in the
context of theorem styles is to be understood in sense (a). In
amsthdoc.pdf it is grouped with things like Remark, Notation,
Conclusion -- a typesetting style rather than a special kind of
mathematical object.
I'm not sure about that. In my field anyway, Remark is used for
comments, more or less. Sometimes it would be an explanation of a
result, or of why one is proceeding a certain way. Notation would be
used for explanations of notation. I'm less sure about Conclusion,
though I would guess it was used for something like a remark that summed
up the results of a certain line of investigation.
Still, thinking about this further, I agree with you that Acknowledgment
would probably mean (a). I can imagine something like:
Acknowledgment 3.2: Theorem 3.1 is 'folklore'. The proof given here is
based upon an idea suggested to me by NN.
Riki
--
lyx-users mailing list
lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
Re: [RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
On 2/02/2023 4:13 am, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Dear all,
As you might know, LyX features a theorem type "Acknowledgment" via the
"AMS extended" theorems modules. This is a question for people using
this.
The issue appeared on the developers list that none of us is actually
sure about the function of this theorem type. This is a problem with
regard to translation into other languages, as "acknowledgment" can
mean different things, among them
(a) expressing gratefulness (credits, as in the "Acknowledgment"
section of books or articles),
(b) expressing respect ("In acknowledgment of his special merits he was
appointed as honorary conductor of the orchestra"),
(c) the act or fact of accepting the truth or recognizing the existence
of something ("acknowledgment of a mistake"),
(d) a confirmation ("I have received no acknowledgment")
Depending on the meaning, the term needs to be translated differently
to some languages. Currently, it is translated in the same way than the
Acknowledgment sections in articles (meaning [a]), and we have serious
doubts whether this is appropriate.
If you use or are familiar with the Acknowledgment theorem type: what
are its general purposes, or how do you use it?
Thanks,
My reading of amsthdoc.pdf, Section 4.1, is that Acknowledgment in the
context of theorem styles is to be understood in sense (a). In
amsthdoc.pdf it is grouped with things like Remark, Notation, Conclusion
-- a typesetting style rather than a special kind of mathematical object.
Andrew--
lyx-users mailing list
lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
[RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type
Dear all,
As you might know, LyX features a theorem type "Acknowledgment" via the
"AMS extended" theorems modules. This is a question for people using
this.
The issue appeared on the developers list that none of us is actually
sure about the function of this theorem type. This is a problem with
regard to translation into other languages, as "acknowledgment" can
mean different things, among them
(a) expressing gratefulness (credits, as in the "Acknowledgment"
section of books or articles),
(b) expressing respect ("In acknowledgment of his special merits he was
appointed as honorary conductor of the orchestra"),
(c) the act or fact of accepting the truth or recognizing the existence
of something ("acknowledgment of a mistake"),
(d) a confirmation ("I have received no acknowledgment")
Depending on the meaning, the term needs to be translated differently
to some languages. Currently, it is translated in the same way than the
Acknowledgment sections in articles (meaning [a]), and we have serious
doubts whether this is appropriate.
If you use or are familiar with the Acknowledgment theorem type: what
are its general purposes, or how do you use it?
Thanks,
--
Jürgen
--
lyx-users mailing list
lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-users
