Fixes for second round of peer reviews #216
Conversation
The correct citation was already in the bib file. Item of note: for books, always get the citation from Google Books, not Google Scholar.
| such identity holds. | ||
| unless the assumptions allow them. For instance, the simplification $\sqrt{t^2} | ||
| = t$ holds if $t$ is nonnegative ($t\ge 0$). However, for a complex $t$, the | ||
| simplification is in general invalid, the correct identity that holds for all |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would either remove the last part of the sentence ("the correct identity...") or move it to a footnote.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I moved it into a footnote in 17e8354.
I would like it to be there, since the editor raised a question about it, so instead of "talk", let's provide an actual identity for sqrt(x^2) in terms of x that actually works for all complex x.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fine. Although as far as I know SymPy doesn't implement this formula (I could be wrong about that, though).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, why not use the definition using exp. Isn't that more standard than the one you have?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can write it using exp, but that's even more complicated, I just simplified exp(pi*I)=-1. See http://www.theoretical-physics.net/dev/math/complex.html#examples
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you update the rebuttal for this as well?
|
Actually we still need to wait from PeerJ to see if there are any technical changes that need to be made. So the end of this week may be too soon. The deadline is 40 days (from October 17). The changes are basically done, so obviously I'd like to submit it well before that. One thing I'm unclear about: should we remove the line numbers when we resubmit, since the decision this time was "minor changes"? |
This gets rid of a block of vertical whitespace before it, because the table is there.
That should make it faster
|
@asmeurer is it possible to create a pdf document that people can sign off? Currently some stuff is metadata, and it's really confusing what will end up in the final pdf as created by PeerJ. If not, I would like to see the final pdfs, as well as metadata, that you submitted to the journal. So that people know exactly what they are signing off. Can you help me with this? Once I have the documents, yes, I will organize it. |
|
@certik you can use isuruf-bot@b3b611e |
|
@asmeurer thanks. Do you have a link to the exact metadata, that you submitted with it? Acknowledgements, etc.? |
|
Only if you are able to read this: https://peerj.com/manuscripts/11410/declarations/#reqStatement. There's actually a lot of forms that I have to fill out. You can see everything from that manuscript html I emailed you on October 6. Was there anything on that page that needed to change? I can send you the latest version if you want. |
|
So I contacted PeerJ, and apparently the technical changes part of their email was a bug. There are no further changes forthcoming. So I guess I'll go ahead and submit what is here. |
|
@asmeurer perfect. Keep us updated how it goes. |
|
So I just noticed a small issue. The bottom of the features table is running over into the footnote on page 3. Here is a screenshot.
|
|
I have no idea how to fix it. |
|
You can ask the journal to help with formatting like this. |
|
I've submitted it. |
See #215
Everyone push to this branch.