Here is the paper with the abstract added. We also ran it through the spellchecker and fixed five or six spelling errors.
Embed
Probably the last post for comments on treeconstruction.ps. We changed some wording and a lot of spacing this time. Tomorrow we need to come up with an abstract, but it should fit. The latest copies of each paper is in the shelf in the cs lounge. you guys can pick up the ones that you didn't get tonight.
Here is the postscript with the changes Greg made.
Download file
Here is the paper with the first set of changes (figures and section 4 on). Greg, the tex file with my changes is in my root directory (kernco).
Embed
We've made more revisions to the paper including citations, spacing, conclusion, and small changes to wording.
Here is the progress we made today. I think we took care of everything we talked about in our meeting this morning.
Embed paper
Here's the latest (pre-2:30pm meeting) draft of the Tree Construction paper. The TeX source is in ~brownda/treeconstruction.
I've added relevant citations, and fixed two remaining errors (adding "all" to "for j < i", and removing the unnecessary explanation of Corrolary 1.
Download file (treeconstruction09142004.pdf)
Here is the rough draft of the Embed paper. The .tex file is located in ~kernco/embed.tex.
Rough Draft
Hi:
Here's an updated version of the tree construction paper. This one fixes typesetting errors, scales figures to the correct sizes, scales verbatim and code sections to the correct sizes, and includes the introduction (short form).
Alex and I will insert the missing citations tomorrow.
Exactly 10 pages:
Download file (treeconstruction.pdf)
Hi Everyone:
Here are two versions of the paper introduction. Each of these is ready for the final revision stage, as far as I can judge.
The first version (intro-long.pdf) is the work from August. It's here for purposes of completeness.
The second version (intro-short.pdf) is a compacted version intended for the paper.
- Dave
Dave and I met tonight and discussed the first portion of the full paper. As with Colin and Greg we have not yet fixed all of the formatting issues. We have a couple questions about how much of Dave's introduction should be included as well as clarifying some of the definitions
Here is the first rough draft of the Embed paper. It is basically a direct copy and paste from the larger paper, we added a small introductory section, and formatted it into two columns (the figures and some of the formulas run into other columns, we need to find a solution). Greg and I have come up with a few questions about where to go with this.
We mention that this paper builds from the other paper we are going to submit. The other paper contains a lot of basic terminology, but neither paper contains the information about heads. Are we just going to remove all mention of heads? It seems like this would leave holes in our logic at times.
Should most of the background information be stated in an introduction, or is mentioning the other paper enough? How much of the background information is "common knowledge" among the audience of this paper?