finished recap

adoptions/conc.tex

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ applicable.
   \item auto-generation of recap material from content commons
   \item need a community process of moving ``original theory'' towards encyclopedias.
 \end{todolist}
-
+\ednote{multiple recaps}
 %%% Local Variables:
 %%% mode: latex
 %%% TeX-master: "paper"

adoptions/patterns.tex

@@ -120,17 +120,9 @@ In our analysis we restrict ourselves to the case where there is a single recap
 simplicity and expositional clarity. The approach can be extended to multiple recaps from
 the same realm with minimal effort -- but the diagrams become messy. This already covers
 the majority of research papers we have analyzed; they build on an earlier paper and
-extend it. All three examples from Section~\ref{sec:cg-preprints} fall into this category,
-they import the definitions and terminology from a central cited paper, but call on others
-from the same realm for results, context, and support. 
-
-
-\begin{oldpart}{this cannot be understood here}
-  In informal mathematics $v$ is usually not explicitly given, but it may or may not be
-  justified. In case it is not we call $v$ a \emph{postulated} view.  The relation $r$ is
-  between the recap and the cited paper is left unspecified at this point as we
-  distinguish several cases below.
-\end{oldpart}
+extend it. Indeed, all three examples from Section~\ref{sec:cg-preprints} fall into this
+category, they import the definitions and terminology from a central cited paper, but call
+on others from the same realm for results, context, and support.
 
 %Mathematical papers re-introduce concepts with the implied assumption of semantic equivalence in the context of the paper.
 %I.e. every statement in the paper holds for the original definition too, but not necessarily the converse.
@@ -312,16 +304,6 @@ written down in the paper as ``\textsf{There are several equivalent ways to defi
 sample papers we studied.
 % Moreover, examples \ref{ex:quant} and \ref{ex:calculi} also fit in this category. 
 
-\begin{oldpart}{either put somewhere or delete}
-  The implicit or explicit equivalence of the local definitions in the recap theory that
-  the view $v$ from the face exists and therefore that theorems from the mathematical
-  field can be used in the paper. In case the equivalence is implicit we speak of a
-  \emph{postulated} view, i.e. one where the assigned expressions are (partially)
-  informal.  A flexiformal system can still reason about the meaning travel induced by a
-  postulated view but cannot look into assigned objects and e.g. proof check them.
-\end{oldpart}
-
-
 \begin{figure}[ht]\centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}
   %realm
@@ -512,14 +494,18 @@ precisely but there are some interesting things there, we should talk about it}
  \caption{Publication graph for specialization recaps (using Example \ref{ex:atm})}\label{fig:rec-atm}
 \end{figure}
 
-\paragraph{Postulated Recap/Adoption} \label{rc:ge}
-Finally, we have the case where $s$ is a plain (partial) include that does not entail conservativity and therefore does not entail 
-the existence $v$. In that case we call $v$ a \emph{postulated} view and the recap itself an \emph{adoption}. 
+\subsection{Postulated Recap/Adoption}\label{rc:ge}
 
-This is the case in example \ref{ex:course} where the recap theory \cn{SET} includes only the symbols $\in$ and $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ from 
-the formal development \cn{ZFset}, but not their axioms. Instead the symbols are ``defined'' by alluding to the literature (common knowledge). 
-We claim this verbalization effectively postulates the existence of $v$, by implying that the semantics of the two symbols is compatible with that
-given in the literature (which we represent as a realm).
+Finally, we have the case where $s$ is a plain (partial) include that does not entail
+conservativity and therefore does not entail the existence $v$. In that case we call $v$ a
+\emph{postulated} view and the recap itself an \emph{adoption}.
+
+This is the case in example \ref{ex:course} where the recap theory \cn{SET} includes only
+the symbols $\in$ and $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ from the formal development \cn{ZFset}, but not
+their axioms. Instead the symbols are ``defined'' by alluding to the literature (common
+knowledge).  We claim this verbalization effectively postulates the existence of $v$, by
+implying that the semantics of the two symbols is compatible with that given in the
+literature (which we represent as a realm).
 
 \begin{figure}[ht]\centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}
@@ -570,6 +556,22 @@ given in the literature (which we represent as a realm).
 \end{figure}
 
 
+\begin{oldpart}{from the equivalence example}
+  The implicit or explicit equivalence of the local definitions in the recap theory that
+  the view $v$ from the face exists and therefore that theorems from the mathematical
+  field can be used in the paper. In case the equivalence is implicit we speak of a
+  \emph{postulated} view, i.e. one where the assigned expressions are (partially)
+  informal.  A flexiformal system can still reason about the meaning travel induced by a
+  postulated view but cannot look into assigned objects and e.g. proof check them.
+\end{oldpart}
+
+\begin{oldpart}{this cannot be understood here}
+  In informal mathematics $v$ is usually not explicitly given, but it may or may not be
+  justified. In case it is not we call $v$ a \emph{postulated} view.  The relation $r$ is
+  between the recap and the cited paper is left unspecified at this point as we
+  distinguish several cases below.
+\end{oldpart}
+
 
 
 %%% Local Variables: