Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
When should we say ’type 2-theory’ rather than ’2-type theory’?
My own inclination is to always say the former and never the latter. I really want to say “2-(type theory)” but that’s hard to pronounce correctly, while to my ear “2-type theory” sounds like “(2-type) theory” whereas “type 2-theory” is easier to understand as meaning “2-(type theory)”. But I didn’t want to rename the page unilaterally; any other opinions?
Matches ’Klein 2-geometry’ where it all began for me, so I’m in.
One potential source of confusion for “type 2-theory” is “type-2 theory”, e.g. Type two theory of effectivity, Type II string theory!
I don’t personally hear any danger of “type-2 theory”; when I say it the space is much longer than the hyphen.
Thanks.
I have added DOI-link and author link to Garner 09 and put the article into chronological order (hence: on top of the list).
NB: adding author link just amounts to enclosing the name in double square brackets, the rest is handled by the software.
In situations such as here I’d urge to hyperlink the author name, because otherwise it looks like people who came 7 years after the fact took care to hyperlink their own names while not bothering to do the same favor to the original author.
1 to 10 of 10