Last night, I finished the clean-up of a LAΤΕΧ version of my paper on incomplete preferences. From remarks by a person more knowledgeable about ΤΕΧ than I, it seemed that my best option in dealing with the under-sized angle brackets was to just fall back to using only parentheses, square brackets, and braces for taller delimiters. And most width problems were resolved by expressing formulæ over more lines. Unfortunately, these changes leave the formulæ harder to read than in the original.

This after-noon, I completed the submission process to one of the two specialized journals recommended by the advising editor who rejected it at the previous journal to which I submitted it. The submission process for this latest journal required that I name the other journals to which I'd submitted the paper. As simultaneous submissions are disallowed, basically they were asking for a list of which journals has rejected the paper. I gave it. (I didn't tell them that the third had been suggested by the second, nor that theirs had been suggested by the fourth.)

Anyway, I'm back to waiting for a response.

On 9 September, President Obama is to address Congress on health care reform. Here is what I predict to follow:

• The main-stream media will declare the speech to be a sort of triumph.
• In all likelihood, the President's approval ratings will blip back up over the next few days, and the main-stream media will treat this increase as a trend.
• The approval ratings will begin again to decline, but the main-stream media will ignore the decline until his ratings are at or below the previous low.
• When the main-stream media admit to the lack of an upward trend, it will be to declare the approval ratings to be volatile, as if they are merely oscillating, rather than trending downwards.
• When it can no longer be denied that the President is generally unpopular, main-stream media analysis will largely be of a supposed inability of the American public to be happy with any President, as opposed to an honest examination of the differences between what had been hoped and expected (reasonably and unreasonably) of Mr Obama in particular, and what has actually come under his Administration.

Large parts of Sunday and of Monday were given-over to producing a LAΤΕΧ version of my paper on incomplete preferences. Some part of to-day will be spent trying to complete that conversion.

Each of the two journals suggested by the advising editor who last rejected my paper requires submissions to be either LAΤΕΧ or in the form of a Microsoft Word file with formulæ encoded for its equation editor.

The original is an ODT, whose equations are encoded for the OpenOffice formula editor. The OpenOffice software can export a Word .DOC, but the formula would be rendered as text (rather than for the equation editor), and pretty badly at that. I used Writer2LaTeX, a plug-in for OpenOffice, to create a first-pass version of LAΤΕΧ source for my paper. A great deal of formatting went by the way-side, but the formulæ themselves seem to have come through the process mostly intact. The worst glitch so far was that U+2280 (⊀) was translated to \nsucc (⊁). (I've contacted the developer.)

I've nested the formulæ within more appropriate mark-up, and wrestled the rest of the mark-up of the paper into pretty good shape. The most glaring problems that I have right now are with the formulæ; those angle-brackets that should be rendered quite large are not, and some of the formulæ are simply too wide. And I still need to walk through the paper to make sure that my copying-and-pasting didn't go south anywhere.

---

This conversion of my paper represents the first time that I have worked much with LAΤΕΧ beyond creäting bald formulæ.

When I first started doing word-processing of more than plain-text files, LAΤΕΧ itself didn't yet exist, the ΤΕΧ system (on which LAΤΕΧ is founded) was still quite new, and I had personal connections to AT&T, such that I learned and used an older system, troff, which had been developed at AT&T (to justify the development of Unix). I had (and somewhere still have) a porting of troff to MS-DOS, could get pretty much any desired result with it (unlike most troff users, I knew its mark-up pretty thoroughly, and didn't rely on macros other than those that I'd written myself), and saw little reason to learn ΤΕΧ or LAΤΕΧ. When I did migrate from troff, it was to WYSIWYG programs.[1]

---

[1] There was an attempt, called Scientific Word, at something like a WYSIWYG interface for LAΤΕΧ; but, at the time that I investigated Scientific Word, it was ghastly. Its installation routine took hours, and, if the system already had a lot of installed fonts, would fail at the very end, in a way that its own programmers could not diagnose. And, if successfully installed, Scientific Word wouldn't produce decent LAΤΕΧ source anyway.

My latest submission of my paper, to a yet more specialized journal, has met with a fate similar to that of my previous submissions:

The advisory editor suggests that the paper does not fit the general readership of [this journal] (see his short report below).

That advisory editor writes

I suggest to the author to submit his paper, which certainly deserves an outlet, to more specialistic journals

and then recommends two in particular. So I will review the guidelines for each, and try to decide to which of them I will make my next submission. I take some solace in the fact that, while my paper is indeed being rejected, editors are suggesting that it truly ought to be published in a respected academic journal.

I first encountered Darrel Dane, the Doll Man, in a copy of Feature Comics #114 (September 1947) given to me by a friend.[1]

You can encounter Doll Man — if you are ready for the thrills — at Golden Age Comics (search both for doll man and for Feature Comics), at Pappy's Golden Age Comics Blogzine, and at Golden Age Comic Book Stories.

---

[1] WTF? In middle school, friends just gave golden-age comic books to me! Another friend gave a copy of Action Comics #125 (October 1948) to me.

Recently, when working on my next paper, I was struck by the formal similarity between two expressions.

Using to represent outcome X of action c, and to represent a relationship of equal plausibility, implies that X_i is certain given c, and implies that X_i is impossible given c. (The two expressions differ in the subscript of the outcome on the right-hand side of the relation.)

The ideas here are simple: If no other outcome contributes plausibility, then X_i is certain; if X_i contributes no plausibility, then X_i is impossible.

To Hell with NFL Commissioner Goodell and his utterly bogus indefinite suspension of Vick, which was only in effect when Vick couldn't play anyway; to Hell with the owners of the Philadelphia Eagles; and to Hell with anyone who would now buy tickets to their games.