Suggestions(2)
Similar(60)
Sensitivity must be distinguished from safetey, which is weaker: If S knows that p, then not easily would S believe incorrectly in believing that p. For discussion of the sensitivity-safety distinction, see Sosa 1999.
Note that the dynamic systems (5.4 - 5.5) can be easily described in a close way for G n ∈ R 0 + p × p and d ∈ R 0 + p. We can take the Euclidean norm (and metric) in R p for the subsequent discussion and the corresponding vector-induced spectral matrix norm in R p × p which is compatible for well-posed mixed vector/matrix norm computations with the Euclidean vector norm.
See Irwin (1995, pp. 343-345) and Bobonich (2002, p. 522 fn 141) for discussion which advances this interpretation of the passage.
Up for discussion?
Pause for discussion.
While POST takes great pains to remain neutral, P&S meetings would seem to provide the perfect forum for discussion.
Descartes defined it as size (volume) times speed (Descartes 1644, paragraph 2.36); whereas, Newton defined it as mass times velocity (Newton 1687, p 1). (See Cohen 1966 for further discussion of the two views and the historical relationship between them; also, see Dijksterhuis 1986 for discussion of them in a broader historical context).
For the firing costs, we assume that they amount to (30~%) of the quarterly average real wage in Spain, i.e. (kappa ^F=0.3cdot bar{w}^p), and to (20~%) in the rest of EMU, i.e. (kappa ^{F,*}=0.2cdot bar{w}^{p,*}) (see Thomas and Zanetti 2009, for discussion).
19.2, for discussion.
We thank J. Korb, P. Pamilo and M. Sixt for discussion, and L. Sundström, A.F.G.
We thank J. Artwohl for help with animal care, E. Valli for pathological analysis of moribund mice, V. Sarthy and W. Xue for help with X-gal staining of eyes, B. Merrill and J. Schmidt for sharing equipments, G. Embree and F. Fatima for discussion, E. P. Doguiles and M. Lee for help with lab maintenance, T. V. Orenic for comments on the manuscript, and the reviewers for insightful suggestions.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com