
A LaTeX-Package that comes up with synonyms for 'Therefore,' - dlsym
https://github.com/bgschiller/latex-therefore
======
k2enemy
A list of the synonyms...

    
    
      Therefore,
      Hence,
      So,
      It is trivial that
      Clearly,
      Behold!
      Ergo,
      And verily it goes that
      Thus,
      By logical extension,
      And verily,
      It is the will of the Gods that
      We find
      It can be shown that
      It transpires that
      As an exercise, prove that
      Wherefore said He unto them,
      As must be obvious to even the meanest intellect,
      The power of logic reveals the conclusion that
      This implies
      As Gauss proved,
      As Euler proved,
      And it was handed down from the heavens that
      It pleases the symmetry of the world that
    

It just needs to be content aware so that it can use "As an exercise, prove
that" for the most difficult step.

~~~
loevborg
Of course, most of these are far from being synonyms of "therefore", whose
function is to express that the following sentence is a logical consequence of
what was said before. The following are real substitutes:

    
    
        Hence; So; Ergo; This implies that; Thus
    

and also

    
    
        As a consequence; It follows that; This means that; From this we can infer that; This could not be true unless

~~~
dlib
I always enjoy the 'From this we can easily infer that' as I on more than one
occasion had to work pretty hard to get to that easily inferred result.
Either, being experts in the field the result is indeed not difficult for them
to get at or the authors mock my intelligence. I assume the latter as I enjoy
a little humour in my math books, even if it is at my expense.

~~~
leephillips
Russian physics papers from a certain era are notorious for skipping vast and
none-too-obvious swaths of derivation, making do with a terse "it follows
that" or some such. Some of my colleagues assumed that this was some sort of
machismo; I thought maybe they were just smarter than me. Later I had the
chance to mention this to an emigre physicist from the former USSR, and he
said that it was just to reduce the number of pages to save on the costs of
publication.

~~~
gcr
In my field (computer vision), conferences have strict page limits. Your paper
had better be six pages or less because each page above the limit costs you
$100 more to publish per extra page. Further, if your paper spills onto the
9th page, it will be rejected without review.

Most papers I've seen are edited to an inch of their life to fit within that
extended 8-page limit and readability certainly suffers.

~~~
kaoD
...therefore, conferences are essentially broken.

A system that rewards incomplete publishing and lack of details is essentially
useless for science. Isn't science about sharing efforts instead of providing
headaches?

I'm very frustrated at the current state: scientist pay both to publish and
access. The publish-or-perish mechanic puts researchers in a very unfair
position against the big players.

Why are researchers not publishing in open access?

~~~
gcr
Wrt conferences, "lack of details" is solved by supplemental material;
"incomplete publishing" is solved by splitting your efforts into multiple
papers. Most authors do this anyway if the idea is big enough/if they can get
away with it. ("Oh goodie, more papers! More citations!")

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. If you can't fit your idea into page limits,
it's not worth my time reading it because it shows that you don't care enough
to exrpess it concisely. I can get much more value for my (limited) time by
getting the gist of ten papers than if i took the time to fully understand the
implementation details of three.

Papers are documentation. Would you rather read a 60-page man page that says
"How to do $X" or a 5-page one? If you have important details, publish them in
a journal.

~~~
kaoD
I wasn't only referring to conferences but also journals. AFAIK journals have
page limits too.

My opinion: if something is long... well, it's long! Peer reviewers should
also judge if the length is reasonable, right? I'd rather read a 60-page
detailed manual than a 5-page "press release".

You're presenting a false dichotomy: concision and details are not
incompatible.

------
leephillips
This is a welcome development for LaTeX: they achieved perfection in visual
presentation years ago, so there's nowhere to go but to the content itself. I
fully expect a proof checker package to be available for LaTeX within a few
years.

~~~
bpedro
It's already available:
[http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb30-2/tb95neveln.pdf](http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb30-2/tb95neveln.pdf)

~~~
leephillips
Gadzooks! The perils of comedy in the modern age.

------
groovy2shoes
My favorite synonym in this package is "Wherefore said He unto them".

~~~
karamazov
I have to vote for "And verily it goes that".

------
jdleesmiller
"And it was handed down from the heavens that" \-- man, I wish I'd used that
one in my thesis...

Here it is on writeLaTeX, if you'd like to see it in action:
[http://www.writelatex.com/docs?snip_uri[]=https://raw.github...](http://www.writelatex.com/docs?snip_uri\[\]=https://raw.github.com/bgschiller/latex-
therefore/master/sqrt_two.tex&snip_uri\[\]=https://raw.github.com/bgschiller/latex-
therefore/master/therefore.sty)

------
olympus
As a casual LaTeX user I never really got into the macro/package programming
side of it, but for some reason I really don't want to have to type a
backslash before every 'therefore.' Is it possible to write a procedure that
finds every instance of 'therefore' and replaces it with a synonym at compile
time? I still wouldn't use this package for formal papers but it might be fun
to play with.

~~~
gus_massa
You can change the catcode of the upercase "T" and define it as a macro that
peeks some characters to see if it if part of a "Therefore". This may break
other commands that have the upercase T in their name, so it will create some
random unexpected incompatibilities. (Many babel languages change catcodes to
make accents easier to use, and therefore they create some random unexpected
incompatibilities.)

More info about catcodes: [http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-
bin/texfaq2html?label=activechars](http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-
bin/texfaq2html?label=activechars)

~~~
adiM
With LuaTeX (the modern version of TeX), such catcode trickery is not needed.
LuaTeX provides a hook into the file reader, and you can simply change
transform the input as you read it. For an example in ConTeXt, see this answer
on Tex.sx:
[http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/4174/323](http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/4174/323)

------
kirk21
We are creating new tools for academics: bohr.launchrock.com

