- My initial reply evidently went offlist (against my wishes) and if the poster replied by private mail it wouldn't have reached me.

Hence I will have a go at a re-write.

>

I have heard it said that it might be an idea to say in one's covering letter that the granting of sole consideration to the journal will be withdrawn after (say) ten weeks.

> > I notice some mathematics journals insist that the author give the

> journal sole consideration of the

> > submission but others don't. Where they don't, I never know whether

> sole consideration is tacitly assumed

> > by the journal -- and if so, whether this assumption is a reasonable

> interpretation of etiquette.

> > Is there any generally accepted protocol for this?

>

> The generally accepted practice is to *not* send it to more than one at

> a time. In fact, most would view submitting to more than one as

> unethical.

>

It's more intended to serve as a credential.

> > And how long would I normally expect to wait or a reply from an

> ejournal?

>

> Depends on the journal. They should acknowledge receipt relatively

> quickly and I contact journals if they do not (just asking "did you

> receive it? Need anything else from me?"

>

> If it is a refereed journal, the refereeing process can be long (many

> months, a year is not unusual, hence the existence of preprint servers).

>

> > Incidentally, do you think I could fairly easily find someone who

> would run my paper through a proof-checking programme

>

> Ah, that is not a good question to ask. You should never submit

> anything without believing it is correct!

If I was an editor and an> author expressed any doubt, I would reject the paper and ask them to

I had heard (and perhaps there was a misreading here) that HOL Light was a proof-checker.

> submit when they know they have it correct.

>

> > proof-checking programme

>

> Now that would be something, a general proof checking program. There

> are a few very highly specialized programs, but programs that read human

> proofs and check them--that would be something. It is often hard for

> humans to read human proofs.

>

With thanks. - --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

"ianredwood" <ianredwood@...> wrote:

> I had heard (and perhaps there was a misreading here)

If you will look at Section 18.2 of the tutorial

> that HOL Light was a proof-checker.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/hol-light/tutorial_220.pdf

for the proof of Fermat's litle theorem, you may judge for

yourself how easy (or otherwise) HOL-light is to use.

David - --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

"ianredwood" <ianredwood@...> asked:

> Can anyone point me towards any worthwhile preprint

http://arxiv.org/list/math.NT/recent

> servers for papers in number theory?

David - I thought you needed some kind of reference from some upstanding member of the mathematical establishment, for that one....

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

> "ianredwood" <ianredwood@> asked:

>

> > Can anyone point me towards any worthwhile preprint

> > servers for papers in number theory?

>

> http://arxiv.org/list/math.NT/recent

>

> David

>