I absolutely agree about the TeX, because for non-TeXers everything in
the notation is fairly obvious apart from _ and ^ which we can
explain. Perhaps a little note in the first section of the FAQ list
--- how about something like:
**********************************************************************
1.7) What on earth is all the funny notation like \begin{ \$ and ^ ?
A lot of MCA and BTK people use the LaTeX document processing
system. Apart from the fact that braces ({}) group things together,
all you need to now is that underscore (_) means subscript and
circumflex (^) means superscript. It's a lot easier than spacing
everything carefully in ascii. [ We should have a citation of the
Leslie Lamport book here!]
So, where Jq means J-subscript-q and Ep means E-subscript-p, the
multiple definitions of the Flux Control Coefficient for the Pth
enzyme on the qth flux could be written as:
Jq d ln Jq dJq Ep dJq/Jq % change in Jq
C = ------- = --- -- = ------ = lim --------------
Ep d ln Ep dEp Jq dEp/Ep %-->0 % change in Ep
or more `simply' as:
C_{E_p}^{J_q}
= {{d \ln J_q} \over {d \ln E_p}}
= {{dJ_q \over dE_p} {E_p \over J_q}}
= {{dJ_q/J_q} \over {dE_p/E_p}}
= {\lim_{\% \to 0} {{\ {\rm\;\%change\;in\;J_q}}
\over
{\ {\rm\;\%change\;in\;E_p}} }}
**********************************************************************
Then again... Perhaps we should use both unless the ascii is
too complicated. And we'll have no scrappy ascii, either --- not
after I slogged the above out!
... John Woods
--
"
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit (Virgil)
[approx] Tr: The time may come when we will look back on these days and laugh
"
