Talk:Kirkwood–Buff solution theory

Much copy-editing
I did the following copy-editing:
 * I corrected the inappropriate article title, chaning "Kirkwood-Buff" (with a hyphen) to "Kirkwood–Buff" (with an en-dash).
 * Similarly I corrected every occurrence of the hyphenated version within the article.
 * Ranges of pages, such as 679–735, also need an en-dash rather than I hyphen. I changed several of those.
 * Displayed (as opposed to inline) mathematical notation should be indented by a colon; I did that.
 * I changed this:
 * $$g_{ij}(r)=\frac{\rho_{ij}(r)}{\rho_{ij}^{bulk}}$$
 * to this:
 * $$g_{ij}(r)=\frac{\rho_{ij}(r)}{\rho_{ij}^\text{bulk}}$$
 * The word "bulk" needs to be in text mode.


 * I made some changes for ease of editing that don't affect the appearance to the reader. Several things like \left(G_{11}+G_{22}-2G_{12}\right) I changed to (G_{11}+G_{22}-2G_{12}). It is necessary to have \left and \right in things like this:
 * $$ a + \left(\frac a b \right)^2 $$
 * since otherwise it looks like this:
 * $$ a + (\frac a b)^2 $$
 * However, for things like \left(r\right) the sizes of the parentheses are fine without \left( and \right), so I changed several instances of \left(r\right) to (r). Similarly, for G_{ij}, it is necessary to have the curly braces so that both characters get subscripted rather than only the first, but with G_i it is not.  (This last is a quite minor point.)

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed some things like \boldsymbol{r_i} to \boldsymbol{r}_i. I don't think the subscript i should be included within the bolded part, since the subscript still refers to the same thing as in expressions like g_{ij}.  Thus we see
 * $$ \boldsymbol{r}_i \, $$
 * instead of this:
 * $$ \boldsymbol{r_i} \,$$