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.)

• 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:

${\boldsymbol {r_{i}}}\,$

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)