On May 8, 2021, at 4:52 PM, Ben shimol Yehuda <address@hidden> wrote:

 I looked at  https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304

I’m not that impressed. The criteria mentioned are for breakthroughs in CS.

I know many bright people from there areas that lack the required approach to write in LaTeX and are very good in Mathematics / Physics /  Eng.  etc.

In person I use LaTeX a lot for publications but when working with others the first phases are with the tool they use (mostly WORD, LaTeX comes in in the last phase)

I believe that the community of potential TeXMacs users is much larger than converting the CS community. Maybe the effort should be in this direction ?

Best

yehuda 

On May 8, 2021, at 23:14, Amir Michail <address@hidden> wrote:

On May 8, 2021, at 2:36 PM, Ben shimol Yehuda <address@hidden> wrote:

Nowadays there are many conferences and journals accepting ms word documents so you guess is just a guess

On a more personal opinion I do not find real justification to relate latex to any other measure of research quality

Best 

Yehuda

Academics in theoretical computer science do use the TeX test to determine whether a paper is worth reading.

See this blog post and comments (search for TeX): https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304

As for a solution, maybe create another test based on *content* that uses machine learning and performs at least as well as the TeX test to tell you whether a paper is worth reading?

Amir

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 May 2021, at 13:14, Amir Michail <address@hidden> wrote:

Hello,

Maybe it is because LaTeX is used as a filter to discourage non-serious submissions to conferences and journals?

If this is the real reason, then the fact that TeXmacs is easier to learn and more pleasant to use is actually a problem.

Is this the real reason for not accepting TeXmacs submissions (i.e., without exporting to LaTeX)?

Amir