tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed ([Redacted]) 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla & Feed Publisher Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1962) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1962#Comment_1962 2010-01-18T13:07:32-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Ilya Nikokoshev http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/22/ It's customary to use the [sarcasm on] and [sarcasm off] indicators. (serious but not well-written advice edited out) But Andrew is right: if there is any doubt about the quality of the joke, it's ... It's customary to use the [sarcasm on] and [sarcasm off] indicators.

(serious but not well-written advice edited out) But Andrew is right: if there is any doubt about the quality of the joke, it's better not post it at all; and underlining isn't going to change this. And on MO, better doubt all jokes.

]]>
Andrew Stacey comments on "[Redacted]" (1961) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1961#Comment_1961 2010-01-18T13:01:16-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Andrew Stacey http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/4/ @Harry: that's yet another reason never to underline text. If people don't recognise sarcasm when they see it, no amount of underlining is going to help them. @Harry: that's yet another reason never to underline text. If people don't recognise sarcasm when they see it, no amount of underlining is going to help them.

]]>
Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1960) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1960#Comment_1960 2010-01-18T12:48:07-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Ilya Nikokoshev http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/22/ @Harry, there are >10 million results for not recommended to underline text that is not a link, see e.g. a general explanation at Underline links that are not otherwise identifiable as links. @Harry, there are >10 million results for not recommended to underline text that is not a link, see e.g. a general explanation at Underline links that are not otherwise identifiable as links.

]]>
Mariano comments on "[Redacted]" (1951) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1951#Comment_1951 2010-01-18T10:09:06-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Mariano http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/61/ If you want underlining to express sarcasm, maybe it would be best for you to simply not underline? Underlining has always been frowned upon. If you want underlining to express sarcasm, maybe it would be best for you to simply not underline?

Underlining has always been frowned upon.

]]>
Harald Hanche-Olsen comments on "[Redacted]" (1947) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1947#Comment_1947 2010-01-18T09:37:14-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Harald Hanche-Olsen http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/18/ And anyway, underlining for emphasis is a relic of the typewriter age and should never be used in modern typography. The sole exception I am aware of is certain kind of legal documents, where ... And anyway, underlining for emphasis is a relic of the typewriter age and should never be used in modern typography. The sole exception I am aware of is certain kind of legal documents, where underlining is required by law.

]]>
Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1932) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1932#Comment_1932 2010-01-17T22:28:49-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Ilya Nikokoshev http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/22/ One more thing you can do is to use backticks: they escape stuff and apply some monospace font which can be changed in the CSS. But it's generally better to stick to a few types of emphasis rather ... One more thing you can do is to use backticks: they escape stuff and apply some monospace font which can be changed in the CSS. But it's generally better to stick to a few types of emphasis rather then many :)

]]>
Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1929) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1929#Comment_1929 2010-01-17T22:22:29-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Ilya Nikokoshev http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/22/ You shouldn't underline text: in the past 10 years this behavior is reserved for hyperlinks. You shouldn't underline text: in the past 10 years this behavior is reserved for hyperlinks.

]]>
Dylan Moreland comments on "[Redacted]" (1927) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1927#Comment_1927 2010-01-17T21:42:52-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Dylan Moreland http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/121/ The expression $\underline{\operatorname{Hom}}$ seems to do what you want, at least in my preview window. Anton Geraschenko comments on "[Redacted]" (1925) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1925#Comment_1925 2010-01-17T21:09:57-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Anton Geraschenko http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/2/ Apparently there's no way to do it. Markdown doesn't support underlining and &lt;u> isn't a supported tag. You can post a request on meta.SE if you really want to be able to underline. Apparently there's no way to do it. Markdown doesn't support underlining and <u> isn't a supported tag. You can post a request on meta.SE if you really want to be able to underline.

]]>
Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (1924) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/167/redacted/?Focus=1924#Comment_1924 2010-01-17T20:54:56-08:00 2018-11-04T13:42:17-08:00 Harry Gindi http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/55/ = =

]]>