I was concerned about that possible ("ell" vs "one") single-character discrepancy; that 's why I posted the quotation in the (supposedly less-ambiguous) Courier font.
Here, using the genuinely unambiguous "Geneva" font, the discrepancy is obvious:
<SNIP>being tightly bound in an l [not "1"] = 0 ground state,
<SNIP>
FWIW, that makes the authors' use of "an (ell)" grammatically correct, as well.
~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, I don't see why you act so da*ned defensive on this subject; I basically said I agreed with the article -- except for that single-character anomaly. Now that I admit to my misreading of that single character, what is your beef?
~~~~~~~~~~
I never feared to leave my lab and "go to the blackboard" with my theoretician colleagues -- but, then, I always dragged them to the lab to test what we had derived. (That is how we spent Friday afternoons in the summer -- when most MA folks had taken off for the cape...)
What is your problem with rational discussion? Is your name "Pons" or "Fleischman"? '-)
BTW, I don’t see why you act so da*ned defensive on this subject; I basically said I agreed with the article — except for that single-character anomaly. Now that I admit to my misreading of that single character, what is your beef?
***I have no beef, I was not defensive, and I wasn’t even sarcastic. It’s a straightforward sentence countering your criticism...
“That’s not 1=0, it is “L”, l=0, when you copy from PDF there are tons of artifacts.”
Perhaps you are targeting my other responses to other posts? Elsewhere I will admit to having beef, being defensive, engaging in sarcasm as well as promoting rational discussion, even all at the same time.
It didn’t sound defensive to me, either, guys. I guess it’s the problem with reading and writing vs. talking.