# Is it good to do too much edits?

I love to see things organized and tidy, especially at somewhere I like to be there, for example this site. Math which does not expressed in proper $\LaTeX$ format makes me weird so I often edit posts which is not in appropriate $\LaTeX$.

I think most of you agree that edits should be done on some "serious" cases such like even not using MathJax and $\LaTeX$. But some minor things also makes me have a mind to edit it, etc. use (mod $m$)(mod $m$) instead of $\pmod m$$\pmod m$, or $\Rightarrow$$\Rightarrow$ instead of $\implies$$\implies$, $|$$|$ instead of $\mid$$\mid$...

But sometimes such edits is looking like something aims at earning reputations, especially when I edit both the question and the answers below based on the same problem. But I aims at helping this cyber community.

I don't know whether it is appropriate. So any ideas?

• Why do you think your opinion of whether \implies is better than \Rightarrow should trump the opinion of whoever first typeset it? There is no consensus on what is optimal. We have had edit wars when somebody felt that $\int f(x)\,dx$ has the wrong kind of d – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 12 '17 at 9:36
• @JyrkiLahtonen sometimes it does when expressing logical connections. – BAI Jun 12 '17 at 9:37
• According to whom? – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 12 '17 at 9:38
• The war I participated in was when somebody replaced $R$ in the OP with $\Bbb{R}$, and I had used $\mathbf{R}$ in my answer to denote the set of real numbers :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 12 '17 at 9:39
• @JyrkiLahtonen According to the one who reviewed and accepted my edits. And, well, isn't the command 'implies' designed for logical notation? – BAI Jun 12 '17 at 9:41
• @JyrkiLahtonen well~ if it is expressing the set of all real numbers, it should be $\mathbb R$ or $\Bbb R$ according to general habit╮(╯▽╰)╭ – BAI Jun 12 '17 at 9:43
• Also \pmod m has been designed to look good for congruences. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 12 '17 at 9:43
• @JyrkiLahtonen yup, this one is not appropriate. – BAI Jun 12 '17 at 9:43
• @JyrkiLahtonen yup it is, in number theory. – BAI Jun 12 '17 at 9:44
• Unless you go on an edit spree of doing more than five minor edits to old posts per day you can probably get a way with it. Personally I view changes like the ones you listed as TeX-policing, and react to it the same way I would to Fashion-policing and/or Grammar-policing (often police is replaced with a word loaded with very negative connotations, but I won't use it here). – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 12 '17 at 9:55
• Note. This is just me. And, in all my lecture notes from more than five years ago the set of real numbers is $\mathbf{R}$. I switched very recently. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL FAITH AND TRYING TO FORCE YOUR WAY ONTO ME IS VIOLATING MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 12 '17 at 9:57
• @Jyrki Surprised by your sine-of-x-over-two example (why choose a size of parentheses which makes that they do not match the chain of characters they enclose, I wonder). – Did Jun 12 '17 at 10:43
• @Jyrki Indeed I am afraid we will be forced to conclude that this is just you... :-) – Did Jun 12 '17 at 12:22
• By the way, dear BAI, you need to be humble enough to consider the different contexts in which various notations are used. Functions are usually formatted, as per this example by f: \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R or f: \mathbb R\to\mathbb R which shows up like this: $f: \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$. And in this context using implies is inapproriate. And in logic, the conditional connective is usually written as  \rightarrow. But there is no RULE that dictates that. So please, do not tamper other's posts with trivial edits. – amWhy Jun 12 '17 at 19:07
• @Jyrki: Just as a side note, $\implies$ has a longer arrow and proper spacing for the implication, whereas $\Rightarrow$ does not. I generally agree with the notion that some notational leeway should be given, but sometimes it's just sloppy craftsmanship or ignorance about proper $\rm\LaTeX$. – Asaf Karagila Jun 13 '17 at 5:55