From: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 21:47:03 +0000 (-0400)
Subject: calibcant/discussion.tex: Cite benedetti12 for valid "Lorentzian"
X-Git-Tag: v1.0~226
X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=0e5f52c3306241b5f6162b5a97c9e9fd06bb1ea2;p=thesis.git

calibcant/discussion.tex: Cite benedetti12 for valid "Lorentzian"

Maybe there is a distinction between "a Lorentzian function" and "the
Lorentzian" that I am unaware of...  At least Benedetti uses the right
function.
---

diff --git a/src/calibcant/discussion.tex b/src/calibcant/discussion.tex
index cb12da9..f76ed46 100644
--- a/src/calibcant/discussion.tex
+++ b/src/calibcant/discussion.tex
@@ -38,8 +38,11 @@ can see by using the chain rule repeatedly,
   \label{eq:model-psd-df}
 \end{align}
 
-In order to avoid any uncertainty, we leave \cref{eq:model-psd}
-unnamed.
+However, \citet{benedetti12} has a solid derivation of
+\cref{eq:DHO-psd}, which he then refers to as the ``Lorentzian''.  In
+order to avoid any uncertainty, we leave \cref{eq:model-psd} unnamed.
+I encourage future researchers to explicitly list the model they use,
+ideally by citing their associated open source calibration package.
 
 \subsection{Peak frequency}
 \label{sec:calibcant:peak-frequency}