From 0e5f52c3306241b5f6162b5a97c9e9fd06bb1ea2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "W. Trevor King" Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 17:47:03 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] 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. --- src/calibcant/discussion.tex | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 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} -- 2.26.2