On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:25 PM, "Markus A. Luty" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The main difference that I was trying to make from the version of Michael and Chip was to avoid the impression that I got from their version that naturalness is not a legitimate concept. I was trying to emphasize that it is something we actually do every day when we are faced with a scientific problem, namely dimensional analysis. I felt that the current version made it seem something mysterious.


OK, if the impression one gets is "naturalness is not a legitimate concept"  then I am in factor of changing that impression.  I am in favor of giving the impression that it IS a legitimate guiding principle. 

I will read again…


> Since there seems to be no consensus among the conveners that the different approach in my version is preferred, I agree with Michael that the original version remains the default.
> 
> I would then request the following small changes:


the following changes sound good to me

Ashutosh


> Line 164: Please remove the phrase "slippery principle." This is unnecessarily florid and makes it sound like naturalness is not something to be taken seriously. I would suggest no adjective at all:
> 
> We do have a hint from the principle of "naturalness."
> 
> The fact that it says "hint" makes it clear that this is not a precise concept.
> 
> Lines 184-185: "The corresponding naturalness bounds are" > "The corresponding bounds suggested by naturalness are"
> 
> Line 188: "This gives the bound" > "This suggests the bound"
> 
> The idea is to make it clear that naturalness "bounds" are not not sharp boundaries.

>  Markus

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1