[RFC] Acknowledgment theorem type

[Hal Kierstead]

> On Feb 3, 2023, at 9:06 AM, Pavel Sanda <sanda at lyx.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:55:09AM -0700, Hal Kierstead wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:34:19AM -0700, Hal Kierstead via lyx-users wrote:
>>>> I use this for most papers in the sense (a). Why delete it? Note that ???Acknowledgment??? is suggested in the amsthm instructions???just like ???Lemma". 
>>> 
>>> Ha :)
>>> Can you point me to any paper of yours, where this is used?
>> 
>> See attachment, just before the references. Of course, in the end the journal uses their own style.
>> Hal
> 
> No, this is misunderstanding.
> You use Acknowledgments in the traditional sense as unnumbered section at the end of the paper.
> What I'm talking about is that we currently also offer numbered "theorem-style" acknowledgments,
> i.e. you could have it multiplte times as many subsections in the paper.
> 
> I don't think anyone uses it and we based it on amsthm package manual section 4.2, which
> even AMS folks regard as a mistake.
> 
> Pavel
Sorry Pavel, it was a misunderstanding.
Hal