jim stasheff <jds@math.upenn.edu> 		 hide details	 03-Aug (15 hours ago) 
	to		Gérard H. E. Duchamp <gheduchamp@gmail.com>	 
	cc		jim stasheff <jds@math.upenn.edu>	 
	date		03-Aug-2007 17:01	 
	subject		Re: ed. remarks	 
Please share with your coauthors
with a copy of that message to me
so I can more easily save their addresses

These comments are based on version 1 so may have been corrected

There was no ^d in the list of affiliations
The Open U had  ^e


generic after displays: \noindent

abstract: in A simplified

p.1  co-addition instead of the usual comultiplication?

reminiscent OF Hoffmann's

three-parameter (no s)

the stay of

the firs ???

Be it's owner -->  May ... is she really the OWNER? was it a lodging?

p.8 as shows --> as is shown

p. 13 We do the extra?? We add the extra?

p.15 enveloping (one p) and the relation of primitive to enveloping 
should have been recalled at the time you first mention primitive
 
first bullet: do not understand what your are trying to say

where are crossings and superpositions defined - perhaps
I skimmed too fast -  diagram 6 only confuses me

p.18 is shifting just a technical computational device or does it mean something?

p.19 why is it called phase space

p.21 structure of listS

p.22 final paragraph: 

how are they structurally different?
can't any parameter correspond to perturbations?
do you distinguish deformations from parameters?

jim
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Gérard H. E. Duchamp <gheduchamp@gmail.com> 		 hide details	 24-Jul 
	to	


	Horzela Andrzej <Andrzej.Horzela@ifj.edu.pl>,
Pawel Blasiak <Pawel.Blasiak@ifj.edu.pl>,
Penson Karol <penson@lptl.jussieu.fr>,
Solomon Allan I. <A.I.Solomon@open.ac.uk>	 
	date		24-Jul-2007 06:13	 
	subject		Towards a second version	 
	mailed-by		gmail.com	 
Dear GoF,

After Allan's english revision, this is what I propose for a "version 2" in the arXiv.

What I have done is
a) Suppressed "Introduction : Dual laws, shuffle, infiltration, Hoffmann." in the beginning of
(sub)section 5.2 (Modified laws) as there is no need of "bla-bla" there.
b) Made precise that $q_t\in \{0,1\}$ (Foissy's remark) in formula (43)
c) Made precise the ranges of that $q_c,q_s,q_t$ in proposition 6.2
d) Modified the title of section 7

These are minor (in length) changes but it makes
the paper more accurate.

Your remarks/comments will be appreciated.

Best regards
Gérard