deletions | additions       diff --git a/chapters/1/chapter_intro.aux b/chapters/1/chapter_intro.aux  new file mode 100644  index 0000000..f1a5fad  --- /dev/null  +++ b/chapters/1/chapter_intro.aux 
...
\relax   \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {chapter}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}}  \@writefile{lof}{\addvspace {10\p@ }}  \@writefile{lot}{\addvspace {10\p@ }}  \newlabel{chapter:introduction}{{1}{1}}  \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1.1}How to Start an Introduction}{3}}  \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1.2}Is a Review of All Previous Work Necessary Here?}{4}}  \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1.3}My Claims}{5}}  \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {1.3.1}The Importance of My Claims}{5}}  \@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1.4}Agenda}{6}}  \@setckpt{chapters/1/chapter_intro}{  \setcounter{page}{8}  \setcounter{equation}{0}  \setcounter{enumi}{2}  \setcounter{enumii}{0}  \setcounter{enumiii}{0}  \setcounter{enumiv}{0}  \setcounter{footnote}{0}  \setcounter{mpfootnote}{0}  \setcounter{part}{0}  \setcounter{chapter}{1}  \setcounter{section}{4}  \setcounter{subsection}{0}  \setcounter{subsubsection}{0}  \setcounter{paragraph}{0}  \setcounter{subparagraph}{0}  \setcounter{figure}{0}  \setcounter{table}{0}  \setcounter{lofdepth}{2}  \setcounter{lotdepth}{1}  \setcounter{LT@tables}{0}  \setcounter{LT@chunks}{0}  \setcounter{parentequation}{0}  }  diff --git a/chapters/1/sec_intro.tex b/chapters/1/sec_intro.tex  new file mode 100644  index 0000000..b18c95a  --- /dev/null  +++ b/chapters/1/sec_intro.tex 
...
\section{How to Start an Introduction}  What is the difference between an "Introduction" and the "Background" for a thesis? Should they be together? What about the review of the work from other people?  These are important questions which must be discussed between a student and the supervisor.  My view is that the introduction should be exactly that: a short introduction, not the history of the problem, its content and all its solutions to date. One major ingredient \textit{must} be a marketing angle, such that the reader becomes deeply motivated to continue on with the rest of the document. When I referee an article I usually read the abstract, the introduction and the conclusion. At that point I expect to be able to state to someone else what the work is about, what seems to be the new advancement and how interesting I think it will be to read the rest.  My main statement about the introduction is:  \textit{"keep it short and write it last".} The main features should be as follows:  \begin{enumerate}  \item {3-4 pages at most;}  \item {Start with a VERY short statement of the problem (2-3 sentences) - the problem should be stated, not described, as there will be a whole chapter for that;}  \item {State why the problem is important, its impact, how well it has been studied recently, its application (3 sentences) - this should be again a brief motivation, leaving a full impact description to later in the document;}  \item {Give a sketch of the new approach - there will be a whole chapter with all the details, now just impress the reader about what is the new approach, just as you would do if your boss asked you at work during an elevator ride;}  \item {Sketch the main new ideas of the new approach - again briefly, just get the reader interested;}  \item {Give a short statement regarding the results, nothing too elaborate, but certainly you should blow your horn and make sure that the reader is intrigued;}  \item {Interspersed in all the writing above do not forget the marketing angle, trying to suggest forcefully why the reader should keep reading;}  \item {Give an outline of what is to come in the organization of the thesis overall - you will find one below for this document.}  \end{enumerate}  Finally the strong suggestion is write the introduction chapter last. It will be faster, you will know what to say as the rest is already there, and the abstract, introduction and conclusion will be a mirror and complement of each other. You may well ask where to start writing your thesis. My view is included in the organization below.  diff --git a/chapters/1/sec_review.tex b/chapters/1/sec_review.tex  new file mode 100644  index 0000000..ac53c37  --- /dev/null  +++ b/chapters/1/sec_review.tex 
...
\section{Is a Review of All Previous Work Necessary Here?}  Many people like to place in the introductory chapter a review of the work from everybody else on the same problem. I find this utterly boring and counter-productive. If I am an expert in the field I probably know all this and could even write it better, so the last thing I want to read at the beginning is a history of research. If I am not an expert in the field, I would prefer to read up all the details of the problem itself and understand its context before I can even take in any ideas of what others have done.  Secondly, often when talking about the work of others one includes a bit judgment on it. This may be necessary, as the pivot of the new work may indeed be that there was an open problem left unsolved by the other researchers. Yet it is hard not to sound negative, to describe the work of others stating that their solution did not include some important part without denigrating. If one of those researchers is a reader and perhaps an examiner, they do not want to start reading by being told that their own work is inadequate.  I suggest a general summary of no more than 3-4 paragraphs of the work in the area with references, just to give the impact of the importance of the problems to be solved. Use then a "just-in-time" approach, where the relevant work of another researcher is described when needed in a particular step of the exposition of the problem or of the new solution. I normally place a much more extensive review of the work of others after I have presented my solution and the results of my experimental or formal proof work, so that I can analyze and compare effectively without boring repetitions and without writing a literature review on a subject. Many good articles in journals follow this scheme and most grant organization ask for a literature review to be included at the end of an application. First they want to be impressed with the proposal for new work!  A similar logic should be applied to background knowledge and definitions. This is especially true in a scientific thesis where often one find a whole set of mathematical definitions lumped together in chapter 1, yet not used until chapter 6, by which time the reader has completely forgotten it and needs to shuffle back with irritation. Use again a "just-in-time" approach and give definitions and explanations locally, the first time they are needed.