deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index 5570f9a..8915276 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\\And cannot be disputed)  \end{quote}  \end{quote}  Wave \textit{Wave  separation, wave intensity, the reservoir-wave concept, and the instantaneous wave-free ratio' (2015) N Westerhof, P Segers and BE Westerhof, Hypertension, DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05567 }  This paper by three distinguished workers in the field of cardiovascular mechanics, concludes that both the reservoir pressure and instantaneous wave-free ratio are '... both physically incorrect, and should be abandoned'. These are very strong conclusions which, if they were opinions could only be debated. Reading the paper in detail, however, reveals that it contains several factual errors in their discussion of these two entities. Since facts are different from opinions, I believe that it is essential that these errors be corrected before they gain credence by repetition. 
...
The last third of the paper, starting with the final sentence of the section 'Summary of Wave Separation and WIA' is, riddled with errors of interpretation and, more importantly, contains a number of false factual statements that need to be corrected. Instead of dealing with these errors chronologically, I think that it is better to point out the fundamental errors first and then to deal with their sequela.  In their paper they use RWC to refer to the reservoir wave concept whereas we tend to use 'reservoir wave hypothesis'. As a convenient compromise I will use the abbreviation Pr for reservoir pressure. We both use the abbreviation iFR for the instantaneous wave-free ratio.