[book-dp1] Chapter 6 HTML/PDF comparison issues

[Chihiro2000GitHub]

@mmcky @jstac -- The following are mismatches between the HTML version and the PDF version of the textbook. I found relatively fewer issues in this chapter.

1. Algorithm line-numbering reset in Algorithm 6.1

The line numbering inside the nested block of Algorithm 6.1 resets to 1 in the HTML version. This appears to be the same algorithm line-numbering issue discussed in the Chapter 5 issue: #31.

I am noting this Chapter 6 instance briefly here so that it is clear that Algorithm 6.1 should also be checked once the fix is deployed.

Additional note on lowercase iid

I noticed a similar lowercase iid rendering in Chapter 6 as well, as shown below. This may be related to the \iidisim / myst.yml issue discussed in item 2 in the Chapter 5 issue: #31, so I am mentioning it here in case it is useful when checking the fix.

[mmcky]

@Chihiro2000GitHub this should be fixed. I'm seeing the following on the current live site.

[mmcky]

Thanks @Chihiro2000GitHub — confirmed on the live Chapter 6 page: Algorithm 6.1's nested repeat body restarts its line numbering at 1 instead of continuing the count, exactly as you noted.

This is the general algorithm line-numbering issue (not Chapter 6-specific) — algorithm bodies are emitted as nested ordered lists, and CommonMark restarts numbering at 1 for each nested list, whereas algorithm2e numbers every line continuously in the PDF. It's the same item as #31 (Chapter 5), tracked in the conversion pipeline at QuantEcon/claude-latex-to-myst#169 (with an upstream renderer enhancement at QuantEcon/mystmd#70). Algorithm 6.1 will be covered when that fix lands — I'll follow up here so it can be re-checked.

[jstac]

Thanks guys!

I'm also open to changing the pdf to match the html algo numbering if that's easier.

[Chihiro2000GitHub]

Thanks, @mmcky and @jstac 😊

First, I checked the live Chapter 6 page again, and the IID rendering now looks correct to me. Sorry, I think I must have misread it earlier.

For Algorithm 6.1, that makes sense to me. I'll check it again once the fix is deployed.

As for @jstac's point about possibly changing the PDF to match the HTML, I'll leave that to you both. Either way, please feel free to ask me to review it again if another check would be useful. I'd be happy to do so.

Thanks again!