The Latex command `\ldots` is often used to denote "and so forth". For instance,


$$
\pi \approx 3.1415\ldots
$$


When a sentence ends with an `\ldots`, one is faced with the conundrum of how to properly terminate it. The "cleanest" way would of course be to add a terminating "period", thus signaling the reader that this grammatical unit has now reached completion. For instance,


$$
\rm{\ we\ have \ } \pi \approx 3.1415\ldots. \rm{\ However,}
$$


We now have *four* dots at the end of the sentence, which seems like an excessive amount. The alternative however leaves a lingering feeling of dissatisfaction as the sentence does not feel *finished*:


$$
\rm{\ we\ have \ } \pi \approx 3.1415\ldots \rm{\ However,}
$$


What is the best practice in such situations? Is there a "norm" to handle such a case when preparing a manuscript for publication?



In a publication, should an `\ldots` always be followed by a period?
I believe papers in English should be written in full and correct English sentences, with any mathematical formula being part of a sentence. Therefore, I believe that the correct form in this case would be 



> 
> we have $\pi=3.1415\ldots\;$. However,
> 
> 
> 


-- not 



> 
> we have $\pi=3.1415\ldots$ However,
> 
> 
> 


(and not 



> 
> we have $\pi \approx 3.1415\ldots\;$. However,
> 
> 
> 


).


(I inserted an instance of \; after \ldots, trying to improve the spacing.)


