COMPGROUPS.NET | Search | Post Question | Groups | Stream | About | Register

### DSP math

• Email
• Follow

```Hi

Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of undergraduate
worked examples.

Cheers Turbo

```
 0
Reply tuurbo46 (47) 8/5/2005 6:46:14 PM

See related articles to this posting

```1 - 1 = 0

2 + 2 =4

3 * 5 = 15

Sorry I couldn't resist.....

Just look through any "Signals and Systems" books and freshen up on
Fourier Series, Laplace transforms, Z-transforms.

DSP is a broad term, are you doing image processing, filtering, ...
each niche requires a different set of math skills. Some are heavier in
Algebra, some in infinite series, some differential equations, etc.

```
 0
Reply ericjohnholland (80) 8/5/2005 8:13:04 PM

```Tuurbo46 wrote:
> Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
> DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?

Some of the math textbooks which I had to dig out of storage to refresh
my memory before starting on some DSP related projects included those
covering calculus of complex variables and numerical analysis (paying
attention to algorithmic stability and error bounds).  Good working
knowledge of good ole' binary arithmetic was also helpful for many
types of DSP projects.

But as another poster mentioned, DSP covers a lot of engineering
problem areas, each possibly requiring its own area of mathmatics
for a better understanding (including, but not limited to:
linear algebra, orthogonal function representations, information
theory, statistical analysis, etc., etc.)

IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T nicholson d.O.t C-o-M

```
 0
Reply rhnlogic (1111) 8/5/2005 9:06:57 PM

```"Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dd0c5q\$5t7\$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi
>
> Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
> DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
> would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of
> worked examples.
>
> Cheers Turbo
>
>
Well the first thing is to spell it right...Maths (plural) as in proper
English.

Shytot

```
 0
Reply Shytot (52) 8/6/2005 5:10:48 AM

```in article oDXIe.684\$iM2.54262@news.xtra.co.nz, Shytot at Shytot@yme.com
wrote on 08/06/2005 01:10:

> "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dd0c5q\$5t7\$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
>> DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
>> would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of
>>
....
> Well the first thing is to spell it right...Maths (plural) as in proper
> English.

might be proper English but improper American (dunno what them Canuks have
to say about it - they say "Zed").  on this side of the pond, we say "math"
for the same reason we say "history" (instead of "Don't know much about
histories, don't know much about biologies...").

but since Tuurbo is posting from svr.pol.co.uk, you might have a point.

BTW, Tuurbo, you might need to hire a tutor.  when i was at Northwestern,
the Tech Institute had dozens of posters up by tutors advertising.  i think
some of them were grad students or post-grads or maybe some very bright
seniors.

--

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

```
 0
Reply rbj (4087) 8/6/2005 5:28:55 AM

```Shytot wrote:
> "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dd0c5q\$5t7\$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Hi
> >
> > Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
> > DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
> > would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of
> > worked examples.
> >
> > Cheers Turbo
> >
> >
> Well the first thing is to spell it right...Maths (plural) as in proper
> English.
>
> Shytot

Richard Feynman calls it math.  Looks like the noble prize winner is
wrong.  Maybe you are super women.  I will try to look out for your
name on the next Physics paper.

```
 0
Reply tuurbo46 (47) 8/6/2005 8:43:04 AM

```Shytot wrote:
> "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dd0c5q\$5t7\$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>Hi
>>
>>Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
>>DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
>>would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of
>
>
>>worked examples.
>>
>>Cheers Turbo
>>
>>
>
> Well the first thing is to spell it right...Maths (plural) as in proper
> English.
>
> Shytot

And I suppose you want me to spell aluminum "alumulum" or some such. :-)
OH! I remember: aluminium, like chrominium. Got it!

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/6/2005 2:52:26 PM

```<tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> Shytot wrote:
> > "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:dd0c5q\$5t7\$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my
specilised
> > > DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare
me?  I
> > > would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of
> > > worked examples.
> > >
> > > Cheers Turbo
> > >
> > >
> > Well the first thing is to spell it right...Maths (plural) as in proper
> > English.
> >
> > Shytot
>
> Richard Feynman calls it math.  Looks like the noble prize winner is
> wrong.  Maybe you are super women.  I will try to look out for your
> name on the next Physics paper.
>
Feyman was a Yank,what do you expect, they can't spell.

Shytot

```
 0
Reply Shytot (52) 8/6/2005 6:57:16 PM

```Shytot wrote:

...

> Feyman was a Yank,what do you expect, they can't spell.

Totally without honor.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/6/2005 7:38:54 PM

```Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> Totally without honor.
>

No, just without (yo)u.

;-)

Ciao,

Peter K.

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos1 (374) 8/6/2005 7:41:25 PM

```"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:lfWdnY5LXclNjGjfRVn-og@rcn.net...
> Shytot wrote:
>
>    ...
>
> > Feyman was a Yank,what do you expect, they can't spell.
>
> Totally without honor.
>
>

Honour!

Shytot

```
 0
Reply Shytot (52) 8/7/2005 5:13:25 AM

```On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:14 +0100, "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Hi
>
>Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
>DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
>would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of undergraduate
>worked examples.
>
>Cheers Turbo

Hi,
Ya' might have a look at:

http://www.redcedar.com/learndsp.htm

Good Luck,
[-Rick-]

```
 0

```On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 06:57:16 +1200, "Shytot" <Shytot@yme.com> wrote:

(snipped)
>>
>> Richard Feynman calls it math.  Looks like the noble prize winner is
>> wrong.  Maybe you are super women.  I will try to look out for your
>> name on the next Physics paper.
>>
>Feyman was a Yank,what do you expect, they can't spell.
>
>Shytot

Ha ha.  Cute.

Check (cheque) this:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/10/40000_library_m.php

See Ya',
[-Rick-]

```
 0

```Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:14 +0100, "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi
>>
>>Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
>>DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
>>would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of undergraduate
>>worked examples.
>>
>>Cheers Turbo
>
>
> Hi,
>   Ya' might have a look at:
>
>          http://www.redcedar.com/learndsp.htm
>
> Good Luck,
> [-Rick-]
>
>
Thanks for the reference Rick.  Now, if anyone catches me out with a
spelling mistake, I can simply quote that unlucky artist:
�The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake�s concept of
enlightenment, they are not looking at the words,� she said. �In their
mind the words register correctly.�

To get back to the issue of math vs. maths:
As an adjective,'mathematic' is commonly used as an alternative to
'mathematical,' as in 'mathematic procedure,' but I don't think I have
ever seen 'mathematic' used as a noun.

I believe that in the USA you can have a "Professors of Mathematics,"
but not a "Professor of Mathematic," and yet this would be abbreviated
to "Professor of Math."

Not to say that 'math' is always wrong: if you were to say, for example,
"I need a math book because I am studying math," in my opinion the first
use of 'math' would be acceptable because it is the abbreviation of the
adjective 'mathematic' but not the second use, because it is the
abbreviation of the noun 'mathematics.'

I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation of
a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.

Language is a funny thing and is full of exceptions, so I am not saying
this particular usage is wrong, but to Australian ears it is certainly
quaint.

Regards,
John
```
 0
Reply johnmonro1 (30) 8/12/2005 1:59:50 AM

```John Monro wrote:
> Rick Lyons wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:14 +0100, "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my
>>> specilised DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths
>>> to prepare me?  I would preper if somebody could recommend a book
>>> with plenty of undergraduate worked examples.
>>>
>>> Cheers Turbo
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>   Ya' might have a look at:
>>
>>          http://www.redcedar.com/learndsp.htm
>>
>> Good Luck,
>> [-Rick-]
>>
>>
> Thanks for the reference Rick.  Now, if anyone catches me out with a
> spelling mistake, I can simply quote that unlucky artist:
> �The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake�s concept of
> enlightenment, they are not looking at the words,� she said. �In their
> mind the words register correctly.�
>
> To get back to the issue of math vs. maths:
> As an adjective,'mathematic' is commonly used as an alternative to
> 'mathematical,' as in 'mathematic procedure,' but I don't think I have
> ever seen 'mathematic' used as a noun.
>
> I believe that in the USA you can have a "Professors of Mathematics,"
> but not a "Professor of Mathematic," and yet this would be abbreviated
> to "Professor of Math."
>
> Not to say that 'math' is always wrong: if you were to say, for example,
> "I need a math book because I am studying math," in my opinion the first
> use of 'math' would be acceptable because it is the abbreviation of the
> adjective 'mathematic' but not the second use, because it is the
> abbreviation of the noun 'mathematics.'
>
> I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation of
> a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.
>
>
> Language is a funny thing and is full of exceptions, so I am not saying
> this particular usage is wrong, but to Australian ears it is certainly
> quaint.

If "mathematic" were a singular noun and "mathematics" its plural, then
the abbreviation of singular would be "math" and of the plural, "maths".
That's not the case. "Mathematics" is singular, so 's' is not an
appropriate ending in American usage. British subjects use the plural in
another way we Americans find strange. You construe "government",
"corporation", "department" and other entities consisting of groups of
people as plural, yet you say "a government" and "a corporation". To us,
the indefinite article emphasizes that the grammatical number is
singular. It seems as ungrammatical to us to say "a government are" as
it is so say "a bicycle are" despite its plurality of wheels.

In Australia, is "economics" abbreviated "econs" or "econ"?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/12/2005 4:12:20 AM

```On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:59:50 +1000, John Monro
<johnmonro@remove-this.optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Rick Lyons wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:14 +0100, "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>>Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my specilised
>>>DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?  I
>>>would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of undergraduate
>>>worked examples.

Just for an OOTC, brush up on trig and complex numbers, among other
things I can't think of offhand.

BTW, Is trig a universal English abbreviation for trigonometry?

>>>Cheers Turbo
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>   Ya' might have a look at:
>>
>>          http://www.redcedar.com/learndsp.htm
>>
>> Good Luck,
>> [-Rick-]
>>
>>
>Thanks for the reference Rick.  Now, if anyone catches me out with a
>spelling mistake, I can simply quote that unlucky artist:
>�The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake�s concept of
>enlightenment, they are not looking at the words,� she said. �In their
>mind the words register correctly.�
>
>To get back to the issue of math vs. maths:
>As an adjective,'mathematic' is commonly used as an alternative to
>'mathematical,' as in 'mathematic procedure,' but I don't think I have
>ever seen 'mathematic' used as a noun.
>
>I believe that in the USA you can have a "Professors of Mathematics,"
>but not a "Professor of Mathematic," and yet this would be abbreviated
>to "Professor of Math."
>
>Not to say that 'math' is always wrong: if you were to say, for example,
>"I need a math book because I am studying math," in my opinion the first
>use of 'math' would be acceptable because it is the abbreviation of the
>adjective 'mathematic' but not the second use, because it is the
>abbreviation of the noun 'mathematics.'

But here in the USA the second use would be "just as correct" as
the first use. The word maths looks funny to me, though I've gotten
used to seeing it in Usenet threads such as this one. It's all math to
me. Seeing maths (or aluminium or "take the lift instead of the
stairs" or +ve or any of several other things) tips me off that I'm

>I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation of
>a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.

It's not that it's singular, is that math can be, and usually us,
as plural as is mathematics. The plural of quail can be quail, same
spelling (it can also be quails, but that's not the point here).
There are surely lexicographers who can dig up the history of such
words, and determine where both math and maths originated as
abbreviations of mathematics.

>Language is a funny thing and is full of exceptions, so I am not saying
>this particular usage is wrong, but to Australian ears it is certainly
>quaint.

The advent of the Internet and international communication between
'ordinary people' certainly brings up these differences (reporters
outside their native land know to 'translate' dialects of English so
it sounds right to their homeland readers/listeners/viewers, so seeing
the difference in media is rare unless you read or hear something
published or broadcast elsewhere). Years ago when I first saw +ve and
-ve used by a British poster, I thought these were his personal
abbreviations for positive and negative, but I've since discovered
they are commonly used outside the USA. I don't think I had ever seen
these before in any writings.

With English being The Standard Language of The Internet, it's not
just the US(A) and Great Britain anymore, the Whole World is now
Separated By A Common Language. :)

>
>
>
>Regards,
>John

-----
```
 0

```Ben, in response to my comment:
>
>>I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation of
>>a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.
>
>
you wrote:
>    It's not that it's singular, is that math can be, and usually us,
> as plural as is mathematics. The plural of quail can be quail, same
> spelling (it can also be quails, but that's not the point here).
>    There are surely lexicographers who can dig up the history of such
> words, and determine where both math and maths originated as
> abbreviations of mathematics.
>
>
Ben, my point was all English speakers use the term 'mathematics' as a
noun, but never 'mathematic' as a noun.

I accept what you say about 'math' being as plural as 'mathematics,'
because I accept that this is the convention that has developed.  I
still find it strange though that you drop the 's' when abbreviating the
word, and we keep it.  No reason why you shouldn't of course:
abbreviations are all about dropping letters, but as I mentioned, I
can't think of any other word in which the plural loses the 's' ending
when abbreviated.

Regards,
John
```
 0
Reply johnmonro1 (30) 8/12/2005 5:51:05 AM

```John Monro wrote:
> Ben, in response to my comment:
>
>>
>>> I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation
>>> of a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.
>>
>>
>>
> you wrote:
>
>>    It's not that it's singular, is that math can be, and usually us,
>> as plural as is mathematics. The plural of quail can be quail, same
>> spelling (it can also be quails, but that's not the point here).
>>    There are surely lexicographers who can dig up the history of such
>> words, and determine where both math and maths originated as
>> abbreviations of mathematics.
>>
>>
> Ben, my point was all English speakers use the term 'mathematics' as a
> noun, but never 'mathematic' as a noun.
>
> I accept what you say about 'math' being as plural as 'mathematics,'
> because I accept that this is the convention that has developed.  I
> still find it strange though that you drop the 's' when abbreviating the
> word, and we keep it.  No reason why you shouldn't of course:
> abbreviations are all about dropping letters, but as I mentioned, I
> can't think of any other word in which the plural loses the 's' ending
> when abbreviated.

I guess that my earlier message hadn't reached you when you wrote that.

1) "Mathematics" is singular, so no s is needed in the abbreviation.
2) Is "economics" or "obstetrics" abbreviated with an 's' in Australia?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/12/2005 6:06:36 AM

```Jerry Avins wrote:
> John Monro wrote:
>
>> Rick Lyons wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:14 +0100, "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my
>>>> specilised DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths
>>>> to prepare me?  I would preper if somebody could recommend a book
>>>> with plenty of undergraduate worked examples.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers Turbo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>   Ya' might have a look at:
>>>
>>>          http://www.redcedar.com/learndsp.htm
>>>
>>> Good Luck,
>>> [-Rick-]
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for the reference Rick.  Now, if anyone catches me out with a
>> spelling mistake, I can simply quote that unlucky artist:
>> �The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake�s concept of
>> enlightenment, they are not looking at the words,� she said. �In their
>> mind the words register correctly.�
>>
>> To get back to the issue of math vs. maths:
>> As an adjective,'mathematic' is commonly used as an alternative to
>> 'mathematical,' as in 'mathematic procedure,' but I don't think I have
>> ever seen 'mathematic' used as a noun.
>>
>> I believe that in the USA you can have a "Professors of Mathematics,"
>> but not a "Professor of Mathematic," and yet this would be abbreviated
>> to "Professor of Math."
>>
>> Not to say that 'math' is always wrong: if you were to say, for
>> example, "I need a math book because I am studying math," in my
>> opinion the first use of 'math' would be acceptable because it is the
>> abbreviation of the adjective 'mathematic' but not the second use,
>> because it is the abbreviation of the noun 'mathematics.'
>>
>> I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation
>> of a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.
>>
>>
>> Language is a funny thing and is full of exceptions, so I am not
>> saying this particular usage is wrong, but to Australian ears it is
>> certainly quaint.
>
>
> If "mathematic" were a singular noun and "mathematics" its plural, then
> the abbreviation of singular would be "math" and of the plural, "maths".
> That's not the case. "Mathematics" is singular, so 's' is not an
> appropriate ending in American usage.

Jerry,
I don't agree that "mathematics" is singular as I have always
understood the apparent plural ending to show that it is the study of a
lot of different mathematical (or mathematic) fields.  Leaving that
aside though, if it is appropriate for a singular noun to have a 's'
ending (and I am not disputing that some singular nouns do) then why do
you say is it not appropriate to keep the 's' when abbreviating?

British subjects use the plural in
> another way we Americans find strange. You construe "government",
> "corporation", "department" and other entities consisting of groups of
> people as plural, yet you say "a government" and "a corporation".
To us,
> the indefinite article emphasizes that the grammatical number is
> singular. It seems as ungrammatical to us to say "a government are" as
> it is so say "a bicycle are" despite its plurality of wheels.
>

That is more a matter of education than nationality Jerry.  Sure, I have
heard people say "The Government are a pack of no-hopers," but you would
not see this printed in a newspaper for example. (Particularly a Murdock
newspaper :=)  The correct usage in Australia is  "The Government is a
pack of no-hopers."

On your side of the Pacific, what about the use of the term
'multi-media' (it should be "multi-media") or the use of 'data' as in
"...the processor reads one byte of data" (it should be 'datum,' but who
cares?).

> In Australia, is "economics" abbreviated "econs" or "econ"?

> No, usually 'BS' :=).   Actually, probably 'eco' in a University
time-table or such, so I take your point, but it would not be a
recognised abbreviation for verbal use. On reflection, I can't recall
seeing 'economics' abbreviated at all.  I have seen 'physics'
abbreviated as 'phys' but that also would not be universally recognised.
By the way, would you use 'phy' for 'physics?'  :=)

Regards,
John
```
 0
Reply johnmonro1 (30) 8/12/2005 7:29:50 AM

```sorry for my lack of interest in the previous language
discussion.

Tuurbo46: this is the place to start and an ultimate DSP
intro: http://www.dspguide.com/

hope it helps,

cheers,
K.

```
 0
Reply kdelac (22) 8/12/2005 11:18:00 AM

```Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

> I guess that my earlier message hadn't reached you when you wrote that.
>
> 1) "Mathematics" is singular, so no s is needed in the abbreviation.

I don't agree that it is.

See, e.g. www.dictionary.com:

mathematics

n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of
quantity and shape and arrangement [syn: math, maths]

> 2) Is "economics" or "obstetrics" abbreviated with an 's' in Australia?

I agree with John that economics would go to "eco".  Obstetrics, I've
only ever heard as "Ob/gyn".

Ciao,

Peter K.

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos (313) 8/12/2005 11:31:38 AM

```Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

> 1) "Mathematics" is singular, so no s is needed in the abbreviation.
> 2) Is "economics" or "obstetrics" abbreviated with an 's' in Australia?

What would you say for an abbreviation of "electronics" ?

I think I'd say "electro".

Ciao,

Peter K.

PS: A friend of mine, when writing papers, says "Never abbr.!".

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos (313) 8/12/2005 11:36:20 AM

```Peter K. wrote:
> What would you say for an abbreviation of "electronics" ?
>
> I think I'd say "electro".

I abbreviated it as "'tronics" - although only colloquially.

--
Jim Thomas            Principal Applications Engineer  Bittware, Inc
jthomas@bittware.com  http://www.bittware.com    (603) 226-0404 x536
Getting an inch of snow is like winning ten cents in the lottery - Calvin
```
 0
Reply jthomas2 (337) 8/12/2005 2:25:07 PM

```John Monro wrote:

...

> Jerry,
>     I don't agree that "mathematics" is singular as I have always
> understood the apparent plural ending to show that it is the study of a
> lot of different mathematical (or mathematic) fields.  Leaving that
> aside though, if it is appropriate for a singular noun to have a 's'
> ending (and I am not disputing that some singular nouns do) then why do
> you say is it not appropriate to keep the 's' when abbreviating?

Most abbreviations consist of the beginning letters of the longer word,
although some omit intervening vowels. An almost universal exception has
to do with plurals, as I've been carrying on about. They "reach over"
the omitted letters to attach the final s (or other ending in other
languages). While it's not inappropriate to attach a final s to a
singular word, it's not the more common way. "Maths" seems as strange to
me as "ecos" probably does to you. That is by way of explanation, not
When one considers "fo'c's'le", there's no arguing with abbreviations.

But consider: The names of many disciplines end in s: phonics, physics,
hermeneutics, as well as the ones I've mentioned. I see no compelling
indication that they are to be considered plural. If one abbreviates a
singular "mathematics" with its final s, shouldn't it be "math's"?

> British subjects use the plural in
>
>> another way we Americans find strange. You construe "government",
>> "corporation", "department" and other entities consisting of groups of
>> people as plural, yet you say "a government" and "a corporation".
>
>> To us,
>> the indefinite article emphasizes that the grammatical number is
>> singular. It seems as ungrammatical to us to say "a government are" as
>> it is so say "a bicycle are" despite its plurality of wheels.
>
> That is more a matter of education than nationality Jerry.  Sure, I have
> heard people say "The Government are a pack of no-hopers," but you would
> not see this printed in a newspaper for example. (Particularly a Murdock
> newspaper :=)  The correct usage in Australia is  "The Government is a
> pack of no-hopers."

Interesting. I have heard Queen Elizabeth (in a broadcast) say "My
government are ..." and seen the speech printed that way. It seems to be
a British standard.

> On your side of the Pacific, what about the use of the term
> 'multi-media' (it should be "multi-media") or the use of 'data' as in
> "...the processor reads one byte of data" (it should be 'datum,' but who
> cares?).

Eh? What is the difference between 'multi-media' and "multi-media"? The
incorrect use of "media" and "data" as singular has become so common
that it is likely to become accepted soon. Although I avoid using them
as singular, I often find a way (when writing) to use them properly in
the plural. I do write "the data are", but I rarely write about a datum.
Except in surveying or statistics, I wouldn't be understood. It's become
so bad that I heard one television news reporter speak of "a media of
exchange".

....

>  By the way, would you use 'phy' for 'physics?'  :=)

No. I would use the first four letters, just as in "math". :^)

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/12/2005 2:28:53 PM

```Peter K. wrote:
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
>>I guess that my earlier message hadn't reached you when you wrote that.
>>
>>1) "Mathematics" is singular, so no s is needed in the abbreviation.
>
>
> I don't agree that it is.
>
> See, e.g. www.dictionary.com:
>
> mathematics
>
> n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of
>     quantity and shape and arrangement [syn: math, maths]

I don't question the existence of "maths" or even its legitimacy. In
language, anything goes (after a while and with widespread use). I claim
only that its existence is odd, and leads people to wrongly conclude
that "mathematics" is plural. No one has shown me a mathematic.

The name for a thing that encompasses many other things does not by that
compass become plural; if it were so, then "dictionary" would be plural.

>>2) Is "economics" or "obstetrics" abbreviated with an 's' in Australia?
>
>
> I agree with John that economics would go to "eco".  Obstetrics, I've
> only ever heard as "Ob/gyn".

That's short for "obstetrics/gynecology", but there you have it. How
does "obs/gyn" sit with you?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/12/2005 2:45:59 PM

```Peter K. wrote:
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
>>1) "Mathematics" is singular, so no s is needed in the abbreviation.
>>2) Is "economics" or "obstetrics" abbreviated with an 's' in Australia?
>
>
> What would you say for an abbreviation of "electronics" ?
>
> I think I'd say "electro".

> PS: A friend of mine, when writing papers, says "Never abbr.!".

That goes to far. Don't exaggerate. If I said it once, I've said it a
million times!

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/12/2005 2:49:40 PM

```John Monro wrote:

...

> On your side of the Pacific, what about the use of the term
> 'multi-media' (it should be "multi-media") or the use of 'data' as in
> "...the processor reads one byte of data" (it should be 'datum,' but who
> cares?).

I care. If I had written that, I would try to wriggle out of the error
by pointing out that a byte (except maybe in C) contains eight data.

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/12/2005 3:42:11 PM

```p.kootsookos@remove.ieee.org (Peter K.) writes:

> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> I guess that my earlier message hadn't reached you when you wrote that.
>>
>> 1) "Mathematics" is singular, so no s is needed in the abbreviation.
>
> I don't agree that it is.
>
> See, e.g. www.dictionary.com:
>
> mathematics
>
> n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of
>     quantity and shape and arrangement [syn: math, maths]

I don't buy that definition as authoritative.

It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
definitive dictionary for the current state of the language. Perhaps
the O.E.D. would be of use here?
--
%  Randy Yates                  % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882                % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % *A New World Record*, ELO
```
 0
Reply yates (3949) 8/13/2005 2:38:37 AM

```Randy Yates wrote:

> I don't buy that definition as authoritative.
>
> It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
> definitive dictionary for the current state of the language. Perhaps
> the O.E.D. would be of use here?

:-) I just happen to have a copy of The Shorter OED (the two volume
version).

It says:

mathematics n.pl. (plural noun)

The sciences or disciplines of the quadrivium collectively; later,
these and optics, architecture, navigation, etc.  Now (treated as
singular), the abstract deductive science of space, number, quantity
and arrangement, including geometry, arithmetic, algebra, etc. studied
in its own right (more fully "pure mathematics"), or as applied to
various branches of physics and other sciences (more fully "applied
mathematics"). Colloq. abbr. maths, (N. Amer.) math.

:-)

Just about sums* up everyhing, doesn't it?

Ciao,

Peter K.

*if you'll excuse the minor pun.

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos1 (374) 8/13/2005 2:57:07 AM

```Jerry Avins wrote:

> I don't question the existence of "maths" or even its legitimacy. In
> language, anything goes (after a while and with widespread use). I claim
> only that its existence is odd, and leads people to wrongly conclude
> that "mathematics" is plural. No one has shown me a mathematic.

:-)  The Shorter OED says "each of the sciences or disciplines of the
quadrivium"... and I don't have N-Z with me to look up quadrivium, so
if you'll pardon a web-search it seems to mean "Arithmetic, Geometry,
Music (!), and Astronomy".

Never realised Mick Jagger was a mathematician....

> The name for a thing that encompasses many other things does not by that
> compass become plural; if it were so, then "dictionary" would be plural.

Or alphabet.

> That's short for "obstetrics/gynecology", but there you have it. How
> does "obs/gyn" sit with you?

It sounds too much like "observer/gynecology"  which sounds truly odd.
:-)

Ciao,

Peter K.

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos1 (374) 8/13/2005 3:03:42 AM

```Randy Yates wrote:
> p.kootsookos@remove.ieee.org (Peter K.) writes:
>
>
>>Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I guess that my earlier message hadn't reached you when you wrote that.
>>>
>>>1) "Mathematics" is singular, so no s is needed in the abbreviation.
>>
>>I don't agree that it is.
>>
>>See, e.g. www.dictionary.com:
>>
>>mathematics
>>
>>n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of
>>    quantity and shape and arrangement [syn: math, maths]
>
>
> I don't buy that definition as authoritative.
>
> It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
> definitive dictionary for the current state of the language. Perhaps
> the O.E.D. would be of use here?

The O.E.D. *is* the authoritative dictionary. These days it documents
the entire English language, including the national variants. That
basically means the US vs the rest of us.

For some strange reason they refer to some US variants as North
American, when they seem to be purely US. Canada tends to follow the
rest of the English speaking world. Therefore the O.E.D. could be
considered authoritative but flawed.

Regards,
Steve
```
 0
Reply steveu (1008) 8/13/2005 4:07:02 AM

```Jerry Avins wrote:
> John Monro wrote:
>
>   ...
>
>> Jerry,
>>     I don't agree that "mathematics" is singular as I have always
>> understood the apparent plural ending to show that it is the study of
>> a lot of different mathematical (or mathematic) fields.  Leaving that
>> aside though, if it is appropriate for a singular noun to have a 's'
>> ending (and I am not disputing that some singular nouns do) then why
>> do you say is it not appropriate to keep the 's' when abbreviating?
>
>
> Most abbreviations consist of the beginning letters of the longer word,
> although some omit intervening vowels. An almost universal exception has
> to do with plurals, as I've been carrying on about. They "reach over"
> the omitted letters to attach the final s (or other ending in other
> languages). While it's not inappropriate to attach a final s to a
> singular word, it's not the more common way. "Maths" seems as strange to
> me as "ecos" probably does to you. That is by way of explanation, not
> When one considers "fo'c's'le", there's no arguing with abbreviations.
>
> But consider: The names of many disciplines end in s: phonics, physics,
> hermeneutics, as well as the ones I've mentioned. I see no compelling
> indication that they are to be considered plural. If one abbreviates a
> singular "mathematics" with its final s, shouldn't it be "math's"?
>
>> British subjects use the plural in
>>
>>> another way we Americans find strange. You construe "government",
>>> "corporation", "department" and other entities consisting of groups
>>> of people as plural, yet you say "a government" and "a corporation".
>>
>>
>>> To us,
>>> the indefinite article emphasizes that the grammatical number is
>>> singular. It seems as ungrammatical to us to say "a government are"
>>> as it is so say "a bicycle are" despite its plurality of wheels.
>>
>>
>> That is more a matter of education than nationality Jerry.  Sure, I
>> have heard people say "The Government are a pack of no-hopers," but
>> you would not see this printed in a newspaper for example.
>> (Particularly a Murdock newspaper :=)  The correct usage in Australia
>> is  "The Government is a pack of no-hopers."
>
>
> Interesting. I have heard Queen Elizabeth (in a broadcast) say "My
> government are ..." and seen the speech printed that way. It seems to be
> a British standard.
>
>> On your side of the Pacific, what about the use of the term
>> 'multi-media' (it should be "multi-media") or the use of 'data' as in
>> "...the processor reads one byte of data" (it should be 'datum,' but
>> who cares?).
>
>
> Eh? What is the difference between 'multi-media' and "multi-media"?

My mistake, it should have been "multi-medium."  I am not exactly sure
now how this related to the 'math' vs 'maths' issue except that is a
technically  incorrect term that now seems correct because of common usage.

Regarding the 'math' vs. 'maths' issue, as I read it, Peter has
established that 'mathematics' is plural and you have conceded that
abbreviations of plural nouns retain the final 's,' so I think it
logically follows that 'math' is technically incorrect despite its
widespread use.  I think we agree though that language is inconsistent,
particularly English.

The
> incorrect use of "media" and "data" as singular has become so common
> that it is likely to become accepted soon. Although I avoid using them
> as singular, I often find a way (when writing) to use them properly in
> the plural. I do write "the data are", but I rarely write about a datum.
> Except in surveying or statistics, I wouldn't be understood. It's become
> so bad that I heard one television news reporter speak of "a media of
> exchange".
>
> ...
>
>>  By the way, would you use 'phy' for 'physics?'  :=)
>
>

This occurred to me after I sent the posting.  I was hoping you wouldn't
notice.

>
> Jerry

I should have written "..multi-media and multi-medium" but I am not sure
of exactly what point I was making, apart from giving another example of
inconsistent modern usage.

On reflection about "one byte of data" I am even less sure about my
point.  In another posting you say:  "...I care. If I had written that,
I would try to wriggle out of the error by pointing out that a byte
(except maybe in C) contains eight data."
In reply I would note that it could contain eight data, if each bit
represented some measurement in its entirety, for example the binary
state of a flag.  The byte could equally represent two data (one nybble
for each datum) one datum, or only part a datum, depending on the number
of bits in the measurement.  I am nit-picking of course, and have been
guilty regularly of writing such things as "The data is read by he CPU
...." when referring to the inputting one value.  Unfortunately, to write
"The datum is read by the CPU ..." now looks a little too academic.

Regards,
John
```
 0
Reply johnmonro1 (30) 8/13/2005 11:51:05 AM

```John Monro wrote:

...

> My mistake, it should have been "multi-medium."  I am not exactly sure
> now how this related to the 'math' vs 'maths' issue except that is a
> technically  incorrect term that now seems correct because of common usage.

Yes.

> Regarding the 'math' vs. 'maths' issue, as I read it, Peter has
> established that 'mathematics' is plural and you have conceded that
> abbreviations of plural nouns retain the final 's,' so I think it
> logically follows that 'math' is technically incorrect despite its
> widespread use.  I think we agree though that language is inconsistent,
> particularly English.

Peter _claimed_ that "mathematics" is plural, but I rejected his
explanation and offered a counterexample -- dictionary. If the inclusion
of many techniques made a field of endeavo(u)r plural, then physicians
would practice medicines.

> I should have written "..multi-media and multi-medium" but I am not sure
> of exactly what point I was making, apart from giving another example of
>  inconsistent modern usage.

It's a good example.

> On reflection about "one byte of data" I am even less sure about my
> point.  In another posting you say:  "...I care. If I had written that,
> I would try to wriggle out of the error by pointing out that a byte
> (except maybe in C) contains eight data."
>
> In reply I would note that it could contain eight data, if each bit
> represented some measurement in its entirety, for example the binary
> state of a flag.  The byte could equally represent two data (one nybble
> for each datum) one datum, or only part a datum, depending on the number
> of bits in the measurement.

Didn't I write that, in terms of wriggling out?

>                            I am nit-picking of course, and have been
> guilty regularly of writing such things as "The data is read by he CPU
> ..." when referring to the inputting one value.  Unfortunately, to write
> "The datum is read by the CPU ..." now looks a little too academic.

I usually try to duck the issue by expressing myself with other words
altogether.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/13/2005 1:17:33 PM

```Peter K. wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

>>  ... How does "obs/gyn" sit with you?
>
>
> It sounds too much like "observer/gynecology"  which sounds truly odd.
> :-)

Code for "peeping Tom"?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/13/2005 1:33:38 PM

```"Peter K." <p.kootsookos@iolfree.ie> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> I don't buy that definition as authoritative.
>>
>> It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
>> definitive dictionary for the current state of the language. Perhaps
>> the O.E.D. would be of use here?
>
> :-) I just happen to have a copy of The Shorter OED (the two volume
> version).
>
> It says:
>
> mathematics n.pl. (plural noun)
>
> The sciences or disciplines of the quadrivium collectively; later,
> these and optics, architecture, navigation, etc.  Now (treated as
> singular), the abstract deductive science of space, number, quantity
> and arrangement, including geometry, arithmetic, algebra, etc. studied
> in its own right (more fully "pure mathematics"), or as applied to
> various branches of physics and other sciences (more fully "applied
> mathematics"). Colloq. abbr. maths, (N. Amer.) math.

That's fantastic! Thanks for digging out the S.O.E.D and typing this
in, Peter!

> Just about sums* up everyhing, doesn't it?

Yes. Notice that it says "Now (treated as singular)...". I.e., the
noun *was* plural but is now singular. (?) Perhaps this is the root
of the dispute?
--
%  Randy Yates                  % "Midnight, on the water...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  I saw...  the ocean's daughter."
%%% 919-577-9882                % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head'
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra
```
 0
Reply yates (3949) 8/13/2005 3:00:31 PM

```Randy Yates wrote:
> "Peter K." <p.kootsookos@iolfree.ie> writes:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't buy that definition as authoritative.
>>>
>>>It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
>>>definitive dictionary for the current state of the language. Perhaps
>>>the O.E.D. would be of use here?
>>
>>:-) I just happen to have a copy of The Shorter OED (the two volume
>>version).
>>
>>It says:
>>
>>mathematics n.pl. (plural noun)
>>
>>The sciences or disciplines of the quadrivium collectively; later,
>>these and optics, architecture, navigation, etc.  Now (treated as
>>singular), the abstract deductive science of space, number, quantity
>>and arrangement, including geometry, arithmetic, algebra, etc. studied
>>in its own right (more fully "pure mathematics"), or as applied to
>>various branches of physics and other sciences (more fully "applied
>>mathematics"). Colloq. abbr. maths, (N. Amer.) math.
>
>
> That's fantastic! Thanks for digging out the S.O.E.D and typing this
> in, Peter!
>
>
>>Just about sums* up everyhing, doesn't it?
>
>
> Yes. Notice that it says "Now (treated as singular)...". I.e., the
> noun *was* plural but is now singular. (?) Perhaps this is the root
> of the dispute?

Is there a dispute? I saw an airing of differences in perspective, with
neither proselytizing for a particular view, nor value judgments.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/13/2005 3:07:53 PM

```Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

>
> Is there a dispute? I saw an airing of differences in perspective,
> with neither proselytizing for a particular view, nor value judgments.
>

That's my take on it, Jerry.  I find I learn things from such
discussions, so they're good to have.

:-)

Ciao,

Peter K.

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos (313) 8/13/2005 5:31:11 PM

```Peter K. wrote:

...

> That's my take on it, Jerry.  I find I learn things from such
> discussions, so they're good to have.

Fun, too.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/13/2005 5:37:33 PM

```Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> writes:

> That's fantastic! Thanks for digging out the S.O.E.D and typing this
> in, Peter!

No worries!  I was interested to see what the etymology was; I found
it amusing, so I thought others her would, too.

> > Just about sums* up everyhing, doesn't it?
>
> Yes. Notice that it says "Now (treated as singular)...". I.e., the
> noun *was* plural but is now singular. (?) Perhaps this is the root
> of the dispute?

Yup!  I think, also, that usage varies from the US to the UK to
Australia (the three English-speaking places I've lived). I dare say
Canada is different again (my daugher recently got a laugh and a cheer
from the Air Canada check-in staff when she sang "zed" in the ABC song
for the 26th letter of the alphabet).

Ciao,

Peter K.

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos (313) 8/13/2005 6:00:09 PM

```p.kootsookos@remove.ieee.org (Peter K.) writes:
> [...]
>
> (my daugher recently got a laugh and a cheer from the Air Canada
> check-in staff when she sang "zed" in the ABC song for the 26th
> letter of the alphabet).

Ha! My Indian wife also uses that term (the Queen's english and
all that).
--
%  Randy Yates                  % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882                %  that's the way it goes..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
```
 0
Reply yates (3949) 8/13/2005 7:12:42 PM

```Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>> It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
>> definitive dictionary for the current state of the
>> language. Perhaps the O.E.D. would be of use here?
>
> The O.E.D. *is* the authoritative dictionary.

You response seems to be formed as a correction. My point was that
I thought the O.E.D. would be authoritative, thus we should look
at what it has to say.
--
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %       'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882                %                   the coin will fall."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           %  'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
```
 0
Reply yates (3949) 8/13/2005 7:17:54 PM

```Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>> Perhaps this is the root of the dispute?
>
> Is there a dispute? I saw an airing of differences in perspective,
> with neither proselytizing for a particular view, nor value judgments.

Seems like you're splitting hairs, Jerry. Unfortunate that we must plumb
this depth in semantics.
--
%  Randy Yates                  % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %             she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882                %                     but she is an IBM."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           %        'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
```
 0
Reply yates (3949) 8/13/2005 7:20:08 PM

```Randy Yates wrote:
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps this is the root of the dispute?
>>
>>Is there a dispute? I saw an airing of differences in perspective,
>>with neither proselytizing for a particular view, nor value judgments.
>
>
> Seems like you're splitting hairs, Jerry. Unfortunate that we must plumb
> this depth in semantics.

I'm sorry that you feel that construing words to have their dictionary
meanings seems like hairsplitting to you. Henceforth, I'll endow what
you write with enough fuzziness so I can guess at a probably intended
meaning instead on the explicit one.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/14/2005 12:47:47 AM

```Randy Yates wrote:
> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>>It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
>>>definitive dictionary for the current state of the
>>>language. Perhaps the O.E.D. would be of use here?
>>
>>The O.E.D. *is* the authoritative dictionary.
>
>
> You response seems to be formed as a correction. My point was that
> I thought the O.E.D. would be authoritative, thus we should look
> at what it has to say.

Agreed. The main body of the 1933 edition has this to say: "In early
use, always construed as pl. and usually preceded by 'the'. In recent
use, 'the' is commonly omitted and the sb. is almost always construed as
a sing., exc. in '(the) higher mathematics'." Other explanitory text
indicates that when construed as plural, "mathematics" encompases
geometry, algebra, astronomy, and optics.

"Math" is given two meanings: a mowing, or the amount of crop mowed,
leading to "aftermath", and "a Hindoo cottage of celibate mendicants."
There is no entry for "maths".

The Supplement lists "maths" in the sense we know it, but not "math".

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/14/2005 1:18:55 AM

```Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps this is the root of the dispute?
>>>
>>>Is there a dispute? I saw an airing of differences in perspective,
>>>with neither proselytizing for a particular view, nor value judgments.
>> Seems like you're splitting hairs, Jerry. Unfortunate that we must
>> plumb
>> this depth in semantics.
>
> I'm sorry that you feel that construing words to have their dictionary
> meanings seems like hairsplitting to you. Henceforth, I'll endow what
> you write with enough fuzziness so I can guess at a probably intended
> meaning instead on the explicit one.

And I'll remember to assign your hair-splitting comments to a man with
too much time on his hands.
--
%  Randy Yates                  % "With time with what you've learned,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  they'll kiss the ground you walk
%%% 919-577-9882                %  upon."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
```
 0
Reply yates (3949) 8/14/2005 2:45:10 AM

```Randy Yates wrote:
> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>>It is a sad state of affairs when we cannot have an authoritative,
>>>definitive dictionary for the current state of the
>>>language. Perhaps the O.E.D. would be of use here?
>>
>>The O.E.D. *is* the authoritative dictionary.
>
>
> You response seems to be formed as a correction. My point was that
> I thought the O.E.D. would be authoritative, thus we should look
> at what it has to say.

Ah, well, therein lies a problem. Because the OED covers historical uses
as well as the various national uses, it tends to list a wide variety of
spellings and uses as being OK. If someone complains you mispellered
something, try looking it up in the OED. You'll probably find your
spelling in there somewhere. :-)

Steve
```
 0
Reply steveu (1008) 8/14/2005 3:44:20 AM

```Jerry Avins wrote:

>
>
> Peter _claimed_ that "mathematics" is plural, but I rejected his
> explanation and offered a counterexample -- dictionary. If the inclusion
> of many techniques made a field of endeavo(u)r plural, then physicians
> would practice medicines.
>

But mathematicians practice 'mathematics,' not 'mathematic,' so there is
no issue about what to call their field of study, only the issue of how
to abbreviate it.

It does not look like there is going to be any consensus on the
abbreviation, but the thread has been illuminating.

Best regards,
John
```
 0
Reply johnmonro1 (30) 8/14/2005 5:32:23 AM

```John Monro wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Peter _claimed_ that "mathematics" is plural, but I rejected his
>> explanation and offered a counterexample -- dictionary. If the
>> inclusion of many techniques made a field of endeavo(u)r plural, then
>> physicians would practice medicines.
>>
>
> But mathematicians practice 'mathematics,' not 'mathematic,' so there is
> no issue about what to call their field of study, only the issue of how
> to abbreviate it.
>
> It does not look like there is going to be any consensus on the
> abbreviation, but the thread has been illuminating.

The official name of Lake Char in Massachusetts is Lake
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg (44 letters.) In some
Amerindian language, it means �you fish on your side, I fish on my side,
and nobody fishes in the middle�, a name it acquired as part of a peace
settlement between two tribes who lived on its opposite shores.

It is evident that amicable separation by a body of water has a long,
fruitful history. I'm content!

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/14/2005 6:50:30 PM

```in article ePWdnWrpqKrkD2LfRVn-jg@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote
on 08/14/2005 14:50:

> The official name of Lake Char in Massachusetts is Lake
> Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg (44 letters.) In some
> Amerindian language, it means �you fish on your side, I fish on my side,
> and nobody fishes in the middle�, a name it acquired as part of a peace
> settlement between two tribes who lived on its opposite shores.
>
> It is evident that amicable separation by a body of water has a long,
> fruitful history. I'm content!

there's always another story.  from
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041121/NEWS/411210344
/1002/NEWS01

....                                There is more consensus on the meaning of
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg, but it turns out the
consensus is wrong. In the 1920s, a reporter for The Webster Times, Lawrence
J. Daly, wrote that it was a Nipmuck Indian word meaning "You fish on your
side, I fish on my side and nobody fishes in the middle." That stuck even
though Daly confessed repeatedly that he had made the whole thing up.
....

--

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

```
 0
Reply rbj (4087) 8/14/2005 7:41:30 PM

```robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> in article ePWdnWrpqKrkD2LfRVn-jg@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote
> on 08/14/2005 14:50:
>
>
>>The official name of Lake Char in Massachusetts is Lake
>>Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg (44 letters.) In some
>>Amerindian language, it means �you fish on your side, I fish on my side,
>>and nobody fishes in the middle�, a name it acquired as part of a peace
>>settlement between two tribes who lived on its opposite shores.
>>
>>It is evident that amicable separation by a body of water has a long,
>>fruitful history. I'm content!
>
>
> there's always another story.  from
> http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041121/NEWS/411210344
> /1002/NEWS01
>
> ...                                There is more consensus on the meaning of
> Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg, but it turns out the
> consensus is wrong. In the 1920s, a reporter for The Webster Times, Lawrence
> J. Daly, wrote that it was a Nipmuck Indian word meaning "You fish on your
> side, I fish on my side and nobody fishes in the middle." That stuck even
> though Daly confessed repeatedly that he had made the whole thing up.

Oh, well! <sigh> Another bit from my youth lost. Still, it makes a nice
parable about the best way to treat the math/maths "controversy".

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/14/2005 10:26:28 PM

```in article 0M6dnZm-x_-BWGLfRVn-ow@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote
on 08/14/2005 18:26:

> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> in article ePWdnWrpqKrkD2LfRVn-jg@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote
>> on 08/14/2005 14:50:
>>
>>
>>> The official name of Lake Char in Massachusetts is Lake
>>> Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg (44 letters.) In some
>>> Amerindian language, it means �you fish on your side, I fish on my side,
>>> and nobody fishes in the middle�, a name it acquired as part of a peace
>>> settlement between two tribes who lived on its opposite shores.
>>>
>>> It is evident that amicable separation by a body of water has a long,
>>> fruitful history. I'm content!
>>
>>
>> there's always another story.  from
>> http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041121/NEWS/411210344
>> /1002/NEWS01
>>
>> ...                                There is more consensus on the meaning of
>> Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg, but it turns out the
>> consensus is wrong. In the 1920s, a reporter for The Webster Times, Lawrence
>> J. Daly, wrote that it was a Nipmuck Indian word meaning "You fish on your
>> side, I fish on my side and nobody fishes in the middle." That stuck even
>> though Daly confessed repeatedly that he had made the whole thing up.
>
> Oh, well! <sigh> Another bit from my youth lost.

sorry!

> Still, it makes a nice
> parable about the best way to treat the math/maths "controversy".

it does.

--

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

```
 0
Reply rbj (4087) 8/15/2005 2:12:03 AM

```robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>in article ePWdnWrpqKrkD2LfRVn-jg@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote
>on 08/14/2005 14:50:
>
>
>
>>The official name of Lake Char in Massachusetts is Lake
>>Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg (44 letters.) In some
>>Amerindian language, it means �you fish on your side, I fish on my side,
>>and nobody fishes in the middle�, a name it acquired as part of a peace
>>settlement between two tribes who lived on its opposite shores.
>>
>>It is evident that amicable separation by a body of water has a long,
>>fruitful history. I'm content!
>>
>>
>
>there's always another story.  from
>http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041121/NEWS/411210344
>/1002/NEWS01
>
>...                                There is more consensus on the meaning of
>Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg, but it turns out the
>consensus is wrong. In the 1920s, a reporter for The Webster Times, Lawrence
>J. Daly, wrote that it was a Nipmuck Indian word meaning "You fish on your
>side, I fish on my side and nobody fishes in the middle." That stuck even
>though Daly confessed repeatedly that he had made the whole thing up.
>...
>
>
Could it be the name was really intended to group it with Lake Int, and
Lake Float? :-)

Steve
```
 0
Reply steveu (1008) 8/15/2005 5:58:07 AM

```in article ddpat8\$956\$1@home.itg.ti.com, Steve Underwood at steveu@dis.org
wrote on 08/15/2005 01:58:

>> in article ePWdnWrpqKrkD2LfRVn-jg@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote
>> on 08/14/2005 14:50:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The official name of Lake Char in Massachusetts
....
> Could it be the name was really intended to group it with Lake Int, and
> Lake Float? :-)

how 'bout Lake Typedef Struct {Double, Double}...?

perhaps a little geeky.

--

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

```
 0
Reply rbj (4087) 8/15/2005 6:40:38 PM

```"John Monro" <johnmonro@remove-this.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42FC0296.4060409@remove-this.optusnet.com.au...
> Rick Lyons wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:14 +0100, "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my
specilised
> >>DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?
I
> >>would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of
> >>worked examples.
> >>
> >>Cheers Turbo
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >   Ya' might have a look at:
> >
> >          http://www.redcedar.com/learndsp.htm
> >
> > Good Luck,
> > [-Rick-]
> >
> >
> Thanks for the reference Rick.  Now, if anyone catches me out with a
> spelling mistake, I can simply quote that unlucky artist:
> �The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake�s concept of
> enlightenment, they are not looking at the words,� she said. �In their
> mind the words register correctly.�
>
> To get back to the issue of math vs. maths:
> As an adjective,'mathematic' is commonly used as an alternative to
> 'mathematical,' as in 'mathematic procedure,' but I don't think I have
> ever seen 'mathematic' used as a noun.
>
> I believe that in the USA you can have a "Professors of Mathematics,"
> but not a "Professor of Mathematic," and yet this would be abbreviated
> to "Professor of Math."
>
> Not to say that 'math' is always wrong: if you were to say, for example,
> "I need a math book because I am studying math," in my opinion the first
> use of 'math' would be acceptable because it is the abbreviation of the
> adjective 'mathematic' but not the second use, because it is the
> abbreviation of the noun 'mathematics.'
>
> I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation of
> a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.
>
>
> Language is a funny thing and is full of exceptions, so I am not saying
> this particular usage is wrong, but to Australian ears it is certainly
> quaint.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> John

Maths is short for Mathematics (plural) hence Maths. We have Maths
Professors in the U.K Australia and New Zealand.

Shytot

```
 0
Reply Shytot (52) 8/16/2005 3:38:30 AM

```Shytot wrote:
> "John Monro" <johnmonro@remove-this.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42FC0296.4060409@remove-this.optusnet.com.au...
>
>>Rick Lyons wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:14 +0100, "Tuurbo46" <tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>>Im about to start my final year at university and undertake my
>
> specilised
>
>>>>DSP module.  Can anybody advice me on some warm up maths to prepare me?
>
> I
>
>>>>would preper if somebody could recommend a book with plenty of
>
>
>>>>worked examples.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers Turbo
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>  Ya' might have a look at:
>>>
>>>         http://www.redcedar.com/learndsp.htm
>>>
>>>Good Luck,
>>>[-Rick-]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the reference Rick.  Now, if anyone catches me out with a
>>spelling mistake, I can simply quote that unlucky artist:
>>�The people that are into humanities, and are into Blake�s concept of
>>enlightenment, they are not looking at the words,� she said. �In their
>>mind the words register correctly.�
>>
>>To get back to the issue of math vs. maths:
>>As an adjective,'mathematic' is commonly used as an alternative to
>>'mathematical,' as in 'mathematic procedure,' but I don't think I have
>>ever seen 'mathematic' used as a noun.
>>
>>I believe that in the USA you can have a "Professors of Mathematics,"
>>but not a "Professor of Mathematic," and yet this would be abbreviated
>>to "Professor of Math."
>>
>>Not to say that 'math' is always wrong: if you were to say, for example,
>>"I need a math book because I am studying math," in my opinion the first
>>use of 'math' would be acceptable because it is the abbreviation of the
>>adjective 'mathematic' but not the second use, because it is the
>>abbreviation of the noun 'mathematics.'
>>
>>I have been trying to think of another example where the abbreviation of
>>a plural noun becomes singular, but have not come up with anything.
>>
>>
>>Language is a funny thing and is full of exceptions, so I am not saying
>>this particular usage is wrong, but to Australian ears it is certainly
>>quaint.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>John
>
>
> Maths is short for Mathematics (plural) hence Maths. We have Maths
> Professors in the U.K Australia and New Zealand.

Nowadays, "mathematics" is almost invariably construed as singular.

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg is as good a way to
resolve the matter as any. In the US, we have math professors. That
enabled one such to name hie retirement estate "Aftermath".

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/16/2005 4:41:38 AM

```Jerry Avins wrote:
(snip)

>
> Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg is as good a way to
> resolve the matter as any. In the US, we have math professors.
To be consistent, shouldn't that be:
"In the US, we have math prof?"
(Innocent enquiry)
That
> enabled one such to name hie retirement estate "Aftermath".
>
> Jerry
Definitely beats 'Dunroamin.'
```
 0
Reply johnmonro1 (30) 8/16/2005 9:09:06 AM

```John Monro wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

>>     ... In the US, we have math professors.
>
> To be consistent, shouldn't that be:
> "In the US, we have math prof?"
> (Innocent enquiry)

Do you wonder why, since I abbreviated "mathematics", I didn't also
abbreviate "professor"? My daughter lives on Homestead St.; should I
write "Homest. St."? On reflection, I can answer for you: no. Too silly.
So what had you in mind?

Had I abbreviated, I would have written "math profs", of course.

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
```
 0
Reply jya (12872) 8/16/2005 12:56:52 PM

```Jerry Avins wrote:

> That enabled one such to name hie retirement estate "Aftermath".

Ah, but just think how much more mult-faceted a career sounds if it had
"Aftermaths" :-)

Ciao,

Peter K.

```
 0
Reply p.kootsookos1 (374) 8/16/2005 1:14:22 PM

57 Replies
55 Views

Similar Articles

12/9/2013 1:49:05 AM
[PageSpeed]

Similar Artilces:

math problem
Hey, Expression: Math.floor(x * 100) / 100 x= 4.1 gives 4.09, why in gods name? While other values for x don't give a problem. Thx in advance Chiwa DJ WIce wrote: > : Try this: > : > : x.setPlaces(2); > See : http://www.mredkj.com/javascript/numberFormatExample150.html > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_7 Is a better reference for the OP -- Randy Chance Favors The Prepared Mind comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/ : Expression: : Math.floor(x * 100) / 100 : : x= 4.1 gives 4.09, why in gods name? Because browsers are not calculators (here = s

Math Urgent
The equation is: 2x+3y=0 1. Write the slope/y-intercept form 2. Name the slop and the Y-intercept for the above equation 3. Graph the above equation using the slop and y-intercept. lidia: <SNIP into fresh(wo)man's heartache... The equation is: 2x+3y=0 1. Write the slope/y-intercept form 2. Name the slop and the Y-intercept for the above equation 3. Graph the above equation using the slop and y-intercept the solution is: get out of this course as quickly as possible, there's still time ballet maybe? anything that'll make you really happy in life... us Rearrange equatio

Math joke
[From the Instapundit blog] Math joke from Anna, the bartender and civil engineering student: an infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one tells the bartender he wants a beer. The second one says he wants half a beer. The third one says he wants a fourth of a beer. The bartender puts two beers on the bar and says �You guys need to learn your limits.� HeyBub wrote: > [From the Instapundit blog] > > Math joke from Anna, the bartender and civil engineering student: an > infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one > tells the bartender he wants a beer. The second one says he wants > half a beer. The third one says he wants a fourth of a beer. > > The bartender puts two beers on the bar and says "You guys need to > learn your limits." Except that with an infinite number of mathematicians in the bar, NOBODY would ANY kind of beer... :-) Still, enjoyed the joke... Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." On Sep 20, 6:22=A0am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > [From the Instapundit blog] > > Math joke from Anna, the bartender

Matrix math
I have need of a few simple matrix math operations in Prolog. Basically, I need to multiply two matrices together (dot product, yadda yadda). Currently using SWI - didn't see a library with this capability. Googled for a while, didn't see any Prolog code to cut and paste. Then I searched this newsgroup for both "matrix" and "vector," and surprisingly enough came up with NOTHING. Sure, I could sit down and write some matrix math routines now, but why re-invent the wheel? I find it hard to believe nobody has ever written a few simple matrix math routines in Prolog. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks. On 2009-08-10, pineapple <pineapple.link@yahoo.com> wrote: > I have need of a few simple matrix math operations in Prolog. > Basically, I need to multiply two matrices together (dot product, > yadda yadda). > > Currently using SWI - didn't see a library with this capability. > Googled for a while, didn't see any Prolog code to cut and paste. > Then I searched this newsgroup for both "matrix" and "vector," and > surprisingly enough came up with NOTHING. > > Sure, I could sit

ugly math
in a 5-opcode loop, a few microseconds per character. > >Or use a different hardware counter, to count the picoseconds, >lsb part of it in binary, msb part of it in decimal. I considered having my FPGA guy do the whole thing for me in VHDL, sort of as a math coprocessor, but the split divide thing looks fine. John On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 06:59:01 -0600, dave <daf@a64.comcast.net> wrote: >In comp.arch.arithmetic Arlet <usenet+5@ladybug.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> dave wrote: >> >>> In comp.arch.arithmetic John Larkin ><

math/data type help
code snippet: long difference = L2 - L1; long timeInSeconds = difference/1000; int hours = (int)timeInSeconds / 3600; timeInSeconds = timeInSeconds - (hours * 3600); int minutes = (int)timeInSeconds / 60; int minuteFraction = (minutes/60)*100; // <<<< PROBLEM LINE return "" + minuteFraction; In the above snippet, all works fine until I get to minuteFraction, at which point it always returns a zero. I've tried changing the datatype of the minuteFraction variable to other numeric types, but it's always t

How to detect math coprocessor?
How can I determine if a machine has a math coprocessor? I've run dmesg and lspci, but I don't know what to look for in the output to settle the matter. Thanks! bill On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:41:21 +0000, bill wrote: > > > > How can I determine if a machine has a math coprocessor? I've run > dmesg and lspci, but I don't know what to look for in the output > to settle the matter. > > Thanks! > > bill / Unless you are running a 386 or older you have an FPU built into the processor. If you are running an antique then try, cat /proc/cpuinfo General Schvantzkoph napisa�: > Unless you are running a 386 or older you have an FPU built into the > processor. Well, you're forgetting about 486SX, 486DLC processors. They didn't have FPU either. -- regards, PriSM (Michal Lukaszek) General Schvantzkoph wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:41:21 +0000, bill wrote: > > >> >> >>How can I determine if a machine has a math coprocessor? I've run >>dmesg and lspci, but I don't know what to look for in the output >>to settle the matter. > > Unless you are running a 386

CTAN update: pst-math
Herbert Voss wrote: > I uploaded pst-math.tgz to the uk ctan node. Please replace the > files with the ones in the directory > /graphics/pstricks/contrib/pst-math/ > > pst-math is a collection of PostScript subroutines for > special mathematical functions like sin hyperbolic > Gamma function , a.s.o. > > This version 0.21 of pst-math.pro has a new subroutine > SIMPSON for numerical integration of functions written > in PostScript or algebraic notation. i have installed the new version, and updated the catalogue repository. thanks for the upload. users may view the catalogue entry at http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/pst-math.html or browse the package directory at http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/graphics/pstricks/contrib/pst-math/ the catalogue entry will be updated (slightly) overnight. Robin Fairbairns For the CTAN team

solve for unknown in math equation
Is there a vi/function that I can use to solve for an unknown in an equation? I am currently using labview 7 express. (haven't opened 8.5 yet) for example, I havec as constant or inputc = x^2 + xcos(x)and it is difficult to solve for x. How can I find what x is given c?Thanks in advance. One problem is that there will be either zero, one or two solutions. Which one do you want? What is the valid range for x? For c? &nbsp; In any case, a quick newton-raphson should find the solution quickly. I just tried and it seems to work fine. &nbsp; What is your LabVIEW version? cool thanks I

parse math expressions
Hi. I hope this is a good place to ask my question. I'd like to parse math expressions, like y=x^3*sin(x+4) or something like that, i.e. definitions of functions. I want the result to be a tree with operators, constants and the variable x. in it. The result of the example above should be a tree like the following. * ^ sin x 3 + x 4 I hope this ascii art drawing makes sense... Are there any tools for this? To write a parser in C++ feels like something I could do, but I still think that this is a prolbem to which there exists good tools to do it. So I'm looking for a parser generator in some sense. Any ideas? Oh, I'm somewhat limited to use C or C++ in the end, i.e. the resulting parser should preferly be in C or C++. Regards Gunnar. Gunnar G said: > Hi. > I hope this is a good place to ask my question. > > I'd like to parse math expressions, like y=x^3*sin(x+4) or something > like that, i.e. definitions of functions. "Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools", Aho, Sethi and Ullman. Colloquially known as "The Dragon Book". -- Richard Heathfield "Usenet is a strange place"