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 

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.

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

"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
undergraduate
> worked examples.
>
> Cheers Turbo
>
>
Well the first thing is to spell it right...Maths (plural) as in proper
English.

Shytot

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
>> undergraduate worked examples.
>> 
....
> 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."

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
> undergraduate
> > 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.

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
> 
> undergraduate
> 
>>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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

<tuurbo46@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1123317784.460388.18770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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
> > undergraduate
> > > 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

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> Totally without honor.
> 

No, just without (yo)u.

;-)

Ciao,

Peter K.

"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

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-]

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-]

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

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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
reading a non-US writer.

>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

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley

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

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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

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/

free for download in pdf, code included also

hope it helps,

cheers,
K.

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.

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.!".

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

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 
argument about what's correct. There's no arguing about idiomatic use. 
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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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".

I'll buy that. How about "hydraulics"?

> 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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

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.

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.

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

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 
> argument about what's correct. There's no arguing about idiomatic use. 
> 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

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

"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
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.

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
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

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.
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% 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
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

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   
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

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

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

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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."

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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."

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

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."

"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
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

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

Shytot

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
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.'

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.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

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.