Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- From: Angus Rodgers <twirlip@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:48:33 +0000
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Marc Boyer
<Marc.Boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Certainly used by french-native speakers :-)
It is common expression in french, and seems to me usefull,
to avoid to repeat twelve times 'lower and upper bounds'...
.... or the almost equally clumsy "bounded above and below". (By
the way, I haven't often, if ever, heard it the other way round,
"bounded below and above".)
I think I may have seen the phrase "absolutely bounded", meaning
bounded (above!) in absolute value, but I'm not sure; so, some of
the 824 Google hits for this phrase would have to be checked in
detail, to see if it doesn't mean something quite different! (It
sounds a little off to me in this context, but I'm not sure why.)
It is definitely possible to say "bounded in absolute value", but
that is really clumsy. Also, I think it is ugly to introduce the
absolute value where it is not strictly needed (and it is not even
defined in the most general context wherein upper and lower bounds
are defined).
The other words I suggested would only be used in phrases like,
"f(x) is enclosed between the upper and lower bounds ...",
or "f(x) is bracketed by lower bound A and upper bound B"
(just hastily-constructed examples, not meant as models of
style!), and probably couldn't be used on their own, as in
"f is enclosed", or "f is bracketed". (N.B. I'm no authority!
I'm just giving my vague impressions of existing usage.) This
might not matter, if I understand your original question
correctly; however, I suppose the sad truth is that neither of
these words really adds anything to the bald statement that
some expression simply "has" a given lower bound and a given
upper bound; so my suggestions were probably less useful than
I felt they were at the time.
It's a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, unless somebody else comes
up with something.
And it implies that no english speaker will blame me for
using 'lower and upper bounds', as would do a french speaker
in this context.
I can't imagine any reader of mathematics in English blaming
you for that.
By the way, a couple of years ago, I had a few questions (the
first of which is closely related!) in the opposite direction,
from French to English. Perhaps you could answer them, and/or
tell me if there is a website or book that helps with such
questions (my feeble schoolboy French is 40 years old!):
Should the phrase "bornees dans leur ensemble" be translated
as "uniformly bounded"?
The phrase occurs in a paper of Fatou (1906). (Does French
usage change more slowly than English, or is the rate of
change about the same, do you think?)
A less mathematical question: does "On peut se rendre compte
sur des exemples" mean something like "One can show by means
of examples"? (Babel Fish says, "One can realize on examples".)
Also, is "there is nothing that needs to be changed in the
foregoing" a good translation of "il n'y a rien a changer a
ce qui precede"? (Babel Fish: "there is nothing has to change
has what precede".)
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- From: Marc Boyer
- Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- References:
- [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- From: Marc Boyer
- Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- From: Marc Boyer
- [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- Prev by Date: Re: A problem about convergence of series.
- Next by Date: Re: 1^2 =3, Discovered
- Previous by thread: Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- Next by thread: Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
