Re: [Translation] 'framing' of an expression ?

On 2007-11-14, Angus Rodgers <twirlip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Marc Boyer
[SNIP, a lot of interesting comments]

It's a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, unless somebody else comes
up with something.

But it is very usefull to me.
I have some english mathematic books, so, I can use what
I found in, but when something in to in, I can not conclude
about its existence...

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!):

I think you can try fr.sci.math. Or also try this newsgroup.
I am perhaps not the only french here.

Should the phrase "bornees dans leur ensemble" be translated
as "uniformly bounded"?

I guess I does not. After a quick search on Wikipedia,
"uniformly bounded" has the same definition as
"uniformément bornée"

"bornees dans leur ensemble" could be translated by
"globaly bounded" or "bounded on theyr domain" or something
like this. Perhaps you could say that "globaly bounded"
and "uniformly bounded" means the same thing (you have one
'global' bound for all functions in all points...)

see:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9or%C3%A8me_de_Banach-Steinhaus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?)

I think that french mathematiciens does not love change...
I do not know about english ones...

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".)

There is a subtle difference to me, as far as I understand the
English meaning. "On peut se rendre compte" is a bit informal,
it is a little bit like "you get convinced". But "showing"
is, to me, more related to proof. And, in my personnal experience,
I was sometimes convinced of thing that were in fact false.

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".)

Yes, your proposal seems good to me (and Babel Fish is Babel Fish...)

Marc Boyer
.

Relevant Pages