Stack Exchange
log in

Anton

 Discussion on question by GJC: In a k…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Apr 14 23:26
Sites to help here are: quickanddirtytips.com/articles/… and englishplus.com/grammar/00000133.htm I do not regard these sites as authoritative but others may find them useful.
 

 Discussion on question by Daniel R. C…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Jan 22, 2023 09:42
I can neither think of nor find a reliable answer in maths, computing, physics or general usage. An increment is an increase, an addition, a gain and so forth (see Cambridge and Merriam-Webster). Although it may mean a unitary increase in some contexts (as recognised by Oxford) that is not its general meaning, and increments may be any number or defined quantity. To avoid any doubt the increment must always be quantified or made plain from context. An incremental scale is one that increases by regular amounts, but the amount is not necessarily unity.
 

 Discussion on answer by g s: Can spin…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Jan 4, 2023 03:09
@g Thank you for your condescension; it raised a wry smile. Your answer lacks definition of terms, is qualitative and woolly in both the statics and the dynamics of the problem, whether in linear analysis with force, velocity and momentum, or in angular analysis with angular velocity, angular momentum and couples. It is a schoolboy error to muddle heaviness with mass and you fail to resolve vertical and horizontal aspects. You weirdly say shape is related to force. However, you seem to satisfy uncritical readers, so your job is done and there is no point in my writing an essay on the problem.
Anton
Jan 4, 2023 03:09
There is no frictional force between two objects in contact. A frictional force between two objects in contact only exists when an attempt is made to push one over the other. As that push increases, the frictional force increases, so the net force is zero and nothing moves. When the frictional force reaches its upper limit (adhesion breaks) and movement starts, the net force is push minus friction, and motion proceeds according to Newton’s second law.
Anton
Jan 4, 2023 03:09
This answer is based on wordplay and not on physics. It starts with nonsense. There is no net rearward force on any body when it stands on the ground. One might as well as there is a sideways or forwards force. The only forces on a still body are vertical: gravity pulls down; the Earth pushes up. The net force is zero so the body remains stationary.
 

 Discussion on question by GMJoe: What…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Jul 14, 2022 02:56
Interesting question and discussions of the mathematics of points and vectors but, as the discussion makes clear, the choice of words is a matter of opinion, so I reluctantly retain my close vote. I hope it all helped.
Anton
Jul 14, 2022 02:56
Your edits clarify. I think there is no unique answer, it being a matter of choice rather than established usage. Any such object has three coordinates and three directional vectors (up/down, left/right, forward/back). My own choice would be that the object has a position (x,y,z), presumably that of its centre of mass, a principal vector that defines its “direction”, and a normal (in the mathematical sense of being at right angles, a second degree of freedom) vector. You have chosen to leave the third vector out of your description, but it is necessarily at right angles to the other two.
Anton
Jul 14, 2022 02:56
A point in n-space is specified by n numbers representing its position in the n dimensions. A point has no direction, no sides. What you describe is a point with two associated vectors. The first is a vector of unknown (or perhaps unit) magnitude from the point. So far, so good, although no longer dealing with a simple point. But the second vector is (as you say) perpendicular to the first. There is an infinite number of such perpendiculars in 3-D space, not one as you seem to imply. Your model is therefore incomplete and indeterminate. I vote to close because of this lack of clarity.
 

 Discussion on question by Roy: Is it …

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Anton
Apr 15, 2022 08:15
The aim of learning is to learn, not to accumulate marks or approval. Why complain about a system that encourages you to learn more while reducing the workload of those who teach you?
 

 Discussion on question by mark: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Mar 19, 2022 00:44
It occurs to me that those who rattle their medals are “living on past glories”. collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/past-glory
 

 English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…

Not for the faint of heart or those easily triggered by Englis...
6
10
Anton
Mar 17, 2022 19:02
@M.A.R. You ask about list. I can only imagine you refer to my reply to Tchrist in which I mentioned Tchrist's list of people he thought might like to stand in the moderator election. Any confusion is probably my fault because that was the first time I have used chat. This is the second time!
Anton
Mar 17, 2022 08:11
@tchrist Thank you for including me in your list of worthies. A very cheering view from one whose name I have come to respect. In many of my activities I tend to focus for a period and then drop out for long periods. This is not the attribute of a conscientious moderator so I had not even contemplated trying to be one. I commend your suggestion to others in your list, the ones that I recognise being erudite, reflective and balanced.
 

 Discussion on question by Davidjeremi…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Mar 14, 2022 01:12
The discussion shows sufficient grammatical interest and concern for comprehension to demonstrate the interest and relevance of the question to this site. The answers are well argued. Leave open.
 

 Discussion on question by Kalloni: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Mar 9, 2022 20:46
@Kalloni The false premise is that there is something grammatically incorrect about the phrase. There is not, so the question cannot be answered from that viewpoint. As the comments make clear, the question may form the basis for interesting and useful discussion, but not for a direct answer.
Anton
Mar 9, 2022 20:46
The question is based on a false premise and therefore should be closed.
 

 Discussion on question by Shy Snail: …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Dec 30, 2021 01:01
@tchrist I write as a non-American yes. As a European yes. Miles and inches, pounds and ounces and all that stuff are commonly referred to as Imperial measures in the UK. I am surprised you feel anyone is forcing anything on anyone. We all use what comes to hand. The metric system is in worldwide use and the ISI is a formality and a practical necessity when speaking about international standards of measurement. Of course folk may use miles and feet if they wish but please do not imagine or propose them as a global usage. It seems insulting to the questioner to advocate such a change.
Anton
Dec 30, 2021 01:01
@tchrist It seems surprisingly and uncharacteristically parochial of you to assert that comprehension would be improved by using Imperial units. The international System of Units (ISI) is metric, is in wide use and is well understood; the USA was a signatory to it in 1875.
 

 Discussion on question by Reza Yahyae…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
May 10, 2021 09:54
This question asks clearly for words that describe a clearly defined trait in people. There is no justification for closing it. Just because many correct answers are possible does not make them or their choice a matter of opinion. If we close a question because it has several answers we restrict questioners to primary school matters. This site and its users generally aim rather higher than that. I therefore vote to reopen.
 

 Discussion on question by Apollyon: t…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Jan 17, 2021 18:56
I have voted to close because the question is based on the false or unsubstantiated premise that otherwise = already in contemporary usage.
 

 Discussion on question by Aleksandr: …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Dec 29, 2020 01:19
I too would remove the parentheses and use a comma,
 

 Discussion on question by Mitsuko: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Dec 22, 2020 10:55
Our advice to you in answers and comments is clear. Don’t use it. It is old fashioned, meaningless or hypocritical, and not welcomed by any native English speaker.
Anton
Dec 22, 2020 10:55
It is a conventional courtesy. It may mean the opposite of what it says, as in your example. In most circumstances it cannot mean what it says, because you are NOT the recipient’s servant, nor do you intend to obey them unquestioningly. Others may have different opinions but I would not use it.
 

 Discussion on question by aissam: Can…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Anton
Dec 12, 2020 15:59
@PeterShor I agree with your contemporary sentiments entirely but they were not in the minds of writers or readers at the time, so they shed no light on how to interpret prose from a century and a quarter ago.
Anton
Dec 12, 2020 15:59
Bunting is correct. It is part of a literary code designed to indicate to the educated reader that the speaker comes from a particular class of society where grammar is looser. A similar example is to be found in Dickens depiction of Sam Weller. "‘Afore I answers that ‘ere question, gen’l’m’n,’ replied Mr. Weller, ‘I should like to know, in the first place, whether you’re a-goin’ to purwide me with a better?’. The use of such a patronising prose device was previously more popular, when society was more class-ridden.