5 ms·
While "local maximas" is wrong, I think "a local maxima" is a valid way to say "a member of the set of local maxima" regardless of the number of elements in the
by gyrovagueGeist 3y ago
While "local maximas" is wrong, I think "a local maxima" is a valid way to say "a member of the set of local maxima" regardless of the number of elements in the set. It could even be a singleton.
- Tijdreiziger 3y agoYou can't have one maxima in the same way you can't have one pencils. That's just how English works.
- pixl97 3y agoYou can't have one local maxima, it would be the global maxima. So by saying local maxima you're assuming the local is just a piece of a larger whole, even if that global state is otherwise undefined.
- reverius42 3y agoNo, you can’t have one local maxima, or one global maxima, because it’s plural. You can have one local or global maximum, or two (or more) local or global maxima.
- folli 3y ago"You can't have one local pencils, it would be the global pencils"
- dragonwriter 3y agoNo, a member of the set of local maxima is a a local maximum, just like a member of the set of people is a person, because it is a definite singular. The plural is also used for indefinite number, so “the set of local maxima” remains correct even if the set has cardinality 1, but a member of the set has definite singular number irrespective of the cardinality of the set.
- gyrovagueGeist 3y agoI've been convinced, thanks!