3 ms·
This is great advice. I only contend on two things. First is recommending Strunk and White - in general a style guide should not stifle writers' voices and ins
by vitorsr 2y ago
This is great advice.
I only contend on two things. First is recommending Strunk and White - in general a style guide should not stifle writers' voices and instead equip them with tools to express their own. Here I would rather recommend the far more authoritative and comprehensive The Chicago Manual of Style [1]. Second is excess punctuation - easily incurs in too much line noise. You should generally avoid adding distracting elements seldom added pro forma.
The best source for me has been the Handbook of Writing for the Mathematical Sciences by Nicholas J. Higham [1]. His I can fully get behind. Another is Writing Mathematics Well by Leonard Gillman [3]. Still another is Mathematical Writing by Franco Vivaldi [4].
[1] https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html
[2] https://epubs.siam.org/doi/book/10.1137/1.9781611976106 https://epubs.siam.org/doi/book/10.1137/1.9781611976106
[3] https://bookstore.ams.org/mmbk-7/ https://bookstore.ams.org/mmbk-7/
[4] https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4471-6527-9 https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4471-6527-9
- antegamisou 2y agoMay I add a more concise yet helpful presentation of Prof. Bertsekas Ten Simple Rules for Mathematical Writing https://www.mit.edu/~dimitrib/Ten_Rules.pdf https://www.mit.edu/~dimitrib/Ten_Rules.pdf
- sumnole 2y agoDoes anyone have suggestions for math textbooks that follow these writing rules?
- dawnofdusk 2y agoBertsekas' textbooks of course, which I think are very well-written and a pleasure to read.
- vitorsr 2y agoNice! I haven't seen this one yet. I submitted a link here earlier in the same spirit that you might appreciate: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22https://mathcomm.org/writing/teaching-writing%22 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22https://mathcomm.org/writin...
- hookahboy 2y agoWith regard to your comment, and since we are on the subject of style, I would rephrase "... only contend on two things" as "... only differ on two things". While it is grammatically correct, it feels awkward.
- vitorsr 2y agoYou're right, thanks. English is not my mother tongue so I still fall for some language traps.
- zmgsabst 2y agoI would comment to drop the preposition: “…only contend two things” I think the trouble in the phrase is that “contend” has an active sense to it whereas “on” creates a more passive tone. Your solution is to swap to a more passive phrasing, but the alternative is also available.
- marhee 2y agoWhy does “I contend” feel awkward to you? It is more specific than “I differ” because that could also mean that the author physically differs, which is awkward, while “contend” is specifically used for disagreement on some topic? Does “I contend” maybe has a ring to it of being scholastic/pretentious? (Also non-native English, just curious)
- quuxplusone 2y agoWell, particularly in a subthread on Strunk & White, one should write "...differ on only two points" or "...contest only two points." It's not that we ONLY contest these points (we may also, e.g., state them or rephrase them). It's that we contest ONLY these two (and no others). See the antepenultimate example of Rule II.16, "Keep related words together."
- quercusa 2y agoI vote for 'and'. Strunk & White and the CMS serve different purposes; the latter is more of a reference work but both are valuable.
- nanna 2y agoAlso bear in mind that Strunk and White's Elements of Style is tailored for American English. Should you be writing for a British publication, the differences are numerous. Not quite as numerous as the commas and quotation marks that you shall omit, but still worth having within your ken.