4 ms·

> I'd even go so far as to say that the removal of all adverbs from any technical writing would be a net positive . . . > Bad: We offer a completely differe

> I'd even go so far as to say that the removal of all adverbs from any technical writing would be a net positive . . . > Bad: We offer a completely different formulation of CFA. > Better: We offer a different formulation of CFA. Getting rid of all adverbs (e.g. "vigorously stir the solution," "monotonically increasing function," "spontaneously combustible") hardly seems wise, whether technical writing or not.

zem 2y ago
even "completely different formulation" could convey something different from "different formulation", e.g. "we tweaked the method" vs "we scrapped the method and started anew". I also disagree about the "beholder words"; to me "it was surprisingly low" means "I am drawing your attention to the fact that the low value surprised me" rather than "you need to be surprised by the low value".
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  Don't tell the reader how to feel, but rather guide them to feel that way through your ideas, results, and conclusions.
- akdor1154 2y ago
  His point isn't to ban surprisingly, it's to prefer 'we the authors were surprised it was low' over 'you the reader should find it surprisingly low'.
  - zem 2y ago
    that's my point; to me "the results were surprisingly low" does mean "we the authors were surprised it was low", and reads better than "to our surprise the results were low". my reasoning is that the former is more of a parenthetical, as much as to say "the results were low (and it surprised us)", rather than putting the "us" who were surprised front and centre and making the low results subordinate to that.
- dogmayor 2y ago
  > I also disagree about the "beholder words"; to me "it was surprisingly low" means "I am drawing your attention to the fact that the low value surprised me" rather than "you need to be surprised by the low value". I agree with your interpretation, but here the issue is that "beholder words" don't give the reader the information necessary for them to make their own judgment. Readers are left thinking "ok, but how low is 'surprisingly low?'" Writers should tell the reader the exact number, saying "surprisingly" communicates nothing because it's relative.
kazinator 2y ago
The word monotonically in monotonically increasing is in fact redundant. It says nothing more than increasing. Mathematicians could cut out this word by adopting increasing function in the place of monotonically increasing function without any loss of clarity. If the function goes horizontal sometimes, then it is nondecreasing. If always, then it's constant (at least if continuous).
- earleybird 2y ago
  If I were to describe the function f(x) = 0 - x, it would be "F is monotonically decreasing". It seems both words are needed.
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  What I learned was that “increasing” can imply a continuous series of increments, whereas “monotonically” qualifies that to unambiguously restrict the term to a specific meaning, not the casual one. Much jargon works this narrowing way, to demarcate that the concept should not carry the everyday cluster of associations and meanings, but rather a domain-specific meaning.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > The word monotonically in monotonically increasing is in fact redundant Not at all. A function can be increasing over a given interval without that increase being monotonous.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    That's nice; now check your guess in the Wikipedia and other sources.
- ongy 2y ago
  The value in the stock market is an increasing function, but neither nondecreasing, nor constant. And most of all, not monotonically increasing. The monotonically is important because it says that at every zoom level the function is increasing, while it being increasing just says it about the function shape in general.

zem 2y ago

even "completely different formulation" could convey something different from "different formulation", e.g. "we tweaked the method" vs "we scrapped the method and started anew". I also disagree about the "beholder words"; to me "it was surprisingly low" means "I am drawing your attention to the fact that the low value surprised me" rather than "you need to be surprised by the low value".

warkdarrior 2y ago
Don't tell the reader how to feel, but rather guide them to feel that way through your ideas, results, and conclusions.
akdor1154 2y ago
His point isn't to ban surprisingly, it's to prefer 'we the authors were surprised it was low' over 'you the reader should find it surprisingly low'.
- zem 2y ago
  that's my point; to me "the results were surprisingly low" does mean "we the authors were surprised it was low", and reads better than "to our surprise the results were low". my reasoning is that the former is more of a parenthetical, as much as to say "the results were low (and it surprised us)", rather than putting the "us" who were surprised front and centre and making the low results subordinate to that.
dogmayor 2y ago
> I also disagree about the "beholder words"; to me "it was surprisingly low" means "I am drawing your attention to the fact that the low value surprised me" rather than "you need to be surprised by the low value". I agree with your interpretation, but here the issue is that "beholder words" don't give the reader the information necessary for them to make their own judgment. Readers are left thinking "ok, but how low is 'surprisingly low?'" Writers should tell the reader the exact number, saying "surprisingly" communicates nothing because it's relative.

kazinator 2y ago

The word monotonically in monotonically increasing is in fact redundant. It says nothing more than increasing. Mathematicians could cut out this word by adopting increasing function in the place of monotonically increasing function without any loss of clarity. If the function goes horizontal sometimes, then it is nondecreasing. If always, then it's constant (at least if continuous).

earleybird 2y ago
If I were to describe the function f(x) = 0 - x, it would be "F is monotonically decreasing". It seems both words are needed.
shermantanktop 2y ago
What I learned was that “increasing” can imply a continuous series of increments, whereas “monotonically” qualifies that to unambiguously restrict the term to a specific meaning, not the casual one. Much jargon works this narrowing way, to demarcate that the concept should not carry the everyday cluster of associations and meanings, but rather a domain-specific meaning.
kergonath 2y ago
> The word monotonically in monotonically increasing is in fact redundant Not at all. A function can be increasing over a given interval without that increase being monotonous.
- kazinator 2y ago
  That's nice; now check your guess in the Wikipedia and other sources.
ongy 2y ago
The value in the stock market is an increasing function, but neither nondecreasing, nor constant. And most of all, not monotonically increasing. The monotonically is important because it says that at every zoom level the function is increasing, while it being increasing just says it about the function shape in general.