3 ms·
No. The 9.14 vs. 3.14 analogy is more suitable. If you have read the blog post it's a difference between the chemical symbol Ge and Gr, which as I understand i
by h4ny 1y ago
No. The 9.14 vs. 3.14 analogy is more suitable.
If you have read the blog post it's a difference between the chemical symbol Ge and Gr, which as I understand is what you would refer to as a "semantic error".
- voxic11 1y agoBut Gr isn't an element so no one would ever misidentify it as part of compound, its obviously a mistake. Like if I said pi was 3.`4
- h4ny 1y agoThanks for replying, I understand your original reasoning now in a way that I didn't when I last responded. I was only considering how it would appears to people who don't recognize Gr isn't an element, I agree that it's a syntactic mistake to those who know chemical symbols well.
- roelschroeven 1y agoHow would the reader know the writer intended Ge instead of Ga? More importantly: why should the burden of figuring that out fall on the reader instead of the writer? Especially when considering that every publication normally has a lot more readers than writers.
- muhdeeb 1y agoIn this case, chemistry of Ga and Ge are a bit different, and the Cr compound that was misstated is part of a family of materials that rely heavily on the coordinating chemistry of Ge and its mates in the same period. So it makes more sense. If indeed it were Ga, that would be an interesting compound that probably wouldn't look anything like the material families being discussed by these authors. I think the reader and the writer share the burden of accurate communication. The reader should ideally come prepared and the writer should provide as best they can. A prepared reader makes quick work of this typo.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]