From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4511 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vaughan Pratt Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: abutment = aboutement? Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:18:09 -0700 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019991 13641 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:46:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:46:31 +0000 (UTC) To: Categories list Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Fri Aug 22 09:35:14 2008 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:35:14 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1KWVqc-0005s8-TO for categories-list@mta.ca; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:34:34 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 46 Original-Lines: 27 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4511 Archived-At: Meanwhile I count eight occurrences of "abut" and "abutment" in the (36 kilobyte!) main Wikipedia article on spectral sequences (there are a dozen separate much shorter articles on particular spectral sequences, along with a 15 kB article on derived categories). On the other hand the algebra and geometry articles of the 1987 Britannica Macropaedia both prefer the term "limit" for what a spectral sequence converges to, in respectively Peter Hilton's contribution "Other aspects of homological algebra" to the algebra article, and the geometry article's section on algebraic topology. Since Wikipedia seems to be trumping Britannica these days, and no one here has objected to established usage in mathematics trumping linguistic suitability, the precise distance of "abutment" from the optimal English cognate for "aboutissement" would appear to be academic, an epithet reflecting the outside world's perception that raising moot points is in our job description. Vaughan >> Thanks to Eduardo D and Vaughan P and Michel H for their misgivings, >> which encouraged me to compose the above, despite the assurances >> of Jim S that the 'abut*' usage is by now well entrenched. >> >> Fred