Spelling of "equaliser"

Spelling of "equaliser"

[Toby Bartels]

[Note from moderator: This is not on topic, so no discussion please, but 
the poster may send one digest of responses.]

Hello, I'd like to know who uses the spelling "equalizer" and who uses 
"equaliser".  In English overall, the suffix "-ize" is catching on and 
displacing "-ise"[^note], and such Americanisms dominate scientific 
writing even more than most other fields.  On the other hand, "-ise" 
remains especially common in Australia, and there sure are a lot of 
Australian category theorists, aren't there?

While I probably don't need Americans confirming the use of "equalizer", 
I'd be interested to hear what people in other countries do (or any 
Americans who use "equaliser"), or anyone who uses "-ise" normally but 
adopts "equalizer" as a technical spelling (or the reverse), or anyone who 
distinguishes "equalizer" from "coequalizer" (that would be weird) or any 
other usage of both forms, or if you have useful information about this 
besides your own practice.  (The disjunction "or" here is non-idempotent, 
like the multiplicative \par in linear logic, multiset sum, disjoint union 
of sets, etc; the more criteria you meet, the more I want your response.)

If you want, you can look at 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Equaliser_%28mathematics%29> for a 
discussion of this issue that suffers from a lack of data.


--Toby Bartels

[^note]: That is, when it is the suffix derived from Greek "-izein" or 
patterned on it; "-ise" is used even in the U.S. for other words, such as 
"advertise" and "exercise", in which it is not actually a suffix (and the 
less said about "-lyze", the better).


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]