Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #36265 > unrolled thread

Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-15 12:58 +0000
    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 10:01 -0500
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:14 -0800
        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 13:00 -0500
          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 10:28 -0800
            Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 16:05 -0500
              Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:54 -0800
                Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 22:51 -0500
                  Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 05:06 -0800
                    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 09:28 -0500
                      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:37 -0800
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 11:13 -0500
              Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-02-15 16:24 -0800
                Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 22:55 -0500
                  Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 02:09 -0800
                    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 09:31 -0500
                      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 11:09 -0800
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 14:34 -0500
                          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 12:14 -0800
                            Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 20:08 -0500
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-02-16 19:40 +0000
                          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 12:19 -0800
                          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 20:09 -0500
                  Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-02-16 09:41 -0800
                    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 14:46 -0500
                      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:58 -0800
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 20:11 -0500
    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 01:57 -0800
    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-16 18:31 +0000
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-02-16 13:48 -0500
        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-16 14:14 -0500
        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-16 20:28 +0000
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 11:10 -0800
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-16 14:31 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#36303

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:09:53 -0800, a.laforgia wrote:

> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:31:26 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> You should actually READ the link you refer to.  Merriam-Webster uses
>> "soft links" - which give the closest word available, in case you
>> misspelled it.
> 
> Nope, it doesn't.
> 
> If you mispell "arithmetic" as "arithmeti", it presents you with a page
> of suggestions:
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/arithmeti
> 
> It does not point you to the closest word available. In the case of
> "arithmetics", it points you to "arithmetic" cause the two words are
> synonyms.
>  
>> Both links refer to "Arithmetic", with no plural version listed on the
>> page.
> 
> "Arithmetics" is not a plural, it's a synonym. But that seems to be
> quite difficult for you.

If that's true, why isn't 'arithmetics' shown, labelled as a synonym or 
alternative spelling, on the page. Look up 'maneuver' and 'manoeuvre' and 
you'll find references to both spellings in the Merriam-Webster online 
because both are correct ways of spelling the same word.

Try the same for 'arithmetic' and 'arithmetics' and both will arrive at 
the same page. Maybe there's a clue there?


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36306

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:42:34 UTC, Martin Gregorie  wrote:

[...]
> If that's true, why isn't 'arithmetics' shown, labelled as a synonym or 
> alternative spelling, on the page.

Ask Mirriam-Webster.

> Try the same for 'arithmetic' and 'arithmetics' and both will arrive at 
> the same page. Maybe there's a clue there?

Ask yourself why. The clue is that they mean the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36317

On 2/16/2017 2:40 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:09:53 -0800, a.laforgia wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:31:26 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> You should actually READ the link you refer to.  Merriam-Webster uses
>>> "soft links" - which give the closest word available, in case you
>>> misspelled it.
>>
>> Nope, it doesn't.
>>
>> If you mispell "arithmetic" as "arithmeti", it presents you with a page
>> of suggestions:
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/arithmeti
>>
>> It does not point you to the closest word available. In the case of
>> "arithmetics", it points you to "arithmetic" cause the two words are
>> synonyms.
>>  
>>> Both links refer to "Arithmetic", with no plural version listed on the
>>> page.
>>
>> "Arithmetics" is not a plural, it's a synonym. But that seems to be
>> quite difficult for you.
> 
> If that's true, why isn't 'arithmetics' shown, labelled as a synonym or 
> alternative spelling, on the page. Look up 'maneuver' and 'manoeuvre' and 
> you'll find references to both spellings in the Merriam-Webster online 
> because both are correct ways of spelling the same word.
> 
> Try the same for 'arithmetic' and 'arithmetics' and both will arrive at 
> the same page. Maybe there's a clue there?
> 
> 

You're trying to argue with an idiot or a troll - I haven't figured out
which.  But either way, he's stoopid.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36293

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:55:42 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/15/2017 7:24 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:05:47 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2/15/2017 1:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in English it isn't.  It not in my Merriam-Webster, either.
>>>>> Arithmetic does not have a plural.
>> 
>>>> It's that new math, too new for dictionaries.
>>>> Old math: 30 * 3 = 90
>>>> New math: 30 * 3 = (30 + 30 + 30) = 90
>>>> Then of course there's theoretical arithmetic, and floating point arithmetic.
>>>> Word problems should count as a different kind of arithmetic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.  It's not "new math", and it's not "too new for dictionaries".
>>> Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.  Your attempt
>>> to make up a word doesn't work.
>> 
>>      Set theory is even more elementary.

>Actually, not.  Set theory uses arithmetic, i.e. for counting the number
>of items in a set.

     Nope.  Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms,
the section "Set-theoretic models" where it shows deriving the natural
numbers from sets.

>>      "arithmetics" is perfectly acceptable in the right context.  You
>> can have a system of arithmetic.  You could have a second system of
>> arithmetic.  You then would have two systems of arithmetic.  They
>> could also be referred to as two arithmetics.

>No, you have two systems of arithmetic.  You do not have two
>"arithmetics".

     Try again.

>>      Granted it would be an unusual usage, but it is definitely
>> possible.
>> 
>>      "algebra" can be pluralised similarly, and it is not so unusual.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Gene "Minor in Math" Wirchenko

>But obviously not even a minor in English.  "Arithmetics" is not an
>accepted word in any dictionary - American or British English.

     I just use dictionary.com to look up "xylophones".  It returned
the page for "xylophone".  The word "xylophones" does not occur on it.
Should I then conclude that "xylophones" is not a valid word?

     "Stuckle" is not likely to be in any dictionary either.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36304

On 2/16/2017 12:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:55:42 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/15/2017 7:24 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:05:47 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/15/2017 1:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in English it isn't.  It not in my Merriam-Webster, either.
>>>>>> Arithmetic does not have a plural.
>>>
>>>>> It's that new math, too new for dictionaries.
>>>>> Old math: 30 * 3 = 90
>>>>> New math: 30 * 3 = (30 + 30 + 30) = 90
>>>>> Then of course there's theoretical arithmetic, and floating point arithmetic.
>>>>> Word problems should count as a different kind of arithmetic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.  It's not "new math", and it's not "too new for dictionaries".
>>>> Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.  Your attempt
>>>> to make up a word doesn't work.
>>>
>>>      Set theory is even more elementary.
> 
>> Actually, not.  Set theory uses arithmetic, i.e. for counting the number
>> of items in a set.
> 
>      Nope.  Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms,
> the section "Set-theoretic models" where it shows deriving the natural
> numbers from sets.
>

Since you want to use Wikipedia for a reference (poor as it is), I refer
you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic.  It starts out:
"Arithmetic (from the Greek ἀριθμός arithmos, "number") is the oldest[1]
and most elementary branch of mathematics..."

>>>      "arithmetics" is perfectly acceptable in the right context.  You
>>> can have a system of arithmetic.  You could have a second system of
>>> arithmetic.  You then would have two systems of arithmetic.  They
>>> could also be referred to as two arithmetics.
> 
>> No, you have two systems of arithmetic.  You do not have two
>> "arithmetics".
> 
>      Try again.
> 

No need to try again. There is no word "Arithmetics" in the English
language.  If you have a system of arithmetic and a second system of
arithmetic, you have two systems.  Both happen to be arithmetic.

>>>      Granted it would be an unusual usage, but it is definitely
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>      "algebra" can be pluralised similarly, and it is not so unusual.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Gene "Minor in Math" Wirchenko
> 
>> But obviously not even a minor in English.  "Arithmetics" is not an
>> accepted word in any dictionary - American or British English.
> 
>      I just use dictionary.com to look up "xylophones".  It returned
> the page for "xylophone".  The word "xylophones" does not occur on it.
> Should I then conclude that "xylophones" is not a valid word?
> 

It is in my dictionary.  But then I'm using a real one, not an online
one.  It's a book.  Remember those?

>      "Stuckle" is not likely to be in any dictionary either.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko
> 

And neither is "Wirchenko".  So what?

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36309

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:46:24 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No need to try again. There is no word "Arithmetics" in the English
> language.  If you have a system of arithmetic and a second system of
> arithmetic, you have two systems.  Both happen to be arithmetic.
> 

1) We answered the original question of how to pronounce arithmetic.

2) Arithmetics is a thing, so deal with that.
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781447121305

3) This is a coding forum, so all that's important is arithmetics is a thing.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/arithmetics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36318

On 2/16/2017 4:58 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 2:46:24 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> No need to try again. There is no word "Arithmetics" in the English
>> language.  If you have a system of arithmetic and a second system of
>> arithmetic, you have two systems.  Both happen to be arithmetic.
>>
> 
> 1) We answered the original question of how to pronounce arithmetic.
> 
> 2) Arithmetics is a thing, so deal with that.
> http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781447121305
> 
> 3) This is a coding forum, so all that's important is arithmetics is a thing.
> https://www.npmjs.com/package/arithmetics
> 

ROFLMAO!  Just another example of your stoopidity.  I suggest you quite
before you lose what little reputation you have - if any.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36283

On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 13:00:21 UTC, Andreas Leitgeb  wrote:

[...]
> Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.

Nope. The English noun is "Arithmetic", no final 's'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36294

Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> wrote:
> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>   The noun is pronounced »a'rithmetic«.
> Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.

Apparently, I seem to have generalized the "-ics" ending from
Mathematics onto other words with similar (Greek) etymology.

Thanks for pointing out, that "Arithmetic" doesn't usually
have this trailing "s". I live and learn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36295

On 2/16/2017 1:31 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> wrote:
>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>   The noun is pronounced »a'rithmetic«.
>> Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.
>
> Apparently, I seem to have generalized the "-ics" ending from
> Mathematics onto other words with similar (Greek) etymology.
>
> Thanks for pointing out, that "Arithmetic" doesn't usually
> have this trailing "s". I live and learn.

     Were it not for your anemic constitution and choleric
disposition, someone would surely award you a bishopric in
recognitoin [sic] of your study of Attic languages.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
One thousand four hundred thirty-four days to go.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36299

On 2/16/2017 1:48 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 2/16/2017 1:31 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> wrote:
>>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>   The noun is pronounced »a'rithmetic«.
>>> Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.
>>
>> Apparently, I seem to have generalized the "-ics" ending from
>> Mathematics onto other words with similar (Greek) etymology.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing out, that "Arithmetic" doesn't usually
>> have this trailing "s". I live and learn.
>
>     Were it not for your anemic constitution and choleric
> disposition, someone would surely award you a bishopric in
> recognitoin [sic] of your study of Attic languages.

Was that intended for Andreas??

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36307

Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote:
> On 2/16/2017 1:31 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> wrote:
>>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>   The noun is pronounced »a'rithmetic«.
>>> Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.
>> Apparently, I seem to have generalized the "-ics" ending from
>> Mathematics onto other words with similar (Greek) etymology.
>> Thanks for pointing out, that "Arithmetic" doesn't usually
>> have this trailing "s". I live and learn.
>      Were it not for your anemic constitution and choleric
> disposition, someone would surely award you a bishopric in
> recognitoin [sic] of your study of Attic languages.

That's actually not all Greek to me: at least teh [sic] is Latin.

After a quick update on linguistics, ethics, politics, tactics and 
physics, it still sounds (<- acoustics!) to me like that - based also
on certain made-up statistics - it would take some rather advanced
pharmaceutics (not affordable considering economics) to fully convince
me of "arithmetic" following a pattern rather than being one of a few
exceptions.

As http://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ics points it out, the reason
for arithmetic and logic not following the common pattern should be
rather attributed to "hysterical raisins" than anything else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36298

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 18:33:10 UTC, Andreas Leitgeb  wrote:

[...]
> Thanks for pointing out, that "Arithmetic" doesn't usually
> have this trailing "s". 

Exactly. It's just a synonym.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36300

On 2/16/2017 1:31 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> wrote:
>> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>   The noun is pronounced »a'rithmetic«.
>> Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.
>
> Apparently, I seem to have generalized the "-ics" ending from
> Mathematics onto other words with similar (Greek) etymology.
>
> Thanks for pointing out, that "Arithmetic" doesn't usually
> have this trailing "s". I live and learn.

It definitely seems like in English the term arithmetics
is not used.

But is also seems like it is occasionally but rarely used
in math circles. Examples:

https://www.amazon.com/Arithmetics-Universitext-Marc-Hindry/dp/1447121309/

https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Weak-Arithmetics-Lecture-Notes/dp/1575867230/

https://www.amazon.com/Finite-fields-Structure-arithmetics-Jungnickel/dp/3411161116/

It seems like the term has seen some usage among non-US math professors
writing in English.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web