No announcement yet.


This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    I appreciated Bryan Finlay's reply to my message about the
    meaning of the word "NORMALIZATION", and I think it was useful for us
    to be reminded that our language should be as much as possible explicit
    and clear, to be understandable by the largest possible number of readers
    with different backgrounds, although the need of synthesis often
    prevents us from defining explicitly all the words and expressions we
    use, and I am sure there's no way to avoid a large amount of implicit
    concepts in any kind of communications (scientific papers included).

    If I said to my wife that I AM PUTTING THE CUP CONTAINING COFFEE
    IN SOLUTION INTO THE MICROWAVE OVEN, my wife would laugh at me. And the
    same would happen if I used unduly and boringly explicit phrases in the
    context of scientific communications.

    Good writers or lecturers possess, I believe, the skill
    to choose to be explicit whenever and only when the conveyed concepts
    may be not familiar to any of the possible cathegories of readers or
    listeners. On the other hand, they are master in the art of avoiding
    wasting words whenever and only when the conveyed concepts may be
    understood using standardized terminology and expressions.

    I would add that probably the latter "art" is the most appreciated
    and at the same time the most complex.

    That's the reason why I wanted to know if my definition "A"
    of the word "NORMALIZED" was widespread enough to have become a
    standard definition: I need to use the concept of "normalized", according
    to Def. A, in my next paper.

    Paolo de Leva